Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
02/14/2013 07:30 AM Senate SENATE SPECIAL COMM ON IN-STATE ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for Energy and Power | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON IN-STATE ENERGY
February 14, 2013
7:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator John Coghill, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Charlie Huggins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS~ ALASKA CENTER FOR
ENERGY AND POWER
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Alaska Center
for Energy and Power.
ACTION NARRATIVE
7:30:17 AM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Special Committee on In-
State Energy meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. Present at the call
to order were Senators Micciche, Egan, Wielechowski, Co-Chair
Coghill and Co-Chair Bishop.
^OVERVIEW: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for
Energy and Power
OVERVIEW: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for
Energy and Power
7:31:03 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced that the business before the committee
would be an overview by Gwen Holdmann for the Alaska Center for
Energy and Power (ACEP).
7:31:39 AM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), stated that the In-State
Energy Committee had worked on some serious issues for the
state. She noted that various ACEP projects were very relevant
to some of the issues that were before the committee. She
disclosed that ACEP projects addressed current and long range
opportunities, some extending 10 to 50 years into the future.
MS. HOLDMANN called attention to Alaska's energy use and
explained the following as to what the state was on track to
spend if it did nothing:
· $5 billion on diesel fuel in rural Alaska.
· $60 billion on fossil fuels for Railbelt electric power
generation.
She noted that Alaska's total energy related appropriations
since 2008 was $2.3 billion for the Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) program, Renewable Energy (RE) Fund, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) programs, pipeline initiatives, and
the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what the timeline was for the state to
spend $5 billion on diesel and $60 billion on fossil fuels.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the energy use data was based upon a
20 year horizon.
She said Alaska's energy challenges were as follows:
· High energy costs, an issue from many parts of the state.
· Fragmented electric grid, the state was disconnected to
other electric grids and that posed different challenges as
opposed to the Lower 48.
· Harsh climate, the negative effects on energy
infrastructure.
· End of supply lines.
· Stranded resources, the state had fantastic fossil and
renewable resources, but a lot were stranded.
· Dispersed population.
7:34:59 AM
MS. HOLDMANN addressed her role with ACEP. She explained that
she came from the private sector as a project developer and had
been involved in building projects in the past. She stated that
there was a real role for the University of Alaska (UA) in
working with industry, communities, and the legislature in
trying to figure out how to move forward. She said there were
three main ways that UA could play a role as follows:
· Developing information for decision makers by providing:
information on technology testing and optimization;
industry information on technologies that were most
appropriate for the Alaska environment; and energy analysis
to support policy makers.
· Preparing students to work in energy related disciplines to
provide education opportunities and to work closely with
Alaska industry for energy related jobs.
· Commercializing energy innovation to assist businesses in
industry wide challenges.
She noted an example of an industry challenge for hydrokinetics
due to debris. She said debris was a problem for every
hydrokinetic manufacturer with interest in Alaska. She explained
that ACEP had developed a debris diversion system and tested it
last summer in Nenana. She stated that the Nenana test was
successful and energy related developments with the private
sector could also be used outside of Alaska.
7:37:57 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked for additional information on ACEP's
debris diversion system.
MS. HOLDMANN stated that ACEP was doing "real stuff" rather than
just completing studies. She said ACEP subjected the Nenana
debris diversion system to breakage-test conditions and the
system responded well. She divulged that ACEP was seeking a
patent for the debris diversion system due to its unique active-
design. She remarked how excited the industry partners were
after seeing the debris diversion system work in Nenana.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that ACEP was doing their work on a
minimal budget and noted their [FY13 Capital Improvement Plan]
(CIP) request for support to continue commercial energy
innovation projects.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that Alaska had pieces but not an actual
statewide energy plan and explained that a good baseline was
missing. He asked if a study were funded, would ACEP have the
capacity to divide the state into logical segments that
specified the available sources.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes. She said ACEP had been doing exactly
the kind of work Senator Micciche noted. She explained that ACEP
worked closely with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the
Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS). She
noted that ACEP had been working with ADGGS on geothermal and
coal resource options.
7:40:41 AM
She explained that ACEP was building research teams at UAF. She
noted that UAF had a wealth of existing knowledge and expertise.
She said there was no need for ACEP to hire new people; the
objective was to take advantage of the people that were already
at the university with energy related capabilities. She
commented that some individuals were not aware of their energy
research capabilities and noted an example of fish biologists
being involved with ACEP's hydrokinetics program. She said ACEP
built teams across disciplines, schools, institutions, and
campuses. She said ACEP worked closely with UAA's Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER) and the School of
Engineering. She summarized that ACEP pulled together teams,
worked on an issue, and moved on to do something else.
She said ACEP worked closely with industry on research teams.
She stressed that ACEP made sure not to compete with industry
and noted an example of bringing in private sector companies to
do a bathymetric study for hydrokinetics work and a geophysical
study to support ACEP's geothermal work in Nome. She said the
focus was on formulating research questions and determining how
the university could address them.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented that he agreed with Senator Micciche
relating to an energy baseline concept. He said he was a fan of
T. Boone Pickens who stated, "We are going to go down as the
dumbest nation on earth if we do not get an energy plan in the
United States." He noted that Jack Welch said, "The single
number one thing this country could do, is get an energy plan."
He said Alaska should have an energy plan.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that she would not be surprised if Co-
Chair Bishop's words were echoed in the Alaska State Capital 30
years ago.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP replied that the words were echoed in the Alaska
State Capital 50 years ago.
MS. HOLDMANN said energy planning has been worked on a lot in
addition to being addressed by the Senate In-State Energy and
Resources committees. She stated that she had worked with
Senator Wielechowski in the past on energy issues and she
applauded those efforts, but noted that the state needs to
continue moving forward.
7:43:21 AM
She presented an example of how geothermal exploration teams
were built at UAF. She noted that there was some geothermal
potential in the Cook Inlet area and other regions throughout
the state. She said ACEP's team concept led to bringing together
researchers from UAF's Geophysical Institute (GI). She noted
that GI pioneered a mapping technique for volcanoes to look for
pending eruptions by identifying heat areas and mapping
underground coal fires. She said ACEP applied GI's mapping
technique to low temperature geothermal evaluation. She said
ACEP received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
to test GI's mapping technique because exploration costs could
be greatly reduced. She noted that the challenge with geothermal
exploration was ACEP's highest expense. She stated that the
testing could have been done anywhere in the U.S., but ACEP
received the DOE grant to be applied in Alaska. She said ACEP
chose Pilgrim Hot Springs, outside of Nome, as an ideal resource
location due to its geothermal development potential on mainland
Alaska. She explained that the Pilgrim Hot Springs project had
been successful and its hot water source was identified, a long
standing mystery. She said ACEP was moving forward with the next
phases of exploration to access Pilgrim Hot Spring's potential
for community and landowners. She noted that in addition to
geothermal development, a significant graphite resource was
discovered ten miles from Pilgrim Hot Springs. She noted that
ACEP viewed plans in isolation as well as a taking a bigger
holistic view. She said ACEP would continue to look at locations
where energy resources were in concert with mineral resources
and Alaska's communities.
MS. HOLDMANN said unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) were going to
be used to expand exploration. She explained that using a UAV's
aerial perspective for geothermal exploration allowed ACEP to
expand Pilgrim Hot Springs' "footprint" from very small to a
four mile area. She said Pilgrim Hot Springs was a substantial
resource with a magnitude that was larger than the Chena Hot
Springs resource. She stated that the Pilgrim Hot Springs had
potential for the Nome region.
7:46:16 AM
She said the geothermal mapping for heat evaluation was being
used to target improved weatherization. She explained that an
entire city could be mapped with the largest heat loss problems
identified and quantified.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP addressed the use of UAV and noted that FLIR
technology would be used for targeting residential energy
efficiency measures. He asked what the acronym "FLIR" stood for.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that (FLIR) stood for Forward Looking
Infrared Radiometry. She explained that FLIR was basically
infrared imaging, a technique that ACEP did not develop. She
said FLIR was used worldwide, but ACEP created algorithms that
enhanced the processing technique to remove interfering
background signals in order to identify a quantifiable number
for heat.
She addressed how ACEP was funded and explained that $750,000 in
base funding was provided annually by the state of Alaska. She
said ACEP currently had $18 million and 20 active projects
across a whole gamut of different technology areas. She stated
that ACEP's team building concept allowed for their grant and
contract acquisition. She explained that ACEP was a research
enterprise that acted as a funding source for UA. She said the
$18 million in funded grants and contracts supported UA's base
operations and long term stability. She revealed that $4 million
was funding base operations at UAF so that ACEP had lights and
power. She brought attention to the fact that ACEP was bringing
in $14 for every $1 that it received from the state.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what kind of U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) projects ACEP had been working on.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that ACEP had been working with DOD quite
a lot on looking at fuel supply issues and the option for
potentially having a coal to liquids or gas to liquids supply in
Alaska. She said ACEP had looked at some of the language in the
Defense bill that related to Section 526, a DOD provision that
does not allow fossil fuels replacement with something with a
higher "greenhouse gas" footprint and the impacts on what DOD
could use for fuel supplies in Alaska.
7:49:13 AM
MS. HOLDMANN said ACEP's projects were funded by different
mechanisms and were dispersed throughout Alaska. She noted a
legislative requested project pertaining to Small Modular
Nuclear Reactor (SMR). She explained that ACEP completed a
comprehensive study on SMR's potential in Alaska and opined that
SMR was a possible option for the future, but the technology was
not currently available.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP commented on SMR and addressed the use of
thorium. He asked if there was any merit in thorium based energy
and inquired if China was benefiting from their investment in
thorium research.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that thorium was valid. She explained that
there were different kinds of nuclear material that could be
used for producing heat to generate power. She noted plutonium,
thorium, and several other alternatives to uranium.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL asked if the thorium discussion was ramping up
in Canada.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that thorium was being discussed in Canada
regarding use as a process heat source. She noted that the
Canadian Oil Sands was considering SMR for heavy oil extraction.
She said the issue with SMR in the U.S. was the regulatory
process through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
She divulged that Alaska has had a huge impact in moving the
discussion forward at the national level due to the [nuclear]
project that was proposed in Galena a decade ago. She said the
proposed nuclear power plant pushed the NRC to develop a process
for SMR. She explained that nuclear industry participants pay
the NRC for running through the regulatory process, a cost
exceeding tens of millions of dollars. She noted that there were
currently no nuclear projects being reviewed by the RCA for
permitting.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL commented that Alaska's legislators were in
Washington, D.C. and spoke with the RCA. He said the RCA stated
that finding "project specific" experts to handle information
for permitting was hard to obtain. He explained that the energy
industry paid for experts to go on staff at the RCA. He said
there was a real [regulatory] barrier and noted that experts
were not involved until someone put the money down for a
particular project.
MS. HOLDMANN answered correct. She addressed Co-Chair Coghill's
interest in biomass and his instrumental role in working with
Delta High School in getting their [wood chip biomass boiler]
system up and running. She said ACEP was developing their team
concept for a long term approach to biomass. She stated that
biomass researchers were being sourced from natural resource
schools, conversion technology engineers, and atmospheric
science and pollution experts to look at particulate issues.
She said ACEP was going a step further in addressing energy
storage and alternatives for grid-management with Golden Valley
Electric Association (GVEA) to manage their generation sources.
She said ACEP was looking at GVEA's Eva Creek Wind Farm and the
use of ceramic heating as alternative heating that was
controlled at the utility level. She noted ACEP's approach in
fixing some of Alaska's energy issues by looking at the board
picture, identifying all of the available opportunities, and how
to fix problems.
7:53:55 AM
CO-CHAIR COGHILL addressed the use of flywheel technology to
assist utilities in managing loads when using alternative energy
sources.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that ACEP would be testing flywheel
technology. He addressed the challenges involved with managing
power load storage from alternative energy sources. She
explained that ACEP had been working on energy storage for a
decade by testing advanced energy technologies and worked with
Alaska partners. She noted that ACEP recently field-tested
advanced battery technology in Kotzebue and the test was not
successful due to the battery's inability to function in an
Arctic environment.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL addressed GVEA's Battery Energy Storage System
(BESS) and its use for power outages. He noted that he had not
heard of any critical oversight of BESS and asked if ACEP had
been involved with its testing.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that BESS had been very successful in what
it was designed to do and that was to support the northern end
of the Intertie. She noted that BESS was only designed for 300
lifetime charge-discharge cycles. She addressed Co-Chair
Coghill's focus on integrating a non-firm energy source like
wind on a grid and the requirement to use a spinning reserve,
intermittent storage or other mechanism for shifting power
support. She said ACEP was looking at whether [battery] storage
with its inherent inefficiencies and costs was the only
mechanism for power shifting support or whether ceramic dump-
loads controlled at the utility level was an option. She
explained that ceramic dump-loads were heating sources with
inherently more efficiencies than batteries. She noted that ACEP
was looking at viable battery technologies.
7:56:55 AM
SENATOR EGAN asked for an explanation on flywheel technology.
MS. HOLDMANN responded that there was an operating flywheel
being used at Usibelli Coal Mine. She explained that flywheels
stored energy in a rotating mass. She said the flywheel's size
and rotational speed dictated the inertia available for energy
storage. She said the flywheels ACEP was looking at did not
store large amounts of energy, but could efficiently source
small amounts of energy for short periods of time. She noted
that if there was a gust or dramatic shift in load, the flywheel
was used to smooth out transient loads. She said Alaska had not
used flywheels beyond Usibelli Coal Mine. She explained that
flywheel technology was a potential strategy and noted that ACEP
lab testing would occur with a Williams Technology flywheel
within the next six months.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL addressed the logistical challenges with
shipping a 50 ton flywheel.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that some flywheel models were small. She
said ACEP was working with Boeing on flywheels and noted their
development of two small flywheels that were based upon high
strength, light-weight materials. She remarked that Boeing had
asked if their flywheel program could be transferred to ACEP,
but funding was not available. She explained that ACEP's
flywheel niche was the integration issue.
7:59:07 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that flywheel technology was over 100
years old. He noted that old compressors used to have large
flywheels before energy was thought to be more dispensable.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that she agreed. She explained that there
was nothing wrong with looking at old technology and seeing how
it applied in today's world. She noted that Chena Hot Springs'
geothermal system was a perfect example and there was nothing
new with their power plant. She remarked that Chena Hot Springs'
geothermal system was essentially a refrigeration system that
runs in reverse. She explained that the older technology was
currently applied in a way that could not be done in the past.
MS. HOLDMANN stated that ACEP was focused on looking at future
economic development opportunities for residents and businesses.
She noted that there were challenges, but extensive dealings
with energy issues provided the state with a comparative
advantage in niche areas where Alaska was, or could become or a
world leader. She detailed an example of Alaska's comparative
advantage relating to small-islanded electric grids with excess
wind energy that could not be sent elsewhere. She said high
contribution renewables was an area that Alaska excelled in and
nowhere in the U.S. had work been done to the same degree.
She remarked that Alaska was the established worldwide expert in
the integration of wind with diesel technologies and people from
other countries had come to learn about its system development.
She said having a leg-up on energy technologies provided
opportunities for fledgling businesses to potentially be working
in other places throughout the world. She noted that Iceland
leveraged their geothermal expertise by providing free education
for individuals from countries with high geothermal potential.
She explained that Iceland's knowledge strategy opened a
pipeline for its geothermal businesses to benefit from the
worldwide connections made through its free education program.
She said Iceland had a leg-up with international development in
geothermal projects.
8:02:59 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP noted Iceland's strategy and explained that
Sweden did the same thing in the bridge building business.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that was correct and noted that
international training was an interesting strategy.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL asked to address what technologies had landed
well in connecting wind-diesel.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that Alaska had built a lot of different
systems that used very different strategies. She said there was
a system in St. Paul that was duplicated at a radar facility in
Tin City where 100 percent wind operation was attained with no
diesel and no storage use. She explained that thermal dump-loads
were used to heat water with a synchronous condenser to maintain
voltage frequency support. She stated that other strategies used
energy storage and battery systems. She disclosed that the plan
in Kotzebue was to integrate a battery system for a "high
penetration" wind-diesel system. She explained that there were
30 developed wind projects in Alaska with some underperforming
installations that could be improved. She noted that wind energy
control and distribution was another strategy that ACEP was
addressing in their lab. She described how the ACEP lab was able
to duplicate Alaska's electric grid. She stated that data from
any community could be programmed to simulate any real world
event that allowed ACEP to tweak and improve systems. She noted
a simulation example for Kokhanok that allowed the developer and
manufacturer to fix their field problem in the ACEP lab. She
referred to the Kokhanok situation as an example of ACEP working
with industry.
8:06:44 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP addressed Ms. Holdmann's overview of how ACEP
provided technical support in addition to research and
development support to solve problems. He noted how Alaska's
Institute of Technology (AVTEC) had integrated hands-on training
for diesel, wind, and solar in a real-time program similar to
ACEP's lab simulation program. He said AVTEC did "blue collar"
training for rural Alaskans to maintain, service, and manage
their respective energy systems. He explained that the hands-on
training program was a win-win between ACEP and AVTEC.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that cross-training between ACEP and AVTEC
was occurring on that day. She said ACEP's entire wind-team was
at AVTEC for a two-day training session with UA researchers and
community members throughout the state.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP remarked that ACEP and AVTEC had a plan and
worked well together.
MS. HOLDMANN referred to a world map that showed lighting energy
use at night. She said there was a large part of the world
without consistent access to reliable electric power. She noted
that isolated villages were impacted by the information-age by
showing greater concern as to how to recharge cell phones rather
than powering lights at night. She explained that electricity
for isolated areas would not have power grids similar to the
Lower 48 and specified that the isolated areas throughout the
world would have small "patchwork" networks with similar
challenges to Alaska's isolated villages. She noted that ACEP's
Renewable Integrations Program had an Australian researcher
involved to address Australia's 75 nonintegrated communities in
the Northern Territory. She explained that the Northern
Territory did high-penetration solar-diesel systems and the
concept was comparable to Alaska's program. She said ACEP was
working on an international level and noted that a Danish
researcher had been involved with their research team. She added
that national labs had been a big partner of ACEP.
8:10:14 AM
MS. HOLDMANN reiterated ACEP's lab simulation capabilities with
its "village in a box" concept. She explained that the ACEP lab
was designed to look at integration issues in a rural community
at full power levels with the same sized diesel and wind
systems. She emphasized that the ACEP lab was scalable to
integration issues with the Railbelt as well as in villages. She
noted that ACEP's lab was the only facility like it in the
world. She said ACEP pieced their lab system together with
funding from multiple sources with the concept based on what
ACEP and industry envisioned what was needed as a tool to
perfect system integration. She noted that a large number of
projects were lined up for testing in the ACEP lab. She revealed
that a problem existed with the necessity to build out the ACEP
lab to achieve the full level of capabilities and technology
ranges. She noted that flywheel testing would require a
containment system.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked what a flywheel containment system was.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that flywheels rotated at high revolutions
per minute (RPM) and a containment system would contain the
flywheel in case of failure. She noted that the containment
system was not a huge cost, but a real cost that needed to be
developed.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked to confirm that the containment system
would address a flywheel that might come apart, not an energy
storage issue for the containment of power.
MS. HOLDMANN explained that ACEP had been testing several
batteries and one example was a flow-battery from Prudent
Energy. She noted that ACEP had worked with Prudent Energy
through several flow-battery generations for possible
improvement, mechanism failure identification, and deployment in
the field. She revealed that the last flow-battery version
worked really well, but the economic analysis revealed that the
battery's cost was too high and lower cost parts changes led to
system failure. She noted that the flow-battery was intended to
go out into the field, but the energy cost was not viable at
$0.26 per kilowatt hour (kWh). She explained that testing was
not about technical success, but economic viability as well.
MS. HOLDMANN noted that ACEP was addressing waste heat recovery
and brought attention to a success story from recent testing.
She explained that the waste heat recovery device that was
tested was similar to the device used at the Chena Hot Spring's
power plant where additional power was generated from low
quality heat. She disclosed that the tested recovery device used
a diesel generator's rejected heat to generate power. She said a
one thousand hour test was completed on the waste heat recovery
device through a range of different scenarios and the unit was
deployed at the Alaska Power & Telephone's (APT) Tok power plant
for secondary testing.
8:14:11 AM
She addressed niche technologies regarding hydrokinetics and
noted that debris was the industry's biggest challenge. She said
ACEP had deployed debris diversion devices and the units worked
effectively last summer in Nenana. She explained that a 25
kilowatt (kW) hydrokinetic unit was deployed via Alaska Power &
Telephone (AP&T) in Eagle, Alaska with the deployment meeting
about half of the community's needs.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP confirmed that avoiding debris on the [Tanana
River] in Nenana would be a challenge.
MS. HOLDMANN agreed that debris was an issue in Nenana.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if ACEP was doing any subsurface work
that was not seasonally influenced. He inquired if permitting
departments would be willing to allow subsurface hydro-projects
in rivers and tidal zones.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that ACEP had a close relationship with the
permitting agencies and noted that the agencies appreciated
ACEP's comprehensive analysis in order to streamline the
permitting process. She explained that the worry was not so much
with adult fish, but rather with out-migrating smolt in the
fastest moving part of a river. She noted that no one had ever
done surveys in the middle of a river channel and explained that
ACEP had to devise a way to capture fish. She said ACEP's fish
biologists were addressing how to deal with [juvenile] salmon
migration patterns and providing the information to the
applicable permitting agencies. She stated that ACEP was
addressing the permitting challenges for the industry and what
kind of information could be produced to make the process
easier.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked about the possibilities for subservice
operations to avoid seasonal generation.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that there were two problems with
subservice operations. She explained that the current was not
very fast under river-ice. She said the river was groundwater
fed in the winter and the flow rate was 10 percent of summer
levels.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked about tidal possibilities.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that tidal based energy would use the same
technology as with rivers, but ACEP was first addressing issues
with water surface debris prior to subsurface debris. She
explained that both tidal and river deployments need to be
protected and ACEP's funding request would address the next step
to work with industry on the subsurface debris challenge.
8:18:07 AM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP stated that Senator Huggins was attending the
committee hearing.
MS. HOLDMANN addressed low-temp geothermal as a niche area that
Alaska was viewed as somewhat of a leader. She noted that the
very first low temperature geothermal system in the world was
installed at Manley Hot Springs in 1981. She explained that low-
temp geothermal technology was pioneered in Alaska and the state
never capitalized on that. She said there were opportunities in
some of the niche technologies where Alaska had competitive
advantages to enable local businesses to leverage. She said ACEP
was involved with the Chena Geothermal plant while addressing
smaller units from industrial waste heat sources. She noted that
waste heat from oil wellheads was a possibility and explained
that the oil industry was in a lot of ways Alaska's largest
producer of geothermal energy on the planet because there was a
lot of heat coming out of the ground along with the oil. He said
waste heat from a diesel generator was another opportunity to
make more use of the fuel that was already being used.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that he was used to a typical efficiency
on a combined-cycle to be as much as 40 percent. He asked if
efficiencies were being realized from waste heat derived from
smaller internal combustion waste heat units.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that the efficiency improvements were on a
small scale at a few percentage points. She said the [waste
heat] units did not cost very much and their cost could be
recovered over a relatively short time horizon, approximately
three years. She explained that projects like waste heat
recovery had a short payback period and did not require grant
support. She noted that ACEP worked with AP&T as an established
utility to act as a partner on projects like testing waste heat
recovery.
She said AEA had asked ACEP to look at fuel additives and
address improving combustion cycle efficiencies. She said ACEP
was taking a holistic look at all of the fuel additives marketed
in Alaska to ascertain creditable information for utilities and
industry.
8:22:01 AM
She addressed difficult to extract fossil fuels and noted that
Alaska had a lot of fossil resources with opportunities that
were further out: heavy oil, coal liquids, gas liquids, and coal
gasification. She inquired how Alaska could take advantage of
its coal resources and noted that it was one of the largest
fossil energy reserves in the world. She said it was worth
keeping an eye on technologies that might allow Alaska to export
some of its resources in the future.
She spoke about arctic shipping and noted that 46 ships took the
Northern Sea Route in 2012, a 10-fold increase since 2010. She
addressed how Alaska could take advantage of the new mineral
resources project to be discovered in the Arctic and how the
state would fit into the world economy while in-state energy
needs were addressed.
She addressed Alaska as a leader in energy technologies as
follows:
· Coil drilling technique pioneered in Alaska.
· Thermosiphons for extracting heat to maintain pipeline and
building foundations in permafrost-rich soil. She said UAF
had a big role in developing thermosiphons.
· Largest battery system in the world in Fairbanks, the BESS
system at GVEA.
· Low temperature geothermal (niche renewables).
· Leader in high contribution renewables.
MS. HOLDMANN commented that the key was how Alaska capitalized
on its leadership role in energy technologies to create academic
and job opportunities.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if ACEP interfaced with Alaska's oil
industry to address their energy and operating costs.
MS. HOLDMANN answered no. She said ACEP partnered with the oil
and gas industry in a number of small, isolated initiatives. She
cited work with British Petroleum (BP), thermosiphons use with
ExxonMobil, and remote data acquisition unit with Shell.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if ACEP worked with Alyeska Pipeline on
projects.
MS. HOLDMANN answered yes. She noted project examples pertaining
to pipeline revegetation and tapping geothermal to add heat to
the pipeline as a way to increase throughput.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL noted his appreciation that Ms. Holdmann
provided a drive to ACEP. He commended ACEP's assessment of
technology options and technology in place. He remarked that
wind technology was being installed in different locations in
Alaska for the last decade and asked what ACEP had found out
regarding wind technology operating in a cold, highly variable
temperature climate. He inquired if ACEP was involved in
discussions with wind technology manufacturers.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that there was a lot of wind turbines
designed to operate in the Arctic. She noted that there were
some deployed technologies in the state with rather substantial
failures. She explained that one of the problems was related to
cold air density and the heavier air caused problems with some
of the wind turbines. She noted that one turbine brand had
issues with tip breaks that led to some "runaway" modes with
dramatic failures. She explained that ACEP's CIP request
supported the development of an Arctic turbine test site near
Fairbanks. She said funding for the proposed test site was not a
lot of money and the project was in partnership with AEA. She
stated that ACEP was not deploying technology down the field
that was not tested in harsh environment conditions. She noted
that the test site would be located at a GVEA site in the Murphy
Dome area.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL asked if ACEP was watching current wind turbine
installations and compiling data. He inquired if the information
was proprietary.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that gathering data was an area that ACEP
could improve. She commented that publically funded projects
should provide data that was publically available. She explained
that project data should be understood in order to assist in
decisions for future projects.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL asked if the issue was related to barriers that
were created or work that had to be done.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that the tendency was to move on after a
project was built without going back to identify what worked and
what the return on investment was. She explained that ACEP was
working with AEA to address project reviews, but funding was not
available. She said the Emerging Energy Technology Grant Fund
(EETGF) program was a little different. She explained that ACEP
pioneered the EETGF program with the Denali Commission to add a
contractual step to set in place with a data management plan for
every contract. She said the data management plan for EETGF had
worked well, especially with pilot projects. She said it was a
priority for ACEP to get better information.
8:29:26 AM
CO-CHAIR COGHILL stated that transmission was a big cost for
Alaska and hardware accounted for the majority of costs. He
addressed system upgrades and asked if ACEP was working on ways
to make sure the electrons flowed better. He inquired if there
were transmission limitations and would the state have to learn
how to live with them.
MS. HOLDMANN replied that one of ACEP's challenges was operating
their program without very much base funding. She said ACEP was
reliant on external grants and contracts. She explained that
ACEP could not put a lot of work into a problem unless there was
an identified funding source. She noted that ACEP's CIP would
provide the organization with some breathing room. She addressed
the area of transmission and noted that ACEP had worked on the
High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) project. She explained that
the Denali Commission funded an ACEP project to look at smaller
HVDC convertors with Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
and Polar Consult Alaska, Inc. (PCA). She said ACEP had recently
created a fairly comprehensive assessment of HVDC transmission
technology in Alaska and worldwide. She said ACEP had been doing
comparative analysis similar to the HVDC project and noted a
comparative analysis was completed on energy options in the
Fairbanks market. She reported that the recent Fairbanks
comparative analysis showed that the natural gas trucking option
came out very positive in the analysis.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that Alaska was an energy starved
state with a tendency to jump at things that did not pencil-out.
He remarked about his interest in understanding ACEP's process
in evaluating projects. He stated that the key was evaluating
energy projects responsibly while delivering the best options
for Alaskans. He said Alaska needs a plan with a clear set of
expectations and criteria that helps Alaskans understand what
was feasible.
8:32:34 AM
MS. HOLDMANN agreed that there was a tendency to just want to
act, build, and do something. She explained that she understood
the urge to build, but looking at projects in a systematic way
was an important role that ACEP provided.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP thanked Ms. Holdmann for the presentation.
8:33:46 AM
There being no further business to come before the Senate In-
State Energy Committee, Co-Chair Bishop adjourned the meeting at
8:33 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| In-Energy feb14.pdf |
SISE 2/14/2013 7:30:00 AM |
In-State-Energy |