Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeat Commercial Feasibility Analysis Vol 1 1983PEAT COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Prepared For: The State of Alaska, William Sheffield, Governor Department of Commerce and Economic Development Richard Lyon, Commissioner Division of Energy and Power Development 73 oa A /= \Nheelabrator-Frve Inc. Liberty Lane Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Volume I-DEPD-83-08-73-7-526-R5 ci ee ji VOLUME I OS: yo! Table of Contents Section Page i Project Summary A. Overview a B. Phase I, Evaluation of Alternative 4 Products and Processing Technologies Cc. Phase II, In-Depth Analysis of Preferred 10 Plant Concept D. Conclusions 14 EH. Project Team/Project Concept A. Project Team 23 Bi Methodology 25 Gs Project Concept 26 EET: Peat Harvesting Alternatives, Phase I Evaluation A. Objective and Methodology 31 By Susitna Peat Resources - Possibilities 32 and Restrictions Cc. The Climate and its Effect on Traditional 33 Peat Dry Harvesting De Traditional Peat Dry Harvesting Methods 34 and their Suitability for Use in Alaska E. Wet Extraction of Peat by Excavator and 35 Belt Conveyor or Vehicle Transport F. Excavation with the Aid of Pontoons and ah Pumping to the Factory (Clamshell Excavation) G. Harvesting by Hydraulic Dredging and 38 Slurry Pive Transport He Harvesting by Deep Milling and Slurry 40 Pipe Transport Ts Likely Peat Excavation and Transport 42 Methods a Cost Estimates for Traditional Dry 42 Harvesting Methods in Alaska K. Dry Harvesting Methods Evaluated 44 es Wet Harvesting Methods Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Section EV: VI. VIL. Processing Alternatives A. BD. AW > fy ‘oe. t Raw Material Assumption and Product Composition Capacity Capital Cost Operating Cost Dewatering Processes iting Alternatives Introduction Site 3 - Kenai, Alaska Site Reconnaissance and Resource Assessment Land Use and Ownership Product and Market Alternatives A. HW Ao. Electric Power Production from Peat - Preliminary Appraisal Economics of Power Generation Preliminary Instate Non-Utility Fuel Use Methanol Production Ammonia Production Export Markets and Likely Pricing of Products from Alaska Peat, Marketing and Product Pricing Assessment of Phase I Alternatives A. B. Methodologies for Selecting Preferred Alternatives Results of Phase I Evaluation Conclusion 59 61 64 64 65 105 109 116 126 135 137 146 156 156 157 167 168 174 VOLUME I List of Charts and Figures Section I. ans TSE: Project Summary Table I-1 Alaskan Peat Commercial Feasibility Analysis Phase I - Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Table I-2 Alaskan Peat Commercial Feasibility Analysis Phase II - Summary Figure I-1 Alaskan Peat Energy Alternatives Figure I-2 Alaskan Peat Refinery Kenai/Cohoe Site Figure I-2 Alaskan Peat Refinery Project Team/Project Concept Figure II-1 Project Concept Schematic Table II-1 Scope of Services (TASK) Breakdown Peat Harvesting Alternatives, Phase I Evaluation Table III-1 Temperature and Precipitation in Talkeetna, Alaska and in Jyvaskyla, Finland 18 19 20 21 22 29 30 51 Section its IV. (Continued) Table III-2 Preliminary Cost Estimate for 1,000,000 M3 Sod Peat Production and 2,000,000 _/3,200,000 Ton Raw Peat Production in the Susitna Valley Area (USD) Figure III-1 Typical Profile Figure III-2 Influence of Dry Matter Content on Transportation Costs Figure III-3 Dry Harvesting Methods Figure III-4 Wet Harvesting Methods Figure III-5 Peat Wet Harvesting Figure III-6 Typical Wet Harvesting Plot Plan Dredging System 15th Year Processing Alternatives Figure IV-1 Summary of Cost/MMBTU PF for Harvesting and Dewatering Proceses Figure IV-2 Sensitivity of Cost/MMBTU PF for Harvesting and Dewatering Proceses Figure IV-4 Mechanical Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer Low Volatile PDF, Case 1A-12,288 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity 180,853 T/Y 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 89 90 92 Section Ly. (Continued) Figure IV-5 Mechanical Press and Single Stage Fluid Bed Dryer, Case 1A HIgh Volatile PDF, 8152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity 272,507 T/Y (MF Basis) Figure IV-6 Mechanical Press and Two Stage Fluid Bed Dryer High Volatile PDF, Case 1A, 8,152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity 272,507 T/Y Figure IV-7 Mechanical Press and Single Stage Belt Conveyor Dryer Hihg Volatile PDF, Case 1A, 8152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Produce Capacity 272,507 T/Y (MF Basis) Figure IV-8A Processes for Wet Excavated Peat: J.P. Energy Wet Carbonization Figure IV-8B J.P. Energy Wet Carbonization and Two Stage Dryer High Wolatile PDF, Case I, 9061 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity, 245,200 T/Y (MF Basis) Figure IV-9 J.P. Energy Wet Carbonization and Two Stage Dryer-Coker High Volatile PDF/Low Volatile PDF Case 1, 9061 BTU/LB and 12,888 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity: 208,759 T/Y High Volatile PDF and 26936 T/Y Low Volatile PDF : Figure IV-10 Processes for Wet Excavated Peat: Carver- Greenfield Process Figure IV-11 Mechanical Press and Carver-Greenfield High Volatile PDF, Case IA, 8152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF Basis) Product Capacity 272,507 T/Y (MF Basis) Page 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Section IV. (Continued) Figure IV-12 Mechanical Press and Koppleman Low Volatile PDF, 12,329 BTU/LB (HHV,MF) Product Capacity: 180,251 T/Y (MF Basis) Figure IV-13 Processes for Wet Excavated Peat: Koppelman Process z Figure IV-14 Processes for Wet Excavated Peat Figure IV-15 — Processes for Wet Excavated Peat: Wet Carbonization by Partial Oxidation Heating Siting Alternatives Figure V-1 Cook Inlet Basin Peat Resource Map Figure V-2 Alaskan PDF Plant Peat Harvesting Figure V-3 Land Ownership Cook Inlet Regional Corporation Figure V-4 Preliminary Land Status Map Figure V-5 Seismic Risk Zones in Alaska Figure V-6 Sample sites for Beluga, Lone Creek, Theodore River, Shirleyville, West Forelands, and Susitna, 1982. Page 101 102 103 104 106 108 110 ta dD TAT Section Vv. Ni. VII. (Continued) Figure V-7 Sample sites for West Forelands and Kenai/ Kasilof, 1982 Figure V-8 Sample sites for Susitna, 1981 Table V-9 Ash content of Susitna samples, 1981 Table V-10 Summary of land status Product and Market Alternatives Table VI-1 Summary of Costs for 400 MW Power Plants in Alaska Figure VI-1 Effect of Fuel Cost on Cost of Conventional Power Figure VI-2 Effect of Fuel Cost on Cost of Power by Combined Cycle Figure VI-3 Breakeven Costs Between Gas or Oil and Coal or Wet Carbonized Peat Table V-2 A Summary of Heating Fuels Assessment of Phase I Alternatives Table VII-2 Siting Evaluation Table VII-3 Harvesting Costs - Phase I Page 118 119 127 131 139 142 143 144 149 L76 176 Section VII. (Continued) Table VII-4 Dewatering Process Costs - Phase I Table VII-5 Dewatering Process Evaluation Table VII-6 Alternatives Assessment Summary Figure VII-1 Proposed Plant Products 17% 178 179 180 — I. Project Summary A. Overview Peat deposits cover approximately 1% of the earths land area. Peat consists of partially de- composed vegetation and typically range from less than 1 foot depth to over 10 feet. Peat layers form where the rate of vegetation growth equals or exceeds the rate of decomposition. This condition typically occurs either in saturated areas such as shallow lakes or cold regions where frost retards decomposition. Peat is the pre-cursor of coal and chemically lies between biomass and coal. Peat typically contains over 90% water in its natural state. Before peat can be useful as a fuel, this water must be removed via some means. Densification of dried peat is also desirable if the peat is not to be used near the point of extraction. Wheelabrator-Frye Inc., in combination with a project team highly experienced in peat technologies, has conducted a peat commercial feasibility analysis for the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development. The primary purpose of this analysis was to identify and document the commercial prospects for alternative methods of peat utilization for energy production in South Central Alaska. Primary emphasis was placed upon technologies deemed suitable for near term commer- cialization. Technologies showing significant promise but needing additional development work were also identified and considered in lesser detail. Resource estimates prepared by the U. S. Depart- ment of Energy suggest that peat is the nation's second largest fossil energy resource with potential reserves exceeding proven reserves of crude oil, natural gas, or Western oil shale (Potential peat reserves are approximately equal to estimated recover- able oil or gas reserves). The U. S. ranks third behind Canada and the Soviet Union in terms of peat resources worldwide. It has been estimated that as much as half of the U. S. peat resource base is located in Alaska. Energy peat production in the Soviet Union, Ireland, and Finland is estimated at 80 million tons per year, 6 million tons per year, and 4 million tons per year, respectively. There is cur- rently no significant peat energy production in the U. S. or Canada. Alaska's peat reserves exceed the State's oil and gas resources. Successful establish- ment of a peat processing industry in Alaska can play a significant role in mitigating the economic impact of expected future declines in Alaskan oil and gas production. This study puts commercial alternatives for peat energy utilization in Alaska into perspective relative to other Alaskan energy sources. Our study was conducted in two phases. In Phase I, we analyzed alternative peat harvesting (extrac- tion) and processing technologies, final products producible, markets and expected product prices, as well as alternative plant sites and scales. Our contract was limited to an evaluation of peat usage in South Central Alaska. The methodology utilized, however, will permit extension of our results to other areas in Alaska with little additional effort. Phase I evaluated both traditional peat harvesting methods currently being practiced in the Soviet Union and Finland as well as newer harvesting methods based on the extraction of wet peat with subsequent water removal in a processing facility. A number of alternative dewatering processes were evaluated with respect to process economics and technological matur- ity. End-products considered included electricity, methanol, ammonia, high volatile fuel briquettes and low volatile granules (semi-coke) with by-product coking oil (competing with anthracite and residual oil, respectively). In Phase I several South Central Alaska potential plant sites were evaluated with respect to peat quantity, quality, and plant logis- tical considerations. In the second phase of the project, a more de- tailed analysis of the selected project concept show- ing the greatest commercial promise was evaluated in greater depth. A potential plant site was selected, and resource samples from the site were extracted and tested at laboratory scale for the proposed process. A preliminary assessment of permitability and environ- mental impact of the proposed project was made. Finally, an engineering cost estimate and economic analysis of the project were prepared. The study concludes that the proposed project concept can generate economic returns which would prove sufficient to attract investment capital if the technology and the end-product markets were sufficient- ly mature. The projected returns may not be suffi- cient to attract investment capital for a first-of- -a-kind plant utilizing new technology involving significant technical and market risk. Technical risks could be reduced by commercialization of the proposed technology in an initial possibly smaller project sited in a location experiencing higher fuel costs and lower construction costs than Alaska. Market risks can be mitigated via successful nego- tiations of long term contractual market commitments following sufficient customer testing. Successful technical development of co-products and by-products identified in the study but not included in the base economics could further enhance the economic prospects of Alaskan peat energy utilization projects. B. Phase I, Evaluation of Alternative Products and Processing Technologies Figure I-1 and Table I-1 illustrate the alterna- tive peat feedstock harvesting, transport, processing, and end-product markets considered during the course of of Phase I of the study. During this phase, three plant sites were considered; the Trapper Lake Region in the Susitna River Valley, the Beluga area near the existing power plant, and a Kenai peninsula site near the town of Kenai. Two plant scales were considered: 250,000 and 2,000,000 tons per year of processed, dehydrated peat. Any peat utilization method must start with peat extraction or harvesting. Worldwide, most peat is currently extracted by traditional methods relying on air drying of production fields which have been previous- ly ditched and drained. Under suitable weather condi- tions in the summer months, loose granular material and/or extruded. sods produced from field surface material can be collected and transported to storage areas. These traditional methods are highly weather dependent and result in an end-product typically containing 40-60% moisture content and requiring highly specialized combustion equipment for use. An economic. analysis of traditional harvesting of peat under climatic conditions in the Trapper Lake region resulted in a preliminary cost estimate of approximate- ly $3 per million BTU, F.0.B. bog site. The very low bulk density and high moisture content of this fuel would make transportation significant distances prohibi- tive. At this production price it was felt that peat in this form would have lower utility value and higher costs than Alaskan coal. Subsequent project efforts were, therefore, directed towards identification of a peat extraction and dewatering system which could yield more favorable economics and/or higher end- -product utility: and command a higher selling price. High volume extraction of wet peat appears to be 3-6 times less costly than dry harvesting of peat in Alaska. Wet extracted peat, however, typically con- tains 80-90% moisture content. A suitable dewatering system is, therefore, required to reduce this moisture to useful levels. J. P. Energy Oy of Helsinki, Fin- land was the team member with primary responsibility for evaluating alternative wet harvesting systems. Several contending systems were evaluated including suction dredging, clamshell excavators on floating pontoons, surface supported deep continuous cutting machinery. Winter harvesting of frozen peat from a firm frozen bog surface was also considered. In very large scale projects, suction dredging appeared to be the most economical method ranging from approximately 50¢ to $1 per million BTU or raw peat excavated and transported depending on scale. Dredg- ing requires relatively flat deposits such that little or no dike construction is necessary to provide the minimum four foot depths necessary for floating dredges. Suction dredging also dilutes peat from its in-situ 80-90% moisture content by as much as 50%. Satisfactory drainage properties of the dredged peat in the storage basin adjacent to the dewatering plant are, therefore, a necessary pre-condition to suction dredging and to a lesser extent to other harvesting methods involving pipeline transport of peat slurry. It was also felt that the suction dredging method would have difficulties in discriminating between the low ash and high ash peat strata typical in Alaskan peat, thereby resulting in a higher net ash content than might be achievable via other more easily con- trolled methods. Utilization of surface supported continuous deep cutting machinery was also evaluated. Peat cut by this method would be transported to the dewatering plant via conveyors or could be slurried at the bog side and pipelined. Bog surfaces would first have to be suitably drained to permit sufficient surface integrity to support this equipment. Extracted mate- rial would be continuously deposited on the transport conveyor. The transport conveyors would be periodi- cally relocated as the cutting face progressed. This system was rejected, however, because of anticipated difficulties in operating mechanical conveyors under Alaskan climatic conditions and because costs were significantly higher than other methods identified. A third peat excavation method evaluated was the use of conventional excavation machinery (drag lines and back hoes) combined with the use of truck trans- port. If bogs could be ditched and drained from their typical 90% moisture down to 80% moisture, then these methods could be competitive with suction dredging in small scale projects. The economics are highly depen- dent upon peat drainage properties, however. The cost of constructing haul roads is also highly site specific. The fourth method evaluated in detail was the utilization of a clamshell type excavator mounted on pontoons. This method also utilized pipeline trans- port, but unlike suction dredging, the solids content of the peat slurry could be controlled and maintained at a higher level, thus requiring little or no drain- age at the plant storage basin. During Phase I, four alternative dewatering processes were evaluated. A new continuous belt type press under development by Bell Engineering Works (division of Sulzer) was designed specifically for peat dewatering and claims to have achieved the high- est press performance on raw peat to date. Tests with Alaskan peat have not been conducted. Performance was nevertheless projected, based on other test results provided by Bell. A variety of thermal drying systems were investigated in conjunction with the Bell Press. A two-stage fluid bed dryer appeared to be the most cost effective system available. The Bell press combined with two-stage drying was approximately 5% less expensive in small scale than the system chosen for Phase II but is slightly more expensive in large scale plants than the system ultimately selected. A second system evaluated was the Carver- -Greenfield thermal evaporation system in conjunction with the Sulzer/Bell press. In this system, peat slurry was pressed to reduce initial moisture content and then mixed with distillate oil. All of the water content was then removed by passing an oil, water, peat slurry through a multiple effect evaporation system which removes the water but not the oil (which evaporates at a higher temperature). The oil is subsequently removed by steam stripping at their temperature and mechanical means. This systems economics were comparable to the system chosen in small scale applications and somewhat less expensive in large scale. It was not selected, however, because it has never been tried with peat even on a laboratory basis. It is used primarily to dewater distillery waste for the production of distillers-dried grains. Here, vegetable oil is utilized as the carrying oil. It is not necessary to remove all of the vegetable oil for reuse because it can be sold with the distillers- -dried grains for its animal feed value. The per- formance of the Carver-Greenfield process on peat is highly dependent upon successful removal of carrier oil via mechanical and steam stripping means. This would have to be satisfactorily demonstrated on peat (preferably Alaskan) before the system could be given serious consideration. The third system evaluated was the Koppelman process for high severity wet carbonization of peat. The process utilizes multiple small reactors and obtains relatively low process yields and resulted in the highest processing costs of those systems evaluat- ed at both small scale and large scale. The fourth process evaluated was the low severity wet carbonization process developed by J. P. Energy Oy. In this process, the raw peat slurry was thermally pre-treated to improve its dewatering properties. After pressing, a two stage dryer is utilized for final thermal evaporation of remaining water. The process showed comparable economics to the Carver- Greenfield system and the Bell/Sulzer press in small scale. In large scale it was superior to the Bell/ Sulzer press but somewhat more expensive than the Carver-Greenfield system. The J.P. Energy process was superior to other dewatering systems identified with respect to its technological maturity. Peat wet carbonization has been commercially practiced in Scotland and in the Soviet Union since the 1920's and 1930's. A modern continuous wet carbonization process was successfully piloted in Sweden in the 1960's and by J. P. Energy in Finland in the late 1970's. A small pilot unit was also built and _ successfully operated by the Institute of Gas Technology in Chicago during the past year. None of the peat harvesting and dewatering pro- cesses evaluated appeared capable of producing a product which could be cost competitive with Alaskan sub-bituminous coal (Beluga). Several peat derived products could, however, command a premium over Alaskan coal based on lower moisture content, lower ash content (dependent on peat feedstock properties), and final fuel form (briquettes or pellets). Utili- zation of peat for electric power generation (via either steam boiler cycle or gasification combined cycle), or the production of methanol or ammonia from peat would not be cost competitive with the use of Alaskan coal for these markets. Significant price increases of Alaskan natural gas are necessary before coal can compete with gas for power generation or methanol or ammonia production. A substantial market for low volatile solid space heating fuels was identified in Korea. The Koreans plan to import 3.5 million tons per year of anthracite fines for the production of space heating briquettes over the remainder of this decade and perhaps somewhat more during the next decade as domestic production of ‘anthracite continues to decline. Total Korean anthra- cite briquette demand exceeds 25 million tons per year. A demand of approximately 1 million tons per year was also identified in both Japan and the U. S. for a low volatile fuel. Table I-1 summarizes the options evaluated in Phase I of the study. The alternatives selected are identified. Normally the devolatilization of peat would add additional processing expense. With wet carbonized peat, however, the major portion of the volatiles removed are recoverable as a condensate oil useful as a substitute for residual fuel oil. We, therefore, decided to focus our phase II efforts on the produc- tion of low volatile (smokeless) peat fuel and by- product fuel oil. C. Phase II, In-depth Analysis of Preferred Plant Concept In Phase II, a more detailed analysis of a pre- ferred initial plant concept was developed and evalu- ated. This analysis included capital and operating cost estimates for the harvesting and process plants, additional market identification and market develop- ment efforts, resource and siting analysis, and an assessment of environmental impact and permitability of such a project. Because it had been previously identified that peats in south central Alaska were generally higher in ash content than peats found elsewhere in Alaska and the U. S., efforts towards identifying and testing cost effective peat de-ashing methods was also conducted. Our siting analysis indicated that the most cost effective peat processing facility should be located at a coastal Alaskan site. A major. portion of 10 Alaska's peat resources are in coastal locations. An inland location such as Trapper Lake, which was utili- zed as the basis of the Phase I analysis, would incur significant additional inland transportation and fuel handling charges. A coastal site would permit self- unloading shuttle barges to load deep draft colliers off-shore, thereby minimizing ocean transit costs. Additional significant cost savings could be realized by utilizing a float-on, float-off modular plant built in a Korean or Japanese shipyard, transported via one of several existing transport barges, and floated into place at a dredged coastal Alaskan location. This would substantially reduce the cost and construction time for such a plant. We, therefore, selected a coastal plant site located just south of the town of Kenai on the Kenai peninsula. A site map is included (Figure I-2). Aerial and ground surveys indicated that this site could support a plant of approximately one-half million tons. per year dry peat production. The Trapper Lake region appears capable of supporting a similar scale plant. The third area investigated in the Beluga area was disappointing with respect to both peat quantity and quality. We are concerned that the ash content of peat in the Kenai peninsula and elsewhere in south central Alaska may be too high to meet Korean and U. S. speci- fications for a low volatile anthracite or wood char- coal substitute. To produce a semi-coke with less than 30% ash, a peat feedstock of 12-15% ash must be utilized. Both the Trapper Lake site and the Kenai site indicated some samples which were within this range. The bulk of samples taken to date, however, indicate the average ash content to be 2-3 times that required. Several de-ashing methods were tested and evaluated in the study. One new experimental method del based on Freon agglomeration of wet carbonized peat did effect a three-fold reduction in ash content. This method, however, would likely add at least $10 per ton or 50¢ per million BTU to end-product costs. De-ashing of Alaskan peat will involve significant additional technical development and demonstration efforts before a commercial scale plant based upon it could be initiated. The plant concept proposed here- in, however, could be sited at other Alaskan coastal locations containing large quantities of lower ash material, such as the Dillingham area. At these more remote sites, the need for a pre-erected modular plant would be essential. Peat, unlike coal, is highly organic in nature. It is perhaps the most economical and abundant feed- stock for biological conversion processes. These processes will see vastly increased usage in the coming decades as quantum leaps are made in genetic engineering and biological conversion processes for the production of fuels, chemicals, and food. These processes will also require wet harvesting of peat, pipeline transport, and thermal pre-treatment of peat (peat cooking) to produce a fermentable liquor suit- able for biological conversion. The proposed project would demonstrate many of the steps necessary for biological conversion (Figure I-3). It would be advis- able for Alaska to explore research opportunities in the biological conversion of peat. Biological conver- sion is not dependent upon initial peat ash or mois- ture content. A greater portion of Alaskan peats would, therefore, be acceptable for these processes. Peat has unique properties for such processes not found in coal or other fossil fuels. 12 In Phase II, harvesting and transport costs were based upon a system utilizing two floating clamshell excavators followed by pipeline transport. While peat has been successfully excavated year round in several northern Ontario dredging projects, plant economics were based on a seven to eight month excavation sea- son. Excavation capacity exceeds process plant capac- ity to allow a portion of the harvested material to be stored for winter use at the process plant. Two harvesting pontoons would be utilized. Each would be connected to an 18 inch slurry pipeline transporting material back to the process plant. A 70 million cubic foot storage basin provides material for winter months. The process plant produces 500,000 dry tons per year of wet carbonized peat (high volatile) which is subsequently devolatilized to yield 262,000 tons per year of low volatile granular product (semi-coke) plus 100,700 tons per year of liquid fuel. It is assumed that the low volatile char granules would be sold to Korean, Japanese, and U. S. markets where they would displace anthracite and wood charcoal for space heat- ing and cooking briquettes. Low volatile fuels are preferred over coal and wood for these applications because of their "smokeless" qualities and slow steady burning properties. For our base economic analysis, we have assumed a F.O.B. plant rate price of $60 per ton for the char granules ($3.14 per million BTU) and by-product oil at $27 per barrel ($4.50 per million BTU). The char price estimate and demand were estab- lished after extensive discussions and a marketing trip to Korea and Japan. It should be noted that Korea currently buys imported anthracite on a _ spot basis. To obtain a long term contract, concessions may have to be extended. If the plant were modular abs) and built in a Korean shipyard, it might be easier to obtain a Korean fuel purchase contract. The plant utilizes two process trains. Devolatil- ization of wet carbonized peat produces some by- product gas which is utilized as plant fuel. Digester gas from the plant's anaerobic water treatment plant also is utilized as plant fuel. The most cost effective plant option involves 40% self-generated power and 60% purchased power. The plant's internal power generating capabilities could be increased at minor additional cost if a modular plant concept were utilized at an alternate site which did not have adequate purchased power available. The plant is self-sufficient with respect to fuels. By-product fuel oil is used as a start-up fuel and digester gas, carbonizing furnace gas, and slurry cooking reactor vent gas are the normal sources of plant fuel. The results of Phase II marketing and economic analysis efforts are summarized in Table I-2. Figure I-3 shows a schematic of the preferred plant configu- ration. D. Conclusions The economic analysis for the proposed plant under various financing assumptions resulted in a 10-20% after tax return on investor equity (13.1% under base case assumptions). While the production and recovery of products in addition to the char and oil were considered, these recovery technologies and markets are not well developed at this time, and, therefore, their effects were not included in the base economic analysis. The projected return on equity 14 would equal or exceed corporate investment hurtle rates for some companies involved in mature technol- ogies and mature markets. This project, however, involves technology which has been fully developed but not demonstrated at this scale. The project also involves products which are slightly different from the anthracite, wood charcoal, and residual oil they displace. Long term purchase contracts at the prices indicated above are probably not obtainable until sufficient test quantities of fuel have been produced and tested by target customers. Given the technologi- cal and market risks involved, our firm and others like it .would probably require in excess of a 30% return on investors' equity to proceed with such a plant on a first-of-a-kind basis. Construction and operation of a plant such as that proposed could prove more attractive in other parts of the world where peat resources contain less ash, climatic conditions are less severe, construction and operating labor costs are lower, and the plant products can command a higher market value (or less transportation costs). If technical and market risks were reduced, via construction of a prior project elsewhere, then the projected return of the proposed project should be acceptable to some investors. * should also be noted that technological improvements and/or the use of a pre-manufactured modular plant concept could improve the returns on this project. The base economics assumed 25% equity, 75% debt finan- cing at current commercial rates. Low interest financing or other economic incentives would also boost returns on the proposed project. It should be restated that the base case econo- mics assume that sufficient quantities of peat with L5 less than 15% ash proximate to a plant site are avail- able or alternatively that higher ash peat feedstock can be de-ashed at nominal cost. This condition can be satisfied for such a project at numerous locations in Alaska but possibly not within South Central Alaska. If de-ashing is required, it would reduce the return on investment by at least 5%. It would also require significant additional technical development and demonstration. The magnitude of Alaska's peat resource dictates that it should be utilized to maintain and improve Alaska's economy as oil and gas production decline in the future. Peat's unique properties should be exploit- ed to avoid direct competition with Alaskan coal resources on a BTU basis. Wet extraction of peat appears to offer both economic and environmental advantages under Alaskan conditions. Wet carboniza- tion of peat appears to be the most cost effective commercially developed dewatering method for wet harvested Alaskan peat. Additional research work on less developed alternative methods might also prove fruitful. Peat wet carbonization can also result in the generation of significant potentially recoverable by-products such as furfural, ketones and other resins and solvents. Yields and recovery of these by-products are highly feedstock specific. By-product recovery technologies, when developed, can produce significant additional plant revenues improving over- all economic prospects. Wet carbonized peat results in a substantially higher liquid fuel yield upon devolatilization than is achievable with untreated peat or coal (40% BTU yield as liquid fuel). The char (semi-coke) resulting from devolatilization is 16 superior to coal or wood for space heating and cooking (smokeless and even burning). Char produced from low ash or de-ashed peat can command a premium for acti- vated carbon or metallurgical coke use. Peat wet carbonization improves peat de-ashing properties. The most cost effective method for near term commercialization of Alaskan peat appears to be co- production of peat char granules and industrial fuel oil at a substantial scale plant located near tide- water utilizing peat feedstock averaging 12% ash or less. A modular plant design, Asian construction of modules, and governmental financing incentives could all improve economic prospects. Wet carbonization by-products recovery, the co-harvesting of horti- cultural peat, and/or solvent extraction of waxes from raw peat feed could further enhance economics if developed. In the future, biological conversion of peat cook liquor into liquid fuels, chemicals and food using newly developed genetic engineering techniques offers exciting promise if developed. Biological conversion should prove less sensitive to the high ash content unique to many Alaskan peats. Alaskan peat processing options are illustrated in Figure XIII-I. Technical progress and commercial experience in peat processing technology will continue to improve the economic prospects for commercialization of Alaskan peat. Alaska, with half of the nation's peat resources, should seriously consider further partici- pation with federal and private efforts to further develop peat technologies. 17 Table I-1 Alaskan Peat Commercial Feasibility Analysis Phase I - Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Sites 1. Susitna Basin (Trapper Lake) 2. Beluga (near power plant) *3. Kenai (between Kenai and Cohoe) End-Products BwWNE . 5. *6. Electric Power via Steam Boiler Electric Power via Gasification Combined Cycle Methanol 2,500 ton/day scale (Gasification/Synthesis) Ammonia 1,200 ton/day scale High Volatile Solid Fuel Briquettes Low Volatile Granules with Co-Product Fuel Oil Harvesting/Transport Systems Oe WNe Traditional Milled Peat with Truck Transport Suction Dredging with Pipeline Continuous Deep Cutting (Deep Milling) with Conveyor Mechanical Wet Excavation with Truck Transport Floating Mechanical (Clamshell) Excavator with Pipeline Transport Dewatering Technology High Performance Press (Bell/Sulzer) with Various Thermal Drying Alternatives High Performance Press with Multiple Effect Evaporation (Carver-Greenfield) High Severity Wet Carbonization (Koppelman) Partial Oxidation (Zimpro) Low Severity Wet Carbonization with Two-Stage Fluid Bed Drying Plant Scales/Concepts 250,000 ton/year High Volatile Fuel Output 2,000,000 ton/year High Volatile Fuel Output 262,000 ton/year Semi-Coke plus 100,700 ton/year Fuel Oil; On-Site Construction 262,000 ton/year Semi-Coke plus 100,700 ton/year Fuel Oil; Float- On/Float-Off Modular Construction *Alternative Selected 18 61 Table I-2 Alaska Peat Commercial Feasibility Analysis Phase II - Summary Target Market (s) Fuel Displaced Use Market Size Price (FOB Alaska) A. Semi-coke granule Korea Anthracite space heating 3.5 million TPY $60/ton briquettes U.S. (Lower 48) Wood charcoal 1 million TPY $60-80/ton briquettes Japan Anthracite space heating 1 million TPY $60/ton briquettes Alaska #2 oil/wood/ space heating 0.1 million TPY $60/ton coal B. Co-product fuel oil Alaska (Lower 48) #6 Residual oil utility and 3 million barrels $27/barrel industrial fuel per day oil Total Plant Costs Semi-coke Production Fuel Oil Production Annual Plant Revenues Full-Time Direct Employment Outside Purchased Power Return on Investor's Equity Economic Summary (in 1983 dollars) $180 million 262,000 tons/year @ $60/ton 100,700 tons/year (552,000 barrels/year) @ $27/barrel $30 million/year 115 persons 8 megawatts 10-20% (depending on financing assumptions) 0@ WWD HLLA MOLLWAYDEP-OF ~SIIMNICUdO? F SIMGTI-AG ‘FIWOS LNWid *SDLASI9OT/ALIS ‘SaalBvavd 153fcad ABHLO amos MOILVITIISYS Yo Wid DTAIDVS 1SvO2 15am °S ‘| TaNs 4110S ALITILA Simnacwd a3aAluad Ssvd ~3 40 13nd AII0S wo 13M4 dI10S LUOdxX3 ZLVLSNL $13A4 alles TWwans & ALITILN-NON wo/an SiandzsEns ! j j TONVHSSK | - : | sustz0e || 72tnome | | SSNTEEA | SZQRGOKECD 9 | | szDncoue-xe | labret: bien \ | | | nozayozaise | | Norzyorszsszc xcruasas | | | zzcuaags ce MO HoTH | | | eo l NOIZYZINOGUYD Lam ONIAUC TWNIG ONTAUC 9 ONISSSYd SONYWYOTESd HOIH (res) | | N¥W1gddOX 1 3sn sosEIC | IV3Gd GSLSZAUWH AUC I¥3d GZLSSAUWH LAM YOd SSIDONd " :5NTSSsooud GNanOasens XAYG-NOSNZMS | otaranazuo-ezauvo : ONISSZéd ONTESS | Tid TXOINYHOZK | (sarios «8 °8°T) Awanls 3SNGq aadind (3221S) 2LOWsY 2T3e YOAZANCD XINO ONILSZAUYH Lam SLUYD CzLlwoddNs Jovsens ONILSZAUYH 2am YO AUC tTEOSNVEL LNVYId SS3D08d OL GLIS LSSAUVE AGUNIS DIINWSGAH {SCITOS && °@8°T) SLATIA ESLLND FOvd Ting MOLYAYDXS OTINVUGAH | | SSAg¥E YSINIM re | gSncn> NEzOeE | | oe tree Sc | I! | SQOKLEi NOTLYAYONE as 35cz78d SIINVeCAR SGOHRLSK ONTAYC ATIIS ?SNOiddO ONTLSEAYE —— SS SZATIVNGZITY ADUSENS IVad NVESYTY T-1 soos ie Alaskan Peat Refinery Kenai/ Cohoe Site | | | | | | Z-1I eansty COAL CREEK ; sorodtna/ -\P _ apport (UD eZ ONO WHE FS Alaskan Peat Refinery LEGEND: EXCAVATOR MACERATOR TRANSPORT PUMP TRANSPORT PIPE-LINES STORAGE BASIN HEAT EXCHANGERS PREHEATING TOWERS REACTORS STRIPPER FILTER PRESSES GRANULATOR REGS 16. 18, 19. 20 21 DRYER DEVOLATILIZER PRODUCT COOLER SOLID PRODUCT STOCPILE LIQUID FUEL CONDENSER LIQUID FUEL COOLER LIQUID FUEL STORAGE TANK STEAM GENERATOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT TANK SCRUBBER TURBOGENERATOR Z-I eansty II. Project Team/Project Concept A. Project Team The requested work scope was extremely broad relative to the proposed budget. Fortunately, however, we were successful in structuring a project team which had performed extensive work in the evaluation of alternative peat processing and end use technologies. A major portion of this prior work was privately funded and would not otherwise be available to the Division of Energy and Power Development through alternative sources. This project team, therefore, allowed us to apply the results of past work to conditions specific to Alaska rather than attempt to regenerate this work starting at ground zero. The specific qualifications of the project team members deserve mention. Wheelabrator-Frye Inc. has an established record as a developer of major-scale alternative energy and synthetic fuel technologies. It is one of the few firms that has extended its own resources to evaluating alternative peat technologies, acquiring licenses for promising peat processes, and structuring North American peat projects. Kellogg Rust Synfuels, Inc. (KRSI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of WFI, is our nation's third largest engineering and construction resource. The Rust Engineering Company's leadership position in the closely related field of pulp and paper technologies and the prior peat process assessment work conducted for WFI provides’ strong credentials. The M.W. Kellogg Company has conducted prior work in peat harvesting and gasification for the U.S. Department of Energy and Gas Research Institute. Their world leadership position in ammonia and methanol 23 production and their broad inter-disciplinary engineer- ing skills are well recognized. J.P. Energy Oy is the energy development arm of Jaakko Poyry Engineering of Helsinki, Finland--an engineering firm recognized worldwide in pulp and paper and other chemical process technologies. The pulping, slurry handling, mechanical dewatering, and thermal drying technologies of pulp and paper production are the progenitors of many processes being proposed for peat processing. J.P. Energy Oy has spent several million dollars since 1974 on the development of peat harvesting and dewatering technology. They have recently completed three regional peat utilization feasibility studies including one for LKAB in northern Sweden under climatic conditions approximating those of south central Alaska. Northern Technical Services (NORTEC) brings to the project team a unique understanding of the Alaskan peat resource and local hydrological and climatic conditions affecting its use. Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) has probably conducted more peat related research and development activity than any other company worldwide. Their experience includes peat harvesting, dewatering, gasification, and liquefaction. Diamond Shamrock Corporation is currently develop- ing a coal lease site in Beluga which is heavily overburdened with peat. A possible co-extraction of both of these resources suggest exciting economies which could improve peat's competitive position. 24 Cook Inlet Region, Inc. owns extensive peat-covered land holdings, especially in Beluga and Kenai and has promised cooperation with the project team with respect to site identification. B. Methodology Several aspects of the project should be high- lighted. In the pre-technology selection phase, WFI identified those technologies which represent the range of alternatives which might be applicable to the Alaskan resource. We established an economic base line for traditional harvesting methods involving air drying and investigated several promising wet excavation methods including hydraulic dredging and deep milling. For the dehydration of wet peat, we evaluated mechan- ical pressing followed by thermal drying as well as more advanced pressing and drying concepts recently proposed. WFI also investigated low severity and high severity methods of thermally pre-conditioning peat (wet carbonization) to improve subsequent mechanical dewatering. A variety of end use technologies includ- ing densified solid fuel, turbine gas production, and gas synthesis products (i.e. ammonia or methanol) were addressed. The prior experience of the project team in these alternative technologies allowed WFI to apply major effort to a more detailed analysis of the most promising project scenario. In both the pre- and post-technology selection phase, special emphasis was placed on the identi- fication of co-products and by-products which can enhance resource utilization and improve overall project economics (Reference Section XIII). The co-harvesting of high quality sphagnum moss from upper peat layers for horticultural markets is discussed. The 25 utilization of high nutrient content water treatment sludges from peat processing plants might also provide products for the horticultural market (domestic and export). Thermal processing of peat can yield signifi- cant quantities of furfural, acetone, acidic acid, and other chemicals which can substantially enhance produc- tion economics. Emphasis was also placed on the removal of ash and mineral matter from organic peat to improve solid fuel properties. South central Alaskan peats are unusually high in ash content. Uses of higher ash peats were also identified. The longer term prospects for commercializing various peat technologies in Alaska is encouraging. Rather than compete directly with Alaskan steam coal, we attempted to identify products of higher value added utilizing peat's unique properties. We applied signif- icant work effort in estimating the cost and projected economics of the preferred commercialization plan. Without a reliable estimate, product slates cannot be priced and the attractiveness of the project to poten- tial investors cannot be assessed. Cc. Project Concept Worldwide, peat has tended to be utilized in locations where oil, gas, coal and other alternatives are either unavailable or more expensive than the cost of producing peat by conventional field drying tech- niques. Alaskan climatic conditions raise questions as to the economic viability of the conventional field drying methods of peat production. The State's low population density, limited industrial base, and limited structure in many regions dictate a focus on export markets as well as instate markets for major fuel development projects. The State's large 26 undeveloped hydroelectric power’ potential, large undeveloped coal reserves, and low priced natural gas will place further limits on the instate use of peat as an energy resource. Alaska's large hydroelectric potential, abundant coal reserves, and low priced natural gas place special challenges on the economic utilization of peat. WFI, therefore, placed special technical and market emphasis on those factors which could improve the the attrac- tiveness of peat versus alternatives including: A. Beneficiation of peat (i.e. low ash, high BTU content, high density, low moisture) to improve burn- ing, transport, and storage properties. Bs Production and recovery of co-products and by-products (i.e. furfural, acetone, methanol, acidic acid, organic nutrients). Cc. Downstream processing of dehydrated peat to produce products with higher market value. B. Improving the reclaimed value of land (i.e. for agricultural and silvacultural use). E. Utilizing the high volatile, high chemical reactivity properties of peat to outperform coal in gasification or direct combustion (i.e. in oil-fired boilers) or blending processed peat with coal to improve chemical or physical properties (i.e. peat binder for coal fines briquetting). Ee Utilizing special siting and/or logistical situations to improve initial project economics such as co-excavation of peat, overburden of coal deposits (and 27 use of common transport facilities) or backhauling containerized freight of processed peat fuel to the West Coast or returning barges and freighters. In summary, Wheelabrator-Frye evaluated, on a preliminary basis, alternative harvesting and process- ing technologies and their resultant product slates, assessed the approximate production costs and market values of alternative product slates and a market mix that optimized the economic prospects for an initial and subsequent commercial scale Alaskan peat uti- lization project. It is also the objective of the study to identify environmental, institutional and socioeconomic impacts and factors which might restrict implementation of the project scenario(s) which appear optimal. Figure II-I is a schematic diagram of the project concept as it was executed. 28 Identify Alternative nologies, Plant Scales, ond Product Slates Including By products and Coproducts Identify Alternative Instate and Export Markets and Market Values for Alternative Product Slates x4 Make Meliminary Esti of Production and Db ribution Costs of Alternative Technologies Ident (fy Preliminary Siting Allernative and Resource Properties Ficure LI-1 project CONCEPT SCHEMATIC Evaluate and Compare Alternative Technologies, Products, Markets, and Sites, and Select Optimum Comner- cialization Plans For Ex- ported Instate Use as Solid Fuel and Gas 4 Contract Tasks Prepare More Refined Economic Analysis of Most Promising Commercialization Plans Identify Environmental Issues and Assess Permitability of Proposed Plans Develop, Assess, and Initiate Implementation of Marketing Strategy Develop Commercialization Plan Including Engineering, Final Site Selection & Procurement, Engineering, Financing, and Construction of Optimum Plan Post Contract laplement & Commercidlize Plan oe 10. Wn. 12. 13. 14. 16. Tasks (Per RFP) Market Identification 6 Analysis Site Reconnaissance & Resource Assessment, Relate Peat to Battelle Rail Belt Fnergy Study. Prepare and Evaluate Alternative Technology Profiles per REP II.B.4. Assess Alternatives via Systematic Evaluation Procedure. Develop Best Case Implementation Plans. itemize Costs and Evaluate Economics of Best Case Plans. Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental Costs & Benefits. In-depth Cost Analysis of “Preferred” Plan. Locument Public Preference With Peat Work Group. Develop & Implement Marketing Strategy. Scope and Estimate of Pre-construction & Construction Phase of Best Plan. Work and Permitting Schedule for “preferred” Project. Present Results of 1-13 in Draft Report. Prepare 100 Copies of Final Report With Oraft Report Comments. ‘ Prepare & Present Oral & Visual Presentation. b. ---le __ SCOPE OF SERVICES (TASK) BREAKNOWN Major Subtasks Preliminary Instate Utility Use. Preliminary Instate Non-Utility Use. Preliminary Solid Fuel Export. Preliminary Gasification Product Export. Consult With Peat Development Work Group in Anchorage and Perform Site Reconnaissance. Develop Siting Criteria With Team. Select Primary & Secondary Site. Work to Develop Leasing Regulations. Preliminary Site Selection Review & Site Criteria Development. Included in (l)a. & b. Above. Harvesting Profiles (per Figure 2). Processing Profiles (per Figure 2). Processing Profiles Support. Ash Removal Processing (Preliminary). Develop Evaluation Procedure. Apply Procedure to Profiles. Solid Fuel Export and Instate Plan. Gasification Export and Instate Plan. Develop Itemized Costs. Evaluate Plan Economics. Evaluate Environmental Impact. Present Options to Peat Development dork Group. Harvesting Cost Estimate. Processing Cost Estimate. Final De-ashing Test Analysis. Water Treatment Specification. Water Treatment Cost Estimate. Economic Analysis. Reclamation Analysis. Environmental Analysis. Permitability Assessment. Socioeconomic Impact of Best Plan. Develop Market Plan. Seek Customer Letters of Intent. Marketing Support (including end use, logistics, and by-products). Scope Pre-construction Tasks. Scope Construction 6 Start-up Tasks. Work Schedule [Included in (12)a. & b. Above}. Permitting Schedule and Assessment. Technical Report. Economic & Marketing Report. Proposal Team Nember (5) 1GT NORTEC KRSL KRSI NORTEC/DS/CIR NORTEC NORTLE/DS/CIR NORTEC/DS/CTR KRST IGT/NORTEC JPE KRST ier 16t WFL Wrl Wl WI (PERFORMED IN #4 ABOVE) WrI NORTEC NORTEC JPE/KESE/NORTEC KRSI/JVE ct JPE KRSI Wri HMORTEC NORTEC NORTEC NORTEC WI WRI ERS] KRST KRSL KRSI NORTE KRSL WT WEL III. Peat Harvesting Alternatives, Phase I Evaluation As Objective and Methodology Phase I of the study is intended to describe the possibilities for harvesting and transporting peat and to determine the most likely ways of exploiting the peat resources taking into account the limitations set by the peat reserves in Alaska and the local climate. The report also strives to provide a firm basis for the second phase of the study, i.e. determining the peat harvesting system and the location and size of the pro- posed peat derived fuel (PDF) factory. More peat survey information exists for peat in the Susitna Valley than elsewhere in Alaska. We, therefore, elected to base our Phase I analysis on a “typical site" in this region. Reliable data on the climate in the Susitna Valley region for the past 30 years have been available for the study. The quality of the peat re- sources has been determined very accurately in the "Peat Resource Inventory of South-Central Alaska, Data Report". As a part of the same report the peat resources were localized on maps. Mr. Matti Luukkonen, peat harvesting specialist of J.P. Energy Oy, Helsinki, Finland, discussed the climate and peat resources data with Robert Huck and Bill Kramer in Anchorage on 14th to 17th June 1982. He also made a field trip and aerial recognizance to Susitna Valley to get a view of the peat resources. The data, observations, and conclusions regarding Alaska put forward in this Phase I report are based exclu- sively on the background information on Susitna Valley. an However, this should not reduce the value of the report, because in Susitna Valley the conditions for peat harvest- ing and processing are probably better than anywhere else. B. Susitna Peat Resources - Possibilities and Restrictions The peat resources in Susitna Valley have been esti- mated at about 70,000 hectares. This should mainly be regarded as a potential figure. The technically and economically harvestable resources are probably about 15,000 hectares. The limited thickness of the peat layer (less than 1.5 m) and the small area of uniform peat deposits (less than 30 hectares) are the main factors restricting peat production. The ash content of the peat has not been regarded as a limiting factor in the Susitna Valley case, because separating the ash from the peat is part of this study. In Finland the maximum allowable ash content of peat fuel is 15%, the corresponding figure being 20% in Soviet Union. The average thickness of the peat layer that techni- cally and economically can be harvested is 2.4 m. Howev- er, all of this is not suitable for use as fuel if tradi- tional harvesting methods are used. The surface layer is young horticultural quality peat with a thickness of 0.5 to 1.0 m. Below this layer there is a more decomposed fuel peat layer with an average thickness of 0.6 m. The next layer consist of volcanic ash with a thickness of 0.2 m. The rest, down to the mineral soil, is fuel peat. (Figure III-1). Because of the stoniness and unevenness of the ground a 0.2 to 0.3 m peat layers would have to be left at the bottom, so the fuel peat yield would be 12,000 tons (metric) wet peat per hectare on the average. 32 About 12.3 tons of wet raw peat with a dry solids content of 10% is needed to make one ton of PDF fuel. A PDF factory with an annual capacity of 220,000 tons* consumes 2,700,000 tons of wet raw peat a year, and assum- ing that the annual operating time is 7,500 hours the raw peat consumption is 359 tons an hour. This would corre- spond to 225 hectares of peat bog a year, making 6,750 hectares during a period of 30 years. If the surface layers of the peat bog were used as raw material for PDF production the raw peat yield would be about 19,500 tons of wet peat per hectare. However, because of the low dry solids content of the surface layer the raw peat consump- tion would be 14.5 tons of wet peat per ton of PDF. The area of peat bog to be harvested each year would decrease to 165 hectares, making 4,950 hectares during 30 years. Only one place in Susitna Valley with sufficient peat resources to support 220,000-ton PDF factory has been identified. In-the area north of Trapper Lake, there is a peat bog of 10,000 hectares with sufficiently deep and uniform peat layers (map annex 1, AOF 150 C, AOF 150 F and AOF 150 G). North of Trapper Lake (map leafs AOF 150 A and AOF 150 B) there are 2,000 hectares of suitable peat bogs, but the peat deposits are much smaller than in the above mentioned area. Cc. The Climate and its Effect on Traditional Peat Dry Harvesting The climatological data for the Trapper Lake area have been recorded at the Talkeetna meteorological sta- tion, which is about 20 km north of the potential peat harvesting areas. The mean annual temperature is 0.8° c and the rainfall 700 mm. From the mid-October to *metric ton 33 mid-April, i.e. 6 months, the temperature is below 07 cs Temperatures and rainfalls by month at Talkeetna and corresponding data for average Finnish peat harvesting conditions (at Jyvaskyla in central Finland) are listed in Table III-1. Peat harvesting throughout the year is hampered by the long cold season and the abundant rainfall from July to September. The rainfall in the summer months accounts for about 47% of the total annual rainfall. A third obstacle to peat harvesting and transport are the local snow storms. Otherwise, the amount of snow would not be a problem. D. Traditional Peat Dry Harvesting Methods and their Suitability for Use in Alaska There are some peat harvesting sites in Finland with roughly the same climate as in Susitna Valley. The prof- itability of these harvesting operations is, however, uncertain, because the annual production is very low. In milled production there are 7-8 harvests per summer and in sod peat production one harvest per summer. With both methods the energy yield is about the same, or about 250 MWh/hectare. Sod peat production is not possible in the Susitna Valley area until the upper layer of fibrous horticultural peat has been removed. This can only be done by starting large scale production and processing of horticultural peat. The surface layer cannot be economically removed in any other way. Horticultural peat could be produced as sods with the peat cutting machine cutting the peat in a 0.5 m layer into sods for drying in the field. The sods would dry in 34 1.5 to 2.5 years. In this way, the drying effect of cold weather and the dry periods in summer would be utilized for drying. The peat would have to be processed into compressed horticultural peat bags and sheets. If the production and processing of horticultural peat covered the peat production preparation costs the production of milled or sod peat might be profitable for local energy generation, for example to supply heat energy and electricity to Anchorage. E. Wet Extraction of Peat by Excavator and Belt Conveyor or Vehicle Transport In the first stage, prior to the harvesting work, the peat bog would have to be effectively drained. A suitable spacing between drainage ditches would be 15 to 20 m. The peat bogs in the Trapper Lake do not carry machines very well and are heavily water-logged, so the drainage work would have to be started in winter when the peat bog is frozen. In this way, ditches could be opened up by a tractor-towed milling machine. The ditches would later be deepened by an excavator. Drainage might raise the dry solids content from 10% to as much as 20%, which would reduce the peat transport costs for example over a 10 km distance from USD 22 per ton PDF to USD 11 per ton PDF (Figure III-2). The influence of the dry solids content on the trans- port costs for raw peat is illustrated in Figure III-2. Apart from drainage, no other preparatory work would be required, because the peat bogs are mostly free from trees. The horticultural peat in the surface layer of the 35 peat bog would have to be mixed with the fuel peat or harvested for sale as horticultural peat. The peat would be harvested with a 18-25 ton excava- tor equipped with 1,200-1,500 mm crawler bands. The estimated capacity would be 120-150 tons an hour. The excavator operating at the bottom of the peat bog would excavate and load the peat either onto conveyor or a vehicle. A conveyor is not a very likely alternative because its capital costs are very high, i.e. about one million dollars per kilometer and it cannot be used at very low temperature. As a result the conveyors could only be used in the summertime for intermediate transport over 1 to 10 km distances. For vehicle transport a road network would have to be built on the harvesting areas. In the Trapper Lake area and roads could be built at the bottom of the peat bogs because the soil has good load carrying capacity and drainage by ditches can be arranged efficiently. In the wintertime, the frozen bottom of the peat bog, which grows as harvesting proceeds, could be used for transport. Suitable vehicles for peat transport are dumpers or special trucks equipped with a heating system for the loading platform. Harvesting based on excavation and vehicle transport would have the following advantages: 36 - it would be suitable both to winter and summer con- ditions. - it can be used to exploit multiple scattered, compar- atively small peat deposits. - no special equipment is needed, so the yields and costs can be estimated reliably. The main disadvantages of the system would be the large number of trucks needed (12-15 units for continuous 3-shift work), the dependence of costs on peat drainage properties, and the fact that stones and mineral soil would follow the peat into the process. This method would, however, be quite suitable for the shallow and scattered peat resources and the varying climate in the Susitna area. This way of harvesting and transportation is not very sensitive to the scale of operation or, in other words, little cost saving per MMBTU is obtained in the large size plant over the smaller one. The cost of harvesting and transportation is about $2.10 per MMBTU of PDF when peat with 90% moisture content is handled and $1.05 per MMBTU of PDF when peat with 80% moisture content is handled (Table II). F. Excavation with the Aid of Pontoons and Pumping to the Factory (Clamshell Excavation This method is based on the fact that a pond of water accumulates in the place where peat has been excavated, unless the water is discharged, i.e. through ditches. The pond can be used as a working area if the machines are equipped with pontoons. The raw peat would be harvested with an excavator operating on a pontoon. The excavator would load the peat 3/ to a pumping station built on another pontoon. From the pumping station the peat slurry would be piped to the factory. The excavator would have a capacity of 100-200 tons/h (of wet peat @ 10% solids). This method has been extensively used for dredging navigation channels. For raw peat excavator, machinery is now being developed. The method requires relatively flat peat bogs of greater than 5 foot depth. The advantages of this method are: - the peat bog does not have to be drained. - no road network has to be built in the area. - excess water does not have to be removed from the peat bog, so the method is particularly suitable for peat bogs at the same elevation as or lower than rivers or the sea. The main disadvantages are: - it cannot be used during heavy frozen winter months. - it requires level uniform peat bogs of adequate depth. - the peat to be pipeline transported has to be screened and pulverized. G. Harvesting by Hydraulic Dredging and Slurry Pipe Transport Hydraulic dredging combined with slurry pipe trans- port offers the potential lowest cost for large scale peat harvesting. Basically, hydraulic harvesting is done by diking an area of the peat bog creating a small lake that will float 38 a barge equipped with a hydraulic suction dredge and a special suction cutter that is capable of cutting tree stumps and branches that may be around in the bog. In this evaluation, it is assumed that the peat is dredged and transported as an 8 wt% solids slurry concen- tration. The peat dredged from the bog is macerated before it goes to booster pumps located on shore and is pumped through a pipeline up to 10 miles to the dewatering plant. The smaller plant, Case I uses a 16-inch barge mounted suction dredge pumping through a 16-inch pipeline to the dewatering plant with a 12-inch line for the return water. The big plant, Case II, has two barges each with a 24-inch mounted suction dredge. The slurry pipe line is 48 inches with a 42-inch water return line. Each of the dewatering processes evaluated require different amounts of raw peat depending on the overall plant efficiency. The capital and operating cost of the harvesting systems have been factored accordingly. (Table II). Cost ranges from $1.10 - 1.20 per MMBTU of PDF for the small plant, Case I, to $0.51-0.57 per MMBTU of PDF for the big plant. It has been assumed that the hydraulic harvesting takes place during only nine months of the year. Storage of the raw peat at the dewatering plant site is, there- fore, required. Hydraulic harvesting delivers the raw peat at the dewatering plant site at a maximum concentration of 8-10%wt. If peat is dredged and transported at less than 10% solids, it is assumed that it drains to 10% at the plant storage pile. 39 Harvesting by hydraulic dredging is best suited for deep contiguous deposits. The peat deposits being con- sidered for this project, however, are relatively shallow and scattered. They also contain a 3-5 inch layer of ash in the middle layer of the deposits which should not be mixed with the peat that is harvested. If hydraulic harvesting is used, a method for separation of the ash from the peat before it goes to the process must be found. Peat has not been harvested by this method in any large scale commercial fuel operation. Peat has, however, been dredged for overburden removal from nickel and phosphate deposits in both the US and Canada. A. Harvesting by Deep Milling and Slurry Pipe Transport One of the methods of dry harvesting peat that is considered is “deep milling." In this system, a peat cutting device capable of digging and breaking up peat sod to a depth up to 16 inches is used. Machines capable of cutting 1 foot depth by 60 ft width are under development. Large level bog areas are required for operation of such machines. A more commonly used machine for less uniform bog surface excavates and grinds up to 8-inch depth over a width of 16 ft. Machinery is being designed for digging and disintegrating the peat on an angle to a depth of 78 inches in one pass. Use of the deep milling technique requires ditching and draining the bog over a year or two period prior to excavation. Following excavation by the deep miller a conveyor either loads peat on to trucks or rail cars for overland haul or carries the milled peat to a pulping and pumping 40 station for hydraulic transport to the peat processing facility: Currently available deep millers have capacities up to 500 tons per hour. Deep Milling: oO provides effective pretreatment of peat for transport and processing, o crushes wood in the peat and homogenizes the layer being excavated, o minimizes stones and mineral soil in the harvested peat, and o the milling machines have high unit capacity. Disadvantages of deep milling are: o a large operating area is required, work is interrupted in very cold weather and during rains, and o deep milling is not suitable for fragmented and shallow peat bogs and is, therefore, not considered in this first phase of the study. An estimate of an installation for deep milling and moving the milled peat by belt conveyor to a pump station for hydraulic transport results in a cost of $1.66/MMBTU of PDF for a system to support a facility with a capacity of 250,000 tons per year high volatile product. Peat at the plant would be at 10% solids after some storage pile drainage. 41 I. Likely Peat Excavation and Transport Methods In the Susitna Valley area the following factors have a decisive influence on peat excavation and transport: - the thickness of the peat layer - the fragmented distribution of the peat resources - the thick layer of horticultural peat - the layer of volcanic ash - the 6-month cold season - the rainy fall - possible snow storms Under these conditions the best method is probably excavation combined with vehicle transport. A platform can be constructed at the bottom of the peat bog to allow the excavator to operate throughout the year. In the same way, roads can be built along the bottom of the peat bogs for continuous truck traffic. The dry solids content of the peat would be raised as much as possible by providing efficient drainage. Lf. profitable production of horticultural peat could be arranged, this would decisively reduce the raw material costs of the PDF. J. Cost Estimates for Traditional Dry Harvesting Methods in Alaska At this stage, estimates were preliminary showing the order of magnitude of capital costs and variable costs for four dry harvesting methods: 1. Sod peat production combined with horticultural peat production 42 2. Excavation and vehicle transport combined with horticultural peat production 3. Excavation and vehicle transport without horticultural peat production 4. Excavation and use of the surface layer for PDF production All capital costs and variable costs have been calcu- lated according to the cost level prevailing in Alaska. The prices of machinery, fuels and labor are based on information received from Nortec. For special machinery, such as sod peat machines, the costs have been obtained by multiplying the corresponding Finnish cost by 1.5. The labor costs have been calculated assuming an hourly cost of USD 25 for machine drivers and an annual cost of USD 30,000 for foremen. The calculations have been prepared so that a sod peat production of 1,000,000 m> a year has been set to correspond to the amount of energy produced by 220,000 ton PDF factory, with the raw peat production of 2,700,000 or 3,200,000 tons a year meeting the raw material require- ments of a corresponding factory. The rate of interest for capital has been set at 15%. For sod peat production the amortization period has been set at 10 years, assuming an operating time of 400 hours a year for machinery, and for raw peat production at 3 years, assuming a operating time of 600 hours a year for machinery. In Table III-2, the cost of sod peat has been cal- culated for peat stored’ in the production area and the cost of raw peat delivered to the PDF factory. 43 The unit cost of sod peat has been calculated at USD 8.2/m>, and assuming an energy content of 0.8 Mwh/m> for sod peat, the cost of sod peat stored in the produc- tion area would be USD 10.3/MWh. The cost of PDF raw material without horticultural peat production is 15-20% higher than combined with horticul- tural peat. Correspondingly, the raw peat material costs in alternative D are about 25% higher than in alternative B. Peat harvesting and transport costs at 10%, 15% and 20% dry solids contents are given in Table 2. The costs have been assumed to decrease linearly with an increase in dry solids content, though this is hardly possible. The real cost effect should be determined in connection with the second phase of the study. At a dry solids content of 10% the PDF raw material cost has been estimated at USD 38/ton PDF and with a 20% dry solids content USD 19/ton PDF. In this case the surface layer of the peat bog has been assumed to be sold as horticultural peat. x. Dry Harvesting Methods Evaluated J. P. Energy has evaluated the potential for conven- tional milled peat and sod harvesting in the Susitna Valley. There are some peat harvesting sites in Finland with roughly the same climate as in Susitna Valley (Table I). The profitability of these harvesting operations is, however, uncertain because the annual production is very low. In milled production there are 7-8 harvests per summer and in sod peat production one harvest per summer. With both methods the energy yield is about the same. 44 Sod peat production is not possible in the Susitna Valley area until the layer of horticultural peat has been removed. This can only be done by starting large scale production and processing of horticultural peat. The surface layer cannot be economically removed in any other way. Horticultural peat could be produced as sod peat with the peat cutting machine cutting the peat in a two foot layer into sods or drying in the field. The sods would dry in 1.5 to 2.5 years. In this way the drying effect of cold weather and the dry periods in summer would be uti- lized for drying. The peat would have to be processed into compressed horticultural peat bags and sheets. If the production and processing of horticultural peat covered the peat production preparation costs the production of milled or sod peat might be profitable for local energy generation, for example, to supply heat energy and electricity to Anchorage. L. Wet Harvesting Methods Evaluated Harvesting by Hydraulic Dredging and Slurry Pipe Transport Hydraulic dredging combined with slurry pipe trans- port offers the potential lowest cost for large scale peat harvesting. Basically, hydraulic harvesting is done by diking an area of the peat bog creating a small lake that will float a barge equipped with a hydraulic suction dredge and a special suction cutter that is capable of cutting tree stumps and branches that may be around in the bog. 45 In this evaluation, it is assumed that the peat is dredged and transported as an 8 wt% solids slurry concen- tration. The peat dredged from the bog is macerated before it goes to booster pumps located on shore and is pumped through a pipeline up to 10 miles to the dewatering plant. The smaller plant, Case I uses a 16-inch barge mounted suction dredge pumping through a 16-inch pipeline to the dewatering plant with a 12-inch line for the return water. The big plant, Case II, has two barges each with a 24-inch mounted suction dredge. The slurry pipeline is 48 inches with 1 42-inch water return line. Each of the dewatering processes evaluated require different amounts of raw peat depending on the overall plant efficiency. The capital and operating cost of the harvesting systems have been factored accordingly (Table II). cost ranges from $1.10-1.20 per MMBTU of PDF for the small plant, Case 1, to $0.51-0.57 per MMBTU of PDF for the big plant. It has been assumed that the hydraulic harvesting takes place during only nine months of the year. Storage of the raw peat at the dewatering plant site is, there- fore, required. Hydraulic harvesting delivers the raw peat at the dewatering plant site at a maximum concentration of 8-10% wt. If peat is dredged and transported at less than 10% solids, it is assumed that it drains to 10% at the plant storage pile. (This must be confirmed via tests.) Harvesting by hydraulic dredging is best suited for deep continuous deposits. The peat deposits being con- sidered for this project, however, are relatively shallow and scattered. They also contain a 3-5 inch layer of ash in the middle layer of the deposits which should not be 46 mixed with the peat that is harvested. If hydraulic harvesting is used, a method for separation of the ash from the peat before it goes to the process must be found. Peat has not been harvested by this method in any large scale commercial fuel operation. Peat has, however, been dredged for overburden removal) from nickel and phosphate deposits in both the US and Canada. Harvesting by Floating Clamshell Excavation and Slurry Pipe Transport This method of harvesting is similar to the hydraulic harvesting except that it uses a clamshell excavator mounted on a barge or on pontoons instead of a hydraulic dredge. This method was not evaluated in Phase I but was analyzed in detail in Phase II. The capacity of the clamshell excavator is 100-200 T/Hr of wet peat (typically 10% solids). This means that at least two clamshell excavators would be required and there would be less cost savings per MMBTU of PDF by going from the small size plant to the big plant than there would be with the hydraulic dredging method. Harvesting by floating clamshell excavation is slightly more expen- sive than suction dredges. Less water is taken with the peat slurry, however, lowering transport and subsequent dewater costs. The cost of this harvesting method has been calculated in Phase II. Harvesting by Mechanical Excavation with Truck Transport : J. P. Energy has investigated harvesting by Excava- tion for the Alaskan peat deposits and found this method superior to the other Phase I methods evaluated because of the relatively small, scattered and shallow peat deposits 47 in the Trapper Lake region. In Phase II it was determined that the larger bogs in Kenai were better adapted to a floating clamshell. The peat bogs would first be drained, by digging ditches with mechanical excavation. Drainage could raise the dry solids content of the bog from 10 to 15 or 20%. This. would be an advantage for the dewatering processes that uses mechanical pressing as the first step. It would also save transportation costs of raw peat which is based on tonnage. The top 2-3 feet of the bog is horticultural peat of high quality that could be harvested separately by excava- tion and sold at a premium. Harvesting by excavation should also make it possible to separate the 3-5 inch volcanic ash layer that is present 2/3 down in the peat bog so that this volcanic ash would not contaminate the peat going to the process. J. P. Energy recommends using a 18-25 ton excavator equipped with crawler tracks. The loading capacity of such an excavator is 120-150 tons of wet peat an hour. J. P. Energy recommends transportation of the peat by trucks, rather than conveyor belts. Conveyor belts are considered too expensive and may not be operable at very low temperatures. Disadvantages of this harvesting and transportation method are the fact that stones and some mineral soil would not be separated and would go into the process. Also the number of trucks for transportation is substan- tial. 48 This way of harvesting and transportation is not very sensitive to the scale of operation or in other words little cost saving per MMBTU is obtained in the large size plant over the smaller one. The cost of harvesting and transportion is about $2.10 per MMBTU of PDF when peat with 90% moisture content is handled and $1.05 per MMBTU of PDF when peat with 80% moisture content is handled (Table II). Harvesting by Deep Milling and Slurry Pipe Transport One of the methods of dry harvesting peat that is considered is "deep milling". In this system, a peat cutting device capable of digging and breaking up peat sod to a depth up to 16 inches is used. Machines capable of cutting 1 foot depth by 60 foot width are under develop- ment. Large level bog areas are required for operation of such machines. A more commonly used machine for less uniform bog surface excavates and grinds up to 8-inch depth over a width of 16 foot. Machinery is being de- signed for digging and disintegrating the peat on an angle to a depth of 78 inches in one pass. Use of the deep milling technique requires ditching and draining the bog over a year or two period prior to excavation. Following excavation by the deep miller a conveyer either loads peat on to trucks or rail cars for overland haul or carries the milled peat to a pulping and pumping station for hydraulic transport to the peat processing facility. Currently available deep millers have capacities up to 500 tons per hour. 49 Deep Milling: -provides effective pretreatment of peat for trans- port and process, -crushes wood in the peat and homogenizes the layer being excavated, minimizes stones and mineral soil in the harvested peat, and -the milling machines have high unit capacity. Disadvantages of deep milling are: -a large operating area is required, -work is interrupted in very cold weather and during rains, and -deep milling is not suitable for fragmented and shallow peat bogs and is, therefore, not considered in this first phase of the study. An estimate of an installation for deep milling and moving the milled peat by belt conveyor to a pump station for hydraulic transport results in a cost of $1.66/MMBTU of PDF for a system to support a facility with a capacity of 250,000 tons per year high volatile product. Peat at the plant would be at 10% solids after some storage pile drainage. JP-ENERGY: OY 1982-06-22 MLa/EA TABLE III-1 TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION IN TALKEETNA, ALASKA AND IN JYVASKYLA, FINLAND Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Ann. Temperature, 7G - Talkeetna 71256" <=952° =6,5 O58 7,2. 12,8): 146 42,7 159 1,8 7,0: ~12,6 0,8 - Jyviskyla ~ 9,3 ~9,1 .-3,0 -3,2°%.8,2 16,4 13,8 $3,8. 36,6 3,6) + e251 2h6n6 aon Precipitation, mm ¥ - Talkeetna Ah,1 ° &3y7 3656: 1931 34,0 45,07 81,0 -135,4, ° B13,;3 65,5 45.5. - 4051 706 - Jyvasky13 41,9 31,7 32,6 37,37 -39,8 49,4 68,4: 96,4 70,1 55,1 ;57,2° 49;9 630 TABLE II1-2 PRELIMINARYCOST ESTIMATE FOR * ‘00.000 we SOD PEAT PRODUCTION AND 2 30.000/3.200.000 TON RAW PEAT PRODUCTION IN THE SUSITNA VALLEY AREA (USD) A. SOD PEAT PRODUCTION B. RAW PEAT PRODUC- C. RAW PEAT PRODUC- D. RAW PEAT PRODUCTION COST ITEM COMBINED WITH HORTICUL- TION BY EXCAVATION TION BY EXCAVATION USING THE SURFACE LAYER TURAL PEAT PRODUCTION COMBINED WITH HORTI- WITHOUT HORTICULTU- FOR PDF CULTURAL PEAT PROD. RAL PEAT PRODUCTION CAPITAL COSTS Machinery and equipment 4.700.000 2.000 .000 3.300.000 3.400.000 Preparation of production area 4.200.000 250.000 500.000 400.000 Road construction 3.600.000 1.150.000 1.400.000 1.400.000 Other (planning, measurement, buildings) 2.100.000 1.500.000 1.500.000 1.500.000 INVESTMENTS, TOTAL 14.600.000 5.800.000 6.700.000 6.700.000 INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION/YEAR 2.905.000 2.540.000 2.935.000 2.935.000 un \ VARIABLE COSTS/YEAR Labour costs 3.000.000 3.300.000 3.500.000 4.000.000 Fuel costs 580.000 1.600.000 1.750.000 1.900.000 Maintenance costs 420.000 900.000 1.000.000 1.100.000 Storage 1.000.000 400.000 400.000 500.000 Supervision 300.000 150.000 150.000 150.000 VARIABLE COSTS, TOTAL 5.300.000 6.350.000 6.800.000 7.650.000 USD 8.20/M° USD 3.1 WET TON USD 3.60 WET TON USD 3.30/WET TON UATT COSTS 1) USD 10.30/MWh 10 % USD 38/TON PDF 10% USD 44/TON PDF 10 % USD 48/TON PDF 15 % USD 25/TON PDF 15 % USD 30/TON PDF 15 % USD 32/TON PDF 20 2 USD 19/TON PDF 20 % USD 22/TON PDF 20 % USD 24/TON PDF 1) Sod peat properties: - ash content 25 % - moisture content 40 % - density 400 kg/m3 - energy content 0.8 MWh/m3 FIG.III-] TYPICAL PROFILE 33 Low humified peat High humified peat Ash High humified peat Mineral soil "7S FIG. III-2 Cost USD/PDF-ton 30k 20 | SL 10 INFLUENCE OF DRY MATTER CONTENT ON TRANSPORTATION COSTS Dry matter content 10 Z Dry matter content 15 2% Dry matter content 20 % pas tg a 10 15 km Transp.dist. w Figure III-3 DRY HARVESTING METHODS Vacuum Miller Machine With Peat Briquettes, Sods and Pellets in Foreground Sod Peat Production Machine WET HARVESTING METHODS Recent Field Trial of New Deep Milling Wet Peat Excavator (Removal Rate is 1 acre-foot per hour) Schematic of Wet Harvesting System Using New Deep Miller 56 Figure III-5 PEAT WET HARVESTING Peat Excavation, Pulping and Pumping Barge Suction Dredge (self-propelled) a7 re toy Wildlife Habitat er] Water ___. BE ir lag ey oy Ry A 5 Cee Dredging aT Tae) elm og balla ule] Las eRe a store Pte ty rel That] IV. Processing Alternatives A. Raw Materials Assumption and Product Composition Raw Peat Composition The raw peat composition used in the Phase I evaluation has the following composition: Ultimate Analysis (MF), %wt Ash 17.0 Hydrogen 5.1 Carbon 46.6 Nitrogen 1.0 Sulfur 0.2 Oxygen 30.1 TOTAL 100.0 HHV, BTU/1b 8,215 (Mott & Spooner) High Volatile Peat Fuel (PF) All the processes considered except the Koppleman can produce a high volatile product. The Koppleman process produces a medium volatile product (comparable to bituminous coal). Mechanical pressing and drying as well as the Carver-Greenfield process produces a high volatile peat fuel with the same volatile content (approximately 60%) and composition as the raw peat whereas the J.P. Energy and Zimpro Wet carbonization processes produce a product with a slightly lower volatile content. The moisture content of the peat fuels is assumed to be less than 5 wt. It<is assumed that the ash does not dissolve during processing. 59 The composition of the high volatile PDF product from the J.P. Energy Process is as follows: Ultimate Analysis (MF), %wt Ash 21.9 Hydrogen 4.9 Carbon 50:.5. Nitrogen 0.9 Sulfur Ors: 2 Oxygen 21.6 TOTAL 100.0 HHV, BTU/1b 9,061 (Mott & Spooner) Low Volatile PDF Product It was determined that a low volatile product could command a market premium over a high volatile product by competing with anthracite, wood charcoal and other "smok- eless" fuels rather than soft coal. Both low and high volatile product options were, therefore, investigated. The low volatile PDF has 10% to 20% wt volatiles and a maximum of 10% wt ash. It is assumed that excess ash is removed via some process yet to be identified. The cost of this ash removal step has not been taken into account in the compari- son. The low volatile PF has a volatile content of 20% wt and less than 5% wt moisture. The composition of the low volatile PF is assumed to be: 60 Ultimate Analysis (MF), %wt Ash 10.0 Hydrogen Se7 Carbon 7329 Nitrogen ly3 Sulfur 0.3 Oxygen 10:58 TOTAL 100.0 HHV, BTU 12,281 (Mott & Spooner) Methanol The methanol is of fuel grade quality rather than chemical grade quality. Ammonia The ammonia is produced as an anhydrous liquid of chemical grade quality. B. Capacity High Volatile PF Two capacities have been evaluated for the high vola- tile peat fuels. The two capacities produce 4% million short tons per year (T/Y) (MF basis) and 2 million T/Y (MF basis) of dehydrated fuel, respectively. All comparisons are made on a BTU basis. The two capacities on a HHV BTU basis are respectively 561 MMBTU/HR and 4,488 MMBTU/HR. 61 High Volatile/Low Volatile PF, J.P. Energy Process A case for the J.P. Energy Wet Carbonization process (Case 1, High Volatile/Low Volatile PF) was evaluated where part of the high volatile PF is processed in a multiple hearth furnace to produce a low volatile PDF. The volatile gases and oils being driven off in the multiple hearth are burned in the boiler backing out the high volatile PDF being burned. In order to substitute all the high volatile PDF being burned in the boiler with the volatiles and oils, approximately 30% wt of the % million T/Y high volatile PDF has to be devolatized in the multiple hearth furnace. The relative quantity of high volatile and low volatile products is 82% and 18% respectively on a weight basis. A Case II, High Volatile/Low Volatile PDF with a capacity of eight times the Case I, High Volatile/Low Volatile PDF was also evaluated. It was subsequently discovered that it was more advan- tageous to devolatilize all of the high volatile fuel and condense the volatile oils selling them as a co-product. Low Volatile Peat Fuel, Press and Single Stage Flash Drying A case for Mechanical Pressing and Single Stage Flash Drying (Case I, Low Volatile PDF) was evaluated where all of the high volatile PF was processed in a multiple hearth furnace to produce a low volatile PF. In this case, the amount of volatiles and tars and oils being produced happens to balance with the high volatile PF that is burned in the dryer combustor so that all the high volatiles can be devolatized in the multiple hearth furnace with the volatile gases and oils being burned in the combustor. The BTU 62 output for this case has been set to be the same as the total BTU output for the J.P. Energy Case I, High Vola- tile/Low Volatile PDF (see above). A Case II, Low Volatile peat fuel with eight times the capacity of Case I, Low Volatile PDF, has also been evalu- ated. Low Volatile Peat Fuel, Press and Two Stage Fluid Bed-Dryer-Press and Belt Dryer-Press and Carver- Greenfield In the cases of the thermodynamically more efficient processes such as the Press and Two Stage Fluid Bed dryer case or the press and Carver Greenfield case, balancing of the combustor or boiler with the volatile gases and oils coming off the coker would leave a surplus of volatile gases and oils if all high volatile PDF was processed. A mix of high and low volatile PDF could be produced or the volatile gases and oils could be burned in a gas turbine/diesel engine to produce power or it may be possible to sell these as by-products. None of these cases have been evaluated for production of low volatile PDF. Low Volatile Peat Fuel, Press and Koppleman The Koppleman process produces a medium volatile product directly due to the severe carbonization conditions. To be truly "smokeless", however, additional carbonizing would still be required. Only the smaller capacity, Case I was evaluated. Methanol The capacity of the methanol plant is 2,500 ST/D. 63 This scale limitation is imposed by resource availabil- ity in the south central region. Ammonia The capacity of the ammonia plant is 1,200 ST/D, also due to resource limitations. Gs Capital Cost All capital costs are order-of-magnitude based on factored equipment costs with adjustment for Alaskan con- struction labor cost and productivity. Construction produc- tivity is assumed to be 0.83 of Gulf Coast productivity. Equipment costs are based on in-house information or vendor quotes. All costs are mid-82. It is possible that some savings could be achieved by building preassembled modules in the lower 48 states or it may even be possible to build the processing plant on barges in Korea or Japan and towing it to Alaska. These options will be further investigated in Phase II. The annualized capital cost has been calculated by Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. to correspond to 15% of TIC. fMThis figure corresponds to private sector financing assumptions with 25% equity, 75% debt yielding 25% return on equity after taxes. D. Operating Cost Hydraulic harvesting has been assumed to be possible nine months out of the year with 330 D/Y of operation for the dewatering plant as well as the methanol and ammonia plant being evaluated. 64 Steam for process is generated within the plant. Power is imported at a cost of $0.04/KWH. Fuel oil No. 1 is $1.16 per gallon FOB Anchorage. Fuel oil No. 2 is $1.10 per gallon. Transportation of fuel oil to the plant site is $0.08 per ton mile. Operating Labor Cost is taken from published informa- tion for the Anchorage area. Operating labor productivity has been assumed to be the same as Gulf Coast productivity. E. Dewatering Processes 1. MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE FLASH DRYER Process Description, High Volatile PDF Figure 3 shows the feed coming into the mechanical multi-nip belt presses. Approximately 4% of the solid peat is left in the filtrate from the presses. This water is returned to the bog. The peat filter cake is ground and introduced to a single stage flash drying system. The dried material is collected in a cyclone and lock hopper system. Part of the dried product is routed to a combustion chamber where it is burned. The combustion gases are cooled with recycled flue gases to about 1,100°F before it enters the flash dryer. THe flue gases from the dryers at about 200°F are scrubbed with water before it is recycled or vented to the atmo- sphere. The effluent purge stream from the scrubber is returned to the bog together with the filtrate from the presses. The dried product from the dryer hopper goes to a briquetter, that forms the final PDF briquettes. 65 Environmental Impact There are three waste streams from the plant: o flue gas from the peat burning dryer, o filtrate from the dewatering presses, and o condensate from the press and dryer/scrubber. The flue gases from the dryers are scrubbed to remove particulates. Due to the relatively low sulfur content in the peat, the sulfur dioxide content in the flue gases (0.5 lbs SO, per 10° BTU fired duty is below the standard emission for solid fuel fired heaters. Sulfur dioxide stack gas scrubbing is, therefore, not required. The filtrate from the press and the condensate from the dryers are not greatly different from the water in the bog and any special treatment is, therefore, not believed to be required before it is returned to the bog. Economic Assessment (Figures IV-1 and IV-2)) The press used is the Sulzer Bell Multi-nip belt press. . The capacity and cost of the press are based on information from Sulzer. The cost of the dryer system is based on a quotation for a Swedish installation by the Swedish firm FLAKT factored to the two capacities being considered in this study. The cost of the briquetter is based on a quotation from Bepex. The rest of the costs are based on in-house information. A number of cases have been worked out showing the effect of variation in estimated capacity of the press (Case B), the effect of different moisture content of the pressed peat (Case C) as well as the effect of different moisture content of the raw peat. (Case D). 66 In Case A, the base case, the raw peat has a moisture content of 90%. It is reduced to 65% moisture by the belt press. The capacity of each press is 4,400 lb/hr of raw peat on a moisture free (MF) basis. The cost of dewatering for Case 1A is $3.90/MMBTU of peat fuel. This compares to a cost for Case 1B of $3.64/MMBTU of peat fuel. Case 1B assumes 20% more capacity of the belt press (5,280 lbs/hr). This might be possible to achieve because of the high ash content of Alaskan Peat (17% assumed). Case 1C assumes 90% moisture content of the raw peat and 70% moisture in the filtered peat. The higher moisture content in the filter cake allows higher capacities through the press but increases the evaporation load on the dryer system. The cost for dewatering for Case 1C is $4.07/MMBTU of PDF. Case 1D assumes 80% moisture content of the raw peat (drainage of the bog before harvesting). The ability to drain Alaskan peat to significant depths to 80% moisture can only be confirmed by test. The filtered peat contains 65% moisture. The number of presses required are drastically reduced because of the higher solid content of the raw peat and the higher capacities of the presses. The cost of dewatering for this case is $2.54/MMBTU of peat fuel. Harvesting by excavation if 80% moisture is achieved is $1.05/MMBTU of peat fuel for a total cost of harvesting and dewatering of $3.59/MMBTU of peat fuel. The cost of dewa- tering for the large plant, Case 2, is only about 10% less than the cost for the corresponding smaller plant, Case 1. This is due to the fact that multiple parallel presses and dryers would be required. Harvesting by hydraulic dredging, however, is only half of what it is for the smaller plant, e.g. $0.57/MMBTU of peat versus $1.20/MMBTU of peat fuel. It may not be possible to drain dredged peat to 80% 67 moisture, however. Harvesting by excavation would not be greatly affected by scale, e.g. the cost would be $1.05/MMBTU of peat fuel. Harvesting by excavation would apply to Case 2D. Process Description, Low Volatile PDF Figure IV-4 shows the high volatile peat fuel being processed in a coker with the oils and off-gases being burned in the combustion chamber. The amount of off-gases is just sufficient to back out all the peat that was burned in the ‘combustion chamber. Sulfur removal from the off-gases or sulfur dioxide scrubbing of the flue gases from the dryers may be required depending on the sulfur content of the off-gases and oils. This will have to be further investigated. Environmental Impact THe off-gases and oils being burned in the combustion chamber could conceivably have a sulfur content higher than permissible so that sulfur dioxide removal from the dryer flue gases might be required. The filtrate from the press and the condensate from the dryers are the same as the water in the bog and any special treatment is, therefore, not believed to be required before it is returned to the bog. Economic Assessment The cost of the devolatization step adds approximately 12% to the cost of dewatering for Case 1A-D and approximate- ly 8% to cost for Case II A-D. Cost of sulfur removal from the off-gases or sulfur dioxide scrubbing of the flue gases from the dryer has not 68 been included. Due to higher density and higher heating value the transportation cost of the low volatile PDF should be somewhat lower than the transportation cost for the high volatile PDF. Technical Status The new Sulzer Bell multi-nip belt press has not been tested on raw Alaskan peat. Tests at various feed moistures would be necessary to confirm Sulzer's estimation of press performance. There are some disadvantages of using flash drying. The material that is dried in a flash dryer has to be ground to a fine powder. This entails a risk of fires and dust explosions as well as difficulties of separation in the cyclones down-stream the dryers. B. MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE FLUID BED DRYER Process Description, High Volatile PDF Figure IV-5 shows the process steps involved in using Mechanical Pressing and Single Stage Fluid Bed Drying. The peat is extruded into 1/8 inch granules before the fluid bed drying step. There is very little dust being formed in the drying step (less than 1% wt). Otherwise, the processing steps are similar to the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer Case. Environmental Impact The comments made for the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer also apply to this case. Economic Assessment 69 A comparison of the Press and Single Stage Fluid Bed Dryer, Case I with the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer, Case I (Figure IV-1) shows that the economics are about equal. Technical Status In comparison to Press and Single Stage Flash Drying, the Press and Single Stage Fluid Bed Drying does not have any significant dust problems. 3. MECHANICAL PRESS AND TWO STAGE FLUID BED DRYER Process Description, High Volatile PDF Figure IV-6 shows the process steps for this case. It is similar to the previous case but has a two stage fluid bed dryer system. This case has an HHV thermal efficiency of 80.8% compared to 67.2% for the single stage fluid bed dryer system, Environmental Impact The comments made for the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer also apply to this case. Economic Assessment Mechanical Pressing and Two Stage Fluid Bed Drying shows a cost advantage over the Single Stage Fluid Bed case due to lower overall capital cost and operating cost. This is due to the higher efficiency of the Two Stage Fluid Bed case which means that less peat has to be processed for the same product capacity requiring fewer presses and a smaller overall drying system. Mechanical Pressing and Two Stage 70 Fluid Bed Drying has about the same cost for the smaller plant capacity as the wet carbonization and multi-effect evaporation cases. Case 1D with a harvesting cost (by excavation) of $1.05/MMBTU and a dewatering cost of $2.36/MMBTU for 803% moisture feed peat to the dewatering plant represents the lowest total cost of $3.41/MMBTU of the small scale alter- nate cases investigated. This cost, however, depends on the predicted performance of the Sulzer press which might be too optimistic and bog drainage to 80% water content which may not be achievable. As with the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer case, there will not be a significant cost advantage of going to a larger plant size. Technical Status This case has the same disadvantages as the previous cases in that the mechanical press has not been tested on Alaskan peat. Two Stage Fluid Bed Drying has been tried out in bench scale with good results. Attrition in the bed caused less than 1% wt dust formation with wet carbonized peat. 4. MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE BELT CONVEYOR DRYER Process Description, High Volatile PDF Figure IV-7 shows process steps similar to the other Press and Single Stage Dryer systems except in this case a belt dryer system is used. This dryer system consists of a number of stacked belts with circulating flue gases as drying medium. The recirculating flue gases is preheated with steam in heat exchangers in between the belts. 71 Environmental Impact The comments made for the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer also apply to this case. Economic Assessment The Mechanical Press and Single Stage Belt Dryer combination is relatively expensive due to the small capaci- ty of each belt dryer. Cost of dewatering is about 8% higher than the Mechanical Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer. Technical Status The mechanical press will have to be tested on Alaskan peat to confirm press performance. The belt dryer has been tried out commercially on Swedish peat, and it works well. E. J.P. ENERGY WET CARBONIZATION PROCESS Process Description, High Volatile PDF (Fig. IV-8) Peat as it is harvested, contains a large proportion of water in capillaries and cell walls. Breaking these cells and removing the viscous liquid from capillaries and cell walls cannot be done directly in a mechanical press. However, if the peat is exposed to a heat treatment under pressure for some time, it becomes much easier to filter the peat and throughput per unit filter area is greater. It is also possible to reduce the water content of the peat to a much lower level (typically 50% water in the filter cake versus 65% to 75% water content without heat treatment). 72 Fewer mechanical presses are thus required and less heat is needed for the drying of the filter cake. The heat treatment is normally carried out with the peat suspended in water and results in an increased carbon content of the product. The process is called wet carbon- ization. The J.P. Energy process utilizes this phenomenon. The wet carbonized peat of "PDF" has more moisture resis- tance and storage stability than untreated peat. There is also the potential for recovering by-products produced by this process. Peat is wet-carbonized when the peat slurry is heated to a temperature exceeding 360°F under pressure and kept at this temperature for a sufficiently long time, typically 30 minutes. At this temperature, chemical reactions occur, which decompose the colloidal substances and produce carbon dioxide and water. This reduces the oxygen content of the solid matter. When the pressure of the slurry is released, the water partially vaporizes and the water vapor formed inside closed cells bursts them open. The decomposed organic matter is partly dissolved in the water and partly volatilized. The decreased oxygen content and increased carbon content of the remaining solid matter enhance its heating value. Both slightly humified surface peat and well decomposed peat can be wet-carbonized in this way. Wet-carbonizing young peat gives a lower dry solids yield, but the composi- tion of the product obtained is more or less the same as that obtained on wet-carbonizing well decomposed peat. Raw peat is brought in either as a slurry if harvested by hydraulic dredging, or it could be brought in by belt conveyor or trucks. In the latter case, the peat is 73 macerated to a pumpable slurry with typically 9% dry solids before entering the wet-carbonization plant. The process is outlined in the simplified flow diagram. The slurry is pumped from a surge tank to the preheaters. Efficient heat recovery is important in order to obtain a high overall plant efficiency. In the first preheating stage, a tubular exchanger is used for recovering heat from the hot process water. In the second preheating stage, heat exchange takes place between the raw peat slurry and the wet-carbonized slurry flowing from the _ reactor. The slurries are flowing counter-currently through a preheating tower. In this tower, the pressure of the hot carbonized slurry is stage-wise reduced and the flash steam is con- densed in the incoming raw peat slurry. The reaction temperature is reached by injecting live steam into the reactor. The reactor is designed for the optimum residence time. The reactor pressure is about 350 psia, and the temperature about 430°F. Reactor off-gases are routed to the boiler where they are burned, The carbonized peat slurry is cooled below 212°C, “in the preheating tower. The dry solids are then separated from the water by filter presses. A dry solids content in the filter cake of 50% is easily achieved. The wet-carbonized peat moisture content is further decreased in a thermal dryer using flue gases, reheated by steam, as a drying agent. The dried product is then compacted into waterproof pellets or briquettes. The process water separated in the filter presses is highly contaminated by organic material. The water is treated in an anaerobic fermentation plant, releasing methane and carbon dioxide as off-gas. The methane is used as fuel in the steam boiler. With a subsequent aerobic 74 treatment, the waste water is of satisfactory quality that it can be discharged directly. Environmental Impact The waste water effluent stream from the filters is as mentioned treated in an anaerobic/aerobic treatment plant producing an environmentally acceptable discharge. It may be possible to reduce the cost of the aerobic treatment by using lined field ponds and natural aeration for this step. The off-gases from the reactor, which is mainly co. and steam do contain some organics such as acetone and furane/furfural that could potentially be recovered. In this preliminary study, these gases are burned in the boiler. The sulfur in the fuel to the boiler is low enough not to require sulfur dioxide scrubbing. The flue gases from the dryers and the boiler are treated in a wet scrubber. The scrubbing water is returned to the front end of the plant. Economic Assessment The cost of the wet-carbonization plant is based on actual quotations for a similar plant to be installed in Finland. The cost has been factored for Alaskan installa- tion. The cost of dewatering for Case I is $3.58/MMBTU of PDF or about $4.65/MMBTU of PDF including harvesting. The cost of $3.58/MMBTU of PDF for the smaller plant is in the same order-of-magnitude as Case 1A for the Press and Two Stage Fluid Bed Dryer System and the Case 1A for the Press and Carver-Greenfield process. Case 1D for these two processes are lower, but it should be remembered that the mechanical Sulzer press that is used in the Press and Two Stage Fluid Bed Dryer System has not been tried out on Alaskan peat. The Carver-Greenfield process has not been tried on any peat, and there are some questions about the basis for the cost calculations for this process (see later). Ee's performance also depends to some extent on pre-pressing with the Sulzer press. For the larger plant Case II, the J.P. Energy Process would cost $2.78/MMBTU of PDF for the dewatering and $0.51/MMBTU of PDF for hydraulic harvesting for a total of $3.29/MMBTU of PDF. This would be cheaper than the press and Two Stage Fluid Bed system, Case IIA (not calculated), and it would cost a little more than the Carver-Greenfield Case IIA, e.g. $2.22/MMBTU of peat fuel for the dewatering plant plus $0.47/MMBTU of peat fuel for hydraulic harvesting for a total of $2.69/MMBTU of peat fuel. The J.P. Energy Case II is more expensive than Carver-Greenfield, Case IID, e.g. $1.24/MMBTU of peat fuel for the dewatering plant and approximately $1.00 for the harvesting by mechanical exca- vation or a total of $2.24/MMBTU of peat fuel. It. is questionable, however, Le the lower cost for the Carver-Greenfield, Case IID, can be realized in practice. Process Description, High/Low Volatile PDF Process block diagram, figure IV-9, shows how part of the high volatile PDF is devolatilized in a multiple hearth furnace to produce low volatile PDF. The volatile gases, tars and oils being driven off in the multiple hearth furnace are burned in the boiler backing out the high volatile PDF being combusted. To balance the fuel, the 76 relative quantity of high volatile and low volatile products is 82% and 18% respectively on a weight basis. Economic Assessment The cost of producing the small amount of low volatile product as a co-product is only slightly more than just producing the high volatile PDF. The cost of $3.67/MMBTU of PDF for the smaller plant and the cost of $2.83/MMBTU of PDF for the larger plant are based on the total BTU output of the plant (combined high volatile and low volatile PDF). If all the high volatile PDF is processed into low volatile PDF, there would be a surplus of gases, tars and oils. It would be possible to recover the tars and oils and sell these as separate products or it might be possible to generate power from the excess volatiles. These options will be evaluated in the next phase of the study. Technical Status J.P. Energy initiated work on their process in 1974. Extensive data have been generated by bench scale and pilot scale activities up to the present time. The J.P. Energy pilot facility was comparable to an annual output of 20,000 tons/year of high volatile PDF. Pulping, drying, filtering and pelletizing were done in larger scale commercial equip- ment. Detailed engineering design has been done for a commercial wet-carbonization plant to be built in Sweden. This dewatering process is further developed than any of the other processes being investigated in this study. Devolatization can be done either in a multi-hearth furnace of fluid bed dryer. Some bench scale work would be required to determine which method would be the best. 7a, Gs PARTIAL WET AIR OXIDATION (ZIMPRO) Process Description, High Volatile Peat Fuel Oxidizable organic material can be made to react with oxygen in an aqueous phase. Zimpro, Inc. has developed a process to carry out such an oxidation reaction with partic- ular application to sewage sludges. Many successful appli- cations in this field are in operation. In this process, dissolved or suspended material at elevated temperature and pressure in a closed vessel oxidizes when compressed air or oxygen is admitted to the system. The reactions proceed at temperatures of 350°F to 650°F with the pressure main- tained high enough to prevent excessive evaporation of the water ( 300 psig to 3,000 psig). This phenomena is known as "wet air oxidation," "WAO," and "wet combustion." Several reactions occur leading to various intermediate compounds. Compounds with high molecular weights are converted to compounds with lower molecular weight. Water and carbon dioxide are the final wet air oxidation products from organic compounds. Metals are oxidized to the highest state. Sulfur oxidizes to sulfate, remaining in the slurry or product liquor. Organic nitrogen converts to ammonia. Gaseous effluent from the process contains only negligible concentrations of SO, and NO, « It would appear that such "in place" oxidation could take place in the reactor of the J.P. Process and supply the required heat instead of using live steam for the wet carbonization. In this modification to the J.P. process, the reactor would be pressurized and heated initially by means of a small boiler with no flow through the reactor. 78 Compressed air would be admitted after the temperature had risen to a point that would sustain oxidation, after which time heat is supplied by combustion of the peat slurry. In this modification the large field erected, peat fired boiler could be replaced by a much smaller shop assembled gas fired boiler. Equipment for compressing large quantities of air to the reaction pressure would be required and considerable energy supplied as electricity. It appears that only slight modification to the J.P. reactor would be required. Other equipment would remain substantially the same. The final product would not be expected to differ from that produced by the normal J.P. process. Environmental Impact o Flue gases from the filter cake drying step will not require sulfur dioxide scrubbing. o The filtrate from the filters will probably contain more organic matter due to the higher temperature and longer retention times required for partial WAO. Economic Assessment Adjusting the equipment cost downward and operating costs upward to take into account lower equipment cost and significantly higher power cost results in an incremental annual additional cost of $0.20 per MMBTU of PDF when heat is supplied by wet air oxidation using the Zimpro process. A factor that could affect economics relates to oxida- tion of dissolved and of extremely fine organic material. If substantial oxidation of such material occurs, the waste treatment facilities would cost less but less fuel gas would be available. Available evidence is not conclusive on this 79 point. Tests conducted by J.P. Energy indicate a lower solids yield dissolved organic content in wastewater with partial WAO. Technical Status J.P. conducted limited continuous partial WAO experi- ments in the mid-70's. Batch autoclave work carried out by Zimpro, Inc. indicate the technical feasibility of such an operation. Wet air oxidation of other organic slurries has been carried out successfully at many installations. ne MECHANICAL PRESS AND CARVER-GREENFIELD MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATOR Process Description, High Volatile PDF The peat drying process flow diagram. (Fig IV-10) shows that the initial step of the dewatering process is méchan- ical pressing in a Sulzer multi-nip press. The peat is then fed. to a fluidizing tank. Recycled fluidizing oil plus make-up oil equivalent to the amount leaving with the product peat is added to the raw peat to obtain an oil to peat ratio of four parts oil to one part peat. The slurry from, the .-fluidizing. tank isi. pumped ~ into the . first evaporative stage which consists of Circulation Pump, Heater and Vapor Chamber. In the first stage, a portion of the water is evaporat- ed from the peat along with some of the fluidizing oil. The first stage is maintained under vacuum using a shell and tube water cooled Condenser, from which non-condensibles gases are evacuated with Vacuum Pump. Although the usual procedure is to vent the discharge from this pump to the atmosphere, should there be any odor or noxious gas emitted 80 from the peat evaporation process, this vent could be incinerated in the steam boiler. In the fourth stage, boiler steam at 450 psig is used for the final drying step. An additional feature of the fourth evaporating stage is that a passivating oil, (a heavy oil such as Bunker C), is pumped into the system to provide protection against dusting and spontaneous combustion once the product is dried. By adding it in the fourth stage, one does not have to contend with the increase in viscosity and possible reductions in heat transfer which might have been caused in the preceding stages. However, adding it to the total amount of circulating fluidizing oil insures that it will be uniformly distributed over all surfaces of the peat particles and not just a portion of them, as compared to a physical spray on the dried product. The product from the fourth stage is sent to Hydroclone, where the bulk of the fluidizing oil is removed. The slurry is then fed to a centrifuge, which the process developer claims reduces the oil content to approximately 20% (80% solids). The oil from the hydroclone and centrifuge are recycled back to the fluidizing tank, passing through exchangers and to capture some of the sensible heat of the oil. The dry peat including about 20% fluidizing oil from the centrifuge is sent to the hydro-extractor. The hydro-extractor is a jacketed cylindrical shell with a series of paddle blades or Tee bars rotating on a central shaft mounted inside the vessel. The hydro-extractor is fully jacketed for indirect heating of the shell. Also, direct injection of steam is used to reduce the oil partial pressure to facilitate removal of fluidizing oil from the peat to approximately 0.1% by weight in the product peat. The hydro-extractor vents to in the first evaporative stage 81 which operates at a temperature that will produce a vacuum in the hydro-extractor to assist in the final oil removal. From the hydro-extractor, the dried peat will go to a briquetting machine and then to storage. Steam is provided to heat the hydro-extractor shell, but the bulk of the steam is used to evaporate water from the peat in the fourth stage. As mentioned above, the evaporation of water in each stage will carry some fluidizing oil as vapor with it. This steam and all vapor will be condensed in each stage and transferred backward to the preceding stage to recover the sensible heat it con- tains. Each of the first two stage heaters include a separate shell pass for condensing the oil from the hydro-extractor and this condensate is also transferred backward for heat recovery. The condensates, both oil and water, are sent to a Separator. Water from the separator will be pumped via a coalescer to the water storage tank and from there to waste water treatment. The oil is returned to the process. The process flow sheet shows four effects. The bigger plant may have 6 or 8 effects in series. The process block diagram, Figure 11, shows the overall material balance for the Mechanical Press and Carver-Greenfield process. Environmental Impact There are three waste streams from the plant: o Boiler flue gases o Condensate from Carver-Greenfield evaporators 82 o Condensate from presses Sulfur dioxide scrubbing of the boiler flue gases is not required. The conditions at which the water is evaporated are mild so the waste water treatment should be relatively simple. The water from the press is returned to the bog. Economic Assessment and Technical Status Cost for the presses are based on quotes from Sulzer. The cost of the Carver-Greenfield multi-effect evaporator plant is based on a preliminary cost estimate provided by Foster-Wheeler Corporation, who is a licensee of the Carver-Greenfield process. A number of different cases have been evaluated and summarized in Figures IV-1 and IV-2. Base Case 1A and Case IIA have about the same cost as the J.P. Energy process. Case 1D and IID assumes that the harvested material has only 80% moisture. The cost of these two cases’ including harvesting by excavation is approximately $3.50/MMBTU of peat fuel and $2.15/MMBTU of peat fuel respectively. This is less than the corresponding J.P. Energy Case 1A of $4.65/MMBTU of PDF and Case 1A of $3.29/MMBTU of PDF including hydraulic harvesting. However, there are some uncertainties and questions about the basis. for the cost estimates on the Carver-Greenfield process operating on peat. In fact, this process has never been tried out on peat, not even in the laboratory. Foster-Wheeler has based their cost estimate on work done on dewatering of sub-bituminous coal and _ lignite. 83 Foster-Wheeler has made the following assumptions for the peat processing: Assumption: Comments: Assumption: Comments: The oil/peat slurry is pumpable at a 4/1 weight ratio. It should be checked if this ratio is high enough in the first and in the last effects. The oil can be reduced in a hydroclone followed by a centrifuge to 20% wt in the solid peat. Test work in separating raw peat from water in a centrifuge produced a peat with 85% water. It seems unlikely that a better separation can be obtained from an oil/peat slurry. Peat processed in a Carver-Greenfield Multi-effect evaporator might be centrifuged to a lower oil content than 85% wt oil but it seems question- able if 20% can be attained as claimed by Foster-Wheeler. The qualitative effect of having a higher oil content than 20% wt oil in the peat produced coming out of the centrifuge means that more steam is required for the hydro-extractor. This results, of course, ina bigger hydro-extractor because more oil is ' being evaporated and condensed in first and second stage evaporators, or in other words, the size of the first and second stage evaporator increases and the third and fourth stage becomes smaller or it may be possible to eliminate one. At the same time, more overall steam is required resulting in lower overall thermal efficiency which requires more through- put in the plant and boiler with a correspond- ingly more expensive plant. An optimization of this system which potentially could also include vapor recompression is outside the 84 scope of this study. However, it is believed that the overall result of having more oil in the peat product coming off the centrifuge will have a detrimental impact on the economics of this process. Assumption: Slurry oil lost in the final peat product is assumed to be less than 0.2% wt. Comments: It may be very difficult to strip off oil from peat. Case 1E and IIE shows the effect on the cost of the final PDF of only being able to reduce the oil content to 20%wt. oe MECHANICAL PRESS AND KOPPLEMAN PROCESS The Koppleman Process for peat beneficiation dewaters and devolatizes peat. Water content is reduced from 95% to 5% or less while upgrading the peat fuel value to 12,000 to 14,000 BTU per pound. A mass yield of 47% and recovery of 74% of the fuel value in the raw peat is claimed. No significant ash or sulfur removal occurs in the process. The process flow diagram, Figure 12, consists of feeding raw peat shredded to -3/8" into a reactor operating at 1,500 psig. -at 800°F to 900°F by means of a dewatering feeder-extruder. The feeder-extruder is claimed to reduce the water content of raw peat to 70% by compression. The reactor currently envisioned by the developers consists of a 14-inch diameter by 40 ft long tube sloped upward at a 20 degree angle with feed entering at the lower end. The reacting mass is propelled upward by means of an internal screw while the reactor is heated externally by hot gas. The feedstock being introduced by the feeder-extruder compresses to form a gas tight plug. Dewatered and devolatized product leaves the reactor by an extruder that maintains a gas tight seal on the upper, discharge end. 85 As feed moves upward into the heated zone at 1,500 psig and 850°F + 50°F gas and steam are generated and move downward to the cooler zone where steam condensation and removal occurs. The non-condensible fraction of the reactor off gas contains about 30% combustible gas (carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon) giving a heating value of 338 BTU per cubic ft to the gas. Heat for the process is supplied by burning the combustible off gas produced during reaction and fuel gas resulting from anaerobic treatment of plant waste water. Early reports claim that fuel value of the reactor off gas is in excess of that required for reaction so that the process is thermally self sufficient. However, in the latest pilot plant design, about half the reaction heat is derived from waste water digester gas. (Ref No. 5) Some water is added to the hot (product) end of the reactor to cool the product below the ignition temperature of 600°F before product discharge. A waste water stream containing 54% organic material discharges from the reactor to the waste water treatment plant. The solid product, known as K-fuel; normally discharges from the reactor by means of an extruder as a pellet about inch diameter by inch long. The pellets of peat fuel may be handled and fired like coal, that is on _ grates, pulverized or slurried with oil. Heating value is typically 12,000 to 14,000 BTU per pound. The extent of devolatization and deoxygenation can be altered with oxygen contents ranging from 0.6% 86 to 6%. Ash content of the fuel depends on the ash content of the raw peat feedstock and the degree of devolatization to which the peat has been subjected. Economic Assessment It is estimated that a cost of $5.10 per million BTU is applicable for a facility producing approximately 180,000 tons per year of fuel with a heating value of 12,329 BTU per pound (MF). This capacity corresponds to the capacity of the Press and Single Stage Flash Dryer Case 1A, for low volatile PDF. Cost does not include mining or transpor- tation of wet peat to the plant. This figure does not take credit for by-product fuel gas that might be produced from dissolved organic material in the waste water. Sulzer dewatering presses are included because of the question that exists as to the feeder-extruder performing the dewatering to the required extent. No significant savings is expected for larger capacity plants as the facility would simply require a multiplicity of reactors and presses. Environmental The only waste streams associated with the Koppleman Process ‘are: flue gas from the gas burning heater, filtrate from the dewatering presses and feeder-extruder, and o condensate from the reactor. Since only carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are being burned, there is no special concern with respect to the heater flue gas. 87 The filtrate water resulting from dewatering the peat as it is extruded into the reactor is the same as that in the bog and any special treatment is, therefore, not be- lieved to be required before it is returned to the bog. Condensate discharging from the reactor is high in dissolved organic material. Organic matter in this stream is nearly 30% of the organic fraction of the finished fuel. Rendering this stream environmentally acceptable is costly. Anaerobic oxidation of the stream produces a gas containing about 70% methane. About half the resulting’ gas could be available for sale if a market existed. Credit for such sale would lower the K-fuel cost very slightly. In a small commercial plant (185 tons per day product) the waste water treatment section was estimated by the developers at 23% of the total installed cost. Technical Status The developers claim that all parts of the process have been carried out in a 4-inch diameter reactor. They say that design and procurement are underway for a demonstration plant of 25 tons per day capacity for a North Carolina location. 88 68 Figure IV-1 SUMMARY OF COST/MMBTU PF FOR HARVESTING AND DEWATERING PROCESES [racsse sincte stact rlaswine Onvinc] pats. a Sincie [russ atwe | pntss.e aP Entncy oF muLTIEFrEGT-tvarontons | Korritman] [_wicn vor STAGE FLUID BELT ORYER WIGH VOLATILE | wiGH/LOW VOLATILE HIGH VOLATILE jw VOLATILE | cases case? CASEL casts | cast2] cases [casea | caser [case CYT (- TOTAL INSTALL TE HARVESTING COST SHOU THE OF AAIERING COST TOOB TAIN Int TOTAL COST OF WAAVESUING AN0 OF AATE ANG Cost nich, mm 8 sr | coe | es | ona 180 wt tas wo | ser | wo | ser za us iss ee manvesting NOTE 2. HARVESTING BY EXCAVATION AND TAUCK F#8N PaRTATION I$ AFLATIVELT ie cour avMmbiUrr SUnSiTVe 0 SEAL CC Tat COs. 40h WMBTU PDP Mt aS Ind wromauuic i os oss | ov os on ov | os | ov | os 20 02 ose ADVANTAGE OF OELIVLALNG THE AAW PLAT 10 T¥t OF WATERING PLANT wi ORLOGING aiihima care > MOISTURE CONTENT OF 40°. wt 90-825 morstURE are CCREOLT WAS BLEW TAR(¥ FOR EXPORT OF WORTICUL URAL PEAT Comrent ow | om | 00 | 0 000 080 oer | 0% | csr | ow os on oss TorAat cost NOTE 3: RECATIVE QUANTITY OF wiGh VOLATILE AND LOW VOLATIRE PRODUCTS 1S 2°. AND 18" MESPECTIVELY OW A WEIGHT BAS) s/MMBTU PE 120 12 12 6 ut top | oss} io 170 ee ee ee Sting (Mott 2) 90% MOISTURE CONTENT rca Rtnnae TOTAL COST. $/MMBTU PF 209 A TRUCK TRANSPORTATION acs tiea CaN WARESTING . a |UPMILLING & SLURRY SLURRY 90-82% MOISTURE PUMPING Casta TOTAL INSTALLED COST TIC). MMS see | asa see sear 4043 $56 | asi S18 3227 69 oewar AWMUALIZED CAPITAL z —| Put Cost, s/MmarU. te] im | 2m v9 221 ae {on foe | os 199 135 283 4400 LOS/WR PRESS. CAPACITY ons PRESS. 90%, MOISTURE ACOUCED oPtRating cost 10 65% MOISTURE S/MMBTU PF tu | 1 | 200 187 200 ta] io | os ni ow zu TOTAL Cost wares S/MMaTU PF 30 | ase | an aa a at] oan | oe 14 22 $10 06 Figure IV-2 SENSITIVITY OF COST/MMBTU PF FOR HARVESTING AND DEWATERING PROCESES as PRESS. & SINGLE STAGE FLASHING ORYING] PRESS. & Sincut | PatSS a Two PASS. & SP. ENERGY OF MULTICFFECT-EVAPORT KOPPLEMAN WiGH VOLATILE | LOW VOLATRE STAGE FLuio to | BELT onvER WIGH VOLATILE | WiGH/COW vOLATAG WiGh VOLATILE Tow vouaTice cases] casea| cases | casez CASEY cast cast | case? | casei | castz | casts case cast TOTAL COST FOR OCWATERING PLANT ASSUMING 20% MORE CAPACITY FOR SULZER PRESS, $/MMETU PF 364 as 408 a8) 320 3% a3 209 cy TOTAL COST FOR DEWATERING PLANT WITH PRESS. 7 a NEOUCING MOISTURE FROM 90%. TO 70% $/MMBIU PF «or TOTAL COST FOR DEWATERING PLANT WITH PAISS. i MEDUCING MOISTURE FROM BOS TO 65%. 3/MMBTU PF am} rm | re | tu 23 238 205 ie hte TOTAL COST FOR DEWATERING PLANT WITH 20% WT OIL IM PRODUCT, 8/MMBTU PF = NOTE I HARVESTING COST SHOULO BE ADDED TO THE OC WATERING COST 10.08 TOTAL COST OF MARVES ING AND OEWATERING ot MOTE 2 MARVESTING BY EXCAVATION AND TRUCK TRANSPORTATION (5 RELATIVELY INSENSITIVE TO SCALE EG THE COST 1S $105. MMETU POF IT HAS Taf ‘ADVANTAGE OF OFLIVERING THE RAW PEAT TO THE OC WATERING PLANT wits A (MOISTURE CONTENT OF 80°. wr CREDIT WAS BEEN TAKEN FOR EXPORT OF WORTICUL TURAL PEAT FIGURE IV-3 CONDENSATE TO BOG VENTURI SCRUBBER FLUE GASES SINGLE SULZER 68.816 WG VOLATILE AAW 103.464 LBS/IR FILTER 99.325 LBS/HA STAGE 99,326 LBS/IR BRIQUETTER LBS/HR POF a aie ara Pegg FLASH : ONYER HILTRATE 4.139 LBS /IN 10 BOG 30,510 LBS/IA COMBUSTION CHAMBER MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE FLASH DRYER, HIGH YOLATILE PDF, CASE IA, 8,152 BTU/LB (HV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPABILITY 272,507 T/Y (MF BASIS) NOTE: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) FIGURE IV-4 VENTURI SCUDDER CONDENSATE TO BOG FLUE GASES 45,670 co AAW 108.918 LBS IH oa 104.561 LBS/HR FLASH 104,561 LBS/HR concn ano [tassiin LOW VOLATILE 8 00.918 LES /HN, } FILTER oe PEAT DRYER BRIQUETTER PRESS i. FILTRATE 4.357 LBS /UN TO BOG GAS & OIL 244.8 MM BIU/HA COMBUSTION CHAMBER NOTE 1: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) NOTE 2: PDF ASSUMED TO CONTAIN 10% WT ASH MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE FLASH DRYER LOW VOLATILE PDF, CASE 1A—12,288 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY 180,853 T/Y FIGURE IV-5 CONDENSTAE VENTURI FLUE 10 BOG scnupBen |” GASES 106.672 102.405 SINGLE 68.815 ! SULZER in HIGH VOLATILE RAW LBS/IR FILTER LBS/HR EXTRUDER STAGE 102.405 LBS/IR BRIQUETTER LBS/ PDF PEAT PRESS FLUID BED ; DRYER oO Ww FILTRATE 10 4267 1 BS/HR BOG 33,590 LBS/HR COMBUSTION CHAMBER NOTE: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE FLUID BED DRYER, CASE 1A HIGH VOLATILE PDF, 8,152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY 272,507 T/Y (MF BASIS) FIGURE Iv-6 85 204 ; Two 68.915 SULZER 181.795 LBS/IA BS/HA HIGH VOLATILE AAWILBS/HI aed EXTRUDER STAGE 81.795 LBS BRIQUETTEA Les/in WIG ae PEAT : PRESS FLUID BED : DRYER oO oy 3.408 FLUE FILTAATE ¢ LBS/HR et STEAM 10 BOG CONDENSATE 10 BOG 12,980 LBS/UA VENTURI SCRUBBER ae MECHANICAL PRESS AND TWO STAGE FLUID BED DRYER HIGH VOLATILE PDF, CASE 1A, 8,152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY 272,507 T/Y NOTE: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) FIGURE IV-7 96.271 SULZER 192.420 LBS/HIA pei tr wig anweassun | SILER sana sco ate vie 92.420 LBS/IIR paiquerten fLESWh_ voraTtite PEAT PRESS OAYER = aaa FLUE FILTRATE Lasviin GASES 1 BOG oO wm CONDENSTE 10 BOG 23,605 LBS/UR VENTURI SCRUBBER BOILER MECHANICAL PRESS AND SINGLE STAGE BELT CONVEYOR DRYER HIGH VOLATILE PDF, CASE 1A, 8152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCE CAPACITY 272,507 T/Y (MF BASIS) NOTE: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) PROCESSES FOR WET EXCAVATED PEAT: J.P. ENERGY WET CARBONIZATION Figure IV-8A “Peat Derived Fuel” Produced by J.P. Energy Process The J.P. Process High Strength Metalurgical Coke From Wet Carbonized Peat 96 Figure IV-8B TWO 87.906 LAS/HR peat 86.150 LaS/HR wet [66.654 L8S/HR STAGE 61.920 LBS/HR “HIGH RAW 66.654 LBS/HR PEAT > |_ MACERATION ICARBONIZATION FiCiex = EXTRUDER FLUIO BED BRIQUETTER VOLATILE orven * POF 1757 REJECTS gs7in 806 WASTE WATER TREATMENT CONDENSATE 4734 LBS/HR VENTURI SCRUBBER METHANE TO BOG REACTOR GASES STEAI NOTE: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) J.P. ENERGY WET CARBONIZATION ANO TWO STAGE DRYER HIGH VOLATILE PDF, CASE I, 9061 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY, 245,200 T/Y (MF BASIS) Figure IV-9 52.717 LBS/HR HIGH BRIOUETTER VOLATILE POG (NOTE 2} 87.908 86.150 66.654 TWO. 13.937 coer | 6.802 Low RAW LBS/HR PEAT LBS/HR Wet LBS/HR FILTER EXTRUDER STAGE 66.654 LBS/HR | LBS/HR ‘AND LBS/HR VOLATILE PEAT MACERATION CARBONATION FLUID BED BRIQUETTER POF DRYER (NOTE 2) 1,756 REJECTS 10 LBS/HR 80G WASTE WATER TREATMENT CONDENSATE] VENTURI GAS & OlL_36.8 MMBTU/HR <————]_ SCRUBBER METHANE BOILER ut) 806 REACTOR GASES NOTE 1: ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS NOTE 2: HIGH VOLATILE POF CONTAINS 21.4% WT ASH. LOW VOLATILE uy STEAM POF I$ ASSUMED TO CONTAIN ONLY 10% WT ASH J.P. ENERGY WET CARBONIZATION AND TWO STAGE DRYER—COKER HIGH VOLATILE PDF/LOW VOLATILE PDF CASE 1, 9061 BTU/LB AND 12,288 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY: 208,759 T/Y HIGH VOLATILE PDF AND 26936 T/Y LOW VOLATILE PDF Figure IV-10 PROCESSES FOR WET EXCAVATED PEAT: CARVER-GREENFIELD PROCESS Carver-Greenfield System Installed for Distillery Waste Dehydration Los Carver-Greenfield Process Schematic (not yet verified on peat) FEED PREPARATION MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATION SOLIDS/OIL SEPARATION VEN FEED GRINDER VENT FLUIDIZING on RECOVERED CONDENSATE | DEONED DRY | STERILE SOLIDS j | STORAGE VENT GASES CONDENSATE/OlL SEPARATION 9 9 RECOVERY/STEAM GENERATION Oot naw 77.119 LBS/HN > PEAT FILTRATE 10 BOG SULZER FILTER PRESS 3085 LBS/HR VENTURI SCRUBBER Figure IV-1l WASTE WATER TREATMENT 1 BOG 74,034 LBS/MA 74.034 LBS/HR CARVER- GREENFIELD BRIQUETTING STEAM 5,219 LBS/HR BOILER MECHANICAL PRESS AND CARVER—GREENFIELD HIGH VOLATILE PDF, CASE 1A, 8152 BTU/LB (HHV, MF BASIS) PRODUCT CAPACITY 272,507 T/Y (MF BASIS) NOTE: ALL FLOWS ANE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) 68.815 LBS/UR HIGH VOLATILE POF FIGURE IV-12 COMBUSTION CHAMBER FLUE GAS naw 102.137 tB/in | SULZER 98,053 LB/IN FEEDER REACTOR DISCHARGE 45.516 LB/lIn Low eh FILTER nee AND = |] EXTAUDER VOLATILE PEAT PRESS ee HEATER AND COOLER POF FILTRATE. 4084 (.8/1if S 10 BOG NOTE 1 ALL FLOWS ARE FOR SOLIDS ON A MOISTURE FREE BASIS (MF) ASTE NOTE 2 ot 4S eee POF ASSUMED TO CONTAIN 10% TREATMENT WT ASHI MECHANICAL PRESS AND KOPPLEMAN LOW VOLATILE PDF, 12,329 BTU/LB (HHV, MF) PRODUCT CAPACITY: 180,251 T/Y (MF BASIS) PROCESSES FOR WET EXCAVATED PEAT: KOPPELMAN PROCESS Figure IV-13 Koppelman Proposed Schematic (Note: Wet excavated peat must first be pressed prior to Koppelman high severity carbonization) MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR WOOD K-FUEL PROCESSING PLANT Ps ent erg eas ie Crd eee Read Cylons </ DR ee Lo) aT ar nea Pens rere] re ated TRUCK DUMPER isnt eg er nad aR Ne anh a oa fate ea ces ea Crt) Roe ae Ria Nba Pia eae eer Koppelman Pilot Pee i met ed Reactor at SRI Es ae FEED EXTRUDER EXTRUDER . baste e)e oan ies COOLER AND | DSRS eka ease Ritesh rear ms PNA Ra feat Pee ae Ee Z Me ea 102 PROCESSES FOR WET EXCAVATED PEAT Figure IV-14 New Sulzer “Bell” Peat Press Schematic Diagram of Ingersoll-Rand Vari-Nip Press Machine 102 PROCESSES FOR WET EXCAVATED PEAT: WET CARBONIZATION BY PARTIAL OXIDATION HEATING Figure IV-15 Partial Oxidation Process Development Unit in Turku, Finnland Operated by J.P. Energy Zimpro Partial Oxidation Schematic (for sewage sludge conditioning) Vv. Siting Alternatives A. Introduction The search area embraces generally the Upper Cook Inlet Basin, a narrow, deep basin some 70 miles wide and 200 miles long known as Cook Inlet. The map on the following page, Cook Inlet Basin, Peat Resource Map, Figure V-1, shows the site area. Soils containing peat as the principal component are indicated on the map. While the map shows the general location of peat deposits, the amount and quality of the peat varies considerably depending on the period and activity of deposition. Preliminary field exploration and sampling indicated three areas that were worthy of detail site evaluation. An area north of the city of Anchorage adjacent to the Susitna River in the vicinity of Trapper Lake. A second area on the northside of Cook Inlet in the vicinity of the Beluga Power Station. South of Anchorage on the Kenai Peninsula is the third area of significant raw material. These areas are shown on the previously mentioned map. As further sampling and testing of the peat resource proceeded it became apparent that the site area north of Anchorage in the vicinity of Trapper Lake had the most promising amount of resource. The resource is located north of Trapper Lake in a relatively contiguous bog of approximately 100,000 acres. The major disadvantage to the site is its remoteness especially to Cook Inlet and the ability to ship finished product by oceangoing vessel. The site is approximately 70 highway miles from Anchorage and all finished product would have to be shipped by truck or rail to Anchorage and reloaded onto a vessel at the port of Anchorage. When the concept of a barge mounted plant was selected as the most economical means of constructing the facility in Alaska, the 105 Figure V-1 ae < - LAND RESOURCE AREA 1 ieee GULF OF ALASKA zen SS . LEGEND ' BARREN ISLANDS : oe ome eae OR COOK INLET BASIN LAND RESOURCE AREA PEAT RESOURCE MAP > ) SOIL ASSOCIATION CONTAINING PEAT AS PRINCIPAL COMPONENT WHEELABRATOR-FRYE INC. - ALASKAN PEAT RUST CONTRACT € PROPOSED SITE AREA cece oer 21-2383 106 Trapper Lake Site was eliminated from consideration because of its remoteness. Peat deposits in the Beluga site area are centered around the power station. The deposits are small when compared to both the Trapper Lake and Kenai locations and the quality of the peat is also lower due to the type of deposit. Additional survey and sampling work indicated that there was insufficient resource available at the Beluga site to sustain a peat refining plant. The site at Kenai appears to have the best combination of factors necessary to support both the barge mounted plant and ade- quate peat resources. A study of the profile of the channel in Cook Inlet indicates that the deeper water is located on the east side of the inlet adjacent to Kenai. This situation makes the Kenai site the most accessible by shipping from both a construction and operation standpoint. Sufficient peat resources appear to be available within reasonable distance of the plant site to sustain a plant for approximately 20 years of operation. The proposed barge mounted plant will be towed by oceangoing tugs from their manufacturing site in the far east to the Alaskan site. At the site, the barge mounted plant will be maneuvered into a holding lagoon, whose entrance will later be diked and the water level raised. The barges will then be floated into position above piling on which the barges will rest when water is pumped into their hulls. Finished product from the plant will be transported to ocean- going vessels anchored offshore by barges. The transloading of product from barge to ship will be accomplished by barge mounted cranes that accompany the product barges. Since the water in Cook Inlet, from Kalgin Island north to Anchorage, freezes sufficiently to eliminate the use of barges in transloading for approximately 3 months of the year, the transloading in Cook Inlet is limited to the 9 remaining months. 107 80T COAL CREEK” |} LAKE 7-A 9INeTY - AIRPORT, MACKEYS © 1]. S.DOTNA t Pen td | feta P| N, a No.N1104-HM-3001 Old No. New No. No. ee a “ J\ ALASKAN PDF: PLANT ; : PEAT HARVESTING |KENAI’S PEAT RESBURCES During the 9 month shipping season barge loading will also be limited to approximately 12 hours per day because of the tides. The average tide change for this reach of Cook Inlet is approximately 17 feet. However, tides of 21 to 23 feet are not uncommon. Vessels anchoring in Cook Inlet in early winter and early spring will also need to be watchful of floating ice. B. Site 3. Kenai, Alaska 1. LOCATION The map on the following page, vicinity page, Figure 2, shows the location of the Kenai site. It is located on Kenai Peninsula on the east bank of Cook Inlet. The city of Anchorage is located approximately 120 highway miles northeast of the site. Homer, a town of approximately 1,000 people, is located approximately 100 highway miles south of the site. The site overlooks Cook Inlet and is well above high water in the inlet. State Highway 1 is located on the east side of the plant site. This highway is the major connection to both Homer and Anchorage. 2s SIZE OF TRACT The proposed site size at this location is between 50 and 100 acres. The exact site will depend on both the plant configuration and the availability of land at this location. 3. OWNERSHIP The maps on the following pages, Figures V-3 and V-4, show the land status around the site area. The principle owner of land in the area. is Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) a native corporation. Smaller ownerships in the area are held by private and public owners. There has been no contact with local land owners at this 109 VILLAGE SELECTIONS CIRI SELECTIONS CIRI LANDS VILLAGE LANDS sok f DLIFE REFU \dustunt era | i, La , 5 < elie le. zs zZ z Q: z @ ae « E a 3 Yo* ln & = O 2 77 2 So ' yey le e . Tak na Ba litna Pt § g 3 | eae si , [eS | foe her hy 8 | i. \ Phase 8 ie =i cs a Bas 1S Beets ae! 4 5 x NX 31 Ey - uot ierodi0g [TVUoTZaey TUL YooD dtysseuMO pUeBT €-A eanstq Figure V-4 PRELIMINARY LAND STATUS MAP sosese. 0831, Son ae y p32 Ee £8 NORTHERN TECHNICAL ncwoRace | “atasnay ICES Ss LANES ARO FORUS Tit time except for CIRI who has expressed a willingness to discuss use of its land holdings in the area. 4. LAND USE Land along the beach area, known as Kalifansky Beach, is used for residences and are dotted with homes and cabins. Farther inland there is no active use being made of the land except for natural gas well sites which dot the bog. Land immediately adjacent to Cook Inlet is somewhat higher than the bog areas farther to the east. The bog area is 10 to 15 miles wide along this stretch of Cook Inlet. Numerous lakes and streams are located in the area and fish and game are plentiful. The area is very remote and the inhabitants of the area are located adjacent to Cook Inlet. 55 UTILITIES Flectric Power Electric power is available in the area from Homer Electric Association, Inc., Homer, Alaska. Present facilities in the area are not sufficient to supply our requirements, however, and new facilities would have to be constructed to meet our requirements. The power company will require a "“contribution-in-aid" by the industry to build the new facilities. According to power company officials a $6.3 million advance will be required in order to construct the necessary substation and transmission lines. The estimated cost of electrical energy over the short run would range between $.04 to $.06 per KWH. A copy of the letter from the manager of engineering of Homer Electric Association, Inc. outlining the aspects of the energy supply is provided in the Appendix. 112 Water The’ plant's operation will require a source of good quality water. Plant process water has been estimated at approximately 1000 gpm. It appears likely that this quantity of freshwater is available from both surface water and ground water sources in the area. More detailed study will be required to determine which source will be the best for the final design concept of the plant. 6. ‘ACCESS Highway access to the plant site will be from Alaska State Highway 2. It is possible that the highway will require relocating in the vicinity of the plant site to provide adequate space for the lagoon that will be dredged to receive the barge mounted plant. The details of the site configuration will need to be worked out the detail design and site preparation work. Vs WETLANDS Although wetlands areas constitute major portions of the general Kenai area, the plant site is not likely to be located in an area of standing water. The area along the shore of Cook Inlet appears well drained and dry. Farther to the east, there is a fairly high water table with standing water present at numerous locations. It is likely that the plant development will be under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers nationwide permit procedure. 8. SEISMOLOGY The general seismology conditions of the site vicinity are described in the following paragraphs. The site is located approxi- mately 80 air miles southwest of Anchorage on the east bank of Cook Inlet as shown on Figure V-5 on the following page. 13 The Cook Inlet - Kenai Peninsula, is the setting for the pro- posed site. This location is in a region of great seismic and volcanic activity associated with the subduction zone formed as the Pacific Ocean plate dips below the North American plate. Features of this collision zone include the arcuate Aleutian Island chain of volcanos and many, but not all, of the recorded large seismic events in Alaska. Major faults systems of the region include the Aleutian Mega- thrust, Castle Mountain, Bruin Bay, Lake Clark, and Border Ranges faults. Each of these, as well as other more distance features, is capable of producing seismic events, but the frequency and magnitude associated with each system are not well known due to the relatively short length of record, which is generally the case throughout Alaska. Since 1899, nine Alaskan quakes have exceeded Richter magnitude 8 and more than 60 have exceeded magnitude 7 on the same scale. The site area lies in Seismic Risk Zone 4 which is the zone of highest expected earthquake damage. The Border Ranges Fault is located approximately 20 air miles east of the site. This fault runs in a north-south direction the full length of the Kenai Peninsula and extends north of Anchorage. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake has been estimated to be the maximum expected for the Border Ranges Fault, but little physical evidence is available concerning its activity. No fault movement has been documented for the past 10,000 years near Anchorage, clearly indicating that the fault is dormant. Included in Section IV, are six product configurations with varying capacities and products that were considered in the preliminary selection of a plant site. The final plant configuration as developed by JP Energy Oy in their report dated, November 26, 1982, is based on a PDF plant with a net output of 500,000 t/a in two trains and subsequent 114 LEGEND OQ LOWEST EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE 1 MINOR DAMAGE 2 MODERATE DAMAGE 3 MAJOR DAMAGE 4 HIGHEST EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE 200 400 MILES Figure V-5 e ALASKA SEISMIC RISK ZONES A ee atia IN ALASKA lx Engineering Compary WHEELABRATOR-FRYE. INC. ALASKAN PEAT RFINING PLANT RUST CONTRACT 21-2383 115 devolatilizing plant. The utility requirements for the plant are covered in this report and are based on the latest process design. Cx Site Reconnaissance and Resource Assessment 1. Site Reconnaissance A sampling program was established and conducted to support the evaluation of potential fuel peat plant sites. Potential sites were selected in the Southcentral portion of Alaska. These sites included the areas near Beluga, Lone Creek, Theodore River, Shirleyville, West Forelands, Kenai, and Susitna. Summaries of individual sampling results follow. Locations of sample sites are shown in Figure V-6, V-7, and V-8. a. Beluga The Beluga bog is relatively large (approximately 16 square miles) continuous bog adjacent to the Beluga power plant and approximately one mile from Cook Inlet. The terrain in the area is flat, with elevations less than 150 feet. Vegetation consists of sparsely scattered stands of black spruce, small areas of reed sedge and grass, and low brush surrounding the larger lakes. The sphagnum mat ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 foot in depth. Five sites were sampled to provide the most representative profile possible. The depth of peat ranged from three to six feet, and a layer of volcanic ash approximately 0.3 foot thick was encountered, at all sites, between 2.5 and 4.0 feet. Mineral soils obtained consist of fine silts and fine sands. In general, the Beluga bog resembles other large continuous bogs situated near Cook Inlet which were sampled during 1981. Table V-1 lists the ash percent of the samples taken. Table V-1 Ash percent of Beluga samples. 116 on stl il - : se Figure V-6 Sample sites for Beluga, Lone Creek, Theodore River, Shirleyville, West Forelands, and Susitna, 1982. 117 Figure V-7 Sample sites for West Forelands and Kenai/ Kasilof, 1982. 118 Figure y-8 Sample sites for Susitna, 1981. » Sample site Saat | : Sees Pererare a en Poo + . ‘ > say . . Peat Resources Tort Tori? Totot Tore Bru Report Acres (103) (x10!3) AOF 1504 4,29 3,664 vA | AOF 1500 ‘AOF (508 8.022 10.318 204 | Aor Soc ,399 18.192 308 AOF 1300 6.402 1107 26 AOF SOE 2,016 ers 36 " oe i AOFISOF 13,399 20.191 39.6 AOF 1506 13247 16,763 26 | AOF ISOH 7,272 6.762 13.2 AOF 150G AOF 'SOE | } AOF SOT 20,158 18,747 36.5 MOF 1505 10.284 9,565 18.6 ' AOF (50K 19,624 18.436 35.9 > (AOF 150 6.776 6,302 2.3 : - AOF ISOM 29513 27,447 S34 : i TOTALS 156,603 166.529 3256° 2 1 Quogs (1 Quoa*i0' Bru) m L 3.236 is tae 2 Morsrwre ond csh tree Troe oss eAOF 150m me Site Depth Ash % Bl 3 65.1 Bl 6 88.6 B2 3 58.3 B3 5 67.2 B4 3 68.4 B4 6 45.6 BS 3 65.2 BS 6 35.9 b. Theodore River The Theodore River area is comprised of numerous small to medium, discontinuous bogs separated by moderately elevated hills. Located approximately ten miles from Cook Inlet and five miles southwest of Little Susitna Mountain, its elevation ranges from 700 to 1000 feet, with slopes to 15 percent. Vegetation within the bog is almost exclusively sphagnum, with depths to 3.5 feet. Hills and knolls separating bogs are covered with thick stands of birch and aspen to 60 feet. Two sites were sampled, and peat depths were found to be six to nine feet. A volcanic ash layer was present between three and four feet and was approximately 0.3 foot thick. Mineral soils consist primarily of small gravel and large grain sands. The ash percent of these samples is given in Table V-2. Table V-2 Ash percent of Theodore River samples Site Depth Ash % Tl 3 49.5 1 6 47.4 7 9 27.5 12 3 35.0 T2 6 65.2 120 ce Lone Creek The Lone Creek bogs lie between Diamond Shamrock and Placer Amex coal leases, and are approximately seven miles west of Cook Inlet. Elevations range from 200 to 400 feet with slopes generally less than ten percent. Like Theodore River, Lone Creek is comprised of small to medium, discontinuous bogs. Areas separating bogs are primarily spruce to forty feet. Bog vegetation consists mainly of sphagnum to three feet and bog flowers (wild iris, lillies, etc.) At the three sites sampled, peat depths ranged from six to twelve feet, with a 0.3 foot thick volcanic ash layer between three and four feet depth. Mineral soils were clay with very fine sands. The results of the ash percent analyses can be found in Table V-3. Table V-3 Ash percent of Lone Creek samples. Site Depth Ash % Tel 3 38.5 Te? 6 Soe Tel 9 30.6 veal 10 74.1 LC2 3 64.4 Lc2 6 56.2 12 9 13.4 LC2 12 655, 1e3' 3 39.6 Lc3 6 88.3 d. Shirleyville Located between Nikolai Creek and the Chuitna River, the Shirleyville area consists of very small bogs separated by hills and rock outcroppings. Elevations range from 50 feet near Granite Point to 1200 feet approximately 12 miles inland. 1a: Seven sampling sites were selected in this area. Peat depths occurred up to 14 feet. The bogs containing the deepest deposits lie above the Nikolai Creek bluff, at roughly 1000 feet elevation and most are less than 230 acres in aerial extent. The volcanic ash layer, though not as well defined as usual, is present between 3.0 and 3.5 feet. Mineral soils consist of silt at lower elevations and size increases to gravels too large for a Davis sampler as elevations increase. The ash percent of the samples obtained are presented in Table V-4. Table V-4 Ash percent of Shirleyville samples. Site Depth Ash % $1 3 7 S2 3 bd $2 6 7 S2 9 21.0 $3 3 40.9 s3 6 79.1 s3 9 49.5 $3 12 18.0 $3 14 52.4 S4 3 5537 S4 6 65.2 s4 9 63.1 s5 3 46.9 s5 6 * s5 9 : S6 3 * S6 6 7 sg 0 NA *Sample lost in laboratory accident. NA Not applicable. e. West Forelands Two sites were sampled in the general area between Nikolai Creek and the McArthur River. The first site is a small bog located at approximately 150 feet elevation and situated on the Foreland itself. The second site was selected from the wetland area located 122 to the south and west of the Foreland. Peat depth at the first site is nine feet and zero feet at the second. Like Shirleyville, those areas of the West Forelands where peat was found are very small and scattered bogs. The wetland area, which comprises most of this region, is tidal floodplain has no peat is characterized by a silt bottom. Ash content of peat collected in the West Forelands area is presented in Table V-5. Table V-5 Ash percent of West Forelands samples. Site Depth Ash % s7 3 77.8 S7 6 82.2 s7 9 66.6 S8 0 NA NA Not applicable. .. Kenai/Kasilof Four sample sites between Kasilof and North Kenai were select- ed. Sample site descriptions and results of samples analyses are summarized below. Samples Kl and K2 were taken from a bog adjacent to the Kalifonsky Beach Road. This continuous bog runs south from the Kenai River to just north of Kasilof and covers approximately 9680 acres. At all points the bog is within 2 miles of a paved highway and Cook Inlet. Sample site Kl was a relatively dry site with few visible open water areas present. Black spruce surrounded the bog and tussocks of vegetation were abundant. The sphagnum mat was 4 to 6 inches thick. The peat here was approximately 7 feet deep. Ash was encountered at the 3 foot depth and mineral soil consisting of sand was encountered at 7 feet. Site K2 had a considerably higher water table than Kl. Black spruce were interspersed throughout the bog. The layer ash was encountered at 4.5 feet and peat depth was 6 feet. The sphagnum mat was 4 to 6 inches thick. 123 Sample site K3 was collected from a bog located approximately 25 miles inland from Cook Inlet, just north of Kasilof. The bog parallels a paved highway from Kasilof to Soldotna and encompasses 7680 acres. Peat depth was to 9 feet with a 4 to 6 inch sphagnum mat. An ash layer was encountered at 3 feet. Site K4 was north of the Kenai airport in a bog covering approximately 8060 acres. Mineral soil was encountered at the 3 foot depth. Ash content of samples collected at all four sites is presented in Table V-6. Table V-6 Ash percent of Kenai/Kasilof samples. Site Depth Ash % Kl 3 49.2 Kl 6 14.9 Kl 7 63.1 K2 3 50.0 K2 6 28.4 K2 3 76.5 K3 6 Tou K3 9 64.1 K4 a 86.8 g. Susitna Under the 1981 peat inventory program, an extensive sampling study was conducted in the Susitna Valley (Huck and Rawlinson, 1982). This area contains large, flat, continuous bogs with sparce stands of stunted black spruce. Terrain anomolies prevented detailed preselection of sampling sites. However, prior to entering the field each day, the general area to be sampled was selected using color infrared photos and 1:15,840 scale topographical maps. 124 Early field and laboratory data indicated the presence of a three-inch thick volcanic ash layer at depths between three and six feet. Specific sample locations are given in Figure:-V-8 and the ash content of samples is given in Table V-9. During the 1982 program, sampling was done to determine any significant differences in peat between the large, continuous bogs west of the river and those east of the river, sampled in 1981. The. terrain and vegetation in this area are essentially identical to that east of the river. That is, large, flat, continuous bogs with vegetation which includes sparse stands of stunted black spruce. In 1982, two. samples were collected from a site seven miles inland from the Cook Inlet and five miles west of the Susitna River. The peat depth was found to be 6.0 feet, with a thin layer of volcanic ash within the peat. The mineral soil was clay. V-8 lists the ash percent of the samples collected. Table V-8 Ash percent of Susitna samples 1982. Site Depth Ash % sv1 : 3 39.3 svl1 »*6 87.2 aa Comments Based on aerial photography, USGS 1:63360 scale maps, and on-site inspection, the available peat resource in the area between the Susitna and McArthur Rivers (within 20 miles of tidewater) was estimated. Table V-9 presents these data as well as those from the Kenai/Kasilof and Susitna areas. 125 Table V-9 Estimated peat resources. Location Size (Acres) Lone Creek 5100 Theodore River 9600 Beluga 7400 Shirleyville 4900 West Forelands 150 Kenai/Kasilof (Kl & K2) 9680 Kenai/Kasilof (K3) 7680 Kenai/Kasilof (K4) 8060 Susitna (total) 156603 Considering the terrain variations and scattered nature of the small bogs west of Cook Inlet, harvesting and reclamation in this area will probably present numerous problems. Furthermore, preliminary investigations indicate that the streams and rivers in this area are more sensitive to changes affecting fish spawning areas. D. Land Use and Ownership Initial land status research included several areas in South Central Alaska under consideration for development of peat related industries. The following criteria and methodology were used to determine the areas listed and their ownerhsip status: - The South Central area was divided in the Kenai, Susitna and - Tyonek areas. = Due to large tracts of land being set aside for native selection and wilderness areas, status has been determined on a township and range basis. (It should be noted that this is a very dynamic activity). 7 Only’ those areas with significant wetlands and within a 20 mile radius of transportation system were considered. 126 Le1 Table v-9 Ash content of Susitna samples, 1981, SAMPLE & ASH SAMPLE & ASH SAMPLE ® ASH SAMPLE 8 ASH ° SAMPLE & ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH 053-1-1 26.47 | 053 AI-7_ 17.33. 053 B5-6 80.28 053 C6-8 69.46 053 DS-6 36.76 053-12-3 73.04 053 B4-5 31.57 O53-1-3 22.22 053 AI-9 73.91 053 B5-9 27.90 053 cR-1 16.50 053 DS5-9 45.45 053 Al-1 23.07 053 B4-9 37.33 053-1-5 053 Al-10 77.08 053 B5-11 20.83 053 CF-3 39.60 053 5-10 70.83 053 Al-3 12.50 053 BS5-1 31.37 053-2-1 20.58 = 053 A2~1 13.33 053 B6-1 24.61 053 cF~6 72.96. 053 D6-1 27.39 053 AI-5 53.12 053 BS-3 16.66 053-2-5 34.09 053.A2-3 16.50 043 B6-3 24.32 053 cR-9 71.51 053 D6-3 52.80 053 D14-1 12.30 053 E3-1 27.82 053-2-8 55.90 053 A2-6 18.75 053 B6-6 40.00 053 cF-12 45.30 053 D6-6 37.25 053 D14-3 12.50 053 E3-3 78.65 053-3-1 053 A2-9 7.50 053 B6-9 64.28 053 C8-1 18.84 053 D6-9 58.26 053 D14-6 13.51 053 E3-6 27.53 053-3-3 25.00 053 A2~-12 27.85 053 B7-1 20.63 053 C8-3 13.26 053 DF-1 11.47 053 D14-9 56.66 053 E3-9 40.98 053-3-5 75.73 053 A2-15 34.00 053 B7-3 45.45 053 C8-6 48.60 053 DF-3 33.33 053 D14-12 21.31 053 E4-1 42.15 053-4-1 62.50 053 A2-17 99.13 053 B7-6 16.66 053 C8-10 42.00 053-D7-6 89.35 053 D14-15 81.03 053 E4-3 71.27 053-4-3 91.71 053 A3-1 18.9 053 B7-9 58.33 053 C9-1 9.30 053 D8-1 22.72 053 DIS-1 13.40 053 E4-6 41.00 053-S-1 23.52 053 A3-3 23.70 = 053 -B7-11 97.93 053 C9-3 25.00 053 D8-3 56.08 053 DI5~3 27.77 053 E5-1 24.27 053-5-3 38.57 053 A3-5 37.50 053 CI-1 25.00 053 c9~6 41.18 053 D8-6 58.62 053 DI5-6 48.45 053 E5-3 15.38 052-5-5 80.37 053 A3-9 59.50 053 C1-3 31.70 053 c9-8 72.67 053 D8-10 49.55 053 D15-9 29.14 053-E5-6 77.84 053-6-1 55.10 053 A3-10 45.38 053 CI-4 43.29 053 Di-1 15.71 053 D9-1 18,18 053 D15-12 56.81 053 E5-9 30.23 053 6-4 89.34 053 BI-1 21.73 053 C2-3 18.33 053 pI-3 27.20 053 D9-3 24.07 053 DI6-1 19.35 053 E5-12 46.80 053-7-1 20.68 +053 BI-3 20.00 053 c2-6 28.97 053 DI-6 18.33 053 D9-6 46.04 053 DI16-3 61.11 053 E5-15 88.93 053-7-6 = 85.49 053 BI-4 94.96 053 C2-8 78.57 053 DI~9 82.14 053 D10-1 19.51 053 D16-6 51.44 053 E6-1 20.62 053 BI-5 62.00 053 DI7-1 17.39 053 E6-3 16.85 053-8-3 30.76 053 B2-3 18.00 053 C3-1 26.66 053 DI-10 44.23 053 D1I0-3 15.66 053 DI7-3 27.48 053 E6-6 24.76 053-8-5 053 B2-6 80.47 053 C3-3 25.60 053 D2-1 27.18 053 D104 38.46 053 DI7-6 22.05 053 E6-9 20.45 053-9-3 37.17 053 B2-7 39.36 ©0053 C3-5._ 77.66 053 D2-3. 29.12 053 Dl1-1 21.10 053 D17-9 50.71 053 E6-12 21.66 053-9-5 26.70 053 B3-1 19.11 053 C4-1. 11.10 ©0053 D2-6 72.57 053 D11-3 34.57 053 D18-1 17.33 053 E6-13 91.21 053-8-7 45.29 053 B3-3 18.75 053 C4-3 27.69 053 D2-8 81.71 053 DI1-6 35.29 053 D18-3 15.23 051 B12-1 25.00 053-9-10 92.30 053 B3-5 87.94 053 C4-6 52.80 053 D3-1 14.28 053 D11-9 63.53 053 D18-6 33.46 051 B12-3 44.26 053-10-4 96.03 053 B3-7 33.65 053 C4-9 78.57 053 D3-3 29.62 053 D12-1 73.25 053 D18-9 29.27 051 B12-6 63.38 053-11-3 39.13 053 A3-10 98.18 053 C5-1 36.00 053 D3-6 72.68 053 D12-3 84.61 053 D18-10 72.09 051 B12-8 61.71 053-11-6 19.41 053 B4-1 8.69 053 C5-3 41.17 053 D3-9 50.38 053 D12-4 98.31 053 D1I9-1 19.35 051 B12-9 88.00 053-11-8 57.62 053 B4d-3 38.60 053 C5-6 68.54 053 D4-1 14.44 053 D13-1 14.28 053 D19-3 19.23 051 BI3-1 36.48 8cl Table v-9 Ash content of Susitna samples, 1981. (Cont'd) SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE & ASH 053 C5-9 79.62 053 D4-3 34.73 053 D13-3 17.00 053 C6-1 40.00 053 D4-7 29.77 053 D13-6 57.40 053 DI9-6 71.34 051 BI13-3 52.08 157-7-5 20.00 157-15-3' 57..'52 053 C6-3 26.50 053 DS-1 16.00 053 DI13-9 39.18 053 D19-8 72.97 051 B13-6 14.63 157-7-6 28.75 187-15-6 65.00 053 C6-6 43.63 053 D5-3 26.66 053 D13-12 33.30 053 E1-1 88.25 051 B13-9 25.32 157-7-8 94.95 167-159-939 37527 051 B14-8 88.18 157-8-11 157-16-9 84.49 053 E1-3 83.87 051 B13-11 82.77 157-8-1 13.68 1S7-15-12 93.71 051 BI5-1 10.52 157-9-1 157-16-10 25.25 053 E2-1 18.14 051 Bl4-1 29.24 157-8-3 18.66 157-16-1 30.04 051 BI5-3 23.37 157-9-3 157-17-1 29.41 053 E2-3 20.89 051 B14-3 26.08 157-8-6 74.21 157-16-3 15.86 051 BI5-6 21.42 157-9-4 157-17-3 26.82 053 E2-5 21.31 051 B14-6 55.83 157-8-9 35.79 157-16-6 23.67 051 B15-9 20.90 157-9-6 157-17-6 40.78 157-23-12 47.57 159-2-1 15.90 159-7-18 26.13 177-12-3 051 B15-11 55.82 157-10-1 157-17-9 34.28 157-23-14 66.25 159-2-3 40.57 159-7-21 CLAY 177-12-6 051 B16-1 23.95 157-10-1 157-17-10 36.47 157-24-1 29.05 159-2-6 29.03 177-1-3 177-12-9 051 B16-3 157-10-6 157-18-1 23.62 157-24-3 68.98 159-2-9 8.82 177-1-6 177-12-11 051 B16-6 54.80 157-11-1 157-18-3 24.08 157-24-6 38.32 159-2-12 17.64 177-1-8 177-13-3 051-B17-1 46.87 157-11-3 157-18-6 27.97 157-24-7 60.73 159-2-15 98.97 177-2-3 177-13-6 051 B17-3 157-11-6 157-18-9 44.89 157-25-1 33.58 159-3-1 14,28 177-3-3 177-13-9 051 BI17-6 24.74 157-12-1 157-18-10 60.07 157-25-3 63.58 159-3-3 26.44 177-3-6 177-14-3 051 BI7-8 45.25 157-12-3 157-19-1 42.86 157-15-6 85.51 159-3-6 56.76 177-3-9 177-14-5 157-4-1 35.56 157-12-6 157-19-3 49.47 157-26-1 17.30 159-3-9 9.54 177-4-3 V77=15-3 157-4-3 44.92 157-12-8 157-19-6 71.27 157-26-3 60.00 159-3-12 63.46 177-4-6 177-15-6 157-4-6 96.58 157-13-1 25.22 157-20-1 22.37 157-26-6 34.00 159-4-1 18.00 177-4-9 177-15-9 157-5-1 40.00 157-13-3 50.00 157-20-3 42.95 157-26.9 44.04 159-4-3 27.64 177-5-3 177-15-12 051-5-3 46.30 157-13-6 80.62 157-20-6 70.97 157-26-11 68.25 159-4-6 75.66 177-5-6 177-16-3 051-5-6 36.60 157-13-9 78.50 157-21-1 31.25 157-27-1 35.65 159-5-1 177-5-9 177-16-6 051-5-9 40.00 157-14-1 12.76 157-21-3 61.92 157-27-3 38.25 159-5-3 25.64 177-5-11 177-16-8 051-5-10 Ooh 157-14-3 35.21 157-21-6 27.58 157-27-6 34.51 159-5-6 59.94 177-6-3 177-17-3 157-6-1 28.89 157-14-6 31.35 157-21-9 29.00 157-27-8 30.95 159-5-9 20.51 177-6-6 177-17-6 157-6-3 14.81 157-14-9 54.90 1157-21-10 80.61 157-28-1 29.35 159-5-11 177-7-3 177-17-9 157-6-6 28.26 157-14-10 37.11 157-22-1 22.87 157-28-3 44.76 159-6-1 12.32 177-7-6 177~18-3 17392 157-6-7 41.07 157-15-1 30.46 157-22-3 12.50 157-28-6 19.30 159-6-3 23.30 177-7-9 177-18-6 85.86 671 Table v-9 Ash content of Susitna samples, 1981. (Cont'd) SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE ® ASH SAMPLE & ASH = SAMPLE % ASH SAMPLE % ASH 157-22-6 36.25 157-28-9 12.16 159-6-6 58.28 177-8-6 177-18-9 54.92 177-30-3 21.35 7018-2A-3 39.4 157-22-9 57.33 157-28-12 57.14 159-6-9 41.40 177-8-9 177-19-3 24.32 177-30-6 40.82 7018-2A-6 31.6 157-22-10 81.87 157-29-1 48.12 »-159-6-12, 19.04 ~—-177-8-12 177-19-6 58.70 177-30-9 35.12 7018-2A-7 90.0 157-23-1 5.55 157-29-3 52.13 159-6-15 60.85 ~=177-9-3 177-19-9 5.71 177-30-11 60.97 7016-3B-3 52.8 157-23-3 28.00 157-29-7 32.81 159-6-18 91.73 177-9-6 177-19-12 26.78 177-31-3 71.93 7016-3B-6 32.3 157-23-6 19.04 159-1-1 19.72 159-7-1 15.05 177-10-3 39.06 =177-19-14 82.00 177-31-6 14.28 7016-4A-3 46.5 157-23-9 12.08 159-1-3 38.77 159-7-3 7.04 177-10-6 41.81 177-21-3 35.74 =177-32-3. 74.47. =: 7016-4A-6 40.8 177-23-3 21.28 =159-1-6 75.43 = 159-7-6 76.84 177-10-9 25.71 = 177-21-6 17.97 177-32-6 63.24 7014-5A-3 48.6 177-23-6 29.34 159-1-9 53.21 159-7-9 21.77 17-10-12, 71.01 = 177-22-3 45.03. 177-32-9 97.77 7014-SA-6 43.5 177-23-9 10.06 =159-1-12 76.30 »=-159-7-12 11.66 177-11-3 177-22-6 17.62 7176-6B-3 42.5 177-23-12 81.97 159-7-15 9.52 177-11-6 177-22-9 58.52 7180-4-2 97.88 7176-6B-6 46.7 177-24-3 49.44 = 177-33-3 61.62 = 7018-4-3 «57.5 7178-8A-3 37.7 7425-6-9 41.81 7180-5-3 15.05 7176-6B-9 27.6 177-24-6 25.68 = 177-33-6 68.46 7018-4-4 38.3 7178-8A-5 39.7 7425-7-3 28.78 7180-5-6 13.72 7176-6B-11 63.3 177-24-9 = 79.31) 191-1-4 7018-5-3 23.0 7148-9B-3 57.9 7425-7-6 56.25 7180-5-8 91.38 7176-7A-3 42.3 177-24-11 80.33» 171-2-3 88.04 7018-5-6 28.8 7148-9B-6 24.7 7425-7-9 100.00 7180-6-3 27.59 7176-7A-6 30.5 177-25-3 69.30 191-3-3 60.00 9018-5-9 53.3 9148-9B-9 10.6 7425-8-3 59.67 7180-6-6 86.24 7495-2-3 32.86 177-25-6 86.48 191-4-3 62.59 7018-5-11 89.3 7148-9B-11 36.7 7425-8-6 46.51 7180-7-3 59.69 = 7425-2-6 36.12 177-26-3 75.06 191-4-6 39.07 7018-6-3 29.4 7420-11A-3 47.0 7425-8-9 29.62 7180-7-4 99.16 7425-2-8 78.57 177-26-6 97.38 191-4-7 38.21 7018-6-5 29.0 7420-11A-6 37.2 7425-9-3 CLAY 7180-8-3 50.00 7425-3-3 23-53 177-27-3 34.37) -191-5-3 24.73 7018-7-3 64.3 7420-12B-3 60.6 7180-8-4 98.23 7425-3-6 29.12 177-27-6 39.34 =191-5-6 67.71 7018-8-3 37.8 7420-12B-6 24.5 2-009-5-15 62.3 7018-1-3 32.1 7425-3-7 82.25 177-27-9 14.54 7180-1-3 19.71 += 7018-8-6 39,9 7420-12B-9 44.2 2-009-3-18 57.8 7018-1-6 65.0 7425-4-3 55.60 177-27-12 77.65 7180-1-4 86.16 7018-9-3 81.8 7420-13C-3 37.6 3-007-1-3 74.1 7018-2-3 29.5 —-7425-4-6 65.82 177-28-3 51.61 =7180-2-3 91.93 7018-10-3 60.7 7420-13C-6 17.7 3-007-1-6 24.5 7018-2-6 85.8 7425-5-3 35.06 177-28-6 17.91 7180-3-3 21.91 7018-1D-3 47.2 7420-13C-9 24.1 3-007-1-9 4.3 7016-3-3 22.6 7425-5-6 58.40 177-28-9 76.74 7180-3-6 18.79 7018-1D-6 16.7 7420-13C-11 44.8 3-007-1-12 8.9 7015-3-5 81.3 7425-5-9 100.00 177-29-3 59.73 7180-3-9 4.23 7018-1D-8 51.5 7146-14A-3 36.2 3-007-1-13 63.7 7346-14A-6 68.9 7425-5-12 71.85 177-29-6 64.85 7180-4-2 97.88 7018-2A-3 39.4 7146-14A-6 68.9 3-007-2-3 6.1 7425-1-3 93.6 7425-6-3 30.27 7425-6-6 36.50 - In those areas listed as "mixed" ownership, an attempt has been made to determine priority of ownership by percent of area. EX: T6N R11W Mixed (Native, Military, City of Kenai, Borough) indicates the largest percent of this tract is under native control, then military, etc. A summary of the results of this land status research is given in Table V-10. Current land status plats and supplements were obtained for the Kenai-Kalifonsky area from the Bureau of Land Management, State of Alaska land records and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Land Department. The status plats were enlarged from microfilm onto a heat and light senstive paper. The scale varied between plats; however, the current automated files are correctly georeferenced and aligned, except for the coastal plats along Kalifonsky Beach Road. Along this road it was discovered that the coast displayed on the state plats was not drawn accurately and does not correspond with the coastline of the USGS 1:63,360 topographic maps. The display cannot be corrected without returning to the legal land descriptions. Land ownership and infrastructure around the project site are shown in Figures V-2, V-3, and V-4 respectively. 130 Table V-10 Summary of land status. T1ON R6W T10N R7W T10N R8W TON RSW TON R6W TON R7W TON R8W TON ROW T8N RSW T8N R6W T8N R7W T8N R8W T8N ROW T8N R10W T8N R11wW T7N R6W T7N R7W T7N R8W T7N ROW T7N R10OW T7N R11w T7N R12W T6N ROW T6N R7W TON REW TON ROW TON R10W TEN R11wW T6N R12W TSN R10k TSN R11W T4N R8W T4N ROW T4N R10W T4N R11W T4N R12W T3N R11W T3N R12W T2N R11W T2N R12W TIN R12W TIN RI3W T1S R12W T1S R13W T1S R14wW Kenai Area Kenai wilderness & native selection Native selection & Kenai wilderness Mixed (native, state, borough, private) Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness & native selection Native selection* Native selection* Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Native selection* Native selection* Mixed (native, state, borough, private) Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Native selection* Native selection* Totally withdrawn per public land order Totally withdrawn per public land order Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness Kenai wilderness & native selection* Native selection* Native selection* Mixed (native, military, City Kenai, borough) Mixed (military, private, state) Totally withdrawn per public land order Totally withdrawn per public land order Native selection Native selection Native selection Mixed (private & state) Mixed (private & state) Mixed (private & state) Mixed (private & state) Mixed (native, private, state) Mixed (private & state) Native** Native** Native** Native** Native** 131 Table V-10 Summary of land status (Cont'd). T2sS T2S T3S T4sS T4s T5S T5S TSN T8N T8N T7N T7N T14N T14N T14N T14N T15N T15N T15N TISN T16N T16N T16N T16N T16N T17N T17N T17N T17N T18N T18N T18N T18N TION T19N T19N T20N T20N T20N T20N T21N T21N R13W R14W R14W R14W R1SW R14W R15W R14W R15W R16W R1SW R16W R4W RSW R6W R7W R4W RSW ROW R7W R3W R4W R5W R6W R7W R7W R6W RSW R4W R4W RSW R6W R7W R7W R6W RSW R4W RSW R6W R7W R7W R6W Native** Native** Mixed (interim Federal, native, state, private) Totally withdrawn per public land order Totally withdrawn per public land order Mixed (native, state, private) Mixed (native, state, borough, private) State*** State*** State*** State*** State*** Susitna Area Mixed (State, Borough) State Game Refuge State Game Refuge State Game Refuge Mixed (Game Refuge, State, Federal to Native) Mixed (Game Refuge, State) State Game Refuge State Game Refuge Mixed (Private, Borough, State) Mixed (Borough, State, Private) Mixed (Game Refuge, Borough, State) Mixed (Game Refuge, Borough, Private) Mixed (State, Game Refuge) State State Mixed (State, Public Interest, Private) Mixed (State, Private) Mixed (State, Borough, Public Interest) State Mixed (Public Interest, State) State State Mixed (State, Public Interest) Mixed (State, Borough, Private) State Mixed (Public Interest, State) State State State State 132 Table V-10 Summary of land status (Cont'd). T21N T21N T22N T22N T22N T22N T23N T23N T23N T23N T24N T24N T25N T25N T26N T27N T27N T1ISN TISN T15N T14N T14N T14N T14N T14N T14N T13N T13N T13N T13N T13N T13N T13N T12N T12N T12N T12N T12N T11N T11N T11N T11N T10N } RSW R4W R4W RSW ROW R7W R7W R6W RSW R4W RSW R6W R6W R5W RSW R6W RSW R8W ROW R10W R8W ROW R10OW R11w R12W R13W R8W ROW R10W R11w R12W R13W R14W R10W R11W R12W R13W R14W R11W R12W R13W R14W R13W Mixed (State, Public Interest) State State State State State State State State Mixed (Private, Borough, State, Native) Mixed (State, Borough) State Mixed (State, Borough) Mixed (Borough, State, Private) Mixed (Private, Borough) Mixed (State, Borough, Public Interest) Mixed (Public Interest, Private, Borough) Susitna Susitna Interim Susitna Susitna Susitna Tyonek Area flats state game flats state game Federal (federal flats state game flats state game flats state game Mixed (federal to native State Mixed (state, federal to Susitna Susitna flats state game flats state game Mixed (state & native) State**** State**** State**** Federal to native Mixed (borough, federal, Federal to state State**** Mixed (game refuge & state) **** Mixed (federal & federal to native) Federal to native refuge refuge to native) refuge refuge refuge & federal to state) native) refuge refuge native) Mixed (borough, federal, game refuge) State game refuge State game refuge State game refuge 1633, Table V-10 Summary of land status (Cont'd). T1OW R14W State game refuge TON R13W State game refuge TON R14W State game refuge * indicates land within National Wildlife Range. bl Indicates that majority of land is controlled as listed. *** Indicates land within resource management area (use undetermined) . **x*x* indicates areas that contain existing coal leases. VI. Product and Market Alternatives A. Electric Power Production from Peat - Preliminary Appraisal Preliminary estimates of the costs of power generation in Alaska from different fuel sources has been made in order to give an appraisal of the required costs at which peat will be competitive with other fuels. The area of interest is the Anchorage-Cook Inlet part of the Railbelt region. For this appraisal, we have considered 400 MW power plant size. While this is modest for new U.S. power plants, it represents the maximum increment expected in Alaska. or Fuels Considered Costs of power as a function of fuel cost were estimated for different power plants. From the expect- ed costs for gas, oil, and coal, the cost at which peat fuel must be made available for equal power cost was determined. It was decided that peat power plant fuel would be a dehydrated (less than 10% moisture) densified product rather than field- dried peat (milled peat or sods at 40%-50% moisture). This decision was based on the preliminary conclusion that a processed peat fuel would be comparable in price to field-dried peat and that the combustion plant cost would be substantially lower for prepared fuel. Combustion efficiency would also be higher for prepared fuel due to lower moisture content. The coal selected is Beluga field sub-bituminous. 135 Comparative analyses of the two are given below: Wet Carbonized Beluga Coal J. P. Energy Oy wt % Carbon 48.20 47.97 Hydrogen 3.87 4.66 Oxygen 16.75 20.52 Nitrogen 0.78 0.86 Sulfur 0.10 0.19 Ash 9.80 20.80 H,0 20.50 5.00 100.00 100.00 HHV, BTU/1b 9298 8608 On the basis of the above analyses plus the fact that these are not detailed power plant estimates, no cost increase was assumed for a peat-fueled boiler because of the high ash content. Similarly, no invest- ment penalty was charged to the coal boiler because of the higher coal moisture content. Based on earlier in-house calculations, a little higher heat rate was assumed for the coal power plant. Because of the very low sulfur contents of the fuels, no costs for flue gas desulfurization are included in either case. The other fuels considered are natural gas and oil. 136 2. Power Plants Four methods of power generation were considered: 1. Conventional coal-fired boiler-steam turbine with Beluga sub-bituminous coal and wet carbonized peat fuel. 2. Conventional gas or oil-fired boiler-steam turbine an Gas turbine-combined cycle 4, Coal or peat gasification-combined cycle B. Economics of Power Generation 1. Plant Investment Costs of solid-fuel power plants and gas-turbine combined cycle plants were obtained from private communications. For the gas or oil-fired conventional power plants, the cost of the steam generation section was reduced to 60% of the coal or peat-fueled plant. Costs for gasification-combined cycle plant are based on an earlier in-house study that combined in-house cost estimates for U-GAS gasification with a combined- cycle design. The costs from the in-house study were inflated to 1982 values by cost index. We have not made allowance for any cost differences in gas and oil boilers or gas and oil fired turbines because these are expected to be small and not of great significance in relating competitive peat costs to these fuels. 137 Plant costs in Alaska will be considerably higher than in the 48 states. This is due to higher labor hourly costs and lower productivity, more rigorous climatic conditions, and higher transportation costs for equipment and materials. An accurate estimation of the increase factor to be applied to each of the power plants is beyond the scope of this study. However, from a a consideration of specific labor factors plus discussions with people in the power-plant field, an overall increase factor of 1.4 for Alaskan location was applied to costs in the southern 48 states. This is for the Anchorage area. a Annual Costs Table VI-1 summarizes plant costs and annual operating costs used in this appraisal. The former is total plant investment but does not include owner costs or interest during construction, which can add about 24% to the plant investment. The reason for indicating total plant investment rather than total capital is based on the request that we charge fixed costs at 15% of this number. Operating and maintenance costs for coal-fired units (5 mills/kWhr) are based on Electrical World survey with additions to allow for inflation and Alaska location. For gas turbine the costs were obtained from private communication - 3 mills/kWhr. This is much lower than is the case for such units operated for peak loads only because for base load the capital charges are distributed over many fold more kilowatt hours. For oil and gas-fired boilers an intermediate figure is used. For gasification-combined cycle the numbers are derived as a lump sum from the individual operating costs. 138 6€T Table VI-1 SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR 400 MW POWER PLANTS IN ALASKA Total Plant Investment (TPT), $10° $/kW Heat Rate, Btu/kWhr Fuel, $/106 Btu Fixed Charges Local Tax and Insurance Operation and Maintenance, mills/kWhr Annual kW Annual Costs, $1000 Fuel Fixed Charge Local Tax and Insurance Operation and Maintenance Total ¢/kWhr Conventional Power Combined Cycle Coal or J.P. Peat Gas-Oil Gas Turbine Coal-Peat Gasifier 620 535 336 660 1550 1338 840 1650 9800, 9500 9500 8000 8700 1.75-4.00 1-7 1-7 1.75-4.00 15% of TPI 2% of TPL 5 4 3 8 2452.8 X 10°, 70% Plant Factor ——————___ 42,065-93,200 23,300-163,100 19, 622-137, 350 37,372-85 ,422 93,000 80,250 50,400 99,000 12,400 10,700 6,720 13,200 12,264 9,811 7,360 19,622 159,729-210, 864 124 ,061-263,861 84,102-201, 830 169,194-217,244 6.51-8.60 5.06-10.76 3.43-8.23 6.9-8.86 As a new, base load unit, a 70% annual plant factor has been assumed for all cases - 2452.8 X 10° kWhr per year. The table shows that most of the power costs is in fuel and investment. The indicated range of fuel costs is somewhat arbitrary, but covers the expected range and gives a basis for plotting power cost versus fuel cost. ae Effect of Fuel Cost on Power Cost Figure VI-1 shows the effect of fuel cost on power cost for conventional steam power plants. Figure VI-2 gives similar values for combined cycle power plants. The latter gives a little lower heat rate, hence show a somewhat smaller slope. Gas turbine-combined cycle power plants show the lowest costs and coal or peat gasification-combined cycle show the highest costs. Because the interest here is in getting a rela- tionship between competitive costs of peat and other fuels, a range of prices is more important. From the Alaska Railbelt study. and communication with Battelle, it appears that typical costs are natural gas at the $1.00 level, oil at the $7.00 level, and coal $1.50 to $2.00 level (all per million BTU). The dotted lines in Figures V-1 and V-2 show the effect of a 30% increase in plant costs. Figure V-3 shows the relationship between the required cost of wet carbonized peat or coal and gas or oil. Because this work does not show a _ significant difference in the cost of power from peat or Beluga coal (Figure V-1), it appears that wet carbonized peat 140 cannot command a premium price over coal. Thus, without any inherent advantages over coal, the carbon- ized peat would have to be available at the same price. Preliminary indications presented at the July Review meeting are that this peat will cost $2.50 to $3.50 per million BTU in the U.S. proper. For Alaskan manufacture, we can probably add another $1.00. Under these conditions it cannot compete with natural gas or coal at current levels. Figure V-3 indicates that carbonized peat could displace fuel oil in conventional steam power plants. This appears to have a small or marginal advantage. Increasing plant costs results in increasing the break-even cost for peat. As long as gas and coal are available at such price differentials from peat, the latter cannot be considered as competi- tive power plant fuel. 141 Figure VI-1 142 ——-4.----— f+ CT OF FUEL 143 144 References Cited Ls "Economics of Current and Advanced Gasification Processes for Fuel Gas Production," EPRI Report AF-244, July 1976. "Economic Studies of Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Systems for Electric Power Generation," EPRI Report AF-642, January 1978. "Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study: Evaluation of Railbelt Electric Energy Plans. Battelle, February 1982. 145 c. Preliminary Instate Non-Utility Fuel Use As Alaska's population grows and its industrialization increases, so will the state's demand for energy. As this demand increases, new energy sources will have to be developed. In addition to oil and coal resources, Alaska has a vast amount of peat which could be used to meet the state's energy needs. de Current Energy Trends According to a recent study by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, the annual electrical consump- tion in the Railbelt Region (the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and _ the Fairbanks-North Star Borough) will rise from 3 twht in 1980 to 10 TWh in 1990 and up to 20 TWh by the year 2000 (Battelle, 1978). While the energy planning for the "Fairbanks" load center appears adequate well into 1990, even with the development of major hydroelectric projects, the "Southern" load center of the Railbelt faces shortages of power in the future. The Battelle study shows that, even with the pro- bable low range of load forecasts, by 1989 the "South- ern" load center will require an additional 400 MW beyond current plans. At the probable maximum load forecast, the "Southern" load center would absorb all Watana and Devil Canyon Hydropower by the year 2000 and require an additional 1600 MW of thermal generation capacity beyond that which is planned. This would seem to indicate an upcoming gap between power demand and supply. It is possible that additional methods of power generation may become economically feasible as a result of this excess demand. 146 Lown = Terawatt Hour = 10? kWh = 10/2 Wh 147 In addition to electrical generation, space heating and water heating are also areas where large amounts of energy are being used. Residential space heating alone accounts for approximately fifty percent of the total energy used in Alaska,“ and domestic water heating requires an additional eight percent of the total energy used (ACPS, 1980 and Nortec & VanGulik, 1982). Currently most homes in Alaska outside the Anchorage area use oil-fired furnaces for space heat- ing. The exceptions to this trend exist in the communi- ties of Anchorage, Kenai, and Barrow where inexpensive natural gas is available. Fuel oil costs vary from $7.22/10°BTU in the Anchorage area to $18.05/10°BTU in some of the more remote communities. Natural gas prices, in the areas of availability, range from $1.58/10°BTU to $2.69/10°BTU. Based on studies done in villages in southwestern Alaska and in communities in the Railbelt region, domestic space heating require- ments are on the order of 5 xX 97 BTU/person/yr. In recent years coal has become a potential source of fuel in Alaska. The price of coal from the Beluga Fields has been estimated at $2.50/10°BTU delivered in Anchorage in industrial or distributor quantities. A summary of various fuel heating values, conversion efficiencies and per capita requirements for space heating is given in Table VI-2. Total delivered Railbelt energy consumption is 29.14 X 1014 BTU/yr. 148 Table V-2 A summary of heating fuels. Home Space Htg. Conversion Requirements 6 Fuel Thermal Value Efficiency (/Person/year) $/10-BTU oil 138,500 BTU/gal. 65% 555 gal. 7.22- 18.05 Nat. Gas 1.04x10° BTU/mef 808 60 mcf 1.58+ 2.69 Coal, 12,500 BTU/1b 45% 4.44 tons 2.50 Wood 8,000 BIY/1b 45% 6.94 tons 5.00 ' (1.91x10’ BTU/cd) (5.82 cd) Peat! 6,000 BTU/Ib (35% 45% 9.26 tons HO) 12,000 BTU/Ib (wet 45% 4.63 tons carbonized) "cord (cd) values for air-dried spruce (20% moisture) split and p20? carefully stacked (Vermont SEO, 1978). ash content In the Railbelt region 39.8% of delivered energy? is used in the commercial/industrial sector. Of this energy, 50% is in the form of natural gas, 30% is electrical, 18% is diesel and heating oil, and the remaining 2% is comprised of coal, steam and propane. Based on these figures, it would seem reasonable to assume that at least 65% of the energy used in the commercial/industrial sector is used for space heating in the Railbelt region‘, 3Delivered energy is that form which consumers receive and does not include the energy required for its pro- duction or generation. 149 ‘this figure compares favorably with the calculation: Energy Use = (185,000 BTU/£t7/yr) (150 £t7/capita) (285,000 pop.) = 7.9x10!* pru/yr (ACPS, 1980). 150 ne Field Dried Peat Fuel Use (Unprocessed Milled Peat or Sods) The potential for using raw fuel-grade peat with a moisture content of thirty-five percent for space heating must be viewed with several considerations in mind: (1) Fuel peat must compete with other fuels such as wood or coal. (2) The equipment required to burn peat efficiently must be simple and easy to obtain and operate. (3) The inconvenience of burning peat as opposed to other sources of thermal energy may limit the use of raw peat fuel to the residential sector. (4) Most multi-family dwelling units would not be equipped to burn peat conveniently, thus the use of peat in this form would be limited to single family dwellings. (5) Storage facilities for the field dried peat must be provided. Therefore, even though the peat resource is extensive, economic lifestyle and convenience would probably limit its role to that of a secondary fuel source for single family dwellings. Based on previous study data, if it is assumed that if ten percent of the residential space heating requirements in Alaska could be fulfilled with peat fuel, that nearly fifty percent of the single family dwellings would then be required to use peat to some degree for space heating>. Since many homes currently use wood as a secondary heating fuel, it would be difficult for commercial raw peat to compete in the market with wood from both a cost and convenience point of view, If further processing of peat is done, its market as an energy source would increase substantially. If the raw peat were to be processed into dried, dense briquettes or pellets, it would be in more convenient 151 form; briquetted peat could be used to fire boilers for multi-family dwelling units or for commercial space heating. Such a fuel could also be used in an industrial or commercial facility for cogeneration of onsite electrical needs and in concert with space heating requirements. Processed peat would be in competition with developing coal reserves, and the use of coal currently comprises less than two percent of total non-utility energy use. Considerable market development efforts would, therefore, be required. 3a Local Market for Solid Fuel Space Heating The residential space heating requirements and associated costs for various areas in Alaska are summarized on the following page. SBased on a parallel drawn between peat and the analysis of wood use given in ACPS, 1980. Gre is difficult to imagine spending an evening at home with the lights low and a "lump" burning in the fireplace. 152 Summary Location 13 BTU re BTU a BTU Railbelt 1.46 X 10 Southeast 3.02 xX 10 Bush 1.76 X 10 13 Total 1.94 xX 10 BTU Quantity/Year Delivered Cost* $5.00/mmBTU $9.60/mmBTU $10.30/mmBTU Average $6.20/mmBTU * Source: State of Alaska Long-Term Energy Plan, 1982 Report Note: The annual average residential space heating cost for fuel alone is projected to be Railbelt, $1530 in $735 in the Southeast and $1080 in Bush Alaska. 153 The objective of this brief analysis is to test the possibility of introducing 100,000 tons per year of smokeless, solid, peat derived fuel into the residen- tial market. The primary characteristics of the fuel are: is a heating value of 9544 BTU/1b., 2. a shipping density of 30 pounds/cubic foot, and 3. a price of $3.14/mmBTU F.O.B. plant site at the Kenai/Kasilof site. One hundred thousand tons of peat derived solid fuel represents a heating value of 1.91 X 1022 BTU or about 13% of the Railbelt residential space heating market, about 60% of the Southeast market and over 100% of the Bush market. The combination of shipping costs and high market displacement requirements serves to define the probable market success area as the Railbelt region of Alaska. Certainly, however, some percentage displacement can be expected in other regions of Alaska given the following arguments. The estimated annual cost per Railbelt resident for power to operate, replace, maintain and insure space heating systems is $150 per year. Given the above economic data, displacing existing space heating fuels in the Railbelt will be dependent upon two factors: 1. cost of fuel, and 154 Zs overall system operation and replacement costs. Delivery cost of solid fuel to Railbelt residen- tial consumers must be confined to a cost of less than $1.86/mmBTU, or $35.53/ton, to be competitive with existing fuel (exclusive of operations costs). Assum- ing that the shipping costs could be retained at those levels, the only other cost factor which could favor- ably impact the consumer would be associated with the fuel burning system itself. Solid peat derived fuel burning space heating systems are in common usage in Korea now. These systems burn very modest amounts of the smokeless peat fuel described above and cost about $60.00. These systems do not require outside power sources and are small enough to fit into existing fireplaces. Further, wherever residents are equipped for wood heating, the peat derived fuel would serve as an easy, or back-up replacement fuel. In any event, it is felt that peat derived fuel could easily penetrate 13 percent of the existing space heating market of the Railbelt region within a reason- able time once market acceptance is established. Also, given a very inexpensive virtually maintenance-free space heating system, such as those currently in use in Korea, greater market penetration is certainly within the realm of possibility. 4. Conclusion Although Alaska's peat resource is extensive, its use as a non-utility fuel source in the state may be 155 limited. Competition with other forms of thermal energy at this time would make the Alaska market for such a fuel very small. As current sources of energy, i.e., oil, natural gas, and coal, become more expensive to deliver, peat may become more competitive. Until such a time, it would be prudent to look for potential export markets for peat. D. Methanol Production The cost of converting the high volatile PDF into methanol has been derived by factoring of the pre- liminary cost estimate for the CIRI/PLACER BELUGA METHANOL PROJECT This project was a feasibility study for Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and Plancer Amex, Inc. done by the Davy-McKee Corporation. In the study, 7,500 T/D of methanol was produced by gasification of coal. A modified Winkler pressurized fluid bed gasifier was used. In our study, the capacity of the methanol plant was set at 2,500 T/D of methanol based on gasification of the high volatile PDF. The cost of converting the PDF into methanol is $201 ton of methanol F.O.B. plant gate. Cost of harvesting and dewatering adds a minimum of another $100 ton of methanol for a total of $300 ton of methanol at plant gate. This cost is not competi- tive with the cost of methanol produced from natural gas or coal. E. Ammonia Production The cost of converting the high volatile PDF into ammonia has been evaluated by adjusting a preliminary cost estimate by Davy McKee for a 1,200 T/D ammonia plant based on coal. The high volatile PDF is gasified in a modified Winkler pressurized fluid bed gasifier. 156 The cost of converting the PDF into ammonia is $123/ton of ammonia F.0O.B. plant gate. Cost of har- vesting. and dewatering adds a minimum of $135/ton of ammonia at plant gate. This cost is not competitive with the cost of ammonia produced from natural gas or coal. F. Export Markets and Likely Pricing of Products from Alaska Peat, Marketing and Product Pricing 1. Processed Solid Fuel a. WASHINGTON It appears that PDF would have an excellent chance of market penetration on the West Coast in the State of Washington. The State is committed to the development and use of alternative fuels. The State and industries are being pushed to use Washington coal. However, there are environmental and quality problems. There- fore, most coal is imported from Utah, at a delivered cost in the $2.50 to $3.00 per million BTU range. A considerable amount of wood (hog fuel) and some wood pellets are being burned where these fuels are competitive with natural gas. The Washington State Hospital in Steilacoom is burning approximately 12,500 tons/year of wood pellets from British Columbia. The 7,900 BTU/pound fuel is distributed by Sunwest Corporation of Lynwood, Wash- ington. 157 Cost/Ton Cost/MM BTU Price FOB Plant $40.48 $2.56 Transportation (truck) 36.46 2.31 Price, FOB hospital $76.94 $4.87 The wood pellets are considered competitive with natural gas at this time selling for $5.13 to $5.50 per million BTU. According to Sunwest, the market for solid fuel at this price is limited. They estimate they could easily market 200,000 tons/year at a delivered price of $3.50/MM BTU, which would be competitive with Utah coal. According to the Washington State Energy office, this facility and other State facilities could be potential users of PDF at a competitive price. There are four existing State facilities and two planned new ones where PDF could be used. Total annual tonnage is estimated at 75,000, and the usage is highly seasonal. As these are only State facilities, they represent a fraction of the total potential in the State. The small industrial, institutional and commercial markets will require development. Users are concentrated in the Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia area. Using the State Hospital's FOB price for wood pellets as a starting point, the following FOB, Cook Inlet price of low volatile PDF is estimated, assuming an average 100 mile hauling distance from the Port of Tacoma: Per Ton Price FOB point of use $4.80/MM BTU $117.12 Inland transportation ($.05/ton-mile) $5.00 Unload to stockpile at port 5.00 Load Truck from stockpile 5.00 Port charges 4.00 Marine transport (barge) 10.50 TOTAL transportation 29.50 FOB port (Cook Inlet) $3.59/MM BTU $87.62 (158) The following information on coal was provided by the fuel buyer for the state: The predominant fuels used in the State of Washington are wood (hog fuel), coal and natural gas. A considerable amount of the coal comes from Utah. The University of Washington burns approximately 25,000 tons/year of 12,000 BTU/pound Utah coal. The landed cost is $70-$75 per ton. Average cost of Utah coal delivered is $2,50 - $3.00/MM BTU. According to Sunwest Corporation, households in Washington are not geared up to handle solid fuels. Sunwest tried to sell wood pellets to the residential market a year ago and lost money. The additional expense of transportation, handling, equipment, adver- tising, etc. made the fuel uneconomical. be OREGON The following are comments based on conversation with the Oregon Energy Office: The predominant fuels used by industry in Oregon are: Wood - Forest Products Industries Natural Gas - Food, cement, primary metals Oil - Metal products, chemicals, etc. Very little coal is used in the State. There has been a considerable amount of switching to residual oil in the recent past. 159 The predominant fuels used in institutional/commercial sectors are: Natural Gas oil Residential sector uses natural gas, some oil and wood. 14.5% of households in 1980 were using wood - mostly in the form of stick wood - for fireplaces and stoves. Residences are not equipped to burn wood pellets or coal. However, there may be some restric- tions imposed on wood burning in the near future that could prove to be an advantage to PDF. Cord wood is currently selling for $70 - $80 per cord delivered or $3.70 - $4.20/MM BTU. As in the State of Washington, the market for PDF would be limited at a delivered cost of $4.50 - $4.80/MM BTU; it would be competitive with natural gas. c. CALIFORNIA According to annual reports of the California Energy Commission, very little coal is burned within the State and that is only for electricity generation. The primary fuels are natural gas and oil. This project was discussed with Mr. Vic Devilaqua, New Products Brand Manager of Kingsford, Oakland, California. He stated that Kingsford is only interest- ed in products that can be marketed nationally. Also, they are getting out of the energy market. The Dura- flame log was not successful because of high costs and lack of consumer interest. 160 Discussion with Energy Commission personnel indicates that PDF would have a more difficult time penetrating California markets than Oregon and Wash- ington markets. d. JAPAN Per Mr. Wada, Director, New Energy Development Organization for Japan, Washington, D.C. Most home heating in Japan is by: o Electricity o Gas o City Steam Heat Very little coal used in home. There are some anthracite briquettes used for cooking/grilling, space heating, etc. CIF prices of imported steam coal - Japanese Trade Clearing House, April, 1982 ($1.00 = 246.01 Yen): 161 Price/M.Ton *Bug. 1982 Low Avg. High FOB Price U.S. $65 $72.42 $76.70 $60 China $63 $69.06 $74.30 $55 Australia $54 $69.47 $83.00 S. Africa $63.47 $50 Canada $65.26 Avg. of above $67.93 Current Price of comestic steam coal $81.30 (20% higher because of Gov't. subsidy) Avg. Mid'82 CIF Price U.S.Steam coal in Japan $72.42/M Ton Avg. 1982 FOB-Price - West Coast (est.) $55-60/M Ton Avg. Transportation Cost $13-17/M Ton Avg. Mid '82 CIF Price - Imported coal in Japan $68/M Ton Avg. 1982 Transportation Cost $13-17 Avg. 1982 FOB Price (West Coast) $51-55 M/Ton *Estimates - U.S. Average 1982 FOB price is for West Coast Shipment 162 Project was discussed with Mr. Fusa, of Nissho Iwai Corporation, and Mr. Sohsa, Mitsui and Company, Japanese trading companies in New York, New York, that purchase coal in the U.S. for export to Japan. Both gentlemen indicated a lack of interest in pursuing PDF at this time because of the limited market in Japan. Mr. Sohsa indicated that recent tests had been made in Japan on briquettes made from lignite and the tests were apparently not very successful. e. KOREA Anthracite coal is used extensively for home heating in Korea. Per Mr. J.J. Yoon, Hyundai Corpora- tion, Anchorage. Price at Korean port (Korean vessel) $65-$67/M. Tons for 6800 KCal/Kg 12,239 Btu/lb (equivalent to Low Volatile PDF) Vessel transportation, Cook Inlet-Korea Small vessel (50,000 dwt) $20 Large vessel (100,000 dwt) $13 FOB Alaska Port Small vessel $45-47/M.Ton Large vessel $52-54/M. Ton High Volatile PDF would have to sell at $45-$47/M.Ton to be equivalent to Anthracite coal for heating on a BTU basis $45-$47/M. Ton FOB Alaska Port Small vessel $25-$27/M. Ton 163 Large vessel $32-$34/M.Ton Note (1): Aug. f.a.s. value of Anthracite Coal shipped to Korea from U.S. in 1981 $41.40/M.Ton Note (2): Alaska Coal Marketing Conference, Anchorage to Incheon, Korea - 3760 nautical miles Calculated transportation cost - $14.96/dwt Assumed building new 60,000 dwt vessel in mid-1981 dollars, vessel fully loaded, U.S. to Incheon, returning in ballast. Korea appears to have the best market potential for PDF or peat briquettes as they use a considerable amount of anthracite coal for home heating and briquetting. According to Mr. Sul, of Samsung America, Inc., a Korean trading company, the current price of high ash, 11,000 BTU/pound anthracite coal imported for briquetting is approximately $60.00 per ton CIF Korean port. Note that this price is lower than the price obtained from an anthracite producer in Eastern Pennsylvania, and may represent an old price. If we assume $80 per ton CIF Korea for 11,000 BTU/pound anthracite, the low volatile PDF would have an equivalent FOB Cook Inlet price of $3.15/MMBTU if transported in a large (100,000 dwt) Korean vessel, or $2.89/MMBTU if transported in a small (50,000 dwt) Korean vessel. Transportation costs of $11.80 per ton for the large vessel and $18.20 per ton for the small vessel were provided by J.J. Yoon, Hyundai Corporation, Anchorage. Chris Gates, Marketing and Development Manager at the Port of Anchorage, indicates that the maximum vessel the port can handle is 50,000 dwt. The length 164 and width are no problem, however, the maximum depth at 0 tide is 35 feet. There are no plans at present time for increasing the depth. The port will have to have assurances of regular large volume shipments before modifications will be made. Staging areas are also a problem at the port. It is estimated that by the year 2000, all available area at the port will be needed for container and van traffic. Nearby land areas are available, however, and again the port will need assurances of large volumes before they will bear the expense of additional development. It is possible to avoid the port of Anchorage limitations by trans-shipping from the channel using shuttle barges from a shore side plant to. ships anchored in Cook Inlet deep water. 2. Methanol to West Coast Coal to Methanol Feasibility Study, Beluga Methanol Project, Cook Inlet Region (Ref 2). Selling price of Methanol based on 110% of current selling price of #2 Distillate Fuel (Adjusted for BTU content) California Utility: Per M. Ton Price FOB California Coast (1981 Dollars) $177.78 Transportation - Pipeline to Port $ 3.93 - Vessel to California Coast $ 15.73 Total Transportation $ 19.66 Price FOB Plant (1981) $158.12 Methanol Prices - Past, Present and Future, Prof. Jacoby, MIT Letter to M.C. Sze, April 19, 1982 - Current Avg. U.S. Price in 1981 dollars: Per M. Ton 1981 $200 - $220 1990 $260 Marine Transport Costs from Cook Inlet Study (1981): Cost Per M. Ton Pipeline Vessel Total Puget Sound $3.93 $10.55 $14.48 San Francisco Bay $3.93 $13.34 $17.27 Los Angeles/Long Beach $3.93 $15.03 $18.96 Quoted Price to L.S. $3.93 $11-15 $14.57-$18.57 FOB Plant prices to: 1981 Price/M.Ton Destination Port Transportation FOB Plant Puget Sound $177.78 $14.48 $163.30 San Francisco Bay $177.78 $17.27 $160.51 L.A./Long Beach $177.78 $18.96 $158.82 3. Ammonia to U.S. Markets European Chemical News, June 21, 1982 U.S. Spot Price Range $135-$140/S.Tor Chemical Marketing Reporter, June 21, 1982, Delivered East of Rockies, except East Coast, Tanks, Wholesale $135/S.Ton Delivered East Coast $210/S.Ton FOB Gulf Coast $135/S.Ton 166 VII. Assessment of Phase I Alternatives During Phase I of the feasibility analysis alternative siting, plant scale, end-products, peat harvesting methods, and peat dewater- ing methods were evaluated. Each of these categories was analyzed independently such that each could be optimized in determining the most cost effective product and processing concept for an initial peat processing facility in Alaska. The conclusions reached with respect to assessment of each of the above alternatives should be useful to anyone considering peat processing projects in Alaska over the broad range of siting, plant scale, end-products, and harvesting and dewa- tering technologies evaluated. A. Methodologies for Selecting Preferred Alternative In the second phase of the feasibility analysis the preferred alternatives are utilized to perform a more in-depth analysis includ- ing a capital and operating cost estimate and an economic analysis of the most advantageous project. Table VII-1 lists the criteria util- ized for selecting the preferred alternative from those evaluated. Where possible a quantitative selection methodology is employed. In all cases, cost or economic impact is always given the higher weight- ing of any evaluation criteria. A discussion of the rationale for the evaluation systems employed is included with the evaluation results in this study section. Table VII-1 Assessment of Phase I Alternatives Criteria for Assessment of Alternatives 1. Siting a. Transit costs to export terminal b. Resource quality c. Resource quantity 167 d. Infa-structure e. Replicability elsewhere in Alaska via modular plant 2. Plant Scale a. compatible with resource 3. End-Products a. Cost from peat relative to cost from alternatives 4. Harvesting Technologies a. Extraction and transit cost per dry ton b. Technological maturity 5. Dewatering Processes a. Cost (capital and operating) at selected scale b. Technological maturity c. Oil yield upon devolatilization d. By-product potential B. Results of Phase I Evaluation 1. Siting Five criteria were considered in making a final site selection for the Phase II analysis. All criteria were considered to be of relatively equal importance. For the Susitna site it is estimated that at least $10 per ton of final product must be added for inland freight costs to cover capital and operating costs of rail freight and associated terminal facili- ties. A tidewater site would avoid rail traffic costs and at least one of the two terminal facilities at either end of the rail route. At the Kenai and Beluga site the plant could be built at a tidewater location. Self-unloader barges would be utilized to shuttle material into deep-draft vessels moured off-shore. The Susitna site would 168 involve rail haulage. For evaluation purposes it was assumed that the Kenai and Beluga sites were equal with respect to transit costs. In actuality, the Kenai site might permit larger, deeper draft vessels as there are draft limitations as ships move northerly within Cook Inlet. Resource quantity determines the maximum plant size allowable. The Susitna region appears to have the largest quantity of peat available. If useable peat resources are limited to peat of 5 foot depth or greater, a plant scale exceeding one-half million tons per year of dry peat output is the limit in Susitna based on peat re- sources confirmed to date. The Kenai site would also allow a plant of this scale. The Susitna site does have more extensive surrounding deposits of lesser depth and/or more scattered nature. Limited surveys taken at Beluga suggest that there is insufficient quantity of material for even the smaller scale plant considered (one-quarter million tons per year). There is some question whether the maximum ash specification of 12-15% can be achieved at any of the three sites identified in South Central Alaska. Peat quality with respect to ash content is marginal at all sites considered and should be studied in greater depth by additional survey work before any commercial project dependent upon this ash specification is initiated. Ash content in the Susitna area may have been slightly better than that in the Kenai area although insufficient samples were taken in Kenai to draw a firm conclusion in this regard. The Kenai site appears to be in the best position with respect to existing road and industrial infa-structure. The Susitna site near Trapper Lake is only about 10 miles from the existing rail line. The site, however, is on the westerly side of the river and would, there- fore, necessitate either a rail-spur or a slurry pipeline to transport either finished product or unprocessed product respectively to exist- ing rail facilities. Both the Kenai site and the Susitna site would involve additional expense to tie into the electrical power sub- station. 169 We thought that it was important to chose a site for our Phase II analysis which would enable the Phase II results to be applied to other Alaskan locations having either more extensive peat resources or deposits of better quality (lower ash). It is anticipated that there are many sites outside of the South Central region which would have better quality peat. These sites, however, would be remote from any existing infa-structure. Many of these sites would, however, be located near tidewater. A tidewater location would permit use of a pre-manufactured barge mounted processing plant which could be built more economically than a field erected plant even in South Central Alaska. Table VII-2 presents the result of the siting evaluations. 2. Plant Scale During Phase I plant scales of one-quarter million and two million tons per year of dry peat output evaluated for the various harvesting and processing technologies studied. Choosing two plant scales covering this wide range would allow establishment of scaling factors to be utilized over this range. To maximize the cost effectiveness of a project, the largest possible plant scale is desirable. Resource limitations within South Central Alaska, however, limit the maximum plant scale to no more than 500,000 tons per year of dry processed peat output. This would require 600,000-800,000 tons per year of peat feedstock (dry basis) for a project life of not less than 20 years. Even if existing re- sources permitted a plant in excess of 500,000 tons per year output, it is doubtful that a plant larger than this would be advisable for an initial commercial project unless the harvesting and processing technology employed were previously demonstrated elsewhere at compar- able scale. 3. End-Products Section VI discusses the alternative products considered. The final selection, namely devolatilized peat char or semi-coke and 170 co-product fuel oil were based on the relationship of estimated processing costs relative to likely selling price, F.0.B. Alaska. A solid high volatile product would sell for about the same price per BTU as the low-volatile char. It would be significantly more expen- sive, however, than existing or newly developed Alaskan coal and would have no real product advantage over such coal except for its more convenient physical form (uniform sized briquettes). The production of electricity cannot be cost effective with either present or anticipated costs from natural gas in the South Central Alaskan region or with the cost of power produced from less expensive Alaskan coal. Likewise the cost of producing methanol or ammonia is lowest with natural gas up to about $4.50 per thousand cubic feet well-head price at which point Alaskan coal could become competitive with Alaskan gas (it may not, however, be competitive with methanol or ammonia produced from less expensive gas elsewhere worldwide). The low-volatile product could compete with anthracite and wood charcoal, both of which command a premium over coal in both U. S. and Asian markets. By-product oil also commands a significant premium over coal and anthracite. 4. Harvesting Alternatives During Phase I, five harvesting alternatives were evaluated with respect to potential costs. The preferred harvesting alternatives were selected on the basis of cost and technological maturity. The highest cost alternative, illustrated in Table VII-3, was the tradi- tional dry harvesting method utilizing either sod production or milled peat production. Production costs were over $50 per ton or about $3.00 per million BTU. The product produced still contained at least 50% moisture content and would require an additional $25 per ton to produce a fully dried densified fuel suitable for storage or trans- port. The sods or milled peat could be burned as collected from the field but this would involve combustion and storage facilities approx- imately twice as expensive as those necessary for coal. Sods could be burned by small fuel users but milled peat would only be suitable for specialized large scale industrial or utility facilities. Obviously 171 this system is the most mature as it is used extensively in the Soviet Union, Finland and Ireland where production costs are comparable to those estimated here. Suction dredging and pipeline transport was the most economical harvesting and transit system for very large scale projects. There was concern, however, that the dredging operations would dilute peat from an in-situ solids content of 10% to perhaps as low as 5%. This would not present a major problem if the discharged slurry at the holding pond adjacent to the plant site would allow re-drainage back to 10% or better. The re-drainage properties of dredged peat, how- ever, can only be determined by large scale tests. Mechanical excavation and trucking of peat is highly sensitive to the in-situ moisture content of the material transported. Trucking costs are basically proportional to the amount of water which must be carried with the dried peat. For purposes of evaluation, we assumed that the bogs were previously ditched and drained increasing the in-situ solids content from 10% to 15%. The in-situ drainage prop- erties of peat must be confirmed from tests to make this system practical. Peat must be drained to at least 20% solids to make mechanical excavation and trucking competitive with suction dredging or the use of a floating harvesting platform. Deep milling of peat with subsequent pipeline transport appears to be the most expensive of the wet excavation methods evaluated. Substitution of a conveyor for the pipeline increased rather than decreased estimated costs. A floating harvesting platform with clamshell type excavators (two per platform) appear to be the most economical wet harvesting system for small scale use but slightly more expensive than suction dredging for large scale projects. It was felt, however, that this system could excavate peat more selectively possibly eliminating peat layers highly contaminated with volcanic ash thus improving final peat quality. Another advantage to this system is the absence of dilution 172 and the subsequent need for drainage at the plant storage site as is necessary with suction dredging. The system was judged to have less technological risks than suction dredging. Based on its projected economics and technological maturity it was selected over suction dredging for the Phase II analysis. 5. Dewatering Processes Dewatering processes were based upon four selection criteria. As indicated in Table VII-5 combined operating and capital costs were given the highest weighting. Technological maturity was also given substantial weight. Different dewatering processes resulted in a peat with quite different devolatilization properties. Dewatering process- es not involving pre-treatment result in large volumes of volatile gas production and very little condensible oil production. Because condensible oils are more easily stored and can command higher market value than low BTU gas in Alaska, these differences had a major impact on plant revenues and overall economics. Processes producing mostly gas tended to produce an excess of gas over that necessary to fuel the thermal dryers and power generating facilities of an integrated stand alone plant. Various dewatering processes also differed in the amounts and types of by-products which might be producible, having an impact on plant revenues. Process yields also has an impact on plant revenues by effecting the amount of peat that must be harvested. Because harvesting costs were approximately one-fourth those of the dewatering processes, process yield was given one-fourth the weight of processing costs in the selection criteria. During Phase I, four alternative dewatering processes were evaluated with respect to processing costs and the other selection criteria. The production cost estimates for the various dewatering processes under Alaskan conditions are presented in Table VII-4. The overall results of the evaluation are presented in Table VII-5. It is interesting to note at the plant scale selected for Phase II analysis (500,000 ton per year of dry peat output), the processing costs of three of the four systems were relatively close to each other. The 173 economic performance of three of the systems evaluated is highly dependent upon the mechanical press performance claimed by Bell Engineering Works. The claimed performance of this press is substan- tially better than any other presses tested or utilized to date with any peat. This press has only recently been developed and is not yet in commercial use on fuel peats. It's performance must be tested with Alaskan peat before it should be seriously considered. Wet carboni- zation prior to filtration substantially improves the dewatering properties of peat making press performance less critical. Only the peat wet carbonization process has been tested at substantial pilot scale (100 ton per day). Because of the relative simplicity of mechanical pressing and fluid bed drying, it was rated second with respect to technological maturity. It will be relatively easy to determine press performance and drying properties for this system with a suitable test program. The Carver-Greenfield system has never been tried on peat. Results are projected from results on distillery waste and municipal sludge. Removal of carries oil has proved difficult in these other applications and might be even more troublesome with highly absorbent peat. As mentioned previously, the oil yield upon devolatilization varies appreciably from one dewatering process to another. This has an important effect on overall plant energy balances if excess gas is produced which could not be utilized by the plant. Devolatilization of wet carbonized peat has resulted in oil yields exceeding 40% of the BTU input to the coking unit. The Carver-Greenfield system had the highest theoretical process efficiency exceeding 90%. The wet carbonization process was second highest at about 78% efficiency. The pressing and drying alternative was slightly lower due to the larger water content that must be thermally evaporated. C. Conclusion 174 Table VII-6 lists all of the options evaluated in Phase I. Indicated via asterisk are those alternatives selected for the in-depth Phase II analysis. Also indicated are the reason why each alternative was either selected or rejected for Phase II. 175 Table VII-2 Siting Evaluation Rating (1.0 highest to 0.0 lowest) Times Weighting Criteria Weighting Factor Kenai Beluga Susitna Transit to Export Point +2 2 2 0.0 Resource Quantity o2 ok 0.0 2 Resource Quality 2 ol ol 22 Existing Infa-structure 2 +2 0.0 el Replicability elsewhere in Alaska 22 22 22 al 1.0 8 -5 -6 Table VII-3 Harvesting Costs - Phase I (Per Ton of Dry Material Harvested and Transported) . Method Cost/10C BTU Delivered to Process Plant Plant Scale Output 0.25 mm TPY Scale 2 mm TPY Scale 1. Dry Harvesting-Truck Transit @) 13.70 6.41 2. Suction Dredging with Pipeline (b) 19.70 19.70 3. Mechanical Excavation and Trucking 20.80 18.70 5. Floating Clamshell with Pipeline 11.20 9.20 Assumptions: (a) Includes co-harvesting of horticultural peat (15% cost. increase without horticultural peat) (b) Assuming peat drains from 10% solids in-situ to 15% before trucking 176 Table VII-4 Dewatering Process Costs - Phase I (Per mm/BTU of Dehydrated Peat under Alaskan Conditions) Plant Scale (Output) 0.25 mm TPY 2.0 mm TPY Mechanical (yess Plus Two-Stage Fluid Bed Dryer 3.20 2.95 J. P. Energy Oy Wet Carbonization 3.58 2.78 Mechanical RYFS Hop lus Carver- Greenfield (1) (3) 3.54 2.22 Mechanical Press Plus-Koppelman 4.88 4.00 Footnotes: (1) Assumes press can reduce moisture from 90% to 65%; press must be tested to confirm performance. (2) Carver-Greenfield process never tried on peat; carrier oil/peat separation is major area of technical concern. (3) Pilot trials on peat are planned for early 1983. General Notes: Only first dewatered product is considered (not devolatilized product). All plant sites erected under Alaska wage/productivity _ conditions. Assumed 8,700 BTU/# feedstock at 15% ash. 177 Table VII-5 Dewatering Process Evaluation Rating (0 lowest to 1 highest) Times Weighting Weighting Criteria Factor Cost (capital (1) and operating) “4 Technological Maturity we Oil yield upon (2) devolatilization 2 By-product potential .1 Process yield (3) (BTU in/Btu out) ie 1.0 Notes: (1) At 500,000 TPY scale Press with J. P. Energy Two-Stage Wet Carboni- Dryer zation -40 -32 el a2 0 s2 0 ol -03 205 -53 -87 Carver- Greenfield Koppleman (2) Devolatilization gas has lower market value in Alaska than fuel oil (especially in remote sites) (3) Determines feedstock (wet harvesting cost); feedstock costs are about one-fourth of processing cost hence, lower weighting factor 178 Category TABLE VII-6 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Alternatives Evaluated Siting Plant Scale Products Harvesting & Transit Dewatering Processes Susitna ..... cece cece cece eee e cece cece Beluga .....ceeeseees ccc ccc ccccccvece Kenai * 0.25 MMTPY ... cece cece cree ccc ceceeccce 0.50 mmTPY * 2.0 MMTPY 2... eee ee eee r cree cecccccceee . Electric Power ...ccececcccccccceceees Methanol AMMONLA 2. eee cece cere ere nee eecreceeee High Volatile Fuel ........2e-e-eeeeeee Low Volatile Fuel & Oil * eee e cece ecee Dry Harvesting (Traditional) ......... Mech. Excavation w/Belt or Truck ..... Floating Clamshell w/Pipeline * ...... Deep Milling w/Truck or Pipeline ..... Suction Dredging w/Pipeline ........ oe Bell Press w/2 Stage Dryer ..........- Bell Press w/Carver-Greenfield ....... Bell Press w/Koppelman .......eeeeeeee J.P. Energy Wet Carbonization * Zimpro Partial Oxidation ............. * Identifies Choice for Phase II In-Depth Analysis 179 Reason(s) for Selection or Rejection Extra cost for inland/port transit; best resource Poor peat resource quality and quantity Tidewater site; no inland transit cost; barge plant possible Lacks economy of scale Largest scale possible with suffi- cient resource Insufficient resource in south central Alaska; too large for first plant Higher fuel cost than coal; natural gas turbines beat coal electric Higher cost than coal/methanol (due to smaller possible scale); natural gas/methanol beats coal Higher costs than coal/ammonia (due to smaller possible scale); natural gas/ammonia beats coal Higher cost than Beluga or Usibelli coal; briquetted form may get some price premium Low volatile fuel and oil price premium outweighs extra process costs High cost (due to climate) and low fuel utility (damp and bulky) High capital and operating costs dependent on peat in-bog drainage properties Highest reliability; second lowest cost High bog prep. cost; requires bog drainage Lowest cost but dilutes peat twofold (may not redrain) Competitive at small scale only if press performs with Alaskan peat Competitive at small scale; best at very large scale; never tested with peat; not commercial Not competitive at small or large scale; not commercial Competitive cost; commercially developed; highest oil yield Similar to wet carbonization; higher water treatment costs; lower effi- ciency Proposed Plant Products evar errr ts: ae Semicoke Granules : aa Oil fon,