Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Shishmaref Appendix N Recon Studies 5-1982
VIL-A 002 Shish | RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX N: SHISHMAREF MAY 1982 Aint | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY —__| | | i { | | | Prepared by: i SHISHMAREF FALRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT N. SHISHMAREF Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............00eeeee N-1 Ash =| General) |... .|s cline wos sis boos bee ne dew dadls oe state ude cial alee N-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ............ cece cece eens N-1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ........... ee eee ee ee ee eee N-5 Bal. LOCC OM Jol ele cuie sob be dies bs del crttcicl alo dll cteley od dial ale ole alelulele N-5 B.2 - Population ... eee eee c ccc cece cee cece nent eee eeeees N-5 BiiS |= ECONOMY, |oleias las he bat boty ake 4 do cea ste clalalatsle wo 4 6 cl sa wots! al clalels N-5 B.4 - Government ........ ccc e cece cece cece ee cette eee eeeeenees N-6 B.5 - Transportation ..... cece cece cee cee ee teen eee e neces N-6 COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ......... cece cece cee ee cee tee eeees N-7 EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES .............e cee eeeeee N-9 ENERGY BALANCE ...........eceeeeeeeee Sy ee eee N-10 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ........ cece cece eect eee eeeeeeee N-12 F.l - Capital Projects Forecast 1... .... eee cece cece cee e eens N-12 F.2 - Population Forecast ........ cc ccc cece cece cece teen eee N-12 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ......... cc cece cece ee eee N-13 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ........ cece ee cece eee ee eee N-13 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ........ cece cece eee eee eee N-18 ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ............ceeeeeee N-20 HL) +) Base: Case cee et cae ee aie tale al dieses sedan cdadlales N-20 H.2 - Alternative Plan "AN Jo. ccc ccc ccc cee cee eect een eee N-21 H.3 - Alternative Plan "BY wo... cece cece eee ee tee eens N-22 H.4 - Alternative Plan "C" .o ieee ccc cece ee ee eee ee ee teens N-24 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ........ cece cece cece eee etn e eee neeeee N-25 I.1 - Base Case .. ee eee cece ccc ee eee eet e eee e eens N-28 1.2 - Alternative Plan "AM wool. eee ccc ccc cee eee eee eee N-32 1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY Lo... ccc cece cece ee ee ee cece eee N-35 1.4 - Alternative Plan "C" cool ele cece cece cece eee ene N-40 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION 1... .. eee eee cece cette eee eeeee N-41 Jd.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza ........eeceeeee N-42 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power LO 2) | en N-48 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game ........ cece eee eee ee eee N-53 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage ....... cece cece eee c cece teen eens N-56 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land MAN 4GeEMENt 2... cee eee eee cece cece eee eee eee eee eee eeees N-61 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case and Alternatives ........... cece eee eee N-3 2 Energy Use Profile For Shisnmaref - 1981 ................ N-10 3 Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ..............ee eee N-14 4 Net Thermal Requirements ........cc cece cece eee cence eenees N-17 5 Village Technology Assessment ...........ece cece cece eens N-19 6 Estimated Costs of Shishmaref Base Case .............008. N-26-27 7 Estimated Costs of Shishmaref Alternative Plan "A" ...... N-29-30 8 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative Pa Ale elec cobe la obtuo-bdoHn dtd acsl ase diy geld: le-dtplo:ula-eruswlttenude-plertiandal N-31 9 Estimated Costs of Shishmaref Alternative Plan "B" ...... N-33-34 10 Estimated Costs of Shishmaref Alternative Plan "C" ...... N-36-37 il Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative PANS Gare ee ee oe oie oslo ss 6 cel tle nie ice /e vis sledee tele vleeltie et slt lena N-38 12 Estimated Non-Electrical Disbenefits of Alternative Fe eae dled leat leidatidesluel lsd dasbscbeldldelllslelecltdabtd Iubdlee\Feeldsltaly N-39 Title LIST OF FIGURES Energy Cost Summary ........ ccc ec cece cece cece cece eeeee Energy Balance Electriclénergy Use Forecast rede itt N-4 N-11 N-15 SHISHMAREF N-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Shishmaref, the recommendations which are most appropriate to the existing village conditions and the wishes of the village residents are: 1. Continued improvement in new homes to be built to minimize their space heating energy requirements. The homes scheduled to be constructed in Shishmaref in the summer of 1982 have been designed with double 2 x 4 stud frame walls to allow for greater insulation thickness. This is an encouraging effort, one which needs to be carried on in many other villages. The undertaking of an aggressive energy audit program to upgrade the existing homes in the village. Not only are energy saving recommendations needed, but instruction and assistance in the proper installation of energy conserving materials are needed as a follow-up. With respect to the electrical energy needs of the village, it would appear that all the alternatives studied will lower electricity costs: a waste heat system on the diesel plant provided the most dramatic reduction in electrical energy costs; the wind turbine studied provided significant improvements; the installation of both the wind turbine and the waste heat system provided only marginal improvement over the existing conditions. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case For the village of Shishmaref, the base case is the continuation of AVEC service to the village, with no changes in its operation except as required to serve additional load caused by village growth. It is not expected that AVEC will have to increase the capacity of its plant. This plan has a net present worth of $5,196,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. SHISHMAREF N-2 A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" In this plan, the AVEC generators continue to provide the village with electricity, but they are also fitted with a water jacket waste heat recovery system to provide hot water which can be used in buildings near the AVEC plant. Preliminary calculations indicate that waste heat captured in this way could heat the PHS water tank, the village office building, the community center, and the clinic. There would frequently be more waste heat available than would be needed by these structures. This heat could be used by the school. This plan has a net present worth of $4,247,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B" In this plan, the AVEC generators will serve as the primary source of village energy, but there will also be a 100 kW wind turbine installed near the village. When there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, AVEC diesels could run at a lighter load and thus 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 $5,042,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. A.2.4 - Alternative Plan "C" In this plan, the situation in which the utility system has the AVEC diesels, a waste heat recovery system, and a 100 kW wind turbine is explored. This plan has a net present worth of $4,358,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. Comparative costs of electrical energy produced by each of three alternatives available to Shishmaref are shown on Table 1. Projected costs of energy resources available in Shishmaref are shown on Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Alternative "C" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year (Milh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1982 552 0.45 0.39 0.45 0.39 1983 646 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.38 1984 653 0.43 0.38 0.43 0.38 1985 661 0.42 0.38 0.42 0.38 1986 687 0.44 0.37 0.44 0.40 1987 695 0.45 0.38 0.44 0.40 1988 703 0.46 0.38 0.45 0.40 1989 711 0.46 0.38 0.45 0.40 1990 720 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.40 1991 734 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.40 1992 742 0.48 0.38 0.46 0.40 1993 751 0.49 0.39 0.47 0.41 1994 760 0.50 0.39 0.48 0.40 1995 768 0.51 0.40 0.48 0.41 1996 808 0.51 0.41 0.49 0.41 1997 817 0.52 0.41 0.49 0.42 1998 828 0.53 0.41 0.50 0.42 1999 838 0.54 0.42 0.51 0.42 2000 849 0.55 0.42 0.52 0.42 2001 859 0.56 0.42 0.52 0.43 NOTES: 1. "Base Case Plan" is based on continuing use of AVEC plant 2. Alternative "A" is the addition of a waste heat system. The energy costs shown reflect the savings which are realized by the reduction in fuel oil required for heating. 3. Alternative "B" is the diesel system with a 100 kW wind turbine, but with no waste heat system. 4. Alternative "C" combines diesel, waste heat, and wind turbine systems. €-N 43YWWHSIHS S — a 0 ° = ws _ nn ° a) > oOo e uw z ud 100 oO SHISHIAREF N-4 BASE CASE 3 ({/KWh) OIL AS USED AT 9 = O35 0,25 “ENERGY COST oO tv oO ols OIL AS USED AT 1: 0.65 0.10 OlL AS DELIVERED 1985 1990 SHISHMAREF - FIGURE 1995 2000 SHISHMAREF N-5 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Shishmaref is located on Sarichef Island between the Chukchi Sea, an extension of the Arctic Ocean, and Shishmaref Inlet. It is five miles from the mainland, 126 miles north of Nome and 100 miles southwest of Kotzebue. The Arctic and Serpentine Rivers both flow into Shishmaref Inlet. B.2 - Population Date: 1960 1970 1980 Population: 216 267 394 The earliest census figure recorded for Shishmaref is 194 residents in 1950. By 1970, the census reported 267 persons. Of these, 249 were Tapkakmuit Eskimo, 133 were male and 134 female. 1980 census figures recorded 394 persons. B.3 - Economy The Shishmaref economy is based on subsistence food harvest supplemented by part-time wage earnings. The Bering Straits REAA school district employs 12 full-time teachers, 12 aides and employees (cooks and maintenance people). The Shishmaref Native Store and Nayokpuk General Store have four employees each. Herb's Eskimo Shop is family-owned and operated. Additional employees are hired by the stores as needed to help with inventorying and unloading. The city employs a city clerk, a secretary, a water plant operator, a power plant operator, a part-time janitor, a road maintenance person and an alternate health aide. The Shishmaref IRA employs a youth supervisor, a village police chief and a police officer (funded through Kawerak). The Norton Sound Health Corporation employs two full-time health aides in Shishmaref. There is one postal employee. Residents of Shishmaref rely on the sea mammal harvest, with other subsistence foods supplementing their diet. Two reindeer herds managed from Shishmaref employ two herders and two assistant herders. Other part-time workers are hired as needed for corralling and butchering. Residents of Shishmaref are shareholders in the Shishmaref Native Corporation, which was incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The Shishmaref Native Corporation employs a manager and a secretary. SHISHMAREF N-6 Offshore oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea is proposed, but not likely before 1985 at the earliest. B.4 - Government Shishmaref was incorporated in 1969 as a second class city. The city government functions under the authority of a mayor elected from the seven- member city council. Regular elections are held annually in November. Shishmaref is a participant in the State of Alaska's Revenue Sharing Program and received $20,942 in shared revenue for fiscal year 1980. As a second class city, Shishmaref is able to assume diverse powers, including levying taxes. Voters in Shishmaref approved a 1 percent sales tax, which is the only city tax levied in the village. For nonmunicipal programs and services, Shishmaref's native population is represented by a seven-member IRA council. The council administers a variety of state and federal programs including local health care, employment assistance, college assistance, social services and tribal operations. In Shishmaref, many of these services are provided by Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation. 8.5 - Transportation Shishmaref's primary link to the remainder of Alaska is by air. The asphalt runway runs northeast/southwest and is 1,900 feet long. The runway runs the width of the island; and erosion of the runway end has been a problem during storms. When severe crosswinds occur, pilots land on the beach on the ocean side of the island and, in winter, large cargo aircraft are able to land on the frozen beach sand on the southern end of the island. DOT/PF is currently planning to build a new runway on the southern coast of the island. Wien Air Alaska, through a subcontractor, and Munz Northern Airlines fly scheduled flights from Nome to Shishmaref. Charter and freight service to Shishmaref are provided by Foster Aviation, Bering Air, Seward Peninsula Flying Service and Ryan Air, all from Nome. Maritime travel is influenced by ice conditions. Break-up of the Chukchi Sea averages around June 22 and freeze-up around November 10. The BIA cargo ship North Star III stops annually in Shishmaref to bring fuel and supplies, and Arctic Lighterage operates barges from Kotzebue to Shishmaref twice a year, bringing fuel and supplies. Most residents own boats for hunting, fishing and trips to the mainland. There are 1.84 miles of maintained road in the city. Winter travel is mainly by snowmachine and dogsled. There are winter trails to the mainland and along the coastline. SHISHMAREF N-7 C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT Field personnel arrived in Shishmaref in the afternoon of January 9, 1982. The city clerk made arrangements for a village council meeting on the 11th of January. The meeting was held in the village offices. It was attended by five village council members. Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and explained the role that the village council could play in ensuring that study recommendations were later implemented. A discussion of local matters relating to energy took place in which village council members related their ideas on those areas they felt to be of most importance. Those present expressed satisfaction with the electric service that the village had received from AVEC. While acknowledging that electric bills were high, they praised the reliability of the system. It was interesting that Shishmaref was one of only two villages where the most efficient gun-fired home furnaces had been installed in homes. These furnaces are inoperative without electricity to run their gun blowers and air circulation fans. A village electric system must be reliable to ensure the dependable operation of these units. The only other village where gun-fired furnaces were noticed in homes was Saint Michael, also an AVEC village. Village council members remarked that AVEC had been approached some years ago regarding the use of waste heat from the diesel sets to heat the water in the PHS water tank, which is presently kept from freezing by oil-fired heaters, consuming an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of fuel oil each year. The village of Shishmaref must purchase this oi]. Council members stated that, at the time of their earlier request, AVEC refused to participate in the plan. The water tank and its pumphouse/processing building is adjacent to the AVEC generator building and the comment was made that it was located that way to take advantage of waste heat. Council members expressed their concern over the high costs of fuel oil and the scarcity of wood. A number of village residents now use wood, but they must travel 30 to 35 miles one way to find beachwood (driftwood). Villagers tow dogsleds with their snowmobiles to haul wood. Those present estimated that it would take 1-1/2 dogsled loads of wood to heat an average home for a week. Thirty-two new homes are scheduled to be built in Shishmaref in the 1982 construction season. These will be equipped with wood stoves. With some of these families using wood, it is likely that Shishmaref residents will be forced to go even farther than they do now to gather wood. It was remarked that the shipping charges on a drum of oil delivered from Kotzebue were nearly as much as the cost of the oil itself. Council members wanted to find out if there were any State programs which were designed to offset some of these high shipping charges. SHISHMAREF N-8 No energy audits had been conducted on any of the Shishmaref homes. The village council acknowledged the importance of these audits and said that they planned to take the steps necessary to get energy auditors to visit Shishmaref from Nome. Council members were confident that Shishmaref will continue to grow. (With a population of about 400, it was one of the largest villages studied in this project.) There are a number of capital projects scheduled in the near future which will likely provide employment for local residents. In 1982 there will be a large housing project, an addition to the high school, shoreline erosion control work, a new runway, and a number of smaller projects. The village council meeting lasted about an hour. SHISHMAREF N-9 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Shishmaref is provided electricity by AVEC. They have the following diesel generators installed: o Two 300 kW generators o One 105 kW generator Most of the commercial buildings and a fair number of the newer residences are heated with gun-fired forced hot air furnaces. These units operate much more efficiently than the typical oil stove or pot-type burners typical of older ASHA and HUD homes. It was estimated that about 20 percent of the ASHA homes are wood heated and about 30 percent of the older "traditional" homes were wood heated. There are back-up generators installed at the high school. E - ENERGY BALANCE SHISHMAREF N-10 In Shishmaref, as in most of the other villages studied, most of the energy consumed was put to use heating homes and schools. staff show the following energy uses: TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR SHISHMAREF - 1981 Data gathered by field Total Heat Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu) Fuel Oi] $2.27/gal Space Heating 80,000 gal 11.0 (Residential) Water Heating Cooking Fuel Oil $1.46/gal Space Heating 40,000 gal 5.5 (School) Water Heating Fuel 07] $1.46/gal Power Generation 57,000 gal 7.9 (AVEC) Motor Gasoline $2.87/gal Transportation 24,000 gal 3.0 Propane $0.75/1b Cooking 30,000 1b 0.6 Water Heating Wood $250/cord Space Heating 160 cords 2.7 (est.) Water Heating Cooking No 44 132 42222 rut ENERGY RESOURCE —_——_ END USE wood (27) ] (2.7) RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM SPACE HEATING LOSSES PROPANE (0.59) (12.0) (7.8) USEABLE HEAT (4.2) SCHOOL SPACE HEATING (5.44) FUEL OIL (24.4) (544) DOMESTIC WATER XN HEATING SYSTEM LOSSES (1.9) USEABLE HEAT (3.54) SYSTEM LOSSES (082 (2.35) | HEAVING Gas] © USEABLE HEAT Usa)» (7.9) ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION (79) SYSTEM LOSSES (6.27) USEABLE HEAT (1.63) » GASOLINE (30) NOTES ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR (3.0) [ TRANSPORTATION (3.0) =: SHISHMAREF ENERGY BALANCE (1981) ACRES AMERICAN INCOMP™WATEO LL-N 43YVWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-12 F_- ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1l - Capital Projects Forecast F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects (a) 1982 - 32 HUD houses (b) 1982 - Addition to high school to provide an elementary school space 1982 - Erosion control project along Chukichi Sea coast 1982 - New runway 1982 - Learning center 1982 - Wind generator (2 to 10 kW, DEPD project) >hnoan yer SS F.1.2 - Potential Developments None F.1.3 - Economic Forecast Shishmaref has a subsistence economy with some wage earners. Although a considerable number of projects are planned using local labor in the near future, no long term economic growth is anticipated. F.2 - Population Forecast Shishmaref's annual growth rate from 1970 to 1980 was 3.9 percent, and from 1980 to 1982 the annual growth rate was 4.4 percent. The village council indicated that 600 residents is about the maximum population the island can physically sustain. Therefore, the village can be expected to continue to grow rapidly, 3.0 percent annually, until 1991 at which point the growth will level off to 1 percent annually. The table below is calculated on a 3.0 percent annual growth rate from 1982 to 1991, and a 1.0 percent annual growth rate from 1991 to 2001. 1960 1970 1980 1982! 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 217 267 393 429 482 558 586 615 #Residences NA 58 86 100 172 132 132 126 #Commercial NA NA 7 7 8 8 9 9 #Gov't/Other NA NA 11 ll 12 14 14 14 1 Local census. SHISHMAREF N-13 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast Having been served by AVEC for more than a decade, residential energy consumption in Shishmaref has had a chance to reach a "saturated" condition with most consumers no longer increasing their annual consumption rapidly. Electric bills of about $100 per month were regarded as typical. With such an expense to be dealt with regularly, it is likely that additional purchases of energy consuming items will be considered carefully. Network television was introduced to Shishmaref in early 1982. It is expected that this development will be the largest single factor in a slowly rising rate of consumption in the residential sector. With the increasing number of televisions and the impact that advertising may have on those homes, it can be expected that per-residence consumption may rise from its present level of about 2,600 kWh/yr to about 4,000 kWh/yr by the turn of the century. As new homes are built (32 new HUD homes are expected in 1982), these will contribute their share to the energy consumed by Shishmaref residential users. As the residential sector expands, the commercial and governmental sectors can be expected to grow as well. Generally, the consumption of these users will not increase proportionately with the residential users; there will be less growth in this area. The per-user consumption of the commercial and government sectors is not expected to increase with time as is that of the residential users. The annual consumption and demand of these users is shown in the table below: Load kWh Per Year kW Demand School 120,000 20 Commercial 6,000 each 2 each Government 6,000 each 2 each 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 electricity demand up. No energy alternatives were identified which could supply Shishmaref with such inexpensive electricity. The village electric energy use forecast for Shishmaref is shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast The largest single user of thermal energy in Shishmaref is the school. Its consumption is about 40,000 gallons of fuel oil per year. Of the total residential energy use, nearly all goes toward space heating. It is estimated that if the typical Shishmaref home had to Bes entirely on oil for its space heating needs, it would require nearly 800 gallons TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Residential Schools Other Total Year ~~ kW Vi kW ih kid With kid With 1982 100 269 27 120 47 163 174 552 1983 132 363 27 120 47 163 206 646 1984 145 370 27 120 47 163 219 653 1985 145 378 27 120 47 163 219 661 1986 145 384 27 120 53 183 225 687 1987 145 392 27 120 53 183 225 695 1988 158 400 27 120 53 183 238 703 1989 158 408 27 120 53 183 238 711 1990 158 417 27 120 53 183 238 720 1991 158 425 27 120 54 189 239 734 1992 158 433 27 120 54 189 239 742 1993 172 442 27 120 54 189 253 751 1994 172 451 27 120 54 189 253 760 1995 172 459 27 120 54 189 253 768 1996 190 483 27 120 59 205 276 808 1997 190 492 27 120 59 205 276 817 1998 190 503 27 120 59 205 276 828 1999 190 513 27 120 59 205 276 838 2000 204 524 27 120 59 205 290 849 2001 204 533 27 120 59 205 290 858 Notes: The rapid increase in residential energy consumption between 1982 and 1983 is due primarily to the scheduled construction of 32 new homes in the village. vI-N J3YVWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-15 = = = ~~ > z = 9S x e 3 : z < a = z ud 3° 7 o > ° a WwW Zz Wi 1995 2000 SHISHMAREF -FIGURE 3 SHISHMAREF N-16 of oi] each year. It is assumed that the new HUD homes being built beginning in 1982 will be 20 percent more energy efficient than the existing HUD homes. This will likely be the case, as blueprints shown to field personnel by Kawerak representatives showed that double 2 x 4 walls were to be used on these new homes. 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 on Table 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. SHISHMAREF N-17 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (10%8tu)_ (10%Btu). (1o%Btu) _(10°Btu) _—(10°Btu). 1982 1.9 4.6 3.6 1.4 11.5 1983 2.2 5.7 3.6 1.4 12.9 1984 2.2 5.7 3.6 1.4 12.9 1985 2.3 5.7 3.6 1.4 13.0 1986 2.3 5.7 3.6 125 13.1 1987 2.4 5.7 3.6 1.5 13.2 1988 2.4 5.7 3.6 1.5 13.2 1989 2.4 5.7 3.6 1.5 13.2 1990 2.4 5.7 3.6 1.5 13.2 1991 2.5 5.7 3.6 1.7 13.5 1992 2.5 5.7 3.6 1.7 13.5 1993 2.6 5.7 3.6 le 13.6 1994 2.6 5.7 3.6 1.7 13.6 1995 2.6 5.7 3.6 1.7 13.6 1996 2.8 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 1997 2.8 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 1998 2.8 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 1999 2.9 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 2000 2.9 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 2001 2.9 5.8 3.6 1.8 14.0 SHISHMAREF N-18 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 1. Coal. There presently exists no practical means of providing coal to Shishmaref. Additionally, the village lacks sufficient skilled personnel to staff a coal-fired power plant. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted. 2. Wood. There are no supplies of standing timber available to Shishmaref. No further consideration of the wood resource is warranted. 3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Shishmaref area. No further consideration of the geothermal alternative is warranted. 4. Hydroelectric. There are no hydro sites in the Shishmaref area capable oF power production on a sustained basis. This alternative was not studied further. 5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility use. Oy Wind. There is a good possibility that there is a significant wind resource available at Shishmaref. In 1982, the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development (DEPD) intends to install a small (2 to 10 kW) wind turbine at Shishmaref. This machine is supposed to be equipped with instrumentation which will allow an accurate documentation of wind energy there. Before more substantial efforts are made to provide Shishmaref with wind-generated power, this type of effort is needed. In lieu of site-specific wind data for Shishmaref, wind data taken at Kotzebue and Tin City were analyzed. It was estimated that sufficient wind is available at Shishmaref to permit wind turbine operation at a plant factor of 25 percent 7. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by barge and is the primary fuel used in Shishmaref. Fuel oi] is used for space heating and for power generation. Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report. The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study. SHISHMAREF N-19 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR SHISHMAREF TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geotherma 1 Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic wuwon fF Be PE MPP MO rYH Be mrPrF NO MYHH DO CO OFRWOO Oo wwwoeowand mw YONN DCAD mm OrFNOOA SO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Electric Resistance Passive Solar Wood Coal Oil (base) Other Coal Gasification Wood Gasification - Diesel Biogas Waste Fired Boiler Peat Binary Cycle Generator Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. SHISHMAREF N-20 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case The base case plan, which uses the AVEC diesel system only to produce electricity, will use the existing machine capacities to meet system loads through the year 2001. Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present value figures for the base case were as follows: - The generators installed have the following capacities: One 105 kW diesel Two 300 kW diesel sets - With this arrangement, either one of the two large machines can be out of service and the power plant will be able to carry the Shishmaref load. - 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. - As long as AVEC operates the generation plant (and this is assumed to be the case throughout the study period), each diesel set will require an overhaul costing one-third of its purchase price or $100/kW every seven years. - On-site AVEC operators will carry out routine maintenance at the power plant on a day-to-day basis. This service is valued at $44,000 per year. - The AVEC diesel sets are expected to deliver a fuel efficiency of about 8.4 kWh/gallon. - Annual costs of the diesel sets are 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/installed kW every seven years. SHISHMAREF N-21 (3) General operations and maintenance adds $44,000 per year. - Annual variable costs associated with diesel set operation are calculated as follows: (1) Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $2.33/gal with its real (1981) price rising 2.60 percent annually to $3.87 per gallon by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter. AVEC reports show fuel prices at Shishmaref of $1.463 per gallon in 1981. The reason for the disparity between this price and the cost charged by the two stores in town is not known. However, it is anticipated that fuel prices will rise significantly by 1982, so it is felt that the use of the Shishmaref "retail" price is not unreasonable. A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I. It should be noted that the 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 and does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available. H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" 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 PHS water tank, the village offices, the clinic, and the community building. It is likely that these buildings cannot always use all of the available waste neat. In those instances, the excess will be delivered to the school. Witn the energy forecasts as shown in Section F, the waste heat system will be able to provide the heat equivalent of about 26,000 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 38,000 gallons of fuel oil. While it is not certain that such a system could entirely take over the heating loads of all of the buildings that 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: SHISHMAREF N-22 - The diesel system used in this study is the same as that described in the base case analysis. - Beginning in 1982, a water jacket waste heat recovery system will be installed at the generator building. It is estimated that about 700 feet of piping would have to be installed in utilidors at a cost of about $200/ft, for a piping cost of $140,000. The heat exchanger equipment at the diesel sets is estimated at $25,000. The heat exchanger at the PHS water tank is estimated at $25,000. Baseboard hot water heaters in the village offices, clinic, and community are estimated at $5,000/building for a total of $15,000. The water-to-air heat exchanger at the school is estimated at $50,000. The total system cost is therefore $255,000. - The $255,000 cost of the waste heat system is amortized over 10 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of this first 10-year period, the system will be replaced in its entirety. - The waste heat system is not expected to affect the annual costs associated with AVEC operation and maintenance or overhaul expenses. A tabulation showing the costs associated with this system's operation is shown in Section I. H.3 - Alternative Plan "B" Alternative "B" uses the AVEC diesel sets as described in the base case as the primary sources of village power. In addition to these units, there will be assumed to be a 100 kW wind turbine installed near the village. At those times when there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, its electrical output will be fed into the Shishmaref power system. For purposes of this study, this wind turbine will be assumed to have a plant factor of 25 percent, with an availability of 90 percent. The expected annual output of the turbine is then: 100 kW x 8760 hr/yr x 0.25 x 0.90 = 197,100 kWh/yr This represents about 36 percent of Shishmaref's electrical energy use in 1982, which would result in a sizeable reduction in fuel use. SHISHMAREF N-23 Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine system were as follows: - The diesels available would be those as used in the base case. - The capital cost associated with the purchase of a large wind turbine system such as the one described in this alternative is $2,600/kW. The costs associated with installation of the wind turbine are also $2,600/kW, for a total installed cost of $5,2U00/kW, or $520,000. - This capital cost will be amortized over a period of 15 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. This represents an annual cost of about $44,000. - Operations 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 are, therefore, $12,000 per year. - Total costs associated with the operation of the wind turbine are $56,000 per 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 is sufficient to pay for the wind turbine. This will occur when the price reaches the level as calculated below: 197,100 kWh/yr 8.4 kwWh/gal = 23,464 gal/yr of displaced fuel. $56,000/ yr 23,464 gal/yr = $2.38/gal This is the price (in 1981 dollars) which fuel is expected to reach in the year 1982. However, in order to allow time for adequate studies of Shishmaref wind conditions, the unit will be assumed to be placed in operation in 1986. A tabulation of the costs associated with the implementation of this alternative is shown in Section I. SHISHMAREF N-24 H.4 - Alternative Plan "C" In this alternative, the economics of the utility system at Shishmaref using diesels, a waste heat system, and a wind turbine system are investigated. The assumptions made for costs, amortization, and operations and maintenance of the system components remain the same as were described in the earlier plans. To summarize: (1) Total diesel value: $800/installed kW amortized for 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. (2) Total waste heat system value: $255,000 amortized for 10 years and then replaced in its entirety. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. (3) Total wind turbine value: $5,200/installed kW, amortized for 15 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. (4) Diesel general O&M: $44,000 per year. (5) Wind turbine 0&: $12,000 per year. (6) Waste heat system O&M: $0. (7) Diesel fuel consumption: 8.4 kWh/gal. (8) Fuel prices $2.33/gal in 1982, escalating at 2.6 percent annually. It should be noted that during those times when the wind turbine is operating, the energy it produces displaces energy which would otherwise nave been produced by the diesel sets and thus have caused the production of useful waste heat. With this heat source diminished, the users of the waste neat system will be forced to purchase more fuel oil. This expense is treated as a non-electrical disbenefit. There is still some fuel savings realized from the waste heat system, but these are diminished and are treated as non-electrical benefits, as in alternative plan "A". The costs associated with the operation of this system are shown in Section I. SHISHMAREF N-25 I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHISHMAREF BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS. FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) | (1,000 gal) — ($/gal) ($1,000) | Component $1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 552 66 2.55 154 o Existing AVEC diesel sets: 564 38 a 44 93 One 105kW and two 300 kW 1983 40 77 2.39 184 diesel sets. 38 i 44 93 1984 055 18 2.45 191 38 a 44 93 1985 661 719 2.52 199 38 VW 44 93 1986 087 82 2.58 212 38 1 44 93 1987 695 63 2.65 220 38 iW 44 93 1988 705 84 2.72 228 38 V1 44 93 1989 71 85 2.79 237 38 i 44 93 1990 720 86 2.86 246 38 a 44 93 1991 134 87 2.93 255 38 i 44 93 1992 142 88 3.01 205 38 i 44 93 1993 751 89 3.09 275 38 i 44 93 1994 760 90 3.17 285 38 iW 44 93 1995 768 91 3.27 296 38 i 44 95 1996 808 90 3.34 321 38 a] 44 93 1997 817 97 3.42 352 38 1 44 93 1998 828 99 3.51 347 38 V1 44 93 1999 858 100 5.60 360 38 iB 44 95 2000 849 101 3.70 314 38 iB 44 93 2001 859 102 3.79 387 38 in 44 93 92-N 43YWWHSIHS TABLE © (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) |} ($1,000) | $/kW) 1982 154 93 247 239.8 0.45 1985 184 95 277 261.1 0.43 1984 191 93 284 259.9 0.45 1985 199 93 292 251.9 0.42 1986 212 93 305 255.4 0.44 1987 220 93 313 262.1 0.45 1988 228 93 321 201.0 0.46 1989 237 93 330 260.5 0.46 1990 240 93 339 259.8 0.47 1991 255 93 348 258.9 0.47 1992 205 95 358 258.6 0.48 1993 215 93 368 258.1 0.49 1994 285 93 378 257.4 0.50 1995 296 93 389 257.2 0.51 1996 321 93 414 205.1 0.51 1997 332 93 425 264.9 0.52 1998 347 93 440 266.2 0.55 1999 300 93 453 266.1 0.54 2000 374 93 407 206.3 0.55 2001 387 93 419 ___ 265.2 0.56 Total net present worth $5,196 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1; Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8.4 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 yeneral O&M work. Zé-N 4FXWWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-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 Shishmaref 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 (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO>), and unburned hydrocarbons. With the small installation at Shishmaref, there will likely not 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 Shishmaref, 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 Shishmaref, 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 best understood means of producing electricity available to bush villages today. Nevertheless, diesel engines require frequent attention and regular maintenance which requires highly skilled personnel. 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 SHISHMAREF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" FUEL COSTS 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) (41,000) _Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | 1982 552 66 2.335 154 o Existing AVEC diesel sets: 664 68 VW 44 123 One 105 kW and two 300 kW 1985 646 77 2.39 184 units plus new waste heat 68 VW 44 123 recovery system. 1984 053 718 2.45 191 68 iW 44 123 1985 661 19 2.52 199 68 1 44 123 1986 687 82 2.58 212 68 VW 44 123 1987 695 85 2.65 220 68 a] 44 123 1988 705 84 2.72 228 68 WW 44 123 1989 71 85 2.79 257 68 i 44 123 1990 720 86 2.86 246 68 iB 44 123 1991 134 87 2.93 255 68 MW 44 123 1992 142 88 3.01 265 o Replacement of 1982 waste 282 68 in 44 123 heat system, 1995 751 89 3.09 275 68 11 44 123 1994 700 90 3.17 285 68 im 44 123 1995 168 91 3.27 296 68 in] 44 123 1996 808 96 3.34 321 68 VW 44 123 1997 617 97 3.42 352 68 in] 44 123 1998 828 99 3.51 347 68 i 44 123 1999 838 100 3.60 360 68 a] 44 123 2000 849 101 3.70 374 68 i 44 125 2001 859 102 3.79 387 68 MW 44 123 62-N 43YVWHSIHS TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Eneryy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 1b4 123 277 268.9 0.39 1983 184 123 307 289.4 0.38 1984 191 123 314 314.9 0.38 1985 199 123 322 286.1 0.58 1986 212 123 335 289.0 0.37 1987 220 123 343 287.3 0.38 1988 228 123 351 285.4 0.38 1989 237 123 360 284.2 0.38 1990 246 123 369 282.8 0.38 1991 255 123 378 281.3 0.38 1992 205 123 388 280.3 0.38 1993 215 123 398 279.2 0.39 1994 285 125 408 277.8 0.39 1995 296 123 419 277.0 0.40 1996 321 123 449 285.0 0.41 1997 552 123 455 283.6 0.41 1998 347 125 470 284.4 0.41 1999 360 123 485 283.7 0.42 2000 374 123 497 2835.7 0.42 2001 387 123 509 281.8 0.42 TOTAL $ 5,686 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $(1,439) Net present worth $ 4,247 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1; Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8.4 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 08M work. O€-N J3YVWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-31 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 61 59.2 1983 64 60.3 1984 69 60.3 1985 73 64.9 1986 ; 80 69.0 1987 82 68.7 1988 87 70.7 1989 89 70.3 1990 94 72.0 1991 97 72.2 1992 102 73.7 1993 105 73.7 1994 111 75.6 1995 114 75.4 1996 120 77.0 1997 123 76.7 1998 130 78.7 1999 133 78.1 2000 141 80.4 2001 144 79.7 TOTAL: $1439 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. SHISHMAREF N-32 I.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the possibility that some local construction employment would be generated. There would be a need for skilled workers such as welders, carpenters and plumbers, as well as general laborers. The installation and operation of a waste heat system will have no noticeable environmental impact. The reduction of fuel oi] burned by those buildings served by the waste heat system may result in a lessening in airborne pollutants. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could be put in place in one construction season and show immediate savings to the village utility system. Design of waste heat systems is well understood, and there is little to go wrong in their operation. TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHISHMAREF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "Bt FUEL COSTS” SYSTEM ADDITIONS | FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) _ (1,000 gat) ($/gal) ($1,000) | Component _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 552 66 2.33 154 o Existing AVEC diesels 564 38 V1 44 93 (one 105 kW and two 1983 646 77 2.39 184 300 kW machines) 38 VW 44 93 1984 655 78 2.45 191 38 VW 44 93 1985 661 79 2.52 199 38 W 44 93 1986 687 59 2.58 153 o Installation of 100 kW 520 82 1 56 149 wind turbine 1987 695 60 2.65 159 82 1 56 149 1988 703 61 2.12 166 82 a 56 149 1989 711 62 2.79 173 82 VW 56 149 1990 720 63 2. 86 180 ; 82 if 56 149 1991 734 64 2.93 188 82 W 56 149 1992 742 65 3.01 196 82 VW 56 149 1993 751 66 3.09 204 82 W 56 149 1994 760 67 3.17 212 82 1 56 149 1995 768 68 3.27 221 82 iW 56 149 1996 808 13 3.34 245 82 VW 56 149 1997 817 74 3.42 253 82 a] 56 149 1998 828 76 3.51 266 82 1 56 149 1999 838 77 3.60 277 82 11 56 149 2000 849 78 3.70 289 82 W 56 149 2001 859 79 3.79 300 82 W 56 149 €€-N SSYWWHSIHS TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($/kWih) 1982 154 93 247 239.8 0.45 1983 184 93 277 261.1 0.43 1984 191 93 284 259.9 0.43 1985 199 93 292 259.9 0.42 1986 153 149 302 260.5 0.44 1987 159 149 308 258.0 0.44 1988 166 149 315 256.1 0.45 1989 173 149 322 254.2 0.45 1990 180 149 329 252.1 0.46 1991 188 149 337 250.8 0.46 1992 196 149 345 249.2 0.46 1993 204 149 353 247.6 0.47 1994 212 149 361 245.8 0.48 1995 22 149 370 244.6 0.48 1996 245 149 394 252.9 0.49 1997 253 149 402 250.5 0.49 1998 266 149 415 251.1 0.50 1999 277 149 426 250.2 0.51 2000 289 149 438 249.8 0. 52 2001 300 149 448 248.0 0.52 Total net present worth $5,042 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8.4 k\lh 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 O81 work. vE-N SSYWWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-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 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. Secondly, 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. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation Given the present state of wind turbine development and a lack of detailed information regarding winds in Shishmaref, 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 is the installation of a sophisticated anemometry system to monitor winds at Shishmaref with enough frequency and sufficient accuracy to establish the frequency distribution of the various wind speed occurrences. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHISHMAREF TABLE 10 ALTERNATIVE ~ PLAN "CH FUEL COS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel ~~ Fuel Fuel 1 Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) (41,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) Tt ----— _———. a — — —_ — — = — 552 66 2.33 154 o Existing AVEC diesels 864 68 1 44 123 (one 105 kW and two 646 77 2.39 184 300 kW units) with new 68 11 44 123 waste heat systems. 653 78 2.45 191 68 W 44 123 661 19 2.52 199 68 11 44 123 687 59 2.58 155 o Installation of 100 kW 520 112 1 56 179 wind turbine 695 60 2.65 159 112 V1 56 179 703 61 2.72 166 112 iW 56 179 71 62 2.79 173 112 11 56 179 720 63 2. 86 180 112 ay 56 179 734 64 2.93 188 112 11 56 179 742 65 3.01 196 o Replacement of 1982 282 112 8 56 179 waste heat system 751 66 3.09 204 112 1 56 179 760 67 3.17 212 112 i 56 179 768 68 3.27 221 112 in 56 179 808 73 3.34 245 112 i 56 179 817 74 3.42 253 112 W 56 179 828 76 3.51 266 112 1 56 179 838 77 3.60 277 112 11 56 179 849 18 3.70 289 112 i 56 179 859 79 3.79 300 112 WW 56 179 9E-N JS3SYWWHSIHS TABLE 10 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) pene 2 ceemperone 212 eer 2 —{— —— RA Lil 1982 154 123 277 268.9 0.39 1983 184 123 307 289.4 0.38 1984 191 123 314 287.3 0.38 1985 199 123 322 286.1 0. 38 1986 153 179 332 286.4 0.40 1987 159 179 338 283.1 0.40 1988 166 179 345 280.5 0.40 1989 173 179 352 277.9 0.40 1990 180 179 359 275.1 0.40 1991 188 179 367 273.1 0.40 1992 196 179 375 270.9 0.40 1993 204 179 383 268.6 0.41 1994 212 179 391 266.3 0.40 1995 221 179 400 264.4 0.41 1996 245 179 424 272.2 0.41 1997 253 179 432 269.2 0.42 1998 266 179 445 269.2 0.42 1999 277 179 456 267.8 0.42 2000 289 179 468 266.9 0.42 2001 300 179 419 265.2 0.43 TOTAL $ 5,488 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $(1,439) Total present worth of non-electrical disbenefits $ 309 Net present worth $ 4,358 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note Di | fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8.4 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 Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fun general inflation. overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. d for equipment ZE-N JZIYWWHSIHS SHISHMAREF N-38 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 61 59.2 1983 64 60.3 1984 69 63.1 1985 73 64.9 1986 : 80 69.0 1987 82 68.7 1988 87 70.7 1989 89 70.3 1990 94 72.0 1991 97 72.2 1992 102 73.7 1993 105 73.6 1994 111 75.6 1995 114 75.4 1996 120 77.0 1997 123 76.7 1998 130 78.7 1999 133 78.1 2000 141 80.4 2001 144 79.7 TOTAL: $ 1439 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. SHISHMAREF N-39 TABLE 12 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL DISBENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" Total Annual Disbenefits Discounted Year Additional Fuel Purchased Disbenefits 1982 - 7 1983 - 7 1984 - = 1985 - - 1986 23 19.8 1987 24 20.1 1988 24 19.5 1999 25 19.7 1990 26 19.9 1991 26 19.3 1992 27 19.5 1993 28 19.6 1994 28 19.1 1995 29 19.2 1996 30 19.2 1997 31 19.3 1998 32 19.4 1999 32 18.8 2000 33 18.8 2001 34 18.1 TOTAL: $309 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. SHISHMAREF N-40 1.4 - Alternative Plan "C" 1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation For a discussion of the social and environmental impacts of the waste heat recovery system and the wind turbine, please refer to those sections in the discussion of alternatives "A" and "B" respectively which deal with those topics. 1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation For the same reasons as noted in the technical evaluation of alternative plan "B," it is difficult at this time to advocate an immediate commitment to the installation of large wind turbines at Shishmaref. By the same token, the analysis shows that it is not correct to completely rule out the possibility of using a wind turbine in conjunction with the diesel system at Shishmaref. The installation of a waste heat recovery system is an obvious positive step which should be undertaken as soon as possible. SHISHMAREF N-41 d_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION SHISHMAREF N- 42 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza SHISHMAREF N-43 Eric P. Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 RECEIVED APR - 9 3989 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: "In was the The SHISHMAREF N-44 ACRES' RESPONSE nearly all the villages studied, a 100 kW wind turbine used as an alternative for diesel generation. I question practicality of such a large wind system..." 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. 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. 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 : SHISHMAREF N-45 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." SHISHMAREF N-46 Response: 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. 5. Comment: "... several smaller wind systems could be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain and repair the smaller systems." Response: The availability of people with the required maintenance skills is something which varies widely from village to village. Except for a few notable cases, most diesel plants visited in rural Alaska are not good examples of the labors of highly skilled maintenance personnel. If these diesel plants show what can be accomplished by "local manpower," it is not likely that even the simplest wind turbines could be maintained to provide reliable service. Equipment such as gearboxes, generators, and inverters would still require attention by personnel from outside the village. The large units are not so dissimilar and local workers could be trained to perform routine maintenance tests such as lubrication, inspection, expendible parts replacement, etc. As noted before, the large units have room to work inside their generator nacelles out of the weather. This is far less likely to lead to maintenance errors and should be far safer for the serviceman than clinging to a small system's tower (in safety belt) in a cold breeze. No change in report text is needed. 6. Comment: "The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back burner." Response: 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. 7. Comment: "... 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: SHISHMAREF N-47 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. SHISHMAREF N- 48 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration {Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] SHISHMAREF N-49 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. SHISHMAREF N-50 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 l. 2. Comment : Response: Comment : Response: SHISHMAREF N-51 ACRES' RESPONSE .. Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While the study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value" was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers will purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using these items increases, their use will likely (but not necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy efficient lights or motors is not expected to have perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand forecast. No comment or change in report text is needed. "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report." Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs, construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate or available to all villages. Even where two villages may share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make comparisons invalid. The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions." No comment or change in report text is needed. 3. Comment: Response: SHISHMAREF N-52 “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. SHISHMAREF N-53 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game CTT! 2M \c Hof 5 SAL Wt DEPAR April 8, 1982 Alaska Power Authority 324 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: entlemen: ALASKA / TT MENT OF FISIEAND GAME OFFICE OF THE COLFRISSIOMER Eric P. Yould, Executive Director SHISHMAREF N-54 JAY S. HARAOND, GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 95802 PHONE: 465-4100 RECEIlvep APR Gg 2 198 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 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, subsequent studies as they become available. Sincerely, On Borris fr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner however, to review SHISHMAREF N-55 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. SHISHMAREF N-56 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage SHISHMAREF N-57 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 REc (907) 271-4575 FIVED APR ~ 9 1999 Yould a Sects ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY & APR 1982 laska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 We have review rey 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 Gescription of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, w occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acauired and studies conducted to identify the fish and ildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse vroject impacts to nose resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent e net loss to fish and wildlife resources. ~ Formation to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS e necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above ning habitat, etc. 2. 3. rif substantial water 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 follow : (a) Identification of sp resident and anadromous fish ject area. vtandard sampling methods such as fyke net minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should de 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 A to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is deter impacts to terrestrial mammals or b abitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- 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 ithin the project area. l. Mammals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. be Site-specific wildlife observations, includi life sign, denning sites, fee routes, winter use areas, and calvy 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. (>) 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 330-foo% protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Comp! with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. a nee the follos ing be accomplished during the course of the the period of project planning, the APA should ccnsult wi ith 1, state, and local agencies having an interest fe resources of the project area, including the Fish an fe Service, prior to paring any environmental reports. 2. ent the possible presence of any the project are If endangered d to be present, should be / SHISHMAREF N-59 Ww artment of 11 also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, /or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and A an wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. ce on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the pro enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. It e e of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns h, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in y the project to alleviate or mitigate any aiverse e to contact me if you have any questions regarding our + lity studies. Sincerely, leben bse F ield Sup ervisor l. Comment : Response: SHISHMAREF N-60 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. SHISHMAREF N-61 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) SHISHMAREF N-62 1 SEFER 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 Sth 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, LAO Ueiner SHISHMAREF N- 63 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Author 834 W. 5th Ave, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ity