The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKodiak Biomass Heating System Final Report Coffman 08-10-2015-BIO Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, Alaska 800 F Street, Anchorage, AK 99501 p (907) 276-6664 f (907) 276-5042 David Nicolai, PE, CEA, MBA Lee Bolling, PE, CEA, CEM FINAL REPORT – 8/10/2015 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. i Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 III. Preliminary Site Investigation ........................................................................................... 4 BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 4 EXISTING HEATING SYSTEMS............................................................................................................................................. 4 DOMESTIC HOT WATER................................................................................................................................................... 5 BUILDING ENVELOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 AVAILABLE SPACE ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 STREET ACCESS AND FUEL STORAGE ................................................................................................................................... 6 BUILDING OR SITE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 7 BIOMASS SYSTEM INTEGRATION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 BIOMASS SYSTEM OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 8 IV. Energy Consumption and Costs ......................................................................................... 9 ENERGY COSTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 WOOD PELLETS ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 FUTURE LOCAL PELLET PRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 9 HEATING OIL ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 ELECTRICITY ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 EXISTING FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 BIOMASS SYSTEM CONSUMPTION ................................................................................................................................... 11 V. Preliminary Cost Estimating ............................................................................................. 14 VI. Economic Analysis .......................................................................................................... 16 O&M COSTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................................................ 17 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................... 20 VII. Forest Resource and Fuel Availability Assessments ........................................................ 22 FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 22 AIR QUALITY PERMITTING .............................................................................................................................................. 22 VIII. General Biomass Technology Information ..................................................................... 23 HEATING WITH WOOD FUEL ........................................................................................................................................... 23 TYPES OF WOOD FUEL .................................................................................................................................................. 23 HIGH EFFICIENCY WOOD PELLET BOILERS ......................................................................................................................... 24 HIGH EFFICIENCY CORD WOOD BOILERS ........................................................................................................................... 24 LOW EFFICIENCY CORD WOOD BOILERS ........................................................................................................................... 25 HIGH EFFICIENCY WOOD STOVES .................................................................................................................................... 25 BULK FUEL BOILERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 GRANTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. ii Appendices Appendix A – Site Photos Appendix B – Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Appendix C – AWEDTG Field Data Sheet Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. iii Abbreviations ACF Accumulated Cash Flow ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers AEA Alaska Energy Authority AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C Benefit / Cost Ratio BTU British Thermal Unit BTUH BTU per hour CCF One Hundred Cubic Feet CEI Coffman Engineers, Inc. CFM Cubic Feet per Minute Eff Efficiency F Fahrenheit ft Feet GPM Gallons Per Minute HP Horsepower HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning in Inch(es) kWh Kilowatt-Hour lb(s) Pound(s) MBH Thousand BTUs per Hour O&M Operations and Maintenance MMBTU One Million BTUs PC Project Cost R R-Value SF Square Feet, Supply Fan TEMP Temperature V Volts W Watts Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. iv List of Figures Figure 1 – Kodiak, Alaska – Google Maps ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Kodiak downtown, Alaska Commercial Building – Google Maps ................................................. 2 Figure 3 – Kodiak, AK, KANA Campus site – Google Maps ............................................................................ 3 List of Tables Table 1 – Energy Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 – Existing Fuel Oil Consumption ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 3 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption – 2015 Quoted Costs .......................................... 12 Table 4 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption – Theoretical $200/Ton Costs ............................ 13 Table 5 – Estimate of Probable Cost – KANA Main ..................................................................................... 14 Table 6 – Estimate of Probable Cost – CACPLL ........................................................................................... 15 Table 7 – Estimate of Probable Cost – Anderson Construction Warehouse .............................................. 15 Table 9 – Inflation rates .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 10 – Economic Definitions ................................................................................................................. 17 Table 11 – Economic Analysis Results – Current Pellet Price $593/ton ..................................................... 19 Table 12 – Economic Analysis Results – KANA Main - $200/Ton ................................................................ 19 Table 13 – Economic Analysis Results - CACPLL - $200/Ton ....................................................................... 20 Table 14 – Economic Analysis Results – Anderson Construction Warehouse - $200/Ton ......................... 20 Table 15 – Economic Analysis Results – A/C Building - $200/Ton .............................................................. 20 Table 16 – Sensitivity Analysis – KANA Main .............................................................................................. 21 Table 17 – Sensitivity Analysis – CACPLL Building ....................................................................................... 21 Table 18 – Sensitivity Analysis – Anderson Construction Warehouse ........................................................ 21 Table 19 – Sensitivity Analysis – A/C Building ............................................................................................. 21 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 1 I. Executive Summary A preliminary feasibility assessment was completed in Kodiak, AK for the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) and four of their properties. The purpose of the assessment was to determine the technical and economic viability of biomass heating systems for the KANA Main Building, the CACPLL, the Anderson Construction Warehouse, and the Alaska Commercial (A/C) Building. Upgrades are evaluated per building in this study. Due to existing building heating systems, pellet boilers were evaluated for each facility, as major renovations would be required to integrate cord wood boilers for these projects. Pellet boilers were selected due to compatibility with existing building heating equipment. At this time, biomass systems are not economically justified. However with the anticipated startup of sawmills in the Kodiak area, estimates have been prepared with pellet fuel costs that could be economically viable. This would give economic planners a target price when evaluating the development of a pellet production facility. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 2 II. Introduction A preliminary feasibility assessment was completed to determine the technical and economic viability of biomass heating systems for the KANA Main Building, CACPLL, Anderson Construction Warehouse, and the Alaska Commercial Building. The location of the building is shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figure 1 – Kodiak, Alaska – Google Maps Figure 2 – Kodiak downtown, Alaska Commercial Building – Google Maps Alaska Commercial Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 3 Figure 3 – Kodiak, AK, KANA Campus site – Google Maps Anderson Construction Warehouse CACPLL Building KANA Main Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 4 III. Preliminary Site Investigation Complete data and records for the buildings were not available at this time. All dates, quantities, and additional data is approximated as close as practical based on anecdotal evidence and surrounding properties. Building Descriptions The KANA Main Building is a 18,910 SF two-story building that was constructed in 1995. The lower floor is dedicated to healthcare services, while the upper floor is dedicated to office space and administrative services. The building is open during regular business hours, 8am-5pm, Monday through Friday. Approximately 30 employees use the space daily, and 2 to 3 visitors per hour occupy the building during regular business hours. There is only token usage by employees at other times of the day and week. No energy audit has been conducted for the building. The CACPLL Building is a 10,125 SF single story building that was constructed in 1997. It has a mezzanine space for building heating and ventilation equipment. The east half of the building is a shop and warehouse space leased to a third party, and the west half of the building is an office space. The building is occupied during regular business hours, 8am-5pm, Monday through Friday. The full-time occupancy is 6 employees daily, and approximately 1 visitor per hour. No energy audit has been conducted. The Anderson Construction Warehouse was purchased by KANA in 2014 and is a 3,000 SF single story building. The building consists of a prefabricated metal building and is used as an equipment shed. The building is not regularly occupied and only has token use when KANA staff require shop space or cold storage space. No energy audit has been conducted. The Alaska Commercial Building was purchased by KANA in 2014 and is a 40,000 SF facility. It was formerly a grocery/department store and is currently mothballed pending an undetermined future use. The owner is willing to renovate for a future usage, however it is currently divided into two large spaces on the ground floor (what was previously the shopping area and the storage area) with offices in a mezzanine area, and a penthouse gathering room. No regular occupancy occurs at the facility. No energy audit has been conducted. Existing Heating Systems · The KANA Main building is heated with two Weil McLain series 78 boilers, model 678. They are rated for 5.5 GPH of fuel oil, and are paired with similarly rated Beckett burners. The boilers are located in a mechanical room on the north exterior wall of the building. The boilers serve two VAV air handling units, the perimeter baseboard system, and the domestic hot water sidearm heater. All of the mechanical equipment was installed with the building’s original construction in 1995. The combustion efficiency of the boilers is roughly 80%. The boilers and air handling units are regularly well maintained and appear to be in great condition. · The CACPLL is heated with a Weil McLain model 578 boiler rated for 4.45 GPH of fuel oil, paired with a similarly rated Carlin burner. The boiler is located in the mechanical mezzanine accessible from the shop side of the building. The boiler serves hydronic unit heaters in the shop side, baseboard perimeter heat in the office side, and the ventilation coils for the VAV air handling system serving the office side. All of the mechanical equipment was installed with the building’s Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 5 original construction in 1997. The combustion efficiency of the boiler is roughly 80%. The boiler and air handler are regularly well maintained and appear to be in excellent condition. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse is heated with an EnergyLogic waste oil heater. The nameplate on the burner and the unit were illegible. The heater is located in a corner in the warehouse space and directly distributes heated air. It serves the entire warehouse space. The mechanical equipment was installed with the original building construction, which was sometime approximately 20 to 25 years ago. The combustion efficiency is approximately 80%. The systems are maintained and in working order. · The Alaska Commercial Building was built in 1964 and is heated with two Weil McLain 878 boilers, rated for 7.5 GPH of fuel oil. They are paired with similarly rated Gordon-Piatt burners. The boilers are located in the mechanical room along the southwest face of the building and distribute heating water to vertical unit heaters for space heating for freeze protection. The boilers were installed approximately 25 years ago; no exact age is known. The building underwent a change of use in 2013 when KANA acquired the facility. Rooftop AHUs were removed and the roof was patched. Baseboard heat was removed and the vertical unit heaters were added to provide space heating for freeze protection. Domestic Hot Water · Domestic hot water for the KANA Main building is provided by a Triangle Tube indirect hot water heater, with heat provided by a heating coil fed by the heating boilers. It has an 80 gallon capacity. Domestic hot water is used for the lavatories in restrooms, janitor’s sinks, coffee sinks in breakrooms, and for handwashing sinks around the first floor. · In the CACPLL, domestic hot water is provided by an electric hot water heater located in the boiler room. It has a 50 gallon capacity with a 4500W element. The domestic hot water is used by janitor sinks, lavatories in restrooms, and one shower. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse has a tankless oil-fired on-demand domestic hot water heater. However it was not operational at the time of inspection. It was disabled from functioning for an unknown reason. If functional, it would serve a lavatory in a restroom. · The domestic hot water for the A/C building is provided by an oil-fired 32 gallon water heater located in the boiler room, with a burner rated for 0.75 GPH of fuel oil. This corresponds to a recovery rate of roughly 114 GPH at a 90°F rise. The building does not have any regular or currently planned usage, however, the existing, unused, connected fixtures are lavatories, 2 kitchen sinks, and 2 handwashing sinks. Building Envelope · The KANA Main building is a modern construction steel frame stick built building with a 2”x8” wall construction with a stucco exterior finish. The roof is a built-up hot roof with an overall insulation value of approximately R-30. The windows in the building are double paned. Only the front entrance is provided with an arctic entryway. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6 · The CACPLL is a prefabricated metal building structure with a 2”x6” wall construction. The roof is a metal hot roof with energy-code minimum insulation of R-30. The windows in the building are double paned. Only the main entrance on the office side is provided with an arctic entry. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse is an equipment-shed style prefabricated metal building. It has 2”x4” walls. The roof construction is also a 2”x4” construction, with R-13 insulation. There are no windows in the building. The short walls on either end of the building have large garage doors, of approximately R-7 construction. The weather seals on the garage doors require replacement to reduce drafts or undesired heat loss. There are no arctic entries provided for the facility. · The A/C Building is a stick-frame construction building with 2”x6” walls consisting of nominal R- 19 insulation. The roof is an EPDM covered hot roof built on a 2”x 8” frame with a nominal R-30 insulation system. What few windows there are in the building are double paned. No arctic entries are provided at any entrance in the building. Available Space · The KANA Main building does not have unused interior space that would accommodate a wood boiler system. An addition or a detached plant building would be able to accommodate a new wood-fired system. Space for the addition or new boiler building would be towards the north, either extending into the parking lot, or developing a portion of the lawn next to the facility · The CACPLL building would have the space to accommodate one pellet system, however no other commercially available compatible wood-fired system would fit in the available space in the building. No adequate space is available outside the building due to rights-of-way and existing yard laydown usage surrounding the building. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse has ample interior space for almost any wood-fired system under consideration, but future space usage should be considered prior to installation of a wood-fired system. No space would be available around the exterior of the building due to required setbacks from property lines. Code variances could be investigated if an exterior option is desired. · The Alaska Commercial Building has ample interior space to fit any wood-fired heating system. However, since the building is currently unoccupied, future and current space usage should be considered prior to installation of a wood-fired system. No space is available outside the building as it is located in a highly developed downtown area with adjacent structure and dedicated adjacent area usage. Street Access and Fuel Storage All four buildings have excellent site access for any size delivery vehicle for cordwood or pellets. The KANA Main, CACPLL, and the Anderson Construction Warehouse all have areas where dry storage could be installed, such as outdoor drying sheds for cordwood or for pellet bags. The A/C Building would require storage to be provided indoors, as space is limited outside the building. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 7 Building or Site constraints · For the KANA Main Building, there are several site constraints. There is a main road which cannot be encroached to the east, a road to the south, and parking lots to the west and north. Additionally, there is a rocky bluff to the northwest. The lawn would be ideal for an addition and is located between the building and the road to the northeast and east. · The CACPLL also has site constraints. There is a main road to the west, another road to the north, a local access road to the south, and yard and laydown space to the east. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse has significant site constraints on all sides with local access roads and other privately owned buildings to the west and east. Space is available for drying sheds or fuel storage on the ground along the west and east sides of the building, under the building eaves. · The A/C Building has significant site constraints. Main roads are on the south and west sides of the building, a parking lot is to the north, and privately owned buildings to the east. No outdoor space is available for any additions or fuel storage. Biomass System Integration For all four buildings in Kodiak, biomass system integration is difficult. · The KANA Main Building operates at high heating water temperatures with a 20°F temperature difference between the supply and the return. A cordwood, chip wood, or hog wood system would require terminal heating equipment to be capable of a large range of temperatures, and a much larger temperature drop. The lowest impact on the existing building services is a pellet fired boiler system, which is capable of maintaining higher temperatures and a matching temperature drop at the existing terminal heating equipment. · The CACPLL Building has similar integration constraints as the KANA Main facility. A pellet fueled system would have the least impact on existing building services. · The Anderson Construction Warehouse requires a space usage planning exercise prior to the introduction of a wood-fired heating system because it currently has minimal use and is rarely heated. Any installed wood boiler system would also require the installation of terminal heating equipment, as the existing waste oil heater has no capabilities for integration. · The A/C Building has interior space to install a cordwood or pellet fired system, as well as the fuel storage for either system. This would require renovating some of the spaces near the mechanical room to accommodate the new heating equipment. Installing new heating equipment would be impractical without a future usage plan for the entire facility (as it is vacant and heated only for freeze protection). New terminal heating equipment would need to be selected and installed for the new space usage and with the biomass system in mind. It is recommended to perform another wood boiler evaluation when the facility is changed to its next usage. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 8 Biomass System Options Due to space constraints, wood chips or hog wood systems are not feasible for any of the facilities under consideration in Kodiak. These systems require conveyor and handling systems for the fuel delivery that take up a significant space. Cordwood systems are possible, but would require redesign and replacement terminal heating equipment. The simplest integration into existing systems are pellet fueled heating equipment. · For the KANA Main, a Tarm Froling T4 150 is considered. The unit itself is 90” long x 64” wide x 70” tall. It would be installed in a building addition with minimum dimensions of 20’ long x 8’ wide x 8.5’ tall. The addition would contain the boiler, circulation pumps, a heat exchanger, controls, and other miscellaneous equipment. The Tarm boiler would heat water, delivering heat to a 50% propylene glycol (PG) solution in the heat exchanger and loop piping. The PG solution would deliver heat to the building through underground supply and return piping, and connect to the existing building heating system through a new heat exchanger. · An estimated was compiled for the A/C building to install a pellet boiler to match other systems proposed in this study at other buildings. The pellet boiler system matches the KANA Main Building. Due to the significant available space in the building, other wood-fired systems are possible options, but were not considered due to the lack of future space usage plans at this time. · Pellet boilers were also evaluated to be installed inside the CACPLL and Anderson Construction Warehouse buildings. The CACPLL has an existing hydronic heating system which can be integrated into a new pellet system. The Anderson Construction Warehouse would require the installation of a hydronic system and new terminal heating equipment. The pellet systems evaluated for these buildings are the Tarm Froling P4s, which are similar in most respects to the T4, however they are smaller and are rated for a lower heat rating, more in line with expected loads at the CACPLL and the Anderson Construction Warehouse. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 9 IV. Energy Consumption and Costs Energy Costs The table below shows the energy comparison of different fuel types. The system efficiency is used to calculate the delivered MMBTU’s of energy to the building. The delivered cost of energy to the building, in $/MMBTU, is the most accurate way to compare costs of different energy types. Table 1 – Energy Comparison Fuel Type Units Gross BTU/unit System Efficiency $/unit Delivered $/MMBTU Cord Wood cord 14,990,000 75% $300 $26.68 Fuel Oil gal 134,000 80% $4.00 $37.31 Electricity kWh 3,413 99% $0.15 $59.19 Wood Pellets (Shipped to Kodiak) ton 16,000,000 85% $593 $43.601 1Pellets were priced at $249 per ton in Seattle with a delivery cost of $344 per ton from Seattle. Currently, Alaska-based pellet sources are more expensive than Seattle options. Note that in this analysis that wood pellets are more expensive than fuel oil, primarily due to shipping. Assuming fuel oil is constant at $4.00/gallon, wood pellets would provide a reasonable energy savings at a maximum delivered cost of approximately $200/ton or less. A rise in fuel oil price would shorten the payback time, and a decrease in fuel oil price would lengthen the payback. Additionally, cheaper delivered pellet costs would shorten the payback time and increase the benefit-cost ratio. Wood Pellets There is no local wood pellet manufacturer or distributer in Kodiak, which means that wood pellets would have to be barged into the community. Wood pellets are typically sold in 40 lb bags and shipped by the pallet (where 50 bags are loaded on a pallet). Each pallet is one ton of pellets. Wood pellets are currently sold in Anchorage for $295/ton. The cost for shipping one ton of wood pellets by barge to Kodiak was quoted by two shipping companies. Delivery costs from Anchorage are approximately $413/ton and $344/ton from Seattle. The total cost of wood pellets will be $593/ton, which is more expensive than heating oil on a BTU basis. Future Local Pellet Production If a sawmill local to Kodiak or the surrounding islands developed pellet fuel delivery capability, that total delivered cost to the KANA facilities would have to be approximately $200/ton or cheaper in order to provide a reasonable payback and benefit-cost ratio, assuming heating fuel costs remain at approximately $4.00/gallon. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 10 Heating Oil The high price of fuel oil is the main economic driver for the use of biomass heating. Fuel oil is shipped into Kodiak by barge and currently costs approximately $4.00/gal. For this study, the energy content of fuel oil is based on 134,000 BTU/gal, according to the UAF Cooperative Extension available data. Electricity Electricity is provided by the local power utility, Kodiak Electric Association. Electricity is sold to the KANA facilities at 14.98 cents per kWh for the first 300 kWH, and 12.85 cents per kWh for any further electrical usage. For the purposes of this project, 15 cents per kWh was used for economic analysis. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 11 Existing Fuel Oil Consumption An estimate of heating oil consumption was made based on information provided by KANA. Table 2 – Existing Fuel Oil Consumption Building Fuel Type Annual Consumption Net MMBTU/yr Avg. Annual Cost KANA Main Fuel Oil 8,200 gal 879 $32,000 CACPLL Building Fuel Oil 2,600 gal 279 $10,400 Anderson Construction Warehouse Waste Oil N/A N/A N/A1 A/C Building Fuel Oil 10,000 gal 1,072 $40,0002 1Waste oil used was reclaimed without a direct cost. 2Estimated Biomass System Consumption It is estimated that the proposed biomass system will offset 80% of the heating energy for the building, by burning pellets. The remaining 20% of the heating energy will be provided by the existing oil boilers. This result is based on an analysis of the annual heating oil consumption and the heat output of the Tarm boiler. It is assumed that the Tarm system will produce 512,000 BTU/hr per manufacturer documentation. The chart below is first presented at quoted costs, and then again with a theoretical cost of $200 per ton. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 12 Table 3 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption – 2015 Quoted Costs Building Fuel Type % Heating Source Net MMBTU/yr Annual Consumption Energy Cost Total Energy Cost Annual Energy Savings KANA Main Wood Pellets 80% 703.2 52 Tons $30,663 $37,260 ($4,460)1 Fuel Oil 20% 175.8 1,640 gal $6,560 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 CACPLL Building Wood Pellets 80% 223 16 Tons $9,723 $11,840 ($1,440) 1 Fuel Oil 20% 55.7 520 gal $2,080 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 Anderson Construction Warehouse Wood Pellets 80% 257.3 19 Tons $11,219 $13,656 ($1,656) 1 Fuel Oil 20% 64.3 600 gal $2,400 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 A/C Building Wood Pellets 80% 857.6 63 Tons $37,394 $45,431 ($5,431) 1 Fuel Oil 20% 214.4 2,000 $8,000 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 1These are negative numbers Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 13 Table 4 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption – Theoretical $200/Ton Costs Building Fuel Type % Heating Source Net MMBTU/yr Annual Consumption Energy Cost Total Energy Cost Annual Energy Savings KANA Main Wood Pellets 80% 703.2 52 Tons $10,342 $16,939 $15,8611 Fuel Oil 20% 175.8 1,640 gal $6,560 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 CACPLL Building Wood Pellets 80% 223 16 Tons $3,280 $5,397 $5,0031 Fuel Oil 20% 55.7 520 gal $2,080 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 Anderson Construction Warehouse Wood Pellets 80% 257.3 19 Tons $3,784 $6,221 $5,7791 Fuel Oil 20% 64.3 600 gal $2,400 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 A/C Building Wood Pellets 80% 857.6 63 Tons $12,612 $20,649 $19,3511 Fuel Oil 20% 214.4 2,000 $8,000 Additional Electricity N/A N/A 250 kWh $50 1Compared to reported energy consumption from 2013 and 2014. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 14 V. Preliminary Cost Estimating An estimate of probable costs was completed for installing the boiler system at each building. The cost estimate is based on equipment quotes and from previous cost estimates created for similar projects. A 10% remote factor was used to account for increased shipping and installation costs in Kodiak. Project and Construction Management was estimated at 5%. Engineering design and permitting was estimated at 20% and a 15% contingency was used. Table 5 – Estimate of Probable Cost – KANA Main Category Description Cost Site Work Site Grading for Addition $4,000 Foundation (Timbers and Anchors) $5,000 Buried Utilities $5,000 Subtotal $14,000 Electrical Utilities Service Entrance $5,000 Conduit and Wiring $5,000 Subtotal $10,000 Wood Boiler Addition Insulated Addition 8 ft x 20 ft $15,000 Tarm Froling T4 $75,000 Heat Exchanger $5,000 Installation, Piping & Materials $30,000 Fire Allowance $6,000 Controls Allowance $5,000 Electrical Allowance $6,000 Shipping $15,000 Site Installation $10,000 Subtotal $167,000 Main Building Mechanical Heat Exchanger $5,000 Installation, Piping & Materials $10,000 Subtotal $15,000 Subtotal Material and Installation Cost $206,000 Remote Factor 10% $20,600 Subtotal $226,600 Project and Construction Management 5% $11,330 Subtotal $237,930 Design Fees and Permitting 20% $47,586.00 Subtotal $285,516 Contingency 15% $42,827.40 Total Project Cost $328,343 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 15 Table 6 – Estimate of Probable Cost – CACPLL Category Description Cost Wood Boiler Install Tarm Froling P4 $30,000 Installation, Piping & Materials $5,000 Fire Allowance $6,000 Controls Allowance $5,000 Electrical Allowance $6,000 Shipping $15,000 Subtotal $67,000 Remote Factor 10% $6,700 Subtotal $73,700 Project and Construction Management 5% $3,685 Subtotal $77,385 Design Fees and Permitting 20% $15,477.00 Subtotal $92,862 Contingency 15% $13,929.30 Total Project Cost $106,791 Table 7 – Estimate of Probable Cost – Anderson Construction Warehouse Category Description Cost Wood Boiler Install Tarm Froling P4 $30,000 Installation, Piping & Materials $5,000 Fire Allowance $6,000 Controls Allowance $5,000 Electrical Allowance $6,000 Shipping $15,000 Subtotal $67,000 Remote Factor 10% $6,700 Subtotal $73,700 Project and Construction Management 5% $3,685 Subtotal $77,385 Design Fees and Permitting 20% $15,477.00 Subtotal $92,862 Contingency 15% $13,929.30 Total Project Cost $106,791 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 16 Table 8 – Estimate of Probable Cost – A/C Building Category Description Cost Wood Boiler Install Tarm Froling T4 $75,000 Installation, Piping & Materials $30,000 Fire Allowance $6,000 Controls Allowance $5,000 Electrical Allowance $6,000 Shipping $15,000 Site Installation $10,000 Subtotal $147,000 Remote Factor 10% $14,700 Subtotal $161,700 Project and Construction Management 5% $8,085 Subtotal $169,785 Design Fees and Permitting 20% $33,957.00 Subtotal $203,742 Contingency 15% $30,561.30 Total Project Cost $234,303 VI. Economic Analysis The following assumptions were used to complete the economic analysis for this study. Table 9 – Inflation rates Cost per ton of Wood Pellets (required future manufacturing costs for viability) $200 Discount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis 3% Wood Fuel Escalation Rate 3% Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate 5% Electricity Escalation Rate 3% O&M Escalation Rate 2% Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 17 The real discount rate, or minimum attractive rate of return, is 3.0% and is the current rate used for all Life Cycle Cost Analysis by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. This is a typical rate used for completing economic analysis for public entities in Alaska. The escalation rates used for the wood, heating oil, electricity and O&M rates are based on rates used in the Alaska Energy Authority funded 2013 and 2014 biomass pre-feasibility studies. These are typical rates used for this level of evaluation and were used so that results are consistent and comparable to the previous studies. O&M Costs Non-fuel related operations and maintenance costs (O&M) were estimated at $400 per year. The estimate is based on annual maintenance time for the pellet boilers. For the first two years of service, the maintenance cost is doubled to account for maintenance staff getting familiar with operating the new system. Definitions There are many different economic terms used in this study. A listing of all of the terms with their definition is provided below for reference. Table 10 – Economic Definitions Economic Term Description Project Capital Cost This is the opinion of probable cost for designing and constructing the project. Simple Payback The Simple Payback is the Project Capital Cost divided by the first year annual energy savings. The Simple Payback does not take into account escalated energy prices and is therefore not a good measure of project viability. = Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) The present value of all of the heating oil that would have been consumed by the existing heating oil-fired heating system, over a 20 year period. Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) The present value of all of the proposed biomass systems operating costs over a 20 year period. This includes wood fuel, additional electricity, and O&M costs for the proposed biomass system and the heating oil required by the existing equipment to supply the remaining amount of heat to the building. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 18 Table 10 – Economic Definitions Economic Term Description Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) This is the benefit to cost ratio over the 20 year period. A project that has a benefit to cost ratio greater than 1.0 is economically justified. It is defined as follows: / = !"# $− !"& $ # Where: PV = The present value over the 20 year period Reference Sullivan, Wicks and Koelling, “Engineering Economy”, 14th ed., 2009, pg. 440, Modified B-C Ratio. Net Present Value (20 year life) This is the net present value of the project over a 20 year period. If the project has a net present value greater than zero, the project is economically justified. This quantity accounts for the project capital cost, project benefits and operating costs. Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost This is the number of years it takes for the accumulated cash flow of the project to be greater than or equal to the project capital cost. This is similar to the project’s simple payback, except that it incorporates the inflation rates. This quantity is the payback of the project including escalating energy prices and O&M rates. This quantity is calculated as follows: ≤ ( ) * )+, Where: J = Year that the accumulated cash flow is greater than or equal to the Project Capital Cost. ) = Project Cash flow for the kth year. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 19 Results An economic analysis was completed in order to determine the simple payback, benefit to cost ratio, and net present value of the proposed pellet boiler systems, as shown in the tables below. First, an analysis was conducted using quoted pellet prices as delivered to Kodiak, AK. As discussed, these prices of $593/ton are not economically viable. Table 11 – Economic Analysis Results – Current Pellet Price $593/ton Financial Value KANA Main CACPLL ACW A/C Project Capital Cost $328,343 $106,791 $106,791 $234,303 Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) $769,269 $243,915 $281,440 $938,133 Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) $761,203 $241,608 $283,656 $921,636 Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) 0.02 0.02 <0.00 0.07 Net Present Value (20 year life) $320,277 $104,485 $109,008 $217,806 Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive Year 18 Year 18 Year 20 Year 17 Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost >20 Years >20 Years >20 Years >20 Years Simple Payback N/A N/A N/A N/A The proposed projects have varied benefit to cost ratios over the 20 year study period based on a proposed local sales cost that is very competitive. Any project with a benefit to cost ratio above 1.0 is considered economically justified. Please refer to Appendix B for the economic analysis spreadsheet for greater detail. Table 12 – Economic Analysis Results – KANA Main - $200/Ton Project Capital Cost $328,343 Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) $769,269 Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) $364,387 Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) 1.23 Net Present Value (20 year life) $76,539 Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive First Year Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost Year 18 Simple Payback 21.9 years Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 20 Table 13 – Economic Analysis Results - CACPLL - $200/Ton Project Capital Cost $106,791 Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) $243,915 Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) $119,511 Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) 1.16 Net Present Value (20 year life) $17,614 Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive First Year Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost Year 18 Simple Payback 25 years Table 14 – Economic Analysis Results – Anderson Construction Warehouse - $200/Ton Project Capital Cost $106,791 Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) $281,440 Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) $138,666 Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) 1.34 Net Present Value (20 year life) $32,983 Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive First Year Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost Year 17 Simple Payback 21.5 years Table 15 – Economic Analysis Results – A/C Building - $200/Ton Project Capital Cost $234,303 Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life) $938,133 Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life) $440,879 Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life) 2.12 Net Present Value (20 year life) $262,952 Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive First Year Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost Year 10 Simple Payback 12.6 years Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was completed to show how changing heating oil costs and wood costs affect the benefit to cost (B/C) ratios of the project. As heating oil costs increase and wood costs decrease, the project becomes more economically viable. The B/C ratios greater than 1.0 are economically justified and are highlighted in green. B/C ratios less than 1.0 are not economically justified and are highlighted in red. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 21 Table 16 – Sensitivity Analysis – KANA Main B/C Ratios Pellet Cost $200/ton $250/ton $300/ton $593/ton Heating Oil Cost $3.50/gal 1.00 0.85 0.69 <0.00 $3.75/gal 1.12 0.96 0.81 <0.00 $4.00/gal 1.23 1.08 0.93 0.02 $4.25/gal 1.35 1.20 1.04 0.14 $4.50/gal 1.47 1.31 1.16 0.26 Table 17 – Sensitivity Analysis – CACPLL Building B/C Ratios Pellet Cost $200/ton $250/ton $300/ton $593/ton Heating Oil Cost $3.50/gal 0.94 0.79 0.65 <0.00 $3.75/gal 1.05 0.91 0.76 <0.00 $4.00/gal 1.16 1.02 0.87 0.02 $4.25/gal 1.28 1.13 0.99 0.14 $4.50/gal 1.39 1.25 1.10 0.25 Table 18 – Sensitivity Analysis – Anderson Construction Warehouse B/C Ratios Pellet Cost $200/ton $250/ton $300/ton $593/ton Heating Oil Cost $3.50/gal 1.07 0.90 0.73 <0.00 $3.75/gal 1.21 1.03 0.86 <0.00 $4.00/gal 1.34 1.16 0.99 <0.00 $4.25/gal 1.47 1.30 1.12 0.11 $4.50/gal 1.60 1.43 1.26 0.24 Table 19 – Sensitivity Analysis – A/C Building B/C Ratios Pellet Cost $200/ton $225/ton $300/ton $593/ton Heating Oil Cost $3.50/gal 1.72 1.46 1.20 <0.00 $3.75/gal 1.92 1.66 1.40 <0.00 $4.00/gal 2.12 1.86 1.60 0.07 $4.25/gal 2.32 2.06 1.80 0.27 $4.50/gal 2.52 2.26 2.00 0.47 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 22 VII. Forest Resource and Fuel Availability Assessments Forest Resource Assessments In 2012 the Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry wrote the “Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources in the Cordova Area”. This Forest Resource Assessment is a great resource that quantifies timber resources in the Cordova Area for biomass heating. Air Quality Permitting Currently, air quality permitting is regulated according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Section 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control regulations. Per these regulations, a minor air quality permit is required if a new wood boiler or wood stove produces one of the following conditions per Section 18 AAC 50.502 (C)(1): 40 tons per year (TPY) of carbon dioxide (CO2), 15 TPY of particulate matter greater than 10 microns (PM-10), 40 TPY of sulfur dioxide, 0.6 TPY of lead, 100 TPY of carbon monoxide within 10 kilometers of a carbon monoxide nonattainment area, or 10 TPY of direct PM-2.5 emissions. These regulations assume that the device will operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and that no fuel burning equipment is used. If a new wood boiler or wood stove is installed in addition to a fuel burning heating device, the increase in air pollutants cannot exceed the following per AAC 50.502 (C)(3): 10 TPY of PM-10, 10 TPY of sulfur dioxide, 10 TPY of nitrogen oxides, 100 TPY of carbon monoxide within 10 kilometers of a carbon monoxide nonattainment area, or 10 TPY of direct PM-2.5 emissions. Per the Wood-fired Heating Device Visible Emission Standards (Section 18 AAC 50.075), a person may not operate a wood-fired heating device in a manner that causes black smoke or visible emissions that exceed 50 percent opacity for more than 15 minutes in any hour in an area where an air quality advisory is in effect. From Coffman’s discussions with Patrick Dunn at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, these regulations are focused on permitting industrial applications of wood burning equipment. In his opinion, it would be unlikely that an individual wood boiler would require an air quality permit unless several boilers were to be installed and operated at the same site. If several boilers were installed and operated together, the emissions produced could be greater than 40 tons of CO2 per year. This would require permitting per AAC 50.502 (C)(1) or (C)(3). Permitting would not be required on the residential wood fired stoves unless they violated the Wood-fired Heating Device Visible Emission Standards (Section 18 AAC 50.075). Recent Garn boiler systems installed in Alaska have not required air quality permits. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 23 VIII. General Biomass Technology Information Heating with Wood Fuel Wood fuels are among the most cost-effective and reliable sources of heating fuel for communities adjacent to forestland when the wood fuels are processed, handled, and combusted appropriately. Compared to other heating energy fuels, such as oil and propane, wood fuels typically have lower energy density and higher associated transportation and handling costs. Due to this low bulk density, wood fuels have a shorter viable haul distance when compared to fossil fuels. This short haul distance also creates an advantage for local communities to utilize locally-sourced wood fuels, while simultaneously retaining local energy dollars. Most communities in rural Alaska are particularly vulnerable to high energy prices due to the large number of heating degree days and expensive shipping costs. For many communities, wood-fueled heating can lower fuel costs. For example, cordwood sourced at $250 per cord is just 25% of the cost per MMBTU as #1 fuel oil sourced at $7 per gallon. In addition to the financial savings, the local communities also benefit from the multiplier effect of circulating energy dollars within the community longer, more stable energy prices, job creation, and more active forest management. The local cordwood market is influenced by land ownership, existing forest management and ecological conditions, local demand and supply, and the State of Alaska Energy Assistance program. Types of Wood Fuel Wood fuels are specified by energy density, moisture content, ash content, and granulometry. Each of these characteristics affects the wood fuel’s handling characteristics, storage requirements, and combustion process. Higher quality fuels have lower moisture, ash, dirt, and rock contents, consistent granulometry, and higher energy density. Different types of fuel quality can be used in wood heating projects as long as the infrastructure specifications match the fuel content characteristics. Typically, lower quality fuel will be the lowest cost fuel, but it will require more expensive storage, handling, and combustion infrastructure, as well as additional maintenance. Projects in rural Alaska must be designed around the availability of wood fuels. Some fuels can be harvested and manufactured on site, such as cordwood, woodchips, and briquettes. Wood pellets can also be used, but typically require a larger scale pellet manufacturer to make them. The economic feasibility of manufacturing on site is determined by a financial assessment of the project. Typically, larger projects offer more flexibility in terms of owning and operating the wood harvesting and manufacturing equipment, such as a wood chipper, splitter, or equipment to haul wood out of forest, than smaller projects. Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 24 High Efficiency Wood Pellet Boilers High efficiency pellet boilers are designed to burn wood pellets cleanly and efficiently. These boilers utilize pellet storage bins or silos that hold a large percentage of the building’s annual pellet supply. Augers or vacuums transfer pellets from the silos to a pellet hopper adjacent to the pellet boiler, where pellets can be fed into the boiler for burning. Pellets are automatically loaded into the pellet boiler and do not require manual loading such as in a Garn cord wood boiler. The pellet boilers typically have a 3 to 1 turn down ratio, which allows the firing rate to modulate from 100% down to 33% fire. This allows the boiler to properly match building heat demand, increasing boiler efficiency. The efficiencies of these boilers can range from 85% to 92% efficiency depending on firing rate. Two of the best quality pellet boilers in the U.S. market are the Maine Energy Systems PES boilers and the Froling P4 boilers. These boilers have high end controls, automatic ash removal and have a good reputation for quality. The Maxim Pellet Boiler is a less costly option and can be used directly outdoors if needed. According to Chad Shumacher, General Manager of Superior Pellets, his Maxim boiler automation does not operate as well as the Maine Energy Systems units, but they are less than half the price. The working lifespan of the Maxim boilers also may be less than the higher quality units. High Efficiency Cord Wood Boilers High Efficiency Low Emission (HELE) cordwood boilers are designed to burn cordwood fuel cleanly and efficiently. The boilers use cordwood that is typically seasoned to 25% moisture content (MC) or less and meet the dimensions required for loading and firing. The amount of cordwood burned by the boiler will depend on the heat load profile of the building and the utilization of the fuel oil system as back up. Two HELE cordwood boiler suppliers include Garn (www.garn.com) and TarmUSA (www.woodboilers.com). Both of these suppliers have units operating in Alaska. TarmUSA has a number of residential units operating in Alaska and has models that range between 100,000 to 300,000 BTU/hr. Garn boilers, manufactured by Dectra Corporation, are used in Tanana, Kasilof, Dot Lake, Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove and other locations to heat homes, washaterias, schools, and community buildings. The Garn boiler has a unique construction, which is basically a wood boiler housed in a large water tank. Garn boilers come in several sizes and are appropriate for facilities using 100,000 to 1,000,000 BTUs per hour. The jacket of water surrounding the fire box absorbs heat and is piped into buildings via a heat exchanger, and then transferred to an existing building heating system, infloor radiant tubing, unit heaters, or baseboard heaters. In installations where the Garn boiler is in a detached building, there are additional heat exchangers, pumps and a glycol circulation loop that are necessary to transfer heat to the building while allowing for freeze protection. Radiant floor heating is the most efficient heating method when using wood boilers such as Garns, because they can operate using lower supply water temperatures compared to baseboards. Garn boilers are approximately 87% efficient and store a large quantity of water. For example, the Garn WHS-2000 holds approximately 1,825 gallons of heated water. Garns also produce virtually no smoke when at full burn, because of a primary and secondary gasification (2,000 ºF) burning process. Garns are manually stocked with cordwood and can be loaded multiple times a day during periods of high heating demand. Garns are simple to operate with only three moving parts: a handle, door and blower. Garns produce very little ash and require minimal maintenance. Removing ash and inspecting fans are typical maintenance requirements. Fans are used to produce a draft that increases combustion temperatures and boiler efficiency. In cold climates, Garns can be equipped with exterior insulated storage tanks for extra hot water circulating capacity. Most facilities using cordwood boilers keep existing oil-fired systems Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 25 operational to provide heating backup during biomass boiler downtimes and to provide additional heat for peak heating demand periods. Low Efficiency Cord Wood Boilers Outdoor boilers are categorized as low-efficiency, high emission (LEHE) systems. These boiler systems are not recommended as they produce significant emission issues and do not combust wood fuels efficiently or completely, resulting in significant energy waste and pollution. These systems require significantly more wood to be purchased, handled and combusted to heat a facility as compared to a HELE system. Additionally, several states have placed a moratorium on installing LEHE boilers because of air quality issues (Washington). These LEHE systems can have combustion efficiencies as low as twenty five (25%) percent and produce more than nine times the emission rate of standard industrial boilers. In comparison, HELEs can operate around 87% efficiency. High Efficiency Wood Stoves Newer high efficiency wood stoves are available on the market that produce minimal smoke, minimal ash and require less firewood. New EPA-certified wood stoves produce significantly less smoke than older uncertified wood stoves. High efficiency wood stoves are easy to operate with minimal maintenance compared to other biomass systems. The Blaze King Classic high efficiency wood stove (www.blazeking.com) is a recommended model, due to its built-in thermostats that monitor the heat output of the stove. This stove automatically adjusts the air required for combustion. This unique technology, combined with the efficiencies of a catalytic combustor with a built-in thermostat, provides the longest burn times of any wood stove. The Blaze King stove allows for optimal combustion and less frequent loading and firing times. Bulk Fuel Boilers Bulk fuel boilers usually burn wood chips, sawdust, bark or pellets and are designed around the wood resources that are available from the local forests or local industry. Several large facilities in Tok, Craig, and Delta Junction (Delta Greely High School) are using bulk fuel biomass systems. Tok uses a commercial grinder to process woodchips. The chips are then dumped into a bin and are carried by a conveyor belt to the boiler. The wood fuel comes from timber scraps, local sawmills and forest thinning projects. The Delta Greely High School has a woodchip bulk fuel boiler that heats the 77,000 square foot facility. The Delta Greely system, designed by Coffman engineers, includes a completely separate boiler building which includes a chip storage bunker and space for storage of tractor trailers full of chips (so handling of frozen chips could be avoided). Woodchips are stored in the concrete bunker and augers move the material on a conveyor belt to the boilers. Grants There are many grant opportunities for biomass work state, federal, and local for feasibility studies, design and construction. If a project is pursued, a thorough search of websites and discussions with the AEA Biomass group would be recommended to make sure no possible funding opportunities are missed. Below are some funding opportunities and existing past grants that have been awarded. Currently, there is a funding opportunity for tribal communities that develop clean and renewable energy resources through the U.S. Department of Energy. On April 30, 2013, the Department of Energy announced up to $7 million was available to deploy clean energy projects in tribal communities to reduce reliance on fossil fuel and promote economic development on tribal lands. The Energy Department’s Tribal Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 26 Energy Program, in cooperation with the Office of Indian Energy, will help Native American communities, tribal energy resource development organizations, and tribal consortia to install community or facility scale clean energy projects. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/ The Department of Energy (DOE), Alaska Native programs, focus on energy efficiency and add ocean energy into the mix. In addition the communities are eligible for up to $250,000 in energy-efficiency aid. The Native village of Kongiganak will get help strengthening its wind-energy infrastructure, increasing energy efficiency and developing “smart grid technology”. Koyukuk will get help upgrading its energy infrastructure, improving energy efficiency and exploring biomass options. The village of Minto will explore all the above options as well as look for solar-energy ideas. Shishmaref, an Alaska Native village faced climate-change-induced relocation, will receive help with increasing energy sustainability and building capacity as it relocates. And the Yakutat T’lingit Tribe will also study efficiency, biomass and ocean energy. This DOE program would be a viable avenue for biomass funding. http://energy.gov/articles/alaska-native-communities-receive-technical-assistance-local-clean-energy- development The city of Nulato was awarded a $40,420 grant for engineering services for a wood energy project by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Forest Service. Links regarding the award of the Woody Biomass Utilization Project recipients are shown below: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/07/renewablewoods.shtml http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2009/08/0403.xml Delta Junction was awarded a grant for engineering from the Alaska Energy Authority from the Renewable Energy Fund for $831,203. This fund provides assistance to utilities, independent power producers, local governments, and tribal governments for feasibility studies, reconnaissance studies, energy resource monitoring, and work related to the design and construction of eligible facilities. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/re-fund-6/4_Program_Update/FinalREFStatusAppendix2013.pdf http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/PFS-BiomassProgramFactSheet.pdf http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RenewableEnergyFund/RFA_Project_Locations_20Oct08.pdf The Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group (AWEDTG) consists of a coalition of federal and state agencies and not-for-profit organizations that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore opportunities to increase the utilization of wood for energy and biofuels production in Alaska. A pre-feasibility study for Aleknagik was conducted in 2012 for the AWEDTG. The preliminary costs for the biomass system(s) are $346,257 for the city hall and health center system and $439,096 for the city hall, health center, and future washeteria system. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/biomasswoodenergygrants.html http://www.akenergyauthority.org/BiomassWoodEnergy/Aleknagik%20Final%20Report.pdf The Emerging Energy Technology Fund grand program provides funds to eligible applicants for demonstrations projects of technologies that have a reasonable expectation to be commercially viable Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 27 within five years and that are designed to: test emerging energy technologies or methods of conserving energy, improve an existing energy technology, or deploy an existing technology that has not previously been demonstrated in Alaska. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/EETFundGrantProgram.html Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 28 Appendix A Site Photos Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 29 KANA Main 1. South and East elevation of building 2. East and North elevation of building 3. West elevation of building 4. West and South elevation of building 5. Northwest elevation of Building 6. 5,000 gallon underground storage tank for #1 heating oil Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 30 7. Yard Space for Boiler Addition 8. Electrical Meter 9. Boiler 1 10. Boiler 2 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 31 11. Daytank 12. Main Distribution Panel 13. Mechanical Rm Electrical Panel 14. Mechanical Rm Panel Circuit Card Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 32 15. First Floor Layout 16. Second Floor Layout 17. Indirect Hot Water Heater Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 33 CACPLL 1. West and South elevation of building 2. West and North elevation of building 3. South and East elevation of building 4. East and North elevation of building Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 34 5. Electrical Meter 6. Electrical Panel – No available breaker spaces 7. Boiler 8. Zone Manifolds Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 35 9. Air Handler 10. Electrical Service Entry 11. Electric Water Heater 12. Fuel Oil Tank Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 36 Anderson Construction Warehouse 1. North and West elevation of building 2. North and East elevation of building 3. East and South elevation of building 4. South and West elevation of building Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 37 5. Tankless Water Heater 6. Electrical Panel 7. Waste Oil Heater 8. Electrical Meters Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 38 9. Electrical Panel 10. Electrical Service Entry A/C Building 1. North and West elevation of building 2. West and Partial South elevation of building Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 39 3. South and East elevation of building 4. Partial East and Partial North elevation of building 5. Boiler 1 6. Boiler 2 Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. 40 7. Main Distribution Panel 8. Oil-Fired Water Heater 9. Aboveground Oil Storage Tank Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. Appendix B Economic Analysis Spreadsheet KANA Main BuildingKodiak, AKProject Capital Cost($328,343)Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$769,269Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($364,387)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)1.23Net Present Value (20 year life)$76,538.88Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost18 yearsSimple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings21.9 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1234567891011121314151617181920Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$4.008,200gal$32,800$34,440$36,162$37,970$39,869$41,862$43,955$46,153$48,461$50,884$53,428$56,099$58,904$61,849$64,942$68,189$71,598$75,178$78,937$82,884Biomass System Operating CostsPellet Fuel$200.0080%52.0tons($10,400)($10,712)($11,033)($11,364)($11,705)($12,056)($12,418)($12,791)($13,174)($13,570)($13,977)($14,396)($14,828)($15,273)($15,731)($16,203)($16,689)($17,190)($17,705)($18,236)Fossil Fuel$4.0020%1,640gal($6,560)($6,888)($7,232)($7,594)($7,974)($8,372)($8,791)($9,231)($9,692)($10,177)($10,686)($11,220)($11,781)($12,370)($12,988)($13,638)($14,320)($15,036)($15,787)($16,577)Additional Electricity$0.15250kWh($38)($39)($40)($41)($42)($43)($45)($46)($48)($49)($50)($52)($53)($55)($57)($58)($60)($62)($64)($66)Operation and Maintenance Costs($400)($408)($416)($424)($433)($442)($450)($459)($469)($478)($488)($497)($507)($517)($528)($538)($549)($560)($571)($583)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($400)($408)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($17,798)($18,455)($18,722)($19,424)($20,154)($20,914)($21,704)($22,527)($23,383)($24,273)($25,200)($26,165)($27,169)($28,215)($29,304)($30,437)($31,618)($32,847)($34,128)($35,462)Annual Operating Cost Savings$15,003 $15,985 $17,440 $18,546 $19,714 $20,948 $22,251 $23,626 $25,078 $26,610 $28,227 $29,934 $31,735 $33,634 $35,638 $37,751 $39,980 $42,331 $44,809 $47,422Accumulated Cash Flow$15,003 $30,988 $48,428 $66,974 $86,689 $107,637 $129,888 $153,514 $178,592 $205,202 $233,429 $263,363 $295,098 $328,732 $364,370 $402,121 $442,102 $484,433 $529,242 $576,664Net Present Value($313,777.47) ($298,709.72) ($282,749.38) ($266,271.26) ($249,265.44) ($231,721.76) ($213,630) ($194,979) ($175,759) ($155,959) ($135,567) ($114,571) ($92,962) ($70,726) ($47,851) ($24,325) ($137)$24,728 $50,282 $76,539Economic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescriptionUnit CostHeating Source ProportionAnnual Energy UnitsEnergy Units CACPLL BuildingKodiak, AKProject Capital Cost($106,791)Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$243,915Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($119,511)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)1.16Net Present Value (20 year life)$17,613.02Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital CostYear 15Simple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings24.9 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1234567891011121314151617181920Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$4.002,600gal$10,400$10,920$11,466$12,039$12,641$13,273$13,937$14,634$15,366$16,134$16,941$17,788$18,677$19,611$20,591$21,621$22,702$23,837$25,029$26,280Biomass System Operating CostsPellet Fuel$200.0080%16.0tons($3,200)($3,296)($3,395)($3,497)($3,602)($3,710)($3,821)($3,936)($4,054)($4,175)($4,301)($4,430)($4,562)($4,699)($4,840)($4,985)($5,135)($5,289)($5,448)($5,611)Fossil Fuel$4.0020%520gal($2,080)($2,184)($2,293)($2,408)($2,528)($2,655)($2,787)($2,927)($3,073)($3,227)($3,388)($3,558)($3,735)($3,922)($4,118)($4,324)($4,540)($4,767)($5,006)($5,256)Additional Electricity$0.15250kWh($38)($39)($40)($41)($42)($43)($45)($46)($48)($49)($50)($52)($53)($55)($57)($58)($60)($62)($64)($66)Operation and Maintenance Costs($400)($408)($416)($424)($433)($442)($450)($459)($469)($478)($488)($497)($507)($517)($528)($538)($549)($560)($571)($583)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($400)($408)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($6,118)($6,335)($6,144)($6,370)($6,605)($6,849)($7,104)($7,368)($7,643)($7,929)($8,227)($8,536)($8,859)($9,194)($9,543)($9,906)($10,285)($10,679)($11,089)($11,516)Annual Operating Cost Savings$4,283 $4,585 $5,322 $5,669 $6,036 $6,424 $6,833 $7,266 $7,723 $8,205 $8,714 $9,251 $9,818 $10,417 $11,048 $11,714 $12,417 $13,158 $13,940 $14,765Accumulated Cash Flow$4,283 $8,868 $14,190 $19,859 $25,895 $32,319 $39,153 $46,418 $54,141 $62,346 $71,060 $80,311 $90,129 $100,546 $111,594 $123,309 $135,726 $148,884 $162,824 $177,589Net Present Value($102,633.23) ($98,311.08) ($93,440.72) ($88,403.66) ($83,196.77) ($77,816.88) ($72,261) ($66,525) ($60,606) ($54,501) ($48,206) ($41,717) ($35,032) ($28,145) ($21,053) ($13,753) ($6,241)$1,488 $9,438 $17,613Economic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescriptionUnit CostHeating Source ProportionAnnual Energy UnitsEnergy Units Anderson Construction WarehouseKodiak, AKProject Capital Cost($106,791)Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$281,440Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($138,666)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)1.34Net Present Value (20 year life)$35,982.80Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost11 yearsSimple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings21.5 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1234567891011121314151617181920Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$4.003,000gal$12,000$12,600$13,230$13,892$14,586$15,315$16,081$16,885$17,729$18,616$19,547$20,524$21,550$22,628$23,759$24,947$26,194$27,504$28,879$30,323Biomass System Operating CostsPellet Fuel$200.0080%19.0tons($3,800)($3,914)($4,031)($4,152)($4,277)($4,405)($4,537)($4,674)($4,814)($4,958)($5,107)($5,260)($5,418)($5,580)($5,748)($5,920)($6,098)($6,281)($6,469)($6,663)Fossil Fuel$4.0020%600gal($2,400)($2,520)($2,646)($2,778)($2,917)($3,063)($3,216)($3,377)($3,546)($3,723)($3,909)($4,105)($4,310)($4,526)($4,752)($4,989)($5,239)($5,501)($5,776)($6,065)Additional Electricity$0.15250kWh($38)($39)($40)($41)($42)($43)($45)($46)($48)($49)($50)($52)($53)($55)($57)($58)($60)($62)($64)($66)Operation and Maintenance Costs($400)($408)($416)($424)($433)($442)($450)($459)($469)($478)($488)($497)($507)($517)($528)($538)($549)($560)($571)($583)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($400)($408)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($7,038)($7,289)($7,133)($7,396)($7,669)($7,953)($8,249)($8,556)($8,876)($9,208)($9,554)($9,914)($10,289)($10,678)($11,084)($11,506)($11,946)($12,404)($12,880)($13,376)Annual Operating Cost Savings$4,963 $5,311 $6,097 $6,495 $6,917 $7,362 $7,832 $8,329 $8,854 $9,408 $9,993 $10,610 $11,262 $11,949 $12,675 $13,441 $14,248 $15,100 $15,999 $16,947Accumulated Cash Flow$4,963 $10,274 $16,371 $22,866 $29,783 $37,145 $44,977 $53,306 $62,160 $71,567 $81,560 $92,170 $103,431 $115,381 $128,056 $141,496 $155,745 $170,845 $186,844 $203,791Net Present Value($101,973.04) ($96,966.56) ($91,387.27) ($85,616.21) ($79,649.77) ($73,484.25) ($67,116) ($60,541) ($53,755) ($46,755) ($39,536) ($32,095) ($24,426) ($16,526) ($8,391) ($15)$8,606 $17,476 $26,600 $35,983Economic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescriptionUnit CostHeating Source ProportionAnnual Energy UnitsEnergy Units A/C BuildingKodiak, AKProject Capital Cost($234,303)Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$938,133Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($440,879)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)2.12Net Present Value (20 year life)$262,951.62Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital CostYear 10Simple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings12.6 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1234567891011121314151617181920Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$4.0010,000gal$40,000$42,000$44,100$46,305$48,620$51,051$53,604$56,284$59,098$62,053$65,156$68,414$71,834$75,426$79,197$83,157$87,315$91,681$96,265$101,078Biomass System Operating CostsPellet Fuel$200.0080%63.0tons($12,600)($12,978)($13,367)($13,768)($14,181)($14,607)($15,045)($15,496)($15,961)($16,440)($16,933)($17,441)($17,965)($18,504)($19,059)($19,630)($20,219)($20,826)($21,451)($22,094)Fossil Fuel$4.0020%2,000gal($8,000)($8,400)($8,820)($9,261)($9,724)($10,210)($10,721)($11,257)($11,820)($12,411)($13,031)($13,683)($14,367)($15,085)($15,839)($16,631)($17,463)($18,336)($19,253)($20,216)Additional Electricity$0.15250kWh($38)($39)($40)($41)($42)($43)($45)($46)($48)($49)($50)($52)($53)($55)($57)($58)($60)($62)($64)($66)Operation and Maintenance Costs($400)($408)($416)($424)($433)($442)($450)($459)($469)($478)($488)($497)($507)($517)($528)($538)($549)($560)($571)($583)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($400)($408)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($21,438)($22,233)($22,643)($23,495)($24,381)($25,302)($26,261)($27,259)($28,297)($29,378)($30,502)($31,673)($32,892)($34,161)($35,483)($36,859)($38,292)($39,784)($41,339)($42,958)Annual Operating Cost Savings$18,563$19,767$21,457$22,810$24,240$25,749 $27,343 $29,025 $30,801 $32,675 $34,653 $36,740 $38,942 $41,265 $43,715 $46,299 $49,023 $51,897 $54,926 $58,120Accumulated Cash Flow$18,563$38,330$59,787$82,597 $106,836 $132,585 $159,928 $188,953 $219,755 $252,430 $287,083 $323,823 $362,765 $404,030 $447,745 $494,043 $543,067 $594,963 $649,889 $708,009Net Present Value($216,281.16) ($197,648.51) ($178,012.57) ($157,746.02) ($136,836.72) ($115,272.30) ($93,040) ($70,127) ($46,521) ($22,207)$2,827 $28,596 $55,113 $82,394 $110,453 $139,305 $168,965 $199,449 $230,772 $262,952Economic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescriptionUnit CostHeating Source ProportionAnnual Energy UnitsEnergy Units Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Kodiak, AK Coffman Engineers, Inc. Appendix C AWEDTG Field Data Sheet Page 1 of 4 ALASKA WOOD ENERGY DEVELOPMENT TASK GROUP (AWEDTG) PRE-FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET APPLICANT: Eligibility: (check one) □ Local government □ State agency □ Federal agency □ School/School District □ Federally Recognized Tribe □ Regional ANCSA Corp. □ Village ANCSA Corp. □ Not-for-profit organization □ Private Entity that can demonstrate a Public Benefit □ Other (describe): Contact Name: Mailing Address: City: State: AK Zip Code: 99 Office phone: (907) Cell phone: ( ) Fax: (907) Email: Facility Identification/Name: Facility Contact Person: Facility Contact Telephone: (907) ( ) Facility Contact Email: SCHOOL/FACILITY INFORMATION (complete separate Field Data Sheet for each building) SCHOOL FACILITY (Name: _________________________________________________________________________________ ) School Type: (check all that apply) [ ] Pre-School [ ] Elementary [ ] Middle School [ ] Junior High [ ] High School [ ] Campus [ ] Student Housing [ ] Pool [ ] Gymnasium [ ] Other (describe): Size of facility (sq. ft. heated): Year built/age: Number of floors: Year(s) renovated: Number of bldgs.: Next renovation: # of Students: Has en energy audit been conducted?: If Yes, when? * OTHER FACILITY (Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ) Type: [ ] Health Clinic [ ] Public Safety Bldg. [ ] Community Center [ ] Water Plant [ ] Washeteria [ ] Public Housing [ ] Multi-Purpose Bldg [ ] District Energy System [ ] Other (list): Size of Facility (sq. ft. heated) Year built/age: Number of floors: Year(s) renovated: Number of bldgs.: Next renovation: Frequency of Usage: # of Occupants Has an energy audit been conducted? If Yes, when? * * If an Energy Audit has been conducted, please provide a copy. Kodiak Area Native Association Tyler Kornelis and Jeff Hansell X Consortia of Kodiak Area Tribes 3449 Rezanof Drive Kodiak 615 X KANA Main 18910 sf 2+mezz 1 daily 8am-5pm no 20 minor remodel in 2005 none known at site visit 30 employees, ~2 visitors/business hour 486-1393 486-9898 tyler.kornelis@kanaweb.org; jeff.hansell@kanaweb.org KANA Main Jeff Hansell tyler.kornelis@kanaweb.org; jeff.hansell@kanaweb.org 486-1393 Page 2 of 4 HEATING SYSTEM INFORMATION CONFIGURATION (check all that apply) □ Heat plant in one location: □ on ground level □ below ground level □ mezzanine □ roof □ at least 1 exterior wall □ Different heating plants in different locations: How many? _______________ What level(s)? _________________________ □ Individual room-by-room heating systems (space heaters) □ Is boiler room accessible to delivery trucks? □ Yes □ No HEAT DELIVERY (check all that apply) □ Hot water: □ baseboard □ radiant heat floor □ cabinet heaters □ air handlers □ radiators □ other: ___________________ □ Steam: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ □ Forced/ducted air □ Electric heat: □ resistance □ boiler □ heat pump(s) □ Space heaters HEAT GENERATION (check all that apply) Heating capacity Annual Fuel (Btuh / kWh) Consumption | Cost__ □ Hot water boiler: □ natural gas □ propane □ electric □ #1 fuel oil □ #2 fuel oil ____________ ______________|________ □ Steam boiler: □ natural gas □ propane □ electric □ #1 fuel oil □ #2 fuel oil ____________ ______________|________ □ Warm air furnace: □ natural gas □ propane □ electric □ #1 fuel oil □ #2 fuel oil ____________ ______________|________ □ Electric resistance: □ baseboard □ duct coils ____________ ______________|________ □ Heat pumps: □ air source □ ground source □ sea water ____________ ______________|________ □ Space heaters: □ woodstove □ Toyo/Monitor □ other: _________________ ____________ ______________|________ TEMPERATURE CONTROLS (type of system; check all that apply) □ Thermostats on individual devices/appliances; no central control system □ Pneumatic control system Manufacturer: __________________________ Approx. Age: __________ □ Direct digital control system Manufacturer: __________________________ Approx. Age: __________ Record Name Plate data for boilers (use separate sheet if necessary): Describe locations of different parts of the heating system and what building areas are served: Describe age and general condition of existing equipment: Who performs boiler maintenance? __________________________________ Describe any current maintenance issues: Where is piping or ducting routed through the building? (tunnels, utilidors, crawlspace, above false ceiling, attic, etc.): Describe on-site fuel storage: Number of tanks, size of tanks, location(s) of tanks, condition, spill containment, etc.: If this fuel is also used for other purposes, please describe: X X X X X X 5.5 GPH in, 643 MBH out 8,197gal $4/gal X Weil McLain 678 5.5 gph oil 643mbh Serves entire building, and has sidearm hot water heater Approximately 20 years old, in great condition, very well kept Control Contractors, Inc none above ceiling Underground oil storage tank No other uses Page 3 of 4 DOMESTIC HOT WATER USES OF DOMESTIC HOT WATER TYPE OF SYSTEM Check all that apply: Check all that apply: □ Lavatories □ Direct-fired, single tank □ Kitchen □ Direct fired, multiple tanks □ Showers □ Indirect , using heating boiler with separate storage tank □ Laundry □ Hot water generator with separate storage tank □ Water treatment □ Other: ____________________________________________ □ Other: ________________________________ What fuels are used to generate hot water? (Check all that apply): □ natural gas □ propane □ electric □ #1 fuel oil □ #2 fuel oil Describe location of water heater(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________ Describe on-site fuel storage: number of tanks, size of tanks, location(s) of tanks, condition, spill containment, etc.: BUILDING ENVELOPE Wall type (stick frame, masonry, SIP, etc.): ____________________________________________ Insulation Value: _______ Roof type: ______________________________________________________________________ Insulation Value: _______ Windows: □ single pane □ double pane □ other: ____________________________________________________________ Arctic entry(s): □ none □ at main entrance only □ at multiple entrances □ at all entrances Drawings available: □ architectural □ mechanical □ electrical Outside Air/Air Exchange: □ HRV □ CO2 Sensor ELECTRICAL Utility company that serves the building or community: __________________________________________________________ Type of grid: □ building stand-alone □ village/community power □ railbelt grid Energy source: □ hydropower □ diesel generator(s) □ Other: ____________________________________________________________ Electricity rate per kWh: _________ Demand charge: ______________ Electrical energy phase(s) available: □ single phase □ 3-phase Back-up generator on site: □ Yes □ No If Yes, provide output capacity: ________________________________________ Are there spare circuits in MDP and/or electrical panel?: □ Yes □ No Record MDP and electrical panel name plate information: WOOD FUEL INFORMATION  Wood pellet cost delivered to facility $_________/ton Viable fuel source? Yes No  Wood chip cost delivered to facility $_________/ton Viable fuel source? Yes No  Cord wood cost delivered to facility $_________/cord Viable fuel source? Yes No  Distance to nearest wood pellet and wood chip suppliers?_______________________________________________________  Can logs or wood fuel be stockpiled on site or at a nearby facility?_________________________________________________ Who manages local forests? Village Native Corp, Regional Native Corp, State of Alaska, Forest Service, BLM, USF&WS, Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ X X X X sidearm heater next to boiler steel & concrete construction R-20 EPDM X X X X X X X X 1 x 80-gal DHW tank with sidearm heating element. Kodiak Electric Association X Pillar Mountain Wind first 300 kWh: 14.98 cents per kWh over 300 kWh: 12.85 cents per kWh See photos in report Section in development R-30 Page 4 of 4 FACILITY SITE CONSIDERATIONS Is there good access to site for delivery vehicles (trucks, chip vans, etc)? Are there any significant site constraints? (Playgrounds, other buildings, wetlands, underground utilities, etc.)? What are local soil conditions? Permafrost issues? Is the building in proximity to other buildings with biomass potential? If so, Which ones and How close? Can building accommodate a biomass boiler inside, or would an addition for a new boiler be necessary? Where would addition go? Where would potential boiler plant or addition utilities (water/sewer/power/etc.) come from? If necessary, can piping be run underground from a central plant to the building? Where would piping enter boiler room? OTHER INFORMATION Provide any other information that will help describe the space heating and domestic hot water systems, such as Is heat distribution system looping or branching? For baseboard hydronic heat, what is the diameter of the copper tubing? Size of fins? Number of fins per lineal foot? Any other energy using systems (kitchen equipment, lab equipment, pool etc)? Fuel or energy source? Any systems that could be added to the boiler system? Are heating fuel records available? PICTURE / VIDEO CHECKLIST Exterior Main entry Building elevations Several near boiler room and where potential addition/wood storage and/or exterior piping may enter the building Access road to building and to boiler room Power poles serving building Electrical service entry Emergency generator Interior Boilers, pumps, domestic water heaters, heat exchangers – all mechanical equipment in boiler room and in other parts of the building. Boiler room piping at boiler and around boiler room Piping around domestic water heater MDP and/or electrical panels in or around boiler room Pictures of available circuits in MDP or electrical panel (open door). Picture of circuit card of electrical panel Picture of equipment used to heat room in the building (i.e. baseboard fin tube, unit heaters, unit ventilators, air handler, fan coil) Pictures of any other major mechanical equipment Pictures of equipment using fuel not part of heating or domestic hot water system (kitchen equip., lab equip., pool, etc.) Pictures of building plans (site plan, architectural floor plan, mechanical plan, boiler room plan, electrical power plan) Yes A bluff to the west of the building prevents improvements and additions in that direction Rocky. No permafrost CACPLL and Anderson Construction Warehouse across the street. An addition would be required. Ample lawn and room to the north. Kodiak Electric, City of Kodiak Public Works Piping coming underground from a central plant would enter the boiler room exterior wall at the north end of the building looping 3/4" copper tubing, 3.5" square aluminum fins, ~16 fins/ft.Healthcare equipment using electricity on first floor No Yes Photos will be included in reports