Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBering Strait Energy Reconnaissance 1980« LIB ARY COrYy BERING STRAIT ENERGY RECONNAISSANCE Prepared for THE BERING STRAIT REAA SCHOOL DISTRICT (Prepared under the direction of Holden and Associates, Planning Consultants) _ LIBRARY Copy Alaska Power Authority : 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 DO NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE June, 1980 BY: FRYER : PRESSLEY : ELLIOTT Consulting Engineers 1709 South Bragraw Anchorage, Alaska 99504 if fryer pressley | 1709 SOUTH BRAGAW SUITE “F* ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99504 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS (907) 276-5144 elliott June 30, 1980 Bering Strait REAA School District P. 0. Box 1088 Nome, Alaska 99762 Attention: Mr. Richard Holden Reference: Bering Strait Energy Reconnaissance Gentlemen: We are pleased to transmit herewith our final report entitled "Bering Strait Energy Reconnaissance" (Phase I). The report addresses current energy use patterns, identification of available alternative energy sources and technologies, and specific as well aS long range general recommendations aimed at achieving a higher degree of energy self sufficiency. At this time, we would like to thank Jack West of Jack West Associates, Consulting Engineers, for his substantive work in the electrical power portion of this study. We would also like to thank the members of the Bering Strait REAA School Board who contributed their knowledge of the area and existing systems. We have enjoyed working on this project and look forward to your comments. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Sincerely, ELLIOTT FRYER : PRESSLEY : ELLIOTT “Roy TS areneLf Roy Barkwell Project Engineer Mark Fryer, P.E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FRYER : PRESSLEY : ELLIOTT, Inc. was assisted by Jack West of Jack West Associates, Consulting Engineers concerning the electrical power portion of this study. Project overview and coordination was accomplished under the direction of Mr. Richard Holden of Holden and Associates, Planning Consultants. TABLE OF CONTENTS 50" SUMMARY OR FINDENGS i aos) 1s. coho Seep ts 15 ac eae desea ters. 2atgeahe 250 -CENTRODUGTION, 2°. S oes Sais Ne 0's. to eum eee te nea. Bol -ODJCCULVESS. 5.6 ar a Se: oho Gee oes up eeeee nee Ne © st Zee SCOPE? eo 6 a es GR aos, epee eter eo otr 370:* THE=BERINGSSHRALT “REGION: eae) 5 40.5 Reins Seite ie “ook ww Pl Redsonal Proty les: Rete oe ats oo Shahar pie COMMUNEEV OP POT Len * oS Sep se ce temeet eee ete: sew, s -3 Current Regional Energy Use Patterns ........ -4 Bering Strait REAA School District ENneroye Use Pa vterns: cS oe Tec lel eS ee: fe so vw abe aor DataZCOMBilatiOM: (7s. aie see b SRRORe te ele opie on eo we w WWWW 3.5.12 "Geaphigal: Compilation: of Data "42.8. ees. ws 33522> suppuement. to Graphics . os s-9...6 ein, ce oot 8 HR 3-503-. Data Sensitivity . 6 i. sieli cesta. Get 4:0. POSSIBLE-ENERGY SOURCES OF .THE-=FUTURE ~ = 0 co ee ae wo 8 4.1 Energy Conservation (and Conversions) ........ 4.2. sAlternative Fuelr Sources: 6s Go Sie ee es ee clit 5.0: ELECTRIC ‘ENERGYPLANNING 20. 6 6 oy «© oes Pe ey oh 8 > So” ote Blectric.vS.<total Energy. 5s 68 Seah cheered Present-Generation Systems. © 290... 6 ea ee we wo Future Electric Generations: "5 6... ine ee Se Electric: Intertie.; *" 2:5 ck. 6 a ee se ueh sack es ae 5:5Special End Use-Concept: .. 2 cite, eye oo “epebie or 2 ann Pwnw— 6.0 ENERGY PLANNING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL ....e. ee ee eee Orie Gooey Gs ys oie we 2 ls 6 Ae Oh Le ae eee Giie* OBHBCEIVGS se a Se a hw Hee ea, eRe ler 0 ie Aine Oso MO EMEREUNOGM fer eis. we Tr 6 6 eels write fe ee cat 6.4 Plagning Information = os Ses ie we eo ee a ew, oe PaO CONCLUSIONS: <0 os ca, go AG, cel se se. eo we lepeeteyet oe BEO:-RECOMMENDATLONS «5 aipre’ a cos. ie me ow ase es oe ore Summary of Recommendations ........4e-+6ee02e4084 REFERENCES APPENDIX Za Z 0°, J Zz ee al OPIOMEDE SEWARD PENINSULA BRENIG MIESIOU ay WHITE MOUNTAIN COUNCIL WOME oe NORTON SOUND aN STEBBINS 7 Perce, BEZING STRAIT REA SCHOOL DISTRICT FRYER : PZESSLEY ELLIOTT 1109 5, BZAGAW © AUCHORAGE , ALASKA 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The Bering Strait Regional Education Attendance Area contains enough potential energy resources to furnish all but transportation fuels required of the region. Wood (as drift), coal, wind, and hydro resources are abundant. It is the opinion of the authors that as much as 75% of the currently imported non-transportation fuels could be provided by local resources. Although the technical and economic feasability of attaining a large share of the fuel requirements for the region seems apparent to the authors, social and political constraints to the exploitation of alternative energy sources and technologies may reduce the level to which local resources can reasonably be expected to be utilized. The ranking of the abundance of attainable alternative resources is found to be as follows: Ty Coal V. Waste Heat Recovery II. Wood VI. Integrated Electric III. Conservation Management Systems IV. Hydro! VII. Wind VIII. Geothermal, Solar, and Other Technologies It is estimated that the residents of the Bering Strait Region consume 2,659,000 gallons of bulk fuel oi] and gasoline annually. Data compiled during the course of this work on current fuel imports and end use consumption is summarized in Table 1. The Bering Strait REAA School District can expect to experience a 65% increase in heating fuel oi1 consumption and an 80% increase in electrical consumption as schools currently under construction are commissioned in 1980 and 1981. The relative magnitude of regional energy consumption indicates that the residents of the Bering Strait Region are penalized more by the extremely high cost of imported fossil fuels than by excessive consumption. The already low level (and high cost) of energy consumption, as well as other geographic and social aspects unique to rural Alaska, suggest that significant savings in certain energy end use areas may be realized with little "change in life-style." For example: driftwood (now considered an alternative fuel source) was the primary fuel source for much of the residential heating in the region until the last several decades. lHydropower potential is abundant. The status of land in the region as well as the economics of hydropower reduce the ranking of this resource. 0 Key recommendations suggested in this study include energy audits of several communities, a comprehensive analysis of wood and coal resources as well as the transportation systems required to utilize those resources. Apart from the capital construction projects suggested herein, it is the authors estimate that conversion from fuel oil to a properly managed system of alternative sources and technologies may employ as many as 60 people. The exploitation of wood and coal, transportation of these resources, operation of steam powered electric generation plants, and facilities management work would all afford opportunity for local business to develop as well as offering the younger residents of the region opportunity to cultivate new skills. The cost of implementing the change from the current petroleum energy source to the options suggested herein will range between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000 annually. Such expense is already being spent for imported fuels. The adoption of an alternative approach merely changes the vendor from the oi] company to a local or regional enterprise or other Alaskan contractor. BERING STCAIT EVERY DISTRIBUTIOU BULK IMPOZTS Se FUEL OJL FOR EXISNUG AUD NEW SCHOOL SPACE HEATING 02,000 GAbL./NZ. 140 GAL. /CAPITAYE, 94° TOTAL = , bee aio na een ZESIDENTIAL SPACE HEATING 424,000 GAL./YE, 1 454,000 GbL/Ye. 40 GAL/ CAPITICYE, AA GaL/CAPITAN2, BULL PETZOLEUM - MoU RESIDENTIAL AND NOU ELECT2I PRODUCTS . UTILITIES SPACE HEAT € UTILITIES HEAT. CONSUMPTION, 441000 GAL/Ye. 2/42,000 GAL, NZ, " {26 GAL./ CAP ITA-X2, | RIGA Jeaptiere. ' A EXISTING AUD NEW SCHOOL FUEL OIL FOZ aoe KePhLDELIT ELECTIZIC COUSUMP STEM we GAL,/ CAPITA, TH, 000 GAL./NZ, ELICY - Qo GAL, | CAPITAN 2, - BULK GASOLINE 446,000/@AL.Y@. {01 GAL, | CAPITANE. NOTE @) 161) MWHIN@, 74 YWH loxP, INDICATES ANKI IA CON- @ _ te40 MWH/YE., 441 WH /caPrTAye. a ee : eae i TABLE -] ©) S14 MWH/Y2., 441 QW / CAPITA-Y2, SPAT REAA REGION FIZYERZ: PEESSLEY: ELLIOTT 1109 4. BZAGAW AN_. Jf, bb 2.0 2-1 INTRODUCTION: The Bering Strait Regional Education Attendance Area (REAA) contracted with Fryer : Pressley : Elliott, Consulting Engineers; and Jack West Associates, Consulting Engineers to examine the energy supply and use systems of the Bering Strait Region. This report is a product of that contract, and is the first (element) of a phased process aimed at regaining greater community self sufficiency and decreasing the cost of operation of school facilities located in the 16 communities of the Bering Strait Region. Two approaches to future energy planning are apparent. The first, and most practiced, is the analysis of "end use" elements (for example, the examination of the individual homes, schools or community buildings), for their energy consumption characteristics. This approach is popularly termed "The Energy Audit." A second approach consists of examining the regional energy source, delivery, and consumption systems. For the work reported herein, the latter approach was used because it provided more flexibility in the identification of solutions to problems encountered during the course of work. For example: the use of heat wasted by an electric generator might not be addressed as an alternative energy source for a single building if the cost of moving the wasted heat from the generator to the building is prohibitive. However, if the problem is approached on a community basis, either the generator may be moved so its wasted heat can be used by a group of buildings, or new buildings may be sited so as to make this alternative energy source feasible in the future. Coal also may not currently be an economically viable fuel for any one building (or perhaps community) in the study region; however, the analysis presented herein suggests that coal is an economical alternative to many of the region's energy source requirements. This work is aimed at identification of future regional energy supply, transportation, and consumption patterns as follows: ° It identifies locally available raw fuel sources that could compete economically with fuel oi] and propane. e It suggests means through which the citizens of the region may realize an added step toward regaining energy self sufficiency. Objectives: The objectives sought in this work are to: ° Identify current energy importation and end use distribution for the 16 communities addessed in this work. e Describe methods of reducing energy consumption for those communities. Outline a regional energy planning concept suitable for the Bering Strait Region. Identify promising alternative energy projects that may be undertaken immediately. Identify the foundation concepts that will provide for the reduction in reliance upon petroleum energy now imported into the region, and identify means through which a larger portion of the region's natural energy resources could be utilized. Develop the foundation for community and regional energy audits. 2.2 Scope: The scope of the work is limited to the organization and analysis of data that exist in the records of governmental institutions and private businesses that serve the region, together with the knowledge of on-site conditions as known by the authors of various sections of this work. This knowledge is augmented by critical review of draft reports by various school board members and Mr. Richard Holden. The Study is further confined to the Bering Strait Regional Education Attendance Area (REAA) containing some 16 communities that are specifically addressed in this work. The communities are as follows and are exclusive of Nome: ° Brevig Mission ° Golovin ° Shismaref ° Council ° Koyuk ° Stebbins ° Diomede ° Saint Michael ° Teller ° Elim ° Savoonga ° Unalakleet ° Gambel1 ° Shaktoolik ° Wales White Mountain 3.0 THE BERING STRAIT REGION: Sel Regional Profile: The Bering Strait Region is located in the northwest coastal portion of Alaska between 63° and 65° north latitude (see map of region). Nome serves as the major "hub" community in the region. Within the defined study area approximately 3513 people reside in 16 communities (excludes Nome). The communities range from 35 to 600 in population. The majority of the population is comprised of Native Alaskans. All communities are either located on the coast of the Bering Strait or Norton Sound, or on major navigable waterways. Three of the villages are located on islands in the Bering Strait. Many of the residents of the Bering Strait Region depend heavily on tradi- tional subsistance hunting, fishing and trapping for a major portion of their livelihood. Major industries in the region include transportation, fisheries, and commercially supportive industries. Regional unemployment is high, and per capita income is low by relative national standards. Energy costs are high both on a cost to consumer and percent of family income basis. Regional energy costs are approximately as follows: g Fuel oil and gasoline, $1.25 - $2.50 per gallon (1980 costs, varies with location and quantity). : Electricity 42¢ per KWh plus fuel surcharge (AVEC). The Bering Strait Region is further characterized as follows: 7 Transportation to Bering Strait communities is by water (in summer months) and by air (year-round). 7 The major sources of energy currently consist of fuel oi] and gasoline (no natural gas). Fuel oil and gasoline are delivered once a year by barge (emergency air deliveries in the winter). 4 The Bering Strait and Norton Sound are icebound at least 6 months out of the year. 7 Primary education is available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bering Strait REAA School District. 7 Secondary education is available through the Bering Strait REAA School District consisting of the following: - 8 existing school complexes - 10 new schools and additions planned or under construction Locally available energy related natural resources within the Bering Strait Region consist of the following!: Coal a Geothermal Driftwood . Hydropower Wind 3.2 Community Profile: Demographic, geographic, and energy use data -analyzed during the course: of this work suggest that an "average" Bering Strait Region Community is composed approximately as follows: ° 220 residents which are contained within 48 families. ° The average residence is 600 square feet in size. . Existing school facilities comprise about 2,500 square feet, constructed in stages over the past 45 years. A new 4,500 square foot high school is either recently completed _ or now under construction. ' Stores, churches and community’ buildings comprise an additional 5000 square feet of building space. Electrical power generation is by two 55 Kw diesel generators operated by AVEC or a local power company. An additional school owned 25 Kw diesel generator: is on standby for school use. . . Water is obtained from a central (heated) community tank filled once a year. There is one small community. washeteria. No running water or flush toilets exist in residences. An increasing number of residents are returning: to driftwood for residential space heat. : The community is located on the Bering. Sea Coast of Norton Sound. Local community transportation is by snowmachine, boat, and all terrain vehicle. There is currently interest being shown by oil and mining companies in possible oi1, gas, and uranium reserves which may be contained within the. Bering Strait Region. These potential sources of energy were specifically excluded from the scope of.this study due to the uncertainty of land (and offshore) disposition as well as the excessive expense involved in exploiting these resources for regional use. -8- 3.3 Current Regional Energy Use Patterns: Table 1 (see Summary of Findings) represents annual regional imports of fuel oi] and gasoline and the end use distribution for the 16 communities in the Bering Strait Region. The compiled data presented in Table 1 indicates the region has a total annual consumption of 1 approximately 2,650,000 gallons of bulk fuel oi] and bulk gasoline’. On a per capita basis, each of the approximately 3513 residents of the Bering Strait Region is responsible for the consumption of approximately 757 gallons of petroleum fuels annually. Distribution of the petroleum products is approximately as follows: 7 Fuel oil for 54.5% 1,454,000 gals./yr. 414 gal. spare heat and capita-yr. nonelectric utilities e Fuel oi] for 28.5% 759,000 gals./yr. 216 gal. electric power capita-yr. generation ° Bulk gasoline 17% 446,000 gals./yr. 127 gal. for local capita-yr. transportation, etc. 100% 2,659,000 gals./yr. 757 gal. capita-yr. Distribution of the 2,213,000 gallons of fuel oil consumed is approximately 2/3 for heat value and 1/3 for electric power generation. Of the 1,454,000 gallons of fuel oil consumed for heat value, a percentage breakdown is as follows2: Existing and new schools 35% 509,000 gal./yr. Residential heat 34% 494,000 gal./yr. Nonresidential, nonelectric utilities heat 31% 451,000 gal./yr. 100% 1,454,000 gal./yr. Schools unless otherwise noted include existing and planned Bering Strait REAA schools and BIA schools. Nonresidential, non-schools includes stores, churches, community buildings, etc. Heat for nonelectric utilities includes such things as heat for water storage and washeterias, etc. TContainerized petroleum products such as Blazo, motor oil, and gasoline in drums are not included. Fuels for aviation and barge transportation are also not included. 2See Table 1 for more detailed distribution data. 2.9. Electrical power consumption is distributed approximately as follows!: Existing and New Schools 47% 357,000 gal./yr. Residential 27% 205,000 gal./yr. Other Electrical 26% 197,000 gal./yr. 100% 759,000 gal./yr. Other electrical would consist of power consumption for stores, churches, community buildings, pumping costs for water utilities, etc. This data indicates per capita energy consumption within the region is lower than either national or Anchorage per capita consumption. It is the opinion of the authors that the residents of the Bering Strait Region are affected more by the extremely high cost of energy than by excessive consumption. The higher energy costs are for the most part attributed to the higher logistics and operations costs in this isolated part of the State. Fuel use for military installations as well as air and barge transportation within the region were excluded from the scope of work. The Bering Strait Region is also characterized by some smal] roadhouses, mining operations and a seasonal fishing industry, etc., for which census type information as well as fuel use records were not available. They were then, by necessity, also excluded from the scope of work. . Isee. Table 1 for more detailed distribution data. ~10- 3.4 Bering Strait REAA School District Energy Use Patterns The Bering Strait REAA School District currently operates approximately 99,500 square feet of heated floor space in its rural school complexes!. Eight secondary and/or primary educational complexes are now operated by the School District in the following communities: . Gambe11 : Teller a Koyuk . Unalakleet ° Savoonga : Wales ° Shishmaref : White Mountain The Bering Strait REAA School District additionally has approximately 54,520 square feet of new schools and additions under construction, and due to be completed in both 1980 or 1981. With the completion of these new schools and additions, the School District will be operating facilities in all 16 communities except Council. The School District at that time will be operating approximately 153,879 square feet of heated building space. Data compiled with the assistance of Mike Johnson of the Bering Strait REAA School District is displayed in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2 is a compilation of data for existing Bering Strait REAA schools. The annual heating fuel use is a weighted average of fiscal year '78, '79, '80, and '81 deliveries. From this data, it is estimated that the Bering Strait REAA School District consumes, on the average, 147,000 gallons of fuel oi] for space per year for its 8 existing complexes. Electric power consumption data for 1979 indicates that these same 8 schools use approximately 789,376 KWh of electricity annually. All schools except White Mountain purchase their power from the local electric utility serving the community. If the AVEC 18.6% system wide power generation efficiency factor is applied to the school's electrical consumption, it is estimated that 104,900 gallons of fuel oi] are used to provide the electric power currently consumed by the schools. “In an attempt to gain an insight into future Bering Strait (REAA) School District's energy consumption, an estimate was made of the consumption of the new schools and additions currently in the construction. Estimates were based on the following assumptions: New Structures: ° 1.2 gal/(sq.ft.-yr.) fuel oi] consumption for space and domestic hot water 1p0T/PF Condition Survey Data aie ° 10 KWH/(sq.ft.-yr.) electric power consumption Table 3 represents the estimated future energy consumption of new and existing schools based on existing data plus future estimates based on the above listed assumptions. Table 3 indicates that future fuel oi] consumption for space heat and domestic hot water will be approximately 224,820 gallons per year. This represents a 65% increase in fuel oi] consumption. . Table 3 also indicates the School District may also experience an 80% increase in electrical consumption to approximately 1,440,416 KWH per year. -12- TABLE 2 BERING STRAIT REAA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Existing Schools) Required Total Fuel Fuel Required Annual Annual lectrical Electrical Electrical Required For School COMMENTS Community & Square Past Heating Heating Consumption Generation For School Space Heat Population Feet, Heating | Fuel Use. | Fuel Use,| (1979) Fuel to Space Heat & Electrical Year Fuel (Weighted | Gallon KWh Provide Power.| & Electrical ooton Built | Deliveries | Average) $q.Ft.-Yr. (Total Gal., (Ga1.) Sq. Ft. - Yr. (Gal.),(FY)} (Gal.) Gal/Sq.Ft.-Yr) { ' Brevig 4455 To be completed in Mission In 1980. 144 Progress 1980 Council No 35 Schools Diomede 5500 To be completed in 139 In 1981. Progress} 1981 Elim 4455 To completed in 196 In 1980. Progress 1980 _ ——— Gambel1 10,637 | 33,000 '78 376 1978 |17,000 '79 | 14,000 12 17,100 31,100 Roof needs upgrade. 10,000 '80 1.6 Utilities in School. 15,000 '81 Golovin 4455 To be completed in 118 1980. 15,000 '78 | 20,000 9 8,400 28,400 Poor insulation in 30,000 '79 Elem. Needs mechanical 20,000 '80 TT upgrade. H.S. to be 10,000 ‘81 completed 1980. Progress 1980 St. Michael 6,400 To be completed in 206 In 1981 Progress 1981 Savoonga 12,742 | 15,000 '78 |20,000 14 24,000 44,000 uettity sharing with 380 1978 | 20,000 '79 : 1.9 BIA. Needs roof 21,000 '80 ‘ upgrade. 21,000 ‘81 Te BERING STRAIT REAA SCHOOL DISTRICT TABLE 2 (continued) ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Existing Schools) Required Total Fuel Fuel Required Annual Annual {Electrical -Electrical Electrical Required For School COMMENTS : Community & Square Past Heating Heating jConsumption Consumption Generation For School: Space Heat . Population Feet, Heating |Fuel Use. | Fuel Use (1979. (1979) Fuel to Space, Heat & Electrical Year Fuel (Weighted}| Gallon (KWh KWh Provide Power.| & Electrical Gallon Built |Deliveries jAverage) | Sq.Ft.-Y . Sq.Ft.-Yr. (Total Gal., (Gal.) Sq. Ft. - Yr. (Gal.),(FY)| (Gal.) Gal/Sq.Ft.-Yr)} * . Shaktoolik 16,000 Combined BIA Elem. & 160 In B.S. REAA HS to be Progress completed in 1981. 1981 Shishmaref 15,953 {19,000 '78 |21,000 1.1, 8,500 4 10,300 31,300 1.6 Roof needs repair (HS) 309 1976 20,000 '79 Insulation mechanical 3,268 | 25,000 '80 \ and electrical need (Elem. )] 20,000 '81 upgrade in Elem. Old BIA Stebbins 8,800 To be completed 1981. 272 In Progress 1981 . Teller 3 phase] 25,000 '78 |23,000 169 142,000 12 18,700 41,700 3.5 219 9, 466 20,479 '79 (Phase a 1.6 Ls 2,512 421,930 '80 & II) -~- Phase III to 9,684 |30,000 '81 be completed 1980. Unalakleet 22,024 |16,000 '78. |15,000 0.7 76,760 10,100 25,100 1.1 Roof needs upgrade on 600 1977, 114,000 '79 . 0.5 : gym and school. 14,500 '80 15,000 '81 Wales 4,964 |16,000 ‘78 |15,000 2.9 48,109 6,300 21,300 4.3 Old BIA Bldg. Insula- 134 Old BIA]18,000 '79 1.3 tion,. mechanical, and 10,000 ‘80 electrical need 14,000 ‘81 upgrade. White 4 +905(HS) 26,000 '78 |19,000 1.8 76,000 10,000 Est.* {29,000** _ 2.8 *Generates own elec- on 1978 30,000 '79 |Est.* 1.0 trical power. 5,568 |40,000 '80 (29,000 gal. total). Elem. {20,000 '81 Insulation, mechanical. 1930's |({Plus Elect.) and electrical needs upgrade. . **Actual Average Consumed. _ 99,359 147,000 1.5 798,376 8 104,900 gal. 251,900. gal. TOTALS Existing Gal. Current Current Current Required Existing: Gurren Sq. Ft. picrest System: _ Annual System Current Annual ” System nnua ici- - Consump- Efficienc: ~ Con i icf . Consump- ency tion , y nguaption Efficiency tion ese-*> “uel 931 constimed £0 generate the. lectric - NOTE: - ! i , Electrical Generation. fuel ren eos:/pt Weerce MOU cen Wh fear “A eravcs vt Gr power. vos Geiteration’ ‘errvciency Ps umea: BERING STRAIT REAA SCHOOL DISTRICT TABLE 3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Existing and Planned Schools) Required Total Fuel Fuel Required Annual Annual lectrical Electrical Electrical Required For School COMMENTS Community & Square Past Heating Heating (Consumption Consumption Generation For School Space Heat Population Feet, Heating |Fuel Use. | Fuel Use,| (1979 (1979) Fuel to Space Heat & Electrical Year Fuel (Weighted| Gallon (KWh KWh Provide Power.|& Electrical Gallon Built |Deliveries | Average) 7 $q.Ft.-Yr. (Total Gal., (Gal.) Sq. Ft. - Yr. (Gal.),(FY)| (Gal.) Gal/Sq.Ft.-Yr) Brevig 4455 5,500 44,550 10 5,860 11,310 2.5 To be completed in Mission In Est.* ese-* Est.* 1.3 Est.* Est.* 1980. 144 Progress Est.* | 1980 a Sd Council No 35 Schools Diomede 5500 6,600 55,000 10 7,240 13,850 2.5 To be completed in 139 In Est.* th Est.* 1.3 Ese.* Est.* 1981. Progress Est? 1981 .— Elim 4455 5,500 44,550 10 5,860 11,360 2.5 To be completed in 196 In Est.* Est.* Est.* 1.3 Est.* ESt.* 1980. Progress Est.* 1980 maa Gambel1 10,637 |33,000 '78 376 1978 17,000 '79 | 14,000 130, 306 12 17,100 31,100 239 Roof needs upgrade. 10,000 ‘80 1.6 Utilities in School. 15,000 '81 oe Golovin 4455 5,500 44,550 10 5,860 11,360 2.5 To be completed in 118 Est.* Est.* Est.* 1.3 sES%* Est.* 1980. Progress Est.* ee 80. — aa 2 9.2 14,260 39,760 3.4 Poor insulation in_ — ror wes ge Est.** 1.2 Est.** Est.** Elem. Need mechanical 1966. Est.** upgrade. H.S. to be H.S. In completed 1980. Progress 1980 = St. Michael | 6,400 7,800 64,000 10 8,420 » 16,220 2.5) To be completed in 206 In Est.* Est.* Est.* 1.3 Est.* Est. 1981. Progress Est.* TOR eB ea a A > a ead ae de eg Matic ia Ae ts = Savoonga 12,742 |15,000 '78 | 20,000 1.6 182,865 14 24,000 44,000 3.5 Utility sharing with 380 1978 20,000 '79 1.9 BIA. Needs roof 21,000 '80 upgrade. 21,000 '81 eRe BERING STRAIT REAA SCHOOL DISTRICT ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Existing and Planned Schools) TABLE 3 (continued) *Estimated consumption of planned school based on 1.2 gal/(sq.ft.-yr.) and 10 KWh/(sq.ft.-yr) **Actual consumption of existing schoo fe. 1s plus estimated consumption of pl J 4 | anned school, . (estimated Total Consumption). \ 1 — : re . Required Total Fuel Fuel Required Annual Annual [Electrical |, Electrical Electrical Required For School COMMENTS Community & Square Past Heating Heating |Consumption |: Consumption Generation For School Space Heat Population Feet, Heating |Fuel Use.| Fuel Use,} (1979 » (1979) Fuel to Space Heat & Electrical Year Fuel (Weighted}| Gallon - (KWh 1 KWh Provide Power.] & Electrical Gallon Built |Deliveries |Average) | Sq.Ft.- : Sq.Ft.-Yr. (Total Gal., (Gal.) Sq. Ft. - Yr. (Gal. ),(FY)} (Gal.) Gal/Sq.Ft.-Yr) Shaktoolik 16,000 19,200 1.2 160,000 10 21,050 40,250 2.5 - Combined BIA Elem. & 160 In Est.* Est.* Est.* Est.* 1.3 Est.* Est.* B.S. REAA H.S. to be Progress Est.* completed in 1981. 1981 . . Shishmaref 15,953 119,000 '78 | 21,000 1.1 78,500 4 10,300 31,300 1.6 Roof needs repair (HS) 309 1976 .|20,000 "79 Insulation mechanical 3,268 |25,000 ‘80 and electrical need (Elem. )| 20,000 '81 upgrade in Elem. Old BIA Stebbins 8,800 10,600 1.2 88,000 10° 11,600 22,200 2.5 To be completed in 272 In Est.* Est.* Est.* - Est.* 1.3 Est.* Est.* 1981. Progress : Est.* 1981 jt Teller 3 phase 34,620 1.6 238,840 u 31,426 66,064 3:0 Phase III to be 219 9,466 Est.** |(Phase I, | Est.** Est.** 1.5 Est.** Est.** completed in 1980. 2,512 II & III) Est.** 9,684 Est.** Unalakleet 22,024 116,000 '78| 15,000 0.7 76,760 _4 10,100 25,100 1.17 Roof needs upgrade on 600 1977. {14,000 '79 . 0.5 gym and school. 14,500 '80 : 15,000 '81 : Wales 4,964 {16,000 '78} 15,000 2.9 48,109 10 6,300 21,300 4.3 Old BIA Bldg. Insule- 134 Old BIA}18,000 '79 1.3 tion, mechanical and 10,000 '80 electrical need 14,000 ‘81 upgrade. White 4,905(HS) |26,000 '78 | 19,000 1.8 76,000 7 10,000 Est. ***! 29,000 2.8 ***Generates own elec- Mountain 1978 30,000 '79 | Est.*** Est.** Est. *** Est. *** 1.0 Actual Actual trical power. 98 5,568 |40,000 '80 (29,000 gal. total). Elem. |20,000 '81 Insulation, mechanical, 1930's |(Plus Elec) and electrical needs | “ upgrade. _ TOTALS - 153,879 224,820 1.5 1,440,416 9.4 189,376 414,174 2.7 Total Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Existing Future Future Future Future Future Future Future & Planned Total Total Total Total Sq. Ft. 3.5 Data Compilation: 3.5.1 Graphical Compilation of Data: The graphs contained on the following pages are a compilation of data obtained during the course of this project. Explanations of the graphical representations are contained in the section immediately following (3.5.2 Supplement to Graphics). A discussion on data collection and reduction is explained in Section 3.5.3 Data Sensitivity. -17 - BOO corte Oe HBT | a ih Ho fe TT COMMERCIAL, | 63 | UMUMES HEAT ent! Au | FER CAPITA. ACTUAL ie | CONSUMPTION: 4 D0 4). ‘1 —H | ELECTRIC ESTIMATED LEcTaic = HUY | CAPITA 0 f ) b 9 | Q a. a Re Q 2 =o: g i Bo fe. aes § = & Fi a A 38 ay se oS ~ 4 b 5 9ohtussgas" 9 BQ : 2 awe 3s ee a8 3 3 es yaaa! § 39 4 S sek esee f $3 z NOTE: POPULATION EXCLUDES GASOLINE FIGURE to TOTAL FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION Foe Heat & BLECTAIC PRODUCTION /Y2, | ! | i } FRYER! PRESSLEY: ELLIOT {1103 S, BZAGAW AMICHORAGE, ALACIZA GALLOUS CAPITA |OEUTAL BN ereer rhe MEDIA WITH — | UNALAMLE ET {28 GAL, 300 Do 100 RESCENT/AL PASE LINE 40 GAL/ APTA. FUEL OIL FOZ SPACE HEATING, ETC,, 1279 ESIDENTIAL, CnMNEE CIN WON ELETZIC unumes ‘ os li Te ara Al It » i IF | re, \|] Hou esioemaL ayo YoU ELECT, UTILITIES PEZ PITA TREND COUNCIL (25) Vow zee UTILITY MEDIAN ° er fee NOW ZESIDEWTIAL AND 9 \) 400 pa Mn _ 4g ty é E : ga mane 22 df BP SUSS == s Russa #23 POPULATION FIGURE 2 @ WODICATES COLLECTED DATA - 19 - {703 S, BZAGAW FRYER! PRESSLEY: ELLIOTT AVICHORAGE , KALACKA UNALAKLEET (Go0) WERZAGE Ais GALY CAP! f NOTE: INCLUDES EXISTING AND EST. OF FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION Fo Space HEAT IN ALL SCHOOLS, COUNCIL (35) BREVIG MISSION (144) ‘POLI t.( 100) (32) fan WHITE Mou GOLOM| DLES DIOMEDE (133) KOYUK Wi PLAUNED BS. ZEA ANO BIA SLHOOLS e@ INDICATES RATA AVAILABILITY. ely = 249 POPULATION, FIGURE + GAMBELL (276) SAVCONGA (28Q) FRYER: PRESSLEY: ELLIOT {709 $, BEAGAW AUICHORAGE , MLACZA LWALAL EET (102 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF FUEL-OIL Fog ELECTEIL PONEZ GENEZATION OO GALLONS CAPITA AVEZAGE | I ney a r 100 ————} 8 ) : § g a £. 4. g g , ess gi 2 : S OSftussys og dy 45 8 3 sau aehty a 38 3 i aoued bb § sossheee $3 4 NOTE POPULATION {57 DATA (> ESTIMATE OF NeW stuools EL=crac | FIGURE 4 CONSUMPTION @ INDICATES ATA ANALIZILITY. 21) = FRYER: PRESSLEY: ELLIOTT 1103 5, BZAGAW | ANCHORAGE , ALACIZA NOTE: + TOTAL ELECTZIZCAL COUSUMPTION Vy 4 Hi Tt COUNCIL (34) pe NY {2715 CONSUMPTION DATA AND ESTIMATED UE SCHOOL COUSUMPTION (RESUMES NEW SCHOOLS ACE COMPLETE) ° |INDCATES si AVAILIBIUTY Q ) GAMBELL (376) SAVCOUGA (28Q) 86 g afl. fF a gags 2§ 4 wy sutashay 3 F9SYS>NSS tesaayd . POPULATION FiGuURe S UNALAL@eT Zan) FIZYER! PRESSLEY! ELLIOT {709 S, BZAGAW | Ac ICHORAZE , BLAGA ELECTRICAL PONEZ CONSUMPTION IN ALL SCHOOLS woe rt ww CAPITA, ZEGIOUAL i Pe WERAGE a eee Col) BOF F $00 | g q.. @ 2 - & ih gt ff § & gasses og 8 4g 5 3 sure go its i a8 3 4 EQS%S5 == > i 8 Rusdac e $3 3 OTE: INCLUDES ExXIeTIUG ANO eer qe LOPULATION PLANNED BS, ZEAA SCHOOLS FIGURE G MND BIA ScHoaLs FLYER: PRESSLEY: ELLIOTT 1709 $, BZAGAW ANCHORAGE , MACIZA e@ INDICATES asta AVAILIRALITY - 23 - PEADENTIAL ELECTZILAL CoNsumMPTIOU 002 penne (com) LasTAYINN 8%) VENOONYS @le) “naawve (os) aaa WSIS (12) sniagals BOVUANY rz) 23a IW IS soe ee 2 Crit) NaISsIW SIns2d “a Zq0sWwola SAN Amora ee LIAM BOO MWEZAGE 7a LOD KWH CAPITA, OO 200 joo: (Ge) Manna POPULATION FiealR= 7 \WDICATES STA AVAILIBILITT FRYER: PRESSLEY: ELLIOT {109 S, BEAGAW 1979 IASTA. ="94 ANICHORAGE , ALACA WATTS CST “Sa _MWERAGE 4 ZO OO {90+— TOTAL ELECTZICAL DElMaue (WEZAaE PEL DEMAIUDS | | | LL COUNCIL (35) EIR NOS— yep QO ) ) = ac] | | 400 CO z R 8 ais gi a cesses oy Pag b eevee go Russia Ka: 8% 3 POPULATION FIGURE 6 e INDICATES PATA AVAIL 197% ST FRYER: PRESSLEY! ELLIOTT 1703 $, BZAGAW ANCHORAGE, ALACZA - 25 - APPARENT ELECTIZIC GENEZATION EFFICIENCY a - 0.12 | 0.7204-— : +r 3 w 3 | Nw Oe si 7 2 | i a 7 : . < O1o+ | 4 fat & 7 < . | o f ‘ | fe | Ot —. _ | yA (26) 170 —FA 4) —~“7- SINOCCNGA(28Q ~— fT | | A e a A885 gw os - 3 eae $8 3 # 3S paa YS ESS fi 5 4° 3 Huda Fi 4 4 _POPULATION FGURE 2 : e INDICATES DATA AVAILIRILITY NOTE > BAcED ON KH Soup VS. URL COM Hr. ~ 26 - FRYER! PRESSLEY: ELLIOT | {70D S, BZAGAW ANCHOTAGE , ALACZA BULK GASOLINE IMPORTS, 19719 GALLOUS CAPITA AVERAG oe ges I Hill ‘ Q 0 MW P)—a77 (uy 77 ae ~ aad 8 3 j & fa Sts te a ae b 2 gous gags z w J 3 epee 7 39 4 8 z Qs SNAG an 4 POPULATION FIGURE 10 ° INDICATES FATA aes FRYER! PRESSLEY: ELLIOTT NOTE: [POEs NOT INCLUDE PRUM ge 1109 5S, BZAGAW | SMALL CONTAINER. DATA. -_ 97 - ANCHORAGE , ALASKA 3.5.2 Supplement to Graphics: Figure la is explained at the end of this section. Figure 2 represents the annual consumption of fuel oi] for residential and commercial heating as well as heat for nonelectric utilities. This graph was constructed primarily for ANICA data and BIA North Star data. A break down of residential vs. nonresidential was not readily obtainable from fuel importation data. It was assumed that the general increase in consumption per capita with an increase in population was primarily attributable to sq. ft. per capita increase in nonresidential building space and utilities as the relative size of the. communities increased. ‘A residential per capita space heat baseline was established using the following assumptions: ° 600 sq. ft. per family structure ° . 4.5 people per family ° 145,000 BTU's/sq.ft.-yr. heat consumption On the basis of these assumptions, annual residential baseline fuel oil consumption is approximately 140 gal./capita/yr. ‘Figure 3 represents fuel oi] consumption for space heat and .domestic hot water in existing and planned schools. An average of 146 gal./ (capita-yr.) was established. Figure 4 represents the fuel oi] consumption for total electrical power generation. No significant trending is evident. Average annual per capita consumption has been established at 216 gallons. Figure 5 represents total annual per capita electrical power consumption for the region. The data is scattered with no apparent trending if Unalakleet is not considered. If Unalakleet data is considered. than an upward trending with population increase is evident. It may be possible that Unalakleet represents an erroneous data point; however, past experience indicates this generally increasing trend in consumption of utilities is normal. A trend of this type continues to increase with increasing community. population to a point of leveling off for a community with a population of perhaps 1,000,000. An average annual consumption (includes Unalakleet) of 1633 KWH per capita has been established. ‘Figure 6 represents the electrical power consumed by existing and Planned schools. No apparent trend is evident. An average annual consumption of 761 KWH per capita has been established. Figure 7 represents electrical power consumption for residential structures. No apparent trend is evident. An average annual consumption of 441 KWH per capita has been established. - 28 - tt Figure 8 represents the average peak electrical power demand. An upward trend is evident with increasing community population. An average value for peak demand of 280 watts per capita has been established. Figure 9 represents the apparent electrical energy conversion efficiency for diesel powered electric generation plants. Apparent efficiency is based on "billed" KWh vs. fuel oil consumed (does not include in-house use). The apparent efficiency increases with the population of the community. This increase is probably due to increased efficiency of larger power plants. It probably also represents to a smaller degree, a leveling of power demand with an increase in population. Figure 10 represents consumption of bulk gasoline. No apparent trend is evident as a function of community size. An average annual consumption of 127 gallons per capita has been established. Figure _larepresents a combination of Figure 4, Figure 2, and Figure 3. As such, it is meant to be a representation of total fuel oil consumption (excludes gasoline) as a function of community size. 3.5.3 Data Sensitivity: Fuel distribution and energy end use data were collected from a wide variety of sources. It was thought, at the outset of this study, that basic compilations of energy use data would be available through appropriate governmental agencies. Such was not the case. The following governmental agencies and private institutions were contacted for energy, demographic, and geographic information: . Bering Strait REAA School District ° Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center ° RurALCAP ° Bureau of Indian Affairs ° Alaska Power Authority ° Alaska Public Utilities Commission (local utilities dockets ) ° Department of Energy | ° Department of Energy and Power Development ° Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ° Department of Interior (Alaska Resources Library) ° Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc. 2 Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (Unalakleet) 2 Alaska Native Industries Co-operative Association ° BIA North Star 7 Chevron (Anchorage) 7 Chevron (Nome) 7 Chevron (St. Michael) ° Chevron (Kotzebue) ° Black Navigation Yutana Barge Lines = 29:5 ° Public Health Service ° Pacific Alaska Barge Lines ° Institute of Social and Economic Research All graphs and tables shown in this study are compilations of raw data obtained from these sources. The graphs and tables included in this study are not meant to represent an exact regional energy distribution but rather a close approximation of energy distribution for use in this and future studies. The following factors attributed to the magnitude of the approximation: ° Data was not obtained for all villages. ° Many data sources were 1979 only. ° End use distribution was approximated in some cases. e Fuel consumption for new and planned schools was estimated on the basis of 1.2 gallons/(sq.ft.-yr.) for space heat and domestic hot water and 10 KWh/(sq.ft.-yr.) for electrical power consumption. ° Fuel delivery data (for a single year) is not exact _ representations of annual consumption. ° Many communities contain newly completed structures. Only bulk fuel importation is represented. Severity of winters affects fuel consumption. The fuel consumption figures presented in this work basically represent a 1979 baseline year with estimates of new school fuel. consumption added. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the authors that energy use data contained in this study are accurate to within +15%. -~ 30 - -“ Vy 4.0 POSSIBLE ENERGY SOURCES OF THE FUTURE: 4.1 The "Average" Community's dependence upon fuel oi] can be reduced by 75% over the next ten years by using locally available energy resources and conservation technologies. The following table identifies these resources: TABLE 3: A "New" Energy Resource Profile for an "Average" Bering Strait Region Community (Population 220) Value of Resource* In 1980 Dollars 1980 1990 Energy Conservation 26% $ 65,000.00 $129,800.00 Generator Waste Heat Conservation 8.5% 21,250.00 40,800.00 Wood & Coal 37% 92,500.00 177,600.00 Hydroelectric 3.5% 8,750.00 16,800.00 Wind Electric 0.5% 1,250.00 2,400.00 Petroleum 0i1 24.5% 61,250.00 117,600.00 Geothermal ? ? ? Solar 2 2? ? 100% $250,000.00 $485,000.00 *Assuming a BTU of wood (for example) is worth a BTU of oi] The following energy sources and conservation technologies have been identified during the course of this work as having the greatest potential application for implementation in the Bering Strait Region. These descriptions are not meant to be all inclusive but, rather an overview to applicable state-of-the-art approaches. Energy Conservation (and Conversions): Energy conservation technologies for the purpose of this study shall be defined as those technologies which decrease energy consumption regardless of the energy source (i.e. renewable or nonrenewable) . Decreasing energy consumption in buildings may be approached, for example, by bringing about improvement in the following 4 areas: ° Operations and Maintenance - Minimizing space utilization. - More intensive maintenance of energy consuming equipment. ="3] - 4.2 Heating and Associated Mechanical Equipment - Improved boiler burner efficiency. - Duty cycling of heating and ventilization equipment to match activity schedules. - Improved building heating and ventilating controls. Building Electrical Equipment - Relamping. - Improved motor efficiency. - Duty cycling. Architectural Systems - Install weatherstripping. - Upgrade insulation. - Install arctic entries. Architectural systems upgrade is to a large extent interchangeable with the word "weatherization." This list is by no means all inclusive, but, in the past experience of the authors, it probably represents one of the most significant savings obtainable by building owners in the Bering Strait Region. Generator Waste Heat Recovery: The smaller diesel powered electric plants typically serving the Bering Strait Region usually operate in the 12% to 25% efficiency range. The remainder of heat energy is rejected (as a car engine) to the atmosphere through the exhaust stack and through the engine's radiator via jacket cooling water. It is this heat energy that, in many cases, may be captured and utilized for such things as building space heat and heating domestic water. The amount of waste heat available for capture from a generator is dependent not only on the generator's size, but also on its efficiency and load utilization factor. The distance from the generator to the space to be heated as well as the required modifications to the generator and selected building are also factors which must be considered in an economic evaluation of waste heat recovery. Integrated Electric Management Systems: A summary on integrated electric management systems is contained in Section 5.3 Future Electric Generation. Alternative Fuel Sources: Alternative fuel sources, for the purpose of this report, are defined as any raw energy resources which may be utilized as an alternative to petroleum fuels. This definition differs from others in that it does not exclude non-renewable fuel resources. S30 Coal: Coal is a locally available natural resource in the Bering Strait Region. Coal deposits have been identified by the U.S. Geological Survey near Unalakleet and Koyuk. Other deposits of coal are scattered in various places on the Seward Peninsula. The quantity or quality of coal in the Bering Strait Region is not known at this time; however, field work by the University of Alaska, Mineral Industries Research Laboratory and other government agencies may be undertaken this year at deposits near Unalakleet and on Chicago Creek on the northern Seward Peninsula. A potential feasibility also exists for importing coal from the operating mines at Healy via barge on the Yukon River. Were coal to be exploited for future energy supplies, it would not necessarily be restricted to nearby communities. Since coal is easily transportable by barge, all of the communities in the Bering Strait Region, and perhaps other neighboring areas, could utilize coal extracted from the region. The end uses of coal would primarily be space heat and electric power generation. To this end, coal (and wood) are the most similar to fuel oi] of all the alternatives considered. Larger structures could be retrofitted with coal fired boilers and automatic coal feed equipment. Smaller structures and private residences could be fitted with hand fired coal furnaces similar to wood furnaces and in many cases capable of dual fuel firing. Water storage facilities could also be heated with coal fired boilers. Coal may also be used to produce electric power. Steam from coal fired boilers is used to drive steam powered electric generating plants. Steam expended through the turbines (i.e. wasted heat) may be captured and used for building space heat. This concept is popularly termed co-generation. Should residents of the Bering Strait Region choose to utilize their own coal reserves, the reduction in imported fuel oil would result in a potential local industry and a reduction in exported money for fuel oil. For these and other reasons, it is the opinion of the authors that coal (and wood) may offer the greatest potential benefits of all the alternative energy sources in terms of both fuel oil displacement and new local industry and jobs. - 33 - Wood: Wood is a locally available natural resource in many parts of the Bering Strait Region. Although the Region does not have great timber resources, large volumes of driftwood from the Yukon River, as well as other rivers, accumulate in beach deposits The extent of these beach deposits is not known at this time. Many Bering Strait Region residents currently burn wood for residential space heat. The following villages are already taking advantage of driftwood for this purpose: e Brevig Mission g Stebbins : Elim _ Teller m Golovin S Unalakleet $ Koyuk S Wales Shaktoolik 2 White Mountain ¥ Shishmaref Wood, like coal, is easily transportable by barge. Should the magnitude of wood resources prove large enough, a local industry may be initiated in the gathering and transportation of driftwood. The physical process and equipment, as well as the end uses for wood are basically the same as those outlined for coal (space heat and electric power generation). Wood also has the obvious advantage of being readily available for residential space heat without further investigation or study. Many advances have been made in recent years in wood burning stoves and furnaces. Much of the newer equipment developed in recent years is more efficient, safer, and is equipped to handle several different fuels (with no modification) such as coal, wood, and oil. Hydroelectric: A summary of hydroelectric power potential for electric power generation is contained in Section 5.3 Future Electric Generation. Wind Power: A summary of wind power potential for electric power generation is contained in Section 5.3 Future Electric Generation. oAne Geothermal: Geothermal energy in the form of hot water for space heat, and agriculture, etc., aS well as steam for electrical power generation appears to be a possibility for future use in the Bering Strait Region. Stated simply, water heated by underground hot or molten rocks may be brought to the ground surface as either steam or hot water depending on the magnitude of temperature and pressure at the confining depth. When brought to the surface, steam can be used to power an electric generation turbine. Should only hot water be available, it may be pumped to nearby buildings and utilized for space heating. The use of geothermal water for space heating is quite attractive, but is only feasible when the building space to be heated is in close proximity to the source of geothermal water. To be cost effective, the magnitude of required space to be heated increases with the distance from the source. Pipeline construction costs, pumping costs, and heat loss attribute to this phenomenom. The production of electric power from geothermal sources has been, in the past, confined to sources which produce large volumes of steam with which to power turbine generation plants. To date the extent of confirmed geothermal energy on the Seward Peninsula has been confined to hot water with little steam. Current research and development is focusing on methods of electric power generation from hot water. These techniques cannot be considered off-the- shelf technology. It should be noted at this time, that the use of geothermal energy in other parts of the world is usually confined to projects of larger scale then those needed for the Bering Strait Region. Research and development efforts are however, working towards utilization of perso energy on smaller scales. Solar Power: The use of solar power is primarily divided into Passive solar and Active solar. Passive solar deals with building design and orientation so aS to optimize capture and storage of solar radiation within a structure, without use of specially moving systems such as pumps etc. Active solar systems typically use solar panels, cooled with air or water to achieve solar capture. Such systems rely on pumps, fans and other pieces of mechanical and electrical equipment. 35. Passive solar design in future building construction is becoming an interesting concept, as well as one of the least environmentally objectionable alternatives. It is however, subject to the same "first cost" considerations by potential new building owners as other forms of energy conservation design techniques (i.e. high efficiency heating and electrical systems). Design Standards (for new building construction) may be the most suitable area for futher solar considerations. Research and development efforts are currently striving to make the use of active solar power more economical but little has, as yet, been installed in rural Alaska. The best potential for active solar may well be in combination with waste heat or other low grade heat sources. 5.0 ELECTRICAL ENERGY PLANNING: 5.1 ELECTRIC VS. TOTAL ENERGY (REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE) As a result of the regional and specific community research done for this report a perspective of Bering Strait area energy use has emerged, and has been displayed previously in this study as Table 1 "Bering Strait Energy Distribution". This display shows that, on a regional basis, the electric energy use accounts for about 28.5% of distillate fuel total use (when gasoline use is included) and about 34.3% of the total fuel-oil only use. From this same display a regional average “apparent efficiency" of 18.6% for fuel-oil to electric energy conversion is indicated. This reflects a mix of small diesel generation unit efficiencies ranging from as low as 7% to as high as 25% efficiency. Diesel- electric is the predominant generation mode for the region. A max- imum of about 13 kWH/gallon (for 140,000 BTU/gal. fuel-oil) is the limit (with 75% optimum loading) currently available for the larg- est practical diesel-electric units. This represents a maximum attainable fuel efficiency of about 31.7% without heat recovery or waste heat auxiliary generation equipment (Rankine cycle heat exchanger devices). The regional diesel-electric generation salient figures are, therefore, as follows: Maximum to Diesel-Electric Regional Ave. Practically Attain Fuel Oi] - Electric Efficiency 18.6% 31.7% Fuel Oi] - Electric Heat/Rate 26,210 BTU/kWH 10,770 BTU/kWH kWH/Gallon (140 KBTU/Gal.) 7.6 kWH/Gal. 13.0 kWH/Gal. The comparison of regional fuel oi] used for residential and non- residential space heating (approximately 1.9 times that for elec- tricity) indicates that attaining maximum practical diesel-electric efficiencies, through the installation of larger-generating units, would not alone have a major impact (about 17.0% reduction) on regional fuel-oil use. However, the economics of scale achieved through both larger unit reduced cost/kW installed and the lower attainable heat rates should not be ignored. A fuel savings is worthwhile if the benefit cost ratio is greater than one, whether a "major impact" or not. In order to obtain the potential for fuel oil savings through near- term utilization of larger diesel-electric units and long-term uti- lization of more attractive alternative electric energy sources it may be necessary to achieve electric interties of communities where e397 = economically feasible. Both electric intertie and alternative gen- eration potentials are discussed in Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.3 respec- tively. While displacement of fuel oil (diesel electric) generation is the long-term ideal objective for the Bering Strait Region it should be recognized that in the Near and Mid-Term (1980-85) considerable savings can be achieved by consolidating community electric loads so as to attain and utilize the maximum practical generation unit sizes. As shown Table 1 the 1980 regional average electric gener- ation efficiency is about 18.6%. Achieving the maximum of 31.7% could save the region about 314,000 gallons of fuel per year (in 1980 terms). Using 5%/year fuel for generation increase and 8%/year fuel inflation rate, the year 1985 savings possible by moving from 18.6% to 31.7% diesel-electric efficiency is nearly $700,000 for the region (typically $900/family in the region). 5.2 PRESENT GENERATION SYSTEMS All of the Bering Strait Region communities of this study rely on diesel-electric generation. Unit efficiencies range from as low as 7% to as high as 25% with a regional average of 18.6% efficiency for diesel electric generation. Table 5.2A presents the best data obtainable through research done at this study level. When the larger population community of Unalakleet is excluded the region is seen to generate with typically small (200 kW or less) diesel units. As shown in Table 5.2A, nine of the sixteen study region communi- ties are AVEC served communities. The current (1980) AVEC rate for all of its "common charge" communities is nominally 42¢/kWH, plus fuel surcharge. For comparison, Southcentral Alaska communi- ties which are road connected and generate primarily by diesel- electric, average about 6¢ - 16¢/kWH for energy delivered to the consumer. Anchorage currently enjoys the cheapest delivered energy in the State at about 2¢ - 3¢/kWH made possible by a large load center near a relatively low cost natural gas supply. The high cost of rural electricity directly affects consumption. An Anchorage "typical family" (non-electric heat) would consume about 8,000 kWH/ year, and a Fairbanks "typical family" about 5,000 kWH/year. From data presented in this study it can be seen that a Bering Strait Region "typical family" consumes only 1,600 kWH/year (many far less) at a cost of about $1,000/year. This same $1,000/year would provide electricity for about five "typical families" in Anchorage. =3087- Community Council White Mountain Golovin Koyuk Wales Diomede Brevig Mission Shaktoolik Elim St. Michael Teller Stebbins Shismaref Gambel] Savoonga Unalakleet Note: PRESENT GENERATING SYSTEMS BERING STRAIT REGION COMMUNITIES D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E TABLE 5.2A (1979 - 1980) (kW) Installed (SSU) (SSU) 70 (SSU) 245 225 148 185 (SSU) 340 440 150 705 535 650 875 for inventory this study. (D-E) Diesel Electric Generators. - 39 - AVEC Source Capacity Community Demand 1! <x ' M362 SS EOF 26. ee (kW) Peak 40 65 100 130 80 152 180 185 (mWH) Annual Energy Use 35 123 148 222 121 188 194 336 235 340 318 272 433 658 658 1950 (SSU) indicates "Scattered Small Units", not significant 5.3 FUTURE ELECTRIC GENERATION ALTERNATIVES Continued Diesel-Electric Generation The Near-Term (1980-85) will likely require the continued use of diesel electric generation for a large part of electric energy production throughout the region. However, the objectives during this period should be: A. Improve regional diesel-electric efficiency from the cur- rent 18.6% to the 31.7% practically attainable through larger units and optimum loadings. (Refer to previous ae 5.1 for possible regional savings for [A] alone. B. Develop waste heat recovery to enhance overall diesel- electric fuel use. C. Displace as much fuel-oil generated electric energy as possible with alternative sources such as wind turbines, small hydropower and small wood/coal fired generating units. Hydroelectric Generation There is a current and intense Statewide interest in developing all economically attractive, technically feasible, and environmen- tally acceptable hydroelectric power. Several Federal and State agencies are involved and impressive amounts of public monies are being made available to develop hydropower from initial reconnais- sance studies through actual licensing and construction. The prin- cipal agencies involved are: (State of Alaska) Department of Energy and Power Development (DEPD) Alaska Power Authority (APA) Department of Community and Regional Affairs (Federal) Alaska Power Administration (APA) Corps of Engineers (USCE) Department of Energy (DOE) The Bering Strait Region is not an obvious or prominent hydropower area. Relative low-relief terrain near the coastal communities and only modest precipitation contribute to the sparsity of read- ily available sites. However, some sites worth considering do exist. A few sites have already been identified in a study pre- pared by APA (Federal) in 1979 (see Appendix, Item A-1). Communities mentioned in this APA (Federal) study which are also part of the Bering Strait Region are those now served by AVEC, as these were the focus of the study. The only site identified for the Bering Strait communities was the small Peterson Creek site (125 kW) near Elim. Negative hydropower potential was indicated =eA0) - for the region communities of Koyuk, Shaktoolik, St. Michael, and Stebbins. A second study focusing on Northwest Alaska is now in the formative stages (planned 1980) by the Corps of Engineers (USCE). This will provide an opportunity to not only further investigate the Bering Strait Region hydroelectric potential, but also to influence the site focus by contact with the USCE by Bering Strait Regional resi- dents or their consultants. (Contact at the Anchorage Corps office is " Loren Baxter, "Northwest Region Hydropower Study," coordina- tor. Hydropower is usually a multiple-year, initially very expensive undertaking. In the long term, with good engineering and economic judgement, it pays off very well. However, in the initial years the requirement for extensive studies, complex licensing, and involved financing can frustrate a community and its leaders. The best course of action for small communities is to encourage public agencies to handle the costly "paper process" and delays of the early years and seek long-term, low interest loan funds through these agencies. Some very small projects may be better sought through the private than public sector, but they are the exception rather than rule. Hydropower should be regarded as part of the Long-Term (1985 - 1990) Electric Energy Plan for the region, should appropriate sites be located. The best source of funding may be from the (State) Alaska Power Authority which is committed to hydropower development by means of the financial power of the State Permanent Fund. The study communities which appear to have geographic potential to have hydropower sites within economically feasible reach are: Koyuk Council Elim Brevig Mission Golovin Savoonga White Mountain Unalakleet There may be other communities with potential, but the terrain, river systems, and precipitation patterns seem to favor this north- eastern portion of the Bering Strait Region. Through the employ- ment of a low-cost transmission intertie it may be possible for some communities to "share" a hydropower site (see Paragraph 5.4). Wind Turbine Generation Wind turbines (WT's) are often the subject of enthusiasm for small scale users. However, experiments with larger scale machines to date have not been encouraging. #4). 3 Larger scale WT's are only presently coming into technical and economic feasibility as a result of extensive private and public monies investment nationally. Where WT's of 10 - 20 kW were not economically "working out" in recent years the trend to 30 - 100 kW units may present a new picture. The Bering Strait Region should investigate all wind sites where fuel-oil displacement economics might justify a wind turbine. Min- imum unit size for this purpose should be not less than 30 kW, and larger if economically practical. Current technology is rapidly improving in both the design details and economics of scale in production units. Only high quality, well constructed, and care- fully installed units on structurally sound tower designs should be considered. Initial costs for WT's installed under the criteria described will likely be (at least) $2,000 - $3,000/kW. These unavoidable high costs must be paid off through a relatively high "on-line time" for the WT's requiring that something over 40% of the year the units are actually generating electricity (displacing fuel). Obvi- ously sites must be carefully chosen. 1/ Of particular interest related to potential WT's is Paragraph 5.5 of this study, outlining an electric heat storage concept for resi- dences and small buildings. The inability to economically store wind-energy (when limited only to batteries) has been a restrict- ing factor in WT economics. The electric heat storage concept (Paragraph 5.5) would allow stor- age of available wind energy in the form of heat - for use to sev- eral hours later. Additionally, AC/DC conversion at the wind tur- bine is eliminated and, by load rotation, more consumers can be connected to the same wind generator, providing a larger consumer base over which to spread the relatively high initial wind turbine installed cost. (As an example, with the electric heat storage concept [Paragraph 5.5] a WT operating at 30 kW for two days con- tinuously might heat residences totaling 60 kw of electric heat, but staggered through heat storage. ) The electric heat storage concept (Paragraph 5.5) may economically enhance various generation schemes, one of which is wind genera- tion. Shismaref is a community with reported high velocity and reliable, sea winds. This community is likely too isolated from other Ber- ing Strait Region communities to benefit from a transmission inter- tie. It is a site worth investigating for a combination (30 - 50 kW) wind turbine and equivalent capacity electric heat storage (system) at multiple residences. 1/ Mr. Tunis Wentink - University of Alaska, Geophysical Insti- tute can provide assistance in site selection and technology. ~40° 2 5.4 ELECTRIC INTERTIE - REGIONAL POTENTIALS The technical feasibility and economic merit of electric interties between some of the Bering Strait Region communities must be exam- ined for specific cases. It is not necessarily of economic bene- fit to electrically intertie communities for which this can be technically achieved. 2/ The primary criteria which justify elec- tric intertie are: A. The opportunity to share an alternative energy source with one or more of the intertied communities. B. The ability to reduce "standby" power capital investment through sharing of "standby" over the intertie. C. Reliability considerations of a community's existing power system which may effect community economics and life style. D. The opportunity to deliver more and cheaper energy to a community in need. For the Bering Strait region the scale of present energy consump- tion and projects within the next 10 years (Table 5.4A) may pre- clude the economic intertie of these communities with conventional (REA type) overhead line systems. The present Southcentral Alaska cost of these systems, when transposed to the Bering Strait region, is approximately $70 - 80,000/mile, a prohibitive cost. Fortunately, there is currently an Alaska DEPD demonstration project in progress in Southwestern Alaska which will attempt to prove the technical and economic feasibility of an unconventional electric intertie concept for “rural Alaska". This concept uses bipod pole construction with periodic guys and anchors (1-2/mile) to support a single wire and relies on the "earth" for a return path. This single-wire-earth-return (SWER) concept is presently at the demonstration level for the community of Napakiak, and will link Napakiak to the larger (and more efficient) diesel generators of Bethel. The 9 mile long SWER will be constructed at a 40 kV insulation level and initially operated at 14.4 kV to "earth". Key elements in the success of this project will be the demonstra- tion of economically attractive construction techniques and line performance to reliably transmit the energy. For the SWER line to perform it is necessary to locate and establish adequate line-end “earth-return" electrodes (for example, permafrost "thaw bulbs" under lakes). For the Napakiak demonstration project ground rods will be used at one end of the line and a deep well ground is planned for the other. 2/ +A recent example is the 1979 Alaska Power Authority study, analyzing the feasibility and economic merit of an intertie between Anchorage and Fairbanks, without the construction of the Susitna Hydroproject. = Ag $s Political problems with intertie line construction range from BIA paternalism, to REA reluctance to connect to "unorthodox" systems, to land acquisitions for right-of-way. The Alaska engineering firm with the most involved history with the SWER concept (Robert W. Retherford Associates, Anchorage), is the responsible consulting engineer for the Alaska DEPD on the Napakiak project. The Bering Strait Region communities should closely follow the results of this project through contact, by their consultants, with the Alaska DEPD. Ah TABLE 5.4A PRESENT & FUTURE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BERING STRAIT REGION COMMUNITIES Community 1980 MWH Council 35 White Mountain 123 Golovin 148 Koyuk 222 Wales 121 Diomede 188 Brevig Mission 194 Shaktool ik 336 Elim 235 St. Michael 340 Teller 318 Stebbins 272 Shismaref 433 Gambel] 658 Savoonga 658 Unalakleet 1,950 1985 MWH ae ts 45 157 189 284 155 241 248 430 301 435 407 348 554 842 842 2,496 1990 MWH ~(T.47) 66 231 278 418 228 354 365 632 442 640 598 512 815 1,238 1,238 3,669 Notes: Near/Mid-Term (1980-85) growth rates estimated at 5%/year. Long-Term (1985 - 1990) growth rates estimated at 8%/year due to improvements in energy availability and lower cost/kWH. ~ 45:- At the time of the preparation of this study the progress on this 9 mile long SWER line indicates a 1980 "rural-Alaska" cost of only about $30,000/ mile is possible. This is less than half the cost of alternative (REA type) line construction. The attached map (titled, "Electric Intertie Planning") shows potential SWER line interties for the "Near and Mid-Term" (1980 - 1985) and "Long-Term" (1985 - 1990) as envisioned for purposes of this study. These potential SWER interties are summarized in the following Table 5.4B. These potential interties and estimated costs are intended as a guide to show the minimum capital outages to achieve interties of the communities listed. The economic merit of each intertie must be analyzed to develop a benefit/ cost ratio for the specific case. The primary criteria for interties in the Bering Strait region will be to share in more attractive energy sources (wood or coal fired, larger more efficient diesel electric units, hydroelectric genera- tion, or other sources). Wind turbines can contribute energy along the SWER line routes, but will likely not make major economic con- tributions toward paying for the SWER line construction costs. Hydroelectric power, should a site of merit be developed (refer to previous Paragraph 5.3), could be an important factor in the benefit/cost computation for certain SWER line interties. It is possible that consideration of seasonally diversified ‘sources; for example, “summer hydro" near one community and “winter wood-fired steam turbine" near another community, could justify SWER intertie to take advantage of the best economics of investment and operating costs. The figures of Table 5.4B can provide a basis for examining such cases. Communities which initially appear not to have electric intertie merit are Shismaref (due to relative "isolation") and the island communities of Gambell, Savoonga, and Diomede. 746% TABLE 5.48 THE COST OF POTENTIAL SWER INTERTIES (Near & Mid-Term: 1980 - 1985) Hypothetical Construction Hypothetical Intertie Miles Year Cost* Teller/Brevig Mission 8 1982 $ 290,000 Golovin/Elim 28 1983 1,118,000 Shaktoolik/Unalakleet 38 1983 1,517,000 Stebins/St. Michael 10 1981 330,000 (Long Term: 1985 - 1990) Wales/Brevig Mission 60 1986 3,189,000 El im/Koyuk 47 1986 2,499,000 Koyuk/Shaktoolik 55 1987 3,215,000 Unalakleet/St. Michael 76 1986 4,039,000 = Cost is based on 1980 SWER cost of $30,000/mile with escala- tion at 10%/year each year through construction year. Costs are rounded to nearest thousand dollars. Important Note This table presents costs for developing benefit/cost ratios for specific cases and does not imply that the hypothetical interties have specific economic merit. 2 47 SHSHMARE E9518 BAe. OES SARICHEF ISLAND ponnerete 6OMI- 65° Cope Woolley s Sledge Ijord SCTIC INTEX SHORT & MIDTERM (O-5 TEARS) | -—-7-LOHG TERM (5-10 TEARS) Scale 1:1,000,000 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Statute Miles 4 A Port Satety FERRY (i fi SWER -SINGLE WRE EARTH RETURN BLECTRIc INTERTIE FLA —— S40ReT ¢ MIDTERM (0- STR ~~~ LONG TERM (S-1O TRS) | SUIER-ANG STUART ISLAND’. aa sslan Pal WIRE BATH RETURN 2s" ‘West Hill” ® 3 Sl i OR oF 7 fess Z ‘ Chenitht, ane / NALS 5 SO Sewing. Soe Hdaback Hill acze Oe, E - - Pastas : ia Ge of 5 Bin Moores AM or hes Sin . ee sw scale 1:1,000,000 a’ 10. 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 jo. |. 27 & B98 Sho Wee se° a 5.5 SPECIAL END USE CONCEPT (ELECTRIC HEAT STORAGE) Figure 5.1 shows a simplified plan of a concept for storing elec- tric heat at residences or small buildings that may have merit for the Bering Strait region. Obviously the use of electric heat is not economic with the present predominantly diesel-electric generation mode of the region. As furnace efficiencies of 60-70% are approximately twice the best practically achieveable diesel-electric generation efficiency, furnaces are a superior approach to space heating. However, alter- native generation sources (wind turbines, hydroelectric, wood fired generators, or a mix of these) could provide a positive incentive to consider electric heat for the displacement of expensive, imported distillate fuels. The electric intertie of communities with an economically practical transmission system, such as described in the potential for single- wire-earth-return (SWER) interties (refer to previous Paragraph 5.4) may further enhance the electric heat potential. The ability to store this electric heat introduces some attractive considera- Figure 5.1 illustrates a simple residential heat storage concept which can economically enhance the utilization of electric heat from other than diesel-electric sources, and can additionally pro- vide several hours sustained heating and lighting of an Arctic residence when the source has been temporarily interrupted. Referring to Figure 5.1, the system components are: ELECTRIC HEAT & LIGHT STORAGE (Residential System) Cost Estimate A. An “off-the-shelf" and readily avail- $ 900.00 able 5 kW electric heater (and control) with magnesite brick heat storage capac- ity. B. An additional low-drain (less than 50 Watt) 100.00 D/C Voltage squirrel cage circulating fan motor to augment the standard low-drain A/C motor supplied with the heater. C. An A/C to D/C battery charger. 300.00 D. A 24 Volt D/C, 100 A-H, heavy duty, 300.00 truck-type battery. E. A 400 Watt, 24 Volt D/C, auxiliary 300.00 lighting circuit with switch, lamps and circuit breaker. TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $1,900.00 - 50 - All above cost estimates are for installed costs in the Bering Strait Region, including freight from factory locations. Allowing for special contingency the total cost could be rounded to $2,000 for the system as concepted. This system could augment space heat from other fueled furnaces or stoves and provide adequate light levels for residential evening activities for power outages up to several hours during worst winter outside ambient conditions. The primary component of the system is the heat storage unit (Item A above) which is available in sizes from 2-6 kW with proportionate kWH storage capacity. These units have been installed in over 4 million locations throughout Europe, where they present economic merit for off-peak energy use from large power grids (this mode is el aad for Alaska in general and obviously the Bering Strait Region). The principal of operation is to use electric heating coils to store heat in high density brick material to temperatures of 1,200° - 1,400°F. The actual temperature of the "bricks" is controlled by the outside air temperature in order to store more heat at lower outside temperatures (and less heat at higher). The intriguing facet of this concept is the potential to rotate residential electric heat loads in order to reduce coincident demand on the energy source. This allows maximum capacity loading of generation sources that might otherwise be responding to com- munity load factors (diversity). Typically this might average 60-70% plant-factor (i.e., an “average" of only 60-70% of source capabity on demand throughout a specific time period, day, week, month, etc.). When the source is considered to be a relatively expensive front- end cost (hydroelectric, wind turbine, or wood/coal fired generator) jt becomes obvious that a lower capacity unit can now serve more electric heat loads, which are all equipped with heat storage, through load "clock" rotation. What this means is that when energy is available it can be used and stored (for some hours) in the form of heat for the times when it is not, either because of capacity limitation or discontinuity of the source. In the Bering Strait Regions electric energy stored, at the utilization point, as heat is of significant merit. If the stored energy is from a non-fueled (wind/ hydro) or low-cost fuel (wood/coal) generating source it may have great economic merit through distillate fuel displacement. The benefit/cost ratio will depend on the generating source considered, but specific cases can be definitely determined. Unfortunately the lowest flows for hydroelectric power occur during winter (maximum Bering Strait Region heat requirement period). However, wind energy can be highest in winter and may fit the heat storage concept very well. Also, the installed cost of a wind gen- erator can be borne by more consumers through load rotation. For - 51 - example, a 30 kW unit might be able to provide heat to 60 kW of connected load (heat storage units) through load rotation (i.e., a dozen households instead of half a dozen). The initial capital burden could be distributed over a maximum number of consumers utilizing the intermittent wind generation source to maximum capacity, or economic idealization of capital ammortization through fuel displacement value. By converting various energy sources on a SWER power line intertie, communities could share in an economic "tailoring" of the best gen- eration mode by seasons; greatly improve residential heating and lighting reliability; and, maximize distillate fuel displacement. Figure 5.2 illustrates this concept in a simplified form. =a50r BLIERGY FROM JVMAILS BLE VILLAGE ENERGY URCES, DIESEL LOD G81, LIND Get WDPRO-POLER VID SELIER LINES, ETC. UTR. CONTROL LIOUTSIDE SENSOR ™ “LOW COST UNIT HODIFICSTION- ADDHION OF - ALIILLARY 40 WATT D/C SQUIRREL CAGE CIRC. PAW FOR LISE DURING POWER OLITAAES _ PER BRICK SKWICAP, 415 Ki Sees feexnilin (eo L¥2'Hx'P) = [pe ’ 54 LB) | EXISTING b/e OPEESTE _ HEAT STORDa LLL, RENE BATTERY & CUBRGER- CABINET ACL, | Ss Z S 400 Wi DE LIGHTS FOR S HOURS CONTINUOUS) Ofe A/C/ HEAT STORAGE UNIT ELBoTRIC Col Nes UP To 400) EMERG. SND | Bi (DIST. PANEL DOC LIGHTS (2 HRS. 40 BrL/PT.e OR EXISTING A/C | rt > $9,000 eTU OR SERVICE ENTRANCE be KUH/He, ; U0 O O Q Ski UTR STORES Ae oo 100 OU 100U : 5 KW OR a a} 1 Ae Ave LT, RECEPTACLES SND OTHER NORMAL A Lobos NOTES: WINTER! RESIDENCE IS HEAT CHARGING HRsS/ObY SUMMER | RESIDENCE MH HEST CHDRGlIm 8 86URS/ObY SPRING- FALL! RESIDENCE 15 HEAT CHARGING Lea/ pay 7 WNTER) FOR POLIER FAILURE RESIDENCE HAs HEAT & LIGHTS (D/C) 4 MINIMLIM @ Ae ler, 4S Be = 4,7 HRs. (WINTER SEVERE) Fla, 1 RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC HEAT STORAGE OF 4 Uo Re [-d 0° AND 46.9 KLIOTS LIND OL SIOE AMmiélir ZOUoinious) | BERING STRAIT REGION BLECRIC ENERGY _ sHEAT ENERGY (STORED) ss Se Yr. aay tein ee. oo. HEAT ENERGY (ACTIVE) ca i PLANT y SHER LINE za! i iid SE REMOTE SHITCH zi HA 2 ai re SHER Foulee LINE 10 e INTERTE WITH OTHER e ; e rn VILLAGE(S). cee nN CONTROL SIGNAL = a HA CENTRAL ai Cob) Wooo PUBLIC WD) ' FIREID BLOGS. & Fe WINS TURBINE 20ILER/GEN. us | SCHOOL B\~” GENERATOR. Ba BARGED COAL YPICAL RERING STRAT VILLAGE _ MNBD ENERGY SOURCES WITH ELECTRIC - = PIC at | obras 7 whe 6.0 ENERGY PLANNING ON THE REGIONAL LEVEL 6.1 Planning future energy consumption on a regional basis is a primary requirement of energy management. The process of such planning is work that should be done from within a regional government framework (as opposed to resorting to outside expertise either private, State or Federal). The reasoning here is that each region is unique and has special characteristics and social order that must be recognized. In order to draft a successful energy plan only the local manager knows the special character of the region. Planning, be it insti- tutional, financial or energy in nature, is a part of an ongoing Management process. The structure of that process can be set out by experts, but the process itself must be generated by management. The concept of regional energy planning parallels other planning efforts. Goals must be set, that are attainable, realistic objectives must be defined, and the strategies for obtaining the objectives must be developed. Drafting intelligent goals, objectives, and strategies requires the analysis of information coupled with a complete knowledge of the systems being served by the plan. In the case of energy planning, the systems served by the plan are: Local economics Local social structures Raw energy delivery systems (transportation) End use systems (power generation, heating, etc.) oo 00 Goals: Since the major consumption of energy in the Region is the nonresidential, the first order of goal setting should logically concern itself with commercial and institutional energy supply and consumption patterns. Coincidentally, in the Bering Strait Region the managers of the commercial and institutional sectors, with only a few exceptions, have some degree of public or quasi-public responsi- bility. Therefore, the work of setting goals for regional energy planning purposes is more easily managed because fewer individuals are involved. The setting of appropriate planning goals is the foundation of the whole of the planning structure. This process should be done with the most far reaching thought and care. If energy planning is adopted as a formal management tool, then the setting of energy goals will shape the character of the region for the foreseeable future. - 55 - 6.2 6.3 6.4 Objectives: During the progress of preparing this report, several possible energy planning objectives were obvious. It became apparent that, over the long term (say 10 years or so), it was both technically and economically feasible to reduce petroleum fuel use by as much as 75% percent. If such an objective fits the goals of the citizens, then the question must be asked whether or not such a dramatic change in energy use pattern is socially and politically acceptable. If so, then the array of near and mid-term objectives can be identified. Strategies: In order to reach an objective, there are typically an array of paths. Each path has its peculiar requirements. For example, to reduce the use of petroleum fuel as an objective, one may use an alternative fuel (source), conserve energy (end use) or increase the efficiency of the machine that consumes the petroleum fuel (conversion). Each path (strategy) can be used to reach the objec- tive. The selection of the appropriate strategy is a management prerogative requiring the knowledge of resources and limitations of the region. Planning Information: The quality of information governs, to an extent, the quality of Management decisions. If the information upon which management decisions are based is of poor quality, the decision will be of the same quality. If the information base is composed of complete and accurate data, the quality of the management decision will match the talent of the manager. Thus, the first order of the business of energy planning is to develop a comprehensive set of data upon which to base planning. decisions. That set of data must be maintained as time passes; planning is a dynamic process and must evolve with time. The information gathered during the course of preparing this report is one of the most comprehensive collections of regional energy data existing in Alaska today. The quality of this data however, iS poor compared to the basis that is needed for detached energy planning. It does, though incomplete, form a start that should not be lost. As time passes better data can be collected and this information base maintained for use not only next year but for many years to come. The maintenance of energy data is best done in ledger form so that the information can, from time to time, be audited. All energy data should be entered into the ledger in common units so that consumption of space heating from electric, petroleum and wood fuels, for example, can be tallied on the same sheet and compared. 3 561 When the audit is performed, all raw energy sources are added to arrive at gross consumption on the one hand, while all end use energy is totaled together with wasted energy on the other. Such bookkeeping provides a check of the accuracy of the data. The following is a list of information that should be kept current: a) Raw Energy Sources (By Community) - =COal ° Geothermal Heat ° Wood ° Solar Budget ° Propane ° Wind ° Aviation fuels ° Hydro ° Ground transportation fuels ° Fuel oil ° Marine transportation fuels b) End use energy consumption (By Community & Sector)! ° Electric generation ° Passenger/mile, ton/mile ° Lighting transportation estimates2 ° Heat ° Wasted Energy ° Machines ° Non Electrical generation ° Space heating utilities Other reasons for an accurate overview of energy distribution are listed below: ° Identification of high consumption areas by village or consumer group. Enhancement of opportunities for participation in future State and Federal energy conservation programs. Identification of potential hardship areas. Aids in an awareness of energy use. Analysis and verification of energy reduction due to implementation of energy conservation methods. Verification of historic energy consumption in case future national emergencies should dictate fuel 011] rationing as a percentage of current fuel use. An aid in establishing future energy policies and goals. l"Sector refers to residential, governmental, commercial & industrial. 2Even though we may not attempt to manage the use of private transportation systems, the management of public transportation systems energy use cannot be intelligently performed unless the whole picture is seen. - 57 - In addition to aiding voluntary efforts in energy conservation, many future State and Federal programs will probably require such historic fuel consumption information as a prerequisite for eligi- bility. An example of this requirement is the Department of Energy's Grant Program for schools and hospitals, currently funding energy conservation programs within the State of Alaska. This particular program requires. historic energy use data in the first stage of the program. Other programs have clauses which recognize hardship areas. Equations for the identification of "hardships" may vary widely but will probably include such variables as income levels, percentage of budget allotted to energy, relative cost of energy compared to State or national standards, and regional economic hardships. Various other financial accounting data may be required of institutional and commercial building owners. = 158, o 7.0 ° CONCLUSIONS: The Bering Strait Region consumes approximately 2,659,000 gallons of fuel oi] and gasoline annually for space heat, electric power generation, and local surface transportation. This equates to approximately 757 gallons/capita-yr. Fossil fuels currently provide the majority of raw energy fuels in the Bering Strait Region. They are comprised of the following: Fuel oi] Propane Gasoline (no natural gas) Of the 2,213,000 gallons of fuel oi] consumed, the approximate distribution is 2/3 for heat value and 1/3 for electric power generation. On a per capita basis the residents of the Bering Strait Region use less energy than does the average American consumer. Fuel costs in the Bering Strait Region are above the national average. The Bering Strait Region is abundant with energy related natural resources, of which the following appear to have the greatest potentials: Coal Geothermal Driftwood Hydropower Wind In addition, conservation (and conversion) technologies may be utilized in conjunction with alternative fuel sources. A partial list is as follows: Waste heat recovery Improved operations and maintenance Integrated Electric Management ‘Systems Weatherization The extraction, transportation and utilization of regional coal and driftwood resources not only represent the largest potential raw fuel sources which can displace fuel oi] use, but also offer the greatest opportunity for the development of new regional enterprise and local jobs. = 69 = Present regional generating systems (diesel-electric) deliver electric energy at a (regional) average of 18.6%. No signi- ficant diesel-electric fuel displacement sources have been developed to date. AVEC service to nine of the sixteen study communities presently delivers very high cost energy (42¢/kWH, plus fuel surcharge) as compared to most of the rest of Alaska, virtually all diesel-electric generated. Future electric energy sources which can displace expensive imported fuel oi] generation is the single and universally greatest need for the region's electrification plan. Electric intertie of communities by transmission line may be technically and economically feasible through use of a single- wire-earth-return (SWER) line concept now under current (1980) demonstration by the Alaska (DEPD) at Napakiak. The economic merit of each community-to-community intertie will require case specific analysis to determine the benefit/cost ratio. Electric heat storage systems for residences and small buildings may be of value in utilizing wind energy, enhancing central building total energy utilization, and providing back-up heating during primary source failures in winter. Such systems are available as components, off-the-shelf and within the economic reach of the average Bering Strait Region family. (Some State inducement such as “tax credit" may be appropriate, as well as State funded demonstration projects for a heat storage concept. ) The Near-Term Regional Electric Energy Plan should include demonstration projects for alternative generation sources which can pay-off through diesel-electric fuel displacement. Interim measures may include moving to larger diesel generation units, with waste heat recovery, electric heat storage concepts, total energy plants for schools and public buildings, and some short SWER line interties. Wind turbines can help displace fuel-oil and may integrate well with electric-heat storage systems. The Long-Term Regional Electric Energy Plan should include all village interties economically practical, either SWER or other design, the development of all feasible hydroelectric potentials for the region, and the utilization in central systems of the maximum practical fuel oil displacement (wood/coal) generation. Total energy systems (space heat and electric generation combined) could be augmented by residential and small building electric heat storage. Such integrated systems might make best round-the-clock use of centrally located fuel-oil dis- placement generation, enhancing both optimum loading for efficiency and maximum 24 hour energy production for capital investment pay-off. =260.< Regional energy dependence upon imported petroleum fuels can be reduced over the next 10 years by 75%. Table 2 compares the current energy profile to an estimated possible future profile. A 1.5% per year increase in energy demand was assumed. FUTURE ENERGY USE PROFILES 1980 1985 1990 1,000 1,000 1,000 gallons gallons gallons of fuel % of fuel % of fuel % Fuel Oils 2,21380 95.0 788.0 gees 553.2 26.5 Wood/Coal Space Heat 93.0 4.0 641.5 26.3 834.1 31.0 Wood/Coal Elect. Gen. -- -- 248.0 10.6 258.0 9.6 Used Gen. Waste Heat 2353 1..0 80.0 373 275.2 10.0 Smal1 Hydro -- -- 47.5 1.8 65.0 2.4 Combined Power Grid -- -- 9.5 0.4 18.0 037 Wind -- oe 5.5 0.2 15.0 0.6 Solar -- -- 2.5 0.1 5.0 0.2 Conservation -- -- 610.5 25.0 67335 25.0 TOTALS 2,329.3 100 2,443.0 100.0 2,697.0 100.00 How can these future energy source profiles be obtained? 2 Energy Conservation: Target is 25% of space heat and electric generation fuel: \ Methods: i> Increase electric generation efficiency by 2%. / 1985 1990 ; y/ Savings: 97,720 gals. 107,880 gals. P/if - Increase burner efficiencies from 70% to 75% - nonresidential 1985 1990 Savings: 39,088 gals. 43,152 gals. - Relamping buildings - nonresidential. 1985 1990 Savings: 48,860 gals. 53,940 gals. - 61 - "Tighten" buildings to reduce unwanted infiltration by 30% - nonresidental. 1985 . 1990 Savings: 53,746 gals. 59,334 gals. Install storm windows and repair and replace insulation on. piping - nonresidential. 1985 1990 Savings: 29,316 gals. 32,364 gals. Install hot water flow limiters in showers and set domestic hot water temperature to 110°F. 1985 1990 Savings: 51,303 gals. "56,637 gals. Weatherization program for buildings and set building temperature to 70°F - residential. 1985 © 1990 Savings: 117,264 gals. 129,456 gals. Nonresidential, building management program to include: - Programmed use — 23% - Building shutdown : 1 1/2% - Setback. thermostats from 72 to 65°F 3.4% 1985 _ 1990 Savings: 175,896 gals. 194,184. gals. Total of Energy 613,193 gals. 679,947 gals. Conservation , Savings Convert to Alternative Electric Generation Fuel Sources: Target is to convert 43% of electric generation capability from oi1 to coal or wood. - 62 - Methods: Install new wood/coal fired electric generation plant to serve Unalakleet 183,00 gals. of fuel/year. (30%) Install new wood/coal fired electric generation plant to serve one additional community - 75,000 gals./year. (350 population - connected with grid) (13%) 1985 1990 Savings: 183,000 gals. 258,000 gals. Recover 38% of available generator waste heat by 1985 and 50% of available generator waste heat by 1990. 1985 1990 Savings: 80,000 gals. 275,200 gals. Small Hydro Projects. One community of about 220 population will consume 47,500 gals. of generation fuel. Construct one microhydro project by 1985 and a second by 1990. 1985 1990 Savings 47,500 gals. 65,000 gals. Construct three wind demonstration projects. Install three 10 Kw wind machines. 1985 1990 Savings: 5,500 gals. 15,000 gals. Combined Power Grid. Combine several electric power systems - one containing hydro system to smaller systems or wood/coal electric power glycol plant so system added efficiencies will reduce energy generation requirements by 1.5% by 1985 and 2.6% by 1990. 1985 1990 Savings: 9,500 gals. 18,000 gals. - 63 - 1985 : , » 1990 Total Savings for : Electric Fuel 325,500 gals. 631,000 gals. Conversion. “ Convert to Alternative Space Heat Fuel Sources: Target is to convert 53% of space heat to. wood or coal by 1985 and 62% of space heating to wood or coal by 1990. Methods: - Install wood or coal fired burners to serve 50% of school » Space by 1985. - Wood or coal replaces 211,653 gals. of oil. 1985 © 1990 Savings: . 211,653 gals. - “Instal1 wood or coal fired burners to serve 50% of all nonresidential, non-school space by 1985. 1985 “Savings: 223,000 gals. - _ Install wood or coal fired burners in 80% of new construction ’ between 1985 and 1990. 1990 Savings: | 126,060 gals. - Install wood fired burners to serve 63% of all residences by 1985. , 1985 Savings: 206,847 gals. - Install wood or coal fired heat in additional 18% of the residences existing before 1985 (by 1990 80% of all residences will have wood or coal heat). , 1990 - Savings: "708,100 gals. 1985 1990 Total. Savings for Wood/Coal Space 641,500 gals. 834,100 gals. Heat Conversion . : - 64 - Solar Project Combine Waste Heat recovery with solar green house. 1985 1990 Savings: 2,500 gals. 5,000 gals. 1985 1990 Total Savings 644,000 gals. 839,100 gals. for Space Heat Conversion TOTAL REDUCTION IN FUEL OIL USE 1985 1990 1,657,693 gals. 2,141,949 gals. - 65 - 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS: During the course of the work reported herein, some anomalous data was discovered. Since this phase of work did not include field verification of data there is a possibility that the data reported to the project investigators was in error, or there exists in fact a problem in one or the other energy consuming systems in the region. The Summary of Recommendations points out various locations and systems that require on-the-ground technical audits to determine the reason that the reported data appears to be out of line with regional norms and near term energy goals. It also indicates the areas of opportunity offered for the reduction of imported fuel consumption. The communities offering the greatest opportunity are indicated by priority ranking: Priority I Priority II Priority III Priority IV Gambel11 Shishmaref Brevig Mission Elim Savoonga Teller Golovin Diomede Unalakleet White Mountain St. Michael Shaktoolik Koyuk Wales Stebbins Council Recommendation: Perform community energy audits - Priority I first, Priority II second and so on. The base for information collection has started with data developed for this report. The community audits will provide additional information. Comprehensive end use data is not generally available however, thus, the steps must be taken to develop that data. Recommendation: It is recommended therefore, that all utilities be metered. Utility metering would serve as a refinement to regional energy accounting. Utility metering for institutional, municipal, commercial, and other organizations should be designed to accomplish the following: ° Meter annual fuel oi] deliveries from fuel distributors. ° Meter each structure in a multi-structure complex. = Meter each major piece of equipment to monitor equipment performance, identify problem areas and define specific end use consumption such as space heat, domestic hot water, and ventilation fan horsepower consumption. =866n= ° Compile metering data on at least a monthly basis for comparison with weather data. Improved Operations and Maintenance Procedures probably represent the lowest capital improvement expenditures with the shortest payback. Improved operations and maintenance procedures may be divided into the following categories: ° Operations modifications - Consolidation of activities into a minimum of physical space. - Scheduling of activities for minimization of space utilization. Maintenance modifications and improvements - Repair and replace malfunctioning equipment to as new condition. - Repair and modify mechanical and electrical systems to function as designed. - Design and implement ongoing maintenance program which optimizes cost of maintenance with energy consumption reduction. - Establish program and schedule for periodic inspection and adjustment of non-routine maintenance items such as controls, boiler burner efficiency, etc. It is the opinion of the authors that improved operations and maintenance procedures may give the highest return per invested dollar for Bering Strait REAA structures. This concept will become more paramount to the School District as the new schools are completed in 1980 and 1981. The newer structure will tend to be more complex than older structures and require a greater level of maintenance to maintain equipment in an as designed condition. Many of the energy conservation features being installed in newer rural schools (controls, etc.) are maintenance intensive. Neglect of these features will tend to lower energy consumption efficiency over time. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Bering Strait REAA School District initiate a study to review and update operations and maintenance procedures with a view towards energy efficiency. The impact of the new schools due to start operations in 1980 and 1981 will have a great impact on 0 & M programs and should be included in such a study. Since new construction costs little extra to make energy efficient, steps should be taken to address energy efficiency as a first priority in new building design. "67 = Recommendation: It is recommended that the Bering Strait REAA School District implement Design Standards for New Construction. Such standards should be comprehensive in nature with respect to energy efficiency. Such standards should address: ° Building envelope construction - Insulation - Vapor barriers - Weatherstripping - Building fenestration Mechanical equipment efficiency - State-of-the-art energy efficiency - Controls complexity vs. maintenance effort - Adaptability to retrofit for alternative energy sources - Adaptability to multiple energy use systems (oi1], coal, wood, wind, solar, etc.) Electrical equipment efficiency - System efficiency - Component efficiency - Controls complexity vs. maintenance effort Alternative energy sources - Passive solar design techniques - Active solar potential analysis - Adaptability of mechanical, electrical, and architectural systems to future retrofit to alternative energy sources Systems designs compatable with operations and maintenance procedures Generator Waste Heat Recovery: Generator waste heat recovery for space heat appears to be one of the most economically viable alternatives available in the Bering Strait Region. The economics of generator waste heat capture and utilization are effected by many variables. The most important are as follows: ° The amount of recoverable waste heat First cost of heat recovery equipment ° - 68 - i First cost of building heating system modification Distance from source to end use 2 Annual maintenance = Cost of displaced fuel source 2 Cost of waste heat Recommendations: In addition to the sites selected for waste heat recovery demonstration projects, from on-the-ground investigations further study should be made into the feasibility of installing waste heat recovery equipment at additional sites. At sites where generators are sited too far from the buildings to be heated, consideration should be given to moving the generators. Coordination with AVEC as well as other local electric utilities will need to be initiated to negotiate the terms of waste heat sales in both the recommended demonstration projects and possible future project. It should be pointed out at this time that current energy legislation pending in Juneau may have significant impact on utilization and purchase of waste heat. A substantial reduction in the importation of petroleum fuels can only be facilitated through development of alternative fuel sources. Such development requires not only the survey of sources available in the region, but it also requires the development of an alternative fuel support and delivery system. Recommendation: Several separate analysis must be performed in order to design an alternative energy resource system. It is recommended that the following elements of such a system be investigated in depth: Wood Recommendation: It is recommended that further study be initiated to determine applicability of driftwood as a large scale fuel source and the potential for a new regional industry involving fuel wood gathering and distribution. The study should include the following: Extent of wood availability Locations of driftwood concentration Annual replenishment of driftwood Suitability of driftwood for commercial heat generation equipment Current uses in residential space heating Expanded use in residential space heating Institutional and commercial uses ©0000 = "69, < 7 Possible utility applications (water systems) ° Possible use in electric power generation ° Cogeneration (combined power and heat) ° District heating ° Heat storage potential ° Economy of scale (SWER) ° Harvest and transportation techniques ° Harvest and transportation economics ° Marketability ° Land status ° Environmental issues ° Impact on local economics (new jobs, etc.) Coal Recommendation: It is recommended that further study be initiated in coal availability and the potential for use on a regional scale, as well as the potential for creating a new regional industry. The study should include the following: Location of coal deposits Extent of coal deposits Quality of coal Land status Enviromental issues Coal extraction and transportation techniques Extraction and transportation economics End use economics Potential market in residential commercial and institutional sectors Impact on local economy (new jobs, etc.) Possible utility applications (water systems ) District heating potential Cogeneration potential 000000000 0900 Special attention should be given to Unalakleet and Koyuk ‘Water Transportation Study: ‘Recommendation: Complimentary to the coal and wood studies, a water transportation study should be initiated to establish the feasibility of transporting wood/coal fuels on a region wide basis. Such a study should address the following: ° Current water transportation techniques Current water transportation economics ° Seasonal constraints - 70 - . Accessibility of Bering Strait communities to water transportation of coal and wood Environmental issues including coastal management programs Literage techniques and economics Effects on local economy (new jobs, etc.) * Wind Recommendation: Efforts should be made to obtain more detailed wind data where available. Areas with no available wind data should be considered for installation of wind data collection equipment. Further studies in wind power generation should include analysis of end use, potential storage, and electric power grid interties. The following villages should be given first priority: Wales 2 Diomede Savoonga 2 Gambe11 ° Hydroelectric Power Generation The potential for hydropower applications should be addressed for the following villages: 2 Brevig Mission (1st priority) 2 Shaktoolik : Elim (1st priority) : Teller ° White Mountain (1st priority) . Unalakleet 2 Koyuk (1st priority) s Golovin ° Savoonga (1st priority) Recommendation: The study of small hydroelectric power sites is currently being addressed in the State of Alaska by the U. S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy and Power Development. Arrangements with these agencies should be made to evaluate the above named communities for future hydroelectric projects. It should be noted at this time that planning and implementation of hydroelectric projects is expensive and time consuming. It may be in the best interest of the Region to coordinate with the applicable State and Federal agencies in an effort to integrate Bering Strait Region local knowledge and regional development plans into existing and planned hydroelectric investigation projects. Recommendation: Initiate research in how best to lower the energy budget of the Bering Strait residential homeowner. Primary emphasis should be placed on the adaptability of the state-of-the-art wood/coal fired equipment in newly constructed government housing and weatherization. = 7s Recommendation: The Bering Strait. Region should follow, as well as encourage, ~ efforts by the State of Alaska, Department of Energy and Power Development in their exploration and research program in geothermal energy resources. SPECIFIC ELECTRIC POWER RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation: The Bering Strait Region should make the findings of this study, as it relates to inadequate present electric systems and punitive energy costs, available to all State and Federal agencies with responsibility and interest in electric energy conditions. The Bering Strait Region should attempt to achieve an average of 13 kWH/gallon diesel-electric generation augmented with engine waste heat recovery systems, through load consolidation and larger generating units. Rankine cycle engine waste to heat electric generators should also be considered for benefit/cost ratios. The Bering Strait Region should provide guidance and stimulation for agencies seeking hydroelectric development; establish at least two (minimum 30 kW) wind turbine demonstration projects combined with electric heat storage; and, pursue development of wood/coal fired generation to displace fuel oil. The Bering Strait Region should consider short demonstration transmission interties similar to the current SWER demonstration project at Napakiak. (The Napakiak project should be operable by late 1980.) © . Provided all SWER line demonstration projects are positive, the Long Term SWER intertie potential, as outlined in this study, should be explored for case specific benefit/cost determinations. The Bering Strait Region should investigate in detail various schemes of using central building (schools, public buildings, etc.) total energy systems combined with electric waste heat storage and generation to optimize central generating unit loading and capital cost pay-off. - 72 - SUMMARY _OF RECOMMENDATIONS The following chart summary has continuously evolved since the beginning of this study. It is meant to represent the relative potential of alternative energy sources and technologies applicable to each community. 347388 SUMMACY OF ZECOMMENIDATIONS CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES ALTERNATIVE TECHOLOGIES (Sources & Conversions) Technical Audit (schools) | Community| TF Energy . . LOW ECON. OF Electrical |Mechani- | Architec-| Audit. Population COAL wooo. | WIND | HYDRO tear | Seat st oe Lobia Prior- |. . BREVIG MISSION 144 e@ -. @ Oo HI - —| ‘ + ——- i Vv COUNCIL 35 | ; oe DIOMEDE 139 - : wv _ | _ | e| e 2. 2. J ELIM 196 e@ @ @ @ oe. a. Ww GAMBELL 376 , e e@ @ @ @ I GOLOVIN 18 e e@ @ ® @. oe. o. Il | - + t ~* | KOYUK 127 e e | eo #68 2 @ @ ju ~ + ST. MICHAEL 206 , e @ @. ©, @,. SAVOONGA 380 ee e 8@i1e @ |, SHAKTOOLIK 160 e i) e;9 | Nv . - i — — t SHISHMAREF i} . 309 e @ @ O @ | @ I i ve 4 - ! . STEBBINS | 272 @ i _@ @. on 0... Nv +] . i TELLER 219 | e@ @ eo|9*e ® e'9 IL — 7 t tJ UNALAKLEET jj 600 8 8 @ e oe @ O O ® I ce ee t | WALES | 134 e@ @ | | oe ® eee; { L ; i i a + i - : WHITE MOUNTAIN o3 | | @ | @ ® 2 9 | © | 2 7 | | SYMBOL __|_ POTENTIAL SYMBOL POTENTIAL |__. *Includes Waste Heat Recovery, ® High eo Medium Geothermal, & Solar | | : Insufficient 7m IW Data or N O ° Potential | jp e REFERENCES Minimizing Consumption of Exhaustible Energy Resources Through Community Planning and Design, Final Report. Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development and the U.S. Department of Energy. October, 1977. Description of Energy Utilities for The New Capital at Willow, Work Paper. Mark Fryer & Associates, CSPC, DEPD. February 1978. Community Co-Generation Heating & Electrical Generation, Work Paper. Hanscomb Associates, Inc., Mark Fryer & Associates, CSPC, DEPD. February, 1978. Building Size Parameter, Work Paper. Mark Fryer & Associates, DEPD. October, 1978. Waste Heat Capture Study for the State of Alaska. Anchorage: State of Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development. Retherford, R. et..al. 1978, Energy Conservation Through Building Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Books. Watson, D. Editor. 1979. Micro-Hydro Power, Reviewing an Old Concept. National Center for Appropriate Technology. Preliminary Energy Audit Manual, Part I and Part II. Survey Program for Alaskan Conservation of Energy. Energy Conservation and the Environment. Carlsmith. R.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 1974. Alaska Regional Profile. U. of A. AEIDG. Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995. Final Report. Institute of Social and Economic Research, U. of A. August, 1976. Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, Phase I. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy. December, 1979. Study of Alaskan Wind Power and Its Possible Applications. Geophysical Institute, U. of A. February, 1976. Management of Power Plant Waste Heat in Cold Regions. Haldor W.C. Aamot. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. December, 1974. Inventory and Condition Survey of Public Facilities, Bering Strait Region. Div. of Facility Procurement Policy, DOTPF, St. of Ak. Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, 2nd Edition. Frederick S. Merritt. Focus on Alaska's Coal '75, Proceedings of the Conference. Geothermal Energy and Wind Power, Alternate Energy Sources for Alaska. Robert B. Forbes, The Alaska Energy Office and The Geophysical Institute, U. of A. April, 1976. Written and verbal communications with representatives of the agencies and companies listed in Section 3.5.3 Data Sensitivity. APPENDIX : SMALL HYDROELECTRIC INVENTORY OF VILLAGES SERVED BY ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION - . eo ye GOODNEWS Bay = UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERG) ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ; GENERAL MAP_ ] VILLAGES SERVED. BY - ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERA)._‘E cember 1979; PAA eee : Pedgouw wARGOR | -v A | ee terrain and the associated unlikely hydroelectric potential around Emmonak and Alakanuk, their sites were not visited. Minto is in central Alaska, considerably out of the flight path, and was not visited. Old Harbor on Kodiak Island is part of a preliminary feasibility study of Kodiak Island hydro potentials presently being conducted by Alaska Power Administration. > The following chapters detail the method of analysis, cost estimates, results of the findings, and recommendations for further studies. oo 4 ! PART II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS: It was found that generally there is little hydroelectric potential in the area investigated. Because of topography, climate and hydrology the resource is much less than found along the Gulf Coast and Southeast Alaska. The office studies that were made of the hydro potentials near 48 AVEC villages indicated that 15 had an-economic chance for development. In August 1979, APA and AVEC engineers made a field examination of 41 of the village sites to verify office study results. The field examination determined that nine of the villages had hydro sites favorable for ’ further study. They are: Scammon Bay, Elim, Goodnews, Togiak, Kaltag, Grayling, Shungnak, Kiana, and Ambler. A summary of the investigation costs for each of these villages are listed in table 1. These costs are considered minimum to satisfy FERC requirements for a minor hydroelec- tric project license. : , . The study indicates there are no economical storage sites, except pos-— sibly in the Kobuk River Basin. This is partly due to small loads which limit the length of transmission lines that can be afforded, but pri- marily the topography is unfavorable for water storage projects. The study identified other potential optional energy sources such as: (1) wind sites near coastal villages and (2) coal deposits near the village of Grayling. It also identified transmission interconnection possibilities. in the Kobuk River valley. . - RECOMMENDATIONS : 1. It is recommended that further investigations be made of the above mentioned nine hydro sites to determine engineering and economic feasi- ‘bility. These studies should be of sufficient detail to satisfy minimum licensing requirements outlined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. : : 2. Agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and the State of Alaska should be contacted early-on to determine capability to conduct further studies of these nine sites. The Corps has been apprised of preliminary results of this investigation. : 3. First priority funds and efforts should be devoted to early devel- opment of the Scammon Bay and Elim sites due to the strong chance of good year-round flows. Second priority should be on the Togiak and Goodnews sites. The possibility of winter freeze-up on these streams needs to be identified. The third priority would be the streams in the Kobuk region. There are several potentials in this area and the streams could have year-round flows. The fourth priority would be for the sites at Kaltag and Grayling. These sites have good potential; however, the _streams are of a larger and flatter characteristic than those of the see ees TABLE 1 INVESTIGATION COSTS Small Hydro Inventory of Villages Served by AVEC ; SCAMMON OLD WORK ITEM SHUNGNAK BAY TOGIAK GRAYLING KALTAG AMBLER KLANA ELIM GOODNEWS HARBOR Run-of-River Storage Plan Stream Gaging $ 8,930 $ 4,970 $ 3,320 $ 5,600 $ 4,500 $ 9,660 $ 8,930 §$ 8,930 $4,700 $ 1,160 $15,000 Surveying & ; . Mapping 9,180 5,690 6,300 10,750 10,600 10,910 10,310 18,640 7,360 4,290 7,400 Soil & Geology Examination 1,620 1,750 1,880 1,800 1,460 4,140 1,620 3,940 1,850 1,350 1,200 , Fish & Wildlife Studies 1,950 1,360 1,300 1,250 1,050 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,200 790 1,000 Project Design & Cost Estimates 6,000 6,000 1,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Subtotals $27,680 $19,750 $18,800 $25,400 $23,610 $32,000 $28,810 $45,450 $21,110 $12,580 apes Contingencies 20% & Inflation 10% 8,300 5,930 5,640 7,600 7,080 9,800 8,640 13,640 6,330 4,070 TOTAL (Rounded) $36,000 $26,000 $25,000 $35,000 $35,000 $45,000 $40,000 $60,000 $28,000 $20,000 $31,000 . te . . sites in the first three priorities. Streams of this type can be expected to be more costly to develop than the smaller, steep gradient streams. 4. Wind power alternatives should be investigated for the coastal and other selected western Alaska villages which do not have hydropower alternatives. 5.’ The potential for coal development at the village of Grayling should be investigated further based on data discovered in this study. 6. The possibility of expansion of the planned Shungnak-Kobuk SWGR transmission system to include tying in Ambler and the local mining operations, should be investigated. 7. Previous estimates by APA on the Old Harbor site did not appear feasible. However, surveys conducted during the summer of 1979 indi- cated a perched lake having sufficient size and outflow to warrant further investigation. APA will proceed with these studies during 1980. r PART III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF HYDRO TECHNOLOGY Introduction This section is intended to be a basic discussion of the conditions and engineering features required to develop an economical small hydroelec- tric project, such as the size and types required for the AVEC villages. _It also discusses various types of small hydro installations that would be adaptable to village conditions; the process OF sizing turbine/gener- ator sets, and economic. analysis. The type of project applicable to most of the villages is the stream diversion project with a run-of-river water supply. Projects requiring dams and water storage encounter a whole new group of problems including significantly higher costs, earth work in permafrost areas, and increased engineering to insure stability of structures in an arctic environment. Background Hydroelectric power has been generated in the United States for nearly a century. The first U.S. hydroelectric powerplant went into operation at Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1882 with a generation capacity of 200 kW. The trend was for the development of larger and larger powerplants, thus small hydro development was essentially ignored. Today, small-scale hydroelectric power generation has become desirable for four reasons: (1) rapidly increasing costs of fossil fuels,: (2) in- creasing costs of alternative thermal generating plants, (3) environ- mental impacts of large dams and the extensive water impoundments asso- ciated with such projects, and (4) the need to develop renewable energy resources to conserve scarce fossil fuels. t Small-scale hydroelectric power development offers many advantages as an alternate energy source. They are relatively nonpolluting and are dependent on renewable resources; the facilities are small and can blend in with the natural environment; the effects upon the natural stream ecology are minor compared to conventional large hydroelectric facili- ties and may, in fact, enhance the streams by maintaining water depth sufficient to support aquatic life. Present Small Hydro Technology There are two basic categories of turbines utilized for hydroelectric generation. These are the impulse turbine and reaction turbine. The impulse turbine derives its power from the action of the moving water striking a surface, thus imparting motion to the surface. The total drop in pressure takes place in one or more stationary nozzles and there is no change in pressure of the fluid as it flows through the rotating wheel. The reaction turbine derives its power from the reaction occurr- ing when the direction of the moving water is changed. The major por- tion of the pressure drop takes place in the rotating wheel. Since the entire circumference of the reaction turbine is in action, its rotor need not be as large as that of an impulse wheel for the same power. oe Another means of comparison is to say the impulse turbine draws power from the velocity of the moving water while the reaction turbine depends -.—~ on the mass or weight of the moving water. In the impulse turbine category there are the Pelton- wheel and the 2 | crossflow turbine with the Pelton wheel being more numerous. The Pelton : wheel uses one or more nozzles to direct a jet of water to a series of - cups mounted on the circumference of the wheel. Since they operate at \ best efficiency at high heads, they are not normally used at heads of : less than 50 feet. The crossflow turbine, on the other hand, directs a rectangular~shaped stream of water through.a ring of blades on a barrel- shaped rotor, first from outside to inside and then, after crossing the is interior of the. runner, from inside to outside. again. These turbines have a wide range of operating heads and may be used for applications rm involving heads as low as 10 feet. : The reaction turbine category covers many types of turbines and in- cludes: (1) Francis, (2) Propeller, (3) Kaplan, (4) Tube, (5) Bulb, and (6) Rim. For low flow applications the Francis or open-type Francis for low-head would be most suitable. This -turbine routes water to the a runner through a series of guide vanes with contracting passages. These | vanes are adjustable so that the quantity and direction of flow can be controlled. Flow through the’ Francis runner ‘is at first inward in the radial direction, gradually changing to axial. This turbine also has a i ' wide range of operating heads with the open-type operating at heads as ! low as 10 feet. While it is possible to operate turbines at low heads, it must be real- ized that there must be adequate flows to attain any usable amount of power. A turbine operating ,under a head of 100 feet and a flow of . 7 15 cubic feet per second (ft~/s) can produce about 100 kilowatts (kW) no while turbine operating under a head of 10 feet requires a flow of 150 ft’ /s to produce the same 100 kW of power. The power available at a Tory specific site is governed by the following equation: ‘ it P=Qhe ; : = 11.8 . it where P is power in kilowatts, Q is flow in ft/s, h is head in feet, e ~ is the efficiency of the unit expressed as a percentage, and 11.8 is a \ factor to convert from foot-pounds to kilowatts of power. Doubling the flow or the head will result in twice as much power while doubling both flow and head results in four times as much power. The following table indicates the power available at various values of Q and h. Efficiency is assumed at 80 percent for all calculations. —— Power (kW) - Rounded . | H 300 4l 102 203 508 1,017 2,034 6,012 E 100 14 34 68 170 339 678 2,034 A 50 7 17 34 85 170 339 1,017 D 10 1.4 3.4 7 17 - 34 68 203 a, (ft.) 2 5 10 25 500 100 300 rt Flow (£t?/s) As the table indicates, streams with low flows would not supply enough energy to meet the needs of a village unless the head was quite high. However, these streams could be developed to meet the needs of individ- ual customers. The question of utilizing the larger rivers in certain areas has also been posed by persons familiar with the use of "fish wheels" which are dependent on the energy in these rivers for their operation. Since these "fish wheels" are powered by the velocity of the river, the use of the equation V°/2g can be used to show how much velocity is needed to equal the power available from a given head. In this equation V’ is equal to the velocity squared of the river and 2g is two times the gravitational force or 64.4. If we want to find the velocity needed to equal 50 feet of head we realize that we would need a velocity of over 55 feet per second or nearly 40 miles per hour. From this it can be seen that the power utilized by the "fish wheels" is very small. Another important item to consider is the length of the penstock re- quired to obtain the necessary head. As pipe length increases there is a corresponding increase in headloss due to frictiog between the flowing water and the pipe wall. Using the flows of 15 ft~/s and 150 ft’ /s, as mentioned above, and using a figure of 10 percent as the maximum allow- able headloss, the following occurs: (1) when the pipe length is 100 feet, a flow of 15 ft°/s requires a 12-inch diameter pipe and 150 ft-/s flow requires a 48-inch, pipe; (2)’when the pipe length is increased to 1,000 et, the 15 ft°/s flow requires a 20-inch diameter pipe and the 150 ft/s flow requires a 74-inch pipe. This shows that increasing the pipe. length can rapidly increase project costs to the point of becoming economically unfeasible. A typical small hydro diver- sion is shown on figure, 2. ; Sizing Generation Units: ‘ Normally the power demand and energy use are utilized to design the correct size unit for a specific area. However, in the case of most small hydro applications, the flows and/or head are not sufficient to supply the entire power demand, but rather are used to replace part of the generation furnished by conventional generation units. Using the average flow of the stream will give the approximate power available from the stream. However, if there are great fluctuations in the streamflow, this would not be a dependable method of projecting avail- able power. Other factors also influence the amount of energy which will be used. Since energy use does not equal the full output of a generator at all times, a value called plant factor is derived. This is the average energy use, during a given period, divided by the energy which would be available if the plant was operating at full capacity during this entire period. A value of 30 percent would be typical for a small hydro in- stallation. Thus, a 100-kW plant operating at 30 percent plant factor would generate: (100 kW) x (8,760 hours/year) x (30%) = 262,800 kWh/year 45 oe Diversion Structure ! Pipeline % i. “ey | Transmission Line 4 : \ . ) . to Village Generator/Turbine Housing Ze A Outlet Pipe Se i . Cy _~ a —— ; : , _UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY : ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Hydropower Inventory Typical Diversion i . | '. ° Figure 2 ee ee 10 uO } there are certain periods when the streamflow is considerably higher lan the average flow, it may be feasible to provide storage or to size the unit at a higher output to make use of these high flows which would therwise be lost in a run-of-stream plant. If storage is not provided, t would be necessary for these higher flows to coincide with a period when the energy use is high enough to warrant the additional capacity. ince turbines and generators lose efficiency when operated below the rated output of the units, it is sometimes advisable to install a second enaller unit to use during periods of low energy demands. economic Analyses er are many ways to look at the costs associated with constructing a all hydro project. If the project is being built .to displace diesel generation, the maximum amount which should be spent for the project ould be based on the actual energy use and the cost of producing the ower by the present plant. In the case of the 100-kW plant above, the annual energy is 262,800 kWh. If the cost of producing this energy is “¢/kWh, then the maximum allowable expenditure would be $13,140 per ear. Using an interest rate of 7 percent and a project life of 20 years, the maximum total expenditure would be: $13,140 x 10.594 = $139,000 where 10.594 is the present worth factor. ., lowever, this does not consider the fact that fossil fuel costs are increasing at a rate greater than the inflation rate and would thus be on the conservative side of the actual allowable cost for the project. \nother method would be to analyze the cost of producing the energy. This is done by réducing the estimated project cost to an annual equiv- alent and dividing this by the projected energy sales to arrive at a zost per kWh. This can then be compared with costs of alternative methods of electrical generation to determine the most economically feasible method of generation. If the 100-kW unit above had a total cost of $250,000, life of 20 years, and financed at an interest rate of 7 percent, the cost per kWh would be: ($250,000) x 0.09439)/262,800 kWh = $0.09/kWh where "0.09439" is the capital recovery factor. It should be realized when analyzing the cost per kWh that this is only the energy production cost and would not include such items as distribu- tion, operation and maintenance, and electric system management costs. The analyses of some typical hydro sites are compared below. These are based on a project life of 20 years, 7 percent interest on project money, and 30 percent plant factor for all sites. A project life of 20 years and a plant factor of 30 percent are representative of a typi- cal small hydro unit. The 7 percent interest was selected only as a means of providing a comparison between other variables and does not indicate the actual interest rate which may be applicable for a specific project. These figures are rough estimates for comparison purposes only, oe 11 de : a4 COMPARISONS OF VARIOUS HYDRO SCHEMES . o, Alternative Example Sites . Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 - Flow (ft/s) , 15 15 150 15 'j Head (£t) 100 100: - 10 . 100 ; Penstock (ft) 1,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 ‘- Power (kW) 95 95 . 90 95 hi Energy (kWh) 250,000 250,000 235,000 250,000 Transmission Line (mi}¢s) 1 1 : 1 ~ 10 7 Construction Cost ($)— 390,000 2,800;,000 820,000 930,000 iy Annual Cost ($) ~ © 37,000 - 263,000 77,000 88,000 - | Cost per kWh ($). 0.15 1.05 0.33 0.35 These comparisons indicate that the most attractive site to develop would be ‘the low-flow, high-head site located close to the demand. > Attempting to develop low-head sites results in extremely high costs due i to the large hydraulic features required to handle the higher flows. Also attempting to develop sites not close to the demand results in a _ high project cost due to the associated long transmission line costs. i L . : An additional factor to consider is whether the project has sufficient flow during the winter months. If the flow is not adequate to meet demands during low runoff.periods, some type of storage may need to be provided thus greatly increasing project costs. It is very important to realize that unlike a diesel generation project, the cost of a hydro- electric project is not affected most. by the generating unit itself, but rather by the civil works associated with the project. The generating unit is only about 10 percent ef the project cost while the civil works 7 are associated with the majority of the remaining costs. ty Cold Weather Factors One of the major problems of utilizing small hydro sites- in Alaska is ~ i dealing with the effect that the extremely cold temperatures have on the _ — operation of the project. Not only does the cold weather affect the J 4 operation by reducing or even eliminating streamflow at certain times, : it also poses icing problems for the operation of the plant. This is not an insurmountable problem as there are various methods for avoiding these problems through the use of arctic pipe (insulated pipe) for use in penstocks, intake pipes located at sufficient water depth to avoid ‘freezing, and frequent monitoring of plant operation to avoid severe } problems. : : . 1/ Unit costs are shown in appendix A. mother problem associated with streams having year-round flow is the tobability that the water is in a supercooled state. The U.S. Public Health Service has experienced icing problems in some of their water supply lines and overcame the problem by heating the pipe. This is one nethod of overcoming icing problems; however, it should be realized that there could be serious icing problems which would probably eliminate the vinter operation of some streams. Summary 3ecause of the renewed interest in small hydroelectric projects the number of manufacturers supplying these units has greatly increased and a unit can be found to match nearly any combination of flow and head. lowever, the unique conditions existing in Alaska, i.e., lack of winter Elows, supercooled streamflow, and icing problems, will usually deter- mine whether a project is economically feasible or not. If some form of storage has to be built to furnish winter flows, the high cost of con- struction could increase the cost of energy to a point where the project would not be economically feasible. "he use of the larger rivers in the region as an energy resource is precluded due to the high cost of civil construction needed to make use £ the low head flows for the small energy demand of the villages. those sites having heads of 50 feet and above and located close to the villagé would have the greatest chance of being feasible providing adequate streamflow exists. ELIM The hydropower potentials in the Elim area were examined by Alaska Power Administration and AVEC engineers August 9, 1979. Office studies indi- cated the best site would be Iron Creek, 4 miles east of town. However, aerial examination and visits with local residents confirm Peterson Creek near Mt. Kwiniuk has a better power potential. Two Elim residents with local knowledge were: interviewed concerning stream characteristics, year-round streamflow, and local conditions. They were Hans Jamewouk, who is. in charge of all AVEC construction in the Nome area, and Andrew Daniels, president of the Elim Native Corpora- tion. It was their opinion that Peterson Creek, 4 1/2 miles southwest of town on the eastern side of Mt. Kwiniuk, would be the best power potential in thé area. The stream is steep, spring fed, and apparently ‘runs year round. From aerial inspection, it appears 200 to 250 feet of head could be developed from an estimated flow of 10 cubic. feet per _ second for a power production of 125 kilowatts. A 5-mile transmission line would be needed to deliver power to town as shown on the accompany- ing map. Data on other streams near Elim was obtained by visiting with the local residents and by aerial inspection. The stream in town flows year round and was measured at 10 cubic feet per second. There are no feasible locations on this stream to develop head using either.a storage dam or diversions. Iron Creek, 4 miles east of town, was estimated flowing at about 50 cubic feet per second. However, the stream is very flat and appears that it would be difficult to develop for hydropower. Also, salmon spawn in. the mouth of the stream. Another stream 3 miles north- east of Elim was estimated to flow one-fourth the volume of Iron Creek; however, it had appreciably less flow. Because of its: small drainage area, this stream does not appear to be a hydro potential. Quiktalik Creek, 1-1/2 miles southwest of Elim, flows all year round with roughly two-thirds the flow of Iron Creek. However, from aerial observations and the pictures, it appears it would be difficult to develop head in the flat drainage basin. Walla Walla Creek, 8 miles southwest. of town, had salmon spawning in the mouth of the stream when it was examined. It also has a flat stream gradient which would make developing head diffi- cult. : Power requirements in Elim are increasing and there is a possibility that the nearby town of Moses Point, 10 miles northeast of Elim, could be tied in. A road is presently under construction to Moses Point, with completion expected in roughly two years. Expected loads in the near future for Elim include a new school, estimated to use 18 kilowatts, and new homes, with an estimated requirement of 35 kilowatts. The 1979 to 1980 winter load is estimated by AVEC to be in the neighborhood of 114 kilowatts. The potential 125-kilowatt Peterson Creek hydro develop- ment could supply a significant portion of this requirement. Transmission Line LL i PETERSON CREEK UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Hydropower Inventory £ Na Walla = DALASAA * ELIM Ss ~ : “Gotomnce Location SOLOMON (C-1). ALASKA N6S30— W 16200/15230 Scale in miles Gerson eS aware oO wat 2 3 27 ELIM HYDROELECTRIC DATA SHEET VILLAGE LOCATION —- 100 miles East of Nome STREAM —- Peterson Creek DRAINAGE AREA —- 2: sq. mi. POPULATION - 290 EXISTING GENERATION —- Diesel Installed Capacity — 296 Number of Units - 3 Peak Demand, 1978 (kW) —- 61 Energy Used,1978 (kWh) —- 217000 Estimated Peak Demand,1979 (kW) —- 139 POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEATURES Flow Head Plant Penstock Penstock Trans. Output (cfs) CFt) Factor(Z) Length(ft) Dia. (in) Line(mi) (kW) 10 200 30 3500 20 4.5 125 COST COMPARISONS UNDER VARIOUS PLANS Flow Power Energy Cost Basic Assumption (cfs) (kW) (kWh) ($) Year-Round Operation 10 125 328500 979000 Summer Operation 10 125 109500 979000 Double Streamflow Year-Round Operation 20 245 643850 1300000 Double Streamflow Summer Operation 20 245 214620 1300000 we: Stk ure Cost (B/kW) Cost ($/kWh) NORTON SOUND AREA The villages along the coast of Norton Sound that were inspected typ- ically get 20 inches or less precipitation annually. The following pictures show the low relief terrain near the villages which, coupled with the low water runoff, eliminates the two basic necessities for successful hydropower development. Villages shown are: Koyuk St. Michael Shaktoolik & Stebbins 130 es ae Koyuk is located at the mouth of the Koyuk River on Norton Sound 130 miles east of Nome. The stream behind Koyuk that enters the Koyuk River 2 miles east of town has less than 5 cubic feet per second flow August 1979, too little to supply a significant amount of the village needs. The hills behind town are rounded and no storage sites could be located. °e ihe Shaktoolik is 120 miles east of Nome on Norton Sound. Nearest hills are 10 to 15 miles. Possible hydropower site on Shaktoolik River, but there are samlon in the river and there were many fish camps all along the river, St. Michael is 120 miles southeast of Nome on Norton Sound. No hydro- power sites were found nearby. 132 No hydropower sites Stebbins Village is 110 miles southeast of Nome. were located nearby. ’ 133