Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTeller Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives Appendix P 1982VIL-A 002 Teller tpi tears tein eet | * | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY —_| RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX P: TELLER MAY 1982 PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Au i thorit 334 W. 5th Ave. ’ Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Prepared by: ws x ve FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE ° On i a1 ¢ VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT P, TELLER TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........00eeeeeeee And = iGenenall secamacimisisiertelesitereigs oe elee eld) seme cid a acer Ad = Miternative Pidd Deseret lens scaccccvesenasssscnceceas B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...........c cece cee eeee - Population in SPP TTT TTT Te Pee rT TTT Tere ee - Government Dowwo APwWNrr 1‘ G = COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT, oxic j-212 1 -preroreieleseoiiereislay aise aleleieisisrni D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ........... 0 cece eeeceee Ey" ENERGY: BALANCE io)cp-)ey-televey 9 ncerieee te ote eel tela) 91 oO vss ioloisi <1) cle wie lelate ata F = ENERGY REQUIREMENTS: ROREGASIN (tess <1-1cieresnctoisierere'e crcl) twee telele's) state = [Eliectricall Energy FOneCast. .. fers. <criarieiets 1-11) a1oleiro te ess 815 = iImenmal) Energy, FOVECASE (rjor1-18i herr omer ieteis ols -1els sie ele rs 516 2) aman" PwWNrE Gi= ‘VILUAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT) ..ccers sacmecmawtts sss eaen asics H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .............0.0000- Hist) =) BaSCGAS©) caterers toeseters/o1 41st erie teiorsisas1s]01c1sicim'e)oneietaretere) el ehel elo iaileatele 8.2 = Alteramiivs Blmt "A" cc cccs. cece ccegasseaneseenepensvan B23 ~ ATCOrneh ive Fiat MO ok kee ccceess cecencvenans se nnceunan T= ENERGY PANT EVACUATIIONS cevrererc cc ier sielelellaasteiowietiete + secincieslmis = BAS! CASE! oo orcs cote ie ioe foe! helo} ole) one (als le 16°91 0) o1o))a\oliofofoxase 514181618750 Pal ae) =) Alternative Pian! WAL we cseriswtrsters oe aersreraretetowiese ¢1812) 511s 1-3 ~ AiCSrAse ree Flee OW an ccwcesesesnscencsenss 240 sacinesy mt OG AC TON cayei-ere cya weiie rota ¥o10sshey 31 5} oor Ta (elo a usiel 012/61 21 2) e1.s1s)ia/e lave ol st of eel ofc = TERPSTRA coscccee tere eseeessane eee nee ewe = Capital Pragects Forecast. .... cccdsunnnas evecnWonunns tx = PODUIRETON FOPQCEST 2. ccass cree neenseaae OREN TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ........ ccc cece cee cece cece ee eeeees P-37 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza .............00% P-38 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power AAMINTSERAPTON “oc nccncoe dadsmessnT anANTMRew se tase P-44 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game .......... cece eee eee ees P-49 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife SERVICE IN ANENONAGE! sr cicieysress: cial -tsloicloteveisletoreielecieiee ie ielele cist P-52 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land MalAGemeniGirersrerersrereycisreroeieieieleleletelsiercle = ikelalelaslersteheiienstets reactor P-57 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Comparative Estimated Flectrical Enerayv Prices For Base. ase rand Alternatives) |i: /-1-\-1215' ieee elelere cueeiele P-3 2 Eneray) Use) Protilelincrrcctiavetsretdeledseeleteieletecietactcteasa starrer etre P-10 2 Village Electric Eneray Use Forecast ........ccee eee cece P-14 4 Net) Thermal) Requirements) foci) he sleventehers s14 niorsrolete lions! s)srsiele 5) <¢5 P-17 5 Village: ‘Technology Assessment) w..ccenccessccesae so esszacs P-19 6 Estimated: Costs (of-Jelller; (Base (Case) iici1.s1s10. stoiclosisieressin o) <2 P-25-26 7 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Base Case .......... P-27 8 Estimated Costs of Teller Alternative Plan "A" .......... P-29-30 9 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative PAT AGATE letctalststlatelelarerctsierteertolch cteteloveietodeletaicy ascerctettere taberetel takers P-31 10 Estimated Costs of Teller Alternative Pi aD IBM | ateteleesrotete stelovsirerare stotessis|ai ai stelayeretaiie tavsustaVstotehshese lepers lel eset P-33-34 ll Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative Billapnelis Daveretotcterercfotay oketeysyeteterstcvaielsisistelel over oteictetois stcy etatetelertoterey stateier P-35 = o LIST OF FIGURES Title ENERGY COSC, SummMargy so, 0) oe:0:010;0s01s1 ror yero,s1eloyere 01910) s1-1sx51 Sys ysisyaysroisieys Energy Balances ors tois ore e:e6-0eie le siorsl orale e foole sisse) syste lols fosuss 5513) 915) Electric: Energy Use Forecast, cicnascctww ss sins ctceie cre see p-4 P-11 P-15 TELLER P-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Teller, the recommendations which are most appropriate to the existing village conditions and possible future developments are as follows: 1 In light of the uncertainty surrounding the status of the village of Mary's Igloo, an approach of wait-and-see may be the most appropriate for Teller. (The original population of Mary's Igloo was decimated by disease in the early 1900's and many of the inhabitants moved to Teller. Many of the descendants of the original Mary's Igloo residents want to move back to a new village site.) If a new Mary's Igloo is ever built, the out-migration from Teller could leave a virtual ghost town. It appears that a wind energy system may be economically attractive in Teller compared to a continuation of the existing system or an expansion of its waste heat system. It is to be understood that in no way can wind turbines be expected to eliminate the need for diesel generator sets. At best, all they can do is reduce the amount of fuel the diesels will use. However, to more fully develop the economics and performance of such a system, more detailed studies are needed. The first step is to install a sophisticated anemometry system which would provide data on the frequency distribution of wind speeds. An analysis of this information would allow a more reliable estimate of the wind turbine's plant factor, a critical element in the economic viability of a wind turbine. The cost trends of wind systems must be closely monitored to observe changes in system cost as more of these units are installed. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case The base case plan for Teller will deal with the continued service of electrical energy to the village by the Teller Power Company using diesel sets. Teller Power has a small waste heat system installed to neat the Teller Commercial store and its warehouse. The owners of TELLER P-2 TPC note that there is additional waste heat which is presently not being used. There are some plans underway to expand the size of the waste heat system to serve a small duplex near the power plant, but it is not yet known whether this will be put into place. This plan has a net present worth of $2,917,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" This alternative investigates the economics of expanding the waste heat system to serve not only the Teller Commercial store and warehouse, but the Teller city offices, the Catholic church and hall, and the village clinic. This plan has a net present worth of $3,024,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B" This alternative investigates the economics of including a relatively large 100 kW wind turbine in the generation system at Teller. The wind turbine would be located near the village, likely on the higher ground south of the airport. A transmission line would be required to tie into the existing Teller power system. When there was sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, the diesels would be operated at a lighter load and thus consume less fuel. This plan has a net present worth of $2,830,000 for the period 1982 through 2001. A summary of the costs of electricity supplied by those alternatives studied for Teller is given in Table 1. A projection of costs of various fuel resources used in Teller is shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year (Muh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1982 350 0.47 0.48 0.47 1983 360 0.49 0.50 0.49 1984 365 0.49 0.50 0.49 1985 370 0.50 0.50 0.50 1986 380 0.50 0.50 0.50 1987 380 0.51 0.51 0.51 1988 380 0.52 0.52 0.52 1989 380 0.53 0.53 0.52 1990 380 0.53 0.53 0.53 1991 380 0.54 0.54 0.53 1992 380 0.55 0.54 0.53 1993 380 0.56 0.55 0.54 1994 380 0.57 0.56 0.54 1995 380 0.58 0.57 0.55 1996 380 0.58 0.57 0.55 1997 380 0.60 0.58 0.56 1998 380 0.60 0.59 0.56 1999 380 0.61 0.60 0.57 2000 380 0.62 0.61 0.57 2001 380 0.63 0.62 0.58 &d Y3dTT3L 8 S E. a oO ° > we — yn ce Vy a oO ce uJ = Lad TELLER P-4 BASE CASE ALT. “A” ° a OlL AS USED AT 720.35 oO p oO “ENERGY COST &/KWh) O tu oO OIL AS USED AT 770.65 0.10 OIL AS DELIVERED 1990 TELLER - FIGURE | 1995 2000 TELLER P-5 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Teller is located on Port Clarence, 72 miles north of Nome. B.2 - Population Date: 1970 1980 Population: 220 2121 Of the 1970 population figure of 220, 87 percent were Kawerak Eskimo. The 1980 U.S. census reports 212 residents in Teller. B.3 - Economy The Teller economy is based on subsistence food harvest supplemented by part-time wage earnings. The City of Teller employs a maintenance man, two alternate health aides, a clerk and a secretary. The Mary's Igloo Native Corporation and the Teller Native Corporation are both located in Teller; each has one employee. The Norton Sound Regional Health Corporation employs a full-time health aide, and the REAA school employs four teachers, four aides and four other workers (janitors and cooks). The Teller Commercial Company is a family owned business employing two additional people outside the family. The Teller Power Company and Mukluk Telephone are also family-owned enterprises headquartered in Teller. Mukluk Telephone hires part time workers as needed. Teller Air Service employs a pilot. A postmaster works for the U. S. Postal Service. The State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities hires three workers in the summer; one of these is under contract during the winter to maintain the airport. The city employs a clerk, secretary, maintenance person and two alternate health aides. There is some seasonal mining work. Mineral deposits in the area include silver and gold placer deposits, iron on the Sinuk River and graphite in the Kigluaik Mountains. A mining complex at Lost River, 25 miles northwest 1 Includes Coyote Creek section of Teller developed in 1976, two miles from village center. TELLER P-6 of Teller, has deposits of fluorite, tungsten, tin, beryllium, arsenic and kaolinite. Offshore oi] and gas lease sales are proposed in late 1982 for an area of Norton Sound north of the Yukon Delta. Many native residents of Teller are shareholders in the Teller Native Corporation, which was incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Because many of the Teller residents have moved to Teller from other villages, some of the residents are shareholders in other village corporations. B.4 - Government Teller was incorporated in 1963 and is a second class city. The city government functions under the authority of a mayor elected from the seven-member city council. Regular elections are held annually in December. Teller is a participant in the State of Alaska's Revenue Sharing Program and received $16,147 in state revenue sharing funds for the fiscal year 1980. As a second class city, Teller is able to assume diverse powers, including levying taxes. Voters in Teller approved a 3 percent sales tax, which is the only city tax levied in the village. For nonmunicipal programs and services, the native population is represented by a seven-member IRA council. The council administers a variety of federal programs including local health care, employment assistance, college assistance, social services and tribal operations. In Teller, many of these services are provided by Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation. B.5 - Transportation Teller has a highway link to Nome and is easily accessible by sea and air. The state owns a 2,600 foot northeast/southwest gravel runway located on a hill above Teller. The runway accommodates single engine and some multi-engine aircraft. During the winter many aircraft land on a frozen pond adjacent to the city. Wien Air Alaska and Munz Northern Airlines both operate scheduled flights from Nome to Teller, and Teller Air Service owns two aircraft and provides charter service throughout the Seward Peninsula. Bering Air, Seward Peninsula Flying Service and Foster Aviation provide charter and freight service from Nome. There is no regular barge service to Teller. Most residents own skiffs to travel to fishing and hunting camps along Port Clarence, Grantley Harbor, Imuruk Basin or up the Kuzitrin River. Grantly Harbor is generally TELLER P-7 ice-free from early June to mid-November. Port Clarence is a natural harbor which has been considered as a site for a deep water port. The Nome/Teller road, also known as State Route 131, is a 72-mile gravel road completed in 1966. In summer, supplies are trucked to Teller from Nome. The road to the airport and to Coyote Creek is maintained during winter, but the Nome/Teller road is not. Winter travel is primarily by snowmachine, and winter trails radiate from Teller to Brevig Mission, Mary's Igloo and Nome. The road from Teller to Coyote Creek is plowed, and some vehicles operate in the winter. TELLER P-8 C _- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Teller in the afternoon of January 12, 1982. A meeting was scheduled for the evening of the 13th, and took place in the high school multipurpose room. Tne meeting was well attended with an audience of about 17 persons. Field personnel described the reconnaissance project and asked meeting attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs and resources of the Teller area. Some people mentioned that the electric service in Teller had been quite reliable during the past year. There was some discussion regarding the billing practices of the local utility company, Teller Power Company. Apparently a number of families have not received a bill from the utility in over two years. [A representative of the Teller Power Company has subsequently advised the Alaska Power Authority that steps have been taken to ensure that, in the future, all customers get billed equitably. ] Some interest was expressed in wind energy. Field personnel spent some time discussing the 30 kW wind project at Unalakleet. The State Division of Energy and Power Development plans to install a small (2 to 10 kW) wind turbine at Teller during the summer of 1982. The public meeting lasted about 45 minutes. TELLER P-9 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Teller is served with electric power by a private utility, the Teller Power Company (TPC). TPC presently has the following units installed: o One 100 kW diesel o One 135 kW diesel o One 210 kW diesel The owners of TPC have maintained these machines extremely well. They pointed out that the 135 kW unit had run continuously for the past five years (except to be shut down for oil changes and minor maintenance) with no overhauls; a record rarely equaled in the operation of Alaska bush generating facilities. One contributing factor to the unusually long service of this machine is likely to be the foundation provided in the generator building. There is a large reinforced concrete pedestal which has steel pipes bolted to it for supporting the diesel sets. Few other bush facilities have concrete foundations. Those which do generally have better service records for their diesels. The village load is presently at about the maximum output for the 135 kW machine. Practically all home heating is by oil. Very few families use wood. All commercial and government buildings are oi] heated. TELLER P-10 E - ENERGY BALANCE In Teller, as in most other villages studied, the majority of the energy used was consumed in space heating. Teller had the unique distinction among the studied Seward Peninsula/Norton Sound communities of having no one in the village use wood for space heating. The residents of Brevig Mission, four miles away, use wood extensively to supplement their fuel oil. All of Teller's energy needs are met with fuel oil and gasoline. Data gathered by field staff shows the following energy uses: TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR TELLER - 1981 ota Heat Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (10? Btu) Fuel Gil $2.00/gal Space Heating 75,000 gal 10.3 (Residential) Water Heating Cooking Fuel Oil $2.00/gal Space Heating 26,000 gal 3.5 (Schools) Water Heating Fuel Oil $2.00/gal Power Generation 30,000 gal 4.1 (Power Gen. ) Motor Gasoline $2.25/gal Transportation 17,000 gal Zeal ENERGY RESOURCE SS END USE RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM LOSSES SPACE & WATER (6.7) HEATING AND COOKING 10.3 (10.3) FUEL OIL (17.9) USEABLE HEAT (3.6) SCHOOL SPACE AND Q WATER HEATING USEABLE HEAT (3.5) (2.3) POWER SYSTEM LOSSES (3.2) GENERATION (4.1) ELECTRICITY (0.9) _ S GASOLINE (2.1) 24 TRANSECRTATION (2.1) NOTE 3 ALL UNITS IN 10° BTU/YR. TELLER ENERGY FIGURE 2 BALANCE (1981) prviitites 44 132 42222 ACRES AMERICAN INCORPOMATED LbL-d Y371aL TELLER P-12 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects (a) 1982 - Enlarge the multipurpose room in the school (b) 1982 - Extend the sea wall (c) 1982 - 2-10 kW wind generator (DEPD project) F.1.2 - Potential Developments None F.1.3 - Economic Forecast Teller has a subsistence economy with a few wage earners. No resource development, tourism or other industry is anticipated in Teller. If oil is discovered in Norton Sound in 1983, there should be general economic growth throughout the region. F.2 - Population Forecast No expansion of economic activity is forecast in Teller. The population declined from 1970 to 1980 even though 30 new homes were built 2 miles away at Coyote Creek in 1976. Therefore, the population table below is based on no additional growth. 1960 1970 1980 1986 1990 1996 2001 Population N/A 220 2i2t 212 212 212 ~ 2i2 #Residences N/A 66 g5¢ 85 85 85 85 #Commercial N/A N/A Z Z 2 2 2 #Gov't/Other N/A N/A 13 13 il} 13 13 This population forecast is subject to the influences of the status of the Mary's Igloo population. It may continue a slow decline, it may remain stable at its present level, or it may drop rapidly. 1 Includes Coyote Creek Local estimate and includes Coyote Creek TELLER P-13 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast Inasmuch as the future of Teller appears to be uncertain and no growth in either population or the economy is foreseen, it seems likely that there will be little change in the energy consumption of the residents. About the only factor which will influence residential consumption is the introduction of television to the village. Late in 1981, network television became available to Teller residents. It is expected that televisions will become more common in households through the year 1986, at which time they will have reached a saturation level and no further growth in per-residence electrical energy use will be noted. It is estimated that the "typical" Teller residence will consume about 2,200 kWh annually by 1986 and remain constant thereafter. The electricity use forecast in the village is strongly tied to the forecast of Teller's population and is subject to the same uncertainties. If the proposed Mary's Igloo becomes a reality, this electrical forecast will be meaningless. The consumption of other loads in Teller is forecast to remain constant for the term of the study. The expected electrical energy uses of non-residential customers are shown in the table below: Loads kWh per year kW Demand School 114,000 30 (avg) Store 22,000 5 City Offices 4,000 2 Telephone Co. 7,000 2 Misc. Comm'] and Government 2,000 each x 6 = 12,000 2 each x 6 = 12 160,000 100 In cases where electricity can be produced and sold for less than the price of heat delivered by heating oi], it can be expected that electric space heating will become more common. This would have the effect of driving electric use up. In studying the resources available to Teller, none was found capable of producing such cheap electricity. A summary of the village electrical use growth throughout the study period is given in Table 3 and Figure 3. TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Residential Schools Other Total Year kW MWh kW MWh kW MWh W MWh 1982 80 190 35 114 20 45 135 350 1983 80 200 35 114 20 45 135 360 1984 80 205 35 114 20 45 135 365 1985 80 210 35 114 20 45 135 370 1986 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1987 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1988 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1989 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1990 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1991 80 220 35 114 1992 80 220 a5 114 20 45 135 380 1993 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1994 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1995 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1996 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1997 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1998 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 1999 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 2000 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 2001 80 220 35 114 20 45 135 380 vl-d YdT13L TELLER P15 DEMAND (KW) = = = — 2 3 - a = > a 2 ° oO > © e Ww z Ww 1995 2000 TELLER -FIGURE 3 TELLER P-16 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast All residential heating is with oi], as wood is scarce in the Teller area. It is estimated that the "typical" Teller home uses about 900 gallons of fuel oi] each year for heating. The school is the largest single user in the village, consuming an estimated 26,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. Tne remainder of space heating requirements are taken up by the various commercial and governmental consumers. A summary of that heat use and future projections is given on Table 4. Figures given in this table are in terms of "net heat." Net heat is the heat actually delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion losses or inefficiencies have occurred. TELLER P-17 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (10°Btu) __—(10°Btu) (10% tu) __—(10%etu) _(10°Btu) 1982 1.0 SAS 2.3 12 8.1 1983 1.0 3.6 a3 led 8.1 1984 Lal 3.6 253 1.2 8.2 1985 1.1 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1986 le 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1987 ley 3.6 23 1g 8.2 1988 irl 3.6 203 diac 8.2 1989 eli 3.6 no lea, 8.2 1990 1.1 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1991 1.1 3.6 253 1.2 8.2 1992 youl 36) 23 ier 8.2 1993 1.1 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1994 1.1 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1995 Le 3.6 2.3 1.2 8.2 1996 1.1 3.6 253 12 8.2 1997 Ts 350 aes di 8.2 1998 el 3.6 Ze3 Le 8.2 1999 eal 3.6 2.3 Lie 8.2 2000 Teo 3/30 eS Lae 8.2 2001 Tol 3.6 2e3 le 8.2 TELLER P-18 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 4. Coal. There is presently no practical way to deliver coal to Teller. Additionally, it is unlikely there is a sufficient number of skilled personnel in the village to operate a coal-fired power plant. For these reasons, furtner study of this alternative is not warranted. Wood. Wood does not occur naturally in Teller and driftwood (beachwood) is scarce. Very little wood is used for home heating in Teller and it does not seem that a wood-fired power plant is practical there. For this reason, the alternative was not studied further. Geothermal. Teller is located about 30 miles from one of the State of Alaska’s most promising geothermal exploratory boreholes. High temperature water at moderate flow rates has been found at the site. The water is not hot enough to use for electrical power generation, but it may be useful for space heating in the area immediately adjacent to the well. However, Teller is too far away from this site to access its water for space heating uses. No other geothermal sites have been identified in Teller area. Therefore, this alternative was not studied further. Hydroelectric. There are no streams in the Teller area suitable for development which could produce power on a year-round basis without the construction of impoundments and dams. This alternative does not warrant further study. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive for consideration in Alaska utility planning. Wind. It is likely that Teller has access to a substantial wind resource. The village is exposed to strong winds from the Bering Sea and is surrounded by gentle terrain. In order to more adequately assess the full wind power potential of the Teller area, detailed wind data must be obtained. An anemometry site at some prospective wind turbine site near the village is needed. In lieu of site-specific wind data for Teller, wind data taken at Tin City and Kotzebue was analyzed. It was estimated that enough wind is available at Teller to permit operation of a wind turbine at a plant factor of 25 percent. Fuel Oil. This is available in Teller as it is trucked in from bulk plants at Nome. Fuel oil is the most used energy resource in the village, being used for both space neating and electric power generation. Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report. The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study. TELLER P-19 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR TELLER TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geothermal Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic wownn PP Fr fF HL MPF mM OP Be nore FP YH KF CO OC oo orw oo 2 orooroero wwwondoeoaoe oOo BS 68 | SS Se SS |S |S NrFooro oO Oo Ls 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. hs 8. Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Electric Resistance Passive Solar Wood Coal Oil (base) Other Coal Gasification Wood Gasification - Diesel Biogas Waste Fired Boiler Peat Binary Cycle Generator Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorabie. H Hi TELLER P-20 - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS 1 - Base Case The base case plan uses the Teller Power Company diesel system to produce electricity and a small amount of waste heat. The existing machine capacities are considered adequate to meet anticipated loads through the end of the study period if synchronization equipment is installed so that two generators can be run at the same time. Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present value figures for the base case were as follows: The generators have the following capacities: One 100 kW diesel One 135 kW diesel One 210 kW diesel Any combination of two of these machines is sufficient to carry any anticipated load through the study period. The diesel sets will be valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus $500/kW for installation, for a total of $800/kW installed. As long as TPC operates the plant (and this is assumed to be the case throughout the study period), each diesel set will require an overhaul costing one-third of its original purchase price or $100/kW every 10 years. TPC employees will carry out all maintenance on the equipment. This service is valued at $50,000 per year. The fuel consumption rate for the diesel sets is assumed to be 8 kwWh/gal. The waste heat system presently in Teller has an estimated cost using the following assumptions: Ts One heat exchanger system at the power plant valued at: $25,000. ae 150 feet of hot water piping to the buildings served, valued at $200/foot: $30,000 TELLER P-21 3s Baseboard heaters in the store and warehouse, valued at $5,000 per building: ($10,000) Total system value: $65,000 - Annual costs of this system are calculated as follows: Ts The initial costs of the diesel sets are amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. Ze The initial costs of the waste heat system are amortized over 10 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of the first 10 year period, it is assumed that the waste heat system is replaced in its entirety. a. The annual costs of the overhaul work are the result of the establishment of a sinking fund designed to provide $100/kW every 10 years. 4. General operation and maintenance adds $50,000 to the annual expenses. - Annual variable costs are calculated as follows: ie In 1982, the diesel fuel price is assumed to be $2.00/gal. The real (1981) cost will rise 2.6 percent annually to $3.26 by the end of the study period and will remain constant thereafter. A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available. H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" uses the diesel sets as described in the base case, except that the waste heat system is expanded to serve not only the Teller Commercial store and warehouse, but the Catholic church and its hall, the Teller village office building, and the clinic. TELLER P-22 The waste heat produced by the diesels would replace about 15,000 gallons of fuel oil each year. It is estimated that the buildings which would be served under this plan will consume about 8,000 gallons of oil per year. Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/waste heat system were as follows: - The diesel system would be as described in the base case plan. - The expansion of the waste heat system will require the installation of 650 feet of insulated pipe at a cost of $200/ft, for a total of $130,000. - The Catholic church and nall, as well as the village office building and the clinic, will require the installation of baseboard heaters at a cost of $5,000 per building for a total of $20,000. - The value of the original waste heat recovery system was estimated to be $65,000, bringing the total value of the expanded system to $215,000. - The $215,000 capital cost of the waste heat system is amortized over a period of 10 years for an annual cost of about $25,000. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. - There is no anticipated change in the costs associated with diesel amortization, overhaul or operations and maintenance. The costs associated with the operation of this alternative are shown in Section I. H.3 - Alternative Plan "B" Alternative "B" uses the TPC diesel sets as described in the base case as the primary source of village power. In addition to these three units, a 100 kW wind turbine will be assumed to be installed near the village. When there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, its electrical output will be fed into the Teller power system. It is to be understood that in no way can wind turbines be expected to eliminate the need for diesel generator sets. At best, all they can do is reduce the amount of fuel the diesels will use. For purposes of this study, it will be assumed that the wind turbine will have a plant factor of 25 percent and an availability factor of 90 percent. The expected annual energy output of these machines is then: 100 kW x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.25 x 0.90 = 197,100 kWh/yr TELLER P-23 This represents about 52 percent of Teller's annual electrical energy needs. It is unlikely that such a system would actually be put into operation, but it will be useful to analyze how a large wind turbine would affect the economics of the Teller utility system. Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine systems were as follows: - The diesel system is as described in the base case plan including the small waste heat recovery system. - The capital cost associated with the purchase of a large wind turbine such as the one described in this alternative is $2,600/kW. Tne cost associated with the installation is also estimated at $2,600/kW, for a total installed cost of $5,200/kW, or $520,000. - This capital cost will be amortized over a period of 15 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. This represents an annual cost of about $44,000. - Operations and maintenance of the wind turbine will require attention of skilled personnel brought in from Anchorage. It is estimated that this service will require four visits per year, each visit costing about $3,000. Total O&M charges are, therefore, $12,000 per year. - Total costs associated with the operation of the wind turbines are $56,000 per year. - The on-line date of the wind turbine will be delayed until such time as the savings in fuel use by the TPC generators is sufficient to pay for the wind turbine. This will occur when the price reaches the level as calculated below: 197,100 kWh/yr 8.0 kwWh/gal 24,600 gal/yr of displaced fuel $56,000/ yr 23,464 gal/yr $2.27/gal This is the expected price (in 1981 dollars) of fuel in 1987. Thus, the wind turbines will be put into operation at that time. A tabulation of the costs associated with the implementation of this alternative is shown in Section I. TELLER P-24 I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF TELLER BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS. FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) | 1,000 gal) — ($/gal) ($1,000) | Component = ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 350 40 2.00 80 o Existing TPC diesels 421 a 4 50 85 (one 100 kW, one 1983 360 45 2.05 92 135 kW, one 210 kW) 31 4 50 85 with waste heat system 1984 365 45 2.10 95 31 4 50 85 1985 370 46 2.16 99 31 4 50 85 1986 380 48 2.22 106 3 4 50 65 1987 380 48 2.27 109 31 4 50 85 1988 380 48 2.33 112 31 4 50 85 1989 380 48 2.59 115 31 4 50 85 1990 380 48 2.46 118 31 4 50 85 1991 380 48 2.52 121 31 4 50 85 1992 380 48 2.58 124 o Replace 1982 waste 65 31 4 50 85 heat system 1993 380 48 2.65 127 31 4 50 85 1994 380 48 2.72 130 Sl 4 50 85 1995 380 48 2.79 134 31 4 50 85 1996 380 48 2.86 137 31 4 50 85 1997 380 48 2.94 141 31 4 50 85 1998 380 48 3.02 145 31 4 50 85 1999 380 48 3.09 148 31 4 50 85 2000 380 48 3.17 152 Dl 4 50 85 2001 380 46 5.26 156 31 4 50 85 Gé-d Y3a71T3L TABLE 6 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) | /kwh) 1982 80 85 165 160.2 0.47 1983 92 85 77 166.8 0.49 1984 95 85 180 164.7 0.49 1985 99 85 184 163.5 0.50 1986 106 85 191 164.8 0.50 1987 109 85 194 162.5 0.51 1988 112 85 197 160.2 0.52 1989 115 85 200 157.9 0.53 1990 118 85 203 155.6 0.53 1991 121 85 206 153.3 0.54 1992 124 85 209 151.0 0.55 1993 127 85 212 148.7 0.56 1994 130 85 215 146.4 0.57 1995 134 85 219 144.8 0.58 1996 137 85 222 142.5 0.58 1997 141 85 226 140.8 0.60 1998 145 85 230 139.2 0.60 1999 148 85 233 136.9 0.61 2000 152 85 237 135.2 0.62 2001 156 85 241 133.4 0.63 TOTAL $2,028 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (iil) Net present worth $2,917 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 10 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. 9e-d YdTTSL TELLER P-27 TABLE 7 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year Space Heating Fuel Savin Benefits 1982 6 5.8 1983 6 5.6 1984 6 5.5 1985 6 5.3 1986 7 533 1987 7 5.9 1988 7 5.7 1989 7 5.5 1990 - 5.4 1991 8 6.0 1992 8 5.8 1993 8 5.6 1994 8 5.4 1995 8 5.3 1996 9 5.8 1997 9 5.6 1998 9 5.4 1999 9 5.3 2000 10 5.7 2001 10 530 TOTAL: $ 111 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TELLER P-28 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation There is no potential for local employment with Teller Power Company as it is presently organized. Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel engines emit quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and unburned hydrocarbons. With the installation at Teller, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants. The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodicaly and the waste oi] must be disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Teller, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are also a source of noise. The present installation at Teller is not equipped with any muffler system and is a nuisance in the central part of the village. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation Teller presently has what seems to be one of the most reliable utilities found in any of the villages studied. Part of this reliability must be attributed to the fact that the utility is privately owned and operated, with a certain amount of pride attached to running a good utility. The rigid foundation structure undoubtedly contributed significantly to the successful operation of the Teller utility. There is an excess of installed capacity at Teller, which contributes to the high prices which have been calculated for energy sales. If Teller Power Company continues to be privately operated, it can be expected that service with a nigh degree of reliability will continue. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED COSTS OF TELLER ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year... (MWh) | (1,000 gal) — ($/gal) ($1,000) Component _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 350 40 2.00 80 o Existing TPC diesels 571 50 4 50 104 (one 100 kW, one 1983 360 45 2.05 92 135 kW, and one 50 4 50 104 210 kW machines) with 1984 3605 45 2.10 95 expanded waste heat 50 4 50 104 system 1985 370 46 2.16 99 50 4 50 104 1986 380 48 2.22 106 50 4 50 104 1987 380 48 2.27 109 50 4 50 104 1988 380 48 2.33 W12 50 4 50 104 1989 380 48 2.39 115 50 4 50 104 1990 380 48 2.46 118 50 4 50 104 1991 380 48 2.52 121 50 4 50 104 1992 380 48 2.58 124 o Replace 1982 waste 215 50 4 50 104 heat system 1993 380 48 2.65 127 50 4 50 104 1994 380 48 2.72 130 50 4 50 104 1995 380 48 2.79 134 50 4 50 104 1996 380 48 2.86 137 50 4 50 104 1997 380 48 2.94 141 50 4 50 104 1998 380 48 3.02 145 50 4 50 104 1999 380 48 3.09 148 50 4 50 104 2000 380 48 3.17 152 50 4 50 104 2001 380 48 3.26 156 50 4 50 104 62-d Y3aTIIL TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) _ _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 80 104 184 178.6 0.48 1983 92 104 196 184.8 0.50 1984 95) 104 199 182.1 0. 50 1985 99 104 203 180.4 0.50 1986 106 104 210 181.1 0.50 1987 104 104 213 178.4 0.51 1988 W2 104 216 175.6 0.52 1989 115 104 219 172.9 0.53 1990 118 104 221 169.4 0.53 1991 121 104 225 167.4 0, 54 1992 124 104 228 164.7 0.54 1993 127 104 231 162.0 0.55 1994 130 104 234 159.4 0. 56 1995 134 104 238 157.3 0.57 1996 137 104 241 154.7 0.57 1997 141 104 245 152.7 0.58 1998 145 104 249 150.6 0.59 1999 148 104 252 148.0 0.60 2000 152 104 256 146.0 0.61 2001 156 104 260 144.0 0.62 TOTAL $3,310 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (286) Net present worth $3,024 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 10 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. O€&-d Y3TISL TELLER P-31 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 16 15.5 1983 16 15.1 1984 17 15.6 1985 17 15.1 1986 : 18 15.5 1987 18 15.1 1988 19 15.4 1989 19 15.0 1990 20 15.3 1991 20 14.9 1992 21 15.2 1993 21 14.7 1994 22 15.0 1995 22 14.5 1996 23 14.8 1997 24 15.0 1998 24 14.5 1999 25 14.7 2000 25 14.2 2001 26 14.4 TOTAL: $_ 286 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TELLER P-32 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Since this alternative represents only a minor refinement to the base case evaluation, it can be concluded that there will be no significant differences between the social and environmental impacts of that system and those of this alternative. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation There will be no difference in the technical evaluation of this system and that of the base case. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED COSTS OF TELLER ALTERNATIVE PLAN "BY FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 350 40 2.00 80 o Existing TPC diesels 421 31 4 50 85 (one 100 kW, one 1983 360 45 2.05 92 135 kW and one 31 4 50 85 210 kW units) with 1984 365 45 2.10 95 waste heat system 31 4 50 85 1985 370 46 2.16 99 31 4 50 85 1986 380 48 2.22 106 31 4 50 85 1987 380 24 2.27 54 o Install 100 kW 520 aS: 4 62 141 wind turbine 1988 380 24 2.33 56 75 4 62 141 1989 380 24 2.39 57 1S 4 62 141 1990 380 24 2.46 59 715 4 62 141 1991 380 24 2.52 60 75 4 62 141 1992 380 24 2. 58 62 o Replace 1982 waste 65 15, 4 62 141 heat system 1993 380 24 2.65 64 75 4 62 141 1994 380 24 2.72 65 72 4 62 141 1995 380 24 2.79 67 715 4 62 141 1996 380 24 2. 86 69 qe 4 62 141 1997 380 24 2.94 7 75 4 62 141 1998 380 24 3.02 72 75 4 62 141 1999 380 24 3.09 74 75: 4 62 141 rm - 2000 380 24 3.17 76 715 4 62 141 Le a 2001 380 24 3.26 78 1D 4 62 141 uo ' w w& TABLE 10 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Ener gy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 80 85 165 160.2 0.47 1983 92 85 177 166.8 0.49 1984 95 85 180 164.7 0.49 1985 99 85 184 163.5 0. 50 1986 106 85 191 164.8 0.50 1987 54 141 195 163.3 0.51 1988 56 141 197 160.2 0.52 1989 57 141 198 156.3 0. 52 1990 59 141 200 153.3 0.53 1991 60 141 201 149.6 0.53 1992 62 141 203 146.6 0.53 1993 64 141 205 143.8 0.54 1994 65 141 206 140.3 0.54 1995 67 141 208 137.5 0.55 1996 69 141 210 137.8 0.55 1997 71 141 212 132.1 0.56 1998 72 141 213 128.9 0. 56 1999 74 141 215 126.3 0.57 2000 76 141 217 123.8 0.57 2001 78 141 219 121.3 0. 58 TOTAL $2,941 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (111) Net present worth $2,830 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 10 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. ve-d Y3aTISL TABLE 11 TELLER P-35 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year Space Heating Fuel Savin Benefits 1982 6 5.8 1983 6 5.6 1984 6 5.5 1985 6 5.3 1986 7 5.3 1987 7 5.9 1988 7 5.7 1989 7 5.5 1990 7 5.4 1991 8 6.0 1992 8 5.8 1993 8 5.6 1994 8 5.4 1995 8 5.3 1996 9 5.8 1997 9 5.6 1998 9 5.4 1999 9 5.3 2000 10 5.7 2001 10 5.5 TOTAL: $ 111 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TELLER P-36 1.3 - Alternative Plan "B" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation The social and environmental impacts of the diesel units have already been discussed in the evaluation of the base case. If this alternative were implemented, some local construction employment opportunities could exist. There would be a need for skilled workers such as welders, electricians, and riggers, as well as for general laborers. The maintenance of the wind turbine would require skilled technicians to be brought in from Anchorage to perform periodic adjustments and repairs. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation The economic evaluation has shown this alternative to be attractive, competing successfully against the existing diesel system. However, a study of this level cannot be used to establish detailed construction or operation cost estimates; it can be used to judge general performance. Additional information is needed to more accurately estimate the construction costs. Also, wind turbine systems are undergoing additional work and it will be some time before this installation can be routinely considered. TELLER P-37 J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION TELLER P-38 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza TELLER P-39 Eric P. Yould Alaska Power Authority oh : 334 West 5th Ave. ald Anchorage, AK 99501 APR_9 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Dear Mr. Yould, I would like to make several comments concerning the Reconnaissance Studies recently drafted for the villages in the Bering Straits Region. In nearly all of the villages studied a 100KW wind turbine was used as an alternative for deisel generation. I question the practicality of such a large wind system for several reasons. Several of the villages studied ( Brevig Mission, Golovin) do not even have village wide elec- tricity and are so small that if and when they do undergo an electrification project the demand would be much less than the output of the wind system. I futher question the practicality of such a large wind system in that it would provide an all or nothing approach to the reliability of wind generated electricity. In comparsion, several smaller wind systems could be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain and repair the smaller systems. This would help eliminate the need for those costly maintenance trips from Anchorage or out of state personnel. The smaller systems would provide a far better reliability factor and possibily a better system for load management. The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back burner. Also concerning the wind generator alternative the research group decided not to incorporate into the alternative a waste heat recovery system for the diesel generator. Apparently they can not see the potential of a combonation of many small scale alternatives. Another area covered in the report was the energy efficiency of the housing stock.In several reports the researchers estimated 20-30% energy savings through weatherization. As a certified state energy auditor and having traveled to many of the villages in the study I would agree there is much room for improvement, even in the recently built houses, but 20 or 30 percent is nothing. An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy loss by 80 or 90 percent. This could be done through a loan proaram that village homeowners would be eligible for. Sincerely, Phil Kaluza Box 843 Nome, AK 99762 is Comment : Response: "In was the The TELLER P-40 ACRES' RESPONSE nearly all the villages studied, a 100 kW wind turbine used as an alternative for diesel generation. I question practicality of such a large wind system..." relatively large wind turbine was chosen for use in this study for a number of reasons: L. 3. Economy. As turbine size increases. advantage can be aken of their economy of scale: costs in terms of $/kWh at the turbine equipment tend to decrease. For a given aggregate wind turbine capacity at any particular site, the site specific items such as foundations, control equipment, and electrical hookups are simplified and made less expensive. The problems associated with maintaining one 100 kW machine as opposed to, say ten-10 kW units, are minimized. It is worth noting that the larger units have room inside the generator nacelle to work on equipment out of the weather. On-site repair work on smaller units can be expected to be performed by workers exposed to high winds and low temperatures. Appropriateness of Size. At a site with a mean wind speed of 15 mph, a LOO kW wind turbine with an 8 mph cut-in and a 25 mph rated speed will produce a mean power output less than 20 kW, not even enough to power a typical Bering Straits REAA high school. A number of smaller wind turbines with a similar aggregate capacity and wind speed/power characteristic, would not do much better. Reliability. To date, only very small-scale wind turbines have been tried in Alaska with very rare successes. Two weeks after being put into operation, the State's $100,000 10-kW demonstration project at Skagway was shut down due to a blade failure. Many other small-scale projects have been subject to similar defects. The 100 kW units have such large costs (on an absolute basis) that substantial engineering efforts can be carried out without drastically increasing the $/kW costs. The development programs undertaken by the Department of Energy and NASA using large machines have been largely successful It is expected that a well designed large turbine would be more reliable than a number of small units. Ze 3 4. Comment : Response: Comment : Response: Comment: TELLER P-41 4. Manufacturer's Support. It has been the unfortunate istory of wind turbines that many manufacturers start up a business, inflate advertising claims, sell a few machines which cannot, for whatever reason, perform satisfactorily, and promptly go out of business, leaving their customer with no source of information or repair parts. Only large, well-established companies can raise the capital needed to tool up for production of large units. Presently, large units are manufactured by well-known firms such as Westinghouse and Boeing. It is presumed that these firms will exist into the foreseeable future to support their wind turbines. With a few exceptions, the same cannot be said for makers of the small units. Larger manufacturers typically have more depth in their engineering departments to address problems as they develop. No change in report text is needed. "Several of the villages studied (Brevig Mission, Golovin) do not even have village-wide electricity..." All villages studied, including Brevig Mission and Golovin had, or were in the very final stages of getting, village- wide electric system installations. No change in report text is needed. ",..demand would be much less than the output of the wind system." This is not true. A 100-kW wind turbine will rarely put out that much power. In winds of less than 18 mph, the wind turbine described under Comment No. 1 above will not produce more power than could be used by the typical village school (20 kW). As refrigerators and TV's become more and more popular, it is highly probable that even the 100 kW unit will be able to provide but a fraction of a village's needs. Only rarely will there be a surplus. No change in the report text is needed. "... such a large wind turbine ... would provide an all or nothing approach to the reliability of wind generated electricity." 5. 6. f. Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: TELLER P-42 While it is true that if one large wind turbine were used and it were out of commission, no wind-generated power would be available, it is not thought that this disadvantage is sufficient to make the small units' higher costs attractive. No change in the report text is needed. ",.. several smaller wind systems could be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain and repair the smaller systems." The availability of people with the required maintenance skills is something which varies widely from village to village. Except for a few notable cases, most diesel plants visited in rural Alaska are not good examples of the labors of highly skilled maintenance personnel. If these diesel plants show what can be accomplished by "local manpower." it is not likely that even the simplest wind turbines could be maintained to provide reliable service. Equipment such as gearboxes, generators, and inverters would still require attention by personnel from outside the village. The large units are not so dissimilar and local workers could be trained to perform routine maintenance tests such as lubrication, inspection, expendible parts replacement, etc. As noted before, the large units have room to work inside their generator nacelles out of the weather. This is far less likely to lead to maintenance errors and should be far safer for the serviceman than clinging to a small system's tower (in safety belt) in a cold breeze. No change in report text is needed. "The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back burner." This opinion is diametrically opposite that of Acres' staff, who believe that one well-designed and properly functioning wind turbine system which is capable of supplying significant amounts of electrical energy to a power system will do more to promote the use of wind power than will a collection of marginally engineered and poorly supported machine installations such as already exist in the State. No change in the report text is needed. ".., the research group decided not to incorporate [a wind turbine] into the alternative [using] a waste heat recovery system for the diesel generator. Apparently, they cannot see the potential of a combination of many small-scale alternatives." 8. Response: Comment: Response: TELLER P-43 In fact, Acres does recognize the combination of any number of power producing technologies, but only where appropriate. A diesel set is a much more efficient generator of heat than it is of electricity. In power systems where both diesel/waste heat and wind turbine systems are in use, as wind turbine output increases, the waste heat output diminishes accordingly. The relationship is generally such that revenues lost from reduced waste heat sales are not recovered in fuel savings, resulting in a net increased system cost with greater wind turbine output. Very appropriate combinations of small-scale and renewable technologies are those of wind and hydro, or solar photovoltaic and hydro, and similar combinations in which the increased output of one element does not degrade the performance of the others. Unfortunately, few such combinations were found which were appropriate to the economic needs of the village. No change in the report text is needed. "An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy loss by 80 or 90 percent." Without having access to the assumptions used to arrive at the 80 to 90 percent figure, it is not possible to comment on the validity of these figures. New housing designs, while improvements over past efforts, are not expected to be much more than 25 - 30 percent more efficient than existing housing. Presently, there is no indication that the State is prepared to embark on an "aggressive retrofit program." No change in the report text is needed. TELLER P- 44 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration {Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] TELLER P-45 April 12, 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy requirements and alternatives for numerous smal] Alaskan villages, transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC). We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6 and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel generators in eight villages. We offer a few general comments for consideration. There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy reduction. A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the NORTEC report. Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162. TELLER P-46 Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions. The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass, and geothermal. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4 1 a: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: TELLER P-47 ACRES' RESPONSE "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While the study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value" was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers wil] purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using these items increases, their use will likely (but not necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy efficient lights or motors is not expected to have perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand forecast. No comment or change in report text is needed. "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report." Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs, construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate or available to all villages. Even where two villages may share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and O& considerations may make comparisons invalid. The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment that “Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions." No comment or change in report text is needed. Se Comment : Response: TELLER P-48 "Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162." This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the pleasure of the legislature. No comment or change in report text is needed. TELLER P-49 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game TELLER P-50 / JAYS HAKLi0:0, GOVERHOR STATE OF ALASKA EPARTYVENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COLIRIISSIONER pO; BOXS 2000) JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvep APR 12 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy Alaska Power Authority 324 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities. We have no comments to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available. Sincerely, « OQ bo tmaninr a fe Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner TELLER P-51 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. TELLER P-52 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife service in Anchorage TELLER P-53 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 271-4575 RECEIVED APR ~ 9 1999 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority C 334 West 5th Avenue @ APR 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the vidu reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- ity studies in fulfillcent of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. h and rvice (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below te made a part of the feasibility studies. current site-specific resource information and a more complete tion of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. rmation should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: 1. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction ing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimun, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. e is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water ure fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be ed because of their possible influence on water quality and itat. d4cuatic data collection should at least include the TELLER P-54 Page 2 y bed 5 29 (a) es composition and distribution of mous fish within and downstream of the pro- Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and ping, as well as visual observation of spawning (>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. ue onals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. be Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. irds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. (bd) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type. The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance witn provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: consult with in the fish and Lo} =) mo the veriod of projec state, and local a 's 0 0 2 oOo - 2. do any ies gered mm uld be TELLER P-55 '’ n oO oO ww nd conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- tudies in cooperation with the FWS and the h and Game. These studies shall include, but above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. t is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to ae wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in senettng: to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse c ee to contact me if you have any questions regarding our ibility studies. Sincerely, Aber beter Field Supervisor ike Comment: Response: TELLER P-56 ACRES' RESPONSE "Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources." The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report text is required. TELLER P-57 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) TELLER, P-58 Eel) WEFER TO United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Anchorage District Office 700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982 RECEIVED APR - 8 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould ALASKA P WER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould; Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports. This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu- ated at applicable locations. Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis. The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ea ae TELLER P-59 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed.