Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Economic Feasibility Study of the Geothermic Project- Naval Sation ADAK 1979
ADAK 002A LIBRARY COPY COPE | es: DO NOT.__:MOVE NWC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3750 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE GEOTHERMAL PROJECT FOR THE NAVAL STATION ADAK ALASKA By James L. Bruce Geothermal Utilization Division Public Works Department January 1979 NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER China Lake, California 93555 Summary . . 1. 2 6 ee ee o Introduction ....... Geothermal Alternatives . . Alternate Systems .. Space Heating . Direct Geothermal Binary Geothermal Waste Fluid Disposal . Economic Analysis ..... Capital Investments . Recurrent Costs ... Capital Investment vs. Power Generation Power Generation Investment Return NWC T™ 3750 CONTENTS Conclusions and Recommendations . Bibliography ....... Appendixes: A. Drilling Costs and Well Specifications B. Space Heating Systems Costs ...... c. Detailed Economics Analysis Sheets . . 10 10 12 16 17 18 18 22 23 23 26 27 31 33 Figures: 1. Regional Map (Note to Scale). ..........008.4 2. Adak Island. .... . . . ieee ees 3. Geothermal Fluids Space Heating Schematic oe ew we 4. Single Flash Geothermal Power Generating Schematic. . 5. Helical Screw Expander (1250 kVA Unit for Geothermal Wellhead Power) ...... Berea eos a oe eo ee eee 1-MW Unit Undergoing Tests at Roosevelt Hot Springs, Ua eee eee ees at oe eee oe es 7. Binary Fluid Geothermal Power Generating Schematic. . a NWC TM 3750 Tables: 1. Geothermal Space Heating Systems ($ x 106) ....... 12 Pe 25 MWe Geothermal Power Plant ...........+.. 16 3. 25 MWe Binary Geothermal Power Plant. .... SEIU 4. Fuel Costs for Total Adak Power Generations and. Space Heating With an 8% Annual Inflation Rate CRT SST se Or OTR TH er et TT I E-PeC Te ES HS SH eRe SLIlsILsHININaS, a. Fuel Costs for Space oe with. an n 8% Annual Inflation) Race) (FY7S|/$/| x1 109) HeLa 6. Investment Return Figures re Three Geothermal Energy Systems for Adak NAVSTA ($x 106) ........ 22 is CaPLESL | TAvescmene (ele Ceol ome leMel enero tettel eds eeMaIcMc ee 8. Adak Geothermal Project ert Line and Estimated Annual Investments ($x 108). ..........00.4. 24 9. Project Present Worth Costs .........2.0.e0e00- 25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank the companies, personnel and lab- cratories who supplied and supported some of the data in this report. Some of these contributors are listed below. State of Alaska, Division of Energy & Power Conservation, Anchorage, AK Big "oO" Drilling, Bakersfield, CA Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Energy Systema, Inc., Anchorage, AK Gerhardt-Owens Wireline Services, Bakersfield, CA Halliburton Services, Bakersfield, CA, and Anchorage, AK Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories, Los Alamos, NM Phillips Petroleum Geothermal Division, Salt Lake City, UT Oil & Gas Division, Kenai, AK Schlumberger Services, Anchorage, AK Brigham Yourg University, Provo, UT The support previded by personnel of Adak is also much appreciated. NWC TM 3750 SUMMARY The Adak Geothermal Project is concerned with the use of geothermal energy as a possible alternative to the present fossil fuel energy system on Adak. Three different types of geothermal energy systems, each based on an assumed different reservoir temperature range, are considered. These systems, wkich could supply the facilities on Adak with energy for space heating or complete electrical power including electrical heating, are: (1) space heating using either above-ground insulated fiberglass pipelines or in-ground insulated steel pipelines, (2) direct electrical power generation using geothermal fluids either at a central power plant or via individual wellhead generating units, either system producing 25 MWe gross output, or (3) a binary geothermal electrical power generation facility where the geothermal fluids would heat a secondary (binary) fluid which would operate the electrical generating equipment, producing a 25 MWe gross output. The cost of each system was analyzed, and cost-effectiveness was determined by comparing the investment cost with projected fuel savings. An investment return (payback period) for each system was determined using an 8% annual fuel escalation factor. A comparison was made between the Navy price for J?-5 aviation fuel (main fuel on Adak) and the apparent real cost of this type fuel to other remote regions in Alaska. This gave comparative payback costs of this type of energy system if developed by private industry. Of all the alternate geothermal systems analyzed, the most attractive is the wellhead generating units; such units would develop a combined 25 MWe gross output utilizing the direct geothermal flow from the well. Wellhead units have been tested to temperature ranges as low as 320°F. An overall low investment ($52.80 million) is required with this system because much of the equipment can be fabricated in the lower 48 states, thus eliminating much of the costs of installation and construction at Adak. A wellhead unit system has the best investment return time (payback period) of all the systems and could be operational within 5 years from the date the reservoir is defined. The primary question remaining is, what system can the geothermal resource on Adak support? This question can only be answered by drilling the initial production size wells to test the reservoir(s) characteristics (temperature, mass flow, and total dissolved solids). Once these charac- teristics have been determined, then a compatible geothermal system can be developed. NWC T 3750 INTRODUCTION The Adak Naval Station is located among the Andreonof Island Group in the Aleutian Island Chain (Figure 1). Adak Island is located approxi- mately midway between mainland Alaska and Siberia and serves as the major U.S. military facility in the region. The island itself is about 30 miles long by 20 miles wide, and the military facilities are located on the northern third of the island (Figure 2). The remainder of the island is part of the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wiidlife. There are approximately 4500 residents on the Naval Station. At the present time, all electrical power and steam used for space heating is produced by boilers and generators using imported JP-5 aviation fuel. The Naval Station Adak annually requires 4.6 million and 4.3 million gallons of JP-5 for space heating and electrical power generation, respectively.+ There is therefore, an urgent need for an alternate energy source to relieve Adak of its dependence on fossil fuels. Geothermal recon- naissance began in 1974 with field work by G.V. Keller and L.T. Grose supported by the Office of Naval Research. Efforts continued in 1976 with geological reconnaissance and geophysical work accomplished by both the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and personnel of the NWC Geothermal Utilization Division. Geothermal reconnaissance work was centered around the northern portion of the island, approximately 7 miles from the main facility. This area showed the best potential and youngest geologic formations of volcanic origin and the site of two of the known hot springs within the Navy facility. During the summer of 1977, two heat flow holes, 1058 and 2047 feet, were drilled in this region near Mt. Adagdak to test the geothermal gra- dient of the area. Data showed a geothermal gradient of 45°F/1000 feet, indicating a lower temperature range and deeper thermal anomaly (300°F at 6000 feet) than predicted by the USGS from their geophysical work (350°F at 4000 to 6000 feet). Because the material encountered in these holes lNaval Weapons Center. Trip Report to Naval Station, Adak, Alaska by Robert F. Barling. China Lake, CA, NWC, 1976. 9 pp. (NWC Department Memorandum. ) BERING SEA FIGURE 1. PACIFIC OCEAN Regional Map (Not to Scale). ALASKA \ OSZ€ WL OMN NWC T 3750 TARGET GEOTHERMAL AREA FIGURE 2. Adak NAVY Island. FACILITIES 012345 MILES NWC TM 3750 was largely unconsnlidated clay, it may act as an insulating medium, thus not producing a correct thermal gradient. The data collected indicated that at depths of 4000 to 6000 feet, there are probable temperatures adequate to support at least limited and possibly full scale geothermal development. There are no deep tests of the Adak geologic setting to date. However, deep drilling to comparable depths elsewhere in the Aleutian chain and similar geologic areas developed temperatures in excess of 400°F. This proprietary data lends credence to the predicted subsurface condition anticipated in the geothermal reservoir at Adak. To further evaluate the geothermal potential, wells will have to be drilled to the assumed resource depths, 4000 to 6000 feet. A small nun- ber of holes will be sufficient to determine the potential of the resource and what type of energy systems the resource can support. This report discusses the cost of completing the Adak Geothermal Project by drilling deep wells on Adak and then developing the geothermal resource to its fuil potential as an energy source for the facilities on Adak. Three different energy systems will be discussed, space heating with geothermal fluids, direct geothermal power generation for all the facility's needs including heating, and binary geothermal power generation for all the facility needs including heating. The type of system even- tually developed wiil depend on the characteristics of the resource (i.e., temperature, volume, and flow capabilities). GEOTHERMAL ALTERNATIVES The Adak Geothermal Project is aimed at reducing the fossil fuel requirements on Adak by supplementing or replacing the present fossil fuel system with a cost effective geothermal energy system. With the world's present oil problems and the escalating costs of fossil fuels, a limited-use alternate energy system becomes more reasonable. At the present time, the Navy charges itself $0.456/gal for JP-5 as set by the defense fuel supply costs (DFSC). This is not a true fuel cost in the remote regions of Alaska. Therefore, $1.00/gal for JP-5 will be the assumed real cost because this is comparable to the true costs ($1.00 to $1.50 per gal) for #2 diesel and fuel oil in remote regions in Alaska. Based on both Navy cost and assumed real cost figures, the annual heating and electrical power generation costs are as follows: JP-5 8,923 million gallons annually @ $0.456 $4.068 million annually @ $1.00 $8.923 million annually NWC T™ 3750 Current plans require the drilling of production siz2 wells to a depth of approximately 6000 feet, and analyzing the resource potential with the first few wells (three to four). A total of six wells are planned; standard industrial practice calls for six wells to prove and develop a geothermai field. However, the actual number of wells will depend on the characteristics of the reservoir. Energy needs at the Naval Station Adak would require the equivalent of a 25-MWe power facility for total electrical use, and a 10-MW thermal power system for space heating only. A combination electrical generation and waste geothermal fluid space heating system is not considered economical; the cost of electrical transmission lines and electrical heaters is less _ than the geothermal pipelines and space heaters. The reservoir characteristics (mass flow, temperature, and total dissolved solids (TDS)) will determine the optimum use of the geothermal fluids. The reservoir characteristics will be defined through flow test- ing of each well as soon as it is completed. Well test results will in- dicate the number otf wells required to meet the 10-MW thermal space heating requirements or the 25-MW electrical system requirements. A problem encountered in most geothermal fluid reservoirs is the composition of the geothermal fluids themselves. Geothermal fluids are usually classed as brines due to their high TDS values. These dissolved solids can cause either corrosion or scaling in the equipment, thereby creating additional maintenance problems. Thus, materials with a higher resistance to corrosion or scaling must be used and this adds additional cost to the system. Actual fluid composition cannot be determined until the reservoir is tested; however, assumptions can be made based on the projected reservoir temperatures and the projected water source. In Adak the geothermal system water source would probably be a combination of fresh water and sea water. The current geothermal wellfield design is for six wells in the area between Mt. Adagdak, Andrew Bay, and Clam Lagoon (see Figure 2). The actual well sites have not been determined, but the wells are planned to be of production size to a depth of 6000 feet. The cost of drilling is discussed in Appendix A. Total cost is projected to be $35.0 million including mobilization and demobilization of the drilling equipment, well testing, drilling costs, and wellfield development costs. Additional wells may be required depending on the resource characteristics. Environmental considerations will require a minimum of one well as a reinjection hole for disposal of the waste geothermal fluids and replenishment of the reservoir fluids. Additional uses may be found for the geothermal waste fluids. The waste fluid section of this report discusses alternate uses of these fluids. NWC TM 3750 ALTERNATE SYSTEMS Three possible geothermal system alternatives are discussed based on a given resource temperature range. These are: 1. Space Heating - using the geothermal fluids as the heat source or the heating medium. Temperature range: 175°F+. 2. Direct Geothermal Power Generation - using the geothermal fluids to operate the turbines which will produce 25 MWe (gross) for complete electrical conversion of the facilities. Temperature range: 350°F+. 3. Binary Geothermal Power Generation - using a seccndary fluid heated by the geothermal fluids to operate the turbines which will pro- duce the 25 MW of power. Temperature range: 250°F+. Each system can either reduce or eliminate the present fossil fuel de- pendent energy system on Adak and includes reserving present systems only as a backup. Each alternate system will be discussed noting its positive and negative aspects in relation to the current system. Space Heating A space heating system for the facilities on Adak was the initial plan for the development of the geothermal resource. Subsequent analysis of other systems, however, indicate a reasonable economic feasibility if the resource is adequate to support them. The space heating system using geothermal fluids as the heat source is quite similar to the present fossil fuel system using steam heat, but with a few additions and major modifications (Figure 3). The primary addition to the system, besides the wellfield, is the main feeder and return lines from the wellfield to the Navy facility. The heat carrying medium will depend on the composition of the geothermal fluids. If the composition is such that the fluids can be used directly, the costs of the main line heat exchangers can be eliminated. If the composition is such that there could be excessive corrosion or scaling, then the thermal energy would be transferred to another fluid (probably potable water) via heat exchangers. The warmed potable water would then become the heating medium used in the facilities. From the main feeder lines, another series of other pipelines will distribute the warm fluids to the individual facilities and individual heaters. Much of the present distribution system can be considered compatible with the geothermal system, but some localized modifications will have to be made. Once the fluids have been used and lost their thermal content, they will be returned to the wellfield for reinjection via a series of return pipelines. 10 Tt AK PRODUCTION WELL GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR WELL INJECTION PUMPING STATICN FIGURE 3. MAIN FEEDER HEAT EXCHANGER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SECONDARY FEEDERS DIRECT GEOTHERMAL FLUID USE Geothermal Fluids Space Heating Schematic. OSZ€ WL OMN NWC T™ 3750 The efficiency of the system is assumed to be approximately 60%. This energy loss is caused by friction during fluid movement and the lowering of the temperature due to heat transfer through the pipes themselves. Two types of pipelines have been considered, both are insulated to prevent unnecessary heat loss. The first type is a series of above-ground fiberglass pipelines (Option I-A); the second is a buried dual steel pipeline (Option I-B). Due to the cost of excavation and installation, Option I-B has a higher initial cost, but it also has a greater thermal efficiency. The actual pipeline diameters will be determined during well testing, but are assumed to be approximately 12 inches. The projected costs for Option I-A are from studies by the Mechanical Engineering Department at Brigham Young University under a series of Navy contracts. Option I-B was developed with the assistance of Energy Systems, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, who have developed geothermal pipeline pro- posals in the past. Table 1 indicates the estimated costs for the space heating systems; the actual cost breakdown is given in Appendix B. TABLE 1. Geothermal Space Heating Systems ($ x 106). Costs w/o wellfield 6.90 Cost w/wellfield 13.70 Direct Geothermal Power Generation If the resource can support direct power generation using the geo- thermal fluids, this may be the most cost-effective system. This would release the facilities on Adak from any dependence on fossil fuel for energy generation except for limited emergency backup. With unpredictable escalating fuel costs and the problem of protecting the fuel transports during a national emergency, this type of system can be considered attractive even with its higher initial investment. The payback period for dollars saved in fuel costs is similar to the space heating system and adds to the attractiveness of the system. The key question with direct geothermal power is, will the reservoir have high enough tempera- tures and mass flow to support the system? Two options were analyzed for utilizing direct geothermal power production based on a 25-MWe (gross) power output. This output would be sufficient to carry the load required for the total electrical service including heating. The wellfield would be the same as in the other systems with a different wellfield pipeline system. 12 NWC T™ 3750 The first alternative (Option II-A) is a standard geothermal power plant (Figure 4) located within or next to the wellfield. A standard geothermal power plant requires steam to operate the turbines or other prime movers. In a normal fluid-dominated geothermal reservoir, the fluids must be flashed to steam. The Adak geothermal reservoir is assumed to be of this type. A central geothermal power plant is considered to cost approximately $1,080/kW in the lower 48 states. With a cost factor of 3, this would equate to a cost of $3,240/kW for Adak. An additional $3.0 million has been added for transmission lines and electrical heaters. The second alternative (Option II-B) incorporates a wellhead device called the helical screw expander (Figure 5). This approach appears the most attractive for the Adak Geothermal Project as it has the best economics and feasibility of any of the nonspace heating systems. Also this option is considered better in some respects than the space heating systems. This system utilizes individual wellhead screw-expander driven generators. The helical screw expander is designed to operate on a full flow principle using both steam and the geothermal fluids. They can be installed adjacent to the wellhead, thus eliminating the construction costs of the central-type geothermal power plants (Option II-A). Production models of the helical screw expander are currently being tested and appear to be very efficient. A 1-MW unit was tested at Roosevelt Hot Springs in Utah and operated at about 40% efficiency (Figure 6). The efficiency of the units is thought to increase with time as a helical screw develops a self-lapping layer of scale. These units appear very promising and could be used where a relatively small electrical output is needed, such as Adak's approximate load of 25 MWe. These units cost approximately $500/kW and could be prefabricated as skid-mounted units in the lower 48 states to eliminate much of the in- stallation costs for Adak. The only costs incurred on Adak would be on-site installation, shipping, and the $3.0 million for transmission lines and electrical heaters. Power generated by the geothermal plant would be transmitted over the existing electrical distribution system. Thus the present fossil fuel plant can be used as a backup power source when the geothermal plant is down or overloaded. Table 2 shows the total capital investment for the direct use of geothermal fluids for generating 25 MWe (gross) power output. The well- head units are only slightly more costly but provide for much more energy usage than the space heating systems (Options I-A and I-B). 13 NWC TM 3750 TURBINE - GENERATOR CONDENSEP FROM PRODUCTION TO REINJECTION WELL STEAN Peeeces| WASTE GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS FIGURE 4. Single Flash Geothermal Power Generating Schematic. 14 NWC TM 3750 FIGURE 5. Helical Screw Expander (1250 kVA Unit for Geothermal Wellhead Power). anu we FIGURE 6. 1-MW Unit Undergoing Tests at Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah. 15 NWC T™ 3750 TABLE 2. 25 MWe Geothermal Power Plant. Es $3,240 $ 500 Total w/wellfield costs Transmission/heaters $3.0 x 108 $119.0 x 106 $3.0 x 106 II-B $52.8 x 106 Binary Geothermal Power Generation The binary gecthermal power facility (Figure 7) is very similar to Option II-A, except a secondary fluid is heated by the geothermal fluids and then used to operate the turbines. This system is designed for geothermal reservoirs which do not produce enough steam to efficiently operate the turbine generators. The secondary fluid has a lower boiling point than water or brines; thus it can be changed from the liquid to the gaseous state at lower temperatures. The two fluids are recirculated through a heat exchanger and condenser to change from liquid to gas and then back to liquid. The geothermal fluids are used to convert the secondary fluid to a gas. BINARY FLUID TURBINE - GENERATOR HIGH TEMPERATURE BINARY FLUIDS — FROM PRODUCTION eT (PRODUCTION) GEOTHERMAL FLUIDS EXCHANGER LOW TEMPERATUR BINARY FLUIDS GEOTHERMAL BINARY FLUIN SYSTEM FLUID SYSTEM FIGURE 7. Binary Fluid Geothermal Power Generating Schematic. 16 NWC T™ 3750 There are no operating facilities of this type in the country; how- ever, there are a few on-site test units. A 2.3-MW on-site test-production unit is being constructed in the East Mesa known geological resource area (KGRA) in California. Additionally, with this type of system, many of the secondary fluids are excellent fuel-air explosives. The housing for binary systems must be designed as a positive pressure facility to pre- vent any problems resulting from leaks in the system. The additional equipment needed and the potential problems of this type of system results in increased cost. A binary facility in the lower 48 states would cost approximately $1,620/kW. In Adak the cost would be $4,860/kW. This system would also require the $3.0 million for trans- mission lines and heaters. The costs listed in Table 3 are for a 25-MWe facility on Adak. TABLE 3. 25 MWe Binary Geothermal Power Plant. Total w/wellfield costs Transmission/ $/kW-Adak heaters $159.5 x 106 Similar to $4,680 $3.0 x 106 Option II-A WASTE FLUID DISPOSAL The disposal of waste geothermal fluids is an environmentally sen- sitive problem created by the composition and temperature of the geothermal fluids. The planned disposal method for the Adak Geothermal Project is reinjection of the fluids into the reservoir. This will require one or more wells in addition to the production wells. One of the six wells presently planned would be used as an injection well. If the composition of the waste fluids is similar to the surrounding sea waters, the fluids could be discharged into the ocean. This would contribute to an increase in the fish and shellfish population around the discharge area due to the increased water temperature near the dis- charge point. This would increase the local fisheries and could possibly supply the facilities with seafood under a local contract or co-op of base residents. Prior to fluids disposal by reinjection or piping to the sea, the remaining thermal energy of the fluids could be further utilized. Heat could be used for a community recreation facility, such as a swimming pool, or greenhouses for growing fresh produce for the island residents as is done extensively in Iceland, Eastern Europe and in Siberia. This would reduce the need for weekly airlifts to supply fresh produce to Adak, and result in a significant cost reduction in the support of the Adak community. 17 NWC TM 3750 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This economic analysis was developed by studying the capital invest- ment requirements cf the various systems and relating these to the pro- jected fuel cost savings. The economic feasibility of each system can be rated on its cost effectiveness over a 30-year project life. The principle parameters not yet determined are the reservoir characteristics (temperature, mass flow, and TDS). The system eventually developed will be determined by these reservoir characteristics. The data collected to date appear very favorable, but the actual characteristics can only be known by testing wells drilled to the projected reservoir depth (4000 to 6000 feet). Thus, the largest risk of the project, as in any drilling project, is in proving the reservoir and its actual characteristics. Fuel costs were calculated (Tables 4 and 5) based on total power and space heating, and space heating only requirements. An annual infla- tion rate of 8% was used for both the DFSC-set Navy price ($0.456/gal) and the apparent real cost ($1.00/gal). Two separate investment-payback relationships were thus developed (Table 6). Investment returns were indicated for both the artificial cost and the assumed real cost. Maximum fuel conservation and economic feasibility dictates a total electrical system. However, if the resource cannot support this type of system, the utilization of the reservoir for space heating purposes will still be feasible and economical. Adak costs are computed by the following formula for most capital expenditures. Material costs and labor costs entered into the formula average West Coast costs for a similar job with the escalation to Adak costs as follows: (Material Cost) (.15*) = MC [(MC)+(Labor Cost)] (3) = Adak Area Cost *Shipping costs figured at 15%. This formula was developed by the Navy as a cost guideline for remote sites such as Adak. All of the civilian contract labor help are brought from the Anchorage and Seattle areas. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS The capital investments for the project (Table 7) include wellfield and system expenditures. The wellfield costs include wells, well pumps, and collector and return line; the system costs include the capital equipment for that system, design costs, and installation costs. Once the reservoir has been proven, the actual number of wells to support the 18 NWC T™ 3750 TABLE 4. FUEL COSTS FOR TOTAL ADAK POWER GENERATION AND SPACE HEATING WITH AN 8% ANNUAL INFLATION RATE (FY78 $ x 10°) 10% DISCOUNT FACTOR YEAR (DF) $0.456/GAL7 X (DF) $1.00/GAL X (DF) 1 .9538 4.231 4.035 9.280 8.851 2 - 8671 4.57 3.963 10.022 8.690 3 - 7883 4.936 3.891 10.824 8.532 4 -7166 5.33 3.819 11.690 8.377 5 -6515 5.758 3.751 12.625 8.225 6 -5922 6.218 3.682 13.635 8.075 7 - 5384 6.715 3.615 14.726 7.928 8 - 4895 7.252 3.550 15.904 7.785 9 - 4450 7.833 3.486 17.177 7.644 10 - 4045 8.460 3.442 18.551 7.504 11 - 3677 9.136 3.359 20.035 7.367 12 - 3343 9.867 3.299 21.638 7.234 13 - 3039 10.657 3.239 23.369 7.102 14 -2763 11.509 3.180 25.238 6.973 15 -2512 12.430 3.122 27.257 6.847 16 . 2283 13.424 3.065 29.438 6.721 7 - 2076 14.498 3.010 31.793 6.600 18 . 1887 15.658 2.955 34,336 6.479 19 -1716 16.911 2.902 37.083 6.363 20 - 1560 18.263 2.849 40.050 6.248 21 - 1418 19.725 2.797 43.254 6.133 22 - 1289 21.303 2.746 46.714 6.021 23 -1172 23.007 2.696 50.45] 5.913 24 - 1065 24.847 2.646 54.487 5.803 25 - 0968 26.835 2.598 58.846 5.696 26 - 0880 28.982 2.550 63.554 5.593 27 - 0800 31.300 2.504 68.638 5.49] 28 -0728 33.804 2.461 74.129 5.397 29 - 0661 36.509 2.413 80.060 5.292 30 -0601 39.429 2.370 86.464 5.196 TOTAL 9.891 93.85 206.00 W/O Inflation 4.068 8.923 escalator, W/ x_9.891 9.891 discount factor 40.287 88.257 7as stated previously, this is not considered a true value and is not com- Parable to the cost of fuel elsewhere in the area. This is the DFSC-set price which does not include shipping and handling costs. 19 NWC TM 3750 TABLE 5. FUEL COSTS FOR 8% ANNUAL INFLATION RATE (FY78 $ X 10°) 10% DISCOUNT FACTOR a YEAR (DF) $0.456/GAL X (DF) $1.00/GAL X (DF) a 1 - 9538 2.199 2.097 4.821 4.598 2 .8671 2.374 2.058 5.206 4.514 3 . 7883 2.564 2.021 5.623 4.433 4 .7166 2.769 1.984 6.072 4.351 5 -6515 2.991 1.949 6.558 4.273 6 -5922 3.230 1.913 7.083 4.195 7 - 5384 3.489 1.878 7.650 4.119 8 - 4895 3.768 1.844 8.261 4.044 9 - 4450 4.069 1.811 8.922 3.970 10 - 4045 4.395 1.778 9.636 3.898 1 - 3677 4.746 1.745 10.407 3.827 12 - 3343 5.126 1.714 11.240 3.758 13 .3039 5.536 1.682 12.139 3.689 14 -2763 5.979 1.652 13.110 3.622 15 -2512 6.457 1.622 14.159 3.557 16 -2283 6.974 1.592 15.291 3.491 7 - 2076 7.532 1.564 16.515 3.429 18 . 1887 8.134 1.535 17.836 3.366 19 -1716 8.785 1.508 19.263 3.306 20 - 1560 9.488 1.480 20.804 3.245 21 . 1418 10.247 1.453 22.468 3.186 22 .1289 11.067 1.427 24.266 3.128 23 -1172 11.952 1.401 26.207 3.071 24 . 1065 12.908 1.375 28.303 3.014 25 . 0968 13.941 1.349 30.568 2.959 26 - 0880 15.056 1.325 33.013 2.905 27 - 0800 16.261 1.301 35.654 2.852 28 .0728 17.562 1.279 38.506 2.803 29 - 0661 18.967 1.254 41.587 2.749 30 - 0601 20.484 1.231 44.914 2.699 TOTAL 9.891 48.821 107.00 SO mC NNO VES Sno W/O Inflation 2.114 4.635 escalator, W/ x_9.891 x_9.891 discount factor 20.910 45.845 As stated previously, this is not considered a true value and is not com- parable to the cost of fuel elsewhere in the area. This is the DFSC-set price which does not include shipping and handling costs. 20 TZ TABLE 6. Investment Return Figures for Three Geothermal Energy Systems for Adak NAVSTA ($ X 106). 30 YR FUEL savines ‘!) CAPITAL ANNUAL INVESTMENT RETURN YEAR 2) @$0.455/GAL | @$1.00/GAL investment!2) O&N @$0.456/GAL | @$1.00/GAL | | I SPACE HEATING a) Option I-A 41.90 0.70 24 10 b) Option I-B 48.70 1.40 30 13 Tl. DIRECT GEOTHERMAL | POWER GENERATION 4 (25MwW) a a) Option II-A 119.00 8.40 28 3 b) Option II-B 52.80 1.50 14 6 e i o oO TIT. BINARY GEOTHERMAL 7 - - POWER GENERATION (25MM) OPTION IIT 159.50 12.50 45 21 = —__t = (1) Assuming 8% annual fuel escalation rate and 10% discount. OPTIONS: I-A (2) Includes 35.0 million for six wells I-B 33.1 Drilling Cost a 1.9 Well Test & Wellfield development (3) Year in which project's capital investment is equalled by sum of annual fuel costs. 8 a Insulated Fiberglass Pipe above ground Insulated Steel Pipe, buried. Central Power Plant Wellhead Power Units Assuming 5MW per well w/injection well NWC T™ 3750 system can be determined. At the present time, six wells are assumed to be able to support the system. If additional wells are needed, the addi- tional capital investment shows an economic return of usually less than 1 year. TABLE 7. Capital Investment. A Wellfield ($ x 10°) Drilling costs per well (see Appendix A) $5.183 Testing and development costs per well $0.317 Initial equipment mobilization and $2.000 demobilization Total capital investment for six wells $35.000 Space heating* ($ x 106) wo/wellfield costs w/wellfield costs Option I-A: Fiberglass 6.90 41.90 pipelines Option I-B: Dual steel 13.70 48.70 pipelines Direct geothermal power (25 MW) Option II-A: Central power 84.00 119.00 plant i Option II-B: Wellhead units 17.80 52.80 Binary geothermal power (25 MW) Option III: Central power 124.50 159.50 plant SS eeEeSeSeSeSSSS 0 ww08C} O00 *See Appendix B for cost breakdowns. RECURRENT COSTS For the Adak Geothermal Project, the annual operations and maintenance costs (O&M) are the only recurring costs other than auxiliary fuel supply costs for the backup system. The calculated O&M costs do not include these auxiliary fuel costs nor do they include the O&M costs of the pres- ent electrical system if the space heating system is the only one which 22 NwC T™ 3750 can be developed. O&M costs vary greatly in geothermal systems, but were assumed to be 10% of the capital investments for the system excluding wellfield costs. The annual O&M costs are shown in Table 6 with the capital investment and fuel savings. CAPITAL INVESTMENT VS. INVESTMENT RETURN Investment return periods were calculated using both the artificial and real fuel costs on the 8% annual escalation rate and then stated on investment return year (Table 6). The detailed economic calculation sheets required by P-4422 are given as Appendix C. The investment return year is that year in which the sum of the annual escalated fuel costs equal or surpass the capital investments. In all systems, the annual O&M costs (Table 8) are nearly equal to the escalated fuel costs after a few years, except for the Binary Geothermal Power System which is slightly higher. For each system, the investment return year is less than the project year (PY) 20 at the artificial fuel cost and less than PY 15 for the apparent real fuel cost. Thus, each system can be considered to be cost effective for the project's 30-year life span. The present worth or present value costs for the 30-year projects are listed in Table 9 with the actual 30-year costs for each system. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The data collected to date on the Adak Geothermal Project clearly indicates the feasibility of developing an economical geothermal energy system to replace or support the present fossil fuel energy system. The resource has only to be proven capable of supporting one of the energy systems in order for the Adak Geothermal Project to be considered economical. Of the systems which can be utilized by the Navy to support its facilities on Adak, the wellhead power plant system is especially attrac- tive. This particular system has the best overall economics and is the most practical for a remote island operation. Being small and skid- mounted, a problem in one unit would not hamper operation of the remaining units, and the malfunctioning unit can be rapidly replaced. 2Naval Facilities Dngineering Command. Economic Analysts Handbook. Alexandria, Virginia, NAVFAC, June 1975. (NAVFAC P-442, publication UNCLASSIFIED.) 23 97 TABLE 8. Adak Geothermal Project Time Line and Estimated Annual Investments ($ X 106). S=RSNOGERTTs — ian oe aa = a — tT PROJECT YEAR 1 2 34 = 5 + SS 7 Exploration & \ \ ! i Producticn i : | Wells 21.73 | (N37 f wi de fesvsiw teal i —}-—--—— — eed tele ese | Sas eae Wellfield | | Testing & i ! ! : Development . 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.02 a aelesal = ee eee L. ae : Space Heating i | i Option I-A | : i 0.50 | 3.902. {i 2700-1) 11.20 0.33 10.7 | anon : a - so Sees Seed . a oe aeeeoee —— Space Heating \ F i | Option I-B { ' i : 0.50 i 4.25 4.25 3.45 0.95 i 1.40} Direct Geo- - thermal Power i i i Option II-A 1.00 10.50 ! 15.50 16.00 : 16.00 ; 15.00 10.00 8.4: ese Saeiegesegpecnetrerse= seg pees=sae <2 - = = 4 a Direct Geo- | i ; : thermal Power ! : : ! Option II-B 1.00 : 3.00 5.50 6.00 : 2.30 . 1.5 ete a ee + —+ 2 E ; Binary Geo- : t i thermal Power \ ‘ ; Option III 10.00 20.50 22.00 21.00 21.00 | 20.00 10.00 12.5 OSZ€ WI OMN NWC TM 3750 TABLE 9. Project Present Worth Costs. Total 30-year costs Total present worth (FY78 $ x 106) costs (FY78 $ x 10°) Space heating Option I-A 45.22 Option I-B 90.40 56.77 Direct Geothermal Power Option II-A 379.40 182.66 Option II-B 96.30 66.83 Binary Geothermal Power Option III The low cost of the wellhead units and the reliability of the whole system makes the wellhead power system a very attractive alternate energy system for Adak. Even if additional wells are required, the investment payback for the additional wells and wellhead units is very reasonable and still economical. Thus, it is recommended that the wellhead power units (Direct Geo- thermal Power, Option II-B) be the primary potential energy system for Adak, and that the wellhead design for the test wells should reflect this system. 25 NWC TM 3750 BIBLIOGRAPHY Naval Weapons Center. Trip Report to Naval Station, Adak, Alaska, by Robert F. Barling. China Lake, CA, NWC, 1976. 9 pp. (NWC Depart- ment Memorandum.) Naval Weapons Center. Adak Geothermal Feastbility Study, by Jose Javier Esamilla. China Lake, CA, NWC, February 1978. 93 pp. (NWC TM 3427, publication UNCLASSIFIED.) Naval Weapons Center. A Technical/Economie Comparison of Alternative Energy Systems at Naval Station/Adak, by Clifton E. Stein. China Lake, CA, NWC, April 1977. 74 pp. (NWC TM 3243, pubdlication UNCLASSIFIED.) Geothermal Energy: A Novelty Becomes Resource, Vol 2., Sections 1 & 2 proceedings from the annual meeting of the Geothermal Resources Council, 25-27 July 1978, Hilo, HI. Geothermal Resources Council, Davis, CA. 750 pp. Second United Nations Symposium on the Development and Use of Geothermal Resources, proceedings from, 20-29 May 1975. San Francisco, CA, Vol 3. 937 pp. Multtpurpose Use of Geothermal Energy. International Conference for Industrial Agriculture, and Commercial-Residential Uses, proceedings from, 7-9 October 1974, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR. 240 pp. John Beebee, Cost of Hot Water Transport, Draft Report, October 1978. 40 pp. (DOE-EY-77-C-08-1540) Department of Energy. WNon-electrical Applications of Geothermal Energy tn Stix Alaskan Towns, by John Farguhar, Ramon Grijala, and Patricia Kirkwood, November 1977. (DOE-IDO-EY-77-C-07-1622) John Keller, L.T. Grose, and David L. Butler. Geothermal Energy in the Pacific, May 1975. (Office of Naval Research Contract Number N00014-71-A-0430-0004) Thomas P. Miller and Robert L. Smith. Geological Techniques Applied to the Evaluation of the Geothermal Potential of Adak Island, Alaska. February 1977, USGS, Anchorage and Denver Offices. B.F. Schubin, "Experimental Freon Geothermal Power Station in the USSR", Geothermal Energy, October 1974, Vol 2, No. 10, pp 16-17. ------ , “Russian Geothermal Power" Engineering, September 1973, Vol. 213 No. 9, p 604. 26 NWC TM 3750 Appendix A DRILLING COSTS AND WELL SPECIFICATIONS The drilling costs (Table A-1) and well specifications (Figure A-1l) were determined by discussions with personnel in all phases of the geo- thermal field, both in the industrial and research areas. The figures derived were based on costs in the lower 48 states and then multipled by the Adak conversion equation. The final figures were ther. discussed with knowledgeable personnel to check on their validity. The results were all favorable and considered reasonable. 27 NWC TM 3750 TABLE A-1. Approximate Cost Estimate of Drilling the First Adak Deep Geothermal Well to 6000 Feet. ITEM ($ x 10°) 1. Initial mobilization/final demobilization 2.000 2. Rig Costs-Daily [90 day operation period] 1.800 Operating $0.012-0.018 per day) Standby 0.010-0.015 per day)+ fuel cost 3 Air Compressors Rental 0.0075 per day + fuel 0.300 4. Casing, Well Head, Valves, Etc. 0.150 5 Cementing Services and Materials (no transportation) 0.140 6 Coring 0.075 7. Bits and Rental Equipment 0.250 8. Mud, and Air Drilling Chemicals . 0.100 9. HS and Safety Alarms 0.008 10. Well Logging Services (no transportation) 0.150 11. Consulting Services 0.025 12. Transportation Costs and Misc. 0.220 13. Contingency and Downtime 0.165 14. NWC Support (on & off site) 0.300 15. Adak NAVSTA Support ) 0.500 16. Adak island contractor support 17. Air transportation for contract services 1,900 Total Drilling Cost 7.183 Approximate Cost For Each Additional Well 5.183 28 NWC TM 3750 2000' @ to 4000' (8) 6000' 17%" Hole Reamed from 123," 124" Hole 8%" Hole own »Y 7%" Production Casing 9 3/8" Surface Casing 13 3/8" Conductor Casing 7" Slotted Liner or can be left barefoot (no casing in the hole). Pon ¥ FIGURE A-l. Production Well Diagram and Specifications. 29 NWC T™ 3750 Appendix B SPACE HEATING SYSTEM COSTS The derivations of the space heating system costs (Table B-l) were all based on the theoretical costs of a system for Adak. Due to the lack of comparable systems in the lower 48 states, no cost comparisons could be made to presently installed systems. As a result, these figures are not as reliable as those in Appendix A, but they are considered reason- able and as accurate as the current data allows. TABLE B-1. Pipeline and Distribution System Costs for Conversion to Geothermal Use ($ X 106), OPTION I-A OPTION I-B Well Pump Costs 0.20 .20 Well Field Feeder and Main Line to Facilities 1.8 3.7 Waste Fluid Return Line For Injection 1.15 2.5 Main Line Heat Exchangers 0.30 6 Pumping Stations 0.25 35 Distribution Systems 1.90 3.6 Interior Piping & Heaters 1.80 2.6 Total Pipeline - Distribution System 6.90 13.7 OPTION I-A - Insulated above ground Fiberglass Lines OPTION I-B - Insulated buried Dual Steel Line 31 NWC TM 3750 Appendix C DETAILED ECONOMICS ANALYSIS SHEETS 33 9t CASH FLOW DIAGRAM SPACE HEATING: OPTION I-A OSZ€ WL OMN ($ x 106) i ot | | i WELLFIELD MAIN DISTRIBUTION! i | DEVELOPMENT | FEEDER | SYSTEMS | OPERATION | TOTAL 10% 1 DRILLING | & TESTING & & & | CASH DISCOUNT PRESENT | YEAR 1 _ costs _ COSTS ee LINES ; HEATERS | MAINTENANCE| FLOW | FACTOR WwW YEAR -.- SOSTS_—_|_——_- pl fg "1 | at.732 | 0.93 05 | ---- ! 0.70 ‘23.86 | .9538 + 22.76 ‘> | i1l366 0.95 | 2.55 | 0.75 , 0.70 | 16.32 | .8671 14.15 33 ; 0.02 | 1.00 ' 1.00 0.70 . 2.72 ' 7883 ' 2.14 4° \ -20 ¢ 1.00 0.70 1.90 .7166 i 1.36 5 .33 0.70 * 1.03 6515 ; 0.67 6 i : 0.70 .70 ' 5922 0.41 7 \ i ; 5384 : 8 i 4895 | 9 | : | _ ,4450 10 | ij \ 1 4045 | 11 j .3677 12 | : i 3343 ° 13. | \ | - .3039 | 4 | : «2762 15 i ' : ; 22512 | 16 | | 0.70 : .70 ; 2283 | 3.73 174 | ' ,2076 | 18 | | | - 1887 19 | : : \ i 1716 2 ! i : : : | .1560 a1 ij | : : ' 1418 . 22 3 ; "1289 a) \ ! 11172 24 i : : : i .1065 \ 25 | | ; i 0968 | 26 4 | i i i ! .0880 { i927 ! | | i \ | 0800 { 28 | | | : | ‘0728 | 29 | | | 0661 ' 30 | | : j : 0.70 0.70 .0601 iL | | | HE | roraL | 33.10 | 1.90 | 4.25 | 3.08 | 21.00 | 63.33 19.891 | 45.22 | | , se CASH FLOW DIAGRAM SPACE HEATING: OPTION I-B OSZ€ WL OMN ($ x 106) | mola | | |. |. to | | j WELLFTELD | | DEVELOPMENT , FEEDER OPERATION | TOTAL 10% | i DRILLING | & TESTING | a : DISTRIBUTION & i CASH DISCOUNT PRESENT YEAR i costs _ te RI | LINES SYSTEMS {MATT ANCE FLOW | FACTOR WORTH a Sots se ES ee , 1 | 21.732 0.93 ; 6.50 | ---- | 1.4 | 24.56 \ “,9538 23.43 2111566 0.95 i 2.50 \ 1.75 1.4 17.97 » 8671 : 15.58 ae 10.02 ! 2.50 i 1.75 4 ; §.67 + 7883 | 4.47 4 MG 1.75 1.4 | 4.85 . 7166 3.48 5 0.95 1.4 i 2.38 “6515 1.53 6: 1.4 1.4 .5922 0.83 7 ¢ | i . .5384 8 \ : 4895 Siiict ; i 4450 \ 10 , tet ; 4045 - 1b ® | : : : .3677 | ue i 93435 | 1 ttt | { 3039 14 a ! t i : » ~2762 ' Badsid | ; gee tg 2512 | 7.45 16 | | : \ 2283 | 17 | | i 2076 ! 18} i ' : | 1887 19 | | ‘ial 7G 20! { : ' 1560 a. ij | ! i iL aL 8 23 | : HR 2 ; 1065 , 25 It | | ! 0968 | | 26 4 : i | .0880 f 37 ; | \ . 0800 i | 28 }' | : .0728 ! >9 | | .0661 30 | | | | 1.4 ; 1.4 0601 I H T sme — — + TOTAL i 33.10 | 1.90 | 7.20. | 6:20) 42.0 | 90.40 9.891 | 56.77 | | i | ! 9€ CASH FLOW DIAGRAM DIRECT GEOTHERMAL POWER (25 Mw) CENTRAL POWER PLANT (OPTION II-A) ($ x 108) po oe as ae ft | WELLFIELD PLANT | | | bEVELOPMENT 4DESIGN AND ‘TRANSMISSION, OPERATION | TOTAL 10% | 1 DRILLING | & TESTING ar costs: 1 & | CASH DISCOUNT | PRESENT 1 4 iyeaR! costs _ |__cosrs 1 OSL _| watwrenance| FLOW FACTOR | WORTH | : oe a sso Tote Pe + (1 f oanz32 | 0.93 1.00 | ----- | g.40 32.06 | 9538 30.58 "2 4 11,366 0.95 | 10.00 !' 0.6 . 8.40 ! 31.22 | 8671 | 27.07 30} 0.02 15.00 0.5 8.40 {| 23.92 - 7883 ! 18.86 4 ; 15.00 1.0 8.40 = 24.40 . 7166 17.49 5 15.00 1.0 8.40 | 24.40 i ,6515 . 15.90 6 ; 15.00 coos 8.40 + 23.40 .5922 : 13.86 7 4 i 10.00 ---- 8.40 + 18.40 5384 9.91 8 8.40 8.40 4895 | 8.40 9 4 4450 | 10 ! 1.4045 } lL ® . | .3677 12° ; : | 3343 * 13 j .3039 ! i 14! _ 2762 | 15 ij | ‘ 8.40 | 8.40 | 2512 | 40.59 ' 16 | | .2283 | 117 | | ' ,2076 18 | | -1887 19 | | | -1716 20 | | | . 1560 aj ‘1418 22.4 I . 11289 : i 23 | { .1172 | ' 24 |i | : | ; .1065 , 25 | ' 0968 | | 26 | | | | ‘0880 | | 27 3 | | | ' | .0800 i i 28 Il ' : ; +0728 | { ' 29 | | i ! : i | .0661 | | 30} | 8.40 | BAC | .o601 | | ——f TOTAL 33.10 1.90 81.00 3.00 , 252.00 1379.40 '9.891 | 182.66 | | ——_-- — {J—-- OSZ€ WL OMN Le “CASH FLOW DIAGRAM DIRECT GEOTHERMAL POWER (25 MW) WELLHEAD UNITS (OPTION II-B) ee Se ee po rr | i WELLFIELD | WELLHEAD | | | PEVELOPMENT }| UNITS ‘TRANSMISSION OPERATION | TOTAL 10% | 1 priutinc | & TESTING gee | LINES | & | CASH DISCOUNT PRESENT Lvean! _cnsrs_| costs | O0STS | 60STS_manwrpuance| Low | FACTOR ee = Soper ssecte ee Se SST psa se ; 1 ] ame | 093 | 1.00 | --- | 45 | 25.16 | .9538 24.00 ee 11.366 0.95 2.50 ' 0.50 1.5 » 16.82 , +8671 14.58 3: j 0.02 ' 5.00 0.50 1.5 jo70e + 7883 5.53 4 - 5.00 1.00 1.5 7.50 - 7166 5.37 5 ! 1.30 1.00 1.5 3.80 +6515 2.48 6 1.5 1.50 | 592? 0.89 7 4 5384 8 i 4895 9 | i . 4450 ' _ 10 | | | 4045 rl ; : | 3677 42" ; | .3343° | / 13 | i 3039 i 14 | i 2762 js | | | | ; i 12512 16 | : i : i ; | +2283 7.98 (17 | -| | 11.5 ' 2076 18 ; ; ' 1.5 i | +1887 : 19! | | ; .1716 10 . 1560 21 | | ' 1418 224 7 .1289 ; 23 + \ \ ' 1172 ; 24 i ‘ : » .1065 : / 25 |i | | | 10968 ; 26 |! | | : i | - 0880 i | 27 : : ; | . 0800 i { 28 | | i ' : ; 0728 : ' 29 i i | | .0661 ! | 30 | | 1.5 : 1.5 ! 0601 | —t r — , TOTAL | 33.10 1.90 | 14.8 3.00 ' 45.0 96.30 9.891 | 60.83 | i | ; | | OSLE WL OMN ! ' | 1 se CASH FLOW DIAGRAM BINARY GEOTHERMAL POWER (25 Mw) CENTRAL PLANT (OPTION III) ($ x 106) Oo . : ae ae : 7 WELLFIELD | PLANT | | fo DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND TRANSMISSION) OPERATION | Toran 107, PRESENT WORTH “F ees eed DRILLING | & TESTING moosts LINES | & CASH DISCOUNT costs cosTSs COSTS i MATNTENANCE| FLOW FACTOR COSTS. = ] —e - = === at —— SSS ay SST SE Tse rs == jj, 21.732 0.93 | 10.00 | -n-- © 12.5 ' 45.16 | 9538 43.07 | 11.366 0.95 20.00 ' 0.50 - 12.5 ' 45.32 , 8671 39.29 ' 0.02 21.50 ‘0.50 12.5 » 34.52 . 7883 . 27.21 . : 20.00 1.00 12.5 ' 33.50 | .7166 24.01 20.00 1.00 12.5 ' 33.50 » 6515 21.83 ; 20.00 ooo 12.5 32.50 ~ 592? : 19.25 | | ; 10.00 mann 12.5 » 22.50 5384 12.11 i 12.5 12.50 -4895 i 6.12 } | 4450 ; +. Sa UP. : : 4045 1 i | 3677 | ' : ‘3343 ° . 3039 ; \ ' 2762 i { : ; 2512 i 54.28 4 ' i i 12.5 j 2283 | | . ‘ 12.5 i ' 2076 \ i | ; .1887 I | 1716 i | : . 1560 | : ' 1418 1289 i i : “1172 | : : i ! . 1065 ‘0968 | .0880 ' | | .0800 i 0726 | - 0661 | 12.5 | 12.8 0601 a 33.10 1.90 121.5 3.0 | 375.00 1534.5 9.891 {247.17 OSZE€ WL OMN SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSTS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A - Submitting Department of the Navy Component: NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER » Date of Submission: JANUARY 1979 - Project Title: ADAK GEOTHERMAL STUDY . - Description of Project Objective:REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY LOAD W/GEOTHERMAL ENERGY - Alternative:SPACE HEATING - OPTION I-A Economic Life: 30 Years Ww Nm > mn 8. Program/Project Costs (5 x 10°) i a 4 , roject | **Non-Recurring jo fet d. Ta ie. a oe ——} Recurring | Annual | Disccunt | Discounted | i: R&D | Investment , Operations | Cost Factor Annual Cost 1 | | 23.16 0.70 | 23.86 (9538. | 22.76 2 ' I 15.62 | 0.70 | 16.32 3671 14.15 3 | 2.02 0.70 | 2.72 "7383 2.14 j4 1.20 » 0.70 | 1.90 | ‘7766 1.36 5 0.33 "0.70 | 1.03 “6515 0.67 6 0.70 =: .70 “5902 0.41 7 | .5384 8 | 4895 19 -4450 10 | | | 4045 iV | | 3677 12 | | 3343 We | | ; 3039 i ' | . 763 15 | 0.70 ! 70 Sue 3.73 116 | . 2283 17 . 2076 18 | .1887 19 ; 8 | .1716 a} : Tate 2200 | | 1289 | 23 4 | 1172 7 ; .1065 = : .0968 26 S| | .0880 27 | of! 0800 28 0728 | 29 .0661 | 30 \ -0601 | | | | \ | | | L Jo nae \ ! | TOTAL | | 42.33 | at.o0 | 63.33 | 9-891 | 45.22 39 10a. 10b. lI. 12a. 12b. 13. 14. NWC TM 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A Total Project Cost (discounted) Uniform Annual Cost (without terminal value) Less Terminal Value (discounted) Net Total Project Cost (discounted) Uniform Annual Cost (with terminal value) 56.77 5.74 56.77 5.74 Source/Derivation of Cost Estimates: (Use as much space as required SEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Non-Recurring Costs: 1.) Research & Development: COMPLETED 2.) Investment: 48.40 b. Recurring Cost(s): 1.40 c. Net Terminal Value: NONE d. Other Considerations: ($ x 10°) Facilities completely operational in 5 years and system reduces fossil fuel requirements for energy generation by 52%. Name & Title of Principal Action Officer dames L. Bruce Date Geologist Dec. 1978 NWC T™ 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYS Lz SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 1. Submitting Department cf the Navy Component: NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER 2. Date of Submission: JANUARY 1979 ll II 3. Project Title: ADAK GEOTHERMAL STUDY ITA ii 4. Description of Project Objective: REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY LOAD W/GEOTHERMAL ENERGY 3. Alternative:SPACE HEATING - OPTION I-B Economic Life: 30 Years 8. Program/Project Costs (¢ x 10°) | 1 7 7 P. a. : | b. cl id. 10% le. . Non-Recurrin 0 Project a Recurring | Annual | Discount | Discounted ear | R&D Investment’ Operations! Cost Factor Annual Cost 1 | | 23.16 1.40 24.56 9538 25.43 2 } 16.57 } 1.40 17.97 .8671 15.58 3 4.27 1.40 5.67 . 7883 4.47 4 3.45 , 1.40 | 4.85 7166 | 3.48 5 | 0.95 1.40 | 2.35 .6515 1.53 6 1.40 1.40 .5922 0.83 i7 | - 5384 i8 | -4895 19 - 4450 10 | -4045 am} .3677 12 .3343 13 | . 3039 14 i . 2763 15 1.40 |} 1.40 2512 =| 7.45 16 | ' . 2283 17 \ | . 2076 | 18 | - 1887 19 c aI III 20 = - 1560 21 aia -1418 22 uy | | .1289 23 4 | -1172 24 a . 1065 25 = .0968 | 26 We . 0880 27 i; oO .0800 28 ! _ 0728 29 - 0661 30 \ -0601 | i 1 | ! ' | | ly a a lh AU | ° TOTAL i 48.40 | 42.0 90.40 | 9-891 56.77 Cael aon ae eee ee CSI Ue 1 ee NWC TM 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 10a. Total Project Cost (discounted) 45.22 10b. Uniform Annual Cost (without terminal value) 4.57 11. Less Terminal Value (discounted) 45.22 12a. Net Total Project Cost (discounted) 12b. Uniform Annual Cost (with terminal value) 4.57 13. Source/Derivation of Cost Estimates: (Use as much space as required SEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 a. Non-Recurring Costs: ($ X 10°) 1.) Research & Development: COMPLETED 2.) Investment: 42.33 b. Recurring Cost(s): 0.70/year c. Net Terminal Value: NONE d. Other Considerations: Facilities completely operational in 5 years and system reduces fossil fuel requirements for energy generation by 52%. 14. Name & Title of Principal Action Officer Date | James L. Bruce Geologist Dec. 1978 42 NWC TM 3750 SECUNDARY ECONOMIC ANALY SIL SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 1. Submitting Department of the Navy Component: NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER _ 2. Date of Submission: JANUARY 1979 ; 3. Project Title: ADAK GEOTHERMAL STUDY . 4. Description of Project Cbjective:REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY LOAD W/GEOTHERMAL ENERGY . __ 25 MW GEOTH. POWER — 5. Alternative: OPTION Il-A 6. Economic Life: 30 Years 8. Program/Project Costs (¢ x 10°) 7 la | b c d x a ; °‘Non-Recurrin . : > 102 ‘e. Project _ oes Recurring | Annual | Discount | Discounted rear R&D Investment’ 4 Operations! Cost Factor Annual Cost l ee eee ee 1 23.66 8.40 32.06 9538 30.58 2 ' 22.82 8.40 31.22 .8671 27.07 3 ' 15.52 8.40 23.42 . 7883 18.86 4 i 16.00 , 8.40 24.40 .7166 17.49 5 | 16.00 8.40 24.40 6515 15.90 6 15.00 8.40 23.40 | (5992 13.86 7 10.00 8.40 18.40 5384 9.91 8 8.40 8.40 .4895 8.40 9 | 4450 i0 | \ -4045 1 | 3677 112 i | . 3343 13 | 3039! 14 - 2763 15 pio | | 8.40 | 8.40 “3512 40.59 16 | .2283, | 117 | .2076 18 | fo | .1887 19 a ! ! .1716 20 ww - 1560 21 Ke} | . 1418 22 rs) . 1289 23 + | .1172 24 = -1065 25 = - 0968 26 ° . 0880 27 1 8 .0800 28 -0728 29 | -0661 30 .0601 i | | ' ' | | r5 ——+ + TOTAL 127.4 | 252.00 379.40 | 9.891 182.66 ! i 43 NWC T 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 10a. Total Project Cost (discounted) 182.66 10b. Uniform Annual Cost (without terminal value) 18.47 11. Less Terminal Value (discounted) 182.66 12a. Net Total Project Cost (discounted) 12b. Uniform Annual Cost (with terminal value) 18.47 13. Source/Derivation of Cost Estimates: (Use as much space as required SEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Non-Recurring Costs: (¢ x 10°) 1.) Research & Development: COMPLETED 2.) Investment: 127.4 b. Recurring Cost(s): 8.40/year c. Net Terminal Value: NONE d. Other Considerations: Will completely eliminate the fossil fueled energy system except for use as an emergency back-up. 14. Name & Title of Principal Action Officer Date James L. Bruce Geologist Dec. 1978 44 a Oa & WM = - Submitting Department of the Navy Component: NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER . Date of Submission: JANUARY 1979 . Project Title: ADAK GEOTHERMAL STUDY r NWC TM 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT _A + 1 . Description of Project Objective: REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY LOAD W/GEOTHERMAL ENERG‘ 25 MW GEOTH. POWER iP . Alternative: 6. Economic Life: 30 Years OPTION TI-8 | rn 8. Program/Project Costs ($ X 10°) 2+ Non-Recurring b. ri d. 10% e. Recurring | Annual | Discount | Discounted R&D Investment’ Operations! Cost Factor Annual Cost 1 2 1. ! 3 5.52 1.50 7.02 . 7883 5.53 4 6.00 iy 1.50 7.50 .7166 5.37 5 2.30 1.50 3.80 .6515 2.48 6 1.50 1.50 5922 0.89 7 | «5384 8 | 4895 9 | 4450 10 ; -4045 1 -3677 12 . 3343 13 ie 14 .2763 15 1.50 1.50 2512 7.98 16 ‘| . 2283 7 . 2076 18 . 1887 19 e -1716 20 aa - 1560 21 - .1418 22 us .1289 23 - -1172 24 e. | 1065 25 ‘| |= : -0968 26 i; °° 0880 27 e -0800 28 -0728 29 .0661 30 0601 | EE UEC EOE | “TOTAL | | 51.30 45.0 | 96.30 | 9.891 60.83 lh 45 NWC TM 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS __ FORMAT A 10a. Total Project Cost (discounted) 60.83 10b. Uniform Annual Cost (without terminal value) 6.15 11. Less Terminal Value (discounted) 60.83 12a. Net Total Project Cost (discounted) 12b. Uniform Annual Cost (with terminal value) 6.15 13. Source/Derivation of Cost Estimates: (Use as much space as required SEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Non-Recurring Costs: ($ X 10°) 1.) Research & Development: COMPLETED 2.) Investment: 51.30 b. Recurring Cost(s): 1.50 per year c. Net Terminal Value: NONE d. Other Considerations: Completely eliminates the fossil fueled energy system except for use as an emergency back-up, at the lowest cost. 14. Name & Title of Principal Action Officer Date James L. Bruce Geologist Dec. 1978 46 NWC TM 3750 SCCONGARY ECOMOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 1. Submitting Department of the Navy Component: NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER 2. Date of Submission: JANUARY 1979 . Project Title: _ADAK GEOTHERMAL STUDY tc 4. Description of Project Objective:REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY LOAD W/GEOTHERMAL ENERGY 5. Alternative: 25 MW GEOTH. POWER Economic Life: 30 Years ~ BINARY(Option ITI) | 8. Program/Project Costs (§ x 10°) 7 a. iat b. Ce d. 10% e. . Non-Recurrin at - Recurring | Annual | Discount | Discounted i ; R&D Investment’ | Cperations| Cost | Factor Annual Cost 1 32.66 12.50 45.16 .9538 43.07 12 32.82 12.50 45.32 .8671 | 39.29 | 3 22.02 12.50 ; 34.52 | .7883 2752) 4 | 21.00 » 12.50 33.50 -7166 24.01 5 | 21.00 12.50 | 33.50 -6515 21.83 16 1 20.00 12.50 32.50 5922 19.25 |7 10.00 12.50 | 22.50 5384 12.11 8 \ i 12.50 Pec OO ttn Aa gs 6.12 19 | | 4450 10 | .4045 | nN | | .3677 12 i 3343 13 . 3039 j 14 | .2763 15 12.50 + 12.50 62512 54.28 16 | - 2283 7 | 1 -2076 ; , 18 | -1887 | 19 e 1716 20 i -1560 | 21 uae -1418 | 22 ww 1289 23 - mee 24 o P1065 cil 125 = : 0968 | 26 ° . 0880 27 ha - 0800 28 \ .0728 29 -0661 30 0601 ! | | : -—— ! a i eo TOTAL | | 159.50 | 375.00 |534.50 | 9.891 247.17 47 NWC TM 3750 SECONDARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF COSTS FORMAT A 10a. Total Project Cost (discounted) 247.17 10b. Uniform Annual Cost (without terminal value) 24.99 11. Less Terminal Value (discounted) 247.17 12a. Net Total Project Cost (discounted) _ 12b. Uniform Annual Cost (with terminal value) 24.99 13. Source/Derivation of Cost Estimates: (Use as much space as required) — SEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Non-Recurring Costs: ($ X 10°) 1.) Research & Development: COMPLETED 2.) Investment: 159.50 b. Recurring Cost(s): 12.50 per year c. Net Terminal Value: NONE d. Other Considerations: Completely eliminates the fossil fueled energy system, except for use aS an emergency back-up. Can operate with lower reservoir temperatures. 14. Name & Title of Principal Action Officer Date James L. Bruce Geologist Dec. 1978 48