Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutToksook Bay Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 1982VIL-N - 002 Toksook RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES SOPERTY OF: “1s bf Power Authority W. 5th Ave. -j=g°, Alaska 99501 FOR TOKSOOK BAY ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLD BAY NIKOLSKI FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY LOWER AND TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA _ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY | TOKSOOK BAY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS /.ND A.L.TERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 1.0 Summary and Recommendations 2.0 Background 3.0 Village Meeting 4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution 5.0 Energy Balance 6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 Population Projection 6.2 Capital Projects 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 7.0 Energy Resource Assessment 8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.3 Alternate Plan B 9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Review Letters and Replies uw hr be db . |e) |S wei ie! am Nw ao ow oe NNe= = ee ye _ wo oaowa ~ AAKDDA . = . _ Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.2 9.3 LIST OF TABLES Energy Balance for 1982 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case Estimated Heat Recovery Costs Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan A Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan B Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions aed: 8.8 8.13 9.2 9.3 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Bie | See 6.1 6.3 7.1 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Climatic Background Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances Electrical Generation Facilities Fuel Oil Usage Electrical Generation Sector Ene-gy Distribution Energy Flow Diagram Distribution of Total Useable Energy Population Projection Thermal Energy Projection Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagrai iii Page 2.2 203 4.5 4.6 5.3 5.4 6.4 7.4 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. The study has focu3ed on seeking potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. Opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, such as waste heat capture systems, were also detailed. A waste heat capture system utilizes a resource (thermal energy) which is currently wasted in diesel electric generation. The sale of otherwise wasted heat can provide additional income to the utility and thus be reflected in lower cost:; for generation of electricity. In Toksook Bay, a transmission line intertie plan was compared to the contral generation base case and the base case scenario complemented by a waste heat capture system. Summary Statements Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into Toksook Bay were considered. le Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by wood and gasoline. Dre Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel electric generation. Sra Forecasts show an increase in energy consumption in the village due to population growth. Additional construction unrelated to population size is anticipated and will impact energy consumption and demand. Le Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the village. This weakens the accuracy of technological or economic predictions. However, the estimates relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably reliable. The feasibility of various technologies, for electri- cal and thermal energy production, was evaluated. Wind, wood, solar, geothermal, hydro, peat, and coal were considered as potential energy resources but are not viable as alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste heat recovery from the central power plant formed the basis of the alternate energy plan. A transmission line intertie with the village of Tununak also formed the basis of an alternative energy plan. The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the continued use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was performed. General Recommendations 1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New technologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to cletermine their feasibility in rural Alaska. Significant energy savings coul« be realized by a village-wide energy conservatior. and weatherization program. Le2 Village Specific Recommendations 1. Waste heat recovery, from the Toksook central power plant, utilized for space heating in the village is economically feasible and attractive in the amount of fuel oil saved. The installation of the waste heat recovery system is recommended. An intertie transmission line from the Toksook Bay power plant, to supply power to Tununak, is not economically feasible. The following steps should be taken: a. Inititate a feasibility study of waste heat recovery. b. Investigate power plant operation for potential of improved diesel efficiency. eS 2.0 BACKGROUND Location Toksook Bay is a Yupik village in the Calista region of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. The coastal village is located on the south side of Nelson Island on Kangilvar Bay in the Etolin Strait (Figure 2.1). Toksook Bay is 113 miles west of Bethel and 600 miles west of Anchorage. Population The village was established in 1964 by families from Nightmute seeking safety from avalanche dangers. These families loaded entire houses onto sleds and pulled them with sled dogs to their present location in Toksook. The population of Toksook Bay has grown rapidly since that time. The construction of a primary school and large regional high school has brought many additional people to Toksook Bay. Census Year 1970 ; 1980 a Population 0 257 ae _..__332 | Climate Toksook Bay is located in a maritime climatic region. The Bering Sea and topography of Nelson Island exert a large influence on the local weather conditions. The average annual snowfall is 75 inches and the average precipitation is 16 inches. The temperature ranges from -25°F to 79°F. Winter ice pack and winds often cause severe weather conditions. Weather conditions in Bethel and St. Marys are indicative of those in Toksook which does not have an official weather observation station. Back- ground climatic information fron Bethel and St. Marys, the nearest weather observation stations, is summarized in Figure 2.2. 2a KEY KOTLIK SAINT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK rion ) SAINT murs =, KALSKAG 3?” =" LOWER KALSKAG I NEWTOK Ly 28 youn! ool ia 4 i KALSKAG NIGHTMUTE : a 417 runuNaK — CHEFORNAK MEKORYUK a TOKSOOK BAY Nii TUNUNAK jd tle CER. HOOPER BAY (=|) CHIGNIK LAGOON rj | CHIGNIK | IVANOF BAY FALSE PASS COLD BAY NIKOLSKI ATKA ST. PAUL ST. GEORGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cine cnicnik “14 a STyanor ey 15 | eal ' 17 co.o say 120 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP 3.0 VILLAGE VISIT The field team traveled to Toksook by snowmobile because of heavy srow storms. Upon arrival the Energy Reconnaissance Program was discussed with the city officers and villagers in the community hall. The meeting was informal because the Mayor had to leave for Anchorage at short notice and as soon as the weather cleared council members were out hunting and ice fishing. However, the meeting was successful in involving villagers in the program and enabling the field team to obtain a broad representation of the ideas and concerns over energy use in the community. The people of Toksook Bay have all moved to the village recently. There is a high proportion of very active young people and there is a concerted effort underway to insure the village continues to grow and diversify. The cost of electrical energy, fuel oil and gasoline are major concerns. In Toksook Bay as the price of fuel oil has es ~‘tated villagers have turned increasingly to wood and in some cases returned to using local coal outcrops as sources of space heat. The villagers are concerned that the increased use of wood is making driftwood a scarce commodity and the increased travel distances are requiring consumption of expensive gasoline. Many of the: homes need weatherizing and there was a great deal of interest in any state sponsored programs that would assist the people. Toksook Bay received 28 HUD houses in 1971 and 26 more will be built in 1982. Several people mentioned that weatherization of the older houses could be done in conjunction with the newer houses. The villagers have designed and constructed their own municipal building. Several were involved in building a new house for the school principal (December 1981). Many people leave the village to work in the Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery bringing outside cash into the local economy. Alternatives to diesel generation were discussed. There is widespread interest in hydro and wind. Potential for hydro is limited because the streams are frozen 4-5 months a year. The villagers had reservations about the reliability of a wind turbine generator. 3.2 4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES ya 4.1 4.2 4.3 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is listeca, by sector, in Figure 4.1. These capacities are besed on actual tank sizes and on estimates where reliakle data could not be obtained. The storage capac:ty of domestic fuel tanks and 55 gallon drums was nct included in the bulk storage capacities. Also iisted in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and cooking appliances, segregated by sector, being used in the village. Electrical Generation Facilities The e>isting generating equipment installed in the villace is listed in Figure 4.2. Comments on the operation of the generators are included. Fuel Oil Usage Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the village. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used for electrical power generation is shown. The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to waste. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. 4.1 4.4 Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where available, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the main report for an explanation of the estimating process. Electrical Energy Distribution The energy flow through the electrical generation sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The "pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to the generation of electrical power. Each sector in the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown. 4.2 STORAGE * (GALS) BULK FUEL FUEL OIL (251000 gal) TOKSOOK BAY/1982 STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES RESIDENTIAL GASOLINE ( 32000 gal) COMMERCIAL OF HEATING APPLIANCES SECTOR SCHOOLS PUBLIC ELECTRICAL GENERATION 116000 TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE LEGEND: 2 3 4 5 6 *DAY TANKS AND FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT TYPE OF OIL -FIREO FORCED AIR OIL-FIREO BOILER WITH ORIP - TYPE wood STOVE PROPANE COOKING WASTE INCLUDED. Figure 4.) HEATING APPLIANCE FURNACE WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION OllL STOVE/FURNACE STOVES HEAT FROM GENERATORS GENERATOR TOKSOOK BAY High School BIA School NO. OF TYPE OF OWNER UNITS ouTeUT ENGINE ——— Alaska Village ak 300 KW Cat D353E Electric Cooperative w/ supercharger 2 75 Kw Allis-Chalmers #11000 ie 90 KW Allis-Chalmers #3500 MK11 a 75 KW Cummins #N855C250 1 50 KW Waukesha 1200 RPM ELECTRICAL GENERATION TYPE OF GENERATOR KATO, 300SR9D Allis-Chalmers E2006M-1301A Onan 90.0 DYC-15R ILI Corp. 15D1L3=3 KATO #50SH90' Figure 4.2 FACILITIES ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION 277/480V 120/208V 120/240V COMMENTS ON OPERATION A single AVEC generator is oper- ated 24 hours per day and pro- vides power to the entire com- munity. Generator provides backup power for the high school. Generators provide backup power for the BIA School and Alascomn. FUEL OIL USAGE TOKSOOK BAY / 1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat 100 30 39% 80 Waste Heat 25% 30 Generator Waste Heat 20 10 Electricity 78 R Residential 28 % Cc Commercial 3% P Public 9% S School 24 % E Electrical Power ° Generation 36 % ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE = 160000 GAL = 21500x10°Bru Figure 4.3 405 ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION TOKSOOK BAY CP Residential 4% Commercial 1% Public 2% School 8% Waste Heat 80 % Generation Losses 5 % TOTAL ENERGY 7820 x 10° BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 449 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 5.0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Toksook Bay during 1982 is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types of energy consumed by the various sectors are based upon the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by the store, the school, and the local utility. Estimates based on the population, square footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated energy usage factors, were used where data were incomplete. Wood use was estimated using observations and discussions with wood users that occurred during the village visit. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 28,371 MMBTU of fuel will enter Toksook Bay in the form of gasoline, wood and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various sectors and used for transportation, cooking, heating and electricity generation. The conversion of the fuel to its end use will result in 49% or 13,250 MMBTU of energy lost as heat. 51% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual amount of energy used by each sector is listed in the last column of the energy flow diagram. The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy is shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the quantity of energy that will be required by each sector (excluding transportation) for electric lights and appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and generation station service. Percentages listed in the figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 10646 xX 106 Btus to determine the projected energy requirements for a particular end use in a given sector. These projected energy requirements do not include energy conversion losses and therefore represent the actual quantity of energy required for each end use. Bek I ENERGY BALANCE VILLAGE: TOKSOOK BAY/1982 FUEL OIL GASOLINE PROPANE wooo ene EAE TOTAL ELECTRICITY ToTaL | RECOV- BTU BTU BTU ERABLE BTU GA BS. CORDS BTU % SECTOR GAL ENG % MWH a % ; x4os | © x10° x 108 xioe | Pe 108 : RESIDENTIAL 45000 | 6060 | 28 97 330 | 22 160 | 3000 | 4520 | 2260 | 4870] 34 COMMERCIAL 3600 | 486 3 16 55 4 194 97 347 2 =| | PUBLIC 15000 | 2020 9 41 140 9 soo | 405 | 1351] 9 SCHOOLS 38000 | 5110 | 24 182 622 | 41 2040 | 204 | 3692] 25 4 == | ELECTRICAL GENERATION 57900 | 7820 | 36 113 38& | 25 6287 | 4090 | 386] 3 = TRANSPORTATION | 31000 | 3875 3875 | 27 a + 1 | TOTAL 159500 |21496 | 100 | 449 1533. |100 |31000 | 3875 160 | 3000 }13850 | 7056 |14521 | 100 *station service or distribution losses Table 5.1 €°s L's eanbi4 TCKSOOK BAY,'1982 WVY¥9VIG MOS ADYANS POP: 333 HOUSEHOLDS: 67 13,000 HTG. DEGREE DAYS FUEL | AMOUNT ENERGY PROOUCT ELECTRICAL END USE TOTAL BY SECTOR CONVERSION HEAT DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USAELE ENERGY GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION (3875) TRANSPORTATION 3875) (3875) PROPANE COOKING (900) TIA wonn RESIDENTIAL acne (2100 RESIDENTIAL Paco (3000) Ne0eO) (2096) HEATING/ (3636) (330) COOKING “7. ce (2424), cui ieen | COMMERCIAL TAL ° HEATING A222) (55) 347) | (486) (1.94) (1533) (386 (386) FUEL OIL POWER POWER GEN. GENERATION ELECTRICAL senee} GENERATORS a (7820) SCHOOL(S _ SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (3070) sate 692) (5110) COOKING cere ! ie (2040) = PUBLIC mubele (2351) HEATING (22) : TOTAL | TOTAL WASTE ' TOTAL INPUT HEAT | USABLE ENERGY ENERGY (13850) RECOVERABLE j (28371) WASTE HEAT | (7056) | (21577) WASTE HEAT NON - RECOVERABLE NOTE: (6794) NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10° atu's. DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY * TOKSOOK BAY/1982 END USE SECTOR WH (8.1%) 100 E (3.18%) 90 =} = 80 FE z > w ea S H/C (34.58) wi 4 e 60 EF - 4 ______ E(0.58) z w SOF PWR GEN | P(3.6%) | Oo c ———_—— Ww -=7 WH (1.68 op 40F ~~ --====- ( ) 30> scnoors | 8/°'27-28%) 20 E (1.38) 10 PUBLIC H/C (3.9%) Oo END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 10.7% VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 17.2%: H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 68.3% P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 3.6% TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 10646 x 10° Btu % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fig. 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.2 ENERGY FORECASTS Population Projection The population of Toksook Bay was forecast for the twenty year planning period based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capital projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their own community. Historical population data closely approximates a 2% annual growth rate. New homes constructed in 1982 are designed to improve housing facilities for present residents rather than for new families who are relocating in Tooksook Bay. Residents, however, expect growth of the village to continue. Historical and projected populations are listed below. Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over the 20 year planning period. Historical | Projected 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 257 332 403 492 601 Capital Projects Forecast Toksook Bay is growing rapidly in comparison to other villages in the Delta Region. 26 AVCP houses are to be built in 1982. The State will be assuming responsibi ity for primary school education and it is not known vsheth2r the present BIA school will be renovated or whether an addition will be made to the existing high school. 6.3 6.4 Because the plans for the schools are undefined no account has been made for them in the energy forecasts. However, the computer programs developed for forecasting have a facility to include capital projects. When firm plans are established for specified developments the programs can forecast the effects of new capital projects on the peak demand, kilowatt hours generated and the effect on the thermal energy requirements of the community. Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Toksook Bay during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided by combustion of oil used for space heating. The projections were based on fuel use records and estimates of the building heating requirements. The increase due to the new AVCP/HUD houses was included. Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Toksook Bay, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data was not available. The estimation methods and representative calculations are included in the main report. 6.2 THERMAL ENERGY (MMBTUD POPULATION PROJECTION TOKSOOK BAY Sea 475 z 458 G HH K 425 < J ~ 422 os © @ 375 358 325 al 1 1 1 foo 1 1 1 1 sf tke “ i. i: 1 1 1g32 «1984. 1985 1988 1998 19982 1994 1©936 1998 2228 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION a TOKSOOK BAY 16222 14222 | * Ww a nN or A @ n ~ wo (oO on 1532. 1994 136 YEAR Figure 6.2 PEAK DEMAND (KW) ELECTRICAL ENERGY TOTAL (MWH) ELECTRICAL ENERGY BY SECTOR (MWH) PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION 175 158 125 128 1982 1984 1986 1988 1992 1992 1994 1896 1998 2220 YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION TOKSCOK BAY So — g ee a ee ee ee a a 1982 1984 1985 19988 1996 1992 18994 1996 1898 ef22 YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 -0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Wind Toksook Bay has sufficient average wind veloci:y to operate wind turbine generators. However, the winds a-:e violent and gusty, and it is unlikely wind turbine generators would withstand these conditions. Wood Driftwood accumulates along the shore of Kangitvar Bay. It is an important source of energy for resideitial heating and is also used for steambaths. Coal Coal can be found at an outcropping 8 to 10 miles from the village. The coal is used by a few villagers for residential space heating. This area has not deen fully explored so the extent and quality of these reserves is not known. Peat The unfavorable surface geology is not conducive to peat formation. Solar Passive solar heat may be considered viable on!y as a supplement to home heating. Geothermal Toksook Bay has no geothermal potential. Hydropower Toksook Bay is in an area of low relief and low rainfall. There is no hydroelectric potential. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned in a diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine water cooling system, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the engine. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings and used in heaters for space heating. The school district is currently installing waste heat recovery equipment at the NMFS power plant to heat the school complex and additional community buildings. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Toksook Bay. Weatherization Homes and buildings built in western Alaska in the past have in general been poorly insulated and we atherized. Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows. 7.2 Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the building more comfortable and liveable at the same time. The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the most effective way of reducing village energy usage. Technolocy Ranking Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that could be applied to the village. Each technology was examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and environmental impact. Please refer to the main report for the ranking methodology. vl Village of Toksook Bay Technology Environ- Ranking State-of-the-Art Resource mental Factor Impact Weatherization* Diesel Power Waste Heat Recovery* Hydroelectric Power Wind Energy Conversion Systems Geothermal Energy Steam Power from local fuel,wood,coal,ect... Gasification of wood,coal or peat Generation via synchronous Induction* Electrical Load Management* a : Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 8.0 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 ENERGY PLAN Base Case General Description The base case plan for Toksook Bay is to continue using the centralized diesel generating s’stem. As the village grows additional generators a-e added in the plan to meet the increasing peak demaids. Thermal energy usage has been projected based upoi the continuation of present consumption rates. Base Case Cost Analysis The estimated capital value of the existiig central electric power plant was estimated to be 3209,000. The plant value was emortized over a 20 y2ar period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 100 kw, as required by the jrowing peak demand. The cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $1070/kw. — The cost of fuel oil was set at $9.56/MMB''U, based on a fuel cost of $1.29/ygallon. Operation and maintenance expenses were estimated at 8¢/kwh. Table 8.1 presents the itemized present vilue analysis of the base case for the 20 year study period. The discounted 20 year present vilue was $2,862,600. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST c°8 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 14.0 77.7 S71 128.8 128.8 128.8 1992 14.0 A3Te1 48.5 193.6 193.6 144.1 1983 14.0 82.2 38.3 134.5 134.5 130.6 1993 14.0 137.7 49.6 201.3 201.3 145.4 NOTE: 1984 14.0 86.9 39.5 140.3 140.3 132.3 1994 14.0 144.5 50.8 209.3 209.3 146.8 TOBPRRK 8A BASE CASE 1985 14.0 91.7 40.6 146.3 146.3 133.9 1995 14.0 151.6 oL9 217.5 217.5 148.1 Y 1986 14.0 96.8 41.7 152.5 152.5 73525 1996 14.0 159.1 53.1) 226.1 226.1 149.5 1987 14.0 102.0 42.9 158.8 158.8 137.0 1997 14.0 166.8 54.2 235.1 235.1 150.9 wee ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.1 1988 14.0 107.3 44.0 165.3 165.3 138.5 1998 14.0 174.9 55.4 244.3 244.3 152.3 1989 14.0 LuZe9) 45.1 172.0 172.0 139.9 1999 14.0 183.3 56.6 254.0 254.0 153.7 1990 14.0 118.8 46.2 179.0 179.0 141.3 2000 14.0 192.1 57.9 264.0 264.0 155.1 1991 14.0 124.8 47.4 186.2 186.2 142.7 2001 14.0 201.3 59.1 274.4 274.4 156.5 TOTAL 280.0 2643.6 959.8 3883.4 3883.4 2862.6 8.1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of } resent diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers «£ Toksook Bay recognize that diesel generation :s the only technologically feasible way of generzting electricity today. Therefore, their :nterests are in seeing the most efficient use of tke system. Reliability of power supply is regard«d as basic to the village's needs. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases releases a small amount of pollutants to the local environment, but the impact is minimal. ii) Noise: The exhaust stacks from the generator produce a considerable amount of noise. The installation of more effective mfflers would reduce the noise level. iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wilclife Impacts: No krown impact. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is nc impact on vegetation or soils. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: 711 leases and permits <re in place. 8.1.4 Base Case Technical Evaluation The continued operation of the central diesel electric power plant in Toksook Bay is expected to have the following characteristics: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well proven well understood technology with a successful history in rural Alaska. Backup generation allows maintenance of the generators to be performed without a major interruption of electrical power. Occasional system downtime is expected for distribution system maintenance. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. Availability. There are no indications that spare parts will become difficult to obtain in the future. The availability of fuel to the power plant depends on the reliability of transportation to the village. 8.4 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.2.1 General Description The Alternate Plan A ‘for Toksook Bay is tle installation of a was:e heat recovery sys!.em installed at the existing central electric power plant. It consists of the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 300 KW and 75 KW generators. 2. A distribution system consisting of pumps, piping and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return it to the power plant. 3. Heating equipment installed in PHS wat:er system and primary school buildings, to provide space heating. 4. A control system “hat automatically regulates the supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any surplus waste heat to the engine radiators. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water waste heat recovery system. The installation cost of the heat recovery system was estimated to be $181,500. The system value was amortized over a 10 year period. ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY COSTS Project Location Generators (kw) Estimated total kwh generated Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate Percent of On-Line Capacity Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery Percent Jacket Water Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized MAJOR COST ITEMS 1. Main piping 500 feet x $120/ft. 2. Heat Recovery Equipment 3. Circulating Pumps 4. Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware 5. Contingencies (30%) 6. Base Cost 7. Project Management (5%) 8. Engineering (10%) 9. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 10. O & M COST 11. Recovery Efficiency Table 8.2 8.6 __Toksook Bay _ 300,75,75 449,000 kwh/yr 300,75,75 51 kw 17% 13,600 Btu/min 30% -247X106 Btu . 247X106 BtuH 60,000 39,600 11,200 10,500 36,400 157,800 7,900 15,800 181,500 1.72/MMBtu ___ 4820 Btu/kwh The cost of fuel oil iormally used for space heating, which was offset by the captured waste heat, was $16.00/MMBTU, based o1 a fuel oil cost of $2.16/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were calculated to be $1.72/MMBTU waste heat captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The discounted net benefit of the system was $1,065,900. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from existing generators for sale to major consumers. 1) Community Preference: The villagers of Toksook Bay recognize that the installatior of waste heat will improve the efficiency of fuel use in the community. The sale of waste heat will help lessen the effect of rising fuel prices on the cost of electricity. Installation of the waste heat capture system will require local expertise and should provide a number of jobs duving the construction phase. The system should operate with minimal maintenance although one part time person would be required until the system has been tested and initial minor problems nave been solved. DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON-ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 14.0 77.7 Sel 128.8 128.8 128.8 ocoooo oe ee ocoo NOTE: 1983 14.0 82.2 38.3 134.5 134.5 130.6 oooo ee ee coco kkk TOKSOOK BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1984 14.0 86.9 39.5 140.3 140.3 13253 25.4 71.7 46.3 42.4 ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8 1985 14.0 91.7 40.6 146.3 146.3 133.9 25.5 75.6 50.1 44.5 3 1986 14.0 96.8 41.7 152.5 152.5 135.5 25.6 79.6 54.0 46.6 1987 14.0 102.0 42.9 158.8 158.8 137.0 25.7 83.8 58.1 48.6 1988 14.0 107.3 44.0 165.3 165.3 138.5 25.8 88.2 62.3 50.7 1989 14.0 112.9 45.1 172.0 172.0 139.9 26.0 92.7 66.7 52.7 1990 14.0 118.8 46.2 179.0 179.0 141.3 26.1 97.3 Wed 54.6 1991 14.0 124.8 47.4 186.2 186.2 142.7 26.2 102.2 76.0 56.6 DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON -DLECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED BENEFITS 1992 14.0 131i 48.5 193.6 193.6 144.1 26.3 107.2 80.9 58.5 1993 14.0 sie, 49.6 201.3 201.3 145.4 26.4 1205 86.1 60.4 NOTE: 1994 14.0 144.5 50.8 209.3 209.3 146.8 26.5 118.0 91.4 62.3 akKK TOKSOOK BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE A 1995) 14.0 151.6 leo) 217.5 2175) 148.1 26.7 N23 07 97.0 64.2 1996 14.0 1S 9iei1 Saieul 226.1 226.1 149.5 26.8 129.6 102.9 66.0 ALL VALUES IN 1997 14.0 166.8 54.2 235.1 2851.1 150.9 26.9 135.8 108.9 67.9 $1000's Table 8.3 (continued) 1998 14.0 174.9 55.4 244.3 244.3 152.3 27.0 142.3 EU S¢,3) 69.7 1999 14.0 183.3 56.6 254.0 254.0 153.7 27.1 149.0 121.9 71.6 2000 14.0 192.1 57.9 264.0 264.0 155.1 2763 156.1 128.8 13.5) 2001 14.0 201.3 D9. 4 274.4 274.4 156.5 27.4 163.4 136.0 15-3 TOTAL 280.0 2643.6 959.8 3883.4 3883.4 2862.6 474.6 2028.8 1554.1 1065.9 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in fuel used in the village and resulting reduction in hydrocarbon, monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. iii) Water Quality: There would be a minor impact if a major leakage occurred in the coolant system. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None. v) Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during the installation of the distribution system and will be restricted to the village site. vi) Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed that the village will make the necessary arrangements for the right of way requirements for the distribution system. 8.2.4 Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation Operation of the waste heat recovery system in Toksook Bay, in conjunction with the central power plant, is expected to conform to the following expectations: 1. High Reliability. The system utilizes simple, reliable components that are readily available off the shelf from a variety of sources. 8.10 2. Safety. A well maintained system has little hazard poten:ial associated with it. 3. Availability All components needed ire available immediately. The system is relative]. easy to implement. 8.3 Alternate Plan B 8.3.1 8.3.2 General Description The Alternate Plan B for Toksock Bay is the construction of an electrical transmission line from Toksook Bay to Tununak. The plan utilizes the Toksook Bay power plant t:o generate the combined needs of the two villages. Generation facilities at Tununak would be maintained in an operation state to provide backup or emergency power generation. Cap?tal costs for both an underground cable and a conventional overhead line were analyzed. A 20 year cost analysis was performed on the overhead line beceuse the cost of the underground system was estimated to be slightly higher. The cost analysis was performed based on the assumption that no waste heat was captured at the Toksook Bay power plant. However, a waste heat recovery system «ould be installed under this plan. The system would produce similar non-electric benefits as those presented in Alternate Plan A (Section 8.2). Cost Analysis The estimated construction of the overhead SLE transmission line between Toksook Bay and Tununak is itemized as follows: Line Materials including wire, $ 77,000 poles, transforming, miscel- laneous hardware and shipping Equipment rental, transportation, 140,000 mobilization and demobilization Labor 233,000 Subtotal $450,000 Engineering 45,000 Project Management 22,500 Test and Energization 22,500 Contingency 90,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $630,000 Table 8.4 presents the itemized present value analysis for the 20 year period. The 20 year present worth is $4,644,100. The intertie present value analysis must be compared with both the base case present value analysis, for both Toksook Bay and Tununak, and the Alternate Plan A, i.e. waste heat recovery from the central power plant. 8.3.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation 1) Community Preference: The possibility of an intertie was not discussed extensively while in the villages. 8.12 DIESEL - BLECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 67.8 100.3 64.3 232.4 232.4 232.4 1992 67.8 162.0 79.9 309.7 309.7 230.4 TOKSOOK BAY-TUNUNAK INTERTIE 1983 67.8 105.4 65.8 239.0 239.0 232.0 1993 67.8 169.8 81.5 319.1 31961 230.5 NOTE: 1984 67.8 110.7 67.3 245.8 245.8 231.7 1994 67.8 177.9 83.2 328.9 328.9 230.7 kK PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B 1985 1986 1987 67.8 67.8 67.8 116.2. 121.9 - 127.59 68.8 70.4 71.9 252.9 260.1 267.7 252.9 260.1 267.7 231.4 231.1 230.9 5 1996 1997 8 67.8 67.8 186.3 195.1 204.4 84.9 86.6 88.3 339.0 349.6 360.6 339.0 349.6 360.6 230.8 231.1 - 231.5 ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.4 1988 67.8 134.2 7355 275.5 275.5 230.7 1998 67.8 214.0 90.2 379.2 379.2 236.3 1989 67.8 140.7 75.0 283.6 283.6 230.6 1999 67.8 224.1 92.0 39 bet 3915-1 236.6 1990 67.8 147.5 76.6 291.9 291.9 230.4 2000 67.8 234.7 93..9 403.5 403.5 237.0 1991 67.8 154.6 78.2 300.7 300.7 230.5 2001 67.8 245.7 95.67 416.5 416.5 237.5 TOTAL 1356.0 3273.5 1588.1 6217.6 6217.6 4644.1 2) 8.3.4 Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: No impact. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impacts. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is a p-oposal to construct a road between Toksook Bay and Tununak, construction of an intert:.e along the road would cause minimal impact: to the terrestrial environment. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: Permission would be sought from the relevant agencies and would be the responsibility of the utility. Technical Evaluation The operation of the intertie transmission line is expected to conform with the following: 1. Reliability. The conventional construction method overhead line would be expected to have good reliability. Maintenance and repair due to weather damage would be required. Safety. Normal risks associated with the distribution of electrical power, such as shock hazard from downed lines, would exist. Availability. All components necessary for the intertie system are readily available. 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 PLAN Alternative A[Alternative B Diesel and Intertie Waste Heat 2,862,600 2,862,600 TOKSOOK BAY Energy Source Present ‘North Non-Elec:rical Benefits Total Base Case Diesel 4,644,100 , 5, $2,862,600] $1,796,700 $4,644,100 The evaluation of the intertie between Tununak and Toksook Bay must include the economic impact of the plan on both villages. In both villages, the Alternate Plan A waste heat recovery plan is more economical than the Base Case Plan. Tire Plan A present worths are listed below: Alternate Plan A Waste Heat Recovery Present Worth Analysis Toksook ay $ 1,796,700 Tununak 1,571,700 Total $ 3,363,400 The pres2nt value of the intertie, $4,644,100 is consideribly higher than the combined present values of the Alternate A Plans in Toksook Bay and Tununak. If waste heat recovery in Toksook Bay is considered in combination with the intertie, the total cost of the intertie alternat’ve in Toksook Bay is reduced from $4,644,100 to $3,578,200. This total is still slightly higher than the combined Plan A totals of Toksook Bay and Tununak. Dek The discounted net benefit of $1,065,900 is derived from Alternative A for Toksook Bay. This figure is conservative because the increased electrical load would increase waste heat availability. An expanded waste heat capture and distribution system has not been detailed and costed. Should the intertie option be taken to a feasibility study, field investigations should include a more detailed thermal load analysis of Toksook Bay to support planning an expanded waste heat system. Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 Energy Base Case Alternative A Alternative B* Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Plan 3 Cost Year (kwh/yr. ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) ’ . ; a 1983 478,700 28.10 28.10 25.09 1984 493,100 28.45 19.06 25 6.0i7 1985 507,400 28.83 18.96 25.09 1986 521,600 29.24 18.88 25.43 1987 535,700 29.64 18.80 25552 | 1988 549,800 30.07 18.73 25;e5)1 1989 563,800 30i45)1 18.68 25.44 1990 577,800 30.98 18.64 25.58 1991 591,900 31.46 18.62 25.76 1992 606,000 31103 9.5) 18.60 25.95 1993 620,200 32.45 ¥8.57 26.16 1994 634,500 32.99 18.58 26.39 1995 648,900 33.1512 NSieSi7 26.63 1996 663,400 34.08 18557 26.90 1997 678,100 34.67 18.61 27.18 1998 693,000 35.125 18.61 28.03 1999 708,000 35.88 18.66 28.33 2000 723,200 36.50 18.69 28.65 2001 738,600 Sie 15 18.74 28.99 * Based on combined electrical demand of Toksook Bay and Tununak. 9.2 Table 9.3 presents the plans for the village, in rank of recommended preference. The recommended action appropriate to each alternative is listed as well. Table 9.3 Energy Plan Alternative Recommended Action Alternative A - Waste Heat Initiate a feasibility Capture study for waste heat recovery. Estimated cost of feasibility study $12,000 - $15,000 Alternative B - Electrical Initiate a feasibility study Intertie with Tununak with for transmission line inter Waste Heat Capture tie and waste heat capture. Estimated cost of study $12,000 - $15,000. Base Case —- Continued Investigate operation for Operation of Central potential of improved Power Plant generation efficiency. Estimate cost of study at $10,000 - $12,000 Additional Recommendations Weatherization No resource assessment or -building insulation feasibility study »building envelope indicated; immediate action infiltration required to bring Energy -improved combustion Audit and/or weatherization program to this community. Wind Power Initiate wind data acquisition program. Reconnaissance studies are necessarily preliminary in nature, however, it is apparent that there is great potential for a waste heat capture system in Toksook Bay. Sale of the waste heat will realize increased revenues to the utility which will decrease the cost of production for electricity. Currently (1981-82) electricity costs 48.27¢ per KWH based on $1.29 a gallon for fuel and includes distribution and overhead costs. The fuel is supplied by Chevron and barged to Toksook Bay from the distribution center in Bethel. The computer model used in the reconnaissance study projected that the 1982-83 cost of production for electricity will be approximately 27.76¢ per KWH. The study suggested that a waste heat capture system would be installed, and become operational in 1983-84. It was assumed that the waste heat would replace fuel oil, which costs $2.16 per gallon, used for space heating. Based on this assumption, the cost of production for electricity would be reduced from 28.45¢ to 19.06¢ per KWH. Therefore it is recommended that a waste heat capture system be installed. The reconnaissance study estimates that the system has the potential to save up to 20,000 gallons of fuel oil in the first full year of operation. 9.4 APPENDIX. See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report: RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VILLAGES OF Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. 7 ista Corparction 516 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 279-5516 R ECEIveD APR 1 2 1982 ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Aprid |9,°1982 Eric Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: ‘Letter of March 8, 1982 We have reviewed the draft documents by NORTEC of the energy reconnaissance report of the Calista Region. Calista Corporation endorses the study that was done by NORTEC. Energy in the Calista Region is probably the most expensive item for the people. Oil and gas have to be transported in, therefore causing the cost of energy to skyrocket in the villages. We would very much appreciate for Alaska Power Authority go on further and make recommendations to improve the energy programs within our region. However, please coordinate with Calista Corporation and A.V.C.P. Inc. on the reconnaissance studies that will be done in the future. Any questions please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, CALISTA CORPORATION Wiles Al icer President AR/ms Reply to Calista Corporation letter dated 4/9/82. Receipt of the letter and the point about further future coordination with A.V.C.P. Inc. is acknowledged.