NECK LAKE HYDROPOW'ER FEASIBILITY STUDY (l :1;

for the proposed

WHALE PASS WORK CENTER

WHALE PASS

PACIFIC OCEAN

NECK LAKE HYDROPOWER

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

September 1984

Submitted by:

Ore Iwatkins, P.E. Hydraulic Engineer

With Assistance From:

Alvin Yoshida Civil Engineer

and

Louis Bartos Hydrologist

BACKGROUND

This Hydroelectric Feasibility Study was initiated by the Engineering Section of the Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service. The sJ?_e_<?~f.1c object~ve was to determine if the obvious hydr9 201e~~ial of Neck_Creek near the. proposed Whale Pass Work Center c.ould.OT .. s.O.()uJ,.d be .. developeg.

An A&E contract was in progress to design a layout for a new Forest Service Work Center, but the contract only provided for diesel electric power generation. This hydro feasibility study is to supplement the current design study.

The field portion of the study was made during the week of August 13-17, 1984. The author of this report visited the Forest Service Office in Ketchikan and made a field review of the proposed hydro site on Prince of Wales Island.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This field visit and subsequent data gathering was made possible by the assistance and cooperation of the following people:

Louis Bartos, Ketchikan Area, Hydraulic Engineer, who did an excellent job in coordinating the details of the week's study, including his assistance with the field review of the site. He also developed Appendix A in this report which is the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Feasibility Report of Neck Lake.

Les Paul, Regional Hydraulic Engineer for the Alaska Region, who proposed and obtained the go-ahead for this hydro feasibility study.

Alvin Yoshida, Civil Engineer, Tongass-Ketchikan Area, coordinator for the ongoing A&E design study. He also developed Appendix B of this report detailing the electrical demands of the work center and the life cycle costs· for the diesel power generation alternative.

Randy Bohachelc, Civil Engineer, Tongass-Ketchikan Area, assisted with the field review and level survey of Neck Creek. He also provided the unit prices for construction materials which were used to estimate the construction costs for the hydro project.

Joe English, with Pacific Diesel in Seattle, who cooperated by providing details and estimated costs of standard turbine/generator equipment suitable for the site.

.lIOh.1 Wildlite Ret"., eWrlf Rk

;'4.lDwne l

j'~1 ... WiiGht, RelIC' ~ lJ..

\.1'.01111' I

1973 Revised 1980

Scale: 14 mil .. til 1 IDcb

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LOCATION MAP

I. INTRODUCTION and OUTLINE OF THE HYDRO SYSTEM

II. ECONOMICS

III. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS

IV. ENGINEERING DETAILS FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Hydrologic Report

Appendix B - Diesel Power Generations

PAGE

i

ii

- 3

4 - 6

7 - 9

12 - 20

Appendix C - Manufacturer Products Information and Proposals

TABLE

I

II

III

FIGURE

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

LIST OF TABLES

TITLE

Construction Cost Estimate

Engineering Parameters

Economic Summary - Diesel vs Hydro

LIST OF FIGURES

TITLE

Life Cycle Costs of Diesel vs Hydro

Present Worth of Hydro vs Diesel

Diesel Operation Costs

Hydro System Costs

Head, Kilowatt & Velocity Plot

Pipe Diameter vs Flow

Access Road, Penstock & Diversion

Intake Structure

Profile of Neck Creek

Project Schematic Map

PAGE

10 - 11

16

11

.u.u 5

5

6

6

13

14

1 8

19

20

Front Cover

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The p~~pose of this feasibility report is to supplement the current A&E desig~ study for a Forest Service Work Center at Whale Pass, prince of Wales Island, Alask~. Hydroelectric power may provide a viable alternative for diesel electric power generation and for fossil fuels for heating. We will discuss the demand and capacity of the site, system design alternatives, permits and land status requirements, and preliminary cost estimates.

In the future, this report will be used in State of Alaska concerning scenarios for costing of a hydroelectric system that could Federal, State, and private development in the

PERMITS AND LAND STATUS

discussions with the collocation or share provide energy for

Whale Pass area.

~er Rights: Power production for Forest Service requirements requires a maximum of 25 cfs. Any hydropower development using Forest Service funds must include the timely filing and obtaining of a State water right for the required flow.

FERC Permit: The Forest Service, as another Federal agency, does not require FERC licenses for hydroelectric developments. If we share the facility, the cosponsor may be required to follow the FERC process.

Land Status: Project works, with the exception of the transmission line, will be located on State-selected land. The State can issue leases for up to 55 years for a project such as this. Subsequent leases can be issued for continued operation after the original lease expires.

SYSTEM SIZE

This analysis compares the cost of electrical power generated with diesel power to that of hydropower generation. In addition, excess energy from hydropower generation can be utilized for space heat and hot water for the Work Center.

The hydrosystem was sized at 125kw to meet all of the Work Center's electrical demands, in addition to the majority of the heating needs. A diverted flow of 25 cfs is required to produce this amount of power utlizing the a5-foot drop from the outlet of Neck Lake to the ocean. Tbe outflow from Neck Lake will exceed this flow 100S of UuL._t..1ID~ ___ ~!_th 2. feet of additional impo-UDcfiiient. Eiectronic load management of-tbee!ectr1c-al--loads-Is necessary to prevent overloads from occurring during peak electrical demands.

Future Expansion: The proposed 125kw system will also be capable of providing .os~ of the electrical needs for any future developments on the site. However, it will only be able to supply the heating load if heat sinks are provided to store the off-peak surpluses of generation. Heat sinks could consist of large hot water tanks.

2

Excess energy would be stored at night and during slack periods of day by heating the water. Heat for the building would be extracted from the tanks by flowing the water through hot water radiators.

Additional building mass would be another form of a heat sink. The mass would be warmed by hot air from electrical heating elements. These electrical elements would be used in conjunction with oil-fueled furnaces. A disadvantage of hot air electrical elements is that they can create high peak electrical demands for heating when surplus energy may not be available from the hydrosystem. The important point, however, is to provide for a form of heat sink in the initial construction of the buildings at'the Work Center.

The first of three major falls on Neck Creek as it drops from Neck

Lake to the ocean.

Hydroeleotric Gen~rating System: would comprise the system:

The following major components

1. A small diversion structure across the outlet of Neck Lake, approximately 3 feet high and 75 feet wide.

2. An intake structure on one end of the diversion structure. The intake will channel a portion of the lake's outflow into the penstock and also screen out debris.

3. One thousand feet of 30-inch diameter steel penstock.

4. One-Quarter point of diversion. road.

mile of minimum standard access road to the The penstock will follow along the edge of the

3

5. Powerhouse building housing a turbine, generator, and electrical controls.

6. Three-quarter miles of power transmission line from the powerhouse to the Work Center.

7. A 30kw backup diesel-generator to provide power during periods of hydropower shutdowns.

SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Diversion Structure 10,500

Intake Structure 11,600

Penstock 60,000

Access Road 27,000

Powerhouse Building 43,500

Turbine, Generator, and Controls 69,500

Transmission Line 50,300

Backup Diesel Generator - 30kw 20,000

Electric Heating Units @ Work Center 9,500

Total Labor and Materials = 301,900

Contingencies @ 15% 45,000

Overhead and Profit @ 25% 75.500

Total Project = 422,400

O&M @ 4%/year $17,000

Additional detail of these construction costs with estimated quantities and unit prices is located in Table I on pages 10 and 11.

4

II. ECONOMICS

The economics of the hydrosystem and the fossil fuel system were compared by calculating their life cycle costs. The hydrosystem is outlined in the previous section and in Table I. The fossil fuel system used in the comparison consists of two 40 kW diesel generators, fuel oil furnaces for space heat, and propane hot water heaters. This combination of three fossil fuels was estimated to be the most cost effective fossil fuel system. !p'-p_~n_~}!_,~ cont a ins d et ail s of the die sel genera tor cos t sand fossil fuel heating requirements. The economics of the hydro versus fossil system were based on a 25 year period, a ~)discount rate, and a 4S fuel es~alation rate. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated at ~S;of the initial cost of the diesel s y s t e man d 4 S for the h yo r~ s y s t em. ,', " -. .... , .. ~'

fL" , '" I, , (J ~, - ..... ~ \oj

, ~ f " '. ~., ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS: , ,' ....... .- .-,.

J

,poJ' ,(

The h_l~_!,()_~ystem's initial cost of $422,400 ii '4.7 times greater than the firstcosT-6f--il"-'cf1esel-- powe're-d---s-ys-tem:------lfowever,' Hie 25':;i~~r,~-':- Pre sent ----WO r-tft--O'r"'t he"-'LTr'e-'C-y-cTe- C-osts ( L C C ) -0' f 't he- h y cfro­~,y~~e~ 1.~ only 70S of the'-LCCo-f-£he-'foss.fi'syst-E!iii~ --The economIcs of each system is visually dIsplayed'--6-ii-'to'e--'fOITowing two pages of graphs. The break-even point between the two systems occurs at year nine. These graphs were developed from a summary of the economics of diesel generators vs hydro which is Table IlIon page 17.

5

LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF DIESEL VS. HYDRC WHALE PASS WORK CENTER

2.1 2

'.9 1.8

/: /:

/

1.7 1.6

/' /'

1.5 1.4 1.3

(f)'"' 1.2 n::" :5.§ 1.1 -1= , 0-~ 0.9

0.8 0.7 0.6

/ V

V Ir'

./ V

...... Ir'

........ /

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

....... ..,...A

,.... ........

........... ........

0 o , 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1011 , 2'3'41516171 a 192021 22232425

YEARS c DIESEL o HYDRO

Figure I

PRES~bLT W_OBItL OF HYDRO VS. DIESEL WHALE PASS WORK CENTER i-7"

900 ,-----~~~~--------------------------------------_.

800

700

600

(f)i n::c 500 :50 -I~ 00 400 O~

'-"

.300

200

100

O~~~'+~~~~----------~-------------------r----~

IZZI HYDRO IS:SI DIESEL.

Figure II

140

1:30

120

1 10

100 9

90 ........ .,

80 Vl'Q a::c :5g ....J:J

70 00

60 o.c I-'-'

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 1

422400

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

........ 110 III

Vl'Q 100 a::c ~~ 90 ....J:J 00 80 o.c

I-70 '-'

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 1

2 3

IZZI

2 3

DIESEL OPERATION COSTS

4

O.5cM C 6~;FUEL ESCALATION C 4~; i - 7~

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 314 1516 1 7 18192021 22232425

YEARS OckM [S:sJ FUEL !22Zl EQUIPMENr

Figure III HYDRO SYSTEM COSTS

OckM 0 4~ OF CON ST. COSTS

~/ -1 \

; I

4 5 678 910111213141516171819202122232425

YEARS IZZI OckM ISSI CONST. cosr

Figure IV

6

7

III. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Diyersion Structure: A concrete gravity wall averaging 3 feet in height which will raise the level of Neck Lake about 2 feet. The wall would be 75 feet in length, 12 inches wide at the top, and 2 feet wide at the base. It would be anchored to solid bedrock for its entire length. See the conceptual plan in Figure VII.

Intake Structure: A concrete box shaped structure integrated into the left abutment of the diversion structure. The function of the intake structure is to keep logs and debris from entering the penstock. It contains a steel trash rack with bars spaced 1 inch apart. This grate should be designed to always be submerged with a small flushing flow overtopping the back wall. This flow will help to keep floating debris from collecting on the grate. It is also important to keep the grate submerged so it is not exposed to freezing air temperatures which can cause the grate to ice up. The inlet to the box will include a slide gate valve capable of dewatering the intake. See Figure VIII for schematic details.

penstock: One thousand feet of penstock is needed between the intake structure and the powerhouse. The maximum velocity of the water in the penstock should be limited to 5 ft/sec. This will minimize the need for thrust blocks and anchors needed to restrain the penstock. A 30-inch pipe was selected which will limit frictional head losses to about 3.5 feet. It will weigh 65 IbslLF uncoated and require a minimum of 3/16-inch wall thickness.

The penstock could be buried or set above ground on timber saddles similiar to the pipeline supplying water to the Herring Cove Fish Hatchery. The above ground method requires additional thrust blocks while the buried penstOCk would need to be bituminous coated due to the acidic soils predominant of the general area. The above-ground method would be slightly cheaper in this instance. See Figure IX for a profile of Neck Creek.

powerhouse; The powerhouse would be located on the south bank of Neck Creek about 125 feet upstream from the old log stringer road bridge. The slab elevation of the floor would be about 9 feet above the visible high tide elevation. This elevation is needed to be above the 2,000 CFS flood flow capability of Neck Creek. In addition, the lower 4 feet of the side walls should be constructed of watertight concrete to provide additional protection from flood flows. The slab should be 2 feet thick to reduce vibrations and provide ballast to offset any buoyant forces which could be produced with watertight walls. An outlet tailrace channel would be constructed through and beneath the floor slab.

Access Road: A minimum standard 10-foot wide shotrock road is needed from the existing road to the powerhouse and on to the point of diversion. The penstock will follow along the edge of the road and would be buried under the road for several hundred feet as the

8

road approaches the intake structure. The road alignment would be fairly straight with a pitch of 20% ± grade as it climbs along the falls on Neck Creek. The total length of the road is 1200 feet.

~owerline: The powerline shown on the schematic map represents an overhead 12-kV wood pole tranmission line. An overhead line would be cheaper than a buried line because of the amount of rock. However, if a waterline will be run from near the powerhouse to the work center, it would be more economical to bury a 12 kV electric line below the water line in the same trench. It is also possible to construct the line for 7.8 kV. Many utility companies are upgrading their distribution lines from 7.8 to 12 kV and there is an abundant supply of good used 7.8 kV transformers.

Turbine: The site requires a "low head" turbine designed for a 25 CFS flow. Three types of turbine equipment are available. A crossflow turbine, a Francis Turbine with adjustable wicket gates, and centrifugal pumps run in reverse mode. All three will produce the same amount of power. The Francis Turbine is the most efficient over a range of flows and is the most expensive. Centrifugal pumps are the cheapest and can be sized to operate efficiently for a given flow. Their efficiency drops rapidly at reduced flow, but the hydrology study shows 25 CFS to be available at all times. One crossflow turbine is available from Canyon Industries in Deming, Washington.

A good proposal was made by Pacific Diesel Company using pumps from Cornell Pump Company. Two centrifugal pumps are used in a reverse mode of operation to operate as turbines. The pumps are connected through a gear drive train to turn a single 125-kW generator.

See Appendix C for additional product information describing available turbines.

Electrical Controls: Controls for the system, regardless of the turbine selected, will use a combination of electronic load control and water flow control. The generator must run at its exact design speed to produce power at 60 cycles per second (CPS). The design speed will be either 1200 or 1800 RPM. Given a set flow of water to the turbine and a corresponding set load of electrical uses, the generator will turn at its specified speed. If the electrical load is decreased or increased without a change in water flow, the speed of the generator will correspondingly decrease or increase. When it does, the frequency will vary from 60 CPS. A change of only two or three CPS can damage electric motors. Precise controls to adjust the water flow to match the electrical load are expensive and do not result in good control for a system this small.

An electronic load controller is proposed for the system. It provides good control at an economical price. A 60,OOO-watt (60 kW) resistor load is utilized to maintain the exact balance between power generated and the electrical load in the work center. As loads are turned on or off in the work center, the amount of surplus power to the resistor load will be instantly adjusted to

9

account for tbe cbange in loads. Tbis is done electronically by monitoring tbe 60-cycle frequency of tbe generator. Some power must continually be wasted to tbe resistor in order to be able to maintain a balance in tbe system. Energy dumped to the resistor load can be recovered for building beat, etc., if tbe resistor is used to beat water in a tank. Since this resistor can be located anywbere in tbe electrical system, tbe tank, or several small tanks can be located near any building(s) in tbe work center.

A second feature of tbe governing system controls tbe water flow in conjunction witb tbe load controller. It consists of a valve which will vary the flow of water to one of tbe two pump/turbines. If tbe amount of surplus power in tbe system approacbes the 60-kW capacity of tbe resistor load, the water flow will be reduced. In a similar fasbion, tbe water flow will be increased to tbe second turbine should tbe surplus of power to the resistor load drop below some minimum reserve level. This combination of electrical and water control is ideal for tbe system proposed for Neck Lake. It costs a fraction of tbe cost of a full water control governor while maintaining excellent control of tbe sytem. Appendix C contains an excellent description of a load/water control called Product G, produced by Tbompson and Howe Engergy Systems, Inc.

TABLE I

€=ON3'fIH1CTION C6S.!fS

Diversion Structure - 75' long x 3' high 75' x 1.5' x 3'127 = 12.5 CY Use 14 CY due to uneven foundation Labor @$500/CYj Materials @$250/Cy

Subtotal = $10,500

Intake Stucture (7' x 12' x 7') Slab 12' xl' x 7'127 = 3.11 CY Walls l' x 34' x 7'127 = 8.81

Say 12 CY@ Labor @ $250j Materials @$250/CY Intake Grate 5' x 6' W/1 ft Openings 36 ft Slide Gate Shutoff 36 ft to 30 ft Concentric Reducer

Subtotal = $11,600

Penstock 30 ft ID x 1000LF x 3/16 ft

Labor for Installation @$20/ftj Materials @$30

--tfA'PEftlALS

10

~I'-"" '" - I ' J. __ _

$ 7,000 $ 3,500

$ 3,000 o

1 ,500 200

$ 3,000 600

3,000 300

$ 4,700 $ 6,900

$ 20,000 Thrust Blocks - five @2 CY each = 24ft Isolation Valve @ Powerhouse

10 CY 1,500 $ 30,000

2,500 5,000

SUbtotal = $60,000

Access Road - 1200 LF of 14' cleared and 10' rocked, low standard Rd @$120,000/mi

1 ,000

$ 22,500 $ 37,500

$ 27,000 $ o

Turbine with speed increaser and frame mounted$ Generator--480 Volt, 3 Phase, 125 kW

$ 46,000 10,000

Electrical Controls over under Freg Guard, Micro-Processor, Water & Load Control Governor, (Product G) Electrical Design Consultation (Thompson & Howe) Installation of above unit

Subtotal = $63,500

2,000 B,OOO

3,500

$ 10,000 $ 59,500

•

CONS TRueTI ON COSTS· LABOR

Transmission Line 3820 LF 12 kV Wood Pole Transmission Line Materials @$4/ftj Construction @$6 Two Transformers 480 V to 12 kV

Subtotal = $50,300

Electrical Equipment in Work Center needed to utilize surplus power for building heat.

10 Load Management Relays • Duct Heating Elements

Warehouse one 5 kW, one 7.5Kw Office two 5 kW Barracks one 10 kW, one 14 kW 3 Trailers w/5 kW in each trailer

Subtotal = $9,500

Backup 30 kW Diesel Generator

11

MATERIALS-

$ 23,000 $ 15,300

5,000 7,000

$ 28,000 $ 22,300

goO

$ 5,000

goo

1 ,400 1 ,300

$ 9,500

(Stand alone, not synchronized with hydro) * 20,000

Powerhouse Building 18' x 24' Excavation Building 6' x 18' x 24'/27

Tailrace 6' x 4' x 40'/27 @$40/CY

= 96 = 26

132 32

1 0 • 5 Concrete Slab 2' x 18' x 24'127= Walls: 10" x 4'x 85 LF/27 = Tailrace l' x 35' x 8'/27 Materials @$250/CY, Labor @$250

= .1JLJl. 50.5

6' of f 2amed wall and roof 432 ft x $30/sq ft

Subtotal = $43,500

Total = $301,900

CY cx

$ 5,300 Cy

12,600 $12,600

7,000 6,000

$24,900 $18,600

$124,100 + $177,800

Electric resistance duct heaters may not make the best use of surplus energy. They were only used to represent an added cost need to utilize the surplus power. Electric heating elements in a hot water heating system are preferred.

12

IV. ADgineering Parameters

This section outlines the engineering considerations which affect hydroelectric generation on Neck Creek.

Figure V depicts the hydro system using a 30-inch diameter penstock. It shows that a maximum of 260 kW could be produced if 70 eFS flows through the penstock. The maximum usable flow, however, will be limited to 25 CFS which is the capacity the turbine can handle. This capcity was set to produce the estimated power needs of 130 kW for the work center. The horizontal line' with the triangle legend indicates this maximum output of 130 kW.

The line with the square legend plots the usable head at the turbine after frictional losses in the penstock are deducted. At a flow of 25 CFS, the head loss is only 3 feet and the velocity within the penstock is slightly over 5 ft/sec. (The velocity line is plotted with a factor of 10, so the listed velocity of 50 becomes 5 ft/sec.)

280

260

240

220

(:: 200 u 0 180 ...J w > 160 0 z 140 « ~ 120 ~

0 100

l5 80 :r::

60

40

20

0

KW, HEAD, & VEL. VS FLOW FOR A 30" DIA. PENSTOCK

v V ~ ~ --- f-

/' V ~

/ V

/V ..... - ~

/ V ~ V

/ V /

V V / ;.--:::::

V V V

V ~ V

/ ..,/

./ ~.- l-

I( V .... HI- -t

./ / --, 8-- -t

V / V .--.......,p

It?-V

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

o HEAD + KW FLOW IN CFS <> VEL. * 10

Figure V MAX KW

14

Figure VI shows four velocity curves. A system sized for 25 CFS requires a 30-inch pipe size to limit the maximum water velocity to 5 ft/sec in the pipeline. The other curves are for velocities of 3, 1, and 9 ft/sec.

The maximum water velocity within the penstock of 5 ft/sec is a rule of thumb which:

1. reduces the need and size of thrust blocks at angle points.

2. I minimizes the range of operating heads at the turbine caused by frictional losses in the penstock. This results in more efficient generation throughout the range of usable flows.

PIPE DIAMETER VS FLOW FOR GIVEN VELOCITIES IN THE PIPES

so,-------------------------------~----~--------~--~

40~--------------------------~----~------~~--------~

~ 301r--------------------~~--~----~~------------~~--u ~

~ ~ 20~--------------~--~----~~-4------~~------------~

101r----~~~~~~----~~----_+----------------------~

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46

PIPE DIAMETER IN INCHES o 3'/5 + 5'/5 ~ 7'/5 A 9'/5

Figure VI

15

Table II lists the system's electrical output given the input values of 80 feet of static head, 25 CFS flow, 1000 ft of 30 inch steel penstock with a manning coefficient of .012, and an overall system efficiency of 78%. The power output is calculated at 127 kW using the formula:

kW = E x Q x H/11.8

where E is the system's efficiency factor of 78%, H is the usable head which is the 80 feet of static head less the 3.17 feet of frictional losses, Q is the flow in CFS, and 11.8 is a conversion factor to convert ftllbs of work to kilowatts.

The bottom block on Figure II lists average monthly flows in Neck Creek. It is easily seen that the proposed system will always have sufficient flow to operate at full capacity. These monthly flows were taken from the Hydrologic report in Appendix A. The flows for Neck Creek were determined using seven years of actual flow records in addition to 19 years of flow data on a nearby stream. While the average flows exceed the hydro plant's demand, the 25 CFS flow will not be available during the low water years. Based on the lowest water year of 20 years of record, two feet of additional impoundment in Neck Lake is required to provide a continuous 25 CFS outflow. A 3-foot high diversion structure (dam) would be necessary at the point of diversion. This structure would raise the level of the lake 2 feet. See Figures VII & VIII for a conceptual plan for the diversion and intake structures.

Table III contains the data used to develop Figures I through IV. The top portion contains the input data which was used to calculate the annual cash flows for the 25 year analysis period. This table was developed using a "spread sheet" on a personal computer, and thus the formulas used in the calculations are not shown. The calculations for the Diesel System are duplicated in a trackable form in Appendix B.

JAh! r~-EB

MAR APf;: MAY .)UI'-I

JUt {.UG bEF' OCT NIJ'J DEC

Pi_ANT FACTOf':

ciH,; II·H. Efe I 1\lf:; F'AI=,:,c.\Hl r EF~, ·fOt-

hJL.Cf l ?',f:.E Hyr\F~fi bTU"y' (J N Fj=,: HJ C. E. m- l'!i~~ u= ~'3 I EiUH,J!) TDH(:;f:)~';h NHTICII,!AL FUF,[ Sl by Greg Watkins Oct 2~, lQS4

********************.**************~******~ * PI F'E: I> I Ar'lf~n: F: *. ~)I HLiil1 1'1A 1 I·! I . F LUl·j

* STAfrC HFf4D ~. PI F'E L FI-.IC-nH

* 1'1i-~NNINU N * SYBlE!"'1 EFF ICIEN[:'{ .~.

_. -' ;:::

::;;;

.-.

:3() j :5 GO

1 000 O. I) 1 .) . ..:..

0 . 78

lHCHES * C! ~-) .,. FEET '* F EEl *

* % *

* ****************~************************'**

* * -!I'

*

MAX USEABLE FL(JL\i

HEAD LClbS ?-'iT 1'1"-1:< NAX F'()(.;JFI::': OUTPUT l'1f~ X VEL . I hi F'E Nf=l

AVG FLUl·J

USE?lhd:. FLLHoJ

80 ""':,c ( ! "- . .J • -t!(i 25. ( ! -c,.'O :?5 0

1 ; (J r iL.- (; J. . .::. ..... J.

90 =:.~ ~j , i -60 L~5 .. 0 ::'0 ,.... .• c::- r I ~,.J. -70 "', t..: ( , ,,-.:... ,_J $I. -90 2=,. ( -)

1E30 ::?~:: & 0 150 25. (;

100 :-,t:: ,;"...J • 0

1.00

:::::

F- LOl') -

ClU

.:::

-

HVG filA))

77 >-'7 /,

77 ,/7 77 7'7 77 7) 77 77 77 77

·-lit:': ,£. ..... .1 • ()2;

-;1· 17 ,..:;: . 12:7

0::-,.J. j

AVe-; f': l';

12/ 1 ~2·7 1 27 j '::..'1 1 27 1 ,.~.-,

",,;:./

1 27 1 ':') -, 1 27 1 27 127 ITI

CFS * FLEl ~

Kl.J ¥

Fl !S!::~L '*

POi;.JEF: (Mt.Jhr)

'7'C -' 86 95 q"-' c,"" J,.J

92 9'" ~,

('~)5

92 9'-'-' '7'::: 9"''-, ....J

Table II

16

J f:i~ , , r-'- L, M{,:,R

AP~' I"'~ .:.:, {

,JUt; 1 i II \., .... :,.

"'dG £;E: f' Cli~~' 1"

t'·Il_J," DEC

TABLE III

ECONOMIC SU"~A~l OF DIESEL 6E~E~~TOR~ ~S. H,~~0

Al WHALE PASS WO~K CENTER, RESiGN 10 by Greg IidUin~ Nll> 3, 1;;84

HVDRO CD~STRUCTION COSTS HYDRO OPER .• "~I~T. COS 1 @ 41 DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ANt.iUAL O'ER. "Ii i NT. COS T 5 @ 6~

IN!TIA~ ~jESEl FUEL COS1!YR ENERG~ E5CALlA!IC~ RATE INTEREST F:ATE PERIOu OF AN4L~5!S

SALVAGE VAlUE FOR HYDRD SALVAGE VALUE FO~ DIESEL

421~iJ',) DDLLA~:S

1689tl DDLLI1RS '10??!) [}CU4~'S

SHS OOLLAj;~

38757 DDLL A;;:S 4 VVR. 7 FrH.

2S YEARS 42470 DOLLAR~ 22£{«, DOLLARS

17

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DIESEL GENERATDR COSTS HYDRO GENERATIO~ COS'S

CDN:1 AN~UAL ANNUiL ACCli~ . • CONST. ANN:JAL AN!-i:';~L AI' Iii , J_L·

YEAR COSTS o ~ 11 F~E~ CO~T COSTS COSTS , ros's G & II! COSTS CV::TS ,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pw :: 120404 63433 6831141 a~7478 4i4575 1968'19 611474

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(l v072(' 0 0 90720 90720 I 422400 (I 422400 42240':; I

5443 4(,}O7 45750 136470 I 16896 16€% 439296 , 2 5443 41920 47363 183833 I 1699:: 1/:0896 456192 , 3 5443 43596 4904(' 232873 I 10890 l:e96 473088 I

4 5443 4534(' 50793 2a3~56 1 16890 16a96 489984 I

5 5443 47154 52597 336253 ! 16890 11:896 50b88;)

6 5443 49(l40 54483 390736 : 1689b !6~9b 523)'6 7 5443 51 "(,~ SoH5 447lB! 1 IbB9/; 16896 54C67'L ... V"'.I. 1 8 5443 53042 5B485 50561:6 1 16896 16890 557568 I

9 5443 55163 606(;6 560212 1 Ib89b 16896 574464 1 10 4400(1 5443 57)70 62813 673086 , 16891: I!,S;o 5913bO , II 5443 59665 6510B 736193

, 10696 16896 008256 , 12 5443 62051 67494 BO~,6gB I 16896 16E~·6 625:52 I

13 54~3 64533 69976 875604 : 16896 Ib896 b~2v48

14 5443 67115 72558 948222 I 16896 10SQ6 6~B944 , 15 5443 69799 75242 1023404 , 16B9b 16896 675840 , 16 5443 72591 78',134 1101499 , 16896 10810 6927~i;; , 17 5443 75495 80938 1182437 1 16896 1b896 709632 1 18 5443 78515 83958 12663q4 , 16896 16SQ6 72b528 I

19 5443 81655 87098 1353493 1 16896 16896 743424 ,

20 44000 5443 84921 90365 1487857 I 16896 16890 760320 I

21 5443 98318 93761 1581619 1 168% 16890 77721b 1 22 5443 91851 97294 1678913 I 16896 Ib896 794112 I

23 5443 95525 100908 1779881 I 1689:: 16896 Bllooe I

24 5443 99346 104789 1884670 , 16896 16B96 8279iJ4 1 25 -22000 5443 103320 10B763 1971433 I -42470 Ib891; 10896 802330 I

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-THE INFOR"ATION IN THIS TABLE WAS USED TO DEVEL~P FIGURES 1, II, III, l I~. Table III

-

ACCESS ROAD, PENSTOCK, & DIVERSION

CONC.PTUAL

•••• TOCK

P ... ITOCK .U •••• D"J,.Jo-..... 10' ACCESS .N .OAD

s ~. ~ECK CREEK

f s

'S

--11'r-

.IW ••• IO. IT.UC1'VII. CliO II I.CTlO ..

• .. L.T ITIIUCTUII.

NECK

LAKE

DIV •• IIO .. IT.UCTU ••

APPROX. SKETCH SCALE: 114 liZ; 10 I

Figure VII

·1

f" ~

In 1-1: I .:t I n U'" I U n I: ,CONCIPTUAL allfON)

DIVERSION STRUCTURE

A I ..,.,'

""'" f" 0 j ... ,

PLAN VIEW

3"~ AIR VENT

SECTION A-A

,.--

"- 1--.

~

/ - ...

,

(1 II II

" " II

~

5711

A

..

I I

"

I

I I

I

19

" " /

" "

7. I

J

Figure VIII SCALE: V'" .. "; 1'·0"

w 0

~

::r <.!)

::r z c:t W ~

w > 0 m c:t

r-w w ~

1000 900 En> 700 600 500

DISTANCE IN FEET

a •

NECK CREEK PROFILE -HORIZONlAL SCALE APPROXIMAlE-

FALLS

)

400 300 200

:t!'

POWER HOUSE

100 MEAN HIGH llDE

Figure IX

t-)

0

APPENDIX A

HYDROLOGIC & HYDRAULIC

FEASIBILITY REPORT

For The

NECK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC SITE

PRINCE Of WALES ISLAND, ALASKA

By

LOUIS R. BARTOS - HYDROLOGIST

1984

\ , \,

y : \

. \ .'

t '-'