Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNikolski Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 7-1982 VIL-N 002 Nikolski 6.2 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES PROPERTY OF: FOR Alaska Power Authority 34 W. 5th Ave. prage, Alaska 99501 : NIKOLSKI ANIAK eux MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK oo CHIGNIK LAKE nee COLO BAY NIKOLSKI plaid! base ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ae IVANOF BAY ue MeL ik TOKSOOK BAY [duce MD TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY__ NIKOLSKI RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 Review letters and replies Page 2.1 3.1 Pb PS oe ee Bea ow uw . = ~ DANDANA . oe eee - NN a= ooo oe uno 9.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table 5.1 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.3 LIST OF TABLES Energy Balance for 1982 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate 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 8.7 9.2 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 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 Lit Page 2.2 2.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.3 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.4 7.4 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. The study has focused on seeking potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. Opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, such as waste heat capture systems, were also detailed. A waste heat capture system utilizes a resource (thermal energy) which is currently wasted in diesel electric generation. Waste heat capture in Nikolski is impractical since the diesel generators are air-cooled. In Nikolski a wind generation system was compared to the central generation base case. Summary Statements Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into Nikolski were considered. 1. Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by gasoline. 2. Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel electric generation. 3s 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. 4. 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. Wood, solar, geothermal, hydro, peat, and coal were examined as potential energy resources and are not viable as alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Wind generated electric power formed the basis of the alternate energy plan. The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the continued use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was performed. Waste heat recovery from the central power Plant was not considered feasible due to the fact that the plant uses air cooled diesel engines. General Recommendations 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New technologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. Significant energy savings could be realized by a village-wide energy conservation and weatherization program. Village Specific Recommendations 1. Wind energy proved to be economically unfeasible in the village. In addition, a history of frequent failures and unreliability in rural Alaska make this enexgy source unattractive. 24 The following should be undertaken: a. Inititate an investigation to determine the feasibility of improving the efficiency of the central power plant. 2.0 BACKGROUND Location The village of Nikolski, located on the southwest coast of Umnak Island in the Aleutian Island Chain, is a village site that has been occupied for 4000 years. Umnak Island, one of the Fox Islands, lies in a very rich Salmon fishing and crabbing area. The coast is exposed with very few protected harbors. The coastline is characterized by rugged cliffs and dark sandy beaches, The village is 116 miles west of Dutch Hacbor and 900 miles southwest of Anchorage (Figure 2.1). Nik>lski is situated on a gently rolling piedmont plain with many small scattered lakes and shallow undrained depressions. The island is composed of two volcanoes and their subsequent lava flows and ash falls. Climate Nikolski lies in a maritime climatic regime and is subject to cool summers and mild winte-s. Nikolski averages 21 inches of precipitation and 41 inches of snow annually. Temperatures range from 11°F and 65°F. The average wind velocity is 14 knots, the prevailing direction is from the east in the winter and from the northwest during the rest of the year. Figure 2.2 .llustrates the general climate background conditions at Nikolski. KEY KOTLIK SAINT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK LOWER KALSKAG NEWTOK NIGHTMUTE CHEFORNAK MEKORYUK 10 TOKSOOK BAY |] TUNUNAK 12 HOOPER BAY 13. CHIGNIK LAGOON 14 CHIGNIK 15 IVANOF BAY 16 FALSE PASS 17 COLD BAY 18 NIKOLSK! 19 ATKA 20 ST. PAUL 21 ST. GEORGE OMNOUDUN— 1 TUNUNAK ~ “ ToK 10 roxsoox sav, ny Q MEKORYUK ~a3, a ee eer | Te J = _ oe — 8 } - A AM sn = wawrion \ Se “7 E=— SAINT MARYS_2 = % wacsxag 3-2. -5 Lower Ei Ol SO? eausKas ane r 7 | Pet | 17 covo say~y FALSE pass 16 SLU os — 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP Climatic Background Tree i man ,Light_ Conditions Dayteaht | Jinectudes civil twelightl oa ee eat 0 a Flying Weather «1.000 tt ceiling /3_ mites visibility HOURS PERCENT FREQUENCY KNOTS 40 Heating Degree Days Big ae 1,500 s 1,000 DEGREE OAY Growing Degree Days i eas (eee Bhs 250] —— +- | —| 4 | oe, cs a § 9b eee ee 1 Ee JAN | FEB| MAR| APR | may | JUN jel aus | sep | oct | nov | 2€c | ' Source: Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series. Figure 2.2 23:3 Economy In the late 1920's Nikolski was very prosperous because of the fur farming industry. The Nikolski Aleuts invested the profits from this venture into a large fishing boat. The lack of sheltered anchorages in Nikolski Bay has Prevented an active commercial fishing industry from developing at Nikolski. Many residents work in crab and salmon canneries and on processing ships during the summer and fall. The village profit making organization, the Chaluka Corporation, operates a sheep and cattle ranch, formerly the Aleutian Livestock Company, with 3000 sheep, 300 cattle and 100 horses. The village is negotiating with a private company which is interested in leasing the farm. Subsistence hunting and fishing continue as mainstays of the village economy. Population During the historical period the population of Nikolski has fluctuated with changing economic conditions. The village population grew during the prosperous fur farming period and fell after the collapse of the market. It increased as jobs became available. With the construction of the White Alice communications installation people moved from surrounding villages to take advantage of job opportunities. The population has decreased steadily since then. Positive growth is again expected with construction of several houses by HUD and the establishment of an expanded economic base for the community, for example, a meat processing plant. | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | ensus Year|1890 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 Population | 94| 83 97 | 64 The entire village of Nikolski is considered an historic site because the Chaluka nound archaeological site is within its boundaries. Any capital development in the village must be fully reviewed to ascertain that they will not harm the cultural resource. 3.0 COMMUNITY MEETING The community meeting at Nikolski attended by 15 residents, was held in the community hall. After an outline of the Energy Reconnaissance Program was given discussion turned to the energy problems facing the village. The principal problem revolves around the new HUD houses that were constructed in 1981. The old houses were small and required approximately one barrel of oil per month for space heating and cooking. The houses were paid for and electricity consumption was characteristically below the minimum set by the utility ($45 per month). The new houses take almost $100 a month in electricty, two barrels of oil a month for space heat and water heating and an additional $110 a month rent for the new housing. Increased elecricity costs are incurred because the houses have forced air oil-fired furnaces, and electric self-cleaning ovens. Many of the villagers cook meals on the oil-fired stoves in the old houses. The majority of villagers have a fixed income of approximately $550 per month from social security. Therefore there are very real concerns about the future use of the new houses. The villagers wanted to know about the Power Cost Assistance (PCA) Program. The PCA Program places the onus requesting support on the local utility. There is a reluctance to apply for PCA in Nikolski because the operator considers that the present installed capacity is only marginally able to accommodate the present load and a price reduction would increase demand beyond the installed capacity. The utility also has limited bulk fuel storage capacity. Alternative sources of electricty discussed were the hydro potential of Sheep Creek and the Prospects for wind powered generators, A water staff was installed on Sheep Creek by Bill Long of the State Water Resources office and Jacob Chercasen has been noting the water levels twice a day. However, the Corps of Engineers does not consider the creek suitable because of foundation conditions for the diversion dam. The stream is a major pink salmon spawning stream and the lake at the headwater is a spawning area for red salmon. Wind potential at Nikolski is considerable and the former White Alice site provides an ideal location and foundation. However, the unreliability of wind and problems of unproven technology were real concerns. No systematic wind data has been collected for Nikolski and this would be necessary before a wind system could be considered seriously. The village was assured that a wind scenario would be considered for the village although doubts about the economic viability were expressed. The villagers were all concerned about the future of the village because the young people are leaving and the youngest child is in grade 5, although the school teachers have a young child they do not foresee spending many years in the village. 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. Conments 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 siown. 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. 4.1 4.4 Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where available, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the Methodology section in the Appendix of this report for an explanation of the estimating process. The fuel oil consumption for electrical power generation was based on an assumed central electrical power plant, with the generating equipment listed in Figure 4.2. 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. 4.2 NIKOLSKI/1982 BULK FUEL STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES OF HEATING APPLIANCES SECTOR ELECTRICAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL GENERATION SCHOOLS FUEL OIL 71600 GASOLINE STORAGE * (GALS) TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE LEGEND: TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE 1 OIL- FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE OIL- FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION DRIP-TYPE OIL STOVE/FURNACE wooD STOVE PROPANE COOKING STOVES WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS noo pwn *DAY .TANKS AND FUEL ORUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. Figure 4.1 ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES Light Company no..or | SeueRtio® NITS U RATING | Nikolski Power and 1 50 KW COMMENTS ON OPERATION NIKOLSKI TYPE OF TYPE OF ELECTRICAL ENGINE GENERATOR OISTRIBUTION Lister Lima 2400/4160V Figure 4.2 +— An 85 KW generator is needed to meet the large electrical demand of recently constructed houses. Generators are not operated in parallel. FUEL OIL USAGE NIKOLSKI/ 1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat 37% = @ £ @ a Generator Waste Heat Electricity 83 R Residential 48 % c Commercial 3, Vo. P Public 3 % S School 7 % E Electrical Power ° Generation 99. % ESTIMATED FUEL CIL USE = 51000 GAL = 6900x10°BruU Figure 4.3 4.5 ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION NIKOLSKI P Residential “fe Commercial “ Public % School %o Waste Heat 79 % Generation Losses 2% TOTAL ENERGY 2710 x 10° BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 161 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5.0. ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Nikolski 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. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 8,151 MMBTU of fuel will enter Nikolski. 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 47% or 3,832 MMBTU of energy lost as heat. 56% 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 energy flow 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 3068 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. VILLAGE: NIKOLSKI FUEL OIL ENERGY BALANCE GASOLINE PROPANE WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY SECTOR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY BTU GAL roe | % BTU MWH x10® GAL 6 % x10 LBS. BTU «108 TOTAL BTU x10® RECOV- ERABLE BTU x 108 BTU x 10° % COMMERCIAL 78] 39 217] 5 PUBLIC 86] 43 17s] 4 SCHOOLS iss} 19 406} 9 GENERATION 2160 | 1400 55] 1 TRANSPORTATION *station service or distribution losses Table “5.1 eng aunbiy L's NIKOLSKI/1982 Pop: 5 HOUSEHOLDS: 38 9,500 HTG. DEGREE DAYS FUEL AMOUNT ENERGY pone ELECTRICAL ENO USE TOTAL BY SECTOR CONVERSION © WASTE HEAT DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USABLE ENERGY GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION | TRANSPORTATION (1250) TRANSPORTATION us (1250) = 2 _ PROPANE COOKING RESIDENTIAL z IDENTIA (2215 wane weaving RESIDENTIAL - (3310 HEATING/ (1990) (225) COOKING om (1.32.0), COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL (116) (217) : (78) (550) a FUEL OIL POWER i POWER GEN. GENERATION ELECTRICAL (6901) GENERATORS (2710) (123) CHOOL SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (283) erent (406) COOKING _ (471) (45) PUBLIC eee (175) . HEATING (216) ke fe = | TOTAL | TOTAL WASTE TOTAL | INPUT HEAT USABLE | ENERGY (3832) ENERGY | (8151) RECOVERABLE / WASTE HEAT (6480) (2162) WASTE HEAT NON - RECOVERABLE : NOTE: (1670) 6 ' idiccmionteaes a NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 1t0® Btu's. WVYOVIG MOIS ADYAN]A . DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY * NIKOLSKI/1982 END USE ceetce BY SECTOR 100 E(7.3%) , ee : WH (7.5%) 80 7 a ~- 70 H/C (57.48) w < Oo = =< 60 2 w 5 a w 50 a Oo rs a uw eo 30 E (3.38) H/C (3.88) PWR GEN 20 P(1.8%) Sle Os dares) a ; 10 H/C (8.4%) E(1.5%) PUBLIC oO H/C (4.28) END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 16.1% VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 8.3%. H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 73.8% P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 1.8% TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 3068 x 10° Btu % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fia. & 9 6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.1 Population Projection The population of Nikolski was forecast for the twenty year planning period based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capital projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their own community. Historical data from 1950 to 1980 shows an average negative annual growth rate. The capital projects, detailed below, are scheduled for the near future and are expected to stimulate the growth of the village. Therefore, a 1% growth rate was used to project future populations. 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 97 64 92 57 50 55 61 67 6.2 Capital Projects Forecast The villagers of Nikolski are most concerned about the present zero growth predicament of the village. A $350,000 HUD Block Grant has been awarded for the installation of a small meat processing facility. Additional support is being sought to develop a small scale cash economic base for the community which will enable it to begin to grow again. The meat processing facility has not been included because no figures are available on which to base a reasonable estimate of its power requirements. 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Nikolski during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided by the combustion of fuel used for space heating. The projections were based on fuel use records and estimates of the heating requirements of the buildings. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the appendix of this report. 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Nikolski, 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. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the appendix of this report. 6.2 POPULATION THERMAL ENERGY (MMBTUD POPULATION PROJECTION NIKOLSKI 62 62 58> S6F 347 = 52 48 tt dd ese} 1982 1984 1986 1988 1992 1992 1994 1996 1998 200 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION NIKOLSKI 2527 4. S 4. 1 2 a } 4 4 L as £ 1 ihe 1 1 19821984 1886 1982 1992 1892 1994 1955 1692 2922 YEAR Figure 6.2 6.3 ELECTRICAL ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY PEAK DEMAND (KW) TOTAL (MWH) BY SECTOR (MWH) PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION NIKOLSKI 6B y 55 58 45 42 Dal thecal alia 1 Set A ccsirmill 1 i Dd Ridcnigl listens 1gs2 1984 +1986 1988 1998 1992 1984 1996 1998 2622 YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION NIKOLSKI 258 288+ ] L 152 alicia alae alse 1 1 Sh a al cso nul i Rs cca e oe te PEE UTI H Ue bee eee 58 -r SM Le ITEM EPL Tee c~ : : 25+ 6 | p7 Ce a eee lel gi i ape 1962 «1984 1986 1988 1993 1992 1994 1996 1998 2202 YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT a Wind Winds at Nikolski average 16 mph and are persistent. The installation of a wind powered generator is evaluated in Plan A of this report (Section 8.2). Wood No trees grow on Umnak Island. Driftwood from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is washed to shore in Nikolski Bay but the volume of available wood varies and its use for space heating is intermittent. Solar The predominance of heavy overcast in the Aleutians means that even passive solar heating is of questionable utility. Peat The soils of Umnak contain a high percentage of volcanic ash. Although they contain a high percentage of organic matter, they cannot be classified as fuel grade peat. Coal There are no known coal reserves in the region. Geothermal Although there is considerable geothermal potential on the island it is distant from the village and is not Tak considered in this report. Umnak Island is located in a belt of intense seismic activity. There are three active volcanoes on the island, the largest of which is Okmok Caldera. Okmok Caldera, located on the northeast end of the island approximately 40 miles from Nikolski, has erupted at least 10 times since 1700. Mount Usevidof, 16 miles northeast of the village has erupted five times since 1700. The third volcanoe, Mount Recheshnoi, is just east of Mount Usevidof and has no historic eruptions. There are many thermal springs, geysers, and fumaroles on Umnak Island. The Geyser Bight hot-water system, located 25 miles northeast of the village, is the hottest and most extensive hydrothermal convective system known to exist in Alaska. Hydro The hydroelectric potential of three streams on Umnak Island was investigated by the Corps of Engineers. Two of the streams were dismissed from further consideration because their distance from the village. The third stream, Sheep Creek was also rejected because a combination of construction problems insufficient head and poor foundation conditions. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Waste heat capture from the central electric power plant was rejected because the utility presently uses air cooled generators. Although it may be possible to duct hot air from the generators for a short distance (50 ft.) it was considered unfeasible in this village situation. 7.2 Weatherization ‘ Homes and buildings built in rural Alaska 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. v°L Village of Nikolski — Technology Relia- Environ- Ranking State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor Impact [ neatherization* 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.00 Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Hydroelectric Power | 4 2 2 2 3 1 0.53 Wind Energy Conversion 4 3 2 4 4 4 0.75 Systems Geothermal Energy 3 x 1 1 2 3 0.38 Steam Power from local fuel,wood,coal,ect... N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 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* 2 2 1 4 0.62 | 1 * Energy Conservation Measures Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 N/A Not Applicable 8 -0 ENERGY PLAN Base Case -1 General Description The base case plan for Nikolski is to continue using the centralized diesel generating system. As the village grows additional generators have been added in the plan to meet the increasing peak demand. 8.1.2 Base Case Cost Analysis The capital value of the existing central electric power plant was estimated to be $264,000. The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 30 kw, as required by the growing peak demand. The cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $1650/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $9.63/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.30/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 $1,110,600. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL . TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 17.7 27:2 13.0 57.9 57.9 57.9 1992 21.0 39.4 14.6 75.0 75.0 55.8 1983 17.7 28.2 13.2 59.1 59.1 57.4 1993 21.0 40.9 14.8 76.6 76.6 55.4 NOTE: 1984 Lied 29.3 T3a0 60.4 60.4 56.9 1994 21.0 42.4 14.9 78.3 78.3 54.9 NIKOLSKI PLAN 1 BASE CASE 1985 17.7 30.4 13.5 61.7 61.7 56.4 1995 21.0 43.9 TS) 80.0 80.0 54.5 1986 17. 31. 13. 63. ONON 63.0 55.9 1996 21.0 45.5 15.2 81.8 81.8 54.1 1987 21.0 32.8 13.8 67.6 67.6 58.4 1997 21.0 47.2 15.4 83.6 83.6 53.7 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.1 1988 21.0 34.0 14.0 69.0 69.0 57.8 85.5 50:3 1989 21.0 35.3 14.1 70.5 70.5 57.3 1999 21.0 50.7 1537 87.5 87.5 52.9 1990 21.0 36.6 14.3 71.9 71.9 56.8 2000 21.0 52.6 15.9 89.5 89.5 52.6 1991 21.0 38.0 14.4 73.5 73.5 56.3 2001 21.0 54.5 16.0 91.6 91.6 52.2 TOTAL 403.9 789.7 290.6 1484.2 1484.2 1110.6 Bars Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers of Nikolski 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: 1) 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 a considerable amount of 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 8.1.4 Base Case Technical Evaluation The continued operation of the central diesel electric power plant in Nikolski is expected to meet 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 a major interruption of electrical power. Occasional system downtime is expected for distribution system maintenance. 2. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. 3. 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. 8.4 8.2 Alternate Plana eee eee 8.2.1 General Description The Alternate Plan A for Nikolski is the installation of a 10 KW wind generator. The system would have the following features. 1. One 10 KW wind generator Placed on a pile foundation located on a bluff approximately 1 mile from the village. 2. A 4160V single phase transmission line, to intertie the wind generator to the existing central electric power distribution system. 3. A control system to interface the wind generated electric power with the diesel generated power, and a heat sink system to dissipate excess wind generated power when there is no villgae demand. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis The capital cost of the anticipated wind generation system was estimated to be $387,500. The cost is itemized below: Major Cost Items Cost 1. 60 ft. tower, anchor & guys $ 53,000 2. Foundation (pile) 25,000 3. 10 kw windgenerator with mastermind Static frequency charger 35,000 4. Controls, utility interface, wiring, heat sink, misc. 30,000 5. Transmission line 0.5 mi X 90000/mi 45,000 6. Mobilization and demobilization 50,000 7. Contingency (30%) 85,000 8. Base Cost 323,000 9. Project Management (5%) 16,100 10. Test & energization (5%) 16,100 11. Engineering (10%) 32,300 23 Estimated Project Cost $387,500 The system cost was amortized over a 10 year period. The operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be 5¢/kwh. Table 8.2 presents the itemized present value analysis for the 20 year period. The discounted present value of the plan was $1,689,000. This included operation of the wind generator system and the existing diesel electric generator plant. The electrical power output of the wind generator was estimated to average 25% of the capacity rating. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternative Plan A Summary: Wind Turbine Generators 1) Community Preference: Although much interest was expressed at the Nikolski community meeting, reservations were held about the reliability of wind-powered generators. 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: No impact. ii) Noise Levels: Are low. 8.6 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL WIND GENERATION INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 17. 27. 13. 57. OOMm™N ooo ooo 57.9 57.9 1983 17.7 28.2 13.2 59.1 ooo ooo 59.1 57.4 NOTE: 1984 17. 25. LT. 54. CnON 45. 49. 104.6 98.6 akKK NIKOLSKI PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1985 17.7 26.5 11.8 55.9 > > OPN orp 105.8 96.8 1986 17.7 27.5 11.9 57.1 > > OPN orp 107.0 95.0 1987 21. 28. 12. 61. NRDO 45. 49, 115.5 96.2 ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.2 1988 21.0 29.8 12.2 63.0 > > worn orf 112.8 94.5 1989 21.0 30.9 12.4 64.3 > > OD ons 114.1 92.8 1990 21. 32. 12. 65. NOIrO 45. os orp 49. 115.5 91.2 1991 21.0 33.4 12.7 67.1 45, 49.8 116.9 89.6 8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL WIND_GENERATION INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST ‘ 1992 2l. 34. 12. 68. NOnNnNo 45. 49. 118.4 88.1 1993 1994 21.0 21.0 36.0 37.4 13.0: 13.2 70.0 71.6 45.4 45.4 4.4 4.4 49.8 49.8 119.8 121.4 86.6 85.1 NOTE: NIKOLSKI PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1995 38.8 13.3 73.2 45. 49. 123.0 83.7 1996 21.0 40.3 13.5 74.8 45.4 49.8 124.6 82.4 Table 8.2 (continued) 1997 41.8 13.6 76.5 45. 49, 126.3 81.1 **k* ALL VALUES IN $1000's 1998 eLl 43. 13. 78. wopro 45. 49. 128.1 79.8 1999 21.0 45.1 14.0 80.1 45. 49. 129.9 78.6 2000 46.8 14.1 81.9 45. 49, 131.8 77.4 2001 21.0 48. 6 14.3 83.9 45.4 4 49.8 133.7 76.2 TOTAL 403. 702. 259, 1365. POMwO S177 13. 896.7 ar 2262.2 1689.0 8.2.4 iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wildlife: No impact. v) Terrestrial Impacts: Minimal associated with construction of transmission line from the former White Alice site to the village. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: Permission from the US Air Force would be required before the project could proceed. Alternate A Technical Evaluation The operation of the wind generator system at Nikolski is expected to conform with the following: 1. Low Reliability. Past experience with wind generation systems in Alaska has shown that reliability and survivability in the extreme Alaska weather conditions is low. The current State of the technology has not advanced suffciiently to expecte better performance at this time. The intermittent nature of the wind requires full diesel backup to be on-line, in parallel, with the wind generator. Safety. Potential hazards exist from tower collapse, blow down, or thrown blade. Availability. All components of the system available off the shelf. 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS SEEN AL LONG Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 NIKOLSKI Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 Energy Base Case ternative Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Year (kwh/yr.) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) T982 T62,800 aoe 35.07 1983 164,900 35.84 35.84 1984 166,900 36.19 62.67 1985 168,800 36.55 62.68 1986 170,800 36.89 62.65 1987 172,800 39.12 64.53 1988 174,800 39.47 64.53 1989 176,700 39.90 64.57 1990 178,700 40.24 64.63 1991 180,600 40.70 64.73 1992 182,600 41.07 64.84 1993 184,500 41.52 64.93 1994 186,500 41.98 65.09 1995 188,500 42.44 65.25 1996 190,500 42.94 65.41 1997 192,500 43.43 65.61 1998 194,500 43.96 65.86 1999 196,500 44.53 66.11 2000 198,500 45.09 66.40 2001 200,600 45.66 66.65 Se eee 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 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 Alternative A - Wind Power Not economically or tech- nically feasible. Initiate wind data acquisition rogram. Additional Recommendations Weatherization No resource assessment or -building insulation feasibility study »building envelope indicated; immediate action infiltration required to bring Energy -improved combustion Audit and/or weatherization program to this community. 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, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF © NPAEN-PL-R JS 1MAR igge REGEIVED APR - 2 1982 Mr. Eric Yould 334 West Sth Avenue ALASKA POWER AUTH Ty Anchorage, Alaska 9950] Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comprehensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower ana boat harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are available. We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are most familiar with; however, some of the ccmments May apply to the other reports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for various communities. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Loran Baxter of my staff at 552-3461. Sincerely, 1 Incl headers eu As stated Chief, Engineering Division Comments Atka: Page 7.1 is inconsistant. The lack of wind data is seted in the first Paragraph, then details of specific average annual wind speed versus height is given in the next Paragraph. Then a comment that a site with wind in excess of 12 mph is a good site is followed by the statement that wind energy is expensive. We suggest that this be reworded for clarification. Page 7.3 - 7.4. The write-up under tha heading “Assumptions" is contradictory. The statement is made that “Weather on the Aleutian Islands varies greatly from one island to the other..." but is Preceded and followed by statements stating that weather on Amchitka is comparable to that on Shemya, and that Atka's weather is comparable to that on Adak. Page 8.7. Mobilization and Demobilization costs of $50,000 appear low. Chignik Lake: Pages 7.1 and 8.13. Location of hydropower site is inconsistant. Page 8.14. Average power of 114 kW assumes 100 percent efficiency. "Energy Available" is wrong based on 30 percent plant factor. Table 8.5. This table shows the hydropower Project dispiacing all the diesel generation until 2000. However, the peak-demand Projection on page 6.4 ranges between approximately 85 kW in 1982 to about 125 kW in 2000. 8ased on the streamflows shown on page 7.2 and the data presented on Page 3.14, the hydropower system could not Produce more than about 80 kW in December, 65 kW in January, 60 kW in February, and 50 kW in March. The peak deinanas would likely fall during this period and not during the summer when most of the village moves to Chignik Lagoon. Page 9.1. The feasibility cost estimate of $35,000 to $45,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Cold Bay: The hydropower potential for Cold Bay referenced from the Corps' 1980 reconnaissance study has been found to be overly optimistic; therefore, the data should not be used. False Pass: We concur with their findings that hydropower does not appear feasible. Ivanof Bay: Table 8.5. The table shows the hydropower system will displace all diesel. Based upon load and streamflow assumptions, it would not. Page 8.15. Mobilization and Demobilization costs appear’ low. Page 9.1. The feasibility study. cost estimate of $25,000 to $35,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Nikolski: The findings, as reported, agree with the results of the Corps' study. We feel that wind generation is the most promising alternative to diesel generation. The White Alice site may not be the most feasible location because of its distance from town. Although it is protected from corrosive salt spray because of its elevation, a wind energy conversion system may be affected by the other structures within the installation. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek may be a better site. The report neglected to mention if the WECS installed on the Chaluka Ranch has been repaired and placed in service and if it is performing satisfactorly. If a diesel enlargement were recommended to cope with substantial expansion of electrical demand, a salvaging of White Alice units could be pursued as an option if appropriate government channels can be identified. St. Paul: The reconnaissance study did not consider the impact of the proposed expansion of the fishing industry being considered by the local community. This could substantially alter the report findings. Galena: In a letter dated 9 June 1981 (copy previously furnished to your office), Ott Water Engineers stated that they felt that a storage project with a 100 to 300-foot dam may be feasible. The Corps will be taking a second look at this site this summer to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. Gustavus: The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelectwic power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip and public meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-ilay. We will be installing a streamgage this summer. New Chenega: The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.w. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development. Reply to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, letter dated 3/31/82. Atka p. 7.1 (draft) Statements concerning wind resoures have been clarified. P. 7.3-7.4 (draft) Because of the lack of climatic data from the Aleutian Islands, it is necessary to extrapolate data from the nearest recording station. However, variability in the local climate means that all extrapolations are conservative. p. 8.7 (draft) Cost estimates for mobilization and demobilization have been adjusted to reflect Anchorage prices for equipment rather than those quoted from Adak. Chignik Lake p. 7.1 - 8.13 (draft) The distance has been corrected. 8.14 (draft) The energy available value has been corrected. Table 8.5 (draft) The table presented in the final report illustrates the use of diesel powered generators when there is a projected short fall. p. 9.1 The feasibility study estimates have been addressed especially in light of the comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Cold Bay The hydropower data was included as part of the resource assessment and was the determining factor for our not including an alternative plan which was based on hydro. False Pass No comment necessary. Ivanof Bay Table 8.5 The hydropower scenario calls for the construction of a small dam and creates a reservoir. Without extensive field work, it has not been possible to show that this would be inadequate to meet the estimated demand of the village. p. 8.15 Mobilization costs have been increased. p. 9.1 Feasibility study figures have been increased especially in light of the comments and requirements of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Nikolski The White Alice site was considered because excellent foundations exist and the site is removed from the influence of salt spray. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek has been reconsidered and discussed with representatives of the village. The result has been the suggestion that the bluff site is a viable alternative and marginally less costly to develop because of a shorter transmission distance. However, this is largely offset by anticipated foundation problems at the bluff site. WECS at the Chaluka Ranch was not in operation when the field team was in the village. The diesel set from the White Alice site was purchased by the utility; however, its condition was uncertain and the engine was being stored outside. St. Paul As the role of the National Marine Fisheries in the Pribilofs is curtailed, the future of the islands' economies is uncertain. The proposed boat harbor has not been funded, as yet, and no data was available which would enable predictions to be made as to its effect on the local economy and power requirements. Therefore a scenario including the possible development of such facilities was not included.