HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegional Electric Power System for the Lower Kuskokwim Vicinity 1975r
i
I
A RE
I
,
g."oonn
.0,.: C K"lo.u l,."
C l .'Ibv.C4
,." HOJl".
Till"r~
C Tl'Ioml)ton
LOWER
C I('U~51<!
... oo~
"".01 II1UI( "T H
USKOKWIM
Jiol1flb".O
C 8 )0",o,..
o
Kian
o Nourvik
,., 10 G t
8 R o
•• 00 ..
t'Cir""D ,.~S5
//
VICINITY
Kobuk
00
Shuntnuk
o
..
,,00
-..... _______ c!r:!!-.!.."!.n~ ~ __________ --\> _________ _ -------
"v.C'",l. tin " _ ~.-ooo l:\oQ H i er
.Feasi bU<ftrr''"A"Ssessment .. .: 0
,.7Q*
PARTMEN
~ r-
.fp~ I ltl)"Cock
£lim M ~ion o
.
Ko )'ukO
°Oolovnln
Stu.ttl
Slebblna 0 0
OF THE I
Koyukuk 0
OO.lena
K
. Lon' ,.00
5
-\h.bY
PUJ)rfI\Un
\ ... \. ... .. ,
E ISLAND
A I Mi c h.attJ
S £ C.Qe Kwl"".k 0
KWf.luk
At..kanuk 0 Q "
A k tfl U4kO
BIa(!kO
Nelson I
C VIII~J.u ""~ .'.00
o Tanullak
o
Ko llile:
Kviptl
o Plkmik\kUk
.0 ...... 11 •• 00",,,
.1000 .
MI!k'Or)'lIH 0 C [tO il" 0 A"'l 'kchut
"-1'aehfku.!uo
.. ~un ' ak I 0
~l'" uU ,",vI .,.I
o
Ku"kovlIk-O Ee.k tichool
Khmuk A n tMN\t. OKwla1IUn itO k
C' 1.\"11\01 -.,-"
o Qu i nlt "Ouk
1\".MaKaun iu l
•• 00
.if,
Oh,uhh'k
-t".
o NovaITIU\
.... lI ••
Alo.tlcnatcik
o
O Nl.ln~hu&k
t. ... ln(' ... '.
1 ·1976
)(.\'k ba..k O
Oilli nlih lilu
0'1' .Ql uk 0 °Nu.h,,~k
. ROBER w. RE·T+iER FO RD A
I.. I tJtC~ Hli,flmtlstlf I
NCHORAG E ., ALASK.A T. OF IN"1"l" p T r.
J! II Y 1975
o Ct.r ks P OI",
hcu:lhilt. SOCJ~TEiS' .,
.; (" .... '1 ... '··.
O ~ukno"
a
• • .: ..J
.._0
T." .. lu," vuin\. 0
S uodu1'on
... , al
,
"O"RPI:~~I 0 ".': ,..
...
...
' ....
" ...
..
'.
,,,.
-
.. ..
'.
W)lROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES 6 \J CONSULTING ENGINEERS
September 10, 1975
Mr. James V. House
Administrator
TELEPHONE 344·2585
P. O. BOX 6410
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99502
Alaska Power Administration
Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99802
1976
Dear Mr. House:
401-402
Transmitted herewith are si,2~~~T·88'~Ta'f the report
"A Regional Electric Power System for the Lower Kuskokwim Vicinity".
We are also transmitting originals of the document that can be used
for producing additional copies. A number of minor corrections have
been made of typographical errors and omissions that were found to
exist in the copies given you in Anchorage and Homer. One mathema-
I tical error was made on Table 11, page 40, line 7 where the Ir for
I the shunt reactor should have been entered as 20 1-64 instead of
120 ~90 (angle referenced to the Vr at Sheldon's Pt.). This changes
isome numbers in the last lines of the Table but not significantly .
All pages except for the fold-in Plates A and B can be readily
reproduced by the Xerox or equivalent process. The covers were
printed by an offset process.
This project was a challenging one and seemed more so as my
work progressed. I took more time than I expected because it seemed
desirable to demonstrate the potential feasibility of the Single
Wire Ground Return concept for a much larger area than originally
conceived as appropriate. I suspect there may be other areas of
Alaska where the SWGR transmission scheme would be applicable.
It would be highly useful to construct and operate a section of
such a line in an area of Alaska where there is permafrost in order
that the ability to develop adequate ground connections can be demon-
strated. I am certain that it can be done successfully, but it should
be documented so that full credibility can be established. The
Kuskokwim region is a good spot to build such a line section.
A beginning of line construction to implement the ten-village
interconnection could be accomplis.h~d with emphasis placed on the
monitoring of the ground elect~l :vstem<;~tft~ the construction Alaska Resources Lihn,r; & nformanon.,. ,~
Librar\' lluilJing. Su:ilC l11
321 f Prov:iucnn:: Drive
"nchnn\l!c. AK ~95n~-i(i14
Associated with RADAT SYSTEMS, INC. P. O. Box 55536, Houston, Texas 77055
-
-~
...
..
...
..
<III
.... -
...
Mr. James V. House
Page 2
=
September 10, 1975
401-402
techniques. This data could then be used in establishing improved
techniques and upgraded specifications. A line from Bethel to
Napakiak, for instance, could make an excellent demonstration
project.
Thank you for arranging the opportunity to participate with
you at the ARECA convention; I believe the exposure of the SWGR
scheme at that meeting will generate some good suggestions from
some who attended.
ROBERT W. RETHERFORD
P.S. I have sent a corrected copy of this report to
Dr. J. R. Eaton for his comments. I will also
send an "errata" sheet to those who received
the original reports. The list I recall is:
Bob Huffman .••.•.......... GVEA
Bill Sackinger .••....... U of A
Tom Hea th ..••.•...•......•. REA
Lloyd Hodson 0 •••••••••••••• AVEC
Homer Newspaper ........•. Homer
Also, I am enclosing a copy of a letter to the
Secretary of the American National Standards
Committee of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers regarding Rule 2l5C,
National Electrical Safety Code, and have sent
copies also to the above listed people .
RWR:lmc
Ene •
...
...
..
..
-
-
•
..
rc W )lROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES U 6. \J CONSULTING ENGINEERS
September 10, 1975
Secretary
TELEPHONE 344.2565
P. O. BOX 6410
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99502
American National Standards Committee C2
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
345 East 47th Street
New York, New York 10017
000-401
Subject: Rule 215C, National Electrical Safety Code
Gentlemen:
The above subject Rule 215C of the 1973 NESC denies
the use of the ground as a normal part of an electric supply
circuit. The fifth and prior editions of the NESC did not
deny its use in rural areas. It is of interest to determine
the background of this change in the NESC to provide some
perspective that may bear on a request for an exception to
this present rule. It is understood that such an exception
would be requested through our Alaska authority responsible
for the local codes and regulations.
I am transmitting herewith a copy of a report prepared
for the Alaska Power Administration that studies some alternatives
for electric power supply in one of the sparsely-settled region;
of Alaska. The report concludes that very significant savings
in the cost of ~lectric energy c?n be obtained by interconnecting
the villages of the Region studied (an area of 56,000 square
miles). For such an interconnection to be feasible, it also
concludes that a Single Wire Ground Return transmission circuit
would save substantial investments and provide the opportunity
to bring central station service to the villages with a con-
sequent saving in money and fossil fuel requirements.
I would call your attention specifically to the comments
on page 3 of the Report summary regarding the use of the Single
Wire Ground Return (SWGR) system and the recognition of the
Rule in the NESC regarding such use.
It would be greatly appreciated if the Committee would
comment regarding this proposal for use in the Kuskokwim-Yukon
Delta region of Alaska .
Associated with RADAT SYSTEMS, INC. P. O. Box 55536, Houston, Texas 77055
·,..
..
-
--
.. ..
...
...
•
..
..
secretary -IEEE
Page 2
tn
September 10, 1975
000-401
I would be pleased to correspond further with the
Committee or members thereof regarding the SWGR system and
its potential use in Alaska. I believe it can be done
successfully and safely -recognizing that it must be done
right. The poten±ial impact on the quality of life in
Alaska's hinterlands and more efficient use of energy require
that a serious evaluation be made.
R~'lR: lmc
...
,.
-.. -
...
<. -
-..
-
-
•
In mid-Deca:nber 1974 the agreeaent was made to accar:p1ish the following
report. The agreaoent stated that " ••• 'Ihe l«Jrk will CDIlSist of engineering
and econanic sbXlies am a report to APA providing a preI:i.Inirl&y feasibility
assessment of an electric ~ transad ssian system serving several
sna.ll villages in the vicinity of Bethel, Alaska. It will :include estimates
of power requirements, preI:i.Inirl&y design am cost estimates for transmission
facilities, and a determination of probable cost of ~ fran such a
system ...... '!he dooument further states" •••• '!he \\Ott. will focus on
plans for electric service to villages within approx:imatelya 40-mile
radius of Bethel, Alaska, :tnt will also include an assessment of feasibility
of including nore distant villages ...... II
A cursory review of the study area and conferences with Mr.. Paul Kreuzenstein
resu1ted in scm.:! futher researdl as to p:>Ssible IWdro-electric sites (a
snal.l mining related d.evelopnent was rel,X>rted at Nyac). The Kisaralik
River appeared to traverse a narrow canyon rot far fran Bethel and
U .. S.G.S. charts \ere analyzed briefly for watershed areas. It was a
.surprise to find a 500 plus square mile area apparently fed the Kisaralik
River at the canyal site. '!his generated interest for a specific look
which tcak. place just prior to a public meeting in Bethel on January 25,
1975. A kmwlePgeable pilot flew the area with us and numerous photographs
'tNere taken. The nane Cblden Gate 'WaS found to be the description used
by the local citizens who k:rlc:M the area as the limits of the fishel:y and
as good fur animal habitat. It shows on the U.S.G.S. quadrangles as a
falls.
Acx}uaintanceshi.p with the country also showed that substantial stands of
spruce existed along the Kuskokwin al:x:>ve Bethel and along SCIre of its
tribltaries. .
Discussions with Mr. Clarence Clark at Nyac and Hal Borrego at Bethel
regarding the exisitng electric lines of the area established scree
guidelines to estimate construction problans and suitable designs.
After foz:mulating prel.j.mina:I:: layouts for a ten-village mterconnection
am developing a IIl:X1el of an A-frane type line a second public meeting
was held in Bethel in July, 1975. Participants \\ere briefe1 about our
ideas arrl asked for CQlllents. Gc:x:rl. resp::>nse gave added data to use in
fIDalizing the re:port.
A thorough investigation of a I,X>Ssible single wire ground return line
showed extremely interesting results and unexpectedly indicated suitability
for long circuits (300 miles plus)
'!he follCMing rep:>rt is the result of digesting all this input and
writing the results. It is hoped that the intent is served.
i
...
...
...
-
til
...
til
..
...
...
..
TABLE OF COJ.'lI'ENTS
Page
INl'RCDu:::TIOO ----------------------------i
TABLE OF C<Nl'ENI'S
SUl+fARY AND R.EXXM-iENDATIONS ------------------
Part I -PRESENT SrruATION
Study Area --------------------
Key Map ----------------------------
Part II -I£W) DATA-HIS'lORICAL
Electrical IDads ---------------
Village Population -------------
Table 1 -Te.'1-Village Population Data -------
Part II -I£W) DATA -FOREI"AST
General -"' -"n --------------
Table 2 -AVEr. Village Suntnary
Forecast of .J?ori.'er Fequir€llEl1ts -----------
Figure 1 -Forecast, Bethel Area plus Ten Villages --
Figure 2 -Forecast, Bethel Area plus Ten Villages
(hydro-avoilal;)le) -
Table 3 -Ten-Village PoIrier Requj..ra:cents Forecast ---
Table 4 -Bethel plus Ten-Village Power Requirerrents
Forecast ----
Table 5 -.Bethel plus Ten-Village Electric Heating
Potential ---
Part IV -WlDLFSALE P(MER SI'IUATIQN
General ----.-------------
Rates for Wholesale Power -Bethel --------------
Table 6 -Wholesale Power Cost -Bethel -----------
Wholesale Power Supply fran Anchorage ------------
Part V -FUEL SUPPLY Sl'IUATION
Present Source of Supply ----------------------
Cost of Diesel Fuel -----------------------------
Table 7 -Diesel Fuel Cbst Estimate ----------------
Part VI -ALTERNATE ENERGY REscx.JICES
Wind Energy -----------------------------
Hydro-Electric Energy ----------------------------
Kuskokwim -Crooked Creek Project ----------------
Kisaralik --Golden Gate Site --------------------
1
5
7
8
9
9
11
11
12
13
14
15
19
21
22
22
22
23
24
24
24
25
27
28
29
,It
...
... ..
-.. -..
..
-
' ..
•
.. -..
.. -
-..
.. ..
. ,.
TABLE OF CON'J.'ENl'S (oon 't)
Page
Part VII -FACroRS AF1!"a::r~ THE CCNS'I'RJCI'ICIiJ & OPERATION
OF P<"H:R LINES
Electrical Performance, Ten-Village System 31
Plate A -Prelim:inary Layout -Electric Transmission
System -----32
Plate B -Prelim:inary Data -Golden Gate, Hydro-Site --33
Figure 3 -Bethel Area, Ten-Village, One Line Schanatic 34
Table 8 -Voltage Drop Estimate, 3~-4W Line ---34
Table 9 -Voltage Drop Estimate, ~ Line --------35
Electrical Performance -Regional System 37
Plate e -Regialal ~ System ------38
Figure 4 -Regional 1?o!.Er System-One Line Schanatic -39
Table 10 -Voltage & Current calc., Bethel-Sheldon's Pt. 39
Table 11 -Voltage & Current calc., Bethel-Sheldon I s Pt.
. with Electrical Heat -40
Physical Design an;} Construction ---------41
Figure 5 -Spnx::e A-Frame Power Line Structure ----42
Part VIII -POiER SJPPLY AIl.mRNATIVES
Table 12 -1?o!.Er SUWly Alternatives, Ten-Village Group 45
Table 13 -COsts of ~ SUpply, Ten-Village Group
H¥dro-energy ---46
Figure 6 -Bus Bar ~ COsts, Ten-Village Group --47
Regional Po!r.er System --------48
List of 1\ppezrlj_03S
APPENDIX-A
Village Survey Data -Napakiak and Akiachuk
Light Plant Inventory ------------
Houseb::>ld Electric Uses ------
Electric Heating Estinate -Village Hare ------
elimaticData-Bethel Area ------
Excerpts fran AVFr. Recx>rds -Ten Villages
Calista Region Prelim:inary Line Route -~k Sheet --
Lisitng of Calista Region Village COrporation ----
APPENDIX-B
Al,A4
A2,A3,AS,A6,A7
A8
A9
AlO ,All,Al2
A
Al3 thru Al?
Estimated tIlolesale Power COsts -Bethel -Bl
Forecast of Production COsts -Village Plants ----B4
Forecast of Transmission COsts, incl. Purchas.ed PcMer -B5
APPENDIX-C, OI'HER ENERGY S<l.JOCF.S
Kisaralik River Hydropotential ---.-------el
Win:1 Engergy-cata.1og Sheets -e7
Snall Hydro-Unit Data & Sheets ---------ell
...
-
-..
..
-
• -
-•
..
-
...
-
..
TABLE OF OONl'ENTS (con' t)
Page
APPENDIX-O, LINE CAT.l.lJLATIONS -SINGLE WIRE GROUND RRIURN
Voltage Drop Factors (fnxn RFA Bulletin 45-1 with
additions)----01&02
sa Transmission Line, Electrical Performance ----03
SN3R A,B,C,&O COnstants for lOO-Mile Line ---------07
APPENDIX-E, PHYSICAL OESIGN DATA
A-fr~ Sketch, with Notations -------------El
Alternates A-fr~, with notations ----------E2
APPENDIX-F, a:::NSI'RUCI'ICN COST DATA
One-Wire A-frane COnstruction Teclmique ----------Fl
One-Wire, Min. Line, Est. Construction Costs ----F2
River Crossing, Est. COnstruction COsts ---------F3
2-Wire, A-frane, long Span"--------------F4
conventional, Single Phase, l-t~ire Plus Neutral ----F5
conventional, 3-Phase, 4-Wire Line -----F6
..
•
...
-
• -
,..,
...
..
,;II
In the process of searching out the significant factors that are necessary
in testing ideas, W3 have 1ooka:l forinfo:rmation and carrnent fran persons in
the region and have, in tum, been queried. The results of a oonsiderab1e
interchange of ideas and cx.mnents are eml:x:xtied in this reIXJrt.
We tried to bring our own background to bear on a challenge to find a way to
improve electrical service to sane of the small village o::mmunities of Alaska.
We needed to eKfX.>Se our "schemes" to those who might be on the receiving end
and let them try our reasoning -while W3 picked their brains!
'!his PIOCeSS has been valuable to us and W3 wish to acknowledge with thanks
the inputs fran all who have resporded. The subtle Iressages of many in
quiet oonversatians and the not-so-subtle tail twisting of a few are all
bound to make a mark on our utterances. ~ prabab1ycan not identify all
tOOse wOO inpact:ed this effort but the following listing is made to reoognize
those we can.
1hese acknowledgenents are made in a kind of chronological order that happened
to happen:
ANDY EIXiE -The City Manager of Bethel at the tinl::'! we started our study.
AOOy helped mightily in spurring our efforts, finding space for neetings and
participating in his inimitable style: J~B. HAJ:()IDSEN, the pilot who first
s1'lor.'IIed us the Golden Gate on the Kisaralik and provided sane perspectives on
the C'alStructian of IXJWer lines -especially where they may cross the writhing
KuskaJcwjm: CIAREN:E Ci:.ARK, at NY1\C, whose advice and cx::mtent was sought out as
an experienced hand in the arts of constructing and operating electric
facilities withmt all the anenities of hanc1y oontractors and stores and
nearby help incase of trouble. roBERT NICK of Ntmapitchuk, whose friendly
discussions during a brief t.ime waiting for a flight i'elp:rl us lmderstand
m::>re a1:x:>ut the turxlra and the lakes that dot the U.S.G.S. quadrangles but
don't look the sane in February: BILLY McC1-\NN, JAMES BIK::K and CARL MJrGIN of
Napakiak, who shcMed us their ccrcmm.ity and its efforts to acx;ruire better
electric service; DAN I.AR9JN of Napakiak, who listened and ~ us where to
find a thaw bulb under 6-1/2 feet of ice in March, which allowed us to dem:m-
strate the feasibility of getting a gcxx1 electrical connection to ground in
the pennafrost ca.mtry along the Kuskokwim: JULIA EX.'iroK of Napakiak, whose
careful \<!Ork in her village survey effort supplied us with valuable data for
this report; BRJCE crow, citizen and fish buyer of Bethel, who took tinl::'! to
listen and think and a:mrent about the J:X)tential impacts of a IXJssible hydr0-
electric d.evelopnent on the Kisaralik; ,RAE BAX'lER, research biologist for the
Alaska Depart.na:lt of Fish and Gart'e who offered a::IIl'rent and advice regarding
the Golden Gate hydro-electric site and its IXJtential influence on the fishery;
PEl'ER THREE STARS, Bureau of Indian Affairs Region Administrator at Bethel who
took time to listen and cament reganting ideas for interconnecting villages.
His candid statements exhibited. concern about cx>sts and urged prudence in
attenpting new projects - a concern not lost UfOn us i HAL BORREGO and
GEDmE TILSWRY of Bethel utilities COqx:>ration in Bethel who listened with
enlightened. interest and "brains1:ol::n'e:1" with us regarding o::>nstruction in
the outlying areas curl shared valuable experience.
...
...
..
-
..
-
..
' ..
'.
..
ELI J. WASSILLIE, City of Akolmiut, who took tirre to write us a
letter after being unable to attend the January public rreeting. The
letter supplied useful information -particularly in regard to experience
with urxlergrourrl arrl underwater electric circuits in the tundra country;
ZN:HARIAH C. CHALIAK, SR., of the Akolmiut City Council was able to
attend a later meeting arrl bring personal cx:mmmications about the
tundra country; IDIT EXiEAK of the Akiachuk City Council, whose advice
was sought regarding crossings of the Kuskokwim. WILLIE KASAYUL1E,
secretary of Akiachuk, Ltd., who conducted the survey of electric light
plants arrll'lotlseOOld uses in Akiachuk and showed us the river and Kwethluk;
TlM)'l'HY WILLIAMS of Akiak, new president of Yugtak Coq;oratian for his
participation in the public xreetings and excellent suggestions regarding
power line crossings of the Kuskokwim River between Bethel and Tuluksak;
os:::AR NICK of Atmautluak, whose interested CUlilents about the A-frame,
spruce pole, and por.-.er line gave us a better understanding of its
potential use on the tundra; N:lMI ANDREW of Tuluksak and his neighl:x:>rs
who talked with us about the native spruce along the Kuskokwim and
obt:ained for us sanple sections of spruce trees :in the area; HAROID
SPAR:K of Nunam Kitlutsisti, who visited with us about energy systems am arranged region wide publication of infonnation about the p:>tential
hydro-electric developtl:mt on the Kisaralik •
There are many organizaticns and fellow professionals who provided
valuable help in many forms that implemented our ~rk. Paul Kreuzenstein,
whose ranarkable kmwledge of the region and acquaintanceship with its
people arrl places helped get our feet on the ground and who quietly
arranged schedules and wisely kept us from stumbling too rruch rates our
deep thanks. Yugtak Corporation which manages the affairs of eight
village corporations along the Kuskokwim River helped us through their
office in Bethel arrl by providing transportation for a trip to Napakiak
over the "Kuskokwim Winter Highway". The Ec::nnan.ic Developrent Adminis-
tration furrled Yukon-Kuskokwim Regional Planning Program supp:>rted the
village surveys and helped improve the credibility of our historical
data. Lloyd Hodson, Manager of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEL) who provided the historical data an electricity use in the villages
of their group ani analyses of growth factors for AVOC, gave us thereby
a useful perspective developed fran "hard" experience. Iou Lively and
'lbny Burns of what was then the Calista Corporation land office took
t:ime to review the preliminary line routings prop:>sed for the ten-
village group arrl provided suggestions regarding the right""f-way pro-
cedures that might impact such a project.
Dr. J. :Ebbert Eaton, registered professional engineer, Professor of
Electrical Engineering at Purdue University (now retired) and visiting
Professor at the University of Alaska spent many hours of his 0NI1 tirre
reviewing am analyzing the electrical performance p:>ssibilities of the
Single Wire Groum Return (~) electric system prop:>sed :in the following
report. His attention and counsel are gratefully acknowledged •
...
..
..
' .
...
,""
...
•
..
,"
The Alaska I?cJ\Er Administration who made-IX'ssible this dDcu.ttent
ra:eives our thankS for the opp::>rtunity given us. In particular, I nust
recognize Janes Ibuse, nt:.:M Mninistrator of .APA, who has been willing to
sUWOrt this effort. Jim lbuSe provided the input for the 1969 FPC
Alaska Power SUrvey which provided, cmong other things, that " •••••• fir.rling
a practical neans of providing electric service to the relatively small
and dispersed settle.mants ••••• such as the 79-kilovolt single-phase,
gxourrl return transmission schane described ••• deserved irm:e:1i.ate and
cxmc.:.-entrated attention. II 'lbe APA, under the direction of Jim House, put
their IIDley where their nouth is. ~ thanks to Jim. Another professional
of that organizati.cn, Bob Cross, has worked closely with Ire. He has
gently nudged and peacefully cajoled Ire to get crack:in I and finish the
joo. .My thanks for his UIXlerstanding and pa.tience.
~A~~ ~->t-$: Ii ;1--[ -
~~A-"'~J ~~
•
....
...
..
..
,.
..
.".
s~
A regi.alal. electric :pc:w:!r systan of lines intercannecting the ten villages
within a 40 mile radius of Bethel is a feasible project. Figure 6 from
Part VIII of the reJ;X>.rt (also following this page) shows graphically the
caoparison of ~ SUpply Alternatives •
All ~ sUWlyalterna.tive analyses in this report contain cost es-
calations. '!hese escalations have been used consistently in all alternatives
to assure a fair canparison. It is believed useful to note that the fuel
cost increment in all the alternatives accrues an increasing share of the
total power cost .
At the sarre tine, it should also be noted that the resulting rate of in-
crease in total power cost is a lesser rate in all cases than the rates of
escalation assmred for labor. 'Ibis shows that although relatively :rrodest
gzowth in electric energy use is forecast, the relationship between labor
costs (relatErl to inocxre) and energy cost inproves. In teDns of constant
dollars the cost of electricity is predicted to decrease. 'Ibis occurs even
tlDugh the cost of fuel is asS1.lIl'ed to require a continuing larger share of
the total electricity cost.
(1) Village ~ plant systans are highest in cost because of
the poorest efficiencies, higher fuel rosts, and high
reserve requirements.
(2) Transmission interconnection using conventional 3fO, 4-wire
lines is better than small village plants because of the
better efficiencies through purchased ~ (larger plants
with inproved diversity and less reserve requirerrent) even
though initial investments are high with a resulting
slightly higher cost in early years.
(3) A transmission interconnection using a Single Wire Grol.md
Return (sw;R) line premises the lowest oosts of all by
virtue of. its substantially lower investment.
The· graphical presentation using semi-log paper tends to underplay the differ-
ences be~ alternatives -particularly at future years. The following
tabulations may improve perspective:
IllS-BAR COSTS -CENTS PER KWH*
Alternate
Village Plant
3.0-4W Line
SW:;R Line
1980
23.3
20.5
14.9
1985
26.0
20.2
16.6
1990
25.4
21.5
19.4
* All cost estimates include cost of n:oney at 8% interest, and delivery
of energy to the distribution systan of each village. -1-
t ...
...
•
..
,.
•
0':
~"" 1."1 1.').
"¢~
liltS
u " i .. ;; :: c t1
!: C 4
c:: ....
<: '" Cl '-0.5 -':;ru
..!. () ~ ::;.,..
tJ (.l
L"""'"
..
•
'.
"0 .. , ____ "_0 ._,
·-0
3D
2
. . ~ _ .... t._
14
! ·r·
II&II[ 1t!lJ!!1!!!! ., ,." 1"'_ . -
--~~~··:-:-;·-~'l : ... :0T~~-~-i~·-.:~-·.; ,_._-,.-.-----.----,'
-~-. --'~--i~-~--,--:---•. -:--~-:-----~-------. . •. : --i
.) .. , I
_ , . _",. .' ·.~~.:...-_. ___ .>w-~~-.:-.--~_:.~--...:.....~-.-
_~-_~~~~~!~~-~-~~_o:~1-~~'".'::~~~~~-c-,:~ -.. :~'-~;-:': .. _;~.~;~=_~~-~._"_"~~ .. ;~~~~-~ _: ___ 0 ___ .~
I
---:--~-.:...~---,-.-. --' -
76 78 1980 84 86
YFAR
1990 92 94 96 fa
I ~1r.:IIQI= _~ I
2000
-2-
...
..
•
...
•
-
-
..
..
'. -...
III,
..
'fRANSIIlISSIOO 00Sl'S ONLY -CENI'S PER KWH*
Altemative
3)J, 4-W Line
SW3R Line
1980
11.9
6.3
1985
8.7
5.1
1990
6.1
4.0
*All cost est.imates include cost of noney at 8% interest, and delivery
of energy to the distribution system of each village.
Scanning the b«> preceeding tabJlations shows clearly the IX>tential future
benefit of the transmission systems. If a lower cost source of energy should
becxJ.ne available, such as local hydro-electric supply, la.vered fossil-fuel
prices (by di.scxJvery of a local gas or oil field), or future interconnection
to another location, the transmission system through its interconnection of
villages can provide an iIrm:.diate delivery system to gain the benefit •
Clearly, the 8W:iR system as est.imated can offer very significant savings at
equivalent perfonnance levels. (See Part ViI)
'!he SW3R scheme, using the earth as a return path, is not a new technology.
'1hc:xlsaIrls of miles of line have been in successful operation for nore than
thirty years -nostly outside the United States. The Fifth (effective to 1961)
ard prior editions of the National Electrical Safety C<xle (NESC) allowed for
use of earth as a nornal path for part of an electric supply circuit in rural
areas, but the later editions do not. An exception to this present restriction
in ~;e NESC t.«ruld 'be required. It is believed that the applications proposed
here WJuld in no way create any operating system with lesser safety than those
n.ow acceptable.
'lbe SN;R lines suggested here are IX>int-to-point connections with a carefully
established grounding system at each point. The substation established at
each village WJuld then connect to the conventional l11llti-grounded distri-
bution system as camonly used t:<:rlay throughout Alaska and the other 49 states .
A regional electric :pDI.\1er system. that 'WOuld interconnect 54 villages of the
calista region'to Bet:b;ll has been briefly reviewed to det:e.!:ItUne whether further
stt:rly may be warranted. 'll1is brief analysis (See Chapter VII and VIII) shows
that there may be feasibility using the 5WiR concept. Electrical perfol:ltBI1ce
of a 30Q-mile length of S-GR, 40 kv line appears excellent. With loads in-
creased to represent a possible electric heating market, an increase in voltage
to 80 kv for the first 100 miles appears to produce acceptable service. A
cost est.imate (see Part VIII) shows that the average cost of transmission for
1200 miles of ~ line delivering only 16,000,000 kwh per year to the 54
villages would be about 12¢ per kwh. The lines oould easily deliver three
times as much energy at very little added transmission investment and operating
cost. Even at the relatively small level of energy use the line appears
canpetitive with small village plants. r-bre careful study is warranted.
A major segment of the delivered costs of energy by the lowest cost delivery
III systan (transmission line interconnection) is the basic price for the pro-
duction of electricity. Alternate energy sources with a promise of tolerable -
-3-
-
-
•
•
..
•
. ..
...
...
' ..
costs and reduced pressure on the non-renewable energy sources (fossil fuels)
nrust be a pr.i.roo objective. While the scope of this study did not inclu:3e
this specific objective, a unique opportunity developed to view a possible
hyd:ro-electric developrent apparently ~ll-matched to fulfill a local energy .
requirElnent. 'lbe Golden Gate site on the Kisaralik River (See Plate B and
Appen:iix C) holds pnmdse of supplying 159,000 I 000 kW:l per year, with 36,000 kw
of capacity at a c:x::q:etitive price. 'lbis is equivalent to 14,000,000 gallons
of fuel per year that might be displaced. MJre careful study seems warranted-
particularly to establish water supply and p:>tential envi.rormental :i.npact.
Recx:mne:ndatians
(1) It is recx:mnended that an expanded study be made prarptly
to establish the feasibility of installing 10\i\1 resistance
electrode systems suitable for the sw:;R system.
(2) It is reca:mended that a sul:mi.ttal be prepared and pre-
sented to the appropriate Alaska authority regarding an
exception to Section 2l5.C. of the NESC for the purpose
of SVCiR lines in the Kuskokwim-Yukon Delta region .
(3) It is reca:mended that a st\.rly of a possible sw:;R trans-
mission system for the entire Calista region be tmder-
taken to provide a basis for p:lssible oonstruction.
(4) It is recx:mnended that the Golden Gate site on the Kisaralik
River be considered for nore in-depth study of its potential
as an energy source for the Kuskokwim-Yukon Delta region
and in particular supp:>rt the establi.shm:mt of a stream
gage near the site.
(5) It is recx:mnended that a reconnaissance study of potential
small hydro-sites be Ul'X1ertaken with particular emphasis
on sites that are reasonably near the villages of the
region or the possible transmission line routes •
-4-
-
-
-•
•
•
••
••
••
Part I
PRESENT SITUATION
Study Area
The City of Bethel (about 400 miles west of Anchorage) is
located near the geographical center of an area including
the lower Kuskokwim River basin and the Yukon River delta.
This area of about 56,000 square miles encompasses 56 villages
(including Bethel) counted within the Calista Corporation
boundaries under the Alaska Native Claims Act. (See the
following key map.)
Bethel is the largest community and has an excellent airport
and is the terminus for major river traffic bringing freight
from the North Pacific for use in Bethel or trans-shipment
by smaller river craft or air. There is no road system in
the area and much of the land is tundra generously sprinkled
with lakes. Overland movement is limited primarily to the
winter season -even with ORV equipment, although some
travel has been accomplished by Geophysical crews during the
summer weather. The river is being used as a roadway during
the winter season after the ice has thickened. Snow machines
provide the most competent mode of travel in winter. Some
higher ground exists and mining operations using standard
vehicles, trucks, bulldozers, etc. take place during the
summer when the water supply allows for hydraulic processing
methods. Cat trails are established in the winter time and
heavy freight is moved to staging areas where summer roads
can connect.
The area is wholly situated in a moderate perflafrost zone
with frost depths to 600 feet. The low flat land is primarily
fine-grained sand or silt. Thaw bulbs exist adjacent to the
deeper river channels and lakes. Potable water is found by
drilling wells through the permafrost. Along the Kuskokwim,
wells have been successful at 185 to 200 feet.
Electrical service thoughout the 56 village area is mostly
from small individually owned diesel-electric units of about
3 kw. size except at about 20 villages served by AVEC (Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative), and the City' of Bethel which
is supplied by the privately owned and operated Bethel
Utilities Corporation. BIA and State Operated Schools have
facilities in most of these areas and (except where AVEC
supplies service and in Bethel) they provide their own
electric power from diesel-electric plants.
rf 55 of these villages (one is on Nunivak Island) were
interconnected, it is estimated to require about 1200 miles
of line -an average of about 22 miles per village. A
relatively compact group of seven villages along the Kuskokwim
and three on the tundra (along the Johnson River) can be
interconnected to Bethel with about 100 miles of line -the -5-
...
...
..
.. ..
..
•
.. .. ..
..
-
.. ..
..
..
'.
farthest village being about 39 line miles from Bethel.
This is an average Line length of about 10 miles per village •
The prim~ry s~u~ area of.~ report is the 10 village
group lY1ng w1th1n-a-i0-m1le radius of Bethel. These
villages are Akiachuk, Akiak, Atmautluak, Kasigluk, Kwethluk,
Napakiak, Napaskiak, Nunapitchuk, Oscarville and Tuluksak .
-6-
"" ..
....
.-
' ...
."
..
... ..
•
..
'-
...
•
----
/
I
},
f
I
I
!
--~~
I 0 'l.I.r .,
I L A
h .j
C " ';,,f,,\ !li
ll
, f,
h",,!:,,,,,
h,]I)"H
()
It .. ", Hi\'"!
4 'I:'V" 1
n
~' II,,'"
"\ I",,"
111''''''''''''11
G
R
0\\ , ... '-11'"10
\1:' !
1.!l1I1I1.'
, . i age
~1iIIiiiI?'~~~r?/// b ;;;//~ '< ~ ~...",. '" :..r....-..;
o
IJi H'"~l'd''' h, , Il,,), 0
0 0 S .r),u.·~,k 0
h"W.UIlIl\ol
"1
v :
'" ;~,:j
,
j; •• J 1'.j'I"
r ,\" 11 ilil II· 'II
Q
"-.....-r~ 1\11<,,,,111. ,
!
0'",':' I."
1-
!
( (~"""I
I
AI't:"~,,,U: I ; II . «It,., : ~.'i.l,,\ HI
1'''1\ !;IHI!I'"t ,-'
1">lIL'),~_.l!IUI
KEY MAP
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
REGIONAL POWER SYSTEM
LOWER KUSKOKWIM VICINITY
E
YUKON DELTA -7-
Appo •. (::: 80 mi. July 1975
.,
n 1-\ I'~ <I ~ Ilh
"
c·II.,,,.·11
-
....
•
....
Part II
I.Qru) DATA. -HIS'IDRICM.
Electrical Loads
Actual load data for villages within the primary study area was collected
fran visits to scm: of the villages, detailed surveys taken in ~
villages along the Kuskokwim, the AVFJ::. records and from records filed
with the Alaska Public Utilities carmission for Bethel Utilities COrporation •
.. M::>re detailed information is contained in Appendix A, fran which the
following sl.ll.tlIlaries are taken:
....
... .. .. .. .. ..
..
..
..
...
...
...
NAPAKIAK
(about 8 miles south\\est of Bethel~ downstream on the Kuskokwim)
Res~tial COnsumers •.•.••••..••.•
Potential Res. (not now served) •
SmallOammercial •••.•••..•......•..
Bm Scllc:x:>l ............................................ ..
Public Buildings
Totals: ............ ..
No. of COnsumers
Survey -1974
36
2
1
1
3
43
AKIACHUK
Ave. kwh/rro.
Survey -1974
167
167
1,250 (Trading Post)
12,000
60 (OlUrch, Corrm.
---Hall, Amory)
460
(alx>ut 14 miles northeast of Bethel -upstream on the Kuskokwim)
Residential Consurrers ••••.•••••••
Potential Res. (not now served).
Small Oammercial •••••..•..•......
am Scho:Jl ............................................ ..
Public Buildings ...••.••.••••.•..
Totals:
No. of Consumers
Survey -1974
38
13
1
1
4
57
KASIGLUK
Ave. kwh/rro.
Survey -1974
120
120
1,250
15,000
60 (Church, Corrm. ---
397
Hall, Village
Office, and
Arnnry)
(Now served by AVFC., about 26 miles west of Bethel)
Residential COnsurrers ........................
Small COnnercial ..................................
Bm School .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Public Buildings .. ................................
Totals: ............
* First month of service
No. of COnsumers
12/74 12/73 4/70*
43 43 40
1 1 0
1 • 1 1
4 4 3
49 49 44
Ave. kwh/no.
1974 1973 4/70*
131 117 56
8 22
12,387 11,317 4574
84 32 23
375 337 156
-8-
-
..
•
""' ..
• ..
•
t_ I '( '!
NDNAPI'IOlUK
('tbw served by AVEC., al::x::>ut 24 miles v;est of Bethel)
No. of Con.sumars Ave. kwh/mo.
12/74 12/73 2/70* 1974 1973 2/70*
Residential Consumers ............ 47 46 41 120 121 145
Small Corrrrercial ................. 2 2 2 176 214 145
BIA School . ....................... 1 1 1 11,663 11,474 3,106
Public Buildings ................. 6 5 1 117 107 120
Totals: ............ 56 54 45 328 333 210
* First month of service
BETHEL
(Served prior to Jillle '72 by OC Co., and 6/72 to date by Bethel Utilities Corp)
No. of Consurrers Ave. kwh/rno.
12/74 12/73 12/72 2/72* 1974 1973 1972 1971*
Residential Consumers. 670 555 572 460 307 259 260 199
Small Comnercial •••.•• 191 178 168 140 2,484 3,350 2,082 1,990
Bulk Prime ............. 5 63,062
Totals: ........ 866 733 740 600 1,150 1,010 674 617
Annual Peak Demand-kw Total Annual Sales-MiH
12/74 12/73 12/72 12/71* 1974 1973 1972 1971*
Annual Total loads 3500 2350 2050 1320 11,948 8,883 7,395 4,905
* Feb. '72 and. previous 11 rronths
Village Po~latian
In 1974 the po);:ulation and farrily tmits for the ten vil:agcs was estimated
as follows:
Akiachuk · ............
Akiak ...............
Atmautluak .............
Kasigluk · ............
Kwethluk · ............
Napakiak .................
Napaskiak ...............
Nunapi tchuk .........
Oscarville ...........
Tuluksak · .............
Totals: ........
Population
320
210
150
300
450
223
220
300
60
180
2,413
Table 1
Ten-Village Population Data
Family units* % of Total Units
51
36
26
43
77
38
38
47
11
31
398
12.8
9.0
6.5
10.8
19.3
9.6
9.6
11.8
2.8
7.8
100.0
* One hare illlit -for electrical service.
In Bethel the estimate is 3,000 population and 670 family illlits.
-9-
..
III
..
...
..
..
-.. ..
..
..
...
These figu:r:es show an average of slightly rrore than six (6) persCl1s per
family mrit in the villages and arout four and one half (4.5) in Bethel.
lelating the family units in the ten village groups to the data developed
for the villages of Napakiak, Akiachuk, Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk, it is then
estinated that the present total· electrical load for the ten villages might be:
No. of Family Units Est. Annual kwh Est. Peak D::mland
398 2,112,000 480 kw
-10-
..
..
..
..
..
•
• .. ..
..
...
Part III
IDAD DATA -FOR:ECAST
General
The forecasting of electrical loads for the typical villag-e not now
receiving central station electrical service must be described as speculative
at best. The intentions and persistence of the rrerubers of these communities
is probably the rrost important single influence and also the ITOSt difficult
to evaluate. However, it is believed reliable to asS\.lIle that humans
prefer their haneland -other things being reasonably tolerable -and
that reliable, affordable, electric service does improve the quality of
life. These factors favor the continued existence of historic carnrmmities
if such service were available •
The history of the AVEC inpact on villages of Alaska provides statistics
that reflect the effect of improved electrical service. Cost of this
electric service is very high by comparison with rrore 1X>pulous and
developed areas but it apparently rates a reasonably high priority in
assigning the resources of a c::or.munity. The following surrrnary of the
history of the electrical g-rowth at several villages throughout the
Region (See key map) is tabulated here to show the irrrpact of AVer:. electrical
service:
This table surrrnarizes the data fran the villages of Eek, Errm::>nak,
Goodnews Bay, Hooper Bay, Kasigluk, U:Jwer Kalskag, r-buntain Village,
Nunapitchuk, Quinhagak and 'Ibksook Bay:
Table 2
AV'Ef:.. Village Su:rrrnary Dec. '71 to Dec • 174
197 4 1 9 7 3 197 1
Con-No. 'Ibtal Ave. Ave. No. 'Ibtal Ave. Ave. lb • Ave.
S1..llJer Cons. Annual Kwh Kwh Cons. Annual Kwh Kwh Cons. Kwh
Class (D3c) Kwh (Dec) YR/12 (Dec) Kwh (Dec) YR/12 (Dec) (Dec)
(1) (7) (3) (4) (5) (2) (3) (4 ) (5) (2) (4)
Hes 570 839,224 175 123 541 702,742 143 108 506 121
SC 39 2S8,140 623 616 33 240,170 612 606 23 300
BIA 10 1,095,740 11,806 9131 10 1,105,090 11,562 9209 10 9887
PB 56 253,940 555 378 52 212,960 488 341 31 175
SL 12 11.840 80 82 12 5,770 80 40 3 80
'Ibtal 687 2,489,084 399 302 684 2,266,732 369 292 573 301
Average Armual increase fran Dec. 171 to Dec. 174:
NC. of Cons~rs •...••. Res 1.041; SC 1.192; BIA 0; PB'1.218; 'Ibtal
Ave. Kwh (Dec) ......... Res 1.131; SC 1. 276; BIA 1.061; PB 1.292; Total
Ave. Kwh YR/12 (74-73) . Res 1.139; SC 1.017; BIA 0.992; PG 2.050; frota1
AVEC Study of 48 villages produced the following forecasting factors:
1.062
1.098
1.034
Res. ConS1..lII\2rs · ...... Ave. Kwh/ITO. = 136 for 1975 with 10% annual gror"rth rate
SC Consumers · ..... Ave. Kwh/ro. = 655 for 1975 with 5% annual gro,lth rate
BIA COl1Sl..lITerS · ..... Ave. Kwh/ro. =8590 for 1975 with annual growth rate
PB Consumers · ....... Ave. Kwh/rro. = 342 for 1975 with 10% annual growth rate
-11-
•
....
..
• '. •
...
•
• -•
..
..
...
..
'.
Forecast of Power Requirements
The following figures 1 & 2 show graphically the forecast
power requirements of the Ten-Village Group and the Bethel
Area. The data for these figures come from TABLE 3,4,&5
which follow with explanatory notes. TABLE 5 contains an
added increment for electric heating requirments if hydro-
electric energy were assumed availabe as a competitive
"fuel II •
TEN-VILLAGE GROUP
For the purpose of this forecast the following growth factors
are used for the Ten-Village Group:
No. of Consumers •••..•. Res
Ave. Kwh/mo •••••••.•... Res
1.04; SC 1.07; BIA 1.00; PB 1.04
1.10; SC 1.07: BIA 1.01; PB 1.15
-12-
""-7Q _ , __ ..
..
•
• ..
• -..
• -,..
. =: '
..
..
-
...
1
= :t
J.,
C
i •
I I
i
!
.
i
j
I t---
i
i I. W~rt9g0~ I --L __ L __ 74
1972
i
: I
-I---t---I
, .....J~:...i......:.Qj~_ e-4
YEAR
•
..
•
•
.' --
· ..
•
•
'.
'.
, i
~; Q.-i-~-· -+---~--t---~.,. .. " .. -
i
1--
!
I
., , --,
t . I ,I , .D!-__ -+ __ ~_, .. __ l.~
o \ I t
~ I' ,
2 I· ~ 1-,
~
.~
'" Q..
(I)
l-
t-ea:
~ ea:
(!)
'" :!
I
I
I
0
4 ..
S?2 74
, ,
!
76
j
'i. 1
i
t
I ,
i , I
I
78
,. 1---.'
I
I
' I
,
, l
,
i i
! j
f
I , 1 -,.,'-'
1980 82 84 88
YEAR
JIliIU
1990 92 94 96 98
I FIGURE-21
100 ..... 0
10 (I)
Q
I .0 i
10 ,
eo ....
150
40
10
2000
r
I
I
<:]
-14-,~4
I & I i ! ! • ! • ! f! ! Ii ,
l' a:JJ..,,; 3
Ten-Village Power Requirments Forecast
RESIDENTIAL S:1ALL COl'a"1ERCIAL BIA SCHOOLS PUBLIC BUILDINGS TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
Y :\0. No. No .. No. Total
E Tot;). 1 Cons. Total CO:15. Total Cons. Total Annual L.F. Peak
A Annual Ave. Annual Ave. Annual Ave.-Annual Sales % Demand
R Kwh Kwh Kwh Kwh Kw
1974 398 635,208 11 79,200 10 1,536,00 37 59,052 2,309,460 50 527
133 600 12-;BOO 133
1975 414 725,328 12 92,448 10 1,551,360 69,768 2,438,904 50 557
146 642 12-;928
1976 430 830,760 13 107,172 10 1,566,840 ~O 84,480 2,589,252 50 591
161 687 13~57 176
1977 448 951,552 114,660 10 1,582,560 42 101,808 2,750,580 50 628
ITi 13-:-188 202
1978 466 1,090,440 14 :"32,048 10 1,598,400 120,228 2,941,116 50 671
195 786 13-;320
1979 484 1,242,912 15 151,560 10 1,614,360 45 144,720 3,153,552 50 720
"214 842 13~:33 268
1980 504 1,427,328 17 183,600 10 1,630,440 47 173,712 3,415,080 50 780
236 900 13-;587 308 ----
5/yr total 5,542,992 689,040 7,992,600 624,948 14,849,580 50 780
(1976-1980 inclusive)
1985 613 2,788,000 23 349,000 10 1,714,000 57 423,000 5,274,000 50 1200
379 1263 14-:-281 619
10 YR/total 16,380,000 2,123,000 16,393,000 2,150,000 37,046,000 50 1200
(1976-1985 inclusive)
1990 745 5,462,000 32 680,000 10 1,801,000 69 1,031,000 8,974,000 50 2050
611 1771 15~09 1245
15 {"r tot:;l 37,6J2,000 4,891. 000 25,221,000 5,995,000 73,629,000 502050
(1:)16-1990 inclusive)
I
i-'
VI
I
.1
""
••
••
•
...
41.
.... ..
-
.. I ..
"'.
The above TABLE 3 is believed to represent a very
conservative estimate of probable load growth in the
"ten-village area. The per cent distribution between villages
as shown in TABLE-l will probably change with some villages
losing and some gaining. The nearness of Bethel as a II competing "
influence will have some effect on the population growth but
the accomplishment of central station electric service for
the villages will certainly enhance the opportunities for
survival and growth. This seems clearly demonstrated by the
AVEC experience-see TABLE-2 •
The impact of increasing energy costs in recognized but all
evidence shows that the use of electricity --especially for
the first time --results in better use of energy and a generous
improvement in quality of living. The better uses of energy
include electric lighting instead of lanterns (10 to 30
times more efficient), electrically driven equipment such as
washing machines and water pumps (with gains of several
times in efficiency over fuel-driven models), and displace-
ment of small fuel-driven electric sets whose efficiency is
mostly less than half that of central station produced
electric energy. It is believed that these gains in efficiency
can also be had at lesser cost than those resulting from
small on-site units where load factors are low and maintenance
is haphazard and costly.
It seems apparent that the priority of assigning dollar
resources of these villages includes placing electricity high
on the list even at exceptionally high unit cost. This fact
is an indisputable declaration of value to the user •
A review of the surveys conducted in two villages (See also
Appendix A) refreshes the memory about electric uses often
taken for granted, such as:
Napakiak
38 houses, 2 without electricity
23 small electric sets, 5 gasoline-powered,
18 diesel-powered
Appliances in use (P) or planned (F):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Refrigerator •••.• 6{P)
Clothes Washer .•• 27{P)
Freezer ••.••••••• 18(P)
Iron .••.•••..•••• 16{P)
T.V •..•••..•••••• 34{P)
Radio (Broadcast).27(P)
••• 20(F)
• •• 8 (F)
• .. 16 (F)
• •• 10(F)
2{F)
· .. 1 (F)
-16-
.. , .,
...
•
...
. ,..
iIII
-
., .
...
....
...
Akiachak
51 houses, 13 without electricity
5 small electric sets, 1 gasoline-powered
4 diesel-powered
Appliances in use (P) or planned (F)
1. Refrigerator ..... 4(P) ... 12(F)
2. Clothes washer ... 20(P) ... 11(F)
3. Freezer •......... 9(P) ... 18(F)
4. Iron ...•.....•... 11(P) ... 6(F)
5. T.V ..••.......... 33(P) ... 15(F)
6. Radio (Broadcast) .24(P) ... l(F)
Regarding the popularity of T.V. it should be noted that the
only T.V. station available to these villages is in Bethel.
This station is a publicly-supported faqility and provides,
in addition to entertainment, educational T.V. and local
programming in the Native tongue and English. The communities
have no public communication facilities (such as telephone).
Radio is used for bush airline operation and emergency
communication. A sampling of the TV programming by this
writer gave the impression that the station is working· hard
at communicating with the "bush" villages and is succeeding
through the wise use of the native language. It is easy to
understand the popularity of the "modern miracle" when
confronted with the isolation and sometimes harshness of the
village environment .
-17-
...
.. ..
.. ..
•
... ..
• ..
•
..
.. .. ..
..
..
••
Bethel
For the purpose of this forecast the following comments are
made in regard to Bethel: .
The 1971-1974 average rate of annual increase in sales
of Kwh by the Bethel Utilities Corporation is •••••
34.5%. A portion of this increase came from the addition
of large consumers of electric energy in the area who
had not previously been taking service from the central
station system. Healthy increases in numbers of
Residential and Small Commercial consumers and their
average electric use also contributed a large share to
this growth rate. The development of Bethel Height's
accounts for a substantial part of this. The Bethel
Utilities system is forecast herein as growing at an
average rate of 14% per year through 1990. This rate
is believed reasonable although arbitrary and compares
well with the historcial growth rates of the Interior
Region and South Central Alaska as reported on Table 16
of the 1974 Alaska Power Survey -"Economic Analysis
and Load Projections". This factor results in the
following forecast for Bethel which is then added to
the totals from Table 3 preceeding to show the combined
Bethel and Ten-Village group total energy requirements
and estimated demand: (See Table 4 following)
-18-)
I ....
\0
I
I i " "'
• i • I I i • I , i l I
TABLE 4
Bethel 'Plus Ten-Village Power Requirements Forecast
'i
E Bethel Ten-Village Totals
A ANNUAL-MWH L.F. KW PEAK ANNUAL-MWH L.F. KW PEAK
R
1974 11,948 0.39 3,500 2,309 0.50 527
1975 13,620 0.43 3,600 2,440 0.50 560
1976 . 15,530 0.45 3,940 2,590 0.50 590
1977 17,700 0.45 4,490 2,750 0.50 630
1978 20,180 0.45 5,120 2,940 0.50 670
1979 23,000 0.45 5,830 3,150 0.50 720
H80 26,230 0.45 6,650 3,420 0.50 780
5-'iR Total 102,640 6,650 14,850 780
(1976-1980 inclusive)
19q<; 50,500 " . ~ "'I ~ ""!"L"'I ;,'300 v.:>O 1,200 ... '" '-• ..,1 ..!..;.-L~,
.l.f.-YR Total 300,300 37;000 1,200
(1976-1985 inclusive)
1990 97,200 0.45 24,700 9,000 0.50 2,100
15-YR Total 680,900 73,600 2,100
(1976-1990 inclusive)
* This peak was developed by recogn~z~ng probable diversity between
Bethel electric loads and the Ten-Village group.
I f I: • I I I i • t . , I •
Total Requirements
ANNUAL-MWH L.F. KW PEAK*
14,257 0.42 3,850
16,060 0.46 3,970
18,120 0.48 4,330
20,450 0.48 4,910
23,120 0.47 5,570
26,150 0.47 6,3l0
29,650 0.47 7,170
117,490 7,170
55,800 0.47 13,600
337,300 13,600
106,200 0.46 26,100
754,500 26,100
the
...
•
•
.. .. ..
...
..
...
-
-
...
oil
..
..
The preceeding Table 4 is a power requirements forecast
based on the existing (diesel-electric) method of generating
electricity. The possible development of the hydroelectric
project described in a following section creates an opportunity
to displace fossil fuels that are used to generate electricity
and may further provide an alternate energy for heating.
Since an electrical system interconnecting the villages is
being proposed it is suggested that this system could also
deliver additional amounts of energy for heating purposes at
an incremental increase in transmission cost less than the
delivery costs of heating fuels. If the hydroelectric
energy is competitive in cost with the fossil fuels it
becomes prudent to consider its use for heating and thereby
displace the fossil fuel for use eleswhere in the world
where no other energy supply is feasible.
An estimate of possible electric heating energy will be made
based on the following assumptions:
(1) Heating of homes only will be estimated •
(2) Size of homes will increase. (Villagers now are
living in homes that average less than 80 square
feet per person, some as low as 30 square feet)
A typical Kuskokwim village home of today is about 600
square feet. Such a home with good insulation is estimated
to require about 15,000 kwh annually with a demand of about
7.5 kW.
Applying these criteria to the forecasts of numbers of
residential consumers and assuming an annual average increase
in heating per home of 6% the following electric heating
forecast is·made: (See Table 5 following)
-20-
it .II
I
IV .....
I
.. J .. . I J I • I i I a It j I • Il I I I • I Ii J
TABLE 5
Bethel Plus Ten-Village Electric Heating Potential
y Bethel Ten-Villages Total Heat Other All
E MW Peak No. Res MW Peak MW Peak MW Peak MW Peak
A MWH Ann. KWH MWH MI'IH l1WH !-1viH
R
1985 1031 3.4 613 . 2.0 13.6 19.0
15,000 15,500 15,000 9,200 24, 55,800 80,500
1990 1255 5.3 746 3.2 8.5 26.1 34.6
20,000 25,100 20,000 14,900 40,000 106,200 146,200
6-YR Totals 5.3 3.2 .26.1 34.6
(1985-1990 inclusive) 120,300' 71,400 191, 417,200 608,900
* At 24 KWH equiv. to 1 gal. of heating fuel, and 11.3 KWH (12.25 x 0.92 to allow for losses)
equiv. per gal. diesel for other electric energy.
II. • .. j It j
Fuel
Displaced
Gals. *
5,970,000
11,060,000
6-YR Total
44,910,000
• • •
... ..
...
..
..
Part J)J
WfDLESALE POWER SITUl\TION
In this study area, power supply c:x:::IteS entirely fran "an-site" electric
facilities consisting largely of small diesel-electric generating sets
with small or no distribution system. ~IWholesale" power is non-existent
except at Bethel where the Bethel Utilities Corporation offers a "Ccmrercial
Bulk Prime" rate for ..... oontinuous alternating current 60 cycle three
phase power delivered at primary voltage of 2400 or 7200 through a single
rretering device ••• " •
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative supplies power to the villages
it serves using "on-site" generating units with snall distribution
circuits. AVEC is headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska and provides
centralized managenent and can get the benefits by buying needed equiprrent,
supplies, etc. through grouped purchasing efforts. .
Rates for Vbolesale ~
• '!he Bethel Utilities Corporation "Ccmnercial Bulk Pr.in:e" rate for electric
power (as on file with the APOO-April 1974) is: (See also Appendix B)
..
... ..
•
Per IlOlth:
First 50,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, •••• 7.2¢
Next 50,000 kilCJlliW3.tthours, per kwh, •••• 7 • O¢
Next 50,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, •••• 6.8¢
Next 50,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, •••• 6.6¢
Next 50,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, •••. 6.4¢
Next 50,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, •••• 6.2¢
Next 50,000 kilCJlliW3.tthours, per kwh, •••• 6.0¢
All over 350,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, .5.8¢
The alx>ve rates are highly dependent upon fuel costs paid by the utility.
The BUC has also filed with the APtX:: a request for a general rate increase
in which the proposed new "Ccmnercial Bulk Pr.in:e" rate for electric
power Ynlld be:
Per IOOnth:
First 100,000 kilowatthours, per kwh, ••• 8.7¢
All over 100,000 kilowatthours, per kwh .4.5¢
An estimate for future costs of this wholesale power supply for the Ten-
... village interconn.ect:ai load is: (See also Appendix B) .. TABLE 6
Estimat~ ~olesa1e Power Cost -Bethel (Diesel-Electric)
y Ave. Cost Fuel Cost Y Ave. Cost Fuel Cost
E Per Kwh Increment E per Kwh Increm.:.mt .. A Bethel % A Bethel %
• R R ms $0.065 60 1980 $0.086 65
1976 0.069 61 .. 1977 0.073 -62 1985 0.115 68
1978 0.077 63
1979 0.082 64 1990 0.154 70
-22-
'III
...
• ..
•
..
..
iI
Wholesale ~ Supply fran Arlcl'Drage
'!he price of wtDlesale ~ in the Anchorage area at 10 to 12 mills per
kwh in 1975 is an attractive price when o:mpared. to the price of wholesale
p<JWIer in Bethel. Hc:::Iw3.ver, the distance fran the nearest possible supply
point of the Anchorage Area :r;a.ver system (Beluga) to Bethel is al:x:mt 425
miles (See key Map).
A transmission line traversing this route 1r.Ould probably go through
M:!rrill Pass (elevation 3100 ft.) and then follCM the Kuskokwim River
valley to Bethel. If such a ~ delivery system were c:orrpared to
lcx::al generation, the value of the energy delivered 1r.Ould nonnally be
considered equivalent to the fuel oost of local energy lIDless a seoond.
line or other standby capacity \Ere provided. 'lb esti.nate what "prudent
invest:J.tentlt might be made for such a ~ delivery system, the value of
Kwh delivered to Bethel will be set as the estimated average fuel oost/Kwh
in 1985 and the remaining calculations~made' the follCMing manner:
Max.irnum Energy to be deli to in 1985............ ~CL 50CL~
Cost of Fuel displaced @~ (see Table~7) .-. •.•..•• $6,118, 00 a/year
Cos~ of Energy purchased ($0.015/Kwh ~~uga 8 "..' .•.•. $1,270,000/year
Estimated annual O&M oosts for transmsSl.On sys •.•••.••• $ 250, OOO/year
Remainder for Invest:nent Costs ....•.••• $4,598 , OOOlYe~~; .
If a nn.micipal oo:rporation \Ere to sponsor the project, the estima.ted
fixed charges related to this investnent might 00:
Cost of MOney •••••••••••••••••••... 0.080 (8%)
Depreciation (sinking fund, 35 yrs) •• 0.0058
Interlin Replacarents ••.•••..•••..•.• O. 002
Dls\lr'ance ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.001
0.0888 say 9%
Maximum Pru:1ent Investn:ent in 1985 beca1:es:
4,598,000 = about ••.•••.••••••••••• $ 51,000,000*
0.09
'!his figure represents about ••..••• $120, OOO/mile
or, (considering 7% escalation of oosts)
,by today's oost (1975) •.•....•..••• $ 60,000/mile
,.,,/
* It is intersting to note that an estilrated investnent of $100,000,000
(1985 figures) in a potential hydro-project near Bethel (See Part
VI) would deliver energy to Bethel for about $O,059/Kwh, and make a
payment in lieu-of-taxes of $l,OOO,OOO/year.
.. A oonventional transmission system from Anchorage <Des not offer an
attractive alternative wholesale ~ source for this situation .. ..
• -28-
•
,.
.. ..
..
..
....
..
.. ..
...
•
..
-
Part V
FUEL SUPPLY SI'l'tl1ifiCN
Present Sourre of SUpply
All petroleum products used in the area are supplie:l by one distributor
representing the Standard Oil Cbrpanyof California. Bethel is the
distribution center. Products are delive:l up and down the Kuskokwim by
fuel barge to bulk storage ta-,ks at the BIA and State-Operated Schools
and by the barrel for use by individuals.
'llrls process canbined with alloc.a.tion and economic problems has resulted
in sane fuel shortages at village locations requiring special assistanre
through airlift in S<::Ile instances. IrIprovement in fuel storage capability
at village locations is a continuing problan.
Cost of Diesel Fuel
Based on the statistics of the electric utility in Bethel as filed with
the. AJ?(X: the average costs of diesel fuel for the utility have been
awroximate1y as follows:
1970 •.•••••••••• 24¢ per gallon
1971............ 26¢ per gallon
1972 •.•••••••••. n/a¢ per gallon
1973 •••••••.•••. n/a¢ per gallon
1974 •••••••••••• 37¢ per gallon
1975 •..••••••••• 47.4¢ per gallon
Fuel prires in the villages for
1975 are estimate:l to
average. • • • • • • • • 53¢ per gallon in bulk deliveries •
Future Cost of Diesel Fuel
For purposes of this report fuel costs are estimated to escalate at 7%
per year with the following result:
TABLE 7
Diesel Fuel Cost Estimate
Bethel
Villages
YEAR $/GAL. $/KWH*
& Interconnected Systan
$!GAL. $/KWH*
1975 0.53 0.076 0.48 0.039
1976 0.57 0.081 0.51 0.042
1977 0.61 0.087 0.54 0.044
1978 0.65 0.093 0.58 0.047
1979 0.70 0.100 0.62 0.051
1980 0.75 0.107 0.67 0.055
1985 1.04 0.149 0.93 0.076
1990 1.46 0.209 1.31 0.107
* Bus Bar Costs out of generating Plant. 12. 25KWh/gal. in Bethel
and 7 Kwh/gal. for small village I:XJWer plants.
-24-
Part VI
ALTERNATE E:NEE(;Y RESOORCES
The high cost of fossil fuel and its rrajor influence on the costs of
fuel-generate:l electricity (See Table 6, page 22) provide incentives to
search for alternate energy sources. In the region of this study there
are two solar energy forms that might be considered -wind energy and
hydro-energy •
Wind Energy
The extraction of energy fran wind has been accorrplished from the earliest
days of interest and applications in technology. Its greatest disadvantage
is the certainty that it will not be available at all t.l.Ires. Other
energy forms gradually displaced nost windpower uses because of this
fact.
Energy storage devices were used with wind power to extend its usefulness
.; but these devices (such as batteries) had li."tlited capabilities and
limited life with consequent high cost for the energy output.
,. Today, the largest comnercially available windpower system that could be
canpared with other electric supply schemes is about as follows:
..
...
..
•
..
-
Price-Sept. 1974 Est.
FOB East Coast U.S. wt.
1. Brushless, alternator type wind-driven
6 kw. 115 volt gen.; 3-blade propeller
16 I -5 If in diaI'l'llE!ter ......................... ..
2. lIS-volt, heavy-duty battery, 450 AlI,
10 yr.. life ............................................. ..
3. 50 foot guyed tower with guys &
aIlcoors ................................................... ..
4. D.C. to A.C. inverter, 3000 watt, *
115/230 volt ••.••..•............••.•.
TOtal Material Cost ••.
Est. Freight to Bethel.
$ 5,450 600 lbs.
$ 3,325 5000 lbs.
$ 775 650 lbs.
$ 4,500 50 lbs.
$14,050 6300 lbs.
800
$14,850
* 'Ibis assurres that sane electricity can be used as D.C. and
need not be inverted to A.C.
Installation Cost
m--.~_ foo~; ..... ,... .LVWCJ.. ~""=''' ................................... ..
Ancoor placerrent (3 anchors @ $50 ea) •
'Ib~ er-a:::tion ...................... ............... ..
13c:lttery Ra.ck ......................................... ..
Inverter Installation ...•••.....•..••
Po~ Circuit ...................................... .
'Ibtal installation ••••
Grand total cost ..... .
$ 150
150
800
150
100
150
$ 1,500
$16,350
-25-
..
...
...
...
I
•
•
...
•
...
...
..
If we asSl.lIle that the Alternator, 'I'c:JI.Er and Inverter have a useful life
of 20 years and. the batter:Y 10 years an additional battery would be
purchased to provide a 20-year life for the wind-energy system. Since
all manufactured items are asS'l.lm:ld escalating in cost at a rate of 7%
per year an added investJ:rent for the second battery would be:
1974 price ••••• 3325
--freight .••• 625 10
3950 x(1.07) ~ $7,770 is requried
This makes a total investJ:rent of 16,350 + 7,770 = $24,120
AsSl.lIle 10%* per year fixed costs of investment .• $ 2,412
Operation and maintenance @ $lO/reo. ••••••..•••• 120
Total annual costs •••..••.• $ 2,532
Average Annual output @ 425 kwh/Iro. •.•••••••... 5100 kwh
Average annual cost ••..•.••••.•.•.•.•••••••••.. $ 0.50/kwh
If an individual installed the wind ~ system himself and
provided all maintenance and operation without charge
Fixed Cost of Investment ($22,620) ••••••.•...•• $2,262
o & M ................................................. 0
Total annual cost ..•..•••.. $2,262
A~ annual output ••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 5100 kwh
Average annual cost .•....••..•...•...•.....•... $ O.44/kwh
If a wind ~ system could be used. with an electric system the energy
storage (batteries) could be eUminated. This 'WOUld then calculate as
follows:
Fixed ~)Qsts of investment (10,900) ..•••......•• $ 1,090
o & M (individual owner) ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0
Total annual cost .••••...•• 1,090
Average annual output •••••...••••••••••.•••..••• 5100 kwh
Average annual cost .•••.........•.••........•.. $ O.21/kwh
If the wird-power system could eliminate the lC-OC converter also, (such
as for pumping water) the costs are:
Fixed cost of investment ($6400) •.••...••.•••• $ 640
o & M ........................................................... 0
'lbtal annual cost •••..••••. $ 640
Average annual output •••..•...•••••....•..••••• 5100 kwh
Average annual cost .•••....•.•••...•...•...•.•. $ O.13/kwh
* This is a1:x>ut equivalent to borrowing at 8%, for a 20
year repayment.
-26-
..
...
"'"
•
...
• ..
,.
..
,.
•
.-
..
,.
,.
ill
"" .. ..
.-
...
...
...
•
... ..
c ... ..
...
•
...
...
...
til
-
,ill
I I
The wind generator system just described could supply about
three (3) average village homes today and only one (1)
average home by 1985. The average home in Bethel today
would use almost all the output of the unit .
Factors which could provide a lower cost are lower cost
wind-generators, a lower cost source of money and/or a
higher average wind speed. An interest rate of 5% instead
of 8% would provide a reduction in costs to about 80% of
those calculated. An increase in average wind speed from 12
mph to 17 mph would increase the average annual output to
about 8500 kwh which would decrease the average costs of
energy to about 60% of those previously calculated. Both
improvements could then cut costs to about 1/2 of those
previously calculated.
It should also be remembered that without energy storage
(batteries) the value of the energy is equivalent only to
the fuel cost portion of fuel-generated electricity. By
reference to Table 7 page 24, it can be seen that fuel costs
per Kwh estimated for small village diesel plants may reach
$0.21 per kwh by 1990.
Hydro-Electric Energy
Numerous possible hydroelectric developments can be found by
a cursory inspection of the topographic maps of the region
being studied. They would appear to range in size from
small 5 kw sites to very large potential developments on the
major river systems of the area. No published information
has been found evaluating the small sites and only preliminary
data regarding the largest .
The value of hydroelectric sites depends on many factors
.including supply of water, seasonal fluctuations, stream
gradients, natural or artificial water storage characteristics,
location and environmental factors such as fish and game
resource and flood control possibilities .
Small "packaged" hydroelectric units are available at relatively
low cost compared to wind generators, but the installation
costs may be greater depending on the stream conditions. A
5 kw "packaged II hydro-plant ready to run might cost about
$1,000 per kilowatt, delivered to Bethel, ready to supply
A.C. power at standard voltages. This would compare to
about $1,800 per kilowatt for the wind generator without
batteries. Installation can probably be accomplished in
many instances by the local owner. Such installation costs
might then be out-of-pocket for the owner whose own labor is
contributed .
Hydro-electric projects depend on the flow and head of
falling water. In winter months the flows are minimum and
hydro-sites can only be rated for these minimum flows or
storage reservoirs must be provided to supply water during
the low flow period. Natural reservoirs (lakes, ponds, etc)
sometimes exist so that costs for water storage can be
minimized. Dams to raise the water level and create storage
capacity or to divert water from flowing streams are almost -27-
::::t 1 t.1~V~ YOn1' ~ 't"'o::>-"
...
• ..
...
..
..
...
•
..
...
•
Hydro-electric energy is similar to wind energy in that it too rests on
the seasonal character of solar radiation and requires the ability to
store energy for best results. The fluctuations of flowing water occur
in much longer time cycles than fluctuations of the wind so that energy
storage requirements are greater for hydro-electric schemes. Flowing
water in la:r:ge streams always flows in contrast with the wind which
stops at times.
In the region of this stu::ly wind energy availability cc.:nplements the
energy fran natural flows of the river basins, i.e.; average winds are
strongest during the winter nonths when stream flows are m.:i.ninu:nn. This
fact suggests that these ~ energy sources oould li\urk together for
mutual benefit. '!he nost ideal arrangement being wind-pcMered water
ptmping which would add or re-cycle water into a reservoir supplying a
hydro-electric generator. A counterfactor that reduces the chances of
such an ideal arrangE!IBlt is that dams and reservoirs may not be ideally
situated. for wind power installations so that wind :p::tWer units may be
re:rote fn::m such sites requiring that the wind energy be converted to
electric energy for input to the system with the added oosts of such
conversion.
All these factors need to be balanced with the relating impacts in
arriving at opti.nn:m solutions .
Two potential hyd:ro-electric projects in this region will be listed here
in brief to identify their general characteristics and energy rating.
One site on the Kuskokwim River has been identified as a major laEr-
priced potential project. The second site recited. here is a smaller
site suggested in the public :rooeting held in Bethel in January, 1975.
Site 1 KUSKOKWIM RlVER-crooked Creek Project*
watershed Area •••••••..•••..••••• 31,100 square miles
~ff (fram stream gauging) •.•• 32,400,000 acre-ft./year
Rainfall equivalent ••.•.••.••.••. 20 inches/year
Height of Dam •••••••••••••••••••• 365 feet
Installed Capacity .•••...•••.•••• 2,140,000 kilowatts
Firm Energy .... ~ .................. 9,400,000,000 kilowatthours/year
*Info:rma.tion fran Alaska Power Survey-1974, A repJrt of the
Teclmical Advisory COnnittee on Resources and Electric Power
Generation.
This project data is preliminary in nature and is cited here
to provide perspective in relating to other resources and
alternatives. '!he magnitude of this renewable energy resource
ccrrpares to an equivalent fossil fuel guantity and value as
follows:
Equivalent Fossil Fuel •••••.••••• 17,000,000 bbls./year
Value (at $13.00/bbl.) ••••..••.•• 221,000,000 dollars/year
With a useful life of 100 years this hydro-electric project
would be equivalent to the disoovery of an oil field 1/5th the
size of Prudhoe Bay or about the SaJ.lV3 as the estimates for the -28-
Beaufort Sea.
•
•
•
...
•
..
. '
ill ,
..
•
•
•
If the electrical power output were valued at a price equivalent
to what industry seems willing to pay (deduced from Kaiser
interest in the Devil canyon Project on the Susitna River) the
revenue generated by the project might be:
Revenue to Project (at 15 millS/KWh at Bus-bar)
•••.••• $141,000,000 dollars per year
Under Federal criteria for repayrcen.t in 50 years at 5-5/8%
interest and O&M costs of $1,000,000 per year the prudent
investrrent in the project could be calculated as follows:
$ 141,000,000 income
-1,000,000 O&M & Replacement Costs
$ 140,000,000 Remaining to retire investment
Max. Prudent Investment = 140,000,000
ArulUal Repayrrent Cost/dollar = 140,000,000
0.05988
= $2,340,000,000
'Ibis represents alx>ut $1100/kw.
(Estimates in 1968 we.reabout one-half of this)
Site 2 KISARALIK RIVER -Golden Gate Site (See Plate B) *
watershed Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 544 square miles
Run-off (fran estimated ave. rainfall) • 580,000 acre-feet/year
Rainfall (estimated) average ...••..•••• 20 inches/year
Height of Dam •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 340 feet
Installed capacity ••...•••.•.••••.••.•. 36,000 kilowatts
Firm energy •••••••.•••.•••.••.••••••••• 159,000,000 kilowatthours/yr
* See Apfendix B for prel:i.m:inary study •
'!his project is of a size that can be utilized iJ:maliately
within the region being studied. If it is assumed that 95% of
the energy developed can be delived to the Bethel area and
thereby displace diesel fuel which would be otherwise required
we can assign this fuel cost as a minimum value to that energy.
Future diesel fuel costs are projected on page 22 and begin at
$0.93 per gallon in 1985 and increase to $1.31 per gallon by
1990. Using the estimated load growth shown in Table 5, the
average cost for fuel during this five year pericrl would be
about $1.24/gal. or al:x:>ut $0.10 per kwh. If it is assurred
that the hydro-project could begin delivering energy during
this pericrl the total value of the energy that could be delivered
to Bethel ~d be:
-29-:
...
" ..
.. .. ..
..
..
.. ..
..
... ..
...
...
-
..
• -
•
t I.!
~~()O#~~XO.95X02:D7$15'105,000 per year
If the annual operating costs of the hydro-project and transmission
system are $500,000, the remaining anount that might be prudently
invested. would be •••••••••••••••.• $14,605,000 per year.
If a municipal corporation that could issue tax-free bonds
were to sponsor the project, the estimated fixed charges
related to this investrcent might be:
Cost of Money (interest) .•.•.•. : .. 0.08 (8%)
Depreciation (sinking fund, 50 yr). 0.0018
Interim Rep1acane:nts •••••••.•••.•. 0.0065
In.s\lr'aIlCe ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0.002
TOtal ••••••••• 0.0903
Add a paynent in lieu of taxes •••• 0.01 (1%)
0.1003 say 10%
MaXimum prudent invest:Irent becares:
$14,605,000 = ..•••••• about .. $146,000,000
0.1
This figure represents about .•••••. $4100 per kilowatt!
A preliminary estimate of the cost of this project inclOOing
Transmission to Bethel is •..•... $61,600,000. If it is
asS1.nIB:l the project could be funded by 1980 and on line
by 1985, 'We will escalate this cost estimate at 7% per
year for 7 years for a new figure of about ••••• $100,000,000
This is about $2,800 per kilowatt
Using the financing nethod. suggested. above, the project
would provide the following:
A paynent in lieu of taxes of
$ 1,000,000 per year
New salaries and purchases
$ 500,000 per year
Wholesale electric :pcMer in Bethel @
$0.059 per kwh
This crnpares to an estimated. cost for diese1-electric
energy of $0.115/kwh with the fuel cost increrrent of
$0.078/kwh. See table 6 page 22 .
-30-
'1
...
-..
•
..
•
.. ..
..
..
•
!If ..
..
PART VII
FACTORS AFFECTING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF POWER LINES
An area of 56,000 square miles, a population of about 15,000
living in 56 recognized villages, no significant road system,
permafrost throughout and no central station electric service
(except for a small system in Bethel) briefly describes some
challenges in considering a regional power system.
The following Plates A, B, and C show the preliminary locations
of possible interconnecting lines that could form the backbone
of such a Regional Power System. Plate A shows lines inter-
connecting a Ten-Village group to Bethel, Plate B shows a
preliminary transmission line route to a potential hydro-electric
site, and Plate C shows preliminary line routes interconnecting
all villages in the Region except for Nekoryuk on Nunivak Island.
Electrical Performance, Ten-Village System
On Plate A, the Ten-Village Group was shown interconnected by
about 100 miles of line. On the following Figure 3 and Table 8
are shown the relationship of the loads and the estimated voltage
drop for the longest line of this system. The loads shown
are based on the 1985 Power Requirements forecast (Table 3, page 15)
and the percent of Total Units for each Village (Table I, page 9).
The line design used for this voltage drop estimate is a 3-phase,
4-wire, l4.4/24.9kv system of Standard REA design. Voltage drops
are calculated using the procedures of REA Bulletin 45-1 assuming
balanced loads. (See Appendix D)
An alternate line design of lower cost using a single wire with a
ground return path for the electric circuit has been analyzed for
electrical performance. A digest of electrical performance cal-
culations for ,this type of electrical circuit is included in
Appendix D. Dr. J. R. Eaton, who prepared this data, is Professor
of Electrical Engineering, Purdue University (now retired) and
visiting Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Alaska .
Dr. Eaton is the author of a recent (1972) text on '''Electric
Power Transmission Systems", Prentice-Hall, Inc. Robert w.
Retherford adapted the data to the REA voltage drop study tech-
niques for use on distribution lines.
The following Table 9 shows the voltage drops for a Single Wire
Ground-Return (SWGR) circuit using the same electrical size
conductor, the same Ten-Village loads and a voltage of 25 kv,
the same as the phase-to-phase voltage of the conventional REA
standard design. The voltage drop in Table 9 is based on I-ohm
resistance of each terminal grounding system.
-31-
• TOWNS a VILLAGES
_ _ _ FU;rURE TRANSII4 ISSION LINE
ELECTR.C LlNES-PRELIMINARY LOCATION
---ELECTRIC LlNES-ALTERNATE LOCATION
.=---~. NILES BETWEEN REFERENCE POINTS
SUBSTATION -TERMINAL FOR LINES
KUSKOKWI~ RIVER CROSSING
SCALE l" ::: APPROX ... MILES
.f
PREPARED FOR ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ARE A -PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
BY ROBERT W. RETHE RFORD AS SOCIATES -JUNE 197~ SCALE 1:250000 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
GOLDEN GATE
HYDRO -5 ITE
PRELIMINARY DATA:
CAPACI TY-----------36,000
ENERGY (ANNUAL AVG .) 159,000,000
-HEIGHT OF DAM------340 FEE
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL-20 INCHE
WATERSHED AREA---544 SQ . MIL
SCA L E 1 = 250000
SCAL~"l"= APPRO X: 4 MILES ,
...
..
•
..
.. ..
• -
-
..
-1 ..
• -..
-.,.
-
•
... .. -..
...
• ..
...
FIGURE - 3
BF:l'HEL AREA
Ten-Village Interconnecting Lines
One Line Schematic
--Trans. Line to H;ydro-site
Interconnecting Lines
6. 7 Line segnent -miles
• Village points
TABLE - 8
Conventional Three-Phase, 4-Wire Lines
Voltage Drop Estimate (Bethe1-'lUluksak-1985)
(Using Calculation l-iathcrls of REA Bulletin 45-1)
I II I
Line Section IDad KW Voltage Volts D:t9P (120 V.)
load End ~-Mi. Phase Added KW Drop This Accum.
Source EJ:rl Wire Ccrle FN Total Miles Factor· Section Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
'lUluksak 17.1 3 94
Akiak 4 .ACSR 14.4/25 94 1607 0.507 0.82 4.12
(1303 kwh loss)
Akiak 7.9 3 103
Akiachuk 4 ACSR 14.4/25 202 1596 0.507 0.81 3.30
(2780 kwh loss)
Akiachuk 13.8 3 154
Bethel 4 ACSR 14.4/25 356 4913 0.507 2.49 2.49
(15,205 kwh loss)
Tbtal Loss •.•••.•.• 19,168 kwh, (1,560,000 kwh del.) 1.2% loss
Voltage Drop Estimate w/Electric Heat (Bethe1-Tuluksak-1985)
Tuluksak 17.1 3 156
Akiak 4 ACSR 14.4/25 156 2668 0.507 1.35 6.84
(3589 kwh loss)
Akiak 7.9 3 180
Akiachuk 4ACSR 14.4/25 336 2654 0.507 1.35 5.49
(7693 kwh loss)
Akiachuk 13.8 3 252
Bethel 4 ACSR 14.4/25 592 8170 0.507 4.14 4.14
(41,714 kwh loss)
Tbtal Loss •••••••• 52,996 kwh, (2,720,000 kwh del.)
1.9% loss -34-
Ii AU t .81
TOtal loss •••••.• 52,750 kwh, (2,720,000 kwh del.) 1.9% loss
-
... :
-35-
,.
-..
..
• -
..
-..
...
l1li
l1li
-..
-
-..
-
-
..
A comparison of the voltage drop between Bethel and Tuluksak
for the three-phase, four-wire, '4 ACSR 14.4/25 kv. circuit and
the SWGR, 7'8 Alumoweld, single wire 25 kv. circuit is tabulated
here showing also the effect of higher resistance in the SWGR
terminal ground systems:
Bethel-Tuluksak
Load Level
1985-w/o
Elec. Heat
1985-w Elec .
Heat
VOLTS DROP (120-Volt Base)
3-Phase, 4-Wire SWGR 7'8 Alumoweld 25kv
'4 ACSR, l4.4/25kv I-ohm gnd 5-ohm 2nd 10-ohm gnd
4.12 5.11 5.27 5.47
6.84 8.50 8.76 9.10
A ground measurement was made at Napakiak on March 18, 1975.
A location along a slough where a thaw bulb was expected showed a
resistance of 9 ohms using a 20-foot long steel auger that was
screwed into about ten feet of silt under 2-1/2 feet of water and
6-1/2 feet of ice. See Appendix D.
This ground measurement indicates that a I-ohm resistance for a
line terminal ground system is obtainable with reasonable expend-
iture of material and effort .
Although the fifth edition of the National Electrical Safety Code
allowed the use of the ground as a conductor for a power circuit
in rural areas, the most recent edition does not; an exception
would be required.
There are many thousands of miles of one-wire earth return circuit
power lines in successful use in New Zealand, Australia and Canada •
During World War II, some lines in the u.s. were built using earth
return. Most of these lines are distribution lines and have many
taps for the transformers that supply individual farms and res-
idences throughout the rural areas traversed.
The use proposed here for interconnecting the villages in the
region is a point-to-point or transmission system, with -grounding
systems established at these relatively few points. This allows
for better design and greater effort to assure a low resistance
ground connection. The local village distribution system would
use the conventional multi-grounded neutral along with the primary
and secondary distribution conductors.
Line losses for the two systems are listed on Tables 8 & 9 and
show that losses are practically the same for both systems.
The electrical performance of the two circuits is comparable and
of acceptable standards. If three phase supply is required for
any particular load, it can be provided by phase=converters that
are presently in common use throughout the rural systems of
the U.S.
-36-
,,"
""'" ..
..
,.
..
,,..
• ..
.. ..
•
..
• ..
-..
Electrical Performance -Regional System
On Plate C the entire region is shown with 56 villages and
preliminary line routes interconnecting all but Mekoryuk which
is on Nunivak Island. These line routes total approximately
1200 miles, 100 of which connect the Ten-Village group described
above.
A cursory review' of the line lengths involved and the relatively
smal~ loads with limited revenue potential practically eliminates
the chances for constructing and operating such an interconnected
system without a massive subsidy. However, the extension of the
Single Wire Ground Return (SWGR) electric circuit deserves some
review because it offers an opportunity for significantly lower
construction costs. Could such a SWGR circuit provide acceptable
electrical performance if it were built?
The one line schematic of Figure 4 shows the approximate relation-
ship of loads and lines throughout the region. Table 10 and 11
list the approximate voltage and current calculations for the
longest line segment which has been divided into three one-hundred
mile sections for ease in making preliminary calculations.
The loads forecast for the Ten-Village group were used to estimate
loads throughout the region by extending the load estimates in
accordance with the number of shareholders in each village as
listed by the Calista Corporation under the Alaska Native Land
Claims Act. See Appendix A.
Applying the loads developed as indicated above and assigning
lumped amounts at the ends of the 100-mile sections as shown on
Tables 10 and 11, calculations were made. These calculations were
done using the A, B, C, and D constants which were developed with
reasonable accuracy as described and listed in Appendix D.
The results of these .calculations are illuminating in their
demonstration of the potential that a SWGR circuit 300 miles in
length can provide acceptable electrical performance over a
considerable range of loading conditions with voltages not ex-
ceeding 80 kv nominal rating and with electric conductor size no
larger than 4/0 ACSR equivalent. The parameters that were used
are preliminary selections only, intended as demonstrative and
not necessarily the most desirable.
It is important to note the differences in charging kva required
for a 3 JJ circuit compared to the S~vGR line as follows:
100 mi. , 40 kv SrlGR, 4/0 ACSR. . . . 670 KVAR
100 mi. , 40 kv Delta 3 fiJ, 4/0 ACSR 910 KVAR
100 mi. , 40/69 kv 3 fiJ, 4/0 ACSR. . 2730 KVAR
100 mi. , 80 kv, SWGR, 4/0 ACSR. . . .2680 KVAR
100 mi. , 80 kv, 3 fiJ 4/0 ACSR. . . . .3437 KVAR
100 ml. , 80/138 kv 3 fiJ, 4/0 ACSR. .10,311 KVAR
-37-
I , . • • , • • I • • • • • • • • I • • • •• • • • • • j • • l j I j
HOOPER BAY
TOKS OOK BAY.
UMKUMUTE~-",,.,...._
MEKORYU
--OTLI I ,
.....
-.
BILL MOORE SLO'U'Itt ...
• MILTON r
I
I -I
I ,
I
ROBERT W. RETrlERFORD ASSOCIATES
----....., ~
~_--:~~ TONY RIVER ,
LIME ~
__ =::::::::Ii'::: VILLAGEJ
---I , ---...: ------, .-J -...
rJ
J • r --• -I -I --I r
-38-
+ ---
•
LEGEND
CALISTA REGION BOUNDRY
VI LLAGES
PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTES
REGIONAL POWER SYSTEM
LOWER KUSkOKWIM VICINITY AND YUKON DELTA
PRELIMINARY LINE ROUTES
SCALE: ," a APPROX. 50 MILES JULY 1975
SASE MAP DATA fROM CALISTA CORPORATION
ATC:-.~ ,,,_fe}
~/
,.
• .. ..
..
-..
...
,.
,.
•
.. ..
• ..
•
...
III
..
..
..
-• ..
•
,III
\
FIGURE - 4
REGIONAL ~"ER SYSTEM
Preliminary Transmission Line Routes
ONE LINE SOI:Er!lATIC
c..rookd. (~k 1101.:1
LEGEND
-----Trans. Line to Hydro-site
Trans. Line to Villages
'='"10=0"""'jr:;-"C15 line miles/% of 'Ibtal Load
8 Line Section Points -N a.m21
" Vilb.).::s -U'fIt'lcnrUi!,..L
..... TRANSMISSION SYS"l'.E1vI-'IOTAL IOADS
et! frju1e)}-" l...0 1985--w/o Electric Heat-5 '200 J<:w , ,
r;\:I~" "'198.5:--w Electric Heat-13,900 kw
..... -0 G:}LDL~I GATE
TABLE -10
Transmission Line Sanple (Bethel-Sheldon' s pt.)
APPIDX. VOLTAGE & CURRENT ~IONS (1985 Load-1456 kw)
Single Wire, Ground Return Circuit
(Assurre l:-ohm Electrode R)
Line Section . IDads in Section Amps & Volts in Section
Receiving End Length-IvIi Phase Rec. KVA Ir.* Ir.** Vr
Sending End Wire Ccx:1e roJ Send KVA Is * rs-Vs
\
(1) (2) ~(3T (4) --(5-) --(6) (7)
;1 Sheldon's Pt. 100 SW3R 566 281.::2 5.8 28 l::::)5. 8 20,000 ill.
2 Nt. Village 4/0 ACSR 20 189 81::1-6 •7 25 t:::::. 7.2 22,974~.1
3 (83,000 kwh loss) Increase the Voltage
4 Mt. Village . 100 8mR 435 11 l::,16. 6 30 !::!2.2 40,000 L2..: 1
5 R. Mission 4/0 ACSR '"40 435 10 I::J.O. 8 28 t22.7 42,176 1l2.
6 (99,457 kwh loss)
'1 R. Mission 100 SW:;R 0 0 37 L!.4.1 42,176 Q2.
8 Bethel 4/0 ACSR 40 0 0 40 l!! 43,373124
(175,290 kwh 1985)
Line 'Ibtal Length •••• 300 Miles (100 @ 20 kv., 200 @ 40 kv.)
Supplies •••••• 1660.kw(incl. losses)
and •.••••••..• 507 Kv.AR
at ••. ~ ••.•.•.. 96% P.F. (Leading)
357,750 kwh loss (6,420,000 kwh del.) 5.6% loss
*Based on IWA. listed/CoL 7
Angle of load current is referenced to Vr, line (1) before adding to Is to establish
total Ir.
**Ir in CoL (6) is derived fran the sum of Is CoL (6) and Is CoL (5) fram the preceding
line section, plus Ir in CoL (5) of the same line section.
-39-
•
•
..
..
...
...
ill
.. ..
•
, .
'mBLE -11
T.ransnissicn Line sanp1e (Bethel-Sheldon' s pt.)
APPOOX. VOL'mGE & CURRENT CQ.1PtlTATIOOS (1985 w/Elec. Heat-3,892 kw)
Single Wire, Ground Return Circuit
(Assurre l-ohm Electrode R)
Line Secticn IDads in Section Arrps & Volts in Section
ReceivinSl End I.ength-Mi Phase Rae. KVA Ir.* Ir.** Vr
SerrlinSl End Wire Code IW Send KVA Is * Is Vs
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 Sheldon' s pt. 100 ~R 1363 38 -9.6 38 -9.6 36,000 0
2 Mt. Village 4/0 ACSR "40 458 12 -.4 38 14.5 38,370 9.2
3 (171,000 kwh loss)
4 Mt. Village 100 ~ 1058 28 -.4 77 6.9 38,370 9.2
5 R. Mission 4/0 ACSR 40 1059 24 16.4 76 19.9 43,723 26
6 (692,457 kwh loss) Increase the voltage
7 R. Mission 100 ~ 1600 1 20 -64 60.4 -.13 80,000 26
8 Bethel 4/0 ACSR ""80 -0--0 53.4 35.6 84,891 31.5
(339,000 kwh loss)
Line 'Ibtal length •.•••• 300 miles (200 @ 40 kv., 100 @ 80 kv)
Supplies ••••.••••• 4521.58 kw (incl. losses)
and ••••••••••••••• 324.09 kvar
at ................ 99.7% P.F. (Leading)
1,202,000 kwh loss (17,650,000 kwh del.) 6.8% loss
*See Footnote of Table 10
**See Footnote of Table 10
1 A 1600 KVAR reactor added here •
-40-
11 ..
... ..
'. ...
... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
-•
...
•
<!lOt .. ..
•
...
• .. ..
... ..
,..
...
... ..
'. J.
.,.
••
I
I I
I
,-,--,---",~-----------"_!I!JII_,._!!III_, ,., !!IiI,_ .. ----
Physical Design ~ Construction Considerations
Lack of a road system, permafrost, and limited or no aCCOffiIDO-
dations for construction crews throughout most of the region
being studied establish some limitations that must be dealt
with to find appropriate solutions. Conventional construction
techniques and line designs might be used -but at premium costs .
A design believed more adaptable to these limitations is based
on the use of an A-frame structure shown in the following sketch
labeled Figure 5. This structure can accommodate either 3 ~
conventional electrical configurations or the SWGR design. The
arrangement is most suited to the SWGR design .
It is believed that the design has certain features that will
provide unique opportunities for its use over the terrain of this
region, as follows:
1) The structure can be built using maximum local
products and manpower. The legs of the A-frame
can be made from local spruce that grows along
the major river systems of the region and can
be transported by these rivers. 75% of the total
line construction cost could be earned within the
region.
2) The structure has transverse stability from gravity
alone (See Appendix E) and need not penetrate the
earth (permafrost in this region). Longitudinal
stability is obtained through the strength and
normal tension of the line conductor. This allows
for use of the shortest lengths for legs to provide
the ground clearances needed for safety. Additional
longitudinal stability may be provided by fore and
aft guying where needed.
3) The Single Wire configuration can be designed for
minimum cost by utilizing high-strength conductors
tnat require a minimum number of structures and
still retain the standards for high reliability.
For example:
A single-wire line constructed using 7#8
Alumoweld High-Strength (approx. 16,000 lb.
breaking strength) ,,,ire, electrically
equivalent to a #4ACSR conductor will
require one half as many structures per
mile as the #4ACSR under the same Heavy
Loading Design Conditions. {The line
could be converted to 3 ~ at a future
date by adding another structure in each
span, and adding the new conductors.}
-41-
..
,'III
,~ ..
"" .
..
...
..
"'II
.. -. ..
• ----...
• '.
...
• ( -
...
SPRUCE A-FRAM£ POWERLIN£ STRLlCTUR5
PRELIMINARY OES/GN SK€TCII
---//'VSliLAraRS
. t~..cZITOR£ ADD€.o Y'vYRE'-I
/ .
STRLlCTt..hIf!€S MAY Bl£. GLI'YEO
FORE' AN£) A,&'T AT /NTG,RVAI-S
To LIMIT THe FALL t)':
STRL/CTlJRES S,lIO.ut..D. 711E'
LINt: BReAK. ("50MG'TlMES
. CALL l:D .f STORM GUY'S ')
INSULATOR
/T IS ESTIMATELJ rl-lAT 7111S srRl../Cru/(pE' LIS/NO. 30 FT.
,,"oNt:; LOCAt.. SPRUCe POLES WOlit.i/ WeIGH A TOTAL
to,&' ABOUT (650£.,8.:5'_.1 COULO Be: .oI::LIVE"REO ANO
cRGcrl:!D ey MI5AJ ~A./D SiVOW /1/JACH/Ne-:s. TilE
N£AV/ES'T PIeCe: /s. T#C' -::so r"T. sPRUeIE' Ar ABoUT . zeo L8S. A L/NE CONSTRue TeO /N TillS /Y.1ANNER
VS/NG ONG' HIGI-I STRt:;'NGTH WIRE' COULD St./~PLY
Tile: €'LeCTR/C,-4L Rt!£"QUIRIEMENr:s AS ,c;OR£CAST
/N r"/GVRS:S / AND <.
-42-
, fi6UR'E'-5 I
... .. 4)
...
..
..
... ..
.. 5 ) .
... ..
,.
6)
...
-
..
..
The A-frame, gravity stabilized design form allows
the use of a unique, engineering/construction
technique that will substantially reduce both
engineering and construction effort as follows:
The high-strength conductor is laid
out on the ground between anchor
points (at typical intervals of 1 to 2
miles) and tensioned while on the ground
to the approximate stringing tension.
An engineer and assistant locate structure
points by using the tensioned conductor
as a template (lifting it above the ground
to observe clearances from the natural
contour). This could be done in winter
time by using snow machines rigged with
a small "jig" to underrun the conductor
and lift it to predetermined heights for
observation.
At points selected by the engineer, a
crew assembles a structure completely and
fastens it permanently to the conductor
(all lying on the ground). The crew lifts
the structure at the point of attachment
while the stress in the conductor is being
maintained at the appropriate stringing
tension.
Long river crossings (typically 2000 feet or less
in length) can be accomplished using the same high-
strength conductor. Several such crossings have
been in successful operation in Alaska using this
same 7#8 Alumoweld wire as follows:
Naknek River (S. Naknek to Naknek) .... 2000 Ft.
Talkeetna River (near Sunshine) .•..... 1894 Ft.
Along Kachemak Bay,
Tutka Bay ..........••.....•..•..• 1835 Ft.
Sadie Cove ....• 00 0" ••••••••••••• 4135 Ft.
Halibut Cove ....... 0 ••• 0 ••••••••• 2070 Ft.
Costs for an SWGR line constructed using the A-frame
design and high-strength conductor is estimated to
be about one-third (1/3) the cost of an equivalent
3 ~, 4-wire line of similar construction.
Example comparative Estimate:
A single~pole transmission line constructed
in Anchorage with a 795 MCM conductor, in
138 kv post-type insulator configuration, with
about 18 structures per mile had construction
unit costs as follows:
-43-
-,.
..
•
•
.. .. .. .. ..
•
... ...
•
•
•
..
•
.".
....•.. ~----------------------------.
Poles, 50 ft. Class 1, in place ••..•..•. $ 270 ea .
Insulator Assembly, 3 ~, in place....... 619 ea.
Conductor, 795 MCM, AAC, in place....... 979/1000 ft.
Conductor, 795 MCM, ACSR, in place •....• 1,156/1000 ft.
A mile of 3~ line using these unit prices would be:
Poles, 18 50-l i s @ $270 .••.••.••.•••.•.. $ 4,860
Insulator Assembly, 18 @ $619 •••..•••.•. 11,142
Conductor, 795 MCM (AAC) 5.28 x 3 x 979. 15,507
Total: $31,509
A mile of I-wire line using these units and an equi-
valent high-strength conductor (795 MCM ACSR) would be:
Poles, 9 50-l i s @ $270 •••..•...•..•.•... $ 2,430
Insulator Assembly, 9 @ $619/3
(One-Wire only} ..••.•••..•..•...••••
Conductor, 795 MCM ACSR, 5.28 x 1156 .•..
1,857
6,104
Total: $10,391
Note: While the above comparison can not be completely
applicable, it demonstrates clearly the effect of
designs that are aimed at reducing costs. Therefore-
if such designs can satisfy other criteria -electrical,
reliability, safety, etc., they may have merit.
The gravity stabilized A-frame line design using long span
construction will provide excellent flexibility to adapt to
the free'Zing-thawing cycles of the tlmdra and shallow lakes
of the region. Experience in this kind of terrain has clearly
demonstrated the need to "live with" these seasonal cycles and
avoid designs that cannot tolerate movement of the structure
footings. Gravel backfill around and under poles that are set
in the earth using more conventional line designs has proven
successful but usually expensive and in many areas of this region
highly impractical.
Hinged structures supporting large transmission line conductors
(Drake, 795 MCM, ACSR, 31,700 lb. strength, 1.094 lbs. weight/ft.)
across shallow and deep muskeg swamps and permafrost have been
performing excellent service on the lines from Beluga across the
Susitna River and its adjacent flat lands. Some of this route has
severe freeze~thaw action that has dramatically demonstrated the
need for flexibility_ The guying systems have performed as in-
tended during severe differential frost action. The basic
structural philosophy and performance of this transmission line is
reflected in the proposed A-frame arrangement described here.
The experience with such existing lines provides the strong
basis for confidence in the structural performance of this
new design.
-44-
.. .. .. ..
..
..
..
• .. ..
ill
-
.. ..
III
OIl
OIl ..
II _ t I
Part VIII
PCmER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
'IWo general :pc::JWCr supply alternatives are available to the Ten-Village
group, (I) on-site small village plants or, (2) an interconnecting line
to allow wholesale pov;er to re purchased in Bethel. These alternatives
are cacpared in the following Table 12 which is developed from the nore
detailed estimates included. in Append.ix B.
Y
TABLE -12
POWER SUPPLY ALTERi.~TIVFS
Ten-Village Group
E Delivered Cost $/KWH* Purchased Transmission Cost OnlX $/~\jJ
Village Plant ~Line 3Jf-4WLine Pooer $j.KWH 1\. S .... ;GR Line 3Jf-4~'iLine
R
1976 0.193 0.141 0.215 0.069 0.072
1977 0.197 0.143 0.213 0.073 0.070
1978 0.199 0.145 0.210 0.077 0.068
1979 0.204 0.148 0.209 0.082 0.066
1980 0.233 0.149 0.205 0.086 0.063
5-Yr. Average Costs (1976-1980 inclusive)
0.206 0.145 0.210 0.078 0.067
1985 0.260 0.166 0.202 0.115 0.051
lQ-Yr. Average Costs (1976-1985 inclusive)
0.238 0.154 0.206 0.094 0 .. 060
1990 0.254 0.194 0.215 0.154 0.040
15-Yr. Average Costs (1976-1990 inclusive)
0.248 0.168 0.207 0.-1l7 0.051
* These cost estimates are based on financing with 8% interest on rroney.
The cost. of \vb.olesale po-r,.;er delivered to the ten-village group is heavily
de:pendent on the .validity of the estimates for basic fO'..1er cost wnether
purchased or generated in village plants. Fuel mst is a large ];X>rtion
of the delivered costs and variations in its basic cost will affect the
al ternati ves in a similar m:mner --having slightly rrore impact on the
village plants .
The transmission costs decrease with increased deliveries of energy.·
'lliis demonstrates one of the potentially great benefits of an interconnected
system. For ex&'1lple:
If the hydro-electric energy of the Kisaralik developID2!nt discussed
on page 26 \vere to recorr.e available in 1985, the average delivered
cost of this energy \·;ould be •••.••.••••.•
11.9 cents/bvh "
This is a very great savings over the presently estimated best
alternative of 16.6 cents!Jv.vh.
-45-
0.146
0.140
0.133
0.127
0.119
0.132
0.087
0.112
0.061
0.090
1 • I r • I
,.
•
...
..
• .. ..
..
• ...
.. .. ..
-
If further use of the hydro-energy were extended to include the electric
heat fX)t,ential (listed on Table 5 page 17) the transmission system could
deliver it successfully (see Figure 3 and Tables 8 and 9 pages 31 and
32) with the following results:
y
E
A
R
1985
1990
TABLE -13
(l)STS OF POWER SUPPLY -TEN-VILIAGE GROUP
Hydro-Energy Thru Transmission System with Electric Heating Added
Total MWH Hydro-Energy Delivered Costs $/KWH
Delivered Cost $/KWH SV\GR Line 3~-4-WLine
14,470 0.059 0.0783 0.0916
23,870 0.063* 0.0782 0.0963
*Hydro-energy cost is escalated by 1.07 per year for only the 0 & M
costs and a paytreIlt in lieu of taxes (see Part VI, Page 21)
If we canpa.re the forecast of fuel costs in the villages and assure 60%
efficiency in using this fuel for heating the electric energy equivalent
becanes 24 kwh for one gallon of heating fuel.
'Ibis estimated cost of fuel in the villages in 1985 is $1.04 per gallon
and $1.46/ gallon in 1990. 'Ibis equates to $.0433 per kwh in 1985 and
$0.068/kwh in 1990. Wrlle electric heat has derronstrated itself as
canpetitive in the marketplace at somewhat higher costs than alternate
fuels (apparently because of less rraintenance, IIDre convenience, and
lower installation costs) it would appear that is this situation the
apparent cost of electric heat is not competitive •
If a hydro-energy source such as the Crooked Creek project described. in
Part VI with possible energy, costs of $0. 015/kwh should becaue available
then it is cl~ that electric heating would be very canpetitive.
-46-
...
.-
•
' .... ,.
•
•
'111
•
....
.-
...
• -
.J ..
-.
< ~
d'", # '--
"" ~ ? J ~ , .<
• ..
,-
, ...
'I
'! I' , !.
~ 1 • ; i --~-r·----+-----.' I' :
'--'I
9
¥
8
a:
IIJ 7 Q.
It12 14 16
i
~
I : -' -! ~-~~-~ ,
•. j->--+'-'---,----1
i '._" I . ,
-~-i---~-----""-
!' ell .
.j-~~h~-~··I-. ·-i---..
_k:.-..:.. ______ L, __ .. ___ ... . .
i " -
i
,----1
I
h
I
1980 82 84 88 88 1990 94 96 '8 2000
"1:'1\0 I 1:'II'!I'OI:'_ It I _ A'7_
-
.. .. .. ..
• ..
..
• ..
..
..
.. .. ..
..
• ..
-
•• ,11 ur
Regional Power Systan
'lb provide S<m3 perspective to a possible regional pJWer system as shown on
Plate C and Figure 4, a sample calculation of electrical perfo.r:mance of
a 30Q-mile segnent of such a system was nade and tabulated on Table 10
and 11. This shows that a relatively small wire size line can provide
acceptable electrical service •
By extrapolation we have made sooe preliminary estiIP.ates as follows
rega.:rding costs of construction and operation:
1. lang Span construction can be accc:rrplished with a "BRAHMA"
ACSR corKiuctor (approx. 27,500 lb. breaking strength, and
alx>ut 677 lbs. per 1000 ft.) which has an electrical equivalent
to 4/0 ACSR.
2. Span lengths ~ be about 7/8 of those used. in estimates for
the sw:;R line in Afpmdix F. Other features are equivalent
except for 40 W. added insulators are required •
3. Assuming 1200 miles of line and 54 villages-
4.
1200 x 12,500 ••••••••••••.•••••••
Say 10 River Crossings @ 15,000 ••
54 Substations @ 15,000 ••••••••••
'lb"tal ••••••••••••
Sa.y ••••••••••••••
Annual COsts --Depr., Int., Ins.
& replacanent •••••••••
O&M (IO-yr. ave.) •••••
Sa.y ••••••••••••••
$15,000,000
150,000
810,000
$15,960,000
$16,000,000
$ 1,469,00·0/yr
484,000/yr
$ 1,953,OOO/yr
$ 2,000,000/yr
5. Ten Year Deliveries of kwh are estimated by assuming that the
ten-village group represents 23% of the region load. The 10-year
energy delivered would be •••••••••••••• 161,100,000 kwh
6. The average transmission oosts would then be equal to
10 years x $2,000,000 •••••••••••••••••• $20,000,000 which
is equivalent to ••••••••••••••••••••••• $ 0.124l/kwh
'Ihese transmission costs added to $0. 098/kwh wholesale power purchases in
Bethel (diesel generation) would total $0.222/kwh oompared. to a ten-year
estimated average village power plant oost of $0.233jkwh. 'Ihe difference would
total alIrost $ 1,800,000. If the hydro-electric energy described earlier
would beca:te available the average delivered energy cost throughout the 54
villages would be about $0.183jkwh which is about 20% below the village
power plant averag-e oost.
-48-
---------------------------------...
,.
•
..
..
• ..
..
-..
..
..
..
..
-
•
APPENDJX - A
Electrical load Data
Village SUrvey Data -Napakiak & Akaichuk
. Light Plant Inventory
Household Electric Uses
Electric Heating Estimate -Village Hat:e
Climatic Data -Bethel Area
Excerpts fran AVFr:, Rerords -ten villages
Calista Pegion -Prel:iminary Line Foute Work Sheet
Listing of calista Region Village COrp,Jrations
/
I a j , j • I • j I j ., J I • l • .. t • j .. , I j • •
NAPAKIAK REX:AP -FOR>! A
Village Light Plant InventD.ry
House KW Fuel Used Consurrer ~Use Hrs.!Da:x;: Gal./Da:x;:
No. Size ~ Storage R SC Piin'e ~ Win.
1 2.5 G 6g Can X X 8/12
3 G 59 Can Self X 8/12
4 2.4 D Drum 2 X 12-24
5 D Drum 4 X 24
9 4 D Drum 2 X 12-24
10 3.5 D Drum 3 X 12-24
12 4 D Drum Self X 12-24
13 4 D Drum 5 X 12-24
16 G 6 gal. X X B-12-24
19 4 D Drum 3 X 12-24
20 2.5 G Drum 2 X 8-12
24 4 D Drum 2 X 24
25 4 D Drum 2 X 12-24
Trad.in.g' 5-1/2 D Drum Self
Post 7-1/2 D Drum (Al::l'rol:y) X 14
2B D Drum 2
? G 6 gal.Se1f
35 3.5 D Drum 2
37 1.5 G 20 gal Self
38 3.5 D Drum Self
? D Drum 2
using Trading Post data:
Say 7 m:nths @ 14 hours
5 tronths @ 16 hours
X
X
X
X
X
X
•••....•••••••••• 2989
••••••....••••••• 2440
24
6-8
8-12
8-12
12-24
12-24
SUm. Fuel
6/8 2-1/2-1-1/2
B/12 5-5
12-24 6-5
12-24 8-5
6-B B-4
8-12 3-2
12-24 5-5
6-8 7-4-1/2
6-8 5-1/3-4
B-12 8-5
B-12 2-1/2-2-1/2
8:"12 B-1
6-B B-5
16 5-6
8-12 8-1
6-8 5-
8-12 3-2
4-6 2-1
8-24 5-5
6-8 B-5
Incorre
Per Cons.
$15.00
$30.00
15-20
$50.00
$25.00
$25.00
4-5?
25-28
56
20-28
5429 hrs @ 2.75 kw ave. = 14,930 kwh/yr.
Fuel consumed
7 months @ 30.5x5 ..•.•..•••••••••••• 1067.5 ga1lGus
5 months @ 30.5x6 •••.••...•.••.••••• ga11o~~
5 gallons/year
'Ibis is then 7.53 kwh/gallon
• • a I • f • I
Maint. CMner' s Hope
By N"Dll Cootinue Get Out
CMner X
CMner X
OWner X
Owner X
OWner X
OWner X
Chlner X
o..ner X
Chlner X
o..ner X
OWner X Says need
light for
Villaqe
Chlner X
CMner X
Neighbor X Says neEd
light for
whole village
Chlner Expand!
Owner X
o.mer X
(),mer X
Chmer X
Experience suggest this figure is in the ball park -but may be a bit high (our estimate en kwh may be high)
Ii •
• J • j • • • I I II • J " I • I • • • 11 .. . .. . -
NAPAKIAK
Recap of Pre.;el" .. Bou.SaholCtF.lcc.;,.....u: Use -Form B
House No. in Source of Eloo. House Size Hrs. How much Satisified Would you Village Inest
No. Household (),.m Neighbor Sq. Ft. Day Do You Pay? Now? P~ M::lre? In Better Syst.? -1-8, x 560 <12 $156.00 No 10 No
2 6 x 720 12-24 79.00 No <10 No
3 2 »2. SG) 384 <12 50.00 No. <10 No
4 7 x 440 12-24 60.00 No 10-20 No
5 9 x 480 24 n/a No 10-20 No
6 7 x 612 24 20.00 No 10-20 No
7 5 x 408 12-24 30.00 No <10 No
8 10 x 432 24 42.00 No 10-20 No
9 5 x 504 12-24 50.00 Yes <10 No
10 6 >d:3. SO) 360 12-24 62.00 No 10-20 Yes
11 2 None Latern 480 10-20 Yes
12 2 x 384 12-24 n/a No 10-20 No
13 7 x 760 12-24 n/a No <10 No
14 4 x 540 12-24 50.00 No 10-20 No
15 3 x 640 <12 10.00 No 10-20 No
16 8 x x 760 .Ll-24 n/a No 10-20 No
17 6 x 600 12-24 No >20 Yes
18 4 x 384 <12 60.00 No <10 No
19 7 »4-D) 560 12-24 50.00 No 10-20 No
20 5 x 476 <12 63.00 No 10-20 ~
21 3 None 176 Yes <10 Yes
22 5 x (BIA) 1344 24 oone Yes No No
23 7 x 560 12-24 50.00 No <10 No
24 6 x 480 24 26.00 No No Yes
25 13 x 760 12-24 65.50 No 10-20 No
26 3 x 560 12-24 20.00 n/a <10 No
27 10 x 480 12-24 20.00 No 10-20 No
28 5 x 560 24 n/a No 10-20 No
29 3 x 154 <12 10.00 Yes >20 No
30 3 x 560 12-24 20.00 Yes/NO 10-20 . Yes /No
31 6 x 760 12 28.00 No <10 No
32 5 x 760 12-24 20.00 No No No
33 7 x 480 12-24 10.00 No <10 No
34 3 x 299 12-24 20.00 Yes/NO 10-20 No
35 7 x(3.5D) 720 <12 26.00 Yes ~10 Yes/ lliD
36 9 x x 560 <12 28.00 Yes/NO 10 Yes
37 9 560 <12 n/a Yes/NO 10-20 No
38 6 .1L 480 12-24 n/a Yes No <10 No
223 20 -r7 20,737 (6) --24 1090 (27) 10 30 15 «.lO) 32
2 (none) (546 0 'Ave) (20)-12-24 18 (l0-20)
(10)-<12 2 (>20)
~ (Est) 444 (l1) 3 (No)
1534
I
Using the estimated 2001 kwh/yr. average estimated usage for t:i't:)se surveyed and applying this to the lTOnthly revenue slvNs;
26 Q::.nsuners receive 12 to 24 hour/day serivce.
Revenue $1090 for 27 .Res. consurrers using 2001/12 kvih/r.o.
Results in mst per kwh of ••.••. 1090
200l/12x27
= $0. 242/kwh
'Ibis is probably 101Ner than actual because with than 24 hour serivce usage will not be as high •
••
I. ,
"
l j I • Il • • I I j • • • • I • I. • I. , • • I. •
NAPAKIAK
Rec:ao of 'Present and F\lture Household F..lr ,-:<-ric Use -Ponn B
H.J\...sI;
No. -r
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Light
watts
6W
300
200
400
540
200
400
300
260
420
360
640
380
450
500
2200
525
600
560
22 780
23 750
24 600
25 840
26 600
27 780
28 480
29 100
30 640
Reiri .
P F
x
+
+
+
+
+
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.x
x
x
vlasher
TF
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+1
+1
:1
+1
x
x
+ I x
+1
+
+
+1
x
x
x
31 400 x ~; :~~ I ~ + x
34 400 +
Freezer
P F
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Iron
PF
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
! I
x
x
x
x
x
+\ x + I
+ I ,x
I ,
Ix
+
+
Fan IE:
P F
x
x
x
x
x
+ +
+
x
Water P.
P F
+
+
+
+
DI)'E'.r
P F
+
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ix
x
x
AAdio Dish W.
P F P F
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
x
I •
TV
PF C -
c
c
c
c
c
C
lJoV
C
lJoV
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
BW1
Stv!
c
c
c
:&i'
C
x
c
Bt"lIC
35 875 I x + l + x x
+
+
+
+
38 955 x + + : x ( + ~; ;g~ j ~ : " . ~... + t
(36) 20,515 6 20 27 1-8-1816 ~ 5 "2 -4-0 lill 27 1 0
Ave. 570 Watts! @ I
Est. Annual kwh of awliance~ . ~t:i 1
o I §~ 6
g.sg ~ ~ 0 0 * 1 ~
=1 ~I
2Jl
'9'
M\D ,t1< ~:$ ~
Est. Ave. kwh/ho~ (Presen1-per hot e reoei mg, fu ure -per\house. 9 houses) !
, I I I ~
g \§ ~ I;Q gb g lI") ~ ~ r ~ ~ . =to ~ ~ ~ ~t 0 I
'lUfJJ:13 ~ P= 2001 A. (with L ann~~~~ r te of . ~7 (7%) th,' future of 361q kwh .ually!1
F= 3610 j<wh ~rrEGtllre I~ blot 1 S than ~ years. ;
r COlO
"'PI Nr:"!
I
. ,
Hot Plate
P F
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
x
x
! I x
91-6
I
I
I
r
~!o
N~
I i • •
Misc.
Pwr Tc:x:lls Srrall
P F PF""
x r-
+ 2
18
+ 5 1
+ 4 2
+ 4 1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
16
x
x
x
I :
I , x
I I x
1
1 6
9
1 4
8 6
7 2
5
~ I 1
5 I 3
~! 2
15 i 1
4 3
9 2
13 1
4 5
2 1
6 I 4
i I ~
212
2 . 3
1
3
x 2 3
3 I
6 I 2 ! 911 iT17T
I i
I ~f \OL
~F
I
:to ....
I
j • • .. J *. & I i • • III: • I I
AKIACHl1K REX:AP -FOl."'Il\ A
Village Light Plant Inventory
j J ..
House Kw Fuel Cons. ~use Hrs./Day Gal./Day InCClOO Maint. ()..mer' s Hope
No. Size Used Stored RSC Win Sum Fuel Per Cons. By W!'1cm Continue Prme~ -.:r--3--0 Drum '3-x 90 2w 15.00 o.mer
21
22
24
43
3 D Drum self x not used yet 0Nner
3 D Drum 4 x 8 2 2w-15 15.00 0Nner
2.5 G Drum self x 6 0 5w 0Nner
3 D Drum 20 x 12-24 0 2w 12.00 0Nner
Infonnation slxMs an average CXlst for fuel only (@ • 53/gal) of about $3l0/yr. for the Diesel Units.
'!he gasoline unit fule cost (@ 1.25/ga.) wuld ba about $1335/year!?!
Twenty-seven (im Consumers are served by 3-units totaling 9 ki11CMatts.
It these units operate a total of 2471 !~urs (based on 7 ;:y·'s @ 8 hrs. a day and 5 mo's @ 5 hrs a day)
the ma:x:.inulm kwh delivered would not exceed ••• 9x2471 = 2l,239 j<wh or nore likely about
half of this = 11,000 kwh while burning about
1740 gallons of fuel (7 nos @ 2 gal/day/unit)
(5 nos @ 1 gal/day/unit)
'lhl.s is = 6.3 kwh/gallon
Get Out
x
x
x
x
x
i II • .. i , I
I
• • .. ., • I • Il .. • j l • , , • j , A • • I , • j & j • • I i • , Ie • II ,
'-,.--~
___ , ,}\KIl'!CHUK __ ~;P, -FOPM B
House No. Size Electric Source COst Hours satisfied? Bulbs Last ?-b. Damage W:>uld Vi11a2e to Invest?
N'" :'': rt. :·ns ~ o.m. O+-hpr SMJ. /Dav Yes Nc" Yes No Yes No Pay ?-bra ~ No ---
4 480 x S12.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x
2 11 720 BrA -0-24 x x x 10-20 x
3 6 384 x -0-~12 x x x 10-20 x
4 5 192 none 0 10-20 x
5 15 672 x S15.00 <:.12 x x x 10-20 x
6 1 672 x S12.00 0( 12 x x x 10-20 x
7 7 476 x -o-? ~12 x x x 10-20 x
8 6 600 x S15.00 ",'12 x x x 10-20 x
9 a 840 x $15.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x
10 9 560 x 10 gal 12-24 x x x 10-20 x
11 3 352 x $ 7.00 ,,12 x x x :> 20 x
12 4 192 none 10-20 x
13 4 384 x $10.00 24 x x x .? 20 x
14 8 600 none 10-20 x
15 2 480 none 10-20 x
16 11 600 x $15.00 12-24 x x x 10-20 x
17 11 432 x $15.00 12-24 x x x 10-20 x
18 10 448 none 10-20 x
19 12 504 none 0 x
20 7 504 none 10-20 x
21 5 560 x -O-? 12-24 x x 10-20 x
22 4 504 x -o-? <12 x x x 10-20 x
23 3 600 none < 10 x
24 9 600 x -O-? <12 x x x < 10 x
25 5 600 x 5 gal <12 x x x 10-20 x
26 4 224 none 10-20 x
27 5 256 x 9.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x
28 10 336 x $15.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x
29 7 320 x -0-<12 x x x 10-20 x
30 5 552 x $12.00 <:12 x x x <.10 x
31 11 272 none 10-20 x
32 8 336 x $12.00 12-24 x x x 10-20 x
33 1 196 x 7.00 12-24 x x x ,10 x
34 8 364 x $12.00 ,12 x x x 10-20 x
35 6 416 x $12.50 ,,12 x x x 10-20 x \ 36 7 1200 BIA none 24 x x x ..>20 x
37 5 224 none 10-20 x
38 8 320 x $12.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x
39 4 256 x 12.00 <12 >;. x x 10-20 x
40 6 224 x 12.00 <.12 x x x 10-20 x
41 1 168 x 22.50 12 x x x 10-20 x
42 11 480 x 12.00 12-24 x x x 10-20 x 43 13 400 x -12-24 x x x 0 x
44 5 264 x 12.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x 45 4 320 x 12.00 (12 x x x 10-20 x
46 2 144 none 10-20 x
47 3 256 none <10 .x
~ 48 3 192 x 15.00 <12 x x x 10-20 x 49 3 320 x 7.00 ,12 Yo x x <.10 x I 50 5 384 x 12.00 12-24 x x x 10-20 x
51 5 1440 BrA 24 x x x 10-20 x
320 22,820 5 3'0 (28)$342.75 4--24 27 11 25 13 r 34 40 .• 10-20 50 r 447.45 13 none 3-BIA 9--12-24 3 •• > 20
25-<12 6 .. <10
2 •• 0
1 to j
~
I
lbuse
lib.
•
-1-
2
3
-4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
33
39
1.:0
.a
42
':;3
44
45
.. 6
47
48
49
50
51
I
Light
\vatts
""T75
480
300
4"00
800+
1100
225
450
600
400+
150
550+
675
.. 00
450
100
150
155
75
200
80
180
300
1800
100
100
ISO
lCO
~lO_O
125
400
150
100
200
225
200
900
(38)
14,37li
Ave. 378
• •
Refri
P F
+
+
I I x
I :' •
t x
x
x
+ x
x
x
+
x
x
I
+
+
+
.... '
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•
x
x
x
x,
x
x
x
x
x
+ x
x
2O+!rr
I • I • • I • • l j
AKAICHUK ROC/UL .. ".,. WRM B
(Present -P, & Future -F Uses)
Iron
P F
+ +
+ +
+
+
x
x
+
x +
x
x
x
x +
x
+ +
+ +
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
+
+ + g-IS 11
x
x
x
x
S ce H.
P F
+
+
+. x
x
+
+
+
x
+
aT
n PI F
Water P.
P
+
00
• • • I I ,
Dryer Radio Dish W.
p F p7 P
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x +
+
x +
+
+
+
+ +
+
x
+ .
+
+
+
+
+
x
• I
TV -p-
BW
C
Bli
C
BW
C
BW
BW
c
&1
BW
Bli!
x
x
x
x
x
x
awl x
~ I
Ii ~
B'i'l awl
BW I
IT,,; j
3\'1 i
I
13;il
C I
BN ['
c :
Bv; I
IT .. I I g,.;
B\i I
C i
F.i:
C
x
x
x
x
x
• •
Hot Plate
P F
+
x
+
+
+
+
• I • • •
Pwr Tools
P F
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
x
+ x
"'7 T
Misc.
ITT
p ~
1 1
9 2
2 1
1
31 2
J 2
I! 1
I
3: 1 ,
I j 1
j 1
2 i 2
2'
2 1
1
.2
1 1
1
2
2
,e
~ o
I
I j It I i • • • • •
FOR:
.,! ISE. _...:.H""'Qm='--____ NO. STORIEL.l..DESIGN TEMPERATURE: INSIDE (Tl)..1.L O P; OUTSIDE (To)-50 of: TD (TI-To)_122°F: DD_13-120.L
__ 1Vl..:..-l_' __ ; CElLING __ Rl....:-2_4_· ___ : FLOOR ---:RI:.....1_9 ___ _ DOORS ~ = 1.67 : WINOOWS P::?uble g1.aze_.
COEFFICIENTS (WATTS/SQ. FT.trD): WALLS __ _ CEILING __ _ FLOOR __ _ DOORS --_I WINOOWS ---INr;ILTRATION/AIR CHANGE __ _
..
1
HEAT LOSS CALCULATION
:~:l'; OF
'. ! \ .us:)
l"lULTIPLIER Area or Watts
(WATrS/SQ. F1'.: Volume Loss
OR CU. FT.)
Area or W:>ltS '. "l lll' Watts
Volutne Los~ I '."ne Loss
. '. WALL ,\R-F-V\-I--'-----~1-0-0-X-8-h~.,....-"..,..~I------~~3 --f:0~'
• .. ·\1.1\1,.-:"·. 1'· EI'·.T 800 p:/ ./
. 'L --I--.... ~---.. ->l----rf2: .:.t::j--.. __ .;:v.<:?;: f-
, ,\SS AREA
d,\lU~ FEET 72_. 12.6 .... "._
Area or Watts Area or Watts Area 0) \'/att"! Area or Watts Area or Watts
Volume Loss Volume Lvss VOlum"-! I ",,$ Volume Loss Volume Loss
!
I
-r----~--~----_+---4---~
.' .1" '!~:~~.T b3-l/: 6 I
--~ '-_. ---"I~--~--~--I----~--~--~--~--~-~~-~--~--~-~
"r.-r \" IL ARE,A J94-2I3 14.6' 1__ _ ~-.-I----f ___ ~_--II--_~---+---+---+---~---I!----+--
I ":' :\~/; ~ ------,'. j~O~L _ 7 ;
._ •.. ~ -___ c--=----~----t--'-----~'''--t---f------I-.--l----I---I----f----t
-.----\----... _--,1'-_. "'--+---~---II----+---+-, I '
, r,\ L III;AT LOSS-IVA TIS 11f --_ 61 ~O I I .. __ _
\iODE !tEATER CAT. NO. I I
~~_~,...;:..< • ..-..c;:";;' .. .-.:..aiiICQ,_ ..... ~ '.:!~:._~'';'::..:ra%"..;....
I'" • LOSS 6lxl22~4.4..c..2 ___ WAITS
, U\:.:\'lJAL KI,"t!R USE = ~.442 KW .. L ... O_S_S __ X....,.,.,1""3,200 -122-'(u
.!) .\:\':'\U:\L IIE:\ 1'l:'\G COST = _______ _
I l'Uj<: 0 ClJSTO\IFH 0 CONTRACTOR 0 UTILITY 0
-,-----------
f ,
,. '-._------. __ 4-___ ~ ____ +_-~L---_+ __ ---'
------4--------+------1---
I
This is estimated equivalent to alx>ut 600 gals/yr.
of fuel oil in heating stove.
18.5 2147 kwh 14,896 __ KWI-IR in Jan.
Annual L.F. of 22.85% 288 hrs.@38.8
If heating oil averags 1.00/gal. electric heat
kwh should est about ••• 4¢/kWh to be equiv.
Firm __________________ _ Date ______ _
.. i" ,. III a. I"
_."'..... 2 ,,_
., I I • I • 4 I j • I. I • • • • • '". a j i .i I. •
1_ • • • " b III • II." •• ., •..... J, .!L..... __ -_. ____ .-... ~ _____ • __ _,.,.,.
,le 2. CLIf.1ATlC DATA FRON EXTENDED RECORDS+ FOR BETHEL, ALASKA (60°' 47" N, 161 0 48 1 W, 125 ft. tiSL)
',PERATURE
eqrees F.
Daily ~1ax.
Daily Min.
Record Hi gh
Record Low
ays
f'1ax. < 32° F.
r·1ax. ;; 70° F.
Dep. Days 65° F.*
Deq. Days 35 0 F.*
CIPITATION
nches
Rainfall
SnOlvfal1
Total
dyS -Rainfall is:
;;. .10 in.
-:; . 50 ; n.
Jan
10.8
-3.7
48
-52
24 o
1903
942
14.41
0.31
10.5
1.12
3
1
Feb
14.1
2.2
47
-45
22 o
1590
823
12.0t>
0.31
10.5
1.12
2
1
See Jable 5 for len~th in years
Heatinq de9ree days
Avera~e is >0 <0.5 days
-
Mar
19.4
3.8
48
·42
22 o
1655
730
12.54
O. 17
11. 2 '
1.03
3
'Hr
rhe symbol .::. means "equal to or greater than ll
.::. means "equal to or less than"
Apr
33.9
17.9
58
-31
11 o
1173
366
8.09
0.23
4.6
0.58
2 o
May
47.0
31.0
76
-5
2
806
45
6.:12
0.87
1.1
0.95
3
*'!r
Jun
59.6
43.5
86
28
o
5
402 o
3.u5
1. 18
T
1.18
4
**
Jul
61.8
47.5
86
31
o
6
319 o
2.42
2.03
0.0
2.03
6
**
.! <.~ "-+ r.>G-t ~rd • ~ \ %"~,) (J "IS"IL
\(' "',,",\otC~··. S"/Ifs S/';I.I
Cl,~..sl'-,t ..... -• 2 tol,. )1>/11-
• ';:;<. f.-- ---1./4-• ""/".!1
Aug 'Sep
58.3
46.2
81
30
o
2
394
o
2.99
4.20
0.0
4.20
10
3
51.1
38.1
70
18
o
612
3
4.b4
2.56
0.4
2.59
9 ,
(vI,,'!.
Af'<V
1'1~
.;,,---
.) ""f
A'-'1
'S.-c..-r
Oc4.
Nuli'
O("c..
Oct
37~6
25.1
65
-5
10 o
1042
187
7.89
1.28
3.4
1.54
11.3
10·4·
ej,(.
"1.:;.-
'1,,:/
<j,g
3
**
(], ·1
10, ..,.
'I. '" ,
10 • ., -
Noy
24.2
10.1
48
-27
21 o
1434
539
10.86
0.48
7.6
1.06
2 a
14. -~
! <' , 1.
I " ,.t3
IS. '1-
,~-, ,
Dec
12.7
-3.2
45
-44
3
o
1866
994
14.14
0.24
10.2
1.02
2
1
;;:SIV
~ S v-/
Le,n:;
.~I~\"
Ann.
35.9
21.5
86
-52
115
13
13196
4629
100
13.86
59.5
18.42
49
7
• I ;. '" • t. • & j • .. I, • Ii , l I II. 4 I • • • • " • • " t • J I: j I , • •
TYPICAL
Villages Served by AVEr.
in calista ~ion --(Historical Growth)
1974 1973 Feb. 1970
(Dec.) Year Ave. (Dec.) Year Ave.
lib. Total kw!v'll'O. No. Total kw!v'rro. lib. 'Ibtai Ave.
Cons. KWH Dec.2 12x(1) Cons. KWH Dec.2 12x (1) Cons. KWH kwh,Ino.
(I) (2) U-) -('2)
Nunapitcauk
Res. (1.035) 47 67,500 151 120 46 66,800 166 121 41 6241 145
se. 2 4,230 460 176 2 5,140 2BO 214 2
BIA 1 139,960 12,390 11,663 1 137,690 3,690 11,474 1 3106 3106
FB 8,430 203 117 5 6,410 1BO 107 1 120 120
'IUl'ALS 220,120 54 216,040 ----45
April 1970
(Dec.) (Year) (Dec. ) (Year)
KASIGW!~
Res. (1.02) 43 76,710 179 131 43 60,220 158 117 40 2236 56
se 1 90 0 8 1 260 20 22 a
BIA 1 148,640 26,320 12,387 1 135, BOO 24,800 11,317 1 4574 4574
PB 4 4,020 130 84 4 1,520 62 32 3 23
'IUl'ALS qg" 220,460 ----49 197,800 ----44
December 1971
(Dec.) (Year) (Dec.) (Year)
Mountain Village
Res. (0) 71 115,890 158 136 73 107,192 149 122 72 a
se a 167,220 1650 1742 6 143,840 1893 1998 3 1
BLl\. 1 130,660 12,260 10,888 1 165,320 16,530 13,777 1 0
SL B 7,680 SO 80 8 2,210 80 23
PB 11 69,080 595 10 69,320 781 578 4 0
'IUl'ALS 99 490,530 98 487,882 ----80
January 1970
(Dec.) (Year) (Dec.) (Year) No. k\.tl ave .lM1/rro.
I..ol,ler Kal!"k;lC;
~~. (1.036) 38 6::-.)<:>0 2 .. ~ l~j .,. v"-66,260 155 162 33 3704 112
~'; 1 3,770 2BO 314 1 4,360 280 363 1 391 391
BlA 1 82,160 11,530 6,847 1 77,050 7,990 6421 1 8000 8000
. FB 5 19,790 4 15,330 360 88 44
'IUl'ALS 45 175,480 40 163,000
~'Ubcr 1971
(Dec. ) (Year) (Dec.) (Year) kwh ave. kwh/rro.
Eimonak
Res. (1. 065) 87 129,700 199 124 80 95,270 120 99 72 11,560 160
~; se 6 28,250 576 392 4 9,550 275 199 2 390 195
0 BIA 1 100,220 1380 B352 1 118,7BO 11,300 9898 1 13,380 13,380
I PB 11 116,460 BB2 10 87,300 1,107 5 960 192
'lOTAI.S 105 374,630 95 310,900 BO 26,310
• • • l • .. • .. j " • • j I j I .. I I I • I j
I , l • I • It • • j I I I • •
'NPICIIL
ViJ.:..age.s Served by A'IJE:J::.
in Calista .Region --(Historical Growth)
1974 1973 ~ 1971
(Dec. ) :tear Ave. (Dec. ) :tear Ave.
No. Total kwh/rro. No. Total kwh/rro. No. Total Ave.
Cons. KWH ~12x(1) Cons. KWH ~ 12x(1) ~ ~ kwh/rro. -n:r-(2) Trr --m-
'lbksook Bay
105 Res. (1.089) 53 66,610 136 47 56,710 162 101 41 4880 119
SC 7 8,040 110 96 7 7,440 151 89 5 550 110
BIA 1 60,380 6520 5032 1 67,560 7,800 ,5,713 1 9420 9420
PB 5 9,690 144 162 5 6,580 172 110 4 980 245
'ICYrALS 6b 1~ 60 139,290 -;r 15-;8lO
Eek
Res. (1.048) 38 38,530 123 95 35 32,380 155 77 33 3610 109
SC 2 530 5 22 1 930 140 78 1 180 180
BLA 1 94,110 10,540 7,843 1 88,930 8,720 7411 1 8060 8060
PB 2 3,350 200 140 3 4,660 216 129 3 250 83
'roI'AIS 43 136,520 40 38 12,100
Quit'lhaqak
Res. (1. 051) 65 84,040 115 108 63 71,670 98 95 56 6,920 123 •
SC 4 10,660 102 222 3 7,280 233 202 2 200 100
Bll>. 1 63,320 6,440 5,277 1 77,100 8,440 6,425 1 17,770 17,770
PB 2 1,980 160 ~ 3 2,260 ~ 63 2 320 160
'IOTA.LS 72 160,000 70 158,310 61 25,210
Gocdnews Bay
Res. (1. 038) 47 62,250 160 110 43 47,240 155 92 42 2,920 69 \ SC 2 9,680 165 403 2 2,420 110 101 2 220 110
B:r..~ 1 78,690 10,680 6,558 1 92,660 8,390 7,722 1 (29days) 7,920 7,920
PB 3 1,130 SO 31 2 2,820 85 118 2 60 30
'ICYrhLS 53 151,750 48 47 11,120
Hooper Bay
Pes. (1.036) 81 137,234 265 141 77 99,000 144 107
SC 6 55,670 820 773 6 58,950 795 819
BLA 1 . 197,600 20,000 16,467 1 143,200 17,600 11,933
SL 4 4,160 80 87 4 3,560 80 74
PB 7 20,010 364 238 6 16,760 310 233
'lOrAI.S 99 414,674 94 ~ ....
I
* j & •
,-j •• Ii· a. I. lJ 1 •• 1 II. I. I ••• " •• I. III •
GlOJP 'IOl'ALS 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 1
(1) (2) (3) (2)/12x(l) (1) (2) (3) (2)/12x(1) (1) (2) (3) Res. """"5'fO 839,224 175 123 541 702,742 143 108 506 ill [1.04] [1.131]
SC 39 288,140 623 616 33 240,170 612 606 23 300 [1.192] [1.276]
BIA 10 1,095,740 11,806
[0] [1.061]
9131 10 1,105,090 11,526 9202 10 9,887
PB 56 253,940 555 378 52 212,960 488 341 31 175 [1.218] [1.469]
SL 12 11,840 80 82
[1.587] [0]
12 5,770 80 40 3 80
1 Ave. armual increase fran Dac. 1971 to Dec. 1974
I I
!
~
!-'
W
I
II i Ii i • j
(/21) SHELDON'S
(7) Pl\\M1V,
('", .. s)HOO PER aAyf""'-~
• j • i • j • j I a
-• • I r .-I r
NEWS ~ BAV(~J -
I j ,. j • j Il I • j • •
1 "-=Ar~' 4S) 14 ,..,..i
<-.) :>\. ....... l\.?\b~ + o No. ~ 'I",\\tu:y/
LEGEND L) S ... b~t<>l ~h'V!.l~"j"\i:rs
--_ CALISTA REGION BOUNDRY
• VI LLAGES .
PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTES
REGIONAL POM:. tVSTE ..
LOWER KUSKOKWIII VICINITY ANO YUKON DELTA
,.RE\..'IIINAltl' LIM! ItOUTU
ICAL!:: ,-. A,.,."OX. 50 IIILEI .lULY ,.11
aUE II"" DATA ,.o.-CALISTA CORPORATION
PLATE (~
•
:4fo ~
II • • • • • .. j ... • • l •
Calista Region Village Corporations
-AKIACHUI< -
Aki<lchuk, Limited
Joseph Lomack, President
Tom Kasayulie, Vice·President
Willie Kesayulie, Secretary
Wassillie George, Sr., Treasurer
Silm Frederick, Member
John Moses, Sr., Member
332 Shareholders
-AKIAK-
I<okarmuit Corporation
Timothy Williams, Sr., President
Paul J. tvan, Sr., Vice-President
Ivan M. Ivan, Secretary/Treasurer
Eddie Charles, Member
Frnnk Demantle, Sr., Member
211 Shareholders
-ALAKANUK-
Alakanuk Native Corporation
John Hanson, President
Joe Agayar, Vice·President
Elizabeth Chikigak, Secretary/Treasurer
Alfred Murphy. Jr., Member
Martin Shelton, Member
467 Shareholders
-ANDREAFSKI-
Nerl~liI(mute Native Corporation
Daniel Stevens, Sr., Chairman
Patrick Beans, Sr., Vice·Chairman
Laura Stevens, Secretary/Treasurer
Oilvid Sipary, Sr., Member
Fred Alstrom, Member
84 Shareholders
-ANIAK -
Aniak, Limited
LewiS A. Vanderpool, Chairman
Bernice Peterson, Vice·Chairman
Margaret Simeon, Secretary/Treasurer
William Morgan, Member
Leonard Morgan, Member
250 Shareholders
-ATMAUTLUAK -
Atmautluak, Limited
Joshua Nick, President
Oscnr Nick, Vice·President
James Gilman, Secretary/Treasurer
Grace Nicholai, Member
Morris Machin, Member
120 Shareholders
1464
-BETHEL-
Bothel Native Corporation
Edward Hoffman, President
Paul J. Gregory, Sr., Vico·Prasident
Lucy Crow, Secretary
J. B. Haroldsen, Member
Archie Watson, Member
Ted Samuelson, Member
Thad Tikun, Member
Roy Hall, Member
Jessie Oscar, Member
Joe Andrew~. Sr., Member
Claronce Clark, Member
1,727 Shareholders
-BILL MOORE SLOUGH -
Kongnikilnomuit Yuita Corporationat
Mark Okitkun, President
Joseph Aparezuk. Vico·President
Anthony Keyes
Edward Andrews
Noril Okitkun
46 Shareholders
-CHEFORNAK-
Chefarnrmute, Incorporated
Peter Matthew, President
DllVid Lewis, Vice·President
Jack Wiseman, Secretilry
David Panruk, Member
Mary Tunuchuk, Member
162 Shareholders
-CHEVAK-
Chevak Company
Xavier Atcherian, President
Peter Boyscout, Vice-President
David Cholok, Secre lary/Treasu rer
Joseph Chol1orak, Member
David Ulroan, Member
423 Sharehnlders
-CHUATHBALUK-
Chauthhnluk Company
Flore~ce J. Nelson, Prllsident
Sophie SQkar, Vic;c·President
Phillip S. Phillip~, Secretary
Paul Kelila, Mllmber
Mary J. Kllmerolf, Member
127 Sharoholders
2485
.. v ... ,._~ .... y ~"'".--'--.~---"'~T .......... ·-r~-:-··"""'~~~r~~~,7<~"'~"" '"7".'~.:T:~,~~~~"::' ,'--\, "".
~ _ ... , .1-'....,:.~ .. , .~ __ :_~;~t ~ ... :~ .-~" \, .,'_. ~. _ ~.I ... ~ .• " __ -.... : .... ! :.4/1' _ ••
II Wi • I •
-CHULOONAWICK -
Chuloonawick Corporation
Bill Ackers, President
Stan Jimmy, Vice President
Rose Brokowski, Secretary/Trc(lsurer
Gertrude Stanislaus, Member
Elizabeth Wasuli, Member
27 Shareholders
-CROOKED CREEK -
I<ipchaughpuk, Limited
Golga Sakar, Chairman
... I •
Andrew Alexie, Vice·Chairman
Nattie M. Fredericks, Secretary/Treasurer
Mary Sakar, Member
Bedusha Sakar, Member
122Sharoholders
-EEI(-
Iqfijouaq Company
Peter Green, Chairman
William Pete, Jr., Vice·Chairman
Pauline M. Green, Secretary/Treasurer
Steven White, Member
200 Shareholders
-EMMONAI(-
Emmonal< Corporation
Milrtin 8. Moore, President
Axel C. Johnson, Vice-President
Steven Levi, Secretary/Treasurer
Nicholas W. Benedict, Member
478 Shareholders
-GEORGETOWN -
Georgetown, Incorporated
Glenn Fredericks, President
Robert I. Vanderpool, Vice-President
Robert W. Vanderpool, Secretary/Treasurer
Joseph Vanderpool, Member
Frederick Notti, Member
45 Shareholders
-GOODNEWS BAY -
Kuitsarak, Incorporated
John Roberts, President
Louis Smith, Vice-President
Daniel Smith, Secretary/Treasurer
Evan Beaver, Member
Andy Olsen, Member
223 Shareholders
1095
I
>'
f-'
U1
I
"" , .. I j I I Ii • • •
:-HAMI L TON -
Nu nflpiglluraq Corporation
John Elachik, President
Anna Kamkoff. Vice·President
George Williams, Secretary/Treasurer
Rudolph Williams, Member
Moses Okitkun, Member
35 Shareholders
-HOOPER BAY-
Sea Lion Corporation
Rapi1Jel J, Murrill', President
Theodore Hunter, Vice·President
Rudy Smith, Secretary/Treasurer
Peter Seton, Member
625 Shareholders
-KASIGLUK-
Kasigluk, Incorporated
I rvin Brink, President
Yako J. Brink, Vice President
Levi Hoover, Secretary
Teddy Brink, Treilsurer
George Keene, Member
309 Shareholders
-KIPNUK-
Kugkaktlik, Limited
Peter Paul, Chairman
Isaac B. Amik, Vice·Chairman
Steven Mann, Secretary
Paul Paul, Member
Issac L. Ami k, Member
359 Shareholders
-KONGIGANAK-
Oemirtalet Coast Corporation
Evon Azean, Chairman
Tommy Phillip, Vice Chairman
Zac k I von, Secretilry
Adolph Jimmie, Member
James D, Lewis, Member
248 Shareholders
-KOTLlK-
Kotlik Yupik Corporation
Lawrence Chi klak, President
Peter Eletchik, Vice President
:'.~ichacl Hunt. Secretary
Gabrle! Sinka, Treasurer
Joseph M ike, Member
220 Shareholders
1796
• • • • II •
-KWETHLUK-
Kwethluk, Incorporated
Frank Nicori, President
Joseph GUY, Vice·Prosident
Matthew J. Andrew, Secretilry/Treasurer
Nick Epchook, Member
John Napok(), Jr., Member
450 Shareholders
-KWIGI LLINGOI< -
K wi k, Incorporated
Jones Anaver, President
Jim K. Igkuak, Silcret()ry/Treasurllr
Joe Manchuak, Member
Peter Jimmie, Member
229 Shareholders
-LIME VI LLAGE -
Lime Village Company
Evan Bobby, Jr., President
Sally Bobby, Vice·President
Annie Elson, Secretary/Treasurer
Pete Bobby, Member
Katherine Bobby, Member
26 Shareholders
-LOWER KALSKAG -
Lower Kalskag, Incorporated
George Urovak, Ch()irman
Kimiha WiSll, Vice·Chairman
Axenia Crisco, Secretary/Treasurer
Wassilie Crisco, Membllr
Zackar Levi, Membllr
168 Shareholders
873
.. . II j II • II • II ii • •
-MARSHALL-
Maserculiq, Incorporated
Leslie R. Hunter, President
Alvin Owletuck, Vice.Presldtmt
Ann Fitka, Secrctary/Treasurer
Nick Andrew, Member
Peter Elia, Member
214 Shareholders
-MEKORYUI< -
Nima Corporation
Samson Weston, President
Gertrude Ivanoff, Vice·President
Martin Kapoakun, Secretary/Tre()surer
Fred Don, Member
Edward Shavings, Sr., Member
306 Shareholders
-MOUNTAIN VILLAGE -
Azachorok, Incorporated
Xavier F. Keyes, President
Paul Beans, Vice President
Alphonsiro Chiklak, Secretary/Treasurer
Francine Peterson, Secretary/Bookkeeper
Mike Moses, Member
488 Shareholders
1008
,I
,,-I'
, '" II •
,--.
i j I • "
-NAPAMUTE-
Napamutc Limited
Maria G, Holseth
Mary A, Hoheth
Agnes E. Churles
Bertha A. Kristovich
Delores J. M.:ltter
43 ShareholrJcrs
-NAPAKIAK-
Napai<iak Corporation
Billy McCann, Chairman
Anna Alexia, Vice-Chairman
Lucy Nelson, Secret:Jry
AllIIn K. Jimmy. Treasurer
Carl Motgin, Member
260 Shareholdtlrs
•
NAPASJ<IAK -
Napaskiak, Incorporated
David A. Maxie, Chairman
Jiaiah H. Egoah, Jr., Vice·Chairman
Sarah EV:In, Secretary/Treasurer
Alexie Evan, Mtlmber
Fritz Larson, Member
218 Sh<.lreholders
-NEWTOK-
Newtok Corporation, Inc.
Paul Charles, President
Mark George, Vice-President
Walter Kasaiul, Secretary/Treasurer
126 Shareholders
-NIGHTMUTE-
NGT A, Incorporated
Mike Joe, Chairman
William Dull, Vice-Chairman
Edward Dull, Secretary
Joe Post. Treasurer
Camillu~ Tulik, Member
99 Shareholders
-NUNAPITCHUK -
Nunapitchuk, Limited
Michael Chase, President
Hermon Neck, Vice·President
Nickolai Btlriin, Secretary/Treasurer
John li'Jassillie, Member
Ivan WossilJie, Member
325 Sh:lroholders
1071
, •
.'-.'t, ;'
• .. .. •
/
-OHOGAMUT -
OHOG, Inc.
Pelel N,,:hul.1S
Nick Lvon
PUlllr Nick ..,
-m;CARVI L LE -
Oscarville Nntive Corporation
Nicholi Swven>, Chairman
Fronk Bere~kin, Vice-Chairman
Arthur W.lssiUia, Secretary
Ignatius Jncob, Treasurer
Andrew Larson, Member
Roy Torn. Member
53 Shareholders
-PAIMIUT-
Paimiut Corporation
Leo Felix Smart
Jerome Napolean
Mary Simon
Harold Napolean
"'J
-PILOT STATION-
Pilot Station, Incorporated
Joe Myers, Chairman
Evan Nick, Vice-Chairman
Thomas Hart, Secretnry
Evan'Polty, Member
322 Shareholders
-PITKA'S POINT-
Pitka's Point Native Corporation
Tommy Kozevnikoff. President
Evan Fancybov. Vice-President
John Myers. Secretary
John Tinker, Member
Elena Sergie, Member
89 Shareholders
-PLATINUM-
Arviq, Incorporated
Henry Small, Chairm;:m
•
Oscar Snyder, Vice-Chairman
Paulina S. Sharp, Secretary {Treasurer
Lester Small, Member
Peter Samuel, Member
68 Shareholders
",", , 532+?
j • • I j I •
-QUINHAGAK -
Qanirtuug, Incorporated
Joshua Cleveland, President
Andy Sharp, Vice-President
.... I J
Grace Friendly, Secretary/Treasurer
Kenneth Cleveland, Member
345 Shareholders
-RED DEVIL-
Red Devil, Incorporated
Anna Willis, President
Bertha Morgan, Vice-President
Joe Morgan, Secretary
Misko Andreanoff, Member
NellieKehoe, Member
39 Shareholders
-RUSSIAN MISSION-
Russian Mission Native Corp.
Alex Nick, President
Peter Askoar, Vice-President
Mildred Askoar, Secretary/Treasurer
Nick Pitka, Member
Peter Alexie, Member
114 Shareholders
-SCAMMON BAY -
Askinuk Corporation
Monroe Kagunak, President
Aloysius D. Aguchak, Vice-President
Michael Akerelrea, Secretary/Treasurer
Tom Tunutmoak, Member
Roy Henry, Member
202 Shareholders
-SHELDON'S POINT -
Swan Lake Corporation
Joseph A fcan, P reside" I
Paul Manumik, Sr., Vice-President
Ro~e Afcan, Secretary
Jimmy Andrews, Member
Mike Andrews, Member
121 Shareholders
821
I
• i
l
,,-,.,
I j • I • j • j I j
-SLEETMUTE-
Sleetmute, Limited
Moxie AleXic, President
Peter Zaukar, Vico·Presjdent
Murv Egnaw, Secretary/Treasurer
StCVJ Derendy, Member
Wassilic Pilul, Member
164 Shureho Iders
-ST. MARY'S-
St. Mary's Native Corporation
Moses Paukan, Chairman
St;)n Paukan, Vice·Chairman
Flora Paukan, Secretary/Treasurer
Paul Johnson, Member
Johnny Thompson, Member
297 Shareholders .
-STONY RIVER -
Stony River, Limited
Miskcr Zauker, Chairman
Andrew Gusty, Vice-Chairman
Andrew Macar, Secretary/Treasurer
Marvara Zankar, Member
Mary Macar, Member
82 Shareholders
-TOI<SOOK BAY-
Nunakauial< Yupik Corporation
James R. Charlie, Sr., Chairman
Joseph Lincoln, Vice·Chairman
MOSES Chanar, Secretary
Lawrence John, Treasurer
Nick S. Chanar, Member
280 Shareholders
-TULUI<SAI<-
Tull(isnrmute, Incorporated
James Lott, Chairman
~o2h Andrew, Vice·Chairman
~oel Owens, Secretary
Moses D. Alexie, Treasurer
Mo;cs Peter, Member
1133 Shilfeholders
1006
• I .. i • J
-TUNUNAI<-
Tununrmiut Rinit Corporation
Andrew J. Chikoyak, Chllirman
Dick Lincoln, Vice·Chairman
Katie Walker, Secrelary/Treasuror
Bob M. Angiliak. Member
296 Shllroholders
-TUNTUTULIAK -
Tuntutuliak Land, Limited
Henry Lupie, Choirmiln
Lincoln C. Enoch, Vice·Chairman
Phillip Charlie, Secretary/Treasurer
Nick Lupie, Member
Elena Lupie, Member
211 Shareholders
-UMKUMIUTE -
Umkumiute, Limited
Thomas Jumbo, President
Simeon Agnus, Vice·President
Henry Tony, Secretary/Treasurer
27 Shareholders
-UPPER KALSKAG -
Upper I<alskag, Incorporated
William J. Grcgory, President
Earl H. Morgan. Vice·President
Steven J. Gregory, Secretary/Treasurer
David Nook, Member
Joseph S. Gregory, Member
160 Shareholders
694
:;J:::I . -........ " .. ',-,-~~ ... ··-·-~"""-""'-;:-~~"·l';:·r':I"'--:--""7""':"''''~'i:~~·r·:".";,.''''~f'O'~·~'''~ 'l""-""".-: ~~"'-·r·"t·-·--,
i-'
-.J
I
.. , .. . , . I I I J • I
......
I •
IITen-Vi11age Group -2461
(about 23% of others wlo
Bethel and Mekoryuk)
Total -12,845 + ?
wlo Bethel -11,118 + ?
? (Ohogamut & Paimiut)
wlo Bethel & Mekoryuk
10,812
' .
..
•
• ..
..
..
.. ..
...
• .. -
..
•
' ...
APPENDIX - B
Power COst Data
Estinated WI:x:Ilesale Power COsts ---Bethel
Forecast of Production COsts -Village Plants
Forecast of Transmission COsts -including Purchased Power
..
..
•
• -
...
...
• -.
<II
....
,.
til
•
•
•
..
ESTniATE OF FUTtlRE \VHOLESALE PO~'J"ER mSTS
PaiER PUICHASED ]N BETHEL
Frotn data reviewed at t.he Ala.3ka Public Utilities ccrrmission Office:
Typical Production Cost (Yearly):
La.1:x:>r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fuel (Est. 1,200,000 gal. @ 47.5¢).
Lube, Op Supplies, ~Ja.int. ~Ja.teria1.
Depr., Int., Ins., Taxes, Retllnl ..
Generated Electric OUtput • . .
Estimated Sales of EleGtricity.
Test Year
1975
· 156,649
· 569,000
12,776
· 214,218
952,643
14,689 t·l1VH
13,620 f.'t}j1f
Based on tne above inforrration, the follo",ing forecast of production cos ts
is made:
TABLE·B-1
FOREX:AST OF' PIDDUcrIOr.'J msTS -R'vVR
1975 1980 1985 1990 Grc<:"rth Factor
mrI Sold 13,620 26,230 50,500 97,200 (1.14) *
Labor 156,649 219,708 308,153 432,200
Fuel 569,000 1,537,840 4,155 /335 11,233,361 (1.22) ***
L, O.S. ,
r'N 12 /776 34,530 93,324 252,227
D,I,I,T,R 214,218 578:970 4,229,153 (1.22)''''**
Total 952,643 2,371,048 6,122,596 16,146,941
cost/:Ni:; .070 0.090 0.121 0.lG6
Fuel CO.3;:/m'/Hl .o,as 0.0586 0.082J o .lJS5
Fuel/
Total x 100 59.7;:; 65.1";; 6U.O'.'; 1:.,9.6':.
-Bl-
~'--'-'~---~~~-----------""""!"'II!IIIIII!!!"!!!II-------..
til 1 Based. on 12.25 KWH/Gal. and fuel escalation of 1.07 annually and 8%
losses to deliver to consurrer. -
• *GrcMth factor of 1.14 based on projections for Bethel.
"" **1.07 average escalation estiIrate for long tenn la1:x>r costs.
•
..
..
•
•
...
• ..
..
.. ..
..
..
' . .. ..
..
..
***This factor is based on the assumption that fuel costs will escalate at
an average rate of 1.07 and that the KWH per gal. of fuel will remain
at 12.25. 'Ihe overall rate for the annual total fuel cost is therefore
the proouct of the fuel cost growth rate (1.07) and the growth rate in
kwh sold (1.14). This rate is used for all the elen:ents of cost that
relate to these or equivalent factors such as: lube oil, operating
supplies and Maintenance Materials which are prorx>rtional to KWH generated
and increases in purchasing costs (ass'l.1lted to be a 1. 07 factor). Depr. ,
Interest, Insurance, Taxes, and Return on Invest:nent are all related to
investrrent which in turn is prorx>rtional to KtVH requirerrents and oosts
of equipnent (assumecl to be a 1.07 factor). While invest:nent is made in
steps, it is estimated that the long tenn average costs with diesel:-
electric generating equi:prrent can be prudently estiIrated by relating its
costs directly to the growth in KWH generated and the general level of
increasing costs .
-32-
..
... ..
..
..
• ..
... ..
..
!i! I] II
Based on the 1973 Operating year of Bethel Utilities Corp., it is estimated
that energy S~L es would distribute through the year as follows:
Ten-Village 1975 Fstirnate
Energy Revenue
Distribution KWH New Rate Ave/KWH
January 9.7% 236,574 14,845.83 $ .0628
February 9.1% 221,940 14,187.30 .0639
March 9.4% 229,260 14,516.70 .0633
April 7.5% 182,920 12,431.40 .0680
May 7.9% 192,670 12,870.15 .0668
June 6.0% 146,330 10,784.85 .0737
July 6.3% 153,650 11,114.25 .0723
August 7.8% 190,230 12,760.35 .0671 .
Septanber 7.4% 180,480 12,321.60 .0683
October 9.0% 219,500 14,077.50 .0641
Novenber 9.7% 236,580 14,846.10 .0628
December 10.2% 248,770 15,394.65 .0619
100.0% 2,438,904kwh $160,150.68 $.0657
Total Armual
Adjusting this figure to account for transmission and distribution losses
of 8% would add 0.08 x 2,438,904 x .045 ::;:: $8,780 to the total bill from an
average of $0.0641 per kwh for each kwh purchased and an average of $0.0693/kwh
of energy delivered to the consumer •
This average cost of $. o 641/kwh is less than the average cost/kwh estimated
for BUC, however, the ten village load is larger than the average "Bulk
Pri.Ire" rate user and would therefore average a lesser cost under the proposed
schedule. This is an expected relationship •
.. Based on factors previously recited, it is estimated that the average wholesale
-power costs for purchases of energy in Bethel will re: ..
Escalation
1975 1980 1985 1990 Factor
Cost/kwh $ 0.065 0.086 0.1153 0.1536 1.059
...
-B3-
• I • j
I
C:I .::.
I
.. j • • • j & j • • • • • • .. I • • .. • III • ..
.-~ .. ~.---
TABLE B -2
FOREC ..... ~'T' OF PRODUCTION C.·OSTS -VILLl'.GE PLANT'"
(Delivered at Bus-bar)
K'i"'H Plant Plant Depr. "'''' Fuel"''''*
Year Maint. Oper. Int. , Ins. , Etc. Cost
1975 244,000 $1,600 $13,500 $ 12,800 $10,500
1976 259,000 1,700 14,400 12,800 21,100
1977 275,000 1,800 15,500 12,800 24,000
1978 294,000 2,000 16,500 12,800 27,300
1979 315,000 2,100 17,700 12,800 31,500
1980 342,000 3,000 18,900 25,600 32,100
5-YR. Total 1,485, 006 10,600 83,000 76,800 136,000
(1976-1980 inclusive)
1985 527,000 7,000 26,600 35,000 68,500
10-YR. Total 3,705,000 34,900 218,000 214,200 413,300
(1976-' 9 q 5 ir:cluciive) :
lS90 897,000 9,bOO 37,200 35,000 145,500
15-YR. Total 7,363,OQO 85,000 408,?OO 389,200 942,300
(1976-1990 inclusive)
"'This is a hypothetical plant sized for 1/10th of the Ten-Village Group.
Energy delivered is assumed as l/lOth of Forecast of Table 3, page 9
of the re?ort.
**?lant capacity was based on a village ioad factor of 35%.
Generating units were installed as follows:
i I • I • I • a j a, t
Total Ave.
Prod. Cost Cost/kwh
$ 46,400 $0.1902
50,000 0.1931
54,100 0.1967
58,600 0.1993
64,100 0.2035
79,600 0.2327
306,400 0.2063
137,100 0.2602
880,600 0.2377
227,500 0.2536
1(825,000 0.2479
3 -100 kw units, High Speed Class •.•. 1975 @ about $167/kw with 8% int., depr.(sink ng fund), ins. et~
3 150 kw units, High Speed Class •..• 1980 @ about $225/kw with 8% int., 5-yr d(~pr. (sink ng fund), ins. et~
3 250 kw units, Medium Duty Class ... 1985 @ about $300/kw with 8% int.,lO-yr . (sink ng fund), ins. et~
***Fuel cost is based on 7 kv.'h/ga1 ave. 1..;75 th::c1..';:l" 19"".
8 kwh/gal ave. 1980 through 1985.
9 kwh/gal ave. 1986 through 1990.
Prices for diesel fuel taken Table 7, Page 20 of the report.
I j i • 1\ • • I , ;
y
E ""h PU.l.-cr..::l.:;cd
1\ Delivc::::cd* Power Cost**
R
1975 2,4~O,OOO 166,500
1976 2,590,000 $ 187,60-0
1977 2,750,000 210,800
1978 2,940,000 237,700
1979 3,150,000 271,200
1930 3,420,000
5-Yr. Tc'tals (1'176-1980
14,850,000 $1,216,100
1935 5,270,000 $
10-Yr. Tctals (1976':'1985
37,050,000 $3,648,700
1990 8,970,000 $1,45(,,500
15-Yr. Totals (1976-1990 i.'1clusivc)
73,630,000 $9,008,000
(11 Fro.~ 7ab1c 3, page 15
(2) SL~ Table 6, page 22 (inc1.5% loss)
(3) For 1ir.es c;. S;.±,st..'l.tions only
(4) & (5) :Jepr. fur:d), 30-year
Interest •••• 8% arn(5) %
Irs~a~ce~ .. O.l%
Repla:::errents @ 0.2%
l • • • I i • I .. , i I • I. i , . , • • • « .. . .. I
-~ ----TIillIE B-3
FORJ:J:::AsT OF TRANSNISSION roSTS (inel. Purchased Power)
(DelivcreO ro Village Distxibution System)
Tran.-<m'ission Depr. Int., Int. & Re/l.:lCernents Tctal Trans. Costs
$ 65,400
$ 70,000
74,900
80,100
85,800
91,SOO
$ 402,600
$ 128,700
$ 967,200
$ 180,500
$1,759,000
. ~R Line 3 ,4-W Line sw:;.'q Line
107,700 300,100 339,600
(79,800) (222,600) (311,700)
107,700 300,100 365,300
(79,800) (222,600) (337,400)
107,700 300,100 393,400
(79,800) (222,600) (365,500)
107,700 300,100 425,500
(79;800) (222,600) (397,600)
107,700 300,100 464,700
(79,800) (222,600) (436,800)
107,700 300,100 508,300
(79,800) (480,400)
538,5QO 2,157,200
(399,000) (1,113,000) (2,017) 700)
107,700 39 0 ,100 872,300
( 79,800) (222,600) (844,900)
1,077,000 3,001,000 5,692,900
(798,000) (2,226,000) (5,413,900)
107,700 300,100 1, 738, 700
(79,800) (222,600) (1,710,800)
~ 4 ;!)Ol-;-500 J:T,"'T82, 500
(1,197,000) (3,339,000) (11,964,000)
(4) SV-BR Lir.e Invest:rrent (See Appendix F)
100.5 F.~les @ 10,000 ; $1,005,000
River (2) 30,000
Substations 137,500
Total •••••••• ~ $1,172,500
3'ff,4WLine
532,000 0.1392 0.2180
(454,500) (O.1278) (0.1863)
557,700 0.1410 0.2153
(480,200) (0.1303) (0.1854)
585,800 0.1431 0.2130
(508,300) (0.1329) (0.1848)
617,900 0.1447 0.2102
(540,400) (0.1352) (0.1838)
657,100 0.1475 0.2086
(579,600) (0.1387) (0.1840)
700,700 O.HSG 0.2049
(62],200) ,0.1822)
3-;fl9,200 O .. nOl
(2,731,700) (0.1359) (0.1840)
1,065,200 0.1656 C .. 2021
(987,700) (0.1874)
7,616,900 0.2056
(6,&41,~C!O) (C.Ho1) (0.1847)
1,931,100 0 .. 1938 0.2153
(1,853,600) (0.1907) (0.20>56)
[5,260,500 o..I:6S2 --0:-2074
(14,106,000) (0.1625) (0.1916)
(5) 3.\6-41'1 Line Ir.vcst::re::t (502 k.~'dix F)
100.5 Y;.i::'es @ 30,000 = $3,015:080
P~ver Cros~L~gs (2) 110,000
S~stations 137,500
Tcta1 •••••••• = $3,268,500
.~ ~·~-··-'~'---'-~----"''''''-----------------'''''''OOMO!!------",p--.... 4 _______________ _
..
...
....
•
..
•
..
..
..
..
..
.. '
APPENDIX - C
Other Energy Sources
Miscellaneous Data
Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Potential
catalog Sheets -Wind Power Systems
catalog Sheet & Price List -Small Hydro Units
-,
....
•
..
•
..
•
..
•
-
" -"~~--,-----------~---------
KISAP~~IK RIVER HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL
Location: Damsiteat Lm'ler Falls on Kisaralik River
approximately 60 miles east of Bethel, Alaska
Map reference: USGS Bethel (B-3) Alaska 1:63,360
USGS Bethel, Alaska 1:250,000
PRELIHINARY STUDIES:
1.
2.
3 •
4.
Reservoir areas were shaded in for elevations
1100, 1150, and 1200 for respective approximate
dam heights of 290', 340', and 390' •
Water shed area \"as determined as approximately
544 square miles from USGS map Bethel, Alaska
1:250,000.
A conservative annual mean runoff of 20" was
chosen based on NOAA Technical Memorandum ~WS
AR-IO--Mean Monthly and Ap..nual Precipitation
Alaska by Gordon D. Kilday. 'This bulletin shows a
mean annual precipitation of 20" for Bethel, 40"
for the mountainous region near the Kisaralik
River Damsite and 80" along the ridge dividing the
Kuskokwim and Wood River basins. '
An enlargement of
plot various dams
of fill required.
contours provides
the damsi te area .. vas made to
to determine estimated volumes
The enlargement .. 'lith 50 ft.
a very ro~gh estimate •
PZSULTS OF STUDIES:
1 .
2.
3.
Flmv
544'square miles = 348,160 acres
20"=1.67' 1.67x348,160=580,270 ac. -Ft./yr.
1000 Ac. Ft. = 1.38 CIS
580,270 = 800 cfs. mean annual flow.
Reservoir Areas:
A. 290 '." high darn 10 sg. mi. + (Elev. 1100)
B • 340' high dam -11.4 sg. mi. (E1ev. 1150)
C. 390' high dam 16.4 sq. mi. + (Elev. 1200)
Volumes of Rock Fill
l~ . 290' high dam -2/400,000 cu . yds.
B. 340' high dam -3,700/000 cu. yds.
C. 390' high dum -5/982/246 cu. ychi.
D. 440' high dam 9/1.13,176 cu. yds.
-Cl-
..
; -"'!
ill ..
II ..
ill
...
.-
... .. .. ..
.-
III .. .. .. ..
... ..
... ..
... ..
...
.-
... ..
""" ..
...
•
... ..
...
•
...
....
4. Estimated Pmver Available
A. 290' high dam
Estimated regulation of 700 cfs with 40 ft
of drawdown and 5 ft. of head loss =265' MEH .
265x700xO.071 = 13.170KW
or 115,369,200 K~1H prime/year
B. 340' high dam
Estimated regulation of 800 cfs with 30 ft .
of drawdown and 5 ft. of head loss =320' MEH.
320x800xO.071 18,176KW
or 159,221,760 KHH prime/year .
C. 390'high dam
Estimated regulation of 800 cfs with 20 ft •
of drawdmvn and 5 ft. of head loss =375 ' MEH .
37 5x8 OOxO. 071 = 21,300IGV'
or 186,588,000 KNH prime/year •
D. 440' high dam
Estimated regulation of 800 cfs with 15 ft •
of drawdown and 5 ft. of head loss =427' MEH .
427x800xO.071 = 24,254KW
or 212,462,000 IG1H prime/year .
5. Comparisons (using the 290' high dam as 100%)
A . 2 0'
Power
Cost
B . 340'
-Power
Cost
C . 390'
Pm.;rer
Cost
D . 440'
Pm'ler
Cost
dam
available
dam
available
dam
available
dam
available
100%
100%
138%
139%
162%
212%
184%
305%
-C2-
..
..
..
...
III
... .. ..
...
..
..
..
...
..
-
6 • Estimated Cost (No Transmission)
A. 290' dam -$40,000,000
26,000 KW irstalled = $1540/KW
B. 340' dam -$55,600,000
36,000 KW installed = $1545/KW
C. 390' dam -$84,800,000
42,000 KW installed = $2019/KW
D • 440' dam -$122,000,000
D 48,000 row installed = $2542/KW
TRANSMISSION TO BETHEL:
Estimate 68.7 miles @ 70,OOO/mile •••.•
Substation @ Bethel, 500 Mv.A @ $25.00/KVA
PRELDlINARY REmMMENDATIONS:
il.1I
1. Install a gaging station at the lower falls of the
Kisaralik River.
2. Obtain a better top:>graphy of the samsi te area.
3. Preliminary geology report •
4. Fish and Wildlife impact study.
'). Potential Power Requ.irerrent study •
PREPARED BY
carl H. Steeby, P.E •
ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES
June, 1975
$4,809,000
1,250,000
$6,059,000
-C3-
•
. ".
•
;
~ .
" .. i .
~
, , .
"\, .. ~-.-.--"~----~ ...... --
-C4-
..
·M
....
_.
-.
••
.,.-----
",,"
--r-
~I
...
...
...
..
...
..
...
...
,01
o
--. :< -......
~i . ,
\~.'
f
I
.. / ... '.: ::;,,, .-/ . ., , .
!
!
... . , i\
'\ • !
~
~ .
'.
, '
\ " ..
. ,':", ~~-------~
.'· .. ~ __ ~·--"-'h __ """"._--
J -C6-
I
".--~-'~---------------~111!11111'------------------'\.~'\\
il fJ !1 lJ
(
<;';) ., \
~..... \ I.
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \,\ ~\i\.~ ~ .. it~~--""
B BAR HAR80R ROAD
1D PHONE (207) 843-5168
tJ P.O. BOX 7
a EAST HOLDEN, MAINE 04429 • t,~;~~/~:<·~· ~.; ~i)·:;:i ~'vr:~:dPQ \;.~ ~~~~~.-.~~>"J:;' ~':\\. D SEPTEMBER 197.4
• ~!Y\~1"::;)'.~\~~~~~ ,.l 'I,,',
S YSTE'll A1.'ID COMPONENT PRl~'l:I§~~~ .::;. ~ .. It: . '\';,
, .. ;. ,~. _ 1'.1 1', J ,,{,f;.. "1' 4ft' ~ ,:.~~~. ',' \ ~~,'!'~?1'{~r-d \~~\.
}.;.:.~! ... ~~~ :~~,~:,",. ~V!·
We are plaased to be able to offer a .... iai:pvillttety of modern .\.;.rna~powered generatihg systems and components. After ex-
"€!D.SiIl9 investiaation of the equiomant curretftly availab18 throughOt.t.:.fue \\lorId. wa ha~e brought together what we consider to "jJ~ the, best in the field. In this folder we list both the individual ;co§~~eDts and a numb:er of complete winil eleclric systems
which will meet a variety of applications. The components in thes~;sY.8lelItS have been carefully chosen to be compatible and in
blance one with another. (It should be noted that we sell compbne~c'omplete and that parts for various equiDment such.. as,
"'propa'U8r blades. are not available through us, at this time.) /; 07\ ;:~. .
.. Wind pows,r can be used to provide electric powar for houia\.!.9~~a~parts of North America. It is considered practical
b a.ca., where wind speeds average 8 mpb or more. In or4er f91"jl)vj.rid-p(h~ered generator to supply a constant source of
...t31ectricity it is necessary to use a set of electric storage battene~<#~ in olAer to obtain A.C. power from the system. a
O.C.-to-A.C. electrical inverter is required. The complete systems llstedin.this folder. then. include a windplant. a tower for the
"Yicdplant. a set of storage batteries. and some type of inverter.l1;he:..basic rule to remember h, choosing the proper size wind
c~ectric system is that. over a period of time. the erun-gy taken; out aeths batteries must equal the energy put back into the
..o"tte:ie:> cy the windmill. Tills is more impot"tant than the short-term pe~k power demand. as this can be handled easily by the
Jattaries. For this reason we list. in addition to the foaximum, output in watts. the expected average monlhly kilowatt-hour
l":mtput of each size unit in a standard 10 mph average/wind area. You can expect roughly double the monthly output in a 16 mph
avara~~e wind area. and about onehalf this output iil an area with only 7 mph average windspeed. (See aul' booklet. Eloctric
... ,.,ow@(" from the Wind {$2 postpaid} for more detail on this.)
.. \\'e 'w'Ju!d lL<9 to point out that the initial cost of completa wind power installatiGns is such that the cost of wind-eenerated
~~"ct:i::i0 15. b. gensral. more expensive than electricity which is available from the power. company if power lines a re readily
,-.., .;::::' ",:;1z, It !5 unrealistic, therefore. at present to expect.to save on your power bill by converting to wind.generated pOWRr. The
)." ;~,,:::'3 '.'fa offal' are. how9\·er. economically advantageous in many applications where power lines are unavailable and where
.de ocly alter:tati"'ie is a gas or diesel generator. Compared to a small motorized generating plant, a v.ind powp.red electrical
system Ca:l S2.ve money in the long run and can offer, in addition. fur superior performance in terms of lack of maintenance,
abs"ilc'3 of noisa and pollution. and freedom from constallt refueling. The true cost of wind-generated power can be fi:;ured by
"\!re2ci':"'''13 out tha total cost of the equipml:!nt over a 15-year period and then dividing by the number of kilow .. tt:l!Ours that the-
.~·5tem can be e:ql::!cted to produce during that pariod of time. After the initial capital cost of installation. there ar-8 no
furL~et ccsts ot:::a: than maintenance which run", Jess than 1 % of the original cost price per year.
.. It is a1:;o po:;,sibl6 to use 'wind power directly, without storage batteries or COTIverters. and thus reduce dramatically the
!f~::!cc:/:l cost per kilowatt-hrur of wind.ganArater! power. Casts as low as 5 cents per kil('watt·honr are p:ssible in certain
.it'..la~io::;'5 w~3re storagiil and conversion are not necessary. Thi3 includes heating applications (where energy is stoted as
hea~3d v;n.ter) and'certain pumping and irrigation applications.
... .Fin-lUV. "va hooe to have available. in the near future. (winter o.r spring, 1!l75). a number-of plans and kits for assembling
~idpb~t; that will appeal to the do-it-yourselfers. VVe expect the output of the generators to be in the lOCO to 2GOO watt range.
lIIIIfl::e53 pIa!'.5 and kits ... vill substantially reduce the cost of wind electric equipment, however. they at'e limited to us~s where
powiitr is de::lired in order to 2ugment an existing pow~r source or in those cases where a minimal_amoWlt of power
i.e., a summer cottage or home wor'kshop. At present we do have plans for a 500 watt .<lind generator using a Dodge
..,h3rnalor. Ti!e system, callad "The 02 Powered Delight" can be made for about $400 from neW' and used materials. The cost of
tL:: pbns is $12. from Solar Wind.
'" The bd1t;idual components which make up each of the complete systems in this folder have been selected by us to be the
Je.,;! eq~;Jr.le!lt available for each application. We are constantly searching for better and less expensive components.
":;:;~:::ia;:y :':,058 IDa.:mfacrured in the U.S.A. \Ve, t.~erefote, reserve the right to make certab substitutions [subject to your
a?p~ol;::!il i.n t.~a components which make up complete wind electric system~.
• AU pc-ices qU[Jted in this folder are in U.S. clol1;!rs and, where applicable, include ov~rseas freight. duty. nnd othel'
b;:Jc::t;q eX~h::f!Ses. CE.:i1eraliy. equipment '. .. ill be shipped via motor freight collect from our warf!houses ia Boston or RIngor.
"'/,:b:~. ~;'J:ll~ equip:::1';:;t (::;!.:ch as batt~r!~s] will b:~ sllipped directly from the manufacturers locatf)(l in the l':e~\I Englnncl area.
\11 ;}:-ic'~" <!fe 3U~)jfJf:t t·) d:ang8 v;ithoat I'O~!CC. hr.',cver. IlriC85 quoted in our s<lles a;fr~t!menl at the time of purchasH, will b.·
.:. ,·::d flDt subj,'ct toJ further i;;cf~!as::;'l. A 50 1/0 dnwn payment is generntly reqlured tu confirm all orders; thFlbalance
, ;:'':: ;:;.i,,:·.li~! U;.tYI d~.b:ery. Although VIC are now s:')cking many items for immediate delivery, some items 4'1oteu hero may hn
..;.~_ .,!;>,.' ::) a 3 to G mr;r.:h delivery p::!riod. Su p!.:;a5~ pbu ahead! .. [\OTE: ~,!a.ine re':litlimt3 ;:GU!:It add 5% sHles la:t to all item, in this folder.
-C7-
-r
~·~-~-·------------------~"'!!!II--~ES!!!!!!!I!I!&!I_!lS!I!Pll!IIl!IlI!n.!!!!t1!l&I!!!!I!!i'e!l1!·!!!!I'fII--"U!!'·!±!!!!!!I"GI~, ~:rr±lL~~"/""I:~i~U"'!'''''----
-..
2()) \VATT, 12 VOLT D.C-nCO WAIT, 115 VOLT A.Co SYSTEi.'tl
T:::; ;::2:",: E!x;;::eDjive prod'.!cti'):l wicd electric system available today. Provides about
.. ,~:,.:~: :::t:~·i:,~u.s of po we, p?!" month i:l?:0 ffiilh average wind area. Batteries provide up
;.: ::: .'.'7:;::<' pa::lx power and \\ill p:,c·.-:da for more than four windless days at a
... L~::7-':" '3 u; 20 kw··h: per moD.t..'-t (55 Aop-hr per day). This system will provide minimum
[Qr a small house or camp al:!d can be used to power a wide variety of 12-Volt
,. 2.~t'J~oti·:e Or camping equipment. as ''iell as small 115 V.A.C. appliances, on an
bter!!!lHent basis. This system includes: ...
\\'L,'iCHARGER Modal 1222 H, 12 Volt, 200 Watt Windplant (made in U.S.A.); 10 ft.
steel self-supporfug tower; 240 Am9-hr, 12 Volt Mula storage battery set with connect-
i::l~ straps and built-in charge indicators and a 3CO Watt, 12 Volt D.C. to 115 Volt A.C.,
... 60 cycle, solid state inverter and a 15 Amp battery charger for use with a 115 V.A.C.
• b3.ck-up ganerat01" or power lines.
Shlp:f\bg weight 4751h5. F.O.B. BangorSBOO.OO ..
S\v-12 1200 WATT, 12 VOLT D.C./500 WAIT, 115 VOLT A.Co SYSTE:i."¥j •
"III!
•
...
III
....
III ..
AlIt
~TRO
WV1:iG
A small, but complete, wind electric system which will provide about 75 kilowatt-hours
of electricity p~ month in an area with 10 mph average winds. Sufficient power for three
or four 75-watt bulbs plus stereo, T.V., etc .• and small appliances (up to 500 watts}_
Batteries supply storag9 far more than three days without .vind. The output of the Ela~
"'I-indplant is limited in strong winds by the automatically feathering prOpElUaf blad~, but
the price quoted here does not include the automatic cut-off control for over..flO mph winds
o~ fat fully charged batteries. This mU8t be done manually. (Automatic controls available
at extra cost.)
ELEKTRO MODEL 'WV15G 1200 WAIT, 12 VOLT, BRUSHLESS \'J1NOPLANT with
manual handbra'ke. control; 30 foot, ROHN guyed tower and tower top; 600 Ampohr ••
12 volt Surrette Marine/lndustrial storage battery set; 500 watt-Terada solid stata D.c.:
to A,C. inverter and 20 Amp battery charger (for usa ,vith bac'k up ;;enaratoc). ~.
F.O.U. BOdtOQ 53535.00
~i.V·2A 2CCO WATT. 115 VOLT D.C.l3GO WAIT, 115 VOLT A.C. 'SYSTEl'f1
.. Tni"; is the system which is described L1. the booklet Electric Power from the Wind and
l •• h::\ ~{,','i",rs the SLla!: Wind office. The AU3tralian ~;en"r3tor i;:; sinlple and rugged amI is
ich::! ·:;;,,,,e nieiw.l!ill maintenance is desiLed. The system is compbtely automatic and
"s':;~;:':'; fr~., unatter,ded operation in aZ'i~n" ... rne,·a wield speed:'! seldoo Bxcced ~!O m}:.h. Tills
t!Ii':;']:':! cc:': ta exped=:d to produce ove£' 1CO kw-hr of power per mouth with 10 mph
~~,;",',l';J ·.v~cls Rnd is suitable for oparntin,:{ 115 volt lights. Clpplimces. shop tools and a
CJ~G':;:;'[~ water' pttm!). (S~e bQoklet). Battery st,Jrage i>l suffic:ant for foul" windless days. A
--:".;'[;,:r el'Jctronic in';ei:'t~r can be added to this ~ystem if more A.C. capacity is desired.
• Dl,r::';LtTE 2CCO WATI, 115 VOLT. BRUSHJ...ESS 'A'1NDPLAl"-'T complete with Diotran
-ml ~oi7latic control panel; 40' foot, 3-1eg, self-supporting. Dunlite tower and top; 120
ArJ.p-h':J'H·, 115 volt Mule storage battery set with connecting straps and charge"
L1Cic:utors; 3CO watt. D,C. to A.C. SLH'P~US rotai"y inverter for stereo, T.V., and small
req'.:.!ring A.C.
F.O.B. Boston 55735.00
.wcu WATT. 115 VOLT D.GJ15Ci} 'WAIT. 115 VOLT AG. SYSTB'tl
.. T~:,; systam wilt provide well o';er 2eo kw-hr. or pow~r per month in average 10 mph winds and, >'lith the lars~~ el~ctronic
::,;'!;t~\. c:m be used to power a st'1r;dard rcfri3~ratoc and domestic water plLrnp as wen as other A.C. appE,:l1ces :11::1 fiho[:
~(;::;1,;, Tit:,; :;ystem. can GO! ~;et up a<; an "U-A,C. 53fVic:J with ali power run throu~b the iuvo:!rtr!r or as on l\'C.~U,C. "ystm'1 ',lillie!':
',',d iO'T:',l!:>:! th"l cilpacilj' of the :;y~t,J:,l so,~e·.vhat Ly w;ing D.C. rErnctly for Jightin~. etc. The g'.vis:,; E1ektro ,,·ril1rlpli1.1t l!~ed h
"~;i.; ~;»:,:tr;,:l i~~ t;H~ !··r cUrf!r.t-drl';f! t!: jt r:l~!r:;; r::. ~:!~~ \voild; it bn;~ un np~~r lJ~L'< or oil to C(!fHl:~H (lUG i3 St!:-Il~!.r t~,H' trop!"
.'; .. ,~; ,'ii. T;l!~ qU'J~Eld nlsfJ i.l",h,L)'i ,;()''';1P:'''':\'1 :lUtornG\ic ccmtrol;; which :!:low this Syst::fil to run t:n:Jtt::ndo(l h wind" ')'
~ .. ! j ::i) n~t;ll. B:l~tD:'~' !;t()r;'{i;~ is ~uf~ic;"]:1t flL' -~ Yl \vindle~ls days.
1.' ... ' ·.:;;,:r) )I.:o~r;;J ;.";V:::i G :'(>fl \\·/"'1'f. 1 b V(If,T. brt!sU::::,:~ (lirect .. drh~ !:,mu,m!or with Hutumatic c~l!ltrol ('!'It(''·r;!~,f~
~:" .... ,~ '.·t'l~ta:;· r,.,;"l<ltor pa"2~; ~fj io J', E();!:: guyed t'lwr~r and tuwRr top; ::tiO Amp-hr,. Il5 \'ult Surr::ttc! ~tlJr<:::(, h,\tt,~n'
'" ',,';':; ,"1,,-::1.';;,,: ,;::':P': s:rrE.' 'Sd'.e, <JL:~'J!;latic load (l';rca.:d :.;lnrtiog l~C;O w::ttt Novu D.C. to A.C. invel'~'~r,
• f.O,rt UO!'!!!!!'I 598-4).GfJ
6I:/.'lO \VATI. 115 '.'\)LT D.C./3(){}O) WAIT. 115 VOLT A.C .. SYSTE\I
.. ~:..;t::;C1 featu:es L:;;; br~.:;st s;::i'!le wL'ld generator currently in production
• ,_:: -d :-.:c:~ ~"1 :::e world. WiL'1 A. <'~0:aJa capacity of over 5 days and a monthly output of 325
~,'.' .: ;. ::: ; J av~raga v,inc;;, tl.is s:ister:l carl supply adequate power for a refrigerator
,..' _< . ',,<a: ::5 ·,.;,.,ll as other 11~1 ,,::1d 220 volt appliances including shop tools. water pumps,
: ' .:-::.:";-. ~:rGw!.irs and circcl~i~·::;:-s. b good wind areas this system will provide sufficient
; ~ ... ,:' ~ .~ '-: :} :-':tl~t all tho:} electricai l1rleds of a modem household (excluding cooking and
,-, .':.··.'·0>' ::eil~ng. wrucb can he dop..a with gas}. The components in this large wind electric
111, •• :~ .. ~ ':"0.:: be varied to meet your specific requirements. A typical system might include: ,. .. L£!-..~iRO MODEL V ... l:G50G. 6000 WAIT. 115 VOLT -'Wlt,\l'DPLANT v.ith automatic
ccr:trols (auto-reset type) and voltage regulator suitabie for unattended operation in
,,,·L:.'l.ds up to 120 mph; ~o ft .• ROHN guyed tower with tower top. 360 Amp-hr., 115 volt
Mule storage battery set with connecting straps and charge indicators; 3000 watt
Soleq sina wave automatic starting D.C. to A.C. inverter
,...5 hlp pia g weight 6000 lbs .. F.O.B. Boston $13.820.00
• LARGER SYSTEM:S
If more output is Deeded than the largest single unit can provide. multiple units can be installed in paralltll Hnd connected to
.£1 co-mmQ!1 set of batteries. Various arrangements are possible to yield 115 and/or 230 volts A.C. or D.C.
• We can also supply special voltage-controlled switching equipment which can be used v.ith any of the systams listed in t.]1js
f(.~der to perform a variety of functions. These voltage-sansing relays can be used for automatic starting of the back-up
g'.!'Jgrator when batterias become excessively discharged. for automatic activation of larger loads (such as heate .. s) during high
'"" ,.'ii::d periods. and for automatic switching to power lines during prolonged low-wind periods. if desired. Prices foi' tills
.f~(pipi:1a!11 vary with application. so contact us for a quote .
..
.. After care~y e~a1uatint; these systems and selecting the one that ~ best suit your parocularneeds. Ke sugg\:lst you take
some windspeed readings a.t the site you may choose to erect your tower. This is an important step as you may find tbtl "e are other
locations on your property where the windspeed is greater over a longer period. It is an obvious conclusion. but one worth
"'repaatiag. t.-r,st L~a more· wind. you have the more power you will get from your generato •. To make an .. ..fIr
.a::curate determination of the winds at yOCl" particular site, you might be inte"''t:>ted in one or mOre of tb.e;~.
foiJowing instruments: 'II/. I'
. , .. DWYER \VTh;'D METE..q i ·/1.1
:-;, • A surprisingly accurate hand-held wind metel."with to;,,'o ranges j'i/l_if! .§
.,,; -0 to 10 mph and 3 10 60 mph. lnd.i.spensa ble for judging li!;..1 ~."
windspaeds. Sent first class mail with case. S7.50postpaid /j(l~/' '.~)' l:f '. I'I! :;: ~$
IIItn..r.'ER \VThI'D SPEED IND1CATOR [MAR..l( D) TAYLOR W1ND SPEED ThlDlCATOR 4L/ -
\VaH mmmted indicator panel with roof-top pick-up, built-in A beautiful. self-contained precision instrtu-nent wiL'l 2 scales
.... ~v81. 8pd 50 feet of tubi.ng. Accurate. handsomely styled, Rrd ()"25 <'nd ()"100 in a '11abJgany case. Sold ",ith '50 ft. or leae-in
,.Ju;'eble. Directions included. 530.95 postpaid wira and in~trnctions. Vcry accurate especially at ti.ce luwer
rang3S. 595.00 postpaid .
... Il'IDr'll'IDUAl. COMPON"El'ITS CAN ALSO BE PURCHASED SEPARAT.eLY
"'b:!encan \VlNCHARGER Model 1222 H,
2C'l '.V?'ct, 12 Volt D.C. brush-type wind
"'II;2t'l"ltJ.tO!' & patented air-b;:-ake gover-
... l;,r. manufactured by DYNA TECH-
l'; .. ):..O~.;Y of Sioux City. Iowa. Includes a
_, .. ~!t;-Gl urenel with A::nmate.r and a 10 ft.
! ':e1 t()'.'·/ "1' $445.00 .
~.; 0:' 3n VoH Morl"'!l:; S495.00
..... L'S7?ALIAN \-vTh'U?LI\!\.'T
"his 2(.]') wa~t, brus"hless windplant is
.;,·aibb~" in 2,*. 32/35, ";8 and 115 volts
D.C. It na:; meta!. 3-hloded. full
"'EOCi t:::.:ri:l;: pr[)IJ?llers \·:hk h mqasure 13
1. i!1 {!i:;;;..,;~ter", "rh~ Ul1~t in21l~cl~s a
.. rJif):~;!n" sol;d-state VO!!fli:rl regulatoi'
rj r.v:ltr<:l panel with !~rr.jJ Dnu V"lt
<Lo. ...... 'r~~.~-: .... '.·,:L~lci;)la::j~~; al-;n C;F!ii.!' v:ith it
'< ;, .. o;:~::.,; hp.:J.u Had Co
',.:. __ -~ -,) c, ~!~"i ~Jl:! f0i" U~';! v:ith tha 3·lr.;~
c_"'_:-::':,<:::.! t··.·..;,,:-s di:!'~crib"d on the
t}:,::: ~~ y=t:_.: .. ;. mt!r"l1f~!:':7Urt;d by the
,;:"~ i:>ctrir-:~,i Co. of Adelaicb.
WIND GEl\l'£RATORS FROM SWITZERLAND
Brushles~, alternator-type wind-drlven generators manufactured by £1E:<rRO.
G.m.b.H. of Winterthur. Switzl'!rland. All models feature tropic encased genttrator
units.
Model
No.
Raled
Output
In Watts
Monthly
Outputf
KW-HRS
Voltages
Available
115V
.-
IE}\'
115V
Propeller
Diam.
H .
9 ft. lOin.
91t. lOin .
-----. __ ..
14 ft. r: • ,} In.
... ~.-
11 5 in.
2
3
3
Price
F.O.B_
Bo-stotl
2:::)0"
3'~:JQ""
?C)~XJ'"
5~L)a~·
-C9-
..
..
..
..
... : '''-_E ~:2:::'b: .. " :tr!.d Ligh!i~-; 't.?t:~:i·~:J C'J=~ L:'. Cle3f',
.':.': -:'.-.:;~':' J.::d l!:lve pE;J~-~:i~ ~:::-~:";~ ~:::"~~J.:OtS
._. -=~: ':.~~:.::;? They are Si::':~2: i.:! =~~~dr3:1Ce
_.. =-~'~s~;-;.:·:;~un to th;) _"'.·.:s:::"-.:.ia:1. Cc:lh.:rr
;:.. -~c "::. :::;;;_,a batteries i'.ra w::~l s'J.~t::!d to loclg
,.... -. :~:: :-:-~LL:aness and ara da:I~:el!" f2cornmend-
~ .. '-. ~ ~ ';"5c2.<11 applicatior!.::'. Life a:\:p ::.:ta::'.cy is 10
~. _, ~3_· -:-more depending on typ~ 0: use. Sinien
: ~ ,'.: :,; ~o-rated guarantee. ShiiJped dr)'-charged
\'::~~1 acid packed separat-31y. bte.-battery
cv~Jle(;ting cables supplied \'oith all units.
Catalo:JU1I Amp-Hour Suita!>!;> fOl'
VohaS" Dncription r\um:'~r RatiDs \!31! ~ilh:
SWS..;oIEH·l 12 Volt ZZQ A-H 112v. UI'Jt \\l:-:CHAHGEH· (nocab!esJ
S 1.,,·S-40i EH-2, 12 Volt ·HO h-H
2 Cht. uc..its 0 1 POWERED·
(no cables) D'i':UGHT
S\\:'$-401 EH-J. 12 Volt 660 h-B 3 12V. un":t3 ELE"ffiO
(no cab!e3) \'lVG 15 G
S \ ':'i-;0i;E.H-<:, Volt 885 A-H ~ 1211. Unit3 12 ("0 cable3j
19 avo units 2or"o Watt S',':5..;o: 0-19 115 Volt 120 A-H (with 18 cable3) DUNLITE
1 9 (i·I. units ELEKTRO 5W<;"";2>19 115 Volt 250 A-H (wi:h If) eab193} \'IV(; 35 G
[ . SWS-::ll-JS
386\0'. ur...it:i E.f.:('ffiO --
115 Volt 450 A-H (with 35 "abl~) \'I\'C. 51) G
.ROHN GUl:"ED TOWERS
l'rice
Y.O.ll.
Tiltoo.~.lL
S 1:>0.00
200.00
4J5.CO
57;;.00
850.00
1">1'1.00
t------
33~3.00
Cqtal<>:fU " :\"'p-HoW' SU~i ... ,:;. -.. : :;::r;:;-
1"u.:nbe.r VO:t~3" Rati,,~ De:tcnptiDf'
\! ;~"-";:'" i.O.::. ;~
SW~I-4 12 \'"it 2ID A-H 4 6v units \·:l:"i:;;:.~~.:' __ . .:.....~ : 2JU.()o)
(\ 2--" ·'-·f.·, '7': :~j' --SW~[-!1 12 \'olt 460 A·H 8 6v. uaitJ IJ::.l(: .. ;. .;:;0.00
SW}.I-12 12 Volt no A-H 12 6v_ units
Er..-:~i·~:~:·:,·· -~ ---
\\j--';C " '1 ; (<10.00
S\\I"M-19 11~ Volt 120 A-H 19 6v_ U[~t3
fJ' .:;, ~:=--.-.----". ~."", __ . _,m""'1
SW~I-J8 115 Volt 2l tO A-H 36 6v. units . E;.~:~·:-:;O
\\,o-:."C .: .. r: : -t~.OO
-~---,.... ....... -----i-.
SWM-57 115 \'olt 360 A-H 57 6v. units EI.":<T::;O ;
W':C 50 G !'~lO·Cl)i
SURRbTfE Series,400 Marina/Industrial Ba.taries:
Extra heavy duty. deep cycle battarie:s .vith
"Rezistox" plates. 10 year life unda, no,'::nal u3ag~
-5 year guarantee. Although siuila.· iu cutsidet
appearance to large automobile ba~ta'ii::lS. thes~
batteries will far outlast standard (;()mr!!.~rcial
units because of their heavier constmctioll_ (The
lead plates in these batteries aret twice as thick as
those in the average auto battery of the ::;ame
Amp-haUL rating_ Rubber and glass separators are
used throughout.) Shipped fully charged. wit..'l acid.
direct from the manwactur9r in Tilton. N.H. All
115 volt sets include inter-battery conn~ctorS.
DUNLITE TOWERS
tI) , .
,",:"'.'
CCllvanized steel tower assemblies built to our snecifica-
.:~.~s br R:J(-0; of Peoria. Iili.::.c:3. These are ~pecially
.. -t:tL:cJ~~~ a~c. guved radio a:;J.~eiJ.L.2. tc','.;ers. \\.·hica are
~ ('fill ':;:;'2:~ yL'3-a-s59:::jl6d ill 12~5tb.5 of 10 faet. Prices
... ;:;>':";::: <,_li h2.!"':Ts~re. guy wires. g;:o~.d anchor:>. and
.cJ',\~f (I;) d2s;;;ned to fit ali Elektro wi;1dplant:; \VV15G
;:~'1U 18rier wj'thout additional addP~er.
T
o
'N
:E
These are hot-dip galvanized. self-supportin3. 3-1eg steel
towers manufactured by DUNLITE of Austr-alia for use
with wind-driven ?enera tors. (Cover photo of ElklCtIi<: (:;:~
Power from the Wmd shows a Dunlite tower.) Inc!'Jde~ ~7
all hardware necessary for assembly '}s W8U as ground
anchM irons for mounting in 'C.oncrete bdg,~. Suitable for
...
30 foot tower .............. 5500.00
40 foot tower ..... . . . . . . . .. 650.00
50 fool tower _ . . .. . . . . . . . .. 77a.CD
60 ~oot tower .............. S7S.CO
70 fG.ot ,ower .............. Si·S.CU
SO fool tower .............. 121)0. GO
R
S
all windplants listed in this folder. Elekrro generators
require tower top adapter listed below_
10 foot stub tower .. _ . __ .•.. 5225.00
40 foot tower __ ... , _ . _ ... _. 910:00
50 foot tower. _ .. _ . _ ...... 1nO.00
(i0 foot to'.ver . _ . ___ ........ 1450.00
ELE<TRO TO"VVER-TOP ADAPTERS: 3-1eg: 5170.00 or 4-1eg: 5195.CO
D.C. TO A.C. INVERTERS
w.-") \'o1t I),C. to 115 \'alt A.C. 60 cycle
.''':'''!(~~J ;::lectrcmic inverters and ba Itcry ... .
115 Volt D.C. to 115 Volt A.C. 60 cycle
Electronic solid-state inverters. over 80%
cfficier.t:
Full-wave hric3e RECTIFIER
ASSEi\mL Y. This cornoact
L~;:~rb!.!l"3:
:::cn watt medel. 1;) nmp charge;" 5125.00
50-1 \·;;:tt moder. 20 amp charger Sl2iIJ.C{)
NOVA 15(',0 Watt. sine-wave. Rutomatic
load-demand starting const,mt fre-
CI u<;ncy. constant voltaga. 115 V.A.C.
output. S22W.CO
unit buHt by Sclar \\'i...d
plugs into ynUi' 115 volt
back-up g;WCtrator and cop--
verts the A.C. po· ... ~r to D.c:
for chargi:1g 115 '-,llt battery '!.:; Vu't D.C. to 115 voa A.C, 60 cycl~,
~'~,i · •• ;'.I} rj~.ary sif'~a-'.\-H\!f! in-:er!ers, EOn/o
'.~. '. " "'J' ',. .. f;"J '''i;~n TT10c.t,..!1
~.~':!; ·::.;tt rnndr~l
S 7'j.C!J
~~r)l.:~Cl :lCY)O Watt. sine-w:1v~. ~lut..:)
m;llie IrJ<l(l-dl,!lTI:1nd stadi;lc:. fiCCO \Yalt
m!Jlrll<lt,\I 'i m'(~:1oad CUll:lcity. 115 Hnd
7,:HI V.A.e:. output. used b)' Ai.IT[1t\K itl
sets. Rat~cl flll-up t,1 ?j i!mp
charg~ l':)~~!, C()i":t;')ll:~L! \". ;th
fIIninet8r. ph:~~ ~1,Hl \·;it'ir.::, .. ,-)
sch~m(1tic. '. .
'. --.. 1-:.1:. tri~ill'" F.O.B.il:lll,:";' 523.r~)
----.--.-------------~---
""
;:j:' .'~j.):: !MTiE\L\TiU~; (;X '·::l:--:U PCi;X~::{ or:[):~R TH:': WI~D F.;\;i·:~~GY llfI3UOC,R:WHY compiled by \\'1 i':1')",\;, ():'{KS
53.2:i postpaid from SOLAH \"1:."fD .. -C10-
I
() ..... .....
1
1--
I ! ',~_ j' {;"i"},! C:\ L I (;,\.",Ci'l'Y
l~:\ li::t; Tnb10s of Hoppes Hydf"o-Elcc{dc Units
,
I ! \Vn tt'r In
·r Ht'.;d Srylc /Cuu/c Fe..:! E tI: C'rIU C.\!. IT 0:") , I!\ I'cct II'orMI"ut.-C .... PAClTr In 1'«',
. .. --
StylI!
\Val<'r In
Cubl" l~rQt
l'"r MltlUte
\ • 8 HL. IC~ Il . 01' 160 H K:LO\V,\TT 'I ~j 4;2 • 9 01' 600 ()j~ I • 10 III 10 t~ 590 5L'\) \VATrS I • 11 1· H II SlS 11 F I.! lJ I.R 490 ! ..
Il
r
~70 , .. 8 II. I~O 14 l' 4JS , , • 'I HI. In IS P 4()1l I ,-10 I'll. IlS 1£ P 'oS I II HI. 1.(0 S KII. .. O\'VATTS ., p HO 12
81
121 IS i' . l30 I 13 118 OR \ .. I~ llll I Y..ILO\V,\TI I 14 110 20 'IL liS 1 I:> lOS 5000 WATTS 21 lOO 0R 1(, H 100 21 HI. 190 I I} HJ 9~ 11 HI.. 1U 1000 W/\TT.'l 16 ~) '1D-14 HI. 215
! 1<) IH lS HI.. 160 _ 20 r-80
21 F 16 _
11 f. 7i ! J) f' 12 ! 1\ F }O , H F (,6 I i • " -I r )30 , 'I 01'
I
800 9 E lOll I 12 01' HO , • .. 10 2~O
I
IJ LR 6110
I .. II HS j.f I.fl. I 630
! , 12 HI. US I ~ l.R I 59!) • 13 HI. 215 I I, JI'
!
S50
:2 Y..~LO\·/ATI$ I·, HI. 1')0
1)1 l<ILOWATIS i " JP SIS D i'lL. 176 16 j~ 490 ,... ... 1(, I Ill .. 166 I !'l 4S0 ~ ., 11 lIl. 156 cn
I 20 JP 450
200C WAITS I(J I HJ IS) 21 1~ 430 I') I Hi I·ld 7500 WATTS n 410 20 \-1 140 , n j~ 100 21 I HJ In I 2~ 3'J0 22
l.
l'iJ 127 I 2S 380 n 111 120
H 116 ! 2, F 110
1 0 LR 470 12 OT\ ~30
! 'J J~ -ilS l) 01' , 900
IIJ 310 1-1 O'I:j 840 ! 11 ji> 3~O I ~ OT no Il lIO
10 KILOWATTS I ,I> I.R 71 S
13 lr 280 17 LR 610
Ii 160 18 LR 650 j l<lLOWATTS I} l50 on. 19 1~ 610
16 I 11.. HO .0 ~81l CR 11 HI. lIS 10000 \V A TIS 21 HO In HI. 210 22 S2S J~:-J \V/\'7!3 f'1 HI.. i 200 13 500
20 HI. 190 H j~ .?O 2! HI.: IIlO n ·HIO
!
22 HI.. 11U I 2) HI.. 165 ! 24 1-1) 162 J 2S B m
Head in feet referred to above is illustrated on page 7. Fli-16.
Styic rc.!~rll to vnrlOU5 sizes of Hoppes Hydro-Electric Units. See dimer.slons on p::tec 7.
Q-":::!".tity or \'{::Iter the cnit will u,e at full rated eapacity Is listed above in cubic r~t per mInute.
t'.hi!> m:.r~ed ":ith • f:.:rni~hcd in direct current only.
Str,nbr:;i r:::ti!1:;' for :lltcrn:ltinrr current units is 3 '~hase GO e}:de ::l.nd either 120 or 210 or 480 volts.
T;,,;.~ rh;:';:~ii l!yd~;;·E!rctri:; Units Olay :lIsa be (I!toishl:d ror 50 cycle r.urrent,
Wh,,!: yo',! writ~ '.:s, pjC:\5~ l;ive full pa.rticulars on your clc:clric:l1 requircmentu •
" .. ------•. --.---_~ ______ I'5._· _______ ·_·-_~ ___ _
lI'la.u
Dimensions of various sizes of' Hoppes
Hydro-Electric Units are indicated in the
above diagram :lnd listed in the chart.
Minimum distance from heaq water level
to center of inlet pipe is given. Diameter
of inlet pipe to connect with the unit is
giv~n_ This inlet pipe should be short as
?ossible. _
In additIOn to the example!! of complete
Hoppes Hydro~Elcctric Units illustrated and
specified herein. many other styles of turbines
may be furnished. see page 11. Our Engineer-
ing Department will gladly assist and advise
you regarding any details relating to the in-
stallation of Hoppes Hydro-Electric Units or
Leffel turbines. For over three quarters of a
century we hnve specialized in the designing
I.i and constructing of hydraulic turbines oC all
i kinds. With this background of experience ! we are prepn.red to furnish designs to meet
II your requirements.
, ---------
GENlmAL DJMENSION.
Style t;ih:c~
-------------I 72' ]2' ]2' !I-" 81' __ _ __ • __ 1 .. ___ -__
_J ___ ~(,6· I~~
K n,' 'lv.' i' .. ' 4' ------------I.. 60' ('0' 60' 72' Jl' -----------M e' s' 8' 9' 10' ------------N 30' 30' 30' 36' 42'
o nw ~ 1SW7SWii4W,
IMPORTANT-Please Note:
In order that you may realize the most from this service, please give u;
possible information concerning the hydraulic features of your power site
INFORMATION SHEST on page 9 as a guido.
HEAD OF WATER: This is the verticnl cIistnncc (ir. {('cn fr~r~: :'('~dw
surfncc down to tail water surface. Tnc term ;'h~':~j" i3 gr.H;r:1 :::,i" ;;'t::::r' on Fig. 16 (above). -. . '. .
QUANTITY OF WATER AVAILABLE: Sce page 8 (or illustrations
measuring tho flow of streams. If possible give niinimum nnd tn'crngt.' str
flow in terms of cubic feet per minute.
...
·11
...
• Head
8' to 18'
19' to 25'
... 8' to 12'
• 13' to 20'
21 ' to 25'
...
12' to 15 '
16' to 18'
19' to 25'
...
•
..
..
' .
.. ..
...
..
•• ..
..
...
j-n F
HOPPES HYDIDEI..:EX:TRIC UNIT
Prices as listed on 1-19-74
Style
Capacity Size
lkw lL
1 k\v F
5 k-w or
5kw JP
5kw HI.
10 kw or
10 kw LR
10 kw JP
Delivery -4 to 5 months
Price F .O.B. Factory
'Weight Springfield, Ohio
3,000 lbs. $ 3,600.00
2,500 lbs. 3,300.00
7,000 lbs. 9,000.00
4,500 lbs. 5,500.00
4,000 lbs. 4,800.00
10,000 lbs. 9,900.00
6,000 lbs. 7,500.00
5,000 lbs. 5,900.00
James Leffel & Co •
Springfield, Ohio 45501
-C12-
..
..
' .
..
..
•
•
' .
..
• ..
..
..
'. -
APPENDIX - D
Line
Calculations
Single Wire Ground-Return Circuit
...
..
.. ..
..
...
..
...
..
•
..
..
.-..
..
... ..
.. ..
....
-
VOLTAGE DROP FACTORS
Voltage drop for known source -end and
l:!ggi!1g power factor conditions may be
calculated from the following equation:
Voltage drop := I(r cos B + x sln8 )
Where: I = Line current in amperes
6 =. Phase angle between voltage
and current
r ::: Resistance of line in ohms
x ::: Reactance of line in ohms
It can be seen from the vector diagra.m
tha.t this approximate equation is sufficiently
accurate for the magnitude and phase angle
of the vectors re suIting from normal sys-
tem designs •
. ....J'RC01')(S're I ERROR L ~C1'1JAL ORO
I· SOURCE vtiLTAGE --II"
i ~ ,~O ~".. =v
j
' Line current may be expressed in terms
of kilowatts and voltage as follows:
I = KiN
(KV) (COS9 ) (P)
Where: KW :;:: Circuit load in kilowatts
KV :: System nominal phase-to-
ground voltage in kilovolts
P '" Number of phases
Voltage drop referred to a llO-volt base
(VDI is expressed as follows:
REA BULLETIN 45-1
Page 9
VD -~~.':.c:1 Volt':.l{e Drop (120)
-System Nominal Voltage
Using the above equati.ons for line current
and voltage drop referred to a 120-volt
base (VD), the equation for voltage drop
becomes:
VD ::: (KW)Lr cos", + X sin,; )( 120)
. (KV)2(cose )(P)(1000)
The equation for (VD) expressed in per
mile units is written as follows:
VD _ (KWHR cosB + X sina )(5)(120)
-(KV)2(cose )(P){ 1 000)
Where: R ;;: Resistance in ohms per phase
per mile of line
X ::: Reactance in ohms per phase
per mile of line
5 =. Line distance in miles
Letting the following factor be designated
the voltage drop factor (VDF),
(R COS8 + X sine )( 120)
(KV)2(cOS8 HP)
the equation for (VD) becomes:
VD _ (KW)(5)(VDF)
-1000
Table I gives the per phase per mile
resistance and reactance of distribution
lines construct~d in ac:co::dCi.nce with REA
standard specifications.
... Table II gives the Voltage Drop Factors
(VDF) for calculating voltage drops of
distribution lines constructed in accordance
with REA standard specifications.
VOLTAC1E DtZoP FACTORS ~ SIN&LE WIR.e GrwIJND RE1\l.JtN Cfl2.C..ulTS:
A.M,pii·1\1 -H\€-on'nrt.lk""~s cle.scr-ibed (;\bol/e .......... SW&t<. c.;yc.ui+s -H"e l'.)/+age dror
.fad.::>r {,w -the . .$W&~ It"He bec-t:nt'lc-s!
VDF ::. (Rq CoS~ +X, si,\-,\-&-)(IZO) ) wherz
(L<V)2 (CDSB-)
GlIallc.t/>Y ~ -r 0.095+ I ')""~'" S /1">1 ;Ie
x~ :::. SIV~R.. \"AI.I.ch(f r~~\td :H~((' 1 !) II Ill:; /)';lL.
KI/ ::;. lnl.:' , .. , (-t\\C\ wll"1c i~ I<i\<,/",)I-i;-:
-e ::: (Jh\lj"i" ,t~:~k b .. !-\.I .... ·("1\ V9 !+o'a;> d C(,.·;.)i~d'
'.')'\ (ldd;h~}\ 0'/\\ ~';.\VGIZ. c.i~",~t-w;1l \1(Mrt.. v.;I·\a',F' Jf·';I'~ n."l:rk .. 1 -t:.) 'H'./ ~\':J~~\«
C I~'irodf we'S i':-;'\" "':.';;' o.-t .r\v. .. '\'Y\': -\€rm''1ltL\s. &i1tl:t" -H,i f 1/914"t~,· .1l''''l' ; ~> ":0+ I"vbt". t
+,:,1 1;'1\'-'-:""l~t'" '.\-i.s t1c.c-fjtl-~tl .fu .... 1>'1 ().~\ E.\~choJ~ v'al .. h{!< vrop Fad-or .. as toll"ws:
VD &::: (Re )(rz~ I wk('((" f\:. =-f:, 1'.\ E.kch...J, ":'::.11;.
(k'V) 1. (c.Q~-e) frJY b.~ i~r~~'Il;l!;'. '\1\>\
"'\'_"J
...
•
..
•
..
.. .. ..
... ..
•
...
REA BULLETIN 45-1
Page 10
TABLE I
RESISTAHCE AND REACTANCE
OF
REA DISTRIBUTION LINES
OHMS PER PHASE PER M'LE OF LINE CONOUCTOI'I
$IZE coppeR
EQUI" "LENT
THREE,PHASE
R )( x R
4/0
3/0 '2lh.aMCJ.\ --
2/0 4{.) Ac.s~ --.64 1. 22 .64 1.22
.278
.350
.441
.556
.702
.885
1/0
1
2
4
.76
.94
L 12
1.64
1. 27 .76 1. 27
1. 37 .94 1.37
1. 45 1.12 1.45
1. 47 1.64 1.47
6 i:Jta --_ 2.47 1. 46 2.47 1. 46 ---
1. 41
2.24
3.51
4.93
7.46
8 3.72 1. 54 3. 12 1. 54
~A 5. 15 1.61 5.15 1. 61
11 7.62 1. 71 7.62 1. 71
NOTES:
Colc .. lado"" ,of silllle-phas", resistance end reactance we." made in accordance with the _thod giu .. " in
REA Bulktill 61·2 and for t,\e redI£Ced nerural conductCl' sizes give1t. in REA Bullelin No. 61-4.
Sin,l.-pfws" resisronces cnd rea.clatlCeS Me o.$$u",,& sufficiently <>CCMat .. for coZculations o/"V"-pho.se
li~ t)o~ drop .
TIw",,,-p"as .. resist .. ,..,e" c.nd r .. c.;:~ar.ce .. c.re to"en from the Electrical TrollS",is"'o" and Distribution Refer·
.ellCe BooTe (4t,\ Edition). Tob!.e 11 -A. pcge SO. &: Tabk VI, pa .. .e 54. a Westinghouse pu/,Ucatiol'l.
CONDUCTOR
TABLE \I
VOLTAGE DROP FACTORS
Or
REA DISTRIBUTION LfHE!
VOLT
x
.633
. I
.653 -~ .45 1.;-1
.712 -. -.. s+ --,.bl
.728
.742
: ~~~ I
.806 - -1.,:4-5' --
.353
.996
.968
.. S1Z£' COPPER: "INCLE,PHASE
.. .. ..
....
It QU 1'/ ALeNT /:,.'1..... __ 7_.2;...;._._,_._02_K_" __ '_4_.4_K_"_ 7.2 KV 7.012 K" 14.4 KV 7.Z KV 7.6Z XV
oJ. .452 .414 .113 4/0
3/0
·2/0
1/0
2.86 --2.55 --.715 -.-
..... ..:. . 514 --. 460 ---: 128 --" DD -• 'J.'!o Z. ' ~ I
1.43--1. 27 --.357 -.':"': '-.606 --.541 :-~151-' .164-.254 .o~,
3. 18 2.84 . 795 1.59 1.42 .397 .701 .626 .176
""1 3.72 3.32 .930 1. 86 1. 66 .465 ,819.731. 2G5
2 4.22 3.77 1. 95 2.11 1. 88 .525 .966.86;:. 2,n
"·4 5.45 4.87 1.36 2.72 2.43 .680 1. 38 1. 23 .345
3.68 -3.28 --.920 -'-2.03 - -1. 81 ~ -.50; --1.'88 -.(,15 -.714-
5. 15 4.61 L 29 3.03 2.71 .757 I -6 1~t\\~7.36--6.57 --1.84
8 10.39. 23 2.58
6.BO 6.10 1.70 4.14 3.70 1.03 I
9.80 B.75 2.45 6.12 5.46 1. )")
9}1 13.6 12.2 3.40
11 19.6 17.5 4.90
:Iorr.s: swG-R..
Volta.~" droi' foc:ors are calr.alcled /(Yt" 99 ~rc:~nl pOther factor. Gp..o .... "'p
R.~Sis..
01. .....
~1..Ec..""NU>t: VO~Ar,.E-.:D£Q.., fAC1',)i.$
V D : (KW){S) (VDP)
loon
= VolCfl!(c drop on a nO·"nlt base.
'G.;Ic.\.t
5
10
V \) Fe (q"t, r.F.)'--__
14,{ leV. Z~ k.... 40 \<'V
1.'Z.a~
0.430
1'2.960
Odt..-l
o.S:,.~
, • c." 1
•
..
...
..
II
II
""
iii
...
...
....
• ..
..
...
•
..
SINGLE-WIRE GROUND-RE'IURl.~
TRAN~SSION LINE
J. R. FA'ION
FAIRBANKS, AIASKA
APRIL, 1974
"
.. ..
... ..
...
..
•
-
...
...
l/1li
Length 100 miles
Corrluctor*
266.8 MOM 26/7 ACSR
Resistance ••• 0.350~mi.
Diameter ••••• 0.642 in.
GMR •••••••••• 0.0217 ft.
Average
Height
Frequency
30 feet
60 Hz
4/0 -6/1 ACSR
Resistance •.• 0.441~mi.
Diameter ••••• 0.563 in.
GMR •••••••••• 0.01584 ft.
Ground Electrooe Resistance: R ohms each end
7#8 Al1.ll'1'CJWeld
Resistance ••• 2.35~mi •
Diameter .•••• 0.385 in.
GMR •••••••••. 0.0116 ft •
Earth Resistivity: 1000 ohm rreters (dry earth)
For the line only. Series Impedance (Zg)
Zg = rc + 0.00158 f + jO.004657f 1eg10 2160 ~
Q-1R
rc = resistance of conductor per mile
f = frequence in H~
P = earth resisti Vl. ty in ol:'nn-:rIeters
GMR = gecrcetric mean radius of oonductor
Equivalent depth of return current
De
Zg
For 266.8 M
= 2160 * ft; for p == 1000, De = 8818
== rc + 0.0954 + jO.27942 (leg10 ~) = r c+0.0954 + jXg
G1R
For 266.8 MQ1 ACSR, per mile
Zg = 0.350 + 0.0954 + jO.27942 (leg10 8818) = 0.45 + j1.57
0.0217
For 4/0 ACSR, per mile
Zg = 0.441 + 0.0954 + jO.27942 (leg10 8818) == 0.54 + j1.61
0.01584
For 7#8 Alurroweld
Zg = 2.35 + 0.0954 + jO.27942 (leg10 8818) == 2.45 + j1.64
0.0116
-D4-
...
.. ..
.. ..
'"
•
..
.. ..
-
..
....
..
-
Earth Resistivity
Sea Water
Swamp • • • • • •
Dry Earth •.
Slate ••
Sandstone
p (ohm-Meters)
.01 -1.0
10 -100
1000
107
10 8
Inductive Reactance (Xg) of Single Wire Ground Return Circuit
Xg == 0.004657 f log10 (2160 If) = 0.27942 (log10 De) ohms/mile
GMR Gr4R
COnductor
2.66.8 M:M,
26/7 •••••.
4/0 -6/1. •.
7#8 Alwld •••
266.8 trOl,
26/7 •....•
4/0 -6/1. ••
7#8 Alw1d .••
266.8 MCM,
26/7 ••••.•
4/0 -6/1. •.
7#8 Alw1d .••
266.8 Iv1Qv1,
26/7 ••.••.
4/0 -6/1. ••
7#8 Alwald ••
p
0.1
.1
1
10
27.8
88
278
881
XgJt./mi1e
0.869
0.905
0.944
1.008
1.046
1.084
1.148
1.185
1.224
1.288
1.319
1.364
p De
100 2780
1000 8818
107 881,800
2.78 x 10 6
Xg A/mile
1.427
1.464
1.503
1.568
1.607
1.643
2.12
2.17
2.20
2.26
2.30
2.34
-D5-
..
...
•
..
...
-
-
• ..
•
•
...
Shunt Capacitive Reactance (X ) of Single Wire Ground Return Circuit c
Xc = x'a + 1/3 x' e negohm ndles
For 30-foot height above ground:
X X -Ohms
Conductor x' a x' e Mego~/!vli.le 100 ndlgs 50 miles
266.8 !vDI,
26/7 ••••.•• 0.1074
4/0 -6/1 ACSR 0.1113
7#8 Alwld ••••• 0.1226
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.2287
0.2326
0.2439
2287
2326
2439
A, B, C, and 0 Constants -Single Wire Ground Return Circuit
Pi-line representation -100 miles
------~~ ~~--~-------1 R + .00158f X ~
4574
4652
4878
Y = Yl=Y 2 Yl = 1:. (100 mile) (lOOgmile) Y2 = 1
X ---X (50 mile)
(50 ~e) L __________________ l ___ ~
A = 1 + YZ, B = Z, C = Yl + Y2 + Yl Y2 Z, 0 = A
To canplete the Nebwork, the ground electrooe resistance at each tenn:inal must be
added: (~= ground electrcx'ie resistance in ohms)
R. tv.
CD @
A,B,e,n
(see alxJve)
=
" iA
@
A = 1 0
These 4 terminal netw:>rks were
adderl \1in tandem -Q) +@ then
(@+@)t-@
-06-
..
• l1li
..
• l1li
...
1l1li
..
..
..
•
...
.. ..
... ..
-
..
' .. ..
..
...
Single-Wire Ground-Return Circuit
100 Miles
Conductor -206,800 CM ASCR
4/0 -7/1 ACSR
7#8 AlurtDWeld
Average
Height 30 feet
Frequency 60 Hz
Earth
Resistivity 1000 ohm meters.
Vs = A Vr + B Ir
Is=CVr+DIr
CDNS'mNI'S FOR CAICUIATIONS
100-Mile ~-Line
Ground Electrode
Resistance-OHMS
(Each End) Conductor A B
266.8 .M:M, 26/7 0.966 1:..58 163 Ll4
0 4/0 -6/1 ACSR 0.966 \:.§8 170 l1!.5
7#8 Alwld. 0.968 @.98 295 Q1.8
266.8 tt01., 26/7 0.966 \:..61 163 \11.4
1 4/0 -6/7 ACSR 0.966 \.:..71 170.3 \1Q.9
7#8 Alwld. 0.968lJ..0 296.8 ~.6
266.8 M:M, 26/7 0.966 k..83 169.5@.7
10 4/0 -6/1 ACSR 0.966 03 176.9 ~.6
7#8 Alwld. 0.969 t;b 2 311.5 ~.O
266.8 M:M, 26/7 0.967 @:1 288.5 \H.4
100 4/0 -6.1 ACSR
7#8 Alwld .
C
0.000429~. 2
0.000419 \.89.. 7
0.000403 18.8.5
0.000429 ~0.2
0.000419 lB9. 7
o .000403 \.B8. 5
0.000429 1$1.2
0.000419@. 7
0.000403 laB. 5
0.000429 \2,9.2
D
0.966 628
0.966 ~8
0.968 M8
0.966 l:21
0.966 bll
0.968 ~O
0.966 ~3
0.066 \....23
0.969 \1:2
0.967 @:1
..
'.
, .
...
.. ..
..
• ..
..
... ..
..
• ,-
..
..
.. ..
..
..
APPENDIX -E
Physical Design Data
•
..
...
...
• ..
...
• ..
• .. ..
•
..
... ..
,.
... ...
..
6ASI( D.:.rTA ';.
c h"",<1.l'ICi?s e';i"~t'"{'d
liESC ~.:,;:...~ 251</. 4o~II •.
A1~l\; ,-(ml ~~ te.})'
A'CeIi. P~, Ollly /1.:33'
'-1 -4 "# ..;, YIIL ,~If"'" .vale\. ..
A!~'m;)\;l"'\ \,,\),7 l\u:ula.k~1 ~
pule> SLlpf<J'i,---511e:{{a)( 3.134-2t!i+.
;3,,\\1 IOnS1-I~ ~ a;).34~
W,';'d 011 S1rudlA'~:
(f:~ltl:Y' 'r"", G'\.r ~&ub ... "3!')
F",,-{',;?it'".: _'
::;. J: I-t (d,+2dz.) ,2
wh£v., !
:"'1 . ~J. r / F:: WI:", , .. , 'iti~f' t-t. j
Ii '" h ... ,]!,\-~~ fl1li al»vt'.~ f
cl. '" dl~l'I'" (1t)1",a11;'t-.
dJ.=.;t.;I'II' (It)"" ......
r;oY' ,\, Ti. "'" sPAj
6"O.D.,I( 3fr..:tbove
c:»dw .. ob .. )( 1.£0"
.,... r (' • :::: 4·Tt. ~l'IIV· ... d
:: 'a.2$'"Q'at
"lB. S -Ii. hi:.
~~ _4Dkv.
3 5
2..1 3'
AtSR. ~
(~:>::'..rl:.\ '+01" YI,lttl. : ~ ..!&. .J!L
·j)i .m", i')1 ch~ .3'fa • S'c..3 • :sas
Vay\-. \.o,d, ~~, :iff .. 1-+5".m .141.
Vert. !+Y.\c( (N& Ibtvy) ·7.,4-.9SZ. • ~m,
WI;l~ 1 "'0 l><1'~ I bu.rt .. 'l/H • +2:l.. .2.S9
Iz<o"'i\~~1 ~a'A
400' ;,'l.f~ •• 8,4' --1.,,<'
800'.~ --. , -8.3
"'~t,,1 tVI~,f b~:
400' ~ .. -IZO~ Ibqit
Uo • ~ J~ 1!7 ~ .:s.~.... ------.. 3
Po.JH"n,., wt. ZSb.·~ 33::'
V -.itwi""i Wt.
. 2Sk:.v ---80S'#.
40 kv ---139#.
W rI';A L.:.,..,(
'0-9 -----51 tJ,.t '2:11
Allll1lmu'/fl TLl~-'2.1 Hcat·n'
; . _______ ~. __ ~~----____ --______ -L~~~~~----------------~~~---------
C:A\..c.ULal~D OVl'!:.R\V\tt\ MaN' '=N\'s:
TI1::e A\"~weld .sW(1~. 300 ft, ~Pt'f.'(1. 30'-9
(W;-rld) (.5\Yl.<ct. .... ,.,.~.lNt.) (c..~h.d .... ~ti.)
?rl= (231.1(21) -('75).>< 12..11\-(zrOx!ZoI1\;= -Z47b'#. -~ ,SXZ"1 I ,
1*.g AI ... Jtwv-..zld ~ '¢ , 2-wlre: J 800 ft. S ~1'(l)l)30~9 * < M_(23 IX"Z..')_ (,,71" I'Z. n) _(2 10 x. 12.1~_ +J' 13''#: < ;: "23' x zS' 5)«' 1.84 210.x ,.e' -t(;)
'ls,c ",!-j
1#8 A\IH1\9~Qld J I ¢ , 2-w;r~, ~OO +~. Span, 30~9
< iY1=(n3)("\_(G.-'~;'(\"Z . .'":)_ ('51 :>( '?tI".\=. -34Z.'#-<: II.. IT? l(2SJ ;, J( 1.31" IS1)(, ••• " ... /.
'"18xZ1
3¢, 4-W. 4/.:; ACSR ,liD NEl.rr:, 400 +I. Spall
* ~ M~=(3~1~~~~~_~'~S"!('ll'I1)_ ($SI.XI411) -= +57"/'1
/<Zo..,rzs Sx1,f;4. ~""'.'i!l4-::x;
181(2.7
* 1h""..;/'!' c~"1).f'7u.\'tlt1:n\s" o.~ unS+o~le dYla ~'1I.4~.,e _\'::,-
(
...
•
...
•
...
..
...
..
..
..
"'II
.. ,
ow
-..
...
ALTERNATE DESIGNS
for
A-FRAME, SPRUCE POLE, GRAVITY STRUCTURE
Poles and Post Insulators ~
Aluminum Hairpin and
Suspension Insulators
Poles and post insulators will require about 4-foot longer
poles to provide the same general configuration of phase
conductors with relation to ground as the Aluminum hairpin .
This extra 4 feet of length is added to the bottom of the
pole and will add about 20 % to the weight. The longer
poles may require ranging farther into the spruce forests
for suitable poles. It is estimated that each structure
would weigh about 120 pounds more. At typical costs for poles
a structure may cost about 20 dollars more. The post insul-
ator for 25 KV may cost about 20 dollars less than the sus-
pension units but at 40 KV may cost about the same. The Al-
uminum hairpin may cost 1 or 2 dollars/pound so that the net
cost differences are not great. It is believed that the
arrangement using the hairpin will be easier and faster to
ieliver and handle. The all-wood structure would allow more
of the total line cost to be shared locally if spruce is used.
-E2-
..
..
•
•
... ..
-
'.-
...
-
FIGURE - F
CONSTRUCTION COST DATA
...
..
• -
•
•
...
•
•
•
..
,.
..
One Wire, A-Frame Construction
Construction Technique:
It is believed practicable to construct this type of line
about as follows:
An engineer (supervisor) with a crew of local men with
snowmachines, chain saws, portable auger (small auger capable of
operation by two men for drilling small diameter holes in permo-'
frost) small tools, sleds, etc. proceeds in this manner:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Advance group runs a centerline, clears a narrow
track by falling and trimming a limited amount .
(Similar to survey slash)
Part of the crew with auger is establishing the
first anchor position and lays out conductor for
first mile and establishes the next anchor point
and tensions the conductor (on the ground) to
approximate stringing tension using dynamometer.
After conductor tension has been established,
engineer selects structure locations and crew
assemblies structure, connects to conductor
(on ground) installs vibration damper and raises
structure to vertical position while attendant at
anchor position with dynamometer maintains tension
according to engineer's instruction. (Crew uses
pike poles or similar technique to raise structure.)
Clearing crew continues cleanup of right-of-way,
cut danger trees, etc.
Some of the trees cut may be suitable for use on
the line and could then be peeled out and used as
p~acticable. Butt treatment only by ~aste or
equivalent using a plastic bag at end of pole for
temporary protection of treatment.
Engineer directs the installation of anchors as
required for angles and further dead-ending.
It is probable that a helicopter could increase
the speed of construction sufficiently to pay its
cost and provide emergency backup .
.",
...
..
..
.,. ..
•
<II
ONE WIRE MIN. LINE
Estimated Construction Costs
BOO-Foot Spans 7#B-One Wire
Say, 7 structures per mile
(14), 30 ft. poles @ $2.00/ft •
rill
PER MILE ESTIMATE
Material Labor
Man
days
(del. Kuskokwim) $ 1,690
7#8 5280 ft. @ $200/1,000 ft.
(del. Kuskokwim)
(4) storm guys (4 @ 60 ft., $200/1000)
(2) anchors (2 @ $50/ea)
(42) insulators (initial 6-6" bells
for 25 kv)
(7) AI-Arch (5" dia. x 3-1/3 Ibs/ft.)
@ $1.00 per pound
(7) Vibration dampers per mile @ 18.00
l.fisc. Hardware, (lag screws, straps,
etc. )
Say, 10-man crew can finish 4
structures/day
$
1,056
48
100
252
350
126
175
3, 787/Mile
2-1/2 man days per structure x 7
say, $160/md 17.5 $2,800
5 snowmachines (1.25 sm day/struct.)
@ $30/day
Fuel -@ 10 gal/day/machine @$1.00
Misc. subsistence, maintenance, etc.
$20/man day
R/Way Clearing -average 37%, 1954'
per mile of line @ $400/mft.
Supervision, Engr., Etc.
$300/day plus expense @ $SO/day
@ .57 mile/day, say
Grounding Grids
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
'rotal:
Plus material:
Est. 20, 20 ft. deep rods
about-llOO' wire -say:
interconnected with
$400 for rods
200 for wire
60 for clamps
$660, say, 300
Labor -drive with "Barco", say 1 day of six
man crew
Say, $1,000
Say, $2,000/ground
1 ground/ten miles
8,467
200/mile
8,667/mile x 1.16, Say:
263
10
210
$3,283
782
$4,065
615
$4,680-
3,.7 87
$8,467
$10,000/
mile
-f'
..
..
•
.. ..
-
•
...
... ..
• ..
-
...
RIVER CROSSINGS
Estimated Construction Costs
ONE WIRE -Say 2000 ft. 65' max. sag with 1/2" ice
40' max. sag @ 60°F final
Design for water clearance @ 60°F of 50 ft. (?)
Need 90 Ft. elevation on each side.
Say 20 ft. by river bank
Use 90 ft. pole set 11 feet deep (no guys required)
Deadend at next structure
~. ____ l_------~~ __
-/ -~--:--.-
/'
" '", --------
2 -90ft. Class 2 @ $750 ea. material
2 "Standard" A-Frame Structure @ $250
each material
Extra insulation, vibration dampers,
etc •
3,000' wire @ $200/1000
2 anchors, heavy, @ $100 each
Labor -set up gin pole, rigging
Dig hole, send stringing line
Have gravel for backfill
Across river, etc.
·6 man crew, I-week, 42 mandays
Supervisor
Equip. rental, etc.
Say, $15,000
Material
$ 1,500
1,000
200 .
600
200
$ 3,500
"-" "
6,.720
2,500
1,000
$10,220
-F3-
••
1-
-
...
• -
-
...
•• ..
..
-
•
--
A-Frame with 2-high-strength wires, long spans
Estimated Construction Costs
This construction using 2 wires would require reducing spans
to about 600 to avoid uplift on one leg, or to place each
wire on an insulator outboard of the structure on opposite
sides.
If spans are shortened, there are about 800/600 = 1.33 times as
'many structures per mile, plus the neutral, grounds, etc.
One-wire material [(3787-l056}xl.33] +1056 ••
Add 1 7#8 Neut .............................. .
Double the storm structure
because of vertical loading •.••••••.••..
Double the storm guys (extra'
conductor) .•.•...•.•••...•..•.•.••.•••••
Add another set of vibration
dampers ........................................................ ..
Add neutral hdwe ............................................ ..
Add ground rods, etc ..••.•••....•.•.••••
One-Wire Labor ..................... ·4 .......................... ..
Add neutral labor •.••.•••..••••••.••.•.•
Supervision, add 1 day per mile
to one wire 615 and 350 •.•...•.••••••••.
TOTAL:
4,688/mile
1,056
350
148
126
140
60
$6,568
4,065
1,140
965
$6,170
12,738
Multiply x 1.16
Say,
Substations --2750 kva @ 50.00
14,776
$15,000/mile
$117,500
River Crossings (Same as 2-wire crossing) --$ 29,000
-F4···
..
...
CONVENTIONAL, SINGLE PHASE
ONE WIRE PLUS NEUTRAL --....,;,.-=-....--
Estimated Construction Costs
_ Assume 400 ft. spans vs #4 ACSR and #4 neut.
..
•
...
...
..
Use A-Frame technique with one 1/0, then add neutral on one
side after line is up .
This would require -say, 14 structures per mile •
28--30 ft. poles @ $2/ft ••.•.•.•••....
5280' --1-4 7/1 ACSR} $51/1000' .•••..•
5280' --1-4 7/1 ACSR}
84 --Insulators •.•.••..•••.••..••.••••
14 --AI. Arch ...................................... ..
4 --Ground rod and leads .••...•.•••.••
2 --Anchors} 4 --Guys) Story guy •.•••.•••..•••.•.
Misc. Hdwe .................................................. ..
14-Neutra1 Hdwe @.10.00 ••.•.•..•...•..•
Labor --
Say 10-man crew can finish 4 struct/day
w/O neut. (similar to one wire)
Plus 1 crew day add neutral drive rods,
etc ...................................................................... ..
R/way Clearing average 37%, 1954'/mile
@ $ 4 0 O/IJI ............................................................ ..
Supervision 4.5 man-days/mile @$350 ••••
Add about 16%, Say
River Crossings
Material
$ 3,360
539
504
700
60
148
350
140
$ 5,801
Cost for a river crossing would be double that
for the one-wire line minus a slight overhead
reduction of say, $1000
---------Est. (2 x l5,000) -1000
Substations --2750 kva @ $50.00
Labor
$ 4,065
1,140
782
1,575
7,562
5,801
$ 13,363
$ 16,000/
mile
$29,000 ea.
$137,500
..
,.
..
1-
I
1-
..
..
..
CONVENTIONAL 3~-4Wire Line
Estimated Construction Costs
Assume 400 ft. spa~s, use i4ACSR and i4ACSR Neutral
This line will require 35 ft. class 5 poles, with gravel
backfill to accommodate the permafrost, typical REA Spec .
for 25 kv systems.
This type of construction would require equipment for off-
the-road construction in muskeg (winter only) and snow.
Probably require some cat work for construction trails .
These requirements would also need a knowledgeable contractor
for best results (although he might employ some local
labor -unions permitting).
On this basis the costs for lines located along the Kuskokwim
as shown may be compared with construction in other areas by
using a multiplier of at least 1.25. Right-of-way clearing
is assumed less costly along the Kuskokwim .
Recent estimates for the Matanuska Valley show:
l~, 1/0 ACSR @ $24,500/mile (Sheep Mtn.) 24.9 kv .
3~, 1/0 ACSR @ $27,200/mile Est. New Line MEA 24.9 kv.
contractors charge $40.52/man hour where per diem is
required.
(Incl. $30/day subsistence)
Say $30,000/mile (smaller wire size than above lines)
SUBSTATIONS -2750 KVA @ 502 ------$137,500
River Crossings for 3~-4 wire line would be about 4 times
the One Wire Line except some O'H'D' might be reduced, such
as equipment rental, etc. Say 4 x one wire minus $2000
(4x15000)-2000 = $58,000 each
-P6-