nunavut energy infrastructure today & tomorrow
Post on 26-Jan-2016
31 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation by Qulliq Energy CorporationIqaluit, NU
October 2010
1
Presentation OverviewQulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) – FAQs
Background – QEC Capital Program
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure
Long Term Sustainable Planning
Infrastructure Drivers
Immediate Needs
Alternative Energy Solutions
Conclusion
Discussion / Questions
2
Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) - FAQsService to Canada’s
largest Territory or Province at approx. 2 million sq kms.
33,000 people in 25 isolated communities
Approximately 11,000 residential and commercial customers
Primarily power diesel generation.
3
Qulliq Energy Corporation - FAQs2009/10 production –
approximately 161 GWH
Produced by 93 diesel generator-sets with ratings of 150 kW – 4,280 kW
One AOC 15/50 wind turbine operating in Rankin Inlet (65kW)
QEC utilized approximately 45M litres of diesel fuel in 2009/10 at a cost of $39M
4
Qulliq Energy Corporation - FAQs2 Main Corporate
Offices3 Regional Offices 27 Power Plants in
25 communities275 kms of
distribution linesApproximately 185
employees
5
Background - QEC Capital ProgramsSince creation of
Nunavut, only one new power plant has been constructed – Baker Lake
Capital programs have been reactive – focused on keeping the lights on
Program built around immediate priorities
Limitations on capital expenditures
6
Background - QEC Capital ProgramsBaker Lake Power Plant has been the only
major project (exceeding $5M)In 2010/11, first year of multi-year major
project to upgrade Iqaluit distribution system - $14M total
Annual capital programs have not kept pace with aging infrastructure / increased demands
Capacity increase requirements are now starting to exceed the physical constraints of existing structures / systems.
7
Assessment of QEC InfrastructureMajor infrastructure is aging and demands
on infrastructure are stressing it to the point of failure.
A number of assessments and proposals have been completed over the years recommending the replacement and/or upgrade of facilities.
Majority of existing plants built without security features such as fencing to protect the public and company property.
8
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - QikiqtaalukPlant Constructe
dAddition Condition
Arctic Bay 1974 Increased capacity required; no room to install more capacity
Cape Dorset 1964 1973 / 1992 Poor condition; gensets require replacement; increased capacity required
Clyde River 1999 OK
Grise Fiord 1963 Poor condition; foundation degradation; flooding, too small
Hall Beach 1974 1993 OK
Igloolik 1974 2005 OK
Iqaluit 1964 Structurally OK; additional capacity required; no space
Kimmirut 1992 OK
Pangnirtung 1971 OK – limited space
Pond Inlet 1992 OK
Qikiqtarjuaq 1963 1975 / 1986 Poor condition; structural, electrical, & mechanical need work
Resolute Bay 1971 OK
Sanikiluaq 2001 OK9
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - KivalliqPlant Constructio
nAddition Condition
Arviat 1971 1979 Poor; foundation issues; capacity issues
Baker Lake 2003 OK
Chesterfield Inlet
1975 Poor; small, poorly constructed
Coral Harbour 1988 OK
Rankin Inlet 1973 1986 / 1993
Structurally OK but running out of space
Repulse Bay 2000 OK
Whale Cove 1991 OK – foundation issue
10
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - KitikmeotPlant Constructio
nAddition Condition
Cambridge Bay
1967 1970 OK – tank farm needs work
Gjoa Haven 1977 Fair
Kugluktuk 1968 1989 OK
Kugaaruk 1974 Poor
Taloyoak 1972 1986 / 1993
Very poor; foundation & fuel system issues; capacity and space issues; “eyesore”.
11
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - GeneralAssessment is strictly for power plants. Power plants typically designed for 40 year life
6 plants – 40-50+ years old11 plants – 30-40 years old1 plant – 20-30 years old4 plants – 10-20 years old3 plants – 0-10 years old.
17 of 25 power plants are near or at the end of their design life.
12
Long Term Sustainable Planning5 Year Capital plan
should have:
1-3 plants in plan 200-250 poles
replaced annually5-7 gensets replace
annually based on hours.
6-7 light vehicles replaced annually.
13
Infrastructure DriversDesign life of equipmentCommunity growth / increased
QEC has a “Duty to Serve” as the sole power provider
Provision of electricity is an essential serviceCommunity / Territorial Infrastructure
AdditionsAlternative Energy Initiatives – desire to
reduce reliance on fossil fuels
14
Infrastructure DriversLegislative / Regulatory
Changes – QEC forced to comply with new legislative / regulatory requirements
Residual Heat (RH) Recovery – utilizing RH can improve plant efficiency by 100%; cost effective method to displace fossil fuels utilized for space heating.
15
Immediate NeedsNew Power Plants – Cape Dorset,
Qikiqtarjuak, & TaloyoakPoor conditionIncreased capacityImproved efficiency
Iqaluit Plant Expansion / Capacity Increase
16
Other Identified NeedsImmediate needs address 4 power plants; 17 power
plants in total are at or near the end of design lifeOther power plants identified as priorities:
Grise FiordChesterfield InletArviatGjoa HavenPangnirtungKugaaruk
5 Year Capital Plan - $145M; 10 Year Capital Plan - $250M
17
Alternative Energy SolutionsQEC / GN looking into alternative energy
options to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce GHG
Public expectation
Who pays?
Hydro & Wind currently being explored
18
HydroQEC and its predecessors have investigated
hydro development extensivelyDesktop studies completed and some field
work for Baffin and Kivalliq RegionCost of development and transmission very
expensive given the environment, distances and small loads
Iqaluit may be one community where hydro-development may be feasible / economically viable
19
Hydro - OverviewCity of Iqaluit – largest center in Nunavut;
approximately 8,000 people with projected population of 13,000 within 10 years.
Energy requirements are rapidly increasing; increasing demand for fossil fuelled power generation.
Potential to displace 13-15 million litres of diesel fuel annually
Annual Energy requirement: 1999/00 = 38 GWH; 4.3 MW ave.; 6.9 MW peak2009/10 = 57 GWH; 6.5 MW ave.; 9.5 MW peak 2019/20 = 80 GWH; 9.1 MW ave.; 12.5 MW peak
Hydro - Location Assessment Significant hydro potential within 100 km of
Iqaluit to help meet energy requirements Projects ranged in size from 4 MW to 30
MW Projects appear to be price competitive
with diesel generators Initial Capital Cost Estimates of $80 - $550
million for the various sites 14 Sites investigated – short listed Jaynes Inlet selected
Jaynes Inlet / Work to Date• 2005 Site visits by hydropower consultants• 2006/07 Environmental baseline studies
continued on short-listed sites; WSC installed stream gauges at 14 sites
• 2008 April -Hydro committee recommendation -Akulikutaaq (Armshow River)• June - Preliminary hydrology results – Knight Piesold• July - QEC Board selected preferred site for feasibility study•2009 Final Environmental Baseline Studies completed for Qikiqgijavik (Jaynes Inlet)(4 seasons ) - info required to produce Environmental Impact Statement.
Hydro - Next Steps Pursue Funding for Feasibility studies
Continue Data Collection
Land use permits for feasibility study activities (i.e.,
drilling)
Initiate process to obtain land control
Initiate environmental assessment and licensing processes
Retain University of Ottawa for methyl mercury study
Climate Change Impact Study
Continue Public consultation
Next Steps cont…Critical next step is to get funding for feasibility
study
Upon completion of feasibility study, QEC will need
to find partners for the project
Potential for private sector or land claim groups to
become involved – P3
Estimated Project Cost $180M
WindQEC has applied for funding to INAC to complete
wind studies in 5 communities.QEC/PEI Energy (WEICan) are exploring the
feasibility of a wind-hydrogen-diesel power hybrid system for deployment in Nunavut.
The wind-hydrogen-diesel capacity would be integrated in Cape Dorset when upcoming power plant upgrades are undertaken.
The anticipated cost is $25 million.Federal funding support is critical for this project
to move forward.
26
Conclusion Infrastructure is aging and the integrity of QEC’s assets
must be improved and/or maintained to ensure the delivery of safe, reliable, economic energy.
Deferring capital has a domino effect and has a tendency to require huge expenditures all at one time as infrastructure begins to fail.
Current levels of funding - $10M-$12M annually – will not be sufficient to replace aging infrastructure or to maintain the integrity of QEC’s generating / distribution infrastructure.
Current rate structure / customer base can not bear total cost of capital program
QEC / GN cannot implement long-term Alternative Energy solutions without a healthy injection of human and fiscal capital.
27
top related