HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalaska Power Production 1992AUESKE Enelgy AUMOTIY +
UNALASKA POWER PRODUCTION
JULY, 1992
WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR
RONALD A.GARZINI, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Introduction
The following report is the result of an Alaska Energy Authority initial work assignment to examine Unalaska and
Dutch Harbor as a potential site for a clean coal electric
generation plant to replace or significantly reduce the
area's heavy dependence on diesel generating systems.
In Section I, a brief description of Unalaska is followed by a discussion of the area's primary economy:
seafood processing with an emphasis on bottom fish.
Section II discusses energy use mix and load profiles as they relate to the task of sizing a generation system for Unalaska and items for further investigation where preliminary investigations were made.
Section III discusses the Clean Air Act amendments of
1990, the process required of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation to implement them, the impact of
the amendments, and the status of Dutch Harbor seafood
processors with respect to current Clean Air Standards.
Section IV contains a brief overview of Shemya Air Force Base and Adak Naval Air Station, two U.S. military facilities in the western Aleutian Islands that also are possible candidates for replacement of diesel-driven electric generation systems with Clean Coal applications.
Appended to this report is a brief, layman's
description of the eight technologies offered in response to AEA's request for statements of interest in participating in
a joint application for the U.S. Department of Energy's
Clean Coal Technology V program.
SECTION I - UNALASKA
The city of Unalaska is located on Unalaska and Amaknak
islands in the Aleutian Chain. By air, it is about 1,100
miles south of Cape Lisburne and about 800 miles southwest
of Anchorage. The name Dutch Harbor, while actually
referring to a body of water, has become the name for part of the community located on Amaknak Island. A bridge, built in 1980, connects the two islands. The city has a current
resident population of about 3,500. In 1990 about 73,000
people traveled in and out of the Unalaska airport,
primarily to work in the commercial fishing and processing
industries. About 25 domestic and 25 foreign ships visit the
city dock each month for supplies, fuel and offloading or onloading freight.
Local Government
Unalaska is a first-class city with a council-manager form of government. The police department includes public
safety officers, communication/correction officers, an
animal control/sanitation officer and a narcotics K-9 dog.
The ambulance service is staffed with EMT volunteers. The
fire department has a chief, officers, volunteers and four fire trucks. The city sales tax is 3 percent.
Transportation
Three airlines, MarkAir Inc., Peninsula Airways and
Reeve Aleutian Airways Inc., offer daily scheduled flights
to and from Anchorage. Charter and/or scheduled services
with Peninsula Airways, MarkAir Express and Aleutian Air
Ltd. are available to other islands. Sea-Land Service,
American President Lines, Crowley Maritime, Western Pioneer
and Sunmar Shipping offer shipping via water. The Alaska
Marine Highway System operates a ferry to Unalaska with four
scheduled runs between May and September. In addition to
Ballyhoo City Dock, Offshore Systems Inc., Crowley Maritime,
American President Lines, Delta Western and Petro Marine
Services maintain docking facilities.
Seafood Industry
Unalaska and the Port of Dutch Harbor first gained
prominence as a fishing port in the 1960s with a boom in the
harvest of King crab. Currently, the port is one of the
busiest in the United States based on total product landed
and product value. In 1991, the Port of Dutch Harbor
processed 637.7 million pounds of shell and fin fish valued
at $136.7 million. This compares with 455 million pounds
processed in 1989 at a value of $102.7 million. Area fish processing plants handle King crab, Opilio crab, salmon,
pollock, cod, halibut, herring and other species. The port was ranked second in the nation for value of fish delivered
and was the No. 1 port for the number of pounds processed in
both 1989 and 1990.
On a value basis, crab is most significant, even though
King crab stocks are only now beginning to recover from near
disastrous declines in the mid to late 1980s. Crab
processing can be expected to expand significantly as
fishermen increasingly target Opilio crab. Currently, crab
accounts for 40 percent of the ex-vessel value of product
landed at Unalaska.
Bottom fish, including pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish,
Pacific Ocean perch, rockfish, Yellowfin sole, turbot,
Arrowtooth flounder, other flat fish and Atka mackeral,
contribute the most to Unalaska processing plants on a
volume basis. Walleye pollock make up the largest percentage
of the bottom fish catch. In 1990, pollock accounted for
1.35 million metric tons, or 82.3 percent, of the 1.64
million tons of bottomfish harvested in the eastern Bering
Sea.
In 1991, Dutch Harbor's land-based seafood processors
processed about 267,300 metric tons of pollock, or about 20 percent of the eastern Bering Sea harvest of 1.3 million
metric tons. There are three major shoreside processors
engaged in the work: UniSea Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Nippon Suisan. Alyeska Seafoods Inc. and
Westward Seafoods Inc. are owned by Taiyo Fisheries, also of
Japan. Trident Seafood Corp.'s plant on Akutan Island
processed about 8 percent of the Eastern Bering harvest.
Trident is U.S.-owned. The other major Dutch Harbor
processor, Icicle Seafoods Inc., also is U.S.-owned. Icicle
does not have a land-based operation, processing fish on
three processor boats. Icicle targets crab, herring and
salmon and processes no pollock or other bottom fish. Other
seafood processors located at Dutch Harbor include East
Point Seafood Co., Marine Management Inc., Northern Victor
Management and Royal Aleutian Seafoods.
Fishing Seasons
The pollock fishery begins Jan. 1 with the first half
of the season, the "A" season, which lasts six to eight
weeks. Pollock roe is targeted, and about one-third of the
pollock quota will be taken during the A season. This year,
the season opening was delayed 20 days. The second half, or
"B" season, typically begins June 1 and lasts between three
and four months. The remaining two-thirds of the pollock
quota will be taken during the B season. This year, the B
season was delayed on a voluntary basis by the trawl fleet because initial fishing efforts caught too much herring and
because the pollock taken were considered too small. The season is closed down for the year sometime between late August and mid-September.
The Pacific trawl cod season begins Jan. 1 with most of
the catch taken during the first quarter of the year. It is the amount of halibut allocated to each fishery as a bycatch that regulates when a particular fishery will be closed. The halibut bycatch quota is allocated on a quarterly basis. As soon as the quota for the quarter is reached, the fishery is closed. About two thirds of the cod quota will be caught during the first quarter before the halibut bycatch quota is reached. The remaining one-third of the cod quota is taken early during the second quarter.
The hook-and-line cod fishery traditionally had been 12 months. However, this year the season is forecast to close in August because of an increase in the number of vessels in the fishery and because of the addition of a halibut bycatch quota of 750 metric tons.
The Yellowfin sole fishery typically starts in the spring and lasts about three months.
The crab season begins in July in Norton Sound and
closes between Nov. 1 and the end of the year. The vessels
first target King crab, then Bairdi crab, and finally Opilio
crab. Crab processed in Dutch Harbor is primarily Opilio.
That Opilio season starts at the beginning of the year and
runs about four months.
Pollock
Although some of the pollock is processed into fillets,
most of the resource is made into surimi, a high-protein
fish paste used to make imitation crab and other products.
The U.S. surimi industry has seen phenomenal growth. In
1985, the only operational surimi plant in Alaska was a
demonstration effort in Kodiak sponsored by the Alaska
Fisheries Development Foundation. The longevity of the
bottom fish processing industry at Unalaska is closely
linked to a healthy pollock resource that can be harvested
at sustainable levels for years to come. The industry, the
regulatory agency and the scientific community agree the
probability of maintaining current harvest levels of bottom
fish in general and pollock specifically remains high.
From 1954 to 1963, pollock were harvested at low levels
in the eastern Bering Sea. Fishing directed at pollock began in 1964. Catches increased rapidly during the late 1960s and
reached a peak in 1970-1975 when catches ranged from 1.3
million to 1.9 million tons annually. Following a peak catch
of 1.9 million tons in 1972, catches were steadily reduced
through bilateral agreements with Japan and the former Soviet Union. Since implementation of the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act in 1977, catch quotas set by
the regulatory agency, the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council), have ranged from 950,000 tons to 1.3
million tons. In 1980, U.S. vessels began harvesting pollock
and by 1987 were able to take 99 percent of the quota. Since
1988, the harvest has been taken exclusively by U.S.
vessels. The quota for pollock harvest in 1992 in the
eastern Bering Sea has been set at 1.3 million metric tons.
It is the policy of the Council to manage the pollock
resource in such a way as to maintain an average annual
catch of about 1.4 million tons in the eastern Bering Sea.
The National Marine Fishery Service's Alaska Fisheries
Science Center compiles the scientific data on which the
Council bases its management plan and catch quotas. The
Center has indicated the maximum sustained yield of all
bottom fish in the eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and
Bogoslof Island areas is about 3 million tons.
Under the current management regime, however, a cap has
been set of 2 million tons for the total bottom fish
harvest, a figure which could remain stable for decades.
Should the pollock component of the bottom fish resource
fluctuate, the Service believes other species would fill the
gap, ecologically and commercially. Over the past 50 years
of data accumulation of eastern Bering Sea fish stocks, the
most abundant species have varied. At one time, herring was
the most abundant species. Herring was succeeded in
abundance by flat fish such as Yellowfin sole. Flat fish
were succeeded by rock fish which were succeeded by the cod
family, including Pacific cod, Black cod or Sable fish and
Walleye pollock.
The current time period could be called the era of
pollock. Flatfish are abundance but herring or shrimp levels
have declined. If pollock stocks were to drop significantly,
the scientific community believes the most likely candidate
for succession is herring because of feeding requirements.
Pollock, early in its life cycle, feeds heavily on planktom
before becoming a more opportunistic feeder. Herring feeds
almost exclusively on plankton.
The Council has produced three scenarios for future
exploitation of the pollock biomass in the eastern Bering
Sea through 1996. One scenario contemplates a constant
annual catch of 1.2 million tons. Under this, the total
exploitable biomass of pollock would gradually increase from
6.18 million tons in 1992 to about 7.5 million tons in 1996.
The percentage of pollock that would have to be harvested to
maintain an annual 1.2 million catch level would decline from about 19 percent in 1992 to 16 percent in 1996.
A second scenario would also promote an increase over time in the total exploitable biomass of pollock but not as fast. This estimate indicates the exploitable biomass would increase from 6.18 million tons in 1992 to 6.68 million tons in 1996. The projected catch level would increase from a possible 1.49 million tons in 1992 to 1.67 million tons in 1996. The harvest level would remain steady at between 23
percent and 24 percent.
The third scenario is based on maximum sustained yield and would maintain the total exploitable biomass at just over 6 million tons. The annual catch of pollock would range
between 1.61 million tons and 1.77 million tons. The harvest
level would remain stable at between 28 percent and 29
percent.
The processing industry as represented by both the
onshore processors and factory trawler ships believe the pollock resource is healthy. The industry views a cap for total annual harvest of bottom fish of 2 million tons as a built in conservation measure in view of the 3 million tons that could be harvested at maximum sustained yield levels.
The industry states the Council's conservative approach also
reflects an effort to make sure the over fishing in the
1980s that, in part, lead to a precipitous decline in the King crab resource is not repeated.
Northern Sea Lion
The industry indicates the only problematic or unknown
factor facing it is a sharp decline in Alaska northern sea
lion numbers. The declines were sufficient to lead to a
final listing on Nov. 26, 1990 of the species as threatened
throughout its range under the Endangered Species Act.
Regulatory measures included the designation of 3 nautical
mile no-entry zones around all major sea lion rookeries west
of 150 degrees west longitude. Subsequent regulations
prohibited trawling within 10 nautical miles in the Gulf of
Alaska and eastern Aleutian Islands. In addition, the Gulf
of Alaska pollock allowable catch was split in half to
minimize potential localized depletion of pollock stocks,
which comprise part of the sea lion's diet.
A draft recovery plan for the northern sea lion is
currently under review by the National Marine Fishery
Service in Washington, D.C. Counts in 1991 of sea lion pups
at 13 rookeries from Southeast Alaska through the eastern
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea showed a decrease at Outer
and Marmot islands in the central Gulf of Alaska. Counts at
other sites remained relatively stable or increased. Should the sea lion subsequently be declared an endangered species,
fishing would be further curtailed. However, the industry
believes sea lion populations have stabilized, albeit at low
levels, and that there is no immediate need to declare the
species endangered.
Donut Hole
The so-called donut hole is a roughly triangular,
50,000-square-mile area in the central Bering Sea that lies
outside of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the
United States and the former Soviet Union. It is in the
donut hole area where the international fishery for pollock
by Japan, Republic of Korea, Poland, Peoples Republic of
China and the USSR is reported to take place.
Exploitation of donut hole pollock began a significant
increase when the catch went from 363,400 metric tons in
1985 to 1.45 million metric tons in 1989. In the ensuing two
years, however, catches have dropped as pollock stocks were
depleted. The donut hole pollock fishery is important to
U.S. onshore and offshore processors because there is no
self-sustaining stock of pollock in the area. The fish found
in the donut hole area are part of the broader Aleutian
Basin stock that migrates through or resides in the donut
hole area. Donut hole pollock catches are down because the
catch rate is no longer economic. Fishing vessels that had
targeted the area in the past have left to pursue more
lucrative arrangements, such as joint venture agreements
with the former Soviet Union in its exclusive economic zone.
Diplomatic efforts at reaching agreements on donut hole
pollock exploitation are in progress. Recent summits between
the U.S. and USSR have resulted in statements on the donut
hole and the Bering Sea fisheries. Japan, China, Korea and
Poland have participated in meetings, symposia and work
groups on the subject with the U.S. and the USSR. The six
nations are scheduled to meet in mid-August in Moscow to
address fishing cut backs. A draft treaty on management of
the donut hole resource also is under preparation, although
it may take years to reach a final version.
Unalaska's Bottom Fish Future
Bottom fish processing at Unalaska plants can be
expected to increase both because of its proximity to the
eastern Bering Sea stocks and because of efforts to provide
a specific shoreside allocation of the resource.
On March 5, 1991, John Knauss, U.S. Department of
Commerce undersecretary of oceans and atmosphere, signed a
North Pacific Fishery Management Council amendment which
assigned shoreside allocations for the eastern Bering Sea.
In 1991, shoreside processors handled 28 percent of all
pollock caught that year in the eastern Bering Sea. Under
the amendment, shoreside processors were to be allocated 35
percent of the resource in 1992. The percentage was to
increase to 40 percent in 1993 and 45 percent for 1994 and
1995.
The allocations were challenged in U.S. District Court
in Seattle May 29 by the American Independent Fishermen, the
American Factory Trawler Association, North Pacific Longline
Association and Royal Seafoods Inc. of Seattle. On July 24,
the judge refused to overturn the allocations but noted
questions remain in the suit that must be decided at trial.
The plaintiffs have indicated they will appeal the ruling.
The Council and the scientific community believe the most
likely outcome is a flat 35 percent shoreside allocation
with no future increases. Even if the offshore processors
eventually win the case, it is believed the amount of
pollock available for onshore processing will increase.
Unalaska processors processed about 20 percent of the
eastern Bering Sea harvest in 1991. If a 35 percent
shoreside allocation does become the rule and Unalaska
processors maintain their market share at current levels,
the 20 percent figure could be expected to increase to 25
percent. On a volume basis, that would mean the 267,300
metric tons of pollock processed by Unalaska processors in
1991 could increase to 334,125 metric tons, an increase of
66,825 metric tons or 25 percent.
Unalaska pollock processors are expected to respond to
an increased amount of pollock available for onshore
processing this year by running their plants at full
capacity rather than by expansion. Efforts by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation to enforce
provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act and the impacts of 1990
amendments to the act have had a "definite chilling effect"
on expansion efforts of existing companies in Unalaska,
according to the industry.
SECTION II - LOAD STUDY
To properly size a generation station for the Dutch Harbor/Unalaska load and ensure an adequate turndown capability, historic load data was collected and load profile curves plotted. These plots are shown as Figures 1
through 7.
Figure 1 shows recent monthly diesel fuel use for
electric generation by the largest consumers in the Dutch Harbor area. This plot displays the variation in electrical load during the year: the peak electical use occurs during the summer and mid-winter fishing seasons. Comparison of the February, 1992 use with that of the year before
demonstrates that the new Opilio crab season has had a positive impact on electrical use.
To give a better perspective on the actual load variations to be expected by a generation plant, weekly load profiles are plotted as Figures 2 through 6. These plots show actual kilowatt (kW) load for an entire week at the Alyeska Seafood plant. Data was obtained for the highest (July-August) and lowest (December) timeframes. Review of these plots shows the variation in load magnitude which can
be expected from a seafood processing plant. For example,
Figure 6 shows the extreme example of a day (Sunday) where
little processing was done followed by a six days of nearly
level load.
Figure 7 attempts to predict the overall load profile
that a centralized plant could expect if all the processors
happened to have synchronized work schedules. Since the
processors process the same species within the same
timeframes into similar products, this is entirely probable.
The same shape load profiles as that of Alyeska Seafoods was
assumed for the other two processors, the magnitude was
obtained by ratioing their energy consumption used for
electric generation to that of Alyeska's.
A significant portion of the area load is that of the
City of Umalaska. A daily load profile for the city was
needed for inclusion in the area load. No hourly data for
the city's load is recorded, so a load profile had to be
assummed.
The City of Unalska records peak kW and kWh on a daily basis. The highest and lowest peak kW in each month for the past two years were made available. The highest peak kW
values for December,1990 and August, 1991 were used to scale Alyeska's load profile to model a profile for the city.
GALLONS OF DIESEL (000's) 700
600 on So o 400
300
200
100
Jun-91 Jul-91 Aug-91
FUEL USE FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION
DUTCH HARBOR, ALASKA
Alyeska
City of Unalaska
Sep-91 Oct-91 Nov-91 Dec-91
MONTH
FIGURE 1
Jan-92
Pollock Season "A"
— Pacific Cod
Opilio Crab
Feb-92 Mar-92
KILOWATTS 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 SUNDAY
ALYESKA SEAFOODS
LOAD PROFILE: WEEK OF 12/9/90 - 12/15/90
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 2
SATURDAY
KILOWATTS 1400
1200
1000 g 600
400
200
0 SUNDAY
ALYESKA SEAFOODS
LOAD PROFILE: WEEK OF 12/16/90 - 12/22/90
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 3
SATURDAY
KILOWATTS 1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
SUNDAY
ALYESKA SEAFOODS
LOAD PROFILE: WEK OF 12/23/90 - 12/28/90
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 4
SATURDAY
KILOWATTS 3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
SUNDAY
ALYESKA SEAFOODS
LOAD PROFILE: WEEK OF 7/28/91 - 8/3/91
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 5
SATURDAY
KILOWATTS 3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
SUNDAY
ALYESKA SEAFOODS
LOAD PROFILE: WEEK OF 8/4/91 - 8/10/91
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 6
SATURDAY
18000
16000
14000
12000 KILOWATTS 8 So o SUNDAY
PROJECTED WEEKLY LOAD PROFILE
MONDAY
DUTCH HARBOR, ALASKA
AUGUST LOAD
TUESDAY WEDNESDAY
DAY OF THE WEEK
FIGURE 7
DECEMBER LOAD
THURSDAY
FRIDAY SATURDAY
Analysis
The overall load profile for the Dutch Harbor area (Figure 7) shows a ratio between peak and minimum load which can reach up to 3.5:1 over a short period of time. This ratio exceeds the practical turndown ratios
for most coal fuel technologies. Some form of energy
storage or load shifting would be required to level the
area load to meet the load following capability of a
coal based generation plant. Potential energy storage
technologies such as compressed air storage,
refrigerated water, batteries, and methanol or
synthetic oil production could be used. Additional
uses for the non-peak capacity such as an off-peak
steam load or new customers could also be used to allow
load following.
While sizing the generation plant for the base
load and using other means for peaking is possible in
theory, it tends to work against the original driving
force for the project. Other forms of generation used
for peaking, such as diesel engines, will prolong the
dependence on oil and fail to solve the air quality
problem. Decreasing the unit size of a coal plant into
increments which can be dispatched as needed will
increase capital cost and may still not be adequate to
meet the turndown requirements.
Energy Use
The use of a coal fueled plant to supply all the energy
(steam and electric) needs of the Dutch Harbor area was
investigated as a way to reduce overall emissions. A single
energy source using the proper coal technology could
theoretically eliminate a majority of the scattered sources
in use today, lowering the total amount of pollutants
emitted in the area. The burden of compliance with the
provisions of the Act could also be lifted from individual
users and consolidated in one central coal fueled electic
generating facility.
The dominant pollutants in Dutch Harbor, of concern to
the Department of Environmental Conservation, are oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) produced in the combustion process. In Dutch
Harbor the main source of NOx is the burning of diesel fuel
and fish oil to generate electricity, produce steam for
process use, and for product drying. Most NOx is produced
for the generation of electricity (see Figure 8). Any
attempt to control NOx production on the part of the seafood
processors should therefore target the diesel generators.
Figures 9 and 10 give a percentage breakdown of the
energy used for electricity, process steam, and drying.
These energy uses are further divided acording to the type
10
Percentage Permitted NOx Contribution by Source
for Dutch Harbor Seafood Processors
Alyeska
89%
HH Electric
[J Steam
Hi Drying
Unisea
6% 4%
90%
FIGURE 8
Westward
6%
94%
2nd H 90
1st H 91
2nd H 91
1st H 92
Percentage Diesel Fuel Use By Seafood Processors, Dutch Harbor, Alaska
Electric
Steam
Drying
Total
Total gals.
Electric
Steam
Drying
Total
Total gals.
Electric
Steam
Drying
Total
Total gals.
Electric
Steam
Drying
Total
Total gals.
Notes: 1. Data unavailable for Alyeska (1st H 92) and Westward (2nd H 90).
2. Two months of data only.
ALYESKA SEAFOODS TotalEneray Diesel —_Fish Oil
52.9 52.9 0
29.7 18.6 191 17.4 0.8 16.6
100 123 Za
911,170
47 47 0
38.9 Sz. 1.9 14.4 0.9 13.2
100 84.9 15.1
969,949
S22 §2:2 0
35.7 17.1 18.6 12.4 1.4 10.7
100 70.7 29.3
875,277
3. Five months of data only.
4. Four months of data only.
5. Gallons are diesel fuel or equivalent on a BTU basis (1 gallon fish oil = .88 gallons of diesel).
Total Energy
57.4
42.6
Q
100
60.6
21.3
18.1 100
UNISEA
Diesel
57.4
31.4
0 88.8
1,161,422
60.6 19.4 27 82.7
2,156,282
63.8 16.1 13 81.2
1,593,584
60.6
25.3
26
88.5
Fish Oil
0
11.2 a in ~ By ~“ w 6.3
12.5 18.8
0 0.7
10.8 11.5
1,740,708 Note 3
FIGURE 9
WESTWARD SEAFOODS
Total Energy Diesel Fish Oil
37.6 37.6 0
62.4 57 5.4
0 0 0
100 94.6 5.4
211,704 Note 2
51.3 51.3 0
48.7 19.2 29.5
0 0 0
100 70.5 29.5
551,876
34.9 34.9 0
65.1 33.8 31.3
9 0 0
100 68.7 31.3
710,081 Note 4
Gallons of diesel equivalent
1990 2nd half
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,161,422
1,000,000
500,000
Alyeska Unisea
Westward
No Data
1991 1st half
2,500,000
2,156,282
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000 500,000
211,704
0
Alyeska Unisea Westward
May - June only
FIGURE 10
Page 1 of 2
Drying (fish oil)
Drying (diesel)
Steam (fish oil)
Steam (diesel) BEE Ss Electricity (diesel)
One gallon of fish oil is
equivalent to 0.88 gallons
of diesel.
Gallons of diesel equivalent
1991 2nd half 1992 1st half
2,500,000 2,500,000
2,000,000
Drying (fish oil)
Drying (diesel)
Steam (fish oil)
1,500,000 1,500,000 Steam (diesel) BEE Ss Electricity (diesel)
1,000,000 1,000,000
710,080 One gallon of fish oil is
equivalent to 0.88 gallons 551,875 of diesel. m0. | = 890-900 | |
0 0
Alyeska Unisea Westward Alyeska Unisea Westward
No Data) Jan-May only Jan-April only
FIGURE 10
Page 2 of 2
of fuel consumed. The gallons of fish oil consumed was
converted to equivalent gallons of diesel fuel on an energy content basis of 1 gallon of fish oil = .88 gallons of diesel.
Analysis
The two processors with dryers burn primarily fish
oil in this equipment. Fish oil in excess of their
drying needs is burned in the boilers, thereby reducing
the amount of diesel used. The processor without
drying equipment (Westward), fires all their fish oil
in their boilers for steam production.
Electrical power generation accounts for 50% to
60% of the total energy used by the processors. Only
diesel fuel has been used to generate electricity. The
remainder of the energy used by the processors is for
steam production and product drying.
Westward has no drying equipment, so the balance
of their total energy use is for steam production.
Between one quarter and one third of the energy needs
of Alyeska and Unisea is for steam production. The
remainder of their needs is for drying.
Fish oil has been used to replace up to 60% of the
diesel required for steam production. Assuming that
different uses will not be found for fish oil and it
will continue to be disposed of by burning for process
heat and steam, the steam which will be produced by
burning diesel fuel will continue to be a relatively
small portion of the total energy.
A rough estimate of potential revenues from steam
sales to the largest user is $400,000 per year. Given
the additional capital investment which would be
required to supply this quantity of steam, the sale of
steam could not be economically justified. The
physical distances which seperate the seafood
processors and any potential steam users within the
city make a central steam plant concept uneconomical.
Stand-alone steam sales to generate revenues in
Dutch Harbor are unjustified. Locating the coal fueled
plant near a potential steam load to allow ancillary
steam sales to level the plant's load profile should be
evaluated.
Items Requiring Further Investigation
The following is not an exhaustive list of items
needing resolution, but a highlight of the areas in which
11
only a preliminary investigation could be made and more
thorough work needs to be done.
e City of Unalaska electrical load profile:
The city power plant has recording capability to
capture only peak kW and kWh. No data of the magnitude
of daily load swings or minimum load exists. A load
profile based on that of one seafood processor was used
in the above evaluation for a worst case estimate.
e Unisea and Westward load profiles:
As with the city, data for the load profiles of
these plants were not available. Some of this data may
have already been collected in previous studies and be
in possesion of the contractor who performed the study.
Since these plants have had recent expansions, more
timely data should be collected. The load profiles
used in this evaluation assumed the load shape of the
one processor for which data was obtained.
e Other Dutch Harbor area loads:
The city and the three seafood processors
represent the majority of the electrical load in the
area. There are a number of other self generators in
the area who will be covered by the new Clean Air
regulations and whose loads will have an impact on a
central facility. These loads have never been
rigourisly quantified.
e Load leveling:
The Dutch Harbor area load profile will make
application of a typical coal fueled plant difficult.
In order to use coal as a fuel, a process which can
handle the load swings as estimated must be found, or
the load the plant sees has to be leveled in some
manner. Load leveling could involve: serving load
presently self generated, finding an economically
justifiable steam buyer, interim storage of the energy,
or attracting a new facility and load which will
compliment that which already exists.
e Plant optimization:
The generation capability of the plant needs to be
determined considering the technology chosen, the
actual load to be followed and the availability of
peaking generation. The turndown ratios, availability,
and response times will factor into the size and number
of units best suited.
12
¢ Location:
A suitable location for the plant needs to be
chosen considering the size of the plant, availability
of space, and cost of interconnection.
e Price of power:
Changes in air quality regulations have not forced
the major loads into purchased, rather than self
generated, power. Power produced must therefore
compete with diesel generated electricity, and a target
price should be set to guage project viability and
dictate capital expenditure.
¢ Purchase commitment:
A purchase power agreement which is acceptable to
both parties needs to be assembled for project
viability. Past studies have met with non-commitment
from the major potential power purchasers.
13
SECTION III - CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
The recently signed U.S. Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 lower the threshold limits for requiring a permit for
all criteria air pollutants from 250 tons per year to 100 tons per year. A plant emitting less than 100 tons per year
of a pollutant per year would not require a permit. Air
pollutants covered are: particulate, particulate matter of
10 microns or less (PM 10), carbon monoxide, oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SO2) and ammonia. For deisel engines, for example, the criteria pollutant is NOx.
Translating this to a kilowatt basis, the amendments
lower the size of generators which will require a permit
from 1,750 kW to 550 kW. The 550 kW limit is an
approximation. This could vary by 10 kW either way and
depends on the emission rate for a particular engine. It
also should be noted the emission rates are calculated by
"name plate." Diesel engines of a certain size are assumed
to emit a certain level of NOx whether the diesel is run at capacity, less than capacity or intermittently such as for a
standby generator.
A goal of the Clean Air Act is for each state to
develop a program to issue the permits rather than the
federal government (Environmental Protection Agency). The
Air Quality Management Section of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) Division of
Environmental Quality currently is working to develop such a program. The Act states permitting agencies must collect
sufficient revenue to cover the cost of operating the
program. The 1990 amendments provide for a test charge of
$25 per ton of emissions for each permit. The permit fee for
a plant emitting 100 tons of NOx per year, for example,
would be $2,500. For a plant emitting 250 tons per year, the
permit fee would be $6,250. The fee system is to assure the
states will have the resources to administer their programs.
The $25/ton figure is neither a maximum nor a minimun,
but a test mark to help EPA determine if an agency is
collecting enough revenue. ADEC has developed several
scenarios to help determine the fee level, but at this point
has no idea of what the fee will be. The fee structure will
be the subject of negotiations between ADEC and public and
private entities which will be required to get permits. If
the emissions of all facilities emitting 100 tons or more
per year of pollutants were lumped together and divided by
the expected cost to operate the permit program, ADEC
speculates the fee level would be between $15 and $18 per
ton. The Act gives states considerable flexibility in
devising permit fee levels. Some states have set different
permit fees for different pollutants. Once states have their
programs implemented, it is believed EPA will probably
14
discontinue some of the funding it previously had allocated to the states to enforce the Clean Air Act.
ADEC believes it will be able to implement its program in mid-1995. Writing regulations for the program cannot begin until ADEC has the statutory authority to do so. The Alaska legislature defeated clean air statutes during the
last sesson. New statutes will be offered to the next
session of the legislature in January 1993. It is expected
the statutes will win approval because the state faces the
sanction of losing $200 million in federal highway funds if
they are not approved. ADEC has a Nov. 15, 1993 deadline to
submit its program to EPA for review, but is not likely to
meet the deadline. If the program is not ready for
submission by the due date, EPA has 18 months during which
it can either invoke the loss of highway funding sanction or
allow ADEC more time to complete its program. In past such
instances, EPA has not invoked sanctions if the agency
responsible for submitting a program is acting in good faith
and making reasonable progress. At the end of the 18 months,
EPA must invoke sanctions.
If ADEC has its statutory authority by the end of May
1993 with the close of the legislative session, the agency
can begin the seven-month-long process of writing the
regulations. That makes January 1994 the earliest ADEC could
have its program back to EPA for review. EPA has one year to
approve the state's program, but ADEC believes EPA will want
changes made, further delaying the implementation date.
Assuming another six months to comply with EPA requests,
ADEC believes July 1, 1995 is a reasonable date to begin
implementation.
The Clean Air Act amendments will not function to
reduce emisssions. ADEC is not changing its ambient air
standards. There will be no requirements for changes in
emission rates for virtually all of those entities required
to have a permit. The permit fees are not expected to be of
a magnitude sufficient to force facilities to curtail
emissions or use enhanced technology to reduce emissions.
ADEC estimates the fee would have to be on the order of $220
per ton of emissions to be an economic compelling motive.
With no means to force Dutch Harbor diesel users to reduce
or eliminate their NOx emissions, ADEC has expressed
interest and support for the use of different generation
systems, such as clean coal applications, to eliminate
emissions by replacing the diesel engines.
Alaska also is exempt from Title IV of the Act which
deals with acid rain and sulfur emissions. In the Lower 48,
Title IV sets up allocations for facilities on the number of
tons of sulfur each facility can emit. These allocations can
be bartered, sold and traded. However Phase 2 of this
15
program calls for a reduction in the allocations, thereby bringing about a reduction in emissions.
In Alaska, a reduction of emissions could come about if a company signed an agreement with the ADEC to restrict
diesel operations, for example. This would result in lowering emissions by a measurable amount which would,
therefore, also lower the company's permit fee.
Currently EPA can levy criminal fines of up to $10,000
per day for violations of the act, and can collect an
additional $10,000 per day up to a maximum of $200,000 in
administrative fines. ADEC has no authority to assess a fine
without a court order. The agency is seeking the statutory
authority to levy criminal fines of up to $5,000 per day for
violations, as well as the ability to collect administrative
fines. With the ability to assess both such fines, ADEC
believes it could preclude the EPA from overfiling on a
Clean Air Act violation.
Current Status in Dutch Harbor
Seafood processors at Dutch Harbor use diesel engines
to generate electricity. Increased availability of pollock
for shoreside processing prompted many processors to expand
their plant's capacity. The expansions placed processors in
violation of air quality standards. ADEC fined the offenders
and placed them on a schedule for a PSD (prevent serious
deterioration) air quality review and required them to
gather meteorological data to assess the impact of the
increased emissions. After ADEC has received an application
for a PSD review from a processor, the agency has 30 days to
decide if the application is complete or deficient. Once the
application is complete, the permit must be issued within
one year. However, ADEC typically has been able to complete
the process within six to nine months. During that time, a
technical analysis report must be written and a draft permit
made available for public review. The processors currently
are operating under individual compliance orders negotiated
with ADEC.
One criterion of the PSD review is the use of best
available technology whenever a new or expanded plant will
exceed emission limits. ADEC has determined best available
technology for diesel engines includes engine designs that
result in lower emissions. However, engine design for lowest
emission rates is not the criteria on which processors made
their decisions in the purchase of diesel engines. Cost was
the main factor. Best available technology will therefore be
retrofitting the diesels to lower emissions. ADEC indicates
there are two viable and economic retrofit technologies
available: exhaust gas recirculation, which is a
manufacturer retrofit, and retarding the injection timing, a
16
task which can be performed on site. Timing retard is
estimated to reduce NOx by 10 percent to 20 percent.
ADEC is in the PSD review process with one processor,
Westward Seafoods Inc. Timing retard will be recommended to
Westward as the best available technology. That technology
also will be recommended for the other processors when they
begin their PSD review.
17
SECTION IV - SHEMYA AND ADAK
In addition to Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, some research
effort was put into a brief overview of Shemya Air Force
Base and Adak Naval Air Station.
Shemya Air Force Base
By air, Shemya AFB is about 1,325 miles southwest of
Cape Lisburne and 1,530 miles southwest of Anchorage. The
base, sometimes referred to as the "Black Pearl of the
Pacific" or "the rock," is the most westerly of the Eleventh
Air Force's bases. The 683rd Air Base Group provides support
to various associate units assigned to other Air Force
commands, primarily the Air Combat Command. Shemya is best
known to the public in Alaska as a base from which aircraft
were and are dispatched to intercept and shadow surveillance
aircraft, most notably long range "Bear" bombers, from the
former Soviet Union.
The base has a compliment of 38 officers and 501
enlisted personnel. At any one time, between 40 and 60
contractors may be working at the base, giving a total
population of 600 or less. Shemya receives scheduled air
service on a contracted basis by MarkAir twice a week
(Tuesday and Thursday) and by the U.S. Military Airlift
Command. There is no scheduled surface transportation to the
island, however barges resupply the base during summer
months. There are no civilian dependents on the base.
Personnel serve a one year unaccompanied tour of duty.
Shemya's power generation system is capable of 18 MW at
maximum production. The peak load reached has been 16 MW,
and 6 MW is the average load. The generators are driven by
diesel engines.
The once uninhabited island was first occupied by
military forces on May 28, 1943 during the final days of the
battle to take nearby Attu from the Japanese during World
War II. The present day 10,000-foot runway and accompanying
facilities were constructed to accommodate the 28th Bomber
Group whose B-24s flew bombing and photo reconnaissance
missions agains the northern Kurile Islands. Air Force
activities were reduced following the war. The base served
as a refueling stop during the Korean War and was home to
the 5021st Air Base Squadron. The base was inactivated July
1, 1954 after the Korean War. The facilities were turned
over to the then U.S. Civil Aeronautics Authority in 1955,
and subsequently leased to Northwest Orient Airlines which
remained on the island until 1961.
The Air Force resumed operations on Shemya in support
of various Air Force and Army strategic intelligence
collection activities, and the 5040th Air Base Squadron was
18
activated July 15, 1958 to provide base support. The base's operational status was redesignated and upgraded several times during ensuing years. It was transferred from the Aerospace Defense Command to the Strategic Air Command when the former was inactivated Oct. 1, 1979. The base currently is part of the Alaskan Air Command which is based at
Elmendorf Air Force Base just north of Anchorage.
Adak Naval Air Station
By air, Adak NAS is located 1,290 miles southwest of
Cape Lisburne and about 1,250 miles southwest of Anchorage.
The air station is a part of the Naval Air Force Pacific
Command. Its mission is to support the U.S. Navy's Pacific
fleet, most notably in the area of anti-submarine warfare.
Adak has a compliment of 2,200 active duty military
personnel. Dependents and contractors bring the total
population to about 5,000 persons, which would make it
Alaska's sixth largest city were it in civilian hands,
according to a station spokesman. During winter months, the
station's population declines by about 500. Adak is served
on a scheduled basis by Reeve Aleutian Airways and MarkAir,
and by the Military Airlift Command. Samson Tug and Barge
Co. of Seattle is under contract to provide scheduled (every
17 days) barge service from Seattle. Adak has a peak power
demand of 10.75 MW. The generators are driven by diesels
which use JP 5 jet fuel. Both the diesels and generators
have been characterized as "very old." Plans exist for
replacing the diesel engines with turbines, but funding has
not been made available.
The island was occupied by the U.S. Army when it landed
3,500 troops on Aug. 30, 1942. Adak served as a staging area
for efforts to retake Kiska during WWII, and at one time
there were 100,000 personnel on the island. Adak's military
population declined to about 1,000 following the end of the
war. In July 1950, the Army base on Adak was turned over to
the U.S. Navy. The naval air station underwent a steady
build up in the 1960s and 1970s to reach its current staff
level.
19
REFERENCES
Tom Chappel, project manager, Air Quality Management Section, Division of Environmental Quality, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, personal communication.
Albert Bohn, Air Quality Management Section, Division of Environmental Quality, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Juneau, personal communication.
Bill McClarence, Air Quality Program, South Central Regional Office, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Anchorage.
Roe Sturgulewski, public works director, and Jim Taylor,
City of Unalaska, personal communication.
R.W. Beck and Associates Inc., Preliminary Report: Unalaska
Geothermal Project, Nov. 13, 1991, Anchorage.
Shemya, Tech. Sgt. Holbrook, Elmendorf Air Force Base public
affairs office.
Adak, Capt. Ellis Caldwell, command office, Adak Naval Air Station.
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, "Stock assessment
and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish resources
of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region as projected for
1992," November 1991.
National Fisherman, West Coast Focus, pp. 1 & 4, pp. 18-19,
February 1992, Vol. 72, No. 10.
National Fisherman, pp. 11 & 71, May 1992, Vol. 73, No. 1.
Alaska Fisherman's Journal, pp. 11, 34 & 36, August 1991.
Richard Lauber, chairman of North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and lobbyist for Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, Juneau, personal communication.
Bruce Buls, spokesman for American Factory Trawlers
Association, Seattle, personal communication.
Loh-Lee Low, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, personal communication.
Brent C. Paine, fishery biologist, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Anchorage, personal communication.
Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Chamber of Commerce, 1992 Business
Directory and Information Guide.
20
Appendices
PROPOSED COAL FUEL TECHNOLOGIES
Eight companies responded favorably to the Alaska Energy
Authority’s request for statements of interest in joint
application for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (USDOE) Clean
Coal V program. Responding firms were required to offer pre-
commercial technology that would meet the minimum requirements of
the proposed USDOE solicitation that is also applicable to Alaska
remote utility needs. Size range of potential units could vary
from 200 kw to 25 MW.
The eight companies were: Detroit Diesel Corp. of Detroit,
Mich., Air Products and Chemicals Inc. of Allentown, Penn.,
Southern Engineering and Equipment Co. of Graysville, Ala.,
Cooper Industries of Grove City, Penn., The M.W. Kellogg Co. of
Houston, Texas, Energy and Environmental Research Corp. of
Orrville, Ohio, Hague International of South Portland, Maine and
SGI International of La Jolla, Calif.
Detroit Diesel
Detroit, Mich.
Richard Winsor, manager - combustion and emissions
313 592-7190, fax 313 592-7888
Detroit Diesel proposed a joint application to develop two-
stroke diesel engines which would operate on coal-derived
methanol to generate electricity in rural Alaska areas.
The company proposes to further develop its Series 92 and
149 heavy-duty diesel engines which have horsepower outputs
ranging from 276 hp to 1,232 hp (Series 92) and between 1,155 hp
and 2,340 hp (Series 149). The engines can power a range of
Detroit Diesel generator sets with outputs ranging from 200 kw to
1.5 MW per engine.
Series 92 methanol diesel engines have been used to power
urban buses since 1983. This engine was the first alternate fuel
heavy-duty engine in the United States to win certification by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Benefits Detroit Diesel
believes can be accrued by the use of methanol-fueld diesel
engines to generate electricity in rural Alaska include local
fuel source, lower emissions and potentially lower fuel cost. A
number of Detroit Diesel engines are in use throughout Alaska,
including rural villages where they are used to generate
electricity. Existing engines could be retrofitted to run on
methanol, or could be replaced with the new methanol-burning
engines.
The company, in its expression of interest, did not specify
how the methanol would be produced from coal or what the by
products would be. But the company does have a relationship with
Air Products and Chemicals under a USDOE Clean Coal III program
to test methanol as a diesel fuel in buses on the West Coast.
This is in conjunction with an Air Products Clean Coal program to
demonstrate its proprietary process to produce methanol from
coal-derived synthesis gas on a commercial scale at a facility
located in Daggett, Calif. There is no relationship between
Detroit Diesel and Air Products for an application under Clean
Coal V.
In a coal-to-methanol system, the coal is first crushed and
pulverized before being fed into a gasifier. During gasification,
the carbon in the coal reacts with oxygen and steam to form
carbon oxides, methane and hydrogen. The raw gas is delivered to
the synthesis gas upgrading section for production of a gas
suitable for methanol synthesis. During this process the hydrogen
and sulfur join to form hydrogen sulfide which is removed ina
sulfur recovery unit. The other by product is virtually pure
carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is either vented or collected
for future sale. In the final stage, the synthesis gas is
compressed to the level required for methanol synthesis (1,390
psia). Centrifugal type compressors are used. The methanol is
produced from a distillation column.
Air Products
Allentown, Penn.
David J. Taylor, manager - business development
215 481-7440, fax 215 481-5444
Air Products proposed a joint application for the
development, design, construction and operation of a pressurized
fluidized bed boiler independent power plant. The plant would use
Alaska coal and sell power to a utility targeted by AEA under a
long term contract.
A pressurized fluidized bed boiler is a container in which
the combustion process occurs. Because of its pressurized
operation, the container is considerably smaller than a
conventional boiler of equal generating capacity. The process
begins when a mixture of crushed coal and limestone or dolomite
is injected, along with a uniform flow of air, through the bottom
portion of the container. When the air velocity inside the
container reaches a certain level, the solid particles of coal
and limestone appear to float or "fluidize."
During this process the coal is burned and the limestone
absorbs more than 95 percent of the sulfur oxides that are
produced, thus requiring no additional flue gas desulfurization.
The sulfur-laden limestone forms a dry, solid waste product which
is removed through the bottom of the container or captured as fly
ash in dust collectors. The combustion temperature ranges from
about 1,600 degrees F to 1,800 defrees F, or about half that
encountered in a conventional boiler and well below the heat
level needed to form nitrous oxides. The heat from the combustor
is used to make hot water, hot air or steam to drive a generating
systen.
In the Air Products combined cycle proposal, the coal and
limestone are first fed into a pressurized carbonizer which
produces a low-Btu fuel gas and char. The fuel gas, after having
the particulate fly ash removed, is burned to produce the energy
required to drive a gas turbine which, in turn, drives a
generator to produce electricity. After exiting the carbonizer
the char is then fed into the fluidized bed combustor. Steam
generated in a heat-recovery steam generator associated with the
fluidized bed drives a steam turbine generator that furnishes the
balance of electric power delivered by the plant. The steam
turbine generates about 80 percent of the plant’s total gross
electrical output, and the gas turbine produces the rest.
Air Products, a company with annual sales exceeding $3
billion, has a history of involvement with USDOE in Clean Coal I,
II and III and with other non-coal related projects. The company operates fluidized bed power plants in Stockton, Calif., and
Ebensburg, Penn.
Southern Engineering & Equipment Co.
Graysville, Ala.
Neil Turner Sr.
20S 674-5626, fax 205 674-5630
Southern Engineering has expressed an interest in
participating in a Clean Coal V application as a provider of
steam turbines and generators. The company designs, builds and
installs small and medium size cogeneration systems using back
pressure or condensing steam turbines and induction or
synchronous generators. Southern Engineering currently has 30
installations in operation in the 35 kw to 4 MW range with the
majority in the less than 500 kw range.
The steam turbines and generators are assembled in Southern
Engineering’s Graysville, Ala., shop, and personnel are available
for re-erection at a chosen site. Size of the components to be
used in an Alaska Clean Coal application would depend on the type
of turbines and generators selected. Services of the company
include feasibility analysis, complete engineered drawings and
written material for system manufacture, field installation
supervision and maintenance. The equipment is designed to operate
without an attendant.
Cooper Industries
Grove City, Penn.
A.K. Rao, project manager
412 458-3550, fax 412-458-3525
Cooper Industries (Cooper-Bessemer Reciprocating Products
Division) is looking for a host site and a potential partner to
join it in bidding for a USDOE Clean Coal V project to
demonstrate the company’s coal water slurry (CWS) fueled diesel
engine. Cooper-Bessemer developed the engine under the
sponsorship of USDOE’s Morgantown Energy Technology Center, and has successfully operated both a research engine and a production engine on CWS with under 2 percent ash production. Test results indicate power output and operating efficiencies comparable to diesel fuel operation. The slurry underwent almost complete combustion without leaving deposits inside the engine. A full
scale emissions control system has been constructed and is scheduled to be demonstrated in 1993.
Offered for demonstration are a six-cylinder engine capable
of producing 1.8 MW and a 20-cylinder engine capable of producing
6 MW of electricity. A coal cleaning and slurrying plant would be
installed at the site with the engines. The plant would produce engine grade slurry with less than 2 percent ash and a boiler
grade cleaned coal for use in boilers in Alaska and/or for export. Coal pulverized to an optimum 10 to 13 micron size with 98 percent less than 88 microns in size would comprize 50 percent of the slurry by weight. Electricity generated by this system
could be used to power the coal preparation plant as well as meet
the energy requirements of a coal mining operation. The size of
the CWS plant would depend on the fuel demand of the engines,
whether the plant were to be run year-round or on a seasonal
basis and the nature of other AEA requirements. Components for the CWS plant are available off-the-shelf.
Representatives of the Alaska Energy Authority and the Rural
Alaska Power Association visited the Cooper-Bessemer research
center in February 1992 where they were briefed on the technology
involved and witnessed a demonstration of the coal-fueled engine.
M.W. Kellogg Co.
Houston, Texas
William M. Campbell, manager, clean coal technologies
713-753-2184, fax 713 753-6609
M.W. Kellogg has piloted an atmospheric circulating fluidized bed combustor which could be adapted to the range of generating capacities called for in AEA’s request for statements
of interest for Clean Coal V. The process was piloted under a cooperative agreement with the USDOE in a one-ton-per-day facility which consumes coal, petroleum coke, lignite or other similar fuel. The process operates at atmospheric pressure, and
uses limestone as the sulfur sorbent.
The technology is pre-commercial, and Kellogg is seeking an industrial or governmental partner to commercialize the
technology. The system uses a "transport-phase" combustor which uses coal pulverized to about the size of pencil eraser heads and limestone. Velocity of the air being pumped into the combustor is relatively high, in excess of 30 feet per second. The test program, in which both bituminous coal and petroleum coke feeds were used, resulted in essentially complete conversion of carbon
and greater than 98 percent capture of sulfur. The transport reactor of the combustor operates in stages to minimize production of nitrous oxide.
Heat from the combustor is used to generate steam for a steam turbine which drives the generator. In low capacity units,
the combustor would be operated at near atmospheric pressure and power would be produced only from steam in a simple cycle. For higher capacities, the combustor would be operated at moderate
pressure and the flue gas would be expanded to generate power and compress the combustion air in a combined cycle system. The low capacity unit could be transported in C-130 cargo aircraft.
M.W. Kellogg currently is under contract to the USDOE to
build a pressurized version of the combustor at Wilsonville,
Ala., which will consume about 40 tons per day of coal.
Energy and Environmental Research Corp.
Orrville, Ohio
Robert A. Ashworth, process manager
216 682-4007, fax 216 684-2110
EER has expressed an interest in working with AEA to develop
and commercialize its atmospheric fluidized bed cumbustor for use
in burning Alaska coal and waste wood to generate electricity.
Heat from the combustor could drive either a hot air turbine or
create steam for a steam-driven turbine/generator system. The
system also could provide hot water, steam and/or hot air for use
in AEA’s patented ammonia chiller to make ice.
In this fluidized bed system, air and recirculated flue gas
are blown up through the bottom of the combuster and the coal
fuel is fed into the unit via a side port. Hot combustion gases
are transmitted to a shell-and-tube heat exchanger where either
water is heated or steam is created. After exiting the heat
exchanger the combustion gas is filtered to remove the ash and
sulfur sorbent. Combustible flue gas is then recirculated to the
air blower. The remaining flue gas is sent to the exhaust stack.
EER currently has a fluidized bed combustor development
program underway with the USDOE. An EER representative has
indicated he will recommend to the USDOE that the demonstration
phase of the program be completed in Alaska in a cooperative
effort with AEA. Also under discussion is a test of four Alaska
coals as part of the demonstration phase. EER’s commercialization
partner, which fabricates the fluidized bed combustors, has been
advised of the discussions and the possibility of assembling the
components in Alaska.
This effort would not entail an application under Clean Coal
V. Funding from DOE for demonstration phase is already in place.
This would significantly shorten the time needed to initiate a
test of this technology in Alaska.
Hague International
South Portland, Maine
Gwynne F. Briggs, program manager
207 799-7346, fax 207 799-6743
Hague International is interested in joining with AEA to
submit a proposal to USDOE for the design, constrution,
installation and start-up of an air transportable electric power
generation plant for rural areas. Hague currently is developing
an emerging technology for a solid fuel power cycle based on an
externally or indirect-fired gas turbine and low pressure
(atmospheric) ceramic heat exchangers. The program is sponsored
by USDOE’s Morgantown Energy Technology Center, the Pittsburgh
Energy Technology Center and a consortium of electric utilities,
utility organizations, industrial equipment manufacturers, state
agencies and foreign government entities.
Hague is constructing a test facility power plant that
includes all of the key components in the cycle at a test site in
Kennebunk, Maine. The rated heat input of 7.3 MW is based ona
Garret 831 gas turbine. Hague also is studying the application of
the General Electric LM 2500 turbine for coal and bio-mass fired
power plants, covering a range of 500 kw to 50 MW. The Kennebunk test facility is scheduled to go into operation on natural gas during the last quarter of 1992 for initial pressure testing, and
on coal during the first quarter of 1993. Data from the tests
will be available for submittal with the Clean Coal solicitation.
In the company’s Externally-Fired Combined Cycle (EFCC)
system, clean air enters an open cycle gas turbine for
compression to a pressure of 10 to 20 atmospheres. The compressed
air flows through the tubes from the turbine and receives heat
from the higher temperature coal combustion gases generated by a
low NOX pulverized coal combustor. The heated air is sent back to
the turbine through tubes to its expander section, which produces
about 45 percent of the new combined cycle electricity. The
exhaust air from the gas turbine becomes the combustion air for
the coal combustion system. The resulting coal gases pass through
a slag screen and enter the ceramic heat exchanger. The heat is
then used for the bottom half of the power cycle to produce steam
to generate electricity, or for injection into the the compressed
air systen.
SGI International
La Jolla, Calif.
Richard McPherson, director of development
619 551-1090, fax 619 551-0247
SGI has expressed an interest in AEA’s efforts on an application for Clean Coal V, but believes it may be excluded from participating because the request for statements of interest specified coal-fired electrical generation technology. The company’s Liquids From Coal (LFC) refining process takes lower
rank coal and converts it to more valuable co-products of a natural gas substitute, a liquid similar to No. 6 fuel oil and a higher heat content coal with low sulfur and moisture.
The LCF process could be part of a package which includes use of the upgraded coal in advanced boiler technology such as fluidized bed combustion. The gas could be used to fuel the LFC refinery or in a combined cycle to drive a gas turbine to generate additional electricity such as that proposed by Air Products and Chemicals Inc. The liquid fuel could be used for powering plants and industrial boilers, as transportation fuel or as a feedstock in the production of specialty chemicals currently derived from crude oil.
In 1989, SGI and its partner ENCOAL Corp., a subsidiary of Shell Mining Co., submitted a proposal in USDOE’s Clean Coal III round which resulted in an agreement to construct and operate the first commercial LFC plant. The plant is located near Gillette,
Wyo.
The LFC process first uses a proprietary control system to analyze the coal which is then dried. From there, the coal goes
into a pyrolyzer where heat is used to to remove the liquid and gas constituents including sulfur.
State of Alaska ™m | Alaska Energy Authority | P.0. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
ASCG COAL CONCEPT
Title UNALASKA/DUCTCH HARBOR UNISEA PROXIMITY 1/4 Mile ese Tome ox Tax se
Alyeska
Seafoods
State of Alaska Alaska Energy Authority ee
701 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Tile UNALASKA/DUCTCH HARBOR ALYESKA SEAFOODS PROXIMITY
0
Westward
Seafoods
..._ ed
1/16 1/8 Mile
State of Alaska ; Alaska Energy Authority
P.O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Project
ASCG COAL CONCEPT
UNALASKA/DUCTCH HARBOR
WESTWARD PROXIMITY
42 duplexes Mark Air
F.T.S. -\ terminal warehouse
35 unit apt. bldg. Mark Air
Mark Air 4—plexes
Power plant
HUD apt. bldgs (3)
5 units each
State of Alaska > Alaska Energy Authority
P.O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Napa warehouse Anchorage, Aska 99519-0869
Project
, ASCG COAL CONCEPT
Unisea refer vans Tile UNALASKA/DUCTCH HARBOR ——S=_—_—_—_ Se ee 0 1/4 Mile ae a aa) .
psy Scale: ~ or} ~ ~ ms
= peed
Uf Icicle
Seafoods
State of Alasko Alaska Energy Authority
P.O. Box 190869 701 East Tudor Rood Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Project
ASCG COAL CONCEPT
Title UNALASKA/DUCTCH HARBOR ICICLE SEAFOODS PROXIMITY
Drown: CH
Date: 24JUL92
Scole 500°
0 1/4 Mile Date: 24JUL92 AEA No.