Factors influencing the development of wind power in rural Alaska communities
Chair
Joly, Julie LurmanCommittee
Lovecraft, AmyRose, Chris
Chapin, Terry III
Keyword
Wind powerWind power plants
Rural electrification
Remote area power supply systems
Diesel electric power-plants
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
"The state of Alaska is endowed with extensive and developable wind resources. The greatest areas of class seven, "superior" wind resources in the entire United States are located in Alaska. Developing these resources has the potential to play a pivotal role in reshaping Alaska's future by providing reliable, local, and stable-priced power. Despite this tremendous natural asset and the immeasurable benefits it harbors, Alaska's wind resources remain largely untapped and underutilized. Rural Alaskan communities, classified by their remote locations, small populations, and consequent low electric demands and high electric costs, possess some of the greatest wind resources in Alaska. The challenge, however, is to overcome the current social, political, technical, economic, and environmental constraints. This thesis aims to identify factors that contribute to and constrain the successful development of wind power projects in rural Alaska and to recommend solutions to overcome specific barriers. The findings demonstrated that the primary influencing factors included leadership, coordination at local and state levels, access to information and assistance, and local human, technical, and financial capacity. Such factors must be an integral part of planning efforts in order to advance wind power development in rural communities"--Leaf iiiDescription
Thesis (M.S.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2010Table of Contents
1. Introduction to wind power development in rural Alaska -- Introduction -- Thesis question and objective -- Research considerations -- Methodology -- Literature review -- Case studies -- Surveys -- Interviews -- Thesis structure -- 2. Background and literature review -- What is wind energy? -- Wind energy: national and global context -- Rural energy development: a global overview -- Study area: rural Alaska overview -- Rural electrification in Alaska: windfall or curse? -- Electric utilities -- Past and present wind projects in Alaska -- Energy policy: a national and state context -- Energy policy in Alaska -- Main actors/stakeholders -- Federal, state and local government -- Local community -- Electric utility -- Private sector (developers, contractors, manufacturers) -- Researchers -- Nonprofit and advocacy organizations -- 3. Thresholds and barrier to wind power development in rural Alaska -- Thresholds to wind power development -- Social thresholds -- Political thresholds -- Technical thresholds -- Economic thresholds -- Environmental thresholds -- Summary of thresholds -- Survey of barriers to wind power development -- Survey development -- Response rate and methods of analysis -- Survey results -- Background information -- Level of local acceptance and support -- Commitment of leadership -- Level of local coordination -- Level of local capacity and access to information -- State-level political barriers -- Economic considerations -- Importance of environmental and cultural protection -- Technical considerations -- Barriers identified by the winder sector -- Scope of interviews -- Regulatory barriers -- Barriers to building and utilizing local capacity -- Political barriers -- Economic barriers -- Discussion of barriers identified by the wind sector -- 4. Contributing factors to rural wind power development: case studies on existing wind-diesel power projects in Kotzebue, St. Paul Island and Kasigluk -- Case study overview -- Kotzebue case study -- Community description -- Energy infrastructure -- Kotzebue wind farm: planning and development -- Influencing factors of wind power development in Kotzebue -- Setbacks and challenges -- St. Paul Island case study -- Community description -- Energy infrastructure -- St. Paul Island wind farm: planning and development -- Influencing factors of wind power development in St. Paul -- Setbacks and challenges -- Kasigluk case study -- Community description -- Energy infrastructure -- Kasigluk wind farm: planning and development -- Influencing factors of wind power development in Kasigluk -- Setbacks and challenges -- Common influencing factors among Kotzebue, St. Paul Island, and Kasigluk -- 5. Conclusion and discussion -- Influencing factors for development -- Leadership/project champion -- Local, regional, and statewide networks -- Local capacity: human, technical, and financial -- Access to information and information dissemination -- Recommendations -- Recommendations for the State of Alaska -- Recommendations for communities -- Closing -- References -- Appendix.Date
2010-05Type
ThesisCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
The Extralegal Forum and Legal Power: The Dynamics of the Relationship — Other PipelinesDiverse groups — e.g., Brazilian squatters, Navajos, village Eskimos and Indians — look to special forums to resolve disputes outside the formal legal system. These forums are employed because they accept disputes as defined by their clients and offer remedies based upon these conceptualizations. Formal agents of the law in their environments cannot do this. When these forums are extralegal (without formal legal authority to act) and are located in an environment where the formal legal process has the theoretical capacity to intervene in the disputes, they must tap into authentic lines of power to maintain their credibility with their constituents. Legal power is not usually formally delegated without defined limits upon its use. Because extralegal forums often must be free from the constraints of particular norms and processes, in order to correctly define and remedy disputes, extralegal forums seek borrowed power through special relationships with formal agents of legal power. Then they reapply it to meet the needs of their constituents. This paper describes the ways to study these relationships and their likely impact upon an informal forum. The author suggests a way of viewing extralegal dispute resolution in a given community against the larger matrix of relationships between the formal and informal legal process. He draws upon his field work in Brazilian squatter colonies, Navajo Indian communities, and rural Athabascan and Eskimo villages in Alaska.
-
Small Scale Modular Nuclear Power: An Option for Alaska?Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Economic Screening Analysis SMRs are nuclear power plants smaller than 300 MW. Compat Design, factory-fabricated, scaleable, transportable. Modeling goals: Where in Alaska does currently developed SMR technology make economic sense? How sensitive are outcomes to varying capital and conventional energy costs?
-
Power Cost Equalization Funding Formula ReviewThe purpose of this study is to examine the current Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program formula’s impacts on incentives for implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. In addition, it examines if alternative formula structures might improve market signals that are more conducive to investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy in rural Alaska. As part of the analysis we also present information on the history of the PCE program and levels and patterns of electricity consumption across regions of Alaska. Alaska has large regional and intra-regional differences in energy consumption and prices that result from a number of factors including proximity to different types and quantities of resources, community population, remoteness, and transportation costs. Most communities in rural Alaska depend on volatile and high priced fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, space heating and transportation. The Alaska statewide weighted average residential rate for electricity (17.6 cents per kWh in CY2011) is substantially higher than the U.S. average of 11.8 cents per kWh (U.S. EIA, 2012). Yet in Alaska the average residential rate per kWh is currently lower than in Hawaii (34.5 cents), New York (18.4 cents) and Connecticut (18.1 cents). Hidden in the Alaska statewide average is considerable variation with some communities paying less than the national average and some—generally those least able to afford it—paying among the highest in the country. The Railbelt and Southeast regions have the lowest average residential electric rates (Appendix I map). North Slope residential customers also have lower average rates because of access to natural gas and North Slope Borough energy payments in addition to PCE disbursements. Most other regions have rates two to three times as high as Alaska urban rates. Some communities with hydroelectric power have notably low rates but customers are not paying the full, true cost of power because the cost of construction was heavily subsidized by state and federal governments. In Table 3 (p. 20) we present average annual residential electricity consumption and rates for different regions of Alaska.
