Fremont County Green Feasibility Study

Research Team: Jacob Tolman, Joseph Huckbody, John Beck, Justin Andersen, Thresia Mouritsen

Spring 2012

2

Executive Summary Southeastern Idaho has received a grant from the US Federal Government. A portion of this grant was set aside to conduct this feasibility study on the development of green and renewable energies that were considered viable to the area: solar, geothermal, wind, micro hydro, natural gas, and biomass.

Results showed that solar, geothermal, and residential wind (small wind) are viable for the area. Solar is the most viable for the area for its low investment costs, low maintenance, and high durability. Geothermal testing in Newdale, ID shows that there is sufficient subterranean heat for a geothermal plant. Further testing will pinpoint the location for the equipment. Low maintenance, high operating capacity, permanent job creation, and positive side effects make geothermal a feasible resource for the area. Residential wind turbines (defined as producing 100 KW or less) avoid aesthetic concerns raised by utility wind turbines. Small windmills have a lower cut-in (or start-up) speed that allows them to begin producing energy sooner. Wind patterns in the area are not ideal for utility-size windmills, but can provide for small wind turbines.

Micro hydro and natural gas require additional studies. Micro hydro has low maintenance and consistent energy production, but remoteness of the sites along with the need to develop multiple sites may outweigh the benefit. Natural gas has high-energy output and high job creation, but threatens the area with water sterilization, raising natural gas prices, and possibly a large carbon footprint.

Biomass and large wind are not feasible for the area. A biomass case study showed that the price for biomass fuel is currently ten times higher than what would be feasible for a self-sustaining facility. A biomass facility in the area would require heavy subsidies to operate. Large wind requires certain geography and wind patterns to make it feasible. The Fremont County Area does not provide such an environment.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2

Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 3

Research .................................................................................................................................... 4 Local Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Tax Incentives .................................................................................................................................... 6 Solar Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Wind Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Geothermal Energy .......................................................................................................................... 18 Micro Hydroelectric ......................................................................................................................... 29 Natural Gas ....................................................................................................................................... 34 Biomass ............................................................................................................................................ 40

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 47

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 49

Appendix A – Wind Map ......................................................................................................... 57

Appendix B – Available Biomass Fuel .................................................................................... 58

Appendix C – Biomass Payback Scenario .............................................................................. 65

Scope and Purpose The Eastern Idaho Entrepreneurial Center (E Center) was commissioned to conduct a feasibility analysis concerning the development of the natural energy sources available in the areas of the Idaho counties of Fremont, Madison, Teton and Teton, Wyoming. The energy sources focused on are: hydro, geothermal, wind, biomass, solar, and natural gas

Methodology The team’s primary source of information was the US Department of Energy (DOE), whose information was backed up by industry experts, case studies, tax incentives, and local utility providers. Research results were then analyzed and compared to the environment found in the counties of Fremont, Madison, Teton (Idaho), and Teton (Wyoming) – hereafter referred to as the “Fremont County Area.” The energy sources were then prioritized according to the following criteria: initial investment cost, payback period, geographical environment, ecological impact, energy production, and sustainability. Conclusions were drawn based on the data gathered.

4

Research

Local Utilities The payback schedule for any energy investment is directly related to the energy rates

offered by local utility companies.

Rocky Mountain Power and Fall River Rural Electric are the only two electric utility providers in the Idaho counties. Lower Valley Energy is the sole provider of utility energy in Teton, WY. Each offers their own rates, but they are broken down into two types of service: residential and non-residential. The rates offered through Rocky Mountain Power are seasonal, charging more in the summer (May 1 to October 31) than in the winter (November 1 to April 30).1 Each utility provider has a Demand Charge for non-residential customers where their use is measured every 15 minutes throughout the month and the highest use rate is charged an additional amount based on the peak usage for that month. For example, if the Demand Charge is $8.00 and throughout the month the highest demand of kW was 60, then they will still be charged the total kWh usage that month, but then an additional $480 would be applied (60kW x $8).

Rate schedules of Rocky Mountain Power are as follows:2

Table 1

Residential Service Charge Summer Winter Up to 700 kWh $5 10.2013¢/kWh 7.8085¢/kWh More than 700 kWh $5 13.7717¢.kWh 10.5415¢/kWh

General (Residential & Farm) Service Charge Summer Winter Less than 2,300 volts $15 8.5835¢/kWh 7.4928¢/kWh More than 2,300 volts $46 8.5835¢/kWh 7.4928¢/kWh

General (Large Power) Service Charge Summer Winter 0-2,300 volts $35 3.5305¢/kWh 3.5305¢/kWh More than 2,300 volts $105 3.5305¢/kWh 3.5305¢/kWh Demand Charge

$13.28 $10.92

Customers who produce electricity for on-grid connections can sell back excess energy at the same rate that Rocky Mountain Power offers, if the energy produced is less than 25 kW. This is referred to as “Net Metering.” For non-residential customers who produce on-grid energy:

Net Metering Rate Credit equals 85 percent of the monthly weighted average of the daily on-peak and off-peak Dow Jones Mid-Columbia Electricity Price Index (Dow Jones

1 (Rocky Mountain Power, 2012) 2 (Rocky Mountain Power, 2012)

5

Mid-C Index) prices for non- firm energy. This rate is calculated based upon the previous calendar month’s data.3

Rates in the area of Fall River Rural Electric are as follows: 4

Table 2

Fall River will purchase back excess energy from residential energy producers at the retail rate in the form of credit towards the following month’s bill. Excess energy on December 31st of each year will be given to Fall River without any compensation to the residential energy producer. The policy only extends to residential customers who produce 25 kW or smaller. 5

Rates in the area of Lower Valley Energy are as follows:6

Table 3

Service Type Service Charge Kilowatt-hour Residential $15 5.063¢/kWh Small Commercial $15 5.321¢/kWh Small Irrigation $15 5.320¢/kWh

Service Type Demand Charge Kilowatt-hour Large Power Service $6.74 3.402¢/kWh Large Irrigation $6.74 3.402¢/kWh

Lower Valley Energy does not have a Net Metering policy listed on their website and calls to metering manager were not returned.

According to the 2010 US Census, the average monthly kWh consumption in the state of Idaho is 1,020 – the lowest retail cost in any other state of territory of 7.99 cents per kWh. Idaho has an average household monthly electric bill of $81.46. Wyoming residential usage averages at 887 kWh per month with an average rate of 8.77 cents and monthly bill of $77.43. 7

3 (Rocky Mountain Power, 2006) 4 (Fall River Electric, 2012) 5 (Fall River Rural Electric, 2009) 6 (Lower Valley Energy, 2012) 7 (US Department of Energy, 2011)

Service Type Service Charge Kilowatt-hour Demand ChargeResidential

0-2,000 kWh $36 7.1¢/kWh -$ Over 2,000 kWh $36 7.438¢/kWh -$

General Service (<50KW) $36 4.7¢/kWh $8.17/kWhGeneral Service (>50KW) $58 4.7¢/kWh $8.17/kWh

6

Tax Incentives

Residential

Solar , Photovol tai c , Wind, Biomass , Geothermal Heat Pumps The Federal Government offers a 100% deduction for residential customers who install these energy sources that produce at least 25 kW of electricity on their property. The income tax deduction is as follows: 40% in the first year, then 20% for the next three years. The total amount is limited to $5,000 per year, $20,000 over the four years.8

Utility & Commercial

Large Wind, Small Wind, Biomass , Geothermal , Micro Turbine , Solar The Federal Government offers a grant refund to certain approved renewable energies that are used for utility and commercial purposes. These grants are not limited by the amount redeemable, rather only by the percentage of total costs towards construction of the energy facilities.

Utility Source Expiration Incentive

Large Wind 1-Jan-13 30% Grant Refund Biomass 1-Jan-14 30% Grant Refund

Geothermal 1-Jan-14 30% Grant Refund Microturbine 1-Jan-17 10% Grant Refund

Solar 1-Jan-17 30% Grant Refund Small Wind 1-Jan-17 30% Grant Refund

8 (Energy.Gov)

Residential Source Expiration Incentive

Solar 1-Jan-17 30% Tax DeductibleWind 1-Jan-17 30% Tax Deductible

Geothermal 1-Jan-17 30% Tax DeductibleBiomass 1-Jan-17 30% Tax Deductible

7

Solar Energy

Outline of Energy

Descr ipt ion Solar energy is the conversion of sunlight and heat into electricity.

Requirements Solar panels require sunlight to either reflect & store heat, or to create an electric current between two oppositely charged layers of material. Surface area is the basis of solar energy production: the more area available to utilize the sunlight, then the more energy will be produced.

Outline of Technology

Descr ipt ion

Photovoltaic - PV PV converts sunlight into energy at the atomic level. As explained by NASA, “Some materials exhibit a property known as the photoelectric effect that causes them to absorb photons of light and release electrons. When these free electrons are captured, an electric current results that can be used as electricity.” 9 Public and private companies are carrying out solar cell research and development. Current developments include PV roofing materials, windows, and paints, which would make the requirements of home construction perform “double duty as solar energy collectors.” 10

The PV cells have two sides: positive and negative. When sunlight hits the surface, electrons travel to the opposite panel to create an electric current. The individual cells are one-half to four inches large and only produce between one to two watts, which is not enough power for most applications.11 Groups of cells make a panel, groups of panels make an array, and numerous arrays create a system. The cells contain no moving parts and are very reliable. Because of this, reliability is measured on modules and systems rather than individual cells.12 PV systems can be used on a residential or utility scale. Shown here in Figure 1 is the estimated solar energy available through PV technology.

9 (Knier, 2002) 10 (Langston, 2011) 11 (US Energy Information Administration, 2012) 12 (Department of Energy, 2011)

(http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/pv_systems.html)

Figure 1

8

Figure 2

There are two ways that PV technology is employed: the flat-plate system and the concentrator system. “The simplest PV array consists of flat-plate PV panels in a fixed position. The advantages of fixed arrays are that they lack moving parts, there is virtually no need for extra equipment, and they are relatively lightweight.” Flat-plate panels are ideal for rooftops and residential locations seeing as their fixed and start-up costs are low. However, they do not have a tracking system so their energy creation is less than optimal.13

The concentrator system is much more efficient and much more expensive. It reduces the amount of solar cells needed to produce energy, takes up less space, and makes the use of more expensive materials a more feasible option. However, this system requires an expensive form of optics to concentrate the light as well as a much more precise (and costly) tracking system in order for it to be effective.14

Figure 3 illustrates the layout of a PV cell. The cover film and the encapsulant must be a transparent and non-reflective materials to better absorb and utilize the sun’s energy.

13 (US Energy Information Agency, 2011) 14 (US Department of Energy, 2011)

!

9

Figure 3

Concentrating Solar Power – CSP CSP comes in a three different forms: power tower, linear concentrator, and a dish/engine

system. All of them have an array of mirrors (called heliostats) that carry no photovoltaic ability. They reflect sunlight and refocus it to heat a liquid (i.e.: water, molten salt, oil, or something that retains heat well) that turns a turbine with steam and creates electricity. CSP is primarily a utility-size technology and has the benefit of being able to produce electricity when it is dark or cloudy: the liquid involved is often stored and used to create steam long after the sun has gone down. The heated liquid, if not used to turn a turbine, can retain its heat for several days of storage. However, the CSP process requires high amounts of direct sunlight, such as what is best found in the American Southwest. Shown in Figure 4 is the estimated solar energy resource available for CSP in the US. There is much more potential for PV technology in Southeastern Idaho than for CSP. Below is an explanation of the three types of CSP, but little research was done due to poor feasibility.

Figure 4

!

10

CSP – Tower Power System The CSP power tower system (Figure 5) uses an array of heliostats to focus the sun’s energy

on a receiver atop a tower, which heats a liquid to create steam that turns the generator. Some are used today to create up to 200 MW of electricity.15

Figure 5

(www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=530)

CSP – Linear Concentrator System Another form of CSP is the linear concentrator system seen here in Figure 6. It uses the

same concept as the power tower method, but instead the heated liquid is placed in a metal tube directly in front of the U-shaped heliostats. These systems can produce up to 80 MW of energy.16

Figure 6

(www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=530)

15 (US Energy Information Administration, 2012) 16 (US Energy Information Administration, 2012)

11

CSP – Dish System The third form of CSP is dish/engine system. “The dish/engine system produces relatively

small amounts of electricity compared to other CSP technologies-typically in the range of 3 to 25 kilowatts.” 17

Figure 7

(www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=530)

Energy Output Each solar cell produces about one to two watts each, requiring that even small residential projects have multiple panels in order to be feasible. The demand for PV energy has grown in the past 10 years: worldwide solar energy production was at about 1.5 GW in 2000, and has grown to over 64 GW at the end of 2011, averaging a growth rate of 25% in the past five years.18 This increasing demand has led and will continue to lead to more efficient technology in the coming years.

Efficiency in solar panels is measured by how much energy is produced versus how much is possible. The range of efficiency is broad, spreading from 5%-43% efficiency, depending on the type of material used in the cells. 19 See Figure 15 for a comparable list of solar panel options.

Operational Costs PV solar technology has received considerable attention for research & development over the past decades, which has led to today’s market being filled with numerous manufacturers and dealers across the globe. There are companies in the state of Idaho that sell solar panels, with prices varying from dealer to dealer, and many more across the nation. According to a news report in the Idaho Statesman, the US Department of Commerce ruled that China was dumping solar panels into the US market below cost of production, negatively affecting the profit margins of domestic solar production facilities. With a high amount of dealers and international competition, PV technology has come to be very affordable to homes, businesses, and even utilities.

17 (US Energy Information Administration, 2012) 18 (International Energy Agency, 2012) 19 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012)

12

A number of factorsmake solar energy the cheapest that it has ever been. The US government offers tax benefits of up to 30% and energy initiatives to increase renewable energy dependence. International trade practices are causing the prices of solar energy technology to decrease rapidly.

“The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing the SunShot Initiative: a program that will aggressively drive innovation to make solar energy cost-competitive—without subsidy—within a decade.” Goals have been set into place by the DOE to reduce solar installment costs by as much as 75% within the decade and making solar account for 15-18% of total US electrical consumption by the year 2030.20

Despite record lows in solar panel prices, sales have not gone up accordingly. “Part of the reason is that Idaho’s electric rates are low enough that the economic motivation is not high.” 21 Earlier this year, a Chinese-backed company, Hoku Materials, fired 100 employees from its polysilicon plant in Pocatello, ID, before final construction on the plant was even finished.22

Maintenance on PV cells is minimal. Because leaves and debris may impede light from getting to the cells, a wash and sweeping of the panels about once or twice every year is all that is needed for maintenance. In the research performed, most manufacturers held a 25-year guarantee on their products. It was repeatedly said that the panels would generate electricity long after that – up to 40 years or more – assuming proper care is given.

Because there is little maintenance, job creation with this technology is almost entirely on the side of manufacturing and installation. Figure 8 is a table that contains a price comparison from a number of different brands. Energy output is based on five hours of sunlight per day. Mounting racks are approximately $75 per panel.23

Figure 8

20 (US Department of Energy, 2011) 21 (Barker, 2012) 22 (Reuters, 2012) 23 (Wholesale Solar, 2011)

Brand Cost

Monthly Energy Output (kWh)

Number of Panels

Mounting Racks

AUO 1,325$ 33.6 1 IncludedAUO 2,160$ 67.0 2 IncludedAUO 2,740$ 100.8 3 IncludedAUO 3,625$ 134.5 4 Included

SolarEdge 4,757$ 256.8 8 Not IncludedSolarEdge 5,515$ 320.0 10 Not IncludedSolarEdge 9,304$ 620.0 20 Not IncludedSolar Sky 13,065$ 976.5 30 Not IncludedSolar Sky 17,065$ 1,302.0 40 Not IncludedSolar Sky 34,125$ 2,604.0 80 Not Included

13

Tax Incent ives Utility tax incentives include a tax credit of 30% for PV systems, so long as they are placed

in service before December 31, 2016. 24 Residential tax incentives allow the purchaser to deduct 40% of the cost of installation the first year and then 20% each year after for three additional years. The limit for a residential purchase is $5,000 per year and $20,000 over four years.25

Environmental Impact Solar energy use on a utility-scale or on a residential scale has not shown any negative environmental effects to date. Concern has been raised about the manufacturing process of polysilicon conductors in PV cells, but more industry research is needed to confirm these concerns. In a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), it is estimated that during the expected lifetime (28 years) of a 1,000 KW solar panel array, it would “avoid conventional electrical-plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.” That adds up to “nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide” of atmospheric toxins avoided every month. 26

Case Study Nebraska Photovoltaic System

A rancher in Nebraska used a solar powered water pump to provide water for his cattle in a remote location. Sunlight conditions were similar to that of Southeastern Idaho. The total cost of the project was $5,510, pumped an average 5,800 gallons per day, and had a capacity of 544 Watts. Maintenance lasted about 20 minutes per occasion to wash off the panels, tighten bolts, and clip back any vegetation that blocked sunlight from reaching the solar panels.

“According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 1 kW solar PV system installed in Nebraska results in annual emissions savings of 4,570 pounds (2,077 kg) of carbon dioxide, 7 pounds (3.18 kg) of nitrogen oxides, and 9 pounds (4.09 kg) of sulfur dioxide.”27

Recommendation The research suggests that CSP technology is not the better option for southeastern Idaho due to

its unavailability of energy and that it relies on focusing and retaining heat, thereby competing with the local climate for the majority of the year. The payback timeline would be exceptionally long and likely will not be met within the lifetime of the equipment.

Photovoltaic cell technology can offer a reliable source of energy since it can operate on cloudy days or when sunlight is not at its strongest. It can also blend in with its surroundings and be placed in areas without taking up precious real estate, such as rooftops or remote locations. Investment requirements are low and the payback period can be short, within a few years.

24 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012) 25 (DSIRE, 2011) 26 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2004) 27 (Black & Veatech, 2003)

14

Wind Energy

Outline of Energy

Descr ipt ion Movement of air creates wind energy. Windmills harness this energy through its blades: wind passes through the blades of the windmill that turns a generator, or turbine. This form of energy is renewable since the supply of wind is not exhausted after being used.

Requirements Windmills have a cut-in speed where the blades begin to turn, a rated speed where optimal performance is achieved, and a cut-out speed where the blades cease turning as a safety measure.28 Details on the size and speeds are dependent on the type of windmill and will be given in the technology outline.

Outline of Technology

Available Options Windmills come in various shapes and sizes, but they function the same way: wind passes through rotating blades, which cause a large shaft to spin. That shaft, called the low-speed shaft, spins the smaller high-speed shaft, which powers the generator located behind the blades. That energy is then sent to the grid, or to an energy storage unit.

Wind patterns show that the wind power in the Fremont County Area is not sufficient to sustain a utility-size wind farm at a profitable level. Average wind speeds are sufficient to break cut-in speed of 7mph, but do not sustain themselves at the rated speed of 25mph and higher.29 See Appendix A for a wind map of the area.

Provided in Figure 10 is a short list of comparable windmills. Only those that are rated to be on-grid (able to connect with the local electrical utility network) were considered.

28 (The Energy Bible, 2010) 29 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012)

Figure 9

15

Figure 10

Case Study East of Idaho Falls is the Goshen Wind Farm with 83 different windmills producing 1.5 MW each, a total of 124.5 MW of power - enough energy to power 37,000 homes. 30, 31 The windmill of choice is the GE 1.5 MW xle. Matt Ordway, Vice President of Finance at Ridgeline Energy, says that total construction of the wind farm took between 7-9 months. They began building the foundations for all the windmills simultaneously, and continued doing the same steps for all the windmills together. Construction costs averaged to be about $2,000-$2,500 per kilowatt (approximately $285M). Ordway claims that construction of windmills now would likely be cheaper than they were a year ago because the tax incentive for large wind production expires at the end of 2012.32

Geographical Requirements The industry standard of distance between windmills is four to five rotor diameters from side-to-side and six to seven rotor diameters from front-to-back.33 This is to maximize productivity of each windmill and to also protect them should one malfunction. This rule of spacing applies to both utility- and residential-size windmills. The ground-level land requirements per windmill are relatively small, but the spacing of the windmills requires vast amounts of area above ground level. Industry standard is to space the windmills four to five rotor diameters apart from front to back and then six to seven rotor diameters from side to side. For example, the Goshen Wind Farm covers 11,000 acres, averaging about 88 MW per acre.34 The industry has an average of 60 MW per acre.35

Pol lut ion & Environmental Impact Wind energy has zero pollution.36 Dan Fesenmeyer, account manager at General Electric Energy, said that often cattle can walk to the base of the tower and eat the grass. Farmers and

30 (Ridgline Energy, 2011) 31 (Diamond Generating Corporation, 2012) 32 (Ordway, 2012) 33 (Fesenmeyer, 2012) 34 (British Petroleum Alternative Energy, 2010) 35 (Fesenmeyer, 2012) 36 (Raihani, 2011)

Company Model Purpose Cost/unit Energy output

Cut-in Speed m/s (mph)

Rated Speed m/s (mph)

Cut-out Speed m/s (mph)

Tower Height

Rotor Diameter

Minimum Distance Between Windmills

General Electric GE 1.X Utility $1.8-$2.2 M 1.25-1.75 MW 3.5 (7.83) 11.5 (25.72) 25 (55.92) 80-100 m 80-120 m 400 mGeneral Electric GE 2.X Utility $3.2 M 2.5-2.75 MW 3.5 (7.83) 11.5 (25.72) 25 (55.92) 80-100 m 80-120 m 400 mBergey WindPower 10 kW Excel Residential $42-$68 K 10 kW 3.4 (7.5) 12 (27) 60 (134) 18-49 m 7 m 35 mAeolos (UK) 20 KW Residential $36-$40 K 20 kW 3.5 (7.83) 10 (22.37) 25 (55.92) 24 m 9 m 54 mBergey WindPower 5 kW Excel Residential $32-$58 K 6.2 kW 2 (4.5) 11 (24.6) 60 (134) 18-49 m 6.2 m 31 mHengfeng (China) HF-15KW Residential $16-$30 K 15 kW 3.0 (6.71) 10 (22.37) 30 (67.1) 16 m 2 m 10 mSouthwest Windpower Skystream 3.7 Residential $12-$15 K 2.4 kW 3.5 (7.83) 13 (29) 63 (140) 10-21 m 3.72 m 18.6 m

16

ranchers like wind farms because they get a three percent return on land used by windmills and they also get roads on their ranch that they can use.37

Although carbon pollution from windmill energy production is nonexistent, some have raised health concerns about the proximity of windmills to residential areas.38 Infrasound, which is sound at a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility, has been reported to cause some negative health effects to those within close proximity of windmills. The scholarly journal Environmental Health reports that some people living near turbines suffer from dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring and other symptoms that could be caused by the noise and flickering of the blades. 39

The article recommends that windmills not be constructed in residential areas, if possible. If they are, then the sound emitted by the windmills should not exceed 40 decibels (dB). It explains that infrasound is in everyday life from mining to automobiles, from airplanes to ocean waves, and some mammals use infrasound as means of communication.

Operators & Suppliers of Technology

Operat ional Costs After researching and speaking with several members in the industry, General Electric Wind Energy is the largest manufacturer of wind turbines and windmills in the US. It has two standard platforms for utility-sized windmills: 1.X and 2.X machines, referring to the amount of megawatts they produce. Dan Fesenmeyer quoted prices for the machines: 1.X machines cost between $1.8-2.2 million per unit and 2.X machines cost up to $3.2 million per unit. Fesenmeyer explained that costs would depend on where the windmill would be built (size of generator, distance for shipment, type of terrain, roads). Speed of construction may vary. Some construction teams may be able to build three windmills per day or one per week pending factors including: experience, size of total project, weather, and availability of materials.40

According to the Department of Energy, “Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project.”41 The current average retail price per kilowatt-hour in Idaho is 6.49¢.42

Matt Ordway, vice president of finance at Ridgeline Energy, says that there is a 2.5¢ per kw-hour tax credit for wind farms, plus a 30% government grant refund available after construction is complete. These benefits for large wind projects expire on December 31, 2012. Unless they are extended, Ordway predicts that large utility wind farm production will not continue.43

37 (Fesenmeyer, 2012) 38 (Berwald, 2008) 39 (Knopper & Ollson, 2011) 40 (Fesenmeyer, 2012) 41 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2011) 42 (Intitute for Energy Research) 43(Ordway, 2012)

17

Small windmill production (under 100 kW) has tax benefits of up to $20,000 that will continue on until Jan 1, 2017.44, 45 These benefits, with lower costs and lower cut-in speeds, make small wind (less than 100 KW) a viable source of energy in the area.

Workforce Management A farm consisting of 20 units will offer a full-time staff of three to four people for monitoring and upkeep. Depending on health and safety standards, three people are typically needed to service a tower and perform maintenance, which can be outsourced. Regular maintenance should be performed every six months and takes less than one working day to complete.46

Salary for windmill technicians can vary. Since the industry is new, exact numbers on industry-wide salaries and training differ. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says that training and certification to be a windmill technician can be done at technical schools and community colleges. BLS reports that starting annual salaries are between $35,000 and $40,000, but may vary by location. There is a shortage of technicians and the most experienced wind techs can demand high salaries. 47

Conclusion & Recommendation Wind patterns show that wind power in the Fremont County Area is not sufficient to sustain a utility-size wind farm at a profitable level. Average wind speeds for the area are sufficient to break cut-in speed of 7mph, but rarely sustain themselves at the rated speed of 25mph and higher where maximum production is obtained.48 The areas where that sort of sustainable wind is found are located on the ridges of the Big Hole Mountains, just southwest of the Teton Basin. Costs to construct windmills on that terrain would exceed the return on investment within the 20-year life expectancy of the windmills.49 With the tax benefits expiring at the end of this year, expected profit margins and lists of potential investors are decreasing.

It is feasible that smaller residential-size windmills could be used in the area to power buildings, businesses, homes, and farms in the Fremont County Area. These smaller windmills have lower noise pollution, lower visual impact on the landscape, and tax benefits will not expire until December 31, 2016.

44 (Idaho State Legislature) 45 (Green Energy Solutions, 2011) 46(Fesenmeyer, 2012) 47 (United States Department of Labor, 2011) 48 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012) 49 (Fesenmeyer, 2012)

18

Geothermal Energy

Outline of Energy

Defini t ion Geothermal Energy is created by using subterranean groundwater that is heated by a nearby

dormant volcano at depths of up to 9,800 feet.50 Geothermal operates at up to 95% of its electricity generating capacity year round.51 The energy is harvested by drilling wells to the depth of the water, separating the steam from the hot water, and sending the steam to the power plant. The water is then returned to the reservoir to generate more harvestable steam energy. This process makes geothermal energy clean and renewable.

Descr ipt ion There are three technologies used to extract heat and produce energy from geothermal sources. They are: dry steam, flash steam, and binary-cycle. The dry steam process extracts fluids in a gaseous state and runs them through a turbine that powers a generator. The flash steam plant, the most common in use today, involves pumping highly pressurized fluid to the surface where it enters a low pressure tank, which prompts a “flash” steam reaction to drive the turbine. The binary-cycle power plant passes hot water through a heat transfer with a lower steam point liquid that vaporizes and drives the turbines to generate electricity.52 The different technologies are further discussed in the Available Options section of this document. Geothermal production, like fossil fuels, provides continuous base load energy (meaning it doesn’t need to be stored for later use like resources that do not run continually).53 This form of energy is renewable because it is derived from a conceivably limitless and renewing energy source – the earth’s heat.

Requirements Few locations have the conditions to generate geothermal energy; there must be a fracture in the earth’s crust that enables molten rock to come close to the surface and heat underground water to a high temperature, there must be enough fluid to power the generator, and the ground must be permeable.54 The type of power plant used to produce energy depends upon the resource: whether it is in a liquid or gaseous state and its temperature. The only operating geothermal power plant in Idaho, the Raft River plant, operates a binary-cycle with water at 300°F.55

Outline of Technology

Available Options

Dry Steam Dry steam plants use hydrothermal fluids that are stored in the earth as steam. Since the

hydrothermal resource is already steam, it travels directly to a turbine to drive a generator, bypassing

50 (Chevron Corporation, 2012) 51 (Standard Steam, 2012) 52 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012) 53 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009) 54 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012) 55 (Geothermal Energy Association, 2012)

19

any steam conversion process. Dry steam plants emit some excess steam with very minor amounts of gases (depending on the location and makeup of the resource). A dry steam power plant system was the first type of geothermal power generating technology put into use. Steam technology is used today at the Geysers in northern California, currently the world's largest single source of geothermal power. The resource must be naturally found in a gaseous state for dry steam to work.56 See Figure 11 for a visual depiction of the process described.

Figure 11

Flash Steam Flash steam power plants are the most common type of geothermal power generator in

operation. To be viable for this plant design, resource fluids must be at temperatures greater than 360°F. The water is pumped through a high-pressure tube into a low-pressure tank at ground level, which causes some of the fluid to quickly vaporize, hence the use of the word "flash" to describe the process. From this point the vapor drives a turbine that in turn drives a generator. To increase efficiency, any liquid that did not “flash” can be moved to another tank where it can be flashed again and produce more energy.57 See Figure 12 for a visual depiction of the process described.

56 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012) 57 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012)

20

Figure 12

Binary Cycle With binary-cycle power, the resource from the geothermal reservoir never comes in contact

with ground level turbine and generator units.58 To be used in a binary-cycle plant, the resource needs to have a low to moderate temperature range, between 185 and 338°F. The geothermal fluid passes through a heat exchange with a secondary fluid (typically a butane or pentane hydrocarbon) that has a much lower boiling point than water, which causes the secondary fluid to vaporize. From here the vapor drives the turbines, which power the generators, which creates electricity. Binary-cycle plants are closed-loop systems, so nothing is emitted into the atmosphere. Resources in the low to moderate temperature range are the most common in the world. The binary-cycle plant is the technology that is expected to be implemented most in the future.59 See Figure 13 for a visual depiction of the process described.

Figure 13

58 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012) 59 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009)

21

The Standard Steam Trust (SST) has confirmed that the geothermal site in Newdale,

Fremont County, ID is a viable site for a geothermal power plant. The location is classified as a phase 1 project, meaning that the resource has been procured and identified.60 A capacity estimate has not yet been made to determine the potential power supply of the resource in Newdale.61

The research done in Newdale has concluded that there is an abundant resource of ground

water. Results from the drill holes for the SST project show yields in excess of 3,000 Gallons per Minute (gpm); most pronounced near the Teton Dam Fault. In some of the holes drilled to depths of 150-200 meters, water is confirmed at 100°F. Local irrigation lessors pump over 2,400 gpm from wells that reach 124°F.62

The Raft River geothermal power plant (discussed further under the Case Study below) has a similar temperature range to what has been found in the Newdale project. For this moderate temperature range, the binary-cycle technology is the most feasible option to generate electric power.63

Case Study The Raft River project, which is located approximately 200 miles SE of Boise, ID, is the only geothermal power plant operating in the state of Idaho. Based on estimates from GeothermEx Inc. the 8 square mile plot of land may be capable of producing 110 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The Raft River area was designated as a known geothermal resource area in 1971, and in 1973 the United States Geological Survey and Energy Research and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy (DOE)) began a geothermal exploration program in southern Idaho. Between 1974 and 1980, 84 wells were drilled at Raft River, including 7 deep wells that formed the basis for a geothermal demonstration plant. The first utility-size binary-cycle geothermal power plant in the world, a 7 MW binary system using isobutane as the binary fluid, was constructed and tested at this site.64 This plant operated from late 1981 until June 1982, generating 4 MW net from geothermal fluids that ranged in temperature between 135-145°C. Due to a change in government priorities, the DOE declared the project a success and decided to sell off the plant equipment.65

Although the exhibition plant only produced electricity for several months on a test basis, the technology has become a proven technology for producing electrical power from moderate temperature geothermal resources in the world. The site was chosen for the proven hot water resource that had already been developed and tested, and the facilities that were already in place. The Raft River site remained untouched for the next 20 years. U.S. Geothermal Inc. acquired the site in

60 (Geothermal Energy Association, 2012) 61 (Fleischmann, 2006) 62 (Standard Steam Trust, 2009) 63 (U.S. Geothermal Inc., 2008) 64 (Photo Researchers, Inc., 2012) 65 (U.S. Geothermal Inc., 2008)

22

2002, and after upgrading existing wells and drilling additional wells, another binary plant was installed. The field began generating approx.10 MW in January 2008.66

The Raft River field contains 9 deep geothermal wells (> 1500 m depth), 4 are currently used for production and 3 for reinjection. Production temperatures are approximately 140 °C, with a total production rate of ~400 kg/s. The production wells generally produce from approximately 1400 m depth on the northwest side of the field, and approximately 1750 m depth on the southeast side of the field.67

The following information on the Raft River Area may be useful in determining the makeup of the Newdale project geological implications: 68

The geology in [Raft River Valley] is complex, and reflects the combined influences of these two geologic terrains…The Raft River basin consists of ~1800 m of Tertiary and Quaternary infill sediments and volcanic rock overlying the Precambrian basement. The top 300 m of basin fill defines the Raft River Formation, composed of fluvial, alluvial and loess sediments that are lenticular and gradational in nature…Two major fault zones have been identified on the west side of the valley: the Bridge Fault Zone and the Horse Wells Fault Zone…The NW production wells are believed to intersect permeable zones associated with the Bridge Fault (or adjacent parallel faults). From geophysical data, another major structure has been inferred to exist beneath the Tertiary deposits - the Narrows Zone, which trends northeast-southwest and has been interpreted as a basement shear. The intersection of the assumed Narrows Zone and Bridge Fault Zone plays an integral role in controlling the location of the upflow zone in the geothermal system.

Figure 14 shows the modular construction of the binary-cycle geothermal power plant in the Raft River project:

Figure 14

66 (U.S. Geothermal Inc., 2008) 67 (U.S. Geothermal Inc., 2008) 68 (Bridget Ayling, 2011)

23

Geographical Requirements According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the following variables would be required for a location with similar characteristics to the Newdale project:

• Low mineral and gas content in the resource. • Shallow underground lakes to extract and replace the fluid. • Private land for ease of permits. • Close to existing power lines. • Another source of water for evaporative cooling. • If it is a closed loop system, fluid temperature must be at least 300º F. The other types

can operate with fluid temperatures as low as 210º F. • “The flow required depends on the temperature of the fluid, the ambient (sink)

characteristics, and the pumping power required to supply and dispose of the fluid. Excluding fluid pumping, a closed-loop binary-cycle geothermal power plant would need 450 to 600 gpm to generate 1 MW from a 300° F fluid with an air temperature of 60° F. If the fluid temperature were only 210° F, one would need 1,300 to 1,500 gpm to generate the same amount of power.” 69

Newdale, located near the Wyoming border in southern Fremont County, has the most potential for geothermal energy creation in the county. In the 1980s two commercial geothermal wells were drilled outside of Newdale on private land. The resource was not deemed sufficient to produce power at that time, but the temperatures indicated that further study and power creation would be possible. The two wells drilled measured 190°F (87.8°C) at 2,920 feet and 180.5°F (82.5°C) at 3,358 feet.70 Binary-cycle power plants operate using water at temperatures between 185 and 338°F (85 to 170°C).71 The binary system can operate at these temperatures, which are below the boiling point of water, through the selection of an appropriate secondary fluid. The upper temperature limit is restricted by the stability of the binary fluids. The lower temperature limit is restricted by practical and economic considerations, as the heat exchanger size for a given capacity becomes impractical and the energy requirements from well and circulating pumps require a large percentage of the electricity output.72

The binary plants in use today are mostly small modular units varying in size from hundreds of kilowatts to several megawatts.73 The small-scale development allowed by modular construction is cost effective and facilitates short manufacturing and installation times, with the ability to expand. The problem of creating a larger power plant in the 10 to 50 MW range is solved by developing a plant with a large number of modular units together in a common resource area. Down hole pumps may be used in connection with the modular binary-cycle plant where resource wells do not flow spontaneously, or in locations where the geothermal fluid is prone to flashing (leaving the

69 (U. S. Department of Energy, 2011) 70 (Fleischmann, 2006) 71 (Antal, 2001) 72 (Antal, 2001) 73 (Antal, 2001)

24

pressurized state). Binary units can then be used to extract energy from the circulating fluid through the use of the secondary fluid.74

Pollution & Environmental Impact Geothermal power offers many advantages over fossil fuel power generation; including low emissions, an unlimited resource, the possibility to extract minerals from the resource, and low visual impact. The only thing emitted from geothermal flash plants is the excess steam, and that is only in power plants designed to release steam. No air emissions or liquids are released by binary-cycle plants, which are predicted to become the principal technology in the future.

Minerals that may be in the fluids are injected back into the reservoir with the water at a depth much deeper than groundwater aquifers. This process recycles the geothermal water. Some geothermal plants do produce sludge’s that require disposal. Some of these solids, such as zinc, sulfur and silica, are now being extracted for sale, which increases the value of the resource. Geothermal heating systems are easily integrated into communities and have little visual impact. Geothermal power plants use small acreages, are low to ground level, and do not require storage, transportation, or combustion of fuels. The only emission would be steam in the plants that give off excess steam.75

Operators & Suppliers of Technology

Operat ional Costs A binary-cycle power plant will be able produce electricity for as little as 7.37 cents per kilowatt-hour after taking into account all related costs, including production tax credit.76, 77 There is also potential for direct use of geothermal resources as a heating source for homes and businesses. One potential use of direct geothermal heat is a year round greenhouse, which could offset some of the costs related to building and running the power plant. Operating and maintenance costs (variable costs) range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can produce energy at least 90% of the time, but running at 97% or 98% may increase maintenance costs. An ability to charge higher prices for the electricity justifies running the plant 98% of the time because the higher maintenance costs will be recovered.78

Feasibility

Geographical Avai labi l i ty

The following statistics were retrieved from SST corporate website, and describe the Newdale, Idaho project: 79

• Land position 77% complete in target area of 22 square miles 74 (Antal, 2001) 75 (U. S. Department of Energy, 2011) 76 (California Energy Commission, 2003) 77 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009) 78 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009) 79 (Standard Steam Trust, 2009)

25

• Majority Fee land allows for rapid permitting • Water well flows of over 3,000 gallons per minute and above 125 °F • Temperature gradient drilling program completed • Detailed gravity data • 119 KV transmission line crosses the property • Drill three to five production wells in 2010

The prospect described by SST lies approximately 80 km southwest of Yellowstone National Park and encompasses 11,211 acres (45 sq. km) of state- and privately-owned land. SST acquired the geothermal leases in 2010. A 119 kV transmission line crosses the project, supplying the Idaho Falls-Pocatello grid, and geothermal energy generated in Newdale is expected to be able to feed that line. There had been previous exploration done by AMAX and Union Oil of California (in the 1980’s) that confirmed the presence of hot water in 17 holes drilled northeast of the town of Newdale, but at that time the resource was not viable for energy creation with the available technology.

In 2009 SST drilled 20 temperature gradient wells outside of Newdale, in addition to the 17

already drilled. They concluded from the results of these drills that the Newdale area has abundant groundwater resources with the potential to create geothermal energy. The thermal system in Fremont County encompasses an area of approximately 50 sq km. Based on its review and analysis of historic and proprietary geologic and technical data, SST concluded that there is potential for geothermal resource beneath the Newdale project.80

Ecologi ca l Impact Geothermal plants can use up to use five gallons of freshwater per mWh, but binary air-cooled plants require no fresh water. Natural gas facilities use, on average, 361 gallons per mWh. Geothermal fluids used for electricity generation are injected back into the geothermal reservoirs using wells with thick walls to prevent cross-contamination of secondary fluids with groundwater systems.81 The geothermal resource is not released into surface waterways. Geothermal power plants can be easily designed to blend in to their surrounding and vary from small personal use systems to large mass energy production power plants. They can be incorporated into multiple-use lands with farming, skiing, hunting, and many other activities and cause no harm.82 Based on a test period of 30 years to compare the life cycle impacts of different power sources, “a geothermal facility uses 404 square meters of land per gigawatt hour, while a coal facility uses 3,632 square meters per gigawatt hour.” 83

Subsidence, the slow, downward sinking of land, may be linked to reservoir pressure decline cause by geothermal resource power generation. Injection technology used in geothermal power plants in the United States has been proven to slow the process and mitigate some of the effects. Geothermal energy production and re-injection into the reservoir have caused some low-magnitude events known as micro-earthquakes. These events are too minimal to be detected by humans and are

80 (Standard Steam Trust, 2009) 81 (Geothermal Energy Association, 2012) 82 (Alyssa Kagel, 2007) 83 (Alyssa Kagel, 2007)

26

often voluntarily monitored by the company that owns the geothermal project. Geothermal development does not include removing, changing or damaging visible geothermal landmarks, such as geysers or hot springs. Depending on the location, an environmental impact review may be required before constructing a geothermal power plant. This review is designed to categorize potential impact on vegetation and animal life in the area. Geothermal power plants are designed to minimize the potential effect upon wildlife and vegetation, and they are constructed in accordance with state and federal regulations that protect areas determined viable for development.84 There is almost no sound emission from the power plant, and therefore should not be considered an issue of concern.85

Sustainability Cost

Costs of a geothermal plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses for research and building, rather than resources to keep them running. Well drilling occurs first, followed by resource analysis of the drilling information. These two steps have already been completed for the Newdale site. After analysis has been made that prove the viability of the resource, design of the actual plant is conducted. The initial cost for the field and power plant is usually around $2500 per installed KW on average, but in a small (<1MW) power plant it will most likely be $3000 to $5000/KW.86 Well flow rate has the greatest influence on the economic results of the plant. A 10-year payback period can be achieved as long as the electricity sales rate is above 6 cents/kWh and the well flow rate is at least 16,649 liters per min. At a more modest flow rate of 3,459 lit/min, most scenarios have payback periods below 20 years as long as the energy is sold for above $0.06/kWh. Lower flow rates will take more time or necessitate a higher energy charge rate.87

Benef i t

One prominent advantage of a binary-cycle geothermal power plant is that it does not create any pollution. Once a viable piece of land has been chosen, purchasing the land is usually less costly than buying land for construction of oil, gas, coal or nuclear power plants because a geothermal plant uses less land space. Cost is also reduced because it is a clean energy, so developers may receive tax cuts, little to no environmental bills or quotas to comply with a carbon emission scheme. Running costs for the plants are low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may usually purchased to generate the power. The only power that needs to be supplied is electricity to pump the geothermal resource through the power plant, and this can be supplied by the power plant itself.88 Renewable energy resources like geothermal can help states diversify the mix of fuels they rely on for power and protect customers from volatile electricity prices. The fuel costs for a geothermal power plant are not dependent upon volatile markets.

84 (Alyssa Kagel, 2007) 85 (Alyssa Kagel, 2007) 86 (U. S. Department of Energy, 2011) 87 (Crissie D. Fitzgerald, 2003) 88 (Clean Energy Ideas, 2012)

27

The following figure shows the number of jobs that would be created by the development and operations of a 50 MW capacity geothermal power plant:89

Figure 15

Table  1:  Jobs  Involved  in  Geothermal  Development  (50  MW)  Stage  of  Development   No.  of  jobsStart-­‐up 10  –  13Exploration 11  –  22Drilling 91  –  116Plant  Design  and  Construction  (EPC) 383  –  489Operation  and  Maintenance 10  –  25Power  Plant  System  Manufacturing 192  –  197Total 697  –  862

The benefits of a geothermal power plant are:90

• Constructing a geothermal power plant can help generate economic development opportunities, especially in rural areas. Direct employment for operating the plant is estimated to be 1.7 permanent jobs per megawatt (MW) of capacity installed.91

• The energy produced on a small or large scale can provide heat for agricultural, industrial and space heating applications.

• Geothermal power plants provide steady and predictable base load power supply.

• New geothermal power plants currently generate electricity between $0.05 and $0.08 per kWh, which can decrease below $0.05 per kWh after capital investment has been recovered. Geothermal energy can be maintained at a stable price.

• Direct use applications and power plants can generate tax revenue and royalty payments for federal, state and local governments. They also create construction, operation, administrative and maintenance jobs. Adding geothermal power will diversify the mix of fuels that the state depends on.

• Responsibly managed geothermal resources can deliver energy and provide power for decades.

• Geothermal power plants in the United States are capable of operating 98% of the time.

• The power plants require no fuel purchase and are compatible with agricultural and recreational land uses.

89 (Gawell, 2012) 90 (National Geothermal Collaborative, 2004) 91 (Gawell, 2012)

28

• Geothermal plants produce a small amount of pollutant emissions, which can be reduced to zero with a binary-cycle plant.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Research shows geothermal energy is a feasible option for Freemont County and the surrounding area for power generation working toward independent sustainability. Newdale has the most readily developable potential for a geothermal power plant.92 Based on research in the area, a binary-cycle system is the most viable power plant design for power creation in the Newdale project.93 A geothermal power plant will provide an excellent source of clean, inexpensive, simple, renewable power, while providing jobs and decreasing the overall cost of energy. While more research needs to be done to determine the exact potential for power generation, geothermal energy is a resource that should be examined in Fremont County.

Geothermal energy can be used for many different purposes depending on the scale. A power plant designed to fuel multiple populated areas is an option. Geothermal energy can be put to use in other ways, which will provide the surrounding communities with increased employment opportunities, reduced heating costs and reliance on outside providers for fuel and other resources. Geothermal direct heat can heat a greenhouse that can grow produce year-round and heat government and private buildings through a direct heating system. All of these options should be considered along with the use of large-scale geothermal energy.

92 (Fleischmann, 2006) 93 (Antal, 2001)

29

Micro Hydroelectric

Outline of Energy

Descr ipt ion Moving water possesses kinetic energy, which has the ability to be harnessed and used for productive purposes. Hydroelectric energy is the production of mechanical energy by passing water through a hydraulic machine that is rotated by the action of water, which in turn rotates an electrical generator to produce energy.94

Requirements To have an effective micro hydroelectric project, it is necessary to have a source of moving water. After a source has been found, a water conveyance system is needed to either channel or pipe the water to a turbine or waterwheel that connects to a generator, which produces energy. To control the resulting energy levels, a regulator is needed. Lastly, wiring is required to conduct the electricity to the grid or storage locations.95

Outline of Technology

Available Options Hydroelectric energy has been utilized for many years and three different methods have been developed to take advantage of the water source.

Run-of-the-River Run-of-the-river systems divert water from a river or stream to a turbine. After passing through the turbine, water is fed back into the original source. This system is most cost-effective in areas that already have dams in place that provide energy. There is low environmental impact due to the simplicity of materials.96

Impoundment Impoundment involves the use of dams to store and hold water. Large-scale hydroelectric projects utilize this method due to the large amount of energy that can be produced. This method has a large negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem.97

Pumped Storage Pumped storage involves pumping water that has already passed through the turbines into a storage pool. This allows the energy provider to release water during times of high energy consumption and retain water during low levels of consumption. This method has a substantial environmental impact.98

94 (Warnick, 1982) 95 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2001) 96 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2001) 97 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2001) 98 (Program, 2011)

30

Case Studies

Logan, UT Logan is located at the mouth of Logan Canyon and is ideally situated for hydroelectric power. In 2003, the City of Logan hired Stanley Consultants of Salt Lake City, Utah, to provide an in-depth study of eleven sites within Logan’s existing culinary and irrigation supply system as potential micro hydro sites. Due to the variance in flow rates, only one site showed a payback of less than 20 years. Four others were considered potentially viable. Stanley Consultants estimated that 800,000 kWh could be produced annually at this site. This would result in $47,200 of annual income for the city. The project was estimated to cost $528,000 and a payback of roughly 12 years. The final cost of the project was $1.4 million and is expected to produce 750,000 kWh a year – the equivalent of $30,000 to $50,000 of revenue. The expected payback will range from 14 to 24 years. The maintenance costs are estimated at $5,000 per year. The life of the turbine is about 25-30 years depending on how much sediment is in the water.99

Pleasant Grove , UT Pleasant Grove hired Water Works Engineers to conduct a study of the city’s potential for micro hydro projects. In fall of 2009, the Battle Creek area was identified as having the best conditions for micro hydro application. With the development of a system using new technology, Pleasant Grove believes it can take advantage of many other sites in the city’s culinary water system. The City estimates that it could produce 1,072,801 kWh of electricity annually. This would be enough energy to offset the current electrical consumption for all of the city’s municipal buildings. Financially, the city expects a potential payback in as little as five years.100

99 (Lab, 2010) 100 (Lab, 2010)

Figure 16

31

Geographical Requirements The most important requirement in determining whether a particular site is economically viable is whether it has sufficient head and flow to produce energy.101 Head is the height difference between the starting point of the forebay and the location of the turbine in the powerhouse. Flow, listed as gallons per minute, is how much water passes through within a set amount of time. The amount of possible energy production is dependent on sufficient levels of both head and flow. An ideal location has large head and large flow, creating the greatest potential for maximum energy output from the micro hydro system. Low head and low flow sites can produce energy, but the payback period would be too long to make it economically viable.

Energy Output Leve ls For a hydroelectric project to qualify as micro hydro, the energy production level must be under 100 kW. Any system that produces more than 100 kW of energy is considered small hydro and introduces additional legal and permit issues. 102

Pol lut ion, Byproducts & Environmental Impact Small run-of-the-river projects are free from many of the environmental problems associated with large-scale projects because they use the natural flow of the water and cause little change in flow. Dams built for some run-of-the-river projects are small and impound little water, while many projects do not require a dam. Effects such as oxygen depletion, increased temperature, decreased flow, and rejection of upstream migration aids, like fish ladders, are not problems for many run-of-the-river projects.103

Legal Requirements To install and operate any hydropower project, regardless of size, it requires permits. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), requires application and permits for projects that produce more than 5 megawatts of electricity. Micro hydro falls into an exemption category with FERC because of its small energy output.104 Federal permits are not required, but states still require permits. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requires that each project receive certification that the state’s water quality standards are not violated.105 Installation can begin upon receipt of the certification. There are no limits to who can or cannot install, maintain, or use a micro hydro system since most of its applications are with individual homes and small communities.

Operators and Suppliers of Energy Technology

Operat ional Costs Since each micro-hydro site differs in capacity and in complexity of equipment, the cost is not consistent across sites. Between the cost of materials and labor, the total up-front investment could range from $10,000 – $30,000.106 The operation and maintenance costs of hydropower are

101 (Warnick, 1982) 102 (Laboratory N. R.) 103 (Laboratory N. R.) 104 (Commission, 2012) 105 (Quality, 2011) 106 (Energy, 2010)

32

between 1.5% and 2.5% of investment cost per year.107 The above stated initial investment amounts would require yearly maintenance costs of $150 - $750. The current price per kilowatt-hour is 6.49¢.108

Feasibility

Geographical Avai labi l i ty

Figure 17, which contains the Idaho counties of Fremont, Madison, and Teton, has yellow dots representing potential micro hydro locations. There are a total of 197 different locations that would satisfy the power potential range of micro hydro projects.109

Ecologi ca l Impact : The environmental impact of a micro hydro system is minimal at any one of these locations. The nature of micro hydro and run-of-the-river applications does not need dams or other damaging equipment. Included in the information CD of this report is a list of the coordinates, distance from sub stations, energy potential, head and flow rates, and other critical data of the identified sites.

Sustainability

Cost The cost to sustain a micro hydro system in any of

the three Idaho counties is limited to the maintenance costs and upkeep of state permits. These costs vary depending on the size and complexity of the system.

Benef i t As long as water continues to flow, there will be an unlimited sustained amount of energy that can be used. Hydropower is a power source with a steady flow of energy at all hours of the day, all year round.

Conclusion and Recommendations Due to the ease of installation, availability of locations, sustainability of the resource, and low maintenance cost, micro hydroelectric energy is a viable option for providing green energy to the area. Further investigation at each of the micro hydro sites identified will determine individual viability. Because micro hydro is a small-scale project, the amount of energy created is low and only a few individuals or businesses would benefit. It would create few jobs even if multiple sites were developed, due to low maintenance requirements. The desire to provide a self sustaining, job 107 (Program, 2011) 108 (Research) 109 (Laboratory I. N.)

Number of microhydro locationsFremont 114Madison 31Teton 52

All in Mega WattsTotal Average 0.039

Fremont Average 0.039Madison Average 0.036Teton Average 0.041

Fremont Total 4.46Madison Total 1.12Teton Total 2.12

Figure 17

33

creating, green energy source that will impact the region most likely would not be achieved through the use of micro hydro. Larger scale hydro projects would be more capable of providing the cash flow needed to attain the degree that is sought after.

34

Natural Gas

Outline of Energy

Defini t ion Natural gas is a fossil fuel: it is formed from the remains of biological material that lived millions of years ago. In its purest form, natural gas is odorless, colorless, and shapeless. It is a composition of hydrocarbon gases, primarily methane. The composition of natural gas varies (see Figure 18). When burned, natural gas creates energy with few emissions.

Descr ipt ion

The recent drop in price of natural gas (gas) has generated a lot of interest in gas-powered vehicles and electricity for communities. Gas is found in reservoirs underneath the earth. Production companies search for evidence of these reservoirs by using technology that helps find the gas and drill wells where it is likely to be found.

Requirements A lot of resources are needed to create power from gas. An important requirement is a steady supply of natural gas. The facility would need to include a turbine and/or a boiler.

Outline of Technology

Available Options There are three main turbine designs to generate power from natural gas. The first design is a traditional steam turbine that relies on a furnace to burn gas to heat a bioler that creates the steam to power the turbine.

The second design is a simple-cycle combustion that is similar to a jet engine. This uses a gas turbine to convert the heat energy of combustion into mechanical energy, which then operates an electrical generator.

The combined-cycle design features heat recovery boilers that take the exhaust heat at approximately 1,125 degrees Fahrenheit from a gas turbine and convert it to steam. The steam goes

Figure 18

35

through conventional steam turbines to generate more electricity, which creates additional efficiencies compared to simple-cycle combustion turbines and conventional steam power plants.

Figure 19 shows a natural gas turbine from General Electric (GE). This turbine works by burning gas and spinning very fast. The power generator creates electricity by spinning. These turbines can range from 300 horsepower (hp) to 268,000 hp. There are three major parts of a gas turbine: compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine. Gas is compressed to 30 times ambient pressure, and then the air is released into the combustion chamber. Inside the combustion chamber, temperatures can reach up to 2,600˚F. The combustion chamber then spins the electric turbine to create energy. A simple turbine design has a thermal efficiency between 15-42%. The thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of used energy from the turbine to the fuel energy input.

Figure 19 Gas Turbine

In Figure 20, natural gas is used to heat a boiler of water. The water is used to generate steam that powers a steam turbine to generate electricity. Out of the three types of layouts, this is the least efficient. Only 33 to 35 percent of the thermal energy used to generate the steam is converted into electrical energy.110 There is also controversy with this design because the water gets so hot it will sterilize the water from a lake or river and threatening the wildlife.111

110 (Electric Generation Using Natural Gas) 111 (EPA, 2007)

36

Figure 20 Boiler/Steam Turbine

The design of a combined cycle natural gas facility is much more complex but reaps a thermal efficiency of up to 60%.112 The turbine works the same as it would in a simple combustion layout, but a boiler absorbs part of the 2,600˚F produced from the turbine. Usually, a plant will have a supplementary-fired boiler that can be used to increase the steam production.

Figure 21 Combined Cycle

Case Study Southern Montana Electric (SME) is in a two-phase project to build a natural gas facility. The first phase was to build a 40 MW station that uses a simple cycle combustion turbine generator (CTG). This portion of the project is complete, and in 2014 or 2015 construction will begin to upgrade the plant and will boost capacity to 120 MW. SME states that the project will bring 300-400 additional workers.

112 (Langston)

37

The second phase of the project will build one more additional simple cycle gas-fired CTG, two additional gas compressors, two additional generator step-up transformers, and one additional unit auxiliary transformer. Phase two will also include the addition of combined cycle equipment including two heat recovery steam generators (HRSG’s) with natural gas-fired duct burners.113 The cost of phase one of the project was $85 million. SME intended on borrowing up to $215 million for phase two.

Late 2011, SME filed for bankruptcy. It appears that a lot of the bankruptcy issues are related to poor management. According to an article in the Billings Gazette "Three members of Southern's six-member board said they were blindsided by the surprise bankruptcy filing, which came hours after a tumultuous meeting in which half of the members walked out to protest the board's refusal to seat a new trustee from a member cooperative." 114

Geographical Requirements One of the biggest requirements is to be near a large source of natural gas. If the layout requires a boiler, it will also be important to have the facility near a water source. From the cases studied, many of these projects have two phases. A simple combustion power generating station is created in the first stage. During the second phase, the design is upgraded to a combined cycle system, which sometimes includes another gas turbine. In the SME case, it is mentioned that the station would cause noise pollution. The SME station required six acres.115

Pollution & Environmental Impact If a combined cycle or a steam turbine design is used, there could be a maximum of 216 gpm of wastewater that must be treated. This water would contain slight traces of boiler water treatment chemicals. SME would discharge the water back into their lakes and streams because the traces were so small. There is concern about the water during the boiler process that is heated to steam: the heat process sterilizes the water, killing all living matter. Some of this matter is food for fish or other animals. There is concern that sterile water will have a major impact on the environment.

Nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) are all found in the emissions of a natural gas facility.116

113 (Overview of Highwood Generating Station Project, 2012) 114 (Johnson, 2011) 115 (Quality, 2009) 116 (EPA, AP-42, Vol. I, 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines, 200)

38

Figure 22

In the SME case, it estimated that operating the facility would result in CO2 emissions of roughly 250,000 tons per year (See Figure 22).

Operators & Suppliers of Technology

Operat ional Costs Depending on the layout, different technologies are needed. A combined cycle design would require a gas-powered and a steam-powered turbine. The major suppliers of turbines are Westinghouse, General Electric, and Siemens.117 According to PJM, the variable operation and maintenance (VOM) costs for a combined cycle turbine are $2.50 per mWh. For a single combustion turbine, the VOM costs are $2.00 per mWh.118

Workforce Management The Highwood Power Station employs 20 full-time people. There are many positions needed for day-to-day operations. Depending on the size of the plant, there will need to be people to purchase fuel contracts, arrange financing, and customer support. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean salary for a natural gas operator is $59,870.119 During peak times of construction, Highwood required approximately 320 construction personnel.120

117 (Weiss, 2012) 118 (PJM Interconnection LLC, 2011) 119 (Gas Plant Operators) 120 (Quality, 2009)

39

Conclusion & Recommendation The biggest argument against natural gas is its fluctuation in price (see Figure 23). With recent advancements in natural gas mining, prices have dropped to a 10-year low.121 Another difficult struggle for Fremont County would be maintaining a steady supply of gas. Highwood Montana built their plant near an existing pipeline and built a connection from the pipeline to their power station. Fremont County would have to work with Intermountain Gas Company’s existing structure.

Natural gas is a clean energy source as a fossil fuel and is found locally in the United States. Once Fremont County learns how to get a steady supply of

natural gas it could open doors for additional natural gas use.

Natural gas is a clean, cheap, and abundant energy resource. Many people in the industry view natural gas as a "bridging" energy source meaning that it is a temporary solution to help move us from environmentally straining resources to more environmentally friendly resources. Research suggests continuing to pursue natural gas energy production. An additional study could help clarify some opportunities and threats regarding natural gas viability in southeast Idaho.

121 (Natural Gas, 2012)

Figure 23

40

Biomass

Energy Outline

Descr ipt ion Energy can be created from left over tree branches and grass clippings. A few common

forms of biomass include: wood, agricultural products, solid waste, landfill gas, and alcohol fuels.

Descr ipt ion The extraction of energy takes place by burning the biomass and creating steam. That steam

is then used to turn turbines that generate electricity. Other forms of biomass energy collection would include the fermentation of biological matter to create alcohol and the capture of methane gas from landfills.

Requirements

Biomass energy requires vegetation for harvesting. Usually the fastest or most common biologically growing material in the area is used. It requires the species to be within a short distant of the plant – most biomass projects are never pursued because the distance to transport the material out weights the benefit.

Biomass projects require a system that harvests and gathers the biomass species. The next step is to create a processing facility that can reduce the size of the biomass product.122 The major components of a biomass power plant are the boiler and incinerator.

Outline Technology There are three ways to capture energy from biomass. The first is to burn the biomass and create steam to run turbines (Figure 24). The second is to allow the biomass to go through a fermentation process and create alcohol (Figure 25). The third is a gasification process where the biomass is turned into a gas (Figure 26).

Figure 24

123 122 (Zarf, 2012)

41

Figure 25

124

Figure 26

125

Energy Output The largest biomass project that is under construction is projected to produce 750 megawatts of energy.126 “Biomass energy in general costs around 10-13c/kWh depending on the feedstock used and the type of technology used in energy conversion.”127

123 (Sobolik, 2012) 124 (Alexandra Dock, 2012) 125 (WPP Energy Corp, 2012)

42

Figure 27

128

Pollution Biomass is considered a renewable green energy because the material that is burned to produce energy can be replanted. The replanting process absorbs the carbon that is emitted from the burning process.

“Inevitably, the combustion of biomass produces air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates such as soot and ash. The amount of pollution emitted per unit of energy generated varies widely by technology.” 129

Laws on Biomass Biomass plants are subject to industrial inspection laws as well as state safety requirements.

Biomass plants produce soot that is displaced into the air and then mixes with rainwater. The plant must be continually tested for pollution output levels which would include nitrogen oxides (NOx),

126 (The Bio Energy Site, 2012) 127 (Green World Investor Mar, 2011) 128 (NREL, 2012)

129 (Michael Brower, 1992)

43

carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxides (SO2). The Environmental Protection Agency requires by law that continuous emissions monitors be in place during operation.130

Operational/Supplier Costs Biomass fuel is measured in bone dry tons (bdt). Depending on the efficiency of the technology, between 7,500 and 9,000 bdt of fuel is required to produce 1 MW of power on an annual basis. Previous feasibility studies have shown that access to fuel is a make-or-break factor. The two options are to produce or to find a supplier.

Idaho has potential to produce enough material for biomass energy from crop residue, forest residue, and primary mill residue. Primary mill residue is composed of wood materials (coarse and fine) and bark generated at manufacturing plants (primary wood-using mills) when round wood products are processed into primary wood products, like slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, veneer clippings and cores, and pulp screenings.

There are different suppliers for biomass energy. Many biomass plants use wood pellets as fuel. Wood pellet suppliers are fairly common in the United States. There are various grades of wood pellets. Residential grade pellets are available for at-home use at local hardware stores. Bulk pellets are

used for large-scale power production. The closest supplier for bulk pellets is in Oregon.

For a more comprehensive list of biomass prices and availability, see Appendix B.

Job Creation Construction Jobs Created/Retained

Direct Consulting (Architecture/Engineering) 6-8

Direct Construction (Mechanical, Electrical, General Contracting, etc.)

50-75

Indirect (Parts Houses, Distribution, Supply Vendors, etc.)

30

Long-Term

Maintenance /Operations Staff Jobs Created (staff needed) 8-12

Direct Wood Products Industry Jobs Created/Retained (Logging, Transportation, Parts, etc.)

10+

Annual Temporary Service & Maintenance (2-3 weeks) 2-3131

130 (Continuous Emissions Monitors, 2005)

44

Start up and Feasibility costs (3 MW Facility) Fuel Storage & Reclaim $400,000 - $700,000 Gasification System & Emission Control

$3.5 MM - $5 MM

ORC Power Generation $2.5 MM - $3.5 MM Installation $2 MM - $3 MM Total Installed Cost $8.4 MM - $12.2 MM

Plus Building & Foundations $1.5 MM - $2.5MM

Potential Project Cost $9,900,000 - $14,700,000 Cost of Fuel

$30 per bone dry ton (bdt)

Cost of Power (Purchased) $88 per mWh (includes green tags)

Cost of Money 5% tax-exempt Cost of Construction $15.4 million 132

Case Study

Boise County conducted a biomass feasibility study for its area. Final recommendations were that the infrastructure and available fuel could not sustain anything more than a three MW energy plant. Either large amounts of federal grants and other financial assistance were needed, or the power purchase rates would need to increase by nearly 40% to make the operation financially viable. Lastly, “there is no credit-worthy source for a 20-year investment-grade supply of fuel.” The study concluded that the possibility of a biomass facility in the area might exist in the future. 133

The following map shows potential biomass fuel in the form of logging residue. “Logging residue comprises unused portions of trees, cut or killed by logging and left in the woods. Other removable materials are the unutilized volume of trees cut or killed during logging operations. Source: USDA, Forest Service's Timber Product Output database, 2007.”

131 (McKinstry, 2011) 132 (McKinstry, 2011)

133 (McKinstry, 2011)

45

Figure 28

134

Depending on the efficiency of the technology, equipment, and design, between 7,500 and 9,000 bdt of fuel is required to produce 1 MW on an annual basis.135 Fremont’s available biomass is below operational needs. Figure 29 shows the available biomass resources in Fremont County. In the earlier WGA (2006) study, it was assumed that 50% off the removals would be used for higher-valued products and 50% available for use as fuel. 136 For more details on the Boise biomass study, see Appendix C

New Bundling Technology $29 to $34 per bdt cost per ton of biomass. 137

Figure 29

134 (NREL, 2012) 135 (McKinstry, 2011) 136(Cook, 2011) 137 (Rummer, 2004)

46

System cost does not include support cost, move-in cost, cost of employee transportation, cost of transportation to market, or profit allowance 138

Feasibility The over all cost of bundling the biomass outweighs the current cost thresholds for a financially feasible operation. The current amount of biomass yield in the area doesn’t meet the minimum requirements for the plant to operate efficiently. The county itself contains a sufficient amount of biomass but 50% of those materials could be used for higher valued production.

“There is no credit worthy source for a 20 year investment grade supply of fuel. Although there is an abundance of biomass resources particularly on Federal lands, there is no policy allowing for the sustainable recovery of waste biomass from overgrown forests.”139

138 (Whisper Mountain Professional Services, Inc., 2010) 139 (McKinstry, 2011)

47

Recommendations Listed here are the energy sources that were studied and analyzed. The research team has taken the liberty to list them in their most feasible potential, starting with the most feasible.

Solar: Of the two sources discussed (concentrating solar power (CSP) & photovoltaic (PV) technology), PV far exceeds the former in terms of energy production and compatible environmental criteria. The current production of PV technology has made it the cheapest that it has ever been. Low prices coupled with tax incentives make the payback period three to five years; the shortest of all other energies discussed in this report. The sun’s rays have enough energy in the Fremont County Area to produce ample electricity for residential and general buildings alike by using current rooftops and under-used land for solar panel placement. Although permanent job creation is virtually zero, the low investment costs, free fuel, minimal maintenance costs (apart from occasional cleaning), and high durability make solar energy a highly feasible energy source.

Small wind: This sort of wind power eliminates much of the aesthetic concerns raised by large wind production, primarily because the landowner purchases these residential windmills. Their cut-in speed is much lower than that of large windmills, allowing them to produce energy with slower wind at lower heights. Initial investment is more than that of residential solar, making the payback period much longer, yet still well within the expected lifetime of the machine. Because of the small aesthetic impact, the ease of construction, low maintenance, free fuel, and existing tax incentives, small wind is considered a feasible source of energy for the area.

Geothermal: Some additional geological research is needed for precise placement of the geothermal facility in Newdale, but the technology is available for immediate use. The binary system recommended would provide zero emissions, no pollutants, as well as the options for a self-powered greenhouse with the potential to gather revenue from the minerals brought up from subterranean levels. Able to operate 24/7/365, this energy source has the potential of 98% operating time (excepting regular maintenance), and the fuel is free. Permanent job creation is small and will depend on energy production. Payback period is 10-20 years, pending total initial investment costs and energy prices. Because energy demands and prices are growing, the research team has found that geothermal energy development is feasible for the area.

Micro Hydro: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has already identified nearly 200 sites that could be developed. Installation is very possible given current technology and payback period ranges from 5-20 years, depending on energy production. Concerns are: distance from energy storage/usage, potential energy production, and overall impact. A large portion of the sites identified will need to be developed if any significant impact is to happen. Maintenance is low and permanent job creation is much more likely, especially if multiple sites are developed.

Natural Gas: Current changes in gas prices make the energy source very cheap and job creation is the largest of the energy sources discussed here, but up front investment costs are the highest of the energy sources researched – $300 million or more. If local natural gas pockets were to be harvested, the costs would be much higher, as would the carbon footprint in the area. The Intermountain Gas Company has existing infrastructure that could possibly be used towards developing a natural gas-powered energy facility, but this raises the concern that local residential gas prices could increase

48

with a higher demand from the energy facility. Water conditions would also need to be addressed because after water is used in a gas plant, it is often entirely sterile and threatens local wildlife when injected back into the water source where it originated. Additional studies will need to be performed to determine the exact impact a natural gas power plant would have on the area. At this time, the research team claims that a natural gas energy facility is potentially feasible.

Large Wind: Utility-size wind turbines must be located in areas with sustainable high winds at 80-120 meters. The Fremont County Area does not currently have the matching geography and wind patterns to make large wind a feasible source of energy for the area. Additionally, the existing tax incentives for large wind turbine production will expire on December 31, 2012. Industry officials claim that, unless the tax incentives are extended, construction of utility-size wind farms will not continue.

Biomass: Construction of a biomass facility is the second highest: nearly $15 million. Although the fuel is readily available, it has many other potential purposes other than as an energy source. Current biomass fuel prices are nearly 10X higher than what would be needed to make this energy source self-sustaining. At the current market, heavy subsidies are required in order to make the pursuit of biomass feasible.

49

Bibliography

Alliance, I. S. (n.d.). Hydropower Task Force Report. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.energy.idaho.gov/energyalliance/d/Hydro%20Packet.pdf

Alyssa Kagel, D. B. (2007). A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment. Geothermal Energy

Association , Washington, D.C. . Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://geo-

energy.org/reports/environmental%20guide.pdf

Antal, T. M. (2001). Power Generation From Low-enthapaly Geothermal Resources. University of Oradea,

Oradea, Romania. Oradea: University of Oradea. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/yan2/docs/art6.pdf

$104 Billion Global Biomass Investment By 2021. (n.d.). Bioenergy, Bioenergy News, Bioenergy Articles,

Bioenergy Photos. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from

http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/10268/104-billion-global-biomass-investment-by-

2021

“A UNIQUE SINGLE BLADE WIND TURBINE SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT.” American

Society for Engineering Education. 2006. Web. 15 May 2012.

http://ilin.asee.org/Conference2006program/Papers/Hegna-P4.pdf

Berwald, J. (2008). Wind Power. In B. Lerner & K. Lerner (Eds.) Climate Change: In Context,

Vol. 2. (pp. 915-917). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved May 26, 2012, from Global Reference on the

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources via Gale:

http://find.galegroup.com.byui.idm.oclc.org/grnr/start.do?prodId=GRNR

Biomass, Biomass Fuel, Biomass Energy. (n.d.). Waste to energy. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from

http://wppenergy.com/biomass-gasification.html

50

Bridget Ayling, P. M. (2011, February 2). Fluid Geochemistry at the Raft River Geothermal Field, Idaho: New

Data and Hydrological Implications. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://es.stanford.edu:

http://es.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2011/ayling2.pdf

British Petroleum Alternative Energy. (2010, nov 04). Ridgeline Energy and BP Wind Energy announce

commercial operation of largest wind farm in Idaho. Retrieved 5 26, 2012, from British Petroleum

Alternative Energy:

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7065987

Brower, M. (2002, October 26). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies |

Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned

Scientists. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-

choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-of.html

California Energy Commission. (2003). Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity

Generation Technologies. Sacramento: State of California Energy Commission. Retrieved May 2,

2012

Chevron Corporation. (2012, April). Geothermal. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from Chevron.com:

http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/geothermal/?utm_campaign=Tier_1&utm_me

dium=cpc&utm_source=Google&utm_term=geothermal_energy

Clean Energy Ideas. (2012). Advantages Of Geothermal Energy. Retrieved 2012 йил 21-June from Clean

Energy Ideas Corporation website: http://www.clean-energy-

ideas.com/articles/advantages_of_geothermal_energy.html

Commission, F. E. (2012, May 11). Exemptions from Licensing. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/permitting/water-quality-permitting/hydropwer-plants.aspx

Company, I. P. (n.d.). Hydroelectric. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.idahopower.com/aboutus/ourpowerplants/hydroelectric/hydroelectric.cfm

51

Costs of Biomass Energy and Biomass Plant Invesment – Wide Range | Green World Investor.

(2011, March 9). Green World Investor | Not Just Any Other Investment Blog!. Retrieved May 29,

2012, from http://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/03/09/costs-of-biomass-energy-

and-biomass-plant-invesment-wide-range/

Department of Energy. "Energy Basics: Photovoltaic System Performance." U.S. DOE Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2012.

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/pv_system_performance.html>.

Department of the Treasury. (n.d.). The Recovery Act . Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money . Retrieved

June 12, 2012, from http://www.recovery.gov/about/pages

Development, G. o. (n.d.). Hydroelectric Power. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4431

Diamond Generating Corporation. (2012, 01 01). Welcome to Diamond Generating Corporation. Retrieved

05 24, 2012, from Diamond Generating Corporation, subsidiary of Mitsubishi, independent

power development and generation, greenfield development, acquisition, fuel procurement,

financing, construction and operations management, efficient, environmentally sound power

plants: http://www.dgc-us.com/map4.htm

Dock, A. (n.d.). Alexandra Dock Biomass Power Station - Renewable energy project in Merseyside

area, Liverpool. Alexandra Dock Biomass Power Station - Renewable energy project in Merseyside area,

Liverpool. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from http://www.alexandradockproject.co.uk/biomass-

energy/what-is-biomass.aspx

Electric Generation Using Natural Gas. (n.d.). Retrieved from NaturalGas.org:

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp

52

Energy.gov. "Residential Alternative Energy Tax Deduction | Department of Energy." Energy.gov |

Department of Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 July 2012. <http://energy.gov/savings/residential-

alternative-energy-tax-deduction>.

"Energy Cost per Kilowatt Hour." Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources

Online Collection. Detroit: Gale. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources.

Web. 21 June 2012.

Energy, R. (2010). Microhydro. Retrieved May 2012, from Renovus Energy:

http://www.renovusenergy.com/microhydro.html#cost

EPA. (2000). AP-42, Vol. I, 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines. Emissions Factors.

EPA. (2007, December 28). Natural Gas: Environmental Impacts. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-

gas.html

Fall River Rural Electric. (2009, 09 28). Net Metering. Retrieved 07 11, 2012, from Home:

http://fallriverelectric.com/documents/Net_metering_policy_2009.pdf

Fall River Rural Electric. (2012, 01 01). Rates. Retrieved 07 11, 2012, from Home:

http://fallriverelectric.com/myAccount/rates.aspx

Fesenmeyer, Daniel. Phone interview. 16 May 2012.

Fleischmann, D. J. (2006, June). Geothermal Development Needs in Idaho. (Geothermal Energy

Association (GEA)) Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.geo-energy.org:

http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Idaho%20Geothermal%20Report.pdf

Idaho National Laboratory. (n.d.). Virtual Hydropower Prospector. Retrieved May 2012, from http://gis-

ext.inl.gov/vhp/#

53

Geothermal Energy Association. (2012). Annual US Geothermal Power Production and Development Report.

Washington, D.C.: Geothermal Energy Association. Retrieved May 10, 2012

Geothermal Energy Association. (2012). Geothermal Power Plants - USA. Retrieved May 10, 2012,

from GEA Corporate Web site: http://geo-energy.org/plants.aspx

Johnson, C. (2011 йил 28-October). Creditors lining up in Southern Montana Electric's bankruptcy.

Billings Gazette.

Knier, G. (n.d.). How do Photovoltaics Work? - NASA Science. NASA Science. Retrieved June 13,

2012, from http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/solarcells/

Knopper, Loren D; Ollson, Christopher A. Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the

literature. (2011). Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 10(1), 78-87.

doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-78

Lab, E. D. (2010). Renewable Energy: A Path Forward for Park City. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from

Community Footprint: http://www.parkcitygreen.org/Community/Community-

Footprint/Documents/Renewable-Energy-Park-City-Study.aspx

Lower Valley Energy. (2012, 03 01). Home. Retrieved 07 11, 2012, from Rates:

http://www.lvenergy.com/my-account/rates/

McKinstry. (2011, March 1). Boise County Woody Biomass Feasibility. Idaho Governor's Office of Energy

Resources. Retrieved July 13, 2012, from

www.energy.idaho.gov/stimulus/d/boise_county_feasibility_study.pdf

National Geothermal Collaborative. (2004 йил July). Benefits of Geothermal Energy. Retrieved 2012 йил

20-June from Geo Collaborative Corporation Website: http://www.geocollaborative.org/

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2001). Small Hydropower Systems. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29065.pdf

54

Natural Gas. (2012 йил 15-June). From Trading Economics:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

Overview of Highwood Generating Station Project. (2012). From Southern Montana Electric:

http://www.smegt.net/project-information/

Photo Researchers, Inc. (2012). Raft River Geothermal Power Plant, Idaho. Retrieved May 6, 2012, from

Photo Researchers: http://db2.photoresearchers.com/preview/BP5912.html

PJM Interconnection LLC. (2011). Variable Operations and Maintenance (VOM) Costs:

Program, U. D. (2011, 08 09). Hydropower. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.wbdg.org/resources/hydropower/php

Quality, I. D. (2011). Hydropower Plant Licensing. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/permitting/water-quality-permitting/hydropower-plants.aspx

Quality, M. D. (2009, November 1). Highwood Power Generating Station Air Quality Permit

#4429-00. Billings, Montana, United States of America.

Raihani, A., Hamdoun, A., Bouattane, O., Cherradi, B., & Mesbahi, A. (Nov 2011). An optimal

management system of a wind energy supplier. Smart Grid and Renewable

Energy, 2(4), 349(10). Retrieved May 24, 2012, from Global Reference on the Environment,

Energy, and Natural Resources via Gale:

http://find.galegroup.com.byui.idm.oclc.org/grnr/start.do?prodId=GRNR

Research, I. f. (n.d.). Idaho Energy Facts. Retrieved May 2012, from

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state-regs/pdf/Idaho.pdf

Ridgeline Energy | Goshen North. (n.d.). Welcome to Ridgeline Energy | Dedicated Wind and Solar

Expertise. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from

http://www.ridgeline.veolia.com/projects/wind/goshen_north.htm m

55

Rocky Mountain Power. (2012, 01 10). Idaho Regulatory Information. Retrieved 06 06, 2012, from

Home : Rocky Mountain Power: http://www.rockymountainpower.net/about/rar/iri.html

Rocky Mountain Power. (2006, 09 15). Net Metering. Retrieved 07 11, 2012, from ROCKY

MOUNTAIN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 135 STATE OF

IDAHO: http://www.rockymountainpower.net/env/nmcg/nm.html

Salman, Z. (n.d.). Major Requirements for Biomass Energy Plants « Cleantech Solutions. Cleantech

Solutions. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from

http://cleantechsolutions.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/major-requirements-for-biomass-

energy-plants/

Sobolik, Jessica. (n.d.). Òåõíîëîãèÿ Êîñêàòà. Êîíãðåññ "Áèîìàññà: òîïëèâî è ýíåðãèÿ". Retrieved May 29,

2012, from http://www.bioethanol.ru/second_generation/Pirolys/Coscata/

Standard Steam. (2012). Why Geothermal Energy? Retrieved May 5, 2012, from Standard Steam Trust:

http://www.standardsteamtrust.com/why-geothermal.php

Standard Steam Trust. (2009). Geothermal Prspects- Newdale. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from Standard

Steam Trust Corporate Web site: http://www.standardsteamtrust.com/prospects-

newdale.php

State of Idaho Legislature. (n.d.). Statutes. Idaho Legislature. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from

http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title63/T63CH30SECT63-3022C.htm

US Department of Energy. (2011, December 19). Geothermal FAQs . Retrieved from energy.gov:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html#cost_to_develop_geothermal_power_

plant

US Department of Energy. (2012, Febrary 22). Geothermal Technologies Program. Retrieved May 6, 2012,

from Energy.gov: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html

56

US Energy Information Administration. (2011, 11 03). How much electricity does an American home use? -

FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved 06 08, 2012, from U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA): http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

US Geothermal Inc. (2008). Raft River Project. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from U. S. Geothermal

Corporate Web site: http://www.usgeothermal.com/RaftRiverProject.aspx

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2009, December 16). Clean Energy. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-

geothermal-energy-works.html

United States Department of Labor. (2011). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 06 20, 2012, Gas

Plant Operators: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes518092.htm

Warnick, C. (1982, December). Requirements for Developing Small-Scale Hydropower in Idaho. Retrieved

May 2012, from

http://www.webedit.uidaho.edu/documents/198322.pdf?pid=108215&doc=1

Weiss, R. (2012, January 19). Siemens to Pump $1.3 Billion Into Gas Turbines to Fend Off GE.

Business Week.

Wind Energy Home Page. (n.d.). Energy Bible Home Page. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from

http://energybible.com/wind_energy/ir

Wind Turbine Diagram. (n.d.). All About Wind Turbines. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://wind-

turbine.tripod.com/id13.html

57

Appendix A – Wind Map

(www.windpoweringamerica.gov)

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

112°

112°

114°

114°

116°

116°

48°

48°

46°

46°

44°44°

42°42°

Idaho - Annual Average Wind Speed at 80 m

Wind Speedm/s

>10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 < 4.0

06-OCT-2010 1.1.1

BoiseNampa

Moscow

Idaho Falls

Pocatello

Twin Falls

Coeur D'Alene

Lewiston

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Miles

Source: Wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truepower,LLC for windNavigator . Web: http://www.windnavigator.com |http://www.awstruepower.com. Spatial resolution of wind resourcedata: 2.5 km. Projection: UTM Zone 11 WGS84.

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

112°

112°

114°

114°

116°

116°

48°

48°

46°

46°

44°44°

42°42°

Idaho - Annual Average Wind Speed at 80 m

Wind Speedm/s

>10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 < 4.0

06-OCT-2010 1.1.1

BoiseNampa

Moscow

Idaho Falls

Pocatello

Twin Falls

Coeur D'Alene

Lewiston

50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Miles

Source: Wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truepower,LLC for windNavigator . Web: http://www.windnavigator.com |http://www.awstruepower.com. Spatial resolution of wind resourcedata: 2.5 km. Projection: UTM Zone 11 WGS84.

!

58

Appendix B – Available Biomass Fuel

59

60

61

62

63

64

140

140 (Cook, 2011)

65

Appendix C – Biomass Payback Scenario Pay back scenarios based on 25 years. Scenario #1 assumes the current market cost of fuel ($30/bdt); cost of power purchased ($88/MW h); and a 5% interest rate. Based on a construction cost of $15.M this project would require a grant of $10-12M in order to make a 3MW project viable.

Scenario #2 demonstrates that without a grant to offset capital costs, and assuming current power purchase rates, fuel cost would

66

have to be as low as $3.32/bdt in order to make the project financially viable.