HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing Cove Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 7-1981VIL-C
002
3 Hes SE:
King
= i HH
a Oo. eee EF >= OQ eee ae oO _ > = a ee a Cc ca â ae ay n <x = x
Summary
Reconnaisance Study of
Energy Requirements & Alternatives for
King Cove PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE!
Prepared For July 1981
Alaska Power Authority CH2M gBHILL
PROPERTY GF:
Alas*a Power Authority
G34 W. Sth Ave.
Anchoragsa, Alaska 99501
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Summary
Reconnaisance Study of
Energy Requirements & Alternatives for
King Cove
Prepared For July 1981
Alaska Power Authority CH2M&EHILL ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
K14238
an MM PREFACE
This summary contains the results of a study evaluating energy
requirements and alternative electricity sources for the com-
munity of King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula. The study was
performed as part of a larger study that included four com-
munities on Kodiak Island and two communities on or near the
Alaska Peninsula. This study is described in a report titled Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie,
Sand Point, issued in June 1981. It was authorized by the
State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Develop-
ment, Alaska Power Authority, in a contract with CH2M HILL
signed October 9, 1980.
iii
an MM RECOMMENDATIONS
King Cove is on the Alaska peninsula and has a year-round population of approximately 460. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc., maintains a large seafood processing plant in King Cove and is the primary source of economic activity in the city. The
community has grown in recent years. As a result of con- tinued economic activity and the availability of newly con- structed housing, future population growth is anticipated.
A city-owned, diesel-electric generation plant is being in- stalled near the harbor. The plant will serve only the city and school and will consist of one new 300-kilowatt (kW) diesel engine generator (now being installed), one new 300-kW generator (on order), and one planned 300-kW generator. Cur- rent peak electrical requirements for the city and school are 170 kW; these are expected to grow to 340 kW by the year 2000.
The proposed Delta Creek hydropower project would be located near the village airstrip, with a rated capacity of 330 kw. It would require an initial investment of approximately $4.0 million (at January 1981 prices). The Delta Creek project would be lower in cost, over a 50-year planning period, than continued central diesel electric generation. Between 1985 and 1997 excess electricity from the Delta Creek plant could be used by the processing plant, thus displacing diesel gen-
eration. If excess electricity could not be sold, the proj- ect would be less attractive.
A more detailed investigation is needed to determine the feasibility of the Delta Creek project. This would include detailed aerial mapping and streamflow measurement programs. Data collected from such programs could be used to refine
project configuration and cost estimates. A streamflow measurement program would take at least 1 year. The feas- ibility investigation would cost approximately $80,000 to $120,000.
A more detailed investigation is needed to determine the
feasibility of a weatherproofing and insulation program,
primarily for older housing. This investigation would
include a more detailed characterization of current insula-
tion levels, the general condition of the existing housing,
an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of
both the costs and expected results of alternative conser-
vation programs available to the community. Such an inves-
tigation would cost approximately $20,000.
CONTENTS
Preface
Recommendations
1 Introduction
2 Existing and Projected Energy Requirements Existing Electrical Generation Facilities Annual Energy Use
Demographic and Economic Forecast
Energy Requirements Forecast
3 Alternative Sources of Energy
Small Hydroelectric Generation
Tidal Generation
Induction Wind Generation
Waste Heat Recovery From Central Diesel
Engine Generators
Heat Energy Conservation
Peat Combustion for Electrical Generation
Coal Combustion for Electrical Generation
Solar Energy (Active Solar Heating and
Electrical Generation)
Single Wire Ground Return Electricity
Transmission
Preferred Sources of Electricity
4 Evaluation of Alternative Electricity Supply
Plans
Appendix:
Economic Evaluation of Alternative Plans
Environmental Evaluation of Alternative
Plans
Technical Evaluation of Alternative Plans
Conclusions
Detailed Description of Preferred
Electricity Sources
vii hb DPW WW oonn~ 10
10
10
11
11
13
13
13
16
16
17
TABLES
1 Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for King Cove 6
2 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternative Energy Sources for King Cove 12
3 Alternative Electricity Supply Plans for King Cove 14
4 Evaluation of Alternative Electricity Supply Plans for King Cove 15
FIGURES
1 Annual Energy Balance for King Cove 5
ix
WM Chapter 1
MM INTRODUCTION
Alternative sources of electricity for the community of King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula were identified and evaluated in the study summarized by this report. The sources recom-
mended for further study could help the community reduce its dependence on expensive and often scarce diesel fuel for
electrical generation.
The purpose of the study was to recommend a series of activ- ities that will result in the identification of feasible
alternative sources of electricity. The sources studied include wind generation, peat and coal combustion for elec- trical generation, small hydroelectric generation, tidal
generation, solar-electric generation, and continued use of centralized or decentralized diesel generation. Waste heat
recovery and the conservation of building heat were also evaluated. Establishment of the feasibility of a specific
source was beyond the scope of the study.
Information about these sources formed the basis for prep- aration of alternative plans to meet King Cove's future
demands for electricity. Electrical demands of the school were included in these plans. Each plan was assessed on the
basis of its technical, economic, environmental, social, and institutional characteristics. The assessments were performed in accordance with the procedures and assumptions established
by the Alaska Power Authority.
Further information about this study is contained in a report titled Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alterna-
tive for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie,
Sand Point, issued by the Alaska Power Authority in June 1981.
MM Chapter 2
MM EXISTING AND PROJECTED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The CH2M HILL project team visited King Cove during October
1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi-
dents, obtained information on current living conditions,
housing, household fuel consumption, employment, subsistence
activities, and concerns about local resources. An inspec-
tion of the existing generation system was conducted to
determine the nature and condition of the plant. Represen-
tatives of Peter Pan Seafoods provided information about
processing plant operations and fuel consumption. Additional
information was obtained from published sources and inter-
views with local planners.
EXISTING ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES
The City of King Cove owns and operates a central generation
and distribution system that serves the community residences,
small commercial establishments, and the school. The city
currently operates a 250-kilowatt (kW) GMC 12V71 unit (in-
stalled in 1979) and a rebuilt 200-kW GMC. 8V1271 unit and
has a 600-kW unit that is not operable. The old system will
soon be replaced by two 300-kW Caterpillar units, one of
which is still on order. A separate generating system owned
by Peter Pan Seafoods supplies electricity to the seafood
processing plant and all camp employee housing. This plant,
consisting of one 250-kW, one 1,000-kW, and four 750-kW units,
is in good operating condition. The Peter Pan plant also
serves the entire community when the city generating plant
is not operating. The electricity is distributed over a
7,200-volt, 3-phase system.
Residents expressed concern over what they believed was the
high cost of electricity in King Cove. It appeared, how-
ever, that most homes had a wide range of electrical appli-
ances. The effect of the relatively high cost of electricity
on the standard of living of local residents was varied,
depending largely on a household's income. Residents hope
that the changeover to a new generation plant will decrease
their costs or at least increase the system's reliability.
ANNUAL ENERGY USE
Fairly complete fuel consumption data are available for King
Cove; however, several use categories had to be further devel-
oped. Annual fuel delivery records show consumption of diesel
fuel by the City of King Cove and Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc.
It was assumed that the entire annual delivery (1,380 gallons)
of diesel fuel to the city was for generation. Use of a
conversion factor of 10 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per gallon
resulted in estimated city generation of 756,000 kWh per year. A load factor of 50 percent was used to calculate the peak load of 170 kW. End uses of electricity include light- ing and appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, televi-
sions, washers, and dryers.
Seventy percent of total fuel consumption by Peter Pan Sea-
foods was assumed to be for generation (7,090 barrels) and 30 percent for "other" (3,680 barrels). (Diesel fuel classi- fied as other is primarily for fueling fishing vessels.) A conversion factor of 10 kWh per gallon was used to estimate
cannery generation of 3,900 megawatt-hours per year.
Total annual deliveries of heating fuel were recorded for
the school, the chapel, several commercial establishments, and the cannery. Peter Pan Seafoods sells heating fuel to residents of King Cove and uses the remainder for cannery consumption. The amount of cannery heating fuel distributed
annually to residents was estimated to be 165 gallons per household per month in the summer and 330 gallons per house- hold per month in the winter. The resulting amount, plus deliveries to the chapel and commercial establishments, totaled 5,400 barrels for city heating. The amount of heating fuel remaining for use at the cannery, 3,040 bar-
rels, was classified as "cannery, other." End uses of heating fuel include heating, cooking, and water heating. Propane is occasionally used for cooking.
Figure 1 summarizes energy information for King Cove.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC FORECAST
The population of King Cove is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 2 percent between 1981 and 2000. This rate of increase is conservative in comparison with historical changes in population in the community. The housing stock is expected to increase at a slightly higher rate than popu- lation during the next 20 years. Projected increases have been extrapolated from estimates provided by local planners. This relationship between population and housing projections allows for future decreases in the average household size and an increase in housing market flexibility (i.e., a vacancy rate slightly greater than zero).
The preceding projections of population and housing require- ments are dependent on future levels of economic activity
and land availability. As long as it is difficult for indi- viduals to acquire and own land for home sites, growth in housing (and perhaps population) will be limited. It has
been assumed, however, that within the next 4 years individ- uals will be able to acquire home sites.
IMPORTS
MOTOR GAS 7,000 GAL
DIESEL
FUEL tâ11,508 bbl
HOME
HEATING 9,306 bbl
FUEL
END USE
VEHICLE AND .
THER USE 8,375 x 10° Btu
NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION
WASTE HEAT 31,783 x 10° Btu
RECOVERABLE
GENERATION
WASTE HEAT
19,400 x 10° Btu
CITY GENERATION 755,900 Kwh CANNERY GENERATION 3,900,000 Kwh
ITY HEATING 42,768 x 10° Btu
SCHOOL HEATING
1,782 x 10° Btu
CANNERY MISC. USE 24,061 x 10° Btu ie ony 29,153 x 10° Btu
FIGURE 1 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR
KING COVE
Employment opportunities are expected to increase during the next two decades. Future opportunities will probably come from fishing and the growth of local business and government. The economy of King Cove is now almost totally dependent on the local seafood processing plant. The village's growth has paralleled fishing industry and processing plant development.
Oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf might provide additional opportunity for local economic develop- ment. A lease sale on the northern Aleutian Shelf (Bristol Bay area) is scheduled for October 1983.
If these opportunities are not realized, and if the amount of land available for private use does not increase, future population and housing growth might be significantly lower
than projected.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
Annual energy requirements for King Cove were projected to the year 2000 (Table 1). Fuel use and electrical generation for all uses except seafood processing plant operations are projected to grow 5 percent annually from 1981 to 1990 and 2 percent annually from 1990 to 2000. Since it is not pos- sible to forecast the level of processing plant activity, fuel use for plant operations was projected to remain at the
current level.
Electrical generation for the city was projected to grow at similar annual rates.
FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REOUrTHIMEATE FOR KING COVE
Fuel (bbl/yr)* 1980 1990 2000
Diesel (generation) . 11,508 12,376 12.868 aa Fuel (heating) oaLe epee sr Ste
Generation (kWh/yr)
City 755,900 1,231,300 1,501,000 Cannery 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
Total 4,655,900 5,131, 300 5,401,000
Peak Electric Power
Requirements (kW)
City 170 280 340
*One barrel equals 55 gallons.
MM Chapter 3
MM ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Alternative sources of electricity available to the commun- ity are identified and described in this chapter. The accur- acy of these descriptions is consistent with the amount of data available from site investigations and research on the alternatives. Continued use of centralized or decentralized diesel electric generation is included as an alternative. Near-term alternative heat energy sources are also identi- fied and characterized.
Specific alternative energy supply projects that were con- sidered include:
Continued central diesel electric generation Delta Creek hydropower
Induction wind generation
Unnamed creek hydropower
Tidal power from King Cove Lagoon
Peat combustion for generation
Coal combustion for generation Decentralized solar-electric generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat conservation
Waste heat recovery at the new city generating plant Single wire ground return electricity transmission 900000000000 General descriptions of these energy sources are provided below.
SMALL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION
Hydroelectric energy is generated when flowing water spins a turbine, which drives a generator, producing electric energy. Hydroelectric generation is considered a renewable resource because the input energy source (falling water) is not de- pleted over time. Operating small-scale hydroelectric plants can also be relatively inexpensive. Use of the water is often free and hydroelectric plants cost little to operate and main- tain. Also, the cost of the electricity produced by a hydro- electric plant remains relatively constant over time. Costs rise only when inflation increases operation and maintenance costs, which constitute only a small portion of total plant costs. The major project cost is for initial construction,
which can be financed and paid for in equal periodic payments that will not increase with inflation.
Small hydroelectric projects can be practical in many Alaska locations. The technology has been tested and proven in Alaska and throughout the world, and the skills needed to
design and build plants are readily available. Rapid and
efficient construction is possible, which minimizes costs.
The environmental impacts of small hydroelectric plants are
usually slight and can often be easily mitigated. Most of
the small hydroelectric projects considered for this study
would require a small diversion dam to create a small reser-
voir, a penstock to transmit the water from the reservoir to
the powerhouse, and a small powerhouse.
TIDAL GENERATION
Tidal power is a form of hydroelectric generation. The rise and fall of ocean tides create rapidly moving incoming and
outgoing water flows within narrow channels such as straits
and the mouths of lagoons. The kind of tidal generation
plant considered for this study would span such a channel to
make use of these flows and would generate electricity from
the water flow in either direction. Such plants can block
the passage of boats and fish, however, so their construc-â
tion and operation could present greater environmental and
other problems than small, stream-based hydroelectric plants.
INDUCTION WIND GENERATION
Several kinds of wind-powered electric generators are com-
mercially available, but they all share the same operating
principle: the wind rotates the blades of a collector, which
drives a generator to produce electricity. To attain the
high speeds necessary for electrical generation, these wind
machines must have airfoil blades similar to those of an
airplane propeller. The axis of rotation for the collector
can be either horizontal (like a farm windmill) or vertical
(like an eggbeater). The electricity produced can either be
alternating current (induction generation, which was con-
sidered in this study, or synchronous generation) or direct
current (which can be stored in small quantities in electric
storage batteries).
Because the wind is intermittent, a wind generator must be
backed up by another generation source. In Alaska, this
usually will be a conventional diesel engine generator. Wind
generators also have a high initial cost and, because they
are a relatively new source of electricity and are exposed
to the elements, require more frequent maintenance than con-
ventional generators. However, their environmental impact
is minimal, except for some noise during operation.
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY FROM CENTRAL DIESEL ENGINE GENERATORS
The waste heat created by diesel engine generators can be
captured and used for space heating. Ordinarily, two-thirds
of the energy contained in the diesel fuel supplied to such a generator becomes waste heat that enters the environment via either the engine radiator or exhaust system. Almost all the radiated heat and about half the exhaust heat can be recovered. This means that up to half the energy content of diesel fuel can be recovered and converted into space heat for a building, if the building is within "economic proxim- ity" to the generator (that is, if the cost of capturing, transporting, and using the heat is less than the cost of space heating by other means).
The medium ordinarily used to recover and transport the waste heat is water. A water-to-water heat exchanger captures heat from the engine jacket water, and an air-to-water heat exchanger captures exhaust stack heat. The heat is transferred to water that flows through a pipeline to a radiant space heating sys- tem. Another pipeline carries the used water back to the heat exchanger. One building or a building complex can be heated in this manner.
These systems can require a sizable initial investment, but they are usually very reliable and make use of a source of energy that would otherwise be wasted, so their fuel costs nothing.
HEAT ENERGY CONSERVATION
Conservation of heat used in buildings is possible through an increase in the buildings' thermal efficiency by addition of wall, window, ceiling, and floor insulation. Three types of buildings were considered in this study: school buildings, housing built before 1964, and housng built after 1964.
No conservation options were assessed for school buildings
because, in general, schools are of recent construction and
are equipped with adequate heat conservation devices.
In newer housing, existing building components such as roofs, walls, windows, and floors provide adequate thermal effici-
ency, although investigations of individual residences would
probably result in specific recommendations for particular
dwellings. In older housing stock, existing structural com-
ponents do not provide adequate thermal efficiency. The major opportunity for heat conservation therefore lies in
developing insulation programs for older housing stock.
In newer housing that is presently heated with central forced air furnaces using gun-type oil burners, replacement
with flame retention burners could reduce heating fuel con-
sumption considerably. Overall, average conversion effici-
ency of the furnaces could be improved from about 73 percent
to 85 percent with the use of these fuel-efficient burners.
PEAT COMBUSTION FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION
Dried peat can be used as boiler fuel for steam turbine gen-
eration or piston engine generation, much the same way wood
can be. The peat must be cut, gathered, dried, and com-
pressed into briquettes before it can be burned. Peat may
be considered a renewable energy resource, but the degree of
renewability depends on the rate of use, regrowth rate, and
size of the peat field dedicated as a fuel source. As with
the use of wood, a considerable amount of machinery and labor
is needed to harvest and process peat. The environmental
costs can also be high. Harvesting can affect the land,
water, and wildlife of the peat field, and peat combustion
can cause air pollution.
COAL COMBUSTION FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION
Coal can be burned in a boiler to produce steam, which can
be used to drive a steam piston engine generator or a steam
turbine generator. Coal is considered a nonrenewable resource
that is relatively abundant but must usually be obtained from
a distant supply source, much the same way diesel fuel must
be obtained. Coal combustion technology is proven and reli-
able, but the burning of coal can have a significant effect
on air quality. This can be mitigated through the use of
pollution control equipment.
SOLAR ENERGY (ACTIVE SOLAR HEATING AND ELECTRICAL GENERATION)
Much of the earth's energy is derived directly from the sun
through solar radiation. This radiation can be collected
and used for space heating or to produce electricity. Both
systems were considered in this study.
A solar space heating system typically consists of a solar
collection device and a fluid to transfer heat from the col-
lector to a space heating system in a building. The system
can also include a means for storing the heat when the demand
for space heating is low.
A system to produce electric energy typically consists of an
array of photovoltaic cells and a set of batteries that store
the electric energy produced by the cells. The photovoltaic
cells produce direct current. If alternating current is
needed, as is usually the case for a house, an inverter is
required. Additional electrical control systems are used to
regulate the system's operation.
Solar heating and photovoltaic systems can be designed for
use in Alaska, but they are ordinarily quite expensive. They
require a very large initial investment and often more main-
tenance than alternative energy supply resources. The systems
10
also require some form of backup system that will supply a
user's needs during those times when demand is greater than
the solar system can supply.
SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION
Single wire ground return (SWGR) electricity transmission
operates in single phase and consists of a single overhead
line. The earth acts as the second or return wire. A-frame
pole construction eliminates hole augering and the associated
problems of pole jacketing in permafrost. In addition, local
timber can be used for the poles. Single wire ground return
transmission technology is relatively new, but it has been
used successfully between the villages of Bethel and Napakiak,
Alaska.
PREFERRED SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY
The alternative sources of energy identified at the beginning
of this chapter were each evaluated on the basis of economic,
environmental, and reliability and safety considerations,
and conformance with community energy-source preferences.
Out of this evaluation, summarized in Table 2, three pre-
ferred or best alternatives were selected for further analysis.
These are described in detail in the appendix and considered
further as part of the alternative electricity supply plans
described in Chapter 4.
11
Table 2
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES FOR KING COVE
Preferred Energy Sources
(selected for further analysis)
Continued central diesel-electric generation
Delta Creek hydropower
Induction wind generation
Other Energy Sources (not considered further)
Unnamed creek hydropower
Tidal generation (King Cove Lagoon)
Peat combustion for generation
Coal combustion for generation
Decentralized solar-electric generation
Decentralized active solar heating
Heat energy conservation
Waste heat recovery at new city
generating plant
Important Characteristics
No initial investment required No significant adverse environmental impacts
High reliability
Proven technology
See note below
Low operating cost and no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts
Important Characteristics
See note below
Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement
Significant adverse environmental impacts
High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost
Significant adverse environmental impacts
Prohibitively high initial invest- 7 ment requirement v Unproven technology
Not an electricity generation source and thus not considered further
Not considered further because of lack of buildings with significant heating requirements located
near the city generation plant. Warehouse containing new city
generation plant is not expected to require additional space heating beyond what the plant is already designed to provide.
Note: Delta Creek is the lower cost hydropower project, according to Corps of Engineers data (October 1980).
12
WM Chapter 4
MM EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PLANS
This chapter identifies and evaluates alternative electricity
supply plans. The plans use the preferred energy sources
described in Chapter 3 to meet both peak electrical demands
and annual energy requirements of the village and school.
Plans were not developed to meet the relatively large elec-
trical demands of the seafood processing plant. Continued
use of existing diesel engine generation is considered an
alternative supply plan and is identified as Plan A, Base
Case. Supply plans to meet future space-heating require-
ments were not developed.
Alternative supply plan descriptions are contained in Table 3,
and plan evaluations are summarized in Table 4.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Alternative electricity supply plans were evaluated on the
basis of total plan costs for installation, operation, and
fuel for both the next 20 and 50 years. Total plan costs
are shown in Table 4 in the columns headed "Present Value of
Plan Costs." In accordance with Alaska Power Authority
guidelines, the present value of plan costs is the sum of
all costs (initial investment, operation and maintenance,
and fuel) associated with a plan during the 20-or 50-year
planning period. To obtain the present value of these costs,
plan costs in their year of expected occurrence were dis-
counted back to January 1981 at 3 percent per year. The rate
of general inflation was assumed to be zero percent per year,
but diesel fuel prices were assumed to rise at an average
annual rate of 3.5 percent.
This method of evaluation is fair to both the continued use
of diesel generation and the alternative development of new
generation sources that involve high initial costs and low
operating costs, such as hydropower projects. The 3.5 per-
cent annual rise in diesel fuel prices is significantly lower
than the actual rise in these prices is expected to be, but
the 3-percent amortization rate for high-initial-cost sources
such as hydropower projects is also significantly lower than
these rates are expected to be, so both types of sources
receive equal treatment.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Evaluations of the environmental impact(s) of alternative
electricity supply plans are based on assessments of the
following impacts:
° Air quality
° Water quality
13
vT Plan
A
(Base Case)
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PLANS FOR KING COVE
Plan Description
Continue use of central diesel generation.
Two 300-kW engine generator units currently being installed (costs not included in plan costs).
To meet load growth, add one 300-kW engine generator unit in 1990 ($400/kw).
Replace one 300-kW unit in 1996 ($400/kW).
Develop and operate Delta Creek hydropower plant.
Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982; total costs approximately $50,000 for 1981 and
$100,000 for 1982.
Install/construct hydropower plant 1983 and 1984.
Plant available in January 1985.
Backup generation from existing central diesel plant.
Minimum diesel backup plant operation, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year.
Excess electric energy sold to local seafood processing plant during period from 1985 to 1997. Total
energy sales over period of 2.55 million kWh.
Develop and operate induction wind generation facility.
Maximum wind generation contribution to community electric load will be 25 percent.
Plan wind generation project in 1981 and 1982; cost is approximately $50,000 per year.
Install and construct wind generation facility in 1983 and 1984.
Facility available in January 1985.
Replace wind generation equipment in 1998 and 1999 ($386,000).
Remaining generation from central diesel-electric plant.
Diesel plant acquisition and replacement schedule same as Plan A.
Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels.
ST EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE
Table 4
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PLANS FOR KING COVE
20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan
50-Year Planning
Period Present
Value of Plan
Plan Plan Description Costs ($)* Costs ($)? Energy Performance Environmental Impacts Reliability/safety
A Continued central 3.04 million 7.09 million Sufficient to meet com- No major impact Highly reliable, minor
(Base diesel-electric munity electric require- safety concerns Case) generation ments
B Delta Creek 3.43 million (plan 5.54 million (plan Sufficient to meet com Potentially prohibitive Highly reliable, backup
hydropower cost) cost) munity electric require- environmental impacts. with central diesel gen- project 0.26 million (energy 0.26 million (energy ments. Excess electric | Known spawning area for eration. Some safety
sales credit) sales credit) energy available for sale coho and chum salmon. concerns regarding seis-
3.17 million (net 5.28 million (net to local seafood process- Salmon below damsite mically induced dam struc- plan cost) plan cost) ing plant could be adversely af- tural failure fected by streamflow
fluctuations and silta-
tion caused by project
construction and opera-
tion.
c Induction wind 3.32 million 7.07 million Sufficient to meet com- Minor adverse environmen- Questionable reliability
generation (25%)
with central
diesel genera-
tion (75%)
munity electric require-
ments
tal impact. Some noise emission during resource
operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by re-
mote location siting.
resulting from variations
in wind availability. Backup with central diesel generation. Minor safety
concerns with remote
siting.
@january 1981 costs.
Fish and wildlife
Land use
Terrestrial
Community infrastructure and employment
Other planned capital projects o0000 Detailed estimates of the magnitude of an impact were not
possible. However, major concerns are identified and included
in the evaluations. Alternative energy systems were designed
to be environmentally acceptable. In those instances where
additional equipment was required to make a source acceptable,
the costs of such equipment were included in cost estimates.
Detailed descriptions of possible environmental impacts are
contained in the appendix.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Alternative electricity supply plans were formulated to result
in generation systems of similar reliability and safety that would be capable of meeting the complete electricity needs
of the community. Detailed descriptions of each alternative's
reliability and safety are contained in the appendix.
CONCLUSIONS
From the information in Table 4, the Delta Creek hydropower
project appears to be economically feasible. When evaluated
over a 50-year planing period, this project has a present-
value cost of $5.54 million, which compares favorably with
the cost of continued central diesel generation. Plan costs
could be further reduced if excess electricity available
from the project were sold to the local seafood processing
plant. The Delta Creek hydropower project should be a reli-
able source, with no major safety problems. It might, how-
ever, create significant environmental impacts, which should
be investigated further.
16
MM Appendix
MM DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF PREFERRED ELECTRICITY SOURCES
17
Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/King Cove
Energy Form: Electric energy
General Description: Continued diesel electric generation with recently installed
engine generator unit(s)
Resource Location: King Cove
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable
Resource Characteristics: Diesel generation plant currently being installed con-
sists of two 300-kW engine generator units. Maximum reliable electric plant output
is 300 kW before additional generator units required.
Energy Production: Overall estimated conversion efficiency is 12.0 kWh per gallon
of fuel oil.
Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA
Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail-
ability of diesel fuel supply
Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels):
Construction and engineering ($/kW) 400
(additional units)
Replacement cost ($/kW) 400
Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6
Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.20
Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required
every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours.
Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance
person.
Resource Development Schedule: NA
Environmental Impacts: No major impacts
Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations
Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations
19
Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Delta Creek/King Cove
Energy Form: Electric energy
General Description: Concrete diversion dam is about 10 feet high. Penstock from
the reservoir downstream to powerhouse develops about 300 feet of head. Penstock
runs from the diversion dam downstream along the bench on the right side to a power-
house 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 Concrete diversion
Height (ft) 10
Operation Run-of-river
Spillway Type Concrete overflow
Capacity (cfs) 1,700 (500-year peak flow)
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
Energy Production:
Installed capacity (kW) 329
Average annual energy (kWh) 1,419,000
Plant factor (%) 50
Dependable capacity (kW) 49
Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) 1,135,000
Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) 1,703,000
Input Ene: (fuel) Characteristics:
Drainage area (sq. mi.) 5.0
Average annual flow (cfs) 15
Low flow (cfs) 3.5
High flow (cfs) 1,280
Total head (ft) 300
Net head (ft) 296
Maximum penstock flow (cfs) 15
Resource Reliability: The project is located on a stream with a small drainage
area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output
of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has no
storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods.
Resource Cost (January 1981 ice levels):
Construction and engineering ($) 3,799,000
Unit cost ($/kW) 11,547
Annual operating and maintenance ($) 44,650
Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or
replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the
technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower proj-
ects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated
by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Installation/construction in 1983 and 1984, avail-
able in January 1985
Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho salmon and chum salmon. Salmon
below damsite could be adversely affected by streamflow fluctuations and siltation
caused by project construction and operation.
Institutional, Social, and Land Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts
resulting from siting of plant and transmission system.
Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts
21
Resource/Village: Wind generation/King Cove
Energy Form: Electric energy
General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction
generator(s) to provide approximately 40-kW average power output. System to consist
of two wind generators rated for 40-kW maximum output each, with support towers,
control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into
existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel
generation to provide firm power base and for system integrity and reliability.
Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total electric system load is
25 percent.
Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction,
as close to the central electric distribution system as practical.
Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable
Resource Characteristics: Two 40-kW-peak-output wind generation machines
Energy Production: 40-kW peak output per machine, 19-kW average output per machine,
166,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output per machine, 322,000-kWh-per-year total
electric energy output
Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately
17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary.
Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 25 to
30 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent.
Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels):
Construction and engineering ($) 772,000
Unit cost ($/kW) 9,650
Annual operating and maintenance ($) 14,400
Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person,
1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person, 1 week per
year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi-
mate useful lifetime is 15 years.
Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983 and 1984, available in January
1985.
Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels
can be mitigated by strategic and remte location siting.
Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts
resulting from siting plant and transmission system.
Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts
23