Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHooper Bay Recon Studies 7-1982 ROPERTY OF: Ala: fe W. 5th Ave. ka Power Authority orage, Alaska 99501 estan? >) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND. ALTERNATIVES FOR HOOPER _ BAY ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLO 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 | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY__ HOOPER BAY 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 rb bP ee Deo ou uo 1 COwa ~ ANAAD ee . oe we we Oe= = wpynNnoowo wo . = Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 5.1 8.1 8.3 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 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 ai Page 5.2 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 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 ea. Page 2.2 2.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 6.4 7.4 1.0 Summary of Findings and Recommendations The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. This study has concentrated on seeking potential 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 Hooper Bay 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 wasted heat could provide additional income to the utility and be reflected in lower costs for the generation of electricity. Also, reduction in the volumes of fuel oil required for space heating would realize further savings to the community as a whole. Summary Statements oe VES Eemenes Only those technologies that could be readily assimulated into Hooper Bay were considered. 1. Fuel oil was found to be the Major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by wood, propane and gasoline. 2. Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) combustion inefficiency, (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel electric generation. 3. Forecasts show an inevitable 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. 5. 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 as alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste heat recovery from the existing central power plant formed the basis of the alternate energy plan. 6. The base case plan was formulated based on the continued use of the existing central power plant. 7. A present worth analysis of each alternate plan was performed. General Recommendations Pcie A dap nck ahead td 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. 2. New technologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. 3. Significant energy savings could be realized by a village wide energy conservation and weatherization program. Village Specific Recommendations 1. Waste heat recovery, from the existing central power plant, utilized for space heating in the village is economically feasible and attractive in the amount of fuel oil saved. The installation of the waste heat recovery system is recommended. The following steps should be taken: a. Initiate a feasibility study of waste heat recovery. b. Investigate power plant operations for potential of improved diesel efficiency. £23 2.0 BACKGROUND Location Hooper Bay is situated on an inlet of the Bering Sea. It is 18 miles south of Cape Romanzof, 25 miles south of Scammon Bay, 615 miles west-southwest of Fairbanks, and 540 miles west-northwest of Anchorage (see Figure 2.1). Topography The area around Hooper Bay is characterized by gently undulating topography interspersed with many small lakes. The village of Hooper Bay is located on a slight rise above Napareayak Slough. The city is separated into two parts, the older portion is sited on two gently rolling hills and the newer is located on a relatively flat mound, 1/2 mile to the southwest. Climate The coastal situation of Hooper Bay promotes cool summers and harsh winters with temperatures ranging between -25°F and 79°F. Proximity to the Bering Sea induces severe winter conditions with combinations of winter ice pack and strong winds. Hooper Bay averages 75 inches of snow and 16 inches of precipitation annually. The nearest wind speed recording station is Cape Romanzof, 18 miles northeast. Weather data from this station is summarized in Figure 2.2 and is considered representative of the Hooper Bay area. The dominant winds at Cape Romanzof in winter are from the northeast and average 14 mph, and from the south-southwest during July and August. 2,1 CWMONONSUN— BIS GRGls = © mw nN -oOo 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 NIKOLSK|I ATKA ST. PAUL ST. GEORGE 11 TuNUNAK — 10 toxsoox Bay ee ee t pt hoy: i Tas Be Rovttoans SF ? 8 Sr ts Saint vapys 2 =. watsKag 3 “= Sowers Lak @ So aL Skag ee = ar "iVanor ety 15 e 1 BES oncuieaa 60 60 120 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP - we Three health aides serve the city's health and social concerns from a clinic which was constructed in 1965. The health services of Hooper Bay are sponsored by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation and supported by the U.S. Public Health Service. Population An Eskimo village at Hooper Bay was first reported under the name of Askinaghamiut in 1878. The population has grown steadily and rapidly since a post office was established on that site in 1934. Census Year 1930 1939 1950 1960 ee | 1980 Population 138 299 307 460 490 624 Number of Houses 14 [ | 74 i 151 Economy As in most northern villages, employment in Hooper Bay is seasonal, with most activity concentrated in the summer months. The economy is mainly subsistence based, in the form of hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking and sale of crafts. Permanent employment opportunities are available from the city, clinic, post office, Alaska Village %lectric Cooperative, Department of Transportation, Sante Fe Air Charter, three private stores, telephone utilities, school system, and with the Native Corporations. Many young people find summer employment with the BLM firefighting program, and the fish canneries at Mountain Village or Fortuna Ledge. The schools in Hooper Bay are part of the Lower Yukon School District. The elementary school, built in the early 1960's, serves 147 students. The high school is a newer, metal frame structure built in 1975 and it serves over 70 students. The school system also includes a Head Start Program. 2.4 3.0 VILLAGE VISIT Hooper Bay was visited December 4, 5 and 6. The city of Hooper Bay has participated recently in a RURALCAP seminar for An Energy Integrated Village and Community for Minimum Consumer Cost. The villagers were enthusiastic about the seminar and the information that they had received enabled the field team to have more detailed discussions with council members and residents. A high school science project involves the installation and operation of a 10 KW wind generator. Its intended use is to supply electricity to the health clinic adjoining the school complex. As fuel oil prices continue to rise, the villagers are using more driftwood which is available seasonally. Wood stoves are used to supplement oil heat and for cooking. White gas or "Blazo" and propane are also used extensively for cooking. The field team discussed current and future capital projects with the villagers. The Sea Lion’ corporation is presently constructing a new library and community building and has recently completed a new store and a resturaunt and recreation center. Hooper Bay receives all its shipment of diesel fuel via the BIA Northstar as well as its annual shipment of drygoods. United Transportation from Bethel supplies: all of the gasoline needs of the village. Propane bottles are returned to Anchorage for refilling. 3.1 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 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. 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 oy 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. 4.1 4.4 The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to atmosphere. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where avilable, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to 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. 4.2 HOOPER BAY/1982 BULK FUEL STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES OF HEATING APPLIANCES SECTOR ELECTRICAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL On = Gg (474000 gal) 123000 190000 1000 161000 os — wn GASOLINE ( 50000 gal) TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE 3 LEGEND: TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE 1 OIL-FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE OIL- FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION DRIP-TYPE OIL STOVE /FURNACE wooOD STOVE PROPANE COOKING STOVES WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS oon pwn *DAY TANKS AND FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. Figure 4.1 ELECTRICAL GENERATION HOOPER BAY/1982 FACILITIES COMMENTS ON OPERATION GENERATOR NO. OF TYPE OF TYPE OF ELECTRICAL eee UNITS oureu ENGINE GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION RATING —— Alaska Village 2 300 KW Cat D353 KATO, 1200 RPM 120/208V Electric Cooperative w/ Turborchargpr 1 175 KW Allis-Chalmers] Allis-Chalmers w/ Turborchargti:1800 RPM er Model 21000 MK School 1 150 KW John Deere Lima 120/208V 1 75 KW Waukesha Kohler Figure 4.2 [A single AVEC generator prov continuous power to the entire community. (Generators are used for backup. FUEL OIL USAGE HOOPER BAY/ 1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat 100 90 40% 80 70 60 RAs — — — — — Percent a ° 40 30 Generator 20 R Residential 26 % c Commercial 7 % Pp Public 7 % iS School 26 % E Electrical Power a Generation 34% ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE = 232000 GAL = 31400x10°BTU Figure 4.3 4.5 ELESTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION HOOPER BAY R Residential 4% Cc Commercial 6 % P Public 3% S School 12 % H Waste Heat 72% G Generation Losses 3% TOTAL ENERGY 10,800 x 10° BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 889 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5.0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Hooper Bay 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 based On observation and discussions with wood users that occurred during the village visit. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 41,569 MMBTU of fuel will enter Hooper Bay in the form of gasoline, propane, 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 47% or 19,473 MMBTU of energy lost as heat. 49% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The estimated 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 16966 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. 5.1 e°s VILLAGE: HOOPER BAY/1982 ENERGY BALANCE WASTE TOTAL FUEL OIL GASOLINE PROPANE wood HEAT ENERGY 1 TOTAL ELECTRICITY ToTar | RECOv- BTU BTU BTU ERABLE Btu SECTOR 7 GAL 6 LBs. | corps 6 Btu : 6 % GAL or % MWH rigs % x10 x10' x10 x 108 rine x10 + RESIDENTIAL 60000 | 8110 26 140 477 16 270 5000] 6740 | 3370 | 6932 31 COMMERCIAL 880 438 1965 9 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ELECTRICAL GENERATION TRANSPORTATION *station service or distribution losses Table 5.1 ainbi4 L's HOOPER BAY/1982 POP: 624 HOUSEHOLDS: 120 13,250 HTG. DEGREE DAYS T T } CUED ENERGY PRroouc Tl ELECTRICAL END USE TOTAL CONVERSION “WASTE. HEL DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USABLE ENERGY GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION - . ao! = (5125) (5125) PROPANE COOKING (84) a a RESIDENTIAL 1500 RESIDENTIAL wooo HEATING ( ; (5000) (8194) (3500) (6931) HEATING / (4866) 7 COOKING ere 7 (3244) COMMERCIAL See COMMERCIAL ere (1310) (655) 65) (2190) (880) ee (292) (3040) eee Q FUEL OIL POWER POWER GEN. od GENERATION ELECTRICAL (31360) GENERATORS (10800) (1270) SCHOOL(S) SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (4870) (e140) COOKING = (8100) (341) es PUBLIC PUBLIC (1297) (1632) HEATING L (2160) ———— { | | } TOTAL TOTAL INPUT USABLE ENERGY ENERGY RECOVERABLE (41569) WASTE HEAT | (9602) (31693) ao WASTE HEAT pte te NON - RECOVERABLE : (9876) NOTE: : NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10® 8Tu'S. WVYMOVIG MOIS AODY3SNS DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY®* HOOPER BAY / 1982 END USE BY SECTOR SECTOR 100}--_--__—- eae -WH( 3.7%) : a a 90 = z z Ww 80 2 H/C(34.3%) a ~-o- Ww ae « - 70 LW oO <z 60 kK fm Zz COML Ww 50 Oo See eet te P(1.7%) a uw 40 7 PSSST TTS witt.ew) 30 SCHOOLS H/C(26.9%) 20 10 j>——_—______}_________ E(2.0%) PUBLIC oO fells dietadieelenioel END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 16.2% VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 5.6 % H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 76.6% P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 1.7% TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 16966 x 108 BTU % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT ri ac. 6:52 6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.1 Population Projection The population of Hooper Bay 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 community. Historical data from 1940 to 1980 approximates a 2% annual growth rate. Planned housing and community building construction are expected to support continued growth of the village, thus the 2% rate was applied in the projection. 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 299 307 460 490 624 760 928 1030 6.2 Capital Projects Forecast Hooper Bay is an expanding community. A new community hall is under construction and will be completed during 1982 and its electrical and heating requirements have been included in the base case scenario. In 1983 25 HUD/AVCP houses will be built and their effect on the thermal energy peak demand, and electricty requirement forecasts can be seen in Figures 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. 6.4 The effect of the 10 KW wind powered generator has not been included in the calculations because it is not yet complete and its effect on the electrical requirements of the community as a whole will not be great. Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Hooper Bay 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. The increase due to the new community hall and new AVCP/HUD houses has been included. Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Hooper Bay, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data was not available. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the main report. 6.2 THERMAL ENERGY (MMBTUD 1822 POPULATION PROJECTION HOOPER BAY 958 9228 858 822 758 POPULATION 788 658 688 1982 22825 Pt dd 1984 is85 1988 1998 1992 1994 1996 1998 2200 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION HOOPER BAY 1954 1gs6 1Ssé 1S$37 1992 ZAR t + 1 ~ 1994 1S36 1983 «= 2eer Figure 6.2 6.3 ELECTRICAL ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY BY SECTOR (MWH) TOTAL (MWH) PEAK DEMAND (Ki) 153 1982 PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION HOOPER BAY 1 . 1 all pp 1 eesti 1 1984 1986 1988 1998 1992 1994 19956 1998 2220 YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION HOOPER BAY se 520 + eee as 4B R— . is 328 + Pee 222 . Par wekT Ot . 67 2 1 1 1 tele L 1 1 L 1 as | Eat 1 af ek 1982 1984 1985 1988 1898 1992 1994 1896 1998 2202 YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCES Wind Wind data recorded at nearby Cape Romanzof show strong, persistent winds, occurring more often during the winter months. Although there may be some differences in wind speed and direction, between Cape Romanzof and Hooper Bay the data is representative. The average annual wind speed is 16 mph at 10m, 20 mph at 30m, and 22 mph at 50m. The science project at the high school also involves recording wind data. Although small isoloated wind powered generators might be installed in Hooper Bay, the results of economic analysis of wind generation in St. George and Nikolski (this report) with the similar wind regimes have precluded further consideration of wind as an alternative source of electricity for the village. Wood Availability of driftwood on the beaches is limited, but as the cost of fuel oil increases, many families are increasing the use of driftwood to supplement residential space heating and cooking requirements. Coal Coal deposits are known to exist in the vicinity of Grayling on the lower Yukon and near Tununak on Nelson Island, however there ar: no known plans to develop these ceserves on a commercial basis. Althernative sources of coal would be from Healy via the barge loading facility at Nenana, or by sea from Anchorge, but costs of transportation are prohibitive. 71 Peat Hooper Bay has no potential for development of peat as an energy resource. Solar Hooper Bay often experiences extended periods of fog and heavy overcast. The frequency of storms and the low intensity of the radiation dissuade homeowners from installing solar facilities. Geothermal Hooper Bay has no potential for development of geothermal energy. Hydro Hooper Bay is in an area of low relief. There is no potential for hydro development. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority cf the energy in the fuel oil burned in a diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine cooling water, 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 and used in heaters for space heating. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 >of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Hooper Bay. Weatherization Homes and buldings built in Western 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 main report for the ranking methodology. 7.3, vel Village of Hooper Bay Technology Relia- | State-of-the-Art | Cost j bility Resource | | L | | | Weatherization* 5 | 5 5 5 Diesel Power 5 | 4 4 4 | Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 | — — T i Hydroelectric Power N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A \ N/A | 0.00 7 | 1 a Wind Energy Conversion systems 2 3 2 2 2 | 4 0.45 | T Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Steam Power from local fuel,wood,coal,ect... N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A 0.00 Gasification of wood,coal A Sr peat N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Generation via synchronous Induction* 4 3 2 3 1 4 0.63 T Electrical Load Management* 5 2 2 3 1 4 0.68 rs * Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 8.0 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 ENERGY PLAN Base Case General Description The base case plan for Hooper Bay is to continue using the centralized diesel generating system. As the village grows additional generators are added in the plan to meet increasing peak demand. Thermal energy us2 has been projected based upon the continuation of pr2sent consumption rates on a per capita basis. Base Case Cost Analysis The estimated capital value of the existing central electric power plant was estimated to be $358,000. The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 100 kw, as required by growing peak demand. The incremental cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $1070/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $11.85/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.60/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 $5,471,000. 8.1 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN GOST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 2°8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL 4 TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 24.0 137.2 74.0 235.2 235.2 235.2 1992 24.0 244.5 102.1 370.7 370.7 275.8 1983 24.0 148.9 78.3 251.2 251.2 243.9 1993 24.0 257.2 104.7 385.8 385.8 278.7 NOTE: 1984 24.0 158.2 81.1 263.4 263.4 248.3 1994 24.0 270.3 107.2 401.5 401.5 281.6 HOOPER BAY PLAN 1 BASE CASE 1985 24, 167. 83. 275. NOOO 275.7 252.3 1995 24.0 283.9 109.8 417.7 417.7 284.4 1986 24.0 177.7 86.6 288.3 288.3 256.2 1996 24.0 298.1 112.4 434.5 434.5 287.2 1987 24.0 187.9 89.2 301.2 301.2 259.8 1997 24.0 312.9 114.9 451.9 451.9 290.0 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.1 1938 24.0 198.5 91.8 314.3 314.3 263.2 1998 31.2 328.3 117.5 477.1 477.1 297.3 1989 24.0 209.4 94.4 327.8 327.8 266.6 1999 31.2 344.4 120.2 495.7 495.7 299.9 1990 24.0 220.7 97.0 341.7 341.7 269.7 2000 31.2 361.1 122.8 515.1 515.1 302.6 1991 24.0 232.4 99.6 356.0 356.0 272.8 2001 31. 378. 125. 535. waa nr 535.3 305.3 TOTAL 508.8 4918.2 2013.2 7440.2 7440.2 5471.0 8.1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers of Hooper Bay 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 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. 8.53 8.1.4 Base Case Technical Evaluation The continued operation of the central diesel electric power plant in Hooper Bay is expected to conform to the following: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a proven technology with a history of success in rural Alaska. Backup generation capacity allows maintenance operations on the generators to be performed without a major interruption to electrical power. 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 General Description The Alternate Plan A for Hooper Bay is the installation of a waste heat recovery system installed at the existing central electric power plant. The system would have the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 300 KW, and 175 KW generators. 2. A distribution system consisting of pumping and piping 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 school complex 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. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water waste heat recovery system. The installation cost of the heat recovery system was estimated to be $215,200. The system value was amortized over a 10 year period. The cost of fuel oil normally used for space heating, which was offset by the recovered waste heat, was $15.70/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil cost of 8.5 ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY COSTS Project Location Hooper Bay Generators (kw) 300,300,175 Estimated total kwh generated 898,000 kwh/yr Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment 300,300,175 CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate 101 kw Percent of On-Line Capacity 34% Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery 16200 Btu/min Percent Jacket Water Heat Available 47% Estimated Recovered Heat Available -457X106 BtuH Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized - 457X106 BtuH MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Main piping 400 feet x $120/ft. 48,000 2. Heat Recovery Equipment 48,300 3. Circulating Pumps 11,200 4. Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware 36,400 5. Contingencies (30%) 43,200 6. Base Cost 187,100 7. Project Management (5%) 9,400 8. Engineering (10%) 18,700 9. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 215,200 10. O & M COST 1.50/MMBtu 11. Recovery Efficiency 4502 Btu/kwh Table 8.2 8.6 $2.12/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were calculated to be $1.50/MMBTU waste heat captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The discounted net benefit of the system was $2,275,800. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from existing generators for sale to major consumers. 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers of Hooper Bay recognize that the installation of waste heat will improve the efficiency of fuel use in the community. The sale of waste heat will help lessen the effect of rising fuel prices 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 initial minor problems have been solved. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in fuel consumption in the village and a reduction of hydrocarbon, minoxide and nitrogenoxide emissions. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN €OST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 24.0 137.2 74.0 235.2 235.2 235.2 COOCC”W COoOOCOn 1983 24.0 148.9 78.3 251.2 251.2 243.9 oOooCoOw COOOOW NOTE: 1984 24.0 158.2 81.1 263.4 263.4 248.3 1984 32.1 135.2 103.1 94.4 HOOPER BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE 1985 24.0 167.8 83.9 275.7 275.7 252.3 1985 32.3 143.3 110.9 98.6 A 1986 24.0 177.7 86.6 288.3 288.3 256.2 1986 32.5 151.5 119.0 102.6 1987 24.0 187.9 89.2 301.2 301.2 259.8 1987 32.8 160.0 127.3 106.6 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 1988 24.0 198.5 91.8 314.3 314.3 263.2 1988 33.0 168.8 135.9 110.5 1989 24.0 209.4 94.4 327.8 327.8 266.6 1989 33.2 177.9 144.7 114.3 1930 24.0 220.7 97.0 341.7 341.7 269.7 1990 33.4 187.4 153.9 118.0 1991 24.0 232.4 99.6 356.0 356.0 272.8 1991 33.6 197.1 163.5 121.6 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST © . io NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1992 24.0 244.5 102.1 370.7 370.7 275.8 1992 33.8 207.2 173.4 125.2 1993 24.0 257.2 104.7 385.8 385.8 278.7 1993 34.1 217.7 183.6 128.8 NOTE: 1994 24.0 270.3 107.2 401.5 401.5 281.6 1994 34.3 228.6 194.3 132.3 HOOPER BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE 1995 24.0 283.9 109.8 417.7 417.7 284.4 1995 34.5 239.9 205.4 135.8 A 1996 24.0 298.1 112.4 434.5 434.5 287.2 1996 34.7 251.7 217.0 139.3 1997 24.9 312.9 114.9 451.9 451.9 290.0 1997 34.9 263.9 229.0 142.7 *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 (continued) 1998 31.2 328.3 117.5 477.1 477.1 297.3 1998 35.2 276.7 241.6 146.1 1999 31.2 344.4 120.2 495.7 495.7 299.9 1999 35.4 290.0 254.6 149.6 2000 3132 361.1 122.3 515.1 515.1 302.6 2000 35.6 303.9 268.3 153.0 2001 31.2 378.6 125.5 535.3 §353 305.3 2001 35.8 318.3 282.5 156.4 TOTAL. 03 4918. 2013. 7440, Mmm MCoO 7440.2 5471.0 TOTAL 611.2 3919.1 3308.0 2275.8 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 Hooper Bay, 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. “ Safety. A well maintained system has a very low hazard potential. 3. Availability. All components needed are available immediately. The system is relatively easy to implement. 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OO ENDATIONS Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 yee HOOPER BAY Energy Source Present Worth Electrical Benefits 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 ) (¢/kwh ) 1983 979,300 25.65 25.65 1984 1,014,000 25.98 25.98 1985 1,049,000 26.28 15.71 1986 1,082,000 26.65 15.65 1987 1,115,000 27.01 15.60 1988 1,148,000 27.38 15.54 1989 1,181,000 27.76 15.50 1990 1,213,000 28.17 15.48 1991 1,245,000 28.59 15.46 1992 1,277,000 29.03 15.45 1993 1,308,000 29.50 15.46 1994 1,340,000 29.96 15.46 1995 1,372,000 30.44 15.47 1996 1,404,000 30.95 15.49 1997 1,437,000 31.45 15.51 1998 1,469,000 32.48 16.03 1999 1,502,000 33.00 16.05 2000 1,535,000 33.56 16.08 2001 1,569,000 34.12 16.11 Oa TT 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 SEES TGS ACTION Alternative A - Waste Heat Initiate a feasibility Capture study for waste heat i recovery. Estimated cost of feasibilty study $12,000 - $15,000 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 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. ——————-_———————_—_————— ee Oe EE 9.2 Reconnaissance studies are necessarily preliminary in nature, however, it is apparent that there is great potential for a waste heat capture system in Hooper Bay. Sale of the waste heat will realize increased revenues to the utility which will decrease the cost of production for electricity. Currently (1981-82) electricity costs 48.27¢ per KWH based on $1.60 a gallon for fuel and includes distribution and overhead costs. The fuel is supplied by Chevron and barged to Hooper Bay from the distribution center in Bethel. The computer model used in the reconnaissance study projected that the 1982-83 cost of production for electricity will be approximately 25.41¢ per KWH. The study suggested that a waste heat capture system would be installed, and become operational in 1983-84. It was assumed that the waste heat would replace fuel oil, which costs $2.12 per gallon, used for space heating. Based on this assumption, the cost of production for electricity would be reduced from 26.28¢ to 15.71¢ per KWH. Therefore it is recommended that a waste heat capture system be installed. The reconnaissance study estimates that the system has the potential to save up to 48,000 gallons of fuel oil in the first full year of operation. 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. a Corporation 516 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 279-5516 RECElvevd 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 Al fider | 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