Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City of Sitka Final Report Alternate Energy Study 1982
FINAL REPORT CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY Prepared for: ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Prepared by: OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. and BLACK AND VEATCH CONSULTING ENGINEERS FEBRUARY 1982 A1021.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION/TITLE I. II. IIt. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS A. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC B. ENERGY BALANCE 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SITKA'S ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY SOURCES EXISTING ELECTRICITY AND HEATING SOURCES C. SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST A. - ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND CAPITAL PROJECTS B. POPULATION FORECAST C. END USE FORECASTS 1. ENERGY USE PER RESIDENCE ELECTRICITY HEATING 2. FUTURE ENERGY USE FUTURE SOURCES OF ENERGY D. TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 1. FORECAST OF SPACE AND WATER HEATING REQUIREMENTS 2. FORECAST OF LIGHTING AND MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS 3. FORECAST OF ELECTRIC GENERATION REQUIREMENTS PAGE It-1 III-1 ELieL IIE<3 TIr=3 IfI=3 III-4 IEDs IETS IVeL T¥-1. Iv-2 Iv-4 Iv-5 IVs Iv-6 Iv-8 Iv-8 Iv-9 Iv-10 Iv=10 Iv=i1 Table of Contents Page 2 SECTION/TITLE V. RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT A. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT i 10. HYDROELECTRIC GEOTHERMAL WIND DIESEL COAL wooD LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS SOLAR ENERGY MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE WASTE HEAT B. SURVEY OF TECHNOLOGIES 1. ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES COAL-FIRED STEAM DIESEL COMBUSTION FUEL CELLS GAS TURBINE GEOTHERMAL ELECTRICITY GENERATION HYDROELECTRIC POWER LIQUID NATURAL GAS SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION WIND TURBINES WOOD-FIRED STEAM PAGE V-1 V-1 V=3 v-4 v-4 v-4 v-4 v-10 v-10 v-10 V-ll V=i1 Table of Contents Page 3 SECTION/TITLE V., Continued 2. SPACE HEATING TECHNOLOGIES COAL ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP LIQUID NATURAL GAS OIL PASSIVE SOLAR WOOD 3. CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SPACE HEATING CONSERVATION OIL HEATING CONVERSION EFFICIENCY C. APPROPRIATE SITKA TECHNOLOGIES D. EVALUATION VI. DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY PLANS A. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO PLAN FORMULATION 1. ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS 2. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION AND HEATING COSTS B. PLAN DESCRIPTIONS 1. BASE PLAN 2. ALTERNATE PLAN 1 3. ALTERNATE PLAN 2 4. DESCRIPTION OF TABLES VI-2 THROUGH VI-4 FOLLOWING V=i1 V-11 V=12 V-12 v-12 vV-12 V-L2 V=13 v-13 V=13 V=13 v-14 v-14 v-14 v-15 VI-1 VI-1 VI-3 VI-6 VI-6 vI-7 VI-8 VI=10 Viele Table of Contents Page 4 SECTION/TITLE VII. ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION A. ECONOMIC EVALUATION 1. METHODS 2. RESULTS 3. DESCRIPTION OF LIFE CYCLE COST TABLES B. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. BASE PLAN COMMUNITY PREFERENCE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND EMPLOYMENT TIMING IN RELATION TO OTHER PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS AIR QUALITY WATER QUALITY FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP STATUS TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS 2. ALTERNATE 1 COMMUNITY PREFERENCE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND EMPLOYMENT TIMING IN RELATION TO OTHER PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS PAGE VirIHL ViIT=1 VII=1 VIE=3 VII-4 VIIe5S Vaii-5 VIE=6 VII=6 VII-6 VII=7 VII-7 VII=7 Vid=7 VII=8 VII-8 VII-8 VII-8 VII-9 Table of Contents Page 5 SECTION/TITLE PAGE VII., Continued AIR QUALITY VII-9 WATER QUALITY vII-9 FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS VII-11 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP STATUS VII-12 TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS VII-13 3. ALTERNATE 2 : VII-13 COMMUNITY PREFERENCE VII-13 IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE VII-14 AND EMPLOYMENT TIMING IN RELATION TO OTHER PLANNED VII-14 CAPITAL PROJECTS AIR QUALITY VII-14 WATER QUALITY VII-E5 FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS VII-15 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP STATUS VIT-15 TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS VilH25 C. TECHNICAL EVALUATION VII=E6 1. BASE PLAN VII-16 SAFETY VII-16 RELIABILITY VII-16 AVAILABILITY VII-16 Table of Contents Page 6 SECTION/TITLE VII., Continued 2. ALTERNATE 1 SAFETY RELIABILITY AVAILABILITY 3. ALTERNATE 2 SAFETY RELIABILITY AVAILABILITY VEiL. RECOMMENDATIONS A. PREFERRED ENERGY ALTERNATIVES B. CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES C. REQUIRED RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES PAGE VII-16 VII=16 VIT=17 VII-17 VII-17 VITHi7 VII-L7 VEI-17 Viiiql VIRE<1 VIII-1 VIZLE-3 Ei-1 TiIsL IITI-2 IZt=3 III-4 Iv-2 Iv-3 IV-5 Iv-6 VI-7 V-1 Vi~i ViI-2 Vi=3 vI-4 LIST OF FIGURES TITLE SITKA VICINITY MAP LOCATION OF EXISTING DIESEL GENERATORS EXISTING HYDROPOWER SITES AND TRANSMISSION LINES CITY OF SITKA ENERGY BALANCE IN 1980 ENERGY BALANCE FOR ALASKA LUMBER & PULP CO., INC. FOR 1980 HISTORICAL ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER RESIDENTIAL METER RELATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY COST TO ELECTRIC ENERGY USE SITKA ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND ELECTRICITY USE PROJECTION FORECAST OF SPACE AND WATER HEATING REQUIREMENT FORECAST OF LIGHTING AND MISCELLANEOUS NONHEAT ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENT ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENT FORECASTS ELECTRIC GENERATION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS FORECASTS LOCATION OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER SITES AND TRANSMISSION LINES SPACE HEATING AND WATER HEATING ENERGY COST ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION COST FORECAST OF ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR LIGHTING AND MISCELLANEOUS USES, BASE PLAN FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESISTANCE HEAT, LIGHTING, AND MISCELLANEOUS USES, ALTERNATE 1 PAGE It=1 TIE=3 rT <3 Itr3 Iit=3 IV<=5 Iv-8 Iv-10 Iv-10 Iv-11 Iv=1i Val VI-1 VI-6 Vi=7 VI-8 List of Figures Page 2 NO. TITLE PAGE vI-5 FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS VI-10 FOR HEAT PUMP HEATING, LIGHTING, AND MISCELLANEOUS USES, ALTERNATE 2 VII-1 FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS VII=-2 FOR HEAT PUMP HEATING, LIGHTING, AND MISCELLANEOUS USE, ALTERNATE 2, UNDER VARYING POPULATION GROWTH RATES III-1 ErT=2 I£t=3 Iv-l1 IV-2 Iv=-3 V-l1 Viel VI-2 VI=3 vI-4 Wi-§ VIIel WLI-2 VLE=3 VII-4 ¥II-5 LIST OF TABLES TITLE CITY OF SITKA ENERGY BALANCE SUMMARY 1980 EXISTING ELECTRIC GENERATION RESOURCES EXISTING ELECTRICAL RATE SCHEDULE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SITKA FORECAST NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS CITY OF SITKA ENERGY USE FORECAST HYDROPOWER PLANTS WITH POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SITKA BASIS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATES DISPLAYED IN FIGURE VI-1 ENERGY FORECAST, BASE PLAN ENERGY FORECAST, ALTERNATE 1 ENERGY FORECAST, ALTERNATE 2 FIXED COST OF RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS AND CONSERVATION ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST, BASE PLAN ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST, ALTERNATE 1 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST, ALTERNATE 2 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST, ALTERNATE 2, HIGH POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST, ALTERNATE 2, LOW POPULATION GROWTH PAGE IiI-3 IrtrI-6 IrII-8 Iv-3 Iv-9 V=1 VII-3 VIE=8 VII-3 VII-3 VII=3 nn a? a LIST OF APPENDICES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY FORECASTING AND COST CALCULATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFILES COST ESTIMATES FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This reconnaissance study assessed existing energy resources and uses in Sitka, forecast energy requirements to the year 2001 and identified means of supplying energy required in the study area. A survey was made of energy resources and technologies potentially able to meet the forecast requirements. Energy resources surveyed were geothermal, wind, hydropower, diesel, coal, wood, liquified natural gas, solar, solid waste, and waste heat. Resources deter- mined suitable for primary use were hydropower and diesel. An in-depth analysis was then made of those technologies determined most appropriate for use in Sitka, including hydroelectricity, die- sel electricity, energy conservation with electrical resistance space heating, fuel oil space heating, and heat pumps for primary use. Energy sources available to supplement the primary sources include wood heat and passive solar heat. During the analysis, coal-fired steam turbine generated electricity was included for comparison although it is not presently cost effective because shipping facilities for Alaskan coal are not available at this time. Various plans were developed to meet the forecast energy require- ments of Sitka for the next 20 years (beginning 1981). Three dif- ferent plans utilizing the same total energy forecast and the same increase in housing and population were designed to determine the most effective way to provide the required energy through 2001. Since the total energy requirements are dominated by water and space heating, and the rising cost of oil is causing a shift to electric heating, each plan was developed around different heating modes and therefore contains different proportions of space and water heating by oil heat, electric resistance heat, and heat pumps. Wood and waste oil are used as supplemental energy sources in all plans and energy conservation techniques are employed for I-1 maximum effectiveness of energy available in two of the plans. A life cycle cost analysis was made for each plan to determine the most cost efficient alternative for meeting the space and water heating and electrical needs of Sitka over the 20-year planning period. The Base Case Plan is based on a continuation of the 1980 mode of providing energy for space and water heating and therefore contin- ued dependence on fossil fuels for the next twenty years. This plan was designed in accordance with the Alaska Power Authority Regulation 3 AAC 94.055 to be used as a base with which to compare all subsequent plans. The Base Case Plan does not include the ad- vantage of available energy conservation technology but assumes a continuation of the relatively minimal effort employed in the past. This plan results in the largest increase in heating fuel oil con- sumption but the smallest increase in electrical requirements over the 20-year period. Alternate Plan 1 involves converting the mode of space and water heating from fuel oil heating systems to electrical resistance heating systems. Electrical resistance heating was chosen as the alternative to fossil fuel because it has low capital cost, and there is already a trend in southeastern Alaska to convert to this type of heating system. The rate of changeover from oil to elec- tric heating was analyzed by taking into consideration the present rate of conversion in Sitka, the escalating cost of fossil fuel, the rate of obsolescence and retirement of existing heating systems, and the rate of construction of new dwellings. In addi- tion to this, an energy conservation effort is included which would amount to approximately a one percent annual reduction in overall energy requirements. All these factors taken into consideration project a 7.2 percent annual electrical load growth which inci- dentally corresponds to the growth rate already experienced in Sitka over the past several years. By implementing only conserva- tion techniques and a shift in present modes of providing energy for space and water heating this plan offers a considerable benefit to the community and the individual homeowner. However, conversion to electric resistance heating systems is not considered to be the most beneficial plan possible. Alternate Plan 2 was developed to make the most effective, cost ef- ficient use of existing and future energy sources with appropriate proven technology. In this plan, as in Alternate Plan 1, the mode of space and water heating is converted from oil systems to elec- trical energy systems, but in place of electric resistance heating, electrically driven heat pumps are proposed. The same rate of con- version from oil systems to electric systems and the same energy conservation efforts assumed in Alternate Plan 1 are assumed in this plan. However, because heat pumps offer a much more efficient method of obtaining the necessary heat from the electrical source, the annual increase in electrical consumption is predicted to be only about 4.5 percent. Programs were developed to provide the increased electrical energy requirements predicted for each of the three plans in the most cost effective way. The relative costs of various means of providing the required energy are presented in Figures VI-1 and VI-2. The Base Case Plan was developed in accordance with the Alaska Power Authority's requirement to formulate a plan which constitutes the continued use of fossil fuels for the primary energy source. For this reason, in the Base Case Plan, when energy requirements exceed the generating capacity of Blue Lake and Green Lake hydro- electric installations, an additional diesel electric generator would be added to the system. In accordance with the Base Case Plan projections, additional capacity will be required in 1998, and a 1,500 kW diesel generating unit is proposed for installation at that time. The 1,500 kW unit was chosen to be compatible with the existing units and still serve the needs of the community. t-3 In meeting the projected requirements for additional electric ener- gy in Alternate Plan 1, electrical generating facilities with least cost over the study period were chosen. Takatz Lake and Carbon Lake hydroelectric projects satisfy these requirements. Implemen- tation of Alternate Plan 1 will require that Takatz Lake, with an installed capacity of 27.2 megawatts, be in operation by 1988 and Carbon Lake, with an installed capacity of 13.5 megawatts, be in operation by 1999. Prior to the time when energy requirements exceed the full capacity of the Takatz Lake project, the study should be updated to review new technologies to determine if Carbon Lake hydroelectric will still provide the least costly electrical energy for the remaining period. Implementation of Alternate Plan 2, with its more efficient use of electrical energy, will not require additional energy until 1991. As in Alternate Plan 1, the most cost effective way to provide the required energy is by the construction of a 27.2 megawatt hydro- electric plant at Takatz Lake. This additional installed capacity will satisfy the electrical energy requirements of Alternate Plan 2 for the next twenty years. The life cycle cost of supplying the projected energy requirements for the City of Sitka for each of the three plans during the next twenty years is delineated below: Base Case Plan $309,698,700. Alternate Plan 1 $261,379,900. Alternate Plan 2 $178,728,000. Alternate Plan 2 is the recommended way to supply energy to Sitka for the next twenty years. This plan provides efficient use of existing and future energy sources with the incorporation of proven energy conservation techniques and the use of heat pumps to extract the required space and water heat from available resources. Heat pumps are a proven energy efficient method of supplying heat and are well suited for installation in the Sitka area. Additional electrical generating capacity would be provided by the Takatz Lake project. In effect, Alternate Plan 2 has the lowest life cycle cost for Sitka. F-5 II. INTRODUCTION Ott Water Engineers, Inc. and Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers were contracted by the Alaska Power Authority to perform a recon- naissance level study of energy alternatives for the City and Borough of Sitka. Sitka, population about 8,000, is located in southeast Alaska on Baranof Island (Figure II-l). Contemporary Sitka still reflects its history as both the Russian capital and the first American capital of Alaska. Its heritage has been well preserved, giving the community a unique cultural character. As in many Alaskan communities, there is no overland connection, and access is available only by boat or plane. The economy is strongly based on water-related industries and natural resources. Although much of the electrical energy is supplied by hydropower, Sitka depends heavily on imported petroleum products for heating and transportation, and to a lesser extent for electricity. The continually escalating costs of petroleum fuels in Alaska are among the highest in the country. Without some moderation of these ris- ing costs, many Sitkans face financial hardship that will worsen in the future. Some alternate energy plans are needed to avoid these high costs. The primary objective of the reconnaissance study is to identify existing energy sources and power production capabilities. Using this information along with the estimated growth and development potential, a forecast of future energy needs is prepared. Poten- tial alternative energy sources and technologies are investigated in order to determine how these energy needs may be met in the most desirable way. EL=1 Yakobi I Cape Cross Peninsulq Salisbury Sound R VICINITY MAP . OTT Proj. No:Al021.01 = loTT] eae ae te. iim] os Assessment of the various energy alternatives for Sitka is based on the following: Energy resource availability Technical feasibility Environmental impact Comparative costs and economics Social benefit o 0000 0 Community preference This study was performed to aid in planning the course of action which should be undertaken to meet Sitka's future energy needs. The report was prepared according to the Alaska Power Authority's recommended format to facilitate comparison of study results with those of similar studies in other communities. Each community energy reconnaissance study has included the following basic components: On-site reconnaissance visit and public meeting ° Compilation of complete energy balance for 1981 showing present sources, uses, efficiencies, and total useful energy available in Sitka ° Forecast of electrical energy and peak load forecasts through the year 2001 ° Profiles of energy sources and technologies Preferred energy plans (discussion and evaluation) Recommendations This reconnaissance study was completed in two phases. MThe first phase included on-site reconnaissance, compilation of an energy balance, preparation of energy technology profiles, and forecasting electrical energy and peak load requirements through the year 2001. The first phase was terminated with a public meeting held in Sitka on November 12, 1981. Ti=2 The second phase of the study focused on selection of appropriate energy resource technologies for Sitka, development of alternative plans to meet forecasted electrical energy needs, and evaluation of these plans. Plans were developed for a period of 20 years through 2001. A final public meeting was held on January 27, 1982. Public comments were incorporated in the final report. The range of projections and plans presented provides decision- makers with valuable information that can be used to judge how best to meet future energy needs in Sitka. II-3 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC The permanent resident population in the Sitka census district is around 8,000. Approximately 2,200 are Native Alaskans, all living in or near the City. In addition, there are several hundred people living in logging camps inside the Borough. A small number of people also reside in Sitka on a seasonal basis. Both logging camp residents and seasonal residents are transient and move as condi- tions change. Located approximately 135 miles southwest of Juneau, Sitka is strategically positioned between the inside passage and the Gulf of Alaska (see Vicinity Map, Figure II-l). Year-round access to Sitka is available both by air and sea. Transportation facilities have been significantly improved over the last decade, and additional improvement and expansion measures are planned by City officials. Air service provided at Sitka Municipal Airport includes daily jet flights to other major Alaskan communities and Seattle. Several small seaplane bases provide local air taxi service. Travel by air is becoming increasingly popular, with an 82 percent increase in airline passenger enplanement between 1971 and 1979. Regular mail and freight deliveries are also made by plane. Almost all marine freight is shipped as containerized cargo via tug and barge services, operated primarily by Foss Alaska Lines. Pro- duction at the Alaska Lumber and Pulp (ALP) mill is a prime factor in determining the volume of freight. Logs, supplies, and pulp constitute a large percentage of the freight transported to and from the area. Other marine freight items include construction materials, supplies, and seafood products. Fuel is transported in 55-gallon drums to Union Oil at Conway dock and Standard Oil at the Standard Oil dock. ITT Fishing and recreational vessels can also provide passenger ser- vice. However, the great majority of persons travel to and from Sitka on large cruise ships or ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway System. Typical of many other Alaskan communities, Sitka has no road con- nection to other parts of the state. However, there are approxi- mately 15 to 20 miles of paved road extending from the ferry termi- nal at Starrigavan Bay to the ALP Mill at Sawmill Creek. A branch of the road system crosses O'Connell Bridge over Sitka Harbor and leads to the airport on Japonski Island. The economy in Sitka is soundly based on a variety of employment sectors. A small sector is comprised of the agricultural indus- tries including agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and trap- ping. There is a paucity of data about employment in these areas with only 13 persons reporting to the Alaska Department of Labor during the first quarter of 1980. Doubtless, the actual number is higher, particularly later in the season, but still insignificant in terms of the entire economic picture. Closely related markets in timber processing and fish processing are considered nonagricul- tural and are classified as manufacturing industries. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 25 to 30 percent of the total employment in Sitka. It is difficult to estimate the exact portion of the economy supported by the manufacturing industry as this information is often withheld under regulations protecting confidentiality of data for individual firms. Alaska Lumber and Pulp, Inc. and Sitka Sound Seafoods are two of the most important employers in this sector. Government also represents approximately 30 percent of the employment market. The first quarter 1980 census report showed an average of 1,174 workers in local, state, and federal agencies. Significant sources of government employment include U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U. S. Public Health Service (USPHS), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), U. S. Coast Guard (USCG), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), AK State Trooper Academy, Sitka Community College, and Sitka Pioneers Home. LTI-2 The fastest growing, and perhaps the largest, sector of the economy is comprised of the distribution or support industries (transportation, trade, and service occupations). Of these, the service sector has exhibited impressive growth from 166 jobs in 1970 to 457 jobs in the first quarter of 1980. This represents an increase in employment opportunities from 7 percent of the total market in 1970 to 12.9 percent in 1980. Opportunities in the trade sector showed similar trends, although less dramatic. Growth in the support industries indicates that the economy in Sitka is maturing and diversifying. In 1979, the average annual wage in Sitka was about $19,600. Dur- ing that year, the estimated annual costs of an intermediate family of four to maintain a moderate standard of living were approximate- ly $30,400. Using preliminary census statistics, the average an- nual 1980 wage in Sitka appeared to be about $21,000. B. ENERGY BALANCE 1. INTRODUCTION An energy balance accounts for the inputs, uses, and losses of en- ergy in a community. The inputs are divided by energy sources (gasoline, diesel, hydroelectric, wood, etc.) as are the end uses (transportation, residential heat, commercial heat, electrical, in- dustrial, etc.). No energy utilization is 100 percent efficient as losses occur due to conversions. For example, diesel energy is used to power electric generators, with approximately 30 percent of the diesel energy becoming usable electric energy and 70 percent being lost as waste heat. Existing electrical generation facilities are shown in Figure III-1 and III-2. 2. SITKA'S ENERGY BALANCE An energy balance for the City of Sitka and the Alaska Lumber and Pulp mill (ALP) has been prepared. This information is provided in Table III-l and Figure III-3 for the City and Figure III-4 for ALP. Tii-3 Uy, 3 UY oO \ Magnetic Sta (he ete Stet ete tibet wees INSTALLED LOCATION CAPACITY (kW) © HALIBUT POINT 300 _LOCATION OF EXISTING 300 399 DIESEL GENERATORS @ INDIAN RIVER 2,000 2,750 2,750 Proj. No:Alo2!.01 FIG. Ill-I ; || Date: JAN i981 # b4 Leis — aS eg fs Set A? Sa ‘ “ & " ; x a INSTALLED CAPACITY CLUE LAKE ~~ Speg ty AEXISTING HYDROPOWER SITES GREEN LAKE 18,500 kW | AND TRANSMISSION LINES S44] Proj. No: 1021.01 a mags Date: van tse2, FIG. Ill-2 TABLE III-1 CITY OF SITKA ENERGY BALANCE SUMMARY 1980 | | | INPUT | ENERGY | ENERGY = | END USE | | PERCENT | QUANTITY BY | CONVERSION FONVERSION | | RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL] ELECTRIC | INDUSTRIAL | ENERGY | oF | END USE [EFFICIENCY | LOSSES | TRANSPORT HEAT | HEAT | LIGHTS & MISq 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 [_souRce {_input__| 10° Btu__| PERCENT | 10° Btu [10° Btu | 10° Btu_ | 10° Btu | 10° Btu | 10° Btu | | | | GASOLINE [| i725 280,811 248,187 | | Surface | 220, 333 8 202,706 =| 17,627 0 0 0 0 | Marine | 27,328 15 23,229 | 4,099 Oo 0 0 0 | Air | 27,815 20 22,252 =| 5,563 0 0 0 0 | Industrial | 5,335 100 oT 0 0 0 5,335 | DIESEL #1 | 12.35 197,714 124,591 | | surface | 1,980 20 1,584 | 396 0 0 0 0 | Marine | 9,901 25 7.806. : | |? oe 0 0 0 0 | Air | 117,849 25 88,387 | 29,46 0 0 0 0 | Residential | 67,984 60 27,194 =| 40,790 0 0 0 | DIESEL #2 | 54.58 874,038 469,340 =| | Surface | 28 , 980 20 23,184 | 5,796 0 0 0 0 | Marine | 301,544 25 226,158 =| 75,386 0 0 0 0 | Residential | 220,286 60 88,114 | 0 132,172 0 0 0 | Commercial | 213,543 65 4,740 =| 0 0 138 , 803 0 0 | Diesel Electric | 78 ,928 28 57,144 °. ~{ 0 * * * * | Industrial | 30,757 100 o | 0 0 0 0 30,757 | HYDROELECTRIC | 39223 147,860 92 11,829 | 0 28 ,000* 19,104* 108,260* 2,451* | WASTE OIL | 0.43 6,900 60 2,760 = | 0 0 4,140 0 0 | woop [5239 86,250 60 34,500 =| 0 51,750 0 0 0 | PROPANE | 0.49 7,840 2S ck Residential | 4,525 50 2,263 0 2,262 0 0 0 Industrial 35515, 100 oO 0 oO 0 35315, SUBTOTAL 1,601,413 893,470 peat 254,974 162,047 108,260 41,858 | PERCENT OF END USE| | 20 36 23 i5 6 | PERCENT OF INPUT | 100 56 | | TOTAL INPUT 1,601,413 | | TOTAL LOSSES | 893,470 | [TOTAL _END USE 707,943 fe. *DIESEL ELECTRIC INCLUDED WITH HYDROELECTRIC ,943 x 10° BTU TOTAL USEFUL ENERGY 707 12% EFFICIENCY BTU »470 x 108 79 PERCENT 55 ENERGY LOSS 894 FIG. Ill- 3 CITY OF SITKA ENERGY BALANCE IN 1980 AMSNNSANSN NNAANANAN 5% 1,601,413 x 10° BTU A1l021.01 _JAN 1982 | TOTAL SOURCE ENERGY #1 DIESEL- 12.4% #2 DIESEL- 54.6% HYDROELEC. - 9.2% GASOLINE - I7 WEWeO>- Dre—I—NWO o o = wo o oo ry ' we mn Ee a oe N@N = ' NN gi NN wm NAN ERAN Fe > > N oo N) z= N) = we N oce N eu eS N uuic G wg are NANAN NAN NANN ENANN RN ANS ANANN HN NONANNN 8.8% 2 NNAN 4 ANANNANN a NANAANAN oko INNANANAN <ig ANNANAAN mE ANANANAN Su NNAANANS ow NAXNANAN We! AAAANAAN <u N ANANAANN Ba Wh 4 INNANANNN 5 BSS ~ \ ” AY ANNAANNN WA ANANANNN NX ANANANAN WY NAAN NS ANAN NY ANN we we we 582 N ANNANNANAAN “3 N SRVLVVK eco NN IN NNANNANNAN For<4 wzWweo> COM> zFWa ARE x 10° Btu ALL VALUES NOTE: TOTAL - 7,645,333 ENERGY BALANCE FOR ALASKA LUMBER & PULP COMPANY INC. A 1021.01 JAN 1982 ALP operates independently of the City except for supplies of gaso- line, diesel oil, and propane, allowing easy separation of the two energy consumers. Heavy oil is purchased from Seattle and brought to ALP by barge. Wood liquor is used for the bulk of energy for the pulp mill. The total energy used by ALP is five times the energy used by the City of Sitka. ALP does not anticipate any growth in production. ALP supplies of these energy sources are shown to pass directly through the City energy budget in Table III-l. Other industries are included in the City energy budget. Energy Sources Data on energy consumption was obtained from Sitka Municipal Re- cords; Chevron Oil Co.; Union Oil Co.; Alaska Lumber and Pulp Co., Inc.; U.S. Forest Service; Sitka Realty; Viking Home Center and Hardware; and Sheldon Jackson College. A brief discussion of energy sources used in Sitka follows. Gasoline Surface Transportation. Gasoline is used in the 3,500 to 4,000 motor vehicles operated in Sitka. Since Sitka has only a few miles of highway (about 15 miles) and vehicles are driven at low average speeds, all trips are a short distance and mileage per gallon is relatively low. An efficiency of 8 percent was used to estimate the useful energy for auto and pick-up truck use. Marine Transportation. This refers to gasoline use in both out- board and inboard boats, primarily pleasure craft. Energy effi- ciency was estimated at 15 percent. Unlike automobiles, boats can reach more efficient operational speeds and take longer trips. Air Transportation. There are numerous small aircraft in the area used for business and pleasure. Both 80 and 100 octane gas are used. Normal efficiency of such airplanes is about 20 percent. III-4 Industrial. This is gasoline used by ALP mill primarily for trans- portation. Since the ALP mill energy balance is depicted separate- ly in Figure III-4, Table III-l shows a 100 percent efficiency for industrial gasoline. #1 Diesel Surface Transportation. Truck and auto diesel engines use very little #1 diesel fuel, and diesel engine efficiency is relatively high. An overall average efficiency of 20 percent was used. Marine Transportation. Some boats use #1 diesel and also have re- latively high efficiency. An average 25 percent efficiency was estimated for marine diesel use. Air Transportation. #1 diesel is similar to jet fuel and is used in aircraft with a good efficiency of about 25 percent. Residential Heating. Some home heating systems require #1 diesel oil rather than the heavy #2 diesel oil. An efficiency of 60 per- cent is used. #2 Diesel Transportation. #2 diesel is used in both surface transportation and marine transportation more extensively than #1 diesel, but #2 diesel is not used in aircraft. An efficiency of 20 percent for surface transportation and 25 percent for marine transportation was used. TirI-5 Heating. Residential heating for hot water and environmental heat- ing uses #2 diesel. Water heaters are 40 to 50 percent efficient and furnaces are 60 to 70 percent efficient. Combining water and environmental heating, an average 60 percent efficiency was used for homes. Commercial heating with #2 diesel is slightly more ef- ficient than residential use. An efficiency of 65 percent was used in this case. Diesel Electric Generators. The City has a number of diesel elec- tric generator units used for peak power generation and back-up of hydroelectric generation. Based on records of fuel consumption and electric output, these generators operate at about 30 percent effi- ciency. The electric distribution efficiency is estimated to be 92 percent yielding an overall efficiency of 28 percent. Industrial. As all this fuel is transferred directly to the ALP mill without conversion, the conversion is shown to be 100 percent efficient in Table III-l. The industrial efficiency is accounted for in Figure III-4. This fuel is assumed to be used for transportation. Hydroelectric Power Blue Lake presently provides the bulk of electric power. Distribu- tion efficiency is about 92 percent. The hydroelectric power is combined with the electric power from the diesel electric genera- tors in the distribution system for use as miscellaneous power and electric heat. The proportion of diesel fuel used for electricity generation is provided in Table III-l. The amount of electric heat was estimated at 11 percent of total residential heating and 12 percent of commercial heating. Waste Oil Waste oil is presently being used by Sheldon Jackson College to fire their heating boilers. They plan to utilize 100 percent waste oil for heating, which will require about 120,000 gallons. EIT They are receiving oil from several locations in Sitka and from Union Oil Company in Ketchikan and are presently looking for addi- tional waste oil sources. A conversion efficiency similar to that for diesel, 60 percent, was used. Wood A considerable amount of wood is used in residential heating systems. It is estimated that up to 20 percent of the homes use wood exclusively and another 35 to 40 percent use some wood. The wood comes from several sources, and most of it is gathered by homeowners as there is no commercial supply operation. The wood use estimate is based on 15 percent of the residential units using 10 cords per year, and 40 percent of the homes using 2.5 cords per year, with a heating value of 15 x 106 ptu per cord. A combined conversion efficiency of 60 percent was used. Propane Propane is used for cooking and heating and at the pulp mill. The quantity of propane used by the pulp mill was obtained from pulp mill records and the quantity used by homes was estimated. An efficiency of 50 percent was used for residential use, while a 100 percent efficiency for industrial use is shown in Table III-l because this fuel is transferred directly to the ALP mill without converting. End Uses of the total energy sources for the City of Sitka (1,601,413 x 106 Btu), 44.2 percent remains as useful energy. This represents 707,943 x 106 Btu. ‘MTwenty percent of the useful energy is used for transportation, 36 percent for residential heat- ing, 23 percent for commercial heating, and 15 percent for electri- cal appliances, lights, etc. Only 6 percent is used for industrial (exclusive of ALP). III-7 Existing Electricity And Heating Sources Electricity and heat come from a variety of sources in Sitka. This has been partially discussed in the energy budget and will be more fully discussed below. Electricity The main source of electricity is the Blue Lake hydropower plant. This power plant has two generators with installed capacities of 4,025 kW each. Firm power output by this source is estimated at 6,500 kW and firm output energy at 30,800 mWh. In late 1981 and early 1982 the Green Lake hydropower plant will come on line. This facility has two generators with installed ca- pacities of 9,250 kW each. Green Lake was not used in the energy balance since it was not operational at the time of computation. However, when it is placed on line with both units operational, Green Lake will have a firm power output of 6,750 kW and firm energy of 46,500 mWh. In addition to hydroelectric power, Sitka has several diesel gener- ators. The three major generators at Indian River have installed capacities of 2,750 kW, 2,750 kW, and 2,000 kw. In the future, these generators will be used for peak demand and emergencies only. Two of these generators were installed in 1979. Three smaller and older diesel generators located at Halibut Poinc are available for emergency uses. Three were installed between 1958 and 1960, two with 300 kW capacities and one with 500 kW. Table III-2 summarizes firm and nonfirm capacity for Sitka. The consumer cost of electricity generated by the City is shown in Table III-3. The electrical rates have a large impact on the growth of the electrical system and the power generating require- ments. Low electrical rates, as compared with oil, will encourage the changeover from oil to electrical space heating at a faster rate. Conversely, the higher electrical rate would slow down this changeover process. A rate with a sliding scale can be used to III-8 TABLE III-2 EXISTING ELECTRIC GENERATION RESOURCES Installed Firm Firm Year Capacity Capacity Energy Unit Description Installed (kW) (kW) (mWh ) Halibut Point Diesel2 1958 500 Back-up Back-up 7 1959 300 Back-up Back-up r 1960 300 Back-up Back-up Indian River Unknown 2,000 2,000 Back-up Diesel2 1979 2,750 2,750 Back-up - 1979 2,750 2,750 Back-up Blue Lake Hydro 1961 8,050 6,5001 30,8003 Green Lake Hydro 1982 18,500 6,7501 46 ,5003 Total 35,150 20,750 77,300 Total Hydro 26,550 b3;250 77,300 lcapacity during dry year with 1 unit of Green Lake down 2Diesels not intended as base-load machines 3From R.W. Beck, under dry year operation TABLE III-3 EXISTING ELECTRICAL RATE SCHEDULE C2.t? AND BOROUGH OF SITKA ORDINANCE NO. 80-456 November 1980 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA, ALASKA, INCREASING ELECTRIC RATES AND GARBAGE PICK UP RATES. BE IT ENACTED by the Assembly of the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, as follows: 1. CLASSIFICATION. This ordinance is not of a permanent nature and is not intended to be a part of the SITKA GENERAL CODE. 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 3. ENACTMENT. A. The rates of the Sitka Municipal Electric Utility are hereby amended as shown in the following schedules. All billings rendered after November 1, 1980, shall reflect these rates: RESIDENTIAL SERVICE First 100 KWH @ 12¢ per KWH All additional KWH 6-1/2¢ per KWH Minimum Charge: $12.00 per mo. GENERAL SERVICE: tnergy Charge: First 300 KWH @ 12¢ per KWH All additional KWH @ 7-1/2¢ per KWH Demand Charge: First 25 KW - No charge. Over 25 KW - $2.40 per KW Minimum Charge: $12.00 per mo, SMALL_BOAT SERVICE: First 100 KWH @ 12¢ per KWH All additional @ 7-1/2¢ per KWH Minimum Charge: $12.00 per mo. B. The garbage pick up rates are hereby amended as shown in the following schedule. All billings rendered after December 1, 1980, shall reflect these rates: GARBAGE PICKUP: Minimum Charge per month $5.49 First 20 Units 1.98 per unit Next 10 Units 1.84 per unit Next 10 Units 1.63 per unit Next 10 Units 1.42 per unit Next 10 Units 1.27 per unit Balance Units per month 1.13 per unit encourage the installation of energy conservation measures by pena- lizing those who use large amounts of electricity with higher rates for increments above a given minimum. Heating Heating sources in Sitka include wood, diesel, electric, waste oil, and propane. Estimates of the amount of heat from each source were made from chimney surveys and local data. Residential heating of 40,790 x 106 Btu (16 percent) is from #1 diesel furnaces, and 132,172 x 106 ptu (52 percent) is from #2 diesel. Another 1l percent is from electric heat and 20 percent is from wood heat. One percent is supplied by propane. On a basis of energy input before conversion losses, 17 percent is from #1 diesel, 54 percent from #2 diesel, 7 percent from electric, 21 percent from wood, and 1 percent is from propane. Commercial heating uses 23 percent of the total useful energy. The sources are 12 percent electric, 86 percent #2 diesel, and the remaining 2 percent is waste oil at Sheldon Jackson College. Before accounting for conversion losses, input energy is 8 percent electric, 89 percent is #2 diesel, and 3 percent is waste oil. C. SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Historic Sitka presently has a population of approximately 8,000. Access to Sitka is via airplane or ship since it has no road con- nections to other parts of the state. The economy of Sitka is soundly and diversely based, with manufacturing accounting for 25 to 30 percent, government about 30 percent, and distribution and support industries accounting for about 13 percent of the total work force. The average annual 1979 wage was $19,600; while the estimated cost of a moderate standard of living for a family of four was $30,400. L1II-9 Energy sources for Sitka in 1980 included gasoline, #1 and #2 diesel, hydroelectric, waste oil, wood, and propane for total energy input of 1,601,413 x 106 Btu. After accounting for energy conversion and use losses, 44 percent (707,943 x 106 Btu) remained as useful energy with transportation accounting for about 20 percent, residential heating for 36 percent, commercial heating for 23 percent, electrical appliances for 15 percent, and industry for 6 percent of the total useful energy. Sitka relies on imported gasoline, oil, diesel, and propane. The city has a firm electrical capacity of 20,750 kW (77,300 mWh) from a combination of hydroelectric power from Green Lake, Blue Lake, and diesel generators. III-10 IV. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST A. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND CAPITAL PROJECTS The economy in Sitka is broad based and well balanced with an em- phasis on utilization of natural resources. The community appears to favor controlled growth and development, particularly of water- related enterprises. In support, municipal offices in Sitka have proven capable of planning and managing such community development projects. Improvements in Sitka include construction of the Green Lake hydro- electric project scheduled for operation in 1982 ($60.6 million). Another capital project involves construction of a new 24-bed hospital to replace the 25-year-old facility now in operation ($11.2 million). To improve community recreational opportunities, a new multipurpose room is being added to the junior high school ($175,000). In June of 1981, the U.S. EPA awarded Sitka $6 million for con- struction of a primary sewage treatment plant. Total costs amount to $7.9 million, with both the state and the city paying 12.5 per- cent, or $950,000 each. This project will provide for extension of the present sewer lines and facilitate development on Halibut Point Road. In addition, some housing and support services improvements are projected. A study of the water supply system is currently underway in an effort to improve the existing situation and expand service. A new municipal incinerator is planned but the project has been temporarily postponed while the potential for obtaining an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) study grant is being investigated. A boat harbor in Edgecumbe Lagoon is also planned but construction has been temporarily delayed in order to re-evaluate environmental impact. Iv-1 There are potential projects currently under study that could sig- nificantly affect the economic climate in Sitka. The feasibility of developing a limited bottomfish industry is being examined. The engineering feasibility of a deep draft port facility has been established, and the economic feasibility of such a project is now being evaluated. Shee Atika, the regional Native corporation, is considering development of a forest products industry, but the type and size remain undetermined at this time. The tourist industry has experienced significant expansion over the last 10 years, and continued growth seems likely. It is expected that tourist attractions and facilities will be expanded to encour- age development of the industry. Development of the tourist indus- try seems to be popular with residents as it broadens the economic base without inducing permanent change in the size and character of the town. Many of the above-mentioned projects, both planned and potential, could influence population growth, employment, and commercial de- velopment in Sitka. Energy projections will be based on a development scenario similar to that experienced over the past decade. This will allow for li- mited development of such industries as shipping, bottom fishing, or mineral resources. These forecasts will then be analyzed to assess impact due to levels of development that are higher or lower than those projected. B. POPULATION FORECAST Population forecasts are based primarily on historical growth re- cords and economic activity and potential development projections. During the 30-year period from 1950 to 1980, growth averaged 2 per- cent per year in the Sitka census district. However, analysis of only the last ten years (1970 to 1980) shows a growth rate of 26 percent (2.3 percent per year). IV-2 Many factors in Sitka could influence population growth over the next 30 years. Significant changes would be effected by reduction or expansion in federal government operations such as the Coast Guard facility, U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs school, U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in Mt. Edgecumbe, and the U.S. Forest Ser- vice. Development of fishing, shipping, mining, or transportation industries would also induce population increases. Large scale development in other locations such as the proposed natural gas pipeline or major mining operations could cause the population to increase dramatically as it did following construction of the oil pipeline in the mid-1970's. As a secondary factor, the ability to provide local services for any increase in population could affect the quality of life and hence the tendency to move into or out of Sitka. Due to the uncertain nature of potential development that could af- fect population size in the study area, a range of growth rates was used in preparing the demographic forecast. The projected 2001 population was computed to range from 11,586 to 13,936 by using the 1980 census population of 7,803 and computed annual growth rates ranging from 1.9 percent to 2.8 percent. The high rate is derived from state population figures recorded after the oil pipeline boom. The low rate was derived from historic population figures recorded for Sitka over the last 50 years. These rates are assumed to re- flect a feasible range of economic activities in the project area. Ten-year forecast increments of these populations are provided in Table Iv-l. For purposes of computing the energy forecast, the annual growth rate of 2.3 percent was used, as it is based on re- cords of recent historical growth over a period experiencing a range of economic activity and development. The forecast will then be analyzed to assess impact due to population growth at rates greater or less than 2.3 percent. Lvs TABLE IV-1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SITKA Population Growth Rate (per year) Year 1.9% 2.2% 2.8% 1980 7,803 77803 7,803 1990 9,419 9,795 10.285 2000 11,370 12,296 13,556 2001 11,586 125.79 13,936 Based on the 1980 U.S. Census population of 7,803. Population growth rates equivalents: Percent Per Year Per 10 Years 1:9 21 2.3 26 2.8 32 NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS The number of future residential units is a function of both the population growth and the number of persons per residence. The number of persons per residence has declined in recent years from 4.43 in 1970 to 3.54 persons per residence in 1980. This study as- sumes that the rate will level off at 3.34 persons per residence by the year 2000. The average population growth rate over the last decade, 26 per- cent per 10 years (2.3 percent per year), was used to project the number of residences. The forecast number of residences for the 20-year period of this study is provided in Table IV-2. At a 26 percent growth rate there would be 3,807 residential units in the year 2001. In addition, the lower and higher potential annual growth rates of 1.9 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, were considered. A population growth rate of 1.9 percent results in 3,502 future residential units and a population growth rate of 2.8 percent results in 4,203 residential units. C. END USE FORECASTS This section discusses the projected use of energy for electricity and heating in Sitka until 2001. Included in the discussion are references to the effects of historic use, population growth, and cost of projected energy use over the next 20 years. Potential future sources of electrical and heating energy are mentioned but detailed discussions are deferred to Chapters V, VI, and VII. What is clear from the following discussion is that use of electricity for heating in Sitka is increasing. As this mode becomes more cost effective, the requirements for electrical energy for heating will increase as requirements for other heating energy sources decrease proportionately. The forecast of energy requirements prepared in this study is based “on the amount of energy used per residence, the energy used by the Iv-4 TABLE IV-2 FORECAST NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE Year of Year Plan 1.9 Percent 2.3 Percent 2.8 Percent (Number of Residences) 1981 0 2,262 2,262 2,262 1982 i 2,312 2,322 2,333 1983 2 2,363 2,383 2,407 1984 3 2,415 2,445 2,482 1985 4 2,469 2,510 2,560 1986 5 2,523 2,576 2,641 1887 6 2,579 2,644 2,724 1988 7 2,636 2,723 2,810 1989 8 2,694 2,785 2,898 1990 9 2,754 2,858 2,989 1991 10 2,815 2,933 3,083 1992 11 2,877 3,001" 3,180 1993 12 2,940 3,090 3,280 1994 13 3,005 Splue 3,384 1995 14 3,072 3,256 3,490 1996 15 3,140 3,342 3,600 1997 16 3,209 3,430 3,713 1998 17 3,280 3,521 3,830 1999 18 3,353 3,614 3,951 2000 19 3,427 3,709 4,075 2001 20 3,502 3,807 4,203 various commercial and industrial installations, the number of electric metered residential units, and the population growth. The relatively low cost of hydroelectric power compared to that gen- erated from fossil fuel has a large influence on the predicted end use throughout the planning period. The quantity of energy used by commercial facilities is assumed to be directly proportional to population growth as there are no large commercial installations under consideration for the city. it is therefore logical to assume that commerce would increase to serve the additional population. Likewise, there is no appreciable increase expected in the industrial load. Therefore, the load analysis for commercial and industrial is straightforward, but the analysis for residential is dependent upon the rate of changeover from oil to electricity and the type of system installed. Consequently, this report has focused on analysis of the residential loads as the area potentially able to effect the greatest change in end use patterns. 1. ENERGY USE PER RESIDENCE Electricity Figure IV-l shows how electric energy use has changed since 1940. The United States' average residential use increased from 915 kWh/yr in 1940 to 7,340 kWh/yr in 1973. This corresponds to an annual compounded growth rate of 6.51 percent per year. By 1978, residential energy use had increased to 7,737 kWh/yr, at an average rate of 1.06 percent per year. Areas which have predominantly hydroelectric service have shown a decrease in electric use as depicted in Figure IV-l. The increase in electric use from 1940 to 1973 is due to added appliances, air conditioning, electric heat, and general use. In 1973 electric energy cost had begun increasing and people became more energy conscious. Figure IV-2 indicates the relationship of electric energy cost to electric energy use. TV-5 RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS = so - a = s a =z S So = = = os =< > z z =< ws ° < ox wu > < 1970 1980 1990 YEAR SITKA HISTORICAL ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER RESIDENTIAL METER * Bak Mee!" FIG 1V-1 iS ic 2 = = = x = 2 Fe ao ° oO 2 = = 6000 j 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 (3000 ANNUAL KWH PER RESIDENCE IN 1978 SITKA RELATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY COST TO ELECTRIC ENERGY USE lott j. No: 21.01 OW pee FIG v.22 Residential electric energy use in Sitka has been slightly above the national average (as shown on Figure IV-2) even though the cost is slightly higher than the national average. For the past 5 years, the electric use per residence has been almost constant with an average of 8,529 kWh/yr per residential meter. This has oc- curred despite the fact that 90 percent of new homes are using electric heat. There are two possible explanations. Many all-electric homes have installed wood stoves to supplement elec- tric heat and new houses have better insulation than older ones. Usually if one form of energy costs more, people conserve or switch to alternate forms of energy. However, about the only time there is a substitute for electric energy is when that energy is used for heating, such as in cooking, hot water heating, and environmental heating. Conservation of electrical energy is possible in these areas by using microwave cooking and heat pumps. Home appliance performance is being improved, yet homes continue to use more. appliances. All these factors affect the total electrical energy use, Heating Alternate forms of energy which can be used for heating include oil, natural gas, wood, and solar energy. Costs of these alterna- tives vary daily, but are generally increasing faster than electri- city. Solar energy appears to be practical only when included in initial design, and then only a good passive system appears feas- ible in Sitka. The best overall solution to home heating energy use appears to be an extremely well insulated house with minimum window area and supplemental use of passive solar energy. The residential heating forecast is based on the number of homes that will exist in the year 2001. In 1980, the average home used 115.6 x 106 Btu of useful heat annually for water and space heat- ing (20 percent coming from wood). This required a total of 409,480 x 106 Btu of fuel at an average 62.2 percent efficiency for the 2,206 homes in Sitka in 1980. However, an average effi- ciency of 60 percent was used in the life cycle cost analysis be- cause it is a slightly more conservative figure than the 62.2 per- cent average and very close to the weighted average of residential and commercial installations. It is expected that new homes will be smaller due to the decrease in persons per household. It is also expected that conservation and improvements in equipment per- formance will increase as heating costs rise. Conservation could reduce energy use for the new houses up to 26.4 percent of 1980 heat requirements. An energy use estimate of 85.0 x 106 Btu per home has been made for electrically heated homes. This energy re- duction is based on studies which were made for average homes throughout the United States. It will likely occur only if heating costs continue to rise relative to the overall economy, making con- servation cost effective. The technology for such conservation exists now. However, some efforts will be required to educate people about the various possibilities and encourage builders to promote energy conservation in their building design. A comparison of oil cost for heating versus electric cost indicates that with the present cost of oil at $1.14 per gallon or $8.26/10© Btu, and electricity at 5.55¢/kWh (1980), the annual cost for 4,000 kWh of electric water heating (90 percent effi- ciency) would be $220, and the annual cost for equivalent oil-fired water heating (40 percent efficiency) would be $254. For environ- mental heating, 50 x 106 Btu would cost $781 annually for elec- tricity and $688 for oil, assuming typical efficiencies and an average electrical cost of 5.33¢/kWh for the electrically heated home. (The reduction in cost/kWh was due to the 1980 rate struc-— ture which has lower charge rates for higher electricity consump- tion.) However, with normal construction practices, the electric home will be 10 to 15 percent more efficient and this will reduce the cost of space heating for electric homes to approximately $700 annually. This relatively small differential in annual costs and large differential in capital costs between electrically heated and oil heated homes, respectively, indicate that new homes will iv<} likely use electric heating. In addition, new homes are usually better constructed and therefore use less heat than older homes. 2. FUTURE ENERGY USE Figure IV-3 compares maximum and minimum electrical energy use projections from this study with projections from previous studies. There is a significant difference between the maximum and minimum electric energy use forecasts. To some degree this difference results from the population projections, but primarily it results from the cost difference between electric heating (water and environmental) and oil heating. At present the average electric total heating cost is $1,019 annually. If electric rates do not increase as fast as oil costs, houses will continue to switch from oil heating to electric heating. Demand will reach the maximum level indicated, unless a lower cost alternative fossil fuel can be utilized. No practical lower cost alternative fossil fuels have been identified in this study. Future Sources Of Energy Investigations of this study indicate that hydroelectric plants appear to have the greatest potential (in terms of availability) for supplying Sitka's future electrical energy needs. The cost of Sitka's electricity in the future will depend primarily on the method of financing of hydroelectric projects. If hydroelectric projects are financed through customer electric rates and include the total cost of the hydroelectric plants, then electric costs will continue to increase. This increase would be tempered if a portion of the hydroelectric plant costs were provided by state, local, or other government agencies. Electricity costs from hydro- electric generators are not expected to increase faster than oil costs. This is reflected in recent price increase trends and is due to the fact that oil is a nonrenewable resource of diminishing supply. A. I968TAKATZ CREEK PROJECT STUDY B. 1979 RW. BECK STUDY C. CURRENT STUDY MINIMUM D. CURRENT STUDY MAXIMUM MEGAWATT HOURS MEGAWATTS 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 iS) ———— PROJECTED ———— HISTORICAL 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR 2001 NOTE: HISTORICAL INCLUDES ELECTRICITY SOLD TO ALASKA LUMBER AND PULP SITKA ALSO, PROJECTIONS INCLUDE 12% LINE LOSS AND COMPANY USE ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND ELECTRICITY USE PROJECTION Proj. No: AlO21.01 Date: JAN 1982 FIGIV-3U D. TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST Table IV-3 gives the forecast for energy requirements in the City of Sitka in the year 2001. Actually three different forecasts were prepared, based on the possible use of different modes for heating in Sitka over the 20-year planning period. Since heating requires substantially more energy than any other end use, significant changes in heating energy use should effect significant changes in the total energy forecast. Each of the three forecasts shown on Table IV-3 reflects a different use pattern for heating energy. One forecast assumes both fuel oil and electrical heating modes will be implemented in the same proportions as in 1981. This is referred to as the Base Case on Table IV-3. The second forecast assumes complete conversion in heating mode from fuel oil to electricity via electric resistance heaters. This is referred to as Alternate Case I on the table. The third forecast assumes not only complete conversion to the electrical mode of heating but employs the use of heat pumps instead of resistance heaters. This projection is referred to as Alternate Case II on the table. To develop the projections on how much energy and which energy sources will be required in Sitka, it was necessary to determine three things. First, the total amount of energy required for space and water heating was calculated. Secondly, the amount of electric energy required for lighting and miscellaneous’ (non-heating) purposes was calculated. Then, for each plan, the total amount of electricity (for heating plus lighting and miscellaneous use) could be calculated. As the total heating requirements remain constant, when the use of electricity for heat increases, the use of diesel fuel oil decreases. The amount of diesel fuel required can be determined from the amount of electricity used in each plan. The following sections contain a discussion on heating require- ments, electrical requirements, and subsequent electric generation Iv-9 TABLE IV-3 CITY OF SITKA ENERGY USE FORECAST | Source | Year 1980 L Year 2001 | | | BASE CASE | ALTERNATE CASE 1 | ALTERNATE CASE 2 | | 10? Btu Percent | 10? Btu Percent | 10? Btu Percent | 10? Btu Percent | | | | | | GASOLINE | 280.81 17.6 | 315.26 12.8 | 325.26 15.8 | “s25<28 18.3 | #1 DIESEL | 197.71 12.4 | -220.77 8.5 [220277 10.5 [> 210. 72 12.2 | #2 DIESEL | 874.04 54.4 [1,510.37 61:2 | 640.69 32.0 | 623.39 36.1 | HYDROELEC | 147.86 9.3 | 263.82 10.7 | 694.85 34.7 | 436.88 25.3 | WASTE OIL | 6.90 0.4 | 11.20 O35 | «#iv2o 0.6 | 11.20 0.6 | wooo | 86.25 5.4 | 147.24 6.0 | 120.42 6.0 | 120.42 7.0 | PROPANE | 7.84 0.5 | 7.84 0.3 l 7.84 0.4 | 7.84 0.5 | [1,601.41 100.0 |2,466.5 100.0 |2,001.03 100.0 | 1,725.76 100.0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | L a L Ls requirements for each of the three potential cases of energy use in Sitka. In addition, each forecast assumes supplemental heat provided by burning wood in homes and waste oil in commercial buildings. Auto- motive transportation efficiency is assumed to increase by a factor of 1.7 by the year 2001. All other transportation fuels and pro- pane were increased directly in proportion to population growth. The use of industrial fuels was not increased since there is no an- ticipated large industrial growth in the area. 1. FORECAST OF SPACE AND WATER HEATING REQUIREMENTS Figure IV-4 presents space and water heating forecasts to the end of planning period, year 2001. Residential requirements are based on the number of residences resulting from a population growth of 2.3 percent per year and a reduction of persons per house from 3.54 persons per house in year 1980 to 3.34 persons per house in the year 2001. The curves without conservation were developed from Table VI-2 by adding columns (a), (b), and (c) for residential and (e), (£), and (g) for commercial. The curves which include energy conservation were developed similarly from Table VI-3. Between 1981 and 2001, space heating energy conserva*ion implemented in homes could reduce total home energy consumption by approximately 18 percent. Commercial heating requirements were also to be re- duced by 18 percent due to conservation techniques implemented in these facilities. 2. FORECAST OF LIGHTING AND MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS Figure IV-5 presents the lighting and miscellaneous electrical re- quirements projected through 2001, the end of the planning period. The data was developed from Table VI-2, columns (d) and (h). Column (d) presents the residential electrical requirements for lighting and miscellaneous and is based on 4,868 kWh per house for one year. This is an average figure from city records for homes Iv-10 > Fb a © 2 ad °o = e < Ww = e é <= = a = < WW < a. o NOTE: INCLUDES HEATING BY OIL,ELECTRICITY, WOOD AND WASTE OIL. WOOD AMOUNTS TO EB, ABOUT 20% OF RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMEN SITKA THOUGHOUT PLANNING PERIOD. WASTE OIL AMOUNTS TO ABOUT 3% OF COMMERCIAL FORECAST OF — IN 1981, AND ABOUT |% IN SPACE AND WATER HEATING REQUIREMENT Proj. No: 1021.01 Date: JAN 1982 FIGIV-4C ~~ o 2 ad = = x a =< = z Zz < SITKA FORECAST OF LIGHTING & MISC. NON HEAT ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENT ac bots NAN sae = FIG IV-5 which do not use electricity for space or water heating. Column (h) presents the commercial electrical requirements and is based on projecting the 1981 usage of 20.45 x 106 kwh in direct proportion to population growth. 3. FORECAST OF ELECTRIC GENERATION REQUIREMENTS Future electric generation requirements depend primarily on two factors: population growth, and the change from oil-fired space and water heating systems to electric space and water heating systems. Most existing space heating systems use oil fuel; only about 1l percent of space heat is provided by electricity, even though a large number of new homes being constructed today utilize electric heating systems. If the changeover from oil heat to electric heat continues, the electric energy use will continue to grow at about 7 percent per year, as it has in the past 10 years; all oil heating systems will be converted to electric heating by the end of the year 2001. Three projections for electrical growth through 2001 were devel- oped and are shown on Figure IV-6 and Figure IV-7. These forecasts of electric energy requirements are based on the three cases pre- sented for meeting heating requirements. With all potential changeovers in heat systems from fossil fuels to electric energy and no major industrial or commercial expansion planned, the in- crease in electrical consumption after the year 2001 is dependent on population growth only and will be directly proportional to the increase in population. Curve C, which shows the Base Case, did not project changeover from oil to electric heat. All three are directly proportional to population growth rate after 2001. Refer- encing Figure IV-6, Projection A assumes 7 percent per year growth in electrical consumption will continue, that by the end of 2001 all space and water heating will be provided by electrical re- sistance, and oil will not be used for this purpose. Projection B uses the same rate of conversion from oil as Projection A and Iv-l1l a =z = = WwW a > oO oe uJ = WJ a 4 ° 4 - oO WJ 4 ud 1980 2000 2001 YEAR NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE ELECTRICITY SOLD TO ALASKA LUMBER AND TOTAL ELECTRICITY REQUIRED USING A FULL PULP CONVERSION FROM OIL HEATING TO ELECTRICAL ALSO INCLUDES 12% LINE LOSS RESISTANCE HEATING BY 2002 AND COMPANY USE TOTAL ELECTRICITY REQUIRED USING A FULL CONVERSION FROM OIL HEATING TO ELECTRIC SITKA HEAT PUMP HEATING BY 2002 TOTAL ELECTRICITY REQUIRED USING THE SAME PROPORTION OF OIL AND ELECTRIC HEATING AS NOW EXISTS ELECTRIC ENERGY FIRM HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY FROM REQUIREMENT BLUE LAKE AND GREEN LAKE FORECASTS ram OT HISTORICAL USAGE y Proj. No: 1021.01 Date: JAN 1982 FIGIV-6C~ ~ MEGAWATTS 1980 YEAR TOTAL GENERATION CAPACITY REQUIRED USING A FULL CONVERSION FROM OIL HEATING TO ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HEATING BY 2002 : TOTAL GENERATION CAPACITY REQUIRED USING A FULL CONVERSION FROM OIL HEATING TO ELECTRICAL HEAT PUMP HEATING BY 2002 TOTAL GENERATION CAPACITY REQUIRED USING THE SAME PROPORTION OF OIL AND ELECTRIC HEATING AS NOWEXISTS. FIRM HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION FROM BLUE LAKE AND GREEN LAKE HISTORICAL USAGE 2000 200! NOTE : DOES NOT INCLUDE ELECTRICITY SOLD TO ALASKA LUMBER AND PULP ALSO INCLUDES !2% LINE LOSS AND COMPANY USE SITKA ELECTRIC. GENERATION CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS FORECASTS Proj. No: AlO21.0! Date: JAN 1982 FIGIV-7 assumes that heat pumps will replace oil heat for space and water heating by the end of 2001. Both Projections A and B assume 20 per- cent of the actual heating will come from wood burning, and that planned conservation will result in an average reduction of total heating energy for both commercial and home use of approximately l percent per year. This figure is based on conservative studies which show that 20 percent energy conservation is obtainable in private homes. This 20 percent was distributed over the 20-year planning period. Projection C assumes that the present situation, where 11 percent of space heat in homes and 11.8 percent of space heat in commercial facilities is provided by electrical resistance, will continue from 1981 through 2001. All other space heating would utilize oil and wood, with about 20 percent of the total re- quirement being supplied by wood burning. Line D, Figure IV-6, shows the firm energy available from Blue Lake and Green Lake hydroelectric installations (as listed in Table III-2). Prior to the Green Lake hydroelectric plant being placed in operation, diesel units are assumed to supply energy re- quired in addition to that being supplied by Blue Lake. These die- sel engines are not designed for continuous operation, but are intended to be used for peaking and back-up only. After Green Lake comes on line, the diesels will be used for peaking and back-up. Since the combined capacity of all diesels is greater than one Green Lake generating unit in a dry year, they are considered as full back-up capacity for the largest on-line unit. Figure IV-6 does not show electricity sold to Alaska Lumber and Pulp since the energy they purchase is normally only the excess available from the hydroelectric facilities. In critical situa- tions, ALP is cut off from the Sitka power system. ALP in the past has had sufficient on-site electric generation, but in recent years their needs have increased to meet EPA regulations. Projection A shown on Figure IV-6 is developed from data shown in the "Total Electric" column of Table VII-2. This data was Iv-12 developed to the end of 2001, when all space and water heating is accomplished by electric energy. Projection B was developed similarly from Table VII-3 and Projection C was developed similarly from Table VII-1l. Figure IV-7 indicates the generation capacity requirements forecast and was developed from Figure IV-6 using a 0.55 load factor (average demand/peak demand). As displayed in Figure IV-7, the generation capacity of Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric projects is not exceeded by demand until about 1996 for projection B. How- ever, the firm annual electric energy production of Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric projects is exceeded by demand in about 1991 (Figure IV-6). Therefore, annual electric energy production re- quirements (not capacity) guide the formulation of alternative plans for supplying energy to Sitka. Iv-13 V. RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT A. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Energy resources available for electricity generation in Sitka in- clude hydroelectric, diesel, coal, wood, geothermal, wind, solar- photovoltaic, and liquid natural gas. Energy resources available for heat are diesel, wood, passive solar, coal, liquid natural gas, geothermal, and waste heat recovery. Each of these resources is considered below. 1. HYDROELECTRIC Several potential hydroelectric sites have been identified on Baranof Island. These sites and their power potential are identified in Table V-l (Source: Federal Power Commission, 1947), and Figure V=-1. TABLE V-1 HYDROPOWER PLANTS WITH POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SITKA Transmission Installed Line Average Firm Capacity Length Head Energy Hydropower (mW) (mi) (ft) (kWh _ x 106) Kelp Lake 16 20 612 66 Takatz Lake 27.21 20 991 93.21/2 Baranof Lake 2 20 108 LS Carbon Lake 13.57 20 260 43.70? Milk Lake 7 35 666 33 Brentwood Creek 8 50 655 38 Deer Creek 7 50 339 32 Maksoutof River 24 45 570 37 Plotnikof Lake 9 45 3i5 44 lrrom FERC, 1979, Final EIS for Green Lake project 2average annual energy v-1 Distance from Sitka attaches potential economic hardships to deve- lopment of some of these sites. Additionally, natural values of these sites must be considered in assessing potential benefits of development. Most of the sites appear suitable for hydropower projects based on their relatively small natural salmon production. A regional southeast planning effort (Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the U. S. Forest Service) has identified Takatz and Carbon Lakes as potential salmon hatchery sites. Deer Lake has been identified as having a large incubation capacity, but otherwise being unacceptable for hatchery development. Although hatchery development will probably not be considered for another five to ten years, coordinating dam design would actually benefit artificial fish production. This would involve a separate water supply from the dam to the potential hatchery. In addition, the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) has an in-lake coho salmon production program starting at several lake clusters including the Brentwood and Deer Lake systems. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, ADF&G, is also interested in utilizing Takatz and Carbon Lakes for rearing coho fry from the nearby hatchery at Hidden Falls. Therefore, dam design of outflow facilities at these sites must allow seaward migration of coho. In addition, dam development at these sites would have to take into account potential impact on lake limnology and the effect on coho productivity. Maksoutof River and Plotnikof Lake lie within an area designated as land use Classification I by the Tongass National Forest Management Plan. This land use ex- cludes water projects unless authorized by the President. Aside from Blue Lake and Green Lake, Carbon and Takatz Lakes have . received the most attention for hydroelectric development. Al- though the transmission line routes would be long (30 to 40 miles), the environmental impact is probably within acceptable limits. These sites present the greatest potential for future hydroelectric development for Sitka. 2. GEOTHERMAL Geothermal energy resources are manifested by several hot springs in the Sitka region (Fish Bay Creek, Baranof, and Goddard). The largest, Baranof and Goddard Hot Springs, have maximum temperatures of 50°C with flow about 80 gallons per minute (gpm) and 65°C with flow about 13 gpm, respectively. A project at Fish Bay Creek would threaten the large natural, salmon run. Baranof Springs has been identified in the regional salmon planning effort as a superior site for hatchery development. These springs occur in highly fractured and jointed tertiary grandiorite. The fractures apparently provide the conduit for deep-seated circulation of meteoric waters down to the geothermal energy source. Geochemical analysis of the spring waters indicates that the subsurface temperature of this system ranges between 110°C and 150°C. However, this elevated temperature is probably due to normal geothermal gradients rather than shallow hot plutonic bodies because these rocks are too old to maintain the heat flow of this system. The Alaska State Geological and Geophysical Survey (AGGS) estimates that detailed site reconnaissance of the area would cost nearly $300,000 (1980). Site specific exploration would probably cost about $400,000 (1980). These high costs, together with the moderate subsurface temperature estimates and apparent lack of a shallow high temperature heat source, preclude the use of geo- thermal resources as an efficient energy alternative in this area. Additionally, the distance of these springs from Sitka (all about 20 miles) precludes their use for space heating and adds to their expense in electrical transmission. 3. WIND Sitka has expressed interest in wind turbine generators (WTG's). WTG's require a location with an average annual wind speed in ex- cess of 12 miles per hour (mph) and free wind flow from all direc- tions. At Sitka, available records show adequate winds occurring only 9 percent of the time (based on average hour per month), restricting wind as a primary power source in the study area. 4. DIESEL Diesel can be used to produce space heat or electrical energy. Waste oil is burned at Sheldon Jackson Jr. College but is not in sufficient supply for use by the whole community. Diesel is brought to Sitka on barges and costs approximately $1.14 per gallon ($8.26 per MBtu). The escalating cost of fuel places definite li- mitations on these systems. 5. COAL Coal is available from the Healy Coal Fields south of Fairbanks. If developed further, the Bering River Coal Fields east of the Copper River Delta or the Beluga Coal Fields near Cook Inlet could become available at competitive prices. Coal would have to be barged to Sitka. If on-loading facilities already existed, the estimated cost would be $3.40 per MBtu. However, there are no existing loading facilities for coal in Alaska. 6. WOOD Wood is obtained from neighboring forest areas and the beaches. Dry birch has about 18.2 MBtu per cord and dry spruce has about 15 MBtu. This amounts to $4.05 to $4.95 per MBtu based on U. S. Forest Service 1979 cost in Juneau of $75 per cord. 7. LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS Liquifed natural gas (LNG) could be obtained near Nikiski and shipped by barge to Sitka. New facilities for unloading and utilizing the gas would have to be built. Production of natural gas will remain at least at present levels through the year 2000. Demands will undoubtedly increase, but needs of south central Alaska can be met by Cook Inlet gas produc- tion, with sufficient additional production available for exports. Additional reserves are available from the North Slope (SRI Inter- national 1977). 8. SOLAR ENERGY Solar potential in Sitka is not great, primarily due to high lati- tude and the great amount of cloud cover. Prevailing conditions include yearly average temperatures in the 40's (°F), mean annual cloudiness index between .4 and .5 (representing the fraction of extraterrestrial radiation on a horizontal surface), and rainfall averaging 97 inches per year. Solar-photovoltaic cells would not receive enough solar insolation to merit their installation. How- ever, passive solar space heating would help reduce the need for other heat sources. 9. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Municipal solid waste contains combustible organic materials and Paper products with a heating value that is normally wasted. The 15.4 tons per day presently collected in Sitka would produce 108 x 106 Btu per day. 10. WASTE HEAT Community diesel fuel generating systems were examined and the amount of waste heat was approximated. The diesel engines lose heat in the exhaust gas, cooling water jacket, and by radiation. About 50 percent of the total waste heat is recoverable if the diesel generating system is operating at 100 percent capacity. Although this waste heat is potentially recoverable, the generators in Sitka are only used for peaking or back-up and would not provide a regular, consistent supply. Therefore, this resource is considered infeasible for the study area. B. SURVEY OF TECHNOLOGIES Detailed profiles of energy conversion technologies reviewed for Sitka, including descriptions, performance characteristics, costs, special requirements and impacts, and a summary and critical discussion are provided in Appendix D. Brief abstracts of the following technologies are presented in this section. Electricity Generating Technologies Coal-fired steam Diesel combustion Fuel cells Gas turbines Geothermal Hydropower Liquified natural gas Solar photovoltaic Solid waste combustion Wind turbines Wood-fired steam Space Heating Technologies Coal Electrical resistance Geothermal Heat pump Liquid natural gas oil Passive solar Wood Conservation Technologies Diesel waste heat recovery Space heating conservation Oil heating conversion efficiency Increased diesel generation efficiency 1. ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES Coal-Fired Steam For generating electricity by coal-fired steam, the coal chunks must be approximately 2-inch-diameter or less. The chunks are fed directly into a boiler or pulverized and blown in. The coal is burned to produce steam which in turn drives a generator to produce electricity. Steam plants account for the majority of electrical generation in the United States today. Although these plants can accommodate a wide range of loads, economies of scale indicate that the cost per unit increases sharply in sizes below about 50 mW. In Sitka, the coal would have to be barged in from the Healy Coal Fields, and a stockpile would have to be maintained. Space for the plant and stockpile would be limited in Sitka. Coal pile run- off and dust are both environmental problems, as are smoke stack emissions. These emissions include nitrogen oxides, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. Solid waste amounting to approximately 10 per- cent of the burned coal would require disposal, probably at sea. All these factors render coal infeasible for use in Sitka at this time. Diesel Combustion To produce electricity using a diesel-fueled engine, air is com- pressed to a high pressure inside a cylinder fitted with a piston. The compressed air is set at a temperature higher than the fuel ignition point. Fuel oil is then injected; it ignites; and the ex- panding gases drive the piston which in turn drives a generator. This is one of the most efficient conversions of chemical to elec- trical energy. Diesel generating units, ranging in size from 300 kW to 2,750 kW are already in use in Sitka. These systems are presently air cooled and are used for peak demand and backup. Larger systems are often water cooled. Environmental considerations include diesel storage tank space, operation noises, waste heat, and exhaust emis-— sions. Combustion of 1,000 gallons (7.2 MBtu) of diesel produces about 80 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 80 pounds of hydrocarbon, 20 pounds of sulfur oxides, 60 pounds of carbon monoxide, and 20 pounds of particulates. Fuel Cells Fuel cell plants are presently in the research and development phase. These plants are similar to nonrechargeable batteries. Electricity is produced by combining hydrogen rich fuel such as natural gas with oxygen. They have a higher energy to electrical power conversion ratio than diesel electric generators. Although they hold great potential for future use, they are not yet commer- cially available. v-8 Gas Turbine Natural gas or high grade petroleum distillates can be used in gas turbines to run a generator. These units have a relatively high operating cost compared to fixed costs. They are, therefore, used primarily for peaking loads. Geothermal Electricity Generation Geothermal fluids can be used to drive generators directly through a flash steam process or indirectly by supplying heat to ‘another working fluid. The latter, termed a binary system, is in use in the United States. Environmental considerations include heat and salinity of the geothermal fluid, escaping gases including hydrogen sulfide, transmission line corridors, and the industrialization of thermal spring areas. Hydroelectric Power Hydropower is in use in Sitka at Blue Lake and Green Lake. Nu- merous additional potential hydropower sites have been identified on Baranof Island, with Takatz and Carbon Lakes appearing to be the most feasible. Environmental considerations on hydropower sites center upon impacts on existing fisheries; inundation of wildlife habitat and forestry resources; alteration of downstream flows; creation of a reservoir; and construction of transmission lines and access roads. Wildlife impacts will result from absolute loss of habitat by flooding of shorelines and facility construction; from a change in habitat by clearing the right-of-way for transmission lines and ac- cess roads; and disturbance during construction. Actual effects of flooding depend on the slope of valley walls. The unnamed river on the middle of Kelp Bay lies in a broad valley which is probably significant habitat for wildlife because most of Baranof Island is steeply sloped. Inundation of areas of this type would reduce valuable wildlife habitat. However, the same is not true of the v-9 Takatz and Carbon Lake areas. These lakes lie in steep-sided valleys which are abundant on the island. Liquid Natural Gas Liquid natural gas (LNG) could be shipped to power an electric ge- neration facility similar to coal or wood. However, the environ- mental risks are much higher with LNG. There are several possible adverse impacts associated with use of LNG. Impacts include dangers of LNG spill and the associated danger of explosion. A spill of LNG on water would result in a highly flammable vapor cloud which could drift into populated areas and be extremely hazardous if it were to explode. A spill within the plant site may result in an intense pool fire which could emit levels of radiation that would be hazardous to nearby populations. Spilled LNG would also immediately freeze anything it came into contact with. Revaporized LNG could create significant health problems if inhaled (Pacific Alaska LNG Associates, 1978). Solar Photovoltaic Solar photovoltaic technology uses a solar cell to convert solar energy to electricity. At its present state of development, cap- ital cost and operating costs are prohibitive. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Solid waste can be shredded and burned in conjunction with another fuel, to provide heat for steam and electric power. To be feas- ible,. municipal solid waste must be separated by household units prior to pickup or delivery to a disposal site. Otherwise labor costs for separation of combustible and noncombustible materials become very high. Sitka does not produce enough solid waste to make this an economic alternative as a community energy source but it could be used to heat a large building. v-10 Wind Turbines Wind turbine generators (WTG's) are receiving more attention and development in recent years and were considered as a supplemental energy source for Sitka. Units of the 1.5 to 20 kW size are pre- sently available and larger units are being developed. Unfortu- nately, wind power suffers from the intermittent and fluctuating nature of winds and requires winds of speed higher than those gen- erally available in Sitka. Winds at higher elevations are expected to be greater then those at sea level, but to date experience has not been good with wind generators of useful sizes. WTG's require additional operating experience and equipment development before being located in remote areas. WTG's have little environmental im- pact, but do have visual impact and produce noise. Wood-Fired Steam These systems are similar to coal-fired facilities but use wood. They have similar environmental and space limitations to coal facilities, but wood has a lower ash content, usually less than 2 percent. The cost of wood would limit its use in Sitka. 2. SPACE HEATING TECHNOLOGIES Coal Coal has been used for space heating for centuries, and its use is still widespread. The environmental effects of coal burning are well known, particularly the creation of air pollution. In Sitka, the inconvenience, air pollution, transportation distances, and subsequent cost .of coal would make it uncompetitive as a space heating method. Electrical Resistance Electrical resistance heating is currently in use in about 10 per- cent of the homes in Sitka, and that proportion is increasing. The advantage of electrical resistance heating is its cleanliness, safety, and ease of use. A disadvantage is its demand on the electrical generating facilities. Geothermal Geothermal fluids can be used to heat nearby buildings through heat exchangers. Sitka is not located near enough to any hot springs to use this technology. Heat Pump A heat pump works like a refrigerator in reverse, extracting heat from one source (water or air) and rejecting it into a sink (build- ing or room). Such systems are much more efficient than electrical resistance heating and have the same advantages. Although capital costs are high, they do offer a potentially more efficient heating method for Sitka. Liquid Natural Gas LNG could be barged in for space heating. A distribution system and regasification plant would be needed, and environmental risks would be high. Oil Fuel oil is burned for space heating. Oil space heating is pres- ently in use in Sitka, but becoming more expensive due to the rising cost of fuel oil. In addition, oil burners contribute to air pollution. v-12 Passive Solar The three types of passive solar heating currently in use are de- scribed in Appendix D. This technology is easily incorporated into new housing for minimal cost. Retrofitting older homes can be expensive. Although passive solar could not provide the com- plete home heating needs of Sitka, it could reduce other heat needs. Wood Wood heat is used exclusively in 15 to 20 percent of Sitka's homes, and as a supplement in most of the other homes. Heating devices range from fireplaces to wood furnaces. If wood was purchased, wood heating would be more expensive than oil (using the current purchase price in Sitka of about $125 per cord). Since individuals usually gather their own wood, this cost is minimized. Wood burning contributes to air pollution by producing carbon monoxide, soot, ash, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. Wood harvesting uses a renewable managed resource. 3. CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Waste heat from Sitka's diesel generators could be recovered and used for space heating or be used to increase the generators' efficiencies through a Rankine cycle (see Appendix D). If used for space heating, it would have to supplement existing heating methods, or the generators would have to be run continuously. ee diesel generation were to be a major electrical source in Sitka, installation of Rankine cycles would be advisable. vV-13 Space Heating Conservation Insulation, thermal and storm windows, storm doors, and entrance vestibules, etc. can save approximately 50 percent of space heating costs by reducing losses. Retrofitting older homes is more costly than incorporating insulation into new homes. Conservation is the most cost effective approach to reducing Sitka's energy needs. Qil Heating Conversion Efficiency Oil space heaters can be made more efficient by reducing the amount of excess combustion air going out the stack. One such method for doing this is the flame-retention burner. These are available for retrofit or for new installations. Fuel consumption would be re- duced about 14 percent. .C. APPROPRIATE SITKA TECHNOLOGIES A combination of location, resource potential, commercial development, and cost were used to evaluate energy technologies for suitability of use in Sitka. In conjunction with all other energy technologies, conservation can and should be employed. Conservation will reduce the energy requirements of Sitka and the surrounding areas. This in turn defers the requirement for additional energy plants and may reduce the ultimate size and cost of these future plants. The selection criteria for determining technologies appropriate for Sitka are discussed below. Some of the energy technologies surveyed have not been sufficiently developed to ensure commercial availability or reliability. The near-term energy requirements of Sitka should not be based on any technology which is not commercially established. The geographic location of Sitka makes it difficult to obtain operational exper- v-14 tise and maintenance materials for unestablished technologies in a timely manner. The application of energy technologies is also dependent on loca- tion. Only those technologies that can be applied to Sitka without a significant geographic penalty should be considered. Considera- tion should be given to fuel source, transportation facilities and costs, and weather conditions. The overriding factor in determining the applicable energy technol- ogy for Sitka is cost of the technology. Cost includes initial plant cost, annual costs (operation, maintenance, and energy), and financing available (federal, state, or local government, or pri- vate sources). The technologies applicable to Sitka must be deter- mined on the basis of these cost factors. D. EVALUATION Fuel cells and solar photovoltaics can be eliminated from consider- ation for use at Sitka because the technology is not sufficiently developed. At this time, neither have had sufficient application to substantiate both commercial availability and reliability. Wind power was eliminated from consideration on the basis of Sitka's lack of sufficient wind energy and the need for a firmer output. Solar insolation for passive space heat would be insuffi- cient as a sole source, but may be justified as a supplemental energy source. Wood as a sole fuel source can be eliminated on the basis of cost, although as a supplemental source for homes, it can be effective if no labor costs for cutting and delivering the wood are charged. Wood at $125 per cord would be more costly than oil at $1.14 per gallon. The cost and availability of wood also eliminate a wood- fired steam generator. v-15 Solid waste is not available in sufficient quantity to provide all of the heating and power needs of the area. Although solid waste could be used to heat a fairly large building such as a school building using a heat recovery incinerator, it cannot be considered a primary source. Coal is normally justified in terms of lower cost when compared to oil or other fuels. However, the applicability of coal is also very dependent on the economics of scale. Only where large kilo- watt generation and heating requirements exist can the cost of pol- lution control and fuel transport be offset. Coal is analyzed as a possible energy source as a comparison to diesel and hydroelectric. The analysis assumes Alaskan on-loading facilities are developed independently. Use of LNG presents difficulties of unloading and distributing that would probably result in a cost greater than the present cost of oil. The environmental problems associated with use of LNG eliminated it from further consideration. Geothermal energy sites are too far from Sitka to provide space heating or economical electrical generation potential. Diesel waste heat recovery can be eliminated on the basis of cost. The cost factors in this case include the imbalance between the electrical production requirements and the heating requirements. Heat available from a unit installed to meet electrical generating needs still would not match the heating loads, and the higher efficiency of the system would not be realized for a sufficient number of hours per year. This option also utilizes oil fuel. The cost of this fuel is anticipated to increase at such a rate as to make reliance on diesel (oil-fired) cogeneration uneconomical. v-16 Gas turbines do not offer Sitka any advantage over diesel generators and were eliminated due to the high operating costs compared to capital costs. For electrical generating technologies, hydropower, diesel genera- tion, and a coal-fired steam plant all remain appropriate for use in Sitka. For space heating technologies, electrical resistance, heat pumps, coal, wood, and passive solar are appropriate for Sitka in varying combinations. Space heat conservation and oil heating efficiency technologies are also appropriate. Figure VI-l shows electrical costs using various hydroelectric projects, diesel generators, and a coal-fired steam plant of appropriate size for Sitka. Cost for the various heating technologies are shown in Figure VI-2. v-17 VI. DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY PLANS A. INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH TO PLAN FORMULATION Energy requirement forecasts for Sitka were provided in Section IV. One objective of this study was to develop several plans for pro- viding the required end use energy. Development of these plans began with an examination of what the end uses were and how signif- icant they were in terms of the total requirements. The second step in plan development was examination of the technol- ogies that had been determined appropriate for use in Sitka. For space and water heating the technologies appropriate for primary use were electrical resistance, electrical heat pumps, and fuel oil combustion. Conservation and supplemental use of wood and passive solar are appropriate secondary technologies. Electricity generation for lighting and miscellaneous purposes was most appropriately achieved using diesel-fired and hydropowered generation. In 1980 the combination of residential and commercial space and water heating, lighting, and miscellaneous electrical uses accounted for 74.3 percent of the total energy end use in Sitka. This study focused then on energy requirements for these end uses throughout the planning period as no development was projected that might significantly alter the existing proportion of end use requirements. It was concluded from the survey of technologies and the end use requirement analysis that heating and electricity generation by both fuel oil and hydropower were currently appropriate and: potentially feasible for future use. One of the determining factors of future use would be cost to the consumer in Sitka. Therefore, the next step in plan formulation was a comparison of the cost of using fuel oil or hydropower for heating and electricity. Figure VI-l shows such a cost comparison for the various modes of space and water heating. VI-1 foe kW DIESEL RESISTANCE EAT 1Q000 kW COAL RESISTANCE HEAT |0900 kW DIESEL RESISTANCE HEAT CARBON LK, RESISTANCE HEAT FUEL OIL 60% EFFICIENCY TAKATZ, RESISTANCE HEAT BL &GR LK, RESISTANCE 1500 kW DIESEL HEAT PUMP, CoP=3 10,000 kW COAL HEAT PUMP cOP=3 10900 kW DIESEL HEAT PUMP COP =3 CARBON LAKE, HEAT PUMP TAKATZ, HEAT PUMP BLUE AND GREEN LAKE, HEAT PUMP SITKA SPACE HEATING AND WATER HEATING ENERGY COST Proj. No: 1021.01 Guu Date: JAN 1982 FIGVIR-I It is anticipated that most of the total projected increase in heating, lighting, and miscellaneous electrical end uses will be due to the projected increase in population between 1981 and 2001. Whether the energy source should be fuel oil, hydroelectricity, or a combination of both will be assessed in this section of the report. Presently, 76 percent of residential and commercial space heating is supplied by fuel oil. However, a conversion from fuel oil heat to electrical heat is occurring now and should continue into the future as the cost of fuel oil rises. This rate of conversion, plus the population growth rate, will determine the future energy source requirements. Earlier in this report, three possible cases of future energy use in Sitka were discussed, and the electricity requirement was determined in each case. Figure IV-6 shows the three projections of future electricity needs. These projections were based upon a median population growth rate (2.3 percent per year) and differing methods of conver- sion from fuel oil to electrical space heating (resistance heaters, heat pumps, and no conversion). A plan has been formulated for generating the electricity required in each case over the 20-year planning period. In other words, a Base Plan was formulated to provide the electrical requirements of the Base Case. Likewise, Alternate Plan I and Alternate Plan II suggest the most cost effec- tive way to provide electricity required in Alternate Case I and Alternate Case II, respectively, over the 20-year planning period. The projected increase in electrical lighting and appliance needs is included in each generating plan. VI-2 1. ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS Electrical requirements for the 3 plans were determined as follows: The Base Plan, developed in accordance with Alaska Power Authority regulations 3AAC 94.055, utilizes continued reliance on fossil fuels. This then serves as a basis with which to compare alternate plans. It assumes that the fraction of total space and water heating provided by electrical resistance will remain constant at the 1980 level throughout the 20-year planning period. This plan assumes conservation measures will not be implemented beyond the present efforts. The electrical energy requirement of this plan is displayed as Curve C on Figure IV-6. Alternate Plan 1 was developed to analyze impact on the energy requirements for Sitka if present oil space and water heating systems were converted to electric resistance heating. Elec- tric resistance heating was chosen because of the low capital cost and because there is already a trend to convert to resis- tance electric heat in southeastern Alaska today. Many of the new homes being constructed in Sitka will be heated with re- sistance electrical heat and a number of existing dwelling units have converted to resistance heat. With the projected escalation of cost of fossil fuel in Alaska it is anticipated that the trend toward electric heating will continue. The rate at which the conversion from fossil fuels to electric energy for heating will take place has been analyzed in this study. Full conversion from fossil fuels to electric sources is projected to be accomplished by end of year 2001. This was determined by analyzing the present rate of conversion in Sitka, the escalating costs of fossil fuels, and the rate of obsolescence and failure of present fossil fuel heating systems. Consideration of these factors has led to the pro- jection of a 7 percent per year rate of increase in electrical VI-3 consumption in the project area. Because these factors are felt to be valid indicators of conversion, it is probably not mere coincidence that this is approximately the same rate of growth in electrical consumption experienced over the past 10 years in Sitka. In a local survey of new dwelling construction it was found that virtually all new construction includes electric resis- tance heating and extensive energy conservation features. The new construction is necessary to accommodate an approximately 2.3 percent annual population increase and to replace facilities which have become obsolete, been destroyed by fire, or are otherwise uninhabitable. In addition to new construction, the utility records show considerable activity in converting existing facilities from oil heating to electric heating. With the cost of fossil fuel energy generally rising at a faster rate than electric energy, it is predicted that the conversion will continue at the same or faster rate, and the 7 percent annual growth in electrical consumption can be expected to continue for the next twenty years. At this rate, all the existing facilities should be converted to electric heating systems by the end of the year 2001. A 1 percent per year reduction in heating requirements due to_ planned implementation of conservation techniques and the supplemental use of wood and waste oil for heat will reduce the overall electrical requirements considerably. The electrical energy requirement for this plan is displayed as Curve A, Figure IV-6. Alternate Plan 2 was developed to analyze a more cost effec- tive means of utilizing electric energy than resistance heat. Heat pumps driven by electricity were included in this plan because this system of supplying heat has been in use for several years and has proven to use considerably less electri- city than resistance heat. The water source heat pumps use only about 33 percent of the electricity required by re- sistance heaters to provide the same amount of space heating. vI-4 Air source heat pumps use about 42 percent of the electricity required by resistance heaters to provide an equal amount of heat. Both water source heat pumps and air source heat pumps are feasible alternatives for the Sitka area. The proximity of the ocean water for heat and the relatively mild winter air temperatures at Sitka make either system a good candidate for heating applications. This plan includes use of water source heat pumps because this is the more efficient system. Heat pumps do have a considerably larger capital cost investment than do resistance heaters, but the life cycle cost analysis showed an economic advantage to both the homeowner and to the community by using this technology. Alternate Plan 2 projects the same rate of conversion from oil heating to electric heating systems as Alternate Plan l. Likewise, this plan uses the same rate of population growth, new building construction, and escalating costs of fossil fuels as does Alternate Plan l. The use of heat pumps will considerably reduce electrical con- sumption in the area. With an increase in energy conservation practices in new and retrofit buildings, the size of the mechanical equipment can be reduced, resulting in lower in- stallation and operating costs. Again, a 1 percent per year reduction in heating requirements due to planned implementa- tion of conservation techniques and the supplemental use of wood and waste oil for heat will also reduce the overall electrical requirements. The electrical energy required for the plan is shown as Curve B, Figure IV-6. vI-5 2. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION AND HEATING COSTS In order to evaluate the plans it is necessary to compare costs of the various methods of supplying heat. Since electric heating is one of the considerations, it is also necessary to compare costs of the different methods of producing electricity. Cost estimates per MBtu of various heat producing methods are shown in Figure VI-l and cost estimate curves for electrical production by different methods are provided in Figure VI-2. The cost curves in Figures VI-l and VI-2 were developed using the criteria listed in Table VI-1l. All cost estimates were based on the assumption that Alaska Lumber and Pulp would purchase all electrical energy produced by Sitka in excess of the City's needs. It is reasonable to assume that ALP will purchase all excess power because it pres- ently generates approximately one-third of its power with a con- densing turbine operation. This is an inefficient method of opera- tion, and purchasing hydroelectric power from the City would be less expensive. A conservative estimate for generating electricity in a condensing mode is 14,000 to 15,000 Btu's per kWh. Using #6 fuel oil at $6.00 per MBtu, the fuel cost alone for generating electricity is 8.4¢ per kWh. This is approximately 1¢ more per kWh than the cost of power from the utility. For the heating costs in Figure VI-l, the assumed electricity to heat conversion rate was 3,413 Btu per kWh for resistance heaters, and three times that for heat pumps. B. PLAN DESCRIPTIONS A description of each plan is provided below. It is important to recall here that each of the three plans was primarily developed to supply the space and water heating energy required in each of the respective three cases of heating technology use in Sitka. These three cases were discussed previously in Chaper IV. In addition, each plan includes the energy required for lighting and miscel- laneous electrical uses. Each plan was designed to provide VI-6 TABLE VI-1 BASIS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATES DISPLAYED IN FIGURE VI-1 pe 10,000 kw Coal 1,500 kw Diesel Project (a) Invest. Cost ($million) Amortiza- (c) tion Factor Heat Rate (e) (£) (Btu/kWh ) Type of Fossil No.2 Oil [8,000 Btu/lb Fuel Coal Fossil Fuel Cost In Sitka (1981) Fuel (h) Escalation (Percent) Annual Ci) Electricity Production (kWh _ x 106) Plant Factor (g) $55/ton ($3.4375/ MBtu) $8.26/ MBtu 2.6 11.826 las a percentage of construction cost Row (k) $/kWh [Amortization] + [0 & mn cm Project (b) Life (Years) 30 20 -06722 -05102 -06722 qd) Annual O&M 2.0 (Percent) 11,000 14,000 9,800 (3) 0.85 0.90 0.37 0.39 $/kWh (k) (1986) L275 -1063 -0890 -0890 -0703 of Generation 10,000 kw Diesel Carbon Lake -038865 -038865 No.6 Oil 43.674 93.200 M] + [Fuel Cost] _ 10°kwh Produced [(a) x (c)] + [(a) x (a)/100] + [le) x ( 5 6 i) x (g) xfl+((h)/100)]) + 10 ]* (i) *Omit the fuel cost term for hydropower For resistance heat to convert $/kWh to For heat pump heat to convert $/kWh to $/MBtu: $/MBtu $/MBtu: $/MBtu $/kWh -003413 $/kWh a . 003413 1/3 1500 kW DIESEL ON NO.2 OIL 10000 kW COAL FIRED PLANT 10,000 kW DIESEL ON NO.6 OIL + CARBON LK !~TAKATZ LK BLUE & GREEN LK (EXISTING )¥ 2001 NOTE BLUE AND GREEN LAKE $/kWh ; IS COST TO CONSUMER. ALL SITKA RR OTHER $/kWh ARE BUSBAR COSTS. ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION COST Proj. No: 1021.01 Date: JAN 1982 FIG VI-2C. J adequate, cost effective energy for the study area throughout the period from 1981 to 2001. Electric and fuel oil energy re- quirements for each plan over the planning period are listed in Tables VI-2 through VI-4. These tables will be discussed in depth later in this section of the report. 1. BASE PLAN In accordance with Alaska Power Authority regulation 3ACC 94.055, the Base Plan is designed to provide future water and space heating by both fuel oil and electric systems, as is the case at present. Future electrical needs will be supplied through fuel oil genera- tion. As can be seen in Figure VI-3, new electrical energy would not be needed until 1998. Therefore, the Base Plan calls for placement of a 1,500 kW diesel generating unit on line in 1998. This generating facility would meet additional electrical demands until 2001, the end of the planning period. Life cycle costs of the Base Plan are provided in Section VII.A. Figures VI-l and VI-2 provide cost estimates in terms of electrical production and MBtu. As can be seen in Figure VI-2, the cost per kWh remains constant for Blue Lake and Green Lake electricity throughout the planning period. The cost for electricity provided by the 1,500 kW diesel generator increases as shown due to the in- creasing cost of diesel fuel. The cost of installing heating systems in new homes has been in- cluded in the life cycle cost evaluation. Table VI-5 shows the cost basis. The average investment for electric heat per new home in the Base Case is the cost of installation of resistance heat plus the cost of energy conservation multiplied by the number of new electric homes plus the cost of installation of oil-fired heat- ing systems multiplied by the number of new oil-heated homes. Valen TABLE VI-2 ENERGY FORECAST BASE PLAN RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTALS SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT ELECTRICITY TOTAL OF BASE YEAR AND AND WOOD, AND ENERGY OF WOOD OIL ELEC MISC WASTE OIL OIL ELEC MISC OIL WASTE OIL | FORECAST YEAR PLAN [Btu x 102 Btu x 102 Btu x 109| kwh x 108} Btu x 109 Btu x 109 Btu x 10°| kwh x 10°] kwh x 10® Btu x 109} Btu x 10%] Btu x 109 | Btu x 109 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (£) (g) (h) (i) (3) (k) (1) (m) 1981 0 52.56 174.51 31.78 11.01 4.23 140.58 19:35 20.45 46.44 158.51 315.09 56.79 530.38 1982 1 53.93 179.10 32.62 11.30 4.33 143.87 19.80 20.93 47.59 162.42 322.97 58.26 543.65 1983 2 55.35 183.82 33.48 11.60 4.43 147.23 20.27 21.42 48.77 166.45 331.05 59.78 557.28 1984 3 56.81 188.67 34.37 11.92 4.54 150.67 20.74 21.92 49.98 170.57 339.34 61,35 571.26 1985 4 58.31 193.64 35.27 12.22 4.64 154.20 21.23 22.43 51.20 174.76 347.84 62.95 585.55 1986 5 59.85 198.75 36.20 12.54 4.75 157.80 21.72 22.96 52.47 179.08 356.55 64.60 600.23 1987 6 61.42 203.99 37.16 12.87 4.86 161.49 22.23 23.49 53.76 183.49 365.48 66.28 6E54.25 1988 7 63.04 209.37 38.14 13.22 4.98 165.27 22.75 24.04 55.09 188.02 374.64 68.02 630.68 1989 8 64.71 214.89 39.14 13.56 5.09 169.13 23.48 24.60 56.45 192.66 384.02 69.08 645.76 1990 9 66.41 220.55 40.17 S92 Seed 173.09 23.83 25.18 57.85 197.45 393.64 71.62 662.71 1991 10 68.16 226.37 41.23 14.28 5.33 177.13 24.38 25.77 59.27 202.30 403.50 73.49 679.29 1992 at 69.96 232.34 42.32 14.66 5.46 181.27 24.95 26.37 60.74 207.31 413.61 75.42 696.34 1993 12 71.80 238.46 43.43 15:05 5.58 185.51 25.54 26.99 62.25 212.45 423.97 77.38 713.80 1994 13 73.70 244.75 44.58 15.44 Dieile 189.85 26.13 27.62 63.78 217.67 434.60 79.42 731.69 1995 14 75.64 251.21 45.76 15.85 5.85 194.29 26.74 28.26 65.35 223.05 445.50 81.49 750.04 1996 a5 77.63 257.83 46.96 16.27 5299 198.83 27.37 28.92 66.97 228.56 456.66 83.62 768.84 1997 16 79.68 264.63 48.20 16.70 6.13 203.48 28.01 29.60 68.63 234.23 468.11 85.81 788.15 1998 17 81.78 271.60 49.47 17.14 6.27 208.24 28.66 30.29 70.32 240.01 479.84 88.05 807.90 1999 18 83.94 278.77 50.78 17.59 6.42 213.14 29.34 31.00 72.06 245.96 491.88 90.36 828.20 2000 19 86.15 286.12 52 odd. 18.05 6.57 218.09 30.02 31.72 73.83 252.00 504.21 92.72 848.93 2001 20 88.42 293.66 53.49 18.53 6.72 223.419) 30.72 32.47 75.67 258.27 516.85 95.14 870.26 Note: See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. TABLE VI-3 ENERGY FORECAST ALTERNATE 1 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTALS TOTAL OF SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION, BASE YEAR AND AND WOOD, AND | ENERGY OF WOOD OIL ELEC MISC WASTE OIL OIL ELEC MISC OIL WASTE OIL | FORECAST YEAR PLAN |Btux 102 Btu x 109 Btu x 109] kwh x 10®©, Btu x 109 Btu x 102 Btu x 109| kwh x 10°] kwh x 10° Btu x 109 |ptu x 109 Btu x 109 |Btu x 109 (a) (b) (c) (da) (e) (£) (g) (h) (i) (3) (k) (1) (m) 1981 0 52.56 174.51 31.78 11.01 4.23 140.58 19.35 20.45 46.44 158.51 315.09 56.79 530.38 1982 a 53.39 174.31 35.29 11.30 4.33 140.32 21.67 20.92 48.91 166.93 314.63 62.06 543.66 1983 2 54.25 173.78 39.20 11.60 4.43 139.80 24.27 21.42 51.62 176.18 313.58 67.53 557.28 1984 3 55.12 172.87 43.55 11.91 4.54 139.00 27.19 21.92 54.56 186.20 311.87 73.19 571.24 1985 4 56.00 171.53 48.36 12.22 4.64 137.88 30.45 22.43 57.74 197.06 309.41 79.06 585.55 1986 5 56.91 169.71 53.73 12.54 4.75 136.39 34.10 22.96 61.23 208.99 306.10 85.14 600.22 1987 6 57.83 167.36 59.68 12.87 4.86 134.49 38.20 23.49 65.03 221.98 301.85 91.43 615.26 1988 7 58.76 164.40 66.29 13.21 4.98 132.43 42.78 24.04 69.21 236.21 296.53 97.94 630.68 1989 8 59.70 160.78 73.63 13.56 5.09 129.24 47.91 24.60 73.77 251.78 290.02 104.68 646.49 1990 9 60.67 156.39 81.79 13.92 5,21 L25ie 77: 53.66 25.18 78.79 268.90 282.16 117.65 662.70 1991 10 61.64 151.27 90.85 14.28 5.33 121,63 60.10 25.77 84.28 287.64 277.80 118.86 679.31 1992 11 62.64 145.01 100.91 14.66 5.46 116.75 67.32 26.37 90.32 308.26 261.76 126.32 696.34 1993 12 63.64 137.79 112.08 15.05 5.58 111.04 75.40 26.99 96.97 330.96 248.83 134.03 713.80 1994 3) 64.67 129.40 124.50 15.44 5.72 104.39 84.44 27.62 104.28 355.91 233.79 142.00 731.70 1995 14 65.71 119.69 138.29 15.85 5.84 96.68 94.58 28.26 112.34 383.42. 216.38 150.24 750.05 1996 15 66.77 108.53 153.61 16.27 5.99 87.78 105.93 28.92 121.23 413.77 196.31 158.76 768.86 1997 16 67.84 95.74 170.62 16.70 6.13 771256 118.64 29.60 131.05 447.28 173.30 167.57 788.14 1998 17 68.94 81.13 189.52 17.14 6.27 65.84 132.87 30.29 141.89 484.27 146.97 176.67 807.91 1999 18 70.05 64.49 210 .51 17.59 6.42 52.44 148.82 31.00 153.87 525.16 116.93 186.07 828.18 2000 19 Wisid 45.61 233.83 18.05 6.57 37.16 166.68 31.72 167.11 570.37 82.77 195.78 848.95 2001 20 12.32 24.20 259.73 18.53 6.72 19.77 186.68 32.47 181.80 620.47 43.97 205.25 870.25 Note: See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. TABLE VI-4 ENERGY FORECAST ALTERNATE 2 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTALS TOTAL OF SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT SPACE AND WATER HEATING LIGHT ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION, BASE YEAR AND AND WOOD, AND ENERGY OF wooD OIL ELEC MISC |WASTE OIL OIL ELEC MISC OIL | WASTE OIL| FORECAST YEAR PLAN |Btu x 102. Btu x 102 Btu x 109] kwh x 10°] Btu x 109 Btu x 109 Btu x 10% kwh x 10° kwh x 10® Btu x 109 | Btu x 109 Btu x 109] Btu x 109 (a) (b) (c) (a) (e) (£) (g) (h) (i) (Gap) (k) (1) (m) 1981 0 52.56 174.51 31.78 11.01 4.23 140.58 19.35 20.45 46.44 158.51 315.69 56.79 530.38 1982 1 53.39 172.83 34.04 11.30 4.33 138.88 20.90 20.93 48.33 164.94 Saal 67.00 543.64 1983 2 54.24 170.75 36.46 11.60 4.43 136.91 22.58 21.42 50.31 174.72 307.66 77.87 557.25 1984 3 55.11 168.26 39.06 11.90 4.54 134.63 24.38 21.92 52.41 178.87 302.90 89.42 571.19 1985 4 56.00 165.34 41.84 T2822 4.64 132.03 26.34 22.43 54.62 186.43 297.37 101.69 585.49 1986 5 56.90 161.93 44.82 12.54 4.75 129.08 28.45 22.96 56.96 194.40 291.02 114.73 600.14 1987 6 57.81 158.01 48.01 12.87 4.86 125.75 30.72 23.49 59.43 202.83 283.76 128.58 615.17 1988 7 58.74 153.53 51.42 skye 4.98 122.00 33.19 24.04 62.04 211.574 275.53 143.30 630.57 1989 8 59.68 148.44 55.08 13.56 5.09 117.81 35.84 24.60 64.80 221.16 266.25 158.95 646.36 1990 9 60.64 142.70 59.01 13.91 5.2 113.12 38.71 25.18 67.72 234:.13 255.82 175.59 662.54 1991 10 61.61 136.25 63.21 14.28 5.33 107.90 41.81 25.77 70.82 241.69 244.16 193.28 679.13 1992 ae 62.60 129.04 67.71 14.65 5.46 102.12 45.16 26.37 74.09 252.88 231517 212.09 696.14 1993 12 63.61 121.02 72.53 15.04 5.58 95.71 48.78 26.99 77.57 264.74 216.73 232m 713.58 1994 13 64.63 LDH! 77.69 15.44 5.72 88.63 52.69 27.62 81.25 Pyilcel 200.73 253.40 731.45 1995 14 65.67 102.24 83.22 15.84 5.85 80.81 56.91 28.26 85.16 290.65 183.05 276.06 749.77 1996 15 66.72 91.34 89.14 16.26 5.99 72211 61:47 28.92 89.31 304.81 163.56 300.18 768.56 1997 16 67.79 79.34 95.49 16.69 6.13 62.76 66.39 29.60 93.72 319.85 142.10 325.86 787.81 1998 17 68.88 66.14 102.29 iets 6u27 52.38 71610 30.29 98.40 335.83 118.52 353.20 807.55 1999 18 69.99 51.66 109.57 17.58 6.42 41.00 77.45 31.00 103.37 352.81 92.66 382.32 827.79 2000 19 Fei 35.79 17 637 18.04 6.57 28.53 83.65 Binz 108.66 370.86 64.33 413.34 848.53 2001 20 72.25 18.44 125.73 18.51 6.72 14.90 90.35 32.47 114.29 390.07 33.34] 446.39 869.80 Mt a saan pL Note: See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. —_—"— i en = —s 1500 kW DIESEL ENERGY kWh x 10° a °o AND GREEN ENERGY ANNUAL NOTE ASSUMES NO ADDITIONAL CONVERSION OF SITKA OlL TO ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HEATING | Foe one” Of ei ecTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR LIGHTING AND MISC. USES BASE PLAN Proj. No: 1021.01 Date: JAN i982 FIG VI-3U 7) TABLE VI-5 FIXED COST OF RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS AND CONSERVATION Work Cost* Upgrade Energy Conservation In Existing Homes $3,055 Energy Conservation In New Homes $1,603 Install Oil-Fired Systems In New Homes $6,650 Install Electric Resistance Heating in Existing Homes $4,415 Install Electric Resistance Heating in New Homes $2,640 Install Electric Heat Pumps In Existing Homes $9,575 Install Electric Heat Pumps In New Homes $7,800 * Detailed cost breakdown in Appendix C. This whole sum is divided by the total number of new homes built between 1980 and 2001. [($2,640 + $1,603) x 309] + ($6,650 x 1,236) ni $6, 170 /none 1,545 homes As detailed in Section VII.A., the Base Plan entails the highest life cycle cost of the three plans developed in this study. How- ever, it does offer the lowest initial investment cost of the three plans. In addition, existing diesel generators could be utilized as back-up after they have been retired as primary electricity sources. The estimate of firm hydropower from Blue and Green Lakes was conservative since it is based upon a dry year. This means the 1,500 kW diesel generator may only be needed for back-up situa- tions. 2. ALTERNATE PLAN 1 Alternate Plan 1 meets the forecast energy requirements described in Alternate Case 1 where all heating is provided by electric re- sistance systems. Although the forecast electricity requirement is higher than that for the Base Plan, as previously described, the overall cost is lower. It was determined that new electrical energy generation would be needed as early as 1988 (Figure VI-4). The lowest cost per kWh alternative source of electrical energy is from hydropower development at Takatz Lake (Figure VI-2). Again by 1999, additional energy would be needed (Figure VI-4), and the electrical energy source with the lowest per kWh cost at that time appears to be hydropower development at Carbon Lake (Figure VI-2). Life cycle costs of Alternate Plan 1 are provided in Section VII.A. Figures VI-1l and VI-2 provide cost estimates in terms of electrical production and MBtu. As seen on Figure VI-l, from a cost stand- point, Sitka should be heating with fuel oil until around 1993, at which time the cost for diesel exceeds that for electricity from Blue and Green Lakes. However, when referring to Figure VI-4, it vI-8 kWh X 10° TAKATZ ENERGY al =< 2 z z < ENERGY LAKE] ENERGY NOTE CONVERSION FROM OIL TO ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE TAKES PLACE UNTIL ALL HEATING IS BY ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE. SITKA FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESISTANCE HEAT, LIGHTING, AND MISC. USES ALTERNATE | rae OTT: pee hescco = fie Win gte can be seen that demand for electricity will have already exceeded supply from Blue and Green Lakes by about 1988. This means another source of electricity will be required at that time. According to the costs for electricity shown on Figure VI-2, the least expensive option is hydropower from Takatz Lake. Following the same line of reasoning, it can be seen on Figure VI-4 that demand will exceed supply of energy from Takatz by about 1999. Again referring to Figure VI-2, it appears that at this time that the next least expensive alternative energy source is hydropower from Carbon Lake. Sufficient electrical energy would be available from Carbon Lake beyond the end of the planning period in 2001. It is noted that this plan should be reviewed periodically after 1981 as it only reflects costs representative of 1980 technology. It is possible that technological and financial developments later in the planning period should be considered in future decision-making. Implementation of conservation methodologies is a definite element of this plan. Other elements include use of wood and waste oil for supplemental residential and commercial heating, respectively. Although no one specific method of conserving energy is included here, recommended options are outlined in Chapter VIII. The cost of providing conservation and electrical heating systems to new homes and existing homes was based on costs given in Table VI-5, and can be averaged for the 20-year plan. There are about 467 existing electrically heated homes, 1,795 existing oil heated homes, and 1,545 new homes to be added by 2001. The average cost is determined by adding the cost of installing resistance heat in the existing homes to the cost of energy conservation in exist- ing homes and multiplying by the quantity of existing homes to be converted to electric heat and then adding the cost of installing resistance heat in new homes plus the cost of energy conservation in new homes multiplied by the quantity of new homes constructed by the year 2001. This total sum is then divided by the total number of residential units in existence by the year 2001. vI-9 [($3,055 + $4,415) x 1795] + [($2,640 + $1,603) x 1,545] / (3,807 homes) = $5,244/home The 3,807 total number of homes in 2001 includes 467 existing elec- tric resistance heated homes that remain unchanged by this alter- nate plan. As seen in Figure VI-4, the addition of each hydropower project re- sults in an increase in energy generation which exceeds the demand at the time of startup. In this analysis, it was assumed that any power in excess of Sitka's need could be sold to ALP, thereby keep- ing the cost per kWh low and constant for each hydropower project. As previously explained, this is a reasonable assumption because purchased hydropower would be less expensive than ALP generated power. 3. ALTERNATE PLAN 2 The two previous plans meet heating requirements with varying com- binations of electricity and oil as the source. Although initially similar in approach, Alternate Plan 2 focuses on increasing the ef- fectiveness of heat production by using heat pumps. As can be seen in Figure VI-5, the existing energy available from Blue and Green Lakes will not be exceeded until around 1991, a few years later than if space and water heating were accomplished by use of elec- trical resistance systems alone, as in Alternate Plan 1. The most economical means of meeting the electrical demand for space and water heating in 1991 would be development of the Takatz Lake pro- ject (Figures VI-l and VI-2). Reserve capacity would be left at the end of the planning period (Figure VI-5). It is assumed that the excess capacity would be sold to ALP, as discussed under Alter- nate Plan l. Life cycle costs of Alternate Plan 2 are provided in Section VII.A. Figures VI-1l and VI-2 provide cost estimates in terms of electrical production and MBtu. The line of reasoning that determined Takatz Lake development to be the most cost efficient means of supplying electricity is the same as that discussed under Alternate Plan l. VI-10 -——— — - TAKATZ LAKE ENERGY o Q = = = = = =< > = 2 < BLUE AND GREEN LAKE ENERGY aioe SITKA ASSUMES A CONVERSION OF OIL HEATING FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ey TO ELECTRICAL HEAT PUMP UNTIL OIL HEATING IS ELIMINATED AND 80% OF eer Guest — ie HEATING IS BY ELECTRICAL HEAT LIGHTING AND MISC. USES ALTERNATE 2 bare an Gs «FIG VI-5S The discussion on conservation and supplemental heat use presented in Alternate Plan 1 is also applicable in Alternate Plan 2. The cost of providing conservation, electrical resistance heating in 20 percent of new homes, and heat pumps in 80 percent of new homes is based on Table VI-5 costs. The average cost is determined by adding the cost of installing heat pumps in existing homes to the cost of energy conservation in existing homes and multiplying by the quantity of existing oil heated homes plus the product of the cost of installing electric resistance heating plus energy con- servation in new homes multiplied by the quantity of new electric heated homes. This is then added to the product of the cost of in- stalling energy conservation plus the cost of electric heat pumps in new homes multiplied by the number of new oil heated homes. This total sum is then divided by the number of residential units in existence by the year 2001. Of the new homes being constructed with electric heat, it is estimated that 20 percent will use re- sistance heat and 80 percent will use heat pumps. ($9,575 + $3,055) x 1,795] + [($2,640 + $1,603) x 309] + [($1,603 + $7,800) x 1,236]/3,807 homes = $9,352/home The 3,807 total number of homes in 2001 includes 467 existing elec- tric resistance heated homes that remain unchanged by this alter- nate plan. As can be seen in Figure VI-2, the energy cost for heating with heat pumps is much lower than heating with electric resistance systems. This is because heat pumps produce three times as much heat energy per kWh as electrical resistance heating for the same amount of electricity. 4. DESCRIPTION OF TABLES VI-2 THROUGH VI-4 Tables VI-2 through VI-4 were used to determine the energy consump- tion involved in each plan. 1982 is the first year of the plan and 2001 is the twentieth year of the plan. In Table VI-2, the Base VI-1LE Plan, columns (a), (b), (c), and (d) constitute residential energy consumption. It was assumed that the energy use per home remained constant for the 20 years. The number of homes increased from 2,262 in 1981 to 3,807 in 2001. The average heating consumption was 114.4 MBtu per home and the miscellaneous electrical consump- tion was 4,868 kWh per home in 1981. The proportion of wood, oil, and electrical heating remained constant for the 20-year plan. Columns (e), (f), (g), and (h) constitute the commercial energy use. It was assumed that commercial energy increased in direct proportion to the population growth since there is no foreseeable major commercial or industrial expansion planned. Column (i) is the total of all electrical energy being consumed by residential and commercial [sum of (c), (d), (g), and (h) in kWh]. Column (3) is the MBtu equivalant of column (i). Column (k) is the total oil consumption [sum of (b) and (f)]. Column (1) is the sum of the wood and waste oil [(a)+(e)]. No additional energy conservation was included in this plan. Column (m) is the sum of (3), (k), and Gis Column (m) represents the total energy utilized by Sitka facilities. The transmission, distribution, and auxiliary generating equipment losses are not included in these calculations because the column shows end use quantities of energy. To determine the generating requirements, transmission, distribution, and auxiliary generating equipment losses must be added to these figures. 12 percent losses have been added to electrical use requirements of Tables VI-2, 3, and 4 to obtain the electrical generating requirement for Tables VII-l, 2, 3, 4, and 5. In Table VI-3, for Alternate Plan 1, the residential consumption for space and water heating, the sum of columns (a), (b), and (c), was reduced for energy conservation from Table VI-2 by 1 percent per year so that a total reduction of about 18 percent due to conservation was achieved by 2001. The rate of changeover from oil to electric heat will reduce the oil consumption to zero by the end of the year 2001 as can be seen in columns (b) and (f). Column (c) VI-12 (electric heat) was increased in proportion to the decrease in oil heat. Column (d) is unchanged from the Table VI-2. Column (e) (waste oil) was increased in direct proportion to population growth, the same as was done in the Base Case. The sum of (e), (£), and (g) was reduced from Table VI-2 by a total of 18 percent by 2001 due to the planned 1 percent per year energy conservation. Columns (i), (3), and (k) are the totals described for Table VI-2. Column (1) represents the sum of the energy supplied by burning wood and waste oil, and energy saved through conservation in building. Column (m) is the sum of (3), (k), and (1) and is equal to the Base Case forecast in Table VI-2 as the total energy re- quirement is the same for all plans. Table VI-4, Alternate Plan 2, is basically the same as Table VI-3, except the amount of electrical energy required to replace the oil heat is divided by 3 to account for the difference in performance between electrical resistance and electrical heat pump units. Column (1) includes electrical energy saved by conservation and by using heat pumps, as well as wood, and waste oil. Column (m) is again the same as in the Base Plan Energy Forecast (Table VI-2), as the total energy requirement is the same for all plans. VI-13 VII ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION A. ECONOMIC EVALUATION 1. METHODS Each of the plans for supplying energy to the City and Borough of Sitka was evaluated according to economic criteria set by the Alaska Power Authority. A complete description of each plan is provided in Section VI. These criteria are: 4. An inflation rate of 0 percent was used for all plans. Oil costs were inflated at 2.6 percent per year for 20 years. Coal costs were inflated at 1.5 percent per year for 20 years. Amortization was based on 3 percent interest per year. In addition to the economic criteria, the following assumptions were made in the economic evaluation of these plans: Hydropower plants have a life of 50 years. Diesel plants have a life of 20 years. The planning period was for 20 years, with 1981 as the base year. All plans were evaluated for the period of the longest life electric generation plant incorporated in the plan (e.g., a plan with diesel and hydroelectric generation was evaluated for a 50-year period). The life cycle cost evaluation is based upon supplying electricity and space heating to Sitka. There is a market for all firm hydroelectric power which could be generated. VII-1 The market for all power generated in excess of that required by the City is the Alaska Lumber and Pulp mill. The rationale for this marketing assumption is provided in Section VI. The life cycle cost analyses used in the evaluations take into account all phases of cost for the 20-year planning period. There- fore, the analyses include operation and maintenance costs, fixed capital costs, cost of fuels, and amortization. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact various rates of population growth would have on the energy re- quirements. This analysis was performed for the recommended plan only, Alternate Plan 2. The high population growth rate of 2.8 percent per year was chosen because this is the growth rate experienced in the State of Alaska in the past several years. 1.9 percent per year was chosen as low rate because this represents the average annual population increase in Sitka derived from records of the past fifty years. The intermediate growth rate of 2.3 percent is an average of the high and low rates. Figure VII-1 shows the impact these changes in population increase have on the Alternate Plan 2 forecast electrical requirements and the schedule for additional energy requirements. At the high popu- lation growth rate (32 percent per 10-year) additional energy would be required by the year 1989. At the medium population growth rate (26 percent per 10-year) additional energy would be required by the year 1991, while at the low growth rate (21 percent per 10-year) additional energy would not be required until 1992. This figure shows that the energy predictions and the requirement for addi- tional energy are relatively insensitive to the range of population growth rates possible in Sitka over the next twenty years. VII-2 32% / \O-YEAR 26% /|0-YEAR 21% / \0- YEAR eo ° < <= = = | < > = r < BLUE AND GREEN LAKE CAPACITY SITKA FORECAST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR HEAT PUMP HEATING, LIGHTING AND MISC, USE ALTERNATE 2, UNDER VARYING POPULATION GROWTH RATES lott) 1 No: OnE Broi. Nai 812249! Fig viel Life cycle costs for the three population growth rates were calcu- lated and are exhibited in Tables VII-3, 4, and 5. These costs are summarized below: Population Total Present Growth Rate Net Worth (Percent/Yr) 2.8% (32%/10-year) $207.277 x 106 2.3% (26%/10-year) $178.728 x 106 1.9% (21%/10-year) $155.576 x 106 These figures show that the total present net worth as determined by life cycle cost methods is also relatively insensitive to pre- dicted range of population growth rate. 2. RESULTS In comparing Tables VII-l through VII-3, it can be seen that Alter- nate Plan 2, which uses heat pumps to supply 80 percent of space heating requirements, electrical resistance to supply 20 percent, and calls for addition of Takatz Lake by 1991, has the lowest present worth life cycle cost ($178,728,000) and lowest electrical energy use in the 20th year (128.00 x 106 kwh). This is due to the effective use of present and future energy sources by the in- stallation of heat pumps to extract the necessary space and water heating energy from the surrounding environment. Alternate Plan 1 uses electric resistance heating but does not use heat pumps. Results of the cost analysis for this plan are shown in Table VII-2. This plan requires Takatz Lake to be in operation by 1988 and Carbon Lake to be added to the system by 1999. Alter- nate Plan 1 is the next least expensive plan with a present worth value of $261,379,900 and electrical energy use in the 20th year of 203.59 x 106 kWh. See Appendix E for detailed calculations per- taining to these costs. VII-3 TABLE VII-1 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST BASE PLAN HEATING SYSTEM GR & BL LK TOTAL TIME FUEL OIL INVESTMENT HYDROELEC. 1,500 KW DIESEL ELECTRIC SUMMARY HEATING HEATING INVESTMENT ENERGY TOTAL PRESENT YEAR OF FUEL FUEL COST (ACCUM) AMORT O&M GENERATED cost cost WORTH PLAN MBtu $ x 10° sx108 ¢x 108 $ x 108 |xwh x 10® |kwn x 10° $/kwh ¢ x 10° kwh x 10° $ x 10° $ x 108 A B € D E Ee G H z J K L 0 525,147 52.0100 52.0100 1 538,268 4.5617 30943 .0293 -0029 53.3004 0.0 eldos 0.0 53.3004 4.5939 4.4601 2 551,730 4.7974 1.1631 ~ 0593, -0058 54.6153 0.0 e2318 0.0 54.6153 4.8625 4.5834 3 565,530 5.0452 1.7668 -0901 -0088 55.9627 0.0 -1203 0.0 55.9627 5.1442 4.7076 4 579,676 5.3059 2.3857 eed, -0119 57.3434 0.0 -1228 0.0 57.3434 5.4395 4.8329 5 594,178 5.5800 3.0203 ~1541 -0251 58.7584 0.0 -1254 0.0 58.7584 5.7492 4.9593 6 609 ,043 5.8683 3.6709 1873 -0184 60.2083 0.0 1281 0.0 60.2083 6.0739 5.0868 7 624,282 6.2715 4.3380 s22L3 ORT 61.6942 0.0 -1309 0.0 61.6942 6.4145 5.2156. 8 639,903 6.4904 5.0249 - 2562 ~O252 63.2169 0.0 <bsa7 0.0 63.2169 6.7718 §<3457 9 655,916 6.8258 5.7230 -2920 -0286 64.7773 0.0 ~1906 0.0 64.7773 7.1464 5.4771 10 6724332 7.1786 6.4420 ao2o7 -0322 66.3763 0.0 «1396 0.0 66.3763 7.5394 5.6101 11 689,159 7.5495 7.1790 3663 -0359 68.0150 0.0 -1426 0.0 68.0150 7.9517 5.7445 12 706,410 7.9397 7.9348 -4048 -0397 69.6942 0.0 -1458 0.0 69.6942 8.3842 5.8805 13 724,093 8.3501 8.7096 ~4444 -0435 71.4151 O50 -1490 0.0 464451 8.8380 6.0182 14 742,221 8.7817 9.5040 -4849 -0475 73.1786 0.0 wows O50) 73.1786 9.3141 6.1577 5 760,804 9.2356 10.3185 5265 -0516 74.9857 0.0 seo, 020 74.9857 9.8136 6.2990 16 779,854 9574:30 dds L536) -5691 -0558 76.8377 0.0 1591 0.0 76.8377 10.3378 6.4422 a7 799 ,383 10.2350 12.0098 “Oke? -0600 77.3000 1.4356 -1627 2335 7832356 1. i214 6.7286 18 819,402 ' 10.7431 12.8877 -6575 -0644 77.3000 3.3805 - 1663 “3623 80.6805 12.0274 7.0648 19 839,924 11.2985 13.7878 -7035 -0689 77.3000 5.3736 -1701 -9140 82.6736 12.9849 7.4051 20 860 ,962 11.8826 14.7106 -7505 -0736 77.3000 7.4162 1739 1.2899 84.7162 13.9966 7.7496 ZL thru 13.9966 193.9299 67 TOTAL PRESENT NET WORTH 309.6987 NOTES: ° See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. ° No cost identified with Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric since the investments in these projects are considered as sunk costs, although this electric energy is used to meet the total electric requirements. TABLE VII-2 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST ALTERNATE 1 HEATING SYSTEM GR & BL LK TAKATZ LAKE | CARBON LAKE TOTAL TIME FUEL OIL INVESTMENT HYDROELEC. HYDROELECTRIC HYDROELECTRIC ELECTRIC SUMMARY ELECTRIC ELECTRIC TOTAL HEATING INVESTMENT ENERGY cost Cost TOTAL PRESE! YEAR OF HEATING FUEL COST (ACCUM) AMORT O&M GENERATED $.07027/kWh $.089/kWh Cost WORTH YEAR PLAN FUEL MBtu $ x 10® gs x10 $x 10® $ x 10°] kwh x 10© |kwh x 10© $ x 10) kwh x 10®© $ x 108 kWh x 106] $ x 106 $ x 10 A B iC D E FE G H E J K L M 1981 0 525,147 52201: 52.01 1982 1 524,369 4.4439 -5041 O25. -0025 54.7915 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.7915 4.4721 4.3419 1983 23 522,602 4.5441 10355) -0528 -0052 57.8090 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.8090 4.6021 4.3379 1984 3 519,729 4.6366 125963) -0814 -0080 6130927 0.0 0.0 O06 0.0 61.0927 4.7260 4.3750 1985 4 515 ,606 4.7194 2.1893 ~O117 -0109 64.6710 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.6710 4.8421 4.3021 1986 5 510,079 4.7902 Z2eSL 7.5 1437. -0141 68.5758 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.5758 4.9481 4.2682 1987 6 502,972 4.8463 3.4841 -1778 -0174 72.8424 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.8424 5.0415 4.2221 1988 7 494,090 4.8845 4.1927 s2Lo9 -0210 77.3000 0.2103 0.0148 0.0 0.0 77.5103 Se sas. 4.1745 1989 8 483,216 4.9012 4.9473 -2524 -0247 77.3000 5.3233 0.3741 0.0 0.0 82.6233 5.5524 4.3831 1990 9 470,105 4.8922 S526 e955 -0288 77.3000 10.9304 0.7681 0.0 0.0 88.2304 5.9825 4.5851 1991 10 454,487 4.8526 6.6134 OSG 20331 77.3000 17.0859 1.2006 0.0 0.0 94.3859 6.4237 4.7799 1992 11 436,060 4.7769 q25555) 3845 -0377 77.3000 23.8504 1.6760 0.0 0.0 101.1504 6.8750 4.9667 1993 12 414,485 4.6586 8.5249 -4349 -0426 77.3000 3152917 2.1989 0.0 0.0 108 .§917 Tesoo. 5.1447 1994 a3 389,387 4.4903 9.5887 -4892 -0479 77.3000 39.4848 2.7746 0.0 0.0 116.7848 7.8021 5.3128 1995 14 360,345 4.2635 10.7347 -5477 sODS7 77.3000 48.5136 3.4091 0.0 0.0 125.8136 8.2739 5.4700 1996 15 326,890 3.9682 11.9714 -6108 -0599 77.3000 58.4716 4.1088 0.0 0.0 O56 7 LO 8.7476 5.6148 1997 16 288,500 325932 13.3086 -6790 -0665 77.3000 69.4630 4.8812 0.0 0.0 146.7630 9.2199 5.7456 1p98 ay 244,591 32d 205 14.7570 wae? -0738 77.3000 81.6036 5.7383 0.0 0.0 158.9036 9.6865 5.8605 1999 18 194,512 2.5502 16.3288 -8331 -0816 77.3000 93.2000 6.5492 1.8229 0.1622 172.3229 10.1764 5.9775 2000 19 137,539 1.8502 18.0373 -9203 -0902 77.3000 93.2000 6.5492 16.6649 1.4832 187.1649 10.8929 6.2127 2001 20 72,862 1.0056 19.8976 1.0152 -0995 77.3000 93.2000 6.5492 33.0904 2.9450 203.5904 11.6145 6.4307 2002 21 thru thru 11.6145 160.9247 2048 67 TOTAL PRESENT NET WORTH 261.3799 NOTES: ° See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. ° No cost identified with Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric since the investments in these projects are considered as sunk costs, although this electric energy is used to meet the total electric requirements. TABLE VII-3 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST ALTERNATE 2 HEATING SYSTEM GR & BL LK TAKATZ LAKE TOTAL TIME FUEL OIL INVESTMENT HYDROELEC. HYDROELECTRIC ELECTRIC SUMMARY HEATING HEATING INVESTMENT ENERGY ELECTRIC COST TOTAL PRESENT YEAR OF FUEL FUEL COST (ACCUM) AMORT O&M GENERATED $.07027/kWh cost WORTH PLAN MBtu $ x 10° $ x 106 $ x 108 $x 10® | kwh x 106 kWh x 10 ¢$ x 108 kwh x 10 $ x 108 $ x 106 A B eC D E F G H a J K 0 525,147 52.01 52.01 1 5197503 4.4028 1.0628 -0542 woes 54.1254 0.0 0.0 54.1254 4.4782 4.3478 Z 512,759 4.4585 2.1766 -0111 -0435 56.3511 0.0 0.0 56.3511 4.6131 4.3483 3 504,828 4.5037 3.3446 -1706 -0669 58.6990 0.0 0.0 58.6990 4.7412 4.3389 4 495,619 4.5365 4.5702 Zane, -0914 61,1771 0.0 0.0 6121772 4.8610 4.3190 S 485,026 4.5549 538571 -2988 ad 63.7942 0.0 0.0 63.7942 4.9709 4.2879 6 472,933 4.5568 ¥52092 -3678 - 1442 66.5595 0.0 0.0 66.5595 5.0688 4.2451 7 459,216 4.5397 8.6307 -4403 -1726 69.4830 0.0 0.0 69.4830 Beli, 4.1896 8 443,742 4.5008 10.1262 -5166 =2025 T2265 154 0.0 0.0 72.5754 5.2200 4.1207 9 426,365 4.4370 11.7005 35970 2340 75.8481 0.0 0.0 75.8481 5.2680 4.0375 10 406 ,932 4.3449 13.3589 -6816 - 2672 77.3000 2.0135 L415 419..3335 5 4357 4.0442 ry 385,274 4.2206 15.1070 -7708 -3021 77.3000 5.6847 -3995 82.9847 5.6929 4.1127 a2 361,213 4.0599 16.9509 -8648 33590 77.3000 9.5759 -6729 86.8759 5.9366 4.1638 a3) 334,555 3.8580 18.8970 -9641 sora) 77.3000 1367023 -9629 91.0023 6.1629 4.1967 14 305,091 3.6097 20.9524 1.0690 -4190 77.3000 18.0802 al eO5 95.3802 6.3682 4.2102 LS 272,897 3.3091 23.1246 1.1798 -4625 77.3000 22-7211 1.5970 100.0271 6.5485 4.2032 16 236,832 2.9497 25.4216 1.2970 -5084 77.3000 27.6618 1.9438 104.9618 6.6989 4.1746 17 197 ,536 2.5242 27.8523 1.4210 25510 77.3000 32.9044 2.3122 110.2044 6.8145 4.1229 18 154,430 2.0247 30.4259 225523 -6085 77.3000 38.4767 2.7038 115.7767 6.8893 4.0467 19 107 , 212 1.4422 S325 1.6914 -6631 77.3000 44.4018 3.1201 121.7018 6.9168 3.9446 20 55,560 - 7668 36.0431 1.8389 7209 77.3000 50.7049 3.5630 128.0049 6.8896 3.8146 21: thru 6.8896 95.4589 67 TOTAL PRESENT NET WORTH 178.7279 NOTES: ° See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. ° No cost identified with Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric since the investments in these projects are considered as sunk costs, although this electric energy is used to meet the total electric requirements. TABLE VII-4 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST ALTERNATE 2 HIGH POPULATION GROWTH = 2.8 PERCENT PER YEAR | HEATING SYSTEM GR & BL LK TAKATZ LAKE TOTAL TIME FUEL OIL INVESTMENT HYDROELEC. HYDROELECTRIC ELECTRIC SUMMARY HEATING HEATING INVESTMENT ENERGY ELECTRIC COST TOTAL PRESENT YEAR OF FUEL FUEL COST (ACCUM) AMORT O&M GENERATED $.07027/kWh cost WORTH YEAR PLAN MBtu $ x 108 $ x 10° s x10 $x 10® | kwh x 10® | kwh x 10° $ x 10 kwh x 108 $ x 106 $ x 108 1981 0 525,147 52-01 52.01 1982 1 521,899 4.4230 1.2093 -0617 -0242 54.3874 0.0 0.0 54.3874 4.5089 4.3775 1983 2 517 ,483 4.4996 2.4809 -1266 -0496 56.8982 0.0 0.0 56.8982 4.6758 4.4074 1984 3 511,822 4.5661 3.8190 -1948 -0764 59.5562 0.0 0.0 59.5562 4.8373 4.4268 1985 4 504,798 4.6205 5.2278 2667 -1046 62.3718 0.0 0.0 62.3718 4.9918 4.4351 1986 5 496,282 4.6606 6.7121 -3424 -1342 65.3558 0.0 0.0 65.3558 5.4393 4.4315 1987 6 486,135 4.6840 8.2768 ~4223 -1655 68.5203 0.0 0.0 68.5203 5.2719 4.4151 1988 7 474,204 4.6879 9.9274 -5065 -1985 71.8779 0.0 0.0 71.8779 5.3929 4.3849 1989 8 460 ,326 4.6690 11.6697 -5954 2334 75.4424 0.0 0.0 75.4424 5.4978 4.3400 1990 9 444,322 4.6239 13.5099 -6893 «2762 77.3000 1.9287 ~1355 79.2287 5.7189 4.3830 1991 10 426,002 4.5485 15.4550 - 7885 -3091 77.3000 5.9526 -4183 83.2526 6.0644 4.5125 1992 11 405,155 4.4384 1755421 -8935 +3502 77.3000 LOG2313 -7190 87.5313 6.4010 4.6242 1993 12 381,557 4.2885 19.6892 1.0045 -3938 77.3000 14.7835 1.0388 92.0835 6.7257 4.7173 1994 a3 354,963 4.0934 21.9947 de 1222 -4399 77.3000 19.6289 153793 96.9289 7.0347 4.7903 1995 14 325,108 3.8466 24.4378 1.2468 -4888 77.3000 24.7891 1.7419 102.0891 7.3241 4.8421 1996 15 291,706 S.omLE 27.0284 1.3790 -5406 77.3000 30.2873 2.1283 107.5873 7.5889 4.8710 1997 16 254,447 3.1691 2.Lile 1.5192 -5955 77.3000 36.1484 2.5401 113.4484 7.8240 4.8757 1998 17 212,996 2.7218 32.6956 1.6681 -6539 77.3000 42.3994 2.9794 119.6994 8.0233 4.8542 1999 18 166,989 2.1894 35.7962 1.8263 «7159 77.3000 49.0692 3.4481 126.3692 8.1797 4.8047 2000 19. 116 ,033 1.5609 39.0923 1.9945 - 7818 77.3000 56.1893 3.9484 133.4893 8.2856 4.7252 2001 20 59,703 -8240 42.5985 222734 -8520 77.3000 63.7934 4.4828 141.0934 8.3321 4.6133 2002 aL thru thru 8.3321 115.4454 2048 67 TOTAL PRESENT NET WORTH 207.2772 NOTES: ° See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. ° No cost identified with Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric since the investments in these projects are considered as sunk costs, although this electric energy is used to meet the total electric requirements. TABLE VII-5 ESTIMATED LIFE CYCLE COST ALTERNATE 2 LOW POPULATION GROWTH = 1.9 PERCENT PER YEAR HEATING SYSTEM GR & BL LK TAKATZ LAKE TOTAL TIME FUEL OIL INVESTMENT HYDROELEC. | HYDROELECTRIC ELECTRIC SUMMARY HEATING HEATING INVESTMENT ENERGY ELECTRIC COST il TOTAL PRESENT YEAR OF FUEL FUEL COST (ACCUM) AMORT O&M GENERATED $.07027/kWh cost WORTH PLAN MBtu $ x 106 $ x 10 $ x 10° $ x 10& kwWh x 10° kWh x 106 $ x 10 kwh x 106 $ x 108 $ x 10° 0 525,147 52501) 52.01: 2 517,286 4.3839 -9569 -0488 -0191 53.9170 ‘ORO 0.0 Sas 917O 4.4518 4.3221 2 508,333 4.4200 1.9579 ~0999 -0392 55.9192 0.0 0.0 55.9192 4.5591 4.2973 a 498,240 4.4449 3.0069 -1534 -0601 58.0274 0.0 0.0 58.0274 4.6584 4.2631 4 486,920 4.4568 4.1068 -2095 -0821 60.2485 0.0 0.0 60.2485 4.7485 4.2190 5 474,278 4.4540 5.2607 - 2684 -1052 62.5899 0.0 0.0 62.5899 4.8276 4.1643 6 460,212 4.4343 6.4721 - 3302 ~1294 65.0593 0.0 0.0 65.0593 4.8939 4.0986 7 444,614 4.3954 7.7449 sooo 1549 67.6653 0-0 0.0 67.6653 4.9454 4.0211 8 427,366 4.3347 9.0831 -4634 1817 70.4169 0.0 0.0 70.4169 4.9798 3.9321 9 408 ,345 4.2495 10.4911 Os55 - 2098 Toes 0.0 0.0 13..38237 4.9945 3.8279 10 387,414 4.1365 eos3 5) -6109 2395 76.3960 0.0 0.0 76.3960 4.9868 SLO”, 11 364,430 3.9922 1325353 -6906 ~2707 77.3000 2.3449 -1648 79.6449 Seueos: 3.6976 12 339,238 3.8129 15.1820 ~7746 -3036 77.3000 S.7o23 - 4063 83.0823 5.2974 Sag455 13 311,672 3.5941 16.9194 -8632 - 3384 77.3000 9.4209 -6620 86.7209 S40 77 3.7165 14 281,553 S.33i2 1857537, -9568 ost k 77.3000 3.2742 -9328 90.5742 559959 3.6995 15 248 ,692 3.0189 20.6916 120557 -4138 77.3000 17.3569 1.2197 94.6569 5.7081 3.6638 16 212,882 2.6514 22.7404 1.1602 -4548 77.3000 21.6845 1.5238 98.9845 5.7902 3.6083 17%, 173,903 2.2223 24.9078 1.2708 -4982 77.3000 26.2738 1.8463 163;°5738 5.8375 3.5318 18 131720 1.7244 27.2022 1.3879 -5440 77.3000 31.1428 2.1884 108.4428 5.8447 3.4331 19 85,480 1.1499 29.6326 1 si19 <5827 77.3000 36.3105 2.0525 113.6105 5.8059 3.3440 20 35,510 -4901 32.2086 1.6433 -6442 77.3000 41.7976 eos 119.0976 Se sled 3.1641 21 thru 5.7147 79.1800 67 L TOTAL PRESENT NET WORTH 155.5764 NOTES: ° See Appendix C for description of calculation methods. ° No cost identified with Blue and Green Lake hydroelectric since the investments in these projects are considered as sunk costs, although this electric energy is used to meet the total electric requirements. The Base Plan is the most expensive; details can be seen in Table VII-l1. Electrical demand was based upon the continued use of fuel oil for meeting 80 percent of the forecast heat requirements, with no new conservation measures. A 1,500 kW diesel generator would be needed in 1998 to meet the electrical demands. This plan's life cycle cost was $309,698,700 and electrical energy use (in kilowatt-hour equivalents) was 84.72 x 106 kwh in the 20th year. 3. DESCRIPTION OF LIFE CYCLE COST TABLES For estimating the life cycle costs shown in Tables VII-l through VII-5, period of planning covered 20 years. Each year of the plan is designated in the table by "Year of Plan" which also corresponds to a specific calendar year, as shown. Numbers for year of plan 0 are based on historical data. Years of plan 1 through 20 cover the 20-year plan for each alternative. Years 21 through 67 cover the additional years of life expectancy for the Carbon Lake hydroelec- tric project required in Alternate Plan 1. The Carbon Lake hydro- electric project, which has a 50-year life expectancy, is brought on line in the 18th year of the study (in Alternate Plan 1 only). The "heating fuel" column shows fuel oil requirements for residen- tial and commercial facilities with a 60 percent combustion efficiency. The heating fuel cost is based on the 1981 fuel cost of $1.14/gallon and 138,000 Btu/gal with an escalation of 2.6 per- cent per year. The annual investment cost shown under the "investment (accum)" column is made up of a residential cost plus a commercial cost. The residential cost is estimated using the number of new homes added each year with an average cost for the energy conversion equipment and conservation measures per home, as discussed in Section VI. The commercial cost is estimated by determining the amount of electricity converted to heating energy each year, divid- ing by the amount of energy produced by the average residential unit, and then multiplying by the average cost per residential unset. Vit—4 The amortization is based on a 30-year life for equipment and con- servation measures. The O & M is based on 0.5 percent of the in- vestment cost for both the Base Plan and Alternate Plan 1. A fac- tor of 2.0 percent of the investment was used for Alternate Plan 2 to replace such equipment as compressors, pumps, and heat ex- changers every 10 years. The cost for electric energy from Blue and Green Lakes is not in- cluded in this analysis since the capital costs of these projects have already been invested. The energy produced by Blue and Green Lakes is included in the total electric energy requirement. The amount of energy to be produced by additional electric energy sources, (such as the 1,500 kW diesel generator and the hydroelec- tric projects) is found by deducting the electric energy supplied by Blue and Green Lakes from the total electric energy required. The cost for electricity from each energy source is based on Table VI-1. The total electric energy requirement is found by summing the elec- tric heating and miscellaneous electric use for residential and commercial facilities and multiplying by 1.12. The additional 12 percent accounts for line losses and company use. The total cost is found by summing the fuel oil cost, amortization cost, O & M cost, and the cost of energy from the additional sources. The present worth factor is based on a 3 percent discount rate. The total present worth is the summation of each year and 13.855 times year 20 for years 21 through 67. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. BASE PLAN The Base Plan uses continued oil heating and adds a diesel genera- tor in 1998, VII8§ Community Preference Presently the community is using both oil and electricity for space heating, and hydroelectricity and diesel generators for electric power. There has been a shift from oil heating to electric re- sistance heat at almost two times the rate of population increase. This indicates a community preference for electrical resistance heating. This is probably due to both convenience and cost. Members of the City of Sitka administration expressed a desire to move away from using diesel electricity generation. This is indi- cated by the planned lack of repair and maintenance on the aging Halibut Point diesels and the use of diesel generators for just peak demands. Impact on Community Infrastructure and Employment Since the Base Plan involves facilities already in operation in the community, no significant alteration of community infrastructure or employment is predicted. Timing in Relation To Other Planned Capital Projects With the Base Plan, a new 1,500 kW diesel generator would be added in 1998, This is 15 years after the completion of Green Lake ($60.6 million), 15 years after completion of the $7.9 million sewage treatment plant, and 13 years after construction of a new hospital ($11.2 million). VII-6 Air Quality Diesel generators produce exhaust which contributes to air pollu- tion. Based upon productions of 1.5 x 106 kwh in 1998 and 7.5 x 106 kwh in 2001, the generator will produce an average of about 81 pounds nitrogen oxides per day, 81 pounds’ unburned hydrocarbons, 20 pounds sulfur dioxide per day, 20 pounds particulate matter per day, and 61 pounds carbon monoxide per day. In 1998, emissions would be 0.4 times the amounts shown above; by 2001, they would be 2.0 times these amounts. These changes in emissions are due to increasing amounts of fuel burned with time. Continued use of oil for space heating will increase levels of air pollution. This increase in air pollutant loading would be in pro- portion to population growth. Water Quality Air-cooled diesel generators would be used, resulting in no water quality impacts except from the accidental spill of diesel fuel. No significant impact due to oil space heating is anticipated. Fish and Wildlife Impacts No impacts from diesel electric operation would result unless a fuel spill occurred. No impact from oil space heating would occur unless fuel oil were spilled. Land Use And Ownership Status Adequate land, presently owned by the City, already exists at the Indian River diesel electric generator site. VII-7 Terrestrial Impacts If placed at the Indian River generator site, impacts would be negligible. This site has already been cleared and graded and has diesel storage tanks. If a new site is used, 1 to 2 acres would have to be cleared and graded. Once properly graded, the ter- restrial dangers of a fuel spill would be minimal if the site is properly bermed. No impact from oil space heating will occur. 2. ALTERNATE 1 Alternate 1 sees a decrease in fuel oil space heating until none is used by the end of 2001. Additional electrical generating demands would be satisfied by Takatz Lake and Carbon Lake. Community Preference The majority of community responses did not express any concern about developing Takatz or Carbon Lakes. A minority opinion felt the projects were too far away to develop, and conservation should be emphasized. Impact On Community Infrastructure And Employment Each dam would take approximately 4 to 5 years to build. A con- struction crew of 50 to 150 workers would be housed in temporary quarters at the project sites. These crews would be composed primarily of nonresident skilled construction workers. Little direct employment for Sitka residents would result and little impact on community infrastructure would occur due to the distance from Sitka and temporary nature of the construction crews. During operation, relatively few people would be employed. Those presently employed by fuel oil sales would have to shift to other employment. VII-8 Timing In Relation To Other Planned Capital Projects Takatz Lake would need to be on line by 1988, so design would need to be completed by late 1983. Construction at Carbon Lake would need to begin by about 1996. Takatz Lake construction would begin l to 2 years after Green Lake came on line, with Carbon Lake 14 years later. The new hospital would be finished about the time construction would begin on the Takatz Lake project. Carbon Lake construction would begin about 12 years later. The new sewage treatment plant would be operating about 2 years before Takatz Lake construction would begin, and about 14 years before Carbon Lake construction would begin. Air Quality The most significant impacts on air quality associated with hydro- power projects are those resulting during construction. Surface blasting, excavation, aggregate production, soil exposure resulting from removal of vegetation, and movement of personnel and equipment are the primary causes of dust particles and gases during this phase. These impacts will be localized or transient, and. not in the Sitka area. Once the construction phase is completed, there will be negligible impacts on air quality. Given the low productivity of lakes in this area, accumulations of hydrogen sulfide in the deeper water are not expected; so none would be released to the atmosphere. Phased cessation of fuel oil heating will reduce one existing source of air pollution. Water Quality There will be significant impacts on water quality both during con- struction and operation phases. During construction, considerable turbidity will occur because of blasting, excavation, drilling, VII-9 and road construction. Effects from this addition of sediment to water will be noticed in downstream lakes, streams, and bays. These effects can be minimized by careful construction techniques including timing of deposition of construction spoils to coincide with periods of high flow. Other possible sources of water quality degradation are sewage from temporary facilities used during the construction and accidental spills of oil, grease, and chemicals. Upstream water quality changes include possible surface warming, increased nutrients, and algal growth during the period after filling, and localized turbidity around shore areas. Changes in thermal stratification of the lake will also take place. No significant changes in temperature are expected since thermal stratification at existing lakes does not appear to prevent mixing, and discharges will be nearer the metalimnion (mid-depth) than sur- face. Slightly more warming in the summer due to longer retention times is likely. Water quality downstream from the dams will also be affected. In normal operation, sediment load of the stream is expected to be lowered as a result of deposition of suspended material in the re- servoir. This decline in sediment load will increase the erosive force of the stream, so increased erosion should be expected below the power house (provided that flow is comparable to pre-dam condi- tions). It is expected that, with the power house and conveyance tunnel configurations proposed for these plants, sections of down- stream rivers will be completely dried during most of the year. Flow control will also modify the lower stream water quality through higher low flows and loss of flushing flows. Silt can ac- cumulate due to loss of flushing flows, thereby reducing suitabi- lity of spawning beds. Access roads can significantly alter water quality unless mitiga- tion design features are utilized. If stream crossings are done to ADFG specifications, cuts are regraded and revegetated, culverts VII-10 are placed correctly, and contours are followed, no serious water quality changes should result. Once constructed, service roads should not have significant impacts. Fish and Wildlife Impacts Hydropower projects are well known for their impacts on salmonid fisheries. There will be a loss of spawning habitat by inundation of streams flowing into the original lake, and the effects of altered downstream flow and streambed material mentioned earlier. Takatz and Carbon Lakes reportedly have low fish production and have been identified as potential salmon hatchery sites. However, there are currently no plans to develop either site, primarily due to a superior site at the nearby Baranof Warm Springs. It has been estimated by the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Associa- tion (NSRAA) that serious consideration of hatchery development at either of the two lake sites is at least 5 to 10 years away. Nevertheless, with proper dam design, hydroelectric development would in fact facilitate hatchery development. In addition, ADF&G has expressed interest in Takatz and Carbon Lakes for rearing coho fry from the nearby Hidden Falls Hatchery. To accommodate this use, dam design would need to include outflow facilities to allow seaward migration of coho. Wildlife impacts will result from absolute loss of habitat by flooding of shorelines, facility construction, a change in habitat by clearing of rights-of-way for transmission lines and access roads, and disturbance during construction. Actual effects of flooding depend on slope of valley walls. Takatz and Carbon Lakes lie in steep-sided valleys which are abundant on the island, and do not represent significant wildlife habitat. Transmission lines and access roads will require clearing of rights-of-way 75 and 50 feet wide, respectively. This change in vegetation will represent an increase in bush area, which would actually be beneficial to deer. The transmission lines may be a Vier hazard to area raptors due to electrocution potential. If properly designed, though, this hazard can be minimized. Noise and the high level of activity during construction may cause a temporary disturbance to wildlife in the area. Provided that the project sites are not a major portion of habitat on the island, effects should not be significant. During operation of the faci- lity, noise and activity will have no significant impact. The bald eagle is likely to occur in the project area, either nest- ing or foraging. The bald eagle is classified as endangered in the contiguous United States, although it is not on the threatened or endangered list for Alaska. Eagle nest trees are protected through a cooperative agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. This agreement restricts all disturbance with- in a radius of 330 feet of each nest tree center. The necessity of providing adequate perch tree sites near nests is also recognized in the cooperative agreement. A survey of nest sites would be needed. Peregrine falcons are protected by the Engangered Species Conservation Acts of 1969 and 1973 and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game threatened and endangered list. The American peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus_anatum) and arctic peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus tundrius) may utilize the project areas on a periodic seasonal basis during their migrations. Land Use And Ownership Status Both Takatz and Carbon Lakes lie within Tongass National Forest. This portion of the forest is designated for Land Use Classifica- tion Area II. This classification allows roads only for authorized uses, restricts timber harvesting and major recreational faci- lities, and is designed to permit fish and wildlife habitat en- hancement while maintaining a wildland character. The designation does allow water and power projects if they are designed to retain the area's primitive nature. The projects lie to the east and south of the Kelp Bay Management area and are unaffected by proposed Alaska Lumber and Pulp harvesting plans through 1986. VII-12 The transmission line route would cross Tongass National Forest lands through areas of Land Use Classification II and III. Classi- fication II is described above. Aerial transmission lines and rights-of-way would present a conflict to this classification, and would require a variance or special use permit. Classification III areas are managed for a variety of uses and would not present a significant conflict. Terrestrial Impacts Forest stands in the project areas are primarily western hemlock and Sitka spruce, with scattered Alaska cedar, lodgepole pine, and alder along streams. Understory vegetation is typically blueberry, huckleberry, rusty menziesia, and devil's club. The significant terrestrial impacts of hydropower projects are the commitment of land area to the reservoir, switchyard, dam site, powerhouse, access roads, and transmission lines, all of which require the removal of vegetation. This represents a long-term loss of timber harvest potential. Loss of potentially harvestable timber is minor relative to total harvest available. Saturation of sloping shoreline soils may increase the chance of mass movement. 3. ALTERNATE 2 Alternate 2 utilizes heat pumps to provide heat more economically and efficiently than oil or electrical resistance. Takatz Lake would still need to be built by 1991. Takatz Lake impacts are con- sidered under Alternate 1 and will not be reconsidered here. Community Preference The idea of heat pumps was new to participants at the public meet- ing. City officials expressed a preference not to do projects which would result in digging up streets to place pipelines. The preference against such work was expressed over natural gas lines. Vit+13 Heat pumps as proposed by this alternative would probably require buried seawater distribution pipe systems. Impacts On Community Infrastructure And Employment Construction of a community seawater distribution system would re- quire water lines, a pump station, and inlet and outlet structures. During construction, roads would be disrupted. Local labor could be used in most of the construction involving ditching and water lines. A labor force of about 10 to 30 is anticipated. After construction, only a few people would be needed on a part-time basis for operation and maintenance. Those now operating fuel oil facilities and furnace services for residential heating would be phased out. Individual residential and commercial heat pump installation and repair services would be needed. This would amount to about the same employment level as fuel oil and furnace services. Timing In Relation To Other Planned Capital Projects Heat pump facilities would be phased in to replace fuel oil heating in existing homes and supply heat to new homes. The installation of community seawater distribution systems would, therefore, begin within 1 or 2 years. Takatz Lake would begin construction in about 1986. This is about two years after completion of present planned large capital projects. Air Quality Heat pumps would indirectly improve air quality by phasing out oil furnaces. Pump stations would be electric. Air quality impacts of Takatz Lake are considered in Alternate l. VII-14 Water Quality Heat pumps taking in seawater at ambient temperatures would discharge it at 5°F to 10°F cooler temperatures. As long as antifoulants are not used, no large increase of toxicants would result. If metal is used in the system, some corrosion and leaching of metals would result. Takatz Lake impacts are discussed in Alternate l. Fish and Wildlife Impacts Seawater intake structures would have to be properly screened to prevent entrainment and impingement of fish. Plankton passing through the system would likely be killed. The effluent of cooler waters would diminish productivity in local areas if not properly dispersed. Takatz Lake impacts are discussed under Alternate 1. Land Use And Ownership Status Residential areas and city rights-of-way would be temporarily disrupted during construction of seawater distribution lines, but no permanent land use or ownership would result from _ the distribution system. Area for pump stations and intake/outlet structures would have to be located and purchased. The area is anticipated to be about 1/2 acre. Terrestrial Impacts During construction of the seawater distribution system, local roadways, roadside vegetation, and residential areas would be disrupted on a scale similar to potable water system installation. VII-15 C. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 1. BASE PLAN This plan uses the addition of diesel generation to meet demands based on 80 percent of space heating by oil. Safety Diesel generation is relatively safe. There are some risks in handling and storing combustible diesel fuel due to potential ex- plosion or fire if the system ventilation and combustion exhaust is improperly constructed. Reliability These are the most reliable systems for generation in Alaska to date. There is occasional system down time due to maintenance and overhaul. Availability These systems are already in place. In Sitka, there is a shortage of qualified system operators, but no indication of difficulty in obtaining parts and replacement in the future. Diesel generation is dependent on fuel transported to the community via marine vessels. 2. ALTERNATE 1 Takatz Lake and Carbon Lake hydropower facilities would be added to meet future resistance heating requirements. Safety If the dams are properly designed to account for seismic risk and flood routing, little hazard is associated with the dams. There VII-16 are some hazards associated with high voltage distribution and power lines. Reliability Hydroelectric generation is entirely dependent on streamflow rates and storage behind the dam. Estimates of firm power previously de- scribed take into account variations in streamflow rates. Both projects require long electrical power transmission lines, which are subject to damage by winds, avalanches, icing, and earth- quakes. Availability The technology is readily available although there is some diffi- culty in obtaining replacement parts. 3. ALTERNATE 2 This plan uses heat pumps and Takatz Lake. Safety Operation of heat pumps is safe and without negative health im- pacts. Takatz Lake was considered in Alternate l. Reliability To satisfy heating requirements at times of maximum demand, most heat pumps using air require supplementary electric resistance heaters. Heat pumps using water would not require supplementary electric resistance heaters. Takatz Lake was considered in Alternate l. Availability Heat pumps have been in existence for more than 100 years. They are readily available. Takatz Lake was considered in Alternate 1. VII-17 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS A. PREFERRED ENERGY ALTERNATIVES The results of this study showed that the use of heat pumps and conservation measures (Alternate Plan 2) would be the most economi- cal plan for meeting Sitka's future electricity and heating needs. This plan has acceptable environmental consequences and has the ad- vantage of preserving Sitka's energy resources for later use and keeping Sitka's energy dollars at home. B. CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES There are many conservation methodologies available to Sitka. Selection of options for implementation in Alternate Plans 1 and 2 requires consideration of legislative changes, community prefer- ences, individual decisions, or a combination of these qualifiers. Based on input from the citizenry of Sitka, the following conserva- tion methods are suggested for future consideration by the affected community: 1. Modify the rate structure. Although the present electri- cal rate schedule in Sitka (Table III-3) does not dis- courage high consumption of electrical energy, it is re- commended that such a schedule be developed. The schedule might be structured to assess a significant sur- charge for use above a set limit of electrical use. A the surcharge is relatively high, investment in conserva- tion measures and heat pumps will be encouraged. The net result could be the elimination of the need for the Car- bon Lake hydroelectric project within the 20-year plan- ning period. VIII-1 Modify the building code. Certain requirements and specifications that would reduce the amount of energy required could be included in the building code. The following items should be evaluated either for regulatory purposes or for private implementation. a. Use the maximum insulation that can be economically justified over the life of a building. b. Use air tight construction and air-to-air heat ex- changers (warm incoming air with outgoing air). Ce Use removable insulation on windows at night or when the room is not in use. Gs Minimize windows on walls with poor solar exposure and/or use double glazed windows on such walls. e. Position buildings to maximize solar exposure. ES Use solar water heaters when adequate solar exposure is available. g- Use appliances with known high efficiencies. Flas Use fluorescent lights and spot lighting whenever possible. Modify personal use. Certain changes in established practices could result in significant energy savings. A few ideas to consider are listed below. a. Use natural lighting opportunities whenever pos- sible. b. Schedule use of major appliances to avoid excessive peak electrical demands. VIII-2 Cr Avoid use of conventional fireplaces as they create excessive draft and heat loss. iio Use air tight wood stoves for supplementary heat. Stoves equipped with catalytic converters can actually produce more heat while emitting fewer air pollutants. e. Use community meat lockers or freezers, as a much more efficient system could be installed. In addi- tion, it might be possible to capture and use waste heat from the freezer units. £. Submit to an energy audit and take steps to reduce excessive energy consumption or loss. All Sitkans are encouraged to investigate the financial benefits of increased conservation. In addition to a direct decrease in energy costs, other potential savings are available from income tax cred- its, grants, and low interest loans for increasing the efficiency of energy use. C. REQUIRED RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES The uncertainties involved in some of the assumptions which were necessary to evaluate the energy resources indicate a requirement for additional information. The recommended areas of additional study are: l. Field investigations at the Takatz Lake hydroelectric site to assess technical feasibility including survey- ing/mapping, geotechnical, hydrological, and environ- mental assessment surveys. ViITiI-3 2. Field investigations of transmission line corridors to determine the routing with the least impact on the en- vironment and surrounding area while still providing the necessary reliability. 6) Review, update, and develop preliminary designs, con- struction estimates, program schedules, license and per- mit applications, and economics and marketing analysis. Perform detailed technical feasibility study of heat pump concept application at Sitka. Investigate community heat 9 pump systems, using a community-based distribution of water and individual residence heat pumps. Study the in- stitutional procedure for encouraging individuals to in- stall heat pumps. The entire cost for this additional work is estimated at approxi- mately $1,600,000. VIII-4 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. 1980. Alaska Statistical Review. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise. 1979. Numbers. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Labor. 1980 (first quarter). Statistical Quarterly. Juneau, Alaska. Alaska Department of Labor. 1981. Alaska's 1980 Population - A Preliminary Look. Juneau, Alaska. Argonne National Laboratory for U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion. 1977. The Environmental Effects of Using Coal for Generat- ing Electricity. Illinois. City and Borough of Sitka. 1977. Application for License for the Green Lake Project, Exhibit W: Environmental Report. Before the Federal Power Commission. Sitka, Alaska. City and Borough of Sitka. 1981. Sitka Coastal Management Pro- gram, Phase II. Sitka, Alaska. City and Borough of Sitka, Planning Department. 1976. Comprehen- sive Development Plan. Sitka, Alaska. ; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Power Re- gulation. 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Green Lake, Alaska. Project No. 2818, Washington, D.C. Federal Power Commission and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1947. Water Powers, Southeast Alaska. Washington, D.C. Joint Southeast Alaska Regional Planning Teams. 1981. Comprehen- sive Salmon Plan for Southeast Alaska, Phase I. Northern Technical Services. 1981. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives: Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay, and Grayling. Anchorage, Alaska. Ott Water Engineers, Inc., for U. S. Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers. 1981. Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects in Northwest Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. Pacific Alaska LNG Associates for Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation. 1978. Western LNG Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. Peratrovich and Nottingham, Inc. and Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. 1981. Sitka Dock And Port Facilities, Reconnaissance Report. Robert W. Retherford Associates, Division of International Engi- neering Company, Inc., for City of Cordova and State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority. 1981. Final Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Cordova. Anchorage, Alaska. Robert W. Retherford Associates, Division of International Engi- neering Company, Inc., for State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority, 1981. Draft Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Resource Alternatives for Thirteen Western Alaska Villages. Anchorage, Alaska. SRI International for Pacific Alaska LNG Company. 1977. Natural Gas Demand and Supply to the Year 2000 in the Cook Inlet Basin of South-Central Alaska, Final Report. California. Stenehjam, Erik J. 1975. Forecasting the Local Economic Impacts of Energy Resource Development: A Methodological Approach. Argonne National Laboratory, Regional Studies Program. Argonne, Illinois. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan, Southeast Alaska. Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company, Timber Sale Plan for the 1981-86 Operating Period, Southeast Alaska, Part 1. Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Power Administration. 1967. Takatz Creek Project, Alaska, Draft Report, Appendix A: Water and Power. Juneau, Alaska. U. S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Power Administration. 1968. Takatz Creek Project, Alaska. APPENDIX A COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 12, 1981 AT SITKA CONCERNING POPULATION PROJECTIONS Several members of the public expressed opinion that population projections were unreliable and, in fact, impossible to do with a high degree of accuracy. Factors which could influence the Sitka area population included: expanded or reduced Coast Guard operations at Mt. Edgecumbe; mining developments; and fisheries expansion, especially with new 200-mile limit. It was suggested that we use a range of population projections. They stated that most previous population projections were too low. However, they were reluctant to risk being overcommitted if the projections were too high. We asked for suggestions as to what basis or rationale we could use to make a range of population projections. CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES Le Ionic differences in seawater (not state-of-the-art) re Tidal generation (Is not a firm power output. Varies with tide. Would need a large reservoir to trap tide to make it firm.) 3. Wind energy (not firm and really not state-of-the-art) 4. Concerns as to life span of a natural gas set-up. How long would gas fields last? Si Geothermal has pollution problems with sulfides CONCERNING BASIS OF FIRM POWER CAPACITY i! City does not consider diesel part of firm capacity. zy Discussion on what is considered firm by City versus what name plate capacity states. The City feels line trans- mission losses reduce name plate by 5 percent and, there- fore, reduce firm by 5 percent. R. W. Beck used second driest year as basis of reduced head, thus, minimizing output from Green Lake. CONSENSUS OF MEETING FOR EXISTING FIRM POWER Firm Power During Dry Period, Firm Power, With Largest Power Considering Green Lake Source Dry Years (kW) Turbine Down (kW) BLUE LAKE HYDROPOWER 6,500 6,500 GREEN LAKE HYDROPOWER 13,500 6,750 REQUIRED DIESEL BACK-UP 750 7,500 20,750 20,750 NOTICE TO PUBLISHER INVOICE MUST BE IN TRIPLICATE SHOWING ADVERTISING ORDER NO., CERTIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION (PART 2 OF THIS FORM) WITH ATTACHED COPY OF ADVERTISE- MENT MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH INVOICE. VENDOR NO. ADVERTISING ORDER OATE OF A.O. 10/30/81 Sitka Daily Sentinel P.O. Box 799 Sitka, Alaska 99835 DATES AOVERTISEMENT REQUIRED: 11/6, 9, 10, 11, & 12 THE MATERIAL BETWEEN THE DOUBLE LINES MUST BE PRINTED | ITS ENTIRETY ON THE DATES SHOWN. BILLING AODRESS: Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 zowmn DISPLAY AD 2 x 4 columns ADVERTISEMENT STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SITKA ENERGY & POWER ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. Thursday November 12, 1981 Rousseau Room Sitka Centennial Building Representatives of the firms of Ott Water Engineers and Black and Veatch will present preliminary findings and solicit comments for a report being prepared for the State of Alaska Power Authority. Your comments and input are needed. Copies of an informational handout are available at the Assessing Office at the City and Borough offices. Eric. P. Yould A0-08-7390 Executive Director TO BE COMPLETED BY ORDERING DEPARTMENT ] 7} TOTAL sak ; OF PAGES PAGE ~ Jow. a] runc-] 20 | opsrcr | wr | rroutcr mn cont on uw ng Pe 2 — TRANS | OCPT. | onog. | trom | FUNC: | receipe frumcr| irocre pms: 1 HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE U TION : FNCUMOTRi DN BALANCE IN Te Margee Bishop APPROPRIATION CITED HLREON 848 468325 SUFFICIENT TO COVER Tris PL t ) St ANO THAT THIS PURCHA REGU ISIVNES BY, is AUTHORIZES HEREGNOER | — Eric P. Yould Executive Director DIVISIONAL APPROVAL CERTIFYING OFFICER | L DATE ENTERED VOUCHER NUMBER a +— +— dhe +— L 1 ae Ls Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting Name: Address: Cem meee eres ere eer ee reer ees eeeresrere reese ee reer sresee rere eeereseressersee Please give your comments on the alternatives presented. If you have a preference for any of the alternatives, please give the reasons. Pe mmm mmm meee rere rere eer eee rere eerersereserereseserereeseresreeseesecees Please give any general comments or questions. Signature Note: To prepare for mailing, fold along dotted lines (so address shows) staple closed and stamp. Please return your comments as soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time to respond. SITKA ALASKA ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES STUDY PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1981 Don Melnick 200 Tower Bldg Seattle 98101 206 622-5000 RW Beck & Assoc. Inc. Don Fillis 200 Tower Bldg Seattle 98101 206 622-5000 Inc. Dennis Lund Box 2048 Sitka 747-5343 or 6561 Betsy Longenbaugh Box 799 Sitka 747-3219 Daily Sentinel Ray Nelson 6206 104th Ave NE Kirkland WA 98033) 206 622-5000 RW Beck & — a nc. Jim Dwyer Box 976 Sitka AK 99835 747-6633 City of Sitka Dan a Box 2400 Sitka AK 99835 747-6289 RW Beck & Assoc. a Johnstone Star RT 1408 i 747-3248 ENERGY -USEAGE Name: Consumer Type (Residential, Small Commercial, Public Building, Large User, Other): Classification ( Subsistence, School, Government, Fishing Industry, Service or Utility Company, Military, etc.): Type and Amount of Fuel Used: TRANSPORTATION HEATING DOMESTIC ELECTRICAL USE GENERATION Fuel Type: Space/Water |(Appliances Blazo olar Nat'l Gas Other °o + sales o ies Ss Type of Space Heating (stove, furnace -hot air, water, boiler): Mechanism for heating water: Bills: Fuel: Electricity: Associated Costs (insulation, fixtures, etc.) Problems: BASELINE INFORMATION SURVEY SUBJECT: NOTES: Interviewee: Phone: Title/Organization: Interviewer: Date: ———— Comments: Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives study Public Meeting QUESTIONNAIRE What natural resources (fisheries, scenic values, wildlife etc.) obs you feel need consideration if a hydropower plant is developed a Sl the following sites: (please check) Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River What natural resources do ylu feel need consideration if va geothermal power plant were developed at each of those sites: © Hot Springs near Goddard s oo Baranof mvj u Fish Bay Creek What natural resources do you feel need consideration in power transmission line right of way from these projects: Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Hot Springs near Goddard Hot Springs near Baranof Hot Springs near Fish Bay Creek Have you visited any of these areas? Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Goddard Baranof Fish Bay Creek Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Questionnaire Page 2 How would you feel about a liquid natural gas terminal located for use in Sitka? Oppose Favor No Opinion aA Do you feel that air quality is a concern in Sitka? Yes -—~ No What methods would you like to see used for mitigating disturbance of natural resources? , Aquatic resources . de . Favor Hatchery: Oppose No opinion Enhancement of natural conditions: es Oppose Favor No opinion Terrestrial resources Suggestions: heeesS its 3 Which of the following sources do you now use. _ Purpose BUS paing “_ Diesel Electric — Wood este 2 or tL Solar apelAg Wind Propane Gasoline Other Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting J) Name: Mt Bin Y / Address: (4D, Ex 23SF ‘ Ge , Please give your comments on the alternatives presented. If you have a preference for any of the alternatives, please give the reasons. 2° ‘eck eothe wel spose eac nave ative d ow dischaya€ : DV PCLek, ~atthes patie dipleamrn flog erm eelemimes, For dot foe r 3 root iprie te ot Ce Please give any general comments or questions. wo 04 Signature ‘ Note: To prepare for mailing, fold along dotted lines (so address shows) staple closed and stamp. Please return your comments as soon as possible. Thankx.you for taking the time to respond. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 5 Ber se LSINOLLVAY3SNOD V 38 CONSERVE WILDLIFE WILD TURKEY RECEIVED : ; i PCy et eet OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.” Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting QUESTIONNAIRE What natural resources (fisheries, scenic values, wildlife etc.) do you feel need consideration if a hydropower plant is developed at the following sites: (please check) F Potente i frlmon i Py ee abe h a Bg £ ei demtleiih 8 oP ERE a & fr ae’ mf + Carbon Lake 477, Good haleheiy site + Baranof Lake Plenned for ewntva! Shale ek bery Stream on Middle Arm Fe of age aed Maksoutof River~ oy teh y apfeaihns iter Ne: ne bh What natural resources do you feel need consideration if a geothermal power plant were developed at each of those sites: - Hot Springs near Goddard 3 a pasetas Baranof ——— ee a i Fish Bay Creek What natural resources do you feel need consideration in power transmission line right of way from these projects: x reerea Yen ahhet spriies Carbon Lake x x Baranof Lake . - Stream on ‘Middle Arm of Kelp Bay ¥ Maksoutof River ¥ Hot Springs near Goddard y Hot Springs near Baranof x Hot Springs near Fish Bay Creek x Tn all cakes aveid ase warkr rats Have you visited any of these areas? Have Have not x Carbon Lake Baranof Lake x Kelp Bay = ‘ Maksoutof River x Goddard ‘ Baranof 7 x Fish Bay Creek Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Questionnaire Page 2 How would you feel about a liquid natural gas terminal located for use in Sitka? oe —X— Favor No Opinion Evplosien Live fein l fr ma jor faa he d cold chruge peat: Do you feel that air quality is a concern in Sitka? Yes X No What methods would you like to see used for mitigating disturbance of natural resources? Aquatic resources Hatchery: - Oppose Favor X No opinion fren’ | bk w/ gure A 7 Ine FFF — . ———_ Enhancement of natural conditions: Oppose Favor X Na opinion Salwie rt ie l Ser-ee 4 alnen Teguwt Speca Hae / o te if Other suggestions: ast good A dre sites are not on hind dts gahnon Spa ning streams, Steck Reserves ls wrth rainbow Trout or ce do sa lmen up bes fi eA OF Culyneqin Terrestrial resources Suggestions: On Devas Ps< rf / old grows A Lins ber stands, f deep wy J, a ft afro fost on sidena ea - ‘s J are Soenie, / J Which of the following sources do you now use. Zorenf an gpartonat Purpose Diesel xX Electric Ligh ts app larces ghove freezer Wood Solar Wind Propane x Gasoline Aufo y dont 5060 mils ~ ¥ loaqal beat gar hd. XY Other Lea bir oil Oe aparlmrent hee} Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting Name: beaines 5 luad Bayhic Lonsattent SS eee Address: Box LOVE Sith ; Alasta IP ER xf yen need fisher Poraulen? Aeip } oe me. Ce eee eee meee eee errr erer ees eeresereresreeeeseeresresesesesseseeeeeses Please give your comments on the alternatives presented. If you have a preference for any of the alternatives, please give the reasons. 4, di Jewel Fees th. en /, accept fhe op the yo me eecept f does. ~ cha) ye cues on avan ‘ - Please give any general comments or questions. fen). a pete three boos VT oceran tons am ar led Pe any use_in 2¢O- SF of we // fasuleted CAS ra, Bee A erbian A/so tibia das A tie wernt seocadhed Me cne ome Fh 3 FE oe - Ofu le fpon 4row th. vquire all new bucmeorces vA provide own peers - Pcs AZ.) Signature Note: To prepare for mailing, fold along dotted lines (so address shows) staple closed and stamp. Please return your comments as soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time to respond. OTT WATER ENCIMEERS, INC. 4703 Businsse Park Bivd. Building D, Suite 8 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 SITKA ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES STUDY PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1981 COMMENT SHEET Please fill in any questions or comments you have regarding the study or the meeting. ate vara ideo of pe ylation suggested doving p 7 woutd ag ee 4, hand Pochoys a Smatley poem Thy poy alah aa woud Ws hye bal plot— panyhe [%e, instead of 2% ri 1 an shoe iMaicsted in projrtins chow sopatation meveare = lontd on youew avei\o¥e. In ott wad Whethy anrafhty hn oud ian Aa TW lease hn indurtg « If you would be interested .in attending a workshop on planning Phase II (to be held in Sitka), please fill in the information requested below. Name Address Teiepnone No. Preferred Time Prererred Day Please fold, staple, stamp, and return. Thank you for taking the time to respond. ecseoyouy erage etesatn ee ete ee TOO SUD i Qocretec Gs coi wica | Lateds bony euala Date: November 12, 1981 . Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting QUESTIONNAIRE What natural resources (fisheries, scenic values, wildlife etc.) do you feel need consideration if a hydropower plant is developed at the following sites: (please check) a, ge, § [~, o EFF ERLE & eas Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River What natural resources do you feel need consideration if a geothermal power plant were developed at each of those sites: - Hot Springs near Goddard x |< Baranof ms ¥ Fish Bay Creek ~ x What natural resources do you feel need consideration in power transmission line right of way from these projects: Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on ‘Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Hot Springs near Goddard Hot Springs near Baranof Hot Springs near Fish Bay Creek < Have you visited any of these areas? Have Have not Carbon Lake Baranof Lake ea Kelp Bay a Maksoutof River Goddard uM Baranof Fish Bay Creek al Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Questionnaire Page 2 How would you feel about a liquid natural gas terminal located for use in Sitka? Oppose Favor No Opinion Do you feel that air quality is a concern in Sitka? Yes a No What methods would you like to see used for mitigating disturbance of natural resources? Aquatic resources ye Hatchery: — Oppose Favor No opinion Enhancement of natural conditions: ine Oppose Favor No opinion Target species : Other suggestions: Terrestrial resources Suggestions: Which of the following sources do you now use. Purpose Diesel —_ Electric Least £ comlart pelo “L Wood ARIA aril acd FT , Solar Wind . Propane te Gasoline Fass free L Ft or Other Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting Name: y wWwILtr Address: fa ON Fg ZG - SLT 793 Coe e eee eee reer eres sesreserserereesrereeresasereseeeseeseseseesesseseees Please give your comments on the alternatives presented. If you have a preference for any of the alternatives, please give the reasons. ee oO = Se i: 4 Sao. "C3e, z vin) il PZ ae". Ou Y, ‘Please give any general comments or questions. Note: To prepare for mailing, fold along dotted lines (so address shows) staple closed and stamp. Please return your comments as soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time to respond. OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. 4790 Business Park Blvd. Building D, Suite 8 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting QUESTIONNAIRE What natural resources (fisheries, scenic values, wildlife etc.) do you feel need consideration if a hydropower plant is developed at the following sites: (please check) "by ge, é [= oO §SEERE & OF & z Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Al Kx] x Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River What natural resources do you feel need consideration if a geothermal power plant were developed at each of those sites: ~ Hot Springs near Goddard *% |x| * Baranof x Ax Fish Bay Creek Kale |-X What natural resources do you feel need consideration in power transmission line right of way from these projects: Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Hot Springs near Goddard Hot Springs near Baranof Hot Springs near Fish Bay Creek x* XK AKA Have you visited any of these areas? Have Have not Carbon Lake Baranof Lake a Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Goddard Baranof Fish Bay Creek RRK Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Questionnaire Page 2 : How would you feel about a liquid natural gas terminal located for use in Sitka? Oppose xX Favor No Opinion Do you feel that air quality is a concern in Sitka? Yes x No What-methods would you like to see used for mitigating disturbance of natural resources? Aquatic resources Hatchery: Oppose Favor x No opinion Enhancement of natural conditions: Oppose Favor No opinion K Target. species : Other suggestions: Terrestrial resources Suggestions: Which of the following sources do you now use. Purpose x Diesel eo fin’ x Electric Ceo hing x Wood Mew tas Solar Wind Propane Gasoline Other Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting Name: Feek/ Cotrerres Address: .0' Gok 79 Sitbz, Marks wee e eee reser reser ereseseerereeeeseeseresreseresereseseseseseseesesesses Please give your comments on the alternatives presented. If you have a preference for any of the alternatives, please give the reasons. fee File Mel ‘ Neo a 3. Monts ed ahr ae -~ ae Arocrvee Peewee rere reese reser eseessreereeesesesesesesesesseseeeesesesesesesese Please give any general comments or questions. Note: To prepare for mailing, fold along dotted lines (so address shows) staple closed and stamp. Please return your comments aS soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time to respond. CTT WATIN ENGINEERS, INC. fave woh) WS eee Dy 4750 Business Park Blvd. Building D, Suite 8 A Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | Date: November 12, 1981 Subject: Sitka, Alaska Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Public Meeting QUESTIONNAIRE What natural resources (fisheries, scenic values, wildlife etc.) do you feel need consideration if a hydropower plant is developed at the following sites: (please check) g Fp fo Bg EERE ges Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River What natural resources do you feel need consideration if a geothermal power plant were developed at each of those sites: Hot Springs near Goddard Baranof Fish Bay Creek What natural resources do you feel need consideration in power transmission line right of way from these projects: Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Stream on ‘Middle Arm of Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Hot Springs near Goddard Hot Springs near Baranof Hot Springs near Fish Bay Creek Have you visited any of these areas? Have Have not Carbon Lake Baranof Lake Kelp Bay Maksoutof River Goddard Baranof Fish Bay Creek Energy Requirements and Alternatives Study Questionnaire Page 2 How would you feel about a liquid natural gas terminal located for use in Sitka? Oppose Favor No Opinion Do you feel that air quality is a concern in Sitka? Yes No What methods would you like to see used for mitigating disturbance of natural resources? Aquatic resources Hatchery: Oppose Favor No opinion Enhancement of natural conditions: Oppose Favor No opinion Target species : Other suggestions: Terrestrial resources Suggestions: Which of the following sources do you now use. Purpose Diesel Electric Wood Solar Wind Propane Gasoline Other SITKA ALASKA ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES STUDY PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1981 ig Zh tiegl Sta sae FEE a ae ES ae PS IT BSr ue Tol eigen aes cen Tin wy cibkA GLOCTRIG 24 74 7-¥634 sone 7%, 242-6633 Seore 5, UMgtty “Il 1- este 8X Naa Son Ta Sake. WAN- (AG? Rice af, CITOVE rs NS oO & t, 7 P ( JS = ~S ww S Bleck & Vea Brace + Vearees Heer PAA? Cw, (e572 @ A Public Meeting Sitka Energy & Power Alternatives * Takatz Hydroelectric Project * Carbon Lake Hydroelectric Project © Ocean Water Heat Transfer Pumps Date: e Wednesday e January 27, 1982 Time: 7:00 —10:00 pm Place: Sitka Centennial Building- Maksoutoff Room Representatives of the Alaska Power Authority, Ott Water Engineers and Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers will be there to present their report, answer questions and hear your comments on the proposed plans. Copies of the report are available for review at the Kettleson Memorial Library. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY APPENDIX A COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 1982 CONCERNING HEAT PUMPS In response to the public's questions about the feasibility of air heat pumps, we pointed out that such systems could be used and are being used in Alaska but they require more electricity because the coefficient of production is lower. There are eight air heat pumps in use in Sitka now. It was also pointed out that a water based heat pump was being used in Juneau. In response to questions about how to induce people to use heat pumps, discussion centered upon changing the electricity rate structure to penalize those using more electricity than required by heat pumps and changing codes to require heat pumps in new homes. In response to questions about the cost for heat pump systems, it was pointed out that the costs in the report are based upon a water based system and include the costs of a sea water distribution system. The water heat pump system would still be more cost effec- tive over 20 years than oil or electrical resistance heating. CONCERNING WOOD HEAT USE In response to the idea of using wood to provide more than 20 per- cent of the domestic heat, it was pointed out that 20 percent agrees with USFS projections of the feasible amount of wood heat. It would be more expensive to heat with wood than with oil if costs of commercial labor were included; the wood used for 20 percent of heating would normally be cut by the homeowner. There is also not a large enough legitimate local wood source to provide the whole community with more heat. CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES In response to a question about alternative energy sources which might become state-of-the-art or more feasible within the next 20 years, we pointed out that: i. Geothermal resources were the next best potential source but would also have long transmission lines. Zio There is not enough wind in Sitka to make wind generators a good energy source and wind generators do not provide firm energy (they need 100 percent back-up). Sie Solar energy is a good supplement to residential heating but is not sufficient to act as a sole energy source. RECEIVEU “nag 2 Department Of Energy ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 January 21, 1982 Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We received the draft report, "City of Sitka, Alternative Energy Study," by Ott Water Engineers--encouraging to see that a combination of conservation measures and high efficiency heating systems (heat pumps) appear to be worthwhile pursuing in addition to new generation. We offer three primary comments. First, we note that the heat pump analysis concentrates on water source units supplied by a distribution system for ambient seawater and only briefly recommends the community proceed with air source heat pumps. Air source units are operating in Juneau as a commercially viable and economically practical technology. Since 1979 over 150 units have been installed in residential, commercial, and government buildings. We understand there are currently a few residential air source units in Sitka. Rough calculations indicate that annual COP's should average about 2.4 in Sitka based on 8,000 heating degree days. Average air source heat pump installation costs in Juneau are about $6-8,000 per residence in new construction and $5-10,000 per residence in existing homes (depending on ductwork and labor involved). Twelve air source heat pump units have recently been installed as retrofits in Ketchikan at an average cost of $5680. Along with Ketchikan Public Utility, we'll be collecting operating data on these units. Enclosed is a copy of our July 1981 progress report which includes an analysis of the eight Juneau units being monitored. The next progress report will be available in February 1982 and will include data on Juneau and Ketchikan units. Second, as the Ott study points out, water source units increase in efficiency with increased feedwater temperature. A study done for us by Battelle indicates that even with ambient seawater and freshwater, these 2 units should be more efficient than air source units in Juneau (a copy of the study is enclosed). The efficiency difference between air source and water source units would not be as great in Sitka assuming warmer air temperature and the same water temperature as Juneau. Heat source possibilities that might be explored are waste heat from the ALP mill and deep-well thermal circulation. Waste heat from the mill might be used to heat fresh water to the 60 degree farenheit range, then pipe it to town and through a district heat feedwater system for water source heat pumps. Deep well circulation is a heat pump feedwater practice in the lower 48 and might have potential on Baranof Island for supplying small district heating systems at several locations throughout the community. The third comment concerns the feasibility evaluation for Takatz. We suggest that future work review the cost estimate to be sure current practices are reflected in the unit prices. The transmission line estimate substantially underestimated the difficulty and cost of crossing the island. Also, construction access and operation and maintenance may be underestimated. Sitka appears to have some good energy options and the time to explore them. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS LETTER DATED JANUARY 21, 1982 We are in receipt of Mr. Robert Cross's letter of January 21, 1982 regarding the energy reconnaissance study for the City of Sitka. We agree with these very good comments and believe that further study of these systems at the feasibility level will answer all the questions which have been raised. It is not the intent of this study to limit the heat pump system to the water source type and this has been corrected in the final re- port. There are a number of advantages to air source heat pumps and further study is required to recommend the optimum system for Sitka. Likewise, the waste heat from the Alaska Lumber and Pulp mill needs further study to determine if this is an economically feasible energy source. With regard to Takatz, precise routing and concept design will be accomplished in the feasibility study. With this degree of design completed, a much more accurate construction cost estimate can be made. After checking these costs, it is believed that 18.09 mil- lion dollars is a reasonable cost for the transmission line in 1982. However, this figure will be verified in the feasibility study. NORTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION, INC. P.0, BOX 786 (907) 747-6 850 SITKA, ALASKA 99835 eC. ANC. 22 January 1982 JAN 2 6 1982 ‘OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC, Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani, Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Marchegiani: This letter is to provide comments on the draft report on the Alternate Energy Study for the City of Sitka. The primary section I am addressing 1s on page VII-12 of the report. I am associated with Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA) (not "Project"). I am project leader for a regional salmon planning effort which involves not only NSRAA but also the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and has identified enhancement opportunities which may be implemented by any one (or more) of these agencies. Both Takatz and Carbon lakes have been identified as potential salmon hatchery sites. Takatz is actually the more favorable site because the bay offers a larger area for harvest of returning fish. Hydroelectric development would indeed facilitate hatchery develop- ment, provided dam design were coordinated. However, no agency currently has any plans to develop either site, and technical feasibility has not been studied. It is unlikely that either site will attract serious consideration for at least the next five to ten years, or longer, because the sites are overshadowed by an apparently superior site in the immediate vicinity, at Baranof Warm Springs, and it is a goal of the Comprehensive Salmon Plan for Southeast Alaska, Phase I (April, 1981) to distribute salmon pro- duction over broader geographic areas. In regard to utilization of Takatz and Carbon lakes for coho lake rearing, NSRAA has not included them in its program because of their proximity to ADF&G's Hidden Falls Hatchery. ADF&G is inter- ested in utilizing Takatz and Carbon for rearing coho fry from Hidden Falls Hatchery, and ADF&G, F.R.E.D. Division, should be contacted in this regard. Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani 22 January 1982 Page 2 I find an additional reference to NSRAA on page V-2. I must empha- size that NSRAA has no active plans for any additional hatcheries at this time. Deer Lake was identified in the regional planning effort as having large incubation capacity, but is not otherwise a favorable candidate. Brentwood is not an acceptable candidate at all. Baranof Warm Springs, as discussed above, is the out- standing candidate for hatchery development in the area. It is one of two sites being considered by ADF&G for development in its 1987 Capital Improvement Program. NSRAA has also expressed an interest in the site. The Brentwood and Deer Lake systems are indeed included in NSRAA's coho lake rearing program. We would be very concerned not only about seaward migration of coho fry but also about the impacts of any dam development on the limnology of the lakes and their pro- ductivity for cohos. In addition to these corrections, I would like to make a few personal comments in closing. Takatz and Carbon Lake systems do indeed have relatively low fish production, so that the impacts of hydro- electric development on fisheries would be within the acceptable range. However, impacts from any hydroelectric project are far- reaching. Has the feasibility of expanding the storage capacity of the Blue Lake dam and/or installation of additional generation capacity there been adequately investigated? A 1974 report by R. W. Beck and Associates (Analysis of Electric System Requirements: City and Borough of Sitka) discusses this possiblity to some extent, ut later reports, including the current one, do not mention it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Miogen Hy Ketivger i ae — Kathryn Kyle, Project Leader Regional Salmon Planning KK/pd cc: [Rod Hoffman, Ott Water Engineers Brad Sele, ADF&G NORTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION COMMENTS LETTER DATED JANUARY 22, 1982 We are in receipt of Ms. Kathryn Kyle's letter of January 22, 1982 regarding the energy reconnaissance study for the City of Sitka. We appreciate the comments, and have appropriately ammended the text in Chapters V and VII to include information contained in the letter. Regarding the question about expanding storage capacity or instal- ling additional generation capacity of Blue Lake, we reviewed the 1974 report of R.W. Beck along with a subsequent Beck report dated 1976. This second report recommends that the abovementioned alter- natives be removed from further consideration. It was concluded that an additional 4,000 kW of capacity could be provided. How- ever, as streamflow is being regulated, additional capacity would not result in additional energy. The added capacity could accom- modate peaking needs better, but the pressing issue for Sitka is energy to meet end use requirements until 2001. February 7, 1982 Box 2158 Sitka, Alaska 99835 Eric Marchegiani Alaska Power Authority REGEIVED, 2nd floor 334 W.5th Ave. rEB10 3992 Anchorage 99501 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Dear Mr. Marchegiani: Here are my comments on the "City of Sitka Alternate Energy Study. I have recommended substantial changes to the study and have asked that a second draft be issued for public review before the final version is issued. If you have any questions please contact me. I will be at 586-2345 until February 13 or 17, and will be in Sitka at 747-8996 thereafter. The 586 number is daytime, and I will be in and out at the 747 number. Will you please send me a copy of your analysis of my comments so that I can clarify any points which weren't well made? Sincerely, Larry Edwards JRECEIVED Comments on "City of Sitka Alternate Ener Study (dra 5 1 0 49 982 by Larry Edwards, Sitka ca February 7, 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHonITY This draft document is an incomplete study of Sitka's future energy options, it does not meet all requirements of AS 44.83 and 3 AAC 94, and it contains errors in judgement on the part of the consultants. I ask that the draft study be re-drafted before it is issued in final form. My comments will be concerned with methods of population and energy use forecasting and with incomplete consideration of energy conservation technology and appropriate alternate energy sources. POPULATION GROWTH ._The population forecast in the draft study is based entirely upon historical growth rates over the past three decades. This practice is highly questionable and is likely to result in over-capitalization in electric generating facilities. ; The forecast ranges between annual growth rates of 1.9%, which is approximately the annual average over the past 30 years, and 2.8%, which is a figure for which no justification was given in the study and which is far in excess of the rate during the boom of the last decade. The study is based primarily on a median forecast of 2.3% annual growth. This equals the growth rate over the past 10 years, and is pro- jected by the draft study to continue for another three decades, of witil 2010., I contend.that the forecast has absolutely no value for determining the energy needs of Sitka. The forecasting method is analogous to driving a car down an unfamiliar road by looking out the rear-view mirror rather than the windshield. The power industry in the lower-48 had traditionally based future system needs on historical electricity use trends. The fallacy of such planning strategy became apparent in the mid 1970's when much of the industry became severly over- capitalized because demand for power did not meet expectations and excess capacity had been built. By planning entirely from historical trends in population growth, the same thing could happen very easily in Sitka. What is needed for this study is a thourough evaluation of what has caused past growth and what may cause further growth, with particular attention to possible limiting factors. A proper forecast would note that major factors influencing growth during the past three decades have been: establishment of the pulp mill, establishment of the Coast Guard Air Station, great expansion of the Forest Service workforce, and the development of the tourist industry, including construction of the airport and the two new hotels and the advent of numerous cruise ship tours. Over the past ten years the business Edwards 2. community of Sitka has expanded to meet the needs of population growth induced by these factors, and over the past five years a bounty of construction jobs, including public works and residential construction, has brought many workers to town. The result of the above fators over the past thirty years has been an average population growth of 2% per year. That same 2% growth rate can be sustained over the next 30 years only if the amount of development creating permanent jobs is exponentially greater than the amount of development described above. Considering Sitka's geographic constraints and other factors, such a level of development is clearly absurd. Certainly there is no room for another industrial development comparable to the pulp mill, there is no reason to expect expansion of government presence, particularly with the Forest Service in the process of de-centralizing from Sitka, it is unlikely that the tourist industry could grow substantially, and the-business community will soon reach ; maturity unless there is an influx of primary jobs. I expect a reduction in the construction workforce as major public works projects are completed and the backlogged need for new housing is met. What.could cause an amount of growth in jobs over the next 30 years which:is equal to the amount over the past 30 years, much less the exponentially greater amount a percentage growth rate suggests? The draft study mentioned several growth generating future developments on pages IV-2&3; however, the growth generating potential of these developments were not analysed or quantified. Here is my analysis: 1) The Alaska Dept. of Transportation claims that the deep water port, if built, would generate only a few direct and indirect permanent jobs since it would handle only containerized cargo and bulk fuel, 2) most bottom fish activity would be in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska - not in Southeast Alaska. If the industry becomes viable here, existing fishermen are likely to convert to bottom fishing from other fisheries. The most profitible bottom fishing is likely to be done far offshore by very large freezer boats which will unload in Seattle, 3) Shee Atika's forest products industry is unlikely to have major facilities in Sitka, as discussed at deep water port hearings, 4) tourism cannot grow substantially without detrimentaly effecting the quality of life in Sitka. We already have over 90 cruise ship visits per year and a substantial number of visitors come by air and ferry. At times tourists clog the entire downtown area, and a substantial increase in their numbers would be intolerable to many residents, 5) there are no known opportun- ities for profitible mining in the area, and 6) the gas pipe- line cannot induce growth in Sitka unless there are jobs or business opportunities here. If such opportunities exist they would undoubtedly be filled regardless of whether or not the gas pipe line is built. Sitka's growth is opportunity limited, not immigrant limited. Edwards 3. Several limiting factors on population growth in Sitka should be considered. One is the number of residential units which could be built on available lands. There may not be room for the increase of 1250-1950 residences prdicted by the year 2001 in table Iv-2. At the high end that is a near doubling in 20 years of the present number of residences. The number Of available building sites should be a prime consideration in the population forecast. There is also the question of the incremental costs of expanding the community to this extent, such as those from securing new water and power facilities and dump sites, expanding the sewage plant, and expanding the schools and other public facilities. These costs must be borne by existing residents as well as by the newcomers who will make the expansions necessary. Substantial growth of the community may be unpopular. There is also the question.of the effect substantial growth would have on the outdoor oriented lifestyles most Sitkans lead. If hunting and fishing and the ability to find a degree of solitude on public lands and waters near town are diminished by growth, as they surely would be by the growth predicted in the draft study, the tendency of the city to grow would be consciosly dampened by Sitkans. . In summary, the population forecast in the draft study is totally unrealistic and must be redone. The population forecast is key element in determining energy use and alternative plans S°the entire study must be re-drafted. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST On page IV-8 it is stated, "Future electric generation requirements depend primarily on two factors: population growth and the change from oil-fired ... to electric space and water heat." A third major factor was missed here, and although it has received mention throughout the draft study, it has not been given the major consideration it requires. It is energy conservation, and it is equal in importance to the two factors stated above. Later on that page it was stated, "Based on conservative studies ... 20% energy conservation is obtainable in private homes." .The studies were not cited or discussed and their degre@ of conservatism and applicibility to Sitka were not determined. Page VY-13 contradicts IV-8 by claiming a possible conservation of 50% in space heating, indicating that the 20% figure om which much of the draft study was predicated is quite low. A thorough analysis of possible energy conservation savings is called for in a study of this type and importance. Before continuing this discussion of energy requirements forecasting, I must discuss energy conservation and alternate energy sources. Edwards 4. ENERGY CONSERVATION & APPROPRIATE ENERGY SOURCES The draft study takes a very timid approach to energy conservation. Although it suggests the use of some conservation technologies it does not quantify the reduction in energy consumption they would cause nor does it suggest a plan to implement conservation measures. Several important conservation technologies appropriate for Sitka were entirely omitted. The draft study does not satisfy the intent of 3 AAC 94.055 (b) (1) (C). The draft study also fails to consider alternate energy sources appropriate for Sitka in a meaningful way, and one important source was omitted. Solar heating of domestic water was not considered at all, yet according to the following table from A Solar Design Manual for Alaska by Richard Seifert of the University of Alaska Institute of Water Resources, modest sized solar domestic water heaters could be of substantial benefit in Sitka. Performances of the heaters were computed from local solar and meteorological data. Unfortunately, such data is not available for Sitka; however from looking at heater performance for Juneau, which is on approximately the same lattitude, and for Annette and Yakutat which are near the outer coast, it appears that performance for Sitka should exceed 40%. Since heating water is a major energy use, community-wide use of this technology on suitably sited buildings could replace the need for a substantial amount of electric generating capacity. (Chart on following page) Although direct gain passive solar space heating was cited as a technology appropriate for Sitka, neither was its performance evaluated nor was its ultimate contribution to aggregate community energy needs determined. This was an incredible oversight, and one which should certainly be corrected in the final study. From the water heating performances discussed above, it appears that solar space heat might make a substantial contribution to energy needs. I have requested performance figures from Richard Seifert based on solar and meteorological data for Juneau, but have not received them in time for these comments since Juneau (where I am now) has not received any mail flights this week. I will forward what he sends me as soon as it is received. The point is though that this is an energy source of major importance, and it should be considered quantitatively in determining city energy needs. Use of wood heat was mentioned in the study, but was definitely downplayed. Figures VI-4 and VI-5 do not consider wood heat at all, even though it currently produces 20% of space heat in the community. These graphs are without doubt the most important in the entire draft study, yet they overlook this major energy source. Edwards 5. TABLE 5: ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY FOR HOT WATER PRODUCED BY 150 SQUARE FEET OF STANDARD! SOLAR COLLECTORS FOR VARIOUS ALASKAN LOCATIONS, ' Annual Percentage Location Latitude of Solar Hot Water Heating? ON % Cremer Es SEE 8502 PSs MEL IT 623 Barrow 71920° 36.5 i Bethel Se 60°49" 48.4 ! Big Delta 64°0° 57.9 Bettles 66°55" Fairbanks 64949" Gulkana 62°9" Homer Buneay “83 King Salmon Kodiak 57°45' Matanuska 61°34’ McGrath 62°58" Kotzebue 66°52’ Nome 64°30° Summit 63°39° Qakitat meer Hse 690340 sae it ee 1A standard solar collector is assumed to have a heat removal factor (F’,-T&) of 0.80, where T is “tau.” 2Calculated from the f-chart simulations done to support the development of Figures 20-36. | Water requirements were assumed to be 80 gallons per day at 140°F, SOLMET solar radiation data were used. There is a growing problem in Sitka with air pollution from wood fires, and the draft study states that no appropriate technologies exist for cleaning exhaust gasses from home wood stoves. That statement is not true. Catalytic converters have recently been developed and are now available on 17 brands of wood stoves. They are apparently very effective, although I have not seen technical reports on them yet. They cause creosotes and other volatiles to burn at lower than normal temperatures, cleaning emissions substantially and releasing 10-15% additional heat during that combustion process. Hydroelectric projects on the scale of Takatz or the other projects considered are not appropriate for a4 town the size of Sitka, except as a last resort. Their costs are simply too high. Takatz would cost the equivalent of $38,000-41,000 for each residence in Sitka in 2001 (using draft study figures for residences) assuming there are no cost over-runs. If population fails to grow as much as the draft study has predicted, which is very likely, the cost per residence would be much higher. Single large projects, such Edwards 6. as Takatz, requiring long lead times and substantial financial investment are risky and less appropriate than use of alternate technologies, energy conservation, and construction of smaller projects which would add smaller increments of power to the community as and if needed at a correspondingly smaller price. ry For a price of far less than,$38-41,000 required per residence for Takatz, existing buildings in Sitka could be brought up to state of the art in energy conservation and many could be retro-fitted for solar space and water heating. The draft study should have compared the advantages of-the aggressive hydropower plan it proposes with an aggressive energy conservation/alternate energy source plan. A moderate conservation/alternate source plan should also have been considered. An aggressive conservation/alernate energy source plan should have these elements: 1) Modify the building code: a) xrequire 'super insulation' of new construction to an R-value determined to be the maximum economically justifiable over the life of the building. b) require construction practices to assure air-tight construction, and require air-to-air heat exchangers to warm incoming ventilation air with outgoing air. c) yrequire installation of solar water heaters on buildings with adequate solar exposure. d) require buildings constructed on sites with adequate solar exposure to incorporate effective direct gain passive solar heating. e) specify a maximum window area for walls with poor solar exposure and require double glazed windows on such walls. f) require that effective moveable insulation be installed on all windows. g) specify minimum efficiencies for major appliances. h) specify maximum lighting levels (to avoid over- lighting) and encourage use of spot lighting in place of area lighting where appropriate .and use of fluorescent lights when they can reasonably be substituted for incandescent lights. i) encourage high use of natural lighting and prohibit windowless rooms. i j) require installation of timers to prevent peak-hour use of certain appliances (refrigerators, dish and clothes washers, etc.). k) require installation of separate watt-hour meters Edwards 7. in electric water heater and space heater circuits. This’ would allow the customer to attribute any unusually high electrictiy consump- tion to problems with space heating, water use, or miscellaneous & lighting use without guesswork, and allow him to take appropriate corrective action. 1) require the use of heat pumps rather than electric resistance heat in any building equipped with electric heating. m) prohibit fire places (since they operate with excessive draft) and require that wood stoves be of ‘air tight' construction and equipped with catalytic converters. n) require that buildings equipped with wood heat be equipped with an adequate means of drying wood and | sufficient space for storing a years wood supply out of the weather. (The intent is to encourage the burning of dry wood to increase energy yield and reduce air pollution) 2) The electricity rate structure should be modified as stated in the draft study. 3) A community.meat locker should be considered to supplant the need for home freezers. Highly efficient equipment could be used in a large plant and it could be in operation only during off-peak hours. Waste heat from the equipment could be used to heat adjacent buildings, with a storage medium to provide uniform heat flow. 4) Waste heat from city diesel generators may be more useable than the draft study suggests if a heat storage: medium is provided. 5) If aggressive energy conservation could supplant the need for the Takatz project, the voluntary modification of existing buildings to meet the above code changes could be financed as a public works project by the city in lieu of financing Takatz. 6) A city ordinace should require remedial work to correct excessive energy consumption of any building (based on whether or not the building is electrically heated), and a funding source should be to help low income people who may be required to do such work. Financing could be as in (5) above. - I am sure the above list has not exhausted the possibilities for energy conservation in Sitka. Perhaps some of these suggestions would be unpalatible to the community, but perhaps not. To account for that eventuality, a moderate energy conservation/alternate energy source plan should also be Edwards 8. considered. It would draw from some, but not all, of the above suggestions. Although I havé not read them myself, I know of two interesting reports which suggest that there is a large potential for energy conservation. One, done for the Bonneville Powér Authority, predicts that one third of the 1995 energy demand of the entire BPA service area (Oregon, Washington, and parts of Idaho and Montana) could be met by conservation measures, not including solar heating. The 1995 demand was based on a 3% annual growth rate in electric use. The study was done by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill. The second study, done for the Natural Resources Defence Council by Lash and Beers, predicted that a rigorous energy conservation program could reduce energy demand by 60%. Although such studies may not be directly applicible to Sitka, they indicate a tremendous potential for energy conservation which should be thoroughly studied for Sitka. Further research and a re-draft of the APA study is in order. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST (II) In light of the erroneous population forecast of the draft study, curves A,B,and C in figure IV-4 (Electrical Energy Requirements Forecast) should be revised downward. They should be revised further downward if energy conservation greater than 20% can be achieved easily, which is likely. Two new curves, call them curves F&G should be added to depict forecasts relying primarily on agressive and moderate energy conservation/alternate energy source plans. It is very likely that one or both of curves F&G will fall below line D (which represents firm generating capacity of Blue and Green Lakes) for the entire 30 year period of the study. This would indicate that additional electric generating capacity would not be needed for the foreseeable future. The energy plans described in Section VI do not reflect the 20% contribution of wood heat to Sitka's energy needs. Those plans should be modified accordingly. The plans should be restructured, and some new ones should be added. I suggest the following plans: Alternate Plan 1 (Base Plan) The current mix of energy sources projected into the future, with excess demand supplied by diesel generation A.P. 2- The Base Plan modified by incorporating the moderate energy conservation/alternate energy source plan. A.P. 3- The Base Plan modified by incorporating the S agressive energy conservation/alternate energy source plan. A.P. 4- The Base Plan, except all oil heat is converted to electrical resistance heat. : A.P. 5- A.P. 4 modified as was A.P. 2 Edwards 9. A.P. 6- A.P. 4 modified as in A.P. 3. A.P. 7- The base plan except oil heat is converted to electrical heat pumps. A.P. 8= A.P. 7 modified as in A.P. 2 A.P. 9- A.P. 7 modified as in A.P. 3 In A.P. 56,8 &9 it is assumed that energy needs will be met according to the applicible energy conservation/ alternate energy source plan whenever possible rather than by the conversion specified in A.P. 4 or 7. The family of figures in Section VI should be redrawn to depict these Alternate Plans, and would include nine figures rather than the three in the draft study. Each of these figures should show the effect of population growth and the effect of changes in electrical uses on the forecast. I expect that these energy forescasts will result in very different recommendations in the final study. ENERGY BALANCES Although the energy balances in the draft study show energy conversion losses, they do not’ show energy losses or inefficiencies in the end uses. As a result they do not display the majority ot opportunities for energy conservation. This is a serious deficiency. (AN APPENDED NOTE) - Referring to page 3 of these comments, the statement on page IV-8 is also contradicted on page 3.2-2 of appendix D, which states that conservation in Southeast Alaska could reduce energy inputs by 40 to 50 percent. Unfortunately, this statement is not reflected in the energy forecasts. On the third page from the end of Appendix C titled “Upgrade of New Homes", the use of 6 inches of wall insulation is specified. Construction metnods are currently used which permit the installation of substantially more insulation than that. I am not sure that the consultants who prepared the draft study are aware of that, so I want to raise the point. CONCLUSION The population forecast the draft study relied upon was erroneous. Appropriate technologies were not considered to their best advantage, and the potential of energy conservation was grossly underestimated. Many demonstrated technologies were not considered at all. The energy forecasts were flawed. Edwards 10. I suggest that the "City of Sitka Alternate Energy Study" be completely re-done and re-issued in draft form for public review. I further suggest that a third consultant be added to the study team who specializes in energy conservation and alternate energy technologies and who is an advocate of them. The study is totally unacceptible in its present form, and substantial work is required on it before it is re-drafted. I wish that I could have been kinder in my comments; however, the 'qualtiy' of the draft study speaks for itself, and its importance to my future and the future of my city and my fellow citizens do not allow me to mince words in ‘criticizing it. As an engineer, it is with a heavy heart that I find it necessary to direct such heavy criticism at my fellow professionals. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY MR. LARRY EDWARDS COMMENTS LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1982 We are in receipt of Mr. Larry Edwards' letter of February 7, 1982 to Mr. Eric Marchegiani of Alaska Power Authority regarding energy forecasts and plans for Sitka. -.We will address Mr. Edwards' concerns in the same order that they are raised. POPULATION GROWTH Projections of human population growth are always an uncertain pro- cedure and subject to error. Despite this, one must have a ration- al basis for the projections. The standard demographic approach to population forecasting is to base projections on past growth rates with consideration for factors determining growth rates in the past and how those factors may affect future growth rates. This is the approach utilized in the energy study. The state demographer could suggest no better approach, since no better approach exists. Factors influencing the growth rate in Sitka during the previous 30- and 10-year time frames were noted by both Mr. Edwards and the study team. However, the influence of those factors and their pos- sible limitations are not as direct and easily defined as in Mr. Edwards' letter. There is as much reason to believe that addi- tional development (such as a bottom fishing industry, forest products industry, salmon culture, service industries, tourism, etc.) will continue to boost the growth rate as there is to propose that such growth will stop. In fact, the majority of persons attending the public meeting suggested the medium growth rate was perhaps too low. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis (Section VII.3) shows the range of population growths does not seriously affect the studies outcome. We feel the population projections used, the basis for calculating them, and their influence on the study have a solid rational basis and have already received public discussion and apparent public acceptance. ENERGY REQUIREMENT FORECASTS We agree that energy conservation is the most important step to any energy plan for Sitka and this is stated several times in the re- port. Conversion from oil heated homes to electric homes will pro- vide 20 percent more conservation than the existing homes. This 20 percent figure is a reasonable expectation. Tougher ordinances and building codes may cause additional conservation, but would increase housing cost and would be subject to public approval. Public approval was a major criterion used in developing the energy plans and factor in determining the energy forecast. While a 50 percent reduction due to conservation is possible, this is considered to be the ultimate savings and unrealistic in light of Sitka's climate and community response at public meetings. A list of conservation methodologies was presented in Section VIII for the affected community to consider for implementation. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND APPROPRIATE ENERGY SOURCES All feasible energy conservation and alternative energy technolo- gies were considered. Factors determining feasibility included community acceptability, ‘reliability, commercial availability of the technology, and applicability to Sitka. Additionally, the plans required basis upon community-wide usage. Many technologies attractive to individuals (solar heating, wind generators, etc.) are not yet feasible for a community because they require 100 percent back-up. While an individual may be willing to temporarily forego loss of heat resources, community-wide plans cannot be based upon currently unreliable systems. It was recommended that, should Alternate Plan I be adopted, all resources and technologies be reevaluated before the Carbon Lake project is initiated. This would allow for state-of-the-art review of alternate energy resources and technologies. We appreciate Mr. Edwards' pointing out the ability for catalytic converters to remove certain pollutants from wood exhaust gases. We are still concerned about particulates. This development has no bearing on the study conclusions, however, since wood is not a feasible community-wide energy source for more than 20 percent of the residential heat. Hydroelectric projects are typically financed through federal and state agencies, or long term bond. As shown in the life cycle cost it is still less expensive than continued oil usage. We thank Mr. Edwards for the suggested code changes, and have pro- posed many of them for consideration by the affected community. Again, we agree that conservation is a primary and key component to all energy plans. However, a limitation which must always be incorporated is public acceptability of these proposals. ENERGY REQUIREMENT FORECASTS Most of the points on these issues made by Mr. Edwards were dis- cussed in the public meetings. There is no need to revise the forecasts in Figure IV-4 downward since 1) the population projec- tions are reasonable, 2) the plans are not acutely sensitive to the population projections, and 3) more than 20 percent conservation cannot be easily and practicably achieved. We do not feel that any plan can depend on more than 20 percent wood heat since it is not economically competitive when labor and transportation are included, as individual preference and effort cannot be reliably extrapolated to community plans. The many combinations of plans proposed by Mr. Edwards are, of course, interesting speculation. They ignore the limitation of all studies, the budget. Budget limits the number of plans to only those most feasible, and deters inclusion of all alternatives. ENERGY BALANCE As shown in Table III-l, conversion efficiencies are provided for each energy end use by each energy source. APPENDED NOTE As mentioned previously, conservation in the 40 to 50 percent range is ultimately possible but not realistically achievable due, in part, to community preferences, life style, and economy in Sitka. CONCLUSION We appreciate Mr. Edwards' comments. We feel, however, that had he been able to attend the public meetings and have the benefit of open discussion of his suggestions, his approach to use of re- sources and technologies might have been more sensitive to public opinion. In addition, Mr. Edwards might have gained greater under- standing of the limiting factors in any community energy study-- cost to the affected community, reliability, and acceptability. In this respect, we feel that our plans present realistic solutions to future energy needs in Sitka. GENERAL COMMENTS We are in receipt of the following comment letters: John A. Sandor Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service Dated: February 1, 1982 William G. Demmert, Jr., Ed.D. Deputy Commissioner, Program Management Alaska Department of Fish and Game Dated: February 2, 1982 James W. Brooks For the Director, Alaska Region National Marine Fisheries Service Dated: February 10, 1982 Fermin Gutierrez Administrator City and Borough of Sitka Dated: February 2, 1982 Jim Dwyer City of Sitka Received: February 2, 1982 These comments have been reviewed, and although no response is required, they are included here for public information. United States Forest R-10 P.O. Box 1528 Department of Service iguadare Juneau, AK 99802 Reply to 7600 RECEIVED ra BEB.’ s9¢2 FEB 5 1982 ; - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority ATTN: Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Marchegiani: Reference the draft reconnaissance study of Sitka's 20-year Power Needs enclosed with vour letter of January 13. The Forest Supervisor, Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest, will consolidate our comments on the study and reply directly to your office. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the draft review. Sincerely, L Vg Lal/] Ac /{ sOaN A. SANDOR ih Regional Forester f f FS-6200-11 (8-80) «STATE OF ALASKA / DEPART MENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER F.0. BOX 32000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 February 2, 1982 PHOWE:: 465-4100 Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani RECEIveo Project Manager Alaska Power Authority FEB & 1982 334 West 5th Avenue ; Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ALASKA POWER AUTESRITY Dear Mr. Marchegiani: The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft report entitled "City of Sitka Alternative Energy Study" prepared by Ott Water Engineers. We found the report quite interesting and we have no corrections to re- commend. The environmental impacts relating to the various alternatives were accurately summarized. We would like to point out that this Depart- ment wishes to be involved at the earliest planning stages whichever alternative is selected. We concur with the recommendation to pursue the seawater heat pump con- cept. Its impacts are few and such a system may prove feasible in a number of southeastern Alaskan communities. Perhaps a major financing plan, such as that which is presently being considered for hydroelectric projects, could also be developed for the seawater heat pump concept. To provide more specific evaluation, we request that future correspondence on this subject be directed to Mr. Dave Hardy, the Area Habitat Biologist stationed in Sitka. Mr. Hardy can be reached at: Habitat Division, Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 499, Sitka, Alaska 99835, or by calling 747-5828. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, re Demmert, Jr., Ed. D. Deputy Commissioner Program Management cc: D. Hardy REC. ANC. FEB 08 1982 OTT “ATER ENGINEERS, INC, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nattonal Marine Fisheries Service P.0. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 February 10, 1982 Mr. Eric A. Marchegiani Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Marchegiani: The Alaska Region's Environmental Assessment Division has reviewed the "City of Sitka Alternate Energy Study" and offers the following comments for your consideration. We realize that the study was directed toward Sitka's energy require- ments and not the impacts each alternative would have on living natural resources. The fish and wildlife impact section on pages VII-12, 13 is very general and could apply to most of the stream systems in southeast Alaska. Before the project is approved, our agency would expect a thorough evaluation to be conducted that would determine the potential effects a selected alternative would have on the anadromous, estuarine, and marine resources residing in or near the project area. For your information we are enclosing a report we prepared for the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, on the Takatz Lake system. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Sitka document. Sincerely, y apa P | eres A avin Rober W. McVey / Dirgctor, Alaska Region oO a 8 Su. st: U3, DEBARTMENT OF P-MAERLE I Naona) Qesanis and AA spaaris Administratinag National Waring Fisheries Service P. O. Box 1668, Juneau, Alaska 99892 jovember 12, 1976 i Reply to Arn. of pave District Engineer Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ete Liyt &. 1 Dyck. A Received Harry L.” Rietze Director, Alaska Region ; are eran Biological Data on Takatz Creek and Green Lake placies gown prune: This is in response to your request for baseline biological data con- cerning proposed hydroelectric sites at Takatz Creek and Green Lake on Baranof Island. We have discussed the two sites separately in this report. TAKATZ LAKE SYSTEM Freshwater Environment Takatz Lake Takatz Lake has a surface area of 163 hectares, is cold, turbid, has a maximum depth of 142 meters (m), and appears relatively unproductive. Water temperatures range between about 5 to 13° C. There seems to be some thermal stratification within the water column, a thermocline being established in the upper 13 m. However, it appears that stratification is unstable since temperatures recorded a few days after the initial set indicated a marked reduction in stratification. Temperature profiles, measured in 1965, are shown in figure 1. Gillnetting in 1964 and 1965 (Fig. 2) yielded no fish although cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char have been reported present in the lake. The outlet stream is unsuited for fish production owing to high turbidity and poor bottom materials. Takatz Creek Takatz Creek, flowing from Takatz Lake, descends about 120 m ina distance of approximately 0.4 kilometers (km), where it enters a much smaller unamed lake, one of about 4 hectares. Most of the section of stream betveen Takatz and the smaller lake is extremely steep in gra- ciant and consists largely of white water and ee Below tne staller lake, the creek drops rapidly for approximately 0.8 km. At this C= a August 10, 1965 | i" : August 7, 1965 r nd | Water | depth 30 7 (m) | , 36 + 7 Temperature (degrees centigrade) Figure 1. Temperature profiles measured in Takatz Lake (adapted from U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, unpublished data). Scale: 1 cm = 0.35 km Legend + Gill nets nm Temperature measurements SI Subtidal observations Figure 2. Sampling locations in Takatz Lake and Takatz Bay. au point a 12 m waterfall is present, which is a complete block to any fish migration. The stream then flows approximately 0.3 km further where it joins a clear fork, which has an 2.4 m waterfall, effectively blocking fish passage. The combined flow of these two forks is glacially turbid and flows approximately 1.2 km to tide water. Just above the high tide line on the creek is a 7.6 m waterfall that is clearly a block to fish migration. No salmon spawn in the intertidal area below the falls due to the presence of a bottom composed of light colored fine sand. Saltwater Environment Two sites in Takatz Bay (Fig. 2) are discussed in this section. Site 1. (See figure 3) Substrate within the intertidal zone consists of solid bedrock. Substrate in the subtidal zone is bedrock to a distance of about 20 m from shore, abruptly changing to crushed shells and sand at this point and beyond. The bottom drops gently with a slope of about 5° along the bedrock and then drops more moderately with a slope of about 20° along the shell/sand bottom. Subtidal vegetation at this site occurs only in a narrow band; most of the faunal species present are lacking in abundance. Observed floral and faunal species are listed in the appendix. host life forms were present on the bedrock substrate. The shell/sand substrate is mostly devoid of life in terms of epibenthic species. Site 2. (See figure 4) Substrate composition is solid bedrock in the intertidal and subtidal zones to a distance of about 18 m from shore. At this point it changes to crushed shells and sand. The bottom drops moderately from shore along a slope of about 30°. Subtidal vegetation is lacking and few animals, mainly anemones and tubeworms, are present in abundance. As at Site #1, life forms present are located on the bedrock with virtually no forms apparent on the shell/sand habitat. GREEN LAKE SYSTEM Green Lake Freshwater Environment Green Lake is a clearwater lake with a surface area of 70 hectares and a maximum depth of 26 meters. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are sufficiently high, ranging between 12.8 mg/l to 12.3 mg/1 at the surface and bottom, respectively, in May 1974 and 12.2 mg/1 to 9.7 mg/1 at the surface and bottom, respectively, in August 1974 (Fig.5). Water temperatures > Study method: Scuba transect RS Observers: Petersen, Dennison, Beaulac sd Date/time: 11-3-76/ 1415 to 1505 Transect bearing: 148°S Water depth (m) 0 6 12 18 24 - 30 36 42 48 Distance from shore (m) Figure 3. Life zone profile at site #1, Takatz Bay. a Study method: Scuba transect Ly Observers: Petersen, Dennison, Beaulac RY SS Date/time: 11-3-76/ 1625 to 1645 Transect bearing: 150°S SAS RAVES S LY 2 LYS 2 we ] KG 4 & Mee RA NM {, 2. “ SM eagle oe 124 Water depth (m) 18 ™ She Y, ‘sy, 4 eng 24 : = 30 ~ al T T Ts iv T T T T a2 eo 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 Distance from shore (m) Figure 4. Life zone profile at site #2, Takatz Bay. May 18 0 w UY iW t \ t N | ail) August 22 \ | 2 ae } el | i i iy Ki a \ i / Water i / depth g - / (m) \ } 10 Pei i i | ; ; \ / iN / frat ie i NE Ns 14 4 \ Anil 9.7 at 18m Avil 16 Cea I T TT 11.0 nls 12.0 12.5 13.0 Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) Figure 5, Dissolved oxygen measured in Green Lake durirg May and August, 1974. Solid and dash lines indicate west and east ends of Green Lake, respectively. aya ‘are cold, ranging between about 5 and 7° C during May 1974 and between about 6 and 7° C in August 1974. There seems to be no thermal strati- fication within the water column (Fig. 6). Green Lake is relatively clear in May, but becomes more turbid with the advancing summer as determined by secchi disc readings. There is a population of eastern Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Green Lake for which a sport fishery is being encouraged by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mean lengths and weights of these fish are 224 mm and 117 g, respectively (Table 1). Table 1. Length, Weight, and Sex of Brook Trout Gillnetted in Green Lake, November, 1974. Data from Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Length (mm) Weight (q) Sex 220 119 E 222 115 E 217 118 iE 232 130 i 212 115 FE 242 132 E 233 115 fh 226 115 iF 216 98 M Seasonal composition of zooplankton has been determined for Green Lake (Table 2). Among eight lakes sampled by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Green Lake was least productive in terms of plankton present. The Yodopod River, from Green Lake, empties into Silver Bay with a mean flow of 293 cfs. A waterfall at tidewater is a complete block to upstream fish movements. Saltwater Environment The Fish and Wildiife Service (unpublished report) sampled macrofauna with nets and crab pots near the mouth of the outlet stream in August, 1975 (Fig. 7). Their efforts yielded the following fishes: 3 brown rock fish (Sebastes auriculatus), 4 black rockfish (S. melanops), 1 pacific tomcod (Microgadus proximus), 1 walleye pollock, (Theragra chaleogramma), 1 padded scuipin (Artidius fenestrolis), and 1 saddleback gunnel (Pholis ornata). These data also includes temperature and oxygen readings (Figure 8) measured near the creek outlet. Habitat and asso- ciated life forms near the mouth of the Yodopod River (Fig. 7) are described as follows: Table 2. Plankton Composition and Density, Organisms Per Square Meter, Green Lake, May 15-September 17, 1974. Data from S. Robards, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, written communication. May June July Aug. Sept. 15 29 12 5 7 30 19 17 Rotatoria Keratella 1528 509 1528 2037 2037 5484 0 130888 Kellicottia 2037 0 1528 509 1018 3056 16806 1528 Polyarthra 0 0 0 0 0 1018 0 16297 Conochilus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1018 Filinia 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 3565 Cladocera Bosmina 1018 0 1018 0 0 0 1018 509 Holopedium 0 0 0 0 6 0 1018 0 Copepoda Cyclopoida 0 0 0 0 G 509 509 0 Celanoida 1018 2546 509 0 0 0 0 0 Nauplii 0 509 1018 0 0 509 1528 0 Coelospherium 509 0 15788 0 0 509 0 1018 Tabellaria 3565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fragellaria 0 0 1018 1528 2546 0 1528 2037 0 — =a May 28 August 22 4 Water depth 2 (m) aa 15 0 fT - I T 0 5 10 tS) Temperature (degrees centigrade) Figure 6. Temperature profiles in Green Lake during 1974 (adapted from Schmidt, A. and F. S. Robards. 1975. Inventory and Cataloging of Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters in Southeast Alaska. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Study G-1-A:Volume 16. Alaska Department of Fish and Game). -10- 2 Nc Scale: 1 cm = 0.31 km Legend + Gill net ++ Crab pots S39 Subtidal observations Figure 7, Sampling locations in Green Lake and Silver Bay. -)1- 0 =" Ke \ SS | 6 4 i - Dissolved oxygen 2 i Temperature | 2 12 4 Water | apth (m) 4 18 7 f 24 / | / August 11, 1975 0 5 10 UE) 20 Temperature (degrees centigrade) Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) Figure 8.Temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements near the mouth of the odopad River in Silver Bay (adapted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished y data. -12- ( C Substrate in the intertidal zone (Fig. 9) consists of a mixture of cobbles and mud overlying bedrock. Vegetation occurs in scattered patches with sparse density. In the subtidal zone the substrate is composed of a mixture of cobbles, mud, and silt. The bottom drops gently from shore along a slope of about 16°. Subtidal vegetation occurs in scattered patches only and faunal species are very sparsely represented. Floral and faunal species observed at this site are listed in the appendix. -13- -vt- Figure 9. Study method: Scuba transect Observers: Petersen, Dennison, Beaulac Date/time: 11-5-76/ 1110 to 1145 Transect bearing: 194°S Tae ae aS 6 Life zone profile in Silver Bay, near the mouth of Vodopad River. iceman T —T TC tenn eee eee 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Distance from shore (m) APPENDIX Flora Zostera marina, Eel grass Desmarestia sp., Color changer Fucus distichus, Rockweed Rhodymenia palmata, Dulse Laminaria sp., Sugarwrack Ulva or Monostroma, Sea lettuce Agarum cribrosum Constantinea rosa-marina Green alga, unidentified Lithothamnion sp., Red rock crust Annfeltia plicata Fauna Porifera Cliona celata, Burrowing sponge Sponges Coelenterata Abietinaria sp., Hydrozoan Cyanea Cyanea capillata, Sea blubber Metridium senile, White plumed anemone Tealia sp., Anemone Anemone, unidentified Hembranipora serilanella, Bryozoan Microporina borealis Phidolopora Pacifica, Lace coral Bryozoan Brachiopoda Terebratalia transversa, Lamp shell Echinodermata Takatz Bay Site 1 xx x KK x x Dermasterias imbricata Leather star Evasterias troschelii, Mottled star Pycnopodia helianthoides, Sunstar Pisaster ochraceus, Ochre seastar Pteraster tesselatus, Cushion star Crossaster papposus , Rose star Solaster stimpsoni Henricia leviuscula, Blood star Ophiopnolis sp., Brittle star Strongylocentrotus drobachiensis, Green sea urchin Stichopus californicus, Red sea cucumber A-] x «x KKK Site 2 bad x «KKK KOK OK «x x “x xx x bad Silver Bay «x xX “x «Kx x «KK OK x xX Takatz Bay ; Silver Bay Site 1 Site 2 Mollusca Acmea, sp. Colamys sp. Chiton Tonicella lineata, Lined chiton Fusitriton oregonensis, Oregon triton x Pododesmus macroschisma, Jingle Mytilus edulis, Edibie mussel Littorina sitkana, Sitka periwinkle x Protothaca staminea, Littleneck clam x Phidiana crassicornis, Opulescent nudibrancn x Triopha carpenteri _ x Archidoris montereyensis, Sea lemon A. odhneri Xx Balanus sp., Barnacle Euphausiacea Qregonia gracilis, Decorator crab Paqurus sp., Hermit crab Telmessus cheiragonus, Helmet crab Cancer magister, Dungeness crab x Pandalus danae, Dock shrimp P. hypsinotus, Coonstripe shrimp x Heptacarpus sp., Brokenback shrimp Hyas lyratus, Kelp crab Phyllolithodes papillosus, Rock crab Annelida Serpula vermicularis, Tubeworm x x Chordata : Corella, sp., Sea squirt Boltenia villosa, Sea squirt x Halocynthia aurantium, Sea peach Psychrolutes paradoxus, Tadpole sculpin x Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus, Red Irish lord Pholis laeta, Crescent gunnel Sebastes auriculatus, Brown rockfish S. melanops, Black rockfish Microgadus proximus, Pacific tomcod x Theragra chalcogramma, Walleye ' pollock x Artedius fenestralis, Padded sculpin x x «KK x «KK x x «KK OK «x x x x x«* «KK bad x x x x x< x bod Kx x x xx x x «> A-2 City and Borough of Sitka P.O. BOX 79 - SITKA, ALASKA «= 99835 Tqpr ery 2 19 2 RECEIVED FEB 8 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Eric Marchegiani, P.E. Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Eric: Be advised that we are basically in agreement with the findings contained in the Sitka Alternate Energy Study dated January, 1982 prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Ott Water Engineers and Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers. Sincerely, a N\dg Kif— Fermin Gutierrez Administrator REC. ANC. FEB 08 1982 OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. SITKA ALASKA HECEIVED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES STUDY ANG) “ Cee Ska BOWE, eee RITY If you would like to make comments on the presentation” Ugh /ot drat report on Sitka's Alternative Energy Study please do so in the space provided and leave these sheets with the study staff. PUBLIC COMMENT Did you read the draft report? Yes x No Comments (please note if comments are on the report or the presentation). . P-GN-025-A + -DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE Foa8 5 ES 2; 5 ad Enenev er 2 83S SOURCES 2 Z ° 2 LJ 4 3 220,333 in iD as SE 4 5,335 r ! 1¢o——— ? 771 m ie oa) N € 3994 : 28,7¢0 —__—<—_ 4D) 54-4) ——<_ gb, 210,266 = 4 213 743 ——— 57! n 76,926 —————= tO ysy ee p ft 7 147,860 roe eR me Cc 483 bide ae 330s zast = i fee pee : ao te |Z gqvo (4%) = es tnaes DI, 242 TOTAC USEFUL (Ir MN geiso (539%) LE2HIS TOTAL Saace Enloecy , ae \. LJsyo (49 K) ST = sviheace RAMS PORTATION TO i NOUSTAIAL 9 ? MT MARINE ue RH RES) DEMTIAL HEAT AT Aire “ cH COMMERCIAL YET _ Die set FIVE GASOLINE ST MT AT I #1 DIESEL ST MT AT RH #2 DIESEL ST MT RH CH DE I HYDROELECTRIC BLUE LAKE PROPANE RH I wooo RH WASTE OIL CH PERCENT CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY 220 ,333 27,328 27,815 beado 280 ,811 1,980 9,901 117 ,849 67 ,984 197,714 28 ,980 301,544 220 ,286 213 ,543 78 ,928 30,757 874 ,038 174,860 4,52 3,31 7,840 an 86 ,250 6,900 1,601 ,413 100 SITKA ENERGY BALANCE LOSS MULT 92 8 379 4 35 08 724 LOSSES 202 ,706. 23,229 22 5252 248 187 1,584 7,426 88 ,387 27,194 T2a,591 23,184 226 ,158 88,114 74,740 57,144 469,340 11,829 2,263 34,500 2,760 55.79 USEFUL ENERGY 17,627 4,099 5,563 54300 “325628 396 2,475 29 462 40 ,790 73,123 5,796 75 ,386 132,172 138 ,803 21,784 30,757 404,698 136,031 2,262 34315 5,577 51,750 4,140 707 ,943 44.21 11.62 36.98 46. w 92 TVA 60 60 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION GASOLINE #1 DIESEL #2 DIESEL MARINE AIR GASOLINE #1 DIESEL #2 DIESEL GASOLINE #1 DIESEL RESIDENTIAL HEAT #1 DIESEL #2 DIESEL PROPANE WOOD ELEC COMMERCIAL HEAT ELEC #2 DIESEL WASTE OIL ELEC LIGHTS & MISC RESID COMM BIA MUN OTHER ELEC PLANT INDUSTRIAL TOTAL ELEC GASOLINE #2 DIESEL PROPANE CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY USEFUL ENERGY GROUP 17 ,627 396 5,796 23,819 4,099 2,075 75 ,386 5,563 29 462 35,025 40,790 132,172 2,262 21,750 28,000 254,974 138 ,803 4,140 19,104 162,047 36 ,654 28 ,657 18,141 17,129 1,779 5,900 108 ,260 2,451 5,336 30,757 3,315 T,858 714,742 CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL GASOLINE TOTAL GASOLINE CHEVRON REG SUP UNLEAD UNION REG UNLEAD AUTOS DIESEL HEATING (HOUSING) 865 ,030 97 ,628 141,667 28 261 285 ,861 1,450 169 ,592 19,140 492,175 2,500 5 ) 148 ,979 1,410 ,667 4000 miles/year 4000 autos 352.67 gal/car 11.34 miles/gal 1,636 gal for 1,300 accounts $155/mon per account 2,126,800 gal BOATS CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL UNLEADED GASOLINE SOLD BY CHEVRON (GAL) Year End May 80 Year End May 81 Boat Use June 12,169 24,424 150* July 13 ,658 19,670 146 August 17,260 28 ,743 140* September 15 ,983 21,178 140* October 12,049 27,289 140* November 19 ,337 24,490 110* December 16 ,469 27,244 110 January 18 442 21,048 100* February 16,006 21,031 100 March 21,166 22 ,608 104 April 22 ,288 20,922 100* May 23,031 27,214 110 207 ,858 285 861 1,450 Monthly Avg 17 ,322 23 ,822 121 REESts CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL REGULAR GASOLINE SOLD BY CHEVRON (GAL) Est 1980 Year End May 80 Year End May 81 Boat Use June- 78,616 79 643 15,400 July 82 ,653 72,285 15,774 August 88 ,952 90 ,732 15 584 September 68,741 77,537 15 ,000** October 58 ,763 74,718 4,500** November 75,245 72,108 3,500** December 58,318 68 ,553 1,468** January 63 ,436 62,996 905 February 61,698* 52,513 1,324 March 62 ,084 68 ,377 3,961 April 72,579 69,777 4,766 May 85 ,762 78 ,788 15,446 856,847 865 020 97,628 71,404 72 ,086 Monthly Avg 71,745 8090.5 * Use 1/2 total recorded, suspect error in recording. oe — 8a CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL SUPREME GASOLINE SOLD BY CHEVRON (GAL) 1980 Year End May 80 Year End May 81 Boat Use June Linon 10,186 4,824 July 20 422 18,737 6,192 August 31,841 21,572 7,432 September Ti, 013 8,035 3,000* October - 12,056 10,787 800* November 13,033 6,599 400* December 9,191 11,379 50* January 10,293 7,160 44 February 11,783* 9,195 390 March 8,272 8,788 864 April 8,688 13,872 898 May 12,513 15 ,357 3,367 166 477 141,667 28,201 Monthly Avg 13 ,872 11,806 2,355 SORES ts CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL CHEVRON OUTBOARD MOTOR FUEL June 12,659 9,994 July 13,780 9,321 August 14,912 9,469 September 5,977 6,147, October 957 4,374 November 9,069 3510 December 2,057 1,397 January 1,155 1,583 February 4,060 1,478 March 2,238 2,623 April 4,059 ail May 7 ,857 6 ,87 78,780 80,516 Monthly Avg 6,565 5 ,043 June duly August September October November December January February March April May Monthly Avg * Este CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL AVIATION 80 AND 100 FUEL Total Average 100 Year End May 80 17,321 13 ,690 25,185 11,900 8,000 6,000 4,700 1,000 3 ,000* 7,294 6,705 7,662 112,457 9,371 Year End Year End May 81 May 80 15 ,630 15,289 13 ,846 14,080 11,358 14,410 13,601 12,315 11,507 9,100 6,813 6,350 2,356 1,600 4,033 1,400 2,930 4,000* 8,686 3,140 9 538 8,191 15 ,328 11,334 115 626 101,209 9,636 8,434 Total Average 80 Year End May 81 14,002 15,744 18,527 11,779 5,558 Sed 5,958 1,285 4,584 5 ,358 9,154 11,668 106,894 8,908 June July August September October November December January February March April May Monthly Avg CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL JET A-50 SOLD BY CHEVRON Year End May 80 65,023 79,506 95 ,090 70,650 76,600 93,726 72,559 91,537 86 ,000 74,007 101,618 73,742 980,058 81,672 Year End May 81 96 ,518 118 ,906 132 ,020 71 goT] 84 ,782 70,531 79 ,766 103 ,334 87,970 72,450 71,332 72,356 1,067,342 88 ,945 June July August September October November December January February March April May Monthly Avg CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY TOTAL DIESEL FUEL Year End May 80 311,901 303,173 247 ,024 171,579 156 ,642 296 163 255 ,113 312,799 277,790 312,841 231,051 249 ,910 3,125 ,986 260,499 Year End May 81 162 ,453 249 ,505 274,743 165 ,644 218,722 221,064 281,369 311,932 169 ,631 288 ,764 259 ,957 216 ,879 2,820 ,663 235 ,055 Boats 1981 45 ,000 65 436 47 ,206 30,000 10 ,000 4,006 2 388 EY 2,276 10,282 33,040 28 550 279 575 23,298 CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY WOOD USE WOOD USE 2300 Homes 15% use only wood Average 10 cords/year @ 15 MBtu/cord 2300 x .15 x 10 x 15 MBtu = 51,750 MBtu 2300 Homes 40% use about 2.5 cords/year 2300 x .4 x 2.5 x 15 MBtu = 34,500 MBtu TOTAL RESIDENTIAL WOOD 86,250 MBtu ELECTRIC HOMES WITH WOOD STOVES 90% of new home since 1978 are electric heated 1978 2015 homes 1981 2300 homes 285 x .9 = 257 Previous Years 63 320 Electric homes with wood heat FIND AVERAGE ELECTRIC USE FOR HEATING AND HOT WATER Total Use 1974 7254 kWh/home 1978 8563 kWh/home ASSUME HOME WITHOUT ELECTRIC HOT WATER OR HEAT USES 5000 kWh (8563 - 5000) 2300 = 8,194,900 kWh heating and hot water = 28,000 MBtu CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY HOME HEATING OIL HOME HEATING OIL Union 0i1 No. 1 354,927 gal Chevron Jet Fuel 160,101 gal 15% X 1,067,342 515,028 gal ASSUME AVERAGE HOUSE USES 108 x 10° Btu FOR HEAT AND HOT WATER 2300 x 108 = 248,400 x 10° Btu Heat Output Fuel Wood @ 55% eff 47 ,438 86,250 x 10° Btu Elec @ 100% eff 28 000 28,000 x 10° Btu Oi] @ 60% eff 172,962 288,270 x 10° Btu FIND GAL NO. 2 OIL Total 041 288,270 x 108 No. 1 O11 615,028 x 132,000 67,984 x 10° No. 2 041 Btu 220.286 x 10 No. 2 oil] @ 138,000 Btu/gal 1,596,275 gal CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY HEATING OIL PROPORTICNAL TO ELEC USE COMMERCIAL 14.0 892 s512 BIA Dies 337 ,501 MUNICIPAL 5.0 318 ,397 24.3 1,547 »410 PULP MILL Average Steam Flow 675,000 16/hr ah = 1412 - 420 = 992 6 Btu/hr = 675,000 x 992 = 669.600 x 10° Btu Annual Btu out of boiler for 340 days 6 669.600 x 10° x 340 x 24 = 5,463,936 x 10° Btu Assume 70% boiler eff average Total fuel use 7 ,805 ,623 x 108 Btu of fuel Heavy oil use 2,750,160 x 10 5,055,463 x 10° Btu of red liquor and hog fuel CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATIVE ENERGY STUDY PULP MILL ENERGY BALANCE PULP MILL ENERGY BALANCE LOSS 10° Btu MULT LOSSES USEFUL GASOLINE 5,250 92 4,830 420 DIESEL 30 ,980 80 24,784 6,196 PROPANE 3,480 92 3,202 278 wooD 5,055 ,463 735 1,769 412 3,286 ,051 HEAVY OIL 2,750,160 25 687 ,540 2,062 ,620 7,045,303 2,489,768 5,305,505 Estimated 340 x 24 x 22,000 kW average output Elec Production 179,522,000 kWh/yr ASSUME THEOR HEAT RATE 850 psi 825°F lb/kWh turb eff 1b/kWh 150 psi exh 18.6 = .65= 28.61 50 psi exh 13.1 + .65 = 20.15 2.5" hg exh 6.75 = .65 = 10.38 BOILER FEED PUMP HP 675,000 1b/hr head 825 psi 675,000 x 825 Hyd hp = aB7Ta0-x 89 = 730 hp Fan 150 hp Barker turb 1000 hp 1880 hp Smal] turbines 1402 kW At 50 1b/kW 70,100 1b/hr LOCATION: ATASKA: 1 1 Anchorage 2 2 1 3 Fairbanks 4 2 5 Sitka CALIFORNIA: 6 Average: MASSACHUSETTS : 7 Average: MICHIGAN: 8 Average OREGON: 9 Fugene 1 10 Portland 11 7 12 Salem 2 13 WASHINGTON: 14 Seattle-Tacoma 15 Spokane WYOMING: 16 Cheyenne 17 U.S. Average 1/ =~ Utility serving majority of customers 1940 880 773 1174 1668 1755 1948 1900 915 1950 2147 1464 1239 1825 4819 4949 6086 5726 1679 AVERAGE ANNUAL KWH CONSUMPTION-RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1960 4134 3013 aie 2684 2204 3239 13089 8196 7774 9379 9549 8438 2950 3349 1965 5200 7224 3900 5581 3627 2841 3883 16454 9404 8797 10852 15036 10905 8701 3772 4395 1970 8057 6431 5167 10785 6309 4864 4326 5710 19160 11078 10113 12591 16617 13273 10016 4442 6367 2/ 4846 6400 19575 11784 10625 13111 17447 14340 10841 4854 6987 1973 1974 14479 7329 7209 5359) 5130 6444 19428 11558 10701 12883 16285 13667 10894 5055 7340 6531 8011 5192 4821 5956 18989 11493 10826 12850 14498 11557 5124 7253 8368 ‘Utility serving minority of customers 5989 18435 10901 10592 12318 15643 14226 11984 5202 7583 : =a === eae NSS fae - ————— . af SSS J IWENSOISSY TY TWONAY ZOVeSAV KWH STATE 1973 1978 STATE. 1973 1978 ALABAMA 11295 12317 OHIO 5788 6393 ALASKA 10741 7664 OKLAHOMA 9284 10866 ARIZONA 11372 11593 OREGON 14171 13368 ARKANSAS 8989 10543 PENNSYLVANIA 7325 7878 CALIFORNIA 5359 5298 COLORADO 5201 5497 RHODE ISIAND 5156 5131 CONNECTICUT 7181 7206 SOUTH CAROI.INA 10356 10886 SOUTH DAKOTA 5628 6325 DELAWARE 6416 5955. TENNESSEE 17530 18431 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5903 6000 TEXAS 11108 12573 FLORIDA 12146 11843 UTAH 5199 5521 GEORGIA 9149 8946 VERMONT 7709 7444 VIRGINIA 9890 10052 HAWAII 8191 7875 WASHINGTON 14222 15172 IDAHO 10625 13228 WEST VIRGINIA 7355 9341 ILLINOIS 7239 7780 WISCONSIN 6320 6661 INDIANA 7217 7723 WYOMING 5320 5499 IOWA 6349 7501 COMMONWEALTH KANSAS 8340 9046 OF PUERTO RICO 4890 4595 KENTUCKY 6155 7404 LOUISIANA 10498 12709 MAINE 5568 6349 MARYLAND 8618 8398 MASSACHUSETTS 5130 4903 MICHIGAN 6444 5926 MINNESOTA 6060 6077 MISSISSIPPI 10368 10608 MISSOURI 7138 7665 MONTANA 5969 7335 NEBRASKA 8071 8397 NEVADA 15515 12946 NEW HAMPSHIRE 6041 6170 NEW JERSEY 5081 4795 NEW MEXTCO 6402 6423 NEW YORK 4746 4593 NORTH CAROLINA 11259 12382 NORTH DAKOTA 6456 7899 AVERAGE ANNUAL KWH CONSUMPTION RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1973-1978 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY COST 1980 TYP ELEC BILLS 1978 AREA ANNUAL MONTHLY JAN 80 JAN 79 USE USE ¢/KWH ¢/KWH 1. NEW YORK STATE 4593 383 8.35 7.15 2. MICHIGAN 5926 494 5.14 4.22 3. MASSACHUSETTS 4903 408 5.85 5.46 4. U.S. AVERAGE 7737 645 5.17 4.47 5. SITKA 8443 704 JUL 79-JUN 80 5.55 6. CALIFORNIA 5298 442 4.58 4.22 7. OREGON 13368 1114 2.88 8. NEW JERSEY 4795 400 7.53 9. WASHINGTON 15172 1264 L263) 10. FLORIDA 11843 987 4.84 11. TENNESSEE 18431 1536 3.03 12. WYOMING 5499 458 MWH PREDICTION TAKATZ CREEK RW BECK PROJECT REPORT 1968 1979 ACTUAL 1960 16,156 16,156 1965 24,050 24,050 1970 32,800 28,167 1975 53,900 35,150 36,771 1980 88,800 56,229 53,171 1985 146,300 77,612 1990 1995 10.5% 4.82% without mill 2000 654,151 5.2% with mill 2005 2010 1,776,000 230,826 Town 27,000 Mill 257,826 KWH RESIDENTIAL USE 1970 - 1980 KWH KWH, PER AVERAGE CUSTOMERS x 10 CUSTOMER BILL ¢/KWH 1970 1,378 8,694 6,309 211.50 3.35 1971 1,422 9,563 6,725 220.58 3.28 1972 1,460 10,425 7,140 230.40 3.23 1973) 1,515 11,103 7,329 236.65 3.23 1974 1,617 11,657 7,209 233.94 3.25 1975 1,709 13,690 8,011 262.81 3.28 1976 1,789 14,970 8,368 286.99 3.43 1977 1,900 16,652 8,764 347.48 3.96 1978 2,064 17,427 8,443 386.34 4.58 1979 2,166 18,373 8,483 422.67 4.98 1980 *2,206 18,943 8,587 476.68 5.55 1981 *2,262 20,325 8,985 615.14 6.85 * Estimated POPULATION GROWTH EXPONENTIAL STRAIGHT LINE EXPONENTIAL STRAIGHT LINE 21.9%/10 YR 26%/10 YR 2.48%/Yr 26%/10 YR FROM 1960 FROM 1960 FROM 1970 FROM 1970 FROM 1980 1950 3900 1960 5213 5213 4915 1970 6355 6568 6109 6109 6193 1980 7746 8276 7805 7697 7803 1990 9443 10428 9971 9699 9832 2000 11571. 13139 12739 12220 12388 2010 14031 16555 16276 15398 15609 CITY ONLY 32%/10 YR 26%/10 YR 1920 980 980 1930 1294 1235 1940 1708 1556 1950 2254 1960 1960 2975 2470 1970 3927 3112 1980 5184 3921 NUM OF RESID MISC ELEC TOT HEAT ELEC HEAT WOOD/HOUSE OIL/HOUSE RESID WOOD RESID OIL RESID ELEC HEAT RESID MISC ELEC TOT COM HEAT WASTE OIL COM OIL HEAT COM ELEC HEAT COM MISC ELEC TOT ELEC kWh TOT ELEC Btu TOT OIL Btu WOOD, WASTE OIL Btu BASE ENERGY Btu oO ON KD BWDP CITY GF A AWD Vo2 ZSTrH Ka HH SE HRW M.O;,.O S S " SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY BASE PLAN 2262'1) x 1.0263194395"(2) 4868 kWh/house 33526 klh/house 4117 kWh/house 6806 kWh/house 22603 kWh/house Ax E x 3.413(3)/106 Ax F x 3.413/10° A x D x 3.413/10 A x B/10° 164.165'4) x 1,023380305"(?) x 1.023380305" 140.5815) x 1.023380305" 19.3517'7) x 1.023380305" x 1.023380305" 4.232(9) 20.45(8) (14N)/3.413 +0 +0 px 3.4133) H+ G+L Q+tR+S 1981 Number of Residences Growth Rate of Residences (See Table IV-2) Conversion From kWh to Btu 1981 Total Commercial Heat Requirement, x 109 Btu, =L+M+N+0 1981 Waste 011 Heat Use, x 10° Btu 1981 Commercial Heating 011, x 10° Btu 1981 Commercial Electric Heat, x 10? Btu 1981 Misc. Commercial Electric Use, x 10° kWh Population Growth Rate Column in Table VI-2 ao»o m ~~ > + oO 3B > Ku FUEL OIL MBtu OIL COST 10°s INVEST 10°§ w= 6 AMORT 10°s O&M 10°$ G&B LAKE 10°kWh 1500 kW DIE 10°kwh $/kWh ELEC COST —-10°$ TOT ELEC 10°kWh TOT COST 10° PRESENT WORTH 10° 21 THRU 67 TOTAL Conversion From Combustion Effic Cost of Oil, $/M Oil Cost Escalat 1981 Number of R Cost/Residence t 1981 Total Comme MBtu produced by 3% 30-Year Capit 0.5% of Capital Max. Firm Energy See Table VI-1 12% Line Losses Discount Rate = Uniform Series P PRE RPP HPOONAOBWHH OB WMH Owe SSS SS NN Nn nn nnn Se Sees CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY BASE PLAN Column in Table VII-1 (H +m) x 1000°2)/,6(2) A v =u x 8.26'3) x 1,026"(4) 196 8 61706) (a-2262)5)x61708) + [x-164.165'7)] 114.428) ¢ [Residential] [Commercial] X = W x 0.05102(9) Y = Wx 0,005 (10) Z = AD TO MAX OF 77.3!42) aa = 77.301) 27 ap(t2) = (9.130086 x 8.26 x 1.026" + 0.2616/11.826 AC = AA x AB AD = P x 1.12(13) AE=X+Y+AC4+V AF = AE/1.03"(14) AG = AE/1.032° x 13.9555!15) x onmnmnao |) Ge eS bea) te n= = DY AF+AG n= 109 to 10° Btu jency Btu jon Rate esidences o Install Heating Systems 9 rcial Heat Requirement, x 10 $6170 Investment al Recovery Factor Cost = 0&M Cost By Blue and Green Lake Projects, x 10° kWh Btu and Electric Company Energy Use 3% ayment Factor, 47 Years, 3% CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY ALTERNATE 1 Column in Table VI-3 22621) x 1.026319439 "(2) NUM OF RESID As MISC ELEC B = 4g68(3) RESID HEAT/RESID 109Btu c = 33526'4) x .99™5) y 3.413(6) 7198 ELEC HEAT/RESID 10°Btu D= I/A WOOD/RESID E=c x .203(7) OIL/RESID ae ee alle RESID WOOD 10°Btu G=AXxE a RESID OIL 10°Btu H=AXxF b RESID ELEC HEAT 10°Btu 1 = 9.318) x 1,110764423"9) x 3.413 ¢ RESID MISC ELEC 10°kWh d= Ax B/10° d TOT COM HEAT k = 48.1'10) x 1.9233¢0305"(12) x 9915) x 3.4136) WASTE OIL HEAT L = 1.24(12) x 1,023380305"(11) x 3.4136) COM OIL HEAT ee etal f COM ELEC HEAT 10? Btu =—s w= 5.67'43) x 1,120001898"(14) x 3.4138) g COM MISC ELEC 10° kth 0 = 20.4515) x 1.023380305"¢11) h TOT ELEC 10° kWh P = (I + N)/3.413°9) + 9 +0 i TOT ELEC 10°Btu Q= Px 3.4135) j TOT OIL 10°Btu R=H+M k CONS, WOOD, WASTE 10%Btu s = (48.129) x 1,023380305" 12) x 3.41360) _ Ky'+ 6+ 4+ (335264) x 3.416(6)/108 -c) xa 1 BASE ENERGY 10°Btu T= G+ +S mn (1) 1981 Number of Residences (2) Growth Rate of Residences (See Table IV-2) (3) kWh/house (4) kWh/house (5) Energy Conservation Factor (6) Conversion From kWh to Btu (7) Fraction of 1980 Total Residential Heating Energy Supplied by Wood (8) 1981 Residential Heat Use, x 10-kWh (2) Growth Rate of Residential Electric Heating such that 0i] Heating is Eliminated by the end of 2001 6 : (10) Total Commercial Heat in 1981, 10° kWh (11) Population Growth Rate 6 (12) Waste O11 Heat, 1981, x 10° kWh 6 (13) 1981 Commercial Electric Heat, x 10° kWh (14) Growth Rate of Commercial Elec. Heating such that Oi] Heating is Eliminated by the End of 2001 6 (15) 1981 Misc. Commercial Electric Use, x 10° kWh CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY ALTERNATE 1 Column in Table VII-2 FUEL OIL U = (H+ M) x 1000!!)7 6(2) A OIL cost v =u x 8.263) x 1,0267(4) 196 B INVEST WW = (A-2262'3))x5977'5) + (N-5.67'7)x3.413(8)) 597748) AE TT RST Sg x aaa) c AMORT COST Xx = wx .05102(20) 0 & M COST Y= Wx .005(11) G&B LAKE GEN 10°kWh Z = AE TO MAX OF 77.312) TAKATZ GEN 10°kidh AA = AE-77.3'12) WHEN POSITIVE TO MAX oF 93.2(13) AA x .07027!14) AE - Z - AA WHEN POSITIVE ac x .ogg(15) Px 1.12/16) V+X + Y + AB + AD ar/1.030(17) ar/1.03"(17) (13.855)! AT 20TH YEAR n = 20 D> AG + AH M n=l QO nM oO COST 10° AB CARBON GEN 10°kWh AC COST 10s AD TOT ELEC GEN 10°kWh AE TOT COST AF PRESENT WORTH AG 21 THRU 67 AH = renown = 18) TOTAL PW Conversion From 109 to 10° Btu Combustion Efficiency Cost of Oil, $/MBtu 0i1 Cost Escalation Rate 1981 Number of Residences Cost of Installing Heating System and Conservation, $/House Commercial Electric Heat in 1981, 10°kWh Conversion From kWh to Btu Amount of Heat Produced by $5977 Investment, MBtu 3%, 30-Year Capital Recovery Factor 0.5% of Capital Cost = 0&M Cost Maximum Firm Energy By Blue and Green Lake Projects, x 10° kWh Max. Firm Energy From Takatz Lake Project, x 10°kwh Cost of Takatz Lake Energy (Appendix E) Cost of Carbon Lake Eneray (Appendix £) 12% Line Loss and Electrical Company Energy Use 3% Uniform Series Payment Factor, 47 Years, 3% Discount Rate PPP PEP RP eee wD ON DD BP WD ONAN EP WHY BS OO VS SY DDD D SS i ee ee oe ee ee ee CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY ALTERNATE 2 Column in Table VII-3,4,5 FUEL OIL U = (H +m) x 1000/1), 6(2) A OIL cost v= ux 8.269) x 1,0267(4) 196 B INVEST 10°$ w= (A-2262°))x10660'6) 10° +(N=5.67(7)x3,413(8)) x 10660'6) —¢ .4123 x 93.59! 10) 1000 (Note 5) AMORT X = wx .05102(11) D ORM Y=wx .o2(t2) E G&B LAKE Z = AE TO MAX OF 77.3(23) F TAKATZ AA = Ac-77.3'13)WHEN POSITIVE G TO MAX oF 93.214) COST AB = AA x .07027(15) H TOT ELEC ” AE = Px 1.12616) I TOT COST AF = V+X+Y+ AB + AD J PRESENT WORTH AG = aF/1.03"(17) k 21 THRU 67 AH = aF/1.03"(27) (13,855) (18) K AT 20TH YEAR n=2 TOT PW = E AG+AH kK n=l Conversion From 109 to 10° Btu Combustion Efficiency Cost of Oil, $/MBtu Qi1 Cost Escalation Rate 1981 Number of Residences Cost of Heating System and Conservagion, Heat Pumps 1981 Commercial Electric Heat, x 10° kWh Conversion From kWh to Btu : Conversion of Energy Saved by Heat Pumps to Equivalent 0i1 Heating Energy For Residential (10) Amount of Heat Produced by $10,660 Investment (11) 3%, 30-Year Capital Recovery Factor (12) 2% of Capital Cost = 0 &™M (13) Maximum Firm Energy From Blue Lake and Green Lake Projects (15) Maximum Firm Energy From Takatz Lake Project 15 (16) (17) (18) aa eS WOONANAHLWMrH Soe SESS ESS Cost of Takatz Lake Energy (Appendix £) 12% Line Loss and Electric Company Energy Use Discount Rate = 3% Uniform Series Payment Factor, 47 Years, 3% NUM OF RESID MISC ELEC RESID HEAT/RESID ELEC HEAT/RESID WOOD/RESID OIL/RESID RESID WOOD RESID OIL RESID ELEC HEAT RESID MISC ELEC TOT COM HEAT WASTE OIL HEAT COM OIL HEAT COM ELEC HEAT COM MISC HEAT TOT ELEC ——-10° kwh TOT ELEC —«:10 Btu TOT OIL 10? Btu CONS, WOOD, WASTE 10° Btu BASE ENERGY 10° Btu Hi Pop Note 1 1.031464949 Note 2 1.028152162 Note 3. 1.076491991 Note 4 1.085443316 Note 5 -418 CITY OF SITKA ALTERNATE ENERGY STUDY MED, HI, (Reference notes for high and low pop. growth) nmmeoovwv YS M nwo v ALTERNATE 2 LO POPULATION GROWTH Column in Table VI-4 22621) x 1.026319439"(2) (Note 1) agen! 3) 33526(4) x .goM(5) x 3,413(6) 106 I/A Cex! CG 3.413 x 10° AXE Ax F 9, 31! (Note AxB 48. 1! x 3.4 1.241 x 3.4 K-L-[ 4123! (Note 5.67! 1.080 20.45 (Note 2037) ~ ¢(o-4117°8) x 3.413!6) x 107 x 3.413 (2) a) - 4117! 10) 3) 710° 12) ¥ 1,0233g0305"(13) 13(6 ) (Note 2) 4) x 1,023380305"(13) (6) (Note 2) x 3,413(9) 13{6 56 16)5 7-5.67(15) 5) 15) ¢ 3,413°6) 09157"!17) (Note 4) (18) 1.02338305"(13) 2) x 1.07119126" (14H) /3.413'©) 4940 P x 3.413¢6) H+ M 33526'4) x 3.4136) + 43.12) x 3.4136 1.0233¢0305"(13) O+R+S Lo Po 1.02 837 1.019122181 1.066731629 1.078132242 -4067 xA-H-I 6) x (Note 2) 11) x 99" 67'15) x 3.4136), f x 3.413! 6) — wT U WONAMNPWHH HO Vo eo SS ree ei eee MN AmFwWPr Pane i NNR en ee ee ~~ 18) 1981 Number of Residences Growth Rate of Residences kWh/house kWh/house Energy Conservation Factor Conversion From kWh to Btu Fraction of 1980 Total Residential Heating Energy Supplied by Wood kWh/house Conversion of Energy Saved by Heat Pumps to Equivalent 0i1-Heating Energy for Residential 6 1981 Residential Electric Heat Use, x 10° kWh Growth Rate of Residential Electric Heat load such that 0i1 Heating is Replaced by Heat Pumps By The End of ,2001 Commercial Heat in 1981, 10° kWh Population Growth Rate 6 Waste O71 Heat, 1981, x 10° kWh 6 1981 Commercial Electric Heat, x 10° kWh Conversion of Energy Saved by Heat Pumps to Equivalent 0i1-Heating Energy for Commercial Growth Rate of Commercial Electric Heat Load Such That 0i1 Heating is Replaced by Heat Pumps By the End of 2001 6 1981 Misc. Commercial Electrical Use, x 10° kWh UPGRADE OF EXISTING HOMES (Assuming an Average Home of 1300 ft?) 1 1 Work Description Material Costs Labor Costs Additional 6" of ceiling insulation $182 $273 Fill wall cavities (900 ft?) $126 $189 Repair Holes and Paint $27 $72 Caulking $40 $100 Weatherstrip doors $20 $40 Install receptacle and switch seals $10 $25 Install stormwindows (150 ft2) $300 “$300 Totals! $705 «$999 Factor for Sitka X10. x2.0 Sitka Totals $1058 $1998 $3055 1 Lower 48 Costs UPGRADE OF NEW HOMES (Assumes use of 6" studs on 24" centers and 6" insulation instead of 4" studs on 16" centers and 4" insulation at no additional cost) Work Description Material Costs! Labor Cost! Install 12" ceiling insulation $210 $75 Install stormwindows $300 -- Ceiling leaks $75 $200 Weatherstrip doors $20 $40 Install receptacles and switch seals $10 $25 Total? $615 $340 Factor for Sitka Xie) x2.0 Totals for Sitka $922.50 $680 $1603 i Lower 48 costs COSTS OF OIL FIRED HOMES (Costs of boiler, fuel storage, baseboard units, and hot water tanks) Work Description Material costs! Labor Cost! Piping $400 $350 Boiler $1430 $250 Hot Water Tank $40 aa Oil Tank $400 $40 Baseboards $855 $340 Total! $3125 $980 Factor for Sitka x16 x2.0 Sitka Totals $4687 .50 $1960’ $6650 1 Lower 48 costs WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMPS WITH AIR SYSTEM AND DOMESTIC HOT WATER (New Homes ) Work Description Material Costs Water source (well or portion of central distrib.) Pump and motor Heat pump Piping Hot water tank Fan Duct work Totals! Factor for Sitka Sitka Totals 1 Lower 48 costs $1000 $150 $1500 $150 $150 $150 $300 $3400 x1.5 $5100 Labor Cost $500 $100 $150 $250 $50 $100 $200 $1350 x2.0 $2700 $7800 WATER SOURCE HEAT PUMP CONVERSION OF EXISTING HOMES Work Description Material Costs! Labor Cost! Subtotal from pg 4, all required $3400 $1350 for new insulation Interior finish repair $50 $700 Demolition of old system -- $150 Totals! $3450 $2200 Factor for Sitka x15 x2.0 Totals for Sitka : $5175 $4400 $9575 1 Lower 48 costs Work Description Baseboard units Thermostat Wiring Water heaters Totals! Factors for Sitka Sitka Totals From above Demolition of old equipment Repair home Totals! Factors for Sitka Totals for Sitka 1 Lower 48 costs ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATING NEW HOMES Material Costs $450 _ $120 $300 $150 $1020 x15 $1530 EXISTING OIL HOME $1020 $50 $1070 x5) $1605 Labor Cost i $250 $80 $150 $75 $555 x2.0 $1110 $2640 $555 $150 $700 $1405 x2.0 $2810 $4415 D.5. Health or safety aspects During construction, health and safety of workers is an issue. After construction, health and safety aspects are not of concern unless there is a dam break or large scale water displacement over the dam. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Green Lake installed costs will be approximately $.063/kWh with Takatz Lake at $.07027/kWh and Carbon Lake at $.089/kWh (based on 2 percent interest over 50 years). E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh These requirements can be measured as the quantity of resource lost per kWh produced; for example, for Green Lake, approximately 1350 acres of forest were removed for reservoir area, roadway and trans- mission lines. This equals .00001 acre per kWh on a one-time basis. No significant fishery was lost so there was negligible fisheries impact per kWh. The amount would vary with each project, as would the actual value of habitat lost. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability The process of converting the potential energy of water at a high elevation into electrical energy by use of a turbine and generator at a lower elevation is a proven process. The equipment involved is extremely reliable. Design and cost are specific to each site, as are environmental impacts. Because of the large scale and the long lead time, hydropower is a capital intensive investment with high field exploration costs. Few utilities can afford to provide 1.6-6 D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Water is a renewable resource for hydropower projects although the rates of renewability may vary. Forestry, fisheries, and wildlife losses associated with hydroelectric projects must also be considered. D.2.b. Non-renewable Non-renewable resources center upon loss of soil characteristics and availability in the reservoir basin and downstream river bed, and materials involved in dam and powerplant construction. D.3. Construction and operation employment by skill Construction would require both highly skilled labor experienced in the design and construction of hydroelectric projects and less experienced labor from the local workforce. Local diesel power plant operators who receive a minimal amount of additional training can qualify to work as hydroelectric plant operators. D.4. Environmental residuals Natural conditions are altered by creation of a larger reservoir with a fluctuating water level and drawdown shoreline zone. This results in flooding of previous terrestrial habitat and upstream ‘river beds. Streamflow below the dam will be modified as will natural vegetation and topography. Construction of access roads and transmission lines will alter natural vegetation, topography, wildlife habitat, and drainage. The impacts depend upon the value of habitat lost to fish and wildlife and of forestry resources, the nature of the created reservoir, and construction methods. 1,6-5 C.2. Operation Operation costs are included in those for maintenance. C.3. Maintenance and replacement Operation and maintenance costs are usually combined in hydropower developments. Maintenance costs are about $50/kW/year installed. Replacement costs are estimated at $10 per installed kW/year. Approximately $110/kW installed per year would cover costs for in- surance, routine maintenance and operation, general expenses, and interim replacements. C.4. Economies of scale The cost per kW installed generally decreases for larger installa- tions. Further economies of scale can be realized when the opera- tion of several small hydropower developments can be integrated, such as at Takatz, Carbon, and Baranof Lakes. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Considerations for siting of hydropower plants near Sitka include: adequate water supply; available head; proximity to the electricity consumers; reservoir basin characteristics; and forestry, fisheries, wildlife, and archaeological resources. Such characteristics must also be considered along access roads and transmission lines. The geological characteristics at the dam and power plant sites are also important. 1.674 Repairs to damaged lines can usually be accomplished quickly. Die- sel generation capacity to provide emergency electricity in the event that the transmission line or the powerplant should go down is usually provided. Building an alternate transmission line can reduce the amount of back-up required. B.2.b. Storage requirements Except for run-of-river plants, a reservoir is usually used to store water. Typical reservoirs will range in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. Sizing depends primarily on sea- sonality and amount of rainfall. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Turbine efficiencies range from 75 to 90 percent varying in type, flow, and load. Combining these with generator efficiencies of approximately 95 percent results in net efficiencies between 75 to 80 percent in the expected range of operation. B.4. Net energy Approximately 4800 kWh/installed kW will be gerierated annually. Saleable energy will be about 10 percent less when station service, transformer, transmission line, and other losses are included. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital $7,140/kW installed (Takatz Lake) $8,400/kW installed (Carbon Lake) $8,000/kW installed (Baranof Lake) $8,000/kW installed (Milk Lake near Koyukuk) $9,000/kW installed (Brentwood) $8,000/kW installed (Deer Lake) 00000 0 1.6-3 B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Hydropower provides readily regulated electricity, from either synchronous or induction AC generators. B.1l.b. Quantity Turbine generator units are available in an infinite number of types and sizes. Output capacity is dependent upon usable stream flow and head. Approximately 60 percent of the energy stored in the water will result in saleable electricity. The remaining 40 percent will be lost in the water conduit, turbine, generator, station service, transformers, and the transmission line. On Baranof Island, dam sites with capacities from 2 to 24 mW have been identified. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Hydropower plants can be base loaded and/or peak loaded. In smal- ler installations, the operating mode may be adjusted seasonally, depending on the availability of water and the demand for electri- city. High yearly rainfall on Baranof Island plus adequate active storage remove most seasonal and daily fluctuations in capacity. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Hydroelectric power generation is one of the most reliable methods of generating electric power. Life expectancy of the equipment is in the range of 25 to 35 years with minimal care and maintenance. The transmission lines are often routed through very rugged terrain and are consequently subject to a variety of natural hazards. 1.6-2 1.6 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In a hydroelectric power plant, flowing water is directed into a hydraulic turbine where the energy in the water is used to turn a shaft, which then drives a generator. Water stored at an elevation above the turbine (head) possesses potential energy. The water possesses kinetic energy as a function of its velocity when flowing down to the generator. Turbines perform a continuous transforma- tion of the kinetic energy of the water into usable mechanical energy at the shaft. A.2. Current and future availability Hydropower provides about 10 percent of Alaska's electric energy needs with a range in size from over a million kilowatts (kW) down to a few kW of installed capacity. As of January 1978, hydroelec- tric developments in the United States totaled 59 million kW, pro- ducing an estimated average annual output of 276 billion kilowatt hours (kWh). Hydropower plant equipment is available from several suppliers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan. Medium to low head units in the range of 150 kW are available within 3 to ll months as are medium head (900 meters), low flow (2 cfs) units in the range of 37.5 to 50 kw. WG Geat - E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Water environmental residuals for the Geysers, California produc- tion are: Bicarbonate 0.06 1lbs/million Btu; NOx 0.02 lbs/million Btu; SO, 0.02 lbs/million Btu; Solids 0.13 lbs/million Btu; and Organics 0.03 lbs/million Btu. Air pollution residuals include: Carbon dioxide 6.66 lbs/million Btu; Ammonia 0.11 1lbs/million Btu; Methane 0.42 lbs/million Btu; and Hydrogen sulfate 0.41 lbs/million Btu. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Geothermal designs are nearly always site-specific technology, making cost extrapolations risky. Presently, flashed steam plants of about 35 mW appear to be the minimum economic size. A proven resource is required. While ther- mal springs are noted at Goddard, Fish Bay Creek, and Baranof Warm Springs, their surface temperatures are not high (about 50°F), in- dicating a need for deep wells. They are not near Sitka, so long transmission lines would be required. Lo-5 D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable If geothermal is considered a renewable resource, the fluid would have typical characteristics of 340°F @ 115 psia. D.2.b. Non-renewable Only those involved in manufacture of hardware of the plant. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction and operational personnel must be highly skilled and are usually from outside the project area. D.4. Environmental residuals H2S is a major problem in air and water, and the geothermal effluent, if not returned to the ground, has elevated temperatures, high TDS, high metals content, and low D.O. Cooling water also presents problems. D.5. Health or safety aspects Disposal of spent geothermal fluids, H2s ("rotten egg" smell), and possible surface subsidence, as well as noise (levels of more than 100 dB) are reported problems. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load An estimated 6¢ to 10¢/kWh. 1.5-4 B.4. Net energy Net production is estimated at 27,000 to 34,000 Btu/kWh. Cc. COSTS Cal. [Capital Estimated at $2000/kW installed for plant costs and $1,000/kW for wells (1.78 x California price of $1125/kW). About $500/kW for gathering energy and delivery to plant. C.2. Operation 2 percent per year of capital investment. C.3. Maintenance and replacement 4 percent per year for maintenance. 2.1 percent per year for replacement. C.4. Economies .of scale Economies of scale dictate that geothermal generation is generally disadvantageous below about 30 mW. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Siting must be near geothermal sources with 8 to 10 acres of land needed for each mW. Most of this area is open space for wells and plant facilities. 135-3 B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity and hot waste water. B.1.b. Quantity Economic plant sizes are in the range of 35 to 50 mW. A pilot California plant is being constructed of 10 mW size. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Geothermal electric plants are generally used for base (continuous) loads. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Back-up is required. Standby wells are also common. B.2.b. Storage requirements No special storage is required since geothermal reservoirs provide practically unlimited storage. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Flash steam systems have good overall plant efficiency. The turbine efficiency alone is around 22 percent. 5-2 1.5 GEOTHERMAL ELECTRICITY GENERATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Geothermal electric generation can be by the flashed steam or bi- Nary processes. The flashed steam process applies to liquid-domi- nated geothermal reservoirs such as those thought to exist in Sitka. Hot liquids are brought to the surface and partially con- verted to steam in flash vessels where the fluids undergo pressure reduction. The separated steam component is used to power a steam turbine generator and spent and separated fluids are reinjected in- to the earth to minimize potential subsidence and environmental problems. In the binary conversion process, the heated geothermal primary fluid is of insufficient temperature for direct use in electrical production so it is passed through a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a working fluid. The working fluid has a lower boiling point than water and is vaporized in the heat exchanger. The vapo- rized working fluid then expands through a turbine, or in a cylinder-piston arrangement, is condensed, and returns to the heat exchanger. The geothermal fluid is returned to the ground. A.2. Current and future availability The flashed steam process is not currently in commercial practice in the United States, but units of over 140 mW are in operation in foreign countries. Binary systems using geothermal power are in operation in California. There are about 1,000 mW of capacity at the Geysers Plant in California. Teo In its simplest form, the gas turbine is compact and relatively light, does not require cooling water, runs unattended, and can be remotely controlled. In order to be most efficient, however, gas turbines should be run at or near full load. 1.4-4 equipment. An operator/mechanic is required for unit operation. D.4. Environmental residuals Oil-fired turbines produce NOx, SOx, and particulates. Since gas turbines require clean-burning fuels, most. stack gas emissions are negligible, except for NOx. D.5. Health or safety aspects Integration of gas turbine generating units in a community rarely causes any significant negative health or safety impacts. The greatest danger is potential for accidents related to use of flam- mable and explosive gas as fuel. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load 20¢/kWh for a 10,000 kW unit operating 1,000 hours per year. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh 12 to 23 cubic feet of natural gas/kWh. Waste heat equal to 0.5 Btu per Btu fuel supplied. Exhaust pollution depends on type of fuel. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Gas turbines are a well established technology in the U.S., ac- counting for about 10 percent of U.S. installed generating capa- city. Their operation has been proven in much of Alaska, although time required for maintenance and parts acquisition tend to take longer than in the Lower 48. 14474 11.2¢/kWh for fuel. c.5. Maintenance and replacement Maintenance is estimated at 2 percent of investment per year and replacement at 3.7 percent per year. C.6. Economies of scale Units range in size from 30 kW to over 100 mW. Economics favor units in the 25 mW size range. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height A typical 180 kW gas turbine weighs around 900 pounds, is 3-1/2 feet long and wide, and about 3 feet high. The unit requires enclosure, fuel, and air supplies. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Not applicable. D.2.b. Non-renewable Natural gas is the best fuel. 12 to 23 cubic feet of natural gas per kWh are needed. Light distillate oils are also satisfactory. Corrosion is caused by use of inappropriate fuels, i.e., those containing sulfur, vanadium, or other metals. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be performed with supervised local labor and 1.4-3 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Reliability of petroleum based fuel supply is an issue. Normally no back-up is needed as peaking units have high reliability and low installation lead time. B.2.b. Storage requirements Natural gas is usually provided by pipeline. Distillate oil fuels require tank storage. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Overall thermal efficiency of simple cycle turbines is about 28 percent. c. COSTS C.1. Capital $1,000/kW for 10,000 kW units. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital costs. C.3. Transmission Similar to costs for coal-fired steam electric transmission. C.4. Operation With a fuel cost of $3.26/MBtu, a 10 mW gas turbine would cost 1.4-2 1.4 GAS TURBINES A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In simple cycle gas turbine plants, incoming air is compressed and injected into the combustion chamber along with the gas or liquid fuel. The combusted gas, at relatively high temperature and pres- sure, expands through and drives the turbine, which drives the ge- nerator and the air compressor. Fuel is typically natural gas or very high grade distillate oil. A.2. Current and future availability Gas turbine power plants are a proven, established technology. They are used mainly in peaking applications. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity and waste heat. B.1l.b. Quantity Heat rate is 1,200 to 22,000 Btu/kWh. Waste (exhaust) heat is at about 800°F and amounts to 40 to 50 percent of the Btu value of fuel input. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Gas turbines are typically used for daily peaking loads because op- erating costs are relatively high. 1.4-1 E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Fuel cell technology is 5 years or more away from commercial appli- cation. Once developed, it will be a reliable, efficient source of energy if used with heat recovery. The technology is not pre- sently available for use in Sitka. 1.3-6 D.4. Environmental residuals The fuel cell power installation is compact and nearly silent. The exhaust of a fuel cell plant depends greatly on the fuel source and consists of surplus liquid water and a gas stream of predominantly air with carbon dioxide and water vapor. Measured emissions from experimental fuel cell power plants in both the kilowatt and mega- watt range have shown that fuel cell gaseous exhaust contains less than 1/10 the pollutants per unit of energy delivered allowed by federal standards under the Clean Air Act of 1970. Exhaust emis- sion data from experimental fuel cell power plants are: for parti- culates, 0 to 0.00003 lbs/mWh; nitrogen oxides, 0.1 to 0.24 lbs/mWh; sulfur dioxides, 0 to 0.0003 lbs/kWh; and no smoke. D.5. Health and safety aspects Fuel cell power plants are quiet and pollution-free and can be located virtually any place, with no significant health or safety hazard. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load Costs would be dependent upon fuel used and the method of bringing it to the site. The installed costs are expected to be approximately $2,000/kwW. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Fuel is needed for conversion to hydrogen. Approximately 147 lbs of hydrogen is used per mW produced, and 1,323 lbs H50 are pro- duced per mW. The production of CO, depends on the amount of CO in the reformed fuel. There are 1.57 lbs water for every lb of CO. Ve3i=5) C.3. Transmission Transmission cost will be minimal with fuel cells if small units are distributed throughout the community. Central units would re- quire transmission costs similar to those for coal-fired steam electric generators. c.4. Operation The units are designed for semi-automatic start, unattended opera- tion, and automatic shutdown, making operation a small fraction of maintenance and replacement costs. C.5. Maintenance and replacement Cell stack operation and maintenance indicate costs to be 10 per- cent of investment cost every year. Research in cell stack design and materials is concentrated in an effort to extend cell life and improve efficiency. Expected life of other components is expected to be 20 years. C.6. Economies of scale The fuel cell power units can either "stand alone" or be used in parallel operation with existing utilities. Cost per kW for addi- tional units of the same size would not change. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Initial installations will require high levels of skill and techni- cal knowledge specific to fuel cells. Control of the output will use advanced macro processes, with normal electrical plant opera- tors. 1.3-4 B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency First generation fuel cells have efficiencies of 38 to 40 percent. With waste heat utilization, beneficial use of 60 to 70 percent of the fuel input can be obtained. However, the fuel cell requires pure gaseous hydrogen for operation and the overall system efficiency must take into account the energy expended in converting any fuel into a form usable by the fuel cell. The present short-term goal is to produce a fuel reformer with a _ thermal efficiency of 87 percent. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital Capital costs for a commercial fuel cell power plant are not presently available and depend greatly on the fuel source. Cost projections for the reformer and power inverter are not presently available. Additional capital cost would be incurred to recover the thermal heat output of the fuel cell. Minimum time for early commercialization of this technology is 5 years. C.2. Assembly and installation Fuel cell plants will be produced as complete units or in compo- nents. A 40 kW size cell is approximately 5 feet wide, 9 feet long, 6 feet high, and weighs approximately 7,000 pounds. A self-contained unit occupies approximately one square foot per kW and weighs approximately 125 pounds per kW. The equipment to convert the available fuel into a hydrogen rich fuel for the cell will represent additional costs. Current FC development uses natural gas as a fuel stock. There are no commercial systems installed to establish costs. 1.3-3 B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity and waste heat (in the range of 120 to 1200°F). B.1l.b. Quantity A single cell produces 0.6 to 1.0 Vdc. These individual cells are assembled into filterpress configurations, or stacks, to increase the output voltage to the level necessary for large scale power generation. The stacks can be connected in series and/or set parallel to each other to produce the required voltage and power levels. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Fuel cells are capable of nearly constant efficiency from 25 percent to 100 percent of rated output. Units can respond quickly to load changes and respond to consumers' demands instantaneously and automatically. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Spare units are required to provide emergency and maintenance back- up. B.2.b. Storage requirements Storage of fuel similar to any other electrical power plant instal- lation is required. Output of the fuel cells can be matched to the load. lg3-2 1.3 FUEL CELLS A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A fuel cell (FC) is a device for directly converting fuel into electrical energy, heat, and water. It is similar to a non- rechargeable battery (as used in a flashlight), but differs in that the electrode materials are not consumed. Fuel cells convert the latent chemical energy of fuel directly into electricity. This is done by combining a hydrogen-rich fuel with oxygen. Natural gas is the primary fuel now being utilized in research on fuel cells, but possible other fuels include natural gas, LNG, low- and medium-Btu coal-derived gas, gas produced from biomass or urban waste, and petroleum distillates. A FC power plant consists of a fuel processor (reformer) which generates hydrogen-rich fuel, a fuel cell power section, and a power conditioner (inverter) to convert the cell DC output to AC current. A.2. Current and future availability Fuel cell power plants are presently in the developmental stage. A commercial product may be five or more years away. 3s —L 80 lbs NO, per 1000 gal 80 lbs HC per 1000 gal 20 lbs SO, per 1000 gal 20 lbs particulate matter per 1000 gal 60 lbs CO per 1000 gal The amount of fuel per kWh varies with generator size from 0.65 gallons per kWh No. 6 oil for 10 mW to 0.8 gallons per kWh for 1,500 kW diesel. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Reliable, available and appropriate for Sitka although costs will increase due to fuel costs. 1.25 D.2.b. Non-renewable No. 2 diesel fuel and No. 6 residual oil plus materials for main- tenance. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be done with supervised local labor and equipment. Operation requires an operator/mechanic. D.4. Environmental residuals The exhaust residuals include: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hy- drogen, and traces of nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. Waste heat is also produced. D.5. Health or safety aspects Fuel tanks require spill protection; a major consideration is po- tential impact of such spills. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load 10¢/kWh for 10 mW diesel and 11.5¢/kWh for 1,500 kW diesel. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Air pollutant loads based on diesel trucks are as follows: 1.2-4 Cc. COSTS C.1l. Capital $1,500 to $2,000/kW for continuous duty diesels. C.2. Transmission Costs are similar to those for coal-fired steam electric generation. C.3. Operation and maintenance 2 to 4 percent of investment per year. C.4. Economies of scale Generally the unit costs of diesel are not greatly affected by the size of the unit. Costs are more affected by the type of service. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height A 100 kW unit is typically skid mounted, weighs about 2 tons, is about 5 feet high, 3-1/2 feet wide, and 9 feet long. The unit re- quires foundation, enclosure, and provision for cooling and combus- tion air. Large units require heavy foundations. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Only materials involved in manufacture, and siting. Worse) B.1l.b. Quantity Sitka generators are the of 300 kW to 2,750 kW size. Typically 30 percent of the fuel energy supplied to a diesel electric set is converted to electricity, 35 percent is transferred to cooling water, 30 percent is exhausted as hot gas, and 50 percent is radi- ated directly from the engine block and the generator. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Diesel units may be used for continuous operation, peaking, back- up, and emergency. In Sitka, they presently are used for back-up and peaking but will only be used for back-up in the future. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Diesel-powered generators have a reliability of about 90 percent with good maintenance. B.2.b. Storage requirements Diesel fuel tanks must be located near the power plant. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Usually from 17 to 41 percent overall plant efficiency of fuel in- put. The higher efficiencies are obtained by heat recovery and Rankine cycle. Sitka's average 28 percent. B.4. Net energy The heat rate for diesels ranges from 8,300 to 20,000 Btu/kWh. Plant auxiliary power requirements are low. 1.2-2 1.2 DIESEL-POWERED ELECTRIC GENERATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the diesel engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to a high pressure. Fuel oil is injected into the compressed air, which is at a temperature above the fuel ignition point, and the fuel burns, converting thermal energy to mechanical energy by driving a piston. Pistons drive a shaft which in turn drives the generator. A.2. Current and future availability Diesel engines driving electrical generators are one of the most efficient simple cycle converters of chemical energy (fuel) to electrical energy. Diesel generating units are usually built as an integral whole and mounted on skids for installation at their place of use. Very large diesel engines may be assembled in place. En- gines range in size from under 100 kW to 40,000 kw. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form In addition to electricity, diesel generators produce capturable waste heat from the cooling water and the exhaust. The cooling water is normally 160 to 200°F or higher with slight engine modifi- cation. The exhaust heat from a diesel generator is 700 to 1000°F. This heat can be partially recovered for use in a Rankine cycle. Zee—) D.5. Health or safety aspects Unregulated, atmospheric pollutants, including toxic and carcinogenic trace elements, radionuclides, and organic and metal-organic compounds are of concern, as is the possibility of acid rain. Additional concerns include the impact of transport and storage of fuel and risk of spontaneous combustion. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Estimated at 10¢ to 12¢/kWh for a 10 mW plant in Sitka. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Assuming 8,000 Btu/lb coal and 14,500 Btu/kWh, NO, emissions would be about 0.7 lb/million Btu and particulate emissions about 0.1 lb/million Btu. Solid wastes are about 10 percent of - fuel burned. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Conventional boiler-fired steam turbine systems are the most econo- mic and technologically developed systems available for power gen- eration. Operational economics require a minimum plant size of about 5 mW. Lead time is significantly longer than for diesel or gas turbine installation. For Sitka, coal transportation and stor- age would present significant problems, as could stack emissions. 1.1-5 D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Coal plants require space for fuel storage and access to coal transportation facilities and access to cooling water. The site should allow prevailing winds to move stack gases away from popu- lated areas. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Water for cooling and steam generation. Materials used for plant construction. D.2.b. Non-renewable Coal, materials used for plant construction and coal transporta- tion. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Skilled labor to construct substantial foundations and a steel sup- port structure, pipe fitters, welders, and others experienced in construction. Operator skills require a knowledge of electrical power generation and distribution, and steam power. D.4. Environmental residuals Gaseous wastes (NO, SOx, particulates and smoke); solid wastes, including slag, bottom ash, scrubber sludge, and hot cool- ing water. Conventional plants require abatement processes which significantly increase the cost of such plants but substantially reduce air pol- lution. Coal pile run-off contains metals, acids, and possible carcinogens, and stack emissions may cause acidic rain. 1.1-4 Cc. COSTS C.1l. Capital Approximately $4,000/kW to $5,700/kW for a 10 mW plant. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital. C.3. Transmission Up to $650,000 per mile in Sitka depending on voltage and terrain. C.4. Operation Approximately $1,000,000 per year. C.5. Maintenance and replacement Approximately 21 percent of investment per year. C.6. Economies of scale Economy of scale can be gained by improved thermodynamic efficiency as well as lower cost per kW installed. Economies of scale do fa- vor larger plants, particularly with respect to coal handling faci- lities and operator requirements. 100 mW is a typical breaking point. lol=3 B.1l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Coal-fired steam plants can meet any daily, seasonal, or annual demand and are used for base power without respect to time of year. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Back-up generation may be needed during yearly maintenace. Usually a back-up of 65 percent capacity is used. B.2.b. Storage requirements The longest estimated time between fuel deliveries determines storage requirements. Typically this is a minimum coal supply for 90 days of operation. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency For smaller plants (100 to 500 kW) efficiencies are on the order of 5 to 8 percent. Larger plants can reach efficiencies approaching 35 percent. B.4. Net energy 9,750 to 17,500 Btu/kWh, for plants from 5 mW to 1000 mW. A 10 mw plant would require about 17,500 pounds of 8,000 Btu/lb of coal per hour. Distribution efficiency is estimated at 92 percent. -~ 1.1 COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Coal is combusted in a boiler to heat incoming water to steam. The expanded steam then drives a turbine which drives a generator to produce electricity. The remaining steam heat is extracted by condensing it back to water. A.2. Current and future availability Steam plants produce the majority of electricity in the United States today. A wide range of size in plant equipment is available although most units are over 50 mW. Units of less than 10 mW are available. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity and steam (when cogeneration is used). B.1l.b. Quantity Usually in the 5 to 1,550 mW range although plants as small as 1 mW are in operation. teed: APPENDIX D 1. Electrical Generation and Transmission 1.1 Coal-Fired Steam 1.2 Diesel ‘ 1.3 Fuel Cell 1.4 Gas Turbine 1.5 Geothermal 1.6 Hydroelectric 1.7 Solar Photovoltaic 1.8 Transmission Methods 1.9 Wind Turbine 1.10 Wood-Fired Steam 2. Space Heating 2.1 | Coal Electrical 2.3 Geothermal 2.4 Heat pump oil 2.6 Passive Solar 2.7 Wood 3. Conservation 3.1 Diesel Waste Heat Recovery 3.2 Space Heating Conservation 3.3 Oil Heating Conversion Efficiency long term and interim financing alone. The State of Alaska, the Rural Electrification Administration, and others provide financial assistance for worthwhile projects. Because the safety of hydropower developments is a concern of the federal and state governments, criteria for safe design and operation are well established and major failures are very rare. Baranof Island provides several sites (Takatz, Carbon, Baranof, Deer, Brentwood, Milk, and Four Falls) where environmental impacts appear acceptable and mitigation of impacts can be readily coordinated with plans for hatcheries or nursery rearing plans at these sites. 16-7 1.7 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A solar cell is a two terminal solid state semiconductor device which converts solar energy (photons) into electric energy. This conversion by the photovoltaic process is the generation of electricity by absorption of ionizing radiation. Silicon is the basic semiconductor material. These cells can theoretically convert 22 percent of the radiant energy received; the present practical limit, however, is about 14 percent. A typical cell has a peak output of 1.2 amp as .5V. A photovoltaic module is an assembly of cells connected in series and/or paral- leled to achieve the desired output. A photovoltaic array is an assembly of modules connected together to give the desired peak output (watts) of voltage. A.2. Current and future availability Solar photovoltaic systems are presently used in a wide variety of applications. In some cases their use is justified solely because they provide the lowest overall cost compared to the next available alternative. Other applications are demonstration projects to gather data on specific uses of solar cells. Two applications that solar photovoltaic serves very well are to provide power for remote data telemetry and microwave repeater stations. One such repeater station is in operation in Alaska. Other applications of the technology are a 28 kW array for irriga- tion water pumping and crop drying at Mead, Nebraska and a 100 kw power system at Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah. Several governmental agencies and private organizations are currently doing research and development on solar photovoltaics. L.7-1 This effort is expected to reduce cost of the modules and arrays to a competitive level in the near future. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form DC electric energy is the output of a flatplat collector. An in- verter (device that converts DC to AC power) is required to serve typical commercial and residential load. B.1.b. Quantity Quantity is a function of the size of the photovoltaic array and the amount of solar radiation reaching the array surface. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual The output of a photovoltaic installation is affected by the solar intensity, which varies from season to season, by its location on the earth, and by daily atmospheric conditions. In southeast Alaska seasonal variation of insolation would cause significant variation in the amount of energy available. Considerable annual precipitation, too, would decrease the number of hours of high solar intensity. B.2. Reliability B.2.a Need for back-up If solar photovoltaic cells are used to satisfy or offset the elec- tric consumption, 100 percent back-up is required, especially during the winter months. During this period, fewer hours of sunlight and low angle of insolation demand that solar power generation be supplemented by an additional power source. Pez/or B.2.b. Storage requirements In order: to make up for daily fluctuations of solar radiation with- out a back-up system, energy storage in the form or batteries would be required. , B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Solar photovoltaic cells can presently convert approximately 14 percent of the solar radiation energy falling on them to elec- trical energy. Continuing development of photovoltaic electric generation is expected to achieve increased conversion efficiency (to near 22 percent). Cc. COSTS Cost for solar photovoltaics include land, the photovoltaic arrays, electrical inverter, and controls. C.1. Capital Current array cost is approximately $3,500/kW of installed peak power. The single crystal silicon solar cell, with an efficiency of about 12 percent, costs $10.00 per peak watt or $10,000 per peak kilowatt. The presently available storage devices are lead-acid batteries, but they are expensive, costing at least $30/kW of capa- eity. The total system installed cost including the controls, battery storage, and intertie with the existing power grid is expected to bring the total system cost to approximately $12,000/kW of peak power installed. This equates to an electrical energy cost of more than $1.17/kWh, assuming output of 100 kWh per year per installed kW, together with 10 percent interest and a 20-year amortization period. Project cost of these systems is approximately $2,500/kW in 1986 and $1,300/kW between the years 1990 and 2000. 1.723 C.2. Assembly and installation The cost of the installation of solar photovoltaic cells is site specific. It is expected that solar photovoltaic systems will be designed for each application and packaged in modules’ for installation at the site. A building is required to house storage batteries and controls. Foundations are required to support the arrays. Approximate costs for Sitka are estimated at $18,000/kW. C.3. Transmission Same unit cost as other system. c.4. Operation Operation and maintenance costs are expected to be low but depend on the complexity of the electrical control system. No data is currently available on these costs. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Unobstructed access to sunlight is needed, and one acre of land per 100 kW for arrays. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Sunlight D.2.b. Non-renewable Material for manufacturing of photovoltaic systems. 1.7-4 D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Skilled workers are required for piling supports installation, electrical connections, and construction of small building for bat- tery and controls. D.4. Environmental residuals None. D.5. Health and safety aspects Primary safety concern is the proper control of the electrical power generated in the solar array to prevent equipment damage or electrocution. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Current costs per kWh of an operating system installed are not available. It is estimated that costs by 1990 will be approximate- ly $0.28 to $0.15/kWh for installation in Sitka (1981 dollars), based on $1,950/kW, 800 kWh/kW installed, and a 20-year life at 10 percent interest. E.2. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Solar photovoltaic is presently providing power for many remote telemetering and communication systems. Its application for intermittent or daytime-only power requirements has also been demonstrated. Solar photovoltaic may work well together with hydropower or wind with storage battery back-up, though cost of appropriate battery systems are high. The economics of other power systems are currently better than those of these combined systems. 1.7=5 This technology requires storage or a back-up system to provide power during long periods of poor weather and darkness. The annual distribution of sunlight hours in Alaska makes photovoltaic electricity generation favorable for summertime load but unsuitable in the winter. 1.8 ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION VIA SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Alternating current (AC) power is typically transmitted over long distances using two wires to assure a low voltage drop from one end of the system to the other. Single wire ground return (SWGR) surge is a method which eliminates one of the pair of wires by using the ground as a return path to complete the electrical transmission system. Electrical contact between the transmission system and the ground is accomplished by the use of several ground rods (3/4- or 1 inch diameter copper rods 10 to 20 feet long) at each of the transmission poles. The number of rods required at each end depends on the amount of power to be transmitted, the type of soil in which the rods are installed, and the allowable resistance between the rods and the ground. The design of these end point grounding systems should comply with presently accepted standards for limiting potential ground gradients and would be similar in design to a grounding system found in today's high voltage substation. The substation established at each end would then connect to the conventional multigrounded distribution system as commonly used today throughout the U.S. The total ground and single wire resistance should not be greater than the resistance of a two wire system. The single wire configuration can be designed for minimum cost by utilizing highstrength conductors that require a minimum number of structures and still retain the standards for high reliability. A line support design believed most adaptable to Alaskan environmental limitations is based on the use of an A-frame structure. 1.8-1 A.2. Current and future availability A demonstration project which supplies electricity to the village of Napakiak from the Bethel central station (a distance of 8.5 miles) is presently in operation. This project demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility of SWGR systems. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output The SWGR itself generates no electricity. This type of system transmits high quality energy from a large, efficient generating source to smaller users. B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Single phase electrical power is transmitted. Rotary phase conver- ters can be operated from this system to produce three phase power. B.1l.b. Quantity Allowable transmission distance for specific loads and/or voltage drop can be increased by use of the 25 Hz operating frequency. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Not applicable. 1.8-2 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up This method of transmission depends upon the integrity of the con- tact between the ground and the ground rod or mat installed at each of the terminals and a low resistance path in the ground between terminals. If the ground contact resistance becomes too great or is not dependable, voltage control problems may be experienced. Equipment must be installed in the system to detect changes of the ground resistance in order to shut down the transmission power if the resistance exceeds a level which would cause an excessive voltage drop in the _ system. In general, transmission line reliability is greater than 95 percent. Diesel generators could provide back-up should the transmission line be temporarily out-of-service. B.2.b. Storage requirements Not applicable. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency A typical transmission system is designed for a voltage drop of 5 percent to 15 percent of the rated voltage at the estimated aver- age power transmission load. Line loss in this system should not exceed 3 to 5 percent of gross energy transfer. Overall thermody- namic efficiency within a geographical region could be improved by use of a SWGR system because it would allow use of a larger, centrally-located, more efficient electrical power generation system. 1.8-3 Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital These are calculated for 7.5, 2-pole 700-foot spans. Structures structures per mile, 1980 $/Mile 30 ft treated poles @75.00 ea 1725 7 #8 Alumoweld 5380 ft @ $300/1000 ft 1584 Insulators (40 kV Post) @ $75 ea 563 Angle iron braces @ $75 ea 563 Vibration Dampers @ $25 ea 188 Storm Guys (2 x 70 ft, @ $300/1000 ft) 42 Anchors @ $50 ea 100 Anchor plate assembly @ $25.00 ea 25 Strain insulators @ $35 ea 280 Misc. hardware @ $25/structure 188 Subtotal $46581 lFOB Anchorage C.2. Assembly and installation Construction costs are approximately $30,000/mile. Freight clearing costs will vary for actual location of installation. with and The capital and installation costs of a SWGR systems are less than those for multiple wire systems. Besides the reduction in wire and line hardware, the simpler line support structure can be ere with a minimum of heavy equipment, thus reducing costs. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. 1.8-4 cted C.4. Operation The costs are comparable for single and multiple wire systems because of the need to constantly monitor ground resistance for the single wire system. c.5. Maintenance and replacement Comparable for single and multiple wire systems. C.6. Economies of scale No economy of scale is anticipated. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Siting requirements are similar for single and multiple wire transmission systems, including slope and right-of-way specifics. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Only those materials involved in construction and electricity generation. D.2.b. Non-renewable Non-renewable materials are needed for construction and electricity generation. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill As for multiple wire systems, a SWGR system can be installed by local labor under supervision of a qualified lineman and engineer. 1.8-5 D.4. Environmental residuals Those resulting from clearing of right-of-way and use of construc- tion equipment. D.5. Health or safety aspects The 1978 edition of the National Electric Code incorporated a pro- hibition against using ground return systems. Prior to that time there was no prohibition against these systems. A waiver of that particular requirement of the code is required to enable this tech- nology to be used. The use of the earth as the return circuit as proposed for SWGR is reportedly as safe as those systems now accepted. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Cost per kWh of power delivered over a SWGR system from a more efficient source can be less than that of locally-generated power. Each situation must be evaluated to determine cost advantage. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Right-of-way clearance is necessary. Those requirements related to electric generation are incidental to the transmission method. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability The successful construction and operation of the SWGR transmission line between Bethel and Napakiak has proven the technical feasi- bility of the SWGR concept. Further operation of the line should prove the reliability of the line design, increase confidence of 1.8-6 potential users, and encourage additional construction of similar systems. Materials used in the construction of the line are, generally, standardized distribution and transmission line hardware, which are available from manufacturers within a reasonable time period. 1.8-7 1.9 WIND TURBINE GENERATOR (WTG) A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wind turbine generator systems are devices used to convert the ki- netic energy of wind into shaft torque by means of a propeller, and then to electrical energy by generator. The wind turns the rotor or blades of a turbine by "pushing" against it or by lifting the blade aerodynamically. Wind flow over an air foil assembly creates a differential pressure resulting in rotation of the assembly around a fixed axis. Three types of generators, the DC generator, the AC induction generator, and the AC _ synchronous generator, are presently in use with wind energy systems. They are comprised of four major components: 1. the wind machine itself, which converts wind to electrical power; 2. the support system or tower; 3. the storage system, which includes batteries or a connec- tion to an electric utility power line; and 4. the electrical sub-components such as inverters, voltage regulators, control systems, and switching devices. A.2. Current and future availability Small-sized units in the 1.5 kW to 20 kW range have good availability. The government and private sectors are currently testing large units in the 100 to 200 kW range. These should be available commercially in the near future. Demonstrations of multi-megawatt sizes are also in process. Las=L B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity is produced as AC or DC depending on the generator. B.1.b. Quantity Annual kWh output for average annual wind speed of 12 mph and a machine size of 1.5 kW is 3,120 kWh; for 18 kW is 20,000 kWh; and for 45 kW is 50,000 kWh. kWh generation varies with design. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Output is dependent on seasonal and daily wind flow patterns. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Since wind is intermittent, a back-up is always needed. Diesel or another form of back-up generation must be provided for days the wind does not blow with sufficient velocity to produce energy from the WTG. B.2.b. Storage requirements Battery storage or possibly water pumped to storage for future hydropower generation can be used for storage, both of which constitute considerable expense. Today the concensus is that the most cost-effective way to use wind power is on a utility grid to displace fuel only when the wind blows and not try to store the wind energy. 1.9=-2 B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Captured energy as a percentage of available energy is estimated to range from 8 percent to 5.1 percent although little data is available on the efficiency for wind machines. Neither available energy nor average wind speed is a reliable measure of the potential performance. Additional power from wind speeds higher than the rated or design wind speed cannot be used. Cc. COSTS C.1l. Capital Equipment cost of a wind turbine generator with a tower is approxi- mately $1,500/kW for a large (>100kW) synchronous or induction ma- chine and approximately $4,000/kW for smaller units, complete with inverter and batteries. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital. C.3. Transmission Pree . i - . ‘ Costs are similar to those for small hydroelectric transmission lines. C.4. Operation No operating costs since they are designed to operate unattended. 129-3 c.5. Maintenance and replacement Maintenance equals 1 percent of investment per year. Replacement equals 2 percent of investment per year. C.6. Economies of scale Installation of large centralized wind generators have economies of scale over the small individual wind generators. Unit sizes are, of course, restricted by power requirements. Because of electrical system stability limitations, the total installed WTG instantaneous output should not exceed 25 percent of the total system load. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Siting requires a location with an average annual wind speed in excess of 12 mph and free wind flow from 360°. Height of the mounting tower generally exceeds 30 feet, but varies depending on location and generator size. The least expensive means of increasing electrical output is to increase tower height. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Average annual wind speed in excess of 12 mph. Material and energy in products manufacture, and rights-of-way for transmission line. 1.9-4 D.2.b. Non-renewable Material and energy in system manufacture. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Normal skills associated with construction of any electric generator system. Certain aspects of construction (i.e. foundation, tower installation) could be performed by unskilled labor under supervision. The WTG is designed to operate unattended, so an operator would not be required. D.4. Environmental residuals Little environmental impact is anticipated when operating only a few machines within a small geographic area. They do have a visual impact, and generate noise. There is a fear of birds being hit by the blades. Transmission line corridors would have visual and bio- logical impacts. D.5. Health or safety aspects Prior to installation, public safety, legal liabilities, insurance, and land use issues must be addressed. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load The 1980 cost per kWh for the various system sizes is as follows: 1.5 kW - $0.28/kWh 18 kW - $0.21/kWh 45 kW - $0.14/kWh Site and wind condition can further modify these costs. T3955 E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Land area and "viewing area" would be involved permanently whether the system was providing electricity or not. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Wind power suffers from the obvious disadvantage of intermittent and fluctuating wind. At Sitka, available wind records’ show adequate winds of 10 to 12 mph occurring only 9 percent of the time (based on average hour per month). “The intermittent nature of the generation would not make it suitable for Sitka's needs. 1.9-6 1.10. WOOD-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wood can be directly fired in travelling grate or stoker type steam boilers to provide steam for a conventional steam turbine cycle. The two major sources of wood fuel are forest residues and wood wastes from industrial operations. A.2. Current and future availability An economical minimum size would be 15 to 30 mw. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Electricity and steam (when cogeneration is used). B.1.b. Quantity Plant sizes vary from 15 to 50 mW, although most economics of operation suggest a minimum plant size of 30 mW. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Wood-fired steam electrical generation can meet any daily, seasonal, or annual energy demands. Future supplies can be impacted by economic competition, distance of supplies from the generation plant, and future forest yield levels. 1. 10-1 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Back-up electrical generation will be required during emergency and annual maintenance repairs. with a 65 percent back-up factor. B.2.b. Storage requirements Typically, be required because of transportation. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency 25 percent for 15 mW unit. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital $ 4000/kW for 15 mW plant. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital. Ca.3s Transmission Similar to hydroelectric. C.4. Operation $1,000,000 per year. 90 days of fuel is stored. seasonal -10-2 This requirement is usually calculated Up to 9 months storage may limitations on harvest and C.5 Maintenance and replacement 1 percent of investment per year. C.6. Economies of scale Economies of scale favor plants in the 15 to 50 mW range based on fuel handling facilities and operation and maintenance requirements for full time, highly skilled labor. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Wood storage area is the major land use. Plant should be located so as to provide easy access for personnel and fuel delivery, but where stack emissions will have the least effect on local populations. D.2 Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable 8,000 Btu/lb dry; 4,500 Btu/lb in typical wet conditions. This translates to at least 1.7 dry pounds per kWh generated. The mass of wood required for a 15,000 kW plant is on the order of 180 x 106 pounds of dry wood per year. Some renewable materials are required for plant construction. Air condensing can eliminate cooling water requirements. D.2.b. Non-renewable Materials for plant construction; fuels for wood transportation. £.10-3 D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Requires highly skilled construction personnel. Operation requires knowledge of electrical power generation and distribution and steam power. D.4. Environmental residuals Environmental residuals include solid wastes, ash, and air pollution (SOy;, NOx, particulates, CO2, and stack heat). Using wood waste for fuel actually decreases the amount of solid waste. Impacts of timber harvest and transportation must also be included. D.5. Health or safety aspects Considerations include impact of transport and storage of fuel; risk of spontaneous combustion; wood pile run-off; and smoke, heat, and steam generated from burning. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh 11l¢/kWh for a 15 mW plant operating at 80 percent load. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh 90,000 tons of wood/year. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Although dry wood (at about 8000 Btu/pound) has about the same po- tential heat content as much of Alaska's coal, most wood is suffi- ciently moist to reduce this heat value by 40 to 50 percent. 1.10-4 In addition to the moisture content, the relative volume to weight ratio of wood is disadvantageous as compared to coal, with conse- quent increased material handling requirements. Also, as compared to coal, the fuel gathering and transportation processes result in the expenditure of significantly greater amounts of energy, though adverse environmental impacts may be less. Wood, a relatively clean-burning fuel, is more suitable for smaller steam power plants than is coal. These smaller sized plants are more suitable to much of Alaska's power development needs. 1.10-5 2.1. COAL SPACE HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The chemical energy in coal is converted to heat by oxidation. As with wood, coal can be loaded by hand or mechanically into a_ com- bustion chamber. In a mechanical unit, air supply is automatically provided for burning of fuel, and often, ash and combustion refuse are also disposed of mechanically. Automatic stokers burn more efficiently than those operated by hand because of more uniform distribution and rate of feeding of fuel into the combustion chamber, and because of more exact control of air supply. A.2. Current and future availability Coal heating units are commercially available and are in widespread use in the U.S. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Hot air is generated for space heating or hot water space heating. B.1.b. Quantity Residential units usually produce 75,000 to 150,000 Btu per hour. One million Btu are produced from approximately 83 to 125 pounds of coal. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Use of the unit depends only upon coal supply. 221-4 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up No back-up system is normally required. B.2.b. Storage requirements Typically, a one month supply of approximately 5 tons of coal is stored for a large residential unit. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Efficiency ranges from 25 percent for hand-fired units to 60 percent for mechanical stokers. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital Each unit costs approximately $1200 to $1500. C.2. Assembly and installation These costs are typically two to three times the capital cost of the unit. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation No costs are associated with operation since this is normally performed by the homeowner. 2.1-2 C.5 Maintenance and replacement Periodic cleaning of soot accumulations from flue surfaces is the major maintenance requirement. This and other maintenance duties are usually performed by the homeowner. Such accumulations reduce efficiency of the unit by insulating burner heat from water or air, and by reducing the draft which is needed for proper fuel selection and combustion. Normal life of a unit is 10 to 20 years with simple maintenance. C.6. Economies of scale Not appropriate. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Fuel should be sheltered to prevent runoff. The burner must not be located adjacent to flammable materials. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Not applicable. D.2.b. Non-renewable Coal, energy and materials for system construction. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Unit is installed by local services and maintained by resident. 231-3 D.4. Environmental residuals Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, soot, ash, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides. D.5. Health or safety aspects Run-off from stored fuel should be prevented. Flammable materials must be isolated from burning units. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Available Alaskan coal costs $5 to $7 per million Btu produced by burning units. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh It takes 83 to 125 pounds of coal to produce 1 million Btu. This translates to about OST: lbs NO, /million Btu, 2.0 lbs particulates/million Btu (without scrubbers), about 3.3 to 5 lbs SO,/million Btu, and about 8 to 12 lbs solids/million Btu. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Coal space heating technology is reliable and available commercially. Use of coal for heating depends on coal supplies available and its cost. However, it probably will never be used for home heating. 2.1-4 2.2. ELECTRICAL SPACE HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Electricity is passed through resistance wiring, giving off heat as resistance is encountered. Heat is then transferred to air or water by various methods. A.2. Current and future availability Electric heat is very commonly used and is commercially available. It is widely recognized as an economical means of heating buildings where heat losses are at a relatively low level and where the cost of electricity is low. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Heat or hot water for space heating. B.1.b. Quantity Heat output is 3413 Btu per kWh of electricity used. Residential electric furnaces typically have capacities of 20,000 to 60,000 Btu per hour. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Electrical space heating is limited only by availability of electric power. ia B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up No back-up is usually necessary. B.2.b. Storage requirements None. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency From the standpoint of thermodynamic efficiency, all electric heaters are 100 percent efficient in transforming electrical energy to heat. Differences between electrical heating systems lie in their means of transferring heat produced to areas which are to be heated. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital A central home unit costs approximately $1000 to $2000. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital. C.3. Transmission Not applicable to homes already supplied with electricity. C.4. Operation No costs are associated with operation. Zane C.5. Maintenance and replacement Virtually no maintenance is necessary. C.6. Economies of scale Not appropriate. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Typical home units are made up of a metal casing forming a baseboard along walls which is less than 9 inches high and protrudes less than 3.5 inches from the wall. These units are available in lengths varying from 1 to 12 feet with ratings of 100 to 400 watts per foot, and can be fitted together to form any desired length or rating. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a Renewable Hydropower is the most cost-effective means of electricity generation with renewable resources. D.2.b. Non-renewable Fossil fuels used for generation of electricity. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Electrical heating systems can be easily installed and operate virtually automatically. oae338 D.4. Environmental residuals Only those related to electricity production. D.5. Health or safety aspects Only those related to electricity production. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Cost of heat is dependent on cost of electricity. Decentralized systems are most economical, as a thermostat regulates heat in each room. Thus other heat sources in each room can be compensated for and each room can be heated to the desired temperature. Electric load can also be more evenly distributed throughout the day, as heaters in all rooms will not operate simultaneously. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Only those related to electricity generation. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Advantages of electrical space heating include: no fuel deliveries or storage; clean, quiet, reliable heat that involves no flame; easy installation and virtually no maintenance; very little space requirement, no oxygen use, needs no additional venting; temperature regulation of individual rooms is possible. 2.2-4 2.3 GEOTHERMAL HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Hot geothermal fluids can be used for space and water heating and process heating. The fluids are pumped from geothermal wells and run through heat exchangers. The cooled geothermal fluid is disposed of to the surface or subsurface while the heated fluid is returned to the heat exchanger. A clean circulating fluid is heated in the heat exchanger and piped through insulated pipes to space heaters or water heating applications. A.2. Current and future availability This type of heating is practiced in Iceland, Hungary, and France, and commercially practiced in Boise, Idaho and Klamath Falls, Oregon. Other U.S. systems are being constructed. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Hot water below the boiling point. B.1.b. Quantity Quantity is site specific and depends upon well depth, well yield, and water temperature. 2.3-1 B.1l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Continuous except for possible shut-downs during warmest parts of year or modulations planned for temperature control. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up None is required with a proven resource. B.2.b. Storage requirements No special storage required; reservoir provides essentially unli- mited storage. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency The real measure of efficiency is temperature drop sustained by the geothermal fluid in the heat exchanger. The larger the amount of the drop the more "efficient" the heat exchanger. Nearly 100 per- cent efficient in the sense of Btu transfer in the heat exchanger. B.4. Net energy Distribution efficiency will vary depending on the distance and temperature. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital Every application is site specific. Costs are those for resource development and supply costs for heating systems. 2.3-2 C.2. Assembly and installation Site specific. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation Site specific. C.5 Maintenance and replacement Site specific. C.6. Economies of scale Economics are a function of site specific resource. Economical systems range from single house size to district heating systems serving thousands of customers. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Heat users should be as close to the well as possible, preferably within 100 to 200 feet. The geothermal wellhead needs an area of about 100 square feet. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Geothermal fluids of preferably around 180 to 210°F and at least 90°F. 25373 D.2.b. Non-renewable Only those involved in manufacture of equipment. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Highly skilled professional geologic services are required for ex- ploration and development of the resource. Professional geothermal drilling services are typically hired from outside the local area. Engineering supervision of construction can allow use of some local labor. Operation requires someone familiar with pumps and hot water piping. D.4. Environmental residuals Possible adverse effects of geothermal fluids exposed to the atmosphere or surface water quality degradation due to high temperatures, salts, and heavy metals. HS is the most common air pollution problem. Surface subsidence is also a potential problem. D.5. Health or safety aspects The major concerns are disposal of used fluids, H2S, and possible subsidence. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Geothermal systems can be economic, as indicated by existing in- stallations, but the capital costs are high. Actual costs are very site specific but to be competitive an approximate range is $1.50 to $2.20/Btu. 2.3-4 E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Again, these factors are very site specific. Resources include the actual geothermal fluid, land to develop wells, and disposal areas if the fluid is not returned to subsurface areas. Residuals per Btu depend upon the salinity and chemical make up of the water and its temperature. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Geothermal heating is a proven technology worldwide, but has not been developed in Alaska. The State of Alaska and the U.S. Department of Energy are formulat- ing plans for evaluating and developing the geothermal resources in Alaska. None of the identified possible sources on Baranof Island are close enough to Sitka to be feasible heat sources. 2.3-5 2.4. HEAT PUMPS A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1l. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A heat pump extracts heat from a source at a low temperature and rejects it to a sink at a higher temperature by input of mechanical and electrical work. It uses coils and a refrigerant which absorbs heat energy in changing from liquid to gas, then releases the heat indoors. A.2. Current and future availability Heat pumps have been in existence for more than 100 years. Market growth is projected by USDOE at 2 percent through the year 2000 but is very dependent on local situations. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Bel. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Heated air or water. B.1.b.. Quantity 1.5 to 3.5 units of heat are released for each heat unit of electricity. 2.4-1 B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Heat pumps are most efficient at higher heat source temperatures. Electrical resistance heating is normally used to supplement heat pumps at heat demand peaks. The "balance point", above which supplementary heating is used, is preset for each system, based on characteristics and location. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Back-up heating is normally required as described above. B.2.b. Storage requirements None. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Heat pumps supply 150 to 250 percent as much heat energy as the electrical energy they use. Actual efficiency levels depend on heat source temperatures. c. COSTS C.1. Capital A typical domestic unit costs $6,000. C.2. Assembly and installation Included in capital. 2.4-2 C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation and maintenance 5 percent per year of investment. These costs total about $430 per year. C.5. Maintenance and replacement Maintenance is included in operation costs above. Replacement cost is 9.4 percent of investment per year, based on 20-year life and 7 percent discount. C.6. Economies of scale Commercial units have capacities of less than 10,000 Btu per hour to over 10 million Btu per hour. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Domestic units are compact--about the same size as an air conditioner. Heat pumps are installed adjacent to the building to be heated, and require space both inside and outside the building. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Depends on heat source. If it is air, resource is renewable. If 2.4-3 heat source is heated water, heat may be provided by renewable or non-renewable resources. Electricity may be supplied by renewable or non-renewable resources. D.2.b. Non-renewable See above. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Pumps are installed by local heating services. Operation is basically automatic. D.4. Environmental residuals Those associated with resources used for heat source and electricity. D.5. Health or safety aspects Operation of heat pumps has no negative health or safety aspects. There are some associated with sources of heat and electricity. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Depends on temperature of source, type of source, and design conditions. In Sitka, the cost is estimated at 1/3 the cost of resistance heat. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Uses 1/3 the electric energy that is used by resistance heating. 2.4-4 E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Reliable heat pumps are commercially available in the U.S. Most use air as the heat source. Those which use water as the heat source use groundwater, although pumps function more efficiently with heated water. Evaluations of heat pumps being used in Alaska show efficiencies of electrical use of 2.5 to 3.5 times those of resistance electrical heating. 2.4-5 2.5. OIL SPACE HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The chemical energy of oil is converted to heat through oxidation. An oil burner mechanically prepares fuel oil to be combined with air under controlled conditions for combustion. Preparation of the oil for combustion is effected by either atomization or vaporization. Air needed for combustion is supplied mechanically or by natural draft. An electric spark or pilot flame is normally used for ignition. Operation of the burner may be continuous, intermittent, modulating, or high-low flame. A.2. Current and future availability Oil heating is in widespread use in Alaska and throughout the U.S. Most residential burner production is of the high pressure atomizing gun burner type. Most other types of burners are no longer in production. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Energy is released as space heat or hot water for space heating. B.1.b. Quantity Residential burners normally use 0.5 to 3.5 gallons per hour of No. 2 ‘fuel ofl. No. 1 fuel oil can also be used. Typical output ratings are 64,000 to 150,000 Btu/hour. 7525 “gallons of = .oil produce one million Btu. 2.51 B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Oil heating is limited only by available oil supply. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up No back-up heating system is usually required. B.2.b. Storage requirements Tank storage is necessary for fuel oil. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Efficiency of oil heating is approximately 70 percent. c. COSTS Cel. Capital: Typical residential air heating units cost about $800 to $1000. C.2. Assembly and installation These costs are approximately 2 to 3 times the capital cost. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation No costs are associated with operaton as it is performed by the resident. 225 =2 C.5 Maintenance and replacement Recommended maintenance involves yearly inspection of burner equipment to ensure proper adjustment and good operating condition. Oil heating units have an average 10 to 20 year life. C.6. Economies of scale Commercial operations have larger units which are more efficient and have less cost/unit output. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Burning unit must not be located adjacent to flammable materials. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Not applicable. D.2.b. Non-renewable Fuel oil. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Units are installed and inspected by local services. Operation is by homeowner. D.4. Environmental residuals Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, traces of nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. 2.5-3 D.5. Health or safety aspects Spill protection is required for fuel tanks. Burning units must be isolated from flammable materials. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu_and per kWh, sensitivity to load Taking heating efficiency into account, fuel oil now costs $8.26 per million Btu. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh 7.25 gallons of oil/million Btu. This translates to 0.3 pounds NO,, 0.7 pounds SOj, and 0.9 pounds unburned organics/million Btu. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Oil heating technology is commercially available, reliable, and in widespread use in the Sitka area. Rising fuel costs, though, are making these systems much less desirable than before. 2.5-4 2.6. PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Passive solar heating makes use of solar energy (sunlight) through energy efficient design (i.e., south-facing windows, shutters, added insulation) but without the aid of any mechanical or electrical inputs. Space heating is the most common application of passive solar heating. A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Three types of passive solar heating are described: The direct gain approach is the simplest and most frequently employed. Winter sunshine enters through a south-facing window and is absorbed within the living space of the building and stored in mass within the building. Thermal storage is essential in order to carry heat over from the day into the night if the daytime solar gains are greater than the energy requirement of the building during the day. This happens when the solar heating fraction is greater than about 40 percent of the total. If larger solar heating fractions are desired, thermal storage becomes more essential. Interior walls and floors are usually used for thermal storage. The thermal storage wall type of passive solar heating uses a mass wall located immediately behind the double glazed windows. The thermal storage wall can be made of masonry (Trombe wall) or water in containers (water wall). This wall prevents the sun from entering the living space and reduces three disadvantages of the direct gain approach, namely glare, fading of fabrics, and large temperature fluctuations from day to night.- A combination of direct gain and thermal storage wall approaches can be used to form the attached sunspace type of heating. This approach uses a direct-gain "sunspace" and an indirectly heated space, separated by a thermal storage wall. The "sunspace" is frequently used as a greenhouse. 20621 A.2. Current and future availability The technology and materials are available, and will be in the future. Criteria for selection of the most appropriate design for any commercial building or residence is also available. Each building's requirements are dictated by: building location, shape and orientation, window location and sizes, entrances, and location of indoor spaces. Choices of using solar windows, skylights, masonry heat storage walls, or a greenhouse with thermal storage wall to meet requirements are available. The technology for sizing thermal storage walls, greenhouse, solar windows, etc. is also readily available. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form The type of energy output is heat by conversion of short and long wavelength electromagnetic energy to longer wave heat energy. B.1.b Quantity Site-available quantity is dependent upon day length, cloud cover, angle of incidence, and length of pathway. Conversion to heat is dependent upon system design. B.1l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Excess solar input is typically available in the summer; there is a shortage in winter. 2.6-2 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up In southeast Alaska back-up would be needed. Back-up could be provided by any conventional space heating system. B.2.b. Storage requirements Heat energy would need to be stored for use through the night. Not enough could be stored to last through the winter. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Assuming a correctly designed and built solar system, home heating and fuel consumption would be reduced. The amount of reduction is dependent on the amount of additional conservation measures and weather. B.4. Net energy , A net gain in heat energy, or reduction in loss of electrical or chemical energy used for space heating is possible. The amount of net energy is dependent upon design. c. COSTS C.1l. Capital The integration of passive solar heating into the design and construction of a new residence adds little to the overall structure cost. Typical increases in structure costs range from 0 to 9 percent, depending on amount of glass used, level of insulation, and whether or not ° thermal storage walls are constructed. In general, it is not economical to extensively remodel existing residences to take advantage of passive solar heating. 2.6-3 C.2. Assembly and installation Standard home construction methods apply to passive solar systems. Any increases in construction costs are reflected in costs outlined above. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation Operation could reduce other heat source costs. For Sitka, this reduction would be dependent on the amount of passive solar heating and the heat loss of the structure. C.5. Maintenance and replacement No additional requirements beyond normal home. C.6. Economies of scale Not applicable. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting Siting of the building or residence is the most important design aspect of a passive solar system. The building must be oriented to receive the maximum level of insolation. This would mean avoiding north-facing slopes, heavy tree cover, and other shade sources. 2.6-4 D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Adequate solar input; materials and energy used for equipment manufacture including insulation. D.2.b. Non-renewable Only those involved in equipment manufacture including insulation. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill The passive solar system design, which would be required for each residence or building, could be built with local carpentry and home construction skills. Masonry skills are also required. Architectural skills are needed for proper design. D.4. Environmental residuals None directly; indirectly decreases residuals of other space heating methods. D.5. Health or safety aspects Improved comfort in buildings with installed passive solar system; indirect avoidance of health and safety concerns of other space heating methods for the same level of comfort. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load Passive solar could generally be justified on new construction or in extensive remodeling of older construction. 256-5 E.2 Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kwh E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Due to the low solar radiation at Sitka during winter, solar passive heating does not appear reliable. Conservation measures without solar passive would be more cost-effective. 2.6-6 WOOD SPACE HEATING A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wood space heating converts the chemical heat energy in wood to heat energy by oxidation. The wood combustion chamber is generally hand fed. A.2. Current and future availability Wood heating is widespread, especially in the eastern U.S., and combustion units are available commercially. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Energy is generated as hot air for space heating, or hot water for space heating. B.1l.b. Quantity Residential units typically have an output between 75,000 and 150,000 Btu per hour. 125 pounds of dry wood release approximately one million Btu. 125 pounds of wet wood release approximately 560,000 Btu. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Can be used whenever wood is available. 2.7-5 B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Normally, no back-up is required. B.2.b. Storage requirements Storage of wood fuel is required. A typical one month supply for a large residential unit is 5 tons of wood (2 cords). B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Approximately 50 percent efficiency. Cc. COSTS C.1. Capital Approximately $1200 to $1500 for a large wood furnace. A stove to be used in the living area of a typical 1000- to 1200-square foot home costs $500 to $650. Pipe costs $50 to $60 for a 30-inch segment, or $325 to $725 per home, depending on where the stove is installed, and whether the house is one or two stories. C.2. Assembly and installation This cost, for a large furnace, is typically two to three times the capital cost. Installation of a smaller wood stove and necessary piping costs $200 to $250, or $900 to $1200 if hearth work is needed. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. rel cle, C.4. Operation These costs are minimal since the unit is usually operated by the resident. C.5. Maintenance and replacement Maintenance primarily involves periodic cleaning of soot from flue surfaces. These duties are performed by the homeowner. These accumulations reduce burner efficiency by insulating against transfer of heat to air or water and by reducing the draft. Proper burner adjustment can slow the rate of soot accumulation. Lf properly maintained, unit life is normally 10 to 20 years. C.6. Economies of scale Not appropriate for large-scale heating needs. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Space must be allowed for fuel storage. Burner must be located away from flammable material. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Wood. D.2.b. Non-renewable Materials involved in manufacturing burner. 2.la3 D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Units are installed by local services and operated by resident. D.4. Environmental residuals Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, soot, ash, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. D.5. Health or safety aspects Danger lies in carelessness of improper location of burner adjacent to flammable material. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load At $1.35/cord, usable heat would cost $18/MBtu, compared with oil at $13.77/MBtu ($1.14/gal, 60 percent efficient). E.2. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Wood heating technology is commercially available and reliable, though availability of wood often varies. Moisture content of wood can reduce potential heat value by 40 to 50 percent. High volume to weight (and heat) ratio also requires higher handling costs than those for coal. Presently, wood meets about 20 percent of Sitka's space heating needs and wood burning contributes to Sitka's air pollution problems. There are no appropriate technologies for cleaning the exhaust gases of home wood stoves. 2.7-4 3.1. DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The conversion of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) to other forms of energy (heat, electricity) varies in efficiency from 70 percent to 28 percent (average = 50 percent). The wasted energy is generally lost as heat. Such heat most often appears as hot exhaust gas, warm water (65°F to 180°F), hot air from cooling radiators, or direct radiation from the machine in question such as a furnace, steam power plant, diesel engine, etc. In Sitka's diesel electric generation, the conversion efficiency is estimated at 28 percent. Typically, diesel engines convert about 30 percent of the input energy into work. Approximately 36 percent would be removed in the exhaust gases, 31 percent in the cooling jacket/radiator, and 5 percent in radiation. Approximately 50 percent of the heat energy input to a diesel engine is recoverable. Two methods are available for recovering this heat. One is to transfer the heat through heat exchangers to a circulating water or duct system for use in heating homes, schools, or hot water. The second method is to recover waste heat energy in a secondary "Rankine cycle" process and to convert a portion into additional shaft power. A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes Direct heat recovery Jacket and exhaust heat loss from the diesel engine can be recovered in heat exchangers by transferring the heat energy into a second fluid such as glycol. The glycol can then be circulated to institutions, businesses, or residences within economical distances of the generating plant. The system would require a liquid to liquid heat exchange, gas to liquid heat exchange, recovery heat ool. exchangers, a circulation system, and heat reclaim heat exchangers. Rankine cycle heat recovery Rankine cycle heat recovery consists of transferring heat from the hot water and the exhaust gases to a secondary thermodynamic fluid such as water or freon. The heat vaporizes the secondary fluid to high pressure. This vaporized fluid is then passed through a turbine to generate shaft power which can be used directly as mechanical energy or converted to electrical power. A.2. Current and future availability Heat recovery Transferring waste heat from a diesel generator to a second fluid for space heating or water heating is a technology that is well understood and currently available today. The practice is growing in Alaska as a result of sharp increases in diesel fuel costs, particularly as an impact of cost of generation only (as opposed to generation with waste heat recovery). One such system is in operation at Kotzebue. Rankine cycle energy recovery Rankine cycle energy recovery systems are in the developmental stage. Several demonstration projects are presently under development in the U.S. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form SL 2 Heat recovery Heat recovery systems can achieve temperatures on the order of 200° F. in a properly designed heat transfer system. This is a typical temperature in hot water heating systems. Rankine cycle Rankine cycles can regain 15 percent of diesel input in the form of electrical energy. B.1.b. Quantity Heat recovery Diesel generating units generally lose about 70 percent of the input energy to waste heat. All of the cooling water heat, about half of the exhaust heat, and all of the radiation can be usefully captured if space heat needs are in economic proximity. This amounts to approximately 50 percent of the input’ energy. The recoverable amount would decrease as the diesel engine output is reduced from. its design capacity. Table 3.1 indicates the annual recoverable waste heat for various diesel unit sizes and generating efficiencies (i.e., kWh/gal and heat rates in Btu/kWh) and assumes that one-third of the fuel heat is recoverable. TABLE 3.1: WASTE HEAT AVAILABILITY l_million Btu/year Available at Indicated Generating Efficiencyl,2 kW kWh/year 14 kWh/gal 12 kWh/gal 10 _kWh/gal 8 kWh/gal 50 175,200 5175.6 671.6 805.9 1007.4 15 262,800 863.4 1007.4 1208.9 LEA: 100 350,400 1151.2 1343.2 1611.8 2014.8 200 700,800 2302.4 2686.4 3223.6 4029.6 1 Assumes 138,000 Btu/gal fuel, 0.40 load factor 2 14 kWh/gal = 9900 Btu/kWh; 3.1-3 Rankine cycle The diesel output energy can be increased by about 15 percent. This would increase the Sitka efficiency from 28 percent to about 32.2 percent. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Heat recovery Heat recovery would be most valuable during winter. If the heating system were dependent upon the heat recovery, the diesel generators would have to be operated continuously. Rankine cycle Since this system essentially increases the conversion efficiency of a diesel generator (diesel input to electrical output), no change in dynamics from normal diesel operation at Sitka would be necessary. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Heat recovery Heat recovery systems require a back-up heat source in case of system shutdown. Boilers and heaters that existed prior to installation of the recovery system and consequently idled by it can serve as back-up. Rankine cycle Rankine systems are fully closed turbine generator systems. Once they achieve commercialization, their reliability should be high. The need for back-up would be equivalent to back-up for a diesel generator. 3.1-4 B.2.b. Storage requirements Heat recovery Waste heat is generally utilized as it is recovered; storage of heat is currently atypical. Rankine Cycle No additional storage will be required for Rankine cycle power. B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Heat recovery Although the conversion of input energy to electric energy remains the same, the conversion of input energy to useful energy increases. If approximately 30. percent of input goes to electrical output and 50 percent of the remaining heat loss is regained, total input-output efficiency is raised to 65 percent. Rankine cycle The efficiency of the combined diesel engine-Rankine cycle will increase efficiency of diesel input to electrical output to about 34.5 percent compared to 30 percent for a diesel engine alone. B.4. Net energy Heat recovery Sitka now burns 78,929 x 106 Btu per year for diesel electric output. An equivalent of 21,741 x 106 Btu are converted to electrical energy while 57,187 x 106 are lost. If 50 percent is recaptured by heat recovery, this represents 28,594 x 106 Btu net energy recaptured. 3.1e5 c. COSTS C.1l. Capital Heat recovery Heat exchangers would be installed in existing buildings where the generators are located. Main piping would be 2-1/2 to 3 inch steel, insulated to carry the glycol from the generator to the location: where the heat would be used. Radiators and heat exchangers will be installed at the point of use such as at a school. The following is estimated cost of heat recovery for a 150 kW diesel generator: heat exchangers - $20,000; pump - $2,500; piping - approximately $100 per foot; radiator and heat recovery exchangers - $10,000; controls - approximately $4,000, plus assembly and installation. Rankine cycle Generally available only in 600-700 kW increments. For develop- mental projects, the cost per kW has been on the order of $10,000 to $20,000 per kW. Commercial development costs are expected to be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 to date, but there are no known commercial applications of Rankine cycle power installations in this country. C.2. Assembly and installation Heat recovery For a 150 kW generator, estimated assembly and installation costs are $100,000. Rankine cycle Included in capital costs. 3. 1-6 C.3. Transmission | Heat recovery Transmission costs are included as part of the capital costs for piping and radiators. Rankine cycle No increase over generator alone. C.4. Operation Heat recovery Heat recovery would produce a net decrease in cost through reclaiming presently lost heat. Sitka could recover the equivalent of 28,594 x 106 Btu per year. A total of about 118.7 x 106 Btu were used per house heated in 1980 for’ an average cost of approximately $1,000 ($8/106 Btu). This would represent heating valued at approximately $230,000 per year. Rankine cycle If Sitka now burns about 79,000 x 106 Btu of diesel for electricity production, or $650,000 worth of diesel (assuming $8.26/106 Btu of diesel), this amount could be reduced 15 percent ($97,500) using a Rankine cycle. c.5. Maintenance and replacement Heat recovery l percent of capital. Rankine cycle 1 percent of capital. 3 -E-1 C.6. Economies of scale Heat recovery Generally, the best economics are associated with large units where recovered heat can be utilized within a short distance on a continuous basis. Rankine cycle 600 kW unit size requires a diesel of 4000 kW capacity. This unit would require the use of Sitka's two larger units running at 72 percent load. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Heat recovery The technology requires a waste heat source near a heat consumer. Rankine cycle No siting requirements beyond those for conventional diesel generators. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Heat recovery Waste heat is needed. Rankine cycle Waste heat is the resource to be converted to electricity. 3.1-8 D.2.b. Non-renewable Heat recovery Materials and energy involved in manufacturing recovery devices. Rankine cycle Only materials and energy involved in manufacturing recovery devices. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Heat recovery Construction requires piping and welding skills and knowledge of designs and installation of the utilities. Operation requires a knowledgeable pump and heating technician. Rankine cycle Construction skills and knowledge of machinery installation required. Operating employment would require the knowledge of the operation of turbo-machinery and controls. D.4. Environmental residuals Heat recovery Net decrease in residuals if heat recovery displaces non-electric heating source. Rankine cycle Net decrease through most efficient conversion of diesel to electrical output, hence less stack emissions per kWh. 3.129 D.5. Health or safety aspects Heat recovery No negative health or safety aspects except those associated with the heat source. Net benefit if air pollutant source of heat is displaced. Rankine cycle An understanding of the operation of the two systems together, i.e., the diesel engine and the Rankine cycle, would be required to assure safe operation of the equipment. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu or per kWh, sensitivity to load Heat recovery Material and construction costs for a 'typical' 100 kW diesel unit jacket water heat exchanger and 100 feet of Arctic piping are: Materials Jacket water heat exchanger and valves $ 3,500 Piping and miscellaneous (within powerhouse) 6,000 Modifications to heated building 1,500 Subtotal $11,000 Arctic pipe @ $30/ft $ 3,000 Support system for pipes @ $10/ft 1,000 Subtotal $ 4,000 Total materials $15,000 3.1-10 Labor Installation of heat exchanger and piping (within powerhouse) $22,000 Installation of Arctic pipe and supports 8,000 Total labor $30,000 TOTAL COSTS $45,000 Second estimate A heat recovery cost per million Btu heat recovered is estimated to be $3 to $5 million based on a 20-year equipment life. Rankine cycle Rankine cycle cost is estimated to be on the order of $0.032 per kWh after reaching commercialization. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Heat recovery These items are whatever is attributable to the heat source technology. A net savings of $8 per million Btu is indicated. Rankine cycle 15 percent reduction in costs with present system. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Heat recovery Waste heat recovery methods are known technology today. It is an effective way to reduce oil consumption with the expenditure of 3. b-LT capital. The systems can be extremely reliable. In Sitka, the system would not be appropriate since the diesel generators are used for back-up and peaking loads only. A "back-up" heat source would be necessary almost all the time. Rankine cycle The Rankine cycle technology is in a developmental stage. When it reaches the commercial application stage it could be a suitable technology for installation in remote areas. Since the diesel generators are to be used as back-up only once Green Lake is operative, it is unlikely the capital costs would be of benefit in Sitka. See li2 3.2. SPACE HEATING CONSERVATION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Energy conservation essentially means the more efficient use of available energy. This can be performed by reducing losses in the energy system, such as losses through walls, windows, and air infiltration into a home. Loss reductions considered here are passive in that they do not involve additional energy inputs to reduce losses. Conversion efficiency measures are considered in Section III. A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Typical passive measures are insulation, double glazing or solar film, vestibules at entrances, reduced window sizes, and weather stripping and reduction of infiltration. A.2. Current and future availability The technology of passive energy conservation has been available for years. Presently it is becoming more widespread due to the rising cost of fuel oil. Actual consumption for homes in parts of Alaska is approximately 40 to 50 percent greater than that estimated for a well-insulated home. 35,251 B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Conservation works through reduction of energy input. The quality is improved comfort and reduced costs. B.1.b. Quantity Conservation in southeastern Alaska could reduce energy inputs 40 to 50 percent. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Reduction of energy losses would be effective, especially during more severe weather conditions. B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up There is no need for back-up. B.2.b. Storage requirements Since conservation reduces input needs, storage requirements are reduced. 3.2-2 B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Reduction of energy losses will increase the utilization efficiency of energy resources, regardless of type. B.4. Net energy Passive space heating conservation can result in net energy savings of approximately 50 percent. Cc. COSTS C.1l. Capital Capital costs in a new home vary with the level of insulation. Labor cost for installation should be about the same regardless of the cost of the insulation up to the level of additional walling. Retrofitting older homes can cost more than labor in new homes. Costs vary from several hundreds to several thousands of dollars. C.2. Assembly and installation Standard home construction methods apply to installation of effective insulation and reduced infiltration. Typical costs for retrofitting are on the order of $1000. Added insulation in new homes adds only a few percent increase in labor costs. C.3. Transmission Not applicable. C.4. Operation Most passive space and water heating technologies require no opera- tion. Insulated shutters or curtains require minimal operation. Operation of existing heat input devices becomes more efficient, thereby reducing cost. 323 c.5. Maintenance and replacement Most passive space heating conservation devices require no maintenance or replacement. Life spans are typically the same as for the building. Weather stripping may need replacement every 10 to 15 years at neglible cost. C.6. Economies of scale The only cost reductions due to scale would be reductions of perhaps 10 percent due to bulk purchases. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height New home orientation with minimal window space on northern sides reduces losses. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Energy and materials involved in the manufacture of space conservation materials which may be renewable. Once installed, resource needs are reduced. D.2.b. Non-renewable Energy sources and material involved in the manufacture of space heat conservation material may be non-renewable. Once installed, resource needs are reduced. 3.2-4 D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Once the design information is provided, the carpentry and home construction skills exist in Sitka, or in construction operations in Sitka. D.4. Environmental residuals Manufacture of space heating conservation devices may produce resi- duals. Once installed, residuals are reduced due to reduction of energy inputs. D.5. Health or safety aspects Health may improve through greater comfort and with the production of less residuals such as exhaust gases. Asbestos use has health risks. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load The additional cost for the higher level of insulation in the new homes would be offset in the first year by reduced heating costs based on oil at $1.14 to $1.90 per gallon. No figures have been estimated for the cost per million Btu because of the wide variation of conditions. E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Energy conservation offers the best opportunity for Sitka to reduce oil consumption and energy costs. It requires improved design of homes, understanding of how energy is lost through personal habits, and construction which reduces energy consumption. SHiZ='5 E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Once installed properly, these technologies have the highest reliability, the greatest availability, and are the most appropriate for Sitka. 3.2-6 3.3. SPACE HEATING CONVERSION EFFICIENCY - OIL COMBUSTION A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Combustion efficiency can be improved by reducing the amount of ex- cess combustion air going out the stack and by reducing the temper- ature of the stack gases. A significant improvement in oil combus- tion efficiency has been made in the flame-retention burner. It is also known as a "high-speed flame retention head" burner. Reduction in fuel use ranges from 5 percent to 22 percent--with an average of 14 percent--by replacing the old burner but keeping the furnace or heater. A.1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A flame-retention burner will generally increase combustion temperature by 100°F to 200°F over that of a conventional burner (keeping oil firing rate, air-to-fuel ratio, and configuration of the combustion chamber constant). This is due to the specially designed head which creates a swirling pattern thereby confining the flame to a smaller zone in the combustion chamber. The hotter flame enhances the energy transfer at the heat exchanger. The head also improves mixing of oil droplets and air, resulting in the use of less air and yet complete burning of the fuel. Flame- retention burners can operate with 30 to 50 percent excess air. Conventional burners require 80 to 100 percent excess air. Since there is less dilution from excess air, combustion gases stay hotter and move more slowly through the heat exchanger, resulting in better energy transfer and higher burner efficiency. A.2. Current and future availability Flame retention oil burners are readily available from several man- ufacturers, either as a retrofit item or as part of a new furnace. Most oil heating equipment dealers have them in stock for immediate supply for retrofit. Shook If the combustion chamber needs to be rebuilt or replaced, appro- priate precast combustion chambers are available from several manufacturers. B. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS B.1. Energy output B.l.a. Quality - temperature, form Increased quality is the more efficient transfer of chemical energy (oil) to radiant and convective energy (space heat). B.1l.b. Quantity Fuel use for the same output of heat can be reduced approximately 14 percent. B.l.c. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Energy savings would be greatest during periods of higher energy use (winter). B.2. Reliability B.2.a. Need for back-up Flame-retention oil burners are of equal reliability to conven- tional burners. No back-up is normally needed. B.2.b. Storage requirements No change in storage requirements by retrofittings; possible decrease in tank capacity needed in new homes. Shisae B.3. Thermodynamic efficiency Average increase in efficiency of 14 percent. B.4. Net energy Assuming 14 percent less fuel consumption, energy per unit oil would be increased by a factor of 1.16, or an approximate increase from the existing 65 percent to 75 percent. Cc. costs C.1. Capital Estimated cost for the flame retention burner is similar to that for a conventional burner. C.2. Transmission Not applicable. C.3. Operation Oil consumption reduced approximately 14 percent; if average heating costs are about $1,019, cost for operation would be reduced to $876. C.4. Maintenance and replacement No increase over conventional furnace. 343°3 C.5. Economies of scale None. D. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACTS D.1. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Not applicable. D.2. Resource needs D.2.a. Renewable Not directly involved. Indirectly involved if space heating is done by wood and oil; savings in oil could reduce use of wood. D.2.b. Non-renewable Saving of oil burned for same amount of heat. D.3. Construction and operating employment by skill Installation will require services of heating contractor or oil burner serviceman. The combustion chamber should be inspected to determine whether or not a chamber lining is required. The installation and start-up of the flame retention oil burner in school or home will require a heating contractor or oil furnace serviceman. D.4. Environmental residuals Less residuals in operation due to higher efficiencies, more complete burning, and less smoke stack output per unit heat. Residuals are involved in equipment manufacture. 3.3-4 D.5. Health or safety aspects Proper inspection and installation are required to prevent higher risk of fire due to higher temperatures. Net benefits due to less smoke stack output. E. SUMMARY AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION E.1. Cost per million Btu and per kWh, sensitivity to load Assuming a reduction in oil use per heat output of 14 percent, the savings would be about $1.16 per MBtu in Sitka (1980). E.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu, installed mW, kWh Net decrease in operation of about 14 percent. E.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability, and its availability Along with space heating conservation, this is an available techno- logy which would help conserve energy and is as reliable as conven- tional systems. Conversion costs could be financed through state loans at 5 percent. 3.3-5 CITY OF SITKA DIESEL ENGINE COST USING NO. 6 OIL 2 - 10,000 kW Marine Diesels $2,000/kW for 1st unit $1,500/kW for 2nd unit Cost of lst Unit 20 ,000 ,000 Amortized over 20 years 1,344,300 Cost of 2nd unit 15 ,000 ,000 Amortized over 20 years 1,008 ,200 O&M 1st unit @ 2% x % operation Full Load 400 ,000 O&M 2nd unit @ 2% x % operation Full Load 300 ,000 YEAR FUEL COST/MBtu 1981 $6 .000 1982 6.156 1983 6.316 1984 6.480 1985 6.649 1986 6.822 1987 6.999 1988 7.181 1989 7.368 1990 7.559 1991 7.756 1992 7.957 1993 8.164 1994 8.377 1995 8.594 1996 8.818 1997 9.047 1998 9.282 1999 9.524 2000 9.771 2001 10.025 2002 10.286 Fuel 0i1 National 1981 Avg No. 2 $6.93/MBtu No. 6 5.03/MBtu Sitka No. 2 8.26/MBtu Est No. 6 6.00/MBtu Engine Heat Rate = 9800 Annual kWh (90% availability) = 78,840,000 Fixed cost lst unit = $1,744,300 YEAR 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Fuel Cost B Elec Cost B Resist Heat B Heat Pump B CITY OF SITKA 10,000 kW Marine Diesel Energy Cost With Fuel Escalation of 2.6%/Year $ 1 1 FUEL /MBtu 6.000 6.156 6.316 6.480 6.649 6.822 6.999 7.181 7.368 13999 7.756 7.957 8.164 8.377 8.594 8.818 9.047 9.282 9.524 9.771 0.025 0.286 ELEC $/kWh -0809 -0824 -0840 -0856 -0872 -0889 -0907 -0924 -0943 -0962 -0981 -1001 -1021 - 1042 - 1063 - 1085 -1107 -1130 1154 1178 1203 -1229 6.00 x 1.026 AN (.772632 x B + 1.7443)/78.84 B/ .003413 B/3 RESIST HEAT $/MBtu (le 24. 24 257 25. 26 26. Cire 2p 28 28. 29) 29 30. Sire Sin 32. 33. 33. 34, 35l 36. 71 16 62 09 57 07 58 10 64 Lg 75 33 93 53 63 802 460 135 83 54 27 02 HEAT PUMP HEAT $/MBtu 7.90 8.05 8.21 8.36 8.52 8.69 8.86 9.03 9221 9.40 9.58 9.78 9.98 10.18 10.39 10.60 10.82 11.05 11.28 DON 6 12.01 _ CITY OF SITKA 1500 kW Diesel Using No. 2 Fuel Oi] $2,000/kW 1st unit $1,500/kW 2nd unit Cost lst unit $3,000 ,000 Amortized over 20 years .06722 201,600 O&M 2% x % operation Full Load 60 ,000 Fixed Annual Cost 261,600 90% availability produces 11,826,000 kWh Btu/kWh = 11,000 130,086 MBtu annually FUEL COST OIL FUEL HEAT RESISTANCE HEAT PUMP YEAR $/MBtu $/MBtu $/kWh $/MBtu $/MBtu 1981 8.26 13.77 -1129 33.10 11.03 1982 8.475 14.12 - 1183 33.80 dloay 1983 8.695 14.49 Ly 34.51 11.50 1984 8.921 14.87 1202 35.23 11.74 1985 9.153 15.26 1228 35.98 1199 1986 9.391 15.65 1254 a0.75 12.25 1987 9.635 16.06 1281 37.54 12,52 1988 9.886 16.48 . 1308 38.34 12.78 1989 10.143 16.90 - 1336 39.17 13.06 1990 10.407 17.34 1365 40.02 13.34 1991 10.677 17.80 1395 40.89 13.63 1992 10.955 18.26 1426 41.79 13.93 1993 11.240 18.73 . 1457 42.71 14.24 1994 11.532 19522 . 1489 43.65 14.55 1995 11.832 igure 1622 44.61 14.87 1996 12.139 20.23 . 1556 45.61 15.20 1997 12.455 20.76 1591 46.62 15.54 1998 12.779 21.30 . 1626 47.67 15.89 1999 13.111 21.85 - 1663 48.74 16.25 2000 13.452 22.42 - 1700 49.84 16.61 2001 13.802 23.00 $1789 50.96 16.99 2002 14.160 23.60 1778 52.12 17.37 $/kWh = (.130086 x 8.26 x 1.026AN + .2616)/11.826 $/MBtu Resistance = $/kWh/.003413 $/MBtu Heat Pump = $/MBtu Resistance/3 CITY OF SITKA COAL FIRED BOILER 10,000 kW Cost lst unit based on January 1981 estimated For a 50 MW $66,720,000 Direct costs 20 MW 35,700,000 Scaling Factor 20 _ 50 = 4 SOR 66.72 = .53507 4% = .53507 x = 16825 Heat Rate 14,000 Btu/kWh A 10 MW plant would cost 35,700,000 x 10 *©825 - $29 244,000 20 Cont 15% 25,580,000 Eng 12.5 28,778 ,000 Int 2 year @ 3% 30,505 ,000 Ins 3% 31,420,000 Substation 2,000,000 > > Escal 1/2 year 34 ,589 ,000 Alaska multiplier 1.65 57 ,072 ,000 Amortized 30 years ; 2,912,000 0&M 2% 1,141,000 Fixed Cost 4,053,000 Fuel Cost 85% available 74,460,000 kWh x 14,000/10° = 1,042,440 MBtu/year $55/Ton 8,000 Btu/1b $3.4375/MBtu $3,583,387 for fuel $.1026/kWh CITY OF SITKA 10,000 kW Coal Fired Boiler Plant Energy Cost With Fuel Escalation of 1.5%/Year RESISTANCE HEAT PUMP FUEL ELEC HEAT HEAT YEAR $/MBtu $/kWh $/MBtu $/MBtu 1981 3.4375 .1025 30.0489 10.0163 1982 3.4890 - 1032 30.2604 10.0868 1983 3.5413 . 1040 30.4750 10.1583 1984 3.5945 . 1047 30.6929 10.2309 1985 3.6484 - 1055 30.9141 10.3047 1986 3.7031 - 1062 31.1386 10.3795 1987 3.7587 . 1070 31.3665 10.4555 1988 3.8150 . 1078 31.5977 10.5325 1989 3.8723 . 1086 31.8325 10.6108 1990 3.9304 - 1094 32.0707 10.6902 1991 3.9893 .1102 32.3126 10.7708 1992 4.0491 -1111 32.5580 10.8526 1993 4.1099 .1119 32.8072 10.9357 1994 4.1715 -1128 33.0600 11.0200 1995 4.2341 1137 33.3167 11.1055 1996 4.2976 .1145 33.5773 11.1924 1997 4.3621 .1155 33.8417 11.2805 1998 4.4275 . 1164 34.1101 11.3700 1999 4.4939 .1173 34.3825 11.4608 2000 4.5613 . 1182 34.6590 11.5530 2001 4.6298 -1192 34.9397 11.6465 Fuel Cost A = 3.4375 x 1.015AN Elec Cost A = (1.042440 x A + 4.053)/74.46 Resist Heat A = A/.003413 HP Heat A = A/3 CITY OF SITKA 20,000 kW Coal Fired Electric Generating Plant Direct Cost Contingency 15% Eng 12.5% Interest 6% Insurance 3% Substation Escal 1/2 year 1.035 Alaska Multiplier 1.65 Amortized 30 years O&M 2% Fixed Costs Fuel cost full load 85% availability Heat Rate 13,000 Btu/kWh Coal $3.4375/MBtu 20,000 x 8760 x .85 = 148,920,000 kWh x 13,000 Btu/kWh = 1,936,000 MBtu 6 x 3.4375 = 6.655 x 10 Total Annual Cost 13.0140 x 10° Total kWh 148.920 x 10° $/kWh $.0874 35,700 ,000 41,055 ,000 46 ,187 ,000 48 ,958 ,000 50,427 ,000 2,000 ,000 > > 54,262 ,000 89 ,532 ,000 4,568 ,000 1,791,000 6,359 ,000 CITY OF SITKA TAKATZ CREEK DAM COST ESTIMATE Fiscal 1977 Direct Cost (from FERC, 1971 Green Lake EIS) + Cont 15% + Eng 12.5% + Int 2 yr 6% + Ins 3% Trans Line Cont 15% Eng 12.5% Int 2 yr 6% Ins 3% Total Escalate go Fiscal 1982 1.07: = 5,81 Amortized over 50 years @ 3% 0&M @ .7% of cost Cost/kWh 6 35-200 000 Kuh = $.07027/kWh Resistance Heat $20.59/MBtu Water Source Heat Pump (COP=3) $ 6.86/MBtu $67.4 Ldeeo 87.2 92.4 95.2 $9.77 11.24 12.64 13.40 13.80 109.0 $142.79 $5.5495 1.9995 $6.5490 < 10 10 10 10 10 10 10° CITY OF SITKA CARBON LAKE HYDRO PLANT FY 1977 Direct Cost (from FERC, 1979 Green Lake EIS) $43.00 + Cont 15% 49.45 + Eng 12.5% 55.63 + Int 2 yr 6% 58.97 + Ins 3% 60.74 Trans Line 6 8/28 x 9.77 x 10 2.8 + Cont 15% 3.22 + Eng 12.5% 3.6225 + Int 2 yr 6% 3.84 + Ins 3% 3.96 FY 77 Total 64.7 Escalate to 81 @ 1.07 84.757 Amortize over 50 years 3.294 O&M -593 3.887 Cost/kWh 3.887 x 10° 4S{67E,000-kwh * $-089/KWh Resistance Heat $26 .077/MBtu Heat Pump $8.69/MBtu x 10 x 10° x 10°