Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit It';== DIESEL POWER. VERSUS THIRD TuRBINE A LAKE HYDROELECTRic FAcILITY VIV\ e the vyinds on iflar Mountain are rated as an e,\/,c-ceHen"K viyind regime for energy pr©duo oo��, G� � �� f�o�e°�� o�d ve�c� �� ��y on a minus--to-minute basis is unce in because v��aW s ooWc9 be c ustft, one women' and 'hen sudde- My ca9rno This sack oo predidabi0oty racquores C AA W have sufficient", oa paoiKy avail CEO es -o meet' peaks load re- quire men-s on he system. As prezwious�y disc sse-d, the current approach of burning 14 � �� 90�� uor the sensitivity analysis of the P86@ar Mounik"aO��'1 Wind Projed. ocU� too �{��� 21 diesel fuel to supplement KEA's capacity is becoming less practical, due to the high cost of operation and environmental conc erns. lnstead of burning diesel, KEA could install a third turbine at Terror Lake to raise the facHity's capacity by 50%. It should be noted that adding athird turbine is only possible if Terror Lake is under KEA ownership; therefore, "he following analysis assumes that KEA owns Terror Lake. According to the interrogallon of the 2006 SCADA system by KEA MC Technician Ron Sternberg there were, approxl,�maWy 2,500 hours during 2006 when Terror Lake was unable to meet peak load �/fyiffi twoturbines. During those hours, the needed capacity sup&rnented by diesel generation averaged 3 MW, and resulted in 7.5 million kWh being generated to cover peak, loads. The need for diesel powered supplemental capacity wM continue to grow int"othe future as peak loads increase. Figure 4 illustrates the future ofKEA's system energy. The amount olu"total generation expressed in the graph is based upon projected power sales. KEA is dedicated to the goal of generating 95% of their total energy sales �A/AL-h natural resources (i.e., wind and A VAMer) and this goal will be achieved with the development of the Piflar Moun'Wn Wind Project. FIGURE 4. SysTIEI-A ENERGY BASES UFC�N FUTURE FROJEC77,10NIS PEAK LOAD, AND NATURAL RESOURCE POWER DEVELOPMENT. 1502000 145,000 140,000 1357000 1307000 125,000 1201000 1152000 ... ................................ ... ...................... ....... .......... ........... ................. ......... .................................... ...................................... ... .. ..... . .. .. . . ........ . ....... ........................................................................................ .............. . . .................... ........................ 2006 2007 20085 2009 God nor hl,-eitual Resouce Powar Resouce Powyer L-. Av/sHable Naurd 2010 2011 2012 2013 201 2015 Vis am F Power Raqdremeffm Generation Requiremerfas Less Peah, D0ess0 Fo r planning purposes, 6es sel power �MH stall need to be generated as sup&FIlental capacityto cover peak loads. VA\/ind o=nergy os unpresdictaNss on a rnoruiasm-`Q-Pnoorrlen� e need for this diesel power is projected to 1 basis. As ex,-Vained above I t %h grow into thefut,ure as peak loads cont4iue to rise-. M he yellmjAvr-shadeadarea in Figure 4 represents the growing gap in supplemental capacity where- diesel power will need to be generated. Given our current situation, excess energy provided by natural resources will be wasted with high water levels at Terror Lake spilling over because diesel generation will continue to be employed as a reliable method o' covering peak loads. The purple triangle in Figure z4l? represents this loss in natural resource energy. Dnstead R 0 wasting the energy provided by natural resources, by ul"ilizing Terror Lake's third ,x turbine as a storage battery, KEA would have the capaWityto store `rho e,,cess wind energy. F., COS` COMPARISON OF DIESEL POWER AND THIRD TURE31NE AT TERROR LAKE HYDROELE RIC FACILITY ft is 'Vortunatehay she Terror La- ke Hydroelectric Facility was onginafly designed and built for the- addition of athircolturbine, because his reduces the construction costs significant�y. The capital cost of the thirolturbine includes the cost of the turbine and its au�cifiarV equipment, and the cost to transform 138 W of generated power to conform to the 69 kV grid system. The mechanical portion of the capital costs (i.e., equipment purchases) is estimated to be $105 F-n�'flon. The cost of theltransformation is estimamd to be $2 million. Thetotal capi,W cost o1°instafling a third turbine at Terror Lake is estimatedto be $12.6 miflion.'5 Due to the design ofthe fasciflt'y, opqrafiona0 costs for a third turbine would be insignificant. � yf" the third turbine were not installed at Terror Lake, than diesel fuel �i/YoWd be consumed to providethe needed capacity for peak loads. This is represented by the purp�e area on Figure 4, and it is equvalsnt to atotal of a9most I I nioUion kwh's. At assumed fuecosts and diesel e-fificiency, that woWd represent a fuel savings of almost $61.7 niion. Cost savings Wong do not justify the installation of athird turbine at his Ume; hoA\ieve r, it is the added value in KEA's system staUil�"y that justifies K"he addi'Uon. A third turbine Wows for more wind po wer 'to be ontegraL"-ed int o "K'h es system grid and maximizes the beneffis ofw �nd po wer. An additional tu rbine at Terror Lake also mskes the system inheresnUy rnore, staWe. The two turbines alone cannot tVeratethan apprm\/\,,ini-ate�y more than 3 i�vlW of instability on the grid �jivithouttripping, and theres-o"ore KEA imposes a 3 GvlW limit on the distributionfe-eders. Athin dt"lcarbine would a0�obny for more capacitry on the distribution �ines. This increased staW�ty provides significant cost savings for the distribution aspects or(KEA's operations. Athird turbine at Terror Lake would also provWe sun"q'icient- backup in generation and tra, nsforma'Uon to supporK the step down in power from 13 BE kV to 69 kV. Currently KEA ony has one 'Kransforrner at &/Ajanipy Acres forth is power conversion, and having only a sing 8e tans f-orr-ne r introduces systern vWnerallo�'y. A parallel Y'rans'O"orrner made possible by athircol turbine, increases the system stabiff'W. An ongoing system a,�abiflt'ly study "Khat wi�� provide- a more detailed examination of `tease issues is sch edW ed for cornpWUon in 1. the near Vuture. 15 , E " r a preHniinar� de a ign4SFWPBC cost, eatha`0 of a `�Nrd turbin a cat- Terror LaqM \\I a - Refer to A ppendbx ro Hydrodectdc FadRy- 23 As KEA moves in the direm"Jontoward utilizing more renewable resources for power generation, the future Will likely include 'E"he addition of a third turbine at Terror Lakes� because it provides environmental value, expansion of peak capacity, necessary system backup, and system stability. Fuilher analysis of the ongoing system stability study will demonstrate hownd a third turbine enhances KEA's system stability. Financial analysis -for the cost=analysis will determine wA hen the project will be economically justified. 24