HomeMy WebLinkAboutKodiak Island Villages, Sand Point, & King Cove Preliminary Profiles 12-1980VIL-C
001
Preliminary Technology Profiles
Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Energy Alternatives
For Kodiak Island Villages and Sand Point and King Cove
CH2M HILL
December 1980
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power. Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Preliminary Technology Profiles
Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Energy Alternatives
For Kodiak Island Villages and Sand Point and King Cove
CH2M HILL
December 1980
CONTENTS
10.
ike
Tniwodtiehion «= °° 6 eis oC hess 6 8 fe ee
Community Profiles +--+ +++ +++ +e +s
Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Site Visit
Profiles: Hydroelectric Generation
Profiles: Tidal Electric Generation
Profiles: Wind Generation: +--+: -
Profiles: Wood and Peat Burning .
Profiles: Waste Heat Recovery
Profiles: Solar Energy + +++: >
Profiles: Energy Conservation
Profiles not Included -++-+-+-.--
Public Meeting Minutes ee ee ee
10
32
39
49
64
72
79
86
89
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
This report contains preliminary technology profiles and energy require-
ments forecasts that will be utilized as part of the Reconnaissance Study
of Energy Requirements and Energy Alternatives for Kodiak Island Villages
and Sand Point and King Cove. The report also contains minutes of public
meetings held in each of the communities last October. This information
is preliminary, is subject to change, and as such should be utilized
appropriately. Final information will be contained in our draft final
report to be issued 31 January 1981.
Because the report is primarily for the purpose of allowing Alaska Power
Authority review of cost and performance information, charts, diagrams,
backup calculations, and technology discussions are not included. These
materials will be included in the final draft.
2. COMMUNITY PROFILES
COMMUNITY PROFILE
yillage: Akhiok
Current Population
No. Vehicles (auto/3-wheeler)
No. Residential Units
Major Structures
100 year round
1/10
30
School, community center
Existing Generation: City 55 kw
School Two 25 kW
Individual NA
Projected Population Growth 4%
(annual percent increase)
Annual Energy Balance (1979)
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Generation (kWh/yr)
Diesel 537 City Generation 382 170,000
Home Heating Fuel 1,107 City Heating 1,080
Total 1,644 School Generation 155 68 ,000
School Heating 27
Motor Gas (gal) 4,000 Other NA
Wood NA Total 1,644 238,000
Peak Electric kW Requirements (1979)
city 65 kW
Cannery _
School 26 kW
Energy Requirements Forecast
Fuel (bbl/yr) 1980 1990 2000
Diesel 558 827 1,224
Home Heating 1,151 1,704 2,523
Total 1,709 2,531 3,747
Generation (kWh/yr)
City 176,800 261,700 387,400
School 70,700 104,700 155,000
Total 247,500 366,400 542,400
COMMUNITY PROFILE
village: King Cove
Current Population
No. Vehicles (auto and 3-wheeler|
No. Residential Units
Major Structures
Existing Generation: City
School
Individual Cannery
Projected Population Growth
(annual percent increase)
Annual Energy Balance (1979)
462 (+200 seasonal)
NA
100
Warehouse
One 250 kW Two new 300 kW
One 200 kW One 600 kW
None
None
One 1,000 kW One 250 kW
Four 750 kW
3%
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Generation (kWh/yr)
Diesel 11,508 City Generation 1,380 755,900
Home Heating Fuel 9,306 City Heating 5,400
Total 20,814 Cannery Generation 7,090 3,900,000
Cannery-Other 3,038
Motor Gas (gal) 67,000 School Generation NA
Wood NA School Heating 225
Other 3,681
Total 20,814 4,655,900
Peak Electric kW Requirements
city 173 kW
Cannery NA
School NA
Ene: Requirements Forecast
Fuel (bbl/yr) 1980 1990 2000
Diesel 11,549 12,038 12,695
Home Heating 9,585 12,882 17,312
Total 21,134 24,920 30,007
Generation (kWh/yr)
city 778,600 1,046,300 1,406,200
Cannery 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
School NA NA NA
Total 4,678,600 4,946,300 5,306,200
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Village: Larson Bay
Current Population 120
No. Vehicles (auto/3-wheeler) 15/25
No. Residential Units 25
Major Structures New school
Existing Generation: City None
School Two 60 kW
Individual Approximately 25 5-kW generators
Projected Population Growth 1980-85 - 12%
(annual percent increase) After 1985 - 4%
Annual Energy Balance
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Generation (kWh/yr)
Diesel 2,578 City Generation 480 211,200
Home Heating Fuel = ‘City Heating 900
Total 2,578 Cannery Generation 620 273,000
Cannery-Other 578
School Generation NA NA
Motor Gas (gal) 27,000 School Heating NA
Wood NA Other
Total 2,578 484,200
Peak Electric kW Requirements
City 48
Cannery NA
School NA
Energy Requirements Forecast
Fuel _(bbl/yr) 1980 1990 2000
Diesel 2,744 4,512 6,104
Home Heating -- -- --
Total 2,744 4,512 6,104
Generation (kWh/yr)
City 236,500 507,200 750,800
Cannery 273,000 273,000 273,000
School NA NA NA
Total 509,500 780,200 1,023,800
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Village: Old Harbor
Current Population 350 to 400
No. Vehicles (auto/3-wheeler) 20/35
No. Residential Units 75 to 85
Major Structures None
Existing Generation: City Two 155 kW
School None
Individual NA
Projected Population Growth 1981 - 15%
(annual percent increase) After 1982 - 4%
Annual Energy Balance (1974)
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels /yr) Generation (kWh/yr)
Diesel 820 City Generation 620 274,000
Home Heating Fuel 1,910° City Heating 1,910
Total 2,730 School Heating NA
Cue) Other 200
Motor Gas (gal) 17,000 Total 2,730 274,000
Wood NA
Peak Electric kW Requirements (1979)
City 105
Energy Requirements Forecast
Fuel _ (bbl/yr) 1980 1990 2000
Diesel 820 1,342 1,987
Home Heating 1,910 3,126 4,628
Total 2,730 4,468 6,615
Generation (kWh/yr)
City 274,000 448,500 663 ,900
Total 274,000 448,500 663 ,900
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Village: Ouzinkie
Current Population
No. Vehicles (auto/3-wheeler)
No. Residential Units
Major Structures
Existing Generation: City
School
Individual
Projected Population Growth
(annual percent increase)
Annual Energy Balance (1979)
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels/yr)
150 to 200
3/130
55
None
One 85 kW One new 150 kW
50 kw (standby:
None
1981 - 18%
1982 - 10%
After 1982 - 4%
Diesel 360 City Generation 360 158,000
Home Heating Fuel 1,070 City Heating 1,070
Total 1,430 School Heating
Other
Motor Gas (gal) NA Total 1,430 158,000
Wood NA
Peak Electric kW Requirements (1979)
City 70 kw
Energy Requirements Forecast
Fuel _(bbl/yr)
Diesel
Home Heating
Total
Generation (kWh/yr)
city
School
Total
1980
360
1,070
1,430
158,000
158,000
1990 2000
640 947 1,901 _2,814
2,541 3,761
280,700 415,463
280,700 415,463
Generation (kWh/yr)
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Village: Sandpoint
Current Population
No. Vehicles (auto and 3-wheeler)
No. Residential Units
Major structures
Existing Generation: City
School
Individual
Cannery
Projected Population Growth
(annual percent increase)
Annual Energy Balance (1979)
610 (+180 seasonal)
300 to 350
170
Store, school, 5 to 10 midsize
structures
Two 400 kw
Two 500 kW
None
One 50 kW (airport)
One 800 kW
Three 200 kW
3%
Imports (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Use (55 Gal Barrels/yr) Generation (kWh/yr)
Diesel 8,056 City Generation 2,575 1,770,000
Home Heating Fuel 13,107 City Heating 9,180
Total 21,163 Cannery Generation 4,990 3,430,000
Cannery-Other 3,927
Motor Gas (gal) 70,200 School Generation NA NA
Wood NA School Heating NA
Other 491
Total 21,163 5,200,000
Peak Electric kW Requirements (1979)
City 404 kW
Cannery NA
School NA
Energy Requirements Forecast
Fuel (bbl/yr) 1980 1990 2000
Diesel 8,148 9,234 10,694
Home Heating 13,382 16,634 21,004
Total 21,530 25,868 31,698
Generation (kWh/yr)
City 1,823,100 2,450,100 3,292,700
Cannery 3,430,000 3,430,000 3,430,000
School NA NA NA
Total 5,253,100 5,880,100 6,722,700
3. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION
10.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower-Humbolt Creek/Sand Point
General Description: The stream serves as City water supply. Hydropower
development will require reconstruction of intake and possibly pump sta-
tion. Raise road embankment to elevation 50 feet NGVD. Assume average
tailwater elevation is 10 feet NGVD. This will require some excavation
in the channel below the existing road. The creek supports salmon but
the salmon cause a water quality problem. Therefore do not provide fish
passage at new embankment. The existing road embankment should probably
be replaced because the quality of its construction is unknown. The
embankment cannot be made higher than elevation 50 because it would create
a large very shallow lake with water quality and freezing problems.
Present lake level is 33 feet NGVD with a surface area of about 3 acres
(estimated storage 15 acre-feet). Raising dam to 50 feet would probably
give a total storage of about 100 acre-feet.
Resource Location: 0.1 mile above mouth of Humbolt Creek
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
11.
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type
Height (ft)
Operation
Spillway
Type
Capacity (cfs)
Penstock
Length (ft)
Diameter (in)
Powerhouse
Type of Machine
Number of Units
Installed Capacity (kW)
Transmission Facilities
Type
Length (miles)
Voltage
Assessment Resource Integration:
Earthfill
45
Storage
Concrete chute
1,700
175
24
Propeller
1
70
Single wire ground return
0.5
incomplete
12.
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 70
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 303,000
Plant Factor (%) 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq. miles) Sal
Average Annual Flow (cfs) 20
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 40
Net Head (ft) 38
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 24
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
13.
Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho salmon. Existing
gravel fill dam at proposed site currently blocks passage of salmon up-
stream. Coho salmon below damsite could be adversely affected by stream-
flow flucuations and siltation caused by project construction and opera-
tion. Seismically induced structure failure could cause risk to life and
property in Sand Point harbor area.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
14,
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower—Delta Creek/King Cove
General Description: Earthfill embankment approximately 100 feet high.
Penstock from the reservoir downstream to powerhouse develops about 300
feet of head. mall earthfill diversion dam. Storage potential looks
limited. Map scale insufficient to compute storage available. Spillway
can be located at the right abutment. A channel can be excavated into a
relatively flat bench on the right. Spillway will probably need to be
lined to prevent erosion. Run the penstock from the diversion dam down-
stream along the bench on the right side to a powerhouse in the vicinity
of the airstrip.
Resource Location: 4.7 miles upstream from mouth of Delta Creek near
village airstrip
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type Earthfill
Height (ft) 100
Operation Storage
15.
Spillway
Type Concrete chute
Capacity (cfs) 1,700
Penstock
Length (ft) 3,500
Diameter (in) 30
Powerhouse
Type of Machine Reaction
Number of Units 1
Installed Capacity (kW) 329
Transmission Facilities
Type Single wire ground return
Length (miles) 5.5
voltage
Resource Integration: Assessment incomplete
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 329
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 1,419,000
Plant Factor (%) - 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
16.
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq miles) 5.0
Average Annual Flow (cfs) is
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 300
Net Head (ft) 296
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 15
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho salmon and chum
salmon. Salmon below damsite could be adversely affected by streamflow
flucuations and siltation caused by project construction and operation.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
is
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower-Humpy Creek/Larsen Bay
General Description: Earthfill dam about 50 feet high provides about
40 acre-feet of storage. Penstock from dam downstream 5,600 feet to
powerhouse about 1/2 mile from mouth of creek. Concrete overflow diver-
sion dam at elevation 300 feet. Penstock parallel to the creek down to
powerhouse near the mouth. Tailwater is at 50 feet. Diversion dam could
be located upstream at elevation 800 as described in 1980 Alaska Power
Administration report. This gives more head but less flow.
Resource Location: 1.5 miles above the mouth of Humpy Creek, 1.5 miles
south of Larsen Bay
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type Earthfill
Height (ft) 50
Operation Storage
18.
Spillway
Type Concrete-lined chute
Capacity (cfs) 3,200
Penstock
Length (ft) 5,600
Diameter (in) 24
Powerhouse
Type of Machine Reaction
Number of Units 1
Installed Capacity (kW) 942
Transmission Facilities
Type SWGR
Length (miles) 0.5
Voltage
j Resource Integration: Assessment incomplete
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 942
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 4,100,000
Plant Factor (%) 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
19.
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq miles) 4.2
Average Annual Flow (cfs) 6.8
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 660
Net Head (ft) 635
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 20
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
Environmental Impacts: Existing dam (constructed in late 1880's) blocks
movement of salmon downstream of proposed dam site. Pink salmon spawn
in the lower portions of the stream and could be affected by siltation/
sedimentation during construction and changes in flow and water tempera-
tures during operation. Bears feed on pink salmon. Reservoir will
inundate feeding areas of deer; may also inundate bear dens. Seismically
20.
induced structure failure could cause risk to life and property in Larsen
Bay.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
21.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower-Ohiouzuk Creek/Old Harbor
General Description: A low concrete diversion dam diverts water from
Ohiouzuk Creek into a penstock that runs parallel to the creek to a
powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek. Construct a low con-
crete diversion dam to divert water into a penstock. May be able to
develop some storage but cannot determine how much without more detailed
mapping. Penstock along creek channel to powerhouse near sea level.
Overflow spillway-concrete dam section the same as shown for Ouzinkie.
Resource Location: About 1/2 mile from the mouth of Ohiouzuk Creek,
1 mile west of Old Harbor
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type Concrete diversion
Height (ft) 10
Operation Run of River
a2
Spillway
Type Concrete overflow
Capacity (cfs) 1,200 cfs
Penstock
Length (ft) 3,200
Diameter (in) 24
Powerhouse
Type of Machine Reaction
Number of Units a
Installed Capacity (kW) 296
Transmission Facilities
Type SWGR
Length (miles) a
Voltage
Resource Integration: Assessment incomplete
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 296
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 1,280,000
Plant Factor (%) 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
23.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq miles) 1.77
Average Annual Flow (cfs) 14.2
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 250
Net Head (ft) 240
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 16.5
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
Environmental Impacts: Minimum impact of dam: pink salmon shown as
present, but no known spawning grounds. Local sources state that the
creek "goes underground" before entering Sitkalidak Strait. Bear con-
centrations along stream expected to be minimal. Steep sides of reser-
voir will limit impact on deer feeding areas.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
24,
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower-Katmai Creek/Ouzinkie
General Description: A low concrete diversion dam diverts water into a
penstock that runs parallel to Katmai Creek. Powerhouse located near
the mouth of the creek. Small concrete overflow diversion dam. Site
does not have room for an earthfill dam and separate spillway. Run pen-
stock down either side of the creek to a powerhouse near the mouth.
Resource Location: About 1 mile above the mouth of Katmai Creek, one-
half mile east of Ouzinkie
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type
Height (ft)
Operation
Spillway
Type
Capacity (cfs)
25.
Concrete diversion
10
Run of river
Concrete overflow
1,300
Penstock
Length (ft) 2,100
Diameter (in) 30
Powerhouse
Type of Machine Propeller
Number of Units 1
Installed Capacity (kW) 78
Transmission Facilities
Type SWGR
Length (miles) 0.5
Voltage
Resource Integration: Assessment incomplete
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 78
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 539,000
Plant Factor (%) 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
26.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq miles) 2.34
Average Annual Flow (cfs) 18.7
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 50
Net Head (ft)
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 29
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
Environmental Impacts: No identified adverse impacts on salmon species.
Reservoir may affect feeding areas of deer.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
27.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Hydropower-Camp Bay Creek/Akhiok
General Description: A low concrete diversion dam diverts water from
Camp Bay Creek into a penstock that runs parallel to the creek to a
powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek. Construct a low con-
crete diversion dam with an overflow spillway. An alternative could be
a lake tap at the unnamed lake on the headwaters of the Camp Bay Creek.
However, the diversion is probably cheaper, and locating it downstream
from the lake gives more drainage area and therefore a more dependable
flow. Penstock parallels the creek to a powerhouse near the creek mouth.
Powerhouse located so that tailwater elevation is about 50 feet NGVD.
Resource Location: One-half mile upstream from mouth of Camp Bay Creek,
about 2 miles west of Akhiok
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type Concrete diversion
Height (ft) 10
Operation Run of river
28.
Spillway
Type Concrete overflow
Capacity (cfs) 1,000
Penstock
Length (ft) 2,900
Diameter (in) 18
Powerhouse
Type of Machine Reaction
Number of Units 1
Installed Capacity (kW) 137
Transmission Facilities
Type SWGR
Length (miles) 2
Voltage
Resource Integration: Assessment incomplete
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW) 137
Average Annual Energy (kWh) 592,000
Plant Factor (%) 50
Dependable Capacity (kW)
Annual Energy, Low Flow Year (kWh)
Annual Energy, High Flow Year (kWh)
29.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage Area (sq miles) 1.4
Average Annual Flow (cfs) 10.9
Low Flow (cfs)
High Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft) 150
Net Head (ft) 127
Maximum Penstock Flow (cfs) 12.7
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Assessment incomplete
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Assessment incomplete
Resource Development Schedule: Assessment incomplete
Environmental Impacts: The field investigation revealed late summer
presence of spawning pink salmon. Salmon remains were found full length
on the stream to the lake outlet.
Brown bears inhabit the entire drainage area, and their active presence
was evident from digs, tracks, and salmon feeding remnants.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Assessment incomplete
Health and Safety Impacts: Assessment incomplete
30.
CrRM COST MATRIX CT 4 as PROJE! NAME HILL oe FA
GEnvEeeatiaal PROJECT # £ /42 38.40, 00 DATE /2Z-04-602
ad L4esou | elo isbos
AKHIOK : OZ 14lheE
RTEGORY Cove B47 HARBOE ‘ FOtAT i
FEMSTOcK
resoce | mcco | rewo| rame|esoo| - | | |
FISH Facil We. /@2,000 25,000
ENG,LEGAL,
dom @ to¥,| Cb,c00| 5,278,000| |, 246,ec0| 392,000) 260,090) 324 000
am
ieee] esse reco lene | | gouenr |/2s00| esgona| 275000| som | 2aeco |evaceo| |
feuarweise| 250000 960.200] 75000] rece |sescce |amncoe| |__| fencwrsei|eesce0| /2a.cee| resc00| /soae0| acco | sosco| |
TO7AL EST. -
CAP Tat coer | |) 110,000 | 31, 668200) 7, 488,000) Z, 342,000 | 1, 56°, 000 |Z, 028, 200
4. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: TIDAL ELECTRIC GENERATION
32.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village:
Tidal power - King Cove Lagoon/King Cove
General Description:
Install a reversible turbine generator at the entrance to King Cove
Lagoon. Generate using both rising and falling tides.
° Install a powerhouse at the existing entrance to King Cove
Lagoon. Use a reversible tube turbine designed for high flow-
low head.
° Conduct a bypass sluiceway and possibly a fish ladder.
° Embankment sections on both sides of powerhouse.
° Install three 600-kW machines (Note: Standard tube turbines
by Allis-Chalmers operate on a minimum head of 6.5 feet with
a maximum flow of 1,200 cfs. Tidal installation will require
special machines).
Resource Location:
King Cove, Alaska, mouth of King Cove Lagoon
33.
Renewable or Nonrenewable:
Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type: Earthfill
Height (ft): 15
Powerhouse
Type of machine: Tube turbines (propeller)
Number of units: 3
Installed capacity (kw): 1,700
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW): 1,700
Average Annual Energy (kWh): 7,820,000
Plant Factor (%): 52
Dependable Capacity (kW): 1,700
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Tide Range (ft): 8
Total Head (ft): 4
Net Head (ft): 4
34.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachement
Environmental Impacts:
Known spawning area for chum salmon within lagoon. Chum salmon could
be adversely affected by construction of tidal barrier and project
operation.
35.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village:
Tidal Power - unnamed lagoon/Old Harbor
General Description:
Install a reversible turbine generator at a site between Sitkalidak
Strait and the unnamed lagoon along the road separating the NE and SW
parts of the village. Generate using both rising and falling tides.
° Install a powerhouse at the existing entrance to King Cove
Lagoon. Use a reversible tube turbine designed for high flow-
low head.
° Construct a bypass sluiceway and possibly a fish ladder.
° Embankment sections on both sides of powerhouse.
° Install three 600-kW machines (Note: Standard tube turbines
by Allis-Chalmers operate on a minimum head of 6.5 feet with
a maximum flow of 1,200 cfs. Tidal installation will require
special machines) .
36.
Resource Location:
Old Harbor, Alaska
Renewable or Nonrenewable:
Renewable
Resource Characteristics:
Dam
Type: Earthfill
Height (ft): 15
Powerhouse
Type of Machine: Tube turbine (propeller)
Number of Units: 1
Installed Capacity (kw): 360
Transmission Facilities
Type: SWGR
Length (miles): 0.5
voltage
37.
Energy Production:
Installed Capacity (kW): 360
Average Annual Energy (kWh): 1,640,000
Plant Factor (%): 52
Dependable Capacity (kW): 360
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics:
Tide Range (ft): 8
Total Head (ft): 4
Net Head (ft): 4
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Environmental Impacts:
Known spawning area for coho, pink, and chum salmon. Salmon could be
adversely affected by tidal barrier development and project operation.
38.
5. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: WIND GENERATION
3%,
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wind generation/King Cove
General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind
generators to provide approximately 60 kW of average power output. System
to consist of three wind generators rated for 40 kW maximum output each,
with 60-foot support towers, control equipment, and transformation and
transmission facilities to integrate into existing village electric dis-
tribution system.
Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and
direction, as close to the village's distribution system as practical.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Three 40-kW peak machines
Resource Integration: Tied to existing distribution system via 12.5-kV
transmission line. Wind power to be backed by diesel generation to firm
up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Maximum wind
generation contribution to total system load is 25 percent.
Energy Production: 40 kW peak per machine, 20 kW average per machine,
175,000 kWh per year per machine, 525,000 kWh per year total generation
40.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of ap-
proximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Downtime for system estimated at
25 to 30 percent.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachement.
Maintenance Requirements: Frequent maintenance required. Single part-
time operator to operate and maintain units. Approximate useful life-
time of 15 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Delivery 6 months; design 3 months;
construction/installation 12 months; startup 3 months
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
AL,
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wind generation/Sand Point.
General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind
generators to provide approximately 100 kW average power output. System
to consist of five wind generators rated for 40 kW maximum output each,
with 60-foot support towers, control equipment, and transformation and
transmission facilities to integrate into existing village electric dis-
tribution system.
Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and
direction, as close to the village's distribution system as practical.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Five 40-kW peak machines
Resource Integration: Tied to existing distribution system via 12.5-kv
transmission line. Wind generation to be backed by diesel generation to
firm up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Maximum
wind generation contribution to total system load is 25 percent.
Energy Production: 40 kW peak per machine, 20 kW average per machine,
175,000 kWh per year per machine, 875,000 kWh per year total generation
42.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of ap-
proximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Downtime for system estimated
at 25 to 30 percent.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Frequent maintenance required. Single part-
time skilled operator to operate and maintain units. Approximate useful
lifetime of 15 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Delivery 6 months; design 3 months;
construction/installation 12 months; startup 3 months
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major consideration
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
43,
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wind generation/Akhoik, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie.
General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind
generator to provide approximately 10 kW of average power output. System
to consist of one wind generator rated for 25 kW maximum output, with
60-foot support tower, control equipment, and transformation and trans-
mission facilities to integrate into existing village electric distribu-
tion system. (Note: Larsen Bay currently has no central electric system.)
Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and
direction, as close to the village's distribution system as practical.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: One 25-kW peak machine
Resource Integration: Tied to existing distribution system via 12.5-kv
transmission line. Wind power to be backed by diesel generation to firm
up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Maximum wind
generation contribution to total system load is 25 percent.
Energy Production: 25 kW peak, 10.5 kW average, 92,000 kWh per year
44,
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of ap~
proximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Downtime for system estimated at
20 to 25 percent.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Frequent maintenance required. Single part-
time skilled operator to operate and maintain unit. Approximate useful
lifetime of 15 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Delivery time 24 months; design 3 months;
construction/installation 4 months; startup 2 months
Environmental Impacts: No significant impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No significant
considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts
45.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wind generation/Old Harbor
General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind
generators to provide approximately 20 kW of average power output. System
to consist of two wind generators rated for 25-kW maximum output each,
with 60-foot support towers, control equipment, and trasnformation and
transmission facilities to integrate into existing village electric dis-
tribution system.
Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and
direction, as close to the village's distribution system as practical.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Two 25-kW peak machines
Resource Integration: Tied to existing distribution system via 12.5-kv
transmission line. Wind power to be backed by diesel generation to firm
up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Maximum wind
generation contribution to total system load is 25 percent.
Energy Production: 25 kW peak per machine, 10.5 kW average per machines
92,000 kWh per year per machine, 184,000 kWh per year total generation
46.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of ap-
proximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Downtime for system estimated at 20 to
25 percent.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Frequent maintenance required. Single part-
time skilled operator to operate and maintain units. Approximate useful
lifetime of 15 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Delivery 24 months; design 3 months;
construction/installation 6 months; startup 2 months
Environmental Impacts: No significant impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Charateristics: No significant considera-
tions
Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts
47.
x Crom COST MATRIX EEHILL pron bia
GENELA Tron!
PROJECT NAME 4624 JVEcwHAploeY STUOY
PROJECT # K /AZAP 4o,00 _DATE_/Z-0F-8O
OST ATEGORY
Wi CaM CATE 4, 000 28, 600 /
TIE TO 2157:5y5T. | S/000 | /26,000| $7,000
2S. 680,000 254000 1 , 4 8 8 s § aw 8 {B ZoG,00°| 74,000
ToTAal E57, carita.cecr | 396,000) /; 346,000 4
Bz 20e| 82,000| agace| 44.000
GENELAT OR. ra00e| Barend 72,020] at 000 | ra.000 |
DisTRiB. Line
Sreansfaem’R| 380 45000 | 38000| 40,000} 328000
23,000 //,000
72,000
361,000
18,
ENG., LEGAL
BS gontint.toy, G6,000| /77,000| G60@ 94000\| Géb,d00
$23,000
82,000 | 82,000
254000
76,000 o 8 by & | d ® a S 8 | 3% 000
| SOW
PANO
582,000
45 000°
113,000 “x S N & 8 1 202,004
48,
*
6. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES:
49,
WOOD AND PEAT BURNING
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wood burning for central power generation/Larsen Bay
General Description: Locally available wood would be collected and burned
in a central boiler to produce moderate pressure (250 psi) steam. The
steam would drive a turbine/generator unit producing approximately 100
kW average electric output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine would
be condensed for reuse in the boiler.
Wood stoves in individual housing units and other structures would con-
tribute to space heating load. Cut wood would be made available to vil-
lage residents at the central generating facility site.
Resource Location: Wood resource is locally available. Initial har-
vesting would be close to the village. As harvesting proceeds, roads
would be extended to outlying areas as necessary.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Resource components are: (1) wood gathering
equipment, (2) mobile wood chipping machine, (3) wood chip storage and
transportation device, (4) power generation facility building and wood
chip storage area, (5) boiler unit, (6) turbine/generator unit,
50.
(7) miscellaneous piping and controls, (8) road construction equipment,
(9) boiler feed chip handling equipment, and (10) emission control
equipment.
Resource Integration: No special requirements (Note: Larsen Bay cur-
rently does not have a central electric generating or distribution system.)
Energy Production: 100 kW average; 876,000 kWh/year
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: The electric generating system
would require approximately 7.7 tons of bone-dry wood per day, or 2,800
tons per year. These requirements are based on an assumed heating value
of 8,000 Btu per pound dry wood.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: The density of available wood product
(tons/acre) is uncertain. Assuming wood availability is 10 tons/acre as
found in the Bonaza Creek Experimental Project Stand, approximately 280
acres are required to provide the necessary wood product each year. The
rate of regeneration of this biomass would be sufficiently slow so that
an exceptionally large area of land would be required for a truly renew-
able system.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
maintenance cost = $325,000/year.
51.
Maintenance Requirements: The boiler/turbine generator unit would be
monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One highly skilled
maintenance person would be required part time. Wood chip collection
process and road construction process would require a four-person crew
operating 8 hours a day.
Resource Development Schedule: Design, 6 months; construction, 12 months;
startup 3 months
Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts due to boiler
discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused
by biomass removal from forested areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated
somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and
wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts,
soil erosion, road construction impacts, and reforestation programs.
Assessment incomplete at this time.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Limited land available
for wood resource harvesting. Assessment incomplete at this time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
52.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Wood burning for central power generation/Ouzinkie
General Deaueiplaent locally available wood would be collected and burned
in a central boiler to produce moderate-pressure (250 psi) steam. The
steam would drive a turbine/generator unit producing approximately 100
kW average electric output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine would
be condensed for reuse in the boiler.
Wood stoves in individual housing units and other structures would con-
tribute to space heating load. Cut wood would be made available to village
residents at the central power generating facility site.
Resource Location: Wood resource is locally available. Initial harvesting
would be close to the village. As harvesting proceeds, roads would be
extended to outlying areas as necessary.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Resource components are: (1) wood gathering
equipment, (2) mobile wood chipping machine, (3) wood chip storage and
transportation device, (4) power generation facility building and wood
chip storage area, (5) boiler unit, (6) turbine/generator unit, (7) mis-
cellaneous piping and controls, (8) road construction equipment, (9) boiler
feed wood chip handling equipment, and (10) emission control equipment.
53.
Resource Integration: No special requirements
Energy Production: 100 kW average; 876,000 kWh/year
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: The electric generating system
would require approximately 7.7 tons of bone-dry wood per day, or 2,800
tons per year. These requirements are based on an assumed heating value
of 8,000 Btu per pound dry wood.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: The density of available wood product
(tons/acre) is uncertain. Assuming wood availability is 15 tons/acre as
found in Delta Clearing Project, approximately 190 acres are required to
provide the necessary wood product each year. The rate of regeneration
of this biomass would be sufficiently slow so that an exceptionally large
area of land would be required for a truly renewable system. Total acre-
age for Spruce Island is approximately 10,000 acres, therefore severely
restricting wood product available.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
maintenance = $325,000/year
Maintenance Requirements: The boiler/turbine generator unit would be
monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One highly skilled
maintenance person would be required part time. Wood chip collection
process and road construction process would require a four-person crew
operating 8 hours a day.
54.
Resource Development Schedule: Design, 6 months; construction, 12 months;
startup, 3 months
Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts due to boiler
discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused
by biomass removal from forested areas. Stack emissions can be miti-
gated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial
and wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts,
soil erosion, road construction impacts, and reforestation programs.
Assessment incomplete at this time.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Limited land available
for wood resource harvesting. Assessment incomplete at this time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
55%
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Decentralized wood burning for residential space
heating/Larsen Bay and Ouzinkie
General Description: Locally available wood would be cut, collected,
and transported to a central site in the village for sale and distribu-
tion to village residents. Wood burning stoves would be installed in
homes currently without such devices to provide space heating.
Resource Location: Larsen Bay and Ouzinkie
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: (1) Wood cutting, sizing, and transporting
equipment, (2) road construction equipment, (3) wood stoves for individ-
ual housing units (assumed 30 stoves installed)
Resource Integration: N/A
Energy Production: For 30 residential units, energy production (older
house/no insulation) = 288 million Btu/yr, energy production (HUD house) =
79 million Btu/yr
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: N/A
56.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Highly reliable
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
maintenance $110,000/year
Maintenance Requirements: Wood collection, sizing, and transporting
process would require a 3-person crew 8 hours per day.
Resource Development Schedule: Immediate
Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts caused by biomass
removal from forested areas. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts
due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts, soil erosion, road
construction impacts, and reforestation programs. Assessment incomplete
at this time.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations;
assessment incomplete at this time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
7s
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Peat burning for central power generation/all villages
General Description: Locally available peat would be collected and de-
watered to approximately 20,percent solids content by mass using a "V"
press at the collection site. The material would be transported to the
generation site, where it would be compressed to form briquettes at ap-
proximately 50-percent solids content by mass. The briquettes would be
stored in silos to further air dry. When dried to the desired level,
the briquettes would be burned in a boiler to provide moderate-pressure
(250 psi) steam. The steam will drive a turbine/generator unit producing
approximately 100 kW average electric output. The low-pressure steam
exiting the turbine will be condensed for reuse in the boiler.
Peat burning wood stoves in individual housing units and other struc-
tures would contribute to the space heating load. Peat briquettes could
be made available to village residents at the central power generating
facility site.
Resource Location: A medium quality/heat content peat resource is locally
available to all villages. Initial harvesting would be close to the
village with later harvesting in outlying areas as needed.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
58.
Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat cutting and
gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage
and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation
facility building and peat storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit,
(7) turbine/generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls,
(9) road construction equipment, (10) briquette handling equipment,
(11) emission control equipment.
Resource Integration: No special requirements. (Note: Larsen Bay
currently does not have a central electric generating or distribution
system.)
Energy Production: 100 kW average; 876,000 kWh/year
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: The energy available from peat
depends on the moisture content of the material. A typical heat content
of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat will require approximately
15 dry tons of peat material per day to generate at the stated output
levels (5,500 tons per year).
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: The Peat Resource Estimation in Alaska
prepared by Northern Technical Services dated October 1980 did not test
the local areas under study. The study's description of the Kodiak Island
area is as follows:
"Four samples were obtained from sites on the northeastern
side of Kodiak Island. Because of difficult access to the
mountainous interior of the island, all sample sites were
59.
located in the coastal areas. Kodiak Island is downwind from
the volcanically active Aleutian Chain and was substantially
affected by both ash fall and tsunami activity after the
Mt. Katmai eruption in 1912. Field observations indicated
volcanic ash deposits throughout the peat strata. Similarly,
chemical analysis of the Kodiak samples show ash content of
18 to 49 percent. From the data taken, no positive correla-
tion can be made of ash content with depth. Mineral soil was
found at all sites within 7 feet of the ground surface."
Substantial ash content levels would be detrimental and possibly pro-
hibitive to boiler operation.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
maintenance $325,000/year
Maintenance Requirements: The boiler/turbine generator unit would be
monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One highly skilled
maintenance person would be required part time. Peat collection process
and road construction process would require a four-person crew operating
8 hours daily.
Resource Development Schedule: Design, 6 months; construction, 12 months,
startup, 3 months
Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts due to boiler
discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused
by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated
somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and
60.
wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion prob-
lems, road construction, and replacement programs. Assessment incomplete
at this time.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: Limited access and land
available for peat resource harvesting; assessment incomplete at this
time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
61.
COST MATRIX BiOwWA4 SS
r2M [= Hit PROJECT
GENERA TIO WOGO PROJECT
NAME 44 7EEH Jol 2G S7e2y
4 K/4238.A0.00 DATE _/Z-0¢-Go
KING AkKHICK | Cove FACILITY
‘OST ATEGORY
TICK Cec
SiTework | AVY
CoNnchLEeTve
BUtQVsG
a ,
ALVES: ZLEIE
5
4/82 CHP
OWN.
Botek F
Tee dss €
MELA
ENG, LEGAL, feoun cok | (| La
Tera ES7 - earineceer| * |b <—
ee
laecaos | ff Ne
WOG2
HALVEST
4,122,000 4122, 000
ese0o | uf | e600 Jenuecera | / | / | soe | / |aoo| ¢ | | |
MA
Pe
Eeo0uw rf.
SUBTOTAL anes
ENG, LEGAL,
MOMs. €0% 86,000
eee Ie pleas (80,000 i
KESIQENCE eee 58,000 56,000
| | dessoce| | | ||
Te7Al ES7-
CAM TAL Cos 7 S16,000
62.
Uris ¥ ‘ [EH wou PROJECT NAME 4/4 Zc Wel OGY \STUCY
Gewe Ratios: FEAT PROJECT #_K /42,38,40.00 DATE ,Z-0€- 0
L WEWkIE| S442
Cove e4yv HALBIR. ONT dd me jeswcmere| 7 | 8 slater | 7 | sieve / | | fewnoners| (| [| [rsremo| [| |iscoeol | | |_|
FEAT HARVEST
Eeu1P 184,000 184,000
PEAT HANOLING aor 435,000 425,000 Bol \ [| fecscoe| | Teceroool \ | || psverorae | \ | \ [assecd | |rasncool \ | | | fscrtcourawe| | | \ | azrcce| | [aoroo| | | |
EKG, LEGAL,
Anant @ Zo To 378,000 378,000 7.
TOTAL EST... CAPITAL Gost 2,200, 060 2, 274,000
e?
63.
=a so — — — Te TECHNOLOGY PROFILES:
64.
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery/Sand Point.
General Description: Reclaim exhaust heat only from two existing 500-kW
engine generators at city generating plant. Use hot water to heat apart-
ment units nearby.
Resource Location: City generating plant, Sand Point
Renewable or Nonrenewable: N/A
Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) 800 feet of 3-inch-
diameter outside pipe (insulated), (2) 450 feet of 2-inch-diameter inside
pipe, (3) 15 hot water unit heaters, (4) two heat recovery silencers
(5) hot water circulation pump, and (6) two expansion tanks
Resource Integration: N/A
Energy Production: Approximately 1,500,000 Btu per hour from one generator
at 300 kW average load.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: System operates utilizing engine
stack exhaust heat from city generation facility. Jacket water presently
being recovered for nearby bunkhouse heating.
65.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Highly reliable
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: No additional operators required. Inspect
piping, valves, and unit heaters monthly. Visually check heat recovery
system whenever engine is checked.
Resource Development Schedule: Design 6 months; installation 12 months;
startup 3 months.
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations,
assessment incomplete at this time
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
66.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery — School/Ouzinkie
t General Description: Reclaim exhaust and jacket water heat from one
150-kW engine generator (currently being installed at different location).
Generator to be relocated to a new building next to the school. Requires
new floor slab and building, new 1/4-mile transmission line, and new pipe
system to transmit heated water (200°F) to school interior spaces.
Resource Location: Ouzinkie school site
Renewable or Nonrenewable: N/A
Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) 200 feet of 3-inch-
diameter outside pipe (insulated), (2) 400 feet of 2-inch-diameter interior
piping, (3) four hot water unit heaters (100,000 BtuH rating), (4) one
heat recovery silencer, (5) one heat exchanger (shell and tube type),
(6) one building hot water circulation pump (7) one expansion tank
(20 gallon), and (8) one Butler-type building with concrete floor slab.
67.
Resource Integration: N/A
Energy Production: Approximately 295,000 Btu per hour at 50 kW average
load
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: System operates utilizing engine
stack exhaust and jacket water heat from village generation plant.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Highly reliable
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Part-time skilled operator required for opera-
tion and maintenance. Inspect piping, valves, unit heaters monthly.
Visually check heat recovery system whenever engine is checked.
Resource Development Schedule: Design 6 months; installation 12 months;
startup 3 months.
Environmental Impacts: No major impact.
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations.
Assessment incomplete at this time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
68.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery — School/Larsen Bay.
General Description: Reclaim exhaust and jacket water heat from two
existing 60-kW engine generators (school). Use hot water to heat school
and gym.
Resource Location: Larsen Bay School
Renewable or Nonrenewable: N/A
Resource Characteristics: Same as waste heat recovery — school/Ouzinkie.
Resource Integration: N/A
Energy Production: Approximately 98,000 Btu per hour at 15 to 20 kW
average load (school only electric load)
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: System operates utilizing engine
stack exhaust and jacket water heat from school generation plant.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Highly reliable
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
69.
Maintenance Requirements: Same as waste heat recovery - school/Ouzinkie.
Resource Development Schedule: Design 6 months; installation 9 months;
startup 3 months
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations.
Assessment incomplete at this time.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
70.
COST MATRIX PROJECT NAME 4 24 TeEcuataleoed sm
UASTE HEAT aaa
RECHWE2yY PROJECT #_ K /4238. 40,00 _ DATE
FACILITY | Apo. KING CAesow | OLD WHINE | SAND
RTEGORY COVE aay AHMCBHE POINT
WP. = z.cce| mcoo| |__|
HEAT
eECaveErYyY
CQ PMEA TT
HEA4T
Decvery
STRUCTURES
ELECTRICAL
SuB7o7Aal
Bot Comtialer.
ENG., LEGAL
Bomins, @ £0%
TeTAc E57.
CAPAITAL Co$7 f /§, 000 KR G@Z,000 $8000
93,000
28,000 || s2000
24000
/45 000
|| zoco| -
/00,000)| 22/,000
/S6,000 | 245,000
jiseco|szeco| |
148,000
66,000
NI —
8. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: SOLAR ENERGY
72.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Active solar heating/all villages
General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system to
be attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate
collectors would be used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage
tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main stor-
age tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used
to preheat domestic hot water.
Resource Location: System is located with each unit (e.g., housing unit)
that is to receive the heated water.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the six villages
under consideration are not readily available. The villages lie between
approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available
for Annette (55.02 N) and Bethel (60.47 N), and were used to approximate
conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Alaskan Gulf and
may be subject to different local weather conditions.
Resource Integration: System linked to existing heating and domestic
water systems. May be a problem for units that have stand-alone furnaces
and hot water heaters.
Jas
Energy Production: Analysis was done for a combined space heating and
water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot residential unit with
average heat loss of 50 Btu/sq ft/hour. For a 500-square-foot collector
system approximately 15 to 20 percent of the total heating requirements
could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector
system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements
could be met. ‘The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000
Btu/year per square foot of collector area.
Input Ener (Fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a P oY |
typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent
solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In
addition, a nominal input of electricity would be required to run the
fans and pumps.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather
and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
Maintenance cost = $400/year
Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system
equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for
outdoor equipment. Expect that maintenance can be performed biannually
by semi-skilled operator.
74.
Resource Development Schedule: Design 2.5 months, construction 6 months,
startup .5 month
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
75.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Solar electric (photovoltaic)/all villages
General Description: A packaged photovoltaic system to produce approxi-
mately 2,000 watt-hours per day. To be attached to individual housing
or other building units. System would consist of solar panels, lead-
calcium storage batteries, matching control panel, charging regulator,
and other required accessories.
Resource Location: System to be located with each unit (e.g., housing
unit) that is to receive the power produced.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the six villages
under consideration are not readily available. The villages lie between
approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available
for Annette (55.02 N) and Bethel (60.47 N), and were used to approximate
conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Alaskan Gulf and
may be subject to different local weather conditions.
Resource Integration: System to be tied directly to the equipment that
will be using the power. No tie to existing village power systems.
76.
Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours
per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power
drain: 2,500 watts.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be
only the solar energy available.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather
and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment. Operating/
maintenance cost = $400/year
Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and started, the
maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is per-
formed must be done by a skilled maintenance person.
Resource Development Schedule: Design, 3 months; construction, 6 months;
startup, .5 month
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
Te
{SARL COST MATRIX PROJECT NAME 4/444 JE cuidloLoay STvoy SOLAR
‘OST
4 WE
ENELOLURFE
Z. Fe 7 KEY sire
CUBR
ee oe) eee ee ee ee
1 BAS0C
CQUIPMENT
4/000) 392000) 37,200| 37600 | 4/0090 NT
ENG, LEG,
Auui.@to%\| 34 000\ 2$,000| 2fo000| 24 200 | ZA ger | 28,000
To7A EST.
Carita. Goer \2ZOZ000 | ZI) 000 | 20%, B00 | 222,020 | 2LE 209 | 211,209
PROJECT # K/4Z38. Jo, 2a DATE
LALSEON/| LO
COVE Bar HACBO LOIN T
50,000| 47000| 47000 | <70c0| <2 00
é, ee 3, fee
1000 :
mi Tie el zae| ard eelzen| —[
9. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: ENERGY CONSERVATION
79:
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older housing stock/all vil-
lages except Old Harbor
General Description:
° Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation
° Wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or poly-
urethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint
inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint
° Insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the
floor joists with gypsum board
° Install storm windows
Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages except Old Harbor.
Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: N/A
Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce heating
fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half
80.
the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next
most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the
walls, and finally installing storm windows.
Resource Integration: The ceiling and floor insulation will not be notice-
able. Wall insulation technique will make the residences appear like
newer housing stock.
Energy Production: Annual energy saving per older house due to reduc-
tions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 213.8
million Btu (approximatly 1,485 gallons #2 heating oil).
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: None.
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: Insulation performance over time is
a major unknown. Resistance values will decrease over time as the insu-
lation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable.
Vapor barriers should be used where possible.
With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as
degradation of insulation is concerned. But the impermeability to mois-
ture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environ-
ment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility,
it is suggested that the inside surfaces of exterior walls be painted
with a moisture-resistant paint.
81.
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels):
° Insulating ceiling with R-30 batt insulation $1.50/sq ft
ceiling area
° Insulating floor and installing sheathing $2.50/sq ft
floor area
° Wrapping outside walls with polyurethane $4.50/sq ft
and T-1-11 wall area
° Installing storm windows $33.00/sq ft
window area
Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed
Resource Development Schedule: Immediate
Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts;, possible beneficial
impact resulting from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired
furnaces
Institutional/Social/Land Use Characteristics: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
82.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILE SUMMARY
Resource/Village: Energy conservation-flame retention burner installa-
tion/Old Harbor and Sand Point
General Description: Replace standard oil burners on forced-air furnaces
in newer HUD houses with flame retention burners.
Resource Location: Forced-air oil furnaces equipped with standard gun-
type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention
burners. Forty-five HUD homes in Old Harbor are equipped with this type
of gun-type burners. Ome such conversion has been made in Sand Point.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: N/A
Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner
have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with
the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent.
A further reduction in oil use can be realized by downsizing the furnace
from the current 50,000 Btu per hour rating.
Resource Integration: N/A
Energy Production: Annual energy saving per installation due to increased
combustion efficiency is estimated at 33.8 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2
heating oil).
83.
Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: None required
Resource/Input Energy Reliability: High reliability
Resource Cost (December 1980 Price Levels): See attachment
Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required
Resource Development Schedule: Immediate
Environment Impacts: No major adverse impacts, possible beneficial impact
resulting from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces
Institutional/Social/Land Use Considerations: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
84.
COST MATRIX ENELZGY PROJECT NAME_YY2d TEcHwWoloar STWOY
_COon SERVATION PROJECT # K/42Z3BS.40,00 _ DATE
Ha Bo 7, Contra! 5
ENG. LEGAL,
Aourtl. to4,| 4000 | 4,600
FeTAL ES7.
CAPITAL Crs} ZZ,000| 2G 000 | 2%,0¢°
urceroke Exsr |eesi0en4
KE PLACE
EKG, CE&GML,
AQMiUs Eo% Z00 Z00 Zo 1120
4, 000
za € HEAT
700
1,/00 CAL LT«C Cos 7 N Ry R 0
SAO
FOMT
4 200
Zt 000
ao Cee
700
Z20 4/00
10. TECHNOLOGY PROFILES NOT INCLUDED
86.
TECHNOLOGY PROFILES NOT INCLUDED
The following energy resource technologies were investigated and deter-
mined to be clearly not worthy of further consideration due to the stated
reason(s).
Geothermal resource heating/King Cove
Relatively low temperature resource located approximately 20 miles
distance through mountainous terrain. Transmission costs too great
to warrant further consideration.
Hot water district heating systems/all villages
Determined to be clearly infeasible due to large transmission dis-
tances between individual housing units, incompatibility with
existing heating devices, prohibitive maintenance requirements,
requirement for backup heating source, and high cost of heating
resource.
Waste heat recovery - new city generating plant warehouse/King Cove
No requirement to heat accompanying warehouse.
Conservation - Schools and other large structures/all villages
Determined to be clearly not deserving of further study due to the
low potential for energy savings resulting from installation of
conservation devices. In general, schools and other large struc-
tures are recently constructed with adequate insulation, weather-
proofing, and other conservation measures currently existing.
88.
11. SITE VISIT PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
89.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Public Meeting at Old Harbor
October 23, 1980
Residents estimate that it requires three barrels of diesel per month to
heat homes during the winter (2,000 gal./yr.). A population increase
of 100 people has been projected for within the next ten years. All
houses are currently occupied. The average household pays between
$130 and $150 per month for electricity. This includes an average of
two lightbulbs, refrigerator, television, and freezer at AVEC's rates of
39.5¢/kWh. Outages are common.
There are no salmon in Ohiozik Creek.
Tidal speed through Sitkalidak Passage is estimated at between four and
five knots. This is the main traffic route for fishing vessels and other
boats, however.
Comments made on the location of domestic water supplies. At the pre
sent, water is pumped up to storage tanks. Questions on why there
isn't a gravity feed system. The village has a water treatment system.
Some families burn driftwood rather than diesel for heat.
It is estimated that there are two to three inches of insulation in the
walls of the older homes. Most of the newer homes do not have vapor
barriers. The windows are in bad shape in the older homes. One person
at the meeting commented that "Anderson" windows with plastic work
well. 90.
Electricity is provided by AVEC. The school also utilizes electricity
from the AVEC system. System outages occur at least two times per
week.
The existing school was completed in 1962. Request has been made to
the Legislature for funds to construct a swimming pool.
Comment by Mike Eunick of Port Lyons that Alaskan village residents
typically use perhaps only 25 percent of the energy that they might use
under more favorable circumstances. Rick Burns, mayor, estimates Old
Harbor's household usage at 850 kWh's per month.
In 1978 the Alaska Power Authority studied Old Harbor, Port Lions,
and Larsen Bay for potential hydroelectric development demonstration
projects. Conclusions were that Larsen Bay would get the project.
However, nothing has happened.
Old Harbor fishermen sell their catch to Columbia Ward's cannery at
Alitak Bay.
The River off of Three Saints Bay does not have salmon. They were
killed many years ago by "bluestone" used to chase fish into fish traps.
91.
Public Meeting at Larsen Bay
October 22, 1980
CH2M HILL's project team was invited to attend the Tribal Council meeting
at Larsen Bay and make a presentation. Comments pertaining to the
energy reconnaissance project follow.
It is estimated by Jack Wicks that family housing in Larsen Bay will
double within the next two years.
Individual homes or groups of two or three homes generate power from
small "light" plants. These require approximately 4 to 4-1/2 gallons of
diesel per day to operate. Electricity is usually generated only during
the evening periods or when needed. With an average of 10 hours per
day light plant use typical, electric fuel consumption is reported at about
137 gal./mo. This is about 7 kWh/gallon expected. The comment was
made that Larsen Bay is looking for a centralized power system as a
method to cut costs. An interim measure towards this idea is to construct
a centralized distribution system (Larsen Bay suggested underground).
Fuel costs $1.30 per gallon in Larsen Bay.
Tom Peterson of Kodiak Area Native Association, representing Kodiak
Island Housing Authority, discussed plans to add additional HUD-funded
housing. During the next five years it is estimated that Larsen Bay
may add as many as 15 to 20 new HUD houses.
92.
It is estimated that population in Larsen Bay will increase 25 percent
during the next five years (KANA). Public Health Service publishes a
five-year growth forecast.
It was suggested that one reason for future growth at Larsen Bay will
be due to the new high school which began operating in the fall of 1980.
Currently many other villages on Kodiak Island must send their kids to
Kodiak High School for their junior and senior years. The possibility
exists that families may move to Larsen Bay in order to be with their
children who are attending the last two years of High School. The
Retherford report on Humpy Creek, prepared for the Alaska Power
Administration (January 1980), was discussed.
Frank Peterson indicated the need for a pump system versus gravity
flow system for the local water supply (PHS). Some houses in Larsen
Bay still get their water from shallow wells.
Art Panamaroff stated that PHS had brought an engineer into Larsen
Bay--they may be constructing a water system by the fall of 1981.
Contact Mike Dorsky, Indian Health Service, Anchorage.
Jack Wick stated that there is a one square mile townsite at Larsen Bay.
The village corporation owns an additional 70,000 acres, but a clause
states that all uses of this area must be compatible with the Kodiak Island
wildlife refuge (bear refuge). Jack Wick stated that the Tribal Council
had looked at the possibilities of hydropower development in Humpy
Creek five years ago and were favorably impressed.
93.
In 1964 the earthquake caused the area at Larsen Bay to subside approx-
imately 3.6 feet. The potential hydroelectric damsite is located above
the village.
The Tribal Council decided that the top priority in their revised OEDP
plan will remain hydroelectric development for the village of Larsen Bay.
94,
Public Meeting at Ouzinkie
October 20, 1980
The Village of Ouzinkie has approximately 200 residents (1980) and 55
houses, 10 of which are not hooked into the existing electrical generating
system. The village currently generates electricity for 15 hours per
day, from 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. Typical appliances include
freezers, refrigerators, and washing machines. A new school is being
constructed. Once completed it will require additional generating capacity
and will have its own system. Other large structures in the village
include a warehouse and store.
Gasoline consumption is insignificant since there are only three vehicles
in the village and 25 to 30 three-wheelers. Gasoline is brought in by
individuals in 55-gallon drums.
A new electrical distribution system is being constructed, rates will be
changed from a flat rate of $60 per month per household to metered
rates. Six to seven houses have individual generators as a standby
measure. Ouzinkie has financed, through the Kodiak Island Borough,
purchase of a 150 kW generator through a small city block grant.
Wind in Ouzinkie is not a predictable resource. Information on consumption
of fuel for heating was provided. It was noted that wood stoves are
being added to HUD houses. There are 23 HUD houses, with ten more
planned for construction in 1981.
95.
A winterization project to provide materials for home insulation was ini-
tiated two years ago through Rural Alaska Community Action Program.
There was some question, however, from residents as to the effectiveness
of this program.
Norm Smith, utility manager, commented on system waste caused by
intermixing old and new electricity generating systems and by using flat
rate assessments.
Local concensus was that hydroelectric development would be desirable
and preferable to diesel-powered generation.
It was stated that the existing generating capacity (90 kW) is not suffi-
cient to provide power through this winter.
There is a landing strip planned for Ouzinkie; access is currently via
float plane or boat.
There are few salmon in Katmai Creek. The stream off Neva Cove does
have salmon, however.
There were some ideas presented on harnessing tidal power, including
digging a channel across a 450-foot isthmus to harness the tides.
Jack West mentioned the need to find ways to transport wood for heating
to villages without the use of trucks (since there are only three trucks
in the village). It appeared that wood heat would be more economical
than diesel furnaces.
96.
A previous proposal to sell waste heat from the village to the school
was discussed. Gary Smith, facilities coordinator with the Kodiak Island
Borough, needs to be contacted. There are five furnaces that will be
operating in the new school building.
Employment opportunities decreased in 1974-75, with the closing and
then burning of the cannery at Ouzinkie. Fishermen now fish for Colum-
bia Wards.
A presentation was made to a group of students at the school in Ouzinkie.
97;
Public Meeting at Sand Point
October 15, 1980
The U.S. Corps of Engineers had an anometer at the harbor at Sand
Point for a full year approximately five years ago.
Pacific Pearl owns the village utility system. Concern was expressed
about working with them, particularly if individuals began to establish
their own wind generation systems.
Edgar Smith suggested coal, which exists at Coal Harbor.
Note that Tom Dobson (Edgar Smith's uncle) at King Cove used to have
a windmill. Also, there used to be a windmill at Sand Point.
Comment that Akutan operates its telephone system off of a waterwheel
generating system.
Ken Selby should be able to answer questions on plans to improve the
source of the village's water supply and also any information on potential
hydroelectric.
Land is not available. Younger people are not able to acquire land to
construct homes on, causing restriction in growth of the village. A
plan requires utilities to be constructed before land can be sold. Therefore,
Pacific Pearl has adopted a policy not to sell any land for residential
development.
98.
Dr. Wakefield owns land but will not sell. He is assumedly waiting for
the planning and zoning issues to be resolved.
There is controversy over 1200 acres of land claimed by both the village
corporation and the City of Sand Point.
The economic base of Sand Point is limited to a general store, fish pro-
cessing plant which also sells fuel and fishery supplies, a small cafe,
mobile welding service, school, and government. It was noted that there
isn't even a repair garage for vehicles, which results in many late model
trucks being junked relatively quickly.
Comment that Sand Point used to be an did cod fishing and processing
area. Note that in Akutan the Norwegian Fish Company is splitting and
salting cod, which is picked up by freighters and shipped to Norway.
Estimates are that a two-month salmon crew share may be between $75,000
and $120,000. However, it was also stated that few people in Sand Point
actually hold a $30,000-per-year job.
Comment that if land was made available population would double immediately.
Some houses in the city have never had power since formal beginnings
of the city 15 to 20 years ago. Some of these people have been residents
of Sand Point for 40 to 50 years.
Comment that a man in Unalaska constructed three windmills and that he
is also a wind power dealer.
S39:
Public Meeting at King Cove
October 16, 1980
An announcement of this public meeting was cut into the local news program.
Don Baxter of Alaska Power Authority joined the CH2M HILL field team
(Katie Eberhart, Steve Schulte, and Glen Dearth). A slide show and
description of alternative energy possibilities was presented, followed
by a question and answer period.
Question: How much output would you expect from a wind machine?
Answer: Boeing is providing a commercially available 2-1/2 MW wind
machine.
Question: AC or DC current?
Answer: Either can be integrated into a system.
Comment that there is little hope for solar development at King Cove
(however, it was brought to our attention that in False Pass an individual
is operating a solar and wind-powered living system).
Comment that there are hot springs across the bay from Cold Bay.
Question as to whether or not it would be possible to transport either
hot water or electricity generated from this source to King Cove.
100.
A Comment by Don Baxter that for geothermal to be economically feasible,
rule of thumb that water must be at least 170°F. Comparison of this
potential resource to Iceland and New Zealand geothermal energy which
has been developed. Possibility that the transport costs may make this
resource uneconomical as far as King Cove is concerned.
Question as to whether EPA is evaluating the feasibility of wind generators
in North Carolina. Comment by Schulte that relative feasibility of wind
generation systems are based on the economics/cost of alternative sources
of energy. Differences in wind power development in North Carolina
versus Alaska were discussed.
Don Baxter commented on trends in Alaska, particularly wind and tech-
nology development. He also suggested that a base plan might be to
continue diesel generation and utilize waste heat more extensively.
No comments from residents regarding level of or possibilities for future
growth in King Cove.
101.
westerly winds. Driftwood 7-8 miles distant. Bear Refuge surrounds
i Akhiok.
J 103.
Public Meeting at Akhiok
October 24, 1980
Population: 100 year-round residents
30 summer (seasonal) residents
Land Transportation: One truck
Ten 3-wheelers
Housing: 15 HUD homes
15 "older" homes
Other Facilities: School
Community Center
Akhiok's population is stable. The village does not have a well-estab-
lished economic base. A Columbia Wards cannery is located seven miles
to the southwest at Alitak Bay.
Land is difficult for individuals to acquire. The village corporation has
selected lands outside the one-square-mile townsite.
Barges deliver fuel oil to Akhiok or residents can obtain smaller amounts
from the Columbia Wards cannery. Fuel oil sells for $66 per barrel.
Oil is used in a typical five-bedroom HUD home for cooking (stove) and
heating. Average use per house is 2,100 gallons annually; 4-5 barrels
per month in winter and approximately two barrels per month in summer.
102.
Tidal power does not appear to be a viable option. Steady prevailing