HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarshall Wind Feasibility Round IV Grant ApplicationAlaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Marshall Wind Feasibility
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 17 7/21/2010
Marshall Wind Feasibility
SECTION 1 –APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Type of Entity:
Electric Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage,AK 99503
Physical Address
Telephone
(907) 565-5531
Fax
(907) 562-4086
Email
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development Key
Account
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 would 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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 17 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)
Marshall-Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment, Conceptual Design, and Permitting
(Phase II)
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project.
Marshall (pop. 414) is located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the
east bank of the Yukon River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
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 Design and Permitting
X Feasibility Construction and Commissioning
X Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
To better determine the feasibility of wind power in Marshall,AVEC proposes to build on the
results of the already-completed wind resource study by commissioning a geotechnical study
for the site and performing a conceptual design study to determine the most optimal
equipment configuration and layout.The geotechnical work would involve obtaining
permanent site control from the landowner with the intent of supporting follow-on turbine
construction in a future project.
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 be to determine whether the wind
resources are suited to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of
a wind facility.
The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation in Marshall is
projected to be 27,500 gal/yr (assuming 80% turbine availability).This project would save
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 17 7/21/2010
$99,000 in fuel costs during its first full year of operation (expected to be 2014).
Detailed benefits are explained in Section 5.0.
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 $117,000,of which $111,150is requested in grant funds
from AEA. The remaining $5,850 (5%)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.$111,150
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match)$5,850
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2)$117,000
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)
$2.0 M
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)$to be determined
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.)
$to be determined
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 Marshall.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
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 17 7/21/2010
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 would be funded by this grant. (You may include
a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
Authorization to Proceed:September 2011
Select Contractors:September 2011
Geotechnical Field Work:November 2011
Geotechnical Report:February 2012
Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate:November 2012
Permits for Conceptual Design: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.)
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation (September 1-September 15, 2011)
AVEC would select a contractor for the wind feasibility, geotechnical analysis, conceptual
design, and permitting immediately following AEA’s authorization to proceed.
2.Detailed resource assessment
N/A.A met tower was installed in the community and a Wind Resource Report was written.
(See Tab G.)
3.Identification and resolution of land issues (September 1, 2011-June 1, 2012)
AVEC has a letter of non-objection for the met tower where it was previously installed. AVEC
would work with the Maserculiq Incorporated (Native Corporation)to obtain permanent site
control to place turbines.
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and future market (February 1-March 30, 2012)
AVEC would draft a memorandum documenting the existing and future energy costs and
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 17 7/21/2010
markets in Marshall. The information would be based on AVEC records and community plans.
A community meeting would be held to determine future energy markets.
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses (June 1-August 30, 2012)
An economic and financial analysis, which examines potential final design and construction
costs, operating and maintenance costs, user rates, and other funding mechanisms,would be
developed.
6.Conceptual business & operations plan (June 1-October 31, 2012)
Draft business and operational plans would be developed working with the City of Marshall and
the Maserculiq Incorporated.The conceptual plan would include draft recovered heat
agreements.
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate (September 1-November 1, 2012)
A conceptual design and cost estimate would be prepared using information gathered from the
wind study and geotechnical fieldwork.
8.Permitting and environmental analysis (September 15-December 31, 2012)
Environmental permits would be obtained for the conceptual design of the project.
9.Final report and recommendations (December 31, 2012)
All of the memoranda and reports written for the project would be combined in a final report
and submitted to AEA. The Final Report would include final drafts of the following:
Wind Resource Report (completed August 2010 by V3 Energy, LLC)
Existing and Future Energy Costs and Markets Memorandum
Economic and Financial Analysis
Conceptual Business and Operating Plan
Geotechnical Report
Conceptual Design Analysis and Cost Estimate
Environmental Permits
FAA Permitting for wind turbines
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 17 7/21/2010
Together with his group, Brent would provide coordination of the installation of the
geotechnical work, conceptual design, and permitting. The group’s resources include a
project coordinator, contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and a community liaison.
Brent would be responsible for reporting directly to AEA on the status of the project.
Mark Teitzel, Vice President/Manager of Engineering,would provide technical
assistance and information on the existing power system and possible issues and project
study needs.
Debbie Bullock, manager of administrative services,would provide support in
accounting,payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with
AEA guidelines.
Anna Sattler, community liaison,would lead development of the Existing and Future
Energy Costs and Markets Memorandum and the Conceptual Business and Operating
Plan. Ms. Sattler would also communicate directly with Marshall residents to ensure
that the community is informed
An AVEC project manager would lead this project.It is likely that one of AVEC’s in-house
contractors would lead the work.The project manager would be responsible for:
Obtaining site control/access and permits for the geotechnical work
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the wind resource, geotechnical,engineering,
and permitting consultants and ensuring that their deliverables are on time and within
budget
Working with AVEC’s Community Liaison to develop the Existing and Future Energy
Costs and Markets Memorandum and the Conceptual Business and Operating Plan
Working to develop the Economic and Financial Analysis
Contractors for this project would include:
Wind Resource Consultant.AVEC currently has an on-call contract with V3 Energy, LLC for
wind resource studies and reports.It is likely that V3 would work on this project. Doug
Vaught’s (owner of V3 Energy) resume is attached.V3 Energy would:
o Consult on project conceptual design and energy usage
o Advise regarding turbine layout and assist with FAA permitting
o Geotechnical consultant.AVEC would select and employ an experienced geotechnical
consultant who would:
o Conduct a geotechnical and natural hazards field study and report of the project
area
Engineering consultant.AVEC would select and employ an engineering consultant who
would:
o Provide conceptual design and engineering specifications for the wind turbines
Environmental Consultant.AVEC currently has an on-call contract with Solstice Alaska
Consulting, Inc for environmental permitting. It is likely that Solstice would work on this
project. Robin Reich’s (Solstice’s president) resume is attached. Solstice would:
o Consult with agencies
o Develop and submit permit applications
o Document mitigation requirements
Selection Process for Contractors:The geotechnical and engineering consultant selection
would be based upon technical competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost,
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 17 7/21/2010
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.
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.
Construction Funding.It may be difficult to obtain funding for construction. However, by
having the project designed and permitted, AVEC would be in to capitalize on many funding
opportunities.
Environmental Permitting.Permits would be acquired as a part of this project.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,aviation airspace
constraints,natural,and social environment, specific species, and mitigation issues. The
consultant would work openly with the agencies and conduct studies as appropriate.
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.
A met tower was installed at the proposed wind turbine site in Marshall on December 18,2008
and was in continuous operation until October 10, 2009 when an anchor failed during an
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 17 7/21/2010
exceptionally strong wind storm and the tower collapsed.An average wind speed of 6.0 m/s
was measured, with a wind power density of 332 W/m2 (Class 4 wind resource).Refer to
Marshall Wind Power Report, rev. 1 (Tab G)for more wind resource information.
Wind energy as a supplement to diesel generators for electricity generation is considered the
most viable and developable source of renewable energy for Marshall. Of other common
renewable energy sources, solar power is limited by the high cost and low capacity factor during
the high load winter months, hydro power potential has not been fully investigated in Marshall
but is not likely to be viable unless a run-of-the-river system is considered, and bio-mass is
limited by the lack of wood resources near Marshall.
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 power generations system in Marshall consists of three diesel generators: one 245
kW Cummins LTA10 (20 years old,-overhauled in 1998), one 363 kW Detroit Series 60 (5 years
old), and one 207 kW Detroit Series 60 (20 years old,overhauled in 2003).
The combined capacity at the Marshall power plant is 635 kW. The peak demand in 2009, which
was the highest demand on AVEC’s record,was 339 kW.The average demand was 149 kW.The
Marshall plant generated 14.27 kWh for each gallon of fuel consumed in 2009.
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.
Existing energy infrastructure in Marshall is primary 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.Diesel fuel
consumption for power generation in Marshall in 2009 was 91,625 gallons.
Installation of wind turbines in the community would decrease the amount of diesel fuel used
for power generation.Less usage of heating fuel for boiler operations (due to injection of excess
wind power to the thermal heat recovery loop)would occur.In addition, the diesel generator
use in Marshall would be decreased thereby decreasing generator operations and maintenance
costs and enabling generators to last longer and need fewer overhauls.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Marshall is located on the north bank of Polte Slough, north of Arbor Island, on the east bank of
the Yukon River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. It lies on the northeastern boundary of the
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. It lies at approximately 61.877780 North Latitude and -
162.081110 West Longitude.(Sec. 27, T021N, R070W, Seward Meridian.)Marshall is located in
the Bethel Recording District.The area encompasses 4.7 sq. miles of land and 0.0 sq. miles of
water.The climate of Marshall is maritime with temperatures ranging between -54 and 86 °F.
Average annual rainfall measures 16 inches. Heavy winds in the fall and winter often limit air
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 17 7/21/2010
accessibility. The Lower Yukon is ice-free from mid-June through October.
In Marshall, 28.6% of the population is below the poverty line, and the median household
income is $32,917, which is 44% less than the State’s median household income of $59,036
The electricity generation in Marshall in 2009 was 1,272,518 kWh.The load 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 could reduce the amount of diesel fuel used
for power generation and for heating.
Marshall is a stand-alone electric power system with no intertie or connection beyond the
village itself. The Marshall electricity user base is limited to 91 households and government and
commercial customers.This wind power project would lower the cost of electricity for the
residents and commercial interests in Marshall.
Like all of Alaska, Marshall is subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is
essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting.Outside lighting
greatly improves the safety of village residents.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.
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
Renewable Energy Technology.The purpose of this project is to better understand the turbine
that would be best for the community. This work could result in choosing a turbine other than
the Northern Power’s Northwind 100 kW turbine.
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated capacity factor/Anticipated annual generation.The
purpose of this work is to gather background information to plan a future alternative energy
facility. The capacity is unknown at this time. It is expected that at 100% availability the turbine
capacity factor would be 29.0%. With 90% wind turbine availability, a 26.1% capacity factor is
anticipated; however, further work would be conducted to confirm these numbers.
Anticipated barriers.The potential barriers to success of this project include weather and
logistics, permitting, and construction funding.Weather and logistics are barriers are minor and
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 17 7/21/2010
do not pose a threat to the completion of this project.Permitting, based on an initial
investigation does not appear to be a significant hurdle to completing this phase of the project.
Construction funding would be easier to obtain with design and permits in hand.
Basic integration concept/Delivery methods.Conceptual design, to be completed as a part of
this project, would detail how power from a wind turbine would be integrated and delivered
into incorporated into Marshall’s electric system.It is likely that 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 turbine, and a remote
monitoring and control system would be installed.
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 site in Marshall is noted in the Google Earth image below. It is on the high
spot of the road between the village and the airport and very near the intersection of the new
road leading to a communication tower on Mt. Pilcher (off-screen upper center). This site was
selected during a site reconnaissance visit in 2007 due to its proximity to Marshall, distance
from the airport, good exposure to the prevailing winds, village corporation ownership and ease
of access. At the present time, AVEC has a non-objection agreement for development of wind
power at the site and very enthusiastic and positive community support. Although formal site
control is not yet in hand for future turbines, problems are not anticipated.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 11 of 17 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
FFor potential future turbines, the following permits or authorizations would be required:
FAA Air Navigation Hazard Permitting.A non-hazard determination would be sought from the
Federal Aviation Administration as soon as it is determined that the wind resource is suitable
and the turbine location and type has been selected. AVEC would to this early in the process, to
ensure that enough time and resources are allocated to this effort. It is expected to take about
3 month to obtain the determination.
Endangered Species Act/Migratory Bird Treaty Act Consultation:Consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Migratory
Bird Treaty Act would be required to construct wind turbines.A finding letter stating that the
constructed project would not be expected to impact threatened or endangered species or birds
would be drafted and submitted to the USFWS once the conceptual design is completed. It is
expected that AVEC would receive concurrence from the Service within one month.
Clean Water Act (Section 401) Permit:An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)Wetlands
Permit may be needed for the geotechnical work and for the placement of turbines.Because of
the limited footprint of the geotechnical work,a “Nationwide Permit”would be sought. The
application/preconstruction notice would be submitted to the Corps once funding is assured,
and the permit would be issued prior to initiating geotechnical work in October 2011.
To permit the potential turbines, an individual wetland permit would be sought from the Corps.
The application would be submitted once conceptual design has been completed. It is expected
that the permit would be issued within 3 months.
Coastal Plan Consistency Determination-A State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management Coastal Project Questionnaire and Enforceable
Policies Consistency Determination would be prepared and submitted after the conceptual
design is completed. By statute, it would take at least 60 days to complete the permitting
process.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 12 of 17 7/21/2010
Much of the work conducted for this project would be to determine whether the environmental
issues listed above would need to be addressed.
Threatened or endangered species.The USFWS 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.A Corps Engineers Wetlands Nationwide Permit could be
needed to conduct geotechnical work and install future turbines, depending on if the work is
within wetlands.
Archaeological and historical resources.Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be conducted prior to
construction of the wind turbines.
Land development constraints.Negotiations with the Corporation to obtain a site control
would be needed once conceptual design is completed.Since the location of the met tower was
accepted by the community and since the community supports this project, it is expected that
there would not be any land issues associated with the project.
Aviation considerations.The turbines would be located away from the active airport and
outside any important operational aircraft area; however, a no hazard determination would be
sought from FAA once the project is considered feasible and the turbine location and type has
been determined.
Visual, aesthetics impacts.The met tower was functioning in the community in 2009.AVEC
would conduct community meetings to discuss visual impacts of wind turbines and how they
could be minimized, in the unlikely event that visual issues arise. Letters of support have been
received from the City of Marshall and the Ohogamiut Traditional Council.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 13 of 17 7/21/2010
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase/requested grant funding/matching
funds.AVEC plans to conduct a study, design, and permitting to assess the possibility of using
wind power in Marshall. This work would cost $$111,150. AVEC requests $117,000 from AEA.
AVEC would provide $5,850 (5% match)as a cash contribution.
Identification of other funding sources.If the wind resource proves suitable, the next phase of
this project would be final design and construction. Although it is difficult to determine without
an assessment of the resource and what type, size, and number of turbine would be needed,
AVEC expects that final design would cost $2.0 million. It is possible that the funding for this
work could come from a USDA Rural Utility Service program, the Denali Commission, or another
grant program.
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system/projected development cost of
proposed renewable energy system.The final phase of this project would be Design and
Construction and Commissioning (Phase IV). AVEC estimates that this phase could cost $2.0
million assuming installation of four 100 kW wind turbines or two 300 kW wind turbines. AVEC
would provide a 10% cash match ($200,000)for the construction 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.)
No O&M costs are expected with this project.
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
AVEC, the existing electric utility serving Marshall,is a member owned cooperative electric
utility and typically owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in
the villages it serves.
Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s).AVEC, the existing electric utility
serving Marshall,is a member-owned cooperative electric utility and typically owns and
maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it serves.
Marshall has 91 households and a health clinic, city office, tribal council office, and water
treatment plant, which purchase power from AVEC.At this point in project development, the
potential power price and rate of return on the project is unknown.
Potential power purchase/sales price/ Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project.At
this point in project development, the potential power price and rate of return on the project is
unknown. Work done under this grant would determine this.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 14 of 17 7/21/2010
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:Computer modeling predicts that two NW100 wind
turbines could decrease diesel use by 27,500 gal/yr and 550,000 gallons over project lifetime of
twenty years (based on preliminary numbers and 80% turbine availability).This project could
save $99,000 during its first full year of operation (expected to be 2014).
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional
annual revenue streams.Because this project is in the feasibility and concept design stage,
revenue and incentives are unknown.
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
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, tribe, school district) 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 communities, like Russian Mission, 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 to plan and budget for important
community infrastructure and programs.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 15 of 17 7/21/2010
Marshall 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 and is very 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.
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:There are no known operational issues.
Operating costs:AVEC’s existing NW 100-A 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-B model requires only
one maintenance visit each year. Therefore, the two new turbines at Marshall would require a
combined annual maintenance cost of $3,500.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 16 of 17 7/21/2010
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.
AVEC is ready to move on this project, especially since the wind report is completed.AVEC
would seek contractors to install complete the geotechnical work once the grant agreement is in
place.Geotechnical work would occur before winter.Analysis of current cost of energy and
future market,the economic and financial analyses,the conceptual design,and permitting
would occur during the winter.
The met tower was installed using Denali Commission grant funding in December 2008 and ten
months of data were collected when the tower collapsed during a significantly strong wind
storm in October 2009V3 Energy, LLC prepared a Marshall Wind Power Report in August 2010
that summarized the measured wind resource and addressed predicted turbine power recovery.
SECTION 8–LOCAL SUPORT
Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include
letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project.
The community of Marshall supports this project and is interested in moving this forward with
the installation of turbines.The City of Marshall and the Ohogamiut Traditional Council have
provided letters of support for a wind project in the community (Tab D). Maserculiq, Inc
provided a parcel to place the met tower and wrote a letter of support for this project (Tab D).
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 would make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form –GrantBudget3.doc
AVEC plans to conduct a feasibility analysis, resources assessment,conceptual design, and
permitting to assess the possibility of using wind power in Marshall. This work would cost
$117,000. AVEC requests $111,150from AEA. AVEC would provide $5,850as cash contribution.
A detail of the grant budget follows. Also see Tab C.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 17 of 17 7/21/2010
Milestone or Task Grant Funds AVEC Cash
Match TOTALS
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation $1,900 $100 $2,000
2.Detailed resource assessment $0 $0 $0
3.Identification and resolution of land issues $4,750 $250 $5,000
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy and
future market $9,500 $500 $10,000
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses $4,750 $250 $5,000
6.Conceptual business & operations plan $1,900 $100 $2,000
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate (includes
geotechnical work)$78,850 $4,150 $83,000
8.Permitting and environmental analysis $6,650 $350 $7,000
9.Final report and recommendations $2,850 $150 $3,000
TOTALS $111,150 $5,850 $117,000
Once conceptual design and permitting is completed, AVEC would seek funding to construct
turbines in Marshall. AVEC would provide a 10% cash match to any obtained funding.
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
Marshall Wind Feasibility
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.70% (wind speed > 3.5 m/s)
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 815 kW (1x245 kW, 1x363 kW, 1x207 kW)
iii.Generator/boilers/other type diesel
iv.Age of generators/boilers/other 207 and 245 kW-1994, 363 kW-2005
v.Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 14.27 kWh/gal (2009 AVEC Operations data)
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
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]1,307,910 kWh
ii.Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]91,625 gal
Other
iii.Peak Load 339 kW (2009 AVEC Operations data)
iv.Average Load 139 kW (2009 AVEC Operations data)
v.Minimum Load
vi.Efficiency 14.27 kWh/gal (2009 AVEC Operations data)
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]
Wind, 200 kW capacity expected (NW100 turbines)
b)Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i.Electricity [kWh]392,500 kWh
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 $2.0 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 27,502 gallons
ii.Heat
iii.Transportation
b)Current price of displaced fuel $3.04 (ISER, 2010)
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 0.75
Payback (years)17.3
Tab C
Budget Form
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round IV Grant Budget Form 7-21-10
MARSHALL WIND FEASIBILITY
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
1.Project scoping and contractor solicitation Sept 15, 2011 $1,900 $100 Cash $2,000
2.Detailed resource assessment (includes
monitoring and reporting)
N/A $0 $0 0 $0
3.Identification and resolution of land issues June 1, 2010 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000
4.Detailed analysis of current cost of energy
and future market
Mar 30, 2012 $9,500 $500 Cash $10,000
5.Detailed economic and financial analyses Aug 30, 2012 $4,750 $250 Cash $5,000
6.Conceptual business & operations plan Oct 31, 2012 $1,900 $100 Cash $2,000
7.Conceptual design and costs estimate
(includes geotech work)
Nov 1, 2012 $78,850 $4,150 Cash $83,000
8.Permitting and environmental analysis Dec 31, 2012 $6,650 $350 Cash $7,000
9.Final report and recommendations Dec 31, 2012 $2,850 $150 Cash $3,000
TOTALS $111,150 $5,850 $117,000
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $$4,000 $4,000
Travel & Per Diem $$1,500 $1,500
Equipment $$$
Materials & Supplies $$350 $350
Contractual Services $111,150 $$111,150
Construction Services $$$
Other $$$
TOTALS $111,150 $5,850 $117,000
Tab D
Letters of Support
Tab E
Authorized Signers Form
Tab F
Authority
Tab G
Additional Materials
V3 Energy, LLC 1 Marshall Wind Power Report Report by: Douglas Vaught, P.E., V3 Energy, LLC, Eagle River, Alaska Date of Report: August 1 1 , 2010 (revision 1) Contents Summary Information ................................................................................................................................... 2 Wind Turbine Performance .......................................................................................................................... 2 Marshall Turbine Performance Estimate ...................................................................................................... 3 Wind Farm ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Village Load ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Marshall Wind Farm Performance ............................................................................................................ 4 Marshall Wind Resource ............................................................................................................................... 7 2BData Quality Control ................................................................................................................................. 9 Wind Speed Data Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9 Extreme Winds ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Wind Roses.............................................................................................................................................. 11
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 2 Wind Shear .............................................................................................................................................. 12 5BProbability Distribution Function ............................................................................................................ 13 Air Temperature and Density .................................................................................................................. 13 Speed-Temperature Scatterplot ......................................................................................................... 14 Turbulence .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Summary Information AVEC has proposed construction of wind turbines near the village of Marshall to augment t he diesel ge-nerators and create a wind-diesel power system. Although abbreviated by a failed anchor that led to collapse of the met tower, the Marshall wind study indicates a Class 3 to 4 wind resource with accept a-ble turbulence characteristics and extrem e wind probability for wind turbine operation. Marshall Meteorological Tower Data Sy nopsis Data start date December 18, 2008 Data end date October 12, 2009 (9.8 months data) Wind power class Class 3 (fair) to Class 4 (good) Wind speed average (30 meters) 5.97 m/s measured, estimate 6.3 m/s annual Maximum 10 -min average wind speed 30.8 m/s Maximum wind gust 37.8 m/s (January 2009) IEC 61400 -1 3rd ed. e xtreme winds Class II (note: 10 months data) Wind power density (30 meters) 343 W/m2 Weibull distribution parameters k = 1.62, c = 6.72 m/s Roughness Class 0.90 (fallow field) Power law exponent 0.138 (moderate wind shear) Frequency of calms (3.5 m/s threshold) 29% Mean Turbulence Intensity 0.095 (IEC 61400 -1 3 rd ed. turbulence category C) Wind Turbine Performance 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) and practical limitations of generator weight and rated output. For these reasons and others, a wind turbine in a low power class wind regime may still produce sufficient energy to warrant installation of turbines. A simplistic consideration of possible turbine output in Marshall is to model power output of a particular turbine with mean of monthly means data collected and extrapolating to the turbine hub height. Note
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 3 the this analysis is based on raw data with no synthetic data inse rted 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 rated output, 21 meter rotor diameter). Marshall Turbine Performance Estimate 100% availability 90% availability 80% availability Hub height Wind speed Capacity factor Production Capacity factor Production Capacity factor Production Turbine (m) (m/s) (%) MWh/yr (%) MWh/yr (%) MWh/yr NW100/21 37 6.42 28.3 254.9 25.5 229.4 22.6 203.9 Wind Farm Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) has proposed installation of two Northern Power Northwind 100 wind turbines (21 meter rotor B model) to create a wind-diesel hybrid power system for the village of Marshall. HOMER software was used to create simulation model for Marshall. Village Load A Marshall hourly load profile was synthesized using the Alaska village load calculator Excel spreadsheet developed by the Alaska Energy Authority several years ago. The results were adjusted slightly to match the actual village average and peak loads of Marshall documented by AVEC in their 2008 annual power generation report. The result is a virtual Marshall village with a 144 kW average load, 232 peak load and average daily power usage of 3,466 kWh/day. Seasonal, daily and DMap profiles of the Marshall virtual electric load are shown below. Seasonal profile Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann050100150200250Load (kW)Seasonal Profile maxdaily highmeandaily lowmin
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 4 Daily profile and DMap Alaska v illage calculator load details Marshall Wind Farm Performance HOMER software was used to estimate wind turbine production, wind penetration and fuel displace-ment fo r wind power input from operation of one and two NW100/21 turbines in the Marshall wind re-gime measured by the met tower. HOMER modeling may in some cases yield lower production est i-mates than Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) methods which consider only performance of the turbine dis-placing fuel usage from diesel generators supplying essentially an infinite load. HOMER considers the dynamics of the actual village load and the reality that turbines will on occasion generate more power than can be absorbed by the village electric load. During these times, excess energy must be diverted to a secondary use, such as a thermal heat load, or turbine operation must be curtailed. 0 6 12 18 24050100150200Load (kW)Daily ProfileHour050100150200250300JanFebMar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMWh/monthOtherCommunicationsHealth ClinicCity/GovernmentPublic Water SystemCommercialSchoolResidential
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 5 Wind turbine production estimates , 100% turbine availability No. of Turbines System Wind Pene-tration Wind Pro-duction Genset Fuel Dis-placed System Excess Energy System Excess Energy Heating fuel equiv. Turbine (%) (MWh/yr) (gal) (MWh/yr) (%) (gal) NW100/21 1 20.2 254.9 15,614 10.2 0.8 408 2 40.3 509.8 23,976 133.6 9.6 5,344 Notes: 1. Marshall wind resource adjusted to annual 2. Turbine hub height 37 meters 3. HOMER modeling assumes 100% turbine availability 4. Displaced fuel for electrical generation only 5. Excess electricity to secondary thermal heating load 6. Heating fuel equivalent for system excess energy dump; 25 kWh/gal equivalent 7. HOMER model operating reserves: 10% current load, 50% wind power output 8. Diesel generator efficiency data from 2008 AVEC annual generation report 9. Minimum 50 kW diesel generator loading; all excess energy to secondary load Wind turbine production estimates, 80% turbine availability No. of Turbines System A v-erage Pe-netration Wind Pro-duction Genset Fuel Dis-placed System Excess Energy System Excess Energy Heating fuel equiv. Turbine (%) (MWh/yr) (gal) (MWh/yr) (%) (gal) NW100/21 1 16.2 203.9 12,491 8.2 0.6 326 2 32.2 407.8 19,181 106.9 7.7 4,275 Notes: 1. Marshall wind resource adjusted to annual 2. Turbine hub height 37 meters 3. Turbine availability adjusted to 80% 4. Displaced fuel for electrical generation only 5. Excess electricity to secondary thermal heating load 6. Heating fuel equivalent for system excess energy dump; 25 kWh/gal equivalent 7. HOMER model operating reserves: 10% current load, 50% wind power output 8. Diesel generator efficiency data from 2008 AVEC annual generation report 9. Minimum 50 kW diesel generator loading; all excess energy to secondary load
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 6 HOMER modeled system interaction 1 HOMER modeled system interaction 2 Jul 26 Jul 27050100150200 AC Primary LoadNorthwind100/21RevBGenerator 3 PowerExcess ElectricityJul 28 Jul 29050100150200 AC Primary LoadNorthwind100/21RevBGenerator 3 PowerExcess Electricity
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 7 Marshall Wind Resource A met tower was installed at the proposed wind turbine site in Marshall on December 18, 2008 and was in continuous operation until October 10, 2009 when an anchor failed during an ex ceptionally strong wind storm and the tower collapsed. The tower was not replaced as it is felt that sufficient data was collected during the ten month data measurement period to adequately characterize the site. With the data on hand, an average wind speed of 6.0 m/s was measured, with a wind power density of 332 W/m 2 (Class 4 wind resource). Because the two missing months are mid -October to mid-December, typically the windiest period of time of the year, the actual annual wind speed average and wind power density may well be higher than reported here. Other aspects of the wind resource also are promising for wind power development. By IEC 61400 -1 3 rd edition classification, Marshall is category II-c or III-c, indicating low turbulence (mean TI at 15 m/s = 0.095) and moderate to low 50 year extreme winds. The latter measure is more difficult to quantify with only ten months of data, but the site clearly is not energetic enough to be IEC extreme wind Class I. The NW100/21 is designed for IEC II-B sites, so the Marshall site is well within the design parameters of the turbine. Icing has also not proven to be a significant issue in the met tower data. 11BGeneral Site Information Site name/number Marshall/datalogger site 0050 Site Description East of village on prominent ridge along road to airport Latitude/longitude N 61° 52’ 32”, W 162° 3’ 58” (WGS 84) Site elevation 63 meters (200 ft) Datalogger/modem type NRG Symphonie/no modem Tower type NRG 30 -meter tall tower, 152 mm (6 in) diameter 10BTower Sensor Information Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation 1 NRG #40 C anemometer 30 m (A) 0.765 0.35 270°, west 2 NRG #40 C anemometer 30 m (B) 0.765 0.35 180°, south 3 NRG #40 C anemometer 22 m 0.765 0.35 270°, west 7 NRG #200P wind vane 29 m 0.351 023 270°, west 8 NRG #200P wind vane 20 m 0.351 0 180°, south 9 NRG #110S Temp C 2 m 0.136 -86.383 north
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 8 Test Site Location Topographic Map Google Earth Map
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 9 2BData Quality Control Data was filtered manually to remove obvious icing data. Typically, anemometer icing is identified by non-variant data readings at the sensor offset values, a standard deviation of zero, and temperature near or below freezing. Wind vane icing is identified by non-variant readings, a standard deviation of zero , and almost always occurs in conjunction with anemometer icing. The wind data from Marshall indicates surprisingly few icing events, especially compared to the heavier icing measured down river on the met towers installed in Pitka’s Point and Saint Mary’s. Sensor Units Height Possible Records Valid Records Recovery Rate (%) Speed 30 m A m/s 30 m 42,990 41,855 97.4 Speed 30 m B m/s 30 m 42,990 41,830 97.3 Speed 22 m m/s 22 m 42,990 41,962 97.6 Direction 29 m ° 29 m 42,990 41,017 95.4 Direction 20 m ° 20 m 42,990 40,937 95.2 Temperature °C 42,990 42,752 99.5 Wind Speed Data Summary Measured wind speeds in Marshall are rather high for an inland site and are promising for wind power development. Variable Speed 30 m A Speed 30 m B Speed 22 m Measurement height (m) 30.0 30.0 22.0 Mean wind speed (m/s) 5.98 6.02 5.75 MMM wind speed (m/s) 6.16 6.21 5.91 Median wind speed (m/s) 5.40 5.40 5.20 Min wind speed (m/s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 Max 10 min avg wind speed (m/s) 28.8 30.8 26.6 Max gust wind speed (m/s) 35.2 37.8 34.8 Weibull k 1.63 1.62 1.64 Weibull c (m/s) 6.68 6.72 6.42 Mean power density (W/m²) 332 343 294 MMM power density (W/m²) 352 366 309 Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 2,908 3,003 2,572 MMM energy content (kWh/m²/yr) 3,081 3,203 2,708 Energy pattern factor 2.40 2.44 2.39 Frequency of calms (%) 29.1 28.7 31.0 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.898 0.902 0.898 Diurnal pattern strength 0.075 0.078 0.086 Hour of peak wind speed 17 17 16
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 10 Monthly time series Wind speed daily profiles Extreme Winds The calculation of extreme wind probability generally requires more than ten months of data to be co n-sidered acceptable, but nonetheless, extreme wind predictions are shown below. Note that the pre-dicted 50 year ten-minute average wind speed of 38.2 m/s classifies the site as IEC Class II (International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1, 3 rd edition), although with more data a calculation of Class III probability is likely (based on data from other similar Alaska sites with Class 4 winds). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0246810Mean Wind Speed (m/s)Seasonal Wind Speed Profile Speed 30 m ASpeed 30 m BSpeed 22 m
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 11 Marshall RETURN YR 10 min average, m/s 3 sec gust, m/s 30 meter B anem. 2 27.5 34.5 10 32.9 41.3 15 34.2 43.0 30 36.5 45.9 50 38.2 48.1 100 40.5 51.0 Wind Roses Winds at the Marshall met tower test site are primarily east -northeast, north-north west with occasional winds from south-southeast (wind frequency rose), with the strongest winds east -northeast (mean value rose). The power density rose indicates that the power producing winds at the site are very predom i-nately east-northeast . Should multiple wind turbines be sited, they should be oriented approximately north-northeast to south-southwest to provide good exposure to ENE and SSE winds and avoid tower shadowing. Note that a wind threshold of 3.5 m/s was selected for the definition of calm w inds. This wind speed represents the cut-in wind speed of the Northern Power NW100/21 wind turbine. Other wind turbines in this size range have cut-in wind speeds of about 4 m/s. With a 3.5 m/s wind speed threshold, the Marshall met tower site experienced 29 percent calm conditions during the test period. Wind Frequency Rose (29 m vane) 13BMean Value Rose
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 12 Total value (power density) rose Scatterplot (30 m A power density) Wind Shear The power law exponent was calculated at 0.138 for all wind directions, indicating moderate wind shear at the Marshall met tower test site. The practical application of this data is that a lower turbine tower height may be possible at this location should wind power development occur, but of course greater energy power generation will occur at higher hub heights.
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 13 5BProbability Distribution Function The probability distribution function (PDF) provides a visual indication of measured wind speeds in one meter per second or smaller “bins”. Note that most wind t urbines do not begin to generate power until the wind speed at hub height reaches 3.5 to 4 m/s , known as the “cut-in” wind speed and most are de-signed to stop generating power at 25 m/s. The black line in the graph is a best fit Weibull distribution: k=1.62, c=6.72 m/s. The PDF of wind data collected in Marshall indicates a relatively normal wind distri-bution or Weibull curve for wind power sites with very minimal high wind events. Air Temperature and Density During the measurement period, Marshall had an average temperature of 0.7° C. The minimum record-ed temperature during the measurement period was -31.1° C (February, 2009) and the maximum tem-perature was 28.2 ° C (July, 2009). Because of Marshall’s cold winter temperatures, t he average air density of 1.281 kg/m 3 is approximately five percent higher than the standard air density of 1.218 kg/m3 (1 4.6° C standard temperature and 100.5 kPa pressure) at 63 m elevation, indicating that Marshall has denser than standard air, resulting in improved turbine performance as compared to a turbine in a similar wind regime in standard atmo s-pheric conditions.
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 14 Air Temperature Boxplot Speed-Temperature Scatterplot A scatterplot of wind speed versus temperature is of interest in order to assess possible cold temper a-ture turbine restrictions. Note that temperatures colder than -30 °C are apparently quite uncommon in Marshall and when they do occur, winds are minimal. A wind turbine rated to -40°C would be ideal; one rated to -30°C acceptable, and one rated to -20°C not acceptable.
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 15 Turbulence Turbulence intensity (TI) at the Marshall met tower site during the measurement period was acceptable with a mean TI at 15 m/s of 0.09 5 and a representative TI at 15 m/s of 0.131 (30 m A sensor, all sectors). This classifies the site as turbulence category “C” by International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400 -1 3 rd edition (2005) criteria (note that Category C is the lowest classification of turbulence for wind power development , indicating low turbulence at the site ). In the TI wind rose, one can see low turbulence for the predominate wind ENE wind direction and higher turbulence from the less common NNE and S, SW and W wind directions. Turbulence Intensity, all wind sectors Turbulence Intensity, ENE wind sector
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 16 Turbulence Intensity Rose Turbulence Table Bin Bin Endpoints Records Standard Representative Midpoint Lower Upper In Mean Deviation Peak (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin TI of TI TI TI 1 0.5 1.5 204 0.451 0.157 0.652 0.929 2 1.5 2.5 393 0.239 0.137 0.415 0.800 3 2.5 3.5 531 0.158 0.097 0.282 0.742 4 3.5 4.5 559 0.126 0.075 0.222 0.615 5 4.5 5.5 538 0.105 0.056 0.177 0.462 6 5.5 6.5 569 0.097 0.044 0.153 0.345 7 6.5 7.5 510 0.096 0.039 0.145 0.338 8 7.5 8.5 564 0.084 0.035 0.129 0.250 9 8.5 9.5 521 0.082 0.033 0.124 0.221 10 9.5 10.5 455 0.085 0.031 0.125 0.290 11 10.5 11.5 378 0.084 0.031 0.124 0.289 12 11.5 12.5 356 0.082 0.028 0.117 0.210 13 12.5 13.5 258 0.084 0.029 0.121 0.209 14 13.5 14.5 199 0.081 0.024 0.112 0.161 15 14.5 15.5 171 0.083 0.022 0.111 0.160
Marshall Wind Power Report , rev. 1 V3 Energy, LLC 17 16 15.5 16.5 89 0.079 0.021 0.106 0.162 17 16.5 17.5 70 0.075 0.016 0.096 0.124 18 17.5 18.5 45 0.071 0.017 0.093 0.110 19 18.5 19.5 24 0.068 0.017 0.089 0.101 20 19.5 20.5 10 0.082 0.020 0.107 0.122 21 20.5 21.5 11 0.061 0.010 0.073 0.073 22 21.5 22.5 2 0.067 0.017 0.089 0.079