HomeMy WebLinkAboutKoyuk Appendix I Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982VIL-A 002
Koyuk
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX I: KOYUK
MAY 1982
Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Prepared by:
“AND | —~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __|
BETHEL
Qo Ow
) Sir
e
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
I, KOYUK
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................00006 I-1
Prd SGOT ad este se acstares late actle-t wate a fete eacst-e lee etetete tere ih etete fete oat I-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ............ccc cece ce eeee I-2
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .............eeeeeeeecees 1-6
Be LOC at On ee ee eee ee eee eta CIE aie I-6 B.2 = POPUTAtION 1... .. ccc cece cece eee e eee n eect eeccenssceceees I-6 Be ECO OY ee ee ee eee et ty I-6 B.4) = Government [eos lee tit ole el sleld a clale dle eelwlale bocce milerdlle ells I-7 B.5 = Transportation ..... ccc cece cece eee ccc cece teen eeee veces I-7
COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ........ cece eee c cece cece ee eeeevevees 1-8
EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ............cceeeeeeees I-10
ENERGY BALANCE erect tase Wate Ee CULL tet au I-11
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ....... cc cece cece cece eee e eee eces I-13
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast ........ ccc cece cece sence ences I-13 F.2)- Population Forecast 2.65... ae ccc e cece tc cc eet cce ee I-13 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ........ ccc cece cece e cence I-13 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ....... ccc cece cece ect eeeeeeees I-14
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ........ ccc cece eee cence cece eens I-19
ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ............00000 eee I-21
Fs le Base Case te le slide bc etal olotel oeeletalble wlblalle eretlalllt os dlletehel ald I-21 H.2 - Alternative Plan "AY... oo. ccc ccc cee eee e cece ee ceee I-22 H.3 - Alternative Plan "BY Looe e cece cece cece cee eee eeeeee I-23 H.4)— Alternative! Plan ee ee dele e ele 1-24
ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ...... cc cece cece cece e ccc ete eeeeecs 1-25
TI Base Case eee eile tae tet eh wt 1-28 2. - Alternative Plan "AM oo... kk tee cee e cease sess see see I-32 3 - Alternative Plan "BY Jo... cece cece ccc c eee cceeeceees 1-35 4 - Alternative Plan "CU... ccc ccc ccc cee cece ect eceesceceee 1-39
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ....... eee eee cece cc eee cece ee eee eens J-40
J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza ..........e0000. J-41
J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power
AdmANASER ACTON A A) s|s lc 56 she's els leiele bala leeeltualgieslogleslesle walle > J-47
J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game ......... cece cee eee eee J-52 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage ....... cc cece cece eee cece eet eeeeees J-55
J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2.2.0... . ccc ccc ccc eee e cece cece essecteesescs J-60
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices
For Base Case and Alternatives ..........cc cece eeeeee I-4
2 Energy Use Profile for Koyuk 1981 ......... ccc cece cece I-11
3 Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ...........e cece eeee 1-15
4 Net Thermal Requirements ...... cece cece cee cece eee eceeeee I-18
5 Village Technology Assessment ...... ce cece cece cece ee eeee 1-20
6 Estimated Costs of Koyuk Base Case 1... ... eee e eee eee eee 1-26-27
7 Estimated Costs of Koyuk Alternative Plan "A" ........... 1-29-30
8 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative
Fo sale enw altos ones Milas we a titles case sill wee titles ee I-31
9 Estimated Costs of Koyuk Alternative Plan "B" ........... 1-33-34
10 Estimated Costs of Koyuk Alternative Plan "C" ........... 1-36-37
ll Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative
iL i Oh I-38
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Energy Cost Summary
Energy Balance
Electric Energy Use Forecast
Page
I-5
I-12
I-16
KOYUK I-1
A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Koyuk, the recommendations which seem to be most appropriate to the existing village conditions and the wishes of the village residents are as follows:
A.1 - General
1. The undertaking of an aggressive energy audit program aimed at significantly reducing the energy needed to keep residences heated. The program should address energy conservation needs of all types of homes in the village, not just those which are older. Many houses built under relatively recent federal and state programs may be less energy efficient than those built by village residents without any outside assistance and without significant insulation. Simple energy auditing is not likely to be sufficient in such rural villages,
however. At the completion of the audit program, instruction and assistance must be provided to ensure the proper implementation of conservation efforts.
2. With respect to the electrical energy needs of the village of Koyuk, it appears that the most significant step which can be taken to reduce the cost of electricity is the installation of a water jacket waste heat recovery system on the AVEC generators, with the sale of the captured heat to the REAA school. Preliminary analysis shows that the school can utilize all of the waste heat delivered in this manner and save from 12,000 to 17,000 gallons of fuel each year.
3. Responding to village residents' interest in wind energy at Koyuk, an analysis was performed to find the impact which wind turbines may have
on the cost of electricity to consumers. It was necessary to delay the introduction of the wind turbine until such time as the price of fuel
011 rose to the point where the value of the fuel saved by the wind turbine operation was sufficient to pay for the cost of the wind turbine and its operation and maintenance. The analysis showed that a wind turbine should not be brought on line until 1992. This delay is long enough that a waste heat system could be used for the period 1982 through 1991, thus reducing system costs for that time period. The
waste heat system should be continued after the wind turbine is on line.
KOYUK [-2
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 - Base Case
For the village of Koyuk, the base case is the continuation of AVEC
service to the village, with no change in its operation except as
required to serve additional load caused by village growth (expansion
of distribution system and increasing installed generator capacity).
It is expected that, in the very near future, AVEC will have to
install larger generators. To simplify economic calculations, it is
assumed that in 1982 one of the two existing 75 kW machines will be
replaced by a 120 kW unit. This plan has a net present worth of
$2,630,000 for the period 1982 through 2006.
A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
In addition to providing electricity at the village, this alternative
provides the AVEC generators with water jacket waste neat recovery
equipment. Waste heat will be piped to the REAA school (about 500
feet) and sold to the school district to supplement their fuel oil
requirements. Therefore, the costs of purchasing the oil for the
AVEC diesels can be shared by a larger group of users, thus
minimizing electrical energy costs. This plan has a net present
worth of $2,391,000 for the period 1982 through 2006.
A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
The AVEC diesel sets will be regarded as the primary source of
electrical energy to the village with no waste heat recovery system
installed. In addition, there will be a relatively large (100 kW)
wind turbine installed in or near the village. During sufficient
wind velocities, the AVEC diesels can run at a lighter load and thus
consume less fuel. It is not anticipated that wind turbines could
totally replace the diesel sets. This plan has a net present worth
of $2,552,000 for the period 1982 through 2006.
KOYUK I-3
A.2.4 - Alternative Plan "C" eS
In this alternative, the waste heat recovery system described in alternative "A" is installed in 1982, and in 1993 the wind turbine described in alternative "B" is installed. Thus, for the last 15 years of the study both the waste heat system and the wind turbine will be available. This plan has a net present worth of $2,495,000 for the period 1982 through 2006.
Comparative costs of electrical energy produced by each of four alternatives available to Koyuk are shown on Table 1. Projected costs of energy resources available in Koyuk are illustrated on Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Alternative "C"
Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price
Year (Mh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
1982 230 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1983 280 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.44
1984 280 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44
1985 280 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.44
1986 280 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.45
1987 280 0.48 0.45 0.48 0.45
1988 290 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.45
1989 290 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.45
1990 290 0.49 0.46 0.49 0.46
1991 300 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.45
1992 300 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.50
1993 310 0.50 0.45 0.49 0.49
1994 310 0.50 0.45 0.49 0.49
1995 310 0.51 0.46 0.50 0.50
1996 310 0.52 0.46 0.50 0.50
1997 310 0.53 0.47 0.50 0.50
1998 320 0.53 0.47 0.51 0.51
1999 320 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.51
2000 320 0.55 0.48 0.51 0.51
2001 320 0.56 0.48 0.52 0.52
Notes: 1. Energy prices are stated in 1981 dollars and do not include costs of village distribution
and administration. They also do not include any subsidies such as power cost assistance
programs.
2. Energy prices shown for “Alternative 'A'" include the savings realized by the operation
of the waste heat equipment. v-I ANAO
sh CASE
0.55
NERGY COST ($/KWh)
O20 Ww
OIL AS USED AT 920.35 =<
OIL AS USED AT
| 720.65
7 0.10
— ee a OIL AS CELIVERED
AN —— -—- —— _— 0,05 = = 2 —— = WOOD AS USED AT wooo _As | DELIVERED 920.35
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
KOYUK - FIGURE |
KOYUK I-6
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Koyuk is located at the mouth of the Koyuk River, at the northeastern end of Norton Bay on the Seward peninsula. It is 132 miles east of Nome and 75
miles north of Unalakleet.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1960 1970 1980
Population: 129 122 188
In 1920, the population of Koyuk was 110. It grew to 129 in 1960 and then dropped to 122 in 1970. In 1970, all but one village resident were native,
67 were male and 55 were female. The 1980 U.S. census reports 188
residents in Koyuk. The people of Koyuk are Unalit and Malemiut Eskimo,
and speak the Inupik Eskimo dialect.
B.3 - Economy
The Koyuk economy is based on subsistence food harvest supplemented by
part-time wage earnings. Government services employees include one primary
and one alternate health aide, five school teachers, two custodians, two cooks, three teacher's aides, a city clerk, chief of police, a maintenance
man, equipment operator, an airport manager, AVEC plant operator, village
management trainee, a postmaster, IRA administrator and clerk, a store
manager and a native corporation manager.
There is a small amount of commercial fishing, with approximately 20 limited entry fishing permits in Koyuk. Some income is derived from
reindeer herding; the hides, antlers and meat can be sold on the commercial market. The Reindeer Herders Association reported 360 head in Koyuk in 1980. The nomination of the Koyuk River above the village as a wild and
scenic river by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service could
bring recreational trade to the village.
Native residents of Koyuk are shareholders in the Koyuk Native Corporation,
incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). Koyuk Native Corporation sells oi] and gas and
manages the community center and pool hall.
KOYUK I-7
Proposed offsnore oi] exploration and development leases in the Norton basin are tentatively scheduled for September 1982 in an area 90 miles
southwest of Koyuk.
B.4 - Government
Koyuk was incorporated in 1970. The city government functions under the authority of a mayor elected from the seven-member city council. Regular elections are held annually in November. Unpaid offices include the mayor and fire chief.
Koyuk is a participant in the State of Alaska Revenue Sharing Program and received $12,020 in shared revenue for fiscal year 1980. As a second class city, Koyuk is able to assume diverse powers, including levying taxes.
Voters in Koyuk approved a two percent sales tax, which is the only city tax levied in the village.
For nonmunicipal programs and services, Koyuk's native population is represented by a five-member IRA council. The council is eligible to operate and control federally financed programs in their village, including
local health care, employment assistance, college assistance, social
services and tribal operations. In Koyuk, many of these services are provided by regional organizations such as Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation. The IRA council operates the native store.
8.5 - Transportation
As there are no roads connnecting Koyuk with other villages, access to Koyuk is limited to air and sea. There is a 2,000 foot dirt and gravel runway at Koyuk. It is suitable for all single engine aircraft and smaller twin engine aircraft. The airstrip is oriented north/northeast and south/southwest and is subject to some turbulence during northwesterly winds. The runway also becomes rutted and soft when wet. Wien Air Alaska and Munz Northern Airlines each fly scheduled flights from Nome on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Seward Peninsula Flying Service, Foster Aviation and Bering Air all operate charter and freight service from Nome and Ryan Air
serves Koyuk from Unalakleet.
The BIA cargo ship, North Star III, brings fuel oi1, gasoline and other supplies annually. As there are no docking facilities at Koyuk, cargo must be lightered one and a half miles to the beach. Many residents own skiffs for coastal and river travel.
Overland travel is by snowmachine and dogsled in winter and by foot, boat and three-wheel all-terrain vehicles in summer. A road system throughout the village was constructed during August of 1980 and also connects with
the airstrip.
KOYUK I-38
C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Koyuk the afternoon of November
17, 1982. The city clerk explained that, although a meeting was scheduled
for the evening of the 19th, that would be somewhat impractical as a
meeting regarding Norton Sound fisheries was also scheduled for that
evening. It was noted that such a meeting would generate much more
interest in the village than would ours. The clerk then suggested that a meeting be held in mid-afternoon on the 19th.
The meeting was held at the Koyuk community center. It was not well
attended. The largest number of people gathered at one time was five.
Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and asked the meeting
attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs of Koyuk. At the
time of the visit to Koyuk, the village was served by the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC). Virtually all of the residences and all of
the commercial and governmental buildings in the village were served by
AVEC. Some time was spent discussing the high cost of electricity in Koyuk
and the seemingly unreliable service. The comment was made that the
underground distribution system installed by AVEC was susceptible to damage
by frost heaving. Other villagers noted that, in fairness to AVEC, they
did not expect the pole-line telephone system then being installed to fare
much better, saying that the poles penetrated, but did not pass through the
permafrost layer. This led to considerable speculation on how long it
would be before the poles were jacked out of the ground.
The villagers advised the field staff that virtually all of the residences
were wood heated. This was later substantiated by the exceptionally low
sales of fuel oil by the Village Corporation (10,000 gallons per year).
Koyuk is one of the only villages on the Seward peninsula to have standing
timber. The village is surrounded by a small area of spruce forest. One
resident told the field staff that one week's worth of wood could be
gathered with about four hours of labor and $0.50 worth of gasoline for a
three-wheeler and a chain saw. It was estimated that some of the
well-built newer HUD homes could be heated for about 6 cords per year.
Villagers reported some coal outcroppings about two miles east of the
village; however, in the eyes of the villagers, the ease of gathering wood
negated any consideration to utilize coal. Other residents wondered about
the practicality of a mine-mouth coal plant which could satisfy all
electrical needs.
With regard to electricity use, the attendees agreed that the typical Koyuk
home was quite conservative, using the bare minimum of power. Most homes
used electricity for lights, hotplates, electric frypans, a refrigerator, a
freezer (but in the cold months these were unplugged); and, with tne advent
of the earth station providing network television, more and more residents
were buying TV's. The PHS washeteria's electric bill far exceeded the
KOYUK I-9
means by which the villagers could subsidize its cost. In September of 1981, the washeteria bill was $150 more than the aid provided by the State
power cost assistance program. This trend will worsen in the foreseeable
future.
The meeting lasted about one hour.
KOYUK I-10
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
As noted in the previous section, the entire village is provided with electricity by AVEC, and the great majority of residences are heated with wood.
The AVEC generators presently installed in Koyuk are:
One generator rated 120 kW
Two generators rated 75 kW each
The Bering Straits REAA high school has as a backup generator:
One generator rated 100 kW
Most of the commercial and government buildings are heated by pot-burner oil stoves.
The school complex is heated using two 880,000 Btu/hour oil-fired hot water systems.
The school equipment appeared to be very well maintained. Reportedly, the school has not recently had to rely on its generator. However, prior to AVEC installing a generator capable of supporting both the school and village, the school backup generator often had to be used.
KOYUK I-11
E - ENERGY BALANCE
As would be expected in a small village witn little commercial or industrial activity, most of the energy consumed is used for space heating. Data gathered by field staff shows the following energy uses.
TABLE 2
ENERGY USE PROFILE FUR KOYUK - 1981
Total
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu)
Fuel 071 $1.60/gal Heating 10,000 gal 1.4 Cooking
Water Heating
(Stove Top)
Fuel Oi] $1.60/gal Heating 51,000 gal 7.0 (Used by (est. ) Cooking School) Water Heating
Fuel Oi] $1.60/gal Electric Power 34,000 gal 4.7 (Used by (est. ) Generation
AVEC)
Gasoline $1.95/gal Transportation 25,000 gal 3.1
Wood $100/cord Heating 250 cords 4.3 (est) Cooking (est. ) Water Heating
(Stove Top)
ENERGY RESOURCE —————— END USE
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
SPACE HEATING LOSSES
(5.7) (3.7)
USEABLE HEAT (2.0)
WATER HEATING
AND COOKING (012)
SYSTEM SCHOOL SPACE LOSSES HEATING (24) (70)
FUEL OIL (70) USEABLE HEAT
a3.) es
(4.7) AVEC POWER SYSTEM PRODUCTION LOSSES (4.7) (39)
ELECTRICITY (08) >
GASOLINE an TRANSPORTATION (3.1) . (3.1)
NOTES:
ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR.
KOYUK ENERGY
BALANCE (1981) FIGURE 2 BRUNING 44 132 42222 ACRES AMERICAN INCOAPORATED NAO él-]
KOYUK I-13
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
F.1.1. Scheduled Capital Projects
1982 - 20 new HUD houses
F.1.2. Potential Developments
None
F.1.3. Economic Forecast
Koyuk has a subsistence economy with a few wage earners and several commercial fishermen. No capital projects, resource development, tourism, or other industry are anticipated in Koyuk.
F.2 - Population Forecast
Koyuk had an annual growth rate of 1.9 percent from 1960 to 1980. Because very little economic development is expected and major services have already been provided with their impact on population numbers occurring 1970 to 1980, the annual growth rate from 1980 to 2001 is calculated at 1.0 percent based on the population forecast model. The table below shows the
population forecast until 2001.
1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001
Population 129 122 188 200 211 222 233 # Residences NA 25 48 68 68 68 68 # Commercial NA NA 1 1 2 2 2
# Gov't/Other NA NA 8 8 9 9 9
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
Koyuk has been served by AVEC since 1973 and, as such, has had a chance to grow into what may be considered a "saturated" condition with regard to residential electricity consumption. In 1980, AVEC sold approximately 109,000 kWh of electrical energy to about 48 homes, resulting in an average residential consumption of roughly 2,300 kWh/yr for each household. With the increasing relative cost of electricity, it is doubtful if this basic
per-residence use will increase much. The introduction of network
KOYUK I-14
television to the village will result in the use of television sets which
can be expected to use about 400 kWh per residence annually. However, the penetration of television into the village homes is not expected to occur suddenly. This study assumes a gradual increase of residential electrical use throughout the term of the evaluation period (to the year 2001). Per
household consumption is shown to rise from its present 2,300 kWh to about
2,300 by the year 2001. This remains a very conservative approach to the use of home electrical appliances.
The consumption patterns of other users will not be expected to change with time as that of the residential users. The annual usage of the schools and the stores will not likely vary with time. The expected electrical energy uses of non-residential customers is shown in the table below:
Loads kW per year kW Demand
REAA School 84,000 20 Airport Lighting (Starts in 500 8 1985, est.)
Public Buildings 9,000 each 3 each Commercial Buildings 9,000 each 3 each
Other Government 3,000 each 1 each
In these instances where electricity can be produced at a cost
significantly less than that of heat delivered by fuel oil, it can be
expected that there will be some conversion to electric space heating,
driving electric demand higher. In the study of Koyuk, no resource was
identified which produced such inexpensive electrical power.
The village electric energy use forecast for Koyuk is shown in Table 3 and
Figure 3.
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast
In the village of Koyuk, the largest single user of heating energy is the school. It is estimated that the Koyuk Bering Straits REAA K-12 school
uses approximately 50,000 gallons of fuel oi] annually. The Koyuk school has the only running water in the village and provides village residents access to shower facilities. This activity consumes energy for water
heating, but when compared to the entire school energy budget, it is minor.
Residential energy use is almost entirely taken up by space heating. It is
estimated that if Koyuk residents had to rely on fuel oil for all of their
heating needs, the average home would require nearly 900 gallons of oil
each year. Village residents reported that at least three-quarters of the
households (75 to 80 percent) used wood for heat. Residents further
estimated that while some of the newer homes, which were thought to be well
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST
Residential Schools Other Total
Year kW Muh kW MWh W MWh W MWh
1982 48 113 20 84 ll 33 79 230
1983 68 161 20 84 11 33 99 278
1984 68 162 20 84 ll 33 99 279
1985 68 164 20 84 11 33 99 281
1986 75 166 20 84 11 33 106 283
1987 75 168 20 84 11 33 106 285
1988 75 169 20 84 ll 33 106 286
1989 vo 171 20 84 11 33 106 288
1990 75 173 20 84 11 33 106 290
1991 75 175 20 84 15 45 110 304
1992 75 176 20 84 15 45 110 305
1993 75 178 20 84 15 45 110 307
1994 75 180 20 84 15 45 110 309
1995 75 182 20 84 15 45 110 311
1996 82 184 20 84 15 45 117 313
1997 82 185 20 84 15 45 117 314
1998 82 187 20 84 15 45 117 316 1999 82 189 20 84 15 45 117 318
2000 82 191 20 84 15 45 117 320
2001 82 192 20 84 15 45 117 322
Notes: 1. The sudden jump in electricity use in 1983 is due largely to the
construction of 20 new HUD homes in 1982. ST-I NAO
ZOYUK
a" y=
700 _| td...
20 NEW HOMES
IN 1982.
a + ep : - = | 500
VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) coe
8 DEMAND (KW) 8 ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) _— ————— 300
Lvittace ENERGY CONSUMPTION ( MWh) 200
0 SST eT
1980 1990 1995 2000
KOYUK - FIGURE 3
KOYUK I-18
TABLE 4
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year (102Btu) (10%etu) _—(10°Btu) —_—(10°Btu) _—_—(10°B tu)
1982 0.8 2.02 4.6 0.8 7.4
1983 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1984 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1985 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1986 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1987 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1988 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1989 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1990 1.0 2.86 4.6 0.8 8.3
1991 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1992 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1993 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1994 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1995 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1996 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1997 1.0 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1998 1.1 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1999 1.1 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
2000 1.1 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5
1.1 2.86 4.6 1.0 8.5 2001
KOYUK I-17
built, would use about six cords of wood annually, some of the less well built homes may require eight cords. For tne purposes of this report, it
was estimated that the "average" Koyuk home required seven cords of wood
for heating. Clearly, new homes can be built to be more energy efficient
than those already in Koyuk. For this study, it was assumed that any homes built after 1985 will be 30 percent more efficient in their use of space
heating than the existing "typical" home in Koyuk. This is certainly an
attainable reduction in energy use. Better design and more rigorous construction inspection could help to meet such a goal. Home water heating
in Koyuk represents a negligible use of energy.
The remainder of the village space heat requirements are relatively minor,
being composed of a number of small users such as the community center, the store, and a few other small structures. A summary of heat use forecast is given on Table 4.
The figures in this table are expressed in terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal energy is the energy actually delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion losses have occurred.
KOYUK I-19
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. Coal. There presently exists no practical means of providing coal to Koyuk. Additionally, the village lacks sufficient skilled personnel to staff a coal plant. No consideration of this alternative is
warranted.
2. Wood. There is a limited resource of slow-growing timber in the Koyuk area. The forest is not highly productive and could not sustain a wood-fired power plant. No further consideration of this alternative is needed.
3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Koyuk area. No further consideration of this resource is warranted.
4. Hydroelectric. There are no rivers or creeks which provide sufficient
year-round flow to produce significant amounts of energy. No further
consideration of this resource is needed.
5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility use.
6. Wind. The possibility exists that Koyuk is in a location that provides a substantial wind resource. Wind data is available for Nome and Unalakleet, but this information cannot be directly applied to the situation at Koyuk. Further monitoring of the wind resource is
needed. In lieu of site-specific data for winds at Koyuk, wind data taken at Unalakleet was analyzed. It was estimated that a well chosen
site near Koyuk could provide enough wind to operate a wind turbine at
a 25 percent capacity factor.
7. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by barge and is the fuel used in
Koyuk for power generation.
Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and
technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report.
The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in
development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study.
KOYUK I-20
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR
KOYUK
TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE
FACTORS FACTORS
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fired Steam
Wood Fired Steam
Geothermal
Diesel (base)
Gas Turbine
Hydroelectric
Wind
Photovoltaic wowwnnrr Fr fF yor RP YY FF yor FP NY YF OO OO oO OF WOO 2G Or FF FP FP OF OC yo HD won N CO W W mmr rFP RY Or F
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. wwwoecdrF Heating
Diesel Waste Heat Recovery
Electric Resistance
Passive Solar
Wood
Coal
Oil (base)
Other
Coal Gasification
Wood Gasification - Diesel
Biogas
Waste Fired Boiler
Peat
Binary Cycle Generator
Conservation
NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable.
KOYUK I-21
H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
H.1 - Base Case
The base case plan, which uses the AVEC diesel system to produce
electricity, will begin in 1982 with the installation of one 120 kW machine
which replaces one of the existing 75 kW machines. The existing 120 kW
machine will remain in place. This arrangement yields an aggregate
capacity of 315 kW. With any one machine being out of service, adequate
capacity remains to provide service to the village.
Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present
value figures are as follows:
- The generator arrangement as described above (two 120 kW generators and
one 75 kW set) will be adequate to serve Koyuk's needs through the end of
the study period.
- the diesel sets will be valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus
$500/kW for installation, for a total of $800/kW installed.
- The 75 kW generator will be assumed to produce energy at the rate of
about 7 kWh/gal of fuel consumed; the 120 kW machines will be assumed to
provide about 8 kWh/gal.
- Annual fixed costs of the diesel sets are calculated as follows:
1. The diesel sets are amortized for 20 years. The real discount rate
(net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
2. The annual costs of the overhaul work are the result of the
establishment of a sinking fund designed to provide $100/installed kW
every 7 years.
3. General operations and maintenance work adds $44,000 to the annual
expenses.
- Annual variable costs associated with diesel set operation are calculated
as follows:
1. Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $1.64 per gallon with its real (1981)
cost rising 2.60 percent annually, to $2.67 per gallon by the year
2001 and remaining constant thereafter.
A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I.
KOYUK I-22
It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily
the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure,
expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not
indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which
may be available.
H.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
Alternative "A" consists of using the base case diesel system throughout
the study term, and adding to it a water jacket waste heat recovery system. This heat would then be supplied to the REAA school complex. Such an arrangement would allow the schools to burn less oi] for their heating
needs. This non-electrical benefit will be examined in calculations
summarized later in this section.
Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/waste heat
system are as follows:
- Beginning 1982, and continuing for the term of the study, the aggregate
capacity of the AVEC plant is 315 kw.
- Beginning 1982 a waste heat recovery system will be installed on the AVEC
generators. The heat will be piped to the REAA school's boiler building
a distance of about 600 feet. Piping is estimated to cost about
$200/ft installed, and heat exchangers at each end of the heat loop (at
the AVEC plant and at the school) are estimated to cost $25,000 each.
Thus, this capital investment totals about $170,000.
- The waste heat system will be amortized over a 10-year period. The real
discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of the first 10-year period (1991), the system will be
replaced in its entirety.
- The existence of the waste heat equipment is not expected to affect the
annual costs associated with AVEC operation and maintenance or overhaul
expenses.
Tabulations showing the costs and benefits associated with this alternative
are shown in Section I.
KOYUK I-23
H.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "B" consists of using the base case diesel system throughout the study term, and adding a 100 kW wind turbine in 1992 to allow the diesels to "loaf" when the wind is sufficient to allow the wind turbines to produce power. This arrangement, while not reducing the base case diesel capacity, does not result in a diesel fuel savings.
It is assumed that the wind turbine is brought on-line in 1992.
Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine system are as follows:
- Beginning 1982 and continuing for the term of the study, the aggregate capacity of the AVEC plant is 315 kW.
- The 100 kW wind turbine is assumed to cost $260,000, with installation costs of $260,000 for a total expenditure of $520,000.
- The wind turbine is expected to have a plant factor of 25 percent, with an annual availability factor of 0.9. The energy which can be expected from such a machine is therefore:
100 kW X 8760 hr/yr X 0.25 X 0.90 = 197,100 kWh/yr
- The costs of the wind turbine purchase and installation will be amortized over the unit's life of 15 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
- There will be no overhaul requirements over the lifetime of the wind turbine.
- General operation and maintenance work will require the attention of skilled personnel traveling to Koyuk at regular intervals. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that four visits are necessary at a cost of $3,000 per visit for an annual O&M cost of $12,000.
- Fixed costs associated with the amortization and operation and maintenance of the existing AVEC plant remain unchanged over those given in the base case. Fuel consumption remains at 7.5 kWh/gal. Actual annual AVEC fuel use is reduced by (197,100 kWh/yr)/(7.5 kWh/gal) or approximately 25,000 gallons per year.
The costs associated with this alternative's operation are provided in Section I.
KOYUK [1-24
H.4 - Alternative Plan "C"
Alternative "C" is the logical combination of alternatives "B" and "A": the installation of both a waste heat recovery system and a wind turbine.
Since the analysis carried out for alternative "B" showed that a wind turbine could not be economically introduced to the Koyuk system until 1992, when the price of fuel oi] reached the point where the value of the fuel displaced by the wind turbine would offset the annual
costs of the wind turbine installation, it seems appropriate to install a waste heat system for the period 1982 to 1991. This period coincides
exactly with the State's estimate of the service life of waste heat
recovery equipment, allowing that equipment to be retired as the wind
turbine is brought on line.
All assumptions regarding cost and amortization of both the waste heat
equipment and the wind turbine as stated in the descriptions of
alternatives "A" and "B" are still appropriate for this analysis with the exception that another set of waste heat recovery equipment will not be
assumed to be put into operation in 1993, as was the case in alternative
wal"
A tabulation showing the costs and benefits associated with this alternative's operation are given in Section I.
KOYUK 1-25
I _- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF KOYUK BASE CASE
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel ~—~Fuel— Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 230 30 1.64 49 o Existing AVEC generators 252 7 4 44 65
(two 120 kW, one 75 kW)
1983 280 37 1.68 62 17 4 44 65
1984 280 37 1.72 64 17 4 44 65
1985 280 37 1.77 65 17 4 44 65
1986 280 37 1.61 67 7 4 44 65
1987 280 37 1.86 69 7 4 44 65
1988 290 39 1.91 74 7 4 44 65
1989 290 39 1.96 76 7 4 44 65
1990 290 39 2.01 718 17 4 44 65
1991 300 40 2.06 82 17 4 44 65
1992 300 40 2.12 85 7 4 44 65
1993 310 41 2.17 89 17 4 44 65
1994 310 41 2.23 91 7 4 44 05
1995 310 41 2.29 94 7 4 44 65
1996 310 41 2.34 96 17 4 44 05
1997 310 4) 2.41 99 17 4 44 65
1998 320 43 2.47 106 17 4 44 05
1999 320 43 2.53 109 7 4 44 65
2000 320 43 2.60 112 17 4 44 05
2001 320 43 2.67 115 7 4 44 65
2002-2006 320 43 2.67 115 17 4 44 65 92-1 ANAOX
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ($1, 000) _ ($1,000) | ———( $1,000) ---|- GaMo
1982 49 65 114 110.7 0.50
1983 62 65 127 119.7 0.45
1984 64 65 129 118.0 0.46
1985 65 65 130 115.5 0.46
1986 67 65 132 113.9 0.47
1987 69 65 134 112.2 0.48
1988 74 65 139 113.0 0.48
1989 76 65 141 111.3 0.49
1990 78 65 143 109.6 0.49
1991 82 65 147 109.4 0.49
1992 85 65 150 108.4 0. 50
1993 89 65 154 108.0 0.50
1994 91 65 156 106.2 0.50
1995 94 65 159 105.1 0.51
1996 96 65 161 103.3 0.52
1997 99 65 164 102.2 0.53
1998 106 65 71 103.3 0.53
1999 109 65 174 102.2 0.54
2000 112 65 177 100.9 0.55
2001 115 65 180 99.7 0. 56
2002-2006 115 65 180 __ 456.5 0.56
Total net present worth $2,630
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diese! fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7.5 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul
and replacement, and general O&M work Z2-I ANAOX
KOYUK I-28
I.1 - Base Case
I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Because the AVEC generation equipment is already in place, there will
be no possibility of local employment for plant construction work.
However, there is a potential for one or two Koyuk residents to be
employed by AVEC as plant operators. Skilled personnel required for major overhaul work will likely be brought in from Anchorage.
Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel
engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
water vapor, nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S09), and
unburned hydrocarbons. With the small scale plant at Koyuk, there will not likely be a noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants.
The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodically (every 10
days) and the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote villages
such as Koyuk, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are also significant sources of noise, but with proper siting and
adequate muffler systems, this problem can be minimized.
1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation
Diesel systems are typically the best understood means of producing electricity available to bush villages today. Nevertheless, diesel engines require frequent attention and regular maintenance which
requires highly skilled personnel. With AVEC having responsibility
for the operation of the Koyuk utility, this should not be much of a
problem.
It can be concluded that the existing utility setup will provide as
reliable a supply of electrical energy in Koyuk as can be produced
for any reasonable cost.
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS OF KOYUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
‘FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year ___ (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) | Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,006
1982 230 30 1.64 49 o Existing AVEC generators 378 37 4 44 85
with new waste heat
1983 280 37 1.68 62 system (two 120 kW and 37 4 44 85
one 75 kW units)
1984 280 37 1.72 64 37 4 44 85
1985 280 37 1.77 65 37 4 44 85
1986 280 37 1.81 67 37 4 44 65
1987 280 37 1.86 69 37 4 44 85
1988 290 39 1.91 74 37 4 44 85
1989 290 39 1.96 76 37 4 44 85
1990 290 39 2.01 78 37 4 44 85
1991 300 40 2.06 82 37 4 44 85
1992 300 40 2.12 85 37 4 44 85
1993 310 41 2.17 89 37 4 44 85
1994 310 4) 2.23 91 37 4 44 85
1995 310 41 2.29 94 37 4 44 85
1996 310 41 2.34 96 37 4 44 85
1997 310 41 2.41 99 37 4 44 85
1998 320 43 2.47 106 37 4 44 85
1999 320 43 2.53 109 37 4 44 85
2000 320 43 2.60 112 37 4 44 85
2001 320 43 2.67 115 37 4 44 85
2002-2006 4320 43 2.67 115 37 4 44 85
Fixed
62-1 ANAOX
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ___ (41,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 49 85 134 130.1 0.50
1983 62 85 147 138.6 0.44
1984 64 85 149 136.3 0.44
1985 65 85 150 133.3 0.44
1986 67 85 152 131.1 0.45
1987 69 85 154 129.0 0.45
1988 74 85 159 129.3 0.46
1989 76 85 161 127.1 0.45
1990 78 85 163 124.9 0.46
1991 82 85 167 124.3 0.45
1992 85 85 170 122.8 0.46
1993 89 85 174 122.0 0.45
1994 o1 85 176 119.8 0.45
1995 94 85 179 118.3 0.46
1996 96 85 181 116.2 0.46
1997 99 85 184 114.7 0.47
1998 106 85 191 115.6 0.47
1999 109 85 194 114.0 0.48
2000 112 85 197 112.3 0.48
2001 115 85 200 110.7 0.48
2002-2006 115 85 200 507.2 0.48
TOTAL. $2,977
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (586)
Net present worth $2,391
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1; Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7.5 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul
and replacement, and general O&M work. O€-I ANAOX
TABLE 8
KOYUK I-31
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits
1982 20 19.4 1983 24 22.6 1984 25 22.9 1985 26 23.1 1986 26 22.4
1987 27 22.6 1988 29 23.6 1989 30 23.7 1990 30 23.0 1991 32 23.8
1992 33 23.8 1993 35 24.5 1994 36 24.5 1995 37 24.5
1996 38 24.4
1997 39 24.3
1998 41 24.8
1999 42 24.7
2000 43 24.5
2001 45 24.9
2002 45 114
through 2006
TOTAL: $_°86
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
KOYUK I-32
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluations
If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be a
possibility that some local construction employment would be
generated. Both skilled workers such as welders, plumbers, and
carpenters, and general laborers would be required.
The installation of the waste heat system will have no noticeable
environmental impact. The reduction of fuel burned by the school
(school consumption will decrease between 12,000 and 17,000 gallons
per year, depending upon the waste heat available) may result in a
reduction of airborne pollutants.
1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation
The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could
be put into place in one construction season and generate immediate savings to the village utility system. Design of these waste heat
systems is a well understood concept with little maintenance and
repair necessary.
TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OF KOYUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "BN
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gat) —_ ($/gal) ($1,000) Component _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 230 30 1.64 49 o Existing AVEC generators 252 7 4 44 65
(two 120 kW and one 75kW
1983 280 37 1,68 62 units) 17 4 44 65
1984 280 37 1.72 64 17 4 44 65
1985 280 37 1.77 65 7 4 44 65
1986 280 37 1.81 67 17 4 44 65
1987 280 37 1.86 69 17 4 44 65
1988 290 39 1.91 714 7 4 44 65
1989 290 39 1.96 76 7 4 44 65
1990 290 39 2.01 718 7 4 44 65
1991 300 40 2.06 82 7 4 44 65
1992 300 14 2.12 30 o Installation of 100 kW 520 60 4 56 120
wind turbine
1993 310 15 2.17 33 60 4 56 120
1994 310 15 2.23 33 60 4 56 120
1995 310 15 2.29 34 60 4 56 120
1996 310 15 2.34 35 60 4 56 120
1997 310 15 2.41 36 60 4 56 120
1998 320 7 2.47 42 60 4 56 120
1999 320 W7 2.53 43 60 4 56 120
2000 320 7 2.60 44 60 4 56 120
2001 320 7 2.67 46 60 4 56 120
2002-2006 320 7 2.67 46 60 4 56 120 €€-I ANAO
TABLE 9 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ____—($1,000) __ ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) | G/kWh)
1982 49 65 114 110.7 0. 50
1983 62 65 127 119.7 0.45
1984 64 65 129 118.0 0.46
1985 65 65 130 115.5 0.46
1986 67 65 132 113.9 0.47
1987 69 65 134 112.2 0.48
1988 74 65 139 113.0 0.48
1989 76 65 141 111.3 0.49
1990 718 65 143 109.6 0.49
1991 82 65 147 109.4 0.49
1992 30 120 150 108.4 0.50
1993 33 120 153 107.3 0.49
1994 33 120 153 104.2 0.49
1995 34 120 154 101.8 0.50
1996 35 120 155 99.5 0.50
1997 36 120 156 97.5 0.50
1998 42 120 162 98.0 0.51
1999 43 120 163 95.7 0.51
2000 44 120 164 93.5 0.51
2001 46 120 166 91.9 0.52
2002-2006 46 120 166 421.0 0.52
Total Net present worth $2,552
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7.5 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. vE-I ANAO
KOYUK I-35
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be a
possibility that some local work crews could assist in the
construction of the wind turbine's tower, foundation, and auxiliary
equipment. There would be a need for skilled workers such as
welders, riggers, and electricians, as well as for general laborers.
Wind turbine equipment is considered environmentally safe. There
are, however, a number of items which should be considered in this
regard. First, there is the possibility that children or others may
climb towers which are not secured against such activity, thus
exposing themselves to the danger of a fall. Second, in the event
that a wind turbine blade should fail in operation, it could be
thrown several hundred feet. Large machines, such as those
considered in this analysis, have blades weighing several tons.
There is also the possibility of interference with television signals
and the generation of noise. These last considerations are generally
not threatening to human life, but are annoying.
1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation
Given the present state of wind turbine development and a lack of
detailed information regarding winds in Koyuk, it does not appear
appropriate to pursue further investigation of a wind turbine
development at Koyuk at this time. It is important, however, that
consideration be given to the establishment of a sophisticated
anemometry station at Koyuk so that data can be assembled which may
show that wind turbine systems are more economically attractive than
was found to be the case in this study.
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED COSTS OF KOYUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "Ct"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 230 30 1.64 49 o Existing AVEC generators 378 | 37 4 44 85
(two 120 kW and one 75 kW
1983 280 37 1.68 62 units) with new waste heat 37 4 44 85
system
1984 280 37 1.72 64 37 4 44 85
1985 280 37 1.77 65 37 4 44 85
1986 280 37 1.81 67 37 4 44 85
1987 280 37 1.86 69 37 4 44 85
1988 290 39 1.91 74 37 4 44 85
1989 290 39 1.96 76 37 4 44 85
1990 290 39 2.01 78 37 4 44 85
1991 300 40 2.06 82 37 4 44 85
1992 300 14 2.12 30 o Installation of one 100 520 60 4 56 120
kW wind turbine and
1993 310 15 2.17 33 abandonment of waste 60 4 56 120
heat system
1994 310 15 2.23 33 60 4 56 120
1995 310 15 2.29 34 60 4 56 120
1996 310 15 2.34 35 60 4 56 120
1997 310 15 2.41 36 60 4 56 120
1998 320 17 2.47 42 60 4 56 120
1999 320 17 2.53 43 60 4 56 120
2000 320 7 2.60 44 60 4 56 120
2001 320 17 2.67 46 60 4 56 120
2002-2006 320 7 2.67 46 60 4 56 120 9E-I NAO
TABLE 10 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 4 ($1,000) | ($/kWh)
1982 49 85 134 130.1 0.50
1983 62 85 147 138.6 0.45
1984 64 85 149 136.3 0.46
1985 65 85 150 133.3 0.46
1986 67 85 152 131.1 0.47
1987 69 85 154 129.0 0.48
1988 74 85 159 129.3 0.48
1989 76 85 161 127.1 0.49
1990 78 85 163 124.9 0.49
1991 82 85 167 124.3 0.49
1992 30 120 150 108.4 0.50
1993 33 120 153 107.3 0.49
1994 33 120 153 104.2 0.49
1995 34 120 154 101.8 0.50
1996 35 120 155 99.5 0.50
1997 36 120 156 97.2 0.50
1998 42 120 162 98.0 0.51
1999 43 120 163 95.7 0.51
2000 44 120 164 93.5 0.51
2001 46 120 166 91.9 0.52
2002-2006 46 120 166 421.0 0.52
TOTAL $2,722
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (227)
Net present worth $2,495
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7.5 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment
overhaul and replacenent, and general O&M work. LE-I ANAOW
KOYUK I-38 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 20 19.4 1983 24 22.6 1984 25 22.9 1985 26 23.1 1986 26 22.4 1987 27 22.6 1988 29 23.6 1989 30 23.7 1990 30 23.0 1991 32 23.8 1992 - - 1993 - - 1994 7 = 1995 - - 1996 = - 1997 - - 1998 - - 1999 - ~ 2000 - ~ 2001 - - 2002 - ~ through 2009 TOTAL: $ 227 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
KOYUK I-39
1.4 - Alternative Plan "C"
1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
The social and environmental impacts associated with waste heat systems are discussed in the section dealing with alternative "A" and those for wind turbines in the section dealing with alternative "B".
1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation
Many of the comments made in the technical evaluations of alternatives "A" and "B" hold for alternative "C". However, although the waste heat system is assumed to end its economic life in 1991, it should not automatically be dismantled. Clearly, it is beneficial to keep it on line as long as it provides an economic source of heat energy. On calm days when the wind turbine is not able to produce significant portions of the Koyuk load the AVEC diesels would be loaded and would produce some useful waste heat, thus offsetting the amount of fuel oi] which would otherwise have to be purchased by the schools.
KOYUK I- 40
J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
KOYUK I- 41
J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza
KOYUK I-42
Eric P. Yould
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
REUEIVED
APR ~ 9 1989
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Dear Mr. Yould,
I would like to make several comments concerning the Reconnaissance
Studies recently drafted for the villages in the Bering Straits Region.
In nearly all of the villages studied a 100KW wind turbine was used
as an alternative for deisel generation. I question the practicality
of such a large wind system for several reasons. Several of the villages
studied ( Brevig Mission, Golovin) do not even have village wide elec-
tricity and are so small that if and when they do undergo an electrification
project the demand would be much less than the output of the wind system.
I futher question the practicality of such a large wind system in that
it would provide an all or nothing approach to the reliability of wind
generated electricity. In comparsion, several smaller wind systems could
be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to
maintain and repair the smaller systems. This would help eliminate the
need for those costly maintenance trips from Anchorage or out of state
personnel. The smaller systems would provide a far better reliability
factor and possibily a better system for load management. The use of
such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential
of wind energy on a back burner.
Also concerning the wind generator alternative the research group decided
not to incorporate into the alternative a waste heat recovery system for
the diesel generator. Apparently they can not see the potential of a
combonation of many small scale alternatives.
Another area covered in the report was the energy efficiency of the housing
stock.In several reports the researchers estimated 20-30% energy savings
through weatherization. As a certified state energy auditor and having
traveled to many of the villages in the study I would agree there is much
room for improvement, even in the recently built houses, but 20 or 30
percent is nothing. An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy
loss by 80 or 90 percent. This could be done through a loan proaram
that village homeowners would be eligible for.
Sincerely,
Phil Kaluza
Box 843
Nome, AK 99762
1. Comment:
Response:
KOYUK 1-43
ACRES' RESPONSE
"In nearly all the villages studied, a 100 kW wind turbine was used as an alternative for diesel generation. I question
the practicality of such a large wind system..."
The relatively large wind turbine was chosen for use in this
study for a number of reasons:
1. Economy. As turbine size increases, advantage can be taken of their economy of scale: costs in terms of $/kWh
at the turbine equipment tend to decrease. For a given
aggregate wind turbine capacity at any particular site,
the site specific items such as foundations, control
equipment, and electrical hookups are simplified and made
less expensive. The problems associated with maintaining
one 100 kW machine as opposed to. say ten-10 kW units,
are minimized. It is worth noting that the larger units have room inside the generator nacelle to work on
equipment out of the weather. On-site repair work on
smaller units can be expected to be performed by workers
exposed to high winds and low temperatures.
2. Appropriateness of Size. At a site with a mean wind
speed of 15 mph, a 100 kW wind turbine with an 8 mph
cut-in and a 25 mph rated speed will produce a mean power
output less than 20 kW, not even enough to power a
typical Bering Straits REAA high school. A number of
smaller wind turbines with a similar aggregate capacity
and wind speed/power characteristic, would not do much
better.
3. Reliability. To date, only very small-scale wind
urbines have been tried in Alaska with very rare
successes. Two weeks after being put into operation, the
State's $100,000 10-kW demonstration project at Skagway
was shut down due to a blade failure. Many other
small-scale projects have been subject to similar
defects. The 100 kW units have such large costs (on an
absolute basis) that substantial engineering efforts can be carried out without drastically increasing the $/kW
costs. The development programs undertaken by the
Department of Energy and NASA using large machines have
been largely successful. It is expected that a well
designed large turbine would be more reliable than a
number of small units.
4,
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
KOYUK 1-44
4. Manufacturer's Support. It has been the unfortunate
history of wind turbines that many manufacturers start up
a business, inflate advertising claims, sell a few
machines which cannot, for whatever reason, perform
satisfactorily, and promptly go out of business, leaving
their customer with no source of information or repair
parts. Only large, well-established companies can raise
the capital needed to tool up for production of large
units. Presently, large units are manufactured by
well-known firms such as Westinghouse and Boeing. It is
presumed that these firms will exist into the foreseeable
future to support their wind turbines. With a few
exceptions, the same cannot be said for makers of the
small units. Larger manufacturers typically have more
depth in their engineering departments to address
problems as they develop.
No change in report text is needed.
"Several of the villages studied (Brevig Mission, Golovin) do
not even have village-wide electricity..."
All villages studied, including Brevig Mission and Golovin
had, or were in the very final stages of getting, village-
wide electric system installations.
No change in report text is needed.
"...demand would be much less than the output of the wind
system."
This is not true. A 100-kW wind turbine will rarely put out
that much power. In winds of less than 18 mph, the wind
turbine described under Comment No. 1 above will not produce
more power than could be used by the typical village school
(20 kW). As refrigerators and TV's become more and more
popular, it is highly probable that even the 100 kW unit will be able to provide but a fraction of a village's needs. Only
rarely will there be a surplus.
No change in the report text is needed.
"... such a large wind turbine ... would provide an all or
nothing approach to the reliability of wind generated
electricity."
5.
6.
7.
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
KOYUK 1-45
While it is true that if one large wind turbine were used and
it were out of commission no wind-generated power would be
available, it is not thought that this disadvantage is
sufficient to make the small units' higher costs attractive.
No change in the report text is needed.
. several smaller wind systems could be installed using
primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain
and repair the smaller systems."
The availability of people with the required maintenance
skills is something which varies widely from village to
village. Except for a few notable cases, most diesel plants
visited in rural Alaska are not good examples of the labors
of highly skilled maintenance personnel. If these diesel
plants show what can be accomplished by "local manpower," it
is not likely that even the simplest wind turbines could be
maintained to provide reliable service. Equipment such as
gearboxes, generators, and inverters would still require
attention by personnel from outside the village. The large
units are not so dissimilar and local workers could be
trained to perform routine maintenance tests such as
lubrication, inspection, expendible parts replacement, etc.
As noted before, the large units have room to work inside
their generator nacelles out of the weather. This is far
less likely to lead to maintenance errors and should be far
safer for the serviceman than clinging to a small system's
tower (in safety belt) in a cold breeze.
No change in report text is needed.
"The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will
certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back
burner."
This opinion is diametrically opposite that of Acres' staff,
who believe that one well-designed and properly functioning
wind turbine system which is capable of supplying significant
amounts of electrical energy to a power system will do more
to promote the use of wind power than will a collection of
marginally engineered and poorly supported machine
installations such as already exist in the State.
No change in the report text is needed.
".., the research group decided not to incorporate [a wind
turbine] into the alternative [using] a waste heat recovery
system for the diesel generator. Apparently, they cannot see
the potential of a combination of many small-scale
alternatives."
8.
Response:
Comment:
Response:
KOYUK 1-46
In fact, Acres does recognize the combination of any number
of power producing technologies, but only where appropriate.
A diesel set is a much more efficient generator of heat than
it is of electricity. In power systems where both
diesel/waste heat and wind turbine systems are in use, as
wind turbine output increases, the waste heat output
diminishes accordingly. The relationship is generally such
that revenues lost from reduced waste heat sales are not
recovered in fuel savings, resulting in a net increased
system cost with greater wind turbine output.
Very appropriate combinations of small-scale and renewable
technologies are those of wind and hydro, or solar
photovoltaic and hydro, and similar combinations in which the
increased output of one element does not degrade the
performance of the others. Unfortunately, few such
combinations were found which were appropriate to the
economic needs of the village.
No change in the report text is needed.
"An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy loss by
80 or 90 percent."
Without having access to the assumptions used to arrive at
the 80 to 90 percent figure, it is not possible to comment on
the validity of these figures. New housing designs, while
improvements over past efforts, are not expected to be much
more than 25 - 30 percent more efficient than existing
housing.
Presently, there is no indication that the State is prepared
to embark on an “aggressive retrofit program."
No change in the report text is needed.
KOYUK I-47
J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration
[Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
KOYUK I-48
April 12, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy
requirements and alternatives for numerous smal] Alaskan villages,
transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres
American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6
and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there
appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC
summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the
individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend
investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the
summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel
generators in eight villages.
We offer a few general comments for consideration.
There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres
assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while
NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy
reduction.
A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation
technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in
terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the
NORTEC report.
Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power
costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under
AS 44.83.162.
KOYUK I-49
Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several
communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local
conditions.
The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to
inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a
description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet
practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass,
and geothermal.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 + =Yould Letter FLOYD4
iF
2.
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
KOYUK 1-50
ACRES' RESPONSE
. Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or
implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary
recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be
undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village
residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating
and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about
the supply of electricity within their village. While the
study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful
savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the
study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where
appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which
would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25
to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value"
was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above.
It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy
conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is
inversely related to disposable income: consumers will
purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for
which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using
these items increases, their use will likely (but not
necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy
efficient lights or motors is not expected to have
perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand
forecast.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
"A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each
generation technology would enhance the Acres report."
Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs,
construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary
would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate
or available to all villages. Even where two villages may
share access to a particular technology, such as diesel
generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel
consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make
comparisons invalid.
The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment
that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology
to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison
based on local conditions."
No comment or change in report text is needed.
3. Comment:
Response:
XOYUK I-51
"Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the
residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162."
This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs
calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of
a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production
facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation
costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the
subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the
pleasure of the legislature.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
KOYUK I- 52
J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game
_— <5 = n KOYUK I-53 AIPA SF AP AraARP nr e ri 4\ Cc (Nic /a\ if al Ia) / JAYS. HAK:AIOND, GOVERNOR | iA J edd | A\ ti { h \ \ ») i} f hi] cE | je as {u\ / YE int | pip ! uuviiuu »| EA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COLiEiISSIO“MER RO, 80X 22000 PHONE: 465-4100
April 8, 1982 RECEIlveD
APR 1 2 1989
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska
communities.
We have no comments to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review
subsequent studies as they become available.
Sincerely,
On Gerais le Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
KOYUK I-54
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
KOYUK I-55
J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage
KOYUK I-56
United States Department of the Interior » FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
tern Alaska Ecological Services
733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RECE (907) 271-4575 : IVED
Eric P. Yould ATA
cutive Director alas:
Alaska Power Authority 3 #] 9 374 West 5th Avenue g APR 1982
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
have reviewed the Alas
connaissance Repo
individual repo
ity studies e
h and Wildlife Service (
outlined below be made a pa
Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy
lusions and recommendations stated in the
he APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi-
recommended alternatives, then the U.S.
Fws) requests that the information and studies
rt of the feasibility studies.
ut current site-specific resource information and a more com
iption of the proposed project, it is difficult to asses t
y, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associa
ation should be acquired and studies conducted to identi
ife resources of the study area, identify adverse project
resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and
mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildli <t O
Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS
feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the
following:
l. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize
damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g.,
erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction
timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above
salmon spawning habitat, etc.
2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and
measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should
be devised.
3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water
temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be
addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and
fish habitat. Aauatic data collection should at least include the
following:
KOYUK I-57
(>) Surveying and or similar guidelines.
rvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable.
the APA to document animal species within the
determined that impacts to terrestrial mammal
1¢ APA should gather habitat and population in
t with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures
4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following:
of game and non-game species use and occurrence
roject area.
bd. Site-specific wildlife observations, includin,
life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migr
routes, winter use areas, and calving areas.
2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.
(>) LDeseription of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of
eacn type.
The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are
encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a
330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance
with provisions of the Bald Hagle Protecton Act is mandatory.
We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the
il. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with
ede state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and
ild resources of the project area, including the Fish and
ldlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports.
investigate and document the possible presence of any
threatened species in the project area
species are determined to be present, th
o hy WS snould be
KOYUK I-58
3. and
stu
Fis
agencies.
Future corre
include ac
project. Thi
Interior managed 1
this, or other projects proposed by the APA should
» in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the
enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not
nds are involved.
It i ad of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns
rela ° sh, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the
project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in
attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any aiverse
effects.
Please feel f a ee vo contact me if you have any questions regarding our
suggested fe > bility studies.
Sincerely,
Field Supervisor
1. Comment:
Response:
KOYUK I-59
ACRES' RESPONSE
"Without current site-specific resource information and a
more complete description of the proposed project, it is
difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish
and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information
should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish
and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse
project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to
the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would
prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."
The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but
the most general identification of sites, definition of
project design characteristics, and assessment of
environmental consequences. The level of study effort
suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a
feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report
text is required.
KOYUK I-60
J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
KOYUK I-61
Zeuy SEFER TO United States Department of the Interjor
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1992
RECEIVED
APR - 8 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould;
Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports.
This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu- ated at applicable locations.
Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or Other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis.
The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me,
Sincerely,
KOYUK I-62
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorags, Alaska 99501