HomeMy WebLinkAboutStebbins Appendix O Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982VIL-A
002
Stebbins
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX O: STEBBINS
MAY 1982
Prepared by:
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 —_ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _
aN FAIRBANKS
o
Ky STEBBINS
a BETHEL i-4
ANCHORAGE
Qo on
: _
e
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
0. STEBBINS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......0....eeeeeeeee 0-1
Bg = GOO oats a 20886 9 SS TS 0-1
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ............. cece ee eeeee 0-2
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............ cece eee ee eeee 0-5
Bil - Location ..... cece cece ccc cece tence eee eee eeeeees 0-5
B.2 - Population ... cece ccc ccc cece cece eee eee cece neces 0-5
B.3 - ECOMOMY 1... cece ccc cc cece cece eee eee e eee eeeeeeeees 0-5
B.4 - Government ...... cece ccc cece cece cee eee eee t eee eeeee 0-6
B.5 - Transportation ...... cece cece ccc cece cece eee eeeee 0-7
C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT .......... cece cece e cece cece ce eeeeees 0-8
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ................eeeeeee 0-9
E - ENERGY BALANCE 2... .. cee cece cee cee cece eect eee eeeeeee 0-10
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ......... cece eee ccc eeee cree eeees 0-12
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast ...... ccc c cece ccc cee cee ceece 0-12 F.2 - Population Forecast 1... ccc cece cee cece eee e ence ees 0-12 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ........ cece cece eee e eee 0-13 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ......... cece cece eee cee eee eee 0-16
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ......... ccc ee cece cece cee e cena 0-18
H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..........0cceeeees 0-21
H.1 - Base CaS@ wo. cece ccc ccc eee ect eee eee e eee eeenee 0-21
H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" wo... c cece cece cece eee eee eeee 0-22
H.3 - Alternative Plan "BY woo... cece cc cee cee cece ee eee eee 0-23
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ........ cc cece eee cece eee ee eee ee eeee 0-25
T.1 - Base CaS€ ... cee cece cece cece eee e eee teen eee eeeeees 0-28
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"... cece cece cee eee eee tere e eens 0-31
1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY oo. ccc ccc ccc cece ec cee cece eeeee 0-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION 1... . cc cece eee eee cc eee eee eee nee
J.l
J.2
J.3
J.4
J.5
J.6
Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza ................
Comments Received From The Alaska Power
Administration ..... ccc cece cece cece teen eee tee enee
Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks,
Office of History and Archeology ...........e cece ee eee
Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game ........ cece eee cece eee eee
Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Anchorage ....... cece cece eee e cece ee ee eens
Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land
Management ...... cece ccc cece cece cee cee eee eee e eee eees
No. ow ON DO FW MY LIST OF TABLES
Title
Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices
For Base Case and Alternatives .............. cece eee ee
Energy Use Profile for Stebbins - 1981 ..................
Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ...........00-eeeeee
Net Thermal Requirements ......... cece cece eee e eee eeeece
Village Technology Assessment ........... cece cece eee eee
Estimated Costs of Stebbins Base Case ..............00eee
Estimated Costs of Stebbins Alternative Plan "A" ........
Estimated Costs of Stebbins Alternative Plan "B" ........
Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative Plan "B"
0-3
0-10
0-14
0-17
0-20
0-26-27
0-29-30
0-32-33
0-34
Title
LIST OF FIGURES
Energy Cost Summary .......... cece cece cece cence eee cece
Energy Balance
Electric Energy Use Forecast ......... cece eee cece eee
STEBBINS 0-1
A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.1 - General
After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Stebbins,
the recommendations 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 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. Additionally,
it is not sufficient to provide only the energy audit service. Some
follow-up work designed to demonstrate the proper way to implement the
recommendations of the energy audit is important.
With respect to the electrical energy needs of the village of
Stebbins, it appears that the most significant step available to reduce the cost of electricity is the relocation of the AVEC generating plant and the installation of a water jacket waste heat
recovery system. The existing AVEC generators are too small to carry
the present village load and will have to be replaced in the very near
future. The projections in this study show a complete replacement of the existing AVEC generating plant in 1984 may be likely. If this is
the case, it would be a good opportunity to relocate the AVEC plant
near the REAA high school. With adequate muffler systems, noise from the generators would not be noticeable in the village if the plant
were located on the east side of the high school. At that time, it
would be appropriate to install a waste heat system between the generators and the school building. The REAA school is near enough to
the BIA school that heat piping could be extended to those buildings associated with that school. While it is not likely that the AVEC plant will be able to supply the heating needs of both buildings, it
would replace the need for as much as 65,000 gallons of fuel oi] per
year by the turn of the century. For purposes of this study, it was
assumed that a waste heat system could be installed in 1982 at the
existing plant site to serve some future load.
The mayor of Stebbins expressed interest in the use of coal for
heating homes and a planned community hall. At the time of the public
meeting held in Stebbins, the economics of coal use were not known and
field staff promised to look into this matter. While detailed
discussion of this point will be given in Section G of this report, it
will be noted that unless some special arrangements are worked out
with the barge companies, the shipping charges associated with bringing coal from the only existing Alaskan coal mine (at Healy) to
Stebbins make this an unattractive alternative. If prices of coal
STEBBINS 0-2
delivered to Stebbins on the BIA ship the North Star III are significantly lower than those available from the Alaska barging
companies, then coal would likely be attractive.
4. Stebbins has been identified as having areas of historic or archeological significance. If feasibility-level work is done there, the State's Division of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archeology, should be contacted for further information.
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 - Base Case
The base case study investigates the continued operation of the AVEC diesel generators, with no changes in operation except as required to serve additional load caused by village growth. The net present
worth of this plan is $3,282,000 for the period 1982 through 2009.
A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
In this alternative, in addition to the use of the AVEC diesel sets as the primary source of power for the village, it will be assumed that a 100 kW wind turbine will be installed near the village. At those times when there is sufficient wind to operate the wind
turbine, the diesels will be able to throttle back and decrease their
use of fuel. The net present worth of this plan is $3,214,000 for the period 1982 through 2009.
A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
In this alternative, the AVEC diesel sets are moved close to the schools and a waste heat recovery system is installed. The heat thus
recovered is then used to supplement the schools' heat requirements.
The net present worth of this plan is $2,707,000 for the period 1982 through 2009.
Comparative prices of electric energy produced by the alternatives studied
are shown on Table 1. Figure 1 shows the comparative prices of various fuel resources available to Stebbins. 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 $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost.
The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government
subsidy and grant programs which may be available.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B"
Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price
Year Mh ($/kWh ($/kWh) _($/kWh)
1982 290 0.41 0.41 0.35
1983 310 0.40 0.40 0.34
1984 325 0.44 0.44 0.39
1985 335 0.44 0.44 0.39
1986 350 0.43 0.43 0.38
1987 360 0.43 0.43 0.38
1988 365 0.44 0.44 0.38
1989 370 0.44 0.44 0.38
1990 375 0.44 0.44 0.37
1991 385 0.44 0.44 0.37
1992 390 0.45 0.45 0.38
1993 390 0.46 0.46 0.38
1994 395 0.46 0.46 0.38
1995 395 0.46 0.46 0.38
1996 400 0.47 0.46 0.38
1997 400 0.48 0.47 0.39
1998 405 0.49 0.47 0.40
1999 405 0.50 0.48 0.40
2000 410 0.50 0.48 0.40
2001 410 0.51 0.48 0.40
€-0 SNId3dLsS
STEBBINS 0-4
3 5 o u a
S e.
a
xo)
> 0.30 &
—
wn °o VU
5 a4
WJ
=z ws ENERGY COST (¢/kWh) 0,20
OIL AS USED AT 920.35
1980 1985 1990
STEBBINS - FIGURE |
STEBBINS 0-5
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Stebbins is located on the northwest coast of St. Michael Island, just north of the Yukon/Kuskokwim delta on Norton Sound. It is 8 miles
northwest of St. Michael, 53 miles southwest of Unalakleet and 120 miles
southeast of Nome.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1960 1970 1980
Population: 158 231 331
In 1950, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey recorded 80 people living in Stebbins. The population increased to 158 by 1960 and 231 by 1970. Ninety-seven percent of the residents in 1970 were Yupik Eskimo. 1980 census figures show 331 residents in Stebbins. There are many young families in the village and many children, accounting for much of the
population increase in recent years.
B.3 - Economy
The Stebbins economy is based on subsistence food harvest supplemented by part-time wage earnings. There is a reindeer herd split between Stuart
Island and the hills behind Stebbins.
The city employs a clerk, police officer, AVEC plant operator, alternate health aide, water plant operator/trash collector, and a laundry attendant who works on commission. Norton Sound Regional Health Corporation employs two full-time health aides, and the BIA school employs seven teachers, six
aides and three other employees. A new REAA high school is scheduled to open in the spring of 1982 and will employ a few other residents. The Head
Start program employs five people - a director, teacher, teacher's aide,
cook and janitor. Stebbins Native Corporation employs a manager,
bookkeeper/accountant and executive secretary, and plans to hire a land planner and native arts and crafts manager in the near future. The U.S. Postal Service employs a postmaster, and the State funds a village public safety officer.
STEBBINS 0-6
There are two stores in Stebbins, one of which is family owned and operated. The Stebbins Native Store employs a retail manager, clerk,
stocker, cashier and janitor/warehouseman. Munz Northern Airlines and Wien
Air Alaska both have agents in Stebbins. The Stebbins IRA employs a
manager and part time janitor. Tapraq, Inc., a non-profit service
organization, employs a manager and a part-time gym janitor.
There is an increasing amount of commercial fishing by residents, including
fishing on the Lower Yukon; between 30 and 50 people fished for herring
last summer and sold their catch to tenders. Many of the women in town
weave and sell their baskets.
Native residents of Stebbins are shareholders in the Stebbins Native
Corporation. This organization was incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Federal and state sales of off-shore oi] exploration and development leases
in the Norton Basin are scheduled for late 1982 and early 1983.
B.4 - Government
Stebbins was incorporated as a second class city in 1969. The city
government functions under the authority of a mayor elected from the
seven-member city council. Regular elections are held annually in
November.
Stebbins is a participant in the State of Alaska's Revenue Sharing Program
and received $15,042 in state revenue sharing funds for the fiscal year
1980. As a second class city, Stebbins is able to assume diverse powers,
including levying taxes. Voters in the city approved a 2 percent sales
tax, which is the only city tax levied in the village.
For nonmunicipal programs and services, the Stebbins' native population is
represented by a five-member IRA council. The IRA council runs the
Stebbins Native Store and is eligible to administer federally financed
services in their village, including local health care, employment
assistance, college assistance, social services and tribal operations. In
Stebbins, many of these services are provided by regional organizations
such as Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation.
STEBBINS 0-7
B.5 - Transportation
Stebbins is accessible by air and sea. There are no roads connecting the
city to any other area. A state-owned 2,300 foot runway supports light
propeller aircraft. The airstrip is turf and unattended. Wien Air Alaska,
through their subcontractor Ryan Air Service, has scheduled flights from
Unalakleet to Stebbins; Munz Northern Airlines flies from Nome to Stebbins.
Charter and freight service is available on Ryan Air Service from
Unalakleet and by Foster Aviation, Seward Peninsula Flying Service and
Bering Air from Nome. Charter and freight services also serve Stebbins
from Bethel.
Black Navigation brings fuel 011, gasoline and supplies to Stebbins by
barge from nearby Saint Michael. The BIA cargo ship North Star III visits
Stebbins once a year. Other supplies come by air from Unalakleet.
Residents have boats which are used for hunting and fishing and for travel
up the Yukon River. The ice-free season on Norton Sound is usually from
early June through mid- to late November.
Overland travel is by snowmachine in winter. There are a number of trails
to Saint Michael, and DOT/PF has considered building a road to link the two
villages.
STEBBINS 0-8
C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
Field personnel arrived in Stebbins in the afternoon of January 24, 1982.
On the 25th, the mayor of Stebbins arranged a special meeting of the village council for that evening. The meetina was held in the village offices and had an attendance of about nine persons including those council
members present.
Field team members described the reconnaissance project and asked the
meeting attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs and resources
of Stebbins.
Most of the discussion was centered around heating energy needs, although
there was some interest in the usefulness of wind energy for the village.
The mayor asked questions about the economics of coal versus oil for space
heat in the village.
The meeting lasted about one hour.
STEBBINS 0-9
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
Presently, all of Stebbins is provided electricity by AVEC. The AVEC.plant
has two 115 kW diesel generator sets. The BIA school has a backup
generator, which is used frequently because the village load is frequently
larger than can be carried by the AVEC unit.
Most of the commercial and public buildings in the village are heated with
gun-fired oil burners. Over half of the residences are heated with wood,
which must be gathered from 10 to 12 miles away. There are a few
individuals in Stebbins who will cut wood for sale in the village. They
charge from $35 to $50 for a dogsled load. It was estimated that it will
take between four and five dogsleds to make up a cord of wood. This
results in a cost of between $140 and $250 for a cord of wood, depending on
how the wood is stacked in the sled when it is delivered.
E - ENERGY BALANCE
STEB BINS 0-10
In Stebbins, as in most other villages studied, most of the energy consumed
was put to use heating homes and the schools.
show the following uses:
TABLE 2
ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR STEBBINS - 1981
Data gathered by field staff
Total
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu)
Fuel Oi] $1.63/gal Space Heating 64,000 gal 8.9 (From village Water Heating
store and Cooking
St. Michael)
Fuel Oi] $1.63/gal Heating 36,000 gal 5.0 (BIA School) (est.)
Fuel 071 $1.65/gal Power Generation 35,000 gal 4.8 (AVEC)
Motor Gasoline $1.79/gal Transportation 23,000 gal 2.9
Propane $1.09/1b Cooking 5,000 1b 0.1
Blazo $4.40/gal Cooking 400 gal neg.
Wood $250/cord Home Heating 180 cords 3.1
ENERGY RESOURCE ee END USE
woop (18) RESIDENTIAL SPACE SYSTEM
HEATING LOSSES
(8.9) (5.8)
USEABLE
HEAT (3.1)
SYSTEM LOSSES SCHOOL SPACE (1.8) AND WATER
HEATING USEABLE HEAT (5.0) (3.2)
FUEL OIL
(18.7)
(5.0)
AVEC POWER SYSTEM
GENERATION LOSSES
(4.8) (4.0)
ELECTRICITY (08) »
SYSTEM LOSSES (06
OTHER SPACE HEAT (1.8) USEABLE HEAT (1.2)
GASOLINE (2.9) TRANSPORTATION (2.9) (2.9)
PRO (oO. _ (0.1) COOKING (0.1) >
NOTES:
ALL UNITS IN 10° BTU/YR.
FIGURE 2 BRUNING 44-132 42222 ACRES AWERICAN INCORPORATED]
STEBBINS ENERGY
BALANCE (1981) LL-O SNI@@3Ls
STEBBINS 0-12
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects
None
F.1.2 - Potential Developments
Additional housing, perhaps a second street
Airport expansion
Increased fuel storage
Road to St. Michael
Norton Sound OCS development anon eaanoaa SoS ES F.1.3 - Economic Forecast
Stebbins has a subsistence economy with some wage earners and
commercial fishermen. In summer, 1982, ARCO plans to drill a cost
well 70 miles from Stebbins in Norton Sound; if oil and gas are
eventually discovered, there could be extensive economic growth in
the area. Residents are very interested in working in the oil fields
and possibly basing an oi] camp on nearby Stuart Island.
F.2 - Population Forecast
The average annual growth rate in Stebbins from 1970 to 1980 was 3.6
percent. The REAA high school is scheduled to open in Fall 1982, and this
new facility should tend to keep at least some residents from leaving the
village and perhaps even attract a few new residents. 0i1 development is
difficult to predict, and for purposes of this study it will be assumed to
account for 0.5 percent of the annual growth rate. The Stebbins city
council indicates the city population cannot grow beyond 500 residents
because the village is surrounded by marshes. The table below was
calculated on a1.5 percent annual growth rate.
STEBBINS 0-13
1960 1970 1980 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Population 158 231 331 3571 361 388 417 449
#Residences N/A 43 692 70 75 80 86 92
#Commercial N/A N/A 4 4 4 5 5 5
#Gov't/Other N/A N/A 17 17 18 2n 20 20
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
Stebbins has been served by AVEC since the 1960's and as such has had a
chance to grow into what may be considered a "saturated" condition with
regard to residential electricity consumption. Data provided by AVEC
indicates that residential energy use in Stebbins is very frugal: an
average of about 1,100 kWh/year for what may be termed the "typical"
Stebbins home. It is anticipated that television will be introduced to
Stebbins in 1982. The inevitable use of television in the homes will have a
significant impact on the energy use of the "typical" village home. It is
expected that over the period 1982 to 1991, the per-residence use will
increase from its present level to about 2,000 kWh/year.
Consumption of other non-residential users will not be expected to change
with time as did that of the residential users. The annual usage of the
schools, the stores, and other public buildings will not likely vary with
time. The expected electrical energy uses of non-residential customers is
shown in the table below:
Loads kWh per year kW Demand
School 148,000 50
Other Commercial 5,000 each (12) 2 each (12)
and Governmental
In those cases 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 heat, driving up electric demand.
There were not found to be any energy alternatives available to Stebbins
which could provide such inexpensive electricity.
The village energy consumption and power demand are shown on Table 3 and
Figure 3.
1 State estimate.
2 Local count.
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST
Residential Schools Other Total .
Year kW Miah kW Muh kW Mh kW Muh
1982 35 77 50 148 24 67 _ 109 292
1983 43 94 50 148 24 67 117 309
1984 51 110 50 148 24 67 125 325
1985 52 118 50 148 24 67 126 333
1986 56 128 50 148 34 73 140 349
1987 62 139 50 148 34 73 146 360
1988 67 144 50 148 34 73 151 365
1989 67 150 50 148 34 73 151 371
1990 72 156 50 148 34 73 156 377
1991 72 160 50 148 39 76 161 384
1992 74 164 50 148 39 76 163 388
1993 74 166 50 148 39 76 163 390
1994 76 170 50 148 39 76 165 394
1995 76 170 50 148 39 76 165 394
1996 77 172 50 148 40 78 167 398
1997 77 176 50 148 40 78 167 402
1998 79 178 50 148 40 78 169 404
1999 81 180 50 148 40 78 171 406
2000 82 182 50 148 40 78 173 408
2001 83 184 50 148 40 78 174 410
TT vI-O0 SNIGG3LS
-15 STEBBINS 0 (YMW) NOILGWNSNOD ADYSN3 VILLAGE POWER DEMAND( KW) 1990 1985 STEBBINS - FIGURE 3
STEBBINS 0-16
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast
In the village of Stebbins, the largest single user of heating energy is
the school system. It is estimated that the BIA school alone consumes
36,000 gallons of fuel oi] annually. When the REAA school opens in 1982,
it will be expected to consume a similar quantitiy.
With regard to residential energy use, the greatest proportion goes toward
space heating, with incidental amounts being used for cooking and water
heating. It is estimated that if the "typical" Stebbins home had to rely
on fuel oil for its heating requirements, it would require about 900
gallons of fuel oil per year. It is hoped that new homes will be built to
be more efficient in their use of heating energy than those presently
existing. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that any home built
after 1985 would be 30 percent more efficient in its use of heating energy
than those presently existing. This is certainly an attainable reduction in
energy use. Better design and more rigorous construction inspection could
help meet such a goal.
The remainder of the space heating requirements are taken up by the various
commercial and governmental consumers. A summary of heat use projections
is given in 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.
STEBBINS 0-17
TABLE 4
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year (10%8tu) _(1o%tu) (1o%Btu) _(10°Btu) _—_—(10°Btu).
1982 1.0 3.1 6.4. 1.6 8.9
1983 1.0 3.2 6.4 1.6 9.0
1984 1.1 3.3 6.4 1.6 9.2
1985 1.1 3.3 6.4 1.6 9.2
1986 1.2 3.4 6.4 2.2 10.0
1987 1.2 3.5 6.4 2.2 10.1
1988 1.2 3.5 6.4 2.2 10.1 1989 1.3 3.5 6.4 2.2 10.2 1990 1.3 3.6 6.4 2.2 10.3 1991 1.3 3.6 6.4 2.6 10.7
1992 1.3 3.6 6.4 2.6 10.7
1993 1.3 3.7 6.4 2.6 10.8
1994 1.3 3.7 6.4 2.6 10.8 1995 1.3 3.8 6.4 2.6 10.9
1996 1.4 3.8 6.4 2.7 11.1
1997 1.4 3.8 6.4 2.7 11.1
1998 1.4 3.9 6.4 2.7 11.2
1999 1.4 3.9 6.4 2.7 11.2
2000 1.4 3.9 6.4 2.7 11.2
2001 1.4 3.9 6.4 2.7 11.2
STEBBINS 0-18
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. Coal. In response to the interest expressed by the mayor of Stebbins
in the potential for using coal to heat some of the community buildings
in the village, the following analysis has been carried out:
Assuming that Healy coal is used, the present cost of the coal
purchased in large quantities is about $20/ton. Rail rates for
shipping large quantities of coal from Healy to Nenana are about
$5/ton. Bagging the coal may add about $60/ton, for a total cost of
$85/ton ready to go at the docks in Nenana. Presently, there are no
barge lines which serve both Nenana and Stebbins. Yutana works the
section of river between Nenana and Marshall, Black Navigation serves
the villages from Marshall to Stebbins. Shipping charges for coal are
as follows:
Nenana to Marshall: $8.10/100 1b
Marshall to Stebbins: $5.90/100 1b plus loading and handling
fees of $1.20/100 1b
Total shipping charges of $15.20/100 1b or $304/ton
This figure, added to the $85 for the coal itself, brings the cost of a
ton of coal delivered to Stebbins to $389/ton. Healy coal does not
have an especially high heat content, about 8,500 Btu/1b or 17 million
Btu/ton (about the same as a cord of wood). This makes it worth about
$23/million Btu, compared with oil at a present value of about
$12/million Btu.
It is obvious that the main cost of coal in Stebbins is not the coal
itself; rather it is the shipping involved in moving it from Healy. If
a number of villages could pool their resources so that a barge or a
number of barges could be dedicated to hauling nothing but coal for
those villages for a few trips, it would undoubtedly slash the cost of
coal as it is delivered to the villages. Village council members in
Stebbins noted that they were interested in ordering coal to be shipped
up from Seattle on the BIA ship the North Star III. The cost of this
coal was not assessed. However, it will likely turn out that the
delivered $/million Btu cost of coal brought to Stebbins aboard the
North Star III will be much cheaper than that barged in from Healy.
First, the per ton shipping charges are likely to be lower than those
charged by the private barge companies in Alaska and second, the coal
will likely be of a higher grade and have a higher Btu/1b value than
Healy coal
STEBBINS 0-19
It is not likely that Stebbins has sufficient numbers of skilled
workers available to run a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, since
Healy coal is of such a low grade and so volatile, it is subject to
spontaneous combustion problems. This requires that bulldozers work
continuously to keep large storage piles turned over enough to
eliminate such a problem. For tnese reasons, the coal-fired
alternative was not studied further.
2. Wood. Stebbins is near an area of slowly growing timber. Wood is used
to a great extent for home heating in the village. However, it is not
likely that the timber resource could sustain a wood-fired power plant
in the village without competing heavily with the residential users.
The wood resource was not considered further.
3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Stebbins
area. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted.
4. Hydroelectric. There are no river drainages in the Stebbins area
suitable for hydroelectric development. No further consideration of
this alternative is warranted.
5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider
for Alaska utility use.
6. Wind. It is likely that there is a significant wind resource available
at Stebbins, since the village is exposed to winds developed across the
long stretches of water of the Bering Sea and Norton Sound. Wind data
are available for Nome and Unalakleet; but, in order to adequately
assess the wind energy potential at Stebbins, detailed measurements
must be made there. In lieu of site-specific wind data for Stebbins,
wind data taken at Unalakleet was analyzed. It was estimated that a
site in the Stebbins area has sufficient wind available to permit the
operation of a wind turbine at a plant factor of 25 percent.
7. Fuel Oi1. This resource is available by barge and is the fuel used in
Stebbins. 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.
NOTE:
T;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR
STEBBINS
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fired Steam
Wood Fired Steam
Geothermal
Diesel (base)
Gas Turbine
Hydroelectric
Wind
Photovoltaic
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
Higher numbers are more favorable.
TECHNICAL COST
FACTORS
STEBBINS 0-20
RESOURCE
FACTORS
Od more Fw HF CO CO oOo OO WOO oO or OOF FF CO OC wwoeoerraoeo nyo HD ON NWO CO monMm OF KY OOO Oo
STEBBINS 0-21
H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
H.1 - Base Case
In this case, the village is provided with electrical energy by AVEC. It is noted that AVEC presently has two 115 kW diesel sets installed in Stebbins. Load forecasts show that by 1984 these units will not be adequate to serve the Stebbins load. It is assumed that these units will be replaced with 200 kW machines which will be adequate throughout the study period.
Assumptions used in calculating energy cost information are as follows:
- AVEC presently has two 115 kW diesel sets. In 1984, these will be replaced with two 200 kW units. Purchase price of these units is estimated to be $300/kW. It is estimated that installation costs associated with these generators are $500/kW, for a total installed cost of $800/kW.
- As long as AVEC operates the plant (and this is assumed to be the case throughout the study period), each diesel set will require an overhaul costing one-third of the unit's purchase price every seven years ($100/kW every seven years).
- AVEC plant operators will carry out routine maintenance on the units.
This service is valued at $44,000 per year.
- Fuel consumption rate is assumed to be 8 kWh/gal
- Annual costs of the diesel sets is calculated as follows:
(1) The initial cost of the diesel sets is amortized over 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/kW every seven years.
(3) General operations and maintenance 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 $1.65/gal with its real (1981) price rising 2.60 percent annually to $2.69 per gallon by the year 2001, and remaining constant thereafter.
STEBBINS 0-22
Data regarding the costs asociated with the operation of this generation
equipment are given in Section I.
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"
In addition to the diesel sets described in the base case analysis, it will be assumed that a large wind turbine will be installed near the village to
supplement the diesel generators' energy production, thus allowing the diesels to consume less fuel.
Assumptions used when carrying out the cost calculations of this alternative are:
- The wind turbine will operate with a plant factor of 25 percent and an availability factor of 90 percent. The wind turbine will thus provide
100 kW x 0.25 x 0.90 x 8,760 hr/yr = 197,100 kWh/yr
- All costs associated with diesel plant operations are as noted in the
base case description.
- Tne wind turbine is valued at a purchase cost of $2,600/kW, plus
$2,600/kW for installation, bringing the installed total cost to $5,200/kW.
- Operation and maintenance of the wind turbine will require attention of
skilled personnel brought in from Anchorage. It is estimated that this
service will require four visits per year, each visit costing about
$3,000. Total O&M charges, therefore, are $12,000 per year.
- The capital cost of the wind turbine is amortized for a period of 15
years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3
percent annually. This results in an annual charge of $44,000.
STEBBINS 0-23
- The total charges associated with the operation of the wind turbine are $56,000/year.
- The on-line date of the wind turbine will be delayed until such time as the savings in fuel use by the AVEC generators are sufficient to pay for
the wind turbine. This will occur when the price reaches the level as calculated below:
197,100 kWh/yr
8.0 kWh/gal
$56,000/yr _ $9 97/ga1 24,640 gal/yr
= 24,640 gal/yr of displaced fuel
This is the price (in 1981 dollars) which fuel is expected to reach in the year 1995. Costs associated with the implementation of this alternative are shown in Section I.
H.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "B" uses the diesel sets as described in the base case except that equipment is installed to recover otherwise wasted water jacket heat. This heat is then distributed through pipes in utilidors to the REAA school and the BIA school.
With the energy forecasts as shown in Section F, the waste heat system will be able to provide the heat equivalent of about 17,000 gallons of fuel in
1982. By the end of the study period, as generator output increases, this
available waste heat will increase to the equivalent of about 24,000 gallons of fuel oi].
While it is not likely that such a system could entirely take over the heating loads of all of the buildings it served, it would reduce the total
consumption by the amounts noted above.
Assumptions made when calculating the future costs of the diesel/waste heat
system were as follows:
- The diesel system used in this study is the same as that described in the
base case analysis, except that the generator facilities are moved to a
site adjacent to the REAA school.
STEBBINS 0-24
- Beginning in 1982, a water jacket waste heat recovery system is installed
on the generators. This system is presumed to cost one-half of the
installed value of the generating equipment, or $400/kW. This value
yields an investment valued at $92,000 in 1982 and 1983, and $160,000
beginning in 1984.
- The cost of the waste heat system is amortized over a period of ten
years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3
percent annually.
- All other costs associated with capital costs, overhaul, O&M, and fuel
use of the diesel sets are the same as those given in the base case
description.
A tabulation of the costs associated with the this system's operation is
shown in Section I.
STEBBINS 0-25
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF STEBBINS BASE CASE
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 290 36 1.65 59 o Existing AVEC units (two- 184 12 5 44 59
115 kW diesel sets)
1983 310 39 1.70 66 12 3 44 59
1984 325 41 1.74 71 o Install two new 200 kW 320 22 5 44 69
units to replace exist-
1985 335 42 1.78 75 ing units 22 5 44 69
1986 350 44 1.83 80 22 5 44 69
1987 360 45 1.88 85 22 5 44 69
1988 365 46 1.93 89 22 5 44 69
1989 370 46 1.98 91 22 5 44 69
1990 375 47 2.03 95 22 5 44 69
1991 385 48 2.08 100 22 5 44 69
1992 390 49 2.14 105 22 5 44 69
1993 390 49 2.19 107 22 5 44 69
1994 395 49 2.25 110 22 2 44 69
1995 395 49 2.31 113 22 5 44 69
1996 400 50 2.34 117 22 5 44 69
1997 400 50 2.43 122 22 5 44 69
1998 405 51 2.49 127 22 5 44 69
1999 405 51 2.56 131 22 5 44 69 44
wo 2000 410 51 2.62 134 22 5 44 69 Lo
= 2001 410 51 2.69 137 22 5 44 69 n
Oo 2002-2009 410 51 2.69 137 22 5 44 69 -
a
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 59 59 118 114.6 0.41
1983 66 59 125 117.8 0.40
1984 1 69 142 129.9 0.44
1985 715 69 146 129.7 0.44
1986 80 69 151 130.3 0.43
1987 85 69 156 130.7 0.43
1988 89 69 160 130.1 0.44
1989 91 69 162 127.9 0.44
1990 95 69 166 127.2 0.44
1991 100 69 71 127.2 0.44
1992 105 69 176 127.1 0.45
1993 107 69 178 124.8 0.46
1994 110 69 181 123.3 0.46
1995 113 69 184 121.6 0. 46
1996 V7 69 188 120.7 0.47
1997 122 69 193 120.3 0.48
1998 127 69 198 119.3 0.49
1999 131 69 202 118.7 0.50
2000 134 69 205 116.9 0. 50
2001 137 69 208 115.2 0.51
2002-2009 137 69 208 808.5 0.51
Total net present worth $3,282
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. 22-0 SNI@@31s
STEBBINS 0-28
I.1 - Base Case
I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Because the AVEC generators are already in place, there is no
possibility of local employment for plant construction work.
However, there is the need for one or two Stebbins residents to serve
as operating personnel. For repair and overhaul work requiring highly skilled personnel, AVEC usually brings personnel 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 (S02), and
unburned hydrocarbons. With the small installation at Stebbins, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants. The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Stebbins, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are significant sources
of noise, but with proper siting and with adequate muffler systems,
this problem can be minimized. In Stebbins, the AVEC plant is far enough away from residences that the noise problem should not be
important.
1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation
Diesel systems are typically the most well understood means of producing electricity available to bush villages today.
Nevertheless, diesel engines require frequent attention and regular
maintenance which requires highly skilled personnel. AVEC maintains a staff of trained diesel mechanics at Anchorage and is able to
respond fairly well to problems as they occur.
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS OF STEBBINS ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhau 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 290 36 1.65 59 o Existing AVEC units (two- 184 12 > 44 59
115 kW diesel sets)
1983 310 39 1.70 66 12 3 44 59
1984 325 41 1.74 71 o Install two new 200 kW 320 22 5 44 69
units to replace exist- .
1985 335 42 1.78 75 ing units 22 5 44 69
1986 350 44 1.83 80 22 5 44 69
1987 360 45 1,88 85 22 5 44 69
1988 365 46 1.93 89 22 5 44 69
1989 370 46 1,98 91 22 5 44 69
1990 375 47 2.03 95 22 5 44 69
1991 385 48 2.08 100 22 5 44 69
1992 390 49 2.14 105 22 5 44 69
1993 390 49 2.19 107 22 5. 44 69
1994 395 49 2.25 110 22 5 44 69
1995 395 24 2.31 55 o Installation of 100 kW 520 66 5 56 127
wind turbine 1996 400 25 2.34 59 66 5 56 127
1997 400 25 2.43 61 66 5 56 127
1998 405 25 2.49 63 66 5 56 127
1999 405 26 2.56 67 66 5 56 127 7A
4 2000 410 26 2.62 68 66 5 56 127 pa
o 2001 410 26 2.69 70 66 5 56 127 =
2002-2009 410 26 2.69 70 66 5 56 127 pa
nm o
TABLE 7 (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 59 59 118 114.6 0.41
1983 66 59 125 117.8 0.40
1984 nN 69 142 129.9 0.44
1985 75 69 146 129.7 0.44
1986 80 69 151 130.3 0.43
1987 85 69 156 130.7 0.43
1988 89 69 160 130.1 0.44
1989 91 69 162 127.9 0.44
1990 95 69 166 127.2 0.44
1991 100 69 71 127.2 0.44
1992 105 69 176 127.1 0.45
1993 107 69 178 124.8 0.46
1994 110 69 181 123.3 0.46
1995 55 127 182 120.3 0.46
1996 59 127 186 119.4 0.46
1997 61 127 188 117.2 0.47
1998 63 127 192 116.2 0.47
1999 67 127 194 114.0 0.48
2000 68 127 195 111.2 0.48
2001 70 127 197 109.1 0. 48
2002-2009 70 127 197 765.7 0.48
Total net present worth $3,214
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. O€-0 SNIG83LS
STEBBINS 0-31
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the
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, riggers, and
electricians, as well as for general laborers.
Wind turbine equipment is considered to be 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 were 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 may be annoying.
1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation
Given the present state of wind turbine development and a lack of
detailed information regarding winds in Stebbins, it does not seem
warranted to pursue a program of immediately installing a large wind
turbine. If wind data can be collected which may support this
study's estimate of a 25 percent plant factor, it would be wise to
proceed with further study. The first step along this path is the
installation of a sophisticated anemometry system to monitor winds at
Stebbins with enough frequency and sufficient accuracy to establish
the frequency distribution of the various wind speed occurrences.
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED COSTS OF STEBBINS ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS I
Energy Diesel Fue 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 290 36 1.65 59 o Existing AVEC diesels 276 23 3 44 70
two 115 kW plus waste heat
1983 310 39 1.70 66 23 3 44 70
1984 325 41 1.74 71 o New AVEC deisels (two 200 480 41 5 44 90
kW units with waste heat
1985 335 42 1.78 75 system with power plant 4) 5 44 90
moved near school )
1986 350 44 1.83 80 41 5 44 90
1987 360 45 1.88 85 41 5 44 90
1988 365 46 1.93 89 41 5 44 90
1989 370 46 1.98 91 41 5 44 90
1990 375 47 2.03 95 41 5 44 90
1991 385 48 2.08 100 41 5 44 90
1992 390 49 2.14 105 41 5 44 90
1993 390 49 2.19 107 41 5 44 90
1994 395 49 2.25 110 o Replacement of 1984 160 41 5 44 90
waste heat system
1995 395 49 2.31 113 41 5 44 90
1996 400 50 2.34 7 41 5 44 90
1997 400 50 2.43 122 41 5 44 90
1998 405 51 2.49 127 41 5 44 90
1999 405 51 2.56 131 41 | 44 90
2000 410 51 2.62 134 41 5 44 90
2001 410 51 2.69 137 41 5 44 90
2002-2009 410 51 2.69 137 41 5 44 90 2€-0 SNIGGILS
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 59 70 129 125.2 0.35
1983 66 70 136 128.2 0.34
1984 71 90 161 147.3 0.39
1985 75 90 165 146.6 0.39
1986 80 90 170 146.6 0.38
1987 85 90 175 146.6 0. 38
1988 89 90 179 145.5 0.38
1989 91 90 181 142.9 0. 38
1990 95 90 185 141.8 0. 37
1991 100 90 190 141.4 0.37
1992 105 90 195 140.9 0. 38
1993 107 90 197 138.2 0.38
1994 110 90 200 136.2 0.38
1995 113 90 203 134.2 0.38
1996 7 90 207 132.9 i 0.38
1997 122 90 212 132.9 0.39
1998 127 90 217 131.3 0.40
1999 131 90 221 129.8 0.40
2000 134 90 224 127.7 0.40
2001 137 90 227 125.7 0. 40
2002-2009 =137 90 227 882.3 0.40
TOTAL $3,624
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits 917
Net present worth $2,707
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. €€-0 SNIA@SLS
STEBBINS 0-34
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B"
Total Annual Benefits Discounted
Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits
1982 28 27.2
1983 31 29.2
1984 33 30.2
1985 34 30.2
1986 37 31.9
1987 39 32.7
1988 40 32.5
1989 42 33.2
1990 45 34.5
1991 46 34.2
1992 47 34.0
1993 48 33.7
1994 52 35.4
1995 53 35.0
1996 54 34.7
1997 56 34.9
1998 57 34.5
1999 59 . 34.7
2000 63 35.9
2001 65 . 36.0
2002 65 252.7
through 2009
TOTAL: $ 917
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
STEBBINS 0-35
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the possibility that some local construction employment would be
generated. There would be a need for skilled workers such as
welders, carpenters, plumbers, as well as general laborers.
The installation and operation of a waste heat system will have no noticeable environmental impact. The reduction of fuel oil burned by
those buildings served by the waste heat system may result in a
lessening in airborne pollutants.
1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation
The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could
be put in place in one construction season and to show immediate
savings to the village utility season. Design of waste heat systems is well understood, and there is little to go wrong in their
operation.
STEBBINS 0-36
Jd_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
STEBBINS 0-37
J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza
STEBBINS 0-38
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 smal] 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 protram
that village homeowners would be eligible for.
Sincerely,
Phil Kaluza
Box 843
Nome, AK 99762
1. Comment:
Response:
STEBBINS 0-39
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 :
STEBBINS 0-40
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:
STEBBINS 0-41
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:
STEBBINS 0-42
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.
STEBBINS 0-43
J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration
{Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
STEBBINS 0-44
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.
STEBBINS 0-45
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
STEBBINS 0-46
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment: "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
Response: 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.
f 2. Comment: "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each
generation technology would enhance the Acres report."
Response: 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.
STEBBINS 0-47
ACRES' RESPONSE
3. Comment: "Neither report addresses actual present and projected
electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162."
Response: 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.
STEBBINS 0-48
J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks Office of History and Archeology
MEO TO THE RECORD STEBBINS 0-49 ALASKA | suevect ACRES' and NORTEC's ENERGY RECONS sy PKD—__pate_4/6/82
POWER —TELECON-WITH DIANA RIGG DNR DIVISION OF § SHEETNO.__] OF_] _ AUTHORITY | _paRKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY prosect ENERGY RECONS
| _ Diana Rigg called with a personal communication which she will follow with a r
| letter.
Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites of historical or archeological interest which may be affected by potentia]_____———S projects. They are:
Chignik Lake
Atka
At kasook — | Ivanof Bay
_________Nightmute
Stebbins
Newtok.
New Chenega
“She recommends that if feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study.
STEBBINS 0-50
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment: "If feasibilitv studies are done for these communities, the
contractor should contact their office early in the study."
Response: This request will be noted in the text of the final report.
STEBBINS 0-51
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game
STEBBINS 0-52 - STATE OF ALASKA / “=~ DEPART MENT OF FISH AND GAME
OFFICE OF THE COFAMISSIONER P.O. BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100
April 8, 1982 RECEIvep
APR 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 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, “ Oh Gotnmuirc ia fe Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
STEBBINS 0-53
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
STEBRINS 0-64
J.5 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage
STEBBINS 0-55
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: Western Alaska Ecological Services
733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 REC (907) 271-4575 EIVED
APR ~ 9 1989
Mr. Eric P. Yould AT)
Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy
Alaska Power Authority g APR 334 West 5th Avenue 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.
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. Aquatic data collection should at least include the
following:
STEBBINS 0-56
Page 2
(a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident 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 Techniques
or similar guidelines.
(c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable.
It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the
project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or
bird 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
within the project area.
1. Mammals.
a. Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence
use data.
b. 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.
(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 provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory.
We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the
studies:
1. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with
federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and
wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports.
2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any
endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered
of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be
notified.
STEBBINS 0-57
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:
STEBBINS 0-58
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.
STEBBINS 059
J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
STEBBINS 0~60ru+ REFER TO United States Department of the Interior
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,
STEBBINS 0-61
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99504