Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGolovin Appendix F Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982VIL-A 002 Golovin RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX F: GOLOVIN MAY 1982 ARY COPY PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Prepared by: |. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY | el <* ay GOLOVIN ws FALRBANKS ° Om 7 a e VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT F, GOLOVIN TARLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........ceeeceeeee F-1 AIU = |GOMCPAT| sles cles ges cc sid tale eles cold Wace lesb lelere cold ll deal lel lee sale F-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions .........ccecececcccceuce F-1 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .............ceceeeeeeece F-5 Bae LOCATION ee ee ee F-5 Bie 2 = FPORUAC ION et ee Ue IE | F-5 BS | ECONORY | ee ee ee ee etc obi F-5 B.4 - B.5 - C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES E - ENERGY BALANCE F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast ....... ccc cece ec cecccccvcceee F-14 F.2 = Population Forecast ......... ccc ccc cece ccc ce nae ceeeeees F-14 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ........ccccceec cee cenccence F-15 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ....... ccc cece cece cece cc cceeee F-15 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ...........ccecccccceccccevevcs F-20 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .........ccceeee vues F-22 Fee = Bee Cae ee ee tl teleett tle cla eldlele ele ol fleet dole F-22 H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" .o... co.cc ccc ce cece cece cc eeceeees F-24 I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ............ccccccccceccccceccceeeecs F-25 Fee Bae Case sleet leet bled ble F-29 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION .......... ccc ccccccececccevevsceenees F-35 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza ............000e F-36 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration ..... ec cece ccc cece cece cece cece cceeeees F-42 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game ...........c cece ceeecccees F-47 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage 050. .. es cc cc ccc ccccsctcecccccs F-50 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management oo s.. sec c ete enters stenboucccsccecevreerees F-55 Oo ON DO HF W PL hw Oo LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case and Alternatives ...............00e eee Energy Use Profile for Golovin - 1981 .................. Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ................00. Net Thermal Requirements ..........cccccceeeeeeeeeeeeece Village Technology Assessment ........... ccc cece cece ees Estimated Costs of Golovin Base Case ...........000 eee Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Base Case ......... Estimated Costs of Golovin Alternative Plan "A"......... Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative PUAN te bac bate ctededual enghdtazatatal ctalateta le lete efoto tere oledecstatatsteteialstacelae Estimated Non-Electrical Disbenefits of Alternative Plan "AY sss vsee ia eeees ie aeee assess eles esos else's esse Page F-3 F-12 F-16 F-19 F-21 F-26-27 F-28 F-30-31 F-32 F-33 Title Energy Cost Summary Energy Balance LIST OF FIGURES Page F-4 F-13 F-17 GOLOVIN F-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1l - General After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Golovin, the recommendations which seem to be most appropriate to the existing village conditions and the wishes of the village residents are as follows: 1. The undertaking of an aggressive energy audit program aimed at significantly reducing the energy required to keep residences heated. This program should address energy conservation needs of all types of homes in the village, not just those which are older. Many homes built under relatively recent federal and state programs are less energy efficient than those built by village residents without government aid 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 Golovin, it would appear that the present generation system, which utilizes the Bering Straits REAA high school's large diesel generator sets will provide the least expensive electric energy available. 3. Responding to village residents' outspoken interest in wind energy at Golovin, an analysis was performed of the potential impact which wind turbines would have on the cost of electricity to consumers. Assuming that a wind turbine operating at Golovin may have a plant factor of about 25 percent, it did not appear economically feasible to consider this further. A reasonable analysis of a plant factor was made difficult by a lack of data concerning local winds at Golovin. The State Division of Energy and Power Development plans to erect a small (2 to 20 kW) wind turbine during the summer of 1982. Data taken from the operating history of this small machine should allow more detailed studies to arrive at a more favorable answer for wind systems. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case For the village of Golovin, the base case is the future development of the utility system with no changes over its present condition. The high school generators continue to provide Power to the whole GOLOVIN F-2 village (except for the fish cooperative) with the BIA school and the store taking their generators out of service except when the school generators fail. The village government will buy power from the school district and then sell this power to the other customers. The school also is provided with heat from its waste heat recovery system. This plan has a net present worth of $1,859,000 for the period 1982 through 2007. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" In this alternative, a relatively large (50 to 100 kW) wind turbine will be installed in the village. It will allow the diesel sets at the school to run at a lighter load and by so doing consume less fuel. It is not anticipated that such a wind turbine could replace the diesel sets. This plan has a net present worth of $2,018,000 for the period 1982 through 2007. The opinion was expressed by Golovin residents that the use of wind energy was preferrable to that of diesel fuel. Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrate the relative cost of a number of energy resources available to Golovin. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Production Energy Price Energy Price Year (MWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1982 210 0.31 0.31 1983 240 0.30 0.30 1984 250 0.29 0.29 1985 270 0.29 0.29 1986 280 0.29 0.29 1987 290 0.29 0.29 1988 290 0.34 0.34 1989 300 0.33 0.33 1990 300 0.33 0.33 1991 310 0.34 0.34 1992 310 0.34 0.34 1993 320 0.34 0.41 1994 320 0.34 0.41 1995 330 0.34 0.41 1996 340 0.34 0.41 1997 340 0.34 0.40 1998 340 0.35 0.40 1999 350 0.35 0.41 2000 350 0.36 0.41 2001 360 0.37 0.41 Notes: 1. Energy prices are stated in 1981 dollars and do not include costs of village distribution and administration. They also do not include any subsidies such as power cost assistance programs. 2. Energy prices shown for the "Base Case Plan" include savings realized from the use of the waste heat system. 3. Energy prices for "Alternative 'A'" include the extra expenses due to reduced heat output from the waste heat system. €-4 NIAO109 2 oO > - | aQ % = wy - vy ° Oo 5 eg WwW = la S$ 6 § 8 32 GOLOVIN F-4 OIL AS USED | hi A "ENERGY COST ($/kWh) \ OL AS USED AT 2 Q 65 (GUN-FIRED FURNACES & WATER T von ) 10 OIL AS DELIVERED 0,05 WOOD AS DELIVERED AN LE 1985 1990 1995 2000 GOLOVIN - FIGURE | ACRE GOLOVIN F-5 B_- DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Golovin is located on a point of land between Golovin Bay and Golovin Lagoon on the Seward Peninsula. It is 70 miles east of Nome. B.2 - Population Date: 1950 1960 1970 1980 Population: 94 59 117 87 Golovin had a population of 59 residents in 1960. By 1970, the population nad doubled to 117 of which 95 percent were natives, with 56 males and 61 females. This growth may be attributed to the establishment of a BIA school which enabled families to move back to Golovin. The 1980 U.S. census shows 87 residents in Golovin. B.3 - Economy The Golovin economy is based on subsistence food harvest, reindeer herding, fish processing and commercial fishing. The city government employs six people in Golovin. The DOT/PF employs an airport manager. The Berina Straits REAA High School employs one principal/teacher and one janitor. The BIA elementary school employs two teachers. The local air freight service, Olson Air Service, employs two people, and Olson and Son's Store employs two people. The city employs a chief of police, a village coordinator, a city clerk, a health aide, an alternate health aide and a maintenance person. Construction work in Nome provides additional summer employment. Residents of the village ao to summer fish camps to catch salmon, whitefish, trout, grayling, pike and herring. The salmon fishery and reindeer herding offer some potential for cash income to augment the subsistence food harvest. Twelve limited entry permits are held in the village. A fish cooperative was established in GOLOVIN F-6 1962 for processing and cold storage of salmon during the summer fishing season, with the product then sold to Japanese refrigeration ships. Between 20 and 30 people are employed seasonally at this plant, owned by the natives of Golovin. In 1980, a herd of approximately 52U reindeer was managed from Golovin. The herding and butchering of reindeer employs approximately ten people twice a year in February and June. Native residents of Golovin are shareholders in the Golovin Native Corporation, incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). B.4 - Government Golovin was incorporated as a second class city in 1971. The city government functions under the authority of a mayor elected from the seven-member city council. Regular elections are held annually in October. Golovin is a participant in the State of Alaska's Revenue Sharing Program and received $8,958 in revenue sharing funds for fiscal year 1980. As a second class city, Golovin is able to assume diverse powers, including levying taxes. To date, no city tax has been levied; revenue is derived from the telephone, bingo, movies and revenue sharing. For nonmunicipal programs and services, Golovin's native population is represented by a seven-member combined IRA and traditional 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 Golovin, many of these services are provided by regional organizations such as Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation. B.5 - Transportation As there are no roads connecting the city with other areas, access to Golovin is limited to air and sea. The state-owned airfield has a 1,900 foot north/south gravel runway. Another 800 foot east/west airstrip is gravel. Wien Air Alaska and Munz Northern Airlines both schedule three Flights a week from Nome to Golovin. Olson Air Service provides charter and freight service to Nome and surrounding villages. An expansion to 2,400 feet is planned in 1982. GOLOVIN F-7 The BIA cargo ship North Star III brings fuel oi], gasoline and supplies once each summer. Cargo is lightered to the beach from about one-half mile offshore. Arctic Lighterage Service brings petroleum products, supplies and building materials from Nome to Golovin. The store supplies Golovin with fuel and groceries from barge services. There are 3.5 miles of maintained roads within the village. Overland travel is by snowmachine and dogsled during the winter. The historic Iditarod Trail passes through Golovin and serves as a winter trail. Summer transportation to camps and nearby villages is provided by privately owned skiffs. Transportation is influenced by ice conditions; break-up of Golovin Bay averages mid-May and freeze-up usually occurs in early November. GOLOVIN F-8 C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Golovin the afternoon of November 16, 1981, to hold a public meeting which had been scheduled for that evening. Upon arrival, it was learned that a church singing group had arrived unexpectedly and that much of the village would be attending their program, making a meeting that night pointless. The chairman of the village council, the late Mr. Amarok, invited us to meet with the council and interested citizens the next morning. The meeting was held on the 17th at the Golovin community center with the village council and a number of interested citizens. It is estimated that the meeting attendance varied from 4 to 12 throughout the course of our discussions, depending upon the subjects being discussed. Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and asked the meeting attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs of Golovin. At the time of the visit to Golovin, there was no village-wide utility distribution system: a few homes had their own generators and the store served a handful of homes at one end of the village. As could be expected, therefore, much of the discussion centered on the high costs of home space heating. The council members noted that there was no available source of information which they could reference to provide them details of programs designed to assist the villages to finance the necessary home energy efficiency improvements. They remarked that there appeared to be a number of state and federal agencies which were active in the energy field, but that their actions were largely uncoordinated. The Mayor expressed an interest in wind power and at least two other citizens approached the field staff outside this meeting to discuss the possibilities of installing a wind generator. It was noted that "some state agency" had been through the village and their representatives were quoted as saying that Golovin would be an "ideal place for a wind generator" but that nothing further had been heard from this agency. (It was later discovered that the State's Division of Energy and Power Development was initiating a program to install a small wind turbine at Golovin in the summer of 1982.) The council chairman described the ongoing electrification program which would provide the village with a complete electric distribution system by early 1982. The village purchased, as part of its electrification project, a 130 kW diesel generator set. This unit, which could easily provide power for all of the village's needs for the foreseeable future, has not been installed in a building designed for generator operation and the village expects to be able to buy energy from the Bering Straits REAA high school plant, which has two 100 kW diesel sets available for this purpose. At the GOLOVIN F-9 time of our visit, no formal agreement had been worked out between the village of Golovin and the Bering Straits REAA with respect to the cost of purchased power. With respect to the recommendations made as a result of this reconnaissance study, the village council agreed that they would pursue those options available which were judged appropriate by the village residents. Village residents said that because of the high cost of oil ($105 per 55 gallon barrel), many have turned to burning wood to heat their homes. Since no trees grow in the Golovin area, residents may have to go as far as 20 miles (one way) to gather firewood. Some village residents take boats east along the coast in the summertime to bring back larger loads of wood than are possible to haul by snowmachine. Even with the use of boats, the gathering of firewood is a hardship. The village council members described their participation in a bulk fuel purchase plan in 1981. Since the village had no fuel oi1 storage facilities of its own, the privately owned store held the fuel oi] in its storage tanks. The question was raised at the meeting whether or not the resulting savings were passed on to the consumers. The village council went on record as saying that the critical need for Golovin's energy future was lowering home heating requirements and costs. They asked that this area be emphasized in this report. The village of Golovin is planning the construction of a new community center. It was noted by field personnel that such a project would be a good opportunity to build a demonstration energy-efficient structure with some possible participation by some state agency interested in energy conservation such as the Division of Energy and Power Development. It is possible that the existing community center be rebuilt to take advantage of such energy-saving features as smaller, double- or triple-glazed windows, double-wall construction, and better weatherstripping. Tne meeting ended after about an hour when it was time for lunch. GOLOVIN F-10 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Due to the lack of a village-wide electrical distribution system, those facilities requiring electric power were required to supply their own generating plants. As a result, there are eleven generator sets in the village: o The Bering Straits REAA high school has one 30 kW unit and two 100 kW units o The City of Golovin owns one 130 kW unit o Olsen's Store has one 12 kW unit o The BIA school has three (size unknown) units o The fish cooperative has one 20 kW unit, one 100 kW unit, and one 125 kW unit. The two 100 kW generator sets in the high school are equipped with waste heat recovery systems which are used to heat the school. At the time of the field staff's visit to Golovin, one of the 100 kW generators and the 30 kW generator were out of service due to breakdowns. School personnel remarked that when breakdowns did occur, the school district was very slow to make the necessary repairs. The one generator which was operational at the school ran with what seemed to be an excessive amount of vibration. None of the three generators was installed with any measure of vibration isolation from the generator building floor. It is doubtful that the wood framed generator building can afford the generators the rigid foundation that they will need to operate satisfactorily without excessive maintenance. With the present arrangement, it is unlikely that this installation will provide reliable electric power to the village of Golovin. The village owns one 130 kW diesel set which is still in its shipping container. There are no plans to put this machine into service. The small diesel set owned by the store provides electrical power to a handful of homes at one end of the village. Because this service is the only “utility" which was operating in Golovin and since it served such a small portion of the village's population, the village of Golovin was studied as if it were not served by electricity. The BIA school, which reportedly was to be closed in May 1982, operates three small diesel sets to provide power for the school, the clinic, and the washeteria. GOLOVIN F-11 When the electrification project is completed and the entire village will be supplied power from the school, it is expected that the store and the BIA school will stop operating their generators except during breakdowns of the school's equipment. While final arrangements have not been completed, it is anticipated that the REAA will sell electricity to the village of Golovin. The village council will then make arrangements for distribution of energy throughout the village and for billing the customers. The fish cooperative will not be connected to the village electric distribution system. The REAA high school's larger diesel sets are equipped with water jacket waste heat recovery equipment which could supplement heat to the school. However, without an adequate load, there is not sufficient waste heat to satisfy school needs. Integrating the village needs into the system may provide the additional load. However, the unreliable manner in which the generator is operated makes it suspect as a long-term reliable system. [A representative of the Bering Straits REAA has subsequently contacted the Alaska Power Authority and advised that a new District Director of Maintenance is being hired. It is the REAA's objective to upgrade the quality of maintenance work throughout the district. New training programs are being planned to provide better prepared maintenance personnel. ] For many years most homes were heated by oil as there is no nearby source of standing timber. However, in recent years, as the price of fuel oil has risen higher and higher, many residents have switched to heating with wood. Field staff members were given estimates that as many as 60 percent of Golovin residents heat with wood. Very little driftwood is washed ashore at Golovin in the summer and some residents reported having to go as far as 20 miles (one way) to gather wood. It was repeatedly stressed by the village residents that as far as many of them were concerned, it was much more important that the costs of home heating be brought under control than providing the luxury of cheap electricity. E_- ENERGY BALANCE As would be expected in a small village with little commercial or GOLOVIN F-12 industrial activity, most of the energy consumed is used to heat homes. Data gathered by field staff shows the following energy uses: TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR GOLOVIN - 1981 Type of Fuel Cost Fuel Oi] $1.91/gal (Sold by Olson's Store) Gasoline $2.25/gal (Sold by Olson's Store) Fuel Oi] $1.91/gal (Used by (est.) the REAA School) Wood $100/cord (est.) Total Heat Content End Uses Quantity (109 Btu) Cooking 19,000 gal 2.6 Space Heating Water Heating Transportation 10,000 gal 1.25 Space Heating 30,000 gal 4.6 Power Generation Space Heating 210 cords 3.6 A diagram of this energy use is shown on Figure 2. BRUNING 44 132 42222 » NOTES: ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR. FIGURE 2 GOLOVIN ENERGY BALANCE ACHES AMERICAN INCORPORATED > ENERGY RESOURCE END USE wooo RESIDENTIAL SPACE SYSTEM pi HEATING (7.8) LOSSES (5.07) USEABLE HEAT (2.73) FUEL OIL F. (72) RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATING (011) 9) OTHER SPACE SYSTEM LOSSES (1.23) HEATING (1.9) uw) ZUSEABLE HEAT(.67) ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION(I.1) GASOLINE (125) (125) TRANSPORTATION (1.25) (1981) €T-4 NIAO109 GOLOVIN F-14 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast No long-term developments were identified in Golovin. In tne short term, fifteen HUD homes will be built in Golovin in 1982. The city is also planning either a new community center or an upgrading of the existing one. This was discussed in Section C as a potential energy efficiency demonstration project. The Golovin economy is largely subsistence, and only a few residents earn regular wages. There may be some potential for village growth through increased commercial fishing and reindeer herding. The possible development of the Norton Sound offshore oil fields may provide employment for a few residents. In general, it can be expected that the village economy will grow quite slowly. F.2 - Population Forecast Golovin had an annual growth rate of approximately 1.9 percent for the period 1960 to 1980. Given the lack of planned and potential developments in the area, the growth rate for Golovin for the period 1981 to 2001 is projected to be 1.5 percent annually. The table below shows the population forecast through the year 2001. 1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 59 117 87 94 101 100 117 # of Homes 24 35 50 50 50 55 # of Commercial 4 5 5 5 5 6 Buildings # of Government 6 6 6 6 7 7 and Other Buildings GOLOVIN F-15 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast Inasmuch as the village of Golovin is being considered as having had no previous electric service, it is reasonable to expect that the residential use of electricity will rise quickly for a number of years after it becomes available. The number of electrical appliances used by any particular household is limited and the amount of energy used will level off as appliance ownership reaches saturation levels. Residential use will be quite modest by urban standards, starting out at about 1,800 kWh per household in 1982 and rising slowly to about 3,500 kWh per household in 1996, where it levels out. 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 significantly with time. The expected energy uses of non-residential users is shown in the table below: Loads kWh Per Year kW Demand REAA School 54,000 20 BIA School (assumed to 27,000 10 be operated by state after 1982) Airport Lighting 500 8 (beginning in 1982) Community Center 9,000 3 Commercial 9,000 each 3 each Other Government 3,000 each 1 each In those cases where electricity can be produced at a cost significantly less than heat delivered by oil or wood, it can be expected that there will be some conversion to electric space heating. Such a trend would drive electric demand up, beyond that shown in this study. No alternatives were found, however, which produce electricity at such a low cost. Electric use forecasts for the vilalge are summarized on Table 3 and Figure 3. F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast In the village of Golovin, the largest users of heating energy are the schools. Between the Bering Straits REAA high school and the BIA school it TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Residential Schools Other Total. Year kW MWh kW Muh kW Mah kW MWh” 1982 14 63 40 90 18 54 72 207 1983 30 100 40 90 18 54 88 244 1984 30 110 40 90 18 54 88 254 1985 30 125 40 90 21 63 91 268 1986 30 140 40 90 21 63 96 283 1987 35 140 40 90 21 63 96 288 1988 40 150 40 90 21 63 101 293 1989 45 155 40 90 21 63 , 106 298 1990 50 160 40 90 21 63 111 303 1991 50 165 40 90 21 63 111 308 1992 50 168 40 90 21 63 111 313 1993 50 170 40 90 21 63 111 318 1994 50 171 40 90 21 63 111 323 1995 55 173 40 90 21 63 116 328 1996 56 178 40 90 22 66 118 336 1997 57 182 40 90 22 66 119 340 1998 58 186 40 90 22 66 120 344 1999 59 189 40 90 22 66 121 347 2000 66 192 40 90 22 66 126 350 2001 66 192 40 90 25 75 129 359 Ss eee Notes: 1. Sharp rise in residential energy use in 1983 is due to the construction of 15 new homes in 1982. 91-4 NIAO109 (4YMW) NOILGWNSNOD ADY3SN3 GOLOVIN F-17 = 2 z 2 FE = 0 O O >~ e w a Ww oO <q | 2 > VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) GOLOVIN -FIGURE 3 1S NEW HOMES IN 1982 100 (M>) GNVW3Q GOLOVIN F-18 is estimated that approximately 37,000 gallons of fuel oil are consumed. The BIA school also has the village school cafeteria and therefore uses hot water for dishwashing purposes. It is estimated that this use will consume only about 200 gallons of fuel, an almost negligible amount. Residential use of energy is almost entirely taken up by space heating. It is estimated that, to heat the average home in Golovin, it would take approximately 1,200 gallons of fuel oil annually. Village residents told field personnel that about two-thirds of the households (60 percent) used wood to heat. They further estimated that small homes required between eight and ten cords of wood annually. It is hoped that new homes will be built to be more energy efficient than those already in Golovin. For purposes of this study, it is expected that any homes built after 1985 will be 30 percent more efficient in their use of space heat than the existing "typical" Golovin home. This is certainly an attainable reduction in energy use. Better design and more rigorous construction inspection could nelp to meet such a goal. Home water heat use in Golovin represents a negligible use of energy. The remainder of the 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 Tabie 4. The figures given 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. GOLOVIN F-19 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (10%stu) —(0%tu) ———(10°Btu) __(10°Btu) _—(10°tu) 1982 0.7 2.1 3.3 0.8 6.2 1983 0.8 2.8 3.3 0.8 6.9 1984 0.9 2.6 3.3 0.8 6.7 1985 1.0 2.4 3.3 0.8 6.5 1986 1.0 2.2 3.3 1.0 6.5 1987 1.0 2.2 3.3 1.0 6.5 1988 1.0 2.1 3.3 1.0 6.4 1989 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1990 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1991 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1992 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1993 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1994 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1995 1.1 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1996 1.2 2.0 3.3 1.0 6.3 1997 1.2 2.1 3.3 1.0 6.4 1998 1.2 2.1 3.3 1.0 6.4 1999 1.2 2.2 3.3 1.0 6.5 2000 1.2 2.2 3.3 1.0 6.5 2001 1.2 2.2 3.3 1.1 6.6 ol GOLOVIN F-20 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Coal. Presently no practical means exists of providing coal to Golovin. Additionally, the village lacks sufficient skilled personnel to staff a coal plant. No consideration of this alternative is warranted. Wood. There are no natural supplies of wood available at Golovin. Villagers presently travel as far as 20 miles from the village to gather firewood from timber stands. No further consideration of this resource is needed. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources near Golovin. No further consideration of the geothermal alternative is needed. Hydroelectric. There are no rivers or drainages in the Golovin area capable of providing sufficient flows on a year-round basis to warrant consideration of this alternative. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility use. Wind. There is the possibility that a significant wind resource exists at Golovin. Further studies are needed to establish in detail the frequency distribution of the area's windspeeds. In lieu of site-specific wind data for Golovin, wind data taken at Unalakleet was analyzed. It was estimated that a well-chosen site near Golovin could provide enough wind to permit wind turbine operation at a 25 percent capacity factor. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by barge and is the fuel used in GoTovin. Fuel oil is presently used for space heating and diesel 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. GOLOVIN F-21 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR GOLOVIN TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS a. ~N N TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geothermal Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic yor FF YH FY OC OC SFC OF WAG oO OCOrFOFKHFR OHO wWwwoeoadaaad NMAONN HF O OC mo ry Or HY CO OO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Electric Resistance Passive Solar Wood Coal “O11 (base) Other Coal Gasification Wood Gasification - Diesel Biogas Waste Fired Boiler Peat Binary Cycle Generator ar - FW FR WwW Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. GOLOVIN F-22 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case The base case plan, which uses the high school's existing generators, will begin with an installation having two 100 kW diesel sets. It is assumed that the smaller 30 kW diesel set, because of its size, is not used for utility system operation. Projections show that by 1988 the utility system demand will surpass the capacity of the 100 kW machines in place. In keeping with the basic criteria that the system's largest machine can be out of service and the load will still be met, it will be assumed that in 1988 the two 100 kW units will be replaced by two 150 kW units, which will be able to meet all projected loads through the year 2001. The existing diesel sets are equipped with water jacket waste heat recovery systems. The heat from these recovery systems will be used to supplement school oil-fired furnace heating systems. Calculations show that, for the term of the study period, there will be no surplus heat to sell to other users in Golovin. In fact, at no time during the study period will waste heat be able to provide for all of the heating needs of the school. The existence of the waste heat system will, however, produce less expensive electricity for sale to the residents of Golovin than if it had not been in place. Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present value figures are as follows: - The existing two 100 kW diesels will be able to meet Golovin's electrical load through the year 1987. - In 1988 two 150 kW diesel sets will replace the existing units. - 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 waste heat equipment installation will be valued at a cost equal to 50 percent of the installed value of the diesel sets, or $400/kW. - As long as the Bering Straits School District operates the generation plant (and this is assumed to be the case throughout the study period), each diesel set will require an overhaul costing half of its purchase price or $150/kW every five years. GOLOVIN F-23 - School maintenance personnel will perform routine maintenance on the diesel sets. This service is valued at about $8,000 per year regardless of installed capacity. - The generator sets will produce electricity at the rate of about 8 kWh per gallon of fuel consumed. - Annual costs of the diesel sets and their associated waste heat capture equipment are calculated as follows: (1) The diesel sets are amortized annually for 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. (2) The waste heat capture equipment is amortized at 3 percent annually for 10 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of this 10-year period, it is replaced in its entirety, so that the annual costs associated with this equipment will remain constant throughout the study period (so long as installed capacity remains unchanged). (3) The annual costs of the reauired overhaul work are the result of the establishment of a sinking fund designed to provide the equivalent of $150/kW every 5 years at 3 percent. (4) The waste heat capture equipment is assumed to require no additional maintenance expenses beyond those already allocated to the diesel sets. (5) General operations and maintenance work adds $8,0CO to the system's expenses. - Variable costs of operating the diesel sets are calculated as follows: Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $1.90 per aallon with its real (1981) cost rising 2.60 percent annually, to $3.09 by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter. A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I. It should be noted that the eneray cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate consumer. 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. GOLOVIN F-24 H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" consists of utilizing the Bering Straits REAA high school generating equipment as the "baseload" generators, with a large wind turbine installed to be used whenever sufficient wind is available to operate it. With this arranaement, the energy produced by the wind turbine would allow the diesel set to "loaf" for part of the time, thereby reducing its fuel consumption and its operating cost. There is one drawback to this type of operation, however. When the wind turbine operates and reduces the demand on the diesel set, there will be less heat available from the waste heat recovery equipment. This loss of available heat to the school must then be made up by burning additional fuel oi] in the school's furnace system. This drawback will be examined in calculations summarized later in this section. Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the wind turbine/diesel system were as follows: - In 1992, a 100 kW wind turbine will be installed at Golovin. It will operate at a plant factor of 25 percent, with an availability factor of 90 percent. Annual energy output, therefore, will be: 100 kW X 8760 hr/yr X 0.25 X 0.9 = 197,100 kWh/yr - Purchase cost of the 100 kW machine and its associated equipment will be $2, 600/kW - Installation costs of the wind turbine and its associated equipment will be $2,500/kW - There is assumed to be no overhaul requirements over the lifetime of the wind turbine. - General operations and maintenance will reauire the attention of skilled personnel traveling to Golovin at regular intervals. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that four visits per year were made at a cost of $3,000 per visit for an annual 0& cost of $12,000 per year. - The purchase and installation costs of the wind turbine were amortized over the 15-year lifetime of the wind turbine. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 vercent annually. - Fixed costs associated with the amortization and operations and maintenance of the existing diesel sets remain unchanged over those given in the base case. Fuel consumption remains at 8 kWh/gal. Actual annual fuel use is reduced by (197,100 kWh/yr)/(& kWh/aal) or approximately 25,000 gallons per year. A tabulation showing the costs associated with this system's operation is shown in Section I. T - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS GOLOVIN F-25 TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF GOLOVIN BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) 1982 210 26 1.90 49 o Existing Bering Straits 240 20 6 8 34 REAA Generators (two 1983 240 30 1,95 58 100 kW units) 20 6 8 34 1984 250 32 2.00 64 20 6 8 34 1985 270 34 2.05 70 20 6 8 34 1986 280 35 2.11 74 20 6 8 34 1987 290 36 2.16 78 20 6 8 34 1988 290 37 2.22 82 o Replacement of existing 360 30 8 8 46 generators with two 1989 300 37 2.27 84 150 kW units 30 8 8 46 1990 300 38 2.33 88 30 8 8 46 1991 310 38 2.39 91 30 8 8 46 1992 310 39 2.46 96 30 8 8 46 1993 320 40 2.52 101 30 8 8 46 1994 320 40 2.59 104 30 8 8 46 1995 330 41 2.65 109 30 8 8 46 1996 340 42 2.72 114 30 8 8 46 1997 340 42 2.79 117 30 8 8 46 1998 340 43 2.86 123 30 8 8 46 1999 350 43 2.94 126 30 8 8 46 2000 350 44 3.02 133 30 8 8 46 2001 360 45 3.09 139 30 8 8 46 2002-2007 360 45 3.09 139 30 8 8 46 92-4 NIAO109 TABLE 6 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 49 34 83 80.6 0.31 1983 58 34 93 87.7 0. 30 1984 64 34 98 89.7 0. 29 1985 70 34 104 92.4 0.29 1986 74 34 108 93.2 0. 29 1987 78 34 112 93.8 0.29 1988 82 46 128 104.1 0. 34 1989 84 46 130 102.6 0. 33 1990 88 46 134 102.7 0.33 1991 91 46 137 101.9 0. 34 1992 96 46 142 102.6 0. 34 1993 101 46 147 103.1 0.34 1994 104 46 150 102.1 0. 34 1995 109 46 155 102.5 0. 34 1996 114 46 160 102.7 0. 34 1997 7 46 163 101.6 0, 34 1998 123 46 169 102.2 0.35 1999 126 46 172 101.0 0.35 2000 133 46 179 102.1 0. 36 2001 139 46 185 102.4 0.37 2002-2007 139 46 185 554.9 0. 37 TOTAL $2,529 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (670) Net present worth $1,859 All costs shown in thousands of dol lars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 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. 22-4 NIAO109 GOLOVIN F-28 TABLE 7 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 19 18.4 1983 21 19.8 1984 24 22.0 1985 27 24.0 1986 27 23.3 1987 28 23.4 1988 29 23.6 1989 32 25.3 1990 33 25.3 1991 33 24.6 1992 34 24.6 1993 40 28.0 1994 41 27.9 1995 42 27.8 1996 44 28.2 1997 47 29.3 1998 49 29.6 1999 51 30.0 2000 52 29.6 2001 52 28.8 2002 52 156.0 through 2007 TOTAL: $ 670 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. GOLOVIN F-29 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Because the school generating plant is already in place, there will be no possibility of local employment for plant construction work. However, there may be the potential for perhaps one or two Golovin residents to be employed by the school district as general maintenance personnel. Skilled personnel reauired for major overhaul work will likely be brought in from Nome, Unalakleet, or even Anchorage. Diesel plant equipment is relatively benian 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 Golovin, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these nollutants. The lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oil must be disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Golovin, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines also are significant sources of noise, but with prover siting and with adequate muffler systems, this probem 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 reqular maintenance which requires highly skilled personnel. With the Bering Straits School District havina responsibility for the operation of the Golovin utility, there is some assurance that adequate funds will be available for repair and overhaul work through proper administrative procedures. This same setup will likely lead to the need for more frequent and more costly overhaul work due to the general training and experience of personnel available for routine maintenance. It can be concluded that, in the absence of some AVEC-like entity, the service provided by the REAA school generating plant will be about as qood as can be expected in Golovin. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED COSTS OF COLOVIN ATLERNATIVE PLAN "At 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 210 26 1.90 49 o Existing Bering Straits 240 20 6 8 34 REAA Generators (two 1983 240 30 1.95 58 100 kW units) 20 6 8 34 1984 250 32 2.00 64 20 6 8 34 1985 270 34 2.05 70 20 6 8 34 1986 280 35 2.11 74 20 6 8 34 1987 290 36 2.16 18 20 6 8 34 1988 290 37 2.22 82 o Replacement of existing 360 30 8 8 46 generators with two 1989 300 37 2.27 84 150 kW units 30 8 8 46 1990 300 38 2.33 88 30 8 8 46 1991 310 38 2.39 91 30 8 8 46 1992 310 39 2.46 96 30 8 8 46 1993 320 15 2.52 38 o Installation of one 510 83 8 20 46 100 kW wind turbine 1994 320 15 2.59 39 83 8 20 a 1995 330 16 2.65 43 83 8 20 i 1996 340 17 2.72 46 83 8 20 11 1997 340 7 2.79 47 83 8 20 Wl 1998 340 18 2. 86 51 83 8 20 WW 1999 350 18 2.94 52 83 8 20 Ww 2000 350 19 3.02 57 83 8 20 WwW 2001 360 20 3.09 62 83 8 20 Ww 2002-2007 360 20 3.09 62 83 8 20 iW O€-4 NIAO109 TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 49 34 83 80.6 0.31 1983 58 34 93 87.7 0.30 1984 64 34 98 89.7 0.29 1985 70 34 104 92.4 0.29 1986 74 34 108 93.2 0.29 1987 78 34 112 93.8 0.29 1988 82 46 128 104.1 0.34 1989 84 46 130 102.6 0.33 1990 88 46 134 102.7 0.33 1991 91 46 137 101.9 0.34 1992 96 46 142 102.6 0.34 1993 38 1 149 104.5 0.41 1994 39 inn 150 102.2 0.41 1995 43 WW 154 101.8 0.41 1996 46 Ww 157 100.8 0.40 1997 47 Ww 158 98.5 0.40 1998 51 VW 162 98.0 0.41 1999 52 Ww 163 95.7 0.41 2000 57 WW 168 95.8 0.41 2001 62 nn 173 95.8 0.41 2002-2007 62 Ww 173 518.9 0.41 TOTAL $2,463 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (670) Total present worth of non-electrical disbenefits $ 225 Net present worth $2,018 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1; Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 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. L€-4d NIAO109 GOLOVIN F-32 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year Space Heating Fuel Savin Benefits 1982 19 18.4 1983 21 19.8 1984 24 22.0 1985 27 24.0 1986 27 23.3 1987 28 23.4 1988 29 23.6 1989 32 25.3 1990 33 25.3 1991 33 24.6 1992 34 24.6 1993 40 28.0 1994 41 27.9 1995 42 27.8 1996 44 28.2 1997 47 29.3 1998 49 29.6 1999 51 30.0 2000 52 29.6 2001 52 28.8 2002 52 156.0 through 2007 TOTAL: $ 670 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. GOLOVIN F-33 TABLE 10 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL DISBENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Disbenefits Fuel O71 Purchased Discounted Year Due to Loss of Waste Heat Disbenefits 1982 - - 1983 - - 1984 - - 1985 - - 1986 - - 1987 - - 1988 - - 1989 = - 1990 - = 1991 - - 1992 - - 1993 23 16.1 1994 23 15.6 1995 24 15.9 1996 © 24 15.4 1997 25 15.6 1998 26 15.7 1999 26 15.3 2000 27 15.4 2001 28 15.6 2002 28 84.0 through 20 TOTAL: $ 225 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. GOLOVIN F-34 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - 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 generally considered to be environmentally safe. There are, however, a number of items which should be considered in this regard. First, there is the possibility of children or others climbing 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 fall when in operation, it could be thrown several hundred feet. Large machines, such as those considered in this study 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 dangerous to human life, but are annoying. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation Given the present state of wind turbine development and a lack of detailed information regarding winds in Golovin, it does not seem appropriate to pursue further investigation of a wind turbine development at Golovin. It is important, however, that consideration be given to the establishment of a sophisticated anemometry station at Golovin so that data can be assembled which may be able to show that wind turbine systems are more economically attractive than was found to be the case in this study. GOLOVIN F-35 Jd _- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION GOLOVIN F-36 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza GOLOVIN F-37 Eric P. Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 RECEIVED 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 pronram that village homeowners would be eligible for. Sincerely, Phil Kaluza Box 843 Nome, AK 99762 1. Comment: Response: GOLOVIN F-38 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 turbines 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: GOLOVIN F-39 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: GOLOVIN F-40 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, expendable 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: GOLOVIN F-41 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. GOLOVIN F-42 J.2 - Comments Received From: The Alaska Power Administration [Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] GOLOVIN F-43 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 small 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. GOLOVIN 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 F-44 l. 2. Comment: Response: Comment: Response: GOLOVIN F-45 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 wil] 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: GOLOVIN F-46 "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. GOLOVIN F-47 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game YAY S. HAROLD, GOVERNOR / GOLOVIN F-48 STi We OF ALASIKA LRTMENE OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COLTATISSIONER sea eno. OP gene PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvep AR 1 2 1999 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 ene 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, Oni dotunauint a fr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner GOLOVIN F-49 ACRES ' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. GOLUVIN F-50 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage GOLOVIN F-51 OS YS 0, United States Department of the Interior SE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iN REPLY AEFEA TO: Western Alaska Ecological Services / 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE CEI VED (907) 271-4575 APR ~ 9 i9g9 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy Alaska Power Authority C 334 West 5th Avenue @ APR 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. 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. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: 1. 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. nm Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should te 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: GOLOVIN F-52 Y nm on oO nm tification of species composition and distribution of env and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. (>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Technicues or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or rd habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence thin the project area. 1. Mammals. a. Historical and current narvest levels and subsistence use data. bo. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. P y Prog (b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each 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 vrov We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: 1. ing the period of project planning, the APA should consult with state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and resources of the project area, including the Fish and Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. investigate and document the possible presence of any threatened species in the project area. If endangered species are determined to be present, the FWS should be GOLOVIN F-53 Page 3 3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, 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 adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, Field Supervisor 1. Comment: Response: GOLOVIN F-54 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. GOLOVIN F-55 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) GOLOVIN. «de B6ercr to United States Department of the Interjor BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982 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, LAN Cerner GOLOVIN F-57 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501