HomeMy WebLinkAboutAEA REF Round VII - City of False PassRenewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Application Page 1 of 30 7/2/2013
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of False Pass
Type of Entity: Government Fiscal Year End June 30
Tax ID # 92-0135411 Tax Status: For-profit Non-profit X Government ( check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: City of False Pass does CFS at the end of every fiscal year. Last audit was for 2005,
and was finished November 21, 2006.
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 50
False Pass, Alaska 99583-0050
c/o: Chris Emrich, City Clerk
Physical Address
180 Unimak Dr.
False Pass, Alaska
Telephone
907-548-2319
Fax
907-548-2214
Email
cityoffalsepass@ak.net
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Genetta McLean
Title
Grants & Licensing Manager
Mailing Address
Ocean Renewable Power Company
120 Exchange Street, Suite 508
Portland, Maine 04101
Telephone
207-221-0961
Fax
207-772-7708
Email
gmclean@orpc.co
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
X A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by
the applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing
authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each
participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement (Section 3 of the RFA).
Yes
1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/veep/Grant-Template.pdf. (Any exceptions
should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.)
Yes
1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant
funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the
project and who will be the primary beneficiaries.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 30 7/1/2013
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below.
Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska
2.2 Project Location –
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
The Project’s physical location at False Pass, Alaska:
54.853940° North Latitude and -163.408830° West Longitude. (Sec. 34, T061S,
R094W, Seward Meridian.)
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
The community that will benefit from this Project:
City of False Pass
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only)
Hydro, Including Run of River X Hydrokinetic
Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps Transmission of Renewable Energy
Solar Photovoltaic Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe) Small Natural Gas
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
Reconnaissance Final Design and Permitting
X Feasibility and Conceptual Design Construction and Commissioning
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding through the Renewable
Energy Grant Program (RFA 2014-006) to complete Phase II Feasibility Analysis and
Conceptual Design Requirements (Project) for a proposed tidal energy project at False Pass in
the Isanotski Straight. The City of False Pass, like most communities of the Aleutian Islands,
depends on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs. While diesel fuel is currently
the most practical option for such communities, it also creates economic, energy security and
environmental problems—it has a disproportionately high carbon dioxide (CO2) output
compared to other power generation systems—at both local and global levels. The City of False
Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski
Straight that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate, the use of diesel fuel. The
viability of this resource was confirmed through a reconnaissance study funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program that included measurement of the current
velocities in the vicinity of False Pass through a full lunar cycle. This Project proposes to build
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 30 7/1/2013
on the completed reconnaissance study to accelerate efforts to develop this tidal energy
resource. The following goals will be achieved in this Project: (1) measure current velocities
and collect turbulence data at 3-5 sites selected for potential deployment of tidal turbines based
on University of Alaska (UAA) circulation modeling, (2) analyze the data from the field effort
including extending UAA modeling efforts to select the optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement,
(3) collect existing environmental data and develop draft environmental study plans in
consultation with regulatory agencies, (4) initiate stakeholder outreach efforts, (5) collect
additional geophysical data required to inform engineering of the project, and (6) complete a
conceptual design and economic analysis for a tidal energy project at False Pass. The Project
Team is comprised of the City of False Pass; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA);
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
and ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC).
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
In Alaska 78,000 people depend on diesel-fired generation to meet 90% of their electrical
demand, consuming over 450,000 MWh annually while burning 27 million gallons of diesel fuel
(AEA, Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, 2012). This means fuel costs
for electricity generation in rural Alaska averages $0.30/kWh. Electricity costs for False Pass,
however, are even higher than average at $0.42/kWh for residential and community customers,
$0.36 $/kWh for commercial customers (Wright, B & Worthington, M. DOE False Pass
Presentation, 2012). Converting even a small portion of this diesel-reliant population to
hydrokinetic energy, a completely clean and renewable energy source, would have a significant
impact for the people of Alaska. The direct beneficiary of these reduced energy costs will be the
City of False Pass, which includes 21 residential, 11 commercial, 1 federal/state facility and 9
community facilities customers. Here the Project will create high-quality jobs, including
fabrication/assembly, deployment/installation, and operations/maintenance.
There are also environmental benefits from a tidal energy project, which will displace the use of
fossil fuels and result in avoided emissions. By displacing fossil fuels the risk of fuel spills in
Alaska’s waterways during transport and storage will also be mitigated. See Section 5 Project
Benefit for data on reduction of CO2 emissions.
Finally, this specific feasibility Project will provide crucial data on a hydrokinetic device designed
to generate electricity at an Alaskan site. The approach for accomplishing this Project is a model
for the other Alaska communities with a tidal energy resource, and we have and will continue to
strive to development a tidal energy study and deployment model that can be used throughout
the State.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
The Project will amount to $566,466 with the anticipated sources of funding as follows: (1)
$428,646, AEA award and (2) $137,820, in-kind matching funds from APICDA and NREL.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Grant Costs
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 30 7/1/2013
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $428,646
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $137,820
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $
2.7.5 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.6 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $566,466
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.7 Total Project Cost Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section
4.4.4, including estimates through construction.
$5,000,000
2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not covered
by the project but required for the Grant Only applicable to
construction phase projects.
$
2.7.9 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $4,615,664
2.7.10 Other Public Benefit If you can calculate the benefit in terms
of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in Section 5 below.
$ 8,200,000
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 30 7/1/2013
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.1 Project Manager
The City of False Pass has selected ORPC to provide Project Management for this Project:
Monty Worthington
Director of Project Development – Alaska
ORPC Alaska
725 Christensen Dr., Suite 6
Anchorage, AK 99501
Tel: (907) 339-7939
Email: mworthington@orpc.co
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Milestones Tasks
Start
Date
End
Date
1. Project scoping and contractor
solicitation completed
ADCP expedition planning and procurement
completed 7/1/14 8/1/14
2. Detailed resource assessment
completed
ADCP survey of 3-5 sites completed
8/7/14 11/1/14
3. Identification of land and
regulatory issues
Initial meetings with project stakeholders
and regulatory agencies, desktop
environmental literature surveys completed
and presented to regulatory agencies 10/1/14 2/1/15
4. Permitting and environmental
analysis completed
Draft study plans developed and submitted
to regulatory agencies 1/1/15 3/1/15
5. Detailed analysis of current cost
of energy and future market
completed
Analysis of current energy costs, anticipated
load growth and future energy costs
completed 1/1/15 3/1/15
6. Assessment of alternatives Alternative energy generation options
analyzed 1/1/15 3/1/15
7. Conceptual design and costs
estimate completed
Latest cost data incorporated into financial
model 11/1/14 1/15/15
8. Detailed economic and financial
analyses completed
Updated pro forma model developed
incorporating ADCP data from survey and
UAA modeling effort 1/15/15 3/1/15
9. Additional required field data
collected
Sub bottom survey completed and data
incorporated into conceptual design 5/1/15 6/1/15
10. Conceptual business and
operations plan completed
Project partners collaborate on business
plan for tidal energy project hold
stakeholder meeting 3/1/15 7/1/15
11. Final report and
recommendations completed
Final report submitted to AEA
5/1/15 7/1/15
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 30 7/1/2013
3.3 Project Resources
Project Team (Resumes of key personnel are attached as Section 11 A.)
The City of False Pass, located within the boundaries of the Aleutians East Borough, will serve
as Business Contact for this Project, under the direction of Chris Emrich, City Clerk. The City is
eligible to receive funding through AEA’s grant program, and the False Pass City Council has
signed a resolution (14-03) supporting the submittal of this application on August 20, 2013 (see
attached letter).
City of False Pass
APIA is a federally recognized tribal organization of the Aleut people in Alaska. It is a nonprofit
corporation founded to advance the overall economic, health, social and cultural development of
the people within the Aleutian and Pribilof Regions in the State of Alaska.
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA)
Bruce Wright, Senior Scientist, is a regional leader in energy conservation and alternative
energy projects, including onsite weatherization applications. He has managed large state and
federally funded projects.
Karen Pletnikoff, Community Environment and Safety Manager, has provided environmental
technical assistance and project management in rural Alaska for 12 years. She has worked on
large federally funded efforts from construction, environmental sampling and site remediation.
APICDA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Alaska to develop the
commercial and sport fishing industry for the long-term social and economic viability of
communities in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. It is one of several Aleut Region
organizations working to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by exploring alternate energy
resources. APICDA will provide $77,820 in cost match for vessels, captains, and room and
board for field work (Letter of Verification: Section 11 G).
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA)
Angel Drobnica is the Renewable Energy and Fisheries Liaison for APICDA and has been
working on energy planning and projects in diesel dependent communities throughout Alaska
for the past three years. She will be helping to coordinate vessel and ground support for this
project.
UAA under the leadership of Prof. Tom Ravens, Ph.D., Dr. Ravens has 20 years of research
experience in the areas of coastal hydrodynamics and sediment transport, flume testing, and
renewable energy assessment. In the past 10 years, he has supervised $2 million of research
projects funded by NOAA, AEA, DOE (through the Electronic Power Research Institute), and
others. Dr. Ravens has played a leading role in two hydrokinetic assessment projects for the
State of the Alaska and for the contiguous United States.
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA)
UAA will continue the development of a 3D, high-resolution model of circulation and turbulence
in False Pass using Delft3D software. We will calibrate and validate the model using velocity,
water level, and turbulence data collected using two ADCP’s that were deployed in the summer
of 2012. Once the model is performing satisfactorily, we will use the model to produce plots
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 30 7/1/2013
showing the spatial distribution of power density and turbulence. Using these plots, and after
consulting with team members, we will propose the locations of 5 ADCPs (and two ADVs)
scheduled to be deployed in the summer of 2014. After the 2014 field season, the model will
then be validated using the ADCP and ADV data. Adjustments to the model will be made as
necessary and following consultation with the team. The model will be used for any additional
computations required by the team during the course of the project.
Benthic GeoScience provides professional geophysical and hydrographic surveying services
throughout the world. Strong geophysical and oceanographic staff complements their technical
surveying services for renewable energy project planning.
Benthic GeoScience, Inc.
David Oliver, Director of Operations, is a geophysicist with more than 25 years in the
geotechnical industry and 14 years working directly with the marine geophysical industry. He
established Benthic GeoScience, Inc. after serving the renewable energy community for many
years. David has lead the Site Characterization and Resources Assessment work on many
marine and riverine hydrokinetic projects in Alaska, including Ruby, Eagle, Nenana, Igiugig, and
ORPC’s tidal energy sites. David is a member of the following organizations: Renewable Energy
Alaska Project (member of the Policy and Rural Community Energy Committees) for five years,
Alaska Hydrokinetic Energy Research Center Advisory Board, AEA Hydrokinetic Working
Group, and shadow committee for ANSI TC-114’s Tidal Resource Assessment Project Team
representing U.S. interests as international standards for Renewable Energy Resource
Assessment are being established by the International Electrotechnical Commission. David
strives to stay abreast of the dynamic oceanographic, geophysical, and hydrographic industry
advancements to continuously match the appropriate technologies to the marine renewable
industry. In particular, Benthic has worked to downscale the size, weight, and cost requirements
of operations in remote Alaska without sacrificing quality.
Levi Kilcher, Ph.D. Physical Oceanography, is responsible for characterizing and quantifying the
inflow environment of tidal power devices at NREL. Levi has led several successful ocean
turbulence and mean-velocity measurement campaigns, and has taken part in several
hydrokinetic device monitoring efforts. He is an expert in ocean turbulence data analysis and is
a collaborator in developing the moored turbulence measurement system that will be deployed
for this project. Levi will lead the turbulence measurements portion of this project.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
NREL will provide a cost match of $60,000 for ADV survey work (Letter of Verification: Section
11 G).
ORPC brings tidal energy technology and project development expertise to the Project. ORPC
is a global leader in hydrokinetic technology and project development. With corporate
headquarters in Portland, Maine, ORPC develops hydrokinetic power systems and eco-
conscious projects that harness the power of oceans and rivers to create clean, predictable
renewable energy. ORPC works in partnership with coastal and river communities to create and
sustain local jobs while promoting energy independence and protecting the environment.
ORPC Alaska (ORPC)
In 2012 ORPC made history by starting operation of the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project,
the first commercial, grid-connected hydrokinetic tidal energy project in North America. Located
at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy near Eastport and Lubec, Maine, this is the only ocean energy
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 30 7/1/2013
project, other than one using a dam, which delivers power to a utility grid anywhere in the
Americas. The TidGen™ Power System is connected to the Bangor Hydro Electric utility grid at
an on-shore station in North Lubec. The Project received a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission pilot project license and the first Maine Department of Environmental Protection
General Permit issued for a tidal energy project. In addition, ORPC received approval for the
first power purchase agreement for tidal energy from the Maine Public Utilities Commission.
ORPC has been developing and licensing projects at world-class tidal energy sites in North
America’s most robust tidal energy resources: the Bay of Fundy, and Cook Inlet, Alaska. These
project sites have the potential to generate more than 300 megawatts of electricity—enough to
power roughly a quarter of a million homes. The development of ORPC’s power systems and
projects is also creating substantial job growth and other economic opportunities, while helping
to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil.
Monty Worthington, ORPC’s Director of Project Development – Alaska, will serve as Project
Manager of this Project. He has over ten years of experience designing, implementing, and
maintaining renewable energy systems in Alaska, western U.S., and Asia. He assumes
oversight of the Project, including managing resource assessment.
Doug Johnson, ORPC Director of Projects – Alaska, will also assist with this project. Mr.
Johnson has over thirty years of project development experience in Alaska, having worked as
an investor, a business owner, an entrepreneur, a professional manager and a business
consultant. He has developed projects ranging from the launch of Alaska’s first biotech
company to the planning and execution of a $2 billion hospital in Abu Dhabi. He is responsible
for developing present and future business opportunities for the ORPC in Alaska.
Nathan Johnson, ORPC Director of Environmental Affairs, leads ORPC’s site licensing and
permitting efforts, developing innovative approaches to federal and state marine hydrokinetic
permitting and environmental monitoring. Mr. Johnson has a diverse background that includes
marine renewables, solar energy site development, marine and coastal geology, hydrogeology,
and construction management. Projects have ranged from marine and coastal projects in New
England to determining fluvial geomorphology impacts at solar power projects in the
southwestern United States.
3.4 Project Communications
ORPC, as Project Manager, will report to the City of False Pass (Chris Emrich) – the grantee,
and the Project Team (City of False Pass, APIA, APICDA, UAA, Benthic GeoScience, NREL
and ORPC) on the Project’s timeline and performance, and after the City’s review and approval
ORPC will submit reports to AEA. ORPC will submit regular quarterly progress reports to AEA
after the City of False Pass’s review and approval. The Project Team will schedule meetings as
necessary or as requested to update AEA on the Project.
All members of the Project Team have an established working relationship with each other as
well as with AEA and will continue best efforts to maintain communications. ORPC’s project
management practices are geared towards carefully monitoring scope, schedule and budget to
ensure the Project is tracking as planned. Any significant changes to any aspect of the Project
will be reported promptly to AEA.
To ensure that the Project Team is thoroughly informed on the Project’s progress, ORPC will
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 30 7/1/2013
establish monthly meetings to provide updates with the project manager, contractors, and key
ORPC personnel, which is the standard procedure for other state and federally projects.
3.5 Project Risk
The Project Team has approached the investigation of tidal energy at False Pass since its
beginning with a focus on minimizing project risk. The reconnaissance phase of the project
sought to establish the viability of the resource early on in order to rule out the financial risk
associated with an unknown resource. Having established the viability of the resource, the
Project is being planned in a way that continues to minimize risks through a phased approach to
Project development.
Each phase of the overall tidal project has risks associated with the successful execution of the
scope of work. The primary project risks of this Phase II Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual
Design Project are associated with field work. While the deployment and retrieval of scientific
equipment in highly energetic tidal environments are challenging, ORPC has significant
experience deploying and retrieving equipment in these environments and has successfully
completed two month-long deployments in the False Pass area, increasing confidence that this
work can be successfully executed. These and any other potential risks will be mitigated by the
Project Team, which collectively has extensive experience working on technology projects and
is committed to proactively managing risk.
The Project Team has identified environmental concerns and the permitting process as risks
that need to be completely understood in the Phase 2 feasibility study. While obtaining permits
are not perceived to pose a risk to the completion of Phase 2, there are potential environmental
concerns that could impact that ability to execute the overall project successfully and
economically. The Project Team has already identified the permits and licenses required for this
Project and will complete their study of required permits and licenses for follow-on phases
(Section 4.3.3 Permits). Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has an
extensive application and review process for tidal energy projects, ORPC has gained
unparalleled experience in the FERC pilot licensing process through its development of pilot
projects in Maine and Alaska. ORPC also works with FERC and other federal and state
agencies through its Adaptive Management process to identify environmental concerns early on
and ensure that the licensing process is reasonable in scope while remaining protective of the
environment.
An additional project risk is the remote nature of operations in False Pass. While this is again
well understood for the level of field operations entailed in the Feasibility phase of the Project, it
will be necessary to design the Project so that it can be installed and maintained with equipment
and capacity appropriate to False Pass. The Project Team will continue to develop an
understanding of this capacity through the execution of the Feasibility Phase.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Significant work has already been completed to assess the viability of the tidal energy resource at
False Pass. In fall 2012 ORPC performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey to obtain a
preliminary assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the
City of False Pass under a contract with APIA in 2012 (Section 11, H: ORPC, Reconnaissance
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 30 7/1/2013
Current Survey Report, Prepared for the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, April 1, 2013),
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Contour plot of average energy density, flood tide (left). Contour plot of average energy
density, ebb tide (right). Source: UAA, Final Report: Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment in False
Pass, Alaska, September 4, 2013.
Based on information provided by a preliminary circulation modeling effort completed at UAA,
ORPC successfully collected Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) current velocity data from
two sites in Isanotski Strait in the vicinity of False Pass over the course of a lunar cycle (one
month) during the period from September to November 2012. Based on the results of the survey
there is at least one site in the False Pass area that has great potential as a tidal energy resource
having an impressive capacity factor in the range of 40-50% of rated capacity (Figure 3). A second
site has a lower resource but has relative easy interconnect access. Further investigation of
project development considerations and constructability of a tidal energy project in the vicinity of
False Pass will be completed in this Project to assess the economics of installing a tidal energy
project near one of these sites. Of key importance in this assessment will be incorporating data
from a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential device locations and submarine power
cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost considerations for a power cable line to connect
the project to False Pass. The Project Team has collected this bathymetric data under
programmatic hydrokinetic funding from AEA provided to the Southwest Alaska Municipal
Conference who contracted Benthic GeoScience to complete this survey with assistance and cost
sharing from APICDA who provided a vessel and captains to support the field effort (Figure 2).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 30 7/1/2013
Figure 2. Bathymetric image from data collected at False Pass in August 2013.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 30 7/1/2013
Figure 3. Tidal rose image from ADCP data collected at site S2 10 meters above the seafloor,
showing high current velocities and symmetric direction on ebb and flood tides.
The next steps in the feasibility effort of this Project will be to enhance the fidelity of the circulation
model developed by UAA by incorporating the bathymetric data into their model domain to allow
finer scale resolution. This modeling has also been supported by programmatic hydrokinetic
funding provided by AEA and should be completed over the winter of 2013-2014. Based on this
modeling data the Project Team will select sites that appear suitable for tidal turbine placement
based on both UAA modeling efforts and the bathymetric data in the vicinity of the highest current
velocities and any locations that are suggested by the model to have viable current velocities for
energy extraction and reasonable transmission distances to the False Pass grid. Three to five of
these sites will then be selected for deployment of ADCPs to measure current velocities over a full
lunar cycle and for deployment of Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADVs) to measure turbulence.
The ADV measurements will be performed by NREL and provided as a cost share to this request
for Project funding. These measurements will help to quantify the amount of extractable energy
available from the resource.
The data collected from this field effort will then be utilized to further enhance UAA circulation
model, both through verification of the models accuracy by hindcasting the model to the
deployment time period and comparing its output to actual field measurements. The model will
also be enhanced to output information on turbulence that will also be validated with the data from
field measurements. By incorporating the ADCP data, ADV data, UAA modeling work, and
bathymetric data the project team will be enabled to select viable sites for tidal turbine placement.
Having chosen these sites, we will assess the environmental concerns associated with
deployment in these areas, conduct outreach with stakeholders to incorporate stakeholder input in
the selection of candidate sites, and perform an economic analysis of deployment at the viable
locations to identify the optimal site(s) for tidal turbine placement.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 30 7/1/2013
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The City of False Pass owns and operates a diesel generation plant for approximately 25
residential customers, 13 commercial customers, 11 community structures, 3 federal/state
structures and the harbor. Bering Pacific Seafood, a subsidiary owned by APICDA, owns and
operates a separate diesel generation plant for its processing operations. APICDA purchases
electricity from the city for its bunk house and for its construction related activities during the non-
processing months.
Following is information regarding the two power houses:
City of False Pass
Unit 1: 75 kW John Deere with 10,000 hrs (not used since 2005)
Unit 2: 125 kW John Deere with over 44,000 hrs (rebuilt twice)
Unit 3: 175 kW John Deere with over 18,000 hrs (will require rebuild soon)
Bering Pacific Seafood
Unit 1: 365 kW Caterpillar (C-15) with 2412 hrs (new in 2013)
Unit 2: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 B) with 9,388 hrs (reconditioned once)
Unit 3: 350 kW Caterpillar (3406 D1) with unknown hrs (reconditioned once)
Unit 4: 185 kW Perkins with unknown hrs (not in operation)
The City of False Pass strives to operate its generators to adequately carry the City’s loads while
balancing efficiency and maintenance costs. In 2012 the City’s generation efficiency was 11.24
kWh per gallon of fuel. In 2012, the City’s line loss averaged 14.7% but has decreased to 6.2%
this summer, likely due to valve replacements on its primary generator.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
The City of False Pass relies completely on fossil fuels for all of its energy needs. In 2012 the City
of False Pass burned 47,241 gallons of fuel to meet the city’s electricity loads. The community
uses another approximately 18,000 gallons of fuel for heating.
Bering Pacific Seafood has the largest energy load in the community, almost equaling the total
combined community load. Due to recent expansions, the plant’s 2013 processing operations
nearly tripled from 2012 and APICDA anticipates continued growth over the next five years with a
goal of year round processing. So far in 2013, Bering Pacific Seafood’s has burned 37,966 gallons
of fuel to meet the plant’s processing needs. The plant has experienced significant fluctuations in
the price per gallon of fuel over the past five years from a low of $2.78 to a high of $4.70. These
price fluctuations have considerable impact on the plant’s production costs and makes it very
difficult to plan and budget for yearly operations.
The development of a tidal project will help stabilize volatile energy costs, aiding in the
sustainability of the community and the local seafood plant’s operations. Both of the diesel plants
will continue to be maintained for load balancing and energy security purposes after the
development of the tidal project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 30 7/1/2013
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The City of False Pass operates the community’s power utility and serves a mixture of residential
and commercial customers: 21 residential; 11 commercial, including a seafood processing plant; 1
federal/state facility; and 9 community facilities. The Community’s average monthly electric
demand is 30,739 kWh, and residents pay between 28 and 53 cents per kWh for electricity. (The
national average is 9.92 cents per kWh (U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 2013).
Currently nearly all electricity and heat generated at False Pass comes from imported diesel fuel.
In 2012 the city of False Pass utilized 56,315 gallons of diesel fuel for electrical generation, while
the Bering Pacific Seafood plant utilized 37,966 gallons. Using the current price of $3.53 and the
average annual amount of fuel, electricity cost $198,791 in 2012 for the City of False Pass and
$134,019 for the Bering Pacific Seafood Plant. Electricity generation with diesel fuel, therefore, is
expensive for the community and local businesses and also has environmental impacts and risks
associated with the transport, storage, and burning of this fuel.
At the currents measured at site S2 in False Pass, ORPC ‘s TidGen® device with a rated capacity
of 200 kW and an availability of 95% would generate 60,833 kWh monthly (730,000 kWh/yr). This
Project will determine what configuration of power system and number of devices will be needed
to supply a reasonable amount of power to the community; additional TidGen® devices could be
deployed to meet future energy demands.
As Table 1 shows, a 200 kW TidGen® Power System would produce enough power to displace all
of the electrical load of the False Pass utility, producing 126% of this annual load. However, since
the tidally produced energy is cyclical there are times when no power will be produced and other
times when the power produced from the TidGen™ device exceeds the needs of the community.
The amount of energy that could be utilized by the utility is less than the total produced. Analysis
shows that ultimately slightly more than half of the energy produced by the TidGen™ Power
System can be utilized to existing utility loads, providing for 64% of the False Pass utility’s load
while the remainder of the tidally produced power can be sold to Bering Pacific Seafood to offset
self generation at the Bering Pacific Seafood plant. Currently the plant uses and additional
136,000 kWh a month when in operation, but is forecast to have a load growth to 170,000 kWh a
month and year round operations. Using a clean, renewable energy source would also have the
added benefit of giving a value-added green label to the local business such as the Bering Pacific
Seafood plant, which could have a multiplier effect on the demand for the locally-produced
seafood. In addition, the dollar amount that the City of False would save annually will only
increase as fossil fuel prices rise.
Table 1. ORPC 200 kW TidGen® Power System
Monthly generation of in-stream device 60,833 kWh
False Pass utility average monthly electric demand 48,256 kWh
Monthly generation utilizable by City of False Pass 30,833 kWh
Percentage of False Pass Utility electric demand produced by TidGen®
device
126%
Percentage of False Pass Utility demand actually offset by TidGen® device 64%
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 30 7/1/2013
4.3 Proposed System
4.3.1 System Design
The Project Team has not selected a technology for installation at False Pass as the project is still
in the Feasibility Phase. However, in order to forecast the Project’s energy production and
financial analysis ORPC’s TidGen® Power System is being used as a model technology and is
also under consideration for deployment at False Pass. This allows the Project Team to assess
the viability of the Project with an existing technology for which economic and power output data is
available.
ORPC power systems are designed around a proprietary turbine generator unit (TGU) containing
advanced design cross flow (ADCF) turbines which drive the TGU’s underwater permanent
magnet generator. The ADCF turbines are built with marine composite materials, and resist
corrosion in both fresh and salt water. The TGU is gearless, requires no lubricants, and has no
emissions. The TGU has a modular design adaptable to varying characteristics at different tidal
installation sites. Multiple TGUs can be incorporated into complete power systems to convert the
kinetic energy of water moving at tidal and riverine sites into grid-compatible electric power by
means of various power electronics stages.
The ORPC TidGen® device is a four-turbine TGU that is mounted on a bottom support frame
securing it to the sea floor (Figure 4). It is designed to operate in water depths of 60 to 150 ft and
generate up to 150 kilowatts (kW) at peak water flow conditions. For purposes of this Project the
improved version of the TidGen® that will have a rated capacity of 200 kW in a 5.4 knot current is
being used for analysis. A complete TidGen® Power System can include up to several dozen
TidGen® devices, depending upon market conditions, community needs, site characteristics and
other considerations, deployed nearby or adjacent to one another, with individual TidGen® devices
connected together by means of an underwater power consolidation module. Electricity is carried
to shore through a single underwater power and data cable that terminates beyond the high-water
mark at an on-shore station. The on-shore station is interconnected directly to the local utility
power grid. The first grid-connected TidGen® Power System was installed with a single TidGen®
device in Cobscook Bay in September 2012 (Figure 5).
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 30 7/1/2013
Figure 4. TidGen® device showing TGU and bottom support frame. Source: Popular Science 2013.
Figure 5. TidGen® device installation in Cobscook Bay, Maine
The proposed False Pass tidal energy project will begin with the installation of a single 200 kW
TidGen™ Power System. This is the optimal installed capacity to suit the existing loads and
electrical configuration of the City. Currently the load for the False Pass utility averages around 66
kW. Based on analysis, the power produced by the TidGen® Power System will offset 64% of this
average load; the remaining generated power will be sold to the Bering Pacific Seafood plant to
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 30 7/1/2013
offset their self generation. Without an energy storage component it will be challenging to
economically increase the penetration of the tidal energy system into the False Pass utility as the
largest impact on the ability to displace diesel fuel use is due to times when no tidal energy is
available and diesel generation is required. Bering Pacific Seafood is likely to have the largest
impact on future load growth as recent upgrades to the plant and increased operations increased
the peak monthly energy use by 30% over last year to 136,000 kWh/month, an average load of
188 kW. Bering Pacific Seafood anticipates that the load will increase by another 30% over the
next five years and expand from seasonal operations to year round operations with a monthly load
of 177,000 kWh, an average load of 245 kW. During times of peak generation, power from the
TidGen® Power System will exceed load requirements for the False Pass Utility and allow
additional power to be passed onto the Bering Pacific Seafood plant demonstrating the
effectiveness of high penetration of tidally generated electricity into the Bering Pacific Seafood
plant’s electrical usage. The system could eventually be built out to include additional TidGen®
devices that would supply full power to the City and Bearing Pacific Seafood plant during times of
tidal generation. As time progresses it may also be economical to consider adding energy storage
capacity to allow the False Pass Utility to meet its loads without the use of diesel fuel during times
when tidally produced power is not available.
Based on a full lunar cycle of ADCP data collected in 2012 at False Pass, ORPC analyzed the
anticipated capacity factor of a 200 kW TidGen® device at site N2, about ½ mile from the False
Pass grid and at site S2, about two miles from the False Pass grid. Table 2 shows the relative
capacity factor at these sites. At site S2, the most likely candidate for tidal turbine placement at
this time, an impressive capacity factor of 43.9% can be achieved, and with the added benefit of
predictable delivery of this power, its value to the local energy portfolio is high. Table 2 also shows
the anticipated annual generation in kWh at each of the sites.
Table 2. Annual generation and anticipated capacity factor at two sites near False Pass based on
ADCP data collected in 2012
Site N2 10.5 m above
seafloor
S2 10.7 m above
seafloor
Annual recoverable energy, 200
kW TidGen™ device 95%
availability
359,510 kWh
21.6% capacity factor
730,128 kWh
43.9% capacity factor
ORPC’s power system has been successfully demonstrated at Cobscook Bay, Maine, a clear
water tidal site similar to False Pass. The resource at False Pass, however, is more robust and
remote than Cobscook Bay. In order to overcome this potential barrier it will be necessary to
reengineer the TidGen® foundation and deployment, retrieval, and maintenance plans and
equipment to accommodate the higher energies. This will not require novel solutions but will
require that the Project Team to build on the body of knowledge and engineering practice ORPC
has utilized successfully to date. In order to successfully install and maintain a device at this
remote site it is important that the Project Team utilize the experience of local marine companies,
such as APICDA, as well as ORPC’s expertise in tidal generation, to design the project to be
suited functionally to this location, and to allow deployment, retrieval, and maintenance operations
to be performed economically. ORPC has already made strides in this area as demonstrated in
the last retrieval of the TidGen® device in Cobscook Bay which utilized a purpose-built retrieval
vessel that cut costs by two-thirds. Such innovation will be utilized to ensure success in remote
operations at False Pass.
The power transmission system must also be considered for successful operation. If the ADCP
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 30 7/1/2013
survey performed in this Project confirms that the best location for tidal turbine placement will be in
the vicinity of site S2, a power transmission at least two miles long will be required to transmit the
power to shore. This cable must be designed and appropriately installed to ensure it will endure
continued operations in the tidal environment and deliver reliable power to shore. ORPC has
designed the TidGen® Power Systems with transmission distances similar to this and will condition
the power from the TidGen® device underwater to allow it to be efficiently and reliably transmitted
to the interconnect point.
Once the power reaches shore and the False Pass Grid it will be power conditioned at ORPC’s
on-shore station to grid compatible three phase AC power with appropriate voltage for the location
of interconnect. ORPC has been working with Marsh Creek to refine the power electronics for
ORPC’s RivGen™ Power System to interconnect with isolated diesel grids to maximize the ability
to offset diesel consumption. This technology will be leveraged and transferred to the TidGen®
Power System’s power electronics to ensure it will be capable of a reliable and efficient
interconnect to the False Pass diesel electric grid. Initially, the project will be run in parallel with
the diesel generation system offsetting the power required from the diesel. If it appears that the
TidGen® Power System could meet all of the electrical loads of the False Pass Utility, the Project
Team will consider retrofitting the power electronics to allow the TidGen® Power System to run in
grid forming mode, which will allow diesel generators in False Pass to be shut off completely
during these times, thereby maximizing the use of tidal energy and minimizing the diesel required
for energy generation. Because independent generation capacity is maintained both by the City of
False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood it will be necessary to perform an integration study to
optimize operations of both of these generation facilities when tidal energy is available to ensure
that it will reduce diesel fuel usage at the maximum benefit.
Power from the TidGen® Power System will be delivered to the False Pass grid where it will be
dispatched, first to serve residential and community loads and then to provide power to the Bering
Pacific Seafood plant, an existing customer of the utility. The Bering Pacific Seafood facility also
has self generation capability, and the power from this project that is in excess of the current load
demand of the utility will be utilized to offset the self generation needs of the Bering Pacific
Seafood facility, further reducing diesel consumption in the community (See section 5.5.1).
4.3.2 Land Ownership
The shipping, mobilization and deployment of the tidal turbine will take place exclusively on the
water using vessels and platforms. Land ownership concerns will be limited to transmission line
access. During the 2013 bathymetric survey there were two preliminary sites identified for the
submersible line to come ashore: (1) at the southern end of the airport and (2) at a dock owned by
the Aleutians East Borough (AEB).
The tideland access near the airport at False Pass (Unit # R22-06) is considered a municipal
tideland. This area is retained in state ownership and managed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF). If the transmission line route is designed within
the boundaries of the airport’s jurisdiction, applications and approvals would be needed from the
Airport Leasing, Utilities and Right of Way sections within ADOT/PF. The City of False Pass will be
required to apply for a utility permit through ADOT/PF for access to the electrical grid. A permit is
required for land use through Airport Leasing, and a charge is applied by the square footage.
Once a permit for land use is in place, a building permit is applied for through the Right of Way
section. An FAA 7460-1 airspace obstruction approval may also be required. The normal
timeframe for issuance of these permits is 60 days.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 30 7/1/2013
The second option would use the AEB dock, the end of which is approximately ¼ mile from the
nearest interconnection with the City of False Pass owned transmission line. Use of the dock for
supporting transmission line access would require a permit and review process through AEB’s
planning commission. The City of False Pass has a management agreement with AEB for the
dock and would modify this agreement to include the operation and maintenance of a new
transmission line.
4.3.3 Permits
APPLICABLE PERMITS ANTICIPATED PERMITTING TIMELINE
PHASE II - Required for Phase II Project
ADNR Submerged Land Use Permit Apply January 2014. ORPC: Secured
September 2012 & ongoing
FERC Preliminary Permit Phase II Feasibility work will not require a
preliminary permit but may be prudent for site
control
This Project will identify federal and state licensing and permitting requirements for a tidal turbine
installation at the site. The only permits or licenses that would be required to complete this
investigation will be submerged land use permits from the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR) for the deployment of bottom mounted scientific equipment, particularly the
ADCP. ORPC has an existing submerged land use permit from ADNR for this work.
At the federal level, tidal energy projects are under the jurisdiction of FERC. To facilitate getting
devices in the water, FERC has implemented an expedited hydrokinetic permitting system through
its pilot license program as an alternative to the traditional full long-term hydropower licensing
process. This pilot project process is intended to give projects that are small scale and short term
an expedited licensing process, provided they are intensively monitored for environmental effects
and able to be shut down on short notice if unacceptable environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated are encountered. We will determine, through this project, whether to license the project
through the pilot or the traditional hydropower process.
The Project Team will continue relationships with appropriate agency personnel as the permitting
pathway for the larger tidal energy project is defined through this Project.
4.3.4 Environmental
A goal of this Project is to identify any environmental and permitting issues that would need to be
addressed before installing a turbine. The appropriate environmental studies and analyses must
be completed to provide a basis for operating that minimizes the chance of potential impacts on
the marine environment. ORPC and APIA take this task very seriously. While current reports of
ORPC’s technology deployment and operation in Maine suggest that the turbines have no
negative effects on fish, marine mammals, or other marine species, studies occur at each unique
site to verify use by fish and other wildlife, and to assess any potential site-specific effects that
would need to be monitored for or mitigated. We will consult with agencies, including National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and ADF&G to scope
proper studies and identify areas of environmental concern and complete a comprehensive
literature review in support of this effort. Additional assessments are anticipated in conjunction
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 30 7/1/2013
with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Magnuson Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) and
USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan.
As part of Milestone 3 government consultations and stakeholder meetings with be completed
within 8 months from the beginning of the project.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
The total anticipated cost for this proposed tidal energy project is $5,000,000. This includes
$566,466 for the Feasibility Phase of the project proposed here: $428,646 in AEA funding and
$137,820 in matching funds. These matching funds will be supplied by NREL ($60,000 for the
ADV survey work) and APICDA ($77,820 for vessels, captains, and room and board for field
work).
The projected capital cost of the tidal energy project is $3,750,000 installed, while the project
development cost is expected to cost $1,250,000 including the $ 561,466 proposed for the
Feasibility Phase work.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
There will be no Operating and Maintenance Costs for this Phase II Feasibility Analysis and
Conceptual Design Requirements Project.
For operation of a 200 kW tidal energy project it is estimated that Operating and Maintenance
costs inclusive of environmental monitoring, inspections, maintenance, and repair will be $160,000
per year.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The City of False Pass operates the community’s power utility, which serves the community of
False Pass. The residents and businesses in False Pass will be the customers. Commercial
customers pay $0.36 / kWh, while community facilities and residential customers pay $0.42/kWh.
For the economic analysis in this application a blended rate of $0.39/kWh escalated at 2%
annually was assumed. At this rate the return on investment would be 2%. These rates will be
used until the proposed system has been in operation for several months and a clear picture of
energy savings has been developed. At that time a new rate may be implemented, but the savings
will likely go towards a replacement and repairs account.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 30 7/1/2013
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Capacity Factor 43.9% availability 95%
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
grid, leave this section blank)
3 Generators owned and operated by City of False
Pass
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other (1) John Deere 6068TF 75 kW generator set
(1) John Deere 6081TF 125 kW generator set
(1) John Deere 6081AF 175 kW generator set
iii. Generator/boilers/other type
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 5 years old
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 13.28 kWh/gallon
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $22,123
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $17,034
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 706,037 kWh City
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 56,315 City, 37,966 by BPS plant
Other
iii. Peak Load 190 kW City, 456 kW BPS plant
iv. Average Load 66 kW City, 180 kW BPS plant
v. Minimum Load 56 kW City
vi. Efficiency 13.28 kWh/gallon
vii. Future trends Load expected to grow with added production capacity at BPS to 245 kW
average load
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 30 7/1/2013
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 730,000
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] $3,750,000
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] $1,250,000
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons] $160,000
iv. Other NA
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $5,000,000
b) Development cost $1,250,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $160,000
d) Annual fuel cost NA
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 54,970 gallons
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $ 3.49/ Gallon, $191,845 displaced annually
c) Other economic benefits $1,300,000 of project capital costs will be spent on
installation in Alaska and $140,000 of annual O&M
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 23 of 30 7/1/2013
costs will be spent on work in Alaska. The added
direct and indirect economic benefit to the Alaskan
economy through this is estimated a two times the
locally invested funding and will be approximately
$2,600,000 during installation and $280,000 annually
during operation for a total of $8,200,000 over the 20
year lifetime of the project.ation in Alaska and
$140,000 of annual O&M costs will be spent on work
in Alaska. The added direct and indirect economic
benefit to the Alaskan economy through this will be
approximately $2,600,000 during installation and
$280,000 annually during operation.
d) Alaska public benefits This Project will add value to local business in False
Pass by enabling green labeling of seafood products
and tourism services.
Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.39/kWh
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio .923
Payback (years) 20 years (assumes 30% ITC is in place at time of installation)
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
The current electric rate for PCE customers is $.42 kWh with a PCE rate of $.2777, making
an effective rate of $.1430 for the first 500 kWh of usage for residential customers and all of
the Community Facility usage. The non-PCE customer rate for commercial, federal and
state customers is $.36 kWh.
These rates are so low only because the City of False Pass subsidizes the fuel costs to
their electric utility with CDQ monies. Less fuel usage will not change the rates, but will
allow the City of False Pass to use that money now used to subsidize fuel costs towards
maintenance on the added equipment and a Replacement and Repairs account.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 24 of 30 7/1/2013
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Communities that are partially powered by renewable energy technologies reap economic,
social, and environmental benefits. A good example close to False Pass is King Cove, which
has a hydro project and the lowest charges for electricity in the Aleutians. Obvious benefits
resulting from a False Pass tidal project are sustainable, high-quality job creation, enhanced
quality of life, and energy independence for the community. Community members will have a
renewed sense of pride knowing that their community is partially powered with renewable
energy. A tidal energy project at False Pass would offer emission-free power that will both
decrease the use of fuel oil and provide a flat-priced alternative as fossil fuel prices continue to
rise.
A single ORPC TidGen® device will be rated to produce 200 kW in a 5.4-knot current, in the
robust currents measured at False Pass this device would produce enough power to save
67,033 gallons of fuel over the course of a year. This would amount to offsetting the production
of 1,500,000 pounds of CO2 annually. By offsetting this diesel fuel usage alone, significant
environmental risk associated with the threat of fuels spills in the transportation, storage, and
use of the diesel fuel will also be mitigated. Furthermore, as an Alaskan community dependent
on fishing as a resource, the reduction in CO2 will mitigate both climate change and ocean
acidification, which both threaten to negatively affect the marine environment, jeopardizing fish
stocks and compromising the commercial and subsistence livelihood of the community. This
project allows the community of False Pass to proactively address these risks to the
environment and promote economic development.
In addition to associated benefits of economic development and job creation in the community,
other economic developments and benefits could result from the tidal project. It could be
expanded, for example, to provide power to the local Bering Pacific Seafood plant. Using a
clean, innovative source of energy would give a value-added green label to the local business,
which could have a multiplier effect on the demand for the locally-produced seafood.
5.1.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales
While the City of False Pass will be the primary recipient of the power from a tidal energy
project, there will be times when the output of the project exceeds the load of the city of False
Pass. At these times it is anticipated that excess energy will be sold to and utilized by the
expanded Bering Pacific Seafood plant at a slightly reduced rate to encourage maximum
utilization of the tidally produced energy to offset self-generation and diesel use at the facility.
Based on ADCP data collected at False Pass it is anticipated that 50% of the time a TidGen®
Power system will produce more than the average load at False Pass of 66 kW . During these
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 25 of 30 7/1/2013
times approximately 360,000 kWh of energy annually will not be utilizable by the city and will be
sold to the processing plant
Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) 60,833
Estimated sales (kWh) 30,000
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at privet
sector businesses ($)
$10,800
Estimated sales (kWh) 30,833
Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the
Alaskan public ($)
$12,024
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
There are two business structures under consideration for the ownership and power sales
associated with the installed tidal energy project . In either scenario that tidal energy project would
be locally owned and operated, either by the City of False Pass, or by Bering Pacific Seafood.
The owner and operator of the project will be responsible for installation, operation and
maintenance of the project and would sell the power produced at a rate that is competitive with
diesel generation and provides adequate cash flow to perform operations, maintenance, and
monitoring and to service any debt incurred in the installation of the project.
As this is a marine renewable energy project operational issues will be largely handled through
on-water operations requiring the owner to have marine construction experience or to contract to
a company with this capacity. ORPC has established a model for the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy
Project in Maine where a subcontractor is responsible for all on water installation and
maintenance operations and this may be a good example to follow for the project. Operational
issues will include routine yearly maintenance of the TidGen® Power System, routine
maintenance of environmental and project monitoring equipment, and unexpected maintenance
of the TidGen® Power System.
The operational costs associated with this project will include yearly maintenance costs inclusive
of major maintenance events scheduled for every five years, environmental and project
monitoring, and project management costs. The City of False Pass and Bering Pacific Seafood
will continue to operate and maintain their diesel electric generation facilities, as these will be
required to provide power during periods of slack tide and to make up the power differential when
the tidally produced power does not meet the demand of the community or facility.
The City of False Pass will report the savings and benefits from the Project, and these will be
reflected in the cost of delivered power to the customers of the utility.
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
The City of False Pass demonstrates readiness and compliance with other grants by serving as
grantee of the following ongoing projects:
• AEA, False Pass Wind Energy Project, $69,075. Project period: July 1, 2011 – June 30,
2014.
• State of Alaska, Community Development Block Grant, Generator Replacement,
$142,500. Project period: August 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 26 of 30 7/1/2013
The City of False Pass has the financial management capabilities to meet the requirements of
these grants and project management capabilities by working collaboratively with their respective
Project Teams to bring them to completion.
Preliminary work on this Project was completed by a $206,956 project awarded to APIA by DOE
to conduct a study of False Pass to determine whether a tidal energy project could provide
renewable energy. The project scope included circulation modeling of False Pass, initial site visit
to perform reconnaissance bathymetry, electrical infrastructure and load analysis, and initiation
of permitting consultation. The Project was completed May 2013; final report pending.
If this Project is awarded, the Project Team intends to begin in summer 2014, the first available
field season.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
The City of False Pass has received enthusiastic local support for a tidal energy project. Alaskan
organizations and communities see tidal energy’s potential to help diversify the sources of our
electricity as well as ameliorate the cost of diesel fuel.
The Project Team, which has a strong record of community engagement and public support, will
continue their ongoing work with scientists, fishers, and regulatory agencies to ensure that
adequate means are in place to understand the marine environment. Throughout the Project
period the Project Team will consult with stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and the public
through regular project update mailings and meetings, addressing any concerns in a
collaborative, proactive manner.
Letters of Support from the following local communities are included as in Section 11 B:
• A-Team: Aleutian Pribilof island Community Development Association, Aleutian Housing
Authority, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, The Aleut Corporation, Aleutians East
Borough
• Aleutians East Borough
• Isanotski Corporation
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
The total budget for this project $566,466 that includes $428,646 in AEA REF grant funding to
complete the feasibility phase of the project. The project is providing a $137,820 match to this
funding from NREL and APICDA.
To date a total of $435,518 has been invested in the project. This included $206,956 award to
complete a reconnaissance survey of the project through funding from DOE’s Tribal Energy
Program. Project partners provided cost shares for this work amounting to $17,762 from ORPC
and $17,500 from APICDA. The project also benefited from $150,000 in programmatic funding
from AEA that was provided to the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference to support a
bathymetric survey of the Project area for which APICDA provided a cost share of $43,300.
AEA has also offered an additional $25,000 to support UAA circulation modeling utilizing this
bathymetric data.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 27 of 30 7/1/2013
All of the funds requested in this Phase II Feasibility proposal will be used by the City of False
Pass for contractual services. These contractual services will be performed by ORPC, APIA,
Benthic GeoScience and UAA, and will be matched by funding from NREL and APICDA. ORPC
will provide project and grant management services amounting to a total of $138,360 and an
ADCP survey for $136,686. APIA will perform an environmental literature survey and assist
ORPC with drafting study plans for the project for $47,305. Benthic GeoScience will perform a
sub bottom survey of the planned deployment area and cable route of the project for $81,000.
UAA will validate the circulation modeling performed with AEA programmatic funding with ADCP
field data collected during this effort and expanding the model to include turbulence modeling
validated with ADV data collected by NREL for $25,295. NREL will perform the ADV survey
with their own funds for a cost share of $60,000, and APICDA will provide field work support for
a cost share of $77,820.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
Grant Application - Standard Form
AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 28 of 30 7/1/2013
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee
Matching
Funds
Source of
Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Milestone list below. )
$ $ $
ADCP expedition planning and
procurement completed
8/1/14
$5,677 $ $5,677
ADCP survey of 3-5 sites
completed and ADV survey of
two sites completed 11/1/14
$142,363 $122,256
NREL,
APICDA
contribution
$264,619
Initial meetings with project
stakeholders and regulatory
agencies, desktop
environmental literature
surveys completed and
presented to regulatory
agencies 2/1/15
$51,208 $ $51,208
Draft study plans developed
and submitted to regulatory
agencies 3/1/15
$53,409 $ $53,409
Analysis of current energy
costs, anticipated load growth
and future energy costs
completed 3/1/15
$5,677 $ $5,677
Alternative energy generation
options analyzed 3/1/15 $5,676 $ $5,676
Latest cost data incorporated
into financial model 1/15/15 $11,354 $ $11,354
Updated pro forma model
developed incorporating ADCP
data from survey 3/1/15
$42,972 $ $42,972
Sub bottom survey completed
and data incorporated into
conceptual design 6/1/15
$93,557 $15,564 $109,121
Project partners collaborate on
business plan 7/1/15 $11,077 $ $11,077
Final Report Submitted to AEA 7/1/15 $5,676 $ $5,676
TOTALS $428,646 $137,820 $566,466
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $
Travel & Per Diem $ $ $
Equipment $ $ $
Materials & Supplies $ $ $
Contractual Services $428,646 $137,820 $566,466
Construction Services $ $ $
Other $ $ $
TOTALS $428,646 $137,820 $566,466
2
.
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community September 16, 2013
Development Association
We, the member group entities of the A – Team, enthusiastically support the submission of a
Renewable Energy Fund Round VII proposal to the Alaska Energy Authority for a Hydrokinetic Study for
the City of False Pass. The A – Team originally formed as a group of agencies committed to developing
and enacting an energy plan that serves to reduce carbon emissions and energy costs, and provide for
reliable sources of energy for the Aleutian / Pribilof Island and Alaska Peninsula region.
The City of False Pass’ proposal will build upon reconnaissance work performed over the past
two summers and carry the project team one step closer to determining t he viability of hydrokinetic
power to reduce fossil fuel dependency and aiding in the community’s goal of energy self-sufficiency.
Even more is that the project team’s approach looks beyond this site and creates a model for
hydrokinetic study and deployment that will be extremely valuable for the rest of the state.
Hydrokinetic work takes perseverance and the A-Team members have been intimately involved in the
various stages of information and data collection and will continue to dedicate time and resources to
make this project and model successful.
The A-Team has come together to resolve energy issues in a way no other Alaska region has and
we look forward to teaming with the Alaska Energy Authority to help us in our work. We believe the
implementation of this project will help further local effo rts to utilize abundant renewable resources
while providing a valuable model for rural hydrokinetic development for coastal communities
throughout the State and elsewhere.
The A – Team as a group and as individual entities are in the process of finalizing and
implementing a regional energy plan that will help residents and communities address critical energy
issues including rising costs and dependence on fossil fuels. The False Pass tidal project could play a key
role in the sustained energy portfolio for the community, and will be an integral part in shaping future
hydrokinetic development throughout the state. We urge the Alaska Energy Authority to approve this
proposal and help the City of False Pass and the Aleutians region become more energy self-sufficient.
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Dev elopment Association
302 Gold Street, Suite 202 • Juneau , Alaska 99801 • (907) 586-0161 • Fax: (907) 5 86-0165
717 K Street, Suite I 00 • Anchorage , Alaska 99501 • (907) 929-5273 • Fax: (907) 929 -5275
September 20 , 2013
Mayor Tom Hoblet
180 Unimak Drive
False Pass, Alaska 99583
Dear Tom:
The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association is pleased to provide a cost
share match towards the City of False Pass ' proposal under Round VII of the Alaska Energy
Authority's Renewable Energy Fund. The city 's Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study represents a
critical stage in determining the viability of tidal power to reduce the community 's fossil fuel
use.
APICDA helped to provide vessel and ground support for the first two phases of feasibility work
for this project. Next summer we will provide $77,820 worth of support in vessel time, crew,
lodging, board, fuel and personnel during five separate deployment and survey efforts. We are
very excited to participate in this endeavor and are hopeful that it will provide a path towards a
more sustainable energy resource for the city and our fish processing operations.
APICDA has been working diligently with the city and other regional entities on energy
planning, fuel security issues and exploring renewable alternatives to diesel generated electricity.
We look forward to our continued partnerships and helping to shape a vibrant and healthy future
for residents and businesses throughout the Aleutian and Pribilof Island regions.
Chief Executive Officer, AP I CD A
<
RECONNAISSANCE TIDAL CURRENT SURVEY
REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLAND ASSOCIATION
April 1, 2013
ORPC Alaska, LLC
725 Christensen Dr., Suite 6
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone (207) 772-7707
www.orpc.co
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 2 of 15
Contents
Figures............................................................................................................................................. 2
Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
Data Collection Summary ............................................................................................................... 4
Data Analysis and Quality Control ................................................................................................. 7
Recoverable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments. ........................................................ 6
Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass. .................... 6
Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. .......... 10
Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............... 10
Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected
at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data
collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ..................................................................... 11
Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in
degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note
velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6). .............................................................................. 12
Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction
in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5
and 6). ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration.
A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current
velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image
represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor. ....................................................... 13
Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A
positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is
indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the
tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor. ............................................................................... 14
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 3 of 15
Tables
Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP. ....................................................... 7
Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2. ....................................... 9
Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above
seafloor. ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendices
Appendix A: Tidal Rose for each bin in the water column at sites N2 and S2
Appendix B: Tabular data from all bins in water column with quality data
Appendix C: Photos from Deployment and Retrieval Operations
Appendix D: Field Report, False Pass ADCP Deployment, September 28-October 3, 2012
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 4 of 15
Executive Summary
ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC
(collectively ORPC), performed a reconnaissance tidal current survey (Survey) to obtain a
preliminary assessment of the potential for a tidal energy project as an energy alternative for the
community of False Pass, Alaska under contract with Aleutian Pribilof Island Association
(APIA). ORPC successfully collected Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) current
velocity data from two sites in Isanotski Strait in the vicinity of False Pass over the course of a
lunar cycle (one month) during the period from September to November 2012. The collected
data was normalized through a quality control and data analysis process to allow for a
comparison of the available tidal energy resource between the two sites. The Survey analysis
shows that site “N2” in the near vicinity of False Pass has a marginal tidal energy resource, while
site “S2” in the narrowest portion of the Isanotski Strait is an extremely robust tidal energy
resource for tidal energy extraction utilizing currently existing hydrokinetic technologies. Based
on the results of the Survey, the tidal energy resource in the vicinity of False Pass has sufficient
energy for a viable tidal energy project. The results justify further investigation of the site
characteristics, project development considerations, and project economics to determine the
ultimate feasibility of a tidal energy project in the False Pass area.
Data Collection Summary
ORPC collected a lunar cycle (29.5 days) of current velocity data at two sites near False Pass that
was used to make a preliminary determination of the potential for a tidal energy project.1
ORPC
had agreed to provide data from at least one site, but was able to collect data at two sites as the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) supplied one additional ADCP for the project
period. This enabled two sites to be measured at the same time, allowing a comparison of the
energy resource of the two sites during the same time period.
The field work and data collection was performed as described below:
• September 28, 2012
ORPC deployed a team to False Pass to perform this tidal/ocean current resource
reconnaissance under contract to APIA. Team members Monty Worthington, ORPC,
David Oliver, Benthic GeoScience, and Levi Kilcher, NREL, mobilized to False Pass and
met with Shane Hoblet contracted by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community
Development Association (APICDA) to skipper the Nightrider, a vessel of opportunity
for the equipment deployment operations. The goal of this expedition was to deploy two
ADCPs to measure current velocities at sites likely to have viable resources over a full
lunar cycle (29.5 days), and to deploy two HOBO water level sensors to validate the
University of Alaska Anchorage’s (UAA’s) modeling efforts.
1 A full lunar cycle of data allows analysis of the energy available through a full orbit of the moon around the earth.
As the effect of the moon’s gravity is the primary constituent in tidal exchanges, this analysis provides an accurate
estimate of annual energy potential from a site, provided tidal forces are the primary influence on current velocity at
the site.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 5 of 15
• September 29-30, 2013
ORPC investigated ADCP deployment sites, selected on the basis of UAA modeling
efforts, local knowledge, and known bathymetry with a SeaKing Tritech Scanning Sonar.
Seven sites were assessed for hazards to ADCP deployments in the vicinity of two
prospective ADCP locations, and ultimately two sites “N2” in the vicinity of False Pass
and “S2” approximately two miles south of the town of False Pass near Whirl Point were
selected for deployment (Figure 1).
• September 30, 2012
At 19:50 AKDT a 600 kHz Nortek Acoustic Wave and Current (AWAC) profiler
provided by NREL was deployed and began collecting data at N2 (lat -163.3870W long
54.8515N).
• October 2, 2012
At 19:59 AKDT a 300 kHz RDI ADCP was deployed and began collecting data at S2 (lat
-163.3676W long 54.8174N). The HOBO water level sensors were also deployed
approximately 7 nm North and South of False Pass (Figure 2).
• October 29, 2012
Monty Worthington, ORPC, mobilized back to False Pass for ADCP recovery operations
where he met Calvin Kashevarof under contract to APICDA to skipper the Nightrider for
these efforts.
• October 30, 2012
At 12:44 AKDT the AWAC ADCP was recovered and completed its data collection,
logging 29.7 days of data.
• November 3, 2012
The HOBO deployed north of False Pass was recovered at 12:30 AKDT.
• November 4, 2012
The RDI ADCP deployed at S2 was recovered at 17:45 AKDT. This ADCP had stopped
recording data on October 3, 2012 at 3:57 AKDT due to premature battery depletion,
logging 28.35 days of data.
March 25, 2012
The HOBO deployed south of False Pass was recovered by Shane Hoblet and his crew
while commercial fishing. It had washed up on the beach near its deployment site and
will be returned to UAA for data analysis.
The location of the two sites at which the ADCPs were deployed is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 6 of 15
Figure 1. Location of AWAC and RDI ADCP deployments.
Figure 2. Location of ADCP and HOBO deployments in the vicinity of False Pass.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 7 of 15
Data Analysis and Quality Control
ADCP Configuration
Both the RDI AWAC and Nortek ADCP were configured in the field and calibrated for each of
the sites, including calibration of the magnetic compass on each device, setting of the
deployment depth, and configuring the data acquisition parameters. Each device passed the
configuration checks performed under the guidance of NREL and Benthic Geoscience personnel.
Differences in the two devices necessitated programming each device to sample and store data at
different intervals while optimizing for the maximum rate of data collection, storage and battery
life. This programming allowed the data to be utilized to the maximum extent for analysis of the
strength of the resource, direction of the currents, and potential analysis of turbulence (Table 1).
Each device also had a slightly different “blanking distance.” This is the distance between the
device and the first bin of data. This resulted in a 0.2 meter difference in the height above the
seafloor of nearest data bins between the two devices.
Table 1. Data logging parameters of AWAC and RDI ADCP.
Data Quality Control
The data from the AWAC and RDI ADCPs was downloaded from the devices, and data quality
and accuracy was verified independently by NREL and ORPC. Data analysis was focused
approximately 10.7 meters above the bottom for the RDI ADCP and 10.5 meters above the
bottom for the AWAC ADCP—the anticipated height of ORPC’s TidGen™ device and a likely
hub height for medium sized tidal turbines. Data was also analyzed throughout the water column
for comparison purposes (see Appendix A and B). The strongest near surface current velocities
and highest energy densities were also identified. As the RDI had a pressure sensor, it also
collected data on the water level and identified the surface of the water. The AWAC did not have
a pressure sensor, so water surface and “false” data bins from above the water surface were
identified by unrealistic trends in the data. At site N2, the deployment depth was 26 meters (85
feet) and at least 22 bins of quality data were collected above. The data, however, appeared
Device
and
Site
Data
Collection
Start
(AKDT)
Data
Collection
End
(AKDT)
Data
Collection
Duration
Blanking
Distance
(meters)
Bin Size
(meters)
Sample
Rate
Data
Storage
RDI
ADCP
at site
S2
10/2/12 at
19:59
10/31/12 at
3:57
28.35 days 3.2 1 Ping
every
1.8 sec
Average of
5 pings
stored
every 9 sec
Nortek
AWAC
at site
N2
9/30/12 at
19:50
10/30/12 at
12:44
29.7 days 1 1 Ping
every 1
sec
Average of
60 pings
stored once
a minute
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 8 of 15
unreliable due either to surface reflection or possibly interference from the submerged buoy used
in the deployment. At site S2 the deployment depth was 35 meters (114 feet), and 32 bins of
quality data were collected.
One challenge encountered in performing a comparative analysis of the sites was due to the fact
that the RDI ADCP, deployed at site S2, had stopped logging data before the end of the synodic
full lunar cycle (28.35 days of data instead of 29.53 days). This was likely due to premature
battery depletion. The ADCP had been programmed to use 90% of its battery over a 29.5 day
deployment which should have left reserve capacity; but this was not the case. Because of this, it
was necessary to determine how to normalize the data for comparison purposes between the two
sites because a full lunar cycle of data was not collected at S2. ORPC analyzed the difference
between the data collected by first comparing the data from a full lunar cycle which was
collected at N2 to the data from site N2 during the 27.5 days during which concurrent data was
collected at site S2. Mean velocities at the selected depth (10.5 meters above the seafloor) were
1.24 m/s for the flood tide for both durations, while for the ebb tide, the mean velocity was
slightly higher for the full lunar cycle at 1.25 m/s (as opposed to 1.24 m/s for the 27.5 day cycle,
a difference of less than 1%). The average energy density also differed slightly between 1.57
kW/m^2 for the full lunar cycle as compared to 1.54 kW/m^2 for the period of concurrent data
collection. This represents a 1.9% difference in energy density; a larger difference than the
current velocity as it varies as a cube of current velocity. This difference is within the acceptable
range for extrapolating annual energy output as natural variations between concurrent lunar
cycles may exhibit similar differences. It was therefore deemed a correct approach to focus on
the 27.5 day time period of concurrent data collection for comparison of energy at the two sites
and for extrapolation of annual energy production. The data presented in this report was analyzed
over the 27.5 day time period of concurrent deployment.
Current velocity, energy density and flow symmetry comparison
Table 2 shows the comparative current velocities and energy density at sites N2 and S2 using the
27.5 days of direct overlap in deployment of the two devices. At 10.5 meters above the seafloor,
the N2 site had a maximum velocity of 2.51 m/s and average velocity of 1.24 m/s and an average
energy density of 1.54 kW/m^2. By comparison, at 10.7 meters above the seafloor the S2 site
had a maximum current of 3.68 m/s an average velocity of 1.62 m/s and an average energy
density of 3.68 kW/m^2—over twice the available energy of site N2. At both sites, the strongest
currents occurred during the ebb (southerly) flows. Peak current velocities and energy densities
occurred near the surface of each site, but, here again, energy density at site S2 was more than
double that of N2.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 9 of 15
Table 2. Energy density and current velocity comparison at N2 and S2.
The flow direction and its symmetry between flood and ebb events at tidal sites can be highly
variable, and this can have adverse effects on energy capture using tidal turbines. It is important
to analyze this aspect of tidal currents as asymmetric currents can have adverse effects on total
recoverable energy. In addition to analysis of the mean direction and standard deviation of the
currents direction in Table 2, ORPC generated a “Tidal Rose” for each site at the tidal turbines
hub height to graphically depict current direction, symmetry, and magnitude. These Tidal Roses
reveal that the flow is highly symmetric (near to180 degrees opposed) at sites S2 and N2 and that
viable current velocities for energy production occur a large amount of the time. However,
current velocities and overall energy at N2 are significantly lower as noted above. Figures 3 and
4 show the Tidal Rose for the selected depth for energy analysis of each site. A Tidal Rose for
each bin of data is included in Appendix A. A similar analysis, highlighting the current direction
and magnitude with scatter plots, is displayed in Figures 5 and 6.
Site (depth above seafloor) N2
(10.5 m)
S2
(10.7m)
N2
(20.5 m)
S2
(32.7m)
Flood Mean Direction (deg) -33.8 -19.7 -34.7 -23.8
Std. Deviation from Mean axis
(deg) 3.90 13.30 3.89 9.91
Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.47 1.41 1.67
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.30 2.96 2.64 2.92
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.49 2.56 2.21 3.72
Ebb Mean Direction (deg) 154 167 162 162
Std. Deviation from Mean axis
(deg) 2.94 3.03 4.33 1.96
Mean Speed (m/s) -1.24 -1.76 -1.41 -2.14
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) -2.51 -3.68 -2.85 -4.46
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.60 4.82 2.34 8.76
Combined Mean Speed (m/s) 1.24 1.62 1.41 1.91
Max Sustained Speed (m/s) 2.51 3.68 2.85 4.46
Mean Power Density (kW/m^2) 1.54 3.68 2.27 6.21
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 10 of 15
Figure 3. Tidal Rose for RDI ADCP deployed at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Figure 4. Tidal Rose for AWAC deployed at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 11 of 15
Figure 5. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from RDI ADCP data collected
at site S2 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing current direction and magnitude from Nortek AWAC data
collected at site N2 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 12 of 15
Data Analysis over the entire water column
The following figures illustrate the data of the site inclusive of the entire water column to
provide a perspective on how the resource varies as a function of depth and time. Figures 5 and 6
show the temporal and spatial variation of current velocity magnitude and direction at sites S2
and N2 correspondingly.
Figure 7. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction in
degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment, water surface level is shown at top (note
velocity scale is different in Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 8. Nortek AWAC data from N2 showing velocity magnitude in m/s and current direction
in degrees over 27.5 days of concurrent deployment (note velocity scale is different in Figure 5
and 6).
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 13 of 15
Figures 7 and 8 show the spatial and temporal variation of the “residual” current velocity
correspondingly at sites S2 and N2. This residual current is the net flow of water over the
deployment period with the tidally influenced flows extracted. These residual currents are only at
a single column in the cross section of the channel and can be explained by circulation patterns
where ebb currents are enhanced in one portion of a channel and flood currents are enhanced in
another area while the net current is essential zero. Fresh water input at one end of an estuary can
also lead to residual currents being stronger in one direction than another. These currents are not
generally of large consequence for tidal energy extraction, but the information is included here to
provide differentiation of tidal versus ocean currents at False Pass as the influence of each was
not well understood at the onset of this study. During initial desktop investigation into the False
Pass project site, it was suspected that the northwesterly flowing Alaska ocean current might
have an influence in creating a stronger northerly flood current while diminishing the southerly
ebb current. As these residual current velocity charts suggest, larger tidal variations resulted in a
stronger residual southerly ebb current at both sites and overall energy was higher on the ebb tide
over the course of the month. Smaller tidal variations corresponded to a stronger residual
northerly flood current though overall flood energy was lower at both sites.
Figure 9. RDI ADCP data from S2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration.
A positive current is indicative of the northerly flood residual current while a negative current
velocity is indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image
represents the tidal velocity 10.7 meters above the seafloor.
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 14 of 15
Figure 10. AWAC data from N2 showing residual current velocity over deployment duration. A
positive current is indicative of the northerly flood current while a negative current velocity is
indicative of a southerly ebb residual current. The velocity data in the lower image represents the
tidal velocity 10.5 meters above the seafloor.
Recoverable Energy
For a tidal energy device such as ORPC’s TidGen™ turbine generator unit (TGU), deployed
with a hub height 10.5 meters above the bottom, a swept area of 59 m^2 and an efficiency of
32.3%, the annual energy delivery from site N2 would be 284,490 kWh, resulting in a capacity
factor of 21.6%. By comparison the same device deployed 10.5 meters above the bottom at S2
would have an annual generation of 577,655 kWh and a 43.9% capacity factor. For higher
efficiency (36%) turbines with the same swept area, such as future versions of ORPC power
systems, the annual energy delivered would increase to 318,972 kWh and 24% capacity factor at
N2 and 624,941 kWh and 47.5 % capacity factor at S2. By comparison to other sites which
ORPC has studied in Alaska and Maine, site S2 represents a robust and very attractive tidal
energy resource, while site N2 is a marginal resource for energy production using a device
analogous to ORPC’s TidGen™ TGU.
Table 3. Recoverable energy comparison at N2 and S2 approximately 10.5 meters above
seafloor.
Site N2 10.5 m above seafloor S2 10.7 m above seafloor
Annual recoverable energy (59 sq
m turbine with 32.2% efficiency)
284,490 kWh 577,655 kWh
Annual recoverable energy (59 sq
m turbine with 36 % efficiency)
317,107 kWh 625,258 kWh
Ocean Renewable Power Company
Reconnaissance Tidal Current Survey Report
April 1, 2013
Confidential Page 15 of 15
Conclusion
Based on the results of the reconnaissance tidal current survey performed in the False Pass area,
it is clear that, from strictly a resource perspective, site S2 has great potential and site N2 is
marginal at best. However, many other factors come into play when evaluating the feasibility of
a site for a tidal energy project. These factors include bathymetric and geotechnical
considerations, access to the site, proximity to the interconnection point with the local grid, etc.
The evaluation of the feasibility of a tidal energy project at a marginal resource site such as N2 is
highly dependent on the costs associated with the development and construction of the project
and the value of the power that is delivered. While the energy density found at site N2 is much
lower than that encountered at S2, the short transmission distance from site N2 to the
interconnect locations in False Pass (approximately ½ mile) and the relative easy access to the
site could reduce associated construction costs significantly and make a project in its vicinity
economically viable. It is also entirely possible that better tidal current velocities exist in the near
vicinity of site N2 that could increase the site’s energy density to a point where development of a
project is more attractive. ORPC believes it would be worthwhile to enhance circulation
modeling efforts in the vicinity of N2 to determine if local variations in the velocity profile
would lead to identification of one or more specific sites with higher energy density. This could
tip the scales in favor of a tidal energy project in the vicinity of site N2, and if so, make it
desirable to follow up with an ADCP survey at the location(s) of interest.
The robust tidal energy resource at site S2 will provide exceptional output from a tidal energy
project with impressive capacity factors in the range of 40-50% of rated capacity. Site S2 is,
however, more remote than site N2, and construction costs will likely be higher, especially for
the associated power transmission line which would be at least 2 miles long. Further
investigation of project development considerations and constructability of a tidal energy project
at site S2 are warranted to assess the economics of installing a tidal energy project at this site. Of
key importance in this assessment will be a bathymetric survey covering the area of potential
device locations and submarine power cable routes, and analysis of technical and cost
considerations for a power cable line to connect the project to False Pass.