HomeMy WebLinkAboutNeck Lake Hydropower Feasibility Study 1984Alaska Energy Authority
LIBRARY COPY
NECK LAKE HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
WHALE PASS WORK CENTER
DATE
SOE
049
ISSUED TO
NECK LAKE HYDROPOW-ER
FEASIBILITY STUDY
for the proposed
WHALE PASS WORK CENTER
0 r..l'1. '
WHALE PASS
PACIFIC OCEAN·
NECK LAKE HYDROPOWER
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
September 1984
II
Submitted by:
I Gre · Watkins, P.E.
Hydraulic Engineer
With Assistance From:
Alvin Yoshida
Civil Engineer
and
Louis Bartos
Hydrologist
$ACKGROUND
This Hydroelectric Feasibility Study was initiated by the
Engineering Section of the Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service.
The SJ?_E!_~!f!-c_ object~_v_e was to determine if the obvious hydr9
ItO.~~ rt~J al_ C?f .. fie c. k_ Creek near the_ proposed Whale Pass Work Center
ClOUld 9.t .. ~J'JOl1J.4 be._ developeg.
An A&E contract was in progress to design a layout for a new
Forest Service Work Center, but the contract only provided for
diesel electric power generation. This hydro feasibility study is
to supplement the current design study.
The field portion of the study was made during the week of August
13-17, 1984. The author of this report visited the Forest Service
Office in Ketchikan and made a field review of the proposed hydro
site on Prince of Wales Island.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This field visit and subsequent data gathering was made possible by
the assistance and cooperation of the following people:
Louis Bartos, Ketchikan Area, Hydraulic Engineer, who did an
excellent job in coordinating the details of the week's study,
including his assistance with the field review of the site. He also
developed Appendix A in this report which is the Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Feasibility Report of Neck Lake.
Les Paul, Regional Hydraulic Engineer for the Alaska Region, who
proposed and obtained the go-ahead for this hydro feasibility study.
Alvin Yoshida, Civil Engineer, Tongass-Ketchikan Area, coordinator
for the ongoing A&E design study. He also developed Appendix B of
this report detailing the electrical demands of the work center and
the life cycle costs-for the diesel power generation alternative.
Randy Bohachelc, Civil Engineer, Tongass-Ketchikan Area, assisted
with the field review and level survey of Neck Creek. He also
provided the unit prices for construction materials which were used
to estimate the construction costs for the hydro project.
Joe English, with Pacific Diesel in Seattle, who cooperated by
providing details and estimated costs of standard turbine/generator
equipment suitable for the site.
..
1973
Revi secl 1980
Seale: 14 mil• to 1 IDcb
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LOCATION HAP
I. INTRODUCTION and OUTLINE OF THE HYDRO SYSTEM
II. ECONOMICS
III. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
IV. ENGINEERING DETAILS FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Hydrologic Report
Appendix B -Diesel Power Generations
PAGE
i
ii
1 -3
4 - 6
7 - 9
12 -20
Appendix C -Manufacturer Products Information and Proposals
TABLE
I
II
III
FIGURE
I
II
III
IV
v
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
Construction Cost Estimate
Engineering Parameters
Economic Summary -Diesel vs Hydro
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
Life Cycle Costs of Diesel vs Hydro
Present Worth of Hydro vs Diesel
Diesel Operation Costs
Hydro System Costs
Head, Kilowatt & Velocity Plot
Pipe Diameter vs Flow
Access Road, Penstock & Diversion
Intake Structure
Profile of Neck Creek
Project Schematic Map
PAGE
10 -11
16
17
.fA..!lj_
5
5
6
6
1 3
14
1 8
19
20
Front Cover
1
I. INTRODUCTION
The p~~pose of this feasibility report is to supplement the current
A&E design study for a Forest Service Work Center at Whale Pass;
frince of Wales Island, Alask~. Hydroelectric power may provide a
viable alternative for diesel electric power generation and for
fossil fuels for heating. We will discuss the demand and capacity
of the site, system design alternatives, permits and land status
requirements, and preliminary cost estimates.
In the future, this report will be used in
State of Alaska concerning scenarios for
costing of a hydroelectric system that could
Federal, State, and private development in the
PERMITS AND LAND STATUS
discussions with the
collocation or share
provide energy for
Whale Pass area.
~er Bights: Power production for Forest Service requirements
requires a maximum of 25 cfs. Any hydropower development using
Forest Service funds must include the timely filing and obtaining of
a State water right for the required flow.
FERC Permit: The Forest Service, as another Federal agency, does
not require FEBC licenses for hydroelectric developments. If we
share the facility, the cosponsor may be required to follow the FEBC
process.
Land Status: Project works, with the exception of the transmission
line, will be located on State-selected land. The State can issue
leases for up to 55 years for a project such as this. Subsequent
leases can be issued for continued operation after the original
lease expires.
SYSTEM SIZE
This analysis compares the cost of electrical power generated with
diesel power to that of hydropower generation. In addition, excess
energy from hydropower generation can be utilized for space heat
and hot water for the Work Center.
The hydrosystem was sized at 125kw to meet all of the Work Center's
electrical demands, in addition to the majority of the heating
needs. A diverted flow of 25 cfs is required to produce this amount
of power utlizing the 85-foot drop from the outlet of Neck Lake to
the ocean. The outflow from Neck Lake will exceed this flow 100S of
t.b...e.__.t.im~ with 2 feet of add! tiona! impoundment. Electronic load
management of--t-he electrical loads is necessary to prevent overloads
from occurring during peak electrical demands.
Future Exoansion: The proposed 125kw system will also be capable of
providing aos~ of the electrical needs for any future developments
on the site. However, it will only be able to supply the heating
load if beat sinks are provided to store the off-peak surpluses of
generation. Heat sinks could consist of large bot water tanks.
2
Excess energy would be stored at night and during slack periods of
day by heating the water. Heat for the building would be extracted
from the tanks by flowing the water through hot water radiators.
Additional building mass would be another form of a heat sink. The
mass would be warmed by hot air from electrical heating elements.
These electrical elements would be used in conjunction with
oil-fueled furnaces. A disadvantage of hot air electrical elements
is that they can create high peak electrical demands for heating
when surplus energy may not be available from the hydrosystem. The
important point, however, is to provide for a form of beat sink in
the initial construction of the buildings at•tbe Work Center.
The first of three major falls on
Neck Creek as it drops from Neck
Lake to the ocean.
Hydroelectric Gen~ratins System:
would comprise the system:
The following major components
1. A small diversion structure across the outlet of Neck Lake,
approximately 3 feet high and 75 feet wide.
2. An intake structure on one end of the diversion structure.
The intake will channel a portion of the lake's outflow into the
penstock and also screen out debris.
3. One thousand feet of 30-incb diameter steel penstock.
4. One-quarter mile of minimum standard access road to the
point of diversion. The penstock will follow along the edge of the
road.
3
5. Powerhouse building housing a turbine, generator, and
electrical controls.
6. Three-quarter miles of power transmission line from the
powerhouse to the Work Center.
7. A 30kw backup diesel-generator to provide power during
periods of hydropower shutdowns.
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Diversion Structure 10,500
Intake Structure , , ,600
Penstock 60,000
Access Road 27,000
Powerhouse Building 43,500
Turbine, Generator, and Controls 69,500
Transmission Line 50,300
Backup Diesel Generator -30kw 20,000
Electric Heating Units @ Work Center 9.500
Total Labor and Materials = 301,900
Contingencies @ 15% 45,000
Overhead and Profit @ 25% 75.500
Total Project = 422,400
O&M @ 4%/year $17,000
Additional detail of these construction costs with estimated
quantities and unit prices is located in Table I on pages 10 and
11.
4
II. ECOliQMICS
The economics of the hydrosystem and the fossil fuel system were
compared by calculating their life cycle costs. The hydrosystem
is outlined in the previous section and in Table I. The fossil
fuel system used in the comparison consists of two 40 kW diesel
generators, fuel oil furnaces for space beat, and propane hot
water beaters. This combination of three fossil fuels was
estimated to be the most cost effective fossil fuel system.
_!p_p_~ll-~J~.-~ contains details of the diesel generator costs and
fossil fuel heating requirements. The economics of the hydro
versus fossil system were based on a 25 year period, a ~)discount
rate, and a 4J fuel es~~alation rate. Operation and maintenance
costs were estimated at ~JJof the initial cost of the diesel
system and 4J for the hyaro system. ,·, >
f" :.; l~ ~~\ ~· ..,.
IL"· ""'~ ~ (J ' ~ ,...._ •.., f I • ',p • • •• J .pv· , . .. . '' r.
ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS: ',' ··"'
The ~-l~.!'<?JS~13tem's initial_ cost of $422,400 is 4.7 times greater
than the first ·c-ost or'·a·-~·(fie.se1---po"Wei;e·cf-sY"sTem~---~H-o.wever, .... the
15-i~~r.~--~Pr~sent --·wort&_o.f -tfle_f._ire·-·cy_c_le ·costs(Lcc >-or· the hydro-
U§.1e.!l iJI_o_nly 70J of the-·LCCor··-the~fossii_ .. syst-em·: --·The ·econoillic·s
of each system is visuaify dl'spliyea·-on-tlle-·rorrowing two pages of
graphs. The break-even point between the two systems occurs at
year nine. These graphs were developed from a summary of the
economics of diesel generators vs hydro which is Table III on
page 17.
..
5
LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF DIESEL VS. HYDRC
WHALE PASS WORK CENTER
2.1
2
1.9
1 .8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1..4
1.3
VI'"' 1.2 It:.,
:5] 1.1
...I= 1 o-a2. 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
/'
/
/ -
"1 "1 1:::: --/ -v v v
r'
/II'
,;"
~ .....
.,/'
d /
,/
...... ,..... H=t tt .......
H-T
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25
YEARS
D DIESEL o HYDRO
Figure I
E?RESEt{J W_QRTti OF HYDRO VS. DIESEL
WHALE PASS WORK CENTER i-7:11;
800
700
500
400
300
200
100
rz:zJ HYDRO r:s::SJ DIESEL.
Figure II
,.....
en
Vl"O a::c :5g
..J::I oo
c~ .......
-Ill
Vl"O a:::c: :50 ..J~
Oo Cf:_ .......
DIESEL OPERATION COSTS
O&cM 0 6~;FUEL ESCALATION 0 4~; i -7~
140 ~-------------------------------------------------------.
130
120
1 10
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1
422400
180
170
160
150
140
1.:30
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
.:30
20
10
0
0 1
2 .:3
rz:zJ
2 .:3
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1415 1 6 1 71 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25
YEARS
O&cM cs:::sJ FUEL tz:ZI EQUIPMENT
Figure Ill
HYDRO SYSTEM COSTS
O&:M 0 4~ OF CONST. COSTS
~) '--1 ~~ ' I
I ' \
i I
4 56 7 8 91011121.3141516171819202122232425
YEARS rz:zJ O&M IS:sJ CONST. COsT
Figure IV
6
7
III. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Diversion Structure: A concrete gravity wall averaging 3 feet in
height which will raise the level of Neck Lake about 2 feet. The
wall would be 75 feet in length, 12 inches wide at the top, and 2
feet wide at the base. It would be anchored to solid bedrock for
its entire length. See the conceptual plan in Figure VII.
lntake Structure: A concrete box shaped structure integrated into
the left abutment of the diversion structure. The function of the
intake structure is to keep logs and debris from entering the
penstock. It contains a steel trash rack with bars spaced 1 inch
apart. This grate should be designed to always be submerged with
a small flushing flow overtopping the back wall. This flow will
help to keep floating debris from collecting on the grate. It is
also important to keep the grate submerged so it is not exposed to
freezing air temperatures which can cause the grate to ice up. The
inlet to the box will include a slide gate valve capable of
dewatering the intake. See Figure VIII for schematic details.
Penstock: One thousand feet of penstock is needed between the
intake structure and the powerhouse. The maximum velocity of the
water in the penstock should be limited to 5 ft/sec. This will
minimize the need for thrust blocks and anchors needed to restrain
the penstock. A 30-inch pipe was selected which will limit
frictional head losses to about 3.5 feet. It will weigh 65 lbs/LF
uncoated and require a minimum of 3/16-inch wall thickness.
The penstock could be buried or set above ground on timber saddles
similiar to the pipeline supplying water to the Herring Cove Fish
Hatchery. The above ground method requires additional thrust
blocks while the buried penstock would need to be bituminous coated
due to the acidic soils predominant of the general area. The
above-ground method would be slightly cheaper in this instance.
See Figure IX for a profile of Neck Creek.
Powerhouse; The powerhouse would be located on the south bank of
Neck Creek about 125 feet upstream from the old log stringer road
bridge. The slab elevation of the floor would be about 9 feet
above the visible high tide elevation. This elevation is needed to
be above the 2,000 CFS flood flow capability of Neck Creek. In
addition, the lower 4 feet of the side walls should be constructed
of watertight concrete to provide additional protection from flood
flows. The slab should be 2 feet thick to reduce vibrations and
provide ballast to offset any buoyant forces which could be
produced with watertight walls. An outlet tailrace channel would
be constructed through and beneath the floor slab.
•
Access Road: A minimum standard 10-foot wide shotrock road is
needed from the existing road to the powerhouse and on to the point
ot diversion. The penstock will follow along the edge of the road
and would be buried under the road tor several hundred feet as the
8
road approaches the intake structure. The road alignment would be
fairly straight with a pitch of 20% ± grade as it climbs along the
falls on Neck Creek. The total length of the road is 1200 feet.
powerline: The powerline shown on the schematic map represents an
overhead 12-kV wood pole tranmission line. An overhead line would
be cheaper than a buried line because of the amount of rock.
However, if a waterline will be run from near the powerhouse to the
work center, it would be more economical to bury a 12 kV electric
line below the water line in the same trench. It is also possible
to construct the line for 7.8 kV. Many utility companies are
upgrading their distribution lines from 7.8 to 12 kV and there is
an abundant supply of good used 7.8 kV transformers.
Turbine: The site requires a "low bead" turbine designed for a 25
CFS flow. Three types of turbine equipment are available. A
crossflow turbine, a Francis Turbine with adjustable wicket gates,
and centrifugal pumps run in reverse mode. All three will produce
the same amount of power. The Francis Turbine is the most
efficient over a range of flows and is the most expensive.
Centrifugal pumps are the cheapest and can be sized to operate
efficiently for a given flow. Their efficiency drops rapidly at
reduced flow, but the hydrology study shows 25 CFS to be available
at all times. One crossflow turbine is available from Canyon
Industries in Deming, Washington.
A good proposal was made by Pacific Diesel Company using pumps from
Cornell Pump Company. Two centrifugal pumps are used in a reverse
mode of operation to operate as turbines. The pumps are connected
through a gear drive train to turn a single 125-kW generator.
See Appendix C for additional product information describing
available turbines.
Electrical Controls: Controls for the system, regardless of the
turbine selected, will use a combination of electronic load control
and water flow control. The generator must run at its exact design
speed to produce power at 60 cycles per second (CPS). The design
speed will be either 1200 or 1800 RPM. Given a set flow of water
to the turbine and a corresponding set load of electrical uses, the
generator will turn at its specified speed. If the electrical load
is decreased or increased without a change in water flow, the speed
of the generator will correspondingly decrease or increase. When
it does, the frequency will vary from 60 CPS. A change of only two
or three CPS can damage electric motors. Precise controls to
adjust the water flow to match the electrical load are expensive
and do not result in good control for a system this small.
An electronic load controller is proposed for the system. It
provides good control at an economical price. A 60,000-watt (60
kW) resistor load is utilized to maintain the exact balance between
power generated and the electrical load in the work center. As
loads are turned on or off in the work center, the amount of
surplus power to the resistor load will be instantly adjusted to
9
account for the change in loads. This is done electronically by
monitoring the 60-cycle frequency of the generator. Some power
must continually be wasted to the resistor in order to be able to
maintain a balance in the system. Energy dumped to the resistor
load can be recovered for building heat, etc., if the resistor is
used to heat water in a tank. Since this resistor can be located
anywhere in the electrical system, the tank, or several small tanks
can be located near any building(s) in the work center.
A second feature of the governing system controls the water flow in
conjunction with the load controller. It consists of a valve which
will vary the flow of water to one of the two pump/turbines. If
the amount of surplus power in the system approaches the 60-kW
capacity of the resistor load, the water flow will be reduced. In
a similar fashion, the water flow will be increased to the second
turbine should the surplus of power to the resistor load drop below
some minimum reserve level. This combination of electrical and
water control is ideal for the system proposed for Neck Lake. It
costs a fraction of the cost of a full water control governor while
maintaining excellent control of the sytem. Appendix C contains an
excellent description of a load/water control called Product G,
produced by Thompson and Howe Engergy Systems, Inc.
TABLE I
&QNS'f'It6CTI ON CO:t'f"S
Diversion Structure -75' long x 3' high
75' X 1.5' X 3'/27 = 12.5 CY
Use 14 CY due to uneven foundation
Labor @$500/CY; Materials @$250/Cy
Subtotal = $10,500
Intake Stucture (7' x 12' x 7')
Slab 12' X 1' X 7'/27: 3.11 CY
Walls 1 1 X 34 1 X 7'/27: 8.81
Say 12 CY@ Labor @ $250; Materials @$250/CY
Intake Grate 5' x 6' W/1• Openings
36• Slide Gate Shutoff
36• to 30" Concentric Reducer
Subtotal= $11,600
Penstock 30 8 ID X 1000LF x 3/16•
Labor for Installation @$20/ft;
Materials @$30
10
-MATEftl AbS
$ 7,000 $ 3,500
$ 3,000
0
1 '500
200
$ 3,000
600
3,000
300
$ 4,700 $ 6,900
$ 20,000
Thrust Blocks -five @2 CY each =
24 8 Isolation Valve @ Powerhouse
10 CY 1 , 500
1. 000
$ 30,000
2,500
s,ooo
Subtotal = $60,000
Access Road -1200 LF of 14' cleared
and 10' rocked, low standard Rd
@$120,000/mi
$ 22,500 $ 37,500
$ 27,000 $ 0
Turbine with speed increaser and frame mounted$
Generator--480 Volt, 3 Phase, 125 kW
$ 46,000
10,000
Electrical Controls over under Freg Guard,
Micro-Processor, Water & Load Control
Governor, (Product G)
Electrical Design Consultation
(Thompson & Howe)
Installation of above unit
Subtotal = $63,500
2,000
8,000
3,500
$ 10,000 $ 59,500
•
CONST RUCTION COSTS· LABOR
Transmission Line 3820 LF
12 kV Wood Pole Transmission Line
Materials @$4/ft; Construction @$6
Two Transformers 480 V to 12 kV
Subtotal = $50,300
Electrical Equipment in Work Center
needed to utilize surplus power for
building heat.
10 Load Management Relays
• Duct Heating Elements
Warehouse one 5 kW, one 7.5Kw
Office two 5 kW
Barracks one 10 kW, one 14 kW
3 Trailers w/5 kW in each trailer
Subtotal = $9,500
Backup 30 kW Diesel Generator
11
MATERIALs-
$ 23,000 $ 15,300
5.000 7,000
$ 28,000 $ 22,300
900
$ 5,000
900
1 14 0 0
1 • 30 0
$ 9,500
(Stand alone, not synchronized with hydro) $ 20,000
Powerhouse Building 18' x 24'
Excavation Building 6 1 x 18' x 24 1 /27
Tailrace 6' x 4' x 40'/27
@$40/CY
= 96
= 26
132
32
10.5
=~
50.5
Concrete Slab 2' x 18' x 24 1 /27=
Walls: 10" x 4'x 85 LF/27 =
Tailrace 1 1 x 35' x 8 1 /27
Materials @$250/CY, Labor @$250
6' of f~amed wall and roof
432 ft x $30/sq ft
Subtotal = $43,500
Total = $301,900
CY
CY
$ 5,300
CY
12,600 $12,600
7.000 6.000
$24,900 $18,600
$124,100 + $177,800
Electric resistance duct heaters may not make the best use of
surplus energy. They were only used to represent an added cost
need to utilize the surplus power. Electric heating elements in a
hot water heating system are preferred.
12
IV. ~cgin~ering Parameters
This section outlines the engineering considerations which affect
hydroelectric generation on Neck Creek.
Figure V depicts the hydro system using a 30-inch diameter
penstock. It shows that a maximum of 260 kW could be produced if
70 CFS flows through the penstock. The maximum usable flow,
however, will be limited to 25 CFS which is the capacity the
turbine can handle. This capcity was set to produce the estimated
power needs of 130 kW for the work center. The horizontal line•
with the triangle legend indicates this maximum output of 130 kW.
The line with the square legend plots the usable head at the
turbine after frictional losses in the penstock are deducted. At a
flow of 25 CFS, the head loss is only 3 feet and the velocity
within the penstock is slightly over 5 ft/sec. (The velocity line
is plotted with a factor or 10, so the listed velocity of 50
becomes 5 ft/sec.)
KW, HEAD, & V L. VS FLOW
FOR A 30" DIA. PENSTOCK
280
260
240
220
~ 200
u
0 180 _J w > 160
0 z 140 <(
v ,_---'---. ~~
/ / :~
/ v I
/v /~
/ ~ ...... v
/ ~ ~ v
/ v
:3: 120
:::£
0 100
L5 80 I
60
40
20
0
/ ~ -v ~ v
v v v
/ /
/ -
/ ~ ~
/ "'"1 fl..-. '1--El--
/ / / -;~
l? /
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
FLOW IN CFS
o HEAD + KW <> VEL.* 10 1:J. MAX KW
Figure V
14
Figure VI shows four velocity curves. A system sized for 25
CFS requires a 30-inch pipe size to limit the maximum water
velocity to 5 ft/sec in the pipeline. The other curves are for
velocities of 3, 7, and 9 ft/sec.
The maximum water velocity within the penstock of 5 ft/sec is a
rule of thumb which:
1. reduces the need and size of thrust blocks at angle
points.
2. • minimizes the range of operating heads at the turbine
caused by frictional losses in the penstock. This results in
more efficient generation throughout the range of usable flows.
PIPE DIAMETER VS FLOW
FOR GIVEN VELOCITIES IN THE PIPES
so ,----------------------------------T----~----------------
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
PIPE DIAMETER IN INCHES
c 3'/S + 5'/S <> 7'/S ~ 9'/S
Figure VI
15
Table II lists the system's electrical output given the input
values of 80 feet of static head, 25 CFS flow, 1000 ft of 30
inch steel penstock with a manning coefficient of .012, and an
overall system efficiency of 78%. The power output is
calculated at 127 kW using the formula:
kW: Ex Q X H/11.8
where E is the system's efficiency factor of 78%, H is the
usable bead which is the 80 feet of static bead less the 3.17
feet of frictional losses, Q is the flow in CFS, and 11.8 is
conversion factor to convert ft/lbs of work to kilowatts.
a
The bottom block on Figure II lists average monthly flows in
Neck Creek. It is easily seen that the proposed system will
always have sufficient flow to operate at full capacity. These
monthly flows were taken from the Hydrologic report in Appendix
A. The flows for Neck Creek were determined using seven years
of actual flow records in addition to 19 years of flow data on
a nearby stream. While the average flows exceed the hydro
plant's demand, the 25 CFS flow will not be available during
the low water years. Based on the lowest water year of 20
years of record, two feet of additional impoundment in Neck
Lake is required to provide a continuous 25 CFS outflow. A
3-foot high diversion structure (dam) would be necessary at the
point of diversion. This structure would raise the level of
the lake 2 feet. See Figures VII & VIII for a conceptual plan
for the diversion and intake structures.
Table III contains the data used to develop Figures I through
IV. The top portion contains the input data which was used to
calculate the annual cash flows for the 25 year analysis
period. This table was developed using a "spread sheet" on a
personal computer, and thus the formulas used in the
calculations are not shown. The calculations for the Diesel
System are duplicated in a trackable form in Appendix B.
JAN
FEB
MAR
APf;:
MAY
.JUN
c! UL.
?1lJG
UEF'
IJCT
NLJ~.J
DEC
F'LAf\H
FACTOR :::::
E::J-~U I h!E[f.'li'lf:; F''AF·O::.;Ht: I EF:h
-f Ot~
hll"_Cf ! ?"if:E H'd)Rfl bTUUY
DN F'f-<1 NLF Cit-l•!f:;u::_ ~~ I::; Uil\!1)
TCJN(:;r::!~-;~:; Nf-lT I [lh!AL F Ohl S l
by Greg Watkins Oct 25, 1984
******************************************* * PIF't:: DIAt·lETt:F:
11-Sl hLi-)i1 NAH~l. FUM
* STA rJ C HEt~D
11· F' I F'E L Ft-J(:-, T I-I
* Mr-:il'JNIN\.3 N
* S'YSTEI"l E.FFICIFNC'l'
·li·
--
-·
-
=
=
""'
:::;o
1. :"!
80
1000
0. 012
0. 78
INCHEb * C! ~-) -¥c
FEET * FEEl *
* % *
*
******~************************************
SYS fEt'! b IZE
*******************************************
* MAX USEABLE Fl..DllJ
* HEAD LOSS AT MAX FLOW -
if· i•1AX F'O\.'JF!i OUTPUT =
* MAX VEL. IN PENSTOCK
:~;. 17
127
5. i.
CFS *
fEET +:
Kl'-J if
FT ISI:~L *
*************~*****************************
AVG
FLUl•l
bO
EJu
90
1 l ()
90
60
~0
70
90
1BO
1 :':·0
100
1. (H)
USEHHd:
FL. Ul•J
:~s. ()
25. 0
:::=~ .. 0
2~5 .. 0
r !C:::
.. :. .... J .. (J
~.c:-
.L.d. 0
25 .. 0
,"·,c.: 0 .,.·.:.. ·~.J •
... -. t.:.~
~ .J. (l
.~,r:,.~ 0 .. ·: .. ..) .
25. 0
:-.. C'
.:.: . ._J. (l
A\/G
HLAD
77
77
77
--, '7
I '
77
Tl
77
77
77
77
77
77
AI/C:i
12/
127
127
j ';;./
127 1 ,.., --,
~.!
1::7
l':·' .,
127
127
12"7
127
F'OWER
<Mt•Jhr/
c;;-c; ,_}
86
95
9'-' .. /
95
92
95
Q<:: ' ._J
9"' "'-
9tc ._J
lJ•;;::
95
16
J?ii!
FEb
MAF-\'
AF'P
r-·~~ ... .,..
.JUh
~.E.J!
HUG
E;t::.~: ..
ClCT
f•.,ll_)'.,'
m:c
TAFc:LE I I
Table II
1 ABLE li I
ECDNO~lC SUM~~Rf OF DIESEL 6ENE~P10R5 VS. H1LPO
Al WHAiE PAS5 WG~k CENTER, RE5iQN 10
b1 Sreg WaUins ~~J¥ 3, !'184
HYDRO CDNSlRUCTIDN COSTS
HYDRO OPER .• M~l~l. COST @ 41
DIESEL CO~STRUCl!DN COSlS
ANNUAL OFER. MAiNT. SOSTS @ 6:
IN!TIA~ DIESEL FUEL COSliYR
ENERGY ESCALL~TICN RATE
INTEREST RATE
PERIOD OF ANALYSIS
SALVAGE VAL.UE FOR H!DP.O
SALVAGE VALUE FOE DIESEL
U249•J DOLLAF:S
1bB96 DOLlAi6
90?2C, DOLLAti'S
544.3 OOLL~FS
38757 DOLLAr:S
4 7./YR.
7 t1l'R.
25 YEARS
424h, !JOLLA;S
22DC~O DOLLARS
17
-----·--------------------------------------------------------------~--------·------------------
DJE5~L GENERATOR COSTS HYDRO BENERATION [GSTS
CONST ANNUAL ANNUAL ACCLi~ . CONST. ANNUAL A)j!tiUAL AC:I!M l
'!Ei!R COSTS D & 1'1 FUEL COS1 COSTS COSTS I COSTS G ~ I! COSTS COSTS i
-----------·------------------·----------------~------------------------------------------------
Pill " 120404 ~3433 683o41 8!:7478 ~i4575 196899 bll474
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 9072(• 0 0 90720 91}720 I ~22400 0 422~00 422~00 i
1 5443 4(•30? 45750 136470 I 16896 lo896 439296 '
2 544) 41920 47363 183933 I 1 o996 16896 456192 '
3 5443 43596 4904(1 232873 I 168'1o le89b 473(188 I
4 5443 45340 50733 283656 I 168% 16996 489984 I
5 5443 47154 52597 336253 ! 16896 16896 506880
6 5443 49040 54~83 390736 I 16896 !6896 5237'6
7 5443 51002 50445 447181 I 1699t 16896 540672 I
£i 5443 53042 58485 505b66 I 16896 16896 557~68 I
9 5443 55163 606£16 5oo272 ' l689b 16896 5'74464 I
10 ~4000 5443 57370 62813 673v8b I !68% 168~b 591360 I
11 5443 59665 65!08 738!9$ I 16896 16896 1:08256 I
12 5443 62051 67494 805688 ' 16896 16E'6 6?5152 I
13 5443 64533 69976 8756!!4 i 1o896 16896 642\148 '
14 5443 67115 72558 948222 ' 16896 16B'i'6 658944 I
15 5443 69799 75242 1023464 I 1689b 16891! 675840 i
16 5443 72591 78•.!34 1t 01499 ' 16896 16896 692736 '
17 5443 75495 80938 1182437 ' 1689b 16896 709632 I
18 5443 78515 83958 12663'14 ' 1689b 168'16 726523 I
19 5443 81655 87098 13534'3 t 16896 1b89b 743424
2(1 44000 5443 84921 90365 1487857 I 16896 16896 760320 I
21 5443 883!8 93761 1581619 I 1689& 1689c 77721/:, I
22 5443 91851 97294 1678913 I 16896 lb896 794112 I
23 5443 95525 100968 1779881 I 16896 16896 811008 I
24 5443 99346 104789 18841170 . 1689c lb8qb 827904 I
25 -22000 5443 10332() 108763 1971433 I -42470 16896 l6896 802330 '
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lHE HIFORPIATION IN lHIS TABLE MAS USED
TO DEVELOP FIGURES I, 11, lll, ~ IY. Table Ill
-
ACCESS ROAD, PENSTOCK, & DIVERSION
10' ACCESS
ISLAND
s
s
s
IN IIOAD
/ /;' ~ NL.-EC_K_C_R_E_E_K_
f
NECK
LAKE
APPROX. SKETCH SCALE: 1!4 11
-= 10'
Figure VII
f ..
'
IAL.I: I ._, I ftU\, I UnC
CCONCIPTUAL elltQN)
DIVERSION STRUCTURE
A
j
""" ~ f ..
0 i
... ,
PLAN VIEW
3" fll A I R VENT
SECTION A-A
r--
""" ~---
~
/ -..
'
r:1
11 •• tl ,.
II
II
.
/
I
( ,
A
~
/
/
I
/
19
/
/
Figure VIII
SCALE: ~ .. -~ 1'-0 ..
:I:
z
<(
UJ
NECK CREEK PROFlLE
-HORIZONTAL SCALE APPROXIMATE-
~~------~-------+--------+-------·~-------,r-----~~--------+-·----·-----~------
UJ > ~
<(
1000 900 700 EiOO 500
DISTANCE IN FEET
FALLS
)
400 300 200 100
MEAN
HIGH
TIDE
Figure IX
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGIC & HYDRAULIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
For The
NECK LAKE HYDROELECT~IC SITE
PRINCE Or WALES lSLAND, ALASKA
ay
LOUIS R. BARTOS -HYDROLOGIST
1984
y
\
' \ ./
! ""'-'
\
\
' \
l
'· .
' I .,