Sustainable communities are those that use resources that are available for future generations. Our children are learning this fact in grade school. But how does a community go from “I think we have renewable resources?” to “Let’s build a Renewable Energy Plant (REP)!”. This presentation will talk about how the United States Air Force (USAF) is answering that very important question, with the help of the national labs and its consulting partners. The USAF recently began a journey with a consulting firm to determine if one or more of six technologies were feasible (environmentally, financially, and operationally) at twenty-two of its bases, from Alaska to Florida, and everywhere in between. After the Phase 1, desktop study, Phase 2 Feasibility Studies for Renewable Energy are the real test of whether a technology should be considered for a particular location. The presentation will give real world examples of the kinds of decisions made, the information that needs to be collected, as well as some excellent lessons learned to help future evaluators of REPs. From Solar, Wind, and Biomass, to Waste to Energy, a wide variety of technologies were evaluated, and stacked up against the almighty dollar to determine if the Government should/could/would develop REPs on its underutilized lands. This presentation is a must-see for anyone who is considering developing a Renewable Energy Plant in their community, doubly so for any Federal Installation considering Solar, Wind, Biomass, or Waste to Energy Technologies.

1. Air Force
Renewable Energy
Opportunity Assessments
Multiple Air Force Bases
2011 ESOH Training Symposium Technical Session, 22 March 2011

2. Overview
 AF RE goals
 Strategy to identify best projects
 Evaluation factors
 Technologies assessed
 Resource issues
 Stakeholder roles for success
Covanta 80 MW WTE
Plant, Fairfax VA
2

3. Air Force RE Goals
 Meet renewable energy goals stated in Energy Policy Act of 2005, EOs

13423 and 13514, and 10 USC 2911
Projects identified may be funded through:
 ECIP
 SRM
 Power Purchase Agreements
 Energy Savings Performance Contracts
 Utility Energy Service Contracts
 EULs
3

4. AF RE: Current Situation
 AF has $9B energy bill, 17% dedicated to facility operations/utilities
 Facilitating development of renewables is one approach to increasing

supply, decreasing cost
<1% came from renewable sources in 2009
4

5. Approaches to Meeting RE Goals
 First priority:
Develop on-site RE
 Second: Purchase RE from off-site power providers
 Third: Purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
Tonopah Test Range Grid Access
5

6. Strategy
 Ongoing three-phase process
 Phase 2, Opportunity Assessment
– Phase 1, Feasibility Study –
completed
– Phase 3, Business Case
Analysis – future
 Successful projects must advance

through the complete process
Deliverables include:
 Preliminary design and cost
estimate
 Financial analysis
 Project profile
300’ GSHP Test Bore, Creech AFB
6

7. Evaluation Factors: Mission & Safety
Constraints
 Existing or proposed training/facilities
 Clear Zone (CZ), Accident Potential



Zone (APZ) I and APZ II
UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings
Quantity-Distance (QD) arcs
Any other constraints that local
stakeholders believe will negatively
impact the operational mission
7

8. Evaluation Factors: Environmental
Constraints
 Air quality and emissions
 Hazardous Materials and




Wastes/ERP
Land use (compatible uses,
future projects, etc.)
Transportation
Water resources (including
floodplains and wetlands)
Socioeconomic/Environmental
Justice
 Historical, cultural






and
archaeological resources
Biological resources
Topography, soils, and geology
Aesthetics
Climate
Noise
Odor
8

9. Evaluation Factors: Financial Analysis
 Projects deemed economically viable under two definitions:
 For AF-owned (ECIP-funded) projects, savings-to-investment ratio > 1.0
 For developer- or independent power producer-owned, return on
investment > 10%
 Typical discriminators between AF- and developer-owned cost
models:
 Developer cost of financing
 Developer access to renewable energy credits and tax incentives
9

10. Technologies Assessed
 Waste to Energy (WTE) fueled by Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
 Landfill Gas (LFG)
 Biomass-sourced electricity generation
 Biomass-sourced thermal generation
 Solar
 Wind
16 MW WTE Plant, Tulsa
10

11. Technical Description:
Waste to Energy
 MSW fed to a boiler creates





steam for a turbine to produce
electricity
Requires connection to
electrical grid, water, waste
water, gas
Chemicals control air quality
Boilers and MSW are enclosed
in a building to minimize noise,
odor, and visual concerns
Requires approximately 10
acres for a 15 MW facility
Stoker boiler technology
applied in this project
Inside Covanta 80 MW WTE Plant,
Fairfax VA
11

12. WTE: Stoker Boiler Technology
12

13. WTE Plant Schematic
13

14. Technical Description:
Biomass – Thermal and Electricity
 Biomass (woody waste) is fed to a boiler:


 To produce steam for a thermal user
 To operate a steam turbine to produce electricity
As with a WTE plant, requires water supply, sewer connection, gas
supply, and access to the grid
 Fluidized bed
 Stoker boiler
Can be combined for
cogeneration
14

15. Biomass-sourced Electrical and Thermal
Generation
48 MW Wood fired Power Plant – Craven County, NC
540,000 tpy waste wood; two drum boiler/stoker system,
423,000 pph/1,500 psig/955F superheat
APC
Boiler
Wood
yard
15

16. Technical Description: Landfill Gas to
Electricity
16

17. Landfill Gas To Energy – Example Project Profile
 Seven Mile Creek Landfill, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
 Landfill Size: 4.8 million tons waste-in-place (2009)
 Project Size: 4.2 MW
17

18. Technical Description: Solar Energy
 A photovoltaic system consists of these primary components
 Solar collector module
 Inverter
 Transformer
18

19. Solar Siting Options
 Prime decision driver:
Find largest areas
of available space
 Increase MW output, make investment
economically worthwhile
 Roofs, free-standing panels in underutilized
places
 Solar assessment focused on Thin-Film PV
at McGuire AFB
 AF operational needs must be considered

carefully
 Reflectance, sun angle
New construction of a large footprint facility
is a good siting opportunity
 Consider during pre-design planning
19

20. Technical Description: Wind Power
 Engineering


 Turbine power vs. wind speed
 Match resource to turbine curve
Siting
 Avoid ground-generated turbulence
 Distance from occupied structures
 Airfield imaginary surfaces
 Radar interference
 Consider geo-remote lands
Multiple unit installation
 Lateral distance
 Down wind distance
660 kW turbine, Wind Farm, FE Warren AFB
20

21. Feedstock Issues
 Hauling radius of 50-75 miles depending on road conditions, traffic
 Can you contract for the resource?

 Who owns it?
 What is the market price?
 Who is the competition?
 What is its projected sustainability?
 Can you bring it in from out of state?
Base average daily demand (MW)
is the design driver
21

22. Sample Competition Assessment
22

23. Land Issues
 Consider roads, separate access/gate/security, haul routes
 Compatible land use
 Upwind? Visible steam?
23

24. Local Stakeholder Engagement
 Grass roots project development—Security, Fire, flying and training









communities; Legal; Contracting…..
Knowledge of local competition
Knowledge of regulators
Knowledge of local success stories
Myth busting
Positive publicity
Wing Commander enthusiasm
Work-arounds
Economic impact
You need a local champion!
24

25. POC
 AMEC Project Manager/Facilitator
 Mary Matthews Hains (mary.matthewshains@amec.com)
 (727) 289-3321
25