Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt Marys Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 7-1982VIL-N 002 St. M PROPERTY aska Power A 84 W. 5th Ave. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY__ RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES OF: FOR uthority ST. MARYS ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLD BAY NIKOLSKI FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY LOWER AND TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ST. MARYS RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 1.0 Summary and Recommendations 2.0 Background 3.0 Village Meeting 4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution 5.0 Energy Balance 6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 Population Projection 6.2 Capital Projects 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 7.0 Energy Resource Assessment 8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Review Letters and Replies Pb PS bP DAKAAAH “nN oi ooo ee use Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 5.1 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 LIST OF TABLES Energy Balance for 1982 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case Estimated Heat Recovery Costs Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternete Plan A Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions ii Page 5.2 8.2 8.6 8.8 —_ Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.1 4.4 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Climatic Background Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances Electrical Generation Facilities Fuel Oil Usage Electrical Generation Sector Energy Distribution Energy Flow Diagram Distribution of Total Useable Energy Population Projection Thermal Energy Projection Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagram iii 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.2 5.3 6.4 6.4 6.5 7-4 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS —— eee The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. This study has concentrated on seeking alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. However, where there are no reliable and viable alternatives attention was focused on ways by which the costs of electricity generation could be reduced. In St. Marys there are no viable alternatives to diesel generation and a waste heat capture system was investigated as a means of making use of a resource (thermal energy) which is being wasted currently. The sale of otherwise waste heat could provide additional income to the utility and be reflected in lower costs for the generation of electricity. Also, reduction in the volumes o2 fuel oil required for space heating would realize further savings to the community as a whole. Summary Statements caeatneenioenepeellienieneartinetetensemerwecsens Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into St. Marys were considered. 1. Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village of St. Marys. Adjitional energy was supplied by wood and gasoline. 2. Significant amounts of energy are los- in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel. powered generation of electricity. 3. Forecasts show an increase in energy consumption in the village due to population growth. Additional construction unrelated to population size is anticipated and will impact energy consumption and demand. Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the village. This weakens the accuracy of technological Or economic predictions. However, the estimates relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably reliable. The feasibility of various technologies for electrical and thermal energy production was evaluated. Wind, wood, solar, geothermal, hydro, peat, and coal were considered as potential energy resources but are not viable alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste heat recovery from the existing central power plant was considered to be a viable source of thermal energy and formed the basis of the alternate energy plan. The Base Case Plan was based on the contirued use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was performed. General Recommendations ee HME NGat tons 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New technologies, and advances in olé technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. 2 36 1. Significant energy Savings could be realized by a village-wide energy conservation and weatherization program. Village Specific Recommendations ne Recommendations Waste heat recovery, from the St. Marys central power plant, utilized for space heating in the village is economically feasible and attractive because of the volume of fuel oil savings. The installation of the waste heat recovery system is recommended. The following steps should be taken: a. Inititate a feasibility study of waste heat recovery. b. Investigate power plant operation for potential to improve the efficiency in the use of diesel fuel. 2.0 BACKGROUND The village of St. Marys is a subregional transportation hub and commercial fishing center. Location St. Marys is located on the north bank of the Andreafsky River approximately 3-1/2 miles from its confluence with the Yukon River. The village is 100 miles north of Bethel, 440 miles northwest of Anchorage, and 515 miles west-southwest of Fairbanks (Figure 2.1). Topography The village is situated on the gently rolling hills adjacent to the river. The soils are typically silty and calcarious with interbedded clay layers. Permafrost is common in the poorly drained soils. The Andreafsky hills are composed mostly of sandstone with some outcrops of basalt. Clay deposits of commercial quality are present. Climate The climate of St. Marys is transitional between that of the continental interior zone and the maritime zone bordering the Bering Sea. The summers are cool and winters are harsh. Precipitation and snowfall average 16 and 60 inches per year respectively, while temperatures range from -44°F to 83°F. Background climatic information for St. Marys is summarized in Figure 2.2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7°? KEY KOTLIK SAINT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK LOWER KALSKAG NEWTOK NIGHTMUTE CHEFORNAK MEKORYUK TOKSOOK BAY TUNUNAK HOOPER BAY CHIGNIK LAGOON CHIGNIK IVANOF BAY FALSE PASS COLD BAY NIKOLSKI ATKA ST. PAUL ST. GEORGE 414 TunuNaK ~_ 10 toxsook say. g MEKORYUK ‘#>— Saint _wapys 2 . --* : ri = Lh warskas 3 - Svower” a Ly pS kowen | oe ania @ rt aie Sic de emcnie 4d ge sSjvanor ey 15 ir 120 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP Climatic Background ' ! | | ' ! JAN | FEB} MAR | APR} MAY’ JUN | suL} AUG’ sep | ocr} Nov! oFe Light Conditions 8 PERCENT FREQUENCY Ss ° 8 PERCENT FREQUENCY $ 10 Precipitation sdata INCHES INCHES 8 8 6 9 Lttean montniy snowtait roo Lemperature St.Mary's data 60 soo Heating Degree Days st. Mary's data T LI 2 5 g DEGREE Days 8 ° 00 Growing Degree Days _ st. Mary’s data JAN FEB. MAR APR MAY, JUN JUL AUG! SiP: OCT | NOV DEC | ee east __ Source: Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series. ° DEGREE DAYS 8 Figure 2.2 238 Population The village of St. Marys was established in 1948 when a mission school was moved from Akulurak to near the village of Andreafsky. St. Marys has grown and now includes Andreafsky. St. Marys and Andreafsky ee an a ee eg Census Year 1939 1950 1960 1970 1980 Population 34 55 102 384 397 At the time of this survey there were 436 people and 62 houses in St. Marys and Andreafsky combined. Economy The economy of St. Marys is based mainly on the fishing industry. Employment is seasonal and peaks during the summer when 70% of city residents are involved in the commercial fishing industry. The two commercial fish buyers employ approximately 35 people. Construction projects and fire-fighting for the BLM provide other seasonal employment. St. Marys School District employs about 30 people and St. Marys Roman Catholic High School/Mission employs 40 people during the school year. Permanent employment is available through Wien Air Alaska f (11 employees) and Western Yukon Air (10 employees). Other permanent employment is limited. United Utilities (telephone) employs 1 person, the post office employs 2 people, the health clinic required 1 full time worker, the state highway department employs 3 people. 2.4 St. Marys provides easy access to river going vessels between May and October. About 100 large ships dock at St. Marys each summer. The airport facilities include a 6000 ft. asphalt runway, supplemented by a 1,900' crosswind runway made of gravel. The airport has an instrument landing system, 2.5 3.0 COMMUNITY MEETING The advertised village meet ng was held on December 1st; 20 villagers and 6 council members attended. An outline of the Energy Reconnaissance Program was given. Another APA project in the village was studying sources and quantities of waste engine oil generat:on for possible use in space heating. A preliminary study estimated that 3500 gallons of engine oil was available in the community, enough to heat a proposed teen center and a further building. Much of the discussion during the community meeting focused on ways to reduce the high cost of oil for home heating. Wood use in the village is increasing as the cost of fuel continues to escalate. Starding wood and driftwood are used. The village has experienced power supply problems because frost heaving affects the buried power cables, and the aluminum wire in the cables has deteriorated rapidly. Subsequent conversations during the course of the energy reconnaissance revealed widespread interest in hydroelectric power generation. Conversation with Paul Dixon revealed a small hydroelectric generator used near an old cannery site on the Koffchek River which had a 20-foot head and supplied about 3 KW some 30 years ago. There are several other possibile sites including Alstrom Creek, about one mile from the city. However, problems of low head combined with severe winter weather make hydroelec- tricity an impractical alternative for a community the size of St. Marys. 4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES 4.1 4.2 4.3 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is listed, segregated by sector, in Figure 4.1. These capacities are based on actual tank sizes and on estimates where reliable data could not be obtained. The storage capacity of domestic fuel tanks and 55 gallon drums is not included in the bulk storage capacities. Also listed in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and cooking appliances, segregated by sector, being used in the village. Electrical Generation Facilities The existing generating equipment installed in the village is listed in Figure 4.2. Central generation is supplied by AVEC. Comments on the operation of the generators are included. Fuel Oil Usage Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the village. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used for electrical power generation is shown. The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to waste. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. 4.4 Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where avilable, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the Methodology section of the main report for an explanation of the estimating process. Electrical Energy Distribution The energy flow through the electrical generation sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The "pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to the generation of electrical power. Each sector in the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown. a 4.2 BULK FUEL FUEL OIL (695000 gal) STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES RESIDENTIAL ST. MARYS/1982 COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS OF HEATING APPLIANCES PUBLIC ELECTRICAL GENERATION 251000 144000 218000 GASOLINE (216000 gal) STORAGE * (GALS) 205000 TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE * Day 1,2,3 LEGEND: (TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE 1 OIL-FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE 2 OIL-FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL 3 NRIP-TYPE OIL STOVE / FURNACE 4 WOOD STOVE 5 PROPANE COOKING STOVES 6 WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS TANKS AND FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. Figure 4.1 DISTRIBUTION ELECTRICAL GENERATION ST. MARYS/1982 FACILITIES COMMENTS ON OPERATION GENERATOR NO. OF TYPE OF TYPE OF ELECTRICAL een UNITS Cana ENGINE GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION | RATING Alaska Village 2 600 KW Cat 398 KATO Electric Cooperative w/ turbocharger | 1200 RPM 1 350 KW Cat 353 KATO w/ turbocharger |1200 RPM Yukon Traders 2 50 KW Cat KATO 120/240V 2 30 KW Cat KATO State Airport 1 225 KW Cat KATO 2400V Primary School 1 30 KW 120/240V Mission School 1 100 KW International 120/240V 1 60 KW Figure 12500/7200¥ A single AVEC generator provides continuous power to the entire village. Additional power is delivered to residents at Andreafsky and Pitkas Pt. The 50 KW generators provide continuous electrical power to the roadhouse lodge and traders store. Generator provides backup electrical power to the airport. Generator provides backup elec- trical power to the primary school. ’ Generator provides backup elec- trical power to the mission school. ;: 100 90 80 70 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 R C p S E ESTIMATED FUEL FUEL OIL USAGE ST. MARYS / 1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat 39% Waste Heat 18% Generator Waste Heat Electricity 15% 4.5 Residential 17 % Commercial So Public "fo School 22 % Electrical Power ° Generation 43 % OIL USAGE = 396000 GAL = Figure 4.3 BY) 500x10°BTu ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION ST. MARYS 2 Residential 3 % Commercial 11% Public 6 % School 4% Waste Heat 65% Generation Losses I % TOTAL ENERGY 23,000 x 10° BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 2379 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5.0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in St. Marys during 1982 is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types of energy consumed by the various sectors are based upon the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by the store, the school, and the local utility. Estimates based on the population, square footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated energy usage factors, were used where data were incomplete. Wood use was estimated using the observations and discussions with wood users during the village visit. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 78,680 MMBTU of fuel will enter St. Marys in the form of gasoline, wood and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various sectors and used for transportation, cooking, heating and electricity generation. The conversion of the fuel to its end use will result in 41% or 32,320 x MMBTU of energy to be lost as heat. 51% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual amount of energy used by each sector is listed in the last column of the diagram. The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy is shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the quantity of energy that will be required by each sector (excluding transportation) for electric lights and appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and generation station service. Percentages listed in the figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 28667 x 10© Btus to determine the projected energy requirements for a particular end use in a given sector. These projected energy requirements do not include energy conversion losses and therefore represent the actual quantity of energy required for each end use. ENERGY BALANCE VILLAGE: ST. MARYS/1982 i FUEL OIL GASOLINE PROPANE eucney TOTAL ELECTRICITY SECTOR BTU BTU ioe ioe Pros | (% x10 %o “en | x 108 %o : . a RESIDENTIAL 8850 17 226 771 9 COMMERCIAL 8770 16 726 2480 30 PUBLIC 1360 3 391 1340 16 SCHOOLS 11500 22 295 1010 12 ELECTRICAL ie GENERATION 170000 | 23000 43 741 2530 31 TRANSPORTATION 142000) 4 TOTAL 395900 |53480 |100 2379 8131 |100 {142000 n6541 oes ba =e *includes electricity sent to Pitkas Point, Table 5.1 station service, and distribution losses oS U's aunbiy ST. MARYS/1982 Pop: 436 HOUSEHOLDS: 62 13,500 HTG. DEGREE DAYS Fuei AMOUNT ENERGY PRODUCT ELECTRICAL END USE TOTAL BY SECTOR CONVERSION DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USABLE ENERGY GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION (17700) Theron oN (17700) (17700) PROPANE COOKING RESIDENTIAL (2250 RESIDENTIAL (8331) wooo HEATING ml (7500) (16350) (5250) HEATING / (5310) (771) COOKING seca (3540) COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL (5270) (2480) (7750) HEATING (8770) (3500) ae (2530) FUEL OIL POWER POWER GEN. EEL, GENERATION ELECTRICAL (53480) eeNerorenS (14870) (23000) (1010) SCHOOL(S) Ih SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (6890) (340) L (7900) (11500) COOKING : PUBLIC 2156 PUBLIC (816) (2 ) (126N) HEATING | TOTAL | TOTAL WASTE TOTAL INPUT HEAT USABLE ENERGY (32320) ENERGY | RECOVERABLE (78680) WASTE HEAT (62908) (16541) DL cemirninerentenieiiiaiitaiies WASTE HEAT NON - RECOVERABLE (15779) NOTE: NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10® etu's. WVYOVIG MOIS ADYANS DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY ™* ST. MARY'S/1982 END USE 8ECTO dy E (2.7%) 90 80 70 60 COML 50 a eH PERCENTAGE (%) 40 E (3.5%) = WH (0.6%) 30 SCHOOL 20 H/C (24.0%) 10 oO H/C (2.88) END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 17.4 % VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 13.6 ®: H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 60.8 ® P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 8.8% ‘TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 99667 x 10° Btu % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fig. 5.2 6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.2 Population Projection SS Eee ton The 20 year population projection for St. Marys was based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capital projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their community. Historical population data from 1940 to 1980 show a rapid rate of growth approximating 5% annually. Between 1970 and 1980, however, the growth rate dropped considerably. Growth is expected to continue at St. Marys. The projected growth rate, however, is expected to be slightly lower than the historical rate and has been estimated at 2%. Historical and projected populations are listed below. Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over the 20 year planning period. Historical Projected 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 34 155 102 384 379 465 561 685 Capital Projects Forecast EE recast Capital projects mentioned to the field team during the village visit were as follows: Houses - 6 to 12 rew dwellings for senior citizens are planned for construction in 1982-83. 6.1 6.3 Schools - A new high school is under construction in 1981 and is to be completed in 1982. Hotel & - An existing two stocy building used as Cold Storage cold storage facilizy on the lower level Building and a hotel on the upper level is planned to be renovated for winter and summer use. Requirements of the school were included in the base case calculations. The senior citizens houses were not included because inadequate information was available on which to base realistic estimates of the electrical and thermal energy requirements of this complex. St. Marys is a growing village and it is anticipated that many capital projects will be completed within the next 20 years. Because it is not possible to detail these developments at this stage a computer model has been prepared to forecast the effect of the energy requirements of new projects on the energy budget of the community. When more detailed information is available then the forecasts and alternative energy scenarios can be revised to reflect the changing conditions. Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of St. Marys during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided primarily by the combustion of fuel oil. 6.4 The projections were based on fuel use records and estimates of the heating requirements of the buildings. The increase in therm energy requirements resulting from the new senior citizen houses and the new school were included. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the Methodology section of the main report. Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of St. Marys, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data were not available. CMMBTUD THERMAL ENERGY POPULATION PROJECTION ST MARYS 675 625 Zz oO S75 ke < j 2 Oo 525 oO a 475 - 425 1 1 1 JH jd 1 1 _t 4 a3, 1 1 1 1 1 1982 1984 1986 1988 1998 1ss2 1994 1996 1998 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION ST MARYS 38288 t 25228 - t 22222 + i } 15222 ! 1 1 : a ! L 1982 1934 1986 1988 1SS2 1932 1994 1SSF 1998 YEAR Figure 6.2 6.4 ELECTRICAL ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY BY SECTOR (MWH) PEAK DEMAND (KW) TOTAL (MHH) PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION ST MARYS 85a 558 453 358 2 Sennen 1 < if ip 1 < 1 2 1 r Ps oh 1982 1984 1986 1988 1998 1992 1994 1898 1998 2220 YEAR A ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION ST MARYS 4e20 — 352e + 30220 b a 2500 _— 2222 a vs 1 4 1 + L 1 1. L 1328 11ag + G : A et oo 9go + Oo eee 728 PN 580 + - eee SS s, se ener ones eeereet a BBBK eee 1¢28 L 1 1 1 1 1 tL 1 4 1 5 1 a5 1 1 1 1 1 igs2 1984 1986 1988 1993 1992 1994 996 1998 >g0¢ YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector Cc = Commercial = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 625 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ee, Wind The average annual windspeed at St. Marys has been estimated at 11 mph (Alaska Wind Energy Handbook). The prevailing direction is from the north-northeast in the winter and varies from the northwest to southwest during the rest of the year. Although the winds were not as strong here as in many of the villages in this study, they were consistent. Many of the villagers were interested in the potential of wind generated electricty. A wind generator had been used to supply power to one residence. Wood Wood is sparse in this locality, but driftwood is increasingly being used as a substitute for fuel oil. The Andreafsky River provides an insignificant amount of driftwood, but driftwood on the Yukon River is substantial. Prior to price increases in fuel oil, 140,000 gallons/year were marketed for residential use. In 1980, fuel oil consumption had dropped to 80,000 gallons/year and use of firewood has increased proportionately. Gasoline sales are increasing as more fuel is used in wood gathering. Coal Coal deposits are known upriver in the vicinity of Grayling, however, there are no known plans to develop the resource on a commercial basis. Alternative sources of coal would be from Healy via a barge loading facility at Nenana, or by sea from Anchorage. 7.1 Peat The well developed drainage system of the Andreafsky River and the especially active smaller drainage systems around St. Marys plus the unfavorable surface geology discourage formation of peat. The swamps south of the Andreafsky River contain a high percentage of organic matter, but cannot be classified as fuel grade peat. Solar Passive solar heat may be considered viable only as a supplement to home heating, however costs of retro-fitting and short daylight hours in winter mitigate against its widespread acceptance. Geothermal St. Marys has no geothermal potential. Hydro St. Marys is in an area of low relief. There is no hydroelectric potential. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned in a diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine water cooling system, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the engine. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings 7.2 and used in heaters for space heating. The school district is currently installing waste heat recovery equipment at the NMFS power plant to heat the school complex and additional community buildings. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at St. Marys. Weatherization Homes and buildings built in the Pribilof Islands in the past have in general been poorly insulated and weatherized. Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows. Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the building more comfortable and liveable at the same time. The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the most effective way of reducing village energy usage. Technology Ranking Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that could be applied to the village. Each technology was examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and environmental impact. Please refer to the Methodology section in the main report for the ranking method. bel Village of St. Marys Technology Relia- Environ- Ranking State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor Impact — — —- oats Weatherization* : : 5 : 5 5 ed Diesel Power | 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Hydroelectric Power N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Wind Energy Conversion 2 2 2 2 2 4 0.43 Systems : Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Steam Power from local fuel,wood,coal,ect... 3 2 3 7 : : iat Gasification of wood,coal | or peat N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Generation via synchronous Induction* 4 3 3 3 1 4 0.65 Electrical Load Management* : ee pa * Energy Conservation Measures Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 N/A Not Applicable 8.0 8. 1 ENERGY PLAN Base Case 8.1.1 General Description 8.1 The base case plan for St. Marys is t» continue using the centralized diesel generating system. As the village grows additional generators are added in the plan to meet the increasing peak demand. Thermal energy use has been projected based t pon the continuation of the present consumpt on rates on a per capita basis. -2. Base Case Cost Analysis The capital value of the existing central electric power plant was estimated to be $716,000. The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 150 kw, as required by growing peak demard. The cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $830/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $12.°9/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.70/gallon. Operation. and Maintenance expenses were estimated at 8¢/kwh. Table 8.1 presents the itemized present value analysis of the base case for the 20 year study period. The discounted 20 year present value was $13,093,800. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 778 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TATA HUlAL 7 TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 48 .0 346.6 195.0 589.5 589.5 589.5 1992 48.0 580.5 252.6 SoL.d 881.1 655.6 1983 48.0 380.3 208.5 636.8 636.8 618.3 1993 48.0 607.8 257.8 913.0 913.6 660.0 NOTE: 1984 48.0 399.1 213.2 660.3 660.3 622.4 1994 48.0 636.4 263.1 94/64 947.4 664.5 SBLRARYS BASE CAS 1985 48.0 418.6 218.0 684.6 684.6 626.5 1995 48.0 666.2 268.4 982.0 982.6 669.1 E 1986 48.0 438.9 222.8 709.7 709.7 630.6 1996 48.0 697.3 273.9 1019.2 1987 48.0 400.1 227.6 735.7 735.7 634.7 1997 56.4 729.9 279.4 1065.6 1988 48.0 482.2 232.5 762.7 762.7 638.8 1998 56.4 763.9 285.0 1105.2 1019.2 1065.6 1105.2 673.8 684.0 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.1 688.7 1989 48.0 DUD.2 237.5 790.7 790.7 642.9 1999 56.4 799.4 290.7 1146.4 1990 48.0 929.2 242.4 819.7 819.7 647.1 2000 56.4 836.6 296.5 1189.4 1146.4 1189.4 693.6 698.6 1991 48.0 994.3 247.5 849.8 849.8 651.3 2001 56.4 875.4 302.4 1234.1 1234.1 703.8 TOTAL 1001.8 11707.8 5014.7 17724.4 17724.4 13093.8 8. 1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers of St. Marys recognize that diesel generation is the only technologically feasible way of generating electricity today. Therefore, their interests are in seeing the most efficient use of the system. Reliability of power supply is regarded as basic to the village's needs. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases releases a small amount of pollutants to the local environment, but the impact is minimal. ii) Noise: The exhaust stacks from the generator produce considerable noise. The installation of more effective mufflers would reduce the noise level. iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impact. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is no impact on vegetation or soils. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: All leases and permits are in place. 8.3 8.1.3 Base Case Technical Evaluation The continued operation of the central diesel electric power plant in St. Marys is expected to conform to the following: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well proven well understood technology with a successful history in rural Alaska. Backup generation allows maintenance of the generators to be performed without major power interruption. Occasional system downtime is expected for distribution system maintenance. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. Availability. There are no indications that spare parts will become difficult to obtain in the future. The availability of fuel to the power plant depends on the reliability of transportation to the village. 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.2.1 8.2.2 General Description The Alternate Plan A for St. Marys is the installation of a waste heat recovery system installed at the existing central electric power plant. It consists of the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 600 kw and 350 kw generators. 2. A distribution system consisting of pump, piping and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return it to the power plant. 3. Heating equipment installed in the PHS water, community office, hotel, post office, and vehicle repair shop buildings, to provide space heating. 4. A control system that automatically regulates the Supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any surplus waste heat to the engine radiators. Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water waste heat recovery system. The capital cost of tke heat recovery system was estimated to be $300,700. The system value was amortized over a 10 year period. 355 ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY COSTS Project Location Generators (kw) Estimated total kwh generated Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate Percent of On-Line Capacity Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery Percent Jacket Water Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Main piping 1400 feet x $79/ft. 2. Heat Recovery Equipment 3. Circulating Pumps 4. Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware 5. Contingencies (30%) 6. Base Cost 7. Project Management (5%) 8. Engineering (10%) 9. Shipping and Handling 10. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11. 0 & M COST 12. Recovery Efficiency Table 8.2 8.6 St. Marys 600,600,350 2,380,000kwh/yr 600,350 272 kw 45% 31150 Btu/min 53% 991X106 BtuH -635X106 BtuH 110,000 41,500 6,500 36,000 58,200 194,200 9,700 19,400 19,400 300,700 1.30/MMBtu 3930 Btu/kwh The cost of fuel oil normally used for spice heating, which was offset by the captured was-:e heit, was $15.56/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil co3t of $2.10/gallon. Operation and maintenance sosts were calculated to be $1.38/MMBTU waste h2at captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized pres2nt value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study p2riod. The discounted net benefit of the system was 32,867,600. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluatioi Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from existing generators for sale to major consumers. 1) Community Preference: The villagers >f St. Marys recognize that the installation >2f waste heat will improve the efficiency of fuel use in the community. The sale of waste heat wiil help lessen the effect of rising fuel pric2s on the cost of electricity. Installation of the waste heat capture system will require local expertise and should provide a number of jobs during the construction phase. The system should operate with minimal maintenance although one part time person would be required until the system has been tested and .nitial minor problems have been solved. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 8°8 NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 48.0 346.6 195.0 589.5 589.5 589.5 oocooo~w CooocoonN 1983 48.0 380.3 208.5 636.8 636.8 618.3 oooo"w oOOCOWw NOTE: ST MARYS PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1984 48.0 399.1 213.2 660.3 660.3 622.4 1984 47.4 185.4 138.0 126.3. 1985 48.0 418.6 218.0 684.6 684.6 626.5 1985 47.6 194.2 146.6 130.2 1986 48 .0 438.9 222.8 709.7 709.7 630.6 1986 47.9 203.4 155.5 134.2 1987 48.0 460.1 227.6 735.7 735.7 634.7 1987 48.2 213.0 164.8 138.0 **k ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 1988 48.0 482.2 232.5 762.7 762.7 638.8 1988 48.5 223.0 174.5 141.9 1989 48.0 505.2 237.5 790.7 790.7 642.9 1989 48.8 233.4 184.7 145.8 1990 48.0 529.2 242.4 819.7 819.7 647.1 1990 49.0 244.3 195.2 149.6 1991 48.0 554.3 247.5 849.8 849.8 651.3 1991 49.3 255.6 206.3 153.5 “8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NOW ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1992 48 .0 580.5 252.6 881.1 881.1 655.6 1992 49.6 267.4 217.8 157.3 ST MARYS PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 56.4 607.8 036.4 666.2 697.3 729.9 257.8 263.1 268.4 273.9 279.4 913.6 947.4 982.6 1019.2 1065.6 913.6 947.4 982.6 1019.2 1065.6 660.0 664.5 669.1 673.8 684.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 49.9 50.2 50.5 50.8 51.1 279.7 292.6 306.0 320.0 334.7 229.8 242.4 255.5 269.2 283.5 161.2 165.0 168.9 172.8 176.7 NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 (continued) 1998 1999 2000 2001 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.4 763.9 799.4 836.6 875.4 285.0 290.7 296.5 302.4 1105.2 1146.4 1189.4 1234.1 1105.2 1146.4 1189.4 1234.1 688.7 693.6 698.6 703.8 1998 1999 2000 2001 51.5 51.8 52.1 52.4 350.0 365.9 382.6 400.1 298.5 314.2 330.5 347.6 180.6 184.5 188.5 192.5 TOTAL 1001.8 11707.8 5014.7 17724.4 17724.4 13093.8 TOTAL 896.7 5051.3 4154.6 2867.6 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in fuel use in the village resulting in reduced emissions of hydrocarbons, monoxides and nitrogen oxides. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. iii) Water Quality: There would be a minor impact if a major leakage occurred in the coolant system. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None. v) Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during the installation of the distribution system and will be restricted to the village site. vi) Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed that the village will make the necessary arrangements for the right of way requirements for the distribution system. 8.2.4 Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation Operation of the waste heat recovery system in St. Marys, in conjunction with the central power plant, is expected to conform to the following expectations: 1. High Reliability. The system utilizes simple, reliable components that are readily available off the shelf from a variety of sources. 8.10 Safety. A well maintained system has a very low hazard potential. Availability. immediately. implement. All components needed are available The system is rela:ively easy to ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS palace ladle alee rab ech ehant thule nah sda Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 ST. MARYS Base Case Alternative Energy Sourc Present Wort Non-Electric a Total Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 Energy Base Case Alternative A Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Year (kwh/yr. ) (¢/kwh ) is eve) , , . . 1983 2,606,000 24.44 24.44 1984 2,666,000 24.77 19.59 1985 2,725,000 25.12 19.74 1986 2,785,000 25.48 19.90 1987 2,846,000 25.85 20.06 1988 2,907,000 26.24 20.23 1989 2,968,000 26.64 20.42 1990 3,031,000 27.04 20.60 1991 3,094,000 27.47 20.80 1992 3,158,000 27.90 21.00 1993 3,223,000 28.35 21.22 1994 3,288,000 28.81 21.44 1995 3,355,000 29.29 21.67 1996 3,423,000 29.78 21.91 1997 3,492,000 30.51 22.40 1998 3,362,000 31.03 22.65 1999 3,633,000 34.56 22.91 2000 3,706,000 32.09 23.18 2001 3,780,000 32.64 23.45 eae as cl Oe Table 9.3 presents the plans for the village, in rank of recommended preference. The recommended action appropriate to each alternative is listed as well. Table 9.3 Energy Plan Alternative Recommended Action Alternative A - Waste Heat A feasibility study is Capture being performed as a separate part of the same study. Negotiation should proceed with AVEC on the utilization of that waste heat and design of the system should proceed. Base Case — Continued Investigate operation for Operation of Central potential of improved Power Plant generation efficiency. Estimate cost of study at $10,000 - $12,000 Additional Recommendations eatherization nitiate energy audit an or complete weatherization program. 9:2 APPENDIX. See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report: RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VILLAGES OF Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtox, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. 3 ista Corparction 516 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 279-5516 RECGE IVED APR 1 2 1982 ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY April 9, 1982 Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Letter of March 8, 1982 We have reviewed the draft documents by NORTEC of the energy reconnaissance report of the Calista Region. Calista Corporation endorses the study that was done by NORTEC. Energy in the Calista Region is probably the most expensive item for the people. Oil and gas have to be transported in, therefore causing the cost of energy to skyrocket in the villages. We would very much appreciate for Alaska Power Authority go on further and make recommendations to improve the energy programs within our region. However, please coordinate with Calista Corporation and A.V.C.P. Inc. on the reconnaissance studies that will be done in the future. Any questions please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, CALISTA CORPORATION Whe Al ider President AR/ms Reply to Calista Corporation letter dated 4/9/82. Receipt of the letter and the point about further future coordination with A.V.C.P. Inc. is acknowledged. PROPERTy OF; Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501