HomeMy WebLinkAboutReconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives Appendix L Saint Michael 1982-.. VIL-A _ 002
.. St. Mi -..
-..
-
-
-
-.. -.. -..
.. ..
-..
-.. .. ..
.. -, .. -
-
-,
. ~ .. .. "
I
I
I I
I I
I
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX L: SAINT MICHAEL
MAY 1982
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
i
I PiRlbY: I
I lBIIlJ I
I ! I
!_ L--ALASKA POVJER AUTHORITY ---.J I
o
{;;J
~,oo'"
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
L. SAINT MICHAEL
TABLE OF-CONTENTS
Section
A -SUMMARY OF FINOINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS L-1
A.1 -General ............................................... L-1
A.2 -Alternative Plan Descriptions ......................... L-1
B -DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......................... L-5
B.1 -Location .............................................. L-5
B.2 -Population ............................................ L-5
B.3 -Economy ............................................... L-5
B.4 -Government............................................ L-6
B.5 -Transportation ........................................ L-6
C -COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT.................................... L-8
D -EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ....................... L-9
E -ENERGY BALANCE .............................................. L-10
F -ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ................................ L-12
F.1 -Capital Projects Forecast ............................. L-12
F.2 -Population Forecast ................................... L-12
F.3 -Electrical Energy Forecast ............................ L-13
F.4 -Thermal Energy Forecast ............................... L-14
G -VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ............................... L-18
H -ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .................... L-20
H.1 -Base Case ............................................. L-20
H.2 -Alternative Plan "A" .................................. L-21
H.3 -Alternative Plan "B" .................................. L-22
I -ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ..................................... L-24
1.1 -Base Case ............................................. L-27
1.2 -Alternative Plan "A" .................................. L-31
1.3 -Alternative Plan "B" .................................. L-36
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
J -COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Page
L-37
J.l -Comments Received From ~r. Phil Kaluza................ L-38
J.2 -Comments Received From The Alaska Power
Administration........................................ L-44
J.3 -Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game ........................... L-49
J.4 -Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Anchoraqe .................................. L-52
J.S -Comments Received ~rom U.S. Bureau of Land
Management ............................................ L-S7
LI ST OF TABLES
No. Tit 1 e
1 Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices
2
3
4
5
6
For Base Case and Alternatives ...................... .
Energy Use Profile for Saint Michael -1981 ............ .
Village Electric Energy Use Forecast
Net Thermal Requi rements ............................... .
Village Technology Assessment .......................... .
Estimated Costs of Saint Michael Base Case ............. .
7 Estimated Costs of Saint Michael Alternative
Pl an "A" ............................................... .
8 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative
L -3
L -10
L -15
L-17
L -19
L-25-26
L-28-29
Pl an "A" ................................................ L-30
9 Estimated Costs of Saint Michael Alternative
Pl an "B" ............................................... . L-32-33
10 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative
Pl an "B" ................................................ L-34
11 Estimated Non-Electrical Disbenefits of Alternative
Pl an "8" ................................................ L-35
No.
1
2
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Ti t 1 e
Energy Cost Summary ................•...•......•..•...•.•
En ergy Sa 1 ance ..•............•...............•.....•....
Electric Energy Use Forecast .•.•.••.•.•.•...•..•.....•••
L-4
L-ll
L-16
SAINT MICHAEL L-1
A -SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.1 -General
After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Saint
Michael, the recommendations which seem most appropriate to the existing
village conditions and the wishes of the village residents are as follows:
1. The undertaking of an aggressive energy audit program aimed at
significantly reducing the energy required to keep residences heated.
This program should address energy conservation needs of all types of
homes in the village, not just those which are older. Additionally, it
is not sufficient to provide only the energy audit service. Some
follow-up work designed to demonstrate the proper way to implement the
recommendations of the energy audit is important.
2. With respect to the electrical energy needs of the village of
Saint Michael, it appears that the most significant step which can be
taken to reduce the cost of electricity is the installation of a water
jacket waste heat recovery system on the existing AVEC generators. The
BIA school is near enough that heat piping could be extended to its
boiler building. While it is not likely that the AVEC plant will be
able to supply all of the heating needs of the school, it would replace
the need for about 29,000 gallons of fuel oil per year by the turn of
the century. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that a waste
heat system could be installed in 1982.
There was substantial interest expressed by village residents in the
development of wind energy for Saint Michael. There was also a great
desire for an aggressive energy audit and weatherization program.
A.2 -Alternative Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 -Base Case
The base case study investigates the continued operation of the AVEC
diesel generators, with no changes in operation except as required to
serve additional load caused by village growth. This plan has a net
present worth of $4,045,000 for the period 1982 through 2014.
SAINT MICHAEL L-2
A.2.2 -Alternative Plan "A"
In this alternative, AVEC diesel sets equipped with a waste heat
recovery system are installed. The heat thus recovered is then
used to supolement the school's heating requirements. This olan
has a net present worth of $3,413,000 for the period 1982 through
2014.
A.2.3 -Alternative Plan "8"
In this alternative, in addition to the use of the AVEC diesel sets
and waste heat system described in alternative "A" as the primary
source of power for the village, it will be assumed that a 100 kW
wind turbine will be installed near the village. At those times
when there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, the
diesels will be able to throttle back and decrease their use of
fuel. This plan has a net present worth of $3,688,000 for the
period 1982 through 2014.
Comparative prices of electric enerqy produced by the alternatives studied
are shown on Tab 1 e 1. It shou 1 d be noted th at the energy cost fi gure in
$/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate
customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take
into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the
village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs
shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and
grant programs which may be available. Figure 1 shows the comparative
prices of various fuel resources available to Saint Michael.
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Energy
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Base Case Plan Alternative IIAII
Production Energy Pri ce Energy Price
( MtJh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
363 0.40 0.37
377 0.40 0.37
389 0.39 0.37
400 0.39 0.36
422 0.39 0.35
428 0.39 0.35
431 0.40 0.35
435 0.40 0.35
438 0.40 0.35
460 0.40 0.35
463 0.41 0.34
468 0.41 0.35
473 0.42 0.35
478 0.42 0.35
479 0.42 0.35
485 0.43 0.35
488 0.43 0.35
491 0.44 0.36
498 0.44 0.36
508 0.45 0.36
Alternative IIBII
Energy Pri ce
($/kWh)
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.39
0.40
Vl
):0 ...... z
--i
::s:: ......
0 ::c
):0
m r
r
I
w
SAINT MICHAEL L-4 180 ~----~-r--------r--------r--------.-----~~----
~-----~~----~-----;------------------0.60
170 ~-------._-----J----'------------------------------
1601-------~ --------+----0.5 5
150~ ------
---050
1401----
130 t------~-0.45
120 ~----+---
IIO~ -1--
C\ 2 .100 ...;..------
co
\.Do 90~ ___ _
~
\....J
I-80 ~
VI o u
I _ / :AS~ CASE
___ .j ____ ----~---------~~----AL~~
11 I -0.40
----.. --------~T.';':'
~r:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ -0.35
'ALT. "A"/ALT:f!/'
-
---0.30
----0,25
?5 70 ~-----f-------
~
UJ .3 60~------r------~ 4--_-_-_-_-=--=--=-+-____ -+-______ t--_-_ 0.20
.-
V'l o u
>-d
(%
W
Z w
50 ~----___l-----+------~--------1I------~ OIL AS USED AT
~ ~=O.35 A..SJJS~Q.4\l. rpO.35 -~~~_----1 0.15·
-----~ --~~~ I 30 I------IL.---==----t----+-----t-----+---I., 0.10
WOOD
40 ~--------.----. -
__ .;;;;;;;;;;;;;J~~~':':h::~~":":F~~;J~L-'OIL AS USED AT
",=0.65
201---__ -__ -_-_--:_ -:::::;~-W~(O~OD~~AS~DE~L~IV~ER~ED:--r~~~:lL::1 0,05
10 1-------'----........ __..--+_ OIL AS DEUVERED
1
1~80 1985 1990 1995 2000
ST. MICHAEL -FIGURE
SAINT MICHAEL L-5
B -DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 -Location
The village of Saint Michael is located on the east coast of St. ~lichael
Island in Norton Sound. It is 48 miles southwest of Unalakleet and 125
miles southeast of Nome.
B.2 -Population
Date:
Population:
1970
207
1980
239
The population of Saint Michael declined after the gold rush era, but has
resumed a gradual increase in the past 30 years. The 1980 U. S. Census
shows 239 people. About 95 percent of the residents are Yupik Eskimo.
B.3 -Economy
The Saint ~Iichael economy is based on subsistence food harvest supplemented
by part-time wage earnings.
The city of Saint Michael employs a clerk, chief of police and two
policemen, two AVEC plant operators, two water plant operators and one
alternate health aide. The state of Alaska employs a food stamp agent and
an airport maintenance worker, both part-time. The U.S. Postal Service
employs a postmaster. The BIA grade school employs four teachers, four
aides, two maintenance persons and one cook. The REAA high school has
three teachers, one aide, one cook and one maintenance person. Head Start
employs two teachers and one janitor. Norton Sound Regional Health
Corporation employs one health aide. Saint Michael Native Corporation
employs a bookkeeper, who is shared with Tachik Native Store. The Native
Store employs two additional people. The other local store, the Alaska
Commercial Company, employs four people. Black Navigation Company employs
five local persons in its shipyard, and others as needed for loading; other
employees are based at the Company's Nenana shipyard and occasionally work
at Saint ~lichael. The local Chevron dealer has three full-time employees
and hires an additional three in the summer. There is one Wien agent and
SAINT MICHAEL L-6
one Munz aqent in town. About 10 to 15 residents fish for herring
commercially.
Native residents of Saint ~ichael are shareholders in the Sai()t Michael
Native Corporation. This organization was incorporated in accordance with
the terms of the Alaska Nat i ve Cl aims Sett 1 ement Act (A~ICSA).
The proposed sale of federal off-shore oil development leases in the Norton
Basin. scheduled for late 1982. are in an area 50 miles northwest of the
village.
B.4 -Government
Saint Michael was incorporated in 1969. The city qovernment functions
under the authority of a mayor elected from the seven-member city council.
Regular elections are held annually in November.
Saint Michael is a participant in the State of Alaska's Revenue Sharing
Proqram. which provided $14.182 in shared revenue for fiscal year 1980. As
a second class city. Saint Michael is able to assume diverse powers.
including levying taxes. Voters in Saint Michael aporoved a 2 percent
sales tax. which is the only city tax levied in the village.
For nonmunicioal proqrams and services. Saint Michael's native population
is represented by a seven-member IRA council. The council administers a
variety of federal proqrams. includinq local health care. employment
assistance. college assistance. social services and tribal operations. In
Saint Michael. many of these services are providerl by reqional
orqanizations such as Kawerak. Inc. and the Norton Sound Health
Corooration.
B.5 -Transportation
Saint ~ichael is accessible only by air and sea. as there are no roads
connecting the village to any other area. It is near the Yukon River delta
and has a qood natural harbor. Saint Michael is a transfer point where the
cargo on large barges from Dutch Harbor and Seattle is transferred to river
barqes or shipped to other Norton Sound villaqes. Rarqe service is
provided on a frequent basis by Black Navigation. Fuel is barged in bulk
to the Chevron fuel tanks on "Standard Oi 1 Point." just east of the
villaqe. The BIA cargo ship North Star III stops once a year to bring
SAINT MICHAEL L-7
fuel and supplies to the RIA school. Most residents own small boats used
for huntino, fishing and travel. The ice-free season at Saint Michael is
generally from early June until mid-November.
The north/south dirt runway is 2,500 feet 10no and located north of the
city. There are plans to extend it to 3,000 feet in the spring of 1982.
Wien Air Alaska, throuoh its subcontractor, Ryan Air Service, ooerates
scheduled flights to Saint Michael from Unalakleet; and Munz Northern
Airlines flies to Saint Michael from Nome on a reou1ar basis. Charter and
freight service is provided by Ryan Air Service from Unalakleet and Berinq
Air, Seward Peninsula F1yino Service and Foster Aviation from Nome.
There are no cars or trucks in Saint Michael, but there are many a11-
terrain vehicles and snowmachines. A system of boardwalks connects most
structures in the village, as the ground is extremely wet during the
summer. Areas not served by the boardwalk, such as the airport, are
difficult to get to or from during the summer from some parts of town. A
road was constructed in 1980 from the airport to a new DOT/PF maintenance
facility.
SAINT MICHAEL L-8
C -COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
Field personnel arrived in Saint Michael the evening of January 25, 1982.
The following day, the mayor arranged a meeting of the village council.
The meeting was held the afternoon of the 26th in the REAA high school
multipurpose room. Including the council members, the meeting was attended
by about 17 people.
In addition to personnel visiting Saint Michael for this reconnaissance,
there was an energy auditor from Nome who was contracted to perform energy
audits on 15 homes. The auditor was invited to the council meeting to
describe the energy audit program. There was some criticism from some
council members who felt that it was not adequate that only 15 houses in
Saint Michael were being audited. They felt that virtually all of the
homes in the village should be examined.
Field personnel explained the energy reconnaissance study and asked meeting
attendees to discuss their ideas about the energy needs and resources of
Saint Michael. Most discussion centered about the needs of home heating
and the poor construction found in some of the HUD-built homes.
With regard to electricity supplies in Saint Michael, there was some
discussion of the high cost of electricity supplied by AVEC. Many of those
present at the meeting expressed a great deal of interest in wind energy
for Saint Michael.
Some village council members discussed what they.felt were priority items
for the future of Saint Michael. These included running water systems,
sewage systems, expansion of the airport, and improved boardwalk systems.
There was some interest expressed in the use of coal for heating. It was
acknowledged that the coal would likely have to be barged down from Nenana
and that facilities for storing the coal when it was unloaded from the
barge would be required.
The meeting lasted about an hour and a half.
SAINT MICHAEL L-9
D -EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
Presently, all of Saint Michael's electricity is provided by AVEC. The
AVEC plant has one 160 kW generator, one 105 kW generator, and one 75 kW
generator. The BIA school has a backup generator, which is not used
frequently.
i~ost of the commercial and public buildings in the village are heated with
gun-fired oil burners. Over half of the residences are heated with wood,
which must be gathered from 10 to 12 miles away. Saint Michael was
exceptional among villages studied in that some of the most recent homes
were built with gun-fired furnaces. These units are much more fuel
efficient than the old oil stoves or pot-type burners.
SAINT MICHAEL L-10
E -ENERGY BALANCE
In Saint Michael, as in most other villages studied, most of the energy
consumed was put to use heating homes and the schools. Data gathered by
field staff show the following uses:
TABLE 2
ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR SAINT MICHAEL -1981
Tota 1
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quant ity (10 9 Btu)
Fuel Oi 1 $1.34/gal Space Heating 65,000 gal 9.0
(From Water Heating
Chevron) Cooking
Fuel Oil $1.42/gal Heating 30,000 gal 4.1
(BIA School)
Fuel Oil $1. 42/ga 1 Power Generation 5:;,000 gal 7.6
(AVEC)
>'lotor Gaso 1 i ne $1.36/gal Transportation 10,000 gal 1.2
Propane $1.38/1b Cooking 9,000 lb 0.2
81 azo S6.90/gal Cooking 200 gal neg.
Wood $250/cord Home Heating 105 cords 1.8
Water Heating
Cooking
ENERGY RESOURCE • END USE
Wo.o.D 11.8) (1.8)
RESIDENTIAL SPACE
HEATING
(9.0)
(72)
FUEL 0.1 L AVEC Po.WER
(240.) GENERATlo.N
(7.6\ (1.6\
SCHo.o.L
(7.4) HEATI NG
(BIA and REAA)
( 7.4)
(18)
Go.V'T. a Co.MM'L HEATING
( 1.8)
GASo.LI NE (1·2) (2) TRANSPo.RTATlo.N (12)
PRo.PANE (02.1 (0.2) Co.o.KING 1021
No.TES'
ALL UNITS IN 10.9 BTU/YR.
FIGURE 2
SYSTEM
LDSSES
(54)
"-
USEABLE
HEAT
(3.6)
/
SYSTEM
Lo.SSES
( 6.11
ELECTRICITY
(15 x 10.9 )
SYSTEM
LOSSES (26\
'"
USEABLE
HEAT
(48)
/
SYSTEM LO~SES (Ill
)
'"---L. USEABLE ~EAT
(0.71
-}
GiRl
ST. MICHAEL
ENERGY BALANCE (1981)
-----------.d .cIUS ... ME"'C.a" INCOAPOh,,'ED I
(J')
)::0 ...... :z
-i
::s:: ......
n
::I:
)::0
m r
r
I
F -ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 -Capital Projects Forecast
F.1.1 -Scheduled Capital Projects
(a) 1982 -Community buildina
SAINT MICHAEL L-12
(b) 1982 -Extension of airport runway and addition of liahts
(c) 1982 -Hook-up city-wide telephone
(d) 1982 -New water tank
F.1.2 -Potential Developments
(a) Improve and extend boardwalk
(b) Shed at runway where people can await planes
(c) Road to Stebbins
(d) Road to city dumo site
(e) Harbor development
(f) Additional housing
(q) Water/sewer system
(h) Building for city's heavy equipment
(i) Norton Sound OCS development
F.1.3 -Economic Forecast
Saint Michael has a subsistence economy with some waae earners and
commercial fishermen. In summer 1982, ARCO plans to drill a cost
well 80 miles from Saint Michael in Norton Sound; if oil and gas are
discovered, there could be extensive economic arowth in the area.
Saint Michael is a deep water port and residents are very interested
in the possibility of the port being used as a staging area for oil
develooment and of beinq hired to work in the oil fields.
F.2 -Population Forecast
The annual arowth rate in Saint Michael from 1970 to 1980 was 1.4 oercent.
Oil development is difficult to predict. For purposes of this study, 1.0
percent of the growth rate is attributable to oil development. The
population table below was calculated on the basis of 2.5 percent annual
growth rate.
SAINT MICHAEL L-13
1960 1970 1980 1981' 1991 1996 2001
Popul at ion N/A 207 239 277 313 354 400
#Residences N/A 44 73 84 95 107 121
#Commerc i a 1 N/A N/A 12 14 16 16 16
#Gov't/Other N/A N/A 20 22 24 24 24
F.3 -Electrical Energy Forecast
Saint ~ichael has been served by AVEC since the 1960's and as such has had
a chance to grow into what may be considered a "saturated" condition with
regard to residential electricity consumption. nata provided by AVEC
indicates that residential energy use in Saint Michael is very frugal: an
average of about 1,100 kWh/year for I'lhat may be termed the "typical" home.
It is anticipated that network television will be introduced to Saint
Michael in 1982. The inevitable use of television in the homes will have a
significant impact on the energy use of the "tyoical" village home. It is
expected that over the period 1982 to 1985, the per-residence use will
increase from its present level to about 1,650 kWh/year.
Consumption of other non-residential users is not exoected to chanae with
time as that of the residential users did. The annual usaqe of the
schools, the stores, and other Dublic buildinqs will likely not vary with
time. The exoected electrical energy uses of non-residential customers are
shown in th~ table below:
Loads kWh per year kW Demand
B IA Schoo 1 127,000 40
RE,ll,A School 36,000 20
St r eet L i g ht s 4,000 15
Communications 80,000 10
Public Buildinqs 2,nOO each x 7 3 each x 7
Runway Liahts (1982) 50n 8
In those cases where electricity can be produced it a cost significantly
less than that of heat delivered by fuel oil, it can be expected that there
will be some conversion to electric space heating, driving electric demand
up. In the study of Saint ~ichael, no alternatives were discovered to have
such an impact.
SAINT MICHAEL L-14
The village energy consumption and power demand are shown in Table 3 and
Figure 3.
F.4 -Thermal Energy Forecast
In the village of Saint Michael, the largest single user of heating energy
is the school system. It is estimated that the BIA school alone consumes
30,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. while the REAA school consumes about
24,000 gallons per year.
With regard to residential energy use, the greatest proportion goes toward
space heating. with incidental amounts being used for cooking and water
heating. It is estimated that if the IItypical ll Saint r~ichael home had to
rely on fuel oil for its heating requirements, it would require about 900
gallons of fuel oil per year. It is hoped that new ilomes will be built to
be more efficient in their use of heating energy than those presently
existing. For purposes of this study. it was assumed that any home built
after 1985 would be 30 percent more efficient in its use of heating energy
than those presently existing. This is certainly an attainable reduction in
energy use. Better design and more rigorous construction inspection could
help meet such a goal.
The remainder of the space heating requirements are taken up by the various
commercial and governmental consumers. A summary of heat use projections
is given in Table 4. The figures given in this table are expressed in
terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal energy is the energy actually
delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion
losses have occurred.
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST
Res 1 dent1 a' Scfioo1s . Other Tota' ,
Year kW MWn ~g ~n ~g Hilh ~g f41R'·
1982 44 98 60 163 46 102 150 363
1983 55 112 60 163 46 102 161 377
1984 56 124 60 163 46 102 162 389
1985 66 135 60 163 46 102 172 400
1986 67 139 60 163 57 120 184 422
1987 70 145 60 163 57 120 187 428
1988 72 148 60 163 57 120 189 431
1989 74 152 60 163 57 120 191 435
1990 75 155 60 163 57 120 192 438
1991 76 157 60 163 65 140 201 460
1992 78 160 60 163 65 140 203 463
1993 80 165 60 163 65 140 205 468
1994 82 170 60 163 65 140 207 473
1995 85 175 60 163 65 140 210 478
1996 86 176 60 163 65 140 211 479
1997 88 182 60 163 65 140 213 485
1998 90 185 60 163 65 140 215 488
1999 91 188 60 163 65 140 216 491
2000 94 195 60 163 65 140 219 498
2001 97 200 60 163 65 140 222 508
Ul ;t:.. ..... :z
-I
3::
0-
n :c ;t:..
I"TI r
r
I
(J'1
300
200
-o z «
~
I.&J o
100
a
-
SAINT ~·lICHAEL L-16
tOOO
900
-800
,VILLAGE POWER DEMAN (KW) -700 ~
~
~ -
bOO z
0 -t-
Il.
500 ~
~
\ ~ ~
-\ .----
\ ~ ~
--
/' "
~ ..
en z
0
400 (.)
)-
(!)
~ ....--
", '" .-~ \..VILLAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) a:
I.&J
300 z
I.&J
.-
-200
100
o
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
ST. MICHAEL -FIGURE 3
SAINT MICHAEL L-17
TABLE 4
NET THE Rl1AL REQUI R~MENTS
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year (l09Stu ) (l09Stu ) (109Stu) (109Stu ) (109Btu )
1982 1.2 3.6 4.2 0.7 9.7
1983 1.3 3.8 4.2 0.7 10.0
1984 1.3 3.9 4.2 0.7 10.1
1985 1.4 4.0 4.2 0.7 10.3
1986 1.4 4.1 4.2 0.8 10.5
1987 1.5 4.2 4.2 0.8 10.7
1988 1.5 4.3 4.2 0.8 10.8
1989 1.5 4.3 4.2 0.8 10.8
1990 1.5 4.4 4.2 0.8 10.9
1991 1.6 4.4 4.2 1.0 11. 2
1992 1.6 4.5 4.2 1.0 11. 3
1993 1.6 4.6 4.2 1.0 11. 4
1994 1.6 4.7 4.2 1.0 11. 5
1995 1.6 4.8 4.2 1.0 11.6
1996 1.6 4.8 4.2 1.0 11.6
. 1997 1.6 5.0 4.2 1.0 11.8
1998 1.7 5.0 4.2 1.0 11.9
1999 1.7 5.1 4.2 1.0 12.0
2000 1.7 5.2 4.2 1.0 12.1
2001 1.7 5.3 4.2 1.0 12.2
SAINT MICHAEL L-18
G -VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
l. Coal. There presently exist no practical means to provide coal to
Saint Michael. Additionally, the village lacks sufficient numbers of
skilled personnel to staff a coal-fired power plant. No consideration
of this alternative is warranted.
2. Wood. Natural supplies of wood in the Saint Michael area are sparse to
~extent that the use of wood as a power generation fuel is likely to
be impractical. Wood has and will continue to playa role in home
heating in Saint Michael.
3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Saint
Michael area. No further consideration of the geothermal alternative
is warranted.
4. Hydroelectric. There are no river drainages in the Saint Michael area
suitable for hydroelectric development. No further consideration of
this alternative is warranted.
5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider
for Alaska utility use.
6. Wind. It is likely that there is a significant wind resource available
at Saint Michael, since the village is exposed to winds developed
across the long stretches of water of the Bering Sea and Norton Sound.
Wind data are available for Nome and Unalakleet; but, in order to
adequately assess the wind energy potential at Saint Michael, detailed
measurements must be made there. In lieu of site specific wind data
for Saint Michael, wind data taken at Unalakleet was analyzed. It was
estimated that a well-chosen site near Saint Michael could provide
enough wind to permit wind turbine with a 25 percent plant factor.
7. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by tanker ship and is the primary
fuel used in Saint Michael. It is presently used for space heating and
diesel generation.
Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and
technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in
developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report.
The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in
development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study.
SAINT MICHAEL L-20
H -ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
H.I -Base Case
In this case, the village is provided with electrical enerqy by AVEC. Load
forecasts show that by 1986 the existing units will not be adequate to
serve Saint Michael's load. It is assumed that in 1982 these units will be
replaced with 250 kW machines which will be adequate throughout the study
period.
Assumptions used in calculatinq enerqy cost information are as follows:
-In 1982, the existing units will be replaced with two 250 kW units.
Purchase price of these units is estimated to be $300/kW. It is
estimated that installation costs associated with these generators are-
$500/kW, for a total installed cost of $800/kw.
-As long as AVEC operates the plant (and this is assumed to be the case
throuahout the study period), each diesel set will require an overhaul
costing one third of the unit's purchase price every seven years ($IOO/kW
every seven years).
-AVEC plant operators will carry out routine maintenance on the units.
This service is valued at $44,000 per year.
-Fuel consumption rate is assumed to be 8 kWh/cal.
-Annual costs of the diesel sets are calculated as follows:
(1) The initial cost of the diesel sets is amortized over 20 years. The
real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent
annually.
(2) The annual costs of the overhaul work are the result of the
establishment of a sinking fund designed to provide $IOO/kW every
seven years.
(3) General operations and maintenance adds $44,000 to the annual
expenses.
-Annual variable costs associated with diesel set ooeration are calculaterl
as follows:
(1) Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $1.65/qal wit~ its real (1981) price
rising 2.60 percent annually to $2.69 per qallon by the year 2001,
and remaining constant thereafter.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TEC:-;~;OLOGY ASSESSr~ENT
FOR
SAINT MICHAEL
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fi red Steam * 4 1 a
Wood Fired Steam * 4 1 a
Geothenna 1 * 1 1 1
Oi esel (base) * 4 2 2
Gas Turbine * 4 2 2
Hydroel ectri c * 5 1 1
Wind * 3 1 1
Photovoltaic * 3 2 2
Heati ng·
Diesel Waste Heat Recovery * 4 2 2
Electric Resistan~e * 5 2 2
Passive Solar * 5 2 2
Wood * 4 2 1
Coal * 4 2 1
Oil (base) * 4 2 1
Other
Coal Gasification * * 3 1 a
Wood Gasification -Di esel * 1 1 1
Biogas * * 3 2 2
Waste Fired Boiler * * 4 1 a
Peat * * 4 1 a
Bi nary Cycle Generator * 1 2 2
Conservation * * 5 2 2
NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable.
S.AINT f'wlICHAEL L-19
a a a a a a
a a a a a a
a 2 3 5 a 18
3 1 1 7 2 53 1
1 a a 7 1 33
a a a a a a
a 1 3 5 2 29 2
a a 3 J 2 23
1 3 3 7 2 61 2
4 4 a 1 2 23
a 4 3 3 2 36
4 3 2 1 2 22
3 3 1 5 2 45 3
4 4 1 7 2 65 1
a a a a a a
a a a a a a
a 2 a a a a
a 1 a a a a
a a a a a a
a 3 3 5 2 35
4 4 3 9 2 100
SAINT MICHAEL L-22
H.3 -.Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "B" uses the AVEC diesel sets and waste heat system as
described in alternative "A" as the primary sources of village power. In
addition to this eauipment, there will be assumed to be a 100 kW wind
turbine installed near the village. When there is sufficient wind to
operate the wind turbine, its electrical output will be fed into the Saint
Michael power system. For purposes of this study, this wind turbine will be
assumed to have a plant factor of 25 percent, with an availability of 90
oercent. The expected annual output of the turbine is then:
100 kW x 8760 hr/yr x 0.25 x 0.90 = 197,100 kWh/yr
This represents about 60 percent of Saint Michaelis electrical energy use
in 1982, which would result in a sizeable reduction in fuel use.
Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine
system were as follows:
-The diesel/waste system available would be that used in alternative "A".
-The capital cost associated with the purchase of a larqe wind turbine
system such as the one described in this alternative is ~2,6Cn/k~. The
costs associated with installation of the wind turbine are also
$2,600/kW, for a total installed cost of $5,20(l/k1,.l, or $520,000.
-This capital cost will be amortized over a period of 15 years. The real
discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 oercent annually.
This represents an annual cost of about $44,000.
Operations and ~aintenance of the wind turbine will require the attention
of skilled personnel brought in from Anchorage. It is estimated that
this service will reauire four visits per year, each visit costing about
$3,000. Total O&M charges are therefore $12,000 per year.
-Total costs associated with the ooeration of the wind turbine are $56,000
per year.
-The on-line date of the wind turbine will be delayed until such time as
the savings in fuel use by the AVEC generators is sufficient to pay for
the wind turbine. This ~ill occur when the orice reaches the level as
calculated below:
197,100 k1,.lh/yr
8.0 kWh/gal
$S6,OOO/yr
23,464 gal/yr
= 24,600 oal/yr of displaced fuel
= S2.27/aal
SAINT MICHAEL L-21
Data regardinq the costs of this alternative are given in Section I.
It should be noted that the eneray cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily
the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure,
expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs
associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add
about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not
indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which
may be available.
H.2 -Alternative Plan "A"
Alternative "A" uses the diesel sets as described in the hase case except
that equipment is installed to recover otherwise wasted water jacket heat.
This heat is then distrihuted throuqh pipes in utilidors to the BIA school.
It is not likely that the waste heat system could completely fill all the
heating requirements of the school, but it would significantly reduce the
oil consumed by the school.
With the enerqy forecasts as shown in Section F, the waste heat system will
be able to provide the heat equivalent of about 21,000 Cla110ns of fuel in
1982. By the end of the study period, as qenerator output incrpases, this
available waste heat will increase to the equivalent of about 24,000
gallons of fuel oil.
While it is not certain that such a system could entirely take over the
heating loads of all the buildings that it served, it would reduce the
total consumption by the amounts note~ above.
Assumptions made when calculating the future costs of the diesel/waste heat
system were as follows:
-The diesel system used in this study is the same as that described
in the base case analysis.
-Beqininq in 19P2, a water jacket waste heat recovery system will be
installed at the generator building. It is estimated that the waste heat
system will cost one-half of the installed value of the generators, or
5400/kW. In this case, the cost is estimated at $200,000.
-The $200,000 cost of the waste heat system is amortized over 10 years.
The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent
annually. At the end of this first 10 year period, the system wi 11 be
replaced in its entirety.
-The waste heat system is not expected to affect the annual costs
associated with AVEC operation and maintenance or overhaul expenses.
A tabulation showinq the costs associated with this system's operation is
shown in Section I.
SAINT MICHAEL L-24
I -ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
l 5T JtlA TELl COSTS Or SAINT ~1ICIIAFL I3ASE CASE
FUll COSTS SYSTEt1 ADD I T IOtJS FIXEU COSTS
Enor~y lliesel Fuel Fuel Capital Ann ua I Overhaul Total Fixed
I'roduct i 011 Fuel Used x Price Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&J1 Costs
YeLlr 0111h) ~~~ __ <1i~ ( $1,000) Component (~I,OOO) ( $1,000) ($1,000) ( $1,000) ($1,000) --------------
1982 361) 45 1.46 66 0 I nsta II two new AVEC 400 27 7 44 78
250 k\~ diesel generator
1983 380 48 1.50 72 sets 27 7 44 78
1984 390 49 1.53 75 27 7 44 78
1985 400 50 1.57 78 27 7 44 78
1966 420 52 1.61 84 27 7 44 78
1987 430 54 1.66 90 27 7 44 78
1988 430 54 1.70 92 27 7 44 78
1989 441) 55 1.74 96 27 7 44 78
1990 440 55 1.79 98 27 7 44 78
1991 460 58 1.84 107 27 7 44 78
1992 460 58 1.88 109 27 7 44 78
1993 470 59 1.93 114 27 7 44 78
1994 470 59 1.98 117 27 7 44 78
1995 4ao 60 2.1)3 123 27 7 44 78
1996 4aO 60 2.09 125 27 7 44 78
1997 4aO 60 2.14 128 27 7 44 78
1998 490 61 2.20 134 27 7 44 78
1999 490 61 2.25 137 27 7 44 78
2000 500 62 2 •. 31 143 27 7 44 78
(/)
2001 510 64 2 •. 37 152 27 7 44 78 )::0
~
0 Repl ace 1982 generators ..:::;
2002-2014 510 64 2.27 152 with same 400 27 7 44 78 -I
3:
~
("")
:c
)::0
rTJ r
r
I
N
U1
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annua I Annual Energy
Costs + Costs r.osts Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ( Sl l 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 66 78 144 139.8 0.40
19A3 72 78 150 141.4 0.40
1984 75 78 153 140.0 0.39
1985 70 78 156 13A.6 0.39
1986 84 78 162 139.7 0.39
1987 90 78 162 140.7 0.39
1988 92 78 170 138.2 0.40
1989 96 78 174 137.4 0.40
1990 98 78 176 134.9 0.40
1991 107 78 185 137.7 0.40
1992 109 78 187 135.1 0.41
1993 114 78 192 134.7 0.41
1994 117 78 195 132.8 0.42
1995 123 78 201 132.9 0.42
1996 125 78 203 130.3 0.42
1997 128 78 206 128.4 0.43
1998 134 78 212 128.3 0.43
1999 137 78 215 126.3 0.44
2000 143 78 221 126.0 0.44
2001 152 78 230 127.4 0.45
2002-2014 152 78 230 1,354.0 0.45
Total net present worth $4,045
A I I costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1:
Note 2:
Note 3:
Diesel fuel use Is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kl4h produced per gallon of fuel used.
Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dol lars, with prices escalatod at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment
overhaul and replacement, and goneral O&M work.
Vl
):>0 ...... :z
-l
::s: ...... n
$
IT1 r
r
I
N
'"
SAINT MICHAEL L-23
ThiS is the price (in 1~81 dollars) which fuel is expected to reach in
the year 2000.
The waste system will not be replaced at the end of its second economic
life in the year 2002.
A tabulation of the costs associated with the implementation of this
alternative is shown in Section I.
SAINT MICHAEL L-27
1.1 -Base Case
1.1.1 -Social and Environmental Evaluation
Because the AVEC generators are already in place, there is no
possibility of local employment for plant construction work.
However, there is the need for one or two Saint Michael residents to
serve as operating personnel. For repair and overhaul work requiring
highly skilled personnel, AVEC usually brings personnel in from
Anchorage.
Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel
engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
water vapor, nitrous oxides (NO x )' sulfur dioxide (SU2), and
unburned hydrocarbons. With the small installation at Saint
Michael, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of
these pollutants. The engine lubricating oil must be changed
periodically and the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote
villages such as Saint Michael, this can be a significant problem.
Diesel engines are significant sources of noise, but with proper
siting and with adequate muffler systems, this problem can be
minimized. In Saint Michael, the AVEC plant is far enough away from
residences that the noise problem should not be important.
I.l.2 -Technical Evaluation
Diesel systems are typically the best understood means of producing
electricity available to bush villages today. Nevertheless, diesel
engines require frequent attention and regular maintenance which
requires highly skilled personnel. AVEC maintains a staff of trained
diesel mechanics at Anchorage and is able to respond fairly well to
problems as they occur.
TAEH.f 7
l ST I r~1\f II) COSTS Of' SA I NT M ICIIAEL ALTEHNA1IV[ PLI\tI "A"
FlJLL COSTS SYSTEt·l ADUITI@S f' I XElJ CUSTS
[n()r~y Diesel --Fuor-Fuel Capital Ann ua I Overhaul Total Fixed
Product ion fuel Used x Pr ice Costs ('.os ts Costs + Fund + OM,1 Costs
Year WWh) (I,OOO!,Jal) ($/Sjal ) ($1,000) Com[>onent ~~ ($ 1, 000) (s. I, 000) ( $1, 000) ($1,000)
1982 360 45 1.46 66 0 Instal I two new AVEC 600 50 7 44 101
250 kW diesel generator
1983 380 48 1.50 72 sets equipped with waste 50 7 44 101
heat recovery systems
1984 390 49 1.53 75 50 7 44 101
19B~ 400 50 1.57 78 50 7 44 101
19B6 420 52 1.61 84 50 7 44 101
1981 430 54 1.66 90 50 7 44 101
198!l 430 54 1.70 92 50 7 44 101
198') 440 55 1.74 96 50 7 44 101
1990 440 55 1.79 98 50 7 44 101
1991 460 58 1.84 107 50 7 44 101
1992 460 58 1.88 109 o Replace 1982 waste 200 50 7 44 101
heat system
1993 470 59 1.93 114 50 7 44 101
1994 470 59 1.98 117 50 7 44 101
1995 480 60 2.03 123 50 7 44 101
1996 480 60 2.09 125 50 7 44 101
1997 480 60 2.14 128 50 7 44 101
1998 490 61 2.20 134 50 7 44 101
1999 490 61 2.25 137 50 7 44 101
2000 ~OO 62 2.31 143 50 7 44 101
2001 510 64 2.37 152 o neplace 1982 generators 600 50 7 44 101 VJ
:l>o and 1992 waste heat -.
2002-2014 510 64 2.37 152 system 50 7 44 101 z
-t
3: -. n :c
:l>o
/"T1 r-
r-
I
N
ex>
· TA8LE 7 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Ener-yy
Costs + Costs Costs Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 66 101 167 162.1 0.37
1983 72 101 173 163.1 0.37
1984 75 101 176 161.1 0.37
1985 78 101 179 159.0 0.36
1986 84 101 185 159.6 0.35
1987 90 101 191 160.0 0.35
1988 92 101 193 156.9 0.35
1989 96 101 197 155.5 0.35
1990 98 101 199 152.5 0.35
1991 107 101 208 154.8 0.35
1992 109 101 210 151.7 0.34
1993 114 10 I 215 150.8 0.34
1994 117 101 218 148.5 0.35
1995 123 101 224 148. 1 0.35
199G 125 101 226 145.1 0.35
1997 128 101 229 142.7 0.35
1998 134 101 235 142.2 0.35
1999 137 101 238 139.8 0.35
2000 143 101 244 139.2 0.35
2001 157 101 253 140.1 0.35
2002 152 101 253 1,490.0 0.35
through 2014
TOTAL $ 4,523
Total present worth of non-el ectr I cal benef i ts $( 1,110)
Net present worth $ 3,413 (j')
)::. ...... :z
-I -----
All costs shown in thousands of dollars ::s:: .......
("")
Note 1 : Diesel fuel is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. :J: use )::.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price Is eXfJressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. I'Tl
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equlproent amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment r-
overhaul and replacement, and general OM1 work. r-
I
N
lO
SAINT MICHAEL L-30
TABLE 8
ESTIt~ATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
Total Annual Benefits Discounted
Year {SQace Heating Fuel Saving} Benefits
1982 31 30. 1
1983 33 31.1
1984 34 31.1
1985 36 32.0
1986 39 33.6
1987 42 35.2
1988 42 34.2
1989 44 34.7
1990 45 34.5
1991 48 35.7
1992 51 36.8
1993 52 36.5
1994 53 36.1
1995 57 37.7
1996 58 37.2
1997 60 37.4
1998 62 37.5
1999 62 36.4
2000 67 38.2
2001 69 38.2
2002
through 69 406.0
20
TOTAL: $1 ,100
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
SAINT MICHAEL L-31
1.2 -Alternative Plan "A"
I.2.1 -Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the
possibility that some local construction employment would be
generated. There would be a need for skilled workers such as
welders, carpenters, and plumbers, as well as general laborers.
The installation and operation of a waste heat system will have no
noticeable environmental impact. The reduction of fuel oil burned by
those buildings served by the waste heat system may result in a
lessening of airborne pollutants.
1.2.2 -Technical Evaluation
The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could
be put in place in one construction season and show immediate savings
to the village utility system. Design of waste heat systems is well
understood, and there is little to go wrong in their operation.
TABLE 9
I: ST lilA TLIl CU:.iTS 01-SAINT MICIIAEcL AL TEHNA T I VL PLAN "Il"
FUEL cosrs :';YSTE~1 AOO I T I OI~S FIXElJ COSTS
Lnoruy Diesol --Fuor-fuel Capital Annua I Overhaul Total Fixed
[)roduct ion Fuel Used Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&~1 Costs
YE:dr U1lill) (1,000 ($1,000) ~onent ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) -------
1982 360 4~ 1.46 66 0 Insta [ I two new AVEC 600 50 7 44 101
250 kW diesel sets with
1'l1n 380 48 1.50 72 waste" hoat systems 50 7 44 101
1984 390 49 1.53 75 50 7 44 101
19B~ 400 50 1.57 7B 50 7 44 101
19Bb 420 52 1.61 84 50 7 44 101
1987 430 54 1.66 90 50 7 44 101
1988 430 54 1.70 92 50 7 44 101
1989 440 55 1.74 96 50 7 44 101
1990 440 55 1.79 98 50 7 44 101
1991 460 58 1.84 107 50 7 44 101
1992 460 58 1.88 109 0" Replace 1982 waste heat 200 50 7 44 101
system
1993 470 59 1.93 114 50 7 44 101
1994 471) 59 1.98 117 50 7 44 101
1995 480 60 2.03 123 50 7 44 101
199b 480 60 2.09 125 50 7 44 101
1997 4HO 60 2. 14 128 50 7 44 101
1998 490 61 2.20 134 50 7 44 101
1999 490 61 2.25 137 50 7 44 101
2000 500 37 2.31 85 o Install new IOu k\~ wind 520 94 7 56 157
turbine
2001 510 39 2.37 93 94 7 56 157 Vl
:t:o
o Repl ace 1982 diesel 400 ..... :z 2002-2014 510 39 2.37 93 generators 71 7 56 134 -I
3: .....
CJ :::r::
:t:o
IT1 r
r
I w
N
TA8LE 9 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annua I Energy
Costs + Costs Costs Costs Costs
Year ( $1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 66 101 167 162. 1 0.37
1983 72 101 173 163.1 0.37
1984 75 101 176 161.1 0.37
1985 78 101 179 159.0 0.36
1986 B4 101 185 159.6 0.35
1987 90 101 191 160.0 0.35
198tl 92 101 193 156.9 0.35
1989 96 101 197 155.5 0.35
1990 98 101 199 152.5 0.35
1991 107 101 208 154.8 0.35
1992 109 10 I 210 151.7 0.34
1993 114 101 215 150.8 0.34
1994 117 101 218 148.5 0.35
1995 123 101 224 148. I 0.35
1996 125 101 226 145.1 0.35
1997 128 101 229 142.7 0.35
1991) 134 101 235 142.2 0.35
1999 137 101 238 139.8 0.35
2000 05 157 242 138.0 0.39
2001 93 157 250 138.4 0.40
2002-2014 93 134 227 1,336.7 0.40
TOTAL $4,367
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (704 )
Total present worth of non-electrical disbenefits $ 25
Net present worth $3,688
-------
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1:
tlote 2:
Note 3:
IJioscl fuel use is calcula"ted at a consumption rate of 8 k~lh prouuced per gallon of fuel used.
Diesel fuel price is expressed in ternlS of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Totdl annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipr,lent
overhau I and rep I acement, and genera I O&~, work.
(/)
l=-...... ::z
-i
::s:: ......
n
:J:
l=-rn r
r
I
w
W
SAINT MICHAEL L-34
TABLE 10
ESTIr-tATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS FOR ALTERNATI VE PLAN "B"
Total Annual Benefits Discounted
Year (SEace Heating Fue1 Saving) Benefits
1982 31 30.1
1983 33 31.1
1984 34 31.1
1985 36 32.0
1986 39 33.6
1987 42 35.2
1988 42 34.2
1989 44 34.7
1990 45 34.5
1991 48 35.7
1992 51 36.8
1993 52 36.5
1994 53 36.1
1995 57 37.7
1996 58 37.2
1997 60 37.4
1998 62 37.5
1999 62 36.4
2000 67 38.2
2001 69 38.2
TOTAL: $ 704
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
SAINT MICHAEL L-35
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL DISBENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B"
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
through
2014
Total Annual Disbenefits
Fuel Which Must Be Purchased To Make Up Lost Waste Heat
22
23
Discounted
Disbenefits
12.5
12.7
TOTAL: $~25::..;..-=-2 __ _
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
~AINT MIC~AEL L-3n
1.3 -Alternative Plan flBfI
I.3.1 -Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, it is possible that some
local work crews could assist in the construction of the wind
turbine tower, foundation, and auxiliary equipment. There would be a
need for skilled workers, riqqers, and electricians, as well as
general laborers.
Wind turbine equipment is considered to be environmentally safe.
There are, however, a number of items which should be considered in
this regard. First, there is the possibility that children, or
others, may climb towers which are not secured against such activity,
thus exposinq themselves to the danger of a fall. Second, in the
event that a wind turbine blade should fail in operation, it could be
thrown several hundred feet. Larqe machines, such as those
considered in this analysis, have blades weighing several tons. There
is also the possibility of interference with television sianals and
the qeneration of noise. These last considerations are qenerally not
threatening to human life, but may be annoyinq.
I.3.2 -Technical Evaluation
Given the nresent state of wind turbine develooment and a lack of
detailed information regarding winds in Saint Michael, it does not
seem warranted to oursue a proqram of immediately installing a larqe
wind turbine. If wind data can be collected to suoport this study's
estimate of a 2S percent olant factor, it would be wise to proceed
with further study. The first step is the establishment of a
sophisticated anemometry site at Saint Michael to monitor winds with
sufficient accuracy and frequency to establish the frequency
distribution of the various wind speed occurrences.
SAINT MICHAEL L-37
J -COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
SA I NT MI CHAEL L -38
J.l -Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza
Eric P. Yould
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear r~r. Yould,
SAINT MICHAEL L-39
REL:EJVt:D
APR -9 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORllY
I would like to make several comments concerning the Reconnaissance
Studies recently drafted for the villages in the Bering Straits Region.
In nearly all of the villages studied a 100K\'J wind turbine was used
as an a1ternative for deisel generation. I question the practicality
of such a large wind system for several reasons. Several of the villages
studied ( Brevig Mission, Golovin) do not even have village wide elec-
tricity and are so small that if and when they do undergo an electrification
project the demand would be much less than the output of the wind system.
I futher question the practicality of such a large wind system in that
it would provide an all or nothing approach to the reliability of wind
generated electricity. In comparsion, several smaller wind systems could
be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to
maintain and repair the smaller systems. This would help eliminate the
need for those costly maintenance trips from Anchorage or out of state
personnel. The smaller systems would provide a far better reliability
factor and possibily a better system for load management. The use of
such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential
of wind energy on a back burner.
Also concerning the wind generator alternative the research group decided
not to incorporate into the alternative a \vaste heat recovery system for
the diesel generator. Apparently they can not see the potential of a
combonation of many small scale alternatives.
Another area covered in the report was the energy efficiency of the housing
stock.In several reports the researchers estimated 20-30% energy savings
through weatherization. As a certified state energy auditor and having
traveled to many of the villages in the study I would agree there is much
room for improvement, even in the recently built houses, but 20 or 30
percent is nothing. An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy
loss by 80 or 90 percent. This could be done through a loan pro~ram
that village homeowners would be eligible for.
Sincerely,
Phil Kaluza
Box 843
Nome, AK 99762
SAINT MICHAEL L-40
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment: "In nearly all the villages studied, a 100 kW wind turbine
was used as an alternative for diesel generation. I question
the practicality of such a large wind system ... "
Response: The relatively large wind turbine was chosen for use in this
study for a number of reasons:
1. Economy. As turbine size increases, advantage can be
taken of their economy of scale: costs in terms of $/kWh
at the turbine equipment tend to decrease. For a given
aggregate wind turbine capacity at any particular site,
the site specific items such as foundations, control
equipment, and electrical hookups are simplified and made
less expensive. The problems associated with maintaining
one 100 kW machine as opposed to, say ten-10 kW units,
are minimized. It is worth noting that the larger units
have room inside the generator nacelle to work on
equipment out of the weather. On-site repair work on
smaller units can be expected to be performed by workers
exposed to high winds and low temperatures.
2. Appropriateness of Size. At a site with a mean wind
speed of 15 mph, a 100 kW wind turbine with an 8 mph
cut-in and a 25 mph rated speed will produce a mean power
output 1 ess than 20 kW, not even enough to power a
typical Bering Straits REAA high school. A number of
smaller wind turbines with a similar aggregate capacity
and wind speed/power characteristic. would not do much
better.
3. Reliability. To date, only very small-scale wind
turbines have been tried in Alaska with very rare
successes. Two weeks after being put into operation. the
State's $100,000 10-kW demonstration project at Skagway
was shut down due to a blade failure. Many other
small-scale projects have been subject to similar
defects. The 100 kW units have such large costs (on an
absolute basis) that substantial engineering efforts can
be carried out without drastically increasing the $/kW
costs. The development programs undertaken by the
Department of Energy and NASA using large machines have
been largely successful. It is expected that a well
designed large turbine would be more reliable than a
number of small units.
SAINT MICHAEL L-41
4. l"1anufacturer's Support. It has been the unfortunate
history of wlnd turblnes that many manufacturers start up
a business, inflate advertising claims, sell a few
machines which cannot, for wtlatever reason, perform
satisfactorily, and promptly go out of business, leaving
their customer with no source of information or repair
parts. Only large, well-established companies can raise
the capital needed to tool up for production of large
units. Presently, large units are manufactured by
well-known firms such as Westinghouse and Boeing. It is
presumed that these firms will exist into the foreseeable
future to support their wind turbines. With a few
exceptions, the same cannot be said for makers of the
small units. Larger manufacturers typically have more
depth in their engineering departments to address
problems as they develop.
No change in report text is needed.
2. Comment: "Several of the villages studied (Brevig Mission, Golovin) do
not even have village-wide electricity ... "
Response: All villages studied, including Brevig Mission and Golovin
had, or were in the very final stages of getting, village-
wide electric system installations. .
No change in report text is needed.
3. Comment: " ... demand would be much less than the output of the wind
system. "
Response: This is not true. A 100-kW wind turbine will rarely put out
that lTluch power. In winds of less than 18 mph, the wind
turbine described under Comment No.1 above will not produce
more power than could be used by the typical village school
(20 kW). As refrigerators and TV's become more and more
popular, it is highly probable that even the 100 kW unit will
be able to provide but a fraction of a village's needs. Only
rarely will there be a surplus.
No change in the report text is needed.
4. Comment: " ... such a large wind turbine ... would provide an all or
nothing approach to the reliability of wind generated
e 1 ec t ric it y . "
SAINT MICHAEL L-42
Response: While it is true that if one large wind turbine were used and
it were out of commission, no wind-generated power would be
available, it is not thought that this disadvantage is
sufficient to make the small units' higher costs attractive.
No change in the report text is needed.
5. Comment:" several smaller wind systems could be installed using
primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain
and repair the smaller systems."
Response: The availability of people with the required maintenance
skills is something which varies widely from village to
village. Except for a few notable cases, most diesel plants
visited in rural Alaska are not good examples of the labors
of highly skilled maintenance personnel. If these diesel
plants show what can be accomplished by "local manpower," it
is not likely that even the simplest wind turbines could be
maintained to provide reliable service. Equipment such as
gearboxes, generators, and inverters would still require
attention by personnel from outside the village. The large
units are not so dissimilar and local workers could be
trained to perform routine maintenance tests such as
lubrication, inspection, expendable parts replacement, etc.
As noted before, the large units have room to work inside
their generator nacelles out of the weather. This is far
less likely to lead to maintenance errors and should be far
safer for the serviceman than clinging to a small system's
tower (in safety belt) in a cold breeze.
No change in report text is needed.
6. Comment: "The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will
certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back
burner. "
Response: This opinion is diametrically opposite that of Acres' staff,
who believe that one well-designed and properly functioning
wind turbine system which is capable of supplying significant
amounts of electrical energy to a power system will do more
to promote the use of wind power than will a collection of
marginally engineered and poorly supported machine
installations such as already exist in the State.
No change in the report text is needed.
7. Comment:" the research group decided not to incorporate [a wind
turbine] into the alternative [using] a waste heat recovery
system for the diesel generator. Apparently, they cannot see
the potential of a combination of many small-scale
alternatives."
SAINT MICHAEL L-43
Response: In fact, Acres does recognize the combination of any number
of power producing technologies, but only where appropriate.
A diesel set is a much more efficient generator of heat than
it is of electricity. In power systems where both
diesel/waste heat and ·wind turbine systems are in use, as
wind turbine output increases, the waste heat output
diminishes accordingly. The relationship is generally such
that revenues lost from reduced waste heat sales are not
recovered in fuel savings, resulting in a net increased
system cost with greater wind turbine output.
Very appropriate combinations of small-scale and renewable
technologies are those of wind and hydro, or solar
photovoltaic and hydro, and similar combinations in which the
increased output of one element does not degrade the
performance of the others. Unfortunately, few such
combinations were found which were appropriate to the
economic needs of the village.
No change in the report text is needed.
8. Comment: "An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy loss by
80 or 90 percent."
Response: Without having access to the assumptions used to arrive at
the 80 to 90 percent figure, it is not possible to comment on
the validity of these figures. New housing designs, while
improvements over past efforts, are not expected to be much
more than 25 -30 percent more efficient than existing
housing.
Presently, there is no indication that the State is prepared
to embark on an "aggressive retrofit program."
No change in the report text is needed.
SAINT MICHAEL L-44
J.2 -Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration ,
LOriginal Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Yould:
SAINT MICHAEL L-45
April 12, 1982
We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy
requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages,
transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres
American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6
and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there
appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC
summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the
individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend
investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the
summary report recommends immediate"installation of central diesel
generators in eight villages.
We offer a few general comments for consideration.
There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres
assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while
NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy
reduction.
A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation
technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in
terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the
NORTEC report.
Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power
costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under
AS 44.83.162.
SAINT MICHAEL L-46
Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several
communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local
conditions.
2
The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to
inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a
description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet
practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass,
and geothermal.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4
SAINT MICHAEL L-47
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment:" Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
Response: No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or
implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary
recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be
undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village
residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating
and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about
the supply of electricity within their village. While the
study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful
savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the
study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where
appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which
would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25
to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value"
was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above.
It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy
conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is
inversely related to disposable income: consumers will
purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for
which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using
these items increases, their use will likely (but not
necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy
efficient lights or motors is not expected to have
perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand
forecast.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
2. Comment: "A summary compari son of energy cost per kWh for each
gener at i on techno logy wou 1 d enh ance the Acres report."
Response: Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs,
construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary
would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate
or available to all villages. Even where two villages may
share access to a particular technology, such as diesel
generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel
consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make
comparisons invalid.
The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment
that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology
to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison
based on local conditions."
No comment or change in report text is needed.
SAINT MICHAEL L-48
3. Comment: "Neither report addresses actual present and projected
electric power costs with or without consideration of the
residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162.11
Response: This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska
Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs
calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of
a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production
facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation
costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the
subs i dy programs are cont i nued from year to year at the
pleasure of the legislature.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
J.3 -Comments Received From The State of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game
SAINT MICHAEL L-49
(PEP \ BT ,n:vr OF FISH :\ ,n G.\ .~a:
Apri 1 8, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
OFFICE Of THE COf.;7!.IISSIOflER
Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
SAINT MICHAEL L-50
JA Y S. H:.r.~:":O/:D. GO'r'ERiiOR
P.O. BOX 3-2000
JUNEA U, ALASKA 99802
PHONE. 465-4100
RECEIVt:O
.t"oR 1 2 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTI-!ORITY
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's
Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska
co~munities.
We have no com~ents to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review
subsequent studies as they become available.
I~ Ronald O. Skoog --r-Commissioner
SAINT MICHAEL L~'
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
J.4 -Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Anchorage
~AINT rVlICHAEL L-52
SAINT MICHAEL L-53
L·nited States DeDanment of the Interior ...
M~. E~ic P. Yould
~xecutive Direc~or
Aiaska Power Authority
33 4 West 5th Ave~~e
An~~orage, Alas~a 99501
=:ear :·!r. Yould:
FISH .-\ND WILDLIFE 5ER VICE
Western Alask~ Ecological Services
733 \-1. 4th Avenue, Suite 101
Anchora~e, Alaska 99501 BE C E IV E 0
(907) 271-4575
APR -91982
~,SKA POWER AUTHORJrt
f1 APR 1982
We have revie~ed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy
?econ~a!ssance ?eports. If the conclusions and reco~endations stated in tte
individual'repo~ts beco~e ~tose of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feas!-
b!lity studies !,! :ulfill:.:ent of the recomne~ded alternatives, then the U.S.
F!sh a~d ~i:ildli:~e Service (?IlS) requests that the infor:::ation and studies
out~ined below te =ade a part of the :easibility studies.
',o[i :hout current si te-specific resource infcr::ation and a more cc~plete
cescr!ntion 0: the proposed project, it is difficult to assess .... hat impacts,
!: a~y, will occur to fish a~d wildlife resources and associated habitat.
=n:or::ation should be acquired and studies co~ducted to identify the fish and
~ildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project i~pacts to
those resources, assess al~ernatives to the proposed action and devise a
~!tigatio~ plan t~at would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources.
Specific info~ation to be collected and stUdies to be conducted which the TiS
feels are necessa~J to adequately assess potential impacts incl~de the
following:
1. Plans for construction activities and project features to mini~ize
danage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g.,
erosion control, revegetation, trans~ission line siting, construction
t!ming, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock abcve
sal~on s~awning habitat, etc.
2. I.osses 0: fish and , .. ildlife habitat should oe held to a rum;::n;'1:, and
~easures ~o nitigate unavo~dable losses and er~~~nce resources sh~uld
be devised.
3. If there is to be a diversion of ~ater or if s~cstantial ~ater
tenperat~re fluctutations are i~minent, then these factors should be
addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and
fish ~E~i~at. Aquatic data collection should at least include t~e
follo.;ing:
,
/
I
/
/
/
/ r
I
SAINT MICHAEL L-54
?2.ge 2
(a) Ide~ti:ication of species composition and distribution of
residen~ and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro-
ject area. Stanjard sampling methods suci as fyke netting and
ciC'_':.ow trapping, as ... .-ell as visual observation of spa .. ming
and/or redds, should be used.
(b) Sur'leying and mapping 0: fish spawning, rearing, and ove:--
~intering habitat as defined in the FWS Instrea~ Flow Tectni:ues
0:-similar guidelines.
(c) H~:-vest levels and SUbsistence use data, if applicable.
I: should se inc:.l::!bent upon the APA to docu:nent animal species ,,-i t~in the
project 8oundary. If it is deter:nined that i:npacts to te:-rest:-ial :na:nr.lals or
bird habitat is i2ninent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor-
mation in a ~anner consistent 1;ith the FWS' ~abitat Evaluation Procedures.
4. ~errestrial data collection should include the fOllowing:
(a) '>'eri:1ication of ga.-c.e and r:on-game species use and occu::'rence
wi:hin the project area.
1 . ;·;aru:le. 1 s •
a. ~istorical and current harvest levels and subsistence
use da:a.
b. Si:e-specific wildlife observations, including wild-
life si 5 n, ~enning sites, feeding sites, migration
::'outes, winter use areas, and calving areas.
~. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.
(b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent 0:
each type.
':'he ? .. is req~ests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest si tes are
encQur_tered, the APA should notify the F'w"S. The FlvS seeks "to ::aintain a
330-foot protec:ive zone around all active and inactive nests. Cocpliance
with p::'ovisions of the 3ald Eagle Protecton Act is nar.dato~-.
~e =equest ~~at the following be accomplished during the course of the
st'ldies:
1. ~u::,ing t~e period of project planning, the APA should co~sult ~ith
f9~era:, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fis~ ar:d
wildlife resources of the project area, including t~e ?ish and
·,';::d:'i:e Service, pr:o:-to F:"epa:ri::lg a:1 J" e:lvi:-o:,,_~enta: ::-~.po!'"ts.
2. '='::9 :'.P:'_ 3::a11 investigate and doc\L.lent tr.e possible presence of any
eniangered or threateced s~ecies in the project area. If endangered
of t:'reateC'_ed species are :e:er:.lined to be present, t:1e T .. ,-S should ':Je
~c:i=iej.
/ ,
i
./
f
"
I
/
f
7 .! •
SAINT MICHAEL L-55
~~e A?A stall design and cJnduct at p~oject cost, as soon as p~a8-
:i:::'8.ble, preparatory studies in cooperatio:1 <:ith the F':lS and the
Alzska Ijepart::len t of Fish and Game. Tnese studies s!-Jall include, but
:1ot be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The
s:~jies stall also identify and evaluate general measu~es to avoid,
offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and
,;<;ildlife resources. Info::::ation frJm these fish and , .. ildl::e ~elated
stucies shall be provided to tne concer:1ed state and federal ~esource
e.ge!1cies.
Future cJ~respondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should
include a clea~ me.p, in sufficient detail to show the exact loce.tion 0: the
project.I'his I-rill enable the F'tlS to accurately determi!1e ",;het!',er or not
Interior ma!1aged lands are involved.
It is :he :iesire 0: the F'I'lS to work wi th the APA to resolve a:r.y concerns
relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the
project will result in :-esource ir:lpacts, the F'ors ifill assist the APA i:J.
ztteopti:1g' :0 ::1O:1ify the project to alleviate or ni tigate any aiverse
effec':s.
Please :eel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our
suggested fee.sibility studies.
Sincerely,
~k-V~l
Field Supervisor
SAINT MICHAEL L-56
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment: "Without current site-specific resource information and a
more complete description of the proposed project, it is
difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish
and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information
should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish
and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse
project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to
the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would
prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."
Response: The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but
the most general identification of sites, definition of
project design characteristics, and assessment of
environmental consequences. The level of study effort
suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a
feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report
text is required.
SAINT MICHAEL L-57
J.S -Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
SAINT MICHAEkck.,s~
IT nitcd States Deoartment of the Interior .
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
;~chorage District Office
4700 East 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Alaska Power Authority
334 west 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear ~r. Yould;
RECEiVED
APR -81982
'Af)S'I..A POWER AUTHORITY
APR 6 1982
'Reference your letter dated 3 1·1arch 1982 in which you requested
comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports.
This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that
further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu-
ated at applicable locations.
Generally there is little or no BLH land involved at any sites.
Most locations are native selected or other non-ELM land. h'hen actual
. construction plans formulate land use and otmership will be ceterr:J.ined
on a case by case basis.
The opportunity to co=ent on this report is appreciated. Should
you have further questions feel free to contact me.
SAINT MICHAEL L-59
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.