HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Energy Reconnaissance of Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay, and Togiak 1981•
•
•
•
•
•
•
VIL-N
005
,
ALASKA pmJ~R AUTHORITY
LI BRARY COpy
PLEASE DO NOT R010VE
Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and Grayling
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
A Report
by
Northern Technical Services
and
Van Gulik and Associates
Anchorage, Alaska
February, 1981
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
February 9, 1981
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
750 WEST 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 100 • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
(907) 2764302
Please find herein the results of our energy reconnaissance
study of four Alaska villages: Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon
Bay and Togiak.
We have enjoyed completing this work and will look forward
to continued opportunities to service the Alaska Power
Authority.
Very truly yours,
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
R. W. Huck
Senior Associate
RWH/pxr
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community
Energy Reconnaissance
of
Goodnews Bay, Grayling
Scammon Bay, and Togiak
February, 1981
A
Report to
The Alaska Power Authority
by
Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
,.
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary and Recommendations · . . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 Existing Conditions
A. Demographic and Economic · . . . . . . . . . .
B. Energy Balance . . . . . · . . . · . .
C. Existing Power and Heating Facilities • · .
D. Summary of Existing Conditions · . . . . . . .
4.0 Energy Requirements Forecasts
A. Economic Activity and Capital Projects · · · ·
B. Population Forecast . · · · · · • · .. . · · · ·
C. End Use Forecast . . · · · · · • · · · · · · ·
D. Energy and Peak Load Forecasts • · · · · · · ·
5.0 Resource and Technology Assessment
A. Energy Resource Assessment · · · · · · · · · ·
B. Survey of Technologies · · · · • · · · · · · ·
C. Appropriate Village Technologies · · · · ·
6.0 Energy Plans
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.0 Energy Plan Evaluations
A.
B.
C.
Economic Evaluation. · .
Environmental Evaluation •
Technical Evaluation • • • •
· . . . . . . . .
· . . · . .
· . . · .
8.0 Recommendations
A. Goodnews Bay . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Grayling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
1.1
. 2.1
3.1
3.6
3.21
3.27
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.29
5.43
6.1
7.1
7.8
7.21
8.1
8.2
..
C. Scammon Bay •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
. . . . . . . . .
D. Togiak . . . .
. . . 8.3
8.4
Selected Bibliography. • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 8.5
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Community Meetings
Data on Existing Conditions and Energy Balance
Energy Forecasting Procedure and Calculations
Technology Profiles
Energy Plan Costs and Benefits
Detailed Descriptions of the Recommended Plans
Grayling Well Logs
Specific Responses to Review Comments
ii
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Summary Statements
1. Diesel and heating oil were tound to supply nearly all
• energy consumed by the tour reconnaissance communities.
The only exception was Grayling where approximately 15%
of residential space heating need was fulfilled by oil
with the balance of space heating needs being met by
• wood.
2. In all of the communities significant amounts of heat are
lost due to: (1) combustion inefficiency, (2) poor in-
• sulation and excessive air infiltration and (3) wasted
heat from diesel generation.
•
•
3. Forecasts show an inevitable increase in energy
consumption in each village due to population growth.
Additional construction unrelated to population size is
anticipated and will impact energy consumption and
demand.
4. Energy resource baseline data is generally weak at each
village. The consequence of this weakness is to cloud
the accuracy of technological or economic predictions.
• However, the estimates relative to waste heat availa-
bility appear to be reasonably reliable.
I
5. Various technologies were evaluated for each village in
• order to determine relative suitability for given site
conditions. This evaluation in turn served as basis for
the plans which were developed and analyzed in detail
herein. •
1.1
6. A base case plan, or existing system evaluation, was
performed for each village relative to electric power and
space heating systems. Alternative plans developed were
designed to reduce the dependency on petroleum fuels.
These plans were based on the availability of local
resources and proven reliability of existing technology
for near term application.
7. The components of each alternative plan were assigned
costs and evaluated on the basis of economic integrity,
in concert with technological and environmental vari-
ables.
General Recommendations
1. In general, it is recommended that the supporting energy
and resource data base be strengthened.
2. Demonstration of emerging technologies may not be appro-
priate to more remote sites; however, new technologies do
need to be evaluated in order to evaluate their accepta-
bility under Alaskan conditions.
3. The most significant potential near term benefits could
.be realized by implementing energy conservation measures
and installing waste heat capture systems.
4. Economic analyses of suggested alternatives should be
conducted on a cash flow basis. Realistic escalations of
costs for inflation and incorporation ot current and
projected interest rates will be essential to the
accuracy of economic predictions.
1.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Village Specific Recommendations
Goodnews Bay
1. The potential tor hydropower at Goodnews exists, however,
because of its small size (approximately 100 KW), dis-
tance from the village and probably high construction
cost, it was not considered a potential alternative.
2. Waste heat capture from the AVEC generator is the best
• alternative for reducing village energy consumption
because of the close proximity of the BlA school to the
generating facility. Sale of energy to the school would
reduce electrical power costs and would benefit all the
• villagers.
•
•
•
•
•
3. Wind energy could reduce the fuel cost associated with
power generation. Because of the low average energy out-
put of a wind turbine and the need for diesel generation
backup, there is no economic benefit from this alterna-
tive.
4. The following steps should be taken:
a. Develop a preliminary plan in conjunction with AVEC
to provide waste heat capture feasibility.
b. Develop more deta~led and realistic cost analysis tor
a wind system.
Grayling
1. Grayling Creek appears to have no reasonable hydropower
and only very limited topographic relief. These elements
combine to result in high installation costs for hydro-
power facilities. Hydro was not, therefore, considered a
reasonable alternative energy source for Grayling.
1.3
2. The waste heat capture alternative offers the best method
for reducing energy costs in Grayling because of the
proximity of the BIA and high school and the city water
pump house.
3. A program should be undertaken to determine the extent
and quality ot the potential coal deposits in the Gray-
ling area. Coal development CQuld have economic impact
greater than the immediate use for home heating and power
generation in the village.
4. The following steps should be taken:
a. Develop preliminary plans in conjunction with AVEC to
develop a teasible design tor a waste heat capture
system.
b. Initiate a coal exploration program to determine the
extent, quality and depth of coal deposits near
Grayling.
Scammon Bay
1. The present location of the AVEC power plant is not
suitable tor development ot waste heat recovery trom the
generator.
2. Hydro power can produce most of the electrical energy for
the village for six months of the year and a portion of
it for four months. The apparent economic integrity of
hydro power warrants its further development.
3. Major changes to the electrical distribution and genera-
tion system could make heat recovery feasible at the
school.
4. A more detailed plan for the total development of power
generation should be implemented.
1.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Togiak
1. Waste heat capture is teasible when the heat is delivered
to the school.
2. The main stream of the Quigmy River has an estimated low
• month mean flow of 85 cfs which could generate at least
300 KW, sufficient to supply the village demand and con-
sumption through the year 2001.
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Sufficient flow may exist to provide power to the new
tish processing plant and to Kachemak Seafood Co.
4. The following steps are recommended:
a. Develop detailed data on the flows of the Quigmy main
stream.
b. Perform a preliminary environmental impact feasibili-
ty study for power generation on the Quigmy River.
c. Perform further detailed evaluation of waste heat
capture and wind power generation.
1.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc. were
jOintly contracted by the Alaska Power Authority in September ot
1980 to perform energy reconnaissance studies of the communities
of Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay and Togiak. All of these
communities are located in Southwest Alaska (see maps, Figures
2.1 and 2.2), and all are highly dependent upon delivery ot
petroleum distillates from outside the communities to meet their
energy needs. These villages are located at relatively great
distances from the primary sources of fuel, SUbjecting them to a
significant degree of vulnerability to tuel supply interruptions
in addition to very high heating fuel and electricity costs.
High energy costs present great hardships in the rural areas of
the state and in the study communities in particular. In these
communities, the local "economy" is actually comprised ot a com-
bination subsistence and cash economies where energy payments
consume a disproportionate amount of the limited cash income.
Subsistence activities often must take priority over income gen-
erating activities, and there is generally limited opportunity
for local employment to generate the cash income for fuel and
electricity payments along with payments tor other necessities.
The topic of rising energy costs in rural Alaska is the subject
of a recent report produced by the University of Alaska and
authored by Nebesky, Goldsmith and Dignan entitled "The Impact
ot Rising Energy Costs in Alaska." This study analyzed the in-
crease in proportions of household income spent on electricity
and heating oil between-1974 and 1978 and projected the increase
in this proportion over the next ten years. The authors found
that the average proportion of household income diverted to
energy in a native rural household was 28.8% in 1978 and may be
expected to be as high as 43.2% by 1988. Their projection
assumed a "business-as-usual n scenario but did recognize the
potential savings which could result from government programs
such as state and federal fuel assistance and, more importantly,
2.1
tv .
• •
GRAYLlNG· ____ ... ~· ---"'~il"
SCAMMON BAY ___ ....:~
GOODNEWS BAY _____ ... -
-..• •
•
..
TOGIAK ----......-
*':.. .
"
• •
Figure 2.1
LOCATION MAP
• • • • • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1< \J 5
GRAYLING
50
BAY
o
Figure 2.2
VICINITY MAP
weatherization.
All four communities in this study have been provided with elec-
tricity by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. since
the early 1970's. The residents of these communities have come
to depend increasingly upon electricity to meet a variety of end
use requirements, while the cost of the electricity has escala-
ted to the present rate of about 4l~/kwh for residential service
with monthly electric bills of $100 to a residential customer
not uncommon. For a variety of reasons, including remoteness
and the local availability of generator operators, electric
rates in the AVEC communities are greater than rates in some
other Alaskan communities. Table 1.1 presents 1980 rates for
some rural Alaskan communities.
Table 1.1. Costs of Diesel Generated Electricity in a Random
Sampling of Rural Alaskan Communities (Ref. Rural
CAP)
Community Population Cost/Kwh*
Tok 735 $0.196
Yakutat 500 $0.225
Akiachak 371 $0.240
Aleknagik 227 $0.228
Port Lions 265 $0.353
Sand Point 829 $0.194
St. Paul 689 $0.140
Dillingham 1025 $0.228
Egegik 148 $0.351
Klawok 323 $0.303
Platinum 65 $0.200
AVEC Villages Cooperative $0.397
*NOTE: Rates are for May, 1980; for first 500
hours residential consumption.
The primary objective of the reconnaissance studies is to iden-
tify existing and future power production needs of the communi-
ties and to investigate potential alternative sources of energy
and new technologies to meet these needs in the least costly
manner.
Realistically, the question to be addressed is not purely one of
energy economics but is a social question as well. That is,
2.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
costly services are being supplied to rural native Alaskans who
have little discretionary income and, at present, very limited
opportunity for local income generating employment. To address
all of the implications of this situation is beyond the scope of
an energy reconnaissance investigation.
Where possible this study has attempted to identity potential
opportuni ties fo'r local employment which would result from
energy projects or increased employment which could occur as a
result of lowered energy costs. Energy alternatives for the
communities have been assessed on the basis of the following
criteria:
-economic comparison with present power costs
-technical teasibility
-social benefits to be derived
-energy resource availability, quality and magnitude
-environmental impacts
-community preferences
This report follows the Power Authority's recommended outline
format, allowing information for these communities to be com-
pared with that of communities under investigation by other
contractors under this program. The required components of an
energy reconnaissance as defined by the Power Authority have
been incorporated into this study as the primary tasks. Each of
the community energy reconnaissance investigations included the
following basic tasks:
o An on-site reconnaissance visit -These visits allowed
the study team to investigate many aspects of the com-
munity's present energy supply and demand, to assess
potential alternatives, to learn ot the community's
plans, preterences and ideas tor use ot energy
resources. Each community visit included a town meeting
plus additional conversations with many of the residents
2.5
in addition to facility and resource reconnaissance
investigations.
o A complete energy balance compilation and analysis -The
energy balance data not only provides necessary infor-
mation for system planning and economic analysis but
also provides an overview of existing energy require-
ments and sources.
o A forecast of electrical energy and peak load require-
ments through the year 2001 -The forecasts are basic
tools for matching energy resources and tuture community
needs and for preliminary economic analysis.
o Profiles of those technologies with the potential to
replace or enhance diesel generation or to otherwise
decrease the proportion of individual income spent on
energy were prepared and are included as an appendix to
this report.
o Preterred energy options estimated costs and recommenda-
tions for energy alternatives are made. Investigations
prerequisite to further consideration of the energy
options are also suggested herein.
Site-specific energy alternatives were considered for the four
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
communities of this investigation. Those which appeared to have •
the potential to ameliorate the disproportionate energy cost
burden of the residents of these communities have been further
examined with respect to the previously mentioned criteria. The
results of these examinations are presented in this report along •
with recommendations to pursue specific alternatives at each
community. The concluSions, as presented, are based upon:
o The on-site reconnaissance including information provi-
ded by local residents of the villages, visual inspec-
tion, and subjective reactions.
2.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o Limited data on stream tlows, mean wind velocities,
solar incidence and fuel resources at the site or in the
approximate area under consideration.
o
o
State-of-the-art information obtained from experience,
vendor data and reports in the technical and profes-
sional literature.
Preliminary economic analyses using engineering para-
meters, estimated cost information and resource data.
As in any analysis of alternative energy scenarios, it has been
necessary to consider technologies of varying reliability and
availability. Some of the energy technologies considered for
the four villages are farther along the commercialization path
than others. Few of the newer technologies have been field
tested in Alaska to the degree desired to minimize investment
risk, but some may warrant further investigation if the poten-
tial benefit which could be derived from them is sufficient •
Since the Power Authority has requested alternatives which can
be implemented in the near future 1n order to meet the serious
and immediate energy needs of rural Alaskans, only those tech-
nologies which are expected to be readily available sometime in
the 20-year term of this analysis have been recommended for
further investigation under this program. Other technologies
may have great potential for these communities, but the status
of their development is such that they can only be considered
long-term solutions. In some instances traditional economic
analysis will not favor a new energy conversion system, but the
long-term reliability of a local or renewable energy resource
has a real value difficult to equate with dollars. The report
addresses these cases, as well. In some of these cases, the
technology must be demonstrated under Alaskan conditions before
an economic analysis can be rigorous. Since the demonstration
value ot an alternative system operating in Alaska is important
not only to those directly benefiting from the energy conversion
2.7
but also to those who will be encouraged to implement similar
alternatives.
Some energy alternatives have been eliminated from further in-
vestigation as part of this reconnaissance for one or more of
the following reasons:
o Resource availability, magnitude, or quality unsuitable
in the vicinity of the village
o Conversion technology considered very high risk (not
sufficiently proven)
o Extraction or conversion technology very expensive for
scale of operation anticipated based on best estimates
ot population and/or industry growth
2.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Demographic and Economic
Goodnews Bay
Goodnews Bay is a native Alaskan community of about 248 people,
located approximately 45 miles west of Togiak and about 115
miles south of Bethel, on Goodnews Bay (see map, Figure 2.2).
Access to Goodnews Bay is possible year round by air from Bethel
or Dillingham. There is scheduled air service for passengers
and mail delivery three times each week. The airstrip is 2,500
feet long and has a gravel surface. Surface transportation is
possible by both sea and land. United Barge Lines and the North
Star III both bring fuel and supplies to Goodnews each summer.
Privately owned fishing boats provide additional summer trans-
poration for the local residents and land transportation to
Goodnews is possible by way of snow machines or dog team during
the winter months.
The Goodnews Bay economy is derived primarily from fishing.
Local employment consists of a few jobs at the BIA school and
state high school, the post office, seasonal cannery work and
commercial fishing. There is a platinum mine about 12 miles
away at Platinum, Alaska, but the mine provides little income
for Goodnews residents. Local women make baskets and dolls
which are sold outside the village, while subsistence hunting
and fishing are important contributors to the average house-
hold's non-cash income. The average income from all sources was
$8,483 in 1977 for a household (averaging 3.4 people). The 1980
census will provide a more recent income figure when it becomes
available, but the 1977 income figure is roughly indicative of
the present level of cash economy.
The population of Goodnews Bay has been relatively stable in
3.1
recent years but has experienced a moderate growth since 1950
when an epidemic killed most of the school aged children in the
village.
Grayling
Grayling is an interior community of approximately 181 people.
The populace is predominantly native (Athabascan Indian) with
the exception of the teachers at the BIA day school and the
state high school. Grayling is located on the west bank of the
Yukon River 20 miles north of Anvik (see map Figure 2.2) and is
accessible by air on a year round basis. The main air hub near-
est the town is Aniak, with 5 weekly round trip flights between
Aniak and Grayling; commercial air transportation from Anchorage
to Aniak is via either Bethel or McGrath. Surface transporta-
tion to Grayling is by river boat in the summer months and by
snowmachine or dog team in the winter.
The village of Grayling was originally located at Holikachuk
(var. Holikachat) on the nearby Innoko River but was moved
beginning in late 1962 for a variety of reasons including:
o frequent flooding of the old village site
o fuel sources (brush and trees) depleted, resulting in
longer distances to be traveled to obtain fuel
o desire to be closer to summer fish camps on the Yukon
o desire to be self-directing (people previously perceived
the postmaster at Holikachuk to have too much control
over them)
o improved hunting and trapping
o improved freight costs
3.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The economy at Grayling relies heavily on subsistence activities
including hunting, trapping, fishing and harvesting of local
timber for heating fuel. Cash income is generated by leaving
the community, mainly in the summer, to work as commercial
fishermen and cannery workers or laborers in other parts of the
state~ through the sale of pelts and local craft items (such as
bead work and baskets), jobs at the local schools, and a
native-owned village coop store, and public assistance pay-
ments.
The average annual per capita income from all sources was esti-
mated to be $1,825 in 1970 and $1;956 in 1977. There has been
minimal economic development at Grayling between 1977 and 1981,
and the annual income is not expected to have increased signifi-
cantly in that period (to be confirmed when detailed results of
the 1980 census are made available). There is presently an
average of 3.8 people per household, making annual household
income approximately $7,432. The village population has been
quite stable since 1890 and has shown a slight growth trend from
1940 to 1980 (see Population Forecast, Section 4)
Scammon Bay
Scammon Bay is an Eskimo community of about 232 people located
in the Yukon Delta on the east coast of Alaska approximately 140
miles northwest of Bethel. The community lies between the
Askinuk Mountains, to the south, and the Kun River, to the
north (see map Figure 2.2)
The community is accessible by air year round and has a 2,800
foot gravel airstrip and a nearby seaplane base. There are six
scheduled round trips from Bethel to Scammon each week. United
Barge Lines, Black Navigation, and the Northstar III all have
serviced the community in the summer months and bring in the
annual fuel and supply shipments. Privately owned fishing boats
3.3
allow the Scammon residents to travel to fishing areas on the
Black River and the Yukon. Snow machines are the primary mode
of winter surface transportation.
The village economy is based upon commercial fishing and experi-
enced some set-backs in recent years:
The village has a vigorous economy based
on commercial fishing, but the past three
years~ has been unable to generate funds due
to predominate southerly winds that drive the
fish off-shore and away from the. Black
River set net sites. The village's fleet
is not mobile, and cannot easily venture
into the drift fisheries in the south mouth
of the Yukon River due to the size of their
boats. Many families that did not rely on
welfare in the past have now turned to
welfare. No other economic opportunity has
developed in the village to replace income
from fishing. (Ref. H. Sparck, Nunam-
Kitlutsitsti)
Other cash income in the village consists of jobs with the city,
airport maintenance, the stores, the BIA school, and state high
school, plus assistance payments. The average annual household
income (for an average of 4.7 members to a household) in 1977
was $8,855. It is likely that the annual household income to be
reported in the 1980 census figures will reflect the recent
decline in fish catches. Subsistence hunting and fishing are
important to the local economy, as is the cottage industry
consisting of basket making and ivory carving.
The population ot Scammon Bay has shown a steady growth in past
years with a recent increase in growth rate.
Togiak
Togiak is a predominantly native Alaskan community of about 474
people located at the meeting of the Togiak River and Togiak Bay
3.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
within the Bristol Bay Region of the state (see map Figure 2.2).
The town is approximately 70 miles west of Dillingham and 130
miles southeast of Bethel. Year round access to Togiak is pro-
vided by air service out of Dillingham 6 days each week. There
is presently a 2,600 foot gravel airstrip, but a longer airstrip
will be constructed within the next two years. The new airstrip
will not only facilitate shipping of fish from local processors,
but will allow delivery of construction materials and other
goods throughout the year, as opposed to infrequent barge
deliveries. Togiak is serviced by the Northstar III and by
Sorenson Lighterage out of Dillingham. Land transportation to
Togiak is via snow machine during the winter months. Pickup
trucks, automobiles, motorcycles and three~wheelers provide
local transportation.
Togiak has a strong fishing enonomy. Most local employment con-
sists of seasonal jobs with local fish processors-and commercial
fishing. Additionally, there is local full-time employment with
the state operated school, the city, the co-op store. There are
several National Guard reservists in Togiak, as well. Cottage
industry here consists of basketry, and the crafting of dolls,
jewelry and fur products. Subsistence hunting and fishing are
important to the non-cash economy in Togiak. The annual house-
hold income from all sources in 1977 was $9,395. More recent
figures are expected to reflect the continued development of the
fishing industry in the region. (It is suspected that some of
the income from commercial fishing may be spent on payments for
the privately owned fishing boats, thus decreasing the cash
available here for other necessities.) A household in Togiak
averages 3.9 members.
Togiak has experienced a relatively rapid and consistent rate of
population growth since 1940: it is anticipated that the popula-
tion will continue to grow at a similar rate in future years
(see Population Forecast, Section 4).
3.5
B. Energy Balance
For each village studied, data was gathered on the amount of
each form of energy used in the village. A site reconnaissance
was made to determine how the energy was used. An energy
balance was prepared using proven calculation procedures to
determine losses in the conversion of the incoming energy forms
such as oil to electrical energy or to usable heat energy. It
should be noted that availability and accuracy of the fuel
consumption data base was often limited. Detailed records were
•
•
•
virtually nonexistent, and generally only the most recent year's •
data was available. It was possible, however, to extrapolate
within reasonable tolerances based on the data acquired.
Data was obtained on the heating degree daysW from several
sources, and specific heating degree days were determined for
each village. The villages of Togiak, Scammon Bay and Goodnews
Bay experience heating degree days of 11,600, 12,000 and 12,000,
respectively. Heating degree days for Grayling came to 14,000.
Home heating requirements were calculated for a well-insulated
home and for a home with no insulation. The well-insulated home
had R-30 in the ceilings, R-19 in the walls and R-26 in the
floors. Approximately 5% of the wall area was double-glazed
window, and the structure had one air change every three hours.
The non-insulated house is assumed to be standard 2x4 structure
with no insulation in the walls, about 5% window area (single
•
•
•
glazed), and one air change every three hours. The design basis •
temperature for this analysis was -25°F. From the calculations,
a chart was made (Figure 3.1) showing the annual fuel consump-
tion in gallons of oil as a function of the house square foot
area for the well insulated and the non-insulated house at
12,000 and 14,000°F days. This oil consumption does not include
the oil burner conversion efficiency which will vary depending
upon the type of oil burner used.
The base temperature for calculating heating degree days is
65°F.
3.6
•
•
•
• VAN GULIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1400
1200
1000
-Ie, 800 VlI ~I ~I
z .....
z 600 o -I-a... .... -
:5 Vl z o u
-I 400 .....
a
-I
ct
~
z 200 z c::x: r
14000
° F. Da ys -,-J
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ y;12.000
I of Days
/ II
I
/ II
~ / II
f2 I I $ / II
~ I I
:/ II
~. , I $; II
~, I
~/ I
c::l I ~, I
/ II
,
I
14000
200 400 600 800
SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA OF RESIDENCE
NOTE: WELL INSULATED HOUSE: R26 IN FLOOR
R19 IN WALLS
R30 IN CEILING
ONE AIR CHANGE EVERY 3 HOURS.
I
I
I
I
I
* DOES NOT INCLUDE OIL BURNER CONVERSION EFFICIENCY
Figure 3.1
,/ ,
,/ ,
1000 1200
Power generation energy conversion efficiencies were calculated
for each village from actual data. The losses in the system
were determined, and the amount of recoverable energy from the
waste heat was also determined. Diesel engine losses consist of
heat lost in the exhaust gas, in the cooling water jacket, and
from radiation and miscellaneous losses such as the fan and
water pump. It is estimated that about 30% of the heat is lost
in the jacket and that this heat is fully recoverable. Another
30-35% is lost in the exhaust, of which about 65% is recoverable
making 50% recoverable from the system at 100% rated power. As
the percent output of the engine goes down, the losses in the
jacket go up and would tend to increase the percent of recover-
able energy from the system. For purposes of this analysis, an
average of 50% recoverable energy was assumed over the spectrum
of normal diesel operating range.
Goodnews Bay
•
•
•
•
•
The energy input and end use for Goodnews Bay is shown in Table •
\
3.2. The energy balance is shown both graphically and tabulated
in Figure 3.2. The data presented in these tables and charts
are based on 1979 energy consumption levels which is the last
year for which complete data was available for this study. The
major oil consumers in the village are the Alaska Village Elec-
tric Co-op, the residential and small commercial buildings which
use oil primarily for heating, and the BlA school. The BlA
•
school used most of their energy for heating and some energy for •
power generation (primarily to exercise the standby generators
periodically to assure their ability to operate). No estimate
was made on the amount of energy used for this purpose. The
military used a small amount of oil for building heat. •
Propane is used in the village primarily for cooking. Gasoline
is used in the village for snowmobiles, fishing boats and motor
bikes. Some small amount of driftwood is used for home heating, •
• 3.8
• • •
ENERGY
FORM
END
USE
Conversion to Elec-
tricity
Residential and
Small Commercial
(Heat/Domestic)
Municipal and other
public
(non-transportation)
Military
(non-transportation)
Transportation
BIA School
(non-transportation)
NOTES:
• • • • •
-.....
ENERGY INPUT AND END USE FOR GOODNEWS BAY
Numbers in parentheses () are (10 6 Btu)
DIESEL/ GASOLINE/
11 OIL AVGAS PROPANE ELECTRICITY
Gallons Gallons Pounds Kilowatt Hours
30,500 1 5,200 2
(4117.5) (17.8)
30,000 9,000 3 104,500 4
(4050.0) (195.0) (356.7)
1,600 5,500 4
(216.0) (18.8)
2,300 1,800 4
(310.5) (6.1)
14,000
(1750.0)
24,000 108,000 4
(3240.0) (368.6)
• • •
WASTE HEAT
RECOVER-
TOTAL ABLE
10 6 Btu l()6 Btu
3,349.6 3,048.7
2,632.5 1,025.8
186.4 55.9
124.2 37.8
1,296.0 389.5
1 Gross generation from 30,700 gallons fuel oil was 225,000 Kwh for a conversion efficiency of 18.5%
2 Power consumed by the utility for station service (light, fuel pumping, etc.) and system distribution
losses
3 Propane used solely for cooking
4 Net utility electrical sales in 1979 were 219,800 Kwh.
TABLE 3.2
"T\ ....
•
PROPANE
GASOLINE
FUEL OIL
88,400 GAL.
'(11,934.0)
INPUT
(106 BTU)
9,000 LBS. (1950)
RES 10. /COMM.
30,000 GAL.
(4,050.0)
ELECTRICITY
30,500 GAL.
(4,117.5 )
B.I.A. SCHOOL
24,000 GAL.
(3,240.0)
MILITARY ••
CITY SERVICE •
TOTAL (13,819.0)
NOTE: NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 106 BTU'S.
*City Service
Input 1600 gal Heating (129.6)
(216.0)
**Military
Input 2300 gal Heating (186.3)
(310.5)
***Station Service and system losses
• • • •
GOODNEWS BAY
POp: 248 HOUSEHOLDS: 41
11,600 HTG. DEGREE DAYS
DISTRIBUTION
• • •
f.!!Q..~~Lf~£RGY
(106 BTU)
I COOKING (195 ill
TRANSPOfH AT ,',Otj'j
(1.150UI
TOTAL
WASTE
HEAT
WASTE
H[AT
(6881.21 J---~
A RECOVERABtr ... ASH lilAl
(1467.71
•
(ZIO."
(III.')
(2161.4'
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
but the amount was insignificant compared to the amount of oil
used in the village •
Municipal and other public uses include energy for the water
system (formerly Public Health Service).
Goodnews Bay appears to have the lowest energy consumption per
household for home heating. The consumption averages approxi-
mately 670 gallons per household per year, compared to recently
published figures for western Alaska villages which range from
1,000 to 1,500 gallons per year depending on house size and
location. It is difficult to determine the accuracy of the
volumes of fuel delivered to the community, though. (Fuel is
also purchased from Platinum and possibly from other sources and
is not readily quantifiable.) The AVEC generators at Goodnews
had a low energy conversion efficiency of 18.5%. The ratio of
sales of electric power to that generated was the highest of any
village -approximately 917.7% of the energy generated was sold
compared to the average of the remainder of the villages of
about 83%. This variation could be explained if the gross meter
did not measure the energy used for station service, i.e. energy
used for lighting and pump in the generator building.
The total amount of waste heat that can be recovered or reduced
in the village consists of the heat from the diesel generators,
the losses in the home heating combustion process and energy
losses through the village building envelopes.
Grayling
The energy input and end use for Grayling is shown in Table 3.4.
The energy balance is shown graphically and tabulated in Figure
3.3. The data represented in these tables and charts are based
on 1979 energy consumption levels which is the last year for
which complete data are available for this study. The major oil
consumers in the village are the Alaska Village Electric Co-op,
3.11
ENERGY
FORM DIESEL/
END 11 OIL
USE GALLONS
Alaska Village 30,700 1
Electric Cooperative (4144.5)
Residential and 7,100
Small Commercial (958.5)
(Space and water
heat and domestic)
Municipal and other 3,300
public (445.5)
(non-transportation)
Transportation
BIA School 9,700
(non-transportation) (1309.5)
~OTES:
ENERGY INPUT AND END USE FOR GRAYLING
Numbers in parentheses () are (10 6 Btu)
GASOLINE/
AVGAS PROPANE WOOD ELECTRICITY
GALLONS POUNDS CORDS KILOWATT HOURS
40,800 2
(139.3)
15,000 3 330 68,160 6
(325.0) (6600.0) (232.3)
4
46,300 6
(158.0)
40,000 5
(5000)
78,000 6
(266.2)
WASTE
TOTAL
10 6 Btu
3,348.2
4,440.0
178.2
523.8
1 Gross generation from 30,700 gallons was 233,300 Kwh for conversion efficiency of 19.2%
HEAT
RECOVER-
ABLE
10 6 Btu
2,072.2
3,000.0
65.5
196.4
2 Power consumed by the utility tor station service (lights, fuel pumping, etc) and system distribution
losses
3 Propane used solely for cooking
4 See Appendix B for calculation of wood consumption.
5 Consists of 18,000 gallons 100/130 aviation fuel (aircraft), 22,000 gallons 80/87 aviation fuel (snow
machine)
5 Net utility electrical sales in 1979 were 192,500 Kwh.
TABLE 3.4
• • • • • • • • • • •
J
40,000 GAL.
lOPOO.O »~~ ,
',' t"
RESlD./COMM. "
:n:) CHORDS
(6600'
POP: tI' HOUS€HOLDS:40
14,000 ttlG. DlGRE! DAYS,
' . . ,
CONVERSION
•
PISTRIBUTION
t,
\
';:
'.' ~,':.'; ·INO \1St ENERGY",
(106 BTU)
COOKING
(325.0)
TRANSPORTATION
(~OOO.o)
40,8001(WII IIt.JI
7',000 .WII CI ••. 2)
• RICOVERAIiU ......
(5334." .
'. . ,
l' ,,', "f ,(~~;':~~}tf~~r>: ,',
i'"
'"
.)\ ..
! .
".
I .
, i. ,~ "
the BIA school, and the residential and small commercial build-
ings which use oil primarily for heating. Other users include
the pump house, where oil is used for water heating, and the
National Guard (small amount).
Propane is used in the village primarily for cooking. Gasoline
is used tor snowmobiles, fishing boats, and airplanes. The
major portion of the home heating is derived from burning wood
which is locally available either from driftwood on the bank of
the Yukon or from the forest which surrounds the village. This
resource significantly reduces the amount of oil used in the
village for heating. The amount of wood was calculated assuming
that the average home in this region (with 14,000 heating degree
days) would consume approximately 1000 gallons of fuel oil per
year. It was assumed that wood, burned at a combustion effi-
ciency of 50%, makes up the difference of heat input from oil.
Measurements of the actual heat loss through buildings, walls,
windows, and infiltration could not be performed in the course
of the reconnaissance.
The AVEC generators at Grayling had an energy conversion effi-
ciency of 18.9% for gross generation of power. This efficiency
should increase with the addition of the new school. Distribu-
tion losses at Grayling were 17.5%.
The total amount of waste heat that can be recovered in the
village consists of heat from the diesel generators, heat lost
in the home heating combustion process and energy losses through
the village building envelopes. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 50% of the input energy to the diesel engines can be
captured in a waste heat capture process.
Scammon Bay
The input energy and end use for Scammon Bay is shown in Table
3.5. The energy balance is shown both graphically and
3.14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
ENERGY
FORM DIESEL/
END '1 OIL
USE Gallons
Conversion to Elec-31,000 1
tricity (4185.0)
Residential and 34,700
small commercial (4684.5)
space and water
heating
(non-transportation)
Municipal and other 6,000
public (810.0)
(non-transportation)
Military 2,300
(non-transEortation) (310.5)
Transportation 200
\ (27.0)
BlA School 29,000
(non-transportation) (3915.0)
• • • •
ENERGY INPUT AND END USE FOR SCAMMON BAY
Numbers in parentheses () are (10 6 Btu)
GASOLINE/
AVGAS PROPANE ELECTRICITY
Gallons Pounds Kilowatt Hours
67,100 2
(229.0)
10,000 3 107,500 4
(216.7) (366.7)
15,400 4
(52.6)
900 4
(3.1 )
28,000
(3500.0)
78,500 4
(267.9)
• • •
WASTE HEAT
RECOVER-
TOTAL ABLE
10 6 Btu 10 6 Btu
3,265.9 2,092.5
2,831.7 1,270.2
324.0 97.2
124.2 37.3
1,800.9 794.2
IOTES:
Gross generation from 31,000 gallons fuel oil was 269,300 Kwh for a conversion efficiency of 22.0%
Power consumed by the utility for station service (lights, fuel pumping, etc.) and system distribution
losses
Propane is used solely for cooking.
Net utility electrical sales in 1979 were 269,300 Kwh.
TABLE 3.5
tabularly in Figure 3.4. The data presented in these charts are
based on 1979 energy consumption levels which is the last year
for which complete data was available for this study. The major
oil consumers in the village are the Alaska Village Electrical
Co-op, BIA school, the residential and commercial buildings
which use oil for heating, and the new state high school. No
data was available on the new high school, as it had just begun
operations approximately one month prior to the reconnaissance
visit. Both the high school and the BIA school were generating
electric power because the AVEC system could not meet the
demands of both schools. With present capacity, AVEC can only
reliably serve the village and not the two schools. The AVEC
plant is located approximately 2500 feet from either the high
school or the BIA school. This large distance precludes use of
waste capture and distribution as a viable means of reducing
energy consumption in the village.
Other energy users consisted of the city, primarily for building
heat and preheating the water supply system. A National Guard
unit used some small amounts of oil and electrical power.
Propane is used in the village primarily for cooking. Gasoline
is used for snowmobiles and fishing boats. There was no evi-
dence that driftwood was used for home heating.
The energy consumption for home heating on a per household
basis, was approximately 680 gallons per year. This is equiva-
lent to the rate at which energy was consumed in the town of
Goodnews Bay for home heating and is below recently published
consumption figures for small Alaskan villages. In spite of
this apparent low consumption, there is room for improvement in
reduction of energy consumption in the village by means of
conservation measures.
The AVEC generators at Scammon Bay had an energy conversion
efficiency of 22.3%. Station service and distribution losses
3.16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
" ......
0..0
W s:::
"1
l--' (1)
..,J w • ,,,,-
• •
INPUT
(106 BTU)
PROPAtl£ 10,000 ~BS. (2167
GASOLINE 28,000 Gal. (3,~OO)
FUEL OIL 200 Gal. (27.0)
RESIDENTIALI
COMMERCIAL
34,700 Gal.
(4,684.5)
FUEL OIL ELECTRICITY
31,000 Gal. 103,200 GAL.
(13,932.0) (4185.0)
B.I.A. SCHOOL
29,000 Gal.
(3,915.0)
MILITARY .. .
CITY SERVICE
TOTAL (17,648.7)
NOTE: NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10 6 BTU'S.
*City Service
Input 6000 gal Heating (486.0)
(810.0)
**Mi1itary
Input 2300 <Jill Heating (186.3)
(310.5)
• • • •
. SCAMMur~ BAY
.=::....:::..::~--,-.. ---,~,,-,.
POP: 232
12,000 HTG uk .,,,, l l.;/.\ S
~~l!~t ~ '.~ "'~.i
DISTRIBUTION (106 illtl)
__________ ]_-=-~~~~i,,~0~~7L]
Ll b~ t 900 K\'lll (3. 1)
---1 I' HAt.;r-"I< 1 A I, G"
(3!'>270)
(2,34<1.31
(366 11
(<1290)
=~:~~-] •.
):::::::::;::::=:;:::!::= -==:':=---'-"-.:J
TOI:.,
I\A~Tl
HEAT
(1622.3)
,,", t
rtt ..'1.\
... RECOVOld.· ! f "A:;! l .11. T
(3877."
-(4694'
-(234.9'
(3152.8)
•
amounted to approximately 25% of the gross power generated.
There was concern at the time of the reconnaissance visit that
there were problems within the distribution system. This
possibility is supported by both the inability to serve the
larger loads in the village and the apparent high distribution
losses in the system.
Waste heat can be recovered from the diesel generators providing
electrical power to the village, but the location of the gener-
ators relative to the large heat loads such as the schools,
makes the economics of a waste heat capture system appear to be
marginal. Building heating energy requirements can be reduced
by improved insulation in the building walls. One building
observed had no insulation in the ceiling. Improvement in com-
bustion conversion efficiency could also result in reduced oil
consumption.
Togiak
The energy input and end use for Togiak, the largest community
investigated, is shown in Table 3.6. The energy balance is
shown both graphically on Figure 3.5. The data presented in
these tables and charts are based on 1979 energy consumption
levels which is the last year for which complete data was
available for this study. The major oil consumers in the
village are the Alaska Village Electric Co-op, the residential
and commerical buildings, the state school (including both
grammar school and high school levels), and the transportation
sector. The large use of gasoline and diesel for transportation
is credited to the tact that tishing is an important commercial
activity in the village. Local commercial fishing supports
Togiak Fisheries across the bay and Kachemak Seafoods in
Togiak.
Propane and "Blazo" are used in the village for cooking. The
Kachemak Seafoods facility provides its own power generation
3.18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
ENERGY
FORM
END
USE
Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative
Residential and
Small Commercial
(Heat/Domestic)
Municipal and other
public
(non-transportation)
, Military
• (non-transportation)
I Transportation
i
State School
i (non-tran~portation)
Kachemak Sea Foods
(non-transportation)
NOTES:
• • • • •
ENERGY INPUT AND END USE FOR TOGIAK
Number in parentheses () are (10 6 Btu)
DIESEL/ GASOLINE/
11 OIL AVGAS PROPANE ELECTRICITY
Gallons Gallons Pounds Kilowatt Hours
71,000 1 55,300 2
(9585.0) (188.7)
130,000 10,000 271,000 4
(17.550) (216.7)3 (924.9)
6,000 100,000 4
(810.0) (341.3)
2,300 9004
(310) (::1.1 )
10,000 117,800
(1350.0) (14.725)
35,000 4,000 231,500 4
(4725.0) (86.6) (790.1)
15,400 5 Self Generated
(2079.0) 126,300
(431.0)
• • •
WASTE HEAT
RECOVER-
TOTAL ABLE
10 6 Btu 10 6 Btu
7,339.9 4,792.5
12,528.0 8,475.2
324.0 134.5
124.2 24.8
2,457.0 1,260.8
1 Gross generation from 71,000 gallons fuel oil was 658,700 Kwh for a conversion efficiency of 23.4%
2 Power consumed by the utility for station service (lights, fuel pumping, etc.) and system distribution
losses
3 Propane used for cooking only
4 Net utility electric sales in 1979 were 602,500 Kwh.
5 Kachemak estimates 1,500 gallons used for space heating and hot water, 13,900 gallons used for power
generation
TABLE 3.6
'TI .....
10 ..., C
'"1
-..,) (1)
::> w • U1
•
PROPANE
GASOLINE
DIESEL FUEL
FUEL OIL
244,300 GAL.
(32,980.0)
14,000 LBS. (303.3)
117,800 GAL.
(14,725.0)
10,000 G. (1,350.0)
RESIDENTIAL/
COMMERCIAL
130,000 GAL.
(17,550.0)
ELECTRICITY
71,000 GAL.
(9,585.0)
TOGIAK
POP: 474 HOUSEHOLDS: 93
11,600 HTG. DEGREE DAYS
CONVERSION
-,----
DISTRIBUTION
END USE ENERGY
(106 CTU')
COOKING (303.3)
TRANSPORTATION
(16,075.0)
[EXCLUDING
KACHEMAK
SEAFOODS)
STATE HI -SCHOOL"' ~~~~~~~~~1l~(~2~.8~3=5~.0~)~~-;-=~~~~.~-+ __ ."'c (561.0)
,~~~~----------~ ..
• ••
TOTAL (49,358.3)
NOTE: NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 106 BTU·S.
£ MAXIMUM ESTIMATEO RECOVERABLE BTU'S FROM IMPROVED
BURNER EFFICIENCY AND RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
INSULATION PLUS DIESEL ENGINE HEAT ~ECOVER'I'.
FUEL OIL
15,400 GAL.
(2079.0)
KACHEMAK
SEAFOODS
*State High School
Input 35000 ga1r Heating (2835.0)
(4,725.0)
139,000 KWh (1876.5) POWER GEN.
L. 136.
**Mi1itary 2300 gal; Heating (186.3); Elect. 900,KW (3.1)
(310.5)
WASTE
HEAT
A RECOVERA8LE WIISTE HEAT
U4,772.~1
126,300 KWh (431.0)
(81.9)
WASTE HEAT
(1500.0)
***City Service 6000 gal; Heating (486.0); Elect. 1000,000 KWH (341.3)
(810.0)
• • • • • • • •
••• (134.5)
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and oil heat. The only services it obtains from the community
are water and sewage. There is a new facility under construc-
tion in Togiak, Togiak Eskimo Seafoods, which will be a large
consumer of oil since they will generate all of their own
electrical power for the 3-4 summer months that they are in
operation. No data on this facility was incorporated in the
current energy balance.
Togiak appears to have a very high energy consumption per house-
hold, even higher than that of colder regions of western Alaska.
The oil consumption data base for this village is considered
very limited. Oil enters the community from two major sources -
Sorenson Lighterage and Togiak Fisheries. Conversations with
Togiak residents confirmed that the homes were extremely cold in
the winter. This village would be a prime candidate for wea-
therization and other conservation measures.
The AVEC generators at Togiak operate at an energy conversion
efficiency of 23.7%. The system losses for electrical distri-
bution amounted to 8% of the total generation. The higher
generation efficiency reflects the higher efficiency of larger
generators. It appears that sufficient waste heat can be
captured from these generators to provide all the heating
requirements for the state school. This would represent a
significant reduction of oil consumption in the village.
C. Existing Power and Heating Facilities
Existing Power Facilities
All four communities are provided electricity by the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperativ&, Inc. (AVEC). All generation is
diesel fueled by equipment summarized in Table 3.5. The
following section describes the specific fuel consumption per
Kwh for each community, and Appendix C provides current and
projected peak demand data for each village. The relative
3.21
TABLE 3.5
VILLAGE ELECTRIC GENERATION CAPACITY
r------------------.. ----------~-;;E--I ----
I
r
I
I
I
i
I
I
r
VILLAGE m'JNER NO. MAKE/~!ODEL VOLTAGE TOTAL
Goodnews Bay AVEC 2 112.5 KATO 1255X9E 120/240,1 )J
1 75 Allis Chalmers 120/240, 1~ 300
BIA 2 35 N/A 120/240,11f 70
I I H.S. 1 75 N/A 120/240,1 )J 75
Grayling AVEC 1 150 All is ChalClers 120/240,1jJ 3UO
Type aGKB
AVEC 2 75 Allis Chalmers 120/240,1.'1
I Type aGKB ,
BIA 1 25 Fairbank Morse 120/240,1)4 75
I
BRKL12
BIA 2 25 Kohter 25COT16
PHS 1 25 25
Scammon Bay AVEC 1 75* KATO 67SU9D ( 1200 120/240,1 )J .. 125*
RPM)
1 50 KATO 51.) SU9D 120/240, ,-"
BIA 1 35 60
H.S. 1 100 NE\iAGE-STAMFORD 120/240,1.3 100
Togiak AVEC 1 300 KATO JOOSR90 240/416,311
1 160 KATO 160SU9D 240/416,3)1 5bO
1 lUO Allis Chalmers 240/416,3lJ
BGBK
PHS 1 50 Caterpillar DH800 208,3.0 50
STATE 2 75 Delo=o A.C. 120,llJ
SCHOOL
1 2S Kohler 25COT61 120, ,-" 175
KACHE:1AK 1 50 N/A NI.A 95
SEAFOOD
1 3S N/A N/A
1 10 N/A N/A
..
PRO?OSEO 2 350 N/A N/A 700
TOGI.\K
ESi< I:'IO
SEAfOOD
,
paucity of data precludes accurate estimates of load factors for
each community.
Data was received from AVEC on the peak demand and KW sales for
a 21-month period beginning January, 1979. From this data and
other data the specific fuel consumption in KWH/gal and the low
factors were determined. These are shown in Table 3.6.
3.22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • • • • • •
TABLE 3.6
SCAMMON BAY GOODNEWS BAY GRAYLING TOGIAK ------------------------------------------------------------
PEAK KWH PEAK KWII PEAK KWH PEAK KWH
DEMAND SALES DEMAND SALES DEMAND SALES DEMAND SALES
KW KW KW KW
January 1979 58 19,426 44 15,592 52 22,143 192 56,361
February N/A 15,982 49 17,892 51 17,434 151 50,610
March 51 15,330 43 20,202 19 ]7,727 127 74,446
Apri] 46 13,691 45 11,575 44 14,349 139 52,501
May 46 12,061 38 17,575 59 12,321 127 50,055
June 38 10,726 39 12,710 39 9,789 115 21,0'10
July 38 11,388 37 13,092 33 10,679 131 35,188
August 42 11,865 42 15,677 43 12,383 144 44,893
September 77 19,962 N/A 22,728 46 16, ] 65 137 55,513
October 72 26,757 62 25,686 54 23,064 163 47,758
November 70 17,504 66 20,958 75 16,702 163 52,165
oJ December 78 27,532 70 26,086 62 19,728 163 6] ,618
..)
'"
January 1980 70 75,248 70 25,177 48 ]7,386 154 G6,785
February 72 27,533 67 24,239 47 14,580 151 56,'177
March 72 35,491 81 21,494 44 14,938 149 46,671
April 69 25,783 78 15,967 39 13,313 139 65,558
May 48 17,095 68 18,302 42 16,234 127.2 34 , 191
June 57 18,922 45 10,349 32 11,974 115 40,705
July 49 19,558 36 11,975 32 13,491 139 33,495
August 62 14,555 51 22,382 34 13,939 139 47,958
September 66 19,797 71 28,888 39 17,135 139 46,133
Average Load KW 59 55 46 136
Gross Specific Fuel 8.7 7.4 7.9 ~1. ~l
Consumption KWH/Gal
Load Factor 1. 07 .72 .5 .G4
KW Generator/KW
Demand Based On
Larg~st Installed
Generator
The location of the diesel generators to heat a large heat
consumer was evaluated in each village. The following is the
description of the locations.
Goodnews Bay -The AVEC generators are located less than 500
feet from the BlA school.
Grayling -The AVEC generators are located between 500 and
700 feet from the BlA school and the new high
school.
Scammon Bay -The AVEC generators are located approximately
2,000 feet from either the BlA school or the high
school. This location is poorest of the four
villages from the point of view of waste heat
capture program.
Togiak -The AVEC generators are located about a 1,000
feet from the state operated elementary and high
school.
Fuel storage within the villages is shown in Table 3.7. Some of
these figures are estimated because it was difficult to obtain
accurate figures on storage capacity from reliable sources in
the village.
The electrical distribution voltages within the villages are
shown in Table 3.5. The electrical distribution typically is
set up to be served by one generator at a time. No facilities
for paralleling generators were installed at these villages.
All distribution systems were placed below ground. Some
villages experienced problems with lines breakage because of
ground movement during winter and breakup times, or from being
unearthed by new construction. The distribution system was not
analyzed in depth in this reconnaissance.
3.24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
VILLAGE AVEC
Goodnews Bay 45,000
Gray ling 54,000
Scammon Bay 35,000
w .
tv Togiak 90,000 U1
* Kachemak Seafoods
• • •
TABLE 3.7
FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY
Gallons
BIA
36,000
24,000
35,000
-0-
STATE
SCIIOOL
40,000
-0-
15,000
72,000
•
PHS
-0-
15,000
15,000
28,000
VILLAGE
STORE
35,000
20,000
39,000
25,000
• •
OTHEHS
20,000*
Existing Heating Facilities
The largest consumers of fuel for space heating in all four
communities are the schools. The BIA schools use oil-fired
boilers to heat water for distribution to their buildings, by
means of circulating hot water systems. Water for domestic use
and showers is heated through heat exchangers from the same
boilers. The new state high schools, two of which have only
recently come into use (Scammon Bay and Goodnews Bay) and one of
which is not expected to be operative until the 1981-82 season
(Grayling) have heating systems which utilize both oil-fired
boilers and oil fueled hot air furnaces. The same schools have
additional boilers which use oil to heat domestic hot water.
These large consumers of oil for hot water heating systems are
prime candidates for sale of waste or cogenerated heat from
power production.
•
•
•
•
•
Residential and other small buildings within the communities are •
generally heated with simple drip type 50-100,000 Btu oil burner
stoves. Heat output from these stoves is difficult to control:
the lowest settings generally provide more heat than is required
in the months with the fewest heating degree days, when some
heat is required. Many homes make use of oil-fired cook stoves
for space heating in addition to cooking and water heating.
Homes in these communities generally have no means of heat
distribution other than radiation and convection from the stove
itself.
,
\
In Grayling, most residential heating is accomplished by means
•
•
of a variety of wood stoves, including barrel stoves and cooking •
stoves.
•
• 3.26
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
D. Summary of Existing Conditions
Goodnews Bay
Goodnews Bay is presently dependent upon fuel oil to provide
space and water heating, and electricity. A small amount of
driftwood is used in steam baths, but this fuel use is negli-
gible compared to other fuel consumption. Fuel delivery is by
barge out of Bethel and is sensitive to possible supply disrup-
tions due to a variety of outside influences. The community
consumed about 88,400 gallons of fuel oil during 1980. Of this
total, 30,000 gallons were consumed for space heating of residen-
tial and small commercial buildings. 27,900 gallons for other
(government and school) space heating, and 30,500 gallons for
production of 104,500 KWh electricity for the residential sector
and a total of 225,000 KWh for the entire community. The peak
community demand is presently 75 KW. The homes here have a high
rate of heat loss and are badly in need of weatherization.
Electric bills consume about 8% of an average household's cash
income, while heating fuel costs consumes about 9%. The total
energy bill is thus 17% of the average household's income. The
dependence upon fuel oil combined with the high costs of energy
and the low cash income levels confirm that Goodnews Bay is in
need of energy relief such as weatherization and decreased
electic costs.
Grayling
Grayling is presently using local wood for much of the
residential space heating. It is estimated that approximately
290 cords are presently used by the entire community in the
course of one year. This heating fuel is generally obtained by
subsistence means and is not a drain on local cash resources.
Although in past years the village moved from an area in which
wood supplies were becoming depleted, the present location on
3.27
the Yukon River allows driftwood to be harvested in addition to
local timber~ it is likely that because of the availability of
driftwood, local timber resources will be depleted at a slower
rate than would otherwise occur. In most Alaskan communities
where wood is harvested for fuel it can be expected that
residents will be required to travel increasingly greater
distances to obtain standing and fallen dead trees, and this
could become the case in Grayling even with the continued supply
of driftwood.
In Grayling, approximately 30,700 gallons of fuel oil per year
are consumed for electric generation for all sectors. The
annual residential consumption is about 68,160 KWh out of a
total community consumption of 233,260 KWh. The peak demand on
the system is presently 65 KW. Electricity costs consume an
average of 8% of a household's cash income here. Heating fuel
may consume as much as 9% or more of the cash income of an older
person who is unable to harvest their own wood supply and who is
living on a smaller cash income than the village average. (It
has also been pointed out that a widow with small children in
,
rural villages faces severe problems in a remote community.
The homes in Grayling would benefit from a weatherization
program. There is a marked variety in the quality of
construction from one home to the next~ some of the homes are in
relatively good condition, while some are very badly in need of
insulation and measures to decrease infiltration.
Scammon Bay
Scammon Bay is presently dependent upon fuel oil for both space
and water heating and electrical generation. In the past,
residents of Scammon used local willow brush for heating fuel,
and two residents even had a windmill which supplied them with
electricity before the advent of AVEC genration. Fuel is
usually delivered by barge and availability is sensitive to
3.28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
supply disruptions. The community consumed a total of 103,100
gallons of oil for space heating in the past year; 34,700 gal-
lons of this amount were used for residential and small commer-
cial heating. Homes are generally in need of weatherization
which would lead to a significant savings in fuel payments.
269,400 KWh of electricity were generated here. Of this amount,
107,500 KWh were for residential consumption and 94,800 KWh were
for government and school use. The peak system demand was about
75 KW.
Electric bills cost the residents of Scammon Bay about 10% of
their annual household cash income, while heating fuel takes
about 13% of their income. Thus, the total household cash
outlay for energy in Scammon Bay is presently 23% of the annual
cash income.
Togiak
Togiak presently depends almost entirely upon fuel oil for space
heating and upon diesel fuel for power generation. Driftwood
and brush are used for steam baths, but the amount used is too
small to impact the town's overall consumption figures. Fuel is
delivered by the BIA's North Star III barge or by lighterage out
of Dillingham. Residents of Togiak also purchase significant
quantities of fuel from nearby Togiak Fisheries. The community
consumes approximately 244,300 gallons of heating oil, with
about 130,000 gallons of this for residential consumption. As
in the other communities studies, the homes here are generally
in need of weatherization. It appears that even new housing is
only minimally insulated here.
785,000 KWh electricity were generated in the past year, with
271,000 consumed by residential and small commercial users.
The local fish processor formerly purchased power from AVEC, but
began generating its own power when commerical rates increased
beyond what they considered reasonable. A new fishery is
3.29
planned for the town and will be a large consumer of electricity
during summer months, but the new fishery is presently planning
to will generate its 'own electricity.
It appears that Togiak residents spend about 16% of their annual
cash income on heating fuel. (This is an exceptionally high
figure and may result from unreliable estimates of total fuel
oil entering the town. The sources of fuel delivery information
were unable to provide us with definitive figures regarding
exact amounts delivered to Togiak as opposed to nearby Twin
Hills.) Ten percent of the income is spent on electric bills,
\
bringing the total energy expenditures to about 26% of the
annual household income.
3.30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.0 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
A. Economic Activity and Capital Projects
Goodnews Bay
A new state high school has been built in Goodnews Bay. Calen-
dar year 1981 will be the first full year of operation.
Grayling
Housing and Urban Development officials have indicated that
design and construction of twenty new housing units would be ini-
tiated beginning in Federal FY 1981 with construction to continue
possibly through FY 1984. For energy projection purposes 'it was
assumed that these units would be occupied during 1984.
During field reconnaissance the new state high school under con-
struction was inspected by field peronnel. The Iditarod School
District indicated that the school would be hopefully in use by
the fall of 1981.
Scammon Bay
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has scheduled
twenty-four new housing unit starts for Federal FY 1981. The
forecast assumption was based on these units being occupied
during 1982.
Further, a new state high school has recently been completed.
Calendar year 1981 will be the first full year of operation.
4.1
Togiak
The only public capital improvement project noted in Togiak was
an airfield upgrading project which may be completed during
1982. It is anticipated, however, that an expansion of local
fish processing facilities is quite likely for this community.
Large fluctuations in population patterns are likely to result
from this activity.
B. Population Forecast
A complete analysis including mathematical projections and graphs
of population growth is shown in Appendix C. Figures C-l through
C-4 in Appendix C show graphically the population projections for
each village. Previous population data was derived from a vari-
ety of sources including the u.s. Census and University of Alaska
figures. Population data in general is historically distorted by
several factors such as disease, village movements and other
physical factors. Growth rates projected by the University of
Alaska compare favorably with those shown in Appendix C and fall
well within predictive accuracy tolerances for reconnaissance
surveys.
Goodnews Bay
The period of record for Goodnews Bay begins with census data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
gathered during 1940 and includes 1950, 1960 and 1970 data. The •
1980 data is not yet available. Additional data from estimates
for revenue sharing program exists for the years 1975 through
1979.
The growth pattern appears to be quite linear over the period of
record showing only a 3% variation from linearity since 1940.
Consequently, a linear growth rate is used in subsequent projec-
•
tions (Figure C-l). •
• 4.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grayling
Population data for Grayling also begins with 1940 census data.
The data shows a slightly declining trend in population growth
through 1970. However, data from the state's Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER) and Department of Community
and Regional Affairs (CRA) for the period of 1975 to 1979 indi-
cates a slight increase in growth. Variation in data gathering
techniques and objectives for which data has been gathered clouds
the ability to make accurate speculations relative to population
growth. Therefore, linear regression analyses were used to
project population to the year 2000. Maximum variations ~rom
linearity over the forty year period of record are +14.7% and
-9.6%. (Figure C-2.)
Scammon Bay
Census data for Scammon Bay in concert with ISER and 'the State
Department of Community and Regional Affairs data provides an
erratic picture of growth from 1940 to 1979. Consequently,
linear regression techniques were chosen over logarithmic or nth
order curves as it was felt that such growth curves showed
excessive or unjustifiably high population projections. Extreme
variations from linearity for the projections are +21.4% and
-28.6% for the period of record. (Figure C-3.)
Togiak
Population growth in Togiak also showed a large range in growth
rates over the period of record beginning during 1940. The
greatest disparity in growth rate data occurs during 1975 to
1979, showing nearly a 70% per year variation. Once again,
linear techniques were chosen over curvelinear projections for
purposes of predicting population growth. Extreme variations
from linearity are +21.9% and -16.0%. (Figure C-4.)
4.3
C. End Use Forecast
Electrical Energy
The recent and short period of record for all communities
(1975-1979) relative to end use data indicates the following
use patterns for each village:
Village
Goodnews Bay
Grayling
Scammon Bay
Togiak
*Includes
END USE ELECTRICAL ENERGY
1975-1979
Residential Use Commercial
35% 10%
30% 10%
35% 5%
30% 10%
Use
schools and other public facilities.
Other*
55%
60%
60%
60%
•
•
•
•
•
The consistency of relative electric power consumption for each •
village is noteworthy. The pattern of consumption appears to be
independent of total population and probably reflects the consis-
tency in the ratio of the large (school) consumption to residen-
tial consumption.
Large changes in the dollar costs and availability for electri-
cal energy could alter the pattern of consumption significantly.
However, such changes are largely unpredictable and, given the
"Business As Usual" scenario, changes in consumption patterns
are not likely to vary appreciably.
•
•
It is anticipated that availability of inexpensive electric •
energy would have a greater impact on residential and commercial
usage resulting in increased consumption with the "other" cate-
gory remaining relatively constant in terms of consumption but
showing a lesser proportion of total consumption. This, in turn,
would require an increase in system capacity to accommodate
increased demand.
4.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For purposes of this study, however, it is felt that significant
variations in relative consumption will not occur during the pro-
jection period.
Heating Energy
Historical data on oil use for heating in the villages is
practically non-existent. Segregating commercial from residen-
tial consumption was not possible in most cases. The following
approximate heating oil use distribution for Goodnews, Grayling
and Scammon Bay is as follows:
Residential
Schools and public facilities
Commercial
40 to 50%
40 to 50%
5 to 10%
In Togiak, the apparent residential-commercial consumption was 3
times the consumption by the school and public facilities.
End uses for heating energy are predicted to remain relatively
constant for each village given no significant changes in social
or economic activities, e.g., large scale, industrial or
commercial growth. The relative volume of heating energy
consumption could, however, would be greatly impacted by energy
conservation techniques or availability of lower cost heating
fuels.
D. Energy and Peak Load Forecasts
Complete description, mathema~ical analysis and graphical
presentation for each village is shown in Appendix C. Tables 4.1,
4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 provide peak demand and sales data on monthly
basis for each village.
Projections are made without regard to existing facilities as
shown in Table 3.5. The forecasts are used as an indicator for
4.5
•
TABLE 4.1
•
PEAK KWH FUEL
DEMAND SALES CONSUMPTION
GOODNEt4S BAY • January 1979 .44 15,592 2,581
February 49 17,892 2,257
March 43 20,202 2,154
April 45 11,575 2,271
May 38 17,575 2,653 • June 39 12,71'0 2,229
July 37 13,092 2,446
August 42 15,677 2,383
. ./ September N/A 22,728 2,464
October 62 25,686 2,862
November 66 20,958 3,013, • December 70 26,086 3,197
January 1980 70 25,177 2,873
February 67 24,239 2,853
March 81 21 ,494 2,808
April 78 15,967 2,800 • May 68 18,302 2,436
June 45 10,349 7,121
July 36 11,975 2,159
August 51 22,382 2,322
September 71 28,888 2,609 •
•
•
•
• 4.6
•
TABLE 4.2
• PEAK KWH FUEL
DEMAND SALES CONSUMPTION
GRAYLING
January 1979 52 22,143 3,170 • February 51 17,434 2,642
March 49 17,727 2,881
Apri 1 44 14,349 2,359
May 59 12,321 2,273
June 39 9,789 1,966
• July 33 10,679 1,908
August 43 12,383 2,186
September 46 16,165 2,333
October 54 23,064 2,572
November 75 16,702 2,545
December 62 19,728 2,712
• January 1980 48 17,386 2,840
February 47 14,580 2,338
March 44 14,938 2,633
April 39 13,313 2,237
May 42 16,234 2,413
• June 32 11 ,974 2,065
July 32 13,491 2,169
August 34 13,939 2,175
September 39 17,135 2,392
•
•
•
•
• 4. 7
•
TABLE 4.3 • •
PEAK Ktm FUEL
DEMAND SALES CONSUMPTION • SCAMMON BAY
January 1979 58· 19,426 2,758
February N/A 15,982 2,428
March 51 15,330 2,057
Apri 1 46 13,691 2,260 • May 46 12,061 2,545
June 38 10,726 1,419
July 38 11,388 1,904
August 42 11 ,865 2,094
September 77 19,962 2,654 • October 72 26,757 2,873
November 70 17,504 3,004
December 78 27,532 4,770
January 1980 70 75,248 3,183
February 72 27,533 3,132 • March 72 35,491 3,796
April 69 25,783 3,796
May 48 17,095 2,216
June 57 18,922 2,260
July 49 19,558 2,210
August 62 14,555 2,237 • September 66 19,797 2,697
•
•
•
• 4.8
•
TABLE 4.4
• PEAK K~/H FUEL
DEMAND SALES CONSUMPTION
TOGIAK
January 1979 192 56,.361 7,142 • February 151 50,610 6,300
March 127 74,446 5,582
April 139 52,501 6,082
May 127 50,055 5,476
June 115 21 ,040 4,570
• July 131 35,188 4,252
August 144 44,893 4,844
September 137 55,513 5,543
October 163 47,758 6,693
November 163 52,465 6,906
December 163 61,648 7,222
• January 1980 154 66,785 7,540
February 151 56,477 6,280
~1arch 149 46,671 5,269
April 139 65,559 5,776
May 127.2 34,191 5,179 • June 115 40,705 4,680
July 139 33,495 4,782
August 139 47,958 5,165
September 139 46,133 5,040
•
•
•
•
• 4.9
planning for expansion of the system. Increased demand for
electric energy by addition of appliances in existing households
is limited by the price of energy. It is not anticipated that
the cost of electrical energy will change in the near future, and
the present appliance saturation is assumed to exist in the year
2001.
Electrical Forecasts
Scatter in available peak demand data for the four villages is
severe. Consequently, data from several similar villages in the
region was utilized to develop the relationship of peak demand as
a function of population size to project peak demand through the
year 2001 (see Figure C-5, Appendix C.)
Superimposed on the selected projections for peak demand versus
population are the projected increases in loading due to antici-
pated capital projects for each village. These projections are
•
•
•
•
•
shown on Figures C-10 through C-13 in Appendix C. •
Total electrical generation data for the four villages is also
badly scattered, however, a trend is apparent, as shown on
Figure C-14. Using this trend, it is possible to estimate
probable growth in total generation through the year 2001, as
shown on Figures C-19 through C-22. Note that these figures
also show the anticipated increase due to capital projects in
the villages.
Heating Forecasts
The complete description, mathematical analysis and graphic
presentation for each village is shown in Appendix C.
Accurately forecasting heating energy needs for a given location
requires a great deal of historical physical environment data in
combination with historical fuel use data. Once again the
4.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
scarcity of historic information available require the analysis
to be tied to a population base, as shown on Figure C-23 of
Appendix C.
While an apparent trend is clear from the Figure, C-23 it must
be recognized that future total space heating requirements will
be dependent upon such variables as ambient air temperature,
wind velocity and direction, cloud cover and relative humidity,
as well as future community facility construction which cannot be
accurately forecast beyond 1982.
Figures C-24 through C-27 are presented to show projected
heating load forecasts based on the one year of heating fuel
consumption data available (1979-1980). It must be clearly
understood that this data is limited in use due to the lack of
historical records for the villages.
Total Energy Input Forecast
Utilizing the data for total generation from Figures C-19
through C-22 in concert with system efficiencies for each village
provided the electric power component of ,total energy input to
each village. This figure was then superimposed on the projected
space heating energy input to each village. The cumulative total
was then plotted for each village considered. Figures C-28
through C-31 are presented to show the resultant projections
through the year 2001.
substitutability of Electrical and Heating Requirements
The very high cost of electrical power in the villages precludes
any consideration of using electrical energy for heating require-
ments under the present operating mode. It is, however, very
feasible to recover waste heat from the electrical power genera-
tion process and divert that towards heating uses.
4.11
There are, however, some technologies available which may
justify the use of electrical energy for heating purposes.
These technologies are ones that deliver energy on an unregu-
lated basis, such as wind power. For instance, if significant
amounts of wind powered generation were installed in a village,
such that it would deliver more power then the village demand at
a particular instant, it would be necessary to divert the
excess. The most likely use for the variable amounts of excess
electricity would be resistance heating. This heat could be
used directly in homes, to heat hot water or even warm the
sewage lagoon to promote a bio-degradation process.
Where a low cost alternate fuel may be available to a village.
such as coal, then a steam co-generation project should be
considered. In this process steam is generated in a boiler,
passed through a turbine to generate electrical power and
exhausted at a temperature high enough to heat water for
district heating. For this system it would be necessary to
•
•
•
•
•
balance the energy flow to match both the electrical and heating •
requirements. A backup heat source and a heat rejection system
would be required for the balance.
If a wind power system appears feasible in a village, or if
steam power is a possible alternative, then an in-depth feasi-
bility study for that particular village which goes beyond the
level of a reconnaissance study is recommended. This report
does address both these issues and provides at least some
indicators on the relative economics of these two systems.
4.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.0 RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
A. Energy Resource Assessment
WIND RESOURCES
Goodnews Bay
Only a limited amount of wind data is available for estimating
the Goodnews Bay wind resource. Some recorded wind data for
Platinum is available for the period of April, 1939, through
March of 1941. The total recording period was 500 days and the
wind distribution was as follows:
Mph %
Calm 5
4-15 51
16-31 39
32-47 5
over 47 <1%
The weighted mean of these winds is 13.1 mph. Difficulties in
extrapolating this data to Goodnews Bay include:
o Shorter recording period than statistically desirable
o No indication of seasonal wind distribution
o Different topography and wind exposure at Platinum as
• opposed to Goodnews Bay
•
•
A small amount of additional data is available for nearby Kwigil-
lingok. This data is available for a period of one month only,
April-May of 1980. The mean wind speed during that recording
period was 13.56 mph.
Winds in this region of the state are said to be "weak and
persistent" during the summer months but much stronger during
the winter months. Winter. periods of high winds (60-70 mph) for
5.1
several days at a time have been described. This is likely to
indicate a good match of wind resource availability and electric
load and should allow economy of scale with minimal storage.
The local people describe Goodnews Bay as being a very windy
location. The principal of the BlA school, began continuous
recording of wind at Goodnews in 1980. His strip chart
recordings are sent to BlA regional offices in Bethel and
Juneau. (An attempt to obtain reduced data from the BlA was
unsuccessful.)
This program of recording should be encouraged and possibly
assisted by the Power Authority, since it will provide extremely
valuable data for future planning. Other BlA schools participa-
ting in this program are: Alakanak, Kwethluk, Kwigillingok,
Nightmute, Tununak and Chefornak.
While additional data is required, the wind resource at Goodnews
Bay appears to be of a magnitude worthy of further
consideration.
Grayling
The wind recording station nearest Grayling is Aniak. While
local topography will greatly influence the wind direction and
magnitude, data from Aniak may be used as a rough indicator of
the wind resource at Grayling. Mean monthly winds at Aniak for
the period from 1948 to 1970 are as follows:
5.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
•
•
Month Mph
January 6.44
February 7.13
March 7.36
April 7.47
May 6.90
June 6.33
July 5.52
August 5.98
September 6.44
October 6.67
November 6.44
December 5.52
Mean Annual 6.5
The people of Grayling confirm that the town experiences only
minimal wind but point out that points atop the hill adjacent to
the community do experience higher winds.
Wind at Grayling is not considered to be a first alternative
energy source. Should other alternatives prove unfeasible, wind
measurements made at several key locations could define a wind
resource superior to that described.
Scammon Bay
Wind recordings nearest Scammon Bay are taken at Cape Romanzof
military site which is located about 14 miles west of Scammon
Bay. The two sites were separated from one another by the Aski-
nuk Mountains. Winds recorded at Romanzof prevail generally from
all directions, with a slight preference for the northeasterly
direction. Thus, Scammon Bay winds may experience a somewhat
higher wind regime. Mean winds recorded for Cape Romanzof over
the period from 1953-1970 are as follows:
5.3
Month Mph
January 16.7
February 17.0
March 14.7
April 15.3
May 11.7
June 9.7
July 9.1
August 10.7
September 12.3
October 13.2
November 15.7
December 16.3
Mean Annual 13.5
Local people confirm high winds and long durations. A small
windmill for private generation was operated successfully at
Scammon Bay prior to availability of centralized (AVEC) genera-
tion. Based on interpretation of Cape Romanzof data, the wind
resource at Scammon Bay appears to be of sufficient magnitude and
duration to warrant further investigation as an alternative
source of energy for the community. Additional continuous data
recording for the specific site is indicated.
Togiak
The nearest recorded wind data for Togiak is that from Platinum
(described in Goodnews Bay wind resource pages) indicating an
average annual wind of about 13 mph. It is noted that winds of
60-70 mph for several days at a time have been reported at
Togiak.
The Army National Guard has installed a 2 KW wind generator at
Togiak and is attempting to measure wind velocities, as well.
5.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The recording device in use requires that daily readings be
made. Until these daily readings are made and analyzed it is
difficult to estimate the wind resource at Togiak. Attempts
should be made to ottain more reliable readings at Togiak. A
school project in wt.ich the children measure the wind daily (or
more frequently) all year would be helpful.
Togiak probably has a wind resource worthy of further investi-
gation but additiona.l data is needed.
HYDROELECTRIC POTEN'l'IAL
Regional Descriptior:
The availability of stream flow data in the southwest region of
Alaska is very limited, particularly for small drainages and even
more particularly fc,r low flows. This does not, however, el imi-
nate the need for sctme kind of estimate of stream discharge in
certain studies, such as determining the potential of small scale
hydroelectric power generation. Without actual streamflow
records or without cl length of record on a nearby stream that can
be transferred, the only ~lternative left is a regional analysis.
It must be understood that a regional analysis can only provide
a very general picture of stream behavior and that the actual
stream flow for a given stream can be significantly different.
A very general description of the region states that the annual
peak runoff usually occurs in the summer or fall months and
results from spring break-up or extended periods of rainfall.
The annual low flow usually occurs in late winter but can
occasionally result from a long, dry summer.
The annual low flow in southwest Alaska usually occurs in late
winter. The flow during the 2-3 month stretch is relatively
uniform and has low year-to-year variability since it is usually
a base flow produced by springs or groundwater connection within
5.5
the drainage. The relative magnitude of low flow will vary from
drainage to drainage depending on local geologic and climatic
conditions. However, for a given stream the low or base flow
should remain relatively uniform.
The high flow periods occur in the summer or fall months and are
quite variable depending on snow condition or rainfall events.
The flow during these months can be variable throughout the
period and is highly variable from year to year. The hydrograph
during these months can vary from base flow to peak flow in any
given year.
In a 1971 report the U.S.G.S. (Feulner and others, 1971),
summarized the existing water resources data in the state and
produced maps showing a general statewide distribution of mean
annual, mean annual peak and mean annual low monthly runoff
rates. While the data available for the southwest area of the
state was scattered and of short duration, there has not been
much additional data collected since that report. (Personal
communication, 1981.) This information is very general, but it
represents the only method of analysis available until addi-
tional stream flow measurements are taken and has been used in
•
•
•
•
•
•
regional analysis for purposes of the resource estimates in this •
study.
The following pages are the result of a very general analysis
performed to estimate stream flows on a few small streams in
southwest Alaska. In those cases where a discharge measurement
was made, it was compared to the computed runoff rates to check
if it fell within the expected range. Based on the general lack
of available information, the range had to be so large that it
really provides little verification. Even so, in one case, the
measured discharge fell well out of the expected range. If the
discharge is assumed accurate, this shows the degree of vari-
ability that can exist for individual streams within a region
5.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and the dangers of using such a general analysis without data
for verification.
The obvious conclusion is that a data collection program needs
to be started. While accurate, continuous discharge measure-
ments would, of course, provide the best record, some very
useful information could be gathered by periodic spot measure-
ments. Assuming that the low flow periods are the most critical
in determining small scale hydroelectric potential, a single
measurement at the right time of year would provide a much more
reliable estimate than the above analysis alone. By referring
back to the general description of the region, it seems that a
single data collection trip in March would be very beneficial,
since this is a time of relatively uniform low flow, low year to
year variability and near the point of maximum icing. A
measurement at this time would provide the most reliable and
useful single data point in this type of study. On the other
hand, the most unreliable and most useless single data point for
the study of small-scale hydroelectric potential is a random
point in the period between June and September.
The hydrological analysis of the streams under study consists
merely of measuring the drainage area above a proposed dam site
and estimating values of unit runoff from the USGS maps to
compute mean annual low monthly, mean annual or mean annual peak
flows. In most cases, the stream has been investigated by APA
and some additional data is available. This consists primarily
of a single discharge measurement made in early August, 1979,
but may also include recollections of local residents of periods
of peak or low flows and extent of winter icing. The only check
on the computed flow is a comparison with the flow measured by
the Alaska Power Administration (APA).
5.7
Goodnews Bay
The stream south of Chawekat Mountain was analyzed.
The drainage area above a proposed diversion dam is 3 square
miles.
U.S.G.S.
Coefficients Flow
Mean annual low monthly 0.8 cfs/mi 2 2 1/2 cfs
Mean annual 1.5 5 1/2
Mean annual peak 10 30
At a point downstream of the dam site, draining an area of 5 sq.
mi., APA estimated a discharge of 15 cfs on August 6,1979, fol-
lowing several days of rain. There was no indication given of
how this flow compared to the mean annual but it can be assumed
that it is in the range between the mean annual and mean annual
peak. Converting to a unit runoff of 3 cfs/mi2 shows that it
does fall within these limits. As flimsy as this may seem, it is
the only available means to verify the above discharge values.
Based upon results of this preliminary analysis and additional
discouraging information from the Corps of Engineers recent
investigation performed by R. W. Beck (Ref. personal communi-
cation, Corps personnel), it is unlikely that hydroelectric
generation will be a viable alternative for Goodnews Bay.
Grayling
Grayling Creek, with a drainage area for the proposed dam site
of 24 square miles, was the subject of this analysis.
5.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S.G.S.
Coefficients Flow
Mean annual low monthly 0.2 cfs/mi 2 7 cfs
Mean annual 1 34
Mean annual peak 10 340
The APA measured a stream flow of 200 cfs in the village,
a point far below the dam site which includes a south fork of
Grayling Creek, for a total drainage area of 88 sq. mi. This
converts to a unit runoff of 2.3 cfs/mi 2 which falls within
the expected range between the mean annual and mean annual peak
flow. However, it does not seem slightly low since the flow was
observed to be slightly higher than normal due to recent rains,
approximately four times the observed August flow or 800 cfs.
This converts to a mean annual peak runoff of 9 cfs/mi2 which
is very close to the assumed unit runoff of 10 cfs/mi 2 •
The APA report also states that a local resident indicated the
lowest flows normally occurred in September. This is contrary
to the generalized regional hydrograph and apparently was
ignored by the APA which, through their hydrocapability curve,
indicated lower flows should be expected from October to March.
Although the creek appears to have a reasonably good potential
for hydroelectric generation, the transmission distance and the
dam length required, as determined by analysis of topographic
maps, preclude hydroelectric generation here from further
investigation at this time.
Scammon Bay
The unnamed stream south of the village was assessed for power
potential. The drainage area above diversion dam is 1 square
mile.
5.9
U.S.G.S.
Coefficient Flow
Mean annual low monthly 0.2 cfs/mi 2 0.2 cfs
Mean annual 1 1
Mean annual peak 10 10
At a point in town, draining an area of 2 sq. mi., APA measured
a discharge of 9 cfs on August 7, 1979. This converts to a unit
runoff of 4.5 cfs/mi2, which falls between the values read off
the U.S.G.S. maps for mean annual and mean annual peak flows.
While this does little to verify the computed flow values, it at
least provides no reason to reject them, since any August flow
in this region is expected to be somewhere between the mean
annual and mean annual peak flow.
The APA also reports a local resident stating that the lowest
flows occur in July and highest flows occur in the fall fol-
lowing fall rains. The low flow in July seems contrary to the
general flow relationships for the region and, in fact, APA
apparently ignored this in their hydroelectric potential compu-
tations since they show July as having relatively high potential.
The report also states that the creek flows year round and appar-
ently has a high occurrence of springs in the drainage resulting
in relatively high flows during the winter months. Based upon
this information, it seems that an increase in the mean annual
low monthly and mean annual flow coefficients is in order,
however the magnitude is impossible to determine without some
winter stream flow data.
In July, 1980, the Corps of Engineers installed a Parshall Flume
on the stream as part of a separate study to evaluate the small
hydroelectric power potential at Scammon Bay. The Corps has
correlated the measured flows to the dam site for the months of
July through October, 1980, and also reported estimates of mean
monthly flows for the remainder of the year. The mean annual
5.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
monthly flow for July and August was 2 cfs and for September and
October, 1.50 cfs. Since the flow was fairly uniform over this
period there apparently were no large or long-term rainfall
events that affected the mean for the month. Based on the Corps
estimates for the remainder of the year, these values are
approximately equal to the mean annual flow. A comparison with
the above computed mean annual flow of 1 cfs leads support to
increasing the corresponding runoff coefficient. The Corps
estimated mean annual low monthly flow of 0.8 cfs is also higher
than the value computed by the regional analysis, as was expect-
ed based on the report of springs in the area. The Corps
estimate of a mean annual peak flow of 10 cfs agrees with that
found by the regional analysis.
While the regional analysis shows good agreement with the preli-
minary reports of the measured stream flow, further comparison
and conclusion about the applicability of the regional analysis
must await additional data reports.
Most recent information indicates little or no flow at Scammon
during the month of January. This stream has reasonably good
potential to provide power during the high flow months, but an
alternate source of power is required here for low flow months.
Togiak
The Kurtluk River, with a drainage area at dam site of 22 square
miles, was assessed.
U.S.G.S.
Coefficients Flow
Mean annual low monthly 1 cfs/mi2 22 cfs
Mean annual 3 66
Mean annual peak 10 220
The APA reports a flow of 10 cfs on August 6, 1979, for a
drainage area of 20 sq. mi. which converts to a unit runoff of
1/2 cfs/mi 2 • This appears to be very low, especially since the
report states rain and fog hindered the field investigations in
the area since the measured value is well below the general
regional values and these values found on other streams in the
study, it appears there is some unusual hydrologic phenomena in
the drainage. It is difficult to speculate just what causes this
apparent anomaly but perhaps some gain-loss measurements along
the stream would provide some useful data.
Based on the APA's estimate of potential hydroelectric power, it
appears they expect winter flows to be much lower than the
measured August flow of 10 cfs. This may be due to freezing of
the stream during the winter months; however, no such informa-
tion is given.
Togiak
The Quigmy River was recommended by local residents for recon-
naissance as part of this investigation. The drainage area at
proposed dam site is 85 square miles.
U.S.G.S.
Coefficients Flow
Mean annual low monthly 1 cfs/mi2 85 cfs
Mean annual 3 255
Mean annual peak 10 850
There is no measured stream flow data available on this stream.
The Quigmy River drainage is adjacent to the Kurtluk River
drainage so it could be expected that similar relationships hold
between unit runoff and discharge. However, since the regional
analysis results is not supported by the measured discharge on
5.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Kurtluk River, the computed values on the Quigmy River must
be viewed with some skepticism.
The Quigmy River appears to have substantial potential for
hydroelectric generation. Transmission costs over the 7-10 mile
distance between the generation site and Togiak, along the dam
costs, are expected to make hydro power a capital intensive
project here.
WASTE HEAT
All four communities are presently producing electricity using
diesel fueled generators as described in Section 3C. As previ-
ously described, power generation energy conversion efficiencies
were calculated for each of the communities based upon actual
data obtained from AVEC records. Various losses in the system
were determined, and the amount of recoverable energy from the
waste heat was estimated. Diesel engine losses consist of heat
lost in the exhaust gas, in the cooling water jacket, and from
radiation and miscellaneous losses such as the fan and water
pump. It is estimated that about 30% of the heat is lost in the
jacket and that this heat is fully recoverable. Another 30-35%
is lost in the exhaust, of which about 65% is recoverable. A
total of about 50% of the waste heat from a diesel system
generating at 100% rated power is recoverable. As the percent
output of the engine goes down, the losses in the jacket go up
and tend to increase the amount of recoverable energy from the
system. An average of 50% recoverable energy over the spectrum
of normal diesel operating range is assumed in the following
estimates of generator waste heat.
Goodnews Bay
Presently, the AVEC generators at Goodnews Bay produce about
3,350 x 10 6 Btu/year waste heat. Of this total, approximately
2,060 x 10 6 Btu/year are recoverable. This figure is equiva-
5.13
lent to half of the fuel oil Btu input for residential heating or
all of the heat delivered to the residential sector (when con-
version efficiencies are considered). The costs of a district
heating system to supply this heat to the entire community are
quite high, and heat would be lost in transmission over the
distances between houses. The generators at Goodnews are located
•
•
near the BlA school; that school could be a customer for the •
generator waste heat in the near future. The school presently
consumes 3,240 x 10 6 Btu/year in fuel input, or 1,944 x 106
Btu/year delivered by means of a circulating hot water system.
Thus, there is a good match between waste heat production and the •
heat demand. Minimal system modifications would allow the BlA
school to utilize generator waste heat.
Grayling
Total AVEC generator waste heat at Grayling is about 3,350 x
10 6 Btu/year. Of this amount, about 2,070 x 10 6 Btu/year are
•
recoverable. This amount considerably exceeds the 785.7 x 106 •
Btu/year of heat output from the BlA school's boilers. A second
customer for the waste heat may be the state high school.
Transmission distances between the generator plant and these
facilities make sale of waste heat to the schools slightly less •
convenient (and more expensive) than at Goodnews Bay, but worthy
of consideration.
Scammon Bay
AVEC generation at Scammon Bay presently produces about 3,260 x
10 6 Btu/year waste heat. Of this amount, about 2,090 x 10 6
Btu/year are recoverable. This figure is comparable to the 2,340
x 10 6 Btu/year of heat delivered to the residential sector
(stove output) or the 2,350 x 10 6 Btu/year output from the BlA
school's boilers. Transmission distances here impose greater
difficulties in distribution of waste heat than those at the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
other communities, but the resource is worthy of further consi-
deration.
Togiak
At Togiak, generation of electricity produces about 7,340 x
10 6 Btu/year waste heat. Of this amount, about 4,790 x 10 6
Btu/year is recoverable. This exceeds the 2,830 x 10 6 Btu/year
heat output from the school's boilers but is substantially less
than the 8,770 x 10 6 Btu/year delivered by residential heating
systems. Transmission distances here are variable, and a distri-
bution system will require careful planning. The waste heat
resource at Togiak is significant in magnitude and quality and
can provide an alternative source of heat for the town's consump-
tion.
Heat Loss Through Villages Building Envelopes
Heat is lost from building enevelopes in all of the communities
investigated at rates much greater than necessary. It has been
estimated that 40 to 50% of the heat loss may be reduced by
"weatherizing" buildings. The addition of insulation, sealing of
cracks and other energy conservation practices will lead to
reduced energy consumption for space heating here. Since this
space heating is not accomplished by means of resistance heating,
reduced consumption will not affect electricity payments or the
cost of electricity. By decreasing household payments for space
heating fuel total energy payments per household will be
decreased and the impact of high electric rates will appear to be
decreased.
GEOTHERMAL
Although Alaska is rich in geothermal potential, the particular
communities investigated here have no indication of geothermal
potential. For purposes of this investigation, normal gradient
5.15
geothermal energy as an alternative resource is considered to be
too expensive and very high risk.
Goodnews Bay
No known geothermal potential.
Grayling
No known geothermal potential. (Unconfirmed rumor of nearby
ground where snow melts all year~ not necessarily indicative of
geothermal anomaly.)
Scammon Bay
No known geothermal potential.
Togiak
No known geothermal potential.
OIL AND GAS POTENTIAL
There are no known oil and gas reserves near any of the four
communities. Should such disoveries by made in future years, it
is highly unlikely that refineries would be located in southwest
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alaska or that these communities would benefit from such a find. •
Since imported oil and gas products are expected to continue to
escalate in cost, these resources are not considered acceptable
near term alternatives for any of the reconnaissance towns.
•
COAL RESOURCES
Goodnews Bay
•
There is no indication of a local coal resource at Goodnews
5.16 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bay. The nearest known coal deposit of significant magnitude is
the Chignik Coal Fields, about 200 miles south of Goodnews Bay.
Although the coal at these fields is bituminous and the deposits
appear to be of a magnitude worthy of further exploration, there
is presently no coal production at this deposit and future
development is difficult to predict. Chignik may become an
alternative fuel source for Goodnews Bay in future years but is
not considered sufficient to warrant further investigation for
purposes of this reconnaissance.
Togiak
There is no indication of a local coal resource at Togiak. The
Chignik coal field is also the nearest potential source of coal
for Togiak. The field is approximately 200 miles south of
Togiak. (See Chignik Field description under Goodnews Bay
coal.) ,
Scammon Bay
There is no indication of a local coal resource in Scammon Bay.
Potential coal sources nearest Scammon Bay are (questionable)
deposits at Nunivak Island and scattered occurrences at Nelson
Island. These resources require additional exploration and
definition before coal can be considered an alternative resource
for Scammon Bay.
Grayling
Coal may be a local fuel resource for Grayling. Although there
are limits on coal resource definition near Grayling, the poten-
tial proximity of a coal resource along with a history of coal
mining along the Yukon River in the vicinity makes this an
attractive resource to pursue as an energy alternative for Gray-
ling. The following information is presented in support of this
premise.
5.17
The surficial geology of the region north and west of the Yukon
River between the Melozitna and Anvik Rivers was described by
Chapman (1963) as rounded hills with large, wide cracks and
river valleys. The relief near Grayling ranges from 1,000 to
3,000 feet. There exists much folding and faulting in this
region making local structures generally complex. Coal outcrops
are scarce except along the bluffs of the Yukon River where many
outcrops have been described. One such outcrop is said to exist
8 miles north of Grayling on the right (west) bank of the Yukon
River. This outcrop is evidence of one of the many coal-bearing
formations of the region.
Grayling is located in a "known area of coal-bearing rocks."
The existence and use of coal in this region has been described
since before the turn of the century when Yukon riverboats were
propelled by wood or coal-fired steam engines. Although coal
was described in 1902 as economically "competitive" with wood as
a fuel source for the Yukon steamers, geologists assessing the
•
•
•
•
•
overall economic potential of the coal resources south of Nulato •
predicted that coal would not be a viable product for future ex-
port but could become a resource capable of meeting all "local"
needs. In 1902, one of these geologists, Arthur Collier, accu-
rately predicted that if the crude oil which was to be brought to •
the region from California during the following year proved prac-
ticable as a fuel source for the steamers, "the development of
[the] coal beds [would] no doubt be retarded by it." For many
years this was the case, and diesel became the fuel of choice,
both for barges and power generation with today's oil costs
rising rapidly, it appears to be time to reassess the costs and
benefits (both dollar and social) of Alaskan coal for local use.
Since detailed knowledge of the local coal resource at Grayling
is not available, it is necessary to make inferences regarding
the resource from descriptions of surficial geology of the area,
old analyses of coal samples from nearby abandoned mines and
5.18
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
logs of water wells drilled at Grayling by the Public Health
Service.
Coal beds along the Lower Yukon generally occur in sandstones
and shales with intercalated beds of conglomerate. The deposits
are dated from middle Cretaceous to Upper Eocene and belong to
both the Nulato and Kenai series. Nearly all of these coals are
bituminous (although one sample from a deposit near Iditarod was
classified as anthracite).
Several abandoned coal mines near Grayling were described by
Collier in 1902 and 1903. When the U.S.G.S. returned to further
assess their economic potential in 1963 (Chapman, 1963),
slumping and overgrowth prevented them from locating some of the
mines.
The early literature described mines in the vicinity of Grayling
(see map, Figure 5.1) as follows:
Bush Mine: On the right (west) bank of the Y~kon, 4 miles
south of Nulato. Inclosing rock is Nulato sandstone.
Tunnel extends 30 feet into an old slide. Large bodies of
crushed coal 4-5 feet thick exposed. Bituminous with a 1.76
fuel ratio and 11.17% water content.
Blatchford Mine: 9 miles below Nulato. Outcrop from a
sandstone bluff; probably upper Cretaceous. Irregular bed
due to crushing and shearing movements of the inclosing
strata. Large masses 8 feet in diameter have been mined.
Good heating value with a fuel ratio of 3.30; water content
1.36%, ash 2.22%. Mine workings are below the level of the
river. The entrance is covered with water in the summer
months so that the mine was worked only in the winter. 300
tons of coal had been produced in 1902.
5.19
U1
tv o
".
'u
.~.
•
• .
I !
•
. • • " ~ ~
. ..
!!
ABANDONED
• •
. . • . • .. 0 • .. .. !! !! !! !! !!
20 10 0 20 40 ao .0 100
Iw ... ' : ! : : t
ICALE IN IIILES
• . . . ; .. .. ~ !! !!
Figure 5.1
COAL MINES IN THE VICINITY Of GRAYLING
• • •
• ..
!!
.
N
!!
•
.
0
!!!
"Jill< MT. McKINLEY
-",f; (20,450')
• 0
!!
0
)(
. .
!
· · !
ill~)I~
TOWN SITE
MINE LOCATION
(FROM COLLIER, 1903)
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Williams Mine: (Formerly the Thien mine.) On the right
bank of the Yukon 90 miles below Nulato. Coal in Eocene
sandstones. One bed was 39" thick with a 45° dip. The bed
is very regular and shows no variation in strike over a 400
foot distance. (There is some evidence of faulting 1/2 mile
above the mine.) Most coal above the drift had been mined
in 1902, producing 1200 tons of coal. This was a relatively
well-developed mine with coal cars and temporary buildings.
The mine employed 15 men in the summer season. To further
develop the mine, it was suggested that the slope be driven
to lower levels. With the addition of a hoist and pumping
plant it was estimated that the mine "could no doubt supply
all of the demand for coal on this part of the Yukon for
many years to come."
Coal Mine #1: On the right bank of the Yukon 25 miles
south of the Williams Mine. The coal is found in Upper
Cretaceous or Eocene sandstones. One 2 1/2-to 3-foot bed
was mined. The coal is bituminous with a ~.61 fuel ratio
and 4.82% water. The Alaska Commercial Company attempted to
mine here in 1898 but abandoned their efforts due to
difficulties keeping out water.
Halls Rapids: Approximately 30 miles north of Anvik, a
small bed found in a formation of white and yellowish
tuffs. Age unknown. The coal appears lignitic but has a
fuel ratio of 1.35 with 8.23% water. Similar coals or
lignites are said to occur frequently in these tuffs.
Anvik River: A reported outcrop on the Anvik River about
50 miles north of Anvik. No attempt by U.S.G.S. to
confirm. Little known about this deposit.
Information specific to a coal resource close to Grayling
consists of the outcrop 8 miles north of the community and
Public Health Service well logs. Thirteen wells were drilled at
5.21
Grayling between 1966 and 1977. Logs from wells numbered 1, 2,
4 and 11 note coal encountered at a variety of depths and mixed
with several other components. (Logs from the 13 wells and a
well location map are included in Appendix G.) These wells were
not drilled for purposes of geological investigation, and any
reference to coal is based purely upon observation of the
driller. Other wells drilled at Grayling varied in depth from
15 1/2 feet to 190 feet. Some of these other logs have no
comments describing the cuttings and may have encountered coal;
other holes drilled did not encounter coal. The inconsistent
findings of the well logs may be further indication of the
complex geology of this area and of possible discontinuity of
the coal deposits.
It appears that bituminous coal deposits of reasonably good
quality for local use might be expected in the vicinity of
Grayling. A program of core drilling and sample analysis, along
with a detailed feasibility study, is necessary before capital
funding for a mining operation to produce a local fuel source
can be justified. This recommendation is discussed further in
the Summary and Recommendations section of this report. Until
such information is available, preliminary economic analysis of
the cost of coal at Grayling must be based upon costs of
existing coal production in Alaska modified to appropriate local
conditions.
During 1979 figures of $46.00/ton were quoted for the retail
price of coal at Fairbanks, Alaska. This price is somewhat
higher than the contractual rate paid by major consumers.
Bituminous coal mined on a small scale in rural, arctic Alaska
was estimated to cost $30.00/ton. The latter figure is based
upon earlier work by the U.S. Bureau of Mines escalated to 1981
dollars. For purposes of preliminary economic analysis, a cost
of $40.00/ton delivered from a nearby mine will be assumed for
use at Grayling.
5. 22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PEAT
The proximity of active river drainage systems and other espe-
cially active smaller surface drainages combined with a less than
favorable surficial geology significantly reduces the probability
of occurrence of large deposits of fuel grade peat in any of the
study areas. It should be noted that no physical examination of
peat has been performed in any of these study areas. Review of
the recently completed "Peat Resource Estimation in Alaska" and
records of the field visits and surficial geology maps indicates
the following with respect to each village.
Goodnews Bay
The village falls within a region having only a medium proba-
bility of occurrence of an organic soil overlay. Additionally,
the probablilty of the peat having a heating value in excess of
8000 BTU's per dry pound is also rather low. Due to the exist-
ence of active drainages and an unfavorable geological setting it
is felt that the peat in this area available for fuel use would
probably have a heating value less than 5,000 or 6,000 BTU's per
dry pound.
Grayling
The igneous and sedimentary geology of Grayling along with the
active drainage may preclude even the occurrence of significant
organic soil overlay. It is anticipated that any organics found
in this area will have an especially high ash content and very
low, less than 5,000 BTU per dry pound, heating value.
Scammon Bay
The embayment area of Scammon Bay and the villages immediately
5.23
adjacent to the Run River preclude the occurrence of high quality
fuel grade peat.
Togiak
The quality of peat occurrences in Togiak is expected to be
very poor, once again, due to active drainages and unfavorable
surface geology. Some limited organic deposits may be suitable
for marginal space heating needs but the probablily of utiliza-
tion for any but absolute minimal needs is remote.
TIMBER
Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and Togiak
There are no trees at Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay or Togiak.
Some use of driftwood and willow brush at these communities has
been described but these are considered insignificant as a poten-
tial fuel resource for power generation.
Grayling
The region northwest of the Yukon River is forested predomi-
nantly with white spruce, with occasional birch stands and some
cottonwood and alder. Grayling is located on this northwest
bank of the Yukon. Southeast of the Yukon is a region of tundra
lowlands almost entirely lacking in forest. The community of
Grayling presently makes use of local timber for construction of
log or partial log buildings and uses local timber and driftwood
for much· of its space heating. The forested area in the
vicinity of Grayling is described as "interior forest" and is
approximately 50 miles from tree line. This forest is roughly
estimated to have a sustained yield of 8.5 ft 3/acre/year. A
timber resource of this quality can supply Grayling's present
cord wood requirement for heating in an area of 5.8 square
5.24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
miles, or a square area 2.4 miles on a side (assuming no addi-
tional use of driftwood).
Grayling's present electrical requirements of 233,300 KWh/year
are estimated to require a minimum 850 cords each year for
wood-fired boilers and, thus a harvest of 9,000 acres or a
square 3.75 miles on a side. Although the cost of obtaining
wood from an area this large is expected to be excessive, it may
be possible to combine wood, coal and municipal solid waste as
fuel, for a steam producing system.
Wood gasification processes for electrical generation is not yet
considered to be an available state-of-the-art alternative for
application at Grayling. (The technology is described in
Appendix D).
SOLAR
Solar incidence at all of the study communities is concentra-
ted in the summer months. Although lacking in intensity, the
solar input from long summer daylight hours is considerable.
Until annual storage becomes technically and economically feasi-
ble, it is not anticipated that solar energy will be competitive
with other energy sources for the production of power. However,
housing design can make use of passive solar input. The fol-
lowing data consists of solar incidence measured on flat plate
collectors near the communities investigated in this reconnais-
sance.
5.25
•
Goodnews Bay and Togiak (King Salmon Data)
Month Normal Degree Da~s (1941-1970) Lang1e~s (1949-1976) • Jan 1600 39.7
Feb 1355 102.3
Mar 1383 216.8
Apr 1005 327.0 • May 694 402.1
Jun 429 417.9
Ju1 326 375.3
Aug 347 283.6 • Sep 531 211.0
Oct 973 128.6
Nov 1287 55.3
Dec 1652 24.7 •
Annual Total 11582 215.3
Grayling (McGrath Data) •
Month Normal Degree Days (1941-1970) Lang1eys (1948-1976)
Jan 2291 15.7 •
Feb 1826 70.1
Mar 1739 187.9
Apr 1155 322.2
May 648 403.7 •
Jun 285 430.4
Ju1 219 374.2
Aug 357 276.4
Sep 636 188.5 •
Oct 1231 86.0
Nov 1800 27.2
Dec 2300 3.3 •
Annual Total 14487 199.0
•
5.26
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scammon Bay (Bethel Data)
Month Normal Degree Days (1941-1970) Langleys (1948-1976)
Jan 1857 26.3
Feb 1590 85.9
Mar 1662 200.3
May 772 294.2
Jun 402 411..9
Jul 319 349.8
Aug 394 249.5
Sep 600 190.1
Oct 1079 100.5
Nov 1434 36.7
Dec 1879 13.2
Annual Total 13203 198.7
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Municipal solid waste (MSW) contains combustible organic
materials and paper products which have a heating value which is
normally wasted. It has been estimated that northern rural
communities produce a combustible fraction of total MSW, having
a heating value of approximately 3,000 Btu/lb, at a rate of
about 1,800 pounds per person each year (1,800 lbs/person/yr).
It is seen in the following quantitative estimates for each
community that MSW can potentially contribute a fraction of a
community's fuel requirement.
Most communities (both rural and urban) spend a great deal of
effort and energy in the handling of MSW disposal. Often, small
communities are not equipped to handle MSW other than by dumping
at a site outside of the town (but not such a great distance
that disposal is inconvenient). Once such a dump has grown to
some maximum size, if equipment to bury MSW is not available,
the dump is abandoned and a new one started at some other site.
5.27
Where economically and technically feasible, .the use of MSW as a
supplemental fuel source could be contributor to local energy
requirements while decreasing the community's disposal require-
ments. For this to be at all feasible, MSW must be separated by
the individual household units prior to delivery to the gathering
point; otherwise labor costs for separation are high. Combustion
of MSW as a fuel source is possible only in systems which made
use of other solid fuels for heat or power production.
Goodnews Bay
Combustible MSW production at Goodnews is presently estimated
to be a maximum of 669 x 10 6 Btu/year. Thus as an appropriate
conversion system, MSW could provide about 6% of the community's
•
•
•
•
input Btu requirement for heating and electrical generation. •
Grayling
Annual MSW production at Grayling is estimated to be a maximum
of 489 x 10 6 Btu, potentially displacing about 4% of the pre-
sent Btu input, from both oil and wood, for heating and electri-
city.
Scammon Bay
Scammon Bay may produce up to 626 x 10 6 Btu/year of MSW and
could provide about 5% of the community's present fuel input
requirement for an appropriate conversion system.
Togiak
Combustible MSW production at Togiak is estimated to be equi-
valent to 1,270 x 10 6 Btu/year or about 4% of the present Btu
input requirement for heating and power production.
5.28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Survey of Technologies
Energy Conservation -Weatherization
Energy conservation is usually one of the most cost effective
methods for reducing energy consumption and costs. Energy con-
servation herein means retro-fitting or modifying any existing
heat process. This can be done by increasing combustion effici-
ency, or by reducing the losses from the heat using process.
Villages in western Alaska can benefit from the energy conser-
vation practices which relate primarily to weatherization and
improved combustion efficiency.
The homes in the study villages averaged 750 square feet in
size, were single story, built on piles, with exposed floors.
Some of them had skirts around the piling to reduce cold air
circulation under the building. If these buildings are occupied
by a family present during the day, then oil consumption is
typically on the order of 150 gallons per month in the colder
months, resulting in heating costs close to $300. The technology
to reduce energy consumption in these homes exists and could be
economically applied. The requirements are simple and there
should be no environmental or health impacts. However, a
detailed technical, economic and sociological evaluation is
necessary.
The villages visited are provided electrical power by the Alask~
Village Electric Co-op (AVEC). The utility uses diesel electric
generators, in the range of 50 to 300 kilowatt capacity, which
have efficiencies ranging between 25% and 33% on their gross
electric power generation.
Of the 67% to 75% of the energy that is rejected, most leaves in
the high temperature stack gas, the remainder is found in
mechanical friction losses, engine cooling losses and generation
losses. Approximately 40% of the gross energy input to a diesel
5.29
generator is rejected through the stack gasses alone. These hot
gasses at temperatures of 800 to 900°F represent a potentially
large source of recoverable energy.
There are two possible heat capture methods. The first is to
transfer the heat through a heat exchanger to another fluid,
which would be used for heating of water in the city water
system, for building hot water heating or domestic hot water
usage. This technology is current and available and depends
only on the proximity of the subsequent user to the generator
and the compatibility of heat demand to the electrical load.
The villages of Grayling, Togiak and Goodnews Bay have facili-
ties adjacent to, or close enough to the AVEC generators to be
seriously considered for a waste heat capture program.
The second method of capturing heat is through a Rankine cycle
power generation system, which vaporizes water or an organic
fluid to drive a second turbine generator, or to add an
additional shaft horse power to the first generator. This
technology is in the developmental stage, and several demon-
stration programs are being undertaken at this time to prove
feasibility of this process.
Waste Heat Recovery
Waste heat recovery from diesel generator is one of the most
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• viable technologies for Western Alaska Villages today. There are •
two forms of energy recovery. The first form is direct recovery
of the waste heat for building heating or water heating. The
second form is to recover waste heat from diesel generators and
generate additional energy from an organic rankine cycle recovery •
system.
The direct waste heat capture system can recover approximtely 50%
of the total heat energy in the oil used to fire a diesel •
generator. The h~at is recovered from the cooling water jacket
• 5.30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and the exhaust gas by means of heat exchangers to heat hot water
which is circulated to other buildings. The economics of this
heat recovery system depends on the proximity of the building to
the diesel generator source.
The organic rankine cycle heat recovery system is explained in
Appendix D in detail. It basically uses the waste heat from a
diesel generator to evaporate a liquid such as freon at high
pressure which then drives a turbine. The vapor exhausted from
the turbine is then condensed using either air or water cooled
heat exchangers and then pumped back to the evaporator. The use
of freon allows recovery of low temperature sources of energy for
conversion into electric power. The efficiency of a system like
this ranges from 6 to 10%, that is, about 6% to 10% of the heat
energy is converted into equivalent electrical power.
Higher Efficiency Conversion of Fuel to Power/Fuel Cells
The diesel electric generators in the AVEC system are esti-
mated to be 8 to 12 years old. Much of the equipment was
designed and built before the oil embargo when initial capital
cost was more critical than engine efficiency. An indication of
these early economic considerations was found in the fact that
only the 300 and 175 KW diesel generators at Togiak had the
exhaust driven turbo chargers.
An exhaust driven turbo charger recovers some of the heat energy
in the exhaust by driving a turbine coupled to a compressor
which increases the fuel and air charge in the cylinder results
in greater power output for the cylinder size, plus increased
efficiency. Retro-fitting existing diesel generators with turbo
blowers could result in increased conversion efficiency and
reduced fuel oil costs. Further evaluation is required to
determine whether additional capital costs would be offset by
reduced fuel consumption.
5.31
Fuel Cell
A fuel cell is a device, currently under development, which
potentially has a higher energy conversion to electrical power
ratio than diesel electric generators and utilizes either con-
ventional or unconventional fuel. Fuel cells have a potential
energy conversion efficiency of 50% or more, plus the potential
of recovering waste heat. A number of different types of fuels
can be used for the fuel cell cycle, including diesel, gasified
coal, naptha, and natural gas.
Detailed analysis found in the literature indicates that fuel
cells are extremely efficient at part loads down to 20% of the
full load capacity of the cell.
Hydroelectric
Hydroelectric power potential is a function of flow and head
•
•
•
•
•
(height of the water between the intake and the discharge). The •
flow rate is determined from the drainage area and the amount of
moisture that falls annually. In southwestern Alaska the
drainage areas with good elevation are very small. The large
drainages have only a slight relative elevation change and few •
if any reasonable dam sites. Other factors which greatly effect
hydroelectric power generation are: 1) the winter time stream
flows are expected to be very low and 2) the probable adverse
effect of very low temperatures on the operating equipment.
The Alaska Power Administration made reconnaissance hydroelec-
tric power studies of streams near the villages that are the
•
subject of this study. Each village has some potential for power •
generation but, except for Scammon Bay, the cost of the recom-
mended facility resulted in busbar energy costs greater than
AVEC presently charges.
The Corps of Engineers is providing follow-up studies to the
Power Administration work through a contract with a consulting
5.32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
engineering firm. Preliminary conclusions of the study indicate
that the economic competitiveness of hydropower at these sites is
probably slim.
Costs for hydropower in western Alaska depends largely on the
site conditions, specifically, the amount of head available, the
lengths of the penstocks and transmission lines, along with the
specific geophysical nature of the area.
Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Wind energy conversion systems (WECS) are considered for
application in the village of Goodnews Bay. All of the study
villages are coastal in nature and experience maritime climatic
conditions~ however, Goodnews Bay alone is considered to have a
sufficiently high energy wind regime.
While there is still little or no commercial experience to draw
upon for the economics of WECS, numerous demonstrations of wind
systems are being installed throughout the country.
Alaskan wind power demonstration projects have served to define
particular problems which must be addressed in design of WECS
for use in the harsh conditions encountered. Some of these
problems include: anchoring towers in permafrost soils, high
velocity gusts, freezing salt spray, maintenance of equipment at
remote locations, control and compatibility with existing power
distribution systems. Utilization of long-term continuous wind
systems in Alaska require complete baseline data to provide the
basis for planning and design of commercial systems. At this
time, the several Alaskan demonstrations under way have not been
in operation long enough to provide information necessary for
investment risk analysis.
Wind is an intermittent energy resource, and, as such, cannot
provide the continuous supply of electricity that utility
5.33
customers have come to rely upon. This leads to difficulties in
assessing the real economics of wind energy.
The economic feasibility of wind systems in rural Alaska is
highly dependent upon use patterns and customer requirements.
One approach that would be appropriate is to consider systems
where the end-use is suited to an intermittent power supply;
e.g. community cold storage facilities or laundry facilities
(such as the Public Health Service wind project at Gambell) or
for pumped storage in conjunction with hydroelectric power
generation. such systems could be considered either separately
or incorporated into existing utilities. The match between
utility load and wind resource availability will determine the
system design features and the final cost per unit power
produced.
It is important to consider load requirements of existing gener-
ators in design of wind-assisted diesel utilities. Where load
growth has led to or is likely to lead to loads which exceed
present generating capacity, it may be possible to add wind gen-
eration for peaking generation along with incentives to use this
power as it becomes available. Such practices could postpone or
eliminate the need for additional base-load generators while
maintaining necessary equipment loads and utility sales, an
important factor in controlling the cost/kilowatt charged to the
customer.
Analyses of WECS compatibility with conventional energy systems
emphasize that financial risk is still difficult to predict for
these systems due to lack of commercial field experience. End-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
use constraints and degree of flexibility are significant factors •
in arriving at an optimization of cost and reliability. Use of
wind energy conversion systems in rural Alaska may require a plan
for peak load use alone or to consider innovative end-use
scenarios for load management. •
•
5.34
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy may have vast potential for electrical gen-
eration in Alaska, but not in the near term or in the vicinity of
the communities investigated in this reconnaissance. Presently
only one commercial geothermal power facility is in operation in
this country (the Geysers in California), and that makes use of a
dry steam field. While there are presently no indications of dry
steam fields in Alaska, geothermal manifestations occur as hot
springs, calderas, and volcanoes, all of which may be tapped for
heat for power generation. The technology for utilization of
volcanic geothermal energy is still in its early stages. Best
candidates for large scale geothermal power production here are
high-temperature subsurface resources which require extensive
exploration with concommitant high costs. Hot springs with
moderate temperatures (150°C) and higher may provide economical
power generation for some Alaskan towns; and low temperature
geothermal resources may be economical in limited instances and
for very small-scale power production.
None of the four villages of this study is near a known geother-
mal resource. (Although rumors of a warm spot were discussed in
Grayling, field personnel were unable to confirm its existence).
Tidal Power/Wave Actuated Power
Three of the sites visited were located on ernbayments adjacent
to the Bering Sea. These are the villages of Scammon Bay,
Goodnews Bay and Togiak. The potential for tidal power to these
sites depends upon:
a) large daily and monthly tide fluctuations
b) the natural geographical features which lend
themselves to reasonably sized barrier structures
c) a location which does not have fish spawning grounds
that may be affected by a barrier
5.35
d) a site which is free from the affects of damaging ice
formations
A further consideration is the state-of-the-art development of
techniques and equipment for generating power. The logical
device for converting the potential energy of the tidal water is
a bulb turbine. A minimum head of approximately 10 feet is
required for efficient operation. The required tidal action at
least twice that amount would be required to ?e considered for
the potential of power generation.
Data available from the NOAA indicates that tidal action in the
Bering Sea and the bays adjacent to the towns studies have mean
daily tides of 6' to 7' and would not warrant further investiga-
tion of this source of energy. At this juncture the capital
cost and the problems associated with icing at these sites fur-
ther rule out consideration of this technology.
Solar Power
Two types of solar power were examined for application of the
sites visited during the study. These are passive solar heating
•
•
•
•
•
•
systems and solar photovoltaics. Passive solar, could be of •
interest in areas south of the 60th parallel, such as Goodnews
Bay and Togiak.
Passive solar heating systems include solar greenhouses attached •
to an existing building, which capture available solar energy in
masonary walls or in other heat absorbing media such as tanks
filled with glycol solutions or low melting point salts. The
heat energy from the solar would be collected by the masonry
walls or the glycol, transferred and released at a slow rate
into the building. In times of storms and periods of no sun
availability, the solar greenhouse would provide an additional
layer of protection from the wind against the outside wall of
the building. The principal of the BIA school at Goodnews Bay
5.36
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
has experimented with a solar greenhouse and has also claimed a
7% reduction in heating costs in his residence.
Solar photovoltaic is a system where radiant energy is captured
and converted directly to electrical energy. Solar photovol-
taics are used today to power remote transmitters and for
providing power for irrigation and crop drying in farm areas of
Nebraska and Colorado. There is a demonstration project for
providing pump power and crop drying energy at Mead, Nebraska.
Locally Available Fuels
Fossil Fuel -Oil, Gas, Coal
Fossil fuels for combustion boiler systems may be competitive
with existing diesel where these fuels are located near the
village and where reasonable transportation opportunities exist.
While most villagers expressed concerns relating to oil or gas
exploration, there was no apparent sentiment against small scale
coal development for local use. The cost of electricity from
rural Alaskan coal is dependent upon resource characteristics.
The village of Grayling is located in a region of numerous coal
deposits of varying thicknesses and coal at or near Grayling is
the only fossil alternative considered in this study. Local,
small-scale coal development in rural Alaska appears to have
some potential as a fuel source for local use and for nearby vil-
lages and could provide much needed employment opportunities.
Peat
The availability of fuel grade peat at each of the villages
identified for this study has not been clearly defined, i.e.,
peat could exist at each of the villages: however, its quality
characteristics have not been defined, and recent studies indi-
cate a low probability.of occurrence at each of the villages.
5.37
The nearest peat resource to all four of the subject villages is
best defined in the two reports dealing with fuel peat inven-
tories for the State of Alaska. (Peat Resource Estimation in
Alaska and its supplement both published during 1980 by NORTEC
in concert with EKONO, Inc., and available at the State Division
of Energy and Power Development).
It is anticipated that the Grayling and Togiak sites may contain
sufficient peat to support domestic space heating needs for
several generations~ however, cogeneration of heat and electric
power is considered out of the question at these sites.
A typical physical analysis of acceptable fuel grade peat would
include the following minimum standards for cogeneration
systems:
Volatile matter, greater than
Fixed carbon, about
Ash content
Sulfur content, less than
Nitrogen, less than
Dry heating value in excess of
60%
50%
10-25%
0.5%
2.5%
8,000 Btu/lb
•
•
•
•
•
•
Domestic space heating requirements are not quite as limiting as •
the above data would indicate.
Peat-fired cogeneration systems commonly operate at temperatures
between 2300 and 2500°F and are generally as efficient as coal-•
fired systems.
Unique features in peat-fired systems include such factors as:
1) low ash fusion temperatures which may result in fouling of
heat exchanger surfaces; 2) the ash from peat is relatively
erosive, and this feature must be accounted for during system
design, and 3) flue gas and combustion air volumes are
relatively high compared to other fuels.
5.38
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fuel peat must have a moisture content less than about 25% to
insure maximum realization of heating value. Further, storage
of peat unprocessed or milled should be limited to an ambient
temperature not exceeding 170 0 in order to preclude spontaneous
ignition and explosion.
The primary special siting requirements for fuel peat harvest
(for cogeneration) lays in the ability to provide drainage and
site access within economic distances of the point of use.
Usually, a minor topographic modification will accommodate
drainage requirements, and overland distance from source to use
not exceeding 2 or 3 miles may prove to be an upper economic
limit at bush locations.
There appear to be no specialized construction or operations
skills required for peat-fired cogeneration beyond those readily
available in Alaska.
Wood
Wood as a potential fuel is available at the village of Gray-
ling which is surrounded by sub-arctic forests. There is some
limited potential wood available at the coastal sites from
driftwood. The driftwood is primarily found on the coast of the
Bering Sea and especially at the Yukon and Kuskokwim Delta's.
Villages located on the smaller bays receive little drift wood,
because river drainages do not include wooded areas.
Wood is used as a fuel for home heating in Grayling. It can
also be used to fire a boiler to generate steam to drive a
turbine. Wood is characterized by its low ash content, usually
less than 2% and a heating value of approximately 9,000 Btu per
pound.
The primary requirement for a wood fired energy system is the
5.39
availability of the resource near the village on a continuous
basis. Distances less than 10 miles and a forest that can
maintain a sustained yield of wood fiber equal or greater than
the rate at which it is burned are required, are essential
conditions.
Solid Waste
Another potential fuel source is the solid wastes generated in
the village such as paper, wood crating, plastics and other
•
•
•
combustible materials. These wastes are presently being inc in-•
erated or land filled, providing no benefit to the village.
This resource, while probably not of sufficient magnitude on its
own, could provide additional energy to a solid fuel fired sys-•
tern such as might be required for burning coal, peat or wood.
Steam Power Generation
Steam power generation can be considered if there are combus-
tible products available such as coal, wood, peat, or solid
sufficient waste such as paper, wood waste or other combustible
•
materials. The feasibility of steam power depends on the avail-•
ability of a low cost fuel. It is possible that steam coal may
exist in the Grayling area which, if it could be extracted at a
reasonable cost, might be considered for steam power generation
despite its potentially low thermodynamic efficiency. Grayling
is also interesting from the view that it is in a forested area
and wood is available. Where there is a combustion process
available the solid wastes from the village which are now land-
filled or incinerated could be burned in the process to provide
additional heat while disposing of a nuisance item.
The steam systems are capital intensive because they require ex-
•
•
tensive material handling equipment, combustion system, a boiler •
for converting the water to steam, a turbine and a condensor to
• 5.40
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
take the residual energy out of the steam, a generator, and the
attendant electrical system for distribution.
A capital intensive system like this also has high maintenance
requirements because of the number of moving pieces and rotating
equipment.
Gasification -Synfuel
The previously mentioned fuels, coal, wood, peat and solid
waste from sewage and kitchen waste, could be converted from
their raw state to a material suitable for use in a diesel
generator by a gasification process. Gasification of wood is
being pursued quite heavily in those areas of the lower 48 states
which have large quantities of wood material where there may be
some benefit in converting the bulky fuel to a more easily
handled fuel.
The state-of-the-art of gasification has improved rapidly in the
past few years with the increased price of oil. The typical
outputs from the process are low BTU gas in the order of 150 -
250 BTU's per cubic foot, oils and tars, char consisting primar-
ily of carbon, and ash. Most recently hydrogasification of peat
has resulted in medium BTU gas and liquid fuels production.
Village gasification project would have to be coordinated to
make use of all the outputs from such a project. The tars that
are condensed while the gas is cooled could be used in the pro-
cess for process heat or could be used to fire other energy
consuming equipment, including home heating applications. The
char has some commercial value; however, finding a market for the
char in the small amounts that would be generated by these
systems may prove to be a problem. Again, the char could be
burned for additional heat for home heating or other heat
consuming processes.
There is a demonstration project presently undertaken by AVEC to
5.41
determine the suitability of gasifiers. Further, there are
three or four gasifier manufacturers producing equipment in the
lower 48 states. These manufacturers claim various degrees of
success.
There have been a number of demonstration projects utilizing
farm wastes and sewage wastes for forming methane gases. These
gases are higher BTU value than that currently obtained from
coal or biomass.
Energy Storage
All the villages have an existing available, continuous and
fairly reliable source of electrical power. The peopie in the
area have become accustomed to this availability of power, and
their needs have been adopted to requiring continuous flow of
electrical power. Some of the new technologies discussed above
cannot provide power on a continuous basis but only an inter-
mittent basis. It would be, therefore, necessary to provide
some method for storing energy generated at a time when the
demand for that energy was low and to return it into the system
when the demand so required.
The types of storage that could be considered for bush villages
are water stored behind the dam, flywheel energy, battery
storage or storage in the form of hydrogen for use in an oxida-
tion or a chemical conversion of hydrogen to electrical energy.
There is a potential for hydro storage at Togiak where there
appears to be a feasible location for a dam which, beside stor-
age, would provide a higher head capability on the hydroelectric
system. The wind systems or solar photovoltaic systems would
provide energy to the demanded system when it is available and
the hydro system would store energy while the other devices are
providing energy and then provide that energy at times when
either the wind is not blowing or the sun is not providing
radiant energy.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Single Wire Ground Return
Single wire ground return is a potential method for delivering
electric power to a small village, from a large town or city
where efficient power generation facilities exist. Small power
generation systems are inherently less efficient than larger
ones. Some economic benefit of receiving power from a large ef-
ficient generator can be obtained if the cost of delivering the
electrical energy to a village is low. This cost can be kept low
by a simplified system such as a single wire ground return system
utilizing a wire support system that does not require heavy
equipment for installing poles or piling. This method is pre-
sently being demonstrated in line from Bethel to Napakiak. See
Appendix D for further information on the technology.
C. Appropriate Village Technologies
A gross screening of technologies with respect to each commu-
nity was performed in order to determine which alternatives were
appropriate for further consideration including preliminary eco-
nomic analysis. Screening was based upon the initial assessment
of the following parameters:
Technology State-of-the Art: The availability of system compo-
nents and their demonstrated application as discussed in the
Technology Profile, Appendix D. Technologies available off-the-
shelf and which appear to meet specific near term needs of the
community and match the resource magnitude were rated 5, on the
scale of 0 to 5. Those te~hnologies which were not expected to
be commercially available for use within 5 years were rated low
on the scale. Some of these technologies will be suitable for
demonstration projects within the projected 20-year period of the
economic analysis, but it is not likely that rural southwest
Alaska will be the appropriate site of such demonstrations.
Cost: Typical system costs per installed kilowatt or per energy
5.43
savings in cases of conservation and waste heat capture technol-
ogies. Technologies were rated relative to each other for
purposes of this assessment. For general cost figures, see
Appendix D.
Reliability: System reliability and/or continuous or intermit-
tent nature of the resource; sensitivity to supply disruption.
Resource: Quality, magnitude and availability. Availability of
resources for the appropriate technologies to meet energy re-
quirements of the community was anticipated. Two technologies
(geothermal and tidal) were immediately eliminated from all
other consideration on the basis of lack of resource.
•
•
•
•
Labor: Level of skill or training necessary to long-term opera-•
tion and maintenance of the energy system.
Environmental Impact: Anticipated effects of the technology
resource utilization on the natural environment.
Determinations of individual "scores" were based upon technical
input as presented in the Technology Profiles, Appendix 0,
limited resource data and experienced jUdgment. A ranking sys-
tem was developed to quantify the decision process for determi-
nation of best alternatives for each community. The process
consisted of averaging all variables and weighting technology
•
•
state-of-the-art and resource availability factors most heavily. •
The ranking formula follows:
•
•
• 5.44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ranking Factor = (A/25 + B/IO)/2
where A =
the sum of the
(state-of-the-art + cost + reliability + resource + labor)
scores
and B =
the sum of the (state-of-the-art + resource) scores
5.45
priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Technology Ranking for Goodnews Bay
1981-2001
Energy conservation
Waste heat capture, direct heat
Wind energy conversion
Hydroelectric
Photovoltaic
Gasification
Passive Solar
Rankine Cycle waste heat capture and Active Solar
Steam from local coal or wood
10 0 Fuel cells
5.46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
Technology
State-of-the-Art
Energy Conservation 5
Waste Heat Capture 2
Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Capture 5
Direct Heat
Fuel Cells 1
Hydroelectric 5
Wind Energy Con-4
version
Geothermal 2
Tidal and Wave 1
Actuated
Passive Solar 4
Active Solar 4
Photovoltaic 4
Steam from Local 3
Fuel
Gasification 4
NOTE: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
+ = positive impact
+ = positve and negative impacts
•
GOODNEWS BAY
Relia-
Cost bility
4 5
0 5
3 5
0 4
3 4
3 1
1 3
1 0
2 4
1 2
2 4
3 4
3 3
• • • • •
Environ-Ranking
Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
5 4 + .96
3 1 + .42
5 3 + .92
2 0 + .29
3 2 + .69 -
4 3 + .24 -
0 2 + 0
0 3 + 0
1 3 + .49
1 3 .42
2 3 + .60
1 2 + .46 -
1 2 + .51 -
Priority
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
Technology Ranking for Grayling
1981-2001
Energy conservation
Waste heat capture, direct heat
Steam from local fuel
Hydroelectric
Gasification
Photovoltaic
Wind energy conversion
Passive Solar
Rankine Cycle waste heat capture and Active Solar
Fuel cells
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U1 .
• • •
Technology
State-of-the-Art
Energy Conservation 5
Waste Heat Capture 1
Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Capture 5
Direct Heat
Fuel Cells 1
Hydroelectric 5
Wind Energy Con-4
version
Geothermal 2
Tidal and Wave 1
Actuated
Passive Solar 4
Active Solar 4
Photovoltaic 4
Steam from Local 5
Fuel
Gasification 4
NOTE: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
+ = positive impact
+ = positve and negative impacts
•
GRAYLING
Relia-
Cost bility
4 5
0 5
3 5
0 4
3 4
3 1
1 3
1 0
2 4
1 2
2 4
3 4
3 3
• • • • •
Environ-Ranking
Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
5 4 + .96
4 1 + .47
5 3 + .92
2 0 + .29
3 2 + .74 -
2 3 + .56 -
0 2 2 0
0 3 3 0
1 3 3 .53
1 3 3 .47
3 3 3 .67
4 2 2
.81
4 2 2 .72
Priority
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 0
Technology Ranking for Scammon Bay
1981-2001
Energy conservation
Waste heat capture, direct heat
Hydroelectric
Wind energy conversion
Steam from local peat
Photovoltaic
Gasification
Passive Solar
Active Solar
Rankine Cycle waste heat capture
Fuel cells
5.50
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.11
.11 ....
• • • •
Technology
-State-of-the-Art
Energy Conservation 5
Waste Heat Capture I
Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Capture 5
Direct Heat
Fuel Cells I
Hydroelectric 5
Wind Energy Con-4
version
Geothermal 2
Tidal and Wave I
Actuated
Passive Solar 4
Active Solar 4
Photovoltaic 4
Steam from Local 4
Fuel
Gasification 4
NOTE: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
+ = positive impact
= = positive and negative impacts
• • • • • •
SCAMMON BAY
Relia-Environ-Ranking
Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
4 5 5 4 + .96
0 5 3 I + .40
3 5 4 3 + .85
0 4 2 0 + .29
4 4 4 2 + .83 -
3 I 4 3 + .70 -
I 3 0 2 + 0
I 0 0 3 + 0
2 4 I 3 + .53
I 2 1 3 + .47
2 4 2 3 + .60
3 4 3 2 + -.67
3 3 2 2 + .58
priority
1 (I
2 (I
3 0
4 (I
5 0
6 0
7 (I
8 0
9 (I
Technology Ranking for Togiak
1981-2001
Energy conservation
Waste heat capture, direct heat
Hydroelectric --Quigmy River
Wind energy conversion
Photovoltaic1 steam from local fuel
Gasification; passive solar
Active Solar
Rankine Cycle waste heat capture
Fuel cells
5.52
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
Technology
State-of-the-Art
Energy Conservation 5
Waste Heat Capture 1
Rankine Cycle
Waste Heat Capture 5
Direct Heat
Fuel Cells 1
Hydroelectric 5
Wind Energy Con-4
version
Geothermal 2
Tidal and Wave 1
Actuated
Passive Solar 4
Active Solar 4
Photovoltaic 4
Steam from Local 5
Fuel
. Gasification 4
NOTE: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
+ = positive impact
+ = positve and negative impacts
TOdtAK
Relia-
Cost bility
4 5
0 5
3 5
0 4
3 4
3 1
1 3
1 4
2 4
1 2
2 4
3 4
3 3
• • • • •
Environ-Ranking
Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
5 4 + .96
3 1 + .40
5 3 + .82
2 0 + .29
4 2 + .71 -
4 3 + .70 -
0 2 + 0
0 3 + 0
1 3 + .53
1 3 + .47
2 3 + .60
1 2 + .60 -
1 2 + .53
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.0 ENERGY PLAN
A. Introduction
Energy plans were developed for each village based on the avail-
ability of local resources and the technology appropriate to
convert that resource into useable energy. The state of the art
of a technology and the expected cost strongly influenced the
selections. Technologies, such as, fuel cells and organic Ran-
kine Cycle power were not considered feasible not only because
of cost but also because a demonstration project of high tech-
nology is not appropriate in remote areas.
The screening process was designed to judge a technology on the
cost of installation in relation to its potential energy output.
Those technologies which had high cost plus low potential output
over the anticipated project life, such as solar photo voltaic,
were screened and, therefore, eliminated from the specific vil-
lage energy plan. Those technologies ruled out today may prove
themselves in the future, but in terms of what is reasonable and
practical in the near term, other choices were considered most
realistic to improve the village energy situation at lower total
cost. These must be pursued first because the need for action
is most immediate.
Energy conservation was not treated as a plan per se, because it
is such an obvious first step in all the village visits and the
cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures is unques-
tioned. This assumption is documented in numerous reports
already published on the subject. The plans proposed for the
villages presuppose that energy conservation measures will be
made available to the villages and action taken to reduce at
least the oil consumption for building heating. The electrical
power consumption is already low in the villages because of the
high energy prices. It was assumed that any reduction of
electrical energy consumption would be offset by increased
6.1
consumption elsewhere.
The following plans are presented for the villages of Goodnews
Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay and Togiak.
Energy Plan for Goodnews Bay
Goodnews Bay Base Case Plan
The base case plan is to provide electric power and heat ener-
•
•
•
gy from the existing resources, i.e., electric power is produced •
and sold by AVEC. New diesel generating capacity is added as
the peak demand warrants. Heating fuel oil is projected on the
basis of usage at the present household consumption rate.
Goodnews Bay presently meets its peak demand with one (1) 112.5
KW generator. Increased demand will require added capacity or
the ability to operate generators in parallel. Additions or
modification were planned as follows:
1. 1982 -Upgrade one generator to 125 KW.
2. 1990 -Upgrade one generator to 150 KW.
Oil heating systems expansion was assumed to be a function of
increased population with no capital allocated specifically to
the expansion of the system capacity. This expenditure will be
embedded in the cost of new housing.
Goodnews Bay Alternative Plan A
Waste heat capture was selected as the most likely alternative
•
•
•
•
to reduce energy costs in the village for the following reasons: •
1. The BIA school is located wtihin 250 feet of the AVEC
generators.
2. The waste heat can provide all the heating energy for
the school from the first year, on the following
basis:
6.2
•
•
•
•
•
a. Heat required = Oil consumed x combustion effici-
ency
In 1979 Heat Required = 3,248 x 10 6 (.64) =
2073 x 10 6 Btu/yr
b. Heat available = 50% of AVEC Oil consumption
Heat available = 4117.5(.5) = 2059 x 10 6 Btu/yr
3. The heat demand of the school and the electrical demand
of the village are proportional each other resulting in
• maximum waste heat capture benefits over'an annual
period.
•
•
•
•
•
•
4. The offset value of the fuel saved can be credited to
AVEC fuel cost. (Note: For simplified economic
analysis the offset is shown as a reduction of heating
oil in the village.)
5. The BIA school has radiators and heat exchangers that
are compatible with the waste heat capture plan
resulting in lower system cost.
The estimated cost for a waste heat capture system is estimated
as follows:
Equipment installed
Piping (250 ft. piping)
School construction
Mobilization
$ 60,000.
50,000.
25,000.
35,000.
$170,000.
Operation and maintenance costs of $1500/yr assume that the AVEC
operator and school maintenance person take on the day to day
operation of the waste heat capture system at no additional
cost.
6.3
Goodnews Ba~ Alternative Plans B
This alternative assumes the installation of four (4) 10KW
wind generators with synchronous AC output capable of operation
in parallel with the diesel generator. The generators are
assumed to each provide 25,000 KWh/year to the system in a wind
•
•
regime of 13 mph. In the event the system demand for energy is •
less than the output of the wind machines, a control system will
be installed to sequentially shut down the wind generator.
The costs for this plan are as follows:
Equipment installed
Foundations & Erection
Electrical Control
Mobilization
$ 93,000.
79,800.
30,000.
60,000.
$262,800.
Operation and maintenance were estimated at $4,000 per year on
the basis that man power would be provided by AVEC for opera-
tions.
Energy Plan for Grayling
Grayling Base Case Plan
The base case plan assumes that the village will use the same
energy sources and power generation method as currently being
used. The present generator sizing will be capable of meeting
the projected energy demand including the new high school and
HUD housing to the year 2001. This case is used for comparison
with alternatives that are aimed at reducing the electrical
energy cost.
Oil heating system expansion was assumed to follow the projected
populaton growth of the village. No capital costs were
allocated to the expansion of the system capacity. Those costs
6.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
are embedded in the cost of new construction for housing,
schools or other new-energy facilities.
Grayling Alternative Plan A
Waste heat capture was selected as the alternative having the
lowest first cost which can offset oil usage. This plan has the
following rationale:
1. There are three potential users of waste heat within
450 feet of the AVEC generators, namely the pump house,
the BIA school and the new state high school.
2. All potential users have radiators and/or heat ex-
changers that are compatible with waste heat capture
delivery system.
3. The waste heat can provide all the heating energy for
4.
the BIA school and the PHS (for water heating only).
It was assumed that all the oil consumption for the
school and the PHS could be eliminated as follows:
BIA school 1309.5 X 106Btu/yr
City services 445.5 x lO6Btu/yr
Total Offset 1775 x lO6Btu/yr
The value of the fuel saved can offset the AVEC fuel
cost. (For simplicity of the economic analysis, the
offset is shown as a reduction of heating oil in the
village. )
BIA
5. At a future date, the new high school could be added to
the system with only the addition of some piping. This
addition was not assumed in this analysis.
The cost estimate for a waste heat capture system at Grayling is
as follows:
6.5
Equipment installed
Pipeline (450 1 )
School & PHS interconnection
Mobilizaton
$ 60,000
.80,000
35,000
35,000
$211,000
Operation and maintenance costs of $1500/yr assume that the
AVEC, operator, the school and PHS maintenance personnel take on
the day to day operation of the waste heat capture system.
Grayling Alternative Plan B (Coal-fired Steam Plant)
This alternative is based on the potential of coal being
developed in the vicinity of Grayling and that the cost for coal
•
•
•
•
from such a mine would cost $2.50 per 106Btu. The planned •
facility size is 200 KW to provide for sufficient power to
process the fuel and provide station power such as that required
for crushers are future village expansion.
The proposed design of the facility is bas~d on currently avail-
able boiler and turbine generator equipment. This equipment
results in low ftcycle efficiency" of approximately 5 to 6%. To
•
offset this low efficienty, a district heating system is planned •
to capture the heat in the turbine exhaust steam by heating a
water or glycol circulation loop. (See schematic in technology
profile Appendix D).
The power plant consists of a solid fuel fired boiler capable of
burning coal wood or solid waste, a back pressure turbine-
generator, a condenser to heat the district heating circulation
•
system, an excess heat condenser and a feed water heater. •
•
• 6.6
•
•
•
'.
•
•
•
•
•
The steam power generator system costs are estimated as follows:
Boiler & Equipment (12,000 pph)
Turbine generator (250 KW)
Fuel Handling
Building, Piping & Electrical
District Heating System
Mobilization
Total Cost
$ 145,000.
40,000.
100,000.
100,000.
635,000.
200,000.
$1,220,000.
Expected life of the system is 30 years. Operation and main-
tenance cost are estimated to be $.085/KWh and $1/10 6 Btu.
This facility will provide all the electrical and heating energy
of the village. In addition, the boiler can use the combustible
fraction of solid wastes generated in the village as fuel as
well as wood. The decision to burn wood depends on the cost per
million Btu of coal versus wood.
Energy Plan for Scammon Bay
Scammon Bay Base Case Plan
The base case for Scammon Bay assumes that the electrical and
heating energy of the village are supplied from the same energy
sources and power generating method as presently used. The gen-
erators in the AVEC plant serving the village are not adequate
to meet the demand with the addition of the new high school.
AVEC was in the process of replacing the 75 KW generator with a
100 KW generator by increasing the speed of the diesel from 1200
to 1800 rpm.
The following additions to the AVEC generators are planned to
meet the projected village loads:
1-1982 -replace 50 KW with 150 KW
2. 1990 -replace 100 KW with 150 KW
6.7
The oil heating system expansion was to follow the projected
population growth of the village. No capital costs were allo-
cated to the expansion of the system capacity. Those costs are
embedded in the cost of new construction for housing or other
non-energy facilities.
Scammon Bay Alternative Plan A
Scammon Bay has two near term available resources in close
proximity to the village. These are a small hydro potential
stream and wind. The hydro potential has been analysed by the
Alaska Power Administration and the Corps of Engineers. Based
on information received since the December, 1980 report by the
Corps, an energy scenario for this village has been developed
which offers a long term plan for achieving some relief from
high energy costs.
1. Significant elements of the plan include installation
of a 100 KW hydraulic turbine generator on the small
stream that flows out of the Askinuk Mountains above
the village.
6.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It
•
•
•
•
'I
•
•
•
The estimated stream flow, average KW and estimated KWh for
each month is as follows:
Village
Ave Consumption
Flow Ave Est KWh
Month cfs KW KWh 1981/2000
Jan 0.2 0 0 29200/48700
Feb 0.2 0 0 26300/43900
Mar 0.5 11 7900 22900/38200
Apr 2.0 61 43920 20100/33600
May 5.0 100 72000 17800/29700
Jun 5.0 100 72000 16200/27000
Jul 2.0 61 43900 17800/29700
Aug 2.0 61 43900 19500/32600
Sep 1.5 46 33100 22900/38200
Oct 1.25 40 28800 24400/40700
Nov 1.0 31 22300 27400/45700
Dec 0.5 11 7900 30500/50900
The hydro facility will produce 64% of the village electric
energy consumption in 1981, decreasing to 55% in the year
2000.
2.
3.
4.
The location of the AVEC plant is not suitable for waste
heat capture because of the great distance to the near-
est large heat user.
The high school generator has sufficient capacity to
supply power for itself and the BlA school and is loca-
ted close to the high school to make waste heat capture
an available alternative.
Wind power generation may be feasible in 6 to 10 years
but was not considered in this analysis.
6.9
The plan for Scammon Bay is to:
1. Install a 100 KW hydraulic turbine generator including
a diversion dam, penstock and controls.
2. Modifiy the electrical distribution to a) permit the
hydro and the diesel to operate in parallel, b) allow
the high school to deliver power to the BIA school as
well as to the utility grid, c) require the schools to
purchase hydro power from the community when excess
generation is available (at least six months when the
hydro generator can furnish all the energy used in the
village.).
3. Encourage the high school to install waste heat cap-
ture on the generators to provide at least a portion
of the heat load for the building.
4. The existing power plant would be used for peaking
power and for standby in the event other facilities
could not operate.
Estimated cost for the hydro plant, the purchase of the assets
of the existing utility, and modification of the distribution
system are as follows:
Land clearing and site preparation
Intake structure
Penstock 3500'
Powerhouse
Electrical
Mobilization
Engineering and PM
TOTAL
6.10
148,500
95,000
150,000
26,500
40,000
330,000
80,000
870,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Electrical system modification
TOTAL INVESTMENT
o & M
Fuel Cost
Hydro
Diesel -per AVEC schedule in Base Case
Scammon Bay Alternative Plan B
100,000
970,000
SO,OOO/yr
o
No other alternatives were considered for Scammon Bay. After
the hydro facility is developed there are two viable additions
that could be made. These are to add wind machines to make up
for the winter shortfall in hydro output or develop another
hydro site at a stream to the east or west of the village.
Energy Plan for Togiak
Togiak Base Case Plan
The base case plan for Togiak is to provide heat energy and
electric power from the present resources, i.e. oil heat and
diesel power generation. The present utility has the capacity
to meet the peak demand in the year 2001 with the existing
generator capacity. To provide full redundancy at the higher
electric demands forecast in future years, this plan provides
for replacing the 100 KW generator with a second 300 KW
generator. Cost for this system modification was estimated to
be $800/KW.
Heating fuel oil consumption is projected on the basis of the
present rate of consumption. If energy conservation is
practiced that consumption could be dramatically decreased. Oil
6.11
consumption for home and building heating was assumed to be di-
rectly related to the forecast population growth with no capital
investment in the expansion of the system capacity. The
increased oil burning capacity will be imbedded in the cost for
new construction for pousing another public and commercial
building.
A new seafood processing plant is being constructed in the vil-
lage. This facility will process, freeze and store fish for
shipment out of the area. The plant has a projected electrical
demand of 280 KW. During each of three months of the year it is
expected to operate, this power will be furnished by its own
generators. Two 350 KW generators are planned. No provisions
were made for meeting the demand from the existing AVEC utility
system.
Togiak Alternative Plan A
•
•
•
•
•
This plan for Togiak is to install a waste heat capture system •
from the utility diesel generators to provide heat for the
school building. The school is located approximately 420' from
the AVEC plant. The school presently uses hot water heating
systems. The existing radiators and heat exchangers in the •
school would be utilized in the new heat capture system to
reduce the total cost of obtaining the useful heat energy.
Capital cost for a diesel engine heat capture system as shown •
schematically in Appendix D are as follows:
Heat exchanger 40,000
Pumps 7,500 •
Control 5,000
Installation of Equipment 60,000
Piping 8,400
Intertie well existing 3,500 •
Mobilization 60,000
291,500
•
6.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The estimated life of the system is 20 years. The annual opera-
ting and maintenance cost is estimated to be $2,000 on the basis
that the actual operation would be included in the duties of the
utility operator and the school maintenance person.
The waste heat available from the diesel power generators is
sufficient to fully offset all the oil useage at the'school.
The diesel generators have an estimated heat input of 9580 x
10 6 Btu in 1979, with a possible 4790 x 10 6 Btu available
for building heating. The school consumed 4725 x 10 6 Btu of
which about 70% or 3307 x 10 6 were delivered to the space.
The other 30% was lost in the combustion process.
The impact of the heat capture system is to provide additional
revenue to AVEC to reduce the cost of power generation so that
every electrical user will benefit. For purposes of simplifying
the financial analysis the impact of waste heat capture was to
reduce the village heating oil requirements and compare the
present worth of 20 years of business as usual with the waste
heat capture plan.
Togiak Alternative Plan B
Based on projection of water flow from the drainage system and
the topography, it appears that a substantial hydro power facil-
ity could be developed on the Quigmy River about 12 miles west
of Togiak. Minimum stream flows of 85 cfs are projected and
with the construction of a dam, up to 100 feet of head could be
achieved. The dam would provide storage of water to allow flex-
ibility in meeting the demand variation of the village electri-
cal load.
No data are available on the peak flow or flow variation of this
water system. Visual observation of the river and estimate of
the drainage area, rainfall amounts and other factors effecting
runoff are the basis for this analysis.
6.13
The village has a projected electrical peak demand of less than
300 KW (not including the two seasonally operational seafood
plants) to the year 2001. This capacity can be met with a
hydraulic turbine generator operating with a head of 55' and
discharged 75 cfs.
The facility would consist of a dam approximately'60' high by
1000' long, a power house with a 300 kw hydraulic turbine, and
approximately 14 miles of electrical transmission line. The
transmission line is a candidate for single wire ground return
technology for the purpose of this analysis.
Costs were estimated for a typical three wire system. Costs for
this facility are as follows:
Dam 60 I X 1000 $3,400,000
Power house 250,000
Penstock 40"16 50,000
Transmission 14 mi 600,000
Road 400,000
Mobilization 500,000
TOTAL $5,200,000
Operation and maintenance is estimated at $0.04/KWh of genera-
tion. Fuel costs are zero. The existing diesel generators
would be retained for backup and the existing distribution sys-
tem in the village would be retained. No costs were allocated
for these systems.
6.14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.0 ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION
A. Economic Evaluation
Criteria and Discussion
Evaluation criteria spelled out by the Alaska Power Authority
are as follows:
1) Fuel costs to be escalated at 3.5% per year.
2) Inflation rate to be 0% for all cases.
3) The interest rate for economic evaluations is set at 3.0%.
4) The planning period is twenty years and the base year is
1981.
Appendix E contains all calculations and the results of the
present worth analyses from the various alternative energy plans
presented for each study village.
For the "Business As Usual" scenario, the present worth of each
villages projected power production and space heating costs are
as follows:
PRESENT VALUE TABULATION
Village Power Generation Space Heating
Goodnews Bay $2,413,990 3,375,955
Grayling 2,049,972 1,711,143
Scammon Bay 2,344,555 3,707,478
Togiak 4,504,140 7,077,539
7.1
The evaluation of the various plans for each village were
founded on using the projected peak demand, total generation and
space heating data derived in Appendix C and discussed in
Section 4 of this report.
The impact of the assumptions of zero inflation and the rela-
tively low, 3%, interest rate is noted largely in comparing the
relative magnitude of the present values of the "Business as
Usual" scenario with the alternative plans. For example, the
present value of the Scammon Bay electric power generation is
$2,300,000 and the present value of the proposed alternative is
$1,800,000; this leaves an apparent net benefit of $500,000 or
about a 28% benefit. Had inflation been considered along with a
higher interest rate the percentage difference would be signifi-
cantly diminished and the relative value of the net benefit may
not have appeared to be so high.
Further serving to diminish the apparent benefit would be the
inclusion of administration and distribution system costs. By
adding the amortization of capital and other annual costs
relative to operation of the distribution system the relative
differences would again be lessened.
It is recommended that future analyses be carried out on a cash
flow basis inclusive of a clear definition of all capital and
operating costs. Such an analysis would allow a clear identifi-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
cation of areas where system costs could be shared thus allowing •
system operating efficiency to be optimized.
Economic Evaluation
The following tabular values are derived from the economic
analyses contained in Appendix E.
7.2
•
•
•
•
Present Value • Village Plan A Plan B Business as Usual
Goodnews Bay
( 1) Electric $2,076,736 $2,413,990
• ( 2) Space Heat $2,457,343 3,375,955
TOTAL 5,789,945
Grayling
( 1) Electric 2,049,972
• (2) Space Heat 1,150,989 1,711,143
TOTAL 2,236,480 3,761,115
Scammon Bay
(1 ) Electric 1,794,008 2,344,555
• (2) Space Heat 3,707,478
TOTAL 6,052,033
Togiak
• (1) Electric 3,488,688 4,504,140
(2 ) Space Heat 5,805,173 7,077,539
TOTAL 11,581,679
•
•
•
•
• 7.3
•
Net Benefit
•
Village Plan A Plan B
Goodnews Bay
(1) Electric $ 337,254
( 2) Space Heat $ 545,209 • TOTAL
Grayling
( 1) Electric • ( 2) Space Heat 109,187
TOTAL 1,529,635
Scammon Bay
(1) Electric 550,547 • ( 2) Space Heat
TOTAL
Togiak
( 1) Electric 1,015,452 •
(2 ) Space Heat 648,628
TOTAL
•
•
•
•
• 7.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GOODNEWS BAY
Plan A Waste Heat Capture
This plan is most sensitive to the magnitude of the offset
heat available from the waste heat capture system. Capital
investment in the system appears to have relatively little
impact net benefit.
Based on the analysis the program described Plan A appears
to have a relatively strong benefit and would be worthy of fur-
ther detailed technological and economic analysis~
Plan B Wind Power
Wind power generation for this case is added to the system
during 1981 and 1990 and displaces 100,000 and 150,000 kwh/yr •
respectively. The power generation provided by wind is assumed
to be constant following installation of the systems.
While 0 & M costs ~ __ l~~and fuel costs for wind systems
are eliminated the relative positive net benefit over the.
existing system appears to be marginal. More detailed examina-
tion of the system may reveal negative results.
7.5
GRAYLING
Plan A Waste Heat Capture
Again, the magnitude of the waste heat capture, or offset
heat, is the most critical variable in the analysis. And, again
•
•
the relative economic strength of the waste heat capture system •
appears to be significant enough to warrant more detailed exam-
ination.
Plan B Steam Power Generation and District Heating from Local
Coal
The economic benefit of this system is derived from an
examination of the total energy system for Grayling, defined
here to include both the electric power generation and space
heating systems.
The net benefit, as derived in Appendix E, is quite high
for this case. Given this favorable economic indicator more
detailed analysis appears to be justified. The analysis should,
however, include all these factors associated with extraction
and distribution of the local coal resource.
SCAMMON BAY
Plan A Hydropower Plus Diesel System Acquisition
The high capital cost for the hydropower system envisioned
for this plan is somewhat offset by the project life, assumed to
be 50 years. The relative strength of the net benefit appears
to be quite high for this plan and warrants a more detailed
analysis. Any subsequent analysis should include detailed
estimates of all elements included in capital improvement con-
struction.
7.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TOGIAK
Plan A Waste Heat Capture
The net benefit of waste heat capture for this plan at
Togiak appears to be relatively lower than those of Goodnews Bay
and Grayling. Review of the analysis reveals that this is
largely due to the space heating system size for the community.
The net positive benefit is encouraging in that this is probably
the most accurately predictable economic analysis. Further
detailed examination is warranted for this plan.
Plan B Hydropower
Once again the estimate of capital costs for hydropower
systems of more remote sites requires detailed input. However,
given the conditions of this analysis the hydropower option
appears to have significant merit.
7.7
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Goodnews Base Case Plan •
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation.
1) Community preferences -the community does not prefer this •
alternative and strongly desires less dependence on fuel
oil and decreased energy payments.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -
continuation of one part-time AVEC job; no new employment
forseen for local residents.
3) Timing in relation to other planned projects -no impact.
4) Air quality -exhaust from combustion releases small
amounts of pollutants to local environment; minimal
impact.
5) Water quality -no impact.
•
•
•
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -noise from generation may cause •
wildlife to avoid townsite.
7) Land use and ownership status -all leases and permits in
place.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation or soils.
7.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Goodnews Bay Base Plan A
Plan summary:' waste heat capture from existing generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Community preferences -community expected to support
project since electric rates lowered and no significant
adverse impacts to community.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -none.
3) Timing in relation to other planned capital projects -no
impact known, future additions to generating capacity will
provide additional waste heat for sale and continuation of
benefit.
4) Air quality -less thermal pollution.
5) Water quality -unlikely impact in the event of spill of
heat transfer fluid.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -none.
7) Land use and ownership status-right of way probably
already secured for power transmission line.
8) Terrestrial impacts -unlikely local impact in the event of
spill of heat transfer fluid.
7.9
B. Environmental Evaluation
Goodnews Bay Base Plan B
Plan summary: supplemental wind generation.
Ii Community preferences -this alternative highly desirable.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -will
require training of local person for wind system
maintenance and repair.
3) Timing in relation to other planned capital projects -no
known capital projects for this community (state high
school already on line).
4) Air quality -no pollutants; remote chance of weather
modification by large numbers of wind energy conversion
systems, but little possibility for this size system.
5) Water quality -no impact.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -no impact.
7) Land use and ownership status -community or local
corporation can provide site.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation; towers must
be securely anchored to avoid damage to equipment.
7.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation.
1) Community preferences -community does not prefer this
alternativei strongly desires less dependence on fuel oil
and decreased energy payments.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -
continuation of one part-time AVEC job; no new employment
forseen for local residents.
3) Timing in relation to other planned projects -no impact.
4) Air quality -exhaust from combustion releases small
amounts of pollutants to local environment; minimal
impact.
5) water quality -no impact.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -noise from generation may cause
wildlife to avoid townsite.
7) Land use and ownership status -all leases and permits in
place.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation or soils.
7.11
B. Environmental Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: waste heat capture from existing generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Community preferences -community expected to support
project since electric rates lowered and no significant
adverse impacts to community.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -none.
3) Timing in relation to other planned capital projects -no
impact known; future additions to generating capacity will
provide additional waste heat for sale and continuation of
direct benefit ratio.
4) Air quality -less thermal pollution.
5) Water quality -unlikely impact in the event of spill of
heat transfer fluid.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -none.
7) Land use and ownership status -right-of-way probably
already secured for power transmission line.
8) Terrestrial impacts -unlikely local impact in the event of
spill of heat transfer fluid.
7.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Plan B
Plan summary: co-generation of steam and heat for district
heating from local fuel resource.
1) Community preference -community seemed to prefer
hydroelectric as first choice, but new data show that
alternative to be unlikely alternative; community expected
to be amenable to this alternative as a means of decreasing
energy costs and reliance upon fuel resource from outside
their area.
2) Impact upon community infrastructure and employment -new
jobs would be created: several to support small scale coal
mine (possibly seasonal if unable to mine in summer due to
water encroachment), steam plant operator; expect local
ownership with management support from regional
corporation; possible export of coal to nearby communities
along Grayling River and cash income into village.
3) Timing in relation to other planned projects -new system
would provide heat and power for new HUD housing in
addition to existing buildings.
4) Air quality -would be required to meet stringent EPA
requirements for utility burning of coal; possible
enhancement by combining with local wood or municipal solid
waste; little impact if EPA requirements met.
5) Water quality -possible thermal pollution if water used as
heat sink; unlikely if use for low quality heat found;
-possible thermal pollution if open system
planned; closed system impact only if pipe rupture.
7.13
6) Fish and wildlife impact -unlikely except in event of
water quality impact (see item 5).
7) Land use and ownership status -municipality or local
corporation expected to provide surface rights; regional
corporation must approve subsurface lease if coal mined on
native land; coal on federal land expected to be more
difficult, so exploration on native land recommended.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation; mine must be
supported to avoid land subsidence.
7.14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Scammon Bay Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation
1) Community preferences -community does not prefer this
alternativel strongly desires less dependence on fuel oil
and decreased energy payments.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -
continuation of one part-time AVEC job; no new employment
forseen for local residents.
3) Timing in relation to other planned projects -no impact.
4) Air quality -exhaust from combustion releases small
amounts of pollutants to local environment; minimal
impact.
5) water quality -no impact.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -noise from generation may cause
wildlife to avoid townsite.
7) Land use and ownership status -all leases and permits in
place.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation or soils.
7.15
B. Environmental Evaluation
Scammon Bay Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: hydroelectric power generation with planned
diesel generation in low flow months.
1) Community preferences -community very much desires
hydroelectric generation.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -plant
operator must be trained or hired from outside community,
probably same person to manage diesel generators. Few
other jobs except during construction.
•
•
•
•
3) Timing in addition to other planned projects -plan for new •
HUD houses: no conflict unless shortage of laborers should
both projects coincide.
4) Air quality -slight improvement due to reduced
combustion.
5) Water quality -minimal impact.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -none anticipated.
7) Land use and ownership -no conflict.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no possibility of flooding since no
dam planned; no impact on vegetation or soils.
7.16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation.
1) Community preferences -community does not prefer this
alternative; strongly desires less dependence on fuel oil
and decreased energy payments.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -
continuation of one part-time AVEC job; no new employment
forseen for local residents.
3) Timing in relation to other planned projects -no impact.
4) Air quality -exhaust from combustion releases small
amounts of pollutants to local environment; minimal
impact.
5) Water quality -no impact.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -noise from generation may cause
wildlife to avoid townsite.
7) Land use and ownership status -all leases and permits in
place.
8) Terrestrial impacts -no impact on vegetation or soils.
7.17
B. Environmental Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: waste heat capture from existing generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Community preferences -community expected to support
project since electric rates lowered and no significant
adverse impacts to community.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -none.
3) Timing in relation to other planned capital projects -no
impact known: future additions to generating capacity will
provide additional waste heat for sale and continuation of
direct benefit ratio.
4) Air quality -less thermal pollution.
5} water quality -unlikely impact in the event of spill of
heat transfer fluid.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -none.
7) Land use and ownership status -right-of-way probably
already secured for power transmission line.
S) Terrestrial impacts -unlikely local impact in the event of
spill of heat transfer fluid.
7.lS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B. Environmental Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan B
Plan summary: hydroelectric power generation from Quigmy
River.
1) Community preferences -community likes both wind and
hydro; very cautious regarding impact on fish habitat.
2) Impact on community infrastructure and employment -full-
time plant operator required; requires training local resi-
dent or hiring operator from outside the village: possible
enhancement to new industry if excess capacity and ,low
rates.
3) Timing in relation to other planned capital projects -new
FAA facilities would be additional system load: plan con-
struction to occur after new runway in place: new fish
processor could be summer customer, but need winter custo-
mer to justify larger system size.
4) Air quality -slight improvement from decreased combustion.
5) Water quality -minimal; possible changes in siltation
deposits.
6) Fish and wildlife impacts -Quigmy must be evaluated for
evidence of salmon spawning to and beyond dam site; may
require fish ladder; potential conflict with u.s. Bureau of
Land Management since dam located in land designated
Wildlife Refuge: may be possible to trade state or native
lands to include river drainage and dam site in Togiak
townsite or Bristol Bay regional corporation lands (study
will begin in 1981 to determine such possibilities, needs
follow-up if this alternative to be pursued).
7.19
7) Land use and ownership status -see item 6.
8) Terrestrial impacts -possible risk from seismic activity;
would require flooding of drainage area causing both
positive and negative impacts.
7.20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Goodnews Bay Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation.
1) Safety -relatively safe1 some risk in handling and storing
combustable diesel fuel.
2) Reliability -the most reliable system for generation in
rural Alaska to date; occasional system down time.
3) Availability -system already in place; no indication of
difficulty in obtaining parts or replacements in future;
dependent upon fuel transported to the community.
7.21
C. Technical Evaluation
Goodnews Bay Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: waste heat capture from existing generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Safety -well maintained system has little hazard; unlikely
possibility of scalding from ruptured pipe.
2) Reliability -very reliable.
3) Availability -available at this time, relatively simple to
implement.
7.22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Goodnews Bay Base Case Plan B
Plan summary: supplemental wind generation.
1) Safety -potential hazard from tower collapse, blow down or
thrown blade.
2) Reliability -intermittent wind resource leads to expected
periods of no wind generation but diesel system provides
full backuP1 harsh weather conditions known to cause
problems with WECS in Alaska.
3) Availability -all components available off the shelf~
possible long delays when replacement parts required.
7.23
C. Technical Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation.
1) Safety -relatively safe~ some risk in handling and storing
combustible diesel fuel.
2) Reliability -the most reliable system for generation in
rural Alaska to date~ occasional system down time.
3) Availability -system already in place~ no indication of
difficulty in obtaining parts or replacements in future;
dependent upon fuel transported to the community.
7.24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: waste heat capture from existing generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Safety -well maintained system has little hazard~ unlikely
possibility of scalding from ruptured pipe.
2) Reliability -very reliable.
3) Availability -available at this time, relatively simple to
implement.
7.25
C. Technical Evaluation
Grayling Base Case Pl~n B
Plan summary: co-generation of steam and heat for district
heating from local fuel resource.
1) Safety -risks associated with mining of coal include mine
collapse and gaseous noxious gases; proper precautions can
lessen risks. Risks associated with steam generation -
spontaneous combustion of stored fuel, steam burns from
system leaks and pipe rupture, possible burns from exposed
transmission pipes for district heating and home plumbing;
probably no greater risk than wood stove in home.
2) Reliability -many system components which may incur
mechanical problems; difficult to obtain replacement parts
in remote Alaska, but basic system concept relatively
simple, allowing ease of repair.
3) Availability -system components must be ordered approxi-
mately 6 to 12 months in advance.
7.26
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Scammon Bay Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of present diesel generation
1) Safety -relatively safe1 some risk in handling and storing
combustible diesel fuel.
2) Reliability -the most reliable system for generation in
rural Alaska to date1 occasional system down time.
3) Availability -system already in place; no indication of
difficulty in obtaining parts or replacements in future;
dependent upon fuel transported to the community.
7.27
C. Technical Evaluation
Scammon Bay Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: hydroelectric power generation with planned
diesel generation in low flow months.
1) Safety -little hazard.
2) Reliability -hydroelectric generation very sensitive to
flow rates since stream marginally capable to support
residential consumption; diesel backup insures system
reliability.
3) Availability -readily available; difficult to obtain
replacement parts in remote Alaska site.
7.28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan
Plan summary: continuation of prese,nt diesel generation.
1) Safety -relatively safe; some risk in handling an~ storing
combustible diesel fuel.
2) Reliability -the most reliable system for generation in
rural Alaska to date; occasional system down time.
3) Availability -system already in place; no indication of
difficulty in obtaining parts or replacements in future;
dependent upon fuel transported to the community.
7.29
C. Technical Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan A
Plan summary: waste heat capture from existinq generation for
sale to major consumer.
1) Safety -well maintained system has little hazardi unlikely
possibility of scalding from ruptured pipe.
2) Reliability -very reliable.
3) Availability -available at this time, relatively simple to
implement.
7.30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C. Technical Evaluation
Togiak Base Case Plan B
Plan summary: hydroelectric power generation from Quigmy
River.
1) Safety -slight risk of flooding in event of dam damage:
little risk to community itself, since project located
7-10 miles from Togiak in area where no other town
located.
2) Reliability -highly reliable: possible power shortage if
dry season causes very low flow.
3) Availability -technology and equipment available:
logistics of delivery to site must be considered.
7.31
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for Goodnews Bay
A. Preferred Energy
Alternative
1. Energy conservation
• building insulation
• building envelope
infiltration
• improved combustion
2. Waste heat capture
3. Wind energy conversion
B. Recommended Resource Assessments
and Feasibility Studies
No resource assessment or feasibili-
ty study indicated; immediate action
required to bring Energy Audit and/
or weatherization program to this
community.
Obtain baseline data on heat avail-
ability for specific generators~
perform preliminary design and de-
tailed feasibility study. Estimated
cost of study and design---$20,000.-
$30,000.
Work with BIA wind data collection
program to obtain existing data as
it becomes available~ perform opti-
mization and more detailed feasibil-
ity studies on this alternative,
since proposed configuration was
only marginally feasible in this
analysis; install additional ane-
mometers for determination of wind
patterns. Estimated cost of study
and design---$30,OOO.-$50,OOO.
8.1
Recommendations for Grayling
A. Preferred Energy
Alternative
1. Energy conservation
• building insulation
• building envelope
infiltration
• improved combustion
2. Steam from local coal
(augmented by municipal
solid waste and/or wood)
to cogenerate power and
heat for district
heating
3. Waste heat capture
(to be pursued if steam
power alternative un-
feasible)
B. Recommended Resource Assessments
and Feasibility Studies
NO resource assessment or feasibili-
ty study indicated; immediate action
required to bring Energy Audit and/
or weatherization program to this
community.
Initiate coal exploration program
of coring and sample analysis in the
vicinity of Grayling to assess qual-
ity and magnitude of resourcei per-
form preliminary design and feasi-
bility study based upon new resource
information. Estimated cost of
study---$50,OOO.-$lOO,OOO.
Obtain baseline data on heat availa-
bility for specific generators; per-
form preliminary design and detailed
feasibility study. Estimated cast of
study and design---$20,OOO.-$30,OOO.
8.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recommendations for Scammon Bay
A. Preferred Energy
Alternative
1. Energy conservation
• building insulation
• building envelope
infiltration
• improved combustion
2. Hydroelectric with
diesel backup in low
months
3. Waste heat capture at
high school
4. Wind energy conversion
to be investigated at
later time for potential
to offset cost of stand-
by generation
B. Recommended Resource Assessments
and Feasibility Studies
No resource assessment or feasibili-
ty study indicated; immediate action
required to bring Energy Audit and/
or weatherization program to this
community.
Confirm stream data (encourage Corps
of Engineers to continue stream
gauging); develop elements of capi-
tal construction cost of project in
western Alaska; preliminary design
and detailed feasibility. Estimated
cost of design---$lOO,OOO.-$175,OOO.
Can be implemented in conjunction
with hydroelectric alternative since
school generators would provide com-
munity backup and own and BIA gener-
ation. Estimated cost of study and
design---$20,OOO.-$30,OOO.
Installation of anemometers for
necessary data (to confirm high vel-
ocities and consistent duration in
low hydro months). Estimated cost of
study and design---$30,OOO.-$50,OOO.
8.3
Recommendations for Togiak
A. Preferred Energy
Alternative
1. Energy conservation
• building insulation
• building envelope
infiltration
• improved combustion
2. Waste heat capture from
diesel generators
3. Hydroelectric power
from Quigmy River
B. Recommended Resource Assessments
and Feasibility Studies
No resource assessment or feasibili-
ty study indicated; immediate action
required to bring Energy Audit and/
or weatherization program to this
community.
Obtain baseline data on heat availa-
bility for specific generators; per-
form preliminary design and detailed
feasibility study. Estimated cost of
study and design---$35,000.-$50,000.
Begin stream gauging and investi-
gation of fish habitat and spawning
potential in summer 1981 if possi-
ble; perform site analysis; partici-
pate in land use study in 1981 to
attempt to change land designation
west of Togiak and including Quigmy
River (presently Wildlife Refuge
under BLM); pursue possibility of
tradeoff of native or state lands.
Estimated cost of study and design---
$100,000.-$200,000.
8.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska State Housing Authority, "Low Income Housing Demonstra-
tion Program for Grayling, Metlakatla and Bethel, Alaska,"
December, 1968.
Bottge, Robert G., U.S. Bureau of Mines, "Coal as a Fuel for
Barrow, Alaska: A Preliminary Study of Mining Costs," Open
File Report OFR 88-77.
Chapman, Robert M., "Coal Deposits Along the Yukon River Between
Ruby and Anvik, Alaska," U.S.G.S. Bulletin No. 1155,
1963.
Collier, Arthur J., "Coal Resources of the Yukon, Alaska,"
U.S.G.S. Bulletin No. 218, 1903.
Conwell, Cleland, "Coal for Alaska Villages," presented at Coal
Conference in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1979.
,
\
Darbyshire and Associates, Scammon Bay Community Profile, State
of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
1979.
Fuelner, A. J., Childers, J. M., and V. W. Norman, Water
Resources of Alaska: U.S.G.S. Open File Report, 1971,
60 pp.
Jones, S. H. and J. M. Childers, Personal communication,
U.S.G.S. District Office, Anchorage, Alaska, 1981.
Nebesky, W. E., Goldsmith, o. S., and Digran, T. M., "The Impact
of Rising Energy Costs on Rural Alaska," ISER, November,
1980.
Sparck, Harold, for Nunam Kitluitsisti, "Directions of Growth:
A Preliminary Report on the Development of a Planned
Village Economy," 1978-80.
Tanana Chiefs, Personal communication, January, 1981.
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, "Preliminary Evaluation of Small
Hydroelectric Power Development at Scammon Bay, Alaska,"
U.S. Army Engineers District, Alaska, 1980, 26 pp.
8.5
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX. A
Community Meetings •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GRAYLING
Community Meeting
A community meeting was held in Grayling on October 21. Initial
notification of the meeting was by radio (over the radio station
KNOM) and by telephone conversation with Tom Maillelle, the
acting Mayor of Grayling. Upon arrival at Grayling, it was
determined that direct contact with people was more likely to
result in their participation. Individual invitations were also
extended.
The meeting was attended by about 15 people. Not everyone
signed the register, but those who did were Henry Deacon, Joseph
Maillelle, Sr., Wilfred Deacon, Tom R. Maillelle, William
Painter, Eleanor R. Deacon, and Lancelot Hughes.
The energy reconnaissance project was discussed by Don Baxter,
of the Alaska Power Authority (APA), and additional information
added by Paul Oliver of VanGulik Associates and Patti DeJong of
Northern Technical Services (NORTEC). Information was solicited
regarding local resources such as a nearby coal outcrop and a
rumored "geothermal" site. Those present at the meeting were
familiar with the coal outcrop and discussed a spot where snow
melted rather than accumulated. No one seemed to be really
familiar with the area where this warm spot was said to exist.
(One person offered to take project personnel to those sites on
a snow machine the next day, but the snow machine was being
repaired and the trip had to be cancelled.)
The people at the meeting were especially concerned about the
high cost of electricity. Fuel costs here are less of a problem
than electricity costs, since wood stoves meet much of the
residential heating demand.
There were no objections to the idea of a small scale coal
development, but if this option is pursued further, it will be
necessary to more fully discuss the positive and negative impli-
A.1
cations of this alternative.
Most people were enthusiastic about hydroelectric generation
using Grayling Creek.
Wind was another topic which elicited a favorable response, but
most agreed there wasn't "enough" wind at the townsite. It was
suggested by one person that a wind generator could be located
atop the hill directly west of the town since that area was much
windier than the townsite.
In addition to this meeting, many other Grayling residents were
consulted throughout the course of our investigation. Everyone
contacted was quite aware of the high cost of electricity, and
all were eager to find some means of reducing costs.
A.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SCAMMON BAY
Community Meeting
At Scammon Bay it was appropriate to hold two community meet-
ings, the first one being held with the Traditional Council.
Council members present were Teddy Sundown, Tom Tunutmoak,
Francis Agachak, Anna Kasayuli and Andrew Kasayuli. Anna
Kasayuli acted as translator. Project personnel had contacted
the Mayor, Homer Hunter, by telephone to notify him of the
pending visit and to request that the meeting be announced.
Further meeting notification consisted of calling on the CB just
prior to meeting.
The use of electric appliances was discussed and the problem of
the high cost of electricity and heating fuel was also
addressed. Appliance use ranged from minimal (refrigerator,
freezer, CB and lights) to fairly heavy (television, refri-
gerator, freezer, toaster, electric stove, microwave, electric
washer and electric dryer).
The council members supported the concept of a hydroelectric
plant at Scammon Bay. They were very disappointed when the
project was cut last year from the state's capital budget. The
Council said they would like to run such a plant themselves and
that they would hire someone to act as plant manager.
Francis Aguchak and his brother had a windmill some years back.
They stopped using it after AVEC made reliable electricity
available at what was then a relatively low cost.
A second meeting consisted of presenting the energy reconnais-
sance concept to members of the community who had gathered at
the municipal office building. The response to the project was
quite favorable.
A.3
TOGIAK
Community Meeting
In Togiak attendance at the community meeting was comprised of
the Mayor, David Nanalook, and members of the Traditional
Council. Those present at the meeting were Joe Nick, Henry
•
•
Pavian, David Nanalook, Andrew Franklin, and Inuska Babyla. The •
meeting was very informative and those present had obviously
already been examining alternatives to diesel generation
themselves.
There was much discussion of building conditions and energy
costs. There seems to be a preference for hydroelectricity
here, but wind is also looked upon with favor. Project
personnel were told of a river with much higher flow rates than.
that investigated by the Alaska Power Administration. The river
is called the Quigmy. (Project personnel later chartered Ute
Air for an aerial reconnaissance of the river as a result of
suggestions by the Council and others.) The river is said to
have some fish, but those to whom we spoke think it is not a
major salmon spawning stream. The people of Togiak were very
interested in the protection of the fish resource and would not
allow a project which could endanger the fish harvest. The
residents of Togiak generally depend upon commercial fishing to
support their families.
•
•
•
•
Wind generation was of general interest. Project personnel were •
told of fairly consistant and high winds.
Peat was briefly discussed, but David Nanalook pointed out that
it would be difficult to harvest peat from the Wildlife Refuge
which surrounds the town. This land status is expected to be a
regulatory constraint upon hydro development on the Quigmy, as
well.
A.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A very strong preference for local corporation management of
any alternative power generating facility was expressed.
GOODNEWS BAY
Community Meeting
The Mayor of Goodnews Bay was contacted by telephone prior to
the site visit. Project personnel told him about the project
and asked him to invite the community to a public meeting to
discuss energy alternatives. Although an important basketball
tournament was underway at the time scheduled for the meeting,
project personnel were pleased that several people were able to
take the time to attend the community meeting. Additionally,
project personnel did talk to quite a few residents while
inspecting building construction and community facilities.
Those present at the meeting were: Ina Small, Joe Martin
(Mayor), Dan Schouten, James Roberts, and Julia Chianglak. All
of these people were informative and interested in pursuing
alternative means of power production for the community.
Project personnel and attendees discussed available resources
and learned more about local practices. The mayor expressed
preference for the wind generation over hydroelectric genera-
tion. Those present at the meeting did mention another creek
which they thought might be a better source of hydro power. It
is Barnham Creek located near Breadpan Mountain. Project per-
sonnel were also told that the people who live here prefer no
development of oil and gas resources in their area.
•
A.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX B
DATA ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENERGY BALANCE
See Text, Section 3
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
• FORECASTING PROCEDURE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Data Base
Data bases for the four villages under study are typically
characterized by a severe paucity of information coupled with
relatively low reliability and a multiplicity of sources. Under
these circumstances it was considered inappropriate to apply
sophisticated demographic techniques to such questionable and
highly scattered data. Graphic presentations did, however, pro-
vide a relatively clear indication of growth rates and where
these rates were pronounced linear regression techniques are
utilized and compared with the University of Alaska's (Institute
of Social and Economic Research) projected average annual growth
rates for the regions within which the study villages are
located. The linear projections and projected average annual
growth rates were plotted and compared in order to provide a
reasoned range of expected energy and power demands for the year
2001. A similar technique was used to project total generation
for the year 2001. A historical ratio of total sales to total
generation over the period 1975-1979 was developed and applied
to the total generation figure to derive the total sales
projection for the year 2001.
Population Projections
The strongest available data from which to establish growth
rates is the population variation with time. This data base
covers the period 1940 through 1979 with heaviest concentration
of data occurring in the five-year period 1975 to 1979.
Figures C-l through C-4 show a projection of anticipated popu-
lation growth rates for the four villages under consideration.
It should be noted that actual data variations from the linear
projection shown are more pronounced for smaller overall
populatiqns. Variations in projected versus measure data
C.l
are tabulated as follows:
Village
Grayling
Goodnews Bay
Scammon Bay
Togiak
Overestimate
14.7%
3.3%
21.4%
21.4%
Underestimate
9.6%
2.1%
28.6%
16.0%
In general the linear projections tend to overestimate popula-
tion growth rates and are considered conservative and well
within the accuracy of the data base.
Peak Demand
The available peak demand data for the villages under study is
limited to a one-year period (1979-80). Scatter in the raw data
is so extreme that no correlations or trends could be estab-
lished. Consequently, data derived from other villages in the
study region had to be examined. It was found that a fairly
clear trend between population and peak demand was noted for the
one year of record available (1979-1980). Obviously, peak
demand from year-to-year will be influenced by many factors at
any given village; however, once again the extreme variations
and paucity of data over a meaningful time base precluded more
sophisticated analyses. Therefore, linear regression was
applied to the data base in order to establish a relationship
between population and peak demand. Figure C-5 shows that
relationship. Figures C-6 through C-9 show the probable range
of peak demand growth through 2001 and Figures C-IO through C-13
show the peak demand growth rate selected to support the
economic and technical analyses.
Total Generation
Total generation data was also limited to the period 1975 to
C.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1979, and data scatter is most severe in this instance.
Consequently, the effort was directed toward establishing a
• relationship with the strongest known data base, population.
Figure C-14 reflects not only the severe data variation for the
four villages but also shows the result of the linear regression
analysis of the available data. Figures C-15 through C-18 show
• the estimated range of total generation growth through 2001.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
And Figures C-19 through C-22 show the projection of total gen-
eration selected to support technical and economic analyses.
Peak Demand and Total Generation Projections
Utilization of the projected population growth rates and popula-
tion peak demand and total generation relationships in concert
with measured data points provided a basis for comparisons
between projected and measured data. The comparison served to
indicate the relative strength of the previous linear regression
analyses. Variations in the initial points shown in the figures
are tabulated as follows for each village during 1979:
PEAK OF DEMAND
Measured Projected
Village Initial Point Initial Point Variation
Grayling 65 KW 56 -13.8%
Goodnews Bay 74 KW 85 +14.9
Scammon Bay 73 KW 67 -8.2
Togiak 170 KW 180 +5.6
TOTAL GENERATION
Grayling 253 MwH 168 -27.9
Goodnews Bay 225 MwH 254 +12.9
Scammon Bay 269 MwH 200 -25.6
Togiak 655 MwH 538 -17.9
In general the measured initial points tend to be somewhat
higher than the projections and their use as the initial or base
C.3
case starting point for peak demand and total generation projec-
tions is considered conservative.
The ratio of total sales to total generation for each village
was derived from measured data as is tabulated in Figures C-15
through C-18 for the appropriate villages.
Electric Load Base Case
Known expansion activities combined with measured data points
and projected growth rates serve as the foundation for the base
case economic analysis. In summary:
1) The measured initial points are used as the beginning
points in the projections.
2) The growth rates established from the linear regres-
sions are generally conservative and are used to
project the rate of growth curves.
3) Expansion activities are noted on the graphs used in
the text and are superimposed on projected growth rate
curves.
Heating Fuel Base Case
The one year of record available for heating fuel consumption
(1979-80) shows a relatively good relationship between
population and heating requirements. However, the available
data is especially sketchy and does not yield relationships
between physical influences,such as heating degree days,
incident radiation or wind chill factors. Obviously, supporting
historical records would be of assistance in establishing more
accurate projections.
C.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Once again the paucity of available information has forced the
analysis to be tied to the strongest relative data base,
population. Subsequent analyses should account for physical
environmental factors, based on historical record, if such
records become available.
Figure C-23 is provided to show the relationship between popula-
tion and heating need for the year 1979-80. Projections shown
on Figures C-24 through C-27 are based on this single available
year of record and should be used with the understanding that
modification may be required to account for climatological
variables.
C .5
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS •
•
•
•
•
•
C.6 •
•
POPULATION PROJECTION
Grayling
• Years From population
Year 1930 (x) (y) xy x 2
1940 10 77 770 100
1950 20 98 1,960 400 • 1960 30 122 3,660 900
1970 40 139 5,560 1,600
1975 45 172 7,740 2,025 • 1976 46 183 8,418 2,116
1977 47 145 6,815 2,209
1978 48 181 8,688 2,304 • 1979 49 181 8,869 2,401
n = 9 tx = 335 s.y = 1,298 s.. xy = 52,476f.x 2 = 14,055
Least squares coefficients for: • Y = a + bx
b = S.,xy -~ n = 2.625
• l.x2 -J.!.?!.l2
n
a = U-b,(x-46.5
n n
• y = 46.5 + 2.625 x
For 1990 Population -(46.5) + (2.625)(60) = 204
For 2000 population = (46.5) + (2.625)(70) = 230
For 1975 population = • (46.5) + (2.625)(45) = 165
•
• C.7
•
POPULATION PROJECTION
Goodnews Bay
Years From Population • Year 1930 (x) (y) xy x 2
1940 10 48 480 100
1950 20 100 2,000 400
1960 30 154 4,620 900 •
1970 40 218 8,720 1,600
1975 45 241 10,845 2,025
1976 46 245 11,270 2,116 •
1977 47 245 11,515 2,209
1978 48 248 11,904 2,304
• 1979 49 248 12,152 2,401
n = 9 t.x = 335 loy = 1,747 (xy = 73,506 l x 2 = 14,055
Least squares coefficients for: •
Y = a + bx
b = txy --l!Y
n = 5.348
~x2 -(tx) 2 •
n
a = II -b(x = -4.9
n n
•
y = -4.9 + 5.348 x
For 1990 Population = 316
For 2000 Population = 369
For 1975 Population = 235 •
•
e.8 •
•
POPULATION PROJECTION
Scammon Bay
• Years From Population
Year 1930 (x) (y) xy x 2 --
1940 10 88 880 100
1950 20 103 2,060 400 • 1960 30 115 3,450 900
1970 40 166 6,640 1,600
1975 45 165 7,425 2,025 • 1976 46 192 8,832 2,116
1977 47 225 10,575 2,209
1978 48 193 9,264 2,304 • 1979 49 232 11,368 2,401
n = 9 {x = 335 lY = 1,479 l. xy = 60, 494 ~ x 2 = 14,055
• Least squares coefficients for:
Y = a + bx
b = ~xy -~
n = 3.432 • t x2 -(t x) 2
n
a = ~-b(x = 36.6
n n •
Y = 36.6 + 3.432 x
For 1990 Population = 242
For 2000 Population = 277 • For 1975 Population = 191
•
• C.9
•
POPULATION PROJECTION
Togiak
Years From Population
Year 1930 (x) (y) xy x 2 • -
1940 10 56 560 100
1950 20 108 2,160 400
1960 30 220 6,600 900 •
1970 40 383 15,320 1,600
1975 45 492 22,140 2,025
1976 46 567 26,082 2,116 •
1977 47 578 27,166 2,209
1978 48 455 21,840 2,304
• 1979 49 474 23,226 2,401
n = 9 ix = 335 ly = 3,333 lxy = 145,094 (x 2 = 14,055
Least squares coefficients for: •
Y = a + bx
b = txy -~
n = 13.2650
(x 2 -«(x)2 • n
a =U -~ = -123.4
n n •
y = -123.4 + 13.265 x
For 1990 Population = 672
For 2000 Population = 805
For 1975 population = 473 •
•
C.l0 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
POPULATION -PEAK DEMAND PROJECTION
For 11 Villages in the Southwestern
Region of Alaska 1979-1980
Peak
POI2ulation ( POI2ulation-150) Demand
y x xy
232 82 73 5986
181 31 65 2015
248 98 74 7252
474 324 170 55,080
291 141 85 11,985
195 45 70 3150
395 245 110 26,950
442 292 135 39,420
317 167 120 20,040
447 297 135 40,095
195 45 110 4950
n = 9 ~x = 335 (y = 3,333 ixy = 145,094 <,x2
Least squares coefficients for:
Y = a + bx
b = (xy --ill
n = 135.5
~x2 -J.!.!l2
n
a = u-b(x = 2.8401
n n
y = 135.5 + 2.8401 x
x 2
5329
4225
5476
28,900
7,225
4,900
12,100
18,225
14,400
18,725
12,100
= 14,055
Example: To determine peak demand for a given population;
Assume population = 250
Y = 250-150 = 100
100 = 135.5 + 2.8401 x
and X = 82.9 KWh
C.l1
•
POPULATION -TOTAL GENERATION PROJECTION
For Scammon Bay: Grayling: Goodnews Bay; and Togiak, Alaska
for the Period 1975-1979 • (No recorded data available Preceeding this Period)
Total • ~ Village Population (Population-140) Generation (Generation-150) !.i::. !. 2
Y x
1975 Scammon Bay 165 25 159.2 9.2 2-30 85
1976 192 52 185.0 35.0 1820 1225 • 1977 275 85 203.5 53.5 4548 2802
1978 193 53 214.5 64.5 2419 4100
1979 232 92 269.3 119.3 10976 14232
•
1975 Grayling 172 32 138.0 -12.0 -384 144
1976 183 43 151.0 1.0 43 1
1977 145 5 174.9 24.9 124 620
1978 181 41 223.4 73.4 3009 5388
1979 181 41 233.3 83.3 3415 6939 •
1975 Goo~news Bay 241 101 221.9 71.9 7262 5170
1976 245 105 192.9 42.9 4504 1840 • 1977 245 105 206.8 56.8 5964 3226
1978 248 108 197.5 47.5 S130 7756
1979 748 108 775.0 75.0 8100 '5625
•
1975 Togiak 492 352 342.4 192.4 67725 37018
1976 567 427 435.2 785.2 121780 81339
1977 578 438 565.0 415.0 181770 172225
1978 455 315 639.7 2189.7 154256 239806
1979 474 334 657.8 507.8 196605 257800 •
N • 20 ! y • 2862
•
• C.12
•
Least squares coefficients for
y = a + bx • b = ixy -31!Y.
n = 0.9531
tx 2 -(tx)2
n
• a = U-b1.x= 17.5
n n
Example: To determine total generation for a given population,
• Assume Population = 440
Y = Population -140 = 300
300 = 17.5 + 0.9531x
x = 296.4
• Total generation = x + 150 = 446 Mwh
•
•
•
•
•
PEAK DEMAND, TOTAL GENERATION AND TOTAL SALES PROJECTIONS
Detailed Example for Grayling
Linear Projections:
projected 1979 population from y = 46.5 + 2.625 x
x = 1979 -1930 = 49
y = 175
projected 1979 peak demand from y = -135.5 + 2.8401 x
y = 175 -150 = 25
x = 56.5 Kw
and compared with a measured peak demand for 1979 at 65 Kw.
Projected 2000 population = 230 and
projected 2000 peak demand = 75.9 Kw.
Logarithmic Projections:
Applying 1.3% and 1.6% per year gowth rates to projected and measured
peak demands results in the following:
From the projected base of 56.5 Kw during 1979
Projected
1979 x (1
peak demand 1990 = from projected peak demand
1.3)"
+ 100
For 1990
For 2000
= (56.5)(1.013)11 = 65.1 Kw
= (56.5)(1.013)21 = 74.1 Kw
at 1.6%, 1990 and 2000 peak demand = 67.3 and 78.8 Kw for 1990 and
2000, respectively.
= from measured peak demand pro j ecte(d
1
:;a)k.demand 1990
1979 x 100
For 1990 = {65.0)(1.013)11 = 74.9 Kw
For 2000 = 85.2 Kw
at 1.6% 1990 and 2000 peak demand = 77.4 and 90.7 Kw, respectively.
C.14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,.
projected total generation from y = 17.5 + 0.9531 x
y = 175 -140 = 35
35 = 17.5 + 0.9531 x
x = 18.4
Total generation = 18.4 + 150 = 168.4 Mwh
Measured total generation for 1979 = 233.3 Mwh
projected 2000 population = 230 and
Projected 2000 total population -226.1 Mwh
Applying the same 1.3% and 1.6% per year growth rate
the projected andmeasured total generation leads to:
1.3%, 168.4 base 1990 = (168.4) (1.013)11 = 194.1 Mwh
1.3%, 168.4 base 2000 = (168.4) (1.013)21 = 220.9 Mwh
1.3%, 233.3 base 1990 = (233.3) (1.013)11 = 268.9 Mwh
1.3%, 233.3 base 2000 = (233.3) (1.013)21 = 306.0 Mwh
1.6%, 168.4 base 1990 = (168.4) (1.016)11 = 200.5 Mwh
1.6%, 168.4 base 2000 = (168.4) (1.013)21 = 235.0 Mwh
1.6%, 233.3 base 1990 = (233.3) (1.013)11 = 277.8 Mwh
1.6%, 233.3 base 1990 = (233.3) (1.013)21 = 375.6 Mwh
C.lS
factors to both
for 1990
for 2000
for 1990
for 2000
for 1990
for 2000
for 1990
for 2000
Population
Village
Grayling
SUMMARY OF LEAST SQUARES COEFFICIENTS
population Projection
= 46.5 + 2.625 x
Goodnews Bay
y
y
y
= -4.9 + 5.348 x
3.432 x Scammon Bay = 36.6 +
Togiak
Peak Demand
y = -123.4 + 13.265 x
where x = years since 1930
and y = population projection.
y = -135.5 + 2.840lx
where y = population -150
and x = peak demand
Total Generation
y = 17.5 + 0.953lx
where y = population -140
and x = total generation -150
C.16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TOTAL SALES/GENERATION RATIO FOR 1975-1979
SUMMATIONS 1975-1979 •
Village Total Sales Total Generation Ratio
Grayling 786.9 Mwh 920.6 Mwh 0.85
• Goodnews Bay 957.6 Mwh 1044.1 Mwh 0.92
Scammon Bay 839.9 Mwh 1031. 5 Mwh 0.81
Togiak 2355.6 Mwh 2640.0 Mwh 0.89
•
•
•
•
•
•
• C .17
••
HEATING LOAD
1979-1980
Village Population Heating (Gal.) •
Grayling 181 25,640 = 20,100 + 347 cords wood
Goodnews Bay 248 57,900
Scammon Bay 232 72,000 •
Togiak 474 172,500
Use 140,000 Btu/gallon for heating value or fuel.
y x •
Vi11ase POJ2.-150 Heatins BTU xy x 2
Grayling 31 3.59 X 10 9 111.29 X 10 9 12.89 X 10 18 •
Goodnews Bay 98 8.11 x 10 9 794.78 X 10 9 65.77 x 10 18
Scammon Bay 82 10.08 x 10 9 826.56 x 10 9 101.61 x 1018
Togiak 324 24.15 x 10 9 7824.60 x 10 9 523.22 x 10 18 •
Y = -32.6 + 14.49 x 10-9 x
•
•
•
•
C.18 •
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
• FIGURES
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • • •
FJ4U"£. Go ... l
6IOODNEW-S BAY
/
/
/
/
./
•
/
/
/
/
•
/
/
/
• •
~ -. -II AG."fU~L 'DAlAI I~e(( AWD
U. 0$1 ~e..N-S u,
---pr<OJf;t:.-rJQN
•
/. Z() ~O .:I 7.0 YJiA~"S r1l.0~ ,,~O ('X) O~------+-------r------+------~------r------4------~--------------------
''110 fl7Q ZOOQ
2.40 F"6Uf(1E-~·z
~RAYLll-Jq /"
/'
,/
/'
zoo. ,/
/"
/"
~ a& Mill /'
V
1"0. ~
3 tl-)
'LIJ JC ",.11 '::t -,to. L 11t1l.1J )C .--)( A~TcJAL -pA,A) I'e.~ ~ e. 4~ u.~. Ge",-?u?
---pf(OJUrION
40
10 20 10
o~ ______ +-______ ~ ____ ~~ ____ -+ ______ ~ ______ ~ ______ +-________________ ___
I~~O I~O 1'170 1'?80 19')0
• • • • • • • • • • •
• •
UJO
~
'"'"" l-
V
6
/_0 ~ j
"::J
L
~
120 -
• • •
F'6JURI!. c:,..-J
~(,AMMON BAY
M
/Q tQ
• •
/
-/
/
M /
/
/
.,-0
/
• • ..
/
/
/
/
)(-2Il A~TcJA1. PATA) ''SIS" t u. -So . ~e. .... SU'
---f'f(OJEGT.ON
70
•
y~~'S FRol4 ,,~O(-X) O~------4-------~----~~-----+-------r------~------+---__________________ _
I?fO 1970 I
700.
r ,6UICe. ~-4
T06JAK
):
400. ~
~
h
i;(
l i
~co. .. ~ ~ ,~
~.
'loa.
o
• • • •
If' IJJ~
11
\'t)l
40
1'7"
•
)(
)(
x
1'80
•
()
•
--.I( ~T(JAL PArA) '-:'1:1( 4
U,.,. ~£N?U~
7l:J
• • •
"
•
• • • • • • • • • •
~
(\
F'~URE <!:.. ... 5 .....
!t
l-l-) ~ ~ ~ AO' 'v
1,t)
-!iOD *0 nt 'IJ~ , ." + f
300 + 'I
4()Q 2~O +
zoo
/-5'0 + 11 ~oliT~W£-STe.I(t.J VILLA&i.-:S ,tj7, -1'80 P£AI(. DEMA..aP
/00 + A'ie.~A4E PATA. 'Po .... T? ,0 +
0
O~------4-------+-----~~-----+------~------;-------+-------r------,----
D 50 /00 IZ-S 1-:1"0 z.oo
PE,tfIX DE/t4~NP (i<)
/?O
IZ.,
TI~U'fle c:::-~
6{oc>PNE.W-S ~AY
~OJ£(:TEP
INlflAL PI,
(lJ? ~W)
O~ ______ ;-______ +-____ ~~ ____ -+ ______ -r ______ ;-________ __
1970 /97~
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
FI(;aURe ~-7
6 RA'T'L IN6
M£A"SU~ED ' ..... T.At..
~o'Nr-~
(tri KW) '-...
o~ ______ +-______ ~ ____ ~ ______ -+ ______ ~ ______ ~ ____________ __
197~ 1"180
12'5.
~
;\{
I /0,
~ ~ 1"5'
\{ ..,.
.~
$'0
PI6URl!. ~-~
5CAMMON BAt.(
M~Uli!:e.o aN ITIA.L
pott,.lT (7' KW)
pROJIU..TSD IN ,TlAL
pOINT (~7, J K.w)
O~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ______ +-______ r-____ ~~ ____ ~ ________________ __
1970 197-5 2000
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
zoa
I
100
O.-----T-----T-----t-----~--~~---4------------
"80
1"5"0
JZ5
O~------+-------+------4r------+-------r------1-------
/970 1'180
• • • • • • • • • • •
.. • • • • • • • • • •
I-SO 6RAYLINq
IZ'S
""i'
~ 10
9
I "H
~
~ {.
--so
O~------~------;-------+-------+-------r-----~~ ________ __
1~10 woo
YE4R
150
12-5
/00 ~
~ , ..
,
l
r-50 l
25
F141.//lE ~ -IZ
5GAMMON 8A~
O~------4-------~----~~-----+------~------4----------------
/9;t? 197:; I~
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
T04IAK.
O~------~------r------4-------+-------r------1--------
III 70 I'} 95
4-1X) $'40
h.. I,
~ X
t +40 It ~1J\
~ O~ ... 1" .....
~zoo ~-IO
,1'
:a ~~
~
"-
100
)(
Ui't;) i-5V 4~ ,0
0
'" (;) /00 ZOO ;~ 4<.10
Tor4t. 61:#£ Il"'lTION Pli'.<
• • • • •
ft/P'UI-4TION -TorAL 6:tEJJEKATlOAI
FROJECTlcvl FOK 4 VILLAc:,E'S alVeN
A FIVE Yc4~ PI£1(JO/) 0'-; XecoKP
1?7:1i" -"-r} ..
" ~() "0 80 TOTAl ~ENE 1'(4r1'0# Itlt",!,
":i~ G.Oo 700
(K)
~E.q~ I-S-(;) ::;;;.X
• • • • • •
1.00
/50
• • •
600DN£W-S
F.ROJI!C-.7EO Il-Itrl4(.
PoINr {Z'S-f.-t?,?
~.
• • • •
/~~-------r-------;------~------~~------~------4---------
/970 1')7~
• • •
z,oo
"'\
t
t.
~
~ 15"0
" ,
~
1100
~
)
" 5"0
~t!r> INI1'l.4L
NINr(ZH) 1
P/(OJt=t:.7ED INITI,(/t.
POINr (1(P8.4)
O~-------+-------1--------r-------~------+-------~------------------------
1970 /980 2000
• • • • • • • • • • •
• •
400
15'0
• • •
FI(f,(/r(E c-/7
~AMIv10N BAY'
• • • • •
} At, Y. 1'U Ye:44', 8AI~~ z':''f.$ MWH
/' C-"~ % Pel( VE.q~J /!IAlIe 2.(,~.iS MWJl
/' /" ./ ///
////
~......::././
~.....::;;...-!::
~
IOO~------~------~-------1------~r-------r-------+----------
/970 I~O zooo
•
~OOQ
\ .
.
J
~
~
... r7()O
(
~
l
~600
...
) ..
FI4 UI(E C. -18
~ Pi<OJEcTED /J.JITI4L
POiNt (537.7)
400;--------r------_r------~------_r------~------_+---------
"70
• • • • • • • • • • •
400
" )00 t
(
~ ..
~u·o
J
l" ..
) ..
I~O
• • •
FJC::,Ufl..f£. ~-"
qOC?DNfE.W~
•
BAY
• • •
I~O~------T-----~------~------~-----+------~-------
/970
• • •
· .. ,
,
•
~
• 200
f/~URe. t:., ... 20
6,RA.YLINq
lao~------+-----~~-----+------;-------~-----4---------
1'I7() /'J'j5' 2.000
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
Y:/(;,Ut<e G-ZI
cS<:::AMMON BAY
.
i4O<J .
Z"50
ZOO'~----~~----~------r-----~------r------+--________ __
/970 ZOtX;)
qOO .. ,
• ..
... , ...
FIGtURe. <::.-zz.
TOqlAK
~+------r----~~----+-----~----~------+------
197~ 197'S
• • • • • • • • • • •
O~------~--------r-------1--------r-------;--------r-------4-------~-------
o 4 rl /(, 'Zo
J-/E.ATINq (~r(j)
4Cf:JDNE..W-s' BAy
1'S"0
100
O~------4-------+------4~-----+------~------~----____ __
197'$'
• • • • • • • • • • •
.. 10.
8,0
-#.(? '.
• • •
FIt:,IJK.e. t::,-Z"S'
4f<45-'LINq
• • • •
J.t:J.~---+----+----+------lf-----+----+--__
1'170
• • •
~ zao.
...
l
F.t;.UF(e. <::.-z(;,
~~AMMON BAT"
o ~------r-----~-------r------+-----~~-----+--------
1970
• • • • • • • • • • •
1\
Q
•
55
x 40.
~
r(\
~ ~ ,.,.
~
~
• • •
T061AK
• • • • • •
rOPlILATION -J.lEATINq Pf(OJe (;TION
(NO t:.IIAAl6£. AN"'/~/PATEP)
ZO~------~-------r-------r------~------~ ______ -r ________ __
1970 1'980
•
•
IO<?
r /(J,(.IIl£ G..,. Z6
C;CJC)DNE.WS BAr'
,01'-4'-E.I.JE.RQV INP<J r rOI(. POWEI(
f ~P4t::-S HE.4rIAl4t
04r------~------+_----~~----_+------~------~------
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • •
6RAYLIN4
1$,0.
"7.0
• • • •
TOTAL. SiJE./(C':I V I~pur FO~ POWeJi(
f ->PAC.£ l-Ie4TIN~
a0-r-------r-------r-------r------~------_+------_+---------
1970 "dO
• •
•
~oo
Z1fO
FI4t.JI(.E ~ .. JQ
~C.AMMON 8A~
,01AL £AJEJ(f:I~ IN""ur Fa< Pl)WEK
ANO ~PA(!.E. HEArINt-,
O~------+-------~-----4-------+------~------+----------
/970 1 97'S'
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • •
FI6t1RE. c::-3-1
TOqlAK
• • • • •
TOT4L E.N~Y l}Jp(Jr FOA pOWE~
, ~PAt::.£ I-IE,qT'~
2~~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ______ +-______ +-______ ~ ______ ~ __ __
1970 197"5
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX D
• TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
•
•
i.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION
1.1 General Description
Energy conservation implies the more efficient use of
available energy resources. Conservation can take the form
of reducing losses in the energy system, such as losses
through walls, windows and air infiltration in a home or
by reducing losses in a conversion system, such as an
oil burner by improving the combustion efficiency.
1.1.1 Thermodynamic and Engineering Processes
A)' Homes can be made more energy efficient by
reducing heat loss through poorly insulated
surfaces and by reducing the air infiltration
into the buildings. Methods include improved
construction to reduce air infiltration through
standard walls, increased insulation thickness,
double or triple pane windows and storm
windows, reduced window area and improved seals
on doors and windows.
B) Combustion efficiency can be improved by
reducing the amount of excess combustion air
by reducing the temperature of the stack gases.
A significant improvement in oil combustion
efficiency has been made in the flame-retention
burner. It is also known as "high-speed flame
retention head" burner. Brookhaven National
Laboratory under research sponsored by u.S.
Department of Energy has determined that
potential fuel saving from these improved
burners is as follows:
1) The percentage reduction in fuel use ranges
Dl.l
from 5% to 22%--with an average annual fuel
saving of l4%--by replacing the old burner
but keeping the furnace or heater. This
14% figure is corroborated by a recent
field test of 94 homes where a flame-
retention device was substituted for the
older burner.
2) Combustion temperatures achieved by a
flame-retention burner will be generally
100°F to 200°F higher than in one of
conventional design, if other conditions
affecting flame intensity are kept constant
. (oil firing rate, air-to-fuel ratio, and
configuration of the combustion chamber).
This is due to the swirling pattern created
by the specially designed head, which
confines the flame to a smaller zone in the
combustion chamber and concentrates the
heat. The hotter flame brings combustion
gases to a higher temperature, enhancing
the transfer of energy to the distribution
medium at the heat exchanger.
The improved mixing of oil droplets and
air, resulting from greater turbulence and
velocity created by the combustion head,
permits the unit to use relatively little
air and yet completely burn all the fuel.
Flame-retention burners generally operate
with 30-50% excess air, compared with
80-100% required by conventional burners.
With less dilution from excess air,
combustion gases stay hotter and move
slower through the heat exchanger, which
Dl.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
means better radiant energy transfer and
higher burner efficiency •
1.1.2 Technology Availability
The technology of energy conservation in homes is
available today and has been available for years •
The forcing function to promote this technology is
the cost of heating oil. Figure 01.1 shows a graph
of the estimated fuel consumption for a well
insulated home in the western Alaska region where
degree days vary from 12,000 to 14,000°F days per
year. The actual oil consumption for homes in
Southwestern Alaska is approximately 40-50% greater
than required for a well-insulated home.
Demonstration of this technology is wide spread on
a small scale and can be found in many areas of the
country.
The flame retention oil burner is readily available
from several manufacturers either as a retro-fit
to an existing furnace or as a part of a new
furnace. Most oil heating equipment dealers have
flame retention oil burner on hand for immediate
supply for retro-fit.
1.2 Performance Characteristics
1.2.1 Energy Output
A) Quality
The quality in energy conservation improved
01.3
comfort of the home and reduced cost for that
comfort.
B) Quantity
The quantity of energy available from home
conservation in western Alaska appears to be
quite significant in the area of 30-40% of the
current consumption.
C) Dynamics
Not applicable.
1.2.2 Reliability
A) Need for Backup
There is no need for back-up for improved
energy utilization in the home.
B) Storage
Storage requirements of energy in the village
is reduced.
1.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency
Both conservation techniques of reducing energy losses
and improving combustion efficiency will increase the
overall efficiency in the use of valuable resources.
1.3 Costs for Typical Unit
1.3.1 Capital Costs
01.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A) Estimated capital costs for various levels of
insulation in a new home are shown on Figure
• Dl.2. Labor cost for installation of increased
insulation thickness should be about the same
regardless of the cost of the insulation.
• B) Estimated cost for the flame retention burner
substituted for the conventional burner is $200
to $350 (September, 1979, lower 48 prices) for
the average home heating unit. For larger
• oil-fired furnaces such as found in schools,
costs will be higher.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.3.2 Assembly and Installation
Standard home construction methods apply to
installation of high insulation values and reduced
infiltration. Installation of the flame retention
burner will require services of heating contractor or
oil burner serviceman. Because this burner produces a
much hotter flame, the combustion chamber should be
inspected to determine whether or not a chamber lining
is required. Where the combustion chamber needs to be
rebuilt or replaced, pre-cast combustion chambers of
appropriate materials are also available from several
manufacturers.
1.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
No increase in maintenance cost will occur as a result
of improved insulation design. Operation will be much
more efficient.
1.3.4 Cost per KW
01.5
•
$350
•
;; , ,
$300 j • , ,
j
$250 R-26 • , ,
/ J ,
R-30~"" /
" $200 J / • , " , /'~R-19 z: "J 0 -I-< ,
...J , :::;:,
j
,
<.n $150 / :: "" • -/' , ,
<.n , / /' <.n j < /' ...J " <..0 / /' I.U ,
IX I /~R-ll c:c
/ -$100 u.. • u.. I /'
0 /'
l-I /' <.n / /' 0
<..J /' I
...J / /' < -$50 -/' • IX I
I.U / /' I-~ I /' y/'
,/
• 200 400 600 800 1000
TOTAL INSULATION IN SOUARE FEET
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not Applicable
1.3.5 Economy of Scale
Not Applicable
1.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
1.4.1 Siting
Not Applicable
1.4.2 Resource Needs
Energy conservation in homes will require increased
use of insulation and slightly increased cost of the
homes to accommodate the increased amount of
insulation required.
1.4.3 Construction and Operatin2 Employment by Skill
Once the design information is provided the carpentry
and home construction skills exist in the villages.
The installation and start-up of the flame retention
oil burner in school or home will require a heating
contractor or oil furnace serviceman.
1.4.4 Environmental Residuals
None
1.4.5 Health or Safetx Aspects
The health within the village should be improved by
improved comfort in the home and reduced combustion of
hydrocarbon fuels in the region
D1.7
Summary and Critical Discussion
1.5.1 Cost per million Btu
The additional cost for the higher level of insulation
in the new homes would be offset in the first year by
reduced heating costs based on oil at $1.50 to $1.90
per gallon. The payback for the retention head oil
burner is estimated by Brookhaven National Labortories
to be 1 to 5 years depending on the length of the
heating season and the cost of oil. No figures have
been estimated for the cost per million Btu because of
the wide variation of conditions.
1.5.2 Discussion
Energy conservation offers the best opportunity for
reduction of oil consumption and energy costs to the
•
•
•
•
•
villages studied. It requires that improved design of •
homes for these remote sites be provided: that a full
understanding be brought to the villages of how energy
is lost through building walls, windows and cracks, so
that construction is completed to achieve the goal of •
reduced energy consumption. Once installed properly
these technologies have the highest reliability, the
greatest availability and are most appropriate for the
area involved.
It is recommended that the first effort towards
reduced energy cost in the villages be toward
•
developing an energy conservation ethic. That is •
educating the villagers on what is an energy efficient
home and how to achieve it without significant change
in the way of living. Once this ethic is established,
then other technologies for reducing energy costs in
other areas such as electrical energy conversion will
be understood.
D1.Q
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.0 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY/ORGANIC RANKING CYCLE
2.1 General Description
Electric power in western Alaska villages is typically
produced from diesel driven generators. The typical diesel
engine converts about 30% of the input energy into work,
approximately 35% is removed in the exhaust gases, 30% in
the cooling jacket/radiator and 5% from radiation as shown
in attached Figure 02.1. Approximately 50% of the heat
energy input to a diesel engine is recoverable. Two
methods are available for recovering this heat. One is to
transfer the heat through heat exchangers to a circulating
water or glycol system for use in heating homes, schools or
hot water. The second method is to recover waste heat
energy in a secondary "rankine cycle" process to convert a
portion into shaft power.
2.1.1 Thermodynamic and Engineering Processes
A) Direct Heat Recovery
• The two forms of heat (Jacket and exhaust)
rejected from the diesel engine can be
recovered in heat exchangers which transfers
•
•
•
the heat energy into a second fluid such as
glycol (see Figure D2.2). The glycol can then
be circulated to the schools, to the public
health service for water heating or to
residences within economical distances of the
generating plant. The system would require two
recovery heat exchangers; one liquid to liquid,
and one gas to liquid; a circulating system and
heat reclaim heat exchangers.
D2.1
Recoverable
80%
O[ESEL GENERATOR ENERGY BALANCE
Non-recoverable
20%
Total Exhaust~35%1'
Recoverable Exhaust/ 1.5%
20% Non-
Jacket Water
30'%
/ recoverab 1 e
Exhaust
~ork-30%
EXAMPLE OF ENERGY RECOVERY FROM A DIESEL GENERATOR
EXHAUST WASTE HEAT ELECTR I C ITY
30% 35% 35%
-
DIESEL GENERATOR-NO. HEATliECOYERY
EXHAUST WASTE HEAT RECOVERY ELECTRICITY
15% 50% 35%
DIESEL GENEP-ATOR-WITH HEJ\T RECOVERY ADCED
F' I Co. l:) 4.. 1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SI(.6NC6~
t2 .$O°,C'
_ 17.5°;::
OI4'Sci.
WAsrc; HeAr ,(I£C()V£,~y
;:~()M A /)14S£(' Gt!Ne'I('Art.7A'
r\C. t) t.%.
02.3
COMPOUND
RADIATOR
TO
RADIATOR -.'C:===~~
-FROM
RADIATOR
TURBO
CHARGED
DIESEL ENGINE
REGENERATOR
SYSTEM
OUTLINE
..
c::=====>
15% REDUC110N
IN FUEL CONSUMPTION
F \ <;. Q 2.. '3
D2.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B) Organic Rankine Cycle Heat Recovery
Rankine cycle heat recovery consists of trans-
ferring heat from the hot water and the exhaust
gases to an organic fluid such as freon,
toluene or other thermodynamic fluid. The heat
vaporizes the fluid at high pressure which is
passed through a turbine to generate shaft
power which can be used directly as mechanical
energy or converted to electrical power.
Figure 02.3 is one concept of a rankine cycle
energy recovery system on a diesel engine.
2.1.2 Current and Future Availability
A)
B)
Heat Recovery
Transferring waste from a diesel generator to a
second fluid for space heating or water heating
is a technology that is well understood and
currently available today. There are a number
of these demonstration projects in Alaska and
the lower 48 states where this has been
accomplished. For example, Kotzebue Electric
Association captures heat from their generators
to provide heat for the city water system.
Organic Rankine Cycle Energy Recovery
Rankine cycle energy recovery systems are now
in the developmental stage. Several firms
including Thermo-Electron, Mechnical Technolo-
gy, Inc. and Sundstrand Corporation have
demonstration projects presently under develop-
ment in the country. Ormat Turbines Limited
02.5
of Israel has in operation Rankine cycle energy
recovery systems using solar energy as the heat
source. No cost information on this equipment
was available at the time of this report. One
of the 3 u.s. companies contacted indicated a
desire to work with a sponsor on a
demonstration project in the size range
suitable for a western Alaskan village. The
cost for a demonstration development would not
be economically justified; however, it would be
a step in the direction of commercialization of
this technology in the u.s.
2.2 Performance Characteristics
2.2.1 Energy Output
A) Heat Recovery
1) Quality
Heat recovery system can achieve
temperatures in the order of 200 0 in a
properly designed heat transfer system.
This is a typical temperature in hot water
heating systems.
2) Quantity
Approximately 50% of the input energy could
be reclaimed from diesel engine. The
recoverable amount would increase slightly
as the diesel engine output is reduced
from its design capacity.
3) Dynamics
The output would be a function of the
electrical energy demand on the system.
Heat generated in the summer may have to be
02.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
rejected because of the lack of need for
heat at that time.
B) Rankine Circle
1) Quality
2)
3)
It is possible to reclaim approximately
7.5% of the input energy to a diesel engine
from Organic Rankine cycle heat recovery
system in the form of electrical energy.
Quantity
As stated above.
Dynamics
The energy available would be ih proportion
to the system electrical demand. It could
be made to follow the overall electrical
energy demand for the village.
2.2.2 Reliability
A) Heat Recovery
1) Reliability
Reliability of these systems can be made
very high by duplicate pumps for
circulating the heat transfer-medium
through the system. Existing heating
systems could be removed as the reliability
is proven in the village.
02.7
2) Storage Requirements
No storage is required.
B) Orsanic Rankine Cycle
Rankine systems are fully closed turbine-
generator systems. Their reliability, once
they achieved commercialization, should be
high. The need for backup would be equivalent
to the need for backup for the diesel
generator.
1) Storase Requirements
NO additional storage will be required or
necessary for Rankine cycle power.
2.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency
A) Heat Recover~
The heat recovery system has a potential of
increasing thermodynamic efficiency of the
power generation system from 30% to 60%. If
50% of the heat can be utilized for water or
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
space heating then 50% of the heat input to the •
diesel engine would be charged to power
generation raising overall power generation
efficiency to approximately 60% compares to 30%
without heat recovery.
B) Rankine Cycle
The thermodynamic efficiency of the combined
diesel engine plus Rankine cycle will increase
02.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to 40% to 45% compared to 30% for a diesel
engine alone.
2.3 Cost for Typical Unit Installed
2.3.1 Heat Recovery
The heat recovery system consists of a liquid to
liquid heat exchanger to capture water jacket heat
and a gas to liquid heat exchange to cover heat from
the exhaust gas. In addition, there will be an
expansion tank, a circulating pump, piping controls
and heat exchangers or radiators at the point of use
of the heat. The following is estimated cost of heat
recovery on a 150 kw diesel generator.
A)
B)
Capital Items
Heat exchangers $20,000, pump $2,500, piping
approximately $100 per foot, radiator and heat
recovery exchangers another $10,000, controls
approximately $4,000 plus assembly and
installation. The heat exchangers would be
installed in existing buildings where the
generators are located. Main piping would be
2 1/2 to 3" steel, insulated to carry the
glycol from the generator to the location where
the heat would be used. Radiator and heat
exchangers will be installed at the point of
use such as a school. Estimated assembly and
installation costs are $100,000.
Operation and Maintenance
Upkeep of the pump and cleaning of the heat
transfers service will be necessary to maintain
the efficiency.
02.9
C) Cost per KW Intalled
Not applicable
0) Economies of Scale
Not applicable
2.3.2 Rankine Cycle
To this date there are no known commercial installa-
tions of organic Rankine cycle power recovery system
in this country. There are a number of developmental
projects where the cost per KW is in the order of
$10,000 to $20,000 per KW. After reaching full
developed commercial development costs are expected to
be approximately $2,500 to $3,000.
2.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
2.4.1 Heat. Recovery System
A) Siting
The technology requires a waste heat source
near a heat consumer.
A diesel generator suitable size for economic
energy recovery which is at least 1000 KW.
C) Construction and Operating Emeloyment by Skill
Construction requires piping and welding skills
and knowledge of designs and installation of
the utilidors. Operation requires knowledge-
able pump and heating technician.
02.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0) Environmental Residuals
• None
E) Health or Safety Aspects
• No significant affects.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.4.2 Organic Rankine Cycle
A) Siting
B)
C)
0)
E)
This technology requires a source of waste
heat.
Resources Required
A diesel generator of suitable size for
energy recovery at least 1000 KW.
Construction and Operating Emeloyment by
Skills
Piping skills and knowledge of machinery in-
stallation are required. Operating personnel
would require the knowledge of the operation
turbo-machinery and controls.
Environmental Residuals
None
Health or Safety Aseects
An understanding of the operation of the two
systems together, i.e. the diesel engine and
02.11
the Rankine cycle, would be required to assure
safe operations of the equipment.
2.5 Summary and Critical Discussion
2.5.1 Cost per Million Btu
A. Heat Recovery
The cost of energy for a heat recovery system is
estimated to be $3 to $5 per million Btu based on a
20-year equipment life.
B) Organic Rankine Cycle
Rankine cycle cost is estimated to be on the order
of $0.10 to 0.15 per KWH after reaching
commercialization.
2.3.2 Critical Discussion of Technology
A) Waste Heat Recovery Methods
Waste heat recovery methods are known technolo-
gy today. It is an effective way to reduce oil
consumption in the village with the expenditure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of capital. The systems are extremely reliable •
and appropriate to village applications.
B) The Rankine Cycle Technology
The Rankine cycle technology is in a
developmental stage. When it reaches the
commercial application stage it could be a
suitable technology for installation in remote
areas. Knowledge and understanding in turbo-
machinery would be required as well as
D2.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
knowledge of the control systems. This would
require upgrading and .training of persons in
the village to understand and operate the
system. One of the larger villages such as
Togiak may be a candidate for a demonstration
program.
2.6 References
A) "Industrial Market for Organic Rankine Cycle
Bottoming Systems" prepared for the U.S. Department
of Energy by Resources Planning Associates, Inc.
B) "Development Status: Binary Rankine cycle Waste
Heat Recovery System." H. L. Rhinehart, et al.
C) "The Rebirth of the Rankine Cycle" Sternlicht and
Colosimo, Mechanical Engineering, January, 1981.
02.13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.0 FUEL CELLS
3.1 General Description
3.1.1 Process
Fuel cells electrochemically combine hydrogen-rich
fuel and oxygen to produce electric energy, heat and
water. This is a process of converting the latent
chemical energy of fuel directly into electricity. A
hydrogen-rich fuel is processed from liquid fuels such
as naphtha and is combined with oxygen from air to
produce electricity. Other possible fuels include
natural gas, SNG, low and medium -Btu coal -derived
gas, gas produced from biomass or urban waste and
petroleum distillates. Natural gas is the primary
fuel now being utilized in research underway on first
generation fuel cells.
The fuel cell power plant consists of a fuel processor
(reformer), which generates the hydrogen-rich fuel,
the fuel cell power section and a power conditioner
(inverter) to convert the cell DC output to AC
current. First generation fuel cells have
efficiencies of 38 to 40%. The efficiency of
conventional fossil-fueled generators such as gas
turbines and steam power plants is in the range of
28-38%. Waste heat utilization from the fuel cell
will improve the overall efficiency to 80-90%. Second
generation fuel cells will have improved electrical
conversion efficiencies approaching 45%. Some
performance characteristics of a 40 KW fuel cell power
plant are shown in Figure 03.1. A schematic diagram
of typical fuel cell power plant with heat recovery is
shown in Figure 03.2
03.1
FUEL
UTilIZA TlON
PERCENT
t
ELECTRIC.lL
O~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 10 20 30 40
POWER OUTPUT -KW
~kW Pilot Power Plant Performance
D3.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,..---.1'\ r---....,p~OCEmD
fUEL
PIOCESSoa
, fUEl.
(IErOIMU' ~-.., ....
RElECna
FuEl. CEl.L
powER
UCTION
POWfR
COIiOITlOIIEl
IINV£lT£11
Ie POWER
PROCESSES HYDROCARBON : CONVERTS PROCESSED ; PROOUCES USABLE
FUEL FOR FUEl CEll USE I FUEL AND AIR IMTO I AC POWER
I DC POWER I
Fuel Cell POWflf' Plant
D3.3
3.1.2 Availability
Fuel cell power plants are in the R&D stage of
development at this time. An IS-month field test
program on fifty, 40 KW fuel cell systems will be
conducted beginning in 1981. The goal of the test is
to gain sufficient knowledge by 1983 for equipment
manufacturers and utilities to commit to the sale and
purchase of improved fuel cell power plants as part of
an initial commercial service. A commercial product
may be five or more years away; however, United
Technology and General Electric Company are two firms
presently engaged in fuel cell development.
3.2 Performed Characteristics
3.2.1 Energy Output
A) Quality
A single cell produces between 0.6 and 1.0 Vdc.
To increase the output voltage to the level
•
•
•
•
•
•
necessary for large scale power generation, the •
individual cells are assembled into filter-
press configurations, or stacks. The stacks
are connected in series and/or parallel to
produce the required voltage and power levels.
Fuel cells produce by-product heat at
temperatures appropriate for steam or hot
•
water. The utilization of this reject heat for •
space heating or Organic Rankine cycle power
generation could increase the efficiency of the
unit to approximately 90%. •
• 03.4
•
B) Quantity
• By series or parallel connection the fuel cell
output could be built to any desired power
output. They can be sized to suit stores,
hospitals, multifamily dwellings, offices,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C)
3.2.2
restaurants or factories. They can be
dispersed as needed to reduce the size of the
electrical distribution system. In most
instances they can be installed directly inside
the building.
Dynamics
The fuel cell is capable of nearly constant
efficiency from 25% to 100% of rated output.
This makes the installation either in single or
multiple units capable of meeting fluctuations
in demand both on a daily basis as well as
annual basis. The unit has quick response to
load changes and responds to the consumer's
electrical demands automatically and
instantaneously.
Reliability
A) Need for Backup
B)
Spare units are required to provide for
emergency and maintenance outages.
Storage Requirements
Storage of fuel similar to any other electrical
power plant installation is required. Output
of the fuel cells can be matched to the load.
03.5
C) Thermal Efficiency
The total plant efficiency, considering
electrical power and useable heat will be
between 80 and 90%. Electrical efficiency is
about 40% between rated and half rated capacity.
Heat recovery is by means of hot water
utilization for space or hot water heating.
3.3 Costs for Typical Unit Installed
3.3.1 Capital
Capital cost for a commercial fuel cell power plant
are not available at this time. Projected cost for
an early commercial fuel cell only in 1980 dollars are
placed at $1500 KW. As usage increases the cost would
drop to approximately $400 KW. The development work
and cost projections for the reformer and power
inverter (device to convert D.C. power into A.C. power)
are not available at this time. Additional capital
cost would be incurred to recover the thermal heat
ouput of the fuel cell. Minimum time for early
commercialization of this technology is 5 years.
3.3.2 Assembly and Installation
Fuel cell plants will be produced as complete units or
in components in the case of large facilities. The 40
KW size cells undergoing field tests are 5 feet 2
inches wide; 9 feet long: 6 feet 6 inches high and
weighs approximately 7,000 pounds. A self-contained
unit will occupy approximately one square foot per KW
and weigh approximately 125 pounds per KW. A modular
unit suitable for small communities or for
installation in a factory or cannery will require
03.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
minimal site development. Additional costs will be
incurred for the equipment to convert the fuel avail-
able such as diesel oil into a hydrogen rich fuel for
the cell. Current F.C. development uses natural gas
fuel stock which is not presently available in the
villages.
3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
The units are designed for unattended operation,
semi-automatic start and automatic shutdown for
out-of-limit conditions. The cell stack is the most
expensive component. Research in stack design and
materials is being concentrated in an effort to extend
the life and improve efficiency. The goal is to
develop a stack with an expected life of 40,000 hours
(4.5 years). The expected life of other components is
projected to be 20 years. Operation and maintenance
costs (1980 dollars) is expected to be 4-5 mills/kwh
based on the stack life of 40,000 hours.
3.3.4 Cost per kw Installed
Cost at point of manufacture of a fuel cell is
expected to be $400/KW after initial production
learning cycle and sufficient volume is generated for
economical production. Installed costs would be
dependent upon fuel used and the method of bringing it
to the site as well as the costs structure unique to
Alaska. The installed costs are expected to be in the
area of S2,200/KW.
3.3.5 Economies of Scale
The fuel cell power units lend themselves to "stand
alone" application or in parallel operation with
utilities. Cost per KW for additional units of the
same size would not change.
3.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
3.4.1 Siting
The fuel cell power unit can be installed without
significant impact in almost any location. This can
be inside a building or in almost any outside loca-
tion. The method of utilization of reject heat as
well as the use of the electric power will dictate the
location to some degree.
3.4.2 Resource Needs
The equipment utilizes gas, in the form of pipeline
gas or gas manufactured from coal of petroleum
distillate. The economy achieved is in the higher
efficiency of electrical generation. It is possible
to achieve 40% efficiency for electrical generation
only and 80 to 90% total efficiency when capturing
reject heat.
3.4.3 Construction and Operating Employment by
Skills
Initial installations will require high levels of
skill and technical knowledge. Control of the output
will use advanced macro processes.
3.4.4 Environmental
The fuel cell power installation is clean and quiet.
The exhaust streams from the fuel cell power plant
consist of a surplus liquid water discharge and a gas
03.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
stream of predominantly air with carbon dioxide and
water vapor. Measured emissions from experimental
fuel cell power plants in both the kilowatt and
megawatt range have shown that fuel cell gaseous
exhaust contains less than 1/10 the pollutants per
unit of energy delivered than the federal standards
under the Clean Air Act of 1970. Exhaust emission
data from experimental fuel cell power plants are
shown in Figure D3.3.
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.4.5 Health and Safety
Fuel cell power plants are quiet, pollution-free
devices which can be located virtually any place.
They would be well suited for installation in a
western Alaskan village.
3.5 Summary
3.5.1 Cost Per Unit of Output
A dual energy use system (electrical and heat
recovery) will have estimated a capital cost of
$800/KW + installation. This cost compares favorably
with a diesel generator installation. the fuel cell
power plant with heat recovery has a total efficiency
of 80 to 90%. A 40 KW fuel cell will have 150,000
Btu/hour of recoverable heat. The fuel cell has an
electrical efficiency of 40% compared to
diesel-generator at 30%. The electrical costs should
be $.22/kwh with a bonus of 150,000 Btu/hour at 40 KW.
3.5.2 Critical Discussion
The technology is in the developmental stage and
5 years or more away from commercial application.
Once developed, it shows promise of a very reliable
converter of energy which performs at high efficiency.
This technology is not considered suitable for use in
western Alaska at this point in its development.
03.11
REFERENCES
1. "Clean Power for the Cities," Epri Journal, November, 1978.
2. Energy Technology Handbook, Considine, Douglas M., Sec. 4,
pp. 59-72.
3. "First Generation Fuel Cell Powerplant Characteristics,"
Bolan, P. and Handley, L.M.
4. "Fuel Cell Applications in Residential and Commercial
Buildings", Bolan, P. and Staniunas, S.W.
5. "Fuel Cell Power Plants for Dispersed Generation", EPR!,
May, 1979. •
6. IIFuel Cells and Coal-derived Fuel", Berman, Ira M., Power
Engineering, October, 1980.
7. IIFuel Cells in the Gas Industry," Larson, Elwin.
8. liOn Site Fuel Cells,lI Sperberg, Richard T.
D3.l2
.-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.0 WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
4.1 General Description
4.1. 1 Process
Wind turbine-generator (WTG) systems are devices used
to convert the kinetic energy of wind into shaft tor-
que and by means of a propeller and then to electrical
energy by a generator. The propeller or wind turbine
may also be used directly to do mechanical work such
as pumping water. The application considered here is
for the purpose of generating electrical power.
A wind turbine or wind machine, as they are commonly
called, is designed to extract energy from the wind.
The wind turns the rotor or blades of a turbine by
"pushing" against it or by lifting the blade aero-
dynamically. The energy that can be extracted by
"pushing" (drag principle) is limited. Modern wind
turbines rely on the "aerodynamic lift" which is
achieved by the special shape of the blade (called an
airfoil). This is a shape similar to that of an
airplane wing which produces a low pressure area above
the wing and a high pressure area below the wing. The
difference in pressure between the two sides of the
blade allows it to move with great speed and effi-
ciency. The top speed of the blade revolving around
the hub will be greater than the speed of the wind.
The relationship of the blade speed, measured at the
tip, to the wind speed is called the tip speed ratio.
The energy extracted from the wind by this system of
airfoils is used to drive an electrical generator.
Generators may be A.C., either synchronous or
04.1
induction, or D.C. depending on the application.
Wind systems, are comprised of four major components:
A) the wind turbine, which provides either
mechanical or electrical power,
B) the support system or tower,
C) the storage system, which includes batteries or
a connection to an electric utility power line
or to some other form of energy storage such as
water or space heating, and
D) the electrical sub-components such as inver-
ters, voltage regulators, control systems and
switching devices.
4.1.2 Current and Future Availability
Wind machines have been a source of mechanical energy
utilized by man, for many years. Their application to
the generation of electrical energy dates back to the
late 1800's. Many improvements in turbine design and
application have been made in the last few years.
There are numerous applications of their use. They
are used to generate electricity in areas where there
are no public utilities available. They are becoming
extremely popular in areas of high cost electrical
service.
Interest in larger units suitable for incorporation
into a utility grid has resulted in a number of tests
being conducted by private as well as government
D4.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
agencies. Much governmental support is via grants
with actual research being done by private corpora-
tion.
Rockwell International is providing technical and man-
agement support for the DOE testing programs at Rocky
Flats in Colorado. Most of their testing is on units
under 100 KW. Twenty commercially available units are
presently being tested, and plans are to test 50 more
in 1981. They are also working with private manufac-
turers to develop advanced systems with outputs to 40
KW. These tests have been going on since 1979.
WTG Energy Systems has a successful 200 kw installa-
tion on Cuttiyhunk Island, near Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts. This machine operates in parallel with
a small diesel generator utility (550 KW) which has a
high summer demand but low winter demand. During the
winter the wind machine puts out more energy than the
community can use. A Micro processor controller
diverts the excess energy to a resistance heater to
balance the energy flow. Micro processors offer the
solution to the complex energy distribution problems
imposed by a large unregulated power source such as a
wind turbine on small utility systems.
The Aluminum Company of America has developed a line
of vertical axis units designed for 100 KW, 200 KW and
500 KW output from inductions generators. Alcoa
expects to commercialize the 100 KW unit in 1981.
Three 3,000 KW horizontal axis wind turbines are being
installed in Goldendale, Washington by the u.S. DOE.
The units were manufactured by Boeing, Seattle,
Washington.
D4.3
4.2 Performance Characteristics
4.2.1 Energy Output
A) Wind turbine generators are manufactured in a
number of configurations, using alternators,
A.C. synchronous or induction generators or
D.C. generators. They are manufactured in many
sizes from a few watts to several megawatts.
Refer to Section 11 of this Appendix for dis-
cussion of types of electrical output.
B) Quantity
The quantity of power is dependent upon the
wind available at the point of installation.
The total annual kilowatt output depends on the
average annual wind for the area. Figure 0.4.1
demonstrates the relationship between the unit
output, size of rotor and the mean wind speed.
Most units have a cut in speed of approximately
8 MPH and a cut-out speed of approximately 40
MPH. The best application for wind turbines is
in the areas of persistant low velocity winds.
Power output is a function of the area swept by
the rotor and the velocity of the wind. Power
available in the wind increases with the cube
of the wind of the wind speed. Curves shown on
Figure 04.2 demonstrate this relationship for
some small machines.
C) Dynamics
The output of a work machine is dependent on
wind mean velocity and is, therefore, affected
04.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Typi ca 1 \H nd Pm-fer Curves
15crD.-____ t-____ t-____ +-____ ~--~D~=~3P~D~=~25~L
I
1Qan.-----t-----~----~-----++-~~--~/~J-I
~ / ~ v /
~ t-----+--0 = rotor J J D=15
E
S d ' ( ----t---1V~-H-/. -/A-
.oJ lometer feet)
20
(mp.h)
25 30
100,000
:J: s:
~
I-~
:::::l
0..
I-
:::::l
0
)ow
(.!J
cr:
w
Z w
-I
<t:
:::::l
Z
Z
<t:
Annual Energy Output vs Medn Wind Speed
TYPICAL ANNUAL ENERGY OUTPUT FOR SMALL WINO SYSTEMS
Note: Assumes Rayleigh distribution of wind
speed probability. Actual output may
vary due to different characteristics of
specific machines or sites.
10 12 14 16
MEAN WIND SPEED, MPH
Pi,. 04.2
04.6
ROTOR DIAMETER
45 ft
40 ft
35 ft
30 ft
25 ft
20 ft
15 ft
10 ft
18 20
."
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
daily as well as seasonally. Areas near a
large body of water generally have afternoon or
evening winds on a daily basis. Most areas are
seasonally affected generally having higher
velocities in winter and lower in spring and
summer.
4.2.2 Reliability
A) Need for Backup.
Because of the intermittent nature of the wind
a wind turbine will require 100% backup.
B) Storage.
Storage in the form of batteries or hydroelec-
tric reservoirs would allow maximum utilization
of the system and even out fluctuations of
energy flow during the day as wind velocity
varies.
4.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency.
Very little data is available on the efficiency of
wind machines on the basis of available energy and
captured energy. Studies have shown that neither
available energy nor average wind speed is a reliable
measure of the potential performance of a wind machine
a turbine cannot produce additional power from wind
speeds higher than its rated or design wind speed.
Also the distribution of wind velocity at various
sites differs appreciably. Captured energy as a
percentage of available energy is estimated to range
from 8% to 1.5%.
04.7
4.3.0 Cost
Cost of a wind turbine generator includes the site,
turbine with generator, tower, battery bank, inverter
and controls.
4.3.1 . Capital Cost
Installed cost of a wind turbine system will vary
greatly because of the many parameters. Eguipment .---
cost of a wind turbine generator with a tower is
~
approximately $l,500/kw for a large (> 100 KW machine)
synchronous or induction machine and approximately
$3,OOO/KW for smaller units complete with inverter and
batteries.
4.3.2 Assembly and Installation.
Installation costs are dependent upon local site
conditions and costs specific to the region. Soil
conditions in some areas of Alaska will make instal-
lation of wind machines difficult. The unit will have
to be positioned in a location and at an elevation to
extract the maximum energy from the wind. Elevation
of the turbine above the ground is one of the most
important considerations. Cost of additional tower
height is generally more than offset by additional
energy output.
4.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
Operations and maintenance costs of a wind turbine is
dependent upon the system installed. O.C.-A.C.--
systems require batteries for voltage control and
system stability and have high operation and
04.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
maintenance cost. Average battery life expectancy is
10-12 years and costs approximately $8/amp hour at 120
volt. Costs will also depend upon the complexity of
the control involved in integrating the wind turbine-
generator into this existing utility system.
4.3.4 Cost per Kilowatt Installed
Installed costs_for a 100 KW unit in 1982 is expected
~
to be approximately $2000/KW in the lower 48 states.
Installed cost of smaller units at $4,500/KW shoulj
hold steady for a the near future, as increased
production efficiency is offset by inflation.
4.3.5 Economies of Scale
There is an economic advantage in installing the
largest unit which will serve the needs of the in-
• stallation/area.
•
•
•
•
4.4 Special Requirements
4.4.1 Siting
A wind turbine generator will require siting in an
area known to have an average annual wind velocity
sufficient magnitude to justify costs of installation
and operation. This velocity is usually 12 mph or
greater.
A wind turbine must be located where it has access to
the free flow of the wind from 360°. Its power
potential is greatly enhanced by its height above the
ground. The least expensive way to increase energy
output from the wind is to increase tower height (see
Figure D4.3).
D4.9
•
•
TOWER HEIGHT •
100 •
90
80
i 70 • "" i 60
1\1 50 = ...
~ 40 .... • 30
20
10
0 •
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Increase Factor
•
ri9' 04.~
•
•
• 04.10
•
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.4.2 Resources Needed
A) Renewable -An area which has a mean wind
velocity of 12 mph or greater is necessary to
consider installation of a wind machine.
B) Non-renewable -Not applicable •
Wind turbines are designed to take the energy out of
the wind when it is available. To receive the maximum
benefit from the system there must be a demand for the
energy and the energy input from other sources must be -.-~
regulatable. Diesel generators, hydro and steam power
--~~-"'-
plants are examples of power supply systems which can
be regulated. The unregulated source size is limited
by the system demand, the type of wind-driven genera-
tor and the complexity of the control system.
The practical maximum size limit of a wind system
relative to the load of the utility is equal to the
minimum instantaneous electrical demand on the system.
4.4.3 Construction and Operating Skills
Normal skills associated with construction and opera-
tion of any other electrical generating plant. Where
sophisticated electronic controls are involved, it
will require this discipline.
4.4.4 Environmental
Wind machines may have a visual impact and noise
associated with them. These effects must be weighted
against the reduction of exhaust gases and importation
of high cost of fuel oil from outside the region.
04.11
4.4.5 Safety and Health
No safety or health effects are anticipated from a
wind machine.
4.5 Summary and Critical Discussion
4.5.1 Cost per KWh
Estimated cost per Kwh range from S.lO to S.30/Kwh
depending on wind velocity and site conditions.
4.5.2 Discussion
Improvements are being made in the design and
application of wind turbines. Rapidly escalating
cost of fuel oil, at a rate far above the annual
inflation rate, will make alternate energy sources
•
•
•
•
•
more and more attractive. Presently wind turbines are •
not cost effective in areas of relatively low cost
energy. In areas of western Alaska where electrical
generation cost is near S.31/Kwh and rising, a wind
machine can be an attractive alternative. A wind
machine in western Alaska, however, does not displace
other forms of generation and, therefore, does not
receive the benefits and considerations of a unit
which can reduce the demand for high cost thermal
generation. Its total economy is in fuel not burned.
4.6 References
1. Is Wind a Practical Source of Energy for You?
DOE, TM-IP/80-3, Sept., 1980.
2. Assessment of Wind Energy systems as a Utility
Framework. S. L. Mackles, J. L.
D4.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Wind Supplies Much of cuttyhunk Islands Electric
Power. W. R. Loustut, Electrical Consultant,
• Sept.-Oct., 1979.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 04.13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.0 SOLAR E~ERGY -PASSIVE
5.1 General Description
A passive solar energy system is one in which the thermal
energy flow from the sun is by captured and distributed by
natural means, that "is by radiation, conduction and natural
convection. Passive systems are distinguished from active
systems by the absence of a mechanical pump or fan needed
to force the flow of heat. In most, but not all, cases a
passive system must be integrated into the architecture of
the building. Often, the materials of the building serve a
dual purpose. For example, a south window serves to
collect the sun's heat and also provides both visual access
to the outside and natural daylighting. The walls of the
building often serve for both thermal storage and
structural support.
The active system is not considered in this profile because
of the high cost of electric power in the villages.
5.1.1 Thermodynamic and Engineering Processes
Passive solar designs are most frequently categorized
according to the following classification:
05.1
The direct gain approach to passive solar heating is
the simplest and most frequently employed. Winter
sunshine entering through south-facing glazing is
absorbed within the living space of the building and
stored in mass within the building. If the daytime
solar gains are greater than the energy requirement of
the building during the day then thermal storage is
essential in order to carry heat over from the day
into the night. This occurs if the solar heating
fraction is greater than about 40%. As larger and
larger solar heating fractions are available then
thermal storage becomes more essential. Interior
walls and floors are effectively used for thermal
storage. South facing double-glazing is a net energy
gainer computed over the whole heating season any
place within the u.S. (South of the 56th parallel).
The thermal storage wall approach to passive solar
heating utilizes a mass wall located immediately
behind the double glazing. This mass wall prevents
the sun from entering the living space and thereby
reduces three of the disadvantages of the direct gain
approach: glare, fading of fabrics due to UV degra-
dation, and large temperature fluctuations from day to
night. The thermal storage wall can be made of mason-
ry (Trombe wall) or water in containers (water wall).
The attached sunseace approach to passive solar
heating is a combination of direct gain and thermal
storage wall approaches. The building consists of two
thermal zones: a direct-gain "sunspace" and an indi-
rectly heated space, separated by a thermal storage.
wall. The "sunspace" is most frequently used as a
greenhouse in which case the system is called an
"attached greenhouse" or "solar greenhouse."
D5.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The southerly space is a direct gain room with exten-
sive glazing, and is a very appropriate space for
raising plants. Temperature fluctuations are high,
frequently as large as 30°F. The northerly space is
protected from these temperature fluctuations and the
direct solar impingement by a thermal storage wall
separating the two spaces. Temperature fluctuations
in the living space are quite small, typically 5°F.
5.1.2 Technology Availability
The technology is available as are the materials for
the passive solar system. The criteria for selection
of the most appropriate passive solar design for any
commercial building or residence is also available.
However, each building requires a technological
approach involving the following: building location,
shape and orientation, window location and sizes,
entrances and location of indoor spaces. Following
this there is a
lights, masonry
thermal storage
thermal storage
is also readily
choice of using solar windows, sky-
heat storage walls or greenhouse with
wall. The technology for sizing
walls, greenhouse, solar windows, etc.
available: however, all of the fore-
going requires services of qualified architect or
experienced technician.
5.2 Performance Characteristics
5.2.1 Energy Output
The following table shows anticipated thermal storage
wall (Trombe) performance in terms of Btu yield for
various cities of USA. It is estimated that for
Alaskan villages Btu yield averaged through winter and
summer months would equal minimum shown.
D5.3
(1 )
TOMBE WALL PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS CLIMATES
Optimum Optimum Yield
Solar Size Btu
Fraction Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Yr.
Location ( 1) ( 2 ) ( 3 )
Los Angeles, CA 65% 132 137000
Boston, MA 50% 397 96000
Albuquerque, NM 65% 314 122000
Medford, OR 30% 163 124000
Madison, WI 45% 415 115000
Determined by Noll and Roach to minimize life cycle cost
when used with electrical resistance backup heat assuming a
national average installed system cost of $12 per square
foot.
(2) Size of thermal storage wall required for a 1500 square
foot house with a heating load of 13500 Btu/degree-day to
achieve the optimum solar heating fraction. This assumes
an 18" thermal storage wall with double glazing, thermo-
circulation vents, and night insulation.
(3) Net annual useful energy savings, per square foot of
thermal storage wall.
5.2.2 Reliability
The passive solar system is the most reliable and
maintenance free of any heating system assuming the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
design and initial construction meet the requirements •
for heat and comfort. The lower availability of solar
energy in the winter months requires a conventional
heat source as a backup.
•
• D5.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.3
Storage requirements of energy in other forms would be
reduced.
5.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency
Assuming a correctly designed and built solar system,
home heating and fuel consumption would be reduced.
Costs for Typical Unit
5.3.1 Capital
For 12,000 to 14,000 heating degree days a thermal
storage wall equal to .78 square feet of wall for each
square foot of floor area will be required. There-
fore, for an average Alaskan village home of 600 to
800 square feet of floor area, the Tromhe wall should
be 468 to 624 square feet in area. This is an
impractical size for the average residence. Assuming
160 square feet of Trombe thermal storage wall could
be built for a typical residence, the estimated heat
gain would be 90,000 x 160 or 14.4 x 10 6 Btu's per
year. For an average household using 800 to 1000
gallons of fuel oil per year, the Btu requirement is
108 to 135 x 106. Therefore the maximum estimated
heat gain from the passive solar storage wall would be
10.5%. In terms of fuel oil this would be approxi-
mately 85 to 100 gallons per year, which would not be
enough savings to justify cost of a Trombe wall.
In addition to masonry cost of 160 square feet of wall
18" thick with double glazing, there is also added
cost of insulation to retain thermal heat gain during
hours of darkness.
D5.5
5.3.2 Assembly and Installation
Standard home construction methods apply to passive
solar systems.
5.2.3 Operation and Maintenance
No increase in maintenance cost will occur.
5.3.4 Cost per KW Installed
Not applicable
5.3.5 Economics of Scale
Not applicable
5.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
5.4.1 Siting
Siting of the building or residence is the most
important design aspect of a passive solar system.
The building must be oriented to receive the maximum
solar exposure.
5.4.2 Resource Needs
Increased use of insulation is required for successful
passive solar system, which adds to overall cost of
building or residence.
5.4.3 Construction and Operating Employment
The passive solar system design, which would be
required for each residence or building, could be
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
built with local carpentry and home construction
skills. Masonary skills are also required.
5.4.4 Environmental Residuals
None
5.4.5 Health or Safety Aspects
Improved comfort conditions in buildings or homes with
• installed passive solar system.
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.5 Summary and Critical Discussion
5.6
5.5.1 Cost
The cost of the passive solar system is estimated to
be uneconomical as a viable source of energy
for western Alaskan villages.
References
1. Passive Solar Energy Book, Edward Mazria Roedu1e
Press 1979.
05.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.0 COAL/WOOD/SOLID WASTE/PEAT CONVERSION TO STEAM TO ELECTRIC
POWER
6.1 Description
6.1.1 Thermodynamic and Engineering Process
Coal, wood, peat and/or solid waste from the community
could be burned in a boiler to generate steam at a
high pressure. Steam would then be passed through a
turbine which would drive a generator. When the steam
passes through the turbine the only heat removed is
that equivalent to the shaft energy (which includes
generator and other mechanical losses) and any
radiation or convection losses from the surface of the
machine. The remaining heat in the steam must be
extracted to condense it back to water. The
efficiency of the steam cycle depends on the initial
temperature and pressure that can be developed in the
steam and the pressure at which the steam is
exhausted. The amount of shaft power that can be
extracted from steam can range from as little as 5% in
a small, back pressure turbine to as high as 40% in a
large, high pressure power generating plant. Electric
power requirements in the villages range between 100
and 500 kw. Steam boiler equipment and turbine
generators available in the commercial market limits
the efficiency of the steam system to the low end of
the efficiency range, i.e. about 6 to 10%.
6.1.2 Current and Future Availability
Steam power has been used by man for several hundred
years to do the work for development of our industrial
society. Very early steam generators were low
presssure units used to drive steam engines. As
06.1
DEAERATOR/HEATER
150 PSIG SAT.
BOILER
EXCESS HEAT
CONDENSER
46#/KWh
PUMP (TYP.)
VILLAGE DISTRICT HEAT SYSTEM
D6.2
TURBINE
GENERATOR
10 PSIG
CONDENSER
DISTRICT HEAT
e-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
technology evolved, the steam generating plants became
larger and more efficient. Emphasis was placed on
large centralized power plant to gain economy of scale
while small system technology did not received the
benefit of development. The technology required for
the villages goes back to the early days of steam
power where the steam pressures and the overall system
efficiency were low.
Steam power can be justified at these low efficiencies
if there is a locally available fuel at proportion-
ately lower cost than oil which must be imported to
the region. A facility at a village sized for 200 KW
would consist of a boiler capable of generating 6,500
pph of 150 psig saturated steam driving a single stage
turbine-generator. An air cooled condenser operating
at approximately 15 inches of mercury vacuum would
remove the residual heat from the steam. This
installation would require approximately 32 pounds of
steam per kwh. A water cooled condenser could be
substituted for air cooled where sufficient water was
available. The plant would require 1080 pounds of
10,000 Btu per pound coal per hour or 1250 pounds of
wood per hour. The overall plant efficiency would be
approximately 6.3%.
An alternative to this arrangement, which would
improve the recovery of the heat energy from the coal,
would be to condense the steam while heating a
circulating fluid such as glycol that would provide
heat for buildings and water heating. The steam rate
would be 46 pounds per kwh but much of the residual
heat would be used for heating purposes. See Figure
D6.1 •
D6.3
6.2 Performance Characteristics
6.2.1 Energy Output
A) Quality
The output of this system would be electrical
energy and heat at approximately 200°F
available for district heating use.
B) Quantity
The quantity of energy available will depend on
the amount and type of fuel available in the
area.
C) Dynamics
Fuel can be made available to meet any daily
seasonal or annual energy demand.
6.2.2 Reliability
A} Coal-fired steam generators would require a
yearly maintenance period of 1 to 2 weeks.
During that time backup generation may be
required. There are a number of machines
associated with power generation, including the
turbine, pumps, fans and other auxiliary
motors that will effect the overall system
reliability.
B) Sufficient storage is required for fuel for the
longest estimated time between fuel deliveries
for any circumstances. If the fuel is locally
available, the storage requirements can be
minimized.
06.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency
Thermodynamic efficiency in the system in this range
will vary from 5-8%. The overall efficiency of the
system can be improved by utilizing the exhaust heat
for district heating.
6.3 Cost for Typical Unit
6.3.1 Capital
Capital requirements for a 250 KW installation are as
follows:
A) Boiler and auxiliaries $130,000
B) Turbine generator 45,000
C) Condenser 10,000
0) Electrical switchgear 10,000
6.3.2 Assembly and Installation
A) Mobilization and site prep $130,000
B) Fuel storage and handling 70,000
equipment
C) Boiler building and foundations 45,000
0) Piping 25,000
06.5
E) Transmission Line (approximately) 15,000
TOTAL cost for installation $480,000
6.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance costs included fuel, labor
and cost of maintenance. Fuel costs delivered to the
boiler are estimated at $2 per million Btu input.
Assuming the plant operates at an average load factor
of 50% and produces 876,000 kwh the annual operating
cost are $71,000, labor costs are $40,000. Other
maintenance costs are estimated to be $5,000 per year.
6.3.4 Cost per Kwh
Installed power cost is approximately $2,000 per KW.
6.5 Economy of Scale
Economy of scale can be gained by improved thermodynamic
efficiency as well as lower cost per KW installed. It is
possible that some economy can be obtained if there is an
other nearby village to which energy can be transmitted.
For the town of Grayling where coal and wood are poten-
tially available, the nearest village is approximately 30
miles. The capital cost of a 30-mile transmission line in
Western Alaska would have to be offset by a significant
decrease in power generation cost to justify the trans-
mission line.
6.6 Special Requirements and Impacts
6.6.1 Siting
The most important factor in siting a steam plant is
D6.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the available local resource of coal, wood or peat and
the ease of getting the fuel to the site. The site
selected would have to take into consideration the
prevailing wind and the effect of the stack gases on
the village.
6.6.2 Resource Needs
A) A facility like this requires locally available
sources of wood or peat. If these resources
are available then the village solid waste
combustible contents could also be burned for
additional heat value.
B) Non Renewable Resources
Coal is the most likely non-renewable resource
that could be fired in an installation like
this. Depending on cost, it could be possible
to consider coal either shipped in or locally
available, for power generation.
6.6.3 Construction and Operating Employment by
Skills
A steam generation facility requires skills to
construct, a substantial foundation, such as a pile
supported steel structure, pipe fitters, welders, and
persons experienced in the construction industry.
Operating skills require a knowledge of steam power
generation and control as well as knowledge of
electrical power generation and distribution.
6.6.4 Environmental Residuals
All fuels would create particulate emmission as well
06.7
as the possibility of emission of sulfur dioxide and
NOX. The solid residual would be ash which can
readily be landfilled.
6.6.5 Health or Safety Aspects
A steam system would have to be comply with the latest
safety codes and all the safety systems would have to
be installed and maintained to prevent accidents.
This method of generating power will require education
•
•
•
of local manpower to operate steam power system. •
There would be possible increased emissions of NOX and
sulfur dioxide which are not known to have related
health effects with proper installation.
6.7 Summary and Critical Discussion
6.7.1 Energy Costs
With energy costs based on fuel costs at $2 per
million Btu, an installation of this type will yield a
cost/kwh of approximately 27.6f. The resulting cost
of electricity would be $80 per million Btu of
electrical energy consumption.
6.7.2 Discussion of Technology
Steam-fired systems may be feasible provided there is
a low cost source of fuel available in the area. The
most likely area to have this resource is the town of
Grayling. Steam generation technology has been known
and understood for many years. There are many moving
parts within the system that require regular maintenance.
The system design would have to incorporate sufficient
redundancy to provide the reliability required in
remote sites with a backup system to provide heat in
D6.8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the event of a breakdown to prevent freeze-up of water
in the system.
This technology has the advantage of being able to
incinerate local solid waste that comes into the
village and recover energy from that source. The
amount of energy in the solid waste, however, is low
compared to the amount of heat required to generate
electric power from a small steam engine.
D6.9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.0 GASIFICATION OF WOOD, PEAT OR COAL
7.1 General Description
Coal, wood or peat can be converted into a gas suitable for
running diesel engines. The cost of these fuels if locally
available will probably inflate at a lower rate than oil
which could make this technology economically feasible for
western Alaskan villages.
7.1.1 Thermodynamic & Engineering Processes
Coal may be converted into either pipeline quality gas
(app~oximately 1000 Btu/scf) or a low Btu quality gas
depending on the complexity of the process. Low Btu
gas (120-160 Btu/scf) can be produced with much lower
capital investment and is considered here. The
combustion/gasification process proceeds in four
steps:
1) Oxidation:
C + 02-->C02
+ Heat
H2 + 1/2 02--H20
2) Gasification:
H2 0 H2
Heat + C + ( )-->CO + (
C02 CO
3) Hydrogasification:
C + 2H2-->CH4 + Heat
4) Devolatalization:
Coal + Heat-->C + CH4 + HC
This process was common prior to the dev~lopment of natural
gas transmission lines.
07.1
Gasification of wood and peat has been accomplished
successfully in Europe, and the technology is
presently developing in North America. Peat and wood
have very similar chemical make up, i.e., carbon
content 50-55%, hydrogen 4-5%, and oxygen 30-40%. A
significant difference between peat and wood is that
the peat contains significantly more ash (5-15%)
compared to 2% wood. There are a number of different
types of gasifiers available in the various states of
development. The typical unit converting wet wood in
air, produces a mixture of gas, condensible tars and
char (primarily charcoal). The gas has a heat value
of 150 to 200 Btu/scf. Uses for the tars and char
would have to be established in the village. Another
•
•
•
•
type of gasifier utilizes a catalyst and is capable of •
converting 100% of the wood fiber and ligmins to a gas
but requires a dry fuel, with approximately 20%
moisture content. The resulting gas has a heat
content of 300 to 350 Btu per cubic feet.
7.1.2 Current & Future Availability
Development of small wood gasifiers has increased
dramatically in the last 5 years. The development of
modern gasifying equipment 'in the u.s. therefore is in
the early stages and the most efficient, cost
effective design has not been established. A French
manufacturer produces the Duvant System capable of
100% conversion of material. A U.S. company, pyrenco,
is in the development stages of a similar gasifier
available primarily in sizes required in the
villages.
07.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.2 Performance Characteristics
• 7.2.1 Energy Output
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A. Quality
The output is in the form of a low Btu gas capable
of being stored and/or piped directly to the gas
consumer. Energy content between 150 and 350 Btu
per cubic feet can be achieved depending on the
process.
B. Quantity
Systems are available to generate the quantity of
gas to operate diesel generators in the villages
provided or to the size of 100 to 500 KW.
C. Dynamics
Not Applicable.
7.2.2 Reliability
The reliability of these systems is not developed at
this time. Sufficient gas storage must be provided in
the event of an interruption in the operation of a
gasifier system. The backup could be in the form of
diesel fuel.
7.2.3 Thermodynamic Efficiency
The energy conversion efficiency can be as high as
80% in wood or peat catalytic gasifier. The
thermodynamic efficiency of a diesel engine would be
approximately 30%. The resulting overall efficiency
07.3
of 24% is theoretically achievable. Additional
efficiency improvement can be achieved with a waste
heat capture system from the diesel engine water
jacket and exhaust gas.
7.3 Cost for Typical Unit Installed
7.3.1 Capital:
A gasifier to furnish gas to a 200 kw generator would
cost approximately $200,000.
7.3.2 Assembly & Installation:
Not Available.
7.3.3 Operation and Maintenance:
Not Available.
7.3.4 Cost per KWH:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost for processing renewable resources into gas is in •
the range of $4-5 per million per Btu for a system
capable of processing 3-4 tons per hour of feed stock.
The cost of the feed stock must be added to the
above. •
7.3.5 Economy of Scale:
Not Available. •
7.4 Special Requirements -Impacts
7.4.1 Siting •
A gasifying process would be sited in an industrial.
•
D7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
zone that would provide for ease of bringing in the
feed stock and be in close proximity to the power
generation facility where the gas would be consumed.
7.4.2 Resource Needed
A) A locally available resource of wood, peat or solid
waste could be used in the gasifier at the time.
B) Coal if locally available -delivery cost and com-
plexity of a coal gasifier would be the determining
factor to determine if this process could be eco-
nomically feasible.
7.4.3 Construction & Operatins Plant by Skills
Not Available.
7.4.4 Environmental Residuals
Primary residuals would be ash and combustion gases.
7.4.5 Health & Safety Aspects
Not Available.
7.5 Summary & Critical Discussion
7.5.1 Cost
The current cost per million Btu for the gasification
process could be in the order of magnitude of oil
depending on the availability of a resource for
gasification. Oil presently costs $11-13 per million
Btu's in western Alaskan villages. If lower cost can
07.5
be achieved through gasification it could greatly
offset the use of oil in generating electric power.
7.5.2 Critical Discussion of the Technology
Gasification of wood and peat is in a developmental
stage in the U.S. and may be available from Euro~ean
suppliers. Further evaluation of gasification is
required to determine whether the cost of a gasifier
capable of 100% conversion of the feed stock would be
competitive with the oil and the western Alaska
environment.
7.6 References
1. Synthetic Fuels from Peat Gasification by D. V.
Punwani and J. M. Kopstein.
2. Gas Coal/DOE/FE/007.
3. Gasification of Coal and Wood by Lewis Eckert III
and Stanley Kasper, TAPPI, August 1979.
D7.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-.--.~.------~-----------------------------------
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.0 HYDROELECTRIC POWER
8.1 General Description
8.1.1 Process
Man has used the energy in falling or moving water
since the days of the Romans--to perform work for his
benefit. Modern man has improved on the method to
recover the maximum energy from the water in a device
called a turbine. The turbine takes many forms but
basically uses the velocity of water to turn a shaft
to drive an electric generator.
8.1.2 Availability
Turbine generator equipment is available from a number
of suppliers in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Japan.
Medium to low head units in the range of 150 kw are
available from James Leffel within 10 months. Barber
of Ontario, Canada quotes similar units in 3-8 months.
Dumont, a French company estimates 10 to 11 months
delivery. Medium head (300 meters), low flow (2 cfs)
units in the range 37.5 to 50 kw are also available in
the same delivery period.
8.2 Performance Characteristics
8.2.1 Energy Output
A. Quality
Electrical energy, either synchronous or induction
A.C. generators are available as required.
08.1
B. Quantity
Turbine generator units are available in many
types and sizes. Application is dependent upon
usable stream flow and head available.
c. Dynamics
Output is seasonally dependent on stream flows
which swell during spring runoff or rainy season
and diminish during cold winter weather. In some
cases, all the electric power needs of a
community may be supplied for a period of time
during the year when there is high maximum water
flow, or only peak load power may be supplied for
part of the day. Other power sources such as wind
or diesel generation may be required to make up for
the periods when water is not available or demand
exceeds the capacity of the hydro system.
D. Storage
A reservoir can also be utilized to level the
output and to meet peak demand. A reservoir may
add a considerable cost to the installation. Each
installation will have to be considered separately
to determine the economics of water storage.
8.2.2 Reliability
A. Need for Backup
Hydroelectric power generation is one of the most
reliable methods of generating electric power.
Life expectancy of this type of equipment has
08.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.3
proven to be in the range of 25 to 35 years with
minimal care and maintenance. The need for backup
from a reliability standpoint is nil. The backup
in this application is for the purpose of meeting
peak demand.
B. Storage
Storage of water in a reservoir usually improves
the availability of energy. More uniform seasonal
output can be provided using a reservoir, however
if the stream has the capacity to meet the needs of
a community, the unit could be adapted to "run of
the stream" operation.
C. Efficiency
Turbine efficiencies vary with type, flow and
load but usually range from 75-90%. Combining
generator efficiencies of approximately 95% result
in net efficiencies between 75-80% in the expected
range of operation.
Costs
8.3.1 Capital Cost
Capital cost for a small 140 kw hydraulic turbine
generator operating under a head of 50 feet with a
flow of 45 cubic feet per second (cfs) is approxi-
mately $85,000 for the turbine-generator, necessary
gearing, governor and the electrical control panel. A
representative 40 kw unit operating under a head of
300 feet and flow of 1.75 cfs per second would cost
approximately $50,000 for the same equipment. Trans-
08.3
portation from point of manufacture is not included.
Site development, materials and equipment required for
•
installation will vary greatly with the site location •
and conditions. Water impoundment and/or diversion,
structures, penstocks, foundations and provisions for
the discharge will also vary over a considerable
range.
8.3.2 Assembly and Installation
Assembly and installation including design and
supervision is estimated at 50-60% of the total
installation. This allocation would apply for units
installed in the "lower 48" with a resulting installed
•
•
cost between $175,000 and $215,000, respectively. •
Costs for installation in the remote areas of western
Alaska are considerably higher and must be taken into
account. Alaska District Corps of Engineers in their
study of a 150 kw unit for Scammon Bay has projected a •
cost approximately one million dollars.
8.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
All equipment used in a typical hydro-electric
installation is typically rugged, well designed
equipment requiring minimal maintenance. It is
designed for long service life. Operation and
maintenance of ths equipment would not require skills
beyond those already employed to operate the diesel
generator equipment presently installed. Alaska
District Corps of Engineers has suggested operation,
maintenance and replacement costs at $8,000.00 per
year for the 150 KW unit.
08.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.3.4 Cost ..............
Cost per installed KW will range from $18,000 for
the high flow low head installation with a dam to
$7,000 for a low flow high head project with diversion
only. These costs are approximate for western Alaska
• construction.
8.4 Seecial Requirements and Imeacts
• 8.4.1 Siting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The turbine would be located to maximize output of
the water and head available taking into account
length of penstock and storage available. The average
village installation would require a relatively small
power house. Siting is not considered a problem
provided the soil condition are stable and not subject
to flooding or erosion. The penstock mayor may not
be covered but winter weather conditions may require
protection from freezing and snow loads.
8.4.2 The Resource
Water is a renewable resource dependent upon the
following characteristics:
A. Drainage area
B. Storage available by means of a reservoir or
natural storage, e.g. groundwater and/or snow-
pack.
C. Average rainfall in the area •
08.5
8.4.3 Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts are minimal in small streams
with no fish habitat. Each location must be analyzed
for its impact on fish and wildlife. The major impact
is where a reservoir would occupy a large area of
land. Recreational use could be a desirable result.
8.4.4 Construction and Operating Skills
Normal civil and construction skills would be re-
quired. The small installation would be in a package
arrangement requiring minimum technical assembly
skills. Operating skills would be similar to those
required to operate the present engine-generator
units.
8.4.5 Health Effects
There are no particular aspects to this technology
which would effect health and safety.
8.5 Summary
8.5.1 Costs per Kilowatt Hour
Costs are dependent upon so many variables that it
is not possible to establish a firm cost per kwh. The
Alaska District Corps of Engineers has forecast a cost
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
for 3lf per kwh for the Scammon Bay study. •
8.5.2 Critical Discussion
The process of converting the potential energy of
water at a high elevation into electrical energy by
D8.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
use of a turbine and generator at a lower elevation is
a proven process. The equipment involved is extremely
reliable.
The period of maximum generating capacity does not
always coincide with the period of maximum demand.
Heavy water flow and thus maximum output of the hydro
installation is during spring runoff beginning in
April, peaking in May and June and ending in July.
The coldest temperatures (average -20°F) and maximum
energy demand is between November and April. Diesel
generation is sufficiently flexible to allow maximum
use of the available hydro. If a storage dam is con-
structed for a hydrodevelopment, the application of
wind turbines may prove to be economically feasible by
providing maximum utilization of both resources to
meet the system electrical demands.
08.7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
9.0 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
9.1 General Description
9.1.1 Process
A solar cell is a two terminal solid state semicon-
ductor device which converts solar energy (photons)
into electric energy. The cell does this conversion
by the photovoltaic process which is the generation of
an electromotive force as a result of the absorption
of ionizing radiation. Silicon is the basic
semiconductor material. These cells can theoretically
convert 22% of the radiant energy received. The
present practical limit, however, is about 14%.
A typical cell has a peak output of 1.2 amp at .5V. A
photovoltaic module is an assembly of cells connected
in series and/or paralleled to achieve the desired
output. A photovoltaic array is an assembly of
modules connected together to give the desired peak
output (watts) and voltage.
9.1.2 Current and Future Availability
Solar photovoltaic systems are presently being used
in a wid.e variety of applications. In some cases
their use is justified solely because they provide the
lowest overall cost compared to the next available
alternative. Other applications are in demonstration
projects to gather data on specific uses of solar
cells. Two applications that solar photovoltaic
serves very well are to provide power for remote data
telemetry and microwave repeater stations. One such
repeater station is in operation in Alaska.
Other applications of the technology are a 28 KW array
for irrigation water pumping and crop drying at Mead
Nebraska and the 100 kw power system at Natural
Bridges National Monument in Utah. The Department of
Energy, NASA, Lewis Research Center, Sandia Labora-
tories and MIT Lincoln Labs are doing research and
development on solar photovoltaics including numerous
demonstration programs. This effort and the work in
the private sector is expected to reduce cost of the
modules and arrays to a very competitive level in the
near future.
9.2 Performance Characteristics
9.2.1 Energy Output
A) Quality
DC electric energy is the ouput of a flat-
plate collector. An inverter (device that
converts DC to AC power) is required to serve
typical commercial and residential load.
B) Quantity
Quantity is a function of the size of the
photovoltaic array and the solar radiation
reaching the array surface. There is no energy
output when the sun is below the horizon.
C) Dynamics
The ouput of a photovoltaic installation is
effected by the solar intensity which varies
from season to season, by its location on the
earth and by daily cloud cover conditions.
D9.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.2.2 Reliabilit~
A) Need for Backup
If solar photovoltaics are used to satisfy or
offset the electric consumption of an Alaskan
village, then 100% backup is required,
especially during the winter months. During
the winter sunlight hours are diminished, and
the sun angle is very low which means the
radiation has to pass through a greater length
of earth atmosphere.
B) Need for Storage
Storage in the form of batteries would be
required to make up for daily fluctuations of
solar radiation to meet the community demands
without requiring a backup system such as
diesel electric generators.
C) Thermodynamic Efficiency
9.3 Costs
Solar photovoltaic cells can presently con-
vert approximately 14% of the solar radiation
energy falling on it to electrical energy.
Continuing development of photovoltaic systems
expected to achieve increased conversion
efficiency.
Cost for solar photovoltaics include land (about 1 acre
is required per 100 kw) the arrays, electrical inverter and
controls.
D9.3
9.3.1 Capital Costs
Current array cost only is approximately $3,500/kw
of installed peak power. The total system installed
cost including the controls, battery storage and
intertie with the existing power grid is expected to
bring the total system cost to approximately
$12,OOO/KW of peak power installed. Projected cost of
these systems is approximately $2,500/kw in 1986 and
$1,300/KW between the years 1990 and 2,000.
9.3.2 Assembly and Installation
It is expected that solar photovoltaic systems will
be designed for each application and packaged in
modules for installation at the site. A building will
be required to house the battery storage and controls.
An adequate site will be required for the array. The
site must have the proper orientation and be clear of
foliage or structures that would block the solar
insolation. Foundations are required for support of
the arrays. The cost of the installation is site
•
•
•
•
•
•
specific. The cost figures quoted in 9.3.1 would have •
to adjusted for remote sites such as Alaskan
villages.
9.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
o & M costs are expected to be low but will depend
on the complexity of the electrical control system.
No data is available on these costs at this time.
9.3.4 Cost per Kw Installed
Estimated 1985 installed costs are $2,500 to 3,500
KW.
09.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
9.4.1 Siting
Approximately one acre of land is required per 100
KW of installed power. The site must be well exposed
to the south and be able to be cleared of trees and
foliage that may block solar radiation from the
arrays.
9.4.2 Resources Needed
Not applicable.
9.4.3 Construction and Operating Emplo~ent by
Skills
1. Piling supports installation
2. Electrical connection
3. Small building for battery and controls
9.4.4 Environmental Residuals
None
9.4.5 Health and Safety Aspects
Primary safety concern is the proper control of the
electrical power generated in the solar array to
prevent equipment damage or electrocution.
9.5 Summar~
At this stage of development of solar photovoltaics sys-
tems the capital cost and resulting operating costs are
expected to be high. This technology requires storage or a
D9.5
backup system to provide power during long periods of poor
weather and darkness. The distribution of the sunlight
hours in Alaska throughout the year makes photovoltaic
energy favorable for summertime load but unsuitable for
winter.
9.5.1 Cost per Kwh
Cost per kwh of an operating system installed today
are not published because of the developmental nature
•
•
•
of the process. It is estimated that costs by 1990 •
could and be in the area of $.10 to $.lS/kwh for lower
48 installation in terms of 1979 dollars.
9.5.2 Critical Discussion
Solar photovoltaic systems are finding a market in
providing power for remote telemetering and
•
communication systems. A number of demonstration •
projects are showing successful application for
intermittent or daytime only power requirements.
Solar photovoltaic systems may work well together with
hydropower or wind with storage battery backup. The •
cost of battery systems that can withstand repeated
deep cycling are high and further make the economics
of the combined system poor compared to the present
diesel power system. •
•
•
• 09.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10.0 ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION VIA SINGLE WIRE GROUND RETURN (SWER)
10.1 General Description
10.1.1 Engineering Processes
Alternating current (AC) power is typically transmit-
ted over long distances using two wires to assure a low
voltage drop from one end of the system to the other.
Single wire ground return (SWER) is a method which
eliminates one of the pair of wires by using the ground
as a return path to complete the electrical
transmission system. Electrical contact between the
transmission system and the ground is accomplished by
the use of several ground rods (3/4 or 1" diameter
copper rods 10 to 20 feet long) at each of the
transmission lines. The number of rods required at
each end depends on the amount of power to be
transmitted, the type of soil in which the rods are
installed, and the allowable resistance between the
rods and the ground. The total ground and single wire
resistance should not be greater than the resistance of
a two wire system.
10.1.2 Availability
Ground return transmission systems have been consi-
dered since the use of electric power began, but have
never become widely used because of inherent problems
with the system voltage level control. SWGR systems
may be considered for use in remote areas where some
economy of scale in the generating system can be
achieved by connecting several small villages together
with a transmission system, provided that the
transmission system costs are sufficiently low. A
single wire system may offer some economics to achieve
this goal.
010.1
Besides the reduction in wire and line hardware, a
simpler line support structure that can be erected with
a minimum of heavy equipment will reduce costs of bush
construction in the bush.
The hardware and the technology for accomplishing this
type of transmission system are presently available.
A demonstration of this technology was recently
started with a line between Bethel and Napakiak in
western Alaska. The line transmits single phase power
at 14,400 v for a distance of approximately 18 miles.
Three phase power is achieved by a rotary converter (a
single phase motor driving a 3 phase generator)
located at the load side of the transmission system.
10.2 Performance Characteristics
10.2.1 Energy Output
There is no energy output from a SWGR. Its qualifica-
tion for consideration as a village technology is the
ability to transmit a high quality type of energy from
an efficient, large generating source to a small user.
10.2.2 Reliability
This method of transmission depends upon the integrity
of the contact between the ground and the ground rod or
mat installed at each of the terminals and a low
resistance path in the ground between terminals. If
the ground contact resistance becomes too great or is
not dependable, voltage control problems may be
experiQnced. Equipment must be installed in the system
to detect changes of the ground resistance to shut down
the transmission power if the resistance exceeds a
level which would cause an excessive voltage drop in
the system.
010.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10.2.3 Efficiency
Efficiency of a transmission line is a function of the
losses evidenced by a drop in voltage resulting from
the total resistance in the transmission system. A
typical transmission system is designed for a voltage
drop of 5% to 15% of the rated voltage at the estimated
average power transmission load.
10.3 Cost
TO evaluate this technology, costs for a SWGR system should
be compared with a multiple wire system. The following
table is an approximate comparison of relative costs for
the two systems.
10.3.1 Capital Cost
Cost Element Multiple Wire
Power pole
wire, insulators, hardware
Grounding
Subtotal
10.3.2 Installation
Power pole
Wire, insulators, hardware
Grounding
Subtotal
TOTAL
1.0
1.0
.8
2.8
1.0
1.0
.8
2.8
5.6
10.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
SWGR
0.9
0.5
1.0
2.3
.3
.5
1.0
1.8
4.1
It is expected that there would be no additional opera-
tion and matinenance costs for a multiple wire system
over a single wire ground return because of the need
to assure that the ground resistance is within toler-
ance at all times.
010.3
10.3.4 Cost per KW Installed
This cost is not currently available.
10.3.5 Economy of Scale
These systems are limited to single phase systems
capable of transmitting small blocks of power to small
villages. No economy of scale would be expected.
10.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
10.4.1 Siting
The same requirements apply for SWGR as well as multi-
ple wire transmission systems.
10.4.2 Resource Needs
Not applicable.
10.4.3 Construction and Operating Employment bX
Skills
The same skills are required for single wire ground
return as for multiple wir~ systems.
10.4.4 Environmental Residuals
The same as multiple wire systems.
10.4.5 Health and Safetx Aspects
The 1978 edition of the National Electric Code incor-
porated a prohibition against using ground return
systems. Prior to that time there was no prohibition
DIO.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
against these systems. A waiver of that particular
requirement of the code is required to enable this
technology to be used in the bush.
10.5 Summary and Critical Discussion
10.5.1 Cost Per KWH
Not applicable to this technology.
10.5.2 Critical Discussion
The use of this technology requires that a ground
return will maintain low resistance daily, seasonally
and annually. Experience with this system in western
Alaska should be developed with demonstration projects.
The SWGR system is not feasible for a distribution net
where the system is tapped to deliver power at interme-
diate points unless suitable ground conditions can be
found at the intermediate point.
The cost savings of a single wire system suspended on a
conventional pole would not provide significant cost
savings, i.e. savings of the cost of wire, insulators,
hardware and labor of stringing that particular wire.
The major cost would be the installation of the poles
which would require heavy equipment. In conjunction
with the single wire system, a new pole design for use
primarily in low population density areas is being
tested which could substantially reduce the total
transmission line installation costs in remote loca-
tions. The pole design being used in the present
demonstration programs is an A-frame structure which
floats on the surface of the tundra. The in-line or
tangent towers are supported by the cable tension.
Dead-end towers are installed periodically to insure
DIO.5
the stability of the system. All corners are guyed
structures utilizing plate anchors which are drilled
into the ground using man-portable drilling systems.
This technology may be feasible where some economy can
be gained by tying several villages together with a
single, more efficient and more reliable generation
system.
10.6 References
1. Design Charts for Determining Optimum Ground Rod Dimen-
sions by J. Zaborszky and Joseph Rittenhouse, IEEE
Transactions, August, 1953.
010.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11.0 GENERATION VIA SYNCHRONOUS, INDUCTION OR DC/AC SYSTEMS
•
11.1 General Description
11.1.1 Engineering Process
Mechanical work from an unregulated source of energy,
such as steam, water or wind is converted into elec-
tric energy by an electric generator. Typical large
power systems use a synchronous generator which deli-
vers alternating current (AC) at a closely regulated
frequency, typically 60 cps plus or minus a small
tolerance. In the United States all utility systems
generate power with synchronous generators as well as
most small systems. These additional alternatives are
available for generating electrical power especially
in small systems. These are induction generators,
alternators, and D.C. generators.
The induction generator is identical to an induction
motor except it is driven at a speed slightly above
the synchronous speed. The electrical output is gen-
erated from the slip, i.e., the difference between the
synchronous frequency and the rotor frequency. The
power output of an induction generator increases as
the slip increases. An induction generator requires a
magnetizing current which must be supplied from an
external system such as a utility. An induction gen-
erator is not suitable for isolated operation. Its
application is limited to use in conjunction with an
existing utility or synchronous generator. To avoid
voltage regulation problems the size of the induction
generator should not exceed 10 to 15% of the capacity
of the main generator or generating system.
011.1
For small systems it is possible to generate power
with an alternator which has variable voltage and
frequency output and convert that energy into constant
frequency AC power by means of a synchronous inverter.
A synchronous inverter is a solid state device which
regulates the voltage and frequency ouput of the
alternator. These systems are available in sizes up
to about 10 KW.
Generation of DC power directly and then converting it
to a regulated AC output offers another possible
choice for interconnecting a small energy source with
a utility while also providing a "stand alone" capa-
bility. The cost of this system is greater than the
cost of the other conversion methods. D.C. generators
are typically more costly than a synchoronous or
induction generators or alternators. The "static
inverter," which converts the DC to a regulated AC
output, is a solid state device which is more costly
than a synchronous inverter. This system, however,
offers the most versatile method for using or distri-
buting the power.
11.1.2 Current and Future Availability
Each form of this electrical conversion method is
available today. The synchronous generators are
available from small sizes up to the very large size
and cover all size ranges that could be conceived for
village power generation. Induction generators are
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
available in sizes up to very large motor sizes; •
however, their economic range is between 0 and 500 KW.
Synchronous inverters as far as can be determined are
available in sizes up to 10 KW and allow the
flexibiliity of operating a small system in parallel •
with an AC system. It would allow an entity to
011.2 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
offset its power consumption from outside sources
while still having the flexibility and reliability of
the larger system when its own generator ouput is not
sufficient. DC generators and DC-AC converters are
also available in the small size range.
11.2 Performance Characteristics
11.2.1 Energy Output
For all systems mentioned above, the output is a form
of electrical power, AC power. Its quality, quantity
and dynamics is a function of the prime mover and
the source of energy.
11.2.2 Reliability
The synchronous generator has the highest reliability
because it can provide regulated AC power over a wide
range of operation. The induction system can only be
operated in conjunction with a large synchronous-
controlled system. It cannot operate on its own. The
alternator and synchronous inverter cannot operate
independently of a large synchronous system without
additional equipment. The rC generator plus DC-AC
inverter is the only other "stand alone" option over a
synchronous generator.
11.2.3 Efficiency
The generators for comparative size range are
approximately equal in efficiency rating. The
alternator system would have an additional
inefficiency due to the losses in a synchronous
inverter.
Dll.3
11.3 Cost for Typical Unit Installed
11.3.1 Capital Costs
The synchronous generator would have a higher cost for
small systems than induction generators but would be
more cost effective above 500 KW size. Induction
generator would provide the lowest cost for a small
power system provided that there is a large generating
network that can use its output, regulate the
frequency and provide field magnetizing current. A DC
generator plus the DC-AC inverter has the highest cost
than either the synchronous generator or the induction
generator.
11.3.2 Assembly and Installation
Costs for assembly and installation would be approxi-
mately the same for the four types of generators. In
some instances the form of generation is dictated by
the prime mover.
11.3.3 Operation Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of these systems would
be approximately the same. Induction generators can
only provide a small portion of the total power of a
system without causing problems with the voltage
regulation in the system.
11.3.4 Cost per KW Installed
Data not available.
11.3.5 Economics of Scale
Economics of scale are as stated in previous sections.
011.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
..
•
•
•
•
11.4 Special Requirements and Impacts
11.5
11.4.1 Siting
Not Applicable
11.4.2 Resources Needed
Not Applicable
11.4.3 Construction and Operating Employement by
Skills
All methods of generation require the same construc-
tion and operating employment skills.
11.4.4. Environmental Residuals
Not Applicable
11.4.5 Health and Safety Aspects
Not Applicable
Summary and Critical Discussions
11.5.1 Cost per million Btu's per KW Hour
Data not available.
11.5.2 Critical Discussion of Technology
For large systems synchronous generators appear to
provide the flexibility required for operation over a
wide range of power output while providing regulated
voltage and frequency. The cost factor for small
Dll.5
systems is really not critical where the frequency and
voltage regulation or a "stand alone" capability is a
requirement.
Induction generators can economically be added to
large power systems where their small input into the
sysem does not significantly affect the overall
frequency or voltage regulation of the larger system.
Induction generators should not contribute more than
15% of the maximum demand of the power grid. Induc-
tion generators can be installed at a lower cost than
other alternative generators. An alternator with
synchronous inverter are used on small wind systems
which operate in parallel with the local utility to
operate typical household equipment found in this
country. This combination cannot operate on a "stand
alone" basis. When the utility is down, the
alternator and synchronous inverter system is also
down, the synchronous inverter system is also down.
The synchronous inverter offers the opportunity for
generation of a larger percentage of power by
windmills than by induction generators in a small
diesel generator system.
The system that provides the greatest flexibility for
power generation from an unregulated source of energy
is the DC generator with a battery storage system and
static inverter which can operate in parallel with a
small utility or on a "stand alone" basis. The
battery provides storage for excess energy from the
generator or makes up energy deficits and also
provides a reference voltage for the inverter. The
disadvantages with this system re high cost, lower
reliability and lower efficiency than other systems.
Three phase power from these system is also very
costly.
Dll.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11.6 References
1. "Induction Motor Provides Co-generation When Used
as a Generator," by Nathan Ponnel, Electrical
Consultant, January, 1981.
2. "Recover Energy with Induction Generators," R. L.
Nailen, Hydro Carbon processing, July, 1978.
3. "Turbine-generators, Induction vs. Synchronous,"
M. N. Halberg, and W. B. Wilson, Pub. Industrial
Engineering News, July-August, 1954.
011.7
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The following tabulations are shown in order to present: 1)
the basic assumptions in each economic scenario and 2) example
calculations showing the methodology of analysis.
The basic data for each village plan is extracted from the
"business as usual" data shown on Tables E-1 and E-11. Total
power generation and space heating data are taken from
projections established in Appendix C and shown in tabular form
on Tables E-1 and E-1I.
Each analysis was performed using the following criteria:
1. Interest rate used to amortize capital costs and in
evaluating annual costs is 3.0%
2. Fuel costs were escalated at 3.5% per year
3. All evaluations were presented using 1981 as the base
year.
4. Fuel costs for electric power generation were assumed at
$1.345/gallon, fuel having a heating value of 135,000
Btu/gallon.
5. Efficiency of fuel conversion to electricity varied from
village to village resulting in variable costs per kwh
of power generation as follows:
Fuel costs, Goodnews Bay, 1981
(Sl.345/gallon) (3413 Btu/kwh)
(135,000 Btu/gal.) (0.185 efficiency)
Fuel costs, Scammon Bay, 1981
(1.345) (3413)
(135,000) (0.192)
= SO.177/kwh
E.l
= SO.184/kwh
Fuel costs, Scammon Bay, 1981
(1.345) (34.3)
(135,000) (0.22)
= $0.155/kwh
Fuel costs, Togiak, 1981
(1.345) (3413)
(135,000) (0.234)
= $0.145/kwh
6. 0 & M costs were assumed to be $0.085/kwh based on
AVEC's presentation of 19% of power costs fo $O.45/kwh.
The costs for 0 & M were escalated as considered appro-
priate to each alternative plan presented for each village.
E.2
•
.,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GOODNEWS BAY
PLAN A WASTE HEAT CAPTURE (W.H.C.)
(1) Capital cost $170,000
(2) project life 20 yrs., on line 1982
(3) Amortization = $11,427/yr
(4) 0 & M = $l,500/yr
(5) Offset heat = 3,240 mmBTU/yr
(6) Fuel = $O.OOO/mmBTU (space heating fuel $1.311/gal)
Example Calculation for Fuel Offset
Projected projected Annual Present
Year Fuel Use -Offset Fuel Cost Cost Value
1981 (12,000 -3,420) x 9.711 83,220 83,320
1982 (12,400 -3,420) x 10.051 90,257 87,621
1983 (12,800 -3,420) x 10.402 97,570 91,969
2001 2,644,040
NOTE: * mmBtu
** $/mmBtu
E.3
Present value of W.B.C. system = cost of ($11,427 +
1500)/yr. for 20 years at 3% in 1981
(12,927)(14,8775)(.9708) = $186,706
Net benefit = existing system present value
-~ present value of W.B.C. system -
Present value of fuel offset by 3420 mmBTU/yr
= 3,375,955~ 186,706 -2,644,040
Net Benefit = +545,209
E.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GOODNEWS BAY
PLAN B WIND POWER
(1) Capital cost for 40 kw = $262,800 on line in 1981 to pro-
vide 100,000 Kwh/yr
(2) Capital cost 20 KW $161,400 on line in 1990 to provide
50,000 Kwh/yr
(3) Initial conditions 1981
$ .184/Kwh
$0.85/Kwh
$0.056/Kwh
Fuel
o & M
Amort. Diesel System
+ $262,800 amoritization at 3% over 25 years = $15,045/yr
(4 ) Total generation for 1981 312,000 Kwh = wind power
generation of 100,000 Kwh + 212,000 Kwh with existing
system.
( 5 ) Total generation for 1990 362,000 Kwh
= wind power generation of 150,000 Kwh
+ 212,000 Kwh with exiting system
amortize 161,000 at 3% over 25 years = $9,269/yr
(6) For 1981 -1990 100,000 Kwh/yr wind
1990 -2001 150,000 Kwh/yr wind
E.5
•
•
• E.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a & M
Fuel
1981 $0.085/Kwh
1982 0.090/Kwh
1983 0.090/Kwh
•
1990 0.098/Kwh
1991 0.098/Kwh
1992 0.098/Kwh
Amortization
Existing Diesel
1981
1982
1983
1990
1991
1992
Total Costs
Sl:stem
$16,132
16,132
16,132
•
$16,132
16,132
16,132
For
312,000 Kwh =
316,000 Kwh =
322,000 Kwh =
362,000 Kwh =
368,000 Kwh =
373,000 Kwh =
Wind Sl:stem
+ $15,046 =
+ 15,046 =
+ 15,046 =
+ $15,046 + 9269 +
+ 15,046 + 9269 +
+ 15,046 + 9269 +
E.7
26,520
28,440
28,980
35,476
36,064
36,554
Total Sl:stem
$31,178
31,178
31,178
$40,447
40,447
40,447
Year
1981
1982
1983
1990
1991
1992
•
Diesel Wind
Amorti-Amorti-Present
Fuel o & M zation zation Total Value
39,008 + 26,520 + 16,132 + 15,046 $ 96,706 S 96,706
41,040 + 28,440 + 16,132 + 15,046 100,658 97,718
43,734 + 78,980 + 16,132 + 15,046 103,892 97,928
•
•
• • •
53,212 + 35,476 + 16,132 + 24,310 . 129,130 92,965
56,680 + 36,064 + 16,132 + 74,318 133,186 99,103
59,987 + 36,554 + 16,132 + 74,310 130,983 98,956
•
•
• •
Present value diesel and-wind system = $2,076,736
Present value existing system
Net present benefit
E.8
= 2,413,972
= + 337,736
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
( 1)
( 2)
( 3)
( 4 )
( 5)
( 6 )
Year
1981
1982
1983
2001
NOTE:
GRAYLING
PLAN A WASTE HEAT CAPTURE (W.H.C.)
Capital Cost $210,000
Project Life 20 Years on Line 1982
Amortization = $14.,l15/yr
o lie M $1,500/yr
Offset Heat = 1,755 mmBtu/yr
Fuel = 0
Example Calculation for Fuel
Projected
Fuel Use -Offset
(3,930 -
(5,200 -
(5,380 -
* mmBtu
** $/mmBtu
1,755)*
1,755)
1,755)
Projected
Fuel Cost
x $10,763*
x 11,140
x 11,530
Offset
Annual
Cost
$23,409
38,377
41,796
Present Value of System =
Cost of ($14,115 + 1500)/yr for 20 years
at 3% in 1981 =
(15,615)(14.8775)(.9708) = $225,529
Present
Value
$23,409
37,256
39,397
1,376,427
Net Benefit = Existing System Present Value-. Present Value of
W.H.C. System -Present Value of Fuel Offset
Net Benefit = $1,711,143-# 225,529 -1,376,427 = $109,187
E.9
GRAYLING
PLAN B STEAM POWER AND DISTRICT HEATING FROM LOCAL COAL
(1) Capital cost for district heating system + power system =
635,000 + 585,000 = $1,220,000 on line 1982
(2) No additions to electric or heating system need prior to
2001.
(3) System life = 30 years.
(4) Fuel cost = $2.50/mmBTU
(5) 0 & M $ 0.085/Kwh
+ 1.00/mmBTU
Electric
Heating
Present Value of Power Generation and Heating System
Initial cost = $1,220,000
Amortization at 3% over 30 yrs $62,244/yr
Present value of 20 years of $62,244/yr
=(14.8775)(62,244) = $926,035 for 1982
(926.035)(.9708) = $898,994 for 1981
Total Fuel Costs Per Year Total System
x x Kwh x 3413 BTU
yr Kwh
x $2.50/mmBTU
.06 EFF.
=
1,000,000 mmBTU
BTU
$(x)(.142)
X = Total electric generation for a given year
E.IO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o & M
$0.08S/KWh x total generation/yr = $/yr
$1.00/mmBTU x fuel use in mmBTU/yr = $/yr
Present Worth of Fuel Costs and 0 & M
1981 ($.177/Kwh x 239 Kwh + $0.08S/Kwh x 239.000 Kwh + 3930) x
(Present Value Factor = 1.000) = $66,548
1982 ($0.142/Kwh x 295,000 Kwh + $0.085/Kwh x 295,000 Kwh +
$5200) x (Present Value Factor = 0.9708) = 70,058
Summation through 2001 = $1,337,486
PLAN B TOTAL SYSTEM PRESENT VALUE = $2,236,480
BASE CASE TOTAL SYSTEM PRESENT VALUE = $3,761,115
Net Benefit = + $1,524,635
E. 1
SCAMMON BAY
PLAN A HYDROPOWER PLUS DIESEL SYSTEM PURCHASE
(1) Capital Cost Hydropower = $800,000
(2) Project Life Hydropower = 50 years
(3) 0 & M Hydropower $20,000/year (level)
(4) Hydropower on Line 1982
(5) AVEC purchase at remaining book value plus system upgrade =
$170,000
(6) Diesel System Life 20 Years
(7) 0 & M Diesel System $20,000/yr
(8) Power Schedule
Summary Manual Costs
Amortize Hydropower, Payment = $31,092/yr
Amortize Diesel System, Payment = $11,427/yr
o & M Hydropower, = $20,OOO/yr
o & M Diesel System = $20,OOO/yr
E.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Year
1982
1987
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
Gener-
ation*
275
342
399
403
407
410
414
418
421
425
429
432
436
440
443
447
451
455
459
463
NOTES: * Mwh
** $/kwh
SCAMMON BAY
POWER AND FUEL SCHEDULE
Hydro
Gener-
ation*
177
209
235
236
237
238
240
241
242
243
244
245
247
240
249
250
251
252
253
253
Diesel
Gener-
ation*
48
133
164
167
170
172
174
177
179
182
185
187
189
192
194
197
200
203
204
210
Diesel
Fuel**
.155
.160
.172
.179
.184
.191
.197
.204
.211
.219
.226
.234
.242
.251
.263
.269
.278
.288
.298
.308
Present Value Hydropower Amortization for 20
Fuel
Cost
$ 7,440
21,280
28,208
29,893
31,280
32,852
34,278
36,108
37,769
39,858
41,810
43,758
45,758
48,192
51,022
52,993
55,600
58,464
60,792
64,680
o & M
$40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Years at 3% in 1981 = (31,092)(14.8775)(.9708) = $449,064
Present Value Diesel Amortization for 20
Years at 3% in 1981 = (11,427) (14.8775)(.9708) = $165,041
Present Value O&M in 1981 = (40,000)(14.8775)(.9708) = $577,723
Present Value Fuel Costs = $602,180
Total Present Value Hydropower + Diesel = $1,794,008
Total Present Value Existing System = $2,344,555
Net Present Benefit = $550,547
E.13
TOGIAK
PLAN A WASTE HEAT CAPTURE (W.H.C.)
( 1) Capital Cost $291,500
( 2) Project Life 20 Years on Line 1982
( 3) Amortization = $19,593/yr
( 4) o & M $2,000/yr
( 5 ) Offset Heat = 4725 mmBtu/yr
( 6) Fuel = 0
Example Calculation for Fuel Offset
Projected projected Annual Present
Year Fuel Use -Offset Fuel Cost Cost Value
1981 (26,000 -4,725)* 9,096** 193,517 193,517
1982 (77,000 -4,725) 9,414 209,697 203,574
1983 (27,900 -4,725) 9,744 225,817 212,855
•
2001 6,117,042
NOTE: * mmBtu
** $/mmBtu
Present Value of System =
Cost of ($19,593 + 2000)/yr for 20 years
at 3% in 1981 =
(21,593)(14.8775)(.9708) = $311,869
Net Benefit = Existing System Cost-~ Present Value of W.H.C.
System -Present Value of Fuel Offset
Net Benefit = $7,077,539 * 311,869 -6,117,042 = $648,628
E.14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,.
•
•
TOGIAK
PLAN B HYDROPOWER
( 1) Capital cost $5,200,000
( 2) Project life 50 years
( 3) o & M = $0.04/Kwh of total generation
( 4 ) On line 1982
Amortization payment = $202,101/yr
Present worth of 20 yrs of payment in 1981 =
(202,108)(14.3775)(.9708) = $2,918,954
PRESENT VALUE EXISTING SYSTEM = $4,504,140
PRESENT VALUE HYDRO SYSTEM = $2,918,954 + 569,734 = $3,488,688
Net Benefit = +$1,015,452
E.l5
TABLE E-I
ESTlHA'lED PRESENT VALUE Oli' EXISTING Aim PROJECTED roWER PRODUCTION 1981-2001 BASB CASE
1981
-GOODNEWS BAY
Fuel $/Kwh ,$ 0.184 190 197 204 211 218 226 214 242
0," $/Kwh 0.085 090 090 090 ' 090 090 090 090 090
Amortiaation $/Kwh 0.052 067 066 065 064 061 061 060 060
TOTAL $/Kwh 0.121 147 151 359 365 311 377 184 192
'l'OTAL GENERATION ("Will 112 316 322 327 III 339 145 lSI 156
,
GRAYLING
Fuel $/Kwh 177 181 190 196 203 210 218 225 233
0," $/Kwh 085 085 085 085 085 085 085 085 085
Amortization $/Kwh 068 055 054 049 049 048 048 047 041
TOTAL $/Kwh 330 323 329 330 337 343 351 357 365
TOTAL GENERATION {MWlll 239 295 297 330 332 115 338 HI 344
SCAMMON BAY
Fuel $/Kwh 155 160 166 172 179 184 191 197 204
0," $/Kwh 085 088 068 068 088 088 088 068 066
Amortization $/Kwh 029 040 040 039 039 038 018 038 036
TOTAL $/Kwh 269 286 294 298 106 310 317 323 330
TOTAL GENERATION ("WIlL_ 342 195 399 402 406 410 413 417 420
TOGIAK
Fuel $/Kwh 145 150 155 161 166 172 178 184 191
0," $/Kwh 085 085 085 085 085 085 065 085 085
Amortization $/Kwh 043 040 039 039 018 031 037 016 015
TOTAL $/Kwh 273 275 279 285 209 294 100 lOS 311
TOTAL GBNERATION ("WH) 683 738 752 766 780 792 808 -!!!!.. 815 ----
GOODNEWS BAY A.P.V.* $100,152 206,602 113,744 421,170 529,151 637,639 746,566 856,161 966,32)
GRAYLUlG A.P.V. 78,870 171,173 263,477 363,131 462,529 561,646 661 ,006 759,989 859,106
SCAMMON BAY A.P.V. 91,998 202,416 313,009 422,634 533,005 642,641 752,287 661,604 971,215 TOGIAK A.P.V. 186,459 363,48] -~liti 781 1 023 1 981,2861. 1 1 182 1 141 I 1(385 f 151 11 588 1 755 1,'93 )sO
* Accumulated Present Value
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
ESTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF EXIS'rING AND PROJECTED POWER PRODUCTION 1981-2001 (Cont 'd)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
GOODNEWS BAY
Fuel $/Kwh 251 260 269 0.278 288 300 308 319
O,H $/Kwh 098 098 098 0.098 098 098 098 098
Amortization $/Kwh 075 074 073 0.072 071 070 069 068
TOTAl, $/Kwh t24 438 440 0.448 457 468 475 485
TOTAL GENERATION (MWH) 362 368 373 377 385 390 395 401
GRAYLING
Fuel $/Kwh 241 250 258 267 277 287 300 307 0," $/Kwh 085 085 085 085 085 085 085 085
Amortization $/Kwh 047 046 046 046 045 045 045 044
TOTAL $/Kwh 373 381 389 398 407 417 430 436
'rOTA[. GENERATION (MWII) 346 349 351 354 356 360 362 365
SCAMMON BAY
Fuel $/Kwh 211 219 226 234 242 251 263 269 0," $/Kwh 092 092 092 092 092 092 092 092
Amortization $/Kwh 052 051 051 050 050 050 049 049
'rOTAL $/Kwh 355 362 369 376 384 393 404 410
TOTAL GENERATION (MWHl 423 427 430 433 437 441 445 448
TOGIAK
Fuel $/Kwh 198 205 212 219 227 235 246 251 0," $/Kwh 090 090 090 090 090 090 090 090
Amortization $/Kwh 049 048 048 047 046 045 045 044
To'rAr, $/Kwh 337 343 350 356 363 370 381 385
'!'O'!'A[' GENERAT ION (MWU l 850 863 878 890 905 920 -~ ----~
GOODNEHS BAY A.P.V.* $1,083,956 1,203,893 1,322,453 1,440,917 1,560,736 1,681,400 1,801,836 1,923,039
GRAYLING A.P.V. 958,016 1,056,958 1,155,594 1,254,416 1,353,087 1,452,331 1,552,249 1,651,425
SCAMMON BAY A.P.V. 1,086,301 1,201,319 1,315,942 1,430,136 1,544,413 1,658,990 1,773,391 1,887,8611
'!'OGIAK A.P.V. 2,013,785 2,233,545 2,455,539 2,677,771 2 901~0 3,126,528 3,354,462 3,581,438
* Accumulated Present Value
t1j
•
I-'
00
•
BSTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED flOWER PRODUe'rIOH 1981-2001 (Cont 'd)
GOODNEWS BAY
Fuel $/Kwh 330 342 354 366
O'M $/Kwh 098 098 098 098
A~rtization $/Kwh 067 066 065 064
TOTAl. $/Kwh 495 506 517 528
TOTAL GENERATION (MWII) 406 412 417 424
GRAYLING
Fuel $/Kwh 318 329 340 352
O&M $/Kwh 085 085 085 085
Amortization $/Kwh 044 044 043 043
TOTAL $/Kwh 441 458 468 480
'tOTAl. GENERATION (MWH) 368 370 313 316 -
SCAMMON BAY
Fuel $/Kwh 278 288 298 308
O,M $/Kwh 092 092 092 092
Amortization $/Kwh 048 048 048 047
TO'fAI. $/Kwh 418 428 438 447
TOTAL GENERATION I MWIH 451 454 458 461
TOGIAK ,
Fuel $/Kwh 260 269 279 289
O&M $/Kwh 090 090 090 090
Amortization $/Kwh 043 043 042 042
TOTAL $/Kwh 393 402 411 421
TOTAL GENERATION (MWIO 960 974 987 1000
GOODNEWS PAY A.P.V.* $2,044,626 2,167,082 2,290,032 2,413,990
GRAYLING A.P.V. 1,750,945 1,850,486 1,950,040 2,049,972
SCAMMON DAY A.P.V. 2,00 1,913 2,116,052 2,230,456 2,344,555
TOGIAK A.P.V. 3 809,692 4 039 681 4,271,033 4,504,140
* Accumulated Present Value
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
TABLE E-II
ESTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED SPACE HEA'l'ING COSTS 1981-2001 BASE CASE
1983 1988
GOODNEWS DAY
Fuel $/IIII1lDtu 9.111 10.051 10.402 10.167 11.144 11.534 11. 937 12.355
I/'uel Use II\IIIBtu 12,000 12,400 12,800 13,200 13,500 13,800 14,200 14,600
A.P.V.* $116,532 237,525 363,028 493,086 626,740 764,039 906,000 1,052,669
GRAYLING
Fuel $/IIIIIlBtu 10.763 11.140 11.530 II. 9ll 12.lSl 12.183 13.231 13.694
Fuel Use IIIIIIBtu 3,930 5,200 5,380 6,050 6,210 6,400 6,590 6,170
A.P.V.* 42,298 98,534 151 005 273,010 291.120 361.180 434,803 ~IOr184
SCAMMON BAY
Fuel $/II\IIlBtu 9.896 10.242 10.601 10.912 11.356 11 .153 12. HiS 12.591
Fuel Use IIlII\Btu 12,300 15,400 15,600 15,800 16,000 16,200 16,400 16,600
A.P.V.* 121,121 214,841 430,724 589 1 363 740,183 895,021 1,052,116 ~~22{~
TOGIAK
Fuel $/IIII1lBtu 9.096 9.414 9.1U 10.085 10.418 10.803 11.181 11.573
Fuel Use IIlIIlBtu 26,000 21,000 21,900 28,800 29,600 30,600 31,500 32,400
~!V.* 236.496 48312~2 739 504 l t 005,292 1,279,775 1,564,927 1,859,896 2 164,780
* Acculllulated Present Value
M •
tv
o
•
ESTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF, EXISTING AND PROJECTED SPACE UEATING COSTS 1981-:2001
GOODNEWS BAY
Puel $/mmBtu 12.788 13.235 13.698 14.178 14.674 15.188 15.719
Puel Use mmBtu 15,000 15,300 15,700 16,100 16,500 16,700 17,200
A.P.V.· $1,204,091 1 359,283 1.519 308 1,684.207 1,854,031 2,026,759 2 205 498
GRAYLING
fuel $/mmBtu 14.173 14.669 15.18:Z 15.714 16. :2U 16.833 17 .422
Puel Use IlII1lBtu 6,910 1,060 1,100 7,480 7,650 1,830 8,000
A.P.V.· 587,717 667,087 749,554 834,465 921,732 1,011,489 l f l03 610
SCAMMON BAY
Fuel $/llimBtu 13.031 13.487 13.959 14.448 14.954 15.477 16.019
Fuel Use mm/Btu 16,800 17 ,000 17,:200 17.400 17,600 17,800 18,000
".P.V.· 1,394,878 1,510,597 1,749,252 1,930,859 2,115,COO 1,303 069 2,493,691
TOGIAK
Fuel S/mmOtu 11.918 12.391 12.831 13.280 13.745 14.226 14.724
Fuel Use mmBtu 33,300 34,200 35,100 36,000 37,000 31,800 38,600
A.P.V.· 2, 479, 6!.~LL_804, 5~L -.21..139,699 3,485,063 3,841,710 4,207,972 4,583 105
• Accumulated Pcesent Value
• • • • • • • •
16.269
17,600
2 389,296
18.032
8,200
I f '98 543
16.579
18,200
2,687,176
15.239
39,100
4,917~!L
• •
.. • • • • • • • • •
ESTIMATED PRESENT VALUE OF EXIS'l'ING AND PROJECTED SPACE IlEATING COSTS 1981-2001
GOOD NEWS BAY
Fu el $/uuaBtu 16.839 11.478 18.038 18.669 19.323
Fu el Use IIIIIIBtu 17,900 18,300 18,600 19,000 19,300
A. P.V.* $2,577,140 2,770,094 2 f 967 t 170 3,169,462 3,375 955
GRAY LING
Fu el $/mmBtu 18.66] 19.316 19.992 20.692 21.416
Fu el Use IIIIIIBtu 8,380 8,540 8,720 8,900 9,100
A. P.V.* 1,296,009 1 395 809 1,498,210 h603 235 1,1111..143
SCAM MON BAY
pj Fu • e I $/OIIoBtu 11.160 17.760 18.382 19.025 19.691
N Fu
t-' A.
el Use IIIIIIBtu 18,400 18,600 18,800 19,000 19,200
P.V.* 2 f 884,I41 3,084 000 l,286!994 3 493 143 3,707,478
TOG I AK
Fu el $/lIUIIBtu 15.772 16.324 16.896 11.487 18.099
Fu el Use IIlmBtu 40,600 41,500 42,400 43,400 44,200
A. P.V.*
-----~----
5 ,l71 1 10! 5,780 1 962 6,201,769 --.!.,634 590 7,071 539 . ... ~
* Accumulated P~esent Value
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO APPENDIX "E"
The following tabular values were prepared and submitted by
Alaska Power Authority personnel. They are presented herein to
extend the economic analyses for Togiak and Scammon bay to the
year 2031, in concert with the greater expected useful life of
hydroelectric facilities.
E.22
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
Amortized
TOGIAK
BASE CASE
P.W.
Year Capital 0 & M
Fuel
Costs Factor Total P.W. Costs
(Columns of yearly costs 1981-1997)
1981
1998 41,280 86,400 249,600 .5874 221,614
1999 41,882 87,660 262,006 .5703 223,300
2000 41,454 88,830 275,373 .5537 224,612
2001-
2031 41,454 88,830 279,373 11.07 4,490,623
51 yrs P.W. at 3% Discount *$ 8,761,6232
*Is found by adding the accumulated present value for the year
2000 from Water's chart to the A.P.U. for the years 2001-2031.
E.23
•
TOGIAK-FUEL SAVINGS
WASTE HEAT RECAPTURE
9
Fuel Annual
Saving Fuel P.W.
Year (MMBTU Savings Factor P.W. of Fuel Savings($)
1981 4725 42,979 .9709 $ 41,728 • 1982 4725 44,481 .9426 41,928
1983 4725 46,040 .9151 42,131
1984 4725 47,652 .8889 42,339
1985 4725 49,320 .6626 42,543
1986 4725 51,044 .8375 42,749 • 1987 4725 52,830 .8131 42,956
1988 4725 54,682 .7894 43,166
1989 4725 56,596 .7664 43,375
1990 4725 58,576 .7441 43,586
1991 4725 60,626 .7224 43,797
1992 4725 62,748 .7014 44,011 • 1993 4725 64,945 .6810 44,228
1994 4725 67,218 .6611 44,438
1995 4725 69,571 .6419 44,658
1996 4725 72,004 .6232 44,873
1997 4725 74,523 .6050 45,086
1998 4725 77,131 .5874 45,307 • 1999 4725 79,834 .5703 45,529
2000 4725 82,626 .5537 45,750
2001-
2031 47258 89,518 11. 07 946,684
51 yrs P. W. at 3% Interest $ 1,820,862 fI
•
•
• E.24
•
TOGIAK
WASTE HEAT RECAPTURE •
Amoratized P.W.
Year CaEital o & M Factor Total P.W. Costs
• 1981 19,593 2,000 .9709 $ 20,965
1982
1983
1984
• 1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
• 1997
1998
1999 19,593 2,000 .5703 12,314
2000 19,593 2,000 .5537 11,956
2001-
2031 19,593 2,000 11.07 239,035
• P.W. of yearly costs for 51 yrs at 3% discount 560,274
P.W. of Fuel Savings for 51 yrs at 3% discount 1,820,862
minus P.W. of yearly Capital & 0 & M Costs for • 51 yrs 560,274
Net Savings 1,260,588
Base Case 8,761,656
Minus Savings from Waste Heat
Capture System 1,260,588 • P.W. of Base Case with Waste Heat Capture System 7,501,068
•
• E.25
•
TOGIAK
HYDRO •
Amortized Fuel P.W.
Year CaEita1 o & M Costs Factor Total P.W. Costs
• 1981 29,369 58,055 99,035 .9709 $ 181,033
1982 202,108 29,520 0 .9426 218,333
1983 202,108 30,080 0 .9151 212,475
1984 202,108 30,640 0 .8889 206,797
1985 202,108 31,200 0 .6626 201,291
1986 202,108 31,680 0 .8375 195,797 • 1987 202,108 32,320 0 .8131 190,613
1988 202,108 32,840 0 .7894 189,468
1989 202,108 33,400 0 .7664 180,493
1990 202,108 34,000 0 .7441 179,688
1991 202,108 34,520 0 .7224 170,940
1992 202,108 35,120 0 .7014 166,392
1993 202,108 35,600 0 .6810 161,879
1994 202,108 36,200 0 .6611 157,545
1995 202,108 36,800 0 .6419 153,355
1996 202,108 37,280 0 .6232 149,187
1997 202,108 37,840 0 .6050 145,169 • 1998 202,108 38,400 0 .5874 141,274
1999 202,108 38,960 0 .5703 137,481
2000 202,108 39,480 0 .5537 133,767
(3,464,937)
2000
2001-202,108 39,480 0 11. 07 2,674,379 •
51 yrs P.W. at 3% Interest $ 6,139,316
51 yr Base Case = 8,761,656 •
51 yr Hydro Case = 6,139,316
Savings 2,622,340
BIC ratio 8,761,656 = • 1.43
6,139,316
•
• E.26
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Amortized
Year Capital 0 & M
SCAMMON BAY
BASE CASE
P.W. Fuel
Costs Factor Total P.W. Costs
(Columns of yearly costs 1981-1997)
1981
1998 21,648 41,492 125,378 • • 5874 $ 110,735
1999 21,792 41,768 130,752 .5703 110,816
2000 21,984 42,136 136,484 .5537 111,074
2001-
2031 21,984 42,136 136,484 11. 07 2,220,686
51 yrs P.W. at 3% Discount *$ 4,451,1422
*1s found by adding the accumulated present value for the year
2000 from Water's chart to the A.P.U. for the years 2001-2031.
Amortized
Year Capital
1981 9,918
1982 42,519
1983 42,519
1984 42,519
1985 42,519
1986 42,519
1987 42,519
1988 42,519
1989 42,519
1990 42,519
1991 42,519
1992 42,519
1993 42,519
1994 42,519
1995 42,519
1996 42,519
1997 42,519
1998 42,519
1999 42,519
2000 42,419
2001
2031 42,519
SCAMMON BAY
HYDRO PLUS DIESEL
Fuel P.W.
0 M Costs Factor Total
29,070 53,010 .9709 $
40,000 7,440 .9426
40,000 21,280 .9151
40,000 28,208 .8885
40,000 29,893 .8626
40,000 31,280 .8375
40,000 32,852 .8131
40,000 34,278 .7894
40,000 36,108 .7664
40,000 37,769 .7441
40,000 39,858 .7224
40,000 41,810 .7014
40,000 43,758 .6810
40,000 45,758 .6611
40,000 48,192 .6419
40,000 51,022 .6232
40,000 52,993 .6050
40,000 59,600 .5874
40,000 58,464 .5703
40,000 60,792 .5537
40,000 60,792 11.07
51 yrs P. w. at 3 % Discount $
51 yr Base Case = 4,451,142
51 yr Hydro, Diesel Case = 3,349,060
Savings 1,102,082
BIC ratio 4,451,142
3,349,060
E.28
•
P.W. Costs
89,321 • 84,795
94,986
98,381
96,967
95,307
93,808 • 92,200
90,916
89,506
88,405
87,204
85,995 • 84,804
83,903
83,239
81,985
81,131
80,403 • 79,351
1,586,453
3,349,060
= 1.33 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
"
APPENDIX F
• DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLANS
See Text, Section 6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX G
• GRAYLING WELL LOGS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WELL lOG
U~S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISIOn OF IUDIAU HEAL nt •
LOCATlmt ~·Iell #1, Grayl ;ng DATE STARTED Novemher ?~: 1976
8. 1;76 ' DATE Co:.~PLETED.--.;.;fj.;;.er~,e;;.;....m;.;..;.,h=-er~,...;.., _. ______ ' CREW Bordner -Horner
'TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL 190 FT. CASING INSTALLED 174' 8-3/8" DIAMETER 6" •
SROUi ___ _ SCREEN SIZE '-----MFG _______ _ tENG111, __ _
.
STATIC WATER LEVEL 30' 9" GPM DR,l'"WDa~m ___ IT • • , "
DEVELOPI·~ENT PROCEOURES ______ _
,.,.~~ n, I DEPTH t
DATE FRO~'l -TO FOfU,i..n.TION I -.~;-..;..;..;;;;.;.:..........:..::;,...-:---.......:~::..:..:..::...;;;.;;.;.;......-----tJ •
-Brown ~and & frost I ,
1
--~
P.
Ii
55 "'7 -::l ,
" i sa
" " ., " --. , 1 '--i.J 75 80 .
• 'j
~-" I i ---87
I -'-iI l " ~ i-
II • rr -:i--
LL
113
120
131
P7 140
165
! I -183
190 ~-, , --~
0' -3'
3' -55'
55' -57'
57' -68'
68' -73'
73' -75 1
75 1
-80'
80' -87'
87' -113'
113' -120 I
120' -131 '
131'-137'
137' -140'
140' -165'
165' -183'
183' - 1 ~O I
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
-Gray sand. g~"a ve 1, gray s i1 t, I
part gray silt with water/gravel
-vJa ter
-Coa 1 Layers
-Soft shale & sa~~~~one
-Coal
-Gray silt I
-Water I -silt, coal ~ water
-coa 1 /1'iCl ter
-B.S. hard sand -ciay
-Hater, silt stone. sand-claycoalf
-Layered s2ndstone-C1ay t
-Sandstone/clay -gri'l,'Jel
-clay/gravel -sar.dstone
-clay, sar:dstone
TASTE~ ________ APPEp.RA!:CE FRESH, ______ _
AfTER 24 HOURS _____ IRO:,: CHLOnIDES __ _
TOS, ____ ALKALI rIITY ____ pH, ___ _
Four feet of frost. G.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t1Ell lOG
.. u.;.s. PUBLIC HEAL TIt SERVI CE t DIVISIOU OF IiIDIAr~ HEtu. TH
LOCATION Hell #2. Grilyl; ng Dz'TE STARTED_6.;.,.I_ll..:,./_7_7 ___ _
DATE CO:·~?LETED--.;.6/:....;2;;....;4,,-(7;..;.7 _______ _ CREW H. Horner:; P. Dul ey • . -TOTAl. DEPTH OF WELL_8_5 __ FT. CASING INSTALLED 75 I -?! J:"t111 cd backOIAMETER~611 __
GROUT 15 1 SCREEU S1ZE __ 6 __ _ MFG. Johnson lENGTH,_5 __
• STATIC WATER LEVEL_....;2~1_1 __ _ HPS. PUMPED ~ GPM DRAWCO~N FT • ----'---
DE'JELOI'l-1ENT ?ROCEDURES Surging -------
--DE?TH
• O.a.TE. FROH -TO FOP}'.ll. Ttml
•
I i 14
I------!'I 24 I 30
•
o -14 ~1ud s; 1 t
14 -24 Gravel
24 ~later zone
24 -30 Gravel
30 -SO Sand
• !-----!i-.• -'-SO 50 -85 Clay
85 Coal leaf
•
•
•
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
• TASTE. ________ APPG.".h:tCE FRESH ______ _
AFTER 24 HOURS _____ IR07: . CHLOR!OES __ _
TOS ____ AlKr'\LIrlITY ____ pH ___ _
• G.3
WEll lOG
U~S. PUBLIC HEALTIt SERVICE, OIVISID:Z OF INDIAn HEALnt
LOCATION Gl"'l\'lin~ -t.J'ell !,l 3 DATE STARTED 6-25-77
D.~TE COH?LETED 6-29-77 cp.t~ H. Horner & J. Duley -----------------------
TOTAL DEPTIi OF \-:ELL 53 FT.. tASIim INSTALLED 45' DIAHETER 6" ------------------
Sr'1OUT 10' SCRE~ SIZE~ ___ _ MFG. __________ _ LENGTH. __ _
-STATIC WATER LEVEL~ ___ _ HRS. PUHPED __ ft1· GPM ORAWDOWN~_ FT.
SPECIAl :mTES:
DEVELOP!·~ENT PROCEDURES ___________ _
i r.
DATE"
,I DEPTH
FROH -TO
-Drilled
6-25-77 40
6-26-77, . 30
6-27-nf. 20
6-28-771 ; 50
Wh~~ DATA FIELD TEST
I FlJ R."tl\ T1 or~ I
Cased
35 .
30 Bend in casing, fixed
20
-
ThSTE APPS~;CE FRESH ~-----------------~-------------
!-,F :~:-;: 24 HOU;:'..:5. ______ I RCU _____ ' CHLORIDES __ _
TOS AlK)\LIUliY pH -------------------------
G.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"
•
•
•
'.
•
•
•
HEll lOG
U~S. PUBLIC HEAL TIl SERVI CE. 0 IVISlm. OF IrIDIAN HEAL Tn
LOC!\TION \.Je 11 #4, Grayl i ng
DATE CO:'1PLETED 7/8/77 ----------------------
DATE STARTED 6/29/77
CREW Horner & Duley
. ·TOTt'\!. DEPTH OF WELL 179 FT. Cl\s ING I NSTALLEO_ .......... 1 ...... 6 7:..--__ DIAMETER 611
GROtrr la' SCREEN SIZE. __ n..-/_a __ MFG ________ _ tENGTH __ _
-,
'. STATIC WATER LEVEL. __ .-23 .... ' ___ _ HRS. PUNPED n/a @ GPM DRAWDmm FT. ---------
I----~""""--80 ' t--:i-..~ 100'
. I 120'
r.----. ~LL 135 I
o I
I--~':T 160'
'OJ 179'
~<:J'
SPECIAL NOTES =
DEVELOPHENT PROCEDURES _______ _
DATE t DEPTH ,
FRm·1 -TO FOR~~~TTml
0' -3' -Mud silt
8' -15' -Gravel
15' -20' -Brm-In mud si 1t
20' -Hater
20' -31' -Gravel
31' -80' -Clay embedded with gravel & coah
80' -Hater zone I 80' -100' -Clay with water
100' -120 1 -Clay with sil~:~cne
120' -135' -sandstone, silt
135 -sandstone with water ! 135' -160' -sandstone, gravel
160 ' -179 -siltstone, coal bits, gravel
179 -Bottom of hole siltstone, gravel;l
..
-
!
\·IATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE. _________ APPE;\!!JI!~CE FRESH _______ _
AFTER 24 HOURS IRO:: -CHLORI DES -------------------
T05 ____ ALKALINIT'( ____ pH, ___ _
S u 1 fet' \-/a ter, bad oJor
G.S
WELL lOG
U;S. PUBLIC HEAL TIt SERVICE" OIVISIO:: OF INDIA:: HEft.,L TIt
LOCATION }/e 11 #5, Grayling OATE: STARTED 7/31/77
DATE CO:'~?LETED 3/5/77 CREW H. Horner
'TOT~\!" DEPTH OF WELL 50 FT. CASING INSTALLED 35' DIAMETER 'j"
GROUT 5 SCREEN SIZE N/A MFG. tE?IGrn -
.;
STATIC WATER LEVEL HRS. PUHPED ~. GPH DRA'.mmm Fr.
!"""" '\
DEVElOpr·~ENT PROCEDURES ______ _ . .
Aoo-.._ ~./ ,,~., -
, p-5
i---4-8 ~ e 10
15
20 I La
I
,-40
I . 50 ~~
SPECIAL tWiES:
---
DATE I DEPTH ,
FRQr.1 -TO FOR~'.AT!ml
a' -5' ~tud s i 1 t
5' -8' Gravel
8' Surface water
10' -15' Gravel and red siit ,
15 t -20' Gravel
20' -40' Rotten rock
40' -50' Red pan rock and red clay
I
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE;......-_______ APPEf ... ?J,!,CE FRESH _____ _
. AFTER 24 HOURS IRCm . CHLORIDES ----------------------
TDS ____ AlKALHHTY ____ pH. ___ _
On 8/26/77 perforated froCl la' to 17'. HJKeS 5 gpm. test
lasted 5 hrs. Oriyi:lal test \~as 2-3 gpm but could bailout.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• "-'Ell lOG
U;S. PUBLIC HElJ.ru SERVICE. DIVISIOtl OF IUDIAN HEALTIi
• lor ... ,\TIO~{ l'/e 11 fl6, Grayl; ng DATE STARTED 8/22/77 -------
D,'\TE CCN?LETED 8/24/77 . CREW Arch; ba 1 d l'! Horner '-----------------------
OIAHETER 6" • 'TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL,-.-.;~;;..;.·5 __ FT. CASING INSTALLED,_ .......... ...:3.-0 __ _
GROUi 10' SeRE£!{ SIZE 30 slot MF'G. __ Jo_h_n_s_on ___ _ LENGTH 5 '---.
STATIC HATER LEVEL 22' TOC HPS. PUNPEO 24 @' 8 GPH DRA~mmm FT. ---.. D~VELO?l'~ENT PROCEDURES
DllTE f
DEPTH t t FRO:'l -TO FOPJ"AT!Drl ~
i • 0' -2' Gravel fill
2' -8' Bro\'Jn mud
8 1 -18 1 Red hard pan & gravel
18' -24' Fine med. sand
24' -32' Gravel
32' -35 Clay •
•
• I
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
TJl.STE, _________ J!.PPEJlJU~\CE FRESH, ______ _
• . AFTER 24 HOURS, _____ IRO:', ____ · CH!..ORIOES __ _
SPECIAL t;OTCS:
TDS, ____ All(AL HI ITY _____ pH __
Uent dry a fter one month •
• G.7
WELL lOG
U.;.S. PUtlLIC HEAL TIl SERVICE, DIVISrml OF IUDVUi HEALTIl
LOCATION t!ell tf7, Gray1 inq .
--------~------~--------------DATE STARTED 11/4/71 -~------
DATE CO:·1PLETED 11 /12/71 CREH C'harl e Bordner ----------------------
'TOTAl. DEPTH OF HELL_9_0 __ FT. CASING INSTALLED_8_2 ___ _ DIAMETER 6 11
:..---
GROUT !lone SCREEN SIZE None MFG ________ _ lENGTH __ _
.
SiATIC WATER LEVEL __ 50 ___ _ MRS. PUHPEO 24 f.3. 10 GPM DRA~DO:m 10FT.
1-1/4 .. drop pipe
roo-'\
OEVELOl'r·~ENT PROCEDURES ________ _
4~" ..........-
t----.:p.i-._+_ ~2
t-----1t-, -lI-24
r=::
SPECI:iL rmTES;
DATE I DE?TH I mm·' -TO FO!'.!·~TrOr:
i
11-7 0-4 Dirt
11-8 4 -22 Dirt
22 -24 Sand & gravel
24 -45 Clay .
11-9 45 -65 Clay
11-10 65 -72 Clay ~
72 -80 Sandstone I 11-11 80 -82 Sandstone
11-12 82 -90 Sandstone
~
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE~ ________ APPE.!J'.A:\CE FRESH _____ _
. AFTER 24 HOURS IRO~ . CHLORIDES --------------------------
T05 ____ AlKJ.'\LIHITY ____ pH, ___ _
This ... lill not handle more than 12 gpm pump. Do not hang it be10\v
80 feet.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Puma set at no feet .... lith 1-1/4" drop oioe. •
G.B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HELL LOG
U~S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISIm: OF IrIOIAri HEALTH
lOCATION, ___ H_e 1_'_#8_,:..-G_ra..;;;.y_'_i n .... rr;;.... _______ _ DATE STARTED * ._------
DATE Cm~?LETED * . CREW ----------------------------------------------Sam L. Cotten
-TOTAL DEPTH OF WELL 44 FT. CASING INSTAlLED. ____ _ DIAHETER-:.-__
GROUT ___ _ SCREEN SIZE:-_____ _ MFG. _______ _ lEllGTH __ _
STATIC WATER LEVEL 26' :------Hrs. PUM?ED ___ ~-GPH ORAWDOim. ___ Fi.
1 l
11 ;---"';,--25
I 40
~Tr4
~
DEVELO?l'~ENT PROCEDURES _______ _
, DEPiH , , DATE FRO:-l -TQ FO R~~I\ TIOrl
18 \'/ater level on 8/30/63 I
26 Thin water bearing strata
I (The only water in the well.)
40 Decomposed bedrock.
Slate hardening with depth.
. .
\lATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE ___________ APPEl\."J~iCE FRESH ______ _
. AFTER 24 HOURS IRQ:t -CHLORIDES --------------
T05 ____ AlKf\LI~IITY ____ pH ___ _
* Report Da~e is October '4, 1963. This is called well ~o. 1 on the report.
It \'/aS abandoned. It was in back of schooi '::; Utility Cui1dillg.
The original report is found after the Well Log for Well no. 10.
•
HEll lOG
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. DIVISlml OF IUDIAn HEAl Tn
• LOCATION :':e" #9, Grayl i ng CATE STARTED_* _____ --
DATE Cm-~?LETED __ * __________ · CREW Sam L. Cotten
TOTf\1. DEPTH OF WELL 44 FT. CASING INSTALLED ______ _ DIA:;ETER~_ ......
GROUT ___ _ SCREEN SIZE~ __ _ MFG. _______ _ LEHGTH:.-__
26' STATIC ~IATER LEVEL, _____ _ HRS. PUH?ED ___ tl· GPM ORA~Do~m FT • '---
DEVELOPHENT PROCEDURES ________ •
DATE I DEPTH l FRDr·t -TO FORp.~o.TIml f
I 18 Hater level 10/14/63 •
26 Thin water bearing strata
The only water.
r 31 Decomposed bedrock (slate)
Hardening with depth.
44 Bottom ;T 18
J------.-I1T 26
, --31
•
•
-----.'-"""1-44 !. ____ ~4_ ________ ~ ________________________ __
~IATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE, ________ APPE~..A:\CE FRESH ______ _
. AFTER 24 HOURS IRO:X . CHLORIDES • -----------------------
SPECIAL l~OTES:
T05 ____ AU0~LrrUTY ____ pH ___ _
* Report date is October 14, 1963. The report indicate that Hell no. 2 ;s hy the.
Prod~ced 11 gpm. steps to the school.
G.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'WELL LOG
U~S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISION OF IUDIAN limn!
LOCATION \']e 11 # 10, Gray1 i ng DATE STARTED __ * _____ _
OATE Co:.~?LETED * CRE\:! Sam L. Cotten ------------------
TOTN.. DEPT:-t OF EEL!..See f1epm't Fr. CASING INSTALLED '--------DIAMETER 4-Inch *
sc n ""_· e·z~ .~_::..:. wi ________ _ tEW:iTH:....-__ _ GRCUT -----MFG. ________ _
-ST:\TIC WATER LEVEL 15-12 ft. RP.s. PUMPED ____ @ , GPH DRAWOmm, ___ FT.
DEVELopr-~::~tT PRC:EiURES ----------------~,~/ n \, 11 t
DATE I
DEPiH
FR01·' -TO , i
SPECIAL :;OT£S:
lS-la Hater
I
\-!.~.7:!t DATA FIELD TEST
T;~Tc:, __________ APPEAP..i;:;~ FRESH ______ _
I'.F .d~ 24 HOURS IRa:-: ' CHLORIDES ---------------------
TOS AtKALrrnn' pH
* RepOl't date is October 14,1963, Thc're'-p-o-rt-c-ai"i'Cd this t-Jel1 No.
Drilled in an attempt to find a deeper channel should \-Je11 ilo. 9
(Well #2) drop too low.
* As reported by H. Horner in 1977.
G.ll
•
WELL lOG
U.;.S. PU3LIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISIm: OF IUDIAN HEALTH •
LOCATION Grayl i nq Hell I! 11 OJ'TE STARTED--.....:.3/...;.,1....;,5/-.;,6...;.6 ___ _
DATE CO:·~?LETED_3/_1_8/_6_6 ____ ---CREW Galen Dirksen
• TOTAL DEPn{ OF WELl_2_9 __ FT. CASING IUSTAlLED 28' 4" OIAHITER 4" ---
GRVtrr 200 lbs. SCREEN SIZE .030 slot MFG. Cook LENGTH 5' 8" --------
STATIC HATER LEVEL 171 6" HRS. PUMPED 24 .~, G?M DRA~'lDO:m FT. • ----------
DEVELOPt,1ENT ?ROCEDURES --------
0' -2' Frozen muck
2' -10 I Brown hard pan & gravel
1------;-...;;.."-10 1 10' -13' 8" Red hard pan & gravel
3-16 13 1 8 11 -22' Red hard pan & gravel
22' -24' 2" I Fine med. sand & gravel
24'2"-28'4" Hard gravel
~-17 28 1 4"-29'6" Pure coal
1'---'1"-;;-22' I . I
. '24' 2"
•
i-----rr 23' 4"
'"""-__ -:;i--:..~_ :' 9 • 6 II
J I • ~----~--------~------------------------~
~I ~
SPEcrhL :;OTES:
WATER DATA FIELD TEST
TASTE APPEi,\?;!1CE FRESH '---------------------------.
AFTER 24 HOURS IRC~t . CHLORIDES ---------------
TDS ____ ALKALHHTY ____ pH ___ _
• G.12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX H
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REVIEW
COMMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
(See Letter "Btl)
1. Hydro power potential in Grayling and Goodnews Bay were
considered less attractive than other alternatives for those
particular villages. The R. W. Beck report analyzed 3 sites on
the Grayling River and dismissed them because of low flows and
the requirements for large dams to develop sufficient head or
where the flow was adequate, but the flow gradient was less than
50 feet per mile and required an extremely long penstock to
develop head. We agree with this conclusion and did not esti-
mate cost because other alternatives appeared more feasible.
Our analysis of the hydro power potential for Goodnews Bay
indicated very little flow was available in the stream south of
Chawekat Mountain. We estimated aout 4.5 cubic feet per second
compared with 10.6 cubic feet per second estimated by R. W.
Beck. Because of the low flow and low head available and the
fact that other alternatives appeared more suitable for Good-
news Bay, no cost estimates were made for a hydro installation
at Goodnews Bay. Although our numbers may differ from the Beck
report the conclusions are the same, that the cost benefit ratio
would be less than one.
2. At the time of the completion of the draft report, the Beck
report was not available for review. We acknowledge that report
is an adequate study of southwest Alaska except for the Quigmy
river at village of Togiak.
3. We made projections of stream flows on the main stream of
the Quigmy River and estimated a hydro potential greater than
300 KW. The Beck report analyzed only a small tributary to the
Quigmy for its hydro potential. We selected a site and included
the tributary flow from the tributary plus the main stream
making a more attractive energy proposal.
H.2
4. The R. W. Beck report was not available for review at the
time of our draft report, therefore, no reference was made to
that report. It appears, however, that we agree with the Beck
report on the hydro potential at Grayling.
H.3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
(See Letter "C")
We agree that the Scammon Bay proposal requires in depth
analysis because it involved a number of entities, the village,
the schools and AVEC. All the issues involved in such proposal
cannot be addressed in this type of reconnaissance study. Any
proposal for significantly changing the way power is generated
in the village must be evaluated from the point of ownership of
the new facilities and how the operation, maintenance and
administration will be handed.
Our comments relative to hydro power at Grayling are the same as
those in response the Corps of Engineers comments.
H.4
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(See Letter "0")
We recognize that this report is a reconnaissance level report.
The site identified for hydro power in the Quigmy River was
selected only for its potential power generation without
considertion of its impact on fish runs. The next step in
evalutating the site should be a detailed feasibility study with
emphasis placed on the environmental impact of such a facility_
H.S
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Letter "B"
AI..ASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 7002-
REP\.Y TO
ATTENTION OF:
NPAEN-PL-R
Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. You1d:
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510
REC":IVED.
.j .:) 1 :, 1 9 () I .. -. I , ()
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Reconnaissance Study of
Ener ty Requirements and Alternatives for Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and
Gray ing. In general, we thought the report was well researched and gave a
good assessment of energy needs and alternatives for the villages.
We have attached a list of our comments on the report. If you have any
questions please contact Mr. Dale Olson at 752-3461.
Sincerely,
1 Inc 1
j/ ;J I/J on!-~~ObR!E -.
As stated Chief, Engineering Division
1. In those areas where hydropower potential was dismissed we suggest that
hydrofacility costs and their associated benefit-cost analyses be included
in the text.
2. Your mention of a need for a regional analysis of hydropower potential
should recognize the report entitled Small-Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance
Study Southwest Alaska by R.W. Beck. All of the vl11ages under
consideration in your study were analyzed in Beck's report.
3. Your report indicates significant merit and substantial potential for
hydropower development of the Quigmy River near Togiak whereas Beck's
highest BeR, using 5 percent escalation of oil, was 0.27.
4. The community of Grayling was also considered in Beck's report, but no
reference to the report was made in your analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. Alaska 99802
Mr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
333 w. 4th Avenue -Suite 31
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
; _. -" .
Letter "C"
March 16, 1981
. _ .f _ D
.. (
We have four draft reports on Alaska Power Authority studies for which
you are asking comments on March 16:
1) Reconnaissance Study of Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove,
Larsen Bay, Old Habor, Ouzinkie and S,:md Point -CUZM Hill
2) Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives
for Kaltag, Savoonga, White Mountain and Elim -Holden and
Associates .
3)
4)
Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives
for Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and Grayling -Northern
Technical Services and VanGulik & Associates
Tanana Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alter-
natives -Marks Engineering/Brown & Root Inc.
I regret that we have only been able to make bri.eE reviews o[ these
reports, and therefore our comments are perhaps less complete ,:md
thoughtful than we would like.
The central finding is that there are very few apparent alternatives to
continue use of diesel electric power systems for the villages covered,
and also limited options for backing out the use of oil and oil for
other energy uses in these villages. With this in mind, continual
efforts towards maximizing efficiency in the diesel electric systems--
including waste heat application--as well as means to improve efficiency
of energy use probably amount to the priority areas for future work.
I was quite surprised that the studies made little use of previous
reports/investigations/experience for remote villages. Particularly on
the diesel systems, the data in the reports does not seem to recognize
best current practice for remote communities in Alaska. Such things as
fuel storage requirements and costs, matching size of machines to loud
in a manner that optimizes efficiency. and basic O&M requirements seem
very weak.
The CHZM Hill report does not appear to make allowance for future
escalation in fuel costs, hence the comparison between oil-fuel gener-
ation and the alternatives may be very misleading.
Some additional staff comments on the reports are enclosed.
t-le appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Enclosure
" '.
SIncerely,
Robert J. Cross
( Administrator
•
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comments on Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements
and Alternatives for Togiak, Goodnews Bay,
Scammon B.::ty and Grayling
The method of estimating population and energy
line and curvelinear methods with adjustments
loads appears reasonable.
requirements by straight:
ur specific identified
We feel the recommendation on Scammon Bay brcnkLng away [rom AVEC and
the cost of operating a small utility shou.1d be coupled with a very
close examination of the total cost for full operation of il small utility.
The APA identified potential hydropower site for Grayling was omitted
from the evaluation as a resource.
The recommendations appear reasonable--two continued diesel operations
with waste heat use, hydro at Scammon Bay for summer use, possible coal-
fired steamplant or diesel with waste heat. The plans for a steamp lant
at Grayling and a possible hydro for Tog Lak ·...,ill merit further sludy .
.------------------------------------~~~~". -', ... -:
Ma rc h 31, 1981
Alaska Power Authority
333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
i .. ~ v ..; I \' I..: 0
,;~)q -:3 1981
AlASKA PQWE:1 A'JTHORITY
Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
Letter "0"
JA r S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502
Re: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Reguiremnts and Alternatives.
Togiak, Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay and Grayling
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Southcentral Regional Office has
reviewed the above referenced document with respect to the site within
our region, Togiak, and submits the following comments for your consideration:
Quigmy River provides spawning habitat for chum salmon. The environmental
section of the report suggests that fish ladders may be required to
offset any potential impact of a hydroelectric project there. It is
our opinion that, in addition to obstruction of fish passage, changes in
flow and thermal regimes must also be considered.
In addition, we request the opportunity to review any subsequent studies
or reports regarding energy related projects for these areas.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
(H.~---RegiOn~~~~rvisor
Habitat Protection Section
(907) 344-0541
cc: S. Grundy
K. Taylor/M. Nelson
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•