Water Power and Dam Construction. Issue August 2010

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

the future. There is also great potential (about 3000MW) for increas-

ing capacity at existing hydropower sites (See shaded panel).

SMALL HYDRO POTENTIAL

The small hydro potential in Sudan is promising. A number of

prospective areas have been identied by surveys, and studies are

being carried out to explore mini hydro resources. Mini and micro

hydro can be developed by using waterfalls with heads ranging from

1-100m. In addition, the current ow of the Nile water could be used

to run in-stream turbines; water could then be pumped to riverside

farms. There are more than 200 suitable sites for the use of in-stream

turbines along the Blue Nile and the main Nile. The total potential

of mini hydro can be considered to be 67GWh/yr for the southern

region, with 3785MWh/yr in the Jebel Marra, and 44895MWh/yr in

El Gezira and El Managil canals.

In the past, Sudan was badly affected by rapidly rising fuel costs,

although the country is now in a position to export oil. The country

intends to implement new hydro projects to meet increasing demand

and to avoid power shortages. Small-scale, decentralised hydropower

can provide valuable reserve power and potentially make major con-

tributions to local energy needs, especially the southern region along

the White Nile from Malakal to the border with Uganda.

Article by Abdeen Mustafa Omer, Researcher, Energy

Research Institute (ERI), University Of Nottingham, UK,

Email: abdeenomer2@yahoo.co.uk

Merowe dam

IWP& DC

References

Omer, A.M. (2000). Water and environment in Sudan: the challenges of the

new millennium. NETWAS 7(2): 1-3

Omer, A.M. (2008). Water resources in the Sudan. Water International 32

(5): 894-903.

Omer, A.M. (1995). Water resources in Sudan. NETWAS 2(7).

Noureddine, R.M. (1997). Conservation planning and management of limited

water resources in arid and semi-arid areas. In: Proceedings of the 9th

Session of the Regional Commission on Land and Water Use in the Near

East. Rabat: Morocco.

James, W. (1994). Managing water as economic resources. Overseas

Development Institute (ODI). UK.

Overseas Development Administration (ODA). (1987). Sudan proﬁle of

agricultural potential. Surrey. UK.

Omer, A.M. (2009). Dams, hydropower potential, future prospects and

sustainable water resources management in Sudan, The International Journal

on Hydropower and Dams, p.95-96, Surrey, United Kingdom, December 2009.

New issue of

DAM ENGINEERING

The latest issue of Dam Engineering is on its way to subscribers.

This issue contains the following papers:

r)JTUPSJDBMEFWFMPQNFOUUZQPMPHZJOWFOUPSZBOEUFDIOJRVFPGEBNTBOEJNQPVOENFOUTJO

1FSVCZ$FTBS"EPMGP"MWBSBEP"ODJFUB5IFBVUIPSQSFTFOUTBOIJTUPSJDBMFWPMVUJPOPGEBNT

JO1FSVEFUBJMTUIFUPQPHSBQIZBOEHJWFTQBSUJDVMBSFNQIBTJTPOUSFOETJOUIFMBTUZFBST

r/POMJOFBSTFJTNJDCFIBWJPVSPGDPODSFUFHSBWJUZEBNTBOEUSBWFMMJOHXBWFFGGFDUBMPOHUIF

SFTFSWPJSCPUUPNCZ).JS[BCP[PSHBOE"/PPS[BE5IFFGGFDUPGOPOVOJGPSNFYDJUBUJPOPGB

SFTFSWPJSCPUUPNPOUIFOPOMJOFBSSFTQPOTFPGDPODSFUFHSBWJUZEBNTJTDPOTJEFSFE

r&YQMBOBUJPOPGTFJTNJDGBJMVSFQPTTJCJMJUJFTUISPVHIEZOBNJDBOESFTQPOTFBOBMZTJTPGFBSUIFOEBNTCZ/JUZBOBOEB/BOEJ

4FLIBS$IBOESB%VUUBBOE"NJU3PZDIPXEIVSZ5IFTUVEZNBLFTBOFGGPSUUPFYQMBJOUIFDSFTUGBJMVSFPGFBSUIFOEBNT

EVSJOHTFJTNJDFYDJUBUJPOT'SFFWJCSBUJPOBOBMZTJTVTJOGUISFFEJNFOTJPOBMNPEFMMJOHPGFBSUIFOEBNTJTDBSSJFEPVU

r(PWFSOJOHFRVBUJPOTGPSEBNCSFBLáPXTCZ1SBOBC,.PIBQBUSB5IFSFTVMUTPCUBJOFECZVTJOHEJGGFSFOUTFUTPGFRVBUJPOT

GPSUIFNBUIFNBUJDBMNPEFMMJOHPGEBNCSFBLáPXTBSFQSFTFOUFEJOUIJTTUVEZ5IFQFSGPSNBODFBOEDPNQVUBUJPOBM

FGàDJFODJFTPGUIFTFNPEFMTUPTJNVMBUFáPXBSFFWBMVBUFEBOEDPODMVTJPOTBSFESBXOGPSUIFTFMFDUJPOPGHPWFSOJOH

FRVBUJPOTGPSOVNFSJDBMNPEFMMJOHPGEBNCSFBLáPXT

Dam Engineering is an academic journal, published quarterly by International Water Power & Dam Construction.

It contains refereed papers on subjects related to all areas of dams and hydro power.

At present there is no restriction on the length of submitted papers.

'PSJOGPSNBUJPOPOTVCNJUUJOHQBQFSTPSGPSNPSFEFUBJMTBCPVUTVCTDSJCJOHUP%BN&OHJOFFSJOHDPOUBDU5SBDFZ)POOFZ

%BN&OHJOFFSJOH1SPHSFTTJWF)PVTF.BJETUPOF3PBE'PPUT$SBZ4JEDVQ,FOU%");

UFMGBYFNBJMUIPOOFZ!QSPHSFTTJWFNFEJBHSPVQDPN

VOLUME XXI ISSUE 1

DAM ENGINEERING VOLUME XXI ISSUE 1

DEngFC_BLACK_0810:fc 13/8/10 17:23 Page 1

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM AUGUST 2010 33

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

HE Yukon River is 3700km long, draining a watershed

with an area of 832,700km2 (Figure 1). It is the fourth

largest river system in North America, and a signicant

contributor to the Bering Sea ecosystem. Spanning the

east-west length of the US state of Alaska and much of Canada’s

Yukon Territory, the Yukon River supports the longest inland

run of Pacic salmon in the world, with over 70 different indig-

enous Tribes and First Nations dependent on the sh and other

natural resources.

The majority of the river’s length, and over 60% of the water-

shed drainage (508,900km2), is in the US state of Alaska, with

the rest (321,800km2) in Canada’s Yukon Territory and a small

part of the headwaters located in British Columbia. By compari-

son, the watershed’s total area is more than 25% larger than the

nations of France or Ukraine. With an average ow volume of

6430m3/sec at its mouth, the river empties into the Bering Sea at

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, one of the largest coastal alluvial

plains in the world.

As a bi-national resource, the Yukon River is managed by and

subject to international treaties, e.g., the Pacic Salmon Treaty

and the Jay Treaty, as well as US and Canadian federal, state,

provincial, territorial, tribal, land claims and municipal laws and

practices. These complementary and at times competing mandates

result in a patchwork of management regimes and potentially con-

icting priorities. Calls for a watershed-wide approach to resource

management, including for hydro power development, are becom-

ing more common (Indian Law Resource Center, 2003).

HISTORY OF HYDROPOWER IN TH E

YUKON RIVER WATERSHED

Historically, the mining and smelting industries have been the

largest factor inuencing hydropower development in the Yukon

River watershed. Many of the early hydropower installations in

the region provided mechanical energy for mining equipment, as

opposed to hydroelectric power generation. Placer gold mines

throughout the Yukon River watershed relied on hydraulic extrac-

tion methods. In the early 20th century, two hydroelectric plants

were developed in the Dawson City area, Twelve Mile and North

Fork, to serve local mining operations. The 1.2MW Twelve Mile

plant operated between 1907 and 1920, on the Twelve Mile

(now Chandinau) River, and the 5.4MW North Fork plant (later

expanded to 8.1MW) operated between 1911 and 1966, on the

Klondike River.

Not long after, some hydropower facilities were developed

in interior Alaska for gold mining operations in the Yukon

River watershed.

Soon after the Fairbanks gold rush of 1902, several hydropower

installations for Tanana Valley gold mines were constructed, oper-

ating seasonally. Early mining operations also harnessed energy

from the Yukon River’s headwaters in northwestern BC. In the

mid-1920s, the Wann River hydroelectric plant was built to power

the nearby Engineer gold mine, near the southern end of the Taku

Arm of Tagish Lake.

Between the 1940s and the 1970s, several large-scale hydro-

electric projects were proposed for the Yukon River watershed,

yet never built. In addition to Rampart – the largest prospect of

all and further discussed later – other large dams were proposed

for the Yukon River in interior Alaska, and four different Upper

Yukon headwater diversions were proposed through the coastal

mountains. Three of the proposed tunnel routes were diversions

to the Taiya River in Alaska, while one was to divert waters to the

Taku River in British Columbia.

As described in “The economics of an Upper Yukon basin

power development scheme” (Schramm, 1968): “The overall

development scheme of all four plans is essentially the same. It

is based on the use of existing lakes, plus, in some cases, addi-

tional storage and diversions of lakes and rivers adjacent to

the primary storage area, the drilling of one or more tunnels

through the coastal mountains and the construction of one or

more power plants in the valleys below. The main differences lie

in the number of additional storage lakes created and the routing

of the main tunnel or tunnels.”

As lake-tap projects, Yukon-Taiya and Yukon-Taku would have

had far less potential environmental impacts than the Rampart or

other large dam proposals for the Yukon River described below.

Therefore, these large-scale proposals to divert water from the

Yukon’s headwaters may be resurrected in the future.

YUKON-TAIYA DIVERSION

R.C. Johnson, an engineer with US Bureau of Reclamation, rst

proposed in 1946 what was initially called the Tagish-Lynn

project. The proposal’s name was soon changed to Yukon-Taiya,

after the Taiya Inlet, in northern Lynn Canal. A joint US-Canada

effort, the Yukon-Taiya project would have consisted of an under-

ground tunnel (ranging between 23km and 27km in length) under-

neath the Chilkoot Pass area, going from Bennett Lake in British

Columbia, to a powerhouse site in the Taiya River Valley near

Skagway, Alaska. The plant would intake water from a series of

connected lakes in the Yukon and British Columbia.

Through channel dredging, six existing lakes in Canada – Marsh,

Tagish, Atlin, Little Atlin, Bennet and Lindeman lakes – would be

merged into one interconnected reservoir of over 1200km

in size,

with a surface elevation about 670m above sea level (Bureau of

Brian Yanity and Brian Hirsch present an analysis of conventional and in-stream hydro

power in the Yukon River watershed

Watershed analysis

Figure 1: Map of Yukon River watershed: (courtesy of Yukon River Inter-Tribal

Watershed Council, www.yritwc.org. Map edited by Paula Hansen of WHPaciﬁc)

34 AUGUST 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

Reclamation, 1955).

The minimum diverted ow of the three different Yukon-Taiya

proposals ranged between 79m3/sec and 524m3/sec, or between

1% and 8% of the total Yukon River average ow volume. The

proposed power plant would have ranged between 320MW and

4000 MW of estimated generation capacity, representing 2.8 to

25 TWh in annual rm energy (Wardle, 1957). As originally pro-

posed, the powerhouse would be located in what is now Klondike

Gold Rush National Park, near the historic Dyea town site.

In the late 1940s, the joint US/Canada Yukon-Taiya Commission

studied the project, but it was halted in 1951 at the request of

the Canadian government. During the 1950s, the Aluminum

Company of America (Alcoa) expressed serious interest in devel-

oping Yukon-Taiya to power a smelter to be built at Dyea, near

Skagway. Alcoa dropped all plans for Yukon-Taiya in 1957, after

the Canadian and BC governments decided against cooperating on

the project. There were several reasons, mostly relating to unre-

solved international waters issues that made the Yukon-Taiya pro-

posal unpopular in Canada.

In particular, the Alcoa aluminium smelter proposed for

Skagway was seen as direct competition to the Alcan smelter

at Kitimat, BC, which was under construction during in the

early 1950s. However, despite the Canadian opposition, busi-

ness interests in Alaska continued to advocate for Yukon-Taiya

for the entire decade of the 1960s. To advance the project, the

Alaska Legislature created the Yukon-Taiya Commission in 1967.

However, its work stopped in 1972 after being unable to gather

meaningful support for the project in either the US or Canada

(Norris, 1996).

YUKON-TAKU DIVERSION

The massive Yukon-Taku scheme would have consisted of three

separate tunnels with a combined length of about 31km. All of the

facilities would be completely located within Canada, and would

have required multiple dams, with far greater articial reservoirs

compared to Yukon-Taiya. Yukon-Taku would have had three

powerhouses in different locations, with a total of 3600MW of

total generation capacity, and a rm annual energy output of

31.2 TWh (Wardle, 1957). The minimum ow diverted was to be

793m3/sec, representing about 12% of the total Yukon River aver-

age ow volume. However, in addition to the Yukon River water-

shed, some water was to be diverted into the Upper Yukon from

the Alsek River watershed. As part of the Yukon-Taku project, a

large aluminium smelter was proposed for Tulseqah, BC, on the

Taku River.

RAMPART DAM AND OTHER LARGE DAM

PROPOSALS IN ALASKA

The US Army Corps of Engineers first proposed the 5040MW

Rampart Dam project in the early 1950s. The plan was to dam

the Yukon at Rampart Canyon, near the town of Rampart about

160km from Fairbanks, creating a reservoir over 28,000km2 in area

(US Department of the Interior, 1965 and 1967). The project was

designed to produce about 34TWh annually, or about ve times

the amount of electricity the entire state of Alaska consumes today.

The resulting “Lake Kennedy” would have required almost 30 years

to ll up completely, and would been the largest articial reservoir

in the world. The proposed dam would have been 162m high and

1430m long.

More than a quarter million salmon pass through Rampart

Canyon each year, and millions of ducks make their homes in the

wetlands of the Yukon Flats, which would have been ooded under

the reservoir. About 1500 people would have been directly dis-

placed by the huge reservoir, and the lives of thousands more would

have been negatively impacted by the loss of sh and animal life.

Conservationists, indigenous peoples in the region, and poor project

economics combined to eventually quash the proposal (Nash, 2001;

O’Neill, 1995). USACE formally decided against proceeding with

the Rampart project in 1971.

In 1980, the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge was created,

protecting most of the proposed reservoir area from development.

Other large dam proposals in the watershed discussed during the

1950s and 60s included Woodchopper (3200MW), Holy Cross

(2800MW), Ruby (460MW) on the main stream of the Yukon River,

and a 530MW project on the Porcupine River, a major tributary of

the Yukon (Alaska Power Administration, 1980).

CONVENTIONAL HYDROPOWER GENERATION

Despite all of the failed attempts at mega-projects reviewed above,

several conventional, utility-scale hydroelectric facilities in the

watershed were built in the Yukon Territory, the largest being the

40MW Whitehorse Rapids Dam. Today, there is nearly 76MW

of conventional hydro power generation capacity in the Yukon

Territory. It should be noted that 30MW of this capacity, the

Aishihik development, is located outside of the Yukon River water-

shed in the headwaters of the adjacent Alsek River watershed. Not

counting micro-scale installations on private property, there are no

conventional hydroelectric facilities in the Yukon River watershed

installed in Alaska.

In addition to the hydro power capacity, the Yukon Territory

also has about 52MW of installed diesel generation capacity,

and 0.8MW of wind, for a total installed capacity of 130MW.

The vast majority of this capacity is owned by the Yukon Energy

Corporation, and the remainder by the Yukon Electrical Company

Ltd. (and several private installations with one contained in the

table), as shown in Table 1.

The three largest hydroelectric plants are owned by Yukon

Energy, while Fish Lake is owned by the Yukon Electrical Company

Limited. The three larger plants were originally developed by the

Northern Canada Power Commission, which turned over these

assets to the Yukon Energy Corp. in 1987. Also note that six tur-

bines totalling 17.9MW, over 23% of installed capacity, are over

50 years old.

Micro-hydroelectric development, both in the Yukon Territory

and northwestern BC, started attracting more interest in the 1980s

and 1990s. A 250kW hydroelectric plant in Fraser, BC (south of

Haines Junction in the Yukon Territory) powers the Canadian

Table 1: Existing hydro

generation capacity in the

Yukon Territory

(Yukon Energy Corp., 2001):

Facility

Installed

capacity

(MW)

Turbine sizes

(MW/yr

installed)

Head

(m)

Owner

Whitehorse

Rapids

40.00

#1: 5.8 / 1958

#2: 5.8 / 1958

#3: 8.4 / 1969

#4: 20 / 1985

Yukon Energy

Corp.

Aishihik

Lake

30.00

#1: 15 / 1975

#2: 15 / 1975

175

Yukon Energy

Corp.

Mayo Lake 5.00

#1: 2.5 / 1952

#2: 2.5 / 1952

Yukon Energy

Corp.

Fish Lake 1.30

#1: 0.6 / 1950

#2: 0.7 / 1950

Plant

#1: 128

Plant

#2: 61

Yukon Elect.

Co. Ltd.

Rancheria 0.16 0.16 / 1990 38 Beverly Dinning

Total 76.46

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM AUGUST 2010 35

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

border station, and was completed in 1990. It is owned and operat-

ed by a small private corporation and sells power to the Federal and

provincial consumers of power at Fraser. The Rancheria 155kW

microhydro plant in the Yukon Territory was also installed in 1990,

and is also privately owned (by the operator of the Rancheria Lodge

and RV Park). The 2MW Pine Creek hydropower plant in Atlin,

BC, came online in April 2009.

Yukon Energy’s 20-year resource plan (Yukon Energy

Corporation, 2006) states that the two industrial sectors of

mining and gas pipeline development will drive future electricity

demand. In the mid-1990s, the report Yukon Energy Resources:

Hydro (Yukon Economic Development, 1997) listed eleven unde-

veloped small hydroelectric sites (each under 10MW of potential)

that were considered feasible, shown in Table 2, partly due to

their proximity to existing transmission lines. Note that the total

installed capacity of all these undeveloped hydroelectric sites,

43.9MW, would still not equal the current diesel installed capac-

ity of 52MW, but the additional hydropower would go a long

way toward displacing almost all diesel electric generation in the

Yukon Territory.

Other hydro projects were also considered in the past such as

Chutla Creek and Tank Creek near Carcross (on the Whitehorse-

Aishihik-Faro, or WAF, power grid); and Copper Joe Creek, Nines

Creek and the Donjek River, all near the (diesel-electric) communi-

ties of Burwash Landing and Destruction Bay (about 30km apart

and sharing the same diesel plant). Currently Yukon Energy is plan-

ning the “Mayo B” project which will more than double the output

of the Mayo hydro plant (at Wareham dam) by building a new

powerhouse 3km downstream of the existing powerhouse ( http://

www.yukonenergy.ca/about/projects/mayob/ ). Another option cur-

rently being considered is called the Southern Lakes Enhancement,

which would utilize Atlin Lake as a reservoir for the Marsh Lake/

Yukon River system that supplies the Whitehorse Rapids hydro

facility in Whitehorse (http://www.yukonenergy.ca/about/projects/

slenhancement/).

Both Atlin Lake and Marsh Lake would be used for greater

seasonal storage to supply more hydro and for the peak demand

months of December and January. The environmental impacts of

such altered hydrology would require substantial study for better

understanding.

In Alaska, there are several small-scale conventional hydro-

power proposals presently being pursued within the Yukon River

watershed. Contrary to previous trends noted above, these projects

have been driven primarily not by industrial demand, but by a

need for clean and affordable power to displace diesel generation

in remote communities. In 2008, as the Alaska state government

was reaping the windfall of high oil prices which produced sig-

nicant tax revenues, the state legislature established the Alaska

Renewable Energy Fund (AREF) with a $100M investment, fol-

lowed by $25M in 2009.

The AREF has funded both feasibility studies and preliminary

construction of small hydropower throughout Alaska, includ-

ing some projects in the Yukon River watershed. Golden Valley

Electric Association received AREF funding to study the Little

Gerstle site on the Tanana River, and a run-of-river site on the

Nenana River. The Alaska Power and Telephone Company

(AP&T) also received AREF funding for design and construction

costs of the Yerrick Creek hydro development near Tok. AP&T

has previously developed village-scale (2-10MW), high head, low

impact hydropower in other parts of Alaska, namely the Southeast,

as well as projects in Central America, and are now bringing this

expertise to the Yukon River watershed. As of the time of writing,

the state of Alaska’s 2010 investment in the AREF has not yet

been determined.

IN-STREAM (HYDROKINETIC) POWER PROJECTS

Because many isolated small communities in the watershed still rely

on costly diesel power as well as local resources such as sh, a vari-

ety of small-scale, low impact hydroelectric technologies are attract-

ing great interest, including in-stream, or hydrokinetic turbines that

do not require dams or diversions of water. In the summer of 2008,

a 5kW hydrokinetic turbine was installed in the Yukon River village

of Ruby, Alaska – one of the rst in-stream turbines successfully

installed in the US. Other Yukon watershed-based hydrokinetic

projects in Alaska include planned installations in the communi-

ties of Nenana, Eagle, Tanana, and Whitestone, and at least one

project slated for the Canadian side of the watershed. All of these

projects are in various stages of planning, permitting, design, and/

or installation.

The Ruby project has provided valuable information regarding

“proof of concept” for the viability of in-stream hydrokinetic power

generation and has also identied challenges that will need to be

overcome before widespread deployment occurs. Specically, the

5kW turbine installed at Ruby by the Yukon River Inter-Tribal

Watershed Council (www.yritwc.org) and designed and manufac-

tured by New Energy Corporation (www.newenergycorp.ca) based

in Calgary, Alberta, incorporated an inverter that was originally

used for wind energy projects.

The inverter software was successfully adapted for expected

power parameters more typical of a slow moving river than rap-

idly changing wind currents. This system properly integrated into

the village’s diesel electric grid, thus demonstrating the technical

feasibility of the technology. Alternatively, mechanical diversion

of stream debris without obstructing river ow and cost-effective

anchoring of the turbine and support structure in the fastest moving

part of the river still present challenges to this particular installation

and all in-stream hydrokinetic projects on the Yukon River. Impacts

to migrating and resident sh populations are another ongoing area

of investigation.

The hydrokinetic project proposed in Eagle, Alaska, by AP&T is

in nal design stages and will also use a New Energy Corporation

in-stream turbine, but instead of a 5kW version like in Ruby, this

will be a 25kW turbine. Both of these turbines employ a unique

design that incorporates a robust, slow moving, vertical axis turbine

housed on a pontoon boat that aims for minimal impact to sh and

durability from the elements.

Both the Ruby and Eagle projects, if successful, would eventu-

ally include a series of turbines that could meet a large portion of

the community’s electrical load during the ice-free summer months,

thus allowing diesel generators to be completely turned off much of

the time and only starting up when high demand exceeds the power

production of the hydrokinetic turbines. This would require sophis-

ticated switchgear to integrate the diesel generators and hydroki-

netic turbines, but such technology is already available and in use

in Alaska villages integrating wind turbines and diesel generators.

Because the Yukon River freezes in the winter, hydrokinetic tur-

bines such as these, set in pontoon boats anchored to the bottom of

the river, would need to be removed from approximately October

through mid-May. Maintaining anchors over the winter such that

they would not need to be re-set each spring is another area of cur-

rent investigation.

The hydrokinetic project planned for Nenana, Alaska, is a col-

laboration among numerous entities, including the University

of Alaska, Ocean Renewable Power Company, Yukon River

Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, and the municipal and Tribal

governments co-located in Nenana. As envisioned, this will be

a full-blown research project with a test bed for various turbine

technologies and anchoring systems. Currently, the research has

focused on site characterization, effective means of mechanical

debris diversion, anchoring systems, and sh impacts. The rst

turbine that is slated for installation in the summer of 2011 or

2012 is a helical, cross flow design with an estimated output

of 50kW manufactured by Ocean Renewable Power Company

(www.oceanrenewablepower.com).

While potentially using different technology, all of these projects

in Alaska employ a low environmental impact, robust technology

approach to meeting community energy needs based on similar

imperatives and design criteria, including: relatively slow moving,

high volume water; high conventional energy costs; protection

36 AUGUST 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

of sh and other water resources; signicant debris in the water

column; integration with existing diesel generators and mini-grids;

Maximum displacement of diesel fuel; and severe seasonal icing and

extremely energetic spring break-up

Some “lessons learned” from these early deployments are already

inuencing next generation technologies. For example, New Energy

Corporation is re-designing its turbine to produce more power at

lower current speeds based on initial performance of the turbine

installed at Ruby. Similarly, the Nenana project is incorporating

information about river debris learned at Ruby in designing a lter,

or “trash rack,” to divert incoming material before it reaches the

turbine in Nenana.

Numerous sh impact studies are now underway that will pro-

vide essential data to help resolve this concern, possibly streamlin-

ing future development efforts. The Alaska Energy Authority has

also created a “Hydrokinetic Working Group” that includes state

and federal permitting and resource agencies, developers, commu-

nities with potential project sites, and others to identify concerns

and possible bottlenecks before they become costly obstacles. As

this is a new process for most agencies, they are also identifying

studies that will be necessary for developers to comply with per-

mitting requirements.

While these technologies are also being deployed throughout

North America and the world, the combination of the Yukon

River resource potential, community and government initiative

throughout the watershed, and availability of funding through the

AREF seems to have created a burgeoning development cluster

within the region.

Within Canada, at Fort Selkirk, Yukon, the Ampair micro-scale

hydrokinetic turbine was tested in 2000 on the Yukon River, near

the mouth of the Pelly River. This was a project sponsored by the

Heritage Branch of the Yukon government (Yukon Energy Corp.,

2001). The turbine is now out of the water. Also, New Energy

Corporation has donated a 5kW turbine identical to the turbine in

Ruby, Alaska, for installation on the Yukon Territory side of the

watershed, to the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council,

but this project is not yet deployed.

OTHER RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES AND

CHALLENGES WITHIN THE REGION

Both traditional drivers of hydropower development in the water-

shed, i.e., mining and other industrial activity, and new imperatives

such as high fossil energy costs and preference for cleaner energy,

are now providing impetus to develop not just hydropower but

other renewable energy resources found in the watershed. Because

hydropower is the most apparent, seemingly abundant, and his-

torically used renewable resource in the region, it has received the

most attention to date.

However, as efforts to develop locally available wind, tidal,

solar, biomass, and geothermal resources advance, new technical,

economic, and institutional solutions will be necessary to opti-

mize the mix among hydropower (conventional and in-stream),

other renewables, and fossil fuel. Entities such as the Yukon River

Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, a coalition of 70 Tribes and First

Nations in Alaska and Canada and lead developers in the Ruby

hydrokinetic project, are now looking beyond just hydropower

and are involved in community-based solar, wind, and bio-

mass projects along with “green collar” workforce training for

indigenous peoples and net-zero energy efcient residential con-

struction.

Successful past projects and ongoing investigation and dissemi-

nation of “lessons learned” from new hydropower technology in

the region can accelerate and facilitate future renewable energy

development within the watershed and beyond. The AREF, as

described above, has also played an important role over the past

two years in accelerating renewable energy deployment and an

expectation that if technology is properly developed, there will be

funding for its deployment. This is an example of how targeted

programs can be used to achieve policy ends – in this case, reduc-

ing the use of diesel fuel and cost of energy throughout Alaska,

especially the rural areas.

As more renewable energy resources are used to produce elec-

tricity within the Yukon River watershed and elsewhere, concerns

with “grid instability” can be expected to emerge. For example,

as wind or solar energy becomes a higher proportion of the total

amount of electricity generated at any moment in time, uncon-

trolled uctuations can make the overall electric grid unstable,

compromising power quality and sensitive electronic equipment.

Especially with diesel mini-grids such as those in remote Alaska

villages, this can quickly become a problem as diesel generators

are the primary means of regulating voltage and frequency control

for acceptable power quality and a stable grid.

Hydropower, more than any other renewable energy resource

except geothermal, has an important advantage as a “grid stabiliz-

er” that, when properly congured, can allow for higher penetra-

tion rates of renewables and maximize diesel displacement. Even

with run-of-river or in-stream hydrokinetic power, because rivers

vary in speed and hence power production much less and slower

than wind or sun, hydro power is a uniquely valuable renewable

energy resource.

While the Yukon River and tributaries present numerous hydro-

power opportunities, the watershed also holds substantial mineral

and fossil energy reserves and lies between some of the largest

natural gas deposits on the continent just north of the watershed

and large markets to the south. Thus, it is likely that the watershed

will see increased development in the future once again driven by

industrial opportunities and distant demand. Given the remote

nature of the region and ongoing dependence, especially among

the indigenous peoples, on locally available natural resources, any

future hydropower development will need to carefully consider

impacts to the people and environment and recognize trade-offs

that such development will require.

Further, these proposed industrial activities will likely inu-

ence the demand and specic economics for any future hydro-

power projects.

No hydropower discussion in remote, far northern reaches of

the globe would be complete without some consideration of cli-

mate change. Both Alaska and the Yukon Territory are widely

recognized as global “hot spots” already experiencing signi-

cant temperature escalation much higher than the global average,

wide ranging shifts in precipitation, melting permafrost, shore-

line erosion, and increased intensity and frequency of re events

(IPCC, 2007).

Hydropower production projections based on historic precipi-

Table 2: List of feasible proposed

conventional hydropower sites in

the Yukon Territory and bordering

areas of Northwestern BC (Yukon

Economic Development, 1997)

Proposed Project

Deliverable Annual

Energy (GWh)

Installed

Capacity (MW)

Surprise Lake 48.0 8.5

Moon Lake 44.9 8.5

Wolf River 37.6 4.8

Orchay River 26.6 4.0

Drury Creek 24.8 2.6

North Fork Klondike River 21.0 4.0

Morley River 16.0 2.0

Squanga Creek 10.7 1.8

Lapie River 10.5 2.0

McIntyre Creek #3 5.5 0.7

Aishihik 3rd turbine 5.0 5.0

Total: 250.6 43.9

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM AUGUST 2010 37

NEW HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

tation patterns may not accurately predict future energy output,

and in extreme cases, infrastructure such as dams, penstocks, and

transmission lines may be compromised as well under conditions

of melting permafrost and increase shoreline erosion.

Additional challenges to hydropower development in the Yukon

River watershed include:

r Short construction and study season.

r Greater expense for everything due to cost of shipping.

r Limited access to many areas.

r Limited human capacity (technical experts, maintenance specialists,

operators, etc.).

r Isolated grids.

r Unpredictable energy demand (from industries such as mining).

r Diesel-electric communities receive subsidies that reduce eco-

nomic drivers to nd alternatives to diesel generation in those

communities.

r The Yukon River watershed is a large region with a small popula-

tion and limited revenue from natural resources. This limits the

capacity of communities, utilities and governments to invest in

capital-intensive renewable energy solutions.

CONCLUSION

As one of the greatest watersheds of North America and the world,

over the past century the Yukon River system has inspired a wide

array of hydropower development proposals, ranging in capacity

from several hundred to several billion watts. Only a small frac-

tion of the watershed’s technically and environmentally feasible

hydropower potential has been tapped, and the 21st century is

certain to see pressure for additional hydropower development. A

huge amount of environmental and technical information must be

disseminated in the process of planning, policy development and

implementation, and coordination across jurisdictions. Properly

informing the public is necessary for the democratic, pro-active

process of creating the future that the Yukon River watershed’s

citizens and other stakeholders desire, and to protect publicly

owned natural resources.

It appears that the Alaska portion of the watershed has trend-

ed from proposed – but never completed – mega-projects from

the middle of the last century to more recent environmentally

sensitive and community-driven small-scale projects, some of

which are employing new technologies. High diesel fuel prices,

environmental concerns, and ongoing local dependency on har-

vesting natural resources such as sh are driving this transition

to a clean energy economy in which village-scale conventional

and hydrokinetic in-stream developments are uniquely suited to

reduce diesel use and minimize sheries impacts. Other renew-

able energy options are also being actively explored. As commu-

nities throughout the watershed benet from improved regional

cooperation and resource management, such technologies and

approaches – if successful – can be expected to rapidly expand.

Government support such as the Alaska Renewable Energy Fund

appears to be creating a development cluster that could benet

the watershed and far beyond.

Organizations such as the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed

Council and cooperative structures such as the Yukon River Salmon

Agreement are improving watershed-wide communication and

opportunities for regional resource management and coordination.

Successfully balancing the competing needs and desires of the vari-

ous watershed stakeholders will require, among other things, good

information, long term planning, cross-jurisdictional coordination,

resource protection, and enlightened policy, and could provide

important lessons and role models for all of us.

Brian Yanity, EIT, is an electrical engineer with WHPacic,

Inc. in Anchorage, Alaska, and an adjunct faculty member

at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) School of

Engineering. His work focuses on village-scale renewable

energy projects and energy planning for rural Alaska. Mr.

Yanity received his B.S. degree in electrical engineering from

Columbia University, and his M.S. in arctic engineering from

UAA, with a focus on small-scale hydropower systems for

cold-climate applications. Email: byanity@whpacic.com

Brian Hirsch, PhD, is the Senior Project Leader for

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL)

Alaska initiative, a part of the US Department of Energy

Ofce of Energy Efciency and Renewable Energy. Dr.

Hirsch received his doctorate in Land Resources from the

University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a focus on energy

issues and indigenous communities in northern regions of

the world. Email: brian.hirsch@nrel.gov

References

Alaska Power Administration, US Department of the Interior (1980).

Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Railbelt.

Bureau of Reclamation-Alaska District, U.S. Department of the Interior

(1955). Yukon-Taiya Project: Alaska-Canada.

S. Huntington (1993). Shadows on the Koyukuk: An Alaskan Native’s Life

Along the River. Alaska Northwest Books.

Indian Law Resource Center (2003). International Opportunities for the

Protection of the Yukon River Watershed: A Handbook of Strategies.

http://www.indianlaw.org/sites/indianlaw.org/ﬁles/AK%20Yukon%20

Handbook.pdf

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution

of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri,

R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

R. Nash (2001). Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press.

F.B. Norris (1996). Legacy of the Gold Rush: An Administrative History of

the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. National Park Service, Alaska

System Support Ofﬁce, Anchorage.

D. O’Neill (2006). A Land Gone Lonesome: An Inland Voyage Along the

Yukon River. Basic Books.

D. O’Neill (1995). The Firecracker Boys. St. Martin’s Grifﬁn.

G. Schramm (1968) “The economics of an Upper Yukon basin power

development scheme” The Annals of Regional Science. Volume 2, Number

1/ December 1968, pages 214-228.

US Department of the Interior (1967). Alaska Natural Resources and the

Rampart Project.

US Department of the Interior (1965). Rampart Project, Alaska, Field Report,

Vol. II. January 1965.

J.M. Wardle (1957) “A major power plan for Yukon River waters in the

Canadian Northwest”, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, London,

England, Vol. 7, July 1957, pages 441-464.

Yukon Economic Development (1997). Yukon Energy Resources: Hydro.

Yukon Energy Corporation (2006). 20-Year Resource Plan: 2006-2025.

May 2006.

Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporation (2001). The

Power of Water: The Story of Hydropower in the Yukon. November 2001.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to following reviewers: Sean MacKinnon of the Yukon Energy

Solutions Centre (Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and Resources), and

Neil McMahon of the Alaska Energy Authority.

IWP& DC

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

38 AUGUST 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

CLASSIFIED

www.waterpowermagazine.com

MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING

AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

260 Dams and 60 Hydropower Plants (15,000 MW)

built in 70 countries

Water resources and hydroelectric development

•Public and private developers

•BOT and EPC projects

•New projects, upgrading and rehabilitation

•Sustainable development

with water transfer, hydropower, pumping stations

and dams.

COYNE ET BELLIER

9, allée des Barbanniers

92632 GENNEVILLIERS CEDEX - FRANCE

Tel : +33 1 41 85 03 69

Fax: +33 1 41 85 03 74

e.mail: commercial@coyne-et-bellier.fr

website: www.coyne-et-bellier.fr

COYNE ET BELLIER

Bureau d’Ingénieurs Conseils

www.coyne-et-bellier.fr

Over 40 years experience in Dams.

CFRD Specialist Design and Construction

●

Dam Safety Inspection

●

Construction Supervision

●

Instrumentation

●

RCC Dam Inspection

●

Panel Expert Works

Av. Giovanni Gronchi, 5445 sala 172,

Sao Paulo – Brazil

ZIP Code – 05724-003

Phone: +55-11-3744.8951

Fax: +55-11-3743.4256

Email: bayardo.materon@terra.com.br

ba_mater@yahoo.com.br

Lahmeyer International GmbH

Friedberger Strasse 173 · D-61118 Bad Vilbel, Germany

Tel.: +49 (6101) 55-1164 · Fax: +49 (6101) 55-1715

E-Mail: bernd.metzger@lahmeyer.de · http://www.lahmeyer.de

Your Partner for

Water Resources and

Hydroelectric Development

All Services for Complete Solutions

• from concept to completion and operation

• from projects to complex systems

• from local to multinational schemes

• for public and private developers

• hydropower

transmission and high

voltage systems

power economics

power management

consulting

www.norconsult.com

Multidisciplinary consultancy

services through all project cycles

dams and waterways

turbines/pumps and

generators

water resources

environmental and

social safeguards

AF-Colenco Ltd

Täfernstrasse 26 • CH-5405 Baden/Switzerland

Phone +41 (0)56 483 12 12 • Fax +41 (0)56 483 17 99

colenco-info@afconsult.com • http://www.af-colenco.com

Consulting / Engineering and EPC Services for:

• Hydropower Plants

• Dams and Reservoirs

• Hydraulic Structures

• Hydraulic Steel Structures

• Geotechnics and Foundations

• Electrical / Mechanical Equipment

Construction and

refurbishment of small

and medium hydro

power plants.

C p

eas

udi

ﬁnanc

www.hydropol.cz

# (47) 67 53 15 06 in Norway

# (55) 11 3722 0889 in Brazil

E-mail: nickrbarton@hotmail.com

Website: http//www.qtbm.com

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM AUGUST 2010 39

CLASSIFIED

www.waterpowermagazine.com

Yolsu Engineering Services Ltd. Co.

Hürriyet Caddesi No:135 Dikmen, 06450 Ankara,TURKEY

Tel: +90 312 480 06 01 (pbx) Fax: +90 312 483 31 35

www.yolsu.com.tr info@yolsu.com.tr

Prefeasibilty, Feasibility,

Final & Detail Design,

Consulting Services:

• Basin development

• Dams and hydropower plants

• Irrigation and drainage

• Water supply and sewerage

• River engineering

• Highways and railways

Successful projects in

Hydropower and Water

Management

For further information please contact

p.energy@poyry.com and visit www.poyry.com

Stellba Hydro AG Stellba Hydro GmbH & Co KG

Langgas 2 Badenbergstrasse 30

CH-5244 Birrhard D-89520 Heidenheim

Switzerland Germany

Telefon +41 (0)56 201 45 20 Telefon +49 (0)7321 96 92 0

Telefax +41 (0)56 201 45 21 Telefax +49 (0)7321 6 20 73

Internet www.stellba-hydro.ch Internet www.stellba.de

E-Mail info@stellba-hydro.ch E-Mail info@stellba.de

721

www.rizzoassoc.com

WATER RESOURCES  POWER GENERATION

MINING  TUNNELS

TECBARRAGEM

SLIPFORM

Phone/Fax: + 5511 51812527

tecbarragem@tecbarragem.com.br

Website: www.tecbarragem.com.br

• Faster Constructive System for Civil Works

• Specialists in Hydroelectric and Dam Projects

• Qualiﬁed Projectists, Engineers and Technicians

• Special Formworks and Slipforms

To advertise in the Professional Directory or

World Marketplace section, or for more

information contact Diane Stanbury.

tel: +44 (0)20 8269 7854

or email:

dianestanbury@globaltrademedia.com

Copy deadline for September 2010 issue

is 13 September 2010

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

& DAM CONSTRUCTION

Water Power

www.waterpowermagazine.com

The classified section in Water Power & Dam

Construction is a well established and popular

section with the magazine’s combined print and

digital circulation of 16,000. Commonly known

as where “the buyer meets the seller”.

Industry Showcases

The industry showcase section is made up

of eighth page adverts (95x65mm) with a

maximum of eight key suppliers to a page. It

is an ideal section to promote products

and services, raise brand awareness and

shout about company successes. Showcase

adverts are also an ideal way to promote

product literature and generate interest.

Recommended duration:

minimum 3 months

Recruitment

The ideal way to promote a company vacancy

and reach experienced professionals looking

for the next opportunity to advance their

career in the hydro power & dam construction

industries.

For more information, please contact

Diane Stanbury

Telephone: +44 (0)20 8269 7854

or email:

dianestanbury@globaltrademedia.com

WORLD MARKETPLACE

40 AUGUST 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

CLASSIFIED

www.waterpowermagazine.com

CYLINDERS

CRANES GATES

• Custom Design Hydraulic Cylinders

•

Servomotors

• Piston Accumulators'

• Hydraulic Power Units

• Control Panels

www.doucehydro.com

Douce Hydro FRANCE, USA and GERMANY

Tel France: + 33 / 3 22 74 31 08 ; E-mail: aﬂeroy@doucehydro.com

Tel USA: + 1 / 586 566 4725 ; E-mail: fvandenbulke@doucehydro.com

Tel Germany: + 49 / 177 398 37 78 ; E-mail : ublase-henke@doucehydro.com

BEARINGS

PAN

bronzes

and

PAN

-GF

self-lubricating bearings

Since 1931

- Superior quality with

• Highest wear resistance

• Low maintenance

• Or maintenance free

- Extended operating life

PAN-Metallgesellschaft

P.O. Box 102436 • D-68024 Mannheim / Germany

Phone: + 49 621 42 303-0 • Fax: + 49 621 42 303-33

kontakt@pan-metall.com • www.pan-metall.com

BEARING OIL COOLERS

HEXECO, Inc. ... a Heat Exchanger Engineering Co.

Tel: +1 (920) 361-3440 • Fax: +1 (920) 361-4554

E-Mail: info.wpd@hexeco.com • Web: www.hexeco.com

OIL COOLERS

For

THRUST and

GUIDE

BEARINGS

CONCRETE COOLING

FILTRATION EQUIPMENT

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM

CIVIL ENGINEERING:

U Þ`iÀÃ] «ÜiÀ ÕÌÃ >` VÌÀÃ

vÀ `> }>ÌiÃ] Ã«Ü>Þ }>ÌiÃ]

Ì>i }>ÌiÃ] ÃÕVi }>ÌiÃ

U }iiÀ}] ÃÌ>>Ì >` V

ÃÃ} v V«iÌi Þ`À>ÕV

>` iiVÌÀV ÃÞÃÌiÃ vÀ `> }>Ìi

«iÀ>Ì Õ« Ì >ÕÌ>ÌV ÀiÃiÀÛÀ

ÌÀ} >` VÌÀ ,®

www.montanhydraulik.com

Providing water control solutions through thoughtful engineering,

innovative design, atten tion to detail and outstanding customer

service. Contact us for inﬂatable water control gates and rubber

dams.

O Box 668, Fort Collins, CO 80522 USA

el: 970-568-9844

ww.obermeyerhydro.com

HYDRO CASTINGS

• Water turbine components

• Castings from 100 kg to 30 tons

• Latest CAD-CAM capabilities

• Certified Quality Assurance ISO 9001

• Environmental Management System ISO14001

Your contact: Mr. Timo Norvasto, Sales Manager

Lokomo Steel Foundry

Tel: +358 204 84 4222

Fax: +358 204 84 4233

Email: timo.norvasto@metso.com

Web: www.metsofoundries.com

CONCRETE COOLING

• COLD & ICE WATERPLANTS

• FLAKE ICE PLANTS

• ICE DELIVERY & WEIGHING SYSTEMS

• ICE STORAGES

KTI-Plersch Kältetechnik GmbH

Carl-Otto-Weg 14/2

88481 Balzheim

Germany

Tel:/Phone: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 0

Fax: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 22

Email: ice@kti-plersch.com

Website: www.kti-plersch.com