HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaska's Wind Energy Systems-Inventory & Economic Assessment 1984WIN
006
C.2
Alaska Er LIBRARY COPY
7" Please use
BLUE SIGN-OUT CARD
Alaska’s Wind Energy Systems
State of Alaska
Department of Commerce
& Economic Development
Finance and Economics
Inventory and Economic Assessment January 1984
ALASKA'S WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS:
Inventory and Economic Assessment
by
R. Steven Konkel, Energy Economist
Department of Commerce and
Economic Development
Pouch D,Juneau 99811
(907) 465-2079
February 1, 1984
WIN
OZ
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people contributed their time and energy to make this report
accurately reflect the status of wind generator installations in
Alaska as of January, 1984. Mark Newell, Pam Root, Jerry Larsen,
Bob Loeffler, and wind generator owners throughout Alaska were
generous in sharing their data and experiences. Bob Clark designed
the computer tools used in this project and Nick Coti provided
valuable data processing assistance on the computer. 8111 Marchese
produced the artwork and covers from slides taken by the author.
Gary Sofo collected some of the inventory and status information
through a phone survey of wind generator owners and dealers. Review
of the report by George Matz, Paul Engelman, Carl Laird, and Bil)
Beardsley is also gratefully acknowledged.
The economic analysis depends on information collected or
reported in the last quarter of 1983: although it is the best
information available on wind generation, it is recognized that
implementing a dynamic system could improve the data _ base.
Reference to a company or product does not imply a recommendation or
approval. The contents of this report reflect the author's views
rather than official policy of DCED.
WIND GENERATOR in Bristol
Bay, adajacent to the Nak-
uek River.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems
ALASKA'S WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
A. Introduction
B. Inventory
C. Methodology
D. Economic Analysis
1. First-Year Case
2. Crossover-Year Calculations
3. Life-Cycle Cases
E. Conclusion and Recommendations
References
Appendix A: Inventory of Wind Generators
Appendix B: Wind Generator Project Statistics
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 4
Executive Summary
A January, 1984 inventory of wind generators in Alaska with
details on the location and technical characteristics of the
Machines--such as manufacturer, rated kilowatt (kW) capacity, and
whether the machine was a battery charger or intertied with the
local utility--has been completed. Information on the working
status, model, and kilowatt-hour (kWh) production of each wind
generator was verified by site visits or in a phone survey of wind
generator owners, municipal officials, and equipment dealers. By
1984, there were at least 140 wind generators rated at .5 kW or
larger that had been installed in Alaska, a sizeable increase over
the 82 wind generators listed in a previous survey (Alaskan Wind
Energy Handbook, March, 1981).
To put wind generator ratings (kW) for production into
perspective, consider the kWh production from a 1 kW wind generator
operating in Platinum. This wind generator has produced 2400 kWh in
the period from January through October, 1983. This machine has
achieved a capacity factor of 32.8 percent (2400 kWh divided by 1 kW
times the product of 24 hours per day and 365 days per year). At
8760 kWh the Platinum machine would achieve a capacity factor of 100
percent. This machine is producing an average of 240 kWh per
month. This exceeds the 1982 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC) village average residential consumption of 184 kwh per month.
The kWh data base for this preliminary economic assessment was
limited, in some cases containing only three months of meter
readings and in one of the best cases not more than a cumulative
reading at the end of 24 months. Estimates of annual kWh production
were made for 24 of the 140 machines included in the inventory.
Many machines have gone through an initial period of adjustment
after installation, which has affected their reliability and
production. Increased production can subjectively be attributed to
improved blade, tail and inverter designs. These design changes
have also resulted in a decrease in down time. By contrast, a
machine installed in Unalakleet in June, 1983 has been operating for
7 months with no down time.
UNALAKLEET #4-- Excellent
winds and good planning
results in high performance.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems pe 5
The economic assessment presented in this report is based on a
comparison of the fuel and operation and maintenance costs of
diesel-fired electrical generation to the capital, installation, and
operation and maintenance costs of wind generators. The value of
diesel-fired electrical generation is calculated by multiplying the
kWh of production times the per kWh cost associated with diesel fuel
and operation and maintenance. This is affected by the fuel
conversion of the diesel generators in the community. The analysis
excludes investment in the diesel generators because these are
necessary to provide reliable capacity for meeting electrical loads
on demand. If wind generators are able to demonstrate capacity
factors of 30 percent or more, then there may be a basis for
crediting them with a capacity value in addition to the fuel savings.
Economic analysis was used on the limited kWh data to estimate
the per kWh cost and value of wind generator production. Three
techniques were used to put the costs into perspective. These
include 1) first year costs of the wind generator compared to the
value of the diesel fuel savings in the first year, 2) perspectives
on the year that wind generator costs will be lower than the value
of the fuel and operation and maintenance savings from the diesel
generators for several of the better producing wind machines, and 3)
the present value of the diesel fuel savings over the 15 year
production period of the wind generator.
The approach of including all of the costs of production and
comparing them to the value of the diesel fuel and operation and
Maintenance savings is appropriate in evaluating utility investment
in wind generators. However, from the wind generator owner's point
of view, the production from the wind generator displaces kwh that
the owner would normally buy from the utility at residential or
commercial rates--rates considerably higher than the cents per kWh
estimated from the utility “fuel savings". For example, the Alaska
Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) rate is 37.2 cents per kwh for
residential customers.
The results of the present value analysis indicate that there
are places where the best wind generators can lower the cost of
electricity over the next 15 years--both at their locations and
possibly at other sites if the experience proves transferable. The
economics for Naknek, Unalakleet, and Sand Point are favorable--with
improvements in kWh production the wind generators can generate
enough power to supplement existing diesel-fired generation at
competitive prices. Gambell and Hooper Bay also appear to have the
favorable conditions of high diesel fuel costs and existence of good
wind regimes. Increases in production are necessary to improve the
economics of the four machines at these two locations. Bethel,
Kodiak, and Nome appear to have less potential than the locations
noted above. There are many other places in rural Alaska that have
good wind regimes and high diesel fuel prices, where feasibility
studies may show wind generation to be one of the best alternatives
based on the present value of costs to meet electrical loads.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 6
A. Introduction
Electrical energy costs in rural Alaska are very high when
compared with Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. There are numerous
reasons. First, it is expensive to supply electricity for small
demands. It is also difficult to match generator size to loads. To
provide reliable backup often requires a standby generator which can
carry the load in the event of a major mechanical failure.
Therefore, there are large percentages of idle equipment. A single
generator must frequently be run at inefficient loadings. The cost
of buying and installing a generator in a rural community is
expensive, as is operation and maintenance. Over the years diesel
generators have proven to be a reliable source of electricity and
when oi] was relatively inexpensive they comprised virtually all of
the generation capacity in rural Alaska.
Transportation charges from the regional centers of
distribution, like Dutch Harbor, Nome, Barrow, Bethel, Kotzebue, and
Kodiak, are significant--for example, it costs the utility about 43
cents a gallon to transport diesel fuel from Nome to Gambell. Total
diesel fuel costs to rural utilities frequently exceed $1.50 per
gallon--as is the case in over one-half of Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative's villages in 1983--whereas the costs to individuals for
heating 01] often exceed $2 per gallon.
In recent years, the abrupt increase in 01] prices, coupled with
high transportation costs of bringing 011 to communities, has caused
the price of electricity to rise substantially. In 1979, AVEC's
average diesel fuel price was $.97 per gallon; it was $1.56 in 1983.
The State of Alaska has addressed the problem in several ways.
First, through the Energy Program for Alaska, it has implemented
alternative energy projects, waste heat utilization projects,
jinterties, and hydroelectric projects. Second, there have been a
variety of energy conservation projects, including weatherization,
audits and grants, and retrofits of institutional buildings. Third,
it has subsidized electricity costs through the Power Cost
Assistance program. Fourth, it has looked for economically and
technically viable alternatives to replace oi] used in electric
generation.
There are alternative sources of energy for electric generation
that are renewable, indigenous, and appear to be compatible with
cultural values and socioeconomic preferences of residents. Wind is
one such resource. Interest continues to grow because in many cases
it may be the best alternative to diesel-fired electric generation,
especially where microhydroelectric or major regional projects are
not feasible. Wind generation continues to evolve as a practical
technology, although there have been numerous challenges’ to
overcome. The commentary from a science teacher at Hooper Bay was
typical of the nature of this challenge in some communities:
"Everything had to be done by hand, and because it was a learning
experience, almost everything had to to be done twice before it was
correct."
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 7
The State, municipal governments, and utilities have been
involved in research, development and demonstration. For example,
the Appropriate Technology and wind demonstration projects
administered through the former Division of Energy and Power
Development (DEPD) included three machines at Unalakleet ($100,000),
a $100,000 project at Skagway, the Bering Straits wind demonstration
program ($400,000), and grants for Newhalen, Pilot Station, Nelson
Lagoon, and other Alaskan communities. Private individuals have
probably spent over a million dollars on wind projects: the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) has approved
35 Alternative Energy Loans for wind generation for $504,500. The
community of Hooper Bay has a second 10 kW wind generator that is
expected to be in service in the Spring of 1984.
This report is designed to accomplish two objectives. First,
the report sets out to inventory the wind energy conversion systems
(WECS hereafter) in Alaska by region, community, manufacturer, make,
and model, utility intertie or battery charging configuration, and
status of operation. Second, the report sets out to provide a basic
economic analysis of WECS, including appropriate caveats where there
are insufficient data.
The economic analysis compares current WECS costs. per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) with the cost of diesel fuel oi] the WECS
generation replaces, based on current information. Since wind
prices are relatively stable and 011 prices inflate over time, the
number of years it will take before each WECS produces electricity
at a price equal to that of the fuel it replaces (i.e. the crossover
point) will be determined by some factors outside of the wind
generator owner's control--primarily world oi] prices-- and others
such as the reliability and kWh production of the machine subject to
improvement. Several graphs have been drawn that illustrate the
results for some of the more successful wind installations. The
economic assessment depends on a forecast of kWh based on the
initial production experience; usually this consisted of 3 to 24
months of operation since almost all of the machines were installed
in the last three years. It is likely that actual results will be
better than these kWh forecasts based on a straight-line projection
of this data. The life expectancy of 15 years has not been
established to date, although it appears reasonable based on
knowledge of major components of the systems.
Finally, the total stream of costs from WECS are compared with
the stream of costs of the fuel they replace: the “Life-Cycle"
results are shown in present value terms. There are numerous other
factors that are also deserving of consideration, ranging from
assumptions about future oi] prices, WECS production, a capacity
value for WECS, the effect of WECS on line voltage and transmission
losses to and from the site, and the effect of wind generation on
the efficiency of diesel generation. These subjects may be
addressed in site-specific or generic analyses and are not
incorporated in this assessment.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 8
In the conclusion, there is a brief discussion of the
implications of the findings, a discussion of steps that could be
taken to improve the performance of and knowledge about WECS, and a
discussion of options for future action. The discussion covers only
the experiences with wind generators smaller than 20 kW, as the
viability of larger machines in Alaska has not been demonstrated to
date. Further details on sensitivity analyses, the data base used
in the economic assessment, and the status of individual wind
installations are available from DCED.
B. Inventory
There are 140 wind generators included in the January, 1984 wind
generator inventory (see the Appendix). There are about a dozen
wind generators which are smaller than .5 kW and some in remote
areas of Alaska that are not listed in the inventory. This
information is dynamic, so that the working status may be expected
to change according to machine performance and conditions at the
site. Local knowledge is invaluable in assessing the experience at
a specific installation.
Although there are installations throughout the State,
Southwestern Alaska has the most wind generators (30) that are in
operation, planned, or were previously installed. The inventory
contains at least 20 wind generators over 10 kW that are known to be
working on a consistent basis: there are another 30 working wind
generators with rated capacities of from 1 to 4 kW. There are wind
generators in all regions of the State, as shown below:
Number of
Region Wind Generators
Northern (Arctic) e 5
Northwest e 27
Western e 19
Southcentral e 23
Southwestern e 30
Southeastern e 1
Interior e 9
Aleutians e116
Total 140
THREE 10kW WIND generators in
use at Unalakleet are barely
visible behind the fish dry-
ing rack.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems ped
C.__ Methodology
Estimates of annual kWh production were made for 24 of the 140
Machines included in the inventory. Of the 24 wind generators, all
data was based on records for 3 to 24 months of operation. Utility
Managers were contacted to update information on diesel fuel costs
and fuel efficiency of diesel generators provided by the Alaska
Power Authority. Information for 15 wind generators at nine
locations was validated on site visits. The 15 machines are
identified in Appendix B, which also lists the months of data used
to estimate total annual kWh production.
Site visits were planned to collect kWh data and validate
information on the cost of generating electricity from existing
diesel generators. Eleven of the 15 machines were working at the
nine locations: the locations are Bethel, Nome, Gambell, Hooper
Bay, Chevak, Kodiak, Naknek, King Salmon, and Unalakleet. These
communities have several things in common: the bulk of their
electricity is generated by diesel-fired generators, there is an
adequate to excellent wind regime for the machines, and the
communities have had individuals who were willing to tackle the
challenge of making the wind generators work.
The following methodology was used in evaluating the economics
of wind generators. The cost of diesel-fired electrical generation,
using projected diesel fuel costs in 1984 for the analysis, is
compared to the first-year cost of generating the same number of kWh
with a wind generator. The results of the "First-Year Case" are
summarized in Table 1 in subsection 1 of the Economic Analysis
section. In all cases the 1984 cost per kWh of diesel fuel is lower
than the cost per kwh calculated using the capital, installation and
estimated operation and maintenance costs for the wind generator.
This is typical of capital-intensive technologies, such as wind
generators and hydroelectric projects. In both cases, the initial
investment is traded against the value of the fuel costs incurred by
using diesel generators.
This comparison is followed in the economic analysis, subsection
2., by calculations showing the crossover year when diesel fuel and
operation and maintenance costs are greater than the wind costs ona
per kWh basis. For the crossover analysis o1] is inflated at 6% per
year (or 0% in real terms assuming a 6% inflation rate) and 8.5% per
year. Operation and maintenance costs for both diesel generators
and WECS are inflated at 6%. The recovery of the capital and
installation costs of WECS assumes a principal and interest payment
based on 10 percent interest.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 10
In the final part of the Economic Analysis, as summarized in
Table 3 in the "Life-Cycle Cases", the present value of the diesel
fuel and operation and maintenance costs over 15 years is compared
to the present value of total costs for the wind generation system:
the total wind generation costs include the capital, installation,
and operation and maintenance costs. Both alternatives produce the
same power output. The table shows the results based on a 10
percent interest rate (6% inflation plus a 4% real discount rate).
Costs are inflated at the inflation rate and then discounted back to
1984 $ using a 4 percent real discount rate. For example, fuel and
operation and maintenance costs are inflated at 6 percent (0% in
real terms) and then discounted at 10 percent (4% in real terms).
As the economic analysis is very sensitive to changes in 011
prices and kWh production from the wind generators, it should be
interpreted as an initial forecast rather than as an evaluation
based on extensive reporting and analysis. The result is that the
economic viability of WECS may be understated. It would be useful
to update these estimates based on new information from wind
generator owners.
THREE WIND MACHINES are part of utility
demonstration project in Unalakleet.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 11
D. Economic Analysis
1. "First-Year" Case
The sites chosen for the economic analysis all have working wind
generators. Unalakleet has the largest number of working machines
(4) in this assessment; whereas Sand Point and Naknek have two
machines which rival Unalakleet for the location with the best
performing wind generator in Alaska for which kWh data is available.
This part of the economic evaluation of production from the wind
generators compares the first-year diesel fuel costs to the capital,
installation, and operation and maintenance costs of wind
generators. The value of diesel-fired electrical generation is
calculated by multiplying the kWh of production times the per kWh
cost associated with diesel fuel and operation and maintenance. The
analysis excludes investment in the diesel generators because these
are necessary to provide reliable capacity for meeting electrical
loads on demand. Findings are presented in Table 1.
Of the 24 working wind generators for which annual kWh data is
available, there are four different manufacturers' machines. The
analysis includes one Bergey, four Enertechs, one Grumman and
eighteen Jacobs machines. The 10 kW Jacobs is the most common
working wind generator in Alaska. The kWh listed in Table 1 is
estimated from actual readings taken off the mastermind of the wind
generator during the site visits--or these estimates were based on
owner or Division of Energy and Power Development records. In many
cases, data for a period of less than a year was extrapolated to
calculate an annual figure; in others, data for a period longer than
a year was averaged to estimate annual kWh production.
Appendix B contains indicators of the site location
characteristics and machine performance that are relevant to
interpreting the annual kWh production estimates. These indicators
include average wind speed, the months of data used in extrapolating
or averaging annual kWh data, working status, and capacity factors.
Capacity factors vary for the wind generators included in the
economic analysis. The capacity factors for Jacobs units ranges
from 1 to 19 percent, whereas the Enertech units have experienced
capacity factors of 8 to 34 percent. The 1 kW Bergey has had a
capacity factor of 32 percent. The Grumman 20 kW machine has had a
12 percent capacity factor.
Annual production for the 10 kW Jacobs machines varies by
location and reliability of the equipment. It includes a low of
just over 1200 kWh per year in Ketchikan. At the high end of the
range are Naknek at 16,900 kWh per year (based on 24 months of
operation), 17,020 kWh per year at the Sand Point location (based on
12 months of operating experience and including a large amount of
down time), Unalakleet #2 at 16,520 kWh per year (based on 8 months
of data) and Unalakleet #4 at 22,780 kWh per year (extrapolated from
6 months of operation from July through December, 1983).
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 12
A reference case is valuable source for projecting costs at
different locations, especially when one examines the range of
capital and installation costs. Reference case costs for wind
generators are based on the four machines installed at Unalakleet.
The reference case was identified based on the following criteria:
the location should have more than one machine installed and
operating, both private and public investments should be evident,
and the wind machines should be producing at least 15,000 kWh per
year. The private capital and installation cost (in 1984 dollars)
for a 10 kW Jacobs wind generator and 60'-80' Rohn tower is
$31,500. The cost (in 1984 dollars) for a 10 kW wind generator may
be increased to $41,400 if the site requires additional
interconnection equipment. These documented costs exclude siting
and planning costs, such as installing and reading an anemometer.
Operation and maintenance costs were estimated at $250 or $1200 a
year based on actual experience, again at Unalakleet.
The kWh production figures in Table 1 include significant
periods of time when the machines were out of operation. This
implies that the annual kWh estimates are probably not overstated.
In some cases, one may expect significant improvements in
performance now that some of the previous problems affecting the
blades, inverters, governors, and feathering tails have’ been
overcome through design changes. For example, in Unalakleet the
production from the best producer of the three machines owned by
Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative surpassed 2900 kWh in
November of 1983. This is up 50 percent over the comparable
two-month period last year. If this becomes a trend, then the
benchmark calculations shown in Table 1 will prove to substantially
underestimate the benefits obtainable from wind generation over the
15 year analysis period.
The wind generator costs in Table 1 may also be overstating per
kWh costs if the kWh production exceeds the estimates in Table 1. A
good case in point is Unalakleet #2, a machine estimated to produce
16,520 kWh per year. At a 10 percent interest rate, the capital and
interest charges on Unalakleet #2 are equivalent to an annual
payment of $4950 a year for 15 years-- equivalent to 30 cents per
kWh. This falls from 30 to 25 cents per kWh if production increase
to 20,000 kWh per year. It falls further, to 21.7 cents per kwh,
for production of 22,780 kWh per year.
Diesel fuel delivered in bulk to the utility is estimated to
cost $.90 to $2.05 per gallon in December, 1984 at the 17 locations
with 24 wind generators that have been included in the following
economic analysis. The diesel fuel prices for Dec., 1984 are shown
in Table 1. Diesel fuel prices for Dec., 1984 were projected to be
8.5 % higher than the price in Dec., 1981. For example, AVEC's
“average” diesel fuel cost per gallon was $1.67 in Dec., 1981: the
forecast of Dec. 1984 prices at 6% over this average results in an
average fuel price of $1.70 per gallon. An 8.5 % fuel price
escalation over the Dec., 1981 price yields an estimate of $1.74 per
gallon for the average fuel price. The historical price has shown
some volatility, illustrated by the July, 1981 price for AVEC of
$1.33 per gallon before the increase later that year to $1.60 per
gallon.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems Dp. 13
AVEC's average fuel cost for diesel generation in 1982 was 19.2
cents per kWh--indicating that many of AVEC's 48 villages probably
have higher fuel costs than the average of those shown in Table 1.
According to Alaska Power Authority calculations, AVEC may receive
22.4 cents per kWh in FY 1985 for power cost assistance to help
defray the burden these high fuel costs place on rural residents.
There is a potential to reduce this cost, especially over a
multi-year period, by improving generator efficiencies and
implementing cost effective alternative energy projects.
Wind generators are likely to be expensive to install in remote
communities with high diesel fuel prices. However, if the kWh
production and reliability of the most successsful wind generator
projects could be replicated in these locations, wind could
supplement the diesel-fired electrical generation and lower total
electrical generation costs. Individual diesel generators serving a
single residence are even more expensive than larger community
generators; thus a comparison of isolated wind costs may yield some
interesting results.
DIESEL GENERATOR house and bulk fuel storage at Gam-
bell.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 14
Table 1
Diesel Fuel Price, “First-Year Case"
Comparing Diesel to the Total Cost Per KWh of the Wind System
WECS Diesel Fuel Diesel WECS Total Cost
Project kWh fuel ¢/kWh = Fuel & Cents per kWh
per $/gal in Oper-
yr 1984 ation& Capital
Maint. O+M Capital Installn
¢/kWh +Instlin and O+M
Q) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
GAMBELL 4120 $1.50 15.8 21.8 29 103.3 13263
GAMBELL 9940 1.50 15.8 2128) 12 42.8 52.8
GAMBELL 13800 1.50 15.8 21.8 9 30.8 39.8
KIVALINA 4800 5H 18.9 24.9 5% 39.8 44.8
NOME 11970 1.28 O57 12.7 2* 31.5 33.5
UNALAKLEET#1 4000 Ved W250 ie 30 2Sie) S37
UNALAKLEET#2 16520 1.37 12.1 1S) 7 30.0 37.0
UNALAKLEET#3 5460 To37 123 1S 22 90.6 112.6
UNALAKLEET#4 22780 1.37 V2 15.1 1* loa 17.5
BETHEL 1350 1.26 10.2 13.2 19* 58.4 77.4
BETHEL 4400 1.26 10.2 1332 27 73.9 100.9
CHEVAK 5400 1.60 17.8 23.8 5* 56.2 61.2
HOOPER BAY 10840 1.58 1352 19.2 eo 29:0 S120
PILOT STATION 7200 1.69 17.4 23.4 7 68.7 85.7:
PLATINUM 2875 2.00 20.0 26.0 Ge 56.1 6551
PALMER 6800 1.00 all 1057 4* 34.6 38.6
KING SALMON 9290 1.28 92 T22 3* 39.8 42.8
KODIAK 7320 0.91 tol 10.1 3* 32-3 3553
NAKNEK 16900 1.28 9.2 V2.2 1* 18.1 1S}
KETCHIKAN 1220 0.90 6.4 8.4 20* 247.9 267.9
KETCHIKAN 2600 0.90 6.4 8.4 10* b6.3 126.3
SKAGWAY 10370 0.94 7.8 10.8 12 118.0 130.0
NELSON LAGOON 21560 2.05 22.8 28.8 8 58.8 66.8
SAND POINT 17020 1.05 10.5 1625 q 18.5 25,35
(1) WECS kWh per year was extrapolated or averaged. Note caveats in
Paragraphs two and three of subsection 1., section D. Economic Analysis.
(2) Diesel fuel $/gal.--Dec. 1984 price, delivered to the utility.
(3) Fuel ¢/kWh in 1984 is calculated by dividing the diesel fuel $/gal in
column #2 by the kWh per gallon (column 3, Table 3 herein).
(4) Estimated by allocating AVEC's 1982 operation and maintenance costs over
total kWh sold. Transmission and distribution costs were subtracted from the
results. Some of the O+M costs for regional centers were derived from Rural
Electrification Administration data forms (REA form 12f).
(5) *Wind operation and maintenance (0+M) costs were estimated at $250 per
year for wind generators that had experienced very high reliability or had
individuals on-site that did the 0+M work (designated by a * above). High
O+M costs were estimated at $1200 per year for those without an *.
(6) Data on the capital and installation costs of wind generators was
escalated to January, 1984 $ using the Anchorage Consumer Price Index. There
are some problems with this index (ISER Research Summary No.14, Jan., 1984.
(7) The capital and installation cost was amortized over a 15 year period
using a 10 percent interest rate (or “cost of capital"). Actual costs are
different than these costs, since the machines were installed before 1984.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 15
2. “Crossover-Year" Calculations
The graphs of the cost of wind generation show a comparison of
the cost of wind generation, calculated on a per kWh basis, compared
to the per kWh value of the diesel fuel and operation and
Maintenance savings. The comparisons show that one of the wind
generators at Unalakleet and the machines at Naknek and Sand Point
are producing power at a rate that would make them attractive
compared to diesel generation at or above 20 cents per kWh in 1984.
Table 2 shows the crossover year of projected diesel fuel and
operation and maintenance costs and wind costs for ten of the wind
generators. It is interesting to note that Unalakleet #2, one of
the “reference case" wind generators and the machine with one of the
best performances so far, does not have the earliest crossover
point. This occurs because diesel fuel costs are greater in many of
the other communities. While wind generator units in Nome and
Kodiak are moderately good producers, the crossover analysis is not
favorable for wind because of the relatively low diesel fuel
prices. This may not always be the case in the same geographic
region, especially when there is no local utility. Also, the
crossover analysis indicates that if the Sand Point wind generator
had the same estimate for operation and maintenance costs as the
Naknek wind generator, its crossover point would improve
considerably.
Table 2
Number of Years for Wind-Diesel Crossover,
on a Per kWh Basis
Diesel Fuel Cost with Diesel
Operation and Maintenance Costs
011 011
Inflated Inflated
Project at_6% at_ 8.5%
Chevak none 14
Hooper Bay 10 7
Naknek 9 7
Sand Point 12 8
Unalakleet #2 none 15
Unalakleet #4 3 3
Platinum none none
Kodiak none none
Nome none 14
Gambel] #3 14 11
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 16
Figure 1 displays the basic relationship between wind and diesel
fuel and operation and maintenance costs graphically. The crossover
points in Table 2 are shown at the intersections (scales vary;
points are rough approximations). A significant increase in the kWh
production of wind generators would lead to a downward shift in the
wind curves, since they are very sensitive to this factor. On the
other hand, tower or equipment failures resulting in destruction or
dismantling of the wind generator would result in much higher costs
than those shown. The likely shift in the wind generator cost
curve, based on actual experience, demonstrates the need to develop
better data for projecting kWh production.
The average fuel costs for AVEC villages illustrate the fact
that there are many places in rural Alaska with diesel-fired
electrical generation costs greater than those at communities
portrayed in this” report. However, this average comparison
indicates a potential for wind generation based solely on diesel
fuel costs--in order to present results in terms of project
feasibility, the wind regime and wind generator costs need to be
evaluated for individual villages at specific sites.
TOWER FAILURE in Gambell results in a shambles.
tllus Pur only
¢/Kwh
— ¢/Kwh 2 xz = = ~ 50 \ Lemimres 30
20 0 5 10 15 Year 0 5 10 15 Year 5 10 15 Year 0 5 10 15 Year SAND POINT CHEVAK HOOPER BAY 48 AVEC VILLAGES (Average) WECS SUPERIMPOSED Pd Oil infl. at 8%4%, O & M at 6%
,
/ Oil infil. at 6%, O & Mat 6%
Wind, O & M at 6%
Wind capital and installation recovery at 10%
¢/Kwh ¢/Kwh
50; |
I
|
|
!
|
1 5 Year 0 5 10 15 Year 0 5 10 15 Year 0 5 10 15 Year
NOME UNALAKLEET No. 2 & 4 PLATINUM NAKNEK
Figure 1. Crossover Analysis (Diesel Fuel and Wind)
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 18
3. “Life-Cycle Cases"
The present value of the fuel savings must account for the fact
that a dollar benefit received or cost incurred in the future is not
considered to have the same value as a dollar that is invested
today. The present value approach allows the decision maker to
compare projects, with costs or benefits occurring at different
times in the future, on a comparable basis. This is especially
useful when projects will provide identical benefits. In order to
make this analysis as useful as possible to the Alaska Power
Authority, which has the major responsibility for conducting
reconnaissance and feasibility studies for electrical energy in
Alaska, the project evaluation criteria used here are almost
identical to those being considered by APA analysts for the 1984
fiscal year. The economic analysis criteria used in this analysis
are:
inflation @ 6%
real discount rate 0 4%
diesel fuel escalation above inflation e0 to 2.5%
implied opportunity cost of capital e 10 percent
Also, in this economic assessment the present values of wind
generators are “inflation free"--that is, it does not escalate
todays dollars ($1984) to reflect general changes in the price level
for goods and services produced in the economy. This is identical
to the Alaska Power Authority project evaluation procedure. The
analysis focuses on price changes relative to the general increase
in prices due to inflation.
Sensitivity analysis is an appropriate method to use to evaluate
the effect of changing major assumptions, such as the kWh produced,
real escalation of fuel prices, and real discount rate. A 25
percent increase in kWh production over the baseline, no real diesel
fuel price increase over and above inflation, and a 3.5 percent real
discount rate would be one interesting case to evaluate for specific
installations. As another example, consider that if production from
the Naknek wind machine increases 20 percent over that shown in
Tables 1 and 3 and diesel fuel increases at a 6 percent rate instead
of the forecasted 8.5% rate (showing no real price escalation), then
the present value of diesel fuel (column 3 in Table 3) decreases
from $20,820 to $20,770, less than a one percent change.
Table 3 lists the present value of the diesel fuel savings over
the 15 year period. This assumes that the historical kwh production
for each wind generator would be produced instead by running the
existing diesels--the value of the fuel savings is calculated using
the diesel generator efficiency (kWh per gallon) shown in this table
and the cents per kWh for fuel and operation and maintenance costs
shown in Table 1.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 19
Qualitative factors are also important in evaluating wind
generation. Wind generators are the only practical alternative in
many villages without hydroelectric generation potential. Issues
such as building bulk fuel storage, financing fuel deliveries,
allocating operation and maintenance costs, and replacing diesel
generators have not been explicitly addressed in this analysis. It
is reasonable to assume some of these costs could be reduced,
perhaps substantially, if reliable capacity were available to meet
electrical loads at wind generator sites. It also appears that
transmission losses and the effect of the wind system on diesel
generator efficiency deserve attention--although this is perhaps
best addressed in a testing facility under controlled measurement
conditions. Experience has shown these considerations can be met in
a manner that allows the wind generators to effectively function as
part of the electrical generation system.
The economic analysis includes a 2 to 6¢ credit for operation
and maintenance cost savings associated with an ability to defer
these costs because the diesel would not have to meet the load at
the wind generator site--over 200,000 kWh of electricity demand in
15 years at 13,333 kWh of production per year. These costs are very
dependent on site-specific characteristics, such as the size of the
diesel engines and generators. The credit for rural villages,
estimated at an average of 6 cents per kWh, is approximately
correct, although it does not represent the costs at a particular or
even typical village.
One of the aspects of wind generation not addressed in this
analysis is the issue of whether there should be a capacity credit
for wind. Achieving high kWh production relative to the machines
rated capacity depends on the average wind speed at the site. The
capacity factors of the 10 kW wind generators at Sand Point, Naknek,
and Unalakleet (19, 15, and 19 percent) compare favorably with
diesel generators in villages which have 100 percent redundancy in
the diesel capacity. The issue of the capacity value of WECS
deserves further consideration, especially if data can be collected
and analyzed for an on-line Alaskan situation using various load
conditions.
Diesel generators in rural Alaska can have total plant capacity
factors of 10 to 20 percent due to the need for redundancy in
generation capacity and the need to respond to emergency conditions
or a mismatch between generator sizes and loads. This indicates
that where there is a reliable wind regime, there may be a capacity
value credit for the wind generators. Appendix B has statistics on
average wind speed and capacity factors for the 24 wind generators
evaluated in the economic analysis.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 20
Table 3
Present Value of Diesel Fuel and O&M Savings
versus
Present Value of Costs of Power Generated from Existing Wind Machines
WECS Diesel Present Values: kWh Wind Generator Total
kWh Operatn Fuel Fuel per Present Value of Costs
Project per & Maint. sav- 2 gal. Range includes low
year ings O&M and high wind O&M
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
GAMBELL 4120 $2750 $8700 $11,450 9. $38,380 to $48,940
GAMBELL 9940 6630 21000 27,630 9. $38,380 to $48,940
GAMBELL 13800 9210 29150 38,360 9. $38,380 to $48,940
KIVALINA 4800 3200 12120 = 15,320 8. $18,780 to $29,340
NOME 11970 5320 15530 20,850 13. $34,280 to $44,840
UNALAKLEET#1 4000 1780 6490 8,270 bile
UNALAKLEET#2 16520 7350 26800 34,150 us
UNALAKLEET#3 5460 2430 8860 11,290 1.
UNALAKLEET#4 22780 5950 36950 42,900 ie
$44,180 to $54,740
$44,180 to $54,740
$44,180 to $54,740
$34,280 to $44,840
BETHEL 1350 600 1850 2,450 2s $9,380 to $19,940
BETHEL 4400 1960 6030 7,990 25 $29,980 to $40,540
CHEVAK 5400 3600 12850 + =16,450 95 $28,180 to $38,740 HOOPER BAY 10840 71230 19100 26,330 12:
PILOT STATION 7200 4800 16790 =21,590 9: $29,080 to $39,640
$44,180 to $54,740
PLATINUM 2875 1920 7690 9,610 10. $16,280 to $26,840
PALMER 6800 3020 7000 =10,020 13. $22,480 to $33,040
KING SALMON 9290 4130 11450) = 15,580 13. $33,680 to $44,240
KODIAK 7320 3250 6910 10,160 V2. $22,580 to $33,140
NAKNEK 16900 7520 20820 28,340 13. $28,380 to $38,940
KETCHIKAN 1220 270 1050 1,320 14. $28,080 to $38,640
KETCHIKAN 2600 580 2240 2,820 14. $28,080 to $38,640
SKAGWAY 10370 4610 10870 =15,480 ce $105,180 to $115,740
NELSON LAGOON 21560 14380 65710 80,090 SE
SAND POINT 17020 =11350 23910 35,260 10.
$125,400 to $144,700
$29,080 to $39,640 CSCOCOTOW WWD OAHOOWWWWWWNOUMNM (1) WECS kWh per year was extrapolated or averaged. Note caveats in
paragraphs two and three of subsection 1., section D. Economic Analysis.
(2) See Table 1, columns 3 and 4. Subtract the fuel cost component from the
total on the right ("with O&M costs") to obtain diesel O&M. In general, AVEC
village costs are set at 6¢ per kWh and Unalakleet, Kodiak, and other
regional centers are estimated at 2¢-4¢ per kWh unless specific information
was available (REA form 12f). Transmission and distribution O&M was excluded.
(3) Fuel savings were calculated based on multiplying the WECS kWh per year
times the diesel fuel $/gal (Table 1, column 2) divided by the kWh per gal.
shown above. These 1984 diesel fuel costs were then escalated at 8.5 percent
per year for 15 years. The total at the end of each year was discounted back
to Jan. 1984 dollars using a 10 percent discount rate. This procedure has
the same effect as escalating diesel fuel costs at 2.5 percent real cost
escalation over the assumed 6% inflation, and discounting to 1984 $ using a
real discount rate of 4%.
(4) Column 2 plus column 3.
(5) kWh per gal. was provided by the Alaska Power Authority.
(6) The estimated capital and installation costs (1984 $), can be derived by
subtracting $2780 from the lower end of the cost range for wind generators.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems pi. 21
E. Conclusion and Recommendations
The economic assessment concludes that there are places where
the best wind generators (those at Sand Point, Naknek and
Unalakleet) could lower the cost of electricity over the next 15
years. At Sand Point and Naknek, changing the present value of
diesel costs in Table 3 based on higher production levels--say to
20,000 kWh per year--would increase the present value of the diesel
fuel and operation and maintenance savings over and above the high
end of the total wind generator costs.
Sites with excellent potential based on analysis of this data
include Gambell, Unalakleet, Hooper Bay, Sand Point, Platinum,
Chevak, and Naknek. There are many other places in rural Alaska
with good wind regimes and high diesel fuel costs.
One of the “reference case" wind generators, the Unalakleet #4
wind generator, is producing power at 17.5 to 21.5 cents per kWh.
If this experience could be duplicated at Platinum, then the project
would be cost effective based on constant diesel fuel prices--and
even more attractive with escalating diesel fuel prices. However,
it is prudent to check this type of initial analysis in feasibility
studies evaluating specific sites, wind generation capital,
installation, and interconnection costs, local interest and skills,
and financing. In the specific case shown in Table 3, the high
initial capital and installation cost for the 1 kW wind generator
make it somewhat less attractive than a 10 kW machine at the same
site, all other things being equal.
The economic assessment herein suggests that electricity
generated by wind generators can displace significant quantities of
diesel fuel, providing there is a management emphasis on proper
siting and installation. The contribution from the 24 wind
generators analyzed in this report amounted to 209,125 kWh in 1983.
This is small relative to Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative's
total diesel-fired generation in 1982 of 26,121,300 kWh to serve 48
villages: however, the total could reach 1,000,000 kWh a year by
2000 if four 10 kW machines were installed each year during the next
15 years. This would require an investment of approximately $3.0
million in 1984 dollars.
Recommendations concerning advancing wind generator technology
in Alaska include developing a program context for wind, building a
testing facility or demonstration windfarm, and consolidating
technical knowledge of wind generator technology within a division
of state government. A programmatic context is needed for wind
because there have been many unsuccessful projects built in
communites where grants were transferred through the Dept. of
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 22
Administration or technical problems were encountered (some of these
were Division of Energy and Power Development wind demonstration
projects and others were DEPD Appropriate Technology grants). It is
more efficient for one state agency to acquire expertise and
technical assistance capability than to have wind generator owners
and utility engineers addressing all technical problems
individually. A windfarm or testing facility could take advantage
of economies of scale in machine purchase and operation and
maintenance. Production from wind generators could be integrated
into the existing diesel-fired electrical generation, and load
Management options could be tested for the diesel-wind electrical
generation system.
Good planning and management are important characteristics of
the most successful projects in Alaska. An organized program,
similar to the Waste Heat Utilization Program administered by the
Alaska Power Authority, has promise as a means of successfully
implementing wind generation projects based on economic and siting
criteria.
The future of wind generators as a viable alternative to oi] in
rural Alaska depends on knowledge about the technology in Alaska.
The economics could be improved through proper site planning and
technical analysis, continuing an on-going monitoring program, and
establishing a technical assistance and information program. A
well-designed monitoring program would also resolve many of the
deficiencies in the kWh production data base. The technology has
not been assessed in a manner that technical advances and
experience--particularly in Hawaii and California--will result in
better Alaskan projects. There are more than 117 megawatts (ie.
1000 kW = 1 megawatt) of capacity in the U.S. according to
"Alternative Sources of Energy", consisting of about 1900 systems.
Alaska has about 50 projects of 350 kW capacity in working wind
generators listed in the inventory. Knowledge of the extensive
applications of the technology in Hawaii and California can add
insight to decision making and applications in Alaska, provided
close attention is paid to Alaskan weather and other special
conditions (such as cost, construction techniques, air and barge
shipment, and soil conditions) in transfering the most successful
applications.
Completion of a technology assessment is a necessary task before
full implemention of a testing facility or construction of a wind
farm. A testing facility may prove essential to improving Alaskan
wind generator reliability, reducing maintenance costs, and
addressing technical issues such as capacity credits and voltage
levels associated with wind generator production. A testing
facility would also lead to improvements in the economics of planned
wind generator installations by allowing better estimates of cost
and performance.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 23
This report completes an initial step in developing a
programmatic context for wind generation. This approach focuses on
consolidating technical siting and economic evaluation
capabilities. Technical improvements in wind generator technology
should result in projects that can lower electrical generation costs
jin rural communities which have some of the highest electricity
prices in the United States.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems p. 24
References
Alaskan Wind Energy Handbook (Fairbanks, Alaska: Dept. of
Transportation and Public Facilities, by Mark Newell of Polarconsult
and Matt Reckard of DOT/PF, July, 1981).
Monitoring and Appraisal Evaluation of Wind Energy Potential for
Electric Power Generation in the Bristol Bay Area (Juneau, Alaska:
Alaska Power Administration, by Thomas Zambrano and Gary Arcemont of
AeroVironment Inc., Pasadena, CA., February, 1983).
"Appropriate Energections", issues starting in August, 1979 through
May/June, 1983, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Division of Energy and Power Development.
“Alternative Sources of Energy", published bi-monthly,
ISSN-0146-1001, especially issues no. 61 and 63.
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems
Appendix A
Inventory of Wind Generators
Inventory of
WIND GENERATORS in Alaska
R. Steven Konkel,
Energy Economist
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
Finance and Economics
Juneau, Alaska
January 1984
INVENTORY OF WIND GENERATORS IN ALASKA
There are 140 wind generators included in the January, 1984 wind generator inventory.
There are additional generators which are smaller and some in remote areas of Alaska where
Owners were not available for interviews. The inventory information is dynamic, so that
computer capabilities and developing a monitoring system can be quite useful in making
decisions based on changing conditions: Local knowledge is invaluable in evaluating the ex-
APPENDIX A
perience at a specific installation.
There are installations throughout the State, although southwestern Alaska with 29
machines in operation, planned or previously installed, leads all other regions. Included in
the attached Alaska Wind Generator Inventory by Region are the following characteristics
of the wind generators:
e location;
e identification number:
e the manufacturer and model number;
e = kilowatt rated capacity;
@ working status of the wind generator: categories include working (W), occasionally
working (OW), not working (NW), planned (PLND) and unknown (UNK); and
e@ whether the machine is a battery charger or intertied with a utility.
Ww
NW
ow
PLND
UNK
N/A
Ul
BC
KEY
= Working
= Not Working or Dismantled
= Occasionally Working
= Planned
= Unknown
= Not Applicable or Not Available
= Utility Intertied
= Battery Charger
ALASKAN WIND GENERATOR INVENTORY
BY REGION
Utility
Intertied
Manufacturer Size or Battery Status
ID Location and Model in kw Charger Code
NORTHERN (ARCTIC) REGION
1 Barrow Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul Ww
2 Barrow Enertech 4000 4 Ul Ww
3 Kaktovik Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul w
4 Kaktovik Dunlite 2 Ul NW
5 Point Lay Enertech 4000 4 Ul NW
NORTHWEST REGION
6 Ambler Jacobs 3 BC Ww 7 Council Aeropower SL1000 1 BC Ow
8 Elim Aeropower 2 N/A PLND
9 Gambell IES Skyhawk 4 4 Ul NW
10 Gambell IES Skyhawk 4 4 UI NW
11 Gambell IES Skyhawk 4 4 Ul NW
12 Gambell IES Skyhawk 4 4 Ul NW
13 Gambell Jacobs 10 Ul Nw
14 Gambell Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
15 Gambell Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
16 Golovin Enertech 1800 1.8 N/A NW
i Kivalina Enertech 4000 4 Ul Ow
18 Kotzebue Dunlite 2 Ul WwW
19 Kotzebue Enertech 1800 1.8 BC NW
20 Nome Aeropower SL2000 2 BC NW
21 Nome Bergey BWC1000 1 BC Ow
22 Nome Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
23 Selawik Enertech 1500 1.5 Ul ow
24 Selawik Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul UNK
25 Shishmaref Enertech 1800 1.8 UI Ww
26 Shishmaref Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul Ww
27 Teller Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul ow
28 Unalakleet Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
29 Unalakleet Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
30 Unalakleet Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
31 Unalakleet Jacobs 15 Ul Ww
32 White Mountain Enertech 1800 1.8 BC NW
WESTERN REGION
33 Alakanuk Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul NW
34 Bethel Dunlite 2 BC NW
35 Bethel Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul NW
36 Bethel Enertech 4000 4 Ul Ow
37 Bethel Aeropower SL1500 1.5 N/A PLND
38 Bethel Jacobs 10 N/A PLND
39 Chevak Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul Ww
40 Hooper Bay Jacobs 10 Ul WwW
41 Hooper Bay Jacobs 10 N/A PLND
42 Newtok Enertech 1800 1.8 N/A PLND
43 Pilot Station Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
44 Platinum Bergey 1000-S 1 Ul Ww
45 Sheldon Point Aeropower SL2000 2 BC NW
46 Sheldon Point Aeropower SL2000 2 BC NW
47 Sheldon Point Northwind HR2 2 BC w
Utility
Intertied
Manufacturer Size or Battery Status
ID Location and Model in kw Charger Code
WESTERN REGION (continued)
48 Sheldon Point Northwind HR2 2 BC Ww
49 Sheldon Point Northwind HR2 2 BC Ww
50 Sheldon Point Northwind HR2 2 BC Ww
51 Sheldon Point Northwind HR2 2 BC Ww
SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
52 Anchorage Jacobs 1.8 BC w
53 ChinitnaBay = ———————— —— - BC UNK
54 Cordova Aeropower SL1500 1.5 BC UNK
55 Homer Paris Dunn 0.5 BC ow
56 Homer Jacobs 2 N/A PLND
57 Homer Enertech 1800 1.8 N/A PLND
58 Homer Enertech 4000 4 Ul Ww.
59 Homer Jacobs 3 BC UNK 60 Homer Composite 1 N/A NW
61 Kasilof Sencenbaugh 1 BC Ww
62 Matanuska Aeropower SL2000 2 BC NW
63 Ninilchik Bergey BWC1000 1 BC UNK
64 Palmer Bergey BWC1000 1 BC Ww
65 Palmer Bergey 1000-S 1 Ul Ww.
66 Palmer Aeropower 1500 1.5 Ul UNK
67 Palmer Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
68 Palmer Enertech 4000 4 Ul w
69 Palmer Jacobs 10 BC UNK
70 Palmer Aerolite 11 Ul UNK
71 Seward Aeropower 1500 1.5 BC w
72 Wasilla Jacobs 10 Ul NW
73 Wasilla Bergey BWC-Excel 10 BC PLND
74 Wasilla Dunlite 5 BC UNK
SOUTHWESTERN REGION
75 Afognak Island Aeropower SL2000 iz BC Ww
76 Dillingham Jacobs 10 Ul We
aa Dillingham IES Skyhawk 4 4 BC UNK
78 Egegik Aeropower SL1500 1.5 BC w
79 Fox Bay Jacobs 1.8 BC UNK
80 lliamna Jacbos 1.8 BC Ww
81 lliamna Dakota Wind & Sun 4 BC NW
82 lliamna Dakota Wind & Sun 4 BC NW
83 King Salmon Enertech 1500 1.5 Ul w°
84 King Salmon Enertech 4000 4 Ul OW
85 King Salmon Enertech 4000 4 N/A PLND
86 King Salmon Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
87 Kodiak Aeropower SL1500 1.5 BC w
88 Kodiak Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
89 Lake Clark Dakota Wind & Sun 4 BC w
90 Lake Clark Jacobs 3 BC Ww
91 Levelock Northwind HR2 2 N/A UNK
92 Naknek Jacobs 12.5 Ul Ww
93 Naknek Jacobs 12.5 Ul PLND
94 Naknek Bergey BWC-Excel 10 Ul PLND
95 Naknek Bergey 1000-S 1 Ul PLND
96 Naknek Jacobs 12.5 Ul PLND
97 Naknek Not Selected - N/A PLND
98 Nannek Not Selected - N/A PLND
Utility
Intertied
Manufacturer Size or Battery Status
ID Location and Model in kw Charger Code
SOUTHWESTERN REGION (continued)
99 Naknek Enertech 1500 1.5 Ul NW
100 Naknek Enertech 1500 1.5 UI Ow
101 Newhalen Stormmaster 8 BC NW
102 Nondalton Bergey 1 Ul NW
103 Port Alsworth Jacobs 1.8 BC Ww
104 Togiak Aeropower SL2000 2 BC NW
SOUTHEASTERN REGION
105 Haines Dunlite 1 Ul UNK
106 Haines Electro Z BC UNK
107 Ketchikan Jacobs 10 Ul PLND
108 Ketchikan Jacobs 10 ul Ww
109 Ketchikan Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
110 Ketchikan Aeropower SL1500 1.5 BC UNK
111 Metlakatla Jacobs 10 UI Ow
112 Petersburg Jacobs 1.8 BC PLND
113 Petersburg Dakota Wind & Sun 4 BC PLND 114 Port Alexander ——=-—-—————— - N/A PLND
115 Skagway Jacobs 10 Ul Ww.
INTERIOR
116 Cantwell Dakota Wind & Sun 4 BC WwW
117 Cantwell Jacobs 10 N/A PLND
118 _ Cantwell Bergey BWC1000 1 N/A UNK
119 Delta Junction Electro 6 Ul NW
120 Delta Junction Jacobs 10 Ul UNK
121 Delta Junction Aeropower SL1500 1.5 BC UNK
122 Gakona Aeropower SL1000 1 BC UNK
123 McKinley Park Aeropower SL1000 1 BC UNK
124 Slana Aeropower SL2000 2 BC UNK
ALEUTIANS
125 Adak Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul Ow
126 Chignik Aeropower SL2000 2 BC UNK
127 Cold Bay Dunlite 2 BC Ww
128 False Pass Dunlite 2 BC UNK
129 Nelson Lagoon Grumman Windstream 20 Ul Ow
130 Nikolski Aeropower SL2000 2 BC UNK
131 Port Heiden Aeropower SL2000 2 BC UNK
132 St. Paul Enertech 1800 1.8 Ul PLN
133 Sand Point Jacobs 10 Ul W-
134 Sand Point Jacobs 10 Ul Ww
135 Sand Point Jacobs 12.5 Ul Ww.
136 Sand Point Jacobs 15 Ul Ww.
137 Sand Point Jacobs 15 Ul Ow
138 Sand Point Jacobs 15 Ul Ow
139 Sand Point Aerolite 11 Ul PLND
140 Unalaska Aerolite 11 Ul PLND
Alaska's Wind Energy Systems
Appendix B
Wind Generator Project Statistics
APPENDIX B
ALASKA’S WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Average Capacity
Project Site Wind Speed Factor
Nelson Lagoon 15E 0.123
Sand Point 19 0.194
Naknek 13 0.154
Unalakleet No. 2 11 0.189
Gambell 18 0.158
Unalakleet No. 4 11 0.173
Nome 10 0.137
Hooper Bay 14 0.124
Skagway 10E 0.118
Gambell 18 0.113
King Salmon 11 0.106
Kodiak 10 0.084
Pilot Station 14 0.082
Palmer 6E 0.078
Unalakleet No. 3 11 0.062
Chevak 15 0.342
Kivalina 13E 0.137
Bethel 12E 0.126
Gambell 18 0.047 Unalakleet No. 1 11 0.046
Platinum 17 0.328
Ketchikan 8E 0.030
Bethel 12E 0.086 Ketchikan 8E 0.014
Note: = Estimated from data at other sites in the same geographic re-
gion. Source for the data is the Alaskan Wind Energy Handbook, Capacity factor is calculated by dividing the estimate for annual
kilowatt-hour production (KWH/Yr.) by the rated capacity of the
wind generator multiplited by 8760 hours per year.
APPENDIX B
ALASKA'S WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Wind Generator Project Statistics
On-Site
Months of Data
Project Site ID Size (KW) Make Status KWH/Yr. KWH Data Collection
Nelson Lagoon 1 20 Grumman Ow 21560 14
Sand Point 2 10 Jacobs Ow 17020 12
Naknek 3 12.5 Jacobs Ww 16900 24 x
Unalakleet No. 2 4 10 Jacobs w 16520 8 Xx
Gambell 5 10 Jacobs w 13800 16 Xx
Unalakleet No. 4 6 15 Jacobs Ww 22780 6 x
Nome 7 10 Jacobs WwW 11970 3 Xx
Hooper Bay 8 10 Jacobs WwW 10840 18 x
Skagway 9 10 Jacobs Ww 10370 10
Gambell 10 10 Jacobs Ww 9940 16 x
King Salmon 11 10 Jacobs Ww 9290 7 x
Kodiak 12 10 Jacobs WwW 7320 16 x
Pilot Station 13 10 Jacobs Ww 7200 3
Palmer 14 10 Jacobs Ww 6800 9
Unalakleet No.3 15 10 Jacobs Ww 5460 8 x
Chevak 16 1.8 Enertech 1800 Ww 5400 5 x
Kivalina 17 4 Enertech 4000 Ow 4800 3 Bethel 18 4 Enertech 4000 ow 4400 6 Xx
Gambell 19 10 Jacobs NW 4120 16 x
Unalakleet No. 1 20 10 Jacobs Ww 4000 8 Xx
Platinum 21 1 Bergey 1000-S Ww 2875 10
Ketchikan 22 10 Jacobs Ww 2600 7
Bethel 23 1.8 Enertech 1800 NW 1350 21 x
Ketchikan 24 10 Jacobs Ww 1220 5