Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeothermal Energy & Wind Power Alternate Energy Sources for Alaska 1976GEOTHERMAL ENERGY AND WIND POWER .. ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES FOR ALASKA Resource assessments and recommended plans and programs developed from the proceedings of the Alaskan Geothermal and Wind Power Resources Planning Conference, July 8-9, 1975; Anchorape, Alaska ESS Sponsored and organized by: The Alaska Energy Office Office of the Governor State of Alaska and The Geophysical Institute University of Alaska College, Alaska With financial aid from: National Science Foundation Grant No. AER75-20207 April, 1976 EDITED BY ROBERT B. FORBES Soe GEOTHERMAL AND WIND POWER... ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES FOR ALASKA Recommended plans, policies and programs developed from the proceedings of the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference held in Anchorage, Alaska, July 8-9, 1975 Prepared by Geophysical Institute University of Alaska and The Alaska Energy Office Office of the Governor State of Alaska William McConkey, Director Edited by Robert B. Forbes Supported by National Science Foundation Grant #AER75-20207 FOREWORD The 1973 oil embargo by the OPEC (Oil Producing Export Countries) shocked the United States and its leaders and accented the seriousness of the nation's declining energy reserves. Project Independence, as initiated by Richard Nixon and reaffirmed by President Ford, was designed to achieve American "energy self-sufficiency" by 1980. However, our dependence on foreign oil imports has actually increased since the embargo was lifted. Crude oil imports during the first six months of 1975 were 24.5% above the same period in 1973. At the same time, domestic production of crude oil and lease condensate during the first half of 1975 decreased 5.2% from the same period in 1974. Diminishing oil and gas reserves in the "Lower 48" states will result in the accelerated consumption of Alaskan oil and gas when these resources are developed and available for delivery. It is clear that Alaska and the nation must find and develop alternate energy sources as rapidly as possible. Rising transportation and petroleum product costs, particularly in rural Alaska, accentuate the need for alternate energy sources. Pre- liminary surveys have indicated that the State of Alaska has many areas which have high wind power potential, as well as known geothermal resource areas. On July 8 and 9, 1975, over 150 people, including scientists, state and federal government officials, and representatives from the private sector, attended the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference in Anchorage, Alaska (see Appendix B). Objectives of the Conference were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) To review and evaluate the potential of geothermal and wind resources as alternative Alaskan energy sources, To assemble a small and highly competent group of conferees, from Alaska and other states, to conduct an assessment as outlined in (1) above, To encourage dialogue between potential Alaskan consumers, scientists and planners, with special attention to rural and native populations, To develop short- and long-range plans and programs for the utilization of Alaskan geothermal and wind resources in harmony with national and international needs and priorities, and To produce, publish and distribute a comprehensive report which summarizes the findings of the conferees on (1), (3) and (4) above. Working groups were formed to define plans and programs in several areas including: agriculture . electrical power fisheries and aquaculture geothermal resource research and development ° space heating and industrial application Oy Ut 3! ee NT . wind power development and applications Conference data including the technical program, the list of attendees and working group assignnments are contained in Appendices A, B and C. This report attempts to define Alaskan energy problems which can be alleviated through the efficient use of wind power and geothermal resources, and to present recommended short- and long-range plans for the initiation of state and federal programs in the more promising areas. it The content of this report is based on input from Conference working groups and many published (acknowledged) and unpublished sources, including data from various state and federal agencies. We are particularly grateful to the Geothermal Program Office, National Science Foundation, for a grant (NSF #AER75-20207), which helped defray Conference expenses and the publication costs of this report. We hope that future accomplishments show that the Alaskan Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference was a very important first step in the efficient and timely development of alternate energy resources in Alaska. The Organizing Committee Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference tid ACKNOWLEDGMENTS So many people have contributed so much to this report, that it is neither possible nor practical to personally acknowledge all of the contributors. However, I do wish to offer my special thanks to the following persons who played key roles in the organization of the Planning Conference and the completion of this report. Mr. William Ogle, energy consultant to the Alaska Energy Office, contributed his expertise to many sections of this report; he was also one of the principal architects of the Planning Conference. Mr. Tom Miller, of the U. S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, was a major contributor to the section on Alaska's Geothermal Potential; and much of the recent material on Alaskan geothermal and resource assess- ment has been derived from the work of Tom and his co-workers. Ms. Clarissa Quinlan, of the Alaska Energy Office, helped prepare the section on Energy Economics and devoted weeks of her time to the organization and planning of the Conference. My special gratitude to Mrs. Fran Pedersen, my secretary, who typed, assembled and indexed the manuscript and supervised the final compilation and publication of the report. We are deeply grateful to the National Science Foundation for a grant which defrayed many of the costs associated with the Planning Conference and the preparation and publication of this report. RBF iv TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD -------------------------------------------------------------- sf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --—~~o—.——— 2... soo = = iv ALASKA AND THE ENERGY CRUNCH ------------------------------------------ 1 (R. B. Forbes and W. McConkey) Socio-Economic Framework ------- Alaskan Economic Setting Consumer Price Versus Income and Earnings ~~ RGre Le Lapkan EC OnOM10 6 ye — ——— ee ae Energy Problems in Villages and Remote Areas The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act Petroleum Impact ---------------------------~---------------- RNBRGYRCONUMICG 6 cme gta a ee 12 (Electric and Wind Power Working Group; R. Cross and T. Wentink, Co-Chairmen) Statewide Requirements Utbdér- eieetric Power. <..2.2.3. aa Energy Consumption in the Rural Communities ---. Larger Communities The Villages -~--~---. WRI ROC RSES POUT | nei ins Forecast of Alaska Power Requirements -~---—-~----~------------~-- ALASKA'S ‘GROMHERMAL “POTENTIAL © 22. ol eee Oo ea 23 (R. B. Forbes, with contributions from the Research and Development Working Group) Geothermal Energy in the National Interest The Alaska Geothermal Resources Act of 1971 Classification of Geothermal Resources ----------. Previous Work and Publications ---------- Heat Flow and Thermal Gradients ---- Volcanism and Geothermal Resources -----------------~--------------- Sittimde Voleanteth 2.20 ie a eee eee Basaltic Volcanic Fields ----~---~- Volcanism in Southeastern Alaska Estimated Magnitudes and Heat Contents of Alaskan Volcanic Systems -------------------------------- Direct Extraction of Energy From Volcanoes Thermal Springs as Geothermal Resources -------------------------- Origin of Thermal Spring Water ------------------------------- Vapor-Dominated Versus Hot Water Systems --- Geothermometry ----------------------------- Geologic Setting of Alaskan Thermal Springs - Quaternary Volcanic Belts Southeastern Alaska ~-~--~-~-~- Central Aléska:* 4-—-...._..— Maximum Surface Water Temperatures -------------------------- Estimated Reservoir Temperatures ----- Reservoir and Conduit Systems --- Flow Rates ------~--~-~----—--~~---~-~---~---------~----- Saline Springs ---------------------------------------------- GEOTHERMAL “RESOURCE: APPINCATIONG <5 hh een 52 (L. Leonard and R. B. Forbes) Utilization of Alaskan Thermal Springs ----------~--------------- 52 BIBCEELGE CY i ihn se ise etence ments werebvenaitinnmees Space Heating -- Kerr Leerecron: .2eeos lo Transmission of Geothermal Energy (L. Leonard) High Temperature Pipelines Low Temperature Pipelines SPACE: HEATING-AND :. INDUSTRIAL: APPLICATIONS ..22i- oi cee 61 (Space Heating and Industrial Applications Working Group; J. Kunze and W. Ogle, Co-Chairmen) Space Heating -~-------------------~-------------------------------- The Industrial Belt --- The New Capital Site --- Industrial Applications Recommended Projects ----------~---------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND PROTECTION ---~---------~-~-----------------~- 63 (R. B. Forbes) Environmental Hazards ------~---~-----~---~~-~--~---------------------- Chemical Pollution Noise Pollution --------------------------------------------- Thermal Pollution Anti-Pollution Measures Environmental Vulnerability of Alaskan Thermal Springs ----------- 64 WEND:- POWER POLE TI SAL OF AGASKA: 2-52 ee 67 (T. Wentink) Wind Power Potential Defined Wind, Power: Calculations © -.--—-__.-__L. Meaningful Variables — AlaskancWind Data «62 Ranking of Wind Power Sites vi POWER AND ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY OF SMALL WINDMILLS IN ALASKA ~-~-----------~ 83 (T. Wentink) Present State of Technology The Use of Mean Wind Speeds Evaluation of Available WECS Units ------------------~--------------- 85 Prim umes erototype-(L5 KW) .-——-— ae 86 Electro WVG50 (6 KW) Aerowatt 4.1 KW meme ma sn rn nn rns nnn Jacobs-like 3 KW WECS ----------~-----~--= -----~- ---- === === === 93 Energy Productivity and the Height Effect - —---94 Engineering Design Factors ---------------- —---96 Power Coefficient and Efficiency ----- mmm anQ6 Cut-in-Speeds and Calms ----------- = 96 Productivity Curves ---------------------------=---------=-----== 96 Icing Problems and Blade Coating ------------------------------- 98 D.C. Versus A.C. Rural Systems and Inverters -. ———-99 WECS Foundation Requirements ----~------------ Environmental Impact --------------~- . Possible Bird Kills ---------- Communications Interference —— Weather Modification ---------. Mechanical Risk and Liability WIND POWER APPLICATIONS ---------------~---------------------------------- (T. Wentink) Wind Versus Fossil Fuel-Generated Power Industrial Applications Ammonia Production Urea and Methanol Production - Mining ------------~----~---~-----~----~---~---------------------------- Agriculture ~-—--—~....--_--._—- ~+——_- ~~ --- 2 nnn nnn Refrigeration --------~--~---~-~~~--~--~-----~-------------------------- ALASKAN AGRICULTURE AND THE ENERGY PROBLEM ------------------------------ 110 (Agriculture Working Group; D. H. Dinkel, Chairman) Logistics: 2-26... 3-3 Controlled Environment Systems Open Plot and Controlled Environment Gardening on Geothermally-Heated Ground ------------------------------------ 113 BLSHERLES “AND = AQUACUL LURE mm mmr 116 (Fisheries and Aquaculture Working Group; W. McNeil, Chairman) Cppoteuetttes for: Agqusenli tute —<-—-——- ee Salmon Ocean Ranching ---------------~ Uses of Warm Water in Ocean Ranching - Proposed: Ptasnean. <n Inventory of Geothermal Waters ------------- Feasibility of Using Thermal Waters Vad. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -------------------------------------=--=- Geothermal Potential and Applications ------------------------------ Classification of Geothermal Resources ------- Geothermal Resources Applied to Alaskan Needs - Convective Systems --~---~---------~-------------~------------- Volcano-Related Systems ---------~---~-~-~----------------------- Heat Flow and Thermal Gradient Measurements -- Total Energy Utilization of Thermal Springs ------------------ Rural Geothermal Priorities and the Total Energy Concept --~---~----~---~-----------~------------------- Electric Versus Non-Electric Applications -- Sources of State Funding -----------~--~-------~----------------- Present State of Geothermal Research and Development -— --130 Development -- Sa --130 Research ~-~-----~-~------------------------------- =—130 A Proposed Geothermal Research and Development Program --131 Wind Power Potential and Applications -- —-133 Potential <--—__-___-----_---~~ 1485) State of Technology ------------------------ ==133 Applications ------------------------------- 138 Electricity ---------------—- 137 Wind Power Demonstration Projects -~-------------------------------- 139 Institutional Considerations --------------------------------------- 139 The Alaska State Energy Office and Statewide Coordination of Geothermal Activities ------------------------------------------------- 139 State of Alaska Geological and Geophysical Survey ------------- 139 State Versus Federal Funding ---------------------------------- 139 Possible ERDA-State of Alaska Memorandum of Understanding ------------------------~----------------------- 140 REFERENCES -~-~--~~---~------~-------------~---~--~-~------~---------------- 141 APPENDICES A. Program for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference B. Attendance List for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference Cc. Working Groups for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference D. Chevak's Current Energy Picture (Fall, 1975): A Study of a Southwestern Alaskan Eskimo Village E. Proposed Projects E-1. Proposed Use of Geothermal Water for Salmon Aquaculture on Umnak Island, Alaska E-2. A Proposal for Alaska Municipal Geothermal Heating viii E-3, E-4, Proposed Total Energy Studies of E-5. Selected Alaskan Thermal Springs Preliminary Proposal for Wind Power Demonstrations at Selected Alaskan Sites (Umnak Island, Cold Bay and Kotzebue) The Alaska Geothermal Resources Act of 1971 ix ALASKA AND THE "ENERGY CRUNCH" (R. B. Forbes and W. McConkey) Socio-Economic Framework Alaskan Economic Setting: When considering Alaskan energy problems, it is important to remember that Alaska may have more in common with the developing countries of Africa and Latin America than it does with the other forty-nine states. At first hearing, this sounds like an over- statement, but hard facts reinforce this comparison. Alaska, the largest of the fifty states, has a land area which is equal to about one-fifth the total area of the continental United States. The Alaskan population is around 300,000. Alaska has only three communities (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau) which could be classified as cities when compared to other states. Over one-half of the Alaskan population lives in or immediately adjacent to these three cities. The residual population is scattered throughout the rest of the state in hundreds of towns, villages, and settlements. Very few of these outlying communities can be conveniently reached by any form of transportation other than air. Modern communica- tions are often limited to a single radio facility located in a Bureau of Indian Affairs or state-operated school, or some other federal or state administrative facility. Traditionally, long transportation routes and high maintenance costs have made the Alaskan cost of living higher than that in other states. Rural communities are at the end of the "logistics pipeline" as emphasized by the cost of fuel oil, for example, which exceeds $1 per gallon in many villages (Table 1). The Alaskan economy tends to be resource oriented, and most of the revenue is derived from the export of raw materials to other states or TABLE 1 Representative Fuel Prices in Rural Alaska VILLAGE OIL/per GALLON GAS/per GALLON ALAKANUK $1.00 $1.00 AMBLER 95 1,19 ARCTIC VILLAGE 2.10 2.20 BARROW 2.40 2.37, BEAVER 2.00 1.85 BETTLES 1.60 1.60 CHEVAK -85 1.05 EMMONAK 97 82 HOOPER BAY 93 127, KIANA 1.74 125 KIPNUK 82 91 KOTLICK -80 1.00 NULATO 1.00 1525 PILOT STATION 1.00 1.00 SHUNGNAK 95 1.30 ALASKA STATE ENERGY OFFICE November, 1975 countries where they are processed, marketed and consumed. Fish, timber, metals and petroleum comprise the major exports. Alaska's small population base, high operating costs and lack of local markets have discouraged resident processing and manufacturing. Alaska shares the problems of underdeveloped countries which have become the economic domains of more highly industrialized nations. In common with such countries, a significant portion of Alaska's population (about 20%) lives in poverty. This segment of the population is dominated by Natives who exist, for the most part, in socio-economic limbo between traditional hunting and fishing economies and the complexities of 20th century civilization. The Native peoples account for a little over one- half of the state's rural population; and it is these Alaskans who suffer the most from the nation's economic problems and continuing inflation. Cross-cultural blocks and the lack of investment capital have left many villages with little cash income other than welfare checks. Few villagers are regularly employed, and if so, the jobs are usually government related. Generally speaking, the economic base of rural Alaska is that provided by federal and state support. Consumer Prices Versus Income and Earnings: High Alaskan consumer prices have received worldwide attention, dating back to the days of the Klondike and Nome gold stampedes. It does indeed cost more to live in Alaska than elsewhere in the United States. A quotation from a recent report, "Consumer Prices, Personal Income and Earnings in Alaska," by the University of Alaska's Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research (Tussing and Thomas, 1974), summarizes the current economic differential: "Almost everything costs more in Alaska than it does in the ‘lower forty-eight.' How much more varies widely among places in the state, with the lowest differential occurring in the Anchorage area. The highest differentials occur in the northern and western regions, with costs there sometimes two or three times the national average. Alaska price differentials also vary by commodity. For instance, the costs of housing and all construction in Alaska exceed the U.S. average far more than the costs of such factory- manufactured or processed goods as automobiles, food, or clothing. "Table 2 summarizes autumn 1973 family budget costs for three levels of living in Anchorage, relative to the U.S. urban average. Housing accounted for the largest part of the absolute difference between the Anchorage budget and the U.S. urban average: 39 percent of the difference between the budgets of the lower income families and 42 percent in the budgets of intermediate and higher income families. "Living cost differentials between Alaska and other states are steeply biased against low income families. The total cost of a budget for higher income families in Anchorage in 1973 was 26 percent higher than its U.S. average urban counterpart, but the "lower level’ budget was 47 percent higher. Differentials are greatest in the lower income budget level in almost every expenditure category, but as previously stated, the most extreme contrasts are in housing costs. The Anchorage cost of housing for lower level income families was 92 percent higher than the national urban average, but only 45 percent higher for the higher income families." Although Alaskans enjoy a 14% nominal income advantage over "average" United States residents, this advantage does not offset even the Anchorage cost of living differential (+31%) which is probably the lowest of any locality in the state of Alaska, based on the U.S.D.C. Consumer Price Index for 1974. If one compares the per capita income data in Table 2 with the market basket food costs and average annual food expenditures in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, it is painfully apparent that many seasonally-employed residents in rural Alaska communities are living at poverty levels. TABLE 2 Per Capita Personal Income and Comparative Ratios for Alaska and the United States, 1969 and 1972 Ratio to State Total Ratio to U.S. Total (Alaska=100) (U.S.=100) 1969 Census 1972 BER 1969 Census 1972 BEA 1969 Census 1972 BEA Aleutian Islands $3,317 $8,354 88 162 106 186 Anchorme 4,242 5 582 113 109 135 124 Anchorage City 4,741 2 ae 151 Spenard 4639 123 148 Barrow 1,838 10,831 49 21 59 241 Bethel 1336 2,456 35 48 43 55 Bristol Bay Division 1,637 3,753? 97 73 116 84 Bristol Bay Borough 3,641 43 52 Cordova—McCarthy 4,072 7,189 108 140 130 160 Fairbanks 3,982 5,606 106 109 127 125 Fairbanks City 5,049 134 161 Haines 3,662 3,906 97 76 W7 87 Juneau and Angoon 8,020? 156 179 Angoon 516 14 16 Juneau 5,053 134 161 Kenai—Cook Inlet 3,806 4,197 101 82 121 93 Ketchikan 3,720 5 606 99 109 119 126 Kobuk 1,527 2,658 4 62. 49 59 Kodiak 3,356 5,245 89 102 107 117 Kuskokwim 1,670 3,578 44 73 53 80 Matanuska—Susitna 2,894 4,051 77 79 92 90 Nome 1,992 3,300 53 64 63 73 Outer Ketchikan 2,684 3,091 FO: 72 84 82 Prince of Wales 4,056 7,470 108 145 129 166 Seward 3,508 4,062 93 79 112 90 Sitka 3,899 5,673 104 110 124 126 Skagway— Yakutat 3,339 4641 89 90 106 103 Southeast Fairbanks 3,250 3,913 86 76 108 87 Upper Yukon 3,963 4648 105 90 126 103 Valdez—Chitina—Whittier 4,353 4,279 116 83 139 95 Wade Hampton 1,069 1,877 23 7 4 42 Wrangell—Petersburg 3,376 4,951 90 96 108 110 Yukon—Koyukuk 3,369 3,219 89 63 107 72 State Total 3,765 5,142 100 100 120 114 U.S. Total 3,169 4,492 83 87 100 100 a Bureau of Economic Analysis b, ‘ Because of typoaraphical errors in source tables, BEA figures for “Bristol Bay” and “Juneau and Angoon” were estimated by interpolation between per capita income figures for adjacent ranked census divisions, SMSA's or counties. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Alaska and, United States. Summary, and Survey of Current. Business, May 1974. (Taken from Tussing and Thomas, 1974) TABLE 3 Market Basket Food Costs* in Selected Alaska Cities and Seattle, Washington, 1963-1974 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1974 (March) (June) Anchorage $22.67 $22.68 $20.80 $22.26 $22.03 $22.00 $23.05 $22.97 $24.32 $25.03 $23.43 $34.32 $34.04 Bethel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32.19 33.79 35.69 37.24 38.40 41.19 45.02 45.84 Fairbanks 25.26 25.13 23.34 24.45 23.99 24.44 25.82 26.35 26.71 27.01 30.83 35.55 35.57 Juneau 21.11 21.54 20.67 21.40 21.19 21.90 22.76 22.63 23.78 24.99 29.01 32.99 33.17 Kenai—Soldotna N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.42 24.36 24.32 25.01 26.47 30.53 35.90 37.09 Ketchikan 20.40 20.85 19.89 10.75 20.85, 21.62 22.73 23.24 23.54 24.62 27.92 30.86 31.78 Kodiak 22.91 22.82 21.43 22.33 22.38 23.25 24.47 25.96 26.79 27.96 31.67 34.77 36.12 Nome 28.91 29.55 28.70 28.96 29.45 30.28 31.66 33.20 35.03 36.59 39.97 45.40 49.17 Paimer 21.85 21.85 21.14 21.91 21.23 21.65 23.13 23.65 24.21 24.89 28.60 33.03 34.53 Petersburg 21.12 21.46 21.24 22.02 22.17 23.01 24.03 24.29 25.43 27.11 30.92 33.79 35.88 Seward 22.50 22.25 21.77 22.36 21.94 23.05 24.08 24.73 25.44 26.80 31.57 36.41 37.75 Sitka 21.61 22.20 21.82 22.70 22.44 23.23 24.02 24.90 25.42 26.32 29.62 33.17 32.54 | Valdez N/A N/A N/A 24.60 24.50 25.31 26.67 28.42 28.52 29.03 34.02 38.49 39.17 | Seattle 17.70 17.90 N/A N/A 16.69 17.36 18.45 19.08 19.63 20.71 23.69 26.81 27.45 At home food costs. change in combination of forty-five food items used in market basket. Source: ‘Retail Prices of 45 Food Items in Thirteen Alaska Cities,” Palmer: Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station. (Taken from Tussing and Thomas, 1974) TABLE 4 Average Annual Food Expenditures for Twenty-four Alaska Communities (October 1972 Survey) and Comparisons with Anchorage Data % of Anchorage 5 ~ % of Anchorage Expenditures Food Expenditures Expenditures Food Expenditures Alaska Community Per Household Per Household Per Person Per Person ‘Anchorage $2,960 100 $ 971 100 Barrow 3,878 - 131 954 98 Sethel 4,156 140 950 98 Cold Bay 3,083 3 104 1,178 121 Cordova 3,175 107 1,006 104 Dillingham 4,420 149 1,319 136 Emmonak 1 eee 105 601 62 Fairbanks 3,206 108 1,035 107 Fort Yukon 4,426 150 1,070 110 Haines 3,858 130 1,024 105 Juneau 2,879 97 920 95 Kenai 3,436 116 987 102 Ketchikan 3,625 122 731 75 Kodiak 3,862 130 1,163 120 Kotzebue 4,484 151 1,030 106 Nenana 4,129 139 1,214 125 Nome 3,406 115 902 93 Palmer 3,388 114 942 97 Seward 3,244 110 884 91 Sitka 4,150 140 1,145 118 Tanana 5,340 180 951 98 Valdez 3,369 114 1,193 123 Wrangell 2,653 90 884 91 Yakutat 4,255 144 1,324 136 Summary — All locations 3,185 108 978 101 Source: State of Alaska, Division of Personnel, Survey of Salaries and Benefits, Housing and Food Costs and Salary Recommendations; Part III Housing and Food Costs, December 1972 (Taken from Tussing and Thomas, 1974) Rural Alaskan Economics: Although some villages owe their locations to aboriginal subsistence patterns involving fishing sites, caribou migration routes and various animal populations, others are situated according to more recent developments including gold camps, river transportation routes and airstrips. In some cases, the present location of settlements and villages reflects old patterns or activities which no longer exist; and in others, natural and/or man-made changes have created a hostile environment for village life. Poverty is said to be a state of mind. Although both native and white rural Alaskans do not think of themselves in those terms, living conditions in most rural areas would be equated with poverty based on inadequate lighting, the lack of central heating or plumbing, and fresh fruits and vegetables. According to Tussing and Thomas (1974), the lowest per capita incomes were found in rural divisions with predominantly native populations (e.g., Angoon, Wade Hampton, Bethel, Kobuk). Poverty in rural Alaska is related to high import costs and little or no local cash income. A dollar expended for a gallon of fuel oil or a head of lettuce leaves the village....never to return. Under current conditions, there is very little cash flow within the village communities. Energy Problems in Villages and Remote Areas: To most Americans, the energy crisis is something new. To rural Alaskans, it is a way of life. Isolation, high transportation costs and unforgiving winters have equated energy conservation with survival. Inflation and the recent "energy crisis" have brought an added increment of economic hardship. Heat is a precious commodity in the Alaskan arctic. Small communities in the more isolated areas are forced to import expensive fossil fuels to maintain adequate communications and living standards. Most of the fresh produce consumed by such villages is also imported. Electricity, where present, is generated by gasoline- or diesel-powered generators, resulting in an additional fossil fuel demand -- and a dependence on exterior supply. The high cost of imported fossil fuels in the outlying communities restricts improvements and depresses the standard of living. The high cost of fresh and canned vegetables creates an additional economic stress on these communities and is a source of dietary problems in the more isolated populations during the winter. Before any discussion of Alaska's geothermal and wind potential can be undertaken, it is necessary to address two important issues affecting the State's future. These are the Native Land Claims Settlement Act and the further development of Alaska's onshore and offshore oil and natural gas reserves, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Stewart French (1972) has conducted an excellent analysis of the Native Claims Settlement Act. French's introductory statement introduces the reader to the social and economic impact of the Act on the peoples of Alaska: "No event since the 1968 Prudhoe Bay oil discovery, and perhaps even Statehood in 1958, has had as great a potential social and economic impact on the people of Alaska--both Native and non-Native--as has the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 85 Stat. 688). The Act is a complex legislative resolution of a 104-year old question and a source of conflict that have been bars to full achievement of the social and economic aspirations of Natives, non-Natives, and the State." The Native Claims Settlment Act provides that the Native peoples of Alaska will receive: (1) legal title to 40 million acres of land together with mineral estate, plus nearly a billion dollars from federal appro- priations and shared revenue from state and federal mineral leases; (2) membership in regional (profit) and village (profit or non- profit) stockholder corporations; (3) an Alaskan Native Fund, totaling $462,5 million in federal monies, to be paid over 11 years; and $500 million derived from 2% of the revenues acquired from mineral leases on state and federal lands. Among many other benefits, new mechanisms and sources of support for village improvement will become available, including help from the respective regional corporations. The potential now exists for cooperative village development programs and economic experiments, as joint enter- prises between native and federal and/or state agencies. The Alaskan Native, represented through 12 regional native corpora- tions and a multitude of village corporations, will become one of the largest landowners in the State along with the federal and state governments. The growth and development policies of these corporations will play key roles in shaping the State's future economic, environmental and social systems. Petroleum Impact: Completion of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, with an estimated total cost of over $6.5 million, is scheduled for July, 1977. Employing over 20,000 workers during peak construction periods, the pipeline is the largest privately-financed project in history. The impact of this construction on Alaska's social, economic and governmental institutions has been considerable and may not be totally understood for several years to come. The very foundations of the State's economic structure are being altered by this first large-scale development of an Alaskan energy source. Routing of the natural gas 10 pipeline from the North Slope is another major issue which must be decided within the next year or so. If the trans-Canadian pipeline the next year or so. If the trans-Canadian pipeline is selected rather than the trans-Alaskan route, it is possible that the State will experience a significant slowdown in economic activity. What lies ahead? By 1978 only two major oil fields (Cook Inlet and North Slope) containing an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil will be in a production mode; however, the recoverable petroleum reserves in Alaska total 76.1 billion barrels. Continuation of the "energy crisis" in the "lower forty-eight" and the depletion of other domestic petroleum resources over the next few years will most certainly mean additional exploration and development of Alaska's onshore and offshore oil and gas reserves. Needless to say, the impact of these activities on the State will be extensive. 1% ENERGY ECONOMICS Statewide Requirements The electric utilities operations in the State of Alaska bear little resemblance to the complex systems of the lower 48 states. Although Alaskan generation and transmission equipment is modern and efficient, the great distances between population centers prohibit grid system interties, and there is no long-range service to outlying rural communities. The Alaskan power scene is much like that which existed in the United States before the rural electrification drive which took place in the early 1930's. Alaskan electricity is derived from several sources including hydro-electric, oil-fired and coal-fired steam, gas turbine and diesel- generating systems (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the relatively large contribution of diesel-electric power plants. The increasing use of diesel-electric power is creating a problem in Alaska which geothermal energy sources could help to alleviate. Although the portability and relatively low capital cost of diesel-electric plants has brought electricity to many communities in rural Alaska, the high cost of fuel and accompanying maintenance problems are escalating the cost of electricity in remote areas. Urban Electric Power Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan have electric utility systems comparable to those in small cities in the other states (without the interties with larger systems). In 1970 these systems were providing electricity to homes in Alaska at an average rate of 3.01¢ per KWh 12 ALASKA ELECTRIC UTILITIES INSTALLED GENERATION - YEARLY GROWTH BY TYPE 700 600 a S 9 400 TOTAL INSTALLED GENERATION CAPACITY OF ALASKA ELECTRIC UTILITIES w ° oO "GAS. TURBINI INSTALLED GENERATION CAPACITY (MEGAWATTS) nm oO © 1 Se arapsperp thot Na Sate! 7 Yd YY YyYyyyyYy yy / Ui Yi WY (INCLUDES 30,000 KW FEDERAL EKLUTNA POWER allie, 46,700 }f y 0 WME MAL MOE ELIE ESELRE 1956 58 60 62 6. 65 68 70 72 74 YEAR (Taken from Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1960-1970) Figure 1: Diagram showing cumulative and individual growth curves for electric generating plants (by type) in Alaska. 13 as compared to 2.10¢ per KWh for the rest of the nation. This is a small differential considering the higher cost of living in Alaska, and the absence of power-sharing with larger systems. As of 1970, the electric power consumed by the urban communities (which include unusually large peripheral suburban areas) accounted for 75% of the yearly electricity consumed in the State of Alaska. Some idea of the present variation between power costs in Alaska and those in another state can be seen in Table 16. The success of urban power systems and the related abundance of accessible fossil fuels indicate that the bulk of the State's electrical power requirements can be met by such facilities. The large natural gas reserves and relatively untouched hydroelectric potential of the south- central region should insure an adequate supply of low-cost electricity to the Anchorage area for many years to come. The coal resources of interior Alaska, coupled with access to crude from the trans-Alaska pipeline, should more than meet power requirements of the Fairbanks area, the second largest urban area in the State. The Juneau area is presently supplied with hydroelectric power, and the hydroelectric potential of the area is more than adequate to meet projected needs over the next 50 years. It is unlikely that geothermally-produced electricity could be economically competitive in the foreseeable future with the present systems in these cities. Alaskan urban energy use patterns are similar to those of the 48 states, in that consumption approaches available supply until limits are established by economic constraints. The usual diurnal and seasonal load cycles are amplified by Alaskan winters. Figure 2 shows monthly cycles and peak loads for Anchorage, Fairbanks and Ketchikan from 1963 to 1971. 14 ST = x“ we roy ”o a z < ao = ° x B ee a T MONTHLY PEAK LOADS (The 6 utilities represented comprise about Source of data: 75% of Alaska installed capacity ) Southcentral Area(SC)! Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.{A.M.L.&P.) Chugach Electric Association. (C.E.A.) Interior Area(I): Fairbanks Municipal Utilities. (F.M.U.) Golden Valley Electric Association. (G.V.E.A.) Southeast Area (SE): Alaska Electric Light and Power.(A.E.L.&P) Ketchikan Public Utilities.(K.P.U.) NOTE: Percentages shown are utilization factors (alee) for highest winter peaks and lowest summer pegks. 40.5% ~ 768.0% (1) 69.7% (1) "NO DATA 7.8% (1) 40.6% ‘VWee% tn ( 36.3%(1) \ f 76.6%I(SEN\ \ae3%tt) ™~, Oy rerntse)) 272% (0 (se)) i FPC Monthly Electric Power Statistics” South | >6594%(1) “s Southeast | 1 9.148 sssrusey 58.3 %(S EN © _ ° so Figure 2: Monthly peak loads in three Alaskan geographical areas (on major utilities; most rural suppliers not included) 1971 APA DEC. 1971 Energy Consumption in the Rural Communities Larger Communities: Small communities, such as Barrow, Bethel, Cold Bay and Kotzebue, are either too remote to use the large power plants and grids which supply Anchorage and Fairbanks, or are unable to use local energy resources (if they exist). For instance, Cold Bay and Bethel have no local energy resources, but Kotzebue is in potential range of rich but undeveloped coal fields. Barrow is powered largely by local subsurface gas fields, but cost rate increases and pressure depletion may make this usage unattractive in the near future. The above cities are powered by small, privately-owned utility companies (about 0.7 to 3.0 MW). The important point here is that these communities (except Barrow) derive most electricity and heat from expensive fuel oil which is transported over large distances. The utilities currently pay about 40¢/gal. Costs to individuals now range from 50¢ to above $2/gal. in the bush communities. The requirement for more highly refined grade number one versus grade number two fuel oil, due to the cold, increases the oil costs. The Villages: Of the nearly 200 small villages in Alaska with 50 to 300 inhabitants, about 50 communities are powered by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). Many other villages have no central source of electricity. Energy use patterns vary considerably, but electricity is chiefly used for lighting, communications and household appliances. Heat is mostly derived from oil stoves. The accelerated use of over- snow and all-terrain vehicles has caused a recent increase in gasoline consumption in the bush communities. 16 A vivid example of the energy situation in a typical Alaskan native village is presented in a paper entitled "Chevak's Current Energy Picture: A Study of a Southwestern Alaskan Eskimo Village" (see Appendix D). Rural Electric Power As mentioned previously, the lack of interties between urban electric utility systems prevents power distribution from larger systems to remote areas. There are many communities throughout the State which have less than 1,000 people and which must produce their own power. The agency which has had the most experience in such systems is the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC). This non-profit power co-op was formed in 1967, and received its initial operating capital from the Rural Electrification Administration of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Since its formation, AVEC has installed power systems in 48 Alaskan villages which previously had little or no electricity. These systems range in size from 100 KW at Shaktolik, a small Eskimo village on Norton Sound, to the 450 KW plant at Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea. Due to the small power needs of these villages, diesel-electric generators have been installed. But the high diesel fuel and maintenance costs in these remote areas have resulted in power costs up to 20¢ per KWh. This rate is highly damaging to the village consumer as it is roughly six times the cost of electricity in other parts of Alaska; the average annual cash income of rural residents is far below that of the urban population, and this imposes the highest cost on those least able to pay. 17 1. Forecast of Alaska Power Requirements A current overview of statewide power system needs and alternatives is contained in the 1974 Reports of the Advisory Committee for the Federal Power Commission's Alaska Power Survey. The more important points are summarized below (see Figures 3, 4 and 5). The power survey indicated statewide electric energy requirements of 2.6 billion kilowatt-hours in 1972 and installed generating capacity of one million kilowatts in mid-1973. “the largest portion of the requirements is for the electric utility system (1.6 billion kilowatt-hours in 1972) and utility loads have been increasing about 12 percent per year (doubling every 5 to 6 years). Self- supplied industrial power systems and national defense installations account for the remainder of the power requirements. Requirements of 3 to 10 million kilowatts of new generating capacity will be needed by the year 2000 under alternative assumptions for future development in the State. In recent years, most new generator additions have been oil and natural gas-fired units, and in 1972 about 60 percent of the State's total electric energy came from these premium fuels. Based on current trends, this percentage may increase to about 90 by 1980; hence the very real concern for considering alternative power sources. Unlike the rest of the U.S., Alaska does not have extensive power grid systems. The load centers in the various regions of the State are served by isolated power systems. Anchorage and nearby areas in the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs 18 ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MILLION KWH PER YEAR 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 400 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR. APA Alaska Power Survey (Taken from Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1970) Figure 3: Utility system power requirements 1960-2000. 19 TOTAL ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MILLION KWH PER YEAR + S ° ° 3 HISTORIC PROJECTED 1000 (965 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 : APA YEAR Alaska Power Survey * SHOWS EFFECT OF LARGE INDUSTRIAL LOAD, SUCH AS A NUCLEAR FUEL ENRICHMENT PLANT OR OTHER VERY LARGE ENERGY INTENSIVE FACILITY. (Taken from Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1970) Figure 4: Total Alaska Power Requirements 1965-2000. 20 ENT PERC SOUTHCENTRAL | | | | | | | HISTORIC PROJECTED YUKON (INTERIOR)| SOUTH EAST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I | | | | | COMBINED ARCTIC, SOUTHWEST, NORTHWEST .960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR" APA Alaska Power Survey (Taken from Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1970) Figure 5: Regional Utility Power Requirements, Percent Statewide Total 21 account for roughly one-half of the total statewide power requirements. The Fairbanks area and a handful of coastal cities from Ketchikan to Kodiak account for most of the rest. There is a unique set of power concerns for Alaska's remote cities and villages. These number around 175 and account for around 2 to 3 percent of total State power needs. Included are a few fairly large regional centers (Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue, and Barrow with populations of 2,000 to 3,000). Most of the rest have populations of 100 to 500. Barrow now has access to natural gas; most of the rest are totally dependent on costly, imported petroleum products for their energy needs. Many of the smaller villages don't even have power systems. There is likelihood the major railbelt load centers will be fully interconnected in about 10 years, and the railbelt area power requirements will be about 70 to 80 percent of total State needs for the foreseeable future. There are possibilities that regional power systems will develop in other portions of the State, but many of the remote cities and villages will likely remain isolated from larger power systems for the foreseeable future. 22 ALASKA'S GEOTHERMAL POTENTIAL Geothermal Energy in the National Interest Until the last few years, the United States has not shown much concern or interest in the assessment or development of its geothermal resources. More recently, however, possible worldwide energy shortages, growing pollution problems and the awakening of a national environmental conscience have developed an accelerated interest in geothermal energy. This new cognizance has been reinforced by the Congress with the pas- sage of the "Geothermal Steam Act of 1970" (84 Stat 1566), which author- " and izes and delineates geothermal resource "provinces" and "areas,' defines leasing and regulative policies for federal lands. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 647, "Classification of Public Lands Valuable for Geothermal Steam and ieee Geothermal Resources" (Godwin, et al., 1971), presents the criteria for determining which federal lands are classifiable as geothermal steam and associated geo- thermal resources lands under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (84 Stat 1566). This publication includes a map of Alaska showing lands clas- sified for geothermal resources. as of December 24, 1970 (Figure 6). The Alaska Geothermal Resources Act of 1971 The State of Alaska enacted a Geothermal Resources Act in 1971, which establishes procedural, regulatory and administrative policies governing future exploration, development and production of goethermal resources on state lands (see Appendix G), 23 Areos Voluable Prospectively UMNAK AMOKTA EXPLANATION Known Geothermal Resources Area (| Areas Valuable Prospectively aTTU Cy Areas Valuable Prospectively AT KA ey Soe ad Figure 6: Western limit of Aleutian Islands Map of Alaska showing lands classified for geothermal resources effective December 24, 1970. Numbers correspond to localities shown in inset. From U. S. Geological Survey Circular 647, Godwin, Gt 8 5 19/1. 1. Pilgrim Springs 2. Geyser Spring Basin and Okmok Caldera 3. Wrangell Mountains 24 Classification of Geothermal Resources A comprehensive assessment of potential Alaskan geothermal resources or targets must consider the following: a Surface Resources a. Thermal springs y Subsurface Resources a. Two phase reservoir systems (steam and water) b. One phase reservoir systems (hot water) Cs Geopressured hot water reservoirs d. Hot water reservoirs in sections with normal geothermal gradients e. Hot dry rock (1) Potential reservoir rocks; water injected from surface (2) Impermeable rocks; reservoir space must be artificially created by hydrofracture or explosives £. Hot dry rock in volcanic piles adjacent to subsurface magma bodies, or recently extruded plugs or domes g. Subsurface magma tap Previous Work and Publications The earliest contribution to our knowledge of the geothermal frame- work of Alaska was G. A. Waring's "Mineral Springs of Alaska" (1917), a pioneering work which included data on the geologic setting, chemistry, and thermometry of Alaskan hot springs which were known to the author in 1917. This work, and the accompanying spring location map, was the authoritative reference for over 50 years. In 1971, Ms. Norma Biggar, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, compiled a revision of Waring's map (Figure 7), which showed the location and temperature range of known Alaskan thermal springs. 25 9% Figure 7: Location map of Alaskan thermal springs as compiled by Ms. Norma Biggar in 1971. THERMAL SPRINGS OF ALASKA GEOPHYSICAL INSTITUTE AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, (97! ‘Compiied by Norms Biggar trom sources in USGS Water ‘Supply Poper No 418, by GA Worng, selected USGS geologe ond topographic mops, and onginal sources, a P ———? ILES EXPLANATION Biggar's map was accompanied by relevant tables of data on spring water temperature and chemistry. Subsequently, T. P. Miller, Alaskan Branch, U.S.G.S., produced a similar location map which included more recently- discovered thermal springs and new chemical and temperature data from the collaborative work of Ivan Barnes, of the U.S.G.S. (1973). A more recent report entitled "Geologic setting and chemical characteristics of hot springs in West-Central Alaska" (Miller, et al., 1975), provides additional data on the geothermal potential of thermal springs in that region. Ms. Biggar completed a University of Alaska M.S. dissertation on "A geological and geophysical study of Chena Hot Springs, Alaska" in May 1973. The thesis investigation included geomagnetic, microseismic and soil temperature surveys, in addition to site geology and geochemistry (Biggar, 1973). Forbes, et al. (1975), conducted geophysical studies of Pilgrim Springs in summer 1974. The data and findings of this study are contained in "A Geophysical Reconnaissance of Pilgrim Springs, Alaska," a report published by the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Circular #726, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1975,"*contains new and relevant material on Alaska's geothermal resource potential, with particular attention given to hot-water and high-temperature hydrothermal convection and volcanic systems. Heat Flow and Thermal Gradients High heat flow and/or geothermal gradients are the characteristic signatures of economically significant geothermal anomalies. Although #7. high heat flow values can be obtained on many active Alaskan volcanoes, published heat flow determinations in drill holes have not exceeded 2.6 hfu (one heat flow unit = 1 mitroenleriayen’/sec.)~ We know very little about the thermal gradient at Alaskan localities other than those located in the petroleum provinces, and there are only a few reliable heat flow measurements reported for Alaska (Lachenbruch and Marshall, 1969; Lachenbruch, personal communication). According to Lachenbruch (personal communication), no more than 20 reliable heat flow measurements have been recorded from Alaskan localities although temperature data are available for many holes which have been drilled in Alaskan petroleum provinces. Heat flow values calculated from data taken from drill holes near Cape Thompson, Barrow and Umiat (Lachenbruch and Marshall, 1969) were not far from the world average, and low to average values (1.3 ierobal®ries/cusysee) have been reported by Sass and Munroe (1970) for the Amchitka deep drill holes. Heat flow data have been taken from other drill holes in the Cook Inlet and Prudhoe Bay areas, but analyses of these data are still in process (Lachenbruch, personal communication). Preliminary data from a deep test hole near Eielson Air Force Base (Fairbanks district), however, indicates that the heat flow is anomalously high at this locality (Lachenbruch, personal communication). Although it is not known at this time whether the anomaly is more than 1.5 times that of the worldwide average of 1.5 microcalories/cm”/sec., the presence of Chena and Circle Hot Springs, and other thermal springs in the Salcha River drainage, indicates that the Yukon Tanana Uplands deserve additional study. 28 Volcanism and Geothermal Resources Alaska has more than 80 late Cenozoic volcanoes. Most of these have been active within the last million years (Miller and Barnes, in press) and more than 40 have erupted during historic time (Figure 8). Geothermal resources are closely associated with geologically- young volcanoes and volcanic fields, with particular emphasis on silicic volcanism (i.e., rhyolitic-dacitic domes and ejecta) and collapsed calderas. Silicic Volcanism: The most promising Alaskan volcanic targets are located in the Aleutian-Alaska Peninsula segment of the circum-Pacific volcanic belt and in the Wrangell Mountains. Following the views of Smith and Shaw (1975) and others, silicic magmas are more likely to be stored and/or erupted from shallow (<10 km) chambers than basaltic (basic) melts, in the circum-Pacific volcanic belt. Conversely, however, basaltic melts are stored and erupted from shallow magma reservoirs under Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii, in the oceanic setting. Following Smith and Shaw's rationale, geothermal targets are more likely to be associated with young silicic volcanic centers, where silicic magmas may still remain in the subsurface conduit and reservoir system. Such targets may range from hot dry rock to convective systems in suitable reservoir rocks. Possible subsurface targets would be signalled by very young (<10 million years) silicic domes and collapsed calderas with peripheral blankets of silicic pyroclastic rocks. The silicic ejecta domes and/or caldera association is known to occur at Katmai, Peulik, Aniakchak, Black Peak, Veniaminof, Emmons and Dana 29 0€ VOLCANOES OF ALL INE YOLCANIES OF 4 VE BEEN ACTIVE 700, atte sevecte €77iNc! VOLCANOES: fexiuul Shvis, macasn im Pocacmns “ste Fisnee Sat Smae tN VeRtaminor wae ARCHAK Gnistwacax Peuie maT macete TRIDENT novanurra ‘atecs. SRIGISRNSRTSTES SEE s pochnoi) Tanaga Kanoga Little wir Sa i . 7 tA *Bobr Belg 2d Rice igor Mt.Moffet/ Gt. Sitkin Clevelond | Figure 8: \ Pride, \ \ io S* St.Lowrence I. we Sanford Drum: Wrangell (9? Oe —. @ Nunivak Re Togiak K( “Mud Volcanoes’ R “erage Denison og” pr—Katmai xz Trident Novarupta: (ea Peulik- Lert Mageik Martin Chiginagak- g Paviof Sister Frosty Pk. b or Shishaldin +, ~Aniakchak Fisher o . Pogromni Veniaminof “37 Dano Makushin fe ‘ Paviot Keniuji Bogosiof Roundtop Mtn. [3 ‘Yunoska. ° Carlisle LY 1 Redoubt ep jedoul g q Douglas, Fourpeaked Augustine. S* Tsdnotski Pks. (Raggedy Jock) iewata Location of the main volcanic centers in Alaska showing volcanoes active in the last 200 years and other important recent volcanoes of the Aleutians, recent volcanoes of southern and southeastern Alaska, and alkalic Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic centers of western and eastern Alaska. (Taken from Kienle, 1974) Volcanoes on the Alaska Peninsula, Fisher Volcano on Unimak Island, and Mt. Drum in the Wrangell Mountains (recent reconnaissance work by Miller, Barnes and Smith [Miller and Barnes, in press]). All the known late Cenozoic volcanoes of the Aleutian volcanic arc could be considered as potential geothermal target areas because they indicate anomalously high heat flow in geologically recent time. The maximum depth at which geothermal systems might be exploited is thought to be less than 10 km (Muffler and White, 1972; White, 1973). Geothermal target areas can therefore be reduced, as a first approximation, to those volcanoes that have, or had, large magma chambers relatively close to the surface. A possible criterion for selection of such sites is the presence of a collapsed caldera, which in itself implies a magma chamber at relatively shallow depths for collapse to have occurred following magma withdrawal. Furthermore, Smith and Shaw (1973) have postu- p kn?) magma chambers that have formed lated that most large (10? - 10 in the upper 10 km of the crust are either silicic or have silicic differentiates. Powers (1958) listed 20 known calderas in the Aleutian volcanic arc. One of these, the Buldir depression in the western Aleutian Islands, has since been referred to as a volcanic-tectonic depression rather than a true caldera (Marlow and others, 1970). Recent work has shown that at least three more calderas on the Alaska Peninsula, including Black Peak, Peulik, and Emmons can now be added to the list of known calderas (Miller and Barnes, in press). Because of the length and subsequent remoteness of the Aleutian Islands, the calderas on the Alaska Peninsula such as Peulik, 31 Aniakchak, Black Peak, Dana and Fisher and those on the easternmost islands, perhaps as far west as Okmok Caldera on Umnak Island, may be considered as having more immediate potential for commercial development. Calderas farther out on the Islands such as Great Sitkin or Kanaga may have some potential for use by military bases. Some of these calderas could be eliminated from consideration because of inaccessibility. The conjectured caldera at Davidof, for instance, is under water and the Veniaminof caldera is completely filled with ice and snow. Basaltic Volcanic Fields: Late Cenozoic volcanic rocks underlie a total area of about 25,000 eae (9,600 mis) in interior Alaska, mostly in the western part of the region. These volcanic rocks are chiefly olivine tholeiite and alkalic basalt; no intermediate or silicic rocks of Pliocene or younger age have been reported in this part of Alaska. Potassium argon (K/Ar) age dates obtained on basalt from the western part of this province range from 6.12 ff 0.18 million years (m.y.) to 30,000 = 20,000 years Before Present (B.P.) on Nunivak Island (Hoare and others, 1968) and from 2.19 + 0.1 m.y. to 65,000 * 100,000 years B.P. on the Pribilof Islands (Cox and others, 1966). Stratigraphic and morphological evidence, moreover, suggests that volcanic activity has continued almost to the present time; Hopkins (1963) states that the Lost Jim Lava Flow on the Seward Peninsula may be as young as a few hundred years. The volcanic province, ranging in age from 6 m.y. to 30,000 years or younger, may still be volcanically active. No hot springs, fumaroles or other manifestations of current volcanic activity, however, occur within areas underlain by these basalts and the known thermal springs in interior Alaska show no spatial association with them. aa Volcanism in Southeastern Alaska: Late Cenozoic volcanic rocks occur in a few scattered localities in southeastern Alaska. The most important occurrence is Mount Edgecumbe, an inactive composite volcano about 980 m in elevation located about 26 km west of Sitka. The volcano (Figure 8) is part of a volcanic field of Quaternary age that covers about 260 km” on the southern end of Kruzof Island and ranges in composition from olivine-augite basalt to rhyolite. Radiocarbon dates indicate that eruptions that deposited ash and lapilli as far away as 225 km occurred as recently as 9,000 to 11,000 years B.P. (Brew and others, 1969; McKenzie, 1970). Volcanic rocks of probable late Cenozoic age also crop out in several other small areas in southeast Alaska. As is the case with Quaternary volcanic rocks of interior Alaska, little or no spatial relation is shown between the thermal springs of southeastern Alaska and the young volcanic rocks. The geothermal energy potential of areas underlain by late Cenozoic volcanic rocks in interior parts of southeastern Alaska appears to be low. Most geothermal areas now exploited in other parts of the world are associated with calc-alkaline volcanism whereas the Quaternary volcanic rocks of interior Alaska are primarily basalt and basaltic andesite and probably originated from considerable depth without large magma chambers relatively close to the surface. These volcanic areas display no signs of current activity such as fumaroles, geysers or thermal springs. The Mount Edgecumbe volcano area, however, with its relatively recent calc-alkaline volcanism, has higher geothermal potential. 33 Estimated Magnitudes and Heat Contents of Alaskan Volcanic Systems: Smith and Shaw (1975) have calculated estimated magnitudes and heat contents of Alaskan volcanic systems. These data are shown in Table 5. Direct Extraction of Energy From Volcanoes In the last few decades, the production of geothermal power has experienced a very slow growth, based on the discovery and development of vapor phase reservoirs. New concepts, such as artificially-induced reservoirs in hot-dry rock and the direct magma tap, offer new avenues for the exploitation of geothermal energy. Two approaches seem to offer the most promise for the direct extraction of volcanic energy: 1) Production and packaging of hydrogen, produced from the disassociation of water by volcanic heat 2) Generation of electricity by heat transfer from a magma to a conventional power plant on the surface via a heat exchanger immersed in the magma (an approach under investigation by Sandia Laboratories) The problem, however, is to locate a suitable shallow magma reservoir, which is amenable to such an experiment. Very little is known about the physical characteristics of magma reservoirs and the internal plumbing of volcanoes. It is not certain that molten lava pools exist at depth. The geophysical evidence for magma at depth is highly speculative and inferential. The depths of the magma chambers discussed in the literature range from about 4 km to greater than 60 km. Unfortunately, we do not yet know of one proven shallow magma reservoir in Alaska, although recent seismic studies (Eaton, et al., 1975) indicate such a reservoir under Yellowstone Park. 34 TABLE 5 Magnitudes and Heat Contents of Identified Volcanic Systems (As taken from Smith and Shaw, 1975) ALASKA s's L " i he a Cowrec J warner] Sout AQ a 20 . ! ‘TON GE HAMBER 10 a no NAME OF AREA Lat. | Lon. | last | DATA | Anca | \ouee | lication kee: ceaeysiCaamel REMARKS ‘ | UP TOK Kat Mee | roe | STATE [ODS Ce Canna Ay Buwn SEN | WE Aun <n? 210 Km Darrn Az | Aisxa S2ObN | /7736E | Base | AcTVE 210 Ke DEPTH AS |SEGUA SLU WN | /78°O8E | Basic | <10t? \NeCD BETTER DATA ON Suc? COMPOSITION AND AGE eo hein lpteeeieee bakt- cl dete eds fe ce Td AS [Lire STAW Pe Acie | 773 A. |#5-0K%| 75 |>850° | 43 BE A-6 | SEMSO°0CHNO! STIEN PIE | Base | Acrve | 124 A, |oed24y,| 50 | >850° | 08 (CERBERUS) An STSIN [179° 38E | Base | <10*? | a8 STEN |784EW| Base | Acre | >70 Km DEPTH | Ad SPSSW | 780? W | Basic ? | Active eo 400 | >a50" | 230 AD STS2N | 178 OW | Basic? | <10* | 89 Ac|205%K|>a5 | >050° | : pee a | mee Ale | KANAGA ST°IEN |TFIOW | Basic? | Active | £30 Ae |S75-250K| | >a50°| #3 | 43 Al . SPS6N \1764SW | BASH | <10*? | >10Km DEPTH Alf | ADAGDAK ST5IW \1768W| Basic | </0"? 710 Kn DePTH near SiTKIN SLOW BOW Basic See 78A| BK |>S [Br S | Ss HASATOCHI SZUW VSHOW| Basic? VACTIVE? >70 Km DEPTH ? w| Basic? | Acre? > 70H DEPTH? NEED COMPOSITION AND AGE DATA >/0 Kn DEPTH ARLISLE VELAND AAGAMIL 3 TABLE 5 (continued) Magnitudes and Heat Contents of Identified Volcanic Systems (As taken from Smith and Shaw, 1975) ALASKA T 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T 17 s i $-$ boentamren Act | Cuaser| Chace pote Sain- | JQ | 4Q 4Q Na NAME OF AREA Lat. | Lonc, | Last | DATA | Area | VOluR |MUrE Vir catigy | TOTAL | Now | Our REMARKS Ave TION Ke RANGE oT Stare [CALORES|Cacopies |Caonics « Ket | Kee % si" | sio% | tH" 4 AS! | MAKUSHIN SSILN | 168'56'W| Susce? | Active | 56 Ac] 9-46 ¥%| >/0 | >850 6 6 AB | Taare Tor SPIGW | 166'40'W'| Basic | Mo Dara >10 An DerTw ASS | AXUTAN S#OIN | 168°0O'W| Basic? | Active | 35 Ac| 9-50 %] >10 | >850 6 6 1 ” A-f0 |) Mr Gi.B£Rr 9°16 N | 8S 59 | Basic? | No daa >10 Kn Deern? (Anon) A-# | Pocronns SHIN [era w | Base | Acre >/0 hw Deerw ] A-#2 | WesToaM SHIN | 164:39'W | No Lara | Active WEED MORE DATA AU | Frsvcr SI SEN | 64 25 | Basie feriye 71 127 6 Ac |$00-1200Y,} 600 | >850 SS 54S 2110? Ty A-4f | SMSHALDIN SHSM | ASW | Basie | ACTIVE >10 Ke Deer A-#5 | [SANOTSKI SEASN | 3S44'W | Basic? | Actwe | 210 im Dept? A-46 | RounoToP S4°98'N | 16536'W | NolhiA | Active? <2110" 7 A-47 | Aman SS ASN | 16309 W\ Basic? | Mo Lara >10 Xn Dertw? A-%6 | Frosty SS*OFW [62°51 W | Sizscre >| No Dara Basic? A-49 | Wacaus SS*0ON | 162°50W| Basic | No Dara >10 Hos Deprw 1 (Morznovor) >704? A-50 | Durrow SSU'W | be16W| Basic | Me Dara >/0 Ket Derrn A-St | Enns S5°20N | 18208 W | Basic | Active | 1773 Ac|300-1200v,| 600 |>650 | 3 | 345 A-SZ | Aacve SELL | Ur5Iw| Basie | Active A-S5 | DOUBLE Canter SAIN | ATSTW| Basic |Aerive™ A-5# | FAVLOF SFLSW | 61S | Basie | Active 210K Derrw ASS [Paver Sisren | S827 | 6/°S'W | Basie | Acrwe >10Mm VEPTH | AS | Dawa SSSTN | 161 12'W | Steicie | No Dara 16 Ac| #-15 Ve | SF 23 WEED MORE DATA <10*? AS7 | HUPREANOF SEOI'N | S9'BW oD ATA ACTIVE EEO MORE OATA BASE: x 4 ASB | Vemaninor SE1OW | 59250 | Basic Acre | J0# Aq | 25-5001) 200 7850 | Us | US 7410 Te A-39 | Bgack SESW | 158'S7W| Sasere | <10%? | 69 A] 25-%| >20 | 7650 | 12 | 22 6 | WeEo MORE Dara (Purp.e) A60 |) AMAKCHAK SE°STN | /S870'W | Suscre Ke SSE Ag | /40-S60¥,) 225 | >650 129 129 56410? Te A-6/ | CHIGINIGAK S709N | STLOW) Basic? | Acrive NEED HORE DATA Svescre ? A€2 | Aiacacuix STURN | 1582 W | Ao LATA | Mo Lai Wo aATA A-63 | Pewee S745 | 186-20 W | Basic? | Acre? | 105A | 25-100 %] >30 | >650 | 717 WwW ee ae Surere Eavoriow bn 0 POANR PEO . AELD AGE DATA A-@f | MARTIN SBOP W | /5S2#N | Gisic? | Acrwe 10 re DEPTH? A-65 | MAGE SI2N | SSIS W Active Siucie DOMES? MeED roRE DATA A-&5 | NovARUPTA SHTW | ISUOW | Suicie [Active | 81 Ac| 20-80%] $0 | >e50 | 29 | 29 A-87 | Mr. Gricss SI°2ZON | 1SS*O8' | Basic? | Active >10 An Oger? (Hore Pear) [AG taewr SOEW |ISSOTW| Basie | Acrwe >10 Km Dertw ? A-69 | HATMAL SBE W \ 138 S9W|- Basic | Active Ot Ag | 20-80% | >20 | >a50 a Fa A70 | Swowr SELON [SEH W | No ara | Ho Dara T We Bara t Ad | Dawson SB°2S'N | 1S4°27W | AO DATA | Wo Dara Wo Oara [az | Srewer SB 2EW |/5F24W | Ho bara | No Dara Wo Gara 36 TABLE 5 (continued) Magnitudes and Heat Contents of Identified Volcanic Systems (As taken from Smith and Shaw, 1975) ALASKA Wasjaae 7 7 = 7 7 o 7 mon} AGE | CHampen| CHAMBER 4Q | 4a ] 4a Lone | bast | Data | Aaca woe: ae eaeeale ctees Iounes REMARKS RUP TION Kut ~y ee |e | or HuKAK SE°Z7V | 15421 W | No Data | Act? Wo DATA Dens DEsr S8°29N | 1597 W| Wo Dua | No Dara Mo BATA id AAGUYAK SBSTN | /SFOSH\ Surcie | <1? 41 Ac| 10-40 Ve g 9 a NEED AGE DATA || aie sl F OURPEAKED 58°97'N | 153'42W| No lum | < 10°? ‘Mo para i | Dovezas IBSEN | 15839 | No Data | Active? Wo oara AUGUSTINE SH2LN | (S320 Sunie | Acre NEED GEOPHYSICAL DATA? Tearwa BI06W| Basic | Acre 70 im Derrn 60°28 'W | S245 W\ Basic | Active >10 Ke Derrn ah 60°44'N | 182°35W/| No Lara | No Lara No oATA BLaca 60°S1'N | 1$2°25W| No Dara | Mo Lata Manta A@ | SPURR OVEN | S25 | Basic | ACTIVE CALDERA? Ne&D MORE DATA 62°07 W [AT HW | Suicie ASS | Sanford B23 | AFT Ww | No Data \< 55110" [yp Weed DATA ON PARASITIC VENT? MGM OW FLANKS OF SAVFORD waccessiace ?) Aw | WRA VoELL 62°00 W | /48*OI'W | Basic? | ACTiVE 217410" Te Aa? [Write Rivers 6/27 |b w | Suc | 757008 | Pete | ee | <9110' asc’ Suse 10'T 37 A direct magma tap to extract thermal energy from subsurface magma reservoirs is a new concept in the geothermal energy field. The Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is presently pioneering magma tap research, estimates that one cubic mile (4 km?) of 1000°C magma contains enough energy to drive several 100 MW electrical plants for a hundred years. Vast quantities of thermal energy are dissipated by passive and active volcanoes throughout the world. Table 6 is a compilation of energy released in historic volcanic eruptions. The energy yields are impressive. The Krakatoa eruption of 1883 released about 10°? ergs of energy, which compares to the total power consumption in the U.S. in 1970. The 1952 eruption of Kilauea represents a value of $350 million if converted to commercial electrical power today! Volcanoes represent a very high-grade energy source if we could somehow tap them. Lava lakes also dissipate large amounts of energy (Table 7, which represents but a fraction of the energy stored in the depths of the volcanoes. Thermal Springs as Geothermal Resources Origin of Thermal Spring Water: Just a few years ago, most of the steam and/or water that was erupted by thermal springs and/or fumaroles was thought to be primary or magmatic water, More recently, however, based on oxygen and hydrogen isotope studies and other evidence, we have learned that less than 5% of this water is of magmatic origin and about 95% is recirculated ground water (Figure 9). Vapor-Dominated Versus Hot Water Systems: Geothermal systems, as discussed by White, Muffler and Truesdell (1971), have been subdivided into two types: (1) Hot water systems (2) Vapor-dominated (dry steam) systems 38 ot TABLE 6 Total Energy Released in Volcanic Eruptions 1 After Yokayama (1957) with 2 After MacDonald (1972). 3 After Verhoogen (1948). After Verhoogen (1948). (As prepared by Kienle, 1974) additions. Energy Energy Volcano Year Released Volcano Year Released Tambora! 1815 8.4 x 1026 Una-Una! 1898 1.8 x 1022 _Sukurajimal 1914 4.6 x 1025 Mihara! 1954 - 1.3 x 1022 Bezymianny} 1955-1966 2.2 x 1025 Adatarasan! 1900 6.4 x 102! Krakatoa! 1883 ca. 1.0 x 1025 ‘Asama! 1938 4.0 x 1021 Asama! 1783 8.8 x 1024 Mihara! 1912 6.3 x 1020 Fuji 1707 7.1 x 1024 Tokachidake! 1926 2.8 x 102° Sakurajima! 1946 2.1 x 1024 Kusatsu-Shi rane! 1932 1.6 x 1033 Torishima! 1939 9.7 x 1023 Showa Sin-San} 1944 1.4 x 1020 Komagatake! 1929 5.6 x 1023 Capelinhos! 1957 4.0 x 102% Miyakeshima! 1940 4.8 x 1023 Arenal! 1968 1.0 x 1022 Bandaisan} 1888 ca. 1.0 x 1023 Ki lauea2 1952 1.8 x 1074 Pematang Bata! 1933 4.5 x 1022 Nyamlagira? 1938-1940 8.4 x 1025 Ov TABLE 7 Heat Energy Released from Lava Lakes Energy Volcano : Year Released Remarks (ergs/sec) Halemaumau (KI ]auea) during 1909 9.6 x 1015 As heat energy (R.A. Daly, 1911). Ny i ragongo during 1959 9.3 x 1049 As heat energy in the form of , radiation and conduction away from the surface by convecting air (Bonnet, 1960). Nyiragongo during 3.6 x 1019 Total heat output by radiation, August 1959 : . transport outward by gases and conduction into surrounding rocks (Delsemme, 1960). (As prepared by Kienle, 1974) THERMAL GEOTHERMAL SPRING WELL — SURFACE LOW PERMEABILITY Figure 9: Diagram showing a hypothetical geothermal system as driven by Meteoric (cold) water descends permeable reservoir rock where melt. Due to lowered density, another fault system to emerge spring. A geothermal well has ]—3Kkm vapor-dominated, two-phase convecting melt at depth. along fault line to hot it is heated by the cooling the hot water ascends along at the surface as a thermal been driven into the reservoir rocks. In vapor-dominated systems, boiling will begin before the water reaches 41 the surface. Hot water systems appear to be about 20 times as common as the vapor dominated type (White, 1970). In hot water systems, only a small part of the volume is steam, and the water and steam are separated mechanically before the steam is routed to the turbine system. If heat exchange systems utilizing low boiling point fluids such as freon or isobutane are proved feasible, this will increase the number of hot water systems which can be used for the generation of electricity. Producing geothermal fields of this type include the New Zealand fields and more recent discoveries in Mexico and the Salton Sea in California. The vapor-dominated systems produce superheated steam with subordi- nate amounts of carbon dioxide (c0,) and hydrogen sulfide (HS). Only three commercial vapor-dominated systems are in production today, includ- ing those at Lardello, Italy, (since 1904); the Geysers, California; and a field at Matsukawa, Japan. Geothermometry: Subsurface reservoir temperatures of thermal systems can be estimated through the use of geochemical techniques. Various geothermometers have been developed based on analyzed concentrations and ratios of the dissolved mineral constituents. The more commonly used indicators are the silica (Si0,) content (Figure 10), the Na-K ratios" (Figure 11), the Mg content and Mg-Ca ratio, and the Na-Ca and C1-F ratios. The assumptions involved in the use of geothermometers have been outlined by White (1970). These include (1) the availability of constitu- ents from the reservoir rocks; (2) the equilibration of water-rock reactions at the reservoir temperature; (3) the rapid flow of water from the reservoir to the surface to eliminate reactions in transit at lower temperatures and to retain the composition of reservoir temperatures; and (4) a lack of mix- ing with other waters at intermediate levels. *. s Na=sodium; Mg=magnesium; K=potassium; Ca=calcium; F=flourine; Cl=chlorine. 42 SILICA (PPM) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Figure 10: Chena Hot Springs 50 100 150 200 250 300 TEMPERATURE (°C) Silica concentration in geothermal water versus estimated temperature of last equilibration. Curve A applies to waters cooled entirely by heat conduction. Curve B applies to waters cooled entirely by adiabatic expansion at constant enthalpy. (From Fournier and Truesdell, 1970) 43 40 304. 2 S 204 - 2 & ° % 1s- x x. _ oO 2 10 8 6 5 4 (2.8 2.6 100 120= 160, ‘\\and hot springs MN with clays, \\. zeolites \’ \ (White, 1965) Mercado, \ Elis .( ‘Temperature “8G 200 260 300 350 400 500 ellowstone \ (Fournier & Truesdell, 1970) \ ‘ 1970)\ . projected \ \ F Ellis. and .\ YO J Mahon (1964)s \ \ Hot Springs. (White, 1965) Figure 11: Salt (Whi 2.4 17 Hemley. (1967) muscovite - \albite - \montmordllonite <S. \ XS OH SN Mercado (1970) on. on Sea brine. te, 1968) 2.2 2.0 1.8 T x 10° (Kelvin) | \ Ne 1.6 emley\ (1967). K-feld-A \ XN — . \ & mica 1.4 Atomic Na/K ratios versus temperature, - showing experimental and empirical _ curves. (White, 1970) Aa b If equilibrium has been obtained in the subsurface waters, the Na-Ca-K geothermometer should be in general agreement with estimated reservoir temperatures determined from dissolved Si0,. Thermal springs which have a high dissolved Si, content, and/or those which deposit silicious sinter at the surface, are probably related to high temperature subsurface reservoirs. Geysers are also a favorable indication of high temperatures at depth. The Na-Ca-K geothermometer is based on the temperature-dependent base exchange or partitioning of alkalies between solution and solid phases. Discussion of the sodium-potassium equilibria generally applied to systems with temperatures above 175°-200°C, as the alumino-silicate equilibria at lower temperatures, are uncertain (Ellis, 1970). Factors limiting the possible use of this method are the dilution effects of the deeper water as it rises to the surface, the effect of different mineral suites as source rocks, the effect of continual base exchanges as the waters move toward the surface, and the formation of complex ions. These factors are discussed in greater detail by Fournier and Truesdell (1970). Geologic Setting of Alaskan Thermal Springs: According to the compilation by Biggar (1973) and the later work of Miller, et al. (1973), there are about 95 recognized Alaskan thermal springs. The geographical distribution patterns indicate that the thermal springs occur in three tectonic settings or geologic associations: (1) Adjacent to Quarternary volcanoes (i.e. Aleutian Archipelago, Alaska Peninsula, Wrangell Mountains) ; (2) In a broad east-west trending zone in northcentral Alaska associated with late Cretaceous or Tertiary granitic plutons; and 45 (3) In southeastern Alaska, south of the Chatham Strait Fault, in a zone which may be involved in a transform fault system. Quaternary Volcanic Belts Some thermal springs in the Aleutian Islands exhibit relatively high surface temperatures (over 100°C), such as Geyser Bight (Table 8). The Aleutian arc also shows evidence of extensive mid-Tertiary intrusive activity (Cameron and Stone, 1970), and is believed to be a consuming plate margin between the Pacific and North American plates. Many of the Aleutian Islands have not been mapped in detail, and it is probable that there are more thermal springs in the Aleutian Archipelago than those recognized to date. Southeastern Alaska Thermal springs on the south side of the Chatham Strait Fault appear to be located along a trend which can be projected underneath the continental block from the North Pacific Rise, where it appears to plunge under the Southeastern Alaskan Archipelago. Quaternary volcanic eruptive centers are also located along this same trend in the Canadian Coast Ranges. In plate tectonic terms, this area appears to be essentially a transform fault system that connects the actively spreading Explorer and Juan de Fuca Ridges, and the Gorda Rise with the Aleutian Arc system. Central Alaska This belt of thermal springs forms a broad zone which extends from the Yukon-Tanana Uplands to the Seward Peninsula. These springs are located on or near the contacts between late Cretaceous or early Tertiary granitic plutons. Portions of this belt may also be underlain by zones of high heat flow. 46 TABLE 8 Identified hot-water convection systems with indicated subsurface temperatures above 150°C (As taken from Renner, White and Williams, 1975) Location Temperatures °C Reservoir Assumptions Name Lati- Longi- ~Sur- Geochemical Sub- —Sub- Thick- ol- Heat tude tude face sur- sur- ness ume con- Comments os oe" face face tent N w area 1018 2/ 2/ cal Vy S70. Na-K-Ca = 3/-_—s km? 4/ km 5/_—s km 6/ 7/ ALASKA Geyser Bight 53 13 168 28 100 210 236 210 4 2 8 : -9 22 springs and geysers in 3 thermal areas 2 km long zone, near Okmok Caldera; silice sinter deposit. Hot Springs Cove 53 14 -168 21 89 131 154 155 2 2 4 -3 Hot springs and geysers in area about 1 km near Okmok caldera. Shakes Springs 56 43 132 02 52 142 175 155 WS ASS 2.25 -2 Several springs discharging »380 Ipm; chem data not reliable. Hot Springs Bay 54 10 165 50 83 152 179 180 Rit +5 2.25 -2 Hot springs and fumaroles on active Akutan LY volcano. | Maximum surface temperature reported from a spring or funarole. Predicted using chemical geothermometers, assuming last equilibration in the reservoir; assumes saturation of Si0, with respect to quartz, and no loss of Ca from calcite deposition Assumed average reservoir temperature based on data presently available. From surface manifestations, geophysical data, well records and geologic inference. Assumes 1.5 km’ if no data pertinent to size ts available. Top assumed at depth of 1.5'km if no date available. Bottom assumed at 3 km depth for all convection systens. Calculated from assumed area and thickness. Calculated as product of assumed volume, volumetric specific heat of 0.6 cal/cm? °C, and temperature in degrees C above 18°C. seese Sc Maximum Surface Water Temperatures: The hottest water temperatures discovered in Alaska have been measured in thermal springs or hot lakes or pools associated with volcanoes on the Alaska Peninsula or in the Aleutian Islands (e.g., 102°C, Hot Springs Cove, Umnak Island). Water temperatures up to 88°C have been measured in the waters of Bailey Bay Hot Springs, southeastern Alaska. Estimated Reservoir Temperatures: To date, geochemical studies (Miller and Barnes, in press) indicate that there are only two springs (Geyser Springs Basin, Umnak Island; Chiginigiak Hot Springs, Alaska Peninsula) which are likely to have reservoir temperatures which are over the practical minimum of 180°C, which is needed to drive steam turbine generators, utilizing today's technology. Based on geochemical data reported by Waring (1917), Byers and Brannock (1949), Miller (1973a), the reservoir temperature estimates given by Miller, et al. (1975), and Renner, White and Williams (1975), thermal springs in western and central Alaska are associated with subsurface systems of the hot water types. Maximum estimated reservoir temperatures for 10 springs, as determined by the quartz and Na-Ca-K geothermometers, were 137°C and 167°C respectively. Reservoir and Conduit Systems Over 90% of the thermal springs in central Alaska are located near the contact of late Cretaceous and early Tertiary granitic plutons with surrounding country rock. In many cases, the country rocks are crystalline schists with relatively no intersticial porosity and very poor permeability other than that associated with fractures and faults (Figure 12a). In such settings, the probability of large reservoirs at depth is very low. 48 Considering the low estimated reservoir temperatures there, the prognosis is poor for the discovery of large vapor-dominated geothermal systems in such settings (Miller, et al., 1975). A few springs occur in west- central Alaska near the margins of plutons which have been emplaced in Jr-k sediments (Figure 12b). The probabilities of finding large hot- water reservoirs are higher in such terranes. Flow Rates Flow rates of Alaskan thermal springs have been observed which range from slow seepage to rates as high as an estimated 400 gpm at Clear Creek Hot Springs. In some cases, such as that at Pilgrim Springs, spring water flow rates are difficult to determine due to lateral flow, convective circulation and mixing with ground water. Potential electric and nonelectric applications of hot water systems are constrained by flow rates and whether or not such rates can be improved by subsurface drilling. The potential application of drilling techniques to these systems is an unknown area, as the geometry and reservoir mechanics of the conduits and reservoirs are not understood. Saline Springs: Four saline springs are known in central and western Alaska including Pilgrim, Serpentine, Kwiniuk and Tolovana (Miller, et al., 1975). These springs are characterized by high concentrations of Cl, Na, Ca, and K. Pilgrim and Serpentine Springs are the most saline (Pilgrim: Na=1450 ppm/C1=3346 ppm. Serpentine: Na=800 ppm/ C1=1450 ppm) . 49 Geologic Map of the Little Melozitna Hot Springs Area Geologic Map of the Tunalkten Lake Hot Springs Area Figure 12b: Geologic map of the Tunalkten Lake Hot Springs area. 50 Both of these springs exceed the salinity threshold of acceptable potable water, and are potentially troublesome in terms of corrosion of casing, pipe and other hardware. 51 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE APPLICATIONS Utilization of Alaskan Thermal Springs The thermal springs of Alaska were first utilized and developed by early stampeders and entrepreneurs. For example, Circle and Chena Hot Springs, in the Fairbanks District, were used by early prospectors for bathing and recreation; and subsequently, roadhouses and small settle~- ments appeared. In these early cases, primitive engineering techniques were used, and the applications were limited to bathing pools, hot tap water, and space heating, using hot water convectors. At Manley Hot Springs, the utilization of thermal waters was more advanced, as spring water was used to heat greenhouses, animal barns, and a 60-room hotel, in addition to that used in the bathing pools and the hot water system. Agriculture also became an important part of the activity at Pilgrim Springs during the Nome gold rush in the early 1900's. These early attempts to utilize the energy of thermal springs passed with the wave of gold seekers, but the energy remains.’ If properly utilized, such energy sources could play an important part in the economic and cultural life of many rural communities. The ideal utilization of a geothermal resource in a rural Alaskan community would provide the following: (1) Heat and electricity for the entire community, to reduce and perhaps eliminate the dependence on imported fossil fuels, and (2) Energy for local industries which would aid the economy with minimum impact to village culture and lifestyle. The following sections discuss the more promising applications of thermal spring resources to rural needs. 52 from geothermal resources. Unfortunately, most of these are very complex and require vapor phase reservoirs or high temperature waters which can only be reached by deep drilling. Such techniques are not economically feasible, if very small amounts of power are needed, as in the case of a small Alaskan village. Techniques must be found to produce relatively small amounts of electricity from geothermal resources with as little impact on the environment as possible. The most promising of these resources in Alaska are the thermal springs. The Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, has been investigating a method that might be used to produce electricity directly from hot spring water, which utilizes the organic Rankine cycle and the temperature difference between the spring water and the ambient air. An experimental plant, utilizing this technique is now operating at Paratunka, Kamchatka, USSR, and uses water at a tempera- ture of 81.5°C (Facca, 1970). The Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, has been working informally with Ormat Turbines Ltd. of Israel, to determine whether or not one of their organic Rankine cycle turbines could be coupled to thermal spring water as an energy source. Ormat has determined that one of their units could be so adapted and that useful, but small, amounts of power could be produced from waters with temperatures as low as 60°C, a temperature which is obtainable in many Alaskan hot springs. Shallow drilling to minimize dilution by ground water could increase the water temperature and enhance the efficiency of the Ormat turbine. Such drilling would not be cost prohibitive and could be easily accomplished by small rigs in remote locations. 53 Ormat engineers estimate overall efficiencies of approximately Lo 5-1/2% which would require about 40 gpm of 60°C thermal spring water to produce 5 KW of continuous power. This efficiency would, of course, be increased if the temperature of the input water were greater. A schematic diagram illustrating the Ormat system as applied to a thermal spring source is shown in Figure 13. The electrical system of the Ormat turbine produces a high frequency voltage at the generator which is rectified to DC, thus eliminating the need for costly speed control equipment. The DC output can then be inverted to AC, or it can be used to charge batteries. Such a system could be integrated with wind-generating equipment and circuitry. The combined use of alternate energy sources such as wind power and geothermal energy is especially attractive and should be evaluated in demonstration experiments. While Rankine cycle power generation at small temperature differences is not very efficient, compared to conventional steam plants, the continuous free supply of the geothermal "fuel" makes it attractive. But in addition to fuel savings, the Ormat turbine has advantages which make it well adapted to use in remote regions: 1. The synthetic organic working fluid allows for low working pressures and temperatures. This results in the elimination of sophisticated pressure vessels and the need for elaborate safety equipment; 2. The entire vapor system is closed, eliminating the need for constant monitoring of the working fluid; 3. The only moving part is the common, turbine~-generator shaft. Lubrication is provided by the working fluid which contains a lubrication agent; 54 FINNED TUBE CONDENSER TURBINE WHEEL ELECTRICAL PANEL - GENERATOR FEED PUMP WORKING FLUID VAPOR THERMAL WATER WORKING FLUID LIQUID v ‘TO ELECTRICAL LOAD WORKING FLUID TO THERMAL SPRING WATER HEAT EXCHANGER OUTFLOW ¢ OF : THERMAL WATER Figure 13: Diagram of Ormat system applied to thermal spring heat source. 55 4, The working fluid-air condenser is of the free convection type which makes cooling fans and similar devices unneccessary; and 5. . The turbo-generating system is hermetically sealed and Ormat claims a 20-year operating life without maintenance. All of these factors, as well as the previous experience of Ormat Turbines Ltd. in manufacturing organic Rankine cycle systems for the communications industry in other arctic and subarctic areas, make the Ormat system ideally suited for rural Alaska. If an optimum system for a rural Alaskan village could be found, it would be one in which: 1. A local fuel could provide the basic energy input. 2. No maintenance was necessary, and the system could operate unattended for extended periods. 3. The system would be simple enough to be operated by personnel with basic technical skills, and without extensive formal _ training. 4. The cost would be low. An Ormat type system appears to meet most of these criteria, but the system has not been demonstrated in the field. If a successful demonstration is achieved, cost factors will fall with increased demand. To date, the largest Ormat unit of this type is a 15-KW unit. However, Ormat engineers are now working on a 100~KW-system. Hopefully, the production of this size unit could coincide with the final phase of a successful small-scale feasibility demonstration of a geothermally- powered Ormat turbine. Ormat Turbines Ltd. has agreed to work with the Geophysical Institute on a co-sponsored research and development investigation. Ormat has agreed to design and construct a 2500-W test unit with a hot water-to- working fluid heat exchanger suitable for the experiment. 56 Space Heating: The cost of home heating in Alaska is high. In many rural villages without local fuels such as wood or coal, imported fuel oil is the only source of heat. Presently, No. 1 stove oil costs are as high as $1 per gallon in some remote villages and recently have risen to over 50¢ per gallon in many Alaskan cities. At this rate, $900 would be an annual cost for home heating that many village residents can expect to pay this year. With the typical head of a household making less than $3,000 per year, the heating bill alone would constitute about 30% of the family's annual income. Under these conditions, the burden of heating costs alone can seriously depress the potential for economic growth:of rural communities. The heating of buildings with thermal spring waters is one of the oldest and most basic applications of geothermal energy. In areas where thermal springs exist, obvious benefits could be realized by the construction of a geothermally-powered municipal heating system. Figure 14a shows a simple system in which thermal waters from the spring would be directly circulated through convectors in homes. Since many thermal springs contain dissolved salts and other minerals which are corrosive to piping, binary systems as shown in Figure 14b could be constructed which would limit the corrosive effects to a heat exchanger which could be built of stainless steel, or other non-corrosive material. Various methods could be employed to circulate the thermal spring water. Thermal siphons could help reduce the required pump work. This particular method was used at Pilgrim Hot Springs, Alaska, during the 1930's when the waters of the spring were used to heat buildings at the Catholic mission school. by DWELLINGS —, PUMPHOUSE THERMAL SPRING UNDERGROUND SERVICE +f Figure 14a: Primary space heating system. WATER TO GLYCOL HEAT EXCHANGER ° OUTFLOW THERMAL SPRING UNDERGROUND SERVICE 4 Figure 14b: Binary space heating system. 58 Space heating techniques are not new and probably do not require further experimental development. A careful literature and design investigation should be made, however, to gain full advantage of existing equipment which could be applied to Alaskan needs. Refrigeration: Several villages such as Elim and Mary's Igloo on the Seward Peninsula, and Manley in Interior Alaska, could benefit greatly from low-cost refrigeration systems. Small coastal villages cannot presently take full advantage of commercial fishing opportunities due to the lack of cold storage facilities. The reindeer industry is another example of the need for cold storage or freezer facilities as such facilities could eliminate the need for immediate sale and shipment of meat after the reindeer are harvested. Transmission of Geothermal Energy Since geothermal resources often exist in areas which are some distance from the location where they could be best utilized, the transmission of this energy becomes an applications engineering problem. If electricity was the only concern, it could be transmitted from the generating site to the users by the usual transmission lines. But since we are also concerned with non-electric applications and the total utilization of the available energy, the problem is more complex. High Temperature Pipelines: To date, no large reservoir geothermal systems have been discovered in Alaska; thus we are not immediately concerned with the transmission of large quantities of energy. If such a discovery should be made, however, pipeline transmission of hot water might present formidable problems. The Icelandic operations are the most valuable model that we currently have for hot water transmission 59 technology. The Alaskan climate is more extreme, however, and hot water pipelines will face the same environmental problems that confronted the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. High moisture content permafrost is a costly handicap, and non-stable soil problems can offer many challenges to pipeline engineers. This report does not contain a complete economic analysis of hot water pipelines in Alaska, but we believe that the cost would be highly prohibitive, unless a great number of people could be served, and there was a large magnitude energy potential. Low Temperature Pipelines: Low temperature waters such as those emitted by many thermal springs, offer similar transmission problems to those which would be encountered by high temperature water pipelines, with the added hazard of lower outflow temperatures due to heat loss. Pipeline transmission of low temperature thermal waters (60°C or lower) is not practical in permafrost terrane for distances over two or three miles. Where low temperature springs are to be utilized, it is more feasible to move the user to the source than to attempt pipeline transmission of the water. 60 SPACE HEATING AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS Space Heating Alaska should be an ideal place for the use of geothermal space heating because of the large number of days per year that heating is necessary; thus the "on line" factor would be high. Temperature extremes might require supplemental booster heating for a cost efficient system. The use of existing hot springs is an ideal way to initiate this program, as the "front end" costs of exploration and drilling could be avoided. Small projects (a dozen to several hundred homes) should be proposed and implemented as soon as possible. A survey should be conducted at the earliest date to determine which communities are amenable to space heating by hot spring sources. It does not seem practical to use wind power for space heating, unless heat pumps could be integrated into the system. The Industrial Belt The possible applications of geothermal or wind power in the industrial belt should be investigated in the near future. Fairbanks is potentially interesting since it is already known that 100°C temperatures exist at 10,000 feet in the subsurface, and that the present heating methods cause serious ice fog problems. The New Capital Site The working group felt that in spite of the possible adverse political effects, the possibility of heating the new capital with geothermal heat should be again pointed out to the Capital Site Committee. After a site 61 is picked, the possibility should again be studied. At least the town should be planned to be centrally heated so that such a heat source could be used later, if developed. Industrial Applications The following is a list of possible industrial applications: 1. The use of geothermal energy to make electricity for the aluminum or fertilizer industry using the apparently large resource along the Aleutian Chain. Wind energy might be a good candidate for this use also. 2. The use of geothermal steam in the southeast for pulp processing. This is being done in New Zealand with appreciable success. 3. The use of geothermal hot water to allow gold mining year-round, as is done in Siberia. 4. The use of geothermal hot water for other mining processing, for instance at Lost River. Recommended Projects Specifically, a few projects should be started as soon as possible: 1. A survey of all rural Alaska villages should be conducted to determine where wind and/or geothermal energy might be competitive with present energy sources. 2. Based on that survey, a number of projects should be initiated to demonstrate the practicability of such applications. 3. The needs of larger population centers should also be evaluated, in terms of municipal wind power and geothermal applications. 62 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND PROTECTION Environmental Hazards Chemical Pollution: Steam brought up from subsurface reservoirs contains about 0.5-5% noncondensible gas which is principally carbon dioxide with varying amounts of hydrogen sulfide, methane and ammonia. These gases are released directly from the condensate in cooling towers. Condensates usually contain trace amounts of boron, arsenic and other volatile elements which can be hazardous in excessive concentrations. Hydrogen sulfide is a dense gaseous pollutant which can be dangerous to human and animal life. Most geothermal steam fields are the wet rather than the dry type (vapor dominated) and contain approximately 80% water at the wellhead. The water often contains higher concentrations of trace elements than the steam. The most common dissolved constituents include carbonate, silica and sodium chloride. Some of the liquid-dominated systems are characterized by brines which contain very high concentrations of sodium, potassium, bromine and heavy metals. Such brines are extremely corrosive, and potentially hazardous to plant and animal life if released into the environment without treatment. Noise Pollution: When superheated water flashes to steam, an intense roar is produced which is very offensive to workers, residents and nearby communities. Thermal Pollution: Hot water which is wasted from geothermal power plants and other uses is potentially troublesome if it is allowed to 63 flow into streams, rivers, lakes or ground water tables. The chemical effect on the ecosystem may be far less in some cases than the thermal shock created by the inflow of hot water. Anti-Pollution Measures In the case of steam fields, water and condensates may be reinjected into another drill hole. Acoustic problems from flashing steam can be solved with silencers. In the next few years, a technology will no doubt be developed for desalinization systems which will extract valuable salts and metals from brines, after steam has been extracted for the turbines, with a final outflow of potable water (Figure 15). Environmental Vulnerability of Alaskan Thermal Springs The utilization of thermal waters emitted from springs is not beset by some of the hazards associated with geothermal steam operations. Thermal waters which well up from the springs flow into streams which are part of the same ecosystem. The chemical composition of the spring waters should not be greatly changed by the planned demonstrations and experiments, as only the heat will be extracted....and concentrations of dissolved constituents are not high enough to cause accelerated precipitation during the cooling process. The water can be rechanneled into the same outflow streams with relatively little environmental impact. If shallow drilling at Pilgrim Springs should indicate a possible geothermal steam reservoir; with more highly concentrated brines as the liquid phase, adequate protection measures will have to be taken before proceeding to demonstrations involving deeper drilling and the possible release of steam and condensates at the wellhead. 64 s9 TURBINE GENERATOR SEPARATOR STEAM, 320° F. Lr —_——> es ELECTRIC MINERAL BRINE, POWER | 320° F COOLING WATER MULTISTAGE FLASH EVAPORATOR CONDENSEtt MIXTURE at. OF STEAM AND BRINE DESALTED WATER FROM DRINKING GEOTHERMAL EVAPORATED WATER WATER — . CONCENTRATED ‘ ‘ * t ' t t BRINE, 120° F. MINERAL-SEPARATING EVAPORATORS MINERALS EXTRACTED FROM BRINE Figure 15: Multipurpose geothermal system, as designed by the UN and the Government of Chili. From "Geothermal Power" by Joseph Barnea. Copyright January 1972, by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved. : Some concern has been voiced for thermal springs and the adjacent terrane as possible island ecosystems surrounded by a hostile arctic environment. It has been suggested, for example, that such ecosystems and the accompanying microenvironment (unless destroyed by man) may contain relict biological populations which have survived glacial episodes, dating back to Pliocene time. Although it remains to be proved, the reported presence of vigorous earthworms in the warm soil around Pilgrim Springs is of more than passing interest....even though the earthworms may have arrived via plants which were imported during the Nome gold rush. Manley and Pilgrim Springs have been thoroughly overprinted by the works of man. Channelways, pools and seeps have been reworked and altered by several generations of residents. Indeed, it would be difficult, or perhaps impossible, to reconstruct the original setting. Nevertheless, each of these microenvironments should be carefully assessed and evaluated so that future developments can be accompanied by attempts to restore the former biological equilibrium, if possible. Clear Creek Springs will be a more sensitive site, as it has not been obviously altered or disturbed by the white man. It would be prudent to conduct a thorough biological assessment of these springs and the surrounding terrane during the reconnaissance studies. 66 WIND POWER POTENTIAL OF ALASKA Wind Power Potential Defined Wind power potential can be defined in several ways, including the available wind energy (in a meteorological sense), and wind energy that can actually be converted to useful work at a given site. The meteorologi- cal wind power potential of Alaska is high. However, due to the high cost of installing windmills versus marketing the exported energy, the economic climate is poor in uninhabitated places like Amchitka and Cape Thompson where near-surface wind speeds are almost ideal for large wind- driven power plants. Alternately, Cold Bay, with its excellent harbor and wind resources, is a promising location for the utilization of wind- derived power. In Alaska, the availability of wind-derived energy, and the attendant practical wind power potential, will be limited by economics for some time to come. The economics will be influenced greatly by the huge land area, much of it not settled, and the dispersed population outside of the few major cities. In the area of the two largest cities, Anchorage and Fairbanks, fossil fuels and hydro-electric power will be more than competitive with wind. However, an underlying concern in all wind power investigations is that what appears to be economic folly now may be an attractive proposition or even a necessity in the year 2000 (only 24 years away). The wind energy of the entire atmosphere is really not of interest here. Rather, the central question seems to be what power (or power flux) is available for windmill purposes in the atmospheric layer ranging from the earth's surface to about 1100 meters. Sellers (1966) and 67 Flohn (1966) separately estimated that the dissipation of energy by the worldwide combination of winds, waves, tides and currents ranges from 250 to 2500x102" watts. We estimate that 1130x10" watts are generated and dissipated in the same layer. On an areal basis, 3.4x1017 watts are dissipated over Alaska. These power flux and power estimates are shown in Table 9. Kung (1966a, 1966b) has published extensively on the kinetic energy generation and dissipation of the atmosphere, based on data from about 120 weather stations throughout the entire United States and most of Alaska and Canada. Thus, computed values of the kinetic energy in various atmospheric layers are available for most of North America. Below 1100 meters these power fluxes are (Kung, 1966b) about 2.21 watts/m. (In his earlier paper, Kung (1966a) estimated 1.8 watts/m.) Additionally, Kung concludes that despite the difference in land and ocean surface roughness, the dissipation rates in the boundary layer are about the same over land masses and the oceans. Thus, we can assume here that 2.21 watts/m- represent the mean worldwide annual power flux for dissipation and generation in the lower boundary layer (defined here as the first 1100 meters of the atmosphere). Our estimate for the world surface area (1.965x10° mi” or 5.10x10"* a) of the wind energy in the boundary layer is 1130x1017 watts. We can also conclude that in the Alaskan boundary layer (area = 5.86x10°, or 0.30% of the earth's total area), the available kinetic energy is 3.4x10° megawatts. If we arbitrarily assume that 1/1000 of the kinetic energy in the first 1100 meters of air above Alaska could be extracted by windmills, then the practical annual mean wind power potential of Alaska is 68 TABLE 9 FRICTIONAL POWER FLUXES IN THE EARTH-ATMOSPHERE INTERFACE AND ESTIMATES OF POWER OF DISSIPATION POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR WIND POWER. Frictional Power flux Author (year, ref.) watts/m2 Flohn (1966, 12) 1-2 Sellers (1966, 11) 0.49-4, 9%* Hubbert (1972, 6) various, averaged Kung (1966, 7) 1.8 Kung (1966, 8) 2.21 von Arx (1974, 13) - Wentink (this work) Used 2.21 x World-Wide" "Wind Power"* in 10!2 watts 510-1020 247-2470%* 370 1 1130 (3.4 for Alaska) In a near-surface boundary layer, about 1100 meters thick, originally wind-driven and eventually dissipated by energy sinks like waves, sur- face currents, and (in part) convection. * 1 ly/day = 0.485 watts/m?. *garth total surface area = 1.97x10° mi2 = 5.10x10"* m2. 69 * Computed by Hubbert? from Seller's 1-10 langleys/day; 2 / about 3400 megawatts. This is six times the present electric power generation capability of all Alaskan utilities. Clearly, a renewable resource with a power generation potential of this magnitude warrants closer examination. Wind Power Calculations The discussion of wind power involves several wind speed (V, for velocity) quantities. It is important to differentiate these quantities as instantaneous wind speed (V), average or mean wind speed (V), and rated wind speed (Vg) The latter is the wind speed necessary for maximum power output of 7 given windmill or wind energy conversion system (WECS). Thus, for example, a particular windmill may have VR = 32 mph to develop a 6 KW power output. As described later, however, that particular machine will produce an average power (P) output of only 0.8 KW to about 4 kW, for a range in V of 10 to 25 mph. The latter average is only attained in very unusual situations, such as that recorded on Amchitka in January. Hence, the determination of the average wind velocity (V) of a site is important. Also, generally, V increases with height, so increasing tower heights are important (recommended 40 to 60 feet for small windmills). In the (V) ‘tables presented in this report (Tables 10, 11), it is important to note that the height of wind measurement varied from about 13 to 100 feet above ground, and in all cases the station data were acquired for purposes other than the evaluations of wind power. While the following discussion deals mostly with v, frequency (duration) data are also important (i.e., the amount of time that various winds reach or exceed V at a given site). For our purposes in this paper the comparison of V, as measured for Alaskan sites, is adequate. 70 Meaningful Variables: The average or arithmetic mean wind speed (Vv), the variance of the wind speed (V), and the vertical profile of V are the most important variables in the evaluation of a site for wind power generation. The instantaneous power in kilowatts (P) depends on the windmill disc area (A), and the cube of (V), with a constant (K) for the unit system and the air density. These relations have been treated exten- sively in most publications on wind power. Thus: > P(KW) =KAV (3) K is about 3.1x107° for an ideal windmill, and in actual practice, is obtained by multiplying P by the actual efficiency, which usually ranges from 50 to 70%. The mean power P does not vary with v in the same way, but we will show the importance of using V to compute Pp. The vertical gradient of horizontal wind speeds is an important design and operating parameter. Data on the gradient are essential in determining optimum tower height in order to optimize energy productivity and to cope with the difference in forces on the turbine blades at the top and bottom of the swing of the rotating blades. The relationship between the wind velocity (V) at a height above the ground (h) is given by: vv, = (h /h,)” (4) a. 10 2 where u and 1 refer to the upper and lower heights. Here p can vary from 0 to 1. For estimation, p of 0.15 to 0.30 is useful. We have examined the wind speed data from other sources such as the National Weather Service, from various heights, and for several stations Th in an attempt to establish the vertical gradients of horizontal wind “speed (see calculations for Cold Bay, Table 11 in Wentink, 1974). These attempts have failed, for various reasons. Our strong conviction is that further such attempts are not worthwhile, unless simultaneous Measurements at various heights are made on the same tower. Long-term mean values of V do not serve the purpose. In the case of Cold Bay, subsequent and extensive simultaneous measurements did indeed reveal a well-defined vertical wind velocity profile. Alaskan Wind Data The collection of Alaskan wind data has been a formidable task, as the National Climatological Center (NCC) lists 90 Alaskan land stations for which some wind data are available. There are data from other stations which have not yet been reduced to usable form, such as those from the Arctic Distant Early Warning radar stations (DEW line). Reed (1975) has published wind data for 63 Alaskan sites taken from an NCC computer .tape. There are several different climatological provinces in Alaska as defined and separated by extensive mountain ranges. This report emphasizes mainland coastal Alaska, including the Alaskan Peninsula, the Aleutian and other offshore Alaskan islands. Wentink (1974) covers 10 sites in the Aleutian Islands (west of False Pass and Cold Bay); 4 sites on the Alaska Peninsula; and 3 sites on the northwest coastal mainland. In more detail, these sites are listed on the next page. 72 Aleutians Alaska Peninsula Northwest Coast Shemya Cold Bay Kotzebue Amchitka Port Moller Tin City Adak Port Heiden Cape Lisburne Atka King Salmon Nikolski Fort Glenn (Cape AFB) Driftwood Bay Dutch Harbor Cape Sarichef St. Paul Island Data from additional locations are also included in this report, including: "Panhandle" and West North Gulf of Alaska Coast Coast Interior Annette Island Cape Newenham Barrow McGrath Juneau Cape Romanzof Barter Island Fairbanks Yakutat Bethel Cordova Northeast Cape* Middleton Island Nome Kodiak Koyuk Moses Pt. Cape Thompson Pt. Hope * St. Lawrence Island Most of these locations have considerable potential for wind power installations of various sizes. It is important to remember that none of the wind data from these sites analyzed by us were taken at locations that had been previously selected as possible wind power installations; on the contrary, the anemometer positions had been selected, and often moved, to favor aviation observations. Thus, mean wind speeds given in Tables 10 and 11 probably represent conservative lower limits for estimation of wind energy. In general, a V of 12 mph (10.4 knots) or more at expected propeller heights is desirable for satisfactory windmill performance. ia General Area Aleutian Islands Alaska Peninsula Alaska "Panhandle" and - Gulf of Alaska TABLE 10 NEAR-SURFACE YEARLY MEAN WIND SPEEDS AT VARIOUS ALASKAN LOCATIONS Yearly Mean Speed* Data Anemometer Station (knots) Period Height (feet) ** Shemya 16.2 1950-72 184-20 Amchitka 18.3 1943-50 ? Adak 13.1 (sh) 1942-65 75-15 Atka 10.9 (sh) 1942-45 ? Nikolski* 14.0 1959-69 30-13 Ft. Glenn 13.6 1942-48 ? Driftwood Bay” 8.3 (sh) 1959-69 2 Dutch Harbor 9.6 (sh) 1946-54 33 Cape Sarichef 13.7 1952-56 ? St. Paul® 16.0 1962-71 42 Cold Bay 14.9 1956-72 88-21 Port Moller 8.9 (sh) 1959-59 30-20 Port Heiden 12.8 1942-67 \ 29 Ugashik Under measurement by us King Salmon 9.6 1956-72 38-20 Annette Island 9.5 1942-70 53-20 Juneau 7.4 (sh) 1948-70 32-37 Yakutat 7.0 1941-70 59-20 Cordova 4.4 (sh) 1946-70 36-20 Middleton Isl. 11.9 1945-63 30-20 Kodiak 8.9 (sh) 1946-69 60-16 74 General Area Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers and Deltas Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, Seward Peninsula Northwestern and Northern coasts Fairbanks (interior) * TABLE 10 (cont'd.) Station Cape Newenham Cape Romanzof Bethel McGrath? Koyuk Moses Point Nome Northeast Cape® 11.0 Tin City Kotzebue Cape Thompson Pt. Hope Cape Lisburne Barrow Kaktovik’ Fairbanks Yearly Mean Speed* Data Anemometer (knots) Period Height (feet)** 9.8 1953-70 30-13 11.7 1953-70 15-11 11.2 1958-72 69-20 4.3 1949-73 26 9.5) 1944-45 2 10.6 1945-67 ? 9.5 1955-73 75-21 1952-69 30-13 14.9 1953-70 2? 11.4 1945-70 31 17.4 1960-61 ? 10.7 1945-48 2 10.5 1953-70 13 10.6 1945-68 39-31 11.2 1945-70 27-20 4.3 * Last value is usually the most recent height. Large horizontal shifts may also have occurred. a ; “sh): pronounced topographic shielding effects may be involved. moanaep : Umnak Island : Unalaska Island : Pribilof Island : Interior location : St. Lawrence Island : Barter Island 75 Ranking of Wind Power Sites In Table 11, 67 Alaskan sites have been ranked on the basis of measured mean yearly wind speeds and/or the yearly average potential wind power. These stations are representative of more than 100 Alaskan sites. The means are taken from data acquired during our literature survey, and the wind power figures are from the excellent compilation by Reed (1975). Readers who refer to this table should realize that: 1. None of the data involve optimization of wind instrument location for wind power surveys. No attempt has been made to correct for the changes in anemometer location (vertically or horizontally) over extended observation periods. Close agreement should not be expected when average powers derived from our V are compared to Reed's watts/n”, because: a. In some cases the recording periods for the two sets of data are different; and b. Reed's power fluxes are means for long time periods derived by averaging monthly power fluxes (Reed, 1975). The wind power fluxes are high in terms of what can be extracted by presently available windmills. The theoretical Betz (1966) extraction limit of 59.3% for unshrouded windmills is not included, and neither are the normal mechanical and electrical efficiencies taken into account. Also, the cut-in speed and the power limiting at higher velocities (25 knots or 12.9 m/s), as planned for present windmill design, are not included. 76 Nevertheless, simple conversions may be applied to Reed's results in order to estimate the actual power obtained from a particular wind- mill at a specific location. For example, the "Elektro WVG-50G" 6KW machine (disc area 19.9m?) gives a factor f=0.59 (Betz limit x 107 >xW/w x 19 .9m2 = 100% 1072 /w) ; An empirical factor K (0.39) seems to express the machine versus wind speed characteristics when coupled with the speed duration curves. It may be considered a composite "shape factor"; it includes variables such as cut-in speed, practical efficiencies, and 3 y-n7/w. As calms. Then, for this particular windmill, fk = 4.5 x 10 shown in Table 12, fk, when multiplied by Reed's values, leads to useful estimates of the yearly mean power which compare well in most cases with our results, derived from computed power productivity curves. 77 TABLE 11 RANKING OF ALASKAN WIND POWER SITES 1 average Vv yearly, 2 yearly wind meters/ Wind Poyer RANK velocity (V) sec. Site watts/m Remarks 1 18.3 9.41 Amchitka Is. 1025 Uninhabited 2 17.4 8.95 Cape Thompson Uninhabited 3 16.2 8.33 Shemya Is. 633 Restricted area 4 14.9 7.66 Cold Bay 574 Prime test site 5 14.9 7.66 Tin City 549 6 16.0 8.23 St. Paul Is. 547 7 13.7 7.05 Cape Sarichef (Unimak Is.) 8 13.6 7.00 Cape AFB 498 (Umnak Is.) 9 14.0 7.20 Nikolski 482 : (Umnak Is.) 10 12.8 6.58 Port Heiden 430 11 13.1 6.74 Adak Is. 405 12 11.7 6.02 Cape Romanzof 381 13 11.9 6.12 Middleton Is. 377 14 11.3 5.81 Attu Is. 369 Site probably shielded; V low should rank near #3. 15 11.2 5.76 Kaktovik 341 (Barter Is.) 16 11.0 5.66 Northeast Cape 329 (St. Lawrence Is.) 17 10.9 5.61 Atka Is. Vv probably lower limit 18 10.7 5.50 Point Hope 78 1 verage TABLE 11 (cont'd.) Vv yearly, 2 yearly wind meters/ Wind Poyer RANK velocity (V) sec. Site watts/m Remarks 19 10.5 5.40 Cape Lisburne 315 20 Lisi 5.71 Kotzebue 292 21 11.4 5.86 Unalakleet 265 22 9.8 5.04 Cape Newenham 242 23 10.6 5.45 Moses Point 241 24 NA* - Golovin 241 25 9.6 4.9 Dutch Harbor 233 Shielded instrument (Unalaska Is.) site (7?) 26 95D 4.9 Nome 218 27 8.1 4.2 Big Delta 216 28 9.5 4.9 Koyuk 29 9-5 ‘ 4.9 Annette Is. 199 30 10.6 5.45 Point Barrow 193 31 9.6 4.9 King Salmon 191 32 8.9 4.6 Kodiak 189 33 8.9 4.6 Port Mollor 172 34 E12 5: 76 Bethel 172 35 NA* - Flat 172 36 7.9 4.1 Haines 147 37 8.3 4.3 Driftwood Bay (Unalaska Is.) 38 NA* - Craig 129 39 7.4 3.8 Juneau 116 40 7.0 3.6 Yakutat 115 * = Not yet available. 79 TABLE 11 (cont'd.) Average V. yearly, 2 yearly wind meters Wind Power RANK velocity (V) sec. Site watts/m Remarks 41 5.7 2.9 Gulkana 81 42 NA* - Ruby 79 43 6.0 3.1 Umiat 76 44 6.6 3.4 Kenai 75 45 5.6 2.9 Tanana 73 46 5.4 2.8 Indian Mtn. 70 47 5.6 2.9 Fort Yukon 65 48 4.7 2.4 Sparrevohn 64 49 NA* - Manley Ht. Spngs. 63 590 Anchorage 61 (Int. Apt.) : 51 6.4 3.3 Galena 59 52 NA* - Ketchikan 58 53 NA* - Kaltag 57 54 6.6 “3.4 Valdez 53 55 5.8 3.0 Bettles 49 56 5.6 2.9 Homer 57 5.0 2.6 Nenana 42 58 4.6 2.4 Anchorage 38 (Merrill Field) 59 4.4 2.3 Cordova 37 Shielded instrument (Mile 13 Apt.) site (?) 60 5.7 2.9 Anchorage 36 * = Not yet available. (Elmendorf AFB) 80 TABLE 11 (cont'd.) laverage Vv yearly, 2 yearly wind meters/ Wind Poyer RANK velocity (V) sec. Site watts/m Remarks 61 6.6 3.4 Sitka 33 62 #9 7.9 Petersburg oo 63 4.3 2.2 Tatalina 31 64 4.2 2.2 Northway 29 65 es 2.2 McGrath 28 66 4.3 22 Fairbanks 27 (Int. Apt.) 67 3.8 2.0 Wiseman 24 Notes: (1) Taken from Wentink (1976). (2) As taken from Reed (1975); these values are the averages of the 12 mean monthly wind powers calculated from unsmoothed duration curves. 81 ras} TABLE 12 * YEARLY MEAN POWER FOR SPECIFIC ALASKAN SITES AND WIND MACHINE "x" Annual average _ Annual average 2 Mean Power Mean Power wind velocity wind velocity watts/m (P) in KW (P) in KW Site (V)_ mph (V), m/s (Reed) Reed x fk (1) Wentink (2) Amchitka Island 21.1 9.43 1025 4.7 3.27 Cold Bay 17.4 7.78 574 2.64 2.70 St. Paul Island 17.1 7.64 548 2.52 2.59 Umnak Island 15.6 6.97 498 2.29 2.25 Middleton Island 13.7 6.12 377 1.73 1.79 Cape Romanzof 13.4 5.99 381 1.76 1.90 Kotzebue 13.2 5.90 - 292 1.34 1.63 Cape Lisburne 12.1 5.41 315 1.45 1.62 * Not optimum power, which also depends on site selection and machine height. 2 (1) £ = 1.17 x 107? KW m/w; k = 0.39 (empirical). (2) From.machine power vs windpseed characteristics and actual mean yearly speed duration curve. POWER AND ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY OF SMALL WINDMILLS IN ALASKA Present State of Technology As of March 1976 the actual availability of "WECS" is in a state of flux. Foreign windmills that can be ordered "off the shelf" are rated at 2.5 to 6 KW, but delivery to the U.S. and Alaska is often delayed and erratic. U.S. production is almost nil, although many tens of thousands of 3 KW units were sold during the period 1930-1955. In the late 1976- early 1977 period, U.S. manufactured units in the 6 to 15 KW range are expected to appear on the market. Many small companies are developing prototypes, but development and production have been somewhat retarded by lack of an assured market. Paradoxically, however, the market is not developing rapidly due to the lack of field tested, cost acceptable windmills. Table 13 lists some small windmills that are possibly available to the consumer, and which may be of specific interest to individuals or small, remote communities. Most of these have not been tested in Alaska. Table 13 does not include the large (100 KW or greater) WECS that are under development by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We believe that in Alaska a complex of several small units is preferable to one large machine (i.e., four 25 KW WECS instead of one 100 KW WECS). Windmill farms offer redundancy, redvced erection and maintenance problems due to lower tower heights and the technical advantage of proved WECS in the lower power output range. 83 98 TABLE 13 Some Small (0.2-15 KW) Windmills Currently or Potentially Available Manufacturer Grumman Aerospace Corp. Zephyer Wind Dynamo Co. Elektro GmbH (Swiss) Aerowatt (French) Jacobs Wind Electric Co. quirks Australian) Sencenbaugh Wind Electric Windcharger Notes: Model Windstream 25 Zephyer Various; data for WVG-50G Various; data for largest. Various (pre-1955) Various 750-14 1222H Propeller Disc © Prax, YR, Voltage Approximate Diameter; ft. KW mph Output Cost, $(1976) (Note 2) (Note 3) (Note 3) (Note 4) (Note 5) 25 15 26 115 20,000 (?) (3b, vp, dw, nt) 7 7.5 22 250 3,500 (3b, fp, dw, nt) (to 15) (30) 16.5 6.1 32 115 6,500 (3b, vp, wt) 30.1 4.1 7 220 © 23,000 (?) (2b, vp, wt) : 4 1.5 18 32 or 2,500 to (3b, vp, wt) (to 3.0) 110 5,000 13 2.5 25 24 to 3,000 (?) (3b, vp, wt) (3.0) (30) 110 12 0.8 20 14 1,400 (3b, fp, wt) (kit, 1050) 6 0.2 23 14 450 (2b, fp, wt) 1. Inclusion in this list, or omission from it, does not imply any A question mark means only our uncertainty of Jack of current information. recommendation. ications. All information is to the best of our knowledge, mostly from vendor literature or private commun- 2. be number of blades; vp = variable pitch; fp = fixed pitch; dw = downwind pusher type; nt = no tail boom; wt = with tail boom. 3. Power output P means then occlRS; occurs. . - achieved at wind speed Y,; limiting by various at some larger V controfied shut-down usually, reconditioned units inquire elsewhere. Remarks Note 1) Available mid-1976 (?) Prototype in test. Prototype in test; limited production pending. In production; long history. Limited production; excels in low V regimes, Prices for recondi- tioned machines; long history of excellent performance. (Note 6) Rated at 2KW continuous Long history of proven performance. In production. In production. Long production history; cost includes stub tower. Nominal voltage or generator of alternator; larger voltages (within design limits) are often encountered. f.o.b. manufacturer or dealer locations and without tower. Jacobs may announce new models in 1976 or 1977; for The Use of Mean Wind Speeds The instantaneous power output (P) of a given wind turbine (treated elsewhere) depends on the cube of the wind speed: P(KW) = K AV? where with (V) in mph and the area (A) in f°, (P) is in KW. However, as pointed out previously, the cube of the average (mean) wind speed of a site is appreciably different from the mean of the cubes of various wind speeds, i.e., Vv ea. tee ai n z z i where n is the number of vy data and 3 Vv 3 Vv . and c ve vu 1 Pie, tt For instance, a Lockheed study (1975) shows that c of the last equality is about 1.73 (for a 3 km height above ground). Of course, this c factor will be different for near-surface winds, and 1.73 also is not directly applicable to the problem of wind turbines having a threshold cut-in speed above zero and probable power limiting at some specified velocity. In most any case v is an approximate and usually pessimistic lower limit in estimating the absolute power of a WECS in a given Vv regime. However, V is still a very useful parameter, (Wentink, 1976). Evaluation of Available WECS Units The output of a given windmill can be predicted for a given location, if one has the necessary wind data for that location, even though only average wind speeds are known. In the latter case, synthesized 85 (calculated) wind duration curves can be used instead of measured field wind duration curves (Wentink, 1976). This approach is useful, in that economic analyses and predictions can be made, including estimated costs of wind-derived electricity and resultant savings in fossil fuel consumption for various WECS and locations. Grumman WS25 Prototype: We coupled the manufacturer's preliminary power (P) versus wind speed duration curves, using synthetic V duration curves computed from our "Planck" distribution function (Wentink, 1976). These calculations gave curves of P versus time. The integral of each curve gives the energy produced during the period of wind measurement that yielded the duration curve. The average energy E (and P) are a linear function of V up to about 22 mph; above the 22 mph limit, the energy productivity starts to decline since the WS 25 limits quite abruptly at 26 mph (Vp) + Where V is 12 or 17 mph, the P would be 2.3 or 5.8 KW, respectively, for 15 KW-rated WECS. The Elektro WVG50: The evaluation included the same analytical pro- cedures, with the application of measured V duration curves and two different models for synthetic (artificial) V duration curves. Also, preliminary results based on hand and desk computer calculations, used for the previous section (the WS25), were extended by IBM 360 machine computations. 86 As shown in Table 14 and Figure 16, it appears that very reasonable values for the average monthly and annual power from a given windmill, in this case the 6 KW Elektro, can be estimated from reliable knowledge of the V encountered at the hub of the windmill propeller. The agreement of the analytical data with the field data is remarkably good, lending support to our contention that a long-term measured V can be used to predict, for WECS, P in the absence of long-term V frequency (i.e., velocity duration) data. The considerable time spent on the Elektro 6 KW windmill and calculations does not imply any endorsement of this machine or the manufacturer; it merely reflects the fact this machine was used in the Ugashik tests. (The Elektro 6 KW is the highest power rated windmill presently in production.) Other machines may be more desirable, espec- ially for Alaskan use. The Aerowatt 4.1 KW: We considered in a preliminary way the French Aerowatt Model 4100FP7, rated at 4.1 KW output at V = 16 mph. It has a claimed superiority at low wind speeds, mostly due to large (30.7 feet diameter) light blades. However, it is apparently very rugged, with a claimed survival wind speed of 115 knots (132 mph). The power characteristic shown in Figure 17 was deduced from Aerowatt sales literature. An empirical P vs V curve from the fit to 46 field points, as described for the Elektro unit, is given in Figure 18. The computed values are higher than Aerowatt claims, given as points on Figure 18, but they are still in good agreement. While the productivity at low V is indeed excellent (39% of maximum at V = 10 mph), the high cost ($23,000) is discouraging. The Elektro 6 KW unit seems to be as productive as the Aerowatt 4.1 KW at V= 21 mph, but of course few locales have a V of 21 mph. To date, we know of only one 87 . aes TABLE 14 MEAN POWER FROM ELEKTRO WVG50 (6 KW rated) WINDMILL, USING MEASURED AND SYNTHETIC (F3) SPEED DURATION CURVES (Six Alaskan Locations) Pp, KW P,KW _ _ Site, Month (q-meas) (cale) A,% V,kts V,mph (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3) (Note 4). 22.9 26.4 A, Jan. 4.07 4.07 0 21.9 25.2 A, Dec. 3.98 3.92 1.5 21.1 24.3 A, Feb. 3.78 3.80 0.5 20.7 23.8 A, Mar. 3.84 3.73 3.4 19.4 22.3 A, Nov. 3.57 3.49 2.2 18.9 21.8 A, Oct. 3.46 3.41 1.4 18.7 21.5 A, Apr. 3.48 3.36 3.6 18.3 21.1 A, Annual 3.27 3.28 0.3 17.8 20.5 SP, Feb. 3.38 3.19 5.6 17.4 20.0 SP, Dec. 3.28 3.09 5.8 17.0 19.6 SP, Jan. 3.19 3.02 5.3 16.6 19.1 SP, Nov. 3.06 2.92 4.6 16.5 19.0 SP, Oct. 3.05 2.90 4.9 16.4 18.9 A, May 2.98 2.88 3.6 16.4 18.9 A, Sept. 2.85 2.88 1.1 16.3 18.8 SP, Mar. 2.96 2.86 3.4 15.1 17.4 CB, Annual 2.71 2.58 4.8 - (la) : 15.1 17.4 CB, Annual 2.70 2.58 4.4 (la) 15.1 17.4 SP, Apr. 2.65 2.58 2.6 15.0 17.3 M, Dec. 2.58 2.56 0.8 14.9 17.1 SP, Annual 2.59 2.51 3.1 14.8 17.0 M, Jan. 2.58 2.49 2.7 14.7 16.9 M, Nov. 2.49 2.47 0.8 14.6 16.8 A, Aug. 2.53 2.45 3.2 14.1 16.2 A, June 2.36 2.32 1.7 14.1 16.2 A, July 2.34 2.32 0.9 13.5 15.5 SP, Sept. 2.23 2.16 3.1 13.4 15.4 M, Oct. 2.15 2.13 0.9 13.4 15.4 SP, May 2.19 2.13 2.7 12.4 14.3 SP, Aug. 1.87 1.87 0 88 TABLE 14 (Cont'd.) P, KW P, KW ee a Site Month (q-meas) (cale) A,% V,kts V,mph (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3) (Note 4) 11.9 13.7 M, Annual 1.79 ee 3.9 11.8 13.6 B, Nov. 1.70 1:70 0 11.8 13.6 B, Oct. 1.69 1.70 0.6 Lh, 5. 13.2 K, Aug. 1.62 1.60 r.2 11.4 13.1 K, O6t. 1.62 1.57 3.2 11.4 3.1 SP, June 1.53 head 2.6 LL.3 13.0 K, Sept. 1.57 1.55 Las IDet 12.8 K, July 1.49 1.50 0.7 10.7 12:33 SP, July 1.34 1 Pf 2.2 10.6 22.2 M, Sept. 1.38 1.34 2.9 10.5 12.1 B, May 1.26 1,31 4.0 10.4 12.0 K, June 1.32 1.29 2.3 10.0 Its, B, Apr. 1.19 215 3.4 9.9 11.4 B, Dec. 1.22 1.13 7.4 9.3 10.7 K, May 1.10 0.93 15:5 707 8.9 M, July 0.68 0.40 41.1 Mean (all points) Py Mean (omit last 2 points) 2.6 Notes: 1. A = Amchitka Isl., B = Barrow, CB = Cold Bay, K = Kotzebue, M = Middleton Isl., SP = St. Paul Isl.; la = separate 5-year periods at CB. 2. q. meas. or q.m. = quasi-measured; from measured wind data and manufacturer's power vs. wind speed curve. 3. From Weibull Function (k=2) and manufacturer's power curve. 4. A= 100 ve - Pyne 89 05 10 Figure 16: 15 20 25 V, mph Mean power from an Electro WVG50 (6 KW at 33 mph) Windmill for measured and analytically-predicted duration curves. (Points from measured winds; dashed curve best fit to them. The 2 on graph means duplicate points. Solid curve is quadratic polynomial calculated from F3.) 90 P, KW Figure 17: ELEKTRO 6 KW AEROWATT 41 KW S409 © pawnsso Burn; 3 KW "jacobs-like” 4 $}409 40 pawnsso Bursny 10 15 20 V, KNOTS Power characteristics for Aerowatt 4.1 KW, Elektro 6 KW, and Jacobs-like 3 KW windmills. 91 ELEKTRO 6 KW AEROWATT 4.1 KW JACOBS-LIKE 3 KW “10 15 20 25 V, mph Figure 18: Average power vs. average wind speed for three small windmills in Alaskan wind regimes. (All from best fit to polynomials, each based on 46 long-term duration curves. Points marked AW from Aerowatt literature.) 92 28 Aerowatt 4.1 KW machine in use, in Norway; and we have no details. A Jacobs-like 3 KW_WECS: The Jacobs 1 to 10 KW machines (thousands of units) have a long history of very successful operation, with high reliability and energy yields. Our studies and Jacob's substantiated claims (1974) indicate that these machines are probably the most successful electricity-producing small windmills ever produced in quantity. It is regrettable that the 1930-1957 units are no longer manufactured, and are only available as rebuilt items. Jacobs may produce newer designs and hardware in late 1976 (6 to 10 KW?). Jacobs, to the best of our knowledge, never published a formal power characteristic curve. We deduced such a curve from Frenkiel's (1964) Iliat data. We call our characteristic, shown in Figure 17, the Jacobs-like 3 KW; and of course M. Jacobs is not responsible for any of the conclusions drawn from our curves. The P vs V curve for the Jacobs-like 3 KW plant is also given in Figure 18. This is based on 46 measured duration curves. This is not in good agreement with Frenkiel's result, for one or more unexplained reasons. However, his machine power characteristic may have been ap- preciably different than our necessary estimate, especially at low Vv (10-12 mph). He also intentionally limited the maximum power to 2.5 KW. Furthermore, he computed his expression from V data spanning only the 10 to 16 mph range. The reader can draw his own conclusions. A major hindrance in comparisons, for example, between a Jacobs-like 3 KW and an Elektro 6 KW (P same at V = 15 to 20 mph), is the absence of present cost data for any vintage Jacobs units, or for comparable newly-produced windmills. 93 Energy Productivity and the Height Effect Assume an Elektro 6 KW windmill installed at Ugashik on a 40 ft tower. Take V there as 12 knots (13.8 mph), from the better known long- term V values (and varying quite smoothly along the Alaska Peninsula) at King Salmon (9.9 knots), Port Heiden (12.9 knots) and Cold Bay (15.1 knots). The airline distances from Ugashik to those places are, respectively, 80, 60 and 263 statute miles. We then estimated the energy power and energy productivity at 40 feet, the oil-savings equivalent, and also the effects of variation in tower height between 30 and 100 feet (see Table 15). A major assumption was that only one-half of the energy yield of the windmill was useable. This assumption is based on our knowledge of Alaskan bush energy habits and wind patterns, and the experience of other workers. For instance, the wind-derived voltage might often be less than the battery bank voltage, or the batteries might be fully charged, with no load to use the wind energy. Also, considerable energy might be lost due to windmill shut-down (for safety) during sustained gales. There are other assumptions, which may be questionable for the long term, including such things as 1975 prices for typical towers and constant oil costs of 75¢/gal at Ugashik. Nevertheless, it appears that tower heights in the 40 to 60 feet are most cost-effective. In this range the yearly oil-equivalent of the useful energy is 20 to 24 drums (53 gal, not 42 gal drums), with an energy cost savings of $800 to $940/year. The improvement in average power, relative to that at 40 feet, is 18% at 60 feet and 26% at 70 feet. However, the accompanying savings in oil and costs at these heights are not great. Thus, the cost of tall towers appears to off-set the increased energy yield obtained, as others have noted. Hence, for the Ugashik area, we would question the worth of tower heights above 60 feet. 94 S6 TABLE 15 ESTIMATED ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY (10 years) OF AN ELEKTRO 6 KW WINDMILL AT UGASHIK, ALASKA, FOR VARIOUS HEIGHTS WITH SOME RELATED COSTS 10 year E/2 = 10 year, h increase oe ws) E x 10 Drums AE x 10 Oil Equiv. Tower Savings V,mph P,KW kwh of Oil kwh Savings in $ Cost $ (or drums) height/ft (N-1, 4) (N-2) (N-2) (N-3) (N-4) (N-5) (N-6) (N-4) 30 1.29 1.58 1.384 176 -1.93 6996 990 -724 (645) (-18d) 40 13.8 1.80 1.577 201 0 7990 1260 0 (800) | 50 14.5 1.98 1.734 221 1.57 8785 1560 495 (1000) (12d) 60 15.1 2.12 1.857 237 280 9421 1935 756 (1250) (19d) 70 15.7 2.26 1.980 253) 4.03 10057 2470 857 (1600) (22d) 100 17.0 2.54 2.225 284 6.48 11289 2 - Notes: Nl. For mean p = 0.23 in V vs h relation; equations (3). N2. From Figure 16, before battery bank. N3. Assumes 1/2 of windmill productivity is usable, and alternate energy source generator yields 7.4 kwh/gal; then 10° kwh =255 drums oil. N4. With reference to h = 40 ft value. N5. As for N-3, with constant 10 year cost of 75¢/gal or $39.75/drum, delivered (questionable long term assumption). N6. Delivered at Ugashik, including cost of footings, with no provisions for labor or interest; (price fob Seattle). Engineering Design Factors Power Coefficient and Efficiency: The power coefficient os as we use it, is the ratio of the actual windmill power output to the power in the wind. The efficiency of an actual single disc windmill, as we define it, is the power output of the actual mill relative to an idealized windmill. The latter is limited, through the Betz (1966) formulation, to the extraction of 59.3% of the power of the wind. Cut-in Speeds and Calms: The energy (power x time) productivity versus the costs determine the utility of a windmill system. Important factors include the starting or cut-in wind speed, the wind speed required to reach rated power, and of course, the mechanical integrity. The time of power generation is as important as the power rating. While our wind survey results reveal many desirable locations for windmills in Alaska, design innovations should be directed toward decreasing the wind speed necessary for attaining the rated power of the generator, compatible with mechanical integrity. In our opinion, emphasis should be placed on blade design, reliable speed controls, reduction of the generator power overrating, and the cost and weight of the generator. The French Aerowatt windmill (full rating reached at 17 mph for their 4 KW machine) and the NASA/Lewis-Plum Brook projected 100 KW windmill (full rating at 18 mph) show considerable promise in this respect. Productivity Curves: Productivity is best estimated by combining the machine power versus wind speed curve with the wind vilocity duration curve. In this way, one can generate productivity curves like those in Figures 18 and 19. One aspect of curves such as those shown in Figure 19 is that wind machine output characteristic curves are almost always given 96 L6 POWER, KW January (K) a — February (TC) all months (K) all months (TC) 25 5O (oS {00 PERCENT OF TIME Figure 19: Monthly Power Productivity at Kotzebue (K) and Tin City (TC), Alaska, from a 6 KW Rated Windmill (areas under the curves give the energy produced each month or year). in terms of power, not voltage, output. In the absence of such published voltage versus wind speed curves, it can be concluded that for resistive loads the voltage quickly drops below acceptable levels for lighting and other loads requiring voltage regulation, as wind speed drops. Furthermore, as in the case of wind-charged battery banks, the generator output is insufficient for battery charging, unless elaborate switching is used. In such cases, a considerable part of the total energy is available only if diverted to low-level energy reservoirs, such as hot water tanks. icing Problems and Blade Coating: The icing problem relates to tower integrity, blade strength (survival), and possible mechanical damage to the generator assembly through vibration. Putnam's (1948) experience with the large wind machine on Grandpa's Knob (Vermont) seemed to indicate that the best de-icing technique was to run (cautiously) the windmill during icing conditions, as blade flexure usually shed the ice. Putnam said: "Although ice several inches thick was observed on the stationary structure several times, the maximum thickness observed on the rotating stainless-steel turbine blades was about 1/2 inch thick on the leading edge. As this skin of ice began to peel off, the unit would begin to run rough and was usually shut down for this reason." Experience suggests that major icing problems are also caused by the unequal thawing of blades that accumulated ice during shut-down periods. A start-up under these conditions results in excessive vibration which can destroy the main bearings very quickly. Some information has been gained from interviews with users or observers of windmills in Alaska. At Barrow, for example, icing problems 98 were not encountered, and the most serious operational problem was charge limiting, and destructive overcharging of the batteries. In the Alaskan interior (Livengood), packed snow behind the blades acted as a brake, but blade icing was negligible. Location, of course, is important. Australian mills were said to have iced up in tests in Australian mountains, but they encountered little trouble in Antarctica. It is said that Swiss mills used in the Alps do not ice up. Usually blade protection from normal weather is obtained from paints, such as urethane. The French Aerowatt Company offers fluoro- carbon coatings as a protection against heavy icing. We had also advocated this approach to the problem, but later indicated that teflon coatings are most probably not worthwhile (Wentink, 1976). DC Versus AC Rural Systems and Inverters We recognize that modern windmill systems are often engineered to yield controlled frequency AC over large power and wind speed ranges. However, in view of our experience in rural Alaska, it appears that DC outputs may still have a considerable role, especially where the wind- derived power is generated close to the user. DC is advantageous because: (a) DC-AC inverters are expensive, and increase the capital investment in wind-powered systems by 30 to 70%. (b) Incandescent lights, motors, heaters (for water, fish smoking, etc.) work well on DC. (c) DC motors offer some advantages over AC motors, such as increased tolerance to changing line voltage, in variable 99 speed control, and in starting characteristics. Also, there are numerous inexpensive DC motors on the surplus market, especially in the 28 volt DC range. (d) Batteries, when used in an energy reservoir, can supply large short-term loads, which are usually well beyond the safe surge capability time of many inverters. Inverters used with battery bank storage in small WECS should include refinements, such as those available in the Soleq and modified Topaz units. The efficiency is often good (80 to 90%) at higher loads, but poor under light loads or on idle. For instance, 3-KW rated inverters often have a no-applied-load power consumption of about 200 watts (5 KWh/day). This can be significant during long calms. However, a load sensor, such as that in the Soleq unit, switches off the main inverter circuit on the DC side when there is no AC load; and power drain of the load sensor is negligible. Voltage controls to protect the battery bank and the inverter at low and high DC levels are also available and should be installed. WECS Foundation Requirements The foundation footings for towers need special attention in Alaska, due to break-up (thawing) and solifluction conditions. Tower vibration can also be a problem, in addition to high mechanical loads experienced during icing conditions or gales. Environmental Impact Currently, we do not foresee any major environmental problems associated with the use of wind power plants. However, there are two ' ~—>-- 100 potential problem areas that should be checked, involving the movements of migratory birds and possible disturbances in navigational radio aids. Possible Bird Kills: The possibility of large bird kills by windmills during annual migrations should be further evaluated. However, shutdowns during these rather brief and predictable migration periods could be utilized for maintenance and repair, and this possibility does not appear to be a serious problem, with proper checks and planning. Communications Interference: The reflection and diversion of radio waves from navigational aids by windmills could be troublesome near airports, runway approaches and repeater stations. All-metal blades, such as those on the Grumman Windstream 25 propeller (25 ft or 7.6 m disc diameter, 2 ft or 61 cm blade chord), could be potent reflectors and modulators and/or erroneous redirectors of navigational signals in critical locations. Even the wooden blades of the Elektro 6 KW (16.5 ft or 5 m disc, 6 in or 15 cm chord), if coated with metallic paint could be sources of reradiation. This effect would be accentuated by oscillations of the windmill in response to variation in wind direction. Generator noise could also be a problem. All of these effects need further evaluation. Weather Modification: Although the question of detrimental weather modification by large windmill farms has been raised repeatedly, the effects do not seem to be of serious concern. Even though we were to install five 1 megawatt-rated mills per square mile at Cold Bay, where wind conditions limit the power extrac- tion to about 3 megawatts/mile”, both atmospheric horizontal mixing and 101 energy replenishment from the upper layers should quickly smooth out any energy unbalance. Also, of course, there is no particular need to crowd the machines in most areas that are candidates for windmill farms. Mechanical Risk and Liability: A propeller fragment in free flight could cause serious damage. The Smith-Putnam windmill threw a 65-foot, 8-ton metal blade 750 feet, which landed in one piece on its tip (Putnam, 1948). When our Ugashik windmill was destroyed in 1975, the 8-foot wood blades were completely fragmented before they struck the ground. There was no wooden debris at the tower base, and fragments were found over a radius of 1/4 mile. No property or personal damage occurred in these cases, but the implications are obvious. 102 WIND POWER APPLICATIONS Wind Versus Fossil Fuel-Generated Power Wentink (1976) has recently published a cost analysis of a small windpower installation at Ugashik, Alaska, including a 6 KW maximum rated windmill with controls, tower, small battery bank (25 KWh capacity at 50% discharge limit), and a 4 KW DC-AC inverter yielding 60 cycle/115V AC. Today, this plant could be delivered to Ugashik at a cost of approximately $10,000. Assuming free labor, and no interest payments, the installation cost would be about $1,670/KW. These costs may seem excessive when first compared with the $450/KW installed capacity of large fossil or nuclear utility plants, and the target of $500/installed KW for projected new and larger windmills. If these costs are compared to those of diesel fuel-generated kilowatts in rural Alaska, however, wind power-generated electricity may be competitive over longer production periods. Economic viability of a WECS is based on the energy cost in $/KWh, not the installed power cost in $/KW. If we apply the AVEC system-wide factor of 7.4 KWh/gal of fuel to Ugashik (where there is no central utility), and consider the present cost of fuel delivered to Ugashik (70¢/gal), the fuel production cost of electricity would be 9.5¢/KWh. The actual sales price by AVEC (elsewhere) is currently 22¢ to 12¢/KWh (Table 16). If we derate the windmill system further because of wind conditions, so that the average éyetesi productivity is only 2 KW, power output would be 1460 KWh/month or 17520 KWh/year. Corresponding costs for electricity 103 TABLE 16 (Spring 1975) RECENT RATES FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN ALASKA Monthly use Residential Location KWh_ range cost, ¢/KWh Boston Area First 15 L259. $1.94 monthly min. (September '74) Next 35 5.6 Next 50 3.5 Next 150 3.2 Next 200 2.9 Next 500 1.5 Fairbanks a First 150 8.0 $10 monthly min. (GVEA, 1975) Next 550 339 (Rates out of city Next 800 Zoe slightly higher) Over 1500 1.9 Nome Flat Rate 15. (1974) Kotzebue First 50 a5 (1974) Next 50 12.5) Next 400 io: Over 500 10.5 avec? First 75 20; $15 monthly min. (same for all Next 225 15; 47 villages Next 700 12. 1974) Over 1000 9. Bethel First 50 12. $5 monthly min. (1975) Next 200 10. Over 250 7.5 Cold Bay First 50 11.5 $10 monthly min. (1975) Next 650 955 Over 700 755 a: Golden Valley Electric Association b: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative c: For 1975 a 2 to 3¢ /KWh fuel surcharge is in effect. Surcharges are also present in most of the other rates. 104 derived from oil would be $139/month or $1664/year (at 9.5¢/KWh). Using actual AVEC customer prices to nurchase 1460 KWh/month, we estimate consumer costs of $204/month and $2449/vear. So, for users presently using electricity at only 9.5¢/KWh, the small windmill system would establish a ratio of $9864/$1664/year, which would reauire 5.9 years to vay off through fuel oil savings. However, a typical "AVEC customer" could anticipate an earlier nayoff in only 4.0 years. We cannot assume that the cost of fuel oil in rural Alaska will remain at 70¢/gal (recall our earlier comments on current village fuel costs up to $2.15/gal). The control of domestic crude oil prices will make wind power even more attractive. The actual savings from the use of wind power will depend on variations in wind conditions and logistics. Although the Celtdal coat of wind power plants will remain higher than those for diesel power plants for the foreseeable future, the soaring costs of fuel oil will permit rapid (4 to 6 years) payback of capital costs of wind plants through savings on fossil fuel costs alone. Industrial Applications One possible use of large scale wind power could be the production of electricity for processing other chemically-reactive materials or the production of reactive materials (e.g., compressors or hydrogen, respectively). Thus, wind could either drive pumps to transport hydrogen, or release hydrogen from water. Ammonia Production: Consider one of the present methods for ammonia (NH) production. Purified natural gas (CH,) is reacted with steam in 105 a catalytic reformer to eventually yield carbon monoxide (CO) and H,. The overall reaction (some steps omitted) is: CH, + HO > co + 3H, - Further processing, requiring compressors and other energy using steps, produces the reaction: 3H, sf Ny - 2NH.,. For WECS applications we would propose using Hy from water and Ny from the air. The economics of scale dictate that modern NH, plants must operate at output levels above 600 tons NH, /day; many plants actually produce above 1000 tons/day. We think that the case for smaller fertilizer plants (100 tons/day or less) should be re-examined, when the user is nearby and when wind and water are used rather than natural gas. A 1 MW rated (installed capacity) WECS in a suitable wind regime (50% power productivity) could generate enough hydrogen to produce 1.7 tons of NH,/day. Thus, an ammonia plant of 100 tons/day capability (admittedly a small plant) would require a windmill complex of at least 59 MW for the necessary Hy production. The capital cost (without interest, etc.) at $500/installed KW would be about $30,000,000, which is the same order of magnitude as the cost of a large modern transport aircraft. At $100/ton for NH, and 300 days/year of plant operation, more 3 than 10 years of production would be required to return the capital investment of the WECS. At present, this is economically unattractive. However, there are several other factors that need to be considered: 106 (1) the plant lifetime, (2) the need for fertilizer, (3) the price the market will bear in 1980-90, (4) the availability of natural gas and (5) the cost of gas if available. Also, the cost of the reformer in present NH, plants which use natural gas is large, and these troublesome units are often plagued with excessive down time. These reformers break down the natural gas (CH,) to yield CO and H, and also consume significant 2 gas to heat the reformer chambers and to produce steam. We have no firm information on the initial and maintenance costs for reformers, but we estimate that reformers may account for nearly 30% of total plant costs. The long-term cost of natural gas is not clear. For estimating purposes, we note that the cost of CH, for a 100 ton/day NH, plant at $1/Mcf would be near $3,200/day (at ideal conversion), or $948,000 for a 300-day operating year. Hence, replacing natural gas with water as a raw material would amount to a savings of about a million dollars each year which could be applied to the amortization of WECS costs. Urea_and Methanol Production: The production of urea and methanol require a carbon source, such as coal. Consider the Alaska Peninsula region, where coal and wind power are available, and where ice-free harbors exist. This coal could be combined locally with electrolytic hydrogen and then ammonia to yield urea (H,NCONH,,) or methanol (CH,0H) , which are readily shippable chemicals. In the case of methanol, there are two possible routes that deserve consideration. The first route would be to power the plant machinery with windmills, to produce so-called process gas (CO+H,) from the reaction: Cc + H,0 + cO+4H,. In further reaction, to produce: 2:00 + 2 Hy ae CH,OH + CO. 107 In this case there would be excess CO which could be burned later (perhaps yielding undesirable side products other than methanol). An alternate route would be to react the process gas with a stoichiometric amount of H, from wind-powered electrolysis units, as in the properly- 2 catalyzed reaction: co + H, ae CH0H Mining: The Alaskan mining industry is expected to grow during the next decade. The Lost River (Seward Peninsula) fluorite-tungsten-tin mine shows promise for future development, and the Seward Peninsula may also contain economically-important copper deposits. Tin City is already known for its wind potential. (The long-term yearly average wind speed at Tin City is 17.1 mph.) Wind power could be exploited by the mining industry in several ways, including power (lighting, machine power, the generation of compressed air -- an attractive energy storage device), possible ore reduction with electrolytic hydrogen, and metal refining by electroplating. Windmills delivered to remote sites by helicopter might be economic at interior localities in the early phases of exploration development. Agriculture Alaska has relatively little agriculture due to high costs, late planting dates, low soil temperatures, and early frost, even though much of Alaska is blessed with long days during the summer growing season. We do not think wind-derived electricity is best used for soil warming on a large scale. However, there seems to be real merit in 108 combining thermal spring water with wind-generated electricity for greenhouse operations. For example, greenhouses above the Arctic Circle near Nome could supply year-round green vegetables to Seward Peninsula consumers, and export products to other Alaskan communities. Refrigeration Another important Alaskan windmill application could be wind-powered refrigeration units. The preservation of meat and other foods is a major problem in many communities where harvesting occurs during warm weather. The Alaskan summers are long and warm, and sometimes hot, even above the Arctic Circle. Adequately-insulated wind-powered refrigerators would not require much, if any, electrical energy storage if frozen brine cold storage techniques were used. 109 ALASKAN AGRICULTURE AND THE ENERGY PROBLEM Logistics The primary energy source for modern agricultural food production remains the sun; however, man has learned that he can increase productivity of his food crops by modifying the plants' environment for maximum capture of sunlight. This environment modification is largely dependent upon the use of fossil fuels to supply the required technological materials such as machinery, plastics, pesticides and petroleum for heating, farming, drying, processing and transportation. Work specialization, decrease of the agrarian society, better balanced nutrition, movement to northern climates and an increased consumption of products contributing to a quality of living all play a significant role in an increasing energy intensive food and fibre production, processing and distribution system. Alaska, one-fifth the size of the 48 conterminous states, produces a relatively small amount of the agricultural products consumed by its own population. Alaska has large acreages of land suitable for potential agricultural production (cropland, rangeland and forest) (A.P.C., 1974). Many plants are well-adapted to Alaska's climates. During the Alaskan growing season, there are more hours of sunshine than during a comparable calendar period in the more southern latitudes (Dinkel, et al., 1976). The long summer days contribute to larger, tastier and more tender vegetables. Grains are often higher in protein content. In some cases, yields are even greater than in the best agricultural areas of the United States. 110 Increasing Alaskan and world population will inevitably require utilization of northern areas and development of new methods for food production in these northern areas. Development of various natural resources (particularly in the petroleum industry) indicate future social and economic development of Alaska. Also, the Native Land Claims Settlement, the Rural Development Act of 1972, and the continuing industrialization of Alaska's cities will stimulate development of the State. The world situation that puts agricultural products on the world market will certainly create expanding demand for United States agricul- tural products and inhibit the development of a United States surplus. Alaska is at the end of the nation's food system and would suffer the most direct and immediate impact from natural disasters such as prolonged droughts, floods, virulent disease among plants and animals, extreme climatic change and unpredictable weather in the continental United States. Fuel price increases will undoubtedly have a great effect on the cost of foods shipped to Alaska and on the cost of producing these foods in the more southern latitudes. It is not a wise use of the nation's Alaska produced petroleum to ship it to southern latitudes to produce foods that will later be shipped back to Alaska if we can produce the foods here for a nearly similar energy use on the farm. Alaskan food production will save the 9-15% energy consumption required to transport the oil to the southern agricultural areas and also save the energy now required to ship the foods to Alaska. Much of the energy required to produce the intensively cultured crops in Alaska is in the form of heat requirements. This energy is Eat used to heat greenhouses and animal shelters, to warm soils, and to dry livestock feed. The wise use of Alaska's wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and waste heat energy sources for agricultural production in Alaska will reduce the nation's use of fossil fuels. This Alaska production will also increase the nation's agricultural land base which is rapidly dwindling in the southern states. Controlled Environment Systems Although vegetables are grown during the relatively short summer growing season in many rural areas and communities, only a very small portion of the summer crop can be preserved for consumption during the other months of the year. The high cost of fuel and electricity has prohibited large-scale greenhouse operations, and hydroponic gardening has not yet been attempted in the rural areas for the same reasons. Controlled environment experiments at the University of Arizona's Environmental Research Laboratory, and the Phyto-Engineering Laboratory of the Agricultural Research Service at Beltsville, Maryland, have demonstrated that certain plants are capable of growing up to 10 to 50 times faster under controlled environments than by conventional growing means, and that the yields in tons per acre can be greatly increased. Accelerated growth rates and vastly increased yields per unit acre are being developed through the use of higher CO, levels, controlled 2 humidity and temperature, artificial lighting and the supply of the proper nutrients through automatic systems. Hydroponically-grown and sub-irrigation grown lettuce, tomatoes and cucumbers already bring premium prices because of their quality and 112 year-round availability. The yields of such premium produce would be greater under ideal controlled environment conditions. Premium hydroponically-grown tomatoes are now being grown and marketed in Anchorage, with considerable success ,. by Mosesian Farms. Recent experiments conducted by Donald H. Dinkel of the Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Alaska, on the Fairbanks campus, have shown that controlled environment facilities have excellent poten- tial for producing year-round salad vegetable crops in northern Alaska (Dinkel, 1974). Thermal springs are uniquely valuable energy sources for controlled environment experiments, as they can provide hot water, warm and permafrost-free ground, and small amounts of electricity from a common energy source, at very little expense. Open Plot and Controlled Environment Gardening on Geothermally-Heated Ground Some Alaskan thermal springs are surrounded by rather large areas of warm ground, which remain frost-free throughout the year. Perennially warm ground around Manley, Chena and Pilgrim Springs has been used for vegetable crop gardening since the arrival of the first white settlers. The Pilgrim garden plots produced vegetables in commercial quantities for miners during the Nome gold rush period; and hie Manley Hot Springs commercial vegetable crops have continued from the early 1900's to the present day ... as exemplified by Mr. Charles Dart's presently success- ful greenhouse operation (to be described in more detail in the next section). 113 Warm frost-free soil is of great potential value in the arctic environment and should be utilized in a total energy applications system. A soil temperature survey, similar to that conducted by N. Biggar (1973) at Chena Hot Springs (Figure 20), can determine those areas which are optimum for vegetable crops. Controlled environment enclosures could be located on selected plots of hot ground, adjacent to thermal springs, and require no other source of heat to maintain adequate soil and ambient air temperatures. Growing seasons could be lengthened and plant maturation time could be accelerated through the use of garden plots which are heated by hot springs water circulated through networks of plastic pipe, buried at shallow depths in the soil. 114 STI SY nk eee 6 es 8 = 1052 sol: 12 13 14 15 16 ie ig 19 20 2l - of the NM CHENA HOT SPRINGS AREA, : ALASKA i « Ground temperature stations it to Fairbanks x —— 10%— _ Isotherms, (°C) i \\ doshed where approximated i \ 9 Thermes spring K Thermal pools and streams = == Private roads 10° | 2 > 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I {2 {3 14 15 Figure 20: Isothermal map of soil temperatures in the Chena Hot Springs area (Biggar, 1973). FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE Opportunities for Aquaculture Salmonid fishes offer the greatest promise for tangible benefits from aquaculture in Alaska when biological, technological, economic, and institutional problems are taken into account. The list of salmonids suited for aquaculture includes salmon, trout, char and grayling. However, ocean ranching of Pacific salmon will most likely afford the greatest potential for an economically-viable aquaculture industry. Catch records reveal that Pacific salmon have declined precipitously in Alaska. For many years Alaska contributed about two-thirds of the total harvest of North American salmon, but Alaska's contribution is now less than one-half of the total (Figure 21). Catches in the Pacific Northwest and Canada have not declined even though environmental changes wrought by man have had adverse effects on natural stocks. These adverse effects have been compensated to a large extent by hatcheries, spawning channels and other aquaculture systems which today produce 450 million or more juvenile salmon for release into marine nursery waters. Salmon Ocean Ranching The potential gain in efficiency of ocean ranching over natural reproduction can be illustrated by a hypothetical example where chum salmon are released into the ocean as unfed fry. The probable fates of progeny from a pair of chum adults spawning naturally and spawned artificially in a hatchery are compared below: 116 ETT. Shltons of /7sh $ » Q i. Alaska (/o- Year trend) eng a Northwest ard Canada (lo-year trend) (370 “ N Q e Figure 21: Trends of harvest of Pacific salmon on the Pacific Coast of North America. Natural spawning Hatchery 2 spawners 2 spawners + + 3,000 eggs 3,000 eggs + + (10% survival) (80% survival) + + 300 fry 2,400 fry + + (2% survival) (2% survival) ¥ + 6 adults 48 adults (2 spawners) (2 spawners) (4 harvested) (46 harvested) Recent experience with ocean ranching confirms that artificial propagation greatly increases the efficiency of production of salmon. The increase is not always 11-fold, as the example suggests, but it is substantial. Perhaps the most successful ocean ranching program today is with chum salmon in Japan, where more than 500 million juvenile salmon are released annually and contribute about 10 million adult salmon to the harvest. Efforts are being made in Japan to double this production on Hokkaido Island, and the annual harvest of hatchery chum on Hokkaido has surpassed the harvest of wild chum in Alaska (Figure 22). Ocean ranching of chum and other salmon species is also undergoing rapid growth in the USSR and Canada. 118 61T MILLIONS OF POUNDS Figure 22: ALASKA (5-YEAR TREND) HOKKAIDO (5-YEAR TREND) 1950 1960 1970 Trend of production of hatchery chum salmon on Hokkaido Island and wild chum salmon in Alaska. Uses of Warm Water in Ocean Ranching The operation of facilities in Alaska for salmon ocean ranching is complicated in many cases by severe freezing conditions in winter. Salmon spawn in summer and autumn and the fry emerge in spring when seasonal increases in natural food production occur in nursery waters. Avoidance of freezing requires that water used for incubation systems either must contain adequate heat or heat must be added. The artificial addition of heat requires expensive equipment and facilities, and places a heavy demand on fossil fuels. This can be avoided by using sources of fresh water where temperatures remain naturally above freezing during winter. Lakes and geothermal springs are attractive sources for hatchery water supplies in Alaska since they are natural reservoirs for warm water in winter. Several hatchery projects now in operation or in planning in Alaska rely on lakes for water in winter. The use of geothermal water sources should also be evaluated. Use of warm water for salmon ocean ranching can produce these effects: Le Accelerated early development will contribute to early fry emergence. 2 Early fry emergence may require short-term rearing on artificial diets to insure that the time of release of juvenile salmon coincides with seasonal availability of natural food. (The Japanese follow this practice.) 33 Where juvenile salmon are raised to smolt size before release, early fry emergence should shorten the period of rearing, resulting in the release of smolts at age I (possibly at age 0) rather than at age II or III, which is common for wild fish, 120 Proposed Program Two things must be done before potential benefits of geothermal water in salmon ocean ranching can be evaluated in Alaska: 1. Sources of low-grade geothermal water which are suitable for salmon aquaculture need to be inventoried. 2. Feasibility of using geothermal water in ocean ranching needs to be evaluated with five species of Pacific salmon. Inventory of Geothermal Waters: Promising sources of geothermal water should be identified and cataloged on a state-wide basis. Quantity and quality (temperature, dissolved solids, gas content, etc.) need to be determined. Relatively cold (55°F and lower) geothermal waters of suitable quality might be used directly as a medium for raising salmon. Relatively warm (above 55°F) geothermal water of suitable quality would probably be diluted with colder water, and the availability of cold water would need to be considered. Where relatively warm geothermal water contains dissolved substances which are toxic to salmon, the use of heat exchange systems to warm cold water should be considered. The total volume of water available from a given source for raising salmon should probably be at least 5 cfs (2,250 gpm) for commercial-scale aquaculture. salmon ocean ranching should be studied at one or more locations in Alaska with several species of salmon. Two locations are discussed here and should be considered for possible feasibility studies. They are Gulkana springs (near Paxson) in the Copper River drainage and springs in the Fort Glenn area of Umak Island (in the Aleutian Islands). 121 Umnak Island is remote and is served once a week by Reeve Aleutian Airlines. The Fort Glenn area possesses a complex of roads and airfields which were constructed in World War II and are still useable. A cattle ranch, with a functional cold storage plant, now operates on the former military reservation. A network of spring-fed streams which individually deliver more than 5 cfs of waterflow, arise from lava beds. The topography of the area lends itself to the construction of low-cost hatchery facilities. An important feature of Umnak Island is its location near the geo- graphic center of the North Pacific Ocean-Bering Sea nursery ground of salmon from North American and Asian streams and lakes. Pink and chum salmon would be the primary target species on Umnak Island. Sockeye and coho salmon would be secondary target species. Hatcheries at Gulkana and Umnak springs can be developed with gravity feed water delivery systems. Demand for energy from fossil fuels would be limited to illumination and heating of modest support facilities. Supplementary power for a demonstration hatchery on Umnak could potentially be obtained from wind-driven generators. Hatcheries at both locations could be designed to operate without a full-time attendant. Total cost of a feasibility study at Gulkana and Umnak springs is estimated to be about $500,000 for each location. This amount would include construction of facilities and operations for 5 years. The estimated costs are based on: - Planning and site evaluation $ 50,000 - Construction (10 million egg hatchery) 200,000 - Operation (5 years @ $50,000/yr.) 250,000 Total $500,000 122 A hatchery facility at Gulkana springs would produce mostly sockeye fry to supplement recruitment of wild fry into Summit and Paxson Lakes. The present levels of fry recruitment to these lake nursery areas should first be evaluated to determine if such a project might be warranted. A demonstration hatchery facility at Gulkana springs might also be used to raise chinook and coho fingerling from Copper River stocks to boost recruitment of these species at selected locations within the Copper River drainage. A hatchery facility on Umnak Island would produce primarily pink and chum fry for release into the ocean. Some sockeye and/or coho fry might be produced for stocking lakes. A successful demonstration project at one site would most likely lead to larger projects on Umnak, other Aleutian Islands, and the outer Alaska Peninsula by the Aleut Corporation and possibly other fishery interests. The salmon fisheries of the Aleutian area are very depressed (Figure 23), and the emergence of a hatchery program capable of producing 500 million pink and chum fry has the potential of contributing at least $10 million annually to the economy of this region. 123 1975 *‘eoie pue[Ss] UeTINneTy pue e[NsuTueg eYSeTy ey} UT UowWTes yUTd Fo YyoJeD TenuUy 1965 1955 1945 1935 ee OF: 2€Z ean3Tyq 1925 Shiois oO nn cs a I aK GH ° yn S ° od 4 = 124 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geothermal Potential and Applications Classification of Geothermal Resources: Although the assessment of Alaska's geothermal resources is in its infancy, the presence of over 40 active volcanoes and many thermal springs suggests that Alaska has geothermal energy resources similar to those which occur in other regions of the world, including: 1. subsurface steam reservoirs 2. subsurface hot water reservoirs (including geopressured reservoirs) 3. thermal springs (surface hot water) 4. subsurface geothermal anomalies (hot-dry rock) as volcano-related systems, including hot-dry rock and potential "magma tap" applications 6. deep drill hole applications in areas underlain by a normal geothermal gradient (30°C/kilometer). Geothermal Resources Applied to Alaskan Needs: Although the generation of electricity has received more public attention than other uses of geothermal energy, there are many non-electrical applications of geothermal resources which may also be important to Alaska, including: I. space heating and waste disposal 2. aquaculture (including fish hatchery and farming operations) as gardening, farming and greenhouse applications 4. melting of snow on roads and airfields De manufacturing 6. extraction of valuable heavy metals and salts from brines 7. potable water 125 Convective Systems: Currently, our optimism toward the geothermal potential of Alaska is based on the Alaskan segment of the circum- Pacific volcanic belt, and the possibilities offered by thermal spring waters in several districts. To date, however, geothermometry studies on thermal spring waters by the U. S. Geological Survey have not yet detected any vapor-dominated reservoir temperatures -- and only two thermal spring systems appear to have reservoir temperatures greater than 180°C -- which is the currently accepted temperature minimum for steam turbine systems utilizing the present technology (see page 47). Volcano-related Systems: U. S. Geological Survey investigations (Miller and Barnes, in press; Smith and Shaw, 1975) indicate that several silicic volcanic fields, including the Wrangell Mountains, deserve further exploration as potential geothermal targets (see Figure 6 and Table 5). To date, however, no test holes have been drilled in any of these fields, and no heat flow or thermal gradient measurements have been made. The energy potential of volcanoes is tremendous (Table 6). The amount of energy that is dissipated by uncontrolled and unuseable, worldwide volcanic eruptions each year is of mind-boggling order in terms of today's energy crunch. For example, the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa Volcano released about 107° ergs of energy -- roughly equivalent to the total power consumption in the United States in the year 1970. The energy expended in the 1952 eruption of Kilauea Volcano would have been worth $350 million if it could have been converted to electricity. To date, significant geothermal power production has been from the so-called vapor-dominated geothermal reservoirs. If a technology could be developed to extract electricity from magma reservoirs 126 or from induced steam systems in volcanic piles, huge and previously unobtainable energy resources would become available. Heat Flow and Thermal Gradient Measurements: High heat flow and/or geothermal gradients are the characteristic signatures of economically- significant geothermal anomalies. Although high heat flow values can be obtained on many active Alaskan volcanoes, published Alaskan heat flow determinations taken from drill holes have not yet exceeded 2.6 hfu (hfu = heat flow units). Based on the worldwide average of 1.5 hfu, and the association of heat flow values of 4 hfu and above with meaningful geothermal anomalies, we have not yet located any geothermal targets in Alaska by means of high heat flow, other than volcanic vents. This does not mean that there are no zones of high heat flow in Alaska, as no more than 20 reliable heat flow determinations have been extracted from Alaskan drill holes; and considering the vast area of Alaska, little can be concluded from these initial determinations other than the need for more data. To date there have been no known exploratory geothermal holes drilled in Alaska, other than a shallow (86 ft.) hole drilled in the lava dome (destroyed during the eruption of January 1976) near the summit of Augustine Volcano by the Geophysical Insitute, University of Alaska (J. Kienle, et al., unpublished research). Total Energy Utilization of Thermal Springs: Alaska has a large number of thermal springs which constitute potential energy sources other than geothermal subsurface steam reservoirs. The recent development of hot- water generating systems offers promise for the production of 127 electricity from thermal spring water (60°C) with outflow water temperatures which are high enough for second-stage energy extraction for space heating and agricultural application. The exploitation of an energy source which could generate heat and power at less cost and develop the on-site production of vegetables through hydroponic farming and greenhouse operations would increase the economic stability and standard of living of remote resident populations. The Geophysical Institute is now studying the total energy potential of three thermal springs in northern Alaska as possible sites for energy conversion experiments and pilot plant studies. Priority targets include Manley Hot Springs in the Tolovana District, and Clear Creek, Pilgrim and Serpentine Hot Springs on the Seward Peninsula (see Appendix E). Rural Geothermal Priorities and the Total Energy Concept High priority should be given to the development of geothermal resources in rural Alaska, rather than the cities. In addition to the previously-mentioned economic constraints, none of the presently recognized geothermal targets are located in the immediate vicinity of the cities. There are, however, potential geothermal resources which are located in or closely adjacent to villages in the outlying areas. The need is also most acute in the rural areas, and the development of any resource which can reduce the dependence on expensive fossil fuels and/or help establish local industry on any scale would be high desirable. Electric Versus Non-Electric Applications In our discussion of Alaskan economics, we pointed out the difference between Alaskan needs and priorities and those of the other 49 states. 128 It follows that the utilization and economic potential of geothermal energy resources will be based on special criteria related to Alaskan problems and needs. Although non-electric applications of Alaskan geo- thermal resources deserve highest priority, it may also be advisable to generate small amounts of electricity in some rural settings. In many areas of rural Alaska, electricity is not continuously available in any form at the present time, and it would not be sensible to develop a geothermal resource exclusively for non-electric applications under such conditions. Secondly, the amount of electricity under consideration ranges from 2 to 250 KW -- quantities which are substantially below the levels considered feasible for large-scale developments in other parts of the nation. Since economic competition with other forms of power generation does not exist in many parts of rural Alaska, it makes good sense to consider generating small quantities of electricity by geo- thermal means wherever possible. Sources of State Funding We have reached a point in time when many rural areas could benefit greatly from geothermal resources, if we begin now to develop a technology which is compatible with environmental considerations and the cultural needs of the people. Capital to invest in such an enterprise may be available from two resources. The Alaska Native Claims Act of 1971 has given the native people the economic leverage to undertake development of geothermal energy. However, these monies are restricted by act of Congress to profit-making ventures by the regional and village corpora- tions; and research and development expenditures on geothermal resources are not permissible. The State of Alaska has oil and gas revenues which could be used to develop geothermal resources in rural areas. ? 129 Research and pilot plant experiments must be initiated as soon as possible to insure that the technology is ready when the funds become available. Present State of Geothermal Research and Development Development: Currently, geothermal development by the private sector in Alaska has been restricted to hot spring resort activities and one large greenhouse operation at Manley Hot Springs. Several Alaskan native regional and village corporations have received exploration proposals from private consultants and corporations during the last year, but to our knowledge none of these proposals and/or programs has progressed to the field stage. Research: To date, most of the research on Alaskan geothermal resources has been done by the U. S. Geological Survey and the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska. The U. S. Geological Survey's contributions date back to the pioneering work of Waring (1917) on Alaskan thermal springs. More recently (since 1971), the U. S. Geological Survey has been conducting a helicopter-supported assessment of Alaskan geothermal resources, with special attention devoted to the Alaskan volcanoes and thermal springs. Under the direction of T. Miller, this program has concentrated on the geothermometry, chemistry and geologic setting of thermal springs, and the age, petrology and setting of young (Tertiary and Quaternary) volcanic fields. With the exception of a gravity study conducted in the Wrangells, this program has not involved geophysical surveys. The work done by T. Miller, I. Barnes and R. Smith was essential to the data presented on the energy potential of Alaskan geothermal resources, as recently published in U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 726, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1975." 130 The Regional Geophysics Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (A. Lachenbruch and J. Sass) has been conducting a "target of opportunity" heat flow program in Alaska by capitalizing on available drill holes, when possible, which were drilled for other purposes. Funding for this program has been minimal, however, and no geothermal holes have been drilled by the U. S. Geological Survey in Alaska. The Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, initiated its geothermal program in 1971, with a revision of Waring's map of Alaskan thermal springs (Biggar, 1971). Biggar (1973) conducted a geophysical and geological study of Chena Hot Springs, and Forbes, et al. (1975) located a possible geothermal reservoir beneath Pilgrim Hot Springs with geophysical methods in 1974, Forbes, et al. (1975) recently completed a feasibility and planning study on the utilization of geothermal energy resources in rural Alaskan communities under the provisions of a contract with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); and at present, Forbes, et al. are doing research on fossil versus present thermal gradients in deep drill holes, with the assistance of a research grant from ERDA. J. Kienle, et al. (Geophysical Institute) are presently conducting an investigation of the magma tap potential of Augustine Volcano, with the aid of an ERDA research grant. A Proposed Geothermal Research and Development Program We believe that there is an urgent need for an integrated state, federal and private sector geothermal research and development program in Alaska. isk Optimally, this program should be composed of cooperative projects involving the U. S. Geological Survey, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the State of Alaska and the private sector. In our opinion, the program should reflect the following guidelines: 1. Heat is a precious commodity in the Alaska subarctic and arctic. Although geothermally-generated electricity may not be competitive with that generated by mine-mouth, hydroelectric and natural gas power plants for transmission to major population centers, hot water and vapor-dominated geothermal systems, where available, could improve the standard of living and economic viability of village populations. Thermal springs have great promise as total energy systems in remote Alaskan villages. Applications engineering studies and pilot plants should explore this potential. Volcanoes are confirmed targets. High priority should be given to the development of a technology which will extract useful energy from Alaskan volcanoes. A systematic heat flow and thermal gradient measuring program should be initiated, involving the required cooperation of industry, and a federally-funded cooperative drilling program in Alaska. Vast areas of Alaska are mantled by vegetation, alluvium and permafrost. Remote sensing techniques, including ground conductivity, infrared, gas detection and other methods should be investigated as possible geothermal exploration tools. 132 Three proposed geothermal research projects, concentrating on total energy utilization of selected Alaskan thermal springs are contained in Appendices E-3, E-4 and E-5. Wind Power Potential and Applications Potential: There are large areas of Alaska that appear to be uniquely favorable for wind power applications. The most promising areas are located on the coastal plains in the arctic, northwest (including Seward Peninsula), and southwest (Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and Bristol Bay areas) regions. These areas experience strong, persistent winds which have their highest potential in winter, when energy requirements are the largest. Wind extremes are probably less in these areas than in coastal areas in Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutians. These "favorable" areas include many villages and a few small cities which are now totally dependent on fossil fuels. Generally, interior Alaskan villages are less favorable sites for wind power applications due to a lack of suitable winds in the winter months. State of Technology: Commercially-available wind power units up to 2 or 3 KW, including conventional storage batteries, are well proved. Initial costs and performance characteristics are fairly well known, but there are differences in opinion on long-term costs, including maintenance and repair. Large wind power units are not yet readily available, and energy storage problems will become more serious when the larger units become available. Present federal and industrial research and development programs include the construction of prototype windmills up to 100 KW capacity, and it seems likely that wind power units in this size range may be available within a few years. Longer-term research and development goals envision even larger machines, and it is possible that a 1000 MW prototype may be constructed within a few years. Windmill technology will probably progress more rapidly than energy storage technology for the next several years. Applications: The wind power potential of Alaska is high. The annual power potential averaged for Alaska is of the order of 3400 MW, assuming that 1/1000 of the available kinetic onary in the first 1100 meters (3600 ft.) of the atmosphere could be extracted, The wind power potent tal of most coastal areas is assured; in the interior, however, the potential is low and variable with location. The best and most immediate application of windmills would be in the electrification of many small communities, especially in coastal Alaska. Fuel oil conservation and an improvement in the quality of life are implicit to this application. Windmills (individual or clustered) in the 10 to 50 KW range would have considerable impact in the villages. A major problem in windmill utilization in rural Alaska is that those who could profit most, in a social sense, can least afford the capital investment. Demonstration projects are clearly needed; state and federal agencies should support and initiate early tests and demonstrations to educate potential users. Longer-term applications will depend on the availability of large wind machines, producing 100 KW-rated (or above) output. The first Alaskan users would probably be privately-owned central utilities 134 in intermediate-size communities (1000 or so population), and the seafood canning industry. The industrial production of methanol, ammonia and urea with windmill-produced power is feasible, but at present it is uneconomical. The economics of mass-produced large wind machines will be better understood in the near future. While windmills rated at 100 KW or above offer the economy of scale, more emphasis should be placed on the development of reliable units rated in the 10- to 30-KW range, especially for rural applications. Logistics considerations, installation problems, and the need for redundancy indicate that the "windmill farm" (WECS complex) concept is superior to that based on one large unit, at least in Alaska. We expect engineering improvements in wind-generating units to be ahead of those in energy storage systems, for many years. Therefore, we recommend the early study and field demonstration of hybrid (wind-oil) energy systems, using existing small and medium (up to few hundred KW) diesel-fueled generators that are fairly common in Alaskan communities. Emphasis in these hybrid systems must be on automatic and reliable switching. Our wind surveys are necessarily incomplete, and none of the locations considered from existing data have been surveyed at specific sites selected for wind power purposes. Yearly mean wind speeds range from about 18.3 to 7.0 knots (excepting several interior Alaska locations known for lack of wind). Topographic shielding is often present where the lower means prevail. A useful numerical factor arising from our analysis of Alaskan wind data is the power factor (pf) which describes the potential use of the maximum installed power capability. While our surveys confirm the 135 generally-held view that Alaska locations can be very windy, the power factors of available windmills dictate careful site selection and the use of tall towers (cost permitting). Only machines like the very expensive Aerowatt seem to have merit at average wind speeds near 10 mph (pf=0.39); others have pf of 0.13 to 0.19 at that v. At V = 20 mph the computed pf of the Aerowatt, Elektro and Jacobs-like windmills treated in this report are 0.80, 0.53 and 0.62, respectively. An Alaskan test center should be established to run various WECS in the same weather regime, to confirm these calculations and determine mechanical integrity under subarctic and arctic conditions. We recommend Cold Bay or Ft. Greely for this purpose. Many small cities and villages are promising candidates for windmills, in terms of winds and need. For initial large-scale test installations, we recommend Nelson Lagoon, Cold Bay and Kotzebue. These were selected because of wind conditions, diversity of climate, relative ease of access for freight and personnel, and the degree of local interest. A major windmill design effort should be made to minimize the wind speed necessary for achievement of the generator-rated output, and on the reduction of the weight and size of the generator (to avoid overrating). Heavy emphasis also should be placed on automatic controls for this purpose. Designers should specify the voltage output of their wind systems versus wind speed, as well as power output, and decisions on energy storage devices (active loads, batteries, heat sinks, etc.). Gusting may cause windmill blade problems that are more severe in Alaska than in lower latitude locations. Generator braking due 136 to ice build-up behind the blades may actually be a greater problem than blade-icing. Slow speed operation during icing, or careful thawing of iced blades before start-up, are important procedures. However, much more study in different parts of Alaska needs to be done to better define these problems. The cycle of Alaskan winds is usually in phase with the cyclic power requirements of Alaskan communities. Thus, the strongest winds occur during the colder and darker months. This is the reverse of the situation encountered with northern hydroelectric power sources. In that case, water flow is often minimal in the winter and early spring, before snow melting and river thawing. For many Alaskan coastal sites the average decrease in the mean wind speed from the maximum monthly mean to the minimum monthly mean is about 30%. Because of the exponential velocity dependence of the power output of a windmill, this 30% amounts to a factor of 2 to 3 decrease in the average monthly power output of an idealized windmill. Factors of this order must be considered in setting the maximum power rating of a windmill (for winter use) or in estimating the summer (in coastal Alaska) yield of a windmill and storage system designed for winter loads. Cold Bay is a favorable exception to the large swing (16% versus 30% above). Electricity: There are several possible levels of wind power application in Alaska which depend largely on the level of technology and the relative costs of the wind generators. 137 2. 3. Presently available small capacity wind generators are suitable for some remote area applications when energy and power requirements are small. This might include single windmill units for very small loads or groups of units, where requirements are on the order of 10 to 20 KW. The prospect that windmills up to about 100 KW in size may be available soon is of particular interest for many remote areas in Alaska which have power requirements in the 50 to several hundred KW range. It is not difficult to visualize a ready market for several hundred wind generators in the 50 to 100 KW range -- when proved machines become available at reasonable cost. The application of wind power to the larger power systems will not be significant until generators in the 1000 KW size range and larger become available. The State's electric utility systems offer some unusual opportunities for testing the wind power applications. Integration of windmills with other types of power generators in an electric system could avoid all energy storage problems during no-wind periods; any energy produced from windmills in such a system would provide a direct fuel savings. The very high fuel cost for remote cities and villages in Alaska suggests potential benefits from wind power applications would be very large. 138 Wind Power Demonstration Projects Preliminary proposals for wind power demonstrations at selected Alaskan sites (Umnak Island, Cold Bay, Kotzebue and Nelson Lagoon) are contained in Appendix F. Institutional Considerations Geothermal Activities: In coordination with the federal and private efforts in the geothermal and wind power field, the Alaska State Energy Office hopes to aggressively pursue worthwhile energy research, development and demonstration projects in areas of concern to Alaska. The wind power and geothermal research and development requirements and applications addressed in this report will receive very high priority. There has not been a traditional coordinating point in the State of Alaska for geothermal and wind power affairs and activities. The Alaska Energy Office is a logical vehicle for the state-wide administrative coordination of geothermal and wind affairs. This office could also improve liaison between state and federal agencies. The Alaska Energy Office should also serve as the state center for the dissemination of geothermal and wind power informa- tion. State of Alaska Geological and Geophysical Survey: The State of Alaska Geological and Geophysical Survey should become increasingly involved in state geothermal affairs and be assigned an active role in state geothermal research and development activities. State Versus Federal Funding: To date, the State of Alaska's investment in geothermal and wind power resources has been confined to work by the Geophysical Institute; participation of the Alaska Energy Office in the 139 recent Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference; and the assignment of cognizance for geothermal affairs to the State Geological and Geophysical Survey. As of March 1976, federal agencies have contri- buted more that $500,000 to geothermal and wind power research in Alaska; and to date, no State of Alaska funds have been appropriated for research and development in either of these areas. Considering socio-economic needs and the importance of alternate energy sources in Alaska, the State of Alaska should initiate a funded geothermal and wind power program as soon as possible and develop incentives to attract the private sector. Possible ERDA-State of Alaska Memorandum of Understanding: The Energy Research and Development Administration has been empowered to negotiate and finalize "Memoranda of Understanding" with state governments for cooperative energy programs. We recommend that the State of Alaska negotiate and sign such a memorandum of understanding with ERDA in the fields of geothermal and wind power research and development, involving a possible matching fund agreement. 140 r REFERENCES Agricultural Potentials Committee, 1974, Alaska Rural Development Council, Alaska's Agricultural Potential, ARDC Publ. No. 1. Barnea, Joseph, 1972, Geothermal Power: Scientific American, V. 226, No. 1 (January). Betz, A., 1966, Introduction to the Theory of Flow Machines, Pergamon Press, Inc., Elmsford, New York. Biggar, N. E., 1973, A geological and geophysical study of Chena Hot Springs, Alaska: Geophysical Inst. (unpublished M. S. dissertation), Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Brew, D. A., Muffler, L.J.P., and Loney, R. A., 1969, Reconnaissance geology of the Mount Edgecumbe volcanic field, Kruzof Island, southeastern Alaska; in Geological Survey Research 1969: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650-D, p. D1-D18. Byers, F. M., Jr., and Brannock, W. W., 1949, Volcanic activity on Umnak and Great Sitkin Islands, 1946-1949: Amer. Geophys. Union Trans., V. 30, pp. 719-734. Cameron, C. P. and Stone, D. B., 1970, Outline geology of the Aleutian Islands with paleomagnetic data from Shemya and Adak Islands: Geophysical Inst. Report No. UAG R-213, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Cox, Allan, Hopkins, D. M., and Dalrymple, G. B., 1966, Geomagnetic polarity epochs - Pribilof Islands, Alaska: Geol. Soc. America Bull., V. 77, No. 9, p. 883-909. Dinkel, D. H., 1974, Research on Controlled Environment Plant Systems for Alaska: Rep. of Alaska State Department of Economic Development. Dinkel, D. H. and Lura M. Ginzton, 1976, Vegetable Variety Trials: Research for the Commercial Grower, Vegetable Processor or Home Gardener: Agroborealis, V. 8, No. 1. Eaton, G. P., Christiansen, R. L., Iyer, H. M., Pitt, A. M., Mabey, D. R., Blank, H. R., Zietz, I., and Gettings, M. E., 1975, Magma Beneath Yellowstone National Park: Science, V. 188, pp. 787-796. Ellis, A. J., 1970, Quantitative interpretation of chemical characteristics of hydrothermal systems: Proc. of the U. N. Symp. on Develop. and Utiliz. of Geothermal Resources, Pisa, Italy; Geothermics, V. 2, Part 2, pp. 516-529. Facca, G., 1970, General report of the status of world geothermal development (Rapporteur's Report): U. N. Symp. on Develop. and Utiliz. of Geothermal Resources, Pisa, Italy. 141 Flohn, H., 1966, Energy Budget of the Earth's Surface in the Encyclopedia of Oceanography, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, N. Y., p. 256. Forbes, R. B., Gedney, L., VanWormer, D., and Hook, J., 1975, A geophysical reconnaissance of Pilgrim Springs, Alaska: Geophysical Inst. Report No. UAG R-231, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Forbes, R. B., Leonard, L., and Dinkel, D. H., 1975, Utilization of Geothermal Energy Resources in Rural Alaskan Communities: Geophysical Inst. Report No. UAG R-232, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Fournier, R. 0. and Truesdell, A. H., 1970, Chemical indicators of subsurface temperature applied to hot spring waters of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, U.S.A.: U. N. Symp. on Develop. and Utiliz. of Geothermal Resources, Pisa, Italy; Geothermics, V. 2, Part 2, pp. 529-536. French, Stewart, 1972, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The Arctic Institute of N. America. Frenkiel, J., 1964, Wind Power in Eilat, paper in Proc. of Conference on New Sources of Energy (p. 396, V. 7 on Wind Power) , Rome , August 21-31, 1961; UN published. Godwin, L. H., et al., 1971, Classification of public lands valuable for geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources: U. S. Geol. Survey Circular 647. Hoare, J. M., Condon, W. H., Cox, Allan, and Dalrymple, G. B., 1968, Geology, paleomagnetism and potassium-argon ages.of basalts from Nunivak Island, Alaska: in Coats, R. R., Hay, R. L., and Anderson, C. A., eds.; Studies in volcanology: Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 116, p- 377-414, Hopkins, D. M., 1963, Geology of the Imuruk Lake area, Seward Peninsula, Alaska: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1141-C, 101 p. Jacobs, M., Congressional Record of 7 August 1974, pp. S11451-14455; also private communications. Kienle, J., 1974, Alaskan volcano studies with special reference to Augustine Volcano, Utilization of Volcano Energy, proceedings, U. S. - Japan Cooperative Science Seminar, Hilo, Hawaii, February 4-8, 1974; Ed. J. L. Colp and A. F. Furumoto, p. 205-224. Kung, E. C., 1966a, Monthly Weather Review, 94, 57. Kung, E. C., 1966b, Monthly Weather Review, 94, 627. Lachenbruch, A. H. and Marshall, B. V., 1969, Heat flow in the Arctic: Arctic, V. 22, pp. 300-311. 142 Lockheed California Co. Report LR27368-15, 1975, Wind Energy Mission Analysis, Task Element 15, p. 15-2 (draft of Lockheed Report), ERDA Contract AT(04-3)-1075, December. Marlow, M. S., Scholl, D. W., Buffington, E. C., Boyce, R. E., Alpha, T. R., Smith, P. J. and Shipek, C. J., 1970, Buldir Depression, a late Tertiary graben on the Aleutian Ridge, Alaska: Marine Geology, V. 8, No. 1, p. 85-108. McKenzie, G. D., 1970, Some properties and age of volcanic ash in Glacier Bay National Monument: Arctic, V. 23, No. 1, p. 46-49. Miller, Thomas P., 1973, Distribution and chemical analyses of thermal springs in Alaska: U. S. Geol. Survey Open File Map. Miller, Thomas P., Barnes, Ivan and Patton, William W., Jr., 1973, Geologic setting and chemical characteristics of hot springs in central and western Alaska: U. S. Geol. Survey Open File Report. Miller, Thomas P., Barnes, Ivan and Patton, William W., Jr., 1975, Geologic setting and chemical characteristics of hot springs in west-central Alaska: Jour. Research, U. S. Geol. Survey, V. 3, No. 2, March-April. Miller, Thomas P. and Barnes, Ivan, 1976 (in press), Potential for geothermal energy development in Alaska: Amer. Assn. Petrol. Geologists, Memoir No. 25. Muffler, L.J.P. and White, D. E., 1972, Geothermal energy: The Science Teacher, V. 39, No. 3. Powers, H. A., 1958, Alaska Peninsula-Aleutian Islands, p. 61-75: in Howel, Williams, ed., Landscapes of Alaska, Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 148 p. Putnam, P. C., 1948, Power from the Wind, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York, N. Y. Reed, J. W., 1975, Wind Power Climatology of the United States, Sandia Laboratories Report SAND 74-0348, Albuquerque, N. M., (available from NTIS). Renner, Tels White, D. E. and Williams, D. L., 1975, Hydrothermal convection systems; as contained in "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1975": U. S. Geol. Survey Circular No. 726, p. 5-57 incl. Sass, J. H. and Munroe, R. J., 1970, Heat flow from deep boreholes on two island arcs: Journ. Geophys. Res., V. 75, No. 23, p. 4387-4395, illus., incl. sketch maps, tables. 143 Sellers, W. D., 1966, Physical Climatology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, p. 102. Smith, R. L. and Shaw, H. R., 1973, Volcanic rocks as geologic guides to geothermal exploration and evaluation: Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, V. 54, No. 11, p. 1213 (abs.). » 1975, Igneous-related geothermal systems; as contained in "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States ~ 1975": U. S. Geol. Survey Circular No. 726, P. 58-83 incl. Tussing, Arlon R. and Thomas, Monica E., 1974, Consumer prices, personal income and earnings in Alaska: The Review of Business and Economic Conditions, V. 11, No. 3, Inst. of Social, Economic and Government Research, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Waring, G. A., 1917, Mineral springs of Alaska: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 492. Wentink, T., Jr., 1974, Wind Power Potential of Alaska: Part I, Surface Wind Data from Specific Coastal Sites, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Scientific Report UAG R-225 under NSF Grant GI-43098, Fairbanks, Alaska (NTIS PB 238-507), August. » 1976, Study of Alaskan Wind Power and Its Possible Applications, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Final Report under NSF Grant AER74-00239A01, Fairbanks, Alaska. White, D. E., 1970, Geochemistry applied to the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of geothermal energy resources (Rapporteur's Report): Proc. of the U. N. Symp. on Develop. and Utiliz. of Geothermal Resources, Pisa, Italy. White, D. E., 1973, Characteristics of geothermal resources and problems of utilization, in Kruger, Paul and Otte, Carel, eds., Geothermal energy-resources, production, stimulation: Stanford, Ca., Stanford Univ. Press, p. 69-94. White, D. E., Muffler,.L.J.P., and Truesdell, A. H., 1971, Vapor-dominated hydrothermal systems compared with hot water systems: Econ. Geol., V. 66, pp. 75-97. White, D. E. and Williams, D. L., 1975, Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1975" (Eds.): U. S. Geol. Survey Circular No. 726. 144 aioe APPENDIX A Program for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference ALASKA GEOTHERMAL AND WIND RESOURCES PLANNING CONFERENCE Program Chairman: Anchorage Westward Hotel a July 8 & 9, 1975 Dr. Robert B. Forbes Tuesday - July 8, 1975 MORNING SESSION 8:30 - 8:35 8:35 - 8:40 8:40 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:40 9:45 - 10:25 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:25 11:30 - 12:00 12:00 - 1:30 AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30 = 2:10 Welcome & Opening Remarks Introduction of Lieutenant Governor Lowell Thomas, Jr. Greetings from State of Alaska Alaskan Energy Economics (5-minute discussion period) Geothermal Resources of Alaska --- A Status Report Coffee Break Wind Resources of Alaska --- A Status Report (5-minute discussion period) Geothermal & Wind Resources as Applied to Alaskan Needs Lunch The U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Program (5-minute discussion period) A-1 Convenor: Dr. William Ogle Dr. William Ogle Anchorage, Alaska Mr. William C. McConkey Director Alaska State Energy Office Honorable Lowell Thomas, Jr. Lieutenant Governor State of Alaska Dr. Arlon R. Tussing Chief Economist United State Senate Committee on the Interior and Insular Affairs Dr. Thomas Miller Geologist Branch of Alaskan Geology U.S. Geological Survey Dr. Tunis Wentink Professor of Physics Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Dr. William Ogle Anchorage, Alaska Dr. L.J. Patrick Muffler Coordinator Geothermal Research Program U.S. Geological Survey AFTERNOON SESSION (Cont'd.) 2:15 - 2:55 Agricultural Applications of Geothermal Resources 3:00 - 3:15 Coffee Break 3:15 - 3:45 Possible Utilization of Thermal Waters in Salmon Rearing Operations 3:45 - 4:15 (5-minute discussion period) 4:20 - 5:00 Space Heating & Industrial Applications of Geothermal Energy Resources (discussion) 5:30 - 6:30 Post Session No-Host Cocktails Wednesday - July 9, 1975 MORNING SESSION 8:30 - 9:10 9:15 - 9:55 10:00 - 10:40 Dr. Don Dinkel Professor of Agronomy Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Alaska Part 1: Dr. William McNeil Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service Part 2: Mr. Joe Wallis Hatchery Superintendent Firelake Hatchery Service Department of Fish & Game State of Alaska Dr. Jay F. Kunze Manager Geothermal Projects Aerojet Nuclear Company Convenor: Mr. William C. McConkey, Director Alaska Energy Office The Hickel Report --- Two Years After Honorable Walter J. Hickel Former U.S. Secretary of the Interior & Governor of the State of Alaska The U.S. Geothermal & Wind Resource Research & Development Program & Possible Alaskan Assistance National Science Foundation Geothermal & Wind Resource Program (discussion) Dr. Louis Werner Assistant Director for Research Utilization Division of Geothermal Energy Energy Research & Development Administration Mr. Ritchie B. Coryell Geothermal Program Manager Advanced Energy Research & Technology Division National Science Foundation MORNING SESSION (Cont'd.) 10:40 - 12:00 Working Groups Convened by Chairmen 12:00 - 1:30 Lunch AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30 - 5:00 Working Groups Convene in Assigned Rooms 5:00 - 7:30 Dinner EVENING SESSION 7330 , Working Groups Convene in Assigned Rooms WORKING GROUPS Agriculture Dr. Don Dinkel Professor of Agronomy Institute of Agricultural Science University of Alaska Electrical Power Mr. Robert Cross Chief Project Development Division Alaska Power Administration Fisheries & Aquaculture Dr. William McNeil Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service Geothermal Resource Dr. Robert B. Forbes Research & Development Professor of Geology Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Space Heating & Dr. William Ogle Industrial Energy Consultant Applications Anchorage, Alaska ‘Wind Power Dr. Tunis Wentink Development & Professor of Physics Applications Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman Chairman APPENDIX B Attendance List for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference ALASKA GEOTHERMAL AND WIND RESOURCES PLANNING CONFERENCE Atuk, Richard K. Barnes, William Bewley, Georgia Bodnar, Andrew J. Boston, Clark D. Boucher, H.A. "Red" Boudreau, Barry Braasch, Richard, Dr. Brink, Irvin Bruce, Jim Brueckner, Hannes Buness, Everett W. Burton, Wayne E., Dr. Cameron, Robert B. Carpenter, John Chernikoff, Fred Anchorage Westward Hotel July 8 & 9, 1975 Attendance List Bering Straits Native Assn., Nome, AK 99762 Windlite - Alaska, 4303 Forest, Anchorage, AK Geological Asst., Alaska Geological & Geophysical Surveys 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, AK 99501 Electrical Engineer, Engineering Div., Directorate of Engineering & Construction, HQ AAC/DEEE, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Director, Div. of Rural Development Assistance, Pouch B, Juneau, AK 99801 H.A. "Red" Boucher & Assoc., 805 W. Third, Anchorage, AK 99501 Supervisory Physical Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Sandia Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87115 Mayor, Village of Akolmiut, Nunapitchuk, AK 99641 Architect, James B. Bruce, A.I.A. Architect, P.O. Box 2376, Anchorage, AK 99510 Associate Professor, Queens College of New York and Lamont-Doherty, Geological Observatory, New York, NY 11375 Director, U.W. Dept. of Commerce, 632 Sixth, Anchorage, AK 99501 Assoc. Prof. of Agricultural Economics, University of Institute of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box AE, Palmer, AK 99645 Command Environmental Engineer, Directorate of Engineering & Construction, HQ AAC/DEEV, Elmendort AFB, AK 99506 The Aleut Corporation, 833 Gambell Street, Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Federation of Natives, 670 West Fireweed, Anchorage, AK. B-1 Chiei, Jr., Fred Claus, Harold Cline, Dave Comiskey, Albert L. Coryell, Ritchie B. Cross, Robert J. Curtis, Edgar J., P.E. Dart, Charles W. Davis, T. Neil, Dr. Denslow, Dan DeWitt, Michael, Capt. Diershaw, A. Dinkel, Donald, Dr. Doak, Barney R. Dobey, Patrick Dorris, J. David Dowling, Forrest, Dr. Drahn, Richard A. Deputy Regional Administrator, FEA, Federal Building, Anchorage, AK 99501 Asst. Operations Mgr., E.G. -& G., Inc., P.O. Box 1912, Las Vegas, NV 98102 Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 8th and A, Anchorage, AK 99501 National Weather Service, NOAA, 632 Sixth, Anchorage, AK 99501 Geothermal Program Mgr., Advanced Energy Research and . Technical Division, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550 Chief, Project Development Div., Alaska Power Admin., P.O. Box 50, Juneau, AK 99802 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Anchorage, AK Owner, Manley Hot Springs Greenhouse, Manley Hot Springs, AK 99756 Deputy Director, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Ambler Air Service, Ambler, AK 99786 AFWL-DE 2, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117 Engineer, Wincom, 4134 Ingra, Anchorage, AK 99510 Professor of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Area Mechanical Engineer, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Box 7-741, Anchorage, AK 99503 Chief Petroleum Geologist, Alaska State Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, AK Land Systems Planner, Joint F/S, Land Use Planning Commission, 733 W. Fourth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99503 National Coordinator of Geothermal Resources, Office of Rural Research in Chicago, 536 S. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605 Civil Engineer, Alaska Geological Consultants, 702 W. 32nd, Anchorage, AK 99502 Duke, Kit Forbes, Robert B., Dr. Ford, Michael F. Forrest, Lesh C. Fukuhara, H. Galliett, Harold Gerik, Al Grundy, Scott Gryc, George Gunness, Donald A. Hablett, Thomas R. Hall, Bert Harnish, Charles E. Hartman, D.C. Heath, Thomas Henderson, Wayne Hodder, David Hodson, Loyd M. Hoffman, Robert N. Project Planner - Southcentral Region, University of Alaska, P.O. Box 4-2540, Anchorage, AK 99509 Professor of Geology, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Development Specialist, State Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Pouch E, Juneau, AK 99801 Vice Pres., - Operations, Alaska Geological Consultants, Inc., 702 W. 32nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99502 Assistant to Mgr., - Engineering Project, Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd., 4-5 Akasaka Minato-Ku, 2-Chome, Tokyo, Japan Civil Engineer, Galliett Engineers, 746 F St., Anchorage, AK 99501 3217 Redoubt Ct., Anchorage, AK 99503 Regional Habitat Supervisor, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 1300 College Rd., Fairbanks, AK 99701 Chief, Branch of Alaskan Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Marketing Mgr., Standard Oil Company, P.O. Box 1580, Anchorage, AK 99510 Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 813 D Street, Anchorage, AK 99501 Alaska Liaison, U.S. DHEW, Box 378, Anchorage, AK Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, 121 W. Fireweed Lane, Anchorage, AK 99503 Geologist, Texaco, Inc., P.O. Box 4-1579, Anchorage, AK 99504 Field Engineer, Rural Electrification Administration, Anchorage, AK Civil Engineer, RCA, 606 E. Bluff Rd., Anchorage, AK 99504 Escatech - Calista Corp., 516 Denali, Anchorage, AK 99501 General Mgr., Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, 999 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503 Electrical Engineer, Crews, Macinnes & Hoffman, 4111 Minnesota Dr., Anchorage, AK 99503 B-3 Holdsworth, Phil R., P.E. Hooper, Lennon House, J.V. Hudson, Billy Hudson, Ted Huettl, James A. Isberg, Howard, P.E. Janson, Lane E. Jean, Don Jewell, Edward Johns, Milly Johnson, Gerald W. Johnson, Steven A. Kagin, Solomon Kallenberg, Walter B. Kay, Robert Kay, Suzanne Mahiburg Kemppel, Roger Kern, Edward D. Commissioner, Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, 326 Fourth St., #1009, Juneau, AK 99801 Park Planner, National Park Service, 334 W. 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Administrator, Alaska Power Administration, P.O. Box 50, Juneau, AK Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; Livermore, CA 94550 District Geothermal Supervisor, Portland District, _ U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., . Menlo Park, CA 94025 Project Planner, University of Alaska, P.O. Box 4-2540, Anchorage, AK 99509 7 Chief Engineer and Assistant to General Mgr., Philleo Engineering and Architectural Service, Inc., : - Box 464, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Alaska Native Management Report Industrial Specialist for Energy Research and Develop- ment FEA, Federal Bldg., Anchorage, AK 99501 Electrical Engineer, BLM, Air Service Operations - Electronics, Anchorage, AK 99510 Alaska Center for the Environment, Box 393, Anchorage, AK 99510 Systems and Energy Group, TRW, Inc., One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Geological Engineer, Alaska Geological Consultants, Inc., 702 W. 32nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99504 President, Real Gas and Electric Co., Inc., P.O. Box A, Guerneville, CA 95446 Engineer, R & M Consultants, 249 E. 51st St., Anchorage, AK Research Associate, UCLA Geology Dept., Los Angeles, CA 90024 Post-Doctoral, UCLA Geology Dept. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Attorney, Municipal Light and Power, City of Anchorage, 1200 E. First Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Marketing Specialist, State Div. of Agriculture, Box 1088, Palmer, AK 99645 Kerr, Donald M., Dr. Kiech, Maurice C. Klebesadel, L.J. Klein, Bob Kreiling, Lee Kuhn, Adolf Kunze, Jay F., Dr. Kuwada, J.T. Lathan, Bill Laughlin, A. Wm., Dr. Leonard, Lee Liston, William M. Lochrie, Ed Logsdon, Charles E., Dr. Lundberg, Anders Marris, James Macinnes, Donald D. Marshall, Tom Los Alamos Scientific Lab. Los Alamos, NM 4019 Tazlina Ave., Anchorage, AK 99503 Research Agronomist, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Box AE, Palmer, AK 99645 Stratigrapher, Alaska Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 3001 Porcupine Dr., Anchorage, AK 99501 Operations Mgr., E.G. & G., Inc., 2801 Old Crow Canyon Rd., San Ramon, CA 94526 Hydrologic Tech., U.S. Geological Survey - WRD 7010 E. Twelth, Anchorage, AK 99504 Manager, Geothermal Projects, Aerojet Nuclear Company, Idaho Falls, ID Vice Pres., Rogers Engineering Co., Inc. 111 Pine St., San Francisco, CA 94111 Inventor, Anchorage, AK Los Alamos Scientific Lab., P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545 Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Industrial Engineering Technician, HQ AAC Energy Management Div., HQ AAC/LGSY, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Comm. Engr., State of AK Div. of Communications, 5900 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507 Palmer Research Center, Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Alaska, P.O. Box AE, Palmer, AK 99645 Lawrence Livermore Lab., P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550 Designer, Ronald Raasch AIA & Assoc. 814 W. 2nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Mechanical Engineer, Crews, Macinnes & Hoffman, 4111 Minnesota Dr., Anchorage, AK 99503 Chief Petroleum Geologist, Div. of Oil and Gas, 3001 Porcupine Dr., Anchorage, AK 99501 B-5 Matson, Neal McConkey, William C. McCreedy, Robert J. McKay, Richard McKay, A Ronald McKenzie, Rod NcNeil, William J. Menaker, Raymond R. Menaker, Vivian C. Menard, George Menard, Betty Merculieff, Larry 7 Miller, Thomas, Dr. Muffler, L.J.P. Dr. Mullaly, William T. Mumm, George Netsch, Norval Nick, Robert Nielson, George O'Connor, Kris Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, 1209 Orca, Anchorage, AK 99501 - Director, Alaska Energy Office, 5th Floor McKay Bldg., 338 Denali St., Anchorage, AK 99501 Mechanical Engineer, Engineering Div., Directorate of Engineering & Construction, HQ AAC/DEEE, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506 Pasadena, CA Dames & Moore Consultants, 711 H Street, Anchorage, a AK 99501 Escatech - Calista Corp., 516 Denali, Anchorage, AK 99501 Program Mgr., Anadromous Fishes Investigations, National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 155, Auke Bay, AK 99821 Chairman, Haines Borough, P.O. Box 118, Haines, AK .99827 P.O. Box 118, Haines, AK 99827 Star Route Box 384, Willow, AK 99688 Star Route Box 384, Willow, AK 99688 Director, Land Dept., The Aleut Corp. 833 Gambell, Anchorage, AK 99501 Geologist, Branch of Alaskan Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, 1209 Orca St., Anchorage, AK 99501 Coordinator - Geothermal Research Program, U.S. Geological : Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 . Chief, Planning Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, 632 Sixth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99510 Civil Engineer, U.S. Public Health Service, Box 7-841, Anchorage, AK 99501 Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. FWS, 800 A St., Anchorage, AK 99501 Village of Akolmiut, Nunapitchuk, AK 99641 Bureau of Land Management, Seattle, WA i Geological Asst., Alaska Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 3001 Porcupine Dr., Anchorage, AK 99501 Ogle, William, Dr. Olson, Dean F., Dr. Orsini, Joe Phillips, C.J. Pletnikoff, R. George Pomeroy, Harold E. Rainwater, Chris Reid, Gerald M. Rein, Kurt Rhode, J.B. Riddell, Roger A. Rowley, John C., Dr. Rusnell, Dale W. Rutledge, Gene P. Sanders, Jim Sanders, Robert Schmidt, George R. Schmidt, Ruth A.M. Energy Consultant, 3801 W. 44th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Executive Director, Ahtna, Inc., Drawer G, Anchorage, AK 99753 State Senator, 2912 Alder Dr., Anchorage, AK 99504 P.O. Box 370, Nome, AK 99762 Asst. Director, Land Dept., Aleut Corporation, 833 Gambell St., Anchorage, AK Member, Growth Policy Council, 4048 Wright St., Anchorage, AK 99504 Student, University of Alaska, Star Route A, Box 50, Homer, AK 99603 Fishery Biologist, U.S. FWS, 813 D St., Anchorage, AK 99501 Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 1211 W. 27th, c/o Land Dept., Anchorage, AK 99503 AA to Chairman, House Finance Committee, Alaska Legislature, 310 K St., Suite 701, Anchorage, AK 99501 Director, HUD-FHA Alaska, 334 W. 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Los Alamos Scientific Lab., P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87544 Utility Engineer, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, 1100 MacKay Bldg., Anchorage, AK 99501 Executive Director, Idaho Nuclear Energy Commission, P.O. Box 2234, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 Project Field Rep., Div. of Rural Development Assistance, Juneau, AK 99801 Geologist, Conservation Div., U.S. Geological Survey, P.O. Box 259, Anchorage, AK 99510 Minerals Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, 555 Cordova St., Anchorage, AK 99501 Geologist, University of Alaska-Anchorage Community College, 1040 C St., ANchorage, AK 99501 Shearer, Gerry Shipley, Robert H. Shupe, John W., Dr. Souther, Jack G. Sparck, Harold Spence, John E. Sroufe, Russell W. Stachelrodt, Mary Stahr, Thomas R. Staley, Russell N. Stephano, Ralph R. Stoddard, Carl Stone, Reid T. Thomas, Lowell, Jr. . Tilbury, Elane, Tinkle, R.L. Turner, Jay Tussing, Arlon R., Dr. Geologist - Conservation Div., U.S. Geological Survey, P.O. Box 259, Anchorage, AK 99510 Electrical Engineer, Stefano-Mesplay & Assoc., 704 W. Second, Anchorage, AK 99501 Director, Hawaii Geothermal Project, University of Hawaii, 2540 Dole St., Honolulu, HI 96822 Geologist, Geological Survey Canada, 100 W. Pender St., Vancouver, B.C., Canada Director, Hunan Kitlutsisti, Box 267, Bethel, AK 99559 Mechanical Engineer, University of Alaska, Dept. of Construction, P.O. Box 4-2540, Anchorage, AK 99509 7143 Debarr Rd., Anchorage, AK 99504 Energy Planner - Coordinator, Rural CAP, Drawer 412 ECB, Anchorage, AK 99501 Mgr., Municipal Light and Power, City of Anchorage 1200 E. First Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Chief Engineering and Environmental Section, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, 1100 MacKay Bldg., Anchorage, AK 99501 Ralph R. Stephano & Assoc., Consulting Engineers, 704 Second Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 Park Planner, National Park Service, 334 W. Fifth Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501 ‘ Area Geothermal Supervisor, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Lt. Governor, State of Alaska, Capital Bldg., Juneau, i AK 99801 , Secretary-Treasurer, Bethel Utilities Corp., P.O. Box 729, Eagle River, AK 99577 C/E, KYUK TV, Box 468, Bethel, AK 99559 Geologist, Alaska Geological Consultants, Inc., 702 W. 32nd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99503 Chief Economist, U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510 B-8 Wallis, Joe Weiss, Haskel Wentink, Tunis, Dr. Werner, Louis Dr. Wheeler, Vernon E. Wohlberg, L.F. Worceter, Harold S. Word, Edwin B. Wright, C.A. Yould, Eric P. Hatchery Superintendent, Firelake Hatchery Service, Dept. of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 70, Eagle River, AK 99577 Lawrence Livermore Lab., Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550 Professor of Physics, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Asst. Director for Resource Utilization, Div. of Geothermal Energy, ERDA, Washington, D.C. 20545 Physicist, Lawrence Livermore Lab., P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550 Geothermal Consultant, Rogers Engineering Co., San Francisco, CA Power Resources Mgr., Eugene Water & Electric Board, 500 E. Fourth Ave., P.O. Box 10148, Eugene, OR 97401 Project Mgr., CHM Hill, Engineering of Alaska, Inc. 515 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503 Sales, Rohn Mfg., P.O. Box 2000, Peoria, IL 61601 Hydraulic Engineer, Alaska District, Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Section, P.O. Box 7002, Anchorage, AK B-9 APPENDIX C Working Groups for the Alaska Geothermal and Wind Resources Planning Conference Chairman: AGRICULTURE WORKING GROUP Dr. Donald H. Dinkel Institute of Agricultural Sciences O'Neil Resource Building University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Mike Mosesian Specking Avenue Anchorage, AK 99504 Mr. Charles Dart Manley Hot Springs Alaska 99756 Dr. Wayne E. Burton Institute of Agricultural Sciences Palmer Research Center P.O. Box AE Palmer, AK 99645 Dr. Charles E. Logsdon Institute of Agricultural Sciences Palmer Research Center P.O. Box AE Palmer, AK 99645 C-1 Chairmen: ELECTRIC AND WIND POWER WORKING GROUP Dr. Tunis Wentink Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Robert Cross Alaska Power Administration U.S. Dept. of the Interior P. O.- Box 50 Juneau, AK 99801 Capt. Michael D. DeWitte Air Force Weapons Lab. Kirtland Air Force Base NM 87117 Ms. Mary Stachelrodt Energy Planner Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. Drawer 412 ECB Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Vernon Wheeler, L-48 Lawrence Livermore Lab. P. 0. Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 Mr. Ralph R. Stefano Ralph R. Stefano and Assoc. Consulting Engineers 704 Second Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. George Tilbury Northern Power and Eng. Corp. P. 0. Box 729 Eagle River, AK 99577 Dr. Richard Braasch Sandia Laboratories, #5712 P. 0. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87115 Mr. Anders Lundberg, L-505 Lawrence Livermore Lab. P. O. Box 808 Livermore, CA 94550 Mr. Patrick Dobey Chief Petroleum Geologist Alaska State Geological and Geophysical Surveys 3001 Porcupine Drive Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Loyd M. Hodson, General Mgr. Alaska Village Electric Corp. 999 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99502 Chairman: FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE WORKING GROUP Dr. William McNeil National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Laboratory P.O, Box 155 Mr. Joe Wallis Hatchery Superintendent Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Fish Hatchery Road P.O. Box 70 Eagle, River, AK 99577 Mr. Peter Kust Nelson Lagoon Alaska Mr. C.J. Phillips P.O. Box 370 Nome, AK 99762 Mr. Conrad Mahnken National Marine Fisheries Service 2725 Montlake Blvd., E. Seattle, WA 98102 Dr. Richard A. Neve Institute of Marine Science P.O. Box 617 Seward, AK 99664 Dr. Donald W. Hood, Director Institute of Marine Science O'Neil Building - 2nd Floor University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP Chairman: Dr. Robert B. Forbes Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. L.J.P. Muffler U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Mr. Thomas P. Miller U.S. Geological Survey 1209 Orca Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Jay England Harding-Lawson Associates Consulting Engineers & Geologists 127 West Fireweed Lane Anchorage, AK 99503 Dr. John C. Rowley Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87544 Mr. Richard K. Atuk Bering Straits Native Assn. Nome, AK 99762 Dr. Jurgen Kienle Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Dr. A. William Laughlin Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Co- Chairmen: SPACE HEATING AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS WORKING GROUP Dr. Jay F. Kunze, Manager Geothermal Projects Aerojet Nuclear Company 550 Second Street Idaho Falls, ID 83401 Dr. William Ogle, Consultant 3801B W. 44th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. A. Ronald McKay Thermal and Heat Transfer Dames and Moore Consultants 711 H Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Lee Kreiling Operating Manager E.G. & G. Inc. 2801 Old Crow Canyon Rd. San Ramon, CA Mr. Barney Doak Alaska Area Native Health Svc. Box 7-741 Anchorage, AK 99510 Mr. Ralph R. Stefano Consulting Engineer 704 W. Second Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Mr. Lee Leonard Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99701 Mr. Richard A. Drahn, C.E. Alaska Geological Cons. Anchorage, AK 99503 Mr. Harold Claus, C.E. & M.E. E.G.2& G.; Inc. P. O. Box 1912 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Mr. Louis B. Werner Manager, Resource Utilization Projects Geothermal Division Washington, DC 20545 APPENDIX D CHEVAK'S CURRENT ENERGY PICTURE: (Fall, 1975) A STUDY OF A SOUTHWESTERN ALASKAN ESKIMO VILLAGE (61°30'N, 165°W) This especially lucid presentation of the problems of a small Eskimo village near the coastline on the Bering Sea is typical of the situation facing many of Alaska's native peoples. It was written by an unidentified Chevak resident. CHEVAK'S CURRENT ENERGY PICTURE: A Study of a Southwestern Alaskan Ekimo Village When time became a consideration in the changing lifestyle of the subsistence hunters in Southwestern Alaska, energy became a problem. Unlike the days of past, where dog teams consumed renewable resources for their fuel, and the people harvested natural fuels for their energy needs as they migrated to seasonal locations, the present Eskimo vill- ages are normally located in places where both subsistence foods and natural fuels are dwindling, or are extinct. The reasons for the loca- tion of permanent settlements in areas devoid of natural support systems is due to time conditions. When the government gave gifts, it established its schools and services in central locations, and demanded that the villagers cease their seasonal movements. Instead of subterranean houses, the govern- ment established framed, above ground dwellings as its standard of housing, and discouraged native efforts to maintain their former ways. The the limited amounts of wood that washed ashore during the summer near the permanent location, limited winter storage. Competition among households for the available fuels occured, and many families were without fuel for space heating or cooking. Whereas the house buried in the hillside and covered with sod was warm enough without added heat to prevent water from freezing, the above ground houses were exposed to the wind, and freezing conditions. Fuel oil was cheap at that time, and when money became available in the village, the people converted to oil. The seasonal migration to locations of abundant food was also ter- minated through permanent settlements. Hunters had to go farther away from their villages to harvest their foods, more often than in the past, but hunters also had to make money to pay for the imported lumber and heating fuel. The summer was the only period of the year when seasonal work was available, which is also the most important time of the year for the harvest of subsistence foods. The compromise that was struck with technology was the advent of the outboard motor and the framed boat for the summer that allowed quick, and at that time, inexpensive access to food sources and to continuation of summer employment in the village. In that less time was being spent in the harvest of fish, feeding the dog teams during the winter became a burden, and the dogs gave way to the snowmachine that did not require the constant, and year round attention dog teams demand. From a community self-sufficient on natural fuels and transporta- tion, the coastal Eskimo village became dependent on imports; trans-— portation developed as a limiting factor to the way of life, and energy became the largest single type of imported goods in the village. Al- though the harvest of foods has possibly diminished in terms of per capita consumption, the average household still depends on 80% of its gross nutrition, and 95% of its protein on local species. It is in the field of energy however where a permanent change has occurred. The village of Chevak sits 120 airmiles west of Bethel, the re- gional transportation center of that part of Southwestern Alaska drained by the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. It receives its goods from the Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) annual "Northstar III" ship out of Seattle, and by Wien Air Alaska, and two barge companies out of Bethel. Energy in the village is produced totally by imported fuels. The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) has homogenized electrical delivery, operating a plant capable of 300 KW prime production. Current consumption in the village is 45-60 KW prime during the summer when the school is closed, and 100-110 KW prime during the winter. The new school, being built by BIA to replace a school that burned in 1972, will demand a 85 KW prime, with a peak of 115 KW when the shop is operational. The BIA subsidizes AVEC, $700,000 from the BIA'’s agency Plant Mainte- nance budget, which allows AVEC to charge its residential users a mini- mum of $21/month at 17.1¢/KW average. Bulk users, the school, pay 9.5¢/KW. AVEC currently consumes 45-52,000 gallons of diesel. Its bulk storage capacity has recently been upgraded to 110,000 gallons, in preparation for the opening of the school, which will increase its consumption to 85,000 gallons of diesel. The BIA maintains auxiliary diesel for electrical emergency, but does not have bulk tanks for its diesel supply. Both the BIA and the village owned store have bulk storage for fuel oil. Space heating the current BIA school requires 35,000 gallons of fuel. The BIA has a 130,000 gallon capacity and presently tops its tanks each year. The new school will demand up to 122,000 gallons of #1 and #2 mixed fuel oil when completed, leaving a surplus of only 8,000 gallons, if the tanks are topped. No new bulk storage tanks are being purchased for the school. The fixed nature of federal contracting normally guarantees the supply of diesel and fuel oil by the local barge companies and the North Star. It is the problem of the village's growing need for fuels, and the doubt that the villages can pay that makes the yearly delivery of enough fuel and gasoline to the village a gamble. The village of Chevak has 45,000 gallons bulk storage capacity for fuel, and 45,000 gallon capacity for gasoline. Unlike other villages. on the coastline, Chevak is well prepared for its needs. But for three years in a row, Chevak ran out of fuel oil because its summer re-supply never arrived or was not enough. In 1973, Black Navigation of St. Michaels sold 20,000 gallons of. Chevak's fuel on the Yukon before coming to the village. The village ran out late in February. In 1974, the same situation dupli- cated itself. Turning toward Bethel's distributors, Chevak fuel was ice locked on the the Yukon in 1975 when the tug pulling the barge burned in late July, and no replacement barge could be located before freeze-up. When the village runs out, the Council borrows fuel from the BIA, which has had, to this time, a surplus. In 1975-76, Chevak's tanks are full, and the BIA will have a surplus, but in 1976, when the re~supply of the village will again remain to chance, and the BIA will require all its fuel, a problem may develop.. In villages that have had to fly their fuel in; ‘the amount per drum rises from an average of $48/55 gallon drum to $65-75/drum. Gasoline storage in Chevak is favorable, and the village normally supplies its neighboring villages which do not have bulk gasoline stor- age. The average cost of a drum is $56. Gasoline consumption has risen from 12,000 gallons in 1970 to 39,000 gallons in 1975, and the rate of consumption is expected to continue to rise until supply is exhausted within the next two years, the village store's manager declared. Per capita income in the village of Chevak, located ‘in Wade-Hampton census’ district, was $1,300: in 1970. The listing of ‘24 families in Chevak made “in 1975 reveals that 20-40% of the cash income of these families is consumed by imported fuels, well out of line with the - natural average. The statistics of energy in the sittings do not reveal the entire story, however, for growth in the public sector principally influences the village's way of life, and growth in the public sector is undisci- plined, and not coordinated with the village. Bethel's tug industry is concentrated on oil; freight is secondary. The growth in public facilities dependent upon fuels for energy has outgrown the barge companies ability to delivery. While public facilities are normally re-supplied, the villages become the supply casualities; 1972, 14 villages ran out of oil; in 1973, 24 villages; in 1974, 36 villages; and in 1975, 39 of Bethel region's 57 villages had fuel oil shortages. Total energy planning for the community is non-existent and the failure to plan causes an undisciplined demand for more oil, which is duplicated in all other villages. Alternate energy systems do not exist, nor do total energy systems employing waste heat recovery. Federal and State of Alaska agencies to this date have not initiated studies on the utility of these alternate forms of energy involving hydro-electric, geothermal, and aerogenerators in the plan and design of new facilities, or the consolidation of existing energy demand by public facilities. The BIA's new plant will sit 70 feet from the existing AVEC plant. AVEC's engineers have initiated studies that determined that the majo- rity of the space heating demand of the new facility could be produced by AVEC using water jackets, and a utilidor to convey the waste heat to the school for distribution. The BIA has not accepted this idea to date. Because BIA subsidizes AVEC, AVEC is committed to selling all of its waste heat to BIA. Even though BIA does not want the waste heat, AVEC cannot release the heat to other customers. At this time, AVEC believes that 650,000 BTU will be wasted each hour when the plant is operating at full capacity in 1976. The Chevak store wishes to buy the waste heat. Concerned with fire from its domestic boiler, and consuming 6,000 gallons of fuel in its store/hall, the village determined that it could save money, while - reducing the village's total demand for fuel, by converting to waste heat. AVEC will not seli the village the heat until the BIA makes up its mind. The village built a community hall this summer, and wished to place the hail near the store and close to the heat recovery system. ‘BIA personnel informed the village that building the hall ‘on the selected location would present a fire hazard to the new school, and with the waste heat recovery system idling, the village moved the hall across the village, requiring an additional 1,500-2,000, gailons of fuel depending on use, and the necessity of burrowing a new path through the village to ‘roll the’ drums ‘to the hall. | New housing in. the village, sponsored by the Alaska State Housing Authority and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is well designed; and pro- perly insulated. . The houses sit in rows that would make utility hook- ups convenient, and a centralized heating plant economically feasible. However, the houses are located across the village from the AVEC plant, almost 3/8 mile, making waste heat recovery impossible. ‘Villagers now have to roll their drums that distance from the village store, or use gasoline in theiz snowmachines’ to accomplish the ‘task. The village ‘also runs‘ a modified village safe water’ act facility that drains the local economy. Built in 1974 by the villagers, the 5 State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation awarded the village $60,000 to finish off the system. Containing a water pump, showers, flush toilets, and a laundromat, the facility would have con- sumed $26 to $34,000 worth of energy along if operated like other VSFW facilities in the State. The annual operating cost for the Emmonak EPA and the State Alukanuk facilities is $100,000 in which energy accounts for almost $42,000 of the costs. The villages raise approximately 15% of the annual costs through user fees, with the remainder being subsi- dized by the State and Federal governments. Realizing the financial burden, The State "educated" Chevak to the energy costs it would face, and informed the village that no budget subsidy could be expected. The village opened the facility only 3 hours a day during the winter of 1975, all day Saturday and Sunday, and kept its electrical and oil costs to $12,500 gallons of oil, and added a further burden to the village's capacity to remain within its bulk capacity. The new facility is located 1/4 mile from the AVEC facility. Wind blows constantly in Chevak. The Cape Romanzoff Early Warning Station 26 miles northwest of the village records ambient wind velocities above 15 mph at 70 feet the majority of the year. One individual aware of the Romanzoff readings declared that in his stay at the EW site, only 12 days had less than 15 mph for their average. The village of Chevak is interested in breaking loose of the oil burden. Aware that shipping costs, supply, and storage are outstripping the village's ability to pay, the Council and the Corporation are seeking technical information on aerogenerators. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act deposits yearly funds into the Chevak Corporation, and the Corporation is re-cycling its funds to support the village's fuel D-7 economy, and recognizes the dead end this yearly re-investment means for its only capital, but State and Federal responses to date have been negative. (1) INCOME (2) DRUMS (3) DRUMS TOTAL (4) % HOUSEHOLD FAMILY INCOME OIL USED GAS USED FUEL COSTS OF INCOME 1. $2,450 18 4 1,052 42.9% 2 $3,000 20 6 1,296 43.2% 3 $3,650 19 4 1,136 31.1% 4, $2. 560 16 4 992 38.8% Se $4,060 15 5 1,000 24.6% 6. $2,760 16 4 990 35.9% qa $2,800 14 5 952 34.0% 8. $3,340 20 5 1,240 37.1% 9. $2,800 14 4 896 32.0% 10. $2,360 11 2 640 27.1% ll. $4,000 19 6 1,248 31.2% 125 $3,560 17 4 1,040 29.2% 13, $3,110 10 3 648 20.8% 14. $2,760 12 4 800 31.9% 35. $3,340 16 5 1,048 31.42% 16. $2,380 14 5 952 40.0% 17. $2,900 15 6 1,056 36.4% 18. $2,460 14 4 912 37.1% 19. $3,500 18 5 1,144 32.7% 20. $2,670 18 6 1,200 44.9% 21. $5,500 21 7 1,400 25.5% 22. $3,070 17 5 1,096 35.7% 23. $3,600 16 6 1,004 27.9% 24, $4,590 20 7 15352 27.6% 1) Chevak has 67 heads of the households; some families have substantial 2) 3) 4) cash incomes. Transfer payments and cash income combined. Estimate in terms of 55 gallon drums Based on summer, 1975 price of fuel in Chevak: oil; $56/drum gasoline. D-9. $48/drum #1 heating APPENDIX E-1 PROPOSED USE OF GEOTHERMAL WATER FOR SALMON AQUACULTURE ON UMNAK ISLAND, ALASKA by Dr. William J. McNeil National Marine Fisheries Service Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 PROPOSED USE OF GEOTHERMAL WATER FOR SALMON AQUACULTURE ON UMNAK ISLAND, ALASKA Introduction Several streams on Umnak Island in the Aleutian Islands have been identified as possessing significant potential as hatchery water sources for ocean ranching of salmon (McNeil, 1974). The streams in question drain fairly recent volcanic formations and are believed to have suf- ficient warmth to remain ice free throughout the winter, although water temperature regimes remain to be determined. If temperature and chemical quality of these streams should prove to be favorable for anadromous salmonid fishes, a successful salmon ocean ranching industry is a distinct possibility for the Aleutians, as well as other areas of Alaska, where geothermal sources of water might be developed for aquaculture at relatively low cost. This proposal is for an ocean ranching demonstration project, primarily with pink salmon. A successful demonstration of ocean ranching in the Aleutians could lead to a large-scale hatchery program which might ultimately produce several million pounds of salmon annually for harvest. First year of the program would be devoted to hydrological and biological surveys of several spring-fed streams on Umnak Island to determine their suitability for salmon aquaculture. Should water quality prove to be suitable, the surveys would be followed by con- struction of a demonstration hatchery capable of producing 8 million juvenile pink salmon annually for release into the ocean as unfed fry. The hatchery would be operated 4 years to demonstrate economic fea- sibility of ocean ranching using geothermal water on Umnak Island. E-1-1 Total cost of the 5-year project is estimated to be about $485,000 plus overhead. Application of the technology for large-scale ocean ranching on Umnak Island would have the potential annually of contributing millions of pounds of high quality animal protein with virtually no expenditure of energy. The major economic benefits would accrue directly to the Aleut Indians who are about to acquire from the Federal Government ownership of land on Umnak Island where the geothermal water sources are located. Study Area The study streams are located within the boundaries of the former Fort Glenn military reservation on the east end of Umnak Island (Figure 1). Tulik Volcano (4,100 feet elevation) is the dominant feature of the lava formations where the study streams originate. Several of the streams flow in an easterly direction into the Bering Sea and into Umnak Pass which connects the Bering Sea and the North Pacific Ocean. Intense upwelling of marine waters along the Aleutian Islands creates conditions which are highly favorable for plankton. As a consequence, salmon from many regions around the rim of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea feed in the area, Thus, marine waters surrounding Umnak Island should be well suited as nursery waters for hatchery-produced fish. Hydrological Surveys Temperature recorders would be installed on at least 5 streams and operated one season (August or September - April or May) to evaluate temperature regimes of the study streams. The Aleut Corp. own 5 auto- matic recording thermographs which might be rented for this work. E-1-2 There is also a need to acquire qualitative information on stream discharge patterns and quantitative information on chemical water quality. Workers at an existing cattle ranch on Umnak Island might be trained and employed part time to make periodic observations on streamflow and to collect water samples for laboratory analysis. Biological Surveys These surveys will be required to catalog the existing fish fauna in the study streams and to estimate the size and species composition of existing stocks of salmon which might be used to supply eggs for hatcheries. Surveys of streams would be required during the August-September spawning period. The existing road system is extensive and crosses most, if not all, of the study streams. A motorized land vehicle could therefore be used for transportation. Hatchery Design Construction of a demonstration hatchery would proceed only if it is evident that water quality is suitable. It would be preferable to obtain eggs from a stock of salmon which is native to the hatchery stream, but eggs could be transplanted from nearby Unalaska Island which is known to have pink and chum salmon. Umnak, unfortunately, has never been surveyed at the proper time of year to establish the size of salmon stocks. A demonstration hatchery would be a simple, inexpensive design which is used primarily by private hatcheries on coastal streams in Oregon and Washington. The design is sometimes called a "shallow-matrix gravel incubator" or "Netarts gravel incubator" after Netarts Bay, Oregon, where the system was first employed in 1968. Hatchery E-1-3 tanks can be constructed onsite from plywood or prefabricated and shipped to the site. About 500 square feet of level ground is required for each million eggs of installed tank capacity. Water can be delivered to the hatchery site through open canals and distributed from canals to tanks through plastic pipe. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of a hatchery layout. The hatchery is not housed, but lids are placed on tanks to shield eggs and alevins (larval salmon) from light, weather, predators, etc. The Umnak Island study streams have modest gradients and pass through small valleys which are covered by a mantle of top soil. Canals and other excavations can be done with farm machinery. Pink and‘ chum salmon are easy to trap and spawn artificially. Fish are almost fully mature when they leave salt water, and it is seldom . neceseary to hold adults in captivity for more than one week while they ripen. - A weir diverts spawners from the stream into a hatchery discharge canal (Figure 2), and they are sorted and spawned at the site where hatchery tanks are located. Eggs and alevins require little or no care after thé fertilized eggs are placed in tanks. Eggs are placed on screen trays suspended ‘in the water column in tanks during September. Hatching occurs in December, and the alevins drop through the trays to the bottom of a tank which has a shallow layer of gravel or artificial plastic turf for support. The unfed fry emigrate from tanks in the spring and follow the discharge canal to the stream which carries them into the ocean. Pink salmon mature at’ 2 years of age.’ Chum salmon mature after 3, 4 or 5 years. E-1-4 Work Schedule The work schedule is conceived as follows: Year 1 - (a) (b) (c) Year 2 - (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Complete hydrological and biological surveys. Select hatchery site and donor stock. Design hatchery. Construct water delivery system for 900 gallons per minute. Excavate site for hatchery tanks and fish spawning. Install hatchery tanks. Construct adult trapping facilities. Stock hatchery with eggs from donor stock. Year 3 - Stock hatchery with eggs from donor stock. Year 4 - Stock hatchery with eggs from returning hatchery fish (pink salmon only). Year 5 - (a) (b) Stock hatchery with eggs from returning hatchery fish. Formulate an expanded program, depending on results of demonstration project. Economic Considerations Pink salmon have the shortest life cycle (2 years) of all salmon species and are recommended for evaluating the feasibility of ocean ranching on Umnak Island. Chum salmon have a 3- to 5-year life cycle. Sockeye and coho salmon also spawn in the Aleutian area, but these species require a year or longer of freshwater rearing before they go to sea. Pink salmon have been released from three pilot incubator hatcheries in Alaska since 1972, and six experiments involving up to 1 million E-1-5 fry per experiment have been evaluated. The number of adults returning to hatcheries has varied between 0.7 and 3.0 percent of the number of fry released, with an average of about 1.5 percent. A hypothetical projection of production of pink salmon from gravel incubator hatcheries on Umnak Island is given in Table 1. The assumptions are: 1. Egg-to-fry survival = 80 percent. 2. Fry-to-adult survival = 1 percent. 3. Fecundity = 1,600 eggs per female. 4. Amount of water available for hatcheries = 50 c.f.s. on the expectation that several spring-fed streams can be developed for hatchery use. At this point we can only speculate about our ability to generate returning runs of 2 million adult pink salmon to Umnak Island. This is probably a much higher level of production than Umnak streams have achieved with natural spawning because spawning area is limited. It is not inconceivable, however, that such a potential exists with hatcheries, since streams entering Makushin Bay, Unalaska Island (50 miles east of Umnak Island), are’ known to have produced several hundred thousand adult pink salmon. If a demonstration project should be successful, the ultimate potential for Umnak Island for salmon ocean ranching would probably be determined by the availability of fresh water for artificial recruitment of pink and chum salmon fry. It is assumed that the capacity of marine nursery waters to grow salmon to maturity is not limiting. © E-1-6 Each adult pink salmon returning to a hatchery would generate about $2.50 of wholesale value as a canned product (1974 prices). There would also be a substantial added value (more than $1 per female), for surplus roe. Thus, wholesale value of a processed pink salmon should average at least $3 per fish. Value of chum salmon would be almost three times higher per fish, reflecting their larger size at maturity. Cost of Project The project would include two phases. Phase I would take place in the first year and would include hydrological and biological survey work to evaluate the desirability of a demonstration hatchery. Phase II would take place in the 2nd through 5th years to evaluate economic feasibility of an ocean ranching industry on Umnak Island and to establish pink salmon brood stock for expanding the project into a large-scale commercial venture. Expansion into a commercial venture should be the responsibility of the Aleut people working through their regional and village corporations. The total cost of a 5-year project would be about $500,000 to $600,000. This cost may seem low to some reviewers, but keep in mind that this project is not intended for the construction of a permanent edifice. The hatchery would be simple and temporary and would be operated as inexpensively as possible for the purpose of determining feasibility of salmon ocean ranching in the Aleutians with geothermal water. E-1-7 Reference McNeil, W. J., 1974, Preliminary analysis of aquaculture potential in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Commerce Economic Development Admin. Tech. Assistance Project, Sept. 1974:13p. E-1-8 APPENDIX E-2 A PROPOSAL FOR ALASKA MUNICIPAL GEOTHERMAL HEATING by Dr. William Ogle Energy Consultant Anchorage, Alaska A PROPOSAL FOR ALASKA MUNICIPAL GEOTHERMAL HEATING The use of warm geothermal waters from drilled holes or springs for space heating has proven economic in many regions of the world. The costs vary with the ease of obtaining the hot water, its purity, the distance that it must be piped, and the duty cycle determined by the climate. Following are some examples: Reykjavik, Iceland: Homes for approximately 100,000 people are heated for about $4.00/gigacalorie, equivalent to oil for about $5.60 per barrel. The duty cycle is almost 100%. Wells very in depth from 2100 feet to 6000 feet and the water is piped from 1/2 mile up to eleven miles. Total system capacity is about 190 gigacalories per hour, equivalent to 135 barrels of oil per hour. Water flow is about 2700 cubic meters per hour (equals about 800,000 gallons/hour). Husavik, Iceland: Some 2500 people reap the benefits of hot water piped from natural springs 11 miles away. The household is charted about the same as in Reykjavik. Total capacity is about 6 gigacalories per hour with a flow rate of 125 w?/hr. The electrical heating equivalent of this is about 7000 kilowatts. Hungary: Some 4000 apartments and large areas of greenhouses are heated by geothermal wells. The cost is $3.00 per gigacalorie. Coal heat in the same region is $11.00 per gigacalorie. Klamath Falls, Oregon: Some 450 homes are heated by individual wells 200 to 450 feet deep. The costs are competitive with other sources even though the systems are quite inefficient due to the householders desire to independance. The normal well would supply five to ten houses if its entire capacity were used. E-2-1 Oregon Technical Institute: This institute is entirely heated from its own well drilled to 1715 feet. At 80 cubic meters of water per hour the cost is $18,000.00 per year, or $.70 per gigacalorie, corresponding to oil for about $1.00 per barrel. Menlun, France: There is an apartment complex of 3500 apartments for which all of the utility heat and part of the space heating is provided at costs competive with $6.00/barrel oil. The well is 5900 feet deep and supplies 13 to 100 cubic meters per hour of water at 163°F. This is in a region with no geothermal anomaly. There are many other examples in Japan, Italy and Russia. Depending on the local conditions, the cost of heat runs from a price equal to that which would be obtained if oil were being used, to a factor of ten less, or better. The Melun experience is of special interest for application in Alaska. A system that is competive with oil in France should be very attractive in the remoter regions of Alaska where oil costs are very high because of transportation costs. In principle, one should be able to drill almost anywhere in Alaska and reach usable temperatures at depths of 6000 to 7000 feet. While it is in principle feasible to extract that heat even if there is no water present, the techniques for so doing have not yet been developed. Thus one must, at the moment, depend on hitting water at depth. No good data on the prevalency of water at depth are available for Alaska; however, informed geologic guesses would put it above 50%. What little data that are available would also imply that the geothermal temperature gradient in Alaska is a bit above normal, implying that on the average, one would not have to go so deep to obtain usable temperatures. E-2-2 Thus it appears that over perhaps half or more of the area of Alaska, the question becomes, not whether it is feasible to heat using geothermal waters, but what are the economics involved? In principle, one can drill anywhere and have a roughly 50% chance of obtaining usable hot water. The question of economics will depend upon local conditions. Obviously appropriate geological studies will improve the likeli- hood of picking a favorable site. However, the record of geology and geophysics is not good in this field, and one must be careful of being either encouraged or discouraged by judgments from these disciplines. Certainly, where anomalies are being sought, the techniques are more reliable. The high cost of labor in Alaska would probably run the costs up over those mentioned above, for similar installations. However, one should still be able to produce heat for the equivalent of $10.00/ barrel of oil or less. This price is much less than the cost of oil in many regions of the state now. The disparity will probably become greater in the future. While the economic geothermal space heating systems can be of almost any size, there is an effective minimum if one is to not depend on local geothermal anomalies. With present drilling and casing tech- niques a production hole at 8 1/2" diameter will cost approximately what * is given in the following table: depth (ft) cost per foot cost to depth 2000 $34.50 $69,000.00 4000 $50.00 $200,000.00 6000 $61.00 $366,000.00 8000 $73.00 $584,000.00 10000 $83.00 $830,000.00 * Tsvi Meider - Geonomics E-2-3 These costs will, of course, vary with location and geology. They are estimated assuming reasonable transportation to within 50 miles of the drill site. Thus, if one assumes at 6000' hole, which is reasonable on the average, the hole alone will cost $366,000.00. If reinjection is necessary, this cost doubles. Obviously, exploratory hole costs are much less. The expected load must therefore be such as to amortize such costs, To illustrate this point better, let us assume a Melun type system producing 100 cubic meters of water per hour at 80°C (176°F) and assume the dump temperature as 50°C (122°F), thus producing 3 gigacalories of usable heat per hour. We further assume $2.50/hour running costs (one man). The following table then obtains: Cost of cost of necessary sale equivalent Installation money price of heat* oil cost $2,000,000. 15% $12.33/Gceal $17.39/bb $2,000,000. 6% $6.23/Gcal $ 8.78/bb $ 500,000. 15% $3.66/Gcal $ 5.16/bb $ 500,000. 6% $2.13/Gceal $ 3.00/bb * assuming 30 year amortization. Obviously costs can become even less if the resource is closer to the surface, hence reducing hole costs, or if the water temperature is higher. The above table illustrates why such installations may be more feasible in Alaska than in the lower 48. There are many places in Alaska where heat, at even the higher prices shown, would be cheaper than the sources now used, with the lower costs much cheaper still. E-2-4 In the Lower 48, however, the lower costs would surely have to be offered before much enthusiasm would be engendered. However, a single well such as the one discussed above would supply from 1000 to 3000 people, depending on the exact conditions, and requires that kind of load to be economic. Installations for smaller groups of people would only be economic if the source costs were small, as might be obtained if springs or shaliow wells could be used. Obviously, the proposed use of hot water for purposes other than household space heating could reduce the population base required to support a geothermal well. Greenhouse heating and municipal building heating are examples. Proposal: A three step program is thus envisaged to demonstrate the economic use of geothermal hot water for space heating in Alaska. The first step, using presently available data where feasible, would be to survey the towns of Alaska with populations in the region of a few thousand people to determine the heating energy demand, geology, present fuel costs, and local emotion concerning energy. On the basis of this survey, some half dozen towns would be picked for further work. The basis for picking the towns would be the leverage apparently available with respect to fuel costs, general geology, etc. The second step would be to choose drilling sites in or near the towns, after preliminary geology and geophysics studies, on the basis of property ownership, engineering feasibility, town planning, etc. Some six exploratory holes would then be drilled to depth to determine the geothermal characteristics. The third step would be to then choose the town offering the best economic and social advantage, and install a municipal heating system, E-2-5 which would then be operated for several years to determine economic and engineering data. Hopefully, the latter installation would prove sufficiently economic that other municipalities would then move in this direction on their own. More detailed work would have to be done during step one to estimate the funding required for steps two and three. However, it would appear that step one could be accomplished for about $150,000. Present estimates are $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 for step two and $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 for step three. These numbers include engineering and planning costs, in addition to the construction costs. It is assumed that step one would be jointly supported by the state and ERDA, but that steps two and three might also attract municipal funding. Step one could be accomplished within six months after approval. Step two could be accomplished during calendar year 1976. Step three would probably take two years. It is envisaged that the state energy office would be the sponsor of this project, and that the work would be done by contract to the University of Alaska and private contractors. E-2-6 APPENDICES E-3 to E-5 (INCL.) PROPOSED TOTAL ENERGY STUDIES OF SELECTED ALASKAN THERMAL SPRINGS by R. B. Forbes, D. Dinkel, L. Leonard University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 ABSTRACT There are 95 or more thermal springs in Alaska. Based on geologic and geochemical data, we do not know of any Alaskan thermal springs that are related to vapor-dominated or large hot water reservoirs which have the potential for generating large amounts of electricity. Heat is a precious commodity in the arctic and subarctic, and thermal springs are promising energy sources for rural Alaskan communities. Although smal] amounts of electricity could be generated from springs with higher flow rates and temperatures, utilizing Rankine Cycle-organic working fluid systems, non-electric applications show the greatest promise. An optimum total energy system designed for a small, isolated Alaskan village would generate a smali amount of electricity (40-60 kw) with the subsequent extraction of energy for space heating, controlled environment agriculture, fish farming and hatchery operations, and sewage processing and disposal. Phased experiments and pilot studies are recommended for Manley, Clear Creek, and Pilgrim Springs in 1975-77 to test the engineering feasibility of this concept. Selection of Demonstration and Study Sites Proposed Sites: Three sites have been selected for proposed geothermal demonstrations and experiments _ to evaluate the feasibility of the total energy extraction concept, as applied to thermal springs in the rural Alaskan environment. The recommended sites (shown on the following page) are: (1) Manley Hot Springs (90 miles northwest of Fairbanks) (2) Pilgrim Springs (40 miles north of Nome) (3) Clear Creek Springs (15 miles north of Elim, on the south- eastern coast of the Seward Peninsula) Manley Hot Springs: The thermal springs at Manley are privately owned and operated by Mr. Charles Dart. There are three major springs at the Manley site: One has a temperature of 64°C and an estimated flow rate of 20-25 gal/min; the second spring has a temperature of 51°C and an estimated flow rate of 200 plus gal/min; and the third has a temperature of 55°C and an estimated flow rate of 30 gal/min. Manley is accessible from Fairbanks, via an all-weather road and by commercial air transportation. The Manley Springs are presently utilized for greenhouse operations, space heating and bathing. Mr. Dart has offered his facilities and support for the proposed project. Pilgrim Springs: Pilgrim Springs are owned by the Catholic church, and under lease to Mr. C. J. Phillips of Nome. Based on temperature measurements by earlier workers, maximum spring water temperatures were thought to be about 68°C. Shallow subsurface thermal probes (8 ft.) recorded temperatures up to 80°C during field work conducted in summer 1974. Although the site was formerly occupied by a Catholic Mission school] until 1942, it is now abandoned. A small airstrip is accessible to light aircraft, via a short flight from Nome. o ? pans /O 7 Nee Se eee ee ea oe ot . a ™m = > » ° KOT ZEBUE SOUND YK 0 50 TOOMILES eae eEPING SEA 7 16: a T me . Vv Hot spring; \ Coe PROVINCE \ SP Seward Peninsula i CZ - \ : YK Yukon-Koyukuk eas \ KH Kaiyuh Hills ’ cA KHH Kokrines-Hodzana Highlands Contact between geologic St YT vob Todane provinces Area of study Geologic sketch map showing location ancl geological setting of thermal springs in central and westcentral Alaska (taken from Miller et al., 1973). Manley, Pilgrim, and Clear Creek Springs are shown as locality numbers |, 2, and 3, respectively. Mr. Phillips enthusiastically endorses the proposed program, and has given his permission for on-site demonstrations and experiments. Clear Creek Hot Springs: The Clear Creek Thermal Springs are about 15 miles north of the village of Elim, on the southeastern coast of the Seward Peninsula. There are three springs, and one of these flows at an estimated rate of 450 gal/minute at a temperature of 68°C -- one of the largest estimated flow rates of known Alaskan thermal springs. Although there are no residents near the Clear Creek Springs, the village of Elim is located on the coastline about 15 miles due south of the springs. Moses Point, another community, is located about 5 miles east of Elim, Elim is a native village with an estimated population of 150-200 residents. Local industries include fishing, hunting, reindeer herding, AM e208 re ' vev and &@ potential lumser industry. Elim is currently served by an 100 kw diesel power system. Diesel oil must be lightered ashore from offshore anchorages. The peak power consumption during winter 1972-73 was 63 kw. Plan of Research Scope of Research We propose a three-year investigative program including a one-year engineering evaluation of a Rankine-cycle generating system; a three- year agricultural application-space heating study; and a geochemical program to monitor the temperatures and chemistry of the thermal spring waters and ground temperature variation during the experiments. Rankine-Cycle Turbine Evaluation (L. Leonard) Ormat Turbines Ltd. has agreed to collaborate with the University of Alaska in a project to evaluate the feasibility of producing electric power at Manley, using thermal spring water as an energy source. Ormat has agreed to supply a 2.5 kw organic Rankine-cycle turbine for field tests at Manley. This unit is to be equipped with a newly designed spring water-working fluid heat exchanger to extract heat from the ther- mal spring water. University of Alaska personnel would prepare the site, install the unit, and monitor the performance and output efficiency after installation. The lead time prior to delivery and installation is estimated to be from 6 to 9 months. During the site construction phase, several shallow holes will be drilled to evaluate the possibility of obtaining hotter water in the shallow subsurface. If hotter water cannot be obtained, however, water from the hottest spring (64°C) will be used. If this temperature proves too low, the input water temperature can be raised by supplemental heating to the minimum temperature which is required by the system, and the value of the demonstration can be maintained. A one-year evaluation period is planned to monitor sustained performance characteristics and the effect of possible variations in water temperature and flow rate. Present estimates indicate that a 20 gpm flow rate would be required for the evaluation. Outflow temperatures from the generator would be approximately 47°C. The outflow water will be returned to the agricultural and space heating systems for the extraction of additional energy. The electricity produced by the’ experiment will be consumed by other Manley experiments, including lighting for the instrument hut and water pumps required by the gardening experiments. These applications will also aid in evaluating the generator performance under varying loads. If this small scale power demonstration proves successful, Orinat Turbines Ltd. will collaborate with the University of Alaska in the con- struction and installation of a larger pilot plant at another thermal spring (Clear Creek Springs). Space Heating Studies (L. Leonard) Space heating experiments will constitute a significant part of the Manley engineering studies. Two structures are to be built at the site. A laboratory hut with accommodations for two investigators, which will also serve as a test enclosure for space heating experiments. The agricultural experiments will also require a building which will include a@ greenhouse and a controlled environment module which will need con- tinuous heat. Water delivery, regulation, and convector systems will be designed and tested. Whenever possible, commercially available equipment will be used. This work will concentrate in the optimization of existing equip- ment and systems, rather than attempts to develop new and radical tech- niques. Applications engineering studies will document the effects of fluctuations in flow rate and temperature of input water on heating systems. Agricultural Applications and Experiments (D. Dinkel) Building on the past and present Manley agricultural successes, we propose a series of experiments and engineering application studies to determine the optimum methodology and economic feasibility of utilizing energy from thermal springs for the production of large-scale vegetable crops in controlled environment modules, greenhouses, and heated garden plots. Controlled Environment Experiments (D. Dinkel) The major objective in this study is to determine economical ly optimum environmental Stntrols and methods which could lead to large- scale vegetable farming at Alaskan hot springs. These experiments wil] require a specially designed and constructed agricultural laboratory. This structure would be composed of three modules, including a greenhouse unit, a hydroponic section, and a controlled total environment module. The greenhouse would be operated during extended summer growing seasons and heated by thermal spring water and radiant heat from the warm ground. The intermediate section will function as a greenhouse or hydroponic unit, as controlled by detachable insulated panels which would overlie the basic glass frame enclosure. The controlled total environment unit is to be a completely enclosed insvtlated modutc, heated by rodicns heat from the warm ground, thermo! spring water, and radiant heat from solar lamps powered by electricity generated by the 2.5 kw Ormat energy converter. Environmental controls will include solar radiation, ambient air and substrate temperature, co, content (in air), and nutrient supply and chemistry. Heated Garden Plot Experiments (D. Dinkel) There are extensive areas of warm ground adjacent to Manley Hot Springs. The average root depth soil temperatures in Interior Alaska are about 13°C during most of the growing season. In June 1974, soil temperatures up to 45°C were measured at root depths near the hottest of the Manley Springs as compared to soil temperatures of 11°C, 300 meters distant. Soil temperatures averaged 25°C within the thermally disturbed zone, which included a surface area of about 6.7 acres. Based on recent studies by Dinkel (1974) and others, the potential yield of such acreage, when farmed with the new techniques, is much greater than that of arable land with the usual Interior Alaskan soil temperatures. Planned experiments include preliminary soil temperature grid surveys and the compilation of detailed isothermal contour maps. Garden plots would then be located in planned temperature zones, and crops would be planted according to optimum root temperature requirements. Additional garden plots would be heated by networks of subsurface pipe (PVC, copper, steel) carrying thermal spring water, and surface irriga- tion with warm spring water would also be evaluated. Early planting and transplant techniques are to be explored, including the use of temporary plastic shelters. The yields per unit area, growth time, and quality versus cost would be compared to those of control garden plots farmed with standard agricultural methods. Geochemical and Geophysical Studies (R. B. Forbes) Very little is known about the annual and/or seasonal variation in chemistry, temperature, and flow rate of thermal springs in general, and Alaskan springs in particular. Such variations, if large, could be very troublesome. A drop of a few degrees in water temperature could seriously reduite the performance and efficiency of binary type generat- ing systems, and changes in flow rate would pose additional regulation problems. Variation in water chemistry, including relative increases in the concentration of alkalies, silica, calcium, and fluorine could be hazardous to agriculture, if the spring water is used for irrigation and/or for nutrient solutions. As mentioned in an earlier section, it is now known that thermal spring waters are composed of at least 95% recirculated meteoric water. We do not know, however, what the turn-around time is in such systems; and the problem is complicated by mixing with water from the local water tables, before emergence. Continuing geochemical data should be acquired during the program, to be applied to several problems and studies including: (1) Short and long-term variation in the chemistry, temperature, and flow rate of spring water. (2) Correlation of the above variations with local precipitation, break-up chronology, water table level, and barometric pressure. (3) Turn-around time (surface-reservoir-surface) of water in the thermal spring system, with the aid of tritium and oxygen isotope analyses. (4) Identification of the factors which control the mixing of ground and spring water in the subsurface, and the effect on the chemistry of the spring water. The chemical monitoring system would be centralized in the labora- tory module to be constructed on the site. Continuous: temperature and flow rate data would be registered on recorders in the laboratory, and daily water samples would be analyzed with the aid of flame photometric and atomic absorption analytical equipment in the same laboratory. Tritium and oxygen isotope analyses of spring water will be done at outside laboratores by separate contract, on weekly samples. Appendix E-3 MANLEY HOT SPRINGS PROJECT MANLEY HOT SPRINGS Scheduled Work Objectives: The Manley experiments are designed to - A. Determine the soil heating potential of hot spring water using several distribution methods. B. Determine the yields and quality of high income type crops when grown with extended seasons and optimum soil temperature. C. Test the efficiency of geothermal water to heat greenhouses and produce electricity for lighting and year-round crop production. 0. Gather data that will be useful in designing systems for the use of waste thermal energy that results from the conversion of fuel sources to electrical energy, thus promoting energy conservation and reducing thermal pollution from these waste energy sources. Ci Determine costs of production using these geothermal energy ‘ sources. Agricultural Studies: (D. Dinkel) Outdoor Studies: Crops will be grown in areas adjacent to Manley Hot Springs in soils that vary in soil temperature and length of cropping season. Variables: A factorial design is planned using three or four replicates. A. Soil Heating Treatments (3) 1) Unheated normal cultivated soil (the soil temperatures in Interior Alaska average about 13°C at the Scm soil depth). 2) Geothermally disturbed soil selected to be as near 20-24°C as possible. E-3-1 3) Soil heated to 24°C using geothermal water run through pipes placed beneath the soil surface. B. Plastic mulch treatments (3) 1) No plastic mulch 2) Black plastic mulch soil covering 3) Clear plastic mulch soil covering C. Plastic row coverings or cloches (2) 1) No row covering 2) Clear polyethylene row covering D. Crops (8) Warm season 1) Cucuiers 2) Sweetcorn 3) Snapbeans 4) Tomatoes or Peppers Cool season 5) Peas 6) Broccoli 7) Carrots 8) Lettuce Data will be gathered as follows: A. Soil temperature at 4, 8 and 12cm on all plots on a daily basis using thermocouples. B. Air temperature at 1, 5, 10 and 20cm above the plots on a daily basis. C. Soil reaction (pH) on a weekly basis. E~3-2 0. Soil nutritional status on a weekly basis. 1) Nitrogen 2) | Phosphorous 3) Potassium E. Crop data 1) Number of days to emergency 2) Number of days to crop maturity (measured by market quality) 3) Quality evaluations 4) Yields (total and marketable) 5) Significant morphological data for a specific crop (example - number of days to anthesis for peppers) Greenhouse: In addition to the use of the greenhouse to start plants for the field studies, thats will be studies conducted with the objective of determining varieties and techniques for the continuous year-round production of high value crops. These studies are designed to determine the proper crops, varieties, scheduling for plantings and techniques for culture using the supplementary lighted greenhouse and the total controlled environment system for production. Variables: A. Crops (6) 1) Cucumbers 2) Tomatoes 3) Lettuce a) leaf b) head (crisp) 4) ~— Radishes E-3-3 5) Green onions 6) Turnips B. Lighting (2) 1) Supplemental light with HID lamps to 300 micro-einsteins (PAR) 2) No supplemental lighting C, Seasonal scheduling (in order to determine if proper scheduling will allow a grower to schedule the main vegetative growth prior to the dark part of the year and thereby improve year-round production even without supplemental lighting) 1) Summer season growth initiation 2) Fall season growth initiation 3) Spring season growth initiation Data will be gathered as follows: A. Crop data 1) Number of days to emergence 2) Number of days to crop maturity 3) Quality evaluations 4) Yields (total and marketable) 5S) Significant morphological data for a specific crop (example - number of days to anthesis for tomatoes) B Temperatures 1) Air, daily and nightly 2) Soil, daily and nightly C. C0, (daily) D. Light measurements (micro-einsteins PAR) E-3-4 In addition to the other more elaborate statistically designed studies, preliminary research will be accomplished to determine if irrigation with hot water will be practicable. Small areas will be watered with hot water using (1) trickle Irrigation, (2) sprinkler irrigation, and (3) fog irrigation. Data will be gathered on soil and air temperature and on soil moisture content. Studies will be conducted for three years in order to achieve adequate replication. E-3-5 Appendix E-4 PILGRIM HOT SPRINGS PROJECT Pilgrim Hot Springs Project (R. B. Forbes) Background: Pilgrim Springs is located approximately 40 miles north of Nome, in the southwest corner of the Bendeleben (A-6) Quadrangle. Before the arrival of the white man, the Eskimo name for Pilgrim Springs was Kruzgamepa. During the height of early gold mining activity, the Springs served as a resort for residents of Nome, Solomon, Council, and other mining communities, and vegetables were also raised at the springs for local markets. Subsequently, the Catholic Church established a mission school for native children at Pilgrim Springs which was closed in 1942. ‘At present, the springs are leased from the Catholic Church by C.J. Phillips of Nome. Geologic and Geochemical Setting: The Piigrim River Vailey is mantied by alluvial fill. Precambrian gneisses and biotite schists are exposed on Hen and Chickens Mountain, four miles north of the springs, and Cretaceous granitic intrusives cut Precambrian gneisses and schists in the hills to the south and east (Sainsbury, 1974). Miller et al. (1972) have suggested that an extension of the Bendeleben Range front fault may underlie the alluvium of the Pilgrim River Valley, and that Pilgrim Springs may be related to this fault system. Serpentine Hot Springs is located approximately 50 miles north of Pilgrim Springs waters, and is characterized by high salinity of the NaCl type (see table on next page). The saline character of the Pilgrim Spring water has aroused speculation on a possible marine origin. To the northeast, a large lowland area centered on Imuruk Lake is covered by a very young basaltic volcanic field which ranaes in age from Chemical Analyses of Pilgrim and Serpentine Spring Water (taken from Miller et al., 1973) Component Pilgrim Serpentine sid, 100.0 100.0 xppm Rie 0.044 0.083 Fe ---- wo-- Ca 530.0 47.0 Mg : ‘ 1.4 0.48 Na 1450.0 730.0: K 61.0 40.0 Li 4.0 4.7 NH, wee ---- HCO, 30.1 64.5 co, ooo ---- so, 24.0 29.0 Cl 3346.0 1480.0 F 4.7 6.4 Br ---- ---- pH 6.75 Teg * parts per million E-4-2 3.5 million year old basal volcanics to very young flows which may have been erupted as recently as a few hundred years ago (D.M. Hopkins, unpublished data). The larger springs and associated seeps emerge from channel sands and silts in an abandoned meander loop of the Pilgrim River. However, other seeps and patches of warm ground occur in the adjacent area as shown by snow-free ground and bright green vegetation in winter versus summer aerial photographs (see ''A Geophysical Reconnaissance of Pilgrim Springs"). Based on the apparent lack of subsidence and tilting of the mission buildings (with the exception of damage of uncertain origin to the green- house) and the absence of thermokarst pits in the cleared fields, the Pilgrim Springs area appears to be free of permafrost. The three dimensional geometry and areal extent of the thawed zone are not known. Pilgrim Springs as a Potential Geothermal Resource Although Pilgrim Springs has a previous agricultural and resort history, it has excited more recent interest as an indicator of a possible subsurface geothermal stream or hot-water reservoir. Based on the silica, potassium-sodium and sodium-potassium-calcium thermometers (White, 1970), (Fournier and Truesdell, 1970), (Fournier and Truesdell, 1973), estimates of the sub-subsurface reservoir tanga hae ture of Pilgrim Springs have ranged from 120° to 137°C (Miller et al., 1973). Previous estimates of spring water flow rates have ranged from 8 to 20 gal/min. However, data reported in this study show that earlier temperature and flow measurements must be treated with caution due to the high permeability of the surrounding channel sands, and the mixing of spring and ground water. y E-4-3 Geophysical Survey In an attempt to refine previous estimates of the geothernial potential of Pilgrim Springs, we applied several geophysical survey techniques including: (1) (2) (3) (4) Seismic refraction profiling Geomagnetic profiling Microseismic background recordings Surface and subsurface water temperature measurements in springs and seeps The results of the survey and recommendations for further work are summar- ized below. (1) (2) (3) (5) Shallow subsurface water temperatures in zones of maximum upwel1- ing reach 80°C a few inches below the bottom sediment. Pilgrim Springs waters are diluted by mixing and convection with local ground water, and water temperatures and salinities will increase in the subsurface. A 9060/5540 ft/sec discontinuity is located approximately 208 feet below the springs, which is believed to be Tertiary sedi- ments ‘or hydrothermal ly-cemented glacio-fluvial gravels. The sedimentary section, if present, may be up to 400 feet thick. Tertiary sediments, such as those which occur to the northeast, contain permeable rock units which could make good geothermal reservoirs; and a hydrothermally-cemented conglomerate cap would offer an interesting target, if it does indeed exist. The negative magnetic anomaly over the springs is most satisfac- torily explained by a zone of hydrothermal leaching along the conduit system, which has a lower magnetic susceptibility. E-4-4 (6) (7) Subsurface spring waters will be more saline at depth, and with increasing temperature will constitute a serious corrosion problem in respect to drilling and application engineering. Although the observation period was dangerously short, the absence of microseismic activity during the two recording periods minimizes the probability of vapor phase reservoirs. Plan of Research: (1) (2) An extended seismic refraction profile should be completed which includes deeper penetration and north-south step-outs. Objectives include the definition of Tertiary rocks versus hydrothermally-cemented gravels, and the Nome Group basement discontinuity. Z Based on a refined seismic profile, a shallow drilling program should be initiated which will accomplish the followina objec- tives: (a) A drill hole which penetrates tha 208-foot discontinuity under Pilgrim Springs. The upper part of the hole will be in water-saturated sand, and effective drilling techniques will require driving casing ahead of the bit, and up-hole circulation to remove the unconsolidated and water- Saturated sediment. (b) The drilling program should include several halts in drilling activity to allow the development of a reasonably good iScrec}itie in the water column in the cased hole, to allow meaningful gradient measurements. (c) The casing should contain a corrosion resistant plastic liner. E-4-5 (d) (e) If shallow (100 feet) subsurface temperatures approach 100°C, drilling should be suspended until blow-out Prevention equipment is installed at the well head. Draw-down and pumping tests should be conducted after each cycle of down-hole temperature measurements. This is the only method which will supply meaningful flow rate and capacity data in terms of large-scale geothermal applications. (3) An agricultural experimental program should be activated at Pilgrim Springs which would evaluate the feasibility of the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) Shallow subsurface heating of agricultural plots by thermal spring water circulated through networks of plastic pipe. Heating of hydroponic and greenhouse facility by thermal waters from Pilgrim Springs. Heating of local residences by thermal spring waters. Desalinization of spring waters to provide potable water. E-4-6 PILGRIM SPRINGS PROJECT Scheduled Work Summer _1976: (1) Seismic refraction and surface geomagnetic survey of area (Stone, Gedney, Forbes) (2) Aeromagnetic survey of area (subcontract) (3) Shallow holes (100 ft.) drilling and thermal gradient measurements (subcontract) (4) Exploratory drilling of seismic target, with downhole temperature, flow rate and related measurements (subcontract) (5) Data evaluation and analysis (Forbes, Stone, Gedney) E-4-7 Appendix E-5 CLEAR CREEK SPRINGS PROJECT Clear Creek Springs Project (R. B. Forbes) Socio-Economic Framework of Elim Background: The village of Elim, which is located about 15 miles from Clear Creek Springs, had a population of 170 people in 1970 when it became a fourth-class city. The population is Eskimo, with the exception of resident Bureau of Indian Affairs school teachers. Elim was apparently an ancestral Eskimo village prior to the coming of the white man. A Covenant Church Mission was established in the village in 1914 by L.E£. Ost. Elim received a post office in 1943. Apparently the Elim people and adjacent villages paid little attention to Clear Creek Spring, although remnants of hunting camps can be found in the area. There is no major industry in the village of Elim at present. The residents make their living from subsistence hunting and fishing, commer- cial fishing, trapping, reindeer herding, and a locally-owned cooperative store. Other sources of employment are mainly government related. In recent years, the State Rural Development Agency has awarded several small grants to the village to perform public works projects, which have totaled about $2000 per year in resident wages. The 1970 census showed the average individual income in Elim to be between $500 and $1000 per annum. At that time, skills possessed by unemployed villagers included: a) grocery clerks f) truck and jitney drivers b) diesel mechanics F 9) reindeer herders c) carpenters h) dozer operators d) dredge winchmen i) fishermen e) heavy equipment oilers Elim has a council which governs village affairs including law enforcement. There are two health aids in the village, but there is no sanitation aid, and no mechanized fire department. Elim residences are mostly old log structures of one or two rooms. There are a few frame houses. Generally, the condition of the houses is poor, and most are in need of repair. The only utility system in Elim is the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative power system. This system consists of two 50 kw diesel generators. The peak load in the winter of 1972-73 was 25 kw with an expected peak for 1974-75 estimated at 44 kw. There are no sewer or water systems. Organized activities in Elim consist of a) Boy Sebues b) . 4-H-Stub c) weekly movies d) Sewing Circle e) Covenant Church activities f) Dog Race Committee There are no community indoor or outdoor recreation facilities. The geothermal potential of Clear Creek Springs offers interesting opportunities for the village of Elim. However, careful planning is necessary to insure that proposed developments and applications are compatible with the wishes and lifestyle of the Elim people. Preliminary discussions should be held with the villagers to determine what electric and/or non-electric applications are best suited to the needs and desires of the community. E-5-2 Geologic_and Geochemical Setting: The geologic setting of Clear Creck Springs has been described by Miller et al. as follows: "Hot springs on either side of east-flowing tributary of Clear Creek. Spring south of tributary has large Flow estimated at several hundred gal/m and is about 400 ft above Clear Creek valley floor. A temperature of 63°C. was measured in 1970. Two hot spring areas occur north of tributary. The upper spring is inaccessible by helicopter; the lower one has a smaller flow than the spring to the south and a temperature of 67°C. . Chemical analysis available. "Springs are in quartz monzonite of Darby pluton less than 1/4 mi from contact with Devonian limestone. Pluton-limestone contact is inferred to be major fault (Miller and others, 1972) trending N.18°E." A partial chemical analysis of water from Clear Creek Hot Sprbnge has been reported by Miller et al. (1973) (see table on next page). According to the Na~K-Ca geothermometer, the reservoir temperature for this spring water is estimated to be 111°C. The springs emerge from fractures in guertz monzonite, ond this setting, along with the probable low reservoir temperature, argues against the presence of large subsurface geothermal steam reservoirs. However, Clear Creek Springs have excellent resource potential due to the large (400 gal/min or greater) flow rate of one of the springs, and a location which is 400 vertical feet above the valley floor. Plan of Research: The high cost of food, heat and power in Elim, and the proximity of the village to Clear Creek Springs, constitute an optimum setting for a village demonstration project, involving the total energy concept as applied to the most acute energy needs of an isolated arctic communi ty. Socio-Economic Assessment At the outset, the needs and wishes of the Elim people must be determined, and a program should be developed which has a reasonable Partial Chemical Analysis of Water from Clear Creek Hot Springs (Miller et al., 1973) Si0g ag Al Re Fe =e Ca 5.6 Mg 0.06 Na 54. K 1.4 Li “= NH3 =< HCO3 34, C03 34. SOy 25. Cl 4.9 F -- Br aed B +02 PH = 9.43 tee 6720 E-5-4 probability of answering these needs without disrupting village life, as idealized and desired by the residents. We suggest that a small group of villagers, selected by the Village Council, be brought to Manley in the early stages of the project, to observe the pilot studies and experiments, and that the details of the Elim- Clear Creek program be finalized at an Elim-University of Alaska workshop, following the Manley visit. Clear Creek Experiment Calculations show that a 50 kw binary generating system could be driven by the 400 plus gal/min inflow of Clear Creek Springs water. The outflow temperature would be about 55°C. Considering the flow rate, the residual energy potential of the water is impressive. A 400-foot fall to the valley floor offers an additional hydroelectric inducement. The Clear Creek experiment, subject to conferal with the Elim Council, would include the following: (1) Installation of a 50 kw binary generating system. (2) Construction of an electric cPanel aeae line to Elim. (3) Possible development of a new community at the Clear Creek Springs site, utilizing the total energy of the springs, for: (a) Generation of electricity (b) Space heating (c) Controlled agriculture environment (d) Salmon hatchery operations E-5-5 CLEAR CREEK PROJECT Scheduled Work Sandia Laboratories (ERDA) and the Geophysical Institute have agreed to conduct joint investigations at Clear Creek Hot Springs. Sandia is currently developing a thermodynamic working fluid generating system which could be evaluated at Clear Creek Springs in 1976 and/or 1977. The experiment would also include the generation of additional electricity via a 400 ft. fall of outflow water to the valley floor, and the possible transmission of power to the village of Elim. Although equipment readiness dates are not yet firm, site evaluation and selection must proceed during summer 1976, if applications engineering studies are to proceed at the desired rate. Funding is requested for one month's field work, including helicopter support, to conduct the necessary reconnaissance. The field evaluation will include: (1) Water temperature and flow rate measurements. (2) Geologic and geophysical investigations of the site. (3) Route surveys for possible power trinshlaated and/or hot water pipelines. (4) Site selection for generating equipment. (5) Mixing potential with Clear Creek, in respect to possible fish farming and hatchery operations. Prior to the field work, a land status search will be conducted, to answer questions relating to the stewardship of Clear Creek Springs; and clearance will be sought for the planned experiments. E-5-6 *Contact: Preliminary Proposal For Wind Power Demonstrations at Selected Alaskan Sites (Umnak Island, Cold Bay, and Kotzebue) October 1975 Submitted to Director Alaska State Energy Office Anchorage. Alaska 99501 by Geophysical Institute* University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Prof. Tunis Wentink, Jr., 479-7607 or 479-7558 Fel Early solution of the well known energy problems that beset rural Alaskans now, and probably for at least several years if no actions are taken, requires positive efforts. Further problem definition and exploratory experiments will only prolong the difficulties. Problem solutions using existing technology should be started soon. However, especially where new, unconventional, or unfamiliar technology is involved, natural caution calls for limited but meaningful demonstrations prior to large and costly plant installations. In brief, FIELD DEMONSTRATIONS OF USEFUL ENERGY-PRODUCING HARDWARE SHOULD BE STARTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. This is a proposal for necessary (for installation) planning studies and actual demonstrations of wind power at three different Alaskan locations. These are included in one project because of cost savings through best use of personnel and similarity of equipment. The locations are the former Cape Air Force Base (and also formerly Fort Glenn) on Umnak Island in the Aleutians (referred to below as Umnak), Cold Bay and Kotzebue. In view of several discussions regarding Alaskan wind power projects with the Director of the Alaska State Energy Office (ASEO) and the interest expressed by Governor Hammond, we do not dwell on the motivation for these tasks. Briefly, the sites were selected because: 1. Umnak is a prime site for an important aquaculture (salmon hatchery) demonstration facility, where the abundant resources of wind and warm water can be exploited. 2. Cold Bay is an outstanding location for windmill] evaluation and use of the wind-derived energy. It has a large state-owned airport, using a considerable amount of expensive power. It presents an opportunity to use an existing distribution grid for wind work, F-2 an important feature for possible future ERDA support. Also the local utility (Northern Power and Engineering Corp.) will cooperate in the project, including significant manpower contributions. Cold Bay is one of the best locations in Alaska for windmill exploitation. The Geophysical Institute has con- siderable experience in the area, including a close and continuing cooperative relationship with the U.S. National Weather Service (First Class Station) at Cold Bay. 3. Kotzebue offers a high visibility location for wind power demonstrations, since it is a major way-station for much travel between bush communities, or between the bush and Fairbanks, Anchorage, etc. A demonstration at the state- owned U of A Community Coliege at Kotzebue (CCK) would also permit energy economies at the CCK and also real-life train- ing in wind machine utilization, and thus a propagation among the villages of windmill] use information. Project Special Features A major feature of this proposal is the expectation that a private foundation (The Kresge Foundation) will supply at least $50,000 as a gift to the Geophysical Institute for capital equipment (mostly the windmills*). *These windmills would remain the property of the University of Alaska; the grant would be specifically to a regular 4-year college or university. These would be installed in the locations selected, on an indefinite long- term no-cost loan basis. They would not be removed, except by mutual consent of the Geophysical Institute and the actual user at the selected locations. This proviso is only to insure proper use for the grantor's intended purpose. F-3 This gift requires the guaranteed support by others to insure satisfactory completion of the project, and we intend not to re-apply for this gift until such support (detailed in the budget) is assured in writing. However, there are problems in making even parts of the entire project dependent on Kresge support. These are: 1. The amount Kresge might grant will not cover enough capital equip- ment for all three sites. 2. Kresge probably will not respond to our new grant application until 1 July 1976, too late for field implementation until early 1977. 3. Umnak, and perhaps cold Bay, will not qualify under Kresge's conditions. These probiems are elaborated on below. There are not enough funds in the expected Kresge grant to supply windmills and necessary auxiliary equipment for all three sites. At least two machines will be needed for Kotzebue, and one twice the size (and cost) for Cold Bay. Also the electric power requirement for the Umnak hatchery needs to be defined. In any case, one windmill] for Umnak is the minimum. Also the ground rules on which our earlier successful application to Kresge was based were that the capital equipment was for native village electrification demonstration and energy use by the villagers. Cold Bay thus does not qualify, and Umnak Island (excluding Nikolski) has no native settlement now. Nelson Lagoon would qualify, but for the purposes of the State (and ERDA funding) Cold Bay is a better candidate for a demonstration. F-4 Another problem exists in basing this proposal on Kresge support. While the probability of the grant is very high (approved once, but then reluct- antly relinquished by us), we must formally reapply for such a grant (telcon to me from Kresge, October 1975). The probability will be increased if we show in writing the endorsement of the Governor and guaranteed State fiscal support. Kresge will not entertain an application before 1 January 1976, or notify us of the result until 1 July 1976. Unless we can order windmills by about March 1976, their delivery at the field locations will be too late for installation before spring 1977. We propose that the State of Alaska's initial funding be such as to cover the entire project, with the understanding that the State contribution would probably be decreased eventually by the amount of the Kresge grant. Another feature is the combination of the Umnak and Cold Bay activities initially at Cold Bay. Much planning and preliminary work for an Uiinak wind system can be accomplished at Cold Bay, and money could be saved by doing this. There is no merit in installing windmills at Umnak until the actual hatchery site selection there is well defined; possible topographic shield- ing must be evaluated before wind machines are installed. There is no question that windmills will work on Umnak, but the maximum energy production can vary considerably with the specific location. Also, the wind machines should not be operated until personnel (Aleuts or others) are resident, and so can learn about and monitor machine behavior. However, wind speed surveys should be started at Umnak as soon as other activity, like geothermal measurements (temperature, flow rates, etc.),are begun. Soil surveys to insure satisfactory tower footings should also be made as early as possible. F=5 Activity for Umnak Depends on project details (exact location and energy requirements as defined by Bill McNeil or others). 1. Survey trip* to establish tower location and footing requirements, and sheltert facilities. 2. Supervise tower erection and start wind checks (tower to be used for windmill] later). Local labor required. 3. Plan and order wind power system (includes auxiliary equipment). (a) Machine selection (December 1975?) depends on project needs and also best kind available; actual choice may indicate that first erection and testing should be done at Cold Bay, then moved to Umnak. 4. Supervise and instruct on windmill erection, checking and routine operation. Local labor required. 5. Write evaluation reports, for project use and for best educational and useful publicity effects in and out of state government. Activity for Cold Bay Depends on availability of wind machines, determined in connection with other site tasks. Geophysical Institute personnel will work in close cooperation with Northern Power and Engineering Company (NPEC) of Anchorage, the Cold Bay utility. 1. With NPEC advice, design wind power system (with minimal energy storage capacity) for tie in with the existing electric grid. 2. Order appropriate wind power system (estimated 13 KW rated). *A11 Umnak activity coordinated with Cold Bay task, to save time and money tFor staging and use in wind and power facilities. 3. In conjunction with NPEC install tower and wind power system. Local labor used. NPEC will contribute significant manpower in installation and operation. 4. Continue present U of A cooperative wind behavior program with National Weather Service facility at Cold Bay, as these relate to the actual windmill operation. 5. Investigate specific wind power uses as these may apply to the State-owned Cold Bay Airport electrical needs, and for extrap- olation to other Alaskan airports. 6. Write evaluation reports, for project use, and for best educational and useful publicity effects in and out of State government. Stress economics of the wind-produced power. Activity for Kotzebue This project has been detailed elsewhere for use as a signiricant electricity source for the U of A Kotzebue Community College (KCC). Considerable planning has been done already.. The Kotzebue effort combines the attractive features of cost-savings to the State, high visibility to native transients through this way-point, and teaching opportunities through "real-life" operating equipments and short courses at a facility that is directed to education of the rural people. Initial cost savings for this project may stem from cooperation with the U of A effort for the actual construction of the KCC in early 1976. Equipment such as for tower footings and erection will be available and combined logistics also may effect savings. We would do at Kotzebue: 1. Wind measurements at site selected (KCC?) to establish vertical effects, and determine the validity of extrapolation of wind data F-7 from Kotzebue Airport. (Use a tower intended for a windmill] later.) Based on results of (1) above, supervise installation of 2 or 3 windmill systems for demonstration; also use for electric lighting of KCC facility. Write evaluation reports, etc., as in item (5) of Umnak activity. Organize and give short course in windmill technology and use at KCC, if interest exists. APPENDIX G The Alaska Geothermal Resources Act of 1971 § 38.05.181 higher cash offerings than plaintiffs’ bids, the defendants acted properly in determining that the high cash bids on those 33 tracts were the ap- parent high bids, not plaintiffs’ bids. Kelly v. Zamarello, Sup. Ct. Op. No. 705 (File Nos. 1255, 1256), 486 P.2d 906 (1971). Royalty legislation on state oil and gas leases is a matter within the par- amount jurisdiction of the state. The conservation of oil and gas is a mat- ter within the authority of the states. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. The royalty provisions of a mineral leasing act are related to conserva- tion of natural resources. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. The United States, under the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, has no authority to legislate on state royalty provisions and state oil and gas leases. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. PUBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 An overriding gross royalty of 2% of all proceeds from any state and federal lands conflicts with the State- hood Act and the province of the Alaska state legislature. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. A 2% overriding gross royalty can- not apply to a federal lease on public lands within the State of Alaska. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. A 2% overriding gross royalty can- not apply to a State of Alaska oil and gas lease issued pursuant to AS 38.- 05.180. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen., No. 6. Cited in Shell Oil Co. v. Pan Amer- ican Petroleum Corp., 5 Alas. LJ. No. 11, p. 230 (Nov., 1967). ALR reference.—Validity of com- pulsory pooling or unitization stat- ute or ordinance requiring owners or lessees of oil and gas lands to de- velop their holdings as a single drill- ing unit and the like, 37 ALR2d 434. Sec. 38.05.181. Geothermal resources. (a) Purpose. The legisla- ture finds and declares that (1) the people of Alaska have an interest in the development of the state’s geothermal resources potential for (A) use in the generation of electrical power that may reduce the state’s dependence on fossil fuel power plants that seriously pollute the atmosphere in a number of areas; (B) the production of geothermal steam that may provide cen- tral heat for urban areas close to geothermal areas; (C) the production of valuable minerals and other byproducts associated with geothermal steam and accompanying brines; and (D) the distillation of fresh water; (2) the state, through the Department of Natural Resources and its division of lands, should exercise its authority to encourage the exploration for, discovery and production of, geothermal re- sources in the public interest to (A) encourage maximum economic recovery of this potentially important natural resource and prevent its waste; (B) ensure that the exploration for, and production of, geo- thermal resources, and the disposal of wastes from them, are car- ried on in a way that will safeguard life, health, property, public welfare and the environment; and (C) preserve the state’s natural, scenic values especially in those areas where geothermal resources are or may be found; al- though the need to develop new sources of energy rapidly is be- 89 G-1 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.181 coming urgent, every effort also must be made to protect those hot springs and geysers that are among nature’s scenic wonders. *(p) Land survey and classification. (1) Because of the absence of detailed geothermal mapping and the limited geochemical, geo- logical or geophysical knowledge of the state’s geothermal re- sources that is available, a survey of geothermal resources shall be included in the complete geological survey of the state autho- rized by AS 41.07.020, and a statement of the progress of the geo- thermal resources survey shall be contained in the annual report required by that section. (2) The classification of known geothermal resources areas, each of which shall contain at least one well capable of producing geothermal resources in commercial quantities, shall be made by the commissioner upon recommendations of the director, the state geologist or the United States Geological Survey under AS 41.- 07.040. (3) Within 125 days after August 15, 1971, the commissioner shall publish a statement of all lands which were included within any known geothermal resources areas on August 15, 1971. He shall also publish from time to time his determination of other known geothermal resources areas specifying in each case the date the lands were included in the area. Revisor’s note (1973). — The pro- (b)(1) and (2) of this section, have visions of AS 41.07, referred to in been repealed. See AS 41.08. (c) Authority. (1) Under the provisions of this section and subject to §§ 185—145 of this chapter, where applicable and not in conflict with this section, the commissioner may issue prospect- ing permits and leases for the exploration, discovery, development, utilization, extraction and removal of geothermal resources in or from state lands administered by him. (2) Rights to develop and utilize geothermal resources underly- ing lands owned by the State of Alaska may be acquired solely in accordance with the provisions of this section. (3) The commissioner shall prescribe those regulations he con- siders appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section. The regulations may include, without limitation, provisions for (A) the prevention of waste, (B) development and conservation of geothermal and other nat- ural resources, (C) the protection of the public interest, (D) assignment, segregation, extension of terms, relinquish- ment of leases, development contracts, unitization, pooling, and drilling agreements, 40 § 38.05.181 PUBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 (E) compensatory royalty agreements, suspension of operations or production, and suspension or reduction of rentals or royalties, (F) the filing of surety bonds to assure compliance with the terms of the lease and to protect surface use and resources, (G) use of the surface by a lessee or permittee of the lands embraced in his lease or permit, (H) the maintenance by the lessee of an active development pro- gram, and (I) protection of water quality and other environmental quali- ties. (d) Eligibility. (1) Prospecting permits and leases under this section may be issued only to or held by (A) persons or associations of persons who are citizens of the United States or who have declared their intention of becoming citizens, or who are citizens of any country, dependency, colony, or province, the laws, customs, and regulations of which permit the grant of similar or like privileges to citizens of the United States; (B) any corporation or corporations organized and existing un- der and by virtue of the laws of the United States or of any state, territory or the District of Columbia; or governmental units, in- cluding, without limitation, municipalities or boroughs; (C) any alien person entitled to a prospecting permit or lease by virtue of a treaty between the United States and the nation or county of which the alien person is a citizen or subject. (2) In every case of joint bidding, the names of all persons, firms, or corporations interested in a particular joint bid shall be specified. (e) Land administration. (1) Administration of this section shall be under the principle of multiple use of public lands and resources, and, insofar as feasible, shall allow coexistence of other permits or leases of the same lands for deposits of other minerals under this chapter, and the existence of permits or leases issued under this section does not preclude other uses of the areas cov- ered by them. However, operations under other permits or leases or other uses may not unreasonably interfere with or endanger operations under a permit or lease issued under this section, nor may operations under permits or leases issued under this section unreasonably interfere with or endanger operations under a per- mit or lease issued under any other law. This section does not supersede the authority which the head of a state department or agency has with respect to the management, protection, and utiliza- tion of the state lands and resources under his jurisdiction. The commissioner may prescribe by regulation those conditions he considers necessary for the prutection of other resources. 41 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES $ 38.05.181 (2) If the commissioner determines independently or on advice of the director, the state geologist or the United States Geological Survey that the production, use, or conversion of geothermal steam is susceptible of producing a valuable byproduct, including com- mercially demineralized water for beneficial uses in accordance with applicable state water laws the commissioner shall require substantial beneficial production or use of these byproducts un- less, in individual circumstances he modifies or waives this re- quirement in the interest of conservation of natural resources or for other reasons satisfactory to him. However, the production or use of those byproducts is subject to the rights of the holders of preexisting leases, claims, or permits covering the same land or the same minerals, if any. (3) For the purpose of properly conserving the natural re- sources of any geothermal resources areas, or any part of them, the lessees may unite with each other or with others in collectively adopting and operating under a cooperative or unit plan of de- velopment or operation of the geothermal resources lands. The com- missioner may, with the consent of the holders of leases involved, establish, alter, change, and revoke any drilling and production requirements of these leases, permit apportionment of production, and may make those regulations with reference to these leases, with like consent on the part of the lessees, in connection with the institution and operation of any cooperative or unit plan, as the commissioner considers necessary or proper to secure the proper protection of the interests of the state. (4) Any person engaged in the production of geothermal re- sources under a lease issued by the commissioner may commingle geothermal resources from any two or more wells without regard to whether the wells are located on the lands for which the lease was issued or elsewhere. However, the lessee shall install and maintain meters or other measuring devices satisfactory to the commissioner to measure the amount of geothermal resources produced from lands for which leases were issued by the commis- sioner. (f) State land; limitations, exclusions. Leases or permits for lands withdrawn or acquired in aid of the functions of the De- partment of Natural Resources may be issued only under those reasonable terms and conditions that the commissioner may pre- scribe by regulation to insure adequate utilization of the land or its waters for the purposes for which they were withdrawn or ac- quired. However, leases or permits under this section may not be issued for (1) lands administered as state parks, recreation or wilderness areas, or 42 § 38.05.181 PuBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 (2) lands in a fish hatchery, wildlife refuge, wildlife range, game range, wildlife management area, waterfowl production area, or for land acquired or reserved for the protection and con- servation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction. (g) Unknown land; prospecting permits. (1) Subject to the provisions of (c) of this section, the commissioner shall issue a prospecting permit to the first qualified applicant under this sec- tion and those regulations he may prescribe for lands which have not been classified as known geothermal resources areas, upon the payment to the commissioner of not less than $1 an acre for each acre of land included in the permit, in accordance with (k) (1) (C) of this section. An application for a permit shall be denied if, be- fore the issuance of the permit, the land is classified or reclassified as known geothermal resources land under (b) (2) of this section. (2) A permit gives the permittee the exclusive right for a pe- riod of three years to prospect for geothermal resources upon land included within the permit. The commissioner may, in his dis- cretion, extend the primary term of a permit for a period not exceeding two years, except that the combination of the primary term and extension of a permit may not exceed a total of five years. The commissioner may amend or terminate a permit issued by him within the primary term period or within the extension, if any, with the consent of the permittee. (3) Upon the classification of any of the land included within a permit issued under this section as known geothermal resources land areas, the permittee is entitled to a lease for this land. The classification of this land shall be made in accordance with (b) (2) of this section. The terms of the lease shall include the royalties and other terms contained in (j), (k) and (1) of this section on the effective date of the lease. (h) Known areas; leases. (1) If the land to be leased under this section is within a known geothermal resources area and no pros- pecting permit on it has been issued, this land shall be leased to the highest responsible qualified bidder under this section and those regulations the commissioner may prescribe for notice to the pub- lic of terms and conditions of the sale, conduct of the sale, receipt of bid, and awarding of the lease, and bidding shall be by competi- tive bid, oral or sealed at the discretion of the commissioner, under regulations he promulgates, and on the basis of a cash bonus, net profit, or other single biddable factor. (2) In leasing land under this section, the commissioner may prescribe a development program. In prescribing the program, the commissioner shall consider all applicable economic factors, in- 43 G-5 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.181 cluding market conditions and the cost of drilling for, producing, processing and utilizing of geothermal resources. (i) Conversion of leases and permits. (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, at any time within 180 days fol- lowing August 15, 1971, (A) with respect to all land which was subject to valid leases or permits issued under §§ 185—180 of this chapter or to existing mining claims located on or before August 15, 1971, the lessees or permittees or claimants or their successors in interest who are qualified to hold geothermal leases may convert their leases or permits or claims to geothermal leases covering the same land; (B) where there are conflicting claims, leases, or permits em- bracing the same land, the person who first was issued a lease or permit, or who first recorded the mining claim is entitled to first consideration; (C) with respect to all land which was, on August 15, 1971, the subject of applications for leases or permits under $$ 135—180 of this chapter, the applicants may convert their applications to appli- cations for geothermal leases having priorities dating from the time of filing of applications under this chapter. (2) No person may convert mineral leases or permits, or ap- plications for them, or mining claims for more than 10,240 acres. (3) The conversion of leases, permits, and mining claims and applications for leases and permits shall be accomplished in ac- cordance with regulations promulgated by the commissioner; no right to conversion to a geothermal lease accrues to a person under this section unless the person shows to the reasonable satisfaction of the commissioner that substantial expenditures for the explora- tion, development, or production of geothermal steam or other re- sources have been made by the applicant who is seeking conver- sion, on the land for which a lease is sought or on adjoining, adja- cent, or nearby federal or state land. (4) With respect to land within a known geothermal resources area and which is subject to a right to conversion to a geothermal lease, the land shall be leased by competitive bidding, except that the competitive geothermal lease shall be issued to the person own- ing the right to conversion to a geothermal lease if he makes pay- ment of an amount equal to the highest bona fide bid for the com- petitive geothermal lease, plus the rental for the first year, within 30 days after he receives written notice from the commissioner of the amount of the highest bid. (j) Acreage. (1) An application for a prospecting permit or lease may not be made for less than 640 acres nor more than 2,560 44 § 38.05.181 PuBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 acres and shall embrace a reasonably compact area. However, a permit or lease may be issued for a parcel less than 640 acres if that parcel is isolated from or not contiguous with other parcels of land available for permit or lease under this section, or if the land is irregularly subdivided. (2) Prospecting permits or leases for land beneath lakes and rivers, and below the mean high tide level of tide and submerged land, may be issued for not less than 640 acres nor more than 5,760 acres and shall embrace a reasonably compact area, except that a permit or lease may be issued for a parcel less than 640 acres if the parcel is isolated from or not contiguous with other parcels of land available for permit or lease under this section. (3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, as- sociation or corporation may take, hold, own, or control at one time, whether acquired directly from the commissioner under this section or otherwise, any direct or indirect interest in state geo- thermal leases exceeding 25,600 acres, including leases acquired under the provisions of (i) of this section. (4) At any time after 15 years from August 15, 1971 the com- missioner, after public hearings, may increase this maximum hold- ing by regulations, not to exceed 51,200 acres. (5) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the permittee or lessee is entitled to use as much of the surface of the land cov- ered by his geothermal lease or permit as may be found by the commissioner to be reasonably necessary for the exploration, pro- duction, utilization, and conservation of geothermal resources. However, any well drilled for the discovery and production of geo- thermal resources, which is located within 800 feet of an outer boundary of the parcel of land on which the well is situated or within 300 feet of a public road, street or highway dedicated be- fore the commencement of drilling of the well, is a public nuisance. Where several contiguous parcels of land in one or different own- erships are operated as a single geothermal resources lease or operating unit, the term “outer boundary” means the outer bound- ary line of the land included in the lease or unit. In determining the contiguity of any of these parcels of land, no street, road or alley lying within the lease or unit is considered to interrupt that contiguity. (k) Royalties and rentals. (1) Each permit or lease issued un- der this section shall provide for (4) a royalty of not less than 10 per cent nor more than 15 per cent of the gross revenue, exclusive of charges, approved by the commissioner made or incurred with respect to transmission or other services or processes, received from the sale of steam, 45 a 1 ™~ § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.181 brines, from which no minerals have been extracted, and associated gases at the point of delivery to the purchaser of them; (B) a royalty of not less than two per cent nor more than 10 per cent of the gross revenue received from the sale of mineral products or chemical compounds recovered from geothermal fluids in the first marketable form as to each mineral product or chemi- cal compound for the primary term of the lease; (C) an annual rental payable in advance of not less than $1 an acre or fraction of an acre for each year of a permit or lease. (2) The royalties specified in this section are subject to renego- tiation under (m) of this section based upon recommendations of the director and the renegotiations are not limited by the maximum royalties specified in (1) (A) and (B) of this subsection. (3) Royalty payments shall be made for all geothermal resources used by the lessee, but which he does not sell. The value of these geothermal resources used, but not sold, shall be determined by the commissioner and set out in the terms of the lease. The com- missioner shall consider the cost of exploration and production and the economic value of the resource in terms of its ultimate utiliza- tion. (4) Upon request of the commissioner, other state departments and agencies shall furnish him with any relevant data then in their possession or knowledge concerning or having bearing upon fair and adequate charges to be made for geothermal steam produced or to be produced for conversion to electric power or other pur- poses. Data given to a department or agency as confidential under law may not be furnished in a way which identifies or tends to identify the business entity whose activities are the subject of the data or the person or persons who furnished the information. (5) The commissioner independently or upon the advice of the director, may waive, suspend, or reduce the rental or minimum royalty for the land included in any permit or lease, or any portion of it, and waive, suspend, alter or amend the operating require- ments contained in the lease or regulations promulgated under this section affecting operations of the lease or permit, in the interests of conservation, and to encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of geothermal resources if he determines that that action is nec- essary or beneficial to promote development or finds that the per- mit or lease cannot be successfully operated under the permit or lease terms or under the regulations. (6) If, after the discovery of geothermal resources in commer- cial quantities, the total royalties due to the state during any calendar year do not equal or exceed a sum equal to $2 an acre for each acre or fraction of an acre then included in the permit 46 G-8 § 38.05.181 PuBLIC LANDS $ 38.05.181 or lease, the permittee or the lessee shall, within 60 days after the end of the year, pay whatever sum is necessary to equal a minimum royalty of $2 an acre. (1) Term of leases. (1) Leases under this section shall be for a primary term of 10 years. If geothermal resources are produced or utilized in commercial quantities within this term, the lease shall continue for as long as geothermal steam or other byproducts are produced or utilized in commercial quantities, but the con- tinuation may not exceed an additional 40 years. (2) If, at the end of that 40 years, steam or other geothermal resources are produced or utilized in commercial quantities and the land is not needed for other purposes, the lessee has a preferen- tial right to a renewal of the lease for a second 40-year term in accordance with the terms and conditions as the commissioner con- siders appropriate; but in any event a lease may not exceed a cumulative total of primary and subsequent terms of 99 years. (3) A lease for land on which, or for which under an approved cooperative or unit plan of development or operation, actual drill- ing operations were started before the end of its primary term and are being diligently prosecuted at that time shall be extended for five years and as long thereafter, but not more than 35 years, as geothermal resources are produced or utilized in commercial quantities. If at the end of the extended term, steam or other re- sources are being produced or utilized in commercial quantities and the land is not needed for other purposes, the lessee has a preferential right to a renewal of the lease for a second term in accordance with this section and those terms and conditions the commissioner considers appropriate. (4) For purposes of (1) of this subsection, production or utili- zation of geothermal resources in commercial quantities includes the completion of one or more wells producing or capable of pro- ducing geothermal resources in commercial quantities and a bona fide sale of geothermal resources for delivery to or utilization by a facility or facilities not yet installed but scheduled for installa- tion not later than 15 years from the date of commencement of the primary term of the lease. (5) Leases which have extended by reasons of production, or which have produced geothermal resources and have been deter- mined by the commissioner to be incapable of further commercial production and utilization of geothermal resources may be further extended for a period of not more than five years from the date of that determination but only for as long as one or more valuable byproducts are produced in commercial quantities. If the byprod- ucts are leasable under this chapter and the leasehold is primarily 47 G-9 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.1681 valuable for the production of these byproducts, the lessee is en- titled to convert his geothermal lease to a mineral lease under, and subject to all the terms and conditions of, this chapter upon ap- plication at any time before expiration of the lease extension by reason of byproduct production. The lessee is entitled to locate under the mining laws all minerals which are not leasable and which would constitute a byproduct if commercial production or utilization of geothermal resources continued. The lessee in order to acquire the rights granted him by this section shall complete the location of mineral claims within 90 days after the termination of the lease for geothermal resources. (m) Readjustment of lease terms. (1) Except as otherwise provided, the commissioner may readjust the terms and conditions of any lease issued under this section at not less than 10-year in- tervals beginning 10 years after the date the geothermal resources are produced, as determined by the commissioner. Each lease is- sued under this section shall provide for that readjustment. The commissioner shall give notice of any proposed readjustment of terms and conditions, and, unless the lessee files with the commis- sioner objection to the proposed terms or relinquishes the lease within 30 days after receipt of the notice, the lessee conclusively shall be considered to have agreed to those terms and conditions. If the lessee files objections, and no agreement can be reached be- tween the commissioner and the lessee within a period of not less than 60 days, the lease may be terminated by eitl +r party. (2) The commissioner may readjust the rentals and royalties of any geothermal lease issued under this section at not less than 20-year intervals beginning 35 years after the date geothermal resources are produced, as determined by the commissioner. In the event of any readjustment neither the rental nor royalty may be increased by more than 50 per cent over the rental or royalty paid during the preceding period, and in no event may the royalty payable exceed 22': per cent. Each geothermal lease issued under this section shall provide for that readjustment. The commissioner shall give notice of any proposed readjustment of rentals and royalties, and, unless the lessee files with the commissioner objec- tion to the proposed rentals and royalties or relinquishes the lease within 30 days after receipt of the notice, the lessee conclusively shall be considered to have agreed to those terms and conditions. If the lessee files objections, and no agreement can be reached between the commissioner and the lessee within a period of not less than 60 days, the lease may be terminated by either party. (n) Rights of landowners to permits or leases. In case of an application for a permit or lease covering ind which has been 48 G-10 § 38.05.181 PUBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 sold by the state, subject to a reservation by the state of the geo- thermal resources in them by anyone other than the owner of that land, the owner has six months from the date of service of notice on the owner of the application within which to file his applica- tion for a permit or lease. The notice shall be served by the ap- plicant together with a copy of the application. If the owner ex- ercises his rights and is a qualified person, his application shall be granted but subject to all the other provisions of this section. If the owner fails to exercise the rights granted by this section, then the owner’s rights under it shall immediately cease and ter- minate and the original applicant shall be permitted to proceed with his application. If the lands subject to classification are classi- fied as within a known geothermal resource area, then, after the commissioner has determined the highest competitive bid on it the owner may within 10 days after notification by the commis- sioner submit a bid identical to the highest acceptable bid, in which case the commissioner shall issue a lease to the surface land- owner. If the surface landowner does not file a bid within that period of time, the commissioner may proceed with the award of the bid to other than the surface landowner. (0) Termination of permits or leases. (1) A permit or lease may be terminated by the commissioner, lessee or permittee only under the provisions of this section, or under the terms of the lease or permit or both. The commissioner shall insert in every permit or lease issued under this section appropriate provisions for its cancellation in accordance with the provisions of this sec- tion. (2) The commissioner reserves the authority to cancel any prospecting permit or lease upon which a commercially valuable deposit of geothermal resources has not been discovered in paying quantities upon failure of the permittee or lessee (after 30 days written notice and demand for performance) to exercise diligence and care in the prosecution of the prospecting or development work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit or lease. After discovery of a commercially valuable deposit of geo- thermal resources on lands subject to any permit or lease issued under this section, the permit or lease may be forfeited and can- celed only upon failure of the lessee after 90 days written notice and demand to comply with any of the provisions of the permit or lease or of the regulations applicable to it and in force at the date of the permit or lease. However, in the event of a cancellation the permittee or lessee under any geothermal resource permit or lease may retain under the permit or lease all drilling or producing wells as to which no default exists, together with a parcel of land sur- rounding each well and the rights-of-way through the land under 49 G-11 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.181 permit or lease, that may be reasonably necessary to enable the permittee or lessee to drill and operate the retained well or wells. In the event of the cancellation of a permit or lease the permittee or lessee has a reasonable time within which to remove all prop- erty, equipment and facilities owned or used by the permittee or lessee in connection with operations under the permit or lease. (3) If there is no well on the leased lands capable of producing geothermal resources in commercial quantities, the failure to pay rental on or before the anniversary date terminates the lease by operation of law. However, whenever the commissioner discovers that the rental payment due under a lease is paid timely but the amount of the payment is deficient because of an error or other reason and the deficiency is nominal, as determined by the com- missioner under regulations promulgated by him, he shall notify the lessee of the deficiency and the lease shall not automatically terminate unless the lessee fails to pay the deficiency within the period prescribed in the notice. If a lease has been terminated automatically by operation of law under this paragraph for fail- ure to pay rental timely and it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the failure to pay timely the lease rental was justifiable or not due to a lack of reasonable diligence, he in his judgment may reinstate the lease if (A) a petition for reinstatement, together with the required rental, is filed with the commissioner, and (B) no valid lease has been issued affecting any of the lands in the terminated lease before the filing of the petition for reinstate- ment. (4) A permit or lease issued under this section may be as- signed, transferred, or sublet as provided for by law, or under regulations promulgated by the commissioner. (5) The holder of a geothermal lease or permit at any time may make and file in the appropriate land office a written relinquish- ment or quit claim of all rights under the lease or permit or of any legal subdivision of the area covered by the lease or permit. The relinquishment is effective as of the date of its filing. There- upon the lessee or permittee is released of all obligations accruing under the lease or permit with respect to the land relinquished, but no relinquishment releases the lessee or permittee, or his surety or bond, from liability for breach of any obligation of the lease or permit, other than an obligation to drill, accrued at the date of the relinquishment, or from the continued obligation, in accordance with the applicable lease or permit, terms and regula- tions, 50 G-12 §$ 38.05.181 PUBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 (A) to make payment of all accrued rentals and royalties, (B) to place all wells on the relinquished lands in condition for suspension or abandonment, and (C) to protect or restore substantially the surface and surface resources, (6) The commissioner, upon application by the lessee or per- mittee, may authorize the lessee or permittee to suspend operations and production on a producing lease or permit and he may, on his own motion in the interest of conservation suspend operations on any lease or permit but in cither case he may extend the lease term for the period of any suspension, and he may waive, suspend, or reduce the rental or royalty required in the lease or permit. (7) Leases or permits may be terminated by the commissioner for any violation of the regulations or lease or permit terms, or of this section after 30 days notice if the violation is not corrected within the notice period, or in the event the violation is of a nature that it cannot be corrected within the notice period then if the les- see or permittee has not started in good faith within the notice pe- riod to correct the violation and thereafter to proceed diligently to correct the violation. The lessee or permittee is entitled to a hear- ing on the matter of the claimed violation or proposed termination of lease or permit if request for a hearing is made to the commis- sioner within the 30-day period after notice. The period for correc- tion of violation or commencement to correct the violation of regu- lations or of lease terms or of this section shall be extended to 30 days after the commissioner’s decision after the hearing if the com- missioner finds that a violation exists. (p) Conservation; prevention of waste and pollution. (1) All leases or permits under this section are subject to the condition that the lessee or permittee will, in conducting his exploration, de- velopment and production operations, use ail reasonable precau- tions to protect the environment and to prevent pollution of the state’s waters and waste of geothermal resources developed in the land leased or granted for prospecting under a permit. (2) With the approval of the commissioner, a permittee or lessee may drill special wells, convert producing wells or reactivate and convert abandoned wells for the sole purpose of reinjecting geothermal resources of their residue. (3) The owner or operator of a geothermal well on land pro- ducing or reasonably presumed to contain geothermal resources shall properly construct the well in accordance with methods ap- proved by the commissioner. The owner or operator shall make every reasonable effort to prevent damage to life, health, property and natural resources, to protect the geothermal resources de- 51 G=13 § 38.05.181 ALASKA STATUTES § 38.05.181 posits from damage or waste, to shut out detrimental substances from underground strata containing water suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes and from surface water suitable for these purposes, and to prevent the infiltration of detrimental substances into these strata and into surface water. (4) The commissioner shall require those tests or remedial work of the owner or operator of a geothermal well that in his judg- ment are necessary to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources, to protect geothermal resources deposits from damage or waste, or to prevent the pollution of the state’s waters by the infiltration of detrimental substances into underground or sur- face water suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes, for the best interests of the neighboring property owners and the public. To this end he may request the assistance of the Department of Environmental Conservation under AS 46.03. (5) Any act by a lessee or permittee, or by an owner or operator of a geothermal well, that pollutes the state’s waters in violation of AS 46.03 shall be punished in accordance with AS 46.03.760. (6) Subject to (0) (7) of this section, leases or permits may be canceled by the commissioner for any persistent, repeated viola- tions of the water pollution provisions in AS 46.03. On recommenda- tion of the director, the commissioner shall request the district attorney in the judicial district where the alleged violation occurs, or the attorney general, to bring an action to enjoin the acts pre- hibited by AS 46.03, or to impose the penalties authorized by AS 46.03.760. Nothing in this paragraph precludes the imposition of both injunctive relief, the criminal penalties, and cancellation of the lease or permit, or any combination of these remedies, that the commissioner or the court considers appropriate. (q) Definitions. In this section (1) “byproduct” means any mineral or minerals (exclusive of oil, hydrocarbon gas, helium or other hydrocarbon substances) which are found in solution or in association with geothermal re- sources and which have a value of less than 75 per cent of the value of the geothermal resource or are not, because of quantity, quality, or technical difficulties in extraction and production, of sufficient value to warrant extraction and production by them- selves; (2) “commissioner” means the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources; (3) “department” means the Department of Natural Re- sources ; (4) “director” means the director of the division of lands in the Department of Natural Resources; 52 G-14 § 38.05.181 PuBLIC LANDS § 38.05.181 (5) “division” means the division of lands in the Department of Natural Resources; (6) “geothermal resources’ means the natural heat of the earth, the energy, in whatever form, below the surface of the earth present in, resulting from, or created by, or which may be extracted from, the natural heat, and all minerals in solution or other products obtained from naturally heated fluids, brines, as- sociated gases, and steam, in whatever form, found below the sur- face of the earth, exclusive of oil, hydrocarbon gas, helium or other hydrocarbon substances, but including, specifically : (A) all products of geothermal processes, embracing indigenous steam, hot water and hot brines; (B) steam and other gases, hot water and hot brines resulting from water, gas, or other fluids artificially introduced into geo- thermal formations; (C) heat or other associated energy found in geothermal for- mations; and (D) any byproduct derived from them; (7) “geothermal area” means a surface area which is under- laid, or reasonably appears, to be underlaid by geothermal re- sources ; (8) “known geothermal resources area” means an area in which the geology, nearby discoveries, competitive interests, or other in- dicia would, in the opinion of the commissioner, engender a be- lief in men who are experienced in the subject matter that the prospects for extraction of geothermal resources are good enough to warrant expenditures of money for that purpose; (9) “lease” means a geothermal lease issued under this sec- tion; (10) “operator” means any person drilling, maintaining, op- erating, pumping, or in control of any well; “owner” includes “op- erator” when any well is operated or has been operated or is about to be operated by any person other than the owner; “operator” includes “owner” when any well is or has been or is about to be operated under the direction of the owner; (11) “permit” means a prospecting permit issued under this section; (12) “person” includes any individual, firm, association, cor- poration or any other group or combination acting as a unit; (13) “well” means any well for the discovery of geothermal resources or any well on land producing geothermal resources or 53 G-15 § 38.05.182 ALASKA STATUi ES § 38.05.183 reasonably presumed to contain geothermal resources, or any spe- cial well, converted producing well or reactivated or converted abandoned well employed fur reinjecting geothermal resources or their residue. (r) Construction. This section shall operate prospectively and shall be liberally construed to meet its objectives, and the com- missioner and director have all the powers necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. (s) Short title. This section may be cited as the Geothermal Re- sources Act of 1971. (§ 1 ch 71 SLA 1971; am § 6 ch 104 SLA 1971; am $§ 34—86 ch 71 SLA 1972) Revisor’s note (1971).—The num- (p)(5), the amendment substituted bering, as it appeared in ch. 71, SLA “AS 46.03” for “AS 46.05” and sub- 1971, of certain provisions in this sec- stituted “AS 46.03.760" for “AS 46.- tion has been corrected, as follows: (d)(1), (2) and (8) changed to (d)(1)(A), (B) and (C), respec- tively; (d)(4) changed to (d)(2); (i)(1), (2) and (3) changed to (i)(1)(A), (B) and (C), respectively; (i) (4), (5) and (6) changed to (i) (2), (3) and (4), respectively; (k)(1)(D) changed to (k)(6). Effect of amendment. — The 1972 amendment, in subsection (p)(4), substituted “Department of Environ- mental Conservation under AS 46,03” for “Department of Health and Social Services under AS 46.05” in the last sentence; in subsection 05.210"; and in subsection (p) (6), the amendment substituted “water pollu- tion provisions in AS 46.03” for “water pollution control act (AS 46.- 05)” at the end of the first sentence, substituted “AS 46.03” for “AS 46.- 05" in the second sentence, substi- tuted “AS 46.03.760" for “AS 46.05.- 210” in that sentence, and substituted “considers” for “consider” in the last sentence, Legislative committee report.—For report on ch. 71, SLA 1972 (HCSSB 383 am H), see 1972 House Journal, p. 898. Sec. 38.05.182. Royalty on natural resources. Any royalty pro- vided for in §§ 185—181 of this chapter may be taken in kind rather than in money at the discretion of the commissioner if he determines that the taking in kind would be in the best interest of the state. ($ 1 ch 56 SLA 1970; am § 7 ch 71 SLA 1971) Revisor’s note (1970). — In ch. 56, SLA 1970, AS 38.05.182 and 38.05.183 were numbered AS 38.05.362 and 38.- Legislative committee report.—For report on ch. 56, SLA 1970 (CSSB 185 am H), see 1969 House Journal, p. 05.363, respectively. 571. Sec. 38.05.183. Sale of royalty products. (a) The sale of any mineral, including oil and gas, obtained by the state as a royalty under § 182 of this chapter shall be by competitive bid and the sale made to the highest responsible bidder, except that competitive bidding is not required when the commissioner determines that the best interest of the state does not require it or that no competition exists. (b) The commissioner may reject all bids if he determines that because of the amount of the bids or the lack of responsibility on 54 G-16 § 38.05.185 PuBLic LANDS § 38.05.185 the part of the bidders, the acceptance of the bids would not be in the best interest of the state. (c) If the commissioner determines that a sale or other disposal of royalty products is not to be made by competitive bid, he shall make public, in writing, the specific findings and reasons on which his determination is based. (d) Details of bidding shall be established by regulation by the commissioner. (§ 1 ch 56 SLA 1970) Legislative committee report—For am H), see 1969 House Journal, p. report on ch. 56, SLA 1970 (CSSB 185571. Article 7. Mining Rights. Section Section 185. Generally 280. Lien for performance of annual 190. Qualifications labor 195. Mining claims 235. Lien for annual labor is inde- 200. Changes in locations and pendent of other liens amended notices 240. Labor defined for $$ 210—235 205. Mining leasing of this chapter 210. Annual labor 2153 Notice to co-owners to contrib- ute to cost of annual labor or improvements and forfeiture for failure to contribute 220. Recording the notice to contrib- . Transfers ute and affidavits . Recognition of locations 225. Lienholder may perform the an- 280. Definitions nual labor Prospecting sites . Tide and submerged lands Surface use . [Repealed] Abandonment Sec. 38.05.185. Generally. (a) The acquisition and continuance of rights in and to deposits on state lands of minerals which on January 3, 1959, were subject to location under the mining laws of the United States shall be governed by $$ 185—280 of this chapter. Nothing in $$ 185—280 of this chapter affects the law pertaining to the acquisition of rights to mineral deposits owned by any other person or government. The director, with the approval of the commissioner, shall determine those lands from which mineral deposits may be mined only under lease, and, subject to the limitations of § 300 of this chapter, those lands which shall be closed to mining. (b) The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with $$ 185—280 of this chapter and regulations adopted under it does not invalidate his rights if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. Unless otherwise provided, the usages and interpretations applicable to 55 G-17