Comments on the Presentation made by Nevada Hydro at the CAISO LEAPS Meeting on February 6, 2007
By Douglas A. Pinnow
Why LEAPS is not economically viable
What credible persons and agencies say
Lies, Inaccuracies, and Misleading Statements
Lies, Inaccuracies, and Misleading Statements
Comments on the Presentation made by Nevada Hydro at the CAISO LEAPS Meeting
Comments on the Presentation made by Nevada Hydro at the CAISO LEAPS Meeting on February 6, 2007
Some of the sides presented by The Nevada Hydro Company at the CAISO LEAPS Meeting held on February 6th (presentation, pdf)included misleading or incorrect information. Examples of this are:Side titled: LEAPS – TE/VS Interconnect
· The LEAPS Project is touted as an “Innovative private sector solution”.
It’s not clear what is “innovative” about a pumped storage plant. Such plants have been operational for decades. Nor is it clear what particular problem it “solves”.
· LEAPS is touted as providing “500 MW of renewable storage”.
There is nothing “renewable” about this project. Fuel must be consumed to pump water into the upper reservoir. In most instances, this fuel will be fossil fuel that is burned to produce electricity to activate LEAPS’ pumps. The exception would be electrical energy from solar or wind generators. These sources are not normally available at night when LEAPS would usually pump. Other truly renewable sources, like continuously generating hydroelectric or geothermal sources, are not very accessible to LEAPS.
· LEAPS is touted as a “Critical Asset to help the State manage renewables.”
Nevada Hydro is not in a position to determine if the LEAPS asset is critical to the State. That determination should be left up to the CAISO or the CPUC or some other entity that has the best interest of the public in mind.
Slide titled: Easy LEAPS Preformance Facts· The stated “83.3% wire-to-wire efficiency for electrical storage” employs unusual terminology. Specifically, the term “wire-to-wire efficiency” is ill defined. It would have been clearer to state “about 17% of the pumping energy is lost when the electricity is regenerated by LEAPS.”
· LEAPS is touted as being “Fully dispatchable in 15 seconds.”
The FERC Environmental Impact Statement does not agree with this claim. Specifically, if power is called upon from LEAPS when it is pumping water into the upper reservoir, it will take about an hour to reconfigure the plant to generate electricity. The 15-second power dispatch time is limited to situations when LEAPS is not pumping and there is a sufficient amount of water already in the upper reservoir.
· It is touted that LEAPS “Can operate up to 18 continuous hours in an emergency.”
This takes a fundamental limitation of LEAPS – that it can only produce power for 18 hours - and tries to make it sound like an advantage. A resource that must run doesn’t mean running for only 18 hours!
Slide titled: Pump Storage vs Combustion Turbine Efficiency
· Here Nevada Hydro states that a combustion turbine is only 65.2% efficient as compared to 83.3% efficiency for pumped storage. This information seems to be designed to mislead one into believing that, as a consequence of the higher efficiency, pumped storage is somehow better than a combustion turbine.In actuality, Nevada Hydro is making a comparison of “apples to oranges” here. The 65.2% efficiency of a combustion turbine is to convert fuel energy into electrical energy. While the 83.3% efficiency for pumped storage is only related to the pumping cycle. One must multiply this efficiency by a second efficiency for converting fuel into electricity to actuate the pumps. In most cases, the overall efficiency for a pumped storage plant would be substantially less than that for a combustion turbine.
· It is touted that pumped storage is “Very reliable (High equivalent availability –93%).”
In actuality, pumped storage will be tied up with its pumping cycle for approximately half the time (usually during the night). So, its availability would be only about 50% - excluding maintenance shutdowns.
Slide titled: Turbine-Leaps Comparison
· Under the topic of “Air Quality Issues” Nevada Hydro states that LEAPS has “None”, while peaker plants and combined cycle plants emit NOx, CO,VOC, and PM10.This is not true. Fuel would usually be burned to generate the electrical power used to actuate the pumps in LEAPS. In fact, more fuel would usually be required for LEAPS because it requires about 17% more input electrical power due to the inherent inefficiency of its pump/generation cycle.
· Once again, Nevada Hydro touts the “Dispatchability” and “Black Start” time for LEAPS of 15 seconds, without mentioning that this is only under the conditions when the LEAPS is not pumping and there is sufficient water in the upper reservoir.
· Here, Nevada Hydro touts the fact that LEAPS can use “Alternative” fuels.
This is a misleading way to say that LEAPS always requires electrical power to pump water into the upper reservoir and that the source of this electrical power, in principle, could come from various electrical generating sources such as, combustion turbines, wind generators or geothermal generating sources. In reality, LEAPS would obtain the necessary electrical power from the grid. In all but the most unusual circumstances, there would be multiple electrical generating sources supplying the grid. With multiple sources, it is impossible to determine the origin of electrons arriving at LEAPS. That’s because of a fundamental principle in physics that all electron are indistinguishable from one another. So, the truth is that LEAPS does not run on alternate fuels. It runs on indistinguishable electrons from the grid that have a sufficiently high voltage (potential energy) to activate its pumps.
Slide titled: GRID BENEFITS
· Here, Nevada Hydro, contradicts its earlier claim by stating the “Black Start” can occur in 10 minutes, rather than 15 seconds.
· Nevada Hydro touts that LEAPS can accomplish “Management and conservation of renewable resources.”
In reality, LEAPS can do no such thing. At best it can pump, stand-by, or generate electricity at times dictated either by demand, or some other criteria that are determined an intelligence that can not be attributed to the LEAPS plant.
· Nevada Hydro touts LEAPS as a “CAISO – operated facility operated for public benefit.”
There would only be a potential for a public benefit if the operational benefits associated with LEAPS were greater than the benefits associated with a lower cost conventional power generating source of similar output. Based on the financial analysis presented by the FERC in the Environmental Impact Statement (and in my accompanying memo) this is unlikely. In reality, the only assured beneficiaries for LEAPS would be shareholders in Nevada Hydro and its investors. That’s because Nevada Hydro has petitioned the FERC for a guaranteed 14.5% annual rate of return n their investment to build LEAPS.
· Nevada Hydro touts that LEAPS has “Fuel diversity/hedging”.
As previously discussed, fuel diversity is not an attribute of LEAPS. One can only wonder what “hedging” means. No doubt, Nevada Hydro would want us to think that it’s something good.
· Nevada Hydro touts a series of “Additional Project Benefits” without quantifying any of them or comparing them with conventional power generating plants.
At best, this list of benefits is misleading.
In conclusion, Nevada Hydro’s presentation contains some useful information that is embedded in a fog or positive spin and inaccuracies. As such, the presentation was very self-serving to Nevada Hydro – but unlikely to sway most of the attendees at CAISO’s February 6th meeting.
Of greater concern is fact that Nevada Hydro and their co-applicant, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, are actively spreading this same positive spin to the general public through press releases and television advertising. In view of this, there is an added burden on the CAISO to make every effort to ensure that their action on the LEAPS Project first and foremost reflects the best interest of the public (ratepayers). Bending to the FERC’s desire to help Nevada Hydro should be a secondary consideration.