Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCold Bay Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Cold Bay 1982 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR COLD BAY ANIAK ATKA MEKORYUK CHEFORNAK NEWTOK CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE COLD BAY NIKOLSKI FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY LOWER AND TUNUNAK UPPER KALSKAG PREPARED BY NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES & VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COLD BAY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES A Report by Northern Technical Services Van Gulik and Associates Anchorage, Alaska July, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary and Recommendations 2.0 Background 3.0 Village Meeting 4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution 5.0 Energy Balance 6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 Population Projection 6.2 Capital Projects 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 7.0 nergy Resource Assessment 8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.3 Alternate Plan B 9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations Appendix Review letters and replies Page 2.1 3.1 > bbb LS . RD od oe ot DANDADA Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Sel 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 O52 9.3 LIST OF TABLES Energy Balance for 1982 Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case Estimated Heat Recovery Costs Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan A Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan B Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions aa: Page 5.2 8.2 8.7 8.8 8.14 9.2 —__ Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 2.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Climatic Background Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances Electrical Generation Facilities Fuel Oil Usage Electrical Generation Sector Energy Distribution Energy Flow Diagram Distribution of Total Useable Energy Population Projection Thermal Energy Projection Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagram eid Page 22 2.3. 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.3 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.4 725 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The production of electricity is the focus of the Energy Reconnaissance Program. The study has focused on seeking potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators. Opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, such as waste heat capture systems, were also detailed. A waste heat capture system utilizes a resource (thermal energy) which is currently wasted in diesel electric generation. The sale of otherwise wasted heat can provide additional income to the utility and thus be reflected in lower costs for generation of electricity. In Cold Bay, a coal-fired power plant was compared to the central generation base case and the base case scenario complemented by a waste heat capture system. Summary Statements Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated into Cold Bay were considered. 1s Fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy used in the village. Additional energy was supplied by propane and gasoline. 26 Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3) wasted heat from diesel powered generation of electricity. 3. Forecasts show an inevitable increase in energy consumption in the village due to population growth. Additional construction unrelated to population size is anticipated and will impact energy consumption and demand. Led Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the village. This weakens the accuracy of technological Or economic predictions. However, the estimates relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably reliable. The feasibility of various technologies for electrical and thermal energy production were evaluated. Wind, wood, geothermal, hydro, solar, and peat were considered as potential energy resources but are not viable alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste heat recovery from the central power plant and a coal-fired power plant were the basis of the alternate energy plans. The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the continued use of centrally generated electric power. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was performed. General Recommendations Vs The supporting energy and resource data base should be strengthened. New technologies, and advances in old technologies, need demonstration projects to determine their feasibility in rural Alaska. Significant energy savings could be realized by a village-wide energy conservation and weatherization program. ee Village Specific kecommenmdations 1. Waste heat recovery from the Cold Bay central power plant, utilized for space heating in the village is economically feasible and attractive in the amount of fuel oil saved. The installation of the waste heat recovery system is recommended. is The installation and operation of a coal-fired power plant is not economically feasible. Br The following steps should be taken: ale Initiate a feasibility study of waste heat recovery. b. Investigate existing power plant operation for potential of improved diesel efficiency. L3 2.0 BACKGROUND Introduction Cold Bay was established as an Air Force base during World War IT and a fuel stop for trans pacific flights. Cold Bay is very important to the communities of the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan Peninsula as a regional transportation hub. Location Cold Bay is located 30 miles from the end of the Alaskan Peninsula. The community is located on the Pacific side of the peninsula 45 miles from False Pass, and 630 miles from Anchorage (Figure 2.1). Topography The coastal community is situated in a broad glacial valley below Frosty Peak. The valley is interspersed with siall lakes, shallow undrained depressions and small meandering streams. The outwash plain is covered with thick tundra, grasses, ferns, shrubs and thickets of alders and willows. Climate Cold Bay is in a maritime climatic regime largely under the influence of the Bering Sea and the North Pacific. Climatic background conditions for Cold Bay are summarized in Figure 2.2. Clyclonic storms along with high winds, low ceilings, and poor visibility occur frequently. Precipitation is frequent, but not abundant, averaging 33 inches per year. Temperatures range between 78°F and red, KEY 1 KOTLIK 2 SAINT MARYS 3 KALSKAG 4° ANIAK 5 LOWER KALSKAG 6 NEWTOK 7 NIGHTMUTE 8 CHEFORNAK 9 MEKORYUK 10 TOKSOOK BAY 11 TUNUNAK 12 HOOPER BAY 13 CHIGNIK LAGOON 14 CHIGNIK 15 IVANOF BAY 16 FALSE PASS 17__COLD BAY Nw 18 NIKOLSKI S 19 ATKA 20 ST. PAUL 21 ST. GEORGE s e * 1 w AZnooper say —. 117 TuNuNnaK — 10 toxsoox say—_ RYUK es, ee aguruite 7, i my 8 CHEFORNA 18 NIkousK, ~ ey Sgn pe Sma t TF. ae 7 : ‘| es a | . | 7 ; kee | = | a | . | wave + “ 8 Be SAINT MARYS_2 je A acanieo f Stowers anne 4 hy N cnn 14 a \iVvanor eay 15 . 19 \ elke ae | 180 240 300 MILES Figure 2.1 LOCATION MAP Source: Climatic Background Co'd Bas asta ' ' ! ! [ean lev imam ark May gun | gut auG: ser! ocr: Novi pec P pu Conditions _ {7 vying ied 1.000 ft certeng/3 mites sissbility Listened oe : ~T ver ce ! ae Winds Mean wind speed / prevailing direction 20 + Haske ok jel intl sea ee [ore i sse | Sst | ww | se | se_| sse SE_| Sse | wSw | SSE | WNW a i ! | i SS — + pt] ie ei g APR MAY) JUN JUL AUG: SEP OCT! NOV DEC Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series. Figure 2.2 -13°F. Mountains rising to 5,820 feet are 10 miles south-southwest of Cold Bay. The mountains provide protection from winds and precipitation approaching from southwesterly or easterly directions. Winds from these directions are usually quite light rarely exceeding 15 mph. Prevailing winds are from the south-southeast at a mean annual speed of 19 mph. Population The people living in Cold Bay moved there to serve the transportation industry. Census Year 1960 1970 1980 Population ae 86 256 226 Economy Almost everyone in the community of Cold Bay is involved in the transportation industry. The major employers which form a stable economic base are listed below. ee — ame — Organization Number of Employees Federal Aviation Administration 18 Reeve Aleutian Airways 32 State Department of Transportation 6 Flying Tigers Airlines 15 Peninsula Airways a Federal Fish and Wildlife 5= 7), Federal Weather Service Alascom Aleutian Region School District 5 - 10) COMMUNITY MEETING The community meeting, held the evening of November 30, 1981, was attended by 12 people. The low turn out was caused by virtual white out conditions. Nonetheless, the meeting provoked long discussions. After outlining the Energy Reconnaissance Program, the discussion kept returning to the electricity supply in the community. The focus of concerns were cost and service. There are only 2 or 3 privately owned residences in Cold Bay; the rest are owned by Alaska Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Reeve Aleutian Airways, Flying Tigers, Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard. Many of the residents have electricity costs included in their rents and do not pay the local utility directly. The villagers have an array of electrical appliances comparable to those found in the population centers of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, and their demands for electricity is high relative to other communities in the region. The village suffers from voltage fluctuations and, according to the villagers present at the meeting, brown outs and black outs are frequent. Some villagers complained that any electrical motor had a greatly reduced life expectancy because of these conditions. The villagers expressed the desire to see this situation rectified. The utility operator suggested that these claims were not in line with the operating record of the utility and refuted specific conditions that were mentioned. However, the power supply did fluctuate when the field team were in the community. Sed The topics of wind generation and hydroelectricity production were discussed. The hydro potential of the Cold Bay vicinity has not proven feasible during other studies, for example, by the Corps of Engineers. The idea was forwarded that a windmill be used to pump water to a reservoir and that hydro electricity would be produced as the water returned downgrade. There was considerable interest in wind power, although the gustiness of the winds was seen as a major design problem. The costs of wind power, its unreliability and the technological problems that have been well documented from Nelson Lagoon were expressed as concerns. Despite acceptance of the potential of wind for electricity generation, the villagers doubted its feasibility. A waste heat capture and distribution system, based on the Northern Power and Engineering power plant, was discussed. The residents were concerned that it would be expensive and also wanted assurances that the sale of waste heat would be reflected in their electricity bills. The future at Cold Bay is uncertain, as there are tentative plans which would change the economy of the community. These plans include upgrading and extending the cross wind runway to enable large transport planes to use the airport for re-fueling, work camps being constructed by ARCO and EXXON to support offshore oil well drilling operations, and the possible construction of a large scale fish processing facility. Flying Tigers Airlines currently leases and operates store, bar, restaurant, and hotel facilities from the FAA. The lease expires in 1985, and may or may not be renewed. The utility operator suggested that installation of a fish processing facility would mean that the diesel generators would be moved to facilitate supplying waste heat to the plant (also operated by the utility owners). No firm details on this plan could be ascertained. Discussions also touched on the need to expand the school and the villagers' need for more stores to increase competition and reduce prices. Cold Bay is also approaching an election over the question of incorporation as a 2nd class city. 333 4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES 4.1 4.2 4.3 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is listed, segregated by sector, in Figure 4.1. These capacities are based on actual tank sizes and on estimates where reliable data could not be obtained. The storage capacity of domestic fuel tanks and 55 gallon drums is not included in the bulk storage capacities. Also listed in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and cooking appliances, segregated by sector, being used in the village. Electrical Generation Facilities The existing generating equipment installed in the village is listed in Figure 4.2. Comments on the operation of the generators are included. Fuel Oil Usage Fioure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the village. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used for electrical power generation is shown. 4.4 The oil used for space heating is broken down to show the portion that actually heats building space, and that which is lost to waste. The electrical generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical energy and waste heat segments. Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on records, where avilable, and calculated estimates where no reliable records existed. Please refer to the main report for an explanation of the estimating process. Electrical Energy Distribution The energy flow through the electrical generation sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The "pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to the generation of electrical power. Each sector in the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown. STORAGE * (GALS) BULK FUEL OIL RUBE STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES RESIDENT! COLD BAY/1982 SECTOR AL COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS OF HEATING APPLIANCES PUBLIC ELECTRICAL GENERATION 509000 GASOLINE *DAY TANKS TYPE “OF HEATING APPLIANCE LSD) LEGEND: 100000 1,2,3,5 1 TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE OIL-FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE OIL- FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL ORIP-TYPE OIL STOVE/FURNACE woOOD PROPA WASTE 2 3 4 5 6 ANO FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT STOVE NE COOKING STOVES HEAT FROM GENERATORS INCLUDED. Figure 4.1 DISTRIBUTION ELECTRICAL GENERATION FACILITIES COLD BAY GENERATOR NO. OF TYPE OF TYPE OF ELECTRICAL RATION OWNER UNITS Raueur ENGINE GENERATOR DISTRIBUTION COMMENT SiON TROLS Northern Power and 2 600 KW Caterpillar 2400/4160V |All generators can operate in Engineering Co. parallel. Service to Russell ; Creek Hatcher, 7200 Vv 3 @. - 400 KW Caterpillar Residents reported better voltage regulation would be 1 125 KW Caterpillar Ges areeblee FCA. A. 1 1875 KW Generators serve as backup to normal service from Northern Power and uF 3750 KW Engineering Figure 4.2 FUEL OIL USAGE COLD BAY / 1982 SECTOR END USE Space Heat Waste Heat 183 Percent Generator Waste Heat 42% Electricity 14% R Residential 20 % c Commercial 22 % P Public 1% 5 School 1 % E Electrical Power a Generation 36" %e ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE = 390000 GAL = 65800x10°BTU Figure 4.3 ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR ENERGY DISTRIBUTION COLD BAY Residential 5 % Commercial 19% Public 0.5% School 0.5 % Waste Heat 74% Generation Losses 1% TOTAL ENERGY 36,600 x 10° BTU/YEAR TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 2785 MWH/YEAR Figure 4.4 4.6 De 0 ENERGY BALANCE The estimated energy consumption in Cold Bay during 1982 is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types of energy consumed by the various sectors are based upon the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by Reeve, the school, and the local utility. Estimates based on the population, square footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated energy usage factors, were used where data was incomplete. The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 72,993 MMBTU of fuel will enter Cold Bay in the form of gasoline, propane and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various sectors and used for transportation, cooking, heating and electricity generation. The conversion of the fuel to its end use will result in 53% or 38,800 MMBTU of energy lost as heat. 60% of this waste heat could be recovered using conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual amount of energy used by each sector is listed in the last colum of the diagram. The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy is shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the quantity of energy that will be required by each sector (excluding transportation) for electric lights and appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and generation station service. Percentages listed in the figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 27445 X 106 Btus to determine the projected energy requirements for a particular end use in a given sector. These projected energy requirements do not include energy conversion losses and therefore represent the actual quantity of energy required for each end use. eS VILLAGE: COLD BAY/1982 ENERGY BALANCE GASOLINE PROPANE TOTAL ENERGY ELECTRICITY SECTOR nwH RESIDENTIAL BTU) xil0® Btu x 10° BTU x10° etu x 10° COMMERCIAL PUBLIC —t SCHOOLS ELECTRICAL GENERATION 271000 TRANSPORTATION 389800 *station service or distribution losses Table 5.1 Ses L's aunbi 4 COLD BAY/19282 POP: 200 HOUSEHOLDS: 75 9,400 HTG. DEGREE DAYS FUEL AMOUNT ENERGY PROOUCT ELECTRICAL END USE TOTAL | BY SECTOR CONVERSION WASTE HEAT DISTRIBUTION BY SECTOR USABLE ENERGY f et pees Hi ——_—$ $$$ $$$ —————————— GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION (6167) MRANSPORUATION (6787) 4 — —— COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL ROP ANE RCIAL COOKING (420) | eee el |" RESIDENTIAL] RESIDENTIAL wood HEATING (9660) 560) (13100) HEATING/ Aree) (1790) COOKING (5230) R COMMERCIAL ct | COMMERCIAL pee) (15690) HEATING (6920) —| (14600) ui wrTTTitn 9500 FUEL OIL POWER ‘ 2 POWER GEN. — GENERATION ELECTRICAL (65786) (36600) GENERATORS I SCHOOL(S) SCHOOL(S) HEATING/ (658) COOKING (810) PUBLIC PUBLIC (577) HEATING | (676) TOTAL INPUT ENERGY (729933) WASTE HEAT NON - RECOVERABLE (15465) NOTE: NUMBERS RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT 23328 » IN BRACKETS ARE TOTAL USABLE ENERGY | | \ | | ptt 57528 a | 10® etu's. WVYSVIG MOl1d ADYANS DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL USABLE ENERGY®* COLD BAY / 1982 END USE SECTOR BY SECTOR 100 | — SS E(6.5%) ae < 90 = Thldimioanl a Ww Qa 80 o H/C(24.9%) oS Ww xe « - 70 w aoe noe eee Oo <x 60 ke z uw 50 7 Oo | 4+ -rr---- irs ° uw 40 x a. BT FF eleclttlelta le = = 30 ° oO H/C(25.1%) 20 10 P(1.6%) PWR GEN————" E(0.6%) PuBLic-—-.|.. SCHOOL [~~ — H/C(1.7%) 0 E(0.6%) END USE SUMMARY E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 26.6 % VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES WH WATER HEATING 18.4 % H/C. SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 53.2 % P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 1.6 % TRANSMISSION LOSSES TOTAL USABLE ENERGY = 27445 x 108 Btu % DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT Fila. 4.2 o 6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS 6.1 6.2 Population Projection The population of Cold Bay was forecast for the twenty year planning period based upon historical population trends, expected changes resulting from planned capital projects, and the villagers' projections of the growth of their community. Historical data shows a rapid increase in population followed by a slight decrease. The average population increase approximates a 2% growth curve. Although plans for capital projects are only tentative, residents project that Cold Bay will cotinue to be an important regional transportation hub. Based on this information, a 2% growth rate was applied to the 1980 population. Historical and projected populations are listed below. Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over the 20 year planning period. _____ Historical | Projected 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 86 256 226 262 304 353 Capital Projects Forecast No definite project plans are in place for Cold Bay. However, many possible projects exist which would effect the energy usage of the village. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this report for a discussion of these programs. 6.3 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy consumption of Cold Bay, by sector, during the forecast period. The projections were based on the existing electrical loads, consumption records, and estimates where accurate data were not available. Details of the estimation methods and calculations are included in the main report. Thermal Energy Projection Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy consumption of Cold Bay during the forecast period. The thermal energy is provided by the combustion of fuel for space heating. The projections were based on fuel use records and estimates of the heating requirements of the buildings. 6.2 (MMBTUD | RMAL ENERGY THE POPULATION PROJECTION COLD BAY 275 5a ra SS em < S225 =) a oO a 228 175 igs2. 1984 1986 1968 is9f 1992 1994 1996 1998 2228 YEAR Figure 6.1 THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION COLD BAY 2ea2 22228 + 1822 + | — b 167% : 1982 a8 1988 1988 1997 1932 1994 1595 1992 2702 Figure 6.2 ELECTRICAL ENERGY ELECTRICAL ENERGY PEAK DEMAND (Ki) TOTAL (MWH) BY SECTOR (MWH) PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION COLD BAY - 728 oa co 1$32 1 A. eke ee el SS ee ee a ee 1884 1986 1988 igsz 1832 = 1994 1986 1938 2228 YEAR ELECTRICAL ENERGY PROJECTION COLD BAY 1952 1984 1986 1988 1998 1992 1994 1995 1935 222 YEAR Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial Public S = Schools R = Residential Figure 6.3 6.4 3 7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Wind Cold Bay has potential for eventual development of wind generated electricity. Winds greater than 8 mph have a greater than 75% frequency year round. The annual average wind speed at 10 m above the surface is 19 mph, at 30 m the wind speed is 24 mph, and at 50 m above the surface the winds average 26 mph. Cold Bay is often subjected to violent storms and very strong winds. Any system developed tor use in Cold Bay must be designed to withstand extreme gustiness and turbulence. Wood Some driftwood does accumulate along the coast, but this is not used for a significant portion of Cold Bay's energy resources. Coal The excellent port facilities and easy sea access into Cold Bay suggest that coal may be imported economically. A coal-fired electric generation scenario is presented in Section 8.3 of this report. Coal-fired plants require considerable capital costs, have poor conversion efficiencies and incur high operation and maintenance costs. Peat The soils around Cold Bay have a very high organic fraction. However, these soils also have a high content of & wr volcanic ash. The unfavorable composition and the frequent precipitation preclude the use of these soils as fuel grade peat. Solar Cold Bay receives precipitation on more than 200 days per year. The abundant cloudiness greatly reduces the intensity of solar radiation year round. Even passive solar heating would not be viable as a source of heat. Geothermal Cold Bay is in a very active seismic belt. Pavlof volcano which is 35 miles from the community, erupted on November 11, 1980. Cold Bay hot springs are located 11 miles east of the city (Motyka, et al.). No geothermal potential exists within the village itself. Hydro In October 1980, the Corps of Engineers identified four potential sites of hydroelectric development. Partial results of their investigation are presented below. Subsequent evaluation of this data indicates that the power potential of these sites was overestimated. Cold Bay Hydroelectric Sites Average Annual Streamflow Generator Installed Distance from Cubic feet/second Unit Rating Capacity Town 9.6 185 KW 370 KW 9.0 350 KW 700 KW 305 56.7 860 KW 1720 KW ZDie2 750 KW 1500 KW 14 Wegie. Conservation Measures Waste Heat Capture The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned in a diesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine cooling water, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the engine. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings and used in heaters for space heating. Alternate Plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report, investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Cold Bay. Weatherization Homes and buildings built on the Alaska Peninsula in the past have in general been poorly insulated and weatherized. Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows. Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the building more comfortable and liveable at the same time. The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the most effective way of reducing village energy usage. 133 Technology Ranking Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that could be applied to the village. Each technology was examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and environmental impact. Please refer to the main report for the ranking methodology. 7.4 Gus Village of Cold Bay | Environ- Labor | mental Technology State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Impact Weatherization* Diesel Power 5 ; 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87 Hydroelectric Power 5 i a ZL 3 4 0.55 =a Wind Energy Conversion as systens 2 2 2 3 2 5 0.52 Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00 Steam Power from local 4 fuel,wood,coal,ect... 4 4 4 3 3 0.77 Gasification of wood,coal or peat 3 2 2 1 2 3 0.40 Generation via synchronous Induction* Electrical Load Management* * Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case Figure 7.1 8.0 8.1 ENERGY PLAN Base Case 8.1.1 General Description The base case plan for Cold Bay is to continue using the centralized diesel generating system. As the village grows additional generators are added in the plan to meet larger peak demands. Thermal energy usage has been projected based upon the continuation of present per capita consumption rates. 8.1.2 Base Case Cost Analysis The capital value of the existing central electric power plant was estimated to be $761,000. The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added, in increments of 150 kw, as reqiured by the growing peak demand. The cost of additional generation capacity was estimated to be $830/kw. The cost of fuel oil was set at $10.07/MMBTU, based on a fuel cost of $1.36/gallon. Operation and maintenance expenses were estimated at 8¢/kwh. Table 8.1 presents the itemized present worth analysis of the base case for the 20 year study period. The discounted 20 year present value was $12,796,300. 8). AL “8 COLD BAY PLAN 1 BASE CASE DIESEL - ELECTRIC 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 51.0 51.0 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59 4 59.4 FUEL 381.5 395.7 410.4 425.6 441.3 457.5 474.3 491.7 509.8 528.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 225.1 227.5 230.0 232.4 234.9 237.4 239.9 242.4 244.9 247.4 TOTAL 657.6 674.2 699.7 717.3 735.5 754.2 773.5 793.5 814.0 835.2 TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST 657.6 674.2 699.7 717.3 735.5 754.2 773.5 793.5 814.0 835.2 DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 657.6 654.6 659.5 656.5 653.5 650.6 647.8 645.2 642.6 640.1 DIESEL - ELECTRIC 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 1170.6 FUEL 547.8 567.8 588.5 610.0 632.2 655.3 679.1 703.8 729.5 756.0 10986 .2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 250.0 252.5 255.1 257.7 260.4 263.0 265.7 268.4 271.1 273.8 4979.3 TOTAL 857.1 879.7 903.0 927.1 951.9 977.6 1004.2 1031.6 1059.9 1089.2 17136.1 TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST 857.1 879.7 903.0 927.1 951.9 977.6 1004.2 1031.6 1059.9 1089.2 17136.1 DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 637.8 635.5 633.3 631.3 629.3 627.5 625.8 624.1 622.6 621.1 12796.3 NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.1 8.1.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present diesel generation 1) 2) Community Preference: The villagers of Cold Bay recognize that diesel generation is the only technologically feasible way of generating electricity today. Therefore, their interests are in seeing the most efficient use of the system. Reliability of power supply is regarded as basic to the village's needs. Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases releases a small amount of pollutants to the local environment, but the impact is minimal. ii) Noise: The exhaust stacks from the generator produce a considerable amount of noise. The installation of more effective mufflers would reduce the noise level. iii) Water Quality: No impact. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impact. v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is no impact on vegetation or soils. vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: All leases and permits are in place. 8.3 8.1.4 Base Case Technical Evaluation The continued operation of the central diesel electric power plant in Cold Bay is expected to conform to the following: 1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well proven well understood technology with a successful history in rural Alaska. Backup generation allows maintenance operations without Major power interruptions. Occasional system downtown is expected for distribution system maintenance. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated with electrical power are also present. Availability. There are no indications that spare parts will become difficult to obtain in the future. The availability of fuel to the power plant depends on the reliability of transportation to the villaae. 8.4 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.2.1 General Description The Alternate Plan A for Cold Bay is the installation of a waste heat recovery system installed at the existing central electric power plant, with the following features: 1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on the 600 KW 400 KW and 120 KW generators. 2. A distribution system consisting of pumps, piping and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return it to the power plant. 3. Heating equipment installed in the following buildings: School Fire Station Dept. of Transportation Warm Storage Building Dept. of Transportation Shop Flying Tigers H-Building Flying Tigers Ramp Building Flying Tigers Hotel Annex Flight Service Station FAA Shop Comfersac Building Reeve Terminal Reeve Mess Hall Reeve Shop Reeve Chevron Building Peninsula Airways Building buildings 4. A control system that automatically regulates and measures the supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any surplus waste heat to the engine radiators. 8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to install the jacket water heat recovery system. The installation cost of the heat recovery system was estimated to be $712,900. The system was amortized over a 10 year period. The cost of fuel oil normally used for space heating, which was offset by the captured waste heat, was $10.07/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil cost of $1.36/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were calculated to be $1.77/MMBTU waste heat captured. Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The discounted net benefit of the system was $1,462,700. 8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from existing generators for sale to major consumers. 1) Community Preference: The villagers of Cold Bay recognize that the installation of waste heat will improve the efficiency of fuel use in the community. The sale of waste heat will help lessen the effect of rising fuel prices on the cost of electricity. 8.6 ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY Project Location Generators (kw) Estimated total kwh generated Generators equipped with heat recovery equipment CALCULATED VALUES Average Generation Rate Percent of On-Line Capacity Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery Percent Jacket Water Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Available Estimated Recovered Heat Utilized MAJOR COST ITEMS 10. 11. Main piping 2500 Circulating Pumps Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware Contingencies (30%) Base Cost Project Management (5%) Engineering (10%) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST O & M COST Recovery Efficiency feet x $120/ft. Heat Recovery Equipment Table 8.2 8.7 Costs Cold Bay 600,600,400,120 2,783, 000kwh/yr 600,600,400,120 318 kw 44% 38300 Btu/min 54% 1.24x10© BtuH -93X10© BtuH 300,000 63,800 74,400 98,700 143,000 619,900 31,000 62,000 712,900 1.77/MMBtu 2927 Btu/kwh DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST °8 NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS 1982 510 S8ls5 ae 657.6 657.6 657.6 ooco~w ooocon 1983 1984 Gp (0) 59.4 395.7 410.4 227.5: 23050 674.2 699.7 674.2 699.7 654.6 659.5 1983 1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COLD BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE 1985 59.4 425.6 232.4 TATia3 TV iis 656.5 1985 98.6 169.6 7120 63.1 A 1986 59.4 441.3 234.9 73939 1350 653.5 1986 98.8 175.6 76.8 66.2 1987 59.4 457.5 237.4 754.2 754.2 650.6 1987 98.9 181.7 82.8 69.3 NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 1988 59.4 474.3 2391.9 TTS 113.9 647.8 1988 99.1 188.1 89.0 72.4 1989 59.4 491.7 242.4 79355 793,.5 645.2 1989 OOF 194.7 95.4 1558 1990 59.4 509.8 244.9 814.0 814.0 642.6 1990 99.4 201.5 102.1 13.3 u991) 59.4 528.4 247.4 835.2 835.2 640.1 1991 99.6 208.6 109.0 81.1 6°8 DIESEL. —“ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED‘ NET BENEFITS 1992 59.4 547.8 250.0 8571 857.1 637.8 1992 99.8 21569 116.1 8359 1993 59.4 567.8 252.5 879.7 879.7 635/15 1993 99-9 223).0 123/35 86.7 NOTE: 1994 59.4 588.5 255 i. 903.0 903.0 633.3 1994 100.1 23153 igi 89.3 COLD BAY PLAN 2 ALTERNATE 1995 59.4 610.0 CSU. S27eu O27 al 631.3 1995 100.3 239.4 13952 92.0 A 1995 59.4 632.2 260.4 95539 9517.9 629.3 1996 100.4 247.8 147.4 94.6 1997 59.4 655.3 263.0 977.6 977-6 627.5 O97: 100.6 256.5 5549 9752 *kk ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.3 (continued) 1998 59.4 679.1 265.7 1004.2 1004.2 625.8 1998 100.8 265.5 164.7 99 a. 1999 59.4 703.8 268.4 2009 59 34 12915 27lal 1031.6 1059.9 1031.6 1059.9 624.1 1999 101.0 274.8 L339 102.1 622.6 2000 101. 284. 18353 104.6 ore 2001 59.4 756.0 21338 1089.2 1089.2 621.1 2001 LOIS 294.5 LOS) 2 107.0 TOTAL 1170.8 10986 .2 4979.3 L713 ext L/AB Oo; ~ 12796.3 TOTAL 1699.0 3853.6 2154.5 1462.7 Installation of the waste heat capture system will require local expertise and should provide a number of jobs during the construction phase. The system should operate with minimal maintenance although one part time person would be required until the system has been tested and initial minor problems have been solved. 2) Environmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in fuel consumed in the village resulting in reduction of hydrocarbons, monoxides and nitrogen oxide emissions. ii) Noise Levels: No impact. iii) Water Quality: There would be a minor impact if a major leakage occurred in the coolant system. iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None. v) Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during the installation of the distribution system and will be restricted to the village site. vi) Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed that the village will make the necessary arrangements for the right of way requirements for the distribution system. 8.2.4 Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation Operation of the waste heat recovery system in Cold Bay, in conjunction with the central power plant, is expected to conform to the following expectations: High Reliability. The system utilizes simple, reliable components that are readily available "off the shelf" from a variety of sources. Safety. A well maintained system has a very low hazard potential. Availability. All components needed are available immediately. The system is relatively easy to implement. 8.3 Alternate Plan B 8.3.1 General Description The Alternate Plan B for Cold Bay is the installation of a coal-fired electrical power plant. The plant will have the following features: 1. A coal-fired steam boiler producing 250 psig Saturated steam. A single 800 KW steam turbine generator for producing electrical power. A fuel handling system capable of automatic firing control of the boiler. All necessary boiler trim, boiler feed pumps, deaerator, and miscellaneous equipment for proper system operation. A cooling tower system and condensor to reject waste heat from the steam cycle. Ore ele 6. All electrical controls necessary to allow the plant to operate in parallel with the existing diesel electric plant. The diesel electric plant will be kept operational for backup. 8.3.2 Alternate Plan B Cost Analysis The construction cost of the coal-fired electrical power plant is itemized as follows: Steam boiler and auxiliary 353,000 equipment Turbine-generator package 135,000 Condenser and cooling tower 100,000 Electrical controls and switch gear 45,000 Fuel storage and fuel handling 300,000 Subtotal 933,000 Shipping 84,000 Site preparation and foundations 93,000 Equipment installation 200,000 Piping 30,000 Generator building 480,000 Subtotal 1,820,000 Engineering 127,000 Project Management 91,000 Test and Energization 91,000 Contingency 364,000 Total Estimated Project Cost 2,500,000 The plant cost was amortized over a 20 year period. Additional generation capacity was added in 150 KW increments as required by the growing peak demand. 8.12 The cost of additional generation was estimated to be $2000/KW. The cost of fuel was estimated at $6.00 MMBTU. This was based on a cost of coal at $78/ton. This was Healy coal shipped by rail to Seward then by barge to Cold Bay. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated at 12¢/KWH. Table 8.4 presents the itemized present worth analysis for the 20 year study period. The discounted present value of the plan was $18,704,800. 8.3.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation Alternate Plan B Summary: Coal-fired electrical generation 1) Community Preference: Although discussed briefly there was little comment on the option, except that doubts were expressed over the economic viability of the scenario. 2) &nvironmental Considerations: i) Air Quality: The status of the technology for coal-fired electrical generation plants is such that air pollution can be minimal, but is dependent on the design of the installed system. Minimum emission standards could be established which would be equal to those from exhausts from diesel generators. ii) Noise: Levels would be equivalent to those associated with diesel generation. Seis oc . > DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND. MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 1982 2190 454.7 337.6 1011.2 1011.2 1011.2 1992 219.0 ear 374.9 1246.7 1246.7 927.7 COLD BAY PLAN 3 ALTERNATE B 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1999 219.0 21970 219.0 219.0 219.0. 219.0 219.0 219.0 471.6 . 489.0 507.1 525.8 545.2 565.2 586.0 607.5 341.3 344.9 348.6 352.3 356.0 359.8 363.5 367.3 1031.8 1053.0 1074.7 1097.2 1120.2 1144.0 1168.5 1193.8 1031.8 1053.0 1074.7 1097.2 1120.2 1144.0 1168.5 1193.8 1001.8 992.5 983.5 974.8 966.3 958.1 950.1 942.4 11993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 219.0 219.0 219.0 219.0 219.0 219.0 219.0 219.0 676.6 701.3 726.9 753.4 780.8 809.3 838.7 869.3 378.8 382.7 386.6 390.5 394.5 398.5 402.5 406.6 1274.4 1303.0 1332.5 1362.9 1394.3 1426.8 1460.3 1494.9 1274.4 1303.0 1332.5 1362.9 1394.3 1426.8 1460.3 1494.9 920.6 913.9 907.4 901.1 895.0 889.1 883.5 878.1 NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's Table 8.4 1991 21:90 629. Sule: 1219 or~n 1219.8 934.9 2001 219/30) 900.9 410.7 1530.6 1530.6 872.9 TOTA 4380. 13091. 7468. 24940. 24940. 18704. or Dwr 8.3.4 iii) Water Quality: No measureable impacts are envisaged. iv) Fish and Wildlife: No impacts are anticipated. v) Terrestrial Impacts: None known. vi) Land Use and Land Ownership Status: Would be the responsibility of the utility although no major obstacles are foreseen. Alternate Plan B Technical Evaluation The operation of the coal-fired electrical power generation plant in Cold Bay is expected to conform to the following: tie Reliability. Coal-fired steam boiler and steam turbine generators are well proven, reliable technology. Maintenance requirements are much higher than for diesel electric plants, and a skilled operator in 24 hour attendance would be required. Associated maintenance costs are higher than with diesel electric generation. Safety. There are associated, relatively low risks in the operation of any steam system. These include steam leaks, steam explosions, and burn hazard. Availability. Many key components of the system, such as the boiler and turbine generator, require a lead time up to one year to obtain. Spare parts should be relatively easy to obtain. Chrgp Eis) 9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits. Table 9.1 COLD BAY | Base Case [Alternative AJA Energy Source Diese Diesel and Lea haste Heat Present Worth _ | $12,796,300] $12,796,300 | Non=Blectrical senerits——[ "| ta62 700 Total [S127 796, 300] S11, 323,600 | Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan. Table 9.2 Energy Base Case Alternative A Alternative B Production Plan 1 Cost Plan 2 Cost Plan 3 Cost Year (kwh/yr.) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) (¢/kwh ) i , . . . 1983 2,844,000 23671 23.71 36.28 1984 2,874,000 24.35 24.35 36.64 1985 2,905,000 24.69 22.25 36.99 1986 2,936,000 25.05 22.44 37.37 1987 2,967,000 24.42 a2402 37.76 1988 2,998,000 25.80 22.83 38.16 1989 3,029,000 261.20 23.05 38.58 1990 3,061,000 26.59 23.26 39.00 1991 3,093,000 27.00 23.48 39.44 1992 3,124,000 27.44 23.12 39.91 1993 3,157,000 27.87 23,95 40.37 1994 3,189,000 28.32 24.20 40.86 1995 3,222,000 28.077 24.45 41.36 1996 3,254,000 29.25 24.72 41.88 1997 3,287,000 29.74 25200 42.42 1998 3,321,000 30.24 25628 42.96 1999 3,355,000 30.75 25.56 43.53 2000 3,388,000 31.28 25.07 44.12 2001 3,423,000 31.82 26.18 44.72 9.2 Table 9.3 presents the plans tor the village, in rank of recommended preference. The recommended action appropriate to each alternative is listed as well. Table 9.3 Energy Plan Alternative Recommended Action Alternative A - Waste Heat Initiate a feasibility Capture study for waste heat recovery. Estimated cost of feasibilty study $15,000 - $20,000. Base Case — Continued Investigate operation for Operation of Central potential of improved gen- Power Plant eration efficiency. Esti- mate cost of study at $10,000 - $12,000 Alternate Plan B — Coal-Fired This alternative iS not Power Plant econimically feasible. Additional Recommendations Weatherization No resource assessment or -building insulation feasibility study »building envelope indicated; immediate action infiltration required to bring Energy «improved combustion Audit and/or weatherization __ - _ program to this community. o2 Reconnaissance studies are necessarily preliminary in nature, however, it is apparent that there is great potential for a waste heat capture system in Cold Bay. Sale of the waste heat will realize increased revenues to the utility which will decrease the cost of production for electricity. Currently (1981-82) electricity costs an average of 22¢ per KWH based on $1.36 a gallon for fuel and includes distribution and overhead costs. The fuel is supplied by Chevron and barged to Cold Bay from the distribution center in Seattle. The computer model used in the reconnaissance study projected that the 1982-83 cost of production for electricity will be approximately 23.38¢ per KWH. The study suggested that a waste heat capture system would be installed, and become operational in 1984-85. It was assumed that the waste heat would replace fuel oil, which costs $1.36 per gallon, used for space heating. Based on this assumption, the cost of production for electricity would be reduced from 24.69¢ to 22.25¢ per KWH. Therefore it is recommended that a waste heat capture system be installed. The reconnaissance study estimates that the system has the potential to save up to 50,000 gallons of fuel oil in the first full year of operation. 933) APPENDIX. See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report: RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VILLAGES OF Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass, Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys, St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510 aaa dlale 7 NPAEN-PL-R 1 MAR igg2 REGEIVED APR - 2 1982 Mr. Eric Yould 334 West Sth Avenue ‘ALASKA POWER .AUTHOHITY Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy: reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comprehensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower ang boat harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are available. We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are most familiar with; however, some of the ccmments may apply to the other reports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for various communities. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Loran Baxter of my staff at 552-3461. Sincerely, 1 Incl healt oat As stated Chief, Engineering Division Comments Atka: Page 7.1] is inconsistant. The lack of wind data is seted in the first paragraph, then details of specific average annual wind speed versus height is given in the next paragraph. Then a comment that a site with wind in excess of 12 mph is a good site is followed by the statement that wind energy is expensive. We suggest that this be reworded for clarification. Page 7.3 - 7.4. The write-up under the heading “Assumptions” is contradictory. The statement is made that “Weather on the Aleutian Islands varies greatly from one island to the other..." but is preceded and followed by statements stating that weather on Amchitka is comparable to that on Shemya, and that Atka's weather is comparable to that on Adak. Page 8.7. Mobilization and Demobilization costs of $50,000 appear low. Chignik Lake: Pages 7.1 and 8.13. Location of hydropower site is inconsistant. Page 8.14. Average power of 114 kW assumes 100 percent efficiency. “Energy” Available" is wrong based on 30 percent plant factor. Table 8.5. This table shows the hydropower project dispiacing all the diese} generation until 2000. However, the peak-demand projection on page 6.4 ranges between approximately 85 kW in 1982 to about 125 kW in 2000. Based on the streamflows shown on page 7.2 and the data presented on page 3.14, the hydropower system could not produce more than about 80 kW in December, 65 kW in January, 60 kW in February, and 50 kW in March. The peak deimanas would likely fall during this period and not during the summer wien most of the village moves to Chignik Lagoon. Page 9.1 . The feasibility cost estimate of $35,000 to $45,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Cold Bay: The hydropower potential for Cold Bay referenced from the Corps' 1980 reconnaissance study has been found to be overly optimistic; therefore, the data should not be used. as eae False Pass: we concur with their findings that hydropower does not appear feasible. Ivanof Bay: Table 8.5. The table shows the hydropower system will displace all diesei. Based upon load and streamflow assumptions, it would not. Page 8.15. Mobilization and Demobilization costs appear low. Page 9.1. The feasibility study cost estimate of $25,000 to $35,000, including streamgaging, appears low. Nikolski: The findings, as reported, agree with the results of the Corps' study. We feel that wind generation is the most promising alternative to diesel generation. The White Alice site may not be the most feasible location because of its distance from town. Although it is protected from corrosive salt spray because of its elevation, a wind energy conversion system may be affected by the other structures within the installation. The bluff between. the runway and Sheep Creek may be a better site. The report neglected to mention if the WECS installed on the Chaluka Ranch has been repaired and placed in service and if it is performing satisfactorly. If a diesel enlargement were recommended to cope with substantial expansion of electrical demand, a salvaging of White Alice units could be pursued as an option if appropriate government channels can be identified. St. Paul: The reconnaissance study did not consider the impact of the proposed expansion of the fishing industry being considered by the local community. This could substantially alter the report findings. Galena: In a letter dated 9 June 1981] (copy previously furnished to your office), Ott Water Engineers stated that they felt that a storage project with a 100 to 300-foot dam may be feasible. The Corps will be taking a second look at this site this summer to determine if a feasibility study is warranted. Gustavus: The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelectwic power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip and public meeting is tentativély scheduled for mid-May. We will be installing a streamgage this summer. New Chenega: The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.w. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development. Reply to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, letter dated 3/31/82. Atka p. 7.1 (draft) Statements concerning wind resoures have been clarified. p. 7.3-7.4 (draft) Because of the lack of climatic data from the Aleutian Islands, it is necessary to extrapolate data from the nearest recording station. However, variability in the local climate means that all extrapolations are conservative. p. 8.7 (draft) Cost estimates for mobilization and demobilization have been adjusted to reflect Anchorage prices for equipment rather than those quoted from Adak. Chignik Lake p. 7.1 - 8.13 (draft) The distance has been corrected. 8.14 (draft) The energy available value has been corrected. Table 8.5 (draft) The table presented in the final report illustrates the use of diesel powered generators when there is a projected short fall. p. 9.1 The feasibility study estimates have been addressed especially in light of the comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Cold Bay The hydropower data was included as part of the resource assessment and was the determining factor for our not including an alternative plan which was based on hydro. False Pass No comment necessary. Ivanof Bay Table 8.5 The hydropower scenario calls for the construction of a small dam and creates a reservoir. Without extensive field work, it has not been possible to show that this would be inadequate to meet the estimated demand of the village. p. 8.15 Mobilization costs have been increased. p. 9.1 Feasibility study figures have been increased especially in light of the comments and requirements of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are included above. Nikolski The White Alice site was considered because excellent foundations exist and the site is removed from the influence of salt spray. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek has been reconsidered and discussed with representatives of the village. The result has been the suggestion that the bluff site is a viable alternative and marginally less costly to develop because of a shorter transmission distance. However, this is largely offset by anticipated foundation problems at the bluff site. WECS at the Chaluka Ranch was not in operation when the field team was in the village. The diesel set from the White Alice site was purchased by the utility; however, its condition was uncertain and the engine was being stored outside. St. Paul As the role of the National Marine Fisheries in the Pribilofs is curtailed, the future of the islands' economies is uncertain. The proposed boat harbor has not been funded, as yet, and no data was available which would enable predictions to be made as to its effect on the local economy and power requirements. Therefore a scenario including the possible development of such facilities was not included.