Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Light and Power Committee 2002-04-11
\1 1 C-4/4 1 € TOWN OF ESTES PARK Light and Power Committee AGENDA April 11, 2002 8:00 a.m., Board Room 1. Meter Vehicle Replacement ° Authorize Budget Expenditure 2. Olympus Hydro Project Update ° Bill Emslie-Platte River Power Authority 3. GIS Mapping Presentation ° Shawn Kraft 4. Reports A. Platte River Power Authority B. Financial Report C. Project Updates NOTE: The Light and Power Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. REM Prepared 4/8/2002 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Inter Office Memorandum March 25,2002 To: Light & Power Committee From: Richard Matzke, Dave Mahany Subject: 2001 Light & Power Department jeep Replacement (93313 - Meter Department) Background: The Light & Power Department has requested the replacement of a 1989 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 with a Ford 4x4 Utility Vehicle (Explorer Sport-Trac) for use in the Meter Department. This trade-in vehicle is 13 years old with 73,924 miles. This vehicle is within the parameters of the vehicle replacement policy. (Moving the meter jeep 933,198 (1996 Jeep Cherokee w/71,000 miles, policy 6 year 60,000 miles) - to lighter use with Mike and trading 93313 for the Sport-Trac for use in the Meter Department) U Light & Power Departments 2002 budget includes $25,000 for the replacement of this vehicle. Budget / Costs: Estes Park Auto Mall: $23,600.00 Ford 4X4 Explorer Sport-Trac q33.13 - $ 1,600.00 Less Trade-in (1989 Jeep Cherokee 4x4,9»:MB) $22,000.00 Bid Price Phil Long Ford: $23,235.80 Ford 4X4 Explorer Sport-Trac -$ 1,200.00 Less Trade-in (1989 Jeep Cherokee 4x4, 93319B) $22.035.80 Bid Price Burts Arapahoe Ford: $24,184.00 Ford 4X4 Explorer Sprot-Trac -$ 1,500.00 Less Trade-in (1989 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 93319B) $22,684.00 Bid Price Cost: $22,000.00 Budget: $25,000.00 Recommendation: The Light & Power Department requests approval for this vehicle replacement. The Light & Power Department / Fleet Department recommends approval of the bid from Estes Park Auto Mall and requests approval to purchase a new Ford 4x4 Explorer Sport-Trac for a cost of $22,000.00 from Estes Park Auto Mall. DM 1-1 Project Update Olympus Dam - Small Hydro Project 8:00 A.M. - Thursday, April 11, 2002 Light and Power Committee Town of Estes Park 1. Introductions 2. Purpose of Meeting • Project Review and Update · Discuss Future Plans 3. Project Review 75-100 KW Unit Power delivered to Estes Park · Operation Transparent to USBR • Automatic Flow Bypass to River 4. Project Update · May 2001: Senior Designs Completed - CSU and CSM • May 2001: Preliminary Permit Application - Filed with FERC ~ July 2001: USBR Comments to FERC • August 2001- March 2002: Discussions with FERC and USBR • March 2002: Meeting with USBR 5. Future Plans • Meet with Other Agencies · USBR - Project Review • USBR - Lease of Power Agreement 6. Summary/Comments I 1 DP 1 \ if~ M>I IN31SAS Loadh99.xls 4/9/2002 0003 -0- - 0009L 000 AON 100 des 6nv Inr unr XeIN Jdv Je IN qe=1 uer LOOZ-0- 1001.'I'. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PURCHASE POWER-DEMAND 3-8, 39Vd 22000 - 20000 - --------- ···- 0 ..... 19000 <·---- 18000 ---,·-- ·· T ----- i-· - .- -- -- I ···- --- ---------- · 0002 L --- -------- ····--- ······ -- --- - --000910 21000 - ------ 000* L 12>42**RE*$$A**9***%8*&*$*$$99%®@RkkkE*kk,58$99**$*$99$* :. F·»*~3.4*r¢k?<k«4132*Mr,EM#*$$263,&44~~.*:·:..4,rm#$56& i i Lf**WARAW*WaY**by#lf·?Re? 1934*SE»*~ 1 1****8*&***%&*4*****S*$*8*%*$$*8*$* / t I i k#WABAWSBEAY**Sfdz$$$&*$***S$*§6*$$$$*SM$*$$$$***SF .1.i- I 1 1 LaNS**§8%**%8*%86**BR**%*2*%*§8*k/Mti. 0-14.- 9 1**%§*:§**33%88*8**8**3**k*&*33**k>§*%8* --*- 9 1*%8%*§6§8**S*6***S**8§**%8%8%8*SMS$$ 4 12«20*8*6%69$9%83%6*SMS**%$*%8**8*%8*$8*ERR*Rk: 1 - L~>.x**::*RekkEk*Ar:»*49*1*124**$*Sm#FS - --- - 1 1 1 - 4 1 Polka«:«a«%»%4»14~~at»»ttst*i«4 . --t- f1 I I ·«24<~.444*ki:%92<.8 -3$*i:..8:49AW&**:EmS:·':2·*k:.:.A .·.401*kk#::*Stit ---*-1-11 - h 35.9 - -1.51---2 )- I~Dit• 2.1 0.- Loadh99.xls 4/9/2002 0 2000 LOOZ 0 ZOOZ C] *, 'f' i'ft'I E-Elt 39¥d lilli, 11 f I$*444:%4:**9»*Rk:*«*tge®*sen**:Ar:E#~4WMENT.t»%:SEN 1 1 Ms#Kw*w#*&Rmssm*summwbmv~rfs««fwss#**55* f MMWAFHA&&$44*#JAVAPWS#*ir**U*Ratt~ 1 Ek*RNS*S#8**MS*%8***SMS*%8%:**%8$9* i · ~WARWAVAP#634*5*Wfkwu**RAAN##Ar 1 1%49249*99%44*9~ 1&*3$69*%8$$$99**$93**% 1 ra 2A.. - ' ··-~M-,~,CEW .. 1 1 "16 4 1 4*4843:43:42.5 ' it*%93§~ pese43·Ind HAAW alA ¤ 2000 02001 3003' LOOZ SA 011 ZOOZ ~ %*E f 100000 -· -- ·- , 60000 - · ·--- --- · ---· --- · 80000 ----- ··-····- - ------ ·····------- - - - 000017 - 00002 f-~··· 1 1 1 1 - E l , Z t O > 4% 1 . 1 tile 1 1 1 1 1 1 9% L CO 1 f I 1 .- 4. ... . +. . :1 1 0 0 % 8 40 O 0 O 0 2 CO ($) Sa-IVS A-IH.I.NOW SALEHIST.XLS 4/9/2002 , ~ 02000 LOOZOi --- _ = __ _ 000 069 Zooz m 080 AON 100 des * 60¥ inr " unt AeIN Jdv qe:1 uer - 000'009 ESTES PARK LI H T AND POWER DEPARTMENT ELECTRIC SALES BY 9-8 * 3 9Vd 900,000 --·······-·····-········- ·-···--···-·-·--·· ·· ·· ······-·························· · ··········-······· -too'00t' 000'00€ 1 /1 : 1 4] I b ...I i S 0% 5 1 1 ....4. 1 1 UJ r. 1 1 ..1 . : 1 i V 0 1 1 ($) 931VS 3140 01 hIV3* SALEHIST.XLS 4/9/2002 00010 LOOEr-1 alA ZOOE %22-3 4 ZOOZEZZO 105png-.-Uh . Dea AON lot) des Bnv Inf l.1[if U Xel/\1 Jd¥ JelAI qe=1 >uer - TO DATE ELECTRIC SA E · 8,000,000jr-= ·· m 7,886,243 7,000,000 - ···· 5,000,000 -' -- - 000'000'* 91* 39Vd -- -- - - -- -- - LOOE SA 000'000'£ - -········---- - 000'000'Z 000'000' L ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT 6,000,000 ---- - --- - --- -~ - -- ~ -- - - TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum April 8,2002 TO: Richard Matzke FROM: Laurie Button 48 SUBJECT: Streetlight Demonstration Voting To date we have received a total of 127 signed and 11 unsigned votes in the streetlight project campaign. Twenty of those ballots were submitted via the Internet web site. In hopes of reaching as many individuals as possible, articles have appeared in both the Estes Park News and the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, as well as in the Town Bugle. In addition, press releases have been sent to Channel 8, KEZZ, and other area newspapers and radio stations. We are also receiving a large number of comments and suggestions on the ballots. A complete list of those ideas will be included with the final report and vote tally. Ballots continue to be available at the reception desk and on the Town's web site at www.estesnet.com. While there is a ballot box at the reception desk, we have also received votes by mail, telephone and as noted earlier, via the Internet. Votes will be collected through Tuesday, April 30th. /lb 4-C A B C / [--4-10-1 /4. ard 0 Cab. REVISIONS Smith /2 t~.tr 1 i 43 Burgess Date APPROVED 30 Riser Marsden 3 E-=RS ZONE REV DESCRIFnON I 11 tri. 141 161 99, 21 Schaible 1 i , Town of Estes Park 6 sol. eu. l4 td. tri. M Z / 1 . Light and Power 1Salter 9 undg TS 1 ~ L /'6 dup. ~. 2. ~158. 2 tri. Depart ment Harrison 1 Pl 112@I 350 04 tri. 4 tri. 4 tri. \ 6 4317-Eli. vo 4 tri. 4 tri) 4 tri. \- /4 tri, 2 tri. 15 vo 1/0 str. c ~ trL 0| 326 | Thomas Johnson ni 2 tri. 4 tri. Heath Bowey E-1 Duncan 0~'-i=»ti-[=~ /7-1 Betts Crapp 67. 364 1344 L ,La.| 338 334 , tri. 1~1 i |~-1 . .-, 1\ ~ ~ 2 trt>. 2 trL 4 1_2*U rl.1£64 12 tri. 1 t /4 M - out 1&,JV A~ t'1€1. NP-1--' 2· Kelsch '1'2 tri. / 25 kia tri. / 222 1260 1 - -i'·- '|1/0 tri ~ 15-im-- '1/0 tri j ~ #1680 2 4 tri. T--1 Chobas 2 tri'i Wands 12572 / U al, 4 tri. 1 STREETS $ # Virginia Dr. ViI-~~initki·br. 4 trly 4 tri./~ 1\ nke 0%4 tri. 4 tri. C, 6 sol. cu. I 310 I 4 tri.| 1 Day 11 1 dom Goss .2 + MacGrego Ave. ~ . Virginia Drive 7/d ' m ~ Big Horn Drive 2 tri. 1.-22.1 Cottoges Rouens 4 tri.1 1 .4 trL 1--1 | ~~|'2| 321 4/4 trle Gbboris SL Ute ,d tri. Cleave Street ¢/(k /.50 kia A Spruce Drive EW 442075 Rouk 2 #L -_~~ tri Hoock 4 Gil Hitchings F-1 n Schultz Ue-/1 fri. |333| |250| . | 320 | ~ tri /i~ tri 2bri., 22~ East Elkhorn Houser /,~c*~4 tri Wonderview Avenue 6 sol. cu. \2 tri. 4 dupl West Elkhorn El |325 | 4 Dermody 347 |~~_ tri. 1 ./ St Lite Babion I 1329 1 I 3211-- 25 Ing '50 kva Shook 801 Virginia 1 3251 X.Al#1763 4 trth---- \ 4 tri„D=-~ M C 11 /0 trir-·-, 4 trL *// 010 Riser rill i r2 + r--1 Heroux ~220 ~ | 270 | 12 tri. -1*6#ard 4 tri./ 12 tri. 1 260 1 Smith Andrews ~ lau53-~tri. Goehrina 1 2361 Thomas Bortells | 250 | Mumnett tri.~ Andenson St. Lite Wagner Forbes Sensor, I 214 1 4 trl>, /4 tri. Miles 25 kvo 3 * rume €4 4[4@ .,7 6- u 13««v ~~~~~~own~~~CR Lita 4 trA - Weaklind El + Olj~zle:~~..~3=*J#10, - R ~42%.. w.p. p. . 1 b 1 230 :4 tri.1 1/0 trip, h pd 2251 Alpent# = 4 f-34-XE_k -BE •·B:23__~_ ~Myer,1 Nau t Jenkins Mike % % 1 4gl__.---O--~Ila~1 - 2 trij Grove ..2*Z- 2 tri. ~0 e>U 4 trt\ 68. w.p. 3w~~-1 r-rw < J- --/713%&l2w |225 1 130 120 6/0 tri. Mord/In 4»11-KIL lia. ~L~- .4->e 223 Sec. Riser | 221 I - v 6 801. cti: W h - m '53===- / \4 trL 4 11.,1 4 tri. ~tri 4 tri. u-* -- / 1 4 tri> 9.. L», // 1_-- - 9 1 2171 \ 4 trk·-« -4 tri. / #1159 623 - Ari.\ CO= 91 liu - I 211 I Berenson Johnson 4 tri. Meteney _il:~\ d Spr®e Dr \ [Gi[ f--1 Brown~ -- -, ~ Mn ~rk | 226 | 1 155 | . 143 . I 139 1 2 J.-W-1 ~~~ Barleen ~Belknop Buttler 125 Rose ..4 ./ St Lite 244 tri.Ed* triA tri. Ashby r-*tri. 1 tri. 4 trL ~ 133 ~ alrry /'' str. 30 1 6/0 tri , 4 n a 0. /4/0 4 m \ er•7 ny 221 + '~1 tri. Sallie n Ped '-~ed<er 4 tri/\ 1-1 1- 4 tri, 31&0:.8 1 6- . Allen L 0 - -- 'aA:*NE* 11* I 180 |44&~-~i.#/ *25 kva Flmhober 157 4 tri.1 0 0 Ramsey ; SEU~#2671 12201 I 135 I //=\1;.,9)Mt ,, Ford Risen \ 4 tri. Ql H,kin ~ L 1// l»»/ 111014 tri. / * ff -til 4%// 1 1 1Kosenka =1 y 1 Rou L_«Nfl#L,on K' Cl 2#t) kvo~:r _1»ED:. G.O.S. Beatty 0 . 160 4 tri.1 Big Horn Dr. #261~30-5:ZI:.-64<kid'5* acsr 4 W=vl tri St. Lite - 1- 175 ~ St Ute f Golloway~g!11 L- 2 tri.L•-12€*'d M'«0 'k*q><rn tri. I 150 I , »/ \0 .1 , %9 75 ki, 2 sol.t-'r quad\ 2 trIX r#lri. 4-@5~71 >-n 1207 20511 4 Bri dU~| 1* 11~75 __3:&« 2 tri.. 1 5 2 -EW.-1 3 2 tri \ \334/0 -d , 79(0 4 \ F Cleave St, 2 7/ 2 tri. 4 quad 2 trit 1 /0 w.• 1 \137- ~ kn MJ&,W] 18:~ta i:Ar \ i /1130/: k-4-7/-4 /~ tril #965 A + b trF -\ \J 976 tri. ~ ~ 143 1€18.-133~ 4/0 .tr. 30 u.g. 10, 108 109 1,7 121 125 120 US 1 ~ 141 - 157 165 167\ 25 kva 30 R';°i 53081 : tri ¤~ ~ ~tri 1/(771.tri L,6:, 2 tr ~10 Xmas Shop 30 Cab - 235 1 044 4/0 tri. U #2330 mi : Tregent P.* 4 tri. 2 str. 10 Restrooms ~Ak 253 ~51--\ i i SIZE FSCM NO. DWG NO. REV 1 125 ~ -<124ll28 9 - - 229 225 221217213 209 205 201 191 157 137 135 129 127 125 123 121119 117115 109 105 103 101 ''~ tri. ~m-1m1077071127~122/ 4/0 str. 30 u.g. 1 Ille Scale Sheet --------1 .. .- -1 L Colorado School of Mines COLORADO SCHOOL. OF MINES Golden, CO 80401-1887 GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401-1887 303/273-3000 April 19, 2001 Mr. William A. Emslie 2000 East Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-5721 Mr. Emslie: Please accept the attached document as Team Hydro's final design report for a hydropower plant to be located at the base of Olympus Dam in Estes Park, Colorado. As part of our deliverables for this project, this document outlines the team's research, design methodology, and final design specifications. The bid specifications are a separate document and are forthcoming. If there are any questions about this document, or if further information is required, please contact one of our team members. Sincerely, Team Hydro 3on Buctkowski /-1 Lr- .l_ Marco Leon /46=/grk Rebecca Magda 1-2.-- A._.A~_ William Parker be 0- - Luke Shawcross ec: Dr. G. Richard Smart FINAL REPORT ON SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT PROJECT AT OLYMPUS DAM, ESTES PARK, COLORADO SUBMITTED TO MR. BILL EMSLIE PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS, CO 80525-5721 A?*2'. Team Hydro PREPARED BY JON BUCZKOWSKI MARCO LEON REBECCA MAGDA WILL PARKER LUKE SHAWCROSS AT COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES 19 APRIL 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the summer of 2000, Dr. G. Richard Smart, a representative of Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), presented a hydropower project to Colorado School ofMines Senior Design teams. The project specifically called for a hydropower plant to be placed at the base of Olympus Dam in Estes Park, Colorado. This plant, in addition to providing power to the citizens of Estes Park, will be an educational facility and laboratory providing information on "green power." Team It,dro, consisting of students Jon Buczkowski, Marco Leon, Rebecca Magda, Will Parker, and Luke Shawcross, accepted the project in August of 2000. As a supplement to our bid specifications and as part of the deliverables to our client, PRPA, this document serves as a detailed summary of Team Hydro's completed research and design specifications for a hydropower plant in Estes Park, Colorado. Our research includes an evaluation of potential power output from the hydro based on hydraulic head and flow data for the outlet of the Olympus Dam structure. Our design specification includes specifications for a turbine/generator package, electrical system, and building enclosure. Finally, a cost estimate and preliminary economic analysis have been performed for these design specifications to determine the projects economic viability. To summarize the results of the design, 41*pqwer.:plant.will:predfide-64@kWIddhtinuausl»(after inefficiencies) *vith*econstant-410.~9:,tate:044(4#*,unning through the turbine. The initial capital cost is estimated at $217,472, or roughly $5,400 per kW. Though this project has a large initial cost and low power output, the benefits of building a hydropower plant at Olympus Dam make this plant a viable project. First of all, 40kW is not a significant amount of power. The power produced by the Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant would be "averaged out" by more cheaply produced power, so the overall cost to the consumer would be unaffected. Secondly, this plant will provide a clean source of energy. It avoids approximately 200 tons of coal consumption and emission of greenhouse gasses. The City of Estes Park would have a great public relations boost from touting the plant's operation as a clean power facility. Finally, our design allows for space for an educational facility that could be used to promote "green power." The Olympus Dam Hydropower project design could serve as a model for future small hydropower projects and educate students on the benefits of hydropower. Provided that PRPA can earn enough income from its operations to cover the fmancing and maintenance costs, this project's benefits outweigh its costs. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 List ofFigures and Tableq iii Introduction 1 Project Backgrounri 1 Qualifications 1 Benefits and Feasibility ofthe Project 7 Design Objectives 7 Requirements 7 Constraints ......... ··................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology 5 Selecting Turbine/Generator Package Type 5 Electrical Specificationg 8 Structure Design 12 Benefit-Cost Analysis 14 Appendix A - Lake Elevation Graph 17 Appendix B - Flow Release Graph ..18 Appendix C - Construction Drawingq ..19 Appendix D - Aesthetic View 70 Appendix F- Building Design Calculations 77 Appendix G - One Line Diagram.. 74 Appendix H - Cross-Flow Turbine 7 5 References ?6 Glossary 77 ii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: View o f Outlet o f Olympus Dam in Estes Park, Colorado Figure 2: Flow Diagram ofLake Estpq ...3 Figure 3: Dynamic Head and Power Curve vs Flow ..7 Figure 4: Stand Alone Generator... Figure 5: Building Layoi it 12 Table 1: Elevation and Flow. 3 Table 2: Summary of Initial Equipment, Labor, and Miscellaneous Cost Estimates ...............13 Table 3: Summary ofPayback for 10-30 Yearq 14 Table 4: Emission Offset for Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant .......................................15 iii INTRODUCTION <49% --~WI 1 ' 3 241*4·- I -· · ~ _1*,~~ Team Hydro, consisting of Jon Buczkowski, Marco Leon, Ir, - *' . rl,-1 411_t _-, | .- "=c'91 Rebecca Magda, Will Parker, and Luke Shaweross, has -.· - - 4.Jt- 1----- -»Ld produced a design specification for a small hydroelectric k. p power plant to be built on an outlet pipe on Olympus Dam, . -73.4-;7·4*%846* in Estes Park, Colorado, Fig. 1. This design specification ... -1 4 ~ t.· i#Jmn#"tq . 1--3--12;2:*MEM(32.ODWBMIC provides the project design, methodology, and cost summary. --- 4,97 *1*49#03-3=*t=g PROJECT BACKGROUND Fig. 1: View of Outlet of Olympus Dam in Olympus Dam in Estes Park, Colorado forms Lake Estes and Estes Park, Colorado is part of the Colorado-Big Thompson water diversion project. The City of Estes Park has long been interested in building a hydropower plant at the base of the dam using an existing outlet. Hence, the City of Estes Park presented Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) with the opportunity to go forward with this project. Later, the project was introduced to Colorado School of Mines Senior Design teams via Dr. G. Richard Smart representing PRPA. The plant is to provide a source of renewable energy for the community and be expandable into an educational facility for visitors, local schools, and universities. The small hydroelectric power plant was initially planned to supply at least 100 kW of power to the Estes Park community. j QUALIFICATIONS Team Hydro is made up of five Colorado School ofMines undergraduates: • Rebecca Magda is the team leader. She interned with Colorado Springs Utilities last summer and is currently working as a part time co-op for Utility Engineering. She is specializing in power engineering and is working on a degree in Engineering with an Electrical Specialty. She is focusing on the electrical equipment in the hydro. • Marco Leon is working on a bachelor's degree in Engineering with a Mechanical Specialty and an honors minor in Public Affairs. He is the team recorder and maintains the team notebook and binder. His major focus is helping with the structure design and location, as well as additional help with obtaining information on the equipment. • Jon Buczkowski is working on a bachelor's degree in Engineering with a Mechanical Specialty and a minor in Economics and Business. He is focusing on the flow and preliminary power data for the hydro. He also offers his expertise in Power Point for presentations, and is in charge ofmaintaining the team's timeline. • William Parker is working on a double major in Economics and Business and Engineering with an Electrical Specialty. His major focus for this project is the cost- benefit analysis. • Luke Shaweross is an Engineering major with Civil Specialty, specializing in structural design. His major focus is the hydro structure. 1 The team was guided by the expertise of: • Doug Sutton, P.E. • Dr. John A. Palmer, P.E. • Dr. P. K. Sen, P.E. • Dr. Karl Nelson, P.E. • Mr. John Cowdrey • Mr. Joe Leoni BENEFITS AND FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT Many small towns call use small hydropower to feed electricity to the community. PRPA, the Colorado School of Mines, or other public entities will be able to use what is learned from our design for other hydropower plants for other communities in the future. A forthcoming laboratory facility could demonstrate modern power equipment as well as the benefits of"green power." This opportunity could prove invaluable in their decisions for models, number of components desired for redundancy, and other aspects of the design process. They could also look at the overall design and output/cost data for possible additions of small hydropower plants in their own power system. DESIGN OBJECTIVES REQUIREMENTS The main objectives of this project are to estimate the power output, design a containment and ) security structure, specifj, all major equipment, design the facility layout, and estimate the cost. Our design will be presented to the client, PRPA, in the form of ' bid and construction specifications. This document includes our evaluation of options for the turbine/generator system. CONSTRAINTS Hydraulic Constraints. The major constraint of this project is the available head and flow to produce power. Possible power production is limited by the elevation of Estes Lake and the flow release to the Big Thompson River. The flows to and from Lake Estes play a crucial role in the design ofthe hydro power plant. Figure 2 on the next page shows a graphical reference. Water is fed to the lake via seasonal inflows, i.e. rain, snow melt, etc., and a 550 ft3/sec (cfs) inflow as a part ofthe Big Thompson Water Project. Water exits the lake into the Big Thompson River and into an underground canal, which feeds two hydro plants and then continues to Horsetooth and Carter Reservoirs. In order to successfully size the equipment, the lake elevation and the outlet flow was analyzed. With this data, the potential power output was calculated. Daily average elevation data for the reservoir from the period of December 1995 to September 2000 [11] was collected. From these daily averages, monthly averages were calculated. Appendix A displays this information. The lake elevation has been relatively constant over the past 5 years, only fluctuating about 2 feet. A constant lake elevation was assumed in the hydraulic analysis of 7471.4 feet. 2 Seasonal Inflows 550 cfs . - Dam Spillway F4 Hydro Design Criteria: F3 Hydro --550 cfs to two 18" Fl min = 25 cfs Power Plants & V F2 Power Plant Fl max = 60 cfs Horse Tooth & Caller Reservoir Fl via canal Capacity: 60 cfs Fr = Fl+F2+F3 Big Fr must meet a minimum Thompson flow set monthly by the River Loveland/Fort Collins Water Scheduling Office Fig. 2 Flow Diagram of Lake Estes Daily average flow data was obtained from a point just below the dam outlet. This data spans from the period February 1991 to October 2000 [12]. Monthly averages were calculated and in some cases, bi-monthly averages. For four months out of the year, the release is around 20 cfs. Appendix B displays this information in a graph. Both the elevation and flow release numbers can be seen in Table 1. Flow rate Ave Lake Flow rate Ave Lake Month (cfs) Elevation Month (cfs) Elevation Jan 1-15 21.71 7471.86 June 214.97 7471.73 Jan 16-31 21.34 7471.87 July 235.17 7471.98 Feb 1-15 19.51 7471.89 Aug 123.02 7472.28 Feb 16-28 19.73 7471.31 Sept 73.58 7471.81 March 1-15 22.07 7470.74 Oct 55.26 7469.94 March 16-31 24.56 7471.17 Nov 1-15 30.16 7470.97 April 1-15 32.46 7471.61 Nov 16-30 27.83 7471.18 April 16-30 49.98 7471.66 Dec 1-15 28.08 7471.40 41 May 137.61 7471.72 Dec 15-31 24.34 7471.63 Table 1: Elevation and Flow 3 · t Turbine Constraints The velocity in the turbine must be below 12 ft/s. Environmental Constraints. The water in the river must maintain a certain flow to sustain the fish. Water can enter the Big Thompson River via radial gates and two 18-inch diameter pipes. The hydropower plant would connect to one of these pipes 91 in the flow diagram). This outflow should be enough to s®port the fish life. When minimum flow conditions exist, partial flow through Fl may need to be diverted to F2 to allow fish to swim through the dam to the Big Thompson River unharmed. The flow that Fl can support is critical. It was designed for 60 cfs. Structural Constraints. In turn, the size and type of power system will dictate the size of the containment structure. However, its size will ultimately be constrained by the available area at the base of Olympus Dam. Please see Appendix C, Drawing S 1 for a plan view of this space. The major constraint on the structure location is the retaining wall that separates the river from the embankment. The wall must not be displaced by the weight of the structure. The most important constraint placed on the design of the structure is that, when built, it will not damage the existing works of the dam in any way. This is the case because it minimizes any conflict of interest with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), since Olympus Dam is under their jurisdiction. In order to accomplish this, the methodology taken during the structure design was to not alter the works of the dam unless absolutely necessary. The rest of the constraints on the design of the structure fall into three categories: Location, codes, and aesthetics. These constraints, and the way these constraints were managed in the design, are described below. Location Three things restrict the physical location ofthe structure at the dam site: The rocks that support the dam, the concrete dam itself, and the spillway retaining wall. The location of the structure with respect to these restraints can be seen in Appendix C, Drawing Sl. Note that in the concrete portion of the dam, there is a door that is located near the 18" pipe that our plant will use. This door is an entrance to the foundation gallery of the dam and only requires space for one person to enter at a time. Since the structure is to be located 30 feet from this wall, the door will have ample room for access. Constructing a building next to existing structures can pose structural integrity issues. So, in addition to space limitations, the concrete dam and the spillway-training wall also had to be analyzed to insure their security. The hydro structure design is relatively small compared to the concrete dam, so an assumption was made that the structure it will not alter or damage the concrete dam in any way. However, the integrity of the spillway-retaining wall is not made by assumption. Instead, the wall was structurally analyzed. It is shown in Appendix F that even if the hydro structure were placed immediately adjacent to the wall, the wall would have plenty of strength to hold it. Codes: According to Mike Mangelsen of the City of Estes Light and Power, the hydro structure is to be located in an area where Larimer County officials would need to inspect it. Chuck Harris, an inspector for Larimer County, said that they use the 1997 Uniform Building Code with no amendments. Therefore, the 97 UBC was used to design the hydro structure. 4 Aesthetics: The aesthetic constraint on the design of the structure was simply that the structure be made to blend in with the existing works of the dam and other park buildings in the area. _ Cinderblocks were chosen for the walls of the structure and will look good against the rocky backdrop of the dam The roof of the structure will have green asphalt shingles in order to match other buildings in the area. For an aesthetic rendering of what the structure will look like, see Appendix D. Bypass System. In order to divert the flow away from the hydro in the case of shutdown, a bypass system must be included in the design. METHODOLOGY To accomplish Team Hydro's proposed design specifications, we divided the project into unique subsystems. The following outlines what we have done to complete this project. SELECTING TURBINE/GENERATOR PACKAGE TYPE Team Hydro 's first task was to specify the type of machinery for use in the Olympus Dam hydro plant. Determination of the type of turbine was crucial to the design since the resulting power generation and economic implications are immense. Turbine selection was based on many factors. As stated above and in the constraints, a relatively small dynamic head and varying flow limited the possibilities. Theoretical Options. The preliminary design work yielded four major options for the turbine J specific to Olympus Dam. . Cross-Flow: This impulse type turbine seems to be a viable option for Olympus Dam. Cross- flow turbines have a large application range with respect to flow capacity, are simply installed, require low maintenance, and are robust. They run in the 80% efficiency range. The cross-flow turbine is also self-cleaning, which makes it very attractive for our raw water application. Another benefit of the cross-flow turbine is it's low run-away speed. This is particularly important for asynchronous power stations, which is what Team Hydro is proposing to use for Olympus Dam. Efficiency, due to the varying flows over the year, and economic feasibility are the main concerns for the cross-flow turbine option. A cross-flow system also has the drawback of requiring a fair amount of space. Kaplan: The Kaplan reaction type turbine is a variable pitch propeller. Allowing the blades to swivel about their axis to match head or flow rate improves efficiency. Kaplan turbines can be up to 90% efficient and are best suited for low head, high flow applications. The Kaplan turbine would require less space, which is critical, since we are constrained by the area we have to house the power plant. The main drawback to a Kaplan turbine is its complexity and cost. 5 Propeller Turbine: The available flow and head at Olympus Dam also put us in the propeller turbine range. However, for varying flows, their efficiency is not up to par. It is also unclear if propeller power systems are commercially available. Staged Pumps in Parallel: Team Hydro's fourth option, suggested by John Cowdrey from the City of Boulder Water System Division, is very intriguing. Since a turbine is basically a pump in reverse, Team Hydro could design a system utilizing two off-the-shelf pumps to run as turbines. A pump could be designed to run in reverse at 20 cfs, producing three-phase power year round. In addition, when minimum releases dictated flows above 20 cfs, a second pump run in reverse could produce additional power. Ideally, the second turbine, run in parallel, would run at 13 efs (to produce maximum power) and could be followed by a backpressure valve to regulate flow. This system of turbines would be ideal for the varying flows at Olympus Darn, making it very efficient (up to 90%) with desirable load factors. This design would be much cheaper than the other systems but would require more design work on Team Hydro's part since it wouldn't be a package deal. We would have to consider the needed valves and controls. Commercially Available Options. Quite a bit of time went into discovering the commercially, available options for the Olympus Dam hydro. Gathering information was a slow process. Most manufacturers were hard to contact and get responses from. The trick was getting in touch with the right people. In addition, a letter from our client, PRPA, detailing the viability of the project, significantly helped in obtaining replies. Manufacturers were found through research on the web, Hydro Review magazine, and the Thomas Register. We received information from many companies all over the world. They were: Mavel Group (Slovenia), Ossberger Turbines (-US/Germany), Canyon Industries (US), Wasserkraft Volk AG (Germany), Alstom Power (US),and GE Hydro (US). Under a recommendation from John Cowdrey from the City of Boulder Water System Division, Cornell Pumps was contacted with respect to the staged pumps in parallel option. However, after continued contacts with various employees and engineers, no headway was made. Therefore, lack of information and time constraints made this option not feasible. After analyzing the alternatives, the most viable options were Hydropower Turbine Systems, Inc., a vendor of Ossberger turbine equipment, and Cahyon Industries, Inc. The other manufacturers were less favorable since they were either from out of the United States or do not make small enough systems. Team Hydro received revised bids from both manufacturers. ' Hydropower Turbine Systems, Inc. HTS was very timely and professional in their response to our requests. • 20cfs year round • cross flow better, explain • 49 kW • bypass and trash gates • generator 6 • efficiency • cost Canyon Industries. Inc. Canyon offered a bid as well. Unlike HTS, it was a long and drawn out process. • one bid for variable flows and one @ 20 efs year round • efficiency • cost • generator Bid Evaluation. Based on many factors including power production, price, efficiency, and response time Team Hydro chooses to recommend HTS Inc. This decision was made by evaluating both options with a point system. Calculating Power. The power, before equipment efficiency loss, was calculated by evaluating the turbine head vs. flow rate. The turbine head was calculated by subtracting the major and minor head losses from the static head. The static head is the head from the lake elevation to the tailrace exit elevation. Head losses due to pipe bends, valves, and friction were accounted for. The graph below shows. the dynamic heads and the power output as a,function.of the flowy Net Head and Power vs Flow rate 9:*:*G.. hc j# -Pr·it:j: <yui~k~:P.*pf:0%,; i~~r~~~~~;.4~ .i *~'i~. s:, :-,~ ~~ 'I 7 ~ ·C ·>- '~ i.-4-1 ~p-'- 80 *63;-99.2-2.. a ·· 6 ·,· b ... U J :.7..« 4·· , · ·· '· ' 1 D., D .' - .1 70 1?337*PA - .el f.....4,1.- :2 9:·24 6<-492' 3 3.'St#?· S rk?- 6.'~ ti:*m ·l-:. f 99€. ;-I H*-t.Yete '*.3 60 d- ~- /> ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ , 50 - · E 4 -)it id li i;.-: - Power (k\AO ~ .:··, '.-·-·~"4% 45*6# #048*i·t?-6~j.22-4,70;i·k''ll:,2-jliti#L-=it Jo- . ' 40 ~- - i*264:24*~~.r~*.=-.~*441>t-:44,:·~~444*.T - Net Head (ft) liguf-7,*#9*F~~:famrk**71- -;it.·-4:.~-~~·...ifti·-/·. -42*fi.4 (, 20 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 lilli 0 6 41/ 40 q>t 00 ny) A + 0 03 Flow rate (cfs) Fig. 3: Dynamic Head and Power Curve vs. Flow 7 Power (kW) or Head (ft) j The maximum power of 78 kW is obtained around 35 cfs. The plant could only operate at this point· less than halfthe year due to flow restrictions. The flow would then be reduced to the minimum 20 cfs. This is a drastic reduction in flow, Anddhereforerwouldthaveanajortdossesy:due,ito.:.efISiency. In addition, the pipe would need to be expanded to keep the#*lotily;below.:12·** This expansion would mildkmo*46-ssestand reduce power even more. We designed to,operateat.20.cfsiwi*<an:outputiof63kW:*At this flow the velocity in the pipe.does noti *28&1£12*£.At 20 efs the plant could operate year round. The power output throughout the year is the same as that of the 35 efs system because the losses average to the 20 efs output. The 63 kW output is before turbine and generator efficiencies. Tailrace Design. The tailrace was designed with construction costs and power in mind. The water from the hydro would be released into a 10 by 10 foot sump, located underneath the hydro plant. The water level would not exceed 5 feet as a safety measure, so that if a person falls into thepoot heor she would not be submerged. Ladders would also be necessary to provide means of exit. The water then flows through an open channel into the spillway. It would exit above the spillway water elevation, so this does not affect the hydraulics of the hydro. In addition, a cover or grate will need to cover the opening to the spillway to prevent entry to the tailrace. A gate may also need to be installed to prevent flooding of the plant if the river rises past the exit. The open channel is designed for 60 efs capacity, which is the capacity ofthe penstock. Bypass Design. The bypass is located 30 feet before the hydro. This is activated when the power is shut of£ The bypass is designed to carry the 20 cfs, which the hydro is supposed to carry. This will run into the sun]p and then into the spillway. ELECrRICAL SPECIFICATIONS The one-line diagram in Appendix G shows the basic electrical components required in the system All components will conform to NEC, IEEE, NEMA, and PRPA standards. Induction Generator. An induction generator was 4 - 0 0 cost relative to a synchronous 0 chosen for its ease in use and connection, as well as its low rootor. An induction generator can be used as a 0 stand-alone unit, operating of the grid with a capacitor bank connected to provide reactive C C power, see Fig. 3. This 2 11 9 required by the generator to reactive power provides the magnetization current start. A magnetization curve Fig. 4: Stand Alone Generator is used with the capacitor's load line in order to 8 determine where their optimal operating area is. [1] Part of the package provided by HTS, Inc. will be a three-phase induction generator, operating with six poles at 1200 rpm and 480 V. It will be NEMA class F. Grounding Bank. IEEE standard 142-1982 requires that a system be effectively grounded in a way such that the positive sequence reactance is greater than the zero sequence resistance, and the zero sequence reactance is less than or equal to three times the positive sequence reactance. [2] This is to ensure safety for the equipment and persons in the area. A ground-fault relay is attached to the system to that ensure the breakers trip in the case of a line to ground fault. One of the challenges to grounding at this location is the quality of the soil The soil's moisture content is rather high due to the river, resulting in low resistivity in the soil This is good for quickly dispersing any fault current. However, soil temperature also plays a part in the soil's resistivity. The colder the soil, the higher the resistivity is. This can cause problems at this location, as it is in the mountains and, because of the moisture content, will me more subject to freezing. This will require a grounding rod to be located below the frost line. The soil type will also play a part, as different soils have different resistivities. [3.1 If the soil is tested to be of high resistance, it can be treated with a salt to lower its resistivity. However, due to the environmental concerns of this location and the cost of treatment, this may not be an option. The best solution is to drive grounding network deep into the ground. It will be necessary to regularly test these rods for resistivity. [3] The electrical equipment will not be the only grounding necessary. All the pipes, the fence, the building, and all the equipment will need to be grounded as well. These groundings will adhere to NEC codes. Power Factor Correction. PRPA and the City of Estes Park Light and Power require that the power factor be corrected to 0.95 lagging. This will be done with a capacitor bank provided by PRPA. Relay System. PRPA has requested that a Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, SEL, relay be used to meet the protection requirements. These relays are multifunctional. As a low-cost alternative to a distribution and line protection relay, a motor protection relay can be used. The terminals on the current and potential transformers are reversed for this to work. As it stands, the relay chosen will have the following requirements and relay capabilities: • 51G - Residual ground time overcurrent relay. • 51 - Phase overcurrent relay • 27 - Undervoltage trip relay, V 5 80%, trip time 5 0.5 seconds • 59 - Overvoltage trip relay, Vk 115%, trip time 5 0.1 seconds • 81U - Underfrequency trip relay, F 5 57 Hz, trip time 5 0.5 seconds • 81O - Overfrequency trip relay, F k 63 Hz, trip time 5 0.5 seconds • 47 - Phase-sequence or phase-balance voltage trip relay 9 It is recommended to PRPA that the SEL 351 distribution protection relay or the SEL 701 motor protection relay be considered for the system protection. The SEL 351 does not include the phase-sequence or phase-balance voltage trip function, and the SEL 701 does not offer either overcurrent relays. However, the SEL 701 does offer the standard function 50 phase overcurrent and the 50N neutral and ground overcurrent functions. These can be used as alternatives to the 51 and 51G. To provide this relay with the necessary current, voltage, and frequency information to perform, a current transformer and three voltage transformers will be necessary. These are included as part of the panel assembly for the HTS, Inc. package. An autotransformer and contactor assembly will provide one means to disconnect the generator from the system, sending power directly to ground. The other will be a molded case breaker. [2] Telemetry. PRPA will provide the telemetry. A space is provided for the cabinet. This will most likely be a simple modem with the current Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system used by PRPA. Breakers. It is necessary to have fuses and breakers throughout this system for emergencies. The main breakers will be molded case breakers to the 480 V bus and a molded case breaker for the station service. Molded case breakers are more reliable and more protected from the elements. They will help provide better protection at a lower price than a switch and fuse. 480V Bus. Due to the current and close vicinity of the equipment, the bus can simple be cables +~ in cable trays. Station Service. The lighting in the powerhouse will be eight sets of two 40W fluorescent lights. Strobing may be a factor with the turning equipment. However, HTS, Inc. does not feel this will be an issue with the equipment turning at a multiple of 60Hz. Other power required from the station will include approximately 40W from an outdoor incandescent light, a wall heater at 1500W, and eight receptacles at 180VA each. This totals about 3620W. To meet NEC code requirements, the transformer needs to be 25% above the load. Calculating the full load current, the breaker panel needs to be able to handle approximately 18A. Thus, a 5kVA transformer and 20A breaker panel should suffice in the form ofa mini-power center for space and ease of installation. To provide power to the station, a dry-type single-phase 480V to 120/240 volt transformer will be used. It is recommended that a Cutler-Hammer mini-power center be used. This unit includes a main breaker, a single-phase dry-type transformer, and a secondary distribution loadcenter with main breaker. Main Transformer. A pad mounted, three-phase, 75kVA, dry-type transformer will be used to step-up the 480V power generated by the turbine-generator system to the 12.47kV required by the utility system. This transformer will be connected in grounded-wye to grounded-wye as required by PRPA. This connection is most commonly used by utilities as it minimizes ferroresonance. It will be self-cooling. [5] 10 j A dry-type transformer was chosen because of the location and the capacity of the transformer. Though more expensive and larger physically than an oil-type transformer, it has the advantage of requiring lower maintenance, being environmentally friendly, and having the ability to be placed indoors. It is very common for this capacity power plant and can be used in many different environments. By treating the windings, the high humidity in the station can have little effect. [5] It is recommended to PRPA to use the ABB transformer offered from MeRae & Associates. This unit is NEMA 311, which will protect from any water falling on it. Line of Demarcation. The Line of Demarcation has been set at the taps on the secondary side ofthe transformer. Tests. There are many required tests for this system that will have to be requested from the manufacturers of the equipment. The generator and turbine are required to have routine tests provided. Performance tests and design tests, such as impulse tests, heat-run tests, and noise tests, can be provided to PRPA by request and at a price, as will any other tests they request. [6] IEEE Std 112-1996 covers the standard test procedures for a three-phase induction generator. The relays will have to be tested and verified by SEL and PRPA before acceptance. This is to ensure that the relay will perform as needed and make sure that the unit will not generate power if the utility has an outage. IEEE requires several tests for the transformer (IEEE Std. (57.12.90/(57.12.91). These include the following: [5] • resistance measurements • polarity and phase-relation tests • ratio tests • no-load losses and excitation current (open circuit test) load losses and impedance voltage (short circuit test) • zero sequence impedance • dielectric tests • switching impulse waves • lighting impulse test • low-frequency tests • applied voltage tests • partial discharge measurement • insulation power-factor tests • insulation resistance tests • temperature rise tests • audible sound emissions It will also be necessary to test the soil's resistivity to determine the size and type of grounding grid needed. There are many types of tests and testing equipment used to determine the 11 resistivity. The three most common are the four-point method (also the most accurate), variation-in-depth method (a.k. a. three-point method), and the two-point method.[3-1 STRUCTURE DESIGN The Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant will need a structure to house and protect its equipment, as well as to provide space for the future addition of a lab. This section will describe the design of this structure and how the structure was designed to ft structural constraints. The structure design is described completely in the construction drawings in Appendix C. Additionally, design calculations are in Appendix F and structural assumptions are included in Appendix E. Details of the design are described in this section and are broken up into the categories oflayout, substructure, and superstructure. Layout. The structure was designed to give plenty ofroom for the hydro equipment (mechanical and electrical), as well as room for the future addition of an educational laboratory. See Figure 5 for layout ofthe building including a block diagram of equipment placement. 8-B) ~~ Lab Areg 1 1 5 1 - Transformer Turbine/Generator ~ 3 2- Control Panels Ir'hdow 13' L 3 - Battery Bank 4 - Copacitor - 5 - Floor Grate for: Penstock 18" DIa Sump viewing, emergency dr<]Inage, sump access aype=/ 1450 Byposs 6 - 150OW Heater plri-i 1 2 A~ BJ Fig. 5: Building Layout Substructure. The substructure is the most complicated portion oi the structure. lt includes not only the footings and the floor that support the main structure, but also a sump pool that handles discharge from the mechanical equipment. The sump pool is drained by a pipe that will, in turn drain into the existing spillway. This draih will go through the existing spillway wall and is the only features of the hydro plant that will alter any part of the existing dam works. The spillway wall, however, is thick enough that boring holes for these pipes should not be a problem. Also incorporated in the substructure are drains to provide for potential flooding. The entire substructure is made of concrete and dimensioned according to the 97 UBC. See Appendix C, Drawing S2 for details on the substructure. 12 2*spi:iss.:. *8*8*:i:it R%%:6:%%;:8:4 SS<*%*:24::tz Superstructure. The walls of the structure will be made of cinder block. Cinder blocks are simple, cheap, durable, aesthetically pleasing, and easy to construct. The roof will utilize wood frame construction: The roof will be sheathed with green asphalt shingles in order to match park buildings in the area. Also, sunroofs were added to the roof design in order to take advantage of free lighting and heating from the sun. 13 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Methodology. Team Hydro's design of the Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant was focused on two goals. The first goal was to design a system that maximized power output with the available hydraulic head and flow rates. The second goal was to produce a design that would nlinimize initial cost. With these goals in mind, we produced a design that produced the economic analysis in this section. Cost Estimates. The following Table 1 is the cost estimate for the Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant. This estimate assumes that Platte River Power Authority will accept the selection of the Ossberger turbine/generator to be acquired from Hydropower Turbine Systems, Inc. All other equipment, materials, and labor will be separately bid. Major equipment cost estimates were acquired primarily through contacts with vendors. RS Means 2001 was used to price the construction of the- sump. It is assumed that PRPA uses estimates of $60 per square foot for building construction, $3 per foot of electrical cable, and $20,000 for a SCADA system. Labor estimates are also assumed to be PRPA standard. Equipment Cost Comments Turbine/Generator/Switchgear/ Pipe/Flow Actuator $ 70,000 Ossberger Turbines Package via HTS, Inc. Bypass System $ 10,000 HTS, Inc. Building $ 27,000 450 sq. ft. @ $60/sq. ft. Sump Construction Sump Concrete $ 966 13.6 cubic yd. @ $71/cubic yd. Hole Digging $ 3,333 Sump digging - 55.6 cubic yi @ $60/cubic yd. Drilling $ 3,102 30" hole in retaining wall Fence $ 461 41 linear ft. (@ $11.25/linear ft. Grate/Gate $ 500 Grate for sump Transformer $ 9,870 50kVA dry type Cable $ 4,500 1,500 ft. @ $3/ft. SCADA $ 20,000 PRPA Total Equipment $149,732 Labor Turbine Installation $ 4,000 HDR 2 millwrights, 4 days @ $1,000/day Engineering Design/Review $ 10,000 CSM Senior Design Proiect/ PE Review Commissioning $ 5,280 Engineer on site Project Management $ 22,460 15% of equipment costs Total Labor $ 37,740 Contingency $ 15,000 Other FERC License $ 15,000 Total Project $217,472 Table 2: Summary of Initial Equipment, Labor, and Miscellaneous Cost Estimates [91 14 Economic Evaluation. With these cost estimates, the projected total initial cost of a hydropower plant at Olympus Dam is $217,472. The key assumptions for this project are that: • The plant will produce a flat 40kW year round, without any further emciency losses • $4,000 allocated yearly (increasing yearly with inflation) for operation and maintenance ofthe plant, and no major equipment failure for the life ofthe project - • Inflation is 2% per year for operation and maintenance costs • A 5.5% interest charge will be assessed on initial debt on the plant • The markup on the power produced from this plant is 3 mills/kWh Olvmpus Dam Hvdro Summarv 10 vear 15 vear 20 war 25 vear 30 year Key Assumptions: Total Installed Cost $ 217,472 $ 217,472 $ 217,472 $ 217,472 $ 217,472 Unit Size *W) 40 40 40 40 40 Capacity Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Annual kW-hr Generated 350,400 350,400 350,400 350,400 350,400 Lifetime kW-hr 3,504,000 5.256,000 7,008,000 8,760.000 10,512,000 Interest Rate (percent) 5.5% 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Term (years) 10 15 20 25 30 Inflation Rate (percent) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Resale Markup (mills/kW-hr) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Analysis Summary Debt Service (Annual) $ 28,851 $ 21,666 $ 18,198 $ 16,212 $ 14,963 Debt Service/kW-year $ 721 $ 542 $ 455 $ 405 $ 374 Operating Costs (first year) $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Total Costs (first year) $ 32,851 $ 25,666 $ 22,198 $ 20,212 $ 18,963 Debt Service (lifetime) $ 288,515 $ 324,986 $ 363,958 $ 405,309 $ 448,897 Capital Cost/kW-hr (lifetime) $ 0.082 $ 0.062 $ 0.052 $ 0.046 $ 0.043 Operating Costs (lifetime) $ 43,799 $ 68,869 $ 94,642 $121,139 $ 148,384 Operating Costs/kW-hr (lifetime) $ 0.012 $ 0.013 $ 0.014 $ 0.014 $ 0.014 Total Costs (lifetime) $ 332„314 $ 393,855 $ 458,600 $ 526,448 S 597,280 Total Costs/kW-hr (lifetime) $ 0.095 $ 0.075 $ 0.065 $ 0.060 $ 0.057 Capital Cost per KW $ 5,437 $ 5,437 $ 5,437 $ 5,437 $ ' 5,437 Total Costs per kW-hr ($ first year) $ 0.094 $ 0.073 $ 0.063 $ 0.058 $ 0.054 Revenue (expected) Mark-up ($/kW-hr) $ 0.003 $ 0.003 $ 0.003 $ 0.003 $ 0.003 Revenue Rate (costs + markup) $ 0.097 $ 0.076 $ 0.066 $ 0.061 $ 0.057 Total Revenue $ 342,826 $ 409,623 $ 479,624 $ 552,728 $ 628,816 Annual Profit $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Total Profit $ 10,512 $ 15,768 $ 21,024 $ 26,280 $ 31,536 PV ofprofit $ 7,924 $ 10,552 $ 12,562 $ 14,101 $ 15,278 ' Table 3: Summary of Payback for 10-30 Years 19] 15 With these assumptions, and with the initial capital cost, PRPA will need to charge its customers $0.057/kWh (30 year financing) to $0.097/1<Wh (10 year financing) in order to pay for financing costs and obtain $1,051 in yearly revenue (with the 3.0 mills/kW-hr). The installed capital cost of this project is roughly $5,400 per kW. Further results are included in Table 3. Emission Offsets. Based on PRPA statistics on coal consumption and emissions, and assuming that the plant will produce a constant 40kW, building the hydropower at Olympus Dam will save roughly 200 tons of coal per year. In addition, the plant will avoid the pollutants listed in Table 3. Of particular note is the figure of 400 tons of CO2 emissions avoided per year from this plant's operation. 11,/MWh MWh Avoided lb/yr SOW 0.87 350.40 304.15 NOX 3.53 350.40 1,236.91 £02 2,274.00 350.40 796.809.60 CO 0.07 350.40 25.23 Particulate 0.13 350.40 45.55 Table 4: Emission Offset for Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant [10] Conclusions From Economic Analysis. Although this project has a large initial capital cost and low power output, there are many other benefits to the project. First of all, 40kW is not a significant amount of power. The power produced by the Olympus Dam Hydropower Plant would be "averaged out" by more cheaply produced power, so the overall cost to the consumer would be unaffected. Secondly, this plant will provide a clean source of energy. It avoids a significant amount of coal consumption and emission of greenhouse gasses. The City of Estes Park would have a great public relations boost from touting the plant's operation as a clean power facility. Finally, our design allows for space for an educational facility that could be used to promote "green power." The Olympus Dam Hydropower project design could serve as a model for future small hydropower projects and educate students on the benefits of hydropower. Provided that PRPA can earn enough income from its operations to cover the financing and maintenance costs, this project's benefits outweigh its costs. 16 APPENDIX A - LAKE ELEVATION GRAPH 4 46- 9, 17 2.-1 . 1. - 13 id . 6.*'W--/ i.-ken*7. O f ·, f-o :.z ~ /f~~>i.=. ~ ~if···01:'~ ~. : : *:.: 90 0% 83.%14/.. .·- .·:':65 - C) 0 377 0 40 (U) uo!WAela 17 Average Month! 1 n from Dec. 95 to Sept. 00 source:http://www- govihtbin/arc050-form.com?OLYDAMCO + 64 Month 7474 , 7472 7470 7468 7466 7464 Z9*Z 0917Z APPENDIX B - FLOW RELEASE GRAPH 1:·.4£024'?~C.- ·-i·~AO'fgh7075.-· ·5'-~'~- 4/~0 , J '91 lt, 7/ 13*NE.Z.Fl.E;.1/:......1 ) -3,4--ff-79·?24044~~ 299.. 4 t t~ it·:-::,i.:.*LM:Ift*4-/&<c.-/.:-ME #ki· ~ ./. 4 £ 42 ~ ~ ~ '9%, t-.if':134 '9'(H...~~ : '.: ··2.-6339. 1 :· 1!1 ~- ........1/9.. f :,L'}r jj,i-i...: ,- . 90 4 6% 0 2r. ¥%, t %, 46, Coes/£ vu) ew.1 AAOI:1 18 Average Flow Release vs Time from Feb. 91-Oct. 00 source: http:#www.gp.usbr.gov/hydromet_arcread.htm 250.00 225.00 - 4WoIAI 200.00 - 150.00 - 00.00 L - 0091 -00.09 125.00 - 175.00 - - 00.91 -00.0 ZZ-- i A >,CD OC R .E -81 n 0-0 git !tJ 8 r - E L CD R R \\ 0 r - --M 0 g 0 05 0 tr) D / :d 1 It- 1 1 C gR C O 5o 0 d - : -- fi r I m -3- b Z &EE zo.0(00- lilli .- CNI PO * 10 0 - am 2 9//////////////////////////////79907 Bu!16!x3 ADMH!ds 6£+L 13 LUO)}Oq '@ 0,} 2 4-,0 of uollopunoj - g, aAM . 91/8 1 0!1~,n;~8 )1001su@ r I .511 - AD'41!ds Ounspx Concrete ~gledid'~lolsued - D!.0 .N/9' 37 )10% D a rn 1 49 83 - 4 1 = l*J g ~ 1 41 18 8,1 (1) (11) :C \ 1 b IL 0 01 3 3 L 8 09 0 7 - l 4 -'_1 E.1 4- 0 0 c 112 c 00 if i 0 0- n \ a- c -1 9 d 4 1 - - i:.19 . 1 l-0 4 lit] i 44 D .f f . 4&-i 11 \W z / - - 1, \1:1-0 11 J 0 7 2 :- 3 £ f g %-1 4 0 1 C 10 'I /8 fig : b 101\N 1 0 0 0 li f#li Y ~ C i It O E: 3/ /8& e N §: 1\ 1 2 0 0 - E'§ 8:8° f /55 02 I : 3 8 8 ® AE 3 a:8 5%'23 P #02 12 *i ?3.- LI 1 >3 &1 # & a m m : Et Y i & 0 %: 0 humemb. 81:2 °f *1 3ig: 1/ lilli 1 5 2.5 I 3* 1 2; §&-8 9 I j | '1 II --19.10 I /7 A (D dfi 7 -1:. rn 42 f:,2 { f JOI 0 1 Q d b < 1: 1/1 c l/) C 4-0 0= 0 = m:/: 1 0 - E I" 1 0 11 2;v ; E a> q) a) h Dsl 4 0 e 0 0- t b m lf) i tj- -1* 4-0 r--i_ c3 k Ht i 2 - v i 3 1 ~\ 41/1 1 01 1 r. :8 1 L 3 Uotioe *, 01035 1 100' 4)nos uo Gl~Un /00-J centered vertlcolly Plc axs::: 6-E g 1 1 IR~ 1 - . w . 5 i i = 1 A W fl. ~ ~ %fi 8 11 2 1.- 1....- 11 2 - 23 ..7 -,7 i ! F i Ii" 4 'll - 4? - 1-ji'. N r;:° 0 ~ 6 :1 iF: :1 J i IE~, 311*11#f=t;ji:il i= fl 1 'd-0. i M m i '41 1 2 rifijif i p $&/:ifittiW! ifia#ijij#Zilib#Hij'yi[ 11 i 1 !11 11!1 6 141 ! 04 1 12&1 1 1, -111.11 141!i!!!11;lit lilili:zilt;,1!kiliD!03 - B /it.8-/, f,bk 5,,6 i./..55/8-•I,-1 ./IM=..18-w.. ..r<.OWN -,1.1 EC = 07 Sid *2/6 2 5 1. :d :d ... I d I E I 1/11 1 k D~11 --10 --- 34,mli 6 31_i 8 1 f! 5 -1- 6 I i f & I D ji//- 1 - i- 1 1 9 2 .i / - 01; 2-l 20;.B i i u i ]4 4/ .li i 1 1. 8 ;7 i B $3 1 1 311 §. d 1 5,- iff %3 4 k t 6111 h' 1 M- Li: 3 751€3*lia - 11/11 1 I. 2 52:11,3.flig :pliliri':SE h , . A• 10* tabuloted by thi UeC I To W, ,tructur, - pet 0 -W block I c<»7,1, U,re ~r, of „ bul-g r-k,ted for high -d -,0, . 2,1/ G¥- Typical Wall Cross Section fle j/» w 1- CH . [p 11~•1] . 0)1] + 9.1-0.100 F 1,un] , DZ,) -d 6unspg JOJ u.,0.60!0 @inGS@Jd 110/A 60!u!011 XDMIUds WAY TIA»,ING WALL »ITEGRITY CAL.CLUTIONS 1, A,-,mption, ~r•rn•*01/y "11 to IP# 64404 KMlldS APPENDIX C - CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS • Drawing Sl: Site Plan View • Drawing S2: Building Detail • Drawing S3: Notes 1 19 APPENDIX D - AESTHETIC VIEW - b -, dtti-f.~]614.. , i.i'q....i...240*y© r«44 . 74.234!.,4,%·*.22-r:-bi · 4. 44·41'- 2-: t:~·ib¢IUP.·*432-123-21* 44 „ - . ,155)1$00* ~NAE.ki€*2.4 31 .. -4-if, 4&'.1.2.:Vi34.-%~Gic:,..>- :%16:4'us..1 2, 1 · ·-- ·-19.-~i,41.t.·,~ 3arl-"i-*i>·,·1~4~*~4f~3*Li~t-fA.I. 2 e ... 52 Z. 9..r:Is, :. p ' - I * .3- -11. '36;f,E,emiz#%3'.·j*f·~'- . !hili Z -:-612.. A.'11 .5. h.·14,4.-ir, - &. , I ~ u··· A &644-94*•17.-*23%14,4 A . '. r -· - m'·~c·~.-, -- C 79. L }; 4 ~c. 1-4.§41'jAWA,&2184.94.-- , I ./ - I - .. f tlj> 13' - ~-F~ I : ';4 11-f»-4 ·: :.·ty 19 -1 4. :. - -4:-": ' i 1 4 1 4 I# *I. /0 4 1 . 2 .'-r':,' 0.: ·-2.N «144·' 5 1 -f VEL' *¥·ts-26 £ 1 - . I ...2 --·117< .'.%2~93#?OT.'3i 3 4 1 1 #/ 1.' A . , ry . 2,1 - 4 9 7 I ./.1 :i 2.- S Y -¥ . ·C ..2~11 44% ,U#P %:- - E-f€t 1 4. 4 -r,r f 2 2 4 -,1 ./ N , ./. f Dit.7 .1. 1 ,· 1 1 J , - % * f · t · f 44,*f*•*.'·-,1;E~~B-.Bif "1': I H A./.in 4 64 6-/ + :. ' ' 4 l f; . '-€0.AN-26**34- 1. 2 . * 9 /;AT-'·· · 11- I. -1.t ' i 1/ ... ., 9 4%749*422. 1. 7 1/ -/V# . 12// :0' ' I te ' . ....ran».-35* » ..0=44*420: 4 . 31 7 . . - - -DiA., :.j- . 7 .14 .4 L , A ·; 4% 4*t.j *·.g..,r /, 6,-L -7- 11-rf,t..V, d i ~-< -~~·7.•~f $ ...1 + 0 A ' , t " 0:,1...a?. . I .- - 7 93 I I i. te# 0, t' & ' ' 4:..' 3- rn, .1.04 ./4:-1 k r. 1 ..0 -1 1 1 -01 :' V f h 1 1 5 47,4. i. 1 . :,11 m:-3· 4%4. f Y - - :f )*fl /: 7 47 P#%%{1#7.elf '- . 41,0/ - . I ./12 .--.. 436 4.- 1 I 6- C r - 1. 11.K..1 r * 1-. 3 1.- r.# 1 - 44< · 4: t . :. 1 1. 1 4..,: ./1.4 8-6- .... - 4. + ./ 1 20 13-1.1 '11-91rt* APPENDIX E - DESIGN ASSUMPnONS 1) Design Wind Speeds 100 mph a. UBC pg. 2-465 i. The structure needs to be reinforced for high wind areas. 2) Snow Loads a. Ground snow load = 40 psf b. Snow loads are in excess ofminimum roof live loads tabulated by the UBC i. Therefore, snow loads shall be considered as design roof live loads 3) The soil will handle the weight ofthe structure and all ofthe equipment. , 4) Rain load can be disregarded a. UBC Section A1645 i. When the slope is >= (!4:12), rain load can be disregarded b. Our roof slope is approximately (7:12) or 30° 5) Roofdesign dead load = 15 psf 6) Can use conventional light-frame construction for roof (UBC Chapter 23, Division IV) a. UBC pg. 2-30 i. Structure is occupancy category 4 21 APPENDIX F- BUILDING DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1) Design Live Load a. Assumption 2bi i. Design live load = snow load b. UBC Section 1640 i. Pg = Ground snow load = 40 psf (Assumption 2a) ii. Ce = Exposure Factor = 0.9 (UBC Table A-16-A) iii. I = Importance factor = 1.15 (UBC Table A-16-B, essential facilities) iv. Pf = Design snow load = Design live load V. Pf =Ce*I*Pg = 41.4 psf 2) Footing a. UBC Table A-21-A-1 i. 12" wide ii. 10" deep 3) Brick thickness a. UBC 2109.6 i. 8" Thick 4) Roof design a. Rafter span = 8' 8" i. Building width = 15' ii. One rafter horizontal span = 7' 6" iii. Roofangle = 30° iv. Rafter span = 7.5/cos(30°) = 8' 8" b. Rafter type = 2x10 wood c. Rafter spacing = 16" d. Check rafter strength i. UBC Table 23-IV-R-4 1. Fb = Bending design value 2. F~ = 500 psi ii. Typical 2x10, No. 1 Board 1. Fb = 1000 psi e. Total rafter length = 10' (16" overhang) 5) Floor beam design (above sump only) a. Dead load (D = 89.3 lb/ft) i. Weight Equipment = 35701b ii. Equipment is on 4 beam 1. 892.5 lb/beam iii. Each beam is 10 ft 1. 2. D = Dead load = 89.3 lb/ft b. Take the worst oftwo methods ofdesign i. Uniform live load (I min = 4.11 inA4) 1. Lo = 75 psf (from UBC Table 16-A, light manufacturing) 2. 140 sf, 6 beams, Ll =live load = 175 lb/ft 3. Total distributed load per beam = w = Ll + D = 265 lb/ft 4. From "Structural Analysis" by R.C. Hibbeler, 4th edition A. max displacement =v=(5*w* LN) / (384 *E*I) 22 5. L = length = 10 ft 6. E = 29(101) psi = 4.176(109) psf 7. v=L / 240 (From UBC Table 16-D) 8. Therefore, I min = 4.11 in~4 ii. Concentrated load (I min = 6.35 inN) 1. P = 2000 1b (from UBC Table 16-4 light manufacturing) 2. From "Structural Analysis" by R.C. Hibbeler, 4th edition A. max displacement =v=[(5*D* LA4) / (384 *E* I)] + [(P * LAD / (48 *E*D] 3. Therefore, I min = 6.35 inN c. I min, design = 6.35 in~4 Spillway Retaining Wall Integrity Calculations 1) Assumptions a. To simulate structure loading on wall, we put a solid block o f concrete the size of our building immediately next to the spillway retaining wall b. The spillway training wall is symmetrically loaded i. No overturning ii. No sliding c. ¢ = 30, conservative estimate for sand d. y = 120 pcf= 0.0694 pet conservative estimate for unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel e. (7 concrete) = 0.086 pci f. Hmin = 13' g. Hmax = 20,5' h. Havg = 16.75' = 201" i. t = 36 " j. w = width out ofpage (assumed to be infinite) 2) Calculations a. Ka = tant (45 - 4/2) = 0.333 b. Pressure on the wall is the area of the pressure triangle i. P=[ (120 " * (y concrete)*H)+ (0.5 *Ka*y*(HA2))]*w c. Shear Stress on Wall i. V=P/A 1. A=t*w ii. V = 70.6 psi d. Factor o f Safety i. Shear yield stress of low-strength concrete 1. 1800 psi ii. F.S. = 25.5 23 APPENDIX G - ONE LINE DIAGRAM 24 1 2 2 Ii, g;i *Wa 8 I | O LU & 3 t -1 1 * 9 11 1 M 0 4 W O w I % 8 0 <C 21 o W Z 1- Z» lili X 01 0» <Ow< 0 03 0-1(OLU O *1 Em 00<k OD )600 0 F'n 0 1 b--0--6~~b T rril 2 1 1 KA - R Ull 49j 1 €)(3) N Ed > O 1 5 3 00 ©1 -o * T ©© 01 (/) O f g 1 [3 N h r- > 0 Chi 4,30 \ 00 1 42 1 /©D'/4111 <. 1 > „ LU 1- 0 0 1 0 A A - D > m K LU ©1 2 - 00 U) Z 0 D O 6 W M A W < 1-Z U W W 09 O<Of =OCD OF ESTES PARK LIGHT 801¥233N39 NOI.LORONI APPENDIX H - CROSS-FLOW TURBINE HIC 1.1 1 G©hause 2 Leitappa,at 3 Lau frad 4 Haup:lager 5 Eckkasten G Belilrungsvenlit 7 Saugrohr 8 Ubergangsstuck -. - - 11 41 . - 2 - , / p h . i I . / Al\91 !,1 --af, 1 -1 -3/,r-%\ & 1 -1 .. 11.1 0. - ./. /1-1 - 4497. r ,\ /0-/ ~ =221 \ ..Ij --//'/-1 · ·4*24·.4 M.W'i.99~4"494.424' ...i : :~ ai 4-*fi*G-,0 ·-~--99*BIBW~*:ViAX<KePE)120 18#*.#+MeqU61~~A# £«*1*f*44*4**39'i. 22294**f:Er, -0- 93~~--;«4£*%61 »44%:4241'it 3, 6.:5 . ....., @ A,~=f·gze.aN ·91·.•·*.. iA. · .... 11:11.1 --,··~40%804?Efe:· rg.***~ ~v, ~,;f~ -··~~,1 29»-¥14***ff .:...f?NA*d.%[?g..fe - · ·~1 3-~.94* tE334(2~.~~~ A40.·~494%*pe~· :.~··~-·- ~·· ~->:;·- ~~5*4483¥4~~~ :,1. ft.*~.11.F»·*:43:KL 1 =*36,4%*4% 44--~ „I F'&/Si,Ek# P'#, 4:·, · 4/·4·*t¥10 ·499&.·t Vi.? / . , 1 Water movement through a Cross-Flow Turbine Taken from http://www.ossberger.de/engl/globa15.html 25 /- .9 5.? t,0.. '.w A REFERENCES [1] S. J. Chapman, "7.1 The Induction Generator," Electric Machineo Fundamentals, pp. 436- 440, Boston: WCB McGraw-Hill, 1999. \21 Public Service Company of Colorado, Interconnection Guidelines for Small Power Producers, Customer-Owned Generators and Non-Utility Generators, 09/00 edition. [3] W. K. Switzer, "Achieving An Acceptable Ground in Poor Soil," EC£M, www.electricalzone.com/archive/search_display,asp?ID=1998100113ECM, 10/1/1998. [4] W. Deans, Electrical Buses and Bus Structure, ITE Circuit Breaker Company, 1959. [5] Dr. P. K. Sen, "Transformer," Power Tran€/brmers and Machines. [6] Dr. P. D. Sen 'lnductionMotor", Power Transformers and Machines. [7] 1997 Uniform Building Code. Volume 2: Structural Engineering Design Provisions. Whittier, CA: International Conference ofBuilding Officials, 1997. [8] Harris, Chuck. Telephone, interview. 7 Feb 2001. [9] Emslie, William Excel Spreadsheet, "PRPA Economic Evaluation of Olympus Dam Hydro," November 2000. [10] Emslie, William Excel Spreadsheet, ~PRPA Emission Offset for Rawhide Plant," 2000. [11] Lake Estes Reservoir Elevation Data, United States Bureau ofReclamation (USBR). http://www.gp.usbr.gov/htbin/arc050_form.com?OLYDAMCO, October, 2000. [12] Big Thompson River Flow Data, United States Bureau ofReclamation (USBR). http://www.gp.usbr.gov/hydromet_arcread.htm, October, 2000. 26 GLOSSARY Benefit-Cost Analysis - Analysis of a project's economic feasibility that compares a project's return against other opportunities at a fixed percentage return on an initial investment. Cross Flow Turbine - An impulse class hydro turbine (see Appendix H). Dvnanic Turbine Head - The head ofthe turbine as a function of varying flow rate. Ferroresonance - Magnetic interference caused by the transfbrmer's windings: Flow rate - The volumetric rate at which the water flows. Generators - Machines used to convert mechanical energy into electric energy. Head - A measurement in length of the pressure, kinetic, and potential energy of a fluid which can be used to measure power. Head loss - Is a loss in head due to friction (major) and other disturbances such as pipe expansions, entrances, and exits (minor). Induction Generator - (Asynchronous Generator) Induction motor that is driven over speed by an external prime mover. Kaplan Turbine - An adjustable propeller, reaction class hydro turbine. Kilowatt-Hour - Unit of energy, one kilowatt ofelectrical power consumed for one hour. Mill - One-tenth of a cent. This is a term used to convey how much electricity will be charged per kilowatt-hour. Negative Sequence Reactance - A rating given on the nameplate ofthe transformer. Penstock - Intake into the turbine. Positive Sequence Reactance - A rating given on the nameplate ofthe transformer. Relavs - Devices for sensing abnormal behaviors in the operation of a system. Static Head - The potential head when no water is flowing (difference of reservoir height to outlet elevation). Strobing - An effect caused by the moving equipment rotating at a different frequency than that ofthe fluorescent lights. It appears as ifa strobe light were in the vicinity. Substructure - The foundation of a building. 27 - Superstructure - The above ground part of a building, such as the walls and roof Tailrace - Discharge pipe from the turbine. Telemetry - Equipment used in the transmission and recording ofdata electronically. Transformer - Equipment used to step up the generated voltage to the voltage the utility is operating at. Turbine (Hydro) - Hydraulic machine used for converting hydro-energy to mechanical work. Grounded Wve- Grounded Wve connection - One. style of internal connections o f a transformer. - b 28