25 Feb. SCO power/energy group

Present: Not sure just now. (I arrived 3 minutes late)
Tracy leads.
1) Affect grant proposals are IN. The two that made the cut are the
RAPID module and the micro turbine for Thule. Notification in
April, awards in June. Well done all.
2) Summit/ISI planning. Have general agreement about the grid
concept (inverter based), and also about the transmission line.
Jay points out that we need to consider the costs as well, want to
avoid getting into the plan where there isn’t an inexpensive
option; the “do-nothing” approach for example being to put a 200 kw
gen up there and run it for 20 years (or, as Jack suggests, several
50 KW gens. Don’t want to design something that NSF can’t afford.
Some discussion about how much detail we need to go into for this
kind of scenario, maybe not super-fine grained.
Estimates for the transmission line: 5kV line. $426k.
Significantly higher than earlier projected. This estimate
includes everything- transformers, cable (multiple reels), labor to
trench it in, etc. Assumes cargo transported by GRIT. Includes
transport costs to get it to Norfolk. Many members of the call
want to see what’s behind the numbers. Now on to some discussion
of the strain possibilities in the snow. Noted that the N-S
orientation of the cable is very good, the maximum strain being an
E-W direction. There will also be extra cable spooled up on either
end so that as buildings get jacked up there’d be scope for that.
Greg will look for strain data on the cable. Dick was thinking
that we would use the S Pole model, Tracy points out that
accumulation at Summit will bury the cable very deeply very fast.
More inquiry will be made into the S Pole system.
Now discussion of the storage requirements for periods of
autonomy. possibilities of using capacitors in addition to
deep-cycle batteries, many types of storage available. Tracy
looking for input on these parameters.
Larger discussion of cost/benefit of the renewable energy options
vs a lot of diesel fuel.
Next call- March 11.


19 Feb. TAWO Users Group Telcon

present: Brandon Grey Detelev Bob martin Tracy jack Katrine + A few
Katrine running the call.
1) Air handling system, status and what’s up. Brandon gives us an
update on status. In Nov, 2 concerning heat spikes in TAWO, this is
all due to waste heat from the instruments. Brandon things that due
to the south wind, positive pressure was placed on the North duct.
Ultimately the conclusion is that we don’t have the exhaust volume
needed. wanting to try to limp along to wait for AWO. will be
extending the north duct to the base of the platform, as opposed to
the base of the building. Looking to avoid that positive pressure on
the duct. Also will replace the T sensor in the air handling system-
may not be the problem, but could be, so replacing it will help.
Installing a remote monitoring system at turnover (now) so that
on-site staff can respond in real-time to any future T spikes. Jack
asks about if there’s a blower- right now it’s passive, so just
positive pressure in the building blowing air out. Only active fan is
for emergency purge. Detlev asks if there’s also active heating in
TAWO. There is a wall-mounted heater, but it wasn’t on at the time.
All of the heat in these T spikes was from the instruments. Detlev
asks if it is feasible to have a backup system? Brandon reiterates
that any better design would entail enlarging the exhaust, a pretty
big undertaking. Jack asks if the extra length will offset the
venturi effect we will get by extending the exhaust to the base of the
platform… Brandon feels that getting that extra 2 feet will help.
Jack voices concern that the scour pattern under the building might
make the wind pattern less predictable- so there may well be an
updraft that would negate that effect. Jack suggests what about
pointing the duct upward. Brandon says we’ll take a look at that.
Wondering if there are any concerns from NOAA for an upward facing
exhaust. No NOAA-specific concerns, but there is concern about it
filling up with snow. NOAA doesn’t think any exhaust is a concern.
Brandon asks if they can use the South penetration instead of the
North wall. Some clarification to Jacques about the ventilation
system. Again question about activating the active exhaust, but this
is designed for life safety applications, not considering the actual
T. Grey has drawn up a T that would shield from updraft… could
work. Jacques is a bit concerned about getting drafts of cold air
around the GC so the south penetration would work. Detlev points out
there are several instruments that would not like big pressure
changes. Using the south duct will probably get us closer to having
en equal amount of outlet to inlet. Having a second outlet would
probably be used at all times. In a purge situation they’d close the
South side so that purge would come out of the North side with the
existing fan. Finally, Brandon will explore the S penetration, and
explore directing the ducts upward.

2) Lifting the building. Katrine brings us back to this 20 minutes
left in the call. Katrine puts the question to Brian and Detlev.
Both point out that whatever it takes they will deal with it.
Detlev asks why there is another lift when there was a lift last
year? Brandon responds that they were 12 feet above grade on S
side and 8 feet above on the N side, about an 8 foot lift. CRREL
had recommended a larger lift- 15 feet being a happy medium between
minimizing drifting and keeping the stair climb to a reasonable
level. Jack points out that dealing with the drift at TAWO is a
Sisyphean task. You can spend a bunch of time and diesel knocking
down the drift, and it comes back. Jack points out also that the
more money we send on TAWO, the less likely it will ever go away.
points out the true costs of lifting… Brian points out that we
can’t just leave TAWO as it is for 3 more years. Brian thinks
drift management is something we could consider. Katrine says we
haven’t been doing drift management… Brian points out that it’s
not working… lots of discussion around how to keep the drift
down, why our management isn’t working. In the end, Brian suggests
that hes willing to wait until 2015 to see. Katrine suggests taking
pictures during turnover, and then have CPS see what they think,
with the ideal situation to be wanting to push the lift out
to 2015.

18 Feb. SCO Call

Present: Bob, Jack, Zoe, John.
1) telecon notes- resolved to post the notes from last week in absence
of comment from NSF- John will post. Bob will send last week’s
notes to NSF for review- pointing out that no reply equals
acceptance. Resolved that we will do 2-week stints on notetaking-
Bob will finish out this month and then pass to John the following
2 weeks. 1st 2 weeks of March.
2) White paper. Zoe doesn’t mind adding section on outreach. To some
extent we are waiting for comments from Renee. Current paper might
be already too long, and if we add every possible project, it will
be impenetrable. John suggests that we could have a separate
section, maybe online, outlining all of the science. Key issue is
that Pat and Renee we think are happy with it, but the community is
not that happy if their projects are not specifically mentioned.
Many of the science community are actually happy, Jack points out.
Resolved that we can talk with NSF at our next SCO-NSF call.
3) Thule representation: Zoe will be there next week, and can take a
look at the facilities… so we’ll hope she will learn about the
facilities there- she’ll plan to take some pictures of the
buildings and facilities. Try to learn about things like freezer
space, who is doing what… we know there are biologists there
etc. get Jen to show Zoe all the buildings and such. Some
discussion of how frozen things get stored there- wrt the Osterberg
project this season.

13 Feb. SCO/NSF monthly call

Jack asked if there was any feedback on the GEOSummit meeting and/or the draft whitepaper. NSF said that the meeting went well, and they agreed with the proposal to hold face-to-face Summit every year during the next few years as Isi station is developed. Next meeting will be in Boulder in late Spring 2015 preceding or following NOAA’s annual meeting. Current plans anticipate holding the 2016 GEOSummit at GSFC in conjunction with NASA’s PARCA/OIB session (as we did in 2014).

Renee pointed out that it was not easy to find information about the 2014 GEOSummit meeting on the GEOSummit web site. She noted that it was possible to search (Google?) and find the page, but not easy to navigate to the meeting page from the site home page. SCO needs to take this under advisement when we post the meeting notes and presentations onto the site. Katrine expects to send all of this material to SCO no later than 14 Feb, and we will post it soon after.

Jack noted that despite the discussion in the last section of the meeting about 2-way communication, SCO had received no suggestions about improvements to the Whitepaper. Renee offered to ping ICECAPS PIs Walden and Shupe, reminding them that input is desired, and that they had expressed concerns about content of the current draft. Renee also felt that SCO should add some content about education/outreach, especially including Greenlandics. She said she would reread the current draft and offer specific suggestions.

Final ~10 minutes of the call spent rehashing the Risk Management workshop, at which Jack and Bob were participants (not necessarily representing SCO).

11 Feb. SCO power/energy group

Present: Tracy, Jay, Jack, Bob, Dave, Renee, Jen, 2 others.
Tracy leads.
– DOE AFFECT grant proposals. CPS is in good shape for getting the
proposal ready and in. Letters of support are in for RAPID
proposal. Tracy notes this will be not only a power system but also
a communications system, so SRI is an appropriate partner. Tracy is
on target to deliver on schedule. Jack points out that there is no
detailed description of the budget and/or NSF cost sharing, which he
reads as a critical link. The new proposal shows a breakdown, and
the NSF commitment is implicit. Tracy reminds Renee that an agency
(NSF) letter of commitment is a hard requirement for the proposal.
There is some discussion of combining micro-turbine proposals
between the Antarctic and Arctic. There was a waste-to-energy plan
for the Antarctic program, but it sounds like there is not enough
waste to justify the investment (aside). CPS is working on a
life-cycle cost analysis for the CHP proposal. Jen is currently
custodian of the proposal. There is a need for getting the numbers
into the proposal.
– Summit/ISI Grid concept- Tracy asks for comments on the conceptual
drawings, no comments. Next looking for consensus on system
definitions. Looking at 4160 or 15 kV as the line level for the
power line from ISI to Summit. Cable costs have come in, and are
dramatically lower than what we thought earlier. Somewhere around
$30k. This makes it sound quite reasonable for running such a
line. Sounds like it’s looking more like 4160V as it’s more
accessible. Tracy asks SCO if it is pretty reasonable to eliminate
the “manholes” that they used at South Pole. Bob points out that
there are horizontal strain (divergence) data for the Summit area,
and so we should be able to calculate what kind of strain a cable
would have to withstand for a lifetime of 30 years. Question of the
period of autonomy- how much storage? And also looking at the
different battery technologies.
– Other agenda items. requests for new agenda items?
– Jack asks if Fuel cells are any part of the picture for Summit.
Sounds like it may be a challenge “a little risky”. Jack points out
that we need to be pushing the envelope and take leadership on
showing that these things can be done. Not betting the station on
it or anything, but getting things started.
– Tracy has tried to get NREL back in with the group, to no avail.