Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives main 5-1981
AUTHORITY ALASKA P RECONNAISSANCE STUDY : OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS & ALTERNATIVES FOR BUCKLAND, CHUATHBALUK, CROOKED CREEK HUGHES, KOYUKUK, NIKOLAI, RED DEVIL, RUSSIAN MISSION, SHELDON POINT, SLEETMUTE, STONY RIVER, TAKOTNA AND TELIDA LIBRARY COPY MAY 1981 PLEASE, DO NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE!! INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. A MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DIVISION cope _ -ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY — | a APA 20/T1 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR BUCKLAND, CHUATHBALUK, CROOKED CREEK HUGHES, KOYUKUK, NIKOLAI, RED DEVIL, RUSSIAN MISSION, SHELDON POINT, SLEETMUTE, STONY RIVER, TAKOTNA AND TELIDA MAY 1981 Prepared by: Robert W. Retherford Associates Division of International Engineering Co., Inc. Anchorage, Alaska For the Alaska Power Authority 333 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Under Contract No. AS44.56.010 This report was prepared by: Robert W. Retherford Associates Division of International Engineering Company R.W. Retherford, P.E. Frank J. Bettine, E.I.T. James J. Lard, E.1.T. Mark Latour, Economist Illustrations on the front cover were prepared and sketched by Kathryn L. Langman. These illustrations portray several energy resource alternatives investigated for the Thirteen Villages included in this study. , APA 20/T2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to express our thanks to the citizens of the thirteen villages for their hospitality and valuable cooperation and support expressed for this study. Information on coal, oil, gas and peat was provided by C.C. Hawley and Associates. Information on wood was provided by Reid, Collins, Inc. APA 20/T3 Section APA 20/74 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.A Summary 1.B Evaluation Results 1.C Recommendations INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE A. Introduction B. Villages - North of Yukon River Buckland Hughes Koyukuk ; Russian Mission Sheldon Point ao fr WDNY FH C. Villages - Middle and Upper Kuskokwim 6 Chuathbaluk 7. Crooked Creek 8. Nikolai 9 Red Devil 10. Sleetmute 11. Stony River 12. Takotna 13. Telida D. Summary of Existing Conditions dsl, 1-8 tsd7 3-2 3-12 3-17 3-23 3-28 3-28 3533 3-38 3-43 3-48 3-53 3-58 3-63 3-67 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 4. ENERGY REQUIREMENT FORECAST ~ 4-1 A. Introduction » 4-1 (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast 4-1 (b) Population Forecast 4-2 (c) End Use Forecast , i 4-2 Electric Power Requirements 4-2 Heating Requirements 4-5 B. Villages North of Yukon River 4-7 1; Buckland 4-7 25 Hughes 4-11 3. Koyukuk 4-15 4. Russian Mission 4-19 5: Sheldon Point 4-23 [om Villages of Middle and Upper Kuskokwim 4-27 6. Chuathbaluk 4-27 t. Crooked Creek 4-31 8. Nikolai 4-35 9. Red Devil 4-39 10. Sleetmute 4-43 11. Stony River 4-47 12. Takotna 4-51 13. Telida | / 4-55 -ii- APA 20/T5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section D. Energy and Peakload Forecast Summary 5. RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT A. Energy Resource Assessment Introduction Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste heat recovery Hydroelectric potential Wind Potential Conservation & solar heating B. Survey of Technologies a rr oO 12). 13. 14. APA 20/T6 WwW Onan fF wN Direct fired coal Direct fired wood Geothermal Diesel Gas turbine Low-Btu gasification Wind energy conservation Diesel waste heat recovery Geothermal heating Binary cycle Single wire ground return transmission Hydroelectric generation Electric heating Passive solar heating ~ili- 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 5-27 5-29 5-30 5-31 5732 5-33 5-34 5-35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 35. Conservation 5-36 16. Other 5=37, C. Appropriate Energy Technologies ~ 5-38 6. ENERGY PLANS: 6-1 A. Introduction 6-1 B. Villages North of Yukon River 6-3 ds Buckland 6-3 ws Hughes 6-5 3s Koyukuk 6-7 4. Russian Mission 6-9 &.. Sheldon Point 6-11 Cs Villages of Middle and Upper Kuskokwim 6-13 6. Chuathbaluk 6-13 T Crooked Creek 6-15 8. Nikolai © 6-16 9. Red Devil 6-17 10. Sleetmute 6-18 11. Stony River 6-19 12. Takotna 6-20 ae Telida 6-22 -iv- APA 20/17 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 7. ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION 7-1 A. Economic Evaluation qe1 1. Methodology fel 2. Parameter 71 B. Economic Evaluation Results 7-6 1. Introduction 7-6 2. Results 7-6 c, Environmental Evaluation 7-10 i. Introduction 7-10 2. General Evaluation Pid a Evaluation Matrix 7-14 8. RECOMMENDATIONS 8-1 A. Introduction 8-1 B. Recommended Plans 8-1 L. Diesel Generation Supplemented with Waste Heat Recovery 8-1 2. Diesel plus Binary Cycle Generation Supplemented with Waste Heat 8-1 Recovery 3. Diesel Plus Waste Heat Recovery Supplemented with Wind e«2 Generation APA 20/T8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES COMMUNITY MEETINGS DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY FORECASTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFILES ENERGY PLAN COSTS AND NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN 7 WOOD FUEL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT COAL, PEAT AND PETROLEUM RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS eH ronmoowv > -vi- APA 20/T9 B-1 C-1 D-1 E~d G-1 Wl 7-1 LISTS OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS Page is SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Alaska Map 1-2 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 3.1 Buckland Energy Balance Graph 3=5 3.2 Hughes Energy Balance Graph 3-10 3.3 Koyukuk Energy Balance Graph 3-15 3.4 Russian Mission Energy Balance Graph 3-21 3.5 Sheldon Point Energy Balance Graph 3-26 3.6 Chuathbaluk Energy Balance Graph 3-31 3.7 Crooked Creek Energy Balance Graph 3-36 3.8 Nikolai Energy Balance Graph _ 3-41 3.9 Red Devil Energy Balance Graph 3-46 3.10 Sleetmute Energy Balance Graph 3-51 3.11 Stony River Energy Balance Graph 3-56 3.12 Takotna Energy Balance Graph 3-61 3.13 Telida Energy Balance Graph 3-65 4. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 4.1 Rural Western Alaska Villages 4-3 Seasonal Electrical Energy Use -vii- APA 20/T10 APA 20/T11 LIST OF TABLES SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Summary of Existing Village Conditions 1.2 Appropriate Energy Technologies 1.3 20-Year Accumulated Present Worth Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) 1.4 50-Year Accumulated Present Worth Plan Cost and Benefits ($1,000) Environmental & Technical Evaluation Matrix Environmental & Technical Evaluation Matrix Environmental & Technical Evaluation Matrix PPP on nw Environmental & Technical Evaluation Matrix EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 3.1 Energy Balance - 1979, Buckland 3.2 Energy Balance - 1979, Hughes 3.3 Energy Balance - 1979, Koyukuk 3.4 Energy Balance - 1979, Russian Mission 3.5 Energy Balance - 1979, Sheldon Point 3.6 Energy Balance - 1979, Chuathbaluk 3.7 Energy Balance - 1979, Crooked Creek 3.8 Energy Balance - 1979, Nikolai 3.9 Energy Balance - 1979, Red Devil 3-10 Energy Balance - 1979, Sleetmute 3-11 Energy Balance - 1979, Stony River 3-12 Energy Balance - 1979, Takotna 3-13 Energy Balance - 1979, Telida 3-14 Summary of Existing Conditions 1979/80 viii 1-9 ana 1-13 1-14 a= 15 1-16 3-11 3-16 3-22 3-27 3-32 3-37 3-42 3-47 3-52 3°57 3-62 3-66 3-68 APA 20/T12 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 4. 4. 4. a la 1b cake .2a -2b eG .3a .3b ac 4.4a 4.4b -4c 4.5a -5b JOC) Population Forecast - Buckland Buckland Electric Power Requirements Buckland Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Buckland Heating Requirements, Other Consumers : Population Forecast - Hughes Hughes Electric Power Requirements Hughes Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Hughes Heating Requirements, Other Consumers . Population Forecast - Koyukuk Koyukuk Electric Power Requirements Koyukuk Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Koyukuk Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Russian Mission Russian Mission Electric Power Requirements Russian Mission Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Russian Mission Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Sheldon Point Sheldon Point Electric Power Requirements Sheldon Point Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Sheldon Point Heating Requirements, Other Consumers -ix- 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 APA 20/T13 4.6 4.7b 4.7¢ 4.9a LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Population Forecast - Chuathbaluk Chuathbaluk Electric Power Requirements Chuathbaluk Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Chuathbaluk Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Crooked Creek Crooked Creek Electric Power Requirements Crooked Creek Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Crooked Creek Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Nikolai Nikolai Electric Power Requirements Nikolai Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Nikolai Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Red Devil Red Devil Electric Power Requirements Red Devil Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Red Devil Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Page 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-34 4-35 4-36 4-37 4-38 4-39 4-40 4-41 4-42 .10 -10a 4.10b eALOc odd. oda eb) wl) 4.12 APA 20/714 12a .12b 126 a 4.13a -13b LSC LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Population Forecast - Sleetmute Sleetmute Electric Power Requirements Sleetmute Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Sleetmute Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Stony River Stony River Electric Power Requirements Stony River Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Stony River Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Takotna Takotna Electric Power Requirements Takotna Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Takotna Heating Requirements, Other Consumers Population Forecast - Telida Telida Electric Power Requirements Telida Heating Requirements, Residential Consumers Telida Heating Requirements, Other Consumers -xi- Page 4-43 4-44 4-45 4-46 4-47 4-48 4-49 4-50 4-51 4-52 4-53 4-54 4-55 4-56 4-57 4-58 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Annual Electrical Peak Load and Energy Requirements Annual Heating Energy Requirements Annual Total Energy Requirements Capturable Waste Heat from Annual Electrical Generation 5. RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT “ODN DO PWD aon nw aw oo oO oO oO oH oO BPRPH pe FHF Oo H Ww Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy’ Energy Energy Energy Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Assessment, Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek Nikolai — Red Devil Sleetmute Stony River Takotna Telida 5.C.1 Appropriate Energy Technologies 7. ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION 7.1 20-Year Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) 7.2 50-Year Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Cost and Benefits ($1,000) APA 20/T15 "714 Page 4-60 4-61 4-62 4-63 5-7 5-8 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-18 9-19 5-40 7-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 7.3 Evaluation Matrix vrs 7.4 Evaluation Matrix 7-16 7.5 Evaluation Matrix Td, 7.6 Evaluation Matrix 7-18 =x APA 20/T16 SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. SUMMARY This study has been conducted to determine the energy resource alternatives for thirteen western Alaskan villages (See Figure 1.1). The study consists of establishing the following: Energy Balance for 1979 Existing Power and Heating Facilities - 1980 Electric Power Requirements to the year 2000 Space heating requirement to the year 2000 Potential Energy and Electric Power Resources Evaluation of the Electric Power Resources o oo 809 89 98 980 Recommendations for the development or future studies for the 13 Western Alaskan villages of Buckland, Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Hughes, Koyukuk, Nikolai, Red Devil, Russian Mission, Sheldon Point, Sleetmute, Stony River, Takotna and Telida. As diesel fuels are presently used to satisfy a major percentage of energy demands in the villages, emphasis in this study has been placed on possible resources that can replace or at least supplement the use of increasingly costly fuel oi]. Energy resources examined for the villages include: 1) Diesel fuel oi] 2) Wood 3) Coal 4) Hydroelectric 5) Wind 6) Conservation and Passive Solar Heating 7) Waste Heat Capture 8) O11 and Gas development 9) Geothermal 10) Tidal Power 11) Transmission Interties APA20/P ZL : a — aa ys" vs" v or 9 1 2 <> « OMT NE og dette a é Ae o v & + 2 & - 7 v e g Bristos BOY KODIAK as BUCKLAND 1 2 HUGHES 3 KOYUKUK 4 RUSSIAN MISSION 5 SHELDON POINT 6 CHUATHBALUK 7 CROOKED CREEK 8 NIKOLAI | 9 RED DEVIL Tutor Tanana Ploteou | 10 SLEETMUTE mes 11 STONY RIVER 12 TAKOTNA \ 13. TELIDA (Susiina R. foPPer oisiret Bat Neuen te sare | ong, Ming: | fe ANCHORAGE \ Y Va oe? . 9 p of YAKUTAT g Gulf of Aloska pACIFIC OCEAN FIGURE 1.1 ALASKA MAP 13 WESTERN VILLAGES SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS To obtain a comprehensive understanding of future energy requirements for each village, a control year - 1979 - was established from which all projections have been made. Information related to village history, demographic and ecomomic conditions, plus information regarding village government, transportation, power and heating facilities, fuel require- ments, etc., was collected for each village to provide the necessary background data to support these projections. Table 1.1 is a tabularized summary of selected data on existing conditions found in each of the studied villages Investigations of resources indicate that certain of the alternative energy options under consideration in this study are in an experimental/ developmental stage, and therefore a somewhat general approach to future development has been taken. The methodology utilized to select appropri- ate technologies for further investigation included the following major activities: e Power and energy requirements were identified. e An inventory of technologies for electrical energy genera- tion was made (Appendix D), identifying and evaluating them on an order of magnitude scale, taking into account technical, economic, and environmental aspects. e From the energy resources identified (Section 5), several were selected for more detailed analysis in comparison to the base case of diesel generation. Available technology and preliminary cost estimates established for these alternates had indicated that development could be economically feasible. e A more detailed analysis of these selected alternatives was performed including economic evaluation through the year 2000 and discussion of environmental, land use, and safety aspects. APA20/P SS b-T APA 28B9 Table 1.1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS - 1979/80 Deomgraphic Economic Heating Energy Consumption in Village Population Residencies Type of Employment Electric (Primary Fuel) Btu x 10® for (1979) ABCDEF Village School RQes Buckland 167 41 X X XK X X X 140 kW, 75 kW p 135 kW, 55 kW o0 0 0 0 18,223 Hughes 102 7 xX X X - - X = 50 kW, 2-35 kW p wowioo 8,570 Koyukuk 115 28 X X X X XK X 2 100 kW, 75 kW, 30 kW wow oo 11,666 | Russian Mission 167 40 xX X XK K XK X 90 kw ! 125 kW, 2-75 kW w/o w/o 0 oO 16,361 Sheldon Point 147 34 X X X K X X 7 120 kW w/o w/o 0 o 13,146 Chuathba luk 119 27 xX X X X X X 2 2-50 Kw wow oo 11,890 Crooked Creek 124 31 X X X X X X 2 2-50 Kw wow oo 12,756 Nikolai 96 22 X X X X X X 75kW, SOkW, 15kWp i wow ow/o 11,169 Red Devil 53 12 xX X KX K XK X 7 50 kW, 75 kW 0 0 0 0 7,543 Sleetmute 109 24 xX X X - X X 2 2-50 kW wowoo 13,461 Stony River 67 12 X X X - X X 2 2-50 kW wowo Oo 6,905 Takotna 80 20 xX X X K X XK 40 kW, 20°kW p = wow ow/o 95329 Telida 34 7 Xx x = = =~ xX - 2-12 kW wero ow Ww 3,442 ' Not installed A - Subsistence R - Residential 2 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981 B - School Q - Small Commercial o = oil C - Government P - Public Buildings w = wood D - City S - School p - primary generation facility for village E - Private F - Assistance programs SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Note: In villages with potential hydroelectric developments (i.e., Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Chuathbaluk and Takotna), because of the 50-year economic life of the hydroelectric alternative, all analysis for these villages have been extended to the end of the economic life of the hydroelectric project. ) The energy alternatives which were selected for detailed analysis are as listed below. These alternatives include proven technological forms, and less conventional forms presently under development (such as binary cycle generation! and wind generation). List of Alternatives Selected for Evaluation 1) Diesel generation 2) Waste Heat Recovery 3) Binary Cycle generation using wood and/or coal fuel 4) Hydroelectric generation 5) Wind generation 6) Passive solar heating 2 7) Energy conservation . From the list of alternatives selected for detailed evaluation, a combina- tion of alternatives or energy plans was formulated to meet the energy forcast requirements of each village. Each plan is formulated to meet the forecasted electrical energy requirements of the village plus additional related requirements, such as space heating, where appropriate. The components of the various energy plan(s) are described briefly below: ° A base case plan using diesel generation is formulated for each village. This plan is used as the "control case" to determine the advantage or disadvantage of other alternatives as compared to diesel generation. Future village generation additions assume that local schools which have sufficient installed generation capacity, will provide their own back-up capability. 1 See Appendix D, Section 3.6 for explanation of binary cycle generation. APA20/P 1-5 SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS * Binary cycle generation is presented for each village when sufficient coal and/or wood resources are available. This option assumes construction of binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as replacement for diesel generation. In villages where both wood and coal are available, it has been con- cluded that wood-fired generation would prove more advantageous because 1) wood is a relatively clean burning fuel as compared to coal, and 2) wood jis more suitable for small power plants than is coal. Therefore, only binary cycle generators using the wood fired option has been investigated for-these villages. e A waste heat capture analysis is included with. all options that use fossil fuels for electrical generation (i.e., diesel generation employing engine jacket water cooling and binary cycle generation). e Hydroelectric and wind generators are investigated in the villages where these resources are available. Any additional benefits from these technologies, such as the use of excess hydroelectric energy to provide inexpensive electric space heat, is also included. Table 1.2 lists those energy options which have been determined appropriate for each village. Passive solar heating and energy conservation measures are avail- able in varying degrees in all villages. It is assumed that these two alternatives will be implemented in all villages. These two options are, therefore, not specifically listed in Table 1.2. APA20/P 1-6 SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1.2 Appropriate Energy Technologies Binary Diesel Waste Heat Cycle Hydro- Wind Village Generation Recovery Wood/Coal Electric Generation / Buckland x xX = xX x xX Hughes / xX xX xX -— xX Unknown Koyukuk / xX xX xX xX xX Unknown Russion Mission \ xX xX xX xX = xX Sheldon Point \ xX xX xX 4 = xX Chuathbaluk / x x x xX xX = Crooked Creek, xX xX x xX > Nikolai \ xX xX x xX - - Red Devil\ xX x xX ». - - Sleetmute \ xX xX xX xX m3 = Stony River \ x x xX xX SI — Takotna , 4 xi x xX xX - Telida \ x x} x - x x Implies appropriate technology Waste heat recovery available when liquid cooled diesel engines are installed. APA20/P Ley, SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. EVALUATION RESULTS 1. Economic Table 1.3 is a summary of the 20 year economic evaluations (Appendix E) performed for those energy plans selected for detailed study. Table 1.4 is a summary of the 50 year economic evaluation of the energy plans is those five villages with potential hydroelectric development. These Tables list the accumulated present worth of plan costs and the accumulated present worth of the net benefits derived from non-electrical outputs, where: 1) Plan costs represent the cost for providing electrical generation, and 2) Net benefits represent the savings derived from waste heat capture or surplus hydroelectric energy used for electric heating. a. Twenty Year Evaluation Results: Results of the 20-year economic evaluation indicate, that of the energy plans studied, diesel generation with waste heat recovery provides the most economical method of providing electric generation in ten of thirteen villages (Buckland, Hughes, and Russian Mission being the exceptions). The diesel generation with waste heat recovery and supplemented with wind generation energy plan proved to be the most economical method of providing electrical energy in the villages of Buckland and Russian | Mission. This energy plan averaged approximately 5 percent less expensive than diesel generation and waste heat recovery without supplemental wind generation for these two villages. The smal] variation in cost between these two plans represents an insignificant difference in a reconnaissance level study, where costs cannot be precisely determined, and should not, however, be construed to indicate a definite cost advantage of one plan over another APA 22-A/U . 1-8 6-T 22-A/W1 Table 1.3 20-Year - Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) Diesel Diesel & & Diesel Binary Cycle Diesel WECS & & & & Village Waste Heat Waste Heat Hydroelectric Waste Heat Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Buckland 3817-450.0 4664-432.3 7253-149.4 3606-430.6 Hughes 2238-250.1 2157-220.4 4284-117.2 N/A Koyukuk 1886-187.1 2357-136.2 4300-53.2 N/A Russian Mission 3080-380.9 3224-330.0 N/A 2977-336.0 Sheldon Point 2759-307.6 2892-274.0 N/A 3877-234.3 Chuathbaluk 2148-233.9, 2350-194.3 4572/99.7 N/A Crooked Creek 2339-260.2 2453-226.3 N/A N/A Nikolai 1841-210.0 2250-167.8 N/A N/A Red Devil 1314-108.7 1784-75.6 N/A N/A Sleetmute 1695-162.9 2009-140?1 N/A N/A Stony River 1282-122.9 1717-88.7 N/A N/A Takotna 2064-202.8 2250-186.1 9805-149.4 N/A Telida 964-73.9 1444-56.9 N/A 1111-50.8 SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The diesel generation plus binary generation with waste heat energy Plan alternatives averages approximately 15 percent greater costs than the diesel generation plus waste heat recovery energy plan in 12 of the 13 villages studied. This energy plan did, however, prove to be the most economical plan for supplying electrical energy in the village of Hughes. Hydroelectric generation is found to be the most expensive method of providing electrical energy in all the five villages where it is potentially available. Passive solar and energy conservation have not been economically evaluated jin detail and they are, therefore, not listed in Table 1.3. Numerous past studied have shown the value of conservation and passive solar heating. An approximate fifteen percent reduction in fossil fuel requirements due to the implementation passive solar heating and energy conservation measures has been built into the village Heating Requirement’ Forecast Tables listed in Section 4. It is assumed that these two methods of reducing energy usage will be implemented in all villages. b. Fifty Year Evaluation Results: The results of the 50-year economic evaluation performed for the villages of Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Chuathbaluk and Takotna confirms hydroelectric generation as the most expensive method of providing electrical energy for these five communities. The high cost of developing these potential hydroelectric sites make the use of hydroelectric generation economically unrealistic. The results of the 50-year evaluation has reaffirmed the slight cost advantage of diesel plus waste heat recovery, supplemented with wind generation over diesel plus waste heat for providing electrical energy in the village of Buckland. This evaluation has also reaffirmed the cost advantage of binary cycle generation versus diesel generation for Hughes. The extended evaluation has, however, altered the findings of the 20-year evaluation for Takotna and Chuathbaluk. The extended evaluation indicates the diesel generation plus binary cycle generation with waste heat energy plan will provide the most economical method of supplying electrical energy for these two villages. APA 22-A/U : 1-10 TI-T i 22-A/W2 Table 1.4 50-Year - Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) Diesel Diesel & & Diesel Binary Cycle Diesel WECS & & & & Village Waste Heat Waste Heat Hydroelectric Waste Heat Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Buckland 10509-1679.7 11538-1636.7 17171-818.6 9779-1543.2 Hughes 5849-892.7 4641-825.1 10147-506.4 N/A Koyukuk 4821-696.9 5389-569.9 9241-46.0 N/A Chuathbaluk 5977-911.6 5455~822.5 10854-539.4 N/A Takotna 5169-737.9 4883-685.0 20556-168.7 N/A (1) Extended evaluation for those villages with potential hydroelectric development. SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Environmental and Technical The results-of the environmental and technical evaluations for the various energy plans investigated are listed in Tables 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8. The overall environmental and technical ranking of the alternative energy plans as determined from this evaluation, is listed below. 1) Diesel electric plus waste heat 2) Diesel plus hydroelectric 3) Diesel electric plus waste heat with supplemental wind generation 4) Diesel plus binary cycle generation with waste heat APA 22-A/U 1-12 Goat APA 28B6 Applicable Villages Koyukuk, Sheldon Point, Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Nikolai, Red Devil, Sleetmute, Stony River, Takotna EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 1.5 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) B F Cc D (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 1 4 5 (2) Intrastructure 3 4 5 6 (3) Timing 1 . S 7 2 (4) Air Quality 4 a 5 3 (5) Water Quality 2 al; 4 2 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 1 (7) Land Use z 6 4 3 (8) Terrestrial Impacts a2 _6 4 3 TOTAL 25 29 37 26 Environmental Ranking x 3 4 2 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 1 2 a (2) Reliability 2 i 2 5 (3) Availability’ i =o) _8 =o TOTAL 5 1 12 aT TECHNICAL RANKING L 2 4 a OVERALL RANKING . B-1 Fad C-4 D-3 VIE APA 28B7 EVALUATION MATRIX Applicable Villages Buckland, Russian Mission Diesel + Diesel + Table 1.6 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat (A) Economic (Present Worth) Cc . F D (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 Ii 4 (2) Infrastructure 3 4 5 (3) Timing 1 5 7 (4) Air Quality 4 1 5 (5) Water Quality 2 1 4 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 (7) Land Use 2 6 4- (8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 6 4 TOTAL 25 29 37 Environmental Ranking 1 3 3 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 1 2 (2) Reliability 2 r 2 (3) Availability 1 5 _8 TOTAL 5 ri 12 TECHNICAL RANKING 1 2 4 OVERALL RANKING C=1 2 D-3 Diesel + Waste Heat Supplemental Wind Generation Hesse || eso | exter NR an lwo on w 1l B-2 ST-T APA 28B8 Applicable Village Hughes EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 1.7 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental Electric, w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) c F B N/A (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 1 4 N/A (2) Intrastructure 3 4 5 N/A (3) Timing - 5 a N/A (4) Air Quality 4 1 5 N/A (5) Water Quality 2 1 4 N/A (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 N/A (7) Land Use a 6 4 N/A (8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 6 4 N/A TOTAL 25 29 37 ==> Environmental Ranking + 2 3 —- (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 1 2 N/A (2) Reliability 2 1d z N/A (3) Availability i oS) 8 N/A TOTAL 5 7 12 = TECHNICAL RANKING 1 2 3 N/A OVERALL RANKING C-1 F-2 B-3 N/A SL=G APA 28B9 Applicable Village Telida EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 1.8 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental . Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor . + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) B F D c (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 N/A 4 5 (2) Intrastructure 3 N/A 5 6 (3) Timing a N/A 7 3 (4) Air Quality 4 N/A 5 3 (5) Water Quality 2 N/A 4 2 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 N/A 4 1 (7) Land Use 2 N/A 4 3 (8) Terrestrial Impacts 25 N/A 4. m3 TOTAL 25 a 37 26 Environmental Ranking Zz id 4 2 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 N/A 2 3 (2) Reliability 2 N/A 2 5) (3) Availability La N/A 8 nS. TOTAL 5 Ss = 12 0) TECHNICAL RANKING 1 N/A 4 3 OVERALL RANKING B-1 N/A D-4 C-3 SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of both the 20-year and 50-year economic, technical and environ- mental evaluations indicate the three most promising energy plan alternatives for the 13 villages, in order of preference, to be: 1) Continued use of diesel generation supplemented with waste heat recovery, 2) diesel plus binary cycle generation supplemented with waste heat recovery, _3) diesel plus waste heat recovery supplemented with wind generation. a RECOMMENDATION PLAN - Diesel Generation Supplemented with Waste Heat Recovery - The 20-year economic evaluation indicates that diesel generation with waste heat recovery will produce the most economical electric energy and return the largest non-electrical benefits of all the energy plans studied in ten of the 13 villages. Furthermore, results of the 50-year economic evaluation indicates this energy plan to be the most economical of the various energy plans examined in two of the five villages with potential hydroelectric developments. This energy plan also results in the least significant environmental impact of all the plans addressed. It is recommended, therefore, that in all villages in which diesel electric installations are placed (present or future), that studies be conducted to determine the feasibility of utilizing waste heat in each specific location. Such studies should include a definitive review of the following items for each case: a) availability of waste heat b) transportation of waste heat >) end use of waste heat 1-17 APA 22-A/X SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS hs FIRST ALTERNATIVE - Diesel Plus Binary Cycle Generation Supplemented With Waste Heat Recovery - The first alternative listed above, diesel plus binary cycle generation with waste heat recovery, will provide the lowest cost electrical energy in Hughes (20-year evaluation), and in Hughes, Takotna and Chuathbaluk (50-year evaluation). This energy plan alternative averages approximately 15 percent greater cost than the recommended plan in the remaining villages. Because the uncertainties in the costs associated with this alternative, such as the cost of wood or coal fuel, equipment cost, etc., which can not at present be as precisely determined as for the recommended energy plan, it is conceivable that this alternative could be cost competitive with the recommended plan (i.e., diesel generation plus waste heat recovery), in other locations. Because binary cycle generation is viewed as one of the few potentially viable energy alternatives which is suitable for future application in remote Alaska villages, it is recommended that feasibility of binary cycle generation in Alaska be future investigated in regard to: a) Equipment availability b) Technical feasibility ic) Economic aspects d) Environmental aspects e) Constraints Village size binary cycle equipment is, however, not expected to become commercially available until the late 1980's. 3 SECOND ALTERNATIVE PLAN - Diesel Plus Waste Heat Recovery Supplemented With Wind Generation - Alternative #2 diesel plus waste heat recovery supplemented with wind generation, is cost competitive with the recommended plan in only two of the 13 villages (Buckland and Russian Mission). Because of the marginal reliability heretofore experienced -in Alaska using wind generation and the lack of a definite cost advantage of using supplemental wind generation over the recommended plan, this alternative 1-18 APA 22-A/X SECTION 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS is not recommended. However, as existing wind technology is improved and further developed, periodic review of wind technology for possible imple- mentation in Alaska villages is advised. 4. COST FOR FURTHER STUDIES Approximate costs for determining the feasibility of the two most attractive energy resources for the 13 villages are: ® Waste heat recovery - approximately $2500 per village e Binary cycle generation - approximately $2,000,000 which would include the cost of a constructing and operating a demonstration plant in Alaska. 5. CONSERVATION MEASURES | It cannot be overemphasized that if the villages wish to stabilize and hopefully reduce the local cost of energy immediate short term conservation measures must be implemented. — These conservation measures, which include added insulation, double glazing or solar film, arctic entrances, weather stripping, etc., can reduce current non-transportation fuel use on the order of 15 percent over the 20-year period of this study. 6. PERIODIC REVIEW In addition, as existing technologies are being improved and further developed and new existing technologies are introduced, results of resource evaluation in the report may become obsolete and inadequate. Periodic review is therefore advised in order to maintain the usefulness of this study. Lo APA 22-A/X SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION This study has been conducted under contract number AS44.56.010 for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Divi- sion of Alaska Power Authority. This study consists of establishing the following: Energy Balance for 1979 Existing Power and Heating Facilities - 1980 Electric Power Requirements to the year 2000 Space Heating Requirement to the year 2000 Potential Energy and Electric Power Resources Evaluation of the Electric Power Resources Recommendations for the development or future studies for the 13 Western Alaskan villages of Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Telida, Nikolai, Takotna, Stony River, Sleetmute, Red Devil, Crooked Creek, Chuathbaluk, Russian Mission and Sheldon Point. Diesel fuels are presently used to satisfy the major percentage of energy demands on those villages. Emphasis on this study has therfore been placed on possible resources that can replace or at least supple- ment the use of increasingly costly fuel oil. To obtain a comprehensive understanding of future energy requirements for each village, a control year -1979- was established from which al] projections have been made. The villages included in this study were divided into two subgroups on the basis of geography. Grouping the villages aided in determining the energy requirements for each village, from which projects were accomplished. The villages were divided into the following two subgroups. APA23/al 21 A. NORTH OF YUKON RIVER ao Pf wry HF B. MIDDLE The report is based on information available from existing reports, publications, maps and verbal communications with people familiar with the area and from information obtained from villge residents during the public meetings conducted in each village. Where data was unavailable or conflicting dates were encountered, estimates and/or interpolations based upon existing data and con- Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point AND UPPER KUSKOKWIM Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek Nikolai Red Devil Sleetmute Stony River Takotna Telida ditions were applied. APA23/a2 2-2 SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE A. INTRODUCTION To establish a base and understanding of energy use in the villages, an energy balance has been compiled for the year 1979. Input energy forms are diesel, wood, propane, blazo, gasoline, and aviation gasoline. (See Appendix B for data on existing conditions and energy balance). Energy used in the village has been listed both by end use category (i.e., heating, transportation, and quantities used for electrical generation) and by consumer category to include residential, smal] commercial, public buildings, and large users (school), in subsequent tables. To provide background data, information related to village history, demographic and economic conditions plus information regarding village government, transportation, power and heating facilities is included when available for each village. The 13 villages included in this study were divided into two subgroups on the basis of geography. Grouping the villages aided in determining the energy requirements for each village, from which projects were accomplished. The villages were divided into the following two subgroups. a. North of Yukon River Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point ao FP Wh YH b. Middle and Upper Kuskokwim 6. Chuathbaluk re Crooked Creek APA23/B1 3-1 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE . Nikolai 9. Red Devil 10. Sleetmute 11. Stony River 12. Takotna 13. Telida B. NORTH OF YUKON RIVER 1. Buckland a. | GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: The community of Buckland is located on the west bank of the Buckland River about 75 miles southeast of Kotzebue. The settlement has existed at other locations under various names in the past, including Elephant Point, Old Buckland and New Site. The land around the townsite of Buckland has been selected by the village corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. The Buckland Village Corporation has merged with the NANA Regional Corporation. Population: The 1970 census showed a population of 104 at Buckland. The 1975 population update by the State of Alaska for revenue sharing purposes showed a population of 145 and a total of 22 families. Population in 1980 was 172 with 41 households (estimated by village council). Population growth rate from 1970 through 1980 has averaged five percent per year. In 1980, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.2 persons. Economy: Buckland exists on a subsistence economy. In the fall people hunt caribou, while in the spring beluga whale and seal are taken at Elephant Point. APA23/B2 3-2 APA23/B3 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Herring, salmon, smelt, grayling, white fish, rabbit, ptarmigan, berries and waterfowl] and their eggs supple- ment the diet. Permanent non-subsistence employment in the village consists of teachers, teacher aide, school cook, store employees, health aide, policeman and city office worker. Income is also earned from trapping and the sale of pelts. In addition income from these enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments. Government: Buckland was incorporated as a second-class city in 1966.. It has a mayor-council form of government, with the mayor appointed from the seven council members. The city has an administrator, policeman, magistrate and a volunteer fire department. Transportation: The community's location on the Buckland River allows barge and small boat travel as well as access by air. Fuel and other bulk supplies are trans- ported to Buckland by barge. Passengers, small cargo items and mail arrive by air. Snowmachines are the primary means of inter-village transportation in the winter. Smal] boat travel is the major means of transportation in summer. There are no roads connecting Buckland with other communities in the region. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) The heating and electrical energy needs of Buckland are supplied almost in their entirety by diesel fuel oi] with only negligible amounts of wood being used for heating 3-3 APA23/B4 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE purposes. Village heating requirements account for 57.8 percent of the total energy usage, electrical generation 26.5 percent and transportation 15.7 percent. Graph 3.1 illustrates by consumer category the types the percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.1 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: The village operates the primary genera- ting facility which supplies power and energy to all electrical consumers within the community. The village generation facility consists of a modularized trailer unit housing a 140 kW and a 75 kW diesel generator set. This facility was installed in the spring of 1980 as a replacement for the old generation facility which was completely destroyed by fire. The school maintains standby generation facilities consisting of a 135-kW and a 55-kW diesel-generator set. Distribution is of overhead triplex construction operating at a voltage of 208/120 volts. Heating: Residential, small commercial and public buildings are heated using individual oil-fired stoves. Residential users average about 1100 gallons of fuel oi] per household. All residences use propane for cooking. Heating facility for the school is an oil-fired central- ized forced-air furnace. Propane is used at the school for cooking. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (village + school) is approximately 96,700 gallons (DEPD, 1979 Energy Survey). 3-4 GRAPH 3.1 1979 ENERGY BALANCE BUCKLAND EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% ) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (>) — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (NN) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () —- WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) HEATING (57.8%) BLAZO. — 0% PROPANE— 2.3% WOOD — 0% DIESEL — 55.5% a ge TRANSPORTATION (15.7%) ELECTRICAL GENERATION (26.5%) DIESEL 26.5% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 BTU x 108 apa28: a7 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 BUCKLAND Table 3.1 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wooD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL OIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10% Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu % of Total Residential 41 45,100 2 20,000 = 22,550 = 13,020 11,274 6,223 390 2,864 1,797 61.9 Small Commercial 3 3,300 = = - = - 3,140 888 455 433 4.9 Public Buildings 5: 2,750 = = = = = 6,000 1,208 380 828 6.6 Large User (school) 1 22,100 = 1,200 = = = 12,910 4,853 3,050 - 23 - - - 1,780 26.6 Total 50 73,250 = 21,200 = 22,550 2 35,070 18,223 10,108 413 2,864 4,838 % of Total Btu §5.5 25.3 15.7 = 26.5 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 2,527 103 = 2,148 3,629 8,407 ® of total Btu “13.9 0.6 11.8 7 19.8 46.1 Assumed efficiency: heating - 75% transportation - 25% electric generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 2. Hughes APA23/B7 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Hughes is located on the Koyukuk River approxi- mately 115 miles northeast of Galena. The village was established in 1910 as a river landing "port of supply" for the Indian River gold diggings. Hughes is located within the boundaries of the Doyon Limited Regional Corporation. Population: The 1970 census showed the population of Hughes at 85 residents. The 1980 population, as estimated by members of the village council, is 102 with 17 households. This reflects an average annual population growth rate, over the past decade, of 1.7 percent. In 1980, the average number of members per household was 6.0 persons. Economy: The village of Hughes exists on a subsistence economy. The main food staples in the village are moose and salmon with rabbit, ptarmigan, grouse, berries and waterfowl and their eggs supplementing the diet. Permanent non-subsistence employment in the village consists of teachers, teacher aide, school cook, and health aide. Income from these enterprises is supple- mented by public assistance payments and from trapping and the sale of pelts. Transportation: The community's location on the Koyukuk River allows access by both air and small boat travel. Passengers, cargo, supplies, fuel and mail arrive by air. 3-7 APA23/B8 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Snowmachines are used for winter transportation. Small boats are the primary means of transportation in the summer. There are no roads connecting Hughes with other communities in the region. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Residential and small commercial heating requirements in Hughes are supplied almost entirely from wood. Diesel fuel is used for heating public buildings and the school. Electric power and energy is supplied to the village and school by the school diesel-generator sets. Heating requirements in Hughes accounts for 61.6 percent of the village energy usage with electric generation accounting for 24.5 percent and transportation 13.9 percent. Graph 3.2 illustrates by consumer category, the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.2 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITY Electric Power: Electric power to the village is supplied by the school owned and operated 50 kW and two 35 kW diesel generator sets. The village does not possess a centralized power plant. Distribution consists of single phase overhead triplex construction operating at a voltage of 240/120 volts. Heating: Residential and small commercial heating are primarily with wood stoves with the average residence using about nine cords of wood per year. All residences use propane for cooking. Heating of public buildings is with fuel oi] in small oil-fired furnaces or stoves. The 3-8 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE school heating is supplied by a centralized oil-fired furnace. Cooking at the school is accomplished with a fuel oil-fired cook stove. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (village + school) is approximately 30,000 gallons (estimated during site visit). APA23/B9 359 GRAPH 3.2 1979 ENERGY BALANCE HUGHES EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% (GN) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG) — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% [77] — PUBLIC BUILDINGS [) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 1.7% HEATING (61.6%) BLAZO. — 0% PROPANE— 1.9% WOOD) — 30.3% DIESEL — 29.4% TOTAL — 61.6% TRANSPORTATION (13.9%) L—— . GASOLINE + AV GAS 13.9% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (24.5%) 0 2000 3000 4000 5C 6000 7000 8000 9000 | 10,000 TI<¢€ apa28: a4 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 HUGHES Table 3.2 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu TO® Btu 10® Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential - 17 2,600 153 8,200. - 9,400 2 2,630 4,677 359 2,601 160 1,194 363 54.5 Small Commercial 1 - - 7 - = ss 1,050 145 145 17 Public Buildings 1 1,400 - 2 = . i 1,200 359 193 166 4.2 Large User (school) 1 14,300 = 7 - = = 10,300 3,394 1973 1,421 39.6 Total 20 18,300 153 8,200 = 9,400 = 15,180 8,570 2,525 2,601 160 1,194 2,095 % of Total Btu 29.4 30.3 19 13.9 re 24.5 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 631 650 40 7 896 1,571 3,788 % of Total Btu TA 7.6 0.5 10.4 18.3 44.2 Assumed efficiency: Heating 75% Transportation 25% Electric Generation 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Koyukuk is situated approximately 30 miles west of Galena on the right bank of the Yukon River. Koyukuk was a trading post and Eskimo village listed with a population of 150 in the 1880 census. Koyukuk is located within the Doyon Limited Regional Corporation boundaries. Population: The 1970 population of Koyukuk was 114 residents. The 1980 population was estimated at 115 by the city council. The population of Koyukuk has fluc- tuated over the past few years, from a low of 100 in 1975 to a high of 124 in 1978 before a decline to the 1980 population level. The average population growth rate over the past five years is less than one percent. In 1980, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.1 persons. Economy: Koyukuk exists primarily on a subsistence economy. Moose and salmon are the most important food items with rabbit, ptarmigan, grouse, waterfowl and their eggs supplementing the diet. Permanent non-subsistence employment consists of teachers, teacher aide, school cook, health aide, city office workers, and store employees. Income is also earned from trapping and the sale of pelts and further supplemented through public assistance payments. Transportation: The community's location on the Yukon River allows access by air, river barge and small boat travel. Fuel oil and other bulk supplies are trans- ported to the community by river barge. Passengers, small cargo items, supplies and mail arrive by air. a Koyukuk a. APA23/B12 3-12 APA23/B13 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Small boats are the primary means of transportation during the summer month. Snowmachines are used for winter transportation. There are no roads connecting Koyukuk with other communi- ties in the region. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) The residential heating needs in Koyukuk are supplied from wood. Public buildings and the school rely on diesel fuel oil for heating. Village heating require- ments account for 63.7 percent of the total energy usage of the village, followed by electric generdtion at 19.5 percent and transportation with 16.8 percent. Graph 3.3 illustrates by consumer category, the types and per- centages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.2 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized power generation facility now exists in Koyukuk. Construction of a village owned and operated power and distribution facility is, however, expected to begin in the Spring of 1981. Presently the school maintains and operates its own generation facilities which supplies electrical power to the school, the PHS building and other public facilities within the villages. The school generation facilities consist of a 100-kW, a 75-kW and a 30-kW diesel-generator set. 3-13 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Heating: Residential and commercial heating are almost entirely from wood fuel using individual wood stoves. Average usage per residence is approximately nine cords of wood per year. Heating of the community hall, clinic and PHS building as well as the school is with fuel oil. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (village + school) is approximately 53,000 gallons (estimated during site visit). APA23/B14 3-14 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 4. Russian Mission. APA23/B17 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Russian Mission is located in the Yukon, Kuskokwim Delta on the west bank of the Yukon River, 65 miles southeast of St. Mary's. This settlement was established in 1837 as the first Russian American Company fur trading post on the Yukon River. It is listed in the 1880 census as "Ikogmute" with 143 inhabitants. Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the Russian Mission Village Corporation was entitled to select 92,160 acres of Federal land. Russian Mission lies within the Calista Regional Corporation boundaries. Population: Date: 1880 1902 1929 1939 1950 1960 1970 Population: 143. 350 54 34 55 102 146 The city administration estimated the population of Russian Mission at 167 in 1979. The annual population growth rate over the past twenty years has averaged 2.5 percent. The 1970 census figures indicate that 94% of the popu- lation is Native. In 1979, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.3 persons. 3-17 APA23/B18 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Economy: Employment opportunities in Russian Mission are concentrated in commercial fishing and public employment programs. As of 1978, 18 gillnet permits had been issued to residents in Russian Mission. Most residents of the community are directly or indirectly involved in commercial fishing during the fishing season. In 1979, 8 year around employment opportuniteis was provided by CETA Programs. Six other full-time positions were available at the ANICA Native Store. Income from these enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments and subsistence activities. Residents hunt moose, bear, ptarmigan, waterfowl and rabbit. They fish for salmon and other species of fish. Berries are harvested in the fall. Income is also earned from trapping and the sale of pelts. Government: Russian Mission was incorporated as a second- class city in 1970. The city has a mayor, selected from the 7 member city council, and a city administrator. The city receives CETA funding through AVCP to retain a city administrator, a policeman and a janitor. For non-city programs and services, Russian Mission Native population is represented by a 7-member traditional council. Transportation: The community's location on the Yukon River allows barge and small boat travel as well as access by air. Fuel and other bulk supplies are trans- ported to Russian Mission by river barge. Passenger, smal] cargo items, supplies and mail arrive by air 3-18 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Snowmachines are the primary means of inter-village transportation in the winter, while small boat travel is the major means of transportation in summer. There are no roads connecting Russian Mission with other communities in the region. b. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Residential and small commercial heating in Russian Mission is a combination of fuel oil and wood fuel. Public buildings and the school are heated with fuel oil. Heating requirements represent 57.7 percent of the village energy requirements with electrical generation at 25.1 percent and transportation at 17.2 percent. Graph 3.4 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.4 tabu- larizes this data in additional detail. Cs EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: Central station electrical power was supplied throughout the village until 1980 when mechanical failure of the diesel engine disrupted service. Electrical power for the school is presently being supplied by the school generator as is the elec- trical power to public buildings. A new 90-kW generator is currently awaiting installation in the village power Plant and should be operational by summer. Distribution consists of overhead triplex construction throughout most of the village. Additional poles have been installed (less conductors) for expansion of the distribution system within the village. APA23/B19 3-19 APA23/B20 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Heating: Residential heating is a combination of wood and fuel oi] in individual wood and oi1 stoves. Average consumption per residence is 246 gallons of fuel oi] and 6.5 cords of wood per year. The school and public build- ings are heated primarily with fuel oi]. The school also utilizes the waste heat from the school generators to heat the school hot water supply. Fuel Storage: Diesel bulk fuel oj] storage capacity in the community (school + village) is estimated at 34,000 gallons (estimated during site visit). 3-20 GRAPH 3.3 1979 ENERGY BALANCE KOYUKUK EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% () — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG) — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (7) — PUBLIC BUILDINGS () —_ LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () — «WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 1.3% HEATING (63.7%) BLAZO) — 1.1% PROPANE— 0.2% WOOD — 36.7% DIESEL — 25.7% a a TOTAL — 687% TRANSPORTATION (16.8%) a GASOLINE + AV GAS 16.8% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (19.5%) i DIESEL 19.5% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 BTU x 108 | 20,000 Suse apa28:al0 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 KOYUKUK Table 3.3 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wood PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10* Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10* Btu % of Total Residential 28 = 252 a 1,000 15,400 = = 6, 368 4,284 129 1,955 54.5 Small Commercial 2 1,100 = = = = = = 152 152 19) Public Buildings 3 2,200 - = = = = 3,600 801 304 497 6.9 Large User (school) 1 18,460 1,200 = = = 12,880 4,347 2,547 23 W77z, 37-8 Total 34 21,760 252 1,200 1,000 15,400 = 16 ,480 - 3,003 4,284 23 129 1955. 2,274 11,66! % of Total Btu Zoey 36.7 0.2 ig 16.8 HSS: 100 Waste heat 10® Btu 751 1,071 6 32 1,466 = 1,706 5,032 % of total Btu 6.4 952 0.1 03 12.6 14.6 A352 Assuemd efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% GRAPH 3.4 1979 ENERGY BALANCE RUSSIAN MISSION EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND | HEATING — 75% HE) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (iG) — «SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% aa] — PUBLIC BUILDINGS () — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () —- WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) HEATING (57.7%) BLAZO. — 0% PROPANE— _ .7% WOOD — 27.0% TOTAL — 57.7% TRANSPORTATION (17.2%) -—— GASOLINE + AV GAS 17.2% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (25.1%) | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 BTU x 108 DIESEL — 30.0% | 18,000 20,000 C2=6 apa28: al2 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 RUSSIAN MISSION Table 3.4 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL __ GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10* Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu TO® Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential 40 9,840 260 5,000 - 20,000 2,200 6,210 9,552 1,358 4,420 98 2,540 209 857 58.4 Smal] Commercial z) 1,550 = a - = = 3,150 649 214 435 4.0 Public Buildings 4 2,200 a = = = = 4,800 966 304 - 662 oa) Large User (school) 1 22,015 a 1,200 = = = 15,460 D194 3,038 23) 2,133 a Total 48 35,605 260 6,200 = 20,000 2,200 29,620 4,914 4,420 121 2,540 279 4,087 16,361 % of Total Btu 1529. ee Za 100 30.0 27.0 0.7 0 Waste Heat 10° Btu 15229) 1,105 30 1,905 209 3,065 7,543 % of total Btu 7.5 6.8 0.2 11.6 18 18.7 “46.1 Assumed effeciency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 5, Sheldon Point APA23/B23 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Sheldon Point is located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta at the mouth of the Yukon River where Kwemeluk Pass runs into the Bering Sea, about 65 miles northwest of St. Mary's. This community is a relatively new Eskimo village, as no mention of this site is made prior to 1950 when the census recorded 44 inhabitants. Pursuant to the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the village corporation is entitled to 92,160 acres. The regional Native corporation is the Calista Corporation. Population: The population has risen steadily since the original 1950 U.S. census. Census data showed 43 inhabi- tants in 1950, 110 in 1960 and 125 in 1970. The 1979 Municipal Services Revenue-Sharing Program report showed Sheldon Point's population as 147 residents. Population growth rate has averaged 4 percent since 1950. According to the 1970 census, approximately 98 percent of the inhabitants were Natives. In 1979, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.3 persons. Government: Sheldon Point was incorporated as a second-class city in 1974. The city is governed by a mayor who is selected from the 7-member city council. For non-city programs and services, Sheldon Point's Native population is represented by a 5-member traditional council. 3-23 APA23/B24 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Transportation: The location of Sheldon Point affords easy access by boat and barge during the summer months. Major barge lines deliver fuel and other bulk cargo to the city. Because there are no roads connecting Sheldon Point with other population centers, other cargo, Passengers and mail arrive by air. Snowmachines serve as the primary mode of transportation during winter. Economy: Commercial fishing is the economic foundation of Sheldon Point. "Pick-up boats" from the Lower Yukon fish-buying companies come to the city to buy fish caught by the residents. Twenty-two salmon gillnet permits in Yukon District had been issued to the residents of Sheldon Point. Approximately ten year-round employment opportunities are provided from various private and public sector jobs: general store, post office, health clinic, airlines and school. : Income from the above enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments and by subsistence activities. Sheldon Point residents hunt beluga whale, seal, moose, waterfowl, rabbit and fish for salmon and other fish species. Additional income is obtained from trapping and the sale of pelts. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Residential heating in Sheldon Point is accomplished with the use of both fuel oil] and driftwood. All other facil- ities use fuel oil. Heating requirements account for 3-24 APA23/B25 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 63.4 percent of the village energy usage. Transportation requires 18.1 percent and electric generation 18.5 percent of the village needs. Graph 3.5 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.5 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized generation facility exists in Sheldon Point. A demonstration project to install individual wind generators at several residences is currently under way. The electrical requirement of the school and several public buildings is supplied by the school generators. No centalized generation facility is planned for the immediate future. Heating: Residential and small commercial heating are primarily with fuel oi1, supplemented with driftwood. Heating of public buildings and the school is accom- plished with fuel oil. Average consumption of fuel oi] per residence is 490 gallons. Average annual consumption of wood is 4.5 cords per residence. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oj] storage capacity in the community (school + village) is approximately 45,000 gallons (estimated during site visit). 3-25 GRAPH 3.5 1979 ENERGY BALANCE SHELDON POINT EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% ) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% [ia — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (7) — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (Ga — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) ( — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 1.6% HEATING (63.4%) BLAZO. — 1.7% PROPANE— 1.1% WOOD — 19.8% DIESEL — 408% TOTAL — 63.4% TRANSPORTATION (18.1%) —— GASOLINE + AV GAS 18.1% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (18.5%) DIESEL 18.5% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4000 6000 8000 10, ‘i 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,00 20,000 Lome apa28: all ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 SHELDON POINT Table 3.5 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wood PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10* Btu % of Total Residential 34 16,700 153 6,000 1,750 12,700 6,000 - 7,618 2,304 2,601 17 222 1,612 762 57.9 Smal] Commercial 3 1,550 = = = = = = 214 214 1.6 Public Buildings 4 2,200 - - - - = 4,800 967 304 663 7.4 Large User (school) 1 18,460 - 1,200 - - - 2,880 4,347 2,547 23 1,777 33.1 Total 42 38,910 153 7,200 1,750 12,700 6,000 7,680 5,369 2,601 140 222 1,612 762 2,440 13,146 % of Total Btu 40.8 19.8 11 1.7 12.3 5.8 18.5 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 1,342 650 35 56 1,209 572 1,830 5,694 % of Total 10.2 4.9 0.3 0.4 9.2 44 13.9 43.3 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE C. VILLAGE - MIDDLE AND UPPER KUSKOKWIM 6. Chuathbaluk APA23/B28 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Chuathbaluk is located 9.5 miles east of Aniak on the north bank of the Kuskékwim River in the Kulbuck- Kuskokwim Mountains. A Native settlement existed in the area as early as 1883 and has been known as St. Sergie's Mission, Kuskokwim Russian Mission and Little Russian Mission. This designation led to confusion between this community and the community of Russian Mission on the Yukon River. As a result, within the past 20 years, the Kuskokwim village was renamed "Chuathbaluk". The Eskimo word for "big blueberries." Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the Chuathbaluk village corporation was entitled to 92,160 acres of land. When the Chuathbaluk village corporation merged with 9 other Kuskokwim village corpora- tions, this entitlement passed to The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC), for consolidated ownership and management. The Calista Corporation is the regional corporation. Population: There are no population data recorded for Chuathbaluk before 1970, when the census counted 94 resi- dents in the village. The 1979 State Revenue-Sharing Program reported 119 people - a 26 percent increase over 1970. Natives comprised 96 percent of Chuathbaluk's population in 1970. In 1979, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.4 persons. 3-28 APA23/B29 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Economy: Chuathbaluk's economy is heavily dependent on subsistence activities. Employment is found primarily in seasonal work during the summer through BLM and AVCP. Year-round employment is limited to the clinic, the city, the school district which employs 8 full-time employees and the trading post. Other cash income in the community comes in the form of public assistance and from sale of furs caught during the trapping season. In addition, some women in the village sell beadwork, fur garments, etc. they make during the winter months. For the bulk of their livelihood, residents rely on subsistence activities. Most residents fish in the summer months for salmon and other fish species and hunt waterfowl, rabbit, moose and bear. In the fall, families harvest several varieties of berries. Government: Chuathbaluk was incorporated as a second- class city in 1975. Chuathbaluk has both a mayor and administrator. The mayor is selected from a 7-member city council. For non-city programs and services, Chuathbaluk's Native population is represented by a 7-member traditional council. Transportation: The Kuskokwim River serves as the major transportation link to other villages in the area. During the summer months, access to the community is limited to barge, boat and float plane. Fuel and other bulk cargo is delivered to the community by river barge. Most passengers, mail and cargo are relayed from the regional center at Aniak by air, barge or mail boat. Snowmachines are used in the winter as the primary mode of inter-village transportation. No roads connect Chuathbaluk with surrounding villages. 3=29 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Approximately 80% of the residential and smal] commercial heating requirements of the village are supplied by wood. Village heating requirements account for 63.5 percent of ' the total village energy usage, electric generation 17.8 APA23/B30 percent, and transportation 18.7 percent. Graph 3.6 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.5 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: There is no centralized power generation facility in Chuathbaluk. The school maintains and operates its own generation facility which consists of two 50-kW units. The school generation facility supplies - power to the school and to certain public buildings. Plans for electrifying Chuathbaluk are in progress, and electrification of the community is expected to be completed in the summer of 1981. No distribution facilities presently exist within the village. Construction of an overhead distribution system using triplex construction is scheduled for the. summer of 1981. Heating: Eighty percent of the heating requirements for residential and small commercial consumers are supplied by wood. Wood heating is supplemented by fuel oi] as necessary. Residential use averages approximately eight cords of wood and 120 gallons of fuel oi] per year. Public buildings and the school use fuel oil-fired furnaces for their heating needs. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community is approximately 26,700 gallons (reference 27). 3-30 GRAPH 3.6 1979 ENERGY BALANCE CHUATHBALUK EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% () — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% () — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (2 — PuBLic BUILDINGS (GN) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 4.3% — 4.4% HEATING (63.5%) TRANSPORTATION (18.7%) — GASOLINE + AV GAS 18.7% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (17.8%) ee DIESEL 17.8% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 BTU x 108 BLAZO. — 1.7% PROPANE— 0.6% WOOD — 30.9% DIESEL — 30.3% TOTAL — 63.5% | 18,000 20,000 apa28: al ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 CHUATHBALUK Table 3.6 CONSUMER _ ENERGY FORM CONSUMED = HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL GENERATION DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO" GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL __GAL cords POUNDS GAL GAL GAL _ GAL _10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential 27 3,200 216 2,400 1,625 17,050 500 NA 6,596 442 3,672 47 206 2,165 64 55.5 Small Commercial 3 3,700 - = = = = = S11 S11. 4.3 Public Buildings 2 1,400 = = = = = 2,400 524 193 331 4.4 Large User (school) 1 17,800 = 1,200 12,900 4,259 2,456 23 1,780 35.8 Total 33 26,100 189 3,600 1,625 17,050 500 15,300 3,672 3,672 70 206 2,165 64 2,111 11,890 % of Total Btu 30.3 30.9 0.6 1.7 18.2 0.5 17.8 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 301 918 17 52 1,624 48 1,583 5,143 % of Total Btu 7.6 7.7 0.1 0.4 1330 0.4 13.23 43.2 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 25% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE F, Crooked Creek APA23/B33 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: The village of Crooked Creek is located on the north bank of the Kuskokwim River at its confluence with Crooked Creek, 50 miles northeast of Aniak in the Kilbuk-Kuskokwim Mountains. A trading post was established jn 1914 a short distance upriver from the mouth of the creek at an area known as the "Upper Village". The settlement of Eskimo and Ingalik Indians at the "lower village" downriver of the junction of Crooked Creek and the Kuskokwim River was noted as early as 1850. The village remains divided to this day with a community center on each side of Crooked Creek Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Crooked Creek village corporation is entitled % to 92,160 acres of Federal land. When Crooked Creek village Corporation merged with 9 other Middle Kuskokwim village corporations, these entitlements passed to TKC for consolidated ownership and management. Calista Corporation is the regional corporation Population: In 1939 a population of 48 was recorded for Crooked Creek. In 1950 the population was 43. Between 1950 and 1960 the population increased by 92 percent to a population of 92. Over the next ten years, a decrease in population of 36 percent was experienced, for a total of 59 year-round residents in 1970. A 1979 estimate made by the village council shows 124 residents. According to the 1970 census, 93 percent of the population were Eskimo or Ingalik Indian. In 1979, the average number of members per household in the community was 4.0 persons. 3-33 APA23/B34 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Economy: Year-round employment opportunities in Crooked Creek are limited. Government programs, the Kuspuk School District, which employes 5 full-time employees, and a minimum of support services provide the only permanent positions in the village. Some seasonal employment is available during the summer months. The largest seasonal employer is the Alaska Village Council President (AVCP) Employment and Training Program, which employs 7 - 10 village residents during the summer months. Income from these enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments and the residents' subsistence activities. Crooked Creek residents hunt beaver, muskrat, game birds, rabbit, moose, caribou and waterfowl. Income is also derived from trapping and the sale of pelts. During the summer months residents: fish for salmon and other species of fish. In the fall, cranberries, blue- berries and other varieties of berries are harvested. Government: Crooked Creek is not incorporated as a Municipality under State law. Crooked Creek's Native population is represented by a 5-member traditional council. Transportation: The community's location on the Kuskokwim River allows barge and smal] boat travel as well as access by air. Fuel and bulk supplies are transported upriver to Crooked Creek by river barge. Passengers, other cargo and mail arrive primarily by air. A dirt road approximately 1.5 miles long, connects the lower village, upper village and the airport. A sus- pension bridge over Crooked Creek provides for only pedestrians, snowmachine and motorbike access between the two parts of the village. No roads connect Crooked Creek with surrounding communities. 3-34 APA23/B35 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE In the winter, when the river freezes, villagers rely on snowmachines for transportation. ENERGY BALANCE Wood is the primary fuel used for residential and small commercial heating requirements. Fuel oi] is used to supplement as necessary. Public buildings and the school use fuel oj] to satisfy their heating needs. Fifty-seven and four-tenths percent of the energy used in the village is for heating, 30.2 percent is used for transporation and 12.4 percent is used for electric generation. Graph 3.7 illustrates by consumer category the type and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.7 tabu- larizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized power generation facility exists in Crooked Creek. The school generators (two 50-kW units) provide power to the school, satellite earth station and three private consumers. The community hall and clinic are lighted using a small gasoline generator as necessary. Planning for electrification of Crooked Creek is currently in progress. Electrification is anticipated for the summer of 1981. Heating: Heating for residential and smal] commercial consumers is primarily provided by wood, supplemented by fuel oil. Residential uses average 7.5 cords of wood and 135 gallons of fuel oil per year. The heating require- ments of public buildings and the school are provided by fuel of]. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (school and village) is approximately 50,400 gallons (reference 27). 3730 GRAPH 3.7 1979 ENERGY BALANCE CROOKED CREEK EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% GG) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% [(X"] — PUBLIC BUILDINGS ( — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) (GN) — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 2.5% HEATING (57.4%) BLAZO — 18% PROPANE— 0.4% WOOD — 31.1% DIESEL — 24.1% TOTAL — 57.4% TRANSPORTATION (30.2%) GASOLINE + AV GAS 30.2% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (12.4%) [= DIESEL 12.4% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 ) 4000 6000 8000 10 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,00 BTU e 20,000 Le-€ apa28: al3 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 CROOKED CREEK Table 3.7 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wood PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10® Btu 10* Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10 Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential 4,200 233 1,600 1,850 17,050 1,200 - 7,124 580 3,961 31 235 2,165 152 55.8 Small Commercial 2,200 < 2 = 7 12,050 - 1,834 304 1,530 14.4 Public Buildings 1,100 7 = = - 1,200 318 152 166 2:5 Large User (school) 1 14,760 = 1,200 = = - 10,300 3,480 2,036 23 1,421 27.3 Total 22,260 233 2,800 1,850 17,050 13,250 11,500 12,756 3,072 3,961 54 235 2,165 1,682 1,587 % of Total Btu 24.1 31.1 0.4 1.8 17. 0 13.2 12.4 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 769 990 14 59 1,624 1,262 1,190 5,908 % of Total 6.0 7.8 0.1 0.5 12.7 9.9 9.3 46.3 1 Rental outlets and flying service Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 8. Nikolai APA23/B38 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Nikolai is located at the confluence of the South Fork of the Kuskokwim River and the Little Tonzona River about 46 miles east of McGrath. The Ingalik Indian village has been located at the present site since 1925. The village was previously located miles upstream of the South Fork of the Kuskokwim. Nikolai is contained within the Doyon Limited Corporation boundaries. Population: The population of Nikolai has fluctuated dramatically over the past decade. The 1970 census showed a population of 112. The population increased to a high of 152 in the mid-70's and subsequently decreased to 96 in 1980 (estimated by village council). Natives comprise all but a few percent of the population of Nikolai. In 1980, the average number of members per household in the village was 4.4 persons. Economy: The economy of Nikolai is primarily dependent on subsistence activities. Employment is found in seasonal work during the summer. Permanent employment is limited to the clinic, the city, the school district, the store and a few government or government-related jobs. Other cash income in the community comes in the form of public assistance and from the sale of furs caught during the trapping season. Nikolai residents hunt beaver, muskrat, game birds, rabbit, moose and waterfowl. Most residents fish during the summer months for salmon and other fish species. In the fall families harvest numerous varieties of berries. 3730 APA23/B39 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Transportation: Nikolai's location on the Kuskokwim River allows delivery of fuel and bulk suppTies by river barge. An airstrip adjacent to the village provides air access. Passengers, small cargo items and mail arrive primarily by air. Small boats provide inter-village transportation during the summer month. Snowmachines are the primary method of transportation during the winter after the river freezes. No roads connect Nikolai with surrounding communities. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) The heating requirements in the village of Nikolai account for approximately 58.3 percent of the energy consumed by the village, transportation needs are 13.7 percent and electric generation 28.0 percent. Graph 3.8 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.8 tabu- larizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: The village of Nikolai maintains and operates a centralized electric generation facility. Generation capacity consists of a 25-kW, a 50-kW and a 15-kW diesel-generator set. The school district does not maintain a standby generation facility in Nikolai. The distribution system is overhead triplex construction operating at a voltage of 480 volts. 3-39 APA23/B40 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Heating: Residential and commercial heating are primarily with wood fuel in individual wood stoves. Residential consumers average approximately 9 cords of wood per year for heating. Public buildings and the school heat mainly with fuel oi1. The school, however, has recently installed a wood-burning stove and will attempt to heat one classroom with wood. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (school + village) is estimated at 35,000 gallons (estimated during village visit). 3-40 GRAPH 3.8 1979 ENERGY BALANCE NIKOLAI EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% ) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% ( — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (2 — PUBLIC BUILDINGS () — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () — WASTE HEAT 4.2% TOTAL ENERGY (100%) : HEATING (58.3%) BLAZO — 0% PROPANE— 2.1% WOOD — 30.1% DIESEL — 26.1% TOTAL — 58.3% TRANSPORTATION (13.7%) GASOLINE + AV GAS 13.7% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (28.0%) Hit DIESEL 28.0% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 BTU x 10° 20,000 apa28: a8 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 NIKOLAI Table 3.8 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS _ POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu % of Total Residential 22 - 198 10,700 - 12,100 - 3,880 5,644 3,366 207 1,536 535 50.5: Small Commercial 2 1,100 = = = 7 a 2,280 67 152 315 4.2 Public Buildings 3 1,550 - - - - - 3,600 7m 214 497 6.4 Large User (school) 1 18 460 = 1,200 - 7 = 12,880 4,347 2,547 23 Ltt 38.9 Total 28 21,110 __ 198 11,900 - 12,100 - 22,640 - 2,913) 3,366 230 1,936 3,124 11, 16) % of Total Btu 26.1 30.1 ed = 1327, ™ 28.0 100 Waste heat 10° Btu 728 842 _58 1,152 2,343 5,123 % of Total Btu Gu: TES 025 10.3 2120 45.8 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 92 Red Devil APA23/B43 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: The village of Red Devil is located on both banks of the Kuskokwim River at the mouth of Red Devil Creek, 73 miles east of Aniak. The village was named after the Red Devil Mine, which was established in 1921 to mine quicksilver (mercury). The mine was last worked in 1971 when the mercury, cinnabar and antimony reserves were depleted. With the abandonment of the mine and loss of the local economic base, the village has experi- ‘enced a decline in population. Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the Red Devil Village Corporation was entitled to select 69,120 acres of land. When the Red Devil Village Corporation merged with 9 other Middle Kuskokwim village corporations, this entitlement passed to The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC) for consolidated ownership and management. Calista Corporation is the regional corporation. Population: The first population count for the village was taken in 1960, when the federal census reported a Population of 152. Figures for 1970 recorded a 46 percent decrease to a population of 81. Unlike other villages in the Calista Region which are predominantly Native, Red Devil has only a 27 percent Native population according to the 1970 census. An estimate made by the village residents in 1979 counted 53 residents. In 1979, the average number of members per household was 4.1 persons. Economy: Since the closure of the mercury mine in 1971, employment opportunities in Red Devil have been limited. The Kuspuk School District retains two teachers, one teacher aide and a cook. There is also one employee each 3-43 APA23/B44 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE at the clinic and post office. Employees are also retained by the roadhouse/bar/grocery/liquor store and flying service. The BLM provides seasonal employment through its summer fire-fighting program. : Income from these activities is supplemented by public .assistance payments and residents' subsistence activities. Residents hunt beaver, muskrat, game birds, hare, moose, caribou and waterfowl. Income is also obtained from trapping. During the summer months salmon, along with other species of fish, are caught from the Kuskokwim and surrounding rivers and creeks. In the fall, berries are harvested. Government: Red Devil is not incorporated as a muni- cipality under State law and there jis no borough govern- ment within the region. Red Devil's Native population is represented by a 3-member traditional council. Although not having the authority of a city or tribal council, a 5-member village council represents residents of Red Devil. Transportation: Red Devil's location on the Kuskokwim River allows the village's fuel oi] and bulk supplies to be delivered by river barge. During the summer, the Kuskokwim River serves as the major transportation corridor with other villages in the area. During the winter, the frozen river serves as the major thoroughfare for snowmachine travel. There are no roads connecting Red Devil with other villages in the region. The 4,500 foot gravel runway at Red Devil is the longest runway situated along the Kuskokwim River, in between the two communities of Aniak and McGrath. Most small cargo items, mail and visitors arrive in Red Devil by air. 3-44 APA23/B45 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY BALANCE (1979) The energy balance data for Red Devil show that the majority of the energy in the village or 50.3 percent is used for heating, 27.8 percent for transportation and 21.9% for electrical generation. Graph 3.9 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.9 tabulazizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized power facility exists in Red Devil, and none is planned for the immediate future. The school maintains and operates its own generation facility. The clinic and store maintain and operate small individual generators. Heating: The majority of residential and small com- mercial consumers use fuel oil for heating purposes. Because of the high cost of fuel oil], there is, however, a definite trend toward supplemental heating with wood by these two consumer classes. Public buildings and the school rely primarily on fuel oi] for heating require- ments. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (village + school) is 20,700 gallons (reference 27). 3-45 GRAPH 3.9 1979 ENERGY BALANCE RED DEVIL EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% MY — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% ( — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% [55 — pustic BUILDINGS () — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) HN) — ‘WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) HEATING (50.3%) BLAZO. — 0.4% PROPANE— 1.4% WOOD — 54% DIESEL — 43.1% TOTAL — 50.3% TRANSPORTATION (27.8%) tse GASOLINE + AV GAS 27.8% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (21.9%) | | 4000 5 6000 7000 8000 900C BTU : a! 8 10,000 Le-e apa28: a2 ENERGY BALNACE - 1979 RED DEVIL Table 3.9 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL -_CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10 Btu 10* Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10* Btu 10® Btu 10® Btu % of Total Residential iV4 10,300 _24 3,500 250 1,940 2,550 = 2,499 1,421 408 68 32 246 324 33.1 Small Commercial 1 1,100 1,000 10,980" 1,840 1,926 152 127 1,394 253 25.5 Public Buildings 2 1,100 2,400 483 152 331 6.5 Large User (school) 1 11,080 2,000 7,730 2,635 1,529 39 1,067 34.9 Total 16 23,580 _24 5,500 250 2,940 13,530 11,970 7,543 3,254 408 107 32 373 1,718 1,651 % of Total Btu 43.1 5.4 Lie 0.4 4.9 22.9 2139 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 813 102 E2i 8.0 280 1,289 1,238 3,819 % of Total 10.6 13 0.3 0.1 Sof. 7a 16.4 49.5 1 Rental outlet and flying service Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 10. Sleetmute APA23/B48 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: The village of Sleetmute is located on the east bank of the Kuskokwim River; 1.5 miles north of its confluence with the Holitna River and 78 miles east of Aniak: '"Sleetmute", meaning "whetstone people" was named for the nearby shale deposits. The village was founded by local Ingalik Indians. The Russian developed a trading post near the present village site in the early 1830's. The trading post was later moved, however, from Sleetmute to a site about 100 miles down the Kuskokwim River. Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the Sleetmute Village Corporation was entitled to select 92,160 acres of Federal lands. When the Sleetmute Corporation merged with 9 other Middle Kuskokwim Village Corporations, this entitlement passed to The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC) for consolidated ownership and management. Calista Corporation is the regional corporation. Population: The earliest recorded population data for the site were obtained in 1907 when there were 150 residents in the village. By 1939, the population had declined 42 percent to 86 residents. The 1950 census figures show a resurgence to a population of 120, which remained stable through the 1960 census. The 1970 census shows a 12 percent decline to a total of 109. Sleetmute's population was 87 percent Native in 1970. A local esti- mate of population counted 109 residents in 1979 (both sides of river). In 1979, the average number of members per household in the community was 5.4 persons. 3-48 APA23/B49 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Economy: Most cash employment in Sleetmute is derived from public employment. The Kuspuk School District employs ten people in full-time jobs during the school year The BLM employs approximately 16 residents each summer as fire fighters. Other residents work in canneries outside the area during the fishing season. There is no commercial fishing activity within Sleetmute. Additionally there is a family owned and operated flying service located across the river from the village. Additional income is derived from trapping and the sale of furs and cash subsistence programs. Approximately 60 percent of the village's food is derived from subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering. In addition to salmon caught during the summer, numerous other species of fish are taken by area residents. The area residents hunt moose, bear, ptarmigan, waterfowl, porcupine and rabbit. In the fall, families harvest a variety of berries. Government: Sleetmute is not incorporated as a munici- pality under State law and, there is no borough govern- ment within the region. Sleetmute's Native population is represented by a 5-member traditional council. A 7-member village council represents the residents of Sleetmute. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Residential and smal] commercial consumer heating requirements account for approximately 51.7 percent of the energy needs of the village. Transportation results in an additional 30.2 percent and electric generation 18.1 percent. Graph 3.10 illustrates by consumer category the type and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.10 tabularizes this data in additional detail. 3-49 APA23/B50 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized power system exists in the village, but electrification of the village is scheduled for the summer of 1981. The Kuspuk School District maintains and operates the school generating facilities in Sleetmute (2 - 50 kW units) which supply power to the school and to numerous public buildings in the village. A combination retail outlet and flying service, located on the opposite side of the river, maintains and operates a small generator for its own use. Heating: Heating requirements for residential and small commercial consumers are satisfied primarily with wood and supplemented with fuel oi]. Average residential requirements for heat are 7.7 cords of wood per year and 230 gallons of fuel oi]. Public buildings and the school building facilities use fuel oi] for heating purposes. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oil storage capacity in the community is approximately 33,000 gallons (reference 27). 3-50 GRAPH 3.10 1979 ENERGY BALANCE SLEETMUTE EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% GS) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (277) — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (NN) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) () — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) HEATING (51.7%) BLAZO — 14% PROPANE— 0.5% WOOD — 23.2% DIESEL — 26.6% TOTAL — 51.7% TRANSPORTATION (30.2%) i —__— GASOLINE + AV GAS 30.2% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (18.1%) KS DIESEL 18.1% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 BTU x 108 | 20,000 apa28: a5 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 SLEETMUTE Table 3.10 CONSUMER — ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu | TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential 24 5,500 __ 184 2,000 1,500 13,200 1,800 7 6,022 759 3,128: 39 191 1,676 229 44.7 Smal] Commercial 2 3,000 od = - 8,000! 9,000! 3,070 25997, 414 1,016 1,143 424 cad Public Buildings 3 1,650 - - - - - 3,600 725 228 497 54) Large User (school) 1 15,770 1,200 - = i 11,000 Be 7a 2,176 23 1,518 27.6 Total 30 25,920 184 3,200 1,500 21,200 10,800 17,670 13,461 3,577 3,128 62 191 2,692 L372: 2,439 % of Total Btu 26.6 23.2 0.5 1.4 20.0 10.2) 18.1. 100 Waste Heat 10® Btu 894 782 _16 48 2,019 1,029 1,829 6,617 % of Total 6.6 5.8 0.1 0.4 15.0 7.6 13.6 49.1 1 Rental outlet and flying service Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 11. Stony River APA23/B53 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: The village of Stony River is located approxi- mately 100 miles east of Aniak on the north bank of the Kuskokwim River 1.9 miles north of its confluence with Stony River. The village began in 1930 as a trading post and river boat landing used to supply mining operations to the north. These facilities were used primarily by Eskimos and Indians who lived nearby. It was not until the early 1960's that local Eskimos and Indians built cabins near the store and established year-round residency in the village. Pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the Stony River Village Corporation was entitled to select 69,120 acres of Federal land. When the village corporation merged with 9 other Middle Kuskokwim Village Corporations, this entitlement passed to TKC for consoli- dated ownership and management. Calista Corporation is the regional corporation. Population: First recorded in the 1960 U.S. census, the population of Stony River was listed at 75 residents. The 1970 census reported 74 residents, 82% of which are Natives. A local count estimated the population of Stony River was 67 people in 1979. For 1979, the average number of members per household was 5.6 persons. Economy: Stony River's economy is heavily dependent on subsistence activities. Residents hunt moose, caribou, bear, waterfowl and small game. The fishing catch includes salmon and numerous other species of fresh-water fish. In the fall, berries are harvested by the residents. 3-53 APA23/B54 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Most cash income comes from public employment programs. Seasonal work is available through the BLM summer fire- fighting program. The regional school district retains three full-time employees. Some additional income is derived from government assistance programs. Income is also derived from trapping. Government: Stony River is not incorporated as a muni- cipality under State law and there is no organized borough in the area. Stony River's Native population is represented by a 5-member traditional council. Transportation: Stony River's location along the Kuskokwim River affords easy access by boat in the summer months. Barge lines deliver fuel and bulk supplies to Stony River during the summer months via the Kuskokwim River. A gravel airstrip accommodates air traffic. Passenger, mail and small cargo items arrive primarily by air. During the winter months when the river is frozen, snow- machines provide the predominate mode of transportation. There are no roads connecting Stony River to other villages within the region. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) Approximately 62.5 percent of the energy requirements for the village are for heating. Transportation requirements are only 12.1 percent of the total, and electric generation accounts for the remaining 25.4 percent of energy usage in the village. Graph 3.11 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.11 tabularizes this data in additional detail. 3°54 APA23/B55 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: No centralized power generation facility exists in Stony River. Village electrification is scheduled for the summer of 1981. The school district maintains and operates two 50-kW diesel generators which supply the electrical energy needs of the school and certain public buildings. Heating: Residential and small commercial consumer heating requirements are satisfied almost entirely with wood. The average annual residential usage of wood and fuel oil is 8 cords and 75 gallons, respectively. The community hall and clinic are heated with fuel oi] as are the school facilities. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (school + village) is 28,000 gallons (reference 27). S755 GRAPH 3.11 1979 ENERGY BALANCE STONY RIVER EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% GN) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% () — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% [7] — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (GS) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) (EE) —: WASTE - HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) 2.2% HEATING (62.5%) BLAZO). — 1.7% PROPANE— 0.3% WOOD — 23.6% DIESEL — 36.9% TOTAL — 62.5% TRANSPORTATION (12.1%) i! GASOLINE + AV GAS 12.1% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (25.4%) I | | | | | | | | | 2000 3000 4000 50! 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000 BTU : ia LS-€ apa28: a6 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 STONY RIVER Table 3.11 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED z HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wood PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL : GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10® Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential 12 900 96 900 5,400 1,200 - 2,708 124 1,632 114 686 152 39.2 Small Commercial 1 1,100 e = > - - -. 152 152 22 Public Buildings 2 1,650 = = = = = 2,400 559 228 331 8.1 Large User (school) 1 14,800 = 1,200 7 = - 10,300 3,486 2,042 23. . 1,421 50.5 Total 16 18,450 96 1,200 900 5,400 1,200 12,700 6,905 2,546 1,632 23 114 686 152 1,752 % of Total Btu 36.9 23.6 0.3 17 9.9 eae 25.4 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 637 408 _6 29 515 114 1,314 3,023 % of Total 9.2 5.9 0.1 0.4 0 1.7 19.0 43.8 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Takotna is located on the north bank of the Takotna River 14 air miles west of McGrath. In the past, Takotna served as a riverboat landing and supply point for the Innoko placer district. The name of the community is derived from the Takotna River. Doyon Limited is the regional corporation of the area. Population: A 1930 estimate listed the population of Takotna at 65 residents. A 1978 estimate put the population at 50, with 17 residences. The 1980 estimate showed a population of 87, with 22 residences. The average number of residence per household in the community is 4.0 persons. Economy: Permanent employment. in the village is limited to government services, the regional school district and support services. A small number of civilians who are employed at Tatalina AFS also live in Takotna. The economy of Takotna is also dependent on the seasonal gold mining operations which exist in the mountains north and west of the community. Income from these enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments and residents' subsistence activities. Residents hunt moose, bear, rabbit, game birds and waterfowl. Income is also derived from trapping and the sale of furs. During the summer months, most residents fish for salmon. In the fall, families harvest numerous varieties of berries. 12. Takotna a. APA23/B58 3-58 APA23/B59 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE Transportation: Takotna's location affords easy access by boat and river barge during the summer months. Shipments of fuel and bulk supplies are delivered by barge lines to the community during the summer. Takotna is surrounded by approximately 100 miles of road which were constructed to support mining operations in the area. The community is linked to its nearest neighbor, Tatalina Air Force Station by 9 miles of road, which is maintained year around. Several vehicles exist in the community and are used extensively for transportation. Additional transportation is accomplished in the summer by boat and in winter with snowmachines A gravel airstrip provides access by aircraft. Passengers, small cargo items and mail-are primarily delivered by air. ENERGY BALANCE (1979) The heating requirements in Takotna account for approxi- mately 58.4 percent of the energy used in the village. Transportation accounts for 21.0 percent of the use and electrical generation for an additional 20.6 percent. Graph 3.12 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.12 tabularizes this data in additional detail EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: Construction of centralized generation facilities in Takotna was completed in November of 1979. Installed generation units consist of a 40-kW and a 20-kW unit. All consumer categories, including public buildings and large power consumers (school), are being supplied by the utility. 3-59 APA23/B60 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE The distribution system consists of overhead triplex construction operating at 240/120 volts. Heating: The majority of the residential and small commercial consumers in Takotna heat with wood supple- mented with fuel oil. Public buildings and the school facilities are primarily heated with fuel oi]. Resi- dential consumers average approximately 7.2 cords of wood per year supplemented with 100 gallons of fuel oi] per year. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oi] storage capacity in the community (village + school) at about 30,000 gallons (estimated during village visit). 3-60 GRAPH 3.12 1979 ENERGY BALANCE TAKOTNA EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND | HEATING — 75% GH) — RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% (GG) — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% (77) — PuBLic BUILDINGS (GN) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) GR) — «WASTE HEAT ) 1.6% TOTAL ENERGY (100% HEATING (58.4%) BLAZO — 1.0% PROPANE— 2.5% WOOD) — 26.2% DIESEL — 28.7% TOTAL — 58.4% TRANSPORTATION (21.0%) ia GASOLINE + AV GAS 21.0% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (20.6%) | | | 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000 co5€ apa28: a9 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 TAKOTNA Table 3.12 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL DIESEL wood PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10® Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu TO® Btu 10® Btu 10® Btu 10® Btu % of Total Residential 20 2,000 144 10,700 750 15,400 - - 4,984 276 2,448 209 95 1,956 53.4 Smal] Commercial 2 1,100 cS a = = = - 152 152 1.6 Public Buildings 3 1,550 - = “ fe - 3,600 711 214 497 7.6 Large User (school) 1 14,770 = 1,200 = = = 10,300 3,482 2,038 23 1,421 37.4 Total 26 19,420 144 11,900 750 15,400 - 13,900 2,680 2,448 232 95 1,956 1,918 9,329 % of Total Btu 28.7 26.2 2.5 150 21.0 - 20.6 100 Waste Heat 10® Btu 670 612 _58 _24 1,467" 1,439 4,270 % of total Btu wa 6.6 0-6 0.3 15.7 15.4 45.8 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE 13. Telida APA23/B63 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION History: Telida is located on the bank of the Swift Fork of the Kuskokwim River, 50 miles northeast of Medfra. The village was established at its persent site about 1916. Telida lies within the boundaries of Doyon Limited Corporation. Population: L.T. J.S Herron, USA, visited Telida in 1899 and gave its population at 17 persons. In 1960 the village consisted of three families. The 1979 estimates place the population around 30. The 1980 estimates obtained during the visit to the village placed the population at 34 residents and seven families. The average number of members per household in the community is 4.4 persons. Economy:: Telida's economy is heavily dependent on sub- sistence activities. Cash income in the community is from public assistance and from the sale of furs caught during the trapping season. Most residents fish and hunt waterfowl, rabbit, game birds and moose. In the fall, families harvest several varieties of berries. Transportation: Telida is not served by river barge. All passenger and supplies coming to the village are delivered primarily by aircraft. A gravel airstrip is located adjacent to the village. Small boats provide a means of transportation with neighboring villages during the summer months. Snowmachines provide the primary means of transportation in the winter. There are no roads which connect Telida with surrounding villages in the region. 3-63 APA23/B64 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE ENERGY BALANCE (1979) All residential heating in Telida is accomplished with wood fuel. The heating load in the village accounts for 56.9 percent of the energy consumed. Electric generation uses 28.3 percent, and transportation uses approximately 14.8 percent. Graph 3.13 illustrates by consumer category the types and percentages of energy forms used in the village. Table 3.13 tabularizes this data in additional detail. EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Electric Power: There is no centralized power system in Telida. The school maintains and operates two 12-kW diesel generation units to provide electrical energy to the school. -Three individuals in the community have a 12-volt battery system installed in their residences. Batteries are charged from the school generators. The school also provides power to the satellite earth station. Heating: Residential heating is accomplished entirely with firewood. Telida residents average approximate 9 cords per year per household. Because of the high cost of heating with fuel oi] in Telida, the school district recently removed the fuel oil furnace from the school and replaced it with a wood-burning stove. Heating of the school is now accomplished solely with wood. Fuel Storage: Diesel, bulk fuel oil storage in the community is estimated at 5,000 gallons (estimated during village visit). 3-64 GRAPH 3.13 1979 ENERGY BALANCE TELIDA EFFICIENCIES ASSUMED: LEGEND _ HEATING — 75% GH) —- RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION — 25% () — SMALL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL GENERATION — 25% [=] — PUBLIC BUILDINGS HN) — LARGE USERS (SCHOOL) ) — WASTE HEAT TOTAL ENERGY (100%) Lae : 0% HEATING (56.9%) BLAZO — 0.9% PROPANE— 1.4% WOOD) — 32.1% DIESEL — 22.5% TOTAL — 56.9% TRANSPORTATION (14.8%) = GASOLINE + AV GAS 14.8% ELECTRICAL GENERATION (28.3%) HK" DIESEL 28.3% | | | | | | | | | 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000 oo-¢ apa28: a3 ENERGY BALANCE - 1979 TELIDA Table 3.13 CONSUMER ENERGY FORM CONSUMED HEATING TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL GENERATION DIESEL WOOD PROPANE BLAZO GASOLINE AV GAL DIESEL TOTAL GAL CORDS POUNDS GAL GAL GAL GAL 10° Btu TYPE NO. 10° Btu 10® Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu 10° Btu % of Total Residential ie = 63 1,500 250 3,000 1,000 = 1,640 1,071 29 32 381 127 47.6 Small Commercial S = = = oa = = = = Public Buildings ak 7 a2 = 7 = = 34 34 1.0 Large User (school) 1 5,600 rr 900 - =) on 7,080 1,768 773 18 977 51.4 Total 9 5,600 65 2,400 250 3,000 1,000 7,080 3,442 7713 1,105 47 32 381 127 O77 % of Total Btu 22.5 32.1 1.4 0.9 dl. 3.7 28.3 100 Waste Heat 10° Btu 193 276 2 ne, 286 95 733 1,603 % of Total Btu 5.6 8.0 0:33. 0.2 8.3 2.8 21.4 46.6 Assumed Efficiency: Heating - 75% Transportation - 25% Electric Generation - 25% APA23/B67 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 3.14 is a tabularized summary of selected data on existing conditions (1979-1980) found in each of the 13 villages. The table outlines information concerning population, economic conditions, electric and heating facilities and total energy consumption (1979) for each of the villages. 3-67 89-€ APA 28B9 Table 3.14 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS - 1979/80 Deomgraphic Economic Heating Energy Consumption in Village Population Residencies Type of Employment Electric (Primary Fuel) Btu x 10° for (1979) ABCDEF Village _ School R QPS Buckland 167 41 X X X X X X 140 kW, 75 kW p 135 kW, 55 kW 0 0 0 0 18,223 Hughes 102 7 X X X - - X = 50 kW, 2-35 kW p wow oo 8,570 Koyukuk 115 28 X X X X X X 2 100 kW, 75 kW, 30 kW wow oo 11,666 Russian Mission 167 40 X X X X X X 90 kw} 125 kW, 2-75 kW w/o w/o 0 Oo 16,361 Sheldon Point 147 34 X X X X X X gs 120 kW w/o w/o 0 oO 13,146 Chuathbaluk 119 27 X X X X X X 2 2-50 Kw wow oo 11,890 Crooked Creek 124 a X X X X X X 2 2-50 Kw wow oo 12,756 Nikolai 96 22 Xx X X X X X 75kW, 50kW, 15kWp = wow ow/o 11,169 Red Devil 53 12 X X X KX X X = 50 kW, 75 kW 0 0 0 0 7,543 Sleetmute 109 24 Xx X X - X X 2 ~ 2-50 kW wow oo 13,461 Stony River 67 12 X X X - X X 2 2-50 kW wow 00 6,905 Takotna 80 20 X X X X XK X 40 kW, 20 kW p es wow o w/o 9,329 Telida 34 7 X X¥ = - = X = 2-12 kW woo ow Ww 3,442 1 Not installed A - Subsistence R - Residential 2 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981 B - School Q - Small Commercial o = oil C - Government P - Public Buildings w = wood D - City _S - School p - primary generation facility for village E - Private F - Assistance programs APA 22-A al SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST A. INTRODUCTION The following paragraphs describe the factors and/or procedures which were considered in developing the energy requirements forecast for each village. i, PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FORECAST a. PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS: Schedule developments Include those projects which are currently under construc- tion or planned for construction within the next three years. These projects include additional HUD and AVCP housing units, electrification, new or enlarged schools, airport improve- ments, etc. Potential dévelopments Include those resource developments which could have significant long-range impacts on the villages. These developments include timber and/or peat harvesting, coal mining, 01] and gas exploration, etc. The most pro- bable resource developments which could either directly or indirectly affect each village are listed. In general, these projects are not expected to show any substantial development until the late 1980's. Economic Activity Forecast: The economic activity forecast presents a brief discussion of those factors which will effect, either directly or indirectly, the economic activity within a village. These factors include both the near term schedule developments, and long-range potential developments, which could have significant impact on the village. 4-1 APA 22-A a2 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 2. POPULATION? The population forecast is based upon historic growth rates where available plus information on projected future regional growth rates, taking into account the effects of economic activities and planned capital projects. Population data in- dicates that the growth rate in the villages varies from a low of less than one percent to a high of approximately three per- cent. In villages where historical growth rates have averaged less than one percent per year, a growth rate of one percent per year has, however, been used for population forecasting purposes. Population forecast are consistent with recognized State of Alaska forecast. It is further assumed that the number of members per household will follow the overall Alaska tendency and decrease from the average 1979 ratio (Section 3) found in each village to an average of four by the year 2000. Therefore, the number of residential energy users will increase at a higher rate than the population. The number of small commercial energy users and public agencies is assumed to increase in direct proportion to that of residential consumers. 3. END USE FORECAST? Electric Power Requirements: Use of electrical energy in the 13 villages is low compared to other areas in Alaska. This is mostly attributed to a low "hook-up saturation" level as only three of the 13 villages presently have operating centralized power generation and distribution facilities, with one addi- tional village being supplied from the school. Of the nine remaining villages, six intend to install village electrical systems during the 1981 summer construction season. Figure 4-1 illustrates the typical seasonal electrical energy usage of rural western Alaska villages. 1 See Appendix C for additional information 4-2 e-b TOTAL OF ANNUAL % (TYPICAL) (1) RURAL WESTERN ALASKA VILLAGES SEASONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY USE 10 % aan 9% 7 X NN N eo ENERGY USE 6% K a9 \ 4% 3% 2% 1% — DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE (1) ENERGY USE IN VILLAGES WITHOUT FISH PROCESSING FACILITIES JULY AUG SEPT oct NOV FIGURE 4.1 OEC APA 22-A a4 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST Historical increases in use of electricity supplied by major utilities in the region (Bethel, Kotzebue) have been approxi- mately 11 percent per year since 1970. This implies that once electric energy becomes available on a reliable basis, the usage will increase not only with new consumer connections but also with increased use by the individual consumers. The rapid increase in cost of electricity in the last few years has not caused a reduction in consumption, mostly because the users in the area are still in the process of applying electric energy to more and more tasks. Generally it can be assumed that the use of electricity will increase with the increase in family income if the annual bill remains within a certain percentage range. A recently completed study for a southcentral utility in Alaska showed that over a 35-year period the average energy use by the individual residential consumers has increased by 2700%, but that the monthly bill has remained constant between 2.4 and 3.9% of the family income. To determine future power requirements, it has generally been assumed that a central station will supply electric energy. The effect of improved electric service is anticipated to be an increase in the intensity-of use as compared to indivi- dually operated generators. Furthermore, with the subsistence economy changing in many communities into a cash economy and subsequent improvements jin the quality of life, new electric loads will require service. For instance, HUD houses planned for various villages will be larger than existing older housing and be equipped with more appliances using electricity. The average expected increase of electric energy for consumer classes except large consumers (schools) has, therefore, been assumed to be 4.5%/year over the course of the study. Electrical energy usage for large consumers is assumed to increase at the population growth rate of the village. APA 22-A a5 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST Heating Requirements: Heating requirements for each consumer category have been projected at the 1979 energy use level through the year 1985. Beginning in 1986 it is assumed that fossil fuel requirements will decrease at the rate of one percent per year through the year 2000 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both heating equipment and improvements in building thermal characteristics. This assumption reflected in the heating requirements forcast tables presented in this section. This assumption results in an approximate 15 percent reduction in fossil fuel requirements for heating purposes by the year 2000. — A discrepancy may exist for a particular village between the number of residential consumers listed in the electric power requirement table and the residential heating requirement table. This discrepancy is a result of certain residential consumers, which are counted as part of the village, being located at a locality (i.e:, across a river), where they cannot be serviced by the electrical utility. These con- sumers are counted in the heating requirements forecast, but May not be counted in the electrical requirements forecast for the village. There is to a certain extent a substitutability between the energy required to provide the electrical and heating require- ments of a village. For instance, the waste heat, which may be captured during the process of generating electrical energy, can be used to displace fuel oi1 needed for heating Purposes. This can be thought of as a form of substitutability between electrical requirements and heating requirements. Another form of substitutability is the use of excess hydro- electric energy to provide low cost electric space heat, until such time as village electrical requirements deplete the reserve of excess hydroelectric energy. APA 22-A a6 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST The electrical and energy requirements forecast tables present in this section do not reflect the substitutability between the two energy requirements. These tables present the electri- cal and heating requirements independent of one another. Table 4.17, Capturable Waste Heat from Annual Electrical Generation, does however, list the percentage of total village heating requirements which can be satisfied from captured waste heat. The economic evaluations listed in Appendix E, do, however, account for the substitutability between electrical energy requirements and heating requirements. This is accomplished by calculating the non-electrical benefits derived from waste heat capture and/or use of excess hydroelectric energy to provide space heating requirements. 4-6 APA 22-A a7 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST B. VILLAGES NORTH OF YUKON 1. Buckland (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - 10 mew HUD houses - replacement for existing structures PHS building New runway and airport improve- ments School classroom addition Armory Potential developments - Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Kugruk Creek Coal Mine operation Economic Activity Forecast: With no known strategic minerals or resources in the immediate area, substantial improvement in economic activity is not expected in Buckland. (b) Population Forecast - Buckland The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.1 Table 4.1 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 104 167 182 199 221 311 # Residences 41 43 48 54 78 # Small commercial - 3 3 4 5 6 # Public users - 5 6 8 9 2 # Large users - 1 1 i 1 1 Population growth rate - 3% 7 q) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) apa22:a7 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.la, 4 BUCKLAND ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS and 4.1c. Table 4.1la 1979 Population 167 Number of residential consumers 41 Average kWh/mo/consumer 225 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 =110.7 Number of smal] commer- cial consumers 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer 743 MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 26.7 Number of public consumers 5 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 51210 Large (LP) consumer z (school) Average kWh/mo/LP consumer 2 9,140 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 109.7 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 298.1 System load factor 0.40 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 85 Estimated from generator load data School at 3% growth rate 1982 182 43 257 132.6 848 30.5 970 69.8 9,988 119.9 352.8 0.40 101 1985 199 48 293 168.8 968 46.5 1,107 106.2 10,913 131.0 452.5 0.40 129 1990 221 54 365 236.5 1,205 @253 15379 148.9 12,652 151.8 609.5 0.45 155) Lb, 2000 Sit 78 567 530.7 1,872 134.8 a2: 2,142 308.4 17,003 204.1 1,178.0 0.50 269 apa22:c7 Table 4.1b BUCKLAND HEATING REQUIREMENTS ? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 167 182 199 211 311 (2) Number of resi- dential users 41 43 48 54 78 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 92 92 92 87 7g) (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 41 41 41 39 35) (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0 0 0 0 0 (6) Diesel Gals. 45,100 47,300 52,800 56,500 73,900 Btu x 10° 6,224 . 6,527 7,286 7,797 10,198 (7) Propane _ Lbs 20,000 20,975 23,400 25,300 32,800 Btu x 10% 390 409 457 493 640 (8) Wood Cords Btu x 106 N/A d N/A N/A N/A N/A (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 6,614 6,936 7,743 8,290 _ 10,838 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 ‘ (9)+(1) 39.6 38.1 38.9 3933 34.8 t Assumes a one percent per year household decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-9 apa22-A:R1 Table 4.1c BUCKLAND HEATING REQUIREMENTS + OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Small Commercial user 3 3 4 5 6 (12) Diesel Gals/Btu x 106 3300 3300 4400 5230 5682 455 455 607 722 784 (13) Public Buildings user 5 6 8 9 12 (14) Diesel _ Gals 2750 3300 4400 7988 10,138 Btu x 10® 380 455 607 1102 1399 (15) Large users (school) 1 1 1 i, 1 (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 22,100 22,100 22,100 21,017 19,028 Btu x 10° 3050 3050 3050 2900 2626 (17) Propane lbs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 Btu x 105 23 23 23 22 20 (18) Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 3073 3073 3073 2922 2646 (19) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 10,522 10,920 12,031 13,036 15,667 2 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-10 APA 22-A/B1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 2s Hughes (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled improvements - Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest Economic Activity Forecast: No substantial economic activity is forecast for the Hughes area except for possibly a small-scale timber harvesting project to supply wood fuel for possible wood- fired electric generation in the late 1980's. (b) Population Forecast - Hughes The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.2 Table 4.2 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 85 102 105 107 113 124 # Residences - 17 18 19 23 31 # Small commercial - 1 2 2 3 # Public users - 1 2 3. 3 # Large users - 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 1% 4-11 apa22:a4 C. End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the folowing Tables 4.2a, 4. 2b, and 4.2c. Table 4.2a 1979 1 Population 102 (1) Number of residential consumers ae (2) (3) Average kWh/mo/consumer 110 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 22.4 (4) Number of small commer- cial consumers 1 (5) Average kWh/mo/consumer 743 (6) 7) (8) MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 8.9 Number of public consumers 1 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 (9) MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 = 1000 10.2 (10) Large (LP) consumer al (school) (11) Average kWh/mo/LP (12) consumer 2 7,300 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 87.6 (13) System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 129.2 (14) System load factor 0.45 (15) System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 a3 1 Village supplied by school. 2 School at 1% growth rate. 1982 105 18 133 28.7 848 20.4 970 23.3 Woe: 90.2 162.6 0.45 41 4-12 1985 107 19 160 36.5 968 2352 1,107 39.9 7,750 93.0 192.6 0.45 49 HUGHES ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS 1990 113 23 220 60.7 1,204 43.3 1,379 49.6 8,144 97.8 251.54 0.45 64 2000 124 31 415 154.4 1,872 89.9 2,142 102.7 8,997 108.0 455.0 0.50 104 apa22:c4 Table 4.2b HUGHES HEATING REQUIREMENTS 2 RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 102 105 107 113 124 (2) Number of resi- dential users 7 18 19 23 SL (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 13 13 a2 12 6 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 40 41 42 39 a (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.65 (6) Diesel _ Gals : 2,600 2,750 2,900 3,345 2,290 Btu x 106 359 380 400 462 316 (7) Propane _Lbs 8,200 8,760 9,550 10,650 13,000 Btu x 105 160 7a! 186 208 254 (8) Wood _ Cords 153 162 V7 197 240 Btu x 10° 2,601 2,754 2,907 3,349 4,080 (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 3,120 3,304 3,493 4,018 4,650 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 30.6 31.5 32.6 35.6 S76 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-13 APA 22-A ql Table 4.2c HUGHES HEATING REQUIREMENTS 1 OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Small Commercial 1 2 2: 3 4 user (12) Diesel - - 550 1569 1894 Gals/Btu x 10° 76 217 261 (13) Public Buildings di} 2 3 3 4 user s (14) Diesel Gals 1400 1950 2500 2378 2626 Btu x 10° 193 269 345 328 362 (15) Large users : 1 1 1 1 1 (school) (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 14,300 14,300 14,300 13,599 12,312 Btu x 10° 1,973 1,973 1,973 1,877 1,699 (17) Propane _ lbs - - - - Btu x 10® (18) Subtotal Btu x 10° 1,973 1,973 1,973 1,877 1,699 (16)+(17) (19) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 5,286 5,546 5,887 6,440 6,972 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. “4-14 APA 22-A/C1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 3: Koyukuk (a) (b) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled improvements - Airport improvements Electrification Potential developments - Timber harvest Reopening of Williams Coal Mine Economic Activity Forecast: Employment for several families from Koyukuk would result from the reopening of the Williams Coal Mine or timber harvest operation in the area for the pur- pose of supplying coal and wood for heating and electrical generation for Koyukuk and the Lower Yukon. Development of these resources is, however, not anticipated until the late 1980's. No significant economic activity is expected in the immediate future. Population Forecast - Koyukuk The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.3 Table 4.3 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 114 115 117 121 127 140 # Residences - 28 28 30 32 35 # Small commercial - 2 a + 4 # Public users = 3 3 3 4 # Large users = 1 1 1 1 z Population growth rate - 1% 4-15 (c) QQ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) apa22:al0 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.3a, 4.3b, and 4.3c. Table 4.3a KOYUKUK ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS + 1979 Population 115 Number of residential consumers i Average kWh/mo/consumer 7 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 - Number of small commer- cial consumers = Average kWh/mo/consumer e MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 = Number of public consumers 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 30.6 Large (LP) consumer 1. (school) Average kWh/mo/LP $9,125 consumer 2 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 109.5 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 140.1 System load factor 0.6 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 27 1982 117 28 133 44.7 848 20.4 970 34.9 9,400 112.8 212.8 0.45 54 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981 School at 1% growth rate 4-16 1985 121 30 160 57.6 968 34.8 1,107 39.9 9,686 116.2 248.5 0.45 63 1990 127 32 220 84.5 1,204 43.3 1,379 66.2 10,180 122.2 316.2 0.45 80 2000 140 35 415 174.3 1,872 89.9 2,142 154.2 11,245 134.9 553.3 0.50 126 Q) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) apa22:cl10 Table 4.3b Population Number of resi- dential users Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+=(2)+12 Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 Diesel Gals Btu x 106 Propane _ Lbs Btu x 106 Wood Cords Btu x 106 Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation fo passive solar heating and KOYUKUK HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 215 28 0.75 252 4,284 4,284 37.3 1982 1985 1990 2000 117 121 127 140 28 30 32 35 0 0 0 0 0 5 19 35 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.64 0 0 0 0 - 1,825 7,410 14,675 36 144 286° 252 270 274 268 4, 284 4,590 4,658 7,556 4,284 4,626 4,802 4,842 36.6 38.2 37.8 34.6 technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-17 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) . (19) apa22-A:R2 Table 4.3c Small] Commercial user Diesel Gals/Btu x 106 Public Buildings user Diesel Gals Btu x 105 Large users (school) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals Btu x 10° Propane Lbs Btu x 105 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) OTHER CONSUMERS KOYUKUK HEATING REQUIREMENTS 2 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 2 2 3 3 4 1100 1100 1650 1569 1894 152 152 228 217 261 3 3 3 4 6 2200 2200 2200 2639 4326 304 304 304 364 597 1 1 1 1 2 18,460 18,460 18,460 17,555 15,894 2,547 2,547 2,547 2,423 2,193 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 23 23 23 22 20 2,571 2,072 2,571 2,445 2,213 7,311 7,311 7,729 7,828 7,913 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-18 APA 22A: D1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 4. Russian Mission (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - Airport improvements AVCP housing Electrification (install new generator) Potential developments - Reopening of Williams Coal Mine Commercial fishing Economic Activity Forecast: An anticipated increase in com- mercial fishing should provide improved economic conditions in the area while reopening of the Williams Coal Mine upstream on the Yukon could provide indirect improvements in the economy by lowering energy costs in the village. Rapid economic develop- ment, however, is not expected for the area. (b) Population Forecast - Russian Mission The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.4 Table 4.4 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 146 167 179 191 210 257 # Residences - 40 42 44 50 64 # Small commercial - 3 3 3 4 7 # Public users - 4 4 6 8 a # Large users - 1 a al al 1 Population growth rate - 2% 4-19 apa22:al2 C. End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.4a, 4.4b, RUSSIAN MISSION ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? Installation of new generator scheduled for summer 1981 and 4.4c. Table 4.4a 1979 Population 167 (1) Number of residential consumers 40 (2) Average kWh/mo/consumer 110 (3) MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 52.8 (4) Number of small commer- cial consumers 3 (5) Average kWh/mo/consumer 743 (6) MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 = 1000 26.7 (7) Number of public consumers 4 (8) Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 (9) MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 40.8 (10) Large (LP) consumer 1 (school) (11) Average kWh/mo/LP 10,950 consumer? : (12) MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 131.4 (13) System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 251.7 (14) System load factor 0.45 (15) System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 64 1 2 School at 2% growth rate 1982 179 42 133 67.0 848 30.5 970 46.6 11,620 139.5 283.6 0.45 ce 4-20 1985 191 44 160 84.5 968 34.8 “1,107 A937 12,331 148.0 347.0 0.45 88 1990 210 50 220 132.0 1,209 58.0 1,379 132.4 13,614 163.4 485.8 0.45 123 2000 257 64 415 318.7 1,872 157.2 11 2,142 282.7 16 ,596 199.3 957.9 0.50 219 apa22:c12 Table 4.4b RUSSIAN MISSION HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1930 2000 (1) Population 167 179 191 210 257 (2) Number of resi- dential users 40 42 44 50 64 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 21 21 21 19 18 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 10 10 10 19 35 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/res idence (8)+(2)+12 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.47 (6) Diesel Gals 9,840 10,335 10 ,824 11,697 13,556 Btu x 10® ; 1,358 1,426 1,494 1,615 1,872 (7) Propane _Lbs 5,000 5,250 5,500 11,580 26 ,835 Btu x 105 98 102 107 226 523 (8) Wood _ Cords 260 273 286 309 358 Btu x 105 4,420 4,642 4,862 5/253 * 6,086 (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 5,876 6,170 6,463 © 7,094 8,481 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 35.2 34.5 33.8 33.8 33.0 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. 4-21 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) apa22-A: R3 Table 4.4c RUSSIAN MISSION HEATING REQUIREMENTS?+ OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Smal] Commercial | 3 5 a 4 7 user Diesel 1550 1550 1650 2092 3315 Gals/Btu x 106 214 214 228 289 457 Public Buildings user 4 4 6 8 11 Diesel _ Gals 2200 2775 5025 6919 9170 Btu x 10° 304 383 693 955 1265 Large users (school) 1 i 1 1 Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 22,015 22,015 22,015 20,936 18,955 Btu x 105 3,038 3,038 3,038 2,889 2,616 Propane __1bs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1038 Btu x 106 23 Zs 23 22 20 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 3061 3061 3061 2911 2636 Total Btu x 106 ‘ (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 9,456 9,828 10,445 11,249 12,840 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-22 APA 22A:E1 SECTION 4 H ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 5. Sheldon Point (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - AVCP housing Electrification using individual wind energy systems Airport improvements Potential developments - Reopening of Williams Coal Mine Commercial fishing Economic Activity Forecast: An anticipated increase in com- mercial fishing should provide improved economic conditions in the area while reopening of the Wiliams Coal Mine upstream on the Yukon could provide indirect improvements in the economy by lowering energy costs in the village. Rapid economic development, however, is not expected for the area. (b) Population Forecast - Sheldon Point The population forecast is shown in the followint Table 4.5 Table 4.5 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population r25 147 150 162 179 218 # Residences - 34 35 38 43 55 # Small commercial - 3 3 3 4 6 # Public users - 4 5) 5 6 10 # Large users - i: il 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 2% 4-23 q1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 1 As 2 Sc apa22:all End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.5a, 4.5b, and 4.5c. Table 4.5a SHELDON POINT ELECTRIC 1979 1982 Population 147 150 Number of residential consumers 7 35 Average kWh/mo/consumer . 133 MWh/year residential consumers . (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 = - 3509) Number of small commer- cial consumers = 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer ” 848 MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 c 30.5 Number of public consumers 4 5 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 970 MWh/year public consumer - (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 40.8 58.2 Large (LP) consumer 1 1 (school) Average kWh/mo/LP 9,125 9,683 consumer2 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 109.5 116.2 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 150°3 260.8 System load factor 0.6 0.45 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 29 66 sumes electrification in 1982 hool at 2% growth rate 4-24 POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1985 162 38 160 73.0 968 34.8 1,107 66.4 10,276 12373 297.5 0.45 75 1990 179 43 220 17355 1,204 57.8 1,379 9953 11,345 136.1 406.7 0.45 103 2000 218 55 415 273.9 1,872 134.8 10 2,142 257.0 13,830 166.0 831.7 O15, 190 apa22:cll Table 4.5b SHELDON POINT HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 147 150 162 179 218 (2) Number of resi- dential users 34 35 38 43 55 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 41 41 41 39 35 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)=(2)412 15 15 15 19 35 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.36 O32 (6) Diesel _ Gals 16,700 17,190 18,665 20,085 23,260 Btu x 10° 2,305 2342, 2,576 eerie: 3,210 (7) Propane _Lbs 6,000 6,175 6,705 9,960 23,060 Btu x 10® 117 120 131 194 450 (8) Wood Cords 153 157 alee 184 213 Btu x 10® 25601: 2,669 23307 3,128 82627! (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 5,023 5,161 5,614 6,094 7,281 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 10° (9)=(1) 34.2 34.4 34.7 34.0 33.4 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. 4-25 apa22-A:R4 Table 4.5c SHELDON POINT HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Small Commercial 3 3 3 4 6 user (12) Diesel 1550 1550 1650 2092 2841 Gals/Btu x 106 214 214 228 288 392 (13) Public Buildings user 4 . 5 5 6 10 (14) Diesel Gals 2200 2500 2775 4778 8201 Btu x 105 304 345 MPSS) 659 131 (15) Large users (school) a; al al al ad (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 18,460 18,460 18,460 47 555 15,894 Btu x 10° 2,547 ZNS47 ence Sar 2,422 2,193 (17) Propane __1bs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1038 Btu x 106 23 23 23 22 20 (18) Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 2570 2570 2570 2444 2213 (19) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 8,177, 8,290 8,795 9,485 11,017 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-26 APA 22A:F1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST C. VILLAGES OF MIDDLE AND UPPER KUSKOKWIM 6. Chuathbaluk (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - School classroom addition Electrification Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest Peat harvest Farewell coal field Economic Activity Forecast: The economic activity in the area is greatly dependent on timber, peat and Farewell coal field development, none of which is anticipated to become opera- tional before the late 1980's or early 1990's. It is expected that these resource developments would provide mostly indirect benefits to the area by providing lower cost energy to consumers. No significant economic activity is forecast for the immediate future. (b) Population Forecast - Chuathbaluk The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.6 Table 4.6 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 94 119 129 146 169 228 # Residences - 27 29 32 38 57 # Small commercial - 3 a 3 4 # Public users - 2 3 4 5 6 # Large users - 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 3% 4-27 (1) (2) G3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) apa22:al C. End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.6a,-.4.6b, and 4.6c Table 4.6a CHUATHBALUK ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1979 1982 1985 Population 119 129 146 Number of residential consumers = 25 28 Average kWh/mo/consumer - 133 160 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 ~ ‘ 39.9 53.8 Number of small] commer- : cial consumers = 3 8 Average kWh/mo/consumer ad 848 963 MWh/year smal] commer- cial consumer - (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 ~ 30.5 34.7 Number of public consumers 2 3 4 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 970 1,107 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 20.4 34.9 53.1 Large (LP) consumer 1 1 1 (school) Average kWh/mo/LP consumer2 9,125 9,971 10,896 MWh/year LP's (10)x(11)x12 + 1000 109.5 119.7 130.8 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 129.9 225.0 272.4 System load factor 0.6 0.45 0.45 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 25 57 69 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981 School at 3% Growth Rate Classroom addition 4-28 1990 169 32 220 84.5 1,205 57.8 1,379 82.7 12,631 151.6 376.6 0.45 96 2000 228 Sd 415 254.0 1,872 134.8 2,142 205.6 16,975 203.7 798.1 0.5 182 apa22:cl Table 4.6b CHUATHBALUK HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population a9) 129 146 169 228 (2) Number of resi- dential users 27, 29 32 38 57 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 10 10 10 9 8 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 7 7 10 19 35 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.57 (6) Diesel Gals 3,200 3,420 3,775 4,265 5s /90 Btu x 105 442 472 520 588 799 (7) Propane __Lbs 2,400 2,580 3,900 8,800 23,900 Btu x 10° a7 5 20Ofté«=YNS 172 “466 (8) Wood Cords 216 232 256 289 393 Btu x 10& 3,672 3,944 4,352 4,913 6,681 (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 4,161 . 4,466 4,948 S673) 7,946 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 35/10) 34.6 Sag) 33.6 34.9 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. 4-29 apa22-A:R5 Table 4.6c CHUATHBALUK HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Smal] Commercial 3 3 3 4 6 user (12) Diesel 3700 3700 3700 4042 4606 Gals/Btu x 106 Saal 5a, 511 558 636 (13) Public Buildings user 2 3 4 5 6 (14) Diesel _ Gals 1400 1650 2775 3708 4327 Btu x 10° 193 228 - 383 512 597 (15) Large users (school) al 1 1 1 i. (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 17,800 19,4502 19,450 18,497 16,746 Btu x 105 2,456 2,684 2,684 2,552 25.30.) (17) Propane __Tbs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 Btu x 105 23 23 23 22 20 (18) Subtotal Btu x 106 : : (16)+(17) 2479 2707 2707 2574 2331 (19) Total . Btu x 10& (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 7,344 7,912 8,549 9,317) 11,510 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. New classroom addition 4-30 APA22-A:G1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ie Crooked Creek (a) (b) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - New school building Electrification Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest ; Peat harvest Farewell coal field Economic Activity Forecast: The economic activity in the area is greatly dependent on timber, peat and Farewell coal field development, none of which is anticipated to become operational before the late 1980's or early 1990's. It is expected that these resource developments would provide mostly indirect benefits to the area by providing lower cost energy to consumers. No significant economic activity is forecast for the immediate future. Population Forecast - Crooked Creek The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.7 Table 4.7 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 59 124 132 144 167 224 # Residences - 31 32 28 44 56 # Small commercial = 3 3 3 4 6 # Public users - 2 3 5) 7 9 # Large users - al 1 1 dL 1 Population growth rate - 3% 4-31 q) (2) (3) MWh/year residential consumers (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) apa22:al3 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.7a, 4 CROOKED CREEK ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? and 4.7c. Table 4.7a 1979 Population 124 Number of residential consumers S Average kWh/mo/consumer a (2) x (1) x 12 = 1000 - Number of small commer- cial consumers = Average kWh/mo/consumer = MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 = Number of public consumers 1 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 10.2 Large (LP) consumer 1 (LP) Average kWh/mo/LP 7,300 consumer 2 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 87.6 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 97.8 System load factor 0.6 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 19 1982 132 26 133 41.5 848 30.5 970 34.9 95971. 119.7 226.6 0.45 57 1 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981. 2 Sc 3 Ne hool at 3% Growth Rate. w School Building. 4-32 1985 144 36 160 6951 968 34.8 i107 66.4 10,896 130.8 301.1 0.45 76 1990 167 42 220 110.9 157205 57.8 15379 115.8 12,631 1516 436.1 0.45 alata wD), 2000 224 56 415 278.9 1,872 134.8 2,142 2313 16,975 203.7 848.7 0.50 194 apa22:c13 Table 4.7b CROOKED CREEK HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979) 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 124 132 144 167 224 (2) Number of resi- dential users 31 32 38 44 56 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 at at Ly da 10 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 4 4 9 17 30 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.63 0.63 || ~ 0.63 0.59 0.54 (6) Diesel Gals 4,200 4,340 55150 5,670 6,530 Btu x 10° 580 599 711 782 901 (7) Propane Lbs 1,600 1,685 4,005 8,815 20,310 Btu x 10° 3st 33 78 172 396 (8) Wood Cords 233 240 286 313 363 Btu x 105 3,967, 4,080 4,862 S82 & oyl7z (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 4,572 4,712 5,651 6, 275 7,468 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 10° (9)=+(1) 36.9 35a 39.2 37.6 335 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. 4-33 (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) ~a7) (18) (13) apa22-A: R6 20 * Table 4.7c CROOKED CREEK HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Small Commercial 3 3 3 4 6 user Diesel 2200 2200 2200 2639 3315 Gals/Btu x 108 304 304 304 364 457 Public Buildings user 2 3 5 7 9 Diesel _ Gals 1100 1650 3900 5848 7232 Btu x 10° 152 228 538 807 998 Large users (school) 1 1 1 1 1 Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 14,760 20,160? 20,160 19,172 17,358 Btu x 10° 2,036 2,782 2,782 2,646 2,395 Propane __1bs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 ~ Btu x 108 23 23 ao 22 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 2059 2805 2805 2668 2415 Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 7,088 8,049 9,298 10,114 11,339 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. New school building. 4-34 APA 22-A:H1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST Nikolai (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - Airport improvements Potential developments - Farewell coal field Timber harvest Economic Activity Forecast: The village of Nikolai could be directly affected by development of coal mining activities in the Farewell area of the Alaska Range through an increase in employ- ment opportunities in the area. Operation of such a venture,. however, is not expected until the early 1990's Indirect benefits would result from lowered energy costs in the village as the result of possible coal fired elec- tric generation. No substantial increase in economic activity is expected, however, in the near future. (b) Population Forecast - Nikolai . The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.8 Table 4.8 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population lal 96 98 101 106 129 # Residences - 22 22 23 25 29 # Small commercial - 2 2 2 2 2 # Public users - 3 3 4 4 5 # Large users - 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 1% 4-35 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 1 Es 2 Sc apa22:a8 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.8a, 4.8b, NIKOLAI ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS?! and 4.8c. Table 4.8a 1979 Population 96 Number of residential consumers 22 Average kWh/mo/consumer 125 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 33.0 Number of small] commer- cial consumers 2 Average kWh/mo/consumer 810 MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 19.4 Number of public consumers 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 30.6 Large (LP) consumer aL (school) Average kWh/mo/LP 91,125 consumer? MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 109.5 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 192.5 System load factor 0.45 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 49 timated from utility records hool at 1% growth rate 1982 98 22 133 35.1 848 20.4 970 34.9 9,400 112.8 203.2 0.45 52 © 1985 101 23 160 44.2 968 23.2 1,107 53.1 9,686 116.3 236.8 0.45 60 1990 106 25 220 66.0 1,204 43.3 a cVA) 66.2 10,180 122.2 297.7, 0.45 76 2000 129 29 415 144.4 1,872 67.4 2,142 128.5 11,245 135.0 475.3 0.50 109 apa22:c8 Table 4.8b NIKOLAI HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 96 98 101 106 129 (2) Number of resi- dential users 22 22 23 25 32 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 0 0 0 0 0 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 41 41 41 39 35) (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0375 0275 0375 (eval 0.65 (6) Diesel Gals 0 0 0 0 0 Btu x 10° (7) Propane __Lbs 10,700. 10,700 11,200 11,580 13,522 Btu x 10& 209 209 218 226 264 (8) Wood Cords 198 198 j 207 214 248 Btu x 10® 3,366 3,366 3,519 3,638 4,216 (9) Total Btu x 10° (6)+(7)+(8) 3,575 3,575 3737 3,864 4,480 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 10° (9)+(1) Bree 367.5) 37.0 36.0) 34.7 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. apa22-A:R7 Table 4.8c NIKOLAI HEATING REQUIREMENTS OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Small Commercial 2 72 2 3 3 user (12) Diesel 1100 1100 1100 1569 1420 Gals/Btu x 10& 152 152 152 216 196 (13) Public Buildings user 3 3 4 4 5 (14) Diesel Gals 1550 1650 2775 2639 3358 Btu x 106 214 228 383 36 463 (15) Large users (school) alt a a al 1 (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 18,460 18,460 18,460 7/5955 15,894 Btu x 10° 2,547 2,547 2,547 2,423 2,193 (17) Propane lbs 1200 1200 1200 1141 ; 1033 Btu x 106 23 23 23 22 20 (18) Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 2570 2570 2570 2445 2213 (19) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 6,517 63525) 6,842 - 6,889 q,30e Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. APA 22-A:11 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 9. Red Devil (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - New school Airport improvements Housing construction Potential developments - Timber harvest Mercury mine BLM fire-fighting station Farewell coal field 0i1 and gas exploration Economic Activity Forecast:. Red Devil could benefit from timber harvest, peat harvest, development of the Farewell coal field and possible oil and gas exploration in areas along the Kuskokwim. Major developments of these activities -are not expected, however; until the late 1980's or early 1990's. No immediate increase in economic activity is expected, however, in the near future. (b) Population Forecast - Red Devil The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.9 Table 4.9 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 81 53 54 56 59 65 # Residences - 13 14 15 15 16 # Small commercial - 1 1 1 1 2 # Public users = 2} 2 2 2 3 # Large users 2 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 1% 4-39 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 1 As 2 Sc 3 Ne apa22:a2 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.9a, 4.9b, and 4.9c. Table 4.9a RED DEVIL ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population = 53 54 56 59 65 Number of residential consumers - 8 9 12 16 Average kWh/mo/consumer - 133 160 220 415 MWh/year residential consumers ‘ (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 = 12.8 17.3) ai.7 79.7 Number of small commer- cial consumers = 1 1 1 2 Average kWh/mo/consumer vs 848 968 1,205 1,872 MWh/year smal] commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 “ 10.2 11.6 14.5 44.9 Number of public con- sumers 2 2 2 2 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 970 1,157 1,379 2,142 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 20.4 23.3 27.8 33.1 ¥7.1 Large (LP) consumer 1 1 1 1 z (School) Average kWh/mo/LP 5,475 9,125 9,401 9,881 10,915 consumer 2 MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 65.7 109.4 112.5 118. 5 131.0 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 86.1 195.7 169.6 197.8 aa2.7 System load factor 0.6 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.5 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 16 40 43 50 76 sume electrification 1982 hool at 1% growth rate w school 4-40 apa22:c2 Table 4.9b RED DEVIL HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 53 54 56 59 65 (2) Number of resi- dential users 2 14 15 a5 16 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 66 66 54 40 17 (4) Propane - Average - lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 22 22 22 27 36 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.32 0.51 (6) Diesel Gals 10,300 11,090 9,780 E2ie 3,200 Btu x 10° “T,421 1,530 1,350 995 ~ 442 (7) Propane _ Lbs 3,500 3,770 4,040 4,780 6,710 Btu x 105 68 a 79 93 131 (8) Wood _ Cords _24 _26 _38 _57 97 . Btu x 106 z 408 442 646 969 1,649 (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 1,898 _ 2,046 2,074 2,057 2,221 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 35.8 37.9 37.0 34.9 34.2 i Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building desing and heating equipment. apa22-A:R8 Table 4.9c RED DEVIL HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (11) Smal] Commercial 1 1 1 1 2 user (12) Diesel 1100 1100 1100 1046 947 Gals/Btu x 10° 152 152 152 144 131 (13) Public Buildings user 2 2 2 2 3 (14) Diesel Gals 1100 1100 1100 1046 1420 Btu x 10° 152 Laz 152 144 96 (15) Large users | (school) 1 1 1 1 1 (16) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) , Gals 11,080 18,4672 18,467 17,562 15,900 Btu x 10° 1,529 2,548 2,548 2,424 2,194 (17) Propane __1bs 2000 1200 1200 1141 1033 Btu x 105 39 23 23 22 20 (18) Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 1568 2571 2571 2446 2214 (19) Total .- . Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 3,770 4,921 4,949 4,791 4,762 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-42 APA 22-A:J1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 10. Sleetmute (a) (b) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - School classroom addition Electrification Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest Peat harvest ; Farewell coal field Oi] and gas exploration Economic Activity Forecast: Sleetmute could benefit from timber harvest, peat harvest, development of the Farewell coal field and possible oil and gas exploration in areas along the Kuskokwim. Major developments of these activities are not expected, however, until the late 1980's or early 1990's. No immediate increase in economic activity is expected, however, in the near future. Population Forecast - Sleetmute The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.10 Table 4.10 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 109 109 112 116 122 134 # Residences - 24 25 26 29 34 # Small commercial - 2 2 # Public users - 3 3 3 4 # Large users - 1 1 i * 1 1 Population growth rate - 1% 4-43 apa22:a5 C. End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.10a, 4.10b, 4.10c. Table 4.10a SLEETMUTE ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 109 112 116 122 134 (1) Number of residential consumers = 20 23 26 34 (2) Average kWh/mo/consumer = 133 160 220 415 (3) MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 = 31.9 44.2 68.6 169.3 (4) Number of small commer- cial consumers = z 2 2 4 (5) Average kWh/mo/consumer - 848 968 1,205 1,872 (6) MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 = 20.4 23852 28.9 89.7 (7) Number of public consumers 3 3 3 4 6 (8) Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 970 A, LOZ 1,379 2,142 (9) MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 30.6 34.9 39.9 66.2 154.2 (10) Large (LP) consumer al; 1 1 1 al (school) (11) Average kWh/mo/LP 7,800 9,400 3 9,686 10,180 11,245 consumer? (12) MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 93.6 112.8 116.2 122.2 Soo (13) System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 124.2 200.0 223815 285.9 548.3 (14) System load factor 0.6 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.50 (15) System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 24 51 57. 73 125 1 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981 2 School at 1% growth rate 3 Addition of new school classroom 4-44 apa22:c5 Table 4.10b SLEETMUTE HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 109 112 116 122 134 (2) Number of resi- dential users 24 25 26 29 34 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 19 19 19 18 16 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence I (7)+(2)+12 7 7 10 19 a5 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.55 (6) Diesel Gals 5,500 5,730 5,960 6,320 6,710 Btu x 106 759 791 822 872 926 (7) Propane __Lbs 2,000 2,080 3,170 6,715 14,260 Btu x 10° 39 41 62 131 278 (8) Wood _ Cords 184 192 199 211 224 Btu x 10° 3,128 3,264 3,383 3,587 3,808 (8) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 3,926 4,095 4,267 4,590 5,012 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 36.0 36.6 36.8 37.6 37.4 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) apa22-A:R9 Table 4.10c SLEETMUTE HEATING REQUIREMENTS?! OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Smal] Commercial 2 2 2 2 4 user Diesel 3000 3000 3000 2853 3056 Gals/Btu x 106 414 414 414 394 422 Public Buildings user 3 3 3 4 6 Diesel Gals 1650 1650 1650 2639 4327 Btu x 105 228 228 228 364 597 Large users (school) Als Ai a a 1 Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 15,770 19,0042 19,004 18,073 16 , 362 Btu x 10° 2,176 2,622 2,622 2,494 2,258 Propane lbs 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 Btu x 106 23 23 23 22 20 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 2199 2645 2645 2516 2278 Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 6,767 7,382 7,554 7,864 8,309 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. New classroom addition. 4-46 APA 22-A:K1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 11. Stony River (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - School classroom addition Electrification Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest Peat harvest Farewell coal field Oi1 and gas exploration Economic Activity Forecast: Stony River could benefit from timber harvest, peat harvest, development of the Farewell coal field and possible oi] and gas exploration in areas along the Kuskokwim. Major developments of these activities are not expected, however, until the late 1980's or early 1990's. No immediate increase in economic activity is expected, however, in the near future. (b) Population Forecast - Stony River The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.11 Table 4.11 Year 1970 =1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population 74 67 68 70 74 82 # Residences 7 12 12, 13 15 21 # Small commercial = 1 1 1 1 2 # Public users - 2 2 2 2 3 # Large users - 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 1% 4-47 ql) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ix} apa22: a6 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.1lla, 4.11b, Ac Lic. Table 4.1la STONY RIVER ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1979 1982 1985 Population 67 68 70 Number of residential consumers = 12 13 Average kWh/mo/consumer = 133 160 MWh/year residential consumers (2) x (1) x 12 + 1000 = 19.2 2516 Number of small commer- cial consumers = 1 1 Average kWh/mo/consumer - 848 968 MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 a 1032 11.6 Number of public con- sumers 1 2 2 2 Average kWh/mo/consumer ~ 850 970 1,07 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 20.4 2355 26.6 Large (LP) consumer 5 aly 1 (school) Average kWh/mo/LP 7,300 9,400 9,686 consumer? MWh/year LP's (10) x (11) x 12 + 1000 87.6 a2. 7; G2. System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 108.0 . 165.4 179.4 System load factor 0.6 0.45 0.45 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 21 : 42 46 Electrification scheduled for summer 1981. School at 1% growth rate. Addition of new school classroom. 4-48 1990 74 15 220 39.6 1,205 14.5 1,379 33.1 10,180 12251) 209.3 0.45 53 2000 82 21 415 104.6 1,872 44.9 2,142 Uifioel 11,245 135.0 361.6 0.50 83 apa22:c6 Table 4.11b STONY RIVER HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 67 68 70 74 82 (2) Number of resi- dential users 12 12 13 15 21 (3) Diesel -- Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 6 6 6 6 5 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 = 5 10 19 35 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.58 (6) Diesel Gals 900 900 975 1,070 1,360 Btu x 106 124 124 135 148 188 (7) Propane _Lbs = 700 1,580 3,470 8,810 Btu x 10° 14 31 68 172 (8) Wood. Cords 96 96 104 114 145 Btu x 10° 1,632 1,632 1,768 1/938 2,465 (9) Total Btu x 106 (6)+(7)+(8) 1,756 1,770 1,933 2,153 2,824 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 10° (9)+(1) 26.2 26.0 27.6 29.1 34.4 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building and heating equipment. 4-49 (11) (12) (13) 4) (15) (16) 7) (18) (19) apa22-A:R10 Table 4.11lc Smal] Commercial user Diesel Gals/Btu x 106 Public Buildings user Diesel _ Gals Btu x 10® Large users (school) Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals Btu x 10° Propane __1bs Btu x 106 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18 STONY RIVER HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 _ 2000 1 1 1 1 2 1100 1100 1100 1046 1420 152 152 152 144 196 2 2 2 2 3 1650 1650 1650 . 1569 1891 228 228 228 216 261 1 1 1 1 1 14,800 19,0572, 19,057 18,123 16,408 2,042 2,629 2,629 2,501 2,264 1200 1200 1200 1141 1033 23 23 23 22 20 2065 2652 2652 2523 2284 ) 4, 201 4,802 4,965 5,036 5,565 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. New classroom addi tion. 4-50 APA 22-A Ll SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 12. Takotna (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - HUD housing School classroom addition Airport improvements Potential developments - Timber harvest Peat harvest Gold mining Economic Activity Forecast: The numerous gold mining operations surrounding Takotna offer some potential for increased economic activity in the area. Small-scale timber and/or peat harvest to supply local energy needs is a pos- sibility for development. Neither of these two activities should, however, be expected to be developed until the late 1980's. Rapid economic growth in the area is not anticipated. (b) Population Forecast - Takotna The population forecast is shown in the following TAble 4.12 Table 4.12 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population = 80 88 96 106 129 # Residences - 20 22 24 27 32 # Small commercial - 2 2 # Public users - 3 3 4 4 5 # Large users - 1 1 1 1 1 Population growth rate - 2% 4-51 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) TES apa22:a9 End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.12a, 4.12b, TAKOTNA ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? and 4.12c. Table 4.12a 1979 Population 80 Number of residential consumers 7 Average kWh/mo/consumer - MWh/year residential consumers Ce) wm Ch) wm Ae t 000 - Number of small commer- cial consumers - Average kWh/mo/consumer = MWh/year smal] commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 - Number of public consumers 3 Average kWh/mo/consumer 850 MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 30.6 Large (LP) consumer al} (school) Average kWh/mo/LP 7,300 consumer? MWh/year LP's 0): x) GL) xi) 22 = W000!) (87.16 System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 118.2 System load factor 0.6 System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 22 timated from utility records. 2 School at 2% growth rate. 3 Addition of new school classroom. 1982 1985 1990 2000 88 96 106 129 ee 24 on 32 225 257 320 497 59.4 74.0 103.7 190.8 2 2 2 3 848 968 1,204 1,872 20.4 23.2 28.9 67.4 3 4 4 5 970 1,107 13/9 2,142 34.9 53a 66.2 a28215 1 )L au 1 7,747 9,975 11,013 13,426 9219) 119.8 32001) 62. a) 207.6 270.1 330.9 547.8 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.50 3 69 84 125 4-52 apa22:c9 Table 4.12b TAKOTNA HEATING REQUIREMENTS} RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 80 88 96 106 129 (2) Number of resi- dential users 20 22 24 27 32 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 8 8 8 8 7 (4) Propane - Average lbs/mo/residence (7)+(2)#12 45 45 45 42 38 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.52 (6) Diesel _ Gals 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,570 2150) * Btu x 10° 276 304 331 355 380 (7) Propane __Lbs 10,700 oye 12,840 13,740 14,745 Btu x 106 209 229 250 268 288 (8) Wood — Cords 144 158 172 184 198 Btu x 10° 2,448 2,686 2,924 3,128 3,366 (9) Total Btu x 10° (6)+(7)+(8) _ 2,933 3,219 3,506 35751) 4,034 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 36.7 36.6 36.5 35.4 3153 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building desing and heating equipment. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (13) apa22-A:R11 Table 4.12c TAKOTNA HEATING REQUIREMENTS? OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 Smal] Commercial 2 2 2 2 user : Diesel 1100 1100 1100 1046 Gals/Btu x 10 152 152 152 144 Public Buildings user z 3 . 4 Diesel _ Gals 1550 1650 2775 2639 Btu x 105 214 228 382 364 Large users (school) 1 1 al A Diesel equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals 14,770 14,770 20,1822 19,193 Btu x 10° 2,038 2,038 2,785 ~ 2,648 Propane __lbs 1200 1200 1200 1141 Btu x 106 23 2a 7) 123 22 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) 2061 2061 2808 2670 Total Btu x 108 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) 5,360 5,660 6,848 6,929 2000 1420 196 uo 3358 463 | H ~N Ww sw a | nN Hf oOo WwW wo Wo wo Oo ; 2418 elie Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. New classroom addition. 4-54 APA 22-A:M1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST 13. Telida (a) Planned Capital Projects and Economic Activity Forecast Planned Capital Projects: Scheduled developments - Airport improvements Potential developments - Small-scale timber harvest Economic Activity Forecast: No substantial economic activity is forecast for the Telida area except for possibly a small-scale timber harvesting project to supply wood fuel for possible wood- fired electric generation in the late 1980's. (b) Population Forecast - Telida The population forecast is shown in the following Table 4.13 Table 4.13 Year 1970 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 Population = 34 35 36 38 41 # Residences = 7 7 8 8 10 # Small commercial = 1 1 1 q 1 # Public users = 1 a. I 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 # Large users 7 Population growth rate - 1% 4-55 apa22: a3 C. End Use Forecast The end uses of energy are shown in the following Tables 4.13a, 4 and 4.13c. Table 4.13a TELIDA ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS? 1979 1982 1 1985 1990 Population 34 35 36 38 (1) Number of residential consumers 7 7 8 8 (2) Average kWh/mo/consumer + 133 160 220 (3) MWh/year residential consumers (C2) X}/ Gl) x L2)= 1000 oi 12 15.4 paloal (4) Number of small commer- cial consumers - 12 1 1 (5) Average kWh/mo/consumer = 290 330 412 (6) MWh/year small commer- cial consumer (4) x (5) x 12 + 1000 = a5) 4.0 4.9 (7) Number of public consumers - as aL 2 (8) Average kWh/mo/consumer - 60 68 732 (9) MWh/year public consumer (7) x (8) x 12 + 1000 = (On) 0.8 17/16 (10) Large (LP) consumer al al BL 1 (school) (11) Average kWh/mo/LP 3,540 3,650 3,760 3,950 consumer* (12) MWh/year LP's (CO) GES) 2) 0004255 43.8 45.1 47.4 (13) System MWh/year (3)+(6)+(9)+(12) 42.5 59.2 65.3 91.0 (14) System load factor 0.6 0.45 0.45 0.45 (15) System demand kW (13)+8760+(14)x1000 8 15 17 23 1 Assumes electrification 1982. 2 Telephone. 3 Church. 4 School at 1% growth rate. 4-56 23D, 2000 41 10 415 49.8 640 Teil Loy) 27.3 4,365 52.4 L372 0.45 35 apa22:c3 Table 4.13b TELIDA HEATING REQUIREMENTS? RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS 1979 1982 1985 1990 2000 (1) Population 34 35 36 38 41 (2) Number of resi- dential users 7 7 8 8 10 (3) Diesel - Average gal/mo/residence (6)+(2)+12 0 0 0 0 0 (4) Propane - Average 1bs/mo/residence (7)+(2)+12 18 18 18 26 35 (5) Wood - Average cords/mo/residence (8)+(2)+12 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.65 (6) Diesel Gals 0 0 0 0 0 Btu x 106 (7) Propane __Lbs 1,500 1,500 1,710 2,540 4,190 Btu x 10° 39 29 330250 "32 (8) Wood _ Cords 63 63 72 69 78 Btu x 106 1,071 1,071 1,224 ~ 1,173 1,326 (9) Total Btu x 10& (6)+(7)+(8) 1,100 1,100 1,257 1,223 1,408 (10) Annual per capita consumption Btu x 106 (9)+(1) 32.4 31.4 34.9 32.2 34.3 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements beginning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improve- ments in both building design and heating equipment. 4-57 @a) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) apa22-A:R12 Table 4.13c Small Commercial user Diesel Gals/Btu x 106 Public Buildings user Diesel Gals Btu x 105 Large users (school) Diesel. equivalent (diesel + wood) Gals Btu x 10° Propane lbs Btu x 106 Subtotal Btu x 106 (16)+(17) Total Btu x 106 (9)+(12)+(14)+(18) TELIDA HEATING REQUIREMENTS? - . OTHER CONSUMERS 1979 791 1,891 1982 1985 1990 2000 = = di ak i im 214 474 30 65 1 i a 1 Eu et 214 474 30 65 1 fl: AL; 1 5,600 5,600 5,326 4,822 7S 773 735 666 900 300 856 775 18 18 16 15 791 791 751. 681 1,891 2,048 2,034 2,219 Assumes a one percent per year decrease in fossil fuel requirements begin- ning in 1986 due to implementation of passive solar heating and technical improvements in both building design and heating equipment. 4-58 APA 22-A:N/1 SECTION 4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST D. Energy and Peak Load Forecast Summary A tabularized summary of existing and forecast energy uses and possible waste heat capturability for each of the 13 villages, is listed in Tables 4.14-4.17 (assumes electrical energy available in all villages by 1982). Table 4.14 lists by village the annual electrical peak load in kilowatts and energy requirements in MWh and the quantity of fuel required for electrical generation in 10® Btu's. This assumes 8.5 kWh/gallon generation efficiency. Table 4.15 lists the annual heating energy requirements in 10® Btu for each village. Table 4.16 shows the total annual non-transportation energy requirements of each village (i.e., electrical energy requirements plus heating require- ments) in 10® Btu's. Table 4.17 lists the capturable waste heat in 10° Btu's from annual electrical generation requirements, listed in Table 4.14, in each of the villages. In addition, the percentage of space heating require- ments in each village which waste heat could supply if completely utilized is also listed (assumes 30% of input energy used for electri- cal generation can be captured as waste heat; transportation losses not considered) 4-59 09-7 APA 22-A/0-1 (1) Annual Electrical Peak Load and Energy Requirements (kW/MWH/Diesel fuel required for generator's 10® Btu!) Table 4.14 Village Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek Nikolai Red Devil Sleetmute Stony River Takotna Telida 1979 85/298. 33/129. 27/140. 64/251. 29/150. 25/129. 19/97. 49/192. 16/86. 24/124. 21/108. 22/118. 8/42. 1/4840 2/2098 1/2275 7/4086 3/2440 9/2109 8/1588 5/3125 1/1398 2/2016 0/1753 2/1919 5/690 1982 101/352. 8/5728 41/162.6/2640 54/212. 8/3455 72/283.6/4604 66/260. 8/4234 57/225. 0/3653 57/226.6/3679 52/203. 2/3299 40/155. 7/2528 51/200. 0/3247 42/165.4/2685 53/207.6/3370 15/59. 2/940 1985 129/452. 49/192. 63/248. 88/347. 75/297. 69/272. 76/301. 60/236. 43/169. 57/223. 46/179. 69/270. 17/65. 1 Assumes 8.5 kWh/gallon generation efficiency, 138,000 Btu/gallon 5/7346 6/3127 5/4034 0/5634 5/4830 4/4424 1/4888 8/3845 6/2754 5/3629 4/2913 1/4385 3/1060 diesel fuel. 1990 155/609. 64/251. 80/316. 123/485. 103/406. 96/376. 111/436. 76/297. 50/197. 73/285. 53/209. 84/330. 23/91. 6/9897 4/4082 2/5134 8/7887 7/6603 6/6114 1/7080 7/4833 8/3211 9/4642 3/3398 9/5372 0/1477 2000 269/1178. 104/455. 126/553. 219/957. 190/831. 182/798. 194/848. 109/475. 76/332. 125/548. 83/361. 125/547. 35/137, 0/19125 0/7387 3/8983 9/15552 7/13503 1/12957 7/13779 3/7717 7/5401 3/8902 6/5871 8/8894 2/2227 T9-0 APA 22-A/0-1 (2) Annual Heating Energy Requirements (10° BTU) Table 4.15 Village Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek Nikolai Red Devil Sleetmute Stony River Takotna Telida 1979 10,522 5,286 7,311 9,456 8,111 7,344 7,088 6,511 3,770 6,767 4,201 5,360 1,891 1982 10,920 5,546 7,311 9,828 8,290 7,912 8,049 6,525 4,921 7,382 4,802 5,660 1,891 1985 12,031 5,887 7,729 10,445 8,795 8,549 9,298 6,842 4,949 7,554 4,965 6,848 2,048 1990 13,036 6,440 7,828 11,249 9,485 9,317 10,114 6,889 4,791 7,864 5,036 6,929 2,034 2000 15 ,667 6,972 7,913 12,840 11,017 11,510 11,339 7,352 4,762 8,309 5,565 7,111 2,219 79-0 APA 22-A/0-1 (3) Total Annual Energy Requirements, Electrical and Heating (10® BTU) Table 4.16 1979 1982 1985 1990 - 2000 Village Buckland 15,362 16,648 19,377 22,933 34,792 Hughes 7,832 8,186 9,014 10,522 14,359 Koyukuk 9,566 10,766 11,763 12,962 16,896 Russian Mission 13,542 14,432 16,079 19,136 28,394 Sheldon Point ‘10,551 12,524 13,625 16 ,088 24,520 Chuathbaluk 9,453 11,265 12,973 15,431 24,467 Crooked Creek 8,686 11,728 14,186 17,194 25,118 Nikolai . 9,636 9,824 10,687 11, 7.22 15,069 Red Devil 5,168 7,449 7,703 8,002 10,163 Sleetmute 8,783 10,629 11,183 12,506 17,211 Stony River 5,954 7,487 7,878 8,434 11,436 Takotna 7,279 9,030 11,233 12,301 16,005 Telida © 2,581 2,a02 - 3,108 3,511 4,445 £9-7 APA 22-A/0-1 (4) Capturable Waste Heat from Annual Electrical Generation (10° BTU/% of Total village Heating requirements)(1) Table 4.17 1979 Village Buckland 1452/14 Hughes 629/12 Koyukuk 683/9 Russian Mission / 1226/13 Sheldon Point 732/9 Chuathbaluk 633/9 Crooked Creek 476/7 Nikolai 938/14 Red Devil 419/11 Sleetmute 605/9 Stony River 526/13 Takotna 576/11 Telida 207/11 1982 1718/16 792/14 1037/14 1381/14 1270/15 1096/14 1104/14 990/15 758/15 974/13 806/17 1011/18 288/15 1985 2204/18 938/16 1210/16 1690/16 1449/16 "1327/16 1466/16 1154/17 826/17 1089/14 874/18 1316/19 318/16 (1) Assumes 30% of input energy capturable in the form of waste heat. 1990 2969/23 1225/19 1540/20 2366/21 1981/21 1834/20 2124/20 1450/21 963/20 1393/18 1019/20 1612/23 443/22 2000 5738/37 2216/32 2695/34 4666/36 4051/37 3887/34 4134/36 2315/31 1620/34 2671/21 1762/32 2668/38 668/30 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT A. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT The energy resources which are determined to be available for each of the 13 villages are summarized in tabularized form in Tables 5.1 - 5.13. Information concerning approximate quantity, quality, avail- ability, cost, source of data and important comments is included. The energy resources specifically addressed include diesel genera- tion, wind, hydroelectric potential, waste heat utilization, energy conservation, coal, solar, timber and peat potentials. Energy re- sources which are not available for use in the 13 villages and are therefore not addressed include geothermal, solid waste, oil and gas and tidal power. Narrative concerning the energy resources avail- able in the 13 villages is presented below. a Diesel fuel - Diesel fuel oil for heating and generation of elec- tricity is available in all 13 villages. Prices per gallon in the villages range from a low ‘of $1.44 to a high of $2.31 per gallon. Electric generation in the villages (school or village plant) is presently provided exclusively with diesel fuel. Average heat con- tent per gallon is assumed at 138,000 BTU/gallon. 2. Wood fuel - Wood for fuel is readily available in ten of the thirteen villages studied, and residences in nine out of these ten villages use wood as the primary fuel for heating. Wood is used to supplement fuel oil for heating in three of the four remaining villages. The large quantities of readily accessible timber surrounding many of the villages make wood heating the most practical and economic method for residential heating when available. Wood for use as a fuel to provide electrical generation is estimated to be available at $92.00 or $132.00 per cord, dependent upon the scale of the timber harvest activity. Medium-scale harvest activity is estimated to provide wood at $92/cord and small-scale harvest activity at $132/cord. Prices listed reflect 1981 costs. The quan- tity of wood available as listed in Tables 5.1-5.13 indicates the 5-1 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT amount of available timber from productive forest within lands located a 10-mile radius of the village, except for the villages of Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Red River, Stony River and Sleetmute. The quantity of wood listed for these five villages is the summed total of the wood available in a 10-mile radius around each of the five individual villages. Because of the proximity of these five villages to one another, it is assumed that wood could be readily transported between these villages via the Kuskokwim River. The quality of wood gives an average heat content per cord which is calculated at 14.6 x 10® BTU/cord.+ Although sufficient quantity of wood is available in many villages to provide fuel for electrical generation, it is estimated that commer- cially available wood-fired generation units suitable for use in the villages will not be available until the late 1980's. Further- more, it should be realized that the quantity-of wood necessary to supply the electrical energy of a typical village with a peak load of 100 kW and energy requirement of 394 MWh per year is 58,000 cu. ft., or 30 acres of standing timber per year assuming wood with a heat content of 14.6 x 10® Btu/cord. 3. Coal fuel - The use of coal as a fuel for heating and electrical generation is considered possible in eleven of the thirteen villages. Buckland could be supplied from coal deposits in the Kugruk River area. Villages on the Yukon River (i.e., Koyukuk, Russian Mission and Sheldon Point) could be supplied coal from the Williams Mine located near the village of Koyukuk. Villages along the Kuskokwim River could be supplied coal (except Telida) from a potential mine development in the Alaska Range near Farewell or from coal mined at Healy, Alaska and shipped via ocean barge to Bethel and then trans- ported upriver to the villages. lHeat content as stated in Appendix G for a typical "base cord." 5-2 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT The cost is estimated at a high of $258/ton to a low of $110/ton, depending on location. These costs are based on small-scale opera- tion for providing coal to the village and/or the cost of Healy coal. If large-scale mining operations were to develop in the Farewell area, it is conceivable that coal could be available for $50/ton along the Kuskokwim. The cost of coal listed in the village resource summaries however, does not reflect this possibility. (All prices above reflect 1981 costs.) The quality of the coal available reflects the heat content of the coal. The BTU value per pound and per ton is shown in Table 5.1 - Saale As with wood-fired generation, it is not expected that commercial coal-fired generation units suitable for village application will be available until the late 1980's. The quantity of coal required to supply the electrical energy needs of a village with a peak load of 100 kW and energy requirements of 394 MWh/hr is in the neighborhood of 375 tons per year of coal with a 17 x 10® Btu/ton heat content. 4. Waste heat recovery - Waste heat recovery is available in virtually every village with electrical generation facilities. (Waste heat capture can recover 30% of the energy content contained in each gallon of diesel (or equivalent) used for electric generation and which is normally lost as heat to the environment. That is, waste heat equivalent to approximately 41,400 Btu per gallon of fuel oil consumed by the diesel engine can be easily captured using engine jacket water waste heat recovery equipment (i.e. no exhaust waste heat capture). Waste heat can be used to supplement spacing heat- ing requirements in the village and although the heat could be used to heat residences, a more practical approach would use the cap- tured waste heat to satisfy the large, more centralized heating de- mands in the villages such as the school, clinic, city offices, etc. Use of waste heat suffers from the disadvantage of being directly dependent upon the generator loading. That is, if the generator is 5-3 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT fully loaded, waste heat output is high; with low load, the waste heat output is low. In Alaska, however, our electrical systems are winter peaking and will, therefore, provide the maximum amount of waste heat in the winter when the heating demand is highest. Waste heat recovery from electrical generation is one of the few, energy resources available for immediate exploitation in all villages which operate liquid cooled diesel engine driven generators. Waste heat recovery from heating and/or transportation usage is, in general, impractical and will not be discussed. The potential savings in dollars per million Btu available from waste heat capture is listed in the cost column in the following tables. These savings are approximate and may vary significantly because of numerous variables such as distance from source to user, quantity of waste heat transported, etc. The savings per million Btu have, however, been included to provide an estimate of the poten- tial savings associated with waste heat recovery. 52 Hydroelectric potential - The use of hydroelectric power is site specific. Villages in this study which are located near potential hydroelectric developments are: Buckland Hughes Koyukuk Chuathbaluk Takotna The extremely high cost associated with constructing the above projects, which range between $49,600 and $89,600 for installed kilo- watt, make it highly unlikely, however, that development will occur. 5-4 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 6. Wind potential - The use of wind power, like hydroelectric power, is very site specific. Villages with potential for use of wind power require average annual wind speeds in excess of 10 mph. Even if sufficient wind is available, numerous technical and economic con- straints further limit the usefulness of wind power. Wind energy conversion systems (WECS) are generally not suitable for stand alone systems, except for some small individually owned units, and require backup generation, which is normally diesel, to provide a reliable system and energy on days the wind does not blow. WECS would then be primarily used to displace fuel oi] during times when the wind blows with sufficient velocity to’provide electrical power. The cost for displacing one million BTU equivalent of diesel fuel using WECS is listed in the appropriate village resource summaries. 7. Conservation and Solar Heating - The following two energy resources (passive solar and energy conservation) are available in varying degrees for all villages. These two items will be addressed in the following paragraphs and will not be included in the energy resource table for each village. Energy conservation: Energy conservation can be applied to virtu- ally all construction, new and future, in all villages by the incor- poration of improved or additional insulation in structures, energy conservative designs, higher efficiency equipment, etc. Passive solar heating: Application of passive solar heating is applicable within limits in all villages. Passive solar heating, as with energy conservation, requires proper structure designs, improved insulation and proper site selection and building orientation. 529 APA22-A/P2 SECTION 5 . RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT It is assumed that the use of passive solar heating and energy conservation will be implemented in all the 13 villages. Further- more, it is assumed the implementation of passive solar heating and energy conservation measures will reduce fossil fuel heat requirements by about one percent per year beginning in 1986. This assumption results in a reduction in village fossil fuel requirements of about fifteen percent by the year 2000. This fifteen percent reduction is incorporated into the village heating requirements forecasts tables listed in Section 4. 5-6 aS APA22-A $13 Table 5.1 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Potential Wind potential ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT BUCKLAND LOCATION QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY QUALITY Major supplier i #2 diesel Kotzebue ‘138,000 Btu/gal N/A N/A N/A Kugruk River Unknown; 6500 Btu/1b 70 miles west: late 1980's 13x10® Btu/ton = 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal upon installation diesel equivalent. Hunter Creek 238 kW, 556 mwh/yr = = Upon installation 11.3 mph average annual wind speed ! Assumes $1.76/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor. 2 Assumes 80% utilization factor. < > saving per million Btu recovered. COST $1.76/gal $12.76/10® Btu $198-$258/ton SOURCE OF DATA Arctic Literage N/A Appendix H $15. 23-$19.84/10° Btu $450/kW installed <$7. 38/10 Btu> Appendix D diesel fuel displaced. $52 ,400/kW installed $1450/kW installed $19.72/10® Btu? Reference #38 Appendix D Regional profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. 18 kW WECS 8-S APA22-A S1 Table 5.2 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Potential Wind Potential ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT HUGHES LOCATION QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY QUALITY Major supplier - #2 diesel Nenana 138,000 Btu/gal 1.4x10® cu ft 14.6x10® Btu/cord Tate 1980's N/A N/A N/A 10-mile radius = 30% of fuel used for electrical genera Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal ation; upon installation diesel equivalent. on school generators. Creek northwest 45 kW, 85 mwh; 1986 os 45 kW, 100 mwh; 1988 Two creeks west of Hughes of Hughes Villagers indicated insufficient wind in village for wind power. wind generation atop bluffs near village, but no wind data available. a Assume $2.31 per gallon diesel fuel costs, 0.45 load factor <> Saving per million Btu's recovered. SOURCE OF COST DATA $2.31/ga) Nenana Fuel $16.75/10® Btu Dealer $132/cord Appendix G $9.04/10® Btu N/A - $450/kW installed Appendix D <$11.36/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced. $75 ,600/kW Reference #37 installed $76,100/kW installed Possibility of COMMENTS Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assumed heat delivery within 100 ft radius of Availability varies w/generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. plant. 6-S APA22-A S2 Table 5.3 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat Recovery Hydroelectric potential Wind Potential ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT KOYUKUK : SOURCE OF LOCATION QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY QUALITY COST DATA Major suppliers Ee #2 diesel $1.56/gal Nenana Fuel Nenana 128,000 Btu/gal $11.31/10® Btu Dealer 10-mile radius 29x10® cu ft; 14.6x10® Btu/cord $132/cord Appendix G i late 1980's : $9.04/10° Btu Williams Mine 14,000 tons minimum * 11,000 Btu/1b $220/ton Appendix H late 1980's 22x10® Btu/ton $10.00/10® Btu a 30% of fuel used for Recoverable heat $450/kW installed Appendix D electrical generation; 41,400 Btu per _ $$5.93/108 Btu> upon installation at gallon diesel diesel fuel displaced school or new power equivalent. plant. East tributary 157 kW; 440 mwh/yr 7 $49 ,600/kW Reference #37 of Nulato River Estimated on line 1986 : installed Villagers indicate insufficient wind in village for wind power. Possibility of wind generator atop bluffs near village, but no wind data available. 1 Assumes $1.56 per gallon diesel fuel costs, 0.45 load factor < > Savings per million Btu's recovered. RESTRICTIONS Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. O1-s APA22-A S3 Table 5.4 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Potential Wind Potential LOCATION Major Supplier Nenana 10-mile radius William's Mine Yukon River N/A QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY Unknown late 1980's 14,000 tons minimum late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electric generation; upon installation N/A Upon installation 1 Assume $1.71/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor 2 Assumes 80% utilization factor < > savings per million Btu's recovered ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT RUSSIAN MISSION QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 11,000 Btu/1b 22x10°/Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent. N/A 11.4 mph average annual wind speed SOURCE OF COST DATA $1.71/gal $12.40/10® Btu Nenana Fuel Dealer $132/cord $9.04/10® Btu Estimated based on Appendix G $220-250/ton $10.00-11.36/10° Btu Appendix H $450/kW Installed <$7.02/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced Appendix D N/A Reference #38 $1450/kW installed Appendix D $19.72/10® Btu? diesel equivalent Regional profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assumes heatdelivery within a 100 ft radius of power plant. Availability varies w/generator loading, maintenance at $11/kW/yr. 18 kW WECS TI-s APA22-A S4 Table 5.5 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Hydroelectric potential Wind potential LOCATION Major Supplier St. Mary's ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY SHELDON POINT QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal Insufficient quantities available for electric generation. William's Mine Yukon River 14,000 tons minimum late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation on school generators. N/A Upon installation 1 Assumes $1.71/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 LF 2 Assumes 80% utilization factor < > saving per million Btu's recovered. 11,000 Btu/1b 22x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent N/A 13mph average annual wind speed SOURCE OF cost _OATA_ $1.71/gal $12.40/10° Btu Village Council $220-250/ton Appendix H $10. 00-$11.36/10° Btu $450/kW installed <$7.02/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced. Appendix D N/A Reference #38 $9030/kW installed Appendix D $80. 88/10°Btu? diesel equivalent COMMENTS Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assumes heat delivery within a 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Assumes individual 1.5 kW WECS similar to those presently being installed. eT-s APA22-A SS Table 5.6 ENERGY RESOURCE LOCATION Diesel fuel Major supplier Bethel Wood fuel Middle Kuskokwim Coal fuel Healy, Alaska Waste Heat! - Recovery Hydroelectric Mission Creek Potential Wind Potential = 1 Assumes $1.44/gal diesel fuel cost, < > Saving per million Btu's recovered. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 167x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation 125 kW, 295 mwh/yr estimated; Estimated on line 1986 0.45 LF CHUATHBALUK QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent 8 mph average annual wind speed. SOURCE OF COST DATA $1. 44/gal United .$10.44/10° Btu Transportation Bethel $92/cord $6. 30/10 Btu Appendix G $110/ton Appendix H $6.47/108 Btu * $450/kW installed Appendix D <$5.06/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced $58 ,900/kW installed Reference #38 COMMENTS Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assumes heat delivery within a 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Average annual wind speed insufficient for wind generation. els APA22-A S6 Table 5.7 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric potential Wind potential LOCATION Major supplier Bethel Middle Kuskokwim Healy, Alaska QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 167x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation of power plant. N/A 1 Assumes $1.45/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor. < > saving per million Btu recovered. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CROOKED CREEK QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent N/A 8 mph average annual wind speed. SOURCE OF COST DATA $1.45/gal United $10.51/10® Btu Transportation Bethel. _ $92/cord Appendix G $6.30/10® Btu $110/ton Appendix H $6.47/10° Btu $450/kW installed Appendix D <$5.13/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced N/A Reference #38 S Regional Profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Average annual wind speed insufficient for wind generation. vI-S APA22-A S7 Table 5.8 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric potential Wind potential LOCATION Major supplier McGrath 10-mile radius Healy, Alaska N/A Villagers indicate insufficient wind in village for wind power. QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 42.9x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980's 30% of fuel used electrical genera upon installation N/A 1 Assumes $1.67/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor. < > saving per million Btu recovered. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT NIKOLAI QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton for Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent tion; N/A COST $1.67/gal $12.11/10® Btu $132/cord + $9.04/10® Btu $120/ton $7.06/10° Btu $450/kW installed <$6.73/10® Btu> SOURCE OF DATA Village Council Appendix G Appendix H Appendix D diesel fuel displaced N/A No wind data available. Reference #38 COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. N/A ST-s APA22-A S8& Table 5.9 ENERGY RESOURCE LOCATION Diesel fuel Major supplier Bethel Wood fuel Middle Kuskokwim Coal fuel Healy, Alaska Waste Heat! = Recovery Hydroelectric N/A potenti al Wind potential = 1 Assumes $1.46/gal diesel fuel cost 0. < > saving per million Btu recovered. ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 167x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation school generator. N/A 45 load factor. RED DEVIL QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent N/A 7.0 mph average annual wind speed SOURCE OF COST DATA $1. 46/gal United $10.59/10® Btu Transportation Bethel $92/cord Appendix G $6.30/10° Btu $110/ton Appendix H $6.47/10® Btu $450/kW installed Appendix D <$5.21/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced N/A Reference 38 = Regional profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. N/A Average annual wind speed sufficient for wind generation. 9T-s APA22-A S9 Table 5.10 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Potential Wind potential LOCATION Major supplier Bethel Middle Kuskokwim Healy, Alaska N/A ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 167x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980"s 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation of new power plant. N/A 1 Assumes $1.46/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor. < > saving per million Btu recovered. SLEETMUTE QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent N/A 6.8 mph average annual wind speed. SOURCE OF COST DATA $1.46/gal United $10.59/10° Btu Transportation Bethel. $92/cord Appendix G $6. 30/106 Btu $110/ton Appendix H $6.47/10® Btu $450/kW installed Appendix D <$5.21/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced N/A Reference #38 5 Regional Profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Average annual wind speed insufficient for wind generation. Lis APA22-A S10 Table 5.11 ENERGY RESOURCE Diesel fuel Wood fuel Coal fuel Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Potential Wind potential LOCATION Major supplier Bethel Middle Kuskokwim Healy, Alaska N/A ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 167x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980"s 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation of new power plant. N/A 1 Assumes $1.47/gal diesel fuel cost 0.45 load factor. < > saving per million Btu recovered. STONY RIVER QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent N/A 5.7 mph average annual wind speed. COST $1.47/gal $10.66/10° Btu $92/cord $6.30/10° Btu $110/ton $6.47/10® Btu $450/kW installed <$5.25/10® Btu> SOURCE OF DATA United Transportation Bethel. Appendix G Appendix H Appendix D diesel fuel displaced N/A Reference #38 Regional Profiles COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Average annual wind speed insufficient for wind generation. 8I-s APA22-A S11 Table 5.12 ENERGY RESOURCE LOCATION Diesel fuel Major supplier Bethel Wood fuel 10-mile radius Coal fuel Healy, Alaska Waste Heat! = Recovery Hydroelectric Ganes Creek Potential * Wind potential ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 10.8x10® cu ft late 1980's Late 1980's 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation of liquid cooled diesel engines. 1200 kW, 2838 mwh/yr TAKOTNA QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord 8500 Btu/1b 17x10® Btu/ton Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent. Villagers indicate insufficient wind in village for wind power. SOURCE OF COST DATA $1.65/gal Village $11.96/10° Btu Meetings $92/cord? Appendix G $6.30/10° Btu $120/ton Appendix H $7.06/10° Btu $450/kW installed Appendix D <$6.58/10® Btu> diesel fuel displaced 89, 600/kW Reference #38 installed No wind data available. ' Assumes $1.65/gal diesel fuel cost; 0.45 load factor, future diesel generator sets water cooled. 2 Lowered cost due to substantial road network surrounding Takotna. < > saving per million Btu recovered. COMMENTS Delivered cost at village Delivered cost at village. Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Hydro site would service Takotna, Ophir and McGrath. 6T-S APA22-A S12 Table 5.13 ENERGY RESOURCE LOCATION Diesel fuel Major supplier McGrath Wood fuel 10-mile radius Coal fuel N/A Waste Heat! Recovery Hydroelectric Ganes Creek Potential Wind potential ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT QUANTITY/AVAILABILITY 28.8x10® cu ft late 1980's N/A 30% of fuel used for electrical generation; upon installation of liquid cooled diesel engines. 1200 kW, 2838 mwh/yr TELIDA QUALITY #2 diesel 138,000 Btu/gal 14.6x10® Btu/cord N/A Recoverable heat 41,400 Btu/gal diesel equivalent. Villagers indicate insufficient wind in village for wind power. SOURCE OF COST DATA $2.31/gal $16.75/10® Btu $132/cord? Appendix G $9.04/10° Btu N/A Appendix H - $450/kW installed Appendix D <$6.58/10° Btu> diesel fuel displaced 89 ,600/kW Reference #38 installed No wind data available. 1 Assumes $1.65/gal diesel fuel cost; 0.45 load factor, future diesel generator sets water cooled. 2 Lowered cost due to substantial road network surrounding Takotna. < > saving per million Btu recovered. COMMENTS Delivered cost at village. Cost assume heat delivery within 100 ft radius of plant. Availability varies with generator loading. Maintenance at $11/kW/yr. Hydro site would service Takotna, Ophir and McGrath. APA 23/Q B. SURVEY OF TECHNOLOGIES The following paragraphs contain a brief abstract of the technologies listed below and which were examined to deter- mine their possible application in each of the villages. A more thorough explanation of these technologies as well as information on several additional technologies can be found in Appendix D. e Direct fired coal for electrical generation ® Direct fired wood for electrical generation e Goethermal , ° Diesel e Gas turbine e Low Btu gasification e Wind energy conversion systems e Waste heat recovery e Geothermal heating e Binary cycle for electrical generation e Single wire ground return transmission e Hydroelectric generation e Electric heating e Passive solar e Conservation 5-20 5.B.1 COAL i. DIRECT FIRED COAL FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Déscription 1) 2) 2apal9/a Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Coal is ground to roughly less than 2 inch diameter chunks and mechanically loaded onto a boiler grate after which it is combusted in the boiler to heat incoming water to steam. The steam is then expanded in a turbine which drives a generator to produce electricity. Current and future availability Steam plants account for the majority of electrical generation in the United States today. Although steam plants can accommodate a wide range of loads, U.S. economies of scale indicate that the cost per unit increases sharply in sizes below about 50 MWe. It should be noted that European coal-steam generation units are employed in the less than 10 MWe range. 5-21 2. DIRECT FIRED WOOD FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) ° apal9/b Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wood can be directly fired in traveling grate or stoker type steam boilers to provide steam for a conventional steam turbine cycle. The two major sources of wood fuel are forest residues and wood wastes from industrial operations. Current and future availability Existing commercial systems are roughly in the 1-50 MWe range. Economics of. small scale plants are generally prohibitive because of the economics of operation and maintenance requirements for full time, highly skilled labor. Numerous U.S. manufacturers do produce wood fired boilers suitable for generating electricity in the 250-1000 kWe range. 5-22 5.B.3 GEOTHERMAL 3. GEOTHERMAL - ELECTRIC (FLASHED STEAM) (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/c Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Geothermal electric generation in Alaska would be by the flashed steam or binary processes. The binary conversion technology is discussed generically in another profile. The flashed steam process applies to liquid dominated geothermal reservoirs such as those thought to exist in Alaska. Hot liquids are brought to the surface and partially converted to steam in flash vessels where the fluids: undergo pressure reduction. The separated steam component is used to power a steam turbine-generator and spent and separated fluids are reinjected into the earth to minimize potential subsidence problems. Current and future availabiltiy Not currently in commercial practice in the United States, but over 140 MWe in operation in foreign countries. U.S. environ- mental restrictions are much more severe, in general. 5-23 DIESEL 4. DIESEL (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/d Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the diesel engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to a high pressure. Fuel oi] is injected into the compressed air, which is at a temperature above the fuel. ignition point, and the fuel burns, converting thermal energy to mechanical energy by driving a piston. Pistons drive a shaft which in turn drives the generator Current and future availability Diesel engines driving electrical generators are one of the most efficient simple cycle converters of chemical energy (fuel) to electrical energy. Although the diesel cycle in theory will burn any combustible matter, the practical fact of the matter is that these engines burn only high grade liquid petroleum or gas, except for multi-thousand horsepower engines which can burn heated residual oil. Diesel generating units are usually built as an integral whole and mounted on skids for installation at their place of use. 5-24 5.B.5 GAS TURBINE 5. GAS TURBINE (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/e Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In simple cycle gas turbine plants incoming air is compressed “and injected into the combustion chamber along with ‘the gas or vaporized liquid fuel. The combusted gas, at relatively high temperature and pressure, expands through and drives the turbine, which drives the generator and the air compressor. Fuel is typically natural gas or very high grade distillate oil. Current and future availability Gas turbine power plants are a proven, established technology, chiefly in peaking applications. 5225 5.B.6 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION 6. LOW - BTU GASIFICATION (A) General Description 1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved So-called low-Btu gas (about 200 Btu/Scf) can be manufactured from coal and biomass in commercially available equipment However, the use of this gas for power generation is a very complex process. 2) Current and future availability The prospect of gasification contributing to Alaska power in the next 10 years is remote for other than demonstration type plants. Existing commercial facilities are far too large for village applications. apal9/i 5-26 5.B)7 WECS Js WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) (A) General Description al) 2) 2apal9/q Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The thermodynamic process involved stems from the sun, the primary energy source which produces the wind. This wind energy cannot be stored is intermittent, somewhat unpredict- able. The process relies on wind flow over an air foil assembly to create differential pressures along the air foil. This differential pressure results in rotation of the assembly around a fixed axis to which it is attached. Power from the wind is transmitted through the connection shaft and accompanying gear box to an electrical generator. Three types of generators are presently in use with wind energy systems. These are the DC generator, the AC induction generator and the AC synchronous generator. Of the three types, the AC induction generator is the most widely used because of its simplicity and low cost. An induction generator is not a stand-alone generator and must be connected to an external power system of relatively constant frequency and voltage to operate properly. Current and future availability Availability of the wind at useful velocities require long term records to estimate the portntial energy. Lesser records provide less credible estimates. S227 2apal9/q WECS Availability of smal] size units in the 1.5 kW to 20 kW range is good. Large units in the 100-200 kW range are currently undergoing tests in both the government and private sector and should be available in the near future. Demonstrations of multi-megawatt sizes are in process. 5-28 5.B.8 WASTE HEAT 8. DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/s Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The present use of fossil fuels (coal, gas, 0117) in Alaska (as elsewhere) to produce more useful forms of energy (heat, electricity, motive power) is less than 100 percent efficient. For example, if a machine burns a certain quantity of fossil fuel and produces useful output (shaft horsepower, electrical energy, steam, hot water or air for space heating) equivalent to 30% of the fuel burned, the energy represented by the remaining 70% of the fuel will appear as unused or "waste" heat. Such heat most often appears as hot exhaust gas, tepid to warm water (65°F-180°F), hot air from cooling radiators, or direct. radiation from the machine in question such as a furnace, steam power plant, diesel engine, etc. Diesel waste heat can be recovered from engine cooling water and exhaust, or either source separately. The waste heat is typically transferred to a water-glycol circulating system in Alaskan applications. The heated circulating fluid can be used for space, water, or process heating. Current and future availability Recovery of diesel waste heat in Alaska is growing as a result of sharp increases in diese] fuel costs. Recovery of jacket water heat only is the most common in Alaska. Diesel waste heat availability is directly related to the location and operation cycles of the engine installation. 529) 5.8.9 GEOTHERMAL HEATING 9. GEOTHERMAL HEATING (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/t Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Hot geothermal liquids can be used for direct applications including: space and water heating, process heating, and agricultural growth. Of primary interest for village applications is space and water heating. The geothermal fluids are typically pumped from geothermal wells and run through heat exchangers prior to surface or subsurface disposal. A clean circulating fluid is heated in the heat exchanger and piped through insulated pipes to space heaters or water heating applications prior to return to the heat exchanger Current and future availability District (here: village) heating is extensively practiced in Iceland, is practiced in- Hungary and France, has been commercially practiced for many years in Boise, Idaho, and several U.S. systems are jn various stages of construction Heating of buildings with heat loads comparable to small village requirements is practiced in Klamath Falls, Oregon. 5-30 5.8.20 BINARY 10. BINARY CYCLE FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) apal9/v Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the binary conversion process, a heated primary fluid of insufficient quality for direct use in electrical production passes through a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a working fluid. The working fluid has a lower boiling point than water and is vaporized in the heat exchanger. The vaporized working fluid then expands through a turbine or cylinder piston arrange- ment, is condensed, and returns to the heat exchanger. The primary fluid is returned to its heat source following heat exchange. Current and future availability Current commercial availability is restricted to unit sizes in excess of village power requirements as determined in this study. Binary cycle generation equipment is unit sizes suit- able for village applications is not expected to be available until the late 1980's. 5-31 ibe 5.B.11 SWGR SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN (SWGR) TRANSMISSION (A) General Description 1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A Single Wire Ground Return system (SWGR) can best be described as a single-phase, single wire electrical transmission system using the earth as the return conductor The single wire configuration can be designed for minimum cost by utilizing high-strength conductors that require a minimum number of structures and still retain the standards for high reliability. 2) Current and future availability A demonstration project to supply Bethel central station electricity to the village of Napakiak, a distance of 8.5 miles is presently in operation. This project has provided a demonstration of the technical and cost feasibility of the SWGR system. apal9/w 5-32 Rigg HYDROELECTRIC 12. HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION (A) General Description APA/26/B Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the hydroelectric power development, flowing water is directed into a hydraulic turbine where the energy in the water is used to turn a shaft, which in turn drives a gener- ator. In their action, turbines involve a continuous trans- formation of the potential and/or-.kinetic energy of the water into usable mechanical energy at the shaft. Water stored at rest at an elevation above the level of the turbine (head) possesses potential energy; when flowing, the water possesses kinetic energy as a function of its velocity. The return of the used water to the higher elevation necessary for function- ing of the hydroelectric machinery is powered by the sun to complete the cycle - a direct natural process using solar energy. The ability to store water at a useful elevation makes this energy supply predictable and dependable. Current and future availability Hydroelectric developments in the United States, as of January 1978, totaled 59 million kilowatts, producing an estimated average annual output of 276 billion kilowatt hours according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Hydropower provides about 10% of Alaska's electric energy needs. Developments range in size from over a million kilowatts down to just a few kilowatts of installed capacity. Hydropower is a time proven method of generation that offers unique advantages. Fuel cost, a major contributor to thermal plant operating costs, is eliminated. 5733 5.B.13 ELECTRIC HEATING 13. ELECTRIC HEATING (A) General Description 1) 2) APA26/C Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Electricity is passed through resistance wiring and gives off heat in encountering such resistance. The heat is transferred to air or water. Current and future availability Electric heat is clean, noiseless, easily controllable and relatively efficient. Electric heat is recognized as a sound means of heating buildings where heat losses are held to a sound, economical level and the cost of electricity is not prohibitive. 5-34 5.B.14 SOLAR 14. PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING (A) General Description Passive solar heating makes use of solar energy (sunlight) through energy efficient design (i.e. south facing windows, shutters, added insulation) but without the aid of any mechanical or electrical inputs. Space heating is the most common application of passive solar heating. Because such solar heating is available only when the sun shines, its availability is intermittent (day-night cycles) and variable (winter~summer - cloudy-clear). apal9/u 5-35 5.8.15 CONSERVATION 15. CONSERVATION (A) General Description 1) 2) APA26/L Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Conservation measures for the 13 villages considered here are mainly classified as "passive". Passive measures are intended to conserve energy without any further electrical, thermal, or mechanical energy input. Typical passive measures are insu- latton, double glazing or solar film, arctic entrances and weather stripping. Energy conservation characteristics of some passive measures degrade with time, which must be con- sidered in the overall evaluation of ‘their effectiveness for an intended life cycle. Other conservation measures includes improvement in efficiency of utilization devices (such as motors) and "doing without", energy by disciplines (turning off lights, turning down thermostats). Current and future availability Passive measures are commercially available and increasing in use all over the United States due to the rapidly escalating cost of energy. 5-36 APA 19/ee 1 16. OTHER Other technologies which are presently in various stages of research and development can be found in Appendix D, Technology Profiles, Section 3.9. esl APA 200 1 Cc. APPROPRIATE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Investigations of resources indicate that certain of the alternative energy options under consideration in this study are in an experimental/ developmental stage, and therefore a somewhat general approach to future development has been taken. The methodology utilized to select appropriate village technologies for further investigation included the following major activities: e Power and energy requirements were identified. e An inventory of technologies for electrical energy generation was made (Appendix D), identifying and evaluating them on an order of magnitude scale, taking into account technical, economic, and environmental aspects. e From the energy resources identified for each village (Section 5-A), several resources were selected for more detailed analysis in comparison to the base case of diesel generation. Available technology and preliminary cost estimates established for these resources indicate that development could be technically and economically feasible. e A more detailed analysis of these selected alternatives was performed including economic evaluation through the year 2000 and discussion of environmental, land use, and safety aspects. (Note: In villages with potential hydroelectric developments (i.e., Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Chauthbaluk and Takotna), because of the 50-year life of the hydroelectric alternative, all analysis for these villages have been extended to the end of the economic life of the hydroelectric project. ) These selected alternatives which are listed below include proven technological forms, and less conventional forms presently under development such as binary cycle generation and wind generation. 5-38 APA 2001 List of selected Alternatives For Evaluation 1) Diesel generation 2) Waste heat recovery 3) Binary cycles using wood and/or coal fuel 4) Hydroelectric generation 5) Wind generation 6) Passive solar heating 7) Energy conservation Table 5.C.1 lists which of the above selected technologies are appro- priate to each village. Passive solar heating and energy conservation measures are available in varying degrees in all villages. It is assumed that these two alternatives will be implemented in all villages. These two options are, therefore, not specifically listed in Table 5.C.1. 5=39 APA 200 1 Table 5.C.1 Appropriate Energy Technologies Binary Diesel Waste Heat Cycle Hydro- Wind Village Generation Recovery Wood/Coal Electric Generation Buckland xX xX = xX xX xX Hughes xX xX xX = xX Unknown Koyukuk x x x x x Unknown Russian Mission xX x xX x - xX Sheldon Point Xx x xX xX = xX Chuathbaluk x xX xX x xX - Crooked Creek xX x Xx xX 7 - Nikolai x xX xX xX - - Red Devil xX xX xX xX - - Sleetmute x xX xX x - - Stony River xX X xX x - - Takotna X x? X xX xX - Telida xt xX = = x° xX Implies appropriate technology Waste heat recovery available when liquid cooled diesel engine installed. 5-40 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS A. INTRODUCTION The approach to the energy plans formulated for each village is explained in this section. From the list of energy alternatives selected for detailed evaluation (Section 5) a combination of alternatives or energy plans was formulated to meet the energy forecast requirements for each village. Each plan is formulated to meet the forecasted electrical energy requirements of the village plus additional related requirements, such as Space heating, where appropriate. A base case plan using diesel generation is formulated for each village. This plan is used as the "control case" to determine the advantage or disadvantage of other alternatives as compared to diesel generation. Future village diesel generation additions assume that local schools, which have sufficient installed generation capacity, will provide their own back-up capability. The school will, however, rely on the central- jzed village power plant for their primary supply of electrical power and energy. : Binary cycle generation is presented for each village when sufficient coal and/or wood resources are available. In villages where both wood and coal fuel are available, it has been concluded that wood-fired generation would prove more advantageous than coal because; 1) wood is a relatively clean burning fuel as compared to coal; 2) wood is more suitable for small power plants than coal. Binary cycle generation using only the wood-fired option is, therefore, investigated for villages in which both wood and coal fuel is available. Diesel fuel oil-fired binary cycle generation is also possible, but provides no significant cost or technical advantage over diesel engine powered generation. Fuel oil-fired binary cycle generation is, there- fore, not included in the formulated energy plan for each village. APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS A waste heat capture analysis is included with all options that use fossil fuels for electrical generation (i.e., diesel generation employing engine jacket water cooling and binary cycle generation). Hydroelectric and wind generators are investigated in the villages where these resources are available. Any additional benefits from these technologies, such as the use of excess hydroelectric energy to provide inexpensive electric space heat is also included. 6-2 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS |. VILLAGES NORTH OF YUKON RIVER ae Buckland Base Case Plan 1) 2) 3) Plan components - Diesel and waste heat recovery Timing of system additions Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW; 1994 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kW, 1985 - 100 kw, 1994 - 100 kW Plan description - This plan assumes continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and implementation of waste heat recovery. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - Diesel and binary cycle generation using coal fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW Binary Cycle - 1989 - 250 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kW; 1989 - 250 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of coal-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel generators and the implementation of waste heat recovery. Alternative Plan B 1) Plan components - Diesel and wind generator and waste heat recovery. 6-3 APA 22-A/T 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions - Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW; 1994 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kW, 1994 - 100kW Wind = 1983 = 2 = 18 kW WECS; 1990 = 45 kW WECS, 1997 - 45 kW WECS Plan description - This plan assumes diesel genera- tors augmented by the installation of a WECS facility to displace diesel fuel oi] and the implementation of waste heat recovery. Alternative Plan C 1) 2) 3) Plan components - Diesel and waste heat recovery and hydroelectric Timing of addition Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW; 1994 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kw Hydroelectric - 1986 - 238 kW, 556 mWh/yr. Plan description 4 This plan assumes construction of a hydroelectric project on Hunter Creek, 25 miles southwest of Buckland (Ref. 37) as partial replacement for diesel generation. Estimated 1980 construction of the hydroelectric project with transmission line is $12,471,000 (Ref. 37). APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS By Hughes a) Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW; 1991 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 75 kW 3) _ Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) Plan components - Diesel and Binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. 2) Timing of additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 150 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1989 - 150 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel generation and the implementation of waste heat recovery. iC. Alternative Plan B 1) Plan components diesel and waste heat and hydro- electric 6=5 APA 22-A/T 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW Waste heat - 1983 - 75 kW Hydroelectric - 1986 - 45 kW, 85 mwh; 1988 - 45 kW, 100 mWh Plan description - This plan assumes construction of two possible hydroelectric sites located west and northwest of Hughes (See reference 37) as partial replacement for diesel generation. Estimated 1980 construction cost of two hydroelectric projects plus transmission line are as follows (ref. 37). i. Site west of Hughes - $3,402,800 2. Site northwest of Hughes - $3,426,400 6-6 APA 22-A/T 35 Koyukuk SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS a) Base case plan Plan components - Diesel and waste heat recovery Timing of system additions Diesel 1981 - 75 + 50 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generation throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1. Plan components - Diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 75 + 50 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 150 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1986 - 75 kw, 1989 - 150 kW. Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generator facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel generation and the implementation of waste heat recovery. c. Alternative Plan B. i Plan components - diesel and hydroelectric 6-7 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions Diesel - 1981 - 75 + 50 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Hydroelectric - 1986 - 157 kW, 440 mWh/yr Plan description - This plan assumes construction of a hydroelectric project on the east tributary to the Nulato River (Ref. 37) as replacement for diesel generation and to provide supplemental electric space heating during three years when surplus hydroelectric energy is available. Estimated 1980 construction cost of the hydroelectric project and transmission line is $7,792,900 (Ref. 37). 6-8 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS 4. Russian Mission a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - Diesel + waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions Diesel - 1981 - 90 kW; 1982 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and implementation of waste heat recovery. h. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - Diesel and binary cycle generation using coal fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of system additions Diesel - 1981 - 90 kW; 1982 - 90 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 250 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 90 kW, 1989 - 250 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of coal-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel generation and the implementation of waste heat recovery. CE Alternative Plan B. 1) Plan components - diesel and wind generation and waste heat recovery. 6-9 APA 22-A/T 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions Diesel - 1981 - 90 kW; 1982 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 90 kW, 1989 - 100 kW Wind - 1983 - 18 kW WECS, 1986 - 18 kW WECS, 1994 - 45 kW WECS Plan description - This plan assumes diesel generation augmented by the installation of WECS facility to displace fuel oi] and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-10 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS 5. Sheldon Point a. Base Case Plan 2) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions Diesel - 1982 - 100 + 75 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 100 kW 3) Plan description - This. plan assumes the use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementa- tion of waste heat recovery. Ds Alternative Plan A 1) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generators using coal fuel and waste heat recovery. 2) Timing of additions Diesel - 1982 - 100 + 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 200 kW Waste Heat Recovery - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 200 kW Se Plan description - This plan assumes construction of coal-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel generation and the implementation of waste heat recovery. c. Alternative Plan B. 1) Plan components - diesel and wind generation and waste heat recovery. oii APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS 2) Timing of additions Diesel - 1982 - 100 + 75 kW; 1995 - 100 kW waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW Wind |= | 2982) = 10-0..5 kW WECS= 1989) |= 10) = 15.5 kw WEGSs;/ 1985i|= | 16-15) kw) WECS; | di990) =) 5) =! 41.5) (KW WEGS);,, 1995:= 6) = 1.5 kW WECS:) 2000 = 6 =) 2.5 kW WECS. 3. Plan description - This plan assumes individual 1.5 kW wind generators for residential users and the use of diesel generation with waste heat recovery to supply electrical energy to other consumer groups. 6-12 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Cc. VILLAGES - MIDDLE AND UPPER KUSKOKWIM 6. Chuathbaluk a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b) Alternative Plan A 1) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW Binary unit - 1989 - 200 kW Waste heat recovery - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 200 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. ce Alternative Plan B. 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery and hydroelectric generation. 6-13 APA 22-A/T 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW Hydroelectric - 1986 - 125 kW; 195 mWh/yr estimated Plan description - This plan assumes construction of a hydroelectric project in Mission Creek 2.5 miles east of Chuathbaluk as partial replacement for diesel generation (Ref. 38). Estimated 1980 construction cost of the hydroelectric project and transmission line is $7,360,000 (Ref. 38). 6-14 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS qe Crooked Creek a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - Diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment 1983 - 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW 3. Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. Bs Alternative Plan A 1) 2) m Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW Binary units - 1989 - 200 kw Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 200 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-15 APA 22-A/T 8; SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Nikolai a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes the continued - use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions - Diesel - 1986 - 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 125 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1989 - 125 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-16 APA 22-A/T oe SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Red Devil a.. Base Case Plan a) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW; 2000 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 2000 - 75 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 100 kw Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1989 - 100 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-17 APA 22-A/T 10. Sleetmute a. Base 1) 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Case Plan Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kw Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 150 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1989 - 150 kw Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-18 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS ll. Stony River a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 + 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) 2) 3) Plan components - diesel and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery Timing of additions - Diesel - 1981 - 60 + 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1989 - 100 kW Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-19 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS 12. Takotna a. Base Case Plan 1) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 kW; 1984 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1984 - 75 kW; 1986 - 75 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes installation of a liquid cooled diesel generator in 1982 (replacement for existing air cooled diesels) and the continued use of diesel driven generators (liquid cooled) throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. b. Alternative Plan A 1) Plan components - diesel (liquid cooled) and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery. 2) Timing of additions - Diesel - 1982 - 75 kW; 1984 - 75 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 150 kW Waste heat equipment - 1984 - 75 kW, 1989 - 150 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion and the implementation of waste heat recovery. 6-20 APA 22-A/T SECTION 6 1 ENERGY PLANS e. Alternative Plan B. le Plan components - diesel and hydroelectric as Timing of additions Diesel - 1982 - 75 kW Hydroelectric - 1986, total capacity - 1200 kW, 2838 mWh/yr Portion allotted to Takotna - capacity - 240 kW - 567 mWh/yr 3. Plan description - This plan assumes construction of a hydroelectric project on Ganes Creek, 4 miles southeast of Ophir as replacement for diesel generation in Ophir, Takotna and McGrath (Ref. 38). and to provide supplemental electric space heating during these years where surplus hydroelectric energy is available. Estimated 1980 construction cost of the hydroelectric project is $107,565,000 (Ref. 38). The cost of the project allocated to each community is based upon the estimated percentage of the total annual energy available from the project which will be supplied to each community. These percentages and cost allocation are as follows: Community : Percentage of total? Energy Allocated Cost Ophir 5% $ 5,378,250 Takotna 20% 21,513,000 McGrath 75% 80,673,750 Based upon 1979 population data 6=21 APA 22-A/T 13; Telida SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS a. Base Case Plan 1) 2) 3) Plan components - diesel and waste heat recovery Timing of system additions - Diesel - 1982 - 50 + 30 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 50 kW Plan description - This plan assumes installation of liquid cooled diesel generation in 1982 (replacement for existing air cooled engine) and the continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study and the implementation of waste heat recovery. be Alternative Plan A 1) Plan components - diesel (liquid cooled 1982) and binary cycle generation using wood fuel and waste heat recovery 2) Timing of additions - Diesel - 1982 - 50 + 30 kW Binary cycle - 1989 - 50 kw Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 50 kW, 1989 - 50 kW 3) Plan description - This plan assumes construction of wood-fired binary cycle generation facilities in the late 1980's as a replacement for diesel genera- tion-and the implementation of waste heat recovery. Gs Alternative Plan B 1) Plan component - Wind generation 6-22 APA 22-A/T 2) 3) SECTION 6 ENERGY PLANS Timing of additions - Diesel - None Wind generators - 1982 - 7 - 1.5 kW WECS; 1985 1-1.5 kW WECS; 2000 2-1.5 kW WECS Plan description - This plan assumes individual 1.5 kW wind generators for residential users and the continued use of the presently installed air-cooled diesel generator for supplying power to the school. 6=23 SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION A. ECONOMIC EVALUATION PARAMETERS a Methodology Energy plan costs are calculated for each year of the planning period and are discounted to the base date at 3% discount rate. Discounted annual costs are summed to give the present worth of plan costs. Ifa plan offers outputs in addition to electrical generation (for example, space heating) the net benefits of that output in terms of dollar savings are estimated by year using the same economic assumptions. The present worth of these additional benefits is then calculated as of the base date using the 3% discount rate. Thus, each plan is characterized by the present worth of plan cost and, if applicable, a present worth benefit of the plan's non-electrical output. The following paragraphs outline the parameter used in performing the economic evaluation of the appropriate technologies investigated in each village. (See Appendix E for the detailed economic evaluations based on these parameters: ) : 2. Parameters a. Study Period The study period used in 20 years with a base year of 1981 for all villages which do not at present have any identified potential hydro- electric sites. In villages with potential hydroelectric developments (i.e., Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Chuathbaluk and Takotna), because of the 50 year economic life of the hydroelectric alternative, all study plans for these villages have been extended to the end of the economic life of the hydroelectric projects. This is accomplished by taking the plan costs, which appear in the twentieth year of the economic evaluation period and extending these costs through the economic life of the hydroelectric project. APA 22-A/U rd SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION b. Power Demand and Energy Requirements The data listed in Section 4 has been utilized concerning village electric power demand, electric energy requirements, and space heating requirements. c. Energy Source and Supply Firm capacity is assured by assuming the largest unit in the system is non-operational. In villages where school generation is installed, firm capacity has been evaluated based on the assumption that the school generators will supply the school load during the periods when the largest generation unit is non-operational. d. Existing Plant Values (1981 and Prior Installations) All costs (i.e., investment costs, equivalent annual costs, maintenance, etc.), associated with village power plants installed prior to 1981 are neglected for the purpose of this study. Village plants installed in 1981 are assigned an investment cost at $630/kW jnstalled?, but the equivalent annual costs associated with these plants are neglected for the purpose of the study. e. Inflation 1) Fuel Cost An inflation rate of 3.5% per year is used in the study for petroleum fuels only. 2) All Other Costs An inflation rate of zero percent is assumed for all other cost (i.e., coal, wood, labor, construction, maintenance, etc.) in the study. 3) Labor Plant labor cost are estimated at $20,000/year (one full-time operator) for diesel generation, $30,000/year for hydroelectric generation and $100,000 per year (four full-time operators) for 1 Based on current installation cost in four villages along Middle Kuskokwim. APA 22-A/U Fed fi SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION binary cycle generation included in this study. Labor cost allocated to diesel generation is assumed as zero once binary cycle or hydroelectric generation becomes operational. No direct labor costs are allocated to wind or waste heat recovery (see maintenance materials). Taxes, insurance, and all fringe benefits are included. These costs are based on estimates of cost for similar size communities evaluated in past studies. ft Coe See Section 5 APA 22-A/U 13) SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION g. Generators and Waste Heat Capture Efficiencies The following assumptions are made in regard to generating and waste heat capature efficiencies. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Heat content per gallon diesel fuel - 138,000 Btu/gal Heat content per cord of wood fuel - 11.0 x 10® Btu/cord (Btu content assumes approximately 35% moisture content. Wood used for electrical generation will in general be less seasoned (dried) than wood used for heating and will, therefore, have a significantly lower heat content per cord. “Heat content per ton of coal - site specific see Appendix E A diesel generating efficiency of 8.5 kWh/gal diesel (21%) in the villages. Binary cycle generating efficiency 21% (i.e., 8.5 kW/ gal diesel equivalent). T Waste heat capture efficiency - 30% of input energy. Usable waste heat is assumed to be 40% of captured waste heat at the time of initial installation, increasing to 75% of captured waste heat by the year 2000. h. New Plant Costs 1) 2) 3) 4) Diesel - cost of installing future diesel generation is estimated at $800 per installed kW. Binary Cycle - cost of installing binary cycle generation is estimated at $1600 per installed kW. Hydroelectric - see Section 6 Wind Generation - 1.5 kW - $13,545 18 kW - 26,000 45 kW - 51,300 APA 22-A/U 7-4 5) SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION Waste heat equipment - estimated at $450 per installed kW. (Includes delivery within 100 feet of powerhouse.) Electric Heating equipment - estimated at $5,000 per large consumer installation. i. Operating Supplies Calculated at 10% of fuel cost for diesel and binary cycle generation. Included in fuel cost calculations. j. Maintenance Materials 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Diesel - estimated at $7.00 per mWh Hydro - estimated at $0.60 per mWh Binary Cycle - estimated at 5.0% of investment per year Waste Heat Equipment - estimated at 2.5% of investment per year.? Wind? 1.5 kW - $2100/yr : 18 kW - 2700/yr 45 kW - 3300/yr k. Discount Rate A discount rate of 3 percent has been used in all cases for present worth calculations. 1. Economic Life The following economic lives are assumed: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Diesel - 20 years Binary Cycie - 20 years Hydroelectric - 50 years Waste Heat Equipment - 20 years Electric Heating Equipment - 10 years. Wind Generation - 20 years. 1 Includes both maintenance materials and labor. APA 22-A/U Mo SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION B. ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESULTS 1.) Introduction Table 7.1 is a summary of the 20 year economic evaluations (Appendix E) performed for those energy plans selected for detailed study. Table 1.4 is a summary of the 50 year economic evaluation of the energy plans for those five villages with potential hydroelectric development. These Tables list the accumulated present worth of plan costs and the accumulated present worth of the net benefits derived from non-electrical outputs, where: 1) Plan costs represent the cost for providing electrical generatién, and 2) Net benefits represent the savings derived from waste heat capture or surplus hydroelectric energy used for electric heating. 2. Results a. Twenty Year Evaluation Results - Results of the 20-year economic evaluation indicate, that of the energy plans studied, diesel generation with waste heat recovery provides the most economical method of pro- viding electric generation in ten of thirteen villages (Buckland, Hughes, and Russian Mission being the exceptions). The diesel generation with waste heat recovery and supplemented with wind generation energy plan proved to be the most ‘economical method of providing electrical energy in the villages of Buckland and Russian Mission. This energy plan averaged approximately 5 percent less expensive than diesel generation and waste heat recovery without supplemental wind generation for these two villages. The small variation in cost between these two plans represents an insignificant difference in a reconnaissance level study, where costs cannot be precisely determined, and should not, however, be construed to indicate a definite cost advantage of one plan over another. 7-6 APA 22-A/U SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION The diesel generation plus binary generation with waste heat energy plan alternatives averages approximately 15 percent greater costs than the diesel generation plus waste heat recovery energy plan in 12 of the 13 villages studied. This energy plan did, however, prove to be the most economical plan for supplying electrical energy in the village of Hughes. Hydroelectric generation is found to be the most expensive method of providing electrical energy in all the five villages where it is potentially available. Passive solar and energy conservation have not been economically evaluated in detail and they are, therefore, not listed in Table 7.1. Numerous past studied have shown the value of conservation and passive solar hedting. An approximate fifteen percent reduction in fossil fuel requirements due to the implementation passive solar heating and energy conservation measures has been built into the village Heating Requirement Forecast Tables listed in Section 4. It is assumed that these two methods of reducing energy usage wil] be implemented in all villages. [ b. Fifty Year Evaluation Results: The results of the 50-year economic evaluation performed for the villages of Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Chuathbaluk and Takotna confirms hydroelectric generation as the most expensive method of providing electrical energy for these five communities. The high cost of developing these potential hydroelectric sites make the use of hydroelectric generation economically unrealistic. The results of the 50-year evaluation has reaffirmed the slight cost advantage of diesel plus waste heat recovery, supplemented with wind generation over diesel plus waste heat for the village of Buckland and the cost advantage of binary cycle generation versus diesel generation for Hughes. The extended evaluation has, however, altered the findings of the 20-year evaluation for Takotna and Chuathbaluk. The extended evaluation indicates the diesel generation plus binary cycle generation with waste heat energy plan will provide the most economical energy for these two villages. APA 22-A/U ved SSL APA 22-A/W1 Table 7.1 20-Year - Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) Diesel Diesel & & Diesel Binary Cycle Diesel WECS & & & & Village Waste Heat Waste Heat Hydroelectric Waste Heat Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Buckland 3817-450.0 4664-432.3 7253-149.4 3606-430.6 Hughes 2238-250.1 2157-220.4 4284-117.2 N/A Koyukuk 1886-187.1 2357-136.2 4300-53.2 N/A Russian Mission 3080-380.9 3224-330.0 N/A 2977-336.0 Sheldon Point 2759-307.6 2892-274.0 N/A 3877-234.3 Chuathbaluk 2148-233.9 2350-194.3 4572/99.7 N/A Crooked Creek 2339-260.2 2453-226.3 N/A N/A Nikolai 1841-210.0 2250-167.8 N/A N/A Red Devil 1314-108.7 1784-75.6 N/A N/A Sleetmute 1695-162.9 2009-140.1 N/A N/A Stony River 1282-122.9 1717-88.7 N/A N/A Takotna 2064-202.8 2250-186.1 9805-149.4 N/A Telida 964-73.9 1444-56.9 N/A 1111-50.8 6=f A 2-A/W2 Table 7.2 50-Year - Accumulated Present Worth of Plan Costs and Benefits ($1,000) Diesel Diesel & & Diesel Binary Cycle Diesel WECS & & & & Village Waste Heat Waste Heat Hydroelectric Waste Ileat Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Cost-Benefit Buckland 10509-1679.7 11538-1636.7 17171-818.6 9779-1543.2 Hughes 5849-892.7 4641-825.1 10147-506.4 N/A Koyukuk 4821-696.9 5389-569 .9 9241-46.0 N/A Chuathba luk 5977-911.6 5455-822.5 10854-539.4 N/A Takotna 5169-737.9 4883-685 .0 20556-168.7— N/A (1) Extended evaluation for those villages with potential hydroelectric development. APA 288 SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION Cr ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION iL INTRODUCTION The assessment of the environmental impact in each of the 13 villages is limited to those technologies which have been selected for possible implementation in the villages. These include: Diesel Electric Generation Binary Cycle Electric Generation (coal and wood) Hydroelectric Generation Wind Generation Waste Heat Recovery Passive Solar Conservation To simplfy the evaluation procedure, the assessment process is divided in two categories; general evaluation and numerical evaluation. The general evaluation category will address the environmental issues which are general to the use of each particular technology. The numerical evaluation will rank the impact of the technologies on the villages throught the use of an Evaluation Matrix. The Matrix assesses the economic, environmental, and technical factors associated with each technology in each village. 7-10 APA 288 SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION 2. GENERAL EVALUATIONS a. DIESEL ELECTRIC GENERATION The use of diesel generation results in no significant negative environ- mental impact in the villages. Exhaust emissions for diesel generation are low, and the exhaust noise is readily muffled. With the possible exception of fuel oi] spills associated with the transportation and/or storage of the fuel oi], no significant environmental impact is anti- cipated from diesel generation. b. BINARY CYCLE ELECTRIC GENERATION COAL Because coal will not be openly mined within the immediate vicinity of any village in this study, no significant terrestrial impact in or near the villages will result from using coal fuel for electrical generation. A major problem associated with burning coal is the disposal of solid wastes, which are about 10% of fuel burned, such as slag, bottom ash, scrubler sludge. Current environmental regulations regarding gaseous emission, especially sulfur dioxide (SOX) emission from conventional coal-steam plants generally require abatement processes which can significantly increase the cost of such plants, depending upon the quality of coal used. Other considerations include impact of transportation and storage of the coal, risk of spontaneous combustion and coal pile run-off. For coal at 8500 Btu per pound and plant efficiency at 16,200 Btu/kwh (8.5/ kwh/gal diesel equivalent) about 1.9 pounds of coal is needed per kWh. For a 100 kW plant, operating with a 0.45 load factor, this equates to 375 tons of coal per year. ielel: APA 28B SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION Wood Use of wood as a fuel to fire electric generation will have signi- ficant impact (though not necessarily a negative impact) near villages where timber harvest is accomplished. (Clear cutting can, in fact, improve game habitat in a mature forest). A typical 100 kW plant operating with 0.45 load factor will require about 580 cords of wood per year, assuming 11.0 x 10® Btu/cord. This equates to about 45-50 acres of standing timber in the typical forest found along the Kuskokwim and due to the slow growth rate found in the region, about 70 years will be required to reforest. Problems associated with using wood fuel include impact of tran- sportation and storage of fuel, risk of spontaneous combustion and wood pile run-off. Residual ash from wood-firing is however, not classified as a hazardous waste; firing wood waste actually decreases the amount of solid waste. Wood is, however, a relatively clean burning fuel, and is more suitable for small plants than is coal. As these smaller sized plants are more suitable to much of Alaska's power development needs, wood or a source of energy cannot be overlooked. c. HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION A suitable site for any hydropower development must, of course, be found. Requirements include an adequate water supply and a reasonable proximity to the load center (consumers). Site preparation for a hydropower development involves modification of the existing terrain and results in changes in both the topography (cuts and fills), and in the natural or existing drainage pattern. The project boundary (the outer limits of the land directly affected by the project) may encompass several hundred acres. The impacts of a hydropower development cover a wide spectrum. They affect man, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. The special advantage of a hydropower development is that it is effectively non-polluting. Vip APA 28B SECTION 7 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance, and land use issues must be addressed prior to construction of a hydropower develop- ment. d. WIND GENERATION Little environmental impact is anticipated when operating only a few machines within a small geographic area. Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance and land use issues must, however, be addressed prior to installation of a utility owned and operated WECS. e. WASTE HEAT RECOVERY Waste heat recovery should have little environmental impact when properly installed. Use of waste heat recovery should in fact result in a positive impact by reducing dependency on other fuel (i.e., wood, coal, or fuel oi1), need for heating in the village. f. PASSIVE SOLAR AND CONSERVATION The implementation of these two technologies should result in positive environmental impact by reducing the dependence of the village on fossil fuel for their space heating requirements. g. ELECTRIC HEAT The use of excessive hydroelectric energy to supply electrical spacing heat requirements will result in no measureable environ- mental impact. 7=13 APA 28B SECTION 7 _ ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION 3. EVALUATION MATRIX The Evaluation Matrix uses the following numerical values in ranking qualitative factors. Value Interpretation Best Above Average Average (Neutral Value) Below Average wo ON DO FP WY FH Worst Unacceptable H Oo Economic factors are ranked aphabetically "A" through "F", "A" being best. Due to the similarities between the villages studied in this report, four Evaluation Matrices, consisting of Tables 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6, are sufficient to numerically rank the selected technologies for all the villages. Each table lists the names of those villages for which the table applies. 7-14 Sr—e APA 28B6 Applicable Villages Koyukuk, Sheldon Point, Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Nikolai, Red Devil, Sleetmute, Stony River, Takotna EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 7.3 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) B F C D (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 1 4 5 (2) Intrastructure 3 4 5 6 (3) Timing 1 5 7 3 (4) Air Quality 4 1 5 8 (5) Water Quality 2 1 4 2 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 1 (7) Land Use 2 6 4 3 (8) Terrestrial Impacts m2) 6 4 3 TOTAL 25 29 37 26 Environmental Ranking 1 3 4 2 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 1 2; 8 (2) Reliability 2 1 2 5 (3) Availability 1 ne) _8 a3) TOTAL 5 7 12 11 TECHNICAL RANKING 1 2 4 3 OVERALL RANKING B-1 baz C-4 0-3 STI—E APA 28B7 EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Applicable Villages Buckland, Russian Mission Diesel + Waste Heat Table 7.4 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental] Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) c FE D B (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 i 4 5 (2) Infrastructure 3 4 5 6 (3) Timing 1 5 7 3 (4) Air Quality 4 1 5 3 (5) Water Quality 2 iL 4 2 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 1 (7) Land Use 2 6 4 8 (8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 6 4A =o TOTAL 25 29 37 26 Environmental Ranking 1 3 3 2 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 1 2 3 (2) Reliability 2 a 2 5 (3) Availability = =o _8 =3I TOTAL 5 7 12 1 TECHNICAL RANKING 1 2 4 2 OVERALL RANKING Car Fo2 D=3 B-2 ELSE APA 28B8 Applicable Village Hughes EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 7.5 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) C . F B N/A (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 1 4 N/A (2) Intrastructure 3 4 ) N/A (3) Timing 1 5 7 N/A (4) Air Quality 4 L 5 N/A (5) Water Quality 2 1 4 N/A (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 5 4 N/A (7) Land Use Zz. 6 4 N/A (8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 6 4 N/A TOTAL 25 29) 37 aE Environmental Ranking 1 2 a oo (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 al 2 N/A (2) Reliability 2 1 2 N/A (3) Availability ai By _8 N/A TOTAL 5 7 12 ss TECHNICAL RANKING 1 2 3 N/A OVERALL RANKING bnz F-2 G3 N/A Stal APA 28B9 Applicable Village Telida EVALUATION MATRIX Diesel + Diesel + Diesel + Waste Heat Table 7.6 Diesel Local Hydro Binary Generation Supplemental Electric w/wo Electric Coal and/or Wood Wind Factor + Waste Heat Heat With Waste Heat Generation (A) Economic (Present Worth) B F D G (B) Environmental (1) Community Preference 9 N/A 4 5 (2) Intrastructure 3 N/A 5 6 (3) Timing i N/A 7 5 (4) Air Quality 4 N/A 5 3 (5) Water Quality 2 N/A 4 2 (6) Fish and Wildlife 2 N/A 4 1 (7) Land Use 2 N/A 4 3 (8) Terrestrial Impacts ne N/A 4 ie) TOTAL 25 ~ 37 26 Environmental Ranking 1 - . 4 2 (C) Technical (1) Safety 2 N/A 2. 3 (2) Reliability 2 N/A 2 5 (3) Availability 1 N/A 8 Lg TOTAL 5 ai 12 1l TECHNICAL RANKING al N/A 4 3) OVERALL RANKING B-1 N/A ‘ D-4 C-3 SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS A. INTRODUCTION Analysis of both the 20-year and 50-year economic, technical and environ- mental evaluations indicate the three most promising energy plan alternatives for the 13 villages, in order of preference, to be: aly) Continued use of diesel generation supplemented with waste heat recovery, 2) diesel plus binary cycle generation supplemented with waste heat recovery, 2 3) ‘diesel plus waste heat recovery supplemented with wind generation. B. RECOMMENDED PLANS ae RECOMMENDATION PLAN - Diesel Generation Supplemented with Waste Heat Recovery - The 20-year economic evaluation indicates that diesel generation with waste heat recovery will produce the most economical electric energy and return the largest non-electrical benefits of all the energy plans studied in ten of the 13 villages. Furthermore, results of the 50-year economic evaluation indicates this energy plan to be the most economical of the various energy plans examined in two of the five villages with potential hydroelectric developments. This energy plan also results in the least significant environmental impact of all the plans addressed. It is recommended, therefore, that in all villages in which diesel electric installations are placed (present or future), that studies be conducted to determine the feasibility of utilizing waste heat in each specific location. Such studies should include a definitive review of the following items for each case: a) availability of waste heat b) transportation of waste heat CA) end use of waste heat APA 22-A/X 8-1 SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 2. FIRST ALTERNATIVE - Diesel Plus Binary Cycle Generation Supplemented With Waste Heat Recovery - The first alternative listed above, diesel plus binary cycle generation with waste heat recovery, will provide the lowest cost electrical energy in Hughes (20-year evaluation), and in Hughes, Takotna and Chuathbaluk (50-year evaluation). This energy plan alternative averages approximately 15 percent greater cost than the recommended plan in the remaining villages. Because the uncertainties jin the costs associated with this alternative, such as the cost of wood or coal fuel, equipment cost, etc., which can not at present be as precisely determined as for the recommended energy plan, it is conceivable that this alternative could be cost competitive with the recommended plan (i.e., diesel generation plus waste heat recovery), jn other locations. Because binary cycle generation is viewed as one of the few potentially viable energy alternatives which is suitable for future application in remote Alaska villages, it is recommended that feasibility of binary cycle generation in Alaska be future investigated in regard to: a) Equipment availability b) Technical feasibility (3) Economic aspects d) Environmental aspects e) Constraints Village size binary cycle equipment is, however, not expected to become commercially available until the late 1980's. Sie SECOND ALTERNATIVE PLAN - Diesel Plus Waste Heat Recovery Supplemented With Wind Generation - Alternative #2 diesel plus waste heat recovery supplemented with wind generation, is cost competitive with the recommended plan in only two of the 13 villages (Buckland and Russian Mission). Because of the marginal reliability heretofore experienced in Alaska using wind generation and the lack of a definite cost advantage of using supplemental wind generation over the recommended plan, this alternative APA 22-A/X 8-2 SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS is not recommended. However, as existing wind technology is improved and further developed, periodic review of wind technology for possible imple- mentation in Alaska villages is advised. 4. COST FOR FURTHER STUDIES Approximate costs for determining the feasibility of the two most attractive energy resources for the 13 villages are: e Waste heat recovery - approximately $2500 per village e Binary cycle generation - approximately $2,000,000 which would include the cost of a constructing and operating a demonstration plant in Alaska. APA 22-A/X 8-3 APA23/L APPENDIX A A village meeting was conducted in eleven of the thirteen villages (Russian Mission and Telida the exceptions) to obtain certain inform- ation concerning energy usage in the village and to inform the villagers as to the purpose and nature of the energy resource alternatives study. The village meetings provided information concerning energy usage in each village, to include coal, wood, oi], propane, blazo, aviation gas, information. concerning potential alternative resources in the area, and community preferences in regard to providing reliable low cost electrical energy in the village. Due to unforeseen circumstances, village meetings were not conducted in Russian Mission and Telida, but several persons were interviewed in each village to obtain the general information as outlined above. Community preference in all thirteen villages was unanimious in that hydroelectric generation was the preferred option for supplying electrical energy to the village. This is, however, because village residents tend to associate hydroelectric generation with inexpensive, reliable electrical energy, while diesel generation by villagers is viewed as a very expensive method of producing electrical energy. The following pages contain brief narratives describing general inform- ation obtained during the community meetings and visits at each village. Additional information concerning existing conditions and energy usage in each village can be found in Appendix B. APA23/L BUCKLAND A letter was sent to the City Council notifying the village of the meeting scheduled for November 20, 1980. Shortly after our arrival in the village, a meeting was conducted at the city office. The village was represented at the meeting by the city council members shown listed on the attendance roster. Information concerning fuel cost, fuel storage, average size of houses, fuel usage, possible alternate resources in the area, etc., was obtained at the meeting. Following the meeting, a survey of the town was conducted to obtain additional information. The school principal was also visited to procure information on energy consumption at the school. Heating in the community is accomplished almost entirely with fuel oi] as no wood or coal is available. A new electrical generation plant had been installed in the spring of 1980 to replace the old plant which had been destroyed by fire. Distribution is overhead triplex construction operating at 208/120 volts. APA23/L ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUCKLAND November 20, 1980 NAME Nathan D. Hadley Sr. City Council Member Connell A. Armstrong City Council Member Louis Sadley, Sr. City Council Member Steven Ballot City Council Member Willie P. Thomas City Council Mayor Raymond E. Lee Sr. City Council Member David Thomas Jr. City Council Member Glenna Thomas City Council Secretary Frank Bettine RWRA A-3 APA23/L HUGHES The community of Hughes was visited on November 21, 1980. A letter had been previously mailed to the City Council notifying them of the planned visit. Upon our arrival in Hughes, the City Major was visited and a time of 12:30 was established for the meeting to be held at the school. Prior to the meeting, a survey of the community was accomplished to estimate the size and number of houses, number of public building, etc. The village is supplied electricity from the school generators. Distribution is overhead triplex operating at 240/120 volts. Only three members of the community attended the meeting scheduled at 12:30 p.m. Information concerning fuel cost and usage, available local resources, etc. was obtained at the meeting. Wood is used as the primary fuel for heating in the community. The school is the major user of fuel oi] in the community. A-4 APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER HUGHES November 21, 1980 NAME Art Ambrose Ralph Williams Lavine Willams (Comments on water and creek) Frank Bettine RWRA A-5 APA23/L KOYUKUK A meeting was conducted in Koyukuk in November 19, 1980. A letter had been sent to the village notifying them of the meeting. A meeting was conducted in the Community Hall a short time after our arrival in-the village. A survey of the village was conducted prior to the meeting to estimate the size of houses, number of public buildings, etc. The school principal was also visited to obtain information concerning the usage of energy by the school. No centralized electric power generation facility exists in Koyukuk, although there are plans for electrification of the village in 1981. The school generators provide electric power to its buildings, the satellite earth station, clinic, PHS building and the community hall. The villagers primarily heat with wood. The main users of fuel oi] in the community are the school, clinic, and PHS building. A-6 APA23/L NAME Josie R. Jones Effie Kemp Lawrence Dayton Harold Huntington Marilyn Demoski Martha Nelson Leonard Huntington Euphiasia Dayton William Pilot Marie Dayton Elaine Solomon Frank Bettine RWRA ATTENDENCE ROSTER KOYUKUK November 19, 1980 A-7 APA23/L RUSSIAN MISSION A visit was made to Russian Mission on November 13, 1980. Letters had been sent to the mayor and President of the Russian Mission Native Corporation notifying them of a meeting to be held in their village. Upon arrival in the village it was discovered that many of the village council members were out of town. Instead of a village meeting it was decided to conduct a house-to-house survey to obtain as much information as possible. (Persons visited during the survey are listed in the following page. ) The village consists of an old section and a new section. The new section consists of 27 new AVCP (Association of Village Council Presi- dents) residences located on higher ground behind the older part of the village. An electric distribution system has been installed to serve the lower part of the village. The line has not yet been extended to the new AVCP housing development. At the time of the visit the electric distribution system was not in service because the generator had broken down about a year ago. The village is in the process of installing a new 90 kW unit but still has considerable work to do. The school provides electric power to its buildings as well as a satel- lite earth station and telephone. The school uses the waste heat from the generator to augment the school's hot water heating system. The villagers heat with a combination of wood’ and fuel oil. Wood is the primary fuel because of the abundant supply covering all the sur- rounding land. Villagers mentioned a number of possible small hydro sites in the nearby area. In particular they indicated that Kako Creek about 5 miles up- river was an especially good candidate because of its swift year long open water. The village of Russian Mission operates a central water supply system. A-8 APA23/L House-to-House Survey Roster Russian Mission November 13, 1980 Nick Pitka, Sr. Mayor Jim Hausler President, Russian Mission Native Corporation Peter Alexy village council member Nick Askoak Postmaster Patty School Principal Interviewer Jim Lard, RWRA A-9 APA23/L SHELDON POINT On November 12, 1980 a village meeting was conducted in Sheldon Point. The villagers were originally notified of the meeting through letters to the mayor and village corporation president. The meeting time and location were also advertised by sending home notices with school chil- dren. Approximately 20 villagers attended the meeting. A combination of wood and oi] is used for heating in Sheldon Point. Wood is collected as driftwood from the Yukon River. The supply of driftwood is not abundant. Villagers must often travel long distances upriver to collect an adequate supply of wood. Some villagers complained of the expense in time and gasoline costs in collecting the driftwood. Sheldon Point has no central electric generation. The school has a diesel generator. The school generator also supplies electricity to three teacher residences and the Public Health Service water plant, as well as unofficially serving the village store, village shop, and nearby residences. A satellite earth station and telephone is also powered from the school generator In the near future a number of village residences are going to partici- pate in an experimental project to supply household electric power using individual wind generators and battery systems. A-10 APA23/L NAME Florence Ignatius Josephine Charlie Margaret Murphy Julia Afcan Tom Prince Maria Prince Leonard Kobuk Lucy Camille Andy Corbaski Rusaline Raphael Bernard Pete Johnny Murphy Joseph Afcan Solomon Afcan John F. Carlasky Jim Martin Rose Isidore Marcel Isidore #1 Jim Lard Attendance Roster Sheldon Point November 12, 1980 RWRA A-11 APA23/L CHUATHBALUK A village meeting at Chuathbaluk was conducted on December 4, 1980. Approximately 15 villagers attended. There is no electric power in the village except at the school. Most villagers heat with wood as it is readily accessible from the nearby hills. The villagers of Chuathbaluk were not aware of any energy resources or energy alternatives in their immediate area with the exception of a potential hydroelectric site on Mission Creek located 2.5 miles east of the village. Presently, plans are being made to install in Chuathbaluk a small diesel powered electric system that is intended to provide electric service to each villager in the community. Following the meeting a survey of the village was conducted to obtain information on full storage facilities, average house size, etc. A-12 APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER CHUATHBALUK December 4, 1980 NAME Gergie Phillips Sinka Sakar Sr Wassiie Aranwell Philip S. Phillips Nick C. Kameroff Sophie K. Sakar Gabriel Pitka Arnold Simson Mary J. Kameroff Marie Kameroff Alice Avakumoff Nick Phillips Johnny Avakoumoff Eric Morgan Penelope Horter KNA Director David Marshall Frank Bettine RWRA Jim Lard RWRA A-13 APA23/L CROOKED CREEK A village meeting at Crooked Creek was held on December 3, 1980. The meeting was held at the village community hall. Sixteen villagers participated in the meeting. Wood is the primary fuel source the villagers use. A few buildings are heated by fuel oi] - specifically the community hall/clinic, the village store and lodge. The village of Crooked Creek is spread over a wide area with the stream of ‘Crooked Creek' dividing the north and south parts of town. Crooked Creek 'north' consists of 7 AVCP houses, a Russian Orthodox Church, community hall, clinic, public airport, and a few cabins. Crooked Creek "south' consists of the old townsite. The store, lodge, private air- strip, disco, and most village residences are located in the old town- site. There are a few dwellings located even further to the south but these are not connected to the townsite by an established trail. Crooked "north' and Crooked 'south' are connected by a small cable suspension bridge that spans Crooked Creek. The bridge is wide enough to permit travel by foot or snowmachine only. At the meeting the villagers were questioned as to what energy resources might be available in the area. The only source available for develop- ment appeared to be the nearby wood supply. Even the wood supply was not very abundant and the terrain presented transportation problems. The stream of Crooked Creek does not appear to be a prime candidate for hydro because the current is slow and it freezes over in the winter. A-14 APA23/L ATTENDENCE ROSTER CROOKED CREEK December 3, 1980 NAME Evan Sabor Gerald Phillips Wassilie Waskey Ollie M. Pepperling Village Administrator Ellen M. Peters Secretary-Treasurer - Council David B. Peters Village Public Safety Officer Mislilea Anderanoff Dennis R. Thomas Sophie Peters Anna Olexie Agnes Auderanoff Wassillie Sakoj President - Council Martha M. John Olinka Sakar Annie Gregory Mary M. Sakar Frank Bettine RWRA Jim Lard RWRA A-15 APA23/L NIKOLAI A meeting was conducted in Nikolai on November 6, 1980 at 11:00 a.m. Several villagers attended the meeting. During the course of the meeting, the villagers indicated that substantial coal deposits occurred in the Alaskan range about 35 miles south from Nikolai. The coal comes to surface in Windy Fork River area location, 62°28'N., 154°14'wW. Exposed coal seam run is 300-400 feet long and 20-30 feet high in this area. The villagers said coal can be set on fire with a match. Supposedly, the area was examined and coal, found to be of high grade (from villagers) Wood is, however, because of the abundant nearby supply, used as the primary fuel for heating in the community. The school, clinic and City offices used fuel oi] for heating. The school is installing a wood stove in one classroom, and will attempt to heat the classroom using wood. The school principal estimates the yearly wood requirement for heating the classroom at about 10 cords, at a price of approximately $100/cord. The village owns and operates a centralized electrical generation system operating at 480 volts. The distribution is of overhead triplex construction using step-down transformers to supply 240/120 volts to consumers. A-16 APA23/L NAME Jim Nikolai Nick Alexia Nick Petruska Ignatti Petruska Jeff Stokes Mr. Esai Nick Demit Philip Esai Pete Gregory Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER NIKOLAI Novmeber 6, 1980 RWRA RWRA A-17 APA23/L RED DEVIL A village meeting was conducted at Red Devil on December 3, 1980. The meeting was held at the home of the postmaster/health aide. Six citizens attended. There is no centralized electric power system in Red Devil although a number of individual residences do maintain a smal] generator, particu- larly the larger, business related residences, such as Vanderpool's Lodge and the clinic/postmaster house. The small population of Red . Devil coupled with its widely separated layout precludes for the present any centralized power system to serve the entire community. One concern voiced by the villagers at Red Devil was that their village was being passed over when allocations for development of energy resources were made. Red Devil residents heat primarily with oi1, supplemented with wood. Wood is available in quantity on the surrounding land, but some residents prefer the convenience of fuel oil. Also, villagers mentioned there were problems in getting permits to cut wood. Land use restrictions were not popular. Possible alternate energy sources mentioned by the villagers include rich peat deposits up the Holitna River and numerous prospective small hydro sites on creeks in the nearby vicinity. One small creek runs about 1/4 mile south of the Vanderpool Lodge. One particularly attrac- tive hydroelectric location discussed was the George River. The George River has the drawback of being a large fish migration stream. It is about 18 miles downriver from Red Devil and 10 miles upriver from Crooked Creek. Any development of the George River would be a major project. Red Devil residents expect their community to grow. Plans are underway for 3 new residences. The Bureau of Land Management is considering putting a fire-fighting station at the airport. Also, a new Red Devil high school is planned. A-18 APA23/L Red Devil can claim to be a transportation hub of the area because it has a wide, 4,500 foot runway. But villagers say the runway urgently needs maintenance, improvements, and lighting or the runway will soon deteriorate into a state of disrepair. A-19 APA23/L NAME Larry E. Bass Robert Vanderpool Richard Wilmasth Car] Henery Penelope Horter David Marshal] Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER RED DEVIL December 3, A-20 1980 Postmaster KNA Director RWRA RWRA APA23/L SLEETMUTE On December 2, 1980 a village meeting was held at Sleetmute. The meeting was held at the schoolhouse. Thirteen villagers attended. All the villagers are using wood to heat their homes. The only excep- tions to wood heat are the school, clinic, community hall, and teachers quarters, which use oil. Presently the school generator supplies power to the village community hall, the clinic, and to the teachers' residences. Plans are now under- way to install in Sleetmute a small diesel powered electric system to bring electric power to each residence throughout the village. Five Sleetmute households are located on the opposite side of the river from the townsite proper. Notably Mellick's Trading Post and Lodge are located on the west bank of the Kuskokwim. All of the cross-river dwellings will probably be left out of any energy development that the village of Sleetmute experiences due to the difficulties of river crossings and also the disperse nature of the house locations. The villagers mentioned several suspected coal deposits on creeks that emptied into the Kuskokwim between Sleetmute and Crooked Creek. Substan- tiation of these claims was not possible at the time. Also a number of nearby creeks were mentioned as possible small hydro sites, particularly Vreeland Creek. Another energy alternative discussed at the meeting was the existence of peat banks along the Holitna River. A-21 APA23/L NAME Peter Zaukar Philip Caswell Molga Alexie Moxie Alexie Gus Mellick Vernon Zaukar Nick Zaukar Gary Jacobson Yaka T. Crane David Marshall Penelope Horter Nick Mellick John Helhunington Jim Lard Frank Bettine ATTENDENCE ROSTER SLEETMUTE December 2, A-22 1980 Trade Council President Resident Village Council Member Village Council President Resident Resident Resident Teacher Resident Consultant KNA Executive Director Area Principal RWRA RWRA APA23/L STONY RIVER On December 2, 1980 a village meeting was conducted at Stony River. The meeting was held at the village community hall. Approximately 20 villagers were present at the meeting. All the village residences use wood for heat with the exception of one residence that uses oil. The expense of fuel oi] versus the ready availability of wood makes wood a clear preference. The clinic and village community hall use fuel oi] for heating. The community hall is only irregularly used. The school has the only electric generation in the village at the present time. The village community hall, clinic, satellite earth station, and a couple of village residences are also connected onto the school power. The villagers were not able to identify any alternate energy resources in the immediate vicinity with the one exception of an abundant wood supply. A-23 APA23/L NAME Misku Zaukar Marvara Zaukar Ignatti Macorr Nick Macar Fritz Donhamser Max Cole Aggie A. Zankar Ignatti Bobby Gusty Micheal Mary J. Gusty Iyana Gusty Pete Macar Barbra Gusty Alxie Gusty Paul Bobby Nattie Donhauser Nancy Middlemist Jeannie Evan Nastasia Evan Prurlzerhorter Chris Golden Agrafuie K. Golden Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER STONY RIVER December 2, 1980 Member MKEC Highschool Teacher Village Secretary Trad. Council Treasure Trad. Council President Council Member KNA Exc. Director Member Member RWRA RWRA A-24 APA23/L TAKOTNA The village of Takotna was visited on November 6, 1980 and a village meeting was conducted early in the evening. Takotna has a new generation and distribution system which was installed in November 1979. This system supplies the 240/120 volts, 18 distribution system in the village. There is a satellite earth station in the village and several people have TV's. Because of the high cost of oil, most residents are heating, or converting to wood, for heat. The school, which heats primarily with oi], has installed a wood heater in one classroom. There are at present, five new HUD houses in the village. There is the possibility of additional HUD housing being built. A small creek runs through the village which serves as the water supply. Several people think that this creek might be dammed and used for hydro power. Items of interest expressed during the meeting were: Villagers wish to see transportation costs lowered (Ay Subsidies for electric cost Unleaded gas is non-existent in the village but all new cars require unleaded gas. 4. More competition on river and with Wien for freight rates. A-25 APA23/L NAME Betsy McGuire Dick Newton Jan Newton Frank Tauer Lewis W. Whalen Beverly Schupp Douglas Sherrer Rosalie Edward Bill Everly Chris Killgore Sandra Everly Steve Vallerten Dean Jarosh Frank Bettine Jim Lard ATTENDENCE ROSTER TAKOTNA November 6, 1980 RWRA RWRA Other people interviewed in village: Pat Coffield (Principal - Teacher) A-26 APA23/L TELIDA November 10, 1980 The village of Telida was visited in November 8, 1980. No meeting was held in this village. A meeting was scheduled for November 7, 1980 but was cancelled because weather (snow storm al] day on the 7th) prevented us from departing Takotna for Telida. Most of the men in the village had departed the village when we arrived on Saturday and so no meeting was held but the persons listed on the following page were visited: Telida has no central electric power generation but the school has diesel electric generation. Three families have battery for lights and radio. The batteries are recharged at the school. People interviewed said they would be satisfied with 12-volt battery power if they could keep the batteries charged. Wind power had been used by one resident in previous years to supply power for a battery charger. Residents used the "Wilderness Home Power System" (Popular Mechanics) to obtain infor- mation on how to wire homes on battery power. Villagers would like a walk-in freezer in community to store moose. Satellite earth station is installed and operates from school power during the school year. There is no telephone in summer when school generation system shut down Wood, because of its abundance and modest expense, is used to heat all buildings in the village (i.e., residences, church, and school.) A-27 APA23/L House-to-House Survey Roster Telida November 10, 1980 Winchell Ticknor Council President Mrs. Ticknor Council President's wife Steve Ehiska Council Member Mr. Nilokai Council Member Alen Dick School Teacher - Interviewers Frank Bettine, RWRA Jim Lard, RWRA A-28 apa20:m APPENDIX B DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE A. Data on Existing Conditions (1979/1980) Tabularized below is a summary of the data gathered in November and December 1980 during the field trips to the thirteen villages included in this study on existing village conditions. This data was compiled from on-site inspections in each village, through interviews with villagers, school teachers, village mayors, etc., and from comments and notes recorded during the meetings conducted at each village. The data concerning physical conditions which exist in each village (i.e., generator sizes and types, number of housing units and types, etc.), was recorded by engineering personnel during their on-site visits and is considered accurate and reliable. Additional data regarding village fuel requirements, population, etc., was gleemed from interviews with various villagers and is considered reasonably accurate. The energy balance data present in the following pages represents a data base on energy usage compiled from the information obtained during the field trips to the thirteen villages. This data base does not reflect any adjustments which might be necessary after correlation of this data base with other available sources of information related to energy usage in the villages. This energy data base is used in conjunction with other sources of infor- mation to provide the basis for development of the 1979 energy balance for each village. B=1 POPULATION RESIDENTIAL AND BUILDING DATA # . POPU- —RESI- VILLAGE LATION DENCES OTHER BUILDINGS RESIDENCES Buckland 172 41 1- church frame construction 1- community hall, 1- city office average size: 600 ft? 1- school, gym 1- store (bulk storage of fuel) 1- clinic Hughes 102 v7 1- school, 4 gym log cabins 1- clinic 1- community hall average size: 400-500 ft? Koyukuk 115 28 1- community hall, school supplied housing Jog cabin i 1- clinic for teachers and old 1- church school 30'x30'x8' size: 400-500 ft? 1- PHS building 1- school (new), 's gym Telida “4 Z 1- school 6- log cabin 1- church 1- frame construction cabins ~ 400 ft? frame ~ 800 ft? Nikolai 96 22 1- community hall, 1- store log cabin 1- clinic, 1- city office 1- school, gym, — 1- church size: ~ 500 ft? Takotna 87 22 1- school, getting gym, 1- bar log cabin ~ 4 total 1- PHS building (new) 1- church size: 600 ft? 1- store (in house) 1- clinic frame - 4 total . 1- community center size: ~ 600 ft? Stony River 67 12 1- school log cabin 1- community hall (store in community hall) size: ~ 400-500 ft? 1- clinic 1- church Sleetmute 110 19 1- school, 's gym, auxiliary office building log cabin - 15 + 5 other 1- community hall size: ~ 500 ft? side of 1- old school teacher's quarter & storage) frame - 4 river = 1- clinic 1- church size: = 600 ft? Red Devil 53 8 1- school, ' gym frame +5 other 1- clinic 800 ft? side of 1- store river Crooked Creek 124 25 1- clinic 1- church log cabin - + 6 east 1- community hall 1- store = 600 ft? up river 1- store 1- lodge frame - '5 + 2 across 1- school (new school being built) = 700 ft? river Os Chauthbaluk 126 23 2- school buildings, plus gym log cabin - 15 + 3 up 1- community hall = 600 Ft? & 3. down = 1- PHS building frame construction - 8 river 1- clinic 1- church = 800 ft? Russian Mission 173 40 2- stores 1- clinic log cabin - 28 (moving to 2- school, ' gym AVCP housing) 2- churches (old and new) size: ~ 600 ft? AVCP - frame - 27 ~ g00 ft? Sheldon Point 116 27 2- school buildings log cabin - 14 1- church 1- store size: ~ 600 ft? 1- PHS 1- clinic AVCP - frame - 13 1- community hall size: ~ 800 ft? B-2 OTHER frame construction school - frame construction other - log = 400 ft? school - frame construction church - frame ~ 600 ft? other - log ~ 400 ft? school - frame church - frame ~ 600 ft? school - frame clinic + city office - frame ~ church - frame ~ 600 ft? 1,000 ft? school - frame clinic - frame - 600 ft? 4 community center frame ~ 600 ft? school frame other - log ~ 500 ft? school - frame other - log ~ 500 ft? school - frame clinic - frame - 600 ft? store - frame - 600 ft? clinic, church - frame ~ 600 ft? school - frame 1- store - frame ~ 400 ft? 1- lodge frame ~ 600 ft? school - frame church - frame - ~ 600 ft? c. h. log - ~ 800 ft? clinic - ~ 600 ft? other - frame school - frame other - frame school - frame other - frame B-3 2. ELECTRICAL DATA GENERATOR TOTAL (HEAT * GENERATION) VILLAGE VILLAGE POWER PLANT kW LOAD kWh/CONS/MO. COST/kWh FUEL CONSUMPTION/YEAR SCHOOL GEN FUEL CONSUMPTION SCHOOL/YEAR BY SCHOOL Buckland 140 kW radiator 35 kW = $87.50/month Estimated 1,000 gal/month 135 kW, 55 kW 35,000 gallons 75 kW cooled 11/20/80 flat charge for or 12,000 gal/year single phase Operated 38 (see school) family residence (radiator cooled) peak load - 36 kW Hughes no (school sup- (see school) - $40. 00/month - 50 kW and 2-35 kW Unknown plied) first 100 kW (radiator cooled) School supplies power to town Peak load 30 kW Koyukuk no (see school) - = _ 100 kW, 75 kW, 30 kW 47,000 gallons (includes PHS) (radiator cooled) 6,700 gallons - Sept-Nov for toad 11/19/80 electrical gen. shutdown in summer 35 kW Telida no (see school) 3 families —e 2-12 kW units (air cooled) battery lights 3 . load 11/10/80 Estimated 30 gallons/day recharged from 9 kW for 9 months (shutdown in summer) school generators 8,500 gal lons/year Nikolai 75 kW, 50 kW 60 kW winter From utility 35¢/kWh Estimated from utility estimated by school (radiator cooled) records records 21,000 gallons 11,000 gallons heating only 15 kW 15 kW summer 125 kWh av high electricity from village Operated 36 10 kWh av low residence only 5 Takotna 40 kW, 20 kW (38) 25 kW max Residential 25¢/kWh Estimated fuel needs No generator unknown air cooled, 10 kW min 200 kWh/cons/mo 11,000 gallons/year Stony River Sleetmute Red Devil Crooked Creek Chauthbaluk Russian Mission Sheldon Point operated 18 no no no no no 90 kW not installed no (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See school) (See B-4 schoo!) 2-50 kW, 38 using 10 radiator cooled load 12/2/80 - 35 kW 12,000 gallons (low) 2-50 kW, 3 8 using 18 (radiator cooled) load 12/2/80, 2 kW 25,000 gallons 50 kW 3, using 19 (radiator cooled) 78 kW 3 8 using 1 @ 10/3/80 6 kW, seems low 12,000 gallons (low) 2-50 kW, 1 @ generator (radiator cooled) load 12/3/80 40 kW obtained from school district 2-50 kW, 38 using 18 (radiator cooled) load 12/4/80 - 30 kW obtained from school district 125 kW, 2-75 kW (radiator cooled) 1-15 kW usually one 75 kW will Waste Heat Recovery carry load 18,000 gallon 120 kW 25,000 gallons plus PHS (radiator cooled) 8-5 <-@ 3. FUEL AND COST DATA * Hughes Koyukuk. Telida Nikolai Takotna Stony River Sleetmute Red Devil Crooked Creek Chauthba tuk Russian Mission Sheldon Point " Cost data DIESEL FUEL wooo QUANTITY COST. (BULK) QUANTITY 55,000 gallons $1.76 E village heating 12,000 gat tons per year generators and school usage. 1,400 gations $2.31 8-10 cords village clinic per residence see school usage all heat with wood 2,500 gallons $1.56 8-10 cords village see school usage see school usage 22,000 gallons $1.67 village generation plus Estimate 10,000 school $1.65 8,000 gallons for new PHS building 6,000 gallons fuel of} see school usage 2,500 gallons/year clinic = ch, see school usage 8,000 gallons for Mellick (estimated) 1,000 gallons/household 11,000 gations for village see school usage Store sold 8,000 9,000 gallons see school usage 6,000 gallons for c.h., PHS, clinic see schoo! usage 40,000 gallons village see school usage 10,000 gallons village see school usage st $l. $1 $1. $i. $i. 2.31 (estimated) a7 46 45 a4 mn 70 s of February 1981, for bulk purchases (1 per residence all heat with wood 8-10 cords per year all residences plus schoo! 8-10 cords per residence all heat with wood 8-10 cords/year most residences heat with wood 8-10 cords/year AIT heat with wood 8-10 cords per year per household al} heat with wood converting to wood 8-10 cords per residence most heat with wood 8-10 cords per residence all heat with wood 8-10 cords per residence 4 heat with wood 4-5 cords per residence supplement w/ fuel oi! > 10,000 gallons) PROPANE. GASOLINE Quantity ost QUANTITY COST7GAL (BULK) 200 bottles - 550 gallons $1.78 village per household 12 school 82 bottles village = 650 gallons $2.31 - 3.60 12 bottles school per household - - 600 gallons $1.58 per household 15 bottles - for village 100 bottles village 12 bottles school school using wood in fone classroom 100 bottles village $110/bottie 12 bottles school 2 school 12-15 $180/bottle bottles = school-10 bottles $140/bottle 5 families-4 bottles each . 5 houses-35 bottles $140/bottle school ~ 20 bottles - 4 households $135/bottle 20-25 bottles ‘Anak 5 6 households — $125/bottle 30 bottles 50 bottle/village $75/refill 12 bottle/school + freight St. Mary's 60 bottle/village $90/bottie 12 bottle/school 4,000 gallons village 600 gallons per residence 700 gallons per household 550 - 850 gallons per family (180 barrels for village) 550 - 825 gallons per family 1,000 gallons per family 600 gallons per family Store sold $2.65 - 3.20 gallon $1.69 $1.65 $1.49 cans/year $1.48 $1.48 $1.49 10,000 gals last year 1,100 gallons 20,000 for village 10,000 gat tons village $1.46 $1.73 $1.73 BLAZO & KEROSENE quantity 200-5 gallons cans for village of Blazo 50-5 gallon can for village 180 - 5 gallon 300-5 gallon can/year 325-5 gallon cans Blazo 45-5 gal cans Kerosene 325-5 gal cans 330-5 gallon cans Blazo 165-5 gallon cans kerosene 350-5 gal cans Blazo cost $18. 00/can $25.00/can $23. 00/can for village $23/can ($4. 00/qal lon) $20/5 gal $23/5 qal $19/5 gal VIATION GAS COSI /GAL (BULK) 6.600 gallons $1.64 12,000 gallons $1.63 (Me licks) 6,000 gallons $1.63 per year 10,000-11,000 gal $1.63 per year 2,200/qa1 $1.90 5,000 gallon $1. 70-$1.90 village apa20:m B. Energy Balance Data Where energy usage had to be estimated for the 1979 base year the following data has been used: Annual Usage Residential Gasoline Propane Heating (75% efficiency) (1) North of Yukon River (112.4x10® Btu) diesel i, (2) Lower & Upper Kuskokwim wood diesel ie wood Electric (125 kWh/mo.) - supplied by central plant diesel Schools faz Smal] Heating (1010 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel 9, Electric (52,000 kWh/year) Diesel 6, Ds Medium Heating (1850 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel 17, Electric (105,995 kWh/year) Diesel 12 Smal] Commercial Heating (57.8 x 10® Btu, 75% Efficiency) Diesel Electric (743 kWh/mo.) - supplied by central plant Diesel 1, Public Buildings Heating (75% efficiency, diesel) (1) community center (53.4 x 10® Btu) (2) health center or city office (114.5 x 10® Btu) 1, (3) PHS building (114.5 x 10® Btu): 1, Electric (850 kWh/mo) - supplied by central plant diesel 1, B-8 550 487 100 9 000 8 172 800 100 874 470 558 048 525 125 125 200 gal lbs/user gal chords gal chords gal diesel gal gal gal gal gal gal gal gal gal gal apa20:m The derivation of the above usages is explained in detail in the following sections of this appendix. Fuel uses for electric generation have been assumed at different generating efficiencies for generators larger and smaller than 20 kW. Central Generator Plant efficiencies are assumed at 8.5 kWh/Gal. (based on AVEC Cost of Service Study, 1977) for plants larger than 20 kW. Generators efficiencies are assumed at 6.0 kWh/Gal. for engines less than 20 kW. The energy conversion factors used in this study were as follows: 138,000 Btu/gallon for diesel fuel 127,000 Btu/gallon for gasoline. 91,000 Btu/gallon for propane, 19500 Btu/1b. 127,000 Btu/gallon for AV gas. 127,000 Btu/gallon for Blazo and Kerosene. 17 x 10® Btu/cord for wood fuel. a no fF WH FH B-9 apa20:m Fuel (1) : Family Residence Assumptions made in approximating fuel and electrical consumption if site specific data not available Bui tdiing) Size 25) |50)/20, 0) ix| i205 500 sq. ft A. Heat _loss calculations and fuel use Area of windows = 1/10 total wall area = ic3 eG. ft. Area of walls ELE ZOUSG ai Toa) Area of roof = 500 sq. ft. Area of floor = SOOSqui litte Assume walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers R-12 insulation U Factor 0.08. Roof and floor 2" x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers. Unheated attic 6" of insulation U Factor 0.09, 0.5 air changes per hour. U = 0.45 for windows. Heat Loss = 2 Area x U Factor Heat loss walls 1,125 ft? (0. 90.0 Btu/hr AT Heat loss windows 113 ft? (0.45) ( ( 50.9 Btu/hr AT 45.0 Btu/hr AT 45.0 Btu/hr AT Heat loss roof 500 ft2 Heat loss floor 500 ft? Subtotal Heat Loss : 230.9 Btu/hr. AT Heat loss due to air change of 0.5 air changes/hour = ao) 3) ,-075 1b, ,.24 Btu, _ nG 250) Ft=) Garon) teat = 56.3 Btu/hr. AT Total heat loss = 287.2 Btu/hr. AT Calculations North of Yukon River Degree heating days 16,039 (Kotzebue) 24 hr Btu/year = 287.2 Btu/hr.AT x day x 16,039 degree days Btu/year = 112.4 x 10® Btu year B-10 apa20:m Fuel Used ; — 112.4 x 10 Btu 1 1 gallon used ei ee X 738,000 Btu/gal * 775 gallon effective I 1,085 gallons/year/gamily (use 1,100) 112.4 x 10° Btu y 1 y 1 cord used Wood Year 17 x 10° Btu/cord .75 cordeffective = 8.82 cords/year/family (use 9) (2) Middle and Lower Kuskokwim Degree heating days - 14,487 (McGrath) Btu/year = 287.2 Btu/hr. AT x a x 14,487 degree days 99.9 x 10° Btu Btu/year = year Fuel used Diese] = 29:9 % 108 Btu 1 x —<-lgallon used year 138,000 Btu/gal ~ .75 gallon effective 965 gallons/year/family (use 1,000) 99.9 x 10® Btu 1 1 Y 1 cord used year 17 x 10® Btu/cord * .75 cord effective 7.8 cords/year/family (use 8). Wood B-11 apa20:m B. Electrical Energy use for villages with new or pending centralized power systems. Assume: 1,500 kWh/family/year (125 kWh/month) This estimate is based on 1979 data supplied by the Alaska Village Cooperative and from kWh estimates calculated as shown below using information obtained from potential consumers interviewed during field trips. Appliance kWh/mo Months/Year Used kWh/Year Freezer 88 x 8 = 704 Lights 60 x 8 = 480 Radio 7 x 12 = 84 C.IBi 7 x 12 = 84 Washing machine 9 x 12 = 108 Total kWh/year = 1,460 Average kWh/month = oe = 122 Fuel usage kWh l gal _ 1,460 year X Soe ocuni © 172 gallons c. Propane Usage Assume 487 pounds/family/year for those residences which use propane for cooking. This is an average approximation compiled from data obtained during field trips to the villages included in this study. D. Gasoline Usage Assume 550 gallons/family/year. This is an average approximation compiled from data obtained during field trips to the villages included in this study. B-12 apa20:m 2. SMALL SCHOOL Assumptions Made in Approximating Fuel and Electrical Consumptoin Several buildings constitute the school, including the school itself, teacher housing, a storage shed and a generator shed the generator shed and storage shed are not heated It is assumed The generator size for a small school is also assumed to be less than 20 kW. Building size: School = 32,000 cu. ft. “ 12,500 cu. ft. Teacher Housing A. Heat Loss Calculations Area of windows in school Area of walls in school Area of roof in school Area of floor in school Area of windows in teacher housing Area of walls in teacher housing Area of roof in teacher housing Area of floor in teacher housing Assume U of windows U of roof and floor Subtotal Heat Loss Subtotal Heat Loss Heat Loss Due to Air Change of 1.5 times per hour 1.5 Air Changes X 44500 ft.3 xX Hour = 1201.50 Btu/Hr. AT Total Heat Loss = .45, U of Walls = .23 = Area x U Factor 2205 Btu/Hr. AT 3406.5 Btu/Hr. AT B13 .075 Jb. x Ft.3 200 sq. ft. 2050 sq. ft. 3000 sq. ft. 2500 sq. ft. 132 sq. ft. 1353 sq. ft. 1400 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. = .07 Btu/Hr. AT .24 Btu Tb. AT apa20:m B. Fuel Use Calculation Average Temperature 31°F. Assumed building interior temperature 65°F. Btu _ 3406.5 Btu X 24 Hr. X 365 day Year Hr. AT day Year X (65°F - 31°F) = 1.01 X 10° Btu/Year 1.01 X 10° Btu Year 1 gallon Fuel Use = 138000 Btu X X 1_gallon used -75 gallons effective 9800 gallons Electrical Use kWh Year = 52,000 (~ 4s of data for medium school) Fuel Use: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon 52000 kWh y Lgalicn » 6300 gallons diesel Year 8.5 kWh ~ = 15,900 gallons Small school total fuel usage Yaar: B-14 apa20:m 3. MEDIUM SCHOOL Assumptions Made in Approximating Fuel and Electrical Consumption Several buildings constitute school including the school itself, teacher housing, storage shed and generator shed. Building Size: School 40000 cu. ft. Teacher Housing 20000 cu. ft. Storage Shed 7500 cu.ft. Generator Shed 9000 cu. ft. A. Heat loss calculation Area of windows in school = 280 sq. ft. Area of walls in school = 2120 sq. ft. Area of roof in school = 4200 sq. ft. Area of floor in school = 3750 sq. ft. Area of windows in teacher housing = 260 sq. ft. Area of walls in teacher housing = 1540 sq. ft. Area of roof in teacher housing = 1950 sq. ft. Area of floor in teacher housing = 1500 sq. ft. Area of windows in storage shed = 60 sq. ft. Area of walls in storage shed = 1040 sq. ft. Area of roof in storage shed = 900 sq. ft. Area of floor in storage shed = 750 sq. ft. Area of windows in generation shed = 60 sq?) itt: Area of walls in generation shed = 1140 sq. ft. Area of roof in generation shed = 1050 sq. ft. Area of floor in generation shed = 900 sq. ft. Assume U of windows = .45, U of walls = .07, U of roof and floor = .23 Subtotal heat loss = = Area x U Factor Btu/Hr. AT Subtotal Heat loss = 4155.3 Btu/Hr. AT B-15 Heat loss due to air change of 1.5 times per hour = 1.5 air changes x 76500 Ft.3 x wlorilib: -24 Btu Hour Fess) tbalW = 2065.5 Btu Hr. W Total Heat Loss = 6220.80 Btu/Hr. WT Fuel Use Calculations: Average outside Temperature 31°F Assumed building interior temperature 65°F. — 6220 Btu 24 Hr. 365 days Bales) reat ||| aa sll eae - ° = Btu x (65°F - 31°F) = 1.85 x 109 Vaan = 1.85 x 109 Btu 1 gallon Fuel Use = TY cana ae am y 1 gallon used = 17874 gallons -/5 gallon effective ear B. Electrical Use kWh Year estimate is actual use of small school in New Stuyahok = 408995 kwh (AVEC 1977) Fuel use for electric energy generation: Assume ae 105995 kWh R l gallon _ 12470 gallons Year 8.5 kWh Year fF = 30344 gallons Medium School Total Fuel Use Vaan B-16 APA 20/M 19 apa20:m SMALL COMMERCIAL ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN APPROXIMATING FUEL AND ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION A. Heat Loss Calculations Smal] commercial vendors are generally either attached to or incorporated into a residence. Assume an additional 300 sq. ft. increase in residential structure size due to business. Heat loss neglecting air changes are ¥% those for a house = Sess = 115.5 Btu/hr. AT Heat loss due to assumed 0.75 air change Air_changes 3) (2075 1b, -.24 Btu, _ 0.75 hour” (39750 ft) (“See=) (FE-GF-) = 50.6 Btu/hr.aT Total heat loss 166.1 Btu/hr. AT | Btu/year = 166.1 Btu/hr.AT x 24 hr./day x 14,500! degree days = 57.8 x 10® Btu/year. Fuel used = 22:8 x 108 Btu , _1 gallon x 1 gallon year 138,000 Btu -75 gallon effective Fuel used = 558 gallons (use 550 gallons) 1 Averaged for_all villages B-17 apa20:m B. Electrical usage Use 8,916 kWh/year/small consumer (743 kWh/mo) Averaged from 1979 year end AVEC data for small commercial consumers category Fuel used for electric energy generation: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon for central plant generation = 1,048 gallons. at 8,916 kWh/year x 8.5 kwh B-18 apa20:m PUBLIC BUILDINGS ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN APPROXIMATING FUEL AND ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTIONS Community center, health center, city office, PHS, etc. Fuel Building Size 20' x 30' x 12.5' 600 sq. ft. A. Heat loss calculations Area of windows = 1/10 total wall area = 125 sq. ft. Area of walls = 1,250 sq. ft. Area of roof = 600 sq. ft. Area of floor = 600 sq. ft. Assume walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers R-10 insulation U Factor 0.1. Roof and floor 2" x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers. Unheated attic 6" of insulation U Factor 0.13, 0.75 air changes per hour U = 0.45 for windows. Heat Loss = 2 Area x U Factor Heat loss walls 1,250 ft? (0.1) Heat loss windows 125 ft? (0.45) 125.0 Btu/hr AT 56.3 Btu/hr AT Heat loss roof 600 ft? (0.13) 78.0 Btu/hr AT Heat loss floor 600 ft? (0.13) 78.0 Btu/hr AT Subtotal Heat Loss 337.3 Btu/hr. AT Heat loss due to air change of 0.75 air changes/hour = 0.75 air changes/hour (7,500 ft?) (0.075 lb/ft?) (.24 Btu/hr.AT) = 101.3 Btu/hr. AT Total heat loss = 438.6 Btu/hr. AT Calculations Average heating degree days for region = 14,5001 Btu/year = 438.6 Btu/hr.AT x 24 hr/day x 14,500 degree days 1 Averaged for all villages B-19 apa20:m i Btu/year = 152.6 x 10® Btu/year 6 1 gallon 1 gallons used dees &) a0" \Shu/year % vay O00 Bel * 76 gallons effective Fuel use = 1,474 gallons/year (use 1,500) Fuel use (1) Community center Percentage of time heated = 35% Fuel used = 0.35 x 1,500 = 525 gallons (2) Health Center or City Office Percentage of time heated - 75% Fuel used = 0.75 x 1,500 = 1,125 gallons (3) PHS Building Percentage of time heated - 75% Fuel used = 0.75 x 1,500 = 1,125 gallons B. Electrical Usage Use 10,200 kWh/year/building (850 kWh/mo) Averaged from 1979 year and AVEC data for public consumer category. Fuel used for electric energy generation: Assume 8.5 kWh/gallon as these consumers are either supplied by a central village plant or the village school generator. 1 gallon 10,200 kWh/year x 8.5 kwh = 1,200 gallons c. Post Office Assume the post office is located in a residence and has the same # heating and electrical load. See average home electrical use. B-20 APA 22-A v (a) (b) 1 [ ] numb APPENDIX C ENERGY FORECASTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS Population The population forecast projections are based upon historic growth rates and, where available, information on projected future regional growth rates [30], [31], [32], [45], [56].2 Population data indicates that the historical growth rates in the villages varies from a low of less than one percent to a high of approximately three percent. In villages where historical growth rates have averaged less than one percent per year, a growth rate of one percent per year has, however, been used for population forecasting purposes. The population forecast is con- sistent with previous State of Alaska population forecast. It is further assumed that the number of members per household will follow the overall Alaska tendency and decrease from the average 1979 ratio found in each village, which presently ranges from a high of 6 to a low of 4 (see Section 3), to an average of four members per household by the year 2000. Therefore, the number of residential energy users will, in certain villages, increase at a higher rate than the population. The number of small commercial energy users e.g., stores and shop facilities and public agencies is assumed to increase in direct proportion to that of residential consumers. End Use Forecast Electric Power Requirements: Use of electrical energy in the 13 villages is low compared to other areas in Alaska. This is mostly attributed to a low "hook-up saturation" level as only three of the 13 villages presently have operating centralized power generation and distribution facilities, with one addi- tional village being supplied from the school. Of the nine remaining villages, six intend to install village diesel electrical systems during the 1981 summer construction season. er references G1 APA 22-A v Historical increases in use of electricity supplied by major utilities in the region (Bethel, Kotzebue) have been approxi- mately 11 percent per year since 1970. This implies that once electric energy becomes available on a reliable basis the usage will increase not only with new consumer connections but also with increased use by the individual consumers. The rapid increase in cost of electricity in the last few years has not caused a reduction in consumption, mostly because the users in the area are still in the process of applying electric energy to more and more tasks. Generally it can be assumed that the use of electricity will increase with the increase in family income if the annual bill remains within a certain percentage range. A recently completed study for a southcentral utility in Alaska has shown that over a 35-year period the average energy use by the individual residential consumers has increased by 2700%, but that the monthly bill has remained constant between 2.4 and 3.9% of the family income. To determine future power requirements, it has generally been assumed that a central station will supply electric energy. The effect of improved electric service is anticipated to be an increase in the intensity of use as compared to indivi- dually operated generators. Furthermore, with the subsistence economy changing in many communities into a cash economy and subsequent improvements in the quality of life, new electric loads will require service. For instance, HUD houses planned for various villages will be larger than existing older housing and be equipped with more appliances using electricity. Based on available data, the average expected increase of electric energy use has therefore been assumed to be 4.5%/year for all consumer classes except large consumers (schools). This growth rate is expected if the State of Alaska continues to provide some form of electric power production subsidies to rural residents, and if the continued use of diesel generation increases the cost for electrical energy at the present prevailing rate of escalation. C-2 APA 22-A v This growth rate of 4.5%/year is applied to the average annual electrical energy usage (as determined from AVEC's 1979 year end reports), for residential, small commercial and public consumers to project energy usage for these consumer categories through the year 2000. The following table lists the kWH/mo/consumer for the various consumer categories, which have been derived from 1979 AVEC data. The table also lists the energy forecast projections for the year 2000 based on the 1979 energy figures and increases at 4.5% per year growth rate. These figures were used to construct the electrical energy forecast tables in Section 4 except as noted in the following paragraphs. kWH/Mo/Consumer Consumer Category 1979 2000 Residential 165 415 Smal] Commercial 743 1872 Public Buildings 850 2,142 In villages with new or pending centralized power systems the residential energy requirements in 1981 is assumed at 125 kWH/mo/consumer. (See Appendix B). This figure is escalated at such a rate as to achieve 415/kWH/mo/ consumer by the year 2000 to coincide with the forecast usage by residential AVEC consumer. In villages with operating utilities, residential consumer usage is based on utility records if available. Present usage is escalated at 4.5% per year through the year 2000. If the projected increase in energy usage is less than 415 kWH/mo/consumer, the growth rate is adjusted to achieve 415 kWH/mo/consumer in the year 2000 to coincide with the forecast energy usage by residential AVEC consumers. C-3 APA 22-A v Electrical energy usage (i.e., Kwh/mo) for both small commercial and public buildings has been averaged from 1979 AVEC data. This usage rate is applied to all 13 villages and escalated at 4.5% per year through the year 2000. (See above table). Electrical energy usage for large consumers (school) is projected to increase at the population growth rate of the village. The load factors in the villages is forecast to improve slowly (0.45 to 0.50) by the year 2000. This is due to the expand consumer base in the communities, plus anticipated future advancements in techniques for regulating consumer load demand by the year 2000. The marked decrease in load factor (0.6 to 0.45) in certain villages beteewn 1979 and 1982 is attributable to village electrification, The 1973 load is composed primarily of the school load which have historically had a high load factor (i.e.0.6). The 1982 load is a composite village load (i.e., residential, small commercial, public buildings, school), which histori- cally have had a load factor of approximately 0.45. Hence the decrease in load factor between 1979 and 1982. Calculation procedures, number of consumers, energy consumption per consumer, etc, is outlined in detail in Section 4 and will not be duplicated in Appendix C. Heating Requirements: Heating requirements for each consumer category have been projected at the 1979 energy use level, as determined from existing data, through the year 2000 except for propane. All residencies have been forecast to use propane by the year 2000. Beginning in 1986 it is assumed that fossil fuel requirements will decrease at the rate of one percent per year through the year 2000 due to technical improvements in heating equipment and improvements in building thermal characteristics, (i.e., implementation of passive solar heating, additional insul- ation, etc.). This assumption results in an approximate fifteen percent decrease in fossil fuel requirements by the year 2000 and is reflected in the heating requirement tables listed in Section 4. Calculations détails concerning heat requirements can be found in Section 4 and will not be duplicated in Appendix C.) Calcu- lations for heating requirements assume the following: c-4 APA 22-A v NOTE: 1) 2) 3) 4) Heat content per gallon diesel fuel - 138,000 Btu/gal Heat content per cord of wood - 17.0 x 10®/chord Heat content per 1b of propane - 19,500 Btu/1b Heat contribution from burning blazo to provide illumination is neglected. The actual heat content per cord of wood will vary significantly due to type of wood (i.e., spruce, birch, balsam) used for fuel and moisture content. C-5 SECTION a 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION EXPLANATORY NOTES TECHNOLOGY PROFILES joa Steam - Electric Technologies Sd Coal Sede Wood o553 Geothermal Petroleum - Electric Technologies 3.2.2 Diesel 3.252 Gas Turbine Low-Btu Gasification Wind Energy Conversion Systems Heating Technologies Sade Lt Diesel Waste Heat Recovery 3.5.2 Geothermal Heating Binary Cycle Technologies Single Wire Ground Return Transmission Hydroelectric 3.8.1 Hydroelectric Generation 35852 Electric Heating Conservation Other Technology Summaries 3.10.1 Two Speed Gear Box 3 L0n2 Low Power Nuclear Heating 320.3 Chemical Heat Storage 3.10.4 Fuel Cells 310.5 Photovoltaic Cells 3.10.6 Passive Solar Heating Brae d Biogas Generation 3.10.8 Waste Conversion 3.10.9 Peat Ww WwW WwW WwW WY WwW WwW WwW Ww ww wwnr BPP HB ww au @ -10. 210% -10. 2205 = LO; .10. LO) 0s aL0% op al ood mL SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The energy technology profiling effort involves the development of a consistent set of assumptions in order to provide a truly comparable data base. Although at least several data sources are available for each technology, the data generally is quite variable (often based on incompatible assumptions) and, perhaps more important, does not apply to systems which could be utilized in Alaska in general and in the 13 villages of this study in particular. Data discrepancies for the so-called alternative energy technologies are also strongly influenced by the simple lack of experience in constructing and operating facilities utilizing these technologies. The technology profiles which follow are an attempt to provide a consistent, appropriate data base. apal9/hl tL SECTION 2 EXPLANATORY NOTES SECTION 2 EXPLANATORY NOTES For this preliminary submittal, explanatory notes are numbered consecutively. me Factors that cause differences in electrical generating plant capital costs per kW include: project scope regulatory requirements local cost variations plant size single versus multiple unit plants construction time o oo Oo 89 8 8 interest rates z. The availability factor is used as a measure of reliability and is the percentage of time over a specified period (typically one year) that the power plant was available to generate electricity. Credit for availability is not given if the plant is shut down for any reason. 3. Net Energy as used here is typically referred to as the "heat rate" in the case of electric generation and is expressed as the ratio of Btu in to kWh out in this case. For direct heat application cases, this ratio is Btu in to Btu out. apal9/m1 2a SECTION 3.1 STEAM - ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES Seplel Sey COAL DIRECT FIRED COAL FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Coal is ground to roughly less than 2 inch diameter chunks and mechanically loaded onto a boiler grate after which it is combusted in the boiler to heat incoming water to steam. The steam is then expanded in a turbine which drives a generator to produce electricity. Figure 3.1.1-1 shows a rudimentary steam power cycle. Current and future availability Steam plants account for the majority of electrical generation in the United States today. Although steam plants can accomodate a wide range of loads, U.S. economies of scale indicate that the cost per unit increases sharply in sizes below about 50 MWe. It should be noted that European coal-steam generation units are employed in the less than 10 MWe range. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/al Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity Seppe Spaligal COAL b) Quantity Typically 5-50 MWe; rarely as small as 1 MWe (1000 kWe). c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Coal fired steam plants are typically used for base power without respect to time of year. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up 65% availability factor b) Storage requirements Typical storage is sufficient supply for 90 days of operation. For village areas, up to 9 months worth of coal storage may be required to guarantee continuous supply irrespective of weather. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency up to 33% 4) Net energy 9,500 - 17,500 Btu/kWh apa24/a2 Senedoe COAL (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/a3 Capital 0 $860/kW (Bristol Bay 4000 kW, 1979 $ x 1.13) 0 $1350/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW) Assembly and installation ° $860/kW (Bristol Bay 4000 kW, 1979 $ x 1.15) ° $770/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW) Operation ° $450,000/year (Kotzebue 2500 kW and 5000 kW) ° Fuel cost for $65/ton, 6800 Btu/1lb, and 17,500 Btu/kWh works out to 8.4¢/kWh (Kotzebue using Chicago Creek coal). Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (Bristol Bay maintenance) ° 2.5% of investment per year (Kotzebue maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement @ 7% for 20 years). Economies of scale Economies of scale favor larger scale plants, particularly with respect to coal handling facilities. (Upcoming plants in the lower 48 are typically of 500 MWe size.) Economies of operator requirements also favor large plants. 3.4;1=3 3.1.1 COAL (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/a4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Coal plants require space for storage of fuel. Cooling water is not required for Alaska conditions as air condensers can be used. If the plant is sited at the mine, handling and storage requirements are lessened; storage of a month's fuel is adequate. Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) Non-renewable Typical Alaskan coal ranges from 6500 to 8000 Btu per pound. Construction and operating employment by skill Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel Environmental residuals ° Solid wastes: include slag, bottom ash, scrubber sludge. ° Gaseous wastes: NO, , SO, ° Current environmental requlations regarding sulfur dioxide emissions from conventional coal-steam plants generally require abatement processes which significantly increase the cost of such plants. 321.054 5) QO on oe mH Health or safety aspects Coal fired plants emit the following, as yet unregulated, atmospheric pollutants: toxic and carcinogenic trace elements, radionuclides, and organic and metal-organic compounds. Considerations include impact of transport and storage of fuel, risk of spontaneous combustion, and coal pile run off. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/a5 Cost per million BTU or kWh ° 20.3¢/kWh (Kotzebue 2500 kW busbar cost in 1984) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or -kWh 0 For coal at 6800 Btu per pound and plant at 17,500 Btu/kwh, 2.6 pounds of coal are needed per kWh. NO emissions are about 0.15 Ibs/million Btu. SO. emissions are about 0.067 lbs/million Btu. Particulate emissions are about 0.006 Ibs/million Btu o oo 2 Solid wastes are about 10% of fuel burned. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability In general, the conventional boiler-fired steam turbine system is the most economic and technologically developed system available to the power industry. Operational economics require a minimum plant size of 5 MWe, however. Lead time is significantly longer that for diesel or gas turbine installation. 3.1.1-5 STEAM HEADER ct EXHAUST OUT ee ee fe a oe WOOD ORs BOILER GENERATOR CONDENSER CONDENSATE DIAGRAM OF RUDIMENTARY STEAM POWER PLANT FIGURE 3.1.1 -L 4.2.2 WOOD DIRECT FIRED WOOD FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Wood can be directly fired in traveling grate or stoker type steam boilers to provide steam for a conventional steam turbine cycle. The two major sources of wood fuel are’ forest residues and wood wastes from industrial operations. Figure 3.1.2-1 shows a wood-steam plant flow diagram. Current and future availability Existing commercial systems are roughly in the 1-50 MWe range. Economics of small scale plants are generally prohibitive because of the economics of operation and maintenance requirements for full time, highly skilled labor. Numerous U.S. manufacturers do produce wood fired boilers suitable for generating electricity in the 250-1000 kWe range. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/b1 Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity Si Leend 2) 3) 4) apa24/b2 WOOD b) Quantity Plant sizes vary from 0.5 to 50 MWe, although most economies of operation suggest a minimum size plant of 3-5 MWe. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Future supplies can be adversely impacted by: economic competition, distance of supplies, and needs for sustained forest yield levels. Reliability a) . Need for back-up Availability factor. b) Storage requirements As for a coal plant, ninety days of fuel is typically stored; up to 9 months storage is required if climate only permits a few months of harvesting and transportation. Thermodynamic efficiency up to 21% Net energy 16,000 - 30,000 Btu/kWh Sod ene Sele2 (C) Costs (1980 $) a) 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/b3 Capital 0 $1220/kW (Kake 1500 kW) 0 $2200/kW (Angoon 400 kW) Assembly and installation 0 $1220/kW (Kake 1500 kW) ° $2200/kW (Angoon 400 kW) Operation ° $450,000/year (Kake 1500 kW) + 10% of fuel costs. ° $350,000/year (Angoon 400 kW) Maintenance and replacement ° 2.5% of investment per year (Kake 1500 maintenance) oO $90,000/year (Kake 1500 kW maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Economies of scale favor plants in the 15-50 MWe range based on fuel handling facilities and operator requirements. 3.1.2-3 WOOD WOOD (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1), Siting - directional aspect, land, height Wood storage area is the major land use. Air condensing can eliminate cooling water requirements. 2) Resource needs a) Renewable 8,000 Btu/1b dry; 4,500 Btu/1lb in typical wet conditions. This translates as at least 2 dry pounds per kWh generated. The mass of wood required for a 500 kWe plant is on the order of 6x10® pounds of dry wood per year. b) Non-renewable N/A 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel 4) Environmental residuals ° Solids: Ash, particulates ° Air: SO,, NO, ° Impacts of harvesting apa24/b4 3.1254 5) wooD Health or safety aspects Considerations include impact of transport and storage of fuel, risk of spontaneous combustion, and wood pile run off. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/b5 Cost per million BTU or kWh ° 8.1¢/kWh (California 30 MWe levelized busbar cost) ° 4.7¢/kWh (Literature 50 MWe levelized busbar cost) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Per (D)2) above, at least two pounds of dry wood are required per kWh; three to four pounds/kWh is more probable. NO, emissions are about 0.25-1.18 lbs/million Btu SO. emissions are about 0.07-0.18 lbs/million Btu Particulate emissions are about 0.02 lbs/million Btu ooo °o Residual ash from wood firing is not classified as a hazardous waste; firing wood waste actually decreases the amount of solid waste. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Although dry wood (at about 8000 Btu/pound) has about the same potential heat content as much of Alaska's coal, most wood is sufficiently moist to reduce this heat value by 40 to 50 percent. In addition to the moisture content, the relative volume to weight ratio of wood is disadvantageous as compared Solero apa24/b6 3.1.2 WOOD to coal, with consequent increased material handling requirements. Also, as compared to coal, the fuel gathering and transportation processes result in the expenditure of significantly greater amounts of energy. Wood, a relatively clean burning fuel, is suitable for smaller steam power plants than is coal. As these smaller sized plants are more suitable to much of Alaska's power development needs, this source of energy cannot be overlooked. Salseeo STACK POLUTION CONTROL TURBINE RANSPOR FUEL CONVEY.) cronage | CONVEY BOILER POWER PREPARATION PIPING |GENERATOR WATER |coNDENSER TRASH ASH REMOVAL HANDLING COOLING FLUID WOOD FIRED STEAM POWER PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM FIGURE 3.1.2-1 S23 Sples GEOTHERMAL GEOTHERMAL - ELECTRIC (FLASHED STEAM) (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Geothermal electric generation in Alaska would be by the flashed steam or binary processes. The binary conversion technology is discussed generically in another profile; the flashed steam technology is profiled here as shown schematically in Figure 3.1.3-1. The flashed steam process applies to liquid dominated geothermal reservoirs such as those thought to exist in Alaska. Hot liquids are brought to the surface and partially converted to steam in flash vessels where the fluids undergo pressure reduction. The separated steam component is used to power a steam turbine-generator and spent ahd separated fluids are reinjected into the earth to minimize potential subsidence problems. Current and future availabiltiy Not currently in commercial practice in the United States, but over 140 MWe in operation in foreign countries. U.S. environmental restructions are much more severe, in general. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/cl Energy output Solis: 2) apa24/c2 Sele GEOTHERMAL a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity b) Quantity Economic plant sizes are in the range of 35-50 MWe. A pilot California plant is being constructed at 10 MWe size. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Geothermal electric plants are generally used for base (continuous) loads. Reliability a) Need for back-up 0 No back-up required with a proven resource, although standby wells are common. 0 70% availability factor b) Storage requirements 0 No special storage required; reservoir provides essentially unlimited storage. Baloo e Sis GEOTHERMAL 3) Thermodynamic efficiency 0 Up to 12% (10-12% typical) overall plant efficiency; turbine efficiency alone is around 22%. 4) Net energy 0 27,000 - 34,000 Btu/kWh (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital ° $1125/kW installed (California 50 MWe) 2) Assembly and installation 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 3) Operation 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 4) Maintenance and replacement 0 N/A - Available data is for 50 MWe plant. 5) Economies of scale Economies of scale are generally. advantageous over about 30 MWe and are increasingly disadvantageous below that size. apa24/c3 31373) Seles GEOTHERMAL (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/c4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Typically, 3-5 acres of land with geothermal resource is needed for each MWe; 90% of this area is open space between wells and plant facilities. Resource needs a) Renewable Assuming geothermal is considered a renewable resource the fluid would have typical characteristics of 340°F @ 115 psia. b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill] Highly skilled construction and operational personnel are required. Environmental residuals 0 Air: H,S is the major problem o Cooling water: a function of quality of water used Sale 3.4.3 GEOTHERMAL 5) Health or safety aspects Noise pollution can be a problem, with levels greater than 100 dB for well venting and related activities. Other considerations include disposal of spent fluids, HoS ("rotten egg" smell), and possible surface subsidence. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) Cost per million BTU or kWh 9.84¢/kWh levelized. busbar cost (California 50 MWe) 2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Solid wastes are a function of geothermal fluid composition and can be zero. 0 Environmental residuals for The Geysers (California dry steam) geothermal electric production are: = Water Bicarbonate: 0.06 pounds/million Btu NOY: 0.02 pounds/million Btu SO: 0.02 pounds/million Btu Solids: 0.13 pounds/million Btu Organics: 0.03 pounds/million Btu * Air CO,: 6.66 pounds/million Btu Ammonia: 0.11 pounds/million Btu Methane: 0.42 pounds/million Btu H,S: 0.41 pounds/million Btu 2 apa24/c5 3.1075 Sialic GEOTHERMAL 3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability ° Geothermal designs are nearly always site specific - technology is not necessarily transferrable. ° Requires a proven resource. 0 While small (<100 kW) organic cycle geothermal generation is a small scale possibility, the current state of the art for flashed steam plants indicates a minimum economic plant size of about 35 MW, far too big for village application. apa24/c6 §.1..3°6 GENERATOR TURBINE STEAM COOLING TOWER iT, MAKEUP WATER FLASH VESSEL BRINE DIRECT CONTACT BRINE CONDENSER REINJECTION PUMP CIRCULATING WATER PUMP BLOWDOWN PUMP CONDENSATE . PUMP TO REINJECTION WELLS FROM PRODUCTION WELLS GEOTHERMAL POWER PRODUCTION BY THE FLASHED STEAM PROCESS FIGURE 3.1.3-1 SECTION 3.2 PETROLEUM - ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES Sac eek DIESEL (A) General Description Ly 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the diesel engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to a high pressure. Fuel oi] is injected into the compressed air, which is at a temperature above the fuel ignition point, and the fuel burns, converting thermal energy to mechanical energy by driving a piston. Pistons drive a shaft which in turn drives the generator. Current and future availability Diesel engines driving electrical generators are one of the most efficient simple cycle converters of chemical energy (fuel) to electrical energy. Although the diesel cycle in theory will burn any combustible matter, the practical fact of the matter is that these engines burn only high grade liquid petroleum or gas, except for multi-thousand horsepower engines which can burn heated residual oi]. Diesel generating units are usually built as an integral whole and mounted on skids for installation at their place of use. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/dl Energy output Seon eal apa24/d2 b) DIESEL Quality - temperature, form In addition to electricity, diesel generators produce two kinds of capturable waste heat: from the cooling water and from the exhaust. The cooling water normally is in the 160-200°F range, but it can be 250°F or higher with slight engine modification. Engines today are usually run at the cooler temperatures because of design simplicity, simpler operating routines, and first cost economy. The exhaust heat in a diesel is of higher temperature and consequently more easily used than the cooling water heat, but higher initial costs and increased operating complexities are encountered when attempting to recover energy from the exhaust gases. Quantity Typically 30% of the fuel energy supplied to a diesel-electric set is converted to electricity, 30% is transferred to cooling water, 30% is exhausted as hot gas, and 10% is radiated directly from the engine block. Typical Alaska diesel installation range -from about 50 to 600 kWh Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Diesel units are typically base loaded ( not subject to dynamic variations). Ssi2cee. DIESEL 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up High reliability of low speed diesels is advantageous for rural Alaskan areas. Although most Alaskan installations are of higher speed ranges (>1800 rpm), proper installation and maintenance allow continuous loading. b) Storage requirements Tanks located nearby the power plant. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency ° typically 17-31% overall plant efficiency 4) Net energy 0 11,000 - 20,000 Btu/kWh (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) Capital ° $400/kW (AVEC) ° $230-460/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.15 for units up to 500 kW) 0 $416/kW (Bristol Bay, 60 kW, 1980 $) apa24/d3 3.2.1-3 2) 3) 4) 5) DIESEL Assembly and installation 0 $400/kW (AVEC) ° $200-600/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.15) ° $950/kW (Kake capital and installation) Operation ° 4-8% of investment per year (Bristol Bay operation) Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (Bristol Bay maintenance) ° $7.44/mWh (THREA records, maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Diesel electric units range from around 1 kWe to around 1 MWe. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) apa24/d4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height An 100 kWe unit is typically skid-mounted, weighs about 2 tons, is about 5 feet high, 3% feet wide, and 9 feet long. The unit requires foundation, enclosure, and provision for cooling and combustion air. S525 1-4 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/d5 DIESEL Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) Non-renewable No.2 diesel fuel is typically used for stationary 100 kW installations. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be done with supervised typical local labor and equipment. Operation requires an operator/mechanic. Environmental residuals The composition of the exhaust is a function of the air-fuel ratio and the hydrogen-carbon ratio of the fuel. Residuals include: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and traces of nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons. Health or safety aspects Fuel tanks require spill protection, often difficult in remote installations. Major consideration is potential impact from such spills. 3. 2.155 DIESEL (E) Summary and Critical Discussion a0) 2) 3) apa24/d6 Cost per million BTU or kWh (Fuel & lube oi] costs only) ° 10-11¢/kWh (Kotzebue and Bethel) 0 22-25¢/kWh (Small Villages) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh 0 From 0.07 to 0.12 gallons of fuel per kWh. oO Environmental residuals per million Btu: N/A. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Diesel units are typically stocked by several manufacturers and, as such, have relatively short lead times for use. While this technology is a widely used bush application, lack of qualified operators and availability of spare parts have posed problems in Alaska. 3.2156 DRAFT Seen S22 GAS TURBINE GAS TURBINE (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In simple cycle gas turbine plants (see Figure 3.2.2-1) incoming air is compressed and injected into. the combusion chamber along with the gas or vaporized liquid fuel. The combusted gas, at relatively high temperature and pressure, expands through and drives the turbine, which drives the generator and the air compressor. Fuel is typically natural gas or very high grade distillate oil. Current and future availability Gas turbine power plants are a proven, established technology, chiefly in peaking applications. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/el Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity and waste heat b) Quantity Waste (exhaust) heat is at about 800°F (typically) and amounts to 40 to 50% of the Btu value of fuel input. Smceeal DRAFT Sees GAS TURBINE (a) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Typically used for (daily) peaking loads because operating costs are high relative to fixed costs. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up Reliability of petroleum based fuel supply is an issue. Normally no back-up for peaking applications as peaking units have high reliability and low installation lead time. b) Storage requirements Natural gas is typically provided by pipeline. Distillate oil fuels require tank storage. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency 0 Simple cycle turbines have overall thermal efficiencies of about 28 percent 4) Net energy 0 9,000 - 22,000 Btu/kWh apa24/e2 a. 2.2"2 DRAFT Sere GAS TURBINE (C) Costs (1980 $) 1) zZ) 3) 4) 5) apa24/e3 Capital ° $330/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, 1977 $ times 1.39) ° $313/kW (Kotzebue 800 kW, 1978 $ times 1.27) ° $456/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, September 1980) Assembly and installation 0 $135/kW (800 kW manufacturer's estimate, 1977 $ times 1.39) ° $130/kW (Kotzebue 800 kW, 1978 $ times 1.27) Operation N/A Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of investment per year (maintenance) ° 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Units range in size from 30 kWe to over 100 MWe. Sade eas DRAFT 3.2.2 GAS TURBINE (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/e4 Siting - directional aspect, land, height A typical 180 kWe gas turbine weights around 900 pounds, is 3% feet long and wide, and about 3 feet high. The unit requires enclosure, fuel, and air supplies. Resource needs a) Renewable N/A b) | Non-renewable Natural gas is a near ideal fuel. Light distillate oils are also satisfactory. Corrosion is caused by fuels containing sulfur, vanadium, or other metals. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be performed with supervised typical local labor and equipment. An operator/mechanic is required. Environmental residuals ° Oil fired turbines: NO. SO,, particulates 0 Gas fired turbines: NOY. 0 Since gas turbines require clean burning fuels, most stack gas emissions are negligible except for NO, . Sine. 224 DRAFT 5) S202 GAS TURBINE Health or safety aspects Integration of gas turbine generating units in a community rarely causes any significant negative health or impacts Highest safety danger is potential of flammable and explosive accidents related to use of gas as fuel. - (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/e5 Cost per million BTU or kWh 0 -22¢/kWh (California about 50 MW) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Need 9-22 cubic feet of natural gas per kWh ° Environmental residuals per million Btu: N/A Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Gas turbines are a well established technology in the U.S. generating mix, accounting for about 10% of U.S. installed capacity. Their operation has been proven in much of Alaska, although time required for maintenance and parts acquisition tend to take longer than in the lower 48. In its simplest form, the gas turbine is compact and relatively light, does not require cooling water, runs unattended, and can be remotely controlled. In order to be most efficient, however, gas turbines should be run at or near full load. Sa eeen) FUEL IN COMBUSTION CHAMBER EXHAUST AIR IN COMPRESSOR GENERATOR SIMPLE OPEN CYCLE GAS TURBINE FIGURE 3.2.2-1 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION 3.3 LOW - BUT GASIFICATION (A) General Description 1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved So-called low-Btu gas (about 200 Btu/Scf) can be manufactured from coal and biomass in commercially available equipment However, the use of this gas for power generation is a very complex process, as depicted in Figure 3.3-1. 2) Current and future availability The prospect of gasification contributing to Alaska power in the next 10 years is remote for other than demonstration type plants. Existing commercial facilities are far too large for village applications. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Gas of about 200 Btu/scf. b) Quantity Depends on Btu rating of coal, with about 1.1 coal Btu required for each gas Btu. apa24/il 353) = 2) 3) 4) (C) Costs 1) apa24/i2 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Gasifiers are best operated on a continuous basis. Reliability a) Need for back-up Fossil power systems displaced by gasification would typically be used for back-up. b) Storage requirements Like coal-steam plants, a three month coal supply is typical. Extreme climates may require up to 9 months worth of storage. Thermodynamic efficiency ° around 90% (range is 65% to 95%) Net energy 1.09 Btu of coal in to 1.00 Btu of gas out (for raw gas); about 1.25:1 for treated gas. Capital N/A 323 $2 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION 2) Assembly and installation N/A 3) Operation N/A 4) Maintenance and replacement N/A 5) Economies of scale "Small" commercial units produce about 2 billion Btu per day. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height As for coal-steam plants, fuel storage is the major land requirement. Gasification at the mine can cut storage requirements to 30 days. A 1000 kW gasifier is reported to be about 60 feet high and 8-10 feet in diameter. apa24/i3 ace 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/i4 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION Resource needs a) Renewable Wood and other cellulosic biomass can be utilized. Other biomass includes: straw, almond shells, and peach pits, for example. b) Non-renewable Coal of virtually any. quality can be utilized. Construction and operating employment by skill Highly skilled construction and operating personnel are required. Environmental residuals ° Solids: ash, sulfur 0 Air: $0, and particulates Health or safety aspects The low Btu gas is highly flammable and contains high amounts of toxic carbon monoxide. 35:3) =4 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/i5 Cost per million BTU or kWh Lower 48 costs of a "small" commercial unit is $3.00 per million Btu per a manufacturer's estimate for 5 billion Btu per day. This cost should be multiplied by 2-3 for Alaska. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh ° Need about 1.1 Btu in fuel for each Btu of gas generated. 0 Environment residual figures are based on an ash agglomerating fluidized bed low-Btu gasification process: - Sul fur: 2.77 pounds/million Btu - NO: 0.02 pounds/million Btu ” SO,: 0.04 pounds/million Btu * Partiulates: 0.14 pounds/million Btu ” Co: 0.01 pounds/million Btu 7 Solids: 13. pounds/million Btu Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability While coal could be gasified in a so-called synthetic fuel plant, the state of the art and associated economics make it appear doubtful that a fuel facility would be constructed solely for the purpose of providing fuel for limited electrical generation. Suitable low-Btu gasifiers are air blown units of the fixed bed type operating at atmospheric pressure. These units are 3.3 49 apa24/i6 SECTION 3.3 LOW - BTU GASIFICATION "small": daily production is less than 2 billion Btu of hot, raw gas. Low-Btu gas is economically attractive only if Produced near its usage - nominally within a half mile. The cost of the gas in the lower 48 typically ranges from about $2.50 to $4.00 per million Btu under most conditions. Actual cost at a specific location is influenced by the price of coal (about half the cost), the load factor, the gas cleanup requirements for specific process use, and clean air requirements. It should be noted that the problems associated with burning large volumes of low-Btu gas in gas turbines are more difficult to solve than burning this gas in boilers because of size limits on turbine combustion chambers. Low - Btu gas can be burned’in "dual fuel" engines (90% gas, 10% diesel fuel), but the gas must be cleaned to remove particulates and tars. 35,316) I (5) GENERATOR a —_ ( ) —— —air So \___/ TURBINE EXHAUST — HS GAS Wp wv) TAR Hp ; ets ©) > — TAR COAL C) GASIFIER C) —» ASH FEEDWATER A — ee STEAM CLEAN FUEL GAS FROM COAL FOR POWER GENERATION FIGURE 3.3-1 SECTION 3.4 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS 3.4 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) (A) General Description 1) 2) apa24/ql Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The thermodynamic process involved stems from the sun, the primary energy source which produces the wind. This wind energy cannot be stored, is intermittent, somewhat unpredic- table and thereby undependable. The process relies on wind flow over an air foil assembly to create differential pressures along the air foil. This differential pressure results in rotation of the assembly around a fixed axis to which it is attached. Power from the wind is transmitted through the connection shaft and accompanying gear box to an electrical generator. (See Figure 3.4-1). Three types of generators are presently in use with wind energy systems. These are the DC generator, the AC induction generator and the AC synchronous generator. Of the three types the AC induction generator is the most widely used: an induction generator is not a stand-alone generator and must be connected to an external power system of relatively constant frequency and voltage to operate properly. Current and future availability Availability of the wind at useful velocities require long- term records to estimate the potential energy. Lesser records provide less credible estimates. 3.4-1 Availability of smal] size units in the 1.5 kW to 20 kW range is good. Large units in the 100-200 kW range are currently undergoing tests in both the government and private sector and should be available in the near future. Demonstrations of multi-megawatt sizes are in process. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) Energy output a) b) apa24/q2 Quality - temperature, form Electricity Quantity Annual kWh output for following machine sizes for average annual wind speed of 12 mph. 1.5 kW 3,120 kWh 18 kW 20,000 kWh 45 kW 50,000 kWH See Figure 3.4-2 for energy output at other wind speeds for an 18 kW machine. Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Output of WECS dependent on seasonal wind flow patterns. 3.4=2 2) Reliability a) b) Need for back-up In general, except for the small single dwelling wind systems, wind power generation is not a stand alone system. Diesel or another form of back-up generation must be provided for days the wind does not blow with sufficient velocity to produce energy from the WECS. Storage requirements Battery storage or possibly pumped hydro can be used for storage, both of which constitute considerable expense. Today the consensus is that the most cost effective way to use wind power is on a utility grid to displace fuel only when the wind blows and not try to. store the wind energy. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency N/A 4) Net energy N/A apa24/q3 3.4-3 (C) Costs (1980$) 1) 2) 3) 4) apa24/q4 Capital Machine size Cost $/kW 1.5 kW $ 6,095! $4060 18 kW 16,500 920 45 kW 33,000 730 Assembly and installation 1.5 kW - $ 7,500 18 kW - $ 9,500 45 kW - $18,300 Operation 1.5 kW - N/A 18 kW - N/A 45 kW - N/A Maintenance and replacement Unit Size Maintenance Replacement? 1.5 kW $2100 $1280 18 kW $2700 $2450 45 kW $3300 $4840 1 Includes cost of conversion equipment. 2 Depreciation, 20 years at 7% 3.4-4 Total/Yr. $3280 $5150 $8140 WECS 5) 1) 2) 3) apa24/q5 Economies of scale Economies of scale favor installation of large centralized wind generators over the small individually owned wind generators. Units sizes are, of course, restricted by village power requirements and, because of electrical system stability limitations, the total installed WECS instantaneous output should not exceed 25 percent of the total system load. Siting - directional aspect, land, height Siting required the selection of a location with an average annual wind speed in excess of 10 mph. Height of the mounting tower will vary depending on location and machine size, but will generally exceed 30 feet in height. Resource needs a) Renewable Average annual wind speed in excess of 10 mph. b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Certain aspects of construction (i.e. foundation, tower installation) could be performed by unskilled labor under close supervision. An operator would not be required as the WECS is designed to operate unattended. 3.4°5 4) 5) Environmental residuals Little environmental impact is anticipated when operating only a few machines within a small geographic area. Health or safety aspects Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance and land use issues must be addressed prior to installation of a utility owned on operated WECS. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/q6 Cost per million BTU or kWh The 1980 cost per kWh for the various system sizes jis as follows. 1.5 kW - $1.05/kWh 18 kW - $0.25/kWh 45 kW - $0.16/kWh See Figure 3.4-3, WECS versus Diesel Generation, to determine the breakeven diesel fuel cost at which an 18 kW WECS becomes economically competitive with diesel generation. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh N/A Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability 324-6 apa24/q7 Wind power suffers from one obvious disadvantage; The intermittent and fluctuating nature of wind. A small utility must install sufficient primary generation at additional costs to meet demands on those days when the wind does not blow with sufficient velocity to produce rated output of the WECS Besides the fickleness of local wind conditions, technical, environmental, and social problems must. be addressed. Technical and social barriers that must be dealt with include power system stability; voltage transients, harmonics; fault-interruption capability; effects on communications and TV transmissions, public safety; legal liabilities and insurance, and land use issues. S74o7, HIGH SPEED SHAFT BRAKE+ INDUCTION GENERATOR SECONDARY PITCH ACTUATOR CRANK SECONDARY PITCH CONT ACTUATOR PILLOW BLOCK BEARING AFT PRIMARY PITCH BEARING CONT ACTUATOR COWLING THRUST BEARING STRONGBACK VERTICAL SHAFT INBOARD PROFILE WIND TURBINE GENERATOR FIGURE 3.4-1 70,000 60,000 = 50,000 40,000 a 30,000 . ANNUAL KILOWATT HOUR PRODUCTION 20,000 10,000 ° 5 10 15 20 25 AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY ,MPH ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION vs AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY WIND POWER PLANT WITH 18 KW INDUCTION GENERATOR FIGURE 3.4-2 FUEL COST ONLY IN $/KWH 1.00 ° N a 0.50 60% ($0.43/KWH ) 80% ($0.32/KWH) BREAKE' VEN FUEL COSTS (TYPICAL) WECS UTILIZATION FACTOR (1) 100 %($ 0.26/KWH) 0.25 oO 1 2 . 3 DIESEL FUEL COST IN $/GALLON (1) UTILIZATION FACTOR IS DEFINED AS THE PERCENTAGE OF AVAILABLE ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCED BY THE WECS WHICH IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED. 4 WECS VS DIESEL GENERATION 18 KW INDUCTION GENERATION FIGURE 3.4-3 DIESEL GENERATION AT 8BKWH/GAL DIESEL GENERATION AT 12 KWH/GAL. SECTION 3.5 HEATING TECHNOLOGIES 3255 Sebel WASTE HEAT DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY (A) General Description 1) 2) apa24/sl Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The present use of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oi1) in Alaska (as elsewhere) to produce more useful forms of energy (heat, electricity, motive power) is less than 100 percent efficient. For example, if a machine burns a certain quantity of fossil fuel and produces useful output (shaft horsepower, electrical energy, steam, hot water or air for space heating) equivalent to 30% of the fuel burned, the energy represented by the remaining 70% of the fuel will appear as unused or "waste" heat. Such heat most often appears as hot exhaust gas, tepid to warm water (65°F-180°F), hot air from cooling radiators, or direct radiation from the machine in question such as a furnace, steam power plant, diesel engine, etc. Diesel waste heat can be recovered from engine cooling water and exhaust (as shown in Figure 3.5.1-1), or either source separately. The waste heat is typically transferred to a water-glycol circulating system in Alaskan applications. The heated circulating fluid can be used for space, water, or process heating. Current and future availability Recovery of diesel waste heat in Alaska is growing as a result of sharp increases in diesel fuel costs. Se LL Sse WASTE HEAT Recovery of jacket water heat only is most common in Alaska and is shown in Figure 3.5.1-2. Diesel waste heat availability is directly releted to the location and operating cycles of the engine installation (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/s2 Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Cooling water is typically 160-200°F. Exhaust heat varies with engine speed and load and ranges from about 300-600°F. b) Quantity Diesel engines generally produce about 30% shaft power which can be converted to electricity, 30% cooling water heat, 30% exhaust heat, and 10% radiation. All of the cooling water heat, about half of the exhaust heat, and all of the radiation can be usefully captured if space heat needs are in economic proximity. Figure 3.5.1-3 shows the available waste heat for generators of different capacities at various load levels while Table 3.5.1-1 indicates the annual recoverable waste heat for various diesel unit sizes and generating efficiencies (ie. kWh/gal and heat rates in Btu/kWh) and assumes that one-third of the fuel heat is recoverable. S10soe HABLESSO sa =a SO: WASTE WASTE HEAT AVAILABILITY? HEAT 10° Btu/year Available at Indicated Generating Efficiency 14 kWh/gal 12 kWh/gal kW kWh/year (9,900 Btu/kWh) (11,500 Btu/kWh) 50 175,200 575.6 671.6 75 262,800 863.4 1007.4 100 350,400 TTo2 1343.2 200 700,800 2302.4 2686.4 1 2) apa24/s3 Assumes 138,000 Btu/gal fuel, 0.40 load factor 10 kWh/gal 13,800 Btu/kWh) 805.9 1208.9 1611.8 3223.6 G) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual 8 kWh/gal (17,250 Btu/kWh) 1007.4 T5111 2014.8 4029.6 Waste heat is available whenever the electrical generation source it is dependant upon is in operation. Reliability a) Need for back-up Heat recovery systems require a back-up heat source in case of system shutdown. This is typically provided by boilers and heaters than exist prior to installation of the recovery system and consequently idled by it. Seo 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT b) Storage requirements Waste heat is generally utilitzed as it is recovered; storage of heat is currently atypical. | 3) Thermodynamic efficiency N/A 4) Net energy N/A «G); | |Costs 1) Capital As an example of the potential savings associated with waste heat recovery, consider the following. A power plant with a 100 kW peak load, 40% load factor and 8 kWh/gallon fuel rate would require 43,800 gallons of fuel per year. If one-third of the waste heat was recovered, it would reduce oi] requirements for heating by 14,600 gallons, per year. With fuel oil prices at a $1.80 per gallon this represents a potential savings of $26,280 per year. Because some of the heat is produced in the summer when it is not needed, it is not practical to use all of it, but this does give the reader a feel for the scale of waste heat production at such plants. Waste heat utilization, however, is not free, even though there may not actually be a direct charge for the heat. The apa24/s4 3,5.1-4 2) apa24/s5 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT equipment for utilizing this heat requires a sizeable capital investment and is feasible only when the cost for associated equipment is less than the cost of the fuel saved. The cost of heat exchangers, waste heat boilers and associated equipment depends on the generator installed at the location. These costs can be be determined by contacting the generator's manufacturer and obtaining the price of the specific models of waste heat recovery equipment specifically designed for that generator. Using some typical prices as a guideline, we can estimate that the component price for a heat recovery silencer will range from $3700 for a 55 kW engine-generator set to $16,000 for an 850 kW engine-generator. These units would allow capture of waste heat equivalent to approximately one sixth of the fuel supplied to the engine-generator. To these prices must be added the cost of installation and auxiliary equipment. A heat exchanger for the jacket water system will range from $900 for the 55 kW engine-generator set to $3800 for the 950 kW engine-generator set. These theoretically can capture waste heat equivalent to approximately one third the fuel supplied to the engine-generator. Assembly and installation For a complete installation, including labor and auxiliary devices, the above prices should be multiplied by a factor of 3 or 4. 329.155 3) 4) 5) 3.5.2 WASTE HEAT Operation N/A Maintenance and replacement ° 2% of capital investment per year (maintenance) 0 9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years) Economies of scale Smal] systems may be as beneficial economically as very large systems because required equipment is less sophisticated and consequently less costly. Cost of redundancy requirements is typically lower (per unit recovered) in smaller systems, also. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) apa24/s6 Siting - directional aspect, land, height Should be immediately adjacent to diesel engine (or other heat source). Resource needs a) Renewable Waste heat, according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, is a continually increasing resource (a "self-renewing" resource). 3.5:2°6 3) 4) 5) 3.5.1. WASTE HEAT b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Jacket water heat recovery systems are installable and operable by local personnel qualified for similar work with diesel generators. Environmental residuals Environmental residuals are only those associated with the means of electrical generation employed. Health or safety aspects No negative health or safety aspects except those associated with the heat source. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) apa24/s7 Cost per million BTU or kWh Material and Construction Cost for a "typical" 100 kW diesel unit jacket water heat exchanger and 100 feet of Arctic piping. Materials Jacket Water Heat Exchanger and Valves $ 3,500 Piping and Miscellaneous (within powerhouse) 6,000 Modifications to Heated Building 1,500 Subtotal $11,000 3.5.17 2) 3) apa24/s8 So 0n2 WASTE HEAT Arctic Pipe @ $30/ft $ 3,000 Support System for Pipes @ $10/ft 1,000 Subtotal $ 4,000 Total Materials $15,000 Labor Installation of Heat Exchanger and Piping (within powerhouse) $22,000 Installation of Arctic Pipe and Supports ; 8,000 Total Labor $30,000 TOTAL COST $45,000 Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh These items are whatever is attributable to the heat source technology. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Waste heat capture, while not a fuel for generation, can provide savings in overall fuel use. Waste heat utilization, however, is not free, even though there may not actually be a direct charge for the heat. The equipment for utilizing this heat requires a sizeable capital investment and is feasible only when the cost for associated equipment is less than the cost of the fuel saved. Sjosss) apa24/s9 3, Sud WASTE HEAT For economic reasons it is seldom justifiable to install waste exhaust heat recovery equipment on the small diesel generator sizes found in the Alaskan bush. Bush village power plant generators should be equipped with cooling water heat exchangers. The heat recovered from the cooling water can then be piped to replace or supplement heating fuel in schools, community centers, city halls, water systems and sewer systems where economic proximity exists. In smaller communities where it is practical, consideration should be given to moving the power plant nearer other public facilities so that waste heat can be used to advantage. By doing this, we could conservatively expect to reduce heating oil requirements by an amount equal to one third to one fourth of the oi] consumed by the power plant. Cooling water can be used in two ways: 1) the hot coolant from the engine or industrial process can be piped directly to radiators in the space to be heated, or to other process which can use the heat; or 2) the hot coolant can, via a heat exchanger, heat a medium, probably water, which will be used for space heating or other processes. Most engine manufacturers are very adamant in the "NO" on No. 1. A leaking radiator can destroy the engine, whereas in the second system the engine will be unaffected. Engine water must be soft and free of impurities that could reduce the heat transfer in the engine. This can be controlled in a small system using the same water over and over, but is much more difficult in a system where engine water is circulated through the heating system. 329.1°9 apa24/s10 Scat WASTE HEAT No. 2 causes an additional inefficiency because heat exchangers lose up to about 20 degrees while transferring the heat from the heat producing loop to the heat using loop. This is, however, the most common method employed when utilizing the waste heat from the engine cooling water. The critical point of any effort to evaluate waste heat recovery -is that point at which the equivalent annual cost of recovering heat will be less than the cost of generating heat by other means. Low grade waste heat cannot be transported very far for its actual resale value. The price of delivered timely heat to a user at his radiators, water system, etc., must be less than his heating fuel cost. Figure 3.5.1-4 can be used to provide the economic distance over which a given quantity of waste heat may be transported. The following assumptions were used in construction of the graph in Figure 3.5.1-4: Diesel fuel cost of $1.80/gallon, no escalation Heat content of 138,000 Btu/gallon of diesel Fuel oil stove efficiency at 60% an0dlUcwWmhlUwD Powerhouse and heating building installation and modification costs of $33,000 e. Arctic pipe installed at cost of $120/foot Before the economics of utilizing waste heat can be considered, it must be determined that the available waste heat is sufficient to meet the heating demand under consideration during the various conditions of heating and electrical load. This can 3.5.1-10 35a: WASTE HEAT be determined by the use of the Figures and Tables found in this profile and used in the manner illustrated by the following example. Example It is desired to heat a village community hall located near Bethel using jacket water from a 75 kW diesel engine-generator set. Dimensions of the hall are 40'x40'x10'. The hall is located 100 feet from the powerplant. Coldest air temperature is estimated at -40°F, lowest expected generator loading is 40% of full load, 8 kWh/gal efficiency. 1. Determine cubic feet of building. 40'x40'x10' = 16,000 cubic feet. z Use Figure 3.5.1-5 to determine required Btu per hour heating requirements. For a 16,000 Cu.Ft. building at -40°F this equates to approximately 90,000 Btu/hr. 3. Using the generator size and the 40% load curve in Figure 3.5.1-3, read the available Btu/hr from the engine. In this case 175,000 Btu/hr is available engine waste heat. 4. Comparison of the results obtained in Steps 2 and 3 indicate that there is sufficient waste heat available (175,000 Btu/hr available vs 90,000 required) to meet demand at minimum electrical power generation. apa24/sl1l §.9..i°11 apa24/s12 3255 1 WASTE HEAT 5s Comparison of Tables 3.5.1-1 and 3.5.1-2 (following text) indicates that (from Table 3.5.1-1) 1511.1 x 10® Btu/year are available from the engine while (from Table 3.5.1-2) 175) x) 10® |x Bee or 280 x 10® Btu are required annually for heating. Clearly sufficient Btu of waste heat is available for heating of the community hall 6. From Figure 3.5.1-4, it is now possible to determine the maximum economic distance the required heat can be transferred for payback periods of 5 and 10 years and interest rates of 5%, 10% and 15%. For instance, the maximum economic distance to transport 280 x 10© Btu with a payback period of 10 years at 5% interest is 95 feet. Finding that the above system appears feasible does not mean that materials should be purchased and construction started. The system must still be engineered for the particular location and situation. The previous simplified analysis has merely justified a more detailed study be performed to accurately determine the feasibility and costs associated with the project. SOs ee 3.5.1 WASTE HEAT TABLE 3.5.1-2 DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL HEAT LOAD Average *Average Annual Degree Temperature Heat Load Location Days (°F) (Btu_x_ 10°) Anchorage 10,814 35.24 147.93 Barrow 20,174 9.73 256.4 Bethel 13,196 28.85 175.0 Cordova 9,764 38.25 135.1 Fairbanks 14,279 25.88 187.7 Juneau 9,075 40.14 127.0 King Salmon 11, 343 33.92 153.5 Kotzebue 16,105 20.88 209.0 Nome 14,171 26.18 186.4 *Based on a "standard" 10,000 ft.* building, 35' x 35' x 8. Walls of 2" x 4" construction on 16" centers, with R-11 insulation, U factor .07. Roof and floors 2' x 8" or 2" x 12" on 16" centers, unheated attic, 6 inches of insulation, U factor .07. Two 24" x 40" windows, 1% air changes per hour. apa24/s13 3.8,1°13 TO REMOTE FROM REMOTE HEAT LOOP (HEAT LOOP EXHAUST GAS EXPANSION THERMOS DOAYP—-OPwD a-D =orn | THERMOSTATIC PUMP CONTACTOR JACKET WATER & EXHAUST WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FIGURE 3.5.1-1 MN SPACE HEAT PUMP THERMOSTATIC VALVE _— EXCHANGER DOAP—-OPwD ae ENGINE ! =i v J — — — — — THERMOSTATIC SWITCH JACKET WATER WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM FIGURE 3.5.1-2 BTU/HR. x 10> AVAILABLE FROM WASTE HEAT 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 1.0 ° 50 100 150 200 250 300 GENERATOR CAPACITY (KW) AVAILABLE WASTE HEAT VS GENERATOR CAPACITY (17,250 BTU/KWH EFFICIENCY FULL LOAD) FIGURE 3.5.1-3 DISTANCE ECONOMIC MAXIMUM 400 5 YEAR PAYBACK $ 1.80 /GALLON FUEL COSTS 300 200 100 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 HEATING LoaD BTus x106") 400 IO YEAR PAYBACK $1.80/GALLON FUEL COSTS 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 46 400 500 HEATING LOAD BTUS x10® ECONOMIC DISTANCE VS HEAT LOAD FIGURE 3.5.1-4 BUILDING VOLUME (FT?) 100,000; 50,000 10,000 5,000 1,0 ELE 3 8 8 & 8660 2 3 3 5 é o So © oa g sg 8 BTU/HR HEATING REQUIREMENTS BUILDING VOLUME VS BTU/HR HEATING REQUIRE MENTS FIGURE 3.5.1-5 SECTION 3.6 BINARY 3.6 BINARY 3.6 BINARY CYCLE FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved The binary conversion process requires only heat quantity (heat energy/unit time) and quality temperature to provide power. A heated primary fluid of insufficient quality for direct use in electrical production passes through a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a working fluid. The working fluid has a lower boiling point than water and is.vaporized in the heat exchanger. The vaporized working fluid then expands through a turbine, or in a cylinder-piston arrangement, is condensed, and returns to the heat exchanger. The primary fluid is returned to its heat source following heat exchange. Figure 3.6-1 shows a generalized binary cycle. Current and future availability Current commercial availability is restricted to unit sizes in excess of village power requirements as determined in this study. Binary cycle generation equipment in unit sizes suitable for village applications in not expected to be available until the late 1980's. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/v1 Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Electricity 3.6-1 2) 3) 4) apa24/v2 3.6 BINARY b) Quantity A function of unit size. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Power can be generated whenever the heat source is available. Reliability a) Need for back-up b) When powered by waste heat, binary cycles are typically used for peaking. If used for base loads, the binary- system would typically be backed up by the fossil system it displaces. Storage requirements Fuel storage requirements are those of the heat source technology. Thermodynamic efficiency oO around 10% to a reported 27% ° the organic Rankine diesel or Homing binary cycle can increase plant output power by 15% Net energy 3-10 units in to 1 unit out S652 3.6 BINARY (C) Costs 1) Capital N/A 2) Assembly and installation N/A 3) Operation N/A 4) Maintenance and replacement N/A 5) Economies of scale Commercially utilized systems range from 1 to about 100 kWe. (D) Special Reuudrenonte and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height Units are relatively small and light and require only an enclosure and connection to the (nearby) heat source. apa24/v3 3.6-3 2) 3) 4) 5) apa24/v4 346 BINARY Resource needs a) Renewable Binary cycles per se have no resource needs as heat is provided from some other resource technology profiled herein. Hence, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and radiation, as well as any combustion material, such as wood or coal are potential fuels. b) Non-renewable N/A Construction and operating employment by skill Initial village installations would involve factory personnel for most work. Operation can be relatively unattended, although a qualified mechanic should be available. Environmental residuals Closed binary cycles in and of themselves cause no environmental residuals; residuals are a result of the heat source. Seal failures would cause leakage of the binary working fluid. Health or safety aspects Seal failures cause release of gases which are generally toxic and/or flammable. 3.6-4 3.6 BINARY (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) apa24/v5 Cost per million BTU or kWh ° 10.0¢/kWh (California, 10-50 MWe) 0 3-5 year investment payoffs have been reported for diesel bottoming cycles. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million BTU or kWh No resources are required other than those required for the source of heat (typically diesel for engine-generators) nor are any additional environmental residuals created. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability There are both domestic and foreign suppliers of appropriate size binary cycle systems and product development is being vigorously pursued. Binary cycles for village electrical application could involve so-called diesel "bottoming" - use of exhaust gas heat. Both Rankine and Stirling cycle equipment in the less than 100 kWe range are available and at least two manufacturers are seeking funding and assistance for an Alaska demonstration. Binary bottoming cycle equipment is in operation on the Trans- Alaska Pipeline utilizing waste heat to produce electricity. 3.6-5 apa24/v6 350 BINARY Specific manufacutrers' data gathering for appropriate equipment is still in process at the time of submittal of this preliminary technology profile. An attractive Alaska demonstration concept involves firing of local coal for low pressure direct heating of the binary fluid for electrical production, avoiding the need for steam fired electricity with its inherent operational complexities and costs. 3.6-6 PUMP PRIMARY FLUID WORKING GENERATOR FLUID HOT FLUID SUPPLY HEAT EXCHANGER CONDENSER COOLING FLUID GENERALIZED BINARY CYCLE FIGURE 3.6-1 SECTION 3.7 SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN TRANSMISSION 3.7 SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN (SWGR) TRANSMISSION (A) 1) apa24/wl General Description Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved A Single Wire Ground Return system (SWGR) can best be described as single-phase, single wire transmission system using the earth as a return circuit. SWGR is not a new technology as thousands of miles of line have been in successful operation for more than thirty years - mostly outside the United States j.e., India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and in areas of the USA during W.W. II. The SWGR lines suggested here are point-to-point connections with a carefully established grounding system at each end point. (See Figure 3.7-1). The design of these end point grounding systems would comply with presently accepted standards for limiting potential ground gradients and would be similar in design to a grounding system found in today's high voltage substation. The substation established at each end would then connect to the conventional multi-grounded distribution system as commonly used today throughout Alaska and the other 49 states. A presently envisioned SWGR system would be used to connect several small outlying villages within a given geographical area to a centrally located, larger, more efficient, generation facility thereby eliminating the need for each small village to operate their own generating facility. S305 2) Lack of a road system, permafrost, and limited or no accom- modations for construction crews throughout most of the region being studied establish some limitations that must be dealt with to find appropriate solutions. Conventional construction techni- ques and line designs might be used - but at premium costs. A design believed most adaptable to these limitations is based on the use of an A-frame structure shown in the following sketch labeled Figure 3.7-2. The arrangement is well suited to the SWGR design. The single wire configuration can be designed for minimum cost by utilizing high-strength conductors that require a minimum number of structures and still retain the standards for high reliability. Current and future availability A demonstration project to supply Bethel central station electricity to the village of Napakiak, a distance of 8.5 miles is presently in operation. This project has provided a demonstration of the technical and cost feasibility of the SWGR system. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) apa24/w2 Energy output Single Phase Electrical Power Transmission. Ss. /ae 2) apa24/w3 a) Quality - temperature, form The electrical characteristics for various size conductors at 60 HZ and 25 HZ are shown in Table 3.7-1 (following text). Three phase equipment can be successfully operated from this system by the use of rotary phase converters. b) Quantity Transmission line transfer capacity is as shown on Table 3.7-2. Three phase transmission at 60 HZ and SWGR transmission at 60 HZ and SWGR transmission at 60 HZ and 25 HZ are included to allow comparisons. Use of the lower 25 HZ operating frequency increases the allowable transmission distance for a specified line loading and/or voltage drop. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual N/A Reliability a) Need for back-up Transmission line reliability generally exceeds 95 percent. Diesel generators, which are currently installed in most villages, would provide backup should the transmission line be temporarily out-of-service. 3.7-3 3) 4) apa24/w4 b) Storage requirements N/A Thermodynamic efficiency The thermodynamic efficiency within a give geographical area could be improved through the introduction of SWGR transmission lines. The improvement in efficiency would result from the increased use of larger more efficient diesel engines at a centralized generating facility versus village generation using smaller less efficient engines. Net energy Line loss should not exceed 3-5% of gross energy transfer See Table 3.7-2 for line transfer capacity. Safco (C) Costs (1980 $) Single Wire Ground Return up to 40 kV. 2 pole structure, 700 ft spans, (7.5 structures/mile) Structures (15) 30 ft treated poles @ 75.00 ea 7#8 Alumoweld 5280 ft @ $300/1000 ft (7.5) Insulators (40 kV Post) @ $75 ea (7.5) Angle iron braces (10'X4"X4"X4") @ $75 ea (7.5) Vibration Dampers @ $25 ea (2) Storm Guys (2 @ 70 ft, $300/1000 ft) (2) Anchors $ @ $50 ea (1) Anchor plate assembly @ $25.00 ea (8) Strain insulators @ $35 ea (7.5) Misc. Hardware @ $25/structure Subtotal Other Freight @ 1000 1b/structure X 30¢/1b Survey Clearing 25% mile @ $1000/1000 ft Equipment Rental (Power Auger, Line Tools etc.) Helicopter Rental 6 hr. © $400/hr 1125 1584 563 563 188 42 | 100 25 280 188 $4658 2250 1000 1320 1000 2400 (2) Linemen 120 hrs @ $50 hr. + $140/day subsistence for 6 days 6840 (1) Engineer 60 hrs @ $45/hr. + $100/day subsistence for 6 days Local labor 310 hrs @ $20/hr Engineering at 5% (rounded) Subtotal Total Use 1 Fob Anchorage apa24/w5 3. 7-5 3300 6200 1000 $25,310 $29,967 $30,000 1980 $/Mile (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) 2) 3) apa24/w6 Siting - directional aspect, land, height The gravity stabilized A-frame line design using long span construction (700') will provide excellent flexibility to adapt to the freezing - thawing cycles of the tundra and shallow lakes of the region. The structure has transverse stability from gravity alone and need not penetrate the earth (permafrost in this region) Longitudinal stability is obtained through the strength and normal tension of the line conductor. This allows for use of the shortest-height structure (approximately 30') to provide the ground clearances needed for safety. Additional longitudinal stability would be provided by fore and aft guying at suitable intervals. Resource needs Transmission of electrical energy generated from either renewable or non-renewable resources. Construction and operating employment by skill Construction can be performed by unskilled local labor supervised by a qualified lineman and engineer. 35720) 4) 5) Environmental residuals Right-of-way clearing in forested areas, minimum impact otherwise due to wintertime construction and minimum soil disturbance required during installation. Health or safety aspects The use of the earth as the return circuit as proposed herein would in no way create an operating system with lesser safety than those now accepted. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) apa24/w7 Cost per million BTU or kWh The relative cost per kWh for single village generation versus delivery of electrical energy to a village from a centralized power plant over a 10 mile long SWGR line is as shown: Village plants - 1.00 SWGR Line =| (0:67 Maximum economic distance for construction of a SWGR line to a village with a peak load of 100 kW is estimated at approximately 30 miles. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh. N/A Sela 3) apa24/w8 Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability The successful construction and operation of the SWGR transmission line between Bethel and Napakiak has proven the technical feasibility of the SWGR concept. Additional operation of the line should prove the reliability of the line design, enhance potential user confidence and encourage additional construction. Materials used in the construction of the line are, for the most part, standardized distribution and transmission line hardware. Materials are generally available from manufacturers within a reasonable time period. 3.7-8 apa24/w9 The line data have been calculated with Height above ground: Earth Resistivity: Ground Electrode Resistance: 32/29) Table 3.7-1 60 Hz IMPEDANCES AND SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCES R GMR(Ft) Z_ (ohm per mile) x (Ofim Diam. p= 100 p= 1000 (Meg Shm Conductor Size Per Mile) Cinch) Ohm-m Ohm-m Per Mile) 7#8 Alumoweld 2.354 .0116 2.449 + 2.449 + 244 . 385 j 1.504 j 1.643 266.8 MCM 335 s02T7, -445 + -445 + -229 ACSR . 642 j 1.428 j 1.567 397.5 MCM 1239 .0278 ~33 + 233) + 222 ACSR . 806 j 1.397 j 1.537 25 Hz IMPEDANCES AND SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCES R- GMR(Ft) Z_ (ohm per mile) K (ofim Diam. p= 100 p= 1000 (Meg°ohm Conductor Size Per Mile) Cinch) Ohm-m Ohm-m Per Mile) 7#8 Alumoweld 2.354 .0116 2.394 + 2.394 + - 586 ~ 385 j .649 j .707 * 266.8 MCM 35 OZ .390 + 390 + 549 ACSR - 642 j .617 j .675 397.5 MCM meso .0278 275) SE 2215 = 3533 ACSR . 806 j .604 j .663 the following assumptions: 30 feet 100 Ohm-m (swamp), 1000 Ohm-m (dry earth) 0 Ohms of each end TABLE 3.7-2 TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSFER CAPACITY MEGAWATT MILES FOR 5% VOLTAGE DROP @ .9 P.F. CONDUCTOR THREE PHASE SIZE 60 Hz CAWG) 34.5 kV 69 kV 138 kV 266.8 ACSR a 78 295 —— 397.5 ACSR 94 353 1359 556.5 ACSR 108 401 a535 SWGR 60 Hz 40 kV 66 kV : 80 kV 133 kV 7#8 Alumoweld 25 65 95 nek 266.8 ACSR 70 180 265 720 397.5 ACSR 75 200 290 800 556.5 ACSR 80 215 315 860 SWGR 25 Hz 40 kV 66 kV 80 kV PERS 7#8 Alumoweld 40 105 150 a 266.8 ACSR 110 300 440 1200 397.5 ACSR 135 360 540 1440 556.5 ACSR 150 410 600 1640 apa24/w10 3. 7-10 SWGR TRANSMISSION E GENERATION VILLAGE DISTRIBUTION i $F 25KV - 40KV MULTI - GROUNDED NEUTRAL I al SIMPLIFIED SWGR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FIGURE 3.7 <1 10" DIA. 10'x4"xX4"xX/4" ANGLE IRON 4.75" DIA. 30'-0" tt e7'-o" _| "A" FRAME STRUCTURE POST INSULATORS FIGURE 3.7-2 SECTION 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC PRECIPITATION & RUNOFF DRAFT WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR WATER CONDUIT GENERATOR HYDRAULIC TURBINE ‘ee Tanase TAILWATER HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAM FIGURE 3.8.1I-1 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC 5.B.12 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION (A) General Description * Ls APA/26/B Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved In the hydroelectric power development, flowing water is directed into a hydraulic turbine where the energy in the water is used to turn a shaft, which in turn drives a gener- ator. In their action, turbines involve a continuous trans- formation of the potential and/or kinetic energy of the water into usable mechanical energy at the shaft. Water stored at- rest at an elevation above the level of the turbihe (head) possesses potential energy; when flowing, the water possesses kinetic energy as a function of its velocity. The return of the used water to the higher elevation necessary for function- ing of the hydroelectric machinery is powered by the sun to complete the cycle - a direct natural process using solar energy. The ability to store water at a useful elevation makes this energy supply predictable and dependable. Current and future availability Hydroelectric developments in the United States, as of January 1978, totaled 59 million kilowatts, producing an estimated average annual output of 276 billion kilowatt hours according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Hydropower provides about 10% of Alaska's electric energy needs. Developments range in size from over a million kilowatts down to just a few kilowatts of installed capacity. Hydropower is a time proven method of generation that offers unique advantages. Fuel cost, a major contributor to thermal Plant operating costs, is eliminated. Se Oo det, a8 HYDROELECTRIC Another advantage of hydropower developments is that they last much longer than do other plant types. Hydropower develop- ments are, however, initially costly and require around 5 years of lead time, from reconnaissance to start-up. Licen- sing procedures, particularly for smaller projects, are being streamlined. Streamlining licensing procedures can signifi- cantly reduce the amount of lead time needed to bring a pro- ject on-line. (B) Performance Characteristics 2. APA/26/B Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Hydropower provides readily regulated electricity. Water quality is not affected. A slight temperature differen- tial may exist between discharge water and the receiving waters. The effect of the temperature change on spawning salmon normally requires investigation. b) Quantity Approximately 60% of the energy stored in the water will result in saleable electricity. The remaining 40% will be lost in the water conduit, turbine, generator, station service, transformers, and the transmission line. Typical installed capacities in Alaskan power plants range from 1-20 MW. c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Hydropower plants can be base loaded and/or peak loaded. In smaller installations, the operating mode may be adjusted seasonally, depending on the availability of water and the demand for electricity. SCs 2: APA/26/B 328 HYDROELECTRIC Reliability a) b) Need for back-up The reliability of the hydroplant itself is very high The transmission lines are often routed through very rugged terrain and are consequently subject to a variety of natural hazards. Repairs to damaged lines can usually be accomplished relatively quickly. It is customary to provide sufficient installed diesel generation capacity to provide emergency electricity to the utility's custom- ers in the event that the transmission line or the power- plant should go down. The amount of backup required can be reduced by building an alternate transmission line. Storage requirements A reservoir is usually used to store water except for run-of-river plants. Typical reservoirs will range in size from a few acres to several hundred acres. Thermodynamic efficiency Not appropriate. Net energy Approximately 4800 kWh/installed kW will be generated annu- ally. Saleable energy will be about 10% less when station service, transformer, transmission line and other losses are included. 3.8.1°3 CC)imiCosts ake APA/26/B 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC Capital ° $14,000/kW installed Lake Elva near Bristol Bay (feasibility estimate) ° $1,800/kW installed - Solomon Gulch near Valdez ° $50,000/kW installed (reconnaissance estimate) 0 $5,000/Kw installed for hydro along Cordova-Valdez intertie route 0 $3,500/kW installed for Crater Lake 0 $3,300/kW installed for Power Creek first stage Assembly and installation See above. Operation Operation and maintenance costs are normally combined when evaluating a hydropower development. Maintenance and replacement Operation and maintenance costs for a hydroelectric develop- ment normally depend on the size of the installation and the method of operation. Most large installations (76,000 kW) will be attended full-time while many of the smaller installa- tions are operated remotely and visited only occasionally for maintenance. Estimated annual operation and maintenance cost for large installations is $100.00 + $7.00/kW. For small plants the estimated cost is $25,000 + $7.00/kW. Annual replacement cost for a hydroelectric plant with 50- year economic life is $3.00 per kW installed. SiC 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC Economies of scale The cost per kW installed generally decreases for larger installations. Further economics of scale can be realized when the operation of several small hydropower developments can be integrated. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts a APA/26/B Siting - directional aspect, land, height A suitable site for any hydropower development must, of course, be found. Requirements include an adequate water supply and a reasonable proximity to the load center (consumers). Site preparation for a hydropower development involves modification of the existing terrain and results in changes in both the topography (cuts and fills), and in the natural or existing drainage pattern. The project boundary (the outer limits of the land directly affected by the project) may encompass several hundred acres. The impacts of a hydropower develop- ment cover a wide spectrum. They affect man, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. The special advantage of a hydro- power development is that it is effectively non-polluting. Resource needs a) Renewable Water. b) Non-renewable Some of the construction and maintenance resources (such as steel and lube oi1) are non-renewable resources. S765 1=5) 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC Construction and operating employment by skill Construction of a hydropower development requires the employ- ment of both highly skilled individuals experienced in the design and construction of this type of project and less experienced individuals who usually come from the local work- force. Operators of hydroplants are often local diesel power Plant operators who receive a minimal amount of additional training to qualify them to work as hydroplant operators. Environmental residuals None Health or safety aspects Public safety, legal liabilities, insurance, and land use issues must be addressed prior to construction of a hydropower development. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1 APA/26/B Cost per million Btu or kWh See Appendix B for cost per kWh. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh. - N/A. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability. 3. 6.056 APA/26/B 3.8 HYDROELECTRIC Hydroelectric power generation is a well established technol- ogy. Each project, and many of its components, are "custom" design jobs. Because of this and because of the large scale and the long lead time associated with a project, hydropower is a capital intensive investment with high field exploration costs. Few utilities alone can afford to provide long term and interim financing. The State of Alaska, the Rural Electrifi- cation Administration, and others provide assistance to util- ities to bring worthwhile projects forward. Hydroplants can be remotely operated from a central station. An operator is usually stationed at the power plant to take care of routine maintenance. Safety of hydropower develop- ments has long been a concern of the Federal and State govern- ments. Criteria for safe design and operation of hydropower developments are well established and major failures are very rare. The hydraulic turbine, and its component parts, is designed and are built to exacting specifications and is extremely reliable; the turbine has a useful life of upwards of 30 years. Baowlay, 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING 5.8.23 ELECTRIC HEATING (A) General Description r 1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Electricity is passed through resistance wiring and gives off heat in encountering such resistance. The heat is transferred to air or water. 2) Current and future availability Electric heat is clean, noiseless, easily controllable and relatively efficient. Electric heat is recognized as a sound means of heating buildings where heat losses are held to a sound, economical level and the cost of electricity is not prohibitive. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) APA26/C Energy output a) Quality - temperature, form Heat or hot water for space heating applications. b) Quantity 3413 Btu in per kWh out. Typical residential furnaces are of capacities in the range of 20,000 to 120,000 Btu per hour. Sr8o2e] 2) 3) 4) (C) Costs 1) APA26/C 32822 ELECTRIC HEATING c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Available whenever there is electricity. Reliability a) Need for back-up Typically, none. b) Storage requirements None. Thermodynamic efficiency So far as the conversion of electric energy into heat is concerned, all types of electric resistance heaters are equally efficient. They all produce 3413 Btu per kilowatt-hour of electrical energy used. From a thermodynamic efficiency standpoint, electric heaters are 100 percent efficient. However, different types of heaters differ in effectiveness; the effectiveness is determined by the means used to transfer the heat generated into the area that is to be heated. Net energy Overall, say about 1.02 units in to 1.00 unit out. Capital About $800-1000 for a central home unit. 3285222 2) 3) 4) 5) 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING Assembly and installation About equal to capital cost. Operation A function of the cost of electricity. Maintenance and replacement Virtually maintenance free; replacement life estimated to be 20 years. Economies of scale Not appropriate. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) APA26/C Siting - directional aspect, land, height In typical residential installations, a metal casing, in the same configuration as conventional baseboard along walls, contains one or more heating elements placed horizontally. The vertical dimension is usually less than 9 inches, and projection from wall surface is less than 3.5 inches. Units are available from 1 to 12 feet long with ratings from 100 to 400 watts per foot of length and are designed to be fitted together to make up any desired continuous length or rating. 3.8.2-3 35852 ELECTRIC HEATING 2) Resource needs a) Renewable Hydroelectricity is currently the only cost effective renewable resource. b) Non-renewable Fossil fuels used for electrical generation. 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Simple to install and effectively automatic. 4) Environmental residuals None. 5) Health or safety aspects None. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) Cost per million Btu or kWh Cost is a function of the cost of electricity. The most economical electric heating systems from an operating standpoint are of a decentralized type, with a thermostat provided on each unit or for each room. This permits each APA26/C 3.8.2-4 2) 3) APA26/C 3.8.2 ELECTRIC HEATING room to compensate for heat contributed by sources auxiliary such as sunshine, lighting, and appliances. This arrangement also gives a better diversity of the power demand due to noncoincidence of electric load from all units of an install- ation. Manual switches are often provided to permit cutting off heat or reducing temperature in rooms when not in use. When such operation is practiced, consideration should be given to provide extra time for warm-up. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh A function of the resource used to generate electricity. See appropriate Appendix C profiles. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability In summary, a simple list of some of the benefits and advant- ages of electric heat includes the following: Dependable No fuel deliveries No fuel storage problems Clean No venting required No oxygen consumption Individual room-by-room control Quiet Easy to install Space-saving o oo 80 809 809 8 8G 8G 8 8 "Flameless" 3.8.2-5 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION 395 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION CONSERVATION (A) General Description 1) 2) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved Conservation measures for the 13 villages considered here are mainly classified as "passive". Passive measures are ‘intended to conserve energy without any further electrical, thermal, or mechanical energy input. Typical passive measures are insu- lation, double glazing or solar film, arctic entrances and weather stripping. Energy conservation characteristics of some passive measures degrade with time, which must be con- sidered in the overall evaluation of their effectiveness for an intended life cycle. Other conservation measures includes improvement in efficiency of utilization devices (such as motors) and "doing without", energy by disciplines (turning off lights, turning down thermostats). - Current and future availability Passive measures are commercially available and increasing in use all over the United States due to the rapidly escalating cost of energy. (B) Performance Characteristics 1) APA26/L Energy output a) Quality - temperatures, form No energy output per se; rather a reduction of energy types input. : b) Quantity See above. SS sie SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual Passive conservation measures "operate" year round. 2) Reliability a) Need for back-up None required. b) Storage requirements None required. 3) Thermodynamic efficiency Not appropriate. 4) Net energy Not appropriate. (C) Costs 1) Capital Residential installations run from several hundred to several thousand dollars. 2) Assembly and installation See above. APA26/L | 3.9.1-2 SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION 13) Operation None. 4) Maintenance and replacement Effectively maintenance free; 10-15 year life. 5) Economies of scale Amenable and appropriate to single dwellings or large indus- trial complexes. (D) Special Requirements and Impacts 1) Siting - directional aspect, land, height No special requirements. 2) Resource needs a) Renewable Solar insolation. b) (Non-renewable Materials used for conservation modes employed. 3) Construction and operating employment by skill Can often be installed by the resident; locally specialized services (for example, insulation skills) may be employed. No operation required. APA26/L 3.9.193 4) 5) SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION Environmental residuals None. Health or safety aspects None except care should be taken to assure proper air change rates for occupant health. (E) Summary and Critical Discussion 1) 2) 3) APA26/L Cost per million Btu or kWh Not available. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per million Btu or kWh Not available. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and its availability Residences generally require the availability of energy at all times. Before 1973, the cost of energy was 3 to 10% of total annual expenses; now that percentage has soared to perhaps 40%. Although some dynamic measures (notably solar energy) merit consideration in this class of structure, the prime emphasis should be on passive energy conservation measures. As a whole, this market is not geared to sophisticated or costly equipment or to any measure that requires special operating or maintenance procedures or attention. Generally, simplicity and low cost, with moderate energy benefits, should be pursued. S59 okae: APA26/L SECTION 3.9 CONSERVATION The State of Alaska has high interest in energy conservation by weatherization (passive conservation), particularly for residences. The State has a $5,000, 5% loan program for upgrading residences for conservation of energy. 3.9.1-5 SECTION 3.10 OTHER TECHNOLOGIES 3.10.4 (A) apal9/x1l 3.10.0 TWO SPEED GEAR BOX TWO SPEED GEAR BOX General Description The operation of diesel engine generator sets at extremely low loads for an extended period is detrimental to the engines. In general these units should not be operated at less than 25% load and, more prudently, at not less than 50% load. One solution would be to shut down the big unit and start up a small unit to be run during the low load period. This requires an "automatic device" or a person to do this shifting of units, and incurs the cost of an additional engine generator set, its services, switchgear and synchronizing controls. A possible economy could be achieved by some mechanical methods of matching the "big engine" to small’ loads. In general “diesels can idle at low speeds with minimum wear and "hot end" problems (carboning up, slobbering, etc.) and will use relatively little fuel at these lower speeds. The engines will produce little power at these lower speeds without being "lugged", but can produce small power efficiently at these lower speeds. One means to do this is a two speed gear box between the engine and alternator. The gear box, by means of a simple clutch, would allow direct drive for high load and lower engine speed for part load, with the alternator always turning at the appropriate speed. (See Figure 3.10.1-1) Space would cause no severe size limitations, so the gear box could be a cheaply made countershaft design and could be, by changing gear sets, tailored to each application to keep the st0), ded (B) (C) apal9/x2 3.10.7 TWO SPEED GEAR BOX engine in a "best range". The low load gear sets could be changed in the field in a few hours to get the most from the engine. Performance Characteristics Estimates of added life are difficult to obtain because engine makers simply advise that it is abusing an engine to run it full speed at near zero load for a great part of its life. However, it seems safe to opine that an engine loaded 0% to 10% full power, but running 600 RPM for 5000 hours and 50% to / 100% power at 1800 RPM for 1000 hours, would still be a reliable working machine, whereas a similar engine supporting the same loads but kept at 1800 RPM for all 6000 hours would probably have been overhauled twice. Life increase due to "not-turned- revolution" is 2% times for the slowed down engine. Costs It is estimated that fuel efficiency for engines running at 5% load, but at lowered speed, could be up to three times as good as for higher speed engines running at the same load. 3.20. 192 3.10.2 NUCLEAR 3.10.2 (A) (8) apal$/y1 el NUCLEAR LOW POWER NUCLEAR HEATING REACTORS Description The Canadian government owned nuclear company is developing the cheapest .and smallest reactor ever designed for commercial use. The reactor, known as Slowpoke, is being developed by Atomic Energy of Canada (AEC) and will be used to produce hot water for buildings. The Canadians claim that the reactor is so safe that it can literally be put in basements to replace conventional furnaces. The idea of using small reactors to provide heat is also being explored in France, Scandinavia and the Soviet Union. The reactor is modeled after small, pool-type research reactors used at many universities. Its vessel is a 25-foot. deep concrete-lined pool dug in the ground. The small fuel core is immersed directly in the water filled pool. The nuclear reaction heats the water in the pool to 190°F, and the heat is removed through a double loop of heat exchangers that isolate the heated water from the radioactive core. Performance Characteristics Slowpoke, which stands for "Safe low-power critical experiinent", will generate a scant 2 thermal MW of power, just enough to heat a large hotel or building complex. Unlike commercial power reactors, Slowpoke does not generate the high temperatures typical of large reactors. As a result, the reactor does not need to be pressurized, eliminating the need for expensive and potentially faulty safety systems. Nor if 3.10.21 (C) apal9/y2 35,10%:2 NUCLEAR does the fuel contain enough plutonium to be practical for weapons production Slowpoke is designed so that the reaction cannot continue unless hydrogen atoms present in the water reflect nuclear particles back into the fuel rods. If the water overheats and begins to boil, the bubbles formed would reduce the amount of water around the core and the reaction would slow automatically. Moreover, if the water boils completely away, the nuclear reaction would be unable to continue, and the remaining heat could .be dissipated into the air without any additional cooling. Costs The Canadian government foresees a use for the reactor in many parts of the world where heating with petroleum base products is becoming prohibitvely expensive. Although the concept is still in the test stages, the company estimates that it can build the reactor for as little as $850,000. This works out to $425 a thermal kW. 3.20522 3.10.3 CHEMICAL STORAGE a 15.3 (A) (8) apal9/z1 3.10.3 CHEMICAL STORAGE CHEMICAL HEAT STORAGE Description The basic Tepidus chemical heat storage system consists of well insulated tanks containing sodium sulfide, heat exchangers and a controlled source of water vapor. The key to the system operation is the sodium sulfide, which is a hygroscopic salt: when it absorbs moisture, it heats up. The water molecules chemically combine with the salt, forming a hydride and releasing heat. Sodium sulfide has an added advantage in that is doesn't dissolve if it is just dampened with water vapor. A tank full of damp salt can provide a bank of stored heat for warming a house and heating water. Once the salt cools, it can be "recharged" by solar energy, waste heat, or other heat sources. Heat dries the salt, giving it the potential to reabsorb moisture and regenerate chemical heat. A Tepidus heat storage system using sodium sulfide (NaS2) has been on trial near Stockholm, Sweden, since November 1979. The system is claimed to have a remarkable energy conversion efficiency of 95% and very high energy density compared to other storage media such as water, rocks or phase-changing salts. Performance Characteristics The Tepidus system has a high energy density capacity. One kilogram (2.2 pounds) of sodium sulfide can store and regenerate one kilowatt-hour (3413 Btu) of heat. In practical terms this 3.10.3=1 (Cc) apal9/z2 3.10).3 CHEMICAL STORAGE means that 10 tons (550 cubic feet) of the dry material can deliver 10,000 kWh (34,130,000 Btu), which is enough heat energy to meet about ¥% the annual heating demands of a small well insulated house located in Western Alaska. Furthermore, the system can be switched off for an indefinite period and allowed to cool to room temperature. When its started up again, only four or five percent- of the total energy is used for reheating. Costs © One major disadvantage of the Tepidus system is the high initial cost associated with the system. Initial costs are estimated to be 3-5 times higher than a conventional oil fired furnace although exact cost figures are as yet unavailable. Additional operation and costing information for the Tepidus system can be requested from the manufacturer: Tepidus AB, Box 5607, S-114 86, Stockholm, Sweden, Telex 798-2929. 3.210.852 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS (A) General Description The fuel cell (FC) is a device for directly converting fuel into electrical energy, heat and water. The FC is similar in operation to a primary (non-rechargeable) battery, as used in a flashlight, differing only in that the electrode materials are not consumed. In fact, the FC electrode material and the electrolyte serve only to contain the reactant gases while the Ppower-producing electrochemical reaction is taking place. Figure 3.10.4-1 shows the components and the voltage output of a cell. Modern FC designs have stacked cells to provide greater output voltage. Electrodes are thin, porous, and electrically conduction, and catalysts are included to speed up the reaction and generate reasonable amounts of power. The electrolyte may be acidic or basic; it may be a molten salt; or it may be a solid. The fuel and oxidant must be in gaseous form. Figure 3.10.4-2 illustrates the basic fuel cell power system concept and indicates inputs and outputs of each component. (B) Performance Characteristics The FC concept seems to have virtually everything in its favor and little to its discredit. The most visible (and audible) advantage is that a fuel cell installation is compact and almost silent. apal9/aal 3.10.4-1 3.10.4 FUEL CELLS Perhaps its chief engineering advantage is that, unlike a heat engine, a fuel cell is not limited by the Carnot cycle. A typical fuel cell will convert 40% of fuel input into electrical energy and 60% to heat. Fuel cells, because of their elevated operating temperatures; produce reject heat that can be put to use making steam or hot water. Cogeneration of electricity is therefore an excellent possibility, particularly using steam at temperatures up to 1000°F generated by the near 1200°F discharge temperature of the MC cell. With proper configuration, beneficial use of 85-90 percent of the fuel input, can be obtained. This makes the fuel cell one of the most efficient energy converting devices available. However, the fuel cell requires pure gaseous hydrogen for operation and the overall system efficiency must take into account the energy expended in converting any fuel into a form usable by the fuel cell. The present short-term goal is to produce a fuel reformer with a thermal efficiency of 87%. (C) Costs The installed cost for a fuel cell generating plant is estimated to be approximately 30% higher than a gas turbine plant of equivalent capacity when they become available (early 1980's). The efficiency of these "first generation" plants is not expected to be no higher than approximately 38% (at full load) and operating and maintenance could be as much as 5 times as high as for a gas turbine installation. The "second generation" plants (anticipated in the early 1990's) will be approximately 48% efficient. apal9/aa2 3.10.4-2 HYDROGEN ELECTROLYTE A CATHODE (+) ELECTRON FLOW OXYGEN OXIDANT (Op) ELEMENTARY FUEL CELL CONCEPT FIGURE CONTROLS FUEL PROCESSOR INVERTER BASIC FUEL CELL POWER SYSTEM FIGURE 3.10.4-1 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC 3.075 PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS (A) (B) (C) General Description Solar cells are electric energy generators that consume no fuel, make no noise, pose no health or environmental hazards and produce no waste products. These cells convert light directly into electricity via semiconductors. Since no moving parts, nor high pressures or temperatures are involved, this would be an ideal way of generating electricity. Performance Characteristics Efficiency of thermal conversion to electricity is about 12%. Costs Today, solar-cell power is too expensive to compete with fossil- fuel power. The single crystal silicon solar cell - the only cell commercially available today - has an efficiency of about 12 percent and costs $10.00 per peak watt or $10,000 per peak kilowatt. This equates to an electrical energy cost of more than $1.17/kWh if an output of 1000 kWh per year per installed kW is assumed together with 10% interest and a 20 year amortization period. In addition to the cell array, however, storage equipment (batteries) and inverters will be required if a “stand alone system" is desired to supply the equipment and devices presently in use with electric energy. Energy storage helps satisfy demand during periods of little or no sunshine, as well as supplying peak power. The presently available storage devices are lead-acid batteries, but they are expensive, costing at least $30/kW of capacity. Enough storage apal9/nl1 3.20.5-1 3.10.5 PHOTOVOLTAIC capacity to meet the average demand for 24 hours would cost $600 for a single-family house. Moreover, with daily cycling, the life of a lead-acid battery is limited to a few years, even with a charge controller. It is obvious that the costs of both photovoltic cells and low- maintenance storage mediums must be reduced before they can “ economically compete with conventional generation of electric energy. apal9/n2 3.10.5-2 3.10.6 SOLAR 3.20.6 PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING (A) (B) General Description Passive solar heating makes use of solar energy (sunlight) through energy efficient design Give. south facing windows, shutters, added insulation) but without the aid of any mechanical or electrical inputs. Space heating is the most common application of passive solar heating. Because such solar heating is available only when the sun shines, its availability is intermittent (day-night cycles) and variable (winter-summer - cloudy-clear). Performance Characteristics The central Alaska area in question is located roughly between 61° and 66° North latitudes. The possible insolations shown on Table 3.8.6-1 for Bethel and Fairbanks are considered to approximate conditions within this area. The Bethel and Fairbanks data has been developed with the F-chart computer program and takes climate and typical weather conditions into account. The annual amount of solar energy available can satisfy all heating needs of an average home if enough collecting surface area and adequate storage could be installed. Heat storage or supplement heating by other means would be necessary for about 6 months of the year when the available insolation cannot satisfy the heating needs. If passive solar heating is considered, where the solar energy is sufficient and with energy efficient design (increased insulation, south facing windows with shutters, etc.) it is conceivable that even in the months of November, December and January approximately 20-40% of the required heat can be supplied by the sun if 200 square feet of south facing windows can collect energy for an average size (600 sq. ft.) residence found in the Alaskan bush apal9/u . 3.10.6-1 apal9/p76 ‘ TABLE 3.10.6-1 WEST CENTRAL ALASKA ~ SOLAR ENERGY ; Available passive heat BTU/day Average insolation/day/Ft2 BTU/day through Required for average a Vertical South Facing Surface 200 Ft.? South Facing Windows Heating Degree* Days 600 sq.ft. Residence Fairbanks(64°49'N) Bethel(60°47' ) Fairbanks Bethel Fairbanks Bethel Fairbanks Bethel JAN 864 832 172.8 x 105 166.4 x 103 2384 1857 412.6 x 10° 321.4 x 10° FEB 1149 1224 229.8 x 103 244.8 x 203 1890 1590 370.0 x 103 = 311.6 x 10° MAR 1808 1892 361.6 x 10% 378.4 x 103 1721 1662 283.0 x 10% = 251.7 x 10° APR 1679 1689 335.8 x 103 337.8 x 103 1083 1215 185.8 x 103 108.5 x 10° MAY 1323 1176 264.6 x 103 235.2 x 103 549 772 90.3 x 10° 127.0 x 103 JUN 1271 1021 254.2 x 10% 204.2 x 103 211 402 40.1 x 10° 76.5 x 10% JUL 1158 - 886 231.6 x 108 = =177.2 x 108 148 319 23.8 x 103 51.4 x 108 AUG 1094 715 218.8 x 103 143.0 x 103 304 394 44.1 x 10% 57.2 x 108 SEPT 912 874 182.4 x 10% 174.8 x 103 618 600 115.1 x 10% = =111.8 x 103 OcT 723 823 144.6 x 10° 164.6 x 103 1234 1079 197.8 x 10° 173.0 x 103 NOV 513 518 102.6 x 10% 103.6 x 10% 1866 1434 327.0 x 10% 251.3 x 103 DEC 263 502 52.6 x 103 100.4 x 108 2337 1879 395.7 x 10° 318.1 x 108 ANNUAL 388.9 x 108 368.9 x 103 77.8 x 10° 73.8 x 10& 14345 13203 75.2 x 108 69.2 x 10° 1 "Solar Energy Resource Potential in Alaska" by J.P. Zarling, R. D. Seifort for U of A Institute of Water Resources, 1978. 2 "Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1940-70 for Alaska", U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service. 3.10.6 SOLAR CC) iGosts The integration of passive solar heating into the design and con- struction of a new residence adds little to the overall structure cost. Typical increases in structure costs range for 0 to 5 percent. In general, it is not economical to extensively remodel existing residences to take advantage of passive solar heating. apal9/u 3.10.6-3 3.10.7 BIOGAS SHO BIOGAS GENERATION (A) (8) General Description Biogas (two-thirds methane and about 600-700 Btu/scf) can be produced from sewage system waste. In a biogas generation system, heat is used to promote elevated temperature anaerobic bacterial digestive action of organic material. The decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic fermentation. Figure 3.10.7-1 depicts the biogas generation process. Anaerobic fermentation of organic products results in methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, traces of other gases, and the production of some heat. The residue remaining is hygienic, rich in nutrients, and high in nitrogen. Potentially damaging germs are killed by the absence of oxygen during the fermentation process. There are over 50,000 small scale biogas producers in rural India and over half a million reported in mainland China. A demonstration unit in Alaska works on crab processing wastes. The technology is quite well established. Units range from "one cow" size (20,000-30,000 Btu/day) to over 3 billion Btu/day. Performance Characteristics Unless organic wastes other than human are available, production for a village will be quite limited. For example, based on a - population of 100, an average human waste of 3 pounds/day, 11% solids in that waste, 84% of solids being volatile (gas producing), Production of 5 cubic feet of biogas at 600 Btu/cubic food per apal9/jl a Loy fk 3.10.7 BIOGAS pound of volatile solids, the theoretical biogas energy production is about 80,000 Btu/day, equivalent to a heat content of six-tenths of a gallon of diesel per day. Biogas generators can be designed for continuous or batch (4 days - 2 weeks) operation, depending on the mode of digester loading utilized. The biogas producing digestive activities are optimal in two temperature ranges: 85°-105° and 120°-140°F, although digestion will occur from freezing to 156°F. Fermentation, however, is less stable in the higher of these two ranges and, consequently, the biogas units should usually be designed to be maintained in the lower optimal range. Typically, biogas generation in lower 48 climates requires on-third to one-half of the energy content of the gas generated to heat the process. ‘This efficiency of 50-67% could drop to zero in severe Alaska climates. (C) Costs N/A apal9/j2 a. 0, 7-2 GAS OUT WATER IN GAS VY eieee ant SLURRY FERTILIZER MIXING WASTE IN OUT SLURRY HEAT IN reir | BIOGAS DIGESTER -—— \\ papore OR OTHER AGITATION BIOGAS GENERATION FIGURE 3.10.7-1 3.10.8 WASTE 3:10:58 WASTE CONVERSION (A) General Description While refuse (waste) can be used as an alternate fuel, large quantities are required on a continuous basis to justify the large capital investment for an economically sized facility. As only the Anchorage area approaches the production quantities required, this option is dismissed for the 13 villages. (Reference: Jobs and Power. ) (B) Performance Characteristics Not appropriate (C) Costs Not appropriate apa28/cl 3.10.8-1 341059 PEAT 3:10.19 PEAT (A) (B) (C) General Description Peat is an early stage in the transformation of vegetation to coal and results from the partial decomposition and disintegration of plant remains in the absence of air. Peat is generally formed in water bogs, swamps, and marsh lands. Generally, peat is low in nitrogen, sulfur, and ash A study to estimate the Alaska resource potential was recently performed for the State of Alaska, Division of Energy and Power Development. Numerous areas of peat deposits were located and outlined in the study. Undrained bog peat usually contains between 92 and 95 percent moisture, but moisture is reduced to about 25 to 50 percent when peat is harvested (by large earthmoving equipment) and air dried. At these reduced moisture levels, the bulk density of the resulting peat is about 15 to 25 pounds/cubic foot and its heat value is. approximately 6,200 Btu/pound. The use of higher heat content, easily obtainable wood fuel has, however, pretty much kept peat out of the energy market in Alaska. Performance characteristics Performance is similar to burning low-grade coal. Costs Not available apa28/d1 S1059=1. DEMAND -~ KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW LUINTT #1 WNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS K(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST Xx(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -— KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW LINTT #1 UNIT @2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) TIESEL EQUIV AN COST xK(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS K(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST x(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) ExTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT x(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT Xx(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR BUCKLANE! DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 198: 1984 1985 1986 %% 110 119 129 134 335 286 aie asz 4a4 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 7s 7s 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 5s ss ss ss ss ss - - 100 100 100 100 a _ 80 S = = - - 5 s s 3 39,396 41,513 45,394 49,274 53.155 56,918 ic76 1282 8.68 4/95 | 2202 || 2:09 7 83 24 106 118 131 2 22 23 23 23 23 98 105 122 134 146 159 98 102 115 123 130 137 98 200 315 438 s4e 705 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 63.0 - 45.0 - - - 4.2 4.2 7.3 7.3 - - 1.6 1.6 257, ie7, - - 5.8 5.8 10.0 10.0 - - 55720 6.504 7,335 8,196 - =| 29.8! /14L0: |16s3) “ae:9 - - 4.0 632 6.2 8.9 - - 5.7 7.8 5.6 a7, - - 5.7 13.2 18.8 26.5 1991 19921993 1994 1995 1996 166 178 189 201 212 223 666 723 780 837 894 951 140 140 140 140 140 140 7s 78 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 3S ss ss 55 35 3S 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - 100 100 100 5 5 11 11 78.322 85,025 105,134 111,838 2.48 2.57 2.85 2.95 214 240 330 363 25 25 26 27 244 270 367 401 182 195 243 257 1,511 14706 1,915 2.143 2,386 2,683 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - - 45.0 - - ze za 7S) || 10.8 10.3 10.3 2 2i7, au) 3:8 3.8 3.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.1 14.1 14.1 13,393 15,049 16,786 18,603 20,501 22,479 36.6 42.5 49.0 56.3 64.4 73.0 26.6 32.5 39.0 42.2 50.2 58.9 28 ||) 2ate |) jee ||| t2e.7 33.2 37.8 98.9 122.4 149.7 178.4 211.6 249.4 1987 1982 1989 1990 139 145 150 15s 315 547 S72 610 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 ss ss 35 ss 100 100 100 100 5 5 5 s 40,564 64,327 67,973 714736 2786) (2.24) 2.02 | 2.40 144 159 173 189 24 24 24 24 173 18s 202 21e 145 153 159 167 850 1,003 14162 1,329 73 7.3 7.3 7.3 237, 2.7 2u7 257, 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9,085 10,035 11,012 12,052 21.6 24.8 28.0 31.8 11.6 14.8 18.0 21.8 9u7| $2501 (1422 || \f6:7 36.2 48.2 62.4 79.1 1997 1998 1999 2000 235 246 258 269 1,007 1,064 1,121 1,178 140 140 140 140 75 75 73 75 135 135 135 135 ss ss 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 a1 11 11 ut 118,423 125,126 131,830 138,533 3.05 3.16 si27 3.38 397 435 474 15 27 27 28 28 435 473 513 554 271 286 301 Bie 2.914 3,200 3,501 3,817 10.3 10.3 10.3 3.8 358 gre 14.1 14.1 14.1 24,514 26,4652 28,871 31,170 2.2 92.7 103.8 115.9 68.1 78.6 +7 101.8 42.4 47.5 58.0 291.8 339.3 392.0 450.0 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 3817 BUCKLAND - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 6692.3 450.0 1229.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 3817 + 6692.3 = 10509.3 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 450.0 + 1229.7 = 1679.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S3 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY BINARY BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW WNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR BUCKLAND DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 3% 101 110 119 129 134 139 335 353 384 419 452 434 315 “140 140 140 140 140 140 140 73 75 75 75 7s 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 55 ss 55 55 SS 35 ss - - 100 100 100 100 100 = ss 80 = = 4 es = - 5 5 5 s s 39,396 41,513 45,394 49,274 53,155 56,918 60,564 1.76 1.82 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 7% 83 4 106 118 131 144 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 98 105 122 134 146 159 173 98 102 115 123 130 137 145 8 200 315 438 568 705 850 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 63.0 = - = 7 - - 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 - - 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - - 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 - - 5.720 71335 81196 9,085 11.8 16.3 18.9 21.6 - - 6.0 10.5 13.1 15.8 - - 5.7 9.3 11.3 13.2 - - 5.7 22.5 33.8 47.0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 166 178 189 201 212 223 235 666 723 780 837 894 951 1,007 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 78 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 35 55 5s ss 55 55 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 5 5 5 5 5 5 s 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 236 256 276 296 317 337 357 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 388 408 428 44g 469 429 509 289 295 300 305 310 214 317 1,856 2,151 2.451 2.756 3,066 3,380 3,697 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 11.8 11.8 1109) 12.8 11.8 11.28 11.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 16.2 16.2 14.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 13,393 15,049 16,786 18,403 20,501 22,479 24,514 36.6 42.5 49.0 56.3 64.4 73.0 82.2 20.4 26.3 32.8 40.1 48.2 54.8 66.0 15.2 19.0 23.0 27.3 31.9 36.5 41.1 98.9 117.9 140.9 168.2 200.1 236.6 277.7 1988 145 547 140 188 153 1,003 ae wont 10,035 24.8 19.0 15.4 62.4 1998 246 1,064 140 7s 135 ss 100 250 377 120 S29 320 4,017 1989 150 S73 400 27 205 120 357 282 1,285 112.5 11.8 4.4 16.2 11,012 28.0 11.8 9.3 71.7 1999 258 1,121 140 7s 135 ss 100 250 397 120 S49 323 4,340 ope Naor 28,871 103.8 87.6 375.5 1990 155 610 216 120 368 282 1,567 11.8 16.2 12,052 31.8 15.6 12.0 83.7 2000 269 1,178 140 7s 135 ss 100 250 Orn 3.3! 417 120 569 324 4,664 tae Naor 31,170 115.9 99.7 54.8 432.3 BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 4664 6873.5 432.3 1204.4 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4664 + 6873.5 = 11537.5 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 432.3 + 1204.4 = 1636.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and binary cycle generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/84 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST Xx(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST xX(1000) 3ENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR BUCKLAND DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION 1981 9 335 140 75 333 100 81.0 67,738 2.48 185 24 227 169 1,462 ore OONI 11,583 31.6 25.8 19.2 106.0 1982 101 353 140 7s 105 102 81.0 74,441 2.57 210 24 252 182 1,644 ore @ont 13,176 37.2 31.4 22.7 128.7 1983 36.0 40,690 1.88 118 111 311 81.0 81,144 2.66 S38 ou, 8 1, ae @ont > © 2 0 > o > 37.6 26.4 155.1 1984 119 419 140 7s 135 ss “100 36.0 44,570 1.95 100 100 81.0 80 11 87,847 2.75 266 2s 7 6 315 215 2,055 eRe Onwo 16,603 50.3 40.3 27.5 1985 1986-1987 «1988 = 19891990 129 134 139 145 150 155 452 484 sis 547 s78 610 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 75 73 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 35 35 3s 55 35 35 100 100 100 100 100 100 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 81.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 48,451 52,214 55,860 59.623 63,269 61,152 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.24 2.32 2.40 108 120 133 147 161 161° 23 23 23 24 24 24 - - - - - 31 4 4 4 4 4 = 3 3 3 3 3 6 143 155 168 183 197 203 127 134 141 149 155 156 558 692 833 98215137 1,293 NON=ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 61686 7,519 8.379 9,301 10,250 10,274 14.9 17.3 20.0 22.9 26.1 27.0 11.5 17.1 20.3 21.2 9.9 13.9 16.0 16.2 28.8 54.6 70.6 86.8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 212 223 235 246 258 269 894 951 1,007 1,064 1,121 14178 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 73 75 73 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 3s ss 3S 3S 3s 3s 100. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 81.0 81.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0 11 11 11 11 11 11 94,550 101+254 101,959 108,662 115,366 122,069 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 3.38 296 329 342 378 415 454 26 26 26 26 27 27 a x s1 = - = 7 z 10 10 10 10 6 é 9 9 9 9 346 379 398 434 472 sit 229 243 248 263 277 291 25284 2,527 2.775 3,038 3,315 3,606 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 73 7.3 74 7.3 7.3 Za 2.7 257, 207, 2.7 i2a7 2:7. 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 18,437 20.352 21,106 923145 25,265 27,465 57.7 66.1 70.8 80.5 90.9 102.1 47.7 56.1 60.8 70.5 80.9 92.1 31.5 36.0 37.9 42.6 47.5 52.5 214.1 250.1 288.0 = 330.6 += 378.1 430.6 182.6 BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 3606 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 6172.9 430.6 1112.6 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 3606 + 6172.9 = 9778.9 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 430.6 + 1112.6 = 1543.2 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diese] and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S1 DEMAND -~ KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O& COST x(1000) HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR BUCKLAND DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 193s 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 9 101 110 119 129 134 139 145 150 iss 335 353 386 419 452 484 sis 547 s7s 610 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 7s 75 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 135 135 135 135 135 135 138 135 135 135 3s 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3S 3s 3S 35 - - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - - - 238 238 238 2380238 - - 80 - - - - - 7 i s 5 5 s 5 5 5 5 39,396 41,513 45,394 49,274 53,155 - a 2.587 6+350 1.76 1.82 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.09 2.16 2.24 2.32 2.40 76 83 24 106 118 - - 7 17 22 22 23 23 23 20 20 20 20 20 - - - - - 12,471 - - - - - - - - - 485 485 485 48s 48s - - - - - 30 30 30 30 30 98 105 122 134 146 540 540 540 347 557 8 102 115 123 130 466 452 439 432 427 98 200 315 438 S68 1,034 1,486 1,925 2,357 2,784 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 63.0 - - - - - - - - - 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 - - 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 - - 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.38 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 - - 5720 6.504 7,335 - - - 419 1,067 - - 11.8 14.0 16.3 - - - ded 2.9 - - 6.0 8.2 10.5 (5.8) (5.8) (5.8) (4.7) (2.9) - - 5.7 7.5 9.3 (5.0) (4.9) (4.7) (347) (22.2) - - 5.7 19.2. 22.5 17.5 12.6 7.9 4.2 2.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 166 178 189 201 212 223 235 246 258 269 666 723 780 837 894 951 1,007 1,064 1,121 1,178 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 75 75 7s 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 3s 55 ss ss ss 55 oS] ss 5s 35 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 = ie zs 80 = 2 = s = u 5 5 5 11 11 11 11 11 ret 11 265342 33,046 39,749 46,452 53,038 59,741 66,444 73,147 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 3.38 35 56 77 100 125 151 178 208 239 272 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 24 485 485 485 485 485 48s 4e5 485 485 48s 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 576 597 619 647 672 499 726 757 788 821 429 431 434 441 444 449 452 458 443 468 3,213 31644 4,078 4,519 41963 5,412 5,864 6.322 6,785 7,253 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 2.212 3,476 4,821 61246 7.751 9,337 10,979 12,725 14,551 16,458 6.0 9.9 14.1 18.9 24.4 30.4 36.8 44.3 52.3 61.2 2 4.1 8.3 13.1 18.6 24.6 31.0 38.5 46.5 55.4 ot 3.0 5.8 8.9 12.3 15.8 19.3 23.3 27.3 31.6 2.1 S.1 10.9 19.8 32.1 47.9 67.2 90.5 117.8 149.4 BUCKLAND - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 7253 WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 ' to year 2000 2001 to 2036 9917.7 149.4 669.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 7253 + 9917.7 = 17170.7 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 149.4 + 669.2 = 818.6 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S2 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT x‘ 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR HUGHES DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 38 41 43 46 151 163 173 183 50 so so so 35 35 3s 3s 35 35 35 3s = 75 7S - so so so = 100 = = 7 7 7 17,758 19,169 20,345 21,521 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 4s 50 ss 61 2 21 21 21 66 78 83 eo 66 76 78 81 66 142 220 301 = =; 33.8 = — a 2.3 2.3 - - 8 8 = = 3.1 3.1 ane - 2.563 2.841 = = 6.9 8.1 = a 3.8 5.0 - - 3.6 4.6 rm = 3.6 8.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 6s 72 7 80 272 292 312 333 so so so so 3s 3s 3s 3s 35 3s 35 3s 7s 75 7s 7s so so so so 7s 7s 7s 7s 60 = ea = 11 11 11 11 31,987 34,339 36,691 39,161 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 us 127 141 156 22 22 22 22 148 160 174 189 110 116 122 129 9e1 1,077 1,199 1,328 1985, ao 193 22.697 2.65 21 94 1986 52 aas 13a 23.990 2.74 72 21 100 470 WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 8 8 3.1 3.1 3.132 3.455 9.1 10.4 6.0 7.3 5.3 6.3 13.5 19.8 1995 1996 84 ss 353 374 so so 3s 35 3s 3s 7S 7s sO so 75 75 41 11 41,513 43,982 3.74 3.87 171 187 22 23 204 221 135 142 1.463 1,605 1987 ss 216 Bas NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS 3.810 11.9 8.8 7.4 27.2 1997 394 88s asa 46,334 4.01 204 23 238 148 1,753 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS 33.8 - - - 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 5,470 6,078 6714 7,401 19.7 22.5 25.8 29.5 13.5 16.3 19.6 23.3 10.0 11.8 13.7 15.9 66.0 77.8 91.5 107.4 WASTE HEAT 4.5 4.5 1.7 1.7 6.2 6.2 8,095 8,840 33.3 37.6 27.1 31.4 17.9 20.2 125.3 145.5 basihs wVar 9, S91 42.2 36.0 22.4 167.9 8g 3 Aas 13a 7 26.813 2.94 87 22 116 4 654 2.3 3.1 4,183 13.6 10.5 8.5 35.7 1998 9 414 fra WNat 10,370 47.3 41.1 24.9 192.8 1989 61 240 RRS 13a 28,224 3.04 4 123 97 751 2.3 3.1 4,572 15.2 12.1 9.6 45.3 1999 100 435 1990 251 Bas 13a 29,518 3.15 102 131 100 851 2.3 3.1 4,959 17.1 14.0 10.7 36.0 104 as wn o 382, aga v = bey 8 ie wNar 12,039 58.7 52.5 29.9 250.1 HUGHES - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2038 to_ year 2000 2238 3610.8 250.1 Waste Heat 2001 to 2038 642.6 581 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2238 + 3610.8 = 5848.8 58 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 250.1 + 642.6 = 892.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric alternative is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/S15 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST xX(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST x 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT: #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X( 1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR HUGHES DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 38 151 EEE 1991 272 88s 112 176 131 1,053, 5,470 1982 41 163 BRS 8a 100 19,169 2.39 21 78 7 142 1992 72 1,182 ele uot Bos 8 Cun ao o 1983 43 173 1993 7 312 as 112 182 128 15310 YNe aug 6.714 16.5 11.6 75.2 1984 46 183 2,841 ero Noo 1994 333 88s 112 185 126 1,436 1985 1986 1987 49 Ss2 ss 193 204 216 50 so 50 35 35 35 3s 35 35 75 75 7s 50 so so 7 Zz Z 22.697 23,990 25,402 2.65 2.74 2.84 66 72 79 21 21 22 94 100 108 83 86 90 384 470 560 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 8 8 8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3,132 3.455 3,810 91 10.4 11.9 6.0 7.3 8.8 5.3 63 7.4 13.5 19.8 27.2 1995, 1996 1997 84 88 92 353 374 394 sO so 50 35 35 35 35 35 3s 7S 7s 7S 50 sO so 150 150 150 7 7 7 3.74 3.87 4.01 16 16 16 s3 sé so 112 112 112 188 191 194 124 123 121 1,560 1,683 1,804 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 8,095 8,840 9, S91 33.3 37.6 42.2 24.0 28.3 32.9 15.9 18.2 20.5 104.9 123.1 143.6 1988 ss 228 26,813 2.94 116 94 654 4,183 13.6 10.5 8.5 35.7 1998 7% 414 as 112 197 119 1,923 1989 61 240 so 3s 35 7s 50 150 N 3.04 240 16 36 112 171 135 789 67.5 6.8 2.5 9.3 4,572 15.2 s.9 4.7 40.4 1999 100 435 as 7 so 150 112 200 118 2,041 ope wougi 11,203 52.8 43.5 25.6 192.2 1990 64 251 so 35 35 112 173 133 one wuot *3 “oO con N Ow 104 455 112 203 116 2.157 ONO ual 12,039 58.7 49.4 28.2 220.4 HUGHES - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2038 to year 2000 2001 to 2038 2157 2484.7 220.4 604.7 581 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2157 + 2484.7 = 4641.7 58 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 220.4 + 604.7 = 825.1 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric alternative is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/814 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW WNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW WNIT #1 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X( 1000) HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X( 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X( 1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR HUGHES DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1981 38 151 Bas 1991 272 10,231 3.26 37 21 266 30 360 268 1,865 2.3 3.1 1s a Ryo Orn 0 1982 41 163 BRS sO 100 19,169 2.39 50 21 73 7 142 1992 72 aas sa 12,583 3.37 47 21 266 370 267 2.132 1983 43 173 sO 3s 35 7s so 7 20,345 2.47 ss 21 83 73 220 312 88s 7s so 14,935 3.49 37 21 266 30 380 266 2,398 2,733 10.4 7.3 S.1 31.7 1984 46 183 sO 3s 3s 7s sO 21,521 2.56 61 21 81 301 17,405 3.61 69 21 266 392 267 2,665 oo “Ow! Oreo Wr PNG Of 1985 1986 1987 49 s2 ss 193 204 216 so so so 35 35 35 35 35 35 «7% 75 75 50 50 50 - 45 45 7 7 7 22,697 13,994 15,406 2.65 2.74 2.84 oe 42 48 21 21 21 - 3,403 - - 132 132 - 30 30 94 232 238 83 200 199 384 5384 783 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 +8 8 +8 3.1 3.1 3.1 35132 2,015 2,311 1 6.0 702 6.0 2.9 4.1 3.3 2.5 3.4 13.5 16.0 19.4 1995 1996 1997 84 8s 92 353 374 394 50 50 50 35 35 35 35 35 35 75 75 75 50 50 50 90 90 90 7 7 7 19,757 22,226 24,578 3.74 3.87 4.01 at 95 108 21 21 21 266 266 266 30 30 30 404 418 431 267 268 269 2.932 3,200 3,469 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 78 8 26 3.1 Sst 3.1 3,853 4,468 5,088 15.8 19.1 22.4 12.7 16.0 19.3 8.4 10.3 12.0 46.8 S7.1 69.1 198s 58 228 Ras 7s so 90 5,057 2.94 16 3.426 266 30 338 275 1,058 414 26,930 4.15 123 266 447 270 35739 5,736 26.2 23.1 14.0 83.1 1989 61 240 6468 3.04 22 20 266 344 272 14330 as Sy8., 3 gs N nN 266 8 463 272 4,011 6439 30.4 27.3 16.0 99.1 1990 64 251 so 35 35 7s so 90 7+762 3.15 27 20 266 30 349 267 1,597 31,752 4.44 155 22 266 479 273 4,284 71144 34.9 31.8 18.1 117.2 HUGHES - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2038 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2038 4284 5863.0 1752 389.2 581 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4284 + 5863.0 = 10147.0 58 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 117.2 + 389.2 = 506.4 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes first hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986, and second is operable beginning 1988. APA 20/S16 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH STING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW Ta ~..STING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) arruM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND —— KW ENERGY —- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) iFIT (HEATING) SALLONS DIESEL SAVED JOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR KOYUKUK DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 198s 45 4 60 63 188 213 237 248 100 100 100 100 100 7s 73 75 7 73 30 30 30 30 30 73 75 73 73 73 50 50 50 50 50 79 - - - - 22,109 25,049 26,460 27,871 29,165 1.56 1.61 1.67 1.73 1.79 38 a4 49 s3 37 21 21 22 22 22 5? 6s 7 75 79 5? 63 67 69 70 so 122 189 258 328 1986 262 100 73 30 8 aga 30,811 1.85 63 22 405 1987 70 276 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 33.8 - - 33.8 - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.5 - - 3 +8 -8 faz - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.2 - - 35334 3,679 4,025 4,437 - - 6.2 7.0 7.9 91 - - 3.1 3.9 4.8 2.9 - - 2.9 3.6 4.3 2.5 - - 2.9 6.5 10.8 13.3 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 8s 89 4 98 103 108 340 364 387 411 435 458 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 7s 75 75 75 75 30 30 30 30 30 30 73 75 75 7s 75 75 50 so so cr) so i) 7s 7s 75 75 75 75 4 4 4 4 4 4 39,984 42,806 45,511 48,334 51,156 53,861 2:20 | ||/|2-20)|| 2-96) ||| 2248 | | /2:93) |||) (2241 7 107 118 130 142 155 22 23 23 23 23 23 123 134 145 157 169 182 92 97 102 107 112 117 929 926 1,028 151385 1.247 1,364 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 te? tar. ae 7, 1.7 27, 157 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6,837 7,577 8329 9135 9,975 10,826 £626))|||| 18=9))||)\f2i~6)))||24-6))))||'27~7,|| ||| Blas 10.4 = 12.7 15.4 16.4 21.5 25.0 7ui7 9.2 10.8 12.5 14.2 16.0 40.6 49.8 60.6 73.1 87.3 103.3 112 482 100 75 8 B., aga S56, N Ro ney NO SSX 1,486 ore NvG@I 11,733 35.0 28.8 17.9 121.2 ises 73 100 7s 30 $., aga x8 #23 Seep Not 5,302 11.5 5.3 4.3 21.1 1998 117 100 a 30 ~ a $., ag 1,614 ore Nvat 12,675 32.8 19.8 141.0 1989 77 303 100 7s 30 asa 35,633 2.05 80 22 106 84 650 1990 316 100 73 30 so 37,162 2.13 87 22 113 37 737 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 1886 KOYUKUK - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 2935.4 187.1 509.8 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 1886 + 2935.4 = 4821.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 187.1 + 509.8 = 696.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/813 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR KOYUKUK DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 DEMAND -~ KW 4s ENERGY -- MWH 188 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 i EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 UNIT #2 7S UNIT #3 30 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7s UNIT #2 50 UNIT #3 - UNIT #4 - DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 100 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 22,109 COST PER GALLON 1.56 DIESEL FUEL COST xX(1000) 38 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) -” BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) al BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X( 1000) ” ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) so PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) Ss? ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) so EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - NET BENEFIT X(1000) - PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - 1991 DEMAND -- KW 3s ENERGY -- MWH 340 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 im EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 UNIT #2 7 UNIT #3 30 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7 UNIT #2 50 UNIT #3 7s UNIT #4 150 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL = COST PER GALLON 2.20 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) = DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) i BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) = BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 16 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) 73 BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) 112 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 205 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 153 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1.027 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 9.1 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 3.4 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 12.5 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 6.837 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 16.6 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 4.1 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 3.1 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 26.2 1982 54 213 6s 63 122 112 210 152 1,179 Nov pet 7.577 18.9 Dod 1983 57 225 100 7s 30 Ow o 8 pre oH 1993 387 a 1,330 1984 1985 1986 1987 60 63 66 70 237 248 262 276 100 100 100 100 7s 7s 7s 7s 30 30 30 30 7 75 7s 75 50 - SO so so - ” 75 75 60 - - 4 4 27,871 29,165 30,811 32,458 1.73 1.79 1.85 1.92 53 37 63 6 22 22 22 22 7s 7 89 9S 6 70 77 80 258 328 405 485 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - ~ 33.8 - 2.3 2.3 4.5 4.5 8 3 1.7 1.7 3.1 3.1 6.2 6.2 3.679 4,025 4,437 4,869 7.0 7.9 91 10.4 3.9 4.8 2.9 4.2 3.6 4.3 2.5 3.5 65 10.8 13. 16.8 1994 1995 1996 1997 cA 103 108 112 411 435 456 482 100 100 100 100 7 7 7s 7s 30 30 30 30 75 7 7s 7S sO so 50 50 7s 7 7s 7S 150 150 150 150 >t Pt 4 4 2.44 2.53 2.61 2.71 16 16 16 16 8s 93 98 103 112 112 112 112 220 225 230 235 150 149 148 146 1,480 1,629 1,777 1,923 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.1 9.1 9.1 Fl 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 9.135 9,975 10,826 11,733 24.6 27.7 31.2 35.0 12.1 15.2 18.7 22.5 8.2 10.0 12.0 14.0 45.4 55.4 67.4 81.4 1988 73 289 100 7s 30 100 81 566 cee war 5,302 11.5 5.3 4.3 21.1 1998 117 506 saga = 8as >t 2.8 1ot 16 109 112 241 146 21069 12,675 39.0 26.5 16.0 97.4 1989 vr 303 100 75 7 sO 7s 150 2.05 240 16 6s 112 197 155 721 145 2.214 Novo pet 13,650 43.6 31.1 18.3 115.7 1990 80 316 100 75 30 112 153 874 Noo aes Ben Be - wee S ve HOM OW 3 126 143 2.357 Bey Geet 14,632 48.4 35.9 20.5 136.2 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 2357 KOYUKUK - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERAGION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 3032.1 136.2 433.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2357 + 3032.1 = 5389.1 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 136.2 + 433.7 = 569.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S12 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR KOYUKUK DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC 1981 DEMAND -- KW 45 ENERGY -- MWH 188 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 UNIT #2 7S UNIT #3 30 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 7S UNIT #2 50 UNIT #3 - HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 100 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 7 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 22,109 COST PER GALLON 1.56 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 38 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) - ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 66 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 66 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 71 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) = BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED — 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - NET BENEFIT X(1000) - PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) - ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - 1991 DEMAND -- KW 8s ENERGY —- MWH 340 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 i EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 UNIT 73 UNIT #3 30 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 UNIT #2 50 UNIT #3 75 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 157 DIESEL INVESTMENT x(1000) - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 41) 103 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - COST PER GALLON 2.20 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 20 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT x(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 303 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST x‘ 1000) 30 ANNUAL COSTS x‘ 1000) 364 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST x‘ 1000) 271 ACCUM PRES WORTH X( 1000) 2.118 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT x(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) “6 TOTAL EXTRA COST x‘ 1000) Re BENEFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 3.298 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X( 1000) 8.0 NET BENEFIT X( 1000) 7.4 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x(1000) 3.5 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 47.0 as 13a 25,049 as asa BiB, 1983 s7 225 26,460 1.67 22 78 74 215 1993 94 HE 98. 3, 21636 QNO -y @veo ao GENERATION 1984 1985 1986 1987 60 63 66 70 237 248 262 276 100 100 100 100 75 75 75 7s 30 30 30 30 75 75 75 75 50 so so so - - 75 75 - - 157 157 ” io 60 = 7 7 11 11 27,871 29,165 - - 1.73 1.79 1.85 1.92 53 37 - - 22 22 20 20 - - 74793 - - - 303 303 - - 30 30 82 86 364 364 7s 7 314 305 290 366 680 985 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 5.0 - - - +6 +6 - - +6 +6 - - 5.870 5,408 - - 11.9 11.4 - - 11.3 10.8 - - 9.7 9.0 - - 9.7 18.7 1994 1995 1996 1997 8 103 108 112 411 435 456 482 100 100 100 100 75 75 75 75 30 30 30 30 75 7s 7s 7s 50 50 50 50 7s 75 75 75 157 157 157 157 11 it 11 11 - - 2.117 4,939 2.48 |||) 2°53) ||| ives 2e7i = - 6 15 20 20 20 303 303 303 303 30 30 30 30 364 370 379 248 241 237 236 2,884 3,125 3,362 3,598 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT +6 “6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 956 165 - és 2.6 +5 - a 2.0 1) +6) (6) 1.4 21) (4) C4) 55.2 34.7 54.3 1988 73 289 4,979 10.8 10.2 8.3 27.0 1998 117 848 aga 157 11 7+762 2.80 1989 77 303 100 30 75 so 157 11 2.05 303 30 364 287 1,568 848 so 7s 157 11 10,584 2.90 34 21 303 234 4,067 1990 80 316 8as so 7s 157 11 2.13 20 303 30 364 279 1,847 4,089 9.6 9.0 6.9 41.5 126 SS3 4,300 KOYUKUK - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS Cin thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 4300 4940.7 53.2 -7.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4300 + 4940.7 = 9240.7 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 53.2 + -7.2 = 46.0 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S11 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RUSSIAN MISSION DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 DEMAND -- KW 69 72 77 83 83 5 102 109 116 123 ENERGY -- MWH 273 284 305 326 347 375 402 430 458 486 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 a = = = = = - - = a EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 UNIT #2 75 75 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #3 73 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #4 15 1s 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 90 90 90 90 90 20 90 90 90 20 UNIT #2 - 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 UNIT #3 = = = = i = fai 7 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 37 72 - - - - - - 80 = DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - s s 5 5 5 5 s 10 10 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 32,105 33,398 35,868 38,338 40,807 44,100 47,275 50,568 53,861 57,154 COST PER GALLON 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.90 1.96 2.03 2.10 2.18 2.25 2.33 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 60 65 72 80 88 8 109 121 133 146 DIESEL O&M COST Xx(1000) 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 82 92 99 107 115 126 137 149 166 179 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 82 89 93 98 102 109 115 121 131 137 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 82 171 264 362 464 573 688 809 940 1,077 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 40.5 - - - - - 45.0 - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 5.7 5.7 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 21 2.1 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.8 7.8 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1, GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 4519 5,061 5.631 6,350 7,091 7,889 8,725 9,602 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 91 10.6 12.1 14.1 16.4 18.9 21.5 24.5 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 5.4 6.9 8.4 10.4 12.7 15.2 13.7 16.7 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 5.1 6.3 7s 9.0 10.6 12.4 10.8 12.8 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - S.1 11.4 18.9 27.9 38.5 50.9 61.7 74.5 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 133 142 152 161 171 181 190 200 209 219 ENERGY -— MWH 533 580 627 675 722 769 816 863 oi 958 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - 2 o a - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 UNIT #2 75 7s 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #3 75 75 7s 7s 75 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #4 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 UNIT #2 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 UNIT #3 E 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - = = = - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 62,681 68,208 73,735 79,380 84,907 90,434 95.962 101,489 107,134 112,661 COST PER GALLON 2.41 2.50 2.58 2.67 2.77 2.86 2.97 3.07 3.18 3.29 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 166 188 209 233 259 285 314 343 375 408 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ; 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 200 222 243 268 294 320 350 379 411 445 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 149 160 170 183 194 205 218 229 241 254 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,226 1,386 1,556 1,739 1,933 2.138 2,356 2,585 2+826 3,080 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - _ - - - is = is 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 21 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 21 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 BENEFIT (HEATING) GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 10,718 12,073 13,494 15,003 16,557 18177 195864 21,617 23,462 25,349 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 28.4 33.3 38.2 44.0 50.5 57.3 65.0 73.1 82.1 91.8 ET BENEFIT X(1000) 20.6 25.5 30.4 36.2 42.7 49.5 57.2 65.3 74.3 84.0 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 15.3 18.4 21.3 24.7 28.2 31.8 35.6 39.5 43.7 47.9 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 89.8 108.2 129.5 154.2 182.4 214.2 249.8 289.3 333.0 380.9 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RUSSIAN MISSION DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 UNIT #4 u ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X‘(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X( 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 UNIT #4 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 32 10. 1981 69 273 125 7s 7s 15 90 s7 +105 1.71 8S 888 1991 133 10.3 3.8 14.1 +718 28.4 14.3 10.6 75.3 1982 72 284 125 1s 188 72 33,398 1.77 6s 22 288 1992 142 125 a 75 15 DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE 1983 77 305 aaae 133 35,868 1.83 72 22 Nn 333 2 OeRnd Nova 4,519 9.1 gag Bos 1993 152 125 7s a 1s 13,494 38.2 24.1 16.9 106.1 GENERATION 1984 1985 1986 1987 83 ss a] 102 326 347 375 402 125 125 125 125 7s 7S 75 7s 7s 7 7s 7s 1s is 15 15 90 - 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 5 s 5 s 38,338 40,807 44,100 47,275 1.90 1.96 2.03 2.10 80 8s 78 109 22 22 23 23 107 11s 126 137 98 102 109 115 362 464 573 68s NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS — WASTE HEAT 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 5,061 5631 65350 7,091 10.6 12.1 14.1 16.4 6.9 8.4 10.4 12.7 6.3 7.5 9.0 10.6 11.4 18.9 27.9 38.5 1994 1995 1996 1997 161 171 181 190 675 722 769 B16 125 125 125 125 7 75 7s 75 7s 7s 7s 7 15 15 15 1s 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 250 250 250 250 s s s s 2.67 2.77 2.86 2.97 27 27 27 27 145 155 165 175 120 120 120 120 297 307 317 327 202 203 203 204 2,002 2.205 2,408 2-612 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 15,003 16,557 18,177 19,864 44.0 50.5 57.3 65.0 29.9 36.4 43.2 50.9 20.4 24.1 27.7 31.7 126.5 150.6 178.3 210.0 198s 109 430 aaaa 183 5 50,568 2.18 121 23 aie) Nout 7.889 18.9 15.2 12.4 50.9 1998 21,617 73.1 59.0 35.7 245.7 1989 116 4ss 112.5 10.3 14.1 1990 123 486 S33 aaah saan 3.224 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RUSSIAN MISSION DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW “NIT #1 XISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW NIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 UNIT #4 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) "RES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ‘CCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -—- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 UNIT #4 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) =XTRA COST » INVESTMENT X(1000) « EQUIV AN COST X(1000) » MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 1981 69 273 toot 1991 133 533 125 7s 15 57,977 2.41 196 146 1,211 Mya oe 9914 26.3 18.5 13.8 79.6 1982 72 284 125 7s 1s 90 90 72 33,398 1.77 és 22 92 171 1992 142 aaae 90 100 63,504 2.50 175 24 218 158 1,369 apg Oren 11,240 31.0 23.2 16.8 96.4 1983 77 305 125 75 75 15 18.0 33,516 1.83 Yorn Nova 4 § Pre © Pau b 1993 152 627 125 7s 15 69,031 2.58 24 $3 apt 1,537 sya Onn 12.633 35.9 28.1 19.7 116.1 1984 83 326 125 7S 15 188 18.0 35,986 1.90 7s 22 ON 106 Sen NoNt a a One vo HNN oO 1994 161 81.0 10 68,796 2.67 202 24 Si 252 172 1,709 ype Oren 13,002 38.2 $38 One 1985 1986 1987 8s oS 102 347 375 402 125 125 125 7S 75 7s 7 7S 7s 15 1s 1s 90 90 90 90 90 90 18.0 36.0 36.0 38,455 39,396 42,571 1.96 2.03 2.10 83 ss 98 22 22 23 = 26 = 2 4 4 3 s 5 114 124 135 101 107 113 461 ses 681 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT Wen Novt 5,»307 5,673 61386 11.5 12.7 14.7 7.8 9.0 11.0 69 7.8 9.2 17.0 24. 34.0 1995 1996 1997 171 181 190 722 769 e116 125 125 125 7s 7 7s 7s 7s 7s 15 15 15 90 90 90 90 90 90 100 100 100 81.0 81.0 81.0 10 10 10 74,323 79,850 85,378 2.77 2.86 2.97 226 251 279 24 25 25 Z 7 7 9 9 9 276 302 330 182 194 206 1,891 2,085, 2.291 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 5.7 5.7 5.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 14,493 16,050 17.673 44.1 50.5 57.8 36.3 42.7 50.0 24.0 27.4 31.2 160.8 188.2 219.4 1988 109 430 147 120 801 ape Oren 19,363 65.4 57.6 34.8 254.2 1989 116 458 125 75 15 90 90 100 36.0 10 49,157 2.25 122 911 1990 123 486 125 7s 7s 15 90 100 36.0 10 52,450 2.33 134 23 176 1,065 81.0 10 102,077 3.29 369 26 421 240 2,977 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR SHELDON POINT 1981 54 224 120 120 1991 112 449 120 120 100 100 1s 52,802 2.40 139 177 132 1,116 1982 66 261 120 120 100 7s 140 30,694 1.76 se 87 158 1992 120 492 120 120 100 100 15 57,859 2.48 158 196 142 1,258 eye NNOI 10,241 28.0 19.8 14.3 81.6 DIESEL GENERATION 1983 6 273 120 120 120 120 100 100 1s 62,798 2.57 178 24 217 152 15410 ape NNOT 11,492 32.6 24.4 17.1 98.7 | 1984 72 285 120 120 100 7s 33,516 1.89 79 101 340 ery ee or 4,424 9.2 S.1 4.7 8.5 1994 138 120 120 100 100 1s 67,855 2.66 199 24 162 1,572 1985 7s 298 120 120 434 1986 81 319 120 120 1987 341 120 120 100 7s b 40,102 2.09 92 22 123 103 635 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 1.1 1.1 4.1 4.1 4,836 5,402 10.4 12.0 6.3 7.9 5.6 6.8 14.1 20.9 1995 1996 146 155 619 662 120 120 120 120 100 100 73 7s 100 100 15 15 72,794 77,851 2.75 2.85 220 244 24 25 259 284 i171 182 1,743 1,925 ery ero 6,015 13.8 9.7 8.1 29.0 1997 164 704 120 120 100 100 1s 82,790 2.95 269 193 2,118 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 14,195 15,648 42.9 49.0 34.7 40.8 22.9 26.2 141.6 167.8 Se NOI 17,138 55.7 47.5 29.6 197.4 1988 92 363 120 120 a3 42,689 2.16 101 133 108 743 arcs hHON 6,659 15.8 11.7 9.5 38.5 1998 173 747 120 120 100 100 1s 87,847 3.05 203 25321 are NROI 18,711 62.8 54.6 33.0 230.4 1989 97 120 120 100 7s 100 80 15 45,276 2.24 112 150 118 861 eri NNOO Fyy one 1999 181 120 120 100 100 1s 92,786 3.16 26 214 2.535 1990 103 40 120 120 100 7s 100 15- 47,863 2.32 122 160 123 984 120 120 100 7s 100 15 97,843 3.27 352 26 224 2,739 ee NNOF 22,01! 71.0 40.5 307.6 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH ISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW IT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) weMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) T BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR SHELDON POINT DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 54 66 ‘69 72 7s 81 224 261 273 285 298 319 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 = 100 100 100 100 100 - 75 75 75 7s 78 - 140 - - - - «.# 9 9 9 9 9 265342 30,694 32,105 33,516 35,045 37,514 1.70 1.76 1.82 1.89 1.95 2.02 4s 59 64 70 7s 83 22 22 22 22 22 22 71 90 s 101 106 114 71 87 30 92 34 38 71 158 248 340 434 332 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 45.0 - - - - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - 4.1 4.4 at 41 - - 4,085 4,424 4,836 5,402 - 8.1 9.2 10.4 12.0 - - 4.0 6.3 7.9 - - 3.8 3.6 6.8 - - 3.8 14.1 20.9 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 112 120 129 138 146 155 449 492 534 377 619 662 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 75 73 73 73 73 200 200 200 200 200 200 ° “9 ° 9 ° ° 2.40 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.75 2.85 22 22 22 22 22 22 m1 100 108 117 126 134 116 116 116 116 116 116 238 247 235 264 273 261 177 178 179 180 180 180 1,274 1,452 1463115811 1,991 25171 HONGELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 2.0 9.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12:4 1214 9,029 10,241 11,492 12,825 14,195 15,648 23.8 28.0 32.6 37.6 42.9 49.0 11.4 15.6 20.2 25.2 30.5 36.6 8.5 11.3 14.2 17.2 20.2 23.5 37.7 49.0 83.2 100.4 120.6 144.1 1987 86 341 120 120 ery eo 6,015 13.8 9.7 8.1 29.0 120 120 848 » riBreor 3 SBr, 181 2.352 pee pRor 17,138 55.7 43.3 27.0 171.1 1988 92 363 120 120 Tas 42,689 2.16 101 8 Conf 133 743 ene bor 18,711 62.8 50.4 30.5 201.6 1989 97 385 116 225 178 921 1990 103 407 120 120 1,097 116 307 180 2.712 Sey Peo 20,320 70.7 58.3 34.3 235.9 120 120 tor 8 3.27 169 116 316 180 2,892 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR SHELDON POINT DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION 1981 DEMAND -- KW 34 ENERGY -- MWH 224 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 120 UNIT #2 120 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 am UNIT #2 * UNIT #3 - WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS a DIESEL INVESTMENT X( 1000) - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 26.342 COST PER GALLON 1.70 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 49 DIESEL O&M COST XK«(1000) 22 WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) - WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) - ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 71 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 71 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 7 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) = TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) J BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) a NET BENEFIT X(1000) = PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) * ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) = 1991 DEMAND -- KW 112 ENERGY ——- MWH 449 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 = EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 120 UNIT #2 120 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 100 UNIT #2 7s UNIT #3 - WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS 64.5 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 9 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 38,690 COST PER GALLON 2.40 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 102 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 22 WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) = WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 39 WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) 90 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 262 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 195 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,744 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3.0 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 1.1 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 4.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 61616 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 17.4 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 13.3 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) IF ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 50.3 1982 66 261 120 120 15.0 140 28,812 1.76 135 21 117 114 185 1992 120 492 120 120 Tas 64.5 43,042 2.48 278 201 1,945 1983 6o 273 Peake eon 8.651 24.5 20.4 14.3 76.6 1984 72 285 120 120 Pew HROL 3. 23 ger 9» ano 120 120 312 213 2,365 are eo; 83 B NOe UN 1985 1986 1987 7s 81 86 298 319 341 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 7s 7s 7s 57.0 57.0 57.0 9 9 9 26,460 27,989 29,635 1.95 2.02 09 37 62 6s 22 22 22 244 - = 35 3s 35 80 80 80 203 208 214 180 179 179 643 822 1,001 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.651 4,030 4,445 7.9 8.9 10.2 3.8 4.8 6.1 3.4 4.1 S.1 9.9 14.0 19.1 1995 1996 1997 146 155 164 619 662 704 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 7s 75 7 100 100 100 73.5 73.5 73.5 15 15 1s 55,860 60,211 64,445 2.75 2.85 2.95 169 189 209 23 24 24 81 - - 45 45 45 103 103 103 355 376 396 235 241 247 2,600 2,841 3,088 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 45.0 - - 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 10,893 12,102 13,340 33.0 38.0 43.3 24.8 29.8 35.1 16.4 19.1 21.9 109.6 128.7 150.6 1988 363 120 120 120 120 100 100 73.5 15 68,796 3.05 231 24 45 103 418 253 3,341 we: NNOT 14,654 49.2 41.0 24.8 175.4 1989 97 120 120 120 120 100 7s 100 73.5 15 73,030 3.16 4s 103 441 259 3+600 1990 103 407 120 120 120 120 100 100 82.5 15 77616 3.27 279 116 485 277 3,877 Sue NNOT 17,464 62.8 54.6 31.1 234.3 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X( 1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR CHUATHBALUK 1981 43 193 101 22,697 1.44 a 37 s7 37 1991 105 ago ss 100 100 49,274 2.03 110 138 103 842 8,426 10.6 49.9 DIESEL GENERATION 1982 Ss7 225 so so 1992 113 461 88 100 100 54,214 2.10 125 23 153 111 953 ONO NNOT 9,596 22.1 13.9 10.0 59.9 1983 61 241 186 83 100 100 59,153 2.17 141 24 170 119 1,072 ONe NNOT 10,825 17.6 12.3 72.2 1984 6s 257 8s Pnie NNOT 12,113 30.1 21.9 14.9 87.1 1985, 49 272 $3 60 100 31,987 1.65 80 71 326 1986 74 293 ss 34,457 1.71 6s 87 401 1987 80 314 33 60 100 36,926 1.77 72 22 94 79 480 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT ary reo 4,414 8.0 ese ou 1995 139 587 83 100 100 69,031 2.33 177 24 136 1,336 ary ee ol 41962 9.4 eats row 1996 148 629 50 50 60 100 100 s 73,970 2.41 196 24 225 144 1,480 27? mrOr 5.539 10.8 6.7 5.6 18.2 1997 672 so so 60 100 100 s 79,027 2.50 217 25 247 154 1,634 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 13,461 14,868 34.5 39.4 26.3 31.2 17.4 20.0 104.5 124.5 Sue NNOT 16,359 44.9 36.7 22.9 147.4 1988 335 $3 39,396 1.83 101 562 eee eHOn 6.146 12.3 8.2 6.7 24.9 1998 165 714 ss 100 100 83,966 2.58 268 162 1,796 oe NNOT 17,885 50.7 42.5 25.7 173.1 1989 a 41,866 1.90 87 109 648 ore enor 6,782 14.1 10.0 7.9 32.8 1999 173 100 100 88,906 2.67 261 291 171 1,967 ene NNOI 19,470 57.2 49.0 28.8 201.9 1990 9 377 119 739 88 100 100 93,845 2.77 26 317 181 2.148 eye NNO! 21,115 64.3 56.1 32.0 233.9 CHAUTHBALUK - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 2148 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 3829.4 233.9 677.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2148 + 3829.4 = 5977.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 233.9 + 677.7 = 911.6 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S10 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND —- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT @1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR CHUATHBALUK DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 43 193 8,426 18.8 6.5 4.8 34.0 1982 1983 s7 61 225 241 50 so 50 60 100 100 43 48 22 6s 79 63 6 120 186 - 45.0 - 3.0 * 1.1 - 4.1 = 3.571 - 6.0 = 1.9 - 1.8 - 1.8 1992 1993 113 122 461 sos 50 sO so so 60 60 100 100 200 200 22 22 oo 7s 116 116 207 213 150 149 15162 1,311 1984 6s 257 50 so 1985 1986 1987 6 74 80 272 293 314 50 sO so so so so 60 60 60 100 100 100 31,987 34,457 36,926 1.65 1.71 1.77 ss és 72 22 22 22 80 87 4 71 7S 79 326 401 480 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4,414 45962 5,539 8.0 9.4 10.8 3.9 5.3 6.7 3.5 4.6 5.6 8.0 12.6 18.2 1995 1996 1997 139 148 sé 587 629 672 50 so 50 50 so 50 60 60 60 100 100 100 200 200 200 2.33 2.41 2.50 22 22 22 ss 94 101 116 116 116 226 232 239 149 149 149 14610 1,759 1,908 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.0 9.90 9.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 13,461 14,868 16,359 34.5 39.4 44.9 22.2 27.1 32.6 14.7 17.4 20.3 77.4 94.38 115.1 1988 335 Bry “rol 61146 12.3 8.2 6.7 24.9 1998 165 714 Nov @wWor - 838 ga bbe uf 1989 a1 356 6,782 1 $s ria BBS 2.67 22 113 116 251 147 2.203 Py» aowor 19,470 $7.2 44.9 26.4 164.7 1990 9 377 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 2350 CHAUTHBALUK - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to_ year 2000 2001 to 2036 3104.6 194.3 628.2 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2350 + 3104.6 = 5454.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 194.3 + 628.2 = 822.5 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S9 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR CHUATHBALUK DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1981 DEMAND -- KW 43 ENERGY -- MWH 193 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 UNIT #2 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 100 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 - DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 100 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 22.697 COST PER GALLON 1.44 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 36 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST x(1000) - ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 37 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 37 ACCUM PRES WORTH x(1000) 37 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - NET BENEFIT X(1000) - PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - 1991 DEMAND -- KW 105, ENERGY -- MWH 419 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 UNIT #2 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 UNIT #2 100 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 125 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 14,582 COST PER GALLON 2.03 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 33 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 286 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST x‘ 1000) 30 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 370 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 275 ACCUM PRES WORTH X( 1000) 2+007 EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3.0 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) aieit TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 4.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2,494 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 5.6 NET BENEFIT x(1000) 1.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 1.1 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) (1.3) 1982 s7 225 ss 6s 120 1992 113 461 $s 125 19,522 2.10 4s 21 Peo G@ hor rpg o% amo o 1983 61 241 ss ae oneeee HOO 128 24,461 2.17 21 1984 65 257 30,223 1.60 s3 22 doa mon Pew -eol 5.557 13.8 wa7 6.6 12.7 1987 314 60 100 125 2.234 1.77 4 20 286 30 340 285 90L Seenee eHor 335 6 (3.5) (2.9) 1.6 1997 S56 672 ss 461 287 1985 1986 6 74 272 293 so so 50 50 3] || 60) 60 100 100 - 125 31,987 - 1.65 1.71 58 - 22 20 - 74360 - 286 - 30 80 336 71 290 326 616 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 ret er at 4.1 4,414 - 8.0 - 3.9 (4.1) 3.5 (3.5) 8.0 4.5 1995 1996 139 148 587 629 50 50 50 So 60 60 100 100 128 128 34,339 39,278 2.33 © 2.41 88 104 22 22 286 286 30 30 426 442 282 284 3+122 3,406 3.693 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 1.1 1.1 4.1 4.1 61696 7,895 17.2 20.9 13.1 16.8 8.7 10.8 21.4 32.2 Pre ror 9.177 25.3 21.2 13.2 45.4 1988 335 60 100 1235 4,704 1.83 9 20 286 30 345 280 1,181 Peo “Hor 734 1.4 (2.7) (2.2) (.6) 8s 125 49,274 2.58 mde seOr 10,495 San wan 1989 a1 125 7174 1.90 15 20 351 1,458 wiecee eHOr 15162 2.4 41.7) (1.3) (1.9) 1999 173 756 $3 125 54,214 2.67 33 38, 38 45276 bee mor 11,873 34.8 30.7 18.0 78.9 1990 9 377 Sere hhOor 1,620 3.5 (.6) 5) (2.4) 2000 182 798 $s 125 59,153 2.77 pew wrRor 5 SBR 8 N@s a CHUATHBALUK - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year , From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 4572 6281.6 99.7 439.7 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 4572 + 6281.6 = 10853.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 99.7 + 439.7 = 539.4 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S8 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR CROOKED CREEK DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 19851986 = 1987 44 37 63 70 7% 83 90 184 227 251 276 301 328 355 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 40 60 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 - - - - - - 211638 26,695 29.518 32,458 35,398 38,573 41,748 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.61 Av66)||||) t272)||| s.78 38 44 50 37 65 73 82 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 36 66 72 79 87 os 104 56 64 6s 72 77 82 87 56 120 188 260 337 419 506 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 45.0 - - - - - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - - rea 1.1 io8 1.1 1.1 - - 4.1 4.1 4.1 44 4.1 - - 3719 4,284 5.555 6,262 - - 6.3 7.8 10.§ 12.3 - - 3.4 6.4 8.2 - - 3.1 3.5 6.9 - - 5.2 18211; ||| |/2220 1991 1992 1993 1994 19951996 1997 119 128 136 144 152 160 169 477 519 560 601 643 684 725 50 50 so so 50 50 so 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 40 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 s 5 s s s s 5 56,095 61,034 65,856 70.678 75:617 80,438 85.260 2,08 ||| |(facd2))) |) 2529, |||||2527 ||| (2595) | |i) aces" || \Ni2581 126 142 159 176 195 215 235 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 154 171 188 205 225 245 265 115 124 132 140 149 157 165 923 1,047 14179 15319 1,468 1,625 1,790 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 252 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 9,592 10,803 12,052 13,358 14,745 16.168 17,649 Bie) || 7 2558) |!) epsit|| ||| |'SBsS || ||| /BS-9)||||/(49.2) ||| 40.6 23) ||||//24-9,)||)|20:9!1)|||2523\|||||/29-9)|/||/38-0))||/4054 EO) |)))) S252 1))) 588571 ||N/A 708) |) ||) 49271) |(e2es|NN || eee 54.7 66.9 81.6 98.7 118.4 140.9 166.1 1988 97 382 gs 60 100 44,923 1.84 aL 23 114 soo $3 100 100 90,082 2.60 174 1,964 1989 104 409 $s 60 100 100 80 48,098 1.91 101 129 102 701 ee NROO coo ry NON 2& $8 100 100 95,021 2.69 281 26 312 183 2.147 20,810 61.5 53.3 31.3 225.7 1990 111 436 51,274 1.98 112 23 140 107 80s ie NNOT 8,614 18.8 10.6 8.1 44.8 194 849 99,842 2.79 26 337 192 2,339 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT. X( 1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR CROOKED CREEK DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 19821983 1984 1985 1986 1987 44 57 63 70 7% 83 90 184 227 251 276 301 328 355 So so 50 so so so 50 50 so 50 sO sO so 50 60 60 60 60 *° 60 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 - 7 a = # i 21,638 26,695 29,518 32,458 35,398 38,573 41,748 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.61 1.66 1.72 1.78 35 44 so 57 6s 73 82 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 56 66 72 79 87 ce] 104 56 64 68 72 77 82 87 56 120 188 260 337 419 506 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 45.0 - - - - - - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - - 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 - - 3,719 4,284 4,885 5,554 6,262 - - 6.3 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.3 - - 2.2 3.4 4.9 6.4 8.2 - - 2.1 3.1 4.4 5.5 6.9 - - 2.1 5.2 9.6 15.1 22.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 119 128 136 144 152 160 169 477 519 560 601 643 684 723 50 so so so so so so so 7) so so 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 200 200,. 200 200 2.05 2.12 2.19 2.27 2.35 2.43 2.51 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 71 78 84 90 96 102 108 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 209 216 222 228 234 240 246 156 156 156 155 155 154 153 1,068 1,224 1,380 1,535 1,690 1,844 1,997 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 9,592 10,803 12,052 13,358 14,745 16,168 17,649 21.5 25.1 29.1 33.3 38.0 43.2 48.6 98 12.7 16.7 20.9 25.6 = 308 36.2 6.8 9.2 11.7 14.2 16.9 19.8 22.6 45. 54.3 66.0 80.2 97.1 116.9 139.5 i988 97 382 83 60 100 S., reot BSS 114 S99 ere hrHOr 7,008 14.2 10.1 8.2 30.2 1998 177 766 ss 153 2,150 1989 104 116 199 157 1990 111 436 pe por 8,614 18.8 6.4 4.9 38.3 18 849 2,453 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR NIKOLAI DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 DEMAND -- KW 31 52 54 57 60 63 67 70 73 7% ENERGY -- MWH 200 203 214 226 237 249 261 273 286 298 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7s 75 75 75 73 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 so 50 50 50 50 so 50 UNIT #3 15 15 1s 1s 1s 15 15 15 15 1s EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - = - - - _ i = - - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - 78 75 75 75 73 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - 60 - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - - - - 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 23,520 23,873 25,166 26,578 27,871 29,282 30,694 32,105 33,634 35.045 COST PER GALLON 1.67. 1.73 «167916850 s1092)s109B) 200521222002. 28 ESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 43 45 50 34 39 64 69 75 81 88 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 64 66 71 7 81 90 9S 101 107 114 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 64 64 67 70 72 78 80 82 84 87 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 64 128 195 265 337 ais 495 377 661 748 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 33.8 - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 ey) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2:3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - -8 -8 8 8 +8 <e “8 =e TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 Sui 3.1 a4 3.1 re BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 3,171 35508 3,846 4,217 4,604 5,008 5,449 5,888 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 6.3 aed 8.1 9.2 10.4 11.7 13.1 14.8 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.2 4.0 5.0 6.1 7.3 8.6 10.0 11.7 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.3 6.1 7.0 7.9 9.0 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.0 6.7 ded 16.4 22.5 29.5 37.4 46.4 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND —- KW 79 83 86 89 92 3% 39 102 106 109 ENERGY — MWH 316 333 351 369 386 422 440 458 475 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7s 75 7s 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #3 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 1s 15 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 75 7s 7s 7s 73 73 73 73 75 73 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 37,162 39,161 41,278 43,394 45,394 47/510 49,4627 51,744 53,861 55.860 COST PER GALLON 2.36 2.44 2.52 2.61 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.21 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 36 105 114 125 135 146 158 171 184 197 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) + 122 131 140 152 162 173 185 198 2i1 224 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) a1 95 98 104 107 111 115 120 124 128 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 839 934 1,032 1-136 1.243 1.354 1,469 1,589 1,713 1,941 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - = 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 2.3 2.3 23 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 a3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) -8 +8 7) ) 8 “8 -8 8 8 +8 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 3.1 3.1 3.1 sed 3.1 3.1 ce ast 3.1 3.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 65355 6,931 7,554 8,201 8,852 9,550 10,273 11,021 11,796 12,569 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 16.4 18.6 20.9 23.6 26.3 29.3 32.7 36.4 40.3 44.3 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 13.3 15.5 17.8 20.5 23.2 26.2 29.6 33.3 37.2 41.2 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 9.9 11.2 12.5 14.0 15.3 16.8 18.4 20.1 21.9 23.5 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT -x(1000) 56.3 67.5 80.0 94.0 109.3 126.1 144.5 164.6 186.5 210.0 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR NIKOLAI DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1968 1989 1990 DEMAND -- KW Si 52 34 57 60 63 67 70 73 7 ENERGY -- MWH 200 203 214 226 237 249 261 273 286 298 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7s 75 7s 75 75 75 7s 7s 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 so 50 so 50 50 so UNIT #3 1s 1s 1s 1s 15 1s 1s 1s 1s EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 = = = = S i = = = = ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW : UNIT #1 - = = a = 75 7s 78 75 75 UNIT #2 = ae Ses a - - = = 125 125 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) = = - = = 60 = = - = DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x‘ 1000) = = = = = 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 23,520 23,873 25,166 26,578 27,871 29,282 30,694 32,105 - - COST PER GALLON 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.85 1.92 1.98 2.05 2.12 2.20 2.28 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 43 45 50 34 39 44 69 75 - - DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 - - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) = = = = = = = = 200 = BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X<1000) = = 2 = = = = - 13 13 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) a = = = = = = - 1 64 BINARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) = = = = = = = — 110 110 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 64 66 7 7% a1 90 os 101 188 191 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 44 64 67 70 72 78 80 82 148 146 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 64 128 195 265 337 as 495 377 728 871 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 33.8 = = = = = 36.2 - 2. EQUIV AN COST X‘1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 6.1 6.1 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) = - +8 8 8 8 +8 +8 2.2 2.2 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 8.3 8.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED = -+ 3.171 3,508 3,846 4,217 4,604 5,008 5,449 5,688 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 6.3 Fe 8.1 9.2 10.4 11.7 13.1 14.8 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.2 4.0 5.0 b.1 7.3 8.6 4.8 6.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.3 6.1 7.0 3.8 5.0 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) = - 3.0 6.7 Abed 16.4 22.5 29.5 33.3 38.3 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996-1997 1998 1999 200 DEMAND —- KW 79 83 86 89 92 3% 99 102 106 10% ENERGY —— MWH 316 333 351 369 386 422 440 458 475 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 73 75 75 7s 75 7s 73 75 73 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so so UNIT #3 15 15 15 15 15 1s 15 1s 1s 1s EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES —- KW UNIT #1 735 7 73 7s 75 73 73 75 75 75 UNIT #2 125 125 125 128 125 125 128 125 128 125 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - - - - - - - COST PER GALLON 2.36 2.44 2.52 2.61 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.21 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - = = BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST x‘1000) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) 48 71 75 79 83 87 ct 74 7 102 BINARY CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 ANNUAL COSTS x‘ 1000) 195 198 202 206 210 214 218 221 225 229 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 145 143 142 140 139 137 136 134 132 131 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 1,016 1,159 1,301 1,441 1,580 1,717 1,853 1,987 2,119 2,250 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X( 1000) - - - - - - - - - = 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 2 6.1 6.1 1 6.1 6.1 6.1 bet 6.1 3. MAINTENANCE COST x( 1000) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 8.3 8.3 8.3 3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 6.355 6,931 7,554 8,202 8,852 9,550 10,273 11,021 11,796 12,569 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 16.4 18.6 20.9 23.6 26.3 29.3 32.7 36.4 44.3 NET BENEFIT x(1000) 8.1 10.3 12.6 15.3 18,0 21.0 24.4 26.1 36.¢ PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT x( 1000) 6.0 7.4 8.8 10.4 11.9 13.5 15.2 17.0 20.8 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 44.30 51.7 60.5 70.9 «82.8 «= 963 111.5 128.5 167.€ ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RED DEVIL DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 DEMAND -- KW 32 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 49 so ENERGY -- MWH 132 156 160 164 168 174 180 186 192 198 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 so So 50 so so so so i) 50 50 UNIT #2 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - 75 75 7s 75 75 75 75 75 7s UNIT #2 - 50 50 50 50 so 50 so so so UNIT #3 - - - - - - - - - = DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - 100 - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7. GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 15,523 185346 18,816 19,286 19,757 20,462 21.168 21.874 22,579 23,285 COST PER GALLON 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.86 1.92 1.99 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 25 30 32 34 36 39 42 45 48 51 DIESEL O&M COST x‘1000) 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 46 ss 60 62 64 67 70 73 7% 79 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 46 56 57 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 46 102 159 216 273 331 390 449 509 570 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS HASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT x‘ 1000) - - 33.8 - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - 233 2.3 233) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 23 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 8 8 8 8 78 73 +8 78 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 3.1 o:t 3.1 3.1 Sei 3.1 3.1 3.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 25371 2,546 2.726 2,947 3,175 3,412 3,658 3,912 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.6 623 7.0 7.8 8.6 NET BENEFIT x(1000) - - 2 1.4 1.9 2.5 aa 3.9 4.7 5.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 8 1.3 ioe, rit 2.7, 3.2 2:7. 4.2 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X( 1000) - - -8 2.1 3.8 6.0 8.7 11.9 15.6 19.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 = 19951996 += 1997, 1998 1999 +2000 DEMAND -- KW 53 ss se 60 63 66 68 71 73 7% ENERGY -- MWH aun 225 238 252 265 279 292 306 319 333 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES —- KW UNIT #1 50 50 so so 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #2 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 7s 75 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 UNIT #3 - - - - - - - - 75 DIESEL INVESTMENT X( 1000) - - - - - - - - - 60 DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 7 7 7, 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 24,814 26,460 27,989 29,635 31,164 32,610 34,339 35,986 37,514 39,161 COST PER GALLON 2.06 2.13 20 2.28 2.36 2.45 2.53 2.62 2.71 2.81 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 36 62 68 74 81 88 96 104 112 121 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ‘ 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 84 o1 7 103 110 117 125 133 141 154 PRES WORTH AN COST x(1000) 63 66 6s 70 73 73 78 380 83 88 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 633 499 767 837 910 985 1,063 1,143 1,226 1,314 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X¢1000) - - - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x¢1000) 2.3 ass 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2:3 233 3. MAINTENANCE COST x(1000) 8 “8 78 78 a8 78 8 28 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 ari 3.1 ant 3.1 6.2 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 45243 4,683 5,122 5,601 6,077 6,595 7,108 7,665 8,216 8,811 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) 96 11.0 12.4 14,0 15.8 17.7 19.9 22.2 24.5 27.2 IET BENEFIT x(1000) 65 7.9 9.32 10.9 12.7 14.6 16.8 19.1 21.4 21.0 'RES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 4.3 5.7 6.5 7.4 8.4 9.4 10.5 11.6 12.6 12.0 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 24.6 30.3 36.8 44.2 52.6 62.0 72.5 84.1 96.7 108.7 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW WNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST Xx(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR RED DEVIL DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 32 132 1991 s3 211 Need pour PEN ON NON OO 1982 40 156 7s sO 100 18,346 1.51 ses succes st § 1992 ss 225 160 116 eet pour 1983 41 160 18,816 1.56 21 159 162 114 1,039 1984 1985 1986 1987 42 43 44 46 164 1468 174 180 50 so 50 50 73 73 78 73 7s 7s 7s 7s 50 50 50 50 7 7 7 7 19,286 19,757 20,462 21,168 1262))|))/ 4267, |\\)ia79) |||\2-79. 34 36 39 42 21 21 21 21 62 64 67 70 57 57 58 59 216 273 331 390 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 7) “8 +8 8 ont 3.1 ae1 3.1 2546 25726 925947 34175 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.2 1.3 1.7) 2.2 237 art 3.8 6.0 8.7 1994 1995 1996 1997 60 63 66 68 252 265 279 292 so 50 50 50 78 78 78 78 75 75 73 75 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 7 7 7 7 2-28 INN2s O62: 49) /liNi2rss 1 11 11 11 38 40 42 44 108 108 108 108 164 166 168 170 112 110 108 106 15151 1,261 1,369 1,475 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 5,601 6,077 6,595 7,108 14.0 18.6 (17.7 19.9 6.6 8-4, )))/)/20-3i))))) 12-5 4.5 5.6 6.6 7.8 25-3) ||\|| 9029) ||| \:37-51||||asz3 Nea Pout Sioeeteee fos 8 OOO Na 1989 49 192 ag 174 102 1,681 Nea Poul 8,216 24.5 17.1 10.0 64.3 1990 19R 50 78 Swoaien pout 3.912 1.2 oF 13. 7 333 180 103 1,784 ost pout 8,81 27.2: 19.6 11.3 75.6 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR SLEETMUTE DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 DEMAND -—- KW 42 Si s3 ss s7 60 63 67 70 73 ENERGY -- MWH 175 200 208 216 224 236 248 261 274 286 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW i UNIT @1 - a 7 - _ 7" a - = - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 50 so so so sO sO so 50 50 so UNIT #2 50 so 50 50 be) so so 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES —- KW UNIT @1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7 7s 7s 7s 7s UNIT #3 “i * = mi - a a - = DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 8s 7 - - = ~ - - = - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - = - - = - zs - - - GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 20,580 23,520 24,461 25+402 26,5342 27,754 29:165 30,694 32:222 33,634 COST PER GALLON 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.73 1.79 1.86 1.92 1.99 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 33 39 42 45 48 s3 57 63 6s 74 DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 34 60 63 67 79 7s 79 8s 90 96 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 34 ss so 61 62 6s 66 6 71 74 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 34 112 i171 232 294 359 425 494 56s 639 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 38 - - - - = or = 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST Xx(1000) - 7 8 +8 8 +8 8 +8 “8 “8 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) - ae 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 3,062 3.353 3.635 3,997 4,375 4,788 5,220 5,651 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING x(1000) - - 3.3 5.9 6.6 7.6 8.6 9.8 11.0 12.4 NET BENEFIT x(1000) - - 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.7 739 9.3 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.2 74 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - - 2.1 4.7 7.8 11.7 £653))|||/2157;))|||:27-9))|| 125-0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 78 83 89 94 9 104 109 115 120 125 ENERGY -- MWH 312 338 365 391 417 443 470 496 522 548 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES — KW UNIT #1 - Fe = = = a = = - = EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 so 50 50 so so 50 2) 50 so so UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 so so so so 50 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 60 40 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 73 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 UNIT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT Xx‘ 1000) 80 - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) s 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 s 5 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 36.691 39,749 42,924 45,982 49,039 52,097 55,272 58,330 61,387 64,445 COST PER GALLON 506) |||))2513)|||//2:20)|||||/2-28)|)||/236.|/))i2248) ||\\Ni2259) |) /i2562)1| onze 2.81 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) 83 93 104 115 127 140 154 168 183 199 DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) aS 120 132 143 155 168 182 196 212 228 PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) 82 87 93 7 102 108 113 119 125 130 ACCUM PRES WORTH X( 1000) 721 808 901 998 1,100 1,208 1,321 1.440 1,565 1,695 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 45.0 - - - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST Xx‘ 1000) 8.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 sus s3 523 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 7.3 7.3 73 7.3 7.3 7o3 72 72 7:3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED $1274 7,036 7,855 8.691 9,563 10,471 11,441 12,424 13,444 14,500 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 14.2 16.5 19.0 | |/21.7) | 24-8) ||| 28:3 Si-9'||/)) see ||| 140.8 44.8 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 6.9 9.2 11.7 14.4 17-5 20:8 28.6 28.5 | 32.8 37.5 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) S.1 6.6 8.2 9.8 11.6 13.4 15.3 17.2 19.3 21.4 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 40.1 46.7 54.9 64.7 76.3 89.7 105.0 122.2 141.5 162.9 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY BINARY BINARY ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -— MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 . EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST xX(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY BINARY BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST x(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST Xx(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR SLEETMUTE DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 19831984 42 Si s3 ss 175 200 208 216 50 50 50 so 50 50 50 50 60 460 60 60 73 75 75 75 es - = 20,580 23,520 24,461 25.402 2 1.46 1.51 1.56 1.62 33 39 42 45 21 21 21 22 34 60 63 67 54 se 39 61 34 112 171 232 2 - 33.8 = - - 2.3 2.3 - - “8 +8 - - 3.1 sed - - 3,082 3,353 - - 5.3 3.9 - - 2.2 2.8 5 - ant 2.6 = = an 4.7 1991 1992 19931994 78 83 89 74 312 338 365 391 50 50 50 50 50 so 50 50 60 60 60 60 75 73 73 75 150 150 150 150 2.06 2.13 2.20 2.28 16 16 16 16 47 31 55 58 112 112 112 112 175 179 183 186 130 129 128 127 888 1,017 1,145 1,272 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 6.274 7,036 7,855 8,691 14.2 16.5 19.0 21.7 4.9 72 9.7 12.4 3.6 5.2 6.8 8.4 29.0 34.2 41.0 49.4 1988 67 261 ss 1ag 30,694 1.86 SSR vias BB 2.3 3.1 4,788 9.8 6.7 5.4 21.7 1998 us 496 ss Seeeee wuot 12,424 35.8 26.5 16.0 1985 1986 1987 37 60 63 224 236 248 50 50 so 50 50 50 * 60 60 60 73 75 75 61342 27.754 29,165 1.67 1.73 1.79 48 33 57 22 22 22 70 73 79 62 6s 66 294 359 425 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3 +8 -8 8 si 3.1 Sut 36385 3,997 44375 6.6 7.6 8.6 3.5 4.5 5.5 3.1 3.9 4.6 7.8 11.7 16.3 1995 1996 11997 99 104 109 417 443 470 50 50 50 50 so 50 60 60 60 73 75 73 150. 150 150 2.36 2.45 2.53 16 16 16 62 &6 70 112 112 112 190 194 198 126 125 123 1,398 1,523 1,646 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 9,563 10.471 11,441 24.8 28.1 31.9 15.5 18.8 22.6 10.2 12.1 14.1 59.6 71.7 985.8 101.8 1989 70 274 112 121 1,889 oNe uot 13,444 40.1 30.8 18.1 119.9 1990 73 6.8 2.5 9.3 5,650 12.4 3.1 2.4 25.4 lie 548 ss 112 210 120 2,009 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY —- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -—- KW UNIT @1 td EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST xX(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR STONY RIVER DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 3s 42 43 4s 46 47 49 146 165 170 1735 179 185 191 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 75 73 75 75 75 73 73 8s = = a = = a 17,170 19,404 19,992 20.580 21,050 21,756 22,462 9567/1802 tll 28766911118 691111878) 81 28 32 35 37 39 42 45 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 49 53 56 58 60 63 66 49 51 53 53 53 54 55 49 100 153 206 259 313 368 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - 33.8 - = re = - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 - - +8 8 8 +8 8 - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 - - 2519 2+717 2.905 3.133 3,369 - - 4.4 4.9 5.4 6.0 6.8 - - as 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.7 - - 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 - - 1.2 2.8 4.8 7.3 10.4 1991 19921993 1994 = 19951996 = 1997 56 59 62 6s 68 71 74 224 240 270 285 300 316 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 73 73 73 75 75 73 75 261342 28,224 29,988 31,752 33,516 35,280 37,162 2.07 2.15 222 | |)||'2290) |||/\(2-98; |)/)(2546 ||)||2:88 60 67 73 80 838 95 104 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 82 89 9 102 110 117 126 61 oF 67 oo 73 7s 79 599 663 730 799 872 947 1,026 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 2.3 2.3 2.3) as 2.3 2.3 23 -8 8 8 8 -8 8 8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 o21 3.1 4,504 4,996 5,488 6,001 65536 7,091 7,693 10.3 11.9 13.4 15.1 17.2 19.1 21.5 7.2 8.8 10.3 12.0 14.1 16.0 18.4 5.4 6.4 7-2 8.2 9-3)) ||| |/10-9) ||| 18.8 2051))) | 9425) |) 4i7)||) 49:9 ||) S9e2) 1/6955) |||) 8120 1988 so 197 38 23,167 1.87 21 6 424 1989 s2 203 2.3 3.1 3,867 8.3 5.2 4.1 18.1 1999 2.3 3.1 8,911 26.7 23.6 13.9 107.6 1990 s3 209 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR STONY RIVER DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 198s 1989 1990 35 42 43 45 46 47 49 so s2 s3 146 165 170 175 179 18s 191 197 203 209 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - - i - ~ - nt i * - EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 so 50 50 50 so so so so so so UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s UNIT #3 = + = = = - = = 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) 8s - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) ie: i * - ~ = - “ = ‘al GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 17,170 19,404 19,992 20,560 21,050 21,756 22,462 23.167 - - COST PER GALLON 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.63 1.69 1.75 1.81 1.87 1.94 2.00 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 28 32 35 37 39 42 45 48 - - DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 bas we BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) ~ — bai " un 7 ae ban 160 — BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - -~ = * - * - = a1 11 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) * ae 7” - ” r a - 30 31 BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) - a = - - - mm * 108 108 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) ao s3 Sé 60 63 6s oo 149 150 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 4g Si s3 s3 54 Ss. 5é 118 15 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 49 100 153 206 239 313 368 424 542 657 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) * - 33.8 or se = = = 45.0 - 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.3 5.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) - - 8 8 8 +8 8 8 2.0 2.0 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - - 3.1 3.1 Be 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.3 7.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - - 2,519 2717 2,905 3.133 3:369 3,614 35867 4,129 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) - - 44 49 3.4 6.0 6.8 7.5 8.3 91 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.7 4.4 1.0 1.8 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) - - 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 +8 1.4 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - _ 1.2 2.8 4.8 7.3 10.4 14.0 14.8 16.2 1991 1992 19931994 = 1995 1996 = 1997 1998 19992000 DEMAND -- KW 56 59 62 6s 68 71 74 77 80 83 ENERGY -- MWH 224 240 255 270 285 300 316 331 346 362 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 -- - - - - - - - - ~" EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 so so so UNIT #2 50 50 50 50 50 50 So ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 UNIT #2 73 75 75 75 75 75 75 7s 75 75 UNIT #3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - 7 7 i 7 = a = = DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) - - - = = s = a Ps a GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - a 7 il Ly ms ut im iH in COST PER GALLON 2.07 2.15 2.22 2.30 2.38 2.46 2.55 2.68 2.73 2.83 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - 2 - a 2 z oo DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - o we BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) a1 11 11 11 11 11 a1 11 11 11 BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) 34 36 38 40 43 4s 47 so s2 54 BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 153 iss 157 159 162 164 166 169 171 173 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 114 112 110 108 107 105 103 102 100 99 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 771 883 993 1,101 1,208 1-313 1,416 1,518 1,618 15717 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 4,505 4,996 5,488 6,001 6,536 7,091 7,692 8,291 8,911 9,579 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 10.3 11.9 13.4 15.1 17.2 19.1 21.5 24.1 26.7 29.9 NET BENEFIT X(1000) 3.0 4.6 6.1 7.8 9.9 11.8 14.2 16.8 19.4 22.6 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.3 6.5 7.6 8.8 10.2 11.4 12.9 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) 18.4 © 21. 26. 31.3 37.8 45.4 54.2 64.4 75.8 98.7 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TAKOTNA DIESEL GENERATION 1981 43 178 88 20,933 1.65 38 21 so 5? 39 1991 #8 83 1982 53 208 a 60 4 24,461 1.71 46 21 71 6 128 1992 374 83 1983 ss 228 40 20 a 26,813 1.77 s2 78 74 202 1993 9 396 83 1984 64 249 83 8 823 NgBBos xa 1985 6 270 83 aa 2 Redo, faz 1986 72 262 335163 1.96 71 22 101 87 455 1987 7s 294 83 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS Snir wNor 5,186 11.6 5.3 4.4 17.4 1997 113 483 88 1988 78 307 40 20 36,103 2.10 83 22 113 637 101 WASTE HEAT i 33.8 2.3 4.6 8 1.7 3.1 6.3 4,382 4,775 Fel 10.2 6.0 3.9 5.3 3.4 13.0 1995 1996 104 109 429 461 40 40 20 20 7s 75 7s 7s 8 8 148 165 23 23 179 196 118 126 1,383 1,509 WASTE HEAT 4.6 4.6 1.7 1.7 6.3 6.3 9,838 10,897 28.9 33.2 26.9 17.3 114.1 131 1,640 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS See wVor 11,758 37.1 30.8 19.2 133.3 1989 81 319 121 526 40 20 1990 84 331 88 ies OVO! 8 Bus 3 OWW o TAKOTNA - DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Accumulated Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present Up to year From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2000 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 2064 3104.6 202.8 535.1 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2064 + 3104.6 = 5168.6 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 202.8 + 535.1 = 737.9 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S7 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -~ KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY BINARY BINARY ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES UNIT #1 UNIT #2 -- KW EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES =~ KW UNIT #1 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY BINARY BINARY BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) CYCLE O&M COST x(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) EQUIV AN COST X(1000) » MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TAKOTNA DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 i9ss 43 53 58 64 69 72 75 78 178 208 228 249 270 282 294 307 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 - 73 73 75 75 75 75 75 - = = 75 75 7s 75 73 - 60 - 60 - - - 7 - 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 20,933 24,461 26,813 29282 31,752 33,163 34,574 36,103 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 2.10 38 46 52 59 bb 71 77 83 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 39 71 78 89 9% 101 107 113 59 6 74 81 85 87 90 92 39 128 202 283 368 455 545 0-637 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT - - - 33.8 - - - - - - - 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 - - - 8 8 8 8 8 = - - 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 - - - 3,865 4,382 4.776 5,186 5,632 - - - 7.8 91 10.2 11.6 12.9 int baad - 4.7 6.0 7.1 8.5 9.8 - - - 4.3 3.3 oe 7 8.0 - - im 4.3 9.6 15.7 22.8 30.8 1991 199219931994 = 1995 1998 += 1997 1998 88 92 7% 100 104 109 113 117 353 374 396 418 429 461 483 504 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 73 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 73 75 75 150 150 150 150 150. 150 150 150 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2.33 2.41 2.49 2.58 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.96 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 53 56 59 63 64 69 72 75 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 189 192 195 199 200 205 208 211 141 139 137 136 132 132 130 128 1,066 1,205 1,342 1,478 1,610 1,742 1,872 2,000 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 6.8 8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 7,099 7.785 6,522 9,291 9,838 10,897 11,758 12,625 18.1 20.7 23.4 26.5 28.9 33.2 37.1 4161 8.8 11.4 9 141 17.2 19.6 23.9 27.8 31.8 6.5 8.2 9.9 11.7 13.0 15.3 17.3 19.2 46.7 54.9 64.8 76.5 89.5 104.8 122.1 141.3 1989 81 319 240 16 112 184 145 eves wou 6,077 14.6 5.3 4.2 35.0 1999 121 526 88 saa 1 2 riBies Bou 112 215 126 25126 ee aot 13,547 45.6 36.3 21.3 162.6 1990 84 331 88 ae ee wun o a g 3 ber $ a 83 112 218 124 2,250 14,500 50.6 41.3 23.5 186.1 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 2250 TAKOTNA - DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up 2036 to_ year 2000 2633.4 186.1 Waste Heat Related Benefit Accumulated Present Worth Benefits from 2001 to 2036 498.9 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 2250 + 2633.4 = 4883.4 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 186.1 + 498.9 = 685.0 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric alternate is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S6 ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TAKOTNA DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 198s 1986 1987 i9ss 1989 1990 DEMAND -- KW 43 s3 ss 64 69 72 7s 73 81 84 ENERGY -- MWH 178 208 228 249 270 282 294 307 319 331 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 UNIT #2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 om - - * -“ = - - ~ - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 - 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s 7S 7s 73 7s HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 - ol — - ” 240 240 240 240 240 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - 60 - = = - - oa - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) od 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL 20,933 24,461 26,813 29,282 31,752 - - - - - COST PER GALLON 1.65 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 2.10 2.17 2.25 DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) 38 46 s2 Ss? 66 = - = - - DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) 21 21 22 22 22 20 20 20 20 20 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) = - = z - 21,513 = - - - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST X(1000) - - = = - 836 836 836 836 836 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) - = a = - 30 30 30 30 30 ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) 39 7a 78 ss 92 890 890 890 890 890 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) Ss? 6? 74 73 82 768 745 724 702 682 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 64 133 207 285 367 1,135 1,880 2,604 31306 3,988 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS ELECTRIC HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) - * = = ” 6 6 +6 6 6 ' ' ' ' ' g ° ' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' > ° > > BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED - 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) = 9,398 9,002 8,574 8,178 7,782 19.8 19.5 19.3 ' ' 8 8 NET BENEFIT X(1000) - 19.7 19.5 19.2 18.9 18.7 PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) = - - * 17.0 16.3 15.6 14.9 14.3 ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) - 17.0 33.3 48.9 63.8 78.1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 DEMAND -- KW 88 92 3% 100 104 109 113 117 121 125 ENERGY —- MWH 333 374 396 418 429 461 483 504 526 548 EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 UNIT #2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 7 = oo - — — = - - - - ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES —- KW UNIT #1 7s 7s 75 7s 7s 7s 73 75 75 73 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 GALLONS DIESEL FUEL - - - - = - - - - - COST PER GALLON 2.33 2.41 2.49 2.58 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.96 3.06 3.17 DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) - - - - - - - - - - DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 HYDROELECTRIC INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - HYDROELECTRIC EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 836 HYDROELECTRIC O&M COST X(1000) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 ANNUAL COSTS x(1000) 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) 662 643 624 606 ses S71 sss 538 523 507 ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) 4,650 5,293 5,917 6,523 7,111 75682 8,237 8,775 9,298 9,805 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS ELECTRIC HEAT EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) - - - - - - - - - - 2. EQUIV AN COST x(1000) 6 +6 +6 “6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) 6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 +6 6 BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 7:057 61364 51639 4,913 4,551 3495 24770 2,077 1,352 627 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) 18.1 16.9 15.4 13.9 13.4 10.6 8.7 6.8 4.6 2.2 iT BENEFIT x(1000) 17.5 16.3 14.8 13.3 12.8 10.0 8.1 6.2 4.0 1.6 ES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X( 1000) 13.0 11.8 10.4 ot 8.5 6.4 5.0 3.8 2.4 oo 2CUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) 91.1 102.9 113.3 122.4 130.9 137.3 142.3 146.1 148.5 149.4 Accumulated Present Worth Annual Costs Up to year 2000 9805 TAKOTNA - DIESEL AND HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION WITH NON-ELECTRIC BENEFIT 50-YEAR ACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH OF PLAN COSTS AND BENEFITS (in thousands of dollars) Accumulated | Waste Heat Waste Heat Present Worth Related Benefit Related Benefit Annual Costs Accumulated Present Accumulated Present From 2001 to Worth Benefits up Worth Benefits from 2036 to year 2000 2001 to 2036 10751.2 149.4 19.3 561 years present worth cost at 3% discount = 9805 + 10751.2 = 20556.2 56 years present worth benefits at 3% discount = 149.4 + 19.3 = 168.7 Operation and maintenance, fuel cost, equivalent annual costs related to capital investment in diesel and WECS generation equipment, etc., are included in accumulated present worth costs. 1 Assumes hydroelectric project is operable beginning 1986. APA 20/S5 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 , UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST x(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH AN COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TELIDA DIESEL GENERATION 1981 1982 1983 1984 13 15 16 16 53 ss 60 63 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ae sO so 50 * 30 30 30 sas 64 - - 4 4 4 61233 6,821 7.056 7,409 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.56 16 18 19 21 20 20 20 20 36 42 43 45 36 41 41 41 36 77 118 159 1985 17 6s 12 30 4 71644 2.65 22 20 46 4l 200 1986 18 790 12 12 so 8,232 2.74 25 49 42 242 1987 1988 19 21 7 81 12 12 12 12 so so 30 30 4 4 8,938 9526 2.84 2.94 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS * - 22.5 - = ” 1.5 1.5 - - 6 6 - a 2.1 2.1 a ¥ sso 978 - i 2.4 2.8 - - 3 7 = ne 3 6 Pi 7 3 oe 1991 1992 1993 1994 24 25 27 28 9% 100 105 109 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 50 50 50 sO 30 30 30 30 4 4 4 4 40 44 47 si 21 21 21 21 6s 69 72 7% 48 50 so s2 47s 525 575 627 WASTE HEAT 1.5 1.5 6 6 24 21 1,055 1,185 3.0 3.6 2 15 8 1.3 tc? 3.0 1995 1996 29 30 114 119 12 12 12 12 so” 50 30 30 4 4 13,406 13.994 3.74 3.87 55 60 21 21 80 85 53 55 680 735 28 31 21 21 53 56 44 46 286 332 i.5 1.5 +6 +6 2.1 2.1 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 6 6 6 6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1,931 2,082 2.260 2.423 6.8 7.8 8.6 9.6 4.7 5.7 6.5 7.5 3.5 4.1 4.6 S.1 16.3 20.4 25.0 30.1 WASTE HEAT 1.5 1.5 6 6 2.1 2.1 2.614 2,813 10.7 12.1 8.6 10.0 5.7 6.4 35.8 42.2 31 33 123 128 12 12 12 12 50 so 30 30 4 4 14,465 15,053 4.01 4.15 64 6o 21 21 89 94 ss 57 790 847 1.5 1.5 6 6 2.1 2.1 1989 22 12 12 3,400 16.0 13.9 8.2 64.9 1990 23 a1 12 12 50 10.702 3.15 37 21 62 48 427 1.5 6 2.1 3,625 17.8 15.7 9.0 73.9 DEMAND -~ KW ENERGY —— MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT @1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) “ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 UNIT #3 DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST X(1000) DIESEL O&M COST x(1000) BINARY CYCLE INVESTMENT X(1000) BINARY CYCLE EQUIV AN COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE FUEL COST X(1000) BINARY CYCLE O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TELIDA DIESEL AND BINARY CYCLE GENERATION 1981 198219831984 13 15 16 16 53 se 60 63 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 - 50 50 50 - 30 30 30 2 64 < o - 4 4 4 6.233 6,821 7,056 7,409 2.31 2.39 2.47 2.86 16 18 19 21 20 20 20 20 36 42 43 45 36 41 41 41 36 7 118 159 - - 2s - - - 1.5 1.5 - - +6 +6 - - 2.1 2.1 - - 889 978 - - 2.4 2.8 - - 2 or - - +3 “6 - - ced 9 1991 1992 1993 1994 24 25 27 28 % 100 105 109 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 50 50 50 so 30 30 30 30 so so so 50 4 4 4 4 S226) 11959701 19249) 3.63 5 s 5 s 21 21 23 23 104 104 104 104 135 135 137 137 100 98 6 93 439 737 833 926 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 1,931 2,062 24260 2.423 6.8 7.8 8.6 9.6 2.6 3.6 4.4 5.4 1.9 2.6 3.1 ab7 11.74 |))))i2450)|)))/1752)))|) 20:8 1985 1986 1987 17 18 19 65 70 7 12 12 12 12 12 12 so so 50 30 30 30 4 4 4 71644 8,232 8.938 2.65 2.74 2.84 22 2s 28 20 20 21 46 ao s3 41 42 “4 200 242 286 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 1.5 1.5 1.5 6 6 6 2.1 2.1 2.1 1,055 1,185 1,341 3.0 3.6 4.2 oF 1.5 2.1 8 1.3 1.8 1.7 3.0 4.8 1995 1996 1997 29° 30 31 114 119 123 12 12 12 12 12 12 50 so sO 30 30 30 so so so 4 4 4 3.74 3.87 4.01 s s s 24 26 26 104 104 104 138 140 140 a1 90 87 1,017 1,107 15194 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 2.614 2,813 2,994 10.7 12.1 13.2 6.5 7.9 9.0 4.3 S.1 5.6 25.1 30.2 35.8 isss 21 81 12 12 104 141 1,279 1989 22 8 6 5 Q Ore 3 cow ua 88 12 12 Pew NNO! 3,400 16.0 11.8 6.9 49.1 1990 22 a1 12 12 134 103 143 82 1,444 56.9 DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X( 1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST X(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT X(1000) DEMAND -- KW ENERGY -- MWH EXISTING VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 EXISTING SCHOOL GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 UNIT #2 ADDITIONAL VILLAGE GENERATION SOURCES -- KW UNIT #1 WIND GENERATION SOURCES -- KW ALL WIND UNITS DIESEL INVESTMENT X(1000) DIESEL EQUIV AN COST X(1000) GALLONS DIESEL FUEL COST PER GALLON DIESEL FUEL COST x(1000) DIESEL O&M COST X(1000) WIND EQUIP INVESTMENT X(1000) WIND EQUIP EQUIV AN COST x(1000) WIND EQUIP O&M COST X(1000) ANNUAL COSTS X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL COST X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH X(1000) EXTRA COST 1. INVESTMENT X(1000) 2. EQUIV AN COST X(1000) 3. MAINTENANCE COST X(1000) TOTAL EXTRA COST x(1000) BENEFIT (HEATING) 1. GALLONS DIESEL SAVED 2. DOLLAR VALUE SAVING X(1000) NET BENEFIT X(1000) PRES WORTH ANNUAL BENEFIT X(1000) ACCUM PRES WORTH BENEFIT x(1000) ENERGY PLAN COSTS FOR TELIDA DIESEL AND WIND GENERATION 1981 13 53 12 12 6233 2.31 8e to eee 1991 24 9% 12 12 12.0 8,702 3.26 31 21 17 7 s7 581 1,488 5.3 3.2 2.4 9.0 1982 15 ss 12 12 1992 100 12 12 12.0 9,055 3.37 34 21 17 79 57 638 1.5 2.1 1,603 6.0 =No ono 1983 16 60 12 12 10.5 5,527 2.47 20 1s 53 143 12 12 12.0 9526 3.49 37 21 17 82 696 1.5 2.1 1,743 6.3 4.7 3.3 15.1 1984 16 63 12 12 10.5 5.762 2.56 16 20 1s 57 s2 195 12 12 12.0 9,878 3.61 21 17 84 57 753 1985 17 6s 12 12 12.0 5,880 2.65 17 20 14 7 17 61 54 249 1986 18 70 12 12 12.0 6.350 2.74 19 20 7 17 63 54 303 1987 19 7 12 12 12.0 6,938 2.84 22 20 7 17 66 ss 358 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS 12 12 12.0 11,172 4.01 49 21 Z 17 94 so 928 WASTE HEAT 1.5 1.5 6 6 2.1 2.1 g11 914 2.3 2.7 +2 6 2 5 - 5 1995 1996 29 30 114 119 12 12 12 12 12.0 12.0 10,349 10,819 3.74 3.87 43 46 21 21 z 7 17 17 88 a ss ss 811 869 NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS WASTE HEAT 1.5 1.5 6 6 2.1 2.1 2,018 2.175 8.4 9.2 6.3 7 4.2 4.6 22.9 27.5 1988 21 81 12 12 12.0 7,409 2.94 24 20 17 6s ss 413 1,156 New © WO 1998 33 12 12 12.0 11,642 4.15 53 21 17 s9 987 1.5 2.1 2,480 11.3 9.2 5.6 38.1 1989 22 12 12 12.0 7,879 3.04 26 20 17 790 ss 468 12 12 102 1,047 2.627 12.5 10.4 6.1 44.2 1990 23 a1 12 12 12.0 8,232 3.15 20 17 73 524 12 12 15.0 12,466 4.44 61 21 27 21 112 1,111 2,805 13.7 11.6 6.6 50.8 APA 22-A/Z APPENDIX F This section provides a brief description of the various plan components required for diesel generation and waste heat recovery, the most promising plan for providing the lowest cost energy to the thirteen villages. This plan assumes continued use of diesel driven generators throughout the study period with the implementation of waste heat recovery. Diesel generation and waste heat recovery Diesel generation with waste heat recovery has proven to be the most reliable and economical method of supplying electrical energy in the 13 villages studied in this report. This study has assumed that only the waste heat from the engine cooling water is recovered for use. This in turn implies the diesel engine used as the source of waste heat must be liquid cooled. Implementation of waste heat recovery is not free and requires the addition of certain equipment to the diesel engine, plus the installation of pumps and insulated pipes for transporting the waste heat to the user and installa- tion of radiators or baseboard water heating system by the user. The diesel engine, unless previously equipped, must be retrofitted with a heat exchanger and associated valving. This can in most cases, be accomplished by tapping into the exisiting engine radiator hoses. Hot coolant from the engine is circulated through the heat exchanger and radiator to maintain correct engine temperature. Heat from the engine coolant is transfererd via the heat exchanger to the heat using loop and transported to the user. The heated liquid upon passing through the users radiators is returned to the heat exchanger for reheating. Waste heat capture equipment is commercially available in the unit sizes required and can be installed in those villages where it is determined feasible with only a few months lead time. F-1 APA 22-A/Z Feasibility and Timing of Installations Feasibility Finding that waste heat recovery systems appear feasible in a recon- naissance level study of the magnitude does not mean materials should be purchased and construction started on waste heat installation in the villages. Waste heat installation must still be engineered for the particular location and situation. The simplified analysis accomplished in’ this reconnaissance study has merely justified a more detailed study be performed to accurate determine the cost and feasibility associated with the project. Such studies should include a definitive review of the following item for sach case. a) availability of waste heat b) transportation of waste heat c) end use of waste heat Approximate cost for determining the feasibility of the waste heat alternative is estimated at $2,500 per village. Approximate Timing of Installation The appropriate timing of diesel and waste heat installation as deter- mined from this study are shown below. A detailed feasibility study conducted for each village may alter the recommended installation date of waste heat recovery equipment from the dates listed. A. Villages north of Yukon River 1. Buckland Diesel - 1983 - 100 kW; 1994 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 140 kW, 1985 - 100 kW, 1994 - 100 kW APA 22-A/Z B. Villa Hughes Diesel - 1982 - 75 + 50 kW; 1991 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 75 kW Koyukuk Diesel 1981 - 75 + 50 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW, 1986 - 75 kW Russian Mission Diesel - 1981 - 90 kW; 1982 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 90 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Sheldon Point Diesel - 1982 - 100 + 75 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1989 - 100 kW ges - Middle and Upper Kuskokwim Chuathbaluk Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW and 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 100 kW, 1991 - 100 kW Crooked Creek Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW + 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment 1983 - 100 kW; 1989 - 100 kW Nikolai Diesel - 1986 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW Red Devil Diesel - 1982 - 75 and 50 kW; 2000 - 75 kw Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW 2000 - 75 kW APA 22-A/Z 10. Sleetmute Diesel - 1981 - 60 kW and 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW; 1991 - 100 kW 11. Stony River Diesel - 1981 - 60 and 75 kW Waste. heat equipment - 1983 - 75 kW Le. Takotna Diesel - 1982 - 75 kW; 1984 - 75 kW Waste heat equipment - 1984 - 75 kW; 1986 - 75 kW 13. Telida Diesel - 1982 - 50 and 30 kW Waste heat equipment - 1983 - 50 kW F-4 WOOD FUEL RESOURCES FOR TEN ALASKAN VILLAGES January 23, 1981 i Prepared Me oe et eee Calvin L. Kerr REID) COLLINS? ING: 1577 C Street, Suite 214 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ULSPA Berd, Cellas TABLE OF CONTENTS tall Ratrodwctions+ener res ceecece S45 000 AOR OEE RENE S555 5d hy counsel 2.0 Summary.......... éednannes eecccccces eeccesecee sdKER AS drew 2 2.0 Objective end Scope of Projets. cesccusnsnessuenneessces — us 3.1 Methodology............ oc ecceccccece eeeeeeee RCC CRE ROMER eee -3 4.0 Wood Fuel Resources, -‘Kuskokwim Villages........... cnneoe oeeG B.1.1. Table Tocccccvesceccscces etelovetete sfeleteisleieloisisteiete o250n am elses B.1.2. Table 2ecececcveccccwsseessessssesesccsoscccccscs cocceecned 4.2 Wood Fuel Types. eecvccccoes eoveccees CERESECb eee eemmenEAE eeed 5.1 Wood Fuel Resources, Doyon Villages............ cleleleleistal sees 6 Beis ts, MABDIS Sorc cco seeisicisisieiesiidses eR eC eae sa1<1 31 2 2c «101008 5.1.2. Table 4...... Dood COHIORCO OCC OOOO OOOOO Seleleisisavelcl ola sales O 5.2 Forest Types......cecccseces oc ecccccerecescees Et oe7 6.0 Harvest and Transportation Costs...........eeeeeeeeeees Biers S 6.1 Summary.......... BsBierecereccncn Bid(eielereicisie rele eicleewiseietlereriate ae168) 652 Imterior Alaska Logging Costsiccccmercmccs cm wccicw eile sieisi sis 8 6.3 Interior British Columbia Wood Costs..... were rrrrr rrr ry TTT Ty 8 6.4 Small Scale Cost Estimation, Alaska............ cece eee eee 9 Ge5) (Base Case! Cope ercreiarcicrerer-le)cverolcrers) svete! ot of ol x1 51511 918) s15| s1s16 812) 210 rete) oiiole ono 1 Berd Collen: Pond. Collar 1.0 INTRODUCTION In December, 1980, Reid, Collins submitted a proposal on wood fuel evaluation to R.W. Retherford and Associates, a division of International Engineering Company, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. An agreement was signed on January 9, 1981 with the January 16 completion date extended to January 23, 1981 at the request of Calvin Kerr, Reid, Collins Alaska Manager. The wood fuel evaluation will form part of R.W. Retherford's reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for thirteen western Alaska villages. The study will be submitted to the Alaska Power Authority and the State Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Reid, Collins gathered field information in October, 1980 for five of the ten villages in this report. These five are part of the Kuskokwim Village Corporation who granted approval for use of this data. 2.0 SUMMARY Reid, Collins developed wood fuel energy assessments for ten villages in Western Alaska. Base data for five Kuskokwim villages came from Reid, Collins field data; data for five Doyon villages was developed from existing maps, aerial photographs, and inventories. Significant quantities of wood energy are available. Totals for all ten villages indicate standing wood energy on 1,520,091 acres is 47,453 billion BTU's. Potential annual energy production on this same area is 571.9 billion BTU's. Cost estimates per delivered million BTU's ranges from $5.01 to $9.04, depending on access, harvest methodology and whether chips or round wood are desired. Rud Cllrs 3.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT Reid, Collins is providing information on the wood fuel resource for the following villages: Kuskokwim Villages Doyon Villages Chuathbaluk Takotna Crooked Creek Nikolai Red Devil Telida Sleetmute - Koyukuk Stony River Hughes Specifically, the scope of the project includes: ° determining wood fuel productivity classes for each village calculating areas for each wood fuel type ° determining standing type volumes by village ° Calculating standing wood fuel volumes in billions of BTU's determining potential wood fuel growth per year by wood fuel type in millions of BTU's evaluating costs of wood harvesting and transportation calculating costs per million BTU's for potential wood harvest systems 3.1 Methodology The standing forest resource within an approximate ten mile radius of each village was analyzed. Aerial photographs, type maps, and summary timber cruising data were available for Kuskokwim Corporation Villages. Aerial photographs, Spetzman forest ecosystem maps and published forest inventory figures were used in analyzing the Doyon Villages. Pert. Cltas 4.0 WOOD FUEL RESOURCES, KUSKOKWIM VILLAGES 4.1.1. Total and annual potential wood energy is shown in Table 1. Current Annual Village Wood Energy Potential Available* Wood Energy | 1 | | Chuathbaluk 7,610 147.2 | Crooked Creek 432 4.0 | Red Devil 1,400 14.0 | ' Sleetmute 8,042 84.4 | Stony River 11,100 102.3 Total 28,584 351.9 | *Units are billions of BTU's 4.1.2. Wood fuel acreages for the Kuskokwim Villages are shown in Table 2. | | Productive Nonproductive Nonforest Total Village Forestland Forestland (acres) (acres) | (acres) ~ (acres) | | i Chuathbaluk 36,050 57,515 107,497 201,062 | Crooked Creek 1,366 n/a 199,696 201,062 | Red Devil 4,348 1,836 136,098 142,282 Sleetmute 24,499 17,857. 93,786 136,142 Stony River 35,156 n/a 165,906 201, 062 Total 101,419 77,208 702,983 881,610 Red, Colts 4.2 Wood Fuel Types Wood fuel types near Chuathbaluk contain a standing utilizable volume (all species) of 1132 cubic feet per acre with 76% of that volume spruce and the rest hardwoods. Average breast high diameter (all species) is 10.1 inches and average height 47.5 feet. There are 128 trees per acre on the average; 74 are white spruce and 54 are hardwoods. Wood fuel types near Crooked Creek, Red Devil, Sleetmute and Stony River have a standing utilizable volume (all species) of 1934 cubic feet per acre with 82% of that volume spruce and the rest hardwoods. Average breast high diameter is 9.9 inches and average height 53.5 feet. There are 184 trees per acre; 110 are white spruce and 74 are hardwoods. These figures are based on Reid, Collins field data. Non-productive forest land had an estimated 100 cubic feet per acre (standing) based on analysis of field work for the NANA Corporation by the U.S. Forest Service. ; Growth of productive forest types is 17.8 cubic feet per acre per year, based on U.S. Forest Service inventory data. Growth of non-productive forest land was estimated at 4.5 cubic feet per acre per year based on analysis of the NANA study. Site specific values will differ. rid, Collins 5.1 WOOD FUEL RESOURCES, DOYCN VILLAGES 5.1.1. Total and annual potential wood energy are shown in Table 3. Current Annual Wood ~ Village Wood Energy* Energy Potential* | | Nikolai 7,010 67.0 Takotna 1,760 16.2 - Telida 4,931 53.3) | Koyukuk 4,939 80.1 ; | Hughes 229 3.4 Total . 18,869 220.0 *Units in billions of BTU's ! 5.1.2. Wood fuel types for the Doyon Villages are shown in Table 4. i Productive Nonproductive Nonforest Total | Village forest . forest , (acres) t (acres) (acres) Nikolai 21,948 4,257 79,927 106,132 | | Takotna 5,558 0 195,504 201,062 ! Telida 14,909 13,543 95,995 124,447 Koyukuk 24,704 12,203 75,344 112,251 ; 1 Hughes 1,194 0 93,395 94,589 Total 68, 313 30,003 540,165 638,481 Prd. Coldas 5.2 Forest Types A standing volume of 1934 cubic feet per acre of all species was used for Nikolai, Takotna and Telida, based on Reid, Collins field data from Stony River. These stands are comparable in composition. A growth figure of 17.8 cubic feet per acre was used, based on U.S. Forest Service inventory data. A standing volume of 1173 cubic feet per acre of all species was derived for Koyukuk and Hughes from "Forest Statistics for the Upper Koyukuk River, 1971", by Karl Hegg, U.S. Forest Service. A growth figure of 17.6 cubic feet per acre per year was also used from the same document. Red. Colla. 6.0 HARVEST AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS 6.1 Summary Wood cost per million BTU's for the system discussed following, are: Location Cost per Cord Cost _per 10° BTU's Interior Alaska $ 73.21 $5.01 Interior B.C. $ 73.09 $5.01 Mauneluk Level 1 $132.00 $9.04 Level 2 $ 92.00 $6.30 Level 3 $ 80.00 $5.48 6.2 Interior Alaska Loaging Costs Interior Alaska logging costs are $114.39 per thousand board feet, according to base figures from the University of Alaska, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management. These were adjusted to reflect 1980 cost increases, especially in fuel costs. Converting to cunits (100 cubic feet) from thousand board feet at a ratio of 2.0 to 1.0, this is a cost of $57.20 per cunit or $73.21 per cord (128 cubic feet). These figures are based on actual harvest operations near Fairbanks with road access. 6.3 Interior British Columbia Wood Costs Average total wood cost (delivered) in Interior B.C. was $39.00 per cunit in 1976 or $57.10 in 1980 at 10% inflation. This equals $73.09 per cord (Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Canada, 1977). Interior B.C. forests are very similar to Interior Alaska in harvest methods, yeild and topography. A significant difference would be increased handling due to river transportation and the lack of roads in Alaska. An Rud. Collas — estimated cost for this form of transportation is $28.74 per cord or an additional $1.97 per million BTU's (from Galliett, Marks and Renshaw, 1980). 6.4 Small Scale Cost Estimation, Alaska The Mauneluk Association, NANA's non-profit organization, developed a 1979 cost estimate for appropriate level wood harvest techniques. Three levels were analyzed; the first was a labor intensive method with hand felling and snow machine yarding. The second method involved more specialized labor with a heavy duty Alpine Skidoo and the third was a large scale method with a Thiokol snow machine for log skidding. The calculated costs were: Level 1 - $132 per cord Level 2 - $ 92 per cord Level 3 - $ 80 per cord 6.5 'Base Case’ Cord Logging and transportation cost per million BTU's depends on species composition, moisture content, method of stacking, presence of bark, size of material and other factors. A ‘base cord' was developed for the villages under study based on Reid, Collins Kuskokwim field data. The three main species, spruce, birch and balsam popular, comprised 76.8%, 14.33 and 8.9% of the base cord, respectively. The average weighted BTU value was 14.6 million BTU's per cord at 20% moisture content, a 90 cubic foot solid wood content, and derived values from a previous Alaska Power Authority study by Galliett, Marks and Renshaw. The APA study calculated a cost of $6.25 per million BTU's at the burn point. The fuel form was chips, not roundwood. Berd, Collas ASSESSHENT OF COAL, PEAT, AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA prepared under contract to Robert . Retherford Associates for the Alaska Power Authority by Gary Friedmann January 29, 1981 C. C. HAWLEY and ASSOCIATES, INC. (907) 349-4673 * 8740 Hartzell Road * Anchorage, Alaska 99507 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUNHARY AND CONCLUSIONS... cccccccccccccvccsccs TI. INTRODUCTION. . ccc ccc cc cccccvcccccveccsecccene III. POTENTIAL COAL RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. Farewell Coal Field 1. HiStOry.cccccccrccvvcvcvcsesecveccesesd 2. Current development... ceeeceecee eee ed 3 COOMOGY x5. www wise sus ce enw enue eee as Little TonzZonds coscss sess seees8 b. Upper tributaries to Deepbank CreOks ses ccs swe sv eee«d Ce _ Windy: POtK.06664-0ss0gseccs0es 10 4. Feasibility of Mining....cccccccecees ell @e 4000 CONS/YLsseesccsaesssssel2 Bs 10,000 tGone/ 92s cssoecsesscessld B. Yukon River, Blackburn-Nulato Occurrences ke GASUOLY bins eee vee iee se wesnes vewscesn ld 2. GEOLOGY... ce ccecccccecccccevsccccccceld 3. The Williams Nine a. Collier's 1903 description...15 b,. Feasibility of resuming TLNING. .. cee cece reece eevee ee elS i. 500 tons/yr.........18 ii. 1,440 tons/yr.......19 C. Kugruk River Coal Pield...c.ccccccccccvcccce ve 20 1s BISCO cc ces ewe eee ewe wee eee Oe ee Ze GEOLOGY caoccccccevccevccrccescrsccceedl 3. Economic Feasibility of a 900 tons/yr Mine at Chicago Creek. secsecesecnwawned GO. Mining COsth.s enecenwes even awee b. Transportation costs.........24 D. Coal Potential of the Hughes Area......ee000225 E. Usibelli Coal for Western Alaska.....-2.0222-26 IV. POTENTIAL PEAT RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA . A. HiStOryeccccccccccccccccccvcccccvcccecsecceeeal B. Location and Nature of Peat..cceccccceeveceee zd C. Feasibility of Peat as a Fuel..w..cce ee ee eee 29 Vv. OIL AND GAS RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA..... A. Existing Wells...cccccvcccsscccsccsecs B. Costs of Exploration..cwcccccccccceces C. Future Petroleum Development.....-..-- D. CONCLUSIONS... cc cree ecccrcvegercccrcce eee ee 30 o eee 230 eeee cdl eeeeeed2 eee eee 33 eve @ € . VI. REFERENCES ..ccccicccccccvccvccecccccweensesseeceenesdo Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix APPENDIX PLATE I. A. B. c. D. . APPENDICES Tables of Estimated Costs of Coal Farewell Area Coal Mine: 4,000 tons/yr.....40 Farewell Area Coal Mine: 10,000 tons/yr....42 Wail dalamsi (Coad) Milneis| S00) EOnS/ Vee s| sore cielo ited Oo & Williams Coal Mine: 1,440 tonS/yr.....ceeee4 A Brief look at Usibelli Coal for Western Alaska. .ccccccccccccvccvcceccoccec 4 ILLUSTRATIONS Coal and Petroleum Resources of Western Alaska, Scale 1:2,500,000...esceeee-ein pocket I. SUNNARY AND CONCLUSIONS Potential coal, peat, and oil and gas resources of western Alaska were evaluated for local use as alternatives to imported petroleum fuels to meet space heating and electric generation needs of thirteen villages. Buckland, Hughes, Koyukuk, Russian Mission, Sheldon Point, Telida, Nikolai, Takotna, Stony River, Sleetmute, Red Devil, Crooked Creek, and Chuathbaluk were specifically addressed, but the towns of McGrath, Aniak, and Bethel were considered as potential co-consumers of locally-produced coal for the purposes of economic feasibility. Over three dozen known and reported coal occurrences . were evaluated for potential production. From existing data available on these resources, only three are considered to have sufficient quantities of mineable coal to supply village needs at competitive prices for at least twenty years. A steeply-dipping 50-foot seam of subbituminous Tertiary coal has been mapped along strike for 15 miles on the north side of the Alaska Range between the Little Tonzona and Windy Fork Rivers near Farewell. A surface mine here could produce enough coal for eight villages on the Kuskokwin, or about 4,000 tons per year, for approximately $125 per ton at the mine. 15,000 tons of coal per year, or enough for the eight villages plus McGrath, Aniak, and Bethel, could be mined for about $66 per ton. Transportation costs would range from $40 to $80 per ton, depending on destination of the coal and type of road built from the mine to the Kuskokwim River. The cost of building such a road is not included in this study. It appears feasible to reopen the Williams mine on the Yukon River, about 100 miles south of Koyukuk. Bituminous coal from the uniform 39-inch seam there could be mined underground at the rate of 500 to 1600 tons per year for about $350 to $200 per ton. Five hundred tons per year would supply all the energy requirements of. Koyukuk; 1600 tons would meet the annual needs of Russian Hission and Sheldon Point as well. Transportation costs are not included, but would range from $10 to $25 per ton by river barge. Chicago Creek lignite could be mined for about $160 per ton to meet Buckland's energy requirements. Because of the small scale of mining, low BTU's per pound, and transportation costs of $40 to $100 per ton, the price would probably be marginally to non-competitive with liquid fuels. hicago Creek coal is deemed to be economic for use by Buckland should a large-scale mining operation be undertaken to fuel production of electricity for Kotzebue. Hughes is the only village covered in this study for which coal is considered to be an unviable energy resource in the foreseeable future. On a scale of 5,000 to 50,000 tons per year or more, subbituminous coal from Usibelli's Healy mine could probably be celivered to all of the villages included in this study, except Hughes, for $50 to $125 per ton. While peat is a resource widely available to the’ villages in this study, no current information exists on the costs of harvesting and burning peat in Alaska. Large-scale peat-harvesting operations in the lower 48 states sell peat for agricultural purposes for as little as $20 per ton. Short harvesting seasons, permafrost problems, and lack of Gefinition of the resource make it difficult to assess the potential of peat harvesting in the near future. Villages with high potential for deep, fuel-grade peat resources within three miles include Buckland, Sheldon Point, Telida, Nikolai, Takotna, Sleetmute, and Stony River. Since peat appears to be harvestable at roughly the same or less cost for which coal is mined, the reduced transportation expenses, which account for as much as 50 to 75% of the total cost of coal delivered to western Alaska, strongly suggest that pilot projects, such as that proposed for Dillingham by the Division of Energy and Power Development, be undertaken to test the viability of this fuel resource for villages. No local sources of oil or gas exist as feasible alternatives to presently imported petroleum products for western Alaska. D> II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to inventory and evaluate in general the coal, peat, and petroleum resources locally available to thirteen selected western villages. This objective was achieved through review of literature available on these subjects and by discussion with persons who have experience in production and development of solid and liquid organic fuels. The dollar-per-ton figures that follow are estimates derived from well controlled and efficient local operations. Based on the experience of the author and his associates, and ° 3 cr D o » Qu a pe cr He onal input from Alaskans noted in the References of Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts, pages 35-39, the estimates are believed to be within 30 percent of likely mine cost conducted on a local scale by-an experienced contractor. Such costs do not assume the profit level Gesired by a prudent business. In this sense, in order to realize anticipated costs, an effective subsidy by a local government may be required. III. POTENTIAL COAL RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. Farewell Coal Field 1, History Coal-bearing rocks in the Farewell area were identified as far back as 1902 (Brooks, 1911), but the first eeoteatse to focus on the coal resources of the gently sloping piedmont north of the Alaska Range was Gary Player. In a 19790 helicopter reconnaissance for Gulf Oil, Player recognized a trend of coal beds roughly parallel to the Farewell Fault exposed in stream-bank outcrops of Tertiary rocks. In 1976 Player returned to the Farewell area as a consultant to the Bureau of Mines to study known outcrops and explore for additional exposures of coal (Player, 1977). The most detailed published descriptions of the Farewell field resulted from a brief reconnaisance survey for coal conducted in the Minchumina Basin by the U. S. Geological Survey in 1977 (Sloan and others, 1979). 2. Current Development Doyon Native Corporation, which has selected the Farewell-area coal-bearing lands, has entered into a joint venture agreement with Canadian Superior to develop the Farewell coal field. In 1980 Canadian Superior carried out a detailed mapping and sampling program in the area between the Little Tonzona and Kuskokwim South Fork Rivers (Navin Sharma, University of Alaska School of Hining Engineering, oral communication, 1981). Drilling and seismic exploration are planned for 1981, with bulk sampling and pilot mining possible in 1982. The Doyon-Canadian Superior venture aims to develop coal resources sufficient to supply an East or Southeast Asian import market of the million-ton-per-year magnitude. 3. Geology The Parewell coal field occurs on the southeastern edge of the Minchumina Basin, a lowland covered with coarse granular sediments deposited in glacial moraines, outwash slopes, floodplains, and alluvial fans. The basin extends from near McGrath to Lake Ninchumina on the north, and slopes northward from the Alaska Range on the south (Plate I). On the southern edge of the Minchumina Basin, coal beds occur in Tertiary nonmarine sandstone, siltstone, and volcanic rocks in widespread isolated exposures north and south of the Farewell Fault from Big River northeast to Kantishna and beyond. Outcrops are limited to residual hills, river bluffs, and small stream valleys where ercesion of surface gravels has exposed the bedrock. The Farewell Fault, a right-lateral strike-slip component of the Denali Fault System, separates the Minchumina Basin from the Alaska Range. It is the major structural feature in the area and is probably responsible for the tilting, minor bedding plane faults, and folding of the coal-bearing stata that lie north of the fault (Sloan, 1977) . a, Little Tonzona Coal, The coal at Little Tonzona River crops out in a bank extending about 25 feet above the southwest side of the floodplain. The Tertiary strata strike N75E and dip 47-63 degrees M7. Three minor bedding plane faults are associated with drag folds in the 195 feet of exposed section, but the beds are not significantly offset or repeated by faulting (Player, 1977). Seven seams of coal each at least three feet thick are exposed in this outcrop, totalling 100 feet of clean subbituminous coal with 21.5 feet of dirty coal. Outcrop is obscured for an additional 60 feet, and coal float and isolated thin outcrops of coal extend another 90 feet upstream from the massive Tertiary exposures. Sharma (oral comm., 1961) reports that 1980 field work documented 520 feet of Tertiary coal-bearing strata in 15 square miles mapped in the Little Tonzona area. 47 £ feet ce ° this section consists of subbituminous coal with intermittent N ones of vitrain and clay; the remaining 42 feet consists of clastic sediments with minor bed of lignite. Three other outcrops in this area were found on the same strike as the river outcrop. An estimated 50-foot-wide seam of mineable coal under 3 to 10 feet of flat-lying terrace gravel overburden is projected for up to 15 miles along strike (Sharma, oral comm., 1961). Large-scale mining would be expedited if the dip of the strata shallows out with distance to the north from the Farewell Fault, and 1981 seismic work is aimed at testing this hypothesis. Analyses show this coal to be somewhat higher in rank and quality than the Tertiary coals of the Nenana Field. Heating values range from 7,850 to 11,700 BTU's per pound, with the. most reliable values for fresh, unweathered coal in the 10,000+ BTU's range (Rao and Wolff, 1980). Ash content is relatively low - 5 to 8% - while sulfur content is higher than many Alaskan coals: 1.1 to 1.7%. b,. Upper Tributaries of Deepbank Creek, Outcrops here are scarce; coal beds are the dominant outcrop-forming rock, usually occurring in three- to five-foot outcrops of highly weathered coal. Sloan (1979) measured two sections with a 4.5-foot coal seam striking N35E and dipping 38 degrees iM, = and a 21-foot coal seam striking NSO0E and dipping 48-55 degrees I%7.. Deepbank Creek coal is similar to Little Tonzona coal, with lower sulfur: 0.3 to 1,.0%. Windy Por Thick beds of bony coal crop out along the west bank of the Windy Fork of the Kuskokwim River. Sloan (1979) measured 880 feet of stratigraphic section here on the west limb of a north-trending syncline. Analyses of samples from this section show Windy Fork coal to be the vest in quality of the Farewell coals. Ash content was bs a s igh - 30 to 60% - with correspondingly low heating < QO n Ke values: 4,100 to 8,400 BTU's per pound. Sulfur levels were 4, Feasibility of Mining The Little Tonzona occurrence is about 150 air miles northwest of Anchorage and 27 miles northeast of Farewell landing strip. No facilities for the transportation of bulk commodities exist near Farewell; some kind of road would have to be built from the Kuskokwim River near NcGrath or Farewell Landing to the coal beds to facilitate development and mining. If the Farewell coal field is developed for export, it will be on such a scale as to justify year-round surface access to the mine site, with a transportation corridor probably including the Kuskokwim River Cownstream to the 10 ocean port of Bethel. This scenario, not to be realized before 1990, would easily provide coal for all the Kuskokwim villages included in this study at a cost of less than $50/ton (1981 dollars). The feasibility studies for mining Farewell coal discussed in this report are based on two levels of production: a) 4,000 tons per year, at 40 tons per day for 100 days - enough coal to supply the eight Kuskokwim villages; b) 15,000 tons per year, at 150 tons per Gay for 100 days - enough coal for the eight villages plus NcGrath, Aniak, and Bethel. : Both models assume that surface mining will take place during summer months, stockpiling coal for winter shipment overland to the Kuskokwim, and barging coal to villages the following summer. Road-building costs are not included in this feasibility study because it is expected that Canadian Superior/Doyon would construct a road to the Farewell area in the course of Gevelopment, or that the State will take an interest in some or all phases of road construction and maintenance. The annual cost of constructing and maintaining a minimal winter ice road would be $5,000 to $15,000/mile (Ray Farrar of Ray's Equipment, Anchorage, oral comm., 1981), or assuming 50 miles from Windy Fork and 75 miles from Little Tonzona, $25 to $250/ton, if the burden were born only by production for local use. Construction and maintenance of an all-weather road would cost 20 to 40 times that amount 11 (modified from Clark, 1973). The winter haulage of coal by truck would add an additional $30 to $45/ton. Back-haul barging on the river would range from $10 to $35/ton depending on destination (Jim Hoffman, United Transportation Company, Bethel, oral conn., 1981). Royalties and taxes are not estimated in this study. Each model also assumes: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 8 hours/day, 5 day work week Coal density approx.= 80 lb/cubic foot 3 to 10 feet of easily-removed overburden 40-foot wide seam mined 20 feet deep buildings for shop and nill movable camp facilities for miners and families 5 year capital write-off (life of all equipment and buildings) Mostly used (1977-78) equipment a. 4,000 tpy Assume: 1) 2 miners and 2 family members 2) Man-days/ week of following activities: : Removing overburden Drilling and blasting coal Removing and loading coal Milling Naintenance, repairs, tending stockpiles, etc. NNWH NY U2 Exploration and Development $10.00/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, canp, buildings, equipment) 40.00 Interest and insurance 25.00 Nining 251550 Food and commisary 4.00 Reclamation 8,090 SUBTOTAL $112.50 10% contingency 11.25 Transportation $45-8 0 TOTAL $168-$203.75/ton b. 15,000 tpy Assume: 1) 5 miners/operators, 1 camp hand and 5 family members 2) Man-days/ week of following activities: 5 Removing overburden 3.5 Drilling and blasting coal Si Removing and loading coal 5) Willing 5 HNaintenance, repairs, tending stockpiles, etc. Summary Exploration and Development $6.00/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, canp, buildings, equipment) 14.00 Interest and insurance &.50 Hining 24.00 Food and commisary 3.00 Reclamation 5.00 SUBTOTAL | $60.50 19% contingency 6.05 Transportation $40-$70.00 TOTAL ! $106-$136.55/ton a3 ukon River, Blackburn-Nulato Occurrences , History Seven coal occurrences on the Yukon River between Ruby and Blackburn were mined for steamboat fuel from 1898 to -about 1°02. Several thousand tons were produced, but the only mines with appreciable resources were the Williams and the Number 1. The mines were examined in 1902 by Collier (1903), and have been examined since by several geologists, including Chapman (1963) and Gallett and Marks (1979). No pro@uction except for very limited local use has taken place since about 1902, and none is currently contemplated. 2. Geology Bituminous and subbituminous coal beds are found in the Late Cretaceous Kaltaq Formation, a predominantly nonmarine sequence of sandstone, siltstone, and shale (Chapman, 1963). This area of the Yukon River is characterized by rounded hills and relatively soft bedrock heavily covered by trees and other vegetation, with outcrops almost entirely limited to bluffs along the Yukon. Folding and faulting are common in this region, and the structure is locally complex. The regional trend of folds in the Cretaceous strata is M502, with beds dipping from 20 to 60 degrees (Chapman, 1963). The coal beds are relatively thin and irregular in thickness, even pinching out locally within short distances. The thickest bed reported is 39 inches, and another contains pockets that are eight feet thick; most of the beds are less than two feet thick (Collier, 1903). The coal is highly fractured, friable, and slacks rapidly on exposure to air and drying (Chapman, 1963). Drainage is a major problem in mining these coals, since the beds tend to dip under the river level, as at the Number 1 mine. The steep dip of beds precludes strip mining in most cases. / Despite these characteristics, the coal is a good grade of bituminous -- average analyses indicating 2% moisture, 25% volatile matter, 65% fixed carbon, 7% ash, and .6% sulfur (Gallett and Marks, 1979). 3, The Williams Mine a, Collier's 1903 description, The Williams Nine was on the west bank of the Yukon River about 50 miles downstream fron Kaltag and about five miles upstream from a river bluff landslide known as Eagle Slide. Up to the time that Collier visited the mine in 1902, about 1,700 tons of coal had been mined. A Grifzt had been driven 400 feet into the bluff on a 39-inch bed of bituminous coal which showed no change in =; strike or thickness and was divided by a thin clay parting. ES) Since the mine has been abandoned the portal and coal bed have been completely obscured by slumping of the bank. The coal bed strikes N70 and dips about 45 degrees NE. Only one workable seam has been found, but Collier speculated that “other seams of commercial importance" could exist. Most of the coal was stoped from above the drift, with coal cars carrying coal to the mine mouth. From the dump the coal was ataeibanrewed onto steamers. Fifteen men, mostly experienced miners from Washington State, were employed during the summer months that the mine operated. Simple calculations of probable coal reserves remaining at the Williams Mine can be made by calculating volumes of coal based on a given, uniform sean thickness of 39 inches, an assumed mineable width of 60 feet, and extension along strike of 2,000 feet. Assuming an average weight of coal to be 80 lbs/cu ft, every foot along strike would contain about eight tons of recoverable coal. This model yields: an estimated mine reserve of 16,000 tons, less the 1,700 tons mined, or about 14,000 tons remaining. Collier speculated, "Should demand warrant it, a slope will probably be driven to lower levels and a hoisting and pumping plant be provided. With such an equipment this mine could no doubt supply all the demand for coal on this part of the Yukon for many years to come." (1903, p.56). This indicates 16 that earlier isining did not even tap the down-di rg n a u o n < oO a = The 1979 energy demand of Koyukuk was equivalent to 450 tpy of 11,000 BTU's/1b villians itine coal. The 1979 requirements of Sheldon Point, 525 tpy, and Russian Nission, 600 tpy, combined with Xoyukuk are estimated at 1500-1660 tpy. Thus, two scenarios have been constructed, and kept to very small-scale operations because of indications of minimal reserves. The nature of the coal dictates that underground mining methods be used, and beca use only a single, fairly a mall seam is present, the cost of the coal is predestined to a % be very high. However, should exploration work discover more seans or Celineate greater reserves along strike or dip, the size of the mining operation could increase to supply ore 3 rer oy Db oO villages on the Yukon, reduce t per-ton cost of mining, and wQ still have enough coal for at least 20 years of steady fy production. Collier's comments on mining conditions/at Williams Mine are pertinent here. ‘?oodlands around the mine provided convenient timber for mine sets. Mo gas was encountered; air o v hafts to the surface were used for easy ventilation. Frost had not been encountered. tg "% oy a) rh € 0 Roth mining olans are based on the following assunptions: 1) Warm weather mining and shipping of coal; 2) Purchase of mostly us ed (1977-738) equipment; 3) Overlapping State and Native land selections ann the Williams coal seam would not hanper easibility of mining; Transportation costs are not included, but would probably range from $10 to $25/ton for river barging, depending on destination, availability cf back-haul and Dulk-tonnage rates, cost of leasing a barge, and amount of Fe coal shipped. as SOG toy Exploration and Development : (3-yr write-off) $17,500 $12.00/ton Capital Expenses (Inf rastructure, camp, buildings, e equipment - 10- vear write-off) 230,500 65.84 Interest and insurance (12% ) 27,660 S532 Operating Costs a) 2 miners $125/day or $25/ton, whichever is more (maz. $31,252) $62.50 b) Pood and commisary for 4 people $20/day * 150 days ($12,000) 24.00 CG) ued) 75) dal/ day =) 125 days ($18,500) 37 750 G) Mining supplies ($14 1500) 29.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($5 ,000) 10.00 f£) Freight and transport ($2,500) 5.00 a) Reclamation & permits ($5,000) 10,00 SUBTOTAL $173.00 178.00 TOTA \L $321.16 103 contingency Sank Tre sportation $10-$25,00 ID TOTAL $363-$378.27/ton 1e C. Kugruk River Coal Field The only potentially economic source of coal for Buckland is that of the Kugruk River coal field, 70 air miles west of the village (Plate I). A small-scale mine here would have to be underground and would cost as least as much to operate as the Williams Nine. Because the coal is lower grade and transportation is more difficult than at the “—< Jilliams Nine, it is probable that Kugruk coal would only be used in Buckland as a spin-off benefit of large- scale mining for power generation in the Kotzebue area. story Nearly all Seward Peninsula coal deposits were discovered near the turn of the century by gold prospectors and U.S. Geological Survey geologists. While coal was mined from several locations on the Seward Peninsula, the vast majority of the 110,000+ tons mined was from the Chicago Creek area. No attempts have been made to explore, develop, or othervise evaluate the coal resources of this area recently, because of the widespread and preferred use of fuel oil for local energy requirements (Smith and others, 1980). Presently, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys has plans to map, trench, and sanple the Chicago Creek Pield in 1981 (Gill Eakins, oral comm., 1981). 20 Exploration and Development (3-yr write-off) $60,000 $12.50/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, canp, buildings, equipment - 6&- year write-off) 300,509 23 50 Interest and insurance(12$) 36,050 22.50 Operating Costs ; . a) 1 foreman $160/day, 1 miner $150/day, 2 helpers $125/day * 130 days = $75,600 max, or incentive $40-$45/crew ton $47.25 b) Food and commisary for 8 people $20/day * 160 days ($25,600) 16.00 c) Fuel 125 gal/day * 160 days = 20,000 gal * $2 = $40,000 or 25.00 d) Mining supplies ($32,000) 20.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($10,000) 6:25 f) Freight and transport ($5,000) 3629 g) Reclamation & permits ($10,000) 6.25 SUBTOTAL $124.00 124.00 TOTAL $182.50 10% contingency 18.25 Transportation $10-$25,00 GRAND TOTAL $210-$225.75/ton 19 Potential coal resources of the Kugruk area have been difficult to assess because of heavy vegetative cover and limited available data. Even the Chicago Creek field may be of small areal extent because of steeply dipping beds and complicated structures (Smith and others, 1980). 2. Geoloay The Kugruk River deposits are lignitic coals of late Cretaceous age. They are exposed in seams dipping from 45 to 70 degrees and in widths to 80 feet near the tributaries of Chicago, Reindeer, Montana, Mina, and Independence Creeks (Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1980). The coals were once mined in the early 1900's fron workings near Chicago and Reindeer Creeks. These coals range in heat content from 6,200 to 6,800 BTU's/1lb, and average 30-353 in moisture content. Although it required nearly wice as much volume as the higher-quality imported coals, the Kugruk coals were found adequate to fire boilers of numerous placer gold mining operatons in the area. An analysis of the coal from the Chicago Creek area is as follows (after Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1980): 21 & Fixed Carbon 19 2 Volatile Hydrocarbons 39.0 Moisture 33.8 Ash ew Sulfur 0,9 100.0 Heating value: 6,825 BTU's/1lb At Chicago Creek, the main seam strikes about NOW and dips 45 to 53 degrees westward. Between 1902 and 1908, 60,000 to 100,000 tons of coal were mined from a slope and crosscuts which extended over 300 feet underground, A similar but smaller-scale mining venture occurred at the George Wallin mine about 4 miles up the Kugruk River near Reindeer Creek. Between these two mines, scattered exposures of coal have been noted, and exploration at the Chicago Creek claim block indicated. that the main seam was continuous for at least 1/2 mile, at which point it was about 70 feet below the surface. The coal beds Gip more steeply upstream from Chicago Creek, reaching 70 degrees at the George ‘Yiallin mine. With little other information available, it seems likely that the coal beds would be relatively continuous along the eastern banks of the Kugruk. Since the coal beds (bed?) that were exposed are from 50 to §0 feet in width, the potential amount of coal in the area is substantial (Gropp, Fisher, and Steeby, 1986). 22 ononic Feasibi Assuming Buckland's total electric and heating energy requirements to be 15.5 billion BTU's annually, 1250 tpy of Chicago Creek lignite at 6,200 BTU's/lb would be required. This small quantity would have to be mined by an underground operation very similar to the 500 tpy program designed for the Williams Mine. Because of the much greater size of the -Chicago Creek seam, the rate of coal recovery would at least double that of the Williams Mine. The following cost summary assumes that two men will be mining ten tons of coal per day for the same mining, milling, and capital expenses as Williams tiine, with 1250 tons of coal mined in 125 days. 23 50h) Rd \pproximate mining costs Cost Summary Exploration and Development (3-yr write-off) $40,900 $10.67/ton Capital Expenses (Infrastructure, ; canp, buildings, equipment - 8- year write-off : 230,500 23.05 Interest and insurance(12$%) 27,660 eek Operating Costs a) 2 miners $125/day or $15/ton, whichever is more (max. $37,500) $30.00 b) Food and commisary for 4 people $20/day * 140 days ($11,200) 8.56 c) Fuel 75 gal/day * 140 days ($21,000) 16.80 d) Mining supplies ($20,000) 16.00 e) Parts & maintenance ($6,500) 5.20 £) Freight and transport ($7,000) 5.60 g) Reclamation & permits ($6,250) 5.09 SUBTOTAL $87.56 §& 6 TOTAL i $143.41 10% contingency ] 14,34 GRAND TOTAL 9157 .797 ton b, Transportation costs, Coal would have to be stockpiled and hauled to Deering on Kotzebue Sound in the winter for barging to Buckland the following summer. Winter hauling over the 15 miles to Deering would cost at least $25/ton, and barging the remaining 125 miles would probably double this figure. Therefore, with transportation costs adding $40 to $100/ton, the cost of Chicago Creek coal to Buckland ranges from $196 to $258/ton. 24 D. Coal Potential of the Hughes Area Lack of economical surface transportation to Hughes makes coal an untenable energy resource at present. No coal ccurrences of proven quantity are known to exist closer than 80 air miles from Hughes, although several deposits have been locateée within a 150-mile radius. 25 E. Usibelli Coal for Western Alaska Plans are now being generated for the construction of bulk coal-handling facilities in Anchorage, Whittier, and Seward (Jones and Gray, 1981). Even without these facilities, limited quantities of Usibelli coal can be shipped to western Alaska at very competitive prices. Feasibility presented here is based on the following parameters: 1) Cost of high-quality, approx. 8,500 BTU's/lb, coal at Healy $23.00/ton 2) Rail tariff, Healy to Seward LO oS 3) Handling at docks at Seward and Bethel 5.090 4) Barge, Seward to Bethel 24.24 8,000 tons (1 load) = $24.24 16,000 tons (2 loads) ‘= $17.74 24,000 tons (3 loads) = $15.57 5) River Barge to villages upstream on Kuskokwim = $15 to $50(?)/ton 30.90 $92.39/ton Therefore, large quantities of coal can presently be delivered to Bethel for $53.72 to $62.39/ton, and to villages upstream for about $15 to $50/ton above that. Ocean barging rates are 1981 quoted lease costs from Marine Leasing A Corporation, Seattle. Since river barges were not available for lease at the time of this study, rates are extrapolated from regular tariffs supplied by United Transportation Company, Bethel. IV. POTENTIAL PEAT RESOURCES OF WESTERN ALASKA A. History Little information exists on the subject of peat as a fuel resource for Alaska. Probably the first published suggestion of peat for fuel in Alaska came from Charles A. Davis of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1909. Dachnowski-Stokes of the U.S. Department of Agriculture summarized the general features of peat deposits in Alaska in 1941. While these reports discuss. costs and methods of peat production, they are outdated. Most recent work on peat has focused on the biology and ecology of peat deposits. Other states, such as Minnesota, have sponsored peat study and development programs (Northern Technical Services and EXONO, Inc., 1980), but information on these projects was not available for this study . Finland, Ireland, and Japan extensively use peat as a fuel, but information from these countries is also difficult to obtain (Robert Euck, Northern Technical Services, oral comm., 1980). Since about 1979 the U.S. Department of Energy has sponsoreé studies on the use of peat as an energy resource. This has resulted in general studies so far, such as the el Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental Issues on the Use of e Peat as an Energy Source (King and others, \ Resource Estimation in Alaska (Northern Technical Services and EXONO, Inc., 1980). B. Location and Nature of Peat Northern Technical Services and EKONO, Inc. (1980) indicated that substantial deposits of fuel-grade peat deeper than five feet occur within three miles. of the following villages: Buckland, Sheldon Point, Telida, Nicolai, Takotna, Sleetmute, and stony River. The same report does not rule out the possibility that smaller, isolated peat deposits with potential for limited local production may exist near other villages in this study. King and others (1980) indicated that small peatlands in close to moderate proximity to each other are located along the Yukon, Keyukuk, and Kuskokwin River lowlands. Peat is partly decomposed vegetable matter that, when properly prepared and air dried, burns freely and produces more heat than most wood, but not so much as good-quality bituminous coal. The chief difficulty in using peat for a fuel is that it is almost always saturated with water as it occurs naturally, and has to be dried before it can be burned. 28 C. Feasibility of Peat as a Fuel Dry-peat harvesting could be conducted only in late spring and summer - 20 to 50 days - in arctic and subarctic environments. If frozen when wet, peat bricks fall to pieces easily and beaone hard to handle. Harvesting peat from permafrost presents technical problems of as yet unknown impact. Correctly drained peatland could probably supply sufficient quantities of fuel for small energy facilities in western Alaska (King and others, 1980). Winter harvesting - and freeze-drying - of peat is a possibility suited to Alaska that has not yet been tested. Present peat production in the lower 4@ states is about one million tons per year, with the average value per ton before shipping around $20 (Mickelsen, 1977). Almost all peat in the United States is harvested with conventional’ or modified conventional earthmoving and excavating machinery. Since the surface of a peat bog is unstable, roads are built across the bog for trucks to travel on. Nearly all peat in ce a e United States is harvested for agricultural use, although gasification of peat for electric power generation is being tested (fiickelsen, 1977). A 1 I? steam boiler would require approximately 25 acres of peat at six-foot depth over 20 years (King and others, 1980). Therefore, it is theoretically possible that heat and electricity could be generated for the villages in this study with only a few acres o A nearby peat of sufficient depth. Vv. OIL AND GAS RESOURCES OF WESTER? ALASKA There are three approaches to supplying the villages x with oil or gas aside from the current supply of petroleun derivatives: A. Use existing wells which have a record of oil or gas shows to supply or augment village needs. B. Carry out an exploration program to locate, drill, and produce petroleum to meet village requirements; C. Await future oil and gas developments and hope there will be some villages adjacent to productive sites which may share with villages. 30 A. Existing ‘ells Exploratory wells and stratigraphic test holes drilled in west-central Alaska were unsuccessful, rarely showing any sign of oil or gas. Of eighteen wells Grilled within the study area, data for eight of these are available and were reviewed at the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in Anchorage. Drill hole reports, electric logs and mud logs from these eight wells indicate no exploitable oil or gas shows. No known exploration activity is planned for the near future. B. Costs of Exploration The least expensive drilling program envisaged would involve at least four wells for a minimum cost per well figure, there being a discount for a four well or more program (Max Brewer, oral comm., 1981). Seasonal operation would be dictated by environmental and access conditions - winter only for .soft tundra and muskeg. For a small program, the drill rig would be leased with crew; occasional larger programs may find costs minimized by purchasing the drill rig. A leased Grill rig, capable of Grilling to about 6,000 feet at optimum rates with few a breakdowns would have a costing list as follows: eye 1. Drilling--depending on contract, paid as time while drilling only. nh » Tools and spare parts--negotiable. 3. Pipe, Rig Support, Coring--service companies and all their equipment. 4 » Transportation--personnel and rig. 5. Testing--if any, necessary to prove the show and evaluate reserves. c 6. Professional costs to survey site and comply with federal and state regulations. The costs of a shallow gas or oil hole 2,000 feet deep, with a simple casing, testing, and minimum costs to make hole y for tapping or production is about $700,000 (Chat n oO » Os Chatterton, oral comm., 1981). The drilling industry as any other equipment and labor intensive industry may be beset by conditions or breakdowns, weather, parts or personnel, the failure of which may cause the quoted absolute mininun costing to triple. A more realistic baseline figure would be in excess of $1 million. This costing would be for onshore work only; offshore drilling is more expensive by far than onshore work. Support costs for a semi-submersible drill rig would not fall below $100,000.00 per cay (Max Brewer, oral comm., 1981). Of the interior lowland basins, the Holitna, Minchumina, Innoko, and Tanana basins are most likely to have shallow gas deposits for local consumption, but they are very low on the list fer future development (Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977). C. Future Petroleum Development Plate I shows the possible petroleum basins near the villages, their probable order of development and an approximate date of that development. If the "wait-and-see” approach is selected for the supply of natural oil or gas, the earliest date any of the villages may be able to claim or share some local reserve would be later than 1990, according to petroleum exploration and development experts of both state and industry (Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977). D. Conclusions 1. To date, there are no existing wells suitable to supply or augment village needs. Zs | Be SS ploration programs to develop any reserves are extremely costly, wells costing in excess of $1 nillion each. Villages or village corporations are unlikely to be able to afford such high-risk capital. 4 3. Very little exploration by the oil industry is expected near any of the villages until 1990 or later. Only when the cost of oil has doubled or tripled will such exploration programs appear viable. 4. Wost muskeg or marshland basins will have shows of - marsh gas. This methane rich gas is derived from rotting organic debris on recent basin bottoms. It burns cleanly and easily, however, reservoirs of this gas are, by their nature, small, sporadic, and difficult to tap. It is unlikely that ENV n ignificant contribution to energy supplies in these villages will be made by marsh gas. 34 VI. REFERENCES Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts yy Eakins, G., Information on the Kugruk coal fields and State of Alaska plans for exploration there: State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 479-7147, Fairbanks. Farrar, R., Information on costs of construction and maintenance of winter ice roads: Ray's Equipment, 344-1088, Anchorage. Frost, S., Information on the terrain and feasibility of an ice road in the Farewell area: Proprietor, Farewell Lake Lodge, 344-5482, Anchorage. Gallager, J., Information on Doyon-Canadian Superior joint venture on development of the Farewell coal field: Arctic Resources, Inc, Anchorage. Gallett a ct and Marks, 1979, Nulato coal field reconnaisance report: tud y for the Alaska Power Authority, p. 1-5. he oS a Hoffman, J., Information on barging costs and logistics on the Kuskokwim River: United Transportation Company, Bethel. Marine Leasing Corporation, Information on costs and logistics of barging coal from Seward or Whittier to Bethel: 206-632-1441, Seattle. Player, G., 1977, The Little Tonzona coal bed near Farewell, Alaska - an important extension of the coal fields north of the Alaska Range: report by Gary Player Ventures, 17 p. Saunders, R., Information on coal development in Alaska: Diamond Shamrock, Anchorage. Sharma, W., Information on recent work in the Farewell coal’ field: University of Alaska, Fairbanks, School of lining Engineering Naster's Degree Candidate. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land HNanagement, Information on the land status of the Williams and Chicago Creek Mines: Anchorage Public Information Office, Federal Building. Published Reports Barnes, F.F., 1967, Coal resources of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1242-B, 36 p. and 1 plate. Brooks, A.H., 1911, The Mount McKinley region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 70. Chapman, R.M., 1963, Coal deposits along the Yukon River between Ruby and Anvik, Alaska, in Contributions to economic geology of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1155, p. 18-29. Clark, P.R., 1973, Transportation economics of coal resources of Northern Slope coal fieqds, Alaska: Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 134 p. Collier, A.J., 1903, The coal resources of the Yukon, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 218, p. 36-67. Coonrad, W.L., 1957, Geologic reconnaisance in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Investigations Hap I-223, Scale 1:500,000. Gropp, D.L., Fisher, L.A., and Steeby, C.H., 1980, Assessment of power generation alternatives for Kotzebue: Alaska Power Authority. Jones, F.H. and Gray, J., 1981, Coal transport infrastructure requirements: a paper presented to the Resource Development Council's Alaska Coal Marketing Conference, January 23, 1981, Anchorage, 9 p. 36 Joyce, C.R., 1960, Final federal surface mining regulations: HcGraw Hill, Washington, D.C., 165 p. Nertie, J.B., Jr. and Harrington, G.L., 1924, The Ruby—-Kuskokwim reqion, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 754, p. 84, 119-120. Rao, P.D.,.and Wolff, E.N., 1980, Characterization and evaluation of washability of Alaskan coals: University of Alaska Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Fairbanks, for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Coal ilining, 47 p. Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1979, Bristol Bay energy and electric power potential: U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration. Sloan, E.G., Shearer, G.B., Eason, J.£., and Almquist, C.L., 1979, Reconnaisance survey for coal near Farewell, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Report 75-410, 18 p. and 4 plates. : Smith, P.S., 1915, tineral resources of the Lake Clark-Iditarod region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Eull. 622, p. 247-271. Smith, P.S. and Mertie, J.B., Jr., 1930, Geology and mineral resources of northwest Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 815, p. 316. Smith, W.H., Hoffman, B.L., Solie, D.N., Frankhauser, R.E., and Chipp, E.R., 1980, Coal resources of northwest Alaska: A subcontract to Dames and Moore for the Alaska Power Authority, 217 p. and 4 plates. State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development, 1979, Community energy survey, 47 p. 37 Peat Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts k, Robert, Northern Technical Services, 750 West 2nd Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, 276-4302. Published Reports Dachnowski-Stokes, A.P., 1941, Peat Resources in Alaska: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Tech. Bull. 769, 84 p. avis, C.A., 1909, The possible use of peat fuel in Alaska, in rooks, A.H., Mineral resources of Alaska, report on progress of investigations in 1908: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 379, Dp. 63-66. y King, R., and others, 1980, Preliminary evaluation of environmental issues on the use of peat as an energy source: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Division of Fossil Fuel Processing, p. 2-6 to 2-30 and 4-3 to 4-8. Mickelsen, D.P., 1977, Peat, in Bureau of Ilines Ninerals Yearbook, Volume I, p. 1-95. Technical Services and EKONO, Inc., 1580, Peat resource mation in Alaska: under contract to State of Alaska tment of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of y and Power Development; prepared for U.S. Dept. of y, Division of Fossil Energy, 107 p. and 2 plates. JSOuN O O'S crs mew bh mun Hou aad Oil and Gas Unpublished Reports and Personal Contacts 38 Alaska Division of Minerals and Energy lianagement, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 701 %7. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, Alaska. Qil and Gas Association, Location of oil and gas wells in aska, Tesoro Building, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Well data and logs, State of Alaska Department of Administration, 3001 Porcupine Drive, Anchorage, Alaska. Brewer, M., Cost estimates and logistics for oil field development, Husky Oil Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Chatterton, C.V., Cost estimates and logistics of petroleun development, Rowland Drilling Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Published Reports Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1977, Alaska regional energy resources planning project - phase 1, volume I, Alaska's energy resources findings and analysis, final report: U.S. Energy Reseach and Development Administration. 1977, Alaska regional energy resource planning project - phase 1, volume II, Alaska's energy resources: inventory cf oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and uranium resources, final report: U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Miller, D.Jd., Payne, T.G., and Gryc,G., 1959, Geology of possible petroleum provinces in Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1094, 43 lp. and 6 plates. Selkrega, Lidia L., 1977, Alaska regional profiles, Volume VI: Yukon region: University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. APA 25/N1 Review Comments of Draft Report oO Department of the Army - Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ° United States Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service ° Department of Energy - Alaska Power Administration ° Response to Comments. ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOx 7002 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Ke REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 3 APR 1981 NPAEN-PL-R RECEIVED 7 1981 Mr. Eric P. Yould PR 7} Executive Director POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority ALASKA 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 3] Anchorage, Alaska 99501 S Dear Mr. Yould: We have completed our review of the draft report for the Reconnaissance Stud of Energy Resource Alternatives for Thirteen Western Alaska Villages by Robert W. Retherford Associates. The report appears to need additional work in the areas of organization and editing. The ability to easily find required data is limited. We have attached a representative list of comments on the report. However, the apparent lack of organization makes it difficult to review the report in a more complete manner. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Dale Olson at 752-3461. Sincerely, olor pr. 1 Incl HARLAN E. MOORE As stated Chief, Engineering Division 1. The thirteen Alaska villages should be listed on the title page. The present text design makes it difficult to quickly find out what 13 villages are being studied. 2. The table of contents should be expanded to include the thirteen villages plus seperate sections relating to the various energy alternatives studied. 3. In section 1, references are made to table 1.2. Where is table 1.2? 4. The Summary and Recommendations Section should contain tabulated results of all thirteen villages. 4204 / UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fishertes Service P.0. Box 1668 Juneau, Alaska 99802 March 30, 1981 R Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power. Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the draft report for the reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for the.villages of Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Sleetmute, Stony River, Red Devil, Takotra, Telida, Nikolai, Russian Mission, Sheldon Point, Hughes, Koyukuk, and Buckland. We have no comments to offer at this time. obert W. McVey Dirgctor, Alaska Region Sincerely, APA 25/N2 Response to comments: 1) Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers The final report has been edited several additional times to hopefully eliminate the majority of typographical errors and insure all materials are located in the proper section. The organization of the report has been modelled after the outline supplied by the Alaska Power Authority. To facilitate locating information within the report, the Table of Contents has been significantly expanded and the - Title Page has been reprinted to include the names of the thirteen villages included in the study. 2). United States Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service. No response. .- a 3) Department of Energy - Alaska Power Administration We agree with the Department of Energy in that wind generation may make a contribution for at least some villages, when reliability of the machinery is improved. Whether the wind contribution will amount to a signifi- cant contribution to the energy supply is, however, yet to be determined. Power requirements forecast in the study for residential consumer is based on a modest growth rate of 4.5%/year in electrical energy usage. APA 25/N3 This growth rate assumes some form of power production subsidy will be provided by the State of Alaska to rural residence and the continued use of diesel generation. This growth rate reflects as energy usage of 415 - 567 kWH/mo/residential consumer by the year 2000. An examination of the energy usage in the rural United States twenty years past, reveals an energy usage 100 - 125 kWH/mo consumer. The same rural consumer usage for today is 500 - 600 kWH/mo/consumer. When compared to this increase in electrical energy requirements, the above listed energy use projection for rural Alaska for the year 2000 does not represent an unrealistic forecast. REFERENCES California Energy Commission; Commercial Status: Electrical Generation and Nongeneration Technologies; Staff Draft; September 1979. California Energy Commission; Volume 1: Technical Assessment Manual, Electrical Generation, Version One; Staff Draft with Appendices; September 1979. : Canter, Larry W. and Hill, Loren G.; Handbook of Varibles for Environmental Impact Assessment; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1979. Comtois, Wilfred H.; "Economy of Scale in Power Plants"; Power Engineering; August 1977. Zarling, J. P., and Seifort, R. D.; Solar Energy Resource Potential Gas Turbine World; Gas Turbine World Handbook 1980-81; Pequot Publishing, Inc.; Framingham, Massachusetts; 1980. Godfrey, Robert Sturgis, Editor-in-Chief; Building Construction Cost Data 1980; Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.; 1979. Golden, Jack; Ouellette, Robert P.; Saari, Sharon; and Cheremisinoff, Paul H.; Environmental Impact Data Book; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1979. Harkins, H. L.; “Applying Cogeneration to Solve Tough Energy Problems"; Specifying Engineer; December 1979. Miscl6/P1 1 10 15 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. wy. 18. REFERENCES Budwani, Ramesh H.; “Power Plant Capital Cost Analysis"; Power Engineering; May 1980. Reeder, John W.; Coonrod, Patti L.; Bragg, Nola I.; Denig-Chakroff, Dave; and Markle, Donald R.; Alaska Geothermal Implementation Plan; Draft for U.S. Department of Energy; July 1980. Retherford, .Robert W., Associates; Alternate Energy Study: Angoon, Alaska; Preliminary Report for State of Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development; Anchorage; November 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Assessment of Power Generation Alternatives for Kotzebue; for Alaska Power Authority; Anchorage; June 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential Phase 1; for U.S. Department of Energy; Anchorage; December 1979. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Lower Kuskokwim Single Wire Ground Return Transmission System Pahse I Report; for State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; June 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Transmission Intertie Kake- Petersburg, Alaska: A Reconnaissance Report; for Alaska Power Authority; Anchorage; October 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Waste Heat Capture Study for State of Alaska; Anchorage; June 1978. Schweiger, Robert G.; "Burning Tommorrow's Fuels"; Power; February 1979. Miscl6/P2 2 19 20. 21. 22. 23: 24. 255 26. Qs REFERENCES Simons, H. A., (International) Ltd.; Engineering Feasibility Study British Columbia Research; May 1978. Singh, Ram Bux; Bio-Gas Plant; Mother's Print Shop; Hendersonville, North Carolina; 1975. Stoner, Carol Hupping (Editor); Producing Your Own Power; Rodale Press, Inc.; Emmaus, Pennsylvania; 1976. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration Environmental Data Service; Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1940-1970 for Alaska. United States Department of Labor; Dictionary of Occupational Titles; Fourth Edition; 1977. University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research; Electric Power in Alaska 1976-1995; August 1976. University of Oklahoma Science and Public Policy Program; Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis; Federal Energy Administra- tion; Washington, DC; May 1975. Young, Arthur and Company; A Discussion of Considerations Pertaining to Rural Energy Policy Options; State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development; April 1979. Marshall; David L.; Brogaw, Michael A.; Fuel Needs Assessment Mid-Kuskokwim; for Kuskokwim Native Association; July 21, 1980. Miscl6/P3 3 28. 29. 30. oi. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Sis REFERENCES U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; Statistical Ehrlich, Paul R.; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Holdren, John P.; "Ecoscience -Population, Resources, Environment"; 1977. University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center; Northwest Alaska Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1976. Darbyshire and Associates; Lower Yukon Regional Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1979. Darbyshire and Associates; Middle Kuskokwim Region Community Profiles A Background For Planning; for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; December 1979. The Fairmount Press, Inc.; Alternative Energy Sources Factsheets; 1978. Michels, Tim; "Solar Energy Utilization"; 1979. Canter, Larry; "Environmental Impact Assessment"; 1977. Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc.; 1979 Year End Report; December 1979. OTT Water Engineers, Inc.; Northwest Alaska Small Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study; for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; January 1981. Miscl6/P4 4 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. | ||| |presemmtee ees REFERENCES Beck, R.W.; Small Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study Southwest Alaska; for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Draft February 1981. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Potential and Alternate Electric February 1980. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Power Potentials in the Dillingham Area; for the Alaska Powér Authority; February 1980. Department of Commerce and Economic Bevelopment; Community Energy Survey; 1978 and 1979. : * Department of Commerce and Economic Development; The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy 1978: : U.S. Department of Commerce; The Alaska Economy Year-End Performance Report 1979." 9 “"~ i Department _of Commerce and Economic. Development; The Alaska Statistical Reviews 1980: Alaska Department of Labor; Alaska Population Overview; December 1979. : Rural Electrification, January 1981. - Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc.; "A Guide Book for Members"; 1980. Miscl6/P5 5 48. 49. 50. pi. D2. 53. 54. 55. 56. REFERENCES University of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research; Review of Business and Economic Conditions; September 1973. Retherford, Robert W.,; Associates; Electricity - Vital Ingredient to Quality in Survival; 1979. Retherford, Robert W., Associates; Management Audit Electrical System Performance -Engineering Aspects Evaluation; for Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.; September 1979. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research; Electric Power in Alaska, 1976-1995; August 1976. Mechanical Technology Inc.; Liquid and Solid Fuel Stirling Engines for Alaskan Applications; December 1980. Mechanical Technology Inc.; Program Concept for Demonstrating Stirling Engine Power Generators in Alaskan Villages; September 1980. Village Meetings, November-December 1980. Verbal Communication fuel dealers in Bethel, McGrath, Kotzebue and Nenana; 1981. Orith, Donald J.; Dictionary of Alaska Place Names, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., reprinted 1971. Miscl6/P6 6