HomeMy WebLinkAboutYukon River DS_Grant_ApplicationALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY
P.o. BOX 3222 -193 OTTO STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
(360) 385-1733 -(800) 982-0136
FAX (360) 385-5177
September 15, 2010
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Re: Proposal to AEA Renewable Energy Fund, Round 4: "Yukon River Debris Mitigation Study"
Dear Sir or Madam:
Alaska Power & Telephone is pleased to submit the attached proposal, IIYukon River Debris Mitigation
Study". The Project Manager for AP& T is Benjamin Beste. Mr. Beste is the Project Manager for the
Yukon River Hydrokinetic Project operating in Eagle, AK.
As President and CEO, I affirm that AP&T, as an electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience
and necessity under AS 42.05, is eligible to apply for this funding.
AP& T is committed to supporting this project as outlined in the statement of work and budget, and
AP& T has the necessary infrastructure to manage and support this project.
AP& T is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including existing federal credit and
federa I tax obligations.
If you need additional information, please feel free to call my office at (360 385-1733 x120.
Robert S. Grim
President and C 0 of AP& T
Renewable Energy Fund Round IV
Grant Application
AEA 11-005 Application Page 1 of 11 7/21/2010
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms
are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-IV.html
Grant Application Form GrantApp4.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of
information required to submit a complete application.
Applicants should use the form to assure all information is
provided and attach additional information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet4.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by
applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget Form GrantBudget4.doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs
by milestone and a summary of funds available and
requested to complete the work for which funds are being
requested.
Grant Budget Form
Instructions
GrantBudgetInstructions4.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.
• If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for
each project.
• Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones
and grant budget for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
• If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your
submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
• Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted
to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory
exemptions apply.
• All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations
are made to the legislature.
• In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary
company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want
information is to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 2 of 11 7/21/2010
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If
the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in
accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request.
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Type of Entity:
Power and communication utility
Mailing Address
PO Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Physical Address
193 Otto Street, Port Townsend, WA
Telephone
360-385-1733
Fax
360-385-5177
Email
ben.b@aptalaska.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name
Benjamin Beste
Title
Project Manager/ Mechanical Engineer
Mailing Address
PO Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone
360-302-1379
Fax
206-260-7085
Email
ben.b@aptalaska.com
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 3 of 11 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)
Yukon River Debris Mitigation Project
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project.
The project studies will be performed in the Yukon River at Eagle, AK. The project will benefit the city of
Eagle and nearby Eagle Village, AK. Knowledge gained by this project will help any and all Alaska
communities that are considering the use of hydrokinetic generating equipment.
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
Wind Biomass or Biofuels
Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy
Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas
Heat Recovery from existing sources x Hydrokinetic
Solar Storage of Renewable
Other (Describe)
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
x Reconnaissance x Design and Permitting
Feasibility x Construction and Commissioning
x Conceptual Design
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project.
The project will be a study of the phenomena of river debris with an emphasis on developing
technologies and protocols to mitigate the impact of the debris on the operation of hydrokinetic
turbines, in general, and specifically the hydrokinetic turbine operating in the Yukon River at Eagle, AK.
The Yukon River Hydrokinetic Project [YRHP] is a multiyear pilot study being performed by AP&T to
determine the viability of hydrokinetic technology in a remote isolated Alaskan community. The YRHP
originally funded by the Denali Commission is currently operating from funds granted by the Alaskan
Center for Energy and Power [ACEP].
The YRHP will be operated for two more years through the operating seasons of 2011 and 2012.
Recognizing that debris mitigation is a critical issue to the success of the hydrokinetic concept AP&T will
contract the University of Alaska-Fairbanks [UAF] to perform debris studies during the 2011 and 2012
operating seasons and analyzing and evaluating mitigating techniques from the data collected in the
studies. Please refer to the UAF Statement of Work [SOW] attached for more details.
During the 2010 operating season a debris boom was deployed upstream of the hydrokinetic device.
This first generation debris mitigation system [DMS] failed to perform but lessons were learned and
AP&T along with it contractors will manufacture a second generation DMS-2 through the winter of 2010
that will be deployed with the hydrokinetic device at the beginning of the 2011 operating season. This
new debris system will be designed primarily to deflect the surface debris. Subsurface debris moving
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 4 of 11 7/21/2010
through the water column also needs to be deflected and the results of the UAF study will be used to
upgrade the DMS-2 over the winter of 2011. The upgraded third generation system DMS-3 will be
deployed in 2012 and UAF will complete its studies with the collection of data through the 2012
operating season and its evaluation.
If feasible the hydrokinetic unit will be deployed in the years subsequent to the pilot study period. If
this is the case the results of the UAF study will be utilized to determine if new improvements should be
made to the debris mitigation system.
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.)
Understanding and developing techniques for river debris handling and management will reduce the
operating efforts currently associated with hydrokinetic devices. These reductions will improve the cost
effectiveness of hydrokinetic devices allowing them to be used successfully as electricity resources in the
communities where they are located. The application of hydrokinetic technology is very much a new
science at the current time and studies and experiments are being carried out around the world to
determine the best technologies. Energy generation from rivers is very promising for the small
communities in Alaska in that it could be a very effective alternate resource to supply electricity and
reduce dependency on expensive fossil fuels.
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 funds will be used for research, analysis and design for the construction and implementation of
debris management technology. The work will be focused on the current hydrokinetic pilot study being
performed by AP&T on the Yukon River at the City of Eagle, AK. AP&T engineering and operational
resources will work with UAF in this effort.
AP&T will contribute the use of the YRHP facilities for the duration of this project.
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. $1,190,876
2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $0
2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $1,190,876
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)
$1,190,876
2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $TBD
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.)
$TBD
The benefit from this project will be dependent upon the reduction in O&M and reduced outages that
are caused by the movement of river debris. The understanding gained by the debris study will allow the
YRHP and future hydrokinetic projects to perform more effectively while operating.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 5 of 11 7/21/2010
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and
references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend
to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from
AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Benjamin Beste, an AP&T engineer will be the overall project manager. Mr. Beste currently manages the
YRHP. Dr. Jerome Johnson will manage the effort at UAF. Dr. Johnson is the Director of the Hydrokinetic
Research Center at the Institute of Northern Engineering at UAF.
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.)
The schedule is outlined in the attached SOW. As stated above UAF would perform data collection
during 2011 and 2012 and would perform analysis between the operating seasons.
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.)
Please refer to the attached SOW. As discussed, AP&T is committed to the operation of a hydrokinetic
device in the Yukon River through the operating season of 2012. This pilot study project is being
performed to assist in determining whether hydrokinetic devices can be successfully operated in Alaskan
rivers at remote locations. Operating experience in 2010 dictates that a more elaborate debris boom be
designed, manufactured and deployed for the 2011 operating season. AP&T will perform the design and
have the boom manufactured over the winter of 2010.
It is also recognized that the debris boom will only provide a partial solution to debris mitigation. The
boom at best will be able to deflect the floating debris around the hydrokinetic device. It is expected
that surface debris includes a majority of the debris moving down the river however it is known from
experience that there is also a great deal of subsurface neutrally buoyant debris moving down the river
as well. What is not understood is what the best method for mitigating this subsurface debris is. The
intent of this project would be to study debris movement in the river and develop technologies that can
be deployed to deflect all of the debris, surface and subsurface, around the hydrokinetic device.
If funding is awarded UAF will be contracted to perform these studies.
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project.
Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to
complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major
equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel,
contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Please refer to the SOW. In addition to the staff and labor forces of AP&T and UAF project participants
will include the hydrokinetic turbine manufacturer New Energy Corporation [NEC] and the primary
contractor for the hydrokinetic project Alaskan Battery Systems [ABS]. AP&T currently has a contract
with ABS for their support of the YRHP through 2011. AP&T with engineering offices in Port Townsend,
WA will work with UAF in the research and design of new project technology. NEC and ABS will assist
AP&T in the design of the technology and ABS located in Fairbanks, AK will be key in the manufacturing
and implementation of new technology associated with the project.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 6 of 11 7/21/2010
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
The project will be monitored by the project manager. Status of the project will be reported to the
project manger by the participants and quarterly reports will be prepared and submitted to the
Authority.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
One of the key aspects of this project is to reduce the risk associated with river debris and its impact on
operating hydrokinetic turbines.
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
• Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA.
• The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake
with grant funds.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant
budget form for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for
an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases
are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available
for the market to be served by your project.
This project does not introduce a new energy resource. This project will develop technology that will
augment a hydrokinetic energy resource that was put into service in 2010. Specifically the project will
develop technology that can be applied in conjunction with operating hydrokinetic turbines to reduce
outages that result from river debris.
The hydrokinetic system that was installed on the Yukon River in 2010 successfully operated but
generation output was severely impacted by the onslaught of river debris. The successful operation of
the hydrokinetic turbine proves that this alternative energy source is a viable alternative to fossil fuels
being consumed for diesel generation. It was demonstrated that the new turbine and generator require
very low levels of maintenance during normal operations. However during periods when the river has
heavy drift turbine operation is in jeopardy. Debris in the drifts that is sufficient in size and/or quantity
can jamb the turbine preventing its operation. This problem is significant and practical solutions must be
found for hydrokinetic turbines to be a viable generation system components.
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 electrical system in Eagle is isolated from the grid. The system serves the communities of Eagle and
Eagle Village. In 2010 a 25kW hydrokinetic turbine was deployed into the Yukon River to operate in
conjunction with the existing 300kW diesel powerplant. The electrical load fluctuates daily and
seasonally. Normally only one of the 100kW diesel generators is required to provide power. During the
operation of the hydrokinetic turbine the new turbine was providing 20-25% of the electrical power.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 7 of 11 7/21/2010
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.
The potential of the hydrokinetic turbine is to be available to provide generation between 20-40% of the
load during the day. Outages caused by debris in the river are significant as they result in an outage on
the hydrokinetic unit that may range from a few hours to weeks. Studying the debris issue and
developing mitigation techniques that can protect the hydrokinetic turbine will result in reduction in
debris related outages allowing the system to take better advantage of the renewable energy resource.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers.
Currently the energy market is driven by the cost of maintaining and operating diesel generating
equipment. Successfully operating the hydrokinetic device in the system will reduce the operating costs
of the diesel plant. However successful operation of the hydrokinetic device requires that the device can
operate maintenance free for the majority of the time. It is essential that hydrokinetic turbine be able to
operate safely during periods when debris load in the river is higher than normal.
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
The YRHP is a pilot study being performed by AP&T to determine the viability of hydrokinetic generation
working in unison with diesel generation in a remote system not tied to the grid. The YRHP utilizes a
barge mounted hydrokinetic turbine with a nameplate rating of 25kW. The electrical utility in Eagle is
normally supplied generation from diesel engine powered generator located at the powerplant. The
diesel powerplant has three engine sets rated nominally 100kW each. For a majority of the time only one
of these engines is required to meet the load on the utility. There are periods of high demand where two
engines will be required. During the operating season of 2010 the output from the single hydrokinetic
supplied 20-25% of the generation required to meet the load on the utility. The performance of the
hydrokinetic however was significantly impacted by the presence of debris in the river. During high debris
events the hydrokinetic turbine was either removed from service to prevent damage or damaged
resulting in a very high total seasonal outage period. Out of the potential of 20 weeks of operation the
hydrokinetic operated less than two. There were other conditions that impacted outage time but debris
was by far the highest impact.
Developing and deploying a debris mitigation system that can deflect the majority of the debris will
dramatically reduce the outage time associated with the operating the hydrokinetic device.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 8 of 11 7/21/2010
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.
There are no property issues/conflicts associated with this project.
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
Permits for the YRHP are in place there is, at this time, no foreseeable requirement at this time for
additional permits.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
• Threatened or Endangered species
• Habitat issues
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers
It is not foreseeable, at this time, that this project will add any issues to the existing YRHP.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any
previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of
their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, 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
Refer to the SOW which includes a detailed breakdown of costs.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 9 of 11 7/21/2010
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.)
The costs for performing the tasks of the project are included in the attached SOW. There are no specific
O&M costs associated with this project. However one of the goals associated with this project is the
understanding of how best to mitigate the debris issues associated with operating a hydrokinetic turbine
in an Alaskan river resulting in a reduction in O&M costs associated with the turbines operation. In 2010
the 25kW hydrokinetic turbine was put into service after commissioning the unit in late June there was
an expected operat8ng season of 12 weeks. However as a result of heavy debris damaging the turbine it
was out of service for 5 weeks. With repairs the unit operated for only 1 week until again it was taken out
of service after a debris caused outage and even though the turbine was serviceable the manpower to
reconnect the turbine was unavailable. The associated O&M costs for dealing with the debris and the
loss of generation resulting from the subsequent outages were extremely large. Learning how to deal
with debris in a cost effective manner is critical to the success of the hydrokinetic 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
There are no power purchase/sale issues associated with this project. The power generated by the YRHP
supplies the local AP&T electrical system. The system generates electricity for consumption by the utility
customers in the Eagle and Eagle Village communities.
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
In addition to the worksheet attached please refer to the SOW which outlines project costs.
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
The benefits both economic and public are tied to the development of effective debris mitigation
technology that will allow the hydrokinetic device to operate unencumbered. The reduction in O&M
costs and the increase in production resulting from reduced debris impact on operations are critical to
the success of the hydrokinetic project. This is the case in Eagle where AP&T is performing their pilot
study. Also the technologies developed for the Yukon River Project in Eagle will be applicable to al other
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application Round IV
AEA11-005 Grant Application Page 10 of 11 7/21/2010
locations where hydrokinetic devices are being considered including tidal applications.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
• Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
• How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project
• Identification of operational issues that could arise.
• A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems
that may be require to continue operation
• Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
This project which will be a two year study of river debris and in itself will not be sustained. However the
results of this project will be used to improve the sustainability of the Yukon River Hydrokinetic Project
and they will also be used in the development of future hydrokinetic projects in Alaska both river and
tidal.
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.
AP&T has deployed and operated a 25kW hydrokinetic device into the Yukon River and this will be the
focus of the debris mitigation study.
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 residents in the community of Eagle are very interested in the opportunities that the YRHP might
provide. They understand the concept of the hydrokinetic project and recognize the advantages of
generation from sources other than diesel. The residents also recognize the challenges associated with
the movement of debris in the river, most have to deal with it themselves from time to time. Recognizing
that debris management is critical to the success of the YRHP many residents have freely participated by
assisting the operating personnel in the well being of the YRHP and providing ideas in how to solve the
problem of debris.
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
Please refer to the attached SOW which contains a completed Grant 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
UAF and AP&T define 2nd generation diversion device and
instrumentation requirements
$34,300 $ $
Project start up meeting
On Project Award
(OPA) $16,000 $ $
Order equipment and instrumentation OPA+1 $317,520 $ $
UAF and AP&T on construction and instrumentation
of diversion device
OPA+2 $55,420 $ $
Install instrumentation
On delivery of
Inst/Eq (ODIE)+1 $107,618 $ $
Measure data on hydraulic and debris ODIE+1.1 $90,447 $ $
Analyze year 1 hydraulic & debris interaction model 2/2012 $85,764 $ $
UAF and AP&T define 3rd generation diversion
device
3/2012 $31,520 $ $
Prepare for year 2 modifications of diversion device 6/2012 $187,086 $ $
Measure performance of improved diversion device 8/2012 $75,242 $ $
Analyze year 2 2/2013 $116,684 $ $
Synthesize results from year 1 and year 2 studies
issue final reports
6/2013 $73,275 $ $
TOTALS $1,190,876 $
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $534,580 $ $
Travel & Per Diem $184,280 $ $
Equipment $248,319 $ $
Materials & Supplies $161,610 $ $
Contractual Services $26,550 $ $
Construction Services $0 $ $
Other $35,546 $ $
TOTALS $1,190,876 $ $
Renewable Energy Fund Round 4
Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet
RFA AEA11-005 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-21-10
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. May into October [ice free period]
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 Railbelt 1
i. Number of generators/boilers/other
grid, leave this section blank)
one hydrokinetic/ three diesels
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 25kW [hydrokinetic]/ (1)80kW, (2)110kW [diesels]
iii. Generator/boilers/other type hydrokinetic/diesel
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other one year [hydrokinetic], <5yr on current diesels
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other TBD [hydrokinetic], typical [diesels]
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor TBD [hydrokinetic], [diesels]
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor TBD [hydrokinetic], [diesels]
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] 650,000
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 48,000
Other
iii. Peak Load 120kW
iv. Average Load 75kW
v. Minimum Load 50kW
vi. Efficiency TBD
vii. Future trends TBD [possible addition of hydrokinetic generators to reduce load on diesel
units]
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]
Hydrokinetic 15kW
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh] 84,000kW h from hydrokinetic 25kW generator
ii. Heat [MMBtu]
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
iv. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system n/a
b) Development cost $ for AP&T/UAF debris study
c) Annual O&M cost of new system n/a
d) Annual fuel cost n/a
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel
c) Other economic benefits $ savings in O&M costs of hydrokinetic operations
$ gained in generation from reduced outages
d) Alaska public benefits
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale n/a
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio n/a
Payback (years) n/a
07 September 2010
Benjamin Beste, PE
Mechanical Engineer & Project Manager
Alaska Power & Telephone
360-302-1379
ben.b@aptalaska.com
Re: Letter of Commitment for Proposal to Alaska Energy Authority
Dear Mr. Beste:
University of Alaska Fairbanks is pleased to collaborate with the Alaska Power &
Telephone
on the proposal being submitted to the Alaska Energy Authority, Renewable Energy
Grant Program, Round IV. The Principal Investigator from UAF is Dr. Jerome B.
Johnson, research faculty in the Institute of Northern Engineering.
The appropriate administrative and programmatic personnel at UAF are aware of the
pertinent federal regulations and policies, and we are prepared to enter into a subcontract
with Alaska Power & Telephone that ensures compliance with all such policies, should
this proposal be funded. A statement of work and our itemized budget for this subaward
are attached.
If you need additional information, please feel free to call my office at (907) 474-7314.
Sincerely,
Andrew Parkerson-Gray
Director
Office of Sponsored Programs
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1
Proposal to Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) to develop a river debris
mitigation device for their hydrokinetic turbine installed on the Yukon River at
Eagle, Alaska
Statement of Work
Introduction
We propose to work with AP&T to develop practical operational devices and methods to
reduce the impact of debris interactions with hydrokinetic infrastructure. Developing
methods to reduce debris effects on the AP&T hydrokinetic turbine at Eagle, AK, is
necessary for hydrokinetic power generation at Eagle and to demonstrate that
hydrokinetic turbines can be deployed elsewhere in Alaska. The proposed work includes
developing an understanding of where debris exists in the Yukon River at Eagle, AK, how
debris mass varies with river stage, how debris interacts with debris mitigation devices
and how debris affects operation and maintenance (O&M) efforts. The developed
information will be used to estimate (or predict) expected debris amounts, optimize debris
mitigation devices and methods, and improve debris related O&M methods. This work will
be conducted as a close collaboration between the AP&T and the Alaska Hydrokinetic
Energy Research Center (AHERC).
AP&T installed a New Energy 25 KW hydrokinetic turbine on the Yukon River at Eagle,
Alaska, during June, 2010, to examine the feasibility of using hydrokinetic power
generation to displace diesel generated power Figure 1. There is a strong desire within
Alaska, and by AP&T in particular, to displace diesel with renewable energy sources in
high‐cost regions to the highest degree possible to reduce costs and utilize local renewable
energy. Many high‐cost remote Alaskan villages are located along major rivers that have
the potential to displace diesel‐generated power with hydrokinetic sources.
The AP&T New Energy 25 kW turbine
barge was attached to an anchor
using a spreader bar. A floating
angled boom set in front of the barge
was used to deflect floating debris,
which was known to occur from a
previous deployment of a 5 kW
turbine at Ruby, Alaska. During two
brief deployments, the turbine
experienced significant operational
difficulties due to both surface and
neutrally buoyant river debris that
piled up in front of the turbine and
that caught on the underwater
electrical cable running from the
turbine to shore. The first debris
event required significant manpower
working under hazardous conditions to remove debris from in front of the turbine and
Figure 1. New Energy 25 kW hydrokinetic turbine
installed on the Yukon River at Eagle, Alaska.
2
damaged a spreader bar used to attach the turbine barge to the river anchor. Once the
debris was cleared from the turbine it was brought to shore while preparations were made
for a second deployment. During the second deployment, debris again accumulated in front
of the turbine barge and caught on the underwater electrical cable. The debris lodged on
the barge was freed but it was necessary to disconnect the power cable to clear the debris
from it. It was not possible with the forces on hand to reconnect the cable and the turbine
was not placed back into service. The barge was used for the balance of the season as a
platform for biologic studies in the river and will be recovered from the river in late
September.(Ben Beste, AP&T, personal communication, 2010). Experiences with other New
Energy turbines deployed in Canada and on the Yukon at Ruby, Alaska, (Figure 2)
demonstrate that debris build up in front of a turbine barge can reduce flow and threaten
barge stability or damage turbine blades.
Prior to the recent deployment of hydrokinetic turbines, the potential adverse effects of
surface and submerged neutrally buoyant debris on turbine performance efficiency,
damage, survival, and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs were
generally unknown and, to a certain
degree, underestimated. It is now
recognized that debris will interact with
both surface and subsurface turbine
infrastructure (e.g., barges, anchors,
blades, electrical cables, etc.).
Minimizing adverse effects of debris
interactions with turbine infrastructure
are critical to practical, and economical,
use of hydrokinetic turbines on Alaskan
rivers.
At present, little quantitative
information is available about river
debris. What is known is the result of talking with river users with many years of
experience observing river debris, from river debris observations at river bridge piers, and
from recent deployments of hydrokinetic turbines. These observations indicate that debris
can exist at any depth within a river channel with most debris floating at the surface. Trees
and logs have been observed to move downstream with their root balls scraping the river
bottom and a small projected height of limbs or trunk above the water. Water‐logged and
sediment‐impregnated logs can exist at multiple layers and may rest on a river bottom. The
relative frequency and size of debris at different river depths is not known, other than that
floating debris is dominant and that the amount and size of debris increases with water
stage. Observations also indicate that debris (logs, trees, root balls, branches) easily catch
on objects, such as trash racks, debris diversion booms or sandbars, building piles,
accumulating sediment, and absorbing water.
AP&T has an operational need to develop debris mitigation strategies for their turbine
prior to the summer season (2011) so as not to lose a season of power generation and to
Figure 2. New Energy 5 kW turbine barge
deployed on the Yukon river at Ruby, Alaska,
with debris build up on the bow pushing it
underwater after a 10-hr. deployment
(http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=57OA3svud
vY&feature=channel).
3
determine the economics of O&M methods related to debris. To this end, AP&T will be
developing a design a 2nd t generation debris diversion device to be constructed and
deployed in summer, 2011. This new diversion device will replace the original device and
will include improvements to design that were determined from deployment and operation
in the river in 2010. Like its predecessor the new diversion device will be deployed to
divert surface debris around the turbine barge. While the 2nd generation device will be
designed based on available information about river debris and previous debris diversion
methods, the actual effectiveness will not be known until it is installed and its interaction
with debris observed. In particular the new device’s impact on submerged neutrally
buoyant debris. The results of measurements of the 2nd generation debris diversion device
performance will need to be used to develop an improved 3rd generation device to reduce
debris effects on the turbine, reduce O&M costs, and increase the safety of conducting O&M.
Goals and objectives
The proposed goals are to work closely with AP&T to determine river debris statistics and
determine how debris interacts with debris diversion devices, and to work with AP&T to
optimize debris diversion device design and O&M methods. Debris statistics of interest
include debris amount and frequency as a function of river stage and location in the water
channel location (width and depth). Objectives to accomplish our goals include working
with AP&T over the winter (2010/2011), as funds allow, to help define an instrument plan
complementary to the AP&T debris mitigation device to measure its performance and
interaction with debris. These measurements include:
1. Hydraulic river characterization will be done throughout the first summer
deployment of a debris diversion device to determine the seasonal current and
turbulence variability. Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) will be used to
measure flow velocities. The instruments will be deployed on fixed locations, near
the water surface. The ADCP measurements will be used to determine flow
velocities and main turbulent characteristics upstream of the debris device, and
upstream and downstream of the turbine. The methodology applied by Toniolo et al.
(2010) will be used to calculate basic parameters of turbulence. The river power
will be calculated from the velocity data and will be used in conjunction with turbine
power production to assess turbine efficiency as a function of turbulence, the
presence of the diversion device, and debris buildup. It is envisioned that density of
partially floating or submerged debris would play a key role in the loads acting on
the debris mitigation device. It is expected that a function between turbulence and
loads on the device would be developed. Data from hydraulic measurements will be
used as input to a model of debris interaction with the debris diversion device
(described below) to aid design of a permanent device. Hydraulic measurements
will be continued during the 2nd summer deployment to assess performance of the
3rd generation diversion device and turbine performance.
2. Measure the performance of the AP&T debris diversion device as a function of
debris accumulation over time. Instrumentation will measure mechanical strain and
possibly loads and displacements, depending on the final design of the device. The
instrumentation will be configured with the goal of estimating loads on the device
4
from current, debris impact, and debris build‐up. Measurements will be taken in
concert with current measurements and sonar equipment. Conceptually, the overall
monitoring scheme should provide a means of characterizing river‐borne debris and
its affect on the debris mitigation device. Such information will be directly
applicable to future deployments of riverine hydrokinetic turbines in Alaska and
design of an optimized 3rd generation device. This requires the following tasks:
a. Install strain gauges and load cells to monitor load and deformation of the
device.
b. Mount video cameras to observe surface debris build up on the debris
diversion device, in front of the device and elsewhere in the river channel.
c. Mount a split beam sonar to observe submerged debris ahead of the debris
diversion device and in the local area around the turbine barge. This is
needed since the river is carries heavy sediment and has zero visibility.
d. Install acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) to measure river current
and turbulence in front of the debris diverter, in front of the turbine, but
behind the diverter, and behind the diverter to determine the influence of
debris on current flow to the turbine.
3. Numerical modeling of debris effects on the debris diverter device using the ANSYS
AQWA software. The goal is to model debris‐device interaction that is consistent
with in‐service observations. Understanding how to model this interaction should
greatly improve design of the 3rd generation operational debris mitigation device.
4. Design and performance monitoring of the 3rd generation debris diverter and O&M
methods. Results from Year 1 will be used to design and predict the behavior of an
improved, 3rd generation, debris divertion device. The ACEP team will work with
AP&T throughout design and construction of the 3rd generation device. The 3rd
generation device will be monitored while in service using similar methods as for
year one.
a. Results of the two year effort will result in a 3rd generation debris diversion
device that will be used operationally at Eagle. The results will also be used
to develop guidelines for debris diversion device design and
recommendations for further improvements and O&M methods. This would
be done in collaboration with AP&T.
Timeline, milestones (tasks), and deliverables
Milestone, Task, or Deliverable Start/End
Date
Budget
Provide input to AP&T during their debris
diversion device design efforts to define
instrumentation needs for the diversion
device and hydraulic measurements. AP&T
will lead this effort.
Nov. 2010/
April 2011
(this is prior
to REF
award)
3 wk ‐ AM; 2 wk – JBJ,
1 wk – HT; 2 4‐day
trips to Seattle (Fund
source TBD; travel
will only take place if
additional external
funding is identified.)
Deliverable: Instrumentation plan (upon
completion of device mechanical design) &
April, 2011 *
5
review of AP&T’s instrumentation plan
(upon completion of overall device design
Project startup meeting with AP&T On project
award (OPA)
– assume
May 1st 2011
1 wk all salaries
Order equipment and instrumentation
OPA + 1 mo Year 1 instrument
budget
Work with AP&T on debris diversion device
design & construction and instrumentation
installation
OPA + 2mo
(or when
instr./equip.
Delivered.)
1 wk senior salaries;
2 wk. Jack
Install ACEP related instruments and
equipment
On delivery
of
instruments
and
equipment
(ODIE) + 1
mo
2mo. Jack & students,
1 wk. senior staff
Deliverable: Installed instruments on the
debris diversion device
ODIE _1 mo. *
Measure data on hydraulic and debris
diversion device performance
ODIE + 1.1
mo./Aug.
2011 (est.
turbine take
out date)
3 mo. Grad.
Students/2 mo. Jack;
1 wk. Senior staff
Analyze year 1 hydraulic & debris
interaction data, model debris interaction
with debris diversion device, evaluate
performance of debris diversion device and
O&M methods, develop recommendations
for improved device design and O&M
methods, prepare reports and data for
delivery
Sept. 2011/
Feb. 2012
4 mo. Grad.; 2 mo.
Jack; 2 wk. senior
staff
Deliverable: Data from year 1
measurements and project reports on topics
described above.
Mar 2012 *
Work with AP&T on 3rd generation design
of debris diversion device and improved
O&M methods
Nov. 2011/
Mar 2012
1 wk senior staff, 2
wks. Jack
Prepare for year 2 modifications to debris
diversion device & instrumentation
Mar 2012/
June 2012
(assume year
2 start May
2012 –
1 wk senior staff, 4
mo. Grad, 2 mo. Jack
6
consistent
with
assumed
proj. start)
Measure performance of improved debris
diversion device and hydraulics
June 2011/
Aug. 2012
2 wk. senior staff,
3mo. Grad.;
Analyze year 2 hydraulic & debris
interaction data, model debris interaction
with debris diversion device, evaluate
performance of 3rd generation debris
diversion device and improved O&M
methods, develop recommendations for
further improving device design and O&M
methods, prepare reports and data for
delivery
Sept. 2012/
Feb. 2013
5 mo. Grad.; 3 mo.
Jack; 3 wk. senior
staff
Deliverable: Data and reports for year 2
measurements and analysis
Mar. 2013 *
Synthesize results from Year 1 and 2 to
prepare comprehensive analysis of results
and develop suggestions for further
improvement to debris diversion device and
O&M methods and prepare final reports
Mar. 2013/
May 2013
3 wks. Senior staff; 2
mo. Grads; 2 mo. jack
Deliverable: Synthesized data (i.e.,
comparative data between year 1 and 2 and
combined data) and reports describing
work activities and results for years 1 and
2)
June 2012 *
Roles and Responsibilities
Technical Lead and Principal Investigator for this project is Jerome. B. Johnson, research
faculty in the Institute of Northern Engineering. Dr. Johnson will coordinate project
personnel and tasks and direct preparation of written reports. Dr. Johnson will work with
Drs. Toniolo and Metzger to design the project measurement and analysis program and to
synthesize hydraulic and engineering data. Dr. Johnson will work with AP&T and Dr.
Metzger in developing design information for the 2nd and 3rd generation debris diversion
devices and improvied O&M methods. Dr. Johnson will be responsible for management of
project activities and ensuring that project reports and deliverables are completed on time
and within budget.
Dr. Johnson holds degrees in physics, mathematics, and geophysics and has extensive
experience in leading national and international groups conducting applied research to
advance solutions and technology development from its early beginnings to a practical
7
state. He holds three patents and has over eighty publications. His three‐page resume is
attached. A more extensive resume is available on request.
Co‐investigators Horacio Toniolo and Andrew Metzger are Civil Engineering faculty in the
UAF College of Engineering & Mines.
Dr Toniolo has extensive experience in river hydraulics. His expertise encompasses field
work, characterization of turbulence and numerical modeling. He has published several
journal papers in these areas. Dr. Toniolo will lead all tasks related to the hydraulic
characterization of the river, including defining required measurements and overseeing
installation of instruments, their operation, and final data collection and analysis. Dr.
Toniolo will work with Dr. Johnson and other team members to ensure that data, analysis,
and reports are provide in a timely manner. Dr. Toniolo will work directly with AP&T
personnel as the need arises. Dr. Toniolo will work with Dr. Metzger to provide input data
needed for model simulations of the interaction with both the 2nd and 3rd generation
debris diversion devices.
Dr. Metzger will lead all tasks related to installing instrumentation on the AP&T debris
diversion device; on monitoring the device over one season; and on numerical modeling of
debris‐device interaction. Metzger will oversee the work of the graduate student, who will
contribute to field work and modeling tasks. Dr. Metzger will also work with Drs. Johnson
and Toniolo to relate hydraulic data to model simulations.
Drs. Toniolo and Metzger will be responsible for preparing project reports, presentation,
and deliverables and for providing input to project reports, presentations, and deliverables
as required for completion of project. Drs. Toniolo and Metzger will ensure that work is
completed on time and within budget. These include reports, presentations, and other
deliverables.
Two research engineers, staff in the UAF Alaska Center for Energy & Power, will support
design and deployment of all data‐gathering systems as well as working with AP&T
personnel as necessary for design and deployment of the new debris mitigation device.
Budget justification
Senior Personnel. Funding to J. Johnson, the technical lead and PI for UAF, is requested.
Funding is requested to support co‐Is Horacio Toniolo and Andrew Metzger. Per UAF
policy, senior personnel receive leave benefits at a rate of 1.2%, calculated on salary. The
roles and responsibilities of senior staff are described in the Roles and Responsibility
section.
Other Personnel. Funding is requested to support two UAF research staff, who will
contribute to all field tasks and data interpretation tasks. Per UAF policy, staff receive
leave benefits at a rate of 20.1%, calculated on salary.
8
Funding is requested to support a Graduate Student research assistant. Students work 20
hours per week during the academic year (560) and 40 hours per week during the summer
(760). This student will contribute to tasks related to installing instrumentation on the
AP&T debris mitigation device (device) ; monitoring the device over one season; and,
finally numerical modeling of debris‐device interaction.
Fringe Benefits. Staff benefits for UAF are negotiated annually with the Office of Naval
Research. Rates are 30.6% for faculty, 46.2% for staff, and 8.4% for graduate students in
summer only. UAF requires that graduate students receive health insurance for the
duration of the project.
Student Services. UAF requires that graduate students receive tuition support for the
duration of the project.
Travel. (Domestic) Funding is requested to support travel for: fieldwork, planning
meetings with AP&T, training for staff and the graduate student, and a professional
conference for dissemination of project results.
The first milestone for this project describes travel to Seattle that would take place before
this project’s start date of October 2011 (November 2010‐April 2011). This travel is
contingent upon identifying funding from another external source. If no funding is
identified, this travel will be omitted.
Contractual Services. Funding is requested to support reporting and publication costs,
registration and training costs, software licensing costs (ecoview), satellite services for
imaging and data collection tasks, project communication and documentation.
Permanent Equipment requested for this project is detailed in the table below. Quotes for
all items are attached. All items are necessary for the fieldwork outlined in the statement
of work. Permanent equipment is requested rather that rented equipment because of the
long duration of use for this project, which would likely result in rental costs in excess of
actual cost over the two‐year term of the project Typical equipment rental costs are around
10% of the total equipment value per month of use..
RioGrande 1200kHz (quantity ‐ 3 @$20,188) 60,564
Simrad EK‐60 39,863
312902 ES333‐7CD split beam TRANSDUCER, 333 KHZ, 7 X 7 DEG 13,700
Didson sonar Imager 76,045
Didson Rotator Mount 15,650
U‐fab pontoon boat 25' x 10' w 30" pontoons 17,821
2 ea motor 60hp mercury "big foot", w/control& prop 13,000
data acquisition equipment ‐ Campbell ScientificCR 5000 logger (5838 ea) 11,676
Total 248,319
9
Materials and Supplies. Funds are requested for field supplies, computer supplies, and
supplies for completing field monitoring systems (see tasks above).
UAF’s Cognizant Agency for our federally negotiated rates is the Office of Naval
Research, Indirect Cost Branch, Code BD0242, Rm. 371, 875 North Randolph Street
Arlington, VA 22203, Contact: Mr. Brian Kehoe, Government Negotiator, Phone: (703) 696‐
7742, Fax: (703) 696‐2870, E‐mail: kehoeb@onr.navy.mil . Our current rate agreements
and audit information are available at
http://www.uaf.edu/apache/osp/reference/boilerplate.html
Reference:
Toniolo, H., Duvoy, P., Vanlesberg, S. and Johnson, J. (2010). “Modeling and field
measurements in support of the hydrokinetic resource assessment for the Tanana River at
Nenana, Alaska.” Journal of Power and Energy (in press).
14020 Stowe Drive, Poway, California 92064 USA
TEL: +1-858-842-2600 ● FAX: +1-858-842-2822
1
9/7/2010
Jack Schmid
University of Alaska
905 N. Koyukuk Drive
129 O'Neill Building
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220
United States
Dear Jack,
Thank you for your inquiry. We appreciate the opportunity to quote you our Workhorse Sentinel
1200 kHz ADCP with 200m pressure sensor.
Please do not hesitate to call us if further information is required.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Patrick Bradley
Patrick Bradley
Americas Sales Manager
Teledyne RDI
Direct: (858) 413 6036
Fax: (858) 842-2822
Email: pbradley@teledyne.com
14020 Stowe Drive, Poway, California 92064 USA
TEL: +1-858-842-2600 ● FAX: +1-858-842-2822
2
Quotation To:
University of Alaska
905 N. Koyukuk Drive
129 O'Neill Building
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220
United States
Quotation Number: 0320 Expiration Date: Nov. 7th 2010
Line
Item Part No. Description Qty Unit Price Extended
Price
1 1 WHSZ1200 WH Sentinel 1200 kHz SC ADCP, 256MB
Memory 1 $19,364.00 $19,364.00
2 1 WHPRES-0200 200m Pressure Sensor (with new ADCP,
not retrofit) 1 $824.00 $824.00
Quotation Total $20,188.00
Delivery: 30 Days ARO
Terms & Conditions:
Manufacturer’s General Terms and Conditions of Sale will apply to all Customer orders. In the event that Manufacturer
modifies its General Terms and Conditions of Sale, the revision in effect at the time of order placement will apply.
Terms and conditions can be reviewed at http://www.rdinstruments.com/terms-and-conditions.aspx . Please be advised
that any changes, additions or deletions to the Teledyne RD Instruments standard terms and conditions will require
Teledyne contract review.
U-FAB BOATS
459 Hwy 29, R.R. # 4
Smiths Falls, Ontario K7A 4S5
Tel.: (613) 283-1888, Fax: (613) 284-2267
www.u-fabboats.com
US PRICE LIST (April, 2010) – Selected Examples
Pontoon Boat Kit – Ready to Assemble
Aluminum Type 5052 H32, 24”, 26”, 28” diameter (.090” Wall Thickness)
Aluminum Type 5052 H32, 30”, 33”, 36”, 39” diameter (.125” Wall Thickness)
2.5” x 3” Hat Bar Cross Members on 16” centers
Number and size of cross members may vary based on load
For other sizes not listed please contact U-Fab Boats for Pricing
Diameter
Inches
Length
in feet
Width
in feet
Weight
Capacity
Pontoons Only
Set of 2
Boat Kit
Complete
26 20 10 4,177 lbs. $3,890.00 $5,989.00
26 25 10 5,357 lbs. $4,840.00 $7,271.00
26 30 10 6,537 lbs. $5,790.00 $8,552.00
28 20 10 4,845 lbs. $4,150.00 $6,334.00
28 25 10 6,213 lbs. $5,160.00 $7,676.00
28 30 10 7,581 lbs. $6,180.00 $9,027.00
28 35 10 8,950 lbs. $7,200.00 $10,378.00
30 20 10 5,561 lbs. $5,630.00 $7,814.00
30 25 10 7,135 lbs. $7,040.00 $9,556.00
30 30 10 8,703 lbs. $8,430.00 $11,277.00
30 35 10 10,274 lbs. $9,820.00 $12,998.00
33 25 10 8,630 lbs. $7,660.00 $10,169.00
33 30 10 10,531 lbs. $9,170.00 $12,011.00
33 35 10 12,431 lbs. $10,680.00 $13,852.00
33 40 10 14,332 lbs. $12,190.00 $15,629.00
36 30 10 12,532 lbs. $9,990.00 $12,890.00
36 35 10 14,794 lbs. $11,640.00 $14,871.00
36 40 10 17,056 lbs. $13,460.00 $16,959.00
36 45 10 19,318 lbs. $15,330.00 $19,160.00
Prices subject to change without notice
Each pontoon is chambered and sealed at 5 foot intervals
Please note: Any size you require is readily available – Call for Pricing
Freight, Crating and Taxes Extra
F.O.B. Our Plant
Quote Number
Quote Date
Valid Through Date
Quoted By
Customer Number
Est. Ship ARO
815 West 1800 North · Logan, Utah 84321-1784
Phone 435.753.2342 · Fax 435.750.9540
Fed. I.D. #87-0305157 · DUNS#06-798-0730
Page
Domestic Sales Quotation
Q
U
O
T
E
T
O
S
H
I
P
T
O
Contact: Cust RFQ:
Phone: Terms:
Fax: Freight Terms:
Email: Incoterm:
Li Model Part Description Qty UM Unit Price Ext. Price
This Quote is for Domestic purposes only. Authorized Signature X__________________________________
Warranty Policy: CSI warrants product manufactured by CSI to be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for twelve (12)
months from date of shipment unless specified otherwise, subject to the following conditions:
CSI’s obligation under this warranty is limited to repairing or replacing (at CSI’s option) products which have been returned prepaid to CSI. CSI will return warranted
equipment by surface carrier prepaid. This warranty shall not apply to any CSI products which have been subjected to modification, misuse, neglect, accidents of
nature, or shipping damage. Batteries are not warranted. Under no circumstances will CSI reimburse the claimant for costs incurred in removing and/or reinstalling
equipment. This warranty, and CSI’s obligation thereunder, is in lieu of all other warranties of suitability and fitness for a particular purpose. CSI is not liable for
consequential damages.
85875
09-07-10
11-06-10
Blake Farnsworth
49245
30 Days ARO
1
Jack Schmid University Of Alaska
University Of Alaska Fairbanks Duckering Bldg Rm 525
ACEP Alaska Ctr for Energy &Power Fairbanks,AK 99775-5910
Duckering Bldg Rm 525
Fairbanks,AK 99775-5910
United States
Jack Schmid
907-474-5432 Net 30 Days
907-474-5475
jwschmid@alaska.edu FOB Logan,UT
***Product manuals will be sent on CD unless otherwise requested.***
Pricing reflects a 4%educational discount.
1 CR5000-XT-SW-RC 16161-32 Measurement &Control 1 EA 5,304.00 5,304.00
-NC Datalogger
-XT Tested -40 to +85C
-SW Standard 3yr Warranty
-RC Rechargeable Base
-NC No Calibration Cert
2 9591 Wall Charger 18Vac 1.2A 1 EA 43.20 43.20
Output,110Vac Input,6ft
Cable
3 CF1 17404 CompactFlash Adapter for 1 EA 20.16 20.16
PCMCIA Slots
4 CFMC2G 20578 2G CompactFlash Memory 1 EA 100.80 100.80
Card (-40 to +85C)
5 17394 USB to RS-232 Converter 1 EA 28.80 28.80
DB9 Male,6ft
Continued
Quote Number
Quote Date
Valid Through Date
Quoted By
Customer Number
Est. Ship ARO
815 West 1800 North · Logan, Utah 84321-1784
Phone 435.753.2342 · Fax 435.750.9540
Fed. I.D. #87-0305157 · DUNS#06-798-0730
Page
Domestic Sales Quotation
Q
U
O
T
E
T
O
S
H
I
P
T
O
Contact: Cust RFQ:
Phone: Terms:
Fax: Freight Terms:
Email: Incoterm:
Li Model Part Description Qty UM Unit Price Ext. Price
This Quote is for Domestic purposes only. Authorized Signature X__________________________________
Warranty Policy: CSI warrants product manufactured by CSI to be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for twelve (12)
months from date of shipment unless specified otherwise, subject to the following conditions:
CSI’s obligation under this warranty is limited to repairing or replacing (at CSI’s option) products which have been returned prepaid to CSI. CSI will return warranted
equipment by surface carrier prepaid. This warranty shall not apply to any CSI products which have been subjected to modification, misuse, neglect, accidents of
nature, or shipping damage. Batteries are not warranted. Under no circumstances will CSI reimburse the claimant for costs incurred in removing and/or reinstalling
equipment. This warranty, and CSI’s obligation thereunder, is in lieu of all other warranties of suitability and fitness for a particular purpose. CSI is not liable for
consequential damages.
85875
09-07-10
11-06-10
Blake Farnsworth
49245
30 Days ARO
2
Jack Schmid University Of Alaska
University Of Alaska Fairbanks Duckering Bldg Rm 525
ACEP Alaska Ctr for Energy &Power Fairbanks,AK 99775-5910
Duckering Bldg Rm 525
Fairbanks,AK 99775-5910
United States
Jack Schmid
907-474-5432 Net 30 Days
907-474-5475
jwschmid@alaska.edu FOB Logan,UT
6 ENC16/18-DC-SB-MM 15873-55 Weather-Resistant 16 x 18 1 EA 340.80 340.80
inch Enclosure
-DC 2 Conduits for Cables
-SB Standard Backplate
-MM Tripod Mast Mounting
SUBTOTAL $5,837.76
TAX $0.00
FREIGHT TO BE ADDED
TOTAL $5,837.76
9/7/2010
Item Part No.Description Qty Price US$Total US$
1 X2 Rotator for DIDSON Sonar System 1 $15,500.00 $ 15,500.00
2 Shipping & Insurance Estimate 1 $ 150.00
Total $ 15,650.00
Terms and Conditions:
Approved:
Jeanne Dorsey
Jack Schmid - University of Alaska Fairbanks
QUOTATION: INP808-02
Delivery - 8-12 weeks ARO or Sooner
1. Prices are in USD and exclude all applicable duties and taxes.
2. Prices are F.O.B. Origin
3. Ocean Marine Industries, Inc. standard Terms and Conditions apply.
4. Prices are valid until 31st December 2010
2810 Hudson Street
Chesapeake, VA 23324
Tel: 1-757-382-7616
Fax: 757-382-5012
www.oceanmarineinc.com
9/7/2010
Item Part No.Description Qty Price US$Total US$
1 DIDSON SV
DIDSON – Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar, Standard
Version 1.1 MHz and 1.8 MHz Depth rating 300m (1000 ft).
Scope of Supply: Cable Assembly – 15m (50 ft,
10/100BaseT), Transit Case, Software (DIDSON Control and
Display) WINDOWS Application, Operators Manual-DIDSON,
Topside Box, DIDSON Lens Fluid Replacement Kit, Zinc
Anode, One Year Warranty.
1 $74,900.00 $ 74,900.00
2 SMC-031 Silt Exclusion Enclosure (Silt Box) – (Fits FFC & RAL
Housing)1 $ 795.00 $ 795.00
3 Shipping & Insurance Estimate 1 $ 350.00
Total $ 76,045.00
Terms and Conditions:
Approved:
Jeanne Dorsey
Jack Schmid - University of Alaska Fairbanks
QUOTATION: INP808-01
Delivery - 8-12 weeks ARO or Sooner
1. Prices are in USD and exclude all applicable duties and taxes.
2. Prices are F.O.B. Origin
3. Ocean Marine Industries, Inc. standard Terms and Conditions apply.
4. Prices are valid until 31st December 2010
2810 Hudson Street
Chesapeake, VA 23324
Tel: 1-757-382-7616
Fax: 757-382-5012
www.oceanmarineinc.com
2009 SIMRAD FISHERIES RESEARCH PRICES
Part No.PRODUCT Government PRICE
EK 60 GENERAL PURPOSE TRANSCEIVERS (GPT)
EK6‐203322 GPT 18 kHz split beam transceiver 51,600.00$
EK6‐202589 GPT 38 kHz split beam transceiver 51,600.00$
EK6‐202590 GPT 70 kHz split beam transceiver 38,700.00$
EK6‐202591 GPT 120 kHz split beam transceiver 38,700.00$
EK6‐202592 GPT 200 kHz split beam transceiver 38,700.00$
314662 GPT 333 kHz split beam transceiver 38,700.00$
300021 GPT 12 kHz single beam transceiver 27,800.00$
300022
GPT 38/200 Single beam transceiver incl. ER60
and BI60 SW 14,600.00$
300023
GPT 710 kHz single beam transceiver incl. ER60
and BI60 SW 14,600.00$
TRANSDUCERS
KSV‐088694‐FR ES18‐11, 11°x 11°, 18kHz 25,680.00$
KSV‐074531‐FR ES38B, 7°x 7°, 38kHz 13,680.00$
KSV‐111497‐FR ES38‐12, 12° x 12°, 38kHz 10,900.00$
KSV‐110280‐FR ES70, 11°x 11°, 70kHz 8,480.00$
KSV‐203678‐FR ES70‐7C, 7° x 7°, 70kHz 15,700.00$
KSV‐203003‐FR ES200‐7C, 7°x 7°, 200kHz 7,600.00$
KSV‐204580‐FR ES120‐7C, 7°x 7°, 120kHz 8,720.00$
KSV‐111646‐FR ES120 4x10, 4° x 10°, 120kHz 10,800.00$
KSV‐111154‐FR ES120 2,5x10, 2,5° x 10°, 120kHz 11,500.00$
322598 ES333‐7C, 7°x 7°, 333kHz 8,700.00$
KSV‐089292 710‐30‐E‐5 w/20m cable 2,500.00$
KSV‐062441 710‐36‐E‐2.5 w/20m cable 2,500.00$
SIMRAD FISHERIES, 19210 33rd Ave West, Suite
A, Lynnwood, WA 98036
TEL: 425 712 1136
prices are subject to change without notice.
“