Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Alaska Power Authority main 6-1981Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COPY Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives for Akhiok e King Cove e Larsen Bay e Old Harbor e Ouzinkie e Sand Point By CH2M se HILL Anchorage, Alaska June 1981 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY CONTENTS Page Preface aa 1 Summary and Recommendations 1-1 Akhiok 2 King Cove 1-3 Larsen Bay 1-4 Old Harbor =) Ouzinkie 1-6 Sand Point i-7 2 Introduction 2-1 Study Approach 21 Qualifications 2-4 3) Existing Conditions 3-1 Akhiok 3-3 King Cove 3-9 Larsen Bay 3-16 Old Harbor 3-22 Ouzinkie 3-28 Sand Point 3-34 4 Energy Requirements Forecast 4-1 Akhiok 4-2 King Cove 4-5 Larsen Bay 4-8 Old Harbor 4-11 Ouzinkie 4-14 Sand Point 4-17. 5 Alternative Energy Resource Descriptions 5-2 Small Hydroelectric Generation S=L Tidal Power Generation 5=2 Induction Wind Generation 5=3 Solar Energy (Active System Heating and Electric Generation) 5-4 Waste Heat Recovery From Central Diesel Engine Generators 5-4 Heat Energy Conservation 5=5) Wood Combustion for Electric Generation 5-6 Peat Combustion for Electric Generation 5-6 Coal Combustion for Electric Generation 5-6 Decentralized Wood Burning for Residential Space Heating 5-6 Single Wire Ground Return Sa7 Energy Resources Not Considered 5=7, Detailed Resource Descriptions for Each Community 5-8 Akhiok 5-11 King Cove 5-25 Larsen Bay Sand Point Old Harbor 5-57 Ouzinkie 5-73 Sand Point 5-89 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plan Descriptions 6-1 Evaluation of Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans 7-1 Economic Evaluation of Alternative Plans 7-1 Environmental Evaluation of Alternative Plans 7-3 Technical Evaluation of Alternative Plans 7-4 Economic Evaluation of Providing Electric Heating Service 7-4 Recommendations 8-1 Akhiok ae King Cove 8- Larsen Bay re Old Harbor 8- Ouzinkie a Appendix A. Community Meetings Information Appendix B. Data on Existing Conditions and Energy Balance Appendix C. Energy Requirements Forecasting Method Appendix D. Technology Profiles Appendix E. Economic Evaluation of Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans (20-Year Planning Period) Appendix F. Detailed Description of Recommended Plan(s) Appendix G. Resource Construction and Installation Cost Estimates Appendix H. Hydropower Project Site Maps Appendix I. Preferred Hydropower Project Design Profiles Appendix J. Corps of Engineers Small Hydropower Resource Data Appendix K. Draft Report Comments and Responses vi TABLES 3-10 s=10 3=12) 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 Demographic and Economic Conditions Energy Conditions in Akhiok Demographic and Economic Conditions Energy Conditions in King Cove Demographic and Economic Conditions Bay Energy Conditions in Larsen Bay Demographic and Economic Conditions Harbor Energy Conditions in Old Harbor Demographic and Economic Conditions Energy Conditions in Ouzinkie Demographic and Economic Conditions Point Energy Conditions in Sand Point Forecast of Future Conditions in Akhiok in in in in in in Akhiok King Cove Larsen old Ouzinkie Sand Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for Akhiok Forecast of Future Conditions in King Cove Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for King Cove Forecast of Future Conditions in Larsen Bay Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for Larsen Bay Forecast of Future Conditions in Old Harbor Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for Old Harbor vii 3=12 3-14 3-18 3-20 3-24 3226 3-30 3-32 3=37 3-38 4-2 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 6-2 6-3 6-4 6=5 6-6 dat. U2 7-3 7-4 71-5 7-6 1-7 8-1 Forecast of Future Conditions in Ouzinkie 4-14 Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for Ouzinkie 4-16 Forecast of Future Conditions in Sand Point 4-17 Forecast of Annual Energy Requirements for Sand Point 4-19 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for Akhiok 6-2 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for King Cove 6-3 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for Larsen Bay 6-4 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for Old Harbor 6-5 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for Ouzinkie 6-6 Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans for Sand Point 6-7 Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for Akhiok 7-6 Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for King Cove acid Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for Larsen Bay 7-8 Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for Old Harbor 7-9 Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for Ouzinkie 7-10 Evaluation of Alternative Electrical Energy Supply Plans for Sand Point 1d Assessment of Hydropower Project Potential for Displacement of Both Existing Generation and Fuel Oil Heating 7-12 Recommendations. for Each Community 8-2 viii FIGURES 21: 3-2 353 3-4 3-6 Communities Studied Energy Balance for Ahkiok Energy Balance for King Cove Energy Balance for Larsen Bay Energy Balance for Old Harbor Energy Balance for Ouzinkie Energy Balance for Sand Point aes Page 2=2) 3-15 3=2i1 3-27 3=3:5 3-39) MM Chapter 1 MM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative sources of electric energy for the communities of Akhiok, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Larsen Bay on Kodiak Island and Sand Point and King Cove on the Alaska peninsula are identified and evaluated in this study. The sources recommended for further study could help the communities reduce their dependence on expensive and often scarce diesel fuel for electrical generation. The purpose of the study is to recommend a series of activi- ties that, when undertaken, would result in the identifica- tion of feasible alternative resources. Establishment of the feasibility of a specific resource is beyond the scope of the study. Electric energy supply resources included are wind generation; wood, peat, and coal combustion for elec- trical generation; small hydroelectric generation; solar electric generation; tidal power generation; and continued use of central or decentralized diesel generation. Potential for waste heat recovery and conservation df heat energy for heating end uses is also identified and evaluated. Using electric energy resources identified as potentially available to each community, alternative electric energy sup- ply plans to meet future electric loads are formulated and evaluated. The plans developed to meet community electric loads include school loads but do not include the loads of large seafood processing plants that are located within many of the villages. Evaluations are based on assessment of the technical, economic, environmental, social, and institutional characteristics of the alternative supply plans. The assessments were performed in accordance with the pro- cedures and assumptions established by the Alaska Power Authority. AKHIOK Akhiok is a community of 100 located on southwest Kodiak Island. The village has grown little in recent years. Little additional economic activity is expected in future years and, as a result, population is expected to remain relatively stable. The current electric generation resource is a recently installed, village-owned, 55-kW diesel engine generator set. The school generates its own electricity using two 25-kW diesel units. The current peak electric requirements for both the village and school are approximately 65 kW and are expected to grow to 80 kW by the year 2000. The preferred supply resource is continued central diesel generation. To meet both village and school electric loads adequately, a new 80-kW diesel generator should be installed. The existing unit would be used for standby generation only. The new school, scheduled for completion in 1981, could be served by the the village central electrical system. Because of the relatively small electric load for the com- munity, the proposed Kempff Creek hydropower project, which would be located approximately 2 miles west of Akhiok, appears to be an uneconomical generation resource. Initial investment requirements for the project would be approximately $2.0 million (January 1981 price levels). Waste heat recovery for school building heating is an energy resource that was not considered in this study. However, waste heat recovery should be investigated further if the planned new school is constructed and served by its own new generating plant or by a new village generating plant. Be- cause the heat recovery system could easily be installed as the school is constructed, and because the new generating plant could be situated for low-cost heat recovery, this prospective resource would probably be economical and deserves further study. A feasibility-level investigation of waste heat recovery at the planned new school is needed. This would include devel- opment of preliminary layouts for equipment, assessment of the specific heating needs of the school, and preparation of cost estimates for the recovery equipment. The study would cost about $30,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. This investigation would include a more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general conditions,.of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. Ls KING COVE King Cove is located on the Alaska peninsula and has a year- round population of approximately 460. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc., maintains a large seafood processing plant in King Cove and is the primary source of economic activity in the city. The community has grown in recent years. As a result of con- tinued economic activity and the availability of newly con- structed housing stock, future population growth is anticipated. A city-owned, diesel, electric generation plant is being installed at a new location near the harbor. The plant will serve the city and school only and will consist of one new 300-kW diesel engine generator unit (now being installed), one new 300-kW generator unit (on order), and one planned 300-kW generator unit. Current peak electrical requirements for the city and school are 170 kW; these are expected to grow to 340 kW by the year 2000. The proposed Delta Creek hydropower project would be located near the village airstrip, with a rated capacity of 330 kw and an initial investment requirement of approximately $4.0 million (January 1981 price levels). The Delta Creek project would be lower in cost, over a 50-year planning period, than continued central diesel electric generation. Between 1985 and 1997 excess electric energy available from the Delta Creek plant could be used by the processing plant, thus displacing diesel generation. Without the ability to market excess elec- tric energy, the project would be less attractive. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation is needed to determine the potential of the Delta Creek project. This would include detailed aerial mapping and streamflow measure- ment programs. Data collected from such programs could be used to refine project configuration and cost estimates. A streamflow measurement program would require not less than one year. The feasibility investigation would cost approxi- mately $80,000 to $120,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. This investigation would include a more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general condition of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. 1-4 LARSEN BAY Larsen Bay is a village with a year-round population of about 120 located on west-central Kodiak Island. Kodiak Island Seafoods, Inc. (KISI), maintains a large processing plant in the harbor area. KISI operates only during the summer months and primarily employs transient workers. The village has grown in recent years and, as a result of continued economic activity, the availability of new housing stock, and a new village school, future growth is expected. The village elec- tric generation resource consists of approximately 20 5-kW diesel engine generator units owned and operated by private parties. The village school is served by two dedicated 60- kW diesel generator units. Current peak electric require- ments for the community and school are estimated to be 100 kW; these are expected to grow to 320 kW in the year 2000. The preferred electric supply resource is installation and operation of a standby village central diesel engine gener- ator plant and installation of a hydropower plant at Humpy Creek. This would require the installation of a central vil- lage electrical distribution system. The recommended standby central plant would consist of one 120-kW diesel engine gen- erator unit. Development and operation of a Humpy Creek hydropower plant appears to be lower in cost than continued decentralized diesel-electric generation or installation of a central diesel-electric plant. The Humpy Creek project would be located 1 mile south of the village and would have a rated capacity of 300 kW and an initial investment requirement of $3.3 million (January 1981 price levels). Excess electric energy available from the plant could be used by the local processing plant, thereby displacing diesel generation. Without the ability to market excess electric energy, the project would be less desirable. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation is needed to determine the potential of the Humpy Creek hydropower proj- ect. This would include detailed aerial mapping and stream- flow measurement programs (streamflow measurement programs are currently under way). Data available from such programs could be used to refine project configuration and cost esti- mates. The feasibility investigation would cost approximately $80,000 to $120,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. . This investigation would include a 1=5 more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general condition of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. 1-6 OLD HARBOR Old Harbor is a community with a year-round population of 350 located on Sitkalidak Strait on east-central Kodiak Island. The village has grown in recent years and, as a result of the availability of some new housing stock, growth is expected in the future. The village electrical genera- tion resource is an Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) owned generating plant that consists of two 155-kW engine generator units. Current peak electrical require- ments for the community are 105 kW; these are expected to grow to 175 kW in the year 2000. Development and operation of an Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower plant appears to be lower in cost than continued central diesel-electric generation if the hydropower project's output is used to meet current electric end use loads and provide for some electric heating. The Ohiouzuk Creek project would be located 1 mile west of the village and would have a rated capacity of 296 kW and an initial investment requirement of $2.3 million (January 1981 price levels). A more detailed feasibility-level investigation is needed to determine the potential of the Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower proj- ect. This would include detailed aerial mapping and stream- flow measurement programs. Data available from such programs could be used to refine project configuration and cost esti- mates. A streamflow measurement program would require not less than 1 year. The feasibility investigation would cost approximately $80,000 to $120,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. This investigation would include a more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general condition of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. OUZINKIE Ouzinkie is located on Spruce Island approximately 20 miles north of Kodiak and has a year-round population of about 200. The village has grown in recent years and, partly as a result of the availability of a new school and the planned construc- tion of an airstrip, the population is expected to increase in future years. The village electrical generation resources are two used, 100-kW diesel engine generators that are now being installed. After installation of the units is com- pleted, the existing 85-kW village generator and a new 50-kW generator at the school will be used for standby generation only. Current peak electric load requirements for the com- munity, including the school, were 85 kW in 1980; they are expected to grow to 150 kW in the year 2000. The preferred supply resource is continued central diesel generation. Because of the relatively small electric load of the community, the proposed Katmai Creek hydropower proj- ect, to be located approximately 1 mile east of Ouzinkie, and other hydropower projects, appear to be uneconomic gen- eration resources. Initial investment requirements for the project would be approximately $1.9 million (January 1981 price levels). Waste heat recovery of jacket water heat and exhaust stack heat from a relocated village generating plant to heat school interior spaces could be a marginally economic energy re- source. Evaluations show that such a scheme would displace approximately 130 barrels of heating oil per year and would have an initial cost of approximately $156,000 (January 1981 price levels). A feasibility-level investigation of waste heat recovery at a relocated village generating plant is needed. This would include a more detailed assessment of the problems associated with relocating the village generating plant, development of preliminary layouts for equipment, assessment of the specific heating needs of the school, and preparation of refined cost estimates for the recovery equipment. The study would cost about $30,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. This investigation would include a more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general condition of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. 1-8 SAND POINT Sand Point is located on Popof Island off the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula. The city has a year-round popula- tion of approximately 610. In recent years the village has grown, and is expected to continue to grow, largely as a re- sult of Pacific Pearl Seafoods' processing plant activities and the boat harbor improvements. The current city electric generation resource is a diesel generation plant that con- sists of two 400-kW diesel engine generator units and two 500-kW- units. Current peak electric requirements are approx- imately 400 kW; these are expected to grow to 1,100 kW in the year 2000. The preferred supply resource is continued central diesel generation and installation of induction wind generation to supply approximately 25 percent of the community's electric energy needs. The proposed Humbolt Creek hydropower project appears to be an uneconomic generation resource because of the small amount of energy it would produce. Initial invest- ment requirements for the hydropower project would be approx- imately $2.2 million (January 1981 price levels). Induction wind generation, which appears to be a marginally economic supplement to existing diesel engine generation, would contribute approximately 75 kW average generation. The generation plant would consist of four horizontal-axis machines, each with a rated output of 40 kW. Initial invest- ment requirement would be approximately $1.4 million (Jan- uary 1981 price levels). Recovery of waste heat from the exhaust stack of the city generating plant might be a marginally economic way to heat nearby buildings such as apartments. Evaluations show that such a resource would displace approximately 330 barrels of heating oil per year and would have an initial cost of approximately $345,000 (January 1981 price levels). A wind monitoring program should be undertaken to establish the characteristics of the wind. Towers equipped with wind measuring and recording equipment should be erected at sev- eral locations around Sand Point. The program would require at least 1 year of monitoring at a cost of approximately $15,000 (April 1981 price levels). A feasibility-level investigation of the potential for waste heat recovery at the city generating plant is needed. This would include development of preliminary layouts for equip- ment, assessment of the specific heating needs of the poten- tial heating loads, and development of refined cost esti- mates for the recovery equipment. This study would cost about $30,000. A more detailed feasibility-level investigation of heat energy conservation is needed to determine the potential of a weatherproofing and insulation program primarily for older housing stock. This investigation would include a more detailed characterization of current insulation levels, the general condition of the existing housing stock, an assessment of heating requirements, and an assessment of both the costs and expected results of alternative conser- vation programs available to the community. Such an inves- tigation would cost approximately $20,000. 1-10 MM Chapter 2 MH INTRODUCTION Alternative electric energy resources potentially available to six communities in southwest Alaska are identified and evaluated in this study. The resources could be developed to reduce the communities' dependence on high-cost and often scarce diesel fuel for electric generation. The study is intended to identify appropriate investigations that can be conducted to establish the feasibility of alternative re- source(s), if any. Based on the preliminary resource assessments, recommendations defining appropriate investigations and their costs are made. The communities included in the study are the villages of Akhiok, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Larsen Bay on Kodiak Island, and the cities of Sand Point and King Cove on the Alaska peninsula. The locations of these communities are shown in Figure 2-1. The Alaska Power Authority (APA) initiated the study in September 1980. Site investigations were made in October 1980. STUDY APPROACH The study consisted of the following activities: .* Tis Site investigations Ze Description of existing conditions (including current energy balance) 36 Forecasts of future energy requirements 4. Identification and description of alternative electric energy supply resources Se Identification of alternative electric energy supply plans (using resources described in activity 4) 6. Evaluation of alternative electric energy supply plans 7. Development of conclusions and recommendations These activities are described below. BRISTOL BAY OUZINKIE R, KODIAK LARSEN BAY oO <r. 4 ¥ OLD HARBOR pa” AKHIOK 4 2 CY Jose. POINT aoa (IN nr KING COVE a & if PACIFIC OCEAN ln? 3 & 7% FIGURE 2-1 COMMUNITIES STUDIED Site Investigations An investigation team visited each community in October 1980. The purposes of the site investigations were to: ° Inform the communities about the nature of the study and potentially available electric energy supply resources ° Solicit community comment regarding energy resource preferences ° Determine the existing conditions in the communi- ties, including characteristics of current energy use ° Conduct field investigations of potential electric supply resources Community comment was obtained through public meetings held with interested parties and community leaders, through door-to-door interviews held with community residents, and through surveys by mail. Description of Existing Conditions Existing conditions were investigated and defined within each community with regard to demographic, socioeconomic, industrial, and energy usage characteristics. Using infor- mation obtained during site investigations, a profile was established for each community. Each profile included a description of current fuel import levels and energy end uses (i.e., energy balance). Forecasts of Future Energy Requirements Energy requirements forecasts for the years 1980 through 2000 were developed for each community. Forecasts were based on an analysis of projected population growth, indus- trial development and other economic activity, and future per capita energy usage. Identification and Description of Alternative Electric Energy Supply Resources Alternative electric energy resources potentially available for development in each community were identified and described. Characteristics examined for the alternative resources included the initial investment required to develop the resource; annual operating, maintenance, and fuel costs; resource reliability; fuel availability (if needed); energy performance; environmental impact; institutional considera- tions; and useful operating lives. Identification of Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans Alternative electric energy supply plans were formulated to meet estimated future electric loads for each community. Plans were formulated using the alternative resources de- scribed in the previous activity. Plans were developed to meet electric load requirements over a 20-year planning period from year 1981 through year 2000. Continued use of diesel electric generation was included as an alternative supply plan. Evaluation of Alternative Electric Energy Supply Plans The relative merits of the alternative electric energy supply plans were evaluated based on the following criteria: (a) present-value (20-year) plan cost, (b) present-value 4s (50-year) plan cost, (c) energy performance, (d) environ- mental impact, and (e) resource reliability and safety. Development of Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions regarding the alternative electric energy supply plans were made as part of this activity. In addition, recommendations were made for future data-gathering and studies to define appropriate alternative resources in greater detail. QUALIFICATIONS The study was done in accordance with the APA guidelines for performing reconnaissance-level investigation studies of alternative electric energy resources. In accordance with these guidelines: ile The level of accuracy obtainable in resource characterization and alternative supply plan evaluations is commensurate with availability of data. 2. Alternative energy supply plans were formulated to meet only electric loads, not heating loads. 3. Evaluations were done for a 20-year planning period from year 1981 through year 2000. 2-4 MM Chapter 3 MM EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter characterizes existing geographic and socio- economic conditions and present levels of energy consumption in each community. Included are descriptions of population size and housing stock, economic activities, institutional influences, and land use in each community. Also included is the current annual energy balance for each community (including local seafood processing plants), which summar- izes fuel imports by type (diesel fuel, heating fuel, and gasoline), fuel consumption by use (i.e., city heating and industrial electric generation), and the characteristics of electric energy use and demand. Data establishing the demographic and economic profile of each community were obtained from published sources or were estimated from information obtained during interviews and field investigations. Data defining energy usage levels were not always readily available. The best possible esti- mates were developed and used where necessary. The methodology used to estimate energy balances varied somewhat among communities, depending on data availability. Based on the consultant's judgement and on existing annual fuel consumption records available for several villages, estimates of usage in other villages were prepared. For example, a ratio of fuel consumption to electrical genera- tion developed from available data was used to estimate electrical generation in villages where only fuel consump- tion was available. The monthly use of home heating fuel per house was estimated from known fuel deliveries, the num- ber of houses, and interviews with local residents. Commun- ity peak electric demands were estimated on the basis of assumed annual load factors of between 30 and 50 percent, based on data from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) and other small electric systems. Data were obtained during field investigations and from local and regional government agencies, fuel distributors, and the local seafood industry. In October 1980 the CH2M HILL project team visited each community and most of the hydroelectric sites under study. Local residents and officials provided information about current living conditions, housing, employment, subsistence activities, and local resources. The project team also observed household energy use characteristics in each com- munity. Information about monthly consumption of home heating fuel, gasoline, and other energy resources was supplied by local residents. 3= Interviews were conducted with representatives of Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. (King Cove), Pacific Pearl Seafoods (Sand Point), and Kodiak Island Seafood, Inc. (Larsen Bay). Data were obtained about processing plant electrical generation and fuel consumption. Where applicable, data were obtained regarding the fuel and energy products supplied to the communities. The current electric generating systems were inspected and power plant managers were interviewed to determine existing conditions. AVEC furnished records on generation, energy consumption, and fuel used to generate electricity in Old Harbor. Fuel distributors provided limited records of village fuel deliv- eries. The Rural Community Action Program and the Kodiak Island Borough also supplied data on the volume of fuel that these agencies provide on an emergency basis. The Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Area Native Association pro- vided additional demographic and economic information. Published sources were also searched for appropriate commun- ity base profiles. Some demographic information requested by the Alaska Power Authority for inclusion in this study was not available for every village. This includes number of boats and total square footage of building stock. 32 AKHIOK The CH2M HILL project team visited Akhiok during October 1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi- dents, obtained information on current living conditions, housing, household fuel consumption, employment, subsistence activities, and concerns about local resources. An inspec- tion of the existing generation system was conducted to determine the nature and condition of the plant. Additional information was obtained from published sources and inter- views with personnel from the Kodiak Area Native Association and the Kodiak Island Borough. Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions Akhiok is located on the southern end of Kodiak Island, facing southeast on Alitak Bay (see Figure 1-1). MTranspor- tation to Akhiok is available by light aircraft (Akhiok has a gravel airstrip) and boat. Adding to Akhiok's isolation are severe ctosswinds at -the airstrip, Which inhibit air travel. Grasses form the predominant veyétation on the hills around Akhiok; trees and brush are virtually absent. Ocean and river fisheries provide important subsistence and commercial resources. Population Between 1976 and 1980, Akhiok's population remained rela- tively stable at about 100 people. In 1970, approximately 98 percent of Akhiok residents were Aleut (Draft EIS, for the Bureau of Land Management's proposed oil and gas lease sale, No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait). There are an estimated 30 people who reside in Akhiok during only the summer fishing season. Economic Base Major employers are the village, village corporation, school, and store. There are no fish processing plants in Akhiok. villagers sell fish to the Columbia Wards cannery approxi- mately 5 miles away on Alitak Bay. A scallop muriculture project is being conducted at Akhiok. Success of this proj- ect could allow the villages to raise scallops commercially. Income derived from occasional seasonal employment supple- ments the residents' predominantly subsistence-based way of life. Other sources of income for residents include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. According to the KANA 1979-80 DEDP report, 15 households in Akhiok had an average income in 1979 of approximately $6,900. 3=3) Land Ownership and Use Koniag, Inc., a regional native association, recently merged with Natives of Akhiok, Inc. This merger is intended to result in integrated land management; each villager will be entitled to up to 10 acres of land near Akhiok. Housing In October 1980, Akhiok's housing stock was estimated to be 30 single-family dwelling units. None of the houses are vacant, and no additional houses are known to be planned for construction. The average number of people per household in 1980 was estimated at 3.3. Institutional Influences The merger of Koniag, Inc., with Natives of Akhiok, Inc., should provide the framework for well-planned long-term decision-making. Agencies that may affect local energy resource development projects include Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Manage- ment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Manage- ment, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Table 3-1 summarizes demographic and economic information for Akhiok. Existing Electrical Generation Facility Akhiok has a new central generation plant and distribution system that provides electricity for community residents. At the time of the field investigation, the plant, con- sisting of one 55-kW generator, was in place but not yet operating because of a temporary lack of fuel. A separate generation plant, consisting of two 25-kW units, supplies electric energy to the school. Several households continue to get their electric energy from individual generators. The centralized system will operate for 6 to 10 hours per day. Annual Energy Balance There are no data on fuel consumption or generation in Akhiok. A local official estimated that the school consumes 10,000 gallons of fuel per year (or 180 barrels, at 55 gallons per barrel). Assuming that 85 percent of the consumption (155 barrels) was for generation, and using a conversion factor of 8 kWh per gallon, annual school generation was estimated to be 68,000 kWh. The remaining 15 percent, 30 barrels, was 3-4 Table 3-1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN AKHIOK Population Trends Average Annual Year Number* Change (%) 1970 115 1976 102 -1.9 1979 114, +2.4 1980 100 =2.5 Major Employers Columbia Wards Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 30 Multifamily Units _0 Total 30 Vacancy Rate: 0% Average Number of People per Household: 3.33 Planned Housing None Number of Vehicles in 1980 1 truck 10 3-wheelers Major Structures and Facilities Existing: Water treatment plant, school. Planned: New school. Major Land Owners Koniag, City of Akhiok. *Estimated year-round average. Excluding 30 seasonal residents, assumed to be for school heating. Fuel use for village generation was estimated at 390 barrels. End uses of electric energy include lighting and appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. Consumption of home heating fuel was estimated at 110 gal- lons per household per month in the summer and 220 gallons per household per month in the winter. Wood stoves have been provided to individuals residing in HUD houses. Wood fuel supply is primarily from driftwood. End uses of heat- ing fuel include heating, cooking, and water heating. Pro- pane is occasionally used for cooking. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1 summarize energy information for Akhiok. 3-6 Table 3-2 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN AKHIOK Existing Generation City: One 55-kW unit School: Two 25-kW units Annual Energy Balance Generation Imports (bbl/yr)* Use _(bbl/yr)* (kWh/ yr) Diesel 541 City Generation 386 170,000 Home Heating Fuel 1,107 City Heating 1,080 - Total 1,648 School Generation 155 68,000 School Heating 27 - Motor Gas (gal) 4,000 Total 1,648 238,000 Wood N/A Recove rable 6 6 Generation, Waste Heat, Imports (Btu/yr x 10 ) Use (Btu/yr x 10 ) (Btu/yr x 10) (Btu/yr x 10 ) Diesel 4,284 City Generation 3,057 581 1,400 Home Heating City Heating 8,553 cm 1 Fuel 8,767 School Generation 1,228 232 600 Total 13,052 School Heating 214 pail - Total 13,052 813 2,000 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community 65 kW (does not include school load) Fuel Storage Capacity Heating oil, 10,000 gal.; motor gas, 5,000 gal.; unconfirmed summer 1978 installation of a 50,000-gal. tank. Notes: 85 percent of school fuel assumed to be used for generation, 15 percent for heating. School generation estimated using conversion factor of 0.125 gallon per kWh. City generation assumed to be 2.5 times school generation. City heating fuel use estimated assuming usage of 110 gallons per household per month, summer, and 220 gallons per household per month, winter. Oil consumption for city generation: 1.5 gallons per hour for 6 to 10 hours. School oil consumption: 9,000 to 10,000 gallons per year, 80 to 90 percent for electrical generation and 10 to 20 percent for heat, for 270 days per year. Assumed load factor of 30 percent. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. IMPORTS END USE MOTOR GAS 4000 GAL DIESEL FUEL 541 bbl CITY GENERATION ISCHOOL GENERATION CITY HEATING HOME HEATING FUEL 1107 bbl FIGURE 3-1 VEHICLE AND OTHER : 500 x 10° Btu NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 1,472 x 10° Btu RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 2000 x 10° Btu 170,000 Kwh 68,000 Kwh +— 8553 x 10° Btu SCHOOL HEATING 214 x 10° Btu ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR AKHIOK KING COVE The CH2M HILL project team visited King Cove during October 1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi- dents, obtained information on current living conditions, fuel consumption, housing, employment, subsistence activi- ties, and concerns about local resources. An inspection of the existing and new generating facilities was conducted to determine the nature and condition of the generating units. Representatives of Peter Pan Seafoods provided information about processing plant operations and fuel consumption. This information was supplemented with published community base data and interviews with local planners, Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions King Cove is located on the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 35 miles southeast of Cold Bay (see Figure 1-1). Transportation connections are available through Cold Bay to Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and Anchorage via Reeve Aleutian Airways (RAA). King Cove's airstrip is approximately 5 miles north of the village across a low mountain pass. Most of the buildings in King Cove are situated along a spit between King Cove Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. This location exposes the community to the weather. On either side of the spit and the lagoon the hills rise steeply from sea level to 2,000 feet. Grasses form the major vegetative cover. Population King Cove's population increased from 283 in 1970 to an estimated 460 in 1980. Estimates as of May 1980 showed 89 percent of King Cove's Pace residents as native (Source: Aleutian-Pribilof Island Association). In addition to the 460 local residents, there are between 220 and 250 nonresi- dent workers employed by the Peter Pan fish processing plant during most of the year. The average annual increase in population was 4.5 percent between 1970 and 1976 and 7.0 percent between 1976 and 1980. Economic Base The fishing industry and the Peter Pan Seafoods processing plant are the major influences on King Cove's economy. Other employers include the school, the City of King Cove, the village corporation, and a seasonal construction industry. King Cove's economy is affected by the seasonal and cyclical nature of the fishing industry. The Peter Pan Seafoods plant processes salmon from June through September, king crab during October and November, and Apilio crab from February through May. a—9 Subsistence activities appear to be less crucial to the local economy than is the case in several other communities visited by the project team. Data on local income were not readily available. Some King Cove families are alleged to have high incomes earned through fishing. Other sources of income include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. Land Ownership and Use King Cove Corporation, as the major land owner, can influence the direction of future development. Developed land (primar- ily residential, cannery, and fisheries-related) is largely contained within a limited townsite area. The natural landforms place severe limitations on future development opportunities and also restrict growth of nonindustrial energy use. Planned housing construction is minimal because of the lack of available land. Housing The rugged terrain and unavailability of land for private use (home construction, especially) have caused development at King Cove to occur in a haphazard manner. Residences include older houses and mobile homes which appear, in many cases, to be situated randomly but are very close to neigh- boring residences. In October 1980, King Cove housing stock was estimated at 133 single-family units. Peter Pan supplemented the local housing stock with bunkhouses for its workers. Twenty-three single-family housing units will be available for occupancy in early 1981. Approximately 85 housing units are planned for construction between 1981 and 1985 (with assistance from the City of King Cove and the Aleut Corporation). The vacancy rate is estimated to be zero. An average of 3.4 people occupy each household. Institutional Influences Overlapping land ownership and resource management jurisdic- tions provide the framework for many long-term economic decisions. The King Cove corporation controls most of the land around the village. Agencies that may affect local energy resource development projects include Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 3-10 Table 3-3 summarizes demographic and economic information for King Cove. Existing Electric Generation Facilities The City of King Cove owns and operates a central generation and distribution system that serves the community residences, small commercial establishments, and the school. The city currently operates a 250-kW GMC 12V71 unit (installed in 1979) and a rebuilt 200-kW GMC 8V1271 unit and has a 600-kW unit that is not operable. The old system will soon be replaced by two 300-kW Caterpillar units, one of which is still on order. A separate generating system owned by Peter Pan Seafoods supplies electricity to the seafood processing plant and all camp employee housing. This plant, consisting of one 250-kW, one 1,000-kW, and four 750-kW units, is in good operating condition. The Peter Pan plant also serves the entire community when the city generating plant is not operating. The electricity is distributed over a 7,200- volt, 3-phase system. Residents expressed concern over what they viewed to be the high cost of electricity in King Cove. It appeared, how- ever, that most homes had a wide range of electrical appli- ances. The effect of the relatively high cost of electricity on the standard of living of local residents was varied, depending largely on a household's income. Residents hope that the changeover to a new generation plant will decrease their costs or at least increase the system reliability. Annual Energy Balance Fairly complete fuel consumption data are available for King Cove; however, several use categories had to be further developed. Annual fuel delivery records show consumption of diesel fuel by the City of King Cove and Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. It was assumed that the entire annual delivery (1,380 gallons) of diesel fuel to the city was for generation. Use of a conversion factor of 10 kWh per gallon resulted in estimated city generation of 756,000 kWh. A load factor of 50 percent was used to calculate the peak load of 170 kW. End uses of electricity include lighting and appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. Seventy percent of total fuel consumption by Peter Pan Seafoods was assumed to be for generation (7,090 barrels) and 30 percent for "other" (3,680 barrels). (Diesel fuel classified as other is primarily for fueling fishing ves- sels.) A conversion factor of 10 kWh per gallon was used to estimate cannery generation of 3,900 MWh. s=14 Table 3-3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN KING COVE Population Trends Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1970 283, 1976 359), 4.5 1980 460 720 Major Employers Industry Number of Employees Fish Processing (Peter Pan Seafoods) 220-250 Fishing N/A Construction (summer season) N/A Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 133) Multifamily Units 0 Vacancy Rate: 0% Average Number of People per Household: 3.5 Planned Housing Year Number Type 1980 23 (single-family) HUD constructed 1981-1985 86 (single-family) Aleutian Corp. and City of King Cove Number of Vehicles (autos and 3-wheelers) in 1980 NA Major Structures and Facilities Existing: Processing plant School Power plant/warehouse Planned: New dock (1981) Secondary school, 15,000 sq ft, with swimming pool (1985) Water/sewer system Major Land Owners King Cove Corporation 9Estimated year-round avérage. Population does not include itinerant cannery workers. 3-12 Total annual deliveries of heating fuel were recorded for the school, the chapel, several commercial establishments, and the cannery. Peter Pan Seafoods sells heating fuel to residents of King Cove and uses the remainder for cannery consumption. The amount of cannery heating fuel distributed annually to residents was estimated to be 165 gallons per household per month in the summer and 330 gallons per house- hold per month in the winter. The resulting amount, plus deliveries to the chapel and commercial establishments, totaled 5,400 barrels for city heating. The amount of heating. fuel remaining for use at the cannery, 3,040 bar- rels, was classified as "cannery, other." End uses of heating fuel include heating, cooking, and water heating. Propane is occasionally used for cooking. Table 3-4 and Figure 3-2 summarize energy information for King Cove. Soils Table 3-4 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN KING COVE Existing Generation City: One 250-kW unit, two new 300-kW units, one 200-kW unit, one 600-kW unit Processing plant: One 1,000-kW unit, one 250-kW unit, four 750-kW units Annual Energy Balance . Generation Imports (bbl/yr)* Use _(bbl/yr) * (kWh/yr) Diesel 11,508 City Generation 1,380 755,900 Home Heating Fuel 9,306 City Heating 5,400 - Total 20,814 Cannery Generation 7,090 3,900,000 Cannery Other 3,038 = School Heating 225 - Motor Gas (gal) 67,000 Other 3,681 - Wood N/A Total 20,814 4,655,900 Recoverable 6 6 Generation, Waste Heat, Imports (Btu/yr x 10 ) Use (Btu/yr x 10) (Btu/yr x 10°) (Btu/yr x 10) Diesel 91,143 City Generation 10,930 2,581 3,400 Home Heating Fuel 73,704 City Heating 42,768 - - Total 164,847 Cannery Generation 56,153 13,319 16,000 Cannery Other 24,061 = = School Heating 1,782 - - Other 29,153 - - Total 164,847 15,900 19,400 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community (city and school only) 170 kw Fuel Storage Capacity Heating oil, 504,000 gal.; motor gas, 320,000 gal. Notes: Generation estimated using conversion efficiency of 0.10 gallon of diesel fuel per kWh. Seventy percent of diesel fuel delivery to cannery assumed to be for generation. Thirty percent of diesel fuel delivery to cannery assumed to be "other." City heating estimated as home heating fuel delivered to the cannery and sold to city residents (165 gallons per household per month, summer, 330 gallons per household per month, winter) plus de- liveries to the chapel and commercial establishments. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 3-14 IMPORTS MOTOR GAS DIESEL FUEL HOME HEATING FUEL 67,000 GAL 11,508 bbl 9,306 bbl END USE VEHICLE AND OTHER USE 8,375 x 10° Btu NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 31,783 x 10° Btu RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 19,400 x 10° Btu CITY GENERATION 755,900 Kwh nee 3,900,000 Kwh GENERATION CITY HEATING +— 42,768 x 10° Btu SCHOOL HEATING 1,782 x 10° Btu CANNERY MISC. USE + — 24,061 x 10° Btu MISC. CITY USE [29,153 x 10° Btu FIGURE 3-2 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR KING COVE 3-15 LARSEN BAY The CH2M HILL project team visited Larsen Bay during October 1980 and through discussions and meetings with villagers obtained information on current living conditions, fuel use, housing, employment, subsistence activities, and concern for environmental resources. Information was also obtained through interviews with the Kodiak Area Native Association and the Kodiak Island Borough and was supplemented through review of published community base information and data. Interviews were conducted with several Kodiak Island Sea- food, Inc. (KISI), officials who provided information re- garding cannery generation, fuel consumption, and fuel supplied to the residents of Larsen Bay. Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions The village of Larsen Bay is located in western central Kodiak Island (see Figure 1-1). The village faces north on- to the arm of salt water which is Larsen Bay. Access to the village is available via charter and private light aircraft (there is a gravel airstrip) and boat. Foothills rise steeply from sea level to over 2,000 feet. Major vegetation is primarily brush (such as alders) and trees (such as cottonwoods). Population Larsen Bay's population increased from 82 people in 1961 to an estimated 120 people in 1980 (Figure 1-1). The average annual increase in population was 2.4 percent. Eighty-three percent of the population was Aleut in 1970 (Source: Draft EIS, for the Bureau of Land Management's proposed oil and gas lease No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait). Economic Base The fishing industry and Kodiak Island Seafood, Inc., fish processing plant form the major economic base for Larsen Bay. The school provides employment; the village corpora- tion and village also employ a few people. KISI sells supplies during the fishing season; otherwise, there are no local stores. Employment is seasonal and cyclical in con- junction with fisheries. There is a high level of dependence on a subsistence life- style that supplements income from other sources. According to KANA 1979-80 OEDP report, 15 households in Larsen Bay earned an average income of $7,530. Other sources of income include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. 3-16 Land Ownership and Use A 1-square-mile township is entrusted to Larsen Bay. The village corporation has selected land contiguous to the townsite. The Kodiak Area Wildlife Refuge jurisdiction also abuts the townsite. The Koniag, Inc., merger with the village corporation might provide a management structure that can ease the present land shortage. All existing land uses outside the townsite are limited to subsistence activities. All uses of village-corporation- selected lands must be compatible with the Kodiak Area Wildlife Refuge. Housing In October 1980, Larsen Bay housing stock was estimated at 30 single-family houses. Kodiak Area Native Association indicated that 15 to 20 new single-family houses subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are scheduled for construction between 1981 and 1985, The vacancy rate is estimated to be zero. An average of 4.0 people occupy each house. Institutional Influences Overlapping land ownership and management jurisdictions provide the framework for many long-term economic decisions. Organizations owning or controlling land include the Village of Larsen Bay, the regional corporation, and the Kodiak Area Wildlife Refuge. Agencies with interests that may affect energy resource development at Larsen Bay include Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Table 3-5 summarizes demographic and economic information for Larsen Bay. Existing Electric Generation Facilities Larsen Bay has no centralized electric system; approximately 20 individually owned and operated generators (5-kW Listers) provide electricity to 25 to 30 households. Electricity is usually generated only during the evening periods, or when needed. Some households have wood stoves for heating. A new school, opened in 1980, has two Detroit Diesel 60-kW generators. The KISI processing plant operates its own generating plant for cannery operations and employee housing. KISI operates a 7.5-kW Lister and a 30-kW Caterpillar diesel engine generator unit during the winter months and two 75-kW Beli) Table 3-5 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN LARSEN BAY Population Trends Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1961 82 1970 109 Bie? 1976 peter 0.3 1978 118 3.0 1980 120 0.8 Major Employers Industry Number of Employees Fish Cannery NA Fishing NA School NA Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 30 Multifamily Units 0 Vacancy Rate: 0% Average Number of People per Household: 4.0 Planned Housing Year Number Type 1981-85 15-20 HUD constructed, single-family Number of Vehicles in 1980 15 autos 25 3-wheelers Major Structures and Facilities Existing in 1980: School, seafood processing plant Planned for 1981: Improvement of water and sewer system (1981) Major Land Owners and Controllers State of Alaska Koniag, Inc. U.S. Department of the Interior aEstimated year-round average. 3-18 Caterpillar and three 200-kW Caterpillar units during the canning season. Residents expressed opinions that more efficient and less costly electric energy could probably be generated with a centralized system. The Tribal Council has identified hydroelectric development as the highest economic priority during 1981. Annual Energy Balance All diesel fuel deliveries are made to KISI. Fuel for home heating and operation of individual generators is distributed by KISI to the residents of Larsen Bay. Annual fuel deliv- eries were recorded for 1979; however, consumption by use had to be estimated. In addition, generation and related fuel use for the new school generation plant were not in- cluded in 1979 data and had to be estimated. Bulk fuel storage facilities are owned and operated by KISI. This implies that residents depend on KISI for fuel for home - electric and heat generation. Fuel for village generation, estimated by residents to be approximately 110 gallons per generating unit per month, totaled 480 barrels. Annual generation was estimated to be 132,000 kWh, through use of a conversion factor of 5 kWh per gallon. Home heating was estimated to consume 900 barrels, based on consumption of 110 gallons per household per month in the summer and 220 gallons per household per month in the winter. End uses of electricity include lighting and appli- ances such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. End uses of fuel include heating, cooking, and water heating. Some stoves may be fueled with propane. Some homes have wood stoves for space and water heating. School generation was estimated at 131,000 kWh, at an assumed average load of 15 kW. Fuel use for school generation was calculated through use of a conversion factor of 8 kWh per gallon. Fuel use by cannery generation (1,200 barrels) was calculated by subtracting from total deliveries fuel used for village generation and heating. Annual cannery genera- tion was estimated at 527,100 kWh. In addition to fuel deliveries to KISI, fishing vessels often fuel at Kodiak and resell the fuel at Larsen Bay. This fuel use is not reflec- ted in the total fuel deliveries because there was no reli- able basis for estimating the additional cannery consumption. Table 3-6 and Figure 3-3 summarize energy information for Larsen Bay. 3=119 Table 3-6 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN LARSEN BAY Existing Generation City: None School : Two 60-kW units Individual: Approximately twenty 5-kW units Annual Energy Balance Generation Imports (bbl/yr)* Use _(bbl/yr) * (kWh/yr) Diesel 2,877 City Generation 480 132,000 Home Heating Fuel - City Heating 900 - Total 2,877 Cannery Generation 1,198 527,100 School Generation 299 131,400 Motor Gas (gal.) 27,000 Total 2,877 790,500 Wood N/A Recoverable Generation Waste Heat Imports (Btu/yr x 10°) Use _(Btu/yr x 10°) (Btu/yr x 10°) (Btu/yr x 10°) Diesel 22,786 City Generation 3,802 451 - Home Heating Fuel - City Heating 7,128 - - Total 22,786 Cannery Generation 9,488 1,800 2,100 School Generation 2,368 449 1,000 Total 22,786 2,700 3,100 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community N/A Fuel Storage Capacity Heating oil, 80,000 gal.; motor gas, 14,000 gal. Notes: Annual diesel fuel consumption fran delivery records. City fuel use for generation estimated at 2 barrels per generator per month. Cannery fuel use calculated as total fuel use less fuel use for city generation and heating. City kWh generation estimated using conversion of 5 kWh per gallon. Fuel use for city heating esti- mated at 110 gallons per household per month, summer, and 220 gallons per household per month, winter. School generation estimated assuming average load of 15 kW; fuel use estimated using conversion of 0.125 gallon per kWh. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 3-20 IMPORTS END USE VEHICLE AND P 27,000 GAL OTHER USE 3,375 x 10° Btu NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 9,858 x 10° Btu DIESEL FUEL 2,877 bbl RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 3,100 x 10° Btu CITY GENERATION 132,000 Kwh CANNERY GENERATION 527,100 Kwh SCHOOL GENERATION}— 131,400 Kwh 7,128 x 10° Btu CITY HEATING FIGURE 3-3 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR LARSEN BAY 3-21 OLD HARBOR The CH2M HILL project team visited Old Harbor during October 1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi- dents, obtained information on current living conditions, fuel use, housing, employment, subsistence activities, and concern for natural resources, The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC), the supplier of electricity to 48 villages including Old Harbor, furnished records on generation, energy consumption, and fuel consumed by genera- tion. This information was supplemented with published community base data and interviews with the Kodiak Area Native Association and the Kodiak Island Borough. Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions Old Harbor is located on the southeastern side of Kodiak Island, on Sitkalidak Strait (see Figure 1-1). Transporta- tion connections are available by light-wheel aircraft (there is a gravel airstrip) to Kodiak and by boat. The hills rise rapidly into mountains from sea level. Grasses interspersed with brush (predominantly alders) form the major vegetative cover. 7 Population Qld Harbor's population increased from 290 in 1970 to 350 in 1980, an average annual increase of approximately 2.0 percent. Approximately 96 percent of the residents were Aleut and "other" in 1970 (Source: Draft EIS for the Bureau of Land Management's proposed oil and gas lease sale No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait). Economic Base The fishing industry provides the major economic support for Old Harbor. Because no fish processing plant is located in Old Harbor, villagers generally sell their catches to a Columbia Wards plant on Alitak Bay. Other employment is created by the school, the village corporation, the city, and two stores. The economy and employment are seasonal and cyclical due to dependence on fisheries. There is a relatively high level of dependence on a subsis- tence lifestyle that supplements income from other sources. According to the KANA 1979-80 OEDP report, 45 households in Old Harbor earned an average income of approximately $7,240. Other sources of income include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. 3-22 Land Ownership and Use Land in Old Harbor generally is not owned by individuals at this time. Koniag, Inc., is the major landowner. The Kodiak Area Wildlife Refuge abuts the Old Harbor townsite. Existing land uses outside the townsite are limited to subsistence activities at this time. All uses must be compatible with the Kodiak Wildlife Refuge. Housing In October 1980, Old Harbor housing stock was estimated at 80 single-family units. An estimated 12 new single-family houses subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are scheduled for construction during 1981. The vacancy rate is estimated at zero. Aver- age occupancy is estimated at 4.48 people per household. Institutional Influences Overlapping land ownership and management jurisdictions provide the framework for many long-term edonomic decisions. Organizations owning or controlling land include the City of Old Harbor and Koniag, Inc. The Kodiak Island Borough can affect energy resource development. Agencies with interests in local resources and possible concerns with future develop- ment of energy resources include: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service. Table 3-7 summarizes demographic and economic information for Old Harbor. Existing Electric Generation Facility The electric generation and distribution system in Old Harbor is owned by AVEC and operated by the village. Some community residents are not connected to the centralized electric system and use individual generators. The AVEC generation system consists of two 155-kW 1,800-rpm Caterpillar SR4 units. Although the system is only 3 years old, outages are common. Residents expressed interest in methods of generating electricity which will provide expanded system capacity, lower cost, and greater system reliability. It was suggested by residents that, if sufficient generation capacity (hydroelectric, for example) could be achieved, they might gain a comparative advantage in attracting a fish processing plant to locate at Old Harbor. 3-23 Table 3-7 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN OLD HARBOR Population Trends Average Annual Year Number* Change (%) 1970 290 1976 327. +21 1980 350 +1.8 Major Employers Industry Number of Employees School 6 (1977) ° Local employment 16 (1978) Fishing NA Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 80 Multifamily Units 0 Vacancy Rate: 0% Average Number of People per Household: 4.48 Planned Housing Year Number Type 1981 12 (single family) HUD constructed Number of Vehicles in 1980 20 autos 35 3-wheelers Major Structures and Facilities Existing: School Planned: Extension of water and sewer line (1982) Airport resurfacing (1985) Major Land Owners and Controllers City of Old Harbor Koniag, Inc. “Estimated year-round average. 3-24 Annual Energy Balance AVEC records show that 274,000 kWh were generated in 1979 and 620 barrels of diesel fuel were consumed for generation, resulting in a ratio of 0.125 gallon per kWh. Records also show a peak demand of 105 kW, for a load factor of 30 per- cent. End uses of electricity include lighting and appli- ances, such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. Total diesel fuel deliveries were 820 barrels, leaving 200 barrels for uses other than generation. Total delivery of home heating fuel in 1979 was 1,910 barrels. End uses of heating fuel include space and water heating. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking in some of the new homes; however, the only available wood is driftwood and it is in scarce supply. Propane is also used to fuel some stoves. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-4 summarize energy information for Old Harbor. Table 3-8 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN OLD HARBOR Existing Generation City: School: Two 155-kW units None Annual Energy Balance Imports (bbl/yr)* Diesel 820 Home Heating Fuel 1,910 Total 2,730 Motor Gas (gal.) 17,000 Wood N/A Imports (Btu/yr x 10°) Diesel 6,494 Home Heating Fuel 15,127 Total 21,621 Use (bbl/yr)* City Generation 620 City Heating 1,910 Other 200 Total 2,730 Use (Btu/yr x 10°) City Generation 4,910 City Heating 15,127 Other 1,584 Total 21,621 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community 105 kw Notes: Cooperative (AVEC). are fran delivery records. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. B26 Generation (kWh/yr) 274,000 274,000 Generation, (Btu/yr x 10 ) 936 936 Generation and related fuel use are fram Alaska Village Electric Diesel fuel and home heating fuel consumption Recove rable Waste Heat (Btu/yr x 10°) 1,400 1,400 IMPORTS END USE 2,125 x 10° Btu VEHICLE AND NON-RECOVERABLE : ‘| GENERATION WASTE HEAT 2,574 x 10° Btu DIESEL RECOVERABLE 820 bbl GENERATION FUEL WASTE HEAT 1,400 x 10° Btu 274,000 Kwh CITY GENERATION ior 15,127 x 10° Btu HOME io HEATING 1,910 bbl FUEL MISC. CITY USE 1,584 x 10° Btu FIGURE 3-4 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR OLD HARBOR 3-271 OUZINKIE The CH2M HILL project team visited Ouzinkie during October 1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi- dents, obtained information on current living conditions, fuel use, housing, employment, subsistence activities, and concerns for natural resources. An inspection of the gen- erating system and an interview with the plant representa- tives were conducted to determine the nature and condition of the generating unit. This information was supplemented with published community base data and interviews with the Kodiak Island Borough and the Kodiak Area Native Association. Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions Ouzinkie is located on the southeast side of Spruce Island, which is approximately 20 miles north of Kodiak (see Figure 1-1). Ouzinkie does not have an airstrip, although one is planned for construction in 1981. Transportation to the village is by either floatplane or boat. Spruce Island is a heavily wooded island of rather low, rolling hills. Ouzinkie is on the side of Spruce Island that faces Kodiak Island. On the lee of the island the waters are somewhat protected. There are fisheries resources in the rivers on Spruce Island. Population Between 1963 and 1980 Ouzinkie's population remained rela- tively stable at approximately 200 people. Statistics indicate that in 1976 the population reached its 18-year low of only 173 people. Thus, the population of Ouzinkie has been relatively stable over the last 18 years. There are indications, however, that others would like to live in Ouzinkie when housing becomes available. Ouzinkie's popu- lation was approximately 86 percent Aleut in 1970 (Source: Draft EIS for the Bureau of Land Management's proposed oil and gas lease sale No. 60, Lower Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait). Economic Base There is no industrial employer (seafood processing plant) in Ouzinkie. A processing plant was located there until 1974 when it burned. Sources of employment in Ouzinkie include the village, the village corporation, the school, and a store. In 1978 an estimated 55 villagers fished for a living. In addition, there are several villagers working with Koncor, a timber management corporation on Afognak Island. Employment of Ouzinkie residents by this corpora- tion might expand slightly. There is also some seasonal construction employment. 3=28 Ouzinkie residents have a relatively high dependence on subsistence resources to supplement income from seasonal employment. According to the KANA 1979-80 OEDP report, 23 households in Ouzinkie earned an average income of approxi- mately $9,270 in 1979. Other sources of income for residents include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. Land Ownership and Use The Ouzinkie Native Corporation controls most of the land around Ouzinkie. The Ouzinkie City Council controls land within Ouzinkie. Land is not used commercially. Housing In October 1980, Ouzinkie's housing stock was estimated to be approximately 50 single-family dwelling units. Approxi- mately 10 houses are planned for construction during 1981 (subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). The vacancy rate in Ouzinkie is estimated at zero to 2 percent. One house is unoccupied, but is not available for rent. The average number of people per house- hold in 1980 was estimated at 4.0. Institutional Influences Overlapping land ownership and resource management jurisdic- tions under the Ouzinkie Village Corporation, the regional corporations--Kodiak Area Native Association and Koniag, Inc.--Kodiak Island Borough, and government agencies, pro- vide the framework for many long-term economic decisions. Other agencies with interests that might affect certain local energy resource development projects include: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Table 3-9 summarizes demographic and economic information for Ouzinkie. Existing Electric Generation Facility The village of Ouzinkie owns and operates its own generation plant and distribution system. The city generating system consists of one 85-kW, 1,800-rpm, MED No. 3309, CC-CGE unit, two used, army surplus, 100-kW units (currently being in- stalled), and one standby 60-kW unit at the school. Ten of the 55 houses are not connected with the existing generating system and use individual generators. The city plant oper- ates approximately 15 hours per day, from 7:00 a.m. through 3=29 Table 3-9 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN OUZINKIE Population Trends Average Annual Year Number* Change (%) 1963 200 1970 160 -2.9 1976 173 +1.4 1980 200 +3.1 Major Employers Industry Number of Employees Village 6 Village Corporation 3 Teachers and Aides 7 Fishing (1978) 55 Koncor (timber management) 2 Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 50 Multifamily Units 0 Vacancy Rate: 0% to 2% Average Number of People per Household: 4.0 Planned Housing Year Number Type 1981 10 (single family) HUD constructed Number of Vehicles in 1980 3 autos 30 3-wheelers Major Structures and Facilities Existing: School Wa rehouse/ store Planned: Water and sewer improvements (1981) Airstrip (1981) Major Land Owners Ouzinkie Native Corporation City of Ouzinkie Estimated year-round average. 3-30 10:00 p.m. Distribution is via a 110-volt system. A new distribution system is being installed. In the past, payment for electric energy has been on a flat-rate basis of $60 per month per household. This is now being changed to a metered-rate system that should signifi- cantly increase the cost of electric energy paid by indi- vidual households. The increasing cost of electric energy may have a negative effect on the standard of living of local households, but it also will provide incentive for conservation. Annual Energy Balance Annual fuel consumption records for 1979 show deliveries of 360 barrels of diesel fuel and 1,070 barrels of home heating fuel. End uses of heating fuel include space heating, cooling, and water heating. Propane is used occasionally. The new HUD homes are being equipped with wood stoves for heating. Estimated total village generation is 158,000 kWh. Peak demand is estimated as 85 kW. End uses of electricity include lighting and appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. Table 3-10 and Figure 3-5 summarize energy information for Ouzinkie. Sil Table 3-10 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN OUZINKIE Existing Generation City: One 85-kW unit, two used 100-kW units School: One used 60-kW standby unit Annual Energy Balance Generation Imports (bbl/yr)* Use_(bbl/yr)* (kWh/yr) Diesel 360 City Generation 360 158,000 Home Heating Fuel 1,070 City Heating 1,070 - Total 1,430 Total 1,430 158,000 Motor Gas (gal) N/A Wood N/A Recoverable 6 6 Generation, Waste Heat Imports (Btu/yr x 10 ) Use (Btu/yr x 10 ) (Btu/yr x 10 ) (Btu/yr x 10 ) Diesel 2,851 City Generation 2,851 540 900 Home Heating Fuel 8,474 City Heating 8,474 - = Total 11,325 Total TT 7325 540 900 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community 85 kw Fuel Storage Capacity Heating oil, 40,000 gal. Notes: Total diesel and home heating fuel consumption are from delivery records. City generation estimated at 0.125 gallon per kWh. Assumed load factor of 21 percent. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 3532) IMPORTS MOTOR GAS (ESTIMATED) DIESEL FUEL HOME HEATING FUEL 20,000 GAL 360 bbl 1,070 bbl END USE VEHICLE AND . OTHER USE 500 x 10° Btu NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 1,411 x 10° Btu RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 900 x 10° Btu CITY GENERATION 158,000 Kwh CITY HEATING 8,474 x 10° Btu FIGURE 3-5 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR OUZINKIE 8-33 SAND POINT The CH2M HILL project team visited Sand Point during October 1980 and, through discussions and meetings with local resi- dents, obtained information on current living conditions, fuel use, housing, employment, subsistence activities, and concerns for natural resources, An inspection of the city generation facilities and interviews with plant representa- tives were conducted to determine the nature and condition of the generating units. Pacific Pearl Seafoods also pro- vided information regarding processing plant fuel consump- tion, total fuel deliveries, and fuel supplied to the com- munity. This information was supplemented with published community base data and interviews with local planners. Geographic and Socioeconomic Conditions Sand Point is located on Popof Island in the Shumagin Islands which lie off the southern coast of the Alaskan Peninsula (see Figure 1-1). Commercial transportation is available to and from Anchorage and Cold Bay on Reeve Aleutian Airways and three times during the summar via Alaska Marine Highway System ferries. The region is sparsely covered with vegetation primarily alders, other brush, and a few trees. Population The average annual increase in population was 0.3 percent between 1961 and 1970, 6.9 percent between 1970 and 1976, and 5.0 percent between 1976 and 1980. Population statis- tics exclude cannery workers who reside in Pacific Pearl bunkhouses (an estimated 180 people in October 1980). According to the Aleutian-Pribilof Island Association, between 70 and 75 percent of residents were native in May 1980. Economic Base The fishing industry and the Pacific Pearl processing plant provide primary support for Sand Point's economy. Two processing plants located near the Sand Point Airport pro- vide support for the local economy. The school employed 15 teachers in October 1980. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Public Safety, City of Sand Point, and Shumagin Corporation have offices in Sand Point. Other employers include a general store, cafe, bar, and the construction industry. Exploratory mining at the Apollo Mine (located on Unga Island, 5 miles west of Sand Point) began in early 1980. It 3-34 is possible that the Apollo Mine Company might employ up to 200 people during the next 10 years. This might provide an opportunity for expanded support services, including housing, to be developed in Sand Point. Currently, there are no permanent communities on Unga Island. Sand Point's economy is dependent on the fishing industry and is therefore highly seasonal and cyclical. Year-round local residents are predominantly employed in fishing and by local businesses and government. Generally, nonlocal people provide the labor for processing plant operations. It appears that the dependence on subsistence resources for survival is not as high as in other villages visited by the study team. Information on income was not readily accessible. Due to the nature of the community's economy, a wide range of low to high incomes is expected. Sources of income to local residents include grants, loans, and other payments from Federal, state, and native organizations. Land Ownership and Use Major land owners are Shumagin Corporation, City of Sand Point, the Federal government, and Pacific Pearl Seafoods. The difficulty that individuals have experienced in acquir- ing land has limited the construction of new homes. Expan- sion of land use cannot occur until the issues surrounding land ownership are resolved. Housing In October 1980, the Sand Point housing stock was estimated at 144 single-family units and 30 apartments. Pacific Pearl's bunkhouse capacity is 155 people. Housing units that are known to be planned for completion in 1981 include 6 apartments and 2 single-family units. The vacancy rate is estimated at zero. It is estimated that an average of 3.4 people occupy each housing unit. Institutional Influences Overlapping land ownership and resource management jurisdic- tions provide the framework for many long-term economic decisions. Organizations owning or controlling land include Pacific Pearl Seafoods, the City of Sand Point, Shumagin Corporation, and the Federal government. Agencies with interests which may affect certain power development proj- ects include: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 3=35) Table 3-11 summarizes demographic and economic information for Sand Point. Existing Electrical Generation Facilities Pacific Pearl Seafoods owns and operates the generation plant and distribution system for the city as well as the generation plant for the processing plant. The city gen- erating system, consisting of two 400-kW Caterpillar units and two 500-kW Caterpillar units, is in good condition and has an excellent record of minimal downtime. The processing plant consists of one 800-kW unit in good condition and three 200-kW standby units. Distribution is via a 480-volt and 2,400-volt system. Residents expressed concern over what they viewed to be the high cost of electric energy in Sand Point. The monthly payments for electric energy were said to average $100. Annual Energy Balance All fuel is delivered to Pacific Pearl Seafoods and dis- tributed by the plant to city residents. Annual fuel con- sumption records show deliveries of 8,060 barrels of diesel fuel, 13,100 barrels of home heating fuel, and 70,200 gal- lons of gasoline. Total electric generation and related fuel consumption records for the city and cannery plants were available; however, consumption in other use categories had to be estimated. Plant records revealed generation plant consumption of 12.5 kWh per gallon. Annual diesel fuel consumption for electric generation was estimated at 2,575 barrels for city genera- tion (1,770,000 kWh) and 4,990 barrels for cannery genera- tion (3,430,000 kWh). Included in cannery generation is electric consumption by users in the harbor area. Approx- imately 70 slips are individually metered and use approx- imately 100 kWh per month. Diesel consumption of 490 bar- rels over and above generation use was classified as "other." A peak demand of 410 kW was estimated as was a system load factor of 50 percent. Residential end uses of electricity include lighting and appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, televisions, washers, and dryers. End uses of heating fuel include space heating and hot water heating. Table 3-12 and Figure 3-6 summarize energy information for Sand Point. 3-36 Table 3-11 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN SAND POINT Population Trends Average Annual Year Number® Change (%) 1961 350 1970 360 <3 1976 509), 6.9 1980 610 5.0 Major Employers Number of Industry Existing Employees Number of Future Employees Cannery 155-180 School 15 Fishing 65 Apollo Mine Co. Up to 200 Housing Stock in 1980 Single-family Units 144 Multifamily Units 30 Total 174 Vacancy Rate: 0% Average Number of People per Household: 3.6 Planned Housing: Year Number Type 1981 6 Multifamily 1981 2 Single-family Number of Vehicles (Autos and 3-Wheelers) in 1980 350 Major Structures and Facilities Existing: Cannery, store Planned: Dock (1981) Major Land Owners Percent of Owner 5,000-acre Total Pacific Pearl Seafoods 5 Shumagin Corporation 77 City of Sand Point 12 Federal Government 6 #Estimated year-round average. b Excluding 184 cannery workers. “Excluding cannery bunkhouse (capacity of 155). 4preliminary census statistic; other estimates calculate 3.4 people per household. 3=37 Table 3-12 ENERGY CONDITIONS IN SAND POINT Existing Generation City: Two 400-kw units, two 500-kW units Individual: One 50-kW unit (airport) Cannery: One 800-kW unit and three 200-kW units Annual Energy Balance Generation Imports (bbl/yr)* Use _(bbl/yr)* (kWh/yr) Diesel 8,056 City Generation 2,575 1,770,000 Home Heating Fuel 13,107 City Heating 9,180 - Total 21,163 Cannery Generation 4,990 3,430,000 Cannery Other 3,927 - Motor Gas (gal.) 70,200 Other 491 - Wood N/A Total 21,163 5,200,000 6 6 Generation Imports (Btu/yr x 10 ) Use (Btu/yr x 10 ) (Btu/yr_ x 10) Diesel 63,804 City Generation 20,394 6,044 Home Heating Fuel 103,807 City Heating 72,706 - Total 167,611 Cannery Generation 39,521 11,713 Cannery Other 31,102 - Other 3,889 = Total 167,612 17,757 Peak Electric Power Requirement for the Community(city only) 404 kw Fuel Storage Capacity Heating oil, 280,000 gal. Notes: Total diesel and home heating fuel consumption known. Consumption categories estimated using city and cannery generation conversion factor of 0.08 gallon per kWh, home heating usage of 165 gallons per household per month, summer, and 330 gallons per household per month, winter. City electric load factor 50 percent. *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 3-38 Recove rable Waste Heat (Btu/yr x 10°) 7,100 14,000 21,100 IMPORTS END USE MOTOR GAS 70,200 GAL ASTER USE. 8,775 x 10° Btu NON-RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 21,058 x 10° Btu RECOVERABLE GENERATION WASTE HEAT 21,100 x 10° Btu CITY GENERATION 1,770,000Kwh CANNERY GENERATION 3,430,000 Kwh DIESEL FUEL 8,056 bbl HEATING 72,706 x 10° Btu HOME HEATING 13,107 bbl FUEL CANNERY MISC. USE 31,102 x 10° Btu MISC. CITY USE 3,889 x 10° Btu FIGURE 3-6 ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE FOR SAND POINT 3-39 MM Chapter 4 MM ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST This chapter forecasts the future energy requirements of each community. Energy requirements forecasts were developed with use of the methodology described in Appendix B. The fuel consumption of seafood processing plants for electrical gen- eration and heating was assumed to remain at 1979 levels. AKHIOK Demographic and Economic Forecast Population is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent over the next 20 years (Table 4-1). This re- sults in an increase of 22 people, or approximately seven households. The housing stock is expected to increase at approximately 1 percent annually during the next 20 years (Table 4-1). Because Akhiok has planned little increase in housing stock other than to accommodate increased population, the projected increase in the number of houses was derived from the pro- jected population growth rate. It was assumed that seasonal residents will not contribute much to an increase in the total housing stock and that the average household size will remain stable. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been assumed that opportunities for Akhiok residents in the existing fisheries will remain about the same during the next 20 years; however, Table 4-1 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN AKHIOK Population Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 100 1985 105 a 1990 110 io 1995 116 1 2000 122 1 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change ($%) 1980 30 1985 32 a} 1990 33 0.6 1995 35 ae 2000 37 Lad Energy Requirements Growth Average Annual Years Change (%) 1981-2000" 10) an experimental scallop muriculture is underway at Akhiok. Program success could mean commercial scallop rearing in Akhiok within 5 years. The predominant land uses are expected to continue to be sub- sistence activities. Akhiok is expected to remain a rela- tively stable village for the next 20 years. End Use Forecast Energy end uses are assumed to remain unchanged over the next 20 years. Because of the high cost of electric energy and the subsistence way of life in the community, current house- hold consumption patterns are likely to continue. Typical end uses of electricity will continue to be lighting and household appliances such as televisions, washers, dryers, refrigerators, and freezers. Typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to be for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking. Energy Requirements Forecast Annual energy requirements for Akhiok were projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-2). Fuel use is projected to increase at the annual rate of 1 percent from 1980 through 2000. This growth rate is directly related to increases in population and housing; there was no basis for assuming any increase in average per capita consumption. Assuming no change in gen- erating efficiency, both city and school generation were pro- jected to grow at the same rate. Over a 20-year period, this annual growth rate will result in a 22-percent increase in both fuel and electric generation requirements. The village peak electrical load was projected with an assumed load factor of 35 percent, resulting in a 22-percent increase in peak load from 1980 to 2000. For a more complete description of the energy requirements forcasting method, see Appendix C. FUEL (bbl) 4,000 4 2,000 Table 4-2 FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR AKHIOK Fuel (bbl/yr)* 1980 1990 2000 Diesel (generation) 541 597 660 Home Heating Fuel (heating) 1,107 1,223 27351 Total 1,648 1,820 2,011. Generation (kwWh/yr ) Village 170,000 187,800 207,400 School 68,000 75,100 83,000 Total 238,000 262,900 290,400 Peak Electric Power Requirements (kW) village 65 70 80 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. r- 1,000 m 8 3 a m L 500 & aD Qo bbl ES kWh = x 3 T T T 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NOTE: Energy requirements are projected to increase at an annual rate of 1 percent. KING COVE Demographic and Economic Forecast The population of King Cove is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 2 percent between 1981 and 2000 (Table 4-3). This rate of increase is conservative in com- parison with historical changes in population in the commun- ity. The housing stock is expected to increase at a slightly higher rate than population during the next 20 years. Pro- jected increases (Table 4-3) have been extrapolated from estimates provided by local planners. This relationship between population and housing projections allows for future decreases in the average household size and an increase in housing market flexibility (i.e., a vacancy rate slightly greater than zero). The preceding projections of population and housing require- ments are dependent on future levels of economic activity and land availability. As long as it is difficult for Table 4-3 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN KING COVE Popu lation Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 462 1985 510 2 1990 560 2 1995 620 Z 2000 680 2 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 156 1985 200 6 1990 240 4 1995 270 2.5 2000 300 a 5 Energy Requirements Growth Average Annual Years Change (%) 1981-1990 5.0 1991-2000 . 2.0 individuals to acquire and own land for home sites, growth in housing (and perhaps population) will be constrained. It has been assumed, however, that within the next 4 years, individuals will be able to acquire home sites. Employment opportunities are expected to increase during the next two decades. Future opportunities will probably come from fishing and the growth of local business and government. The economy of King Cove is at this time almost totally dependent on the local seafood processing plant. The vil- lage's growth has paralleled fishing industry and processing plant development. Oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf might provide additional opportunity for local economic develop- ment. A lease sale on the northern Aleutian Shelf (Bristol Bay area) is scheduled for October 1983. If these opportunities are not realized, and if the amount of land available for private use does not increase, future population and housing growth might be significantly lower than projected. Energy End-Use Forecast End uses of energy in King Cove are expected to remain rela- tively unchanged over the next 20 years. Because of the high cost of electric energy and the stability of the community, current household consumption patterns will probably continue. Typical end uses of electricity will continue to be for light- ing and household appliances such as televisions, refriger- ators, freezers, and clothes dryers. Typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to be for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heat- ing and cooking. Energy Requirements Forecast Annual energy requirements for King Cove were projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-4). Fuel use and electrical genera- tion for all uses except seafood processing plant operations are projected to increase at growth rates of 5 percent annu- ally from 1981 to 1990 and 2 percent annually from 1990 to 2000. Since it is not possible to forecast the level of processing plant activity, fuel use for plant operations was projected to remain at the current level. The result is an increase in total fuel use of approximately 10,500 barrels, representing a 99 percent increase in fuel requirements for non-processing-plant uses and a 50-percent increase in total fuel requirements. Electric generation for the city was projected to grow at similar annual rates. FUEL (bbl) The city peak load was projected with an assumed load factor of 50 percent, resulting in a 98-percent increase in peak load from 1980 to 2000. For a more complete description of the energy requirements forecasting method, see Appendix C. Table 4-4 FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR KING COVE Fuel (bbl/yr)* 1980 1990 2000 Diesel (generation) 11,508 12,376 12.868 Home Heating Fuel (heating) 9,306 15,158 18,478 Total 20,814 27,534 31,346 Generation (kWh/yr) City 755,900 1,231,300 1,501,000 Cannery 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 Total 4,655,900 5,131,300 5,401,000 Peak Electric Power Requirements (kW) City 170 280 340 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. mea! L 000 m . m aQ bbl 9 30,000 + 6,000 = kWh m a m aD ao < = 20,000 4,000 = [ x 3 _v 10,000 4 r 2,000 L T T T 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NOTE: Energy requirements except for cannery use are projected to increase at rates of 5 percent, 1981-1990, and 2 percent 1990-2000. LARSEN BAY Demographic and Economic Forecast The population of Larsen Bay is projected to increase at 5 percent per year through 1985 and at 3 percent per year from 1985 through 2000 (Table 4-5). Housing is expected to increase at a somewhat higher rate than population over the next 20 years. Average household size in 1980 was estimated at 4.0 people. The housing stock is expected to grow at a slightly higher rate than the popu- lation, which will allow for a decrease in the average number of people per household and a slight increase in the vacancy rate. A 12-percent average annual increase in housing units is expected for 1981 through 1985 on the basis of known plans for construction. Increases are estimated at 4 percent per year between 1986 and 2000. As a result, the number of houses is estimated to nearly triple in the next 20 years, from 30 to 84. Table 4-5 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN LARSEN BAY Popu lation Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 120 1985 150 5) 1990 175 3 1995 200 3 2000 230 3 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change (3%) 1980 30 1985 48 12 1990 58 4 1995 70 4 2000 84 4 Energy Requirements Growth Average Annual Years Change (3%) 1981-1985 12.0 1986-2000. 4.0 4-8 The preceding estimates of future population levels and hous- ing requirements depend on future economic activity and land use patterns. As long as it is difficult for individuals to acquire and own land on which to build a house, growth in population and housing will be slowed. It has been assumed that, within the next 4 years, arrangements conducive to land ownership and housing construction will be made. Some combination of subsistence lifestyle with seasonal fisheries-related employment opportunities is expected to continue, augmented by some small businesses or services (a store, for example). The long-term stability of the village economy depends on continued operation of the Kodiak Island Seafood, Inc., fish processing plant. Closure of the plant would cause significant changes in the projected rate of housing and population growth, possibly even a decline in population. Energy End-Use Forecast It is assumed that end uses of energy in Larsen Bay will remain basically unchanged over the next 20 years. Although the decentralized generation system may be replaced with a centralized system in the future, it would probably not have much effect on end uses of electricity. Because of the high cost of electrical energy and the stability of the community, current household consumption patterns will probably continue. Typical end uses of electricity will continue to be for light- ing and household appliances such as televisions, washers, refrigerators, freezers, and clothes dryers. Typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to be for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking. Energy Requirements Forecast Annual energy requirements for Larsen Bay were projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-6). Fuel use and electrical genera- tion for all uses except seafood processing plant operations are projected to increase at growth rates of 12 percent annu- ally from 1981 to 1985 and 4 percent annually from 1985 to 2000. Since it is not possible to forecast the level of pro- cessing plant activity, fuel use for plant operations was projected to remain at the current level. The result is an increase in total fuel use of approximately 9,100 barrels, representing a 220 percent increase in fuel requirements for non-processing-plant uses and a 150 percent increase in total fuel requirements. Electric generation for the village was projected to increase at a similar annual rate. Fuel (bbl/yr)* Diesel (generation) Diesel (heating) Total Generation (kWh/yr ) Village Cannery School Total Peak Electric Power Requirements (kW) village and School (decentralized generation Table 4-6 FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR LARSEN BAY 1980 1,977 900 2,877 132,000 527,100 131,400 790,500 100 1990 3,296 1,501 4,797 283,000 527,100 281,700 1,091,800 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 215 2000 4,485 2,042 6,527 419,000 527,100 417,000 1,363,100 320 For a more complete description of the energy requirements forecasting method see Appendix C. 1,400 8,000 4 wn m m i iS 6,000 4 pol f 1000 3 = 3 z a g a 2 < 4,000 4 = > x f 500 Su 2,000 4 T T T 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NOTE Energy requirements except for cannery use are projected to increase 12 percent,1981-1985, and 4 percent,1985-2000. Annual rate of cannery Consumption projected at current level. 4-10 OLD HARBOR Demographic and Economic Forecast Population is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1 percent during the next two decades (Table 4-7). This is a conservative extrapolation of historic population increases. Housing is projected to increase at an average annual rate of approximately 3 percent. Average household size in 1980 was estimated at 4.38 people. Housing stock is anticipated to grow at a slightly higher rate than population, which allows for a decrease in the average number of people per household and a slight increase in the vacancy rate. The increase in the housing stock shown between 1980 and 1985 is based primarily on projections of planned construction. Table 4-7 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN OLD HARBOR Population Average Annual Year Number Change (3%) 1980 350 1985 365 - 1990 380 1 1995 400 1 2000 420 1 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 80 1985 100 5.0% 1990 105 1.0 1995 115 1.9 2000 125 dad Energy Requirements Growth Average Annual Years Change (3%) 1981 1,5 .'0* 1982-2000 2.0 *A 15 percent increase between 1980 and 1981 and a 2-percent increase from 1981 through 1985 result in an average annual growth of 5 percent from 1980 through 1985. 4-11 Land availability does not appear to be a major constraint on housing development in Old Harbor. Within the last few years the housing stock in Old Harbor has approximately doubled because of construction of a HUD-sponsored subdivi- sion. It has been assumed that land will continue to be available on some suitable basis to local residents. The preceding projections of population and housing require- ments are dependent on future levels of economic activity, land availability, and difficult-to-quantify data that are related to quality of life. It has not been assumed that employment opportunities will increase dramatically in old Harbor. The village does not have a major industrial em- ployer (i.e., a seafood processing plant). Negotiation with a processing plant has had inconclusive results. There does, however, appear to be a trend toward families moving into Old Harbor because it offers an appealing way of life and the opportunity to participate in seasonal fisheries. It is assumed that a few people will develop their own employment opportunities through small businesses or services. Although greatly expanded economic activity cannot be pro- jected, a slightly increasing rate of population growth and housing development is believed to be likely for Old Harbor during the next 20 years. If a fish processing plant were to be located at Old Harbor, the increase in energy require- ments because of the plant operations and population growth would be significant. Energy End-Use Forecast End uses of energy in Old Harbor are expected to remain un- changed over the next 20 years. Because of the high cost of electric energy and the stability of the community, current household consumption patterns will likely continue. Typ- ical end uses of electric energy will be as they are today, for lighting and household appliances such as televisions, washers, refrigerators, freezers, and clothes dryers. It is anticipated that typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to include space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking. Energy Requirements Forecast Annual energy requirements for Old Harbor are projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-8). Fuel use is projected to increase 15 percent between 1980 and 1981 and 2 percent annually from 1981 through 2000. This growth rate is directly related to increases in housing stock; there was no basis for assuming any increase in average per capita consumption. Electrical FUEL (bbl) generation is projected to grow at similar rates. crease in both fuel and generation requirements. The village peak electrical load was projected with an Over a 20-year period this growth will result in a 70-percent in- assumed continuation of the current load factor of 30 percent. For a more complete description of the energy requirements forecasting method, see Appendix C. Table 4-8 FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR OLD HARBOR Fuel (bbl /yr)* 1980 1990 2000 Diesel (generation) 820 L277 1,374 Home Heating Fuel (heating) 1,910 2,625 3,200 Total 2,730 3,752 4,574 Generation (kWh/yr) village 274,000 376,600 459,000 Peak Electric Power Requirements (kW) Village 105 140 175 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 6,000 4 1,000 bbl m 4,000 4 m g a 36 500 5 Q 2,000 < = x 3 L T T T 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NOTE: Energy requirements projected to increase at annual rates of 15%, 1980-1981, and 2%, 1981-2000. OUZINKIE Demographic and Economic Forecast Population is conservatively estimated to increase at an aver- age annual rate of 1.8 percent over the next two decades (Table 4-9). This will result in an increase of 72 people, or approximately 20 households. The housing stock is expected to increase at a higher rate than population during the next 20 years (an average annual increase of 3.5 percent). Increases in the housing stock are based on known, planned housing development and pro- jected increases in population. Fifteen HUD-supported houses are planned for construction during 1981. This relationship between population and housing projections allows for future decreases in the average household size (perhaps from 4.0 to 3.2 people per household) and an increase in housing market flexibility (i.e., a vacancy rate slightly greater than zero). Table 4-9 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN OUZINKIE Popu lation Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 200 1985 255 5.5 1990 262 0.5 1995 264 0.2 2000 272 0.6 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change (%) 1980 50 1985 65 6.0 1990 72 10.8 1995 80 Liat 2000 87 8.8 Energy Requirements Growth Average Annual Years Change (3%) 1981 20 1982-2000 2.0 4-14 The preceding projections of population and housing require- ments depend on future economic activity and land availabil- ity. However, because of the proximity of Ouzinkie to Kodiak (which will be even more closely linked once an airstrip is constructed) and the strong family ties among village members, it is expected that some increase in population will occur regardless of future changes in economic opportunities. For example, some people with seasonal employment in another loca- tion might choose to make their permanent residence in Ouzinkie. It is not expected that employment opportunities in Ouzinkie will increase dramatically during the next two decades, although some slight expansion in employment might occur because of growth in fishing, local business, and govern- ment. Ouzinkie is thus expected to remain a relatively stable community during the next 20 years. Energy End-Use Forecast It is assumed that end uses of energy in Ouzinkie will remain unchanged over the next 20 years. Because of the high cost of electric energy and the stability of the community, it is assumed that current household energy usage patterns will continue. Typical end uses of electricity will be, as they are today, for lighting and household appliances such as televisions, washers, refrigerators, freezers, and clothes dryers. Typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to be for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking. Energy Regu irements Forecast Annual energy requirements for Ouzinkie were projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-10). Fuel use is projected to in- crease 20 percent between 1980 and 1981 and 2 percent annu- ally from 1981 through 2000. This growth rate is directly related to increases in housing stock; there was no basis for assuming any increase in average per-capita consumption. Over a 20-year period these annual growth rates will result in a 75-percent increase in both fuel and electrical gener- ation requirements. The village peak load was projected with an assumed continu- ation of the current load factor of 21 percent. For a more complete description of the energy requirements forcasting method, see Appendix C. FUEL (bbl) Table 4-10 FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR OUZINKIE Fuel (bbl/yr)* 1980 1990 2000 Diesel (generation) 360 516 629 Home Heating Fuel (heating) 1,070 1,535 1,871 Total 1,430 2,051 2,500 Generation (kWh/yr) Village 158,000 226,600 276,200 Peak Electric Power Requirements (kW) Village 85 121 150 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 6,000 4 r 1,000 m 4,000 4 g aD 3 - 500 z bbl a g 2,000 4 z kWh = x 3 T T T ~ 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 NOTE: Energy requirements are projected to increase at annual rates of 20 percent, 1980-1981, and 2 percent, 1981-2000. 4-16 SAND POINT Demographic and Economic Forecast Population is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 3 percent between 1981 and 2000 (Table 4-11). This average rate of increase appears reasonable on the basis of the in- crease experienced since 1961. Housing stock is expected to grow at a somewhat higher rate than population during the next 20 years. This allows for a decrease in average household size and an increase in housing market flexibility (a vacancy rate greater than zero). These estimates are based on projections provided by local planners, Increases are projected at the rate of approximately 40 units per 5-year period. The projections of population and housing requirements are dependent on future levels of economic activity and land availability. As long as it is difficult for individuals to acquire land on which to build a house, growth in housing (and perhaps population) will be constrained. It has been Table 4-11 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS IN SAND POINT Population Average Annual Year Number Change (3%) 1980 610 1985 710 3 1990 820 3 1995 950 3 2000 LO 3 Housing Stock Average Annual Year Number Change ($%) 1980 174 1985 245 5.0 1990 260 4.2 1995 300 3.1 2000 340 2a7 Energy Growth Average Annual Years Change (%) 1981-2000 5.0 4-17 assumed that, within the next 4 years, land will become avail- able to purchase for home sites. Employment opportunities are expected to increase during the next 20 years. Future employment opportunities appear pos- sible in fishing (dependent on many external conditions), mining (particularly if Apollo mine employees become perma- nent Sand Point residents), and local businesses and ser- vices. Development of oil and gas on the outer continental shelf might provide an additional opportunity for local economic development. A lease sale in the Bristol Bay area of the northern Aleutian Shelf is scheduled for October 1983. If these opportunities are not realized, and if the amount of land available for private use does not increase, future population and housing construction might be significantly lower than projected. Energy End-Use Forecast End uses of energy in Sand Point are assumed to remain un- changed over the next 20 years. Because of the high cost of electric energy and the stability of the community, current household consumption patterns are likely to continue. Typ- ical end uses of electricity will continue to be for lighting and household appliances such as televisions, washers, refrig- erators, freezers, and clothes dryers. Typical end uses of heating fuel will continue to be for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Wood stoves are also used for heating and cooking. Energy Requirements Forecast Annual energy requirements for Sand Point were projected to the year 2000 (Table 4-12). Fuel use and electrical genera- tion for all uses except seafood processing plant operations are projected to increase at the annual rate of 5 percent from 1980 to 2000. Since it is not possible to forecast the level of processing plant activity, fuel use for plant oper- ations was projected to remain at the current level. The result is an increase in total fuel use of approximately 20,200 barrels, representing a 165-percent increase in fuel requirements for non-processing-plant uses and a 95-percent increase in total fuel requirements. Generation for the city was projected to increase at similar rates. The growth will result in a 100-percent increase in city generation and a 16-percent increase in total genera- tion. The city electrical peak load was projected with an assumed continuation of the current load factor of 50 percent. For a more complete description of the energy requirements forecasting method, see Appendix C. 4-18 FUEL (bbl) FORECAST OF ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR SAND POINT Fuel (bbl/yr)* 1980 1990 2000 Diesel (generation) 8,056 9,984 13),125 Home Heating Fuel (heating) 13,107 18,880 28,284 Total 21,163 28,864 41,409 Generation (kWh/yr) City 1,770,000 2,883,100 4,696,300 Cannery 3,430,000 3,430,000 3,430,000 Total 5,200,000 6,313,100 8,126,300 Peak Electric Power Requirements (kw) City 400 660 1,072 *One barrel equals 55 gallons. 40,000 J 8,000 m i a 3 30,000 + + 6,000 5 z m Da Qo < 20,000 F 4,000 s eu 10,000 4 F 2,000 T : T T 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Table 4-12 NOTE: Energy requirements except for cannery use are projected to increase at and annual rate of 5 percent, 1981-2000. Cannery consumption projected at current level. 4-19 MM Chapter 5 MM ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Alternative electric energy resources available to the com- munities are identified and described in this chapter. The accuracy of these descriptions is consistent with the amount of data available from site investigations and research on the alternatives. Continued use of centralized or decentral- ized diesel electric generation is included as an alternative resource. Near-term alternative heat energy resources are also identified and characterized. Alternative electric energy supply resources and near-term heating resources considered include: ° Small hydroelectric generation ° Tidal power generation ° Induction wind generation ° Wood combustion for electric generation ° Peat combustion for electric generation ° Solar electric generation ° Coal combustion for electric generation ° Waste heat recovery from central diesel generation ° Continued use of centralized or decentralized diesel generation ° Heat energy conservation ° Decentralized wood combustion for space heating ° Active solar heating Electric transmission resources considered include: ° Conventional overhead electric transmission ° Single-wire ground return (SWGR) transmission These energy resources are described below. SMALL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION Hydroelectric energy is generated when flowing water spins a turbine, which drives a generator, producing electric energy. Hydroelectric generation is considered a renewable resource because the input energy source (falling water) is not de- pleted over time. Operating small-scale hydroelectric genera- tion can also be relatively inexpensive; use of the water is often free and hydroelectric plants cost little to operate and maintain. The cost of the energy produced from a hydro- electric resource remains relatively constant over time. Costs rise only when inflation increases operation and main- tenance costs, which constitute only a small portion of the total resource costs. The major portion of resource costs is the capital cost for construction, which is constant throughout the financing period. Small hydroelectric projects can be practical in many Alaska locations. The resource technology has been tested and proven in Alaska and throughout the world, and the skills needed to design and build plants are readily available. Rapid and efficient construction is possible, which minimizes costs. The environmental impacts of small hydroelectric plants are usually slight and can often be easily be mitigated. Most of the small hydroelectric projects considered for this study would require a small diversion dam to create a small reser- voir, a penstock for transmitting the water from the reser- voir to the powerhouse, and a small powerhouse. The following terms and definitions are used in describing small hydroelectric projects. Dependable Capacity: The average electric production capability during the lowest water flow month of the average water flow year Low Flow: The average annual 7-day low water flow High Flow: Peak water flow expected to occur once every 100 yeras High-Flow Year: Typical high-water-flow year, based on stream gage records; approximately 20 percent greater than an average year Low-Flow Year: Typical low-water-flow year, based on stream gage records; approximately 20 percent less than average year TIDAL POWER GENERATION Tidal power is a form of hydroelectric generation. The rise and fall of ocean tides create rapidly moving incoming and outgoing water flows within narrow channels such as straits and the mouths of lagoons. The kind of tidal power genera- tion plant considered for this study would span such a channel to make use of these flows and would generate electric energy from the water flow in either direction. Such plants could block the passage of boats and fish, however, so their con- struction and operation could present greater environmental and other problems than small, stream-based hydroelectric plants. INDUCTION WIND GENERATION Several kinds of wind-powered electric generators are com- mercially available, but they all share the same operating principle: the wind rotates the blades of a collector, which drives a generator to produce electric energy. To attain the high speeds necessary for electrical generation, these wind machines must have airfoil blades similar to those of an airplane propeller. The axis of rotation for the collec- tor can be either horizontal (like a farm windmill) or ver- tical (like an eggbeater). The electric energy produced can either be alternating current (induction, which was considered in this study, or synchronous generation) or direct current (which can be stored in small quantities in electric storage batteries). With use of alternating current (ac) induction generation, which has considerably lower initial cost than synchronous ac or direct current generation, the maximum contribution of wind generation toward meeting the total load on the community electric system cannot exceed 25 percent. The contribution cannot be greater because of electrical stability problems at greater contribution levels. Synchronous generation can provide for greater wind contribution levels on the electric system but requires considerably greater initial investment and is significantly more difficult to connect with backup electric generation. Direct current wind generation would require the installation of an inverter for converting dc to ac before distribution to community residents. The costs of this type of wind generation would also be prohibitive. The collector of a horizontal-axis machine can be located on the upwind or downwind side of the tower on which it is mounted, but its blades must be perpendicular to the wind stream. A vertical-axis collector rotates around the center of its support tower. Most airfoil-blade collectors have a brake or speed control that slows or stops the rotation of the collector in high winds. The efficiencies of vertical- axis machines are lower than horizontal-axis machines, and are much newer technologically than horizontal-axis types. As a result, vertical-axis machines have few operating records or little documentation by which to analyze them, and are therefore not recommended at this time for application in the harsh Alaska climate. This is not to say that vertical- axis machines will not prove to be better at some later time, however. Because the wind is intermittent, a wind generator must be backed up by another generation source. In Alaska, this usually will be a conventional diesel engine generator. Wind generators also require a high initial investment and, because 5=3 they are a relatively new source of electric energy and are exposed to the elements, require more frequent maintenance than conventional generators. However, their environmental impact, with the exception of some noise during operation, is minimal. The Alaska climate is severe, imposing a harsh operating environment on a wind generating facility. The weather and other environmental conditions must be closely analyzed and adequate protection for the system provided. Some of the areas that need to be addressed include: Maximum wind gusts Ice and snow loading Low temperatures Salt spray Soil conditions (foundations) Excessive moisture Vandalism oo0o00000 SOLAR ENERGY (ACTIVE SYS'TEM’ HEATING AND HLECTRIC GENERATION) Much of the earth's energy is derived directly from the sun through solar radiation. This radiaton can be collected and used for space heating or to produce electic energy. Both systems were considered in this study. A solar space heating system typically consists of a solar collection device and a fluid to transfer heat from that collector to a space heating system in a building. The system might also include a means for storing the heat when the demand for space heating is low. A system to produce electric energy typically consists of an array of photovoltaic cells and a set of batteries that store the electric energy produced by the cells. The photovoltaic cells produce direct current. If alternating current is needed, as is usually the case in a residential setting, an inverter is required. Additional electrical control systems are used to regulate the system's operation. Solar heating and photovoltaic systems can be designed for use in Alaska, but they are ordinarily quite expensive. They require a very large initial investment and often more main- tenance than alternative energy supply resources. The systems also require some form of backup system that will supply a user's needs during those times when demand is greater than the solar system can supply. WASTE HEAT RECOVERY FROM CENTRAL DIESEL ENGINE GENERATORS The waste heat created by diesel engine generators can be captured and used for space heating. Ordinarily, two-thirds 5-4 of the energy contained in the diesel fuel supplied to such a generator becomes waste heat that enters the environment via either the engine radiator or exhaust system. Almost all the radiated heat and about half the exhaust heat can be recovered. This means that up to half the energy content of diesel fuel can be recovered and converted into space heat for a building, if the building is within "economic proximity" to the generator (that is, if the cost of capturing, trans- porting, and using the heat is less than the cost of space heating by other means). The medium ordinarily used to recover and transport the waste heat is water. A water-to-water heat exchanger captures heat from the engine jacket water, and an air-to-water heat exchanger captures exhaust stack heat. The heat is trans- ferred to water that flows through a pipeline to a radiant space heating system. Another pipeline carries the used water back to the heat exchanger. One building or a building com- plex can be heated in this manner. These systems can require a sizable initial investment, but they are usually very reliable and make use of a source of energy that would otherwise be wasted, so their fuel costs nothing. HEAT ENERGY CONSERVATION Conservation of heat used in buildings is possible through an increase in the buildings' thermal efficiency by addition of wall, window, ceiling, and floor insulation. Three types of buildings were considered in this study: school buildings, housing built before 1964, and housng built after 1964. No conservation options were assessed for school buildings because, in general, schools are of recent construction and are equipped with adequate heat conservation devices. In newer housing, existing building components such as roofs, walls, windows, and floors provide adequate thermal efficiency, although investigations of individual residences would prob- ably result in specific recommendations for particular dwell- ings. In older housing stock, existing structural components do not provide adequate thermal efficiency. The major oppor- tunty for heat conservation therefore lies in developing insulation programs for older housing stock. In newer housing that is presently heated with central forced air furnaces using gun-type oil burners, replacement with flame retention burners could reduce heating fuel consump- tion considerably. Overall, average conversion efficiency of the furnaces could be improved from about 73 percent to 85 percent with the use of these fuel-efficient burners. 5=5 WOOD COMBUSTION FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION Wood can be harvested, processed, and burned as boiler fuel to produce steam. The steam can be used to rotate the vanes of a turbine that drives an electric generator, or to drive the pistons of a piston engine generator. The renewability of the wood product as a fuel resource depends on timber growth rates, forest density, and the size of the forest area dedicated as a fuel source. Often, a very large area is required to fuel a municipal power generation facility, and a considerable amount of machinery and labor are needed to harvest and process the wood. The environmental costs can also be high. Harvesting can affect the land, water, and wildlife of the forest, and large-scale wood combustion can cause air pollution. PEAT COMBUSTION FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION Dried peat can be used as boiler fuel for steam turbine elec- tric generation or piston engine electric generation, much the same way wood can be. The peat must be cut, gathered, dried, and compressed into briquettes before it can be burned. Peat may be considered a renewable energy resource, but the degree of renewability depends on the rate of use, regenera- tion rate, and size of the peat field dedicated as a fuel source. As with the use of wood, a considerable amount of machinery and labor is needed to harvest and process peat. The environmental costs can also be high. Harvesting can affect the land, water, and wildlife of the peat field, and peat combustion can cause air pollution. COAL COMBUSTION FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION Coal can be burned in a boiler to produce steam, which can be used to drive a steam piston engine generator or a steam turbine generator. Coal is considered a nonrenewable resource that is relatively abundant but must usually be obtained from a distant supply source, much the same way diesel fuel must be obtained. Coal combustion technology is proven and reli- able, but the burning of coal can have a significant effect on air quality. This can be mitigated through the use of pollution control equipment. DECENTRALIZED WOOD BURNING FOR RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEATING Wood can be harvested, processed, and burned in household stoves for space heating. This is a very simple, reliable technology, but the attractiveness of wood as an energy resource depends on timber growth rates, forest density, and size of the forest area dedicated as a fuel source. A very large area might be required to heat a community, and a considerable amount of labor and machinery is needed to harvest and process the wood. Often, beach wood can be used as fuel. The environmental costs of harvesting can also be high. Severe damage to land and wildlife can result, as well as noise and water pollution. SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN Single wire ground return (SWGR) electric transmission oper- ates in single phase and consists of a single overhead line. The earth acts as the second or return wire. A-frame pole construction eliminates hole augering and the associated prob- lems of pole jacketing in permafrost. In addition, local timber can be used for the poles. Single wire ground return transmission technology is relatively new, but it has been used successfully between the Villages of Bethel and Napakiak, Alaska. ENERGY RESOURCES NOT CONSIDERED Some electric energy and near-term heat energy resource tech- nologies were initially determined to be clearly not feasible or worthy of further consideration. These resource technol- ogies are not further characterized and are not included in the study report. The resource technologies and the reason for not considering further are: i. Geothermal electric generation/King Cove Approximately 20 miles of mountainous terrain separate King Cove from a relatively low-temperature geothermal resource. Transmission costs are too great to warrant further consideration. 2. Hot water district heating systems/all communities Determined to be clearly infeasible because of long dis- tances between houses, incompatibility with existing heating devices, prohibitive maintenance requirements, backup heating requirements, and the high cost of the heating resource. 3. Energy conservation for schools and other large struc- tures/all communities Determined to be clearly not worthy of further study because of the low potential for energy savings result- ing from installation of conservation devices. In general, schools and other large structures are recently constructed and have adequate insulation, weatherproofing, and other conservation measures. 5-7 Solid waste conversion for electric generation/all com- munities Insufficient solid waste resources available. Average electric energy available from conversion would be less than 5 to 10 kW per 1,000 population. Some waste products are available from seafood processing facili- ties but in uncertain quantities. Combustion gas turbine(s)/all communities Natural gas fuel supply not available. Non-induction-type wind generation/all communities This type of wind generation, such as synchronous type generation, was not considered because of difficulties in integrating such equipment with diesel generation electric systems. Waste heat recovery at existing City generating plant/Akhiok Not considered because of lack of housing stock with significant heating requirements or housing stock that could conveniently accommodate retrofit of current heat- ing systems to hot water heating systems. Waste heat recovery at new City generating plant/King Cove Not considered because few buildings with significant heating requirements are located near the City genera- tion plant. The warehouse containing the new City generating plant is not expected to require additional space heating beyond what the plant is already designed to provide. Waste heat recovery at City (AVEC) generating plant/old Harbor Not considered because few buildings with significant heating requirements are located near the City generat- ing plant. It would be infeasible to relocate the generating plant because of the relatively high cost of relocating plant peripheral equipment (e.g., fuel storage tanks, electrical equipment). DETAILED RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH COMMUNITY Estimated costs provided in the resource descriptions, which follow, are stated in January 1981 prices. Operating and 5-8 maintenance cost estimates include operating costs, mainten- ance costs, and capital equipment replacement costs. Operat- ing labor costs were assumed to be $30,000 per year for an unskilled laborer, $40,000 per year for a plant operator, and $60,000 per year for a skilled boiler maintenance and repair person. Land costs, biomass reforestation program costs, procurement costs for biomass products (e.g., wood, peat), or the rights to such products were not included in estimates. Construction and engineering costs do not include resource planning study or licensing costs. Alternative resource construction and installation cost estimates are contained in Appendix G. Diesel fuel costs were estimated to be $1.40 per gallon delivered to the Kodiak Island communities and $1.20 per gallon delivered to Sand Point and King Cove. The costs were determined from information provided by the State of Alaska Energy Office and obtained during public meetings and later conversations with community residents. Multiple hydroelectric resources are available in all com- munities. An initial screening of all potential hydropower projects to determine a "preferred" project for each community was performed with information obtained during (1) site investi- gations, (2) the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Southwestern Alaska (see Appendix J), and (3) other previous investiga- tions. A detailed assessment and cost estimate for these preferred projects were performed. Criteria used to establish preferred projects were (1) ini- tial investment requirement and project annual cost, (2) envi- ronmental impacts, (3) energy output relative to requirements of the community, (4) relability of the resource, and (4) com- munity preferences. Larger hydropower resources with lower initial investment requirements per kW output were also con- sidered for development to provide for both current electric end use loads and electric heating (see Chapter 7). Hydropower project site maps and preferred hydropower project design profiles are contained in Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively. Additional data on potential hydropower resources are available from a recent Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Southwestern Alaska and are contained in Appendix J. AKHIOK All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Continued central diesel electric generation Kempff Bay Creek hydropower Induction wind generation Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative elect energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek No. 1 hydropower Unnamed creek No. 2 hydropower Peat canbustion for generation Coal combustion for generation Decentralized solar-electric generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat energy conservation Waste heat recovery at existing City generating plant ric 5-11 Resource Characteristics No initial investment required No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts Resource Characteristics See Appendix J See Appendix J High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technology Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Not considered further because few of the houses have either a signi- ficant heating requirement or could conveniently be retrofitted for hot water heating. Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Contirued central diesel electric generation Resource Location: Akhiok Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Existing diesel generation plant consists of one 55-kW engine generator set. Energy Production: Estimated conversion efficiency is 10.5 kWh per gallon of fuel oil. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/kW) 600 (additional units) Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.40 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: NA Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations 5=1'3 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Kempff Bay Creek/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low concrete diversion dam diverts water from Kempff Bay Creek into a penstock that runs parallel to the creek to a powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek. An alternative could be a lake tap at the unnamed lake on the headwaters of the Kempff Bay Creek. However, the diversion is probably cheaper, and locating it downstream from the lake gives more drainage area and therefore a more dependable flow. Powerhouse located so that tailwater elevation is about 50 feet NGVD. Resource Location: 0.5 mile upstream from mouth of Kempff Bay Creek, about 2 miles west of Akhiok Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway Type Capacity (cfs) Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Dependable capacity (kW) Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Low flow (cfs) High flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Maximum penstock flow (cfs) Concrete diversion 10 Run-of-river Concrete overflow 1,000 (500-year peak flow 2,900 18 Reaction x 137 Single wire, ground return 2 137 592,000 50 20 474,000 710,000 1.4 10.9 1.0 870 150 127 12.7 Resource Reliability: The project is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has no storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) Unit cost ($/kW) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 1,872,000 13,660 17,625 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower proj- ects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: The field investigation revealed late summer presence of spawning pink salmon. Salmon remains were found over the full length of the stream to the lake outlet. Brown bears inhabit the entire drainage area, and their active presence was evident from digs, tracks, and salmcn feeding remnants. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-14 Resource/Village: Wind generation/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator to provide approximately 10-kW average power output. System to consist of one wind generator rated for 25 kW maximum output, with support tower, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel genera- tion to firm up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total system electric load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: One 25-kW peak wind generation machine Energy Production: 25-kW peak output, 10.0-kW average output, 87,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 20 to 25 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 396,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 15,840 Annual operating and maintenance (S$) 8,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983, available in January 1984 Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levelr can be mitigated by strategic and remote location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5—15 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 1/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low rockfill dam diverts water from the creek into a pen- stock leading 2,100 feet to a powerhouse near the shore of South Olga Lake. Resource Location: Unnamed creek 8 miles northwest of Akhiok; creek flows into South Olga Lake. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Rockfill with sheetpile core Height (ft) 10 Operation Run-of-river Spillway Type Rock overflow Penstock Length (ft) 2,100 Diameter (in) 12 Powerhouse Type of machine Impulse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 330 Transmission Facilities Type Single wire, ground return Length (miles) 1.0 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 330 Average annual energy (kWh) 1,291,000 Plant factor (%) 45 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 0.5 Average annual flow (cfs) 5.5 Total head (ft) 600 Net head (ft) 550 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-16 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 2/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low rockfill dam diverts water from the creek into a pen- stock leading 3,000 feet into a powerhouse at Snug Cove in Moser Bay. Resource Location: Unnamed creek, 4 miles north of Akhiok; creek flows into Snug Cove. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Rockfill with sheetpile core Height (ft) 10 x Operation Run-of-river Spillway Type Rock overflow Penstock Length (ft) 3,000 Diameter (in) 16 Powerhouse Type of machine Impulse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 230 Tranmission Facilities Type Single wire, ground return Length (miles) 4.0 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 230 Average annual energy (kWh) 900,000 Plant factor (%) 45 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 0.7 Average annual flow (cfs) 6.5 Total head (ft) 350 Net head (ft) 320 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-17 Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a "V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Akhiok Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (10) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,270,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 22,700 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5118 Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: Akhiok Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,430,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 27,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5=19 Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic) /Akhiok Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 88,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Active solar heating/Akhiok Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square-foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 202,000 collector area system ($) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-21 Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/Akhiok Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values will decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problemi as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a moisture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $22,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts D=22 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/Akhiok General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD-constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,100 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact resulting from reductioh in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-23) KING COVE All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Continued central diesel electric generation Delta Creek hydropower Induction wind generation Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek hydropower * Tidal power generation (King Cove Lagoon) *Peat combustion for generation - Coal combustion for generation . Decentralized solar-electric generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat energy conservation Waste heat recovery at new City generating plant Resource Characteristics No initial investment required No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts Resource Characteristics See Appendix J Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Significant adverse environmental impacts High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technology Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Not considered further because of lack of buildings with significant heating requirements located near the City generation plant. Warehouse containing new City generation plant is not expected to require additional space heating beyond what the plant is already designed to provide. Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Continued diesel electric generation with recently installed engine generator unit(s) Resource Location: King Cove Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Diesel generation plant currently being installed con- sists of two 300-kW engine generator units. Maximum reliable electric plant output is 300 kW before additional generator units required. Energy Production: Overall estimated conversion efficiency is 12.0 kWh per gallon of fuel oil. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/kW) 400 (additional units) Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.20 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: NA Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations 5=27 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Delta Creek/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Concrete diversion dam is about 10 feet high. Penstock from the reservoir downstream to powerhouse develops about 300 feet of head. Penstock runs from the diversion dam downstream along the bench on the right side to a power- house in the vicinity of the airstrip. Resource Location: 4.7 miles upstream from mouth of Delta Creek near village airstrip Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Concrete diversion Height (ft) 10 Operation Run-of-river Spillway - Type Concrete overflow Capacity (cfs) 1,700 (500-year peak flow) Penstock Length (ft) 3,500 Diameter (in) 30 Powerhouse Type of Machine Reaction Number of Units at Installed Capacity (kW) 329 Transmission Facilities Type Single wire ground return Length (miles) 5.5 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 329 Average annual energy (kWh) 1,419,000 Plant factor (%) 50 Dependable capacity (kW) 49 Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) 1,135,000 Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) 1,703,000 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 5.0 Average annual flow (cfs) 1S: Low flow (cfs) <\5) High flow (cfs) 1,280 Total head (ft) 300 Net head (ft) 296 Maximum penstock flow (cfs) LS Resource Reliability: The project is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has no storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 3,799,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 11,547 Annual operating and maintenance (S$) 44,650 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower proj- ects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation/construction in 1983 and 1984, avail- able in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho salmon and chum salmon. Salmon below damsite could be adversely affected by streamflow fluctuations and siltation caused by project construction and operation. Institutional, Social, and Land Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting of plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-28 Resource/Village: Wind generation/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator(s) to provide approximately 40-kW average power output. System to consist of two wind generators rated for 40-kW maximum output each, with support towers, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel generation to provide firm power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total electric system load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Two 40-kW-peak-output wind generation machines Energy Production: 40-kW peak output per machine, 19-kW average output per machine, 166,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output per machine, 322,000-kWh-per-year total electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 25 to 30 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 772,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 9,650 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 14,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person, 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person, 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985. Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by strategic and remte location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts s29 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low rockfill dam diverts water into a 5,000-foot-long pen- stock leading to a powerhouse located near the mouth of an unnamed creek at Vodaponi Point. Powerhouse contains two impulse turbine-generator units Resource Location: Unnamed creek located 5 miles west of King Cove Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Rockfill with sheetpile core Height (ft) 10 Operation Run-of-river Spillway . Type Rock-lined overflow Penstock Length (ft) 5,000 Diameter (in) 18 Powerhouse Type of machine Impulse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 170 Transmission Facilities Type Single wire, ground return Length (miles) 4.5 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 170 Average annual energy (kWh) 665,000 Plant factor (%) 45 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 1.0 Average annual flow (cfs) Sy Total head (ft) 300 Net head (ft) 280 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-30) Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a "V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: King Cove Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (1) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,440,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 24,400 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Soil Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: King Cove Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,840,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 29,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35 Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Dae Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic)/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximtely 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 92,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-39) Resource/Village: Tidal-power plant on King Cove Lagoon/King Cove Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Install a reversible turbine generator at the entrance to King Cove Lagoon. Generate during rising and falling tides. ° Install a powerhouse at the existing entrance to King Cove Lagoon. Use a reversible tube turbine designed for high flow, low head. ° Construct a 225-foot-long bridge to bypass the powerhouse. ° Construct a bypass sluiceway that will also serve as a fish ladder. ° Construct embankment sections as needed on both sides of powerhouse. ° Install five 170-kW machines Resource Location: Mouth of King Cove Lagoon Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Tidal Barrier Type Powerhouse forms most of the barrier; use earth- £ill embankment on either side of powerhouse as required. Height (ft) a Powerhouse Type of machine Tube turbines (propeller) Number of units 5 Installed capacity (kW) 860 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 860 Average annual energy (kWh) 3,890,000 Plant factor (%) 52 Dependable capacity (kW) 860 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Tide range (ft) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) ab wo Resource Reliability: Energy output from project will vary somewhat over time because of seasonal variations in tidal fluctations. Otherwise, highly reliable. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 46,500,000 Unit cost ($/kw) 54,055 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. One full-time plant operator required. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for chum salmon within lagoon. Chum salmon could be adversely affected by construction and operation of tidal barrier. Instituional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible water-resource-use and land-use conflicts resulting from siting of plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-34 Resource/Village: Active solar heating/King Cove Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square~foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 211,000 collector area system ($) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5=35 Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/King Cove Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values will decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a moisture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $25,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-36 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/King Cove General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD=constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,200 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired futnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts D-37 LARSEN BAY All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Continued decentralized diesel electric generation Humpy Creek hydropower Waste heat recovery at school central generating plant v Vv J Central diesel electric generation v Installation of central electric distribution system Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative electric ene suppl lans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek No. 1 hydropower v Unnamed creek No. 2 hydropower v Peat canbustion for generation v Wood combustion for generation J Coal combustion for generation v Decentralized solar-electric generation Induction wind generation VJ: Decentralized active solar heating v Heat energy conservation Vv Decentralized wood burning for space J heating J 5=39 Resource Characteristics No initial investment required High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Small initial investment required Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology Minimal initial investment required Higher conversion efficiencies than decentralized generation High reliability Proven technology Necessary with central diesel electric generation Resource Characteristics See Appendix J See Appendix J High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technology High initial investment requirement Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Resource/Village: Continued decentralized diesel generation/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Continued use and installation (where required to meet elec- tric load growth) of privately owned decentralized small diesel engine generators (approximately 5-kW peak output per unit). Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: Approximately 3-kW average electric output per unit,; units operate 6 to 8 hours per day; approximately 7,700 kWh per unit per year Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average conversion efficiency is 7 kWh per gallon fuel oil Resource Reliability: Highly reliable from an operating standpoint; questionable availability of fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment purchase and replacement per unit (S$) 6,000 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.40 Maintenance Requirements: Maintenance routinely performed by owner/operator Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission from diesel engine operation Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Decentralized generation oper- ated privately approximately 6 to 8 hours per day, thereby limiting availability of electric energy. Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-41 Resource/Village: Central diesel-electric generation for the village only/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Install and operate a central diesel electric generation plant to service village load. Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Install two 120-kW engine generator units in 1982. Energy Production: Overall estimated conversion efficiency is 10.5 kWh per gallon fuel oil. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/kWh) 800 Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.40 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, available January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Iand-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations 5-42 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Humpy Creek/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low concrete dam diverts water from Humpy Creek into a penstock leading 2,400 feet downstream to a powerhouse near the old water supply dam. Resource Location: Dam 1.0 mile above the mouth of Humpy Creek; powerhouse 0.5 mile above mouth of Humpy Creek Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway Type Capacity (cfs) Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Dependable capacity (kW) Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Low flow (cfs) High flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Maximum penstock flow (cfs) Concrete diversion 10 Run-of-river Concrete overflow 3,200 (double 500-year peak flow) 2,400 24 Reaction dL 300 Single wire, ground return 0.5 300 1,688,000 66 58 1,350,000 2,026,000 4.2 16.8 2.9 1,220 210 200 21 Resource Reliability: The rroject is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has no storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) Unit cost ($/kW) Annual operating and maintenance 3,113,000 10,380 63,000 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower proj- ects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: An existing concrete diversion dam built in the late 1880's for water supply blocks upstream movement of salmon. The dam is located downstream of the proposed hydropower site. Pink salmon spawn in the lower portions of the stream and could be affected by siltation and sedimentation during construction and changes in flow and water temperatures during operation. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: ‘Seismically induced structural failure could cause risk to life and property in Larsen Bay. 5-43 Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery - School generating plant/Larsen Bay. Energy Form: Hot water General Description: Reclaim exhaust and jacket water heat fram two existing 60-kW engine generators (school). Use hot water (200°F) to heat school interior. Resource Location: Larsen Bay School Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) 200 feet of 3-inch-diameter outside pipe (insulated), (2) 400 feet of 2-inch-diameter interior piping, (3) four hot water unit heaters (100,000 Btuh rating), (4) one heat recovery silencer, (5) one heat exchanger (shell and tube type), (6) one building hot water circulation pump, (7) one expansion tank (20-gallon), and (8) one Butler-type building with concrete floor slab. Energy Production: Approximately 98,000 Btu per hour hot water production at 15- to 20-kW average electric output (school generation only). Average heat available at school is 88,000 Btu per hour. Annual energy (fuel) saving is estimated at 30 million Btu (3,700 gallons No. 2 fuel oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: System operates using engine stack exhaust and jacket water heat from school generation plant. Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels) : Construction and engineering ($) 145,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 5,500 Maintenance Requirements: No additional generation plant operators required. Inspect piping, valves, unit heaters monthly. Visually check heat recovery system whenever engine is checked. Four weeks' maintenance (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $900 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1981, available in January 1982 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-44 Resource/Village: Installation of a central electric distribution system/Larsen Bay Energy Form: NA General Description: Installation of a central electric distribution system (4,160- volt) to provide electric service to all village residences and other building units. Generation equipment not included. Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Distribution system sized to service 50 demand units with 3-kW peak load per unit, 55 poles, 11,000 1f conductor required Energy Production: None Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: NA Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 142,000 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, available in January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-45 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 1/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy Resource Location: Unnamed creek across Larsen Bay from the village; 1.5 miles northwest Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Powerhouse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 154 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 154 Average annual energy (kWh) 603,000 Plant factor (%) 45 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 125) Average annual flow (cfs) 6.4 Total head (ft) 370 Net head (ft) 335 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-46 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 2/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy Resource Location: Unnamed creek 2.5 miles west of Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Powerhouse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 364 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 364 Average annual energy (kWh) 1,424,000 Plant factor (%) 4s Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 1.9 Average annual flow (cfs) 9.4 Total head (cfs) 600 Net head (cfs) 540 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-47 Resource/Village: Wind generation/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator to provide approximately 10-kW average power output. System to consist of one wind generator rated for 25 kW maximum output, with support tower, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel genera- tion to firm up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximte maximum wind generation contribution to total system electric load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: One 25-kW peak wind generation machine Energy Production: 25-kW peak output, 10.0-kW average output, 87,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 20 to 25 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 396,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 15,840 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 8,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983, available in January 1984 Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by strategic and remote location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-48 Resource/Village: Wood combustion for central power generation/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Locally available wood is collected and burned in a central boiler to produce moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Power generation facility is located in proximity to village and with access to condenser coolant source (fresh water or salt water body). Low- quality wood resource is locally available. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) wood-gathering equipment, (2) mobile wood-chipping machine, (3) wood chip storage and transportation device, (4) power generation facility building and wood chip storage area, (5) boiler unit, (6) turbine generator unit, (7) miscellaneous piping and controls, (8) road con- struction equipment, (9) boiler feed chip-handling equipment, and (10) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak electric output, 85-kW average electric output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: The electric generating plant requires ap- proximately 7.6 tons of bone-dry wood per day, or 2,750 tons per year. These re- quirements are based on an assumed heating value of 8,000 Btu per pound of dry wood. Resource Reliability: The density of available wood product (tons per acre) is uncertain. Assuming wood availability is 15 tons per acre as found in Bonaza Creek Experimental Project Stand, approximately 275 acres are required to provide the necessary wood product each year. The rate of regeneration of this biamass is sufficiently slow so that an exceptionally large area of land is required for a truly renewable system. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 1,122,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 11,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Wood chip collection activity and access road construction activity would require a four-person crew operating 8 hours a day. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by biomss product removal from forested areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts, soil erosion, road construction impacts, and reforestation programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited land available for wood resource harvesting. Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-49 Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a "V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (10) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,270,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 22,700 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedul2: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5=50 Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,430,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 27,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35 Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic)/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 88,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Soe Resource/Village: Active solar heating/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square-foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 202,000 collector area system (S$) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-53 Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/Larsen Bay Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values will decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a moisture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $22,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-54 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/Larsen Bay General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD-constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,100 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact resulting from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Decentralized wood burning for residential space heating/Larsen Bay Energy Form: Heat General Description: Locally available wood is cut, collected, and transported to a central site in the village for sale and distribution to village residents. Wood- burning stoves are installed in homes currently without such devices to provide space heating. Resource Location: Larsen Bay Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: (1) Wood cutting, sizing, and transporting equipment, (2) road construction equipment, (3) wood stoves for individual housing units (assumed 30 stoves installed) Energy Production: Energy production for each older residential unit with little insulation would be 210 million Btu per year; energy production for each HUD=-con- structed unit would be 50 million Btu per year. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 520,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 110,000 (including wood procurement cost Maintenance Requirements: Wood collection, sizing, and transporting process would require a three-person labor crew working 8 hours per day. Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts caused by biomass removal from forested areas. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts, soil erosion, access road construction impacts, and reforestation programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: NA Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts p56) OLD HARBOR All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Continued centralized diesel electric generation Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower Induction wind generation Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek No. 1 hydropower Unnamed creek No. 2 hydropower Unnamed creek No. 3 hydropower Tidal power generation (in unnamed lagoon) Peat combustion for generation Coal cambustion for generation Decentralized solar-electric generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat energy conservation Waste heat recovery at City (AVEC) generating plant Resource Characteristics No initial investment required No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts Resource Characteristics See Appendix J See Appendix J See Appendix J Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Significant adverse environmental impacts High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technology Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Not considered because of lack of buildings with significant heat- ing requirements near City generating plant. Considered infeasible to relocate generating plant because of the relatively high cost of relocating plant peripheral equipment (e.g., fuel storage tanks, electrical equipment) . Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Continued diesel electric generation with existing engine generator unit(s) Resource Location: Old Harbor Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Existing diesel generation plant consists of two 155-kW engine generator units. Maximum reliable electric plant output is 155 kW before additional generator units required. Energy Production: Overall estimated conversion efficiency is 10.5 kWh per gallon of fuel oil. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/kW) 600 (additional units) Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.40 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: NA Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Ohiouzuk Creek/Old Harbor Energy Form: General Description: A low concrete diversion dam diverts water from Ohiouzuk Creek into a penstock that runs parallel to the creek to a powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek. It may be possible to increase the dam height and develop some storage, but this cannot be determined without more detailed mapping. Electric energy Resource Location: Old Harbor About 0.5 mile from the mouth of Ohiouzuk Creek, 1 mile west of Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Concrete diversion Height (ft) 10 Operation Run-of-river Spillway Type Concrete overflow Capacity (cfs) 1,200 (500-year peak flow) Penstock Length (ft) 3,200 Diameter (in) 24 Powerhouse Type of machine Reaction Number of units 4 Installed capacity (kW) 296 Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Single wire, ground return Z Installed capacity (kW) 296 Average annual energy (kWh) 1,280,000 Plant factor (%) 50 Dependable capacity (kW) 44 Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) 1,024,000 Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) 1,536,000 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) at Average annual flow (cfs) 14.2 Low flow (cfs) 72 High flow (cfs) 950 Total head (ft) 250 Net head (ft) 240 Maximum penstock flow (cfs) 16.5 Resource Reliability: The project is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has no storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,340,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 7,905 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 35,250 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower projects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Resource Development Schedule: available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Pink salmon reported by literature to be present in creek, but no known spawning grounds. However, local sources state that the creek "goes underground" before entering Sitkalidak Strait, thereby blocking passage of salmon upstream. Bear concentrations along stream expected to be minimal. Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: Possible land-use conflicts No significant impacts 5-60 Resource/Village: Wind generation/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator to provide approximately 10-kW average power output. System to consist of one wind generator rated for 25 kW maximum output, with support tower, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel genera- tion to firm up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total system electric load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: One 25-kW peak wind generation machine Energy Production: 25-kW peak output, 10.0-kW average output, 87,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 20 to 25 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering (S$) 396,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 15,840 Annual operating and maintenance (S$) 8,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983, available in January 1984 Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by strategic and remote location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5= 61 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 1/0ld Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low rockfill dam diverts water from the creek into a pen- stock leading 5,500 feet downstream to a powerhouse beside the creek. Resource Location: Unnamed creek 7.5 miles north from Old Harbor Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Rockfill with sheetpile core Height (ft) 10 Operation Run-of-river Spillway Type Rockfill overflow Penstock Length (ft) 5,500 Diameter (in) 39 Powerhouse Type of machine Impulse Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 2,280 Transmission Facilities Type Overhead Length (miles) 7.0 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 2,280 Average annual energy (kWh) 8,921,000 Plant factor (%) 45 Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) SoA: Average annual flow (cfs) 55: Total head (ft) 410 Net head (ft) 380 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-62 Resource/Village: Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 2/0ld Harbor A low rockfill dam diverts water into a penstock leading 2,400 feet downstream to a powerhouse on the bank of the creek. Resource Location: Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway Type Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Input Ener (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Unnamed creek 3.5 miles north of the village Rockfill with sheetpile core 10 Run-of-river Rockfill overflow 2,400 10 Impulse 2 340 Single wire, ground return 1.0 340 1,330,000 45 0.4 4.2 820 750 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers D635 Resource/Village: Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek No. 3/0ld Harbor A low rockfill dam diverts water into a penstock leading 3,600 feet downstream to a powerhouse on the bank of the creek. Resource Location: Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway Type Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Unnamed creek 3.0 miles northeast from Old Harbor Rockfill with sheetpile core 10 Run-of-river Rockfill overflow 3,600 24 Impulse 2 680 Single wire, ground return 1.0 680 2,661,000 45 2.0 19.8 350 315 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-64 Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a "V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Old Harbor Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (10) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,270,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 22,700 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: Old Harbor Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,430,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 27,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35 Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-66 Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic)/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 88,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days’ maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-67 Resource/Village: Tidal power plant on unnamed lagoon/Old Harbor Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Install a reversible turbine generator at a site between Sitkalidak Strait and the unnamed lagoon along the road separating the northeast and southwest parts of the village. Generate during rising and falling tides. ° Install a powerhouse along the existing roadway embankment. Use a revers- ible tube turbine designed for high flow-low head. ° Construct a 90-foot-long bridge to bypass the powerhouse. ° Construct a bypass sluiceway that will also serve as a fish ladder. ° Construct embankment as needed on both sides of powerhouse. ° Install two 180 kW machines rated at 4-foot head and 600-cfs flow. Resource Location: Mouth of unnamed lagoon, Old Harbor Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Tidal Barrier Type Powerhouse forms most of the barrier; use earth- fill embankment on either side as needed Height (ft) 15 Powerhouse Type of machine Tube turbine (propeller) Number of units 2 Installed capacity (kW) 360 Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 360 Average annual energy (kWh) 1,640,000 Plant factor (%) 52 Dependable capacity (kW) 360 Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Tide range (ft) 8 Total head (ft) 4 Net head (ft) 4 Resource Reliability: Energy output from project will vary somewhat over time because of seasonal variations in tidal fluctuations. Otherwise, highly reliable. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 20,400,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 56,770 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. One full-time plant operator required. Resource Development Schedule: Installation/construction in 1983 and 1984, avail- able in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho, pink, and chum salmon. Salmon could be adversely affected by construction and operation of tidal barrier. Instituional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible water-resource-use and land-use conflicts resulting from siting of plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-68 Resource/Village: Active solar heating/Old Harbor Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square-foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 202,000 collector area system ($) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/Old Harbor Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values will decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a moisture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $22,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-70 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/Old Harbor General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD-constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,100 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact resulting from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts OUZINKIE All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Resource Characteristics Continued centralized diesel electric generation i Katmai Creek hydropower Waste heat recovery at relocated village central generating plant Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek hydropower Peat combustion for generation Wood cambustion for generation Coal combustion for generation Decentralized solar-electric generation Induction wind generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat energy conservation Decentralized wood burning for space heating 5-73 No initial investment required No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Small initial investment required Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology Resource Characteristics See Appendix J High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technolgy High initial investment requirement Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Continued diesel electric generation with recently installed engine generator units Resource Location: Ouzinkie Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Diesel generation plant consists of two new 100-kW engine generator units (currently being installed), one existing 85-kW engine generator unit (to be standby), and one 55-kW engine generator unit (school standby). Maximum village plant output is 200 kW before additional generator units required. Energy Production: Estimated conversion efficiency is 10.5 kWh per gallon fuel oil. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.40 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 operating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: NA Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations 5-75: Resource/Village: Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: that runs parallel to Katmai Creek. Hydropower plant on Katmai Creek/Ouzinkie A low concrete diversion dam diverts water into a penstock Powerhouse located near the mouth of the creek. Site does not have room for an earthfill dam and separate spillway. Resource Location: Ouzinkie Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway Type Capacity (cfs) Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Dependable capacity (kW) Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Low flow (cfs) High flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Maximum penstock flow (cfs) Resource Reliability: About 1 mile above the mouth of Katmai Creek, 0.5 mile east of Concrete diversion 10 Run-of-river Concrete overflow 1,300 (500-year peak flow) 2,100 30 Reaction 1 78 single wire, ground return 0.5 78 339,000 50 12 271,000 407,000 2.34 18.7 1.6 1,020 50 44 29 The project is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. For this reason the output The project has no storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) Unit cost ($/kW) Annual operating and maintenance (S$) Maintenance Requirements: replace worn-out or defective parts. 1,677,000 21,500 15,275 Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower projects has been developed and proved. Hydropower projects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Resource Development Schedule: available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: may affect feeding areas of deer. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No identified adverse impacts on salmon species. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, Reservoir Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: 5-76 No significant impacts Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery at city generating plant/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Hot water General Description: Reclaim exhaust and jacket water heat from one 100-kW engine generator (currently being installed at different location). Generator to be relo- cated to a new building next to the Ouzinkie school. Requires new floor slab and building, new 1/4-mile transmission line, and new pipe system to transmit hot water (200°F) to school interior spaces. Resource Location: Ouzinkie school site Renewable or Nonrenewable: Not applicable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) 200 feet of 3-inch-diameter outside pipe (insulated), (2) 400 feet of 2-inch-diameter interior piping, (3) four hot water unit heaters (100,000 Btuh rating), (4) one heat recovery silencer, (5) one heat exchanger (shell and tube type), (6) one building hot water circulation pump, (7) one expansion tank (20-gallon), and (8) one Butler-type building with concrete floor slab. Energy Production: Approximately 295,000 Btu per hour hot water production at 50-kW average electric output. Average heat available at school is 265,000 Btu per hour. Annual energy (fuel) savings is estimated at 1,050 million Btu (7,300 gallons No. 2 fuel oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: System operates utilizing engine stack exhaust and jacket water heat from new and relocated village generation plant. Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering (S$) 156,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 5,500 Maintenance Requirements: No additional generation plant operators required. Inspect piping, valves, unit heaters monthly. Visually check heat recovery system whenever engine is checked. Four weeks' maintenance (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $900 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1981, available beginning January 1982 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts B= Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A 15-foot-high concrete dam diverts water into a 6,500-foot penstock leading to a powerhouse located at the mouth of the unnamed creek at Neva Cove. Resource Location: Unnamed creek across Narrow Strait at Neva Cove Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway "Type Penstock Length (ft) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Concrete 15 Run-of-river Concrete overflow 6,500 Impulse 2 990 Single wire, ground return 2.4 Submarine Cable 0.3 Installed capacity (kW) 990 Average annual energy (kWh) 4,280,000 Plant factor (%) — Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 2.3 Average annual flow (cfs) 22.4 Total head (ft) 450 Net head (ft) 410 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 5-78 Resource/Village: Wind generation/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator to provide approximately 10-kW average power output. System to consist of one wind generator rated for 25 kW maximum output, with support tower, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to integrate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind power to be backed by diesel genera- tion to firm up power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total system electric load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: One 25-kW peak wind generation machine Energy Production: 25-kW peak output, 10.0-kW average output, 87,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input. Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 20 to 25 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimates at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering (S$) 396,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 15,840 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 8,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983, available in January 1984 Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by strategic and remote location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No significant impacts 5-19) Resource/Village: Wood combustion for central power generation/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Locally available wood is collected and burned in a central boiler to produce moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Power generation facility is located in proximity to village and with access to condenser coolant source (fresh water or salt water body). Moderate- quality wood resource is locally available. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) wood-gathering equipment, (2) mobile wood-chipping machine, (3) wood chip storage and transportation device, (4) power generation facility building and wood chip storage area, (5) boiler unit, (6) turbine generator unit, (7) miscellaneous piping and controls, (8) road con- struction equipment, (9) boiler feed chip-handling equipment, and (10) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak electric output, 85-kW average electric output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: The electric generating plant would require approximately 7.6 tons of bone-dry wood per day, or 2,750 tons per year. These requirements are based on an assumed heating value of 8,000 Btu per pound of dry wood. Resource Reliability: The density of available wood product (tons per acre) is uncertain. Assuming wood availability is 15 tons per acre as found in Delta Clear- ing Project, approximately 185 acres are required to provide the necessary wood product each year. The rate of regeneration of this biomass is sufficiently slow so that an exceptionally large area of land is required for a truly renewable system. Total acreage for Spruce Island is approximately 10,000 acres, therefore severely restricting wood product locally available. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 1,122,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 11,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Wood chip collection activity and access road construction activity would require a four-person crew operating 8 hours a day. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by biomass product removal from forested areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts, soil erosion, road construction impacts, and reforestation programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited land available for wood resource harvesting. Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-80 Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a "V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Ouzinkie Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (10) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,270,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 22,700 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-81 Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: Ouzinkie Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh=per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,430,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 27,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35 Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Dao Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic) /Ouzinkie Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will Produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 88,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5=83 Resource/Village: Active solar heating/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square-foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 202,000 collector area syster ($) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-84 Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/Ouzinkie Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource pan Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values wi decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a moisture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $22,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-85 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/Ouzinkie General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD-constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,100 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact resulting from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-86 Resource/Village: Decentralized wood burning for residential space heating/Ouzinkie Energy Form: Heat General Description: Locally available wood is cut, collected, and transported to a central site in the village for sale and distribution to village residents. Wood- burning stoves are installed in homes currently without such devices to provide space heating. Resource Location: Ouzinkie Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: (1) Wood cutting, sizing, and transporting equipment, (2) road construction equipment, (3) wood stoves for individual housing units (assumed 30 stoves installed) Energy Production: Energy production for each older residential unit with little insulation would be 210 million Btu per year; energy production for each HUD-con- structed unit would be 50 million Btu per year. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 520,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 110,000 (including wood procurement cost Maintenance Requirements: Wood collection, sizing, and transporting process would require a three-person labor crew working 8 hours per day. Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts caused by biomass removal from forested areas. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of forest habitat, noise impacts, soil erosion, access road construction impacts, and reforestation programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: NA Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-87 SAND POINT All the resources listed below are described on resource summary sheets in this section. Preferred Alternative Energy Resources (considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Continued centralized diesel electric generation Humbolt Creek hydropower Induction wind generation Waste heat recovery at central generating plant Other Alternative Energy Resources (not considered in alternative electric energy supply plans, Chapter 6) Unnamed creek hydropower Peat combustion for generation Coal canbustion for generation Decentralized solar-electric generation Decentralized active solar heating Heat energy conservation 5-89 Resource Characteristics No initial investment required No significant environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology See Appendix J Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts Small initial investment required Low operating cost/no fuel cost No significant adverse environmental impacts High reliability Proven technology Resource Characteristics See Appendix J High initial investment requirement High operating cost High fuel cost Significant adverse environmental impacts Prohibitively high initial invest- ment requirement Unproven technology Not an electric generation resource and thus not considered further Resource/Village: Continued central diesel generation/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Continued diesel electric generation with existing engine generator unit(s) Resource Location: Sand Point Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: Existing city diesel generation plant consists of two 400-kW engine generator units and two 500-kW engine generator units. Energy Production: Overall estimated conversion efficiency is 12 kWh per gallon of fuel oil consumed. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: NA Resource Reliability: Engine generator unit(s) highly reliable; questionable avail- ability of diesel fuel supply Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Replacement cost ($/kW) 400 Operating and maintenance cost (¢/kWh) 2.6 Current fuel cost ($/gal.) 1.20 Maintenance Reguirements: Periodic maintenance required. Minor overhaul required every 8,000 oberating hours. Major overhaul required every 24,000 operating hours. Operating activity requirement is 1 hour per day for one operator/maintenance person. Resource Development Schedule: NA Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major considerations 5=91 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on Humpoit Creex/sana roint Energy Form: General Description: An embankment on the stream forms a reservior that serves as the city water supply. Hydropower development will require reconstruction of the water supply intake and possibly the pump station. The embankment will be raised to increase the reservoir level from its present average elevation of 33 feet NGVD to an elevation of 50 feet NGVD. The channel below the existing embankment will be excavated to provide an average tailwater elevation of 10 feet NGVD. The creek supports salmon, but reportedly the salmon cause a water quality problem after completing their spawning cycle. The entire existing embankment should probably be replaced because the quality of its construction is unknown. Raising the reservoir level higher than elevation 50 would create a large very shallow lake with water quality and freezing problems. Present lake level is 33 feet NGVD with a surface area of about 3 acres (estimated storage, 15 acre-feet). Raising the reservoir level to 50 feet would give a total storage of about 100 acre-feet. Electric energy Resource Location: 0.1 mile above mouth of Humbolt Creek Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Type Earthfill Height (ft) 45 Operation Storage Spillway Type Concrete chute Capacity (cfs) 1,700 (500-year peak flow) Penstock Length (£t) 175 Diameter (in) 24 Powerhouse Type of machine Propeller Number of units uf Installed capacity (kW) 70 Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Single wire, ground return 0.5: Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) 70 Average annual energy (kWh) 303,000 Plant factor (%) 50 Dependable capacity (kW) 10 Annual energy, low-flow year (kWh) 242,000 Annual energy, high-flow year (kWh) 364,000 Input Energy (Fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) 5.1 Average annual flow (cfs) 20 Low flow (cfs) 3.5 High flow (cfs) 1,275 Total head (ft) 40 Net head (ft) 38 Maximum penstock flow (cfs) 24 Resource Reliability: The project is located on a stream with a small drainage area, and it is sized to use most of the available flow. For this reason the output of the plant is subject to natural fluctuations in runoff. The project has storage to carry over generation capability during dry periods. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,028,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 28,970 Annual operating and maintenance 18,800 Maintenance Requirements: Periodic maintenance will be required to overhaul or replace worn-out or defective parts. The frequency should be minimal because the technology for hydropower proejcts has been developed and proved. Hydropower proj- ects of this size can be operated with very minimal manpower and/or can be operated by remote telecommunications. Useful operating lifetime is 30 to 50 years. Resource Development Schedule: available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Known spawning area for coho salmon. Existing gravel-fill dam at proposed site may currently impede passage of salmon upstream. Coho salmon below damsite could be adversely affected by streamflow fluctuations and siltation caused by project construction and operation. Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Characteristics: resulting from siting plant and transmission system. Possible land-use conflicts Health and Safety Impacts: Seismically induced structural failure could cause risk to life and property in Sand Point harbor area. 5-92 Resource/Village: Wind generation/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Installation and operation of horizontal axis wind induction generator(s) to provide approximately 80-kW average power output. System induction to consist of four wind generators rated for 40 kW maximum output each, with support towers, control equipment, and transformation and transmission facilities to inte- grate into existing community electric distribution system. Wind generation to be backed by diesel generation to provide firm power base and for system integrity and reliability. Approximate maximum wind generation contribution to total system load is 25 percent. Resource Location: In favorable location with respect to wind speed and direction, as close to the central electric distribution system as practical Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Four 40-kW peak wind generation machines Energy Production: 40-kW peak output per machine, 19-kW average output per machine, 166,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output per machine, 664,000-kWh-per-year elec- tric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average annual wind speed of approximately 17 mph. Wind speed and direction vary. Resource Reliability: Downtime for system due to lack of wind estimated at 25 to 30 percent. Maintenance activity downtime estimated at 5 percent. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 1,321,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 8,260 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 26,400 Maintenance Requirements: Average operating activity requirement is one person 1 day per month. Average maintenance activity requirement is one person 1 week per year per machine. Annual equipment replacement cost is $5,000 per machine. Approxi- mate useful lifetime is 15 years. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by strategic and remote location siting. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Possible land-use conflicts resulting fran siting plant and transmission system. Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts D-93 Resource/Village: Waste heat recovery at the city generating plant/Sand Point Energy Form: Hot water General Description: Reclaim exhaust heat only from two existing 500-kW engine generators at city generating plant. Use hot water (200°F) to heat apartment cam- plex nearby. Resource Location: City generating plant, Sand Point Renewable or Nonrenewable: Not applicable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) 800 feet of 3-inch-diameter outside pipe (insulated), (2) 450 feet of 2-inch-diameter inside pipe, (3) hot water unit heaters, (4) two heat recovery silencers, (5) two hot water circulation pumps, and (6) two expansion tanks (20-gallon). Energy Production: Approximately 1,500,000 Btu per hour hot water production at 300-kW average electric output. Average heat available at apartment complex is 1,350,000 Btu per hour. Sized to space-heat 30 apartment units, annual energy (fuel) saving is estimated at 2,590 million Btu (18,000 gallons No. 2 fuel oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: System operates utilizing engine stack exhaust heat from city generation facility. Jacket water presently being recovered for nearby bunkhouse space heating. Resource/Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 345,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 5,500 Maintenance Requirements: No additional generation plant operators required. Inspect piping, valves, and unit heaters monthly. Visually check heat recovery system whenever engine is checked. Four weeks' maintenance (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $900 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation/construction in 1981, available begin- ning January 1982 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Instituional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-94 Resource/Village: Hydropower plant on unnamed creek/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A low rockfill dam diverts water into a 2,000-foot-long pen- stock leading to a powerhouse located on the shore of the lake at Red Cove. Power- house contains two impulse turbine-generator units Resource Location: Unnamed creek located 3.5 miles southeast from Sand Point Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Dam Type Height (ft) Operation Spillway - type Penstock Length (ft) Powerhouse Type of machine Number of units Installed capacity (kW) Transmission Facilities Type Length (miles) Energy Production: Installed capacity (kW) Average annual energy (kWh) Plant factor (%) Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Drainage area (sq. mi.) Average annual flow (cfs) Total head (ft) Net head (ft) Rockfill 10 Run-of-river Rock-lined overflow 2,000 Impulse 2 38 Single wire, ground return 4.0 39 250,000 73 0.4 2.1 300 250 Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Information not available Information Source: Alaska District, Corps of Engineers 3-95 Resource/Village: Peat combustion for central power generation/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: Local potentially available peat resource is collected and dewatered to approximately 20-percent solids content (by mass) using a “V" press at the collection site. The material is transported to the generation site where it is compressed to form briquettes at approximately 50-percent solids content. When air dried to the desired level, the briquettes are burned in a boiler to provide moderate pressure (250-psi) steam. The steam drives a turbine generator unit producing approximately 100-kW peak electric energy output. Low-pressure steam exiting the turbine is condensed for reuse in the boiler. Resource Location: Sand Point Renewable or Nonrenewable: Semirenewable Resource Characteristics: Resource components are (1) peat-cutting and -gathering equipment, (2) mobile "V" belt press, (3) peat field storage and transportation device, (4) compactor device, (5) power generation facility building and peak storage area (silos), (6) boiler unit, (7) turbine generator unit, (8) miscellaneous piping and controls, (9) road construction equipment, (1) briquette-handling equipment, and (11) emission control equipment. Energy Production: 100-kW peak output, 85-kW average output, 745,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: At a typical heat content of approximately 4,000 Btu per pound dry peat, approximately 15 dry tons of peat material per day is required to generate at the stated output levels (5,500 tons per year). Resource Reliability: Substantial ash content levels are detrimental and possibly prohibitive to boiler operation. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 2,440,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 24,400 Annual operating and maintenance 325,000 (includes wood procurement cost) Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility is monitored continuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person is required part time. Peat collection process and road construction process require a four-person crew operating 8 hours daily. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions, boiler residue disposal, and problems caused by peat removal from resource areas. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat via air pollution control equipment. Severe terrestrial and wildlife impacts due to disruption of habitat, noise, soil erosion problems, road construction, and replacement programs. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: Limited access and land avail- able for peat resource harvesting Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-96 Resource/Village: Coal combustion for central power generation/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A coal-fired steam boiler producing 150-psi steam drives a piston engine/electric generator set. Engine exhaust steam is condensed in a shell and tube surface condenser cooled by salt or fresh water (as available). Resource Location: Sand Point Renewable or Nonrenewable: Nonrenewable Resource Characteristics: NA Energy Production: 200-kW peak electric output, 170-kW average electric output, 1,490,000-kWh-per-year electric energy output Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Coal to be provided from nearest regional exporting facility. Assumed heat content of coal resource is 8,600 Btu per pound coal with 12-percent ash content. Average coal consumption per day is 14 tons. Resource Reliability: Good reliability with proper maintenance Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($) 5,840,000 Unit cost ($/kW) 29,200 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 225,000 Current delivered fuel cost ($/ton) 35 Maintenance Requirements: The power generation facility would be monitored con- tinuously by a single plant operator. One skilled maintenance person required part time. Resource Development Schedule: Installation and construction in 1983 and 1984, available in January 1985 Environmental Impacts: Significant adverse environmental impacts because of boiler discharge stack emissions and boiler residue disposal. Stack emissions can be mitigated somewhat using air pollution control equipment. Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 397 Resource/Village: Decentralized solar electric (photovoltaic)/Sand Point Energy Form: Electric energy General Description: A packaged photovoltaic electric generation system that will produce approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day is attached to individual housing or other building units. System consists of solar panels, lead-calcium storage batter- ies, matching control panel, charging regulator, and other required accessories. Resource Location: System to be located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the electric energy Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for the Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N) and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: AC power production approximately 2,000 watt-hours per day. Solar panel charging current: 27.6 amps. Maximum AC power drain: 2,500 watts. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Input energy requirements would be only the solar insolation available. Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup power source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering ($/unit) 92,000 Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Once the system is installed and initially operated, maintenance requirements are minimal. However, what maintenance is performed must be done by a skilled maintenance person. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-98 Resource/Village: Active solar heating/Sand Point Energy Form: Hot water General Description: A liquid solar space and water heating system is attached to individual housing or other building units. Flat plate collectors are used to collect and transfer heat to a main storage tank through a glycol-to-water heat exchanger. Heat from the main storage tank is then transferred to the home space heating system and used to preheat domestic hot water. Resource Location: System is located with each building unit (e.g., house) that is to receive the heated water. Renewable or Nonrenewable: Renewable Resource Characteristics: Solar insolation data for Alaska locations are not readily available. The villages lie between approximately 55 and 60 degrees north latitude. Solar data are available for Annette (55°02' N) and Bethel (60°47' N), and were used to approximate conditions. However, the villages are exposed on the Gulf of Alaska and may be subject to different local weather conditions. Energy Production: Evaluation was done for a combined space heating and water heating system assuming an 800-square-foot floor area residential unit with average heat loss of 50 Btu per square foot per hour. For a 500-square-foot collector system approximately 15 to 20 percent of total heating requirements could be met by the active solar system. For a 1,500-square-foot collector system, approximately 45 to 50 percent of the total heating requirements could be met. The solar equipment could provide approximately 30,000 Btu per year per square foot of collector area. Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: Average energy requirements for a typical residential unit for heating would consist of less than 30 percent solar input and greater than 70 percent backup source energy input. In addition, a nominal input of electric energy would be required to run fans and pumps, Resource Reliability: Relatively unreliable due to weather and solar insolation variability. Backup heating source required. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Construction and engineering for 1,500-square-foot 211,000 collector area system ($) Annual operating and maintenance ($) 400 Maintenance Requirements: Minimum maintenance requirements for system equipment that is indoors; however, moderate maintenance required for outdoor equipment. Two days' maintenance activities (one person) required per year. Average equipment replacement cost is $100 per year. Resource Development Schedule: Installation in 1982, operational January 1983 Environmental Impacts: No major impacts Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts Resource/Village: Energy conservation for older (currently noninsulated) housing stock/Sand Point Energy form: Space heat conservation General Description: Insulate ceilings with R-30 batt insulation, wrap the outside of the houses with rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, paint inside walls with a water-vapor-resistant paint, insulate the floor with R-11 batt insulation and sheath the floor joists with gypsum board, and install storm windows Resource Location: Older housing stock in all villages. Assumed little or no insulation currently existing in these housing units. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Insulating the houses will reduce space heating fuel requirements to one-fourth current requirements. More than half the savings results from installation of ceiling insulation. The next most cost-effective measure is insulating the floor, then wrapping the walls, and finally installing storm windows. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) saving per house due to reductions in transmission and infiltration heat loss is estimated at 214 million Btu (approxi- mately 1,485 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Insulation performance over time is a major unknown. Resis- tance values will decrease over time as the insulation retains moisture, but the extent of degradation is not predictable. Vapor barriers should be used where possible. With polyurethane board, moisture migration is not a problem as far as degradation of insulation is concerned, but the impermeability to moisture can create another problem--trapping moisture and creating an environment for dry rot of the current siding. To help alleviate this possibility, it is suggested that the inside sur- faces of exterior walls be painted with a misture-resistant paint. Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Insulating ceiling Approximately $1.50/sq ft ceiling area Insulating floor/installing Approximately $2.50/sq ft floor area sheathing Wrapping outside walls Approximately $4.50/sq ft wall area Installing storm windows Approximately $33.00/sq ft window area Equipment and installation cost $25,000 per house Maintenance Requirements: None, if properly installed Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-100 Resource/Village: Energy conservation through flame retention burner installa- tion/Sand Point General Description: Replace gun-type oil burners on forced-air furnaces in newer HUD=constructed houses with flame retention burners. Resource Location: All forced-air oil burning furnaces equipped with standard gun- type oil burners can be retrofitted with fuel-efficient flame retention burners. Renewable or Nonrenewable: NA Resource Characteristics: Furnaces equipped with the standard gun burner have an average efficiency rating of 73 percent. Furnaces equipped with the flame retention burner have an average efficiency rating of 85 percent. Energy Production: Annual energy (heating fuel) savings per installation due to increased combustion efficiency is estimated at 34 million Btu (235 gallons No. 2 heating oil). Input Energy (fuel) Characteristics: None Resource Reliability: Highly reliable Resource Cost (January 1981 price levels): Equipment and installation cost per house ($) 1,200 Maintenance Requirements: Annual inspection required Resource Development Schedule: Immediate Environmental Impacts: No major adverse impacts; possible beneficial impact result- ing from reduction in emissions from existing oil-fired furnaces Institutional, Social, and Land-Use Considerations: No major considerations Health and Safety Impacts: No major impacts 5-104 MM chapter 6 MM ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS This chapter identifies alternative electric energy supply plans to meet the future electric loads of the communities over the period 1980 to 2000. The plans were developed to make use of the preferred energy resources potentially available to the communities (described in Chapter 5). Using the preferred resources, the plans were formulated to meet nonindustrial electric loads of the communities (in- cluding schools). Plans were not formulated to meet the relatively large electric loads of seafood processing plants located within communities. Plans were developed to include adequate resources to meet both peak electric loads and annual energy loads. Continued use of the existing electric generation resource is also considered as a supply plan alternative and is identified for all communities as Plan A, Base Case. Supply plans to meet future space-heating requirements were not developed. c-9 Plan A Table 6-1 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR AKHIOK See ae ee ee oe ee Continue use of central diesel generation. (Base Case) Service new school (to be constructed in 1981) with village electric system. To meet load growth, add one 80-kW engine generator unit in 1981 ($400/kW); place existing 55-kW unit on standby. Replace 80-kW unit in 1997 ($400/kW). Develop and operate Kempff Bay Creek hydropower plant. Service new school (to be constructed in 1981) with village electric system. Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982. Total costs are approximately $50,000 for 1981 and $100,000 for 1982. Install and construct hydropower plant 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Backup generation from existing (55-kW) central diesel plant. 7 Minimum diesel backup plant operating, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year. Develop and operate induction wind generation facility. Maximum wind generation contribution to village electric load will be 25 percent. Service new school (to be constructed 1981) with village electric system. Plan wind generation project in 1981 and 1982; cost is approximately $50,000 per year. Install and construct wind generation facility in 1983. Facility available in January 1984. Replace wind generation equipment 'in 1998 ($198,000). Remaining generation from central diesel electric plant. Diesel plant acquisition and replacement schedule same as Plan A. Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. €-9 Plan A (Base Case) Table 6-2 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR KING COVE Plan Description Continue use of central diesel generation. Two 300-kW engine generator units currently being installed (costs not included in plan costs). To meet load growth, add one 300-kW engine generator unit in 1990 ($400/kW). Replace one 300-kW unit in 1996 ($400/kW). Develop and operate Delta Creek hydropower plant. Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982; total costs approximately $50,000 for 1981 and $100,000 for 1982. Install/construct hydropower plant 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Backup generation from existing central diesel plant. Minimum diesel backup plant operation, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year. Excess electric energy sold to local seafood processing plant during period from 1985 to 1997. Total energy sales over period of 2.55 million kWh. Develop and operate induction wind generation facility. Maximum wind generation contribution to community electric load will be 25 percent. Plan wind generation project in 1981 and 1982; cost is approximately $50,000 per year. Install and construct wind generation facility in 1983 and 1984. Facility available in January 1985. Replace wind generation equipment in 1998 and 1999 ($386,000). Remaining generation from central diesel electric plant. Diesel plant acquisition and rephacement schedule same as Plan A. Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. ¥-9 Plan A (Base Case) Table 6-3 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR LARSEN BAY Plan Description Continue existing decentralized generation (5-kW units) in village. Continue to meet school electric load using existing 60-kW engine generator units located at school. Add two 5-kW engine generator units per year to meet village electric load ($6,000 per unit). Replace one 5-kW engine generator unit per year ($6,000/unit). Replace one 60-kW engine generator unit at school in 1996 ($400/kW). Install and operate village central diesel generation plant. Install village central electric distribution system. Continue to meet school electric load using existing 60-kW engine generator units located at school. Install two 120-kW engine generator units in 1982 ($800/kW) for startup in January 1983. Install central village electric distribution system in 1982. Add one new 120-kW engine generator unit in 1996 ($600/kW). Replace one 120-kW engine generator unit in 1998 ($400/kW). Replace one 60-kW engine generator unit at school in 1996 ($400/kW). Develop and operate Humpy Creek hydropower plant for village and school service. Install central village electric distribution system. Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982; costs are approximately $50,000 in 1981 and $100,000 in 1982. Install/construct hydropower plant 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Install central village electric distribution system in 1982. Backup generation from a new central diesel generation plant. Install one 120-kW engine generator unit in 1982. Minimum diesel backup plant operating, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year. Excess electric energy sold to local cannery and processing plant during period from 1985 to 2000. Total energy sales over period of 8.0 million kWh. Install and operate waste heat recovery system at school generation plant to provide school heating. Continue use of decentralized diesel generation (5-kW unit) in village. Planning and installation in 1981. Available in January 1982. Decentralized diesel unit replacement and additions schedule same as Plan A. Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table 6-4 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR OLD HARBOR Plan Plan Description A Continue use of central diesel generation. (Base Case) To meet load growth, add one 155-kW engine generator unit in 1990 ($600/kW). Replace one 155-kW unit in 1990 ($400/kW). B Develop and operate Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower plant. Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982; costs are approximately $50,000 in 1981 and $100,000 in 1982. Install and construct hydropower plant 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Backup generation from existing central diesel plant. Minimum diesel backup plant operating, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year. c Develop and operate induction wind generation facility. Maximum wind generation contribution to village electric load will be 25 percent. Plan wind generation project in 1981 and 1982; cost is approximately $50,000 per year. Install and construct wind generation facility in 1983. Facility available in January 1984. Replace wind generation equipment in 1998 ($198,000). Remaining generation from central diesel electric plant. Diesel plant acquisition and replacement schedule same as Plan A. + Note; All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. 9=9 Plan A (Base Case) Table 6-5 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR OUZINKIE Plan Description Continue use of central diesel generation. Service recently constructed school with village electric system, place school generation system on standby. Currently installing two 100-kW engine generator units; place existing 85-kW unit on standby. Replace one 100-kW unit with a 150-kW unit in 1991 ($400/kW). Develop and operate Katmai Creek hydropower plant. Service recently constructed school with village electric system; place school generation system on standby. Plan and license hydropower project in 1981 and 1982; costs are approximately $50,000 in 1981 and $100,000 in 1982. Install and construct hydropower plant in 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Backup generation from existing central diesel plant. Minimum diesel backup plant operating, maintenance, and fuel cost is $10,000 per year. Install and operate waste heat recovery system at relocated village generation plant to provide school heating. Continue use of central diesel generation. Planning and installation in 1981. Available in January 1982. Diesel plant replacement schedule same as Plan A. Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table 6-6 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR SAND POINT Plan Plan Description A Continue use of central diesel generation. (Base Case) Replace two 500-kW units in 1990 ($400/kW). B Install and operate Humbolt Creek hydropower plant. Plan and license hydropower project 1981 and 1982; costs are approximately $50,000 in 1981 and $100,000 in 1982. Install and construct hydropower plant in 1983 and 1984. Plant available in January 1985. Backup generation from existing central diesel plant. Cc Install and operate waste heat recovery system at city generating plant to provide space heating at nearby apartment complex. Continue use of city central diesel generation. Planning and installation in 1981. Available in January 1982. Diesel plant replacement schedule same as Plan A. D Develop and operate induction wind generation facility. Maximum wind generation contribution to village electric load will be 25 percent. Plan wind generation project 1981 and 1982; cost is approximately $50,000 per year. Install and construct wind generation facility in 1983 and 1984. Facility available in January 1985. Replace wind generation equipment in 1998 and 1999 ($660,000). Remaining generation from central diesel electric plant. Diesel plant replacement schedule same as Plan A. Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. MM Chapter 7 MM EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS This chapter presents evaluations of the alternative elec- trical energy supply plans for each community. Alternative energy plans are described in Chapter 6. Evaluations were performed in accordance with the following criteria: Present value (January 1981) of 20-year plan costs Present value (January 1981) of 50-year plan costs Energy performance of the plan Environmental impact(s) of the plan Reliability and safety of planned facilities o0o0000 These criteria and the assumptions used in making the evalu- ations are described below. Tables 7-1 through 7-6 present the evaluations for each community ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS The principal measure of the economic merit of alternative supply plans is the present value as of January 1981 of all plan costs over 20 years. A secondary measure is the present value of all plan costs over 50 years. Economic analyses used to compute this measure were performed in accordance with the guidelines and assumptions issued by the Alaska Power Authority. Analyses were done under the assumption of the beginning-of-year convention for annual plan costs. Existing generation plant costs, such as the investment amortization and interest expense of a recently installed generation plant, are not included as plan costs. The following assumptions were used in the analyses: ° General inflation equals zero percent per year ° Discount rate equals 3 percent per year ° Fossil fuel price escalation equals 3.5 percent per year ° Interest rate for investment amortization equals 3 percent per year ° Investment amortization period for hydropower plants equals 30 years Harsh operating conditions, remote operating techniques and the resulting maintenance and repair problems, and the uncer- tainty in the long-term demand for energy that results from the lack of a diversified economic base in most of the com- munities make it difficult to estimate accurately a hydropower plant's useful operating lifetime. Because of this diffi- culty, the economic lifetime of these projects was assumed to be 30 to 50 years. Initial investment requirements were amortized over 30 years. ° Investment amortization period for waste heat recovery equipment equals 30 years ° Investment amortization period for diesel engine generator equipment equals 16 years o- Investment amortization period for wind generation equipment equals 15 years Resource investment cost estimates were computed through the summation of estimated resource installation and construc- tion costs, engineering costs, planning study and licensing costs, and interest charges (3 percent per year) accruing during the development interval. Resource investment costs were then amortized over the estimated useful operating life- time of the resource at an interest rate of 3 percent per year. Annual plan costs over the 20 or 50 year planning period including investment amortization and interest, operating and maintenance, and fuel costs, if any, were then discounted to their January 1981 value equaling present- value plan cost. Calculations performed to estimate alternative plan present value cost are reported in Appendix E. Reported for each alternative supply plan are projected electric energy require- ments and estimated annual equipment costs, annual operating costs, annual fuel costs, total plan annual costs, and unit energy costs. Electric energy load projections are described in Chapter 4. Initial investment requirements are shown amortized for the different resource components of each supply plan. These armotized costs are reported as annual equipment costs. The initial investment requirements for resource components are described in Chapters 5 and 6. Note that annual equipment costs can change unpredictably over time as initial costs become fully amortized and become zero for some plan compo- nents while investment requirements for replacement compo- nents begin to be amortized but at a different annual cost. Operating and maintenance costs are described in greater detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. Central diesel engine generation operating and maintenance costs are estimated to increase over time in proportion to load growth. Operating and maintenance costs for other supply resources are assumed to remain constant over time. Annual fuel costs, reported in Appendix E, represent fuel costs for generation purposes only and do not include cost savings for heating oil dis- placed via waste heat recovery. Fuel costs and conversion efficiencies are described in Chapter 5. Treatment of Supply Plan Residual Value and Residual Cost Residual value and residual cost of alternative supply plans were not considered in computing present value plan costs. Plan residual value is the remaining useful economic value, if any, following the end of the planning period of plant and equipment acquired as part of alternative supply plans. Plan residual costs are the remaining committed costs after the end of the planning period resulting from the plan (usually investment amortization and interest on plant and equipment). Because residual costs largely offset residual values and because of significant discounting of costs in later years, these cost adjustments were not included in calculating present value plan cost. Treatment of Supply Plan Heat Energy Resources In instances where alternative electrical energy supply plans have a useful heat-energy byproduct, such as a plan including a waste heat recovery resource, the present value of the plan's heating benefits (resulting from use of the byproduct heat energy) is considered as a plan credit. Plan benefits are calculated assuming that the byproduct heat energy is used to displace consumption of heating fuel, and the cost of the heating fuel displaced is considered the amount of the benefit. Treatment of Excess Electric Energy Value Also considered as a credit against electrical energy supply plan costs are revenues potentially available from sales of excess electrical energy. In communities with industrial electric loads, such as seafood processing plants, excess energy available from hydropower resources having production capabilities above those required to meet community loads could be used to meet that industrial load. The energy would displace consumption of diesel fuel for industrial generation. The cost of the diesel fuel that would be dis- placed is considered as the appropriate value of the excess electrical energy. The values of this excess electrical energy are discounted to produce January 1981 present value plan credits. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Evaluations of the environmental impact(s) of alternative electric energy supply plans are based on assessments of the following impacts: Air quality Water quality Fish and wildlife Land use Terrestrial Community infrastructure and employment Other planned capital projects o000000 Quantitative estimates of the magnitude of an impact were not possible. However, major concerns are identified and included in the evaluations. Alternative energy systems were designed to be environmentally acceptable. In those instances where additional equipment was required to make a resource acceptable, the costs of such equipment were included in resource cost estimates. Community preferences are described in Chapter 8. Detailed descriptions of potential environ- mental impacts are contained in Chapter 5. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Alternative electrical energy supply plans were formulated to result in generation systems of similar reliability and safety that would be capable of meeting the complete elec- tric needs of each community. Detailed descriptions of the reliability and safety aspects of the alternative resources are contained in Chapter 5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF PROVIDING ELECTRIC HEATING SERVICE A screening assessment was performed to determine if poten- tial hydropower resources could provide economical electric service for both lighting, appliance, and other conventional electric loads and for new electric heating loads. The results of this assessment are shown in Table 7-7. Cost information used in the assessment is contained in Chapter 5 and Appendix J. Nonfuel operating and maintenance costs were assumed to be similar for hydropower generation and for exist- ing generation and heating methods and were omitted from the analysis, as were initial costs associated with purchasing and installing electric heating equipment. Because this reconnaissance assessment is being performed for a 20-year planning period, the midpoint of this planning period, 1990, was used as the reference or test year. In accordance with the economic assessment methodology described earlier in this chapter, estimated hydropower project invest- ment requirements were amortized over 30 years at 3 percent per year. Estimated fuel oil cost in 1990 is $1.91 per gal- lon (January 1981 price levels). Overall conversion effici- ency for electric heating was assumed to be 100 percent and conversion efficiency for oil heating was assumed to be 75 percent. 14 Based on the information described in Table 7-7, an Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower project (Old Harbor) is the only hydropower resource for which the estimated annual costs of the hydro- power project ($120,000) in 1990 are less than the estimated costs of providing the same amount of energy by conventional generation and heating methods ($143,000). Therefore, the Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower project is considered a potentially economic alternative resource and should be investigated further. 20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Table 7-1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR AKHIOK 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Plan Plan Description Costs (3)? Costs (s3)* Energy Performance Environmental Impacts Reliability/Safety A Continued central 0.93 million 1.95 million Sufficient to meet cam- No major impacts Highly reliable, minor (Base Case) diesel-electric munity (village and safety concerns generation school) electric require- ments B Kempff Bay Creek 1.73 million 2.70 million Sufficient to meet can- Potentially prohibitive Highly reliable, backup Hydropower project 9-L munity (village and school) electric requirements environmental impacts. Field investigation re- vealed late summer pres- ence of spawning pink salmon. Brown bears in- habit entire drainage area. Salmon below dam- site could be adversely affected by streamflow fluctuations and silta- tion caused by project construction and opera- tion. with central diesel gener- ation. Same safety con- cerns regarding seismically induced dam structural failure. ¢ Induction wind genera- tion (25%) with cen- tral diesel generation (75%) 1.32 million 2.37 million Sufficient to meet can- munity (village and school) electric requirements Minor adverse environmen- tal impact. Some noise during operation. Noise can be mitigated by remote location siting. Questionable reliability resulting from variations in wind availability. Backup with central diesel generation. Minor safety concerns with remote siting. “January 1981 costs. EVALUATION OF 20-Year Planning Period Present value of Plan Costs ($) 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Table 7-2 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR KING COVE Plan Plan Description Costs ($) Energy Perfomance Environmental Impacts Reliability/Safety A Continued central 3.04 million 7.09 million Sufficient to meet can- No major impact Highly reliable, minor (Base diesel-electric munity electric require- safety concerns Case) generation ments B Delta Creek 3.43 million (plan 5.54 million (plan Sufficient to meet com- Potentially prohibitive Highly reliable, backup hydropower cost) cost) munity electric require- environmental impacts. with central diesel gen- project 0.26 million (energy 0.26 million (energy ments. Excess electric Known spawning area for eration. Some safety sales credit) sales credit) energy available for sale coho and chum salmon. concerns regarding seis- 3.17 million (net 5.28 million (net to local seafood process- Salmon below damsite mically induced dam struc- plan cost) plan cost) ing plant could be adversely af- tural failure fected by streamflow fluctuations and silta- tion caused by project construction and opera- tion. c Induction wind 3.32 million 7.07 million Sufficient to meet can- Minor adverse environmen- Questionable reliability generation (25%) with central diesel genera- tion (75%) munity electric require- ments tal impact. Some noise emission during resource operation. Noise levels can be mitigated by re- mote location siting. resulting from variations in wind availability. Backup with central diesel generation. Minor safety concerns with remote siting. january 1981 costs. 8-L 20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Table 7-3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR LARSEN BAY 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Plan Plan Description Costs ($)* Costs ($)* Energy Performance Environmental Impacts Reliability/Safety A Continued decen- 2.47 million 6.20 million Sufficient to meet com- No major impacts; some Highly reliable, minor (Base tral-diesel-elec- munity (village and noise emissions safety concerns Case) tric generation school) electric re- quirements B Central diesel 2.22 million 5.11 million Sufficient to meet com- No major impacts Highly reliable; minor generation munity (village and safety concerns school) electric requirements c Humpy Creek 3.30 million (plan 5.21 million (plan Sufficient to meet com Potentially adverse en- Highly reliable; backup hydropower eost)ii| TT cost) munity (village and vironmental impacts. An with central diesel gen- project +95 million (energy 2.18 million (energy school) electric existing concrete diver- eration. Some safety con- sales credit) sales credit) requirements sion dam currently cerns regarding seismically 5 million (net 3.03 million (net blocks upstream move- induced structural failure. plan cost) plan cost) ment of salmon. Dam located downstream of proposed hydropower site. Pink salmon spawn in lower portions of the stream and could be affected by siltation caused by project con- struction and operation D Waste heat 2.66 million (plan 6.50 million (plan Sufficient to meet school No major impact Highly reliable; minor recovery from school electric generation plant cost) 0.10 million (heat- ing credit) 2.56 million (net plan cost) cost) 0.22 million (heating credit) million (net plan cost) \3l and village electric requirements and displace 70 barrels of heating oil per year safety concerns "January 1981 costs. 6-L EVALUATION OF 20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Table 7-4 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR OLD HARBOR Plan Plan Description Costs ($) Costs ($) Energy Perfomance Environmental Impacts Reliability/Safety A Continued central 1.31 million 2.97 million Sufficient to meet com- No major impacts Highly reliable, minor (Base diesel-electric munity electric re- safety concerns Case) generation quirements B Ohiouzuk Creek 2.22 million 3.56 million Sufficient to meet com- Potentially adverse envi- Highly reliable, backup hydropower Not including elec- Not including elec- munity electric re- ronmental impacts. Pink with central diesel gener- project tric heating benefit tric heating benefit requirements salmon reported by lit- ation. Some safety con- erature to be present cerns regarding seismically in creek, but no known induced dam structural spawning grounds. How- failure ever, local sources state that the creek “goes underground" before enter- ing Sitkalidak Strait, thereby blocking passage of salmon upstream. Bear concentrations along stream expected to be minimal. Cc Induction wind 1.69 million 3.36 million Sufficient to meet can- Minor adverse environmen- Questionable reliability generation (25%) with central diesel genera- tion (75%) munity electric require- ments can be mitigated by renote location siting. tal impact. Some noise during operation. Noise Backup with central diesel generation. Minor safety concerns with remote siting. resulting from variations in wind availability. January 1981 costs. OL-Z2 Plan (Base Case) EVALUATION OF 20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Plan Description Costs (s)* Continued central diesel-electric generation 0.83 million Table 7-5 ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR OUZINKIE 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Costs ($) 1.83 million Energy Perfomance Sufficient to meet can- munity (village and school) electric re- quirements Environmental Impacts No major impacts Reliability/Safety Highly reliable, minor safety concerns Katmai Creek 1.53 million 2.41 million Sufficient to meet can- munity (village and school) electric requirements Potentially adverse environmental impacts. No identified adverse impacts on salmon species. Reservoir may affect feeding areas of deer. Highly reliable, backup with central diesel gener- ation. Same safety con- cerns regarding seismically induced dam structural failure. hydropower project Waste heat 1.02 million (plan recovery fran cost) relocated +20 million (heat- village central ing credit) diesel-electric 0.82 million (net generation plan cost) 2.13 million (plan cost) 0.42 million (heating credit) 1.71 million (net plan cost) Sufficient to meet can- munity electric re- quirements and displace approximately 130 barrels of heating oil per year No major impact Highly reliable, minor safety concerns @Janua ry 1981 costs. LE=< Table 7-6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS FOR SAND POINT 20-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan 50-Year Planning Period Present Value of Plan Plan Plan Description Costs (s)* Costs ($) Energy Performance Environmental Impacts Reliability/Safety A Continued central 7.86 million 20.22 million Sufficient to meet can- No major impacts Highly reliable, minor (Base diesel-electric munity electric re- safety concerns Case) generation quirements B Humboldt Creek 8.78 million 21.29 million Sufficient to meet can- Potentially adverse Highly reliable, backup hydropower munity electric environmental impacts. with central diesel gener- project requirements Known spawning area for ation. Major safety con- coho salmon. Existing cerns regarding seismically gravelfill dam at pro- induced dam structural posed site currently may failure. impede passage of salmon upstream. Coho salmon below damsite could be adversely affected by , streamflow fluctuations and siltation caused by project construction and operation, Cc Waste heat 8.19 million (plan 20.70 million (plan Sufficient to meet can- No major impacts Highly reliable, minor recovery with cost) cost) munity electric re- safety concerns central diesel- -43 million (heat- 0.92 million (heating quirements and displace electric ing credit) credit) approximately 330 barrels generatin 7.76 million (net 19.78 million ( net of heating oil per year plan cost) plan cost) D Induction wind 8.21 million 19.87 million Sufficient to meet can- Minor adverse environmen- Questionable reliability generation (25%) with central diesel generation (75%) munity electric re- quirements levels can be mitigated by remote location siting. @ganuary 1981 costs. tal impact. Sane noise during operation. Noise backup with central diesel generation. Minor safety concerns with remote siting. resulting from variations in wind availability, Table 7-7 ASSESSMENT OF HYDROPOWER PROJECT POTENTIAL FOR DISPLACEMENT OF BOTH EXISTING GENERATION AND FUEL OIL HEATING __Hydropower Project/Community Ohiouzuk Kempff Bay Creek/old Katmai Creek/ Unnamed Creek/ Creek/Akhiok Harbor Ouzinkie Ouzinkie Estimated Hydropower Project Initial Cost (S$) 1.87 million 2.34 million 1.68 million 6.00 million Estimated Annual Cost of Hydropower Project in 1990” ($) 96,000 120,000 86,000 306,000 Estimated Hydropower Project 7 7 Energy Output (kWh/yr) 592,000 1,280,000 339,000 4,280,000° Projected Fuel Oil Consumption That Could Be Displaced by Hydropower Project Output in 1990, Generation/Heating Purpose (barrels per year) 597/189 852/520 516/65 516/1,535 Estimated Annual Hydropower Project Output Above That Required to Displace All Diesel Generation and Fuel Oil Heating in 1990 (kWh/yr) 0 y oO oO 1,383,000 Estimated Annual Cost in 1990 of Fuel Oil That Could Be Displaced By Output of Hydropower Project (S$) 83,000 143,000 61,000 215,000 Ratio of Annual Cost of Fuel Oil That Could Be Displaced to Annual Hydropower Project Cost in 1990 0.86 1.19 0.71 0.70 NOTE: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. “cH2M HILL estimate. Excludes operating and maintenance cost. “corps of Engineers estimate (See Appendix J). Mm Chapter 8 MM RECOMMENDATIONS Table 8-1 describes the recommended electric energy resources for each community and identifies the appropriate "next step" in the investigation of these resources. c-8 Recommended Electric Energy Supply Resource (s) Akhiok Continued central diesel-engine genera- tion to meet village and new school (to be constructed sum- mer 1981) electric load Table 8-1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH COMMUNITY King Cove Development and opera- tion of a Delta Creek hydropower project (excess electric energy can be marketed to seafood process- ing plant) Larsen Bay Development and opera- tion of backup central diesel-engine generation and Development and opera- tion of a Humpy Creek hydropower project (excess electric energy can be mar- keted to seafood processing plant) Old Harbor Development and opera- tion of a Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower project generation to both displace diesel engine generation and provide for some elec- tric heating Ouzinkie Continued central diesel-engine Sand Point Continued central diesel-engine generation with induction wind generation contri- buting approximately 25 percent of elec- tric requirements Other Recom- mended Energy Resource (s) None None None None Waste heat recovery at relocated village generating plant Waste heat recovery at city generating plant Communi ty Preferences Some community pref- erence for a Kempff Bay Creek hydropower plant No strong preferences; some community in- terest in a tidal- power plant at King Cove Lagoon Strong community pref- erence for a Humpy Creek hydropower plant stated preferences Strong community preferences for a Katmai Creek or Unnamed Creek (Neva Cove) hydropower project No stated preferences for electric generation resources; some commun- “ity preference for an upgraded city electric distribution system Recommended Investigation Programs Feasibility investi- gation of heat energy conservation (ap- proximate cost is $20,000) 1. Feasibility inves- tigation of Delta Creek hydropower, including (a) aerial mapping, (b) stream- flow monitoring, and (c) market study (approximate cost is $100,000) 2. Feasibility inves- tigation of heat energy conserva- tion (approximate cost is $20,000) 1. Feasibility inves- tigation of Humpy Creek hydropower, including (a) aerial mapping, (b) stream- flow monitoring and (currently under way), and (c) market study (approximate cost is $100,000) 2. Feasibility inves- tigation of waste heat recovery at school generating plant (approximate cost is $30,000) 3. Feasibility investi- gation of heat energy conservation (approximate cost is $20,000) 1. 2. Feasibility investi- gation of Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower including (a) aerial mapping, (b) stream- flow monitoring and (c) market study (approximate cost is $100,000) Feasibility investi- gation of heat energy conservation (approxi- mate cost is $20,000) 1. Feasibility inves- tigation of waste heat recovery at generating plant (approximate cost is $30,000) 2. Feasibility inves- tigation of heat tion (approximate) 1. Feasibility inves- tigation of waste heat recovery at relocated village plant (approximate cost is $30,000) 2. Feasibility investi- gation of induc- tion wind genera~ energy conserva- primarily of wind cost is $20,000) (approximate cost is $15,000) 3. Feasibility inv tigation of heat energy conserva- tion (approximate cost is $20,000) AKHIOK Based on the information reported in Table 7-1 and Table 7-7, continued central diesel engine generation for both village and school use appears to be the least-cost generation re- source. Continued diesel generation, when evaluated over both 20- and 50-year planning periods, has significantly lower life-cycle costs than development and operation of alterna- tive generation resources. The twenty-year planning period present-value plan cost for continued central diesel electric generation is $0.93 million and the least-cost alternative plan has a present-value plan cost of $1.32 million. In addi- tion, continued central diesel electric generation is both a reliable generation source (when adequate fuel supplies are available) and has relatively few adverse environmental impacts or safety concerns. Table 7-7 indicates that Kempff Bay Creek hydropower project is not an economical generation resource even when excess electric energy available from the project (above that re- quired to meet current electric end use projected loads) is used for electric heating. Year 1990 estimated hydropower costs are approximately $96,000, but the estimated cost of the energy that would be displaced is only $83,000. KING COVE Based on the information reported in Table 7-2, development and operation of a Delta Creek hydropower project appears to be an economically viable generation resource. Based on a 50-year planning period economic assessment, development and operation of the Delta Creek project has a present value plan cost of $5.54 million, which compares favorably with that of continued central diesel generation. Plan costs could be further reduced if excess electric energy available from the project were to be marketed to the local seafood processing plant. The Delta Creek hydropower project should be con- sidered a reliable resource, with no major safety concerns; however, potentially significant environmental impacts warrant further investigation of the site. LARSEN BAY Based on the information reported in Table 7-3, development and operation of a Humpy Creek hydropower project appears to be the least-cost generation alternative when evaluated over a 50-year planning period. Present value of 50-year plan costs for the Humpy Creek hydropower project is estimated to be $5.21 million, which compares favorably with the $6.20 mil- lion for continued decentralized electric generation. Excess electric energy available from the Humpy Creek project could be sold to the local seafood processing plant, thus displacing diesel generation within the plant. In the event the Humpy Creek hydropower project is not devel- oped, central diesel generation appears to be an economically viable resource in place of continued village decentralized generation. Based on both 20- and 50-year planning-period comparisons, present-value plan cost for central diesel gener- ation is less than that for continued decentralized generation. OLD HARBOR Based on the information reported in Tables 7-4 and 7-7, an Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower project appears to be an econom- ically viable generation resource. The resource only appears to be viable if excess electric energy available from the project (above that required to meet current electric end-use projected loads) is used for electric heating purposes, thus displacing consumption of heating fuel oil. Table 7-7 shows that 1990 estimated hydropower costs are approximately $120,000, and the estimated cost of the energy that would be displaced is $143,000. The Ohiouzuk Creek hydropower project would probably be a reliable resource, with no major safety concerns, and apparently no significant adverse environmental impacts. 8-6 OUZINKIE Based on the information reported in Table 7-5 and Table 7-7, continued central diesel engine generation for both community and school use appears to be the most appropriate generation resource. When evaluated over both 20- and 50-year planning periods, continued diesel generation has significantly lower life-cycle costs than development and operation of alterna- tive generation resources. The twenty-year planning-period present-value plan cost for continued central diesel electric generation is $0.83 million, and the least-cost alternative plan has a present-value plan cost of $1.53 million. In addi- tion, continued central diesel electric generation is both reliable (when adequate fuel supplies are available) and has relatively few adverse environmental impacts or safety concerns. Table 7-7 indicates that neither the Katmai Creek nor Unnamed Creek (Neva Cove) hydropower project is an economical gener- ation resource, even when excess electric energy available from the projects (above that required to meet current elec- tric end use projected loads) is used for electric heating. Table 7-7 shows that year-1990 estimated hydropower costs are approximately $86,000 and $306,000, respectively, but the estimated costs of the energy that would be displaced with the hydropower projects output, are only $61,000 and $215,000, respectively. Based on the information reported in Table 7-5, waste heat recovery at a relocated village diesel generation plant appears to be an appropriate energy resource. Economic analyses indi- cate that over a 50-year planning period present-value plan costs are $1.71 million for the waste heat recovery alterna- tive, which compares favorably with the $1.83 million for continued electric generation without waste heat recovery. SAND POINT Based on the information reported in Table 7-6, development and operation of an induction wind generation resource appears to be marginally economically viable. Based on a 50-year planning-period economic assessment, development and opera- tion of induction wind generation that would contribute approx- imately 25 percent of the community's electric needs has a present-value plan cost of $19.87 million, which compares favorably with that for continued central diesel generation. Waste heat recovery at the City diesel generation plant appears to be an appropriate energy resource. Economic analyses indi- cate that over a 50-year planning period present-value plan costs are $19.78 million for the waste heat recovery alterna- tive and compare favorably with the $19.87 million for contin- ued electric generation without waste heat recovery. 8-8 MM Appendix A MM COMMUNITY MEETINGS INFORMATION Appendix A contains a letter sent by CH2M HILL to village representatives and other interested parties advising them of the nature of this study and requesting community input. Names of people to whom letters were sent, lists of people attending the village meetings, and summaries of discussion topics at each meeting are also included. MAILING LIST Larsen Bay, Alaska 99624 Ms. Jenny Johnson, Mayor Mr. and Mrs. Alex Panamaroff Mr. Charles Christensen, President Nu-Nachk-Pit, Inc. Akhiok, Alaska 99616 Ned and Elaine Griffins, Teachers Mr. Bobbie Simeonoff, Mayor Ouzinkie, Alaska 99644 Mr. Refugio (Duke) Delgado, Mayor Ms. Joyce Smith, Health Aid William A. Anderson, President Ouzinkie Native Corp. Mr. Nick Testrikoff Old Harbor, Alaska 99642 Mr. Rick Burns, Mayor Ms. Jenny Lee Erickson, Health Aid Mr. Sven Haakanson, President Old Harbor Native Corp. Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Mr. Gary D. Smith, Facilities Coordinator Mr. James Morse, President Koniag, Inc. Mr. Ione Norton, Executive Director Kodiak Area Native Association King Cove, Alaska _ 99612 Mr. Rick Koso, President King Cove Corporation Mr. Alex Samuelson, Mayor a2 Sand Point, Alaska 99661 Ms. Gale McCarty, President Shumagin Corp. Mr. Andrew Foster, President Unga Corp. Mr. Jack Foster, Sr., Mayor Mr. Gary Ferguson Power Plant Manager Anchorage Alaska 99501 Mr. Ken Selby c/o Aleutian Pribilof Island Association Mr. Agafon Krukoff, President Aleut Corporation October 2, 1980 K14238.A0 Dear The Alaska Power Authority has contracted with CH2M HILL to under- take an investigation of future levels of demand and alternative sources of energy for power development at the Kodiak Island villages of Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Ouzinkie, and for Sand Point and King Cove on the Alaskan Peninsula. Alternative and appropriate technology options for power development in each community will be evaluated in a step toward long-term energy planning. Sources of energy which will be investigated may include small-scale hydroelectric, tidal forces, wind, solar, and diesel-powered generation. Potential for energy conservation and waste heat utilization will also be evaluated. The CH2M HILL field team plans to visit each village and survey the surrounding areas during the two-week period of October 13 through October 24. Jack West, Steve Schulte, and Glenn Dearth will undertake ground surveys of the energy development potential. Katie Eberhart plans to meet with residents to discuss current supply of and demand for electricity in the village. Information on the current social and economic situation will also be requested in order to evaluate potential markets for electricity and identify social, economic, and environmenta! situations and villagers' concerns. The success of this investigation depends on local individuals and organi- zations contributing information on their preferences regarding future power development, potential nearby sources of energy, and potential future consumers of locally generated power. Accurate assessment of environmental and institutional issues is imperative for successful local power devlopment. In order to identify these issues and integrate them into our analysis, we are asking you and other concerned individuals to participate in our project meeting. Specific times have not been identified due to the uncertainty regarding weather conditions and travel times. We hope, however, to provide as much advance notice as possible. Please let others know about these meetings. Enclosed are copies of a meeting notice and additional project information. Your participation in this investigation will be greatly appreciated. Enclosed is a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your reply. If you have any questions or comments, please contact CH2M HILL, 2550 Denali Street, 8th Floor, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 278-2551, Attention: Katie Eberhart. We look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Katie Eberhart Economist and Planner KE:ng bja:12:z Enclosures PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING Akhiok October 24, 1980 CH2M HILL Steve Schulte Glen Dearth AKHIOK RESIDENTS Robert Simeoneff, Sr., Vice President, Akhiok City Council David K. Eluska, Akhiok City Council Water Simeonoff, Sr., Akhiok City Council Ephraim Agnot, Sr., Assistant Pastor Arthur Peterson, Sr. Miney Agnot Ned Griffin, teacher A summary of statements made at the Akhiok public meeting follows: Akhiok's popultion is stable. The village does not have a well-established economic base. A Columbia Wards cannery is located 7 miles southwest at Alitak Bay. Land is difficult for individuals to acquire. The village corporation owns some selected land outside the 1-square-mile townsite. Bargrs deliver fuel oil to Akhiok; residents can obtain smaller amounts from the Columbia Wards cannery. Fuel oil sells for $66 per barrel. In a typical five-bedroom HUD home, oil is used for cooking (stove) and heating. Average use per house is 2,100 gallons annually; 4 to 5 barrels per month in winter and approximately 2 barrels per month in summer. Tidal power does not appear to be a viable option. Prevailing winds are from the west. Driftwood 7 to 8 miles distant. Bear Refuge surrounds Akhiok. CH2M PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING King Cove October 16, 1980 HILL Katie Eberhart Steve Schulte Glen Dearth ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY KING Don Baxter COVE RESIDENTS Ralph Hensley R. Bettas James Gould Erick Durflin H. D. Kroan Tessie Bendixen Edwin Bendixen Carl Mack E. Holland Craig Hunter Frank Bogardus, ADF&G Cindy Samuelson An announcement of the King Cove public meeting was made on the local news program. Don Baxter of the Alaska Power Author- ity joined CH2M HILL field team (Katie Eberhart, Steve Schulte, and Glen Dearth). A slide show and description of alternative energy possibilities was presented, followed by a question- and-answer period. Q. A. Q. A. How much output would you expect from a wind machine? Boeing is providing a commercial available 2-MW wind machine. Ac or dec current? Either can be integrated into a system. Comment There is little hope for solar development at King Cove (however, in False Pass an individual is opera- ting a solar- and wind-powered living system). AKT There are hot springs across the bay from Cold Bay. Can hot water or electricity generated from this source be transported to King Cove? For geothermal energy to be economically feasible, the water must be at least 170 degrees F. The transport costs might make this resource uneconomical as far as King Cove is concerned. Is EPA evaluating the feasibility of wind generator in North Carolina? The relative feasibility of wind generation systems is based on the economics/cost of alternative sources of energy. The differences between wind power development in North Carolina and Alaska were discussed. Trends in wind and energy technology development in Alaska were discussed. A base plan for King Cove might be to con- tinue diesel generation and use waste heat more extensively. Residents had no comments regarding the level of or possibil- ities for future growth in King Cove. PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING Larsen Bay October 22, 1980 CH2M HILL Jack West Katie Eberhart Steve Schulte Glen Dearth LARSEN BAY RESIDENTS Arthur Panamaroff Marlene M. Aga Frank R. Peterson Jack Wick Jimmy Johnsen Clyda Christensen Charles Christensen Donna Borhofsky Dora J. Aga OTHERS Lavonda Newman, KANA Thomas H. Peterson, KANA CH2M HILL's project team was invited to attend the Tribal Council meeting at Larsen Bay and make a presentation. Com- ments pertaining to the energy reconnaissance project follow. Tom Peterson of the Kodiak Area Native Association discussed plans to build additional HUD-funded housing. During the next 5 years, Larsen Bay might add as many as 15 to 20 new HUD houses. Jack Wicks estimates that family housing in Larsen Bay will double within the next 2 years. Population in Larsen Bay will increase about 25 percent during the next 5 years accord- ing to the Kodiak Area Native Association. Individual homes or groups of two or three homes generate power from small "light" plants. These require approximately 4 to 4% gallons of diesel oil per day to operate. Electricity is usually generated only during the evenings or when needed. A-9 With an average of 10 hours per day light plant use, electric fuel consumption is reported at about 137 gallons per month, or about 7 kWh per gallon. Larsen Bay is looking for a central power system as a method to cut costs. An interim measure towards achieving this idea is to construct a central distri- bution system, possibly underground. Fuel costs are $1.30 per gallon in Larsen Bay. The new high school, which began operating in fall 1980, will be one reason for future growth at Larsen Bay. Many other villages on Kodiak Island must send their children to Kodiak High School for their junior and senior years. Families might move to Larsen Bay in order to be with their children who are attending the last 2 years of high school. The Retherford report on Humpy Creek, prepared for the Alaska Power Administration (January 1980), was discussed. Frank Peterson indicated the need for a pump system versus gravity flow system for the local water supply (PHS). Some houses in Larsen Bay still get their water from shallow wells. Art Panamaroff stated that PHS has brought an engineer into Larsen Bay and may be constructing a water system by fall 1981. Mike Dorsky of the Indian Health Service, Anchorage, would know more about this. Jack Wick stated that there is a 1-square-mile townsite at Larsen Bay. The village corporation owns an additional 70,000 acres, but a clause states that all uses of this area must be compatible with the Kodiak Island wildlife refuge. Jack Wick stated that the Tribal Council considered development of hydropower in Humpy Creek 5 years ago and was favorably impressed. In 1964 the earthquake caused the area at Larsen Bay to sub- side approximately 3.6 feet. The potential hydroelectric damsite is located above the village. The Tribal Council decided that the top priority in its re- vised OEDP plan will remain hydroelectric development for the Village of Larsen Bay. A-10 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING Old Harbor October 23, 1980 CH2M HILL Jack West Katie Eberhart Steve Schulte Glen Earth OLD HARBOR RESIDENTS Walt Erickson Rick Bews Cyrl Christiansen James Chokusak Carol Christiansen P. I. Alexanderoff Fred Christiansen Walter Stanley Emil Christiansen Ralph Christiansen Victor Melovecloff OTHERS Mike Emmick, Port Lions A summary of the public meeting held at Old Harbor follows. Electricity is provided by AVEC. Residents estimate that it requires three barrels of diesel oil per month to heat each home during the winter, for a total of 2,000 gallons per year. A population increase of 100 people is projected in the decade. All houses are currently occupied. The average household pays between $130 and $150 per month for electricity. This includes an average of two lightbulbs, refrigerator, televi- sion, and freezer at AVEC's rates of 39.5 cents per kWh. Outages are common. Some families burn driftwood rather than diesel for heat. The school also uses electricity from the AVEC system. System outages occur at least two times per week. A-11 The existing school was completed in 1962. Request has been made to the Legislature for funds to construct a swimming pool. Tidal speed through Sitkalidak Passage is estimated at be- tween 4 and 5 knots. This is a main traffic route for fish- ing vessels and other boats. At the present, domestic water is pumped up to storage tanks. The village has a water treatment system. The older homes have 2 to 3 inches of insulation in the walls. Most of the newer homes do not have vapor barriers. The windows in the older homes are in bad shape. One person at the meeting commented that "Anderson" brand windows with plastic work well. Mike Eunick of Port Lions commented that Alaska village resi- dents typically use perhaps only 25 percent of the energy that they might use under more favorable circumstances. Rick Burns, mayor, estimates Old Harbor's household use at 850 kWh per month. In 1978 the Alaska Power Authority studied Old Harbor, Port Lions, and Larsen Bay for potential hydroelectric development demonstration projects. Conclusions were that Larsen Bay would get the project; however, no action has been taken. Old Harbor fishermen sell their catch to Columbia Ward's can- nery at Alitak Bay. Ohiozik Creek has no salmon. The river off of Three Saints Bay does not have salmon either. They were killed many years ago by "bluestone" used to chase fish into fish traps. A-12 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING Ouzinkie October 20, 1980 CH2M HILL Jack West Katie Eberhart Steve Shulte Glen Dearth OUZINKIE RESIDENTS Alice Panamaroff Refugio (Duke) Delgado, Mayor Sonja Delgado John Panamarioff, Ouzinkie Native Corporation Normal L. Smith (power plant operator) Nicholas Pestriboff Dorothy Morrison, Tribal Clerk The Village of Ouzinkie has approximately 200 residents (1980) and 55 houses, 10 of which are not hooked into the existing electrical generating system. The village generates elec- tricity for 15 hours per day, from 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 pem. Six to seven houses have individual generators as a standby measure. Typical appliances include freezers, refrig- erators, and washing machines. A new school is being con- structed. Once completed, it will require additional gen- erating capacity and will have its own system. Other large structures in the village include a warehouse and a store. It was stated that the existing generating capacity (90 kw) is not sufficient to provide power through this winter. Norm Smith, utility manager, commented on waste caused by mixing old and new electricity generating systems and by using flat rate assessments. A new electrical distribution system is being constructed. Rates will be changed from a flat rate to $60 per month per household to metered rates. Gasoline consumption is insignificant since there are only three vehicles in the village and 25 to 30 three-wheelers. Gasoline is brought in by individuals in 55-gallon drums. A landing strip is planned for Ouzinkie; access is currently via float plane or boat. A-13 Wind in Ouzinkie is not a predictable resource. Some ideas on harnessing tidal power were presented, including digging a channel across a 450-foot isthmus to harness the tides. Information on consumption of fuel for heating was provided. Jack West mentioned the need to find ways to transport wood for heating to villages without the use of trucks (since there are only three trucks in the village). It appears that wood heat would be more economical than diesel furnaces. It was noted that wood stoves are being added to HUD houses. (There are 23 HUD houses, with 10 more planned for construction in 1981.) A winterization project to provide materials for home insu- lation was initiated 2 years ago through Rural Alaska Commun- ity Action Program. There was some question, however, from residents as to the effectiveness of this program. A previous proposal to sell waste heat from the village to the school was discussed. Gary Smith, facilities coordinator with the Kodiak Island Borough, needs to be contacted. There are five furnaces that will be operating in the new school building. Local consensus was that hydroelectric development would be desirable and preferable to diesel-powered generation. Employment opportunities decreased in 1974-75, with the closing and then burning of the cannery at Ouzinkie. Most local fisherman now fish for Columbia Wards. There are few salmon in Katmai Creek. The stream off Neva Cove does have salmon, however. A presentation was made to a group of students at the school in Ouzinkie. A-14 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY VILLAGE ENERGY PLANNING Sand Point October 15, 1980 CH2M HILL Katie Eberhart Steve Schulte Glen Dearth SAND POINT RESIDENTS Mike Coal Jim Brown Edgar Smith A summary of the public meeting held at Sand Point follows. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had an anemometer at the harbor at Sand Point for a full year approximately 5 years ago. Pacific Pearl owns the village utility system. Concern was expressed about working with them, particularly if individ- uals began to establish their own wind generation systems. In regard to alternative generation, Edgar Smith suggested coal, which exists at Coal Harbor, might be used. Tom Dobson (Edgar Smith's uncle) at King Cove used to have a windmill. Also, there used to be a windmill at Sand Point. Akutan oper- ates its telephone system off of a waterwheel generating system. A man in Unalaska has built three windmills; he is also a wind power dealer. Ken Selby should be able to answer questions on plans to im- prove the source of the village's water supply and also any information on potential hydroelectric. Land is not available. Younger people are not able to acquire land on which to build homes, causing restriction in growth of the village. A plan requires utilities to be constructed before land can be sold. Pacific Pearl has therefore adopted a policy not to sell any land for residential development. Dr. Wakefield owns land but will not sell. He is presumably waiting for the planning and zoning issues to be resolved. A-15 In addition, there is controversy over 1,200 acres of land claimed by both the village corporation and the City of Sand Point. Someone commented that if land were made available, popula- tion would double immediately. The economic base of Sand Point is limited to a general store, fish processing plant which also sells fuel and fishery sup- plies, a small cafe, mobile welding service, school, and government. There isn't even a repair garage for vehicles, which results in many late model trucks being junked rela- tively quickly. Sand Point used to be an old cod fishing and processing area. In Akutan the Norwegian Fish Company is splitting and salting cod, which is picked up by freighters and shipped to Norway. Estimates are that a 2-month salmon crew shares between $75,000 and $120,000. However, it was also stated that few people in Sand Point actually hold a $30,000-per-year job. Some houses in the city have never had power; some of these people have lived in Sand Point for 40 to 50 years. A-16 @M@ Appendix B WM DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE This information is contained in Chapter 3. MM Appendix Cc MM ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECASTING METHOD Energy requirements forecasts for the period 1981 to 2000 were developed based on estimates of future population growth, economic activity, and per-capita energy usage. The forecasts are no more than reconnaissance-level projections and were developed using relatively uncomplicated methods. Because of the high level of uncertainty surrounding future economic and industrial conditions, little additional accuracy could be achieved from using more sophisticated and costly projec- tion techniques. Population projections for 1980 through 2000 were developed for the communities. The projections were based on examina- tion of historical population trends and an analysis of cur- rent and expected events that may affect community growth. The effects considered included the quality of life, the avail- ability of adequate housing and schools, and the location of the community relative to neighboring communities. The avail- ability of land in relation to its effect on future housing construction was considered. Also considered were the nature and expected growth of local industry, if any, and possible changes in regional economic activity that could affect communities. A population growth rate was developed for each community, based on these and other factors. In most instances, the growth rate between 1980 and 1985 reflected knowledge of cur- rent and planned activities (e.g., construction of new hous- ing stock) that would allow the communities to accommodate the increases in population. Growth rates after 1985 were primarily based on historical growth patterns and knowledge of proposed regional activities. Energy requirements forecasts for the communities were devel- oped using population and housing growth projections. Current per capita energy use was developed based on available data and was used to approximate energy usage levels in future years. Examination of existing energy use patterns indicated that there was no reason to expect change in electric energy use per capita in future years. Because of very high costs of existing and alternative electrical energy supply resources, electrical rates will remain high. At present, electrical heating costs are at least four times greater than oil heating costs per Btu in most communities, thus eliminating any possi- bility of voluntary conversions to electric heating. Because of presently high electric rates, consumption is already mini- mal. Community residents will probably be able to do little to reduce consumption further. Examination of the pattern of existing energy use for heating also indicates that there was no basis on which to expect change in heating fuel use per capita in future years. A preliminary examination determined that there were no low-cost electric energy resources, such as small hydropower projects, potentially available that, if developed, could provide signi- ficant amounts of electric heating at a lower cost than oil heating. If such a resource were available, conversions to electric heating would occur and consumption of heating fuel oil would decrease significantly. Heating fuel consumption will decrease somewhat over time in response to oil price increases; however, delivered heating oil costs are already relatively high and much of the easily performed heat energy conservation measures that would result in significant reductions in fuel usage have already been accomplished. In the event that a major home weatherproofing or insulation program is undertaken, heating fuel use would decrease significantly. However, because of the unpredictabil- ity of such an event, per capita heating fuel use is estimated to remain at current levels in future years. MM Appendix D MM TECHNOLOGY PROFILES This information is in Chapter 5. MM Appendix E MM ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS A cost-of-service assessment, using a 20-year planning period, is described in this appendix for alternative electric energy supply plans. The assessment was performed in accordance with standard procedures and assumptions issued by the Alaska Power Authority. Explanation of the alternative supply plans is provided in Chapter 6 and explanation of the economic assessment methodology and assumptions is provided in Chapter 7. ELECTRIC SUPPLY FLAN SITE? AKHIOK CASE A ALTERNATIVES? WIESEL? ADT 80 KW-UNIT ON-LINE JAN. 19823 REPLACE 80 KW-UNIT IN 1997. ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIFMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAD cast cost cost cost cost YEAR CKWH) (10004) (10004) (10004) €1000$) ¢C/KWH) 1981 240380,.00 0.00 10.90 32.04 42,04 17.49 1982 242783.80 2.50 10.00 33.50 46.00 18.95 1983 245211.64 2.50 10,00 33.01 47.51 19.38 1984 247663.76 2.50 19.06 34.60 49.10 19.83 1985 250140.490 2.50 10,00 38.26 50.76 20.29 1986 252641.80 2.50 19,00 40.00 32.50 20.78 1987 255168.22 2.50 10.00 41,81 34.31 21.28 1988 257719.91 2.50 10.00 43.71 56.21 21.81 178? 260297.11 2.50 10.00 45.69 58.19 22.36 1990 262900.08 2.50 10.00 47.76 60.26 22.92 1991 265529.08 2.50 10.00 49.93 62.43 23.51 1992 268184,.38 2.50 10,00 52.19 64.69 24.12 1993 270866.22 2.50 10.00 54.56 67.06 24.76 1994 273574.88 2.50 10.00 37.03 69.53 25.42 1995 276310.63 2.50 10.00 39.62 72.12 26.10 LOS 279073.74 2.50 10,00 62.32 74.82 26.81 1997 261864.48 2.50 10.00 65.15 77.65 27.55 1998 284683.13 2.50 19.00 68.10 80.460 28.31 1999 287529 .96 2.50 10.00 JiaL? 83.469 29.11 2000 290405,.26 2.50 10.00 74.42 86.92 29.93 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATES 929,28 Sl TEN CASE B AKHTIOK ALTERNATIVES? YEAR LoGA 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 L994 L995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 FRESENT HYDROPOWER - CAMPBAY CREEK USE 80 KW GEN FOR BACK-UF NIESEL? ANNUAL ELECTRIC LOAD (KWH) 240380.00 242783.80 245211.64 247663.76 250140,.40 252641.80 255168.22 257719 671, 260297.11 262900,08 265529,.08 268184.38 270866.22 273574,.88 276310.63 2799073.74 281864.48 284683,.13 287529 .496 290405.26 VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN ANNUAL EQUIPMENT cast (10008) 107.60 107.60 107.60 107.60 107.60 197.60 107.690 107.60 107.60 105.10 105.10 105.19 ANNUAL OFERATING cost (1000$) ANNUAL FUEL Cost (1000$) TOTAL ANNUAL cast (1000$) 42.04 46.00 47.51 49.10 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 135.23 132.73 132.73 132,73 UNIT cost (C/KWH) ELECTRIC SUPFLY PLAN SITE? AKHIOK CASE C ALTERNATIVES? WIND GENERATION? ONE 10.5 KW UNIT 1983, REPLACE IN 1998. DIESEL! ADM 80 KW-UNIT ON-LINE JAN. 19823 REPLACE 80 KW-UNIT IN 1997, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL. ANNUAL UNIT LOAL cosT cost COST cost cost YEAR CKWH) (10004#) €1000$) (1000) (10004) (C/KWH) 1981 240380,.00 9.900 19.00 32.04 42.04 17.49 1982 242783.80 2.50 10,00 33.50 46.00 18.95 1983 245211.64 2.50 19.00 35.01 47.51 19.38 1984 247663.76 44,50 18.40 23.74 86.64 34.98 1985 250140.40 44,50 18.40 24,95 87.85 35.12 1986 252641.80 44,50 18.40 26.22 89.12 35.28 1987 255168.22 44,590 18.40 27.56 90.46 35.45 1988 257719.91 44,50 18,40 28.95 91.85 35.64 1989 260297.11 44,50 18.40 30,42 93.32 35.85 1990 262900,08 44,50 18.46 31.96 94.86 36.08 Lot 265529 .08 44,50 18.490 33.57 96.47 36.33 1992 268184.38 44,50 18.40 35.26 98.16 36.60 195 270866.22 44,50 18,40 37.04 99.94 36.89 1994 273574.88 44.50 18.40 38.90 101.80 37.2 1995 276319.63 44,50 18.40 40.85 103.75 37.55 1996 279073.74 44,50 18.40 42,89 105.79 37.91 1997 281864.48 44,50 18.40 45.04 107.94 38.30 1998 284683.13 44,590 18.490 47.29 110.19 38.71 1999 287529 .96 19.10 18.40 49.65 87.15 30.31 2000 290405,.26 19.10 18.40 52.13 89.63 30.86 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE: 1317.36 ELECTRIC SUPPLY PLAN SITE? KING COVE CASE A ALTERNATIVES? DIESEL? 1 NEW 300 KW-UNIT IN 19903 REFLACE 1-300 KW-UNIT IN 1996, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIF MENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAL cost cost cost cost COST YEAR CRWH) (10008) €1000$) (10004) (10004) (C/KWH) 1981 794000.00 0.00 20.64 79.40 109.04 12.60 1982 833000,00 0.00 21.66 86.22 107.87 12.95 1983 875000.00 0,00 22.75 93.73 116.48 13,31 1984 919000.00 0.00 23.89 101.89 125.79 13.69 1985 965000.00 0.00 25.09 119.74 135.83 14.08 1986 1013000.00 0.00 26.34 120.31 146.65 14.48 1987 1064000,00 0,00 27.66 130.79 158.46 14.89 1988 1117000.00 0.00 29.04 142.11 171.16 15.32 1989 1173000,00 0,00 30.50 154.46 184.96 15.77 1990 1231000.00 0,00 32.01 167.77 199.78 16.23 i??i 1255620.00 9.50 32.465 ee 219.26 17.46 1992 1280732.40 9.50 33.30 186.98 229,78 17,94 1993 1306347.90 9.50 33.97 197.40 240,86 18.44 L994 1332474,.00 9.50 34.64 208,39 252.54 18.95 L995 1359123.40 9.50 35.34 220.00 264.84 19.49 1996 1386305.90 9.50 36.04 232.25 277.80 20.04 1997 1414032.00 19.00 36476 245.19 300.96 21.28 1998 1442312.70 19,00 37.50 258.85 $15.35 21,84 1999 1471158.90 19.90 38.25 273.27 330.52 22.47 2000 1500582.10 19.00 39.02 288.49 346.50 23.09 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE: 3041.39 ELECTRIC SUPFLY FLAN SITE: KING COVE CASE B ALTERNATIVES? HYDROPOWER - DELTA CREEK DIESEL! EXISTING 2-300 KW-UNITS USED AS BACK-UF ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAT cost cast cost cost cost YEAR CRWH) (10008) (10008) (10008) (1000#) CC/KWH) 1981 794000 .00 0.00 20.64 79.40 100.04 12.60 1982 833000.00 0,00 21.46 86.22 107.87 12.95 1983 875000.00 9.090 22.75 93.473 116.48 13.31 1984 919000.00 9.99 23.89 101,89 123.79 13.69 1985 965000.00 205,00 54.65 9.00 259.65 26.91 1986 1013000,00 205.00 54.65 9.00 259.65 25.63 198? 1064000,.00 205.00 54.65 0.00 259.65 24.40 1988 1117000.00 205.00 34.65 9.090 299465 23.25 1989 1173000.00 205.00 54.65 0,00 259 «65 22.14 1999 1231000,00 205.00 54.65 0.00 259.65 21.09 L99l 1255420.00 205.00 54.465 0.00 259.65 — 20.68 1992 1280732.40 205.00 $4.65 0.00 259.65 20.27 1993 1206347 ,00 205.00 54.65 9.00 259.65 19,88 L994 2 205.00 54.45 0.90 259.65 19.49 1995 1359123.40 205.00 54.65 0.900 259.65 19.10 LE96 1286305.90 205.00 54.465 9.90 259.65 18.73 L997 1414032,.00 205.00 54.65 9.900 259.65 18.36 L972 1442312.79 205.00 94.65 4.18 263.83 18.29 Loo? 1471158.99 205.00 54.65 9.69 269.34 18.31 2009 1500382.10 205.00 54.45 15,48 275433 18.35 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 3431.58 ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE: KING COVE CASE C ALTERNATIVES $ WIND GENERATIONS 2-20 KW-UNITS 1983-84, REPLACE 1998-99, DIESEL! 1 NEW 300 KW-UNIT IN 19907 REPLACE 1-300 KW-UNIT IN 1994, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING RUE ANNUAL UNIT LOAD COST cost cost cost cost YEAR CKWH) (10004) (1000$%) (10008) €1000#) (C/RWH) 1981 794000 .00 0,00 20.64 79.40 100.04 12.460 1982 833000,.00 0.00 21.66 86.22 107.87 12.95 1983 875000.00 0,00 22.75 93.73 116.48 13.31 1984 919000,00 0.00 23.89 191,89 125.79 13.469 1985 965000.00 74.79 30.86 72.64 178.290 18.47 1986 1013000,00 74.70 32.11 80.88 187.69 18.53 1987 1064000,00 74.79 33.43 89.98 198.11 18.62 1988 1117000,.00 74.790 34,81 99.87 209.38 18.75 L989 1173000,.00 74.70 36,27 110.74 221.71 18.90 i990 1231000.00 74.70 Chir r 122.52 235.00 19.09 1991 1255620,00 84,20 38.41 130,29 252.90 20.14 1992 1280732.40 84.20 39.07 128.51 261.78 20.44 1993 12062347 .00 84.20 39.73 147.23 271.16 20.76 L994 1332474,900 84.20 40.41 156.47 281.08 21.09 1995 1359123.40 84,20 41.11 166.26 291.57 21.45 1996 1386305.90 84.20 41.81 176.63 302.64 21.83 1997 1414032.00 93.70 42,53 187.62 $23.86 22.90 1998 1442312.70 35.20 43.27 199,27 277.73 19.26 1999 1471158.90 31.40 44,02 211.60 307.02 20.87 2000 1500382.10 31,40 44,78 224.66 320,84 21.38 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 2X DISCOUNT RATE? 3320.26 ELECTRIC SUPPLY FLAN SITE? LARSEN BAY CASE A ALTERNATIVES: QIESEL-UECENTR? ADD 2-5 KW GEN/YR ‘81-2000 REFL 1-5 KW GEN/YR “82-2000 SCHL REPL 1-60 KW GEN '96 ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL. ANNUAL UNIT LOAD cost cost cosT cost cost YEAR CRWH) (100048) (1000) (10008) (1000) (C/KWH) L981 295008.00 0.00 10,00 49.18 59.18 20.06 1982 330409 .00 9.50 10.57 57.01 68.08 20.60 1983 370058 .00 1.90 11.84 66.08 79.82 21.57 1984 414465,.90 3.30 13.26 76.60 93.17 22.48 1985 464201,.00 4.70 14.85 88.80 108.35 23.34 1986 482769 .04 6.19 15.45 93.58 117.13 24.26 1987 902079.81 7450 16.07 102,88 126.45 25.19 1988 922163.00 &.90 16.71 110.75 136.35 26-11 1989 943049 ,53 10,390 17.38 119.21 146.88 27.05 1999 964771.52 11.70 18.07 128.31 158.09 27.99 1791 587362.38 13.10 18.80 138.12 170.01 28.94 1992 6108546.88 14.50 19,55 148.67 182.72 29.91 1993 635291416 15.90 20,33 160.03 196.2 30.89 1994 660702.81 17.30 21.14 172.25 210.70 31.89 1995 687130.93 18.70 21599 185.41 226.10 32.91 1996 714616.17 20.19 22.87 199.58 242.55 33.94 1997 743200.82 21,50 23.78 214.83 260.11 35.00 1998 772928 686 24.80 24.73 231.2 280.77 36.33 Loo. 803846.,92 24.89 25672 248.91 299.43 37.25 2000 835999 86 24.80 26.75 267.92 319.47 38.21 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATES 2471.79 ELECTRIC SUPFLY FLAN SITE? LARSEN BAY CASE & ALTERNATIVES? DIESEL-CENTRiDIST SYST#2-120 KW GEN’S2sNEW 120 KW GEN‘94$REPL 120 KW GEN’98 SCHL REPL 1-60 KW GEN '96 ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL. ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIFMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAD Cost Cost Cost COST cost YEAR CRWH > €1000%) (1000) (10004%) (10004) (C/KWH) L981 295008.00 0.00 10.00 49.18 59518 20.06 1982 330409.00 0.50 LORS 7 Di OL: 68.08 20.60 L983 370058.00 26-60 19.09 52.84 89.44 24.17 1984 414465.00 26.60 10.78 61.25 98.63 23.80 1985 464201.00 26.60 12.07 71.01 107.48 23.63 1986 4B2769.04 26.60 12.55 76643 115.58 23.94 1987 5S02079.81 26.60 13.05 82.27 121.92 24.28 1988 322163.00 26.60 13.58 88.56 128.73 24.65 LISS: 5343049 .53 26.60 14.12 93.32 136.04 25.05 1990 364771.52 26.60 14.68 102.60 143.89 25.48 1991 587362.38 26+60 15.27 110.44 152.31 25.93 1992 610856.88 26460 15.88 118.88 161.36 26.42 1993 635291.16 26.60 16.52 127.96 171.08 26.93 L994 660702,.81 26.60 17.18 137.74 181.52 27.47 1995 687130.93 26.69 17.87 148.26 192.73 28.05 1996 714616.17 26.60 18.58 159.59 204.77 28.65 L997 743200.82 34.2 19.32 171.78 225.35 30.32 L998 772928 .86 34.24 20.10 184.91 239,24 30.95 vey 803846,.02 11.46 20.90 199.93 231.39 28.79 2000 835999 .86 11.46 21.74 214.24 247.44 29.60 PRESENT YALUE GF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE: 2216.00 ean ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE? LARSEN BAY CASE C ALTERNATIVES? HYDROPOWER--HUMPY CREEK (WITH CENTRALIZED DIESEL AS BACK-UF--1-120 KW UNIT IN 1982) NIESEL-DECENTRALIZED 1981-1982, , ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL. ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIF MENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAD cost cast cost cost cost YEAR CKWH) (10004) C1000%) (10004%) (190004) (C/KWH) Losi 295008 .90 0.00 10.00 49.18 59.18 20.06 L982 330409 .00 9.00 10.57 57.01 67.58 20.45 L983 370058 .00 18.90 11.84 66.08 94.82 26.16 1984 414465.00 18.90 13.26 76460 108.77 26.24 1985 464201,00 188.30 73.00 9.00 261.30 56.29 1986 482769.04 188.30 73.00 0.00 261.390 54.13 1987 502079.81 188.39 73.00 9.00 261.30 52.04 1988 322163.00 188.30 73.90 0.00 261.30 50.04 1989 543049.53 188.30 73.00 0.90 261.30 48.12 1990 S64771.52 188.30 73.00 0.00 261.30 46.27 1991 587362.38 188.39 73.00 9.00 261.30 44,49 1992 610856.88 188.30 73.00 9.00 261.30 42.78 1993 635291.16 188.30 73.00 0.00 261.30 41.13 1994 669702.81 188.30 73.00 0.900 261.30 39.55 L995 687130.93 188.390 73,00 0.00 261.30 38.03 1996 714614.17 188.30 73.00 0.00 261.30 36.57 1997 743200.82 188.30 73,090 0.90 261.39 35.16 L998 772928 86 188.30 73.00 0.909 261,30 33.81 Lver 803846.02 169,49 73.00 9,00 242.49 30.16 2000 835999 .86 169.40 73,00 0.00 242.40 29.00 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH & 3% DISCOUNT RATE: 3297.40 ELECTRIC SUPFLY PLAN SITE: LARSEN BAY CASE [t ALTERNATIVES? WASTE HEAT RECOVERY UIESEL-DECENTRIALIL 2-5 KW GEN/YR ‘81-20003REPL 1-5 KW GEN/YR ’82-20003SCHL REPL 1-60 KW GEN ‘96. ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAD COsT cost cost cost cosT YEAR CKWH) (10004) (1000) (1000$%) (1000%) (C/KWH) 1981 295008.00 9.00 10.00 49.18 59.18 20.06 1982 330409.00 7+90 16.07 57.01 80.98 24.51 1983 370058 .00 9.30 17.34 66.08 92.72 25.06 1984 414465.00 10.70 18.76 76460 106.07 25.59 1985 464201.00 12.10 20.35 88.80 121.25 26.12 1986 482769 .04 13.50 20.95 95.58 130.03 26.93 1987 502079.81 14.90 21.57 102,88 139.35 27.75 1988 522163,.00 16.30 22.21 110.75 149.25 28.58 1989 5343049.53 17.70 22.88 119.21 159.78 29.42 1990 564771.52 19.10 23.57 128.31 170.99 30.28 UO Od. 587362.38 20.50 24.30 138.12 182.91 31.14 1992 610856.88 21.90 25.05 148.67 195.62 32.02 1993 635291.16 23.30 25.83 160.03 209.16 32.92 1994 660702.81 24.70 26.64 172.25 223.60 33.84 1995 687130.93 26.10 27.49 185.41 239,00 34.78 L996 714616.17 27,50 28.37 199.58 255.45 35.75 1997 743200.82 28.90 29.28 214.83 273.01 36.73 1998 772928 .86 32.20 30.23 231.24 293.67 37.99 1999 803846.02 32.20 31,22 248.91 312.33 38.85 2000 835999.86 32.20 32.25 267.92 332.37 39476 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 2656.57 ELECTRIC SUPPLY PLAN SITE: OLD HARBOR CASE A ALTERNATIVES? NIESEL? 1 NEW 155 KW-UNIT IN 19903 REPLACE 1-155 KW-UNIT IN 1990, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOATL COST cost cost cost cost YEAR CRWH) (10008) €1000$) (10008) (10008) CC/RKWH) 1981 315100,00 0.00 10.00 42.00 52.00 16.50 1982 321402.00 0.00 19.00 44,34 54.34 16.91 1983 327830.04 9.00 10.00 46.81 56.81 17.33 1984 334386.64 0.00 10.00 49,42 59.42 lvavs 1985 341074,.37 9.00 19.00 52.17 62.17 18.23 1986 347895.85 0.00 19.00 55.08 65.08 18.71 1987 $54853.77 0.00 10,00 58.15 68.15 19.20 1988 $61950.84 9.00 10,00 61.38 71.38 19.72 1989 369189.86 0.00 10.00 64,80 74.89 20.26 1990 $765723.65 9.00 10.00 68.41 78.41 20,82 L991 384105.13 12.30 10.00 72.622 94.52 24,61 ivv2 391787,22 12.30 10.19 76425 98.73 25.20 1993 399622.97 12.30 10.39 80.49 103.18 25.82 1994 407615.43 12.30 10.60 84,98 107.88 26.47 199s 415767.73 12.30 10.81 89.71 112,82 27.14 1996 424083 .09 12.30 11,03 94.71 118,03 27.83 1997 432564.75 12.30 11.25 Oa 123.53 28.56 1998 441216.04 12.30 11.47 105.55 129.32 29.31 1999 450040,.36 12.30 11.70 111.43 135.43 30.09 2600 439041.16 12.30 11.94 117.64 141.87 30.91 PRESENT YALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 1311.84 ELECTRIC SUPFLY FLAN SITE: OLD HARBOR CASE B ALTERNATIVES $ HYDROPOWER - OQHIQUZUK CREEK QIESEL! USE EXISTING 2-155 KW GEN AS BACK-UF ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIFMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAL COST cost COosT COST cost YEAR CRWH) (1000) (1000) (1000$) (1000$) (C/KWH) L981 315100.00 0.00 10.00 42,00 52.00 16.50 1982 321402.00 0.00 10,00 44.34 54.34 16.91 1983 327830.04 0.00 10,00 46.81 56.81 17.33 1984 334386.64 0.00 10.00 49.42 59.42 T7077 1985 341074.37 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 91.21 1986 347895.85 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 50.20 1987 354853.77 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 49.22 1988 361950.84 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 48.25 1989 369189.86 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 47.31 1990 376573.65 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 46.38 LOS 384105.13 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 45.47 L972 391787.23 129.40 45.25 0,00 174.65 44.58 1993 399622.97 129,40 43.25 0.00 174.65 43.70 1994 407615.43 129,40 45.25 0.00 174.65 42.85 1995 415767.73 129.40 45.25 9.00 174.65 42.01 1996 424083.09 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 41.18 1997 432564.75 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 40.38 1998 441216.04 129.40 45.25 9.00 174.65 39.58 LP? 450040.36 129.40 45.25 0.00 174.65 38.81 2000 459041.16 129,40 45.25 0.00 174.65 38.05 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 2220.33 ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE? OLD HARBOR CASE C ALTERNATIVES? WIND GENERATION? 1-10,.5 KW-UNIT 1983» REPLACE IN QIESEL? 1 NEW 155 KW-UNIT IN 1990% REPLACE 1-155 ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ELECTRIC EQUIFMENT OPERATING FUEL LOAT cost cost COST YEAR CRWH} (10004) (1000¢) (1000) 1981 315100.00 0.00 10.00 42.00 1982 321402.00 0.00 10,00 44,34 1983 327830.04 0.990 10.00 44.81 1984 334386.64 42.00 18.40 36.56 1985 341074,37 42.00 18,40 38.86 1986 347895.85 42.00 18.40 41.30 1987 354853.77 42.00 18.46 43.89 1988 361950.84 42,00 18.490 46.63 1989 369189.86 42.00 18.40 49,33 1990 3763573.465 42,00 18.40 S2¢61 Lod. 384105.13 54.30 18.40 55.87 1992 391787.23 54,30 18.40 59.32 1993 399622.97 54.30 18.40 62.97 1994 407615.43 54.30 18.40 66.84 Loos 415767.73 54.30 18.40 70.94 1996 424083.09 54,30 18.40 73.28 Ugo7 432564.75 34,30 18.40 79.87 1998 441216,04 54.30 18.40 84.74 1999 4350040.36 28.99 18.40 89.89 2000 459041,.16 28.99 18.40 95.34 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RAT 1998. KW-UNIT IN 1990, TOTAL. ANNUAL. UNIT COST Cost (10008) (C/KWH > 52.00 16.50 94434 16.91 56.81 17.33 96696 29.00 99.26 29.10 101.70 29.23 104.29 29.39 107.03 29.57 109.93 29.78 113.01 30.01 128.57 33.47 132.02 33.70 135.67 33.95 139.54 34,23 143.44 34.55 147.98 34.89 152.57 35.27 157.44 35.68 137 elo 30.48 142.64 31.07 Et 1694.15 SITE? OUZINKIE CASE A ALTERNATIVES: DIESEL 3 ANNUAL ELECTRIC LOAD YEAR CRWH) 73d 189600,00 1982 193392,.00 1983 197259.84 L984 201205,04 1985 205229413 1986 209333.72 LOS 7, 213520.39 1988 217790.80 1989 222146.61 1990 226589.54 L991 2a 21133 1992 235743.76 1993 240458,.63 1994 245267.80 Egos 250173.16 1996 255176.62 1997 260280.15 LOSS 265485.76 LoS9 270795 ,47 2900 276211.38 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ELECTRIC SUPPLY FLAN 2-100 KW-UNIT$ ANNUAL EQUIF MENT cost €1000$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 9.09 0.990 0.00 0,00 0.00 4.80 4.80 4,80 4,80 4,80 4.80 4.80 4,80 4,80 ANNUAL OPERATING cost €1000$) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10,00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.90 10.90 10,00 10.00 19,00 10.90 WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? REPLACE 150 KW-UNIT IN 1991, ANNUAL. FUEL cost (1000) 25427 26.68 28.17 29.74 31-39 33.14 34.99 36.94 38.99 41.17 43.46 45.88 48.43 S1.13 53.98 56.99 60.16 63.51 67.05 70.78 TOTAL ANNUAL cost (10008) 35.27 36.68 38.17 39.74 41.39 43.14 44.99 46.94 48.99 51.17 53-46 60.68 63.23 65.93 68.78 Pia th 7496 78.31 81.85 85.58 UNIT cost (C/RWH) 826.34 ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE? QUZINKIE CASE & ALTERNATIVES ¢ HYDROPOWER - KATMAI CREEK DIESELS EXISTING 100 KW-UNIT USED AS BACK-UF ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT Loan cosT COST COST Cost Cost YEAR CRWH) (10004) €1000$) (10008) (10008) (C/RKWH) 1981 189600,.00 0.00 10.00 25.27 35.27 18.60 1982 193392,00 0.00 10,00 26.68 36-468 18.97 L983 197259.84 0.00 10.00 28.17 38.17 19.35 1984 201205.04 0.09 10.00 29.74 39.74 19.75 1985 205229.13 935.00 25.28 0,00 120.28 58.61 1986 209333.72 93.00 25.28 9.00 120.28 57.46 1987 213520.39 95.00 25.28 0.00 120.28 56.33 1988 217790.80 93.00 25.28 0.00 120.28 55.23 1989 222146,61 93.00 25.28 0.00 120.28 54.14 1990 226589 .54 93.00 25.28 0.090 120.28 53.08 1994 231121.33 93.00 25.28 9.00 120.28 52.04 1992 235743.76 93.00 25.28 0.99 120.28 51.02 ivvs 240458.63 93.00 25.28 9.00 120.28 50.02 1994 245267 ,.80 935.00 : 0.00 120.2 49.04 L995 250173.16 935.00 0.00 120.28 48.08 1996 255176.62 935.00 0,00 120.28 47.13 L997 260280.15 93.00 9.00 120.28 46.21 1998 265485.76 935.00 0.090 120,28 45.30 LvvF 279795 .47 935.00 0,09 120.28 44.42 2000 274211.38 93.00 0.90 120.2 43.54 an to un a hat PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 1 ELECTRIC SUPFLY FLAN WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SITE? OUZINKIE CASE C ALTERNATIVES? DIESEL? ANNUAL ELECTRIC LOAD YEAR (KWH) 1981 189600.00 1982 193392.00 1983 197259.84 1984 201205.04 1985 205229.13 1986 209333.72 1987 213520.39 1988 217790.80 1989 222146.61 1990 226589 .54 1991 231121.33 1992 235743.76 1993 240458.63 1994 245267.80 1995 250173.16 1996 255176.62 1997 260280.15 1998 265485.76 1999 270795.47 2000 276211.38 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 2-100 KW-UNIT? ANNUAL EQUIPMENT COST (1000$) ANNUAL OPERATING cost (10004) REPLACE 150 KW-UNIT IN 1991. ANNUAL PURI cost (1000$) 25.27 26-468 28.17 29.74 31.39 33.14 34.99 36.94 38.99 41.17 43.46 45.88 48.43 51.13 53.98 56.99 60.16 63.51 67.05 70.78 TOTAL ANNUAL UNIT cost cost (1000) (C/RWH) 35.27 18.60 50.18 25.95 51.67 26.19 33424 26.46 54.89 26.75 56+64 27.06 58.49 27.39 60.44 27.75 2.49 28.13 64.67 28.54 66.96 28.97 74.18 31.47 76.673 31.91 79.43 32.39 82.28 32.89 85.29 33.42 88.46 33.99 91.81 34.58 95.35 35.21 99.08 35.87 1019.71 ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE: SANDFOINT CASE A ALTERNATIVES: DIESELS REPLACE 2-500 KW-UNITS IN 1990, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ELECTRIC EQUIF MENT OPERATING FUEL LOAD cast cost cost YEAR CRWH) (10004) (10004) €1000%) 1981 1858500.00 0.900 48.32 185,85 1982 1951425.00 9.00 50.74 201.97 1983 2048996,30 0.00 533.27 219.49 1984 2151446.10 0.00 55.94 238.53 1985 2259018.30 9.00 58.73 259.23 L986 2371969,.30 0.00 61.67 281.72 1987 2490567.70 9.00 64,75 306,15 1988 2615096.10 0.00 67.99 332.71 1989 2745850.90 0.00 71.39 361,58 1990 2883143.40 0.90 7496 392.94 1991 3027300.60 31.80 78.71 427.03 1992 3178665.60 31.80 82.65 464,08 1993 3337598 .90 31.80 86.78 504.33 1994 3504478.80 31.80 91.12 548.09 1995 3679702 ,.80 31.80 95.67 595.43 1996 3863687 .90 31.80 100,46 647,30 1997 4054872.30 31.80 105.48 793.46 1998 4259715.90 31.80 110.75 764,48 Lv??7 4472701.690 31,80 116.29 830.80 2000 4696336.79 31.80 122.10 902.87 PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATES TOTAL ANNUAL UNIT cost cast (1000$) ¢C/KWH) 234.17 12.60 252.71 12.95 272.77 13.31 294.47 13.69 317.96 14.08 343.39 14.48 370.91 14.89 400.71 15.32 432.97 15.77 467.90 16.23 537.54 17.76 578.52 18.20 622.91 18.66 671.00 19.15 723.10 19.65 779 56 20.18 840.73 20.72 907.03 21.29 978.89 21.89 1056.78 22.50 7862.17 HYDROPOWER - HUMBOLIIT CREEK REPLACE 2-500 KW-UNITS IN 1990, SITE! SANDFOINT CASE B ALTERNATIVES? DIESEL? ANNUAL ELECTRIC LOAD YEAR CRWH) 1981 1858500.00 1982 1951425.00 1983 2048996,.30 1984 2151446.10 1985 2259018,.30 1986 2371969.30 1987 2490567.70 1988 2615096.10 1989 2745850.90 1990 2883143.40 a7?i 3027300.60 ae 3178665.60 1993 3337598 .90 1994 3504478.80 1993S 3679702 .80 6. 3863687 .90 L997 4056872.30 1998 4259715.90 1999 4472701.60 2000 4696336.70 ELECTRIC SUPFLY FLAN ANNUAL EQUIPMENT cast (1000$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 113.20 113.20 113.20 113.20 113.20 113.20 145.00 145,00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 ANNUAL OFERATING cost (10004) 121.67 127,21 133.03 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% ANNUAL FUEL COST (1000%) 351.65 384,29 419,84 458.55 500.70 546.58 596.54 650.92 710.10 774.52 844.62 DISCOUNT RATE? TOTAL ANNUAL UNIT COST cost (1000) (C/KWH) 234.17 12.60 252.71 12.95 272.77 13.31 294.47 13.69 407.31 18.03 431.52 18.19 457.78 18.38 486,28 18.60 317.19 18.84 550.73 19.10 618.92 20.44 658.41 20.71 701.25 21.01 747.74 21.34 798.18 21.69 852.92 22.08 912.32 22.49 976.78 22.93 1046.73 23.40 1122.65 23.90 8776.29 ELECTRIC SUFFLY FLAN SITE! SANDFOINT CASE C ALTERNATIVES? WASTE HEAT RECOVERY DIESELS REFLACE 2-500 KW-UNITS IN 1990, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EGUIFMENT OPERATING FUEL ANNUAL UNIT LOAD cost cast cost cost cost CRWH) (10004¢) (1900) (1000#) (10008) (C/KWH) 1981 1858000,00 0.00 48.31 185.80 234.11 12.60 i782 1950900.900 17.60 56.22 201.92 275.74 14.13 1983 2048445,00 17.60 58.76 219.43 295.79 14.44 1984 2150867,30 17.60 61.42 238.47 317.49 14.76 1985 2258410.60 17.60 64.22 259.16 340.98 15.10 1986 2371331.10 17.60 67.15 281.64 366.39 15.45 1987 2489897,.70 17.690 70.24 306.07 393.91 15.82 1988 2614392.60 17.60 73.47 332.62 423.79 16.21 1978? 2745112.20 17.69 76.87 361.48 455.95 16.61 1990 2882367.80 17,60 80.44 392,84 490,88 17,03 ol 3026486.20 49,40 84,19 426.92 560.50 18.52 1992 3177810.50 49,40 88.12 463.95 601.47 18.93 1993 3336701 .00 49,40 92.25 504.20 645.85 19.36 1994 35023536,.00 49.40 96.59 547.94 693.93 19.81 1995 3678712,.80 49,40 101.15 595.47 746.02 20.28 1996 3862648.40 49,40 105.93 647.13 802.46 20.77 vay 4055780,.80 49.40 110,95 703.27 863.62 21.29 1998 4258569 .80 49.40 116.22 764,28 929.90 21.84 oo? 4471498,30 49440 121.76 830.58 1001.73 22.40 2000 4695073,20 49.40 127.57 902.63 1079.60 22.99 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATE? 8190.99 ELECTRIC SUPFFLY FLAN SITE? SANDFOINT CASE [I ALTERNATIVES? WIND GENERATION! 4-20 KW-UNITS 1983-84» REPLACE 1998-99, DIESEL? REPLACE 2-500 KW-UNITS IN 1990, ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OPERATING RUE ANNUAL UNIT LOAD cost cost cost cost cost YEAR (KWH) (10008) €1000$) (10004) (10008) (C/KWH) 1981 1858000.00 0.00 48.31 185.80 234.11 12.60 1982 1950900.00 0.00 50.72 201.92 252.64 12.95 1983 2048445,.00 0.00 53.26 219.43 272.69 13.31 1984 2150867.30 9.00 35.92 238.47 294.39 13.69 1985 2258410.60 121.30 67.85 182.96 372.12 16.48 1986 2371331.10 121.30 70.79 202.78 394.87 16.65 1987 2489897.70 121.30 73.87 224.45 419.62 16.85 1988 2614392.60 121.30 77.AL 248.14 446.55 17.08 1982 2745112.20 121.30 80.51 274.04 475.85 17.33 1999 2882367.80 121.30 84.08 302.34 507.72 17.61 L991 3026486,.20 153.10 87.82 333.25 574.18 LBZ 1992 3177810.50 153,10 D170 367,01 611.87 19.25 1993 3336701.00 153.10 935.89 403.86 652.85 19.57 1994 3503536,00 153.10 100.23 444,09 697.42 19.91 LOS 3678712.80 153,10 104.78 487.99 743.87 20.28 1996 3862648.40 153.10 109.56 535.89 798.55 20.67 LOP7 4055780,.80 153.10 114.59 588,13 855.82 21.10 1998 4258569 ,.80 153.10 119.86 645.11 918,07 21.56 Lv?7 4471498.30 180.80 125.39 707.24 1013.43 22.66 2000 4695073,.20 87.20 131.21 F749? 993.38 21.16 FRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS WITH A 3% DISCOUNT RATES 8214.67 MM Appendix F MM DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLANS This information is contained in Chapter 6. L=S Table G-1 PREFERRED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Project ($) Larsen old Sand Component Akhiok King Cove Bay _Harbor Ouzinkie Point Earthwork 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 35,000 530,000 Spillway and Sluiceway 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 210,000 Penstock 250,000 700,000 290,000 375,000 400,000 30,000 Powerhouse 375,000 950,000 1,331,000 750 000 325,000 400,000 Transmission 275,000 600,000 125,000 150,000 125,000 130,000 Access/Bridge 125,000 10,000 75,000 75,000 65,000 _ - Subtotal 1,200,000 2,435,000 1,996,000 1,500,000 1,075,000 1,300,000 Legal, Engineering and 240,000 487,000 399,000 300,000 215,000 260,000 Administrative (20%) Subtotal 1,440,000 2,922,000 2,395,000 1,800,000 1,290,000 1,560,000 Contingency (30%) 432,000 877,000 718,000 540,000 387,000 468,000 Total Estimated 1,872,000 3,799,000 3,113,000 2,340,000 1,677,000 2,028,000 Construction Cost Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table G-2 TIDAL POWER PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Project ($) Component King Cove Old Harbor Earthwork 2,400,000 797 57000 Spillway and Sluiceway 420,000 100,000 Penstock ae ~ Powerhouse 26,500,000 10,000,000 Transmission 130,000 175,000 Access/Bridge 350,000 850,000 Subtotal 29,800,000 13,100,000 Legal, Engineering, and Administra- 5,960,000 2,670,000 tive (20%) Subtotal 35,760,000 15,720,000 Contingency (30%) 10,730,000 4,700,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost 46,490,000 20,420,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table G-3 WIND GENERATION PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Project ($) King Larsen Old f Sand Component Akhiok Cove Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Point Sitework 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Generator with 72,000 232,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 466,000 60-ft Tower Distribution Line 38,000 45,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 45,000 and Transformer Concrete 11,000 45,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 90,000 Tie to Existing System 51,000 91,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 164,000 Subtotal 254,000 495,000 254,000 254,000 254,000 847,000 Contingency (30%) 76,000 148,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 254,000 Engineering, Legal, and 66,000 129,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 220,000 Administrative (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost 396,000 772,000 396,000 396,000 396,000 1,321,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. 9-5 Table G-4 COAL-FIRED STEAM ENGINE GENERATION PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost per Project ($) Ouzinkie 138,000 31,000 38,000 1,035,000 1,793,000 448,000 3,483,000 1,045,000 906,000 5,433,000 Sand Point 148,000 33,000 41,000 1,112,000 1,927,000 482,000 3,743,000 1,123,000 973,000 5,839,000 Larsen ‘Old Component Akhiok King Cove Bay _Harbor Sitework 138,000 148,000 138,000 138,000 Concrete 31,000 33,000 31,000 31,000 Buildings 38,000 41,000 38,000 38,000 Coal Handling Dock 1,035,000 1,112,000 1,035,000 1,035,000 Boiler and Generating Equipment 1,793,000 1,927,000 1,793,000 1,793,000 Connection to Existing System 448,000 482,000 448,000 448,000 Subtotal 3,483,000 3,743,000 3,483,000 3,483,000 Contingency (30%) 1,045,000 1,123,000 1,045,000 1,045,000 Engineering, Legal, and Adminis- 906,000 973,000 906,000 906,000 trative (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost 5,433,000 5,839,000 5,433,000 5,433,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table G-5 WOOD-FIRED STEAM TURBINE GENERATION PROJECT COSTS Cost Per Project (S$) Component Larsen Bay Ouzinkie Sitework 25,000 25,000 Concrete 31,000 31,000 Buildings 75,000 75,000 Wood Harvesting Equipment 180,000 180,000 Wood Chip Equipment 13,000 13,000 Boiler and Turbine Generator 395,000 395,000 Subtotal 719,000 719,000 Contingency (30%) 216,000 216,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administrative 187,000 187,000 (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost 1,122,000 1,122,000 Table G-6 WOOD-FIRED SPACE HEATING PROJECT COSTS Cost Per Project ($) Component Larsen Bay Sand Point Sitework 25,000 25,000 Concrete 31,000 31,000 Buildings 38,000 38,000 Wood Harvesting Equipment 180,000 180,000 Residence Heating Equipment 58,000 58,000 Subtotal —_ 332,000 332,000 Contingency (30%) 100,000 100,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administrative 86,000 86,000 (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost 518,000 518,000 Q ' ~ Table G-7 PEAT-FIRED STEAM TURBINE GENERATION PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Project ($) Larsen Old Sand Component Akhiok King Cove Bay _Harbor Ouzinkie Point Sitework 70,000 75,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 75,000 Concrete 51,000 55,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 55,000 Buildings 150,000 161,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 161,000 Peat Harvesting Equipment 184,000 198,000 184,000 184,000 184,000 198,000 Peat Handling Equipment 435,000 468,000 435,000 435,000 435,000 468,000 Boiler and Turbine Generator 565,000 607,000 565,000 565,000 565,000 607,000 Subtotal 1,455,000 1,564,000 1,455,000 1,455,000 1,455,000 1,564,000 Contingency (30%) 437,000 470,000 437,000 437,000 437,000 470,000 Engineering, Legal, and Administra- 378,000 406,000 378,000 378,000 378,000 406,000 tive (20%) Total Estimated Construction Cost 2,270,000 2,440,000 2,270,000 2,270,000 2,270,000 2,440,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. 8-5 Table G-8 CENTRAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM COSTS FOR LARSEN BAY Estimated Component Costs |!) (S) Transformers 15,000 Conductor 44,000 Poles 22,000 Service Assemblies 10,000 Subtotal 91,000 Contingency (30%) 27,000 Engineering and Administrative (20%) 24,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost 142,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Table G-9 PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR ELECTRIC PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Residence ($) King Larsen Old Sand Component Akhiok _Cove Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Point Basic Equipment 47,000 50,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 50,000 Mounting Structures 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Meter Panel 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Battery Enclosures 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Tie-In to Existing Equipment _3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Subtotal 56,000 59,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 59,000 Contingency (30%) 17,000 18,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 18,000 Engineering, Legal, and 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Administrative (20%) Total Estimated Cost 88,000 92,000 88,000 88,000 88,000 92,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. OL-5 Table G-10 ACTIVE SOLAR HEATING PROJECT COSTS Estimated Cost Per Residence ($) King Larsen old Sand Component Akhiok Cove Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Point Collector 113,000 119,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 119,000 Fixed Costs 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Tie-in to Existing 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Equipment Subtotal 129,000 135,000 129,000 129,000 129,000 135,000 Contingency (30%) 39,000 41,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 41,000 Engineering, Legal, and 34,000 35,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 35,000 Administrative (20%) Total Estimated Cost 202,000 211,000 202,000 202,000 202,000 211,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Li~d Table G-11 COSTS OF INSULATING OLDER RESIDENCES Estimated Cost Per Residence (S$) King Larsen Old Sand Component Akhiok _Cove Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Point Floors 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,900 3,000 3,000 Ceilings 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 Walls 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Storm Windows 3,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 Subtotal 14,000 16,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 16,000 Contingency (30%) 4,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 Engineering, Legal, and 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Administration (208%) Total Estimated Cost 22,000 25,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 25,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. ai7h Table G-12 FLAME RETENTION BURNER INSTALLATION COSTS Estimated Cost Per Residence ($) King Larsen Old Component Akhiok Cove Bay Harbor Ouzinkie Replace Burners 700 800 700 700 700 Contingency (30% 200 200 200 200 200 Engineering, Legal, and 200 200 200 200 200 Administrative (20%) Total Estimated Cost 1,100 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 Note: AII costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Sand Point 800 3 Table G-13 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY PROJECT COSTS Cost Per Project ($) Larsen Sand Component Bay Ouzinkie Point Removals - 6,000 16,000 Heat Recovery Equipment 31,000 15,000 57,000 Heat Delivery 62,000 58,000 148,000 Structures - 9,000 - Electrical - 12,000 - Subtotal 93,000 100,000 221,000 Contingency (30%) 28,000 30,000 66,000 Engineering, Legal, and Adminis- 24,000 26,000 57,000 tration (20%) Total Estimated Cost 145,000 156,000 345,000 Note: All costs are based on January 1981 price levels. Oo a 200) A UNNAME CREEK NO. 1= st te ah, ¥ UNNAMED _ Ira | AS CREEK NO. 25 4) \~ LY. — AKHIok / Fela 2137S Z e LEGEND Ary 2 3000_s000 A DAM \ SCALE IN FEET PENSTOCK a POWERHOUSE —T=— TRANSMISSION LINE AND PARALLEL ACCESS ROAD AKHIOK King Cove Ss { N ( q Zh SG Ui Uy) Liat | is 5 SANS as a aw. / ae WY : (08 QaG ' me a y es ; EZ UNG | i 5 SNe OO ALAA P SR (> SOY eA (R- y SI Z x SS eM e AKG SSS) CER. : om \\: rs aN NCIS aS o A i NSS Q Ww [= t 2 i= =) 3000 6000 SCALE IN FEET Q Old Harbor REA ean) | SSR SN ice LAC) SSP Zigeo~ vide IE LA : é 5) N a, PARALLEL ACCESS ROAD PENSTOCK @ POWERHOUSE — — TRANSMISSION LINE AND LEGEND M® vam y x. w\ \ 3 WAS \SS \) Lghs((o) Sy CAS n 5 x > ree . Py | | \ 7 A NG \ : - IrS) € ; EZ § r 7 Ii { S —. oo hi} -_ Oy if 2B \ \ } Fe (FE y~. / \ ty \ ) 2000 4000 SCALE IN FEET Bn f PARALLEL ACCESS ROAD LEGEND === CREEK ™§ = POWERHOUSE —T— TRANSMISSION LINE AND ———— PENSTOCK Ouzinkie kG eae TN To fer iS *f " 200 ay >| HUMBOLT & S #ab LEGEND 0 2000 4000 & DAM i N TtL5- 71 PENSTOCK si(‘<‘i‘i‘=i=iéi‘s*s~*CSALEES INN FEET” «POWERHOUSE —T=<— TRANSMISSION LINE ===== ACCESS ROAD _ Sand Point W.S. El 200’ Concrete Diversion Dam 100 Powerhouse T.W. El 50’ S 50 0 0 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET KEMPFF BAY PROJECT PROFILE AKHIOK W.S. E! 500’ Concrete Diversion Dam Existing Ground at Delta Creek Powerhouse 200 oS 30’ Penstock T.W. El 200’ 100 0 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET DELTA CREEK PROJECT PROFILE KING COVE 1% W.S. El 310’ | Concrete Diversion Dam Natural Ground at Humpy Creek Powerhouse T.W. El 100’ 2t 24” Penstock 200 100 0 0 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET HUMPY CREEK PROJECT PROFILE LARSEN BAY W.S. E1300’ Concrete Diversion Dam Natural Ground at Ohiouzuk Creek 100 Powerhouse 50 T.W. EI 50’ ¥ 0 0 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET OHIOUZUK CREEK PROJECT PROFILE OLD HARBOR I-3 W.S. El 75’ Concrete Diversion Dam Existing Ground at Katmai Creek Powerhouse T.W. El 25’ 25 0 0 250 500 SCALE IN FEET KATMAI CREEK PROJECT PROFILE OUZINKIE Intake Tower i [ and Guard Gate Wa 25’ Roadway im E155’ Powerhouse v EULNormal LU ee EI a ie = W.S. E150’ ¥ = 2 T.W. El 10° } > 24” Penstock MUTA a ape YAH ae tc Eerie 3 Mit GMM 0 25 50 rt SCALE IN FEET HUMBOLT CREEK PROJECT PROFILE SAND POINT MM Appendix J MM CORPS OF ENGINEERS SMALL HYDROPOWER RESOURCE DATA Contained in this appendix is information taken from the Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects - Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island (Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers) published October 1980. This information was used to screen the several hydropower projects potentially available to each community and select a preferred hydropower project for each community. This infor- mation, along with data obtained during field and other inves- tigations, was used to develop the preferred hydropower project for each community (see Chapter 5). The benefit-cost ratio estimates and levelized unit energy cost estimates that were developed as part of the Corps of Engineers study and are contained in this appendix are some- what optimistic because they assume that most of a hydropower project's electric energy output can be used regardless of the actual energy requirements of a community. The estimates developed in this study, however, which are described in Chap- ter 7, assume that the useable hydropower project output is equivalent to the projected actual energy requirements of the community. AKHIOK Kempff Bay Creek site selected as preferred hydropower project because: Lowest unit cost alternative Highest benefit-cost ratio Energy output most closely matches community electric requirements ooo Site: Kempff Bay Creek Installed Capacity: 200 kW Average Annual Energy Available: 828,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $1.50 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.05 - 2.40 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .113-.132 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 1 Installed Capacity: 330 kW Average Annual Energy Available: 1,410,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $2.65 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.47 - 1.62 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .167-.184 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 2 Installed Capacity: 230 kW Average Annual Energy Available: 972,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $2.01 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.62 - 1.85 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .145-.167 KING COVE Delta Creek site selected as preferred hydropower project because: ° Highest benefit-cost ratio ° Lowest unit energy cost ° Energy output most closely matches community (including processing plant) electric requirements Site: Delta Creek Installed Capacity: 740 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 3,260,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $3.81 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.62 - 5.82 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .028-.045 Site: Unnamed Creek Installed Capacity: 170 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 723,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $1.89 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.56 - 2.50 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .065-.104 LARSEN BAY Humpy Creek site selected as preferred hydropower project because: ° Community preferences ° One of two lowest unit cost sites ° Minimal environmental impact due to existing stream blockage downstream of proposed dam site ° Largest drainage area Site: Humpy Creek Installed Capacity: 477 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 3,140,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $2.79 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.29 - 5.09 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): 0.033-0.051 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 1 Installed Capacity: 154 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 1,010,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $1.34 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.00 - 3.11 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .054-.084 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 2 Installed Capacity: 364 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 2,390,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $2.02 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.36 - 5.25 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .032-.050 OLD HARBOR Ohiouzuk Creek site was not considered in the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance assessment, but it was selected as preferred site because: ° No significant environmental impacts ° Close to community ° Approximately equal in cost to other hydropower resources Site: Ohiouzuk Creek Installed Capacity: NA Average Annual Energy Available: NA Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): NA Benefit-Cost Ratio: NA Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced: NA Site: Unnamed Creek No. 1 Installed Capacity: 2,280 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 9,680,000 kWh Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $6.69 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.33 - 1.38 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .151-.154 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 2 Installed Capacity: 340 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 1,480,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980$): $2.36 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.25 - 2.73 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .075-.091 Site: Unnamed Creek No. 3 Installed Capacity: 680 kW Average Annual Energy Available: 2,940,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $2.90 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.44 - 2.69 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .076-.084 OUZINKIE Katmai Creek site selected as preferred hydropower project because: ° Lowest unit cost alternative ° Highest benefit-cost ratio ° Energy output most closely matches community electric requirements Site: Katmai Creek Installed Capacity: 220 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 972,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $1.91 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.91 - 2.43 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .076-.097 Site: Unnamed Creek Installed Capacity: 990 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 4,280,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $4.11 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.68 - 1.79 Levelized Unit Cost (Oct. 1980 $/kWh produced): .103-.110 SAND POINT Humbolt Creek site selected as preferred hydropower project because Unnamed Creek considered an uneconomic generation resource. Site: Humbolt Creek Installed Capacity: NA Average Annual Energy Available: NA Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): NA Benefit-Cost Ratio: NA Site: Unnamed Creek Installed Capacity: 39 kw Average Annual Energy Available: 250,000 kWh/yr Initial Investment Requirement (Oct. 1980 $): $.80 million Benefit-Cost Ratio: NA MM Appendix K MM DRAFT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This appendix contains the comment letters that were received after release of the draft version of this report. Letters containing substantive comments or questions are followed by responses. K-1 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 March 16, 1981 Ne) Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director rm Alaska Power Authority Reh 333 W. 4th Avenue - Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have four draft reports on Alaska Power Authority studies for which you are asking comments on March 16: 1) Reconnaissance Study of Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Habor, Ouzinkie and Sand Point - CHoM Hill 2) Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Kaltag, Savoonga, White Mountain and Elim - Holden and Associates. 3) Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and Grayling - Northern Technical Services and VanGulik & Associates 4) Tanana Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alter- natives - Marks Engineering/Brown & Root Inc, I regret that we have only been able to make brief reviews of these reports, and therefore our comments are perhaps less complete and thoughtful than we would like. The central finding is that there are very few apparent alternatives to continue use of diesel electric power systems for the villages covered, and also limited options for backing out the use of oil and oil for other energy uses in these villages. With this in mind, continual efforts towards maximizing efficiency in the diesel electric systems-- including waste heat application--as well as means to improve efficiency of energy use probably amount to the priority areas for future work. I was quite surprised that the studies made little use of previous reports/investigations/experience for remote villages. Particularly on the diesel systems, the data in the reports docs not seem to recognize best current practice for remote communities in Alaska. Such things as fuel storage requirements and costs, matching size of machines to load in a manner that optimizes efficiency, and basic O&M requirements seem very weak. i i a a, The CHyM Hill report does not appear to make allowance for future escalation in fuel costs, hence the comparison between oil-fuel gener- ation and the alternatives may be very misleading. Some additional staff comments on the reports are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ‘ Robert J. Cross “« ‘Administrator Enclosure Comments on Reconnaissance Study on Energy Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Sand Point The primary benefits of this investigation are to provide heretofore unavailable evaluation of (1) the continued (or new) community diesel generation systems for all villages, (2) evaluation of other non-hydro resources for all villages, and (3) rough evaluation of the hydro potential for all villages with somewhat more detailed studies for Larsen Bay. The investigation does not add to previous hydro work at Larsen Bay, and in fact appears to have some problems. The report could be strengthened by a more casily comparable tabulation of alternatives for each community with present and projected continued diesel energy costs. The present values presented in Chapter 6 are difficult for the non-technical person to relate. Discussion of hydrologic, topographic, geologic, wind, and other physical data would be helpful. It is not revealed whether project sites (other than the immediate villages) were visited. Spot stream flow measurements were made on two or three streams near Old Harbor in 1979. One measurement point was very near the diversion site shown for Unnamed Creek No. 1. This report could contribute more to the understanding of hydro potential by discussing the correlation with the other sites considered. The analysis for Larsen Bay does not reference previous stream gaging, topographic, geologic, and fish and wildlife field work or subsequent engineering analysis funded by this agency in 1978-1979 for the hydro potential of Humpy Creek. The recommendations for acrial mapping of Humpy Creek is questioned, as a stream profile and other site topography are available. Burial of the penstock for the site (and the other sites too) appears to be an expensive design selection for an already expensive project. The profile shown in Appendix G shows a static hydraulic head of 210 feet instead of 250 feet cited on page 4-56. The diversion dam elevation and penstock length do not correspond with the map in Appendix F. In general, our conclusion for Larsen Bay would be that hydro in con- junction with village intertie with an expansion of the cannery diesel plant be explored further before proposing a village diesel generation system. The present cannery generation capability should be partially available during the winter for village needs. Other minor comments: p. 2.49, footnote line 3, 0.8 should be 0.08. Location of the maps and profiles near the plan descriptions (and labeling the profile sites) would improve readability. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION Future price escalation for diesel fuel was assumed to be 3.5 percent per year greater than general inflation levels. This assumption is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Alaska Power Authority for performing reconnaissance- level assessments of alternative energy resources. All available studies were used to assess the hydropower alternatives for the six villages, including the October 1980 small hydropower reconnaissance study for southwest Alaska performed by the Corps of Engineers (EBASCO Services Inc.), the R. W. Rutherford and Associates study on hydropower potential at Larsen Bay, and the Jack West and Associates study of hydropower potential at Kempff Bay Creek near Akhiok. CH2M HILL assumed that a hydropower project operating at Larsen Bay would have to be backed up by city-owned diesel generation. City ownership of the diesel plant is considered the best way to guarantee access to and control of the backup source at all times. Corrections to the report have been made for Humpy Creek site at Larsen Bay. KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 172 - Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - Phone (907) 486 - 5725 March 10, 1981 Mi GElVED Mr. Eric P. Yould ms 13 198) Executive Director Alaska Power Authority Paes v 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Draft Report - Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Sand Point Dear Mr. Yould: The Kodiak Area Native Association has reviewed the subject draft report and is prepared to comment on the studies performed in the villages that are within the KANA's jurisdiction. Those villages are: Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Ouzinkie. The KANA will catagorize its comments by the sections provided in the draft for the sake of convenience to those reviewing the KANA's comments. SUMMARY AKHIOK: In regards to preferred alternative energy resource, there is no mention of wind power electrical generation that could supplement the electrical needs of the community. The new school will incorporate wind mill electrical generation as a sup- plemental energy source. Further information concerning the new school's energy supply contact Gary Smith, Facilities Coordinator, Kodiak Island Borough. The correct name for the creek is Kempff Bay Creek. Mr. Eric P. Yould March 10, 1981 Page 2 LARSEN BAY No comment OLD HARBOR No comment OUZINKIE The 150 KW unit will not be installed. Instead, the community has pur- chased two (2) used 100 KW generators. At present, the generators are not on line. The Katmai Creek hydropower project is located approximately one (1) mile East of Ouzinkie, not Akhiok. INTRODUCTION STUDY APPROACH Characterizations of existing conditions approach by CH2M Hill did not in- clude current bulk fuel storage capabilities in the villages. This is crucial in light of the fact that, without identifying storage capacity, the energy balances as stated are erroneous as are the electrical supply plan projections. COMMUNITY CONDITIONS AKHIOK ECONOMIC BASE: There is no mention of the Scallop Muriculture Project that is currently being conducted in Akhiok. If this project proves successful, then the villagers of Akhiok may opt to develop Scallop rearing as an economic en- terprise. Electrical demands for this enterprise are unknown. INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES Native land ownership and resource management is now under the auspices of the Regional corporation (Koniag). The Kodiak Island Boroughaffects certain local energy resource development. TABLE 2-1 MAJOR EMPLOYERS - Columbia Wards Mr. Eric P. Yould March 10, 1981 Page 3 MAJOR STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES EXISTING: water treatment plant, school. PLANNED: New school (note: there is no sewer renovation project planned for 1981). MAJOR LAND OWNERS: Koniag, City of Akhiok ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE Wood stoves have been provided to those individuals residing in HUD housing. Wood fuel supply is primarily from driftwood. TABLE 2-2 *One barrel equals 52.5 gallons in lieu of 55 gallons. LARSEN BAY INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES - Replace the word "village" to "regional". ANNUAL ENERGY BALANCE There is no mention of the status of bulk fuel storage. The storage facility is owned by KISI, Inc. In the event that the plant does not open, for reasons based on an economic nature, it is doubtful that Larsen Bay would receive fuel delivery. TABLE 2-5 MAJOR LAND OWNERS AND CONTROLLERS Koniag, State of Alaska, and U.S. Department of Interior. OLD HARBOR LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE - Koniag is owner and manager of Native lands. INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCERS Native land ownership and management is controlled by Koniag. The Kodiak Island Borough affects energy resource development. TABLE 2-7 MAJOR LAND OWNERS AND CONTROLLERS - Koniag, City of Old Harbor Mr. Eric P. Yould March 10, 1981 Page 4 OUZINKIE INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES: The Kodiak Island Borough will also affect certain local energy resource development. EXISTING ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITY The community has replaced the 150 KW unit with two (2) used 100 KW units. ENERGY REQUIREMENT FORECASTS AKHIOK DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC FORECAST Mention should be included of the possible scallop Muriculture Program. Op- portunity in the development of scallops will increase the economic base within five (5) years. END USE FORECAST Mention should be made concerning wood stove heating and cooking. LARSEN BAY No comment OLD HARBOR No comment OUZINKIE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC FORECAST Mention should be made of the fact that fifteen (15) HUD houses will be con- structedin 1981. NERGY RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS RESOURCES NOT CHARACTERIZED The Kodiak Island Borough has recently obtained funding from the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development to provide an energy conservation program for all schools, existing and planned, in the four (4) villages. Mr. Eric P. Yould March 10, 1981 Page 5 RESOURCE COST INFORMATION This paragraph does not take in consideration of the recent de-regulation of fuel prices. This, in itself, will cause a major re-calculation of energy costs. The diesel fuel cost per gallon is erroneous for the Kodiak Island Villages. Recent estimates show $2.00 per gallon (includes transportation cost increase). AKHIOK PREFERRED ENERGY RESOURCES Continuedcentral diesel-electric generation is not preferable due to recent cost escallation of fuel oil prices. Camp Bay should read as Kempff Bay. LARSEN BAY PREFERRED ENERGY RESOURCE Continued decentralized diesel-electric generation is not preferred due to high cost of fuel. Storage of bulk fuel is privately owned, therefore the community may wish to provide their own storage facility. OLD HARBOR No comment OUZINKIE PREFERRED ENERGY RESOURCES Continued central diesel-electric generation is not a preferable choice. High costs for fuel necessitates unpreferable energy resource. COMMUNITY MEETINGS INFORMATION AKHIOK AKHIOK RESIDENTS - Name change: Ephraim Agnof, Sr., to Ephraim Agnot, Sr. Miney Aznak to Miney Agnot Fuel oil by barrel cost is now assessed at $86.00 per barrel. Wood stoves have been provided to the HUD housing for cooking and heating. Mr. Eric P. Yould March 10, 1981 Page 6 LARSEN BAY Tom Peterson does not represent the Kodiak Island Housing Authority. Please strike that remark. OLD HARBOR No comment OUZINKIE No comment TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED No comment ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS The KANA believes that the projection of cost related to fossil fuel in these plans are incorrect. There is no consideration given to de-regulated fuel price and a 200% increase in transportation cost assessed this year in calculating these projections. The KANA requests that the plans be re-computed to illus- trate current costs to fossil fuels. The KANA wishes to thank your Authority in allowing it to participate in this review. If you should have any questions in regards to the comments offered, please do not hesitate in calling our offices. Sincerely, KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION OYE M. NORTON, PRESIDENT Z Zo homas Peterson Economic Development Planner TP:sl cc: Tom Azumbrado, KIHA Gary Smith, KIB Gene Sundberg, Koniag, Inc. RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Summary, Akhiok: Wind generation is considered in Plan C. Summary, Ouzinkie: Corrections made Introduction, Study Approach: Corrections made All of the communities except Ouzinkie currently have adequate fuel storage capabilities. Due to a failure of the support structure for the fuel storage tanks at Ouzinkie, one of the tanks is not available for storage, so the community storage capacity is less than the minimum delivery amount required by the barge distributor. However, with the rebuilding of the support structure and the remounting of the tank, village fuel storage capacity should be adequate. If fuel oil prices continue to rise faster than the rate of general inflation, oil distributors might be induced to deliver fuel in smaller quantities than they do now. Fuel oil storage can therefore be expected to be adequate in the near term. Community Conditions, Akhiok: Correction made Projected population increases for the Kodiak Island villages take into account the recent merger of Koniag, Inc., and five communities, the resulting opportunities for stockholder land ownership, and the resultant impact on population. For many communities, significant growth rates are projected in the near future, and some additional medium- to long-term growth is expected. For the purposes of this assessment, a barrel was assumed to be 55 gallons of fuel oil (State of Alaska Energy Office). Community Conditions, Larsen Bay: Corrections made Community Conditions, Old Harbor: Corrections made Community Conditions, Ouzinkie: Corrections made Energy Requirements Forecasts, Akhiok: Corrections made Energy Requirements Forecasts, Ouzinkie: Corrections made Energy Resource Descriptions, Resource Cost Information: Future price escalation for diesel fuel was assumed to be 3.5 percent per year greater than the rate of general infla- tion. This assumption is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Alaska Power Authority for performing reconnais- sance-level assessments of alternative energy resources. Diesel fuel costs were estimated to be $1.40 per gallon deliv- ered for the Kodiak Island communities and $1.20 per gallon delivered for Sand Point and King Cove (January 1981 prices). Delivered costs were based on cost information that was pro- vided by the State of Alaska Energy Office and obtained during public meetings. Ener Resource Descriptions, Akhiok: Based on life cycle economic considerations of alternative energy sources (includ- ing continued diesel generation and hydropower alternatives), diesel electric generation appears to be lower in cost than other forms of generation. Examination of Table 7-1 indicates that present value plan costs for diesel generation are less than those for hydropower or wind generation; thus, continued diesel generation is the least cost generation option avail- able to the community. Information contained in Table 7-1 is based on the calculations performed in Appendix E and the cost and performance information reported in Chapters 5 and 6. Energy Resource Descriptions, Larsen Bay: Continued diesel generation is only one of four preferred electric supply resource plans for Larsen Bay. The four resource plans are further evaluated in Chapter 7. Energy Resource Descriptions, Ouzinkie: Based on life cycle economic considerations of alternative energy resources (in- cluding continued diesel generation and hydropower alternatives), diesel electric generation appears to be lower in cost than other forms of generation. Examination of Table 7-5 indicates that present value plan costs for diesel generation are less than those of other generation alternatives; thus, continued diesel generation is the least cost option available to the community. Information contained in Table 7-5 is based on the calculations performed in Appendix E and the cost and performance information reported in Chapters 5 and 6. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 March 20, 1981 oe R co i Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Draft Report - Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Sand Point. Dear Mr. Yould, The Kodiak Island Borough Planning Department has reviewed the subject draft report and is prepared to comment on the studies performed in the villages that are within the Borough's jurisdiction. Those villages are: Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Ouzinkie. The Borough will catagorize its comments by the sections provided in the draft for the sake of convenience to those reviewing the Borough's comments. __ SUMMARY Akhiok : 1. The peak electrical requirements for the year 2000 will be higher than 80 kl! when the new school is built. 2. The new school will be powered by its own source, not supplied by the central electrical system. Larsen Bay: 1. Substantial growth seems remote as KISI seafoods only operates during the summer months and employs mainly transient workers. 2. Savings on the school generators for heat recovery should be sutstantially greater, especially applied over a period of time. Page 2 March 20, 1981 Quzinkie: 1. The new school was build with State and Borough finances and not through a HUD program. 2. Used 60KW generator at the new school site and not a "new 50KW generator". COMMUNITY PROFILES 1. .Qld Harbor: Economic base Section - what nearby facility do Old Harbor fishermen sell their catches to? TABLE E-11 Estimated total costs for the insulation of the older houses in all of the villages seem excessive, most of the housing is fairly new and would require less input than that reflected in this report. GENERAL COMMENTS. It appears from the data in this report that more could have been done to obtain more specific data concerning the energy consumption rates of the schools. The Kodiak Island Borough School District (KIBSD) has this data but this information is not present in this report. Very little is said of the Kodiak Island Borough at all, this is a mistake, as the Kodiak Island Borough could have provided CH2M-Hill with more specific data on all of the schools on the island, through fuel oil receipts, etc.. This report seems to stress the continued use of diesel generation for village electrical needs but says nothing of the storage facilities for the fuel. With the projected increases in energy consumption the need to expand present storage facilities also increases. Sincerely, J4MEBT William R. Hodgins Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Official WRH/ jmj RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH (Hodgins Letter) Summary, Akhiok se CH2M HILL electric requirements projections were devel- oped from available data and indicate that peak electric- ity requirements for the entire community, including the new school, will be approximately 80 kW in year 2000. This projection is based largely on an assumed electric requirements growth rate of only 1 percent per year. ae Correction made. Summary, Larsen Bay ie Substantial population growth will occur as a result of other factors such as the availability of new HUD-con- structed housing and the availability of a new, larger school. 2ie Based on a CH2M HILL life cycle cost assessment of diesel engine generation with waste heat recovery and diesel generation without waste heat recovery, generation without heat recovery appears to be the least cost option. In other words, the initial costs for purchasing and install- ing the recovery equipment are greater than the life cycle cost savings resulting from reduced heating oil consumption. Summary, Ouzinke i. Correction made. Zhe Correction made. Community Profiles, Old Harbor i. Old Harbor fishermen sell their catches to the Columbia Wards processing plant at Alitak Bay. Table E-11 Costs for insulating older housing stock in the communities are based on a fairly comprehensive insulation program for only the older housing stock. Included as part of the pro- posed program would be installation of R-30 batt ceiling insulation; use of rigid polystyrene or polyurethane board, covered with prefinished T-1-11 plywood, to wrap the outside of each house; painting of the inside walls with a water-vapor- resistant paint; insulation of the floor with R-11 batt insula- tion; sheathing of the floor joists with gypsum board; and installation of storm windows. General Comments The Kodiak Island Borough School District was not consulted during the performance of this study because, in general, community schools appeared to be of recent construction that incorporated adequate energy conservation measures. It appeared that few improvements could be made to significantly increase the energy efficiency of these structures. All of the communities except Ouzinkie currently have adequate fuel storage capabilities. Because of a failure of the support structure for the fuel storage tanks at Ouzinkie, one of the tanks is not available for fuel storage, so the community storage capacity is less than the minimum amount that the oil supplier will deliver. However, with the rebuilding of the support structure and the remounting of the tank, commu- nity fuel storage capacity should be adequate. If fuel oil prices continue to rise faster than the rate of general inflation, oil distributors might be induced to deliver fuel in smaller quanitities than they do now. Fuel oil storage can therefore be expected to be adequate for the near future. . KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Telephones 486-5736 - 486-5737 — Box 1246 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 March 20, 1981 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Draft Report - Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Sand Point. Dear Mr. Yould, The Kodiak Island Borough Planning Department has reviewed the subject draft report and is prepared to comment on the studies performed in the villages that are within the Borough's jursidiction. Those villages are: Akhiok, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Ouzinkie. The Borough will catagorize its comments by sections provided in the draft for the sake of convenience to those reviewing the Borough's comments. GENERAL COMMENTS. 1. The village summaries contiually state "... the diesel electric plant appears to be equivalent in cost hydropower..." I do not agree with that statement and do not believe they (CH2M) have adequate data to prove same. 2. Did they contact Gary Smith? 3. Lots of incorrect statements and poor grammar. 4. Page 1-4. Community Comments: What % of comments was obtained from each technique listed? 5. Page 2-1. Data were synthesized? How? Mr. Eric Yould Page 2 March 20, 1981 6. Page 2-4. Kodiak Area Native Association? 7. Additional "nit picky" digs are noted in red pencil. Sincerely, Wiel (dhllon William A. Walton Kodiak Island Borough Planning Director WAW/ jmj RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH (Walton Letter) Ls For some villages, diesel electric generation appears to be lower in cost than hydropower generation, based on life cycle economic considerations of alternative energy resources (including continued diesel generation and hydropower alternatives). Examination of Tables 7-1 through 7-6 indicates that for Akhiok, Ouzinkie, and Sand Point, the present value plan costs for continued diesel generation are less than those for hydropower generation; thus, continued diesel generation is consid- ered a lower cost generating option. Information con- tained in Tables 7-1 through 7-6 is based on the calcula- tions performed in Appendix E and the cost and performance information reported in Chapters 5 and 6. CH2M HILL worked with Gary Smith throughout the course of the study. Corrections made. This information is not available. Much of the information obtained during interviews, field investigations, and other discussions was either partially contradictory or incomplete. After all the available data had been gathered, patterns evident in the data were used to develop relationships that in turn could be used to approximate actual conditions in all six communities under study. In instances where data was contradictory or incomplete, the relationships were used to approximate actual conditions. Correction made. Corrections made. KONIAG, INC. HARBOR VIEW COMPLEX P.O. Box 746 (907) 486 - 4147 KODIAK, ALASKA $9615 RECEIVED 2214 1981 t March 13, 1981 LASka KOWER AUTHORITY Mr. Eric P.- Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue - Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Koniag, Inc. has reviewed the draft "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives", which was prepared by CH2 M. Hill. Our compliments to them for the rather lengthy, but yet compact, easy to read report. As we have no engineers on our staff who can understand the figures as presented, we do not wish to challenge their tables, appendix" nor their methods in arriving at their conclusions. We would, however, like to state that we, and especially the villagers, are sadly disappointed in the conclusions and recommendations as stated in table 7-1 of Chapter 7. The first realization as to the effect of the information as contained in the draft, were it to be in the final report, would be that the villages on Kodiak Island would have to continue to pay the high cost of fuel. We don't find any projection of future fuel costs so a comparison can be made to determine if indeed hydro would be feasible. That determination should be made before the final report is released. We also disagree with the projected population figures. We base that disagreement on the fact that through a recent merger of Koniag and five villages, it was mandated that each of those village stockholders are entitled to up to 10 acres of land in their general village area. There are approximately 1200 stockholders enrolled to those villages. Many do not live in those villages because there isn't room. Once the land is distributed, and knowing our people want their land, they will come back to those villages. Some consideration should be made for that eventuality. Eric P. Yould March 13, 1981 Page Two Through the new merger, other economic possibilities become somewhat enhanced. The Regional Corporation's long range plans are to expand its influences in the three areas of its present endeavors: that is, fisheries, oil and gas and timber, not especially in that order. As a result of involvement in those fields, the likelihood of village expansion exists, and that should also be taken into consideration. Finally, we would hope that, due to the present pace of fuel costs and the hardship it plays on all Alaskans, and certainly more so on those in the villages, that the State of Alaska would most certainly do all in their power to keep the hydro-electric alternative in mind and con- tinue to determine the feasibility of this resource. We would also urge for the furtherance of wind power generation feas- ibility as well. Thank you for giving Koniag the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, KONIAG, INC. ‘Gene Sundberg Vice President of Lands GS/rjm RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY KONIAG, INC. Future price escalation for diesel fuel was assumed to be 3.5 percent per year greater than the rate of general infla- tion. This assumption is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Alaska Power Authority for performing reconnais- sance-level assessments of alternative energy resources. Projected population increases for the Kodiak Island commun- ities take into account the recent merger of Koniag, Inc., and five communities, the resulting opportunities for stock- holder land ownership, and the resultant impact on population. For many communities, significant growth rates are projected in the near future, and some additional medium- to long-term growth is expected. “e RECEIVED MAR 12 1981 ALASKA FOWSS City of Ousimcie Box 45 Ouszinkie, Alaska 9OE4H¢| Mare O, 10 Alaska Power .Authority 535 - 4th Avenue Suite 41 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Sir, Recieved the copy of the Draft Reconnsissance Study of nergy Alternatives. It looks as thoushn an awful Lot of bina and wort: went into it, I have a few corrections for the Onvinitie part however. nthe "Summary" pare xix Line 4- The new school was State and Borourh funded nnd not 1.U.D. Line 6- The City is havine installed two used 190° ceonerators, not a 150 KW. Althoneh at the time the survey tenm was ere, it was our plan to install one used 150 1.v, » ALL baioueh the boot where it refers to the 150 KW, that was true out siould now he changed to two 100 KWs. Line 18- Katmai Creek is no where near Akhiok. ‘ne mouth of tne creek is just about & a mile east of the main part of Ouzinkie. Pare 1-5 "Characterizations of Existine Conditions" Line 4- Doesn't say what "other investirations" were used, it would be interesting to know. Page 2-4 The name "Kodiak Area Native Association" is put in Kodiak Native Area Association. Page 2-37 The Ouzinkie Native Corporation does control the land around Ouzinkie, but the Ouzinkie city council controls lands within .the city itself. Page 2-38 "Existing Generation Facility" Line 3— The "one new 150 KW unit" shonld hnve heen a "Used Army Surplus." And of covrse now should be ehanead to "hwo used 100 1 units. Page 2-29 "Major Employers" For teachers ond aides it has "5" ’ there are really seven (7) teachers and aides. Page 2-41 "Existing Generation" Arain, the 150 KW should be changed ia Page 2 to two 100 KWs. Page 4-62 It says that the Katmai Creek Hydropower is one 0° the "Preferred Energy Resources". In a study done hy Mnvirosprere Company, they told me that Katmai Creek could only run the City three months out of the year. Some more study has to be done on Katmai Creek it would appear. Page 4-71 "Resource Characterestics" Again, the new 150 KW unit should be changed to two 100 KW units. Page 4-72 Here it's stated that there would only bea a 92 IW Cane acity. That's not enough for the City, also tie penstock would run to near the mouth of Katmai Creex. It says that it is sized to use most of the water, there for it ‘nay interfore with e City water supply as we take water fr the cree: nsideradvle distance above the mouth of the creek. ‘Ihere does a $15,975.00 Maintenance and Operating cost come fro:n? Page 5-6 Again, the 150 KW should be chansed to lwo used 100 fy units. Page 7-? I believe that the Community preference is the un-named creek at the head of Neva Cove with Katmai Creek second. aparece A, "Community Meetings Information". he mailins list should be Refurio (pure) Delrado, instead of Herman Squartsoff, Public Meetings at Ouzinic. Lines 15 & 16— That whole sentance is wrone, ra 150 KY was sn old Army Surplus generator from World War 11 a piven bo the City by the B.I.A. but when we were foing to set it up we found that it would be just too expensive to get running and put on the line, so the City purchased the two used 100 KWs from Homer Electric with the City's own funds. Second Page, line 10- The existing generating capacity is 85 KV, not SO. Last or third page- the paragranh avout omployrne fisherman fish for Columbia Wards Tisheries to + some fish for other companies also. nt opportunities, he most part, but Well, these are wy comments on the Draft. Jo iav ne: have had to correct some of the things that seem so sini] and wiinportant but than that is why so many different Arencies ave Mie wroas infor- mation about different places. Again, I will say that I think there was a lot of work and time put into this study and with the few chanres vor will probably be able to come up with a better Energy Source for the communi IT sure hone so anyway. ) . Page 3 The section on Economic Evaluation of Alternative Electric Bnerry Supply Plans, I can not comment on as I just don't understand it. It's just a big bunch of humbers to ‘ne. I hope this is what you wanted and thank you for mivine me the opportunity to comment on the Draft. Sincerely, © ales Refuzio (Duce) Nelmado Mayor RDsia ec? Senator Bob Mulcahy Representative Fred Zharoff RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS BY THE CITY OF OUZINKIE Summary, line 4: Correction made Summary, line 6: Correction made Summary, line 18: Correction made Page 1-5, line 4: "Other investigations" consisted of discus- sions with fuel oil distributors, the Kodiak Island Borough, and the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA), and the gather- ing of available literature that could be used to character- ize conditions in the study communities. Page 2-4: Correction made Page 2-37: Correction made Page 2-38, line 3: Correction made Page 2-39 Correction made Page 2-41: Correction made Page 4-69: The Katmai Creek hydropower project configuration developed by CH2M HILL has a smaller installed capacity than those presented in previous studies. This smaller capacity will allow the project to operate for a greater percentage of the time each year. However, there will still be periods when, due to lack of water or low water in the creek, the project will not be operational. It is estimated that these periods will, in total, be significantly less than the 9 months per year reported by Envirosphere Company. Page 4-71: Correction made Page 4-72: The Katmai Creek hydropower project was sized at 78 kW installed capacity to allow operation of the project during a large part of each year. It is expected that this hydropower resource will have to be supplemented occasionally with backup diesel generation. The project configuration CH2M HILL proposes will allow for adequate village water supply in addition to power generation at Katmai Creek. The estimated operating and maintenance cost for a Katmai Creek hydropower project is equal to 3 percent of the estimated powerhouse cost for the project. Page 5-6: Correction made Page 7-2: Correction made Appendix A: Correction made Lines 15 and 16: Correction made Second page, line 10: Correction made Third page: Correction made U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service 7 St; x Anchorage, sicnia 99513 4 a WN 2g VY 4 March 2, 1981 [2 ounce § sD) Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director 1219 1981 Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 JAGR, MO amare ond wh ORITY, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the draft reports for the reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for the village of Tanana and for the villages of King Cove, Sand Point, Akhiok, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor. We have no comments to offer at this time. Si ely, {yl Rondid 1 \ rkis Supervisor, horage Field Office U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service 701 C St. Rox 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 March 4, 1981 lie eal Ving Man “ 199] Mr. Eric P. Yould ALASKA pe Executive Director ee Alaska Power Authority z 333 West 4th Ave. Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We will not be forwarding any comments to your office regarding the draft energy requirements for the villages of King Cove, Sand Point, Akhiok, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor. Sincerely, {4 Lt NWF Aly rris Supervisor) Anchorage Field Office | ca STAVE OF AINSI, (ors mmm, oer OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |. °" ” JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ¢ = (907) 465-3541 OR 465-3574 March 5, 1981 ; PVD iw Mr. Eric P. Yould rq 9 1981 Executive Director “ Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Ave. Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 /ER AUInORIN RASKA POW Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report for the reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for the villages of King Cove, Sand Point, Akhiok, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor. The Office of Coastal Management has no com- ment at this time, however we would like to receive a copy of the final report. Sincerely, (> J Tom| Lawson District Program Liaison al Thay: ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 01-A17LH ~ STATE Ol ALASKA / + Secs Anchorage, AK 99501 DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Pi Saldcaee, drecms oem SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE (907) 262-5210 P.O. Box 1064 5LH Wasilla, Alaska 99687 (907) 376-5038 March 9, 1981 Alaska Power Authority 333 W. 4th Avenue Suite 31 7 1 1981 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (AAR 1 19 pegelvee Wer AUTHORITY ATTN: Eric Yould ALRSKA POWER AY 7 Subject: Review/Draft Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives for 6 Alaskan Villages Dear Mr. Yould: On March 9, 1981, this office reviewed the subject document. We have no comments concerning the text except to remind the authors of the Alaska Coastal Management Policy Regulations and their significance when determining energy development alternatives. This office would be very interested in receiving a copy of the final report when it becomes available. Si neal y » >) Lan fi fe a im Rumfelt/ Sanitarian/ TR/wlh STATE OF ALASKA /-——— DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 333 RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE 89582 March 16, 1981 REC 21IVED (ei ai goa “ Log ALASKA POWER AUIMURILY Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: Re: Draft Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives - Akhiok, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Sand Point. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the above referenced study and offers no specific comments. We request, however, the opportunity to review any subsequent studies or reports regarding energy related projects for these areas. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ik lire Carl M. Xénagaw Regionat Supervisor Habitat Protection Section (907) 344-0541