HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Mary's-Pitka's Point Wind Construction Round IV Grant ApplicationAlaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction
Renewable Energy Fund-Round IV
Grant Application
Submitted by:
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Submitted to:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
September 15, 2010
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC.
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 19 7/21/2010
AVEC-St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction
SECTION 1 –APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Type of Entity:
Electric Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
same
Telephone
907.561.5531
Fax
907.561.4086
Email
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
(907)565-5531
Fax
(907)562-4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
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)
X 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
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.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 19 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)
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind-Design,Permitting, Construction, and Commissioning.
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that would
benefit from your project.
St. Mary's (pop. 553) is located on the north bank of the Andreafsky River, 5 miles from its
confluence with the Yukon River.Pitka’s Point (pop. 113) is 5 miles northwest of St. Mary's.
The communities are approximately 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
X Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
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 X Design and Permitting
Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning
Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
AVEC proposes to complete final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and
commissioning of two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation system for
currently intertied communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
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.)
The primary financial benefit from this project would to offset fuel costs for power generation
in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.The projected displacement of diesel fuel used for village power
generation in the communities is 74,890 gal/yr (assuming 80% turbine availability). This project
could save $ 280,000 during its first full year of operation (expected to be 2014).
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 19 7/21/2010
AVEC is currently planning an electric intertie between St. Mary’s and Mountain Village and
possibly also between Saint Mary’s and Pilot Station. Once the intertie(s)is/are constructed,
the wind project would serve up to four communities (Saint Mary’s, Pitka’s Point, Mountain
Village, and Pilot Station).
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 total project cost for the project is $4.5 M of which $4,000,000 is requested in grant funds
from AEA. The remaining $500,000 (11%)would be matched in cash by AVEC.
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.$4,000,000
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match)$500,000
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2)$4,500,000
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet
including estimates through construction)
$4,500,000
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)($280,500) year 1
($6,627,000) cumulative
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.)
$
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.
AVEC would provide overall project management and oversight.AVEC is the electric utility
serving Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.To further support the AVEC team in project delivery,
wind resource, engineering, and environmental consultants would be selected.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the project
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 19 7/21/2010
management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.He has worked for
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative since 1998, where he manages the development of
alternatives to diesel generation for AVEC such as using wind, hydropower, and heat recovery.
He also manages relationships with AVEC’s largest customers and is the project manager for
AVEC’s many construction projects as an energy partner of the federally funded Denali
Commission.
Mr. Petrie has worked in the energy and resource field for more than thirty years, having
worked for the federal and state governments as consultant, planner,and project manager.He
has been a utility manager or management consultant since 1993.As General Manager of
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative from 1994 to 1998, he reported to a seven-
member, elected board of directors, and served as project manager on its hydroelectric project
development.He is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Utility Wind Interest
Group representing rural electric cooperatives and serves on the Power Supply Task force of
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.Mr. Petrie has a Master’s Degree in Water
Resource Management and a Bachelor's degree in Geography.His resume is attached.
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.)
Grant Award Announcement:May 2011
Authorization to Proceed:September 2011
Complete Permitting:December 2011
Complete Civil Design:February 2012
Complete Civil Works:October , 2012
Turbines On Site:June 2012
Complete Turbine Erection and Electrical Works:October 2012
Complete Turbine Commissioning:November 2012
Complete Secondary Load Controller Commissioning:December 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.)
All project milestones are identified in the budget worksheet under Tab C.
Final Design and Permitting Phase
The final design and permitting phase would begin as soon as it is apparent that the project has
been selected for funding by AEA.
1. Project Scoping and Contractor Award for Planning and Design (September 2011)
The engineering constructor would be selected and a task order would be prepared for work
planned for this phase.
2. Permit Applications (as needed) (October 2011)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 19 7/21/2010
Permit applications, likely Wetlands, Coastal Project Questionnaire, and Migratory
Birds/Endangered species consultations,would be prepared and submitted.
3. Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Plans (as needed) (December 2011)
Working with regulatory agencies, environmental documents would be prepared as needed.
4. Resolution of Land Use, ROW Issues (October 2011)
Working with the communities and corporations, AVEC would wouldsecure site control for the
wind turbines and intertie.
5. Permit Approvals (December 2011)
Permits would be issued from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources Coastal Management Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6. Final System Design (February 2012)
The engineering contractor would complete final design of the wind system and intertie. The
design would be reviewed by AVEC personnel prior to final approval.
7. Engineers Cost Estimate (February 2012)
Using the final design, the engineers would prepare the cost estimate for the project.
8. Updated Economic Estimate and Financial Analysis (March 2012)
Using the number developed in the cost estimate, an updated economic assessment and
financial analysis would be prepared.
10. Negotiated Power Sales Agreements w/Approved Rates (Not Applicable)
11. Final Business and Operational Plan (March 2012)
AVEC would work with the all the communities to finalize a Business and Operational Plan. The
existing Business Plans would be combined and would be reworked to include the wind system
and connecting the communities.
Construction Phase
The construction phase would begin immediately following completion of the tasks above.
1. Confirmation that all Design and Feasibility Requirements are Complete (March 2012)
AVEC would work with the engineering contractor to confirm that all the design needs are in
place prior to moving forward with selection of the construction contractor.
2. Completion of Bid Documents (March 2012)
Bid documents would be completed by the engineers.
3. Contractor/Vendor Selection and Award (April 2012)
The construction contractor would be selected, and a construction task order would be
prepared.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 19 7/21/2010
4. Construction Phases (June 2012-December 2012)
Procurement of Turbines and Foundations (June 2012)
About six months is required before the turbines and towers are ready to ship.The turbines
and towers would be ordered as soon as possible to ensure that the turbines and towers can be
shipped and arrive in St. Mary’s by June 2012.Foundation materials would be purchased and
be on site ready to use for construction by June 2012.
Procurement of Civil and Electrical Distribution Materials (June 2012)
Materials for constructing distribution lines would be purchased and on site by June 2012.
Field Construction and Installation (October 2012)
Work would begin at the site by June 2012. Site work would be completed and turbines would
be installed by October 2012.
5. Integration and Testing (November 2012)
Once the turbines are installed, integration and testing of the system would occur.
6. Decommissioning Old Systems (Not Applicable)
7. Final Acceptance, Commissioning and Start-up (December 2012)
Commissioning would be done immediately following installation of the turbines.
8. Operations Reporting (March 2012)
Turbine operations would begin and required reporting would occur following start up for 4
months.
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you would use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate
would 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.
AVEC would use a project management approach that has been used to successfully design and
construct wind turbines throughout rural Alaska: A team of AVEC staff and external consultants.
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer,would act as Project Executive and
would maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Brent Petrie, Manager, Community Development and Key Accounts, would lead the
project management team consisting of AVEC staff, consultants, and contractors.
Together with his group, Brent would provide coordination of the installation of the met
tower, geotechnical work, and conceptual design. The group’s resources include a
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 19 7/21/2010
project coordinator, contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and a community liaison.
Debbie Bullock, manager of administrative services,would provide support in
accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with
AEA guidelines.
For project delivery, an amalgamated team approach would be utilized. To support the AVEC
team, design consultants and construction managers (CM)would be selected. Both disciplines
are derived from a resource bank of professional firms with applicable histories of performance
in rural Alaska. The construction manager would work concurrently with the design consultant
through design development to provide constructability insight and value engineering to
maximize the overall effectiveness of the final construction documents.
Concurrent with design development, material and equipment procurement packages would be
formulated by the CM in collaboration with AVEC’s purchasing manager. Each package would
be competitively procured or issued from cooperative materials. Purchase orders would be
formulated with delivery dates consistent with dates required for barge or air transport
consolidation. Multiple materials and/or equipment would be detailed for consolidated
shipments to rural staging points, where secondary transport to the village destination is
provided. The CM would track the shipments and provides handling services to and around the
destination project sites.
The CM would be responsible for the construction activities for all project components of the
facility upgrade. Local labor forces would be utilized to the maximum extent possible to
construct the projects. Local job training would be provided as a concurrent operation under
the management and direction of the CM. All construction costs, direct and indirect would be
reimbursed on a cost only reimbursement to the CM or paid directly by AVEC.
For the facilities applied for in this application, AVEC is responsible for managing the
commissioning process in content with the CM, designers and vendors. That entails testing and
training of operational personnel, as well as providing for all contract closeout documents.
Selection Process for Contractors:The engineering consultant selection would be based upon
technical competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost, and general
consensus from the technical steering committee. The selection of the consultant would occur
in strict conformity with corporate procurement policies, conformance with OMB circulars, and
DCAA principles.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
AVEC would require that monthly written progress reports be provided with each invoice
submitted from contractors. The progress reports would include a summary of tasks
completed, issues or problems experienced, upcoming tasks, and contractor’s needs from
AVEC. Project progress reports would be collected and forwarded as one package to the AEA
project manager each month.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 19 7/21/2010
Quarterly face-to-face meetings would occur between AVEC and AEA to discuss the status of all
wind projects funded through the AEA Renewable Energy Grants program. Individual project
meetings would be held, as required or requested by AEA.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control/Access and Environmental Permitting.Although there is overwhelming
community support for the project (Tab D), gaining site control sometimes takes time. AVEC
would begin working to acquire the property for the placement of the turbines once grant
funding is assured, but prior to a grant agreement in place.
Environmental Permitting.Securing permits for wind projects can take time, especially if the
project area is within wetlands.AVEC would hire an environmental consultant familiar with
permitting wind projects in Alaska. Early consultation with agencies would occur in order to
flesh out location, natural and social environment, specific species, and mitigation issues. The
consultant would work openly with the agencies and conduct studies as appropriate.
Weather.Weather could delay shipping materials into the community and construction work;
however, an experienced consultant, familiar with Alaskan weather conditions, would be
selected.It is possible to erect turbines during winter months, so AVEC is confident that
weather would not be a significant issue on this project.
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.
The wind resource in Saint Mary’s has been studied in depth since 2007 and much is now known
about it. In October 2007, a 40 meter met tower was installed at the site labeled “Pitka’s Point
Met Tower.” It collected data through February 2009 when it collapsed in an ice storm. The site
shows outstanding (wind power class 6) potential for wind power development with an annual
wind speed average (at 38 meters) of 7.72 m/s and a projected wind power density at 50 m of
660 W/m2. Other aspects of the wind resource also are promising for wind power development.
By IEC 61400-1 3rd (IEC3) edition classification, the Pitka’s Point site is category II-C indicating
low turbulence (mean TI at 15 m/s = 0.076) and moderate 50 year extreme wind probability.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 19 7/21/2010
The site does, however, present some challenges with respect to rime icing, which was detected
during the winter months and was responsible for the February 2009 met tower collapse. Part
of the design effort for this project would be to develop methods to mitigate icing problems to
minimize the impact on turbine availability.
In addition to the Pitka’s Point met tower, a second met tower was erected in August 2008 at
the location labeled “Saint Mary’s Met Tower.” The purpose of this met tower was to determine
the trade-off, if any, between wind resource and icing issues documented at the Pitka’s Point
site. The other rationale for the Saint Mary’s met tower location was the very positive efforts
and desire of the Saint Mary’s village corporation to locate a wind power project on their land.
The Saint Mary’s met tower has been collecting data since August 2008 although a two month
data gap occurred from February to April 2009 after collapse of the tower during the same ice
storm that damaged the Pitka’s Point met tower. It was felt that sufficient data had been
collected at the Pitka’s Point site, but not yet enough in Saint Mary’s, hence replacement of the
tower in April 2009. To date, the Saint Mary’s site indicates a lower wind resource than the
Pitka’s Point site, with an annual wind speed average (at 38 meters) of 6.47 m/s and a projected
wind power density at 50 m of 360 W/m2. Turbulence is slightly higher than at the Pitka’s Point
site, but still IEC3 category C.Insufficient data has been collected to confidently calculate
extreme wind probabilities, but IEC3 class II or III is assumed for planning purposes.
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 existing diesel power plant in Saint Mary’s consists of three generators: a 299 kW Cummins
QSX15G9, a 611 kW Cat 3508 and a 908 kW Cat 3512. These generators were installed in 2006,
1987 and 1995 respectively. Aggregate generator efficiency in Saint Mary’s in 2008 was 14.09
kWh/gal.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point use diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for
boiler (thermal) and home heating, thermal heat recovery from the diesel engines at the power
plant, and diesel and gasoline fuel for transportation needs. The proposed project would add
four Northwind 100 wind turbines to the electrical power system. The anticipated effects are
less usage of diesel fuel for electrical power generation and less usage of heating fuel for boiler
operations (due to injection of excess wind power to the thermal heat recovery loop in St.
Mary’s).
Installation of wind turbines in the communities would decrease the amount of diesel fuel used
for power generation.Diesel generator use would be curtailed thereby decreasing generator
operations and maintenance costs and enabling generators to last longer and need fewer
overhauls.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 19 7/21/2010
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
St. Mary's is located on the north bank of the Andreafsky River, 5 miles from its confluence with
the Yukon River. It lies 450 air miles west-northwest of Anchorage.The City of St. Mary's
encompasses the Yup'ik villages of St. Mary's and Andreafsky.It lies at approximately 62.053060
North Latitude and -163.165830 West Longitude. (Sec. 26, T023N, R076W, Seward Meridian.)
Saint Mary's is located in the Bethel Recording District.The area encompasses 44.0 sq. miles of
land and 6.3 sq. miles of water.The climate is continental with a significant maritime influence.
Temperatures range between -44 and 83 °F. Annual precipitation averages 16 inches, with 60
inches of snowfall. The Yukon River is ice-free from June through October.
Pitka’s Point is located near the junction of the Yukon and Andreafsky Rivers, 5 miles northwest
of St. Mary's on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. It lies 3 miles by road from the St. Mary's airport. It
lies at approximately 62.032780 North Latitude and -163.287780 West Longitude.(Sec. 06,
T022N, R076W, Seward Meridian.)Pitka’s Point is located in the Bethel Recording District. The
climate is both maritime and continental. Temperatures range from -44 to 83 °F.Annual
precipitation averages 16 inches, with 60 inches of snowfall.
In St. Mary’s, 20.4 percent of the population is below the poverty line and 32.2 percent of the
population is below the poverty line in Pitka’s Point.The median household income is $39,375
in St. Mary’s and $41,875 in Pitka’s Point, all of which are approximately one third less than the
State’s median household income of $59,036.
St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are connected by an intertie with the power plant in St. Mary’s.The
electricity produced at the St. Mary’s power plant in 2009 was 3,012,524 kWh.The load of is
highest during the winter months with the bulk of electricity consumed by residences and the
school.The addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system would reduce the
amount of diesel fuel used for power generation and energy costs would be stabilized in St.
Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Like all of Alaska, St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point are subject to long periods of darkness.Reliable
electric service is essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting.
Residents rely on subsistence resources including salmon, moose, bear, and waterfowl.
Subsistence food is gathered and harvested and stored in refrigerators and freezers.
Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable foodstuffs, and reliable electric
service is essential for proper freeze storage of food. The construction of the proposed project
would augment and improve the existing power generation system by incorporating a locally
available renewable resource.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 19 7/21/2010
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
Description of renewable energy technology. Wind power is the renewable energy option of
choice for Saint Mary’s. Of the wind turbine options available on the market, the “village” scale
turbine size is considered most appropriate for the combined load profile of Saint Mary’s,
Mountain Village, and Pilot Station.
According to its manufacturer, Northern Power of Barre, Vermont, the Northwind 100
represents a new generation of wind turbines. Its permanent-magnet, direct-drive architecture
is the current state of the art for advanced wind turbine design. That architecture overcomes
many of the challenges of connecting old-style induction generators to electrical distribution
grids. The permanent-magnet generator is connected to a full power converter that converts its
variable, low-frequency, alternating-current output to direct current, then back to tightly
regulated alternating current for output to the grid. The permanent-magnet generator requires
no reactive power to energize its magnetic field, removing that influence from the grid. The
power converter allows a broad degree of control over the form and quality of the power output
to the grid. The capacitance and active controls in the power converter allow reactive power to
either be consumed or produced by the Northwind 100 regardless of its real power output, even
in the complete absence of wind. The turbine controls allow power output to be controlled by
dynamic grid conditions, including automatic output reduction or complete shutdown,
regardless of wind conditions. The combination of advanced controls and integrated disk braking
allows gradual ramping of turbine output up or down, minimizing flicker and maximizing usable
power.
AVEC expect four Northwind 100 wind turbines to produce approximately one third of the
electricity consumed in the villages today. The wind turbines should supply over 1,037,000 kWh
of electrical energy annually.
Optimum installed capacity.Proposed are four (4) Northwind 100 turbines to operate as a
wind-diesel hybrid power system that would supply wind generated electricity to Saint Mary’s
and Pitka’s Point via the existing electrical intertie.wouldPitka’s installed wind capacity
wouldbe 400 kW.
Anticipated capacity factor.HOMER software was used to estimate capacity factor and system
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 19 7/21/2010
penetration (or renewable fraction) of four NW100 turbines in a power system that combines
Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. Using Pitka’s Point wind data as discussed in section 4.1, at 80%
availability the turbine capacity factor is predicted to be 29.7%(37.1% CF at 100% turbine
availability).
Anticipated annual generation.HOMER software estimates wind production with four NW 100
turbines of 1,037,000 kWh annually (80% turbine availability).
Anticipated barriers.No barriers to successful installation and integration of a wind turbine in
Saint Mary’s/Pitka’s Point are expected. The project design is modeled on recent successful
projects of similar design, e.g., Tooksok Bay, Chevak, and Kasigluk.
Basic integration concept.The integration design concept is comprised of four NW 100
turbines, a secondary load boiler to augment an existing diesel generator heat recovery loop, a
secondary load controller to manage the “dumping” of excess electricity (electricity generated in
excess of the load), a SCADA system to manage the combined operation of the diesel generators
and wind turbines, and remote viewing and system access capability to enable remote
monitoring and control of the wind-diesel hybrid power plant.
Delivery Method.Power generated by the wind turbines would be distributed via the existing
electrical distribution system.
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.
The proposed turbine sites in Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s are noted in the topographic and
Google Earth images below. The preferred wind site is the Pitka’s Point location due to its
superior wind resource. These sites were selected during a reconnaissance visit in May 2007
and deemed of excellent wind power development potential due to their close proximity to
Saint Mary’s and the existing power line connecting Saint Mary’s to the airport and Pitka’s Point,
close distance from the airport, good exposure to the prevailing winds, village corporation
ownership, and ease of access. At the present time, AVEC has site control of the Saint Mary’s
location and is working on obtaining site control at the Pitka’s Point location.
To obtain permission to construct the turbines, AVEC would travel to community immediately
after it is known that the project has been selected for funding. AVEC would discuss the project
with community members and representatives from the Cities, Community Associations (IRA),
and the Native Corporations of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 19 7/21/2010
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
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 19 7/21/2010
It is likely that the following permits would be needed to construct the wind turbines:
FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic
Section 404 Permit (Wetlands Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coastal Zone Consistency Determination from the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources Division of Coastal and Ocean Management
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
No major permitting issues are expected.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they
would 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
Threatened or Endangered species.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be consulted to
ensure that the construction of the wind turbines would have no affect on threatened or
endangered species. Construction would be timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Habitat issues.During permitting, the project team would work with agencies to ensure that
the project would not impact any State refuges, sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas, federal
refuges or wilderness areas, or national parks.
Wetlands and other protected areas.It is likely that the wind turbines could be placed in
wetland locations. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands permit would be needed.
Archaeological and historical resources.Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted prior to construction of the
wind turbines.
Land development constraints.AVEC has site control for the wind turbines.
Aviation considerations.A FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Traffic would be sought for
the installation of the wind turbines.
Visual, aesthetics impacts.The turbines would be placed between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point.
Because it is likely that the turbines would be constructed between the communities, it is likely
that there would be little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts.AVEC would conduct
community meetings to discuss visual impacts and how they could be minimized, in the unlikely
event that visual issues arise.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 19 7/21/2010
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided would 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,
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
This application is for the installation of four NW 100 turbines between Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s
Point that would serve both communities (plus the airport) via the existing electrical intertie.
would
The project would cost $4,500,000 to complete.$4,000,000 is requested from AEA through the
REF grant program,and AVEC would provide $500,000 (11%)as a cash contribution towards the
proposed project.
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.)
AVEC’s existing NW100 wind turbines require two maintenance visits a year. Those visits
currently cost AVEC $3,500 per turbine per year. The new Northwind 100 model requires only
one maintenance visit each year; therefore, four turbines in St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point would
require a combined annual maintenance cost of $7,000. This cost would be funded by ongoing
energy sales in the village.
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
Energy produced from the completed wind/intertie project would be sold to AVEC’s existing
customer base in the communities of St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. The sales price for the wind
generated electricity would be determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska as is done in
all AVEC villages. The delivered cost of energy would be reduced as much as possible for
customers within these four communities under current regulations, but that price is expected
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 19 7/21/2010
to be reduced by approximately 25% from current levels in each community. Currently, AVEC
villages with wind power systems experience the lowest electricity cost of within the utility (54
villages). Similar energy cost reductions are expected with the completed project proposed in
this application.
The project has an expected payback of 14.1 years.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that would be
considered in evaluating the project.
Please see cost/benefit sheet under Tab C.
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
Potential annual fuel displacement:The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village
power generation in St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point could be about 75,000 gal/yr and 1,498,000
gallons over the project’s 20 year lifetime (assuming 80% turbine availability). This project could
save $280,500 during its first full year of operation (expected to be 2014), with savings
increasing each year.
AVEC is currently planning a new overhead primary power transmission line from St. Mary’s to
Pilot Station and from St. Mary’s to Mountain Village, with the prime power plant remaining in
St. Mary’s.When the interties are completed, a wind power project in St. Mary’s would also
benefit Mountain Village and Pilot Station.
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional
annual revenue streams.Tax credits are not expected to be beneficial to the project due to
AVEC’s status as a non-profit entity. Nonetheless,in addition to saving the direct cost of fuel,
AVEC could sell green tags from the project.
Non-economic public benefits.The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines
would be reducing the negative impact of the cost of energy by providing a renewable energy
alternative. This project could help stabilize energy costs and provide long-term socio-economic
benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable energy would empower community
residents and could help avert rural to urban migration, which would help larger Alaska
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 19 7/21/2010
communities.
This project would help AVEC to determine potential locations to be served by recovered
heat. If determined feasible, the terms of recovered heat agreements would be
negotiated with entities to be served. Once the wind project is constructed and heat
recovery systems are in place, costs to operate important community facilities (e.g. water
treatment plants, schools, washeterias, etc.) would be decreased, enabling managing
entities (city governments, tribes, school districts) to operate more economically.
This project would help with the understanding of the wind resource in western Alaska. Data
acquired from this study assist nearby Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta communities to understand their
wind resource.Data collected from this project could also be used to improve the accuracy of
the State High Resolution Wind Map.
Stabilized energy costs would allow community entities, including the Cities and Tribes to plan and
budget for important economic, land use, recreation and community service, and environmental
goals listed in the St. Mary’s Community Economic Development Strategy (Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development, September 2000).
Area residents health and safety would benefit from the environmental benefits resulting from a
reduction of hydrocarbon use, including:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources)
Improved air quality
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
The wind turbine would provide a visual landmark for sea, air, and overland travelers, which
would help navigation in the area.Wind turbine orientation and rotor speed would provide
visual wind information to residents.
SECTION 6–SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it would 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
As a local utility that has been in operation since 1968, AVEC completely able to finance, operate,
and maintain this project for the design life. AVEC has capacity and experience to operate this
project. AVEC has operating wind projects throughout the state-familiar with planning,
constructing, operating, and maintaining wind systems.
Business Plan Structures and Concepts which may be considered:The wind turbines would be
incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant operators provide daily servicing.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 18 of 19 7/21/2010
AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective maintenance and are supported by
AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing.
How O&M would be financed for the life of the project:The costs of operations and
maintenance would be funded through ongoing energy sales to the villages.
Operational issues which could arise:Integration of the SLCs for thermal dump and frequency
controls would need to be addressed. AVEC would use the knowledge gained through the
operations of other village wind-diesel systems to address these issues.
Operating costs:AVEC’s existing NW100 wind turbines at other sites require two maintenance
visits a year.Each visit costs AVEC $1,750 per turbine; therefore, maintenance visits currently
cost AVEC $3,500 per turbine per year. The new Northwind 100 model requires only one
maintenance visit each year. Therefore,the 4 new turbines at St. Mary’s would require a
combined annual maintenance cost of $7,000.
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits:AVEC is fully committed to sharing the
savings and benefits accrued from this project information with their shareholders and sharing
information regarding savings and benefits with AEA.
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.
Work under this grant award could be initiated immediately. Once funding is known to be
secured, AVEC would prepare and sign contracts with our contractors.We would work to obtain
site control and obtain environmental permits.
With Denali Commission funding, AVEC installed met towers and completed a wind studies
between 2007 and 2009 at two locations between St. Mary’s and Pitka’s Point. AVEC also used
their own funding to examine possible intertie routes to Mountain Village and Pilot Station. This
project is the next logical step in energy infrastructure in the area.
SECTION 8–LOCAL SUPPORT
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.
Letters of support for the project have been received from Pitka’s Point Traditional Council,
Pitka’s Point Native Corporation, and the City of St. Mary’s (Tab D).
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Construction Project
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 19 of 19 7/21/2010
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
See the detailed budget under Tab C of this application.
The total cost of design and permitting is $320,000. AVEC is requesting $35,557 in grant funds
and would provide a cash match of $284,443 for this phase. Total construction cost for this
project is $4,180,000.AVEC is requesting $3,715,557 in grant funding and would provide a cash
match of $464,443 for this phase.
The total project cost for the project is $4.5 M of which $4,000,000 is requested in grant funds
from AEA. The remaining $500,000 (11%)would be matched in cash by AVEC.
Tab A
Resumes
V3 Energy, LLC Douglas Vaught, P.E. 19211 Babrof Drive Eagle River, AK 99577 USA tel 907.350.5047 email dvaught@mtaonline.net Consulting Services : • Wind resource analysis and assessment, including IEC 61400-1 3 rd ed. protocols • Wind turbine siting, FAA permitting, and power generation prediction • Wind-diesel power plant modeling and configuration design • Cold climate and rime icing environment analysis of wind turbine operations • Met tower/sensor/logger installation and removal (tubular towers 10 to 60 meters in height) Partial List of Clients: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative • NANA Pacific, LLC • enXco Development Corp. • Bristol Bay Native Corp. • Naknek Electric Association • Kodiak Electric Association • Barrick Gold • Alaska Energy Authority • North Slope Borough • Manokotak Natives Ltd. Representative Projects: • Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Site selection, FAA permitting, met tower installation, data analysis/wind resource assessment, turbine energy recovery analysis, rime icing/turbine effects analysis, powerplant system modeling. Contact information: Brent Petrie, Key Accounts Mgr, 907-565-5358 • Kodiak Electric Association. Met tower installation, data analysis and modeling for Alaska’s first utility scale turbines (GE 1.5sle) on -line July 2009. Contact information: Darron Scott, CEO, 907 -486-7690. • NANA Pacific, LLC. Site reconnaissance and selection, permitting, met tower installation, wind resource assessment and preliminary power system modeling for Northwest Arctic Borough villages and Red Dog Mine. Contact information: Jay Hermanson, Program Manager, 907-339-6514 • enXco Development Corp. Met tower installation documentation, site reconnaissance , analysis equipment management for utility-sca le wind projects, including Fire Island near Anchorage. Contact information: Steve Gilbert, Alaska Projects Manager, 907-333-0810. • Naknek Electric Association. Long -term wind resource assessment at two sites (sequentially), including site selection, met tower installation, data analysis, turbine research, performance modeling, and project economic analysis. Contact information: Donna Vukich, General Manager, 907-246-4261 • North Slope Borough (with Powercorp Alaska, LLC). Power system modeling, site reconnaissance and selection, FAA permitting, wind turbine cold climate and icing effects white paper. Contact information: Kent Grinage, Public Works Dept., 907-852-0285 Recent Presentations: • Wind Power Icing Challenges in Alaska: a Case Study of the Native Village of Saint Mary’s, presented at Winterwind 2008, Norrköping, Sweden, Dec. 8, 2008.
Tab B
Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
St. Mary’s Wind Construction
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.Wind class 6-see wind resource report (Tab G)
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 3 generators
ii.Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 908 kW; 611 kW; 499kW
iii.Generator/boilers/other type diesel
iv.Age of generators/boilers/other Generators installed: 1987, 1995, 2006
v.Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 14.02 kWh/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 140,000 (labor and non-labor combined)
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]3,122,843 (2009 AVEC operations)
ii.Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]222,764 gallons (2009 AVEC operations)
Other
iii.Peak Load 594 kW (2009 AVEC operations)
iv.Average Load 356 kW (2009 AVEC operations
v.Minimum Load
vi.Efficiency 14.02; kWh/gal (2009 AVEC operations)
vii.Future trends
d)Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i.Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii.Electricity [kWh]
iii.Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv.Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v.Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi.Other
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
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]
400 kW (wind)
b)Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i.Electricity [kWh]1,037,184 kWh (80% turbine availability)
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 $4.5 M
b)Development cost
c)Annual O&M cost of new system
d)Annual fuel cost
5.Project Benefits
a)Amount of fuel displaced for
i.Electricity 74,887 gallons (80% turbine availability)
ii.Heat
iii.Transportation
b)Current price of displaced fuel
c)Other economic benefits
d)Alaska public benefits
6.Power Purchase/Sales Price
a)Price for power purchase/sale
7.Project Analysis
a)Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 0.93
Payback (years)14.1 years
Tab C
Budget Form
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
Milestone or Task Anticipated
Completion Date
RE-Fund
Grant Funds
Grantee Matching
Funds
Source of Matching
Funds:
Cash/In-kind/Federal
Grants/Other State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
DP1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation for
planning and design
September 2011 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
DP2.Permit applications (as needed)October 2011 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
DP3.Final environmental assessment and
mitigation plans (as needed)
December 2011 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
DP4.Resolution of land use, right of way issues October 2011 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
DP5. Permit approvals December 2011 $ 8,889 $ 1,111 Cash $ 10,000
DP6. Final system design February 2012 $235,556 $ 29,444 Cash $ 265,000
DP7. Engineer’s cost estimate February 2012 $ 8,889 $ 1,111 Cash $ 10,000
DP8. Updated economic and financial analysis March 2012 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
DP9. Negotiated power sales agreement with
approved rates
Not applicable $ 0
DP10. Final business and operational plan March 2012 $ 8,889 $ 1,111 Cash $ 10,000
C1. Confirm that all design and feasibility
requirements are complete
March 2012 $ 4,444 $ 556 Cash $ 5,000
C2. Completion of bid documents March 2012 $ 8,889 $ 1,111 Cash $ 10,000
C3. Contractor/vendor selection and award April 2012 $ 8,889 $ 1,111 Cash $ 10,000
C4a. Construction phase—procurement of turbines
and foundations
June 2012 $ 1,644,444 $ 205,556 Cash $ 1,850,000
C4b. Construction phase—procurement of civil and
electrical distribution materials
June 2012 $ 311,111 $ 38,889 Cash $ 350,000
C4c. Construction phase—field construction and
installation
October 2012 $1,657,779 $ 207,221 Cash $1,865,000
C5. Integration and testing November 2012 $ 26,667 $ 3,333 Cash $ 30,000
C6. Decommissioning old systems Not applicable $ 0
C7. Final acceptance, commissioning, and startup December 2012 $ 35,556 $ 4,444 Cash $ 40,000
C8. Operations reporting March 2013 $ 17,778 $ 2,222 Cash $ 20,000
TOTALS $ 4,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 4,500,000
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $155,556 $ 19,444 Cash $ 175,000
Travel & Per Diem $44,444 $5,556 Cash $50,000
Equipment $1,866,667 $233,333 Cash $2,100,000
Materials & Supplies $22,222 $2,778 Cash $25,000
Contractual Services $293,333 $36,667 Cash $330,000
Construction Services $1,617,778 $202,222 Cash $1,820,000
Other
TOTALS $4,000,000 $500,000 $4,500,000
Tab D
Letters of Support
Tab E
Authorized Signers Form
Tab F
Authority
Tab G
Additional Materials
V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 1 Saint Mary’s Area Wind Power Report Report written by: Douglas Vaught, P.E., V3 Energy, LLC Date of Report: July 20, 2010 Pitka’s Point met tower Saint Mary’s met tower Mountain Village met tower Aerial view of Village of Saint Mary’s Photos top and bottom right: Doug Vaught; photo bottom left: Dave Johnson Summary Information ................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5 Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s Summary .................................................................................................. 6 Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village Summary ........................................................................................... 7 Site Information ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Meteorological Tower Data Synopses ...................................................................................................... 8
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 2 Test Site Location Maps ............................................................................................................................ 9 Intertie and Wind Farm Proposal ................................................................................................................ 12 Village Load ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Turbine Output ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Turbines, Pitka’s Point Site ................................................................................................................. 13 Turbines, Saint Mary’s Site ................................................................................................................. 14 Turbines, Mountain Village Site .......................................................................................................... 14 Data Quality Control and Icing Loss ............................................................................................................ 15 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Data Recovery Table, Pitka’s Point ..................................................................................................... 15 Data Recovery Table, Saint Mary’s ..................................................................................................... 16 Data Recovery Table, Mountain Village .............................................................................................. 16 Icing Loss ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Icing Data Loss Comparison Table, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s..................................................... 17 Icing Data Loss Comparison Table, Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village ............................................. 18 Documentation of Icing Events ............................................................................................................... 18 Pitka’s Point Icing Event P hotographs, 1/15/2009 ............................................................................. 19 Pitka’s Point Icing Event Data, 1/14 to16/2009 .................................................................................. 19 Saint Mary’s Icing Event Photographs, 1/15/2009 ............................................................................. 20 Saint Mary’s Icing Event Data, 1/14 to16/2009 .................................................................................. 20 Pitka’s Point Icing Event Data, 12/30/2007 to 1/14/2008 .................................................................. 21 Pitka’s Point Met Tower .............................................................................................................................. 22 Met Tower Sensor Information, Pitka’s Point......................................................................................... 22 Measured Wind Speeds .......................................................................................................................... 22 Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Pitka’s Point (Oct 2007 to Feb 2009) ................................................. 22 Seasonal Wind Profile, Pitka’s Point ................................................................................................... 22 Daily Wind Profile, Pitka’s Point ......................................................................................................... 23 Wind Shear .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Wind Shear Profile, Pitka’s Point ........................................................................................................ 24 Wind Power Density ............................................................................................................................... 24 Temperature Scatterplots ....................................................................................................................... 25 Wind Speed vs. Temperature, Pitka’s Point, 38 m anem. .................................................................. 26 Wind Power Density vs. Temperature, Pitka’s Point, 38 m anem. ..................................................... 26 Extreme Wind Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 27 Probability Distribution Function ............................................................................................................ 27
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 3 PDF Curve, Pitka’s Point, 38 m ............................................................................................................ 28 CDF Curve, Pitka’s Point, 38 m ............................................................................................................ 28 Wind Roses.............................................................................................................................................. 29 Wind Frequency Rose ......................................................................................................................... 29 Total Value (power density) Rose ....................................................................................................... 29 Turbulence Intensity ............................................................................................................................... 29 IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Pitka’s Point, 38 m Anemometer .................................. 30 Air Temperature and Density .................................................................................................................. 30 Annual Temperature Boxplot, Pitka’s Point........................................................................................ 31 Saint Mary’s Met Tower .............................................................................................................................. 32 Met Tower Sensor Information, Saint Mary’s .................................................................................... 32 Measured Wind Speeds .......................................................................................................................... 32 Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Saint Mary’s (Aug 2008 to June 2010)............................................... 32 Monthly and Seasonal Wind Profiles, Saint Mary’s ............................................................................ 33 Daily Wind Profile, Saint Mary’s ......................................................................................................... 33 Wind Shear .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Wind Shear Profile, Saint Mary’s ........................................................................................................ 34 Wind Power Density ............................................................................................................................... 34 Scatterplot............................................................................................................................................... 35 Wind Speed vs. Temperature, Saint Mary’s, 38 m anem. .................................................................. 35 Extreme Wind Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 35 Probability Distribution Function ............................................................................................................ 36 Wind Roses.............................................................................................................................................. 36 Wind Frequency Rose ......................................................................................................................... 37 Total Value (power density) Rose ....................................................................................................... 37 Turbulence Intensity ................................................................................................................................... 37 IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Saint Mary’s, 38 m Anemometer .................................. 38 Air Temperature and Density .................................................................................................................. 38 Annual Temperature Boxplot, Saint Mary’s ....................................................................................... 39 Mountain Village Met Tower ...................................................................................................................... 40 Met Tower Sensor Information, Mountain Village ............................................................................. 40 Measured Wind Speeds .......................................................................................................................... 40 Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Mountain Village (November 2009 to June 2010) ............................ 40 Monthly Wind Profile, Mountain Village ............................................................................................ 41 Daily Wind Profile ............................................................................................................................... 41
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 4 Wind Shear .................................................................................................................................................. 41 Wind Shear Profile, Mountain Village ................................................................................................. 42 Wind Power Density ............................................................................................................................... 42 Scatterplot............................................................................................................................................... 42 Extreme Wind Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 43 Probability Distribution Function ............................................................................................................ 43 Wind Roses.............................................................................................................................................. 43 Wind Frequency Rose ......................................................................................................................... 44 Total Value (power density) Rose ....................................................................................................... 44 Turbulence Intensity ................................................................................................................................... 44 IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Mountain Village, 50 m B anemometer ........................ 44 Air Temperature and Density .................................................................................................................. 45 Annual Temperature Boxplot, Mountain Village ................................................................................ 45
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 5 Summary Information Saint Mary’s, Alaska is the largest village on the lower Yukon River and a high priority wind power project site for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC ). In addition to the existing electrical intertie between Saint Mary’s and Pitka’s Point, current plans calls for continuation of an existing intertie west from the Saint Mary’s Airport to Mountain Village and possible future construction of an intertie east from Saint Mary’s to Pilot S tation. Project Recommendations Wind data collected for more than one year at the Pitka’s Point met tower site, from October 2007 to February 2009, indicates a Class 6 (outstanding) wind resource . Wind data collected since October 2008 at the Saint Mary’s met tower site indicates a Class 4 (good) wind resource. In November, 2009, a met tower installed near Mountain Village has measured an exce llent wind resource to date, possibly Class 5. The wind resource at the Pitka’s Point, Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village sites clearly are noteworthy for wind power development, but wintertime icing may present a challenge . Although analysis of met tower data cannot easily distinguish between icing events that are due to freezing rain and those due to rime icing, there is strong evidence that rime icing occurs, an example the collapse of the Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s met towers in February 2009 . Inte restingly though, there appears to have been fewer and less severe rime ice events at the Saint Mary’s met tower during winter 2009/2010 compared to winter 2008/2009. Additionally, the Mountain Village met tower data indicates relatively few icing events during winter 2009/2010 . The original purpose of selecting three met tower sites in the Saint Mary’s area was to identify the opti-mum location for wind turbines based on proximity to power lines, geotechnical considerations, land ownership and access, physical space for a turbine layout, and wind resource considerations such as wind power class, turbine capacity factor, possible availability loss, extreme wind probability and turbu-lence. With these factors in mind, all three sites – Pitka’s Point, Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village – present pros and cons for wind power development. Pitka’s Point clearly has the supe rior wind resource of the three sites, with approximately seven perce n-tage points turbine capacity factor advantage over Saint Mary’s and an estimated four percentage points capacity factor advantage over Mountain Village. This equates to an extra 61 MWh/year of addi-tional power production vs. Saint Mary’s and 35 MWh/yr vs. Mountain Village (per 100 kW of wind tur-bine capacity ). However, this assumes one hundred percent turbine availability. This is not possible even in with perfect operating conditions, but at the Pitka’s Point site , turbine availability likely will be negatively impacted by wintertime rime icing. Because rime ice has the potential to cause turbine avai l-ability loss and given the known risk of rime icing at the Pitka’s Point site, active anti -icing and/or de -icing measures will likely be necessary to mitigate the risk of excessive turbine downtime during winter. This expense and effort, however, may well be worthwhile with increased power production at this high wind energy site.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 6 The Saint Mary’s site may be most advantageous from a project development perspective. It has more physical space for multi-turbine layout than the Pitka’s Point site, land use site control for wind turbine construction has already been secured, and it is neare r existing power lines than the Pitka’s Point site. Although it has the lowest wind resource of the three sites monitored, it still measures as a very res-pectable Class 4 wind resource and would yield approximately 30 percent turbine capacity factor. Rime icing, though less severe than at the Pitka’s Point site, still may be sufficiently problematic to warrant use of turbine anti-icing and de-icing features to maintain continuous wintertime turbine availability. Monitoring of the Mountain Village site has not yet reached the one year point, but to date it shows ex-cellent potential for wind power development. In a concurrent comparison with the Saint Mary’s met tower, Mountain Village experiences approximately three higher wind speed monthly averages. The site experienced very little icing during winter 2009/2010 , turbulence intensity is e xtremely low, and the site has plenty of physical space for turbine layout. Disadvantages of the site, however, are its rel ative re-moteness from Mountain Village, lack of nearby power transmission infrastructure at present, and lack of winter maintenance of the road link between Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village. If the intertie is built, the infrastructure problem is solved as the power line will be near the site, but winter mainte n-ance of the road, at least from the Mountain Village airport to the wind site, will be a new and necessary operational requirement. Considering the pros and cons of each site, which are discussed in this report, a possible wind power development approach might be to install turbines at all three sites. Advantages of this approach in-clude reducing the instantaneous power surge effects of gusting winds by displacing the turbine suff i-ciently that they will receive somewhat different winds at each site. This is especially true if turbines are located in both Pitka’s Point or Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village. Another advantage is that although turbines installed at Pitka’s Point would produce more energy than at the other sites, they likely will suf-fer more severe icing problems. This trade-off of power production versus icing would be less at the other two sites: Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village site turbines would generate less energy annually but probably also experience higher availability in winter. Because the energy production/icing loss trade -off is not at present well understood with respect to predicting a decrease in turbine availability, installing turbines at all three sites potentially optimizes energy recovery overall and at a minimum spreads the risk of lower than expected power recovery due to icing problems. Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s Summary In comparing the Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s met tower sites, the Pitka’s Point site appears to expe-rience slightly more frequent icing conditions than the Saint Mary’s site. On the other hand, the Pitka’s Point data clearly demonstrates a superior wind resource for wind power development. This can be seen in the table below. Comparing the standard anemometers mounted at 38 meters on both to wers, one sees a 12.2 percent decrease in wind speed and a very significant 31.9 percent decrease in wind power density (WPD) from Pitka’s Point to Saint Mary’s.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 7 It is possible that given the complexity of terrain, high frequency of northeasterly winds, and location of the Saint Mary’s met tower north of and away from the bluff edge compared to the bluff proximity of the Pitka’s Point met tower, the wind resource at the Saint Mary’s met tower site might be better closer to the river. However, it seems unlikely that it would be sufficient to match the clearly superior wind resource measured at the Pitka’s Point met tower during the five month data overlap period. Pitka's 38 m speed mean St. M's 38 m speed mean Decrease of Wind Speed from Pitka’s Point to St. Mary's Pitka's 38 m WPD mean St. M's 38 m WPD mean Decrease of Wind Power Density from Pitka’s Point to Saint Mary's Year Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (%) (W/m 2) (W/m 2) (W/m 2) (%) 2008 Sep 6.37 5.66 0.71 -11.1% 225.9 160.4 65.6 -29.0% 2008 Oct 6.75 5.98 0.76 -11.3% 411.8 285.2 126.6 -30.7% 2008 Nov 6.05 5.86 0.19 -3.1% 275.9 242.9 33.0 -11.9% 2008 Dec 9.43 8.05 1.38 -14.6% 875.7 520.6 355.1 -40.5% 2009 Jan 10.40 8.22 2.17 -20.9% 1299.8 684.3 615.5 -47.4% data average 7.80 6.76 1.04 -12.2% 617.8 378.7 239.1 -31.9% Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village Summary In comparing the Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village met tower sites, both sites during winter 2009/2010 appeared to experience similar icing loss . Also, both sites have experience similar wind speeds with a slight advantage recorded to date to Mountain Village as seen in the table below. Comparing the 40 meter anemometers, one sees a 2.9 percent decrease in wind speed and a 15 .6 percent decrease in wind power density (WPD) from Mountain Village to Saint Mary’s. Mtn V. 40 m speed mean St. M's 40 m speed mean* Decrease of Wind Speed from Mtn Village to St Mary's Mtn V. 40 m WPD mean St. M's 40 m WPD mean Decrease of WPD from Mtn Village to Saint Mary's Year Month (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (%) (W/m 2) (W/m 2) (W/m 2) (%) 2009 Nov 7.32 7.31 0.01 -0.1% 524.3 410.5 113.8 -21.7% 2009 Dec 9.25 8.16 1.09 -11.7% 894.1 569.6 324.4 -36.3% 2010 Jan 8.56 9.08 -0.52 6.1% 600.6 720.7 -120.1 20.0% 2010 Feb 7.66 7.43 0.22 -2.9% 562.2 414.1 148.1 -26.3% 2010 Mar 8.02 7.92 0.10 -1.2% 478.9 470.7 8.2 -1.7% 2010 Apr 7.07 6.94 0.13 -1.8% 445.4 402.2 43.1 -9.7% 2010 May 5.93 5.60 0.33 -5.6% 220.4 195.9 24.5 -11.1% 2010 Jun 7.31 7.02 0.29 -3.9% 380.4 322.8 57.6 -15.1% data average 7.64 7.43 0.21 -2.7% 513.3 438.3 75.0 -14.6% *data adjusted to 40 m from 38 m anemometer
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 8 Site Information Pitka’s Point Saint Mary’s Mountain Village Site number 0066 0026 0068 Site Description Near a construction bo r-row pit near the bluff overlooking Pitka’s Point and the Yukon River On a plateau near the Airport Road about 1.5 km northeast of the Pitka’s Point met tower On a plateau near the Yukon River approx-imately 5 km east of the Mountain Village airport Latitude/longitude N 62° 02.252’ W 163° 14.82 ’ (WGS 84) N 62° 02.951’ W 163° 13.54 ’ (WGS 84) N 62° 05.513’ W 163° 35.38’ (WGS 84) Site elevation 177 meters 139 meters 85 meters Datalogger & modem type NRG Symphonie, Ir idium iPack NRG Symphonie, Iridium iPack NRG SymphoniePlus, Iridium iPack Tower type NRG 40 -meter SHD tall tower, 202 mm (8 in.) NRG 40 -meter SHD tall tower, 202 mm (8 in.) NRG 50 -meter XHD tall tower, 254 mm (10 in.) Meteorological Tower Data Synopses Pitka’s Point Saint Mary’s Mountain Village Data start date October 26, 2007 August 15, 2008 November 5, 2009 Data end date February 13, 2009 June 30, 2010 (in progress) June 30, 2010 (in progress) Wind power class Class 6 – Outstanding Class 4 – Good Class 5 – Excellent (note: 7.7 mo. data) Wind speed annual average (38 meters) 7.72 m/s 6.84 m/s 7.68 m/s (40 m anem., to date) Maximum wind gust 36.3 m/s (Jan. 2008) 30.6 m/s (Jan. 2009) 32.7 m/s (Nov. 2009) Maximum ten minute ave r-age wind speed 29.5 m/s 24.0 m/s 25.6 m/s Wind power density at 50 meters 662 W/m2 (extrapo-lated) 382 W/m2 (extrapo-lated) 581 W/m2 (measured, to date) Wind power density (38 m e-ters) 572 W/m2 (measured) 360 W/m2 (measu red) 518 W/m2 (measured, to date, 40 meters) IEC 61400 -1 3rd edition ex-treme wind class Class III (may be Class II) Class III Insufficient data at present to calculate Weibull distribution par ame-ters k = 1.95, c = 8.70 m/s k = 2.16, c = 7.49 m/s k = 2.27, c = 8.95 m/s (to date) Surface roughness 0.106 m (few trees) 0.095 m (few trees) 0.137 m (few trees) Power law exponent 0.178 (moderate wind shear) 0.183 (moderate wind shear) 0.175 (moderate wind shear) Frequency of calms (>4 m/s) 20% 20% (to date) 13% (to date) Mean TI, at 15 m/s 0.076 (IEC cat. C) 0.105 (IEC cat. C) 0.068 (IEC cat. C)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 9 Test Site Location Maps
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 10
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 11
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 12 Intertie and Wind Farm Proposal AVEC has proposed construction of an intertie to electrically connect Saint Mary’s and Pitk a’s P oint (these two village are already intertied with a three phase connection) to the village of Mountain Village, located thirty kilometers (19 miles) west of Saint Mary’s on the Yukon River. Concurrent with an intertie project, AVEC proposes to install wind turbines to augment the diesel generators and to offset the use of fossil fuel for power generation. Village Load A combined Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village hourly load profile was synthesized using the Alaska vi l-lage load calculator Excel spreadsheet developed by Alaska Energy Authority several years ago. The re-sults were adjusted slightly to match actual village average and peak loads of Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village (separately) documented by AVEC in their 2009 annual power generation report. The result is a virtual Saint Mary’s -Mountain Village community with a 669 kW average load, 1,226 kW peak load and average daily power usage of 16.0 MWh/day. HOMER software was used to create a combined Saint Mary’s -Mountain Village simulation model. Seasonal, daily and DMap profiles of the Saint Mary’s-Mountain Village virtual load are shown below. Turbine Output It is perhaps counterintuitive that wind power density and wind class do not correlate linearly with tu r-bine power output. This is due to a number of factors, including theoretical limitations of a lift -producing aerodynamic device (the turbine rotor blades ) and practical limitations of generator weight and rated output. For these reasons and others, a wind turbine in a low er power class wind regime may
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 13 still produce sufficient energy to warrant installation of turbines while a turbine in a higher power class wind regime may not generate as much energy as one might expect. A simplistic consideration of possible turbine output at the Pitka’s Point, Saint Mary’s and Mountain Vi l-lage wind sites is to model power output of a particular turbine with mean of monthly means data co l-lected to date and extrapolating to the turbine hub height if necessary. Note that the analyses are based on raw data with no sy nthetic data inserted in place of icing data removed for data quality control or data missing for other reasons. Turbine performance was analyzed with the HOMER software using the Northern Power Northwind 100 B model (100 kW, 21 meter rotor diameter, stall control, synchronous generator), the Aeronautica 29-225 (225 kW, 29 meter rotor diameter, stall control, asynchronous generator) and the Vestas V27 (225 kW, 27 meter rotor diameter, pitch control, asynchronous generator). These turbine s were selected for analysis for several reasons, including present wide use in Alaska village wind power applications, ready availability, and appropriate rated capacity for the intertied village electrical load. Note that the met tower in Mountain Village was installed in November 2009 and hence less than one year of data has been collected. The Mountain Village airport is not equipped with an Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) to provide reference wind data, so an average ratio of collected month ly Mountain Village data compared to equivalent Saint Mary’s data was calculated and applied to Saint Mary’s data of the missing months to create probable monthly average wind speeds in Mountain Village (for the missing months). The HOMER software can use monthly data with other parameters such as the Weibull k (shape value) and autocorrelation factor to generate a synthetic full year wind d a-ta set. Turbines, Pitka’s Point Site Saint Mary's to Mountain Village intertied, Pitka's Point siteTurbineNo.Hub ht.Penetration CF Wind prod.Displ. fuel Excess elec.Excess elec.Storage needed?(m)(%)(%)MWh/yr (gal)MWh/yr (%)NW100/21 4 37 22.9 37.1 1,340 88,413 6 0.1 possibly63734.3 37.1 2,010 126,984 94 1.6 yes83745.7 37.1 2,680 157,169 308 5.0 yesAero 29-225 2 40 24.5 36.4 1,434 93,757 18 0.3 possibly34036.7 36.4 2,151 132,249 154 2.6 yes44049.0 36.4 2,868 160,159 478 7.5 yesVestas V-27 2 40 25.1 37.3 1,472 95,979 23 0.4 possibly34037.7 37.3 2,208 134,656 178 2.9 yes44050.2 37.3 2,944 160,979 527 8.3 yes
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 14 Turbines, Saint Mary’s Site Turbines, Mountain Village Site Notes: 1. Wind resource based on specific site met tower data, assume turbines at that location 2. HOMER modeling assumes 100% turbine availability 3. Displaced fuel estimate is for electrical generation only 4. Excess electricity to dump, preferably heat recovery for thermal load 5. SLC and/or energy storage might be necessary to avoid curtailment control of turbines 6. Availability loss due to icing not considered; turbines at this site may require active de-icing capa-bility to maintain wintertime availability 7. Penetration refers to average annual load supplied by wind turbines 8. Wind data is not adjusted against long -term average 9. Mountain Village met tower data incomplete; St Mary's data used as substitute for missing months Saint Mary's to Mountain Village intertied, Saint Mary's siteTurbineNo.Hub ht.Penetration CF Wind prod.Displ. fuel Excess elec.Excess elec.Storage needed?(m)(%)(%)MWh/yr (gal)MWh/yr (%)NW100/21 4 37 18.6 30.2 1,091 72,143 1 0.0 possibly63728.0 30.2 1,634 105,212 45 0.7 possibly83737.3 30.2 2,183 133,519 165 2.7 yesAero 29-225 2 40 19.5 28.9 1,140 75,053 6 0.1 possibly34029.2 28.9 1,711 108,122 77 1.3 yes44038.9 28.9 2,281 134,048 260 4.2 yesVestas V-27 2 40 20.0 29.7 1,172 76,852 9 0.1 possibly34030.0 29.7 1,757 110,291 90 1.5 yes44040.0 29.7 2,343 135,899 294 4.8 yesSaint Mary's to Mountain Village intertied, Mountain Village siteTurbineNo.Hub ht.Penetration CF Wind prod.Displ. fuel Excess elec.Excess elec.Storage needed?(m)(%)(%)MWh/yr (gal)MWh/yr (%)NW100/21 4 37 20.7 33.6 1,213 80,079 3 0.0 possibly63731.1 33.6 1,819 116,032 64 1.1 possibly83741.4 33.6 2,426 145,794 225 3.7 yesAero 29-225 2 40 21.9 32.5 1,280 83,968 10 0.2 possibly34032.8 32.5 1,921 119,921 108 1.8 yes44043.7 32.5 2,561 147,011 346 4.2 yesVestas V-27 2 40 22.4 33.4 1,315 85,952 15 0.3 possibly34033.7 33.4 1,972 122,169 127 2.1 yes44044.9 33.4 2,630 148,757 390 6.2 yes
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 15 Data Quality Control and Icing Loss Data was filtered to remove presumed icing events that yield false zero wind speed data and non-variant wind direction data. Data that met the following criteria were filtered: wind speed < 1 m/s (or non-variant direction), standard deviation = 0, temperature < 3 °C and high relative humidity if that data is available. Note that for all three met towers, icing data is removed from the data set and hence not counted in summary data calculations such as average wind speed, wind power density, etc. Synthetic data to fill the removed data was not employed. It was thought that at Pitka’s Point, installation of a heated anemometer and wind vane would result in better data recovery than from the standard non-heated sensors, but that did not prove entirely true. As one can see below in the Data Recovery Table, Pitka’s Point, data recovery for the heated (IceFree) anemometer is no better than the other anemometers, although data recovery from the heated wind vane is somewhat better than from the standard vane. It is not clear why data recovery from the heated sensors was so poor. One possible explanation is excessive voltage drop from the power line tie -in to the sensors on the met tower. Quality Control Data Recovery Table, Pitka’s Point anemometers vanes 38 m 28 m IceFree 29 m 21 m 38 m 29 m IceFree Year Month Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2007 Oct 87.9 77.9 87.9 87.9 80.4 27.0 2007 Nov 52.2 100.0 55.2 54.7 43.6 100.0 2007 Dec 73.3 76.5 83.4 83.4 74.4 75.9 2008 Jan 24.4 24.4 31.9 37.9 54.1 69.6 2008 Feb 75.6 76.6 78.7 76.2 65.1 86.4 2008 Mar 89.5 80.7 90.5 94.1 77.3 88.5 2008 Apr 37.8 78.4 55.3 41.1 65.9 75.8 2008 May 97.7 100.0 96.4 96.3 96.1 97.9 2008 Jun 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2008 Jul 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2008 Aug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2008 Sep 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.6 100.0 2008 Oct 96.3 92.3 98.8 96.9 92.4 98.8 2008 Nov 62.3 27.6 59.9 56.7 54.3 81.5 2008 Dec 62.2 33.8 64.6 61.0 44.4 70.9 2009 Jan 52.6 39.6 53.7 56.2 42.3 51.5 All data 75.7 75.5 78.5 77.6 74.2 82.7
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 16 Data Recovery Table, Saint Mary’s anemometers vanes 38 m 29 m 18 m 38 m 29 m Year Month Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2008 Aug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2008 Sep 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 96.3 2008 Oct 100.0 100.0 94.6 95.9 96.1 2008 Nov 61.6 65.0 65.1 55.2 58.9 2008 Dec 86.7 83.7 82.7 70.6 73.6 2009 Jan 52.1 53.3 51.7 47.3 47.3 2009 Feb 37.8 56.3 39.1 40.0 40.0 2009 Mar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2009 Apr 46.2 0.0 47.2 45.2 45.2 2009 May 97.7 0.0 97.7 96.4 96.4 2009 Jun 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2009 Jul 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2009 Aug 100.0 0.0 100 .0 100.0 100.0 2009 Sep 99.7 0.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 2009 Oct 92.4 0.0 92.4 90.4 90.4 2009 Nov 95.8 74.4 93.6 93.3 93.3 2009 Dec 93.4 93.7 93.2 87.1 87.1 2010 Jan 98.3 98.3 98.3 95.3 96.4 2010 Feb 79.5 78.3 78.1 93.5 94.4 2010 Mar 100.0 100.0 84.5 100.0 100.0 2010 Apr 96.9 99.8 99.8 94.0 94.0 2010 May 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.9 95.9 2010 Jun 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 All data 84.1 55.6 83.2 82.2 82.6 Data Recovery Table, Mountain Village anemometers 50 m A 50 m B 41 m 40 m 32 m 31 m Year Month Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2009 Nov 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 94.2 97.8 2009 Dec 91.6 91.6 91.6 91.6 91.6 91.6 2010 Jan 87.8 87.3 89.0 95.7 90.6 92.4 2010 Feb 85.5 83.3 77.5 86.7 86.9 85.6 2010 Mar 78.7 78.5 90.9 87.8 85.3 86.3 2010 Apr 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 17 2010 May 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 100.0 100.0 2010 Jun 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 all data 92.6 92.2 93.3 94.8 93.6 94.2 Icing Loss In comparing Pitka’s Point to Saint Mary’s, one can see in the Icing Loss Comparison Table, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s, which is focused only on the complete common data months of September 2008 to January 2009, that data recovery is six to ten percent better at the Saint Mary’s met tower. This indi-cates fewer icing events and/or less severe icing than at the Pitka’s Point met tower. Note again, how-ever, that Pitka’s Point recorded significantly higher wind speeds during this comparison period, indica t-ing a tradeoff between stronger winds and an increased icing risk. In the following table of icing loss comparison between Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village, one can see comp arable icing data loss during winter 2009/2010, but this data loss was very minimal and stands in sharp contrast to the previous winter when the Saint Mary’s met tower experienced considerable icing loss, culminating in loss of the met tower in February 2009 due to icing. Because there is no simultaneous data from all three met towers addressed in this study, it is not possi-ble to directly compare wind resource and icing of all three sites. But, one can conclude that rime icing does occur, the Pitka’s Point site appears to experience worse icing than the Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village sites, but the number and severity of icing events apparently differ considerably from one winter to the next. The Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village met towers will remain in place at least through winter 2010/2011, so an excellent opportunity exists to determine if the coming winter more resembles winter 2008/2009 or winter 2009/2010. Icing Data Loss Comparison Table, Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s anemometers vanes Pitka's Pt St Mary's Pitka's Pt St Mary's Pitka's Pt St Mary's Pitka's Pt St Mary's 38 m 38 m 29 m 29 m 21 m 18 m 38 m 38 m Year Month Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2008 Sep 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.6 96.4 2008 Oct 96.3 100.0 98.8 100.0 96.9 94.6 92.4 95.9 2008 Nov 62.3 61.6 59.9 65.0 56.7 65.1 54.3 55.2 2008 Dec 62.2 86.7 64.6 83.7 61.0 82.7 44.4 70.6 2009 Jan 52.6 52.1 53.7 53.3 56.2 51.7 42.3 47.3 data average 74.7 80.1 75.4 80.4 74.2 78.8 66.0 73.1
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 18 Icing Data Loss Comparison Table, Saint Mary’s and Mountain Village Saint Mary's Mountain Village anemometers anemometers 38 m 29 m 18 m 50 m A 41 m 32 m Year Month Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Recovery Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2009 Nov 95.8 74.4 93.6 97.8 97.8 94.2 2009 Dec 93.4 93.7 93.2 91.6 91.6 91.6 2010 Jan 98.3 98.3 98.3 87.8 89.0 90.6 2010 Feb 79.5 78.3 78.1 85.5 77.5 86.9 2010 Mar 100.0 100.0 84.5 78.7 90.9 85.3 2010 Apr 96.9 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 2010 May 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 2010 Jun 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.5 93.1 93.4 92.7 93.3 93.6 Documentation of Icing Events Rime icing is more problematic for wind turbine operations than freezing rain (clear ice) given its tenac i-ty and longevity in certain climatic conditions. For this reasons, wind power in the Saint Mary’s area should be deve loped with consideration to the possible need for anti-icing and de-icing measures. These measures may include re dundant control sensors, heated rotor blades, and/or leading edge blade heaters. This may be a parti cular concern at the Pitka’s Point wind site. Although ideally one would fac-tor availability loss due to icing into turbine performance Following is documentation of rime icing conditions encountered in the met tower data and observed by AVEC personnel. Note also that rime icing during a winter storm led to collapse of the Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s met towers in February 2009. An icing event leading to data recovery loss from the sensors is indicated in the January 15, 2009 photo-graphs below, which clearly indicate the presence of icing conditions. This icing event is also shown in the data graphs of January 15 below. Note that temperature is below f reezing, relative humidity is high, wind speed standard deviation equals zero, and the wind speeds are stopped at their offset values of 0.4 m/s . Note that both met towers collapsed on February 13, 2009 from ice loading, providing graphic ev i-dence of the problematic icing environment at the sites.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 19 Pitka’s Point Icing Event Photographs, 1/15/2009 Brian Fouts photos Pitka’s Point Icing Event Data, 1/14 to16/20 09
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 20 Saint Mary’s Icing Event Photographs, 1/15/20 09 Brian Fouts photos Saint Mary’s Icing Event Data, 1/14 to16/20 09 Note: Saint Mary’s temperature sensor malfunctioned, repaired midday Jan. 15 Note, however, that the January 15, 2009 icing event was relatively minor in that the ice layer accumu-lated on the met towers was relatively thin and the anemometers were frozen and out of service for only forty hours or so. Other icing events, although not documented with photographs, have been more significant. For instance, from December 30, 2007 to January 14, 2008, an icing event occurred at the Pitka’s Point met tower sufficient to render all four anemometers, including the heated IceFree anem o-
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 21 meter, inoperative. The humidity sensor was not installed on the met tower at that time, so relative humidity data cannot be reviewed, but clearl y this had been an icing event. Pitka’s Point Icing Event Data, 12/30/20 07 to 1/14/2008
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 22 Pitka’s Point Met Tower Met Tower Sensor Information, Pitka’s Point Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 C anemometer 38 m 0.765 0.35 NNE 2 NRG IceFree III anem o-meter 28 m 0.572 1.0 WNW 3 NRG #40 C anemometer 29 m 0.765 0.35 NNE 4 NRG #40 C anemometer 21 m 0.765 0.35 NNE 7 NRG #200P wind vane 38 m 0.351 260 080° T 8 NRG IceFree III wind vane 29 m 0.351 350 350° T 9 iPack Voltmeter 0.021 0 10 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 N/A 12 RH-5 relative humidity 2 m 0.097 0 Measured Wind Speeds Measured wind speeds at the Pitka’s Point met tower are quite high, with an annual average exceeding 7.7 m/s at the top of the tower. Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Pitka’s Point (Oct 20 07 to Feb 20 09) Variable Speed 38 m Speed 29 m Speed 28 m IceFree Speed 21 m Height above ground (m) 38 29 28 21 Mean wind speed (m/s) 7.72 7.21 7.24 6.88 MMM wind speed (m/s) 7.81 7.27 7.36 6.94 Max 10-min av g wind speed (m/s) 29.5 29.2 28.2 28.4 Max gust wind speed (m/s) 35.9 36.3 35.1 36.3 Weibull k 1.96 1.88 2.07 1.91 Weibull c (m/s) 8.70 8.12 8.16 7.74 Mean power density (W/m²) 579 491 450 420 MMM power density (W/m²) 587 493 474 419 Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,069 4,299 3,941 3,676 MMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 5,145 4,320 4,156 3,672 Energy pattern factor 1.95 2.02 1.84 2.00 Frequency of calms (%) 20.1 22.7 19.6 24.3 Data recovery rate (%) 75.2 78.1 75.1 77.2 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.946 0.947 0.944 0.946 Diurnal pattern strength 0.046 0.045 0.050 0.044 Hour of peak wind speed 24 23 23 22 Seasonal Wind Profile , Pitka’s Point
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 23 Daily Wind Profile , Pitka’s Point The daily wind profile indicates that the lowest wind speeds of the day occur midday from about 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and the highest wind speeds of the day occur during the evening hours of 8 p.m. to midnight. The daily variation of wind speed is remarkably minimal on an annual basis but more pronounced on a monthly basis (second graph).
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 24 Wind Shear At the Pitka’s Point met tower, t he power law exponent was calculated at 0.175 with wind speeds fil-tered to include only those greater than 4 m/s, the cut -in speed for most turbines. This indicates mod-erate wind shear at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Considering the high wind class of the site, a lower turbine hub height is likely a preferred option. Wind Shear Profile, Pitka’s Point Wind Power Density Another view of wind shear is wind power density by height ab ove ground level. Wind power density is defined as the power per unit area of the wind with units of Watts per square meter. It is calculated by multiplying ½ times the air density times the wind speed cubed for each time step. The equation is P/A = ½*ρ*U3. The time step values are averaged to produce an overall wind power density. The wind power density at 50 meters elevation is a wind industry standard method of comparing and evaluating sites. If the anemometer measurement heights are at other than 50 meters, the wind analy-
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 25 sis software uses the power law exponent derived from the two (or more) measurement heights to extrapolate up or down. As can be seen in the figure below, power density and hence potential turbine power production in-creases substantially with turbine hub height at the Pitka’s Point site. Note that the measured power densities in the figure below differ from those reported in the data summary table of this report. The figure below uses all co llected data (October 2007 to Fe bruary 2009) while in the summary table these data are presented as annual averages. Temperature Scatterplots An observation of some intere st is to compare by scatterplot the power density and, separately, the mean wind speed to temperature. As one can see below, the power producing winds (winds greater than 4 m/s, the typical wind turbine cut -in speed) are present through the entire temperature range of the Pitka’s Point site, even as low as (near) -30° C. A turbine selected for the Pitka’s Point site should be capable of operation down to at least -30° C but a -40° C temperature rating is preferable as an arctic standard.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 26 Wind Speed vs. Temperature, Pitka’s Point, 38 m anem. Wind Power Density vs. Temperature, Pitka’s Point, 38 m anem.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 27 Extreme Wind Analysis Using a modified Gumbel distribution, the probability of winds exceeded a certain value within a defined period of time is predicted. Another way to consider the analysis though is by the concept of return pe-riod. In other words, in a defined period of time, typically 50 years, one can determine the maximum wind speed likely to occur. This is important when selecting a wind turbine as manufacturers classify their turbines by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards of Class (per IEC 61400 -1, edition 3). At the Pitka’s Point met tower site, maximum predicted 50 year wind speed (ten minute av-erage) at 38 meters is 36.2 m/s and the maximum predicted 50 year wind gust (two second) at 38 me-ters elevation is 44.0 m/s. This (just barely) qualifies the site as IEC Class III, the lowest and most com-mon extreme wind designation class . RETURN PERIOD SPEED Average Gust Factor : 1.22 IEC 50 -year extreme wind Pitka's Point RETURN YR 10 min average, m/s 2 sec gust, m/s Class Vref (10 min ), (m/s) 38 meter 2 26.8 32.6 I 50.0 10 31.5 38.3 II 42.5 15 32.7 39.8 III 37.5 30 34.7 42.2 S mfr specified 50 36.2 44.0 100 38.3 46.5 Probability Distribution Function The probability distribution function provides a visual indication of measured wind speeds in one meter per second “bins”. Note that most wind turbines do not begin to generate power until the wind speed 24.026.028.030.032.034.036.038.040.0 2 10 15 30 50 10010 min Extreme Wind Speed, m/sReturn Period, yearsExtreme Wind Speed vs. Return PeriodMax. 10 min Avg Wind Speed, m/sPower (Max. 10 min Avg Wind Speed, m/s)
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 28 at hub height reaches 4 m/s , known as the “cut -in” wind speed. The black line in the graph is a best fit Weibull distribution. At the 38 meter level, Weibull parameters are k = 1.95 and c = 8.67 m/s (“k” is the shape factor and “c” is the scale factor) for the data period. This shape factor is indicative of a normal (Raleigh) wind distribution for wind power sites. The PDF information is shown visually in another manner in the second graph, the Cumulative Distrib u-tion Function. In this view, one can see that about 22 percent of the winds at 3 8 meters are less than 4 m/s , the standard cut-in speed of most turbines and almost 100 percent of the winds are less than 25 m/s, the standard high wind cut-out speed for most turbines (speeds refer to 10-min averages). PDF Curve, Pitka’s Point, 38 m CDF Curve, Pitka’s Point, 38 m
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 29 Wind Roses Pitka’s Point winds are bi-directional with the wind frequency rose indicating a nearly equal component of north and east -northeast winds, with slightly more frequent ENE winds. For power producing winds, one can then see that ENE winds dominate . Note that a wind threshold of 4 m/s was selected for the definition of calm winds. This wind speed represents the cut-in wind speed of most wind turbines. By this definition, Pitka’s Point experiences twenty percent annual calm conditions (see wind frequency rose below). Wind Frequency Rose Total Value (power density) Rose Turbulence Intensity The turbulence intensity (TI) is acceptable with a mean turbulence intensity of 0.076 and a repr e-sentative turbulence intensity of 0.105 at 15 m/s wind speed , indicating quite smooth air for wind turbine operations. This equates to an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 3 rd Edition (2005) turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined category. These data are shown in the turbulence inten sity graph below. As seen, repr esentative TI (90th percentile of the turbulence i n-tensity values, assuming a normal distribution) at 15 m/s is well under IEC Category C criteria at the Pitka’s Point met tower site .
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 30 IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Pitka’s Point, 38 m Anemometer Air T emperature and Density Over the reporting period, the Pitka’s Point met tower had an average temperature of -2.8 ° C. The mi n-imum recorded temperature during the measurement period was –28.8 ° C and the maximum tempera-ture was 27.7 ° C , indicating a wide var iability of an ambient temperature operating environment impor-tant to wind turbine o perations . Consequent to the cool temperatures, the average air density of 1.285 kg/m 3 is nearly seven percent higher than the standard air density of 1.204 kg/m3 (13.8° C and 99.2 kPa standard temperature and pressure at 177 m elevation ), indicating that the Pitka’s Point met tower site has denser air than the standard air density used to calculate turbine power curves (note that all turbine power curves are cal-culate d at a sea level standard of 15.0 ° C and 101.3 kPa pressure). Temperature Air Density Month Mean Min Max Mean Min Max (°C) (°C) (°C) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) Jan -15.1 -29.0 3.9 1.321 1.204 1.416 Feb -18.0 -28.8 0.2 1.355 1.264 1.414 Mar -11.7 -25.7 3.8 1.323 1.248 1.397 Apr -7.0 -21.3 6.8 1.299 1.235 1.372 May 4.1 -10.1 18.6 1.247 1.185 1.314 Jun 9.5 -1.4 21.2 1.223 1.174 1.272 Jul 10.3 3.3 27.7 1.220 1.149 1.250 Aug 10.7 0.6 21.6 1.218 1.173 1.263
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 31 Sep 7.3 -1.1 18.1 1.233 1.187 1.270 Oct -5.2 -15.0 2.9 1.287 1.204 1.339 Nov -8.7 -25.9 7.0 1.308 1.234 1.398 Dec -10.1 -26.8 7.2 1.305 1.204 1.403 Annual -2.8 -28.8 27.7 1.285 1.149 1.416 Annual Temperature Boxplot, Pitka’s Point
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 32 Saint Mary’s Met Tower Met Tower Sensor Information , Saint Mary’s Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 C anemometer 38 m 0.765 0.35 N 2 NRG #40 C anemometer 28.5 m 0.765 0.35 N 3 NRG #40 C anemometer 18 m 0.765 0.35 N 7 NRG #200P wind vane 38 m 0.351 265 085° T 8 NRG #200P wind vane 29 m 0.351 285 105° T 9 iPack Voltmeter 0.021 0 11 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 N/A 12 RH-5 relative humidity 2 m 0.098 0 Measured Wind Speeds Measured wind speeds at the Saint Mary’s met tower are moderately high, with an annual average ex-ceeding of 6.8 m/s at the top of the tower. Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Saint Mary’s (Aug 2008 to June 20 10) Variable Speed 38 m Speed 29 m Speed 18 m Measurement height (m) 38 28.5 18 Mean wind speed (m/s) 6.80 6.56 5.99 MMM wind speed (m/s) 6.83 6.37 6.02 Max 10 -min avg wind speed (m/s) 24.0 23.8 22.3 Max gust wind speed (m/s) 29.8 29.8 30.6 Weibull k 2.21 2.16 2.15 Weibull c (m/s) 7.66 7.40 6.76 Mean power density (W/m²) 353 327 248 MMM power density (W/m²) 359 299 251 Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 3,092 2,867 2,169 MMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 3,142 2,621 2,199 Energy pattern factor 1.742 1.776 1.791 Frequency of calms (%) 20.4 22.0 26.9 Data recovery rate (%) 84.1 55.6 83.2 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.917 0.918 0.913 Diurnal patt ern strength 0.040 0.034 0.051 Hour of peak wind speed 21 20 18
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 33 Monthly and Seasonal Wind Profiles, Saint Mary’s Daily Wind Profile, Saint Mary’s Similarly as measured by the Pitka’s Point met tower, daily wind profile at the Saint Mary’s met tower is rather flat but higher wind speeds do occur in the afternoon and early evening as one would expect.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 34 Wind Shear At the Saint Mary’s met tower, the power law exponent was calculated at 0.175 with wind speeds fil-tered to include only those greater than 4 m/s, the cut -in speed for most turbines, indicating moderate wind shear at the Pitka’s Point met tower site. Wind Shear Profile, Saint Mary’s Wind Power Density Power density and hence potential turbine power production increases substantially with turbine hub height at the Saint Mary’s site . Note that the measured power densities in the figure below differ from those reported in the data summary table of this report. The figure below uses all collected data (August 2008 to June 2010 ) while in the summary table these data are presented as annual averages.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 35 Scatterplot At the Saint Mary’s site, power producing winds (greater than 4 m/s) are present through the entire temperature range of the site, even as low as (near) -30° C . A turbine selected fo r the Saint Mary’s site should be capable of operation down to at least -30° C but a -40° C temperature rating is preferable as an arctic standard. Wind Speed vs. Temperature, Saint Mary’s, 38 m anem. Extreme Wind Analysis At the Saint Mary’s met tower site, maximum predicted 50 year wind speed (ten minute average) at 38 meters is 33.1 m/s and the maximum predicted 50 year wind gust (two second) at 38 meters elevation is 40.6 m/s. This qualifies the site as IEC Class III, the lowest and most common extreme wind designation class.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 36 Probability Distribution Function At the 38 meter level at the Saint Mary’s site, Weibull parameters are k = 2.21 and c = 7.66 m/s (“k” is the shape factor and “c” is the scale factor) for the data period. This shape factor is indicative of a near normal (Raleigh) wind distribution for wind power sites. Wind Roses Saint Mary’s winds are bi-directional with the wind frequency rose indicating a nearly equal component of north and east -northeast winds, with an edge towards mor e frequent ENE winds. Power density winds are also bi-directional north and ENE without the domination of ENE winds observed at the Pitka’s Point site. This lesser extent of powerful ENE winds may be a reflection of the wind class difference be-
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 37 tween Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s. Note also that the Saint Mary’s site experiences 20 percent calm wind conditions (winds less than 4 m/s). Wind Frequency Rose Total Value (power density) Rose Turbulence Intensity The turbulence intensity (TI) is acceptab le with a mean turbulence intensity of 0.101 and a repr e-sentative turbulence intensity of 0.1 32 at 15 m/s wind speed, indicating smooth air for wind turbine operations. This equates to an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 3 rd Edition (2005) turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined category. These data are shown in the turb u-lence inte nsity graph below.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 38 IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Saint Mary’s, 38 m Anemometer Air Temperature and Density Over the reporting period, the Saint Mary’s met tower recorded an average temperature of -1.8° C. The minimum recorded temperature during the measurement period was –30.9 ° C and the maximum tem-perature was 25.5° C, indicating a wide variability of an ambient temperature operating environment important to wind turbine operations. Consequent to the cool temperatures, the average air density of 1.271 kg/m 3 is five percent higher than the standard air density of 1.209 kg/m3 (14.1 ° C and 99.6 kPa standard temperature and pressure at 139 m elevation), indicating that the Saint Mary’s met tower site has denser air than the standard air density used to calculate turbine power curves (note that all turbine power curves are calculated at a sea level standard of 15.0° C and 101.3 kPa pressure).
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 39 Annual Temperature Boxplot, Saint Mary’s Month Mean Min Max Mean Min Max(°C)(°C)(°C)(kg/m³)(kg/m³)(kg/m³)Jan -14.0 -26.7 4.0 1.309 1.209 1.409Feb-12.5 -30.9 3.2 1.329 1.209 1.433Mar-15.6 -29.0 2.5 1.279 1.209 1.422Apr-3.7 -17.5 9.7 1.268 1.209 1.358May4.3 -6.3 18.8 1.252 1.189 1.301Jun12.0 2.7 23.7 1.217 1.170 1.259Jul13.2 6.0 25.5 1.213 1.162 1.244Aug10.6 -1.0 20.9 1.224 1.181 1.276Sep7.1 -2.6 18.2 1.239 1.192 1.283Oct-2.5 -15.9 12.4 1.283 1.216 1.350Nov-11.9 -27.0 1.1 1.327 1.209 1.410Dec-9.5 -28.6 4.3 1.317 1.209 1.420Annual-1.8 -30.9 25.5 1.271 1.162 1.433TemperatureAir Density
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 40 Mountain Village Met Tower Met Tower Sensor Information , Mountain Village Channel Sensor type and design. Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 C, 50 m A 50.3 m 0.760 0.36 000 ° T 2 NRG #40 C, 50 m B 50.5 m 0.757 0.41 135 ° T 3 NRG #40 C, 40 m 40.8 m 0.761 0.33 000 ° T 13 NRG #40 C, 41 m 41.1 m 0.758 0.33 135 ° T 14 NRG #40 C, 31 m 31.8 m 0.758 0.34 000 ° T 15 NRG #40 C, 32 m 32.0 m 0.761 0.33 135 ° T 7 NRG #200P wind vane 46.1 m 0.351 270 090° T 8 NRG #200P wind vane 40.1 m 0.351 270 090° T 9 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 000 ° T 10 RH-5 relative humidity 2 m 0.098 0 12 iPack Voltmeter 0.021 0 Measured Wind Speeds Measured wind speeds at the Mountain Village met tower are reasonably high to date, with an average of 8.0 m/s at the top of the tower (50 meters). Note however that most of summer data has yet to be collected so annual average wind speed is likely to be less than 8.0 m/s. Wind Speed Sensor Summary, Mountain Village (November 2009 to June 2010) Variable Speed 50 m B Speed 50 m A Speed 41 m Speed 40 m Speed 32 m Speed 31 mMeasurement height (m)50.5 50.3 41.1 40.8 32 31.8Mean wind speed (m/s)8.017 7.896 7.667 7.624 7.364 7.323Max 10-min avg wind speed (m/s)25.1 24.9 24.8 25.6 24.8 24.9Max gust wind speed (m/s)30.8 31.1Weibull k 2.231 2.245 2.21 2.221 2.213 2.228Weibull c (m/s)9.036 8.899 8.644 8.596 8.302 8.259Mean power density (W/m²)586 558 518 509 459 450Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr)5,135 4,884 4,541 4,458 4,021 3,946Energy pattern factor 1.722 1.714 1.74 1.739 1.74 1.737Frequency of calms (%)14.39 14.76 15.77 16.08 17.26 17.37Data recovery rate (%)92.21 92.56 93.27 94.83 93.56 94.161-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.927 0.925 0.924 0.925 0.921 0.922Diurnal pattern strength 0.045 0.041 0.036 0.032 0.035 0.033Hour of peak wind speed 20 20 19 19 19 19
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 41 Monthly Wind Profile, Mountain Village Daily Wind Profile Similarly as measured at the Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s met tower s, daily wind profile to date at the Mountain Village met tower is rather flat but higher wind spee ds do occur in the afternoon and early evening as one would expect. Wind Shear At the Mountain Village met tower, the power law exponent is calculated date at 0.1 69 with wind speeds filtered to include only those greater than 4 m/s, the cut-in speed for most turbines, indicating moderate wind shear at the Mountain Village met tower site.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 42 Wind Shear Profile, Mountain Village Wind Power Density Power density as a function of height at the Mountain Village met tower site will be presented when additional data has been collected. Scatterplot At the Mountain Village site, power producing winds (greater than 4 m/s) are present through the entire temperature range of the site, even as low as (near) -30° C . A turbine selected for the Saint Mary’s site should be capable of operation down to at least -30° C but a -40° C temperature rating is preferable as an arctic standard.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 43 Extreme Wind Analysis At present, insufficient data exists to calculate extreme wind probabilities for the Mountain Village met tower test site. Probability Distribution Function At the 50 meter level at the Mountain Village site to date , Weibull parameters are k = 2.25 and c = 8.90 m/s (“k” is the shape factor and “c” is the scale factor) for the data period. This shape factor is indicative of a near normal (Raleigh) wind di stribution for wind power sites, although one weighted toward higher wind speeds. The shape factor will likely decrease toward 2.0 as additional summer data is included. Wind Roses To date, Mountain Village winds are dominated by north, northeast and east winds. Power density winds are more bi-directional with NNE and east winds. Note also that to date the Mountain Village site experiences 13 percent calm wind conditions (winds less than 4 m/s). This percentage will almost cer-tainly increase with inclusion of additional summer data.
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 44 Wind Frequency Rose Total Value (power density) Rose Turbulence Intensity The Mountain Village site turbulence intensity (TI) is acceptable with a mean turbulence intensity of 0.068 and a representative turbulence intensity of 0.095 at 15 m/s wind speed, indicating very smooth air for wind turbine operations. This equates to an International Electrotechnical Commis-sion (IEC) 3rd Edition (2005) turbulence category C, which is the lowest defined category. These data are shown in the turbulence intensity graph below. IEC 3rd Edition Turbulence Intensity Graph, Mountain Village , 50 m B anemometer
Saint Mary’s, Alaska Wind Power Report V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska 45 Air Temperature and Density Over the reporting period, the Mountain Village met tower recorded an average temperature of -7.3 ° C. The minimum recorded temperature during the measurement period was –33.3° C and the maximum temperature was 24.3 ° C, indicating a wide variability of an ambient temperature operating enviro n-ment important to wind turbine operations. Note, however, that the data period does not include most of the summer months, so average annual temperature will be higher, and likely equivalent to that rec-orded at the Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s met towers. Annual Temperature Boxplot, Mountain Village