HomeMy WebLinkAboutChisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Final Report - Feb 2018 - REF Grant 7071027ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY
193 OTTO STREET / PO BOX 3222
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
PHONE: (800) 982-0136 / FAX: (360) 385-7538
Project
Phase Reimbursable Tasks Budget Start
Date
End
Date Deliverables
Milestone 1: Renewable Energy Fund Grant in Place
1.1 Project management $ -
1.2
Site control, Permitting
and Environmental
Plan
$ 11,000 Sep-14
Copies of permits,
site control and
USF&W
Consultation
documentation
1.3 Purchase, Ship and
Erect Met Tower $ 29,800 Sep-14 Monthly Raw Data
Files
1.4
Meteorological Study,
Electrical and Thermal
Data Collection
$ 11,000 Oct-15 Wind Resource
Analysis
1.5 Geotech site recon and
report $ 25,000 Oct-15 Geotech recon
report
1.6 Feasibility Study $ 30,000 Mar-16 Feasibility Study,
HOMER Model(s)
1.7 Dismantle Met Tower $ 3,000 Aug-16
Subtotal: $ 109,800
Milestone 2: Wind Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study Accepted by the Authority
2.1 Project management $ -
2.2 Evaluate existing
energy system $ - Mar-16
2.3
Interconnection
Agreement and Power
Purchase Agreement
$ -
Interconnection
Agreement and
Power Purchase
Agreement
2.4 Conceptual Design
Report $ 39,000 Jul-16 Conceptual Design
Report
Subtotal: $ 39,000
Milestone 3: Conceptual Design Accepted by the Authority
Project Total: $ 148,800
Tok, Alaska Wind Power Feasibility Study
Photo: Douglas Vaught, P.E.
February 2 , 2018
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
V3 Energy LLC
www.v3energy.com
Tok, Alaska Wind Power Feasibility Study P a g e | 2
Community of Tok
Tok is an unincorporated community east-central interior Alaska, located at the junction of the Alaska
Highway and the Tok Cutoff to the Glenn Highway. It is 93 road miles (150 km) from the U.S.-Canadian
border and serves as an important refueling and re-supply stop for trans-border travel. All vehicle traffic
between the population centers of Alaska and Canada/Continental U.S. passes through Tok. Tok has
1,239 residents, according to a 2016 Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED) census.
It is uncertain how Tok got its name. However, the nearby "Tokai River" was first reported in 1887 by Lt.
Allen. "Tok River" was recorded in 1901 by the USGS. Tok began in 1942 as an Alaska Road Commission
camp. So much money was spent in the camp's construction and maintenance that it earned the name
"Million Dollar Camp" by those working on the highway. In 1944 a branch of the Northern Commercial
Company was opened, and in 1946 Tok was established as a Presidential Townsite. With the completion
of the Alcan Highway in 1946, a post office and a roadhouse were built. In 1947 the first school was
opened, and in 1958 a larger school was built to accommodate the many newcomers. The U.S. Customs
Office was in Tok from 1947 and 1971 before it was moved to the border crossing. Between 1954 and
1979, a U.S. Army fuel pipeline operated from Haines to Fairbanks, with a pump station in Tok. The
pump station's facilities were purchased as area headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management.
The U.S. Coast Guard constructed a LORAN (Long Range Aid to Navigation) station in 1976. Four 700 ft.
high towers, located six miles east of Tok junction, transmit radio navigation signals for air and marine
traffic in the Gulf of Alaska. In July of 1990, Tok faced destruction when a lightning-caused forest fire
jumped two rivers and the Alaska Highway, putting residents and structures in peril. The town was
evacuated and the efforts of over a thousand firefighters could not stop the fire. At the last minute, a
"miracle wind" (so labeled by Tok's residents) sprang up, diverting the fire just short of the first building.
The fire continued to burn the remainder of the summer, eventually consuming more than 100,000
acres of forest. Evidence of the burn can be seen on both sides of the highway east of Tok.
The Tok area was traditionally Athabascan Indian, although the current population is primarily non-
Native. Tok has become known as the “Sled Dog Capital of Alaska.” Although residents have chosen not
to incorporate as a municipality, there are numerous local volunteer committees for various community
functions and various membership organizations.1
Two communities are electrically interconnected to Tok: Tanacross and the Native Village of Tetlin.
Tanacross, located 12 miles west of Tok, has 108 residents. The Athabascan Native Village of Tetlin,
located 20 miles southeast of Tok, has 110 residents.
1 Tok community information from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, Community and Regional Affairs website:
https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal/community
Tok, Alaska Wind Power Feasibility Study P a g e | 3
Figure 1: USGS topographic map of Tok and vicinity
Alaska Power & Telephone Co.
Alaska Power and Telephone Company (AP&T) is the electric utility for the community of Tok. It is based
in Port Townsend, Washington and serves as the utility for 26 Alaska communities, including
Skagway, Haines and all of Prince of Wales Island. AP&T’s renewable portfolio include the operation of
seven hydroelectric projects in Alaska. AP&T’s interest in wind power began 2009 by discussions with
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) about wind site options on 7-Mile Ridge, the dominant mountain ridge
southwest of Tok.
Areawide Wind Resource
Areawide mesoscale 2 wind models to evaluate the wind resource in an area of interest are an extremely
useful tool for prospecting wind power locations. Several options are available via online access, but the
model of choice is the AWS Truepower Windnavigator, which provides 200-meter resolution (more
micro-scale in resolution than mesoscale) for most land areas on Earth. Windnavigator is particularly
powerful in that, in addition to high resolution imagery, statistical information at multiple height
settings are obtainable, including mean wind speed, wind rose, Weibull distribution and monthly
variation. Windnavigator is only a model of course and hence not as reliable as field-measured date but
use of it greatly aids the selection of most-viable wind power site options and reduces the risk of
installing met towers in less desirable or outright poor locations.
The evolution of the Tok wind power project was such, however, that the Windnavigator model was
only consulted after met towers were installed and operational. Windnavigator does not contradict the
met tower locations as reasonable choices, but it does lend insight into the broader view of wind power
options in Tok and alternate site options nearer the met towers themselves.
2 An intermediate scale, between the scales of weather systems and microclimates where storms and other
phenomena occur; Google Dictionary definition
Tanacross
Tok
Tetlin
Village
Chisana Mountain (Tok, Alaska)
Wind Resource Assessment Report
Chisana Mountain met tower, photo by Douglas Vaught
February 1, 2018
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
V3 Energy, LLC
www.v3energy.com
Summary
Test Site Location and Selection Process
Met Tower Information
Met Tower Installation Photographs
Tower Sensor Location Photographs
Chisana Mountain Met Tower Site Photos
Data Quality Control
Icing data
Chisana Mountain (Tok, Alaska) Wind Resource Assessment Report P a g e | 11
Icing Event (photos: Ross McGinnis, Nov. 10, 2017)
Three years of annualized data indicate significant data loss during the early-to-mid winter months with
lesser data loss mid-to-late winter. Presumably this transition reflects drier conditions of later winter
when all surface water sources are frozen and typically dry, cold air dominates. By spring, temperatures
warm sufficiently to deny the possibility of significant icing.
Table 4: Anemometer data recovery rate by month (loss due to icing only)
Month 50 m A 50 m B 40 m A 40 m B 30 m A 30 m B
Jan 53.3 57.2 57.8 58.6 57.3 59.8
Feb 87.6 90.1 82.6 81.7 78.3 78.6
Mar 98.4 98.4 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.2
Apr 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3
May 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0
Jun 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Jul 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Aug 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sep 94.1 93.6 93.6 93.9 93.6 94.8
Oct 63.8 63.5 64.7 63.3 62.0 66.5
Nov 51.2 40.5 53.7 47.8 41.9 54.6
Dec 51.1 46.9 43.1 43.9 40.5 38.0
All 83.0 82.2 82.6 82.0 80.7 82.3
Wind Speed
Wind Speed Time Series
Data Synthesis
AWS Truepower
Wind Speed Distribution
Wind Shear and Roughness
Extreme Winds
Periodic Maxima
Method of Independent Storms
European Wind Turbine Standards II
Temperature and Density
Temperature Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Turbulence
Alternate Site Option
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 SCOPE OF WORK
Project
Phase Reimbursable Tasks Budget Start
Date
End
Date Deliverables
Milestone 1: Renewable Energy Fund Grant in Place
1.1 Project management $ -
1.2
Site control, Permitting
and Environmental
Plan
$ 11,000 Sep-14
Copies of permits,
site control and
USF&W
Consultation
documentation
1.3 Purchase, Ship and
Erect Met Tower $ 29,800 Sep-14 Monthly Raw Data
Files
1.4
Meteorological Study,
Electrical and Thermal
Data Collection
$ 11,000 Oct-15 Wind Resource
Analysis
1.5 Geotech site recon and
report $ 25,000 Oct-15 Geotech recon
report
1.6 Feasibility Study $ 30,000 Mar-16 Feasibility Study,
HOMER Model(s)
1.7 Dismantle Met Tower $ 3,000 Aug-16
Subtotal: $ 109,800
Milestone 2: Wind Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study Accepted by the Authority
2.1 Project management $ -
2.2 Evaluate existing
energy system $ - Mar-16
2.3
Interconnection
Agreement and Power
Purchase Agreement
$ -
Interconnection
Agreement and
Power Purchase
Agreement
2.4 Conceptual Design
Report $ 39,000 Jul-16 Conceptual Design
Report
Subtotal: $ 39,000
Milestone 3: Conceptual Design Accepted by the Authority
Project Total:$ 148,800
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4 PURPOSE/NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
5 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action
5.2 Energy Generation Technologies Considered
5.3 Alternative Locations for siting the wind power facility
o
o
o
o
6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Land Use
6.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
6.3 Biological Resources
6.3.1 Avian Resources
6.3.2 Fish Resources
6.3.3 Wildlife Resources
6.3.4 Botanical Resources
6.4 Water Quality & Quantity
6.4.1 Water Quality
6.4.2 Water Quantity
6.5 Floodplains/Wetlands
6.6 Environmental Justice
6.6.1 Primary Beneficiaries
6.6.2 Area Description
6.6.3 Air Quality
6.6.4 Water Quality
6.6.5 Solid Waste Management
6.6.6 Transportation
6.6.7 Noise
6.6.8 Historical/Archaeological Properties
6.6.9 Wildlife & Endangered Species
6.6.10 Energy
6.6.11 Construction
6.6.12 Toxic Substances
6.6.13 Public Reaction
6.6.14 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
6.6.15 Mitigation Measures
6.6.16 Permits
6.6.17 Other Federal Actions
6.7 Socioeconomics
7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
7.1 Alternative 1: No – Action
7.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Project
7.2.1 Land Use
7.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties
7.2.3 Biological Resources
7.2.4 Water Quality & Quantity
7.2.5 Floodplains/Wetlands
7.2.6 Environmental Justice
7.2.7 Socioeconomics
8 MITAGATION AND PERMITS
9 LITERATURE CITED
10APPENDICES
10.1Agency Correspondence
From:Henszey, Bob
To:Glen Martin
Subject:Re: Chisana Mountain Met Tower
Date:Thursday, August 07, 2014 4:10:54 PM
Attachments:USFWS_ Communication Tower Guidelines.pdf
Pages from EDM_USFWS Minimizing Avian Risk.pdf
From:Henszey, Bob
To:Glen Martin;Megan Boldenow
Subject:Re: Wind Farm field studies
Date:Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:06:37 PM
Attachments:1.8 MW wind farm to be built near Tok _ Local News _ newsminer 20160702.pdf