Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmall Run-of-the-River Site Eval 1978• ~UI ' .·a. d. I ..{q ~SV!V NI ~NaHdO!~A~a ~aMOd JI~~J~!~O~QXH ...rat-~~ -jo-L.rn~..\ I)'OWc; ..Aod ~~~~-\C~Jn)-of'\3 'df.S f>?:>SodOJ<i'<j OAH 800 A PROPOSED SITE t~ALUATION STUDY FOR SMALL RUN-OF-THE-RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PO..tER DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA Prepared for: Prepared by: The Governor of Alaska Energy Planning Board 7th Floor, MacKay Building 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Independent Power Developers, Inc. Route 3, Box 285 Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 (208) 263-2166 June 19, 1978 I. INTRODUCTION Independent Pm;er Developers, Inc. (IPD) is requesting funds for the examination of 14 hydroelectric sites to determine the feasibility of installing small run-of-the-river systems. This field reconnaissance is expected to produce data ·~rhich will lead to the development of a minimum of eight small syst,ems. The examination and evaluation of these 14 sites vlill be accomplished during the rema:ining six months of 1978 in an effort to begin installations during the summer months of 1979, pending the approval of the State of Alaska. The emphasis of this project is on action. Unlike the numerous hydroelectric studies already conducted within Alaska which were intended to provide information leading to the possible installation of multimillion dollar multi-megawatt facilities which are usually never constructed, the field reconnaissance project bein~ proposed here is presented with the full intent of developing a majority of the sites under examination. The installations resulting from this study will all be less than 100 Kw and all could be in and operating by the end of the sumner of 1979. The overall project, including both the site evaluation project proposed here and the installations ~hich would follow, is being presented on a scale which lends itself to action. The relevance of small-scale, run-of-the-river hydroelectric development as an answer to Alaska's present and future energy needs has been ackno~ledged by the preliminary report produced by the State's "Pm;er and Economic Development Program", (p. 78) : ·"Although not uniformly dispersed throughout the state, Alaska is endowed with topography and climate which give it abundant potential hydropower energy." •"Also, some of the larger (:hydroelectric) projects may cause severe environmental impact and hence from a pra0tical point of view have little chance of being constructed, 11 •"Southeast and Southcentral Alaska in particular have great potential for smaller (rvdroelectric) projects that could be built with minimal environmental impact." •"Since civil construction usually represents the major cost in a hydroelectric facility, it is believed that more attention should be given to the smaller, run-of-the-river hydro projects.n 1. 2. As indicated by these statements, small run-of-the-river hydroelectric systems offer at least a partial solution to the present and future energy needs of the state. Taking this general conclusion one step farther, IPD has developed some insight as to just what extent small, localized, run-of-the-river hydroelectric systems may serve the people of Alaska. As data was being evaluated for the preparation of the proposal, it was discovered that there are 226 streams within a five mile radius of 88 communities having a population of 200 or less in the Interior, Southcentral and Southeastern Regions of Alaska that may qualify for run-of-the-river hydroelectric development. Nearly all of these communities are currently dependent upon fossil-fueled electrical generation costing an estimated 7-24 cents/KwH. Although some of the 88 communities could not feasibly consider total dependence upon hydroelectric power, many could and others could even consider commercial application of hydroelectric power in addition to their domestic requirBments. Also, it must be pointed out that the five mile radius imposed an extremely conservative limitation on this figure because it would be economically feasible to develop hydroelectric sites as far as 10, 15 or 25 miles from the larger communities. Based upon this preliminary research, IPD believes that small, localized hydroelectric power development is a significant alternative to expensive fossil-fueled plants in rural Alaska. 3· II • OBJECTIVE The objective of this proposed project is to examine, on location, 14 water power sites to determine their suitability for run-of-the­ river hydroelectric power development. These sites are located in the Interior, Southcentral and Southeastern Regions of the state. Five of the 11~ sites \fill be examined for their ability to supply the total electrical demand of a nearby community and the remaining nine sites will be examined for their potential as locations for public demonstration installations. The data will be processed into a final report evaluating each of the sites and detailed recommendations will be given concerning development. As stated in the introduction, ·the purpose of this field reconnaissance project is to initiate actual development of these sites. For this reason, IPD will request the State to respond to the development recommendations contained within the site evaluation report with the intention of beginning the installations in the summer of 1979. 4. III. HO\.J A RUN-OF -THE-RIVER D.C. TO A. C. HYDROELECTRIC SYSTEM OPERATES The production of rvdroelectric power can be accomplished using a variety of approaches. The two extremes are the conventional A.C. app~oach using a dam and the run-of-the-river D.C. to A.C. approach which does not require a dam. Because IPD is proposing a feasibility study which is focused upon the latter method, a brief comparison of these two methods should serve to point out their basic differences. HYdroelectric power, in general, is produced by pressurized water passing through a turbine runner which rotates a generator armature creating an electrical output. The two components which determine the amount of power produced are head (pressure) and flow. Head is the vertical distance from the water surface at the dam to the water surface below the dam (see figs. 3 and 4 for the description of head in systems not utilizing a dam). Head and pressure are equivalent terms. Flow is simply the maximum quantity of water capable of passing through the turbine being used. The amount of power capable of being produced by a turbine at any given waterpower site is found by the formula:* Horsepower= head (ft.) X flow (cfm) X .0016 From this formula, one can see that as the amount of head goes down, more flow is required to deliver the same amount of horsepower. It follows, then, that a high-head turbine requires less flow than a low-head turbine to produce the same horsepower output. The illustrations shown in figs. 1 and 2 (pp. 6 and 7) are simplified diagrams of conventional A.C. hydroelectric systems. Water is impounded behind a dam forming a reservoir which serves to create both head and storage. The water passes through a turbine which drives an A.C. generator producing a 60 cycle current. The turbine and generator are sized for peaking electrical demand and the system is equipped with a governor which balances power production with powe~ demand by forcing the turbine to run inefficiently during periods of low power demand. *This horsepower figure assumes a typical turbine efficiency of 85% which is included in the conversion factor: .0016. 5­ Figures 3 and 4 (pp. 8 and 9) are simplified illustrations of typical run-of-the-river D.C. to A.C. systems. Water is taken from a catch basin on the stream and alloved to pass through a turbine which drives a D.C. generator. The D.C. generator charges a battery bank which stores energy for future use. As power is used, the D.C. electricity passes from the battery bank through an inverter which changes the D.C. into 60 cycle A.C. while regulating output. During peaking periods when the electrical demand is great, the batteries are being discharged and, conversely, when electrical demand is low, the batteries are being charged. The turbine, however, is always running at a constant speed at maximum efficiency. The important advantages of a run-of-the-river D.C. to A.C. system are: 1. A much smaller turbine/generator can provide the same electrical output benefits because of constant operation at maximum efficiency; 2. Less water is required to produce the same net electrical output; 3· A dam is not required for storage purposes. This approach to hydroelectric power production is well suited to situations where low flows and environmental impact are important limiting factors. Also, the elimination of a dam constitutes a significant reduction of the overall cost and time required to make the installation. As stated previously, these tvm methods of hydroelectric power production only represent the two extreme approaches. Other options include: •run-of-the-river D.C. systems; •run-of-the-river A.C. systems: ·composite run-of-the-river A.C. and D.C. to A.C. systems. Although there is a possibility that one or more of these approaches may be applicable to the sites to be examined in this study, a discussion describing their function and relative merits will be reserved for the site evaluation reports for the appropriate sites. 6. a -<! w -:r s ~ ___l >­ \j) >­ \S) \-..) _J 4 2 CJ \­ 2 w > 2 CJ \.__) <l: '-.) uJ _j w <::J (Y D >­-=r: . \-..) -<:t ~ <( 0 >­<{ ru UJ t:! ~ ~ '-.)U., c l­ 1.1), :z u.\ 1:1.. ol ~ \l.l < 2c.i UJ 1:0 :z tl{ Ul ::J ~ l­ ~ LL \l. ~ DAM A A.C. TtJREll NE f A£. !AI LWATER ....;). CONVENTIONAL, ~IGl-1 l-1EAD HYDROELECTRIC 6Y5TEM 601-JE:RATOR. z I PEN5TOCK a. 4 \ll :r. Fl GUQE 2 co . -------­ A N-OF-T~E-RIV D.. TO A.C. LOW ~EAD ~YDROELECTr<IC· SYSTEM D.C.. TO AC. INVERTER FIGURE 3 CATCH 6ASI>J \ --, ~PIPELINE ~I A HIGH WEAD IUR61 NE. e I • D.C. GENERATOR 11)..1 LWATER RUN-OF-T~E-RIVER DC. TO A. C. ~y ROELECTRIC 5 TEM r-DC. TO A.C.. I NVE.~TE.f< 0. 6TI<.EAM '--PI PELIIJE. -<( \.lJ :r FIGURE 4 \.0. 10. IV. SITES TENTATIVELY SELECTED FCR INSTALLATIONS Listed on p. 13 are 32 sites which have been tentatively selected for study. The first seven sites (Group I) which have been assigned a letter identification (A, B, C, D, E, F & G) have been selected for their potential to supply total electrical power for the nearby community indicated on the chart. The remaining 25 sites (Group II) have been selected for their public demonstration potential. A preliminary field inspection of the 32 sites will result in selecting five sites from Group I and nine sites from Group II for a thorough field examination which will produce the data required for the submission of the site evalua+,ion reports. The tentative sites listed in Group I have been selected for their potential to demonstrate the practicality of small, la..,r-impact hydroelectric development as an alternative to expensive fossil-fueled electrical generation in qualifying communities. The criteria for selecting these sites was as folla..,rs: ·Resource Consideration Using water resource data, topographic maps and census information, an effort was made to select sites which would be capable of generating a sufficient amount of electrical power to meet the estimated demand of the nearby community. In five of the seven communities selected, the census informa­ tion was non-specific in that the population was listed as a summation for several communities within an 11 enumeration district. 11 Additionally, the census information used was compiled in 1970 which lends further doubt to the credibility of the population figures. In an effort to counteract the lack of solid population data, IPD has selected communities which have a local water power resource that is probably in excess of their requirements. •Cost of Electricity Although specific information regarding the actual cost of electricity in these small communities was not available, it was asswr.ed that the source of pm1er in all cases is expensive fossil-fueled generation. If the preliminary field inspection 11. of any of these sites indicates that this is not the case, the site will not be examined further and no site evaluation report will be submitted. •Hydroelectric Installation Cost One of the prime considerations given to the selection of these sites was that of minimizing installation costs. The sites in this group require relatively short pipelines, minimal trans­ mission distances and are accessible by either truck or boat. ·Site Dispersal As indicated on the chart, sites have been se1ected in each of the Interior, Southcentral and Southeastern Regions of Alaska. It is hoped that one of the sites in each of these areas will be developed as a result of this study. This would provide practical information concerning the feasibility of run-of-the­ river hydro on a geographical basis. In summary, the sites in Group I have been selected for their estimated high potential to become the first communities to benefit from the develo~ent of local hydroelectric resources as an alternative to costly fossil-fueled electric power generation. The tentative sites listed in Group II have been selected as potential candidates for demonstration systems. Because small, run­ of-the-river, D.C. to A.C. hydro systems are somewhat unique in an age where hydroelectric power production has become synonomous with huge dams and massive transportation networks, demonstration systems which would be periodically open to the public could be of great value from an informative standpoint. Demonstration sites could not only inform the public as to what the State is doing to assist remote villages in economically meeting their power requirements, but a two way communication could be established where the public cotlld suggest a broader range of applications for localized hydroelectric power production. The sites listed in Group II on the chart were selected on the basis of accessibility from major population centers with some consideration given to the application of the power produced by these systems. An effort has been made to achieve good distribution throughout key areas of the Southcentral and Southeastern Regions of the state as best as the resource would permit. Although many of 12. the 25 sites listed on the chart vrill be rejected in the preliminary examination before actual field data is taken, IPD will attempt to maintain adequate distribution as the study progresses. As with the sites selected in Group I, the economics of making the installations was given prime consideration. TENTATIVE SITES FOR FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Site Group Nearest Size of No. Area 1 Plant 2Stream RegionCorrnnunity Locatiqn 3 - OneA Banner Cr. Richardson Int. 50-100 Kw 6o mi. SE of Fairbanks One Riley Cr. McKinley ParkB Int. j 50-100 Kw 90 mi. S of Fairbanks H Valdez Cr.c One Denali s.c. 50-100 Kw 120 mi. S of Fairbanks 0., Two Squirrel Cr. s.c.-D Tons ina 50-100 Kw:;j 160 mi. E of Anchorage 0 Two-E 0' Brien Cr. Chitina S.C. 50-100 Kw 180 mi. E of Anchorage1-1 d EightF Sadie 1. (outlet) I Baranof S.E. 50-100 Kw 20 mi. E of Sitka G Eigpt s. . 50-100 Kw 20· mi. E of Sitka~_l'anof L. (outlet)__i---~'?:l'~!~<?f.___ ' .....,,_ ---------­G'.::is-·K:.,..,Three1 Granite Cr. Sutton s.c. 50 mi. NE of Arlc1'1orage 2 'l'hree Thunderbird Cr. . Eklutna S.C. 6-18 Kw 20 mi. N of Anchorage 3 Three S.C. 15 mi. N of Ar.chorage 4 Peters Cr. I Peters Cr. 6-18 Kw Three N. Fork Campbell Cr. Anchorage S.C. 6-18 Kw Ou.tskirts of Anchorage Three Potters Cr. Potter s.c. 6-18 Kw 10 mi. S of /lnchorageI 5 I 6 Three McHugh Cr. Rainbo-w s.c. 6-18 Kw I 20 mi. s of Anchorage I IThree7 Rainbow Cr. Rainbovl S.C. 20 mi. s of Anchorage 8 6-18 Kw Four California Cr. Girdvwod S.C. 30 mi. SE of Anchorage6-18 Kw IFour Cripple Cr. Hope S.C. 6-18 Kw mi. S of Anchorage 10 9 Four Resurrection Cr. Hope S.C. 25 rnl. S of Anchorage 11 6-1G Kvl Sunrise Cr.Four Sunrise s.c. 6-18 Kw 25 mi. SE of Anchorage H H 12 Cub Cr.Four Sunrise s.c. 6-13 Kw 25 mi. SE of Anchorege Fresno Cr.Fourp.. Dahl S.C. 40 mi.. S of Anchorage13 6-18 Kw :;j 14 Five Big Boulder Cr. Klukwan S.E. 35 mi. N\>/ of Haines6-18 Kw0,, Little Boulder Cr.Five Klukwan S.E.15 35 mi. N..J of Hsines 16 6-18 Kwd Five Shakuseyi Cr. Tanani S.E. 6 mi. NV/ of Haines 17 6-18 Kw Five Unnamed Cr. Tanani S.E. 5 mi. Ifw of Haines 18 6-18 Kw Five Unnruned Cr. Tanani S.E. 3 mi. NW of Haines 19 6-18 Kw Six Fish Cr. We[;t Juneau S.E. 6 mi. W of Juneau 20 6-18 Kw Six Eagle Cr. S.E.West Juneau. 6-18 Kw 2 mi. \>/ of Juneau 21 Six Montan9. Cr. Auke S.E. 10 mi. Ifd of ,Juneau 22 6-18 Kw Six La.ke Cr. Auke Bay S.E. 6-18 K•w 10 mi. NW of Juneau' Seven Lunch Cr. Mud Day S.E.23 6-18 Kw 12 mi. N\1 of Ketchikan 24 Seven 1st V.!aterfall Cr. Mud Bay S.E. 6-18 Kw 12 mi. N'v-1 of Ketchikan 25 2nd ~::aterfall Cr.Seven Mud B3.y S.E. 12 mi. NH of Ketchikan6--18 Kw . -----·-· --· 1croup Area refers to geographical study un:t ts (expl. .Section V). 2capacity listed here is onJy for general classification -not actual. 3nistances are direct, not road mileage. Int. : Interior S.C.: Southcentral S.E. : Southeastern 14. V. METHOD OF APPROACH This project will consist of the performance of three related tasks: Task no. 1: Preliminary Field Inspection Task no. 2: Site examination Task no. 3: Reporting Task no. 1. Preliminary Field Inspection Each of the 32 tentative sites listed in Section IV will be given a cursory field assessment. This will consist of a brief, on-location overview where basic feasibility factors such as vegetation, soil characteristics, general topography, seasonal flow characteristics, community population, cost of electricity and existing power plant capabilities will be assessed. A short summarization of the relative attributes of each of the tentative sites will be made. The preliminary assessment of the sites will be done on an area­ by-area basis (see site chart, p. 13) in an effort to minimize trans­ portation costs. The field crew will review the preliminary assessment summaries before leaving a designated area and return to the most promising sites to gather the site examination data necessary for the site evaluation reports. Task no. 2. Site Examination Fourteen of the 32 tentative sites will be examined to determine their relative value for run-of-the-river hydroelectric development. Among the data which will be collected is as follows: •turbine and inlet (catch basin) locations; •head development possible; •seasonal flow characteristics of the waterway; -length and location of the pipeline; •transmission distance from the point of power production to the point of power usage; •possibility of negative environmental impact (e.g., threat to fish population); •application possibilities of the electrical power produced by the hydro system; ·information regarding the existing po\..rer system which serves the community at the site (e.g., type of system, output capacity, 15. dependability, maintenance, O\vnership, cost of operation, cost of electricity produced, etc.); ·a brief, visual assessment of the total '.rater power resource in the area of each site (to determine the practicality of supplementary future development); and •special problems which may be encountered in the installation of the proposed hydroelectric system. The gathering of this data will provide the factual base for the site evaluation repor~s. As indicated in Task no. 1, this field information will be collected in each area im~ediately after the preliminary field inspection has been evaluated for that area. Task no. ). Reporting The field examination will be processed into site evaluation reports which will contain the following information: •an analysis of ·~he peysical site factors which are related to run-of-the-river hydroelectric development at each of the locations; ·a diagram showing the suggested layout of each proposed hydro system; •an identification of the equipment to be used in each of the proposed hydroelectric systems; ·an itemized budget showing the estimated cost of each of the installations; •an estimated time schedule for each of the projects; ·a brief description of the existing electrical power facilities serving the community in the area; and ·a summary stating IPD's recommendations for site development. The report is expected to be comprehensive enough to accommodate an expedient decision from State authorities regarding installation approval. 16. VI. PROJECT SCHEDULING Listed below are two alternatives for project scheduling. The first alternative is applicable to the calendar year of 1978 and is pending the acceptance of this proposal on or before July 14, 1978. Because the field work will require approximately 11 weeks of adequate weather for accurate and thorough investigation} IPD must request approval of this report by that date to insure that the critical data is obtainable during 1978. If the approval of this project is not feasible on or before July 14, 1978, the second alternative for project scheduling (calendar year of 1979) will go into effect. This schedule would move the anticipated hydroelectric installation time ahead to the surruner of 1980. SCHEDULE NO. 1 (Pending Project Approval py 7/14/78) Month (1978) Task July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. -~r---­,______ ---.­~--- 1. Preliminary Field Inspection --- 2. Site Examination -­ -~~- 3· Reporting -­ eSite Evaluation Report Due December 29, 1978. SCHEDULE NO. 2 (Pending Project Approval After 7Ll4/78 and Before 10/14/78) 1. 2. 3· Month (1979) Task July Au~:Sept. Oct. -­-f·~ -­ Preliminary Field Inspection ~- --­-~----------­'-------­ Site Examination -­ Reporting--­- Nov. Dec. ----­ •Site Evaluation Report Due November 16, 1979. 17. VII. BUOOEr A. Personnel Professional &Technical Services $15,960 Support Services (secretarial, drafting, etc.) ~90 Total Direct Labor $18,950 Payroll Burden (29% of Direct Labor) 5,496 Total Salaries & \-.!ages $24,446 B. On-Site Overhead (105% of Total Salaries &Wages) $25,668 c. Direct Costs Travel 5,175 Communication 290 Report Production 275 Total Direct Costs $5,7h0 D. Total Pro,ject Budget $55,854 18. VIII. QUALIFICATIONS Independent Power Developers, Inc. is uniquely qualified to perform this feasibility study because of our active participation in the conceptualization, design and construction of run-of-the-river D.C. to A.C. hydroelectric systems for the past five years. IPD has consulted on appropriate energy technology for the Montana Department of Natural Resources, the Human Resources Development Council, the Asia Society Nepal, the U.S. Agency for International Development and numerous private foundations as well as two Native American Economic Development Councils.