Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmbler, Shungnak, and Noatak Photovoltaic Location and Feasibility Study Summary - Aug 2010 - REF Grant 2195412Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak Photovoltaic Location and Feasibility Study Summary Prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. 4831 Eagle St. Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc 11760 Woodbourne Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 And Solar Wind Consultants 915 30{h Avenue Suite 229 Fairbanks, AK 99701 August 2010 Purpose of Report In 2009, the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) applied for separate Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Grants to construct photovoltaic (PV) solar systems in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak. AEA awarded AVEC the funding to study and design one project in Ambler, Shungnak, or Noatak. After discussions, it was determined that solar siting and feasibility studies would be conducted in the three villages. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the solar siting studies in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak. The information is presented to AVEC and AEA to assist in determining how to move forward with these solar projects. Background Existing Power Issues Currently, diesel -fuel power generation is the only source of electricity in these communities. In general, the cost of fuel is affected by two variables: the price of oil and the cost of delivery. The high cost of fuel transportation is the primary factor behind high fuel delivery costs in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak. In 2009, Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak had the third, second, and first highest cost of delivered fuel of all AVEC communities. Much of the fuel for Ambler and Shungnak must be flown in because the Kobuk River is often too low to accommodate fuel barges. The Noatak River changed course in the mid-1990s and since then all deliveries of fuel to Noatak have been by air. Air deliveries are also complicated by a periodic shortage of aircraft that are equipped to deliver fuel.. As a result fuel delivery costs are high. In 2009 in Ambler, 12 out of the 15 fuel deliveries were made by air. In Shungnak in 2009, 25 of the 28 fuel deliveries were made by air. In Noatak in 2009, all 28 of the fuel deliveries were by air. The average AVEC delivered fuel costs in 2009 to Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak were $3.79/gallon, $4.35/gallon, and $6.41/gallon respectively. In 2008, average delivered fuel costs were significantly higher in Ambler and Shungnak; $6.13/gallon in Ambler and $5.55/gallon in Shungnak. Although the cost of energy is high, Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak residents use more energy than most AVEC villages. Ambler's average residential consumption of energy is above the average consumption of all AVEC villages most years, according to AVEC records. Shungnak and Noatak's average residential energy consumption has been above the average consumption of all AVEC villages since 1992. It is unknown why these communities consume more power than other communities, but it is suspected that their high latitude position, and darker, colder winters contribute to this electric usage. Potential Renewable Energy Solutions AVEC decided to explore solar energy as a possible energy source after considering other options. Wind power is not a feasible solution, since the wind resource in this area is very low. Biomass (wood) has been suggested as an alternative heating source for all the villages; however, its use for energy production is unproven. Currently, AVEC and NANA Regional Native Corporation are exploring hydroelectric options near Ambler and Shungnak; however, it will be years before it is determined whether hydropower is a feasible alternative energy source. Ambler, Shungnak, and Nootak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 2 Study Methods AVEC hired Remote Power, Inc. to study the solar energy potential and possible locations for PV panels in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak. Remote Power, using the Solar Pathfinder" (SP) site analysis tool, first generated sunpath diagrams from digital photos taken at each site. The sunpath diagrams were then used to determine solar positions and shading effects of landscape features on potential solar energy systems at each location. These images were then analyzed using Solar Pathfinder Assistant;" Version 4.0 (SPA) software to determine the most appropriate location for PV panels. Production estimates and fuel savings were then estimated through analysis of these images and an estimation of the effect the surrounding landscape would have on a potential PV array. Remote Power considered other issues associated with maintaining PV panels in cold, high latitude environments. Remote Power studied fixing the solar array tilt to keep snow from accumulating on the panels and inhibiting power production versus mounting panels on adjustable racks to maintain an optimum angle for year-round power production, especially in the late spring to early fall. Remote Power also investigated locations and options for PV panels considering the potential for vandalism of the solar arrays in the villages. Features in Common to All PV Options / General Considerations The PV arrays at that would be installed in the three villages would consist of 175-watt monocrystalline cell modules manufactured by Sharp Solar. The inverter that would be used with the PV arrays is manufactured by Fronius and would produce 277 vac 3-phase power. Unless otherwise noted, the tilt angle of each array, adjusted twice annually, would be 52 degrees from May through September and 90 degrees the remainder of the year. As much as possible, all trees or other obstructions to sunlight would be removed to ensure optimum system performance. The ideal foundations for PV arrays in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak have not been determined. Typically, foundations for unheated structures on ice rich and permanently frozen soils are constructed to ensure that the active layer is contained in a thaw -stable material such as gravel or that the load is supported by the frozen soil under the active layer. Foundations used to support the PV arrays in this study are expected to be installed on large quantities of non -frost susceptible soil such as gravel. Since gravel may not locally available in some communities, the shipping costs for this material could add substantially to overall project cost. The amount of gravel would be dependent upon the area of the foundation and the depth of the active layer of the soil that would have to be removed. If a large Triodetic foundation, a stiff foundation designed to resist twisting and buckling caused by heaving ground, were considered for this site, further research should be conducted to determine the capabilities and limitations of the Triodetic foundation. Additionally, ballast material added to the foundation or some sort of anchoring mechanism would be necessary to keep the solar array from blowing over or shifting in the event of high winds in the area. An alternative installation option would be to drive piles into the permafrost at a depth substantial enough to resist jacking (and creep settlement) and install the array on the piles. Pile depths depend on the conditions of the sail. A geotechnical report should be conducted for all foundation options to determine active layer depth and soil composition. Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 3 Connection to the existing AVEC power system was investigated for this study. There was concern that under certain conditions a large PV array could back feed power into the existing diesel generators, providing more power than the system might require, and causing a power reversal fault. As a safety precaution, a "reverse power relay" would be installed to prevent this from occurring. Reverse power relays are standard equipment on grid tie generators. On a multi generator system, the relays enable the generator that is being over -powered to disconnect from the grid. Another option to handle excess power would be to shunt the power into a storage battery or use it in a recovered heat system. Amb-ler Solar Project Options Four solar project options were investigated in Ambler, as described below. Table 1 summarizes the findings. Ambler Option #1 (Schwatka Street Option) Ambler Solar Site Option #1 is located across Schwatka Street, just southwest of the existing AVEC power plant facility (Figure 1). This lot slopes to the northwest and is currently covered with a mixture of densely growing black spruce and willows.' A PV array at this site would consist of 180 PV modules rack mounted in a single long row running east to west. The relatively narrow east -west dimension of the property would limit the array size to 30.5kW instead of the preferred 50.4 kW size. Figure 1. Ambler PV Option #1 location. ' Because of dense vegetation growth, it was difficult to obtain a useful SP image of the site; however, SP images were taken from less obstructed areas adjacent to the site, and digital photographs were taken of the surrounding area to determine the project configuration and potential production. Ambler, Shungnak, and Nootak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 4 Power Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Ambler Option #1, estimated based on the installation of a 31.5 kW array, would be 24,982 kWh (with shading), and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 1,850 gallons annually.z At the 2008 average cost of delivered fuel to Ambler ($6.13/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be about $11,332. At the 2009 average cost of delivered fuel to Ambler ($3.79/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $7,012. Installation Cost Ambler Option #1 would cost between $346,500 and $378,000 (assuming $11-12%watt). This cost does not include connection to the existing power lines or fencing around the array. Payback Period Based on a cost of between $346,500 and $378,000 and 2009 average fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 49 and 54 years to pay for Ambler PV Option 41. At a higher fuel cost, for example using 2008 average Ambler delivered fuel costs, it would take between 31 and 33 years to pay for the Ambler PV Option #1.3 Option Analysis Ambler Option #1 was dismissed from further consideration. Although this option is near the existing AVEC power plant and has relatively low transmission costs and overall installation costs, the practical array size is limited and the potential for shading is high. The production from this option would only displace about 1,850 gallons of diesel annually and would not result in considerable cost savings. Ambler Option #2 (Old Sewage Lagoon Option) Ambler Solar Site Option #2 is located at the old sewage lagoon approximately 0.25 miles northwest of the AVEC power plant. The lagoon, which is scheduled to be closed and filled, would be available for development after the summer of 2010. A PV array at this site would consist of a 50.4 kW south -facing array of 180 modules rack mounted in a single long row running east to west. z Based on 13.5 kWh/gallon 3 Simple payback calculation: Payback Perlod=Initial Cost/Annual Cost Savings Ambler, Shungnok, and Noatok PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 5 Figure 2. Ambler PV Option #2 location Power Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Ambler Option #2, estimated on the installation of a 50.4 kW array, would be approximately 44,623 kWh (with shading), and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 3,305 gallons annually.° At the 2008 average delivered fuel price, the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $20,245. At the 2009 average delivered fuel price, the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $12,526, Installation Cost Ambler Option #2 would cost between $503,600 and $554,000 (assuming $9-10/watt). This cost includes $50,000 for connecting into the existing power lines, but it does not include the cost of fencing the array. It is likely that some cost saving would be realized because after the lagoon site is filled and abandoned, it will be better prepared for installation of the array than other sites where site work would be required. Payback Period Based on a cost of between $503,600 and $554,000 and 2009 average Ambler delivered fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 40 and 44 years to pay for Ambler PV Option ##2. However, at 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 25 and 27 years to pay for the Ambler PV Option #2 .5 Option Analysis Although this option had the best solar access and energy production capability in Ambler, Option #2 was dismissed from further consideration primarily because of installation cost and the potential for vandalism at the site. 4 Based on 13.5 kWh/gallon 5 Simple payback calculation Payback Period=Initial Cost/Annual Cost Savings Ambler, Shungnak, and Nootak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 6 Ambler Option #3 (AVEC Facility Option) Ambler Solar Site Option #3 is located within the AVEC power plant facility. This option includes placing a south -facing 10.5 kW array consisting of 60 modules northwest of the fuel storage tanks. The location of the tanks and generator buildings on this property would cause considerable shading of the array. Power Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Ambler Option #3, estimated on the installation of a 10.5 kW array and considerable shading at the site, would be approximately 7,583 kWh, and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 562 gallons annually.6 Installation Cost Ambler Option #3 would cost between $115,500 and $126,000 (assuming $11-12/watt). Since this option is located within the existing and fenced AV1 C facility, there are no costs associated with fencing or connection into the existing power system. Using the 2008 average cost of delivered fuel to Ambler, the annual saving associated with this option would be about $3,442. Using the 2009 average cost of delivered fuel to Ambler, the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $2,130. Figure 3. Ambler PV Option #3 location Payback Period Based on a cost of between $115,500 and $126,000 and 2009 average fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 54 and 53 years to pay for Ambler PV Option #3. At 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 34 and 37 years to pay for the Ambler PV Option #3.' 6 Based on 135 kWh/gallon 7 Simple payback calculation Payback Period=Initial Cost/Annual Cost Savings Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 7 Option Analysis Ambler Option #3 was dismissed from further consideration because of the low power output due to significant shading from the fuel tanks. Although this option had few costs associated with securing the array and connecting to the existing power system, the annual production from this option would only displace about 562 gallons of diesel annually and would not result in considerable cost savings. Ambler Option ##4 (AVEC Tank Top/Power Plant Roof Option) Placing a PV array on top of fuel storage tanks and on top of the power plant modules within the AVEC facility was considered. While some vandalism concerns and shading concerns would be alleviated at this location, installation on top of the tanks would require adequate ballast or weight to secure the panels and tanks when the tanks are not full and winds are strong. Adding ballast could require excavation and the construction of a concrete and steel foundation. The soils in this location are seasonally frozen, resulting in movement throughout the year, which causes additional complications. Due to these factors, this option was not investigated in more detail. Installing PV panels on top of the AVEC generators modules was considered. To avoid the shading associated with the generator exhaust, the PV panels would only be suited on the southernmost modules. Large tracking arrays could not be installed because they could not turn without encountering the exhaust stacks. Because of these issues, an array on top of the power plant was not considered further. Table 1. Summary Photovoltaic Options in Ambler Option Summary Annual Annual Annual Installation Years to Description Power Fuel Cost Cost Payback Estimate Savings Savings" (kWh) (gallons) Ambler Option #1 31.5 kW array 28,032 1,850 $7,012 $346,500- Simple: across road from $378,000 49-54 AVEC power plant Ambler Option #2 50.4 kW array at the 49,940 3,305 $12,526 $503,600- Simple: old sewage lagoon $554,000 40-44 Ambler Option #3 10.kW array on the 8,942 562 $2,130 $115,500- Simple: northwest side of $126,000 54-59 tanks on AVEC property Ambler Option #4 PV array sited atop Not pursued further due to wind, foundation, and generator AVEC fuel tanks or exhaust issues power plant " Using 2009 average cost of fuel delivered to Ambler=$3.79/gallon Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 8 Shungnak Solar Project Options Two solar project options were investigated in Shungnak as described below. Table 2 summarizes the findings. Shungnak Option #1. (North of AVEC Site-52° Tilt) Shungnak Option #1 would be located on the lot leased by AVEC just northwest of the Shungnak power plant (Figure 4). The lot consists of permafrost sails with scattered black spruce. This option includes installing a 50.4 kW array of 288 PV modules. The array would face true south. Figure 4. Shungnak PV Option #1 and #2 locations. Power Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Shungnak Option #1, estimated on the installation of a 50.4 kW array and some shading, would be approximately 46,588 kWh, and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 3,451 gallons annually." At the average 2008 delivered fuel cost to Shungnak ($5.55/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $19,169. At the average 2009 delivered fuel cost to Shungnak ($4.35/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $15,012. Installation Cost Shungnak Option #1 would cost between $554,400 and $604,800 (assuming $11-12/watt). These costs do not include fencing or connection into the existing power system. Payback Period Based on a cost of between $554,400 and $604,800 and Shungnak's 2009 average delivered fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 37 and 40 years to pay for Shungnak PV Option #1. At 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 29 and 32 years to pay for the Shungnak PV Option #1.9 " Based on 13.5 kWh/gallon 9 Simple payback calculation Payback Period=Initial Cost/Annual Cost Savings Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 9 Option Analysis Although this option is close to the AVEC power plan and the cost associated with connecting to the local system would be low, this option was dismissed from further consideration primarily because of high installation cost. In addition, buildings and other obstructions in the vicinity of this option could lower power output during the winter months. Shungnak Option #2 (North of AVEC Site-340 Tilt) Shungnak Option #2 is identical to Shungnak Option #1 (a 50.4 kW array of 288 PV modules located just northwest of the AVEC power plant, Figure 4), except that that the tilt of the array is different. Option #2 tilt angle of the array would be 34 degrees from May through September and 90 degrees the remainder of the year.10 Power Estimate/Fuel Savings Changing the summer tilt angle to 34 degrees shows approximately a 2.5% increase in power production compared to the 90/52 tilt scenario. The annual power production of Shungnak Option #2 would be approximately 47,731 kWh, and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 3,536 gallons annually.1' At the average 2008 delivered fuel cost to Shungnak, the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $19,641. At the average 2009 delivered fuel costs to Shungnak, the annual savings associated with this option would be approximately $15,382. Installation Cost It is assumed that the Shungnak Option #2 would cost the same as the Shungnak Option #1; between $554,400 and $604,800 (assuming $11-12/watt), These costs do not include fencing or connection into the existing power system. Payback Period At 2009 average Shungnak delivered fuel costs, is expected that it would take between 36 and 39 years to pay for Shungnak PV Option #2; about 1 year less than the Shungnak Option #1. At 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 28 and 31 years to pay for the Shungnak PV Option #2. 12 Option Analysis Shungnak Option #2 is a better solar alternative than Option #1. Changing the tilt of the array to 34 degrees May through September would result in about 2.5% more energy production and additional annual fuel use savings compared to Option #1. This option was dismissed from further consideration, however, due to the high installation costs compared to the relatively low output. Another option investigated at this site included mounting the array 16 feet above ground level. Although the probability of any shading from obstructions would be minimized by this option, the additional cost and technical issues of raising the array indicate that this option should not be considered further. 10 The modeling feature that allowed angle and azimuth optimization was not available during the Ambler and Noatak site visits. 11 Based on 13.5 kWh/gallon 12 Simple payback calculation Payback Period=Initial Cost/Annual Cost Savings Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 10 Shungnak Option #3 (AVEC Tank Top/Power Plant Roof Option) Shungnak Option #3 includes installing PV panels either on top of the AVEC fuel tanks or power plant modules. Although this option alleviates security and vandalism issues, it would not be a feasible solution for lowering or maintaining energy costs in Shungnak. Additional costs and technical issues associated with wind and exhaust shading indicate that this option should not be considered further. Table 2. Summary Photovoltaic Options in Shungnak Option Summary Annual Annual Annual Installation Years to Description Power Fuel Cost Cost Payback Estimate Savings Savings (kWh) (gallons) A Shungnak Option #1 50.4 kW array just 46,588 3,451 $15,012 $554,400- Simple: northeast of the $604,800 37-40 AVEC facility with a 90/52 tilt Shungnak Option #2 50.4 kW array just 47,731 3,536 $15,382 $554,400- Simple; northeast of the $604,800 36-39 AVEC facility with a 90/34tiIt Shungnak Option #3 PV array sited atop Not pursued further due to wind, foundation, and generator AVEC fuel tanks or exhaust issues power plant A Using 2009 average cost of fuel delivered to Shungnak=$4.35/gallon Noatak Solar Project Options Two solar project options were investigated in Noatak as described below. Table 3 summarizes the findings. Noatak PV Option #1 (Riverbank Option) Noatak Option #1 would be located on a gravel all -terrain vehicle trail between the existing AVEC power plant and the Noatak River (Figure 5). This option includes installing a 50.4 kW array of 288 modules. Because of site constraints (the tank farm is located to the west and the river is located to the east), the array would face east toward the river. Pourer Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Noatak Option #1, estimated on the installation of a 50.4 kW array and some shading, would be approximately 33,144 kWh, and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 2,455 gallons annually.13 At the 2008 average fuel delivery costs to Noatak ($6.22/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be about $15,282. At 2009 average fuel delivery costs to Noatak ($6.41/gallon), the annual savings associated with this option would be about $15,737. 13 Based on 13.5 kWh/gallon Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 11 Figure 5. Noatak Option #1 location Installation Cost Noatak Option #1 would cost between $554,400 and $604,800 (assuming $11-12/watt). These costs do not include fencing or connection into the existing power system. Payback Period Based on a cost of between $554,400 and $604,800 and Noatak's 2009 average delivered fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 35-38 years to pay for Noatak PV Option #1. At 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 36 and 40 years to pay for the Noatak PV Option #1. 14 Option Analysis Noatak Option #1 was dismissed from further consideration because the riverfront site has significant shading from the western sun, which significantly impacts the production of the system, fuel savings, and system payback. In addition, although this location is near the existing AVEC facility, AVEC is planning to move the power plant and tank farm away from the Noatak River, which is prone to erosion in this area. Another 50.4 kW PV array option considered at this site included installing 16 separate pole mounted sub -arrays in a row along the riverfront. Each subarray would face south (instead of east) and would be separated by 20 feet. Because this configuration would result in most of the sub -arrays being significantly shaded by another subarray part of the day, this option would produce less power than an east -facing array. This option was omitted from further consideration because shading significantly limited power production. 14 Simple payback calculation Simple payback calculation Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 12 Noatak PV Option #2 (Near School Option) Noatak Option #2 would be located on property west of the village and adjacent to the newly constructed school. The lot consists of permafrost soils with occasional scrub spruce trees among the tussocks (Figure 6). The array would be installed at a new AVEC power plant and bulk fuel facility, which is being planned by AVEC and would be constructed once funding is acquired. Although the array was originally proposed on the north side of the future AVEC compound, Option #2 would place the array on the south side of the compound (Figure 7). This option includes installing a 50.4 kW array of 288 modules. Power Estimate/Fuel Savings The annual power production of Noatak Option #2, estimated on the installation of a 50.4 kW array and some shading, would be approximately 46,588 kWh and the estimated fuel savings would be approximately 3,573 gallons annually. At 2008 average fuel delivery costs to Noatak, the annual savings would be approximately $22,241. At 2009 average fuel delivery costs to Noatak, the annual savings would be about $22,903. Installation Cost Noatak Option #2 would cost between $554,400 and $604,800 (assuming $11-12/watt). These costs do not include fencing or connection into the existing power system. Payback PeriodBased on a cost of between $554,400 and $604,900 and Noatak's 2009 average delivered fuel costs, it is expected that it would take between 24 to 26 years to pay for Noatak PV Option #2. At 2008 fuel costs, it would take between 25 and 27 years to pay for the Noatak PV Option #2. is Option Analysis Out of all the options studied in this report, Noatak Option #2 has the highest power estimate and fuel savings. Using both 2009 and 2009 average delivered fuel costs to Noatak, this option has the best annual savings and payback. However, this option is not feasible until the new AVEC facility is installed in Noatak. It is recommended that this option be considered in the future, once funding has been obtained for the new power plant and tank farm. 15 Simple payback calculation Simple payback calculation Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 13 Figure 6. Noatak Option #2 location Suggested Solar Farm and Site Dispensing r ► Facility r � _ S l o :: tw FA* Figure 7. Noatak PV Option #2 layout Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 14 Noatak PV Option #3 (Existing AVEC Tank Top/Power Plant Roof Option) A PV array was considered on top of fuel storage tanks and on top of the power plant modules within the currently existing AVEC facility. Mounting arrays on the fuel storage tanks was determined to be impractical because the tanks are close to eroding into the Noatak River and will likely be moved in the near future. Generator exhaust stacks would keep PV tracking systems mounted on the power plant from working correctly. In addition, exhaust could shade the panels and limit power production. This option was not investigated in more detail because it is likely that the power plant and tank farm will be moved in the future, and it would be difficult and expensive to move solar arrays after they have been installed. Noatak PV Option #4 (New AVEC Tank Top/Power Plant Roof Option) Noatak Option #4 consists of incorporating a PV array into the planned new power plant modules. This option would be designed in detail once funding is acquired for the new facility near the school. The overall design and placement of the power plant would consider the solar opportunities at this site. A south facing array on the side of the modules, instead of the top, could be incorporated into the design. Although no detailed analysis of this option was completed, it is likely that a 17 kWh (a 95 panel array) could be installed. It is recommended that this option be considered in the future, once funding has been obtained for the new power plant and tank farm. Table 2, Summary Photovoltaic Options in Noatak Option Summary Annual Annual Annual Installation Years to Description Power Fuel Cost Cost Payback Estimate Savings Savings a (kWh) (gallons) Noatak Option 91 50.4 kW east- 33,144 2,455 $15,737 $554,400- 35-38 facing array along $604,800 the Noatak riverbank Noatak Option 42 50.4 kW array at 46,588 3,573 $22,903 $554,400- 24-26 the planned AVEC $604,800 facility near the new school Noatak Option 43 PV array sited atop Not pursued further due to wind, foundation, and generator existing AVEC fuel exhaust issues tanks or power plant Noatak Option #4 PV array sited atop Recommend option be considered in the future, once funding new AVEC fuel has been obtained forthe a power plant and tank farm tanks or power plant A Using 2009 average cost of fuel delivered to Noatak=$6.41/gallon Conclusions The cost of delivered fuel in Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak is higher than in any other AVEC community. The high costs are associated with having to fly fuel in because the rivers are too low to accommodate Ambler, Shungnak, and Noatak PV Location and Feasibility Study Summary Page 15 barges. Renewable energy options in these communities are limited; however, solar energy may be a good alternative. Most PV options considered in this study have high installation costs and do not produce enough power to justify further planning or design. However, based on the expected solar output, gallons of fuel saved, and the high cost of delivered fuel in Noatak, it is recommended that PV options associated with the new power plant be studied in more detail. These options should be investigated once funding for the new power plant and tank farm is obtained. Although PV has a relatively high first cost on a per kilowatt basis, PV has the lowest maintenance and repair costs of any power generation scheme. In addition, PV inverters have 10 to 20 year warranties, and most crystalline PV modules come with a standard 25-year warranty. Considering that there are no other renewable energy sources in Noatak, PV appears to be the best -suited alternative energy source for this community.