HomeMy WebLinkAboutUAF Organic Rankine Cycle proposal FINAL
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 18 7/21/2010
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for
a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-IV.html
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp4.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline
of information required to submit a complete
application. Applicants should use the form to assure
all information is provided and attach additional
information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet4.doc Summary of Cost information that should be
addressed by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget Form GrantBudget4.doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by milestone and a summary of funds available
and requested to complete the work for which funds
are being requested.
Grant Budget Form
Instructions
GrantBudgetInstructions4.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget
form.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and grant budget for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting
funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the
preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or
proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the
Authority. If you want information is to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept
confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a
public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon
request.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 18 7/21/2010
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Type of Entity:
Governmental entity
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 755910, Fairbanks, AK 99775
Physical Address
814 Alumni Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone
907-347-1365
Fax
907-474-5475
Email
ross.coen@alaska.edu
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Maggie Griscavage
Title
Director, UAF Office of Contract & Grant Administration
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 757880, 109 UAF Administrative Services Center, Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone
907-474-6446
Fax
907-474-5506
Email
gmgriscavage@alaska.edu
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
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
A local government, or
x A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its 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.
Yes 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 18 7/21/2010
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project)
Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application.
Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing in Rural Alaska
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project.
The project involves installation of an ElectraTherm 50 kW Organic Rankine Cycle unit in the
power plant in a rural community in the Tanana Chiefs Conference region. The community will
be chosen during the Phase 1 laboratory test of the ORC unit (scheduled for winter 2010-2011)
when more precise operational and performance characteristics of the unit become known, which
will allow the unit to be matched with the most appropriate village location. The project is part of
a joint partnership between the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (applicant) and Tanana
Chiefs Conference, a non-profit consortium of 42 communities in Interior Alaska that is
committed to facilitating the selection process and securing agreements from the chosen
community. For the purposes of evaluating this proposal, the community of Galena will be used
as an example.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
x Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Reconnaissance Design and Permitting
x Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
This proposal represents the second phase (field testing) of “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for
Power Generation in Rural Alaska,” a proposal funded by the Denali Commission ($250,000) and the
Alaska Energy Authority ($54,306). The project involves laboratory testing of a 50 kW pre-
commercial ORC unit to test the efficacy of generating power using recovered waste heat from a
mid-sized rural power plant. The testing will take place at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 7/21/2010
winter 2010-2011, with the Phase 2 field testing called for in this proposal to begin in October 2011.
The Phase 2 testing includes performance data collection and analysis, evaluation of operation and
maintenance requirements, economic analysis of potential power generation / cost savings, and
establishing guidelines for future ORC applications throughout rural Alaska and a methodology for
selecting appropriate village sites. Both phases of the overall project include data collection and
comparison of a 250 kW ORC unit presently being tested in Cordova, Alaska. No funding is
requested in this proposal for monitoring the Cordova project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 18 7/21/2010
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel
costs, lower energy costs, etc.)
An ORC engine that utilizes recovered heat from a diesel generator produces vapor from its working
fluid to drive a turbine and subsequently generate additional power. This process can improve the
overall fuel efficiency of the system by about 3%. On a diesel generator operating at typical village
efficiency (14.5 kW-hr/gal) with the cost of fuel at $6.50 per gallon, an improvement in overall
efficiency of 3% translates to cost savings of $46.24 per 1,000 kW-hr. In the case of Galena, for
example, where total annual power generation is approximately 4.3 million kW-hr, the potential cost
savings would be $202,868. In addition, the fuel efficiency improvement would reduce CO2
emissions by 2.2 pounds for every gallon of diesel conserved. These numb ers are projected, but
demonstrate the potential public benefit in pursuing the field testing phase of ORC technology.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project.
The proposal has a budget of $472,787, which includes equipment costs for the field tests (i.e.,
exhaust heat recovery and cooling system equipment) and staff time and travel for installation,
operation, maintenance, data analysis, and reporting. The proposal represents a second phase of a
currently funded Phase 1 project led by Dr. Chuen-Sen Lin of the UAF Institute of Northern
Engineering. That project, “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural
Alaska,” complements this proposal with $613,106 in leveraged resources. The project is funded by
the Denali Commission under its Emerging Energy Technology Grant program ($250,000) and the
Alaska Energy Authority ($54,306). Funding for some equipment costs and data collection at an
ORC project in Cordova is also provided by the Environmental Protection Agency under its Clean
Diesel Program, which is administered by AEA and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation ($280,000). In addition, the projects are collaborative efforts between the Alaska
Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) and Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), both of which are
committed to leveraging their considerable institutional resources to the projects by providing
additional staff support. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. is providing laboratory space in its
Bidwell Street building in Fairbanks for the Phase 1 test, a leveraged resource valued at $28,800.
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. agrees to allow this team to collect and analyze performance data
of a 250 kW ORC system operating on heat recovered from a 3.6 MW diesel generator at Cordova.
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below.
Grant Costs
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 472,787
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) See Section 2.6 for
leveraged resources
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $ 1,085,893
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 18 7/21/2010
operational project)
2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction)
$ 472,787
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $ 198,803 (annual)
2.7.6 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 your application
(Section 5.)
See Section 5
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 18 7/21/2010
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a
resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager
indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project
management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
PI Chuen-Sen Lin, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at UAF, will oversee all technical
aspects of the program, including installation and instrumentation, operation and maintenance,
testing, data collection and analysis, and reporting. Ross Coen, Rural Energy Specialist at ACEP and
TCC (joint position), will act as Project Manager and oversee administrative duties, perform
community education and outreach, and facilitate the selection of the community in the TCC region
for the Phase 2 field test.
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
Note: The following pre-project activities consist of Phase 1 laboratory testing that will take
place independently of this proposal with funding from AEA and the Denali Commission (see
Section 2.4):
A) Laboratory test of ElectraTherm (ET) ORC unit (concludes May 2011)
B) Comparison of potential economic impacts of large ORC unit (Cordova field data) and small ORC
units (UAF laboratory data) on rural Alaska diesel power generation (June 2011).
Milestones: Criteria used to assess performance include:
Overall efficiency of the system relative to fuel consumption and power output under varying
load and environmental conditions;
Operational/maintenance requirements;
Economic feasibility;
Number, type, and frequency of unit failures and required repairs.
Project schedule/milestones under this proposal:
Task 1: Procurement of required field test equipment (i.e., exhaust heat exchanger, cooling system) and
supplies (i.e., auxiliary pipe system components). (October 2011)
Task 2: Training of village power plant operators; community meeting in selected village. (October
2011)
Task 3: Transport, installation, and instrumentation of ORC unit in village power plant. (November
2011)
Task 4: Field test of ORC unit, operation and maintenance, data collection. (April 2012)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 18 7/21/2010
Task 5: Analysis of field data of ORC unit (June 2012)
Milestones: Criteria used to evaluate project status during field testing include:
Overall efficiency of the system relative to fuel consumption and power output under varying
load and environmental conditions;
Operational/maintenance requirements;
Number, type, and frequency of unit failures and required repairs;
Economic feasibility;
Measured reduction in fuel consumptions;
Measured effect on emissions and GHG production.
Task 6: Data collection and analysis of performance, emissions, and GHG data of the Cordova 250 kW
ORC unit. (July 2012).
Task 7: Comparative analysis of the two ORC units, using field data, on rural Alaska power generation in
performance, feasibility, economics, emissions, and GHG production. (August 2012).
Task 8: Final report. (September 2012)
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The
Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to
manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.)
See Section 3.2
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will
be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process
you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Project staff from UAF includes PI Chuen-Sen Lin, project manager Ross Coen, engineers Jack
Schmid and Tom Johnson, energy analyst Markus Mager, an ACEP editorial staff member, and
graduate students from the Institute of Northern Engineering. Coen also serves as project staff for
Tanana Chiefs Conference as part of his joint ACEP-TCC position. Golden Valley Electric
Association, Inc. is a project partner in providing laboratory space for Phase 1 testing. For Phase 2
field testing, the project will leverage the organizational capacity of TCC, which has provided
services (e.g., health, education, energy assista nce) to 42 villages in Interior Alaska since 1971. Since
2008, Chuen-Sen Lin and ACEP have developed a methodology for monitoring ORC technology that
involves tracking and maintaining contact with numerous companies developing ORC technology.
ACEP has identified companies with the highest potential for delivering working products as
ElectraTherm (the vendor for the ORC unit), Energy Concepts, and United Technologies Corporation
(the vendor at the Chena Hot Springs project). The field test will require participation of power plant
operators in the selected village. Funding for training is included in this proposal.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 18 7/21/2010
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
During Phase 1 (UAF laboratory testing), PI Chuen-Sen Lin and project manager Ross Coen will
prepare progress and final reports for the respective funding agencies (AEA, EPA, and Denali
Commission), which will be shared with the grant administrator for Renewable Energy Fund
program. Quarterly reports will also be prepared during Phase 2 (village testing). In addition, Lin and
Coen will be in regular contact with power plant operators in the selected village and Cordova to
monitor the operation and data acquisition of the systems.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Installation and operation of the ORC unit in the village power plant will be monitored closely to
ensure that overall efficiency of the system does not decrease, additiona l maintenance costs in the
power plant itself are not incurred, and the existing capture and utilization of recovered heat (i.e.,
space heating for adjacent buildings) is not affected. Data collection and analysis of the Cordova
system will be continued after the Phase 1 tasks and focus on endurance, reliability, and emissions. In
short, the ORC applications must in no way negatively impact the operation of the existing
infrastructure. One important component of the Phase 1 laboratory test is assessing the potential for
such negative impacts and devising procedures to remedy any potential problems in the Phase 2 field
test covered under this proposal.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 18 7/21/2010
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of
the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to
undertake with grant funds.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a
plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available for the market to be served by your project.
This proposal calls for installation, operation, monitoring, and testing of the 50 kW ORC unit
produced by ElectraTherm in the power plant in a village in the Tanana Chiefs Conference region of
Interior Alaska, and comparison with a 250 kW ORC unit in Cordova in terms of economics,
reliability, performance, and emissions. The energy resource is the exhaust heat and water jacket heat
recovered from normal operation of diesel generators in the power plants. This is a resource that if not
utilized will be lost through engine exhaust and radiated heat, thus the pro -versus-con arguments are
largely moot (the pro is that an ORC engine boosts overall system efficiency, the only con is that not
installing the unit means an existing resource is essentially lost).
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 site for the ORC Phase 2 field test will be a village in the Tanana Chiefs Conference region of
Interior Alaska that will be selected at a later date. The selection process will begin during the Phase 1
laboratory test taking place in winter 2010-2011. Project staff has determined the optimum location
will depend on operational and performance characteristics from the laboratory test. Choosing a
village before these characteristics are known would be premature. For the purposes o f evaluating this
proposal, however, we offer the example of Galena, Alaska, a community of 600 people on the Yukon
River 270 miles west of Fairbanks. The Galena power plant includes five gen-sets with an average
load of 501 kW and peak load of 1001 kW. Its efficiency is 13.46 kW-hr/gal. The Orca Power Plant at
Cordova (to be monitored for comparison with Phase 2 village ORC test) consists of five gen -sets
with a total capacity of 10.7MW. Based on jacket coolant data of the recently installed 3.6MW gen -
set (information obtained from an Orca power plant report), a net output of 225 to 275kW is a
reasonable expectation from an ORC turbine. The project team will work with power plant operators
at each location to compile comprehensive baseline data from previou s years from which the
efficiency improvement following installation of the ORC engines can be measured.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 18 7/21/2010
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
Energy resources in the TCC region (including Galena) are currently limited to diesel fuel in the
power plants, and wood and heating oil for space heating in local buildings. There ar e a very small
number of solar panels in use in individual homes and buildings. Cordova Electric Cooperative has
two hydroelectric plants with a total capacity of 7.5MW and a diesel power plant of 10.7MW. This
proposal would have little impact on existing energy sources beyond the improvements to power plant
efficiency already listed.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
The impact on energy customers of this proposal would be twofold: increased power plant efficiency
would result in (1) a reduction in fuel consumption and corresponding lower energy costs and (2)
reduced CO2 emissions. It is important to note that this proposal will not result in constructio n of a
new power generating facility or development of a new energy resource. The ORC units named in this
proposal will utilize recovered exhaust and jacket water heat—a resource already in place—and boost
the efficiency of the existing systems.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
In general, ORC systems are designed for retrofit, use working fluids, and are known for stable
performance and minimal maintenance requirements. Large -scale ORC units (approximately 100kW
or more) are an established technology, but small- to mid-sized applications still need testing for
feasibility and economic viability. Testing phases of this project will be monitored to ensure optimum
operation of critical components, including the heat source/sink, working fluid, and power interface.
Recorded data will be used for performance analyses of critical components and the overall system.
The analyses will show the net efficiency of the system and parasitic power consumed by the
components, effects of both controlled (laboratory) and varying (field) climatic and environmental
conditions on optimal system performance, and the effectiveness of component design and
corresponding design improvements. Operational parameters for field test in this proposal relate to
control and performance of heat source and heat sink systems and diesel engine performance and
efficiency.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 18 7/21/2010
The ORC unit utilizes a low-temperature heat source and organic working fluid in a closed
thermodynamic cycle to generate power. Neither small nor large sized ORC engines have been tested
or applied to diesel power plants in rural Alaska. Phase 1 laboratory test of the 50kW ET engine and
data collection and analysis of the 250kW P&W engine has been awarded by the Alaska Energy
Authority and the Denali Commission as part of its Emerging Energy Technolog y Grant program.
The laboratory test of the ET engine will be performed in Fairbanks to verify the thermodynamic
performance of the unit under variable operating temperature regimes. The test will evaluate
thermodynamic efficiency under varying heat source and sink conditions; overall system efficiency
improvement; and economic effect including payback time; and feasibility in installation, operation,
and maintenance.
The P&W ORC unit, purchased by Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. with funding through AEA, is
expected to be the first ORC system to be operated using waste heat from a rural Alaska diesel
generator. This size of ORC unit has a record of acceptable performance in field application, although
primarily using geothermal fluids rather than diesel generator waste heat. The purpose of data
collection and analysis of the Cordova project is to obtain high quality performance and economic
data, which could be applied to future feasibility studies of this ORC system to other large rural
Alaska villages. It would also provide the added benefit of allowing comparison of performance and
economic data between a well developed large ORC unit and an emerging small ORC unit, which is
expected ultimately more appropriate for application to numerous medium sized villages around the
state.
Results from the Phase 1 test will be compiled in a report, which represents operational baseline data
from which the Phase 2 field test can commence. Installation and operation of the ET engine at the
village power plant will then undergo the same basic testing process as in Phase 1. The goals of Phase
2 field test of the ET engine include: 1) collecting additional performance data based on the coupling
of the unit with a diesel engine in real world setting; 2) logging all operational issues and unit failures,
including time between failures, cause, and time for repairs; 3) evaluating ins tallation costs and
impact on economic feasibility; 4) evaluating operation and maintenance requirements; 5) verifying
fuel savings and emissions and GHG reductions; and 6) conducting an economic analysis.
Phase 2 also includes continuation of data collection and analysis of the P&W Cordova unit, for
which the emphasis will be on endurance, reliability, and emissions. The goals of this activity include:
1) monitoring consistency in performance of both the diesel generator and ORC unit for endurance
and reliability; 2) comparison of effects of the two ORC units, using field data, on rural Alaska power
generation in performance, feasibility, economics, emissions, and GHG production; and 3) preparing a
final report on Phase 2 and the overall project.
Reports will include comprehensive information on design, procurement, installation,
instrumentation, operation, and maintenance encountered during the tests. Reports will also include
performance and efficiency data of each critical component. Finally, the reports will feature economic
analysis and a methodology for selecting other village sites for potential O RC application. The
methodology will consider: 1) operational and maintenance (O/M) parameters for ORC engines, 2)
economic analysis including shipping and installation costs, O/M costs, and payback time, and 3)
optimum operation applying the ORC engine characteristics and characteristics and operation
conditions of diesel generators.
As part of the project management structure for the field tests, the following criteria will be
considered: a) whether the power component (turbine or screw expander) experiences damage or
failure, b) whether the ORC units require consistent maintenance to sustain continued operation, c)
whether the net improvement in fuel efficiency is less than 3% (which extends the payback time for
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 18 7/21/2010
the system cost), and d) whether the performance of the diesel engine is noticeably hampered by the
ORC installation/operation.
This proposal requests funding for the Phase 2 (field test) of the project, which includes installation of
the ET engine in the village power plant; purchase of relate d equipment, instruments, and supplies;
and additional staff time and travel for the Phase 2 field test and data collection and analysis.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
Installation of the ORC engines in the village power plant will require cooperation of the utility operator,
as well as city government, tribal council, village corporation, and other entities that represent local
residents. TCC has a long-standing relationship with these entities on projects of this nature. As part of the
TCC-ACEP partnership, project manager Ross Coen has communicated extensively with the villages of
Interior Alaska and has secured cooperative agreements on a number of related energy plans, projects, and
proposals. TCC and ACEP intend to work closely with representatives of the selected village.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discussion of potential barriers
n/a
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
Threatened or Endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
n/a
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 18 7/21/2010
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
Please see attached budget documents for detailed information. The proposal budget is $472,787.
Phase 1 funding has been secured from a) AEA, EPA, and DEC for “Test Evaluation of ORC Engines
Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust” ($280,000), and b) Denali Commission
($250,000) and AEA ($54,306) for “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in
Rural Alaska.” Both proposals can be made available to the RE Fund selection committee upon
request. Equipment costs were determined by PI Lin in direct communication with numerous
companies developing ORC technology—a process in which he’s been engaged for over two years.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the
communities they serve.)
n/a (no new facilities to be constructed)
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
This project is designed to test the technical and economic feasibility of ORC applications in rural
Alaska power plants. No power will be produced/sold as part of new generating facilities. At best, the
ORC unit will improve the fuel efficiency of the existing power infrastructure in the test locations
resulting in positive impacts to local consumers.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Download the form, complete it, and submit it as an attachment. Document any conditions or
sources your numbers are based on here.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 18 7/21/2010
See attached.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
An ORC engine, one that utilizes recovered heat to produce vapor in a secondary flui d and generate
additional power, stands to boost the overall fuel efficiency of a diesel generator by about 3%, which
translates to reduced fuel consumption, emissions, and GHG. A diesel generator with starting fuel
efficiency of 14.5 kW-hr/gal, for example, requires 68.97 gallons of fuel to generate 1,000 kW-hr. At
$6.50 per gallon of fuel, this equals a cost of $448.28 per 1,000 kW-hr. Boosting the efficiency by 3%
reduces the required fuel for 1,000 kW-hr to 61.85 gallons, for a total cost of $402.04. The potential
savings from an ORC unit equals 7.12 gallons of fuel and $46.24 per 1,000 kW-hr.
In the example of Galena, where total annual power generation is approximately 4.3 million kW,
having an ORC unit in place could have reduced fuel consumption by 31,211 gallons and saved
$202,872 in fuel costs. These projected numbers are based on a best-case scenario with an ORC unit
operating at peak efficiency every minute of the day for an entire year. Actual performance may not
be at that level, but the potential fuel displacement and corresponding cost savings is clear, and this
project will result in the first economic analysis of small-scale ORC applications in rural Alaska.
Based on an EPA report, estimated CO2 emission from each gallon of diesel fuel is 22.2lb. For
Galena, the potential of GHG reduction is about 693,000 lb annually. Public benefit will extend to the
“lessons learned” of this project in that they will provide a methodology for other ORC applications.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
TCC and ACEP are presently (September 2010) in the process of procuring the ET ORC engine,
which will be owned by TCC. Once the unit is installed in the village power plant, and has
demonstrated the operational and economic feasibility, leaving the units in place will result in
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 18 7/21/2010
continued fuel savings and improved operation of the overall system. The project team expects to leave
the unit in place as long as it remains operational and its maintenance costs do not represent a burden
on power plant operators that overwhelm the gained efficiencies. The project team further expects to
continue to monitor the unit’s operation and economic feasibility. It must be noted, however, that
installation of the 50 kW ORC unit is characterized as a feasibility test of an emerging energy
technology, thus long-term operation of the unit is not guaranteed. The project team believes that ORC
technology will continue to advance at a rapid pace and that the primary contribution of this project
will be its “lessons learned.”
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed
with work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
This project represents the second phase of the projects (1) “Test Evaluation of Organic Rankine
Cycle (ORC) Engines Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust” (funded by AEA,
DEC, and EPA), and (2) “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural Alaska”
(funded by the Denali Commission and AEA). UAF expects to receive the ET ORC unit in December
2010, with laboratory data collection and analysis to begin shortly thereafter. Data collection of the
Cordova ORC unit is expected to begin in spring 2011. Conclusion of the Phase 1 work, laboratory
test of the ET ORC unit, and comparison of the two ORC units are expected to be complete in June
2011. These existing grants are expected to transition seamlessly into the Phase 2 test called for in this
proposal.
SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
This project is part of a formal partnership between Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Alaska Center
for Energy and Power, formed in early 2009 with the stated goal of research and development of
energy systems in the TCC region. Rural Energy Specialist Ross Coen has traveled to each of TCC’s
six subregions, including multiple trips to villages where he has discussed the ORC projects and the ir
potential for the region. Representatives from these communities have expressed interest and support
for the TCC-ACEP partnership and specific energy projects of this type .
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 18 7/21/2010
Salaries
Senior Personnel. Funding to support a total of 280 hours is requested for Principal Investigator Chuen-
Sen Lin. Per UAF policy, faculty receive leave benefits at a rate of 1.2%, calculated on salary. Funding to
support a total of 160 hours is requested for Project Manager Ross Coen. Per UAF policy, exempt staff
receive leave benefits at a rate of 20.1%, calculated on salary. Total cost to Project: $29,556.
Other Personnel. Funding to support 250 hours of salary is requested for each of two engineers, Jack
Schmid and Tom Johnson. Funding to support 80 hours of salary is requested for energy analyst Markus
Mager. Per UAF policy, staff receive leave benefits at a rate of 20.1%, calculated on salary. Funding to
support 80 hours of salary is requested for editor Fran Pederson. Per UAF policy, classified staff receive
leave benefits at a rate of 21.4%, calculated on salary. Support is requested for two Masters-level
Graduate Student Research Assistant for one year. Students work 20 hours per week during the academic
year (760) and 40 hours per week during the summer (560), for a total of 1320 hours. Total cost to
Project: $125,614.
Fringe Benefits
Staff benefits are applied according to UAF’s benefit rates for FY11, which are negotiated with the Office
of Naval Research (ONR) annually. Rates are 30.6% for senior salaries, 46.2% for staff, and 8.4% for
graduate and undergraduate students (summers only). Additionally, UAF requires th at any graduate
student supported by a research project also receive health insurance while working on the project. Costs
for academic and summer coverage in FY11 are $1,500/student. Total cost to Project: $32,044.
Permanent Equipment
Funds of $100,000 are requested for an exhaust heat exchanger; the proposed research is based on use of
this equipment, which is not available at UAF. Funds of $75,000 are requested for a cooling system with
Integrated Variable Frequency Driver. A current price quote from Pacific Nanotechnology for this AFM
is attached. Total cost to Project: $175,000.
Travel
Funds are requested to support travel to field sites for this project, as well as conferences in order to
disseminate research results. Airfare costs are estimated at $575 per RT ticket to field sites/villages, and
$1,100 per RT ticket to conferences. Per diem for villages is estimated at $180/person; per diem to
conferences is estimated at $269/trip plus $50 for ground transportation. All pricing is based on current
pricing, US Government figures, and UA Board of Regents policy. Total cost to Project: $9,858.
Other Direct Costs
Materials & Supplies. A total of $25,000 is requested for supplies, primarily for the purchase of
auxiliary pipe system components and meters, instruments.
Publication & Dissemination. A total of $2,500 is requested to fund report publication and distribution.
Services. Funds of $31,250 are requested to cover freight and parcel post costs for shipping equipment and
supplies to villages. Funds of $375 are requested to cover rental fees for Tribal Hall rentals for community
meetings, plus $188 for light catering costs and $145 for outreach materials at meetings. Funds of $12,500 are
requested to support compensation for village powerplant operators.
Other. UAF requires that any graduate student supported by a research project over the course of the
academic year also receive tuition support for the life of the project. Scholarship/fellowship funds are
requested for two graduate students, for a total of $28,776.
Total budget request: $472,787
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
SECTION 9 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Contact information, resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, key staff, partners,
consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4.
B . Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4.
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9.
D. Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section B.
E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.6.
F. Authorized Signers Form.
G. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's
governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that:
Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the
match amounts indicated in the application.
Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to
commit the organization to the obligations under the grant.
Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this
application.
Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local,
laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
H. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful
and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply
with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
Print Name Andrew Parkerson-Gray
Signature ~
Title Director , UAF Office of Sponsored Programs
Date 0 ,/J 3/tC
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 18 7/21/2010
Contact Information
Project PI:
Chuen-Sen Lin
Associate Professor, College of Engineering and Mines
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Physical Address: 325 Duckering Building, UAF campus
Mailing Address: PO Box 755905
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5905
clin@alaska.edu
(907)474-5126
Project Manager:
Ross Coen
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Physical Address: 814 Alumni Drive
Mailing Address: PO Box 755910
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5910
Ross.coen@alaska.edu
(907)452-8251 ext. 3479
Contracting Official:
Maggie Griscavage
Director, The Office of Grants and Contracts Administration
University of Alaska Fairbanks
PO Box 757880
109 Administrative Services Center
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7880
fygrcon@uaf.edu
Phone: (907)474-7301
Fax: (907)474-5506
Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR):
Andrew Parkerson-Gray
Director, Office of Sponsored Programs
University of Alaska Fairbanks
PO Box 757270
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7270
fyosp@uaf.edu
Phone: (907)474-6000
Fax: (907)474-5444
"
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. This project utilizes recovered heat from diesel
gen-sets in a rural Alaska community. The diesel
gen-sets operate round-the-clock, 365 days a year,
thus the availability of the energy resource is not an
issue.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other The proposal calls for a field test of an Organic
Rankine Cycle unit in a village power plant to be
determined later. The location will not be chosen
until Phase 1 laboratory data (to be collected in
winter 2010-11) gives the project team a better
sense of the unit’s operational parameters and the
best power plant characteristics for a successful
field test. For the purposes of evaluating this
application, however, we offer the example of
Galena, Alaska, which has five diesel generators in
its power plant. Some fields on this form are not
applicable as the proposal calls for a feasibility test,
not installation of a new power system.
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 5 MW
iii. Generator/boilers/other type n/a
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other n/a
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other Approx. 14 kW -hr/gal
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor n/a
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor n/a
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] 4.3 million kW -hr
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 574,806 gal
Other
iii. Peak Load 1001 kW
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 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-21-10
iv. Average Load 501 kW
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency Approx. 14 kW -hr/gal
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 132,282 gal
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
3. 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]
The ORC unit is a 50 kW engine produced by Electra
Therm, Inc.
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] The unit is expected to boost overall fuel efficiency of the
system by up to 3%, which would increase kW -hr by
approximately 1.6675 per gallon of diesel consumed.
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system n/a (no new system; feasibility test of ORC unit only)
b) Development cost n/a
c) Annual O&M cost of new system n/a
d) Annual fuel cost n/a
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity If the test proves successful, an ORC unit that increases overall fuel efficiency
by 3% stands to displace 30,585 gallons annually.
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 7-21-10
b) Current price of displaced fuel Approx. $6.50/gal
c) Other economic benefits
d) Alaska public benefits 30,585 gal x $6.50/gal = $198,803
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale n/a
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio Equipment/installation costs ~ $250,000 : Annual fuel savings ~
$198,803
Payback (years) 1.26 years
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
Milestone or Task Anticipated
Completion Date
RE- Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee Leveraged
Funds
Source of Leveraged
Funds:
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on phase and type of project.
See Attached Milestone list. )
Procurement of field test equipment/supplies October 2011 $ 230,220 $ 230,220
Community meeting; operator training October 2011 $ 41,299 $ 41,299
Transport, installation, instrumentation of ORC November 2011 $ 78,814 $ 78,814
ORC field test April 2012 $ 38,816 $ 38,816
Analysis of field data June 2012 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Data collection/analysis of Cordova unit July 2012 $ 0 $ 280,000 AEA, EPA, ADEC $ 280,000
Comparative analysis August 2012 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Final report September 2012 $ 37,141 $ 37,141
Phase 1 Laboratory Tests May 2011 $ 333,106 AEA, Denali Com, GVEA $ 333,106
TOTALS $ 470,911 $ 613,106 $ 1,084,217
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $ 185,339, $ $185,339
Travel & Per Diem $ 9,858 $ $9,858
Equipment $ 175,000 $ $175,000
Materials & Supplies $ 25,000 $ $25,000
Contractual Services $ 46,938 $ $46,938
Construction Services $ 0 $ $0
Other $ 28,776 $613,106 AEA, EPA, ADEC, Denali
Com, GVEA $613,306
TOTALS $ 470,911 $ $1,084,217
Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)-
Add additional pages as needed
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
Project Milestones that should be addressed in Budget Proposal
Reconnaissance Feasibility Design and Permitting Construction
1. Project scoping and
contractor solicitation.
2. Resource identification and
analysis
3. Land use, permitting, and
environmental analysis
5. Preliminary design analysis
and cost
4. Cost of energy and market
analysis
5. Simple economic analysis
6. Final report and
recommendations
1. Project scoping and contractor
solicitation.
2. Detailed energy resource
analysis
3. Identification of land and
regulatory issues,
4. Permitting and environmental
analysis
5. Detailed analysis of existing
and future energy costs and
markets
6. Assessment of alternatives
7. Conceptual design analysis
and cost estimate
8. Detailed economic and
financial analysis
9, Conceptual business and
operations plans
10. Final report and
recommendations
1. Project scoping and contractor
solicitation for planning and
design
2. Permit applications (as
needed)
3. Final environmental
assessment and mitigation
plans (as needed)
4. Resolution of land use, right of
way issues
5. Permit approvals
6. Final system design
7. Engineers cost estimate
8. Updated economic and
financial analysis
9. Negotiated power sales
agreements with approved
rates
10. Final business and operational
plan
1. Confirmation that all design
and feasibility requirements
are complete.
2. Completion of bid documents
3. Contractor/vendor selection
and award
4. Construction Phases –
Each project will have unique
construction phases, limitations,
and schedule constraints which
should be identified by the
grantee
5. Integration and testing
6. Decommissioning old
systems
7. Final Acceptance,
Commissioning and Start-up
8. Operations Reporting
09 /09 / 2010 09:47 FAX 9074745444 c~s ~002
Grant Documents Authorized Signers
Please clearly print or type all sections of this form.
Community/Grantee Name :
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Regular Election is held:
N/A
I Date :
Authorized Grant Si
Printed Name Title Term Signature
~--~~~~--~~-------r----------------~Andrew Parkerson-Gray Director, Office of nla
S onsered Pre rams
Maggie Griscallage Director. Office of Grant n/a
& Contract
Administration
Pat Pitney Vice Chancellor for nla
Administrative Services
I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents :
(Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official)
Printed Name Title Tenn
Brian Rogers UAF Chancellor n/a
Grantee Contact Information:
Mailing Address: University of Alaska Fairbanks, PO Box 757880, 109 Administrative ServIces
Center, Fairbanks AK 99775-7880
Phone Number:
(907) 474-7301
Fax Number:
(907) 474-5506
E-mail Address:
rtgrcon@u,ef,edu
Federal Tax ID #: 92-6000147
Please submit an updated fonn whenever there Is a change to the above information.
Please return the original completed form to :
Alaska Energy Authority
I ~J AlAS ,KA813 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
__I _) ENERGY ~UTHOR'TYAnchorage, AK 99503
Attn: Butch White, Grants Administrator
C:IDOCUME-1Ifngmgl\LOCALS-1\TelT1l\Grant_Allthorized_Signers4-2.doc
8 September 2010
Butch White, Grant Manger
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re: Proposal to AEA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program, Round IV: “Organic
Rankine Cycle Field Test”
Dear Mr. White:
The University of Alaska Fairbanks is pleased to submit the attached proposal, “Organic
Rankine Cycle Field Test.” The Principal Investigator from UAF is Dr. Chuen-Sen Lin,
associate professor at the College of Engineering and Mines. The Project Manager from
UAF is Ross Coen, Rural Energy Specialist with the Alaska Center for Energy and
Power, INE, a collaborative position with the Tanana Chiefs Conference.
As ARO for the UAF Office of Sponsored Programs, I affirm that UAF, as a division of
the Alaska State government, is eligible to apply for this funding.
UAF is committed to supporting this project as outlined in the statement of work and
budget. I also affirm that UAF has the necessary infrastructure to manage and support
this project.
UAF is in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws, including existing
federal credit and federal tax obligations.
If you need additional information, please feel free to call my office at (907) 474-6000.
Sincerely,
Andrew Parkerson-Gray
Director
Office of Sponsored Programs
University of Alaska Fairbanks