HomeMy WebLinkAboutManley Village Council Manley Hot Springs Integration Wood Fired Heating Final Report 07-24-2012-BIO
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems
Final Report
July 24, 2012
Manley Village Council
Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
Presented by
CTA Architects Engineers
Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz
Lars Construction Management Services
Rex Goolsby
For
Manley Village Council
In partnership with
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation
Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group
Funded by
Alaska Energy Authority and U.S. Forest Service
306 W. Railroad, Suite 104
Missoula, MT 59802
406.728.9522
www.ctagroup.com
CTA Project: FEDC_FAIRBANKS_MANLEY
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers i
July 24, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Existing Building Systems.......................................................................................... 3
4.0 Energy Use ............................................................................................................... 4
5.0 Biomass Boiler Size ................................................................................................... 4
6.0 Wood Fuel Use .......................................................................................................... 5
7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access ....................................................................... 6
8.0 Integration with Existing Heating Systems ................................................................. 7
9.0 Air Quality Permits ..................................................................................................... 7
10.0 Wood Heating Options .............................................................................................. 7
11.0 Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 8
12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................... 8
13.0 Results of Evaluation ................................................................................................. 8
14.0 Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 9
15.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 9
16.0 Recommended Action ............................................................................................... 9
Appendixes
Appendix A: Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost ................................................ 2 pages
Appendix B: Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................... 4 pages
Appendix C: Site Plan ................................................................................................. 1 page
Appendix D: Air Quality Report ............................................................................... 10 pages
Appendix E: Wood Fired Heating Technologies ........................................................ 3 pages
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 1 of 9
July 24, 2012
1.0 Executive Summary
The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and
economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system in the Village Express
Maintenance Shop, the Manley Village Council Office, the Health Clinic and Washeteria,
the Generator Plant and the Tribal Hall in Manley Hot Springs, Alaska.
The following tables summarize the current fuel use and potential wood fuel use:
Due to the small volume of wood needed to heat each building and even the entire
campus, the larger capital cost wood pellet and chipped/ground wood boiler options were
not considered. Cord wood boilers were the only options reviewed and were as follows:
Cord Wood Boiler Options:
C.1: Health Clinic/Washeteria only.
C.2: Health Clinic and Maintenance Shop.
C.3: Health Clinic, Maintenance Shop, and MVC Office.
C.4: Health Clinic, Maintenance Shop, MVC Office, and Tribal Hall.
The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option:
Table 1.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual
Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal. Cost
VE Maint. Shop Fuel Oil 400 $3.90 $1,560
Health Clinic Fuel Oil 700 $3.90 $2,730
Table 1. 2 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Cord Wood
Oil Wood Pellets
(Gallons) (Cords) (Tons)
Health Clinic 700 6.1 5.6
Maintenance Shop 400 3.5 3.2
MVC Office (Future Est.) 600 5.2 4.8
Tribal Hall (Future Est.) 1,200 10.5 9.6
HC + MS 1,100 9.6 8.8
HC + MS + MVC 1,700 14.9 13.5
HC + MS + MVC + TH 2,900 25.3 23.1
Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 2 of 9
July 24, 2012
Table 1.3 - Economic Evaluation Summary
Manley Hot Springs Biomass Heating System
Year 1 NPV NPV
20
Yr
30
Yr
Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR
Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC
C.1 $325,000 -$8,997 -$170,508 -$125,858 -0.39 -0.52 -$170,141 -$264,770 >30
C.2 $347,000 -$8,367 -$139,027 -$108,273 -0.31 -0.40 -$144,997 -$209,783 >30
C.3 $443,000 -$7,422 -$91,896 -$81,896 -0.18 -0.21 -$107,281 -$127,304 >30
C.4 $915,000 -$6,232 -$24,681 -$45,558 -0.05 -0.03 -$54,994 -$8,851 >30
The Manley Village Tribal Council appears to be a poor candidate for the use of a wood
biomass heating system. With the current economic assumptions, the economic viability of
all the options is poor and none of the options meet the minimum requirement of the 20
year B/C ratio exceeding 1.0. Each building individually does not spend enough on
heating fuel to be able to pay for a project through potential savings. Combining multiple
buildings increases the project costs without substantially increasing the annual fossil fuel
use.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 3 of 9
July 24, 2012
2.0 Introduction
The following assessment was commissioned to determine the preliminary technical and
economic feasibility of integrating a wood fired heating system in the Village Express
Maintenance Shop, the Manley Village Council Office, the Health Clinic and Washeteria,
the Generator Plant and the Tribal Hall in Manley Hot Springs, Alaska.
3.0 Existing Building Systems
The buildings are all owned and operated by the Manley Village Council. The buildings
are all clustered on a single piece of property approximately 1.5 miles east of Manley Hot
Springs on the Elliot Highway.
The Village Express Maintenance Shop is a prefabricated metal building with insulated
metal wall panels constructed in 2010. The building serves as a bus barn for the village
shuttle bus. The facility is approximately 2,000 square feet and is heated by a 40,000
Btu/hr output oil fired stove. There have been no major additions. No domestic hot water
is provided. The existing stove is original to the building and is in good condition. The
Council is looking into the possibility of installing a waste oil heater and using the waste oil
from all the vehicle maintenance to heat the building.
The Manley Village Council Office is a wood framed building constructed in the mid
1990’s. The facility is approximately 960 square feet and is heated by electric resistance
baseboard heaters. Domestic hot water is provided by a 40 gallon electric water heater
rated at 4.5 KW input. The building was originally heated with a wood stove, which has
been removed. Electric heat was added along with several chest style freezers to help
establish a base load for the electrical generators that serve the complex.
The Health Clinic and Washeteria is a wood framed building with urethane insulation in the
walls, floor and roof constructed in approximately 1996. The building was prefabricated off
site and then shipped to Manley Hot Springs. The building is approximately 740 square
feet and is heated by a 143,000 Btu/hr output hot water boiler. Domestic hot water is
provided by an 80 gallon indirect water heater using the boiler water as a heating source.
The existing boiler is original to the building and is in fair condition. The heating system
infrastructure is original to the building an in fair condition.
The Generator Plant is a wood framed building constructed in the 1990’s and houses the
electrical generators that serve the MVC buildings. The facility is approximately 320
square feet with no heat source, warmed only by the residual heat of the generators. The
complex is approximately 1/2-mile from the main electrical grid of Manley Hot Springs, and
so MVC must operate the generators to produce power for this campus
The Manley Village Tribal Hall is a log building constructed around 2000 and serves as a
summer gathering place for the village. The facility is approximately 1,200 square feet and
is heated by a cordwood stove. There is no domestic hot water in the building. The
building is on the south side of the Elliot Highway away from the rest of the campus. The
building also does not have any power. Portable generators are used at events.
Facilities Dropped from Feasibility Study
No facilities were dropped from the feasibility study.
Facilities Added to Feasibility Study
No facilities were added to the feasibility study.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 4 of 9
July 24, 2012
4.0 Energy Use
The Minto Village Council purchases fuel oil in bulk and fills storage tanks which are then
used to provide fuel to MVC vehicles, equipment, and building heat. The amount of fuel
used at each building for heating is not currently tracked. The Village Council has
estimated that 12,000 gallons is used for building heat at their facilities. CTA has
estimated the potential fuel use at each building based on square footage and estimated
heating energy use index. Fuel use summaries for the buildings were provided and the
following table summarizes the data:
Table 4.1 - Annual Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Avg. Use Current Annual
Facility Name Type (Gallons) Cost/Gal. Cost
VE Maint. Shop Fuel Oil 400 $3.90 $1,560
Health Clinic Fuel Oil 700 $3.90 $2,730
The Manley Village Council purchases fuel oil in bulk and fills a single large storage tank
which is then used to provide fuel to MVC vehicles, equipment, and building heat. The
fuel use for the buildings has been estimated based on fuel fill records. Overall, MVC
purchases approximately 21,000 gallons of fuel oil annually for all uses.
Electrical energy consumption will increase with the installation of the wood fired boiler
system because of the power needed for the biomass boiler components such as draft
fans, etc. and the additional pumps needed to integrate into the existing heating systems.
The cash flow analysis accounts for the additional electrical energy consumption and
reduces the annual savings accordingly.
5.0 Biomass Boiler Size
The following table summarized the connected load of the heating equipment:
Table 5.1 - Connected Boiler Load Summary
Likely
Peak System
Output Load Peak
MBH Factor MBH
VE Maint. Shop Stove Fuel Oil 37 1.00 37
Health Clinic/ Washateria Boiler Fuel Oil 143 1.00 143
MVC Office (Est.) Elect. BB
Elec 100 1.00 100
Generator Building N/A N/A 1.00 0
Tribal Hall (Est.) Stove
Wood 75 1.00 75
Total Of All Buildings 355 355
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 5 of 9
July 24, 2012
Typically a wood heating system is sized to meet approximately 85% of the typical annual
heating energy use of the building. The existing heating systems would be used for the
other 15% of the time during peak heating conditions, during times when the biomass
heating system is down for servicing, and during swing months when only a few hours of
heating each day are required. Recent energy models have found that a boiler sized at
50% to 60% of the building peak load will typically accommodate 85% of the boiler run
hours.
Table 5.2 - Proposed Biomass Boiler Size
Likely Biomass
System Biomass Boiler
Peak Boiler Size
MBH Factor MBH
VE Maint. Shop (MS) 37 1 37
Health Clinic/Washateria (HC) 143 0.6 86
MVC Office (OF) 100 0.6 60
Generator Building (GB) 0 0.6 0
Tribal Hall (TH) 75 1 75
MS + HC 180 0.6 108
MS + HC + OF 280 0.6 168
MS + HC + OF + TH 355 0.6 213
Because of the small scale of the heating system, the output will be based on the smallest
cordwood boiler size available, or approximately 170,000 Btu/hr.
6.0 Wood Fuel Use
The types of wood fuel available in the area include cord wood and wood pellets. The
estimated amount of wood fuel needed of each wood fuel type for each building was
calculated and is listed below:
The
amount of wood fuel shown in the table is for offsetting 85% of the total fuel oil use.
Table 6.1 - Annual Wood Fuel Use Summary
Fuel Cord Wood
Oil Wood Pellets
(Gallons) (Cords) (Tons)
Health Clinic 700 6.1 5.6
Maintenance Shop 400 3.5 3.2
MVC Office (Future Est.) 600 5.2 4.8
Tribal Hall (Future Est.) 1,200 10.5 9.6
HC + MS 1,100 9.6 8.8
HC + MS + MVC 1,700 14.9 13.5
HC + MS + MVC + TH 2,900 25.3 23.1
Note: Wood fuel use assumes offsetting 85% of the current energy use.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 6 of 9
July 24, 2012
The moisture content of the wood fuels and the overall wood burning system efficiencies
were accounted for in these calculations. The existing fuel oil boilers were assumed to be
80% efficient. Cord wood was assumed to be 20% moisture content (MC) with a system
efficiency of 65%. Wood pellets were assumed to be 7% MC with a system efficiency of
70%.
For comparison reasons only, an amount of fuel oil use was estimated for the MVC office
and the Tribal Hall assuming they utilized some sort of fuel oil heat.
Based on the potential wood fuel use, the volume of wood is so low that a pellet and a
chipped/ground wood system is not really practical and further analysis will look at cord
wood fuel options.
The tribe and village corporation own over 69,000 acres of land, of which approximately
90% is forested. The tribe and village corporation do not currently have any active logging
operations, but hire out local independent contractors to provide cord wood for the MVC
firewood program. There appears to be a sufficient supply to support a wood fired boiler for
this campus.
The unit fuel costs for fuel oil and the different fuel types were calculated and equalized to
dollars per million Btu ($/MMBtu) to allow for direct comparison. The Delivered $/MMBtu is
the cost of the fuel based on what is actually delivered to the heating system, which includes
all the inefficiencies of the different systems. The Gross $/MMBtu is the cost of the fuel
based on raw fuel, or the higher heating value and does not account for any system
inefficiencies. The following table summarizes the equalized fuel costs at different fuel unit
costs:
Table 6.2 - Unit Fuel Costs Equalized to $/MMBtu
Net
Gross System System
Delivered Gross
Fuel Type Units Btu/unit Efficiency Btu/unit $/unit $/MMBtu $/MMBtu
Fuel Oil gal 134500 0.8 107600 $3.90 $36.25 $29.00
$4.50 $41.82 $33.46
$5.00 $46.47 $37.17
Cord
Wood cords 16173800 0.65 10512970 $150.00 $14.27 $9.27
$200.00 $19.02 $12.37
$250.00 $23.78 $15.46
Pellets tons 16400000 0.7 11480000 $300.00 $26.13 $18.29
$350.00 $30.49 $21.34
$400.00 $34.84 $24.39
7.0 Boiler Plant Location and Site Access
None of the existing boiler rooms are large enough to fit a new biomass boiler so a new
stand alone boiler plant would be required. The best location for a plant would be just
west of the generator building.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 7 of 9
July 24, 2012
Any type of biomass boiler system will require access by delivery vehicles. For cord wood
systems this would likely be pick-up trucks and trucks with trailers. The proposed plant
location would allow for good access since it will be on the road up to the maintenance
shop, which is maintained year round. The Elliot Highway passes through the property, so
access via the highway is very good.
8.0 Integration with Existing Heating Systems
Integration of a wood fired heating system varies from facility to facility. The Village
Express Maintenance Shop would require the installation of a wall hung unit heater within
the building.
Integration of a central heating system in the Village Council Office would req uire the
installation of two wall hung unit heaters within the building or some heating hot water
baseboard elements.
Integration of a central heating system in the Health Clinic and Washeteria would require
piping heating hot water supply and return lines to the existing boiler room and tying into
the existing boiler piping.
Integration of a central heating system in the Tribal Hall would require the installation of a
wall hung unit heater within the building.
The generator building would not be connected to a central heating system.
The field visit confirmed the location of each boiler room and heating unit location in order
to identify an approximate point of connection from a district heating loop to each existing
building. Connections would typically be achieved with arctic pipe extended to the face of
each building, and extended up the exterior surface of the building in order to penetrate
exterior wall into the boiler room or building. Once the heating water supply and return
piping enters the existing boiler room it would be connected to existing supply and return
lines in appropriate locations in order to utilize existing pumping systems within each
building.
9.0 Air Quality Permits
Resource System Group has done a preliminary review of potential air quality issues in the
area. Interior Alaska is prone to meteorological conditions that create thermal inversions,
which are unfavorable for the dispersion of emissions. The proposed boiler size at this
location is small enough, that the boiler is not likely to require any State or Federal
permits. See air quality memo in appendix D.
10.0 Wood Heating Options
The technologies available to produce heating energy from wood based biomass are
varied in their approach, but largely can be separated into three types of heating plants:
cord wood, wood pellet and wood chip/ground wood fueled. See Appendix E for these
summaries.
Due to the small volume of wood needed to heat each building and even the entire
campus, the larger capital cost wood pellet and chipped/ground wood boiler options were
not considered. Cord wood boilers were the only options reviewed and were as follows:
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 8 of 9
July 24, 2012
Cord PB Wood Boiler Options:
C.1: Health Clinic/Washateria only.
C.2: Health Clinic and Maintenance Shop.
C.3: Health Clinic, Maintenance Shop, and MVC Office.
C.4: Health Clinic, Maintenance Shop, MVC Office, and Tribal Hall.
All options would be installed in a freestanding building with interior cordwood fuel storage.
The central boiler plant would be located next to the generator building.
11.0 Estimated Costs
The total project costs are at a preliminary design level and are based on RS Means and
recent biomass project bid data. The estimates are shown in the appendix. These costs
are conservative and if a deeper level feasibility analysis is undertaken and/or further
design occurs, the costs may be able to be reduced.
12.0 Economic Analysis Assumptions
The cash flow analysis assumes fuel oil at $3.90/gal, electricity at $0.50/kwh, and cord
wood delivered at $200/ton. It is assumed that the cord wood boiler would supplant 85%
of the estimated heating use, and the existing heating systems would heat the remaining
15%. Each option assumes the total project can be funded with grants and non obligated
capital money. The following inflation rates were used: O&M - 2%, Fossil Fuel – 5%,
Wood Fuel – 3%, Discount Rate for NPV calculation – 3%. The fossil fuel inflation rate is
based on the DOE EIA website. DOE is projecting a slight plateau with a long term
inflation of approximately 5%. As a point of comparison, oil prices have increased at an
annual rate of over 8% since 2001.
The analysis also accounts for additional electrical energy required for the wood fired
boiler system as well as the system pumps to distribute heating hot water to the buildings.
Wood fired boiler systems also will require more maintenance, and these additional
maintenance costs are also factored into the analysis.
13.0 Results of Evaluation
The following table summarizes the economic evaluation for each option:
Table 13.1 - Economic Evaluation Summary
Manley Hot Springs Biomass Heating System
Year 1 NPV NPV
20
Yr
30
Yr
Project Operating 30 yr 20 yr B/C B/C ACF ACF YR
Cost Savings at 3% at 3% Ratio Ratio YR 20 YR 30 ACF=PC
C.1 $325,000 -$8,997 -$170,508 -$125,858 -0.39 -0.52 -$170,141 -$264,770 >30
C.2 $347,000 -$8,367 -$139,027 -$108,273 -0.31 -0.40 -$144,997 -$209,783 >30
C.3 $443,000 -$7,422 -$91,896 -$81,896 -0.18 -0.21 -$107,281 -$127,304 >30
C.4 $915,000 -$6,232 -$24,681 -$45,558 -0.05 -0.03 -$54,994 -$8,851 >30
The benefit to cost ratio (B/C) takes the net present value (NPV) of the net energy savings
and divides it by the construction cost of the project. A B/C ratio greater than or equal to
1.0 indicates an economically advantageous project.
Pre-Feasibility Assessment for Manley Village Council
Integration of Wood-Fired Heating Systems Manley Hot Springs, Alaska
CTA Architects Engineers Page 9 of 9
July 24, 2012
Accumulated cash flow (ACF) is another evaluation measure that is calculated in this
report and is similar to simple payback with the exception that accumulated cash flow
takes the cost of financing and fuel escalation into account. For many building owners,
having the accumulated cash flow equal the project cost within 15 years is considered
necessary for implementation. If the accumulated cash flow equals project cost in 20
years or more, that indicates a challenged project. Positive accumulated cash flow should
also be considered an avoided cost as opposed to a pure savings.
14.0 Project Funding
The Manley Village Tribal Council may pursue a biomass project grant from the Alaska
Energy Authority.
The Manley Village Tribal Council could also enter into a performance contract for the
project. Companies such as Siemens, McKinstry, Johnson Controls and Chevron have
expressed an interest in participating in funding projects of all sizes throughout Alaska.
This allows the facility owner to pay for the project entirely from the guaranteed energy
savings, and to minimize the project funds required to initiate the project. The scope of the
project may be expanded to include additional energy conservation measures such as
replacing the existing generators.
15.0 Summary
The Manley Village Tribal Council appears to be a poor candidate for the use of a wood
biomass heating system. With the current economic assumptions, the economic viability of
all the options is poor and none of the options meet the minimum requirement of the 20
year B/C ratio exceeding 1.0. Each building individually does not spend enough on
heating fuel to be able to pay for a project through potential savings. Combining multiple
buildings increases the project costs without substantially increasing the annual fossil fuel
use.
16.0 Recommended Action
Pursuing the installation of a waste oil heater in the maintenance shop is recommended.
Another project to investigate further would be the upgrading and/or replacement of the
generator plant. A more thorough analysis is recommended including temporarily
installing a data logger to develop a good electrical load profile of the campus. If the
generators are replaced, consideration should be given to capturing the heat from the
generators and using that to heat the maintenance shop and/or the health clinic.
APPENDIX A
Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost
Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost
Biomass Heating Options
Manley Hot Springs, AK
Option C.1 - Health Clinic/Washeteria (HC)
Cord Wood Storage/ Boiler Building:$97,500
Wood Heating Boiler:$16,000
Stack:$2,200
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$20,200
Underground Piping $46,000
Health Clinic Integration $7,250
Subtotal:$189,150
30% Remote Factor $56,745
Subtotal:$245,895
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%:$36,884
Subtotal:$282,779
15% Contingency:$42,417
Total Project Costs 325,196$
Option C.2 - HC + Maint Shop (MS)
Cord Wood Storage/ Boiler Building:$97,500
Wood Heating Boiler:$16,000
Stack:$2,200
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$20,200
Underground Piping $53,000
Health Clinic Integration $7,250
Maintenance Shop Integration $5,500
Subtotal:$201,650
30% Remote Factor $60,495
Subtotal:$262,145
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%:$39,322
Subtotal:$301,467
15% Contingency:$45,220
Total Project Costs 346,687$
Preliminary Estimates of Probable Cost
Biomass Heating Options
Manley Hot Springs, AK
Option C.3 - HC + MS + MVC Office (OF)
Cord Wood Storage/ Boiler Building:$97,500
Wood Heating Boiler:$16,000
Stack:$2,200
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$20,200
Underground Piping $95,000
Health Clinic Integration $7,250
Maintenance Shop Integration $5,500
Manly Village Council Office Integration $13,750
Subtotal:$257,400
30% Remote Factor $77,220
Subtotal:$334,620
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%:$50,193
Subtotal:$384,813
15% Contingency:$57,722
Total Project Costs 442,535$
Option C.4 - HC + MS + OF + Tribal Hall
Cord Wood Storage/ Boiler Building:$180,000
Wood Heating Boiler:$32,000
Stack:$4,400
Mechanical/Electrical within Boiler Building:$30,300
Underground Piping $245,000
Health Clinic Integration $7,250
Maintenance Shop Integration $5,500
Manly Village Council Office Integration $13,750
Tribal Hall $13,750
Subtotal:$531,950
30% Remote Factor $159,585
Subtotal:$691,535
Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses 15%:$103,730
Subtotal:$795,265
15% Contingency:$119,290
Total Project Costs 914,555$
APPENDIX B
Cash Flow Analysis
Manley Villiage CouncilOption C.1Manley Hot Springs, AKCord Wood Boiler Health Clinic/WashateriaDate: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSHealth ClinicTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.90 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:700700Annual Heating Costs:$2,730$2,730ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):134500 134500 134500 134500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):94,150,000 0 0 0Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):75,320,000 0 0 0 75,320,000WOOD FUEL COSTCord Wood$/cord: $200.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 20% MC, 6,700 Btu/lb x 28.4 lb/cf x 85 cf16,173,800 Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.7.2Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.6.125 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.N/A Project Capital Cost-$325,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 1000 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.500 /kWh Biomass System 10.0 40 400 $20.00 $8,000Amount of Grants$325,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 2.0 40 80 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 -36.1 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio-$170,508 -$495,508 -0.52-$125,858 -$450,858-0.39Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 031Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost31Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate5.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.90 700 gal $2,730 $2,867 $3,010 $3,160 $3,318 $3,484 $3,658 $3,841 $4,033 $4,235 $4,447 $4,669 $4,903 $5,148 $5,405 $6,899 $8,805 $11,237Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$200.00 85% 6 cords $1,218 $1,255 $1,292 $1,331 $1,371 $1,412 $1,454 $1,498 $1,543 $1,589 $1,637 $1,686 $1,737 $1,789 $1,842 $2,136 $2,476 $2,870Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 105 gal $410 $430 $451 $474 $498 $523 $549 $576 $605 $635 $667 $700 $735 $772 $811 $1,035 $1,321 $1,686Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$8,000 $8,160 $8,323 $8,490 $8,659 $8,833 $9,009 $9,189 $9,373 $9,561 $9,752 $9,947 $10,146 $10,349 $10,556 $11,654 $12,867 $14,207Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600 $1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.500$500 $525 $551 $579 $608 $638 $670 $704 $739 $776 $814 $855 $898 $943 $990 $1,263 $1,613 $2,058Annual Operating Cost Savings-$8,997-$9,135-$7,608-$7,713-$7,817-$7,921-$8,024-$8,126-$8,226-$8,326-$8,423-$8,519-$8,613-$8,705-$8,794-$9,190-$9,472-$9,584Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow(8,997) (9,135) (7,608) (7,713) (7,817) (7,921) (8,024) (8,126) (8,226) (8,326) (8,423) (8,519) (8,613) (8,705) (8,794) (9,190) (9,472) (9,584)Accumulated Cash Flow(8,997) (18,132) (25,741) (33,454) (41,271) (49,192) (57,216) (65,342) (73,569) (81,894) (90,318) (98,837) (107,450) (116,155) (124,948) (170,141) (216,993) (264,770)Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
Manley Villiage CouncilOption C.2Manley Hot Springs, AKCord Wood Boiler Health Clinic/Washateria + Maint. ShopDate: July 24, 2012 Analyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSHealth Clinic Maint. ShopTotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.90 $3.90 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:700 4001,100Annual Heating Costs:$2,730 $1,560$4,290ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):134500 134500 134500 134500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):94,150,000 53,800,000 0 0Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):75,320,000 43,040,000 0 0 118,360,000WOOD FUEL COSTCord Wood$/cord: $200.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 20% MC, 6,700 Btu/lb x 28.4 lb/cf x 85 cf16,173,800 Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.11.3Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.9.625 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.N/A Project Capital Cost-$347,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 1000 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.500 /kWh Biomass System 10.0 40 400 $20.00 $8,000Amount of Grants$347,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 2.0 40 80 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 -41.5 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio-$139,027 -$486,027 -0.40-$108,273 -$455,273-0.31Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 031Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost31Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate5.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.90 700 gal $2,730 $2,867 $3,010 $3,160 $3,318 $3,484 $3,658 $3,841 $4,033 $4,235 $4,447 $4,669 $4,903 $5,148 $5,405 $6,899 $8,805 $11,237Displaced heating costs $3.90 400 gal $1,560 $1,638 $1,720 $1,806 $1,896 $1,991 $2,091 $2,195 $2,305 $2,420 $2,541 $2,668 $2,802 $2,942 $3,089 $3,942 $5,031 $6,421Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$200.00 85% 10 cords $1,914 $1,971 $2,030 $2,091 $2,154 $2,219 $2,285 $2,354 $2,425 $2,497 $2,572 $2,649 $2,729 $2,811 $2,895 $3,356 $3,891 $4,510Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 105 gal $410 $430 $451 $474 $498 $523 $549 $576 $605 $635 $667 $700 $735 $772 $811 $1,035 $1,321 $1,686Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 60 gal $234 $246 $258 $271 $284 $299 $314 $329 $346 $363 $381 $400 $420 $441 $463 $591 $755 $963Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$8,000 $8,160 $8,323 $8,490 $8,659 $8,833 $9,009 $9,189 $9,373 $9,561 $9,752 $9,947 $10,146 $10,349 $10,556 $11,654 $12,867 $14,207Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600 $1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.500$500 $525 $551 $579 $608 $638 $670 $704 $739 $776 $814 $855 $898 $943 $990 $1,263 $1,613 $2,058Annual Operating Cost Savings-$8,367-$8,460-$6,885-$6,939-$6,989-$7,036-$7,078-$7,116-$7,149-$7,177-$7,199-$7,215-$7,224-$7,226-$7,221-$7,060-$6,610-$5,766Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow(8,367) (8,460) (6,885) (6,939) (6,989) (7,036) (7,078) (7,116) (7,149) (7,177) (7,199) (7,215) (7,224) (7,226) (7,221) (7,060) (6,610) (5,766)Accumulated Cash Flow(8,367) (16,827) (23,712) (30,650) (37,639) (44,675) (51,753) (58,869) (66,018) (73,195) (80,393) (87,608) (94,832) (102,059) (109,280) (144,997) (179,082) (209,783)Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
Manley Villiage CouncilOption C.3Manley Hot Springs, AKCord Wood Boiler Health Clinic/Washateria + Maint. Shop +Date: July 24, 2012 MVC OfficeAnalyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSHealth Clinic Maint. Shop MVC Office TotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.90 $3.90 $3.90 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:700 400 6001,700Annual Heating Costs:$2,730 $1,560 $2,340$6,630ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):134500 134500 134500 134500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):94,150,000 53,800,000 80,700,000 0Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):75,320,000 43,040,000 64,560,000 0 182,920,000WOOD FUEL COSTCord Wood$/cord: $200.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 20% MC, 6,700 Btu/lb x 28.4 lb/cf x 85 cf16,173,800 Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.17.4Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.14.825 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.N/A Project Capital Cost-$443,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 1000 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.500 /kWh Biomass System 10.0 40 400 $20.00 $8,000Amount of Grants$443,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 2.0 40 80 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 -59.7 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio-$91,805 -$534,805 -0.21-$81,896 -$524,896-0.18Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 031Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost31Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate5.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.90 700 gal $2,730 $2,867 $3,010 $3,160 $3,318 $3,484 $3,658 $3,841 $4,033 $4,235 $4,447 $4,669 $4,903 $5,148 $5,405 $6,899 $8,805 $11,237Displaced heating costs $3.90 400 gal $1,560 $1,638 $1,720 $1,806 $1,896 $1,991 $2,091 $2,195 $2,305 $2,420 $2,541 $2,668 $2,802 $2,942 $3,089 $3,942 $5,031 $6,421Displaced heating costs $3.90 600 gal $2,340 $2,457 $2,580 $2,709 $2,844 $2,986 $3,136 $3,293 $3,457 $3,630 $3,812 $4,002 $4,202 $4,412 $4,633 $5,913 $7,547 $9,632Displaced heating costs $0.000 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$200.00 85% 15 cords $2,958 $3,047 $3,138 $3,232 $3,329 $3,429 $3,532 $3,638 $3,747 $3,859 $3,975 $4,094 $4,217 $4,344 $4,474 $5,187 $6,013 $6,971Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 105 gal $410 $430 $451 $474 $498 $523 $549 $576 $605 $635 $667 $700 $735 $772 $811 $1,035 $1,321 $1,686Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 60 gal $234 $246 $258 $271 $284 $299 $314 $329 $346 $363 $381 $400 $420 $441 $463 $591 $755 $963Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 90 gal $351 $369 $387 $406 $427 $448 $470 $494 $519 $545 $572 $600 $630 $662 $695 $887 $1,132 $1,445Small load existing fuel$0.00 15% 0 gal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$8,000 $8,160 $8,323 $8,490 $8,659 $8,833 $9,009 $9,189 $9,373 $9,561 $9,752 $9,947 $10,146 $10,349 $10,556 $11,654 $12,867 $14,207Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600 $1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.500$500 $525 $551 $579 $608 $638 $670 $704 $739 $776 $814 $855 $898 $943 $990 $1,263 $1,613 $2,058Annual Operating Cost Savings-$7,422-$7,446-$5,799-$5,777-$5,746-$5,707-$5,659-$5,601-$5,533-$5,453-$5,362-$5,258-$5,141-$5,009-$4,862-$3,864-$2,318-$39Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow(7,422) (7,446) (5,799) (5,777) (5,746) (5,707) (5,659) (5,601) (5,533) (5,453) (5,362) (5,258) (5,141) (5,009) (4,862) (3,864) (2,318) (39)Accumulated Cash Flow(7,422) (14,869) (20,668) (26,445) (32,191) (37,899) (43,558) (49,159) (54,692) (60,145) (65,507) (70,765) (75,906) (80,915) (85,777) (107,281) (122,215) (127,304)Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
Manley Villiage CouncilOption C.4Manley Hot Springs, AKCord Wood Boiler Health Clinic/Washateria + Maint. Shop +Date: July 24, 2012 MVC Office + Tribal HallAnalyst: CTA Architects Engineers - Nick Salmon & Nathan Ratz EXISTING CONDITIONSHealth Clinic Maint. Shop MVC Office Tribal Hall TotalExisting Fuel Type:Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel Oil Fuel OilFuel Units:gal gal gal galCurrent Fuel Unit Cost:$3.90 $3.90 $3.90 $3.90 Estimated Average Annual Fuel Usage:700 400 600 1,200 2,900Annual Heating Costs:$2,730 $1,560 $2,340 $4,680 $11,310ENERGY CONVERSION (to 1,000,000 Btu; or 1 dkt)Fuel Heating Value (Btu/unit of fuel):134500 134500 134500 134500Current Annual Fuel Volume (Btu):94,150,000 53,800,000 80,700,000 161,400,000Assumed efficiency of existing heating system (%):80% 80% 80% 80% Net Annual Energy Produced (Btu):75,320,000 43,040,000 64,560,000 129,120,000 312,040,000WOOD FUEL COSTCord Wood$/cord: $200.00Assumed efficiency of wood heating system (%): 65% PROJECTED WOOD FUEL USAGEEstimated Btu content of wood fuel (Btu/lb) - Assumed 20% MC, 6,700 Btu/lb x 28.4 lb/cf x 85 cf16,173,800 Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 100% annual heating load.29.7Cords of wood fuel to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.25.225 ton chip van loads to supplant net equivalent of 85% annual heating load.N/A Project Capital Cost-$915,000 Project Financing InformationPercent Financed0.0%Est. Pwr Use 2400 kWh Type Hr/Wk Wk/Yr Total Hr Wage/Hr TotalAmount Financed$0 Elec Rate $0.500 /kWh Biomass System 10.0 40 400 $20.00 $8,000Amount of Grants$915,000 Other 0.0 40 0 $20.00 $01st 2 Year Learning 2.0 40 80 $20.00 $1,600Interest Rate5.00%Term10Annual Finance Cost (years)$0 -146.8 years Net Benefit B/C Ratio-$24,681 -$939,681 -0.03-$45,558 -$960,558-0.05Year Accumulated Cash Flow > 031Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost31Inflation FactorsO&M Inflation Rate2.0%Fossil Fuel Inflation Rate5.0%Wood Fuel Inflation Rate3.0%Electricity Inflation Rate5.0%Discount Rate for Net Present Value Calculation 3.0%Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year YearCash flow Descriptions Unit Costs HeatingSource ProportionAnnual Heating Source VolumesHeating Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30Existing Heating System Operating CostsDisplaced heating costs $3.90 700 gal $2,730 $2,867 $3,010 $3,160 $3,318 $3,484 $3,658 $3,841 $4,033 $4,235 $4,447 $4,669 $4,903 $5,148 $5,405 $6,899 $8,805 $11,237Displaced heating costs $3.90 400 gal $1,560 $1,638 $1,720 $1,806 $1,896 $1,991 $2,091 $2,195 $2,305 $2,420 $2,541 $2,668 $2,802 $2,942 $3,089 $3,942 $5,031 $6,421Displaced heating costs $3.90 600 gal $2,340 $2,457 $2,580 $2,709 $2,844 $2,986 $3,136 $3,293 $3,457 $3,630 $3,812 $4,002 $4,202 $4,412 $4,633 $5,913 $7,547 $9,632Displaced heating costs $3.90 1200 gal $4,680 $4,914 $5,160 $5,418 $5,689 $5,973 $6,272 $6,585 $6,914 $7,260 $7,623 $8,004 $8,405 $8,825 $9,266$11,826 $15,093 $19,264Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel ($/ton, delivered to boiler site)$200.00 85% 25 cords $5,046 $5,197 $5,353 $5,514 $5,679 $5,850 $6,025 $6,206 $6,392 $6,584 $6,781 $6,985 $7,194 $7,410 $7,632 $8,848 $10,257 $11,891Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 105 gal $410 $430 $451 $474 $498 $523 $549 $576 $605 $635 $667 $700 $735 $772 $811 $1,035 $1,321 $1,686Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 60 gal $234 $246 $258 $271 $284 $299 $314 $329 $346 $363 $381 $400 $420 $441 $463 $591 $755 $963Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 90 gal $351 $369 $387 $406 $427 $448 $470 $494 $519 $545 $572 $600 $630 $662 $695 $887 $1,132 $1,445Small load existing fuel$3.90 15% 180 gal $702 $737 $774 $813 $853 $896 $941 $988 $1,037 $1,089 $1,143 $1,201 $1,261 $1,324 $1,390 $1,774 $2,264 $2,890Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs$8,000 $8,160 $8,323 $8,490 $8,659 $8,833 $9,009 $9,189 $9,373 $9,561 $9,752 $9,947 $10,146 $10,349 $10,556 $11,654 $12,867 $14,207Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs First 2 years$1,600 $1,632Additional Electrical Cost $0.500$1,200 $1,260 $1,323 $1,389 $1,459 $1,532 $1,608 $1,689 $1,773 $1,862 $1,955 $2,052 $2,155 $2,263 $2,376 $3,032 $3,870$4,939Annual Operating Cost Savings-$6,232-$6,155-$4,400-$4,264-$4,112-$3,944-$3,759-$3,557-$3,335-$3,092-$2,828-$2,542-$2,231-$1,894-$1,530$758$4,010$8,533Financed Project Costs - Principal and Interest0000000000 Displaced System Replacement Costs (year one only)0Net Annual Cash Flow(6,232) (6,155) (4,400) (4,264) (4,112) (3,944) (3,759) (3,557) (3,335) (3,092) (2,828) (2,542) (2,231) (1,894) (1,530)758 4,010 8,533Accumulated Cash Flow(6,232) (12,387) (16,788) (21,052) (25,163) (29,108) (32,867) (36,424) (39,758) (42,851) (45,679) (48,221) (50,451) (52,345) (53,875) (54,994) (41,890) (8,851)Additional Power UseAdditional MaintenanceSimple Payback: Total Project Cost/Year One Operating Cost Savings:Net Present Value (30 year analysis):Net Present Value (20 year analysis):
APPENDIX C
Site Plan
GENERATORBUILDINGVILLAGE EXPRESSMAINTENANCE SHOPBOILERPLANTHEALTH CLINIC / WASHETERIAMANLEY VILLAGECOUNCIL OFFICETRIBAL HALL50'-0"50'-0"262'-6"25'-0"50'-0"300'-0"400'-0"250'-0"MISSOULA, MT(406)728-9522Fax (406)728-8287Date®BIOMASS PRE-FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTMANLEY HOT SPRINGS, ALASKAMANLEY VILLAGE COUNCIL CLUSTERSSFNHR07/24/2012FEDCJ:manley hot springs400'200'100'0SCALE: 1:200NORTHREF.LEGENDPIPE ROUTINGBOILER ROOMSITE PLAN
APPENDIX D
Air Quality Report
55 Railroad Row White River Junction, Vermont 05001
TEL 802.295.4999 FAX 802.295.1006 www.rsginc.com
INTRODUCTION
At your request, RSG has conducted an air quality feasibility study for three biomass energy
installations in Manley, Minto and Nenana. These sites are located in the interior of Alaska near
Fairbanks. The following equipment is proposed:
Minto ‐ one 300,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Minto Health Clinic.
Manley ‐ one 150,000 Btu/hr (heat output) cord wood boiler at the Village Express
Maintenance Shop.
Nenana – one 4,200,000 Btu/hr (heat output) wood chip boiler at the Nenana School.
MINTO STUDY AREA
A USGS map of the Minto study area is provided in Figure 1 below. As shown, the area is flat
with much low‐lying areas to the east and hilly to the west. The site is adjacent to a hillside. The
area is relatively sparsely populated. Our review of the area did not reveal any significant
emission sources or ambient air quality issues.
To: Nick Salmon
From: John Hinckley
Subject: Fairbanks Cluster Feasibility Study
Date: 24 July 2012
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 2
Figure 1: USGS Map Illustrating the Minto Study Area
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 3
Figure 2 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility and the
surrounding buildings in Minto. The site is relatively flat and sparsely populated with buildings.
The facility will be located in a remote building on the southeast side of two buildings. The
precise dimensions of that building, the stack location and dimensions, and the biomass
equipment specifications have not been determined. The degree of separation of the biomass
building from the other buildings will create a buffer for emissions dispersion.
Figure 2: Location of Proposed Facility in Minto
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 4
A USGS map of the Manley study area is provided Figure 3. As shown, the area is hilly to
mountainous to the north and flat to the south. The site is near the higher terrain to the north.
The area is relatively sparsely populated. Our review of the area did not reveal any significant
emission sources or ambient air quality issues.
Figure 3: USGS Map Illustrating the Manley Hot Springs Study Area
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 5
Figure 4 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility and the
surrounding buildings. The site is surrounded by forest, relatively flat and has only a few
buildings. The facility will be located in a new building on the west side of the site. A generator
building is also indicated on the plan. The precise dimensions of that building, the stack location
and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined.
Figure 4: Location of Proposed Facility in Manley
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 6
A USGS map of the Nenana study area is provided Figure 3. As shown, the area is hilly to
mountainous to the north and flat to the south and northeast. The site is across the river from
higher terrain to the north. The area is moderately populated relative to the other sites
discussed. Our review of the area did not reveal any significant emission sources or ambient air
quality issues.
Figure 5: USGS Map Illustrating the Nenana Study Area
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 7
Figure 6 shows CTA Architects’ plan of the location of the proposed biomass facility at the
Nenana School and the surrounding buildings. The site is relatively flat and relatively densely
populated with one to two story tall buildings. The proposed biomass equipment will be
installed in a remote building located to the east of the school. This will provide a buffer for
dispersion of air emissions between the stack and surrounding buildings. The precise stack
location and dimensions, and the biomass equipment specifications have not been determined.
Figure 6: Overview of Nenana School Cluster Site
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 8
METEOROLOGY
Meteorological data from Fairbanks, AK was reviewed to develop an understanding of weather
conditions. While Fairbanks is approximately 90 miles, 50 miles, and 45 miles away from
Manley, Minto, and Nenana respectively, it is located in a similar climactic zone (Alaska
Interior) and is therefore a good proxy of weather in those locations. As shown, there is a
relatively high percentage of “calms” or times when the wind is not blowing during the colder
months.1 These conditions create thermal inversions which are unfavorable for the dispersion
of emissions.
Figure 7: Wind Speed Data from Fairbanks, AK
DESIGN & OPERATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are suggested for designing the stack:
1 See: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Wind/Speed/Fairbanks/FAI.html
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 9
Burn natural wood, whose characteristics (moisture content, bark content, species,
geometry) results in optimal combustion in the equipment selected for the project.
Do not install a rain cap above the stack. Rain caps obstruct vertical airflow and reduce
dispersion of emissions.
Construct the stack to at least 1.5 times the height of the tallest roofline of the adjacent
building. Hence, a 20 foot roofline would result in a minimum 30 foot stack.
Operate and maintain the boiler according to manufacturer’s recommendations.
Perform a tune‐up at least every other year as per manufacturer’s recommendations
and EPA guidance (see below for more discussion of EPA requirements)
Conduct regular observations of stack emissions. If emissions are not characteristic of
good boiler operation, make corrective actions.
For the Nenana School: while there are no state or federal requirements mandating
advanced emission control from and ESP or baghouse, we feel advanced emission
control should be strongly considered. Alternatively, the school should consider using
pellets in lieu of wood chips.
STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
This project will not require an air pollution control permit from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Quality given the boilers’ relatively small size and corresponding quantity of
emissions. However, this project will be subject to new proposed requirements in the federal
“Area Source Rule” (40 CFR 63 JJJJJJ). A federal permit is not needed. However, there are various
record keeping, reporting and operation and maintenance requirements which must be
performed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in the Area Source Rule. The
proposed changes have not been finalized. Until that time, the following requirements are
applicable:
Submit initial notification form to EPA within 120 days of startup.
Complete biennial tune ups per EPA method.
Submit tune‐up forms to EPA.
Please note the following:
Oil and coal fired boilers are also subject to this rule.
Gas fired boilers are not subject to this rule.
More requirements are applicable to boilers equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr heat
input. These requirements typically warrant advanced emission controls, such as a
baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP).
The compliance guidance documents and compliance forms can be obtained on the following
EPA web page: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/
Fairbanks Air Quality Feasibility Study Resource Systems Group, Inc.
24 July 2012 page 10
SUMMARY
RSG has completed an air quality feasibility study for Minto, Manley, and Nenana, Alaska. The
boilers are not subject to state permitting requirements, but are subject to federal
requirements. Design criteria have been suggested to minimize emissions and maximize
dispersion.
The following conditions suggest advanced emission control devices (ESP, baghouse) are not
mandatory:
1. The wood boilers, with the exception of the boiler at Nenana, will be relatively small
emission sources.
2. The wood boilers will be located in a separate building which will create a dispersion
buffer between the boiler stack and the building.
3. There are no applicable federal or state emission limits.
Sustained poor meteorology suggests emissions should be minimized as much as possible.
Given these findings, we would recommend at minimum the following be done to minimize
emissions:
1. Nenana: consider burning pellets in lieu of wood chips or consider advanced emission
control. If wood chips are preferable, consider conducting air dispersion modeling to
determine the stack height and degree of emission control.
2. While not mandatory, we recommend exploring the possibility of a cyclone or multi‐
cyclone technology for control of fly ash and larger particulate emissions for all the
aforementioned boilers.
3. Obtain a not‐to‐exceed emission guarantees from boiler equipment vendors.
We also recommend developing a compliance plan for the aforementioned federal
requirements.
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions.
APPENDIX E
Wood Fired Heating Technologies
WOOD FIRED HEATING TECHNOLOGIES
CTA has developed wood-fired heating system projects using cord wood, wood pellet
and wood chips as the primary feedstock. A summary of each system type with the
benefits and disadvantages is noted below.
Cord Wood
Cord wood systems are hand-stoked wood boilers with a limited heat output of 150,000-
200,000 British Thermal Units per hour (Btu/hour). Cord wood systems are typically
linked to a thermal storage tank in order to optimize the efficiency of the system and
reduce the frequency of stoking. Cord wood boiler systems are also typically linked to
existing heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Garn, HS
Tarm and KOB identify outputs of 150,000-196,000 Btu/hr based upon burning eastern
hardwoods and stoking the boiler on an hourly basis. The cost and practicality of stoking
a wood boiler on an hourly basis has led most operators of cord wood systems to
integrate an adjacent thermal storage tank, acting similar to a battery, storing heat for
later use. The thermal storage tank allows the wood boiler to be stoked to a high fire
mode 3 times per day while storing heat for distribution between stoking. Cord wood
boilers require each piece of wood to be hand fed into the firebox, hand raking of the
grates and hand removal of ash. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock
piled and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Cordwood boilers are manufactured by a number of European manufacturers and an
American manufacturer with low emissions. These manufacturers currently do not
fabricate equipment with ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
certifications. When these non ASME boilers are installed in the United States,
atmospheric boilers rather than pressurized boilers are utilized. Atmospheric boilers
require more frequent maintenance of the boiler chemicals.
Emissions from cord wood systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 >0.08 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.23 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 195 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Small size
Lower cost
Local wood resource
Simple to operate
Disadvantages:
Hand fed - a large labor commitment
Typically atmospheric boilers (not ASME rated)
Thermal Storage is required
Page 1
Wood Pellet
Wood pellet systems can be hand fed from 40 pound bags, hand shoveled from 2,500
pound sacks of wood pellets, or automatically fed from an adjacent agricultural silo with
a capacity of 30-40 tons. Pellet boilers systems are typically linked to existing heat
distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from KOB, Forest Energy and
Solagen identify outputs of 200,000-5,000,000 Btu/hr based upon burning pellets made
from waste products from the western timber industry. A number of pellet fuel
manufacturers produce all tree pellets utilizing bark and needles. All tree pellets have
significantly higher ash content, resulting in more frequent ash removal. Wood pellet
boilers typically require hand raking of the grates and hand removal of ash 2-3 times a
week. Automatic ash removal can be integrated into pellet boiler systems. Ash is
typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Pellet storage is very economical. Agricultural bin storage exterior to the building is
inexpensive and quick to install. Material conveyance is also borrowed from agricultural
technology. Flexible conveyors allow the storage to be located 20 feet or more from the
boiler with a single auger.
Emissions from wood pellet systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 >0.09 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 220 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Smaller size (relative to a chip system)
Consistent fuel and easy economical storage of fuel
Automated
Disadvantages:
Higher system cost
Higher cost wood fuel ($/MMBtu)
Page 2
Page 3
Wood Chip
Chip systems utilize wood fuel that is either chipped or ground into a consistent size of
2-4 inches long and 1-2 inches wide. Chipped and ground material includes fine
sawdust and other debris. The quality of the fuel varies based upon how the wood is
processed between the forest and the facility. Trees which are harvested in a manner
that minimizes contact with the ground and run through a chipper or grinder directly into
a clean chip van are less likely to be contaminated with rocks, dirt and other debris. The
quality of the wood fuel will also be impacted by the types of screens placed on the
chipper or grinder. Fuel can be screened to reduce the quantity of fines which typically
become airborne during combustion and represent lost heat and increased particulate
emissions.
Chipped fuel is fed from the chip van into a metering bin, or loaded into a bunker with a
capacity of 60 tons or more. Wood chip boilers systems are typically linked to existing
heat distribution systems via a heat exchanger. Product data from Hurst, Messersmith
and Biomass Combustion Systems identify outputs of 1,000,000 - 50,000,000 Btu/hr
based upon burning western wood fuels. Wood chip boilers typically require hand raking
of the grates and hand removal of ash daily. Automatic ash removal can be integrated
into wood chip boiler systems. Ash is typically cooled in a barrel before being stock piled
and later broadcast as fertilizer.
Emissions from wood chip systems are typically as follows:
PM2.5 0.21 lb/MMbtu
NOx 0.22 lb/MMbtu
SO2 0.025 lb/MMbtu
CO2 195 lb/MMbtu
Benefits:
Lowest fuel cost of three options ($/MMBtu)
Automated
Can use local wood resources
Disadvantages:
Highest initial cost of three types
Larger fuel storage required
Less consistent fuel can cause operational and performance issues