Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Village Community Meetings Vol ll 1980
VOLUME 2 PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 | APPENDIX A COMMUNITY MEETINGS APA23/L ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUCKLAND November 20, 1980 NAME Nathan D. Hadley Sr. City Council Member Connell A. Armstrong City Council Member Louis Sadley, Sr. City Council Member Steven Ballot City Council Member Willie P. Thomas City Council Mayor Raymond E. Lee Sr. City Council Member David Thomas Jr. City Council Member Glenna Thomas City Council Secretary Frank Bettine RWRA A-3 APA23/L HUGHES The community of Hughes was visited on November 21, 1980. A letter had been previously mailed to the City Council notifying them of the Planned visit. Upon our arrival in Hughes, the City Major was visited and a time of 12:30 was established for the meeting to be held at the school. Prior to the meeting, a survey of the community was accomplished to estimate the size and number of houses, number of public building, etc. The village is supplied electricity from the school generators. Distribution is overhead triplex operating at 240/120 volts. Only three members of the community attended the meeting scheduled at 12:30 p.m. Information concerning fuel cost and usage, available local resources, etc. was obtained at the meeting. Wood is used as the primary fuel for heating in the community. The school is the major user of fuel oi] in the community. APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER HUGHES November 21, 1980 NAME Art Ambrose Ralph Williams Lavine Willams (Comments on water and creek) Frank Bettine RWRA A-5 APA23/L KOYUKUK A meeting was conducted in Koyukuk in November 19, 1980. A letter had been sent to the village notifying them of the meeting. A meeting was conducted in the Community Hall a short time after our arrival in the village. A survey of the village was conducted prior to the meeting to estimate the size of houses, number of public buildings, etc. The school principal was also visited to obtain information concerning the usage of energy by the school. No centralized electric power generation facility exists in Koyukuk, although there are plans for electrification of the village in 1981. The school generators provide electric power to its buildings, the satellite earth station, clinic, PHS building and the community hall. The villagers primarily heat with wood. The main users of fuel oil in the community are the school, clinic, and PHS building. APA23/L NAME Josie R. Jones Effie Kemp Lawrence Dayton Harold Huntington Marilyn Demoski Martha Nelson Leonard Huntington Euphiasia Dayton William Pilot Marie Dayton Elaine Solomon Frank Bettine RWRA ATTENDENCE ROSTER KOYUKUK November 19, 1980 APA23/L RUSSIAN MISSION A visit was made to Russian Mission on November 13, 1980. Letters had been sent to the mayor and President of the Russian Mission Native Corporation notifying them of a meeting to be held in their village. Upon arrival in the village it was discovered that many of the village council members were out of town. Instead of a village meeting it was decided to conduct a house-to-house survey to obtain as much information as possible. (Persons visited during the survey are listed in the following page. ) The village consists of an old section and a new section. The new section consists of 27 new AVCP (Association of Village Council Presi- dents) residences located on higher ground behind the older part of the village. An electric distribution system has been installed to serve the lower part of the village. The line has not yet been extended to the new AVCP housing development. At the time of the visit the electric distribution system was not in service because the generator had broken down about a year ago. The village is in the process of installing a new 90 kW unit but still has considerable work to do. The school provides electric power to its buildings as well as a satel- lite earth station and telephone. The school uses the waste heat from the generator to augment the school's hot water heating system. The villagers heat with a combination of wood and fuel oil. Wood is the primary fuel because of the abundant supply covering all the sur- rounding land. Villagers mentioned a number of possible small hydro sites in the nearby area. In particular they indicated that Kako Creek about 5 miles up- river was an especially good candidate because of its swift year long open water. The village of Russian Mission operates a central water supply system. A-8 APA23/L House-to-House Survey Roster Russian Mission November 13, 1980 Nick Pitka, Sr. Mayor Jim Hausler President, Russian Mission Native Corporation Peter Alexy village council member Nick Askoak Postmaster Patty School Principal Interviewer Jim Lard, RWRA APA23/L SHELDON POINT On November 12, 1980 a village meeting was conducted in Sheldon Point. The villagers were originally notified of the meeting through letters to the mayor and village corporation president. The meeting time and location were also advertised by sending home notices with school chil- dren. Approximately 20 villagers attended the meeting. A combination of wood and oi] is used for heating in Sheldon Point. Wood is collected as driftwood from the Yukon River. The supply of driftwood is not abundant. Villagers must often travel long distances upriver to collect an adequate supply of wood. Some villagers complained of the expense in time and gasoline costs in collecting the driftwood. Sheldon Point has no central electric generation. The school has a diesel generator. The school generator also supplies electricity to three teacher residences and the Public Health Service water plant, as well as unofficially serving the village store, village shop, and nearby residences. A satellite earth station and telephone is also powered from the school generator. In the near future a number of village residences are going to partici- pate in an experimental project to supply household electric power using individual wind generators and battery systems. A-10 APA23/L NAME Florence Ignatius Josephine Charlie Margaret Murphy Julia Afcan Tom Prince Maria Prince Leonard Kobuk Lucy Camille Andy Corbaski Rusaline Raphael Bernard Pete Johnny Murphy Joseph Afcan Solomon Afcan John F. Carlasky Jim Martin Rose Isidore Marcel Isidore #1 Jim Lard Attendance Roster Sheldon Point November 12, 1980 RWRA A-11 APA23/L CHUATHBALUK A village meeting at Chuathbaluk was conducted on December 4, 1980. Approximately 15 villagers attended. There is no electric power in the village except at the school. Most villagers heat with wood as it is readily accessible from the nearby hills. The villagers of Chuathbaluk were not aware of any energy resources or energy alternatives in their immediate area with the exception of a potential hydroelectric site on Mission Creek located 2.5 miles east of the village. Presently, plans are being made to install in Chuathbaluk a small diesel powered electric system that is intended to provide electric service to each villager in the community. Following the meeting a survey of the village was conducted to obtain information on full storage facilities, average house size, etc. A-12 APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER CHUATHBALUK December 4, 1980 NAME Gergie Phillips Sinka Sakar Sr. Wassijie Aranwell Philip S. Phillips Nick C. Kameroff Sophie K. Sakar Gabriel Pitka Arnold Simson Mary J. Kameroff Marie Kameroff Alice Avakumoff Nick Phillips Johnny Avakoumoff Eric Morgan Penelope Horter KNA Director David Marshal] Frank Bettine RWRA Jim Lard RWRA A-13 APA23/L CROOKED CREEK A village meeting at Crooked Creek was held on December 3, 1980. The meeting was held at the village community hall. Sixteen villagers participated in the meeting. Wood is the primary fuel source the villagers use. A few buildings are heated by fuel oi] - specifically the community hall/clinic, the village store and lodge. The village of Crooked Creek is spread over a wide area with the stream of ‘Crooked Creek' dividing the north and south parts of town. Crooked Creek 'north' consists of 7 AVCP houses, a Russian Orthodox Church, community hall, clinic, public airport, and a few cabins. Crooked Creek ‘south' consists of the old townsite. The store, lodge, private air- strip, disco, and most village residences are located in the old town- site. There are a few dwellings located even further to the south but these are not connected to the townsite by an established trail. Crooked ‘north' and Crooked 'south' are connected by a small cable suspension bridge that spans Crooked Creek. The bridge is wide enough to permit travel by foot or snowmachine only. At the meeting the villagers were questioned as to what energy resources might be available in the area. The only source available for develop- ment appeared to be the nearby wood supply. Even the wood supply was not very abundant and the terrain presented transportation problems. The stream of Crooked Creek does not appear to be a prime candidate for hydro because the current is slow and it freezes over in the winter. A-14 APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER CROOKED CREEK December 3, 1980 NAME Evan Sabor Gerald Phillips Wassilie Waskey Ollie M. Pepperling Village Administrator Ellen M. Peters Secretary-Treasurer - Council David B. Peters Village Public Safety Officer Mislilea Anderanoff Dennis R. Thomas Sophie Peters Anna Olexie Agnes Auderanoff Wassillie Sakoj President - Council Martha M. John Olinka Sakar Annie Gregory Mary M. Sakar Frank Bettine RWRA Jim Lard RWRA A-15 APA23/L NIKOLAI A meeting was conducted in Nikolai on November 6, 1980 at 11:00 a.m. Several villagers attended the meeting. During the course of the meeting, the villagers indicated that substantial coal deposits occurred in the Alaskan range about 35 miles south from Nikolai. The coal comes to surface in Windy Fork River area location, 62°28'N., 154°14'W. Exposed coal seam run is 300-400 feet long and 20-30 feet high in this area. The villagers said coal can be set on fire with a match. Supposedly, the area was examined and coal found to be of high grade (from villagers). Wood is, however, because of the abundant nearby supply, used as the primary fuel for heating in the community. The school, clinic and City offices used fuel oi] for heating. The school is installing a wood stove in one classroom, and will attempt to heat the classroom using wood. The school principal estimates the yearly wood requirement for heating the classroom at about 10 cords, at a price of approximately $100/cord. The village owns and operates a centralized electrical generation system operating at 480 volts. The distribution is of overhead triplex construction using step-down transformers to supply 240/120 volts to consumers. A-16 APA23/L NAME Jim Nikolai Nick Alexia Nick Petruska Ignatti Petruska Jeff Stokes Mr. Esai Nick Demit Philip Esai Pete Gregory Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER NIKOLAI Novmeber 6, 1980 RWRA RWRA A-17 APA23/L RED DEVIL A village meeting was conducted at Red Devil on December 3, 1980. The meeting was held at the home of the postmaster/health aide. Six citizens attended. There is no centralized electric power system in Red Devil although a number of individual residences do maintain a small generator, particu- larly the larger; business related residences, such as Vanderpool's Lodge and the clinic/postmaster house. The small population of Red Devil coupled with its widely separated layout precludes for the present any centralized power system to serve the entire community. One concern voiced by the villagers at Red Devil was that their village was being passed over when allocations for development of energy resources were made. Red Devil residents heat primarily with 011, supplemented with wood. Wood is available in quantity on the surrounding land, but some residents prefer the convenience of fuel oi]. Also, villagers mentioned there were problems in getting permits to cut wood. Land use restrictions were not popular. Possible alternate energy sources mentioned by the villagers include rich peat deposits up the Holitna River and numerous prospective small hydro sites on creeks in the nearby vicinity. One small creek runs about 1/4 mile south of the Vanderpool Lodge. One particularly attrac- tive hydroelectric location discussed was the George River. The George River has the drawback of being a large fish migration stream. It is about 18 miles downriver from Red Devil and 10 miles upriver from Crooked Creek. Any development of the George River would be a major project. Red Devil residents expect their community to grow. Plans are underway for 3 new residences. The Bureau of Land Management is considering putting a fire-fighting station at the airport. Also, a new Red Devil high school is planned. A-18 APA23/L Red Devil can claim to be a transportation hub of the area because it has a wide, 4,500 foot runway. But villagers say the runway urgently needs maintenance, improvements, and lighting or the runway will soon deteriorate into a state of disrepair. A-19 APA23/L NAME Larry E. Bass Robert Vanderpool Richard Wilmasth Carl Henery Penelope Horter David Marshall Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER RED DEVIL December 3, A-20 1980 Postmaster KNA Director RWRA RWRA APA23/L SLEETMUTE On December 2, 1980 a village meeting was held at Sleetmute. The meeting was held at the schoolhouse. Thirteen villagers attended. All the villagers are using wood to heat their homes. The only excep- tions to wood heat are the school, clinic, community hall, and teachers‘ quarters, which use oil. Presently the school generator supplies power to the village community hall, the clinic, and to the teachers' residences. Plans are now under- way to install in Sleetmute a small diesel powered electric system to bring electric power to each residence throughout the village. Five Sleetmute households are located on the opposite side of the river from the townsite proper. Notably Mellick's Trading Post and Lodge are located on the west bank of the Kuskokwim. All of the cross-river dwellings will probably be left out of any energy development that the village of Sleetmute experiences due to the difficulties of river crossings and also the disperse nature of the house locations. The villagers mentioned several suspected coal deposits on creeks that emptied into the Kuskokwim between Sleetmute and Crooked Creek. Substan- tiation of these claims was not possible at the time. Also a number of nearby creeks were mentioned as possible small hydro sites, particularly Vreeland Creek. Another energy alternative discussed at the meeting was the existence of peat banks along the Holitna River. A-21 APA23/L NAME Peter Zaukar Philip Caswell Molga Alexie Moxie Alexie Gus Mellick Vernon Zaukar Nick Zaukar Gary Jacobson Yaka T. Crane David Marshal] Penelope Horter Nick Mellick John Helhunington Jim Lard Frank Bettine ATTENDENCE ROSTER SLEETMUTE December 2, A-22 1980 Trade Council President Resident Village Council Member Village Council President Resident Resident Resident Teacher Resident Consultant KNA Executive Director Area Principal RWRA RWRA APA23/L STONY RIVER On December 2, 1980 a village meeting was conducted at Stony River. The meeting was held at the village community hall. Approximately 20 villagers were present at the meeting. All the village residences use wood for heat with the exception of one residence that uses oi]. The expense of fuel oi] versus the ready availability of wood makes wood a clear preference. The clinic and village community hall use fuel oil for heating. The community hall is only irregularly used. The school has the only electric generation in the village at the present time. The village community hall, clinic, satellite earth station, and a couple of village residences are also connected onto the school power. The villagers were not able to identify any alternate energy resources in the immediate vicinity with the one exception of an abundant wood supply. A-23 APA23/L NAME Misku Zaukar Marvara Zaukar Ignatti Macorr Nick Macar Fritz Donhamser Max Cole Aggie A. Zankar Ignatti Bobby Gusty Micheal Mary J. Gusty Iyana Gusty Pete Macar Barbra Gusty Alxie Gusty Paul Bobby Nattie Donhauser Nancy Middlemist Jeannie Evan Nastasia Evan Prurlzerhorter Chris Golden Agrafuie K. Golden Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER STONY RIVER December 2, 1980 Member MKEC Highschool Teacher Village Secretary Trad. Council Treasure Trad. Council President Council Member KNA Exc. Director Member Member RWRA RWRA A-24 APA23/L TAKOTNA The village of Takotna was visited on November 6, 1980 and a village meeting was conducted early in the evening. Takotna has a new generation and distribution system which was installed in November 1979. This system supplies the 240/120 volts, 1% distribution system in the village. There is a satellite earth station in the village and several people have TV's. Because of the high cost of oil, most residents are heating, or converting to wood, for heat. The school, which heats primarily with oil, has installed a wood heater in one classroom. There are at present, five new HUD houses in the village. There is the possibility of additional HUD housing being built. A small creek runs through the village which serves as the water supply. Several people think that this creek might be dammed and used for hydro power. Items of interest expressed during the meeting were: Villagers wish to see transportation costs lowered Subsidies for electric cost Unleaded gas is non-existent in the village but all new cars require unleaded gas. 4. More competition on river and with Wien for freight rates. A-25 APA23/L NAME Betsy McGuire Dick Newton Jan Newton Frank Tauer Lewis W. Whalen Beverly Schupp Douglas Sherrer Rosalie Edward Bill Everly Chris Killgore Sandra Everly Steve Vallerten Dean Jarosh Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER TAKOTNA November 6, 1980 RWRA RWRA Other people interviewed in village: Pat Coffield (Principal - Teacher) A-26 APA23/L TELIDA November 10, 1980 The village of Telida was visited in November 8, 1980. No meeting was held in this village. A meeting was scheduled for November 7, 1980 but was cancelled because weather (snow storm all day on the 7th) prevented us from departing Takotna for Telida. Most of the men in the village had departed the village when we arrived on Saturday and so no meeting was held but the persons listed on the following page were visited: Telida has no central electric power generation but the school has diesel electric generation. Three families have battery for lights and radio. The batteries are recharged at the school. People interviewed said they would be satisfied with 12-volt battery power if they could keep the batteries charged. Wind power had been used by one resident in previous years to supply power for a battery charger. Residents used the "Wilderness Home Power System" (Popular Mechanics) to obtain infor- mation on how to wire homes on battery power. Villagers would like a walk-in freezer in community to store moose. Satellite earth station is installed and operates from school power during the school year. There is no telephone in summer when school generation system shut down. Wood, because of its abundance and modest expense, is used to heat all buildings in the village (i.e., residences, church, and school.) A-27 APA23/L House-to-House Survey Roster Telida November 10, 1980 Winchell Ticknor Council President Mrs. Ticknor Council President's wife. Steve Ehiska Council Member Mr. Nilokai Council Member Alen Dick School Teacher - Interviewers Frank Bettine, RWRA Jim Lard, RWRA A-28 APPENDIX B apa20:m APPENDIX B DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE A. Data _on Existing Conditions (1979/1980) Tabularized below is a summary of the data gathered in November and December 1980 during the field trips to the thirteen villages included in this study on existing village conditions. This data was compiled from on-site inspections in each village, through interviews with villagers, school teachers, village mayors, etc., and from comments and notes recorded during the meetings conducted at each village. The data concerning physical conditions which exist in each village (i.e., generator sizes and types, number of housing units and types, etc.), was recorded by engineering personnel during their on-site visits and is considered accurate and reliable. Additional data regarding village fuel requirements, population, etc., was gleemed from interviews with various villagers and is considered reasonably accurate. The energy balance data present in the following pages represents a data base on energy usage compiled from the information obtained during the field trips to the thirteen villages. This data base does not reflect any adjustments which might be necessary after correlation of this data base with other available sources of information related to energy usage in the villages. This energy data base is used in conjunction with other sources of infor- mation to provide the basis for development of the 1979 energy balance for each village. B-1 Seg ease. apa20:m 1. POPULATION RESIDENTIAL AND BUILDING DATA # POPU- = RESI- VILLAGE LATION DENCES OTHER BUILDINGS Buckland 172 41 1- church 1- community hall, 1- city office 1- school, gym 1- store (bulk storage of fuel) 1- clinic Hughes 102 17 1- school, % gym l- clinic 1- community hall Koyukuk us 28 —-1- community hall, school supplied housing . 1- clinic for teachers and old 1- church school 30'x30'x8' 1- PHS building 1- school (new), % gym Telida 34 7 1- school 1- church Nikolai 96 22 1- community hall, 1- store 1- clinic, 1- city office 1- school, gym, 1- church Takotna 87 22 1- school, getting gym, 1- bar 1- PHS building (new) 1- church 1- store (in house) 1- clinic 1- community center Stony River 67 12 1- school 1- community hall (store in community hall) 1- clinic 1- church Sleetmute 110 19 1- school, 4 gym, auxiliary office building + 5S other 1- community hall side of 1- old school teacher's quarter & storage) river 1- clinic 1- church Red Devil 53 8 1- school, & gym + 5 other 1- clinic side of 1- store river Crooked Creek 124 25 1- clinic 1- church + 6 east 1- community hall 1- store up river 1- store 1- lodge + 2 across 1- school (new school being built) river Chauthbaluk 126 23 2- school buildings, plus gym +3 up 1- community hall & 3 down 1- PHS building river 1- clinic 1- church Russian Mission 173 40 2- stores 1- clinic 2- school, 4 gym 2- churches (old and new) Sheldon Point 116 27 2- school buildings 1- church 1- store 1- PHS 1- clinic 1- community hall B-2 apa20:m RESIDENCES frame construction average size: 600 ft? log cabins average size: 400-500 ft? log cabin size: 400-500 ft? 6- log cabin 1- frame construction cabins = 400 ft? frame = 800 ft? log cabin size: = 500 ft? log cabin = & total size: 600 ft? frame - 4 total size: = 600 ft? log cabin size: = 400-500 ft? log cabin - 15 size: 2 500 ft? frame - 4 size: = 600 ft? frame 800 ft? Jog cabin - & = 600 ft? frame - = 700 ft? log cabin - 15 = 600 ft? Tame construction - 8 = 800 ft? log cabin - 28 (moving to AVCP housing) size: = 600 ft? AVCP - frame - 27 I 800 ft? Jog cabin - 14 size: ~ 600 ft? AVCP - frame - 13 size: 2 800 ft? OTHER frame construction school - frame construction other - log = 400 ft? school - frame construction church - frame ~ 600 ft? other - log = 400 ft? school - frame church - frame > 600 ft? school ~ frame clinic + city office - frame ~ 1,000 ft? church - frame > 600 ft? school - frame clinic - frame - 600 ft? community center frame ~ 600 ft? school frame other - log = 500 ft? school - frame other - log = 500 ft? school - frame clinic - frame - 600 ft? store - frame - 600 ft? clinic, church - frame ~ 600 ft? school - frame 1- store - frame ~ 400 ft? 1- lodge frame ~ 600 ft? . school ~ frame church - frame - > 600 ft? c. h. log - > 800 ft? clinic - 2 600 ft? other - frame school - frame other - frame school - frame other - frame B-3 apa20:a 2. ELECTRICAL DATA VILLAGE VILLAGE POWER PLANT kwW_LOAD kwh/CONS/MO. COST/kWh Buckland 140 kW radiator 35 kW = $87.50/month 75 kW cooled 11/20/80 flat charge for Operated 38 (see school) family residence Hughes no (school sup- (see school) . $40.00/month plied) first 100 kw Koyukuk no (see school) - on *Telida no (see school) 3 families = battery lights recharged from school generators Nikolai 75 kW, SO kW 60 kW winter From utility 35¢/kWh (radiator cooled) records 15 kW 15 kW summer 125 kWh av high Operated 36 10 kWh av low residence only Takotna 40 kW, 20 kW (3d) 25 kW max Residential 25¢/kWh air cooled, 10 kW min 200 kWh/cons/mo Stony River Sleetmute Red Devil Crooked Creek Chauthbaluk Russian Mission Sheldon Point operated 16 no no no no 390 kW not installed no (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) 8-4 LAK ASPAa eer ig peak apa20:m GENERATOR FUEL CONSUMPTION/YEAR SCHOOL GEN Estimated 1,000 gal/month 135 kW, 55 kW or 12,000 gal/year single phase (radiator cooled) peak load - 36 kW - 50 kW and 2-35 kW (radiator cooled) School supplies power to town Peak load 30 kW - 100 kW, 75 kW, 30 kW (radiator cooled) Load 11/19/80 35 kW 2-12 kW units (air cooled) - Load 11/10/80 9 kW Estimated from utility records 21,000 gallons Estimated fuel needs No generator 11,000 gallons/year - 2-50 kW, 38 using 16 radiator cooled Joad 12/2/80 - 35 kW - 2-50 kW, 3 @ using 16 (radiator cooled) load 12/2/80, 2 kW - 50 kW 3 6, using 1B (radiator cooled) 78 kW 3 6 using 16 10/3/80 6 kW, seems low - 2-50 kW, 1 8 generator (radiator cooled) Joad 12/3/80 40 kW - 2-50 kW, 3 @ using 18 (radiator cooled) load 12/4/80 - 30 kW = 125 kW, 2-75 kW (radiator cooled) 1-15 kw usually one 75 kW will Waste Heat Recovery carry load - 120 kW (radiator cooled) TOTAL (HEAT + GENERATION) FUEL CONSUMPTION SCHOOL/YEAR BY SCHOOL 35,000 gallons Unknown 47,000 gallons (includes PHS) 6,700 gallons - Sept-Nov for electrical gen. shutdown in summer Estimated 30 gallons/day for 9 months (shutdown in summer) 8,500 gallons/year estimated by school 11,000 gallons heating only electricity from village unknown 12,000 gallons (low) 25,000 gallons 12,000 gallons (low) obtained from school district obtained from school district 18,000 gallon 25,000 gallons plus PHS apa20:m 3. FUEL _ANO COST DATA * DIESEL FUEL wood PROPANE VILLAGE QUANTITY COST/GAL (BULK) QUANTITY COST/CORD QUANTITY cost Buckland 55,000 gallons $1.76 7 - 200 bottles - village heating village 12,000 gallons 12 school per year generators and school usage. Hughes 1,400 gallons $2.31 8-10 cords - 82 bottles village - village clinic per residence 12 bottles school see school usage all heat with wood Koyukuk 2,500 gallons $1.56 8-10 cords 7 - - village per residence see school usage all heat with wood Telida see school usage 2.31 (estimated) 8-10 cords 15 bottles - per year for village all residences plus school Nikolai 22,000 gallons $1.67 8-10 cords school using 100 bottles village village per residence wood in 12 bottles school generation plus all heat with one classroom wood Takotna Estimate 10,000 school $1.65 8-10 cords/year 100 bottles village $110/bottle 8,000 gallons for new most residences heat 12 bottles school PHS building with wood Stony River 6,000 gallons $1.47 8-10 7 school 12-15 $180/bottle fuel of1 cords/year bottles see school usage Al} heat with wood Sleetmute 2,500 galltons/year $1.46 8-10 cords - school-10 bottles $140/bottle clinic - c.h. per year 5 families-4 bottles each see school usage per household 8,000 gallons for Mellick all heat with wood (estimated) Red Devil 1,000 gallons/household $1.46 converting - 5 houses-35 bottles $140/bottle 11,000 gallons for village to wood school - 20 bottles see school usage Crooked Creek Store sold 8,000 $1.45 8-10 cords - 4 households $135/bottle 9,000 gallons per residence 20-25 bottles Anak see school usage most heat with wood Chauthbaluk 6,000 gallons $1.44 8-10 cords - 6 households $125/bottle for c.h., PHS, clinic per residence 30 bottles see school usage all heat with wood Russian Missicn 40,000 gallons $1.71 8-10 cords 50 bottle/village $75/refill village per residence 12 bottle/school + freight see school usage 3s heat with wood St. Mary's Sheldon Point 10,000 gallons $1.70 4-5 cords - 60 bottle/village $90/bottle village see school usage per residence supplement w/ fuel of} 1 Cost data as of February 1981, for bulk purchases (i.e., > 10,000 gallons) 12 bottle/school apa20:m GASOLINE BLAZO & KEROSENE AVIATION GAS * QUANTITY COST/GAL (BULK) QUANTITY cost QUANTITY COST/GAL_(BULK) 550 gallons $1.78 - - - . per household 650 gallons $2.31 - 3.60 - - - - per household 600 gallons $1.58 200-5 gallons $18.00/can - - per household cans for village of Blazo 4,000 gallons $2.65 - 3.20 gallon 50-5 gallon $25.00/can - - village can for village 600 gallons $1.69 - - - - per residence 700 gallons $1.65 - - - - per household 550 - 850 gallons $1.49 180 - 5 gallon $23.00/can 6,600 gallons $1.64 per family cans/year for village (180 barrels for village) 550 - 825 gallons $1.48 300-5 gallon $23/can 12,000 gallons $1.63 per family can/year ($4.00/gallon) (Mellicks) 1,000 gallons $1.48 7 = 6,000 gallons $1.63 per family per year 600 gallons $1.49 325-5 gallon cans $20/5 gal 10,000-11,000 bal $1.63 per family Blazo per year Store sold 45-5 bal cans $23/5 gal 10,000 gals last year Kerosene 1,100 gallons $1.46 325-5 gal cans $19/5 gal - - 20,000 for $1.73 330-5 gallon 2,200/ga1 $1.90 village cans Blazo 165-5 gallon cans kerosene 10,000 gallons $1.73 350-5 gal - 5,000 gallon $1.70-$1.90 village cans Blazo village apa20:m B. Energy Balance Data Where energy usage had to be estimated for the 1979 base year the following data has been used: Annual Usage Residential Gasoline 550 gal Propane 487 lbs/user Heating (75% efficiency) (1) North of Yukon River (112.4x10® Btu) diesel 1,100 gal (2) Lower & Upper Kuskokwim wood 9 chords : diesel 1,000 gal wood 8 chords Electric (125 kWh/mo.) - supplied by central plant diesel 172 gal diesel Schools a. Small Heating (1010 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel 9,800 gal Electric (52,000 kWh/year) Diesel 6,100 gal b. Medium Heating (1850 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel 17,874 gal Electric (105,995 kWh/year) Diesel 12,470 gal Small Commercial Heating (57.8 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel 558 gal Electric (743 kWh/mo.) - supplied by central plant. Diesel 1,048 gal Public Buildings Heating (75% efficiency, diesel) (1) community center (53.4 x 10® Btu) 525 gal (2) health center or city office (114.5 x 10® Btu) 1,125 gal (3) PHS building (114.5 x 10° Btu) 1,125 gal Electric (850 kWh/mo) - supplied by central plant diesel 1,200 gal B-8 apa20:m The derivation of the above usages is explained in detail in the following sections of this appendix. Fuel uses for electric generation have been assumed at different generating efficiencies for generators larger and smaller than 20 kW. Central Generator Plant efficiencies are assumed at 8.5 kWh/Gal. (based on AVEC Cost of Service Study, 1977) for plants larger than 20 kW. Generators efficiencies are assumed at 6.0 kWh/Gal. for engines less than 20 kW. The energy conversion factors used in this study were as follows: 138,000 Btu/gallon for diesel fuel 127,000 Btu/gallon for gasoline. 91,000 Btu/gallon for propane, 19500 Btu/Ib. 127,000 Btu/gallon for AV gas. 127,000 Btu/gallon for Blazo and Kerosene. 17 x 10® Btu/cord for wood fuel. ee apa20:m Fuel (1) 1. Family Residence Assumptions made in approximating fuel and electrical consumption if site specific data not available Building Size 25' x 20' x 12.5! A. Heat loss calculations and fuel use Area of windows = 1/10 total wall area Area of walls Area of roof Area of floor Assume walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers R-12 insulation U Factor 0.08. Roof and floor 2" x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers. Unheated attic 6" of insulation U Factor 0.09, 0.5 air changes per hour. U = 0.45 for windows. Heat Loss = = Area x U Factor Heat loss walls 1,125 ft? (0.08) Heat loss windows 113 ft? (0.45) Heat loss roof 500 ft? (0.09) Heat loss floor 500 ft? (0.09) Subtotal Heat Loss Heat loss due to air change of 0.5 air changes/hour = 5 -075 1b, ,.24 Btu pad 3 = Total heat loss = 287.2 Btu/hr. AT Calculations North of Yukon River Degree heating days 16,039 (Kotzebue) Btu/year = 287.2 Btu/hr.AT x eae x 16,039 degree days " Btu/year = 112.4 x 10° Btu year B-10 500 113 1,125 500 500 sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 90.0 Btu/hr AT 50.9 Btu/hr AT 45.0 Btu/hr AT 45.0 Btu/hr AT 230.9 Btu/hr. AT apa20:m Fuel Used ; — 112.4 x 10° Btu 1 1_gallon used Diesel = Year 738,000 Btu/gal * 775 gallon effective 1,085 gallons/year/gamily (use 1,100) Wood 112.4 x 10° Btu x = x 1 cord used Year 17 x 10° Btu/cord .75 cordeffective = 8.82 cords/year/family (use 9) (2) Middle and Lower Kuskokwim Degree heating days - 14,487 (McGrath) 24 hr day Btu/year = 287.2 Btu/hr. AT x x 14,487 degree days 99.9 x 10° Btu Btu/year = year Fuel used Diesel = 22:2 att Be x 138,000 Btu7gal * “75 gtiton ottective = 965 gallons/year/family (use 1,000) Wood = 22.2.4 40" Ste XiTx TO" BeWeord XB Soe ee tiva 7.8 cords/year/family (use 8). B-11 apa20:m B. Electrical Energy use for villages with new or pending centralized power systems. Assume: 1,500 kWh/family/year (125 kWh/month) This estimate is based on 1979 data supplied by the Alaska Village Cooperative and from kWh estimates calculated as shown below using information obtained from potential consumers interviewed during field trips. Appliance kWh/mo Months/Year Used kWh/Year Freezer 88 x 8 = 704 Lights 60 x 8 - 480 Radio 7 x 12 = 84 C.B. 7 x 12 = 84 Washing machine 9 x 12 = 108 Total kWh/year = 1,460 Average kWh/month = Agee 122 Fuel usage kWh lgal_ _ 1,460 year X 3 5°kh 172 gallons Cc. Propane Usage Assume 487 pounds/fami ly/year for those residences which use propane for cooking. This is an average approximation compiled from data obtained during field trips to the villages included in this study. D. Gasoline Usage Assume 550 gallons/family/year. This is an average approximation compiled from data obtained during field trips to the villages included in this study. B-12 apa20:m 2. SMALL SCHOOL Assumptions Made in Approximating Fuel and Electrical Consumptoin Several buildings constitute the school, including the school itself, teacher housing, a storage shed and a generator shed. It is assumed the generator shed and storage shed are not heated. The generator size for a small school is also assumed to be less than 20 kW. Building size: School - 32,000 cu. ft. Teacher Housing - 12,500 cu. ft. A. Heat Loss Calculations Area of windows in school 200 sq. ft. Area of walls in school 2050 sq. ft. Area of roof in school 3000 sq. ft. Area of floor in school : 2500 sq. ft. Area of windows in teacher housing 132 sq. ft. Area of walls in teacher housing 1353 sq. ft. Area of roof in teacher housing 1400 sq. ft. Area of floor in teacher housing 1000 sq. ft. Assume U of windows = .45, U of Walls = .07 U of roof and floor = .23 Subtotal Heat Loss = = Area x U Factor Btu/Hr. AT Subtotal Heat Loss = 2205 Btu/Hr.AT Heat Loss Due to Air Change of 1.5 times per hour = 1.5 Air Changes 3 y -075 lb. .24 Btu Hour RAas00=ft. Ft.2 X “Tb.aT = 1201.50 Btu/Hr. AT Total Heat Loss = 3406.5 Btu/Hr. AT B13 apa20:m B. Fuel Use Calculation: Average Temperature 31°F. Assumed building interior temperature 65°F. Btu_ _ 3406.5 Btu X 24 Hr. X 365 day Year sr. AT day Year X (65°F - 31°F) = 1.01 X 109 Btu/Year _ 1.01 X 10° Btu 1 gallon Fuel Use = Year X 338000 Btu X 1_gallon used -75 gallons effective 9800 gallons Electrical Use kWh Year = 52,000 (~ 45 of data for medium school) Fuel Use: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon 52000 kWh , 1 gallon ~ : Year X 8.5 kwh = 6100 gallons diesel — 15,900 gallons Small school total fuel usage Year B-14 apa20:m 3. MEDIUM SCHOOL Assumptions Made in Approximating Fuel and Electrical Consumption Several buildings constitute school including the school itself, teacher housing, storage shed and generator shed. Building Size: School 40000 cu. ft. Teacher Housing 20000 cu. ft. Storage Shed 7500 cu. ft. Generator Shed 9000 cu.ft. A. Heat loss calculation Area of windows in school = 280 sq. ft. Area of walls in school = 2120 sq. ft. Area of roof in school = 4200 sq. ft. Area of floor in school = 3750 sq. ft. Area of windows in teacher housing = 260 sq. ft. Area of walls in teacher housing = 1540 sq. ft. Area of roof in teacher housing = 1950 sq. ft. Area of floor in teacher housing = 1500 sq. ft. Area of windows in storage shed = 60 sq. ft. Area of walls in storage shed = 1040 sq. ft. Area of roof in storage shed = 900 sq. ft. Area of floor in storage shed = 750 sq. ft. Area of windows in generation shed = 60 sq. ft. Area of walls in generation shed = 1140 sq. ft. Area of roof in generation shed = 1050 sq. ft. Area of floor in generation shed = 900 sq. ft. Assume U of windows = .45, U of walls = .07, U of roof and floor = .23 Subtotal heat loss = = Area x U Factor Btu/Hr. AT Subtotal Heat loss 4155.3 Btu/Hr. AT B-T5 apa20:m Heat loss due to air change of 1.5 times per hour = 1.5 air changes 3 , -75 Lb. .24 Btu Hour x 76500 Ft.® x Fens” * That = 2065.5 Btu Hr. AT Total Heat Loss = 6220.80 Btu/Hr. AT Fuel Use Calculations: Average Temperature 31°F Assumed building interior temperature 65°F. 6220 Btu 24 Hr. 365 days Btu/year = Hr. AT x day x Year Btu Or _ ° = 9 x (65°F - 31°F) = 1.85 x 10 Year ~ 1.85 x 10° Btu 1_ gallon Fuel Use ™ Year x 738000 Btu x 1_gallon used = 17874 gallons .75 gallon effective Year B. Electrical Use kWh : : : Year estimate is actual use of small school in New Stuyahok eS (AVEC 1977) Fuel use for electric energy generation: 8.5 kWh Assume gallon 105995 kWh x lgallon _ 12470 gallons Year 8.5 kWh Year ‘ —- 30344 gallons Medium School Total Fuel Use Year B-16 apa20:m SMALL COMMERCIAL ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN APPROXIMATING FUEL AND ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION A. Heat Loss Calculations Small] commercial vendors are generally either attached to or incorporated into a residence. Assume an additional 300 sq. ft. increase in residential structure size due to business. Heat loss neglecting air changes are ¥% those for a house = 230.9 Btu/hr AT = 115.5 Btu/hr. AT Heat loss due to assumed 0.75 air change Arr changes (3,750 #t9) (-O23,1B) (SE BEM) = 50.6 Btu/hr.AT Total heat loss = 166.1 Btu/hr. AT Btu/year = 166.1 Btu/hr.AT x 24 hr./day x 14,500! degree days = 57.8 x 10® Btu/year. 57.8 x 10° Btu x —tgallon , 1 gallon year 138,000 Btu .75 gallon effective Wl Fuel used Fuel used = 558 gallons (use 550 gallons) 1 Averaged for all villages B-17 apa20:m B. Electrical usage Use 8,916 kWh/year/small consumer (743 kWh/mo) Averaged from 1979 year end AVEC data for small commercial consumers category Fuel used for electric energy generation: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon for central plant generation 1 8,916 kWh/year x 8.5 kwh = 1,048 gallons. B-18 apa20:m PUBLIC BUILDINGS ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN APPROXIMATING FUEL AND ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTIONS Community center, health center, city office, PHS, etc. Building Size 20' x 30' x 12.5' 600 sq. ft. A. Heat loss calculations Area of windows = 1/10 total wall area = 125 sq. ft. Area of walls = 1,250 sq. ft. Area of roof = 600 sq. ft. Area of floor = 600 sq. ft. Assume walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers R-10 insulation U Factor 0.1. Roof and floor 2" x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers. Unheated attic 6" of insulation U Factor 0.13, 0.75 air changes per hour. U = 0.45 for windows. Heat Loss = 2 Area x U Factor Heat loss walls 1,250 ft? (0.1) 125.0 Btu/hr AT Heat loss windows 125 ft? (0.45) = 56.3 Btu/hr AT Heat loss roof 600 ft? (0.13) = 78.0 Btu/hr AT Heat loss floor 600 ft? (0.13) = 78.0 Btu/hr AT Subtotal Heat Loss 337.3 Btu/hr. AT Heat loss due to air change of 0.75 air changes/hour = 0.75 air changes/hour (7,500 ft?) (0.075 1b/ft?) (.24 Btu/hr.AT) = 101.3 Btu/hr. AT Total heat loss = 438.6 Btu/hr. AT Fuel Calculations Average heating degree days for region = 14,5001 Btu/year = 438.6 Btu/hr.AT x 24 hr/day x 14,500 degree days 1 Averaged for all villages B~19 apa20:m Btu/year Fuel Fuel (1) (2) (3) 152.6 x 10® Btu/year 1 gallon 1 __gallons used 6 152.6 x 10° Btu/year x 733° 900 Btu * 775 gallons effective use = 1,474 gallons/year (use 1,500) use Community center Percentage of time heated = 35% Fuel used = 0.35 x 1,500 = 525 gallons Health Center or City Office Percentage of time heated - 75% Fuel used = 0.75 x 1,500 = 1,125 gallons PHS Building Percentage of time heated - 75% Fuel used = 0.75 x 1,500 = 1,125 gallons Electrical Usage Use 10,200 kWh/year/building (850 kWh/mo) Averaged from 1979 year and AVEC data for public consumer category. Fuel used for electric energy generation: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon as these consumers are either supplied by a central village plant or the village school generator. 10,200 kWh/year x 292110N _ 4 900 gations 8.5 kWh Post Office Assume the post office is located in a residence and has the same heating and electrical load. See average home electrical use. B-20 APPENDIX C ENERGY FORECASTING PROCEDURE AND CALCULATIONS APA 22-A v (a) (b) APPENDIX C ENERGY FORECASTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS Population The population forecast projections are based upon historic growth rates and, where available, information on projected future regional growth rates [30], [31], [32], [45], [56].* Population data indicates that the historical growth rates in the villages varies from a low of less than one percent to a high of approximately three percent. In villages where historical growth rates have averaged less than one percent per year, a growth rate of one percent per year has, however, been used for population forecasting purposes. The population forecast is con- sistent with previous State of Alaska population forecast. It is further assumed that the number of members per household will follow the overall Alaska tendency and decrease from the average 1979 ratio found in each village, which presently ranges from a high of 6 to a low of 4 (see Section 3), to an average of four members per household by the year 2000. Therefore, the number of residential energy users will, in certain villages, increase at a higher rate than the population. The number of smal] commercial energy users e.g., stores and shop facilities and public agencies is assumed to increase in direct proportion to that of residential consumers. End Use Forecast Electric Power Requirements: Use of electrical energy in the 13 villages is low compared to other areas in Alaska. This is mostly attributed to a low "hook-up saturation" level as only three of the 13 villages presently have operating centralized power generation and distribution. facilities, with one addi- tional village being supplied from the school. Of the nine remaining villages, six intend to install village diesel electrical systems during the 1981 summer construction season. 1 [ ] number references Historical increases in use of electricity supplied by major utilities in the region (Bethel, Kotzebue) have been approxi- mately 11 percent per year since 1970. This implies that once Caused a reduction in Consumption, mostly because the users in the area are stil] in the process of applying electric energy to more and more tasks. Generally it can be assumed that the range. A recently completed study for a southcentral utility in Alaska has shown that over a 35-year period the average energy use by the individual residential consumers has increased by 2700%, but that the monthly bill has remained constant between 2.4 and 3.9% of the family income. To determine future Power requirements, it has generally been assumed that a central station will supply electric energy. The effect of improved electric service is anticipated to be an increase in the intensity of use as compared to indivi- dually operated generators. Furthermore, with the subsistence economy changing in many communities into a cash economy and subsequent improvements jin the quality of life, new electric loads will require service. For instance, HUD houses planned for various villages will be Targer than existing older housing except large consumers (schools). This growth rate is expected if the State of Alaska continues to provide some form of electric Power production subsidies to rural residents, and if the continued use of diese] generation i cal energy at the Present prevailing rate of escalation. C-2 APA 22-A v This growth rate of 4.5%/year is applied to the average annual electrical energy usage (as determined from AVEC's 1979 year end reports), for residential, small commercial and public consumers to project energy usage for these consumer categories through the year 2000. The following table lists the kWH/mo/consumer for the various consumer categories, which have been derived from 1979 AVEC data. The table also lists the energy forecast projections for the year 2000 based on the 1979 energy figures and increases at 4.5% per year growth rate. These figures were used to construct the electrical energy forecast tables in Section 4 except as noted in the following paragraphs. kWH/Mo/Consumer Consumer Category 1973 2000 Residential 165 415 Smal] Commercial 743 1,872 Public Buildings 850 2,142 In villages with new or pending centralized power systems the residential energy requirements in 1981 is assumed at 125 kWH/mo/consumer (See Appendix B). This figure is escalated at such a rate as to achieve 415/kWH/mo/ consumer by the year 2000 to coincide with the forecast usage by residential AVEC consumer. In villages with operating utilities, residential consumer usage is based on utility records if available. Present usage is escalated at 4.5% per year through the year 2000. If the projected increase in energy usage is less than 415 kWH/mo/consumer, the growth rate is adjusted to achieve 415 kWH/mo/consumer in the year 2000 to coincide with the forecast energy usage by residential AVEC consumers. C-3 APA 22-A v Electrical energy usage (i.e., Kwh/mo) for both small commercial and public buildings has been averaged from 1979 AVEC data. This usage rate is applied to all 13 villages and escalated at 4.5% per year through the year 2000. (See above table). Electrical energy usage for large consumers (school) is projected to increase at the population growth rate of the village. The load factors in the villages is forecast to improve slowly (0.45 to 0.50) by the year 2000. This is due to the expand consumer base in the communities, plus anticipated future advancements in techniques for regulating consumer load demand by the year 2000. The marked decrease in load factor (0.6 to 0.45) in certain villages beteewn 1979 and 1982 is attributable to village electrification. The 1979 load is composed primarily of the school load which have historically had a high load factor (i.e.0.6). The 1982 load is a composite village load (i.e., residential, small commercial, public buildings, school), which histori- cally have had a load factor of approximately 0.45. Hence the decrease in load factor between 1979 and 1982. Calculation procedures, number of consumers, energy consumption per consumer, etc, is outlined in detail in Section 4 and will not be duplicated in Appendix C. Heating Requirements: Heating requirements for each consumer category have been projected at the 1979 energy use level, as determined from existing data, through the year 2000 except for propane. All residencies have been forecast to use propane by the year 2000. Beginning in 1986 it is assumed that fossil fuel requirements will decrease at the rate of one percent per year through the year 2000 due to technical improvements in heating equipment and improvements in building thermal characteristics, Ci.e., implementation of passive solar heating, additional insul- ation, etc.). This assumption results in an approximate fifteen percent decrease in fossil fuel requirements by the year 2000 and is reflected in the heating requirement tables listed in Section 4. Calculations details concerning heat requirements can be found in Section 4 and will not be duplicated in Appendix C.) Calcu- lations for heating requirements assume the following: c-4 APA 22-A v 1) Heat content per gallon diesel fuel - 138,000 Btu/gal 2) Heat content per cord of wood - 17.0 x 10®/chord 3) Heat content per 1b of propane - 19,500 Btu/1b 4) Heat contribution from burning blazo to provide illumination is neglected. NOTE: The actual heat content per cord of wood will vary significantly due to type of wood (i.e., spruce, birch, balsam) used for fuel and moisture content. C-5 APPENDIX D TECHNOLOGY PROFILES APA 24/CC SECTION 1 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION EXPLANATORY NOTES TECHNOLOGY PROFILES 3.1 Steam - Electric Technologies 3.1.1 Coal 3.1.2 Wood 3.1.3 Geothermal Petroleum - Electric Technologies 3.2.1 Diesel 3.2.2 Gas Turbine Low-Btu Gasification Wind Energy Conversion Systems Heating Technologies 3.5.1 Diesel Waste Heat Recovery 3.5.2 Geothermal Heating Binary Cycle Technologies Single Wire Ground Return Transmission Hydroelectric 3.8.1 Hydroelectric Generation 3.8.2 Electric Heating Conservation Other Technology Summaries 3.10.1 Two Speed Gear Box 3.10.2 Low Power Nuclear Heating 3.10.3 Chemical Heat Storage 3.10.4 Fuel Cells 3.10.5 Photovoltaic Cells 3.10.6 Passive Solar Heating 3.10.7 Biogas Generation 3.10.8 Waste Conversion 3.10.9 Peat PAGE 1-1 2-1 3.1. 3.1. 3.1. 3.2. 3.2. 3.5. 3.5. 3.8. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.10. 3.10. tet 2=1 dL 1-1 22k 3-1 3.10.4-1 3.10.5-1 3.10. 6-1 3.10.7-1 3.10.8-1 3.10.9-1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The energy technology profiling effort involves the development of a consistent set of assumptions in order to provide a truly comparable data base. Although at least several data sources are available for each technology, the data generally is quite variable (often based on incompatible assumptions) and, perhaps more important, does not apply to systems which could be utilized in Alaska in general and in the 13 villages of this study in particular. Data discrepancies for the so-called alternative energy technologies are also strongly influenced by the simple lack of experience in constructing and operating facilities utilizing these technologies. The technology profiles which follow are an attempt to provide a consistent, appropriate data base. apal9/h1 1-1 SECTION 2 EXPLANATORY NOTES SECTION 2 EXPLANATORY NOTES For this preliminary submittal, explanatory notes are numbered consecutively. 1. Factors that cause differences in electrical generating plant — capital costs per kW include: project scope regulatory requirements local cost variations plant size single versus multiple unit plants construction time Oe Ten On Onte ae interest rates 2. The availability factor is used as a measure of reliability and is the percentage of time over a specified period (typically one year) that the power plant was available to generate electricity. Credit for availability is not given if the plant is shut down for any reason. 3. Net Energy as used here is typically referred to as the "heat rate" in the case of electric generation and is expressed as the ratio of Btu in to kWh out in this case. For direct heat application cases, this ratio is Btu in to Btu out. apal9/m1 2-1 SECTION 3.1 STEAM - ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES 3.1.1 3.1.1 COAL DIRECT FIRED COAL FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Coal is ground to roughly less than 2 inch diameter chunks and mechanically loaded onto a boiler grate after which it is combusted in the boiler to heat incoming water to steam. The steam is then expanded in a turbine which drives a generator to produce electricity. Figure 3.1.1-1 shows a rudimentary steam power cycle. Current and future availability Steam plants account for the majority of electrical generation in the United States today. Although steam plants can accomodate a wide range of loads, U.S. economies of scale indicate that the cost per unit increases sharply in sizes below about 50 MWe. It should be noted that European coal-steam generation units are employed in the less than 10 MWe range. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/al Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity 3.1.1-1 2) 3) 4) apa24/a2 3.1.1 COAL b) Quantity Typically 5-50 MWe; rarely as small as 1 MWe (1000 kWe). c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Coal fired steam plants are typically used for base power without respect to time of year. Reliability a) Need for back-up 65% availability factor b) Storage requirements Typical storage is sufficient supply for 90 days of operation. For village areas, up to 9 months worth of coal storage may be required to guarantee continuous supply irrespective of weather. Thermodynamic efficiency up to 33% Net energy 9,500 - 17,500 Btu/kWh 3.1.1-2 3.1.1 COAL (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital 0 $860/kW (Bristol Bay 4000 kW, 1979 $ x 1.13) © — $1350/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW) 2) Assembly and installation oO $860/kW (Bristol Bay 4000 kW, 1979 $ x 1.15) ° $770/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW) 3) Operation ° $450,000/year (Kotzebue 2500 kW and 5000 kw) ° Fuel cost for $65/ton, 6800 Btu/Ib, and 17,500 Btu/kWh works out to 8.4¢/kWh (Kotzebue using Chicago Creek coal). 4) Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (Bristol Bay maintenance) oO 2.5% of investment per year (Kotzebue maintenance) o 9.4% of investment per year (replacement @ 7% for 20 years). 5) Economies of scale Economies of scale favor larger scale plants, particularly with respect to coal handling facilities. (Upcoming plants in the lower 48 are typically of 500 MWe size.) Economies of operator requirements also favor large plants. apa24/a3 3.1.1-3 3.1.1 COAL (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/a4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Coal plants require space for storage of fuel. Cooling water is not required for Alaska conditions as air condensers can be used. If the plant is sited at the mine, handling and storage requirements are lessened; storage of a month's fuel is adequate. Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) Non-renewable Typical Alaskan coal ranges from 6500 to 8000 Btu per pound. Construction and operating employment by skill Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel. Environmental residuals ° Solid wastes: include slag, bottom ash, scrubber sludge. ° Gaseous wastes: NO, , SO, oO Current environmental requlations regarding sulfur dioxide emissions from conventional coal-steam plants generally require abatement processes which significantly increase the cost of such plants. 3.1.1-4 5) 3.1.1 COAL Health or safety aspects Coal fired plants emit the following, as yet unregulated, atmospheric pollutants: toxic and carcinogenic trace elements, radionuclides, and organic and metal-organic compounds. Considerations include impact of transport and storage of fuel, risk of spontaneous combustion, and coal pile run off. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/a5 Cost per million BTU or kWh 0 20. 3¢/kWh (Kotzebue 2500 kW busbar cost in 1984). Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° For coal at 6800 Btu per pound and plant at 17,500 Btu/kWh, 2.6 pounds of coal are needed per kWh. NO, emissions are about 0.15 lbs/million Btu. SO, emissions are about 0.067 Ibs/million Btu. Particulate emissions are about 0.006 lbs/million Btu. oo °o 8 Solid wastes are about 10% of fuel burned. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability In general, the conventional boiler-fired steam turbine system is the most economic and technologically developed system available to the power industry. Operational economics require a minimum plant size of 5 MWe, however. Lead time is significantly longer that for diesel or gas turbine installation. 3.1.1-5 STEAM HEADER feceaeaaaenaseenee aie sence) | | | | l Vv | exaust | OUT | | TURBINE wooD0F ft goer | —+ASH : GENERATOR xX STEAM CONDENSER CONDENSATE <q FEED PUMP. DIAGRAM OF RUDIMENTARY STEAM POWER PLANT FIGURE 3.1.1 -L_ 3.1.2 3.1.2 wood DIRECT FIRED WOOD FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wood can be directly fired in traveling grate or stoker type steam boilers to provide steam for a conventional steam turbine cycle. The two major sources of wood fuel are forest residues and wood wastes from industrial operations. Figure 3.1.2-1 shows a wood-steam plant flow diagram. Current and future availability Existing commercial systems are roughly in the 1-50 MWe range. Economics of small scale plants are generally prohibitive because of the economics of operation and maintenance requirements for full time, highly skilled labor. Numerous U.S. manufacturers do produce wood fired boilers suitable for generating electricity in the 250-1000 kWe range. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/b1 Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity 3.1.2-1 2) 3) 4) apa24/b2 3.1.2 wooD b) Quantity Plant sizes vary from 0.5 to 50 MWe, although most economies of operation suggest a minimum size plant of 3-5 MWe. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Future supplies can be adversely impacted by: economic competition, distance of supplies, and needs for sustained forest yield levels. Reliability a) Need for back-up Availability factor. b) Storage requirements As for a coal plant, ninety days of fuel is typically stored; up to 9 months storage is required if climate only permits a few months of harvesting and transportation. Thermodynamic efficiency up to 21% Net energy 16,000 - 30,000 Btu/kWh 3.1.2-2 3.1.2 wooD (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital ° $1220/kW (Kake 1500 kW) ° $2200/kW (Angoon 400 kW) 2) Assembly and installation 0 $1220/kW (Kake 1500 kW) ° $2200/kW (Angoon 400 kW) 3) Operation ° $450,000/year (Kake 1500 kW) + 10% of fuel costs. ° $350,000/year (Angoon 400 kW) 4) Maintenance and replacement ° 2.5% of investment per year (Kake 1500 maintenance) oO $90,000/year (Kake 1500 kW maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) 5) Economies of scale Economies of scale favor plants in the 15-50 MWe range based on fuel handling facilities and operator requirements. apa24/b3 3.1.2-3 3.1.2 wooD (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) = Siting - directional aspect, land, height Wood storage area is the major land use. Air condensing can eliminate cooling water requirements. 2) Resource needs a) Renewable 8,000 Btu/Ilb dry; 4,500 Btu/1b in typical wet conditions. This translates as at least 2 dry pounds per kWh generated. The mass of wood required for a 500 kWe plant is on the order of 6x10® pounds of dry wood per year. b) Non-renewable N/A 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel. 4) Environmental residuals ° Solids: Ash, particulates ° Air: SO. NO, 0 Impacts of harvesting apa24/b4 3.1.2-4 3.1.2 wooD 5) Health or safety aspects Considerations include impact of transport and storage of fuel, risk of spontaneous combustion, and wood pile run off. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) Cost per million BTU or kWh ° 8.1¢/kWh (California 30 MWe levelized busbar cost) ° 4.7¢/kWh (Literature 50 MWe levelized busbar cost) 2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh oO Per (D)2) above, at least two pounds of dry wood are required per kWh; three to four pounds/kWh is more probable. NO, emissions are about 0.25-1.18 lbs/million Btu SO. emissions are about 0.07-0.18 Ibs/million Btu Particulate emissions are about 0.02 Ibs/million Btu | Residual ash from wood firing is not classified as a hazardous waste; firing wood waste actually decreases the amount of solid waste. 3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Although dry wood (at about 8000 Btu/pound) has about the same potential heat content as much of Alaska's coal, most wood is sufficiently moist to reduce this heat value by 40 to 50 percent. In addition to the moisture content, the relative volume to weight ratio of wood is disadvantageous as compared apa24/b5 3.1.2-5 apa24/b6 3.1.2 WwoOoD to coal, with consequent increased material handling requirements. Also, as compared to coal, the fuel gathering and transportation Processes result in the expenditure of significantly greater amounts of energy. Wood, a relatively clean burning fuel, is suitable for smaller steam power plants than is coal. As these smaller sized Plants are more suitable to much of Alaska's power development needs, this source of energy cannot be overlooked. 3.1.2-6 STACK POLUTION CONTROL TURBINE CONVEY BOILER STORAGE POWER PREPARATION PIPING GENERATOR TRASH ASH REMOVAL HANDLING COOLING FLUID WOOD FIRED STEAM POWER PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE 3.1.2-1 3.1.3 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL GEOTHERMAL - ELECTRIC (FLASHED STEAM) (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Geothermal electric generation in Alaska would be by the flashed steam or binary processes. The binary conversion technology is discussed generically in another profile; the flashed steam technology is profiled here as shown schematically in Figure 3.1.3-1. The flashed steam process applies to liquid dominated geothermal reservoirs such as those thought to exist in Alaska. Hot liquids are brought to the surface and partially converted to steam in flash vessels where the fluids undergo pressure reduction. The separated steam component is used to power a steam turbine-generator and spent and separated fluids are reinjected into the earth to minimize potential subsidence problems. Current and future availabiltiy Not currently in commercial practice in the United States, but over 140 MWe in operation in foreign countries. U.S. environmental restructions are much more severe, in general. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/cl Energy output 3.1.3-1 2) apa24/c2 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity b) Quantity Economic plant sizes are in the range of 35-50 MWe. A pilot California plant is being constructed at 10 MWe size. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Geothermal electric plants are generally used for base (continuous) loads. Reliability a) Need for back-up 0 No back-up required with a proven resource, although standby wells are common. 0 70% availability factor b) Storage requirements 0 No special storage required; reservoir provides essentially unlimited storage. 3.1.3-2 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL 3) Thermodynamic efficiency 0 Up to 12% (10-12% typical) overall plant efficiency; turbine efficiency alone is around 22%. 4) Net energy 0 27,000 - 34,000 Btu/kWh (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital ° $1125/kW installed (California 50 MWe) 2) Assembly and installation 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 3) Operation 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 4) Maintenance and replacement 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 5) Economies of scale Economies of scale are generally advantageous over about 30 MWe and are increasingly disadvantageous below that size. apa24/c3 3.1.3-3 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/c4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Typically, 3-5 acres of land with geothermal resource is needed for each MWe; 90% of this area is open space between wells and plant facilities. Resource needs a) Renewable Assuming geothermal is considered a renewable resource, the fluid would have typical characteristics of 340°F @ 115 psia. b) Non-renewable “N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Highly skilled construction and operational personnel are required. Environmental residuals 0 Air: HS is the major problem 0 Cooling water: a function of quality of water used 3.1.3-4 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL 5) Health or safety aspects Noise pollution can be a problem, with levels greater than 100 dB for well venting and related activities. Other considerations include disposal of spent fluids, H2S ("rotten egg" smell), and possible surface subsidence. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) Cost per million BTU or kWh 9.84¢/kWh levelized busbar cost (California 50 MWe) 2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh 0 Solid wastes are a function of geothermal fluid composition and can be zero. ° Environmental residuals for The Geysers (California dry steam) geothermal electric production are: - Water Bicarbonate: 0.06 pounds/million Btu NOY: 0.02 pounds/million Btu SO,: 0.02 pounds/million Btu Solids: 0.13 pounds/million Btu Organics: 0.03 pounds/million Btu 7 Air CO: 6.66 pounds/million Btu Ammonia: 0.11 pounds/million Btu Methane: 0.42 pounds/million Btu HS: 0.41 pounds/million Btu apa24/c5 3.1.3-5 3.1.3 GEOTHERMAL 3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and jts availability : oO Geothermal designs are nearly always site specific ~- technology is not necessarily transferrable. ° Requires a proven resource. ° While small (<100 kW) organic cycle geothermal generation is a small scale possibility, the current state of the art for flashed steam plants indicates a minimum economic plant size of about 35 MW, far too big for village application. apa24/c6 3.1.3-6 GENERATOR || STEAM COOLING TOWER Fie TAT TI MAKEUP LA FLASH VESSEL BRINE DIRECT CONTACT BRINE CONDENSER REINJECTION PUMP CIRCULATING WATER PUMP BLOWDOWN PUMP CONDENSATE <{ TO REINJECTION WELLS FROM PRODUCTION WELLS GEOTHERMAL POWER PRODUCTION BY THE FLASHED STEAM PROCESS FIGURE 3.1.3-1 SECTION 3.2 PETROLEUM ~ ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES 3.2.1 DIESEL DIESEL (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the diesel engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to a high pressure. Fuel oi] is injected into the compressed air, which is at a temperature above the fuel ignition point, and the fuel burns, converting thermal energy to mechanical energy by driving a piston. Pistons drive a shaft which in turn drives the generator. Current and future availability Diesel engines driving electrical generators are one of the most efficient simple cycle converters of chemical energy (fuel) to electrical energy. Although the diesel cycle in theory will burn any combustible matter, the practical fact of the matter is that these engines burn only high grade liquid petroleum or gas, except for multi-thousand horsepower engines which can burn heated residual oi]. Diesel generating units are usually built as an integral whole and mounted on skids for installation at their place of use. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/d1 Energy output 3.2.1-1 apa24/d2 b) DIESEL Quality - temperature, form In addition to electricity, diesel generators produce two kinds of capturable waste heat: from the cooling water and from the exhaust. The cooling water normally is in the 160-200°F range, but it can be 250°F or higher with Slight engine modification. Engines today are usually run at the cooler temperatures because of design simplicity, simpler operating routines, and first cost economy. The exhaust heat in a diesel is of higher temperature and consequently more easily used than the cooling water heat, but higher initial costs and increased operating complexities are encountered when attempting to recover energy from the exhaust gases. Quantity Typically 30% of the fuel energy supplied to a diesel-electric set is converted to electricity, 30% is transferred to cooling water, 30% is exhausted as hot gas, and 10% is radiated directly from the engine block. Typical Alaska diesel installation range from about 50 to 600 kWh. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Diesel units are typically base loaded ( not subject to dynamic variations). 3.2.1-2 DIESEL 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up High reliability of low speed diesels is advantageous for rural Alaskan areas. Although most Alaskan installations are of higher speed ranges (>1800 rpm), proper installation and maintenance allow continuous loading. b) Storage requirements Tanks located nearby the power plant. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency ° typically 17-31% overall plant efficiency 4) Net energy oO 11,000 - 20,000 Btu/kWh (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital ° $400/kW (AVEC) 0 $230-460/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.15 for units up to 500 kW) ° $416/kW (Bristol Bay, 60 kW, 1980 $) apa24/d3 3.2.1-3 2) 3) 4) 5) DIESEL Assembly and installation ° $400/kW (AVEC) 0 $200-600/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.15) oO $950/kW (Kake capital and installation) Operation oO 4-8% of investment per year (Bristol Bay operation) Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (Bristol Bay maintenance) 0 $7.44/mWh (THREA records, maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Diesel electric units range from around 1 kWe to around 1 MWe. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) apa24/d4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height An 100 kWe unit is typically skid-mounted, weighs about 2 tons, is about 5 feet high, 3% feet wide, and 9 feet long. The unit requires foundation, enclosure, and provision for cooling and combustion air. 3.2.1-4 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/d5 Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) . Non-renewable No.2 diesel fuel is typically used for stationary 100 kW installations. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be done with supervised typical local labor and equipment. Operation requires an operator/mechanic. Environmental residuals The composition of the exhaust is a function of the air-fuel ratio and the hydrogen-carbon ratio of the fuel. Residuals include: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and traces of nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. Health or safety aspects Fuel tanks require spill protection, often difficult in remote installations. Major consideration is potential impact from such spills. 3.2.1-5 (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/d6 Cost per million BTU or kWh (Fuel & lube oil costs only) ° 10-11¢/kWh (Kotzebue and Bethel) ° 22-25¢/kWh (Small Villages) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° From 0.07 to 0.12 gallons of fuel per kWh. 0 Environmental residuals per million Btu: N/A. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Diesel units are typically stocked by several manufacturers and, as such, have relatively short lead times for use. While this technology is a widely used bush application, lack of qualified operators and availability of spare parts have posed problems in Alaska. 3.2.1-6 DRAFT 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE (A) General Description 1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved - In simple cycle gas turbine plants (see Figure 3.2.2-1), incoming air is compressed and injected into the combusion chamber along with the gas or vaporized liquid fuel. The combusted gas, at relatively high temperature and pressure, expands through and drives the turbine, which drives the generator and the air compressor. Fuel is typically natural gas or very high grade distillate oil. 2) Current and future availability Gas turbine power plants are a proven, established technology, chiefly in peaking applications. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity and waste heat b) Quantity Waste (exhaust) heat is at about 800°F (typically) and amounts to 40 to 50% of the Btu value of fuel input. apa24/el 3.2.2-1 DRAFT 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Typically used for (daily) peaking loads because operating costs are high relative to fixed costs. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up Reliability of petroleum based fuel supply is an issue. Normally no back-up for peaking applications as peaking units have high reliability and low installation lead time. b) Storage requirements Natural gas is typically provided by pipeline. Distillate oil fuels require tank storage. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency 0 Simple cycle turbines have overall thermal efficiencies of about 28 percent. 4) Net energy 0 9,000 - 22,000 Btu/kWh apa24/e2 3.2.2-2 DRAFT 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/e3 Capital ° $330/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, 1977 $ times 1.39) 0 $313/kW (Kotzebue 800 kW, 1978 $ times 1.27) ° $456/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, September 1980) Assembly and installation 0 $135/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, 1977 $ times 1.39) 0 $130/kW (Kotzebue 800 kW, 1978 $ times 1.27) Operation N/A Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Units range in size from 30 kWe to over 100 MWe. 3.2.2-3 DRAFT 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/e4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height A typical 180 kWe gas turbine weights around 900 pounds, is 3% . feet long and wide, and about 3 feet high. The unit requires enclosure, fuel, and air supplies. Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) Non-renewable Natural gas is a near ideal fuel. Light distillate oils are also satisfactory. Corrosion is caused by fuels containing sulfur, vanadium, or other metals. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be performed with supervised typical local labor and equipment. An operator/mechanic is required. Environmental residuals ° 0i1 fired turbines: NO., SO, , particulates ° Gas fired turbines: NO, oO Since gas turbines require clean burning fuels, most stack gas emissions are negligible except for NOY. 3.2.2-4 DRAFT 5) 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE Health or safety aspects Integration of gas turbine generating units in a community rarely causes any significant negative health or impacts. Highest safety danger is potential of flammable and explosive accidents related to use of gas as fuel. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/e5 Cost per million BTU or kWh oO 22¢/kWh (California about 50 MW) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Need 9-22 cubic feet of natural gas per kWh ° Environmental residuals per million Btu: N/A Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Gas turbines are a well established technology in the U.S. generating mix, accounting for about 10% of U.S. installed capacity. Their operation has been proven in much of Alaska, although time required for maintenance and parts acquisition tend to take longer than in the lower 48. In its simplest form, the gas turbine is compact and relatively light, does not require cooling water, runs unattended, and can be remotely controlled. In order to be most efficient, however, gas turbines should be run at or near full load. 3.2.2-5 FUEL IN COMBUSTION CHAMBER EXHAUST AIR IN COMPRESSOR GENERATOR SIMPLE OPEN CYCLE GAS TURBINE FIGURE 3.2.2-1 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION 3.3 LOW - BUT GASIFICATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved So-called low-Btu gas (about 200 Btu/Scf) can be manufactured from coal and biomass in commercially available equipment. However, the use of this gas for power generation is a very complex process, as depicted in Figure 3.3-1. Current and future availability The prospect of gasification contributing to Alaska power in the next 10 years is remote for other than demonstration type plants. Existing commercial facilities are far too large for village applications. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/il Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Gas of about 200 Btu/scf. b) Quantity Depends on Btu rating of coal, with about 1.1 coal Btu required for each gas Btu. 2) 3) 4) (C) Costs 1) apa24/i2 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Gasifiers are best operated on a continuous basis. Reliability a) Need for back-up Fossil power systems displaced by gasification would typically be used for back-up. b) Storage requirements Like coal-steam plants, a three month coal supply is typical. Extreme climates may require up to 9 months worth of storage. Thermodynamic efficiency ° around 90% (range is 65% to 95%) Net energy 1.09 Btu of coal in to 1.00 Btu of gas out (for raw gas); about 1.25:1 for treated gas. Capital N/A 3.3 -2 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION 2) Assembly and installation N/A 3) Operation N/A 4) Maintenance and replacement N/A 5) Economies of scale "Small" commercial units produce about 2 billion Btu per day. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height As for coal-steam plants, fuel storage is the major land requirement. Gasification at the mine can cut storage requirements to 30 days. A 1000 kW gasifier is reported to be about 60 feet high and 8-10 feet in diameter. apa24/i3 3.3 -3 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/i4 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION Resource needs a) Renewable Wood and other cellulosic biomass can be utilized. Other biomass includes: straw, almond shells, and peach pits, for example. b) Non-renewable Coal of virtually any quality can be utilized. Construction and operating employment by skill Highly skilled construction and operating personnel are required. Environmental residuals ° Solids: ash, sulfur oO Air: SO, and particulates Health or safety aspects The low Btu gas is highly flammable and contains high amounts of toxic carbon monoxide. 3.3 -4 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/i5 Cost per million BTU or kWh Lower 48 costs of a "small" commercial unit is $3.00 per million Btu per a manufacturer's estimate for 5 billion Btu per day. This cost should be multiplied by 2-3 for Alaska. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Need about 1.1 Btu in fuel for each Btu of gas generated. ° Environment residual figures are based on an ash agglomerating fluidized bed low-Btu gasification process: - Sul fur: 2.77 pounds/million Btu - NOY: 0.02 pounds/million Btu - SO: 0.04 pounds/million Btu - Partiulates: 0.14 pounds/million Btu - CO: 0.01 pounds/million Btu - Solids: 13. pounds/million Btu Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability While coal could be gasified in a so-called synthetic fuel plant, the state of the art and associated economics make it appear doubtful that a fuel facility would be constructed solely for the purpose of providing fuel for limited electrical generation. Suitable low-Btu gasifiers are air blown units of the fixed bed type operating at atmospheric pressure. These units are 3.3 -5 apa24/i6 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION "small": daily production is less than 2 billion Btu of hot, raw gas. Low-Btu gas is economically attractive only if produced near its usage - nominally within a half mile. The cost of the gas in the lower 48 typically ranges from about $2.50 to $4.00 per million Btu under most conditions. Actual cost at a specific location is influenced by the price of coal (about half the cost), the load factor, the gas cleanup requirements for specific process use, and clean air requirements. It should be noted that the problems associated with burning large volumes of low-Btu gas in gas turbines are more difficult to solve than burning this gas in boilers because of size limits on turbine combustion chambers. Low - Btu gas can be burned in "dual fuel" engines (90% gas, 10% diesel fuel), but the gas must be cleaned to remove particulates and tars. 3.3 -6 SS NE NS SS SS SN NS NN NN SS GO SS GD eee Ge Gene comme come Mee GENERATOR ——AIR —S~ EXHAUST TURBINE ——> HpS GAS DESORBER TAR ABSORBER COOLER TAR OIL TAR COAL GASIFIER —— se ASH FEEDWATER AIR aad — STEAM CLEAN FUEL GAS FROM COAL FOR POWER GENERATION ecicrnocrc 22 SECTION 3.4 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WECS 3.4 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) (A) General Description 1) 2) apa24/ql Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved No thermodynamic process is involved with the use of wind power for generation of electrical energy. The process relies on wind flow over an air foil assembly to create differential pressures along the air foil. This differential pressure results in rotation of the assembly around a fixed axis to which it is attached. Power from the wind is transmitted through the connection shaft and accompanying gear box to an electrical generator. (See Figure 3.4-1). Three types of generators are presently in use with wind energy systems. These are the DC generator, the AC induction generator and the AC synchronous generator. Of the three types the AC induction generator is the most widely used: an induction generator is not a stand-alone generator and must be connected to an external power system of relatively constant frequency and voltage to operate properly. Current and future availability Availability of small size units in the 1.5 kW to 20 kW range is good. Large units in the 100-200 kW range are currently undergoing tests in both the government and private sector and should be available in the near future. Demonstrations of multi-megawatt sizes are in process. 3.4-1 WECS (B) Performance Characteristics 1) Energy output a) b) Quality - temperature, form Electricity Quantity Annual kWh output for following machine sizes for average annual wind speed of 12 mph. 1.5 kW 3,120 kWh 18 kW 20,000 kWh 45 kW 50,000 kWH See Figure 3.4-2 for energy output at other wind speeds for an 18 kW machine. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Output of WECS dependent on seasonal wind flow patterns. 2) Reliability a) apa24/q2 Need for back-up In general, except for the small single dwelling wind systems, wind power generation is not a stand alone system. Diesel or another form of back-up generation must be provided for days the wind does not blow with sufficient velocity to produce energy from the WECS 3.4-2 WECS b) Storage requirements Battery storage or possibly pumped hydro can be used for storage, both of which constitute considerable expense. Today the consensus is that the most cost effective way to use wind power is on a utility grid to displace fuel only when the wind blows and not try to store the wind energy. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency N/A 4) Net energy N/A (C) Costs (1980$) 1) Capital Machine size Cost $/kW 1.5 kW $ 6,0951 $4060 18 kW 16,500 920 45 kW 33,000 730 1 Includes cost of conversion equipment. apa24/q3 3.4-3 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/q4 Assembly and installation 1.5 kW - $7,500 18 kW - $ 9,500 45 kW - $18,300 Operation 1.5 kW - N/A 18 kW- N/A 45 kW - N/A Maintenance and replacement Unit Size Maintenance 1.5 kW $2100 18 kW $2700 45 kW $3300 Replacement? $1280 $2450 $4840 2 Depreciation, 20 years at 7% Economies of scale WECS Total/Yr. $3280 $5150 $8140 Economies of scale favor installation of large centralized wind generators over the small individually owned wind generators. Units sizes are, of course, restricted by village power requirements and, because of electrical system stability limitations, the total installed WECS instantaneous output should not exceed 25 percent of the total system load. 3.4-4 WECS 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height Siting required the selection of a location with an average annual wind speed in excess of 10 mph. Height of the mounting tower will vary depending on location and machine size, but will generally exceed 30 feet in height. 2) Resource needs a) Renewable Average annual wind speed in excess of 10 mph. b) Non-renewable N/A 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Certain aspects of construction (i.e. foundation, tower installation) could be performed by unskilled labor under close supervision. An operator would not be required as the WECS is designed to operate unattended. 4) Environmental residuals Little environmental impact is anticipated when operating only a few machines within a small geographic area. apa24/q5 3.4-5 5) WECS Health or safety aspects Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance and land use issues must be addressed prior to installation of a utility owned on operated WECS. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/q6 Cost per million BTU or kWh The 1980 cost per kWh for the various system sizes is as follows. 1.5 kW - $1.05/kWh 18 kW - $0.25/kWh 45 kW - $0.16/kWh See Figure 3.4-3, WECS versus Diesel Generation, to determine the breakeven diesel fuel cost at which an 18 kW WECS becomes economically competitive with diesel generation. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh N/A Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability 3.4-6 apa24/q7 WECS Wind power suffers from one obvious disadvantage; The intermittent and fluctuating nature of wind. A small utility must install sufficient primary generation at additional costs to meet demands on those days when the wind does not blow with sufficient velocity to produce rated output of the WECS. Besides the fickleness of local wind conditions, technical, environmental, and social problems must be addressed. Technical and social barriers that must be dealt with include power system stability; voltage transients, harmonics; fault-interruption capability; effects on communications and TV transmissions, public safety; legal liabilities and insurance, and land use issues. 3.4-7 HIGH : SPEED PILLOW BLOCK BEARING SHAFT AFT PRIMARY PITCH BEARING BRAKE CONT ACTUATOR INDUCTION come GENERATOR GEAR BOX SECONDARY PITCH ’ ACTUATOR CRANK THRUST BEARING SECONDARY PITCH CONT ACTUATOR VERTICAL SHAFT INBOARD PROFILE © WIND TURBINE GENERATOR FIGURE 3.4-1 TT » ANNUAL KILOWATT HOUR PRODUCTION 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 10 15 20 25 AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY ,MPH ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION vs AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY WIND POWER PLANT WITH 18 KW INDUCTION GENERATOR FIGURE 3.4-2 Nm DIESEL GENERATION AT BKWH/GAL. = . 0.7} —$?___#@_ $f x N ~~” z . > DIESEL 5 GENERATION z AT 12 KWH/GAL. 0.50 8 60% ($0.43/KWH ) 1 5 | J VEN FUEL, s COSTS (TYPICAL) WECS UTILIZATION uw 80% ($0.32/KWH) ; FACTOR (1) 100% ($O.26/KWH) nt {| 0.25 ee) \ % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DIESEL FUEL COST IN $/GALLON ‘ (1) UTILIZATION FACTOR IS DEFINED AS THE PERCENTAGE : OF AVAILABLE ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCED BY THE WECS WECS WHICH IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED. vs DIESEL GENERATION 18 KW INDUCTION GENERATION FIGURE 3.4=3 SECTION 3.5 HEATING TECHNOLOGIES 3.5.1 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY (A) General Description 1) 2) apa24/sl1 Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The present use of fossil fuels (coal, gas, 011) in Alaska (as elsewhere) to produce more useful forms of energy (heat, electricity, motive power) is less than 100 percent efficient. For example, if a machine burns a certain quantity of fossil fuel and produces useful output (shaft horsepower, electrical energy, steam, hot water or air for space heating) equivalent to 30% of the fuel burned, the energy represented by the remaining 70% of the fuel will appear as unused or "waste" heat. Such heat most often appears as hot exhaust gas, tepid to warm water (65°F-180°F), hot air from cooling radiators, or direct radiation from the machine in question such as a furnace, steam power plant, diesel engine, etc. Diesel waste heat can be recovered from engine cooling water and exhaust (as shown in Figure 3.5.1-1), or either source separately. The waste heat is typically transferred to a water-glycol circulating system in Alaskan applications. The heated circulating fluid can be used for space, water, or process heating. Current and future availability Practice in Alaska is growing as a result of sharp increases in diesel fuels, particularly as an impact on cost of generation only (as opposed to generation with waste heat recovery). 3.5.1-1 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT Recovery of jacket water heat only is most common in Alaska and is shown in Figure 3.5.1-2. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) Energy output a) b) apa24/s2 Quality - temperature, form Cooling water is typically 160-200°F. Exhaust heat varies with engine speed and load and ranges from about 300-600°F. Quantity Diesel engines generally produce about 30% shaft power which can be converted to electricity, 30% cooling water heat, 30% exhaust heat, and 10% radiation. All of the cooling water heat, about half of the exhaust heat, and all of the radiation can be usefully captured if space heat needs are in economic proximity. Figure 3.5.1-3 shows the available waste heat for generators of different capacities at various load levels while Table 3.5.1-1 indicates the annual recoverable waste heat for various diesel unit sizes and generating efficiencies Cie. kWh/gal and heat rates in Btu/kWh) and assumes that one-third of the fuel heat is recoverable. 3.5.1-2 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT TABLE 3.5.1-1 WASTE HEAT AVAILABILITY? 10° Btu/year Available at_Indicated Generating Efficiency 14 kWh/gal 12 kWh/gal 10 kWh/gal 8 kWh/gal kW KWh/year (9,900 Btu/kWh) (11,500 Btu/kWh) (13,800 Btu/kWh) (17,250 Btu/kWh) 50 175,200 575.6 671.6 805.9 1007.4 75 262,800 863.4 1007.4 1208.9 1511.1 100 350,400 1151.2 1343.2 1611.8 2014.8 200 700,800 2302.4 2686.4 3223.6 4029.6 1 Assumes 138,000 Btu/gal fuel, 0.40 load factor c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Waste heat is available whenever the electrical generation source it is dependant upon is in operation. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up Heat recovery systems require a back-up heat source in case of system shutdown. This is typically provided by boilers and heaters than exist prior to installation of the recovery system and consequently idled by it. apa24/s3 3.5.1-3 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT b) Storage requirements Waste heat is generally utilitzed as it is recovered; storage of heat is currently atypical. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency N/A 4) Net energy N/A (C) Costs 1) Capital apa24/s4 As an example of the potential savings associated with waste heat recovery, consider the following. A power plant with a 100 kW peak load, 40% load factor and 8 kWh/gallon fuel rate would require 43,800 gallons of fuel per year. If one-third of the waste heat was recovered, it would reduce oil requirements for heating by 14,600 gallons, per year. With fuel oil prices at a $1.80 per gallon this represents a potential savings of $26,280 per year. Because some of the heat is produced in the summer when it is not needed, it is not practical to use all of it, but this does give the reader a feel for the scale of waste heat production at such plants. Waste heat utilization, however, is not free, even though there may not actually be a direct charge for the heat. The 3.5.1-4 2) apa24/s5 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT equipment for utilizing this heat requires a sizeable capital investment and is feasible only when the cost for associated equipment is less than the cost of the fuel saved. The cost of heat exchangers, waste heat boilers and associated equipment depends on the generator installed at the location. These costs can be be determined by contacting the generator's manufacturer and obtaining the price of the specific models of waste heat recovery equipment specifically designed for that generator. Using some typical prices as a guideline, we can estimate that the component price for a heat recovery silencer will range from $3700 for a 55 kW engine-generator set to $16,000 for an 850 kW engine-generator. These units would allow capture of waste heat equivalent to approximately one sixth of the fuel supplied to the engine-generator. To these prices must be added the cost of installation and auxiliary equipment. A heat exchanger for the jacket water system will range from $900 for the 55 kW engine-generator set to $3800 for the 950 kW engine-generator set. These theoretically can capture waste heat equivalent to approximately one third the fuel supplied to the engine-generator. Assembly and installation For a complete installation, including labor and auxiliary devices, the above prices should be multiplied by a factor of 3 or 4. 3.5.1-5 3) 4) 5) 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT Operation N/A Maintenance and replacement oO 2% of capital investment per year (maintenance) 0 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Small systems may be as beneficial economically as very large systems because required equipment is less sophisticated and consequently less costly. Cost of redundancy requirements is typically lower (per unit recovered) in smaller systems, also. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) apa24/s6 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Should be immediately adjacent to diesel engine (or other heat source). Resource needs a) Renewable Waste heat, according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, is a continually increasing resource (a "self-renewing" resource). 3.5.1-6 3) 4) 5) 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Jacket water heat recovery systems are installable and operable by local personnel qualified for similar work with diesel generators. Environmental residuals Environmental residuals are only those associated with the means of electrical generation employed. Health or safety aspects No negative health or safety aspects except those associated with the heat source. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) apa24/s7 Cost per million BTU or kWh Material and Construction Cost for a "typical" 100 kW diesel unit jacket water heat exchanger and 100 feet of Arctic piping. Materials Jacket Water Heat Exchanger and Valves $ 3,500 Piping and Miscellaneous (within powerhouse) f 6,000 Modifications to Heated Building 1,500 Subtotal $11,000 3.5.1-7 2) 3) apa24/s8 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT Arctic Pipe @ $30/ft $ 3,000 Support System for Pipes @ $10/ft 1,000 Subtotal $ 4,000 Total Materials $15,000 Labor Installation of Heat Exchanger and Piping (within powerhouse) $22,000 Installation of Arctic Pipe and Supports 8,000 Total Labor $30,000 TOTAL COST $45 ,000 Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh These items are whatever is attributable to the heat source technology. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Waste heat capture, while not a fuel for generation, can provide savings in overall fuel use. Waste heat utilization, however, is not free, even though there may not actually be a direct charge for the heat. The equipment for utilizing this heat requires a sizeable capital investment and is feasible only when the cost for associated equipment is less than the cost of the fuel saved. 3.5.1-8 apa24/s9 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT For economic reasons it is seldom justifiable to install waste exhaust heat recovery equipment on the smal] diesel generator sizes found in the Alaskan bush. Bush village power plant generators should be equipped with cooling water heat exchangers. The heat recovered from the cooling water can then be piped to replace or supplement heating fuel in schools, community centers, city halls, water systems and sewer systems where economic proximity exists. In smaller communities where it is practical, consideration should be given to moving the power plant nearer other public facilities so that waste heat can be used to advantage. By doing this, we could conservatively expect to reduce heating oil requirements by an amount equal to one third to one fourth of the oi] consumed by the power plant. Cooling water can be used in two ways: 1) the hot coolant from the engine or industrial process can be piped directly to radiators in the space to be heated, or to other process which can use the heat; or 2) the hot coolant can, via a heat exchanger, heat a medium, probably water, which will be used for space heating or other processes. Most engine manufacturers are very adamant in the "NO" on No. 1. A leaking radiator can destroy the engine, whereas in the second system the engine will be unaffected. Engine water must be soft and free of impurities that could reduce the heat transfer in the engine. This can be controlled in a small system using the same water over and over, but is much more difficult in a system where engine water is circulated through the heating system. 3.5.1-9 apa24/s10 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT No. 2 causes an additional inefficiency because heat exchangers lose up to about 20 degrees while transferring the heat from the heat producing loop to the heat using loop. This is, however, the most common method employed when utilizing the waste heat from the engine cooling water. The critical point of any effort to evaluate waste heat recovery is that point at which the equivalent annual cost of recovering heat will be less than the cost of generating heat by other means. Low grade waste heat cannot be transported very far for its actual resale value. The price of delivered timely heat to a user at his radiators, water system, etc., must be less than his heating fuel cost. Figure 3.5.1-4 can be used to provide the economic distance over which a given quantity of waste heat may be transported. The following assumptions were used in construction of the graph in Figure 3.5.1-4: Diesel fuel cost of $1.80/gallon, no escalation Heat content of 138,000 Btu/gallon of diesel Fuel oi] stove efficiency at 60% a0 7 @ Powerhouse and heating building installation and modification costs of $33,000 e. Arctic pipe installed at cost of $120/foot Before the economics of utilizing waste heat can be considered, jt must be determined that the available waste heat is sufficient to meet the heating demand under consideration during the various conditions of heating and electrical load. This can 3.5.1-10 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT be determined by the use of the Figures and Tables found in this profile and used in the manner illustrated by the following example. Example It is desired to heat a village community hall located near Bethel using jacket water from a 75 kW diesel engine-generator set. Dimensions of the hall are 40'x40'x10'. The hall is located 100 feet from the powerplant. Coldest air temperature is estimated at -40°F, lowest expected generator loading is 40% of full load, 8 kWh/gal efficiency. 1. Determine cubic feet of building. 40'x40'x10' = 16,000 cubic feet. 2. Use Figure 3.5.1-5 to determine required Btu per hour heating requirements. For a 16,000 Cu.Ft. building at -40°F this equates to approximately 90,000 Btu/hr. 3. Using the generator size and the 40% load curve in Figure 3.5.1-3, read the available Btu/hr from the engine. In this case 175,000 Btu/hr is available engine waste heat. 4. Comparison of the results obtained in Steps 2 and 3 indicate that there is sufficient waste heat available (175,000 Btu/hr available vs 90,000 required) to meet demand at minimum electrical power generation. apa24/s11 3.5.1-11 apa24/s12 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT 5. Comparison of Tables 3.5.1-1 and 3.5.1-2 (following text) indicates that (from Table 3.5.1-1) 1511.1 x 10® Btu/year are available from the engine while (from Table 3.5.1-2) 3 175 x 10° x 3 ae a or 280 x 10° Btu are required annually for heating. Clearly sufficient Btu of waste heat is available for heating of the community hall. 6. From Figure 3.5.1-4, it is now possible to determine the maximum economic distance the required heat can be transferred for payback periods of 5 and 10 years and interest rates of 5%, 10% and 15%. For instance, the maximum economic distance to transport 280 x 10° Btu with a payback period of 10 years at 5% interest is 95 feet. Finding that the above system appears feasible does not mean that materials should be purchased and construction started. The system must still be engineered for the particular location and situation. The previous simplified analysis has merely justified a more detailed study be performed to accurately determine the feasibility and costs associated with the project. 3.5.1-12 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT TABLE 3.5.1-2 DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL HEAT LOAD Average *Average Annual Degree Temperature Heat Load Location Days (°F) (Btu x 10°) Anchorage 10,814 35.24 147.9 Barrow 20,174 9.73 256.4 Bethel 13,196 28.85 175.0 Cordova 9,764 38.25 135.1 Fairbanks 14,279 25.88 187.7 Juneau 9,075 40.14 127.0 King Salmon 11,343 33.92 153.5 Kotzebue 16,105 20.88 209.0 Nome 14,171 26.18 186.4 *Based on a "standard" 10,000 ft.* building, 35' x 35' x 8. Walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers, with R-11 insulation, U factor .07. Roof and floors 2' x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers, unheated attic, 6 inches of insulation, U factor .07. Two 24" x 40" windows, 1 air changes per hour. apa24/s13 3.5.1-13 * TO REMOTE ROM REMOTE HEAT LOOP HEAT LOOP EXHAUST GAS EXPANSION DOAP—-OPD ENGINE THERMOSTAT: BOOSTER THERMOSTATIC PUMP CONTACTOR JACKET WATER & EXHAUST WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FIGURE 3.5.1-1 SPACE HEAT PUMP THERMOSTATIC VALVE DOAP—-OpPpyw ENGINE THERMOSTATIC SWITCH JACKET WATER WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FIGURE 3.5.1-2 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 BTU/HR. X 10° AVAILABLE FROM WASTE HEAT 75 5.0 2.5 1.0 4 1 —L. fe] 50 100 i50 200 250 300 GENERATOR CAPACITY (KW) AVAILABLE WASTE HEAT VS GENERATOR CAPACITY (17,250 BTU/KWH EFFICIENCY FULL LOAD) FIGURE 3.5.1-3 MAXIMUM ECONOMIC DISTANCE 400 ~ 5 YEAR PAYBACK $ 1.80/GALLON FUEL COSTS 300 200) 100 ° 200 300 400 500 600 700 HEATING LOAD BTUS x06" 400 ane 10 YEAR PAYBACK $1.80/GALLON FUEL COSTS 300 4 200) 7 7 100 oO 0 100 200 300 400 500 (1) HEATING LOAD BTUS x10& ECONOMIC DISTANCE VS HEAT LOAD FIGURE 3.5.1-4 000'00s 000'00! 000'os 000'O! 000'6 ooo's 000'L 000'9 8 8 8 8 8 2. 2. 5 3}. 3 8 8 S 0 = (g44) 3WNI0A 9NIaTINE BTU/HR HEATING REQUIREMENTS BUILDING VOLUME VS BTU/HR HEATING REQUIREMENTS . FIGURE '3.5.1-5 SECTION 3.6 BINARY 3.6 BINARY 3.6 BINARY CYCLE FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The binary conversion process requires only heat quantity (heat energy/unit time) and quality temperature to provide power. A heated primary fluid of insufficient quality for direct use in electrical production passes through a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a working fluid. The working fluid has a lower boiling point than water and is vaporized in the heat exchanger. The vaporized working fluid then expands through a turbine, or in a cylinder-piston arrangement, is condensed, and returns to the heat exchanger. The primary fluid is returned to its heat source following heat exchange. Figure 3.6-1 shows a generalized binary cycle. Current and future availability Current units either commercial availability or under develop- ment are restricted to small size (less than 100 kW) units - a good size match with study requirements. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/v1 Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity 3.6-1 b) 3.6 BINARY Quantity A function of unit size. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Power can be generated whenever the heat source is available. 2) Reliability a) b) Need for back-up When powered by waste heat, binary cycles are typically used for peaking. If used for base loads, the binary- system would typically be backed up by the fossil system it displaces. Storage requirements Fuel storage requirements are those of the heat source technology. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency ° oO around 10% to a reported 27% the organic Rankine diesel or Homing binary cycle can increase plant output power by 15% 4) Net energy 3-10 units in to 1 unit out apa24/v2 3.6-2 3.6 BINARY (C) Costs 1) Capital N/A 2) Assembly and installation N/A 3) Operation N/A 4) Maintenance and replacement N/A 5) Economies of scale Commercially utilized systems range from 1 to about 100 kWe. (D) Spee falll Requa eee ee and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height Units are relatively small and light and require only an enclosure and connection to the (nearby) heat source. apa24/v3 3.6-3 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/v4 3.6 BINARY Resource needs a) Renewable Binary cycles per se have no resource needs as heat is provided from some other resource technology profiled herein. Hence, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and radiation, as well as any combustion material, such as wood or coal are potential fuels. b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Initial village installations would involve factory personnel for most work. Operation can be relatively unattended, although a qualified mechanic should be available. Environmental residuals Closed binary cycles in and of themselves cause no environmental residuals; residuals are a result of the heat source. Seal failures would cause leakage of the binary working fluid. Health or safety aspects Seal failures cause release of gases which are generally toxic and/or flammable. 3.6-4 3.6 BINARY (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/v5 Cost per million BTU or kWh ° 10.0¢/kWh (California, 10-50 MWe) ° 3-5 year investment payoffs have been reported for diesel bottoming cycles. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh No resources are required other than those required for the source of heat (typically diesel for engine-generators) nor are any additional environmental residuals created. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and jts availability There are both domestic and foreign suppliers of appropriate size binary cycle systems and product development is being vigorously pursued. Binary cycles for village electrical application could involve so-called diesel "bottoming" - use of exhaust gas heat. Both Rankine and Stirling cycle equipment in the less than 100 kWe range are available and at least two manufacturers are seeking funding and assistance for an Alaska demonstration. Binary bottoming cycle equipment is in operation on the Trans- Alaska Pipeline utilizing waste heat to produce electricity. 3.675 apa24/v6 3.6 BINARY Specific manufacutrers' data gathering for appropriate equipment is still in process at the time of submittal of this preliminary technology profile. An attractive Alaska demonstration concept involves firing of local coal for low pressure direct heating of the binary fluid for electrical production, avoiding the need for steam fired electricity with its inherent operational complexities and costs. 3.6-6 PUMP PRIMARY FLUID WORKING GENERATOR FLUID ——~“ HEAT EXCHANGER CONDENSER COOLING FLUID GENERALIZED BINARY CYCLE FIGURE 3.6-1 SECTION 3.7 SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN TRANSMISSION 3.7 SWGR 3.7 SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN (SWGR) TRANSMISSION (A) General Description 1) apa24/wl Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A Single Wire Ground Return system (SWGR) can best be described as single-phase, single wire transmission system using the earth as a return circuit. SWGR is not a new technology as thousands of miles of line have been in successful operation for more than thirty years - mostly outside the United States j.e., India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and in areas of the USA during W.W. II. The SWGR lines suggested here are point-to-point connections with a carefully established grounding system at each end point. (See Figure 3.7-1). The design of these end point grounding systems would comply with presently accepted standards for limiting potential ground gradients and would be similar in design to a grounding system found in today's high voltage substation. The substation established at each end would then connect to the conventional multi-grounded distribution system as commonly used today throughout Alaska and the other 49 states. A presently envisioned SWGR system would be used to connect several small outlying villages within a given geographical area to a centrally located, larger, more efficient, generation facility thereby eliminating the need for each small village to operate their own generating facility. 3.7-1 2) Lack of a road system, permafrost, and limited or no accom- modations for construction crews throughout most of the region being studied establish some limitations that must be dealt with to find appropriate solutions. Conventional construction techni- ques and line designs might be used - but at premium costs. A design believed most adaptable to these limitations is based on the use of an A-frame structure shown in the following sketch labeled Figure 3.7-2. The arrangement is well suited to the SWGR design. The single wire configuration can be designed for minimum cost by utilizing high-strength conductors that require a minimum number of structures and still retain the standards for high reliability. Current and future availability A demonstration project to supply Bethel central station electricity to the village of Napakiak, a distance of 8.5 miles is presently in operation. This project has provided a demonstration of the technical and cost feasibility of the SWGR system. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/w2 Energy output Single Phase Electrical Power Transmission. 3.7-2 b) Quality - temperature, form The electrical characteristics for various size conductors at 60 HZ and 25 HZ are shown in Table 3.7-1 (following text). Three phase equipment can be successfully operated from this system by the use of rotary phase converters. Quantity Transmission line transfer capacity is as shown on Table 3.7-2. Three phase transmission at 60 HZ and SWGR transmission at 60 HZ and SWGR transmission at 60 HZ and 25 HZ are included to allow comparisons. Use of the lower 25 HZ operating frequency increases the allowable transmission distance for a specified line loading and/or voltage drop. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual N/A 2) Reliability a) apa24/w3 Need for back-up Transmission line reliability generally exceeds 95 percent. Diesel generators, which are currently installed in most villages, would provide backup should the transmission line be temporarily out-of-service. 3.7-3 3) 4) apa24/w4 SWGR b) Storage requirements N/A Thermodynamic efficiency The thermodynamic efficiency within a give geographical area could be improved through the introduction of SWGR transmission lines. The improvement in efficiency would result from the increased use of larger more efficient diesel engines at a centralized generating facility versus village generation using smaller less efficient engines. Net energy Line loss should not exceed 3-5% of gross energy transfer See Table 3.7-2 for line transfer capacity. 3.7-4 (C) Costs (1980 $) Single Wire Ground Return up to 40 kV. 2 pole structure, 700 ft spans, (7.5 structures/mile) Structures (15) 30 ft treated poles @ 75.00 ea 7#8 Alumoweld 5280 ft @ $300/1000 ft (7.5) Insulators (40 kV Post) @ $75 ea (7.5) Angle iron braces (10'X4"X4"X4") @ $75 ea (7.5) Vibration Dampers @ $25 ea (2) Storm Guys (2 @ 70 ft, $300/1000 ft) (2) Anchors $ @ $50 ea (1) Anchor plate assembly @ $25.00 ea (8) Strain insulators @ $35 ea (7.5) Misc. Hardware © $25/structure Subtotal Other Freight @ 1000 1b/structure X 30¢/1b Survey Clearing 25% mile @ $1000/1000 ft Equipment Rental (Power Auger, Line Tools etc.) Helicopter Rental 6 hr. @ $400/hr 1125 1584 563 563 188 42 100 25 280 188 $4658? 2250 1000 1320 1000 2400 (2) Linemen 120 hrs @ $50 hr. + $140/day subsistence for 6 days 6840 (1) Engineer 60 hrs @ $45/hr. + $100/day subsistence for 6 days Local labor 310 hrs @ $20/hr Engineering at 5% (rounded) Subtotal Total Use 1 Fob Anchorage apa24/w5 3.7-5 3300 6200 1000 $25,310 $29 ,967 $30,000 SWGR 1980 $/Mile 3.7 SWGR (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) apa24/w6 Siting - directional aspect, land, height The gravity stabilized A-frame line design using long span construction (700') will provide excellent flexibility to adapt to the freezing - thawing cycles of the tundra and shallow lakes of the region. The structure has transverse stability from gravity alone and need not penetrate the earth (permafrost in this region). Longitudinal stability is obtained through the strength and normal tension of the line conductor. This allows for use of the shortest height structure (approximately 30') to provide the ground clearances needed for safety. Additional longitudinal stability would be provided by fore and aft guying at suitable intervals. Resource needs Transmission of electrical energy generated from either renewable or non-renewable resources. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be performed by unskilled local labor supervised by a qualified lineman and engineer. 3.7-6 4) 5) SWGR Environmental residuals Right-of-way clearing in forested areas, minimum impact otherwise due to wintertime construction and minimum soil disturbance required during installation. Health or safety aspects The use of the earth as the return circuit as proposed herein would in no way create an operating system with lesser safety than those now accepted. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) apa24/w7 Cost per million BTU or kWh The relative cost per kWh for single village generation versus delivery of electrical energy to a village from a centralized power plant over a 10 mile long SWGR line is as shown: Village plants - 1.00 SWGR Line - 0.67 Maximum economic distance for construction of a SWGR line to a village with a peak load of 100 kW is estimated at approximately 30 miles. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh. N/A 3.7-7 3) apa24/w8 Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability The successful construction and operation of the SWGR transmission line between Bethel and Napakiak has proven the technical feasibility of the SWGR concept. Additional operation of the line should prove the reliability of the line design, enhance potential user confidence and encourage additional construction. Materials used in the construction of the line are, for the most part, standardized distribution and transmission line hardware. Materials are generally available from manufacturers within a reasonable time period. 3.7-8 Table 3.7-1 60 Hz IMPEDANCES AND SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCES R GMR(Ft) Z_ (ohm per mile) X (Ofim Diam. p= 100 p= 1000. (Meg Shm Conductor Size Per Mile) Cinch) Ohm-m Ohm-m Per Mile) 7#8 Alumoweld 2.354 .0116 2.449 + 2.449 + . 244 . 385 j 1.504 j 1.643 266.8 MCM .35 .0217 -445 + -445 + .229 ACSR . 642 j 1.428 j 1.567 397.5 MCM .235 . 0278 .33 + -33 + -222 ACSR . 806 j 1.397 j 1.537 25 Hz IMPEDANCES AND SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCES R GMR(Ft) Z_ (ohm per mile) K (Ofim Diam. p= 100 p= 1000 (Meg°ohm Conductor Size Per Mile) Cinch) Ohm-m Ohm-m Per Mile) 7#8 Alumoweld 2.354 .0116 2.394 + 2.394 + - 586 - 385 j .649 j .707 266.8 MCM .35 .0217 .390 + -390 + .549 ACSR . 642 j .617 j .675 397.5 MCM .235 . 0278 .275 + 275 + - 533 ACSR . 806 j .604 j -663 The line data have been calculated Height above ground: with the following assumptions: 30 feet Earth Resistivity: Ground Electrode Resistance: apa24/w9 3.7-9 100 Ohm-m (swamp), 1000 Ohm-m (dry earth) 0 Ohms of each end SWGR TABLE 3.7-2 TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSFER CAPACITY MEGAWATT MILES FOR 5% VOLTAGE DROP @ .9 P.F. CONDUCTOR THREE PHASE SIZE 60 Hz (AWG) 34.5 kV 69 kV 138 kV 266.8 ACSR 78 295 =~ 397.5 ACSR 94 353 1359 556.5 ACSR 108 401 1535 SWGR 60 Hz 40 kV 66 kV 80 kV 133_kV 7#8 Alumoweld 25 65 95 -- 266.8 ACSR 70 180 265 720 397.5 ACSR 75 200 290 800 556.5 ACSR 80 215 315 860 SWGR 25 Hz 40 kV 66 kV 80 kV 133_kV 7#8 Alumoweld 40 105 150 am 266.8 ACSR 110 300 440 1200 397.5 ACSR 135 360 540 1440 556.5 ACSR 150 410 600 1640 apa24/w10 3.7-10 SWGR TRANSMISSION $F GENERATION VILLAGE DISTRIBUTION 25 KV - 40KV MULTI - GROUNDED NEUTRAL SIMPLIFIED SWGR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FIGURE 3.7-1 10" DIA. Es 5" DIA. 10°X4"x4" x74" ANGLE IRON 4.75" DIA. 27'-0" =| "1A" FRAME STRUCTURE POST INSULATORS FIGURE 3.7-2 Yo 31-8 SECTION 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC 5.B.12 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION (A) General Description a APA/26/B Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the hydroelectric power development, flowing water is directed into a hydraulic turbine where the energy in the water is used to turn a shaft, which in turn drives a gener- ator. In their action, turbines involve a continuous trans- formation of the potential and/or kinetic energy of the water into usable mechanical energy at the shaft. Water stored at rest at an elevation above the level of the turbine (head) possesses potential energy; when flowing, the water possesses kinetic energy as a function of its velocity. Current and future availability Hydroelectric developments in the United States, as of January 1978, totaled 59 million kilowatts, producing an estimated average annual output of 276 billion kilowatt hours according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Hydropower provides about 10% of Alaska's electric energy needs. Developments range in size from over a million kilowatts down to just a few kilowatts of installed capacity. Hydropower is a time proven method of generation that offers unique advantages. Fuel cost, a major contributor to thermal plant operating costs, is eliminated. Another advantage of hydropower developments is that they last much longer than do other plant types. Hydropower develop- ments are, however, initially costly and require around 5 years of lead time, from reconnaissance to start-up. Licen- sing procedures, particularly for smaller projects, are being streamlined. Streamlining licensing procedures can signifi- cantly reduce the amount of lead time needed to bring a pro- ject on-line. 3.8.1-1 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC (B) Performance Characteristics 1. Energy output a) b) Quality - temperature, form Hydropower provides readily regulated electricity. Water quality is not affected. A slight temperature differen- tial may exist between discharge water and the receiving waters. The effect of the temperature change on spawning salmon normally requires investigation. Quantity Approximately 60% of the energy stored in the water will result in saleable electricity. The remaining 40% will be lost in the water conduit, turbine, generator, station service, transformers, and the transmission line. Typical installed capacities in Alaskan powerplants range from 1-20 MW. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Hydropower plants can be base loaded and/or peak loaded. In smaller installations, the operating mode may be adjusted seasonally, depending on the availability of water and the demand for electricity. 2. Reliability a) APA/26/B Need for back-up The reliability of the hydroplant itself is very high. The transmission lines are often routed through very rugged terrain and are consequently subject to a variety of natural hazards. Repairs to damaged lines can usually 3.8.1-2 (C) Costs 1. APA/26/B b) 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC be accomplished relatively quickly. It is customary to Provide sufficient installed diesel generation capacity to provide emergency electricity to the utility's custom- ers in the event that the transmission line or the power- plant should go down. The amount of backup required can be reduced by building an alternate transmission line. Storage requirements A reservoir is usually used to store water except for run-of-river plants. Typical reservoirs will range in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. Thermodynamic efficiency Not appropriate. Net energy Approximately 4800 kWh/installed kW will be generated annu- ally. Saleable energy will be about 10% less when station service, transformer, transmission line and other losses are included. Capital (Estimated Cost) $52,000/kW installed (Hunter Creek near Buckland) $75,000/kW installed (Creeks near Hughes) $50,000/kW installed (East tributary, Nulato River near Koyukuk) $50,000/kW installed (Mission Creek near Chuathbaluk) $90,000/kW installed (Ganes Creek west of Takotna) 3.8.1-3 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC Assembly and installation See above. Operation See below. Maintenance and replacement Operation and maintenance costs are normally combined when evaluating a hydropower development. $100/kW/year installed is reasonable for maintenance costs. Replacement costs can be estimated at $10 per installed kW/year. Thus, approximately $110/kW installed per year includes costs for insurance, routine maintenance and operation, general expenses, and interim replacements. Economies of scale The cost per kW installed generally decreases for larger installations. Further economics of scale can be realized when the operation of several small hydropower developments can be integrated. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1. APA/26/B Siting - directional aspect, land, height A suitable site for any hydropower development must, of course, be found. Requirements include an adequate water supply and a reasonable proximity to the load center (consumers). Site preparation for a hydropower development involves modification of the existing terrain and results in changes in both the topography (cuts and fills), and in the natural or existing drainage pattern. The project boundary (the outer limits of 3.8.1-4 APA/26/B 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC the land directly affected by the project) may encompass several hundred acres. The impacts of a hydropower develop- ment cover a wide spectrum. They affect man, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. The special advantage of a hydro- power development is that it is effectively non-polluting. Resource needs a) Renewable Water. b) Non-renewable Some of the construction and maintenance resources (such as steel and lube oil) are non-renewable resources. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction of a hydropower development requires the employ- ment of both highly skilled individuals experienced in the design and construction of this type of project and less experienced individuals who usually come from the local work- force. Operators of hydroplants are often local diesel power plant operators who receive a minimal amount of additional training to qualify them to work as hydroplant operators. Environmental residuals None Health or safety aspects Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance, and land use issues must be addressed prior to construction of a hydropower development. 3.8.1-5 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1. APA/26/B Cost per million Btu or kWh See Appendix B for cost per kWh. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh. N/A. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability. Hydroelectric power generation is a well established technol- ogy. Each project, and many of its components, are "custom" design jobs. Because of this and because of the large scale and the long lead time associated with a project, hydropower is a capital intensive investment with high field exploration costs. Few utilities alone can afford to provide long term and interim financing. The State of Alaska, the Rural Electrifi- cation Administration, and others provide assistance to util- ities to bring worthwhile projects forward. Hydroplants can be remotely operated from a central station. An operator is usually stationed at the power plant to take care of routine maintenance. Safety of hydropower develop- ments has long been a concern of the Federal and State govern- ments. Criteria for safe design and operation of hydropower developments are well established and major failures are very rare. The hydraulic turbine, and its component parts, is designed and are built to exacting specifications and is extremely reliable; the turbine has a useful life of upwards of 30 years. 3.8.1-6- 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING 5.B.13 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING ELECTRIC HEATING (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Electricity is passed through resistance wiring and gives off heat in encountering such resistance. The heat is transferred to air or water. Current and future availability Electric heat is clean, noiseless, easily controllable and relatively efficient. Electric heat is recognized as a sound means of heating buildings where heat losses are held to a sound, economical level and the cost of electricity is not prohibitive. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) APA26/C Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Heat or hot water for space heating applications. b) Quantity 3413 Btu in per kWh out. Typical residential furnaces are of capacities in the range of 20,000 to 120,000 Btu per hour. 3.8.2-1 2) 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Available whenever there is electricity. Reliability a) Need for back-up 3) 4) (C):. Costs 1) APA26/C Typically, none. b) Storage requirements None. Thermodynamic efficiency So far as the conversion of electric energy into heat is concerned, all types of electric resistance heaters are equally efficient. They all produce 3413 Btu per kilowatt-hour of electrical energy used. From a thermodynamic efficiency standpoint, electric heaters are 100 percent efficient. However, different types of heaters differ in effectiveness; the effectiveness is determined by the means used to transfer the heat generated into the area that is to be heated. Net energy Overall, say about 1.02 units in to 1.00 unit out. Capital About $800-1000 for a central home unit. 3.8.2-2 2) 3) 4) 5) 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING Assembly and installation About equal to capital cost. Operation A function of the cost of electricity. Maintenance and replacement Virtually maintenance free; replacement life estimated to be 20 years. Economies of scale Not appropriate. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) APA26/C Siting - directional aspect, land, height In typical residential installations, a metal casing, in the same configuration as conventional baseboard along walls, contains one or more heating elements placed horizontally. The vertical dimension is usually less than 9 inches, and projection from wall surface is less than 3.5 inches. Units are available from 1 to 12 feet long with ratings from 100 to 400 watts per foot of length and are designed to be fitted together to make up any desired continuous length or rating. 3.8.2-3 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING 2) Resource needs a) Renewable Hydroelectricity is currently the only cost effective renewable resource. b) Non-renewable Fossil fuels used for electrical generation. 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Simple to install and effectively automatic. 4) Environmental residuals None. 5) Health or safety aspects None. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) Cost per million Btu or kWh Cost is a function of the cost of electricity. The most economical electric heating systems from an operating standpoint are of a decentralized type, with a thermostat provided on each unit or for each room. This permits each APA26/C 3.8.2-4 2) 3) APA26/C 3.8.2 | ELECTRIC HEATING room to compensate for heat contributed by sources auxiliary such as sunshine, lighting, and appliances. This arrangement also gives a better diversity of the power demand due to noncoincidence of electric load from all units of an instal1- ation. Manual switches are often provided to permit cutting off heat or reducing temperature in rooms when not in use. When such operation is practiced, consideration should be given to provide extra time for warm-up. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh A function of the resource used to generate electricity. See appropriate Appendix C profiles. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability In summary, a simple list of some of the benefits and advant- ages of electric heat includes the following: Dependable No fuel deliveries No fuel storage problems Clean No venting required iN No oxygen consumption Individual room-by-room control Quiet Easy to install Space-saving ooo oOcmUmUCODWUCODWUCOWUCUCOUCOUCOCUCO "Flameless" 3.8.2-5 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION 3.9.1 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION CONSERVATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Conservation measures for the 13 villages considered here are mainly classified as "passive". Passive measures are intended to conserve energy without any further electrical, thermal, or mechanical energy input. Typical passive measures are insu- lation, double glazing or solar film, arctic entrances and weather stripping. Energy conservation characteristics of some passive measures degrade with time, which must be con- sidered in the overall evaluation of their effectiveness for an intended life cycle. Current and future availability Passive measures are commercially available and increasing in use all over the United States due to the rapidly escalating cost of energy. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) APA26/L Energy output a) Quality - temperatures, form No energy output per se; rather a reduction of energy types input. b) Quantity See above. 3.9.1-1 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Passive conservation measures “operate” year round. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up None required. b) Storage requirements None required. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency Not appropriate. 4) Net energy Not appropriate. (C) Costs 1) Capital Residential installations run from several hundred to several thousand dollars. 2) Assembly and installation See above. APA26/L 3.9.1-2 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION 3) Operation None. 4) Maintenance and replacement Effectively maintenance free; 10-15 year life. 5) Economies of scale Amenable and appropriate to single dwellings or large indus- trial complexes. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height No special requirements. 2) Resource needs a) Renewable Solar insolation. b) Non-renewable Materials used for conservation modes employed. 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Can often be installed by the resident; locally specialized services (for example, insulation skills) may be employed. No operation required. APA26/L 3.9.1-3 4) 5) SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION Environmental residuals None. Health or safety aspects None except care should be taken to assure proper air change rates for occupant health. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) APA26/L Cost per million Btu or kWh Not available. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh Not available. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Residences generally require the availability of energy at all times. Before 1973, the cost of energy was 3 to 10% of total annual expenses; now that percentage has soared to perhaps 40%. Although some dynamic measures (notably solar energy) merit consideration in this class of structure, the prime emphasis should be on passive energy conservation measures. As a whole, this market is not geared to sophisticated or costly equipment or to any measure that requires special operating or maintenance procedures or attention. Generally, simplicity and low cost, with moderate energy benefits, should be pursued. 3.9.1-4 APA26/L SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION The State of Alaska has high interest in energy conservation by weatherization (passive conservation), particularly for residences. The State has a $5,000, 5% loan program for upgrading residences for conservation of energy. 3.9.1-5 SECTION 3.10 OTHER TECHNLOGIES 3.10.1 (A) apal9/x1 3.10.1 TWO SPEED GEAR BOX TWO SPEED GEAR BOX General Description The operation of diesel engine generator sets at extremely low loads for an extended period is detrimental to the engines. In general these units should not be operated at less than 25% load and, more prudently, at not less than 50% load. One solution would be to shut down the big unit and start up a smal] unit to be run during the low load period. This requires an "automatic device" or a person to do this shifting of units, and incurs the cost of an additional engine generator set, its services, switchgear and synchronizing controls. A possible economy could be achieved by some mechanical methods of matching the "big engine" to small loads. In general diesels can idle at low speeds with minimum wear and "hot end" problems (carboning up, slobbering, etc.) and will use relatively little fuel at these lower speeds. The engines will produce little power at these lower speeds without being "lugged", but can produce small power efficiently at these lower speeds. One means to do this is a two speed gear box between the engine and alternator. The gear box, by means of a simple clutch, would allow direct drive for high load and lower engine speed for part load, with the alternator always turning at the appropriate speed. (See Figure 3.10.1-1). Space would cause no severe size limitations, so the gear box could be a cheaply made countershaft design and could be, by changing gear sets, tailored to each application to keep the 3.10.1-1 (B) (C) apal9/x2 3.10.1 TWO SPEED GEAR BOX engine in a "best range". The low load gear sets could be changed in the field in a few hours to get the most from the engine. Performance Characteristics Estimates of added life are difficult to obtain because engine makers simply advise that it is abusing an engine to run it full speed at near zero load for a great part of its life. However, it seems safe to opine that an engine loaded 0% to 10% full power, but running 600 RPM for 5000 hours and 50% to 100% power at 1800 RPM for 1000 hours, would still be a reliable working machine, whereas a similar engine supporting the same loads but kept at 1800 RPM for all 6000 hours would probably have been overhauled twice. Life increase due to "not-turned- revolution" is 2% times for the slowed down engine. Costs It is estimated that fuel efficiency for engines running at 5% load, but at lowered speed, could be up to three times as good as for higher speed engines running at the same load. 3.10.1-2 GENERATOR SET WITH TWO-SPEED GEARBOX FIGURE 3.10.1-1 3.10.2 NUCLEAR 3.10.2 (A) (B) apal9/yl1 3.10.2 NUCLEAR LOW POWER NUCLEAR HEATING REACTORS Description The Canadian government owned nuclear company is developing the cheapest and smallest reactor ever designed for commercial use. The reactor, known as Slowpoke, is being developed by Atomic Energy of Canada (AEC) and will be used to produce hot water for buildings. The Canadians claim that the reactor is so safe that it can literally be put in basements to replace conventional furnaces. The idea of using small reactors to provide heat is also being explored in France, Scandinavia and the Soviet Union. The reactor is modeled after small, pool-type research reactors used at many universities. Its vessel is a 25-foot. deep concrete-lined pool dug in the ground. The small fuel core is immersed directly in the water filled pool. The nuclear reaction heats the water in the pool to 190°F, and the heat is removed through a double loop of heat exchangers that isolate the heated water from the radioactive core. Performance Characteristics Slowpoke, which stands for "Safe low-power critical experiment", will generate a scant 2 thermal MW of power, just enough to heat a large hotel or building complex. Unlike commercial power reactors, Slowpoke does not generate the high temperatures typical of large reactors. As a result, the reactor does not need to be pressurized, eliminating the need for expensive and potentially faulty safety systems. Nor 3.10.2-1 (Cc) apal9/y2 3.10.2 NUCLEAR does the fuel contain enough plutonium to be practical for weapons production. Slowpoke is designed so that the reaction cannot continue unless hydrogen atoms present in the water reflect nuclear particles back into the fuel rods. If the water overheats and begins to boil, the bubbles formed would reduce the amount of water around the core and the reaction would slow automatically. Moreover, if the water boils completely away, the nuclear reaction would be unable to continue, and the remaining heat could be dissipated into the air without any additional cooling. Costs The Canadian government foresees a use for the reactor in many parts of the world where heating with petroleum base products is becoming prohibitvely expensive. Although the concept is still in the test stages, the company estimates that it can build the reactor for as little as $850,000. This works out to $425 a thermal kW. 3.10.2-2 3.10.3 CHEMICAL STORAGE 3.10.3 (A) (B) apal9/z1 3.10.3 CHEMICAL STORAGE CHEMICAL HEAT STORAGE Description The basic Tepidus chemical heat storage system consists of well insulated tanks containing sodium sulfide, heat exchangers and a controlled source of water vapor. The key to the system operation is the sodium sulfide, which is a hygroscopic salt: when it absorbs moisture, it heats up. The water molecules chemically combine with the salt, forming a hydride and releasing heat. Sodium sulfide has an added advantage in that is doesn't dissolve if it is just dampened with water vapor. A tank full of damp salt can provide a bank of stored heat for warming a house and heating water. Once the salt cools, it can be "recharged" by solar energy, waste heat, or other heat sources. Heat dries the salt, giving it the potential to reabsorb moisture and regenerate chemical heat. A Tepidus heat storage system using sodium sulfide (NaS2) has been on trial near Stockholm, Sweden, since November 1979. The system is claimed to have a remarkable energy conversion efficiency of 95% and very high energy density compared to other storage media such as water, rocks or phase-changing salts. Performance Characteristics The Tepidus system has a high energy density capacity. One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of sodium sulfide can store and regenerate one kilowatt-hour (3413 Btu) of heat. In practical terms this 3.10.3-1 (Cc) apal9/z2 3.10.3 CHEMICAL STORAGE Means that 10 tons (550 cubic feet) of the dry material can deliver 10,000 kWh (34,130,000 Btu), which is enough heat energy to meet about % the annual heating demands of a small well insulated house located in Western Alaska. Furthermore, the system can be switched off for an indefinite period and allowed to cool to room temperature. When its started up again, only four or five percent of the total energy is used for reheating. Costs One major disadvantage of the Tepidus system is the high initial cost associated with the system. Initial costs are estimated to be 3-5 times higher than a conventional oil fired furnace although exact cost figures are as yet unavailable. Additional operation and costing information for the Tepidus system can be requested from the manufacturer: Tepidus AB, Box 5607, S-114 86, Stockholm, Sweden, Telex 798-2929. 3.10.3-2 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS (A) (B) General Description The fuel cell (FC) is a device for directly converting fuel into electrical energy, heat and water. The FC is similar in operation to a primary (non-rechargeable) battery, as used in a flashlight, differing only in that the electrode materials are not consumed. In fact, the FC electrode material and the electrolyte serve only to contain the reactant gases while the power-producing electrochemical reaction is taking place. Figure 3.10.4-1 shows the components and the voltage output of a cell. Modern FC designs have stacked cells to provide greater output voltage. Electrodes are thin, porous, and electrically conduction, and catalysts are included to speed up the reaction and generate reasonable amounts of power. The electrolyte may be acidic or basic; it may be a molten salt; or it may be a solid. The fuel and oxidant must be in gaseous form. Figure 3.10.4-2 illustrates the basic fuel cell power system concept and indicates inputs and outputs of each component. Performance Characteristics The FC concept seems to have virtually everything in its favor and little to its discredit. The most visible (and audible) advantage is that a fuel cell installation is compact and almost silent. : apal9/aal 3.10.4-1 (Cc) 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS Perhaps its chief engineering advantage is that, unlike a heat engine, a fuel cell is not limited by the Carnot cycle. A typical fuel cell will convert 40% of fuel input into electrical energy and 60% to heat. Fuel cells, because of their elevated operating temperatures; produce reject heat that can be put to use making steam or hot water. Cogeneration of electricity is therefore an excellent possibility, particularly using steam at temperatures up to 1000°F generated by the near 1200°F discharge temperature of the MC cell. With proper configuration, beneficial use of 85-90 percent of the fuel input can be obtained. This makes the fuel cell one of the most efficient energy converting devices available. However, the fuel cell requires pure gaseous hydrogen for operation and the overall system efficiency must take into account the energy expended in converting any fuel into a form usable by the fuel ‘cell. The present short-term goal is to produce a fuel reformer with a thermal efficiency of 87%. Costs The installed cost for a fuel cell generating plant is estimated to be approximately 30% higher than a gas turbine plant of equivalent capacity when they become available (early 1980's). The efficiency of these "first generation" plants is not expected to be no higher than approximately 38% (at full load) and operating and maintenance could be as much as 5 times as high as for a gas turbine installation. The "second generation" plants (anticipated in the early 1990's) will be approximately 48% efficient. apal9/aa2 3.10.4-2 HEAT FUEL (Hp) ELECTROLYTE CATHODE (+) OXIDANT (Op) WATER HYDROGEN ELECTRON FLOW OXYGEN ELEMENTARY FUEL CELL CONCEPT FIGURE CONTROLS AIR FUEL PROCESSOR INVERTER STEAM BASIC FUEL CELL POWER SYSTEM FIGURE 3.10.4-1 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS (A) (B) (Cc) General Description Solar cells are electric energy generators that consume no fuel, make no noise, pose no health or environmental hazards and produce no waste products. These cells convert light directly into electricity via semiconductors. Since no moving parts, nor high pressures or temperatures are involved, this would be an ideal way of generating electricity. Performance Characteristics Efficiency of thermal conversion to electricity is about 12%. Costs Today, solar-cell power is too expensive to compete with fossil- fuel power. The single crystal silicon solar cell - the only cell commercially available today - has an efficiency of about 12 percent and costs $10.00 per peak watt or $10,000 per peak kilowatt. This equates to an electrical energy cost of more than $1.17/kWh if an output of 1000 kWh per year per installed kW is assumed together with 10% interest and a 20 year amortization period. In addition to the cell array, however, storage equipment (batteries) and inverters will be required if a "stand alone system" is desired to supply the equipment and devices presently in use with electric energy. Energy storage helps satisfy demand during periods of little or no sunshine, as well as supplying peak power. The presently available storage devices are lead-acid batteries, but they are expensive, costing at least $30/kW of capacity. Enough storage apal9/nl 3.10.5-1 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC capacity to meet the average demand for 24 hours would cost $600 for a single-family house. Moreover, with daily cycling, the life of a lead-acid battery is limited to a few years, even with a charge controller. It is obvious that the costs of both photovoltic cells and low- maintenance storage mediums must be reduced before they can economically compete with conventional generation of electric energy. apal9/n2 3.10.5-2 3.10.6 SOLAR 3.10.6 SOLAR 3.10.6 PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING (A) (B) General Description Passive solar heating makes use of solar energy (sunlight) through energy efficient design (i.e. south facing windows, shutters, added insulation) but without the aid of any mechanical or electrical inputs. Space heating is the most common application of passive solar heating. Performance Characteristics The central Alaska area in question is located roughly between 61° and 66° North latitudes. The possible insolations shown on Table 3.8.6-1 for Bethel and Fairbanks are considered to approximate conditions within this area. The Bethel and Fairbanks data has been developed with the F-chart computer program and takes climate and typical weather conditions into account. The annual amount of solar energy available can satisfy all heating needs of an average home if enough collecting surface area and adequate storage could be installed. Heat storage or supplement heating by other means would be necessary for about 6 months of the year when the available insolation cannot satisfy the heating needs. If passive solar heating is considered, where the solar energy is sufficient and with energy efficient design (increased insulation, south facing windows with shutters, etc.) it is conceivable that even in the months of November, December and January approximately 20-40% of the required heat can be supplied by the sun if 200 square feet of south facing windows can collect energy for an average size (600 sq. ft.) residence found in the Alaskan bush. apal9/u 3.10.6-1 apal9/p76 TABLE 3.10.6-1 WEST CENTRAL ALASKA ~- SOLAR ENERGY i Available passive heat BTU/day Average insolation/day/Ft2 BTU/day through Required for average a Vertical South Facing Surface 200 Ft.? South Facing Windows Heating Degree? Days 600 sq.ft. Residence Fairbanks(64°49'N) Bethel(60°47') Fairbanks Bethel Fairbanks Bethel Fairbanks Bethel JAN 864 832 172.8 x 103 166.4 x 10% 2384 1857 412.6 x 103 321.4 x 108 FEB 1149 1224 229.8 x 103 244.8 x 208 1890 1590 370.0 x 103 311.6 x 10 MAR 1808 1892 361.6 x 103 378.4 x 108 1721 1662 283.0 x 10% 251.7 x 108 APR 1679 1689 335.8 x 103 337.8 x 108 1083 1215 185.8 x 103 108.5 x 10° MAY 1323 1176 264.6 x 103 235.2 x 108 549 772 90.3 x 10% 127.0 x 108 JUN 1271 1021 254.2 x 103 204.2 x 108 211 402 40.1 x 10° 76.5 x 108 JUL 1158 886 231.6 x 108 177.2 x 108 148 319 23.8 x 10% 51.4 x 10% AUG 1094 715 218.8 x 103 143.0 x 103 304 394 44.1 x 10 57.2 x 108 SEPT 912 874 182.4 x 103 174.8 x 108 618 600 115.1 x 10% 111.8 x 10° OCT 723 823 144.6 x 103 164.6 x 108 1234 1079 197.8 x 103 173.0 x 108 NOV 513 518 102.6 x 10° 103.6 x 10 1866 1434 327.0 x 108 251.3 x 108 DEC 263 502 52.6 x 108 100.4 x 10° 2337 1879 395.7 x 108 318.1 x 10° ANNUAL 388.9 x 10 368.9 x 10 77.8 x 108 73.8 x 10° 14345 13203 75.2 x 10® 69.2 x 10° 1 "Solar Energy Resource Potential in Alaska" by J.P. Zarling, R. D. Seifort for U of A Institute of Water Resources, 1978. 2 "Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1940-70 for Alaska", U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service. 3.10.6 SOLAR (C) Costs The integration of passive solar heating into the design and con- struction of a new residence adds little to the overall structure cost. Typical increases in structure costs range for 0 to 5 percent. In general, it is not economical to extensively remodel existing residences to take advantage of passive solar heating. apal9/u 3.10.6-3 3.10.7 BIOGAS 3.10.7 BIOGAS 3.10.7 BIOGAS GENERATION (A) (B) General Description Biogas (two-thirds methane and about 600-700 Btu/scf) can be produced from sewage system waste. In a biogas generation system, heat is used to promote elevated temperature anaerobic bacterial digestive action of organic material. The decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic fermentation. Figure 3.10.7-1 depicts the biogas generation process. Anaerobic fermentation of organic products results in methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, traces of other gases, and the production of some heat. The residue remaining is hygienic, rich in nutrients, and high in nitrogen. Potentially damaging germs are killed by the absence of oxygen during the fermentation process. There are over 50,000 small scale biogas producers in rural India and over half a million reported in mainland China. A demonstration unit in Alaska works on crab processing wastes. The technology is quite well established. Units range from "one cow" size (20,000-30,000 Btu/day) to over 3 billion Btu/day. Performance Characteristics Unless organic wastes other than human are available, production for a village will be quite limited. For example, based on a population of 100, an average human waste of 3 pounds/day, 11% solids in that waste, 84% of solids being volatile (gas producing), production of 5 cubic feet of biogas at 600 Btu/cubic food per apal9/jl 3.10.7-1 (Cc) 3.10.7 BIOGAS pound of volatile solids, the theoretical biogas energy production is about 80,000 Btu/day, equivalent to a heat content of six-tenths of a gallon of diesel per day. Biogas generators can be designed for continuous or batch (4 days - 2 weeks) operation, depending on the mode of digester loading utilized. The biogas producing digestive activities are optimal in two temperature ranges: 85°-105° and 120°-140°F, although digestion will occur from freezing to 156°F. Fermentation, however, is less stable in the higher of these two ranges and, consequently, the biogas units should usually be designed to be maintained in the lower optimal range. Typically, biogas generation in lower 48 climates requires on-third to one-half of the energy content of the gas generated to heat the process. This efficiency of 50-67% could drop to zero in severe Alaska climates. Costs N/A apal9/j2 3.10.7-2 GAS OUT WATER IN ORGANIC WASTE IN SLURRY FERTILIZER OUT MIXING SLURRY PADDLE OR BIOGAS DIGESTER OTHER AGITATION. BIOGAS GENERATION FIGURE 3.10.7-I 3.10.8 WASTE 3.10.8 WASTE 3.10.8 WASTE CONVERSION (A) General Description While refuse (waste) can be used as an alternate fuel, large quantities are required on a continuous basis to justify the large capital investment for an economically sized facility. As only the Anchorage area approaches the production quantities required, this option is dismissed for the 13 villages. (Reference: Jobs and Power. ) (B) Performance Characteristics Not appropriate (C) Costs Not appropriate apa28/cl 3.10.8-1 3.10.9 PEAT 3.10.9 PEAT 3.10.9 PEAT (A) (B) (C) General Description Peat is an early stage in the transformation of vegetation to coal and results from the partial decomposition and disintegration of plant remains in the absence of air. Peat is generally formed in water bogs, swamps, and marsh lands. Generally, peat is low in nitrogen, sulfur, and ash. A study to estimate the Alaska resource potential was recently performed for the State of Alaska, Division of Energy and Power Development. Numerous areas of peat deposits were located and outlined in the study. Undrained bog peat usually contains between 92 and 95 percent moisture, but moisture is reduced to about 25 to 50 percent when peat is harvested (by large earthmoving equipment) and air dried. At these reduced moisture levels, the bulk density of the resulting peat is about 15 to 25 pounds/cubic foot and its heat value is approximately 6,200 Btu/pound. The use of higher heat content, easily obtainable wood fuel has, however, pretty much kept peat out of the energy market in Alaska. Performance characteristics Performance is similar to burning low-grade coal. Costs Not available apa28/d1 3.10.9-1 APPENDIX E MAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ““ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 IT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 ‘DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ESEL EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON “"ESEL FUEL COST xX(1000) ESEL G&M COST X(1000) mANUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 4CCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST “ INVESTENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST x(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) + TAL EXTRA COST XK(1000) KENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) "MAND -- KW ERGY -- MWH -nISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 UNIT #2 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW IT #2. IT #2 GIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) EL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) -LONS DIESEL FUEL 3T PER GALLON wiESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST xX(1000) NUAL COSTS X(1000) ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) [UM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST a. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) %. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) f BENEFIT X(1000) WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) rmccUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 96 335 140 7S 135, ss 39,396 1.76 76 22 93 98 98 1991 166 666 Sp Onwt 13,393 36.6 26.6 19.8 98.9 DIESEL GENERATION 1982 101 353 140 75 135 SS 105 102 200 1992 178 723 140 75 135 ss 100 85,025 2.57 240 25 270 195 1,706 OoNnN Oovwt 15,049 42.5 32.5 23.5 122.4 1983 110 3386 140 7S 135 ss 122 11s 315 140 75 135 ss 100 5 91,728 2.66 268 25 293 209 1,915 1984 1985 1986 1937 1988 19389 1990 119 129 134 139 145 150 155 ay 452 484 S15 547 578 610 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 ss 5S 5S 55 5S 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5 5 s 5S Ss 5 5 495274 $3,155 56,918 60,564 64,327 67,973 71.736 1.95 2.02 2,09 2.16 2.24 2.32 2.40 106 118 131 144 159 173 189 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 134 146 159 173 188 202 218 123 130 137 145 153 159 167 436 568 705 850 1,003 1,162 1,329 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - 45.0 - - - - - 4.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 5.3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 6,504 7,335 8,196 9,085 10,035 11,012 12,052 14.0 16.3 18.9 21.6 24.8 26.0 31.8 &.2 6.3 8.9 11.6 14.8 18.0 21.8 7.5 5.6 7.7 9.7 12.0 14.2 16.7 13.2 18.8 26.5 362 48.2 62.4 79.4 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 201 212 223 235 246 258 269 837 894 951 1,007 1,064 1,121 1,178 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 55 55 5S ss ss 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 - - - - - - 11 ey it 11 11 1 it 98,431 105,124 111,838 118,423 125,126 131,630 133,533 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 3.33 298 330 363 397 435 474 515 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 335 367 401 435 473 513 554 228 243 257 271 286 301 316 21143 2538621643 2,914 3,200 3,501 3,817 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 45.0 - - - - - - 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 0.3 10.3 10.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 4.1 14.1 14.1 18,603 20,501 22,479 24,514 26,652 28,871 31,170 56.3 64.4 73.0 62.2 92.7 103.8 115.9 42.2 50.3 58.9 68.1 78.6 89.7 101.9 28.7 33.2 37.8 42.4 47.5 52.7 58.0 178.4 211.6 249.4 291.8 339.3 392.0 450.0 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 3817 BUCKLAND - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs From 2001 to 2036 6692.3 Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from to year 2000 2001 to 2036 450.0 1229.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 3817 + 6692.3 = 10509.3 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 450.0 + 1229.7 = 1679.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/83 C AND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH — STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES ~-- KW tC oT #t tL TT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW tT wt tT #2 fuuITICNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 ert a2 1 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) L.-SEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON | SEL FUEL COST X(1000) | SEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY Tr IARY 1 IARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) HninUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) fOCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) + EQUIV AN COST X(1000) {MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) * AL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) wer BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) CCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW T at unit #2 ““YISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW IT #1 IT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 ISEL’ INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 3T PER GALLON SEL FUEL COST x(1000) iSEL O&M COST xX(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) WARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) WARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 'S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) (UM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 1UTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) PENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) SUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 193s 1986 1937 9% 101 110 119 129 134 139 335 353 386 419 452 484 515 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 55. 55 55 55 55 55 5S - - 100 100 100 100 100 7 uy 60 Lu - uv a - - 5 5 5 s 5 39,396 41,513 45,394 49,274 53,155 54,918 60,564 1.76 1.82 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 7 83 94 106 118 131 144 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 98 105 122 134 146 159 173 98 102 115 123 130 137 145 98 200 315 438 568 705 850 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 63.0 - - - - - - 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 - - 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - - 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 - - 5,720 6,504 7,335 8196 9,035 - - 11.8 9 14.0 16.3 18.9 21.8 - - 6.0 8.2 10.5 13.1 15.8 - - 5.7 7.5 9.3 11.300 13.2 - - 5.7 13.2 22.5 33.8 47.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 166 178 189 201 212 223 235 666 723 780 837 894 951 1,007 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 5 s 5 5 s 5 5 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 2,95 3.05 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 236 256 276 296 317 337 387 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 368 408 428 448 469 439 509 289 295 300 305 310 314 317 1,856 2,151 2,451 2,756 3,066 3,380 3,697 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 13,393 15,049 16,766 18,603 20,501 22,479 24,514 36.6 42.5 49.0 56.3 64.4 73.0 82.2 20.4 26.3 32.8 40.1 48.2 56.8 66.0 15.2 19.0 23.0 27.3 31.9 36.5 41.1 93.9 117.9 140.9 168.2 200.1 236.6 277.7 1983 145 S47 140 7S 135 ss 100 Ss 64.327 2.24 159 24 183 153 1,003 aes DON 10,035 24.8 19.0 15.4 62.4 1998 246 1,064 140 75 135 5S 100 250 377 120 S29 320 4,017 fan N2POl 26.652 92.7 76.5 46.3 324.0 1989 150 5738 140 75 135 ss 100 250 400 205 120 357 282 1,285 N2eou oben 11,012 28.0 11.8 9.3 71.7 1999 253 1,421 140 75 397 120 sag 323 4,340 28,871 103.8 87.6 51.5 375.5 1990 155 610 140 75 135 ss 100 250 216 120 368 282 1,567 11.8 4.4 16.2 12,052 31.8 15.6 12.0 83.7 2000 269 1.173 140 7s 135 SS 100 250 a 3.38 27 417 120 569 324 41664 oan Neo 31.170 115.9 99.7 56.8 432.3 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 4664 BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs From 2001 to Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to_year 2000 2001 to 2036 6873.5 432.3 1204.4 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4664 + 6873.5 = 11537.5 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 432.3 + 1204.4 = 1636.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and binary cycle generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/54 | (AND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH f STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ‘ T #1 ‘ T #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ONT at 1 T RZ 4 J\ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 \ ID GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ‘ WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 1 SEL. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 4 LONS DIESEL FUEL ( \T PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 4 0 EQUIP INVESTMENT x(1000) (ID EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) t...4D EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) f S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) # UM PRES WORTH X(1000) £ RA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) T°TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 1! \EFIT (HEATING) ». GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 1 BENEFIT X(1000) — S$ WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) # UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) | JAND ~~ KW ~RGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ( T #1 t T #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 ‘ T #2 ¢ \ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 + 0D GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ‘ WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) € LONS DIESEL FUEL C T PER GALLON [ SEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) s™"G EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) + D EQUIP EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) b D EQUIP O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) F°"S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) é UM PRES WORTH X(1000) INVESTMENT X(1000) = EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) € RA COST 1 EF EFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION 1981 9 335 140 75 135 SS 98 93 98 1991 166 666 140 7s 135 s 100 81.0 67,738 2.48 185 24 227 169 1,462 ore @ont 11,5383 31.6 1982 101 353 140 7S 135 ss 105 102 200 1992 178 723 140 75 135 ss 100 81.0 74.441 2.57 210 24 252 182 1,644 en @Oent 13,176 37.2 1983 110 336 140 7s 135 ss 100 36.0 80 40,690 1.838 84 22 52 118 it Sit 189 7380 140 75 135 ss 100 61.0 81,144 2.66 237 25 280 196 1,840 tae OMOnt 14,549 43.4 1984 119 ay 140 73 135 ss 100 36.0 44,570 1.95 9 23 131 120 431 201 837 140 7S 135 ss 100 100 61.0 80 1 87,847 2.75 266 25 7 & sis 215 2,055 SNe oNwo 16,603 1989 1990 150 155 578 610 140° 140 75 75 135 135 55 55 100 100 36.0 81.0 63,269 635,152 2.32 2.40 161 161 24 24 - 51 4 7 3 6 197 203 iss 156 1,137 1,293 Yrs Oont en ent 9,301 10,250 10,274 1985 1986 1987 1988 129 134 139 145 452 484 515 547 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 55 5S 5S 55 100 100 100 100 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 5 5 s 5 48,451 52,214 55,860 59,623 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.24 108 120 133 147 23 23 23 24 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 143 155 168 183 127 134 141 149 5s3 492 833 982 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 4,686 7,519 8,379 14.9 17.3 20.0 22.9 Ft 11.5 14.2 17.1 3.1 9.9 11.9 13.9 18.9 28.8 40.7 54.6 1995 1996 1997 1998 212 223 235 246 894 951 1,007 1,064 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 SS 55 55 5S 100 100 160 100 100 100 100 100 81.0 81.0 126.0 126.0 11 11 11 us 94,550 1011254 101,959 103,662 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.16 296 329 342 378 26 26 26 26 = ~ 51 2 7 7 10 10 é & 9 9 346 379 398 434 229 243 248 263 2.284 2>527 2.775 3,033 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 18,437 20,352 21,108 = 23,145 57.7 66.1 70.8 80.5 50.3 26.1 27.0 20.3 21.2 16.0 16.2 70.6 86.8 1999 2000 258 269 1.121 1,178 140 140 75 75 135 135 SS ss 100 100 100 100 126.0 126.0 ay i 115,366 122,069 3.27 3.33 41s 454 27 27 10 10 9 ? 472 Sis 277 291 331s 31606 45.0 45.0 7.3 7.3 2.7 2.7 10.0 10,0 25.265 27,465 90.9 102.15 BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 3606 6172.9 430.6 1112.6 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 3606 + 6172.9 = 9778.9 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 430.6 + 1112.6 = 1543.2 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S1 ENENUT FLHN LUSTS FUK BUCKLAND DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1931 1982 1983 1934 19SS 1986 1937 19383 1989 1990 wenAND ~~ KW 9% 101 110 gy 129 134 139 145 150 15S ENERGY -- MWH 335 353 386 Aly 452 434 sis S47 578 610 'STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ‘tT #1 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 iT #2 7S 7S 75 7S 7S 75 75 75 75 7 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1 iT #4 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 ‘ T #2 SS ss ss ss SS SS ss SS SS 5s ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ‘ T #2 - - Da - - - = - - - 1 IRGELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 7 trai T #1 - - - - - 238 238 238 233 238 PTTSEL INVESTMENT X(1000) tod i 80 - - ba - - a - | (SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - Ss Ss Ss 5 Ss Ss Ss 5 ' .LONS DIESEL FUEL 39,396 41,513 45,394 49,274 53,155 i - - 2.587 6.350 L-.T PER GALLON 1.76 1.82 1.85 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.24 2.32 2.40 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 76 63 4 106 1s - - - 7 17 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 22 22 23 . 23 23 20 20 20 20 20 ! IROELECTRIC INVESTMENT x(1000) - ta - = - 12,471 - - - = ! IROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - = - 48s 48s 43s ass ass HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST xX(1000) - = = - - 30 30 30 30 30 UAL COSTS X(1000) 93 105 122 134 146 S40 540° S40 S47 S57 3 WORTH ANNUAL COST x(1000) 9 102 15 123 130 466 452 439 432 427 UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 93 200 B15 43% 54s 1,034 1,486 1,925 2,357 2.784 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT RA CosT INVESTMENT X( 1000) - - 63.0 - - - - - - - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - i 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1 AL EXTRA COST x(1000) ad = 5.3 5.38 5.8 S.3 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.8 & EFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 51720 61504 71335 - - ba 419 1,067 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 11.8 14.0 16.3 - - - 1et 2.9 t BENEFIT X(1000) = = 6.0 8.2 10.5 (5.8) (3,8) (3.8) (4.7) (2.9) Ff S WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ta - 5.7 7.5 9.3 (5.0) (4.9) (4.7) (3.7) (2.2) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) = 7 5.7 13.2 22.5 17.5 12.6 7.9 4.2 2.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 199s. 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 DenAND -- KW 166 178 189 201 212 223 225 246 253 269 ENERGY -- MWH 666 723 7380 $37 S94 9S1 1,007 1,064 1s12k 1,178 £ STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1 T #1 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 G2Ti.02 7s 7S 78 75 75 7S 75 7S 7s 7s EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW uc oT wt 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 uo oT #2 ss 5S ss ss ss SS SS SS ss ss ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 WoT #2 . - - - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 H %GELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW Unit #1 2338 233 238 238 238 238 233 238 233 238 D'©SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = - - 80 - = 7 - * - OG 3EL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) Ss s Ss a il it it i i rey G .ONS DIESEL FUEL 12,936 195639 26,342 33,046 39,749 46,452 53,033 59,741 66,444 73,147 Cl. PER GALLON 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 B16 3.27 3.33 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 35 S56 77 100 125 St 173 208 239 272 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 22. 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 Ht ELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - - sad = - - - - - = HWMRGELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 435 435 435 435 438s 48s ass 43s 43s 43s HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST x(1000) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Al IAL COSTS xX(1000) 576 S97 619 647 672 699 726 757 738 821 Fi § WORTH ANNUAL COST x(1000) 429 431 434 441 444 44g 4S2 4ss 463 463 Al IM PRES WORTH xX(1000) 3,213 3644 4,078 4,519 4,963 5,412 5,864 61322 6,785 71253 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT Ee A cosT 1 NVESTMENT x(1000) - 7 - - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 TCL EXTRA COST x(1000) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 BE FIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2,212 31476 4,821 61246 7,751 9+337 10,979 12.725 14,551 16.453 2. DOLLAR VAL IIE caurne: wetnane a a niet BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 7253 9917.7 149.4 669.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 7253 + 9917.7 = 17170.7 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 149.4 + 669.2 = 818.6 ‘Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S2 DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1932 1983 1984 1985, 1986 1987 1988 19389 1990 ec MAND -— KW 38 41 43 46 4D Ss2 55 ss él 64 ENERGY -~ MWH 151 163 173 183 193 204 216 228 240 251 \ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW NT wt - 7 - = - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOGL GENERATION SQURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 so sO so so so 50 so 50 So WIT ae 35 35 35 3s 35 35 3s 35 35 35 IT #3 35 3 3s 35 3s 35 3s 35 35 3s ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 7 UNIT #1 * 7s 7s 7S 75 7S 75 75 75 75 “HT a2 - sO 50 SO so so so so 50 So IT #3 7 - ° = 7 bs = = 7 i ~-ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) + 100 ~ * + - - a - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X¢(1000) > 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7, 7 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 17,758 19,169 205345 21,521 22,697 23,990 25,402 26,813 28,224 29,818 ST PER GALLON 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 2.65 2.74 2.84 2.94 3.04 3.15 ESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 4s 50 SS 61 66 72 79 87 94 102 ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 2 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) be 738 83 ey 94 100 108 116 123 131 ‘ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 66 76 73 31 83 86 90 94 97 100 “CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 6b 142 220 301 384 470 S60 654 751 ssi NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) = isa 33.8 = = ed = = - = . EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - i 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 7 as) & & & & 8 8 8 8 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) = a 3.1 3.1 Sel 3.1 a1 3.1 3.1 3.1 NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 2.563 2,841 3,132 3,455 3,810 4,183 4,572 4IS9 Z. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) = - 6.9 S.1 a4 10.4 11.9 13.6 15.2 17.1 ‘T BENEFIT X(1000) 7 - 3.8 5.0 6.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 12.1 14.0 ‘ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 7 7 3.6 4.6 5.3 6.3 7.4 8.5 9.6 10.7 1CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - a 3.6 8.2 13.5 19.8 27.2 35.7 45.3 56.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 MAND -~- KW 6s 72 76 e0O 84 as 92 96 100 104 IERGY -- MWH 272 292 312 333 353 374 394 414 435 4ss EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES ~~ KW UNIT #1 bat ned oe 7 > - = - - - ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT @1 50 SO 50 sO 50 50 50 50 50 SO UNIT #2 35 3s 35 35 35 35 3s 35 35 35 UNIT #3 35 35 35 3s 35 35 3s 35 35 35 'DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW t IT @t 7s 75 7s 75 7S 7s 75 78 75 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 SO 50 sO so so so so UNIT #3 75 7S 7S 7S 7S 75 7S 7S 7 7s ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 60 al - - - 7 - - - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 1 11 11 11 ii 1 il iL i 1 ~.LLONS DIESEL FUEL 31,987 34,337 36,691 37,161 41,513 43,982 46.334 48,696 51,156 53,503 COST PER GALLON 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.87 4.01 4.15 4.29 4.44 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) ns 127 141 156 171 137 204 222 241 261 ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 NUAL COSTS xX(1000) : . 143 160 174 189 204 221 233 256 275 295 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 110 116 122 129 135 142 143 iss 162 163 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 9bL 1,077 1,199 1,328 1,463 1,605 1,753 1,908 2,070 2.233 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 33.8 fe + - - - = - ae - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4S 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.sS 4.s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 MAINTENANCE COST X( 1000) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 é.2 6.2 6.2 BENEFIT (HEATING) i * GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 5.470 6,073 6,714 7,401 8,095 8,840 9SAL 10.370 11,203 12,039 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 19.7 22.5 25.8 29.5 33.3 37.6 42.2 47.3 $2.8 53.7 T BENEFIT X(1000) 13.5 16.3 19.6 23.3 27.1 31.4 41.1 46.6 52.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 10.0 11.8 13.7 15.9 17.9 20.2 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 2238 HUGHES - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs From 2001 to 2036 3610.8 Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from to year 2000 2001 to 2036 250.1 642.6 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2238 + 3610.8 = 5848.8 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 250.1 + 642.6 = 892.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric alternative is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/S15 erener ronn Cuor> run nuunrS DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1938S 1936 1987 1988 1989 1990 ~-MAND -- KW 338 41 43 46 49 S52 ss ss é1 64 ENERGY -- MWH 151 163 173 183 193 204 216 228 240 251 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 50 sO SO sO So 50 50 50 sO IT #2 35 35 3s 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 IT #3 35 3s 35 3s 3s 3s 35 35 35 35 nuDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - 7S 75 75 75 75 75 75 7S 75 ‘IT #Z - SO 50 50 50 sO 50 50 50 50 IT #3 - - - 7 > - 7 - 150 1soQ ~-=SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = 100 - = = > r 7 , = DIESEL. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 17,753 19,169 20,345 21,521 22,697 23,990 25,402 26,3813 - - 5T PER GALLON 2.31 2.39 2.4 2.56 2.65 2.74 2.84 2.94 3.04 3.15 iSEL FUEL COST x(1000) 45 so SS él 66 72 79 87 - i 2SEL GUM COST x(1000) 2 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 7 rr BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - i ta 240 - WARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - = - - na = 16 16 WARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) - - ba i al - i ba 36 33 WARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) - 7 a - - - 7 = 112 112 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 6b 78 83 89 94 100 108 116 171 173 “"7S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) && 76 78 SL 83 86 90 94 135 133 ‘UM PRES WORTH X(1000) ob 142 220 301 384 470 540 654 789 922 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - 7 33.8 in be 7 r - 67.5 nad EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 6.8 6.8 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - 7 8 & SS 8 & 8 2.5 2.5 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) = ol 3.1 3.1 Sel 3.1 Se. 3.1 9.3 9.3 lEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED ~ i 2,563 2,941 35132 3,455 3,810 4,183 4,572 4,989 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) i i 6.9 6.1 9.1 10.4 11.9 13.6 15.2 17.4 NET BENEFIT X(1000) = i 3.8 5.0 6.0 7.3 8.8 10.5 5.9 7.8 POTS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 7 - 3.6 4.6 5.3 6.3 7.4 8.5 4.7 6.0 ( (UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) = - 3.6 8.2 13.5 19.8 27.2 35.7 40.4 Ab 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 1 IAND -- KW 6s 72 76 80 84 8s 92 9 100 104 { URGY -- MWH 272 292 312 333 353 374 394 414 435 4ss EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - ir 7 iad - 7 - - 7 - { STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW oT #1 50 SO so 50 so SO so 50 So SO bwiT #2 35 35 3s 35 35 3s 35 35 35 35 UNIT #3 35 35 3s 3s 35 35 35 35 35 35 ‘ ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ( oT #1 75 7S 7S 7S 7S 7s 7S 75 7S 7s (oT #2 50 50 so so 50 50 50 50 so so UNIT #3 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 [ SEL INVESTMENT x(1000) 7 - fd i ad * - =- - - I SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ( LONS DIESEL FUEL i - inf i - = - - = - COST PER GALLON 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.87 4.01 4.15 4.29 4AM DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 7 - a We = i i - - - C'"SEL O&M COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - len E ARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) = = - - - - - - - - BanARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x¢(1000) 41 44 47 50 53 5é so 62 és 68 BLNARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 & UAL COSTS x(1000) 176 179 182 185 163 19. 194 197 200 203 F S WORTH ANNUAL COST x(1000) 131 129 128 126 124 123 121 119 118 16 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,053 1,182 1,310 1,436 1,560 1,633 1,804 1,923 2,041 2.157 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT E A COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 7 Tr - - = 7 7 7 7 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 3 MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 T AL EXTRA COST x(1000) 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 b_..ZFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 5.470 6,078 6,714 8,095 8,640 9,591 10,370 11,203 12,039 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 19.7 22.5 25.8 33.3 37.6 42.2 47.3 52.8 58.7 N BENEFIT xX(1000) 10.4 13.2 16.5 24.0 23.3 32.9 33.0 43.5 49.4 P 3 WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 7.7 9.5 11.6 15.9 18.2 20.5 23.0 25.6 28.2 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT xX(1000) 54.1 63.6 75.2 104.9 123.1 143.6 166.6 192.2 220.4 HUGHES - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 2157 2484.7 220.4 604.7 567 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2157 + 2484.7 = 4641.7 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 220.4 + 604.7 = 825.1 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric alternative is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/814 -=MAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW WT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 4IT #3 ®UDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 “IT #2 ‘DROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ~AIT 2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) IESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) ALLONS DIESEL FUEL ‘ST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) "DROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) ‘DROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) nYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) “INUAL COSTS X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) ITAL EXTRA COST X(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) ‘T BENEFIT X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) mcCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X( 1000) [MAND -- KW eNERGY -- MWH ©XISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES. -- KW aIT #1 —tISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UT #3 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 "DROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) "TESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) LLONS DIESEL FUEL IST PER GALLON ~-ESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) DROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) DRGELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) DROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 'ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) * GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) -T BENEFIT x(1000) FRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 3e 151 ean ans 17,753 2.31 4s Zz 6s 66 6&6 AIAL 6s 272 50 35 35 7S 50 90 10,231 3.26 37 21 266 30 340 268 1,865 2.3 8 3.1 1,750 6.3 3.2 2.4 DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1982 a1 163 So 35 35 100 19,169 2.37 50 2. 73 7% 142 1992 72 292 50 3s 3s 75 sO 90 12,583 3.37 47 2 266 30 370 267 25132 1983 43 173 SO 35 35 75 so 20,345 2.4 ss az 63 738 220 So 35 35 75 SO 90 14,935 3.49 S7 az 266 30 380 266 2.398 1984 46 183 so 3s 35 78 so 21,521 2.56 61 2 87 81 301 So 35 35 _ 75 50 90 17,405 3.61 69 2 266 30 392 267 2.665 1985 49 193 So 3S 35 75 50 22,697 2.65 66 21 94 83 334 1986 S2 204 50 35s 35 75 SO 4s 7 13,994 2.74 42 21 3,403 132 30 232 200 S84 1987 ss 216 SO 3s 35 75 so 4s 7 15,406 2.34 43 21 132 30 23% 199 783 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 8 .& 3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3,132 2,015 2,31 1 6.0 7.2 6.0 2.9 4.1 5.3 2.5 3.4 13.5 16.0 19.4 199S 1996 1997 e4 83 92 353 374 394 50 50 50 35 35 35 35 35 35 75 75 75 50 50 50 90 90 90 7 7 7 19,757 22:226 24.578 3.74 3.87 4.01 61 aS 1038 21 21 Zz 266 266 266 30 30 30 404 ais 431 267 268 269 2,932 3.200 3,449 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 8 & .8 3.4 aut aul 3,653 4,466 5,088 15.8 19.1 22.4 12.7 16.0 19.3 8.4 10.3 12.0 1988 i] 228 So 35 3s 75 sO 90 5,057 2.94 16 2 3426 266 30 333 275 1,058. SO 35 35 90 261930 4.15 123 22 266 30 447 270 3,739 ep -OWI 5.736 26.2 23.1 14.0 1989 éL 240 so 35 35 78 50 90 61468 3.04 22 20 266 30 344 272 1,330 1999 100 43s so 35 35 75 So 90 29,400 4.29 139 22 266 30 463 272 4,011 en Ow! 61439 30.4 27.3 16.0 1990 64 251 so 35 7.762 3.18 27 20 266 30 349 267 1,597 so 3s 35 75 So 90 31.752 4.44 155 22 266 30 479 273 4.234 7144 34.9 31.8 18.1 aa Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 4284 HUGHES - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs From 2001 to 2036 5863.0 Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 117.2 389.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2238 + 3610.8 = 5848.8 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 117.2 + 389.2 = 506.4 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc. , are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/S16 wi MAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 IT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 IT #3 wiESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) “ALLONS DIESEL FUEL ST PER GALLON ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) ESEL O&M COST X¢(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) ~. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED z. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X¢1000) T BENEFIT X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) MAND -- KW ~ ERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 IT #3 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 IT #3 EL INVESTMENT X(1000) ~-5SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON SEL FUEL COST X¢1000) iSEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 5 PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) “TNEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT x(1000) 1981 45 188 100 75 30 7s 50 79 22,109 1.56 33 2 59 Ss? Sz 1991 85. 340 100 7S 30 75 50 75 39,984 2.20 97 22 123 92 829 ome Nae 6,837 16.6 m4 DIESEL GENERATION 1982 54 213 100 7S 30 75 50 25,049 1.61 44 21 65 63 122 1992 89 364 100 7s 30 75 So 75 42,806 2.28 107 23 134 97 926 oH a Nua 7,577 18.9 197 1983 S7 225 100 7S 30 24,460 1.67 49 22 71 67 189 3387 100 75 30 75 so 75 45,511 2.36 118 23 145 102 1,028 ome Nvae 8,329 21.6 Sa 1984 19851986 60 63 66 237 248 262 100 100 100 75 75 75 30 30 30 75 75 75 50 50 50 - - 78 - - 60 - 4 27,871 29,165 30,811 1.73 1.79 1.85 S3 S7 63 22 22 22 7s 79 89 69 70 77 253 3268 405 1937 70 276 100 75 30 75 So 75 32,453 1,92 69 22 95 so 435 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 33.8 2.3 2.3 4.5 8 8 1.7 3.2 3.1 6.2 3.679 4,025 4,437 7.0 7.9 9.1 3.9 4.8 2.9 3.6 4.3 2.5 6.5 10.8 13.3 93 * 103, 108 411 435 453 100 100 100 7s 75 75 30 30 30 75 75 75 sO So So 75 7S 7S 4 4 4 48,334 51,156 53,861 2.44 2.53 2.61 130 142 iss 23 23 23 157 169 182 107 112 117 1,135 1,247 1,364 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 9135 9,975 10,826 24.6 27.7 31.2 toa ore on a On b Nv 4,869 10.4 4.2 3.5 16.6 1997 112 4382 100 75 30 75 So 7S 56,683 2.71 169 23 196 122 1,486 ome nyo 11,733 35.0 nao 1988 73 289 100 7S 30 75 so 75 33,986 1.98 74 22 100 aL 566 os NvaI 5,302 11.5 5.3 4.3 21.2 1993 117 S06 100 75 30 7S So 75 59,506 2.80 183 24 211 128 1,614 nee Nya 12,675 39.0 ae 1989 77 303 100 75 30 75 so 75 35.633 2.05 80 22 106 84 650 Oe Nua 3,773 13.0 6.8 5.4 26.5 1999 121 S520 100 75 30 7s so 7s 62,328 2.90 199 24 227 133 1,747 ome nvat 13,650 43.6 1990 60 B16 100 7s 30 7s 50 7s 37,162 2.13 a7 22 113 87 737 Crs nv 6.243 14.6 8.4 6.4 32.9 2000 126 S53 100 7S 30 7S So 75 65,033 3.00 215 24 243 139 1,886 Coen Nvue 14.632 43.4 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 1886 KOYUKUK - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs From 2001 to 2036 2935.4 Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from to year 2000 2001 to 2036 187.1 509.8 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 1886 + 2935.4 = 4821.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 187.1 + 509.8 = 696.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/813 t AND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH £ STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW L T WL EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATIGN SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 I" T #2 ‘ T #3 fbevI TIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT a2 1 T #3 4 oT #4 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) ( LONS DIESEL FUEL t T PER GALLON 1 SEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) E ARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) EF ARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) £ ARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BinARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) FURL COSTS X(1000) F S$ WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) é UM PRES WORTH X(1000) INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST K(1000) «» MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) —€ RA COST 1 E EFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED =. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) wey BENEFIT X(1000) F S$ WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) & UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) C AND -- KW € RGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNTT #1 — STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW Ll oT #t UNIT #2 UNIT #3 & ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW co oT #t UNIT #2 UNIT #3 LT #4 C 5EL INVESTMENT X(1000) DicSEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL cesT PER GALLON C SEL FUEL COST x(1000) C SEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) Y CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) RY CYCLE O&M COST xX(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) A JM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) 2 IGUIV AN COST X(1000) 3 4AINTENANCE COST x(1000) T i EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1 SALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2 JOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) Nes BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x¢1000) DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE 1931 45 183 100 7s 50 100 22,109 1.56 38 2 59 so Sy 1991 65 340 100 75 30 7S 50 75 150 > 2.20 16 73 112 205 153 1,027 Noo “ae 6,837 16.6 4.1 ad 1982 54 213 100 78 30 75 sO 25,049 1.61 44 21 és 63 122 1992 89 364 100 7S 30 75 50 75 150 pt 2.23 16 78 112 210 152 1,179 3.4 12.5 7,577 18.9 6.4 aa 1983 S7 225 100 75 30 753 SO 26,460 1.67 ay 22 7 67 189 100 75 30 112 215 1st 1,330 GENERATION 1984 «19851986 1:987 60 63 66 70 237 zag 262 276 100 100 100 100 75 75 75 78 30 30 30 30 75 75 75 75 50 50 50 50 - - 75. 75 - = 60 - - - 4 4 27,871 29,165 30,811 32,453 1.73 1.79 1.85 «1,92 53 57 63 6g 22 22 22 22 75 79 89 95 69 70 77 80 258 328 405 ass NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 33.8 - 2.3 2.3 4.5 4.5 8 +3 1.7 1.7 3.1 a1 6.2 6.2 3.679 4,025 4,437 4,889 7.0 79 oA 10.4 3.9 4.8 2.9 4.2 3.6 4.3 2.5 3.5 6.5——-10.8—--13.3-- 16.8 1994 19951998 1997 8 103 108 112 ail 435 45a 482 100 100 100 100 75 75 75 75 30 30 30 30 78 75 7s 75 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 78 150 150 150 150 4 4 4 4 2.44 2.53 2.61 2.71 16 16 16 16 8g 93 98 103 112 112 112 112 220 228 230 235 150 149 148 146 1,480 1,629 1,777 1,923 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.1 9.1 9S 94 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 12.5 12.5 125 125 9.135 9,975 10,826 11,733 24.6 27.7 31:2 35.0 12.1 15.2 18.7 © 22.5 a> tna an tan 1983 73 2389 100 75 30 7s so 75 33,936 1.93 74 22 100 e1 56s 100 75 30 7S so 7s 150 109 112 241 146 21069 bey Use 12.675 39.0 26.5 1989 77 303 100 75 30 75 75 150 > 2.05 240 16 65 112 197 155 721 Pees ee 5.773 13.0 5S 21.5 1999 121 530 100 75 30 78 So 7S 150 > 2.90 16 114 112 246 145 2.214 Dey Uae! 13,650 43.6 Bi.1 1990 80 S1é 100 75 30 7S so 7s 150 112 200 153 874 S53 100 75 30 75 SO 7S 150 > 1 3.00 16 119 2 251 143 2.357 NOY Une 14,632 4.4 35.9 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs KOYUKUK - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERAGION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to_year 2000 2001 to 2036 2357 3032.1 136.2 433.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2357 + 3032.1 = 5389.1 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 136.2 + 43.37 = 569.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/812 ENenur PLAN LUST FUR KUYUKUK DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1981 LAND -- KW 45 ENERGY -- MWH 183 {| STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES ~- KW (oT a - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 tT #2 75 1 7 #3 30 fuvITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 rT a2 50 tT #3 7 }.. .ROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 = 1 SEL INVESTMENT x(1000) 100 1 SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) Zz ( LONS DIESEL FUEL 22,109 COST PER GALLON 1.56 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 33 {SEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 + ROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - HYUROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) - € UAL COSTS x(1000) b6 F S WORTH ANNUAL COST x¢(1000) & f--UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 71 ‘ — RA COST 1, INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) = 1 AL EXTRA COST x(1000) - E EFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - h BENEFIT X(1000) = & § WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) = Accum PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - 1991 { AND -~ KW 85 ENERGY -- MWH 340 — “STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW LT a - EasSTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 uty #2 7S cL oT #3 30 A__ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 UNIT #2 50 ur #3 75 H GELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 157 “"3EL INVESTMENT X(1000) - D 3EL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 11 G .ONS DIESEL FUEL - Cuzf PER GALLON 2.20 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - DLESEL O&M COST X(1000) 20 H WELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - H...WGELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 303 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) 30 Al JAL COSTS X(1000) 364 Pi i WORTH ANNUAL COST x¢1000) 271 Al IM PRES WORTH x(1000) 2.118 —) A cosT 1. sNVESTMENT X(1000) = 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 26 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) oh BE FIT (HEATING) 1. ALLONS DIESEL SAVED 3,298 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 8.0 1982 213 100 7S 30 75 so 25,049 1.61 44 21 72 70 141 t 1992 Sy 364 100 75 30 75 50 75 364 263 2.381 2,506 6.3 1983 S7 225 100 75 30 75 So 7 26,460 1.67 49 22 78 74 21s 1993 a4 387 100 75 30 7s 50 7s 157 M1 2.36 20 303 30 364 2ss 2,636 6 7 1,748 4.5 1934 60 237 100 7S 30 75 50 7 27,871 1.73 S3 22 82 75 290 1994 98 411 100 7S 30 75 50 75 157 a 2.44 20 303 30 364 2438 2,884 1925 1986 1937 63 66 70 248 262 276 100 100 100 75 75 75 30 30 30 75 75 75 50 50 sO - 75 75 - 157 157 - 40 - 7 M1 Mi 29,165 - - 1.79 1,85 1.92 57 - - 22 20 20 - 7.793 - - 303 303 - 30 30 8b 364 364 78 314 305 366 680 935 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - 5.0 - - 6 26 - 6 “6 - 5,870 5,408 - 11.9 11.4 - 11.3 10.8 - 9.7 9.0 - 9.7 18.7 1995 1996 1997 103 108 112 435 453 482 100 100 100 75 75 75 30 30 30 75 75 75 50 50 SO 7s 75 75 157 157 157 11 ii ii - 2117 4,939 2.53 2.41 2.71 - é is 20 20 20 303 303 303 30 30 30 364 370 379 241 237 236 3.125 3,362 3,593 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT +6 +6 “6 +6 “6 “6 165 - - +5 - - 1983 73 289 100 75 30 75 50 75 157 li 1.98 20 303 30 364 296 1,281 4,979 10.8 10.2 8.3 27.0 1993 117 506 100 75 30 75 7s 157 i 75762 2.30 2 20 303 30 333 235 3.833 1989 77 303 100 75 75 sO 7s 157 ll 2.05 20 303 30 364 287 1,568 1999 121 530 100 7s 30 75 so 7s 157 Pay 10,584 2.90 34 21 303 30 399 234 4,067 1990 80 316 100 7S 30 7s 50 7s 157 11 2.13 20 303 30 364 279 1,847 100 75 30 75 so 7S 157 1n 13,289 3.00 44 21 303 409 233 4.300 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs KOYUKUK - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 4300 4940.7 53.2 -7.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4300 + 4940.7 = 9240.7 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 53.2 + -7.2 = 46.0 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S11 Ene Fen Seer ren nusoinn moon weMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES 41T #2. -- KW EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT at aT a2 41T #3 41T #4 ALDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 4IT #1 UIT #2 HIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ™tESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) SLLONS DIESEL FUEL JST PER GALLON IESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WNUAL COSTS K(1000) ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) [CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) ©<TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) -- MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) INEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) XES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) IMAND -- KW ERGY -~- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 (ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW NIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 NIT #4 IDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 NIT #3 [ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) IESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON [ESEL FUEL COST X(1000) IESEL G&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) —“TCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) ~ATRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) . MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) ITAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED » DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) =T BENEFIT xX(1000) RES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 69 273 125 75 75 15, 90 57 32,105 1.71 60 22 82 82 82 1991 133 533 125 7S 75 is 90 90 100 10 62,681 2.41 166 24 200 149 1,226 10,718 28.4 20.6 15.3 87.8 1982 72 284 125 7S 75 15 90 90 72 Ss 33,398 1.77 65 22 92 87 171 1992 142 S80 128 7s 75 1S 90 90 100 10 68, 208 2.50 183 24 222 160 1,386 spe Ment 12,073 33.3 25.5 18.4 108.2 DIESEL GENERATION 1983 77 305 125 75 75 15 90 90 35,9868 1.83 72 22 99 93 264 Wend Nova 1993 152 627 125 75 75 15 90 990 100 10 73,735 2.58 209 24 243 170 1,556 spe @ent 13,494 38.2 30.4 21.3 129.5 1984 83 326 125 7S 78 15 90 90 38,338 1.90 80 22 107 98 362 gen Nove 5,061 10.6 6.9 6.3 11.4 1994 161 675 125 75 7S 15 90 90 100 10 79330 2.67 233 2s 268 133 1.739 pe @ent 15,003 44.0 36.2 24.7 154.2 1985 $3 347 125 75 75 1S 90 90 40,807 1.96 83 22 115 102 464 1986 9S 375 125 75 75 is 90 90 44,100 2.03 98 23 126 109 373 1987 102 402 125 75 7S 1s 90 90 47,275 2.10 109 23 137 ws 683 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.7 5,631 61,350 12.1 14.1 8.4 10.4 7.5 9.0 18.9 27.9 1995 1996 171 181 722 769 125 125 75 75 75 75 1s 1S 90 90 90 90 100 100 10 10 84,907 90,434 2.77 2.86 259 285 2s 2s 294 320 194 205 1,933 2.138 ern NONE 1997 190 816 125 75 7S 1s 20 90 100 10 9S. 962 2.97 314 26 350 213 2.356 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS yes Ont 16,557 50.5 42.7 28.2 182.4 WASTE HEAT NNO Dent 18,177 57.3 49.5 31.8 214.2 spy Gent 19,864 65.0 S7.2 35.6 249.8 1983 109 430 125 7s 75 15 90 90 5 50,563 2.18 121 23 149 121 80? wen vont 7.889 18.9 15.2 12.4 50.9 1998 200 663 125 75 75 1s 90 90 100 10 101,489 3.07 343 26 379 229 2.585 Omnt 5. 2. 7 21.617 73.1 65.3 39.5 289.3 1989 1990 116 123 458 486 125 125 75 75 75 75 15 15 90 90 90 90 100 100 80 - 10 10 53,861 57.154 2.25 2,33 133 146 23 23 166 179 131 137 940 1,077 45.0 - 5.7 5.7 2.1 2.41 7.8 7.8 8,725 9,602 21.5 24.5 13.7 16.7 10.8 12.8 61.7 74.5 1999 2000 209 219 on 958 125 125 75 75 75 75 15 15 90 90 90 90 100 100 10 10 107,134 112,641 3.18 3.29 375 408 26 27 aut 445 241 254 2.826 3,080 5.7 5.7 2.1 2.1 7.8 7.8 23,462 25.349 82.1 1.8 74.3 84.0 43.7 47.9 333.0 330.9 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 EXISTING SCHOGL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW MINIT wh IT #2 IT #3 IT #4 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #2. IT #2 IT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) “"ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) LLONS DIESEL FUEL 3ST PER GALLON ~-ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST xX(1000) NARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) NARY CYCLE EQUIV At COST xK(1000) NARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) NUAL COSTS x(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) UM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) «. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 4EFIT (HEATING) -- GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) { [ BENEFIT X(1000) | iS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) (SUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1AND ~- KW incRGY -- MWH FXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ' T #1 i STING SCHOUL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT &2 ( Tas 1 T #4 ALDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 rT a2 NOT as bacSEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GA LONS DIESEL FUEL 1‘ T PER GALLON 1 SEL FUEL COST x(1000) 1 SEL O&M COST x(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) F™IARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) £ JIARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) f IARY CYCLE G&m COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) fF °~S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) $ UM PRES WORTH X(1600) EY*RA COST 1 INVESTMENT x(1000) = EFoOuTV AN COST x¢1000) 2 __ MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) — EFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL sAvED 7 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) NET BENEFIT x(10G0) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RUSSIAN MISSION DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 69 273 125 7S 75 15 90 S7 32,105 1.71 40 22 82 82 82 1991 133 533 125 735 75 15 Kool ° 3 4 10,718 28.4 14.3 1982 72 264 125 7s 7s 1S 90 90 72 S 33,398 1.77 65 22 92 89 171 1992 142 S30 125 75 75 15 90 90 250 124 120 276 199 1,599 10.3 3.8 14.1 12,073 33.3 19.2 1983 77 305 125 75 75 1s 90 99 Ss 35,869 1.83 72 22 99 93 125 75 75 1s 135 120 237 201 1,800 10.3 14. 13,494 33.2 1934 83 326 125 7S 7S 1s 90 90 Ss 38,333 1.90 80 22 107 98 362 1994 161 675 12 7S 75 S gO 90 250 a 1 2.67 27 145 120 297 202 2,002 15,003 44.0 29.9 1985 1986 1987 8g 9S 102 347 375 402 125 125 125 75 75 75 75 75 7s 1s 15 15 90 90 90 90 90 90 5 s 5 40,807 44,100 47,275 1.96 2.03 2,10 8s 98 109 22 23 23 115 126 137 102 109 115 464 573 683 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 5.631 6,350 7,091 12.1 14.1 16.4 8.4 10.4 12.7 7.5 9.0 10.6 18.9 27.9 38.5 1995 1996 1997 174 181 190 722 769 816 125 125 125 78 75 75 75 75 75 1s is 15 90 90 90 90 90 90 250 250 250 5s s 5 2.77 2.86 2,97 27 27 27 155 165 175 120 120 120 307 317 327 203 203 204 25205 25403 2,612 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 10.3 10.3 10.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 14.1 14.1 14.1 “16.557 18,177 19,964 50.5 57.3 65.0 AAA aro ano 1983 109 430 125 75 75 1S 90 90 Ss 50,568 2.18 121 23 149 121 809 Wet No vd 7,889 18.9 15.2 12.4 50.9 1998 200 863 125 75 75 1s 90 90 250 10.3 3. 14. -@ 21,617 73.1 son 1989 116 458 125 7s 75 iS 90 90 250 108 2.25 400 27 93 120 250 197 11006 112.5 10.3 3.8 14,1 8,725 21.5 7.4 5.8 56.7 1999 209 Oil 125 7S 75 is 23,462 S2.1 san 1990 123 486 125 7S 75 is 90 90 250 a 2.33 27 104 120 256 196 1,202 2000 219 958 125 75 75 is 90 90 250 ot 3.29 27 206 120 353. 204 3.224 4AND -- KW iRGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW unlT #@t UNIT #2 MIT #3 IT #4 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 IT #3 ND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) LLONS DIESEL FUEL cu3T PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) ""ESEL O&M COST X(1000) ND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) v.ND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) WAL COSTS X(1000) iS WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST a. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 2 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) --NEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) T BENEFIT X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY ~- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1T #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW “IT #1 IT #2 IT #3 ~lT #4 ANDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 IT #2 IT #3 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW - WIND UNITS ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL “ST PER GALLON ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) ESEL O&M COST X(1000) oe WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) ND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) NUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST * INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST K(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) --TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 1981 69 273 125 7S 75 15 90 57 32,105 1.71 60 22 62 82 82 1991 133 533 125 75 7S 15 90 90 100 36.0 10 57,977 2.41 154 23 NAG Oent 1982 72 284 125 75 7s 1s 90 90 72 33,393 1.77 6s 22 92 89 171 1992 142 Sso 125 7S 7S 1S 90 90 100 36.0 10 63,504 2.50 175 24 4 5 21g 1538 1,369 1983 77 305 125 7S 7S 15 90 90 18.0 33,516 1.83 67 26 92 263 627 125 75 7s 1s 90 #0 100 36.0 10 69,031 2.58 196 24 4 s 239 168 1,537 Neg omni 1934 83 326 125 75 7S 1s 90 90 18.0 35,986 1.90 7S 22 106 97 360 Orn Non! Our yy BNN OO 1994 161 475 125 75 7S 1s 90 90 100 B1.0 10 68,796 2.67 202 24 Si 252 172 1,709 1935 19386 1987 8s SS 102 347 375 402 125 125 125 75 7S 7S 7s 7S 78 1S 1s 1s 99 90 90 90 90 90 18.0 36.0 36.0 38,455 39,396 42,571 1.96 2.03 2.10 63 83 93 22 22 23 : 26 - 2 4 4 3 s 5 114 124 135 101 107 113 461 Sés8 é81 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.7 3.7— 51307 S673 6,386 11.5 12.7 14.7 7.8 9.0 11.0 6.9 7.8 9.2 17.0 24.3 34.0 1995, 1996 1997 171 181 190 722 Teo 616 125 125 125 78 7S 75 7S 73 7s is 1s 1s 90 990 90 90 99 90 100 100 100 81.0 81.0 B1.0 10 10 10 74,323 79,850 €&5,378 2.77 2.86 2.97 226 251 279 24 25 25 7 7 7 9 9 9 276 302 330 182 194 206 1,891 2,085 2,291 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT S.7 S.7 5.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 1988 109 430 125 75 75 1s 90 90 36.0 Ss 45,864 2.13 110 23 4 5 147 120 801 Orn NONI 7.155 17.2 13.5 11.0 45.0 1998 200 _ 863 125 75 75 is 90 90 100 81.0 10 90,908 3.07 307 25 358 217 2,503 Nea Dent 1989 116 4s3 125 7S 75 1s 90 90 100 36.0 60 10 49,157 2.25 122 23 164 129 930 Nnag oN 71963 19.8 12.0 9.5 54.5 1999 209 Oi 125 75 7S is 90 90 100 81.0 10 96,550 3.18 338 26 7 9 390 229 2.737 No @ent 1990 123 436 125 75 75 1s 90 90 100 36.0 10 52.450 2.33 134 23 4 Ss 176 135 1,065 sya Gent 8,812 22.5 14.7 11.3 65.8 2000 219 9S8 125 75 7s iS 90 90 100 81.0 10 102,077 3.29 369 26 7 9 421 240 2.977 ype Gent ) DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1963 1984 1985 1966 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND -- KW 54 bb 69 72 75 81 6&6 92 97 103 _4ERGY -- MWH 224 261 273 285 298 319 341 363 385 407 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW aT at - - i - - - - - - - (ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 UNIT #2 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 IDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW 4IT #1 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ONIT 82 - 75 7s 75 7s 7s 7S 75 75 7S UNIT a3 = - - - - i = - 100 100 IESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - 140 - 7 - = - - 80 - IESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - 9 9 9 2 9 9 9 15 is ALLONS DIESEL FUEL 26,342 30,694 32,105 33,516 35,045 37,514 40,102 42,689 45,276 47,863 COST PER GALLON 1.70 1.76 1.82 1.89 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.24 2.32 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 49 s7 64 70 78 83 92 101 112 122 IESEL G2M COST X(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 INUAL COSTS X(1000) 71 90 gS 101 106 114 123 133 150 160 PRES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 7 87 90 92 94 98 103 108 118 123 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 71 158 248 340 434 532 635 743 861 984 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 45.0 - - - i = 45.0 - » EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 » MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) = - 1.1 1. 1.1 1d et 1.1 2.2 2.2 ITAL EXTRA COST xX(1000) = = Awl 4 41 4 Aol Awl 8.2 8.2 BENEFIT (HEATING) » GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 4,045 4.424 4,836 5.402 6,015 6,659 7,335 8,041 » DOLLAR VALUE SAVING K(1000) - - S.1 9.2 10.4 12.0 13.8 15.8 18.1 20.5 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 4.0 Sal 6.3 7.9 9.7 11.7 9.9 12.3 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.3 4.7 5.6 6.8 8.1 9.5 7.8 9.4 “SCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.8 8.5 14.1 20.9 29.0 33.5 46.3 55.7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 11zZ 120 129 138 146 155 164 173 181 190 NERGY -- Mi 449 492 534 S77 619 662 704 747 739 832 KISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW NIT #1 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 NIT a2 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES ~~ KW UNIT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NIT #2 7S 7s 75 7S 75 7S 7S 75 75 75 NIT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - ° - - - - = = - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 1s 15 1s 15 1s 1S 15 15 15 is ALLONS DIESEL FUEL 52,802 57,8659 62,798 67,855 72,794 77,851 82:790 87,847 92,786 97.843 JST FER GALLON 2.40 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 [ESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 139 153 173 199 220 244 269 295 323 352 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 “NNUAL COSTS X(1000) 177 196 217 238 259 284 309 335 364 393 SES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 132 142 152 162 171 182 193 203 214 224 SCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,116 1,253 1,410 1,572 1,743 1,925 25113 2,321 2,535 2.75? i . NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - = - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 “STAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 INEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 9,029 10.241 11.5492 12,625 14,195 15,5643 17,138 18,711 20,32 22,015 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 23.8 28.0 32.6 37.6 42.9 49.0 35.7 62.8 70.7 79.2 iT BENEFIT x(1000) 15.6 19.8 24.4 29.4 34.7 40.8 47.5 54.6 62.5 71.0 (ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 11.6 14.3 17.1 20.0 22.9 26.2 27.6 33.0 36.7 40.5 °CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X¢(1000) 67.3 61.6 93.7 118.7 141.6 167.8 197.4 230.4 267.1 307.6 DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND -- KW 54 6b 69 72 75 a1 86 92 97 103 IERGY -- MWH 224 261 273 285 293 319 341 363 385 407 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 = = = oad = bead = - - = ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 20 UNIT #2 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 'DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #4 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 wilT #2 ad 7S 73 75 75 78 7S 7s 78 75 UNIT #3 - - - - - ~ = = 200 200 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = 140 - = = i ° - ~ = ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 26.342 30,694 32,105 33,516 35,045 37,514 40,102 42,689 - - fOST PER GALLON 1.70 1.76 1.82 1.89 1.95 2.02 2.09 Z.16 2.24 2.32 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) Ay Ss? 64 70 75 83 92 101 - = ESEL O&M COST x(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 - - NARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - =- - = - = - - 320 - BLNARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) - - = = - = - - 22 22 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST xX(1000) - - - = - - - - 73 83 ™ITNARY CYCLE O&M COST xX(1000) - = - - - = - - 116 116 INUAL COSTS X(1000) 7 90 IS 101 106 114 123 133 225 230 . JES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 7 87 90 92 94 98 103 103 178 176 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 71 158 248 340 434 532 635 743 g2. 1,097 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 45.0 - - = = - 90.0 i EQUIV AN COST K(1000) 7 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 7.0 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 1.1 1.t i.1 1d 1.1 1d 3.4 3.4 TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - Awl 4.1 4.1 Awl Al 4.1 12.4 12.4 BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 4,045 4,424 4,836 5,402 6,015 6.659 7.335 8,041 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) - - Sel 9.2 10.4 12.0 13.8 15.8 1s.1 20.5 wcT BENEFIT X(1000) - - 4.0 S.1 6.3 7.9 9.7 11.7 5.7 Bal PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - 7 3.8 4.7 5.6 6.8 8.1 9.5 4.5 6.2 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.8 8.5 14.1 20.9 29.0 38.5 43.0 49.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1199S 1997 1993 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 112 120 129 133 146 155 164 173 131 190 ENERGY ~-- MWH 449 492 534 577 619 662 704 747 7389 832 ‘ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW "IT #1 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 MT #2 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 JDITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 UNIT #2 75 75 7S 75 7S 75 7S 7S 7S 75 IT #3 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - id - - - - - = DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ? 9 9 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL ~ ST PER GALLON 2.40 2.43 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.385 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - _ ESEL O&M COST X(1000) - - - - - - - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) “"NARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 NARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) aA 100 10% 117 126 134 143 iS. 160 169 NARY CYCLE 04m CUST X(1000) 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 11d 116 116 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 233 247 255 264 273 2eL 290 298 307 B16 eBES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 177 173 179 1380 180 180 181 180 160 180 ‘CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,274 1,452 1,631 1,611 1,991 2.171 2.352 2,532 2.712 2.892 TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - = - - - od EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 2.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 9,029 10,241 11,492 12,625 14,195 15,642 17,138 19,711 20,320 22,015 ~- DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 23.8 23.0 32.6 37.6 42.9 49.0 55.7 62.8 70.7 79.2 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 11.4 15.6 20.2 25.2 20.5 36.6 43.3 S0.4 53.3 66.8 ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 6.5 11.3 14.2 17.2 20.2 23.5 27.0 30.5 34.3 33.1 CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 57.7 69.0 63.2 100.4 120.6 144.1 W71.1 201.6 235.9 274.0 EMAND -- KW NERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW “NIT #1 KISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW -NIT #1 UNIT #2 IDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW MIT #1 NIT #2 UNIT #3 IND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW -L WIND UNITS wiESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL JST PER GALLON [ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) -IESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) IND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) IND EQUIP O&M COST X£(1000) ANNUAL COSTS x‘ 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST x(1000) °CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) “TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) wv. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) (ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) MAND -- KW IERGY -- MBH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW “IT #1 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW -.1T #1 UNIT #2 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #2 IT 82 UNIT #3 ND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW L WIND UNITS ULESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) “*LLONS DIESEL FUEL ST PER GALLON ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) ~-ESEL O&M COST xX(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) ID EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) IND EQUIP O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X( 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) ©-TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST x(1000) . 2, MAINTENANCE COST K(1000) » TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET RENEE IT vernany 1981 54 224 120 120 7 71 71 1991 112 449 120 120 100 7S 64.5 38,690 2.40 102 22 39 990 262 195 1,744 Pw weor 61616 17.4 1982 66 261 120 120 100 75 15.0 140 28,812 1.76 Sé 22 135 21 117 114 185 1992 120 492 120 120 100 43,042 2.48 117 23 39 90 278 201 1,945 be weor 7,618 20.7 1983 69 273 120 120 100 75 30.0 27,989 1.82 56 22 135 18 42 147 139 324 1993 129 534 120 120 100 7S 64.5 47,275 2.57 134 23 39 90 295 207 2,152 bee sHOn 8,651 24.5 1984 72 285 120 120 100 152 139 463 120 120 100 7s 64.5 51,626 2.66 151 23 39 90 312 213 2,365 Pew eeor _ 9.757 28.5 1985 1986 1987 7S BL 8b 298 319 341 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 7S 7s 7S 57.0 57.0 57.0 9 9 g 26,460 27,989 29,635 1.95 2.02 2.09 57 62 68 22 22 22 244 - - 35 35 35 80 80 80 203 208 214 180 179 479 643 822 1,001 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lei tt Let 4.1 4a 44 3,651 4,030 4,445 7.9 8.9 10.2 3.8 4.8 6.4 3.4 4s Sut 9.9 14.0 19.1 1995, 1996 1997 146 iss 164 619 662 704 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 75 75 75 100 100 100 73.5 73.5 73.5 60 - - 15 is is SS.860 60,211 64,445 2.75 2.85 2.95 169 189 209 23 24 24 81 = = 4s 4s 4s 103 103 103 35S 376 396 238 241 247 2,600 2.841 3,083 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 45.0 - = 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 10,693 12,102 13,340 33.0 38.0 43.3 1988 92 363 120 120 100 75 57.0 31.282 2.16 74 22 35 80 220 179 1,180 “oO P= : o ee ae “sor on Kos 1998 173 747 120 120 100 75 100 73.5 1s 68,796 3.05 231 24 45 103 Als 253 3.341 ONO NNO? 14,654 AP.2 1989 97 385 120 120 100 75 57.0 32,928 2.24 81 22 80 227 179 1,359 po “Oo! 5.334 13.3 9.0 7.1 32.2 1999 181 7389 100 100 73.5 is 73.030 3.16 254 24 4s 103 Aaal 259 3,600 ane. NNO! 15,993 SS.6 1990 103 407 64.5 34,457 2.32 83 22 63 90 2438 190 1,549 Pew me or 3.7389 14.8 10.7 2000 190 832 120 120 100 75 100 82.5 is 77,616 3.27 279 25 ai 50 116 435 277 3,877 ONO NNOT 17,464 62.8 MAND -- KW (ERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW AIT #2 __ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 IDITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 wT #2 UNIT #3 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) LLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) ESEL O&M COST X(1000) INUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) ITAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ““CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW unIT #1 ©¥ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES ~~ KW IT #1 IT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 IT #2 IT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) -LONS DIESEL FUEL 35T PER GALLON ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) SUM PRES WORTH X(1000) ‘RA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) ¢. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST xX(1000) | IEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) | ° BENEFIT x(1000) 1 S$ WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 4 UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 43 193 50 50 60 100 101 22,697 1.44 3b 2 S7 57 57 1991 105 419 50 100 100 80 49,274 2.03 110 23 133 103 642 ONeU NNOO 8.426 18.8 10.6 7.9 49.9 DIESEL GENERATION 1982 57 225 sO So 60 100 26,460 1.49 43 22 65 63 120 1992 113 461 So sO 60 100 100 Ss 54,214 2.10 125 23 153 ait 953 eye NNO! F596 22.1 13.9 10.0 SI.9 1983 61 241 so so 60 100 28,342 1.54 48 22 70 66 136 8s 60 100 100 59,152 2.17 141 24 170 119 1,072 oye NNOT 10,625 25.8 17.6 12.3 72.2 1934 65 257 sO 50 60 100 30,223 1.60 SS 22 75 69 255 Pew ee ol PNN NY ane ov 1994 130 S45 so 50 60 100 100 64,092 2.25 159 24 183 128 1,200 Ono NNOT 12,113 30.1 21.9 14.9 87.1 1985 1986 1987 6o 74 80 272 293 314 50 So So so So So 60 60 60 100 100 100 31,987 34,457 36,926 1.65 1.71 1.77 53 65 72 22 22 22 80 87 94 71 7s 7? 326 401 480 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 iat it et 41 4a 4.1 4,414 4,962 5,539 8.0 9.4 10.8 3.9 5.3 6.7 3.5 4.6 5.6 8.0 12.4 18.2 1995 1996 1997 139 148 5é 587 629 672 50 50 so 50 50 50 60 60 40 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ss Ss Ss 69,031 73.970 79,027 2.33 2.41 2.50 177 196 217 24 24 25 206 225 247 136 144 154 1,336 1,480 1,634 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 6.2 13,461 14,868 16,359 34.5 39.4 44.9 26.3 31.2 36.7 17.4 20.0 22.9 104.5 124.5 147.4 1988 85 335 So 50 60 100 391396 1.83 79 22 101 82 562 pW em Oot 61146 12.3 7 g 6 24 1993 165 714 SO sO 60 100 100 Ss 63,966 2.53 233 25 268 162 1.798 oye NNO! 17,885 50.7 42.5 25.7 173.1 1989 a1 50 SO 60 100 41,866 1.90 87 22 109 86 648 Pew memo! 6.782 14.1 10.0 7.9 32.8 1999 173 756 so 50 60 100 100 88,906 2.67 261 25 291 171 1,967 One NNO! 197,470 57.2 49.0 28.3 201.9 1990 9 377 60 100 44,335 1.96 9 23 119 a 739 pew heb 7,443 16.1 12.0 9.2 42.0 2000 182 793 so so 60 100 100 93,845 2.77 236 2 317 isl 2,143 ape NNOD 22-115 64.3 Sé.t 32.0 233.9 CHAUTHBALUK - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 2148 3829.4 233.9 677.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2148 + 3829.4 = 5977.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 233.9 + 677.7 = 911.6 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc. , are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S10 DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 ‘AND -- KW 43 IRGY -- MWH 193 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW (IT 1 - | ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 sO UNIT #2 50 JITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW (tT #4 60 LT #2 100 UNIT #3 > ISEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 101 iSEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 7 -LONS DIESEL FUEL 22,697 COST PER GALLON 1.44 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 3b iSEL O&M COST X(1000) 2 WARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) 7 BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 7 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) = ~~ 4ARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) - WAL COSTS X(1000) S7 FneS WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) S7 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 57 L...RA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) ” 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 7 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - AL EXTRA COST X(1000) - BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED + - GOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 7 ' BENEFIT X(1000) - rncS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) > 1991 werlAND ~~ KW 105 ENERGY -- MWH Aa ‘STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 'T #1 - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 so T #2 50 ~JITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATIGN SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 UNIT #2 100 ' T #3 200 ‘SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 7 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) ba GALLONS DIESEL FUEL il C"T PER GALLON 2.03 1 SEL FUEL COST x(1000) = 1 SEL O&M COST x(1000) ul BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) ha RINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 22 1 IARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) 63 1 IARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) 116 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 201 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 150 T PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,012 EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X¢1000) 2 EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) 9.0 < MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 3.3 TurAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 12.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) : 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 8,426 7 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 18.8 NET BENEFIT x(1000) 6.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 4.8 # UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 34.0 1982 S7 225 50 50 60 100 26,460 1.49 43 22 6s 63 120 1992 113 461 116 207 150 1,162 nee woot 91596 22.1 9.8 Tel 41.1 1983 61 241 50 so 60 100 26,342 1.54 43 22 50 sO 60 100 200 116 213 149 1,311 Now wWwWO! 10,825 25.6 13.5 9.5 50.6 1964 65 257 sO 50 60 100 30,223 1.60 53 22 7S 69? 255 S45 50 S50 60 100 200 2.25 22 62 116 220 150 1,461 Nov OwWO! 12,113 30.1 17.8 12.1 62.7 1985 1986 1987 69 74 80 272 293 314 50 50 so 50 50 50 60 60 60 100 100 100 31,987 34,457 36,926 1.65 0 1071 1.77 58 65 72 22 22 22 80 87 94 7 75 79 326 401 480 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 1a 1a 44 al 4a 4,414 4,962 5,539 8.0 9.4 10.8 3.9 5.3 6.7 3.5 4.6 5.6 8.0 12.6 13.2 1995 1996 1997 139 148 56 587 629 672 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 100 100 100 200 200 200 2.33 2.41 2.50 22 22 22 8s 94 101 116 116 116 226 232 239 149 149 149 1:4610 1,759 1,908 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.0 9.0 9.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 13,461 14,848 16,359 34.5 39.4 44.9 22.2 0 27.1 32.6 14.7 17.4 20.3 77.4 94.8 118.1 1988 8s 335 50 50 60 100 391396 1.83 79 22 101 82 S62 Pew mm or 6.146 12.3 8.2 6.7 24.9 1993 165 714 50 50 60 100 200 107 116 245 148 2,056 Pes QwWor 17,885 50.7 38.4 23.2 138.3 1989 a 356 50 50 60 100 200 320 22 Ss 116 191 151 713 ore Wro 756 50 50 60 100 200 Bey wwor! 19,470 57.2 44.9 26.4 164.7 1990 98 377 So 50 60 100 200 116 194 149 862 29.2 2000 182 793 so So 60 100 200 2.77 22 119 116 257 147 2.350 Now wwor 21,115 64.3 52.0 29.6 194.3 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs CHAUTHBALUK - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 2350 3104.6 194.3 628.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2350 + 3104.6 = 5454.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 194.3 + 628.2 = 822.5 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S9 eee eee 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1 AND -- KW 43 57 é1 65 6g 74 80 85 mW % f RGY -- MWH 193 225 241 257 272 293 B14 335 356 377 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1 oT #4 - - - - - - - - - - | STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW unit #1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #2 50 SO SO sO 50 SO sO 50 So so | DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW (IT at 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 LT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 'T wt hal rl ia td a 125 125 125 125 125 ISEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 100 - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - = - - 7 - 7 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 221697 24,440 28,342 30.223 31,987 - 21234 44704-74174 9643 3T PER GALLON 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.60 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.90 1.98 ISEL FUEL COST X(1000) 36 43 48 53 58 - 4 9 15 21 ZSEL O&M COST X(1000) 2 22 22 22 22 20 20 20 20 25 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - 7360 - - - - DROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - 286 286 286 286 286 DROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) - - - - 7 30 30 30 30 30 rwNUAL COSTS X(1000) 57 65 70 75 60 336 340 345 351 358 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 57 63 && 69 71 290 285 280 277 274 4°CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) s7 120 186 255 326 616 9OL 1,181 15453-15732 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 45.0 - - - - - - - EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 1.1 1.1 1a 1.1 1 1 1.1 1.1 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 4.1 4.1 4.4 Al al a al 4.1 “NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 3571 3,969 4,414 - 335 734 1,162 | 1,620 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - ‘- 6.0 7.0 8.0 - “6 1.4 2.4 3.5 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.9 2.9 3.9 (4.1) (3.5) + (207) 4.7) 26) "PES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.8 2.7 3.5 (3.5) (2.9) (202) 01.63) 5) CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.3 4.5 8.0 4.5 1.6 (£6) (129) (2.4) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ~ "MAND KW 105 113 122 130 139 148 56 165 173 182 ERGY -- MWH 419 461 503 S45 587 629 672 714 758 793 caISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 50 sO sO 50 50 so 50 50 so 50 -..1T #2 50 50 50 50 so so sO so so 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 IT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - alli - a 7 7 7 ESEL EQUIV AN COST K(1000) - - - - - - - 7 - - enLLONS DIESEL FUEL 14,582 19,522 24,461 29,400 34,339 39,278 44,335 49,274 54,214 59,153 COST PER GALLON 2.03 2.10 2.17 2.25 2.33 2.41 2.50 2.58 2.67 2.77 SEL FUEL COST X(1000) 33 4s Se 73 68 104 122 140 159 120 ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 DROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - 7 - u 7 HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 236 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 NUAL COSTS X(1000) 370 382 395 4it 426 442 461 479 49s 520 ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 275 276 277 2380 282 234 237 290 293 296 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 2,007. 2,283 2,560 2,840 3,122 3:406 3,693 3,983 4,276 4,572 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ° EQUIV AN COST Xx(1000) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) et 11 1 1 it it ii 14 ie 15 TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 4a 4a 4.1 41 4a 4.1 4a Al 4a. 4.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2.494 3,455 4,476 5.557 61695 7,895 9.177 10,495 11,873 13,309 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 5.6 8.0 10.8 13.8 17.2 20.9 25.3 29.8 34.8 40.5 T BENEFIT X(1000) 1.5 3.9 6.5 9.7 13.1 16.8 21.2 25.7 30.7 36.4 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 1 2.8 4.6 6.6 8.7 10.8 13.2 iS.5 18.0 20.8 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) (1.3) 1.5 é.1 12.7 21.4 32.2 45.4 60.9 78.9 99.7 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs CHUATHBALUK - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 4572 6281.6 99.7 439.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4572 + 6281.6 = 10253.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 99.7 + 439.7 = 539.4 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S8 eee 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND —- KW 44 57 63 70 76 83 90 7 104 uit ERGY -- MWH 184 227 251 276 301 328 355 382 409 436 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - 7 a Wy uy ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW : wnIT #1 50 50° 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so UNIT #2 50 50 sO 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 IT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 160 UNIT #3 - - - - - - - - 100 100 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 101 - - - - - - - 80 - ESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - 5 5 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 21,638 26,695 29,518 32,458 35,393 38,573 41,748 44,923 43,098 51,274 COST PER GALLON 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.41 1.66 1.72 1.78 1.84 1.91 1.98 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 35 44 50 57 6s 73 82 a 101 112 ESEL 04M COST X(1000) 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 NUAL COSTS X(1000) 56 6b 72 79 87 95 104 114 129 140 rHES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 56 64 68 72 77 82 87 93 102 107 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 56 120 168 260 337 any 506 599 701 808 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 45.0 - - - - - 45.0 - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 1.1 1.1 tet it Mt 1a 2.2 2.2 TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 4.1 41 44 4a 41 4a 8.2 8.2 NEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 35719 4,284 4,885 5,555 6.262 7,008 7,792 8.614 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 6.3 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.3 14.2 146.4 18.8 T BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.2 3.4 4.9 6.4 3.2 10.1 8.2 10.6 ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.1 3.1 4.4 5.5 6.9 3.2 6.5 8.1 neCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.1 5.2 9.8 15.1 22.0 30.2 36.7 44.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 MAND -- KW 119 128 136 144 152 160 169 177 185 194 ENERGY ~~ MWH 477 519 560 601 643 684 725 768 808 849 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 50 sO 50 50 50 SO 50 50 50 ‘IT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW unit #1 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ‘IT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ~-ESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5 s 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 56,095 61,034 65,854 70,678 75,617 80,438 €5,260 90,082 95,021 99,842 east PER GALLON 2.05 2.12 2.19 2.27 2.35 2.43 2,51 2.60 2.69 2.79 ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 126 142 159 176 195 215 235 253 2381 306 ESEL G&M COST x(1000) 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 154 171 188 205 225 245 265 288 312 337 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 115 124 132 140 149 157 165 174 183 192 CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 923. 15047 15177 1931D 1,468 14625 45790 1964 24147-24339 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS —_ WASTE HEAT ~-TRA COST 1. INVESTMENT x( 1000) 7 > - = - - 7 - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 ITAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 9,592 10,803 12,052 13,358 14,745 16,168 17,649 19,187 20,610 22,464 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 21.5 25.1 29.1 33.3 38.0 43.2 48.6 55.0 61.5 68.8 {I BENEFIT X(1000) 13.3 16.9 20.9 25.1 29.8 35.0 40.4 46.8 53.3 60.6 rxES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 9.9 12.2 14.7 17.1 19.7 22.5 25.2 26.3 31.3 34.5 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 54.7 66.9 o1.6 98.7 118.4 140.9 166.1 194.4 225.7 260.2 ean eee dedemenemeetamnneenanammmanmeenmneeteendeamn een ennnaamaaneatnaeamemenimeeamaeanemmeemnemaaatemmeeemnemmenmememenniminienpemammmael DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 19385 1986 1987 198s 1989 1990 | SAND -- KW a4 S7 63 70 7 83 90 97 104 ai { ORGY -- MWH 184 227 251 276 301 328 355 382 409 436 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ' T #1 in fh i" mn Aad - - - - - | STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 sO 50 So SO So so 50 so 50 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 so 50 so 50 So 50 1 JITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ' Tal 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Unit #Z 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 UNIT #3 7 qi in hal in ic a - 200 200 | [SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 101 to i - ag - fe - - - | (SEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) = [ ad Ls - - - - o. - L..-LONS DIESEL FUEL 21,633 26,695 29,516 32,453 35,398 38,573 41,748 44,923 i - COST PER GALLON 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.61 1.66 1.72 1.738 1.84 1.91 1.93 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 3s 44 so S7 65 73 82 a * i | ISEL G&m COST X(1000) 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 bad 7 | JARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - ai - = = = i - 320 = BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - bed - - - =- +3 - 22 22 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) - bed = = ad - i = 61 65 | IARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) - o heal es! bed = = = 116 116 i WAL COSTS X(1000) 56 6b 72 79 87 gS 104 114 199 203 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) Sé 64 63 72 77 82 87 93 157 156 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) Sé 120 188 260 337 Al? 506 S99 756 912 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EaiRkA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 45.0 ~ bel o fC = 90.0 = ? EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) on 5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) vel = 1.1 1.1 1.1 1. 1.1 1k 3.4 3.4 AL EXTRA COST X(1000) _ in 4.1 41 4.1 Al 4.1 4.1 12.4 12.4 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = 3.719 4,284 4,885 5,554 61262 7,008 71792 8,614 : DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - fF 6.3 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.3 14.2 16.4 18.8 ' BENEFIT X(1000) - 7 2.2 3.4 4.9 6.4 8.2 10.1 4.0 6.4 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) i > 2.1 3.1 4.4 5.5 6.9 8.2 3.2 4.o ACCUM FRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ba 2.1 5.2 9.6 15.1 22.0 30.2 33.4 38.3 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 119 128 136 | 144 152 160 169 177 185 194 ENERGY -- MWH 477 519 560 601 643 684 725 766 808 849 { STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW t T @1 — - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW OTT wt 50 50 50 50 sO so 50 50 50 50 tT a2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so 50 50 s.-TTIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 40 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 t oT #3 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 1 ‘SEL INVESTMENT x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - - - - - - - :€ T PER GALLON 2.052.425: 2.492.275 2.95> 2.49 2.51 2.60 2.69 2.79 1 SEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - 1 SEL O&M COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ETUARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 2 22 £ ARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) 7 78 84 90 9% 102 108 115 121 127 —£ ARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 209 216 222 228 234 240 248 253 259 265 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST x(1000) 156 156 156 155 155 154 153 153 152 151 UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,068 1,224 1,380 1,535 1:690 15844 1,997 2,150 2,302 2,452 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT ExTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - Z EQUIV &N COST x(1000) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 2 MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 TUIAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 BEVSFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 9,592 10,603 12,052 13,358 14,745 16,168 17,649 19,187 20,810 22,465 2 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 21.5 9 25.1 29.1 33.3 39.0 43.2 48.6 55.0 61.5 68.8 “NET BENEFIT X(1000) Geir 12.7 16.7 20.9 25.6 30.8 36.2 42.6 APL 56.4 “PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 6.8 9.2 11.7 14.2 16.9 19.8 22.6 25.8 23.8 2.2 Sed A JM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 4S. 54.3 66.0 80.2 97.1 M69 139.5 165.3 194.1 226.3 DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1968S 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND -- KW 51 Ss2 S54 S57 60 63 67 70 73 7 -.-ERGY -- MWH 200 203 214 226 237 249 261 273 286 293 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 7S 7S 75 7S 7S 75 7S 75 75 7s IT #2 sO so 50 so Sa So So so so So IT #3 15 15, 15 1s 1S 15, is 1s 1S is EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1T #2 = os - * - -. - - - = DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 = la = = ee 75 75 75 7S 75 ™TESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - ind i bul inal 60 io al = = ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - = = 4 4 4 4 4 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 23,520 23,873 25,166 26,578 27,871 29,252 30,494 32,105 33,4634 35, 045 --ST PER GALLON 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.85 1.92 1.93 2.05 2.12 2.20 2.28 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 43 4s So 54 Ss? 64 69 7 B81 sg DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 2 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 NUAL COSTS X(1000) 64 &6 71 76 a1 90 9S 101 107 114 ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 64 64 67 790 72 73 80 82 84 87 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 64 126 195 265 337 41s 49S 577 661 743 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 33.8 - - - - - - - «- EQUIV AN COST x( 1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) - - “8 8 8 8 +8 +8 8 +8 TATAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - S171 3,508 3,846 4,217 4,604 5,008 5,449 5,998 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) - - 6.3 7d 8.1 9.2 10.4 11.7 13.1 14.3 T BENEFIT x(1000) - - 3.2 4.0 5.0 6.1 7.3 8.6 10.0 13.7 ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) - - 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.3 64 7.0 7.9 7.0 DUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.0 6.7 iid 16.4 22.5 29.5 37.4 46.4 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 MAND -- KW 79 83 8b 89 92 9% 99 102 106 109 —ERGY -- MWH 316 333 351 369 386 404 422 440 45g 475 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 IT #2 50 sO 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 IT #3 1s 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - - - - DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW unIT #1 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 “"ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 37,162 39,161 415278 43,394 45,394 47.510 49,627 51.744 53,861 55,860 ~eST PER GALLON 2.36 2.44 2.52 2.61 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.21 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 9% 105 114 125 135 146 153 171 184 197 NIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 2 WUAL COSTS X(1000) 122 131 140 152 162 173 185 193 2u1 224 ES WORTH AN COST x(1000) a 95 98 104 107 iit 115 120 124 128 ACCUM PRES WORTH x(1000) 839 934 = 1,032 1,136 15243 1,354 1,469 1,589 1,713 1.841 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT [RA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - 7 - - - - «. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) +8 8 +8 8 8 +8 +8 +8 +8 +8 TATAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 {EF IT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 6,355 6,931 7>SS4 8,201 8,852 9,550 10,273 11,021 11,796 12,569 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 16.4 18.6 20.9 23.6 26.3 29.3 32.7 36.4 40.3 44.3 | ° BENEFIT x(1000) 13.3 15.5 17.8 20.5 23.2 26.2 29.6 33.3 37.2 41.2 | °S WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 9.9 11.2 12.5 14.0 15.3 16.8 18.4 20.1 21.9 23.5 # UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 56.3 67.5 80.0 94.0 109.3 126.1 144.5 164.6 136.5 210.0 MAND -- KW IERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 IT #3 caISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 IT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) ALLONS DIESEL FUEL 'ST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL G&M COST xX(1000) NARY NARY BINARY BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST xX(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) NUAL COSTS X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST K(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DGLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) T BENEFIT X(1000) ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ncCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) MAND —- KW enERGY -- MWH FYISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 IT #2 IT #3 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 BITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SGURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EL INVESTMENT X(1000) SEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON "TESEL FUEL COST X(1000) iSEL O&M COST X(1000) — - 4ARY BINARY BINARY 4ARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) WAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) RA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 7 EQUIV AN COST x(1000) : MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) AL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED + DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) BENEFIT X(1000) ‘PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ‘ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 51 200 75 50 15 $4 64 64 1991 79 Sle 75 125 > 2.36 13 68 110 195 145 1,016 1982 S2 203 7S so 1S 66 64 128 1992 83 333 75 sO 15 75 12S > 2.44 13 71 110 193 143 1,159 QNo One! 6,931 18.6 10.3 7.4 51.7 1983 54 214 75 50 15 3,171 Yow OON 1993 351 75 50 15 75 125 > 2.52 13 75 110 202 142 1,301 One One 1 7.554 20.9 12.6 8.8 60.5 1984 1985 1986 1987 57 60 63 67 226 237 249 261 7s 7s 75 7s 50 so 50 50 15 15 15 15 - - 78 75 - - 60 - - - 4 4 261578 27,871 29,282 30,694 1.85 1.92 1.98 2.05 54 59 64 69 22 22 22 22 7% 81 90 95 70 72 78 80 265 337 4is 495 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 8 8 -8 -8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3,508 35646 4,217 4,604 7A 8.1 9.2 10.4 4.0 5.0 6.4 7.3 3.7 4.4 5.3 1 6.7 Atel 16.4 22.5 1994 1995 1996 1997 89 92 9 99 349 386 404 422 75 75 75 78 50 50 50 50 1s 1s is 15s 75 75 75 75 125 125 125 125 4 4 4 4 2.61 2.70 2.86 2.90 13 13 13 13 79 83 8&7 a 110 110 110 110 206 210 214 218 140 139 137 136 1,441 1,580 1.717 1,853 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT é.1 6.1 6.1 é.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8,202 8,652 91550 10,273 23.6 26.3 29.3 32.7 15.3 18.0 21.0 24.4 10.4 11.9 13.5 15.2 70.9 82.8 96.3 1.5 1988 70 273 7S so 1s 32.105 2.12 22 101 82 S77 7S 125 > 3.00 13 94 110 221 134 1,987 aoe wnt 11,021 36.4 28.1 17.0 128.5 1989 73 286 75 Sso 1s 7S 125 1 > 2.20 200 13 61 110 188 143 725 1999 106 453 75 so is 75 125 > 1 3.10 13 93 110 225 132 2.119 Ono One 1 11,796 40.3 32.0 18.8 147.3 1990 7 298 7S so is 110 191 146 871 DN Oo onet 5.83838 14.8 6.5 5.0 38.3 2000 109 475 75 50 is 102 110 229 131 2.250 ope oned 12,569 44.3 36.0 20.5 167.8 ‘MAND -- KW HERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SGURCES -- KW IT #1 UNIT #2 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW aT #1 MIT #2 UNIT #3 “"ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) LLONS DIESEL FUEL ~vST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) MTESEL O&M COST X(1000) NUAL COSTS xX¢(1000) ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM FRES WORTH X(1000) txTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2? EQUIV AN COST x(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) T BENEFIT x(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) UrEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 IT #3 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL “ST PER GALLON ESEL FUEL COST xX(1000) ESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) “TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) vs MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST K(1000) NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) IM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 32 132 1991 53 211 50 78 183 24,814 2.06 56 2 84 63 633 1982 40 156 100 18,346 1.51 30 21 Se 56 102 1992 ss 225 SO 78 7S 50 26,460 2.13 62 2z aA 66 699 4,683 11.0 7.9 5.7 - 30.3 1983 al 160 50 738 75 SO 18,816 1.56 32 2 60 S7 1s9 o Ne KH OOM w 2.371 238 50 73 7S 50 27,989 2.20 63 22 97 6g 767 1934 42 164 50 78 78 sO 19,286 1.62 34 21 62 S7 216 So 78 75 SO 29,635 2.28 74 z2 103 70 837 1985 43 168 so 78 75 sO 19,757 1.67 36 21 64 57 273 1986 44 174 SO 73 7S sO 20,462 1.73 39 21 67 se 331 1937 46 180 50 78 75 sO 21,168 1.79 42 21 70 sy 390 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 8 8 Sel 3.1 21726 2,947 5.0 S.é 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.2 3.8 6.0 1995S, 1996 63 66 265 279 So 50 78 78 7S 7S so so 7 7 31,164 32,310 2.36 2.45 81 83 22 22 110 117 73 75 a1i0 96S NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS 2.8 HOw! 5.601 14.0 10.9 7.4 44.2 WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 8 & 3.t 3.1 61077 6,595 15.8 17.7 12.7 14.6 8.4 9.4 52.6 62.0 hres - ow) so 73 75 sa 34,339 2.53 96 2 125 73 1,063 75108 19.9 16.8 10.5 72.5 19383 47 186 50 78 75 SO 21,874 1.86 4s 21 73 59 aag 2.3 3.1 3412 7.0 3.9 3.2 11.9 1993 71 306 so 738 75 sO 35,986 2.62 104 2 133 80 1,143 1989 49 192 S50 78 75 so 22,579 1.92 43 21 76 60 So? —- -2u! 3.653 7.8 4.7 3.7 15.6 1999 73 si? 50 738 7S so 37.514 2.71 112 22 141 83 1.5226 en -Ow! 8.216 24.5 21.4 12.6 96.7 1990 50 198 so 73% 75 So 23,285 1.99 St 21 7? 61 570 50 738 7s So 7S 60 ‘s 39.162 2.81 121 22 154 88 1.314 Die a AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1962 1983 1984 19385 1986 1987 1988 1939 1990 1AND -- KW 32 40 41 42 43 44 ab 47 ay so IRGY -- MWH 132 156 140 164 163 174 180 186 192 198 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW [T #t - ” = - Alvad = ad = - = ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 sO So so so So so 50 50 SO so UNIT #2 73 738 78 78 73 78 78 73 73 73 JITIONAL VILLASE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 7 7S 7s 7S 7S 7S 7s 75 75 75 ~ tT #2 - 50 SO SO 50 So So so so So UNIT #3 - - - - - = i i 100 300 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = 100 7 = - i + * - = ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) > 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 -LONS DIESEL FUEL 15,523 18,346 18,316 19,236 19,757 20:462 21,168 21,874 r 7 COST FER GALLON 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.86 1.92 1.99 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 2 30 32 34 36 39 42 4s - bed ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 Pi = NARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - = - 7 7 - 160 = BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - - - - Mt M1 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - 29 30 NARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) - i - - > i - - 103 108 NUAL COSTS X(1000) 46 Ss 60 62 64 67 70 73 155 1S6é rncS WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 46 56 S7 S7 S7 S38 Ss? Ss? 122 120 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 46 102 159 216 273 331 390 449 Ss7t 691 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) = = 33.8 a ine oa = = 45.0 - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) > + 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.5 5.5 MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) = = 8 & 8 8 8 8 1.9 1.9 TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - i St 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.4 7.4 BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = + 2.371 2,546 2,726 21947 3.175 3.412 3,658 3.912 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING xX(1000) = = 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.0 7.8 8.6 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - 7 oF 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.9 4 1.2 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) > - +8 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3 9 *°CuUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) = = 8 2.1 3.8 6.0 3.7 11.9 12.2 13.1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 53 SS SS 60 63 && 638 71 73 76 ENERGY -- MAH 2i1 22! 238 252 265 279 292 306 B19 333 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT at - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW "IT ai sO 50 so so + SO SO so 50 so So 1T #2 78 73 738 73 78 78 78 73 73 73 neDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT #1 75 7S 75 7S 7s 75 7S 7S 7S 7S 1atT #2 SO SO 50 so SO 7 so So So So so IT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -ESEL INVESTMENT x(1000) - - - - - - 7 7 - 60 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ii GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - - - - - - ~ bs PER GALLON 2.06 2.13 2.20 2.23 2.36 2.45 2.53 2.62 2.71 2.931 SEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - ae 7 7 ps ESEL O2M COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - ~ - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - = ~ ““NARY CYCLE EGUIV AN COST X(1000) 1 il il Pea 11 11 11 +i at iL NARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) 32 34 36 33 40 42 a4 46 43 so MARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) 10g 103 103 108 103 108 108 108 103 108 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 174 180 S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 11g 116 114 112 110 103 106 104 102 103 UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 809 925 1,039 1,151 1,261 1,369 1,475 1,579 1,681 1,784 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - EQUIV AN COST x(19000) 5.5 5.5 S.5 5.5 S.5 S.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 TOTAL ExTRA COST X(1000) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 4,243 4,683 5.122 S,é01 6,077 6.595 7,108 7665 8,216 e851 .<. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 9b 11.0 12.4 14.0 15.6 17.7 19.9 22.2 24.5 27.2 “NET BENEFIT X(1000) 2.2 3.6 5.0 6.6 8.4 10.3 12.5 14.8 17.1 19.3 iS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 1.6 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.6 6.6 7.8 9.0 10.0 11.3 cUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 14.7 17.3 20.8 25.3 30.9 37.5 45.3 54.3 64.3 75.6 eee DIESEl. GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1934 1985 1936 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND -- KW 42 St SS ss S7 60 63 67 70 73 ~-ERGY -- MWH 175 200 208 216 224 236 248 261 274 286 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - 7 - - - - - - - - ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 50 50 50 50 50 sO 50 So So UNIT #2 50 so so so so SO 50 so 50 So DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1T #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 75 7S 7S 7S 7s 7S 7S 7S 75 73 UNIT #3 - = 7 = = 7 = - - - ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 85 - - - = = - - - = ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) = - - - = - - - - - enLLONS DIESEL FUEL 20,580 23,520 24,461 25,402 26,342 27,754 29,165 30,694 32,222 33,634 COST PER GALLON 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.7? 1.86 1.92 1.99 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 33 39 42 4s 43 SS S7 63 68 74 ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 2 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 NUAL COSTS X(1000) 54 60 63 67 70 7S 79 8s 90 96 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 54 58 sy él 62 65 66 69 71 74 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 54 112 171 232 294 359 425 AD4 S65 639 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 33.8 - - - - - - - EQUIV AN COST X¢1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - +8 3 ) 8 “8 8 8 -8 TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 3,082 3,353 3,635 3,997 4,375 4,788 5,220 5,651 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) - - 5.3 5.9 6.6 7.6 8.6 9.8 11.0 12.4 NET BENEFIT x(1000) - - 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.7 7.9 9.3 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.2 Tel “CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) - - 21 4.7 7.8 11.7 16.3 21.7 27.9 35.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999-2000 DEMAND -- KW 73 83 89 94 99 104 109 115 120 125 ERGY -- MWH 312 338 365 371 417 443 470 49% 522 543 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW unlT Wt - - - - - - - - - - EVISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 50 50 50 50 50 50 so 50 50 50 IT #2 50 50 50 50 50 sO 50 50 50 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 60 . 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 IT #2 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 IT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 80 - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5 5 5 5 5 s 5 s 5 5 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 361691 39,749 42,924 45,982 49,039 52,097 55,272 53,330 61,387 64,445 ST PER GALLON 2.06 2.13 2.200 2.28 «2.360 2.45 2.53 2.62 2.71 2.81 ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 83 93 104 115 127 140 154 168 183 199 DIESEL G&M COST X(1000) 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 ““NUAL COSTS X(1000) 110 120 132 143 155 1468 182 196 212 2238 ES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 82 87 93 7 102 10% 113 119 125 130 DUM PRES WORTH x(1000) 721 808 901 998 1,100 1,208 14321 1,440 1,585 1,695 i NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) 45.0 - - - - - - - - - 4. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 F°TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 EFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED $:274 7,036 7,855 8,491 9,563 10,471 11,441 12,424 13,444 14,500 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 14.2 16.5 19.0 21.7 24.8 28.1 31.9 35.8 40.1 44.3 | * BENEFIT x¢1000) 6.9 9.2 11.7 14.4 17.5 20.8 24.6 28.5 32.8 37.5 | °S WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 5.1 6.6 8.2 9.8 11.6 13.4 15.3 17.2 19.3 21.4 | (UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 40.1 46.7 54.9 64.7 76.3 89.7 105.0 122.2 141.5 162.9 DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1961 Cc AND -- KW 42 £...RGY -- MWH 175 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW LT wt - — STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 sO UNIT #2 sO ‘ ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW t T al 60 UNIT #2 75 UNIT #3 « [SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) es { SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) < Grit lONS DIESEL FUEL 20,530 COST PER GALLON 1.46 PT©SEL FUEL COST X(1000) 33 [ SEL O&M COST X(1000) a L..JARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) oad BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) l~ BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) = 1 ARY CYCLE G&M COST X(1000) a # UAL COSTS X(1000) 54 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 54 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) S54 ExrRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 7 EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - AL EXTRA COST xX(1000) - BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - : DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - t BENEFIT X( 1000) - PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) a 1991 DEMAND -~- KW 78 ENERGY -- MWH Biz { STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW t T #1 - EXISTING SCHOGL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW CT a sO t T #2 SO fee I TIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 UNIT #2 75 ( T #3 150 1 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) ba DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL = 1¢ T PER GALLON 2.06 [ SEL FUEL COST x(1000) al { SEL O&M COST x(1060) - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) al FE - ARY CYCLE EOUIV AN COST X(1000) 16 £ ARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) 47 — ARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) 112 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 175 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 130 UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 838 EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) had 2 EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 6.8 3 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 2.5 TUTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 9.3 BC“EFIT (HEATING) 1 SALLONS DIESEL SAVED 65274 2 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 14.2 NET BENEFIT x(1000) 4.9 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) 3.6 A JM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) - 29.0 1982 Si 200 50 50 60 75 23,520 1.51 39 2 60 SE 112 1992 83 338 112 179 129 1,017 eye Wag 7,036 16.5 7.2 5.2 34.2 1983 S3 2038 50 50 60 7s 24,461 1.56 42 21 63 Ss? 171 a ake -DwWa g w NNN WO ON een 1993 89 36S sO 50 60 75 150 112 183 1238 1,145 1984 SS 216 60 75 25,402 1.62 4s 22 67 él 232 SL 0 a 60 7S 150 S38 112 186 127 1,272 ON wun 8,691 21.7 12.4 8.4 49.4 1985, 1986 1987 1988 57 60 63 67 224 236 2438 261 So 50 sO 50 so SO so so 60 60 60 60 7S 7S 75 75 265342 27,754 29,5165 30,694 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.86 43 53 S7 63 22 22 22 22 70 7S 79 85 62 és 66 69 294 359 425 494 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 8 8 8 8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3,635 3,997 4,375 4,783 6.6 7.6 6.6 9.8 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.7 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.4 7.8 11.7 16.3 21.7 1995, 1996 1997 1993 99 104 109 115 417 44g 470 A496 sO so So So so sO So 50 60. —- 60 60 60 75 75 7S 7S 150 150 150 150 1 1 ' ' 2.36 2.45 2.53 2.6 tne 16 16 16 16 62 6& 70 74 112 112 112 12 190 194 193 202 126 125 123 122 1,393 1,523 1,646 1.768 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9563 105471 11,441 12,424 24.8 28.1 31.9 35.8 15.5 18.8 22.6 26.5 10.2 12.1 14.3 16.0 57.6 71.7 85.8 101.8 1989 70 274 50 50 60 75 150 1.92 240 16 Al 112 169 133 627 50 50 60 75 150 112 206 121 1,839 YNe wags 13,444 40.1 30.3 18.1 119.9 1990 73 286 50 50 60 75 150 112 171 131 7353 50 so 60 75 150 82 112 210 120 2.009 yne wna: 14,500 44.8 35.5 20.2 140.1 eae ee rere erere rece DIESEL GENERATIGN 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 4AND -- KW 35 42 43 45 46 a7 49 50 s2 53 ERGY -- MWH 146 165 170 175 179 165 191 197 203 209 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1T #1 7 - 7 - - < 7 - 7 - ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 50 so so 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 DITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 wenIT #2 75 75 75 75 75 75 78 75 75 75 NTESEL INVESTMENT X( 1000) es - - - - - - - - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - 7 - - - - LLONS DIESEL FUEL 17,170 19,404 19,992 20,580 21,050 21,754 22,462 23,167 23,873 24,578 31 PER GALLON 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.63 1.69 1.75 1.31 1.87 1.94 2.00 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 2 22 35 37 39 42 45 43 Si 54 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 2 21 21 2 21 21 21 21 21 21 NUAL COSTS x(1000) 49 53 Sé 5s 60 63 bb 69 72 75 ES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 49 51 53 53 53 54 55 56 S7 57 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 49 100 153 206 259 313 368 424 481 538 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT ~- TRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 33.8 - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) - - 8 8 +8 +8 -8 +8 +8 8 TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 ca] 3.1 3.1 34 3.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 2,519 2.717 2,905 3,133 3,369 3,614 3,967 4,129 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 4.4 4.9 5.4 6.0 6.8 7.5 8.3 a4 . BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.7 4.4 5.2 6.0 rneS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 4 4.6 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.2 2.8 4.8 7.3 10.4 14.0 18.1 22.7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 veMAND -- KW 56 59 62 és 68 71 74 77 80 83 ENERGY -- MWH 224 240 255 270 285 300 316 331 346 362 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - 7 a z EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 on) 50 50 50 sO 50 so 50 50 50 IT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 sO 50 50 50 JITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 7s 75 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - a 7 ISEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - - - - uy a GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 261342 28,224 29,938 31,752 33,514 35,280 37,162 38,926 40,690 42,571 COST PER GALLON 2.07 2.15 2.22 2.30 2.38 2.46 2.55 2.64 2.73 2.83 ISEL FUEL COST x(1000) 60 67 73 80 83 95 104 113 122 133 ISEL O&M COST x(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 UAL COSTS X(1000) 82 89 95 102 110 117 126 135 144 156 PRES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 61 64 67 69 73 75 79 82 85 389 ACCUM PRES WORTH x(1000) 599 663 730 799 872 947 1,026 «14408 15193 1,282 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST { INVESTMENT x(1000) - - - - - - 7 - 7 . + EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 {MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 8 8 8 8 8 +& “8 +8 +8 +8 VesAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 4,504 4,996 5,488 6,001 6,536 7,091 7,693 8.291 6,911 9,578 7 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 10.3 11.9 13.4 15.1 47.2 19.1 21.5 24.1 26.7 29.9 NET BENEFIT x(1000) 7.2 8.8 10.3 12.0 14.1 16.0 18.4 21.0 23.6 26.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) 5.4 6.4 7.2 8.2 9.3 10.3 11.5 12.7 13.9 15.3 €° UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 28.4 34.5 9 41.7 49.9 59.2 69.5 81.0 93.7 107.6 122.9 nena pune nnTinnsvarnnSInrnTnn TTT U/ST=nSaTISITTEIreTsi=runr= Tr runnnnnSInuTnTTn nn EnnnU nnn nn ESTP DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985, 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 DC AND -- KW 35 42 43 4S 46 47 4a So S2 5s3 Ene kGY -- MWH 146 165 170 175 179 185 19t 197 203 209 E-~"*STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW uo oT #t - be - - - - - = - - E..STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 sO 50 50 so 50 50 50 so S50 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 So So So 50 & ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW c oT # 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 7S 7S 75 7S 75 7S 75 75 75 75 UNIT #3 - - - - - - - - 100 100 [ SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 8s - - - - - - - - - {[ SEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) = ~ - - - - - - - - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 17,170 19,404 19,992 20,580 21,050 21,756 22,462 23,167 = - COST PER GALLON 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.63 1.69 1.75 1.81 1.87 1.94 2.00 [' SEL FUEL COST x(1000) 23 32 3s 37 39 42 4s 43 cae - [ SEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 = - L.wARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) = - 7 = - - = 7 160 - BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - - - - Mw i BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - - = 30 31 1 ARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) be - - - - = - - 108 108 # UAL COSTS X(1000) 49 Sg 56 ss 60 63 66 69 149 150 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 49 Si 53 S53 53 54 5S 5é 113 5 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 49 100 153 206 259 313 368 A24 542 657 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - = 33.8 - = - - - 45.0 - 7 EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.3 5.3 ¢ MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 8 8 3 8 & 8 2.0 2.0 1 AL EXTRA COST x(1000) - = 3.1 Bel gel 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.3 7.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) » GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = - 2519 2,717 2,905 3,133 3.369 3.614 3,867 4s129 i DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 4.4 4.9 S.4 6.0 6.8 7.5 8.3 9.4 t_. BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.7 4.4 1.0 1.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - =- 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 8 1.4 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) - - 1.2 2.8 4.8 7.3 10.4 14.0 14.8 16.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1993 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW sé s9 62 és 68 7 74 77 80 83 ENERGY -- MWH 224 240 255 270 285 300 316 331 346 362 — STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW to oT @t - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW eT at i) 50 50° so 50 sO so 50 sO 50 tT #2 50 sO 50 50 50 50 50 or) 50 50 # ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #2 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 to 7 a3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 SEL INVESTMENT x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - - - - - - - ‘( T PER GALLON 2.07 2.15 2.22 2.30 2.38 2.46 2.55 2.64 2.73 2,83 ms SEL FUEL COST xX(1900) . - = 7” = - - i - - - 1 SEL O&M COST x(1000) - - - - - - 7 - - 7 BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - P'VARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) rey 11 Mt rey 4 41 1 1 41 it — ARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) 34 36 33 40 43 45 47 50 52 54 £ ARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) 1038 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 153 155 157 159 162 164 166 169 171 173 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 114 112 110 108 107 105 103 102 100 99 lum PRES WORTH x(1000) 774 833 993° 1,101 1,208 1,313 15416 1,513 1,618 14717 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X( 1000) - - - - - - - - - - 7 EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 < MAINTENANCE COST x¢1000) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 JUrAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1 GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 4,505 4,996 5,488 6,001 6,536 7,091 7.692 8.291 8.911 9,579 2 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 10.3 11.9 13.4 15.1 17.2 191 21.5 9 24.1 26.7 29.9 INET BENEFIT x(1000) 3.0 4.6 é.1 7.8 9.9 11.8 14.2 16.8 19.4 22.6 -PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.3 6.5 7.6 8.8 10,2 11.4 12.9 6 UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 16.4 21.7 26.0 31.3 37.8 45.4 54.2 64.4 75.8 88.7 RE DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 MAND -- KW 43 S3 ss 64 69 72 75 738 81 84 ENERGY ~~ MWH 178 208 228 249 270 262 294 307 319 331 ““ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 " 40 40 40 40 IT #2 20 zo 20 20 20 20 20 2 20 20 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES ~~ KW UNIT #2 - - - - - - - - - - GITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - 7S 75 75 75 758 75 7S 7S 75 UNIT #2 - - = 75 75 75 75 7S 75 7s ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 7 60 - 60 = = - Ea - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - 4 4 s 8 8 8 8 8 3 LLONS DIESEL FUEL 20,933 24,461 26,813 29,282 31,752 33,163 34,574 36,103 37,514 38,926 COST PER GALLON 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 2.10 2.17 2.25 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 338 46 52 so 66 71 77 83 90 9 ESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 NUAL COSTS XK(1000) 59 7 78 89 9 101 107 113 120 126 rn&S WORTH AN COST X(1000) Ss? 69 74 81 8s 87 20 92 9S 97 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) Ss? 123 202 283 368 43S 545 637 732 829 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - 33.8 - 33.8 - - - - ~ EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - fas 2.3 2.3 4b 4.6 4.6 4b 4.& MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - - 8 38 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 TAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - = 3.1 3.1 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) * GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = = = 3,865 4,382 4,775 5,186 5,632 6,077 6,540 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - = - 7.8 Pl 10.2 11.6 12.9 14.6 16.1 «TT BENEFIT X(1000) - - - 4.7 6.0 3.9 S.3 6.6 8.3 9.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - i - 4.3 5.3 3.4 4.4 5.4 é.6 7.5 ACCUM FRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - = ba 4.3 9.6 13.0 17.4 22.8 29.4 36.9 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 83 92 9% 100 104 109 113 117 121 125 ERGY -~ MWH 353 374 396 418 429 461 433 S04 526 S43 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 UNIT #2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2 20 20 ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - - = - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 75 75 75 7s 7s 75 75 75 75 1T #2 75 75 75 7S 75 7s 7s 75 75 75 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - ° = - - = - > - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) € 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 S 8 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 41,513 43,982 46,570 49,157 50,450 54,214 56,801 59,270 61,858 64,445 ST PER GALLON 2.33 2.41 2.49 2.53 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.96 3.06 3.17 ESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 106 117 128 140 148 165 179 193 208 228 ESEL O&M COST x(1000) 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 136 148 159 171 179 196 210 225 240 257 @©ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 101 107 112 116 118 126 131 136 w4s 147 CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 930 1,037 1,149 1,265 1,383 1,509 1,640 15776 16917 = 2064 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - ~ = - ~ = - EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 NEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 7,099 7,785 8,522 9.291 9,833 10,897 11,758 12,625 13,547 14,500 «. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 18.1 20.7 23.4 26.5 28.9 33.2 37.1 Al. 4S.6 50.6 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 11.6 14.4 17.1 20.2 22.6 26.9 30.8 34.8 39.3 44.3 ‘ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) 6.8 10.4 12.0 13.8 14.9 17.3 19.2 21.4 23.1 25.3 CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 45.7 Sé.1 68.1 81.9 96.8 114.1 133.3 154.4 177.5 202.8 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs TAKOTNA - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 2064 3104.6 202.8 535.1 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2064 + 3104.6 = 5168.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 202.8 + 535.1 = 737.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S7 Feeeeee ee reer eeeeececaeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeaeeceecccccccccc DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1932 1983 1934 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 tT) AND -- KW 43 53 53 64 6? 72 7S 78 SL 84 E.wRGY -- MWH 178 208 228 249 270 282 294 307 319 331 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW 4 oT at 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 LT #2 20 20 20 zo 20 20 20 20 20 20 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW WNIT #1 - = - - - - - - - - é ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES ~-- KW CT #L i 75 73 75 73 75 7S 75 7S 7S UNIT #2 - - i 75 75 7s 7S 75 7S8 75 UNIT #3 - - > - = - - - iS0 156 1 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - 60 - 60 - - - - - i 1 SEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 LrnclONS DIESEL FUEL 20,933 24,441 26,813 29,282 31,752 33,163 34,574 36,103 - - COST PER GALLON 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 2.10 2.17 2.25 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 38 46 52 Ss? 66 7 77 83 = - | SEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 - = 1 JARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) 7 - - - - = - - 240 - BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) i - ca = - = - i 16 16 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) = - - = = - - - 43 so | IARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) - - - i - - - ba 112 112 1 WAL COSTS X(1000) so 7 738 89 9 101 107 113 184 186 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) s9 67 74 61 85 87 90 92 145 143 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) Ss? 128 202 283 368 4ss S45 637 782 925 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT barRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - 33.8 - - - = 67.5 - 2? EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - = - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 6.8 6.8 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - = . 8 8 8 8 8 2.5 2.5 ‘AL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 9.3 9.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = a. = 3,865 4,382 4,776 5,186 5,632 6,077 6,540 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - ad 7 7.8 9A 10.2 11.6 12.9 14.6 16.1 | * BENEFIT x(1000) = i = 4.7 6.0 Fel 8.5 9.8 5.3 6.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - fa 4.3 5.3 é.1 7.1 8.0 4.2 5.2 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ~ - - 4.3 9.6 15.7 22.8 30.8 35.0 40.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 8e 92 %% 100 104 109 113 117 121 125 ENERGY -- MWH 353 374 396 418 429 461 483 504 526 548 {| ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW (it at 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 uniT #2 20 20 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 20 FYTSTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW (oT a - - 7 - - - - - - - _JITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 75 75 75 75 7s 75 7s 75 75 UNIT #2 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 IT #3 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL iT PER GALLON 2.33 2.41 2.49 2.58 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.96 3.06 3.17 ISEL FUEL COST X(1000) - - - - - - - - - = ‘SEL O&M COST X(1000) = - - - - - - - - - ' 1 1 o a o tor o o oO o a a ' ! ' 1 ' BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - hed - - - - - - - tARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 16 16 16 16 16 1é 16 16 16 16 WARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) S3 Sé Ss9 63 64 69 72 75 79 82 (ARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) 112 12 112 112 112 112 12 112 112 112 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 189 192 195 199 200 205 208 2iL 215 218 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 141 139 137 136 132 132 130 1238 126 124 { UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,066 1,205 1,342 1,478 1,610 1.742 1,872 2,000 2.126 25250 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) ad - = = - - - - - = EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 murAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 FENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 7,099 75785 6,522 9291 9,838 10,897 11,758 12,625 13,547 14,500 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 18.1 20.7 23.4 26.5 28.9 33.2 37.1 Ale 45.6 50.6 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 8.8 11.4 14.1 17.2 19.6 23.9 27.8 31.8 36.3 41.3 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 6.5 8.2 9.9 11.7 13.0 15.3 17.3 19.2 21.3 23.5 4 UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 46.7 54.9 64.8 76.5 89.5 104.8 122.1 141.3 162.6 186.1 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs TAKOTNA ~ DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Waste Heat Waste Heat Related Benefit Related Benefit Accumulated present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 2250 2633.4 186.1 498.9 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2250 + 2633.4 = 4883.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 186.1 + 498.9 = 685.0 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/56 DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1931 1982 1983 1984 1985, 1986 1987 1983 1939 1990 MAND KW 43 Sg S38 64 6? 2 7S 78 81 84 ERGY -- MWH 178 208 228 249 270 262 294 307 319 331 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW IT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 IT #2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 20 20 20 EAISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 = i 7 nal i - - - c = DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 1T mt - 7S 75 75 75 7S 7s 75 75 7s HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7 im ” " ba 240 240 240 240 240 ESEL INVESTMENT x(1000) vA 60 iT; - - - - - - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) al 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 20,933 24,461 26,813 29,282 31,752 * - > ” 7 CUST FER GALLON 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 2.10 2.17 2.25 ~ ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 33 46 S2 Ss? 66 7 ia + i i ESEL O&M COST X(1000) az 2. 22 22 22 20 20 20 20 20 mr ORGELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) ni i - = - 21,513 ba fad - - HYDRGELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 7 i iT i - $36 B36 836 S36 836 ““DROELECTRIC O&M COST x(1000) rr = 7 - 20 30 30 30 3a NUAL COSTS X(1000) Ss? 71 73 8s 92 890 870 890 890 890 ---ES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 59 69 74 73 82 763 745 724 702 682 ACCUM PRES WORTH X( 1000) 64 133 207 235 367 1,135 1,880 25604 31306 3,983 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS ELECTRIC HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - 5.0 - - - - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - - - 16 a6 6 <6 6 TAL EXTRA COST K(1000) - - - - - 26 16 “6 “6 26 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - - - - 9393 9,002 8,574 8.173 7.782 ° DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) - - - - - 20.3 20.1 19.8 19.5 19.3 T BENEFIT X(1000) - - - - - 19.7 19.5 19.2 18.9 18.7 2S WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) - - - - - 17.0 18.3 15.6 14.9 14.3 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - ee - ba 17.0 323 48.9 63.8 78.1 1991 1992 19931994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 4AND -- KW 88 92 9 100 104 109 113 417 121 125 ENERGY -- MWH 353 374 396 418 429 461 433 504 526 548 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 IT #2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW TT at - 7 nf i il ii i i A ii DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW welT #1 75 75 75 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 “VOROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 ~-=SEL INVESTMENT x(1000) - - 7 - - - 7 ma a 7 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - - - - - - - 37 PER GALLON 2.93 2.41 2.49 2.96 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.96 3.08 3.17 EL FUEL COST X(1000) - - - - 7 7 a a in Ie SEL O&M COST K(1000) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - 7 - = aw . ie 7 IROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 836 836 836 836 63 836 836 836 836 836 IROELECTRIC O&M COST x(1000) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 HNNUAL COSTS X(1000) 890 90 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 PRES WORTH ANNUAL CUST X(1000) 662 643 624 606 see S71 555 533 $23 507 APLUM FRES WORTH X(1000) 41650 5,293 5,917 6523 7,111 7,682 8.237 8477594298 -9,.805 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS ELECTRIC HEAT EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 6 +6 6 6 “6 16 +6 “6 “6 Le AL EXTRA COST x(1000) 6 +6 6 6 6 6 “6 +6 6 6 BENEFIT (HEATING) ~ GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 7,057 61344 55639 4,913 4,551 3,495 2,770 2,077 1,352 627 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 18.1 16.9 15.4 13.9 13.4 10.6 8.7 6.8 4.6 2.2 tus BENEFIT X(1000) 17.5 16.3 14.8 = 13.3 12.8 10.0 8.1 6.2 4.0 1.6 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) 13.0 11,8 10.4 4 8.5 6.4 5.0 3.8 2.4 o PPCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) W1.1 102.9 113.3 122.4 «130.9 137.3 142.3 146.1 143.5 149.4 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 9805 TAKOTNA ~ DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to_year 2000 2001 to 2036 10751. 2 149.4 19.3 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 9805 + 10751.2 = 20556.2 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 149.4 + 19.3 = 168.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S5 caer ee eee reer eee eee eee eee 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19388 19389 1990 IMAND -— KW 13 15 1é 16 17 13 19 21 22 23 4ERGY -- MWH 83 52 60 63 45 70 7% 81 86 1 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - LISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW aT #1 1Z 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 UNIT #2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 JDITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 4IT #1 - so 50 sO sO 50 50 so sO 50 AIT #2 - 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - 64 - - - - - - - - “1ESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 XLLONS DIESEL FUEL. 6.233 6,821 7,056 «7,409 «7,644 8,232 8,938 9,526 10,114 10,702 JST PER GALLON 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 2.65 2.74 2.84 2.94 3.04 3.18 viESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 16 13 19 2 22 28 28 31 34 37 DIESEL G&M COST X(1000) 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 2 21 INUAL COSTS X(1000) 36 42 43 45 46 49 S3 56 so 62 %ES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 36 41 41 41 aL 42 44 4b 47 43 «CUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 36 77 118 1s9 200 242 286 332 379 427 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST + INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 22.5 - - - - - = 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 “MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 6 +6 +6 6 +6 6 26 “6 ITAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 2.1 2.1 24 24 21 2.1 21 2.4 wcNEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - ee 973 1,085 1,185 1,341 1,486 1,688 1,798 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 2.4 2.8 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.5 6.2 T BENEFIT X(1000) - - +3 7 9 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.4 4.4 ‘ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - “3 26 8 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - «3 gy 1.7 3.0 4.8 7.90 9.7 12.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 --MAND -- KW 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 ENERGY -- MWH %% 100 105 109 114 119 123 128 132 137 ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW HT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 NT #2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 DITIGNAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 sO 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #2 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 ESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 wALLONS DIESEL FUEL 11,290 11,5760 12:34 12,818 13,406 13,974 14,465 15,053 15,523 16,111 COST PER GALLON 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.87 4.01 4.15 4.44 TTESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 40 44 47 St 5S 60 64 69 7 ESEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 2 2 INUAL COSTS X(1000) 65 69 72 76 80 gs 89 94 93 104 PRES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 43 SO 50 52 53 55 55 57 53 59 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 475 525 575 627 680 735 790 847 905 964 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1 INVESTMENT X(1000) - - = - - - - = - - EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 6 +6 +6 6 6 “6 6 +6 +6 “6 TAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 21 21 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 21 2.1 2.1 21 BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED ~ 1,931 2,082 2.260 2.423 2.614 2,813 21994 31206 31400 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 6.8 7.8 8.6 9.6 10.7 12.1 13.2 14.7 16.0 net BENEFIT X(1000) 4.7 5.7 &.5 7.5 S.6& 10.0 1a.t 12.6 13.9 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 3.5 4.1 4.6 S.t 5.7 6.4 4g 7.& 8.2 “°CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 16.3 20.4 25.0 30.1 35.6 42.2 49.1 56.7 64.9 T AND -- KW —£._RGY -~- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW 4 oT #1 — STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1. UNIT #2 é ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW tc oT et UNIT #2 UNIT #3 1 SEL INVESTMENT XK(1000) 1 SEL EGUIV AN COST X(1000) ( _LONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 1 SEL O&M COST X(1000) 1 JARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) | IARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) § (UAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) £..RA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST xK(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) AL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING K(1000) | BENEFIT x(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) --4AND -- KW ENERGY -- MaH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 IT #2 JITIONSL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 “TIT #3 SEL INVESTMENT X(1G00) ~-JSEL EQUIV AN COST X{(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON iSEL FUEL COST X(1000) iSEL O&M COST x(1000) BINARY BINARY dARY JARY cycle cYce cycLe CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) FUEL COST X(1000) O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) “"SUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) ‘AL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) wteer BENEFIT X(1000) “PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) “ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1931 1982 1983 1984 13 1s 16 16 53 58 60 63 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 - sO 50 50 - 30 30 30 i 64 i eS - 4 4 4 6.233 6,821 7,056 = 7,409 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 16 13 19 21 20 20 20 20 36 42 43 45 36 41 at a 36 77 118 159 - eee - ft [ 1.5 1.5 - - “6 16 - = 2.1 2.1 - - sey 978 - - 2.4 2.8 - - 3 a7 - - +3 <6 - - i> 2 1991 1992 1993 1994 24 25 27 28 %% 100 105 109 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 50 50 so 50 30 30 30 30 50 50 50 50 eS > > > ' 1 ' ' 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 5 Ss S Ss 21 21 23 23 104 104 104 104 135 135 137 137 100 93 9b 93 639 737 833 926 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 1,931 2,082 2,260 2,423 6.8 7.8 8.6 9b Z.6 3.6 4.4 5.4 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.7 11.4 14.0 17.1 20.8 1985 17 és 12 12 sO 30 71644 2.65 22 20 46 41 200 1995 29 114 12 12 so 30 50 Ss 24 104 138 a 1,017 19846 1987 18 19 70 7% 12 12 12 12 50 so 30 30 4 4 8,232 8,938 2.74 2.84 25 23 20 21 49 53 42 44 242 286 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 15 1.5 +6 +6 21 2.1 1,185 1,341 3.6 4.2 1.5 2.4 1.3 1.8 3.0 4.8 1996 1997 30 31 119 123 12 12 12 12 so so 30 30 sO so 4 4 3.87 4.01 5 S 26 26 104 104 140 140 90 87 1,107 1,194 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2 2.813 2,994 12.1 13.2 7.9 9.0 S.1 5.6 30.2 35.8 1988 21 a1 i2 12 SO 30 91526 2.94 31 21 56 46 332 12 12 so 30 50 104 141 85 1,279 10.5 42.2 1989 22 86 12 12 30 so iy 3.04 so 13 104 132 104 436 nN PRON NNO 1,633 5.5 Dew oow 1999 34 132 12 12 So 30 so ew NNOT 3,400 16.0 11.8 6.9 49.1 1990 23 at 12 12 so 30 so 104 134 103 539 12 12 50 30 so pew NNO! 3162! 17.8 13.6 7.8 56.9 Heeeeeeeee eee errr erence eee ee eee ea DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1934 1985, 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 C AND -- KW 13 15 16 16 17 138 19 21 22 23 ENERGY -- MWH 53 se 60 63 65 70 7 81 86 a E "STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW Lo oT #1 - 7 a = 7 i - - = > En.STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 UNTT #2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 € ITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW to oT #1 = 7 7 = = = = - = - WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ¢ WIND UNITS i 10.5 10.5 10.5 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 SEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - =| ba a 7 = r = i | DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) = 7 - = = = ce - ei ha GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 6,233 5,527 5,527 5,762 5,880 6,350 6,933 7409 7,879 8,232 C**T PER GALLON 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 2.65 2.74 2.34 2.94 3.04 3.15 1 SEL FUEL COST X(1000) 16 15 15 16 17 19 22 24 26 29 1 SEL O&M COST X(1000) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) = 9S - i 14 7 hal > - sj HIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - & é & 7 7 7 7 7 7 | ID EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) i 1s 1s. 15 17 17 17 17 17 17 (..IUAL COSTS X¢(1000) 36 Sé 56 S7 61 63 66 és 790 73 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 36 54 Ss3 S2 S4 S54 5S SS SS 56 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 36 90 143 195 249 303 353 413 463 524 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST INVESTMENT X(1000) ; ir 22.5 T Ei E a ci a < EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 26 +6 +6 76 +6 +6 +6 26 1uiAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - 7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 PENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 696 741 eit Qi4 1,041 1,156 145276 14383 DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.9 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - (22) - +2 +6 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - (2) - 22 “5 1.0 1.3 1.7 25 [UM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - (22) (22) - “5 1.5 2.8 4.5 &.6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1AND -- KW 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 ERGY -~ MWH % 100 105 109 114 119 123 128 132 137 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - ISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 wl T #2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 *PNITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 - - - - - - - - - - ND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 ISEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - ISEL_ EQUIV AN COST X(1000) = = - - - = = - - - -LONS DIESEL FUEL 8,702 9,055 «94526 «BTS 101349 10,819 11,172 11,642 11,995 12,466 COST PER GALLON 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.87 4.01 4.15 4.29 4.44 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) a 34 37 39 43 46 49 53 57 41 “"TSEL O&M COST K(1000) 21 aL 21 21 21 21 21 2 2 2 MD EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - 27 wiND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 21 UAL COSTS X(1000) 76 79 82 a4 a8 Wn 94 98 102 112 S WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 57 57 58 57 se sg so 59 60 64 UM PRES WORTH X(1000) 531 633 696 753 e11 B6y 928 987 1,047 ADD NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT TRA COST 1. INVESTMENT x(1000) 7 - 7 5 - 5 - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 1S 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1S 1.5 1.5 1.5 MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) +6 +6 +6 6 7 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 TAL: EXTRA COST x(1000) 21 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 23 2.1 2.4 2.4 ~-4EFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 1,488 1,603 15743 1,867 2,018 2.175 2,313 2.480 2.627 2,905 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.4 8.4 9.2 10.1 13.3 12.5 13.7 T BENEFIT x(1000) 3.2 3.9 4.7 5.3 6.3 7d 8,0 9.2 10.4 11.6 iS WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.6 6.1 6.6 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 9.0 11.8 15.1 18.7 22.9 27.5 32.5 38.1 44.2 50.8 APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN(S) APA 22-A/Z APPENDIX F This section provides a brief description of the various plan components required for diesel generation and waste heat recovery, the most promising plan for providing the lowest cost energy to the thirteen villages. This plan assumes continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study period with the implementation of waste heat recovery. Diesel generation and waste heat recovery Diesel generation with waste heat recovery has proven to be the most reliable and economical method of supplying electrical energy in the 13 villages studied in this report. This study has assumed that only the waste heat from the engine cooling water is recovered for use. This in turn implies the diesel engine used as the source of waste heat must be liquid cooled. Implementation of waste heat recovery is not free and requires the addition of certain equipment to the diesel engine, plus the installation of pumps and insulated pipes for transporting the waste heat to the user and installa- tion of radiators or baseboard water heating system by the user. The diesel engine, unless previously equipped, must be retrofitted with a heat exchanger and associated valving. This can in most cases, be accomplished by tapping into the exisiting engine radiator hoses. Hot coolant from the engine is circulated through the heat exchanger and radiator to maintain correct engine temperature. Heat from the engine coolant is transfererd via the heat exchanger to the heat using loop and transported to the user. The heated liquid upon passing through the users radiators is returned to the heat exchanger for reheating. Waste heat capture equipment is commercially available in the unit sizes required and can be installed in those villages where it is determined feasible with only a few months lead time. APA 22-A/Z Feasibility and Timing of Installations Feasibility Finding that waste heat recovery systems appear feasible in a recon- naissance level study of the magnitude does not mean materials should be purchased and construction started on waste heat installation in the villages. Waste heat installation must still be engineered for the particular location and situation. The simplified analysis accomplished in this reconnaissance study has merely justified a more detailed study be performed to accurate determine the cost and feasibility associated with the project. Such studies should include a definitive review of the following item for sach case. a) availability of waste heat b) transportation of waste heat c) end use of waste heat Approximate cost for determining the feasibility of the waste heat alternative is estimated at $2,500 per village. Approximate Timing of Installation The appropriate timing of diesel and waste heat installation as deter- mined from this study are shown below. A detailed feasibility study conducted for each village may alter the recommended installation date of waste heat recovery equipment from the dates listed. A. Villages north of Yukon River pA Buckland Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW; 1994 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kW, 1985 - 100 kW, 1994 - 100 kW APA 22-A/Z 2. Hughes Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW; 1991 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 75 kW 3. Koyukuk B. Diese] 1981 ~ 75 + 50 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1986 - 75 kW 4. Russian Mission Diesel - 1981 - 90 kW; 1982 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment ~ 1983 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW 5. Sheldon Point Diesel - 1982 - 100 + 75 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 100 kW Villages - Middle and Upper Kuskokwim 6. Chuathbaluk Diese] - 1981 - 60 kW and 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW 7. Crooked Creek Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment 1983 - 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW 8. Nikolai Diesel - 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 9. Red Devil Diesel - 1982 - 75 and 50 kW; 2000 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 2000 - 75 kW APA 22-A/Z 10. Sleetmute Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW and 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kW 11. Stony River Diesel - 1981 - 60 and 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 12. Takotna Diesel - 1982 - 75 kW; 1984 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1984 - 75 kW; 1986 - 75 kW 13. ° Telida Diesel - 1982 - 50 and 30 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 50 kW F-4 APPENDIX G WOOD FUEL RESOURCES FOR TEN ALASKAN VILLAGES by Reid, Collins, Inc. = preeeng peewee rene w BOTA wae, prnectid Seem, WOOD FUEL RESOURCES FOR TEN ALASKAN VILLAGES January 23, 1981 Prepared By: ean Lan. Calvin L. Kerr REID, COLLINS, INC. 1577 C Street, Suite 214 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 USA. qurenca cuoen cunrwense ———- recent en — eres sree, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction... . 22. eee cece ee cee cece cee cece teen ee cece eeesee 1 2.0 SUMMALY.. eee cece cence eee cece ener cece eee e eee eeeeeeenee 2 3.0 Objective and Scope of Project..... 02... . 0c. cee cece ee ee eee 3 3.1 Methodology...... cece eeccccne ccc cece ect ec cece ereerencceeees 3 4.0 Wood Fuel Resources, Kuskokwim Villages.......-....-.seeeee 4 HLL. 1. Table Lecce cece cece c cc cece ec ccc cece ec ence ne ee ete cece sens 4 4.1.2. Table 2.........4. bee ececccesecsccaceee Sree eee A 4.2 Wood Fuel Types ott esccceece ee ccc cere eee e nce en cere ner cces 5 5.1 Wood Fuel Resources, Doyon Villages...........e cece ee ee cence 6 5.1.1. Table 3...... cc cece eee eee cece eens we cccccccnccce heveeeaes 6 5.1.2. Table Won. c ccc cece cc eee nce cece cece ewe ene treeceecace 6 5.2 Forest Types... eee wenn ner eeceencencancescesccecervesccece +7 6.0 Harvest and Transportation Costs..........e-.eeee cence eee ee 8 6.1 SUMMA... eee cee eee cee eee teeter ee eet e eee e tect ete enee 8 6.2 Interior Alaska Logging Costs.......... cece eee eee cece eee eee 8 6.3 Interior British Columbia Wood Costs............-.ceeee ee ceee 8 6.4 Small Scale Cost Estimation, Alaska..........ccee cece ee ences 3 6.5 'Base Case! Cord....-.. cece cece cece cece ence cece ence cee nnee 9 Reid, Coltrs ynneen qmencey weKiesny permeery sa ea em TET? cxsaee weewarsg porn, Beit. Collins 1.0 INTRODUCTION | In December, 1980, Reid, Collins submitted a proposal on wood fuel evaluation to R.W. Retherford and Associates, a division of International Engineering Company, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. An agreement was signed on January 9, 1981 with the January 16 completion date extended to January 23, 1981 at the request of Calvin Kerr, Reid, Collins Alaska Manager. The wood fuel evaluation will form part of R.W. Retherford's reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for thirteen western Alaska villages. The study will be submitted to the Alaska Power Authority and the State Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Reid, Collins gathered field information in October, 1980 for five of the ten villages in this report. These five are part of the Kuskokwim Village Corporation who granted approval for use of this data. 2.0 SUMMARY Reid, Collins developed wood fuel energy assessments for ten villages in Western Alaska. Base data for five Kuskokwim villages came from Reid, Collins field data; data for five Doyon villages was developed from existing maps, aerial photographs, and inventories. Significant quantities of wood energy are available. Totals for all ten villages indicate standing wood energy on 1,520,091 acres is 47,453 billion BTU's. Potential annual energy production on this same area is 571.9 billion BTU's. Cost estimates per delivered million BTU's ranges from $5.01 to $9.04, depending on access, harvest methodology and whether chips or round wood are desired. i q rows Rrecons, Reid, Collons prennesy, Meets. Prevery fowsreey ro prem, See 3.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT Reid, Collins is providing information on the wood fuel resource for the following villages: Kuskokwim Villages Doyon Villages Chuathbaluk Takotna Crooked Creek Nikolai Red Devil Telida Sleetmute Koyukuk Stony River Hughes Specifically, the scope of the project includes: ° determining wood fuel productivity classes for each village calculating areas for each wood fuel type determining standing type volumes by village Calculating standing wood fuel volumes in billions of BTU's determining potential wood fuel growth per year by wood fuel type in millions of BTU's evaluating costs of wood harvesting and transportation calculating costs per million BTU's for potential wood harvest systems 3.1 Methodology The standing forest resource within an approximate ten mile radius of each village was analyzed. Aerial photographs, type maps, and summary timber cruising data were available for Kuskokwim Corporation Villages. Aerial photographs, Spetzman forest ecosystem maps and published forest inventory figures were used in analyzing the Doyon Villages. But, Cltns 4.0 WOOD FUEL RESOURCES, KUSKOKWIM VILLAGES 4.1. 1. Total and annual potential wood energy is shown in Table 1. Current Annual Village Wood Energy Potential Available* Wood Energy Chuathbaluk 7,610 147.2 Crooked Creek 432 4.0 Red Devil 1,400 14.0 Sleetmute 8,042 84.4 Stony River 11,100 102.3: Total 28,584 351.9 *Units are billions of BTU's 4.1.2. Wood fuel acreages for the Kuskokwim Villages are shown in Table 2. | Productive Nonproductive Nonforest Total Village Forestland Forestland (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) | Chuathbaluk 36,050 57,515 107,497 201,062 | Crooked Creek 1,366 nla 199,696 201,062 | Red Devil 4, 348 1,836 136,098 142,282 : Sleetmute 24,499 17,857 93,786 136,142 j Stony River 35,156 nla 165,906 201,062 Total 101,419 77,208 702,983 881,610 Reid, Coltas RUPE porserms Frenne we pono ae Mm 4.2 Wood Fuel Types Wood fuel types near Chuathbaluk contain a standing utilizable volume {all species) of 1132 cubic feet per acre with 76% of that volume spruce and the rest hardwoods. Average breast high diameter (all species) is 10.1 inches and average height 47.5 feet. There are 128 trees per acre on the average; 74 are white spruce and 54 are hardwoods. Wood fuel types near Crooked Creek, Red Devil, Sleetmute and Stony River have a standing utilizable volume (all species) of 1934 cubic feet per acre with 82% of that volume spruce and the rest hardwoods. Average breast high diameter is 9.9 inches and average height 53.5 feet. There are 184 trees per acre; 110 are white spruce and 74 are hardwoods. These figures are based on Reid, Collins field data. Non-productive forest land had an estimated 100 cubic feet per acre (standing) based on analysis of field work for the NANA Corporation by the U.S. Forest Service. — Growth of productive forest types is 17.8 cubic feet per acre per year, based on U.S. Forest Service inventory data. Growth of non-productive forest land was estimated at 4.5 cubic feet per acre per year based on analysis of the NANA study. Site specific values will differ. Beit, Cllrs iene FURST RR prepaid een, eens 5.1 WOOD FUEL RESOURCES, DOYCN VILLAGES 5.1.1. Total and annual potential wood energy are shown in Table 3. | Current Annual Wood Village Wood Energy* Energy Potential* Nikolai 7,010 67.0. Takotna 1,760 16.2 Telida 4,931 53.3 | ' Koyukuk 4,939 80.1 | Hughes 229 3.4 Total 18,869 220.0 | *Units in billions of BTU's 5.1.2. Wood fuel types for the Doyon Villages are shown in Table 4. Productive Nonproductive Nonforest Total Village forest . forest (acres) (acres) (acres) Nikolai 21,948 4,257 79,927 106,132 Takotna 5,558 0 195,504 201,062 { Telida 14,909 13,543 95,995 124,447 | Koyukuk 24,704 12,203 75, 344 112,251 | Hughes 1,194 0 93, 395 94,589 | Total 68, 313 30,003 540,165 638,481 j Paid, Coltns Pom Kea Pont pavnears eonamsts wees earn arom roma ceatuae 5.2 Forest Types A standing volume of 1934 cubic feet per acre of all species was used for Nikolai, Takotna and Telida, based on Reid, Collins field data from Stony River. These stands are comparable in composition. A growth figure of 17.8 cubic feet per acre was used, based on U.S. Forest Service inventory data. A standing volume of 1173 cubic feet per acre of all species was derived for Koyukuk and Hughes from "Forest Statistics for the Upper Koyukuk River, 1971", by Karl Hegg, U.S. Forest Service. A growth figure of 17.6 cubic feet per acre per year was also used from the same document. Reid. Clr. a a eee wm aaeenien, acaRE PURER RRR sprean Pome WBA prea Red. Coldns 6.0 HARVEST AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS 6.1 Summary Wood cost per million BTU's for the system discussed following, are: Location Cost per Cord Cost_per 10° BTU's Interior Alaska $ 73.21 $5.01 Interior B.C. $ 73.09 $5.01 Mauneluk Level 1 $132.00 $9.04 Level 2 $ 92.00 $6.30. Level 3 $ 80.00 $5.48 6.2 Interior Alaska Loaging Costs Interior Alaska logging costs are $114.39 per thousand board feet, according to base figures from the University of Alaska, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management. These were adjusted to reflect 1980 cost increases, especially in fuel costs. Converting to cunits (100 cubic feet) from thousand board feet at a ratio of 2.0 to 1.0, this is a cost of $57.20 per cunit or $73.21 per cord (128 cubic feet). These figures are based on actual harvest operations near Fairbanks with road access. 6.3 Interior British Columbia Wood Costs Average total wood cost (delivered) in Interior B.C. was $39.00 per cunit in 1976 or $57.10 in 1980 at 10% inflation. This equals $73.09 per cord (Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Canada, 1977). Interior B.C. forests are very similar to Interior Alaska in harvest methods, yeild and topography. A significant difference would be increased handling due to river transportation and the lack of roads in Alaska. An poomaanry eae — array emery rman, wwe estimated cost for this form of transportation is $28.74 per cord or an additional $1.97 per million BTU's (from Galliett, Marks and Renshaw, 1980). 6.4 Small Scale Cost Estimation, Alaska The Mauneluk Association, NANA's non-profit organization, developed a 1979 cost estimate for appropriate level wood harvest techniques. Three levels were analyzed; the first was a labor intensive method with hand felling and snow machine yarding. The second method involved more specialized labor with a heavy duty Alpine Skidoo and the third was a large scale method with a Thiokol snow machine for log skidding. The calculated costs were: Level 1 - $132 per cord Level 2 - $ 92 per cord Level 3 - $ 80 per cord 6.5 'Base Case’ Cord Logging and transportation cost per million BTU's depends on species composition, moisture content, method of stacking, presence of bark, size of material and other factors. A ‘base cord' was developed for the villages under study based on Reid, Collins Kuskokwim field data. The three main species, spruce, birch and balsam popular, comprised 76.83, 14.3% and 8.9% of the base cord, respectively. The average weighted BTU value was 14.6 million BTU's per cord at 20% moisture content, a 90 cubic foot solid wood content, and derived values from a previous Alaska Power Authority study by Galliett, Marks and Renshaw. The APA study calculated a cost of $6.25 per million BTU's at the burn point. The fuel form was chips, not roundwood. bid, Collns APPENDIX H ASSESSMENT OF COAL, PEAT, AND PETROLEUM RESOURCE OF WESTERN ALASKA by C. C. Hawley and Asssociates, Inc. ASSESSNENT OF COAL, PEAT, AND PETROLEUN RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA prepared under contract to Robert W. Retherford Associates for the Alaska Power Authority by Gary Friedmann January 29, 1981 C. C. HAWLEY and ASSOCIATES, INC. (997) 349-4673 * 8740 Hartzell Road * Anchorage, Alaska 99507 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Come w ewe rere ree recerccccescvel I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS II. INTRODUCTION... cece cece cc ec eee ccc cree ee eee e ee cce ceed III. POTENTIAL COAL RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. Farewell Coal Field 1. HIStory... cece c ccc ecw ee cence ec eee ene eb 2. Current development. .... cece cece ee cee eG 3. GEOLOGY... ce cece cece cece vncccccceccceel a. Little Tonzona.... cee ee ee ee eB b. Upper tributaries to Deepbank Creek. .cceeececcr eee nD Cc. Windy Fork. ......c cece ee ee ee ell 4, Feasibility of Mining.........-2-22222-10 a. 4,000 tonsS/yre. i. cccceeeeee el b. 10,000 tonS/yreccccereeeeeeeel3 B. Yukon River, Blackburn-Nulato Occurrences L. HiStOry.. cece eee cece cece cece eee ee lh 2. GEOLOGY... cece ccccccccenvesencvcccccelt 3. The Williams Mine a. Collier's 1903 description...15 b. Feasibility of resuming MINING... eee ee eee ee eee wee ee lS i. 500 tons/yr......-...18 di. 1,440 tons/yr.......19 C. Kugruk River Coal FPiclG.. cc eee cece cece ee ee ee 20 Le. HiStOry...cccccccccr cece cccccceccseee ll 2. GEOLOGY. ccc eccccccccnveccccvccescsccenl 3. Economic Feasibility of a 900 tons/yr Mine at Chicago Creek... .. cece eee ee 23 a. Mining COStS.... cee ec ee eee oe 24 b, Transportation costs.........24 D. Coal Potential of the Hughes Area......eee2-+25 E. Usibelli Coal for Western Alaska.....-ee 00022258 IV. POTENTIAL PEAT RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA Be HiStOrye ccc ccc ccc ccccn ccc ccercccccecccccccee ll B. Location and Nature of Peatr.cccccccccceccce ee 289 C. Feasibility of Peat as a Fuecl....eeee cece e ee ee 29 Vv. OIL AND GAS RESOURCES ,OF WESTERN ALASKA... ceeecee ee 30 A. Existing Wells... ce cece cee ener creer er ec cece ee 30 B. Costs of Exploration..cccccccccccecccecececeedl C. Future Petroleum Development..cceccccccccceeed2 D. CONCLUSIONS. .. cc cer cccccccrecccccetr eee es ese dd VI. REFERENCES. .cccccvcccccccccr ers cconccenesesesesec ee dd APPENDICES Tables of Estimated Costs of Coal Appendix A. Farewell Area Coal Mine: 4,000 tons/yr.....40 Appendix B. Farewell Area Coal Mine: 10,000 tons/yr....42 Appendix C. Williams Coal Mine: 500 tonS/yr........02--44 Appendix D. Williams Coal Mine: 1,440 tons/yr........2-46 APPENDIX E. A Brief look at Usibelli Coal for Jestern Alaskarcccccccecccccccvcccvccecee ee 4& ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE I. Coal and Petroleum Resources of Western Alaska, Scale 1:2,500,000...........in pocket I. SUNNARY AND CONCLUSIONS Potential coal, peat, and oil and gas resources of western Alaska were evaluated for local use as alternatives to imported petroleum fuels to meet space heating and electric generation needs of thirteen villages. Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Russian Mission, Sheldon Point, Telida, Nikolai, Takotna, Stony River, Sleetmute, Red Devil, Crooked Creek, and Chuathbaluk were specifically addressed, but the towns of NeGrath, Aniak, and Bethel were considered as potential co-consumers of locally-produced coal for the purposes of economic feasibility. Over three dozen known and reported coal occurrences were evaluated for potential production. From existing data available on these resources, only three are considered to have sufficient quantities of mineable coal to supply village needs at competitive prices for at least twenty years. A steeply-dipping 50-foot.seam of subbituminous Tertiary coal has been mapped along strike for 15 miles on the north side of the Alaska Range between the Little Tonzona and Windy Fork Rivers near Farewell. A surface mine here could produce enough coal for eight villages on the Kuskokwin, or about 4,000 tons per year, for approximately $125 per ton at the mine. 15,000 tons of coal per year, or enough for the eight villages plus McGrath, Aniak, and Bethel, could be mined for about $66 per ton. Transportation costs would range from $40 to $80 per ton, depending on destination of the coal and type of road built from the mine to the Kuskokwim River. The cost of building such a roa@ is not included in this study. It appears feasible to reopen the Williams mine on the Yukon River, about 100 miles south of Koyukuk. Bituminous coal from the uniform 39-inch seam there could be mined underground at the rate of 500 to 1600 tons per year for fm bout $350 to $200 per ton. Five hundred tons per year would supply al] the energy requirements of Koyukuk; 1600 tons would meet the annual needs of Russian Hission and Sheldon Point as well. Transportation costs are not included, but would range from $10 to $25 per ton by river barge. Chicago Creek lignite could be mined for about $160 per ton to meet Buckland's energy requirements. Because of the small scale of mining, low BTU's per pound, and transportation costs of $40 to $100 per ton, the price would probably be marginally to non-competitive with liquid fuels, Chicago Creek coal is deemed to be economic for use by Buckland should a large-scale mining operation be undertaken to £uel production of electricity for Kotzebue. Hughes is the only village covered in this study for which coal is considered to be an unviable energy resource in the foreseeable future. On a scale of 5,000 to 50,000 tons per year or more, subbituminous coal from Usibelli's Healy mine could probably be delivered to all of the villages included in this study, except Hughes, for $50 to $125 per ton. While peat is a resource widely available to the villages in this study, no current information exists on the costs of harvesting and burning peat in Alaska. Large-scale peat-harvesting operations in the lower 48 states sell peat for agricultural purposes for as little as $20 per ton. Short harvesting seasons, permafrost problems, and lack of Gefinition of the resource make it difficult to assess the potential of peat harvesting in the near future. Villages with high potential for deep, fuel-grade peat resources within three miles include Buckland, sheldon Point, Telida, Nikolai, Takotna, Sleetmute, and Stony River. Since peat appears to be harvestable at roughly the same or less cost for which coal is mined, the reduced transportation expenses, which account for as much as 50 to 75% of the total cost of coal delivered to western Alaska, strongly suggest that pilot projects, such as that proposed for Dillingham by the Division of Energy and Power Development, be undertaken to test the viability of this fuel resource for villages. No local sources of oil or gas exist as feasible alternatives to presently imported petroleum products for western Alaska. > II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to inventory and evaluate in general the coal, peat, and petroleum resources locally available to thirteen selected western villages. This objective was achieved through review of literature available on these subjects and by discussion with persons whe have experience in production and development of solid and liquid organic fuels. The dollar-per-ton figures that follow are estimates derived from well controlled and efficient local operations. Based on the experience of the author and his associates, and on the additional input from Alaskans noted in the References of Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts, pages 35-39, the estimates are believed to be within 30 percent of likely mine cost conducted on a local scale by an experienced contractor. Such costs do not assume the profit level desired by a prudent business. In this sense, in order to realize anticipated costs, an effective subsidy by a local government may be required. III. POTENTIAL COAL RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. Farewell Coal Field Histor Coal-bearing rocks in the Farewell area were identified as far back as 1902 (Brooks, 1911), but the first geologist to focus on the coal resources of the gently sloping piedmont north of the Alaska Range was Gary Player. “In a 1970 helicopter reconnaissance for Gulf Oil, Player recognized a trend of coal beds roughly parallel to the Farewell Fault exposed in stream-bank outcrops of Tertiary rocks. In 1976 Player returned to the Farewell area as a consultant to the Bureau of Mines to study known outcrops and explore for additional exposures of coal (Player, 1977). The most detailed published descriptions of the Farewell field resulted from a brief reconnaisance survey for coal conducted in the Minchumina Basin by the U. S. Geological Survey in 1877 (Sloan and others, 1979). 2. Current Development Doyon Native Corporation, which has selected the Ferewell-area coal-bearing lands, has entered into a joint venture agreement with Canadian Superior to develop the Farewell coal field. In 1980 Canadian Superior carried out a detailed mapping and sampling program in the area between the Little Tonzona and Kuskokwim South Fork Rivers (Navin Sharma, University of Alaska School of Nining Engineering, oral communication, 1981). Drilling and seismic exploration are planned for 1981, with bulk sampling and pilot mining possible in 1982. The Doyon-Canadian Superior venture aims to develop coal resources sufficient to supply an East or Southeast Asian import market of the million-ton-per-year magnitude, 3, Geology The Farewell coal field occurs on the southeastern edge of the Minchumina Basin, a lowland covered with coarse granular sediments deposited in glacial moraines, outwash Slopes, floodplains, and alluvial fans. The basin extends from near McGrath to Lake Hinchumina on the north, and slopes northward from the Alaska Range on the south (Plate I). On the southern edge of the Minchumina Basin, coal beds occur in Tertiary nonmarine sandstone, siltstone, and volcanic rocks in widespread isolated exposures north and south of the Parewell Fault from Big River northeast to Kantishna and beyond. Outcrops are limited to residual hills, river bluffs, and small stream valleys where erosion of surface gravels has exposed the bedrock. The Farewell Fault, a right-lateral strike-slip component of the Denali Fault System, separates the Hinchumina Basin from the Alaska Range. It is the major structural feature in the area and is probably responsible for the tilting, minor bedding plane faults, and folding of the coal-bearing stata that lie north of the fault (Sloan, 1877). a. Little Tonzona Coal, The coal at Little Tonzona River crops out in a bank extending about 25 feet above the southwest side of the floodplain. The Tertiary strata strike N75B and dip 47-63 degrees MI. Three minor bedding plane rh S aults are associated with drag folds in the 195 feet of exposed section, but the beds are not significantly offset or repeated by faulting (Player, 1977). Seven seams of coal each at least three feet thick are exposed in this outcrop, totalling 100 feet of clean subbituminous coal with 21.5 feet of dirty coal. Outcrop is ebscured for an additional 60 feet, and coal float and isolated thin outcrops of coal extend another 90 feet upstream from the massive Tertiary exposures. Sharma (oral comm., 1961) reports that 1980 field work docunented@ 520 feet of Tertiary coal-bearing strata in 15 n QO suare miles mapped in the Little Tonzona area. 478 feet of this section consists of subbituminous coal with intermittent zones of vitrain and clay; the remaining 42 feet consists of clastic sediments with minor bed of lignite. Three other outcrops in this area were found on the same strike as the river outcrop. An estimated 50-foot-wide seam of mineable coal under 3 to 10 feet of flat-lying terrace gravel overburden is projected for up to 15 miles along strike (Sharma, oral comm., 1981). Large-scale mining would be expedited if the dip of the strata shallows out with distance to the north from the Farewell Fault, and 1981 seismic work is aimed at testing this hypothesis. Analyses show this coal to be somewhat higher in rank and quality than the Tertiary coals of the Nenana Field. Heating values range from 7,850 to 11,700 BTU's per pound, with the most reliable values for fresh, unweathered coal in the 10,000+ BTU's range (Rao and Wolff, 1980). Ash content is relatively low - 5 to 88 - while sulfur content is higher than many Alaskan coals: 1.1 to 1.7%. b. Upper Tributaries of Deepbank Creek, Outcrops here are scarce; coal beds are the dominant outcrop-forming rock, usually occurring in three- to five-foot outcrops of highly weathered coal. Sloan (1979) measured two sections with a 4.5-foot coal seam striking N35E and dipping 38 degrees iN, and a 21-foot coal seam striking N6OE and dipping 48-55 degrees Mi7. Deepbank Creek coal is sinilar to Little Tonzona coal, with lower sulfur: 0.3 to 1.0%. c, Windy Fork Coal. Thick beds of bony coal crop out along the west bank of the Windy Fork of the Kuskokwin River, Sloan (1979) measured 880 feet of stratigraphic section here on the west limb of a north-trending syncline. Analyses of samples from this section show Windy Fork- coal to be the lowest in quality of the Farewell coals. Ash content was very high - 30 to 60% - with correspondingly low heating values: 4,100 to 8,400 BIU's per pound. Sulfur levels were 0.1 to Q.48. 4, Feasibility of Hining The Little Tonzona occurrence is about 150 air miles northwest of Anchorage and 27 miles northeast of Farewell landing strip. No facilities for the transportation of bulk commodities exist near Farewell; some kind of road would have to be built from the Kuskokwim River near NcGrath or Farewell Landing to the coal beds to facilitate development and mining. If the Farewell coal field is Geveloped for export, it will be on such a scale as to justify year-round surface access to the mine site, with a transportation corridor probably including the Kuskokwim River Cownstream to the 10 ocean port of Bethel. This scenario, not to be realized before 1990, would easily provide coal for all the Kuskokwim villages included in this study at e cost of less than $50/ton (1981 dollars). The feasibility studies for mining Farewell coal discussed in this report are based on two levels of production: a) 4,000 tons per year, at 40 tons per day for 100 days - enough coal to supply the eight Kuskokwin villages; b) 15,000 tons per year, at 150 tons per Gay for 100 days ~ enough coal for the eight villages plus NcGrath, Aniak, and Bethel. Both models assume that surface mining will take place during summer months, stockpiling coal for winter shipment overland to the Kuskokwim, and barging coal to villages the following summer. Road-building costs are not included in this feasibility study because it is expected that Canadian Superior/Doyon would construct a road to the Farewell area in ‘the course of Gevelopment, or that the State will take an interest in some or all phases of road construction and maintenance. The annual cost of constructing and maintaining a minimal winter ice road would be $5,000 to $15,000/mile (Ray Farrar of Ray's Equipment, Anchorage, oral comm., 1981), or assuming 50 miles from Windy Fork and 75 miles from Little Tonzona, $25 to $250/ton, if the burden were born only by production for local use. Construction and maintenance of an all-weather road would cost 20 to 40 times that amount 11 (nodified from Clark, 1973). The winter haulage of coal by truck would add an additional $30 to $45/ton. Back-haul barging on the river would range from $10 to $35/ton depending on destination (Jin Hoffman, United Transportation Company, Bethel, oral comn., 1981). Royalties and taxes are not estimated in this study. Rach model also assumes: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 8 hours/day, 5 day work week Coal density approx.= 80 lb/cubic foot 3 to 10 feet of easily-removed overburden 40-foot wide seam mined 20 feet deep buildings for shop and nill movable camp facilities for miners and fanilies 5 year capital write-off (life of all equipment and buildings) Mostly used (1977-78) equipment a. 4,000 tpy Assume: 1) 2 miners and 2 family members 2) WNan-days/ week of following activities: Renoving overburden Drilling and blasting coal Removing and loading coal Milling Maintenance, repairs, tending stockpiles, etc. NN WED 12 Exploration and Development Cost Summary $10.00/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, canp, buildings, equipment) Interest and insurance Hining Food and commisary Reclamation SUBTOTAL 10% contingency Transportation TOTAL b. 15,000 tpy Assume: 1) 40.00 25.00 25.50 4.00 8.00 $112.50 11.25 $45-80.00 $168-$203.75/ton 5 miners/operators, 1 camp hand and 5 family members 2) Man-days/ week 5 3.5 5 5 5 Exploration and Development of following activities: Removing overburden Drilling and blasting coal Removing and loading coal Milling Haintenance, repairs, tending stockpiles, etc. Cost Summary $6.00/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, camp, buildings, equipment) Interest and insurance Hining Food and commisary Reclamation SUBTOTAL 10% contingency Transportation TOTAL 14.00 8.50 24.00 3.00 5.00 $60.50 6.05 $40-$70,00 $105-$136.55/ton 13 B. Yukon River, Blackburn-Nulato Occurrences 1, History Seven coal occurrences on the Yukon River between Ruby and Blackburn were mined for steamboat fuel from 1898 to about 1802. Several thousand tons were produced, but the only mines with appreciable resources were the Williams and the Number 1. The mines were examined in 1902 by Collier (1903), and have been examined since by several geologists, including Chapman (1963) and Gallett and Marks (1979). No production except. for very limited local use has taken place since about 1902, and none is currently contemplated. 2. Geology Bituminous and subbituminous coal beds are found in the Late Cretaceous Kaltag Formation, a predominantly nonmarine sequence of sandstone, siltstone, and shale (Chapman, 1963). This area of the Yukon River is: characterized by rounded hills and relatively soft bedrock heavily covered by trees and other vegetation, with outcrops aliost entirely limited to bluffs along the Yukon. Folding and faulting are common in this region, and the structure is locally complex. The regional trend of folds in the Cretaceous strata is N50£, with beds dipping from 20 to 60 degrees (Chapman, 1963). The coal beds are relatively thin and irregular in thickness, even pinching out locally within short distances. fhe thickest bed reported is 39 inches, and another contains pockets that are eight feet thick; most of the beds are less than two feet thick (Collier, 1903). “Phe coal is highly fractured, friable, and slacks rapidly on exposure to air and drying (Chapman, 1963). Drainage is a major problem in mining these coals, since the beds tend to dip under the river level, as at the Number 1 mine. The steep dip of beds precludes strip mining in most cases. Despite these characteristics, the coal is a good grade of bituminous -- average analyses indicating 2% moisture, 25% volatile matter, 65% fixed carbon, 7% ash, and .6% sulfur (Gallett and Marks, 1979). 3, The Williams Mine a, Collier's 1903 description, The Williams Mine was on the west bank of the Yukon River about 50 miles downstream fron Kaltag and about five miles upstream from a river bluff landslide known as Eagle Slide. Up to the time that Collier visited the mine in 1902, about 1,700 tons of coal had been mined. A drift had been driven 400 feet into the bluff on a 39-inch bed of bituminous coal which showed no change in strike or thickness and was divided by a thin clay parting. 15 Since the mine has been abandoned the portal and coal bed have been completely obscured by slumping of the bank. The coal bed strikes N70] and dips about 45 degrees NE. Only one workable seam has been found, but Collier speculated that "other seams of commercial importance" could exist. Most of the coal was stoped from above the drift, with coal cars carrying coal to the mine mouth. From the dump the coal was wheelbarrowed onto steamers. Fifteen men, mostly experienced miners from Washington State, were enployed Guring the summer months that the mine operated, b, Feasibility of resuming mining, Simple calculations of probable coal reserves remaining at the Williams Mine can be made by calculating volumes of coal based on a given, uniform seam thickness of 39 inches, an assumed mineable width of 60 feet, and extension along strike of 2,000 feet. Assuming an average weight of coal to be 80 lbs/cu ft, every foot along strike would contain about eight tons of recoverable coal. This model yields an estimated nine reserve of 16,000 tons, less the 1,700 tons mined, or about 14,000 tons remaining. Collier speculated, "Should demand warrant it, a slope will probably be driven to lower levels and a hoisting and pumping plant be provided. With such an equipment this mine could no doubt supply all the demand for coal on this part of the Yukon for many years to come." (1903, p.56). This indicates 16 neon that earlier mining did not even tap the down-dip reserves from the existing adit. The 1979 energy demand of Koyukuk was equivalent to 450 tpy of 11,009 BTU's/1b Williams iine coal. The 1979 requirements of Sheldon Point, 525 tpy, and Russian Mission, 600 tpy, combined with Koyukuk are estimated at 1500-1600 tpy. Thus, two scenarios have been constructed, and kept to very small-scale operations because of indications of minimal reserves. The nature of the coal dictates that underground mining methods be used, and because only a single, fairly small seam is present, the cost of the coal is predestined to oY be very high. However, should exploration work discover more seans or Gelineate greater reserves along strike or dip, the size of the mining operation could increase to supply inore villages on the Yukon, reduce the per-ton cost of mining, and still have enough coal for at least 20 years of steady production. Collier's comments on mining conditions at Williams Mine are pertinent here. ‘loodlands around the nine provided convenient timber for mine sets. Mo gas was encountered; air uw shafts to the surface were used for easy ventilation. Pernafrost had not been encountered. a o $2 2 oO ou Both mining plans ar on the following assunptions: 1) Warm weather mining and shipping of coal; 2) Purchase of mostly used (1977-78) equipment; 3) Overlapping State and Native land selections over the Williams coal seam would not hamper feasibility of mining; Transportation costs are not included, but would probably range from $10 to $25/ton for river barging, depending on destination, availability of back-haul and bulk-tonnage rates, cost of leasing a barge, and amount of coal shipped. Cost Summary Exploration and Development (3-yr write-off) $17,500 $12.00/ton Capitel Expenses (Infrastructure, camp, buildings, equipment - 10- year write-off) 230,500 65.84 Interest and insurance (12%) 27,660 55.32 Operating Costs a) 2 miners $125/day or $25/ton, whichever is more (max. $31,250) $62.50 b) Food and commisary for 4 people $20/day * 150 days ($12,000) 24.00 c) Fuel 75 gal/day * 125 days ($18,500) 37.50 a) Mining supplies ($14,590) 29.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($5,000) 10.00 £) Freight and transport ($2,509) 5.00 G) Reclamation & permits ($5,900) 10.00 SUBTOTAL $178.00 178.00 TAL $321.16 contingency 32.11 portation $10-$25,00 ID TOTAL $353-$378.27/ton 1€ ii. 1,600 tpy Cost Summary Exploration and Development (3-yxr write-off) $60,000 $12.50/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, camp, buildings, equipment - 8- year write-off) 300,500 23.50 Interest and insurance (123) 36,060 22.50 Operating Costs ; a) 1 foreman $160/day, 1 miner $150/day, 2 helpers $125/day * 130 days = $75,600 max, or incentive $40-$45/crew ton $47.25 b) Food and commisary for 8 people $20/day * 160 days ($25,600) 16.00 c) Fuel 125 gal/day * 160 days = 20,000 gal * $2 = $40,000 or 25.00 da) Mining supplies ($32,000) 20.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($10,000) 6.25 f) Preight and transport ($5,000) 3.25 g) Reclamation & permits ($10,000) - 6,25 SUBTOTAL $124.00 124.00 TOTAL $182.50 10% contingency 18.25 Transportation $20-$25,00 GRAND TOTAL . $210-$225.75/ton 19 C. Kugruk River Coal Pield The only potentially economic source of coal for Buckland is that of the Kugruk River coal field, 70 air miles west of the village (Plate I). A small-scale mine here would have to be underground and would cost as least as much to operate as the Williams Nine. Because the coal is lower grade and transportation is more difficult than at the “Williams Mine, it is probable that Kugruk coal would only be used in Buckland as a spin-off benefit of large- scale mining for power generation in the Kotzebue area. Nearly all Seward Peninsula coal deposits were discovered near the turn of the century by gold prospectors and U.S. Geological Survey geologists. While coal was mined from several locations on the Seward Peninsula, the vast majority of the 110,000+ tons mined was from the Chicago Creek area. No attempts have been made to explore, develop, or otherwise evaluate the coal resources of this area recently, because of the widespread and preferred use of fuel oil for local energy requirements (Smith and others, 1980). Presently, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys has plans to map, trench, and sample the Chicago Creek Field in 1981 (Gill Eakins, oral comm., 1981). 20 Potential coal resources of the Kugruk area have been difficult to assess because of heavy vegetative cover and limited available data. Even the Chicago Creek field may be of small areal extent because of steeply dipping beds and complicated structures (Smith and others, 1980). 2, Geology The Kugruk River deposits are lignitic coals of late Cretaceous age. They are exposed in seams dipping from 45 to 70 degrees and in widths to 80 feet near the tributaries of Chicago, Reindeer, Montana, Mina, and Independence Creeks (Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1980). The coals were once mined in the early 1900's from workings near Chicago and Reindeer Creeks. These coals range in heat content from 6,200 to 6,800 BTU's/1b, and average 30-358 in moisture content. Although it required nearly twice as much volume as the higher-quality imported coals, the Kugruk coals were found adequate to fire boilers of numerous placer gold mining operatons in the area, An analysis of the coal from the Chicago Creek area is as follows (after Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1980): 21 % Fixed Carbon 19.2 Volatile Hydrocarbons 39.0 Hoisture 33.8 Ash 7.1 Sulfur 0.9 100.0 Heating value: 6,825 BTU's/1b At Chicago Creek, the main seam strikes about NOW and dips 45 to 53 degrees westward. Between 1902 and 1908, 60,000 to 100,000 tons of coal were mined from a slope and crosscuts which extended over 300 feet underground. A similar but smaller-scale mining venture occurred at the George Wallin mine about 4 miles up the Kugruk River near Reindeer Creek. Between these two mines, scattered exposures of coal have been noted, and exploration at the Chicago Creek claim block inGicated that the main seam was continuous for at least 1/2 mile, at which point it was about 70 feet below the surface. The coal beds dip more steeply upstream from Chicago Creek, reaching 70 degrees at the George Yiallin mine. With little other information available, it seems likely that the coal beds would be relatively continuous along the eastern banks of the Kugruk. Since the coal beds (bed?) that were exposed are from 50 to 80 feet in width, the potential amount of coal in the area is substantial (Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1980). 22 at Assuming Buckland's total electric and heating energy requirements to be 15.5 billion BTU's annually, 1250 tpy of Chicago Creek lignite at 6,200 BTU's/1lb would be required. This small quantity would have to be mined by an underground operation very similar to the 500 tpy program designed for the Williams Mine. Because of the much greater size of the Chicago Creek seam, the rate of coal recovery would at least double that of the Williams Mine. The following cost summary assumes that two men will be mining ten tons of coal per day for the same mining, milling, and capital expenses as Williams Mine, with 1250 tons of coal mined in 125 days. 23 a. Approximate mining costs Cost Summary Exploration and Development (3-yr write-off) $40,000 $10.67/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, canp, buildings, equipment - 8- / year write-off) 230,500 23.05 Interest and insurance(123) 27,660 22.13 Operating Costs a) 2 miners $125/day or $15/ton, whichever is more (max. $37,509) $30.00 b) Food and commisary for 4 people $20/day * 140 days ($11,200) - 8.96 c) Fuel 75 gal/day * 140 days ($21,000) 16.80 d) Hining supplies ($20,000) 16.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($6,500) 5.20 £) Preight and transport ($7,000) 5.60 g) Reclamation & permits ($6,250) _ 5.90 . SUBTOTAL $87.56 87.56 TOTAL $143.41 10% contingency ° , 14.34 GRAND TOTAL $157.75/ton b, Transportation costs, Coal would have to be stockpiled an@ hauled to Deering on Kotzebue Sound in the winter for barging to Buckland the following summer, Winter hauling over the 15 miles to Deering would cost at least $25/ton, and barging the remaining 125 miles would probably double this figure. Therefore, with transportation costs adding $40 to $100/ton, the cost of Chicago Creek coal to Buckland ranges from $196 to $258/ton. 24 D. Coal Potential. of the Hughes Area Lack of economical surface transportation to Hughes makes coal an untenable energy resource at present. No coal occurrences of proven quantity are known to exist closer than 80 air miles from Hughes, although several deposits have been located within a 150-mile radius. 25 E. Usibelli Coal for Western Alaska Plans are now being generated for the construction of bulk coal-handling facilities in Anchorage, Whittier, and Seward (Jones and Gray, 1981). Even without these facilities, limited quantities of Usibelli coal: can be shipped to western Alaska at very competitive prices. Feasibility presented here is based on the following arameters: Pp 1) Cost of high-quality, approx. 8,500 BTU's/lb, coal at Healy $23 .00/ton 2) Rail tariff, Healy to Seward _ 10.15 3) Handling at docks at Seward and Bethel 5.09 4) Barge, Seward to Bethel 24.24 8,000 tons (1 load) = $24.24 16,000 tons (2 loads) $17.74 24,000 tons (3 loads) $15.57 wou 5) River Barge to villages upstream on Kuskokwim = $15 to $50(?)/ton 30.00 $92.39/ton Therefore, large quantities of coal can presently be delivered to Bethel for $53.72 to $62.39/ton, and to villages upstream for about $15 to $50/ton above that. Ocean barging rates are 1981 quoted lease costs from Marine Leasing Corporation, Seattle. Since river barges were not available for lease at the time of this study, rates are extrapolated from regular tariffs supplied by United Transportation Company, Bethel. 26 IV. POTENTIAL PEAT RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. History Little information exists on the subject of peat as a fuel resource for Alaska. Probably the first published suggestion of peat for fuel in Alaska came econ eras A. Davis of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1909. Dachnowski-Stokes of the U.S. Department of Agriculture summarized the general features of peat deposits in Alaska in 1941. While these reports discuss costs and methods of peat production, they are outdated, Most recent work on peat has focused on the biology and ecology of peat deposits. Other states, such as Minnesota, have sponsored peat study and Gevelopment programs (Northern Technical Services and EKONO, Inc., 1980), but information on these projects was not available for this study . Finland, Ireland, and Japan extensively use peat as a fuel, but information from these countries is also difficult to obtain (Robert Huck, Northern Technical Services, oral comm., 1980). Since about 1979 the U.S. Department of Energy has sponsored studies on the use of peat aS an energy resource. This has resulted in general studies so far, such as the 27 Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental Issues on the Use of eat as an Ener Source (King and others, 1980), and Peat Resource Estimation 1 1. asrna (Sorthern Technical Services and EXONO, Inc., 1980). B. Location and Nature of Peat Northern Technical Services and EKONO, Inc. (1980) indicated that substantial deposits of fuel-grade peat deeper than five feet occur within three miles of the following villages: Buckland, Sheldon Point, Telida, Nicolai, Takotna, Sleetmute, and Stony River. The same report Goes not rule out the possibility that smaller, isolated peat deposits with potential for limited local production may exist near other villages in this study. King and others (1980) indicated that small peatlands in close to moderate proximity to each other are located along the Yukon, Keyukuk, and Kuskokwim River lowlands. Peat is partly decomposed vegetable matter that, when properly prepared and air dried, burns freely and produces more heat than most wood, but not so much as good-quality bituminous coal. The chief difficulty in using peat for a fuel is that it is almost always saturated with water as it occurs naturally, and has to be dried before it can be burned. 28 C. Feasibility of Peat as a Fuel Dry-peat harvesting could be conducted only in late spring and pene - 20 to 50 days - in arctic and subarctic environments. If frozen when wet, peat bricks fall to pieces easily and become hard to handle. Harvesting peat from permafrost presents technical problens of as yet unknown impact. Correctly drained peatland could probably supply sufficient quantities of fuel for small energy facilities in western Alaska (King and others, 1980). Winter harvesting - and freeze-drying ~ of peat is a possibility suited to Alaska that has not yet been tested. Present peat production in the lower 48 states is about one million tons per year, with the average value per ton before shipping around $20 (lickelsen, 1977). Almost all peat in the United States is harvested with conventional or modified conventional earthmoving and excavating machinery. Since the surface of a peat bog is unstable, roads are built across the bog for trucks to travel on. Nearly all peat in the United States is harvested for agricultural use, although gasification of peat for electric power generation is being tested (tMickelsen, 1977). A 1 MY steam boiler would require approximately 25 acres of peat at six-foot depth over 20 years (King and others, 1980). Therefore, it is theoretically possible that heat and - electricity could be generated for the villages in this study with only ea few acres of nearby peat of sufficient depth. V. OIL AND GAS RESOURCES OF WESTER ALASKA There are three approaches to supplying the villages with oil or gas aside from the current supply of petroleun derivatives: A. Use existing wells which have a record of oil or gas shows to supply or augment villase needs. B. Carry out an exploration program to locate, drill, and produce petroleum to meet village requirements; C. Await future oil and gas Gevelopments and hope there will be some villages adjacent to productive sites which may share with villages. 30 A. Existing Wells Exploratory wells and stratigraphic test holes Grilled in west-central Alaska were unsuccessful, rarely showing any- Sign of oil or gas. Of eighteen wells drilled within the study area, data for eight of these are available and were reviewed at the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in Anchorage. Drill hole reports, electric logs and mud logs from these eight wells indicate no exploitable oil or gas shows. No known exploration activity is planned for the near future. B. Costs of Exploration The least expensive drilling program envisaged would involve at least four wells for a minimum cost per well figure, there being a discount for a four well or more program (Max Brewer, oral comm., 1981). Seasonal operation would be dictated by environmental and access conditions — winter only for soft tundra and muskeg. For a small program, the drill rig would be leased with crew; occasional larger programs may find costs minimized by purchasing the drill rig. A lease@ drill rig, capable of drilling to about 6,000 feet at optimum rates with few breakdowns would have a costing list as follows: 31 1. Drilling--depending on contract, paid as time while drilling only. 2. Tools and spare parts--negotiable. 3. Pipe, Rig Support, Coring--service companies and all their equipment. 4. @Transportation--personnel and rig. 5. Testing--if any, necessary to prove the show and evaluate reserves, 6. Professional costs to survey site and comply with federal and state regulations. The costs of a shallow gas or oil hole 2,000 feet deep, with a simple casing, testing, and minimum costs to make hole ready for tapping or production is about $700,000 (Chat Chatterton, oral comm., 1981). The Grilling industry as any other equipment and labor intensive industry may be beset by conditions or breakdowns, weather, parts or personnel, the failure of which may cause the quoted absolute mininun costing to triple. A more realistic baseline figure would be in excess of $1 million. This costing would be for onshore work only; offshore drilling is more expensive by far than onshore work. Support costs for a semi-submersible drill rig would not fall below $100,000.00 per day (Max Brewer, oral comm., 1981). Of the interior lowland basins, the Holitna, Ninchumina, Innoko, and Tanana basins are most likely to have shallow gas deposits for local consumption, but they are very low on the 32 list for future development (Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977). C. Future Petroleum Development Plate I shows the possible petroleum basins near the villages, their probable order of development and an approximate date of that development. If the "wait-and-see"” approach is selected for the supply of natural oil or gas, the earliest date any of the villages may be able to claim or share some local reserve would be later than 1990, according to petroleum exploration and development experts of both state and industry (Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977). D. Conclusicns 1. To date, there are no existing wells suitable to supply or augment village needs. 2. Exploration programs to develop any reserves are extremely costly, wells costing in excess of $1 million each. Villages or village corporations are unlikely to be able to afford such high-risk capital. 3. Very little exploration by the oil industry is 33 expected near any of the villages until 1990 or later. Only when the cost of oil has doubled or tripled will such exploration programs appear viable. 4, Most muskeg or marshland basins will have shows of - marsh gas. This methane rich gas is derived from rotting organic debris on recent basin bottoms. It burns cleanly and easily, however, reservoirs of this gas are, by their nature, snall, sporadic, and difficult to tap. It is unlikely that any significant contribution to energy supplies in these villages will be made by marsh gas. 34 VI. REFERENCES Coal Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts Eakins, G., Information on the Kugruk coal fields and State of Alaska plans for exploration there: State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 479-7147, Fairbanks. Farrar, R., Information on costs of construction and maintenance : of winter ice roads: Ray's Equipment, 344-1088, Anchorage. Frost, S., Information on the terrain and feasibility of an ice road in the Farewell area: Proprietor, Farewell Lake Lodge, 344-5482, Anchorage. Gallager, J., Information on Doyon-Canadian Superior joint venture on development of the Farewell coal field: Arctic Resources, Inc, Anchorage. Gallett and Marks, 1979, Nulato coal field reconnaisance report: study for the Alaska Power Authority, p. 1-5. Hoffman, J., Information on barging costs and logistics on the Kuskokwim River: United Transportation Company, Bethel. Hacine Leasing Corporation, Information on costs and logistics of barging coal from Seward or Whittier to Bethel: 205-632-1441, Seattle. Player, G., 1977, The Little Tonzona coal bed near Farewell, Alaska - an important extension of the coal fields north of the Alaska Range: report by Gary Player Ventures, 17 p. Saunders, R., Information on coal development in Alaska: Diamond Shamrock, Anchorage. 35 Sharma, Ne, Information on recent work in the Farewell coal field: University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of Hining Engineering Naster's Degree Candidate. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Hanagement, Information on the land status of the Williams and Chicago Creek Mines: Anchorage Public Information Office, Federal Building. Published Reports Barnes, F.F., 1967, Coal resources of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1242-B, 36 p. and 1 plate. Brooks, A.H., 1911, The Mount McKinley region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 70. Chapman, R.M., 1963, Coal deposits along the Yukon River between Ruby and Anvik, Alaska, in Contributions to economic geology of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1155, p. 18-29. Clark, P.R., 1973, Transportation economics of coal resources of Northern Slope coal fieqds, Alaska: Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 134 p. Collier, A.J., 1903, The coal resources of the Yukon, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 218, p. 36-67. Coonrad, W.L., 1957, Geologic reconnaisance in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Investigations Nap I-223, Scale 1:500,000. Gropp, D.L., Fisher, L.A., and Steeby, C.H., 1980, Assessment of power generation alternatives for Kotzebue: Alaska Power Authority. Jones, F.H. and Gray, J., 1981, Coal transport infrastructure recuirements: a paper presented to the Resource Development Council's Alaska Coal Marketing Conference, January 23, 19€1, Anchorage, 9 p. 36 Joyce, C.R., 1960, Final federal surface mining regulations: MceGraw Hill, Washington, D.C., 165 p. Nertie, J.B., Jr. and Harrington, G.L.,.1924, The Ruby-Kuskokwin region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 754, p. 84, 115-120. Reo, P.D., and Wolff, E.N., 1980, Characterization and evaluation of washability of Alaskan coals: University of Alaska Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Fairbanks, for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Coal Nining, 47 p. Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1979, Bristol Bay energy and electric power potential: U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration. Sloan, E.G., Shearer, G.B., Eason, J.E., and Almquist, C.L., 1979, Reconnaisance survey for coal near Farewell, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Report 75-410, 18 p. and 4 plates. : Smith, P.S., 1915, Mineral resources of the Lake Clark-Iditarod region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 622, p. 247-271. Smith, P.S. and Mertie, J.B., dr., 1930, Geology and mineral resources of northwest Alaska: U.S.' Geol. Survey Bull. 615, p. 316. Smith, W.H., Hoffman, B.L., Solie, D.N., Frankhauser, R.E., and Chipp, E.R., 1980, Coal resources of northwest Alaska: A subcontract to Dames and Moore for the Alaska Power Authority, 217 p. and 4 plates. State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development, 1979, Community energy survey, 47 Pp. 37 Peat Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts Huck, Robert, Northern Technical Services, 750 West 2nd Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, 276-4302. Published Reports Dachnowski-Stokes, A.P., 1941, Peat Resources in Alaska: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Tech. Bull. 769, 84 p. Davis, C.A., 1909, The possible use of peat fuel in Alaska, in Brooks, A.H., Mineral resources of Alaska, report on progress of investigations in 1908: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 379, p. 63-66. Zing, R., and others, 1980, Preliminary evaluation of environmental issues on the use of peat as an energy source: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Division of Fossil Fuel Processing, p. 2-6 to 2-30 and 4-3 to 4-8. Mickelsen, D.P., 1977, Peat, in Bureau of liines Hinerals Yearbook, Volume I, p. 1-5. Northern Technical Services and EXONO, Inc., 1980, Peat resource estimation in Alaska: under contract to State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development; prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Division of Fossil Energy, 107 p. and 2 plates. Oil _ and Gas Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts 38 Alaska Division of Minerals and Energy lanagement, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 701 W. Northern Lights Blivd., Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Location of oil and gas wells in Alaska, Tesoro Building, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Well data and logs, State of Alaska Department of Administration, 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, Alaska. Brever, M., Cost estimates and logistics for oil field development, Husky Oil Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Chatterton, C.V., Cost estimates and logistics of petroleun development, Rowland Drilling Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Published Reports Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977, Alaska regional energy resources planning project - phase 1, volume I, Alaska's energy resources findings and analysis, final report: U.S. Energy Reseach and Development Administration. 1977, Alaska regional energy resource planning project -— phase 1, volume II, Alaska's energy resources: inventory of oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and uranium resources, final report: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Miller, D.J., Payne, T.G., and Gryc,G., 1959, Geology of possible petroleum provinces in Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1094, 131 p. and 6 plates. Selkrega, Lidia L., 1977, Alaska regional profiles, Volume VI: Yukon region: University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. APPENDIX I Review Agency Comments APA 25/N1 Review Comments of Draft Report ° Department of the Army - Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ° United States Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service ° Department of Energy - Alaska Power Administration 0 Response to Comments. ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY i) REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 3 PR 19 Bi NPAEN-PL-R A RECEIVED > 1981 Mr. Eric P. Yould apr ? 19 Executive Director OWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority ALASKA P 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 3] Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have completed our review of the draft report for the Reconnaissance Stud of Energy Resource Alternatives for Thirteen Western Alaska Vi ages by Robert W. Retherford Associates. The report appears to need additional work in the areas of organization and editing. The ability to easily find required data is limited. We have attached a representative list of comments on the report. However, the apparent lack of organization makes it difficult to review the report ina more complete manner. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Dale Olson at 752-3461. Sincerely, [ken Mgrl 1 Incl HARLAN E. MOORE As stated Chief, Engineering Division 1, The thirteen Alaska villages should be listed on the title Page. The present text design makes it difficult to quickly find out what 13 villages are being studied. 2. The table of contents should be expanded to include the thirteen villages plus seperate sections relating to the various energy alternatives studied. 3. In section 1, references are made to table 1.2. Where is table 1.2? 4. The Summary and Recommendations Section should contain tabulated results of all thirteen villages. L420fh UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 March 30, 1981 yd R Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director , ay Alaska Power Authority oe 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the draft report for the reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for the villages of Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Sleetmute, Stony River, Red Devil, Takotna, Telida, Nikolai, Russian Mission, Sheldon Point, Hughes, Koyukuk, and Buckland. We have no comments to offer at this time. Sincerely, Director, Alaska Region Department OfEnergy — p22 wort Alaska Power Administration wen pw? P.O. Box 50 , Juneau, Alaska 99802 April 17, 1981 Mr. Don Baxter Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Baxter: Here are our comments on the draft Reconnaissance Study of Energy Resource Alternatives for Thirteen Western Alaska Villages, prepared for you by Robert W. Retherford Division of International Engineering Company. The study is comprehensive and contains a large amount of data, infor- mation, and studies for each of the villages, We agree with the first recommendation that diesel generation with waste heat recovery is the best power supply alternative for most of the villages. We are not aware of any alternatives the study may have overlooked. In light of the very high costs of diesel generation we suggest wind may make a significant contribution for at least some villages, when reliability of the machinery is proven, It is difficult for the reader to find the actual project power cost, Summarized production cost values in the body of the report with more description of the basis for the estimate would be helpful. It is not clear if the production costs of 50¢/kWh or more by the year 2000 includes such items as fuel storage, maintenance, supplies, and administration. Power requirements were based on past trends and extended at an increasing rate through the whole period of the study. We don't have specific data to support or refute that procedure; however, we feel it is likely some of the villages will remain stable, while others will peak out or decline in total energy use. We believe the per customer power use estimates for future years is too high. Regardless of personal income, year 2000 use of 415 to 567 kWh/month/ customer doesn't seem consistent with power production cost in excess of 50¢/kWh. Even though it is likely that the load forecasts are too high, we don't think that this would change the findings that diesel/waste heat offers the best alternative, 2 We agree that the available hydro resources do not appear to be feasible alternatives, We appreciate the opportunity to comment, Sincerely, ? 7 ri V4 Kal «2 2. Robert J. Cross Administrator APA 25/N2 Response to comments: 1) Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers The final report has been edited several additional times to hopefully eliminate the majority of typographical errors and insure all materials are located in the proper section. The organization of the report has been modelled after the outline supplied by the Alaska Power Authority. To facilitate locating information within the report, the Table of Contents has been significantly expanded and the Title Page has been reprinted to include the names of the thirteen villages included in the study. 2) United States Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service. No response. 3) Department of Energy - Alaska Power Administration We agree with the Department of Energy in that wind generation may make a contribution for at least some villages, when reliability of the machinery is improved. Whether the wind contribution will amount to a signifi- cant contribution to the energy supply is, however, yet to be determined. Power requirements forecast in the study for residential consumer is based on a modest growth rate of 4.5%/year in electrical energy usage. APA 25/N3 This growth rate assumes some form of power production subsidy will be provided by the State of Alaska to rural residence and the continued use of diesel generation. This growth rate reflects as energy usage of 415 - 567 kWH/mo/residential consumer by the year 2000. An examination of the energy usage in the rural United States twenty years past, reveals an energy usage 100 - 125 kWH/mo consumer. The same rural consumer usage for today is 500 - 600 kWH/mo/consumer. When compared to this increase in electrical energy requirements, the above listed energy use projection for rural Alaska for the year 2000 does not represent an unrealistic forecast. REFERENCES REFERENCES California Energy Commission; Commercial Status: Electrical Generation and Nongeneration Technologies; Staff Draft; September 1979. California Energy Commission; Volume 1: Technical Assessment Manual, Electrical Generation, Version One; Staff Draft with Appendices; September 1979. Canter, Larry W. and Hill, Loren G.; Handbook of Varibles for Environmental Impact Assessment; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1979. Comtois, Wilfred H.; "Economy of Scale in Power Plants"; Power Engineering; August 1977. Zarling, J. P., and Seifort, R. D.; Solar Energy Resource Potential in Alaska; University of Alaska Institute of Water Resources; 1978. Gas Turbine World; Gas Turbine World Handbook 1980-81; Pequot Publishing, Inc.; Framingham, Massachusetts; 1980. Godfrey, Robert Sturgis, Editor-in-Chief; Building Construction Cost Data 1980; Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.; 1979. Golden, Jack; Ouellette, Robert P.; Saari, Sharon; and Cheremisinoff, Paul H.; Environmental Impact Data Book; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1979. Grumman, Energy Systems, Inc.; Wind Stream 33 Wind Turbine Generator. Harkins, H. L.; "Applying Cogeneration to Solve Tough Energy Problems"; Specifying Engineer; December 1979. Miscl6/P1 1 10 il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. REFERENCES Budwani, Ramesh H.; "Power Plant Capital Cost Analysis"; Power Engineering; May 1980. Reeder, John W.; Coonrod, Patti L.; Bragg, Nola I.; Denig-Chakroff, Dave; and Markle, Donald R.; Alaska Geothermal Implementation Plan; Draft for U.S. Department of Energy; July 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Alternate Energy Study: Angoon, Alaska; Preliminary Report for State of Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development; Anchorage; November 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Assessment of Power Generation Alternatives for Kotzebue; for Alaska Power Authority; Anchorage; June 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential Phase 1; for U.S. Department of Energy; Anchorage; December 1979. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Lower Kuskokwim Single Wire Ground Return Transmission System Pahse I Report; for State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; June 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Transmission Intertie Kake- Petersburg, Alaska: A Reconnaissance Report; for Alaska Power Authority; Anchorage; October 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Waste Heat Capture Study for State of Alaska; Anchorage; June 1978. Schweiger, Robert G.; "Burning Tommorrow's Fuels"; Power; February 1979. Miscl6/P2 2 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. REFERENCES Simons, H. A., (International) Ltd.; Engineering Feasibility Study of the British Columbia Research Hog Fuel Gasification System; for British Columbia Research; May 1978. Singh, Ram Bux; Bio-Gas Plant; Mother's Print Shop; Hendersonville, North Carolina; 1975. Stoner, Carol] Hupping (Editor); Producing Your Own Power; Rodale Press, Inc.; Emmaus, Pennsylvania; 1976. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration Environmental Data Service; Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1940-1970 for Alaska. United States Department of Labor; Dictionary of Occupational Titles; Fourth Edition; 1977. University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research; Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1995; August 1976. University of Oklahoma Science and Public Policy Program; Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis; Federal Energy Administra- tion; Washington, DC; May 1975. Young, Arthur and Company; A Discussion of Considerations Pertaining to Rural Energy Policy Options; State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development; April 1979. Marshall; David L.; Brogaw, Michael A.; Fuel Needs Assessment: Mid-Kuskokwim; for Kuskokwim Native Association; July 21, 1980. Misc16/P3 3 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. REFERENCES U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; Statistical Ehrlich, Paul R.; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Holdren, John P.; "Ecoscience -Population, Resources, Environment"; 1977. University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center; Northwest Alaska Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1976. Darbyshire and Associates; Lower Yukon Regional Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1979. Darbyshire and Associates; Middle Kuskokwim Region Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1979. The Fairmount Press, Inc.; Alternative Energy Sources Factsheets; 1978. Michels, Tim; "Solar Energy Utilization"; 1979. Canter, Larry; "Environmental Impact Assessment"; 1977. Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc.; 1979 Year End Report; December 1979. OTT Water Engineers, Inc.; Northwest Alaska Small Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study; for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; January 1981. Miscl6/P4 4 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. REFERENCES Beck, R.W.; Small Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study Southwest Alaska; for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Draft February 1981. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Potential and Alternate Electric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area; for Alaska Power Authority; February 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Power Potentials in the Dillingham Area; for the Alaska Power Authority; February 1980. Department of Commerce and Economic Development; Community Energy Survey; 1978 and 1979. Department of Commerce and Economic Development; The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce; The Alaska Economy Year-End Performance Report 1979. Department of Commerce and Economic Development; The Alaska Statistical Reviews 1980. Alaska Department of Labor; Alaska Population Overview; December 1979. Rural Electrification, January 1981. Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc.; "A Guide Book for Members"; 1980. Miscl6/P5 5 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. REFERENCES University of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research; Review of Business and Economic Conditions; September 1973. Retherford, Robert W.,; Associates; Electricity - Vital Ingredient to Quality in Survival; 1979. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Management Audit Electrical System Performance -Engineering Aspects Evaluation; for Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.; September 1979. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research; Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995; August 1976. Mechanical Technology Inc.; Liquid and Solid Fuel Stirling Engines for Alaskan Applications; December 1980. Mechanical Technology Inc.; Program Concept for Demonstrating Stirling Engine Power Generators in Alaskan Villages; September 1980. Village Meetings, November-December 1980. Verbal Communication fuel dealers in Bethel, McGrath, Kotzebue and Nenana; 1981. Orith, Donald J.; Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., reprinted 1971. Miscl6/P6 6