Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Southeast Alaska Tidal In-Stream Energy Resources
January 23, 2007 Roger Bedard/ EPRI Ocean Energy LeaderBrian Polagye/ University of Washington
Southeast Alaska
2
Summary
• An Assessment of the In-Stream Tidal Energy Resources in SE Alaska• Cross sectional area (m2)• Average depth (m)• Power density (kW/m2)• Total kinetic power in the stream (MW)
• Glacier and Lituya Bays excluded (within Glacier National Park)
• Cross Sound and Icy Strait show a massive energy potential
• Many high quality (high power density), small (low average annual power) sites could provide power for remote locations
• Recommend next steps for Alaska are• Site feasibility and economic assessments• Detailed resource measurements and modelling• Consider Cross Sound and Icy Strait in transmission intertie studies• Consider environmental sensitivity, particularly need for studying the potential
impacts on migrating salmon and whales
3
Tidal Sites in 2005/2006 EPRI North America Collaborative Study
Knik Arm AK
Tacoma Narrows WA
Golden Gate SF CA
Minas Passage NS
Western Passage ME
Muskeget Channel MA
Head Harbor Passage NB
4
Available Tidal In-Stream Power at EPRI 2005/2006 Study Sites
1,0135610413.3237106116Total kinetic power in the stream (MW)(annual depth averaged)
4.50.942.90.953.21.71.6Power Density (kW/m2)(annual depth averaged)
225,00060,00036,00017,50074,70062,60072,500Cross-sectional area (m2)
NSNBMEMACAWAAK
5
Very Late 2006 SE Alaska Tidal In Stream Resource Study
• Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) contracted EPRI to assess the In-Stream Tidal Energy Resources in SE Alaska• Cross sectional area (m2)• Average depth (m)• Power density (kW/m2) (annual depth averaged)• Total kinetic power in the stream (MW) (annual depth averaged)
• Glacier and Lituya Bays excluded (within Glacier National Park)
• EPRI Report EPRI TP – 003 – SE AK is posted under the Tidal Page at www.epri.com/oceanenergy/
6
Where are the Sites Relative to the Transmission Lines?
Wrangell Narrows
Felice Strait
Kootzhanoo Inlet
TonowekNarrows
Cross Sound and Icy Strait
Sergius Narrows
Tlevak Narrows
7
Cross Sound and Icy Strait Sites
South Inian Pass4.3 kW/m2
150 MW
South Passage0.9 kW/m2
420 MW
Gustavus
Glacier National Park
Lemesurier Island
Cross Sound
Icy Strait
Chichagof Island
Elfin Cove
North Inian Pass2.5 kW/m2
1600 MW
Large resource Strong currents
Small resource Weaker currents
North Passage1.3 kW/m2
480 MW
8
South Inian Pass Site and Bathymetry
South Inian Pass
9
South Inian Pass In Stream Power
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2/1 2/3 2/5 2/7 2/9 2/11 2/13 2/15 2/17 2/19 2/21
Day
Channel Power (MW)
Annual Average = 150 MW
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Channel Power (MW)
Annual Average = 150 MW
10
South Inian Pass Site Characteristics
Site Characteristics
Channel Width
Average Depth (MLLW reference)
Deepest Point (MLLW reference)
Average Cross-sectional Area
Maximum Surface Current
720 m
46 m
86 m
34,000 m2
4.9 m/s
Tidal Energy Statistics
Depth Average Power Density
Average Power Available
4.3 kW/m2
150 MW
11
Prince of Wales Island and Wrangell Narrows Sites
Kupreanof Island
Mitkof Island
Keene Island
Petersburg
Foul with mud and rocks
Turn Point1.8 kW/m2
9 MW
South Ledge2.6 kW/m2
12 MW
Spike Rock2.6 kW/m2
9 MW
Prince of Wales Island
Mainland
Craig
Tonowek Narrows0.7 kW/m2
11 MW
Tlevak Narrows1.5 kW/m2
18 MW
Large resource Strong currents
Small resource Weaker currents
12
Wrangell Narrows Power and Bathymetry
13
Chatham and Peril Strait Sites
Peril Strait
Chichagof Island
Baranof Island
Chatham Strait
Sergius Narrows4.5 kW/m2
25 MW
Chatham StraitAdmiralty
Island
Angoon
Mitchell Bay
Chichagof Island
Kootznahoo Inlet7.4 kW/m2
23 MW
Large resource Strong currents
Small resource Weaker currents
14
SE Alaska Site Resource SummarySite Cross
Section Average Depth
Power Density
Channel Power
m2 m kW/m2 MW Cross Sound and Icy Strait South Passage (Icy Strait) 380,000 87 1.3 480 North Passage (Icy Strait) 490,000 110 0.9 420 South Inian Pass 34,000 46 4.3 150 North Inian Pass 660,000 230 2.5 1600 Wrangell Narrows Turn Point 4700 6.8 1.8 9 South Ledge 4800 5.5 2.6 12 Spike Rock 3500 4.8 2.6 9 Chatham Strait Kootznahoo Inlet 3100 12 7.4 23 Peril Strait Sergius Narrows 5600 11 4.5 25 Prince of Wales Island Tlevak Narrows 12,000 18 1.5 18 Tonowek Narrows 15,000 18 0.7 11 Felice Strait Harris Island 60 1 1.6 0.3 Snipe Island - - 1.6 - Indian Reef - - 1.1 -
15
SE Alaska Site Commercial Potential
Site Power Density Installation Depth
Average Annual Power
Cross Sound and Icy Strait5 South Passage (Icy Strait) Moderate Moderately Deep Large North Passage (Icy Strait) Moderate/Poor Deep Large South Inian Pass Very High Optimal Large North Inian Pass High Very Deep Enormous Wrangell Narrows Turn Point Moderate/High Shallow Small South Ledge High Very Shallow Small Spike Rock High Very Shallow Small Chatham Strait Kootznahoo Inlet6 Extremely High Very Shallow Moderate Peril Strait Sergius Narrows Very High Shallow Moderate Prince of Wales Island Tlevak Narrows Moderate Optimal Moderate Tonowek Narrows Poor Optimal Small Felice Strait Harris Island Moderate Very Shallow Very Small Snipe Island Moderate Very Shallow Very Small Indian Reef Moderate/Poor Very Shallow Very Small
16
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Cross Sound and Icy Strait show a massive energy potential
• High quality (high power density), small (low average annual power) sites could provide power for remote locations
• EPRI Report EPRI TP – 003 – SE AK is posted under the Tidal Page at www.epri.com/oceanenergy
• Next steps for Alaska are
• Site feasibility and economic assessments
• Detailed resource measurements and modelling
• Consider Cross Sound and Icy Strait in Transmission Intertie studies
• Consider environmental sensitivity, particularly need for studying the potential impacts on migrating salmon and whales
• Do what is needed to attract private investors
