HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Railbelt Electric Energy Plans Vol. V 1982Preliminary Railbelt Electric
Energy Plans
Volume V
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor’s Policy Review Committee
under Contract 2311204417
#Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Battelle as an account of sponsored
research activities. Neither Sponsor nor Battelle nor any person acting
on behalf of either:
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR _ REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
the information contained in this report, or that the use of any informa-
tion, apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately owned rights; or
Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages result-
ing from the use of, any information, apparatus, process, or composition
disclosed in this report.
PRELIMINARY RAILBELT ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
Volume V
J. J. Jacobsen
W. H. Swift
J. C. King
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor's Policy Review Committee
under Contract 2311204417
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington 99352
PREFACE
The State of Alaska commissioned Battelle to investigate potential strat-
egies for future electric power development in Alaska's Railbelt region. The
results of the study will be used by the Office of the Governor to formulate
recommendations for electric power development in the Railbelt.
The primary objective of the study is to develop and analyze several alter-
native long-range plans for electric energy development in the Railbelt region
(see Volume I). Each plan is based on a general energy development strategy
representing one or more policies that Alaska may wish to pursue. The analyses
of the plans will produce forecasts of electric energy demand, schedules for
developing generation and conservation alternatives, estimates of the cost of
power, and discussions of the environmental and socioeconomic characteristics
for each plan.
This report (Volume V of a series of seventeen reports, listed below),
presents a set of preliminary electric energy plans for the Railbelt region.
These plans provided, during the course of this study, a common basis for dis-
cussion by all parties concerned with electric energy development in the
Railbelt region and provided a framework on which to formulate the final electric
energy plans presented in Volume I.
RAILBELT ELECTRIC POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY
Volume I - Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study: Evaluation of Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
Volume II - Selection of Electric Energy Generation Alternatives for Consideration in Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
Volume III - Executive Summary - Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for
Future Application in the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Volume IV - Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for Future Application in the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Volume V - Preliminary Railbelt Electric Energy Plans
iii
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
Existing Generating Facilities and Planned Additions for the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Fossil Fuel Availability and Price Forecasts for the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Railbelt Electricity Demand (RED) Model Specifications
Alaska Economic Projections for Estimating Electricity Require-
ments for the Railbelt
Community Meeting Public Input for the Railbelt Electric Power
Alternatives Study
Over/Under (AREEP Version) Model User's Manual
Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Power Plant Alternatives for the
Railbelt Region of Alaska
Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plant Alternative for
the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Alternative for the Railbelt Region
of Alaska
Browne Hydroelectric Alternative for the Railbelt Region of
Alaska
Wind Energy Alternative for the Railbelt Region of Alaska
Coal-Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Plant Alternative for the Railbelt Region of Alaska
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Four preliminary electric energy plans have been developed for the
Railbelt area. Each of these plans represents a possible electric energy
"future" that presently appears viable for the Railbelt. The plans were
developed to encompass the full range of conservation and generation
alternatives available to the region as well as to provide a direct comparison
of the futures that are currently receiving the greatest interest within the
Railbelt. The general supply strategy of each plan is indicated by the plan's
title:
Plan 1: Base Case
A. Without Upper Susitna
B. With Upper Susitna
Plan 2: High Conservation and Use of Renewable Resources
A. Without Upper Susitna
B. With Upper Susitna
Plan 3: Increased Use of Coal
Plan 4: Increased Use of Natural Gas
Key assumptions common to all plans include:
e@ Utilities' current plans for additions proceed as planned.
@ Generating units are retired based on assumed useful lives.
e@ An interconnection between the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load centers is completed in 1984 and
strengthened as necessary to allow economy power exchanges between
Fairbanks and Anchorage.
e@ All load centers maintain sufficient peaking capacity to provide
peak requirements in the event of interconnection failure.
e@ The Glennallen-Valdez load center is included as part of the
Anchorage-Cook Inlet load center. Glennallen-Valdez area electrical
loads and generating capacity are combined with the electrical loads
and generating capacity of the Anchorage area.
e@ The Bradley Lake hydroelectric project comes on-line in 1988.
PLAN 1: BASE CASE
This plan is based on a transition from existing generating technologies
to alternative conventional generating technologies as electrical requirements
increase and existing capacity is retired. This plan represents the base or
reference case. Two variations of this plan have been identified: Plan 1A is
the base case without the Upper Susitna project and Plan 1B is the base case
with the addition of the Upper Susitna project. The features of each of these
plans are outlined below.
PLAN 1A: BASE CASE WITHOUT UPPER SUSITNA
The primary generating alternatives included in this plan are as follows:
combustion turbines (gas or distillate)
combined cycle (gas or distillate)
hydroelectric (other than Upper Susitna)
@ conventional coal steam electric.
The key features of this plan are summarized below:
e@ The Chakachamna hydroelectric project is built as required to come
on-line no sooner than 1994.
e@ The Grant Lake project is built as required to come on-line no
sooner than 1990.
e@ The Allison hydroelectric project is added as necessary after
1992 (see page 1.2).
@ Coal steam turbines are installed after the hydro alternatives,
as necessary.
@ Oi] combustion turbine units are used for peaking in the Fairbanks-
Tanana Valley load center until retirement.
@ Gas combined cycles are added to provide peaking generation when
existing Fairbanks-Tanana Valley oi] combustion units are retired.
e@ Coal-fired steam-electric capacity is added for baseload if less
expensive than power from Anchorage-Cook Inlet. If coal-fired
generation is not less expensive, all new generation will be
gas-fired combined cycle.
vi
PLAN 1B: BASE CASE WITH UPPER SUSITNA
This plan is based upon a continuation of present generating technologies
with a transition to Upper Susitna hydropower as required. Any additional
capacity required is to be supplied by conventional coal steam turbine or
combined-cycle facilities. The key features of this plan are summarized below:
@ The Watana I facility of the Upper Susitna project is available
as early as 1993.
e If necessary, combustion turbine capacity is added to fill in until
Upper Susitna is available.
e@ Coal Steam turbine units are added after the Upper Susitna project
is completed.
e If necessary, oi] combustion turbine capacity in Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley is added before Upper Susitna is available.
e@ If necessary, coal steam turbine capacity is added for baseload
in Fairbanks-Tanana Valley if less expensive than power from
Anchorage-Cook Inlet. If power is less expensive from Anchorage,
gas combined-cycle units will be added to provide reserve peaking
capacity.
PLAN 2: HIGH CONSERVATION AND USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
This plan emphasizes the use of conservation to reduce electrical energy
demand, as well as the use of renewable energy sources such as refuse-derived
fuel, wind, and Cook Inlet tidal power. While various levels of conservation
are assumed in each of the plans, this plan includes increased levels of
conservation. In each of the load centers, conservation alternatives are
encouraged through a variety of means such as public education programs, tax
incentives, and state and utility load programs. As with Plan 1, this plan also
has variations: Plan 2A is without the Upper Susitna project and Plan 2B includes
the Upper Susitna project. Features of each of these plans are presented below.
vii
PLAN 2A: HIGH CONSERVATION AND USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES WITHOUT UPPER
SUSITNA
Under this plan, conservation and alternatives relying on renewable
resources, excluding the Upper Susitna project, will be developed to the max-
imum extent feasible. Additional capacity required will be provided by conven-
tional generating alternatives as in Plan 1. Additional features are presented
below:
@ The following hydroelectric projects are built as required, but no
sooner than the date indicated: Lake Chakachamna, 1992; Keetna,
1992; Snow, 1992; Strandline Lake, 1992; Grant Lake, 1992; and
Allison, 1992.
e@ A 50-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built at
Anchorage.
@ Cook Inlet tidal power is developed as appropriate in conjunction
with hydroelectric facilities since it appears that the tidal
options under consideration will not be designed to provide firm
power.
e@ The Browne hydroelectric project is added as necessary after 1992.
e A 20-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built at
Fairbanks.
e@ Wind energy resources in the Isabelle Pass area are developed and
intertied.
PLAN 2B: HIGH CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLES WITH UPPER SUSITNA
This plan is similar to Plan 2A except that the Upper Susitna project is
built. The key features of this plan are summarized below:
e@ The Watana I facility of the Upper Susitna project is available
as early as 1993.
e@ A 50-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built at
Anchorage.
e@ Cook Inlet tidal power is developed as appropriate after the Upper
Susitna project is completed.
viii
e A 20-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built at
Fairbanks.
e@ Wind energy resources in the Isabelle Pass area are developed and
intertied.
PLAN 3: INCREASED USE OF COAL
This plan is based on a transition from existing generating technologies
to alternatives that either directly or indirectly use coal as a fuel. Coal is
currently available in the Railbelt from the Healy area; it is also expected to
be available from the Beluga area in 1988. This plan assumes that coal-fired
generation in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load center will be located in the
Beluga area. Baseload generation for the Fairbanks area depends on the costs of
facilities located at Beluga compared to costs of facilities located in the
Nenana area. The key features of this plan are summarized below:
e@ All new generation is either coal-fired steam turbines or combined-
cycle units using coal-based synthetic fuels.
e With the exception of Bradley Lake, no additional hydroelectric
facilities are built.
PLAN 4: INCREASED USE OF NATURAL GAS
This plan is based upon continued use of natural gas for generation in
the Cook Inlet area and a conversion to natural gas in the Fairbanks area.
The key assumption in this plan is that there will be sufficient gas available
in the Cook Inlet area to allow utilities to continue to use it for electrical
generation. It is also assumed that natural gas will be available for the
Fairbanks area from the North Slope, beginning in 1988. Possible generating
alternatives to be included in this plan include fuel cells, combined cycle,
combustion turbine, and fuel cell combined cycle. All new generating facilities
added in the region are gas fired.
ix
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ° . . . .
1.0
2.0 BASIS FOR SELECTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
3.0
INTRODUCTION . ° ; 0 ° 4 . .
ak
gee
Zo
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE
2.1.1 Coal Resources 3 ° c . .
2.1.2 Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources
2.1.3 Hydroelectric Resources :
2.1.4 Wind Resources : A H ‘
2.1.5 Geothermal Resources . . . .
2.1.6 Solar Resources . q c .
2.1.7 Peat Resources . . . .
2.1.8 Tidal Resources . : : . .
2.1.9 Municipal Refuse-Derived Fuel .
ESTIMATED AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES .
CURRENT GENERATING FACILITIES AND UTILITY PLANS
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS AND AVAILABILITY OF GENERATION
ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
CURRENT AND FORECASTED REQUIREMENTS . .
RESULTS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS . . . .
SELECTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS .
So
Sse
PLAN 1: BASE CASE . S
3.1.1 Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper Susitna
3.1.2 Plan 1B: Base Case With Upper Susitna
PLAN 2: HIGH CONSERVATION AND USE OF
RENEWABLE RESOURCES . ° . .
xi
.
Meo
2.1
el
Ziel
2.3
25
2.6
2.9
Bealal
Gals
2.15
2.16
Zald
2.18
2.23
2.24
2.29
233)
Sek
Sse
See
3.9
3.8
3.2.1 Plan 2A: High Conservation and Renewables Without
Upper Susitna 5 . ; - a 6 ; . 3.18
3.2.2 Plan 2B: High Conservation and Renewables
With Upper Susitna 5 ; ai x * - $ 3.10
3.3 PLAN 3: INCREASED USE OF COAL . ; . . . é 3.13
3.4 PLAN 4: INCREASED USE OF NATURAL GAS. C . . . 3.14
APPENDIX . ° ° . ° ° . ° . . ; A.l
xii
2eL
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2e7.
2.8
a9
2.10
eet
Zeke
2.13
2.14
2.15
Sal
3.2
3.3
3.4
Major Coal Resources of the
Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources of the Railbelt Area
FIGURES
Railbelt Area.
Hydroelectric Sites Considered for Development
in this Study . * .
Wind Resources in the Railbelt Area
Geothermal Resources in the Railbelt Area. .
Solar Resources for the Railbelt Area .
Peat Resources of the Railbelt Area c . .
Tidal Resources Considered for Development in This Study
Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Utilities, 1980 . :
Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Utilities, 1980 5 .
Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Glennallen-Valdez Utilities, 1980 . ° 3 C
Projected Peak Demand for Anchorage-Cook Inlet Load Center
Projected Peak Demands for the Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley Load Center .
Projected Peak Demands for the Glennallen-Valdez
Load Center . . ;
Typical Load Duration Curve
Plan 1A: Base Case Without
for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
Plan 1A: Base Case Without
Effects of Conservation for
Plan 1A: Base Case Without
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley .
Plan 1A: Base Case Without
for the Railbelt
Upper Susitna
Upper Susitna Illustrating
Anchorage-Cook Inlet .
Upper Susitna for
Upper Susitna Illustrating Effects
of Conservation for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley .
xiii
ene
2.4
af
2.8
2.10
Gale
2.14
al?
2.20
eeel
Cee
2.26
2.26
Ca
2.28
3.4
3.6
3.6
336
329
3.6
Sar
3.8
3.9
3.10
Sok
3.12
sols)
3.14
Plan 1B: Base Case With Upper Susitna for
Anchorage-Cook Inlet : ' dD . . .
Plan 1B: Base Case With Upper Susitna for
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley . : ‘ S
Plan 2A: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
Without Upper Susitna for Anchorage - Cook Inlet .
Plan 2A: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
Without Upper Susitna for Fairbanks - Tanana Valley
Plan 2B: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
with Upper Susitna for Anchorage-Cook Inlet . . “ .
Plan 2B: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
with Upper Susitna for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley . ‘ i:
Plan 3: Increased Use of Coal for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
Plan 3: Increased Use of Coal for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley .
Plan 4: Increased Use of Natural Gas for
Anchorage-Cook Inlet . . . ~ . .
Plan 4: Increased Use of Natural Gas for
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley . 5 7 S : . : F
xiv
3.19
3519
Sell
3.11
3.12
3.12
3525)
3.25
3.26
3.26
Grol:
Zee
253
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
TABLES
Operating Parameters for Five Selected Hydroelectric
Sites in the Railbelt ° . . . ° .
Operating Parameters for Hydroelectric Sites in
Feasibility Study Stage . ; 5 5 a , ; .
Summary of Cook Inlet Tidal Sites Selected for Further
Analysis . . . . . ° 5 a . :
Estimated Earliest Date of Commercial Availability
for Resource Types . . . 5 A ° 6 . O
Estimated Earliest Date of Commercial Operation for Electrical
Energy Alternatives . 7 ‘ 5 5 ; . 0 a
Average Score and Rank Order of Responses by
Preference--Section A . . . ° . 7" . .
Average Number of Points Given to Each Issue--Section B .
Average Score and Rank Order of Responses by
Preference--Section C . ; . . . . 8 °
Average Score and Rank Order of Responses by
Preference - SectionD . a 6 a a . 5 5
Summary of Electrical Energy Alternatives Included as Future
Additions in Preliminary Electric Energy Plans . : 5
XV
Z.6
2.6
2.19
2aco
2.30
2a3)
2.32
2.33
2630)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present a set of preliminary electric
energy plans for the Railbelt region. Each plan represents a possible electric
energy "future" for the Railbelt. The plans were developed both to represent
the full range of viable alternatives available to the region and to provide a
direct comparison of those futures currently receiving the greatest interest
within the Railbelt. In Volume I of this study, the costs of power and the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of these plans are compared to provide
information to help the Policy Review Committee, the utilities, and the public
to make policy decisions regarding electrical generation expansion in the
Railbelt.
A plan is defined by a set of electrical generating alternatives used to
meet the peak demand. In this study a set of electrical generation technologies
was selected for each of the four alternative electric energy plans. Specific
sizes of generating facilities and exact on-line dates are not specified since
they depend upon several factors not addressed here. Electrical generation
options are specified to meet both cycling and base loads.
Throughout this study conservation alternatives and electric energy sub-
stitutes are considered as demand modifiers rather than as supply alternatives;
thus, the effects of conservation and electric energy substitutes are repre-
sented by a reduction in the electricity required by the consumer. Alternative
levels of conservation are evaluated for three of the electric energy plans.
One plan (Plan 2), however, includes an aggressive conservation policy that
will result in a higher level of conservation than the other plans.
Five major factors were considered when developing these plans:
@ natural resources available
@ current generating facilities and utility plans
@ performance characteristics and availability of alternative
generation technologies
@ current and forecasted requirements for electricity
el
e@ results of public input.
The process used to develop the electric energy plans using these factors
was subjective. As pointed out above, the plans were developed to encompass
the full range of conservation and generation alternatives available to the
region rather than to select the "best" plans based upon a formal selection and
evaluation process.
This study considers three load centers (Anchorage-Cook Inlet, Fairbanks-
Tanana Valley and Glennallen-Valdez). However, because of the relatively small
electrical requirements of the Glennallen-Valdez load center (approximately 2%
of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area), it is not specifically dealt with as an
individual load center. For this study, the Glennallen-Valdez load center is
considered to be part of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load center. The electrical
demands for the Glennallen-Valdez area are determined as part of this study
but are combined with the Anchorage-Cook Inlet loads. Future electrical require-
ments of the Glennallen-Valdez load center are assumed to be served from the
Anchorage area except for the possible addition of the Allison hydroelectric
project in some cases.
Each of the load centers has different resource bases, different gener-
ating stocks, and different forecasted demand. For example, the Anchorage-Cook
Inlet can continue to use natural gas for several years, whereas the Fairbanks-
Tanana Valley area does not currently have natural gas available. The
Anchorage-Cook Inlet area can use larger generating facilities than the Fairbanks-
Tanana Valley area. Because of these differences, each electric energy plan
must be adapted for each load center.
The approach and rationale for the selection of the preliminary electric
energy plans developed for consideration are discussed in Chapter 2. The plans
are described in detail in Chapter 3.
Ime
2.0 BASIS FOR SELECTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
This chapter discusses the major factors considered when developing the
preliminary electric energy plans and explains the reasoning behind the
selection of the plans. The plans were selected based on the following five
factors: 1) natural resources available; 2) current generating facilities and
plans; 3) performance and availability of alternative generating technologies;
4) current and forecasted electrical requirements; and 5) public input.
2.1 NATURAL RESOURCE BASE
The availability of natural resources that can be used for the production
of electricity is a primary consideration in both the selection and siting of
generation technologies. Each load center within the Railbelt has a different
natural resource base. This section summarizes the more important natural
resources present in the Railbelt area that can be utilized for electrical
power production. Nine major resource types are discussed: 1) coal,
2) natural gas and petroleum, 3) hydroelectric, 4) wind, 5) geothermal,
6) solar radiation, 7) peat, 8) tidal and 9) municipal refuse-derived fuel.
2.1.1 Coal Resources
The Railbelt area has relatively abundant coal resources. The major coal
fields are shown in Figure 2.1. Two fields, the Beluga Field and the Nenana
Field, have superior potential to support electrical power production. Other
sources of coal exist primarily in the Matanuska Valley (Evans-Jones Mines,
now abandoned) and on the Kenai Peninsula. The Matanuska source would require
more costly underground mining, and the reserves on the Kenai are believed to
consist of thin isolated beds suitable for low tonnage local supply but not
for central station power generation. Other coal fields (Susitna, Broad Pass,
Jarvis Creek and Glennallen Fields) do not appear to have potential to support
electrical power production.
The only current major coal mining activity in the Railbelt is located
near Healy in the Nenana Field (the Usibelli Mine). It supports electrical
power generation and direct space heating in the Interior. Coal reserves in
that region appear ample for many decades to come.
rarall
COAL RESOURCES
WM FIELDS HAVING SUPERIOR POTENTIAL
OTHER FIELDS
NENANA
FIELD
SUSITNA J) FIELD (,
y
\ ‘ . TALKEETNA Wey :
\ ) CY
\ S YQ SSMS
NX
BELUGA YX
7 ght massa $6 ) SEWARD
FIGURE 2.1. Major Coal Resources of the Railbelt Area
2.2
Little coal is used in the Cook Inlet region. However, research
conducted at Battelle-Northwest (Swift et al. 1980) suggests that there is an
excellent chance for a "world scale" surface mining operation to develop in
the 1980s in the Beluga Field, with the primary impetus being the rapidly
growing coal market in East Asia. If an export mine at Beluga is not
developed, then coal sufficient to support a generation plant could still be
provided to the Cook Inlet region via the Alaska Railroad, but at a
substantially higher cost from the Healy area. There appears to be no coal
resources available for electrical power production in the Glennallen-Valdez
area.
In many ways coal is an attractive fuel for electrical generation in the
Railbelt area. It is abundant; good deposits are located close to the major
load centers; the technologies for both mining and burning it in an efficient
and environmentally safe way are well established; and projections indicate
that it will continue to be competitively priced relative to alternative fuels
in the future.
2.1.2 Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources
Natural gas from Cook Inlet fields (see Figure 2.2) is currently the
predominant non-transportation fuel for both direct end-use and electrical
Power generation in the Cook Inlet region. The prices in the area are the
lowest in the United States, primarily as a result of long-term contracts
signed when there was an excess of natural gas and the producers, lacking a
major market outlet, faced a "buyer's market."
This price situation is not expected to continue because of expiration of
contracts and because of natural gas deregulations. Under the most optimistic
(from the consumer's point of view) conditions, rapid increases in natural gas
prices may occur about 1990, although it is quite likely that gas prices will
increase markedly in the mid-1980s.
Natural gas is not currently available at either the Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley or Glenallen-Valdez area load centers. Should North Slope gas become
available in the mid to late 1980s, its city gate cost (made up of well head
2.3
NATURAL GAS &
PETROLEUM
EES NATURAL GAS FIELDS
MMBOIL FIELDS
eeeeee PROPOSED NORTH SLOPE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
—--NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
——— PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPELINE,
=— NORTH SLOPE CRUDE PIPELINE y
FIGURE 2.2. Natural Gas and Petroleum Resources of the Railbelt Area
2.4
price plus conditioning cost plus a share of the transmission tarrif) is
expected to be far higher than Cook Inlet gas.
Distillate fuel oils (such as home heating oil, diesel fuel, and
combustion turbine fuel) now serve substantial markets in the Railbelt (second
to natural gas in total), particularly in isolated communities and in the
Fairbanks and Glennallen areas. In the Cook Inlet region, distillate fuels
are currently used as a backup supply by the electric utilities for peak loads
that natural gas supplies are not able to meet.
Propane and butane low-pressure gas or LPG are products of petroleum
refining operations or are extracted from natural gas prior to the latter's
transmission through pipeline systems. At the present time LPG is not a major
fuel in the Railbelt region.
With the advent of natural gas production on the North Slope, significant
quantities of LPG would be produced and separated from the methane and ethane
fractions. As of mid-1981, it appears that the LPG would be used locally as
fuel to support North Slope oi] and gas operations. Thus, the extent of its
availability in the Railbelt region is speculative.
2.1.3 Hydroelectric Resources
A number of potential hydroelectric sites have been identified in the
Railbelt area. As part of feasibility studies for the Susitna hydroelectric
project being conducted by the Alaska Power Authority, Acres-American selected
ten sites (not including the Upper Susitna alternatives) as most suitable for
development (APA 1981). Based upon further analyses, it now appears that five
of the sites (Snow, Keetna, Browne, Strandline Lake, and Chakachamna) are the
most attractive for further consideration in this study. In addition, the
Allison project is retained for further consideration since its location is
convenient to the Glennallen-Valdez load center. Operating parameters for
these sites are presented in Table 2.1.
In addition to these six sites are four others in the feasibility study
stage. These sites are Bradley Lake, Grant Lake and the Upper Susitna project
240
TABLE 2.1. Operating Parameters for Six Selected Hydroelectric
Sites in the Railbelt
Installed Average Annual Site River Capacity (MW) _Energy (Gwh)
Snow Snow 50 220
Keetna Talkeetna 100 395
Browne Nenana 100 410
Chakachamna Chakachamna 480 1925
Strandline Lake Beluga 20 85
Allison Allison Creek 8 33)
Source: (APA 1981la)
(the Watana and Devil Canyon Dams). The parameters of these sites are
presented in Table 2.2. The geographical locations of each of these nine
sites are shown in Figure 2.3.
2.1.4 Wind Resources
Battelle-Northwest recently published a Wind Energy Resource Atlas for
Alaska (BNW 1980a). This Atlas identified several areas in the Railbelt with
relatively high wind power densities (areas with average annual wind power
densities of 250 watts/m* or more). These areas are shown in Figure 2.4.
These areas include wind corridors (Isabelle Pass and Portage Pass), the
coastal areas along Prince William Sound, and areas in the Alaska Range
including McKinley National Park. The highest wind resources
(1000 watts /m2) appear in the Isabelle Pass area.
TABLE 2.2. Operating Parameters for Hydroelectric Sites
in Feasibility Study Stage
Average
Installed Annual
Capacity Energy
Site River (MW) (GWh )
Watana Upper Susitna 800 3215
Devil Canyon Upper Susitna 400 2851
Bradley Lake --- 90 347
Grant Lake --- 7 27
2.6
CANDIDATE
HYDROELECTRIC
SITES
SNOW BROWNE CHAKACHAMNA ALLISON WATANA DEVIL CANYON BRADLEY LAKE STRANDLINE LAKE KEETNA (
GRANT LAKE CO CON PC SOiN> er \
FIGURE 2.3. Hydroelectric Sites Considered for Development in This Study
exh
WIND POWER DENSITY
YZ 250 WATTS/M? E33 300
. HOMER
. PORTAGE CREEK
. BIRD POINT
. CANTWELL
. ANCHOR POINT
. TAHNETA PASS
FIGURE 2.4. Wind Resources in the Railbelt Area and Sites
Warranting Further Investigation in the Cook Inlet Area
228
Another study conducted by Battelle-Northwest for the Alaska Power
Administration made a preliminary evaluation of the wind energy potential of
the Cook Inlet area (BNW 1980b). Six regions (shown in Figure 2.4) were
identified as warranting further investigation:
@ The hills north of Homer
e@ Portage Creek Valley - Turnagain Arm
e@ Bird Point - Turnagain Arm
e@ Cantwell - Summit - Broad Pass Area
e@ Anchor Point - Northwest of Homer
e@ Tahneta Pass - crest of Glennallen Highway
While these areas appear promising, at this time there is no conclusive
evidence that large scale generation of electrical energy by megawatt-scale
wind turbines is a viable option in the Cook Inlet area (BNW 1980b). The
report further recommends that while it is premature to consider embarking on
a large-scale wind prospecting program at this time, the quantity and quality
of the wind resources at those sites should be determined through measurement
programs to gain information regarding the future course of wind energy
prospecting in the Cook Inlet area.
Based on these reports it, appears that wind energy may be a viable source
of electric energy in the future. However, the time required to investigate
the nature of the wind resource and locate sites with sufficient wind energy,
as well as the time required to develop large-scale, commercially available
wind machines capable of operation in Alaska, will probably not allow
commercial generation in the Railbelt until after 1990.
2.1.5 Geothermal Resources
Two basic types of geothermal resources have been identified in or near
the Railbelt region, low-temperature liquid and hot dry rock. Some
low-temperature geothermal resources in the Fairbanks area are used for
heating swimming pools and for space heating. In southwest Alaska some use is
made of geothermal resources for heating greenhouses as well as space
heating. Hot dry rock geothermal resources with temperatures that may be high
enough to generate electricity have been discovered in the Wrangell and
Chigmit Mountains (Figure 2.5). The Wrangell system located east of
209
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES~ ~—
Ay HOT DRY ROCK RESOURCES
e pe een LIQUID CHENA HOT SPRINGS
MANLEY HOT vaeat
CHIGMIT SYSTEM
; me ie OE 0 fY
FIGURE 2.5. Geothermal Resources in the Railbelt Area
2.10
Glennallen has subsurface temperatures exceeding 1200°F. The Chigmit System
is located west of Cook Inlet. Little is known about the geothermal
properties of either system.
A geothermal resource in granite rock has been identified in the Willow
area (Figure 2.5). A deep exploration well was discovered to have a bottom
hole temperature of ~170°F. Exploration data to date indicate that while
this resource may prove useful for low-temperature applications, its
relatively low temperature makes it an unlikely source for electric
generation.
The geothermal areas (with the exception of Mt. Spurn) of both Wrangell
and Chigmit Mountains are located in lands designated as National Parks. The
federal Geothermal Steam Act prohibits leasing and developing National Park
lands. However, if townships within these areas are selected by a native
corporation under the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, and if the surface
and subsurface estates are conveyed to private ownership, then the federal
government jurisdiction would not apply, and development would be possible.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 allows the
granting of rights-of-way for pipelines, transmission lines and other
facilities across National Interest Lands for access to resources surrounded
by National Interest Lands.
2.1.6 Solar Resources
The solar resources of the Railbelt area are summarized in Figure 2.6.
The average monthly solar radiation in Btu-day/ft2 is shown for Homer,
Palmer, Summit, Big Delta, and Fairbanks. The solar resources are highly
seasonal, averaging less than 200 Btu-day/ft@ for the winter months and
reaching approximately 1500 Btu-day/ft? during the summer months of May,
June, and July.
As shown in Figure 2.6, the solar resources of the region do not
correspond well with the periods of highest electrical demand. During the
winter months, which is time of the greatest electrical demand, the solar
resources are the lowest. For this reason, it is unlikely that large,
centralized solar generating alternatives such as solar photovoltaic and solar
central receiver systems will be viable in the Railbelt. Passive solar space
Cale
SOLAR RADIATION
BTU-DAY/FT2
Z@]FAIRBANKS 150 g RY
GZ (iY N
RO TALKEETNA 1500
FIGURE 2.6. Solar Resources for the Railbelt Area
eol2
heating and dispersed active solar systems may be viable for small, specific
applications such as individual industrial and commercial buildings and
residences.
2.1.7 Peat Resources
The Railbelt area has wide-ranging peat resources (Figure 2.7). In an
effort to refine the information available on peat resources and to select
those sites most attractive for power production, the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Fossil Energy sponsored a State Resource Estimation for
Alaska (Huck and Markley 1980). Several bogs were selected as having the
greatest development opportunities. These bogs are generally located along
the Alaska Railroad west of Palmer. These bogs were selected using the
following criteria (Huck and Markley 1980):
1. Distance to a potential major user must not exceed 30 miles by road,
or 50 miles by railroad.
2. Distance to a major road with a suitable roadbed must not exceed
5 miles.
3. Bog area must exceed 80 acres (preferably 320 acres).
4. Bog area must be continuous.
5. Bog area must have a minimum peat depth of 5 feet.
Despite this study, the peat resource base in the Railbelt is still
poorly understood. Although the bogs identified appear to be significant, no
estimates of resources or reserves have been made. As part of the Electric
Power Alternatives Study, we concluded that peat is not a reasonable candidate
for the Railbelt as a fuel source for electric power generation given other
more viable thermal alternatives (e.g., coal). Estimates indicate that peat
bog-mouth costs (mined and air dried) will be approximately two times those
for coal on a Btu basis. Capital costs for peat-fueled steam-electric plants
are also expected to be substantially greater than for coal plants because of
the greater materials handling requirements and the larger boiler volume
required.
2.13
Bs 2 P \ Le \ .
\ YS LO
PEAT RESOURCES
PEAT DEPOSITS
Peat Resources of the Railbelt Area
214
FIGURE 2.7.
Based upon current information and existing steam electric generating
technology, the economics of peat-fired generation suggests that this resource
not be considered as an alternative within the Railbelt at this time.
However, because of the extensive peat resources available within the area it
appears to warrant further investigation as technologies to utilize peat are
further developed.
2.1.8 Tidal Resources
Cook Inlet tidal power is a potential source of electrical energy for the
Railbelt. Acres American Incorporated is conducting a preliminary assessment
of the potential of utilizing Cook Inlet tidal power. A preliminary field
reconnaissance and site selection has been completed and a report issued
(Acres 1981). The technology used to harness tides for the generation of
electrical power is summarized below.
The natural process of ebb and flow in the ocean tides entrains very
large amounts of energy and offers a non-polluting, renewable
source. Tidal energy is available both in kinetic form in rapidly
flowing tidal currents, and as potential energy associated with the
tidal waters contained behind man-made barrages. In view of the
relatively low density, the cost of extracting kinetic energy from
tidal currents is relatively high. There are, around the world, a
few special locations where tidal ranges are particularly high, and
where it is possible to tap the potential energy for economic power
generation.
The fundamental approach to tidal power development involves the
creation of an artificial barrier which permits one or more pools to
be maintained at elevations which are lower than high tide or higher
than low tide. When sufficient head differential is obtained, water
at the higher pool level is allowed to flow through hydraulic
turbines to the lower pool level, thereby generating power. It will
be appreciated that the operating head available within even the
highest available tidal ranges falls just within the lowest limit
for economic hydroelectric power generation...
...-Cook Inlet is a major tidal estuary located in the South Central
Region of Alaska and characterized by its high tidal ranges. It is
approximately 180 miles long and ranges in width from 80 miles near
its mouth in the Northern Gulf of Alaska to approximately 20 miles
not far from Anchorage where the waters divide forming the narrow
Knik and Turnagain Arms.
(Acres 1981, pp. 1,2)
2.15
As part of the Acres' preliminary assessment 16 sites were considered and
an evaluation made of the capacity, energy, and logistical and environmental
properties of each site. As a result of the evaluation, three sites were
chosen for further analysis. The characteristics of these sites are
summarized in Table 2.3. and their location shown in Figure 2.8.
One problem associated with tidal generation facilities is that the timing
of the production of energy is controlled by the lunar cycle. To obtain firm
power, it is necessary to either retime the production of energy using storage
methods or use the tidal power in conjunction with a generation option that
can store energy and cycle easily. Acres-American concludes that providing
at-site storage to allow retiming of Cook Inlet tidal power will not be cost-
effective (Acres 1981). Hydroelectric facilities provide a good generation
alternative for use with tidal power since they provide storage and can be
cycled easily. For this reason, any tidal power facilities in the Cook Inlet
will probably be constructed in conjunction with hydroelectric facilities.
2.1.9 Municipal Refuse-Derived Fuel
Municipal refuse derived fuel (RDF) is available in the Railbelt.
However, because of the high cost of collection, consideration of RDF for
electric power generation at a significant scale is necessarily limited to
metropolitan areas where the sources of refuse are more concentrated. As a
result, applications using RDF appear to be limited to the Anchorage and
Fairbanks solid waste disposal areas.
TABLE 2.3. Summary of Cook Inlet Tidal Sites Selected for
Further Analysis
Estimated
Installed (a) Structure Barrier
Capacity Net Energy Height Length
Name (MW) (kWh _x_10°) (ft) _(ft)
Port MacKenzie 2,350 6,000 126 13,700
Above Eagle Bay 1,400 3,500 65 18,200
Rainbow 1,180 3,000 65 24,300
(a) For comparison, a 400-MW generating plant operating with a 50% annual utilization produces 1,752 x 106 kWh of energy.
2.16
TIDAL POWER
@S SITES SELECTED FOR
FURTHER STUDY
EAGLE BAY
PT MAC KENZI
Go ae wise
FIGURE 2.8. Tidal Resources Considered for Development in This Study
2.17
In this study refuse-derived fuel includes not only refuse but also wood
waste and waste oi]. Because of the seasonal variation in the amount of
refuse produced, it will probably be necessary to supplement the fuel with
coal. It is assumed that coal from the Healy area would be transported via
the Alaska Railroad to both Anchorage and Fairbanks for this purpose.
2.2 ESTIMATED AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES
A number of the resources discussed above are not currently used for
electrical generation in the Railbelt because they are not yet developed for
commercial use. The process of developing a resource for commercial use is
typically a complex and time-consuming process, and it is important that the
electrical power planners have realistic estimates of when the various
resources might be available. We have estimated the availability of the
various resources for commercial development. These estimates are presented
in Table 2.4.
The years shown in this table are the earliest estimated date for
commercial utilization of these resources. Since commercial operation depends
on the availability of the technology as well as the development of the
resource, some of the dates presented are based on the earliest availability
of an appropriate utilization technology rather than on the availability of
the resource. (See Section 2.4 for estimates of the earliest date of
commercial operation of the various alternatives considered.)
2.3 CURRENT GENERATING FACILITIES AND UTILITY PLANS
Current utility generating stock and plans for expanding that stock form
the basis from which any future generating system must evolve. Because of the
relatively long life of electrical generating facilities, the existing
facilities will be in service for a number of years. This is especially true
in the Railbelt area where most of the capacity has been brought on-line since
1970 because of the relatively high growth in load experienced during the
1970s. In some cases, utilities have firm plans for generation expansion that
must be taken into account.
2.18
TABLE 2.4. Estimated Earliest Date of Commercial Availability
for Resources Types
Resources Year
Resources.
Coal -
Tanana Field 1988 Beluga Field(@) 1988
Natural gas
Cook Inlet 1980
Interior 1988
Oil
All Products 1980
Hydroe lectric(b)
Watana 1993
Devil Canyon 1993
Chakachamna 1994
Browne 1990-1995
Snow 1990-1995
Bradley Lake 1988
Allison 1990-1995
Strandline Lake 1990-1995
Keetna 1990-1995
Grant Lake 1990 Wind(b, c)
All locations 1990
Geothermal (b, d)
All locations 2000
Solar (b)
Solar Photovoltaic Systems 1986
Solar Central Receiver Systems 1990
Passive Solar Space Heating 1980
Dispersed Active Solar Systems 1980 Peat (b, e) 1993 Tidal (b) 2000
Municipal Refuse
Derived Fuel 1980
(a) Assumes the decision to develop for export is
made in 1981.
(b) Commercial utilization of these resources depends
on the availability and construction of the
generating facilities as well as the development
of the resource. The dates shown reflect the
earliest estimated date for commercial operation
of these resources.
(c) Assumes an initial 2-year wind resource
assessment program.
(d) Assumes a 6-year resource assessment with
aggressive technology development for hot dry
rock resources.
(e) Assumes a 3-year resource assessment.
2.19
Each of the electric energy plans must evolve from existing generating
systems. Thus, all plans will have a continuation of existing generation
modes for 5 to 15 years into the future with a gradual transition to other
supply alternatives in the 1985-1995 time period.
The Anchorage-Cook Inlet area is currently almost entirely dependent on
natural gas-fired combustion turbine/combined cycle generation. The mix of
electrical generating facilities in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area as of 1980
is shown in Figure 2.9. About 91% of the total capacity was either simple and
regenerative cycle combustion turbine or combined cycle combustion turbines.
Current plans call for conversion of some of the combustion turbine units to
combined cycle operation to increase the generating capacity and to decrease
heat rates. The Bradley Lake hydroelectric project appears relatively firm at
this point. The most likely configuration for this facility calls for 90 MW
of capacity with an annual average energy production of 3476 GWh.
The Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load center depends heavily on coal-fired
steam turbine capacity (22% in 1980) and oil-fired combustion turbine capacity
DIESEL
(7MW-1%) \
€OMBINED CYCLE
COMBUSTION TURBINE
(139MW-22%)
HYDROELECTRIC
WEN oe SIMPLE AND REGENERATIVE CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE (430MW-69%)
FIGURE 2.9. Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Utilities, 1980
2.20
(66% in 1980). Area utilities have excess capacity; unfortunately it consists
of expensive oil-fired combustion turbines. At the present time the
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley utilities have no firm plans for capacity additions or
retirements. The mix of electrical generating facilities in the area as of
1980 is shown in Figure 2.10.
Current plans call for the completion of a transmission line between
Willow and Healy that will intertie the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load centers. This line will probably be completed
and available in 1984. This line will be designed to operate at 345 kV but
will be operated at 138 kV until the Upper Susitna project comes on-line. At
138 kV, maximum power transfer will be about 70 MW.
The completion of this transmission intertie is a key near-term addition
for the Fairbanks area. It will allow Fairbanks utilities to purchase
relatively inexpensive power (generated with natural gas) from Anchorage. It
will also allow both load centers to take advantage of the additional peaking
capacity available in the Fairbanks area.
SIMPLE CYCLE COMBUSTION
TURBINE (200MW-66%)
STEAM TURBINE
(67MW-22%)
FIGURE 2.10. Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Utilities, 1980
2.21
In general, the Anchorage and Fairbanks area utilities are in a "wait and
see" mode regarding Upper Susitna. If the decision is made to build Upper
Susitna, utilities will probably add sufficient fossil fuel-fired capacity
with low capital costs to serve the load until Upper Susitna comes on-line.
This capacity will also serve as reserve capacity after Upper Susitna comes
on-line. While the Willow-to-Healy intertie is a key feature of the Upper
Susitna project, it will probably be built regardless of the decision made on
Upper Susitna.
If the decision is made to not proceed with the Upper Susitna project,
then the Anchorage area utilities would probably continue using gas to the
maximum extent possible and add coal-fired steam turbine capacity. The
Fairbanks area would probably also add coal-fired capacity.
The Glennallen-Valdez load center is largely dependent on diesel
generation with a small amount of oil-fired combustion turbine capacity. The
relative mix of generating facilities in the Glennallen-Valdez area is shown
in Figure 2.11. The Solomon Gulch hydro project will come on-line in 1981 and
replace much of the diesel and combustion turbine capacity.
SIMPLE CYCLE
COMBUSTION TURBINE
DIESEL (2, 8MW-15%)
(16, IMW-85%)
FIGURE 2.11. Relative Mix of Electrical Generating Facilities,
Glennallen-Valdez Utilities, 1980
2.22
2.4 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS AND AVAILABILITY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES
SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Individual generating technologies have specific technical and economic
characteristics that determine their suitability for certain applications.
The major factors discussed in this section are the operating mode of the
alternative generation technologies and the dates that they will be available
for commercial operation.
A number of currently commercial, emerging, and advanced energy
technologies are being evaluated as potential electric energy alternatives to
be included in the electric energy plans. A selection of alternatives has
been proposed (King 1981). Those alternatives are used in this report.
However, since the alternatives presented in King (1981) are pending PRC
approval, this selection may not coincide with the final selection, although
we anticipate relatively few deletions and additions.
The proposed alternatives can be classified into five categories
generally based on their performance characteristics. The five categories
include base load generation, cycling generation, fuel saver generation,
electric energy substitutes, and electric energy conservation.
Base-loaded power plants operate 65 to 85% of the time and are designed
to supply the continuous (base) portion of electric load at low cost. Cycling
technologies have more flexible operational characteristics and serve
intermediate and peak loads, normally operating approximately 25 to 50% of the
time. Fuel saver technologies include those generating devices that are
available only on an intermittent basis. Unless provided with storage
devices, these technologies normally are not credited as capacity credit since
their availability is not assured on a continuous basis. Electric energy
substitutes permit the direct substitution of other energy forms for electric
power. Conservation technologies reduce the absolute demand for energy,
including electric energy. /
Five specific electric energy substitute alternatives and one specific
conservation alternative have been selected for further consideration.
However, the effects of other conservation alternatives such as set back
2.23
thermostats, cogeneration, district heating, zone lighting and space
conditioning in the commercial sector, and more efficient appliances will be
evaluated by assuming alternative levels of use.
The effects of increased efficiency of some generating alternatives
through the use of bottoming cycles, such as the Organic Rankine cycle (ORC)
concept, will be treated as advanced versions of the alternatives with which
the bottoming cycle might be used, for example, combustion turbine - ORC.
In some cases a technology may have the potential for playing more than
one role in an electric energy supply system. For example, combustion
turbines, while commonly used in the "lower 48" as devices to meet cycling
load requirements, are currently used in the Railbelt region to provide base
load generating capacity partly because of the availability of inexpensive
natural gas.
The estimated earliest date of commercial operation in the Railbelt for
the proposed alternatives are presented in Table 2.5.
2.5 CURRENT AND FORECASTED REQUIREMENTS
The current and forecasted requirement for electricity influences the
size and type of the generating units to be considered in the electric energy
plans. For example, the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load center can accommodate
larger plants than the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load center and the
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load center can utilize much larger plants than the
Glennallen-Valdez area. The sizes of generating units in the various load
centers are partly determined by the characteristics of the demand for
electricity in those areas. Figures 2.12 through 2.14 show projected low,
medium, and high peak demand for each of the three load centers. These
requirements were calculated from annual energy consumption projections made
by ISER (Goldsmith and Huskey 1980).
While these projections are tentative, they provide an approximation of
future demands that can be used for the purposes of this study.
The data used in these figures and the method of computation are
Presented in the Appendix.
2.24
TABLE 2.5. Estimated Earliest Date of Commercial Operation for
Electrical Energy Alternatives
Base Load Alternatives
Coal Steam Electric
Refuse-Derived Fuel Steam Electric
Cycling Alternatives
Coal Gasifier Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Fuel Cell Stations
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine
Natural Gas Fuel Cell Combined Cycle
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Lake Chakachamna Hydroelectric
Upper Susitna Hydroelectric
Allison Hydroelectric
Snow Hydroelectric
Keetna Hydroelectric
Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Browne Hydroelectric
Strandline Lake Hydroelectric
Fuel Saver (Intermittent) Alternatives
Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Cook Inlet Tidal Electric Project
Electric Energy Substitutes (b)
Micro Hydroelectric
Passive Solar Space Heating
Active Solar Hot Water Heating Wood-Fired Space Heating
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Electric Energy Conservation
Building Conservation
(a) CA - Currently Available or Operating
Earliest Availability
CA(a) CA
1990-95
1985-90 CA
CA
1990-95
1988
1994
1993
1990-1995 1990-1995
1990-1995 1990
1990-1995
1990-2995
1985-90 2000
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
(b) As defined in this study electric energy substitutes include all
options that are either dispersed (used by a single consumer or a small
community) or not interconnected with utility distribution systems.
2.25
2500 PEAK DEMAND (MW)
2000 HIGH
1500
MEDIUM
1000 LOW
500
als 4 4 1 1 4 ok
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 2.12. Projected Peak Demand for Anchorage-Cook Inlet Load Center
600
HIGH
500
400
= MEDIUM
3 300 Low 3
™“ 2 200]-
100
1 LL L 1 1 1 L
1980 1985 = -1990-Ss«1995.-Ss2000S«2005-Ss«2010
FIGURE 2.13. Projected Peak Demands for the Fairbanks-Tanana
Valley Load Center
2.26
HIGH
40
z
a 2 3 MCDIUM = 3
+4 = 20]- tow
10
! 1 \ ! ! 1 !
1980 1985 190 1995 2000 S205 2010
FIGURE 2.14. Projected Peak Demands for the Glennallen-Valdez Load Center
A "typical" annual load duration curve for the Railbelt area is shown in
Figure 2.15. An annual load duration curve shows the amount of time that the
electrical load is equal to or less than a certain percentage of the annual
peak load. Figure 2.15 was derived from load duration curves for three
Railbelt utilities. These curves are also shown in the appendix. For conven-
jence, the load duration curve can be divided into three regions. These regions
are at load durations of greater than 80% (7007 hours) or more, 20 to 80%
(1751-7007 hours) and less than 20% (1751 hours). The resulting regions are
commonly referred to as base load, cycling or intermediate load, and peaking
load (Energy Modeling 1973).
Using the projections of electrical requirements and the information from
the load duration curve, some preliminary estimates can be made for the types
and sizes of electrical generating units that best meet the needs of the load
centers. Detailed analyses of the most economical types of generation to meet
the various types of load are provided in Volume I of this study. However,
some general statements can be made regarding the most appropriate capacity
for supplying these various loads.
2.27
REQUIRED PEAK-LOAD CAPACITY
z < 2 REQUIRED } ys CYCLING 4 capacity } §
= = =|
§
REQUIRED BASE-LOAD CAPACITY
HOURS x 1000
FIGURE 2.15. Typical Load Duration Curve for the Railbelt
As Figure 2.15 shows, base load capacity is limited to about 40% of the
peak load; thus, the upper limit on the size of base load generating alterna-
tives should be 40% of the peak load. For reliability, a single unit probably
could be limited to about 20-30% of the peak load. This reasoning would limit
any new base load capacity in the Anchorage area to about 200 MW in the 1980-1990
time frame, increasing to about 500 MW by 2010. For the Fairbanks area, during
1980-1990 new base load capacity should not exceed about 60 MW and should not
exceed 160 MW by 2010. Assuming the two load centers are intertied, base load
units up to about 250 MW would be appropriate prior to 1990, increasing to
approximately 650 MW by 2010.
Cycling capacity can be used to meet the cycling and peak load. Since
cycling capacity is typically added in relatively small] sizes, the upper limits
on the sizes of generating units are not generally a consideration. Cycling
capacity can also be used for base load operation, which allows areas with
relatively low peak demands to add all new capacity in the form of cycling
technologies such as combustion turbine or hydroelectric facilities.
2.28
2.6 RESULTS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
In recent years, the public and special interest groups have become more
involved in the planning process. It is important that the attitudes and
desires of the public be considered and included in the planning process. As
part of this study a series of public meetings was held, and the results of
those meetings were used in developing the electric energy plans. Some of the
results of these public meetings are presented in this chapter.
During the week of May 18-22, 1981 a series of public meetings were held
in Talkeetna, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Soldatna. These meetings had two
purposes: 1) to present information on the Railbelt Electrical Power
Alternatives Study to the public and 2) to solicit information on the public's
attitudes regarding electric power development in the Railbelt. An opinion
survey containing four sections was used to collect information.
Section A presented 12 statements that addressed electric power planning
objectives for the Railbelt. Respondents to the survey were asked to indicate
whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were indifferent, disagreed, strongly
disagreed, or had no opinion for each statement. The average score of the
responses to each statement and the rank order by preference for each
statement are presented in Table 2.6. The rank ordering indicates a
preference for renewable energy sources and for preservation of the
environment. Respondents generally disagreed with creating jobs as a primary
objective and encouraging large-scale industrial growth.
Section B of the survey asked people to indicate their level of concern
with respect to ten issues associated with the selection of electric power
alternatives. In this section they were asked to distribute a total of
100 points among the 10 issues. Issues of more importance to an individual
were to receive more points while issues of less concern would receive fewer
points. These issues are listed along with the average number of points given
to each of the issues in Table 2.7.
The protection of fish and wildlife resources received the greatest
average number of points (16.9). Issues of slightly less concern included
protecting the scenic quality of the region (12.7), protecting air quality
(12.5), avoiding potential catastrophic accidents (10.7), avoiding long-term
2.29
TABLE 2.6. Average Score and Rank Order of Responses by
Preference--Section A, Electric Power System
Planning Objectives
Averag¢) Rank
Statement Score Order
- Alternatives using renewable energy resources 1.56 1 (wind, tidal, solar, hydro, geothermal, wood
waste and refuse) should be given preferences
over alternatives not using renewable resources.
- The protection of the following Alaskan envi-
ronments should be the primary objective when
Meeting Railbelt electric power needs:
a) Forest, meadow, muskeg and tundra 1.16 6
b) Streams, lakes and rivers 53 2
c) Saltwater and coastline. 1.20 5
- The protection of fish and wildlife resources 1.46 3
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
- Maintenance or improvement of air quality Leal: 4 should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
- Electric power development should be based on Oo. 7
local, small-scale generating alternatives.
- Conservation alternatives should be given pref- 0.75 8 erence over electric generating alternatives.
- Minimizing the risk of future inflation in electric 0.64 9
Power costs should be the primary objective
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
- Minimizing the cost of power should be the 0.54 10
primary objective when meeting Railbelt elec- tric power needs.
- The retention of dollars within Alaska spent on 0.43 ll
construction, operation and maintenance
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
- Increasing the reliability of the electric service 0.43 ll
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
- Creation of jobs should be the primary objective -0.67 13
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
- Encouragement of large-scale industrial growth -1.17 14
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
(a) The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an opinion on the following scale: strongly agree = 2, agree = l, indifferent = 0, disagree = -1, strongly disagree = -2.
2.30
TABLE 2.7. Average Number of Points Given to Each Issue--Section B,
Issues Associated with Selection of Electric Power
Alternatives
Average No Rank
Issues of Points Order
Protecting fish and wildlife 16.9 i
resources
Protecting scenic quality of 12.7 2
the region
Protecting air quality 12.5 3
“ Avoiding potential catastrophic 10.7 4
accidents
Avoiding long-term health effects 10.6 5
Promoting energy self-reliance 10.5 6
Minimizing energy cost 10.1 7
Avoiding "boom-bust" social 6.8 8
impacts
Promoting in-state power-related 4.6 9
deve lopment
Reducing consumer effort 4.4 10
health effects (10.6), and minimizing energy cost (10.1). The issues
receiving the lowest average points included avoiding boom-bust social impacts
(6.8), promoting in-state power-related development (4.6), and reducing
consumer effort (4.4).
The third section of the survey asked which energy resources should be
emphasized when meeting Railbelt electric power needs. As in Section A, the
respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed through
strongly disagreed that each of 11 energy resources should be emphasized. The
results of this section are summarized in Table 2.8. Conservation and
renewable alternatives (solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, and hydro) generally
received higher average scores; nuclear and peat and peat-based synthetic
fuels received negative scores.
2.31
TABLE 2.8. Average Score and Rank Order of Responses by
Preference--Section C, Energy Resource Emphasis
Energy Resource Average score(@) Rank Order
Conservation 1.46 1
Solar 1.10 2
Geothermal 1.06 3
Wind 0.99 4
Tidal 0.80 5
Hydro 0.68 6
Refuse and wood waste 0.62 7
Natural Gas 0.53 8
Coal and coal-based 0.08 9
synthetic fuels
Peat and peat-based -0.42 10
synthetic fuels
Nuclear -1.10 11
(a) The average score was based on the number of indivi-
duals expressing an opinion on the following scale:
strongly agree = 2, agree = 1, indifferent = 0,
disagree = -1, strongly disagree = -2.
The final section of the survey asked whether the respondents agreed or
disagreed that the state should promote development of certain electric power
alternatives by use of incentive programs. The response to this section is
presented in Table 2.9. The results of Section D indicate that respondents
generally favor incentive programs for small-scale renewable resources, for
conservation alternatives, and for large-scale renewable alternatives. They
do not favor the use of incentives to promote development of alternatives
obtained from Alaskan coal or peat.
Zse
TABLE 2.9. Average Score and Rank Order of Responses
by Preference - Section D, Use of Incentive
Programs
Electric Power (a)
Alternative Average Score Rank Order
Small scale alternatives 1.45 1
using renewable resources
(solar, wind, hydro)
Conservation alternatives 1.40 2
Large scale alternatives 0.88 3
using renewable resources
(solar, wind, hydro, geothermal,
tidal, wood waste, refuse)
Alternatives using -0.23 4
synthetic fuels obtained
from Alaskan coal or peat
(a) The average score was based on the number of individuals
expressing an opinion on the following scale: strongly
agree = 2, agree = 1, indifferent = 0, disagree = -1,
strongly disagree = -2.
2.7 SELECTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
The selection of the preliminary electric energy plans was based
primarily on the five factors outlined above. Other general concepts and
considerations that influenced the selection of the plans are noted in the
description of each plan in Chapter 3.
The underlying purpose of the Railbelt Electric Energy Alternatives Study
is to help determine whether the State should develop the Upper Susitna
hydroelectric project or if it should pursue other alternatives; thus, two
electric energy plans are inherent in the purpose of the project: one plan
not including the Upper Susitna project and another plan including the Upper
Susitna project. The former provides the conditions for the "base case", that
is, the case against which the alternatives will be compared. Plan 1A, Base
Case Without Upper Susitna, and Plan 1B, Base Case With Upper Susitna, will
2.33
provide a direct comparison between continued development of conventional
generating resources and development of conventional generating resources with
the addition of the Upper Susitna project.
The public meetings, as well as other inputs, point to widespread
interest in both conservation and renewable energy resources. Electric energy
conservation will take place as a result of price increases in all of the
electric energy plans. However, it is desirable to have a specific plan in
which conservation alternatives receive greater emphasis than in any other
plan. This same plan logically could include renewable energy sources. Thus,
Plan 2A, High Conservation and Use of Renewable Resources without Upper
Susitna, and Plan 2B, High Conservation and Use of Renewable Resources with
Upper Susitna, were selected.
As pointed out earlier (Section 2.1.1), coal is an attractive fuel for
electrical generation in the Railbelt area for a number of reasons. It is
abundant, there are good, easily mined deposits close to the load centers; the
technologies for both mining and burning it are well established; and
projections indicate that it will continue to be competitively priced relative
to alternative fuels. It also appears likely that an export mine will be
developed at Beluga providing the Cook Inlet area with a good source of coal.
A third plan based upon increased emphasis on coal is included: Plan 3,
Increased Use Of Coal Case.
Natural gas is currently the mainstay fuel for generation in the Cook
Inlet area and may become available in the interior if and when production and
transmission of North Slope natural gas occurs. The major favorable
attributes associated with natural gas are its relatively low environmental
impact compared to other fossil fuels, the lower capital cost per unit of
generating capacity, and the short lead time involved in making capacity
additions. In short, natural gas based generation is clean, flexible, and
adapted to conditions of uncertain future demand.
Considerable known reserves of natural gas exist in the Cook Inlet
region; about 3,900 billion cubic feet (BCF). Some of this gas is committed
(or dedicated) under contract to the gas and electric utilities (620 BCF);
some is committed to industrial applications (ammonia and urea production) and
2.34
for export (approximately 730 BCF); and some (about 830 BCF) is at least
tentatively committed to the proposed (and currently uncertain) Pacific Alaska
LNG project for exports to the “lower 48 states".
A significant amount (about 1600 BCF) of the known reserves appears
totally free of current commitments. However, current industrial and export
users will probably compete with the gas and electric utilities for commitment
of this gas to their operations.
For gas reserves not currently committed under contract, the future price
is subject to considerable uncertainty as it becomes deregulated in 1985.
Thus, it is conceivable that the price to an electric utility could approach
that of distillate fuel oil on a heat equivalency basis. Whether or not this
occurs is largely dependent upon the competitive nature of the future market.
Thus, the advantages of natural gas must be traded off against the uncertainty
in price.
At this point, however, the possible advantages of increased use of
natural gas warrant further evaluation. These considerations resulted in the
fourth preliminary electric energy plan: Plan 4, Increased Use Of Natural Gas.
The electrical energy alternatives included in each of the four electric
energy plans are summarized in Table 2.10. These alternatives are taken from
Table 2.5 which includes the proposed selection of alternatives to be included
in the electric energy plans.
Each of these plans is discussed in greater detail in the next Chapter.
2.35
TABLE 2.10. Summary of Electrical Energy Alternatives Included as
Future Additions in Preliminary Electric Energy Plans
Electric Ener plan(@) BASE_LOAD ALTERNATIVES 1a 1B 2A 2B 3. «4
Coal Steam Electric X xX X X X
Refuse-Derived Fuel Steam Electric X X
CYCLING ALTERNATIVES
Coal Gasifier-Combined Cycle X
Natural Gas Fuel Cell Stations
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine
Natural Gas Fuel Cell Combined Cycle
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Lake Chakachamna Hydroelectric
Upper Susitna Hydroelectric
Allison Hydroelectric
Browne Hydroelectric
Keetna Hydroelectric
Snow Hydroelectric
Strandline Lake Hydroelectric
FUEL SAVER (INTERMITTENT) ALTERNATIVES
Large Wind Energy Conversion System
Cook Inlet Tidal Electric Project ~< >< ~< >< ~< >< ~< >< ~< >< >< >< >< >< ~< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< OO >< >< >< < >< ~< >< ELECTRIC ENERGY SUBSTITUTES(b)
Micro Hydroelectric
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Passive Solar Space Heating
Active Solar Hot Water Heating
Wood-Fired Space Heating >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< OO >< >< >< >< >< >< ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSERVATION
Building Conservation X X Xx Xx X X
(a) Plan 1: Base case
A. Without Upper Susitna
B. With Upper Susitna
Plan 2: High conservation and use of renewables
A. Without Upper Susitna
B. With Upper Susitna
Plan 3: Increase use of coal
Plan 4: Increase use of natural gas
(b) As defined in this study electric energy substitutes include all options
that are either dispersed (used by a single consumer or a small community)
or not interconnected with utility distribution systems.
2236
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY ELECTRIC ENERGY PLANS
This chapter describes the features of the four preliminary electric
energy plans. Information about each plan is presented in two general forms:
1) an outline of the key features of each plan for each load center and 2) a
figure showing a representative mix of generating capacity for that plan over
the 1980-2010 period.
The figures illustrating the evolution of the generating capacity over
time illustrate the nature of each of the electric energy plans; they are not
meant to present the exact capacities or timing of the capacity additions.
However, to ensure that the figures are relatively realistic, an effort was
made to use representative data in their development. In many cases, these
data were not developed as part of this study but are sufficiently accurate
for illustrative purposes.
A number of assumptions were made that are common to all four plans.
They are:
® Current utility plans for additions proceed as planned.
e@ Generating units are retired based on assumed lifetimes.
e@ An interconnection between the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load centers is completed in 1984 and
strengthened as necessary to allow economy power exchanges between
Fairbanks and Anchorage.
e The Glennallen-Valdez load center electrical loads and generating
capacity are combined with Anchorage-Cook Inlet loads and generating
capacity.
@ All load centers maintain sufficient peaking capacity to provide
peak requirements in the event of interconnection failure.
e@ The Bradley Lake hydroelectric project is completed and comes
on-line in 1988.
3.1
3.1 PLAN 1: BASE CASE
This plan is based on a transition from existing generating technologies
to alternative conventional generating technologies as electrical requirements
increase and existing capacity is retired. This plan represents the base or
reference case. Two variations to this plan have been identified: Plan 1A,
without the Upper Susitna project, and Plan 1B, with the Upper Susitna
project. The assumptions made in each of these plans are presented below.
3.1.1 Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper Susitna
The primary generating alternatives included in this plan are:
combustion turbines (gas or distillate)
combined cycle (gas or distillate)
hydroelectric (other than Upper Susitna)
conventional coal steam electric.
The key features of this plan for each of the load centers are summarized
below.
Anchor age-Cook Inlet
@ The Chakachamna hydroelectric project is built as required to come
on line no sooner than 1994.
@ The Grant Lake project is built as required to come on line no
sooner than 1990.
e@ The Allison hydroelectric project is added as necessary after 1992.
@ Coal steam turbines are installed after the hydro alternatives, as
necessary.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
@ 0i1 combustion turbine units are used for peaking until retirement.
e@ Gas combined cycles are added to provide peaking generation when
existing 011 combustion units are retired.
@ Coal-fired steam electric capacity is added for base load if less
expensive than power from Anchorage-Cook Inlet. If coal-fired
generation is not less expensive, all new generation will be
gas-fired combined cycle.
See
This plan is illustrated in Figure 3.1 for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet load
center. As with all the figures included in this chapter, the horizontal axis
represents the time horizon of the study--1980 through 2010. The heavier
curve in the figure is the peak demand (net consumption) for that load center
multiplied by 1.4. The peak demands were calculated from the medium annual
energy consumption projections made by ISER in Electric Power Consumption for
the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements (Goldsmith and Huskey 1980).
While these projections were not developed as part of this project, they
provide an approximation of future requirements that can be used for the
purposes of this report. (Consumption forecasts are being made as part of
this study but have not been completed at this time.) The peak demands (PEAK)
were computed from the annual energy (AE) projected in the ISER report
assuming a yearly load factor (YLF) of 0.50 using the formula:
I AE_(GWh)
PEAK (MW) = YLF * 8.760 (hours/year
The assumed yearly load factor of 0.50 is approximately the yearly load factor
experienced by area utilities during the 1970s. This calculated peak demand
is then multiplied by 1.08 to adjust for transmission and distribution
losses. This converts the demand projection from net consumption to gross
generation by allowing for transmission and distribution losses. This value
is then multiplied by 1.3 to allow for a 30% reserve margin. Both the
estimate for transmission and distribution losses (8%) and for reserve margin
(30%) were selected only to be representative of Railbelt area utilities and
are not necessarily based upon historical data. Overall, adjusting for
transmission and distribution losses and for the reserve margin results in an
increase of approximately 40% in peak generation required above peak
consumption. For example, in Figure 3.1 the gross generating capacity
required in the year 2000 for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area is approximately
1400 MW.
While the same peak demand requirement is used for illustrative purposes
in all plans in this report, the peak demands (and annual energy requirements)
developed when evaluating the plans will depend upon the cost of power
3.3
3000
2000 SYSTEM CAPACITY
mw 1500
COAL STEAM TURBINE 1000
~~ CAS COMBINED Ws CYCLE
GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.1. Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper
Susitna for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
Produced in each of the plans. For example, a plan that results in a
relatively high cost of power will have a relatively low demand for
electricity while plans with lower costs of power will have higher demands.
Also shown on each figure is a general representation of the mix of
generating capacity to meet the projected gross generation requirement.
Figure 3.1 shows that under Plan 1 the Anchorage-Cook Inlet area load center
would supply the 1400 MW of generating capacity required in the year 2000
using about 650 MW of hydroelectric capacity, 100 MW of gas combustion
turbine, 400 MW of gas combined cycle and about 500 MW of coal steam turbine.
The Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study treats conservation and
electric energy substitutes as demand modifiers rather than as supply
alternatives. (Those alternatives defined as conservation or electric energy
substitutes are shown in Tables 2.5 and 2.10.) Thus, when evaluating these
alternatives, their effects will be represented by a reduction in the
3.4
electricity required by the consumer. As pointed out earlier, different
levels of conservation and electric energy substitute penetration are
evaluated as part of each electric energy plan. Figure 3.2 illustrates the
effects of increased conservation on the gross generating capacity required
and on the relative mix of generating capacity required in Plan 1. At this
point in the study, the effects of conservation on the required peak
consumption have not been evaluated. The levels of conservation used for
illustrative purposes in the figures are based on sample calculations and
should not be interpreted as representing the final contribution of
conservation in any plan. As shown, conservation reduces the gross generating
capacity required. The mix of generating alternatives is relatively
unchanged. The primary effect of conservation in this case is to delay the
date that generating plants are required to be on-line.
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate the future mix of generating capacity for
the Fairbanks-Tanana Valley load center for Plan 1 without and with additional
conservation included, respectively. These figures show that under this plan
existing diesel and oi] combustion turbine capacity is retired and replaced
with coal steam turbine and gas combined cycle generation. The coal steam
turbine capacity would be used for base load while the gas combined cycle
capacity would be used to meet cycling load. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 assume that
coal steam turbine plants located in the Fairbanks area (Nenana) can produce
power at a lower cost than power produced at Beluga and transmitted to
Fairbanks. If power produced at Beluga is less expensive in Fairbanks than
power generated at Fairbanks, then Fairbanks would add only gas combined cycle
units to provide reserve capacity to meet peak demand and would import power
from Anchorage.
3.1.2 Plan 1B: Base Case With Upper Susitna
This plan is based upon a continuation of present generating technologies
with a transition to Upper Susitna hydropower as required. Any additional
required capacity is to be supplied by coal steam turbine or combined cycle
facilities. The capacity from the Upper Susitna project is allocated to the
three load centers based upon their relative peak demand in 1990.
3.9
*|
2500 +
CONSERVATION <<‘
SYSTEM CAPACITY
MW 1500 +
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
COAL STEAM
TURBINE 500
GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 . 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.2. Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper Susitna Illustrating the Effects of Conservation for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
600
sl SYSTEM CAPACITY
Pale
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
mW 500 | COAL STEAM TURBINE
male
OIL COMBUSTION TURBINE 00 | GAS COMBINED CYCLE
. LDIESEL | 7 ~ : 1980 1985. ~~«1990+~=«21995~=S*«()S*«OSS*«SLO
FIGURE 3.3. Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper Susitna for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
3.6
600
500
MW 300
100
FIGURE 3.4.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet
COAL STEAM
TURBINE
OIL COMBUSTION
TURBINE
GAS COMBINED
CYCLE
DIESEL 1 1 1
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Plan 1A: Base Case Without Upper Susitna, Illustrating
Effects of Conservation for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e@ The Watana I facility of the Upper Susitna project is available
as early as 1993.
e If necessary, combustion turbine capacity is added to fill in
until Upper Susitna is available.
e@ Coal steam turbine units are added after the Upper Susitna project
is completed.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e If necessary, oi] combustion turbine capacity is added before Upper
Susitna is available.
Saf
e If necessary, coal steam turbine capacity is added for base load if
less expensive than power from Anchorage-Cook Inlet. If power is
less expensive from Anchorage, gas-combined cycle units will be
added to provide reserve peaking capacity.
Figures 3.5 through 3.6 illustrate this plan for the two load
centers. In this plan, the first 400 MW of Watana is added in 1993-94
with the second 400 MW added in 1994-95. Devil Canyon is added in
1999-2000. For the Anchorage and Fairbanks load centers, any additional
capacity required is added in the form of coal steam turbine units.
3.2 PLAN 2: HIGH CONSERVATION AND USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
This plan would emphasize the use of conservation to reduce electrical
energy demand as well as the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and
Cook Inlet tidal power. While various levels of conservation are evaluated in
each of the plans, this plan emphasizes conservation. In each of the load
centers, conservation alternatives are encouraged through a variety of means
such as public education programs, tax incentives, and state and utility loan
programs. Renewable energy sources such as tidal, wind, and refuse-derived
fuel will be included. Any generation capacity required in addition to
renewable sources will be supplied with conventional generating facilities
similar to Plan 1. As with Plan 1, this plan has two variations: Plan 2A,
without Upper Susitna, and Plan 2B, with Upper Susitna. Features of these
plans are presented below.
3.2.1 Plan 2A: High Conservation and Renewables Without Upper Susitna
Under this plan conservation and renewable resources, excluding the Upper
Susitna project, will be developed to the maximum extent feasible. Additional
capacity required will be provided by conventional generating alternatives as
in Plan 1. Additional features specific to each load center are presented
below.
3.8
3000
2500
2000 |
MW <I
1500 |- > COAL STEAM PEAK DEMAND x 1.4 TURBINE
1000 Lc =>
i GAS COMBINED
CYCLE 500
GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
0 1 1 L du
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.5. Plan 1B: Base Case with Upper Susitna for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
600 ]
500
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
400 SYSTEM CAPACITY in /
300
200
OIL COMBUSTION
TURBINE COAL STEAM
100 TURBINE _DIESEL i ;
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.6. Plan 1B: Base Case with Upper Susitna for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
3.9
Anchorage-Cook Inlet
e@ The following hydroelectric projects are built as required but no
sooner than 1992: Lake Chakachamna, Keetna, Snow, Strandline Lake,
Grant Lake, and Allison.
e@ A 50-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built.
e Cook Inlet tidal power is developed as appropriate in conjunction
with hydroelectric facilities since it appears that the tidal
options under consideration will be designed to provide firm power.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e The Browne hydroelectric project is added as necessary after 1992.
e@ A 20-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built.
e@ Wind energy resources in the Isabelle Pass area are developed and
intertied.
Figures 3.7 and 3.8 illustrate this plan for each load center.
3.2.2 Plan 2B: High Conservation and Renewables with Upper Susitna
This plan is similar to Plan 2A except that the Upper Susitna project is
built.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet
@ The Watana I facility of the Upper Susitna project is available as
early as 1993.
e A 50-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built.
@ Cook Inlet tidal power is developed as appropriate following the
Upper Susitna Project.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e A 20-MW refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plant is built.
e@ Wind energy resources in the Isabelle Pass area are developed and
intertied.
Figures 3.9 and 3.10 present this plan for each load center.
3.10
2500
~ COOK INLET TIDAL NOT SHOWN
2000
1500
MW
GAS COMBINED 1000 CYCLE
500
GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.7. Plan 2A: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
MW
Without Upper Susitna for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
- LARGE WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
500
400 + SYSTEM CAPACITY
300
REFU SE-DERIVED 200 F FUEL
“ OIL COMBUSTION
TURBINE COAL STEAM TURBINE DIESEL
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.8. Plan 2A: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
Without Upper Susitna for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
3.11
2500
MW 1500
1000
500
~ COOK INLET TIDAL NOT SHOWN
CYCLE COAL STEAM
TURBINE
HYDRO — REFUSE DERIVED
FUEL
GAS COMBUSTION TURBINE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.9. Plan 2B: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
500
400
MW
300
100
with Upper Susitna for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
- LARGE WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
jm
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
[SYSTEM CAPACITY
-
L COMBUSTION COAL STEAM TURBINE TURBINE REFUSE DERIVED DIESEL pe
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.10. Plan 2B: High Conservation and Use of Renewables
with Upper Susitna for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
Sale
Figures 3.7 through 3.10 show that each load center has a greater
reduction in demand due to conservation than shown for Plan 1 in Figures 3.2
and 3.4. The contribution of conservation to the reduction of demand has not
yet been quantified. The relative amount of conservation shown in these
figures is based on tentative calculations and do not represent results of
this project. Plan 2 assumes that an aggressive conservation policy is
pursued in the Railbelt.
It is important to note that the figures presented in this chapter show
firm generating capacity in the load centers. Certain generation alternatives
can contribute electrical energy (i.e., kilowatt hours), but cannot be
depended upon at any given time to contribute to the firm capacity of the
system. Since in most cases neither wind nor tidal generation can be relied
upon for firm power, they are not shown in these figures. Wind energy can
begin to obtain a capacity credit if it is a significant (~15%) part of the
total installed capacity and is geographically dispersed to meteorologically
varied regions.
3.3 PLAN 3: INCREASED USE OF COAL
This plan is based upon a transition from existing generating
technologies to alternatives that either directly or indirectly utilize coal
as a fuel. As discussed earlier, coal is currently available in the Railbelt
from the Healy area. Coal from the Beluga area is expected to be available in
1988. This plan assumes that coal-fired generation in the Anchorage-Cook
Inlet load center would be located in the Beluga area. Base load generation
for the Fairbanks area would depend on the relative costs of facilities
located at Beluga to facilities located in the Nenana area.
Anchorage-Cook_ Inlet
@ All new generation is either coal-fired steam turbines or combined
cycle units using coal-based synthetic fuels.
e@ With the exception of Bradley Lake in 1988, no additional
hydroelectric facilities are built.
3613
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e@ All new generation is either coal-fired steam turbines or combined
cycle units using coal-based synthetic fuels.
Figures 3.11 and 3.12 present this plan for the Anchorage and Fairbanks
load centers, respectively. In both cases the existing diesel, combustion
turbine, and combined cycle facilities are retired and replaced with coal
fired steam turbine units for base load and with a generating technology
capable of providing cycling power that uses a coal-based synthetic fuel.
Examples of technologies considered in this category include fuel cells and
combined cycle units. Neither the specific technologies nor fuels to be
included in this plan have yet been selected.
3.4 PLAN 4: INCREASED USE OF NATURAL GAS
This plan is based upon continued use of natural gas for generation in
the Cook Inlet area and a conversion to natural gas in the Fairbanks area.
The key assumption made in this plan is that there will be sufficient gas
available in the Cook Inlet area to allow utilities to continue to utilize it
for electrical generation. Also for the Fairbanks area it is assumed that
natural gas will be available from the North Slope beginning in 1988.
Possible natural gas-fired generating alternatives to be included in this plan
are fuel cells, combined cycle, combustion turbines, and fuel cell combined
cycle.
Anchorage-Cook Inlet
@ All new generating facilities added in the region will be gas fired.
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
e@ All new generation will be gas fired.
Figures 3.13 and 3.14 illustrate this plan for the Anchorage and
Fairbanks load centers, respectively. The diesel and simple cycle combustion
turbine generating units are allowed to retire. All additional capacity
additions are either conventional or emerging natural gas-fired alternatives.
In some cases fuel cells might provide an alternative to the combined cycle
units.
Bad
3000
2500
1 SYSTEM CAPACITY
MW Ly
1] 4 ZO. BASED PEAK DEMAND x 1.4 SYNTHETIC FUEL
1000
COAL STEAM
GAS COMBINED TURBINE
500 CYCLE
GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
0 , HYDRO ; i
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.11. Plan 3: Increased Use of Coal for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
600
500 PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
400 SYSTEM CAPACITY
/ COAL STEAM MW 300 TURBINE
200
OIL COMBUSTION TURBINE 100 COAL BASED
SYNTHETIC FUEL
f DIESEL 1 1 1
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.12. Plan 3: Increased Use of Coal for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
3-15
3000
2500 +
rr SYSTEM CAPACITY
MW 3500 L
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4
GAS COMBINED 1000 CYCLE /FUEL CELLS
GAS COMBINED CYCLE 500
| GAS COMBUSTION TURBINE ‘ 7 AYDRO_, i |
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
FIGURE 3.13. Plan 4: Increased Use of Natural Gas for Anchorage-Cook Inlet
600
PEAK DEMAND x 1.4 500
ssid SYSTEM CAPACITY
mw 30 COAL STEAM TURBINE
0 GAS COMBINED CYCLE/FUEL CELLS
OIL COMBUSTION a TURBINE
, DIESEL, :
1980 198 = 1990-1995 2000S 2005.00
FIGURE 3.14. Plan 4: Increased Use of Natural Gas for Fairbanks-Tanana Valley
3.16
REFERENCES
Acres-American, Inc. 1981. Preliminary Assessment of Cook Inlet Tidal Power,
Task 1 Report--Preliminary Field Reconnaissance and Site Selection.
Alaska Power Authority. 1981. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Development
Selection Report Appendices A through I. Prepared by Acres American
Incorporated, Buffalo, New York.
Energy Modeling. 1973. A Model for Energy-Environment Systems Analysis:
Structure and Uses. Papers presented at a special workshop organized by the
U.S. National Science Foundation and the Energy Research Unit, Queen Mary
College, London, IPC Science and Technology Press Ltd, Surrey, England.
Goldsmith, Scott and L. Huskey. 1980. Electric Power Consumption for the
Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements. Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage, Alaska
Huck, R. W. and D. Markley. 1980. "State Resource Estimation: Alaska". In
Procedures of U.S. Department of Energy First Technical Contractors'
Conference on Peat, TR-80/031-001, pp. 107-122. McLean, Virginia.
King, J. C. 1981. Selection of Electric Energy Generation Alternatives for
Consideration in Railbelt Electric Energy Plans. Comment Draft Working
Paper No. 3.3. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. 1979. Feasibility of Resource Recovery from
Solid Waste, A Report to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. Boston, Massachusetts.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 1980a. Wind Energy Resource Atlas: Vol. 10--
Alaska. PNL-3195 WERA-10b. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington
Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 1980b. Preliminary Evaluation of Wind Energy
Potential - Cook Inlet Area, Alaska. PNL-3408, Pacific Northwest
Caboratory, Richland, Washington
Swift, W. H. 1981. Municipal Refuse Derived Fuel. Draft Working Paper
No. 1.4. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Swift, W. et al. 1980. Beluga Coal Market Study. Final Report. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland Washington.
R.1
APPENDIX
PEAK DEMAND AND ANNUAL ENERGY PROJECTIONS-
LOAD DURATION CURVES
TABLE A.1 Peak Demand and Annual Energy Projections for the
Anchorage-Cook Inlet Load Center
Low Medium High
Peak Ene Peak Ene Peak Ene Year (MW) = (GWH) = (MW) = (GWH) = (MW). (GWH)
1980 435 1907 435 1907 435 1907
1985 513 2249 556 2438 610 2676
1990 573 2510 635 2782 741 3249
1995 707 3097 813 3564 1013 4438
2000 908 3981 1016 4451 1260 5519
2005 998 4375 1193 5226 1601 7013
2010 1097 4807 1402 6141 2038 8927
SOURCE: Goldsmith, Scott and L. Huskey. 1980. Electric
Power Consumption for the Railbelt: a Projection of Requirements. Institute of Social and Economic
Research.
Peak demand computed from annual energy (AE)
assuming a yearly load factor (YLF) of 0.50.
(PEAK = AE/(YLF x 8.760).
A.l
TABLE A.2 Peak Demand and Annual Energy Projections for the
Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Load Center
Low Medium High
Peak Ene Peak Ene Peak Ene Year (MW) = (GWH) = (MW), (GWH) = (MW) (GH).
1980 101 446 101 446 101 446
1985 141 619 152 669 175 769
1990 152 666 169 742 208 914
1995 185 813 216 949 280 1227
2000 237 1040 268 1177 350 1537
2005 263 1154 318 1397 453 1988
2010 291 1277 381 1671 590 2586
SOURCE: Goldsmith, Scott and L. Huskey. 1980. Electric
Power Consumption for the Railbelt: a Projection
of Requirements. Institute of Social and soe
Research.
Peak demand computed from annual energy (AE)
assuming a yearly load factor (YLF) of 0.50.
(PEAK = AE/(YLF x 8.760).
A.2
LOAD (PERCENT OF PEAK)
ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT
AND POWER - 1975
ee. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION - 100 1975
GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC
90 ASSOCIATION - 1977
——S''TYPICAL" LOAD DURATION CURVE
FIGURE A.1. Load Duration Curves for Railbelt Utilities (Hours x 1000)
A.4
TABLE _A.3 Peak Demand and Annual Energy Projections for the
Glennallen-Valdez Load Center
Low Medium High Peak Ene Peak Ene Peak Ene Year (Ma) (GwH) = (Md), (GWH) = (WW) (GWH)
1980 8.4 37 8.4 37 8.4 37
1985 ee 53 14.6 64 26.5 116
1990 137: 60 170 75 27.2 119
1995 15.1 66 20.1 88 28.3 124
2000 18.3 80 23.3 102 Sle 136
2005 (40) | 88 2. 119 40.2 176
2010 CANBY) 95 32.0 140 50.9 223
SOURCE: Goldsmith, Scott and L. Huskey. 1980. Electric
Power Consumption for the Railbelt: a Projection
of Requirements. Institute of Social and Economic
Research.
Peak demand computed from annual energy (AE)
assuming a yearly load factor (YLF) of 0.50.
(PEAK = AE/(YLF x 8.760).
A.3