Alaska energy agency gives Susitna dam another look
Published Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Energy specialists have put a flashlight to 25-year-old plans for building a massive dam between Fairbanks and Anchorage.
The Alaska Energy Authority is updating the Susitna Dam cost estimates, using $1.5 million from the Alaska Legislature, project manager Bryan Carey said Monday night in Fairbanks. It’s using another $1 million from the state to figure out how well the project, if ever built, would fit with existing power transmission lines in Alaska, he said.
Carey said his agency is simply updating a much larger body of research conducted by the state decades ago.
He said it will show the results this summer to the Legislature, which ordered the work during its most recent session. Lawmakers could then consider options, including whether to pursue a federal permit for a dam project.
The Legislature recently has focused on other major energy prospects, most notably a proposed natural gas pipeline.
But for a stretch of time in the 1970s and 1980s, it spent well more than $100 million on documents needed to build a dam system on the Susitna River, using an estimate from Carey, who spoke at a public lecture at the Noel Wien Library.
The state in 1983 applied for a federal license for the project — then estimated to cost about $10 billion in today’s dollars after adjustments for inflation. But the Legislature shelved the proposal in 1985 after a major slide in international oil prices stymied cost models used to plan the dam and left the Legislature questioning how to help finance it.
“That had a lot to do with Susitna dying,” Carey said of plummeting oil prices.
The proposed Susitna hydropower project could be the biggest ever mentioned for Alaska, outside of one considered briefly by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for the Yukon River at Rampart. Numerous smaller hydropower projects exist across the state, including the Bradley Lake project in Homer.
Some communities have tinkered with small-scale, experimental approaches to hydropower. But Dennis Witmer, a research assistant professor at the University of Alaska, said such small-scale hydropower technology has yet to prove itself reliable on the open market.
“We need a couple of demonstrations, I think, to get some information on costs and reliability,” said Witmer, who also spoke Monday of some smaller “hydrokinetic” projects. “And I think we need to better understand the environmental impacts.”
At last look, the Susitna hydropower project would supply as much power in a year as the state uses as a whole, Carey said.
As originally envisioned, the project would have consisted of numerous dams along the river. Carey said his agency is updating cost estimates for four alternatives, including a focus on a one- or two-dam system including part or all of a tall, rock-fill “Watana” dam near the Tsusena Creek in the Matanuska Valley and, if needed, a second “Devil Canyon” dam downstream from Watana.
Carey said plans from the 1980s estimated the Watana dam alone could require a 3,000-plus-worker camp and take a decade to build.
Monday’s presentation was part of an ongoing monthly series of lectures organized by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power.
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If the Susitna comes to fruition, it could provide low cost energy for most, if not all, of our communities with a state-wide energy grid. I am hopeful that projects like this can be encouraged so that all Alaskans can enjoy long-term, reliable, and affordable energy so that we can attract economic development activity, create new jobs, provide new tax bases, and move all of our state into the 21st century using renewable and clean energy sources.
They'd dam well better be doing more than looking.
A note for Christopher: Do some research on the Devil's Canyon dam. I recall reading a thick report submitted to the Department of the Interior in the late 1950's- early 1960's. The cost was pegged at about 500- to 600 million dollars, or about 3.4 billion in 2007 dollars.
Alaska needs to stop talking about projects and start doing them. We've become a laughingstock- thanks largely to our corrupt/incompetent leadership.
I question how wise it is to build a big dam in a mountain range that is actively building. The potential for a really big earthquake is very real. Everything will be great until the big one comes.
AKhusky, and the big bang could happen, and the sky could fall in, and lets wait untill the earth is safe to live on,, Come on lets build the dam and give the oil companys something to think about for a change.. 100 million would buy lots of cement, lets stop wasting in and build something...
The last time the looked at this a "major slide in oil prices" stopped it. What do they call what is happening today. Where do they plan of getting the billions for this project? How many of you will be willing to give up your Permanent Fund check to see this happen.
It is great to know progress is being made toward building a major hydro energy production facility that will provide safe, clean, affordable, reliable long term energy for 90 plus % of Alaskan citizens. This project has been designed and studied nearly to death for years only to be stopped by fear or a small hand full of 'stop everything folks'. Had we continued the project and built it in the 1990's it would have been in production now, allowing a lot more agressive actions at selling our Non-renewable resourses. We took our eye off the ball in the mid 80's, lets not make that mistake again.
If we can keep the state legislators from spending all of last year's windfall on various local projects, maybe we could afford this. I don't know what's in the coffers now, but our $1200 windfall shares couldn't have depleted all of those billions of dollars. I'd like to see the dam built.
I was going to say that maybe Sen Stevens could get us some federal dollars to help with the project, but I guess that we've kicked him to the curb. Maybe freshman Sen Begich could convince the Democratic Senate to help us build a dam. Hahahahahahaha.....no.
I do hope this dam gets built, BUT... I think its highly unfair to some Alaskans. There is no way they will build or maintain a state-wide electricity grid... there is no chance of this power getting to Nome or the villages... probably not the southeast either. We would asking all Alaskans to spend a significant portion of our state's treasury on a project that will only help the most populated areas. Rural Alaskans will watch with bitterness as we celebrate ultra-cheap electricity... whilst they pay $11 per gallon of fuel.
I would like to see this project, but I would also like to see a state-organized project or at least a study to look into the costs of establishing arctic-weather wind generators in all our rural areas~
i'd consider spending my permanent fund forever on a project of this sort. what is the dam going to do to local wildlife, including fish runs?
"Where do they plan of getting the billions for this project? How many of you will be willing to give up your Permanent Fund check to see this happen."
I WILL!!! And I am often labeled a socialist by right wingers who would revolt if anyone messed with their p-fund check.
Wow, lets build a big old dam. We got the money and the state has a great record for jumping into big energy projects that have been so profitable to us Alaskans. Just don't trip over that eyesore, multi-million dollar "money trap" down Healy.
Besides, like a lot of people in Fairbanks I like to fish on rivers flowing into the Susitna and I'm not too thrilled about us junking up the river. Why don't we just spend a billion bucks on wind turbines in Delta and call it good?
Susitna is a good project!
However, because it will take may years to build we should ASLO build a power line to slope and use the gas to generate low cost electricity, a bullet gas line, and install some wind generators which currently cost about a buck per watt installed!
A billion dollars worth of wind generators buys a lot of electric power and can be on line quickly because each one constructed comes on line vs a dam which must be mostly completed before you get any power.
DNR recently leased some geothermal sites for development. Those can be put on line quickly! Putting geothermal on line is easy using standard parts, and standard drilling equipment.
Chena Hot Springs is a good example!!
Solar electric does not seem very practical around Fairbanks because of cloudy weather. It is snowing today and has been cloudy for the last 3 days.
Heating your house using heat from the water table or ground is quite practical! It's $perBtu cost is less than birch fire wood, NO stink, no fire hazard, and not ash to clean up!
One other point, due to the world wide recession cost of construction materials and generators has fallen! Now is a good time to buy and build, gas lines, power lines, wind farms etc!
One thing that big dam projects in the lower forty-eight proved was that they can stop salmon spawning runs cold. Dams in Washington and Oregon state virtually killed their salmon harvesting industries. Luckily, they had Alaska and its bountiful salmon as a backup. Want to stop salmon from spawning on the Susitna River? Build a big dam!
The problem in the Lower 48 is getting the salmon past the dams. The Susitna salmon come from tributaries that are downstream of the proposed dams.
Isamova...Alaska has several Hydro assests in Southeastern Alaska but they lack the tie-lines in some area's to complete the system..once again we took our eye off the ball years ago. Swan Lake to Tyee will be completed next year and more are in the works...as for rual Alaska beyond a distribution net, Alaska has a system in place called PCE..(Power Cost Assistence) which is a form of grid extension where power lines are totally impractical.
Now for the line of the day..a quote from President Elect Obama yesterday to the Governors meeting at a two day governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles..."I promis you this:When I am President, any Governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Wahington."
So Go Sarah and lets get the partnership going on Sustina...it sure is clean energy...
There is a river which the name escapes me down 40 miles or so southwest of the Mt Spurr Beluga area that supposedly doesn't have salmon spawning on it. It is being looked at as another option to Susitna. Its is close to the beluga plant and thus the grid and also close to Mt Spurr, another project being considered for geothermal power. I hope that the drop in oil prices doesn't cause the collapse of support for getting us off oil in this state. This often happens with short sighted planning that needs fast results in order to be worthwhile for return on investment. These power projects will help the economy with adding construction and supply jobs during construction and will help to keep people in their homes during the coming possible depression. This money will flow through most sectors of the Alaskan economy. And when it is done we will have a source of power that we can heat with that is NOT tied to world price of oil. This clean, low cost, renewable, stable priced, power could attract industry here, especially energy intensive industry such as the production of aluminum which due to our great location along the Pacific rim could make us an exporter of something other then unrefined resources such as raw logs, crude oil etc.
"Now for the line of the day..a quote from President Elect Obama yesterday to the Governors meeting at a two day governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles..."I promis you this:When I am President, any Governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Wahington."
So Go Sarah and lets get the partnership going on Sustina...it sure is clean energy..."
Now lets hope that Obama will let bygones be bygones and get past all the accusations of being a terrorist sympathizer and traitor that Sarah hurled at him during the campaign. He seems to be the sort that wont hold a grudge, lucky for us.
Akbearable:
The project is called Chakachamna Hydro and you can just Google it and read all about its current status...The project is about 85 miles Southwest of Anchorage...is currently priced at 1.75 billion. Could be brought on line quite quickly and most of its output would be consumed at the pebbles mine, which I hope develops along with the Hydro project...two great wins for All of Alaska.
Maybe it's just me, but I like the idea of spending oil windfall money on renewable energy. I really think that with this states resources we could do several different projects, if that is, we quit spending hundreds of millions, and spending many decades just "studying" them. If the State took clean energy as seriously as dirty (coal and oil)energy, this could happen very quickly. I will gladly give up my PFD, for a promise of electricity that could cost me half as much as I pay now. And if we can build an eight hundred mile pipeline accross Alaska, why can't power lines be built to serve outlying areas. Difficult yes, expensive, yes, but lets look at the long run, not just the next twenty years. These projects could provide cheap power for hundreds of years.
What is the savings payback on this project? How long would it have to produce to break even with the cost? Is there a plan in effect to account for an earthquake causing enough damage to flood downstream? Would wind turbines work more effectively in the canyon? So many questions, so little answers.
"Akbearable:
The project is called Chakachamna Hydro and you can just Google it and read all about its current status."
Thanks Charlie, that is the one I was thinking of.
"And if we can build an eight hundred mile pipeline accross Alaska, why can't power lines be built to serve outlying areas."
I believe that the energy needs and geographic regions of this huge state are going to require different sources of power. It wont be economical to run hi voltage transmission lines to every village. Those regions I think have a better shot at the plastic gas lines that Distant Thunder talks about so passionately. The gas can be brought from the tundra, bypassing the oil giants all together, and the gas lines can be ran down the bottom of rivers, be tapped at villages and used for direct heat, and use in vehicles converted to run on NG and also used to fire gas turbines for local generation of electricity. Wind can also play a part, but one has to watch the costs with those as well and add up all the costs such as building transmission lines from the really good wind power sites to where the consumers are, often a good distance. There are lots of solutions for lots of regions and it could take most of the P-fund to get these things going, but what good does the permanent fund do for us now? Gives us a dividend, of which we pay 20% back to the fed as income tax. It makes us look like greedy bastards to the rest of the country and hurts us when we go looking for federal money, more so now that Stevens is going away. We can sit and stare at the the numbers of the fund, but if we don't start to use it the rainy day that Hammond talked about is about to hit, taking more of the fund with it..
Anyone hear any gossip about natural gas drilling around Neanna?
: ) how will this affect the salmon runs? If negligible... build baby build!
Nay sayers argument which always pops up: "it will harm the salmon".
Freezing in the dark, $5 dollar a gallon for fuel oil, a 50% jump in the cost of human food, 70% jump in the cost of electricity ~ do you knot heads think for one second salmon vote and I don't!
Education, save the salmon, save the planet, save, save, save can not be eaten, does not heat the house nor does it cut the cost of living in Fairbanks.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.