HomeMy WebLinkAboutAVEC AEA Round 6 Marshall Wind Design & Permitting CDR
Appendix A
V3 Energy’s September 2012 Marshall Wind-Diesel
Feasibility
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study
September 14, 2012
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
dvaught@v3energy.com
V3 Energy, LLC
Eagle River, Alaska
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | i
This report was prepared by V3 Energy, LLC under contract to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative to
assess the technical and economic feasibility of installing two Northern Power 100 ARCTIC model wind
turbines in Marshall. This analysis is part of a conceptual design project funded in Round IV of the
Renewable Energy Fund administered by the Alaska Energy Authority.
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Village of Marshall .................................................................................................................................... 1
Wind Resource .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Measured Wind Speeds ............................................................................................................................ 4
Wind Roses................................................................................................................................................ 4
Wind Frequency Rose ........................................................................................................................... 5
Total Value (power density) Rose ......................................................................................................... 5
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment ................................................................................................. 5
Power-producing Equipment ........................................................................................................................... 6
Diesel Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 6
Wind Turbines ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC ................................................................................................................. 6
Electric Load .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Thermal Load ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Diesel Generators ..................................................................................................................................... 8
WAsP Modeling ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Project Site .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Location ................................................................................... 11
Ice Throw Setback ............................................................................................................................... 11
Turbine Spacing ................................................................................................................................... 13
Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Wind Turbine Costs ................................................................................................................................. 15
Fuel Cost .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 15
Homer Modeling Results ........................................................................................................................ 17
100% Wind Turbine Availability .......................................................................................................... 17
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | ii
80% Wind Turbine Availability ............................................................................................................ 17
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A: WAsP Wind Farm Report for two Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbines Array .................... 19
Appendix B: Homer Software System Report, 80% Availability, Two Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbines
.................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 1
Introduction
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Marshall. AVEC was
awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility and design work for
installation of wind turbines, with planned construction in 2013.
Village of Marshall
Marshall is located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east bank of the
Yukon River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. It lies on the northeastern boundary of the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. The climate of Marshall is maritime with temperatures ranging between -54
and 86 °F. Average annual rainfall measures 16 inches. Heavy winds in the fall and winter often limit air
accessibility. The Lower Yukon is ice-free from
mid-June through October.
An expedition came upon an Eskimo village called
"Uglovaia" at this site in 1880. Gold was
discovered on nearby Wilson Creek in 1913.
"Fortuna Ledge" became a placer mining camp,
named after the first child born at the camp,
Fortuna Hunter. Its location on a channel of the
Yukon River was convenient for riverboat
landings. A post office was established in 1915,
and the population grew to over 1,000. Later, the
village was named for Thomas Riley Marshall,
Vice President of the United States under Woodrow Wilson from 1913-21. The community became
known as "Marshall's Landing." When the village incorporated as a second-class city in 1970, it was
named Fortuna Ledge but was commonly referred to as Marshall. The name was officially changed to
Marshall in 1984.
A federally-recognized tribe is located in the community -- the Native Village of Marshall. Marshall is a
traditional Yup'ik Eskimo village. Subsistence and fishing-related activities support most residents.
Members of the Village of Ohogamiut also live in Marshall. The sale, importation, and possession of
alcohol are banned in the village.
According to Census 2010, there were 108 housing units in the community and 100 were occupied. Its
population was 94.7 percent American Indian or Alaska Native; 2.7 percent white; 0.2 percent Asian; 2.4
percent of the local residents had multi-racial backgrounds. Additionally, 0.2 percent of the population
was of Hispanic descent.
Water is derived from five wells. Approximately 70% of the city (60 homes) is served by a piped
circulating water and sewer system and has full plumbing. The remainder of the city must haul water
and use honey buckets. An unpermitted landfill is available, and the city has a refuse collection service.
Electricity is provided by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. There is one school located in the
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 2
community, attended by 133 students. Local hospitals or health clinics include Agnes Boliver Health
Clinic (Marshall). Emergency Services have river and air access. Emergency service is provided by a
health aide.
Marshall has a seasonal economy with most activity during the summer. Fishing, fish processing, and
BLM firefighting positions are available seasonally. In 2010, 39 residents held commercial fishing
permits. Subsistence activities supplement income. Salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl are harvested.
Trapping provides some income.
No roads connect Marshall to the rest of the state, so access is primarily by air or water. The city has a
state-owned 3,201' long by 100' wide gravel airstrip. The community is also serviced by barge. Many
residents have boats, and in winter they rely on snow machines and dog teams.
Wind Resource
A met tower was installed at the proposed wind turbine site in Marshall on December 18, 2008 and was
in continuous operation until October 10, 2009 when an anchor failed during an exceptionally strong
wind storm and the tower collapsed. The tower was not replaced as it is felt that sufficient data was
collected during the ten month data measurement period to adequately characterize the site. With the
data on hand, an average wind speed of 6.0 m/s was measured, with a wind power density of 332 W/m2
(Class 4 wind resource). Because the two missing months are mid-October to mid-December, typically
the windiest period of time of the year, the actual annual wind speed average and wind power density
may well be higher than reported here.
Other aspects of the wind resource also are promising for wind power development. By IEC 61400-1 3rd
edition classification, Marshall is category II-c or III-c, indicating low turbulence (mean TI at 15 m/s =
0.095) and moderate to low 50 year extreme winds. The latter measure is more difficult to quantify
with only ten months of data, but the site clearly is not energetic enough to be IEC extreme wind Class I.
The NW100/21 is designed for IEC II-B sites, so the Marshall site is well within the design parameters of
the turbine. Icing has also not proven to be a significant issue in the met tower data.
Marshall met tower data synopsis
Data start date December 18, 2008
Data end date October 12, 2009 (9.8 months data)
Wind power class Class 3 (fair) to Class 4 (good)
Wind speed average (30 meters) 5.97 m/s measured, estimate 6.3 m/s annual
Maximum 10-min average wind speed 30.8 m/s
Maximum wind gust 37.8 m/s (January 2009)
IEC 61400-1 3rd ed. extreme winds Class II (note: 10 months data)
Wind power density (30 meters) 343 W/m2
Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.62, c = 6.72 m/s
Roughness Class 0.90 (fallow field)
Power law exponent 0.138 (moderate wind shear)
Frequency of calms (3.5 m/s threshold) 29%
Mean Turbulence Intensity 0.095 (IEC 61400-1 3rd ed. turbulence category C)
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 3
Topographic map
Google Earth image
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 4
Measured Wind Speeds
Measured wind speeds in Marshall are rather high for an inland site and are promising for wind power
development.
Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Marshall (Dec 2008 to Oct 2009)
Variable
Speed 30 m
A
Speed 30 m
B
Speed 22
m
Measurement height (m) 30.0 30.0 22.0
Mean wind speed (m/s) 5.98 6.02 5.75
Max 10 min avg wind speed (m/s) 28.8 30.8 26.6
Max gust wind speed (m/s) 35.2 37.8 34.8
Weibull k 1.63 1.62 1.64
Weibull c (m/s) 6.68 6.72 6.42
Mean power density (W/m²) 332 343 294
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 2,908 3,003 2,572
Energy pattern factor 2.40 2.44 2.39
Frequency of calms (%) 29.1 28.7 31.0
1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.898 0.902 0.898
Diurnal pattern strength 0.075 0.078 0.086
Hour of peak wind speed 17 17 16
Marshall Wind speed graph
Wind Roses
Winds at the Marshall met tower test site are primarily east-northeast, north-northwest with occasional
winds from south-southeast (wind frequency rose), with the strongest winds east-northeast (mean value
rose). The power density rose indicates that the power producing winds at the site are very
predominately east-northeast. Should multiple wind turbines be sited, they should be oriented
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 5
approximately north-northeast to south-southwest to provide good exposure to ENE and SSE winds and
avoid tower shadowing.
Note that a wind threshold of 3.5 m/s was selected for the definition of calm winds. With this threshold,
the Marshall met tower site experienced 29 percent calm conditions during the test period.
Wind Frequency Rose Total Value (power density) Rose
Wind-Diesel System Design and Equipment
Wind-diesel power systems are categorized based on their average penetration levels, or the overall
proportion of wind-generated electricity compared to the total amount of electrical energy generated.
Commonly used categories of wind-diesel penetration levels are low penetration, medium penetration,
and high penetration. The wind penetration level is roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel
displaced by wind power. Note however that the higher the level of wind penetration, the more
complex and expensive a control system and demand-management strategy is required. This is a good
compromise between of displaced fuel usage and relatively minimal system complexity and is AVEC’s
preferred system configuration. Installation of two Northwind 100 wind turbines or six EO25 kW wind
turbine at the Marshall site would be configured at the medium penetration level.
Categories of wind-diesel penetration levels
Penetration
Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements
Instantaneous Average
Low 0% to 50% Less than
20%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires minimal changes to existing diesel
control system. All wind energy generated supplies the
village electric load; wind turbines function as “negative
load” with respect to diesel generator governor response.
Medium 0% to 100+% 20% to
50%
Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum
loading level. Requires control system capable of
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 6
Penetration
Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements
Instantaneous Average
automatic generator start, stop and paralleling. To control
system frequency during periods of high wind power input,
system requires fast acting secondary load controller
matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler
augmenting a generator heat recovery loop. At high wind
power levels, secondary (thermal) loads are dispatched to
absorb energy not used by the primary (electric) load.
Without secondary loads, wind turbines must be curtailed
to control frequency.
High
(Diesels-off
Capable)
0% to 150+% Greater
than 50%
Diesel generator(s) can be turned off during periods of
high wind power levels. Requires sophisticated new
control system, significant wind turbine capacity, secondary
(thermal) load, energy storage such as batteries or a flywheel,
and possibly additional components such as demand-
managed devices.
Power-producing Equipment
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Marshall power System. HOMER was
designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy
sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid
development of Alaska village wind power projects. It is a static energy balance model, however, and is
not designed to model the dynamic stability of a wind-diesel power system, although it will provide a
warning icon to indicate that renewable energy is potential sufficient to result in instability.
Diesel Power Plant
Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in
Marshall is provided by AVEC. The existing power plant in Marshall is comprised of the following diesel
generators.
Marshall powerplant diesel generators
Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model Generator
1 500 kW Caterpillar 3456 Cat LC6
2 363 kW Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 Kato 6P4-1450
3 236 kW Detroit Series 60 DDEC4 Kato 6P4-1450
Wind Turbines
This project proposes to install two Northern Power Systems Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for
200 kW installed wind capacity.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC
The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC, formerly known as the Northwind 100 Arctic, is rated at 100 kW and is
equipped with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), and is
equipped with heaters and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 7
has a 21 meter diameter rotor operating at a 37 meter hub height. The turbine is stall-controlled and in
the proposed version will be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at
temperatures down to -40° C.
The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC is the most widely represented village-scale wind turbine in Alaska with
a significant number of installations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and on St. Lawrence Island. The
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbine is manufactured in Barre, Vermont, USA. More information
can be found at http://www.northernpower.com/. The turbine standard temperature and pressure
(STP) power curve is shown below.
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC power curve
Electric Load
Marshall load data, collected from December 2010 to December 2011, was received from Mr. Bill
Thompson of AVEC. These data are in 15 minute increments and represent total electric load demand
during each time step. The data were processed by adjusting the date/time stamps nine hours from
GMT to Yukon/Alaska time, multiplying each value by four to translate kWh to kW (similar to processing
of the wind turbine data), and creating a January 1 to December 31 hourly list for export to HOMER
software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 191 kW with a 299 kW peak
load and an average daily load demand of 4,582 kWh.
Electric load
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 8
Thermal Load
Powerplant heat recovery in Marshall is non-functional at present although plans exist to return the
system to operation soon. The thermal load demand is minimal though and easily met with the far
greater energy content of recovered heat from the diesel generators. Homer modeling indicates that
excess wind energy from two Northern Power 100 turbines would be minimal and unlikely to be usable
for thermal load offset anyways, hence in for this analysis thermal load is not considered. During the
design process, the potential for expansion of thermal load will be examined and the models updated to
consider the value of thermal load offset from excess wind energy.
Diesel Generators
The HOMER model was constructed with all three Marshall diesel generators. For cost modeling
purposes, AEA assumes a generator O&M cost of $0.020/kWh. For HOMER modeling purposes, this was
converted to $1.00/operating hour for each diesel generator (based on Marshall’s modeled average
electrical load of 191 kW). Other diesel generator information pertinent to the HOMER model is shown
below. Individual generator fuel curve information is available but Homer modeling with generator-
specific fuel curves indicated fuel efficiency of 15.3 kWh/gal in the base case (no wind turbines). This is
higher than AVEC’s reported fuel efficiency of 14.98 kWh/gal to Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the
2011 Power Cost Equalization Report, and the 14.44 kWh/gal efficiency for Marshall documented in
AVEC’s 2011 annual generation report.
Diesel generator HOMER modeling information
Diesel generator Caterpillar
3456
Detroit Series
60 DDEC4
Detroit Series
60 DDEC4
Power output (kW) 500 363 236
Intercept coeff. (L/hr/kW
rated)
0.00651 0.0195 0.0146
Slope (L/hr/kW output) 0.2382 0.2122 0.2384
Minimum electric
load (%)
5.0%
(25 kW)
6.9%
(25 kW)
10.6%
(25 kW)
Heat recovery ratio (% of
waste heat that can serve
the thermal load)
22 22 22
Intercept coefficient – the no-load fuel consumption of the generator divided by its capacity
Slope – the marginal fuel consumption of the generator
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 9
Cat 3456 fuel efficiency curve DD60 DDEC4 Gen 2
DD60 DDEC4 Gen 3
WAsP Modeling
WAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program) is PC-based software for predicting wind climates,
wind resources and power production from wind turbines and wind farms.
WAsP modeling begins with import of a digital elevation map (DEM) of the subject site and surrounding
area and conversion of coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). UTM is a geographic
coordinate system that uses a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to identify locations on the
surface of Earth. UTM coordinates reference the meridian of its particular zone (60 longitudinal zones
are further subdivided by 20 latitude bands) for the easting coordinate and distance from the equator
for the northing coordinate. Units are meters. Elevations of the DEMs are converted to meters if
necessary for import into WAsP software.
A met tower reference point is added to the digital elevation map, wind turbine locations identified, and
a wind turbine(s) selected to perform the calculations. WAsP considers the orographic (terrain) effects
on the wind (plus surface roughness and obstacles) and calculates how wind flow increases or decreases
at each node of the DEM grid. The mathematical model has a number of limitations, including the
assumption of overall wind regime of the turbine site is the same as the met tower reference site,
prevailing weather conditions are stable over time, and the surrounding terrain at both sites is
sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure laminar, attached wind flow. WAsP software is not capable of
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 10
modeling turbulent wind flow resulting from sharp terrain features such as mountain ridges, canyons,
shear bluffs, etc.
Orographic modeling of the wind across the site, with the Marshall met tower as the reference site,
indicates a very good wind resource in the general vicinity of the met tower location.
Orographic modeling of Marshall site area, plan view
Orographic modeling of Marshall site area, view to west
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 11
Project Site
The general project site is Native Corporation land on and near the location of the Marshall met tower,
with boundary constraints of Native Allotments to the north and south and topography to the east and
west. A further constraint is setback from the airport access road which traverses between the
allotments.
Marshall wind project site Native Allotment constraints
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbine Location
Site layout for two Northern Power 100 turbines included consideration of avoiding the two nearby
Native Allotments, maximizing wind turbine energy production as predicted by WAsP software, placing
the turbines as near as possible to existing three-phase electrical distribution, avoiding areas of potential
village expansion in the future, and placing the turbines at sufficient distance from the airport road to
minimize the risk of ice throw during wintertime icing conditions.
Ice Throw Setback
With respect to icing, a setback distance of 61 meters is recommended to minimize the potential for ice
throw on the road due to ice shedding from the turbine rotor blades. A research paper entitled Risk
Analysis of Ice Throw from Wind Turbines, but Seifert, Westerhellweg, and Kröning, presented at
BOREAS 6 in Pyhä, Finland in April, 2003 was reviewed for algorithms and recommendations regarding
setback distance for ice throw risk.
Two ice throw scenarios exist: ice throw from the blades during turbine operation and ice fall from the
turbine at standstill (turbine is not operational). For an operational Northern Power turbine (21 meter
rotor and 37 meter hub height), the Seifert et al. paper suggests a potential downwind ice throw of 87
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 12
meters and for this turbine at standstill, an wind-driven ice throw distance of 63 meters in a 20 m/s
wind. These are maximum likely distances and the analysis is subject to a number of complex variables,
but one considerable of importance is direction of prevailing wind(s), location of the turbine, and
direction of target area (in this case, the Marshall airport road).
As one can see below in the wind rose/wind turbine overlay image below, prevailing winds at the
Marshall wind turbine site are primarily northeasterly with occasional southeasterly and northwesterly
winds. Northeast winds are the colder and drier winds from the interior while southwest winds are the
warmer storm winds carrying moisture from the south (see direction versus temperature scatterplot
below). With this in mind, primary risk of ice throw direction is actually towards the northwest, which is
away from the road and of little concern. Should the turbines be ice laden and winds shift to
northeasterly, the potential for ice throw onto the road exists, but orientation of the wind, turbine and
target (the road) is such that direction of ice travel would be likely be southwest, which is approximately
87 meters to the road with the turbine located at a 61 meter setback.
Wind frequency sectors at turbines, ice throw risk, view to north
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 13
Marshall met tower direction vs. temperature scatterplot
Turbine Spacing
WAsP software was used to model wake loss for a two turbine Northern Power 100 array. With some
trial and error, turbines oriented on an axis of 025° T-205° T were found to produce minimal wake loss.
An initial turbine separation of five rotor diameters (105 meters) was chosen but through a desire to
minimize borrow material and civil construction costs, turbine separation was reduced to 3.5 rotor
diameters distance, or about 73 meters. Because of the strong directionality of prevailing winds, only
two turbines in the array, and the array orientation, wake loss with a 73 meter separation distance is a
very acceptable 1.34 percent. Summary results of proposed two turbine array are shown in the two
tables below. Detailed results can be found in Appendix A of this report.
WAsP turbine array summary results
Parameter Total Average Minimum Maximum
Net AEP [MWh] 510.578 255.289 255.251 255.328
Gross AEP [MWh] 517.536 258.768 258.705 258.831
Wake loss [%] 1.34 - - -
WAsP turbine array site results
Site
UTM Zone 3V
Location [m] Turbine
Elevation
[m a.s.l.]
Height
[m a.g.l.]
Net AEP
[MWh]
Wake loss
[%]
NW100-1 (654139, 6863849) NP 100 60 37 255.251 1.38
NW100-2 (654167, 6863917) NP 100 60 37 255.328 1.31
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 14
Northern Power 100 array, view to west (Marshall to right)
Northern Power 100 array, view to east (airport top center)
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 15
Economic Analysis
Installation of two Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbines in medium penetration mode is evaluated
in this report to demonstrate the economic impact of these turbines with the following configuration:
turbines are connected to the electrical distribution system with first priority to serve the electrical load,
and second priority to serve the thermal load via a secondary load controller and electric boiler,
although note that for this analysis no thermal load is assumed for cost modeling purposes. In reality, a
secondary load controller and electric boiler will likely be necessary to act as an energy sink during
periods of high instantaneous wind penetration. This is necessary to avoid curtailing wind turbine
operations yet maintain stable grid frequency.
Wind Turbine Costs
A project capital, construction and startup cost of $2,509,850 was obtained from HDL, Inc. and is used in
Homer software as the capital expense to estimate project economics. Details of HDL’s cost estimate
are available from them.
Fuel Cost
A fuel price of $4.59/gallon ($1.21/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to
Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035, prepared for Alaska Energy Authority by the Institute for Social
and Economic Research (ISER), dated July, 2012. The $4.59/gallon price reflects the average value of all
fuel prices between the 2014 (assumed project start year) fuel price of $4.15/gallon and the 2033 (20
year project end year) fuel price of $5.00/gallon using the medium price projection analysis with social
cost of carbon included (see ISER spreadsheet for Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 analysis).
By comparison, the fuel price reported to Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the 2011 PCE report is
$2.86/gallon ($0.756/Liter).
Fuel cost table
Cost Scenario 2014 (/gal) 2033 (/gal)
Average
(/gallon)
Average
(/Liter)
Medium $4.15 $5.00 $4.59 $1.21
Modeling Assumptions
HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the Marshall power System. HOMER was
designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy
sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid
development of Alaska village wind power projects.
Modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Many assumptions, such as project life, discount
rate, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values. Other assumptions, such as
diesel overhaul cost and time between overhaul are based on general rural Alaska power generation
experience.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 16
The base or comparison scenario is the existing Marshall powerplant with its present configuration of
diesel generators. At present it is assumed that excess energy will be dissipated through heat exhaust or
other means.
Wind turbines constructed at the Marshall wind site are assumed to operate in parallel with the diesel
generators. Excess energy could serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler
but are not configured as such in the model. Installation cost of this turbine project assumes three-
phase upgrade of the distribution system to the wind turbine site.
Basic modeling assumptions
Economic Assumptions
Project life 20 years (2014 to 2033)
Discount rate 3%
System fixed O&M cost $375,000/year
Operating Reserves
Load in current time step 10%
Wind power output 50%
Fuel Properties (both types)
Heating value 43.2 MJ/kg (18,600 BTU/lb.)
Density 820 kg/m3 (6.85 lb./gal)
Price $4.59/gal ($1.21/Liter)
Diesel Generators
Generator capital cost $0 (gensets already exist)
O&M cost $1.00/hour (at $0.02/kWh)
Time between overhauls 15,000 hours (run time)
Overhaul cost $30,000
Minimum load 25 kW; based on revised AVEC’s operational criteria of a
minimum diesel loading to maintain spinning reserve
capability with their wind-diesel systems
Schedule Optimized
Wind Turbines
Availability 100% and 80%
Project cost (2 turbines) $2,509,850
O&M cost $0.0469/kWh (equates to $20,000/year for two Northern
Power 100 turbines; based on 80% turbine availability)
Wind speed 6.23 m/s at 30 m at the Marshall wind site (10 months data;
adjusted to 12 months); wind speed scaled to 5.50 m/s to
yield approx. 80% turbine availability
Density adjustment 1.281 kg/m^3 (measured at Marshall met tower; 10 months
data); note that standard density is 1.225 kg/m^3
Energy Loads
Electric 4.60 MWh/day measured in the Marshall power plant (2011)
Thermal No thermal load defined at present
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 17
Homer Modeling Results
100% Wind Turbine Availability
6.23 m/s mean wind speed
NP
100
Initial
capital
Operating
cost ($/yr) Total NPC
COE
($/kWh)
Wind
fraction
Wind
energy
(kWh/yr)
Diesel
use (L)
Diesel
use (gal)
Avoided
fuel use
(gal)
Excess
electric
(%)
B/C
Ratio
$0 888,676 $13,221,259 0.531 0.00
- 416,566 110,057
-
- 1.000
2 $2,509,850 773,689 $14,020,381 0.563 0.06
529,062 305,006 80,583
29,474 2.0 0.943
80% Wind Turbine Availability
5.50 m/s mean wind speed
NP
100
Initial
capital
Operating
cost ($/yr) Total NPC
COE
($/kWh)
Wind
fraction
Wind
energy
(kWh/yr)
Diesel
use (L)
Diesel
use (gal)
Avoided
fuel use
(gal)
Excess
energy
(%)
B/C
Ratio
$0 888,676 $13,221,259 0.531 0.00
- 416,566 110,057
-
- 1.000
2 $2,509,850 798,703 $14,392,530 0.578 0.00
426,551 325,678 86,044
24,013 1.3 0.919
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 18
Conclusion and Recommendations
Marshall has a very good wind resource for wind power development, especially considering its distance
from the Bering Sea coast. Wind behavior is desirable with low turbulence, low wind shear, low extreme
wind probability, and little evidence of severe icing conditions.
The analysis in this report considered construction of two Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbines in
a medium penetration configuration with no thermal offset and no electrical storage. Even with these
limitations, Homer modeling software projects a relatively high benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.96 at 100%
turbine availability and 0.93 at 80% turbine availability. Refer to Appendix B of this report for the Homer
system report of the configuration at 80% turbine availability.
It is recommended that this project proceed to the design phase. At that point other turbines may be
considered, such as remanufactured Vestas models. Additionally, with the addition of a larger thermal
load, such as the new school in Marshall, it may be cost advantageous to install more wind turbine
capacity. This will increase the amount of diesel fuel displaced in the power plant and divert a sufficient
amount of excess wind energy to the thermal load to justify the expense of a secondary load controller
and electric boiler.
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 19
Appendix A: WAsP Wind Farm Report for two Northern Power 100
ARCTIC Turbines Array
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
'Marsha ll NP 100 wind fa rm' wind farm
P ro d u ce d o n 9 /1 3 /2 0 1 2 a t 3 :4 6 :2 4 P M b y lice n ce d u s e r: Do u g la s J. Va u g h t, V3 En e rg y, U SA u s in g W As P ve rs io n :
1 0 .0 2 .0 0 1 0
Summary re s ults
Pa r a m e te r T ota l Av e r a ge Minimum Ma x im um
Ne t AE P [MWh]5 1 0 .5 7 8 2 5 5 .2 8 9 2 5 5 .2 5 1 2 5 5 .3 2 8
Gross AE P [MWh]5 1 7 .5 3 6 2 5 8 .7 6 8 2 5 8 .7 0 5 2 5 8 .8 3 1
Wa k e lo ss [%]1 .3 4 ---
Site re s ults
Site Lo c a tion [m ]Tur bine Ele v a tio n [m ]He ight [m]Ne t A E P [MWh]Wa k e los s [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 (6 5 4 1 3 9 , 6 8 6 3 8 4 9 )NW P 1 0 0 6 0 3 7 2 5 5 .2 5 1 1 .3 8
NW 1 0 0 -2 (6 5 4 1 6 7 , 6 8 6 3 9 1 7 )NW P 1 0 0 6 0 3 7 2 5 5 .3 2 8 1 .3 1
Site wind climate s
Site Lo c a tion [m ]H [m]A [m/s ]k U [m /s ]E [W/m ²]RIX [%]dRIX [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 (6 5 4 1 3 9 , 6 8 6 3 8 4 9 )3 7 7 .1 1 .7 1 6 .3 3 3 7 0 0 .0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 (6 5 4 1 6 7 , 6 8 6 3 9 1 7 )3 7 7 .1 1 .7 1 6 .3 2 3 6 7 0 .0 0 .0
T h e win d fa rm lie s in a m a p ca lle d M a rs h a ll U T M z o n e 3 .
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d M a rs h a ll
A win d a tla s ca lle d W in d a tla s 2 wa s u s e d to ca lcu la te th e p re d icte d win d clim a te s
Calculation of annual output for 'M ars hall NP 100 wind farm'
De ca y co n s ta n ts : 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
0 .0 7 5 0 .0 7 5
Se cto r 1 (0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .4 2 .4 8 1 .5 7 6 .5 7 4 .2 5 2 4 .2 2 0 9 9 .2 4
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .4 2 .4 4 1 .5 5 6 .5 5 4 .1 6 6 4 .1 6 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 to ta l ----8 .4 1 8 8 .3 8 6 9 9 .6 2
Se cto r 2 (1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .3 1 .9 8 1 .1 1 5 .6 2 2 .2 4 1 1 .7 4 0 7 7 .6 4
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .3 1 .9 6 1 .1 2 5 .5 7 2 .2 1 9 2 .2 1 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 to ta l ----4 .4 6 0 3 .9 5 9 8 8 .7 7
Se cto r 3 (2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 5 .9 1 .8 4 1 .2 6 5 .2 3 2 .2 0 6 1 .1 9 2 5 4 .0 5
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .0 1 .8 6 1 .2 9 5 .3 1 2 .3 4 1 2 .3 4 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 to ta l ----4 .5 4 8 3 .5 3 4 7 7 .7 1
Se cto r 4 (3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .0 2 .0 1 1 .8 8 6 .2 4 4 .6 9 8 3 .1 9 3 6 7 .9 8
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .1 2 .0 0 1 .9 3 6 .2 7 4 .8 9 3 4 .8 9 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 4 to ta l ----9 .5 9 1 8 .0 8 7 8 4 .3 1
Se cto r 5 (4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 8 .0 1 .9 9 3 .2 8 7 .1 3 1 0 .4 7 9 9 .9 5 0 9 4 .9 5
NW 1 0 0 -2 8 .0 1 .9 9 3 .2 4 7 .0 6 1 0 .1 8 3 1 0 .1 8 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 5 to ta l ----2 0 .6 6 2 2 0 .1 3 3 9 7 .4 4
Se cto r 6 (5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 8 .6 2 .0 5 4 .9 2 7 .6 4 1 7 .5 6 8 1 7 .5 6 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 8 .5 2 .0 5 4 .8 1 7 .5 4 1 6 .8 2 8 1 6 .8 2 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 6 to ta l ----3 4 .3 9 6 3 4 .3 9 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 7 (6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 8 .5 1 .9 7 6 .3 1 7 .5 7 2 2 .1 5 0 2 2 .1 5 0 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 8 .4 1 .9 7 6 .1 4 7 .4 6 2 1 .1 1 0 2 1 .1 1 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 7 to ta l ----4 3 .2 6 0 4 3 .2 6 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 8 (7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 9 .3 2 .1 5 7 .4 9 8 .2 6 3 0 .2 5 7 3 0 .2 5 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 9 .2 2 .1 5 7 .2 8 8 .1 4 2 8 .7 7 9 2 8 .7 7 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 8 to ta l ----5 9 .0 3 6 5 9 .0 3 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 9 (8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m/s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s]MWh (f r e e )MWh (pa r k )Eff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 9 .3 2 .0 4 6 .2 2 8 .2 7 2 4 .9 1 8 2 4 .9 1 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 9 .2 2 .0 5 6 .1 8 8 .1 9 2 4 .4 6 4 2 4 .4 6 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 9 to ta l ----4 9 .3 8 2 4 9 .3 8 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 0 (9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .6 1 .6 1 3 .7 5 6 .8 5 1 1 .0 8 4 1 1 .0 8 4 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .8 1 .6 5 3 .8 8 6 .9 7 1 1 .8 1 3 1 1 .8 1 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 0 to ta l ----2 2 .8 9 7 2 2 .8 9 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 1 (1 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .6 1 .2 4 2 .3 4 6 .1 2 5 .6 5 9 5 .6 5 9 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .6 1 .2 7 2 .4 1 6 .1 3 5 .8 8 1 5 .8 8 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 1 to ta l ----1 1 .5 4 0 1 1 .5 4 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 2 (1 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .6 1 .2 8 1 .6 8 6 .1 3 4 .1 1 2 4 .1 1 2 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .6 1 .2 7 1 .7 4 6 .1 5 4 .2 4 5 4 .2 4 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 2 to ta l ----8 .3 5 7 8 .3 5 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 3 (1 2 0 °)
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .6 1 .2 9 1 .7 0 6 .1 2 4 .1 5 0 4 .1 5 0 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .7 1 .2 9 1 .7 2 6 .1 7 4 .2 4 5 4 .2 4 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 3 to ta l ----8 .3 9 5 8 .3 9 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 4 (1 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .9 1 .5 7 2 .1 5 6 .1 8 5 .3 8 9 5 .3 8 9 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .9 1 .5 6 2 .1 6 6 .2 3 5 .5 1 0 5 .5 1 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 4 to ta l ----1 0 .8 9 8 1 0 .8 9 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 5 (1 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .7 1 .6 7 2 .8 7 6 .9 2 8 .6 4 7 8 .6 4 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .8 1 .6 7 2 .9 3 7 .0 0 8 .9 9 0 8 .9 9 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 5 to ta l ----1 7 .6 3 8 1 7 .6 3 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 6 (1 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .8 1 .7 9 3 .4 6 6 .9 6 1 0 .5 9 7 1 0 .5 9 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .9 1 .7 9 3 .5 6 7 .0 5 1 1 .1 1 6 1 1 .1 1 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 6 to ta l ----2 1 .7 1 3 2 1 .7 1 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 7 (1 6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .5 1 .8 1 3 .2 9 6 .6 9 9 .4 4 7 9 .4 4 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .6 1 .8 1 3 .3 6 6 .7 5 9 .7 7 8 9 .7 7 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 7 to ta l ----1 9 .2 2 6 1 9 .2 2 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 8 (1 7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .9 1 .8 9 2 .9 2 6 .1 2 7 .0 9 6 7 .0 9 6 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .9 1 .8 9 2 .9 7 6 .1 5 7 .2 8 8 7 .2 8 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 8 to ta l ----1 4 .3 8 4 1 4 .3 8 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 1 9 (1 8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .5 1 .9 4 2 .7 3 5 .7 7 5 .8 5 8 5 .8 5 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .5 1 .9 1 2 .7 4 5 .7 8 5 .9 1 8 5 .8 7 2 9 9 .2 2
Se cto r 1 9 to ta l ----1 1 .7 7 6 1 1 .7 3 0 9 9 .6 1
Se cto r 2 0 (1 9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .1 1 .7 0 2 .3 9 5 .4 9 4 .7 7 7 4 .7 7 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .1 1 .7 1 2 .3 6 5 .4 6 4 .6 5 0 3 .6 9 0 7 9 .3 6
Se cto r 2 0 to ta l ----9 .4 2 7 8 .4 6 7 8 9 .8 2
Se cto r 2 1 (2 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 5 .6 1 .8 8 1 .9 2 5 .0 0 2 .9 9 8 2 .9 9 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 5 .6 1 .8 7 1 .8 7 4 .9 4 2 .8 5 5 1 .4 3 2 5 0 .1 6
Se cto r 2 1 to ta l ----5 .8 5 4 4 .4 3 1 7 5 .6 9
Se cto r 2 2 (2 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .9 1 .6 5 1 .5 4 4 .4 2 1 .8 9 7 1 .8 9 7 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .9 1 .6 4 1 .5 2 4 .3 8 1 .8 3 8 1 .0 4 9 5 7 .0 7
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
Se cto r 2 2 to ta l ----3 .7 3 5 2 .9 4 6 7 8 .8 8
Se cto r 2 3 (2 2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .9 1 .5 4 1 .5 9 4 .4 0 2 .0 1 8 2 .0 1 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .8 1 .5 3 1 .5 5 4 .3 4 1 .9 2 4 1 .7 6 4 9 1 .7
Se cto r 2 3 to ta l ----3 .9 4 2 3 .7 8 3 9 5 .9 5
Se cto r 2 4 (2 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .6 1 .2 6 1 .7 2 4 .2 8 2 .2 7 5 2 .2 7 5 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .5 1 .2 5 1 .6 7 4 .2 1 2 .1 5 5 2 .1 5 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 4 to ta l ----4 .4 3 0 4 .4 3 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 5 (2 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .3 1 .5 4 1 .5 8 3 .8 5 1 .4 3 5 1 .4 3 5 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .2 1 .5 4 1 .5 4 3 .7 9 1 .3 3 7 1 .3 3 7 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 5 to ta l ----2 .7 7 3 2 .7 7 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 6 (2 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .1 1 .6 3 1 .3 6 3 .6 3 0 .9 9 5 0 .9 9 5 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .0 1 .6 3 1 .3 3 3 .5 9 0 .9 4 1 0 .9 4 1 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 6 to ta l ----1 .9 3 6 1 .9 3 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 7 (2 6 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .0 1 .4 6 1 .0 2 3 .6 2 0 .8 2 3 0 .8 2 3 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .0 1 .4 7 1 .0 2 3 .5 8 0 .7 9 2 0 .7 9 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 7 to ta l ----1 .6 1 5 1 .6 1 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 8 (2 7 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .3 1 .5 2 0 .6 8 3 .8 8 0 .6 3 5 0 .6 3 5 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .2 1 .5 1 0 .6 9 3 .8 2 0 .6 3 0 0 .6 3 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 8 to ta l ----1 .2 6 5 1 .2 6 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 9 (2 8 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .5 1 .5 7 1 .3 9 4 .0 8 1 .4 5 8 1 .4 5 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .5 1 .5 7 1 .3 2 4 .0 7 1 .3 7 2 1 .3 7 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 2 9 to ta l ----2 .8 3 0 2 .8 3 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 0 (2 9 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 4 .5 1 .6 4 2 .1 1 4 .0 5 2 .1 0 0 2 .1 0 0 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 4 .5 1 .6 3 2 .0 8 4 .0 7 2 .0 9 2 2 .0 9 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 0 to ta l ----4 .1 9 2 4 .1 9 2 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 1 (3 0 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 5 .1 1 .6 7 3 .0 2 4 .6 0 4 .0 8 3 4 .0 8 3 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 5 .2 1 .6 7 3 .0 0 4 .6 0 4 .0 8 0 4 .0 8 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 1 to ta l ----8 .1 6 3 8 .1 6 3 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 2 (3 1 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
9/13/12 Wind fa rm report for 'Marshall NP 100 w ind farm'
6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.html
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .4 1 .9 7 4 .3 1 5 .6 5 8 .8 1 1 8 .8 1 1 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .4 1 .9 6 4 .3 4 5 .6 8 8 .9 8 4 8 .9 8 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 2 to ta l ----1 7 .7 9 5 1 7 .7 9 5 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 3 (3 2 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .1 2 .3 3 4 .4 8 5 .4 5 7 .9 8 8 7 .9 8 8 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .2 2 .3 1 4 .6 0 5 .5 3 8 .5 1 8 8 .5 1 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 3 to ta l ----1 6 .5 0 6 1 6 .5 0 6 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 4 (3 3 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 6 .4 2 .4 6 3 .8 1 5 .7 0 7 .4 5 9 7 .4 5 9 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 6 .5 2 .4 5 3 .9 1 5 .8 0 8 .0 0 0 8 .0 0 0 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 4 to ta l ----1 5 .4 5 9 1 5 .4 5 9 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 5 (3 4 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .6 2 .4 2 3 .5 5 6 .7 3 1 0 .1 2 3 1 0 .1 2 3 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 7 .7 2 .4 3 3 .6 0 6 .8 3 1 0 .5 7 4 1 0 .5 7 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 5 to ta l ----2 0 .6 9 8 2 0 .6 9 8 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 6 (3 5 0 °)
T ur bine A [m /s ]k F r e q. [%]U [m/s ]MWh (fr e e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 7 .9 2 .7 6 2 .6 2 7 .0 7 8 .1 4 5 8 .1 4 5 1 0 0 .0
NW 1 0 0 -2 8 .0 2 .7 5 2 .6 0 7 .1 2 8 .1 9 4 8 .1 9 4 1 0 0 .0
Se cto r 3 6 to ta l ----1 6 .3 3 9 1 6 .3 3 9 1 0 0 .0
All Se cto rs
T ur bine Lo c a tio n [m]MWh (fre e )MWh (pa r k )E ff. [%]
NW 1 0 0 -1 (6 5 4 1 3 9 , 6 8 6 3 8 4 9 )2 5 8 .8 3 1 2 5 5 .2 5 1 9 8 .6 2
NW 1 0 0 -2 (6 5 4 1 6 7 , 6 8 6 3 9 1 7 )2 5 8 .7 0 5 2 5 5 .3 2 8 9 8 .6 9
W in d f a rm -5 1 7 .5 3 6 5 1 0 .5 7 8 9 8 .6 6
Data origins information
T h e m a p wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d 'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \AVEC \M a rs h a ll\W As P \M a rs h a ll U T M z o n e
3 .m a p ', o n a co m p u te r ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e m a p file d a ta we re la s t m o d ifie d o n th e 5 /2 5 /2 0 1 2 a t 7 :1 2 :3 5
AM
T h e re is n o in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e o rig in o f th e win d a tla s a s s o cia te d with th is win d f a rm .
T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r a s s o cia te d with th is win d fa rm wa s im p o rte d b y 'Do u g ' f ro m a f ile ca lle d
'C :\U s e rs \Do u g \Do cu m e n ts \W in d T u rb in e s \W As P tu rb in e cu rve s \NW 1 0 0 B_2 1 , 3 7 m , rh o =1 .2 8 1 .wtg ', o n a co m p u te r
ca lle d 'V3 ENER GY AC ER -P C '. T h e win d tu rb in e g e n e ra to r f ile wa s la s t m o d ifie d o n th e 8 /2 8 /2 0 1 2 a t 2 :4 0 :2 0 P M
Proje ct parame te rs
T h e win d fa rm is in a p ro je ct ca lle d M a rs h a ll.
H e re is a lis t o f a ll th e p a ra m e te rs with n o n -d e fa u lt va lu e s :
Air d e n s ity: 1 .2 8 1 (d e f a u lt is 1 .2 2 5 )
Marshall Wind-Diesel Feasibility Study Page | 20
Appendix B: Homer Software System Report, 80% Availability, Two
Northern Power 100 ARCTIC Turbines
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
1/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Sys te m Repor t - M a r sha ll RE Fun d 6 with the r mal loa d
Sensitivity case
The rm al Load 1 Scaled Average:0 kWh/d
Win d Data Scaled Avera ge:5.5 m /s
Sys te m Fixed O&M Cos t:375,00 0 $/yr
System architecture
Wind tu rbine 2 Northwin d100B, rho=1.281
Cat 505 kW 505 kW
DD 36 3 kW 363 kW
DD 23 6 kW 236 kW
Cost summary
Total net pres ent cos t $ 14,392,53 0
Levelized cos t of energ y $ 0.578/kWh
Operating cos t $ 798,703/yr
Ne t Pre se nt Costs
Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total
($)($)($)($)($)($)
North w i nd100B, rho=1.28 1 2,509,85 0 0 297,550 0 0 2,807,400
Cat 50 5 kW 0 0 21 578 0 599
DD 363 kW 0 0 83,217 4,3 31,144 0 4,414,360
DD 236 kW 0 0 60,060 1,5 31,060 0 1,591,120
Other 0 0 5,579,055 0 0 5,579,055
Sys te m 2,509,85 0 0 6,019,903 5,8 62,781 0 14,392,533
Annua li z e d Costs
Component Capital Replacement O&M Fue l Salvage Total
($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)($/yr)
North w i nd100B, rho=1.28 1 168,701 0 20,000 0 0 1 88,701
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
2/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Cat 50 5 kW 0 0 1 39 0 40
DD 363 kW 0 0 5,594 291,1 21 0 2 96,714
DD 236 kW 0 0 4,037 102,9 11 0 1 06,948
Other 0 0 375,000 0 0 3 75,000
Sys te m 168,701 0 404,632 394,0 71 0 9 67,404
Electrical
Com ponent Production Fraction
(kWh/yr)
Wind turbines 426,5 51 25%
Cat 50 5 kW 1 21 0%
DD 363 kW 964,2 77 57%
DD 236 kW 303,5 70 18%
Total 1,694,5 19 100%
Load Consumption Fraction
(kWh/yr)
AC pri m a ry load 1,6 72,430 100 %
Total 1,6 72,430 100 %
Qua ntity Va lue Units
Exces s electricity 22,086 kWh/yr
Unm et load 0.0127 kWh/yr
Capa ci ty s hortage 0 .00 kWh/yr
Rene w able fraction 0.000
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
3/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Thermal
Component Produc tion Fraction
(kWh/yr)
Cat 50 5 kW 43 0%
DD 363 kW 308,700 72%
DD 236 kW 117,333 28%
Boiler 0 0%
Total 426,076 100%
Loa d Consumption Fraction
(kWh /yr)
Therm al load 0
Total 0
Quantity Value Units
Exces s therm al energy 426,076 kWh /yr
AC Wind Turbine: N orthw ind100B, rho=1.281
Variable Value Units
Total rate d capacity 200 kW
Mean output 48.7 kW
Capa ci ty factor 24.3 %
Total pro duction 4 26,551 kWh/yr
Variable Value Units
Minim um output 0.0 0 kW
Maxim u m output 19 9 kW
Wind pe netration 25 .5 %
Hours of operation 6,30 3 hr/yr
Levelized cos t 0.44 2 $/kWh
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
4/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Cat 505 kW
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 1 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 1 s ta rts /yr
Operational life 15,000 yr
Capa ci ty factor 0.00274 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 5.38 $/h r
Margi nal generation co s t 0.288 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 121 kWh/yr
Mean electrical output 121 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 121 kW
Max. electrical output 121 kW
Therm al production 42.9 kWh/yr
Mean therm al output 42.9 kW
Min. the rm al output 42.9 kW
Max. therm al output 42.9 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 32.1 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.265 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 316 kWh /yr
Mean electrical efficiency 38.3 %
Mean total efficiency 51.9 %
DD 363 kW
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 5,085 hr/yr
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
5/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Num ber of s tarts 578 s tarts /yr
Operational life 2.95 yr
Capa ci ty factor 30.3 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 9.66 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.257 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 964,277 kWh /yr
Mean electrical output 190 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 138 kW
Max. electrical output 286 kW
Therm al production 308,700 kWh /yr
Mean therm al output 60.7 kW
Min. the rm al output 48.4 kW
Max. therm al output 83.7 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 240,596 L /yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.250 L /kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 2,367,462 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 40.7 %
Mean total efficiency 53.8 %
DD 236 kW
Quantity Value Units
Hours of operation 3,670 hr/yr
Num ber of s tarts 577 s tarts /yr
Operational life 4.09 yr
Capa ci ty factor 14.7 %
Fixed g eneration cos t 5.28 $/hr
Margi nal generation co s t 0.288 $/kWhyr
Quantity Value Units
Electrical production 303,570 kWh /yr
Mean electrical output 82.7 kW
Min. ele ctrical output 25.0 kW
Max. electrical output 138 kW
9/14/12 System Report - Marshall RE Fund 6 w ith therma l load
6/6file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/Marsha ll_RE _Fund_6_with_therma l_loa d.htm
Therm al production 117,333 kWh /yr
Mean therm al output 32.0 kW
Min. the rm al output 14.9 kW
Max. therm al output 48.4 kW
Quantity Value Units
Fuel cons um ption 85,051 L/yr
Specific fuel cons um ptio n 0.280 L/kWh
Fuel ene rgy input 836,898 kWh/yr
Mean electrical efficiency 36.3 %
Mean total efficiency 50.3 %
Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr)
Carbon d i oxide 857,6 19
Carbon m onoxide 2,1 17
Unbu rne d hydocarbon s 2 34
Particula te m atter 1 60
Sulfur d i oxide 1,7 22
Nitrog en oxides 18,8 89
Appendix B
ANTHC Marshall Alaska Heat Recovery Study