final report : reconnaissance study of energy requirements and ...

,--Cr~~~~' "===" ~-''''''==:=--'''-====-"===:="'-"'==='=""-"=='=' '_~' __ -=-=' ___ ==:"'=='_ ~~==~=--", - '-_'" ,,-."----I •!i \FINAL REPORT :RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFENERGY REQUIREMENTSAND ALTERNATIVESFOR CORDOVAPREPARED FOR:II THE CITY OF CORDOVAANDSTATE OF ALASKAALASKA POWER AUTHORITYPREPARED BY :,~ 1 ~O!'~O~K~D~Jci~A~Y ALE N GIN E E R I N G COM PAN Y, INC.~ ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DIVISIONANCHORAGE, ALASKAJUNE 1981

ALASKA I-OWEn. AUTUOUITYRECONNAISSANCE STUDYOFEl'-lERGY RmUIREMENrS AND ALTERNATIVESFURCOROOVAFINDINGS AND RE'.CC:MMENDATIONSBA.CKGROUNDThis reconnaissance study addresses the total energy needs of the peoplein Cordova. Prior to this report most studies evaluated a specifical ternati ve to produce energy. An exception was an overall study of theenergy requirements of Cordova conducted by Marks Engineering forCordova Public utilities in 1977. That report recommended adiesel-hydro combination to meet Cordova's needs if the Power Creekhydroelectric potential was feasible. Subsequently, the Corps ofEngineers began a study of the alternatives in the Cordova area whichaddresses Power Creek specifically. Through the Corps' geologicalinvestigations, it has been found that only a run-of-river plant appearsfeasible with the final results of their study due in late spring.Cordova Electric Cooperative cwns, operates, and maintains the poNersystem in U1e Cordova area which consists of five diesel engine drivengenerators totalling 8450 Kw:1 @ 600 Kw 1 @ 1950 Kw1 @ 750 Kw 1 @ 2650 Kw1 @ 2500 Kw (New, installed 1979)Sorre of the units are in poor condition and are considered to beunreliable. After taking account of reserve requirements and unreliableunits, the capacity available to neet peak load requirements is about5000 Kw.In 1980 the peak power demand was approximately 3400 Kw and the totalenergy demand was about 16,400 MNH. The cost of diesel is approxirrately$1. 05/gallon with approximate cost to the residential consumer presentlyat $0.23/kwh.FINDINGSApproxlina.tely 20 percent of the total energy used in Cordova goes towardthe generation of electrical energy. About 26 percent of the totalenergy is used for space heating. In the production of electricalenergy, at least two-thirds of the energy potent.ial is lost in the formof waste heat.The projected electrical peak denBnd for 1985 ranges between 5,700 kwand 4100 kw. The respective energy demands for 1985 are forecast atbetween 26,300 MVH and 18,500 MiH. The range of peak demand for theyear 2000 is 8,000 kw to 16,500 kw. The energy demand for the year 2000

...is projected to range between 27 ,800 ~'WH and 80 ,OOO~. These figuresexclude space heating requirements which, if provided by electricalenergy, would add another 140 ,000 ~ required in the year 2000.Hydroelectric projects, coal-fired generation, transmissioninterconnection, waste heat utilization and cogeneration are among thepower production alternatives available to Cordova.The Silver Lake Hydroelectric developrent alternative would be the lastmajor construction during the planning period and would be expected totie into the transmission line in 1991. The follONing table ShONS thetotal discounted cost of each plan based on a 50 year period of analysis(from initial operation of the last major developrent) and FY 81 PONerAuthority evaluation parameters. The table summarizes the schedulingand cost implications of the most viable alternative plans.mSTS OF ALTERNATE DEVElOPMENT PlANSAlternate PlanDiesel Generation - Base CaseCoal-fired Generation -Carbon CreekDiesel Generation w/waste heatCoal-fired Generation - Healy CoalIntertie/Valdez surplusSilver LakePower Creek, Crater Lakew/ supplemental dieselEar liest Yearof Operation198119831983198319831983AccumulatedPresent Worth168,527,000165,634,000148,968,00093,065,00089,297,00061,720,000The surplus energy cost from the Valdez area was recomputed and found tobe in the range of 4-5 cents per KwH. This cost is somewhat less thanthe 6.25 cents per KwH used by the consultant. The difference is notsufficient to alter the rank order of the alternative plans.TechnicalAll of the alternatives evaluated appear to be technically feasible.The only area of concern is the transmission line between Cordova andValdez. There are three alternative routes which were proposed;(a) submarine cable, (b) along the old EI Paso gas line route, (c) alongCopper River. Each of the alternatives would entail a certain degree ofrisk and there is some question as to the reliability, all of which willimpact the cost.'TWo newer rrethods of transmission are the Single Wire Ground Return(SWGR) and three phase transmission with the utilization of long spanswithout clearings and with helicopter placerrent of towers andconductors. The SWGR has been utilized sarewhat in Alaska and much morein Europe. Three phase transmission without clearing has been utilizedrecently south of Anchorage and poses f~er environrrental problems thanthe conventional three phase transmission line with clearing. This typeof construction may be suitable for the overland routes.

"-The development of a coal fired generating plant in the Cordova area hasthe potential of being econanically feasible utilizing Healy Coal. Itmay require a minimum of one year of air quality data prior to anyconstruction.EnvironrrentalThe coal alternative would probably have the most potential forenvironrrental degradation. Along with air quality constraints, therewould also be the need to treat the water which would run off thestockpiled coal. Although these concerns exist, the technology isavailable to protect the environrrent and still provide energy toCordova.EconanicDiesel generation appears to be the only immediate alternative toproduce energy for Cordova. The cost of continuing with dieselgeneration is expensive and will in all probability continue toescalate. The developrent of a hydroelectric plant, coal plant, and/oran intertie with Valdez could produce energy in the long term forCordova at lesser cost.RFX:.'(M.1ENDATIONSThe Power Authority recommends that a detailed feasibility analysis beconducted to formulate a preferred power supply plan. This analysiswould include the following alternatives:1. Coal-fired generating plant utilizing the least cost coalsource,2. Power Creek run-of-river hydroelectric plant, and3. An intertie betwee.n the cornnuni ties of Cordova and Valdez withthe option of developing hydroelectric sites along the line.The alternatives should be evaluated in a manner which will identify thepreferred sequence of development required to meet the Cordova energydemands for the next twenty years.Eric P. YouldExecutive Director(" \;;, \ ~.0Date: _ \ . \. ,_",A.\

FINAL REPORT:RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVESFOR CORDOVAPresented to:THE CITY OF CORDOVAANDSTATE OF ALASKAALASKA POWER AUTHORITYPrepared by:ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATESDIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY,CONSULTING ENGINEERSANCHORAGE, ALASKAINC.June 1981

PREFACE...This reconnaissance study has been conducted by Robert W. RetherfordAssoci ates to i dent ify the energy requi rement needs of the City ofCordova, Alaska, and to formulate and analyze alternative energy projectsreasonably expected to be available to Cordova through the year 2000.The format of this study report is intended to conform with Alaska PowerAuthority Reconnaissance Study Regulations and incorporates comments ofindividuals and agencies that reviewed the February 1981 draft versionof thi s report.iAPA25/jl

•-..-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to express our thanks to the citizens of the City ofCordova, in both official and private capacities, for their valuableinputs and support of this work. The comments of reviewers of the draftreport have helped significantly in assuring relevance to Cordova'sneeds.Information on coal, oil, gas, and geothermal resources was provided byC. C. Hawley and Associates.....-..........-•...•..APA25/j2ii•-

TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTIONSPAGEI. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYII. ENERGY BALANCEIII. ENERGY REQUIREMENTSIV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESV. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVESVI. EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OF ENERGY ALTERNATIVESVII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1-1II-I111-1IV-lV-IVI-lVII-lAPPENDICESA. ENERGY BALANCE AND REQUIREMENTS - DETAILSB. RESOURCE COSTSC. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROFILESD. ECONOMIC ANALYSES - DETAILSE. BIBLIOGRAPHYF. COMMENTSPAGEA-IB-1C-l0-1E-lF-lAPA25/iiii

LIST OF FIGURES- ..FIGURE# TITLE PAGE1 VICINITY MAP 1-32 CORDOVA PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY BALANCE IN 1979 11-2WI3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS - CITY OF CORDOVA 111-4 ..4 PROJECTED YEARLY ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION - CITY OF ....CORDOVA 111-55 PROJECTED YEARLY PEAK POWER DEMAND - CITY OF CORDOVA 111-6•..6 CITY OF CORDOVA - HEATING PROJECTIONS 111-77 INTERTIE - TRANSMISSION ROUTES AND HYDROELECTRIC SITES IV-78 BERING RIVER COAL FIELD DEVELOPMENT IV-19 •9 PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS VI-3lOa PEAK POWER - DIESEL ONLY SCENARIO - CITY OF CORDOVA VI-4 lIPlOb ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT - DIESEL ONLY SCENARIO - ..CITY OF CORDOVA VI-5 .,11a PEAK POWER - COAL SCENARIO - CITY OF CORDOVA VI-7..litlIb ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT - COAL SCENARIO - CITY..OF CORDOVA VI-812a PEAK POWER - INTERTIE SCENARIO - CITY OF CORDOVA VI-10-..12b ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT - INTERTIE SCENARIO -CITY OF CORDOVA VI-II-13a PEAK POWER - ELECTRICAL HEATING SCENARIO - CITY OF..CORDOVA VI-13..13b ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT - ELECTRIC HEATING-SCENARIO - CITY OF CORDOVA VI-14..14a PEAK POWER - LOCAL HYDRO WITH DIESEL SCENARIO - CITYOF CORDOVA VI-IS..-14b ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT - LOCAL HYDRO WITHDIESEL SCENARIO - CITY OF CORDOVA VI-1615 CITY OF CORDOVA - CURRENT ENERGY USE PROJECTIONS VII-5..16 CITY OF CORDOVA - PROJECTIONS OF CURRENT PETROLEUM •..FUEL USE REPLACEABLE BY OTHER RESOURCES VII-6..17 CITY OF CORDOVA - PROJECTIONS OF CURRENT PETROLEUMFUEL USE WITH GENERATION WASTE HEAT RECOVERY VII-7 ..18 CITY OF CORDOVA - IMPACT OF WASTE HEAT USE VII-8•...MISC13/Ul .,...."",.-.....

LIST OF FIGURESFIGURE#TITLEPAGEB 7-1C.3.2.1-1C.3.4.1-1C.3.5.2-1C.3.5.2-2C.3.5.4-1C.3.6-1C.3.6-2C.3.7-1CITY OF CORDOVA - POWER CREEK vs. DEMANDHYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAMDIAGRAM OF RUDIMENTARY STEAM POWER PLANTJACKET WATER & EXHAUST WASTE HEATRECOVERY SYSTEMJACKET WATER WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMRESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMED FOR VARIOUS SIZESAND TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION - CITY OF CORDOVAWIND TURBINE GENERATORWECS vs. DIESEL GENERATION - 18 kw INDUCTIONGENERATIONHEAT PUMP FOR BUILDING HEATINGB-18C.3.2.1-8C.3.4.1-6C.3.5.2-2C.3.5.2-3C.3.5.4-6C.3.6-2C.3.6-8C.3.7-2MISCI3/U2

iii>;.,..MISCI3/U3 .,••LIST OF TABLES ....TABLE # TITLE PAGEIII!.........V-I FUEL ENERGY CONTENT V-2III!VI-l COST OF ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT PLANS VI-lII!.VI-2 EVALUATION MATRIX - ELECTRIC SCENARIOS VI-22 .,VI-3 EVALUATION MATRIX - NON-ELECTRIC SCENARIOS VI-23 .....III'A-I 1979 PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY BALANCE - CORDOVA AREA A-IA-2 1979 PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY SOURCE AND USE -...,CORDOVA AREA A-2A-3 SUMMARY ELECTRICAL FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000 -CITY OF CORDOVA A-3..•A-4 LOW ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECAST - CITY OF CORDOVA A-4A-5 MEAN ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECAST - CITY OF CORDOVA A-5 .,..A-6 HIGH ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECAST - CITY OF CORDOVA A-6A-7 LOW HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000 -..CITY OF CORDOVA A-7 •A-8 MEAN HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000 --CITY OF CORDOVA A-8A-9 HIGH HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000 -.,CITY OF CORDOVA A-9 •A-I0 CURRENT ENERGY USE PROJECTED TO YEAR 2000 - ...CITY OF CORDOVA A-I0- ..,B.l-lSUMMARY ESTIMATES FOR COST OF CARBON CREEKCOAL PER TON B-3•.....B.I-2 INITIAL GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM TOOUTLINE TARGETS B-4ill!B.I-3 DRILLING PROGRAM TO PROVE RESERVES B-5..B.I-4 CAPITAL COST DETAILS - CONSTRUCTION, TRANS-..PORTATION AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT B-5..B.I-5 MINING EQUIPMENT B-6

LIST OF TABLESTABLE #TITLEPAGEB.1-6B.3-1B.3-2B.4-1B.5-1CAMP FACILITIESHEALY COAL COSTSBARGING COSTSKATALLA OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COSTSPROJECTED SURPLUS MWh AT VALDEZB-6B-88-8B-10B-13C.3.5.2-1C.3.5.2-2WASTE HEAT AVAILABILITYHEATING OIL USEC.3.5.2-4C.3.5.2-6D-1D-2aD-2bD-3D-4D-5D-6aD-6bDIESEL GENERATION ONLY - ECONOMIC ANALYSISDIESEL PLUS INTERTIED SURPLUSPLUS SILVER LAKE HYDRO (SURPLUS ENERGYCOST $0.0625/kWh) - ECONOMIC ANALYSISDIESEL PLUS INTERTIED SURPLUSPLUS SILVER LAKE HYDRO (SURPLUS ENERGYCOST $.Ol/kWh) - ECONOMIC ANALYSISLOCAL HYDRO PLUS DIESEL - ECONOMIC ANALYSISHEALY COAL GENERATION - ECONOMIC ANALYSISCARBON CREEK COAL GENERATION - ECONOMIC ANALYSISELECTRIC HEATING BY INTERTIED HYDRO(SURPLUS ENERGY COST $0.0625/kWh) - ECONOMICANALYSISELECTRIC HEATING BY INTERTIED HYDRO (SURPLUSENERGY COST $.Ol/kWh) - ECONOMIC ANALYSISD-1D-2D-3D-4D-5D-6D-7D-8MISC13/U4

I. INTRODUCTION ANDSUMMARYI. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY1. IntroductionCordova, population about 2500, is located on the east side of Alaska1sPrince William Sound, on the Orca Inlet. Elevation ranges from sealevel to 400 feet and the marine influenced climate ranges from a Januaryaverage temperature of 26°F to a July average of 54°F. Rai nfall isheavy, with an annual average precipitation of 90 inches (over 7 feet).The area1s economy is chiefly supported by fishing and crabbing activitiesin the Prince William Sound and by the long and diversified canningand freezing season for this harvest.Cordova, like many communities in Alaska, depends almost entirely onimported petroleum products for its electrical energy and heating needs.As the continually escalating cost of petroleum fuels in small Alaskacommunities is among the highest in the United States, it is obviousthat high priority should be given to developing community independencefrom these fuels or, at least, reducing community dependence on petroleumby implementation of reasonable alternatives.Without at least astabilization of energy costs in the near term, Cordova risks significantloss of population and industry to other, cheaper energy sites.This final report describes work performed at a reconnaissance level toidentify and evaluate the suitability of utilizing various existingand potential non-petroleum energy resources for the Cordova area.This report is based on reconnaissance investigations, verbal communicationswith people who live in and are familiar with the area, informationavailable from existing reports, publications and maps, comments ofreviewers, and engineering calculations and estimations.The overall study area discussed in this report is shown on Figure 1.APA24/klI-I

2. SummaryI. INTRODUCTION ANDSUMMARY-• Preparation of profiles for energy alternatives for Cordova,the i r comb i nat ion into reasonab 1 e a 1 ternat i ve plans, andtechnical, economic, and environmental analyses of these plans.• Recommendations for specific data collection programs andfeasibility level studies required to increase the confidenceof analyses.--••••..The work reported on in this study consists of the following:••Performance of site reconnaissance and data gathering.Establishment of an energy balance for Cordova.• Forecast of e 1 ectri ca 1 energy and peak power requi rementsfor the area to the year 2000...•....-..~"..- - ..APA24/k21-2

I I.ENERGY BALANCEI I.ENERGY BALANCEIn order to establish a basic picture of energy use in the Cordova area,a petroleum based energy balance has been compiled for the year 1979, thelast year for which full year data was available. Energy forms used arediesel fuel, gasoline, #1 fuel oil, aviation gasoline, and propane.It is recognized that coal, wood, wind, and natural gas are energy sourceswhich have been used on a small scale; utilization data was available onlyfor wood, however. In the past few years, many residents of Cordovahave installed wood stoves for primary and secondary heating uses. Thepresent use of wood in Cordova is estimated to be between 800 and 1000cords per year, equivalent to about 17.1 x 10 9 Btu per year based onU. S. Forest Service estimates for spruce. Wood energy consumed inCordova, then, amounts to a little less than 2 percent of annualpetroleum use; it is projected to maintain this level through theyear 2000 and not significantly impact the development of non-petroleumbased alternative energy plans.The following pictorial graph (Figure 2) summarizes the petroleum basedenergy balance in Cordova and the immediately surrounding area by energyform and end-use category. The data used as the basis for this graph istabulated in Appendix A. Data was obtained from several local sources andbest estimates were made for some aspects of the breakdown shown in Figure 2 ....APA24/LlII-I

ENERGY ASWASTE HEATEFFICIENCIES ASSUMED:TRANSPORTATION 30 %ELECTRIC GENERATION 30 %INDUSTRY* a HEATING 70 %* FISH PROCESSING6r--r.G~A~SONL~I~N~E--~~O~T~HE~R~TR~A~N~S~P~O~R~TA~J~IO~N~I~.~IO~.~~~S;~T AV GAS 19.2%AL1.3xI0 6 GAL.E BOAT TRANSPORTATION 36.1 %NE~ DIESEL FUE LY #1 HEATING FUELINDUSTRY, " ",/ / /7.9 %C PROPANEo 80.8%N 5.2x106 GAL.SU.~HEATING 25.7%;/" /////~~ ________ E]~ruffiggruffiggillllffiffi~~~~~~~~~~~DCORDOVA PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY BALANCE IN 1979FIGURE 2ENERGYUTILIZED'1 , , f. , f Ir , t • " • , , • 'I " , , ,. , ,'. '1 , • , , "

III.ENERGY REQUIREMENTSIII. ENERGY REQUIREMENTSThe future energy needs of Cordova to the year 2000 were projected basedon the high, low and mean population growth scenarios shown in Figure 3.These population growth projections are based on projections made forOuter Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing impacts as follows: low = no OCSimpact scenario; mean = most probable OCS impact scenario; and high =maximum probable OCS impact scenario.The growth projections used in this study were selected after review ofexi st -j ng appropri ate studi es i ndi cated that the growth proj ect ionsarrived at in the Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Technical ReportNumber 33, October 1979, were the most reasonable. In the low projection,it is assumed that there will be no OCS leasing and that approximatelyhalf of the new growth for Cordova would come from new developments andimprovements in the fish processing industry, while the other half wouldcome through development of the local service sector. The mean and highgrowth projections use the same growth bases as above. In addition,they assume that Cordova will serve as a home base for the work force ofa marine oil terminal on Hinchinbrook Island; the sharp increase inpopulation noted on the curves is a result of marine terminal constructionand this home base activity. The high growth projection curve incorporatesthe assumptions that the impact of the Hinchinbrook terminal will beabout twice as great as the mean case and will occur later in the 1980·s.The growth in power need for the last two decades has greatly surpassedthe growth in population for the City of Cordova. This is consistentwith the increase in fishing and seafood processing activities in thearea.The Cordova Public Utilities board operates and maintains the powersystem whi ch extends from the southwestern shore of Eyak Lake nearAPA24/rlII I-I

III.ENERGY REQUIREMENTSCopper River Highway, south to Three Mile Bay, north to the MunicipalDock, and east to Cordova Airport on Mile 13 of Copper River Highway.The existing plant contains the following diesel engine driven generators:Total capacityLess Largest Unit = -2650 kWIIFirm" Capacity = 5800 kW1 @ 600 kW1 @ 750 kW1 @ 1950 kW1 @ 2650 kW1 @ 2500 kW (new, installed 1979)= 8450 kWDue to the poor and unreliable condition of some of the units, the truefirm capacity is estimated to be approximately 5,000 kW.The existing firm capacity is such that no new generation facilitieswill be required until 1985 to meet the projected system peak demand.Figures 4 and 5 show the estimated yearly total electrical energy consumptionand corresponding peak power demands for the three population growthcases; the data used to create these figures are tabulated in Appendix A..,....•....•..-..In making these electrical projections, certain key factors and assumptionsinfluenced trends. These fqctors are:• Actual population growth based on census figures has historicallybeen less than projected figures. Use of the OuterContinental Shelf leasing impact scenarios discussed was usedas the most realistic base of projection.• The seafood process i ng industry is expected to grow at aslower rate than population because of impacts of high energycosts. While the total volume of processing is assumed toincrease slightly, the increased use of freezing rather thancanning by many processors is expected to increase the amounts•'"..-IIIAPA24/r2111-2• ..

III.ENERGY REQUIREMENTSof energy used by the processors.It should be noted thatonly one large processor has plans for expansion; the othersexpressed concern that rising fuel prices might drive themout of business in Cordova.• Chugach Alaska Fisheries, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiaryof Chugach Natives, Inc., at present has its own electricalgeneration capability.Negotiations are presently in processfor addition of this generating load to the Cordova ElectricalCooperative system in 1983; in our projections a demand of 1 MWand load of 1.6 MWhannually have been included in the 1983 figuresand projected thereafter at the same growth rate as otherfishing related activities.• No known plans currently exist for new commercial or industrialfacilities to be constructed in Cordova. We have consideredit realistic that one new commercial/industrial facilitywould come on line in 1992 with a maximum demand of 600 kWand annual electrical load of 1 MWh.• Growth in the government (public) sector is expected to besteady at a rate lower than that of popul ati on increase.• The rate of increase in per consumer residential electricaluse has slowed in recent years due to the ri sing cost ofelectricity.This trend is projected to continue untilcheaper alternatives are realized.In line with the risingcost of energy, consumers are expected to implement reasonableenergy conservation measures.In order to examine all petroleum based energy uses in Cordova that canreasonably be replaced with other energy sources, projections were madefor heating requirements in both British thermal units (Btu) and thenumber of MWh that would be required for electrical provision of suchheat. Figure 6 shows the heating requirements; projections are tabulatedin Appendix A.APA24/r3III-3

55000004 !5004 O~--~............z 3 ""..,o...-c 2500..J~CLo 2CL 0"" ..,...500000500-1 --I- --"----t------+ IU-I-r--tI-----rjI~--- - --- -..,g"'f #/I ~. i""""""'" --MEANd .-~ ~.- t----HIGH/ --- ,--~_. LOW.... -....01980981 ,1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000YEARPOPULATION PROJCTIONSCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 3, .r 1 , I , I , I ,.,' ,. ,. ••'I ,. '11, , I 11 IF' I ,'I "

8 07 5,~7 v6 ~6 05 5/~/ v/ VJV/ '/5 0~,.,3 ~3 02 52 05V"""~ ,. V-~ .V./ VV ~./----- _.---I-'"_.r----- ------.--/V L,/V '\ ~H'GH-1-- .--AV~ .... V--flMEAN./--- ----"I----- . ~ ~.-.1-I.. --...... 1.---rtLOW~ .. ~PROJECTED YEARLYELECTRIC CONSUMPTIONCITY OF CORD~FIGURE

'",",17'''''''''--~14 00013 000Innt'I,-100010 000t 9 ."""": '--_....--7 0006 OO~~O4 0 ........~~- - ..-/V~ ~ --- -~-----1-~~ ~ .....1-~.----~ 1'--'-~ ~- ---/./ ViI""lX~~/ HIGH)/ vV~V ,.,.""./ // V/ /.....-- ~."",-,.-~/,....-~ ... ,-~ .v LOW.."",.~,.-.J,. ... MEAN ~..",.,. ~~ ..,.",..".. ~ ..,.""..-- '"~10-.""'-PROJECTED YEARLY PEAKPOWER DEMANDCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 51980 I_I 1S'82 1983 1'B4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000YEAR",. ,. 1'1 ,. II.' II rl '1'1 I. ,e"" '. f,""/l~

"' ;I I I I II I I I ,I---Q:.....J500.... 400CD~oI-I--- 300~2501980;::-----I-~;:.;------I ~IY--~1982 1984 1986 1988~ ~~ v./ ~--V ".."", . ~ -",- ~V.".",." ~EAN ./~~ ~~,/./Kow .'~.--- ~.~ -CITY OF CORDOVAHEATING PROJECTIONSFIGURE 61990 1992 1994 1996 1991 2000

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESIV.ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESThe following energy and power resource alternatives for Cordova wereexamined in the course of this study:• hydroelectricity• coal• oil and gas• geothermal• wind• solar• tidal• biomass• waste heat and cogeneration• conservation• other resourcesThese resource alternatives are briefly described in the remainder ofthis section. Appendix B contains amplified descriptions and costingdetails concerning those energy resources found potentially suitablefor Cordova's twenty year electrical needs and/or heating needs;"resources" locally suitable for heating applications as cascadedor secondary uses, such as waste or low grade heat applications, arediscussed in detail in Appendix C.1. Hydroelectric Resourcesa. Large Hydroelectric SitesThere are several large hydroelectric sites along the Copper Riverdrainage which conceivably could be developed at some future time. Arecent listing (Alaska Power Administration) giving the hydroelectricpotential of these Copper River sites shows the following:(1) Million Dollar - 440,000 kW(2) Cleve - 820,000 kW(3) Woods Canyon - 3,600,000 kWAPA25/AlIV-l

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESWithin the perspective of this study these hydro sites are not consideredas potential energy sources for Cordova due to substantialenvironmental barriers, and the fact that these projects would befar too large for Cordova's requirements.b. Run-of-River Hydroelectric DevelopmentA run-of-river hydroelectric development at Power Creek could conceivablybe developed in two stages: a first stage of 6600 kW and a secondstage of 6000 kW capacity. The dam would be near stream Mile 3.0 (upstreamof Ohman Falls) and the powerhouse would be near Mile 2.0.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' investigations to date regarding abaseline 6000 kW run-of-river project indicate potential project feasibility.The Corps has test drilled two Power Creek hydro sites and isscheduled to test drill the third (Ohman Falls) during the summer ofthis year; the first two drilled sites were ruled out due to the extremedepth to bedrock. The Corps is also studying the second stage developmentfor Power Creek and the possibility of a storage project at thesame Ohman Falls site.Only the first stage conceptual development of 6600 kW run-of-riverPower Creek plant is considered for further analysis in this reconnaissancestudy.A run-of-river hydroelectric development on the Copper River appearstoo complex for serious consideration as a viable energy alternative.A cursory review of some of the problems and environmental concernsare:(1) The minimum economic head for a bulb turbine is about 15 feet.The gradient of the lower Copper River is approximately 5 feetper mile. With a head of 15 feet, the flow requirements areapproximately one cfs per kW or 5000 cfs for a 5 MW unit. Arun-of-river plant would require a long pipeline of large diameteror a barrage across the river to develop the head..'.....'..•.,..•.,•••..••....•...........,..APA2S/A2IV-2..

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES(2) There are numerous glacier-dammed lakes in the basin, andbreakout flooding from these lakes has caused large floodflowsin the lower Copper River.(3) Past experience on bridge destruction by spring ice flowsindicates any structure in the Copper River would have toresist these strong forces.(4) Winter icing would result in seasonal operation without adeep reservoir to draw from.(5) The Copper River is by far the most important salmon fisheryin the area. The construction of a barrage would requiresuitable fishways. Pipeline construction with associatedblasting would have to be carefully monitored to controlsiltation and shock waves while fish are in the river.(6) The cost of low head hydroelectric plants are usually marginalunder far more favorable conditions.c. Transmission Intertied Small Hydroelectric SitesA transmission intertie between Cordova and Valdez could provide for anexchange of electrical energy and capacity and also provide connectionto a series of potential hydroelectric sites that exist in the regionbetween the two communities.Estimates of surplus energy available at Valdez are subject to considerablevariation depending on developmental assumptions made. The Corps ofEngineers reports that their recent study for Valdez shows that surplusenergy would become available after the completion of the Solomon Gulchhydroelectric project and, with the addition of energy available frominstallation and operation of the proposed Pressure Reducing Turbine(PRT) in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, would remain available until theValdez-Glennallen area needs additional power in 1990 for winter peakdemands.APA25/A3IV-3

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESThe PRT is a system for recovering energy from the pipeline by using thepressure developed by change in pipeline elevation on the south side ofThompson Pass to turn a turbine and generate electricity. PRT energy isconsidered a secondary (interruptable) energy source; but offers significantshort range energy potential until the supply of oil from theNorth Slope is depleted.A currently uncompleted study by Robert W. Retherford Associates for theCopper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), serving the Valdez-Glennallenareas, is investigating surplus energy available to CVEA from the SolomonGulch hydroelectric project and operation of the proposed PRT. Energyforecasts based on CVEA growth projections for the area, current pipelineflow rates, and oil supply expectations from 1983 to 1996 were developedfor that study. Projections derived in that study are used in thisstudy and are detailed in Appendix B; they provide a reasonable assumptionbase for surplus projections and are not at significant variance withother plans.If a transmission intertie between Cordova and Valdez could be madefeasible there would be substantial benefits to both communities immediatelyand increasing benefits as hydro sites along the route are developed.Major benefits include balancing of energy demands, sharing of reserves,and increasing reliability.-..........•.,-•Three general corridors can be found that represent physically possibleroutes for such an interconnection. They are described briefly asfollows:(1) Submarine route following the eastern perimeter of PrinceWilliam Sound from Cordova to Valdez - a distance of approximately84 miles (3 miles of which is overhead line)...1Iiio,-APA25/A4IV-4

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES(2) An overland route on a portion of the eastern perimeter ofPrince William Sound crossing from the head of Port Fidalgo tothe Lowe River via the approximate routing proposed in 1974 bythe El Paso Alaska Company for a 42-inch diameter gas line - adistance of about 59 miles.(3) An overland route following the Copper River Highway to theTasnuna River, up that river, over Marshall Pass and down theLowe River to Valdez - a distance of about 130 miles.All three routes and the hydro sites are shown on Figure 7, Intertie -Transmission Route and Hydroelectric Sites.The submarine Route (1) is substantially longer and could not readilyconnect with the series of potential hydroelectric sites along the way.To use such a cable system at AC voltages would require sUbstantialcompensation (shunt reactors) at several points along the route. Thecable system would need to come up to shore for connections to suchcompensation stations. A DC submarine system would not require compensation,could use lower voltage cables, but could not readily connectto the hydro sites along the route.The long overland Route (3) is clearly much more expensive, but may bemore accessible depending on the final route chosen to complete theCopper River Highway. There are several streams and lakes along theroute which could be considered potential hydroelectric sites. A briefdiscussion of the most promising of these sites is presented as follows:(1) Van Cleve Lake at elevation 801 is apparently dammed by MilesGlacier. The lake has a large drainage area. However, thesurface is approximately 200 feet below the ice dam. A possibilityexists that top of bedrock controls the elevation ofthe lake and runoff occurs under the ice of Miles Glacier. Ifthis is indeed the case, development would requireAPA25/A5IV-5

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESa tunnel approximately 5 miles in length and a lake tap. Thewriter cannot find any information on the lake depth to computestorage capacity or the nature of the outlet. With only500 feet of head, this lake does not warrant recommending asa feasible site at this time.(2) Tiekel River from the junction with the Tsina River (Mile 13.9)to its mouth, flows through a rugged canyon and falls about55 feet per mile. A dam approximately 100 feet high located atriver mile 10.5 would provide a usable storage of about 50,000acre-feet which would regulate the flow to yield a sustaineddischarge of 250 cfs. A tunnel 6.5 miles in length to a powerhouseat river mile 4.1 would develop a total head of 700 feet.About 10,000 kW of prime power could be generated.....--.......This plan would involve relocating a portion of the RichardsonHighway and the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. For this reasonalone, the Tiekel River is not considered further as a primesource of energy.Without the storage reservoir, development would be run-ofriverand seasonal in nature. This type of development doesnot appear feasible due to the long tunnel required todevelop sufficient head.(3) Cleave Creek, Heiden Canyon, Brown Creek and Sheep Creekdo not have feasible hydroelectric sites along them, eithernow or in the foreseeable future. Nearly all of theusable head would have to be developed by a high dam or anextremely long flume or tunnel and would be a seasonaloperation as storage capacity is very limited.-.,..-----..APA25/A6IV-6

LEGEND:............---INTERTIE ROUTE 1INTERTIE ROUTE 2INTERTIE ROUTE 3BERING RIVER COAL POWERTRANSMISSION ROUTESILVER LAKE TRANSMISSIONROUTEROUTES & HYDROELECTRICSITESFIGURE - 7

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESOf the three, Route (2) is considered the only potentially viableroute within the perspective of this study which considers electricalloads up to about 50,000 kW (including electric heat). This route withits length of 59 miles is the shortest and lowest cost routing, but itdoes have more difficult access than the other two routings. Route (2)passes within easy reach of a number of small hydroelectric sites. Abrief discussion of these sites with estimated power capacity andannual energy production follows. The sites are listed in order fromCordova towards Valdez.(1) Sheep River LakesLocation: - A chain of three lakes, elevation 2,026, 1,022and 649, discharge into Sheep River at mile 1.0 in Section 23,Range 4 West, Township 13 South, Copper River Meridian. Theupper and middle lakes outlets are in Section 21 and the lowerlake outlet is in Section 22.Drainage area: - The upper lake has a drainage area of0.75 square miles; the middle lake has a drainage area of2.0 square miles; and the lower lake has a drainage area of4.0 square miles as measured from the U.S.G.S. map "Cordova(C-6) Alaska", 1963 revision.Run off: - Discharge measurements have not been made for anyof these lake outlets. The mean discharge is estimated tobe in the same order as Power Creek near Cordova which hasan average discharge of 12 cfs per square mile over a 32year run-off record period. The average discharge is conservativelyestimated as 9 cfs for the upper lake, 24 cfsfor the middle lake and 48 cfs for the lower lake.APA25/A8IV-8

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESRegulation: - Complete regulation is not considered economicallyfeasible for the watershed. The upper lake would require4500 acre-feet of storage by raising the lake level 175 feet;the middle lake would require 8700 acre-feet by raising thelake level 210 feet; and the lower lake would require 13,900acre-feet by raising the lake level 230 feet. Lake taps arenot considered feasible for these small developments.A dam raising the upper lake level 85 feet would provide80% regulation; the middle lake level raised 78 feet wouldprovide 75% regulation; and the lower lake level raised51 feet would provide 70% regulation....,.'... ,..•Dam Sites: - A field reconnaissance of the power sites hasnot been made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360suggests that a plan similar to the following is feasible.The upper lake level would be raised 85 feet with a rockfilldam and a 16-inch diameter penstock 2,400 feet in lengthwould convey the water from the dam to the powerhouse atelevation 1,100 on the maximum shoreline of the middle lake.The middle lake would be raised 78 feet with a rockfill damand a 24-inch diameter penstock 1,000 feet in length wouldconvey the water from the dam to a powerhouse at elevation700 on the maximum shoreline of the lower lake. The lowerlake would be raised 51 feet with a rockfill dam and a36-inch diameter penstock 2,600 feet in length would conveythe water from the dam to a powerhouse on the Sheep River atelevation 50.•....-......--..APA25/A9Power Capacity: - The power capacity for the upper lake isestimated at 480 kW pr"imary and 600 kW average; power capacityfor the middle lake is estimated at 425 kW primary and 570kW average, and the power capacity for the lower lake isestimated at 1,411 kW primary and 2,016 kW average. The totalcapacity for the three lake development is 2,316 kW primaryIV-9-.....It

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESand 2,581 kW average. This would provide about 20,288 MWh ofprime energy and 2,312 MWh of secondary energy annually.(2) Lake 1488 Elevation - Near Beartrap BayLocation: - The lake is located mainly in Sections 9 and 10,of Range 4 West, Township 13 South, Copper River Meridian.The discharge stream is a tributary to the main creekthat discharges into the upper end of Beartrap Bay.Drainage Area: - There is 3.0 square miles of drainage areainto the lake as measured from the U.S.G.S. map "Cordova0-6) Alaska", 1965 revision.Run-off: - Discharge measurements have not been made.mean discharge is estimated to be in the same order as PowerCreek near Cordova which has an average discharge of 12 cfsper square mile over a 32 year runoff record period.average discharge is estimated at 36 cfs.TheTheRegulation; - Complete regulation would require a storagecapacity of 16,940 acre-feet. This would require raising thelake level about 100 feet. Raising the lake level 37 feetwould provide about 5,550 acre-feet of storage and 75%regulation.Dam Site: - A field reconnaissance of the power site has notbeen made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360 suggestsa plan similar to the following is feasible. A rockfilldam near the outlet raising the normal maximum lake levelto elevation 1,525 would provide storage for 75% regulation.A 30-inch diameter penstock 3200 feet in length would conveythe water westerly from the dam to a powerhouse at elevation150. The average effective head would be about 1,325 feet.APA25/A10IV-10

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESPower capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 2,505kW primary and 3,340 kW average. This would provide about21,940 MWh of prime energy and 7,320 MWh of secondary energyannually...•..(3) Dead Creek - Gravina River TributaryLocation: - The Dead Creek power site is located in Section 7,Range 4 West, Township 12 South, Copper River Meridian.Dead Creek discharges into Gravina River at river mile 4.5.The dam site is 0.5 stream miles from the mouth of Dead Creek.Drainage Area: - There are 35 square miles of drainage areaabove the dam site as measured from the U.S.G.S map "Cordova(0-6) Alaska", 1965 revision.III

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESPower capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 5,730kW primary and 7,644 kWaverage. This would provide about50,195 MWh of prime energy and 16,767 MWh of secondary energyannually.Remarks: - The Alaska Department of Fish and Game reportsthat the Gravina River supports a good run of pink and chumsalmon. Fish mitigation measures, probably in the form of ahatchery, may be required for Dead Creek hydro development.A dock and approximately four miles of construction accessroad and clearing of the reservoir are other factors to beconsidered.(4) Lake 1975 Elevation - Dead Creek TributaryLocation: - Lake 1975 is located in Section 31, Range 5 West,Township 11 South, Copper River Meridian. The outlet streamdischarges into Dead Creek at stream mile 1.2.Drainage Area: - There is 0.80 square miles of drainage areainto the lake as measured from the U.S.G.S map "Cordova (0-6)Alaska, 1965 revision.Run-off: - Discharge measurements have not been made. It isestimated that the runoff in the area is 12 cfs per squaremile or an average discharge of 9.6 cfs.Regulation: - Complete regulation would require 5,200 acrefeetof storage. About 900 acre-feet of storage could beobtained by raising the normal maximum water surface toelevation 2,000 which would provide about 45% regulation ofthe runoff.APA25/AI2IV-12

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESDarn Site: - A field reconnaissance of the power site has notbeen made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360 suggestsa plan similar to the following may be feasible. A rockfilldam raising the lake to a normal maximum water surface of2,000 feet elevation would provide storage for 45% regulation.A 16-inch diameter penstock 3,700 feet in length would conveythe water to a power house at elevation 350 in the DeadCreek valley. The average effective head would be about1,600 feet...-..•..Power Capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 484kW primary and 1,075 kW average. This would provide about4,240 MWh of prime energy and 5,177 MWh of secondary energyannually.(5) Lake 1878 Elevation - Fidalgo Creek TributaryLocation: - The lake outlet is located in Section 22, Range 5West, Township 11 South, Copper River Meridian. The outletstream discharges into Fidalgo Creek at stream mile 4.1.Drainage Area: - There are 2.25 square miles of drainagearea at the outlet of the lake as measured from the U.S.G.S.map "Cordova (0-6) Alaska", 1965 revision.•.....,.....,..APA25/A13Run-off: - Discharge measurements have not been made. It isestimated that the runoff in the area is 12 cfs per squaremile or an average discharge of 27 cfs.Regulation: - Complete regulation would require 14,600acre-feet of storage. Raising the normal maximum water surfaceto elevation 1,950 would provide 3,600 acre-feet of storageand provide for 50% regulation.IV-13II'..-........

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESDam Site: - A field reconnaissance of the power site has notbeen made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360 suggestsa plan similar to the following may be feasible. A rockfilldam raising the lake to a normal maximum water surface of 1,950feet elevation would provide storage for 50% regulation. A26-inch diameter penstock 5,300 feet in length would conveythe water from the dam to a powerhouse located at the 500 footcontour in the Fidalgo Creek basin. The average effectivehead would be about 1,375 feet.Power Capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 1,300kW primary and 2,600 kW average. This would provide about11,388 MWh of prime energy and 11,388 MWh of secondary energyannually.(6) Fidalgo Creek - Run of River Plant.Location: -The dam site is located in Section 15, Range 5West, township 11 South, Copper River Meridian. The powerhouselocation is approximately 1,100 feet downstream fromthe dam at the 500 foot contour.Drainage Area: - There are 7.5 square miles of drainage areaabove the dam site as measured from the U.S.G.S. map "Cordova(0-6) Alaska," 1965 revision.Run-Off: - Discharge measurements have not been made. Itis estimated that the runoff in the area is 12 cfs per squaremile or an average discharge of 90% cfs.Regulation: - the site does not provide sufficient storagefor regulation. Preliminary estimates are made by utilizing50% of the water over a 6-month period.APA25/A14IV-14

APA25/A15IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESDam Site: - A field reconnaissance of the power site has notbeen made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360 suggestsa plan similar to the following may be feasible providingno transmission costs are charged to the project. A rockfilldam at the 600 foot contour that would provide a normalmaximum water surface at the 900 foot elevation would providefor most of the potential head. A 36-inch diameter penstockapproximately 1,100 feet in length would convey the water fromthe dam to a powerhouse at the 500 foot elevation. The averageeffective head would be about 360 feet.Power Capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 1,140 kWannual average utilized in a 6-month period. This would provideabout 10,000 MWh of secondary energy annually.(7) Silver Lake - Duck RiverLocation: - The lake outlet is located in Section 6, Range 7 West,Township 11 South, Copper River Meridian. Duck River dischargesinto The·Lagoon off Galena Bay in Section 1, Range 8 West,Township 11 South, Copper River Meridian.Drainage Area: - There are 25 square miles of drainage areaat the lake outlet as measured from U.S.G.S. map IICordova(0-7) Alaska,1I 1965 revision.Run-off: - The U.S. Geological Survey gaged Duck River forthe 7-month period, June through December in 1913. The totaldischarge was 158,690 acre-feet for this period or 5,943.4acre-feet per square mile. The average discharge of PowerCreek for these months are 154,710 acre-feet or 7,546.8IV-15.......•••Ill

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESacre-feet per square mile. This insufficient data indicatesthat the discharge per square mile is 79% of that for PowerCreek on 9.5 cfs per square mile. A lower discharge per squaremile is expected as the basin is protected on the south, east,and north by mountains. For this preliminary study, 9.5 cfsper square mile or an average discharge from Silver Lake of237.5 cfs is used.Regulation: - Complete regulation would require 90,000 acrefeetof storage. Raising the normal maximum water surfaceto elevation 395 would provide 102,000 acre-feet of storage.Dam Site: - A field reconnaissance of the power site has notbeen made, but a study of the U.S.G.S. map 1:63,360 suggestsa plan similar to the following would be feasible. A rockfilldam at the lake outlet raising the normal maximum water surfacefrom elevation 306 to 395 would provide storage for completeregulation. A 76-inch diameter pipeline 5,300 feet in lengthwould convey the water from the dam to a surge tank on thehill overlooking The Lagoon. A penstock 1,100 feet in lengthwould then convey the water to the powerhouse at tidewaterapproximately 1,000 feet south of the mouth of Duck River.The average effective head would be about 335 feet.Power Capacity: - The power capacity is estimated at 5,645kW prime and average power. This would provide about49,450 MWh of prime energy annually.Transmission Line: - A transmission line approximately18 miles long would need to be constructed between thehydroelectric site and the intertie transmission line.Because the terrain is similar to the intertie route itis envisioned that configuration, construction methods,and costs would be similar to the intertie transmissionline.APA25/A16IV-16

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESStudies of possible single wire ground return (SWGR) electric lines havebeen made which show potential benefits for transmission systems undersome conditions. There is a small demonstration SWGR project operatingtoday that is successfully delivering electricity from Bethel to Napakiak.The project is also demonstrating a single phase to three phase stateof-the-artconverter which is in use supplying three phase power to theBIA school in Napakiak. Construction costs for the line to Napakiakwere found to be about one third of the cost of conventional construction...The transmission system of Route (2) could obtain substantial savings inthe line costs by using this SWGR concept. Without an in-depth analysis,it is estimated that the overhead line costs can be reduced by up to onefifthand that the single phase sUbstations will cost 70% of the threephase equivalent. To these costs must be added the estimated singlephase to three phase conversion costs.In summary, a potentially feasible transmission intertie to connect theCordova and Valdez areas is represented by Route (2). Along this routeare potential hydroelectric sites which could supply energy. The intertiecould provide the opportunity to share capacity reserves and developlower cost energy in the communities of Cordova and Valdez.d. Local Small Hydroelectric DevelopmentCrater Lake, close to Cordova, offers the possibility of a 435 kW primepowerplant with high head. Only a small dam would be required to damthe neck of the lake.•.....,..• ..,- ...It should be noted that the cannery at Orca has a water right of onecubic foot per second; a dual purpose water supply and hydropowerproject is attractive for Crater Lake discharge toward Orca.APA25/A17IV-I7..•••

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES2. Coal ResourcesCoal is a viable alternative energy resource for Cordova. Two sourcesof coal for Cordova have been considered. 1) the Bering River CoalFields east of the Copper River Delta, and 2) the Healy Coal Fieldssouth of Fairbanks. Without large scale development for a world market,the Bering River Coal Fields, with an estimated delivered cost of $120 perton, do not appear capable of delivering coal or energy to Cordova atcompetitive prices. The coal from the Usibelli Mine at Healy could bedelivered to Cordova in 1981 for about $45/ton. The near future development(5-8 years) of the Beluga Coal Fields on Cook Inlet may reducethe cost of delivered coal still further.Despite the projected high cost of Bering River coal, these fields areof great local interest and, consequently, are reported on in somedetail following. Development and production costs are identified inAppendix B.The Bering River Coal Fields are located 55 miles east of Cordova in therugged terrain around Kushtaka Mountain (see Figure 8). Exposures ofcoal have been mapped over an area of 45 square miles. While the fieldshave been investigated several times over the years by various governmentaland private agencies and some small scale mining took place inthe early 1900 1 s, several problems have plagued development: 1) accessto a good shipping point is difficult; 2) the coal is faulted and foldedto the extent that it is difficult to follow anyone seam for more thana few hundred feet; 3) high annual precipitation, deep snowpacks, avalanching,flooding, and high winds are common in the area; and 4) recently,many of the lands through which access might pass have been classifiedas environmentally sensitive.Despite these problems, the fields still hold an allure. This is principallybecause estimated reserves are great (Sanders, 1976, estimatedspeculative resource for a 2 square mile area near Carbon Creek at 1.6million short tons) and the quality of the coal is very high, yielding10-15,000 Btu/lb.APA25/A18IV-18

1I!t'$i'•...BERING RIVERCOAL FIELD DEVELOPMENTFIGURE!ISI!II'......,........ ""..••..•.......-..••......'........ '....• ..

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESThe best known deposits in the Bering River area are those adjacent toCarbon Creek, which flows southwesterly along Kushtaka Ridge. The coalsare Tertiary in age and range in grade from semibituminous to semianthracite.The coal ranges in heat content from 10,000 to 15,000 Btu/lb.,has an average moisture content of 4% or less, and a relatively low ashand sulfur content. It should be noted that because of the shearednature of the deposits, considerable mixing of the coal with the countryrock may be expected. If washing is not effective in removing theforeign material, the overall character of the product will suffer.The coal is exposed on the surface in isolated pods and lenses thatusually occur near the apex of folds or along associated faults. Thethickness and persistence of beds is so variable that Sanders estimatescoal-to-waste ratios for a small mine may run as high as 1:20. Anymining operation would have to be prepared to handle vast quantities ofwaste rock. A vigorous exploration program would be necessary to keepahead of mining. Hydraulic mining methods, such as those used at theKaiser Mine in British Columbia, have been suggested for the Carbon Creekcoals. The abundance of natural ground water expected in any undergroundoperation may become a positive factor for hydraulic mininginstead of a negative one for traditional mining techniques.In the unlikely case that Bering River coal is mined, a mine mouth plantcould be constructed for 25-50% more cost than a plant at Cordova. Ifthe mine mouth power plant was built in the Carbon Creek area, a transmissionline approximately 63 miles in length would be required todeliver the electric power to the Cordova diesel plant vicinity.The transmission line route would be mostly at elevations below 100 feetand would roughly parallel the road system that would connect the coalmining area to Cordova. About 37 miles of this road system alreadyexists (a portion of the Copper River Highway). (See Figures 7 and 8).APA25/A20IV-20

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES3. Oi 1 and Gas ResourcesThe potential for economic exploitation of oil and gas resources within theimmediate vicinity of Cordova in the near future is low. The Katallaoil fields, about 50 miles southeast of Cordova, have produced oil inthe past, but current exploration and development costs would be extremelyhigh in relation to expected production. There is good potential forpetroleum reservoirs in the eastern Gulf of Alaska from 50 to 100 milesaway, although initial stratigraphic test wells in the closer, westernparts of this province have shown discouraging results. While developmentof these fields would undoubtedly bring indirect economic benefits toCordova, world demand will regulate price and thus direct savings on thecost of fuel is unlikely. The Copper River Basin (120 miles inland) israted very low in potential for oil and gas and is hardly any closerthan currently producing wells in Cook Inlet. A closer look at theproblems confronting the exploitation of the Katalla oil fields follows.Oil and gas from seeps along the shore were reported at Katalla in 1853.Between 1920 and 1933, the Katalla area produced a total of 154,000barrels of oil from 16 shallow wells ranging in depth from 300 feet to2000 feet. The light (37.96 API), clean (O.OO%+S) oil furnished fueland lubrication oil to Cordova and the McCarthy copper mines until therefinery at Katalla burned down in 1933. Since that time there has beenno recorded production. Through the years, claims and/or leases havebeen held by Chilkat Oil Company, Standard Oil of California, and ArabianShield. Little activity has occurred in the area since 1961 when RichfieldOil Company drilled two unsuccessful wildcat wells (each about 6000 feetdeep) along the Bering River ten miles east of Katalla.With available information, potential reserves are difficult to estimate.There are no accurate subsurface structural maps and drillinglogs for the original wells have been lost. Past wells were drilledover known oil and gas seeps and usually produced about 100 to 300barrels per day for the first few hours, then subsequently dropped to....•..••......APA25/A21IV-21•

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESless than 10 barrels per day. Pay zones were most commonly found between360 feet and 750 feet in depth. The reservoir rocks are complexlyfaulted and folded sandstones, conglomerates and calcareous shales.Many, thin, intercalated organic-rich shales and coal partings are theprobable source of the oil and gas. Numerous local seepages suggestthat traps are small and scattered. Therefore, while there may be asubstantial amount of petroleum trapped below the surface, it is probablynot concentrated in anyone spot. If production were similar to theearly days, it is possible that another 200,000 or more barrels mightstill be available.Production rates would be extremely slow unless some method of enhancingflow within the reservoir were used; 1/2 to 2 barrels per day per well.Previous attempts at enhancing flow by suction produced mostly saltwater.R.H. McMullin of the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that th~onshore Gulf of Alaska province could have as much as 0.8 billionbarrels of crude oil and 0.9 trillion cubic feet of associated gas.These figures are based on a general knowledge of the lithologic,stratigraphic and structural disposition of Tertiary section from IcyBay north to the Copper River. These figures, however, do not reflectthe statistical probability of actually finding the oil or gas.Exploration for oil and gas, by its very nature, is a game against theodds. An oil company executive might consider it a worthy gamble ifhe can expect to strike oil in one of five or ten or perhaps even morewells drilled. At the costs involved in a single well, the stakes arevery high indeed for the small entrepreneur, cooperative, or utility.Other complications at Kata11a include access, transportation, and landstatus. The shoreline is exposed and shallow so a port facility wouldbe costly. Access overland would need to cross rugged terrain, manymiles of swamp, and several rivers. In addition, the route wouldcross environmentally sensitive areas. A cursory examination of landstatus records and the historical index at the Bureau of Land ManagementAPA25/A22IV-22

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESshows that since the turn of the century numerous applications for coal,oil and gas permits and leases have been filed in this area. It appearsfor the most part that existing rights have either expired or been cancelled.Land status and current leasing procedure would need to be addressedcarefully before specific sites might be considered. However, to identifyall outstanding mineral rights would require an intensive land statusreview beyond the scope of this report.Besides the natural gas that occurs along with the oil at Katalla,several observations of natural gas have been made in the Cordova area.Reportedly, geysers of mud and gas were observed on the Copper RiverDelta during and shortly after the 1964 earthquake. The most reasonableexplanation is methane "gas derived from buried organic debris was releasedduring settlement of the loose Delta sediment. There is little chancethat any methane could be collected from shallow wells in the Delta.Pe~odically,large exhalations of gas have been noted from beneath thesurface of Kushtaka Lake. In winter the gases have been known to burstthrough the ice. The gases here are probably related to buried coalseams which are prevalent in the area. While these gas occurrences area curiosity, it is unlikely that any use can be made of them in the nearfuture.It should be noted at this point that Chugach Natives, Inc., is the AlaskaNative Regional Corporation for the area encompassed in this study. OnceChugach receives its Alaska Native Lands Claim Act of 1971 entitlementof about 377,000 acres, Chugach will become primarily a natural resourcescompany. Lands currently under consideration for transfer to Chugachinclude several of the small potential hydroelectric sites discussedin this study, along with the Bering River coal field area and theKatalla oil and gas area.Chugach Natives, Inc., has determined that neither the Bering Riveror Katalla resources show sufficient economic promise to justify developmentsolely for local use. However, as a natural resources company, ChugachAPA2S/A23IV-23.........ar••..•......••-..•..•••

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVEShas begun and intends to continue to pursue the development of theseresources for non-local consumption. If Chugach's negotiations aresuccessful on the coal resource in particular, then the economics ofutilizing a portion of the coal for local use are altered radically andcould become a viable energy alternative for Cordova.4. Geothermal ResourcesThe possibility of utilizing geothermal energy for generation ofelectric power or for heating in Cordova is very remote. No geothermalresources have been recorded in the literature or reported by localresidents to exist within a reasonable distance of Cordova.5. Wind ResourcesWind generating and heating devices are generally uneconomic unless meanannual wind speeds are at least 12-15 miles per hour (mph). The meanspeed at the Cordova Mile 13 Airport is 4.4 mph and Corps of Engineersdata for Cordova indicates a mean wind speed of 7.9 mph at the smallboat harbor. This resource has thus been eliminated as offering anysignificant contribution to Cordova's energy future. However, WindEnergy Conversion Systems are discussed at length in Appendix C becauseof a great deal of locally expressed interest in such systems.It has been estimated that fuel oil will have to rise to more than $5 pergallon before wind heating becomes economic in areas with significantlyhigher wind speeds than Cordova.The only two proximate sources of wind with possibly sufficient speedsare the adiabatic winds off glaciers and high winds verbally reported inthe Copper River Delta. However, no data is currently available forthese resources and both resources are considerable distances fromCordova.APA25/A24IV-24

6. Solar ResourcesIV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES.'" .......A comparable study indicates that with proper new design considerations,passive solar heating can provide 40% of the heat required by an averageresidence, even in the coldest months. Active solar collectors and heatstorage facilities installed in newly built homes have been found to becompetitive with fuel oil furnaces only if the cost for diesel oil ismore than $2.50 per gallon at present equipment cost. Solar photovoltaicenergy conversion is still uneconomical at an estimated $l/kWh for thepresent state-of-the-art.7. Tidal ResourcesLarge tidal currents were verbally reported in The Narrows area nearCordova. However, our present understanding is that these currents areof insufficient magnitude for economic energy capture. Furthermore,tidal facilities are very capital cost intensive and require expensivestorage facilities unless they are part of a large power grid. Thesefactors serve to eliminate this resource for further consideration forCordova.8. Biomass ResourcesDue to Cordova's location in the Chugach National Forest, wood is inquite abundant supply. However, the magnitude of wood supply requiredto fulfill all of Cordova's present and future energy needs would greatlydecimate this protected (and likely environmentally unobtainable) resource.Use of wood for residential heating is expected to continue to provide about2 percent of such needs in Cordova.Another biomass resource available in Cordova is the use of cannerywaste to produce biogas (two-thirds methane) by anaerobic digestion.The wastes are decomposed in atmospherically sealed and heated tanks,resulting in biogas and a high quality fertilizer effluent. However, arough calculation for wastes at the large St. Elias Ocean ProductsAPA25/A25IV-25...'....It..•....•.... .........---

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESfacilities indicated that only about 20 kW of base load generation couldbe obtained. This contribution to the overall Cordova energy picture isessentially negligible.9. Waste Heat and Cogeneration ResourcesThe present use of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) to produce more usefulforms of energy (electricity or motive power) is far less than 100percent efficient. For example, if a machine burns a certain quantityof fossil fuel and produces useful output (shaft horsepower or electricalenergy) equivalent to 30% of the fuel burned, the energy representedby the remaining 70% of the fuel will appear as unused or "waste"heat. Such heat most often appears as hot exhaust gas, tepid to warmwater (65°F-180°F), hot air from cooling radiators, and direct radiationfrom the machine in question such as a steam turbine or diesel engine.a. Diesel Waste HeatDiesel waste heat can be recovered from engine cooling water andexhaust or from either source separately. The waste heat is typicallytransferred to a water-glycol circulating system in Alaskan applications.The heated circulating fluid can be used for space,water, or process heating. Capture of diesel waste heat to powerbinary cycles could provide about 300 kW based on current dieselusage. Several binary cycle projects are currently in the planningstage in Alaska.b. Gas Turbine Waste HeatGas turbine waste heat is typically recovered from the exhauststream passing through commercially available waste heat boilersand producing steam or a heated water-glycol mixture.APA25/A26IV-26

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES.,..Small combustion turbines with waste heat recovery are manufacturedboth domestically and overseas. Current installed capital costsfor cogeneration equipment depend on site conditions, local laborcosts, and ancillary equipment; however, average values for systemsare reported to range from about $350/kW to $700/kW....c.Steam Turbine CogenerationApproximately 30% to 40% of the heat supplied by the fuel in aconventional fossil steam electric generating station is convertedinto electric energy. These losses can be reduced when one of anumber of alternate schemes for converting power plants into cogenerationplants is implemented. For example, the total loss can bereduced to less than 25% if cogeneration of steam is employed.Such steam could be used for district heating.The actual annual fuel savings achievable in a district heatingsystem are determined by such factors as the percentage of totalsystem heat load to be supplied by peak heating plants, the operatingpoint of each cogeneration unit, loading sequence selectedfor the cogeneration units, total heat of the steam extracted fromeach cogeneration unit, fuel differential required to replace thereduced electric generation of cogeneration turbines by less efficientunits, and unit availabilities.Results obtained from an analysis of these variables will vary fromsystem to system depending on the type of cogeneration units anddistrict heating equipment installed. A recent study for a planneddistrict heating system using modified turbines indicated thatslightly more than 50% fuel savings can be achieved over a typicalannual heating cycle...iii·.......•..........-....10. ConservationConstruction of, or retrofit for, well insulated homes in the Cordovaarea can provide significant residential fuel savings. Estimates for aAPA25/A27IV-27.......,.......•

IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES1000 square foot IItypical" home indicate: a well insulated home usesabout 540 gallons of oil per year; a home with average insulation woulduse about 830 gallons per year; and a poorly insulated home would requirenearly 1380 gallons per year. Clearly, individual savings can be significant.Current commercial equipment allows recycling of diesel lubricating oilto replace 5% of the diesel fuel. At current prices, this could saveabout $75,000 and 65,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Such a systemis currently being implemented in Cordova on a limited scale.11. Other ResourcesThe following resources and technologies are either still in need oftechnology development for economic utilization or offer only small,decentralized applications that will serve to replace some diesel fueluses.a. UraniumNo commercial technology exists in the 10 MWrange.b. Coal Gasi fi cati onThe technology is costly and unproven commercially.c. Fuel CellsThe technology is costly and still in the developmental stage.d. HydrogenHydrogen can be produced from surplus hydroelectric power; thistechnology is expected to become economic in the 1990's.APA25/A28IV-28

•IV. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVESHydrogen stored as hydrides may make significant impact in thetransportation sector in the long term.,.J»e.Heat for Heat PumpsThis is a proven small scale technology and is discussed indetail in Appendix C.....••..•.................APA25/A29IV-29•..

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVESV. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVESAppendix C contains detailed profiles of appropriate energy conversiontechnologies for Cordova, including descriptions, performance characteristics,costs, special requirements and impacts, and a summary andcritical discussion. Brief abstracts of the following relevant profilesare presented in this section.• diesel-electric generation• oil heating• hydroelectric generation• electrical heating• transmission interties• coal fired steam-electric generation• coal and wood heating• diesel lube oil recycling• diesel waste heat recovery and use• steam cogeneration systems• conservation• wind energy conversion systems.• heat pumpsA general summary of energy available in the primary resources consideredis shown in the following table, Table V-I.APA25/bIV-I

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVESTABLE V-IFUEL ENERGY CONTENT..Fuel TypeEnergy Contentin Btu/pound....No.6 Fuel Oil (Diesel)BiogasBituminous CoalSub-Bituminous CoalLignitic CoalWoodWater at 100 Foot HeadHot Water at 1°F Temperature DifferenceAir Moving at 22 mph (stp)17 ,400 19,00015,000 15,70013,000 13,60011,0006,500 7,0005,000 8,60081.02.....•....1. Diesel-Electric GenerationIn the diesel fueled engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to a highpressure. Fuel oil is injected into the compressed air, which is at atemperature above the fuel ignition point, and the fuel burns, convertingthermal energy to mechanical energy by driving a piston.....--Diesel engines driving electrical generators are one of the most efficientsimple cycle converters of chemical energy (fuel) to electrical energy.2. Oil Heati ng.. ..•Fuel oil is burned with air in a burning unit which produces hot airor hot water for space heating. This is the most widespread heatingtechnology practiced in Cordova.APA25/b2 V-2

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES3. Hydroelectric GenerationHydroelectric generation involves water turning a turbine which in turndrives a generator. Several families of turbines exist; application isa function of flow and head (distance from the top of the water surfaceto the turbine).Development of hydroelectric sites in the Arctic encounters many problemswhich are not present in more temperate areas of the world.Logistics problems associated with engineering and construction ofhydroelectric projects in the harsh Arctic environment are certainlyamong the most difficult and challenging of any in the world. Inaddition, construction itself is a challenge, since only in protectedlocations, such as heated enclosures and underground, can constructionproceed with any efficiency during the cold period.Hydroelectric sites must be chosen which have adequate storage to allowfor generation during the cold months when inflow is diminished, as wellas to provide carry-over storage for dry years.4. Electric HeatingSince the capacity of the hydro project is typically relatively largecompared to the initial demand of the supplied area, the cost per kWhis rather high since the large investment has to be paid for whetherits capacity is used or not. Utilization of this surplus capacity inelectric home heating (at a rate comparable to cost for heating withother systems) is an attractive possibility. The problem arises whenat a later point in time -- the area demand (minus the electric heat)approaches the capacity of the hydroplant.APA25/b3 V-3

•V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES•The following scheme appears to allow for all the benefits and avoidsmost of the problems electric home heating can have for a utility andthe homeowner:iii!1.2.The homes are built with a conventional heating system plus electricheat.The utility pays for the installation of the electric heat and itscontrol.•3.The utility sells the energy for the electric heat at a rate equalor lower than the other heat supply fuel cost.4.The utility is allowed to control utilization of the electricheat -- that is, turn it off during times of peak demand. Duringthese times the IInormalll heating system supplies comfort heatingfor the home. The existing alternate home heating system actuallyprovides peaking capacity to the utility.5. Transmission IntertiesTransmission interties provide electrical power connections betweencommunities and electrical generation sources. The electricity istransmitted by wires or a single wire with ground return.The large (50 MW) transmission intertie discussed in the previous sectionis of size proven to be economic in other locales. Costs couldconceivably be lowered by using single wire ground return (SWGR) transmission.Demonstration projects utilizing this type of transmission arepresently under contract with the State of Alaska, Divison of Energy andPower Development. As SWGR is increasingly proven technically and economicallyfeasible in Alaska, this type of construction holds great promisefor providing less costly electric energy.•....- ..APA25/b4 V-4•

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES6. Coal-Fired Steam-Electric GenerationFor coal-fired steam-electric generation, coal is ground to roughly2-inch diameter or less chunks and fed into a boiler or pulverizedand blown into a boiler. The coal is then burned in the boiler toproduce steam that is then expanded in a turbine which drives a generatorto produce electricity.Steam plants account for the majority of electrical generation in theUnited States today. Although steam plants can accommodate a wide rangeof loads, U.S. economies of scale indicate that the cost per unitincreases sharply in sizes below about 50 MW. It should be noted thatEuropean coal-steam generation units are more economically employed in theless than 10 MW range.A 5 MW coal-steam plant for Cordova could be constructed at a capitalcost of about $I,700/kW; a 10 MW plant could cost about $I,200/kW.Operating costs for such plants are relatively high due to the need forhighly skilled operators.It should also be noted that storage requirements for a coal plant inCordova could be a stockpile 20 feet high and 250 feet square. Due tothe high rainfall in the Cordova area, a 20,000 gallon per day (nominal)treatment plant would be required to treat runoff from the stockpile.A similar plant at Elmendorf Air Force Base operated well enough todischarge water to Ship Creek, a salmon spawning area.7. Coal and Wood HeatingCoal or wood is mechanically or hand fed into a combustion chamber whereit is burned with air to produce hot air or heated water for space heating.APA25/b5 V-5

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES•8. Diesel Lube Oil RecyclingA number of proven commercial systems exist for cleaning and recyclingdiesel engine lubricating oil for use as diesel fuel when blended as 1part recycled oil to 20 parts diesel fuel. These systems are generallysuited to fleets of diesel engines (25, more or less) as fewer units donot produce enough used lube oil for the 1:20 ratio of the fuel mix.9. Diesel Waste Heat Recovery and UseTypically 30% of the fuel energy supplied to a diesel-electric set isconverted to electricity, 30% is transferred to cooling water, 30% isexhausted as hot gas, and 10% is radiated directly from the engineblock. The exhaust heat in a diesel is of higher temperature and moreeasily used than the cooling water heat, but higher initial costs andincreased operating complexities are encountered when attempting torecover energy from the exhaust.10. Steam Cogeneration•.,..IIII•••Cogeneration involves use of some of the steam used to drive turbinegeneratorsfor heating or industrial process loads. Cogeneration iswidely used, particularly in the Scandanavian countries, to providesteam for district heating systems.11. Conservation...Conservation measures for Cordova would mainly be of the passive type:insulation, arctic entrances, double or triple glazed windows, and thelike.These measures decrease heating energy requirements for thetypical residence.12. Wind Energy Conversion SystemsAs has been noted in the previous section, the wind speeds at Cordovaare apparently too low for economic generation of energy from the wind..,APA25/b6 V-6•

V. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVESHowever, a detailed profile of the technology is presented in Appendix Cbecause of local interest and the possibility of properly locatedresidences adapting this intermittent energy source.13. Heat PumpsA heat pump operates much like a refrigerator or air conditioner.The heat pump extracts heat from a source at low temperature (air orwater) and rejects it to a sink (a building, for example) at a highertemperature by input of electrical and mechanical work.APA25/b7 V-7

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESVI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OF ENERGY ALTERNATIVESThis section outlines the six electrical plans and a combined electricalwasteheat recovery plan formulated to meet Cordova's energy requirementsto the year 2000. These plans, or scenarios, are designed to meet AlaskaPower Authority "Standard Criteria" for reconnaissance studies; a basecase plan is developed that results from a continuation of current energypractices and serves as a basis for comparing alternative plans that alsomeet forecasted requirements. All plans are intended to provide a commonlevel of reliability.The following development scenarios are necessarily speculative. Theyimplicitly contain various assumptions regarding resource availabilities,development costs, market prices, and technology state-of-the-art. Theyare based on the data available for this study and engineering experiencewith other projects in Alaska. The scenarios have been presented in a waywhich allows easy adjustment of parameters used for the analyses as morespecific data become available.Only the utilization of local hydro, transmission intertie with Valdez(with and without small hydro development) and Healy Coal, appear tobe technically and economically feasible for Cordova's overall needsat this time. Table VI-1 summarizes the alternative plans evaluatedbased on APA recommended economic factors and Figure 9 graphicallycompares the present worth cost of the alternatives. Appendix D containsdetails of the analyses.TABLE VI-1COSTS OF MEAN ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT PLANSEARLIEST YEAR YEARYEAR OF 2000 ACCUMULATED 2041 ACCUMULATEDALTERNATE PLAN OPERATION PRESENT WORTH PRESENT WORTHElectric w/heating (Surplus@ 6.25¢/kWh) 1983 $104,734,000 $237,571,000Electric w/heating (Surplus@ l¢/kWh) 1983 96,758,000 229,595,000APA25/C1VI-l

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESDiesel Generation - Base Case 1981 64,383,000 168,527,000Coal Generation - Carbon Creek 1983 76,190,000 165,634,000Diesel Generation w/Waste Heat 1983 56,507,000 148,968,000Coal Generation - Healy Coal 1983 43,236,000 93,065.000Intertie (Surplus @ 6.25¢/kWh) 1983 45,076,000 89,297,000Intertie - (Surplus @ l¢/kWh) 1983 37,194,000 81,415,000Local Hydro 1983 28,220,000 61,720,000•..•lit.1.Diesel Generation Base Case Plana. Plan ComponentsDiesel generation for power and fuel oil for heating.b. Timing of System Additions2500 kW additions in 1985 and 1995.IIIc. Plan DescriptionThis base case plan assumes exclusive continuation of dieselgeneration for power and fuel oil for heating; this plan resultsfrom continuation of present practices in Cordova and serves asthe basis for comparison of the alternative plans following.All plans are based on the mean growth scenario as it is the mostprobable scenario and provides the most meaningful base forcomparisons...•2.Figures lOA and lOB follow illustrate this oil based plan.Healy Coal Generation Alternative Plana. Plan ComponentsCoal-fired steam-electric generation at Cordova with dieselgeneration supplement.b. Timing of System Additions5 MW coal-fired generating units in 1983 and 1991.-•.. .,..APA25/C2VI-2

oo--.l~~(JI o~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ID 0000 0 0 0I I I I j I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I1~1!1!1~II~I~I~II!I!I!I~I~I~I~I~1~1~1~1~1~1~1~1j1!1j1I~1~1~~l~jll~lIl~Il~11111111~~~l~~~~~l~~II~~I~~I~~~~IiACCUMULATED PRESENT WORTH (MILLION DOLLARS)N (JI :;; Ui c;; Iio o o0 0 ~~ i ~ I I IELECTRIC WITH HEATING (SURPLUS @ 6.25 t I KWH)NID 00 0 0I I I~0INN0IN(JI0IN~0I~~~~~~~~~~~~jI~~~~~~I~j~j~j~~~l~lII~~~~~~tl~~~~j~~~~~~I~~~I~~~l~~~I~~~~1II~~~Ilf~1~l~1~1~1~1~111~II~1~1~~~iELECTRIC WITH HEATING (SURPLUS@ It IKWH)1,~j1j1j~jljl~I~I~1jljl~I~I~1~1~1~1~ll1l1l1~1~1~IIll~1~1~1l1~lj1~1~1~11111~1I1I1I~11~j~DIESEL GENERATION -BASE CASE:l~III~~~~111~!~1~1~I~~~1~111~1~1~1~1~111~1~1i1i1j!j!i!i!I1j1j!i1j1ij!~~~!jlj1j1jjj~iji~i~~~~i~i~~~ti "]COAL GENERATION - CARBON CREEK..,~lI~lll1~1l1jlj~~~~1l1~~j1~1~1~1l1i1jljlj1jl~lI~I~~~illl~I~i~l~l~l~~~~~i~~11:DIESEL GENERATION WITH WASTE HEAT0""'T1::oo fll- l> en-i r fll-< -i Zfll-i~~l>0-i::ofll-i,,~rOl>0Zenen-i.,,0C;"'T1c~OfT'!0(0::0o:jll~l1lll1ll~1lll~~I~l~~l~l~l~l~l1l~1~ll~~lll~~l~~~~lll~~1l] 1COAL GENERATION - HEALY COAL~1~j~j~~~~~1~~II~1Il~~1~I1~1~~1~ljljl11j~1Ilj~j111j~1INTERTIE (SURPLUS ~ 6.25 '/KWH)'~I~I~ljIl11j~j~1~11l~jl~lilili1I~ljljljlIjlilINTERTIE (SURPLUS @ I $/KWH)~jlillIl~l~~lljl~~1~1~1~111jlllLOCAL HYDROIIJ""0-

1700016 non15 00014000130 0012 00"1100010 0000" ,-0070 006 0004000 3000-1980/'VHIGH)/ // ~~ ~PROJECTIONi- -/ V/ /., /DIESELCAPACITY\. /- ~----- " filii"'"~--~. /' 1.. .......... ,.,."".-- ",.-.......-X~',/'/' --- ,.----~.--.PEAK~il -----DEMAND~-,."~ ~....IBASE LOAD!-'~- - -» .---PEAK,/ ~EAN PROJECTION ................,..""'"_e',. ............. ~ .....- """-·~Gc LOWPROJECTION~.- 1981----- POWERDIESEL ONLY SCENARIO~ ~-----FIGURE lOA.-- .- CITY OF COAOOVA1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 200YEAR'111 ' I 'I " 'I •• • 111 " ,. '. 'I ". ,.. II 'II , I • • f' ,.,." .-...-/.~

o ...... --............... ~~--1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199~ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000YEARELECTRICAL ENERGYREQUIREMENTDIESEL ONLY SCENARIOCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE lOB

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVES,II"c. Plan DescriptionThis plan is based on mean population growth and assumes retirementof present diesels except for back-up and peaking use.Coal-fired units are sized in 5 MW increments, a reasonable economicsize. This plan attempts to keep the required reserve capacitylow and to phase the transition to a totally coal-fired plant insuch a manner as not to render the existing diesel plant obsoleteat an early date.Figures 11A and lIB depicts this alternate electrical generationplan.3. Carbon Creek Coal Generation Alternative PlanThis plan is identical to the preceding Healy coal plan except thepower plant is located at the Carbon Creek mine mouth and electricityis transmitted to Cordova..,..•....- •4. Intertie with Valdez Alternative Plana. Plan ComponentsSurplus electrical energy by intertie with Valdez supplemented bySilver Lake hydroelectricity almost entirely replacing dieselgeneration.b. Timing of System AdditionsThe intertie is assumed to be operational and surplus energyavailable in 1983 and Silver Lake is assumed on line in 1991.c. Plan DescriptionDiesel generation would be supplemented by surplus energy availableby intertie with Valdez and briefly replaced by the surplus in 1986...•..•APA25/C6VI-6....lilt.

7"""6"""'"/---,,.,..,...14000/ /1500'"/ ~1 -~101000--,,,,,,,,",'.......,,..,..,..•--6 """,..~~EXPAND 1 RETIV HIGH}- COAL 8r4 PLANT DIESEL PROJECTION..... ---- ......... - ""--- -///'/// /".~ ~ "","'"MEAN"",.," i"""'" ~~• ....-1- /'-7"""""11-""""""- ~.",."..-..000-,....-// ;A ... PROJECTI~ ~.~ ./1 ~ ,..PEAK jDEMAND_I ~~_ ~ ~ !L ---... ."".....",...~ ---- ~-----..."". lc"ow- .,.-.L' ~ 1- PROJECTION~- . ( ~ ...... ~~ PEAK POWER~........-COAL SCENARIOr- ,'M1URE II AV ___.--~ .- CITY OFCORDOVAI" 1,.1 "82 1981 I'" 1985 1 .. 6 1987 I'" M9 I9to 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 &96 1997 ItlII 1999 2000YU~."".."..

:I:• 220//////////////////////////////////////////////f)Q..10'/////////// ///////////////////////////////1980 19811984 19851986YEAR1991 1992 1995 19M1997lIN 2000ELECTRICAL ENERGYREQUIRNENTCOAL SCENARIOCITY Of COADOVA, I , . , , , .f I , ,I , I ,• • , . , , , . I• I , , .FIGURE liB, , I • , I , ,

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESDiesel generation would be utilized as supplement until the 1991addition of conservatively estimated Silver Lake hydroelectricpotential and would then be retired except for slight use in1997-2000.Figures 12A and 12B depict this alternate electrical generationplan.5. Intertie Alternative Plan with Electrical Heatinga. Plan ComponentsSurplus electrical energy by transmission intertie with Valdezcombined with new intertied hydroelectric projects replacingdiesel generation.b. Timing of System AdditionsSurplus available in 1983. Hydroelectric additions in 1985(optimistic Dead Creek estimate); 1988-(Silver Lake); 1990(Lake 1488), 1992 (Lake 649), and 1995 (Lake 1878).c. Plan DescriptionThis alternative plan is not directly comparable with the otheralternative plans and the base case diesel only plan: this planassumes the development of sufficient intertied hydroelectricprojects to provide all electrical generation requirements for Cordovaand most of the electrical capacity required for total conversionof Cordova to electric resistance heating. It is recognized thatall alternative plans would have to be formulated to meet the totaldemand that includes the space heating energy requirements in orderfor plans to be strictly comparable; however, the magnitude of thetotal energy requirement is such as to make the other alternativeshighly impractical and of little relevance to this reconnaissancestudy. This alternative case is presented as illustrative of the costAPA25/C9VI-9

7000.oon /~OOO1400013000•-000•I.I ~ ....~,~ ...../~~,~ /'I ~ /~100" ,".. r- -/100010000.- SILVER LAKE HYDRO"'''' .... ...,1'-....cl // .--", '

40~--------~----~----~--~~--~----~----~--~~--~-----r----~----r---~----~----~----~--~r---~----~oW1980 1982 Utl3//////////////////////////////////////////////////1984 1 .. 5 1 .. 7 IMI 1189/////////////////////////////////////////////////1990YEAR1991 1992 1,.3ELECTRICAL ENERGYREQUIREMENTINTERTIE SCENARIOCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 128

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESpenalty of continued reliance on diesel generation. The accumulatedpresent worth cost to provide an equivalent amount of heating withfuel oil over the same period would be $72,800,000. Adding thisamount to the present worth cost for the base case diesel generationproves that it would cost less to have electricity plus electricalheating by hydroelectricity than continuation of current practice,i.e., electricity with diesel generation and heating with fueloi 1...II..Figures 13A and 13B depict this alternative plan and reflect arelatively even rate of hydro site development and the fact thatnot all of Cordova is expected to utilize electric space heating.6. Local Hydroelectric Alternative Plana. Plan ComponentsDiesel generation eventually supplementing hydroelectricity fromtwo local projects.b. Timing of System AdditionsHydroelectric projects in 1983 and 1985.••..•c. Plan DescriptionDevelopment of hydroelectricity from Power Creek and Crater Lakewill require supplemental diesel generation to meet seasonalhydro MWH deficits.•Figures 14A and 14B depict this plan.7. Diesel Generation With Waste Heat Recovery Plana. Plan Components•..•Waste heat recovery equipment installed in the existing powerplant to provide steam to 1evelize heat load of two canneries;APA25/C12VI-12....•

50ADD LAKE 1878~ ~.--~- ~---40r20 ~4tDD LAKE 64 :J"-....~- ~---- -ADD LAKE 1488"\l~-.-r--~IIIIPEAK DEMAND'-.....J...----~ ELECTRICITY 8- ELECTRIC HEATING~ MEAN PROJECTION~R/ t>------ t- -ADD SILVER LAKE~ CAPACITYI"""'"I- ....... I'-0~o1980• -~ I.~."~ADD SURPLUSADD DEAD CREEK~RETIRE [)IESELDlESEr [ I 1985 1990YEAR1995 2000PEAK POWERELECTRICAL HEATING SCENARIOCI TY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 13A

180~--~~--~----~-----+-----+-----+----~----4-----+-----~----~--~----~-----+-----r----~----4-----+-----+---~160~--~~--~----~-----f-----+-----t----~----4-~--+-----t-----~--~----~~~~----~~~~::::~::==t-----t---~ECTRICITY INCLUOIATING, MEANPROJECTION20."~~~~~~//// ////o //// ////1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 I~ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000YEARELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTELECTRIC HEATING SCENARIOCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 138,. • I , 1 , 1 , . , , , , , , , , , . , , , ,, , , , , 11 , I , , I ,

17 0001615000 r---- /V000// /1400013000127000CRATER LAKE",oon ...,110001090"" ...,...,OO~8 ""'"-/,--.--- - I-~--- --~---~--7... - ~-..1/

40r----r----~--_,----_.----r_--_r----._--~----~--~----~----r_--~----._--~----~--~~--_r----~--~30r---_+----+----1----~----~--_+----+_--_+----+_--_;----~----~--_+--__±ENERGY REQUIREMENTMEAN PROJECTIONo\980 19811982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991YEAR1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000ELECTICAL ENERGYREQUfPt£MENTLOCAL HYDROWITH DIESEL SCENARIOCITY OF CORDOVAFIGURE 148•• ,."., 'I 'I"" ,." ,. 'I ,.1:, '. 'I '. II"

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESprovide hot water for space heating of a motel, the communitycenter building, and the swimming pool; and heat the city watersupply. (See Example 1, Appendix C.3.S.2).b. Timing of System AdditionsSystem installed and operational in 1983c. Plan DescriptionThis plan assumes continuation of diesel generation for power and,except as described in "a" above, fuel oil for heating. Wasteheat recovery equipment would be installed on the existing generationequipment.8. Evaluation of Alternative Plansa. INTRODUCTIONIn accordance with Alaska Power Authority (APA) ReconnaissanceStudy Regulations, the alternative plans presented have beenevaluated on the basis of the economic, environmental, and technicalfactors following:• EconomicPresent worth of plan costs using "APA AnalysisParameters for FY 181"• EnvironmentalCommunity preferencesImpact on community infrastructureTiming in relation to other capital projectsAir qualityWater qualityFish and wildlife impactAPA25/C17VI-17

Land useTerrestrial impacts.VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVES.' .i•..• TechnicalSafetyRe 1 i abil ityAva il abil i tyb.ECONOMIC FACTORSThe costs of each alternative plan, both capital and operating,were assigned to their appropriate years in the 20 year planningperiod beginning in 1981. These costs were then discounted at3 percent per year and summed to determine the present value ofplan costs.Potential plan outputs other than electrical energy, such as heatfor space or water heating, are considered as separate economiccases. The net benefits of these outputs or I residua1s" areestimated by assessing their market value or the value of the savingrealized in the residual's displacing some other energy source lessthe costs directly required to actually realize the benefit ofthe residuals. The net benefits were then discounted at 3 percentper year and summed to determine the present value of plan costs.The inflation rate used is zero.The costs of diesel oil, fuel oil, and other petroleum fuelsare assumed to escalate over the 20 year planning period at anannual rate of 3.5 percent over inflation.All other costs arenot escalated over the assumed zero percent inflation rate.•••....••••..-Appendix 0 presents details of the economic factor analyses of thealternative plan costs.....APA25/C18VI-18..

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESc. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORSCommunity preference evaluations were based on the preferences ofCordova citizens as expressed in private and public meetings.Naturally, the more vocal members of the community most influencedthis evaluation.The evaluation of impact on community infrastructure - infrastructureis here taken as the underlying framework of the community as awhole - is highly subjective at the reconnaissance study leveland is largely based on the least disturbance being best for thecommunity.Evaluation of alternative plan timing in relation to other capitalprojects is chiefly a measure of how soon and easily a plan canbe realized.Air quality impacts are largely of two classes, hydro impacts(minimal) and fossil fueled impacts (average). The fossil optionsare assumed to have average performance emission abatement equipment;relaxation or tightening of typical emission abatement designscan have significant impact on the plan costs used in this study.The impacts of coal storage runoff due to precipitation are themajor considerations in water quality evaluation.Fish and wildlife impacts were chiefly evaluated based on waterquality impacts, air quality impacts, and habitat disruptionimpacts.The major criteria for the land use impact evaluation was theamount of "local" (within 100 miles) land converted to strictlypower production use and its proximity to Cordova proper.Hydroelectric facilities, it should be noted, offer secondaryrecreational uses.APA25/C19VI-19

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVES.,..The terrestrial impact evaluation is a measure of overall disruptionof organic life on earth, any long-term change from present beingtaken as negative. This evaluation reflects the perception ofworldwide carbon dioxide production from coal-fired power plantsas the most significant terrestrial impact.Appendix C presents details of many environmental impacts of thecomponents of alternative plans.- .......d.TECHNICAL FACTORSSafety is evaluated on the basis of risk of catastrophic accidentsto workers and the normally proximate public...Reliability is taken as the measure of consistency of performance.Availability is taken as the measure of readiness for performance..'e. EVALUATION MATRICESEvaluation of the above factors has resulted in the followingevaluation matrices, Tables VI-2 and VI-3. Economic evaluationsresulted in the quantitative present worth costs previously indicatedand are ranked alphabet i ca lly, II All bei ng best.•-."It is recognized that the evaluation of many environmental factorsis necessarily subjective and that the technical factors areactually qualitative in relative evaluation. The following valueswere used in the relative evaluation of these subjective orqualitative factors:APA2S/C20Value123InterpretationBest Possible PlanVery Good PlanAbove Average PlanVI-20••.,

VI.EVALUATION OF FEASIBILITY OFENERGY ALTERNATIVESValueInterpretation456789Barely Above Average PlanAverage Plan (Neutral value)Barely Below Average PlanBelow Average PlanVery Poor PlanWorst Possible PlanThe evaluation matrix results show advantages for the local hydro planand intertied surplus plus hydro plans.The reader should note that no economic rankings have been assigned tothe non-electric scenarios as such evaluation would require a separatefeasibility study. However, the following examples of residual benefitspoint out the savings inherent in substitution of coal for diesel and inutilization of diesel waste heat.Based on costs developed in this report, the substitution of Healy coal at8,000 Btu/pound for diesel heating saves the equivalent of $8.91 - 2.81 =$6.10 per million Btu. This means a saving of $0.84 per gallon of dieseldisplaced at 1981 costs, or an equivalent annual savings of $1.38 pergallon displaced, assuming coal heat comes on line in 1983 and dieselprice escalates at 3.5% per year.The sUbstitution of Carbon Creek coal at 12,000 Btu/pound for diesel heatingsaves the equivalent of $8.91 - 5.00 = $3.91 per million Btu. Thismeans a savings of $0.54 per gallon displaced, or an equivalent annualsavings of $1.07 per gallon displaced.Actual benefits of coal heating will be a direct function of amount ofdiesel displaced, cost to convert heating systems to accept coal, andenvironmental impacts associated with it.APA25/C21VI-21

APA 25L1TABLE VI-2EVALUATION MATRIXELECTRIC SCENARIOSCARBONHEALYCREEKDIESEL- LOCAL ELECTRIC COAL INTERTIED COAL DIESEL ELECTRICFACTOR ELECTRIC HYDRO HEATING ELECTRIC HYDRO ELECTRIC W/WASTE HEAT(A) ECONOMIC (Present Worth) F A G C B E D(B) ENVIRONMENTAL(1) CommunityPreferences 9 1 5 5 3 2 9(2) Infrastructure 3 4 5 5 2 7 3(3) Timi ng 1 3 6 2 4 2 2(4) Ai r Qual ity 5 1 1 5 1 5 5(5) Water Quality 2 1 1 7 2 7 2(6) Fish and Wildlife 2 3 4 7 4 7 2(7) Land Use 2 4 5 6 4 6 2(8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 4 5 6 4 6 2Total 26 21 32 43 24 42 27ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING 3 1 5 7 2 6 4(C)TECHNICAL(1) Safety 2 1 1 3 2 3 2(2) Rel iabil ity 2 1 3 2 1 2 2(3) Avai 1 abil i ty 1 1 3 2 2 2 1Total 5 3 7 7 5 7 5TECHNICAL RANKING 2 1 4 4 2 4 2OVERALL RANKING F-3 ~ G-5 C-7 .6..:..2 E-6 D-4,. f • f I , , • , i , " ' , , , " ., " " f , f, f , f , r 1 t 1

APA 25L2TABLE VI-3EVALUATION MATRIXNON-ELECTRIC SCENARIOSDIESEL COAL LUBE OIL CO-HEATING HEATING RECYCLING GENERATION CONSERVATION WECS(A) ECONOMIC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A(B) ENVIRONMENTAL(1) CommunityPreferences 9 6 2 3 1 3(2) Infrastructure 5 4 5 2 3 5(3) Timing 1 2 2 2 1 7(4) Air Quality 6 7 5 5 1 1(5) Water Qua 1 ity 2 6 2 7 1 1(6) Fish and Wildlife 2 6 2 7 1 2(7) Land Use 2 5 2 6 1 3(8) Terrestrial Impacts 2 6 2 6 1 3Total 29 42 22 38 10 25ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING 5 7 3 6 1 4(C)TECHNICAL(1) Safety 2 3 1 3 1 2(2) Re 1 i abil ity 2 2 1 3 1 7(3) Avail abil i ty 1 1 3 2 1 9- -Total 5 6 5 8 3 18TECHNICAL RANKING 2 4 2 5 1 7OVERALL RANKING ~ ~ f ~ 1 ~

VII.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSVII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSUtilization of anyone of the previously listed resources depends oneconomic feasibility, land status of the site, and environmental considerations.Location of several resources within National Forest landsprecludes development in the foreseeable future, as does possible disturbanceof the fisheries if mitigation cannot be achieved. Economicfeasibility is chiefly determined by the cost of construction for thenecessary facilities, the cost of operation, and the intensity of use inrelation to capacity of the project.Approximate 1981 construction costs of those alternatives meritingdetailed feasibility analyses for Cordova are:• Crater Lake Hydro - $2,975,000.• Power Creek Hydro - $21,600,000 first stage, $12,300,000second stage, plus distribution costs.• Intertied Hydro with Valdez - $12,120,000 for single wireground return transmission plus about $5000/kW installed forhydroelectric developments along the route.• Healy Coal Power Plant - $12,000,000 for an optimistic 10 MWdesign; environmental mitigation costs could add $5,000,000 tothis.Note that the coal at $45/ton (delivered) could providean economic means of heating homes.The three most viable alternative energy sources to supplement or replacethe use of diesel fuel for electrical power generation have been foundto be local hydro, hydroelectric energy intertied with Valdez, and Healycoal. In addition, the very attractive option of local natural gas productionmerits further investigation, based on strongly expressed localinterest.APA25/DlVII-l

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe economic analysis indicates that coal development can compete withdiesel generation and that hydro development would eventually producethe cheapest electric energy. The uncertainties involved in the assumptionsmade for the evaluation of these resources indicate the requirementfor base information such as:.,....1.2.Investigations of Healy coal in regard to:a) Availabilityb) Transportation methodsc) Environmental impactsField reconnaissance of the small hydro sites to assess:a) Technical feasibility, including geology and accessb) Environmental impacts.... •.,iii.,....3. Geophysical surveying of potential gas sites followed by drillingand testing of at least one well.The field investigations then have to be followed by:•..4. Individual feasibility studies of:a) Methods of utilizationb) Capacity and demandc) Economic aspectsd) Equipment availabilitye) Constraints5. Creation of generating plant waste heat utilization systems inconsonance with residential and industrial conservation programsmerit prompt implementation as such scenarios offer immediate,short term relief to increasing diesel fuel use and costs.APA25/02VII-2•......""........•

VII.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSIt is recognized that the use of petroleum fuels for transportationappears to be the only viable energy resource in Cordova for this usesector. Furthermore, even if a large portion of the community were toswitch to coal heating or district heating from a coal-fired plant,diesel use for heating will likely not be totally eliminated in Cordova.Hence, the efficient use of this resource cannot be over emphasized ifcosts for energy are to be kept as low as possible.As existing energy technologies are being improved and further developedand new technologies are introduced, results of resource evaluations inthis report may become obsolete and inadequate. Periodic review istherefore advised in order to maintain the usefulness of this study.Approximate costs for determination of feasibility of the most attractivesignificant energy resources for Cordova are:• Natural Gas - a minimum of $1,500,000 in field work is anticipated.• Intertied Hydro - costs could reach $1,400,000 for meeting year2000 needs. This cost would include evaluating the transmissionline route and three (3) potential hydroelectricsites. The evaluation would include hydrologic studies,and archaeological assessment, geology, preliminary designand economic analysis.• Power Creek - if drilling by the Corps of Engineers provessuccessful, feasibility work to the point of beginning FERClicensing applications would run $300,000 to $400,000.• Crater Lake - feasibility costs would run $300,000 to $400,000.•Healy Coal - feasibility could be determined for $400,000 to$600,000 depending on the amount of environmental monitoringrequired by regulatory agencies.APA25/D3VII-3

VII.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSClose contact between the City of Cordova and Robert W. RetherfordAssociates will permit selection of a milestone type feasibilityapproach which will enable early client decision as to which majordirection to pursue.It cannot be overemphasized that if Cordova wants to at least stabilize,and hopefully reduce the local cost of energy, immediate short term,small scale measures should be implemented to at least "hold the line"until the feasibilities of larger projects are determined and largescale energy projects are constructed. These small scale measures canbe generally called "conservation" measures and offer the potential ofreducing current non-transportation fuel use on the order of up to 15%.These measures are: lube oil recycling; waste heat recovery and use;residential conservation; wood use for residental heating; and improvedindustrial heat efficiencies. If these measures are implemented in theshort term, the long term development of the Cordova area can proceed ina deliberate and consistent manner.•..III•..•..The final figures underscore the importance of implementing non-petroleumenergy technologies for Cordova: these figures show the requirements ofcontinuation of current fuel use practices and the savings possible withwaste heat recovery.•-•.............APA25/D4VII-4..

132% INCREASE15.0 ~-------------------------.....p::====;;::::=~C/)z0-.J-.J

15.0r---------------------------------------------------------------------~NOTE:IIOTHER" COMPRISES ALL USESOTHER THAN TRANSPORTATIONOR GENERATION ..,zo...J...JC~!...J...J•CITY OF CORDOVA111. LOW 2000 MEAN 2000 HIGH 2000PROJECTIONS OF ~RENTPE' AOLElM FUEL USE~PLACEA8LE BYOTHEft RE80URCES' .... 16,. " • If, I I 'I " f J I' ", I I • I '" f. ,tI ,II" " , , , •

15.0r-------------------------------------------------------------------~NOTE: "OTHER" COMPRISES ALL USESOTHER THAN TRANSPORTATIONOR GENERATION.ASSUMES V3 OF GENERATIONFUEL INPUT EQUIVALENT ISRECOVERABLE.CI)z0-.J-.Jcr(.!)10.0z163% INCREASE0-.J-.J- 25.01-------------------BASELINE1979 LOW 2000MEAN 2000 HIGH 2000CITY OF CORDOVAPROJECTIONS OF CURRENTPETROLEUM FUEL USEWITH GENERATIONWASTE t£AT RECOVERYFIGURE 17

100OTHER TRANSPORTATIONNOTE:SCENARIO ASSUMING 50·/. OFGENERATION WASTE HEAT ISONLY UTILIZABLE HEAT.80BOAT TRANSPORTATION>-C)0::LaJzLaJ60INDUSTRY~• 40 (1979: 228.2 It 10 9 BTU)20HEATING(2000 I 528.0 It 10 9 BTU)ELECTRIC IT Y(1979 I 165.6 It 109 BTU)REDUCED HEATING ENERGY(2000 I 383.2 It 10 9 BTU)...UTILIZABLE WASTE HEATI (1179 SAVINGS:62.6 It 109 BTU)I (2000 SAVINGS:144.8 It 10 9 BTU).. 10CITY OF CORDOVAIMPACT OF WASTE HEAT USEFIGURE 18" I, f , • , , 1 ., '. , , , , " ,. ,. " 'I • , , , ~ , f , ~ 1

ENERGY BALANCE ANDREQUIREMENTS - TABLES--228.0 70.0 320.6 -- 89.6 179.825.7 7.9 36.1 10.1 20.2APPENDIX ATABLE A-I1979 PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY BALANCE*CORDOVA AREABOAT OTHER ELECTRICTRANSPOR- TRANSPOR- GENERA-HEATINGINDUSTRY TATION TATION TION10 9 BTU 10 9 BTU 10 9 BTU 10 9 BTU 10 9 BTU% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of TotalTOTAL10 9 BTU% of Total888.0100* Note that wood for residental heating provides 17.1 x 10 9 Btu.,'"APA21/B1A-I

CONSUMERTYPE #RESIDENTIAL 731TABLE A-21979 PETROLEUM BASED ENERGY SOURCE AND USECORDOVA AREAENERGY FORM CONSUMEDDIESEL GASOLINE PROPANE HEATING FUEL AVIATION GAS TOTAL ELECTRICITY$2 $ $ $ $1000 Gal/Gal 1000 Gal/Gal 1000 Gal/Gal 1000 Gal/Gal 1000 Gal/Gal 1000 Gal No. Cons1/MWH10 9 $Ave. kWhSTU/ lO!BTU 10 9 BTU/ 106BTU 10 9 STU/ lO!BTU 10 9 BTU/ 10!STU 10 9 BTU/ lO!BTU 10 9 BTU/% ofmonth / Ave. ¢totalcons kWh462.0/1. 12 271. 1/ 1. 41 65.3/ 1. 90 630.4/ 1. 09 20.0/na 3 1,448.8 696/ 4,23063.8/8.1 34.6/11.1 5.9/20.9 84.8/12.0 2.6/na 191. 7/21. 6 506/ 17COMMERCIALI!76666.5/1. 12 203.3/ 1. 41 2.0/ 1.90 160.8/na 2,032.6 234/ 4,009BUSINESSES- 0 -230.1/ 8.1 26.0/11.1 0.2/20.920.4/na 276.6/31.1 1,428/ 17INDUSTRIAL5574.0/1.12 46.9/ 1. 41- 0 - - 0 - - 0 -620.9 9/ 5,367USERS 79.2/8.1 6.0/11.1 85.2/9.6 49,694/ 11FISHING6501,736.3/1.12 633.6/ 1.41- 0 - - 0 - - 0 -2,369.9 na / naVESSELS 239.7/na 80.9/11.1 320.6/36.1 na / naPUBLIC10100.0/1.12BUILDINGS 13.8/8.1- 0 - - 0 - - 0 -- 0 -100.0 8/ 80013.8/ 1. 6 8,333/ naTOTALS 1,4724,538.8/1. 12 1,154.9/ 1.41 67.3/ 1. 90 630.4/ 1. 09 180.8/na 6,572.2 947/14,406626.6/8.1 147.5/11.1 6.1/20.9 84.8/20.9 23.0/na 888.0/100.0 1,268/ na% OF TOTAL BTU 70.6 16.6 0.7 9.5 2.6 100.0 inc 1 in DieselCANNERY i ncl in large incl in large(self generating)usersusers1Consumers2 1980 retail cost3 not available1 / 1,365na na na 450 / na

KEA08/D4TABLE A-3SUMMARY ELECTRICAL FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000*CITY OF CORDOVAYear: 19801985 19901995 2000ScenarioLow Mean High Low Mean HighLow Mean High Low Mean HighMaximum Demand(MW) 3.44.1 5.0 5. 7 5.0 5.8 8.36.6 7.4 11.8 8.0 8.6 16.5Energy Usage(10 3 MWH) 16.718.5 22.0 26.3 20.2 24.7 39.024.8 30.1 58.2 27.8 35.9 80.0*not including heat (see Tables A-7, A-8, and A-9)

KEA08/D2TABLE A-4LOW ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECASTCITY OF CORDOVAYEAR: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000A. Number & Typeof Consumer:1. Residential 719 756 795 835 8782. Small Commercial «50 kVA) 247 1 260 273 287 3013. Large Commercial (50 to 350 kVA) 7 8 8 9 104. Large Commercial (>350 kVA) 3 3 3 4 45. Public Lights, etc. 2 2 3 4 46. Unaccounted Power 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%B. Average Consumption (KWH)Per Year Per Consumer1. Residential 5,833 5,800 5,500 5,500 5,3002. Small Commercial 20,615 2 22,750 25,100 27,750 30,6003. Large Commercial 280,000 2 309,000 341,000 377,000 416,0004. Large Commercial 1,212,000 2 1,340,000 1,477,000 1,631,000 1,800,0005. Public Lights, etc. 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,0006. Unaccounted Power 12% 10% 10% 10% 10%C. Total Energy (10 3 MWH): 16.7 18.5 20.2 24.8 27.8D. Maximum Demand (MW): 3.4 3 4.1 5.0 6.6 4 8.01Increase of 1% a year.2 Increase of 2% a year.3 Increase of 4% a year.4 Addition of 500 kW load." , .. ! , , , I , 1 • ~ 'I 'I , I , • J , , , , , , I , ,

TABLE A-5MEAN ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECASTCITY OF CORDOVAYear:19BO19B2198319841985198719891990199119931994199519961997199819992000A. Number and Type of Consumers1. Residential2. Small Commercial« 50 kVA)3. Large Commercial(> 50 < 350 kVA)4. Large Commercial(> 350 kVA)5. Public Lighting, etc.6. Unaccounted Loads (X)(city, plant & losses)B. Average Consumption (kWh)Per Consumer Per Year7192473212740 1252 23211763257921178526294 •412'80926794412833 3272104412846278104410 B858284104410871290114510884295114510897 5300 3114510906305124612 9915309125 6612924314135612933318135612942323135612952328145610 1096133314561097133B1556109Bl3431656109913481756101. Residential 5,8332. Small Commercial 20,6153. Large Commercial 280,0004. Large Commercial 1,212,0005. Public Lighting, etc. 9,0006,00020,615297,000 11,212,0009,0006,00021,000306,0001,220,0009,0006,00021,000315,0001,315,000 •9,0006,00021,500325,0001,341,300 29,0006,00021,500335,0001,368,0009,0005,500 1122 ,000344,0001,395,5009,0005,50022,000355,0001,423,0009,0005,50022,500365,0001,452,0009,0005,50022,500377,0001,480,0009,0005,BOO 223,0003B8,0001,510,0009,0005,80023,000400,0001,540,0009,0005,BOO23,500412,0001,432,000 69,0005,80024,000424,0001,462,0009,0005,BOO24,500437,0001,490,0009,0005,80024,500450,0001,520,0009,0006,00025,000463,0001,550,0009,0006,00025,500477 ,0001,5B2,0009,0006,00026,000490,0001,610,0009,0006,00026,500506,0001,646,0009,0006,00027,000521,0001,680,0009,000C. Total EnergY, Consumption(10 3 x MHW) 16.717.518.220.521. 222.021.822.323.323.824.726.027.728.929.630.131.031.833.034.535.9D. Maximum Demand (MW) 3.4 13.53.64.74.95.05.15.35.45.65.86.06.87.07.27.47.67.9B.lB.38.6Notes:1 A growth rate of 3% is assumed during this period.2 A growth rate of 2~ is assumed during this period.3 A growth rate of 1.5~ is assumed during this period.• Addition 1,000 kW, 1.6 MWh load of Chugach Fisheries to CEA.S A growth rate of 1~ is assumed during this period.S Addition of a 600 kW, 1 MWh future customer ..7 Increase in transmission network.B Decrease due to system improvements.9 Expansion of transmission network.10 Transmission line improvements.11 Drop due to rising cost.

.. t.KEA08/D1TABLE A-6HIGH ELECTRICAL LOAD FORECASTCITY OF CORDOVAYear: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000A. Number & Typeof Consumer:1. Residential 719 1 834 966 1,120 1,2982. Small Commercial «50 kVA) 247 1 286 273 332 3853. La rge Commerc i a 1 (50 to 350 kVA) 7 10 15 18 204. Large Commercial (>350 kVA) 3 4 6 8 105. Public Lights, etc. 2 4 6 8 106. Unaccounted Power 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%B. Average Consumption (KWH)Per Year Per Consumer1. Residential 5,833 2 7,100 8,600 10,500 12,7502. Small Commercial 20,615 2 25,000 30,500 37,100 45,0003. Large Commercial 280,000 2 340,600 415,000 504,000 614,0004. Large Commercial 1,212,000 2 1,475,000 1,794,000 2,183,000 2,656,0005. Public Lights, etc. 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,0006. Unaccounted Power 12% 10% 10% 10% 10%C. Total Energy (10 3 MWH): 16.7 26.3 39.0 58.2 80.0D. Maximum Demand (MW): 3.4 3 5.7 8.3 11.8 16.513% increase every year.24% increase in consumption.3 6% increase + large loads (1 MW in 1983 for Chugach Fisheries& 350 kW per customer thereafter.)

""..,.,..,TABLE A-7LOW HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000-CITY OF CORDOVA ..,.Year POEulation Heating ""10 9 BTU 10 6 kWh .....1980 2386 295.5 88.3 ..•1981 2446 300.4 89.8..1982 2488 304.9 91. 2...1983 2529 308.3 92.2..1984 2571 312.0 93.3..1985 2613 315.6 94.4 -1986 2659 319.7 95.6..1987 2706 324.0 96.91988 2755 335.1 100.2-.,1989 2802 346.2 103.51990 2850 351.4 105.1 1991 2907 357.9 107.0 ..1992 2967 364.9 109.1 •1993 3026 371. 6 111.1-1994 3091 379.1 113.3-...,1995 3154 386.3 115.5...1996 3221 394.0 117.8...1997 3294 402.6 120.4...1998 3364 410.8 122.81999 3438 419.4 125.4-2000 3521 429.1 128.3 .. "III!..""III!KEA08/AA-7 til..II'

TABLE A-8MEAN HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000CITY OF CORDOVAYearPopulationHeating10 9 BTU 10 6 kWh1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002406 298.0 89.12452 302.0 90.32499 306.2 91. 52547 310.5 92.82592 314.5 94.02639 318.7 95.32703 325.0 97.22760 330.5 98.83208 384.4 114.93289 392.8 117.43338 397.3 118.83433 407.2 121. 73495 413.3 123.63566 420.4 125.73632 427.2 127.73695 433.2 129.53773 441.3 131.93847 449.5 134.43920 456.9 136.63990 464.1 138.84073 472.9 141. 4A-8KEA08/A

TABLE A-9 ...HIGH HEAT ENERGY FORECASTS TO YEAR 2000CITY OF CORDOVA....Year Po~ulation Heating10 9 BTU 10 6 kWh ..1980 2408 298.2 89.2 ....'"1981 2455 302.4 90.41982 2506 307.1 91. 81983 2555 311. 5 93.11984 2607 316.3 94.6....1985 2649 319.9 95.6...1986 2688 323.2 96.61987 2799 335.2 100.2.-1988 2928 350.8 104.9 ...1989 3285 392.3 117.31990 3938 458.4 137.1 •""',1991 3992 464.6 138.9 •1992 4006 466.3 139.4 .....1993 4065 473.1 141.41994 4166 478.1 142.9 ...'1995 4254 486.0 145.3.~.'1996 4332 492.8 147.3...1997 4406 499.0 149.21998 4479 505.1 151. 0..1999 4549 510.8 152.72000 4616 516.1 154.3 ....A-9 ....KEA08/A..",•........•'

TABLE A-10CURRENT ENERGY USE PROJECTED TO YEAR 2000CITY OF CORDOVA1979Low EstimateYear 2000Mean EstimateYear 2000High EstimateYear 2000Population EstimatesEstimate of No. of Homes2450731352l1050 (1.4% increase)40731216 (1.7% increase)46161378 (1. 9% increase)Diesel FuelResidentialCommercialCanneriesFishing BoatsPublic BuildingsHeating Fuel#1 FuelPropaneResidentialCommercialGasolineFishingOther TransportationAviation GasElectric GenerationGallons/10 9 BTU462,000/ 63.8364,000/ 50.2574,000/ 79.21,736,273/239. 7100,000/ 13.8630,447/ 84.865,250/ 5.92,048/ 0.2633,597/ 80.9521,406/ 66.6181,8321 23.01,302,474/179.7% Incrl/Gallons/109 BTU1.4 / 647,000 / 89.21.4 / 510,000 / 70.21.4 / 804,000 /111. 01.4 /2,431,000 /335.41. 45 / 145,000 / 20.01.4 / 883,000 /118.71.4 / 91,000 / 8.31.4 / 3,000 / 0.31.4 / 887,000 /112.71.4 / 730,000 / 92.71.4 / 255,000 / 32.3N/A2 /2,208,000 /304. 7% Incr/Gallons/10 9 BTU1.71.71. 451. 451. 451.71.71.71. 451.71.7N/A/ 785,000 / 108.4/ 619,000 / 85.4/ 832,000/114.9/2,518,000 / 347.4/ 145,000 / 20.0/1,072,000 / 144.2/ 111,000 / 10.1/ 3,000 / 0.3/ 919,000/116.7/ 886,000 / 112.6/ 304,000 / 39.3/2,812,000 / 388.0% Incr/Gallons/10 9BTU1.9 / 878,000 / 121. 11.9 / 692,000 / 95.41.5 / 861,000 / 118.81.5 /2,604,000 / 359.41. 45 / 145,000 / 20.01.9 /1,198,000/161.11.9 / 124,000 / 11. 31.9 / 4,000 / 0.41.5 / 950,000 / 120.71.9 / 991,000 / 125.81.9 / 345,000 / 43.9N/A /6,354,000 / 876.816.1/887.827.8/1295.535.9/1487.380.0/2054.7Note:Fuel consumption figures were increased the same percentage as population incI'ease estimates except for canneries, fishery relateduses, and public buildings which were increased at the lower percentages shown as these facilities appear closer to saturation andtherefore would have more limited growth.1 Increase2 Not Appropriate

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSOUTLINEPAGEB.1 CARBON CREEK COALB.2 TRANSMISSION OF CARBON CREEK ELECTRICITYB.3 HEALY COALB.4 KATALLA OIL AND GASB.5 INTERTIE WITH VALDEZB.6 INTERTIED SMALL HYDROB.7 POWER CREEK HYDROELECTRICITYB.8 CRATER LAKE HYDROELECTRICITYB-1B-7B-8B-9B-10B-11B-13B-15

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS1. CARBON CREEK COALAn estimation of the costs involved in mining the coals at Carbon Creekhas been undertaken to enable comparison to other resources, as well asto other coals. Coals at Carbon Creek could be developed in the followingfashion:1) An initial exploration program would be required to determineoverall feasibility and the areas to be mined, followed by a drillingprogram to prove reserves and determine the distribution andcharacter of the coal.2) Construction of a 38-mi1e access road from Mile 39 on theCopper River Highway would then take place. Construction equipmentand materials would be brought in and camp facilities established.It should be noted that the construction of this road is mandatoryfor the establishment of a mining operation, and that a small scaleoperation such as the one proposed cannot economically build itsown road. Other uses for the road such as the development oflogging by Chugach Natives, Inc., may justify construction.3) Development of the mine and mine-mouth power plant wouldoverlap with construction of the camp.The mine itself wouldinvolve adits driven along the trend of coal stringers and lenseswith raises or stopes when necessary to mine offshoots. Mostequipment would operate from electricity provided by the powerplant.The coal would be conveyed directly from the mine into abeneficiating system which would probably include sorting, crushing,screening, and drying. After drying, the coal could godirectly into the power plant or into a stockpile.Note that toeliminate sUbstantial transportation costs, a mine-mouth powerplant with transmission lines to Cordova was decided on, ratherthan trucking the coal 77 miles to Cordova.Geology, terrain, climate and economics dictate that underground miningmethods be employed.To extract 20,000 tons of coal in the first yearAPA25/fl B-1

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS.....of production, approximately 18 personnel would mine 96 tons of coal perday, five days per week, on a year round basis.on a slight uphill grade to allow drainage.Adits would be advancedCoal and the shale wasterock would be mined from the face with a coal cutting machine.tram would haul the coal to a truck which would take it to the mineA scoopconveyer for transport to the beneficiating plant and power plant orstockpi 1 e.•Due to the inconsistency of the coal occurrences, several relativelyshort tunnels (6,000 to 8,000 feet) may be required over a 25-yearperiod.for most mines.Coal production per man per hour will be less than is commonThe costing figures in the tables which follow are based on new equipmentquotes from various Alaskan dealers and inflated values for certainunderground machinery as quoted in Bottge's 1977 report (See Appendix E).Road construction, camp and mining development were roughly estimatedbased on current in-house projects with input from several engineersand construction managers.Mining methods and effective costs arehypothetical, as the actual deposits are not known.In general, costingwas done conservatively at each stage so no contingency is added at theend.Exploration and drilling costs were based on a program that wouldencounter minimal weather problems and waste only a small percentage ofthe drill footage.•...,....- ..-APA25/f2 B-2

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTABLE B.1-1SUMMARY ESTIMATES FOR COST OFCARBON CREEK COAL PER TONDevelopment CostsA. Initial ExplorationB. Drilling Program to Prove DepositsC. Road Construction ($200,000/mile x38 miles) plus 6 Bridges @ $500,000D. Initial Site, Camp and MineDevelopmentE. Mine Engineering and ConstructionF. ContingenciesG. Environmental Allowance (10%)Subtotal - Development Costs$ 271,000824,00010,600,0001,000,000850,0001,000,0001 1400 1000$15,945,000Capital CostsA. Mining EquipmentB. Construction, Transportion and RoadMaintenance Equipment (New Cost)C. Beneficiation and ProcessingEquipmentD. Camp Facilities, (Temporary andPermanent)E. FreightF. Total Interest on 25-Year Loan forAbove at 8%Subtotal Capital CostsTotal Fixed Costs1,280,000823,000150,000944,000100,0007 1240 1000$10,537,000$26,482,000Subtotal Fixed Cost/ton Calculated over25-year Life of Mine, Assuming 15,000 tons/year,Escalated to Total Production of 600,000 tonsin 25 Years$44. 14/tonAPA25/f3 B-3

Annual Operating CostA. Personnel (18 men, modified fromB.C.D.E.F.Bottge 77)SuppliesDepreciation and MaintenanceInsuranceFuel (excluding coal)Continued ExplorationAPPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS760,000300,000300,00080,00010,00020,000$1,470,000......•....'...Cost/ton calculated for 20,000 tonsin first year; per ton cost per year$73.50/tonTransporation CostA. Beneficiating Process, Handlingto PlantCost/tonSubtotal Variable Costs/tonTotal Cost/ton2.00/ton75.50/ton$119. 64/ton••....TABLE 8.1-2INITIAL GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCEPROGRAM TO OUTLINE TARGETS2 Drillers, limited drilling (60 days,2,000 feet)Project GeologistGeologistCookCamp RentalTransportationMiscellaneous CostsTotal$120,00031,00028,0005,00025,00060,0002,000$271,000•.....,.,.....APA25/f48-4•

",,*APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTABLE B.1-3DRILLING PROGRAM TO PROVE RESERVESDrilling, Additional 10,000 feet @ $60/ft,(80 Days Camp, 4 Drillers, 1 Mechanic)1 Project Geologist, 120 days @ $350/day2 Assistant Geologists, 120 days @ $200/dayCookCamp Rental, $70/day/manTransportationMiscellaneous CostsTotal$600,00042,00036,0006,00056,00080,0004,000$824,000TABLE B.1-4CAPITAL COST DETAILSCONSTRUCTION, TRANSPORTATION AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENTNo. Description Cost1 0-8 Full Cab, Ripper $252,0001 End Dumps, 20 yd 3 100,0001 Fuel Truck 40,0001 Front Loaders, 3 yd 3 65,0001 Grader, 14-G 152,0001 4-wheel Drive Pickup 12,0001 4-wheel Drive Crew Rig 12,0001 Forkl ift 40,0001 Crane, 13 ton 150 z 000Total $823,000APA25/f5 B-5

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTABLE B.1-5MINING EQUIPMENT"',DescriptionCostCoal Drills, Cutting Machines, Scoop Trams,Supply Vehicles, etc.Ventilation System and Dust FacilityConveyor SystemSafety EquipmentFuel StorageSite PreparationConcrete PortalTABLE B.1-6CAMP FACILITIESTotal(Both Temporary (T) and Permanent (P)for up to 25 Men)No. Description Unit Cost1 (T) Mobile Bunkhouse (6-8 men) $26,0001 (T) Galley/Shower 48,0001 (P) Bunkhouse and Cookhouse(3,000 square feet) 500,0001 (P) Office (20 ft x 20 ft) 40,0001 (P) Shop (60 ft x 60 ft) 300,0002 (P) Storage building 15,000Total$700,000150,000150,00080,000100,00050,00050.000$1,280,000Extension$26,00048,000500,00040,000300,00030 1000$944,000••.,•...,.......APA25/f6 B-6.,

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS2. TRANSMISSION OF CARBON CREEK COAL ELECTRICITYIf a mine mouth power plant was built in the Carbon Creek area (about 15miles northeast of Katalla) a transmission line approximately 63 milesin length would be required to deliver the electric power to the Cordovadiesel plant vicinity.The route of such a transmission line would be mostly at elevationsbelow 100 feet and would roughly parallel the road system that wouldconnect the coal mining area to Cordova. About 37 miles of this roadsystem already exists (a portion of the Copper River Highway).With a potential power requirement in Cordova of 30 to 50 Megawatts ofpeaking capacity by year 2000 a transmission line configuration of138 kV with a 556.5 KCM ACSR conductor is necessary. It is estimatedthat such a line constructed in the location described above would costabout $150,000 per mile in today's dollars (1981). With the addition ofsUbstations at the generating plant ($800,000) and at Cordova ($800,000)the total transmission investment would be $11,050,000.Operation and maintenance of a transmission system in this location willpose no unusual problems for a utility familiar with Alaskan conditions.3. HEALY COALThe Healy coal fields are located about 90 miles south of Fairbanks onthe Pa~ks Highway and are connected to Anchorage, Seward, and Whittierby the Alaska Railroad. The coal near Healy has been mined by theUsibelli Coal Company for over 25 years.While the coals of the Healy area are considerably lower in Btu content(8,000 + Btu/lb) than the Bering River coals, they are available insufficient quantity now at a much lower cost than the cost estimated fordevelopment and use of Bering River coals. Large reserves (in excess of100 million tons) and a burgeoning market for coal should tend to keepthis coal at competitive prices.APA25/f7 B-7

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSCosts for delivery of Healy coal to Cordova are shown in the tablebelow. It has been assumed that 20,000 tons of coal at 8,000 Btu/lbwould provide most of Cordova1s electrical energy requirement in 1981.TABLE B.3-1HEALY COAL COSTSCoal Purchase (1981)Rail Freight to WhittierBarge Freight to CordovaHandling (Docks and Stockpile)Total$23.00/ton9. 72/ton7. 38/ton4.00/ton$44.10/tonCoal purchase and rail freight costs were direct quotes. Handling costswere estimated based on capital costs for provision and operation of afacility that could load and unload loose coal from rail cars onto abarge. Barging costs were initially quoted; however, a review of thefollowing method of operation shows that considerable savings are possibleby utilization of an Alaska based barge: costs are based on usageof an 8,000 ton barge with a 3,000 hp tug, delivered and returned toSeattle; it would require three trips to move 20,000 tons of coal; andeach trip would be nearly 200 miles round trip, taking 28 hours. Thesecosts are detailed in the following table:•.......,•..•......TABLE B.3-2BARGING COSTSBarge Delivery and Return Time of 16 days x $6,500/day28 hrs/trip x 3 trips @ $270/hr40 hrs/trip Standby Time x 3 trips @ $175/hr$104,00022,68021,000$147,680......Cost/ton for Barging = $147,680/20,000 tons = $7.38/tonAPA25/f8 B-8....

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS4. KATALLA OIL AND GASTo explore and develop either old or new wells at Kata11a would be veryexpensive. In either case, a he1i-portab1e drill would be necessarywith the capability of drilling, casing, logging, and cleaning, 6 to10-inch diameter holes to depths of 1,000 feet. The cost for a singlenew well could be on the order of $300,000 to $500,000 with no guaranteeof production. Without knowing the condition of the old wells, itshould be assumed that re-entering an old well would be about the samecost.Currently, the City of Cordova uses 1.3 million gallons of fuel oil peryear for electrical generation. By the year 2000, its needs are projectedto be 2.8 million gallons per year for electrical generationusing the mean growth scenario. At the estimated production rates of2 barrels per day (84 gallons) it can be quickly calculated that itwou1 d take 43 we 11 s to produce enough fue 1 to supp 1y current needs!Development costs would soar to 25 to 30 million dollars and the priceof a single barrel of unrefined fuel would be $200.00 or more. Operationalexpense, transportation and tariffs would add still further tothe cost. Obviously, this approach is uneconomical. Even if convincingarguments could be made for potential of more productive new discoveriesin the Kata11a area, exploration costs would still run from 10 to 20million dollars for geophysical work and drilling.There is little information on the local gas reserves occasionally foundwith Kata1la oil. Local inquiry revealed that Katalla village used thenatural gas directly from the wellhead for heating and lighting. Thegas burned fairly easily, but noisily, in lanterns; the oil was barreledand barged to customers.APA25/f9 B-9

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS...The following table summarizes rough estimates of costs which would beinvolved in development of oil or gas as an energy source for Cordova.These estimates are based on work in the Barrow area for developmentof NPRA gas by Husky Oil engineers Robert Hall and Max Brewer, anddiscussions with Chat Chatterton of Rowan Drilling.•TABLE B.4-1KATALLA OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COSTSa.Assumptions(1) The reservoir rocks of the Katalla area are as highly deformedat depth as they are near the surface. In fact, the results ofpast drilling both at Katalla and in nearby areas along the BeringRiver bear this out.(2) Deformation consists of tight folds and many associated faults.Traps therefore are expected to be small and dispersed.(3) Production would depend on tapping a series of these smalltraps through a gridwork of wells.(4) Production rates will be low. Some enhancement of productionmay be feasible using modern methods, but it is still unlikelythat the needs of Cordova could be met with less than 15-20well s.(5) Compressor stations will probably be necessary to pump theproduct to Cordova. The shallow depth of the reservoir andthe many faults in the area will tend to decrease reservoirpressures.•.,-•..-...I ...APA25/flO B-10.,

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTABLE B.4-1 (Cont1d)b. Cost Estimates• Geophysical Exploration (seismic)and Geologic Analysis$ 2,500,000( \• Drilling of a trageted area from abovestudy:6 holes (2-4000 1 each)4,600,000• Well completion and testing (this is a verytenuous estimate, but assume 15 wells totalwill give the production necessary and thatyou have 100% success rate including thei nit; a 1 6 we 11 s! )9,000,000• Access and Physical Facility; port roads;buildings to house machinery for compressorseparating facility and personnel; collectingsystem to wells.•Pipeline, 40 miles x $20/foot•Distribution within Cordova (3,000 people)2,500,00012,000,0003,000,000TOTAL 33,600,000NOTE:There is a very high risk factor involved in gas explorationin the Katalla area.5. INTERTIE WITH VALDEZA transmission intertie between Cordova and Valdez could provide for anexchange of electrical energy and capacity and also provide connectionto a series of potential hydro sites that exist in the region betweenthe two communities.APA25/f11B-ll

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTable B.5-1 shows projected surplus MWh at Valdez from the Solomon Gulchhydroelectric project and the proposed Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT).The cost or even availability of this "surplus" energy to Cordova isnot known at this time, but will have a major impact on the feasibilityof the intertie alternatives..,......."",An agreement pending approval of the respective voting members, hasbeen reached between Copper Valley Electric Association and the Cityof Valdez for the City to take over the power utility for Valdez.The actual disposition of energy from Solomon Gulch hydroelectricproject will not be determined until the agreement is approved ordisapproved.Additionally, the PRT concept was discussed with AlyeskaPipeline Service Company during design and construction of the Trans­Alaska Pipeline and Alyeska even provided valves in the pipe for installinga PRT system; however, current estimated cost of energy from SolomonGulch and the PRT varies from 1¢ to 12¢ per kWh depending on manyfactors which have not yet been determined. To ill~strate the sensitivityof this cost on those alternatives in which surplus energyis a part of the scenario, two different economic analyses weredeveloped.If a transmission intertie could be made feasible, there would be asubstantial benefit to both comm~nities immediately and increasingbenefits as hydro sites along the route are developed. The followingpreliminary analysis is intended to provide a reconnaissance levelestimate of parameters and costs to provide a basis for considering amore in-depth study if feasibility seems attainable.....--..APA25/f12 B-12....•

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTABLE B.5-1PROJECTED SURPLUS MWH AT VALDEZ(to nearest 100 MWH)YEARHYDRO MWHPRT MWHTOTAL SURPLUS MWH19811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000-0- -0-9,400 -0-2,300 12,5001,300 12,5001,900 12,5007,400 16,6006,200 15,3004,900 14,2003,500 13,0002,100 12,500600 12,500-0- 11,400-0- 9,700-0- 7,900-0- 6,000-0- -0--0- -0--0- -0--0- -0--0- -0--0-9,40014,80013,80014,40024,00021,50019,10016,50014,60013,10011,4009,7007,9006,000-0--0--0--0--0-APA25/f13B-13

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS6. INTERTIED SMALL HYDRO..A preliminary estimate of cost for the three transmission routes describedpreviously in Section IV, "Energy Resource Alternatives," for50 MW transfer capability is:Route (1):Route (2):Route (3):$57,300,000$12,220,000$35,000,000A more in-depth description of how these estimates were developed ispresented in Appendix C.It is clear that Route (2) is the most viable alternate based on theassumptions made.Studies of possible single wire ground return (SWGR) electric lines havebeen made which show potential benefits for transmission systems undersome conditions. There is a small demonstration project operating todayusing this principle and successfully delivering electricity from Bethelto Napakiak. The project is also demonstrating a single phase to threephase state-of-the-art converter which is in use supplying three phasepower to the BIA school in Napakiak. Construction costs for the line toNapakiak were found to be about one third of the cost of conventionalconstruction.The transmission system of Route (2) could obtain substantial savings inthe line costs by using this SWGR concept. Without an in-depth analysisit will be assumed that the overhead line costs can be reduced by onefifthand that the single phase SUbstations will cost 70% of the threephase equivalent. To these costs will be added the estimated singlephase to three phase conversion costs. This SWGR concept is thus estimatedto cost $12,120,000 for Route (2). The SWGR concept appearsworth more in-depth consideration.",........,••..•...........APA25/f14 B-14

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTSTransmission Route (2) passes within easy reach of a number of potentialhydroelectric sites. It is estimated that these hydro sites could bedeveloped at an overall cost of about $5,000 per kW. A reconnaissancelevel estimated overall cost to develop these hydro-power sites is$5,000 per kW installed. It is difficult to refine the estimated costanymore than what is given without actually visiting each site. However,even though increasing the estimated cost per kW by 50 percent, to $7,500,would change the relative year 2041 economic ranking of the Intertiealternatives and the coal generation with Healy coal alternatives, it wouldnot change the recommendation that these alternatives be considered formore indepth feasibility studies.A brief summary of the estimated capacity and corresponding estimatedcost for the hydroelectric sites follows. These sites are listed inorder from Cordova towards Valdez.(a) Sheep River LakesLake 20261200 kW Installed Capacity4,200 MWh Prime and 5,260 MWh AverageCost: $6,000,000Lake 1022 -1200 kW Installed Capacity3,720 MWh Prime and 5,000 MWh AverageCost: $6,000,000Lake 649 -4000 kW Installed Capacity12,360 MWh Prime and 17,660 MWh AverageCost: $20,000,000APA25/f15B-15

(b)Lake 1488 - off Beartrap Bay6700 kW Installed Capacity21,940 MWh Prime and 29,260 MWh AverageCost: $33,500,000APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS.............(c) Dead Creek - Gravina River Tributary(d)15,500 kW Installed Capacity50,200 MWh Prime and 66,960 MWh AverageCost: $77,500,000Lake 1975 - above Dead Creek2,200 kW Installed Capacity4,240 MWh Prime and 9,420 MWh AverageCost: $11,000,000.....1IiI!'•(e)Lake 1878 - above Fidalgo Creek5,000 kW Installed Capacity11,390 MWh Prime and 22,780 MWh AverageCost: $25,000,000•(f) Fidalgo Creek - Run-of-River Plant5,000 kW Installed Capacityo MWh Prime and 10,000 MWh AverageCost: $25,000,000(g) Silver Lake - Duck River12,000 kW Installed Capacity49,450 MWh Prime and AverageCost:Hydro Site - $60,000,000Transmission Line - 3,240,000$63,240,000.,....APA25/f16B-16

APPENDIX BRESOURCE COSTS7. POWER CREEK HYDROELECTRICITYA run-of-river hydroelectric development at Power Creek could possiblybe developed in two stages: a first stage of 6600 kW and a second stageof 6000 kW capacity. Estimated cost for the first stage is $21,600,000(about $3300/kW) and for the second stage is $12,300,000 (about $2100/kW).The dam would be near stream Mile 3.0 (upstream of Ohman Falls) and thepowerhouse would be at about Mile 2.0.The Corps of Engineers has test drilled two dam sites and will test thethird (Ohman Falls) this year. If drilling at this third site showspotential, a final report will be prepared and Federal funds will berequested to begin specification work. Apparently the Power Creekproject will be abandoned by the Corps if drilling proves this OhmanFalls site unsuitable. Excessive depth to bedrock and seepage eliminatedthe previous sites investigated on Power Creek.Figure B.7-1 shows the relation of first stage Power Creek power toCordova's recent loads. This figure clearly shows the need for otherbase load power for much of the year when flows are quite low.8. CRATER LAKE HYDROELECTRICITYThe small watershed of Crater Lake, proximate to Cordova, could provideabout 435 kW of prime power and 3,800 MWh per year. A small dam to raisethe lake level about 10 feet, would offer the possibility of totally regulatedflows, rather than run-of-river type flows. The power plant wouldrequire a small penstock (less than 12 inches in diameter) for the highhead, easy access plant. Discharge toward Orca would permit the projectfulfilling the dual purposes of hydropower and water supply for the canneryat Orca; discharge to Eyak Lake faces topographical problems.The Corps of Engineers plans to install a gauge on the outflow fromCrater Lake in the summer of 1981.Actual installed capacity would be 800 to 900 kW at a cost estimatedat roughly $3500 per kW.APA25/f17 B-17

APPENDIX C.lINTRODUCTIONOUTLINEC.l INTRODUCTIONC.2 EXPLANATORY NOTESC.3 ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROFILESC.3.lC.3.2C.3.3C.3.4C.3.SC.3.6C.3.7Current Petroleum TechnologyC.3.l.1 Diesel-Electric GenerationC.3.1.2 Oil HeatingHydroelectric TechnologiesC.3.2.1 Hydroelectric GenerationC.3.2.2 Electric HeatingElectrical Transmission IntertiesCoal TechnologiesC.3.4.1 Coal-Fired Steam-Electric GenerationC.3.4.2 Coal and Wood HeatingConservation TechnologiesC.3.S.1 Diesel Lube Oil RecyclingC.3.S.2 Diesel Waste Heat UtilizationC.3.S.3 Steam CogenerationC.3.S.4 ConservationWind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)Heat Pumpsapa26/hlC.l-l

APPENDIX C.1INTRODUCTION..C.1. INTRODUCTIONThe energy technology profiling effort involves the development of aconsistent set of site specific assumptions to provide a truly comparabledata base. Although at least several data sources are availablefor each technology, the data generally is quite variable (often basedon incompatible assumptions) and, perhaps more important, does not applyto systems of the size or nature which would be utilized in Cordova inparticular.Data discrepancies for the so-called alternative energytechnologies are also strongly influenced by the simple lack of experiencein constructing and operating facilities utilizing these technologies....'..The technology profiles which follow are an attempt to provide a consistent,appropriate data base relevant to Cordova's energy needs to theyear 2000. We are engineers, not visionaries, and unforeseen progressin the more developmental technologies could cause radical need forreassessment of these technologies. We can reasonably expect little ofsuch progress until at least 1985 and, most likely, after 1990.•..•These profi 1 es are in conformance wi th the recommended APA format.-•....apa26/h2C.1-2..

"ojAPPENDIX C.2EXPLANATORY NOTESC.2. EXPLANATORY NOTESSevera 1 explanatory notes apply to the profil i ng effort in general:1. Factors that cause differences in electrical generating plantcapital costs per kW include:project scope• regulatory requirements• local cost variations• plant size• single versus multiple unit plants• construction time• interest rates2.The availability factor is used as a measure of reliability and isthe percentage of time over a specified period (typically one year)that the power plant was available to generate electricity. Creditfor availability is given if the plant is shut down for any reason.3. Net Energy as used here is typi cally referred to as the "heat rate"in the case of electric generation and is expressed as the ratio ofBtu in to kWh out in this case. For direct heat application cases,this ratio is Btu in to Btu out.apa26/mlC.2-1

APPENDIX C.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRICC.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRIC GENERATION(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedIn the diesel engine, air is compressed in a cylinder to ahigh pressure. Fuel oil is injected into the compressed air,which is at a temperature above the fuel ignition point, andthe fuel burns, converting thermal energy to mechanical energyby driving a piston. Pistons drive a shaft which in turndrives the generator....-(B)2) Current and future availabilityDiesel engines driving electrical generators are one of themost efficient simple cycle converters of chemical energy(fuel) to electrical energy. Although the diesel cycle intheory will burn any combustible matter, the practical fact ofthe matter is that these engines burn only high grade liquidpetroleum or gas, except for multi-thousand horsepower engineswhich can burn heated residual oil. Diesel generating unitsare usually built as an integral whole and mounted on skidsfor installation at their place of use.Performance Characteristics1)Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formIn addition to electricity, diesel generators produce twokinds of capturable waste heat: from the cooling waterand from the exhaust. The cooling water normally is inthe 160-200 o F range, but it can be 250°F or higher with.........II'...............II'apa26/d1C.3.1.1-1..

APPENDIX C.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRICslight engine modification. Engines today are usuallyrun at the cooler temperatures because of design simplicity,simpler operating routines, and first cost economy.The exhaust heat in a diesel is of higher temperature andconsequent ly more easily used than the cool i ng waterheat, but higher initial costs and increased operatingcomplexities are encountered when attempting to recoverenergy from the exhaust gases.b) QuantityTypically 30% of the fuel energy supplied to a dieselelectricset is converted to electricity, 30% is transferredto cooling water, 30% is exhausted as hot gas, and10% is radiated directly from the engine block. TypicalAlaska diesel installation range from about 50 to 2500kW.c)Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualDiesel units are typically base loaded ( not subject todynamic variations).2)Re 1 i abil itya) Need for back-upProper install at ion and mai ntenance allow continuous1 oadi ng.b) Storage requirementsTanks located nearby the power plant.apa26/d2C.3.1.1-2

APPENDIX C.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRIC3) Thermodynamic efficiency• Typically 17-31% overall plant efficiency without heatrecovery.4) Net energy.'(C)Costs• 11,000 - 20,000 Btu/kWh1) Capital••$400/kW (AVEC)$265-530/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.32 for units up to500 kW)• $220/kW (Cordova bid)2) Assembly and installation• $400/kW (AVEC)• $230-690/kW (Bristol Bay 1979 $ X 1.32)•3) Operation$950/kW (Kake capital and installation)$220/kW (Cordova Estimate).... '.,..- ..•4-8% of investment per year (Bristol Bay operation)4) Maintenance and replacement...apa26/d3•••20 years)•2% of investment per year (Bristol Bay maintenance)$7.44/MWH (THREA records, maintenance)9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for$150,000 in salaries + $7/MWH (Cordova estimate)C.3.1.1-3••

APPENDIX C.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRIC5) Economies of scaleDiesel electric units range from around 1 kW to around 2.5 MW.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspect, land, heightA 1000 kW unit is typically skid mounted, is about 8 feet high,6 feet wide, and 18 feet long. The unit requires foundation,enclosure, and provision for cooling and combustion air.2) Resource needsa) RenewableN/Ab) Non-renewableNo.2 diesel fuelinstallations.is typically used for stationary3) Construction and operating employment by skillConstruction can be done with supervised typical local laborand equipment. Operation requires operator/mechanics.4)Environmental residualsThe composition of the exhaust is a function of the air-fuelratio and the hydrogen-carbon ratio of the fuel. Residualsinclude: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and tracesof nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons.apa26/d4C.3.1.1-4

APPENDIX C.3.1.1DIESEL-ELECTRIC5) Health or safety aspectsFuel tanks require spill protection, often difficult in remoteinstallations. Major consideration is potential impact fromsuch spills.III'(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1)2)Cost per million BTU or kWh (fuel & lube oil costs only)••10-11¢/kWh (Kotzebue and Bethel)22-25¢/kWh (Small Villages)• 17¢/kWh (Cordova residential)• 11¢/kWh (Cordova commercial)Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBTU or kWh..... '....- ..•From 0.07 to 0.12 gallons of fuel per kWh.Environmental residuals per million Btu: N/A.....3)Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability andits availabilityDiesel units are typically stocked by several manufacturersand, as such, have relatively short lead times for use. Whilethis technology is a widely used application, lack of qualifiedoperators and availability of spare parts have posed problemsinA 1 aska.If..•..-apa26/d5C.3.1.1-5"'",...

APPENDIX C.3.1.2OIL HEATINGC.3.1.2OIL HEATING(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedAn oil burner is a mechanical device for preparing fuel oilto combine with air under controlled conditions for combustion.Two methods (atomization and vaporization) are used for thepreparation of fuel oil for the combustion process.combustion is supplied by natural or mechanical draft.Air forIgnitionis generally accomplished by an electric spark or pilot flame.Operation may be continuous, intermittent, modulating, or highlowflame.2) Current and future availabilityLong history of practice in Cordova.The majority of residential burner production (over 95%) is ofthe high pressure atomizing gun burner type. Substantialnumbers of other types of burners are still in operation, butonly a few of these types are currently in production.(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formSpace heat or hot water for hydroni c space heatingsystems ....APA26/J1C.3.1.2-1

APPENDIX C.3.1.2OIL HEATING..•b) QuantityResidential heating burners typically operate in the 0.5to 3.5 gallon per hour range.No.2 fuel oil is generally used, although burners in theresidential size range can also operate on NO.1 fuel oil.......Output ratings of 64,000 - 150,000 Btu/hour are typical.c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualAvailable whenever fuel oil is available...2)Reliabilitya) Need for back-upNone usually required.b) Storage requirements....3)Requires fuel storage tanks.Thermodynamic efficiencyAbout 70%.4) Net energyAbout 1.4 units in for 1.0 units out.-....-....APA26/J2C.3.1.2-2•

APPENDIX C.3.1.2OIL HEATING(C)Costs1) CapitalA typical residential unit costs on the order of $800-1000 forair heating units.2) Assembly and installationAbout equal to 2 to 3 times the capital cost.3) OperationNegligible, as this is performed by the homeowner.4) Maintenance and replacementEasily maintained; units have a typical 10-20 year 1 He.5) Economies of scaleNot appropriate.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspects, land, heightNeeds to be isolated from flammable materials.2) Resource needsa) RenewableNone.APA26/J3 c. 3.1. 2-3

APPENDIX C. 3.1. 2OIL HEATINGII"b) Non-renewableFuel oil...lit3) Construction and operating employment by skill4)Installed by local services; operated by residents.Annual inspection of burner equipment is recommended to assuregood adjustment and operating condition.Environmental residualsCarbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and traces ofnitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons.5) Health or safety aspectsII'........••Fuel tanks require spill protection. Units must be located asafe distance from flammable materials.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWh•Fuel oil now costs about $13.00 per million Btu taking intoaccount heating efficiency.2)Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh..Requires 7.25 gallons per million Btu.Environmental residualsper million Btu not available.... ,.....APA26/J4C. 3.1. 2-4•

APPENDIX C.3.1.2OIL HEATING3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailabiltiyThe technology is commercially available, reliable, and providesmost of Cordova's heating needs.The rising cost of fuel oil is, however, making this technologyless and less desirable.APA26/J5C. 3.1. 2-5

APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRICC.3.2.1 HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION(A) General Description1. Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedI n the hydroe 1 ectri c power development, fl owi ng water isdi rected into a hydraul i c turbi ne where the energy in thewater is used to turn a shaft, which in turn drives a generator.In their action, turbines involve a continuous transformationof the potential and/or kinetic energy of the waterinto usable mechanical energy at the shaft. Water stored atrest at an elevation above the level of the turbine (head)possesses potential energy; when flowing, the water possesseskinetic energy as a function of its velocity.2. Current and future availability.........••Hydroelectric developments in the United States, as of January1978, totaled 59 million kilowatts, producing an estimatedaverage annual output of 276 billion kilowatt hours accordingto the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Hydropower providesabout 10% of Alas ka IS elect ri c energy needs. Deve 1 opmentsrange in size from over a million kilowatts down to just a fewkilowatts of installed capacity. Hydropower is a time provenmethod of generation that offers unique advantages. Fuelcost, a major contributor to thermal plant operating costs, iseliminated.• .....'Another advantage of hydropower developments is that they lastmuch longer than do other plant types. Hydropower deve 1 opmentsare, however, initially costly and require around5 years of lead time, from reconnaissance to start-up. Licensingprocedures, particularly for smaller projects, are beingstreamlined. Streamlining licensing procedures can significantlyreduce the amount of lead time needed to bring a projecton-line.III'.."",..........APA/26/BC.3.2.1-1•

APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRIC(B)Performance Characteristics1. Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formHydropower provides readily regulated electricity. Waterquality is not affected. A slight temperature differentialmay exist between discharge water and the receivingwaters. The effect of the temperature change on spawningsalmon normally requires investigation.b) QuantityApproximately 60% of the energy stored in the water willresult in saleable electricity. The remaining 40% willbe lost in the water conduit, turbine, generator, stationservice, transformers, and the transmission line. Typicalinstalled capacities in Alaskan power plants range from1-20 MW.c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualHydropower plants can be base loaded and/or peak loaded.In smaller installations, the operating mode may beadjusted seasonally, depending on the availability ofwater and the demand for electricity.2. Reliabilitya) Need for back-upThe reliability of the hydroplant itself is very high.The transmi ss ion 1 i nes are often routed through veryrugged terrain and are consequently subject to a varietyof natural hazards. Repairs to damaged lines can usuallyAPA/26/BC.3.2.1-2

APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRICbe accomplished relatively quickly. It is customary toprovide sufficient installed diesel generation capacityto provide emergency electricity to the utility's customersin the event that the transmission line or the powerplantshould go down. The amount of backup required canbe reduced by building an alternate transmission line.b) Storage requirements•..- ..A reservoir is usually used to store water except forrun-of-river pl ants. Typi cal reservoi rs wi 11 range insize from a few acres to several hundred acres.3.Thermodynamic efficiencyNot appropriate...(C)4. Net energyCostsApproximately 4800 kWh/installed kW will be generated annually.Saleable energy will be about 10% less when stationservice, transformer, transmission line and other losses areincluded.1. Capi ta 1• $14,000/kW installed Lake Elva near Bristol Bay(feasibility estimate)•$1,800/kW installed - Solomon Gulch near Valdez$50,000/kW installed (reconnaissance estimate)$5,OOO/Kw installed for hydro along Cordova-Valdezintertie route$3,500/kW installed for Crater Lake•• $3,300/kW installed for Power Creek first stage•..••....,.,APA/26/BC.3.2.1-3•

APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRIC2. Assembly and installationSee above.3. OperationOperation and maintenance costs are normally combined whenevaluating a hydropower development.4. Maintenance and replacementOperation and maintenance costs for a hydroelectric developmentnormally depend on the size of the installation and themethod of operation. Most large installations (76,000 kW)will be attended full-time while many of the smaller installationsare operated remotely and visited only occasionally formaintenance. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costfor large installations is $100.00 + $7.00/kW. For small plantsthe estimated cost is $25,000 + $7.00/kW.Annual replacement cost for a hydroelectric plant with 50-year economic life is $3.00 per kW installed.5. Economies of scaleThe cost per kW i nsta 11 ed generally decreases for 1 argerinstallations. Further economics of scale can be realizedwhen the operation of several small hydropower developmentscan be integrated.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1. Siting - directional aspect, land, heightAPA/26/BC.3.2.1-4

..APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRICA suitable site for any hydropower development must, of course,be found. Requirements include an adequate water supply and areasonable proximity to the load center (consumers). Sitepreparation for a hydropower development involves modificationof the existing terrain and results in changes in both thetopography (cuts and fills), and in the natural or existingdrainage pattern. The project boundary (the outer limits ofthe 1 and di rect ly affected by the project) may encompassseveral hundred acres. The impacts of a hydropower developmentcover a wi de spectrum. They affect man, vegetation,wil dl ife, and fi sheri es. The speci a 1 advantage of a hydropowerdevelopment is that it is effectively non-polluting.........2.Resource needsa)RenewableWater.b)Non-renewableSome of the construction and maintenance resources (suchas steel and lube oil) are non-renewable resources.-..3.Construction and operating employment by skillII!Construction of a hydropower development requires the employmentof both highly skilled individuals experienced in thedes i gn and construction of thi s type of project and 1 essexperienced individuals who usually come from the local workforce.Operators of hydroplants are often local diesel powerplant operators who receive a minimal amount of additionaltraining to qualify them to work as hydroplant operators.II'.....APA/26/BC.3.2.1-5

APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRIC4. Environmental residualsNone5. Health or safety aspectsPublic safety, legal liabilities, insurance, and land useissues must be addressed prior to construction of a hydropowerdevelopment.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1. Cost per mi 11 i on Btu or kWhSee Appendix B for cost per kWh.2. Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh.N/A.3. Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailability.Hydroelectric power generation is a well established technology.Each project, and many of its components, are "custom"design jobs. Because of this and because of the large scaleand the long lead time associated with a project, hydropoweris a capital intensive investment with high field explorationcosts. Few utilities alone can afford to provide long termand interim financing. The State of Alaska, the Rural ElectrificationAdministration, and others provide assistance to utilitiesto bring worthwhile projects forward.Hydroplants can be remotely operated from a central station.An operator is usually stationed at the power plant to takecare of routine maintenance. Safety of hydropower develop-APA/26/BC.3.2.1-6

••APPENDIX C.3.2.1HYDROELECTRICments has long been a concern of the Federal and State governments.Criteria for safe design and operation of hydropowerdevelopments are well established and major failures are veryrare.The hydraulic turbine, and its component parts, isdesigned and are built to exacting specifications and isextremely reliable; the turbine has a useful life of upwardsof 30 years..,.,..............,•.,.....•APA/26/BC.3.2.1~7•

PRECIPITATIONaRUNOFFWATERSTOIItAl(RESERVOIRWATERCONDUITHYDRAULICTURBINESHAFTI--__ ~ POWERWATERTAILRACETALWATERHYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAMFIGURE C.3.2.1-1

APPENDIX C.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATINGC.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATING(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved.....Electricity is passed through resistance wiring and gives offheat in encountering such resistance. The heat is transferredto air or water.2) Current and future availabilityElectric heat is clean, noiseless, easily controllable andrelatively efficient. Electric heat is recognized as a soundmeans of heating buildings where heat losses are held to asound, economical level and the cost of electricity is notprohibitive.•(B)Performance Characteristics1)Energy output..a) Quality - temperature, formHeat or hot water for space heating applications.b) Quantity3413 Btu in per kWh out. Typical residential furnacesare of capacities in the range of 20,000 to 120,000 Btuper hour...-II'.....•APA26/CC.3.2.2-1

APPENDIX C.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATINGc) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualAvailable whenever there is electricity.2) Re1 iabil itya) Need for back-upTypically, none.b) Storage requirementsNone.3) Thermodynamic efficiencySo far as the convers i on of e 1 ectri c energy into heat isconcerned, all types of electric resistance heaters are equallyefficient. They all produce 3413 Btu per kilowatt-hour ofelectrical energy used. From a thermodynamic efficiencystandpoint, electric heaters are 100 percent efficient.However, different types of heaters differ in effectiveness;the effectiveness is determined by the means used to transferthe heat generated into the area that is to be heated.4) Net energyOverall, say about 1.02 units in to 1.00 unit out.(C)Costs1) CapitalAbout $800-1000 for a central home unit.APA26/CC.3.2.2-2

APPENDIX C.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATING.....2) Assembly and installationAbout equal to capital cost.3) OperationA function of the cost of electricity.4) Maintenance and replacement,"'(D)Virtually maintenance free; replacement life estimated to be20 years.5) Economies of scaleNot appropriate.Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspect. land. heightIn typical residential installations, a metal casing, in thesame confi gurat i on as convent i ona 1 baseboard along wall s •contains one or more heating elem"ents placed horizontally.The vertical dimension is usually less than 9 inches, andprojection from wall surface is less than 3.5 inches. Unitsare available from 1 to 12 feet long with ratings from 100 to400 watts per foot of length and are designed to be fittedtogether to make up any desired continuous length or rating.••Ia·•....•........APA26/CC.3.2.2-3..

APPENDIX C.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATING2) Resource needsa) RenewableHydroelectricity is currently the only cost effectiverenewable resource.b) Non-renewableFossil fuels used for electrical generation.3) Construction and operating employment by skillSimple to install and effectively automatic.4) Environmental residualsNone.5) Health or safety aspectsNone.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWhCost is a function of the cost of electricity.The most economical electric heating systems from an operatingstandpoint are of a decentralized type, with a thermostatprovided on each unit or for each room. This permits eachAPA26/CC.3.2.2-4

2)3)APPENDIX C.3.2.2ELECTRIC HEATINGroom to compensate for heat contributed by sources auxiliarysuch as sunshine, lighting, and appliances. This arrangemental so gives a better diversity of the power demand due tononcoincidence of electric load from all units of an installation.Manual switches are often provided to permit cuttingoff heat or reducing temperature in rooms when not in use.When such operation is practiced, consideration should begiven to provide extra time for warm-up.Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWhA function of the resource used to generate electricity.appropriate Appendix C profiles.Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailabil itySee--.'.'.......•......In summary, a simple list of some of the benefits and advantagesof electric heat includes the following:"',0 Dependable0 No fuel deliveries0 No fuel storage problems0 Clean0 No venting required0 No oxygen consumption0 Individual room-by-room control0 Quiet0 Easy to install0 Space-saving...•..•..III'0 "Flameless ll C.3.2.2-5.... ,APA26/CIll.•.,

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIESC.3.3(A)ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INTERTIESGeneral Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedElectric transmission is the most efficient and low cost meansof delivering useful energy (except heat) to homes and communityenterprises.The outdoor, overhead, open-wire line is the least costly andleast resource consuming electric line that exists. Thetypical open-wire overhead electric line consists of supportingstructures that carry the electrical conductors (3 wires for 3phase current) at a safe height in air that also provides theinsulation required.A single wire ground return (SWGR) transmission system canbest be described as single-phase, single wire transmissionsystem using the earth as a return circuit. SWGR is not a newtechnology; thousands of miles of line have been in successfuloperat i on for more than thi rty years, mostly outs i de theUnited States (India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and inareas of the USA during World War II.) The SWGR lines suggestedhere are point-to-point connections with a carefully establishedgrounding system at each end point.The single wire configuration can be designed for minimum costby utilizing high-strength conductors that require a minimumnumber of structures and still retain the standards for highre 1 i ab il i ty.apa26/w1C.3.3-1

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIES..2) Current and future availabilityConvent i ona 1 transmi ss i on i ntert i es serve the lower 48 andmajor Alaskan popul at i on centers. Technology is well known....""(B)A demonstration project to supply Bethel central stationelectricity by SWGR to the village of Napakiak, a distance of8.5 miles, is presently in operation. This project has provideda demonstration of the technical and cost feasibility of theSWGR system in small scale Alaska situations. European singlephase systems exist in the 70 MW range.Performance Characteristics.'.....1)Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, form.,...Electricityb) Quantity..SWGR transmission to about 70 MW; conventional transmissionabove 70 MW.Electric lines deliver quantities of energy that areapproximately proportional to the square of the voltageof the circuit. For example, this means that an electricaltransmission line of 138 kV rating could beexpected to deliver 30 times as much power as a 25 kV1 i ne.WI'..-.,....apa26/w2C.3.3-2•

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIESc) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualAvailable whenever the electrical generating source is.2) Rel iabil itya) Need for back-upTransmission line reliability generally exceeds 99 percent.Diesel generators, currently installed in Cordova,would provide back-up should the transmission line betemporarily out of service.b) Storage requirementsNone required or applicable.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyNot appropriate.4) Net energyLine loss typically does not exceed 3-5% of gross energytransfer.(C)Costs1. CapitalA preliminary estimate of cost for the three transmissionroutes previously described for 50 MW transfer capability inthe conventional mode is:Route (1) Submarine, 3e, 60 Hz, 138 kV,81 mi. 4 sic Cables @ $650,000/mi. $52,650,0002 terminals @ $250,000) ea. 500,000apa26/w3C.3.3-3

3 mi. overland @ $150,000/mi.Compensation (90 MVAR)Substations (100 MVA)TotalRoute (2) Overland, 30, 60 Hz, 138 kV59 mi. 556.5 KCM ACSR equiv.APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIES450,0002,100,0001,600,000$57,300,000@ $180,000/mi. $10,620,000CompensationSubstationso1,600,000Total$12,220,000...............Route (3) Overland, 30, 60 Hz, 230 kV130 mi. 795 KCM ACSR equiv.@ $240,000/mi. $31,200,000Compensation (40 MVAR) 1,400,000Substations (@ 1.5 x 138 kV) 2,400,000Total $35,000,000The construction cost breakdown for IInormalll transmission lines,i.e., transmission lines with relatively short spans «1,500 feet)and wheeled or tracked vehicle access is about 50% labor and equipmentand 50% materials. It is envisioned that the short section of overlandline needed for Route (1) and the transmission line from the CarbonCreek coal plant to Cordova, discussed elsewhere in this report, wouldbe of this type construction, at an estimated cost of $150,000 per mile -$75,000 per mile labor and equipment, and $75,000 per mile materials....•..It is estimated that the overall material costs for the Route (2)intertie will be the same since the transmission lines are carryingthe same amount of energy. However, the labor and equipment costswill be higher because of different construction techniques...apa26/w4C.3.3-4...

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIESThe construction techniques for the Route (2) intertie are envisionedas helicopter supported operations with line structures and footingsmodified for such equipment. Because of the mountainous terrain,it is anticipated that there will be many long spans which couldreduce the number of structures per mile and right-of-way clearingand thus the costs associated with each. It is estimated thatlabor and equipment costs for this type of construction will be 40%higher than I/normall/ or $105,000 per mile. This gives an estimatedtotal construction cost of $180,000 per mile.The transmission system of Route (2) could obtain substantialsavings in line costs by using this SWGR concept. Without anin-depth analysis, it will be assumed that the overhead line costscan be reduced by one-fifth and that the single phase substationswill cost 70% of the three phase equivalent. To these costs willbe added the estimated 1B to 3B conversion costs. This SWGR conceptwould then cost as follows:Route (2) 18, 60 Hz SWGR 161 kV l-G,59 mi. 1590 KCM ACSR @ $144,000/mi. $8,500,000Compensation 0Substations (100 MVA) 1,120,000Converters 18/38, 60 Hz,for 1/3 of 50 MWTotal2,500,000$12,120,0002. Assembly and install ati onsee above3. Operationnegligable4. Maintenance and replacementAnnual maintenance cost for transmission lines isestimated to be $200 per mile.apa26/w5C.3.3-5

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIESAnnual replacement cost estimated to be 1.% of the capitalinvestment..."",(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1)Siting - directional aspect, land, heightThe physical dimensions of electric lines are determinedprimarily by the voltage of the line which requires thatsufficient air space between wires exist to prevent costlyelectric losses through energy leaks and provide safe clearancesabove ground, other structures, vehi cl es, flora andfauna....2)3)Electric lines that can be placed underground or carried atlesser spacings than open-wire lines must replace the insulationprovided by the air with other non-conducting materialsof equivalent electrical strength and smaller dimension.Insulated electric cables typically use a rubber or plasticcompound or a high-grade paper saturated with insulating oil.Insulated electric cable transmission lines are typically muchmore costly (5 to 40 times) than open-wire lines.Resource needsTransmission of electrical energy generated from either renewableor non-renewable resources.Construction and operating employment by skill...............-..For a transmission intertie from Cordova to Valdez, highlyskilled professional construction labor supervisors will berequired to direct locally available personnel. Operationalemployment consists chiefly of qualified maintenance personnel....apa26/w6

APPENDIX C.3.3INTERnES4) Environmental residualsRight-of-way clearing is the major impact in forested areas;some soil disturbance is required during installation.5) Health or safety aspectsCurrent aspects are widespread in acceptability.The use of the earth as the return circuit for SWGR would inno way create an operating system wi th 1 esser safety thanthose now accepted.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million BTU or kWhNot appropriate2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh.Not available.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability andits availability.Convent i ona 1 three phase t ransmi s s ion is we 11extremely widely used.proven andThe successful construction and operation of the SWGR transmissionline between Bethel and Napakiak has proven the technicalfeasibility of the SWGR concept in Alaska. Additionaloperation of the line should prove the reliability of the linedesign, enhance potential user confidence and encourage additionalconstruction.Materials used in the construction ofapa26/w7C.3.3-7

•APPENDIX C.3.3INTERTIES~_'_tthe line are, for the most part, standardized distribution andtransmission line hardware. Materials are generally availablefrom manufacturers within a reasonable time period...,......III......apa26/w8C.3.3-8

APPENDIX C.3.4.1COAL-ELECTRICC.3.4.1COAL FIRED STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATION(A)General Description•1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedCoal is ground to roughly less than 2 inch diameter chunks andmechanically loaded onto a boiler grate after which it iscombusted in the boiler to heat incoming water to steam. Thesteam is then expanded in a turbine which drives a generatorto produce electricity. Figure 3.1.1-1 shows a basic steampower cycle.2) Current and future availabilitySteam plants account for the majority of electrical generationin the United States today. Although steam plants can accomodatea wide range of loads, U.S. economies of scale indicatethat the cost per unit increases sharply in sizes below about50 MW. It should be noted that European coal-steam generationunits are employed in the less than 10 MWrange.(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formElectricityapa26/a1C.3.4.1-1

1iI>"APPENDIX C.3.4.1COAL -ELECTRIC-b) Quantity....Typically 5-50 MW; rarely as small as 1 MW (1000 kW).c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualCoal fired steam plants are typically used for base powerwithout respect to time of year.2) Re 1 i ab il i tya) Need for back-up65% capacity factor....b) Storage requirementsTypical storage is sufficient supply for 90 days ofoperation. For village areas, up to 9 months worth ofcoa 1 storage may be requi red to guarantee continuoussupply irrespective of weather.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyup to 33%4) Net energy9,500 - 17,500 Btu/kWh......".....-apa26/a2C.3.4.1-2..,....

APPENDIX C.3.4.1COAL-ELECTRIC(C) Costs (1980 $)1) Capital• $1350/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW, 1980)• $1700/kW installed (Cordova 5 MW)• $2100/kW installed (Carbon Creek 5 MW)2) Assembly and installation• $770/kW (Kotzebue 5000 kW)• See above for Cordova and Carbon Creek3) Operation• $450,000/year (Kotzebue 2500 kW and 5000 kW)• $360,000/year (Cordova)• $450,000/year (Carbon Creek)4) Maintenance and replacement• 2% of investment per year (Bri stol Bay mai ntenance)• 2.5% of investment per year (Cordova maintenance)• 9.4% of investment per year (replacement @ 7% for20 years).5) Economies of scaleEconomies of scale favor larger scale plants, particularlywith respect to coal handling facilities. (Upcoming plants inthe lower 48 are typi ca lly of 500 MW size.) Economi es inoperator requirements also favor large plants.apa26/a3C.3.4.1-3

APPENDIX C.3.4.1COAL-ELECTRIC...(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1)Siting - directional aspect, land, height......2)Coal plants require space for storage of fuel, typically a 3to 9 month supply. If the plant is sited at the mine, handlingand storage requirements are lessened; storage of a month'sfuel is adequate.Resource needsa) RenewableN/Ab) Non-renewable......' ......3)Typical Alaskan coal ranges from 6500 to 15,000 Btu perpound.Construction and operating employment by skill..Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel.4) Environmental residuals• Solid wastes: include slag, bottom ash, scrubber sludge.•Gaseous wastes: NO x' SOxCurrent environmental requlations regarding sulfur dioxideemissions from conventional coal-steam plants generallyrequire abatement processes which significantlyincrease the cost of such plants...•..-..- ....apa26/a4C.3.4.1-4

APPENDIX C.3.4.1• COAL-ELECTRIC5) Health or safety aspectsCoal fired plants emit the following, as yet unregulated,atmospheric pollutants: toxic and carcinogenic trace elements,radionuclides, and organic and metal-organic compounds.Considerations include impact of transport and storage offuel, risk of spontaneous combusion, and coal pile run off.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million BTU or kWh• 20.3¢/kWh (Kotzebue 2500 kW busbar cost in 1984).2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBTU or kWh• For coal at 10,000 Btu per pound and plant at 17,500Btu/kWh, 1.8 pounds of coal are needed per kWh.• NO emissions are about 0.15 lbs/million Btu.x• SO emissions are about 0.067 lbs/million Btu.x• Particulate emissions are about 0.006 lbs/million Btu.• Solid wastes are about 10% of fuel burned.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliab"ility andits availabilityIn general, the conventional boiler-fired steam turbine systemis the most economic and technologically developed systemavailable to the power industry. Operational economics requirea minimum plant size of S MW, however. Lead time is significantlylonger than for diesel or gas turbine installation.apa26/a5C.3.4.1-S

STEAM HEADERr---~------,III+I EXHAUST GASES II OUTIIIITURBINECOAL INBOILER+--... ASHOUT...........••..."..STEAMCONDENSERCONDENSATEDIAGRAM OF RUDIMENTARY STEAM POWER PLANTfiGURE C.3.4.1-1.......• ..

APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATINGC.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATING(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedA mechanical stoker is a device that feeds coal or wood into acombustion chamber. It provides a supply of air for burningthe fuel under automatic control and, in some cases, incorporatesa means of removing the ash and refuse of combustion automatically.Coal and wood can be burned more efficiently by amechanical stoker than by hand firing because the stokerprovides a uniform fuel feed rate, better distribution in thefuel bed, and positive control of the air supplied for combustion.2) Current and future availabilityCommercially available and widespread in use, particularly inthe Eastern United States.(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formHot air for space heating or hot water for hydronic spaceheating.b) QuantityResidential units are typically sized in the75,000-150,000 Btu per hour range.-APA26/KlC.3.4.2-1

APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATING..c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annual.'Available whenever the coal or wood supply is available.2)Re 1 i ab il i tya) Need for back-upNone usually required.b) Storage requirementsStorage is required. A one month supply for a largeresidential unit run continuously is on the order of 5tons.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyAbout 25% (hand fired) to about 70% (automated).4) Net energy.,•........About 1. 4 to 4.0 units in to 1.0 units out.(C)Costs1) Capital..About $1200-1500 per unit.2) Assembly and installation..About equal to two to three times capital costs...APA26/K2C.3.4.2-2

APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATING3) OperationNegligible cost as operation is provided by the resident.Stokers for residential operation are usually screw fed underfeedtypes, and are designed for quiet, automatic operation.4) Maintenance and replacementUseful life is 10-20 years with simple maintenance. Sootdeposits on flue surfaces of a boiler or heater act as aninsulating layer over the surface, reducing heat transfer tothe water or air. Soot can also clog flues, reduce the draft,and prevent proper fuel selection and combustion. Soot accumulationcan be held to a minimum by proper burner adjustmentand periodic cleaning.5) Economies of scaleNot appropriate.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspects, land, heightFuel storage is the major siting impact.isolated from flammable material.The burner should be2) Resource needsa) RenewableWood.APA26/K3C.3.4.2-3

APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATING.,b) Non-renewableCoal.3) Construction and operating employment by skillInstalled by locally available services; operated by thehomeowner.4) Environmental residualsCarbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, soot, ash, oxides of nitrogen,and sulfur oxides.5) Health or safety aspectsFuel should be sheltered to prevent runoff from precipitation.Units must be located a safe distance from flammable material s.•••..•..(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWhCarbon Creek coal at $120/ton and 12,000 Btu/pound costs $7.00per million Btu; Healy coal at $45/ton and 8,000 Btu/poundcosts $4.00 per million Btu, taking into account heatingefficiency. Wood costs were not available.•..2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh.APA26/K4Requires 83.3 pounds of Carbon Creek coal or 125 pounds ofHealy coal per million Btu; for dried wood at a nominal8000 Btu/pound, 125 pounds per million Btu are required.Environmental residuals for coal and wood, based on boilerfiring to produce steam for electrical generation, are asfo 11 ows.C.3.4.2-4..,...•

APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATINGCOAL:•NO Xemissions are about 0.15 lbs/million Btu.SOX emissions are about 0.067 lbs/million Btu.Particulate emissions are about 0.006 lbs/million Btu.Solid wastes are about 10% of fuel burned.WOOD••NO Xemissions are about 0.25 - 1.18 lbs/million Btu.SOX emissions are about 0.07 - 0.18 lbs/million Btu.Particulate emissions are about 0.02 lbs/million Btu.Residual ash from wood-firing is not classified as ahazardous waste; firing wood actually decreases the amountof solid waste in the environment.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavai 1 abil ityThe technology is commercially available and reliable.Implementation of coal technology in Cordova is dependent uponthe availability of Carbon Creek or Healy coal at prices notedfor power production.Although dry wood (at about 8000 Btu/pound) has about the samepotential heat content as Healy coal, most wood is naturallysufficiently moist to reduce this heat value by 40 to 50percent. In addition to the moisture content, the relativevolume to weight ratio of wood is disadvantageous as comparedto coal, with consequent increased gathering, transportation,and handling energy requirements.There has been a noticeable shift in Cordova in the lasttwo years from heating oil to wood stoves. It has beenreported that the main restriction on wood harvesting inthe Chugach National Forest is that the land available hasAPA26/K5C.3.4.2-5

•APPENDIX C.3.4.2COAL AND WOOD HEATINGbeen IIselectedll by Eyak Village Corporation and ChugachNatives, Inc. Wood gathering by permit or fee might be allowedafter title has been fully transferred to the Native groups.•......•........IIIAPA26/K6C.3.4.2-6"'.

APPENDIX C.3.S.1LUBE OIL RECYCLINGC.3.5.1DIESEL LUBE OIL RECYCLING(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedCommercially available units automatically remove water, rust,dirt, and other contaminants from used diesel lubricating oil.This recycled oil is then mixed at one part oil to 20 partsdiesel fuel.2) Current and future availabilityCurrently scheduled to be employed in Cordova(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formOil at about 130,000 Btu/lb.b) QuantityA function of the size and number of diesel units.c) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualCan be made to operate continuously.apa26/e1C.3.5.1-1

2) Re 1 i ab il i tya) Need for back-upAPPENDIX C.3.S.1LUBE OIL RECYCLINGIn the event of breakdown, pure diesel fuel is utilized.b) Storage requirementsTypically 40 gallons.3) Thermodynamic efficiency......••N/A(C)4) Net energyCostsN/A...,1) CapitalAbout $4000 for a powerplant size unit.2) Assembly and installationPortable.3) OperationNot avail ab 1 e....•-......If"apa26/e2C.3.5.1-2..

APPENDIX C.3.S.1LUBE OIL RECYCLING4) Maintenance and replacementNot available.5) Economies of scaleA typical unit is rated at 6 gallons per minute.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspects, land, heightNeeds about four square feet of floor space, stands about fourfeet high.2) Resource needsa) RenewableNone.b) Non-renewableUsed diesel lubricating oil.3) Construction and operating employment by skillEasily installed and virtually automatic in operation.4) Environmental residualsRust, dirt, sediment, dirty water.apa26/e3C.3.5.1-3

5) Health and safety aspectsAPPENDIX C.3.5.1LUBE OIL RECYCLING•It.•Negligible.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWh""Not available.2)Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh..Unavailable.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailabil ityDue to increased fuel costs and the lack of adequate means todispose of used lubricants, this reliable, commercially availabletechnology is becoming increasingly more widely used.iii,•- ••Tests by diesel engine manufacturers have found no noticeabledifference in performance or life for engines run on theblended mixture as compared to those run on straight dieselfuel. The blended fuel seems to deliver better cold weatherperformance with less freeze-up as compared to #2 diesel fuel.II.. ..apa26/e4C.3.5.1-4"""•..•

APPENDIX C.3.S.2WASTE HEATC.3.S.2DIESEL WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedThe present use of fossil fuels to produce electricity is far1 ess than 100 percent effi c i ent. For example, an averagedi ese 1 generator burns foss il fuel and produces e 1 ectri ca 1output equivalent to about 30% of the fuel burned; the energyrepresented by the remaining 70% of the fuel appears as unusedor "waste" heat.Such heat most often appears as hot exhaustgas, tepid to warm jacket water (about 180°F), hot air fromexhaust, and direct radiation from the machine.Diesel waste heat can be recovered from engine cooling waterand exhaust (as shown in Figure C.3.S.2-1), or either sourceseparately. The waste heat is typically transferred to awater-glycol circulating system in Alaskan applications. Theheated ci rcul at i ng fl ui d can be used for space, water, orprocess heating.2) Current and future availabilityPractice in Alaska is growing as a result of sharp increasesin cost of diesel fuels. Recovery of jacket water heat onlyis most common in Alaska and is shown in Figure C.3.S.2-2.(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formCooling water is typically 160-200 o F. Exhaust heatvaries with engine speed and load and ranges from about300 to 600°F.apa26/s1C.3.S.2-1

••..EXHAUST GASCHEAT ~ECOVER -SILENCER• _..L~-----'------- -+OL-.-f--FROM REMOTE(--HEAT LOOPEXPANSIONTANKRADIAToRAIRFLoW••..BOOSTERPUMP,---THERMOSTATICCONTACTOR...III...II.JACKET WATER 8 EXHAUST WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMFIGURE C.3.5.2-1II'

SPACE HEAT--ENGINE !I---FL!- -THEMIOSTATICSWITCHAIR0wJACKET WATER WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMFIGURE C.3.5.2-2

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEAT..•..b) QuantityAll of the cooling water heat, about half of the exhaustheat, and all of the radiation can be usefully capturedif space heat needs are in economic proximity.Table C.3.5.2-1 indicates the annual recoverable wasteheat for various diesel unit sizes and generating efficiencies(ie. kWh/gal and heat rates in Btu/kWh) and assumesthat one-third of the fuel heat ;s recoverable.TABLE C.3.5.2-1WASTE HEAT AVAILABILITylII'..y •....,10 6 Btu/year Available at Indicated Generating EfficiencykWkWh/year14 kWh/gal(9,900 Btu/kWh)12 kWh/gal(11,500 Btu/kWh)10 kWh/gal(13,800 Btu/kWh)8 kWh/gal(17,250 Btu/kWh)5007501000200025001,752,000 5,756 6,716 8,059 10,0742,628,000 8,634 10,074 12,089 15,1113,504,000 11,512 13,432 16,118 20,1487,008,000 23,024 26,864 32,236 40,2968,760,000 28,780 33,580 40,295 50,370...•..1Assumes 138,000 Btu/gall on fuel, 0.40 load factor.. ,...apa26/s4C.3.5.2-4•••

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEATc) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualWaste heat is available whenever its diesel generationsource is in operation.2) Re 1 i abil itya) Need for back-upHeat recovery systems require a back-up heat source 'incase of system shutdown. This is typically provided byheaters that ex is ted pri or to ins ta 11 at i on of therecovery system and were consequently idled by it.b) Storage requirementsWaste heat is generally utili zed as it is recovered;storage of heat is currently atypical.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyN/A4) Net energyN/A(C)Costs1) Capitalapa26/s5Costs of waste heat recovery and uti 1 i zat i on systems aregreat ly i nfl uenced by the specifi c area served.In responseto local interest, three example systems specific to Cordovaare presented following; the first two examples presented andthree others are treated in detail in Final Report, PowerPlant Site Investigation, Cordova, Alaska by Robert W. RetherfordAssociates (1980).C.3.S.2-S

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEATTable C.3.5.2-2 lists the facilities discussed in the examplesand their estimated annual heating oil consumption values...TABLE C.3.5.2-2HEATING OIL USElIPFACILITYESTIMATED ANNUALHEATING OILUSE, GALLONS1, 21.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.Reluctant Fisherman MotelMorpac, Inc. (Cannery)North Pacific Processors (Cannery)St. Elias Ocean Products (Cannery)City HallB. Korn PoolDomestic Water HeatingHospitalElementary School36,00071,000106,000131,00013,00027,000255,000 318,00020,000IIi1 Rounded to nearest 1000 gallons2 1979 values except for hospital and elementary school whichare 1980 values3 Does not currently exist...apa26/s6C.3.5.2-6.. ......, .•••

APPENDIX C.3.S.2WASTE HEATOnly a portion of the steam requirement of the canneries can besupplied by the waste heat recovery systems under discussion.Based on use of the existing power plant site, steam would besupplied only to North Pacific and St. Elias canneries.Heating that could potentially be supplied to the City1s watermains depends upon the plan selected. We have assumed anincrease in water mains temperature of 10°F, and that SO% ofall water used is heated before being used. The SO% figure isconservative, even in summer. It has been stated that manyres i dents keep faucets runni ng duri ng the wi nter to helpprevent freezing of water lines; although it is most difficultto derive a II va l ue ll for the water thusly wasted, a higherwater mains temperature would greatly decrease that area ofwaste. Based on conservative assumptions, then, the annualamount of equivalent annual energy to heat the water mains isabout 25S,000 gallons of fuel oil. 1Since the City water system is not now heated, any waste heatintroduced into the water system would not directly replacefuel. However, it would indirectly displace fuel in that lessenergy in the form of electrical or oil heating of water wouldbe used by individual consumers. All consumers would benefitto some extent because of savings in water heating and fewerproblems with freezing of water mains and taps.1 Assumi ng further, 1, sao, 000 ga 11 ons of heated water heated at 6S%efficiency using 138,000 Btu/gallon fuel oil.apa26/s7C.3.S.2-7

APPENDIX C.3.S.2WASTE HEATEXAMPLE 1Waste heat recovery equipment installed in the existing powerplant would serve to provide:• Steam generation to serve the sustained year-round levelizedload of two canneries. (The peak steam loads of each cannerywould continue to be served by their existing steam boilers.)Buried insulated steam lines would be routed underground toconnect to the existing mains in each plant.return lines are to be provided.No condensate• Space heating by use of pumped hot water mains to servethe motel, the Community Center building and the swimmingpool. These facilities are all heated by compatible hotwater heating systems.•Heating of the City's cold water mains to raise the temperaturefrom an average of 40°F up to about SOoF to reducefuel consumption by all water users north of the powerplant which would include all three canneries exceptduring their two-month seasonal peak. An allowance isincluded in this alternate for a limited amount of reconfigurationof the water system to circulate heated waterthrough some portions of the water system south of thepower pl ant....t.-•0,III.The existing diesel generation plant would be provided withheat exchangers for waste heat recovery from engi ne jacketcool ing water systems and from the engine exhaust systems.The existing jacket-water systems would be manifolded togetherand connected to a cooling water loop containing a heat recoveryheat exchanger, thus providing a supply of heating water up toapproximately 190°F maximum.This heat recovery loop would beconnected to a new air cooled heat radiator circuit for standbycooling of the engine jacket water during emergency periods.... ,..."',apa26/sSC.3.S.2-S

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEATAn exhaust gas waste heat recovery boiler would have an intakemanito 1 d to co 11 ect exhaust gases from the three 1 argestdiesel units. The exhaust gas boiler would boost the heatingwater supply temperature to 240 D F and the surplus heat remainingwould generate 150 psi steam for delivery to the canneries.Plant auxiliaries would include a make-up water treatmentunit.A buried, insulated steam main would be routed to twocanneries, with no condensate return piping.Parallel to thesteam main in the same trench would be heating water supplyand return mai ns for space heating 1 arge oil users in thecommunity.The low temperature heating water would supply aheat exchanger so that the municipal cold water main would beheated from 40 D F to 50 D F under year-round average conditions.This alternate would require an investment of $1,900,000 forheat recovery equipment, would displace 76,000 gallon per yearof fuel for space heating, 189,000 gallons per year of fueloil for steam heat at canneries, and can supply heat to theCity water system equivalent to 195,000 gallon of fuel oil peryear.EXAMPLE 2The heat recovery aspects of this example are similarto Example 1.However, the heat produced would be used toheat only the City water system rather than to heat commercialloads. During the winter months the temperature of 1 milliongallons per day could be increased from 37°F to 56°F, andduring the summer 2 million gallons per day could be warmedfrom 45 D F to 54°F.Since the City water mains are relativelynear the power plant, investment in heat distribution facilitieswould be much less than for other alternates.This alternate would require an investment of about $160,000and would supply heat equivalent to 255,000 gallons of oil peryear to the City water system.apaZ6/s9C.3.S.2-9

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEAT2)EXAMPLE 3A simple heat recovery system utilizing only a portion of heatrecoverable from existing diesel jacket water heat wouldprovide hot water for space heating the hospital and elementaryschool in Cordova. Cost for this system is estimated to be$270,000; fuel oil displaced is about 38,000 gallons per year.Assembly and installation......See above.3)OperationI.4)5)Not available.Maintenance and replacement•2% of capital investment per year (maintenance)•9.4% of investment per year (replacement at 7% for 20 years)Economies of scaleSmall systems may be as beneficial economically as very largesystems because required equipment is less sophisticated andconsequently less costly.Cost of redundancy requirements istypically lower (per unit recovered) in smaller systems, also.••...........(0) Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspect, land, heightShould be immediately adjacent to diesel engine.....apa26/s10C.3.5.2-10...,

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEAT2) Resource needsa) RenewableWaste heat, according to the Third Law of Thermodynamics,is a continually increasing resource (a "self-renewing"resource) .b) Non-renewableDoes not increase non-renewable resource requirementsabove the already established diesel fuel usage forgeneration.3) Construction and operating employment by skillJacket water heat recovery systems are installable and operableby local personnel qualified for similar work with dieselgenerators.4) Environmental residualsEnvironmental residuals are those associated with dieselgeneration.5) Health or safety aspectsNo negative health or safety aspects except those associatedwith the heat source.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWhSee (C) above.apa26/s11C.3.5.2-n

APPENDIX C.3.5.2WASTE HEAT...2)Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWh...These items are whatever is attributable to diesel generation.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability andits availabilityWaste heat capture can provide significant savings in overallfuel use.Was te heat ut i 1 i zat ion, however, is not free, even thoughthere may not actually be a direct charge for the heat. Theequipment for utilizing this heat requires a sizeable capitalinvestment and is feasible only when the cost for associatedequipment is less than the cost of the fuel saved.The cri t i ca 1 poi nt of any efforts to evaluate waste heatrecovery is that point at which the equivalent annual cost ofrecovering heat will be less than the cost of generating heatby other means. Low grade waste heat cannot be transportedvery far for its actual resale value.""", ... "-apa26/s12C.3.5.2-12•

APPENDIX C.3.S.3COGENERATIONC.3.S.3STEAM COGENERATIONCA)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedCogeneration involves use of some of the steam used to driveturbines for heating or industrial process loads. Two typesof specialized steam turbines are used: back-pressure turbinesand extraction turbines.In the back-pressure turbines, the exhaust steam is employedfor some heating process, and the turbine work may be a byproduct.If all the exhaust steam is condensed in heatabsorbingapparatus and returned to the system, the thermalefficiency of the system may be over 90 percent.With extraction turbines, partly expanded steam is extractedfor external process use at one or more points. The turbinesmay be either condensing or noncondensing. Extraction turbinesare usually designed to sustain full rated output, withor without extraction, and are provided with automatic regulatingmechanisms to deliver steam from the extraction pointsat constant pressure, as long as there is sufficient powerload to permit the necessary flow.2) Current and future availabilityCogeneration is employed worldwide.APA26/flC.3.S.3-1

(B)Performance CharacteristicsAPPENDIX C.3.5.3COGENERATION.......I} Energy output...a} Quality - temperature, formSteamb} QuantityBased on heating requirements and turbine design.c} Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualAvailable whenever steam ;s passed through the turbine.2} ReHabil ityIt.a} Need for back-upCogeneration systems are typically utilized with noback-up. Capacity factor is 70%.b} Storage requirementsNone, other than fuel storage for the boiler... ,......•3} Thermodynamic efficiencyCan exceed 90%, particularly if the heat loads are the basisof steam sizing, rather than electrical loads....APA26/f2C.3.5.3-2.."...

APPENDIX C.3.S.3COGENERATION4)Net energy4700 Btu/kWh (typical)(C)Costs1)Capital$730/kW (California)2)Assembly and installationNot avail abl e.3)OperationNot available.4)Maintenance and replacementNot avail abl e.5)Economies of scaleEconomic in the 1-7 MWrange representative of Cordova.The economies of scale should have a decided effect upon theunit cost of larger coal burning, steam producing facilitiesin the area of fuel transportation and coal terminal facilities.There shoul d be ample economi c i ncent i ves to createlarge cogeneration facilities and thereby gain the advantageof lower unit costs per pound of steam.APA26/f3C.3.S.3-3

APPENDIX C.3.5.3COGENERATION(0) Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspect, land, heightSteam turbines require about 3000 square feet of associatedplant space. See also Appendix C.3.4.1-2) Resource needsa) RenewableNone.b)Non-renewable...Fuel used to fire boilers; coal is considered for use inCordova. See also Appendix C.3.4.1.3) Construction and operating employment by skill...Requires highly skilled construction and operation personnel.4) Environmental residualsSee Appendix C.3.4.1.5) Health or safety aspectsSee Appendix C.3.4.1.APA26/f4C.3.5.3-4"'r

APPENDIX C.3.S.3COGENERATION(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWhNot available.2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWhSee Appendix C.3.4.1.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailabil ityThe technology is well established, reliable, and commerciallyavailable. Many of the small cogeneration systems for industryuse combustion turbines; steam turbine cogeneration is widelypract iced at the 10 MW 1 eve 1 in the Scandanavi an countri es.Most applications involve small systems. This is due largelyto the fact that industrial steam loads are small and theeconomics of cogeneration systems are usually optimized bysizing the system to closely meet industrial process steamrequirements. Electrical generation is usually not the factordetermining the choice of size for the turbine.Economics also determine the choice of prime mover (i .e.,combustion vs. steam turbine), but other factors such as theratio of the industrial customer's heat to power requirementare important determinants of equipment selection.Becausecombustion turbines have heat to power ratios similiar to mostindustrial loads, they have become the major option for proposedcogeneration applications.lower, steam turbines are normally indicated.However, when the ratio isFifty percent fuel savings are typically possible with conventionalturbines when modified for cogeneration-based districtheat i ng.APA26/fSC.3.S.3-S

Section C.3.S.4CONSERVATION.,.'C.3.S.4 CONSERVATION(A) General Description.....1)Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedConservation measures for the 13 villages considered here aremainly classified as "passive". Passive measures are intendedto conserve energy without any further electrical, thermal, ormechanical energy input. Typical passive measures are insulation,double glazing or solar film, arctic entrances andweather stripping. Energy conservation characteristics ofsome passive measures degrade with time, which must be consideredin the overall evaluation of their effectiveness foran intended life cycle.....2)Current and future availability(B)Passive measures are commercially available and increasing inuse allover the United States due to the rapidly escalatingcost of energy.Performance Characteristics--1)Energy outputa) Quality - temperatures, formNo energy output per se; rather a reduction of energytypes input.•......b) QuantitySee above..,... ..APA26/LC.3.5.4-1..II1II

Section C.3.S.4CONSERVATIONc) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualPassive conservation measures "operate" year round.2) Reliabilitya) Need for back-upNone requi red.b) Storage requirementsNone required.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyNot appropriate.4) Net energyNot appropriate.(C)Costs1) CapitalResidential installations run from several hundred to severalthousand dollars.2) Assembly and installationSee above.APA26/LC.3.S.4-2

3)OperationSection C.3.5.4CONSERVATION.......None.4)Maintenance and replacementEffectively maintenance free; 10-15 year life.•5)Economies of scaleII'(D)Amenable and appropriate to single dwellings or large industrialcomplexes.Special Requirements and Impacts..1) Siting - directional aspect, land, heightNo special requirements.2) Resource needsa) RenewableSolar insolation.b) Non-renewableMaterials used for conservation modes employed.II'.,..3)Construction and operating employment by skillCan often be installed by the resident; locally specializedservices (for example, insulation skills) may be employed.No...operation required.APA26/LC.3.5.4-3• •.....,•

Section C.3.5.4CONSERVATION4) Environmental residualsNone.5) Health or safety aspectsNone except care should be taken to assure proper air changerates for occupant health.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWhNot available.2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBtu or kWhNot available.3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability and itsavailabilityResidences generally require the availability of energy at alltimes. Before 1973, the cost of energy was 3 to 10% of totalannual expenses; now that percentage has soared to perhaps40%.Although some dynamic measures (notably solar energy) meritconsideration in this class of structure, the prime emphasisshould be on passive energy conservation measures. As awhole, this market is not geared to sophisticated or costlyequipment or to any measure that requires special operating ormaintenance procedures or attention. Generally, simplicityand low cost, with moderate energy benefits, should be pursued.APA26/LC.3.5.4-4

Section C.3.5.4CONSERVATION•As far as commercial and industrial facilities are concerned,dynamic conservation measures may often warrant consideration,but major energy savings are achieved in: (1) restructuring themanufacturing process or reclaim energy that in the past hasbeen wasted, and/or (2) modifying the timing cycle of the processto reduce energy usage during idling or other nonpeak energyuse-periods...'.

I­UJUJ24222018I.L. 16UJa::

APPENDIX C.3.6WECSC.3.6WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS)(A)General Description1) Thermodynamic and engineering processes involvedNo thermodynamic process is involved with the use of windpower for generation of electrical energy. The process relieson wind flowing over an air foil assembly to create differentialpressure which results in rotation of the assembly around thefixed axis to which it is attached. Power from the wind istransmitted through the connection shaft and accompanying gearbox to an electrical generator. (See Figure C.3.6-1).Three types of generators are presently in use with windenergy systems. These are the DC generator, the AC inductiongenerator and the AC synchronous generator. Of the threetypes the AC induction generator is the most widely used: aninduction generator is not a stand-alone generator and must beconnected to an external power system of relatively constantfrequency and voltage to operate properly.2) Current and future availabilityAvailability of small size units in the 1.5 kW to 20 kW rangeis good. Larger units in the 100-200 kW range are currentlyundergoing tests in both the government and private sector andshould be commercially available in the near future. Demonstrationsof multi-megawatt sizes are in process, although majorproblems have been recently encountered.apa26/q1C.3.6-1

•HIGHSPEEDSHAFT•....BRAKESECONDARV PITCHACTUATOR CRANKTHRUST BEARINGSECONDARV PITCHCONT ACTUATORI NBOARD PROFILE.,•iii ...WIND TURBINE GENERATORFIGURE C-3.6-1......

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy outputa) Quality - temperature, formElectricityb) QuantityAnnual kWh output for following machine sizes for averageannual wind speed of 12 mph:1. 5 kW 3 , 120 kWh18 kW45 kW20,000 kWh50,000 kWHc) Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualOutput of WECS dependent on seasonal wind flow patterns.2) Re 1 ; ab; 1 itya) Need for back-upIn general, except for the small, single dwelling windsystems, wind power generation is not a stand alonesystem. Diesel or another form of back-up generationmust be provided for days the wind does not blow withsufficient velocity to produce energy from the WECS.apa26/q3C.3.6-3

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS3)b) Storage requirementsBattery storage or, possibly, pumped hydro can be usedfor storage; both constitute considerable expense. Todaythe concensus is that the most cost effective way to usewind power is in a utility grid to displace fuel onlywhen the wind blows and not to try to store the windenergy.Thermodynamic efficiencyN/A...........III·•(C)4) Net energyN/ACosts..iii·1)Capital...Machine size Cost $/kW1.5 kW $ 7,000 1 $4,66718 kW 19,000 1,05445 kW 38,000 8431 Includes cost of conversion equipment......••...apa26/q4C.3.6-4II'•

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS2) Assembly and installation1.5 kW - $ 8,60018 kW - $11,00045 kW - $21,0003) Operation1. 5 kW - N/A18 kW - N/A45 kW - N/A4) Maintenance and replacementUnit SizeMaintenance1.5 kW $240018 kW $310045 kW $3800ReElacement 2$1470$2820$5570Total$3870$5920$93702 Depreciation, 20 years at 7%5) Economies of scaleEconomies of scale likely favor installation of large centralizedwind generators over the small individually ownedwind generators. The total installed WECS instantaneousoutput should not exceed 30 percent of the total system load.apa26/q5C.3.6-5

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS..•(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1)Siting - directional aspect, land, heightSiting requires the selection of a location with an averageannual wind speed in excess of 10 mph. Height of the mountingtower will vary depending on location and machine size, butwill generally exceed 30 feet in height....2)Resource needsa) RenewableAverage annual wind speed in excess of 10 mph....b) Non-renewableN/A3)Construction and operating employment by skill4)Certain aspects of construction (foundation work and towerinstallation) could be performed by unskilled labor underclose supervision. An operator would not be required as WECSare designed to operate unattended.Environmental residualsIII'apa26/q6Little environmental impact is anticipated when operating onlya few machines within a small geographic area.C.3.6-6".....

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS5) Health or safety aspectsPublic safety, legal liabilities, insurance and land useissues must be addressed prior to installation of a utilityowned and operated WECS.(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per mi 11 i on BTU or kWhThe 1981 cost per kWh for the various system sizes is asfollows.1.5 kW - $1.21/kWh18 kW - $O.29/kWh45 kW - $O.18/kWhThese costs can be misleading as they are for secondary (interruptable)energy, not prime power. These figures are notcomparable to firm energy costs, but rather should only beused for comparison with cost of fuel displaced. No allowanceis made for cost of back-up power.See Figure C.3.6-2, WECS versus Diesel Generation, to determinethe breakeven cost at which an 18 kW WECS becomeseconomically competitive with diesel generation.2) Resources, requirements, environmental residuals per millionBTU or kWhN/Aapa26/q7C.3.6-7

1.00.....----------r-------r------r-----""'"""T------,-------r----""lDIESELGENERATIONAT 8KWH/GALi 0.75L-------I---------+-------+------+------+--------::~rfIIIC-----~lit.........zl­I/)ou~0.5,aL--------t-----------~------------~--------~~~----------r_------~~1r~--------~ILl•W£C:. UTILIIATtON'ACTOR (1)OtESELGENE~ATIONAT IZ KWH/GAL.0~~=-------L----------~----------~3-----------±4----------~~--------~6;_--------~7o 2DIESEL FUEL COST IN $/GALLON(1) UTILIZATION FACTOR IS DEFINED AS THE PERCENTAGEOF AVAILABLE ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCED BY THEWECS WHICH IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED.WECSVSDIESEL GENERATION18 KW INDUCTION CiENE~ATlONFIGUftE C-3.6-2'1 , , , , f , , I r • ,. B , , ,, , f I 'I ., f , I , , ~ p , , , , I

APPENDIX C.3.6WECS3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability andits availability.Wind power suffers from one obvious disadvantage: the intermittentand fluctuating nature of wind. A small utility mustinstall sufficient primary generation at additional costs tomeet demands on those days when the wind does not blow withsufficient velocity to produce rated output of the WECS.Besides the fickleness of local wind conditions, technical,environmental, and social problems must be addressed. Technicaland social barriers that must be dealt with includepower system stability; voltage transients, harmonics; faultinterruptioncapability; effects on communications and TVtransmissions, public safety; legal liabilities and insurance,and land use issues.apa26/q9C.3.6-9

APPENDIX C.3.7HEAT PUMPS•C.3.7 HEAT PUMPS(A) General Description..1)Thermodynamic and engineering processes involved.,2)A heat pump extracts heat from a source at a low temperatureand rejects it to a sink at a higher temperature by input ofmechanical and electrical work.The heat pump basicallyoperates much like a refrigerator or air conditioner: itutilizes coils and a refrigerant that soaks up heat energy inchanging from liquid to gas, then gives up the heat to indoorair. Figure C.3.7-1 shows a heat pump schematic diagram.Current and future availability..•Heat pumps have been in existence for more than 100 years.The U.S. DOE projects market growth through the year 2000 at 2percent per year...(B)Performance Characteristics1) Energy Outputa) Quality - temperature, formHeated air.b) Quantity......'0.....1.5 to 2.5 units of heat for each heat unit ofelectricity used.apa26/U1c)Dynamics - daily, seasonal, annualC.3.7-1..........

FROM HEAT SOURCE-~_..a. HOT AIR TO BUILDINGCOMPRESSOREXPANSION VALVEREJECT HEAT~---EVAPORATOR(" SOURCE ")~-COOL AIR FROM aUILDINGCONDENSER(II SINK ")HEAT PUMP FOR BUILDING HEATINGFIGURE C.3.7-1

APPENDIX C.3.7HEAT PUMPSHeat pumps are more efficient at higher heat sourcetemperatures. To satisfy heating requirements attimes of maximum demand, most installations usesupplementary electric resistance heaters. Thepoint at which additional heat is supplied is knownas the IIbalance point ll and is pre-set for eachinstallation based on pump characteristicsand location variables.2) Reliabilitya) Need for back-upSee IIDynamics ll above.......-•......b) Storage requirementsNone.3) Thermodynamic efficiencyDepending on the heat source temperature, a heat pump supplies150 to 250 percent as much heat energy as the elect ri ca 1energy it uses..' .....4)Net energy1.0 kWh in 5,120 to 8,532 Btu out.(C)Costs...1)Capital$3,200.",apa26/U3C.3.7-3

APPENDIX C.3.7HEAT PUMPS2) Assembly and installationNot available3) Operation$430/year4) Maintenance and replacement• Maintenance cost included in operation• Replacement cost is 9.4% of investmentper year based on 20 year life and 7% discount.5) Economies of scaleCommercial units range in capacity from less than10,000 Btu/hour to over 10 million Btu/hour.(D)Special Requirements and Impacts1) Siting - directional aspect, land, heightUnits for home use are compact and occupy a similar amountof space as an air conditioning unit. Units are installedimmediately adjacent to the user building and require spaceinternally and externally.2) Resource needsa) RenewableIf the heat source is heated water, the heat can beprovided by renewable or non-renewable resources. Ifthe heat source is air, the resource is renewable.apa26/U4C.3.7-4

APPENDIX C.3.7HEAT PUMPSElectricity from renewable or non-renewable resourcesis required for operation.•...,...b) Non-renewable.See above.3) Construction and operating employment by skillCan be installed by local heating services.basically automatic.4) Environmental residuals.Operation is.,Environmental residuals are those attributable to the resourcesused for heating and electricity.5) Health or safety aspects.Operat ion is safe and without negative health impacts.Resources used for heating and electricity have impactsdiscussed in the appropriate energy technology profiles.....(E)Summary and Critical Discussion1) Cost per million Btu or kWh• From 40 to 70 percent of the cost of equivalent electricheating to which must be added the cost of heat sourceprovision.",.....2) Resource requirements, environmental residuals permillion Btu or kWh• Whatever is attri butab 1 e to the e 1 ectri ca 1 and heatsources used.apa26/U5C.3.7-5...,

APPENDIX C.3.7HEAT PUMPS3) Critical discussion of the technology, its reliability andits availabilityAt least 15 domestic manufacturers produce commerciallyreliable heat pumps.The most common units use air as aheat source; water heat source heat pumps are most generallybased on groundwater heat, but operate more efficiently withheated water and are currently being actively promoted by majormanufacturers.Use inA 1 aska is expected to increase asmore information on local heat pump applications is disseminated.The Alaska Power Administration has been conducting andevaluating air and water source heat pumps in Juneau for thelast two years and reports efficiencies of electrical useby heat pumps to by 2.5 to 2.6 times as high as resistiveelectrical heating.apq~6/U6

APPENDIX DECONOMIC ANALYSES - DETAILSThe following parameters were used in the economic analyses for electricalgeneration plans which follow.All costs are 1981 values.Planning Periodo 1981 to 2000Economic Analysis Periodo 1981 to 2041Economic Life0 Diesel - 20 years0 Waste Heat -20 years0 Transmission and Intertie - 30 years0 Hydroelectric - SO years0 Coal Plant - 30 yearsInvestmentCosts presented are constructed plant or "turn-key" costs. Theyinclude costs for designing and constructing the projects. Theydo not include such costs as finance charges, administration costs,land acquisition fees and permit fees.o Diesel: $430/kWoIntertie:Transmission line and substations = $12,220,000Hydroelectric plant at $S,OOO/kW.0 Power Creek Hydro: $3,300/kW.0 Crater Lake Hydro: $3,SOO/kW.0 Healy Coal Plant: $1,700/kW.0 Carbon Creek Coal:Power Plant @ $2,100/kWTransmission line and sUbstations $l1,OSO,OOOapa26/Z1

APPENDIX DECONOMIC ANALYSES - DETAILS.,Fuelo Diesel: Base = $1.23/gallon for 13 kWh/gal. Cost escalated@ 3.5% per year.o Healy Coal: $0.0225/pound for 0.58 kWh/pound.o Carbon Creek Coal: $0.0600/pound for 0.88 kWh/pound.o Hydro: No fuel costs.o Surplus Energy: 1¢/kWh and 6. 25¢/kWh...--Operation and Maintenance - Annualo Diesel: $150,000 + $7.00/MWH.o Healy Coal: $360,000 + 2.5% of investmento Carbon Creek Coal: $450,000 + 2.5% of investment.o Intertie and Transmission line: $200/mileo Hydroelectric Plant:< 6,000 kW: $25,000 + $7.00/kW> 6,000 kW: $100,000 + $7.00/kWReplacement - Annualo Diesel: 2% of investmento Coal Plant: 4% of investmento Intertie and Transmission: 1% of investmentoAnalysesHydroelectric Plant: $3.00 per kW•.......•..•oPer APA regulations.Ill'-III,apa26/Z2

TABLE D-lDIESEL GENERATION ONLYRECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS19:=:4 19::::9 1990 1991DEMAND -- I

TABLE D-2ADIESEL PLUS INTERTIED Sl~PLlJS PLUS SILVER LAKE HYDRO(SURPLUS ENERGY DJST •. 0625/KWHIREDJNNAI~3ANCEENERGY RE~JIREMENTSSTUDY OFAND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS••..DEMAND -- f

TABLE D-2BDIESEL PLUS INTERTIED SURPLUS PLUS SILVER LAVE HYDRO(SURPLUS ENERGY C~3T $.OI/KWH)ENERGY RE~JIREMENTSRECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFAND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS1985 1987 1990 1 '::'91DEMAND -ENEFiGY .-I

TA8LE D-3LOCAL HYDRO PLUS DIESELRECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAEDJNOMIC ANALYSIS•..•19';> 1DEMAm) -ENERGYf

TABLE [1-4HEALY COAL, GENEFATIONRECONNA I :=SANCE :=;TU[)Y OFENERGY PEOUIREMENTS AND AL.TERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSISl'~/861 '~90DEMAND -ENERGY ,-V~JM~JH3,50() 3,601) 4,700 4,900 5,00(1 5,100 5,300 5,400 5,600 5,800 6,00016,9001:::,000 20,:iOO :21,:200 22,000 21,:::00 :227:~:(lO 23,:;':00 23,::::00 24,700 21.:.,,000EXISTING DIESEL VWADDITIONAL S[~RCES - VWJ..INIT 1.UNITUNIT :,':5,()OO 5,000 5,000 5,(100 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5.0005,(100 5,000 ~;, 000 ~i,OOO 5.000 ~i, 000 5,000 5,000 5,0005,(100MWI"'I DI E:,;EL.MWH - COAL11:.'7 '?'(J() 1::::, 000 :~;:(JO 1, :;':00 1, :300 2,7(1020,500 21,200 22,ClOO 21,800 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 26,000COAL INVESTMENT (000)COAL E~JIV AN COST (000)TON:'; [W COALCO:=;T PER TO~I('OAL FIJEl_ COST (000)COAL O&M COST (I)O!)COAL REPLACEMENT (000)45:::;;, ::iOO43417,622 18,222 18,91145 45 45793 820 851573 573 573340 340 34043418,75645:,:44~;7:::::~:404~:41::::,91145:::5157:3:~:404:341 :,:,9114':,:::51573:3404:=:41:,:,',/1145:,:515733408,5004341:::::, '~Jl1 22, :35(:.45 45:=:51 1,00657:3 785340 6:30DIESEL INVESTMENT (000)DIESEL. EOUIV AN COST (000)[;ALLON::; D I E:,;EL F'U[L (000)f:'''Y,;T PU( [iALLCINDI[SEL FUEL COST (000)DI83EL O&M COST (000)DIESEL REPLACEMENT (om))1, :;:001 • 2:~:1, 7~;',1268431,3:,':41. 271, 9:3:~:276431.321011. :::61011. 411011.4(,.1011. 51431001. :;6172591 :3:31.6224(,.63431.6'=::~:::::46'~}431. 74101!\N~IUAl CO r,;PRES WORT ANNUAL DJSTACCUM PRE WORTH,070,070,070, 1 :::'fe,:,2562, 1 :;12., 02:::6,2:,'42,17::: 2,20i 2,3:31 2,472 2,5.503,3491, 99~: 1, 9/.:,~: 1, :::9'~J 1,952 2,010 2,013 2,0(:,5 2,492::::,277 1

TABLE [1-5CARBON CREEK COAL GENERATIONRECONNAH:"::ANCE ~:TUDY OFENERGY RE';IUI REMEN1::: AND ALTERNATIVE::: FOR CORDOVAECONOM I CANAL Y::: I:::•1 'S"'82 19:=:4 1986 1'-:'':. 26,1)00EX I ,=:TING DIE'=:EL KWADD IT IONAL '::OURCE:::UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 3KW5.,000 5.,000 5~OOO 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,0005~OOO 5,000 5,000 ~;1000 5,000 !5,OOO5,0005,0005,0005,0005,0005,0005,000MWHMWH -DIE8ELCOALCOAL INVESTMENT (000)COAL EG'UIV AN CO::;T (000)TON:;;: OF COALCOST PER TONCOAL FUEL COST (000)COAL OlkM COST (000)COAL REPLACEMENT (000)16,900 181000 '300 1~~:OO 1,::'=:00 2,700201500 21,200 22,000 211800 22,000 221000 22~000 221000 26,00021,5501,27011,683120 120 120 1201,4507121,4027128621,270 1,270121~5421201,505712:3621,27012,42~;1201,491711,,27012,~'421201 7 ~)057121,,270l,2,5421201, ~;057121,27012,5421201, ~~057121,27012,5421201,50571286210,5001, '"'7614,8171201,778,;j741) 2a2'JIi,.'DIESEL INVESTMENT (000)DIE:3EL EOUIV AN COST (000)GALLONS D I E:;;:EL FUEL (000)COST PER GALLONDIESEL FUEL COST (000)DIESEL m,M COST (000)D I E-=:EL REPLACEMENT «100)1,3(1C>1 .. 2:31,75'y2c,9431, 3:::~41. 271.321011. :361011. 411011.461011. 51381001. ~56172591:381.622466:;:4'"2081.1. 74101•..ANNUAL COSTSPRES WORTH ANNUAL COSTACCUM PRES WORTH2,0702,0702,(>702,2522,1864,2564,2':;74,0138,2694,3053,'74012,2094,:3603,8741t:.1 08:~:4.346 4,4:::2 4,6233,749 3,753 3,7591 '7J .. 8:32 2:~: , 5::::5 27 7 3444,7013,71131,0554,.8453,71334,7686,0214,4:::0..DEMAND -ENERGY -KWMWHEXISTING DIESEL KWADD IT I ONAL :30URCE:3UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT ::::KW1993(;., :'::00 7, 00027,700 28,9005,0005,0005,000~'?OOO5,0005,00019957,200 7,400 7,60029,500 :30,100 31,000510005,0005,0005~OOO5,0005.,0005,0005,00019977,900 8,100:;: 1 , ::::(>0 :3:37 0005,0005,000,5,0005.,0005,000~I,OOO2000::;:, :300 ::::, c·(lo34,500 :35,900~;,ooo~;., 0005,0005,0000005~OOO20(11THRU20418",600351'i'OO5,0005,0005,000•..MWHMWH -DIESELCOAL27,70029.,50030,10031,00031, :;::003:;:,00035,90035~ '''00COAL INVESTMENT (000)COAL EOUIV AN COST (000)TONS OF COALCOST PER TONCOAL FUEL CO:;;:T (000)COAL m,M COST (000)COAL REPLACEMENT (000)DIESEL I NVE:::TMENT (000)DIESEL EG!UIV AN COST WOO)GALLONS DIESEL FUEL (00(»(:O:;T PER OALLONDIESEL FUEL CO:;;;T (000)DIESEL OlkM CO:::T (000)DIESEL REPLACEMENT (000)ANNUAL COSTSPRES WORTH ANNUAL COSTACCUM PRES WORTH1,';>7615,7921201, 8~.;t59741,2821, ''77616,4751201,977'3'741,2821,97616,:=;171202,1)189741,2!:::21, 97617,15:::1202,0599741,2821,97617, (:,671202,120S"741 .. 80 1.86 1.92 1.99 2 .. 0610 10 10 10 101 1 1 1 1";;',1:38 6,220 6.,261 /:..,:~:02 t·,:;:6:34.434 4,362 4,264 4,166 4,0:::443.,682 48.,044 52,:~:O:::: 56,474 6(),55::::1, ';)761:::,1251202,1759741,2:::21,9761:::" :;::OB1202,2579741,2821,';>7619.6671202, ~360974172822. 1:3 2~ 21 2.2810 10 101 1 1t,,418 6,500 6,6034,000 8.,933 3,87964, 55~:: 6::;:,491 721 :~i701,9762014t.71202,456~)741,2822. 3~,101:;;~82076,1901,'77620,4671202,4569741,2:322 .. :36101(:.,699::::91444165,634......

92TABLE D-(:,AELECTRIC HEATING BY INTERTIED HYDROSURPLUS ENERGY COf;T $.0625/KWH)RECONNAI,::;SANCE ~;TUDY OFENERGY REC!UIREMENT~; AND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS1982198:319S519901991AVAILABLE - KWENERGY MWH5,00016"J9005,0001:=:,1008,400 ::;:,200201400 21,2001::t, SOO64,50::'52(J,50074,1';152(1,40071,69531.,900118,745:~:1., 30011(:,,145377500136,18537,200134.,685EXISTING DIESEL KWADDITIONAL SOURCES -SURPLlY=;DEAD (:REEf(~3ILVER LAKELAf(E 1488LAI00::::.,:30015,50012,0006,7003,00015,50012~OOO6,700MWHMWHD I E~::ELHYDRO F'LUS ~::;URPLUS11:.,,900 la,100 5,600 7,40014,800 1::::,800 64,595 74,195 71,695 118,745 116,145 1:'::6'1185 1:34,685HYDROIINTERTIE INVESTMENTEG!UIV AN COST (000)OS-.M COST (000)REF'LACEMENT COST (000)SURPLUS ENERGY COST (000)12,220622121292577,500(:.22 :3., (:.3412 22112 598l:,2 -;"00::;:,634221591,500;":,634221591,34463,240e·, 092405951,194{,,092405951,031:33 .. 5007,3945511159127,:3945,51115819DIESEL INVESTMENT «>00)DIESEL. EC!UIV AN COST (000)GAL.LONS DIESEL. FUEL (000)CO~3T PE::R GALLONDIESEL FUEL COST (000)DIESEL m,M COST (000)DIESEL REPLACEMENT (000)1., :3001.231'175926'::'4'":1,3921.271,9452764:34:311 .. 32(:,2610435~,/~1.36851104:31. 411. 461. 11 .. 561.621. 74ANNUAL. C(",,:TSPRES WORTH ANNUAL. COSTACCUM PRES WORTH2,0702,0702,0702,2642.,2502,1212,41:2:2,2078,596,4 .. 81:;:4,2765~41,'34,/:;,6;J17,5415.,2574,40221,9437,7:356, ::'::307,6226,017:34, ::;;'''~/(J8,972"" 87641,166818796,60747,77:319921993199520002001THRU2041AVA I U\BL.E KWENERGY ~lWH40.,.:::;:00145,34540,400143,64540,000141, '~'454:3., 200 4:3,200 4::::::,200151,333 145,333 145.,3:3:::: 145,:333 145,48 .. 200145, :3';:34~1, 200145,333EXISTING DIESEL. KWADDITIONAL SOURCES -~:::URPL.US:DEAD GREEt00)1 .. 801. :361 R1.992.062.21£.'.36ANNUAL COSH;PRES ,,!ORTH ANNUAL COSTACCUM PRE~; WORTH9,6146,94654,7199, 50:~;6, 6~,'~J/c,l,38'::'6,82574,(:,119,949I..~., :38/::.·::::0, ':;r'~/7'~" 949/::..,200':'7,1979.,949/:...,0199:3.,211:.,9,949 9,949 9,949~t' :::44 5,674 132,837~/'i', 01:..0 104,7:34 2371571

TABLE [i-6BELECTRIC HEATING BY INTERTIED HYDRO(SURPLUS ENERGY (nST 1.0l/KWH)ENERGY RE~JIREMENTSRECONNAISSANCE STUDY OFAND ALTERNATIVES FOR CORrnJVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS1990 1991......AVA I LABLE - f(WENERGY - MWHEXISTING DIESEL kWADDITIONAL ~JURCES - kW'::URF'LU~;DEAD CREEkSILVER LAfTLAkE 14B:=:LAf(E 649LAf(E 1 :0:7:::MWH ._. DIE',:ELMWH - HYDRO PL~3 SURPL~3HYDRO/INTERTIE INVESTMENTEQUIV AN DJST (000)08~M CO~=;T (000)REPLACEMENT D)ST(OOO)SURPLUS ENERGY COST (000)DIESEL INVESTMENT (000)DIE~~L E~JIV AN COST (000)GALLONS DIESEL FUEL (000)CO',:T PER GALLONDIESEL FUEL COST (000)DIESEL O&M COST (000)DIESEL REPLACEMENT (000)ANNUAL CO',:T';PRES WORTH ANNUAL COSTACCUM PRES WORTH5,000 5,000 8,400 8,20() 1~:,8()() 20,500 20,400 31,900 31,300 37,500 37,20016,900 18,100 20,400 21,200 64,595 74! 195 71,695 118,745 116,145 136,185 134,6855,000 5,000 5,000 5,000:~:, 400 3,20016,90() 18,100 5,600 7,4ClO14.BOO 13.800 64.59 5 74.195 71,695 11:0:.745 116.145 136.1:0:5 134.6851,3001.231.75','26:,:4::;:,070,070,0701 , ~::'~)21.271.94527~,432. ~?64~~, 19::::4.26:::12, ~:2062212121484:~: 11.32«:610431.47:c:1. ::;::::::;:3,300 5,000 4,90015,500 15,500 15,5()O77, ~iOO6~~2 3. ~"3412 ~:2112 5':"1-:;::::: 144~;~.93.6342Z1592403.634Z?l2151.36 1.41 1.46 1.51:,:5110431.68 4,057 4.153 4.1281.54 3,~~5 ~.~~L 3.4577,20 10.:::~6 14.3~3 17.8454,40015,50012,00063.240(:., 0'~J240~i1911.5(,{,.7:':25.514:3, ::::0015,50012,0006,0924051651.625,3::':::3:3, :30015,50012,0006,lOO33,5007,394551115146:=:,206(:., ~~::::::'~i:,:4,9;0:1::':,00015,50012,000/:..,7007.3','4~;511151::;:11.748,1916, 09~!41.07/c,....•.....'-..Iii!19931 ':;'95 19972000~~~oo 1THF

TABLE D-7DIESEL GENERATION WITH WA':::TE HEATRECONNAI',:SANCE STUDY OFENERGY REC!UIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE',,; FOR CORDOVAECONOMIC ANALYSIS1984 198719:::819901991DEMANDENERGYKWMWH:3,50016,900:3,6·0018,0004,700 4,900 5,000 5,100 5,30020,~i(H) 21,200 22,000 21,800 22,:~:OO514002:~:, :3005,600 5,S002:;f t :300 24, 7006 .. 0002'::.,000EXISTING DIESEL KWADDITIONAL SOURCESUNIT 1UNn 2UNIT 3KW5,000!:;,OOO5.,0005,0005'100027·500510002,5005,0002,5005~OOO2~5(lf)5 .. 0002,5005,0002,5005~OOODIESEL I NVP3TMENT (000)DIESEL EQUIV AN COST (000)GALLONS DIE~:EL FUEL (000)COST PEr, GALLONDIESEL FUEL COST (000)DIESEL O&M COST (~)O)DIESEL REPLACEMENT (000)DIE'3EL ANNUAL COST (000)1, :3001 ~ 2:31, 75'~432,0701,3:::41. 271 , 9:::::32764~;:2,2521,5761 .. :321.,6:":01.362,43::::2984:?~2,77';11,075721,6921.412,624:30465;3,065721,6761.462,6923,132721.,7151 .. ~:; 13066531292721, T?21.51:...3~075'~ll :3/.:.5,-, :M COST (000)REPLACEMENT cm::r (000)GALLON',: DIESEL D I SF'LACED (000)DOLLAR VALUE (000)WA,,:TE HEAT AN CU,:T (000)1,900l27 .. ;?,Jl7.538uO4/,,(1(60'

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYCoal ResourcesAveritt, P.; Coal Resources of the United States; U.S. Geological SurveyBulletin 1412; 1975.Barnes, F.F., ~ Review of the Geology and Coal Resources of the BeringRiver Coal Field; U.S. Geological Survey Circular 146; 1951.Barnes, F.F.; Coal Resources of Alaska; U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin1242-B; 1967.Bottge, R.G.; Coal as an Energy Source for Barrow, Alaska; U.S. Bureauof Mines Report for the Alaska Power Authority; 1977.Clark, P.R.; Transportation Economics of Coal Resources of Nothern SlopeCoal Fields lAlaska; University of Alaska M.I.R.L Report No. 31;1973.Cooper, H.M., et ali Analysis of Alaska Coals; U.S. Bureau of Mines Tech.Paper 682; 1946.Hankinson, F.C.; Petrographic Evaluation of Coking Potential of SelectedAlaskan Coals and Blends; University of Alaska M.I.R.L. Report No.3; 1965.Howell, S.B.; Cost Study: Chignik Bay Coal Field; U.S. Bureau of MinesInternal Report; 1979.Janson, Lone; The Copper Spike; Northwest Alaska Publishing Co.;Anchorage; 1975.Kachadorian, Reuben; Engineering Geology of the Katalla Area, Alaska;U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map1-308; 1969.apa26/01 E-1

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYKennedy, Andrew; Report on Field Examination of the 33 Cunningham AlaskaCoal Entries; U.S. Congress, Investigation of the Department of theInterior and of the Bureau of Forestry; 1910.Martin, G.C.;Al aska;Geology and Mineral Resources of Controller Bay Region,U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 335; 1908.McGee, D.L., and OIConner, Kristina M.; Mineral Resources of Alaska andthe Impact of Federal Land Policies on Their Availability--Coal;State of Alaska, DNR, Division of Geological and Geophysical SurveysOpen File Report 51; 1976.Miller, D.J.; Geology at the Site of ~ Proposed Dam and Reservoir onPower Creek ~ Cordova, Alaska; U.S. Geological Survey Circular136; 1951.Miller, D.J.; Geology of the Katalla District, Gulf of Alaska TertiaryProvince, Alaska; U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 206; 1961.•••........III.-Miller, D.J., Payne, T.G., Gryc, George, with Annotated Bibliography byCobb, E.H.; Geology of Possible Petroleum Provinces in Alaska;U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1094; 1969.Plafker, George; Geologic Map of the Gulf of Alaska Tertiary Province,Alaska; U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic InvestigationsMap 1-484; 1967.Rao, Dharma; Washability Charateristics of Low-Volatile Bituminous Coalfrom Bering River Field, Alaska; University of Alaska M.I.R.L.Report No. 21; 1959..,...Robert W. Retherford Associates; Assessment of Power Generation Alternativesfor Kotzebue; Alaska Power Authority; 1980.Robert W.Retherford Associates; Bristol Bay Energy and Electric PowerPotential, Phase 1; u.s. Department of Energy; 1979.apa26/02 E-2.,.t."

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYSanders, R.B.; The ~ Resources 2f the Kushtaka Mountain ~includingCarbon Creek) ~ of the Bering ~ £2!l~; U.S. GeologicalSurvey General Report; 1976.Oil and Gas ResourcesPublications:American Petroleum Institute; IIReserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquidsand Natural Gas in the United States and Canada as of December 31,1968"; American Gas Association and Canadian Petroleum Association;V. 23, p. 31i 1969.Blasko, D. P.; ft History of Bureau 2f Mirr!! Oil !nB §!! ResourceInvestigations in Alaska with ~ Index 2f Published ~ UneublfshedReeorts Containing Information £n Alaska's Qil and §2! Resources;U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines, Informational Handout19201974; 1975.Dolton, G.l., et. a1.; Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Resourcesof Conventionally Producible Oil and Gas in the United States;U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81·192; 1981.Gates, G.O., Grantz, Arthur and Patton, W.W., Jr.; Geology and NaturalGas and Oil Resources in Alaska; Natural ~ of North America,Edited by B.W. Beebe and F. Curtis; Amer. Assoc. Petrol. GeologistsMemoir 9, V. 9, p. 3-48; 1968.Grantz, Arthur; UPetroleum and Natural Gas - Southern A1aska ll ; Mineraland ~ Resources 2f Alaska; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee onInterior and Insular Affairs, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, CommitteePrit. t p. 44-62; 1964.apa26/03 E-3

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYGryc, George; "Summary of Potential Petroleum Resources of Region I(Alaska and Hawaii) - Alaska"; Future Petroleum Provinces of theUnited States - Their Geology and Potential; ed. by I.H. Gram;Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Memoir IS, V. 1, p. 55-67; 1971.LeMay, W.J.; IIA Perspective on Alaska's Oil Potentials"; Qil and GasJournal; V. 67, No.8 .• p. 114-120; 1969.•....Martin, G.C.; Geology and Mineral Resources of the Controller BayRegion, Alaska; U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 335; 1908.McConkey, W., Lane, D .• Quinlan, C., Rahm, M., and Rutledge, G.;Alaska's Energy Resources: Inventory of Oil, Gas, Coal, Hydroelectricand Uranium Resources; Vol. I and Vol. II; 1977.Miller, D.J., Payne, T.G., and Gryc, George; Geology of PossiblePetroleum Provinces in Alaska; with annotated bibliography by E.H.Cobb; U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1094; 1959.Moore, Billy J.; IITables on Alaskan Gases"; Analyses of Natural Gases;U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines; p. 4-8; 1975.State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologicaland Geophysical Surveys; Estimated Speculative RecoverableResources of Oil and Natural Gas in Alaska; Open File Report 44;1974.U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines; Alaska 1/250,000 ScaleQuadrangle Map Overlays Showing Exploratory Oil and ~ ~Drilling Locations ~ Productive Oil and Gasfield Locations; OpenFile Report 69-73 (updated yearly); 1973.•..•-"•....apa26/04 E-4•

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYU.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines; Minerals, Fuels, Geology-­Resources Analyses f2! ~ Federal-State ~ Use Planning f2!:mission for Alaska; Volume 4: Inventory Report - SouthcentralRegion and Volume 6: Inventory Report - Southcentra1 Region; editedand assembled by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center;1974.U.S. Department of Interior Geological Survey; Oil and Gas Regions andProvinces, State £f Alaska~; Resources Appraisal Group. Branchof Oil and Gas Resources for U.S.G.S. Circular 725; 1974.Personal Communications:Brewer, Max, Director, National Petroleum Reserve Development for HuskyOil Co., Anchorage.Chatterton, C.V., President, Rowan Drilling Co., Anchorage.Mangus, Martin, Petroleum Geologic Consultant, Anchorage.McMullin, Robert, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage.Geothermal ResourcesForbes, R.B.; Geothermal Energy and Wind Power, Alternate Energy Sources~ Alaska; Alaska Energy Office and Geophysical Institute, Universityof Alaska; p. 144; 1976.Godwin, L.H.; Classification of Public ~ Valuable for Geothermal~ ~ Associated Geothermal Resources; U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 647; p. 18; 1971.McConkey, W., Quinlan, C., Rutledge, G., Lane, D., and Rahm, M.;Alaska's Energy Resources: Findings and Analysis; Alaska Divisionof Energy and Power Development; p. 244; 1977.apa26/05 E-5

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYMcFadden, W.A., Jr., Wanek, A.A., and Callahan, J.E.; Alaska GeothermalResources Minutes #1; Minutes of Mineral Land Classification Board;1971.....McFadden, W.A., Jr., Wanek, A.A., and Callahan, J.E.; Alaska GeothermalResources Minutes #2; Minutes of Mineral Land Classification Board;1971.Miller, T.P.; Distribution and Chemical Analyses of Thermal Springs inAlaska; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report; 1972.Miller, T.P., Barnes, F., and Patton, W.W., Jr.; Geologic Setting andChemical Characteristics of Hot Springs in Central and WesternAlaska; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report; 1972.Miller, T.P., and Barnes, Ivan; Potential for Geothermal Energy Oevelop­~ in Alaska--Summary; Circum-Pacific Energy and Mineral ResourcesMem. 25, A.A.P.G.; 1976.Muffler, L.J.P.; Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States;U.S. Geological Survey Circular 790; 1978.Ogle W.E.; Geothermal Energy Possibilities in Alaska; Consultant, Anchorage,Alaska; 1974.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations; Title 43, Public Lands, Sect. 3200,Geothermal Leasing, Part 2310, Withdrawals.............U.S. Congress; Geothermal ~ Act, Public Law 91-581; 84 Stat. 1566;1970.Waring, G.A.; Mineral Springs of Alaska; U.S.Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 492; 1917.apa26/06 E-6..Ii

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYWhite, D.F .• and Williams, D.L.; Assessment ~ Geothermal Resources of~ United States; U.S. Geological Survey Circular 726. p. 155;1975.Energy TechnologiesAlaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development; Jobs and Power---f2! Alaskans; July 1978.Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerceand Economic Development; Minimizing Consumption of ExhaustibleEnergy Resources through Community Planning ~ Design; FinalReport for U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration;Anchorage; October 1977.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program; Northern ~ £f Alaska PetroleumDevelopment Scenarios, local Socioeconomic Impacts; for Bureau ofLand Management Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office; TechnicalReport No. 33; October 1979.Anonymous; IIEnergy from Biomass"; EPRI Journal; December 1980.Anonymous; "Photovoltaic Review ll ; .illf Spectrum; February 1980.ASHRAE; Handbook of Fundamentals; Amercian Society of Heating, Refrigerating,and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,; New York; 1977.ASHRAE; ~ Systems; American SOCiety of Heating, Refigerating, andAir-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.; New York; 1980.ASHRAE; 1979 Equipment; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, andAir-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.; New York; 1979.apa26/07 E-7

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYBerman, Ira M., and Schmidt, Philip S.; IIFuel Cells and Coal-DerivedFuel"; Power Engineering; October 1980.Black, Theodore W.; UPP&L Test Power from the Wind"; ~ Engineering;July 1979.Babcock and Wilcox Company; ~: l!! Generation and Use; New York;1955.....- ....-Baumeister, Theodore, Avallone. Eugene A., and Baumeister III, Theodore,Editors; Marks' Standard Handbook f£! Mechanical Engineers; EighthEdition; McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York; 1978..,8renman, J.E.; Treatment of liquid Wastes from Fossil ~ ~ Plants;Ecodyne Industrial Waste Treatment Division; 1977.Budwani, Ramesh H.; "Power Plant Capital Cost Analysis"; Power Engineering;May 1980.Bueche, Arthur M.; "Energy Conservation, Efficiency, and Substitution!!;EPRI Journal; December 1980.....,.California Energy Commission; Commercial Status: Electrical Generationand Nongeneration Technologies; Staff Draft; September 1979.California Energy Commission; Electricitx Tomorrow:Summary; February 1981.1981 ~ ReeortCalifornia Energy Commission, Nontraditional Energy Technologies:Issues and Actions; Staff Report; December 1980...-California Energy Commission; Volume!: Technical Assessment Manual,Electrical Generation, Version One; Staff Draft with Appendices;September 1979.apa26/08 E-8..

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYCanter, Larry W. and Hill, Loren G.; ................... Handbook of Variables for Environ-;,..;.....;..... - -.;;;.;.;..........;..;.;-mental Impact Assessment; Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.; AnnArbor, Michigan; 1979.Power Engineer­Comtois, Wilfred H.; "Economy of Scale in Power Plants U ;ing; August 1977.Creager. W. P .• and Justin, 0.; HYdroelectric Handbook; Second Edition;John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York; 1950.Davis, C. V., and Sorensen, K. E., Editors; Handbook £! Applied Hydraulics;Third Edition; McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York; 1969.Denesdi, L,; "Fuel Savings wHh Turbines Modified for District Heatinglt.~ Engineering; February 1980.Earting, J. P., and Seifort. R. D.; ~ Energy Resource Potential inAlaska; University of Alaska Institute of Water Resources; 1978.Edison Electric Institute; Electric Heating and Cooling Handbook; NewYork; 1966.Gas Turbine World; Gas Turbine ~ Handbook 1980-81; Pequot Publishing.Inc.; Framingham. Massachusetts; 1980.Geothermal Resources Council; Direct Utilization 2f Geothermal Energy:~ Technical Handbook; Special Report No.7; 1979.Gilles, Theodore C.; "Air-to-Air Heat Pumps"; ~ Engineering;April 3, 1980.Godfrey, Robert Sturgis, Editor-in-Chief; Building Construction f2!!Data 1980; Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.; 1979.apa26/09 E-9

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYGolden, Jack; Ouellette, Robert P.; Saari, Sharon; and Cheremisinoff,Paul H.; Environmental Impact Data Book; Ann Arbor SciencePublishers, Inc.; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1979.•..•Grumman Energy Systems, Inc.; Wind Stream 33 ~ Turbine Generator.Hanks, David J.; IlHeat Pumpsll; Specifying Engineer; February 1981.Harkins. H. L.; IIApplying Cogeneration to Solve Tough Energy Problems ll ;Specifying Engineer; December 1979.Lihach, Nadine; IILifting Hydrois Potential ll ;1980.EPRI Journal; DecemberMerritt, F. S., Editor; Standard Handbook for £!!il Engineers; SecondEdition; McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York; 1976.Niess, Richard C.; tlHigh Temperature Heat Pumps Can Accelerate the Useof Geothermal Energyll; Commercial Uses of Geothermal Heat; GeothermalResources Council Special Report No.9; June 1980...• ....-..Norelli, Patrick; IIIndustrial Heat Pumpstl; Plant Engineering; August 21and September 18, 1980.Olds, F. C.; uCoal Resources and Outlookll; Power Engineering; October1979.Reeder. John W., Coonrod, Patti L., Bragg, Nola I. I Denig-Chakroff,Dave, and Markle, Donald R.; Alaska Geothermal Implementation~;Draft for U.S. Department of Energy; July 1980.Robert W. Retherford Associates; Alternate Energx StudX: Angoon, Alaska;Preliminary Report for State of Alaska Division of Energy and PowerDevelopment; Anchorage; November 1980.•....apa26/010 E-10..

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYRobert W. Retherford Associates; Assessment of ~ Generation Alternativesfor Kotzebue; for Alaska Power Authority; Anchorage; June1980.Robert W. Retherford Associates; Bristol Bay Energy and Electric ~Potential ~ 1; for U.S. Department of Energy; Anchorage;December 1979.Robert W. Retherford Associates; ~ Report: ~ fl!D! Site Investigation,Cordova, Alaska; for Cordova Electric Cooperative;February 1980.Robert W. Retherford Associates; ~ Kuskokwim Single ~ GroundReturn Transmission System ~ I Report; for State of Alaska,Department of Commerce and Economic Development; June 1980.Robert W. Retherford Associates; Transmission Intertie Kake-Petersburg,Alaska: ~ Reconnaissance Report; for Alaska Power Authority;Anchorage; October 1980.Robert W. Retherford Associates; ~ Heat Capture Study for State ofAlaska; Anchorage; June 1978.R. W. Beck and Associates; Investigation of Alternative ~ WasteManagement Systems; for City of Cordova; October 1979.Schweiger, Robert G. j IIBurning Tomorrow's Fuels"; Power; February 1979.Singh, Ram Bux; Bio-Gas Plant; Mother1s Print Shop; Hendersonville,North Carolina; 1975.Stoner, Carol Hupping, Editor; Producing ~ Own ~; Rodale Press,Inc. j Emmaus, Pennsylvania; 1976.apa26/011E-ll

APPENDIX EBIBLIOGRAPHYTechnical Publishing; Plant Engineering Directory and SpecificationsCatalog; 1980.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Feasibility Studies for Small ~ HydroAdditions; 1979.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Hydropower Computer Model; 1981.United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration Environmental Data Service; Monthly Normals ofTemperature, Precipitation ~ Heating and Cooling Degree Days1940-1970 for Alaska.U.S. Department of Energy and FERC; Hydroelectric Power Evaluation;1979.United States Department of Labor; Dictionary of Occupational Titles;Fourth Edition; 1977.University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research; ElectricPower in Alaska 1976·1995; August 1976.University of Oklahoma Science and Public Policy Program; Energy Alternatives:~ Comparative Analysis; Federal Energy Administration;Washington, DC; May 1975.Yould, E. P.; "The Alaska Hydropower Resource"; Alaska Business Trends;Alaska Pacific Bank Corporation.Young, Arthur and Company; ~ Discussion of Considerations Pertaining toRural Energy Policy Options; State of Alaska Department of Commerceand Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development;April 1979...............-........apa26/012 E-12..•

Phone: (907) 424·3237or 424·3238CITY OF CORDOVBox 1210 602 Railroad Ave.CORDOV A, ALASKA 99574"The Friendly City"~ Repyto:C ...~Warren Eyneart, P.E.Robert W. RetherfordInternational Eng~ing Co.813 liD" StreetAncl:orage, AI{ 99501April 13, 1Dear Mr. Enyeart:I am writing to provide sorre conm:mts and guidelines for preparationof the final refOrt of the Cordova Alternate Energy Study. I haverevie~ the various a::mtents received on the draft and feel theyare very reasonable. In particular, I would like to call yourattention to the Pt::Mer Authority's conm:mt No.9, which stressedthe need to prepare alternative plans. Several of your profOsals(local hydro) could work in conjunction with oontinued dieselgeneration, but the draft did not discuss the capital costs oro & M of such plans. One area that needs rrore discussion is wasteheat reoovery fran the existing plant. The "Power Site SelectionStudy, Cordova" by Retherford, discussed this in detail. The useof the waste heat for manufacturing electricity 'or sale for heatinghorres should be addressed in rrore detail.In accordance with past paractices of the Alaska Power Authority,you sh:>uld include each agency's a::mtents and specifically addressthem in an Appendix in the final refOrt. Although, I realize itmay require ~ delay in printing the final refOrt, I would likeyou to provide three copies of the final draft of the refOrt for theCity of Cordova, Cordova Electric Cooperative and Alaska PowerAuthority for review and approval prior to printing 75 copies ofthe final refOrt. We will conm:mt within five (5) working daysafter receiving t.l:'lE:! final draft so you may continue close toschedule.Very truly yours,cc: Doug Bechtel - c:ocBrent Petrie - APA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNationaZ Marine Fisheries ServiceP.O. Box 1668Juneau~ AZaska 99802Apri 1 10, 1981~i; mI 1# -z...-7z.g\f~~' -~~."- -Mr. Warren L. Enyeart, P.E. ~Project ManagerInternational Engineering Company, Inc. --813 110" StreetP.O. Box 6410Anchorage, Alaska 99502Dear Mr. Enyeart:We have received your letter of February 27, 1981, requesting ourcomments on the Draft Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements andAlternatives for Cordova. We have reviewed the Draft Report and haveno comment to offer at this time.Thank you for the opportunity to comment.Sincerely,~ ~~.R er W. McVey~r. Alaska RegIon

RECEIVEDAPR 1 "J 1981ALASKA POWER AUTHORITYHr. Perry I,ovett. City HanagerCity of CordovaP.O. JO'l( 12J.0Cor~ova. AK 99574Pear t!r. Love t t :!~~re are our COCltlleuts on the draft Reconnaissance Study of Hydropower::':1 tea near Cordova, Alaskn, as requested by Mr. Enyeart frol"..l the Hobert~1. Retherford Division of Internatiunnl En~ineering Company, Inc.The study appears to be logically presented, co~prehensive aud thesuppurting information \:e11 docu.t::leoted in the appendix. It points outthat the resources for electric pov;er in the area are very lir:d.ted.Recotll1leud..atioIlS as to further study include: the local identified hydroaltarnative:s; an intertie to Valdez (\-/ith the possibility of developingsUlull hydroelectric potentials along the routin~); a.nd a snaIl scalecoal-fired ateamplant.IJe certainly agree with the recoo~ndations for further study of thelocal hydroa and the interconnection. Ho...,ever. we feel tbat the recO"QlOOndationto study the potential of using a ~T.lall Beale coal-fired uteul'Jplantshould be given lower study priority. This is pril:larily due to the costuncertainties associated with stlall staamplants.\·ie note. that the a'tudy identified ,.'I..~nc:! u~o foJ:' 3pace heating .'15 apossiblt-: alternative to oil. This may have a si;;nificont it;:pact on thefuture use of oil, and we suggest that in future studies, it be analyz~din \;\Orc de tail.The projected yearly peak demand 01lJ energy use estimated in the studyis generally 60mewha t lO11er than our tlseIlcy estio.:l ted in coajuIlc tionwith Corps of Engineors studies for Pover Creek. However. it 1s of thosaue general ~gnitud~. and the variation does not appear aignif1cant.

....The co~t of $JOO.OOO to $400, GOO for i1 feasibility 5 t;;dy of t;l~ Lt3S-k;·;Crater Lak~ hydropo\o/el' site seeus hi(.11 to) us.We apprec1~tethe oppurtunity to co~rnent.Siecer~ly,Robert J. CrossAdr.linlstca tor...cc:Eric You!u, Alaska POw-er Authorityl~obert 1':. Retherford AssociatesDG07SCHALL:\1S•WI•..1M-......., ..-....

333 WEST 4th AVENUE - SUITE 31 - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501Mr. Warren Enyeart, P.E. ~IICRobert W. Retherford DivisionInternational Engineering Company813 D StreetAnchorage, Alaska 99501Dear Mr. Enyeart:April-------- -Your Draft Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and AlternativesFor Cordova is generally comprehensive and thorough. However, we feelthe following points should be cleaned up or addressed in the final report:1. Intertie to Valdez. Your costs for intertie route #2 for 59 miles oververy rugged country at $12.2 million seemed questionable when comparedto the 63 mile Cordova to Carbon Creek line (much less rugged countryand 37 miles of existing road access) at $11,050,000. Bob Retherford'sexplanation at the public meeting pointed out that very different constructiontechniques would be used for each line. Some additionalexplanation in the text of the possible construction technique forintertie route #2 would help clarify this seeming inconsistency.2. Intertie route 3 also includes smaller hydro sites in addition to thelarge hydro potential at Woods Canyon, Cleve, and Million Dollar. Suchsmaller projects may be more suitable for a Cordova-Valdez market andshould be discussed at a recon level. They might include Cleave Creek,Tiekel River, Van Cleve Lake, Heiden Canyon (Lowe River headwaters),Brown Creek, and an unnamed creek in T.10S. R. 5W, Copper River Meridian.3. Based on comments received and the recon flight of intertie route #2, wesuggest you reexamine the proposed costs for a detailed feasibility studyand make sure it is sufficient for necessary engineering and geotechnicalfeasibility studies. We also suggest you double check the estimate forfeasibility studies of the coal fired plants, to make sure it will providefor the necessary environmental studies in addition to engineeringand economic feasibility studies.4. There was considerable discussion at the public meeting that the Valdezarea may not have a significant surplus of power even with the pressurereducing turbine and Allison Creek hydro project in place. This needsto be clarified in the final report as it affects the viability of theintertie. In addition, other benefits of an intertie such as the sharingof reserves and increasing reliability should be discussed.

••Mr. Warren Enyeart, P. E.Apri 1 6, 1981Page 25. Ref. pp. IV-5 Crater Lake is described as possibly offering Iia 435 KWprime" hydroelectricity plant. We understand "prime power" from a hydroelectricityplant as synonomous with continuous power. Continuouspower from a hydroplant is generally defined as the power available froma plant on a continuous basis under the most adverse hydraulic (low flow)conditions. When one considers the very small watershed of Crater Lake,it seems that the 435 kW of prime power and 38,000 MWh per year for CraterLake generation (po B-15) is an error. Figure 4 "Projected Yearly ElectricalConsumption, City of Cordova" shows only 16,000 MWh of totalconsumption for the year 1980. Crater Lake surely cannot generate morethan twice the present yearly consumption of Cordova.6. Ref. pp.IV-16. Heat Pumps. This section should be expanded so that thelay reader knows what heat pumps are, how they work, and their availabilityfor Cordova. The Alaska Power Administration has been conducting a demonstrationand evaluation of air and water source heat pumps in Juneau forthe past two years. According to a verbal presentation by Bob Cross inJuneau on March 28, 1981, their data show the heat pumps to be 2.5 to 2.6times as efficient in use of electricity as resistive electric space heating.You should check with the Alaska Power Administration on this. Heatpumps may be more economic heating alternative for Cordova than resistiveelectric space heating or heating oil and, if so, should be described morefully under technology alternatives (Chapter V) and energy technology profiles(Appendix C).7. Ref. pp. IV-3. Item 3 Intertie with Valdez. This paragraph states thatthe Valdez area surplus is expected to decrease by 6% per year and refersthe reader to Figure 11 in Chapter VI. However, Figure 11 shows a straightline of Valdez area surplus for 1983-1990. This should be corrected. Furthermore,Figure 12 does not match up with Figure 11, i.e., the Figure 12surplus shows about a 15 MW surplus vs. 9 MW surplus on Figure II, andthe addition of Dead Creek shows a 25 MW peak capacity on Figure 12 vs.a 15 MW peak on Figure 11.8. Reference Chapter IV. Wood as a space heating fuel deserves expanded mentionsince many people in Cordova mentioned that there had been a noticeableshift in the last two years from heating oil to wood stoves. For lack ofa better figure, I suggest you use estimates provided by the U. S. ForestService in Ken Kilborn's comment. Furthermore, I was told by a local resident,whose name I cannot recall, that the main restrictions on woodharvesting in the nearby Chugach National Forest were due to the factthat the land was selected by Eyak Village Corporation and Chugach Natives,Inc. They indicated that wood gathering by permit or fee might be allowedafter title had been transferred to the Natives. While it seems obviousthat wood alone cannot provide for Cordovals energy needs it seems likeit may continue to be a viable option for several years on an individualbasis.•••••.,•'"".,..

Mr. Warren Enyeart, P. E.Apri 1 6, 1981Page 3..-9. Chapter VI. This portion does present a series of plans to meet Cordova'senergy requirements, but is not in complete conformance with "Alaska PowerAuthority Reconnaissance Study Regulations" which were provided to you atthe beginning of the contract. The following excerpts from the reconnaissancestudy regulations should be used as guidelines in preparing the analysisand format for Chapter VI.(c) In order to allow comparative analysis of alternativepower sources the authority in conducting a reconnaissance studywill, to the extent applicable, use the following standardcriteria and measures:(1) a "base case" plan will be developed that wouldmeet the forecasted electric power requirements of the communityor region and that would result from a continuation of presentpractices in th.e community or region and/or from a reliance onliqu:id foss.jJ f..,e1 generation modes. The "base case" plan wills{!rVe·as a basis forcomp~rlng alternative plans.. (2)0 ......•... ternatives, either Singly or lflFombinabe. d into two or. more plans eac~()f whichthe ....... ted requirement$.To tbe ~tent possible.11. b'. ate(.r·t(Jp.rovid~ .•·a C01llDOQ J4ivel of rel i-.""; '," " . '" -;' " ','- ---

•Mr. Warren Enyeart, P. E.Apri 1 6, 1981Page 4Please refer to your firm1s recent draft report on Thirteen Western AlaskaVillages, Chapters 6 and 7, for a format for presentation of base case and alternativeplans .. The Cordova report seems to have all the necessary numbers forpreparation of such plans but some revision in the presentation format would behelpful.Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on the above comments.All comments which you have received on the draft should be includedin an appendix in the final report.•-•..-•FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORBrent N. PetrieProject Manager•1.1•IIIII1.1•III..IIIIIIi•

JA r s. HAMMOND, GOVERNORMa rch 27, 1981DEPt\RT,. ..:NT o .. ~ .'ISII !\ND Gt\MEOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERCity of CordovaP.O. Box 1210Cordova, Alaska 99574Attention: Mr. Perry Lovett, City ManagerGentlemen:Re: Draft Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements andAlternatives for CordovaThe Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the above referencedstudy and offers no specific comments. We request, however, the opportunityto review any subsequent studies or reports regarding energy relatedproj~cts for Cordova.If you have any questions,!please do not hesitate to contact us.Sincerely,';{;;n

.... .March 16, 1981[tIGlISH I.lA yMr. Brent Petrie, Project ManagerAlaska Power Authority333 West ,4th Av,enue, Suite 31Anchorage, Alaska 99501Dear Mr. Petrie:I have reviewed your D~aft Report: Reconnaissance Study of EnergxRequirements and Alternatives for Cordova. Unfortunately, I will not beable to attend the March 19.meeting on this report in Cordova, so thefollowing remarks summarize my reaction to this draft.Chugach Natives, Inc., is the Alaska Native regional corporationfor the area encompassed in this study. For a myriad of reasons ourcorporation has yet to receive the entitlement of some 377,000 acres ofland promised to us under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of1971. Once this transfer is completed, Chugach will be primarily anatural resources company.A considerable amount of the land which Chugach will eventuallyreceive title to will be located in the general vicinity of Cordova.Lands currently under consideration for transfer to Chugach includeseveral of the small potential hydro-electric sites located betweenCordova and Valdez which were mentioned in this study, along withthe Bering River c~al field area and the Katalla oil. and gas area.We readily admit that in pure economic terms neither the BeringRiver coal field nor the Katalla oil and natural gas resources justifydevelopment solely for local use. However, as a natural resources company,Chugach has begun and intends to continue pursuing the developmentof these resources for non-local consumptio'n.· For instance, negotiationsare actively underway with a number of major domestic and foreign companiesconcerning the development of the Bering River coal field at this time.If any of

:11". Brel1 t Pl'tric~ld rdl 1 u, 1 ~l':;lPage Twois determined to be feasible, then the economics of utilizing a portionof the coal for local use are altered radically. What had heretoforebeen an uneconomical energy resource, given the high capital costs andthe low demand, would suddenly become a very viable energy alternative.Therefore, in general we do not disagree with your conclusions,based on the assumptions given. But somewhere in your study you shouldprovide the latitude for a scenario such as that sketched above for theBering River coal field. Such latitude would lend more credibility toyour report under a wider variety of future energy scenarios for Cordova.Also, one specific statement which should be corrected in yourfinal report is where you state on page 111-3 that the Eyak NativeVillage Coop owns Chugach Alaska Fisheries. This should read thatChugach Alaska Fisheries, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ChupachNatives, Inc.Chugach looks forward to a continuing involvement in Cordova'senergy affairs.Sincerely,Directorand Natural Resourcescc;Perry LovettDoug ~echtel•II'..•Mil•.......•- .....lilt,..11/..•..•.,II.,...,.......-•""•iii>•..til..III

REPLYTOATTENTION OF,NPAEN-PL-RDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYFiLE # --Z 7 z-SI'~ti~120 MAR 19B1Mr. Perry LovettCity ManagerP.O. Box 1210Cordova, Alaska 99574Dear Mr. Lovett:Thank you for providing us the opportunity of reviewing the Draft Report:Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Cordova. Wedo not have the expertise to comment on most of the alternatives presented butwould like to furnish the following comments on the hydropower alternative:1. Reference Section IV, paragraph 1.a. Besides environmental problems,the Million Dollar, Cleve and Woods Canyon projects should be excluded becausethey are too large for the Cordova market. However, other sites in the CopperRiver area might be included. These are Tieke1 River, Sheep Creek and CleveCreek.2. Reference Section IV, paragraph 1.b. The Corps' investigations todate on Power Creek indicate that a 6,000 kw run-of-river project may befeasible. We are also studying the possibility of a storage project at thesame site at Ohman Falls. Other sites on Power Creek have been ruled out dueto the extreme depth to bedrock.3. Reference Section IV, paragraph 1.c. The recent Corps' study forValdez shows that there would be no surplus energy at Valdez until after theSolomon Gulch project is completed and that even if the pressure reducingturbine is installed in the Trans Alaska pipeline, the Valdez-Glennallen areawill need additional power in 1990 for the winter peak demands. It should bementioned that a pressure reducing turbine is only a short range energy sourcesince the supply of oil from the North Slope is limited.The intertie proposal should be studied, to determine the feasibility of thenumerous sites along the intertie route, and other benefits from an intertiesuch as balancing energy demands.4. Reference Figure 7. Silver Lake and Simpson Creek could be added toRoute 2. Route 3 Intertie could have projects tied into it such as CleveCreek, Tiekel River, Sheep Creek and Van Cleve Lake.

NPAEN-PL-RMr. Perry Lovett20MAR 198\5. Reference Section IV, paragraph l.d. For Crater Lake it should bementioned that the cannery at Orca has a water right of one cfs. A dualpurpose project of water supply and hydropower should be recommended.6. Reference Section VIII page 1 and Figure 13. The second stage forPower Creek is still under study. The cost of $5,000/kw to develop smallhydropower sites along the intertie line and $11,200,000 for the SWGR lineappear to be low for this terrain.7. Reference Appendix B, page B-15. Discharge from Crater Lake to EyakLake is more difficult due to adverse topography. It should discharge towardOrca. Our estimates indicate the cost for this project is higher than the$3,500 stated.Other than these comments, the Draft Report is very good. We are stillplanning to drill the site on Power Creek this summer and also install a gageon the outflow from Crater Lake. We hope to discuss this with you when youcome to the harbor bid opening next month.If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contactMr. Ken Hitch of our Planning Branch at 752-3461.Copy Furn ished: /­Brent Petr; e Jr/Alaska Power AuthoritySincerely,lSI HARLAN E. MOORgHARLAN E. MOOREChief, Engineering Division........•......• ....•..•••...........'2..

....~,,,,,' -" 1596790..U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURESPEED MEMOFROM..!SICNATURE______-L_*~=-=====-____ ~~~~~~--------.----------------------REPl Y (USE THIS CE FOR REPL y, SIGN AND DATE. RETURN PART 3 TO SENDER. RETAIN PART I)RECEIVED..r ,'1AR 1 > 19 81FILE # _ '2.-:( zB..DATE

Phone: ~907) 424-3237or 424-3238~Warren Enyeart, P.E. 11~Project ManagerRobert W. Retherford Assoc.Box 6410Anchorage, AK 99502Dear Mr. Enyeart:CITY OF CORnOV ~f~~28~~~Box 1210 602 Railroad Ave.f\f \~ ~ 1y to:CORDOVA, ALASKA 9957"~ ~~\ t\\ ~"1Jte Friendly Cily" .... ~ \\\t\\~t\l :\~ \\~ "\~.9IMarChI thought the public hearing went well with several goodcomments and suggestions.23~fo~HM-----"""$[ lit e, ~\. \,\0 Z?ZB','\NR -"V' _____fo- ~k1-'Some areas that Iare:feel should be tightened up and developed1. Check projected planning budget costs for Valdez intertie.Several comments that budget costs are low. I agree that we don'twant inflated costs--only best realistic estimated possible.2. Coal fire plant. There should be planning budget costsfor a new plant--5, 10, 15, 20 year estimated costs of operationand coal costs with consideration of the Healy, Beluga andBering River Fields as sources.3. Coal for heating. Same resources for residential and industrialheating--costs and availability of coal.Both of these should address the environmental conditions you broughtup on rain runoff from the stockpile.4. Copper River Run of River. What are the probabilities,problems, costs and environmental concerns (fish, etc.).5. Pressure reducing turbine. There should be a more definitestatement about the present and future plans for this project.Who will do it, when and how will power be utilized.6. Discussion of statement that Valdez will be power-leanby 1984.7. Dead Creek. What is environmental position, fish spawningstream, land ownership, costs, etc. A good vigorous discussionof this subject is certainly warranted.8. ALPETCO. What are the probabilities of this project beingbuilt in Valdez. Effect on power needs.

••.,..•.,..page 29. Ownership map of lands near Katella, Bering River Coal Fieldsand patented natural gas fields.The frank discussion of these issues are necessary before wetake dead aim at selecting one or more items for a detailedfeasibility study.We look forward to reviewing your interpretation of theseitems.Very truly yours,cc:Brent Petrie, APADoug Bechtel, CEC......,.,••••..•.,•..

MIS 44313 MAR 198'Per~ lovett, City ManagerCity of CordovaP. O. Box 1210Cordova, Alaska 99574----- -Subject: Oraft Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements andAlternatives for CordovaDear Mr. lovett:Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the above draft study.We have no comments on the study, though we thought it was quite welldone and interesting.We would appreciate the opportunity to review future feasibility studieswhich may be prepared on any of the hydroelectric or coal-fired powerplant alternatives since we could have a role in the federal permitswhich may be required for such facilities.Please feel free to contact either myself or Judi Schwarz of my staff ifyou have any questions. We can be reached at (206) 442-1285.Sine ere 1 y yt'lurs,Elizabeth Corbyn. ChiefEnvironmental Evaluation Branch~~cc: Warren l. Enyeart, International Engineering CompanyJSchwarz:blm 03-13-81TEWilson