HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalaska Heat Recovery AppCITY OF UNALASKA
P.O. BOX 610
UNALASKA, ALASKA 99685-0610
(907) 581-1260 FAX (907) 581-2187
November I 0, 2008
Alaska Energy Authority
813 W. Northern Light Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99603-2495
Attn: Rebecca Garrett
Re: Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
Dear Ms. Garrett:
-, , .
.. ·~~ ,..,L,._c::J. -.............. ~
UNALASKA, ALASKA
Enclosed please find the City of Unalaska's application for funding for our Waste Heat
Recovery Project.
Thank you for considering our application.
Sincerely,
~~~
Dan Winters
Director of Public Utilities
Enclosure: Grant Application and Electronic copy
City of Unalaska
GRANT APPLICATION
/:SALASKA -==> ENERGY AUTHORITY
City of Unalaska, Department of Public Utilities
Type of Entity:
Local Government
Mailing Address
P.O Box 610, Unalaska, AK 99685
Fax
907-581-2187
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Dan Winters
Mailing Address
Department of Public Utilities
P.O. Box 610
Telephone
907-581-1260
Fax
907-581-2187
Physical Address
1035 E. Broadway, Unalaska
Email
Title
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
Director of Public Utilities
Email
dwinters@ci.unalaska.ak.us
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
Final Design and Construction. The Feasibility Analysis and Preliminary Design has been
completed See attached
'!2;2:ieRbt!E:ct'IJE:scRIF'Tibf\l ,, ',',,,,,,, ,,,, ' , ', ,,,,,,,,, ' ,, ' ' ' ''' 'sf:>f<jPt~~,,···,? 9nEi. R~@?/~§iJ.§£~qriptf9d .. of''kou(~r6Jedt,'···'·' At'•••a )ni~inNtn'''.fl)c!Vd~ ''the'·,·prcJjec\Jbb~tro/n, ,,,
Hiomri)tinities'to ,be served, andwbo .wi!ll5einvolvf;din ,th.egrant project
Waste Heat Recovery Project.· This project will tap off of the excess heat from existing
generators at the Dutch Harbor Powerhouse to run a new generator designed to convert the
waste heat to electrical energy. When the New Powerhouse is constructed, the waste heat
recovery system will be expanded to include excess heat from increased power demands. The
Dutch Harbor Powerhouse serves the residents and various industrial processes in the City of
Unalaska and the International Port of Dutch Harbor, which is the number one fishing port in
the United States.
.',,,,':, '
V~ii,f~t&~t¥/[JJJ'i&¥Jrr11Ju1Jtbr(vi111~,,Ti~~~~p .• tf1~?nt!¢ipate~sqarpes.oftvnds,\,~/Jath~•Ha,tufe<I@•~9ur8¥i•,
tqffNW~~9l1t[ibi;tignstgt!Je,pr()ject .•• ,fr!ot~Ct,ea,prgJ~ctc()!l(sumrn?rY,thatincliJqes:,<Jg.;e~lifr!a,tif~lota,l,cost;•••' ,,Jtimvghcoastruction . > >,•,••·,', •,,,'''•',,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,, •. ,,, ',''',,,,,,,, ,, ,,, ,,,,,',, .• ,,,,; ,', ',,,, ,' ,,,',,,.,,.',,,''' • i ,;, ,:• ,' ,, ,','• ... ' , ,,, ,'
Total projected costs will be approximately $2.0 million. If the City can obtain funding for up to
70%, the City will be prepared to meet the remaining costs through its General Fund However,
the more funding that the City can obtain through grants, the more cost savings can be passed on
to the consumers. Below are estimates for a most likely alternative based on preliminary
analysis:
Construction: $1,244,114
Shipping (1%): $53,636
Admin (5%): $62,206
Design/Engineering (15%): $186,617
Preliminary Design: $91,605 (Completed)
Contingency (30%): $373,234
Total: $2,011,412
Annual O&M: $8,912
.,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ,',,
,:~g~flfYciJscu,isthe••waopiaJ'6eneit(sihatwiir're:SuJi•troi'TJ'ttiispf1)Ject,' inctudia9:'ah'~stfiil?te,•ot~co~orf1fci'
;if5eriiifit$(st!ch as.'reduCedfue/'co$ts)ahd a description ofotherbenf!fitsto thf!:AiaskanfiiJb!ic, , ':, '
Estimates indicate that completion of this project could reduce fuel usage by 5%, or about
125,000 gallons, based on FY2008 fuel usage. This reduction equates to an annual fuel savings
of approximately $385,000. A critical component in setting electric utility rates is the cost of
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 13 9/3/2008
/~ALASKA
~ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
fuel. As indicated in the attached preliminary design, annual fuel savings are estimated to be
$401,416, based on $3.80 per gallon. The savings would directly impact utility billings to
Unalaska residents and businesses.
Public Benefit is estimated by subtracting the annual O&M costs from the annual Estimated
Benefit and subtracting an assumed ten year payoff period for the Project Match. Since the
project match would be out of General Funds, no interest is assessed in this assumption.
SECTION 3.--PROJECT·MANAGEIVIENT PLAN
: b.~~cribe· who.wi/1 be responsible for man~ging thepmject and pfovit!e'~ /J(ahror~licd~s~fquy
·••.·•. pompl~ting the pmject .within the scope; sc;hedule, and budgetpropo~e_dinlhe,ilpp(ica}ipn; ·. ·
·;~.1/PrQjeptMallager. . . · .... ·.··.·. ··.· .......... ···. :< ..... ),.,,. It. ;;-•<ij I •: r
'.Ie.l.l us \/Vh() wiUbe. ; man<Jging• the.· project . .forth~ Grante_eapd inc_ly.de. .acr~§urije ,af)d{e.f~te.r.c:.e.s .
. 0fprJI'l~ rnaJ1age.r(sJ..If th_e:; applicant d.oes ·not have. ·•a project rn<=~n<tg e[i.28i()~te. hp\'(,XOll.iJ1fe..J1.9•t.();
i:~pligit proj~ct,management. S,upport.. lf•_:the.,·applic<af)t.iel(pects•;•Proje.c;t•inf!()a9e.rne.l11;-.a~si§ti!.q~e.·.· :;from AEAor another overnmententit , state that inthis section~ · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · ·
The City's Director of Public Works, Nancy Peterson, and Director of Public Utilities, Dan
Winters, will oversee the project to make sure it stays on schedule and within budget. The City
of Unalaska also plans to hire Electric Power Systems, Inc. to provide engineering services and
provide project management services for the construction.
m~i~[Prgj~ctSch~dule.,·, ····'•• .· .. , ... <:''> __ ...• ,, ••... _.:;:·.··;·,,•••··············.;,;•••·•···•>-· \... . }''i /:.:x!"'.j.i': ;: ~;Jbqlllc!e· a sche_di.J.I~;·for.th,e.·· proposed;·._worK;ttJ~t;·,\IVUL,I:lefund,ed,·~y.tbis 9J"~r1t·(:¥8prpay1 ·.if)c.IQd~'~··
''Cifiartortable attachment with a summa of dates below: ·. · · · · · · · · · ·· ·· · ·· ... ·
June 2009-Upon notice of the receipt of grant, obtain final Council approval to proceed with
the project on a selected design.
September 2009-Finalize Engineering and Design.
October 2009-Obtain Permits as Needed
December 2009-Submit RFQfor Construction.
February 2010-Receive quotes for Construction and select Contractor.
April2010-Construction begins.
July 2010-Construction Completed, System Checks, Place Waste Heat Recovery System
Online.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
July 2009 -Obtain Final Council approval to proceed with the selected design.
July 2009-Preparing a contract(s) to Finalize Engineering and Design, obtain permits as
needed, prepare RFQ, and oversee Construction.
December 2009 to February 2010-Submitting RFQfor Construction and Selecting the
Contractor.
April 2010 to July 2010-Beginning and Finalizing Construction.
Note: A new Powerhouse Construction project will be running parallel to this project, so coordination of
the two projects will be essential.
The City of Unalaska has not hired any contractors for this phase of the project. For
construction, the City will use a detailed qualifications-based bidding and selection process.
Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPS) completed the preliminary design for this project, so the City
of Unalaska will hire EPS to provide engineering services and oversee the construction of this
project. For permitting issues, the City may hire HMH Consulting, a company that the City has
hired for previous projects. The attached preliminary design provides information on technical
resources and equipment needed to complete the project. The following are the key personnel
from EPS; resumes are attached
Project Manager -David Burlingame
Overall construction Manager -Charlie Kimmel
Lead Electrical Construction -Dan Keane
Lead Mechanical Construction -Jon Morse
Lead Electrical Engineer -Earl George supported by David Buss
Lead Mechanical Engineer-Warren Taylor.
The City of Unalaska's Department of Public Utilities administration staff will continuously
monitor the project and expenditures. The will provide communications as required by the
Authority.
Permitting could potentially cause a delay. As soon as the City receives the notice of award for
the grant, the City will begin taking steps to ensure that permitting issues do not delay the
project. Since this project will be constructed inside an existing facility, the City expects that
only a minor modification of the operating permit will be necessary.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 13 9/3/2008
/:bALASKA
~ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
Coordination with the new Powerhouse project may take some planning. Fortunately, Electric
Power Systems, Inc. will be overseeing the construction of both projects and will be able to
effectively coordinate them.
:~SECTION4-.PRO..IECTDESCRIPT10N'AND TASKS
;;,.: i'teiltJ1 What;theprojectis andhow}'ouiwill.meet•the.requirernentsoutlirledinSectio'] •• 2 of
fheBF/l.• .. ·.The,teve/ofintqrmation,willvaryaccording.tophatw.oftheprojectyou·pr()poseto·
;·;;: Hnr.!ertake withgranffunds. > ....•.. · .,.· ·. .. > • ·.• · .•. · . . . .· ... • . . .. · · . • . ·•·· .. · •. . • .·. ••·· ..• ·.·· ..
•·~ If yo/.1 f!reapplyingforgranttunding for rr1ore thfjn O{}e phase of a project provide aptanand
grantbudgetfor completionofetJphphase. . . •.. · · ··.· , ·. . . .. . .· . . · • •. • .... · .. ·•.· ,· · ....• !~ · jfsame work h(js already been completedon·your projectandyo[!. arer~questingfundingfor
21 fjnaclvanqerjphase, submif.if]formation ·sufficient to demonstrate .that· the preceding phases
· · are ~atisfiedandft.mding for an. advancedp/]ase is waapnted.
;i41'li•••.efop(lseC:J.i:llE~rgy•'Reso~,~rce
d:)escriq~ the,potentia[extenllamountofthe ene.rgyresourcethatis availabl~. > ,..... .•.•...•... ··• ..... ··· ·. <
\il~i~cusstheprosandcons· ofyourproposed energy•resource vs. other alternatives that may be.
if~\{Ciilable forthemarketto be served byyourpmject. ·
Under current power production, about 200 kW can be generated through waste heat recovery.
The selected heat recovery system will be designed for 200 kW at 95% capacity. Projected usage
with the construction of the new Powerhouse indicates that the power demand may double or
even triple as seafood processors come online for a lower-cost source of electricity. Such
demand increases have been projected, and as they occur, additional heat recovery units will be
added.
\\}1.2 EJ(istingEnergy,SystE!m
l·J~.2.1.'Ba!>ic'configurationofExisting E!lergy System .. · ...•
:i'l:ll"iE)fly qisciuss:the basic qonfiguration of the. existing energy system. lnduder information abol.lt
.•Jt\e.,nurnber, size, a e, efficienc ' andt. e of . eneration.
The City Powerhouse has a total of eight Caterpillar diesel-run generators that range from 300
kW to 1440 kW with a total rating of 6500 kW The installation time line of the engines ranges
from 1985 to 1994. If operated between 80 and 85% of the total rating and running the more
efficient diesel engines as much as the permit allows, the Powerhouse can achieve about 14 kWh
per gallon of diesel fuel. With the addition of Waste Heat Recovery, the existing Powerhouse
could see an overall efficiency increase of a minimum of 14. 7 kWh per gallon.
"04'.20~ E:~istlng E:nergy Resources.·used.
m~rieflydiscus$ybur understarlding .ofthte. existing energy·reSOIJrC:IilS, Include a brief ·di~cussion·of.
infnastruC:ture andresour.ces,
The existing City Powerhouse cannot efficiently produce all the energy demand that is required.
A backup generator that is rated at 1000 kW is located in Unalaska Valley. In addition, the City
must routinely purchase up to 1500 kW from Unisea, a local seafood processor. The Powerhouse
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 13 9/3/2008
/:SALASKA
~ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
continually has to balance the use of these resources for the best overall efficiency to minimize
consumer costs.
By adding 200 kW of clean renewable power, the amount of power that the City purchases from
UniSea will be reduced, which will, in turn, result in a significant cost savings that will be
directly passed on to consumers. After the new Powerhouse is constructed, purchasing power
from UniSea should no longer be necessary and fuel savings will be most applicable.
Based on the annual energy report EIA 861 for Calendar Year 2007, the City Powerhouse and
Backup Generator produced 34,160 MWH In addition, the City purchased 4,230 MWHfrom
UniSea. The Total Production was 38,390 MWH The Total Sales were 35,861 MWH with a Net
Loss of2,529 MWH
Of the Power Sold, 4,171 MWH went to Residential Users, 11, 708 MWH went to Commercial
Users, and 19,981 MWH went to Industrial Users.
In 2007, it cost consumers a total of$1,016,664, or approximate 24 cents per kilowatt hour, for
Purchased Power needed to support industry. This was factored into the Cost of Power
Adjustment which is used to recover fuel costs and purchased energy costs from the consumer.
Waste Heat Recovery could have reduced the purchased power by approximately 1, 662,400 kWh,
resulting in a savings of about $600,000.
The cost benefit analysis estimated about $385,000 in annual savings, with an estimated
$314,000 in annual savings passed on to consumers. However, this estimate was based strictly
on fuel savings alone. The benefit passed on to consumers by purchasing less power from UniSea
could have been over $200,000 in additional savings. After the new Powerhouse is constructed,
there may be little need to purchase power, so the estimate based on fuel will be the best
assessment.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
The City of Unalaska proposes to install a Waste Heat Recovery system in the existing
Powerhouse. Because only Generators 6, 8, & 9 will remain in service after the construction of
the new Powerhouse, the Waste Heat Recovery system will be set up for these generators only.
These three units will be capable of 150 kW The installed capacity of the Waste Heat Recovery
system is 200 kW because the City plans to obtain waste heat from the new Powerhouse after it is
constructed. Completing and implementing this project will result in approximately I, 662,400
kWh per year at 95% availability. Only what is needed to be constructed in the existing
powerhouse will be part of this Waste Heat Recovery project; however, the design for the new
Powerhouse would include features to allow a seamless tie in to this Waste Heat Recovery
system. The City plans to add more waste heat recovery units as demand increases after the
completion of the new Powerhouse.
Because this system will be constructed inside the existing powerhouse, very few barriers are
anticipated. However, coordination of this project with the new Powerhouse project is essential.
The attached report includes preliminary design that is more informative of integration and
delivery.
Not Applicable
This project may require a minor modification to the existing Powerhouse permit, which should
not take more than a few months.
The system will be installed inside the existing Powerhouse. No environmental effects are
anticipated.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
·.·;r;.tJ~J~yei•otp.()st .• irifoi"Jt1afionj)rqyide<J·\f>/il.r.·vary•e~c;c.()rdjngt?.th~··ph~~~()fft.Jn9ill9.:n;qu~~tecl.an.d •.
t:~r~( p[e\/ious; \f>/(.)Ikthe applicantmaY.• have .·.dori~ op·. thE> •. project••• Applicantsmustre,ference}he
!'§9~~c~. qfJ8.eir (;()s!(jata.por· exarp pie: Applicants Recorcls. or jl.ni;JIYsis, •l.n<Justry§tandards,·
:ConsultantorManufacturer's.estimates:. · ·· ·
jl~i.i~-~<~rbJ~1toevelopm~ntCost
~(~roVic:t'E!··c:t~tailed'pr6Ject'.co~t.:infbrrriJ3ti,on .•. based•••orl···yc>t.Jr•.currE!nt•'l<:nbl'/l.~dge•.arid.•lln<Jel"st~n~.inQ •• 6f•
:I~IJepr()jec;t.:. (;ostinf?rmatip,nshoulcj inc;ll,J.dethef(.)lloy,ring: .··.·· · ·
·•••:·······••.•·~·· ·•• T9!J3lallticipateq •. proiec;t,··cost,and·,cost•·fpr•th.i~··phase····. . · ..•
{)·• • . R7Ciue,ste9J!rantfuncjing········ •.. ··.····•·••···•• i•••···•·••···••·•··; ;(.····•·•·•···.···•·•·•······• .. •::.··.··········•·•• J j•• j.· ··:Applicant .• matching·•fll.n(j§··,.-.loans,.:;capital:contribution.s,.,.in-~i!ld.:::. · ~:i· • ldentific;atiop .of otiJerfundirigsources > ····•·•• •.•.• ·.•··••· .• ·.··•··.· .. ·.·••··••·•·•····· .. ·.·. · ·
······· ··. • groj~cted c.apital costofpropqse,d reme.w~ble ~nergy system
•:: • • .• . Bro'ected develo mentcost of ro ose<J renewable ener s stem ·
Total anticipated project cost is $2,011,412.
Preliminary Design cost is $91,605, which has already paid for this through the City's general
funds
The cost for this phase of the project is $1,919,807, which is the remaining projected development
cost to complete the project, including Engineering/Design and Construction
Requested Grant funding is $1,300,000
Amount Remaining is $619,807, which the City plans to draw from its general funds.
~~-"-~ .gr()Ject ()pera$i.ng <trni M<lint~llan#e cgst~i•······•••···· . · ...... ·.··· ......... •······ ·••·· i··• .. ··•······ i > •...••. {< • ••·••• •: i··· ··1;8d.~de •• ;~nti,cipated··.08,M ·.·costs.•for .newf9,ci.lit.ies··cgnstructed ·a.nd•••howtt)ese.wquJq •;be.ft.Jnde.d.;.by·
,;in~ia@licant. ; • • < • : · · · · · · · · · · ·
· · · · • ]rqtal antidpat~d prqJeqt c;ost for thispt)ase .
:•·:•·.•• .Re uested: rantfundiri ·· · · ·· ·
Annual O&M Costs after completion of this project are $8,912.
The fuel savings will be more than adequate to cover this cost.
ll:~i4J3'i:>ow!ll"jStlrc:ilasEl/sale>•'•·········. ·
(i~b~W6w~f:J5Jr<;IJa.setsale•'irit6i-[l"l~tiollsh()uldin<;lud~·tiJ#tollqwirig:·
;;t;:w.· •. •••····.· lcl~hfifi§~t@l'l qfp6tei1tial p,())iyer puy$r(s)!Ct~~t§mer(s} <> ••.. · ..• ····•. ; 'f'ot.~n . .Ji.<~l. pqwe. r. pun:;h. as ..• elsal~s prig~ c.a.t a<m ... j.n .. im .. ·· um illcJicate <a pricerar1geL
'tC\ ~ Pro Cl:sed nateoheturnfrom rant'funded · ro'ect ·
Of approximately 35,000,000 kWh sold annually, only about 4, 000,000 kWh are residential sales.
The remaining are commercial and industrial sales. Current rates are based on $2.50 per gallon
of fuel, 13.8 kWh per gallon foe! efficiency. and about 500,000 kWh per month purchased power
from UniSea. Residential rates are set at $0.33 per kWh, with Commercial and Industrial set
somewhat lower. When fuel costs approached $4.50 per gallon, residents were charged about
$0.54 per kWh, of which $0.21 was COPA (Cost of Power Adjustment). In FY2008, the average
residential rate with COP A included was $0.40 per kWh.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 13 9/3/2008
/:bALASKA
~ ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
The attached preliminary design indicated an estimated fuel savings of approximately $401,000
per year, assuming fuel costs at $3.80 per gallon. However, using actual FY2008fuel costs, the
estimate fuel savings would be approximately $3 85, 000, which would result in about $314, 000
annual savings benefit to customers. The difference includes approximately $9,000 annual O&M
and $62,000 annual payments to reimburse the General Fund over an assumed 1 0-year payback
period. It is estimated that customers would see a $0.02 to $0.03 per kWh reduction in their rates
after completion of this project.
The proposed project costs on the attached Cost Worksheet are based on the costs provided in the
attached preliminary design. Existing conditions, such as generation, efficiency, fuel usage, and
O&M, are results taken from powerhouse operating reports and the City's operating budget.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
The City of Unalaska's Powerhouse and Electric Distribution System operate as an enterprise
fund. A rate study is completed annually for all utilities, and rates are adjusted appropriately to
ensure sustainability of all completed projects. In addition, the City's financial records are
subject to an annual independent audit.
The completed project will initially displace the purchase of approximately 125,000 gallons of
fuel per year, which equates to about $385,000, using FY2008 fuel costs. The project will
incorporate the use of waste heat from the existing powerhouse. The savings that will be passed
on to utility customers is expected to total approximately $314,000 per year, depending on fuel
costs. It is estimated that customers will initially see a $0.02 to $0.03 per kilowatt hour decrease
in COPA (Cost of Power Adjustment). After a year or two of data collection, this savings may be
reflected in future electric usage rates rather than in COPA.
The project will also include the capability of tying into waste heat from the new Powerhouse,
which will begin construction in Calendar Year 2009. With the addition of the new Powerhouse,
demand is projected to at least double within a few years. Future plans are to add more heat
recovery units as demand increases and more waste heat becomes available.
With an estimated I 25,000 gallons of potential annual fuel displacement for this project, the
savings would be approximately $385,000 per year. There will be approximately $71,000 in
annual revenue to be applied to O&M and to pay back reimbursable project funding. Consumers
should see a total annual savings of $314, 000. This savings would initially be reflected through
COPA (Cost of Power Adjustment), but may eventually be reflected in the electrical usage rates
after a year or two of data collection. It is estimated that this project may reduce rates by $0.02
to $0. 03 per kilowatt hour.
The non-economic public benefit is a reduction in pollution. Based on NOx data from FY2008,
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 13 9/3/2008
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
the 125,000 gallons annual fuel displacement equates to approximately 31 lbs of NOx per year
reduction.
The total project costs are estimate at $2,011,412. This includes $91,605 that the City has
already invested toward for preliminary design of the project. The City is requesting $1,300,000
of renewable energy funds to help with the remaining project costs. The City plans to cover the
matching costs of$619,807 through the General Fund.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 13 9/3/2008
/:SALASKA
.aE:) ENERGY AUTHORITY
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant 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 6.
D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6
E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4
Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's
governing body or management that:
authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in
the application
authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for
purposes of this application
states the applicant is in compliance with all 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 credit and federal tax obligations.
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 13 9/3/2008
City of Unalaska
COST WORKSHEET
Renewable Energy Fund
Application Cost Worksheet
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. Level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
11. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. 95% Availability
~~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~-----Unit depends on project type (e:g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
12. Existing Energy Generation
a) Basic configuration· (if system is partofthe Rail belt' grid, leave this section blank}
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 8 ----------------------------------
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 6500 ----------------------------------
iii. Generator/boilers/othertype 0 ----------------------------------
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 14 to 23 years
------~--------------------------
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other. 14 kWh/Gallon
~-=--~~~~~~~~~--~~~--
b) · Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Rail belt grid, leave this section blank) ·
i. Annual O&M cost forlabor $1.0 Million (Wages & Benefits)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $1.8 Million
. ~~-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c) Annual electricity production and fuell.lsage (fiUin as applicable) (ifsystemis part ofthe
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) · · · ·
i. Electricity [kWh] 34,160,000
ii. Fuel usage ~----~------~~~----~~~~~~~~~--~~--
Diesel [gal] _2..:.,_44_0..:.,3'-9-'-6----------------------------------------~
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii..Future trends
7,340 KW (UniSea Operating at 2,100 KW, Backup Generator at 800 KW,
and Powerhouse at 4,400 KW)
3950 KW
2,030 KW
14 kWh per Gallon
With new development and future industrial needs, the City of Unalaska
expects industrial usage to double within a few years after the construction of
the new powerhouse.
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
1 The Rail belt 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.
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 Page 1
,3.
a)
b)
,4.
a)
b)
c)
d)
is.
a)
Renewable Energy Fund
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tom;, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design
Installed capacity 200 'rWV
Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 1,662,400
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons .or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Project Cost
Total capital cost of new system $2,011,412
Development cost $2,011,412
Annual O&M cost of new system $8,912
Annual fuel cost $0
Project Benefits
Amount offuel displaced f()r
i. Electricity
ii. Heat
125,000 gallons per year (Estimate based on FY2008 actuals)
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $385,000 (Estimate based on FY2008 actuals)
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits $314,000
~--~----------------------------------
Is. Power Purchase/Sales Price
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 Page 2
/:SALASKA -=:JENERGYAUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund
a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.38/kWh Residential Rate with COPA included
based on FY2008 sales. This includes a $0.02/kWh
reduction with the proposed Waste Heat Recovery
system operating at full capacity.
17. Project Analysis
.··a) B~sii;Econcl!Tlii:Ahalysis
Proj~ctl:lenefillcost natio ·.
Payback
385,000:2,011,412
5.2 Years
RFA AEA 09R004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 Page 3
City of Unalaska
GRANT BUDGET FORM
BUDGET SUMMARY:
Milestone or Task
1. Preliminary Design
2. Design/Engineering
3. Administrative
4. Shipping
5. Construction
6. Contingency
BUDGET CATAGORIES:
Direct Labor and Benefits
Travel, Meals, or Per Diem
Equipment
Supplies
Contractual Services
Construction Services
Other Direct Costs
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES
Alaska Energy Authority-Renewable Energy Fund
BUDGET INFORMATION
local Match local Match
Federal Funds State Funds Funds (Cash) Funds (In-Kind) Other Funds
$91,605.00 $0.00
$125,000.00
$40,000.00
$35,000.00
$850,000.00
$250,000.00
Milestone# or Task#
1 2
$91,605.00 $186,617.00
$91,605.00 $186,617.00
3
$62,206.00
$62,206.00
$61,617.00
$22,206.00
$18,636.00
$394,114.00
$123,234.00
4
$53,636.00
$53,636.00
RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
5
$1,244,114.00
$1,244,114.00
TOTALS
$91,605.00
$186,617.00
$62,206.00
$53,636.00
$1,244,114.00
$373,234.00
6 TOTALS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$340,428.00
$373,234.00 $1,670,984.00
$0.00
$373,234.00 $2,011,412.00
City of Unalaska
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Consulting Engineers
City of Unalaska
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
EPS Project No. 08-0028
May 12, 2008
Prepared by:
Warren B. Taylor, PE
Electric Power Systems, Inc.
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
Summary of Changes
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4
2 Facility Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Existing Powerhouse .................................................................................................. 4
2.2 New Powerhouse ......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Assumptions Concerning New & Existing DHPP Facilities .................................... 7
3 ORC Evaluation ................................................................................................................... s
3.1 Ormat ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 United Technologies Corporation (UTC/Carrier) ...................................................... 9
3.3 Electratherm .............................................................................................................. 11
4 New Power House Integration ......................................................................................... 12
A Electrical & Mechanical Schematics & Plans ................................................................. 15
8 Engine Data ....................................................................................................................... 16
C Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................... 17
WWW.EPSINC.COM
PHONE (907) 522-1953 • 3305 ARCTIC BLVD., SUITE 201, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 • FAX (907) 522-1182
PHONE (907) 789-247 4 • 2213 JORDAN AVE, JUNEAU, ALASKA 99803 • FAX (907) 789-4939
PHONE (425) 883-2833 • 3938150 AVE. N.E., REDMOND, WASHINGTON 98052 • FAX (425) 883-8492
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
1 Summary
The City of Unalaska has requested the Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPSI) provide feasibility
design services for the installation of Organic Rankine Cycle generators at the existing Dutch
Harbor Power Plant (DHPP).
The primary focus of the report provides the following information and more:
• Coordinate project goals with Waste Heat to Energy Manufacturers to determine the
most appropriate equipment selection for the facility. Such venders include:
o Ormat
o Electratherm (ET)
o United Technologies Corp (Carrier) (UTC)
• Provide system study services to include:
o Mechanical impacts and requirements to existing and future systems
o Electrical impacts and requirements to existing and future systems
o Provide Structural analysis of the existing powerhouse to determine structural
capacity for installation of new equipment (first and second floor of the existing
powerhouse)
• Provide Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) construction cost estimation (+/-30%)
• Preliminary Design Services:
o Preliminary electrical system sketch
o Preliminary mechanical system P&ID sketch for waste heat system
o Preliminary mechanical system P&ID for sea water cooling system
• Assist in providing project specific details for the generation of the Alaska Energy
Authority Grant Funding documentation for Energy Cost Reduction Proposal Application.
2 Facility Evaluation
2. 1 Existing Powerhouse
EPS looked at each of the existing generator units at the facility to determine if the individual
heat inputs to the "system" would be viable sources to size the ORC units to be as large as
possible. However, based on future considerations and known unit conditions only three units
would be eligible for taking waste heat and converting to electricity.
Additionally, from our understanding the existing powerhouse only utilizes approximately
1 ,000,000 BTU/hr. This is the building connected load, the actual building loads may be
reduced depending on if the facility is actually operated from day to day. This constitutes
approximately 14% of the existing plant heat capacity.
5/12/2008 4 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
EPS, through facility personnel and manufacturers data, was able to determine normal
operating conditions for the following units:
• Unit 6-Caterpillar 3516
• Hours per year operation: 8471
• Typical operating load: 70% -994 kW
• Heat Rejected to Cooling Water: 3,207,300 BTU/hr
• Unit 8-Caterpillar 3516
• Hours per year operation: 8499
• Typical operating load: 70% -826 kW
• Heat Rejected to Cooling Water: 2,059,740 BTU/hr
• Unit 9-Caterpillar 3512
• Hours per year operation: 8656
• Typical operating load: 70%-861 kW
• Heat Rejected to Jacket Water: 2,037,420 BTU/hr
• Total plant operating heat capacity: 7,304,518 BTU/hr
• Total plant heat capacity for ORC: 6,304,518 BTU/hr
• Recommended plant operating Temperatures:
• Jacket water (hot): 200 degres F
• Jacket water (cold): 180 degrees For as recommended by engine manufacturer
• Waste heat System operating:
• To ORC: 200 degrees F
• Building Heat: 180 Degrees F
Existing Units Modifications
From the information that EPS has it appears that Units 8 and 9 are not currently connected to
the existing waste heat collection system. Both units will require supply & return waste heat
piping.
Unit 8, from EPS's information, does not appear to have an amot type control valve to protect
the engine from over cooling. With recovering of waste heat from the engine, EPS would
recommend, and has included in its cost estimate the cost for the installation of an amot
temperature control valve for Unit 8.
Unit 6, and the remaining diesel generators are manifolded to a combined cooling system to the
sea water heat exchanger. There appears to be two valves which we can be utilized to connect
Unit 6, and the remaining units to the provided ORC. EPS is not providing a circulating pump as
we believe that there are enough valves within the system that could be throttled to direct flow to
5/12/2008 5 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
the waste heat exchanger. Additionally, we are trying to maximize recovered waste heat to
energy, so installation of a pump would add a potentially unnecessary parasitic load.
Existing Building Structural (Second Floor)
Due to space limitation in the powerhouse the proposed location for the installation of ORC units
is on the second floor of the powerhouse adjacent to generator Units 8 and 9.
Original construction drawings indicating the design specifics for the existing powerhouse
cannot be located at this time. This issue makes for the exact determination of the structural
load capacities of the second floor of the existing powerhouse difficult to determine. To truly
determine the exact load limits on the second floor would require a scan of the floor to locate
exact rebar spacing, rebar size, and layers, and exact thickness of the floor.
However, EPS was able to determine, that without a detailed investigation, the second floor
area is limited to 100 pounds per square foot. This load distribution limitation equates to an
estimated 87,500 lb load capacity in the proposed building area for the installation of the ORC
unit(s).
From the information gathered, it appears that the UTC PureCycle would be the heaviest single
piece of equipment installed. Dry, it weighs 29,000, wet, it is estimated to weigh 40,000 pounds.
As long as this load is adequately distributed over the floor there should be no issue with its
installation.
EPS would recommend that at the time of the detailed design the exact floor properties be
determined. This will assist the design team in determine the location of in-floor rebar that
should not be "broken" as a result of anchoring provided equipment and will determine the exact
floor capacity for future considerations of various pieces of equipment.
Electrical Integration of either ORC Unit(s)
The electrical modifications for the ORC units are rather limited in scope as they do not require
many modifications to the existing facilities.
The UTC Purecycle 280 is only rated at 480V. This limits the tie-in locations for the unit in the
existing powerhouse. However, from our understanding of the current and future operation of
the facility we are recommending that Unit 2, which generates at 480V, be removed from
service for the installation of the ORC units. Unit 2 is the best choice for replacement for
several reasons:
• Units 1 & 2 are the least fuel efficient units in the facility
• Units 1 & 2, at 300 kW, are the smallest power producers in the facility
• From conversations with facility personnel they are also the most problematic to operate.
EPS originally looked at Unit 1 for removal, however, its electrical configuration prohibits its
removal as it currently serves as the facilities' blackstart generator. The next logical choice is
Unit 2. After the installation of the new powerhouse, Unit 2 would be the next most likely
candidate for removal and its breaker utilized for additional ORC units. Warren -I'm not sure
that this makes sense, since after the new powerhouse is installed, either unit 1 or unit 2 could
be removed from service as the powerhouse will have its own blackstart unit.
The basis of selection however will no longer be valid as the new powerhouse will provide future
blackstart capabilities.
5/12/2008 6 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
The existing generator breaker is capable of servicing unit(s) up to approximately 400 kW
operating at 480V.
The ET ORC unit, because of its various options, can be custom ordered to generate at various
different voltage ratings. For comparison sake between the units EPS assumed that the ET unit
would also generate at 480V.
2.2 New Powerhouse
We looked at both the new Wartsila generators as likely candidates for conversion of waste heat
to electricity.
The new powerhouse requires approximately 700,000 BTU/hr of waste heat for building heating
purposes. When the Wartsila generators are in operation, to our understanding it is unlikely that
the existing powerhouse will be in operation. As a result the Wartsila units will supply heat to
the new and existing building. The total load for both buildings at worst case is 1, 700,000
BTU/hr. Again, this is the total connected load. This constitutes approximately 34% of one
Wartsila operating, or 17% of both Wartsila's in operation.
Based on manufacturer's data the normal operating conditions for the new units are estimated
as follows:
• Units 10 & 11 -Wartsila 12V32
• Hours per year operation: 4000 hrs (estimated each unit per year)
• Typical operating load: 70% -3.5 MW
• Heat Rejected to Jacket water: 5,000,000 BTU/hr
• Total plant operating heat capacity: 3,500,000 BTU/hr
• Total plant heat capacity for ORC: 1,800,000 BTU/hr
• Recommended plant operating Temperatures:
• Jacket water (hot): 198 degrees F
• Jacket water (cold): 180 degrees For as recommended by engine manufacturer
• Waste heat System operating:
• To ORC: 195 Degrees F (with system modifications)
• Building Heat: 180 Degrees F
2.3 Assumptions Concerning New & Existing DHPP Facilities
The following assumptions where taken into account for this feasibility study:
5/12/2008 7 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
o Exhaust stack gas boilers where considered for each of the ORC applications discussed
in this report. However, exhaust stack boilers were not included in the ORC estimates
due to increased maintenance with the stack boiler (mainly due to reduced operator and
maintenance personnel at the facility according to our current knowledge of the facility)
and some of the inherent issues with sulfuric acid eroding through the exhaust stack wall
when/if the boiler controls fail and cause condensation within the exhaust stack.
Please note that exhaust gas stack boilers would provide additional heat (energy) for
use with building or the ORC (waste heat to energy units) and improved heat quality
(temperature). In general an exhaust gas stack boiler could potentially add 50% more
energy available for energy recovery.
o We are also aware that the new powerhouse is designed for additional units which would
further reduce the need to operate the existing units and decrease the justification of any
exhaust gas boliers on these facilities.
o We have not considered additional heat available from the installation any units in the
second bay of the new powerhouse as their performance characteristics are not
available.
o We did not include exhaust stack information for the new powerhouse as it would require
a major re-design of the pre-engineered metal building, foundations, and mechanical
systems.
o It should be noted that only two units in in the existing powerhouse may remain in
operation for some time following the completion of the powerhouse. However, just after
completion and startup of the new powerhouse it is anticipated the remaining units, not
listed within the report will be decommissioned shortly afterwards due to unit age and
condition. Heat available from these units, is not considered in any great detail.
o The ORC units are sized based on each unit's continuous capacity at 70% load. This
will fall in line with typical operations at the facility. Additionally, the number of units in
operation is also considered for this study.
o The ORC's have also been sized for the maximum amount of heat available at the units
70% load capacity. The existing and new building heating loads will vary based on
season. For this study we do not believe that a small reduction is an issue under certain
operating and environmental conditions. Especially since actual and future plant
operations from day to day cannot be accounted for.
3 ORC Evaluation
Generator after cooler/intercooler cooling loops temperatures are too far below the minimum
temperature required for typical ORC units. As a result, is the ORC units are excluded the
engine after cooler/intercoolers at this time. However, this decision only affects total heat
capacity available from the existing Unit 9 and the low temperature cooling water for the
Wartsila's Units 10 and 11.
The ORC venders were sent information on all the units located at the Dutch Harbor
powerhouse. UTC and ET both were the most interested in the collection of waste heat from
the following units: existing units 6, 8, 9, and the two new Wartsila's Units 10 and 11.
5/12/2008 8 of 17
3.1 Ormat
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
Even though we have contacted Ormat, they indicated that they are not that keen about this
project. They have specialized in the recovery of waste heat from high temperature (1000
degrees F+) turbine exhaust systems, such as found at larger cogeneration power plants and
pump/compressor pipeline stations. However, they did provide information concerning their
system(s).
From the information gathered, we do not recommend the Ormat ORC units be pursued further.
3.2 United Technologies Corporation (UTC!Carrier)
UTC appears to be the most aggressive manufacturer of this technology and has supplied a great deal of
information for the evaluation of the Unalaska Power house.
Based on the Chena Powerhouse documentation, the UTC PureCycle unit appears to be a
good match for the Unalaska powerhouse. The PureCycle 280 is the only unit currently in
production. The 280 will produce 225 to 250 kW when operating at full capacity.. This unit is
nearly identical to the units provided for the Chena Powerhouse, except the unit efficiencies
have been improved since the Chena Plant project. Because of this we were able to utilize
many of the parameters indicated in the YourOwnPower website in looking at the feasibility for
the Unalaska powerhouse. It appears that the existing powerhouse could support the use of two
UTC 280 units to produce nearly 400 and 500 kW. However, there are a few limitations with the
existing powerhouse systems, the powerhouse building, and the PureCycle 280 unit once
detailed unit information from the manufacturer is reviewed.
UTC does not currently recommend nor allow sea water to be run through their standard unit.
UTC would rather supply off the shelf units, however, they could provide a unit with titanium and
epoxy coated sea water heat exchanger which would increase unit cost by approximately 50%
and double the lead time for the unit from 12 to 16 weeks to approximately 30 weeks or more.
EPS and UTC did come up with a couple of ways to get around this issue:
• Sea water heat exchanger "buffer"-in this method a sea water to water heat exchanger,
pump, controls, and instrumentation would be provided. Sea water on the tube side of a
heat exchanger and either shell and tube or plate and frame would be used to cool a
clean cooling water solution. The cooling water would be a water or glycol mix. This
heat exchanger would be located on the second floor, next to the ORC unit.
We did develop a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for this option. We do not
recommend this solution due to the added expense in materials, shipping, installation
costs, and labor.
5/12/2008 9 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
• Air cooled Radiator -another method would be to install an air cooled radiator. The
ORC cooling water and a glycol solution would be routed to an exterior building location
and a radiator installed.
Because of exterior space limitations and the increased cold side temperature this
solution is not recommend and nor investigated further.
The PureCycle unit requires a minimum hot side supply temperature of 200 degrees F. The
jacket water temperatures for the existing units can be adjusted slightly to ensure that the
supplied ORC waste heat temperature from the glycol system is above the minimum unit
requirements. However, the facility (existing and future) heat capacities, depending on actual
operating philosophies, will only support one unit at a reduced load capability. The PureCycle
280 requires 8,000,000 BTU/hr to operate at its maximum output. According to correspondence
with UTC, approximately 180 kW maximum can be expected out of the ORC Unit for the
existing powerhouse.
In one of our many conversations with UTC, and as illustrated in the YourOwnPower website,
lower temperature required units can be procured. However, these units are completely custom
and not an "off the shelf' design. UTC looks at these type units on an application by application
basis. Unfortunately, at this time, UTC is not able to provide further assistance for a custom unit
at this time do to other commitments which are scheduled at least one year out.
Recommendations for the UTC PureCycle:
Installation -Install one UTC PureCycle 280 unit with the optional titanium heat exchanger and
materials with the special epoxy coatings as provided by UTC. This will allow for a simpler
system design and installation cost overall.
Maintenance & Operations -By providing the unit with the titanium heat exchanger, parasitic
loads on the system would also be reduced which will ensure that the supplied ORC operates at
its peak performance. This is due to having fewer continuous duty pumps, less pipe fouling
over time from continuous system operation, and fewer required system controls. Per UTC they
have found that the normal maintenance cost for these units to be 1 cent per kW/hr in the
continental United States. However, they indicated that maintenance and operating cost for the
unit in Alaska is expected to be 1.5 cents per kW/hr. This cost would include periodic inspection
of the unit (lubrications, seals, performance) and cleaning of the units' sea water heat
exchanger.
Estimated Yearly operation & maintenance cost: $22.443.75 per year. (180 kW@ 95%
availability for a given year)
UTC indicated their units have a 20 year life expectancy. However, The UTC PureCycle unit
has been developed using industry standard HVAC components by Carrier. Carrier HVAC has
been around for decades. Some of their HVAC system have been around for 30 years with no
major malfunctionsWe believe that this longevity will be passed to their ORC's from its HVAC
heritage. For planning purposes a 20 year life expectancy should be used, although the unit
may be viable for 30 years with proper maintenance.
5/12/2008 10 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
Materials Shipping cost -the shipping cost for materials would also be reduced with fewer
pumps, heat exchangers, structural steel for pipe supports, and a lighter overall UTC package
because of the titanium heat exchanger.
Estimated Construction Cost: $2,225,829
Estimated Fuel Savings (Yearly operation of ORC accounted for):
Fuel Price: $3.80
kW output: 180
Hours of Operation: 8312 (based on 95% availability)
Est. Annual Fuel Cost Savings: $311,978 per year. (Depending on system load)
3.3 Electratherm
It appears that the Electratherm (ET) units are vastly more configurable/customizable than any
other ORC vender information to date. ET, through their website and communication with the
ET representative, has several standard models which fit a variety of applications and unit (heat
source) sizes.
From correspondence with the ET technical representatives for Units 6, 8, and 9 it appears that
at a minimum the following could be recovered from each of the indicated units:
• Generator cooling water only: approximately 60 kW per unit
• Generator exhaust via exhaust stack boiler: 68 kW per unit*
• Generator cooling water w/ exhaust stack boiler: 112 kW per unit*
*Exhaust gas stack information is provided for reference only. We had provided this data to ET
for information only. Since information as to the potential energy which could be recovered from
each unit utilizing the exhaust gas energy was provided by ET, hawse have also presented it
within the report.
For the new Wartsila units located in the new plant it appears they will be able to extract a
maximum of 100 kW from each unit based on the recovery of jacket water waste heat only.
Unfortunately, we have not yet received the required cooling water flow rate information for their
units. hawse have all of the jacket water sizing information necessary, but without the
condensing (cold) water side information the above numbers are approximate. This caution is
because the cooling water flow rate or load may be high enough that it would adversely affect
the sea water cooling system which could reduce the feasibility of the unit installation.
Electratherm is willing to customize any of its units to meet the needs of the facility. For this
reason information concerning the "base" units has been provided. Customization of the units
to optimize the recovery would cause the price to adjust accordingly. Titanium or cupro-nickle
heat exchangers are options for use with the sea water cooling system. As a result no special
considerations in regards to a sea water buffer system or radiator cooling is required.
5/12/2008 11 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
Recommendation for the Electratherm Unit:
Installation -Install two 100 kW ET units recovering jacket water heat only and provided with a
titanium or cupro-nickle heat exchanger for use with sea water cooling. One unit each located
on generators 6, 8, and 9. The three units indicated would not be able to supply enough heat to
operate both ET units at full capacity but slightly under at approximately 150 kW. Weare
recommending· this in consideration of the future tie-in of the waste heat system from the new
plant from the Wartsila generators as indicated below.
Maintenance & Operation -The ET ORC has three moving parts which require maintenance.
In general, ET recommends that turbine drive belt, even thought it is rated for over 20,000 hours
of operation, to be changed yearly. The cost of the drive belt is $300. ET has determined that
each unit would require .5 cents per kW-hr for maintenance over a one year period. This cost
would include periodic inspection of the unit (lubrications, seals, performance) and cleaning of
the units' sea water heat exchanger and replacement of the drive belt.
Estimated Yearly operation & maintenance cost: $8,912.50 (200kW@ 95% availability for a
given year)
ET is a new company/manufacturer and unfortunately does not have years of previous ORC
experience to be able to adequately predict the longevity of their units. But, from a design
perspective, their unit has 3 moving parts. Based on this fact alone, we would anticipate that
the unit should have well over a 20 year life expectancy.
Estimated Construction cost for the Units: $2,073,848
Estimated Fuel Savings (Yearly operation of ORC accounted for):
Fuel Price: $3.80
kW output: 200 (Based on waste heat recovery from Wartsila's)
Hours of Operation: 8312 (based on 95% availability)
Est. Annual Fuel Cost Savings: $401 ,415.85 per year (Depending on system loads)
4 New Power House Integration
We recommend that any modifications to the new powerhouse or its ancillaries be made after
the first complete year of operation This one year lag will allow testing and proving of the system
components as designed in its original form. After testing and tuning of the system, We
recommend the integration of the waste heat recovery of the new units with the existing
powerhouse waste heat system, specifically in regards to the ORC units.
The new Wartsila generators will be capable of producing approximately 5,000,000 to
10,000,000 BTU/hr available for conversation to electricity through the ORC generators. There
are a few issues that must be considered with the new Wartsila Units and the current
powerhouse design:
5/12/2008 12 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
• The waste heat system, as designed, will only provide a maximum of 180 degrees F
water temperature. This temperature is too low for the UTC or the ET ORC to operate
adequately according to the manufacturers.
Modifications to the system flow rates can be implemented such that the waste heat
peak temperature could be raised to 195 degrees F. This would supply the minimum
temperature requirements for either ORC unit. This modification could be implemented
in the powerhouse redesign efforts, currently underway, or at a later date.
• A waste heat/building heat line is to be provided between the existing building and the
new powerhouse to provide heat to the existing building for building heating loads only
when the existing units are not in operation. Unfortunately, this line is only capable of
transporting approximately 1 ,375,320 BTU/hr (building heating only). These lines would
need to be increased to transport building heat and excess waste heat which could be
utilized for the ORC's from the Wartsila generators.
Since the new powerhouse has not yet been constructed, modification to the
powerhouse design can be implemented now to increase the waste heat transfer system
between the two facilities. EPS would recommend changing the transfer pipe size from
4" to 8" minimum, providing a larger capacity VFD compatible pump, and VFD controls
to adjust waste heat delivery rates based on system temperatures and loads. Additional
modification to the new powerhouse piping design would also be required. However, the
modification would be minor.
Tie into the ORC's would take place on the second floor of the existing plant. This is the
most convenient location as the waste heat transfer pipes come into the existing plant
through a soon to be abandoned doorway on the second floor to an area just over the
sea water cooling room.
• As part of the detailed design for the ORC's a revision to the facility sea water cooling
permit would be required.
Additionally, as part of the sea water cooling system, careful consideration will be
required in the design of the sea cooling system. As designed the facility discharge
temperature is estimated at 65 degrees F. Preliminary data from the ORC venders
indicated a sea water temperature increase of 20 degrees. (No sea water temperature
restriction was provided to the ORC venders. This detail would be clarified in the
detailed design).
Something to consider is that as waste heat is converted to electricity the amount of
waste heat/cooling water which requires cooling will be reduced. When the ORC's are
operating at their peak output , the sea water discharge temperature could decrease.
One or two motor operated valves to control sea water flow to the heat exchangers and
the bypass around the heat exchangers will be required. This is only a preliminary look
at the system, during the detailed design; this strategy would have to be verified.
Once the waste heat transfer and fluid heat qualities are improved and the plant has been in
operation long enough to provide a level of operating comfort the Wartsila units would be tied
5/12/2008 13 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
into the provided ORC units. The ORC units should be tied together into a manifold such that
waste heat from either the new plant or the existing plant could be selected.
As outlined in the air permit for the new powerplant, once the Wartsilas have a proven stability,
operation of the existing powerhouse would be restricted to peak shaving and the Wartsila's
would provide the backbone of the system as the base loaded machines.
The ORC operate best at steady state conditions and is not suited for operation on a peak-
shaving or back-up unit. This would best be provided by the Wartsila units as the base loaded
machines.
5/12/2008 14 of 17
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
A Electrical & Mechanical Schematics & Plans
5/12/2008 15 of 17
~
,If •• u:~Jof
1180kW
"
-~
~
u:,IJof
1230kW
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ _j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I STATION I SERVICE
I
I
I
I
I
~OOA
I -
~
1::::.. 480/4160 v
2500 kVA 6
SOOAFI ·~· I"'A~SOOAFI ·;~ I"'OA'I ·~·I
NEW WASTE HEAT
RE.COVERY UNIT
480V {200 TO 400 KW)
UNIT F s~~w u~r
830kW
TO 4160V LOADS
~ ~
u;i~~r u:,IJof
1440kW
~
ur,'Jof'
1180kW
-,
~
UNIT r f~W
~PLANT __ ~ _____________ _j
NEW ONE-IJNE DIAGRAM
NO. I DRAWING NO./SHEET REFERENCE DRAW!NG/DETAIL/PLAN/S£CTION DESCRIPTION
:::11
cl ~ Tc ,,,
--'--1---d :OOl ONilOO:J (13lVM 1"-lf----.-.----:11~
Cl ~ T c "'
dOOl or-mooo oo/ov l'o...lf-------
1'-11
CIT ® :-·•
I 1""-lf--
I ~
,---A--,
I --I I I'*-If-
1'-1
=]_j
@
I @
-(_ ~
: r:~ :1
1 I T
I '-I
IED¢1
: 'z ~ L_~ ~~
Z -<::,1 1~ I I 1 l 1"1",
ifJ Hl'-1 ---I I
1".11-
z z
--.... ·I
1, I
I I
l 1 I --I
'j'
"I
I
I
I
,1,
{_
~--±~JHHI'-1 ___ l _ _j
I I
:::',' 1--_: ~ f--------;1'-II-[------11, lf-.--
{11'-IJ--~ ~ 1"-l~f--L
lr'••, I 1'-...11-
11'-11---~---1"'-11--
~
V>
" z
5
8
"' ,,,
1
~ll--~~~ -~ I ~ u :::J.M·o m ffio
L_______S~L______
~· il
II> II I
D FLOOR PLAN
D
0
J r~· " U____
'c _____ _j
NO. \ DRAWING NO./SHEET
NOTES:
IT> ADDITIONAL LOCATION FOR ORC UNIT (Ef 100 kW)
AFTER REMOVAL OF ffi
ffi DiESEL GENERATOR NO. 1 -CATERPillAR 0393
ffi DIESEL GENERTAOR NO. 2 -CATERPILLAR 0393
ffi DIESEL GENERATOR NO. 3 -CATERPILlAR 0398
ffi DIESEL GENERTAOR NO. 4 -CATERPILLAR 3512
ffi DIESEL GENERATOR NO. 5 -CATERPillAR 3512
ffi DIESEL GENERTAOR NO. 6-CATERPILLAR 3516
[I> SEA WATER DISCKIIRGE PIT
[I> SEA WATER SUCTION PUMP SUCTION PIT
[I> EXISTING SEA WATER f-IEAT EXCHANGERS
[[)-FUTIJRE LOCATION OF SEA WATER HEAT
EXCHANGERS FOR WARTSILA GENERATORS
~
REFERENCE DRAWING/DETAIL/PLAN/SECTION DESCRIPTION
D
oO
0
)R PLAN
NO. I DRAWING NO./SHEET
NOTES:
IT> UTC PURECYCL£ 280 MANUFACTURER'S FOOT
PRINT. ET 100 kW UNIT WOULD MOST LIKELY
OCCUPY A SIMILAR. BUT SMALLER SPACE.
(APPROXIMATELY HALF THE SIZE (AND WEIGHT) OF
THE PURECYCLE 280 UNIT)
[}> IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT A CUSTOM SKID CQUL[) BE
REQUIRED TO MEET THE 100 LB/F1'2 SECOND
FLOOR LOAD LIMIT.
(I> AN EXISTING t.W1 DOOR IS LOCATED HERE. IT IS
SCHEDULED TO BE ABANDONED AND UTILIZED PS
A PIPING CHASE FOR VARIOUS MECHANICAL
TRANSFER PIPES. ffi DIESEL GENERATOR NO. 8 -CATERPILLAR 3516
ffi DIESEL GENERTAOR NO. 9 -CATERPILlAR 35128
~
REFERENCE DRAWING/DETAIL/PLAN/SECTION DESCRIPTION
I j I ~· ~,~::=L I I 1 1 l'e~S~(") rdo • ~MLI '. z I I I I I l'"p~(")
I I I I "'
1
1'-lf--_ _ I 3"X2" E9
l'<_lf---,. ,. ~l><lc-Q--< -1/
--W-....11--- _ 3"X2" ll----1 00 --D---1 /HE\1 C«JI--- ------j ~ BUILDING I HEAT
I I
1 z z
-----------------------------------------1'-11~--.. --------r---------,--
~ ~ .. ' \ ®J
A NEW AMOT w ~1--
;:)
WILLBE
REQUIRED TO !/If-f-
PROTECT ENGINE
F~~~L?:gR /HEX\ " •
I
I I I I I
,?:, ~~ \\ .. 11
". f "" II T T T Ll I I -L I 12" _l_j ~r~ ~U L_,::--L ·:~ j r--+ j -•" -:_ ~~"' TT~ 16 1-. -. 1 J (M~V~ I I I - -6 I 6 I 6" T T T T
~
-
I I
I I
1 1 -+
I - 1
"'
I 6" I 6"
T T
1 ''-1~ I RR
I I "" ~
' 1'-1~ I I ~
I 1'-1 '\:J
~J
I I
1 !
I
_j!
I
-I
I
I T
11"-11}
11,11
TO/FROM ORC
COLLECTlON HEADER
Powerhouse W<;~ste He<~t to Energy Project
Fin<~l Report
B Engine Data
5/12/2008 16 of 17
GENERATOR 6-3516
Jacket Oil After Exhaust Exhaust Gas
Water Cooler Cooler to 35o•F Flow Rate
(BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM)
%Load
100 58235 12909 13080 64775 15051.1
98 56950 12568 12341 63103 14767.2
90 51808 11544 10123 56415 13631.5
83 47483 10521 8019 50762 12550.4
75 42539 9611 6028 44472 11314.8
68 38558 8701 4208 39729 10340.8
60 34008 7848 2673 35089 9227.7
53 30412 6938 1251 31785 8460.6
45 26302 6142 171 28094 7583.8
38 22706 5289 0 24795 6816.7
30 18596 4436 0 20701 5939.9
23 14881 3583 0 16799 5188.5
20 13649 3285 0 15127 4866.4
15 11175 2787 0 12312 4329.6
10 8701 2178 0 9497 3792.8
8 8701 1934 0 9497 3792.8
* Jacket Oil After Exhaust Gas
Water Cooler Cooler Exhaust Flow Rate
%Load (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM)
39822.35 9021.9 4610.98 42317.06 10676.68
* Values 1nd1cated are calculated based on trend lme mformat1on
Notes:
Assume unit is operating at 70 percent load continuously.
Unit utilizes a combined cycle cooling system.
Total Heat from Unit: 84224 BTU/min
5,053,440 BTU/hr
Oper. Heat From Unit: 53455.23 BTU/min
3,207,314 BTU/hr
Cooling Water Loop
Engine Load 100
JW Inlet Temp
JW Outlet Temp
Heat Rate
Liquid Cons!.
!Flow Rate:
84,224 BTU/min @ 100% load
8 BTU/gai*•F
450.0 gpm I
Exhaust Stack
Tern perature
(oF)
984.4
976.9
946.8
925.2
902.1
890.0
876.2
870.0
859.2
843.6
813.9
767.6
747.7
699.0
650.3
Exhaust Stack
Temperature
("F)
893.55
GENERATOR 9-3512B
Jacket Oil After Exhaust Exhaust Gas Exhaust Stack
Water Cooler Cooler to 350°F Flow Rate Temperature
(BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM) (oF)
%Load
100 33383 11772 26956 44757 12180 854.2
90 30880 10578 23374 38899 11134.7 818.1
80 28321 9440 19848 32188 9891.6 771.6
75 27013 8815 18141 29004 9277.2 748.8
70 25705 8246 16435 26103 8683.9 729.1
60 23089 7109 13194 21269 7557.3 696.4
50 20416 6028 10123 17345 6505 671.7
40 17800 4948 7507 14786 5625.6 664.7
30 15127 3981 5289 12398 4795.7 658.9
25 13706 3469 4265 11260 4396.7 656.1
20 12341 3014 3412 9782 4004.7 639.7
10 9497 2104 2047 5914 3231.3 553.5
* Jacket Oil After Exhaust Exhaust Gas Exhaust Stack
Water Cooler Cooler to 350°F Flow Rate Temperature
%Load (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM) (oF)
>'I 25725.26 8232.27 16248.2 26776.45 8677.32 724.476
*Values indicated are calculated based on trend line information
Notes:
Assume unit will operate at 70 percent continuously.
Unit is currently out of service due to thrown crank counterweight. 4/16/08
Unit utilizes a combined cycle cooling system.
Total jacket water/oil cooler heat out: 45155 BTU/min
2,709,300 BTU/hr
Total Aftercooler heat out: 26956 BTU/min
1,617,360 BTU/hr
Oper. jacket water/oil cooler heat out: 33957.53 BTU/min
2,037,452 BTU/hr
System Jacket Water Loop:
Engine Load 1 00
JW Inlet Temp oF
JW Outlet Temp oF
Heat Rate 45,155 BTU/min @ 100% load
Liquid Cons!. 7.3 BTU/gal*oF
I Flow Rate: 350.0 gpm
GENERATOR 8 • 3516
Jacket Oil After Exhaust Exhaust Gas
Water Cooler Cooler to 350°F Flow Rate
(BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM)
%Load
100 34691 8758 10236 32245 9181.8
99 34333 8644 9895 31864 9101.3
92 31825 8019 8360 29197 8537.6
90 31108 7856 7937 28435 8376.6
85 29345 7450 6881 26843 7974.1
80 27582 7003 5865 25250 7571.5
78 26900 6824 5459 24659 7410.5
75 25876 6581 4923 23772 7168.9
71 24511 6256 4208 22543 6846.8
70 24170 6185 4059 22236 6766.3
63 21821 5687 3014 20206 6202.7
60 20814 5443 2600 19336 5961.1
56 19518 5118 2047 17903 5637.6
50 17573 4631 1414 15753 5152.4
49 17260 4550 1308 15389 5072.9
42 15071 3981 739 12841 4516.7
40 14445 3818 642 12113 4357.8
35 12255 3412 398 10350 3953.5
30 11317 3006 317 8587 3549.1
28 10703 2843 284 7927 3412.1
25 9782 2600 308 6938 3206.6
21 8553 2275 341 5664 2955.2
20 8246 2267 349 5346 2892.3
14 6438 2218 398 3572 2551.1
10 5232 2218 398 2389 2323.7
• Jacket Oil After Exhaust Exhaust Gas
Water Cooler Cooler to 350°F Flow Rate
%Load (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (CFM)
•
l >'>I 24165.43 6151.2 4012.57 22198.1 6728.03
Values indicated are calculated based on trend line 1nformat1on
Notes:
Assume unit is operating at 70 percent load continuously.
Unit utilizes a combined cycle cooling system.
Total Heat from Unit: 53685 BTU/min
3,221,100 BTU/hr
Oper. Heat from Unit: 34329.2 BTU/min
2,059,752 BTU/hr
Cooling Water Loop:
Engine Load 1 00
JW Inlet
JWOutlet
Liquid Cons!.
!Flow Rate:
BTU/min
7.3 BTU/gai*"F
450.0 gpm
OF
OF
@ 100% load
Exhaust Stack
Temperature
(oF)
816.8
814.6
799.0
794.5
789.7
784.9
783.1
780.4
776.8
775.9
769.7
767.1
754.7
736.2
731.7
700.4
691.5
661.8
632.1
617.1
594.7
560.9
552.4
493.1
453.6
Exhaust Stack
Temperature
(oF)
778.12
Wartsila -12V32
%Load
50
75
85
100
%Load
Jacket Oil After
Water Cooler Cooler Exhaust
(BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min)
27,567 26,833 16,279
59,767 33,200 24,988
72,617 34,283 28,631
92,467 36,167 34,095
Jacket Oil After
Water Cooler Cooler Exhaust
(BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min) (BTU/min)
53214.01 31979.63 23234.71 -
Notes:
There are two identical units to be installed.
Assume one unit is not in operation.
Exhaust Gas
Flow Rate
(CFM)
22,660
32,915
36,578
42,128
Exhaust Gas
Flow Rate
(CFM)
30884.12
Assume unit will operate at 70 to 80 percent continuously.
Exhaust Gas Flo~o~
@STDP/T
(CFM)
10,241
15,362
17,127
19,597
Exhaust Manifold
Temperature
(F)
14393.71
Unit Jacket water temperature is normally at 197 degrees F, return is 180
Unit Intercooler loop (to radiators) is normally 165 degrees F, return is 95
Reduction of exhaust temperature limited to just over 350 degrees F.
Flow rate on either the jacket water and intercooler is 440 gpm.
Exhaust Stack
Temperature
(•F)
698
662
658
666
Exhaust Stack
Temperature
(oF)
666.035
Powerhouse Waste Heat to Energy Project
Final Report
C Cost Estimate
5/12/2008 17 of 17
City of Unalaska Materials Labor Cost Estimate 5/12/2008
Com. Labor
Shipping
Descrie.tioin Quantity Tyf"' Cost (H~
1erm ORC Installation -Mechanical/Structural
1 Electratherm (100kW each,at 100 lbs per kW) ''· "·m· 577,500.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 584,700.00
2 4" piping (CS ASTM A53, std sch) ft 90.00 $ 12,736.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 48,736.00
3 4" flexible connector {TeguftexW/Vanstone Flanges) Jacket Water 90.00 $ 2,026.68 $ 540.00 $ 2,566.68
4 4" ANSI class 150 RF WN Flange 90.00 $ 1,110.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 9,210.00
5 4" Bolt & Gasket set "· 90.00 $ 280.05 $ 1,350.00 $ 1,630.05
6 4" 90 Deg Ell (CS, butt weld, std sch, long radius) 90.00 $ 1,020.00 $ 12,240.00 $ 13,260.00
7 4" butterfly valve (lugged, end service, ANSI150, Buna N) 90.00 $ 1,802.40 $ 1,080.00 $ 2,882.40
8 Glycol: Ethylene {Straight) 90.00 $ 2,492.60 $ 360.00 $ 2,852.60
9 Grout 90.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,160.00 $ 3,160.00
10 6"x4" Tee (CS, butt weld, sld sch) 90.00 $ 720.00 $ 4,320.00 $ 5,040.00
11 Pipe Support 90.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 28,500.00
12 6" AMOT Control Valve 90.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 540.00 $ 8,540.00
13 6" piping (CS ASTM A53, std sch) 90.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 5,550.00
14 6" ANSI class 150 RF WN Flange 90.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 6,700.00
15 6" Bolt & Gasket set (CS) 90.00 $ 132.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 1,212.00
16 6" 90 Deg Ell (CS, bull weld, sld sch, long radius) 90.00 $ 540.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 4,140.00
17 6" butterfly valve (lugged, end service, ANSI150, Buna N) 90.00 $ 660.00 $ 405.00 $ 1,065.00
18 6" HOPE Pipe 90.00 $ 1,702.50 $ 11,250.00 $ 12,952.50
19 6" HOPE 90 Deg Ell 90.00 $ 789.20 $ 5,400.00 $ 6,189.20
20 6" HOPE Flange 90.00 $ 2,044.16 $ 2,880.00 $ 4,924.16
21 6" HOPE Butterfly Valve. "· 90.00 $ 6,744.00 $ 1,440.00 $ 8,184.00
22 6" Bolt & G<!sket set {HOPE) "· 90.00 $ 200.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,100.00
23 Airfare 90.00 $ 13,200.00 $ $ 13,200.00
24 insulation 90.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 17,400.00
25 8" HOPE Pipe 90.00 $ 2,058.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 11,058.00
26 8" HOPE 90 Deg Ell 90.00 $ 1,074.80 $ 5,400.00 $ 6,474.80
27 8" HOPE Flange "· 90.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 2,250.00
28 8" HOPE Butterfly Valve "· 90.00 $ 3,372.00 $ 720.00 $ 4,092.00
29 8" Bolt & Gasket set (HOPE) "· 90.00 $ 150.00 $ 450.00 $ 600.00
30 Consumables lot 90.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 11,800.00
31 Crane 90.00 $ 8,000.00 $ $ 8,000.00
32 Camp Days (4 man crew, 10 hours per day) 90.00 $ 38,693.16 $ $ 38,693.16
$ 730,097.55 $ 146,565.00 $ 876,662.55
18% $ 131,417.56
10% $ 73,009.76
Total: $ 934,
1enn ORC Installation -Electrical
1 Power cable, 350 MCM cu. XHHW-2, 3 conductorw/ground, Corrugatl~~~tf~tt. ~~ .. ~~~~·~61§1!:4JQ'q~ $ 6,000.00 $ 30,400.00 $ 36,400,00
2 Cable Tray System (includes support system and tray) •. ea. rs~,<'MEttr:~~~ $ 304.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,728.00 $ 12,728.00
3 Core Drilling Through Floor and Wall ~-"' <;::~ra. r'•"'"" &I& m1! $ 304.00 $
$ 1,216.00 $ 1,216.00
4 Terminating Cable Ends _i(&Ji;~~~'s~ea. ,-$:%~' _;'0 -.--' ~it-~;l-$ 304.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,824.00 $ 2,124.00
5 Conduit Systerii {bushings, seal-tile, floor/wall sleeves, fire stopping, etJ~j{~i~iea. ~!~,dO~~~·\~ $ 304.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 7,296.00 $ 9,296.00
6 Grounding (bonding jumpers, ground grid connections) ~!i""~ra. ,i$'*'0(~P:RJ'8~9121 $ 304.00 $ 150.00 $ 3,648.00 $ 3,798.00 o"lYl~""i' -&W&:;;~',;~; m -;1 '-'
7 Demolition of Unit #2 ~~~~--j~ ea. l~s~ff~:{l;•~m $ 304.00 $ $ 24,320.00 $ 24,320.00
8 Mob/Oemob . . . rjfb~%)i,f>.v~ .! ea. ~-"'19:®~~'''*• $ 304.00 $
15,000.00 $ 36,480.00 $ 51,480.00
9 Per Diem (lodgmg, meals, 1nc1dentals) !lr~£ktN~ ea. &.0~J!!Jl£lL"~B'sPi .. ·j $ 304.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 2,736.00 $ 11,736.00
Section Total: $ 35,450.00 $117,648.00 $ 153,098.00
Sub Overhead: 18% $
Sub Profit: 10% $
Total: $
ShippinJ
Notes:
1 Painting and patching is not included.
2
3 ·oue to volitility in fuel charges shipping cost is indicated at $1/lb
4 It's assumed that the existing protective relaying is adequate to protect this new unit.
5 It's assumed that a 3 man EPC crew will be utilized to accomplish the work (Wireman IV+ Wireman II +Wireman I -See attached fee schedule)
6 Shipping estimated by material weight only. dhpp_orc_estimate_rev.xls
City of Unalaska Materials labor Cost Estimate
Com.
Descrie_tioin Quantitr., Tvee
nstallation
Base ORC Unit
1 UTC (280kW 100 lbs per kW)
2 Glycol: Ethylene (Straight)
3 Grout
4 6ff Tee (CS, butt weld, std sch)
5 6" flexible connector (Teguflex WI Vanstone Flanges) Jacket Water
6 Pipe Support
7 6" AMOT Control Valve
8 6" piping (CS ASTM A53, std sch)
9 6" ANSI class 150 RF WN Flange
10 6" Bolt & Gasket set (CS)
11 6" 90 Deg Ell (CS, butt weld, std sch, long radius)
12 6" butterHy valve (lugged, end service, ANSI150, Buna N)
13 8" piping (CS ASTM A53, Sid sch)
14 8" ANSI class 150 RF VVN Flange
15 8" Bolt & Gasket set (CS) .,.
16 8" 90 Deg Ell (CS, butt weld, std sch, long radius)
17 8" butterHy valve (lugged, end service, ANSI150, Buna N)
18 10" HDPE Pipe
19 10" HDPE 90 Deg Ell .,.
20 10" HDPE Flange .,.
21 1 0" HDPE Butterfly Valve
22 1 0" Bolt & Gasket set (HDPE)
23 Consumables
24 Airfare .,.
25 insulation lot
26 Crane months
27 Camp Days (4 man crew, 10 hours per day) days
nstallation ~Electrical
Cooling
1 Powec "ble 350 MCM CU, XHHW-2 3 ooodootoc wlgcoood, Cocrug'"( , ft
2 Cable Tray System (mcludes support system and tray) #''fl' ~. ea
3 Core Dnlltng Through Floor and Wall i;""'"" ~ea.
4 Termmatmg Cable Ends ~ ~ , ea
5 Conduit System (bushmgs, seal-t1te, floor/wall sleeves, fire stopping, et<l4'~ 11~ea.
6 Groundmg (bondmg JUmpers ground gnd connections) ~· ~' ~ea
7 DemolitionofUnit#2 t' » ~~ea.
8 Mob/Demob • , i'0 _ ea.
9 Per Diem (lodging, meals, incidentals) -<;,_~,: ·
Notes:
1 Painting and patching is not included.
2
3 Due to volilility in fuel charges shipping cost is indicated at $1/lb
4 It's assumed that the existing protective relaying is adequate to protect this new unit.
Labor
Cost (HrJ
Sub Overhead:
Sub Profit:
Cost Material Total
525,000.00
2,492.60
90.00 500.00
90.00 720.00
90.00 2,700.00
90.00 10,000.00
90.00 8,000.00
90.00 19,000.00
90.00 3,900.00
90.00 440.00
90.00 3,780.00
90.00 12,000.00
90.00 48,372.00
90.00 5,880.00
90.00 960.00
90.00 6,720.00
90.00 16,000.00
90.00 3,000.00
90.00 1,800.00
90.00 1,500.00
90.00 1,900.00
90.00 200.00
90.00 15,000.00
90.00 13,200.00
90.00 12,000.00
90.00 16,000.00
90.00 47,757.60
778,822.20
18% 140,188.00
10% 77,882.22
Total: 996,
6,000.00
3,000.00
300.00
2,000.00
304.00 150.00
304.00
304.00 15,000.00
304.00 9,000.00
35,450.00
18% 6,381.00
10% 3,545.00
5 It's assumed that a 3 man EPC crew will be utilized to accomplish the work (Wireman IV+ Wireman II + Wireman I ~ See attached fee schedule)
Electric Power Systems,9n%hipping estimated by material weight only. 511212008
5/12/2008
Shipping
Weight
Labor Total Total (fbs)
$ 5,400.00 $ 530,400.00
$ 360.00 $ 2,852.60
$ 720.00 $ 1,220.00
$ 4,320.00 $ 5,040.00
$ 540.00 $ 3,240.00
$ 13,500.00 $ 23,500.00
$ 540.00 $ 8,540.00
$ 18,000.00 $ 37,000.00
$ 16,200.00 $ 20,100.00
$ 3,600.00 $ 4,040.00
$ 25,200.00 $ 28,980.00
$ 2,700.00 $ 14,700.00
$ 18,000.00 $ 66,372.00
$ 16,200.00 $ 22,080.00
$ 3,600.00 $ 4,560.00
$ 25,200.00 $ 31,920.00
$ 2,700.00 $ 18,700.00
$ 9,000.00 $ 12,000.00
$ 5,400.00 $ 7,200.00
$ 1,350.00 $ 2,850.00
$ 720.00 $ 2,620.00
$ 450.00 $ 650.00
$ 1,800.00 $
$ $
$ 5,400.00 $
$ $
$ $
$ 180,900.00 $
$ 30,400.00 $ 36,400.00
$ 9,728.00 $ 12,728.00
$ 1,216.00 $ 1,216.00
$ 1,824.00 $ 2,124.00
$ 7,296.00 $ 9,296.00
$ 3,648.00 $ 3,798.00
$ 24,320.00 $ 24,320.00
$ 36,480.00 $ 51,480.00
$ 2,736.00 $ 11,736.00
$ 117,648.00 $ 153,098.00
Page 1
O&M_Fuel Savings -ORC
UTC PureCycle 280 Installed
ORC 'jLj_;,t1AOkW
kW/hr/yr
Maintenance Cost<''
Maintenance Cost: $
1496250 kW*hrs
· '.().6)~ $/(kW*hr)
22,443.75 $/year
Operating Savings Pre Year-Estimated: UTC
Diesel Cost: $/gal
Diesel Efficiency: kW-hrs/gal
Fuel Consumed gallons
Fuel Cost: $ 334,421.97
(No.2)
8312.5 hours per year
9,!;% Est'ed Availability
(average for units 6, 8, 9)
Annual Savin s: $ 311,978.22 (Simple savin s calculation comparison
ET 150 kW Installed
ORC .c.kc~,~:kW
kW/hr/yr 1662500 kW/hrs
Maintenance ;: ; >•·· .• ~c•i)CfO( $/kW/hr
Maintenance Cost: $ 8,612.50 $1 ear
Operating Savings Pre Year-Estimated: UTC
Diesel Cost:
Diesel Efficiency: c.,;.·,.,.,;:''··· ,. "'"'''' kW-hrs/gal
Fuel Consumed 117824.2 gallons
Fuel Cost: $ 410,028.35
8312.5 hours per year
''\'95'(o Est'ed Availability
(plus re lacement belt cost
(No.2)
(average for all units)
Annual Savings: $ 401,415.85 (Simple savings calculation com arison)
Electric Power Systems, Inc 5/2/2008 Page 1
City of Unalaska
RESUMES
.
City of Unalaska
RESOLUTION
.•...........•.......... . ... ----...... -. ----· .
CITY OF UNALASKA
UNALASKA, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2008-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF PURSUING
GRANT FUNDING FROM THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR THE
COI\ISTRUCTIOI\1 OF A WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Unalaska is currently seeking renewable energy sources to
reduce the cost of energy production; and
WHEREAS, waste heat recovery is a viable and cost effective option for the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Unalaska has budgeted a total of $1 ,037 A 74 towards the
Waste Heat Recovery Project, including $619,807 in construction funding for this
grant's matching funds requirement; and
WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority is accepting grant applications for
qualifying renewable energy projects such as the City's proposed Waste Heat
Recovery System Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Unalaska is in compliance with Federal, State, and Local
laws, including in good standing with respect to its existing credit and federal tax
obligations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Unalaska authorizes Chris
Hladick, City Manager, to represent the City for purposes of applying for funding
under the Alaska Energy Authority's Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program,
hereby authorizes the application for project funding, and designates Dan Winters,
Director of Public Utilities, as the point of contact person for this grant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY A DULY CONSTITUTED QUORUM OF THE
UNALASKA CITY COUNCIL THIS 07 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008.
MAYOR NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE
ATTEST:
MAYO~f"'isM
CITY CLERK