30 January Greenland Long Range Planning group

Paul Kenney ran the meeting, not clear if he is acting as Jay Bollinger interim replacement for all projects Jay was responsible for, or just going to take on these meetings until someone replaces Jay.

Rather than working down the agenda, Paul used the minutes from previous call to guide discussion, asking for updates based on what was discussed 2 weeks prior.

Dave Smith reported that he hoped to be able to update and circulate the graphic schedule much more often moving forward, in order to reflect changes that come up due to focused discussions on a number of projects that are gathering momentum (especially planning for Isi).

Dave also noted that the charters for Isi Mobile Garage and new Power/Water Module for Summit had been revised and would be circulated again soon.

Tracy summarized the discussion of the 28 Jan Power and Energy call and also noted that work on detailed analysis of the power cable that might link Summit Observatory to Isi station had begun. While there is still more work needed to get good estimate of full cost to procure, transport, install and maintain such a cable, Tracy did say that knowing the distance (5 km) and assuming that max load at Summit would be capped well below 50 kw made it clear that much smaller conductors than the ones Jud Joiner had priced in earlier analysis would be sufficient. This should greatly reduce procurement and shipping costs.

Discussion of the microturbine CHP proposal Dick is leading detoured into discussion of a need for pilot project to establish whether the Capstone devices will function at a place like Summit. All agree that this needs to be done, but the $300 k price tag for a complete dual turbine module with all the necessary peripherals is prohibitive for a simple test. Pat tasked Tracy to contact Capstone to get pricing for just a 30 kw unit with necessary switch gear, and see if it would be possible to use the intermediate drill test as the pilot project. Time line is very likely too short, but Tracy will look into it. He asked that Pat make it clear to Dick that the tasking came direct from RSL. Apparently Dick feels that the test might not be fair to the Capstone microturbines if their unit was just in a small weather port without the protection/tempering of intake air/heat exchangers/etc. that would be part of any system eventually deployed to Summit for longer term.

Isi Scoping Document charter revised again based on comments from SCO and others. Discussions with stakeholdes and SME’s need to begin soon. Monique has proposed dividing these meetings into 4 or 5 topical areas, so that most could be smaller, focused discussions by highly interested participants. There may be one large group discussion about programmatic guidelines that will inform all of the smaller subject area groups.

GLT, Paul confirmed that Roberto and his team have decided that nothing will be shipped to Thule on the vessel this year. CPS will have significant effort preparing for the following season, and is submitting a CR to support the early phases of that.

NASA Rover team reported that now that NASA has a budget, they should learn what their budget will be soon, possibly at a meeting with HQ the first week in Feb. Their timeline for bringing anything to Summit will be determined by NASA funding profile.

28 January Power and Energy Group

Primary topic of discussion was dealing with many issues associated with the two proposals going into the DOE AFFECT competition. Tracy and Dick both making progress on some parts of the package, but both stressed that they need a range of specific technical help. This help ranges from better data to drive some of the required analyses, to copy editing and clarification of some of the detailed requirements in the FOA from DOE. Jack offered to carefully read the FOA and attempt to distill it down to essentials (rather than 36 page document).

CPS has identified resources across CH2MHill that could be brought in for some of this effort, pending approval for any additional expense from RSL. The deadline is drawing near, but it seems both proposals stand a good chance of being complete on time.

23 January SCO/CPS Call

Tracy Sheely, Katrine, Jack, John, Zoe, Bob, Jay

Discussion on SOB Charter Document, focused on SCO’s comments. Who is the new PM (probbaly dave smith for time being). Science is understood to not be the ‘primary’ user, but there are needs. Jack points out that if the SOB goes away, there still needs to be somewhere that science can stage DNF cargo, use ‘warm space’ periodically, and in general have a workshop space that is an option for use. Tracy indicating that the idea of a separate garage was sprung on them, to a degree, hence charter not distributed with others. The SOB power water module, the proposed science garage and this structure (mobile garage), all need to be structured and developed concurrently. There is some discussion regarding the history of the DISC tent, and how it became the SOB. As for energy, CH2 agrees RE should be included, but ALEX directed them to remove any RE from this proposal. CH2 would like to see these structures be designed to include or be able to add RE in. The SCO questions why there is a requirement for the gantry crane or the oil-water separator? Tracy indicates that these are mostly HSE and for making sure the fuel is safe for use. The requirements are driven by comments received from Jay Burnside, based on input from science activities in prior years. The timeline was commented on by the SCO as being potentially problematic (2015), but given the length of time it takes for scoping and requirements charets, the schedule is actually quite likely already in jeapordy. Discussion on Impacts focused on the science garage (or lack thereof), and the fact that requirements for that facility needs to be developed rapidly, and should be made available before the SOB is closed for use. This is a topic for discussion next week at the GEOSummit meeting. This project, as all, will be constrained largely by the budget, and requirements will need to be reduced to meet available funding. SCO provided the suggestion that if the crane is to be maintained outside, why is it different for the tractors? Key to the forward discussion is to include proper participants.

Paul (prior to departing for telescope call), providing an update that there is funding from US Gov’t (500 mUSD if no cuts) for the project that should push activities forward. Despite this, there are no planned shipments from Norfolk to Thule for this summer.

Return to charter discussion, now focused on Power / Water module. SCO commented on the design plans for the power/water module and questioned whether it is essential to keep the entire structure (which is already within a weatherproof structure), again within another structure and create such a large foot print. Response was that the main driver is risk since this is such a central facility.

As for the science garage / warm space, the SCO is tasked with developing a list of requirements and an initial charter for this structure. Jack asked what the design lifetime is for such a structure. In general, these structures should not live beyond the development of the Isi Station – since the core station facilities should have capacity for this type of activity.

Jay left the call. Discussion continued on how to move forward with the garage. What functions will the garage serve, and what will the requirements be? Does it make sense to develop a dedicated science garage, perhaps one with a 30 foot ceiling and door, if it is only going to be used during such intermittent periods. The cost could be huge, and in the end, a shared science/garage space could be more economical.

Katrine indicated that the shared space issue works for some and does not work for others. It has been a point of discussion for several of the outbriefs, regarding the shared space has not worked well. Bob highlighted that the garage space issue often depends on personlities and whether the mechanic and PI are able to get along and share the space in a functioning way. Tracy was surprised to hear this, thinking that the main issue is more the whether the cleanliness is suitable enough (e.g. Shupe’s issues when ICECAPS was using the space initially). Campaign science users also are users that can conflict with the mechanic, and the point is driven largely by the fact that some campaign scientists know in advance to request the space as a requirement — which allows logistics to plan for the science use of the space. Other campaign PIs don’t necessarily know to ask in advance for this space, and then end up working around the O&M requirements. The big concern of SCO is the continued scope creep that keeps enlarging the logistic footprint without strong consideration for prioritizing the needs of science. There are often valid and justifiable reasons for increasing storage requirements, equipement, etc. and the ops footprint is growing. However, rarely are there any increases in the science space available. Certainly it has not been a one for one rate of change. Katrine indicates that the drive for space comes from the requirements that CH2 ‘know’ and that they don’t necessarily ‘know’ or think about the science requirements.

This will be a topic of discussion for GEOSummit, to get feedback on whether there is a desire or need for a dedicated science barn, what the requirements for that would be, and whether potentially it should be pushed back toward NSF/CH2 that we continue to design/provide a new shared space.

Call finished with summary of status and plans for the upcoming GEOSummit meeting and a brief discussion of whether NOAA’s list of banned chemicals was a station-wide relevant list or AWO only. We all agree that in general it is unrealistic to have a blanket list that would cover all Isi and Summit station, though certain elements where suitable replacements are available (e.g. Halon fire extinguishers) should certainly be sought when feasible.

21 January, SCO Call

Discussed charter documents from CH2MHill. There was some discussion regarding whether we were provided these documents for reference or for input. As indicated by the fact that the Isi Scoping document is already approved, the former case seems likely.

We discussed the GEOSummit presentations and whether we need to ping Katrine for the list of talk at this point, or if this can wait until Thursday. We agreed this is not urgent and can wait until our planned call in two days.

16 Jan 2014 GLRP

Attendees: ALEX, CPS, Jack, Zoe, NSF, CRREL


Isi/Summmit planning: The graphic schedule is going to be updated and sent for distribution soon.  The Isi mobile garage and temporary power/water charters are being reviewed internally at this point, and at the stage that mostly formatting changes are being made.  The charter for the Isi Scoping Document has been sent to Pat.  SCO expressed concern that the Isi scoping document has not had, to date, input from the SCO. Renee urged CPS to share all 3 with SCO. (CPS did so on Friday 17 Jan.)


Energy/Power group: The DOE AFFECT proposals are being developed.  Dick Armstrong and Tracy Dahl are sharing drafts of the 2 different proposal to ensure compatibility.  Life cycle cost analysis in addition to the narrative for the proposals are needed.  The group has been discussing the Isi/Summit Grid design.  The first step is to determine the general parameters everyone agrees on.  The concept of a transmission line between the two facilities is being revisited, given that the two stations are going to be closer than originally thought.   The group is also favoring an inverter-based system which would offer flexiblility to add RE and expand the system as needed.  Another important consideration for the energy/power efforts underway is to coordinate the proof of concept testing for the microturbines at Summit, which need to be coordinated with Summit development and science project planning.


Telescope: The telescope team is currently examining their level of funding and how to proceed.


AWO: CRREL has conducted FEM of the stresses that an assembled AWO would undergo on GrIT, and compared to the static load cases for the structure, the modeling looks as if transport by GrIT would inflict less than the design load.  CRREL is awaiting the design loads (part of the contract deliverable) from AECOM.


GrIT: Deployment for SCAT team is Feb 1.  Geoff and Jay Bu. are developing the split fleet concept (plan is to test this with split fleet starting winter 2014, in order to move NEEM in 2015, with two GrIT tractors not traveling to Thule at the end of the 2014 season).


SCO: The Summit/Isi white paper has been sent to NOAA for comments.  Goal is to have a draft of the white paper to share with GeoSummit attendees prior to meeting Jan 31st in order to gather more input from community.

14 Jan 2014 Power Energy telecon

Present; Dibb, Bollinger, Smith, Burnside, Armstrong, Olsen, Mercer, Dahl, Lussier, Kenney (possibly one or two more)

Started with updates on the 2 proposals being prepared for DOE AFFECT. Tracy has started on the narrative for RAPID, said he is going to need technical help with cost estimation, pay back, and especially Life Cycle Analysis. Dick called in from Antarctica, said that he is expecting a lot of cost info and details about multiple configurations of 1, 2, or 3 micro turbines of different sizes in different modules. Dick is especially going to need help, since he is busy down on the ice and will be more or less out of contact the last week or so before the deadline.

Both of these guys expressed need for details about the specified format of the package that DOE wants to see, apparently no one except the PI can actually access the web site where proposals will be uploaded. Renee started the process, Randy and Jen said they would contact her to get the details and share forms and templates with the proposal teams. Jen also specifically stepped up to help Dick convert material he gathers into the format DOE requires.

We had a lot of discussion about the micro turbine proposal; one application will probably be at Toolik to provide power and heat to the dining facility (possibly also nearby dorms) and the second big application will be to provide stand alone power and heat to GLT in Thule. Plan is to then move the power system to Isi with the telescope.

This brought up the imperative to conduct a pilot study at Summit to establish that the micro turbines will work in those conditions (cold, thin air, etc.). Ideally, this study would happen in support of some real project, and would occur before a larger system is designed and procured for the GLT in Thule. Brief rehash about how the IDDO intermediate drill test would have been a good demonstration project. Broke off since that is no longer an option, Jack suggested that a dual 30 kw micro turbine module could be deployed to Summit and wired into TAWO and MSF to see if it could handle AWO and the BH in the future. If it worked, could be the on-demand power source for the anticipated high RE penetration hybrid power system for the Observatory (after every thing else moved to Isi). Tracy pointed out that he thought an old style diesel genset module would be more efficient, since the observatory will not be able to use all of the waste heat from micro turbines. Tracy and Dick do not presently agree about the relative efficiency of standard diesel versus micro turbines when the main load is electricity rather than combined power and heat. They will share sources and try to inform all of us about the tradeoffs in future discussions.

Started what will be a long term focus of this group: How will the power grid at Isi/Summit Observatory look when it is in place? Tracy laid out his broad brush vision to start the discussion. Key points: 1) must be scaleable, probably starting with a central system to support the core station (much like Model 5), 2) large, but finite duration, projects that came to Isi would need to include their own power generation, but it should be easy to tie into the grid (for stability and redundancy); it was pointed out that this is the current road map for GLT since they need power in Thule (separate from AF grid) that system should be available to move to Isi with the telescope, 3) Tracy suggests that the grid at Isi should be inverter based, to allow plug and play compatibility with RE from wind and PV, and a range of different sizes and types of generators.

We discussed whether power system for the central system needs to be as large as in model 5, since that was planned to support station core and also AWO. If the power line between Isi and Summit is no longer planned, the base load for Isi should be ~ 30 kw less than envisioned for model 5, but a separate system will be needed to provide that at Summit observatory. This got us back to the debate between reciprocating diesel versus micro turbine as the “on demand” source at the observatory, and then into a discussion of whether the idea of feeding power to the observatory from Isi was truly dead. Key point is that Tracy believes that whatever on-demand source is deployed to the observatory will probably need to run at least 4 hours on most days (i.e., the notion of having enough storage to run with no RE and no generator for 3-4 days is cost prohibitive). This need would almost definitely jeopardize “clean snow”, while having all fossil fuel power sources 5 km away at Isi would greatly reduce impacts of emissions on snow near AWO. Tracy and Dick both stated that the cost of the cable should be in the several $100k range, not $millions and that direct snow burial of the cable should be low cost and reliable (lots of experience at Pole).

 As noted, this topic will occupy us for months or longer, but to wrap up the call today Jay and Tracy tried to see if we had reached agreement on any aspects of the Isi grid. It appears that we all are behind the scaleable architecture, probably based on inverters. And we all agree that connecting Summit Observatory to Isi has enormous benefits, if the cost of the cable is truly not so prohibitive as it appeared to be when that cable disappeared from the plans. CPS is going to review the earlier documentation on tradeoffs between transmission voltage, cable size, and cost so that it can be determined whether Summit will have one grid, or two.

9 January2014 SCO/CPS Call

Attendees: Jack, Bob, Zoe, Katrine, Paul, Jay Bolligner, Dave

Jay asked if it was ok to cite the white paper SCO is in the process putting together for the Isi charter.  We told him that the white paper still has another round of  edits/comments in progress from NOAA and incorporation of recent information from the telescope team.   Also, the charter has been signed for the Isi scoping document.

Dave updated SCO on the APP, which has been approved for the most part, with a few minor additions that can be done if the opportunity arises (kitchen prep sink, waste heat for RecPort, heating and cooling for SMOBILE, extension for TAWO bench, VFD pump for waste line, etc.)

Paul updated us on telescope developments.  The plan is still to deliver almost all of the components for the telescope to Thule this summer, and to build the base pedestal and foundation.  The telescope team has made significant changes to the foundation design over the last 2 weeks that may cause some changes to this plan.  Since testing for the microturbines at Summit isn’t planned for this summer, it will become important to work with the Isi planning phases in order to accomplish the testing needed in order to support the power systems for the telescope.

We spoke to Katrine about GeoSummit planning needs, namely ordering food and sending out information to participants.

SCO action items: finalize GeoSummit planning and agenda


8 January2014 SCO/NSF Monthly Call

Attendees: Jack, Bob, Zoe, John, Renee and Jen


White paper:  The telescope team provided SCO with information to incorporate into the white paper (some of which has been already included, based on previous GLT presentations provided by Jen).  We decided to send the white paper out to other stakeholders, namely NOAA, the telescope team, and other members of the astrophysics community, and to try to circulate something among the Summit science community before the GeoSummit meeting.  Renee emphasized that the white paper is being used to justify the science need for the new Summit/Isi developments, so that science leads the way in the upcoming planning phases (i.e. Summit/Isi scoping document).


GeoSummit meeting:  Jen will need call in info in order to pass on to the interested parties in the State Department discussion of increasing outreach to Greenlanders.  NSF will provide the slides/information for this portion of the discussion and lead the discussion along with the state department.  Renee would like to get Robbie Score’s participation in the State Department discussion if possible, due to her work with the JSEP program, among others. The agenda was decided on, and updates will be sent to Katrine to send out to meeting participants.


SCO representation in Thule: We discussed SCO representing user groups in

Thule.  On one hand, SCO is leery of scope creep, and not familiar with the PIs/groups working in Thule, nor with Thule itself.  However, with science groups accessing the ice sheet from Thule via GrIT, the likelihood is there that we will become more familiar with the area. Courville and Hawley have had projects leaving from Thule already, and the telescope will be routed through Thule on GrIT.  Common problems in Thule are remote power, boardwalks, polar bears, research space, freezers, and flights, which are problems encountered by all groups going through Thule, not just ecology researchers.  Zoe offered to do recon during her upcoming trip to Thule in March, and in general SCO is amenable to try it out and recognizes the need to do so.


SCO action items: Jack will send the white paper to NOAA to gather more input.  Zoe will send Jen dial-in information for GeoSummit meeting. Jack will send Katrine the updated agenda.


7 Jan. SCO Call

Attendees: Jack, Bob, John, Zoe

We mostly talked about the GeoSummit agenda and tried to finalize that. By our count, there will be about 20 science groups represented.  We briefly discussed the white paper revision, and decided that the next step will be to incorporate any comments we receive, and then to see if we can get input from NOAA and the telescope team.

Action items: Jack is going to email interested parties with the proposed agenda to get their approval and see if there are any comments.  Zoe is going to email participants with instructions for providing SCO 2-3 slides for a 5-8 min presentation by the Thurs before the meeting.