HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlatna Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Draft Report Alanta 1982VIL-A ea FILE COPY
c. 2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
aii
DRAFT REPORT Atkasook
Brevig Mission
Diomede
Galena’
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS. AND ALTERNATIVES Golovin
vee Gustavus
Karluk
Koyuk
New Chenega
March 1982 Ruby
St. Michael
Shageluk
Shismaref
Stebbins
Teller
Unalakleet
Yakutat PR wach ve
Alaska Power Aut
334 W. He
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
1577 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone (907) 279-9631
DRAFT
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
A. ALATNA
INQ A (SP
DRAET ALATNA A- 1
A_- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Energy use and costs of energy alternatives for Alatna and Allakaket have
been examined and the following conclusions are drawn:
i Development of the hydroelectric potential at an unnamed creek 2 1/2
miles south of the villages would not be an economical venture within
the planning period under consideration in this study.
No alternatives to central diesel power are available to Alatna to
reduce electricity costs. Because of the small air-cooled diesel used
(3.8 kW) for power generation in this village, waste heat recovery for
space heating is not viable.
Potential for reduced electricity cost exists in Allakaket if the
village and school district are combined into the same system.
Benefits of waste heat recovery to the school would lower electricity
costs to the village. Inclusion of Alatna in this system would be
economically prohibitive because of the high cost of spanding the
Koyukuk River.
Substantial savings in wood use for space heating could be achieved for
homeowners with an ambitious energy conservation program, including the
widespread installation of more efficient heating stoves.
Evaluation results for possible impacts on alternatives are summarized in
Table 1 and Figure 1.
INR A fe TP
Lav aYy TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
nnn Sn UU aE UIE ggEIDE URIIENSERSSEEIE EE ERSEESEERESINEE
Energy {a) Energy (b) Energy (c) Base Case Plan Alternative "A"
Year Production Production Production Energy Price Energy Price
MWh MWh MWh $/kWh $/kWh
1982 10 58 154 0.56 0.46 1983 ll 65 161 0.55 0.45
1984 12 al, 167 0.54 0.46
1985 14 80 176 0.53 0.45 1986 15 87 183 0.53 0.45
1987 17 98 194 0.55 0.45
1988 19 108 204 0.55 0.45 1989 21 110 206 0.57 0.46 1990 22 110 206 0.57 0.46 1991 22 115 211 0.57 0.47
1992 22 116 212 0.58 0.48
1993 22 120 216 0.59 0.49 1994 22 122 218 0.60 0.49 1995 23 126 222 0.61 0.50 1996 23 127 223 0.61 0.51
1997 23 131 227 0.62 0.51 1998 23 133 229 0.64 0.52 1999 24 138 234 0.65 0.52 2000 27 140 236 0.66 0.54 2001 27 142 238 0.67 0.55
(a) Alatna electrical energy forecast (b) Allakaket electrical energy forecast (city only)
(c) Allakaket and school district electrical energy forecast LAVUG 2-V WNLVIV
ALATNA A-3 . e ees
0.60
055
0.50 -
0.45
040
0.35
OIL AS USED AT 4=0.35
oO oO & 8S ‘ENERGY COST (/KWh) ENERGY COST ($/i0® BTU) D Oo
Oo N °
OS”
OIL AS USED
AT n=0.65
a 0.10
P| | OIL AS DELIVERED
a —s| WUUD AS USED AT n=0.35
= 0,05
WOOD AS| DELIVERED | 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
8 6x38 8 3
10
ALATNA/ALLAKAKET -FIGURE |
NRAET |
DRAET ALATNA A- 4
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Allakaket* is on the south bank and Alatna on the north bank of the Koyukuk
River, about 45 miles southwest of Bettles in the Kanuti Flats. The
communities are approximately 57 miles upriver from Hughes and 190 miles
northwest of Fairbanks.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1960 1970 1980 1981
Population: 115 174 163 175
In 1981, there were 155 residents in Allakaket and 20 residents in Alatna.
Most homes are log cabins with seven HUD homes in Allakaket and one HUD home in Alatna, for a total of 38 units in Allakaket and eight units in
Alatna.
B.3 - Economy
Alatna and Allakaket are almost entirely subsistence economies, with
trapping, hunting, fishing, and summer firefighting for BLM the main
activities. Transfer payments also play a role. Most people have a garden
and grow many of their own vegetables. A community solar food-producing
greenhouse and canning facility was built in 1981. Most people cut their
own wood for fuel and building materials. Residents of both villages are
shareholders in K 'oyit' ots' ina, Ltd., (located in Huslia), incorporated
in accordance with terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
* Because Alatna and Allakaket are only 1/4 mile apart and because they
are one municipality and share all services (except electric power
generation), they are here considered jointly.
INQ A [5 IP
DR A [F T ALATNA A-5
B.4 - Government
Alatna is unincorporated, and Allakaket is incorporated as a second class
city with a mayor-city council form of government. Both villages have
chiefs, and Allakaket has a city clerk and a health clinic.
B.5 - Transportation
Located on the Koyukuk River, Allakaket and Alatna are accessible by river
going vessels. Residents use private boats for travel and fishing. In
winter, residents use snowmachines for transportation. Wien Airlines flies
to Allakaket from Fairbanks three times a week; Frontier Flying Service
(Fairbanks) and Nenana Air also have regularly scheduled flights. Charter
service is available to Allakaket. Alatna does not have an airstrip.
Barge service has been discontinued, so all supplies are flown in.
INT M [SIP
DRAFT ALATNA A-6
C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
A community meeting was held in the school on the evening of November 23,
1981. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Allakaket-Alatna City
Council meeting and approximately 17 people attended.
In the meeting, and at other times during the site visit, alternatives to
diesel power were discussed with the following conclusions:
(1) The existing diesel generators are air-cooled and have little
potential for useful waste heat recovery.
(2) Wind potential in the region is insufficient for wind-powered generators.
(3) Geothermal potential does not exist near the village.
(4) Two potential hydroelectric sites are near the village as reported by Ott Water Engineers for the Corps of Engineers. One site is
approximately 2 miles northwest of Alatna and the other is 1-1/2 miles south.
(5) Wood potential exists, but the supply in the region would not support
a wood gasification system. Residents travel up to 3 miles by snowmachine to haul in wood for space heating. Forest renewal is
estimated to require 200 to 300 years.
The residents of Alatna and Allakaket seemed most interested in the
possibility of a small hydro project on the creek south of the village on the Allakaket side of the Koyukuk River. They requested that the
reconnaissance study look further into the alternative. Some also commented that there is a fair amount of peat nearby and it should be
examined as an alternative fuel for power generation.
Residents also expressed concern about the rising cost of fuel,
particularly as it affects the cost of travel by snowmachine. During winter, up to 2 barrels of oil are consumed per month for snowmachine
travel.
INT A [SIP
DRAET re
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
D.1 - Existing Power Facilities
Alatna and Allakaket share all village services except power generation.
Each village operates central power systems with single phase distribution (120/240 V for Alatna and 208/480 V for Allakaket). There is no metering
system for either village with Alatna charging $40 per month and Allakaket
charging $50 per month for power service.
Alatna is presently served by a 3.8 kW, 1,800 rpm, air-cooled Lima diesel
generator. There is no backup. The unit was installed when Alatna first
received electric power about 1976. The unit was estimated to be running
at almost peak capacity serving eight residences. Two freezers are the
major loads in the community with the rest of the power used for lights.
Electric energy use for Alatna and Allakaket is about 1,200 kWh per
household. Operations and maintenance on the generator is performed
voluntarily by three residents in the village.
Plans are to replace the 3.8 kW diesel with a 8.8 Condec unit in 1982. A new structure (log cabin) was built to house the unit.
Allakaket is served by two air-cooled units as follows:
John Deere Diesel, 1,800 rpm, 30 kW
Lister, 1,800 rpm, 30 kW
Peak load for this system is approximately 12 kW. Major loads are freezers
(used in the summer only) and lights.
In addition to the central systems, the Allakaket school generates its own
power. The school has five diesel units installed ranging in size from 30
kW to 100 kW for a total capacity of 370 kW. Each unit was a different
model with and three manufacturers represented. At the time of the site
visit, only the small unit was operational and was experiencing overloads,
tripping the circuit breaker. The school generators serve the school
building, safe water house, and two faculty residences. Peak load is about
35 kW with annual electric energy use about 96 MWh.
Because of the poor condition of the existing power plant, the school has
budgeted for a new system to be installed during the summer of 1982. The
size of the new plant will depend on a decision now being weighed by the
residents of Allakaket. The school proposed to the village an
INR A [EP
[D) R A [F T ALATNA A-8
arrangement whereby the city government buys power from the school and
assumes responsibility for its distribution. Villagers have been hesitant
to accept the plan for fear of higher electricity costs and reduced control
over the operation. At the time of this writing, unit sizes had not been
selected; but, given the electricity forecasts of this study, two 100 kW
diesels should be sufficient to meet future demands to the end of the
planning period with one unit in operation. If the village does not accept
the plan, the school will probably select two smaller, more efficient
units.
INQ A (SP
DRAFT ALATNA A-9
E - ENERGY BALANCE
Table 2 presents an energy balance for the combined villages of Alatna and
Allakaket. Figure 2 shows the general distribution of this energy to end
users.
TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE
Tot al
Heat
Content (a) _ (c) 9 Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (10 Btu)
(b) Wood Residential Space 552 Cords 9.38
Heating
#1 Fuel Oi1 $2.39/gal Residential Space 25,200 gal 3.48
and Water Heating
Electric Power 16,800 gal 2.32
Generation
Gasoline $2.488/gal_ Transportation 20,000 gal 2.85
Propane Cooking 11,500 1b 0.22
Notes:
(a) January 1982 landed bulk fuel costs. Source: Nenana Fuel Co.
(b) Space heating includes energy used for domestic water heating.
(c) Quantities of fuel are for the year 1981. Source: Nenana Fuel Co.
INQ A [ETP
eu $4 13d 42222 Lav adWy SCHOOL SPACE SYSTEM LOSSES (1.10)
HEATING USEABLE HEAT
. FUEL OIL (3.13) (2.03)
(5.80) 5 - - SS SUMMIT Y SPACE NSTEM LGsor 2 (1!
HEATING (035) USEABLE HEAT (0.23)
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM LOSSES (1.92) GENERATION (2.32) USEABLE HEAT (0.40)
ENERGY RESOURCES Or END USE
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
SPACE LOSSES
HEATING (6.10)
wood (9.38)
USEABLE HEAT
(3.28)
GASOLINE
(2.76)
PROPANE
(0.22)
SD
NOTE:
(0.22) COOKING (0.22)
3 ALL UNITS IN 10 BTU/YR.
ALATNA /ALLAKAKET
ENERGY BALANCE (198!)
ACRLD AWERICAN INCORPORATED LAV dG Ol-y YNLWIV
DR A F T ALATNA A-11
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
Because Alatna and Allakaket are only 1/4 mile distant and because they are
one municipality and share all services (except power generation), they are
considered jointly in this population and economic activity forecast.
F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects
None
F.1.2 - Potential Developments
None
F.1.3 - Economic Forecast
Alatna and Allakaket have subsistence economies with some trapping
and firefighting. No economic development is expected.
F.2 - Population Forecast
Alatna and Allakaket declined in population from 1970 to 1980 by 0.6
percent. The annual growth rate from 1960 - 1980 was 1.7 percent.
Residents expected no in-migration and no growth other than that from the
natural birth and death rates. The population forecast table below was
based on an annual growth rate of 1 percent starting from the 1981
population.
1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001
Population 115 174 163 184 193 203 213
#Res idences NA 37 44 48 51 53 56
#Commercial NA NA 1 1 2 2 2 #Gov 't /Other NA NA 6 6 7 7 8
IMIR A [1
DR A E T ALATNA A-12
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
Current electrical energy use in Alatna and Allakaket is low relative to
other villages visited in the reconnaissance study. Anticipation is that
electric energy consumption will rise faster than projected population
growth as residents acquire new appliances. To reflect this trend, per
household consumption was increased 12 percent per year until 1988, and
then 1 percent thereafter. Approximately 85 percent of the homes in any
given year were assumed to receive electricity service. Consumption in the
institutional and commercial sectors was projected to grow in proportion to
the expanding sector. Peak load was forecast based on a load factor of
0.40 for residential and commercial sectors, while the school load was held
constant over the planning period.
With these assumptions, separate electrical energy forecasts were projected
for Alatna and Allakaket. Table 3 presents the forecast for Allakaket.
Figure 3 illustrates projected demand.
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast
A thermal energy forecast for electricity generation and space heating was
projected for the combined villages of Alatna and Allakaket. Results of
this forecast are shown in Figure 3 in terms of net heating requirements.
An advantage of presenting net rather than gross heating needs is that the
quantity of electricity required to displace oi] and wood dependent heating
systems can readily be determined. Gross heating values can be estimated
for the village by simply dividing the heating efficiency into the net
heating requirement for any given year. For the cases of Alatna and
Allakaket, where most heating is done with wood stoves, the heating
efficiency is estimated at 35 percent.
For the thermal energy forecast, existing homes were estimated to have an
annual net space heating requirement of 71.4 x 106 Btu. Starting in 1986,
it was assumed that retrofit energy conservation measures reduce home
heating requirements by 10 percent. For new homes constructed starting in
the same year and after, heating requirements were reduced 25 percent to
reflect implementation of improved energy conserving home construction
techniques, such as triple-glazed windows and double-walled homes.
INR A (ET
ei Va TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST (a)
Residential Schools Cb) Other Total.
Year kW Mah kW Miah kW Mah”
1982 12 41 35 - 5 17 17 58
1983 13 47 35 - 5 18 18 65
1984 15 53) 35 - 5 18 20 dil
1985 17 61 35 - 5 19 22 80
1986 19 68 35 - 5 19 24 87
1987 22 78 35 = 6 20 31 98 |
1988 25 87 35 - 6 21 31 108
1989 25°. 88 35 = 6 22 31 110
1990 25 88 35 - 6 22 31 110
1991 26 92 35 - 7 23 33 115
1992 26 92 35 - 7 24 33 116
1993 27 96 35 - 7 24 34 120
1994 28 97 35 - 7 25 35 122
1995 29 100 35 = 7 26 36 126
1996 29 101 35 - 7 26 36 127
1997 30 104 35 - 8 27 38 131
1998 30 105 35 - 8 28 38 133
1999 31 109 35 - 8 29 39 138
2000 ol 110 35 - 9 30 40 140
2001 32 111 35 - 9 31 41 142
nl
(a) Forecast for Allakaket Power System only.
(b) School load is not onAllakaket system. (School annually uses 96 MWh
and draws 35 kW from its own system.) LAIVUC WATWIW erewu
oar ALIN (YMW) NOILGWASNOD ADYSNS oO O° OL, On 1.9). 30. 210 =O Se oO oS So -§ € 8 8 8-6 "eo. 84-8 VILLAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh)
VILLAGE PQ (M¥) ONVW30 1995 2000 1985 1930 1980 ALATNA /ALLAKAKET - FIGURE 3
NR A ET
DR AET : ALATNA A-15
TABLE 4
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS (4)
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year (io%Btu) (10° tu) (1o%Btu) _(10%Btu) —_—(10°Btu).
1982 0.54 _ 3.3 2.6 1.25 7.69
1983 0.56 3.4 2.6 1.25 7.81
1984 0.58 3.4 2.6 1.25 7.83
1985 0.61 3.4 2.6 1.25 7.86
1986 0.64 3.1 2.6 1.25 7.59
1987 0.68 3.1 2.6 1.43 7.81
1988 0.71 3.1 2.6 1.43 7.84
1989 7 0.720 | a2 2.6 1.43 7.95
1990 0.72 3.2 2.6 1.43 7.95
1991 0.74 3.2 2.6 1.60 8.14
1992 0.75 3.2 2.6 1.60 8.15 1993 0.76 3.3 2.6 1.60 8.26
1994 0.77 3.3 2.6 1.60 8.27 1995 0.78 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.38
1996 0.78 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.38
1997 0.80 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.40
1998 0.81 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.41
1999 0.82 3.5 2.6 1.78 8.70
2000 0.83 365) 2.6 1.78 8.71 2001 0.84 3.5 2.6 1.78 8.72
(a) Includes both Alatna and Alakaket
INQ A (SIP
D R A E T ALATNA A-16
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and
technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in
developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report.
The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in
development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study.
INR A [SP
DRAF TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
~ FOR
TECHNICAL FACTORS
COST FACTORS RESOURCE
FACTORS
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
1. (Coal Fired Steam 4 bet 0 {|0 070 0 0
2. Wood Fired Steam 4 13 |20 0|;0 21.7 O | 22
3. Geothermal 1 1/1 0|;0 070 0 0
4. Diesel (base) 4 2) 2 Sui ze 2 1 193) ]) 2
5. Gas Turbine a Que 010 O}7 0 | 25
6. Hydroelectric 5} 1]1 fo ];2 |] 303 | 1 | -2
7. Wind 3 1) 1 Ong 3 10 1 4
8. Photovoltaic 3 2 2 0 |0 SF lie 2] 18
Heating
9. Diesel Waste Heat Recovery 6
10. Electric Resistance 7
11. Passive Solar 41
12. Wood 65} 1
13. Coal 6
14. Oil (base) 61] 2
Other
15. Coal Gasification 0
16. Wood Gasification - Diesel 16
17. Biogas 0
18. Waste Fired Boiler 0
19. Peat 0
20. Binary Cycle Generator 0 |
21. Conservation 100 |
INR A (SP
DR A E T ALATNA A-18
H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
The village of Alatna was somewhat unique from other villages studied in
that it represented a small segment of people (11 percent) from the larger
community of Allakaket located across the Kayukuk River (about 400 yards
wide). The city council of Allakaket had representation from Alatna and
from all indications both functioned as one village.
As Alatna is the subject of this report a thorough analysis was first
conducted specifically on them to identify alternatives to their present
situation. Alatna currently has a central 3 kW diesel generator serving
the eight residences. After thorough review it was concluded that there
are no feasibile alternative technologies to their present situation.
During this process an analysis of hydropower development was conducted in
the hopes that sufficient potential was available to serve both segments of
the community. Results showed there to be excessive costs in such an
alternative. For the purpose of comparison, the results of this analysis
will be included as Alternative "B". Likewise, wind and transmission from
Allakaket were quickly eliminated an not feasible.
The only available alternative to their present situation would be to
consider relocating across the river nearer the large population of
Al lakaket.
In the interest of assisting the entire community of Allakaket/Alatna and
because of an expressed request for assistance by the city council this
study will analyze a base case for Allakaket and two alternatives. It is
emphasized that for the reasons previously mentioned the Alatna segment of
the community will not benefit from this analysis.
H.1 - Base Case
There will be continued development of the diesel based central utility
presently serving Allakaket. The school district maintains a separate
power system that serves the school building, safe water house, and two
teacher residences.
H.2 - Alternative "A"
The school district will build a new power plant, locating it adjacent to the school using waste recaptured from the diesel generators for space heating. The school will also provide power to the City of Allakaket.
INR A [5 4P
DRAFT ALATNA A-19
H.3 - Alternative "B"
- A’ run-of-the-stream hydropower will be built on a creek to the south
providing energy to both communities.
INQ A [TP
La vad TABLE 6
COST OF DIESEL-GENERATED POWER (4)
Diesel Fuel Total
Energy Fuel Used Price Fixed Costs Total Energy Production (1,000 gal) ($/gal) Cost (1,000) Costs Cost
Year ___ MWh Note 1 Note 2 1,000 Note 3 1,000 kWh
1982 58 8.3 2.39 19.8 12.9 See, 0.56
1983 65 9.3 2.45 22.8 12,9 35.7 0.55 1984 = 71 10.1 2.52 25.4 12.9 38.3 0.54 1985 80 11.4 2.58 29.4 12.9 42.3 0.53
1986 87 12.4 2.65 32.9 12.9 45.8 0.53
1987 98 14.0 eane 38.1 16.2 54.3 0.55
1988 108 15.4 2.79 43.0 16.2 59.2 0.55
1989 110 15.7 2.86 44,9 16.2 61st 0,56
1990 110 15.7 2.93 46.0 16.2 62.2 0.57
1991 115 16.4 3.01 49.4 16.2 65.6 0.57
1992 116 16.6 3.09 51.3 16.2 67.5 0.58
1993 120 17 OL Sele, 54.2 16.2 70.4 0.59
1994 122 17.4 3:29 56.6 16.2 72.8 0.60
1995 126 18.0 3.34 60.1 16.2 16.33 0.61
1996 127 18,1 3.42 61.9 16.2 78.1 0.61
1997 131 18.7 3,51 65.6 16.2 81.8 0.62
1998 133 19.0 3.60 68.4 16.2 84.6 0.64
1999 138 19.7 3.70 72.9 16.2 89.1 0.65
2000 140 20.0 aet9 75.8 16.2 92.0 0.66 2001 +~=—«2142 20.3 3.89 79.0 16.2 95.2 0.67
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diese) vel pease is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above
general inflation,
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general 0&M work.
Note 4: Cost projection is for Allakaket power system only. LAIVAC YNLWIV _ 02-4
La Vad TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS OF BASE CASE p(?)
eee UUaEyEEnUnInEIISIEISIEISISSSSSSINESSSSDNSRS SEES SE
Plan Component
Diesel Total
Anorti- Overhaul Annual Discounted
Year zation Fund 0&M Fuel Costs Costs
1982 - 3.2 1.7 8 19.8 33 32
1983 3.2 ey 8 22.8 36 34
1984 3.2 1.7 8 25.4 38 35
1985 3.2 1.7 8 29.4 42 37
1986 Jue Liat 8 32.9 46 40
1987 . 5.4 2.8 8 38.1 54 45
1988 5.4 2.8 8 43.0 59 48
1989 5.4 2.8 8 44.9 61 48
1990 5.4 2.8 8 46.0 62 48 1991 5.4 2.8 8 49.4 66 49
1992 5.4 2.8 8 51.3 68 , 49
1993 5.4 2.8 8 54.2 70 49 1994 5.4 2.8 8 56.6 73 50
1995 5.4 2.8 8 60.1 76 50 1996 5.4 2.8 | 8 61.9 78 50
1997 5.4 2.8 8 65.6 82 51
1998 5.4 2.8 8 . 68.4 85 51
1999 5.4 2.8 8 72.9 89 52
2000 5.4 2.8 8 75.8 92 52
2001 5.4 2.8 8 79.0 95 53
Se ee ee
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TOTAL: $ 923
(a) Annual cost projection is for Allakaket power system only. LAV dG VNLVTY Te -V
DRAFT ALATNA A- 22
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION
I.1 - Base Case A
I.1.1 - Economic Evaluation
The present central utility system as described in Section D,
consists of two 30 kW diesel generators. These units will be
satisfactory until the year 1987, when projections show that the
capacity will be exceeded. In keeping with the basic operating
principle that full back-up capacity should be maintained, it is
recommended that in 1987 both 30 kW units be retired and replaced by
twwwo 50 kW units. These larger units should satisfy generating
needs through the end of the planning period.
Assumptions made for calculating future electricity costs and present
value figures are as follows:
0 Utility planning is carried out as previously described.
° Diesel generators are valued at an installed cost of $800/kW,
amortized at 3 percent annually over a 20 year operating life.
oO Diesel generators are overhauled every 5 years at a cost of
$100 kW, recovered over the same period as a sinking fund at 3
percent.
oO General operations and maintenance costs are valued at $8,000
though these services are provided on a voluntary basis.
0 Electricity is produced at the fuel consumption rate of 8 kWh
per gallon.
oO Annual fuel cost is based on the January 1982 price of $2.39 per
gallon with the real cost rising 2.6 percent annually to $3.89
by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter.
Table 6 presents the summary of calculations yielding unit costs of
electricity ($/kWh). Table 7 shows the annual cost breakdown and
present worth calculations for this system.
1.1.2 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
The environmental impact of continuing operation of the diesel
generator is minor. With the powerhouse located in the center of the
village, noise pollution may present some irritation. This is minor
considering the small size of the units. involved. The engine
lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oil
NR A le 1
1.2 -
| DRAFT ALATNA A-23
disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Allakaket and
Alatna, this can be a significant problem. The large number of
rusting oil drums and junked engines surrounding the powerhouse in
Allakaket also suggests the problems of waste removal.
An obvious benefit of the village central diesel system is the
satisfaction villagers derive from operating their own plant.
1.1.3 - Technical Evaluation
There are no technical barriers to the continued development of this
system. A better foundation than logs, however, may be desirable for
reduced vibration, prolonging machine life.
Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Economic Evaluation
In the fall of 1981, a proposal was made by the school to the city
council of Allakaket offering to supply the village with electric
power. At the time of this writing, the proposal had not been
accepted. Alternative A evaluates the potential cost of power to the
village if such a plan were to be placed into effect.
For this plan it is assumed that a new power plant is built next to
the school serving both the village and school district. Two 100 kW
units are installed which satisfy demand forecast projections through
the end of the planning period in 2001. A waste heat recovery system
is also installed to supplement space heating for the school.
Assumptions made for the economic analysis are the same as those for
the base cases, with general O&M valued at $8,000 per year. The
waste heat recovery system is valued at an installed price of $70,000
including two heat exchangers, 30 yards of supply and return piping,
and miscellaneous costs. The system amortizes at 3 percent annually
a 10 years. Annual O&M for the waste heat system is valued at
1,000.
Table 8 presents the annual cost breakdown and present worth
calculations for this system. The space heating fuel displacement
benefits of this plan are shown in Table 9. Present value
calculations are carried through the year 2001.
DIR A IFT
La vay TABLE 8
ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE “A"(a)
i Plan Component
Waste
Heat
Diesel System Total
Amorti- Overhaul Amorti- Annual Discounted Year zation Fund ORM Fue] zation _ O&M Costs Costs
1982 - 11 6 8 53 6 1 85 83
1983 11 6 8 56 6 1 88 83
1984 11 6 8 60 6 1 92 84 1985 11 6 8 65 6 1 97 86
1986 11 6 8 69 6 1 101 87
1987 ll 6 8 76 6 1 108 90 O
1988 11 6 8 81 6 1 113 92 So
1989 11 6 8 83 6 1 115 91 1990 11 6 8 85 6 1 117 90 > 1991 11 6 8 90 6 1 122 91 Tl
1992 ll 6 8 93 6 1 125 90 =| 1993 11 6 8 98 6 1 130 91 1994 11 6 8 101 6 1 133 91 1995 11 6 8 107 6 1 139 92 1996 11 6 8 109 6 1 141 91
1997 - 11 6 8 112 6 1 144 90
1998 11 6 8 119 6 1 151 91 1999 11 6 8 122 6 1 154 90 2000 11 6 8 129 6 1 161 92 -
2001 11 6 8 132 6 1 164 91 >
=
>
' NJ
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TOTAL: $ 1,786 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $343
Net present worth of Alternative "A": $1,443
ALATNA A- 25
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE "A"
Benefits Total
Space Heating Annual Discounted
Year Fuel Displacement Benefits Benefits
1982 14 14 14
1983 15 15 14
1984 16: 16 15
1985 17 17 15
1986 18 18 16
1987 20 20 17
1988 21 21 ATi
1989 22 22 17
1990 22 22 17
1991 23 23 17
1992 24 24 17
1993 25 25 18
1994 26 26 18
1995 28 28 19
1996 28 28 18
1997 29 29 18
1998 31 31 19
1999 32 32 19
2000 34 34 19
2001 34 34 19
2002
through
2009 = 2 =
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. TOTAL: $ 343
DRAFT
IDR A fe TP
DRAFT ALATNA A-26
Electric energy costs per kWh of this plan are presented in Table 1
of the summary and findings. These costs include the fuel
displacement benefit. The economic analysis suggests that the
villagers of Allakaket could receive significant reduction in the
cost of electrical energy with this plan. The present worth value of
this plan is higher than Base Case B because the plans are not
directly comparable in terms of capital investment required.
1.2.2 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Minor environmental gains can be achieved with waste heat recovery by
displacing oi] that otherwise would be burned at the shcool for space
heating.
A social disbenefit to villagers would occur, however, if the village
did accept the plan proposed by the school. Villagers would lose the
satisfaction and pride that comes with operating and maintaining
their own power system. They would also lose control over the prices
charged for electricity. Experience has proven in some districts
that schools are sometimes negligent in the general maintenance of
their systems. Whether or not the Yukon-Koyuliah School District has
a similar performance record is not known.
1.2.3 - Technical Evaluation
In terms of sound energy management, waste heat recovery should be
encouraged wherever practical. The technology is proven and is now
being widely implemented throughout Alaska. The system at Allakaket
would be cost effective, particularly if the load on the diesel
generators could be increased by incorporating Allakaket into the
system so that more waste heat is available for space heating to the
school.
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
In this alternative, potential hydro sites in the area of Alatna and
Allakaket were reexamined for their economic feasibility. The more
promising hydro site identified by Ott Water Engineers was an unnamed creek
about 2 1/2 miles south of the villages. Ott Water concluded that the
total 1981 project cost of an 82 kW development would be $3,554,000. (The
82 kW development was based on the 80 percentile mean flow of 11.4 cfs.)
The energy is basically supplied from May to October only, since winter
flows are minimal. Assuming the project cost is reasonable, at 3 percent
interest the project annual cost would be $138,000, exclusive of O&M and
replacement.
INQ A [SIP
DRAFT
ALATNA A-27
An estimate of the monthly distribution of energy consumption by villages
in the region indicates that 42 percent of the electrical energy generated
is consumed from May to October. For the combined villages of Alatna and
Allakaket in year 2001, for example, total electricity consumption was
forecast as 265 MWh. Of this, only 111 MWh (or 42 percent) would be
consumed when hydropower is available. Therefore, the estimated cost per
kWh would be $1.24 which far exceeds the price that can be delivered by
diesel powered systems over the planning period. Therefore, hydroelectric
development is not recommended at this time for these villages.
IN(Q AM [SP
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
~ 334 W..5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501