Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

NECEC as Baseload and Pumped Hydro Storage as Peaking and Maine would own New England

Clean energy generators are already proving their worth

Commentary by Alicia Barton

Sunday, February 12, 2023

AS HAS BEEN widely reported, the arctic cold snap that swept through New England on Christmas Eve, combined with an unexpected system shortfall due to generator outages and reduced energy imports, left grid operators struggling to meet demand. For over two hours, a shortfall of over 2,000 megawatts required a swift dispatch of the grid’s peaker plants to fill the gap. Since the frigid temperatures had sent the price of natural gas soaring, many generators switched to oil, meaning our most polluting energy source accounted for 29 percent of our total fuel mix that day and 34 percent during the peak demand hour.

What was not widely reported however was the role that local, clean hydropower and pumped-hydro storage played in keeping the lights on that day. When they were needed most, local hydro resources ramped up from about 900 MW to 2,200 MW during the afternoon, around the same time many of us were putting holiday roasts in the oven for dinner. In total, hydro resources contributed 12 percent of the energy supply during peak demand, and they may have made the difference between uninterrupted electricity supply for a New England Christmas Eve, and the need for rolling blackouts.

Other renewables also held steady, delivering power as projected. Too often the role of existing renewable sources gets overlooked in the ongoing hotly-debated discussions about how to meet the region’s winter-time energy needs. However, ISO-New England’s data makes clear that on Christmas Eve, hydropower came to the rescue.

What the data also shows is that we have a long way to go in getting to a fully clean mix of resources we can rely on when conditions become extreme. On December 24, oil generated 29 percent of the region’s electricity, nuclear 23 percent, natural gas 16 percent, hydropower 8 percent, and 8 percent renewables (with an unknown mix of imports making up virtually all the rest).

New England is not alone in its ongoing heavy reliance on fossil fuels. A recent report revealed that in 2022, US emissions rose 1.3 percent, compared to 2021, on top of 2021’s 6.5 percent rise from the previous year. Together, the past two years have almost erased the 10.6 percent decline in emissions in 2020, largely due to pandemic-related shutdowns. With progress shrinking and interim targets approaching, the urgency to accelerate the energy transition has never been greater.

But we don’t have to be tethered to a fossil-fuel dominated forever. As a region, we are fortunate to have an existing base of zero-emissions resources (hydro, nuclear, and other renewables). However, we don’t lean as heavily on these resources today as we should.

My company’s largest clean power plant – Northfield Mountain, in Western Mass. – is a zero-emissions pumped-hydro facility that only operates at about 25 percent of its full potential annual output. Because the price dispatch signals that govern our grid are agnostic to whether resources are zero-emissions or not, we see many cold days in the winter when gas and oil ramp up during the evening “peak” when energy needs are greatest, and where clean resources like Northfield Mountain are left sitting on the sidelines. This is not the right strategy if we are going to have any hope of hitting Massachusetts’ nation-leading greenhouse gas reduction goals.

To put this unused potential in context, Northfield Mountain, the region’s largest pumped hydro storage facility, is itself capable of delivering clean electricity to more than 1.3 million homes for eight hours a day, each day. It is ideally suited to capture renewable energy generated in periods of less demand, store it, and send it out when higher demand requires it. We already do this frequently on sunny days in the spring when the region’s installed solar capacity is cranking, and solar electricity is in abundant supply.

Northfield is well positioned to provide flexibility as larger intermittent renewables like offshore wind come online. The path breaking Vineyard Wind project that is now finally under construction is 800 MW of clean offshore wind coming to the New England power grid very soon. This is great news. And there’s more good news: The region is fortunate that there is already nearly 2,000 MW of installed pumped-hydro capacity ready and waiting to balance this clean but intermittent energy. That is, assuming we begin to put in place the policies to let it do that job.

The Commonwealth has a clear mandate – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a goal more ambitious than any other state has adopted. Building on that, Gov. Healey has promised to be the most aggressive climate governor in the nation. To put ourselves in position to hit those targets, and to avoid cranking up oil and gas every time the temperature drops, it is imperative that we prioritize decarbonization – starting today.

As one solution, the comprehensive climate bill signed into law last summer positioned the state to study large-scale energy storage in preparation for the necessary procurement of additional capacity in the years to come. Tapping under-utilized existing storage as well as accelerating the adoption of large-scale new battery energy-storage projects are both key components towards weaning ourselves off fossil fuels as our only resources to meet growing reliability needs. Just as Massachusetts and other New England states have used procurements to spur offshore wind development, this same tool can ensure that we swap out polluting fossil peaking and replace it with clean peaking resources like hydro and batteries.

The next four years of the Healey administration will be pivotal if we are to make progress, demanding swift action to decarbonize, modernize the grid, and implement meaningful policy to wean the region off fossil fuels and stabilize volatile energy prices for ratepayers. There’s no better example than the near-miss for the region this Christmas Eve to prove that pumped-hydro storage in combination with renewables can and should be trusted as a growing part of the region’s reliability solutions. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels – 2030 is fast approaching.

Alicia Barton is the CEO of FirstLight Power.

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Dan McKay on February 14, 2023 at 5:48am: Willem,

Thanks for the numbers.

Comment by Willem Post on February 13, 2023 at 9:32am

Dan,

In the table, you see the formula for hydro plants P = ndQgH

PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-i...

New England PSH Plants

NE has two major PSH plants. The Northfield plant is the major subject of this article.

Bear Swamp, rated storage/cycle 600 MW x 6 h = 3000 MWh

Northfield rated storage/cycle 1168 MW x 8 h = 9344 MWh

The actual values are less. See table 1B.

Production over about 8 hours is 12344 MWh, if both cycle capacities were fully available at the same time.

NOTE: Average NE consumption during a similar period on a high-demand day is 22000 MW, average x 7 h = 154,000 MWh

BEAR SWAMP HYDROELECTRIC POWER STATION

The plant is located in Deerfield River in Rowe and Florida, MA. It is used for:

- Time shifting, i.e., using night-time electricity (low wholesale price) to top off the upper reservoir and producing daytime electricity (high wholesale price).

- Ramping, i.e., provide filling-in electricity in case of an unscheduled outage of a plant on the NE grid, or to provide electricity during peak loads on the NE grid, usually late afternoon/early evening.

- The plant could be used for balancing variable wind and solar electricity, but that would require major modifications, because of the limited water quantity in the upper reservoir. Once that quantity is used up, the plant would have to stop balancing mode, and start pumping mode to top-off the reservoir. The same is true for the Northfield plant.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/bear-swamp-hydroelectric-gene...

https://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/228

Table 1/Rated output	600 MW
Elevation drop	700 ft
Ramp up 0% to 100%	3 minutes
Duration	6 h
Production/cycle	3000 MWh
Pumping electricity	1.38 x 3000 MWh
Cycle electrical efficiency	1/1.38 = 72.5%, below average
Maximum annual production	365 x 3000 = 1,095,000 MWh
Actual average annual production	450,000 MWh
Plant capacity factor	41%

NORTHFIELD MOUNTAIN PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO PLANT

First-Light Power Resources, former owner of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Plant, sold the plant to one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments), which is retaining properties from First-Light Power Resource, primarily located on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts and Connecticut, for $1.2 billion.

http://www.gazettenet.com/News/Local/FirstLight-Power-Resources-to-...

NOTE: The Canadian entity is collecting money from Vermonters to pay Canadian pensioners. The US debtor status was $8.3 trillion at end 2016, on which foreign entities collected at least $415 billion (5%) to pay pensioners, etc.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop21-flawed-trade-agre...

The Northfield plant, generating capacity 1168 MW after the recent replacement of the hydro turbine-generators, was built in 1976 as a companion to the former, base-loaded, Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont, which used to produce about 600 x 8766 x 0.9 = 4,733,640 MWh/y, of steady, near-CO2-free, electricity, at about 5 c/kWh. The VY production was almost as much as the 6,100,000 MWh/y supplied to Vermont utilities and was much more than generated by the Hoover Dam (4,200,000 MWh/y). See table 8.

PSH Plant Operation:

Arbitrage Mode: At present, the main use of the PSH plant is in arbitrage mode, i.e., generate electricity when daytime wholesale prices are high and use electricity to pump when nighttime wholesale prices are low. Even though the pumping electricity exceeds the generated electricity by about 20%, the difference in wholesale prices makes that mode a profitable operation. See table 1A.

Table 1A/Summary		NE Wholesale
	MWh/y	$/MWh	$million/y
Generating	3404925	60	204.30
Pumping	4271600	40	170.86
Efficiency	0.797
Capacity factor	0.333
Net Revenue from arbitrage			33.43

The plant has an upper reservoir and a lower reservoir (Connecticut River) and 4 reversible, hydro turbine-generators, for a total rating of 1168 MW. The units can be electrically powered to pump water from the river into the upper reservoir. See table 1B for plant design parameters.

http://www.northfieldrelicensing.com/Pages/Northfield.aspx

http://www.northfieldrelicensing.com/Pages/features.aspx

Emergency Power Mode: The grid operator, ISO-NE, to quickly obtain temporary power in case of an unscheduled outage of a major plant, often calls the Northfield plant to provide filling-in electricity for several hours until other generators can be brought on line.

The plant can increase its output from 0% to rated output, MW, in less than 10 minutes, and maintain that output for up to 8 hours (longer at less than rated output) by using the maximum allowed water quantity from the upper reservoir.

ISO-NE pays a high fee per MW and per MWh for that emergency service, in accordance with contract provisions.

Table 1B/Name	Northfield
Location	Massachusetts
Upper reservoir	Manmade
Lower reservoir	Connecticut River
Commissioned	1972
Nameplate rating, MW	1200	Average
Operating elevation range, ft	1000.5 - 938	988.75
Elevation differential, ft	62.5
Head range, ft	753 - 824.5	788.75
Head differential, ft	71.5
Reservoir capacity, gal	5,600,000,000
m^3/gal	0.003785
Reservoir capacity, m^3	21196000
Useable storage, acre-ft	12318
m^2/acre	4047
m/ft	0.3048
Usable storage, m^3	15194568
Usable storage fraction	0.717	Conv. Factors	Q, Mass flow
Turbine-Generators, reversible to pump	4	m^3/ft^3	m^3/s
Tunnel design flow, ft^3/s	27000	0.02832	765
Flow, generating, ft^3/s	20000	0.02832	566
Flow, pumping, ft^3/s	15200	0.02832	430
T-G rating, new, MW	1168
T-G rating, old, MW	1080
Start-up, 0 to 1168 MW, min	10
Electricity supply duration, h	8

Electricity Generated Per Cycle: The plant generates about 9329 MWh per 8-hour cycle, based on the data in table 2. Some of the data were assumed, as they could not be found.

Table 2/Electricity supply/cycle		Generation
Head at reservoir surface, ft		838.75
Head loss*, ft		25.00
Head at turbine inlet, ft		813.75
Head at turbine inlet, m	H	248.03
Gravity acceleration, m/s^2	g	9.80664
Density, kg/m^3	d	1000
Mass flow, m^3/s	Q	566
Efficiency, turbine	n	0.920
Water power to generator, joules/s	P = ndQgH	1267468155
s/h		3600
Water power to generator, joules/h		4.56289E+12
kWh/million J		0.2777777
kWh/h = kW		1267468
Water power to generator, MW		1267
Efficiency, generator to grid	n	0.920
Electrical power to grid, MW		1166
Duration, h		8
Electricity to grid, MWh/8 h		9329

Electricity Used For Pumping Per Cycle: The plant uses about 11703 MWh per 10.53-hour cycle, based on the data in table 3. Some of the data were assumed, as they could not be found.

Table 3/Electricity used/cycle		Pumping
Head at reservoir surface, ft		838.75
Head adder*, ft		25.00
Head at turbine inlet, ft		863.75
Head at turbine inlet, m	H	263.27
Gravity acceleration, m/s^2	g	9.80664
Density, kg/m^3	d	1000
Mass flow, m^3/s	Q	430
Efficiency, turbine	n	0.920
Water power to turbine, joules/s	P = ndQgH	1022463251
s/h		3600
joules/h		3.68087E+12
kWh/million J		0.2777777
kWh/h = kW		1022463
Water power to turbine, MW		1022
Efficiency, generator to grid	n	0.920
Electrical power from grid, MW		1111
Duration, 566/430 x 8 h		10.53
Electricity consumed, MWh/10.53 h		11703

Electricity loss per cycle, MWh		2374
Cycles/y		365
Electricity loss/y^, MWh		866675

* Head adder = upstream of turbine + downstream of turbine

^ Electricity loss is similar to historic. See table 5.

Estimated Annual Net Revenue: The plant has revenues of electricity sales of about $204.30 million/y, and costs of electricity purchases of about $170.86 million/y, for net revenues of about $33.43 million/y. Other revenue is from ISO-NE-requested emergency services. See table 4.

Table 4/Electricity Trading Net Revenue
h/y	8766
s/h	3600
Flow, generating, 8 h, m^3	16312320
Fraction of useable storage used	1.074	107	%

Plant capacity factor, CF	0.333
Efficiency, Generation/Pumping	0.797
Electricity production, MWh/8 h	9329	8500
Cycles/y	365
Electricity production, MWh/y	3404925
Daytime average wholesale, c/kWh	6.00
Revenue, $/y	204295530
Revenue, $million/y	204.30

Electricity, pumping, MWh/10.53 h	11703
Cycles/d	365
Electricity consumption, MWh/y	4271600
Nighttime average wholesale, c/kWh	4.00
Pumping cost, $/y	170864003
Pumping cost, million$/y	170.86

Net Revenue*, $million/y	33.43

* Actual net revenue is less due to fewer cycles per year and partial cycles.

Historic Annual Net Generation: Below are the historic values for annual net generation, GWh/y. Those values date from before the replacement of the original turbine generators with new units of slightly greater capacity, MW. See table 5.

http://globalenergyobservatory.org/geoid/1239

Table 5	Net generation, GWh
2000	-614.760
2001	-552.245
2002	-512.425
2003	-392.991
2004	-386.698
2005	-329.032
2006	-371.347
2007	-579.880
2008
2009

Comment by Dan McKay on February 12, 2023 at 6:12pm: Willem,

I would rather see a billion dollars go into building a hydro pumped storage facility in Maine than a 300-megawatt wind facility. And I would much love to own it.

Fossil fuel prices are too susceptible to politics. Water is natural, plentiful and can produce 1200 megawatts at a turbine feed rate of 27,000 gallons per second.

Comment by Willem Post on February 12, 2023 at 4:47pm: Alicia and Dan,

CO2, at 1.75 W/m2 driving force, is a pigmy, compared to the 120-plus W/m2 driving force of clouds and water vapor.

If CO2 were doubled, which would use up all the fossil fuels, and would cause major forest growth, there would be only a very minor increase in temperature, because of absorption frequency limitations, according to Modern Physics.

I understand your rah rah for hydro, but reducing pigmy CO2 to save the planet is bull manure to Physicists

RSS

Welcome to
Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Sign Up
or Sign In

U.S. Sen Angus King

THE UNTOLD STORY OF RECORD HILL WIND

The Untold Story of Record Hill Wind, continued

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service