Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShaktoolik Energy Plan 1986SHAK TOOL IK ENERGY PLAN JAAES GURKE JUDY ZIAICKI DECEMBER . 1986 SHAKTOOLIK ENERGY PLAN SUMMARY CITY ENERGY SUMMARY ELECTRICAL CONSERVATION POWERPLANT OPERATION APPLIANCE PURCHASE AND USE EXISTING DISINCENTIVES WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM Prepared By: Judy Zimicki and James Gurke Energy Consultants to the Bering Straits Regional Strategy December, 1986 nN 7 oll SUMMARY What can the residents and city council of Shaktoolik do to decrease individual and community energy costs? The purpose of this energy plan is to provide some specific ideas and actions for individuals and local governments to increase energy efficiency, and to decrease energy use and costs. A more complete discussion of the issues raised in this plan and the role of regional policies and organizations is included in our Energy Consultant’s Report to the Bering Straits Regional Strategy, available through Kawerak, Inc. With the construction of a city water system and resultant increase in electricity use, the city should concentrate on electrical conservation. * The city and residents need to become more aware of the energy usage of appliances and lighting. The city should develop programs in coordination with AVEC for energy education and for bulk purchase or increased availability of more efficient appliances and lights. * The city should exercise more control over the utility operator through its position as employer and through the AVEC delegate process to guarantee better load management and proper completion of the waste heat system. CITY ENERGY SUMMARY for SHAKTOOLIK November, 1986 Energy Money Coming Into City Power Cost Equalization (PCE) is a program set up by the state of Alaska to help rural residents with high electricity costs. With the program, electricity rates charged by the local utility are subsidized. Shaktoolik receives about $86,000 annually in PCE payments. Shaktoolik has received $53 thousand in grants and loans from the state since 1980 for bulk fuel storage, bulk fuel purchase, and waste heat recapture. There have been 3 state weatherigation projects in the city, resulting in most homes being weatherized. A total of 246 homes in the region have been weatherized by the state, with an average amount of $3554 for each home. Of the 56 housing units in Shaktoolik, 20 received Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program money in 1985. Total amount was $12,304, for an average of $615 per house. Electricity is supplied to Shaktoolik by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). Net generation in 1986 was 239 MWH with an average demand of 50 KW. Average kKWH/yr: Annual cost to consumer: Residential: 84,340 $18,049 Comm/Public: 50,360 $10,777 School :104, 300 NA Gallons fuel oil used for generation: 38,000 cost: $45,600 at $1.20/gal. Gallons fuel oil for space heating: residential: 12, 000 cost: $24,000 ($2.00) comm/public: 10,900 cost: $13,080 ($1.20) school :23, 800 cost: $28,560 ($1.20) ELECTRICAL CONSERVATION Electrical conservation measures can significantly reduce the peak load on the generator through load management. This results in increased generator efficiencies and lower power production costs. The purchase of energy-efficient appliances and their appropriate use can significantly lower power production costs and individual electric bills. Powerplant Operation Often in a village the operator runs the largest generator needed to meet the peak loads of the day even though this peak load may only be a portion of the day. A more active power plant operation in terms of match of generator size to electrical load would increase fuel economy and decrease maintenance. For example, the operator could switch to the smaller generator during the night after the load drops to an acceptable level. This may occur at 11:00 pm or earlier. The larger generator would then be brought back on line in the morning before school begins and the load increases. It is estimated that the synchronous switch gear needed to transfer generators would cost $10-15,000 installed. The added work for the operator would be paid for by the fuel savings, thus trading fuel oil for employment in the village. The operation of the smaller generator could also reduce AVEC’s plant maintenance and replacement costs. As employer of the AVEC plant operator, the city should work with AVEC to enhance load management opportunities. With this kind of load management, much higher efficiencies can be obtained from the diesel generators. In 1985, the Shaktoolik powerplant reported a fuel efficiency of 8.8 KWH/GAL. Well-operated and correctly-sizged diesel genera- tors can achieve 11 to 13 KWH/GAL. This translates to a fuel savings in Shaktoolik of 33% or 12,600 gallons annually. The city has the opportunity to affect the quality of AVEC service through the representation of the city’s elected AVEC delegate. This person attends the annual AVEC Delegate meeting and votes on matters of utility policy and operations. If the city has concerns about how the powerplant is operated, or any other aspects of power generation, it is their responsibility to go to the delegate meeting with an agenda that reflects the city’s needs. Issues that might be brought up by the delegate include waste oil disposal, the interaction of AVEC repairmen with operators, and the responsiveness of AVEC to particular city concerns, such as waste heat. Shared savings programs which result in savings to both AVEC and the village should be developed. The city should develop programs which encourage residents and schools to participate in energy saving measures which would benefit the entire community by lowering power production costs as well as benefit the individual through lowered electricity bills. Appliance Purchase and Use With the large number of electrical appliances used by homes in Shaktoolik and the chance of decreased Power Cost Equalization monies in the future, more attention needs to be paid to lighting and appliance electricity consumption. Refrigerators, freezers and hot water heaters are large power users. An energy *hog’ can cost up to 2-3 times more than an efficient model in yearly electricity cost. The Power Cost Equalization program encourages utilities to provide electrical conservation education but provides no monies for such efforts. AVEC has included appliance electric use information in its membership handbook but most residents are still unfamiliar with the energy costs of operating electrical appliances. Unlike oil and gas appliances which can be easily judged for fuel consumption by the amount of fuel bought within a given time, the electricity use of individual appliances is not measured and often not known. For example: one 100 watt light bulb left on in the entry way will use 72 KWh/month and at $.43/KWH would cost approximately $31/mo. or $372/yr. Even at the subsidized rate of $.214/KWH the annual cost is $15/mo. or $185/yr. Many appliances do not require continuous operation and can be shut off during peak periods. Large electrical appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, hot water heaters and air handling systems can be operated with clock timers which control the on/off cycle. Improvements in energy efficient appliances have made great strides in the past few years. For example, fluorescent light bulbs are available which consume only 25% of the electricity of a standard incandescent light bulb while providing the same amount of light. Improvements in refrigerators and freezers have reduced the annual electrical consumption from 1200 KW/yr to less than 400 KW/yr. Power factor controllers and soft start capabilities have improved the efficiency of motors by 10% or more. The cost of these energy saving appliances are generally more than the comparable inefficient product but can in many cases return the cost of the added investment in less than one year and provide many years of additional energy savings at no extra cost. In order to assure the most cost effective appliance is purchased, minimum appliance efficiency standards could be adopted by the city to encourage residents to purchase energy efficient models. Some electric utilities have given rebates to customers who purchase energy efficient appliances. Your AVEC delegate should be a leader in understanding and applying these techniques to make the utility function efficiently. Existing Disincentives Unfortunately, there are two institutional barriers to actual implementation of conservation options. First, the PCE program and methods of calculation for PCE subsidies actually penalize consumers by lowering PCE subsidies when electric conservation and load management reduce powerplant costs. Second, because it is a cooperative, AVEC shares the savings in power costs from any one village with all other villages served by the cooperative. Both of these conditions greatly minimize any incentive for a village to promote ways to reduce electrical consumption. Changes to the PCE program to encourage electrical conservation will have to be made on the state legislative level and will most likely be addressed in the next legislative session. The city should work with their legislators to develop changes which benefit both the state and the city by supporting conservation and efficient powerplant operation and management. One method is to include a lifeline rate with higher PCE awards for increased powerplant KWH/gal rates. On the cooperative level, AVEC can be encouraged by the city’s AVEC delegate to provide local or regional incentives for reduced electricity consumption. This is on the assumption that their fuel and maintenance costs could be lowered and plant upgrades and major repairs minimized. WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM Presently the city of Shaktoolik has installed a waste heat system that is designed to use approximately 50% of the waste heat from the diesel generators’ jacket water to heat the circulating domestic water supply. At this time, the system is not running properly and is therefore not in use. The problem centers on an over-sophisticated control board which needs to be replaced or repaired to run on the city’s single phase power system. Anticipated fuel savings of the waste heat system could reduce the city’s fuel consumption by 5,000 gallons per year. No other buildings are located near the powerplant to utilize the waste heat. As long as there is adaquate waste heat available, the city water could be heated to temperatures higher than required for freeze protection. This would result in higher water temperatures arriving at the homes which would reduce domestic hot water heating needs. Care should be taken to not exceed the design limits of the water pipe or problems with melting permafrost could develop. Additional utilization of the waste heat would also reduce the amount of electricity required to cool the jacket water, thus saving AVEC money. Any future building project such as a city garage which requires space heating and is not concerned with powerplant noise should be located adjacent to the power plant. This would allow The remaining available waste heat to be utilized and reduce the city’s dependence on imported oil.