alternatives suited to its unique geography. This shift aims to address both rising costs and emerging industrial demands while preparing the remote community for a more sustainable future. “Right now, we ship in all of our diesel fuel to generate electricity. We budgeted about $11 million for fuel this year, and that estimate is based on the price of diesel,” says Homka. “Looking at green energy, looking at wind, looking at solar, and looking at geothermal; that’s all we have out here that we should be taking advantage of.” The island’s volcanic nature offers a promising though challenging opportunity for geothermal development. Exploration efforts in the 1980s aimed to prove the resource’s viability, but uncertainty remains about whether the available geothermal volume is sufficient to support a full transition from diesel to geothermal power. Development has been further constrained by access difficulties and an estimated $250 million investment requirement. “Our volcano is about 13 miles away through mountainous topography and we bury our transmission lines out here because of the strong winds,” Homka explains. “It’s very difficult to access the site where they attempted to prove there was a geothermal resource, and even trying to get a road there to transport materials is really challenging.” Wind power offers another potential solution, with plans for five megawatt-producing towers under consideration. The variability of wind generation, however, requires additional systems for load management. “We’ll probably have to come up with a peak shaving powerhouse, which at 14 megawatts is a lot to shave,” notes Homka.This peak shaving facility alone carries an estimated $100 million price tag. Unalaska’s energy planning is a microcosm of challenges faced by remote communities worldwide, including balancing immediate needs against longterm sustainability while working within extreme 86 CIVIL AND MUNICIPAL VOLUME 06, ISSUE 05
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5MjAx