Hybrid hydropeaking mitigation at storage hydropower plants combining compensation basins with battery energy storage systems (BESS)

Abstract

Storage hydropower has the ability of flexibly generating electricity to match fluctuating power demand. However, rapid changes of water discharge in river reaches downstream of storage hydropower plants, referred to as hydropeaking, result from this intermittent production mode and may have potentially damaging effects on a river’s ecosystem. The construction of compensation basins usually embedded along the waterway between the powerhouse and the receiving water represents the state-of-the-art for hydropeaking mitigation. In recent studies, the application of battery energy storage systems (BESS) as an alternative mitigation option has been proposed. Instead of buffering the turbine discharge in a basin, electrical energy is stored in and retrieved from a BESS to meet short-term demand requirements, while the hydraulic machinery is ramping up and down according to environmental discharge constraints. The technical and economic feasibility of BESS compared to compensation basins is evaluated based on a newly introduced first-order assessment approach. If environmental discharge constraints are to be strictly followed, the exclusive application of BESS is deemed not feasible, due to the limited operation range of Francis and – to a lesser extent – Pelton turbines, especially for low partial loads. Therefore, hybrid systems combining a BESS with a smaller compensation basin are investigated as existing research focused either on a basin- or a BESS-only approach. Based on production time series of three case study hydropower plants, the sizes of basins and BESS are estimated. Basin sizes can be reduced with a hybrid system by 51% to 96% compared to a basin-only approach, with BESS energy capacities ranging approximately from 10 to 100 MWh. The cost efficiency of hybrid systems is strongly influenced by two factors, namely the future battery costs as well as the overall unit costs for the compensating basin. While the former are subject to considerable uncertainty especially as BESS reach their end-of-life much earlier compared to hydraulic structures and therefore require regular replacements after 10 to 15 years, the latter are highly site-specific as they include land availability and acquisition costs. The case studies show that a hybrid system of basin and BESS may represent a cost-competitive alternative to a basin-only approach when the latter’s investment costs are high or space is limited, even if additional revenue streams including ancillary services and energy arbitrage are not considered.