Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUAF Heat Recovery Power Generation in Rural Alaska App November 5, 2009 Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: Proposal to AEA Renewable Energy Fund, Round 3: “Cultivating Rural Alaska for Biomass Energy” Dear Sir or Madam: The University of Alaska Fairbanks is pleased to submit the attached proposal, “Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural Alaska.” The Principal Investigator from UAF is Dr. Chuen-Sen Lin, professor of Mechanical Engineering in the College of Engineering and Mines. As ARO for the UAF Office of Sponsored Programs, I affirm that UAF, as a division of the Alaska State government, is eligible to apply for this funding. UAF is committed to supporting this project as outlined in the statement of work and budget, and that UAF has the necessary infrastructure to manage and support this project. While this proposal does not commit any matching funds, this project is a collaborative effort between the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) and Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), both of which are committed to leveraging their considerable institutional resources to the projects by providing additional staff support. In addition, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., is providing laboratory space in its Bidwell Street building in Fairbanks, a leveraged resource valued at $28,800. UAF is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including existing federal credit and federal tax obligations. If you need additional information, please feel free to call my office at (907) 474-1851. Sincerely, Andrew Parkerson-Gray, Director Office of Sponsored Programs University of Alaska Fairbanks Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Grant Application AEA 10-015 Application Page 1 of 15 10/7/2009 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-III.html Grant Application Form GrantApp3.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 Costworksheet3 .doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget3.d oc 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 GrantBudgetInst ructions3.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.  If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project.  Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.  If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide milestones and grant budget for completion of each phase.  If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.  If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. REMINDER:  Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply.  All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature.  In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you want information is to be kept confidential the applicant must: o Request the information be kept confidential. o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their application. o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential. If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 2 of 15 10/7/2009 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks Type of Entity: Governmental entity Mailing Address POBox 755910, Fairbanks, AK 99775 Physical Address 814 Alumni Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99709 Telephone 907-347-1365 Fax 907-474-5475 Email ross.coen@alaska.edu 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Name Maggie Griscavage Title Director, UAF Office of Contract & Grant Administration Mailing Address University of Alaska Fairbanks, POBox 757880, 109 Administrative Services Center, Fairbanks AK 99775-7880 Telephone 907-474-6446 Fax 907-474-5506 Email gmgriscavage@alaska.edu 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or A local government, or x A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) Yes 1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement. Yes 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 3 of 15 10/7/2009 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project) Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application. Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural Alaska 2.2 Project Location – Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project. Answer here. Installation of an ammonia-water cycle engine in Ruby, Alaska, and an Organic Rankine Cycle unit in Galena, Alaska. 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type Wind Biomass or Biofuels Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas x Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic Solar Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Reconnaissance Design and Permitting x Feasibility Construction and Commissioning Conceptual Design 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. This proposal represents the second phase of two current projects: (1) Test Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Engines Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust (funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Environmental Conservation through the Alaska Energy Authority), and (2) Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural Alaska (presently recommended for funding by the Denali Commission). Both projects employ pre-commercial ORC technologies to test the efficacy of generating power from recovered heat in power plants in rural Alaska. The first phase of both projects includes laboratory testing at the University of Alaska Fairbanks of an ammonia-water cycle engine and a glycol-based engine. This proposal calls for Phase 2 field testing of both units—the first in Ruby and the second in Galena—and data analysis, including economic analysis, that will result in a report on the applicability of such systems throughout rural Alaska and a methodology for selecting appropriate village sites. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 4 of 15 10/7/2009 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, etc.)  An ORC engine that utilizes recovered heat from a diesel generator can produce vapor from its working fluid to drive a turbine and subsequently generate additional power, thereby improving the overall fuel efficiency of the system by about 3%. On a diesel generator operating at typical village efficiency (14.5 kW-hr/gal) with the cost of fuel at $6.50 per gallon, an improvement in overall fuel efficiency of 3% translates to cost savings of $46.24 per 1,000kW-hr. In the case of Galena, for example, where the total power generation in 2007 was 4.3 million kW-hr, the potential cost savings would be $202,868. In addition, the fuel efficiency improvement would reduce CO2 emissions by 2.2 pounds for every gallon of diesel conserved. These numbers are projected, but demonstrate the potential public benefit and value in pursuing the field testing phase of the respective ORC engines. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. The proposal has a budget of $551,408, which can be broken down in two main areas: (1) equipment costs for the field tests (i.e., exhaust heat recovery equipment); (2) staff time and travel for installation, operation, maintenance, data analysis, and reporting. The proposal represents a second phase of two projects led by Dr. Chuen-sen Lin of the UAF Institute of Northern Engineering. The first, “Test Evaluation of ORC Engines Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust,” is funded by EPA/DEC/AEA at $560,000. The second, “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural Alaska,” has been recommended for funding by the Denali Commission (final determination on the proposal budget of $304,306 is expected shortly). Both proposals are available for review upon request. In addition, the projects are collaborative efforts between the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) and Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), both of which are committed to leveraging their considerable institutional resources to the projects by providing additional staff support. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., is providing laboratory space in its Bidwell Street building in Fairbanks, a leveraged resource valued at $28,800 (letter attached). 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. $551,408 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) See Section 2.6 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $551,408 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) $551,408 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) n/a 2.7.6 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application (Section 5.) See Section 5. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 5 of 15 10/7/2009 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 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. Type in your answer here and follow same format for rest of the application. PI Chuen-sen Lin, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at UAF, will oversee all technical aspects of the program, including installation and instrumentation, operation and maintenance, testing, data collection and analysis, and reporting. Ross Coen, Rural Energy Specialist at ACEP, will act as Project Manager and oversee administrative functions including outreach and dissemination of information. Charlisa Attla, Director of Special Projects at TCC, will perform administrative duties on the acquisition of equipment for the field tests. 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) Note: Pre-project activities (laboratory testing that will take place independently of this proposal with secured funding from EPA/DEC/AEA and recommended funding from Denali Commission, see Section 2.4): A) Laboratory test of Energy Concepts (EC) Ammonia-water cycle engine (begins December 2009, will conclude April 2010). B) Laboratory test of ElectraTherm (ET) ORC unit (begins April 2010 and will conclude September 2010). Project schedule/milestones under this proposal (see Section 4.3.1 for detailed information pertaining to each task and the overall workplan): Task 1: Procurement of EC engine, exhaust heat recovery equipment, and auxiliary equipment; training of Ruby power plant operators; community meeting in Ruby. (July 2010) Milestones: Criteria used to assess laboratory performance include:  Overall efficiency of the system relative to fuel consumption and power output under varying load and environmental conditions;  Operational/maintenance requirements;  Number, type, and frequency of unit failures and required repairs. Task 2: Transport, installation, and instrumentation of EC engine in Ruby power plant; training of Galena power plant operators; community meeting in Galena. (August 2010) Task 3: Field test of EC engine begins in Ruby, operation and maintenance, data collection. (September 2010) Milestones: Criteria used to evaluate project status during field testing include:  Overall efficiency of the system relative to fuel consumption and power output under varying load and environmental conditions; Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 6 of 15 10/7/2009  Operational/maintenance requirements;  Economic feasibility;  Measured reduction in fuel consumption;  Number, type, and frequency of unit failures and required repairs. Task 4: Transport, installation, and instrumentation of ET ORC unit in Galena power plant. (October 2010) Task 5: Field test of ET ORC unit begins in Galena, operation and maintenance, data collection. (November 2010) Task 6: Conclusion of Ruby field test. (May 2011) Task 7: Conclusion of Galena field test. (July 2011) Task 8: Final report, both projects. (December 2011) 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.) See Section 3.2. 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Project staff from UAF includes PI Chuen-sen Lin, project manager Ross Coen, engineers Jack Schmid and Tom Johnson, energy analyst Markus Mager, editor Fran Pedersen, and graduate students from the Institute of Northern Engineering. Project staff from TCC is Charlisa Attla, Director of Special Projects. Golden Valley Electric Association is a project partner in providing laboratory space for Phase 1 testing. For Phase 2 field testing, the project will leverage the organizational capacity of TCC, which has provided services (e.g., health, education, energy assistance) to forty-two villages in Interior Alaska since 1971. Since 2008, Chuen-sen Lin and ACEP have developed a methodology for monitoring ORC technology that involves tracking and maintaining contact with numerous companies developing ORC technology. ACEP has identified companies with the highest potential for delivering working products as Energy Concepts (the vendor for the Ammonia-water cycle engine), ElectraTherm (the vendor for the glycol-based ORC unit), as well as United Technologies Corporation (the vendor at the Chena Hot Springs project). The field tests will require participation of power plant operators in Ruby and Galena, training for whom is included in this proposal. 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 7 of 15 10/7/2009 During Phase 1 (UAF laboratory testing), PI Chuen-sen Lin and project manager Ross Coen will prepare quarterly reports for the respective funding agencies (AEA and Denali Commission), which will be shared with the grant administrator for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. Quarterly reports will also be prepared during Phase 2 (village testing). In addition, Lin and Coen will be in regular contact with power plant operators in Ruby and Galena to monitor the operation of the system. 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. Installation and operation of the ORC units in the Ruby and Galena power plants will be monitored closely to ensure that overall efficiency of the system does not decrease, that additional maintenance costs in the power plant itself are not incurred, and that the existing capture and utilization of recovered heat (i.e., space heating for adjacent buildings) is not affected. In short, the ORC projects must in no way negatively impact the operation of the existing infrastructure. One important component of the Phase 1 laboratory tests is assessing the potential for such negative impacts and devising procedures to remedy any potential problems in the Phase 2 field tests covered under this proposal. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 8 of 15 10/7/2009 SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS  Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA.  The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds.  If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase.  If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. This proposal calls for installation, operation, monitoring, and testing of two types of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) engines: (1) an ammonia-water cycle engine produced by Energy Concepts to be tested in the city power plant in Ruby, Alaska; and (2) a glycol-based engine produced by ElectraTherm to be tested in the city power plant in Galena, Alaska. The energy resource is the exhaust and water jacket heat recovered from normal operation of diesel generators in the power plants. This is a resource that if not utilized will be lost through engine exhaust and radiated heat, thus the pro-versus-con arguments are largely moot (the pro is that an ORC engine boosts overall system efficiency, the only con is that not installing the unit means an existing resource is essentially lost). 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. The Ruby power plant includes three Caterpillar gen-sets—125 kW, 225 kW, 250 kW—the first two of which are more than 15 years old and have undergone multiple rebuilds, the last installed in 2006 and in good condition. The current average electrical load in summer is 55 kW and in winter is 85 kW. Peak load is 108 kW. The power plant operates at an efficiency of 9.87 kW- hr/gal. The Galena power plant includes five gen-sets with an average load of 501 kW and peak load of 1001 kW. Its efficiency is 13.46 kW-hr/gal. The project team will work with power plant operators at each location to compile comprehensive baseline data from previous years from which the efficiency improvement following installation of the ORC engines can be measured. 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. Energy resources in the two village locations are currently limited to diesel fuel in the power plants, and wood and heating oil for space heating in local buildings. There are a very small number of solar panels in use in individual homes and buildings. This proposal would have little impact on existing energy sources beyond the improvements to power plant efficiency already listed. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 9 of 15 10/7/2009 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. The impact on energy customers of this proposal would be twofold: increased power plant efficiency would result in (1) a reduction in fuel consumption and corresponding lower energy costs and (2) reduced CO2 emissions. It is important to note that this proposal will not result in construction of a new power generating facility or development of a new energy resource. The ORC units named in this proposal will utilized recovered exhaust and jacket water heat—a resource already in place—and boost the efficiency of the existing systems. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:  A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location  Optimum installed capacity  Anticipated capacity factor  Anticipated annual generation  Anticipated barriers  Basic integration concept  Delivery methods In general, ORC systems are designed for retrofit, use working fluids, and are known for stable performance and minimal maintenance requirements. Large-scale ORC units are an established technology, but small- to mid-sized applications in rural Alaska have not been attempted. Both the laboratory and field testing phases of this project will be monitored to ensure optimum operation of critical components, including the heat source/sink, working fluid, and power interface. Recorded data will be used for performance analyses of critical components and the overall system. The analyses will show the net efficiency of the system and parasitic power consumed by the components, effects of both controlled (laboratory) and varying (field) climatic and environmental conditions on optimal system performance, and the effectiveness of component design and corresponding design improvements. Operational parameters for field testing in this proposal relate to control and performance of the exhaust heat exchanger system and diesel engine performance and efficiency. Tasks associated with the field tests include training of local power plant operators (to take place at both UAF during laboratory testing and the village power plants at the time of unit installation); transport, installation, and instrumentation of the ORC units; and community meetings. The Ammonia-water cycle engine is produced by Energy Concepts (EC) and uses recovered heat to vaporize a liquid (ammonia-water mixture) under pressure, which is then passed through a turbine/screw expander to generate power (in general similar to the engine installed at Chena Hot Springs, but with a difference in detailed operating principle). EC is currently producing units from 25 kW to 150 kW. Phase 1 laboratory testing of the EC engine (for which funding has been awarded from the Alaska Energy Authority) will be performed at UAF and is planned to verify the thermodynamic performance of the unit under variable operating temperature regimes. The Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 10 of 15 10/7/2009 testing will evaluate: 1) thermodynamic efficiency under varying load and ambient conditions, 2) feasibility of using direct heat transfer versus an intermediate heat transfer fluid, 3) overall system efficiency improvement, 4) economic feasibility, including payback time, and 5) greenhouse gas emissions. Results from the Phase 1 testing will be compiled in a report, which represents operational baseline data from which the Phase 2 field test can commence. Installation and operation of the EC engine at the Ruby power plant will then undergo the same basic testing process as in Phase 1. The goals of the Phase 2 field test include: 1) collecting additional performance data based on the coupling of the unit with a diesel engine in real world setting; 2) logging all operational issues and unit failures, including time between failures, cause, and time for repairs; 3) evaluating installation costs and impact on economic feasibility; 4) evaluating operation and maintenance requirements; 5) verifying fuel savings and emissions reductions; 6) conducting an economic analysis; and 7) preparing a final report on Phase 2 and the overall project. The aforementioned AEA award includes funding for the Phase 1 test; funding is requested in this proposal for purchase of the EC unit and related equipment, which will allow an independent Phase 2 field test, and additional staff time and travel for the Phase 2 field test. The ElectraTherm (ET) ORC engine utilizes a low-temperature heat source and organic working fluid in a closed thermodynamic cycle to generate power. This technology has been neither tested nor applied in small-scale power plants in rural Alaska. A Phase 1 (laboratory test) proposal has been recommended for funding by the Denali Commission as part of its Emerging Energy Technology Grant program. This proposal requests funding for the Phase 2 (field test) of that project, which includes installation of the ET engine in the Galena power plant. The Phase 2 work plan includes tasks and goals identical to that contained in the Phase 2 plan for the EC project in Ruby. A key component of the final reports for both projects is the development of a methodology for ORC applications throughout rural Alaska. This methodology will include: 1) operational and maintenance (O/M) parameters for ORC engines, 2) economic analysis including shipping and installation costs, O/M costs, and payback time, and 3) optimum ORC engine characteristics relative to the size of diesel generators, and average and maximum load requirements for power plants in villages across rural Alaska. As part of the project management structure for the field tests in Ruby and Galena, the following criteria will be considered: a) whether the power component (turbine or expander) experiences damage or failure, b) whether the ORC units require consistent maintenance to sustain continued operation, c) whether overall ORC efficiency is less than 4% (which extends the payback time for the system cost), and d) whether the performance of the diesel engine is noticeably hampered by the ORC installation/operation. Reports will include comprehensive information on design, procurement, installation, instrumentation, operation, and maintenance encountered during the tests. Reports will also include performance and efficiency data of each system component. Finally, the reports will feature economic analysis and a methodology for selecting other village sites for potential ORC application. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. Installation of the ORC engines in the Ruby and Galena power plants will require cooperation of the respective city councils. TCC and ACEP have a long-standing relationship with both villages Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 11 of 15 10/7/2009 and have collaborated extensively on energy planning. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues.  List of applicable permits  Anticipated permitting timeline  Identify and discussion of potential barriers N/A 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be addressed:  Threatened or Endangered species  Habitat issues  Wetlands and other protected areas  Archaeological and historical resources  Land development constraints  Telecommunications interference  Aviation considerations  Visual, aesthetics impacts  Identify and discuss other potential barriers N/A 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following:  Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase  Requested grant funding  Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind  Identification of other funding sources  Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system  Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system Please see attached budget documents for detailed information. The proposal budget is $551,408. Additional funding comes via an award from EPA/DEC/AEA for “Test Evaluation of ORC Engines Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust” in the amount of $560,000, and a proposal presently recommended for funding by the Denali Commission, “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural Alaska,” in the amount of $304,306 (both proposals available upon request). Equipment costs were determined by PI Lin in direct Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 12 of 15 10/7/2009 communication with numerous companies developing ORC technology—a process in which he’s been engaged for nearly two years. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) N/A (no new facilities constructed) 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following:  Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)  Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range  Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project This project is designed to test the technical and economic feasibility of ORC applications in rural Alaska power plants. No power will be produced/sold as part of new generating facilities. At best, the ORC units will improve the fuel efficiency of the existing power infrastructure in the two test locations resulting in positive impacts to local consumers. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. See attached. SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following:  Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project  Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate)  Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)  Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available)  Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project An ORC engine, one that utilizes recovered heat to produce vapor in a secondary fluid and generate additional power, stands to boost the overall fuel efficiency of a diesel generator by about 3%, which translates to reduced fuel consumption. A diesel generator with starting fuel efficiency of 14.5 kW-hr/gal, for example, requires 68.9655 gallons of fuel to generate 1000 kW- hr. At $6.50 per gallon, this equals a cost of $448.28 per 1000 kW-hr. Boosting the efficiency by Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 13 of 15 10/7/2009 3% reduces the required fuel for 1000 kW-hr to 61.8525 gallons, for a total cost of $402.04. The potential savings with an ORC unit in operation equals 7.113 gallons of fuel and $46.24 per 1000 kW-hr. In the case of Galena, where total power generation in 2007 was 4.3 million kW, having an ORC unit in place could have reduced fuel consumption by 31,211 gallons and saved $202,872 in fuel costs. These projected numbers are based on a best-case scenario with an ORC unit operating at peak efficiency every minute of the day for an entire year. The potential fuel displacement and corresponding cost savings is clear, however, and this project will result in the first economic analysis of small-scale ORC applications in rural Alaska. Public benefit will extend to the “lessons learned” of this project in that they will provide a methodology for other ORC applications. SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum:  Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.  How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project  Identification of operational issues that could arise.  A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation  Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits Tanana Chiefs Conference will procure both the EC ammonia-water cycle engine and ET ORC engine. Once the units are installed in the respective power plants in Ruby and Galena, and have demonstrated their operational and economic feasibility, leaving the units in place will result in continued fuel savings and improved operation of the overall system. The project team expects to leave both units in place as long as they remain operational and their maintenance costs do not represent a burden on power plant operators that overwhelm the gained efficiencies. The project team further expects to continue to monitor the units’ operation and economic feasibility. It must be noted, however, that this project is characterized as a test of an emerging energy technology, thus long-term operation of the units is not guaranteed. The project team believes that ORC technology will continue to advance at a rapid pace and that the primary contribution of this project will be its “lessons learned.” SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. This project represents the second phase of the projects (1) “Test Evaluation of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Engines Operating on Recovered Heat from Diesel Engine Exhaust” (funded by EPA/DEC/AEA), and (2) “Optimizing Heat Recovery Systems for Power Generation in Rural Alaska” (recommended for funding by the Denali Commission). UAF expects to take delivery of the EC ammonia-water cycle engine (project #1) shortly and begin laboratory testing in December 2009. UAF has prepared (but not placed) an order with ElectraTherm for its ORC engine (project #2), pending official award notification. Laboratory testing on that project is scheduled to begin in April 2010. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 3 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 14 of 15 10/7/2009 SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project. This project is part of a formal partnership between Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power, formed in early 2009 with the stated goal of research and development of energy systems in the TCC region. Rural Energy Specialist Ross Coen has traveled to each of TCC’s six subregions, including multiple trips to Ruby and Galena, where he has discussed the ORC projects and their potential for the region. Personnel from the City of Ruby, the City of Galena, Dineega Village Corporation, Ruby Tribal Council, and Louden (Galena) Tribal Council have expressed their support for the TCC-ACEP partnership and have made verbal commitments to support energy projects in their communities. SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you want in grant funds Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget3.doc Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the project. See attached. ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund energy authority Grant Application Round 3 SECTION 9 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A.Resumes of Applicant's Project Manager,key staff,partners,consultants,and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4. B.Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4. C.Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9. D.Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8. E.An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.6. F.Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: -Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. -Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. -Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. -Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal,state,and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. F.CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct,and that the applicant is in compliance with,and will continue to comply with,all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Print Name Signature Title Date Andrew Parkerson-Gray Director,UAF Office of Sponsored Programs /1/01/cr? AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 15 of 15 10/7/2009   Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09 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. Note to proposal reviewers: The energy resource named in this feasibility proposal is recovered exhaust heat and recovered water jacket heat from the diesel generators in the power plants in Galena and Ruby. No new infrastructure will be built and no new energy resources will be developed. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. Recovered heat from diesel gen-sets in village power plants. 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 gen-sets (Ruby), 5 gen-sets (Galena) ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other n/a iii. Generator/boilers/other type n/a iv. Age of generators/boilers/other n/a v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 9.87 kW-hr/gal (Ruby), 13.46 kW-hr/gal b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor n/a ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor n/a c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] 473,665 kW-hr (Ruby); 4,387,284 kW-hr (Galena) ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 26,400 gal (Ruby); 574,806 gal (Galena) Other n/a iii. Peak Load 108 kW (Ruby); 1001 kW (Galena) iv. Average Load 54 kW (Ruby); 501 kW (Galena) v. Minimum Load n/a vi. Efficiency n/a vii. Future trends n/a d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 72,113 gal (Ruby); 132,282 gal (Galena) ii. Electricity [kWh]                                                              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 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09 iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] vi. Other 3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kWh or MMBtu/hr] n/a b) Proposed Annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] n/a ii. Heat [MMBtu] n/a c) Proposed Annual fuel Usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] n/a ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] n/a iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] n/a iv. Other n/a 4. Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system n/a b) Development cost n/a c) Annual O&M cost of new system n/a d) Annual fuel cost n/a 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity n/a ii. Heat n/a iii. Transportation n/a b) Price of displaced fuel n/a c) Other economic benefits n/a d) Amount of Alaska public benefits See Section 5 of Grant Application form. 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale n/a 7. Project Analysis   Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 10-7-09 a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio n/a Payback n/a Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III Grant Budget Form 10-7-09 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 (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) Procurement of EC engine and equipment July 2010 $279,945 See Sec. 2.6 of Grant Application. $279,945 Ruby training and community meeting July 2010 $31,928 $31,928 Transport, installation, and instrumentation – Ruby August 2010 $35,072 $35,072 Galena training and community meeting August 2010 $31,928 $31,928 Ruby field test Sept 2010 – May 2011 $55,706 $55,706 Transport, installation, and instrumentation – Galena October 2010 $39,311 $39,311 Galena field test Nov 2010 – July 2011 $54,589 $54,589 Final reporting December 2011 $22,929 $22,929 TOTALS $551,408 $551,408 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $200,350 $200,350 Travel & Per Diem $32,141 $32,141 Equipment $232,500 $232,500 Materials & Supplies $17,500 $17,500 Contractual Services $42,513 $42,513 Construction Services Other – Student Services (e.g., tuition) $26,404 $26,404 TOTALS $551,408 $551,408 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed UAF Budget Narrative Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural Alaska Senior Personnel. Funding to support a total of 200 hours for Chuen-sen Lin, the technical lead and PI for UAF. Per UAF policy, faculty receive leave benefits at a rate of 1.7%, calculated on salary. Funding to support a total of 160 hours for Ross Coen, the administrative lead for UAF. Per UAF policy, staff receive leave benefits at a rate of 20.2%, calculated on salary. Total cost to Project: $22,057. Other Personnel. Funding to support a total of 250 hours for both Jack Schmid and Tom Johnson, UAF research engineers, for technical assistance on the project. Funding to support 160 hours for Markus Mager, UAF Energy Analyst, and 80 hours for Fran Pedersen, UAF Technical Editor, for post-project reporting and publications. Per UAF policy, staff receive leave benefits at a rate of 20.2%, calculated on salary. Cost to project: $8,595. Funding to support two Graduate Student research assistants for summer 2010, academic year 2010-11, and summer 2011. Students work 20 hours per week during the academic year (560) and 40 hours per week during the summer (760). Total cost to Project: $107,274 . Fringe Benefits. Staff benefits for UAF are negotiated annually with the Office of Naval Research. Rates are 31.9% for faculty salaries, 44.1% for staff, and 8.0% for graduate students in summer only. UAF requires that graduate students receive health insurance for the duration of the project. Total cost to Project: $32,852. Student Services. UAF requires that graduate students receive tuition support and other costs for the duration of the project. Total cost to Project: $26,404. Travel. Funding is requested to support travel for: Lin to make four trips to Ruby and four trips to Galena; Schmid and Johnson to make two trips each to Ruby and Galena; Coen to make one trip to both Ruby and Galena; and the two graduate students to make one trip each to Ruby and Galena. Funding is requested for: Lin to make two trips to academic conferences to present project results. Total cost to Project: $26,461. Contractual Services. Funding is requested to support outreach and report costs, and costs for project communication, processing, and documentation. Total cost to Project: $6,881. Permanent Equipment. All equipment is included in the sub-award to Tanana Chiefs Conference. Materials and Supplies. A total of $11,250 is requested for auxiliary and miscellaneous equipment (e.g., thermocouple, valves, fittings) to be divided equally between the Ruby field test and the Galena field test, and $6,250 for instrumentation and monitoring equipment for the ElectraTherm ORC unit. Total cost to Project: $17,500. Subaward. This project includes a subaward to Tanana Chiefs Conference, the Alaska Native non-profit consortium which includes the villages of Ruby and Galena. The TCC role in the project (see attached budget narrative) includes acquisition of the permanent equipment, training of village power plant operators, and general facilitation/implementation of the projects in the respective communities. This work will take place under the administrative leadership of Charlisa Attla, TCC Director of Special Projects. Total cost to project: $277,600. Total cost to project: $551,408 TCC Budget Narrative Heat Recovery/Power Generation in Rural Alaska Senior Personnel. Funding to support 40 hours per year for Charlisa Attla, TCC Director of Special Projects, who will perform administrative duties on TCC’s acquisition of equipment under this proposal. Total cost to Project: $3,144. Fringe Benefits. Staff benefits for TCC are negotiated annually with the Internal Revenue Service and are set at 20.5%. Total cost to Project: $644. Permanent Equipment. Funding is requested for $95,000 for the Energy Concepts ammonia-water cycle engine (the unit is being loaned by Energy Concepts for the first- year laboratory test, but must be purchased outright for the second-year village test); $45,000 for the exhaust heat recovery system for the Energy Concepts ammonia-water cycle engine; and $92,500 for the exhaust heat recovery system for the ElectraTherm ORC unit. Total cost to Project: $232,500. Shipping. Funding of $10,480 is requested to transport the Energy Concepts ammonia- water cycle engine to Ruby, and $10,480 to transport the ElectraTherm ORC unit to Galena. Total cost to Project: $20,960. Community meetings. A total of $1,572 (costs of space rental and light catering) is requested to fund outreach costs of holding public meetings in both Ruby and Galena to engage the local communities in the use of these new systems. Travel. Funding is requested to support travel for: two power plant operators from Ruby and two power plant operators from Galena to travel to UAF for training. Total cost to Project: $5,680. Consultant services. Funding of $13,100 is requested to support training of two power plant operators from Ruby and two power plant operators from Galena in the operation and maintenance of the respective energy systems. Total cost to project: $277,600 "