HomeMy WebLinkAboutNondalton Assessment for Biomass Heating System Final Report Coffman 07-26-2013-BIO
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems
Nondalton, Alaska
800 F Street, Anchorage, AK 99501
p (907) 276-6664 f (907) 276-5042
Tony SlatonBarker, PE and
Lee Bolling, CEA
FINAL REPORT - 7/26/2013
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. i
Contents
I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1
II. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2
III. Preliminary Site Investigation – Tribal Office Building ........................................................ 3
BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 3
EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................................. 3
DOMESTIC HOT WATER................................................................................................................................................... 3
BUILDING ENVELOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
AVAILABLE SPACE ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
STREET ACCESS AND FUEL STORAGE ................................................................................................................................... 3
BUILDING OR SITE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 4
BIOMASS SYSTEM INTEGRATION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
BIOMASS SYSTEM OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 4
IV. Preliminary Site Investigation – Community Building ........................................................ 5
BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................................. 5
DOMESTIC HOT WATER................................................................................................................................................... 5
BUILDING ENVELOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
AVAILABLE SPACE ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
STREET ACCESS AND FUEL STORAGE ................................................................................................................................... 5
BUILDING OR SITE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 6
BIOMASS SYSTEM INTEGRATION ........................................................................................................................................ 6
BIOMASS SYSTEM OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 6
V. Preliminary Site Investigation – St. Nicholas Church ........................................................... 8
BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 8
EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................................. 8
DOMESTIC HOT WATER................................................................................................................................................... 8
BUILDING ENVELOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
AVAILABLE SPACE ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
STREET ACCESS AND FUEL STORAGE ................................................................................................................................... 8
BUILDING OR SITE CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 9
BIOMASS SYSTEM INTEGRATION ........................................................................................................................................ 9
BIOMASS SYSTEM OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 9
VI. Energy Consumption and Costs ....................................................................................... 10
WOOD ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
ENERGY COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
EXISTING FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................................................. 11
BIOMASS SYSTEM CONSUMPTION ................................................................................................................................... 11
VII. Preliminary Cost Estimating ........................................................................................... 13
VIII. Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
O&M COSTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................................................ 14
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. ii
IX. Forest Resource and Fuel Availability Assessments ......................................................... 17
FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 17
AIR QUALITY PERMITTING .............................................................................................................................................. 17
X. General Biomass Technology Information ........................................................................ 18
HEATING WITH WOOD FUEL ........................................................................................................................................... 18
TYPES OF WOOD FUEL .................................................................................................................................................. 18
HIGH EFFICIENCY CORD WOOD BOILERS ........................................................................................................................... 19
LOW EFFICIENCY CORD WOOD BOILERS ........................................................................................................................... 19
HIGH EFFICIENCY WOOD STOVES .................................................................................................................................... 20
BULK FUEL BOILERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
GRANTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendices
Appendix A – Site Photos
Appendix B – Economic Analysis Spreadsheet
Appendix C – Site Plan
Appendix D – AWEDTG Field Data Sheet
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, 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
AHU Air Handling Unit
ARCH Architectural
B/C Benefit / Cost Ratio
BAS Building Automation System
BTU British Thermal Unit
BTUH BTU per hour
CCF One Hundred Cubic Feet
CEI Coffman Engineers, Inc.
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CIRC Circulation
CMU Concrete Masonry Unit
CRAC Computer Room Air Conditioning
CWCO Cold Weather Cut Out
DDC Direct Digital Control
∆T Delta T (Temperature Differential)
ECI Energy Cost Index
ECM Energy Conservation Measure
EF Exhaust Fan
Eff Efficiency
ELEC Electrical
EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
EUI Energy Utilization Index
F Fahrenheit
ft Feet
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HP Horsepower
HPS High Pressure Sodium
HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning
IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
in Inch(es)
IPLC Integrated Power and Load Circuit
IRC Internal Revenue Code
kBTU One Thousand BTUs
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
LED Light-Emitting Diode
MBH Thousand BTUs per Hour
MECH Mechanical
MH Metal Halide
O&M Operations and Maintenance
MMBTU One Million BTUs
P Pump
PC Project Cost
PF Power Factor
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. iv
R R-Value
PH Phase
SC Shading Coefficient
SAT Supply Air Temperature
SF Square Feet, Supply Fan
TEMP Temperature
U U-Value
V Volts
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
W Watts
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. v
List of Figures
Fig. 1 – Nondalton, Alaska – Google Maps ................................................................................................... 2
Fig. 2 – Nondalton Buildings Evaluated – Google Maps ............................................................................... 2
List of Tables
Table 1 – Economic Evaluation Summary ..................................................................................................... 1
Table 2 – Energy Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3 – Existing Fuel Oil Consumption ..................................................................................................... 11
Table 4 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption ............................................................................ 12
Table 5 – Estimate of Probable Costs for High Efficiency Wood Stove in Nondalton................................. 13
Table 6 – Inflation rates .............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 7 – Economic Definitions ................................................................................................................... 15
Table 8 – Economic Analysis Results ........................................................................................................... 16
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 1
I. Executive Summary
A preliminary feasibility assessment was completed to determine the technical and economic viability of
biomass heating systems at the Tribal Office Building, Community Building and St. Nicholas Church in
Nondalton, Alaska. In the study, the proposed biomass system determined to be the most practical and
cost effective for each building is a high efficiency wood stove. A wood boiler system, such as a Garn,
was not evaluated due to high mechanical integration costs, limited available space and system
complexity.
The results of the economic evaluation for all three buildings are shown below. It was found that
installing a high efficiency wood stove at each building is economically justified, due to the fact that the
benefit to cost ratio of each option is greater than 1.0. The Tribal Office Building and Community
Building are the most cost effective projects. St. Nicholas Church has a longer payback time due to its
limited operation and relatively low heating oil consumption.
Economic Analysis Results
Building
Tribal Office
Building
Community
Building
St. Nicholas
Church
Project Capital Cost
($12,120) ($12,120) ($12,120)
Simple Payback
2.9 years 3.2 years 13.8 years
Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)
$285,647 $260,496 $65,573
Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)
($179,651) ($164,047) ($41,937)
Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)
8.75 7.96 1.95
Net Present Value (20 year life)
$93,876 $84,330 $11,516
Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive
First Year First Year First Year
Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital
Cost
2.8 years 3.0 years 10.0 years
Table 1 – Economic Evaluation Summary
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, 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 three buildings in Nondalton, AK. The three buildings are the Tribal Office
Building, the Community Building, and St. Nicholas Church. The locations of the buildings are shown in
Figures 1 and 2.
Fig. 1 – Nondalton, Alaska – Google Maps
Fig. 2 – Nondalton Buildings Evaluated – Google Maps
Tribal Office Building
St. Nicholas Church
Community Building
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 3
III. Preliminary Site Investigation – Tribal Office Building
Building Description
The Tribal Office Building is a 2,200 SF two story building that was built in 1991. It was originally used
for temporary housing until it was renovated in 2011 into office space. The next planned renovation will
involve finishing the remaining part of the second floor, which is currently inaccessible. It is used by four
or five office staff during the weekdays during working hours and occasionally during the weekend. It is
typically used approximately 50 hours per week. No energy audit has been conducted at the building.
Existing Heating System
The heating system for the Tribal Office Building includes one Toyostove and one Monitor stove, each
located on the first floor. The second floor has no installed heating system and second floor offices
utilize individual electric space heaters for additional heat. Two electric space heaters were observed on
the second floor during the site visit. There is no central boiler and no boiler room in the building.
The Monitor stove (model 2400, 37,200 BTU/hr output) serves the first floor conference room and the
Toyostove (model Laser 73, 40,000 BTU/hr output) serves the first floor office space. The heaters
appear to be in fair working order and the age of the units is unknown. There is no routine maintenance
of the heaters. One 300 gal heating oil tank serves the Monitor and a 55 gal drum serves the Toyostove.
Each tank is located outside the building adjacent to the wall where each heater is located. No spill
containment is present around the tanks. Fuel in the tanks is used for heating only.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is used only for hand washing in the building’s two bathrooms. A shower exists in
the second floor bathroom but is never used. There are two electric resistance hot water heaters; with
one serving each bathroom. The first floor bathroom has a 30 gal Reliance electric hot water heater that
is currently disconnected and not in service. A 50 gal Richmond electric hot water heater serves the
second floor bathroom.
Building Envelope
The walls of the building are 2x6 wood stud construction that are estimated to have R-19 fiberglass batt
insulation. The roof is a cold roof with a vented attic space, with an unknown amount and type of
insulation because it could not be accessed. It is estimated that the roof insulation is R-25 fiberglass
batt insulation. The windows are double pane and there are unheated arctic entries for each of the two
entrances.
Available Space
There is space inside the building for a residential style wood stove. However, an addition would be
needed to house a larger Garn wood boiler type system.
Street Access and Fuel Storage
The building is situated along a gravel road and a truck can easily access the front and sides of the
building. There is adequate space around the building for a wood storage shed and/or wood boiler
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 4
building. Brush may have to be removed and additional gravel may be necessary to situate the new
structures.
Building or Site constraints
The site is flat with no significant site constraints.
Biomass System Integration
The building currently has no hydronic piping, boiler, or fin-tube baseboard. Thus, to implement a wood
fired boiler system, new hydronic piping and baseboards would need to be installed, adding significant
expense. A residential style high efficiency wood stove could easily be installed in the building.
Biomass System Options
There are two options for incorporating biomass systems into the Tribal Office Building:
1) A high efficiency wood stove, or
2) A high efficiency wood boiler system in a detached building.
Both systems would require a person to load and fire the wood heating systems by hand.
A residential style high efficiency wood stove would be the most cost effective and lowest tech option.
Wood heating with wood stoves is standard with most homes in Nondalton for auxiliary and back-up
heating. The wood stove would be easy to operate and would require minimal maintenance compared
to a wood boiler system. The wood stove would be used to provide a base heat load for the building
during occupied times. Occupants would fire the stove regularly to provide as much heating oil
displacement as they wish. The existing Toyostove and Monitor stove would still be used to make up for
additional required heating during occupied times and as heaters when the building is unoccupied. For
this study, a Blaze King Classic high efficiency wood stove with an output of 48,065 BTU/hr for 12 hours
was selected as the proposed biomass system to evaluate.
The second option is a wood fired boiler system, such as a Garn, which will be more expensive and
require more maintenance than a wood stove. A wood fired boiler can be loaded and fired in batches,
which heats up a large volume of water for space heating. This allows a wood fired boiler to be loaded
less times throughout the day than a wood stove, which would need a higher loading frequency. The
wood fired boiler system would be located in a detached boiler building and heating pipes would be
routed to the building. Pre-insulated heating pipes are typically below grade if the boiler building is a
significant distance from heating load. Due to the significant expense of retrofitting the building with a
hydronic system and the increased complexity of a wood boiler system, this option was not evaluated in
this study. Also, there appears to be limited maintenance personnel available in the community to
maintain a Garn type system.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 5
IV. Preliminary Site Investigation – Community Building
Building Description
The Community Building is a 2,000 SF one story building that was built in 1995. It is used for office space
and for holding large community events. It has a large main room and a large kitchen with a food
storage room. The building had window, door and air sealing improvements completed in 2011, as part
of recommendations from an energy audit. The energy audit for the building was not provided to us.
Additional interior renovations are planned but there is currently no funding or timeline for the projects.
The building has two office workers that use the building for the typical 40 hour work week. The
building is also used for large community events during the weekdays and weekends. Meetings, classes
and potlucks can range from 10 to 100 people. It is estimated that the building is occupied 50 hrs per
week.
Existing Heating System
The community building is heated by a single Monitor stove located in the main room. There is no boiler
or boiler room. The stove is a Monitor 441, direct vented heating oil furnace with an output of 43,000
Btu/hr. The unit has its own controls and thermostat. There is no routine maintenance that is
performed on the unit. The Monitor stove appears to be in good working order. The age of the unit is
unknown. One 500 gal heating oil tank is located adjacent the exterior wall near the Monitor stove. The
tank is surrounded by a chain link fence and enclosed by a wood structure. No spill containment is
present around the tank and fuel in the tank is only used for heating.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is used only for hand washing in the single bathroom and for washing in the kitchen.
No shower or laundry facilities exist in the building. There is one 30 gal electric water heater located in
the food storage room by the kitchen.
Building Envelope
The walls of the building are 2x6 wood stud construction that are estimated to have R-19 fiberglass batt
insulation. The roof is a cold roof with a vented attic space, with an unknown amount and type of
insulation because it could not be accessed. It is estimated that the roof insulation is R-25 fiberglass
batt insulation. The windows are new double pane windows. There is an unheated arctic entry for the
main entrance.
Available Space
There is space inside the building for a residential style wood stove. However, an addition would be
needed to house a larger Garn wood boiler type system.
Street Access and Fuel Storage
The building is situated along a gravel road and a truck can easily access the front of the building.
However, there is limited space around the sides and back of the structure which could make wood
storage an issue. Wood storage may be able to be done on the west side of the building.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6
Building or Site constraints
The site is on a south facing hill that slopes sharply to the lake. There is also a large satellite dish and GCI
communication conex located to the east of the building. Due to these factors, there is no obvious
space for a detached boiler building to house a wood fired boiler. The west side of the building may
have space, but would require brush and tree clearing and significant fill to level the space for
construction.
Biomass System Integration
The building currently has no hydronic piping, boiler, or fin-tube baseboard. Thus, to implement a wood
fired boiler system, new hydronic piping and baseboards would need to be installed. A residential style
high efficiency wood stove could easily be installed in the building.
Biomass System Options
There are three options for incorporating biomass systems into the community building:
1) A high efficiency wood stove,
2) A high efficiency wood boiler system in a detached building, or
3) A large central plant wood boiler system that would serve the Community Building, Clinic
Building, Ambulance Building, St. Nicholas Church and potentially other buildings in close
proximity.
All systems will require a person to load and fire the wood heating systems by hand.
A residential style high efficiency wood stove would be the most cost effective and lowest tech option.
Wood heating with wood stoves is standard with most homes in Nondalton for auxiliary and back-up
heating. The wood stove would be easy to operate and would require minimal maintenance compared
to a wood boiler system. The wood stove would be used to provide a base heat load for the building
during occupied times. Occupants would fire the stove regularly to provide as much heating oil
displacement as they wish. The existing Toyostove and Monitor stove would still be used to make up for
additional required heating during occupied times and as heaters when the building is unoccupied. For
this study, a Blaze King Classic high efficiency wood stove with an output of 48,065 BTU/hr for 12 hours
was selected as the proposed biomass system to evaluate.
The second option is a wood fired boiler system, which will be more expensive and require more
maintenance than a wood stove. A wood fired boiler can be loaded and fired in batches, which heats up
a large volume of water for space heating. This allows a wood fired boiler to be loaded less times
throughout the day then a wood stove, which would need a higher loading frequency. The wood fired
boiler system would be located in a detached boiler building and heating pipes would be routed to the
building. Due to the significant expense of retrofitting the building with a hydronic system and the
increased complexity of a wood boiler system, this option was not evaluated in this study. Also, there
appears to be limited maintenance personnel available in the community to maintain a Garn type
system.
The third option is a large central plant wood boiler system that could serve multiple buildings. The
central plant could serve the Community Building, Clinic Building, Ambulance Building, St. Nicholas
Church and potentially the Post Office Building, Triplex Building, and Teacher Housing building. All of
these buildings are within 100 yards of the Village Clinic. The buildings could be connected to a buried
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 7
glycol heating loop that is connected to a central wood fired boiler plant. This option would be the most
expensive, but would have the biggest ability to offset heating oil consumption. However, the clinic
buildings, Post Office, and teacher housing buildings are all owned by different entities (and were
outside current scope of this study), which may prove difficult to organize. A central plant system of this
size and complexity would also require a maintenance staff to properly operate and maintain the
system. The systems would utilize pumps, glycol, heat exchangers, boilers and a control system. Skilled
maintenance personnel would be needed to operate and maintain the system.
Finally, it appears that the only available land for a central plant facility would be across the road to the
north of St. Nicholas Church, which would be approximately 200 to 250 yards away from the Community
Building. This option could be viable, but would require skilled maintenance personnel and buy in from
all of the building owners. This option was not evaluated in this study because it is outside the scope of
the current project. If the community wants to pursue this option, an additional more detailed study
including all possible buildings is recommended.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 8
V. Preliminary Site Investigation – St. Nicholas Church
Building Description
St. Nicholas Church is a 1,750 SF one story building that was built in 1987. The church is used primarily
for services during the weekends and for weddings and funerals. On average, it appears that the
building is occupied 10 hrs per week. There are typically 5-10 people for church services. During the
holidays most of the village will attend. Due to the high cost of heating oil and the low occupancy of the
building, the heat in the building is turned off during unoccupied times and the building is allowed to
match ambient outside temperatures. The heat is turned on one to two days before a church service to
warm the space. The building has one large room for the congregation and a smaller room behind the
altar for religious materials. There have been no renovations to the building since it was originally built.
Roof repairs for the church are planned to be completed when funding is available. There has been no
energy audit of the building. Also located on the site is the old church, which is located immediately to
the east of St. Nicholas Church. The old church appears to have no electricity or heating.
Existing Heating System
St. Nicholas Church is heated by a single Toyostove stove located in the main room. There is no boiler or
boiler room. The stove is a Toyostove Laser 73, direct vented heating oil furnace with an output of
40,000 Btu/hr. The unit has its own controls and thermostat. There is no routine maintenance that is
performed on the unit. The Toyostove appears to be in fair working order. The age of the unit is
unknown. One 55 gal heating oil drum is located outside the building adjacent the exterior wall near the
Toyostove. No spill containment is present around the tank and fuel in the tank is only used for heating.
Domestic Hot Water
There is no water service or plumbing in the building.
Building Envelope
The walls of the building are 2x6 wood stud construction that are estimated to have R-19 fiberglass batt
insulation. The roof is a cold roof with a vented attic space, with an unknown amount and type of
insulation because it could not be accessed. The building is on piles and floor is assumed to be insulated
with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation, as soffit space was inaccessible. It is estimated that the roof
insulation is R-25 fiberglass batt insulation. The windows are double pane windows. There is an
unheated arctic entry for the main entrance. The building foundation is on piles and the floor of the
building is not level, due to foundation settlement.
Available Space
There appears to be space inside the building for a residential style wood stove. An addition would be
needed to house a larger Garn wood boiler type system.
Street Access and Fuel Storage
The building is situated on a hill with a gravel road wrapping around the uphill side of the building.
There is one small gravel driveway that allows access from the road to the main entrance of the church.
There is limited space around the sides and back of the structure which could make wood storage an
issue. Wood storage may be able to be done on the west side of the building.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 9
Building or Site constraints
St. Nicholas Church is on a south facing hill that slopes to the lake. The old church is located to the east
of the building. Due to these factors, there is limited space for a detached boiler building to house a
wood fired boiler. The west side of the building may have space, but would require brush and tree
clearing and fill to level the space for construction. There is also no water service to the church, so a
new water service for a boiler building would be necessary.
Biomass System Integration
The building currently has no hydronic piping, boiler, or fin-tube baseboard. Thus, to implement a wood
fired boiler system, new hydronic piping and baseboards would need to be installed. A residential style
high efficiency wood stove could easily be installed in the building.
Biomass System Options
The biomass options for St. Nicholas Church are identical to the options for the Community Building (see
previous section for details). For this study, a Blaze King Classic high efficiency wood stove with an
output of 48,065 BTU/hr for 12 hours was selected as the proposed biomass system to evaluate.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 10
VI. Energy Consumption and Costs
Wood Energy
The gross energy content of a cord of wood varies depending on tree species and moisture content.
Black spruce, white spruce and birch at 20% moisture content have respective gross energy contents of
15.9 MMBTU/Cord, 18.1 MMBTU/cord and 23.6 MMBTU/cord, according to the UAF Cooperative
Extension. Wet or greenwood has higher moisture contents and require additional heat to evaporate
moisture before the wood can burn. Thus, wood with higher moisture contents will have lower energy
contents. Seasoned or dry wood will typically have 20% moisture content. For this study, cord wood
was estimated to have 16.0 MMBTU/cord. This is a conservative estimate based on the fact that the
community has access to both spruce and birch. To determine the delivered $/MMBTU of the biomass
system, a 75% efficiency for the high efficiency wood stoves was assumed. This is a conservative
estimate based on manufacturer documentation.
Energy Costs
The high price of fuel oil is the main economic driver for the use of lower cost biomass heating. Fuel oil
is shipped into Nondalton by plane and currently costs approximately $7.66/gal. For this study, the
energy content of fuel oil is based on 134,000 BTU/gal, according to the UAF Cooperative Extension.
Cord wood is sold in Nondalton not by the cord but by snow machine sled load. This is equivalent to
approximately $260 per cord, which is used for this study.
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. As shown below,
cord wood is less than half the cost of fuel oil based on the $/MMBTU delivered to the building heat
load.
Fuel Type Units Gross
BTU/unit
System
Efficiency $/unit Delivered
$/MMBTU
Cord Wood Cords 16,000,000 75% $260 $21.67
Fuel Oil Gal 134,000 80% $7.66 $71.46
Electricity kWh 3,413 99% $0.56 $165.74
Table 2 – Energy Comparison
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 11
Existing Fuel Oil Consumption
Complete heating oil bills were not provided for the three Nondalton buildings. The heating oil
consumption for each building was estimated based on interviews with Mr. William Evanoff, the current
Tribal Council President. According to Mr. Evanoff, the community building consumes three 55 gallon
drums of heating oil each month during the winter from October to April. During the summer from May
to September the community building uses approximately one 55 gal drum per month. Based on these
estimates, the community building consumes approximately 1,450 gallons per year.
The heating oil consumption of the Tribal Office Building is similar to the community building and is
estimated at 1,590 gallons per year, based on the additional square footage. The consumption of the St.
Nicholas Church is estimated at 365 gallons of heating oil per year, due to the fact that the church is only
heated 2 days per week.
Building Name Fuel Type
Avg. Annual
Consumption Net MMBTU/yr Annual Fuel Cost
Tribal Office
Building Fuel Oil 1,590 gal 170.4 $12,179
Community
Building Fuel Oil 1,450 gal 155.4 $11,107
St. Nicholas Church Fuel Oil 365 gal 39.1 $2,796
Table 3 – Existing Fuel Oil Consumption
Biomass System Consumption
The proposed biomass system for each building is a high efficiency wood stove. While wood stoves are
capable of providing the majority of the space heat for each building, a conservative estimate of 50%
heating oil offset was used for the study. Due to the fact that the buildings are not occupied const antly
and that the wood stoves are hand fired, a 50% heating oil offset is a realistic estimate for this study. If
the building tenants wish to offset more heating oil, the wood stove can be fired on a more frequent
schedule.
Building Name
Fuel
Type
% Heating
Source
Net
MMBTU/yr
Annual
Consumption
Energy
Cost
Total
Energy Cost
Tribal Office
Building
Cord
Wood 50% 85.2 7.1 cords $1,847
$7,936
Fuel Oil 50% 85.2 795 gal $6,090
Community
Building
Cord
Wood 50% 77.7 6.5 cords $1,684
$7,237
Fuel Oil 50% 77.7 725 gal $5,554
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 12
Building Name
Fuel
Type
% Heating
Source
Net
MMBTU/yr
Annual
Consumption
Energy
Cost
Total
Energy Cost
St. Nicholas
Church
Cord
Wood 50% 19.6 1.6 cords $424
$1,822
Fuel Oil 50% 19.6 183 gal $1,398
Table 4 – Proposed Biomass System Fuel Consumption
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 13
VII. Preliminary Cost Estimating
An estimate of probable costs was completed for the installation of a high efficiency wood stove for
each building. The basis of design is a Blaze King Classic high efficiency wood stove with an output of
48,065 BTU/hr for 12 hours. This cost estimate is used for each of the three study buildings in
Nondalton: Tribal Office, Community Building and St. Nicholas Church. The cost estimate is for one
building.
The estimate includes general conditions and overhead and profit for the general contractor. A 10%
remote factor was used to account for increased shipping and installation costs in Nondalton.
Engineering design and permitting was estimated at 15% and a 10% contingency was used.
Estimate of Probable Costs for High Efficiency Wood Stove in Nondalton
Category Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
High Efficiency Wood Stove Wood Stove Each $2,500.00 1 $2,500
Blower Fan Each $ 500.00 1 $500
Stack Each $ 500.00 1 $500
Subtotal $3,500
Installation Area Prep hrs $ 150.00 8 $1,200
Stove and Chimney Install hrs $ 150.00 8 $1,200
Additional Parts Allowance Each $1,000.00 1 $1,000
Subtotal $3,400
Shipping 600 lbs Shipping Job $1,000.00 1 $1,000
Subtotal $1,000
Subtotal Material and Installation Cost
$7,900
General Conditions 5% $395
Subtotal $8,295
Overhead and Profit 5% $415
Subtotal $8,710
Remote Factor 10% $871
Subtotal $9,581
Design Fees and
Permitting 15% $1,437
Subtotal $11,018
Contingency 10% $1,102
Total Project Cost $12,120
Table 5 – Estimate of Probable Costs for High Efficiency Wood Stove in Nondalton
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 14
VIII. Economic Analysis
The following assumptions were used to complete the economic analysis for the proposed biomass
systems in Nondalton.
Inflation Rates
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%
Table 6 – Inflation rates
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 2012 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 2012 studies.
O&M Costs
Non-fuel related operations and maintenance costs (O&M) were estimated at $50 per year. For the first
two years of service, an additional $50 per year was added to account for maintenance staff getting
used to operating the new system. The maintenance of the high efficiency wood stove is relatively low
due to the system’s simple construction and few moving parts. Wood stoves are also common in the
community and community members have knowledge of how to operate them.
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.
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.
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.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 15
Economic Term Description
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 to provide 85% of the building’s
heat. It also includes the heating oil required for the existing oil-fired boilers
to provide the remaining 15% of heat to the building.
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 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.
Table 7 – Economic Definitions
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 16
Results
The economic analysis was completed in order to determine the simple payback, benefit to cost ratio,
and net present value of the proposed biomass system at each building. The results of the proposed
high efficiency wood stoves are shown in the table below.
Based on the economic analysis it was determined that all of the proposed biomass systems at the three
buildings in Nondalton have benefit to cost ratios above 1.0, and are economically justified. The driving
factors that make these projects cost effective are their relatively low project capital cost, combined
with the high price of heating oil. A high efficiency wood stove is much cheaper than utilizing an
expensive and complex high efficiency wood boiler and all the necessary hydronic piping required to
integrate into the buildings.
Economic Analysis Results
Building
Tribal Office
Building
Community
Building
St. Nicholas
Church
Project Capital Cost
($12,120) ($12,120) ($12,120)
Simple Payback
2.9 years 3.2 years 13.8 years
Present Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)
$285,647 $260,496 $65,573
Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)
($179,651) ($164,047) ($41,937)
Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)
8.75 7.96 1.95
Net Present Value (20 year life)
$93,876 $84,330 $11,516
Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net Positive
First Year First Year First Year
Year Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital
Cost
2.8 years 3.0 years 10.0 years
Table 8 – Economic Analysis Results
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis for the three Nondalton buildings was not completed because all projects are
economically justified, with high benefit to cost ratios. Even if the price of heating oil drops to $2.70 per
gallon, the Tribal Office Building and Community Building projects will still have a benefit to cost ratio of
1.0. The St. Nicholas Church will still have a benefit to cost ratio of 1.0 if heating oil drops to $4.96 per
gallon.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 17
IX. Forest Resource and Fuel Availability Assessments
Forest Resource Assessments
Fuel availability assessments were not available for the Nondalton area. During the site visit it was
found that the land around Nondalton village is densely forested, with a high density of spruce and
some birch trees. Due to the limited length of roads, wood harvesting is typically accomplished in the
winter with snow machines pulling sleds.
Per Coffman’s discussions with Mr. Will Putman with the State Forestry Service, most of the permits for
wood harvesting are owned and controlled by village corporations within the state. If harvesting is to
take place in these areas, permission will need to be obtained from the village corporation prior to
harvesting. If more than 40 acres per year or 50 cords of wood are collected per year, the harvesting is
classified as a commercial operation. For a commercial harvest, the practices outlined in the Forest
Resources and Practices Act will need to be followed. The Forest Resource and Practices Act protects the
water and habitat within the harvesting site and applies to state, federal, and native corporation land. If
less than 40 cords of wood are used per year, the use is considered as a personal use and a commercial
permit is not required.
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). Similar systems installed in Alaska have not required or obtained air quality
permits.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 18
X. 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 villages 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.
In all of the Lake and Peninsula Communities studied, the community’s wood supply and demand are
isolated from outside markets. 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. 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.
Due to the limited wood fuel demand, large financial obligations and operating complexities, it is
unlikely that the Lake and Peninsula communities in this study will be able to manufacture pellets.
However, some communities may be able to manufacture bricks or fire logs made from pressed wood
material. These products can substitute for cordwood in woodstoves and boilers, while reducing supply
pressure on larger diameter trees that are generally preferred for cordwood.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 19
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.
Three HELE cordwood boiler suppliers include Garn (www.garn.com), Greenwood
(www.greenwoodusa.com) and TarmUSA (www.woodboilers.com). All three of these suppliers have
units operating in Alaska. Greenwood and TarmUSA have a number of residential units operating in
Alaska and have 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 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. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has issued nuisance abatement
orders for air pollution for outdoor wood boilers in Fairbanks. Fairbanks is ranked number four on Time
Magazine's list of most air polluted cities in America. 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, Garns can operate around 87%
efficiency.
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 20
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 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. The automated fuel handling requirements for bulk
fuel systems are not cost-effective for small and medium sized structures due to higher maintenance
costs and complexities. Due to these reasons, a bulk fuel boiler system is not recommended for small
rural communities in Alaska with limited financial and human resources.
Grants
There are many grant opportunities for biomass work state, federal, and local for feasibility studies,
design and construction. If a project if determined to be 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 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
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc. 21
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
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 Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Appendix A
Site Photos
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
1. Tribal Office Building - South elevation 2. Tribal Office Building - West elevation
3. Tribal Office Building - North elevation 4. Tribal Office Building - East elevation
5. Tribal Office Building – Site Entrance 6. Tribal Office Building – West fuel tank
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
7. Tribal Office Building – East fuel tank 8. Tribal Office Building – Monitor Stove
9. Tribal Office Building - Toyostove 10. Tribal Office Building – Conference Room
11. Tribal Office Building – First Floor Office
Space
12. Tribal Office Building – Second Floor Office
Space
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
13. Community Building - South elevation 14. Community Building - West elevation
15. Community Building - North elevation 16. Community Building - East elevation
17. Community Building – Site Entrance 18. Community Building – West fuel tank
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
19. Community Building – Monitor Stove 20. Community Building – Electric Water Heater
21. Community Building - Kitchen 22. Community Building – Main Room
23. Community Building – Main Room 24. Community Building – adjacent
communications conex and satellite dish
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
25. St. Nicholas Church - South elevation 26. St. Nicholas Church - West elevation
27. St. Nicholas Church - North elevation 28. St. Nicholas Church - East elevation
29. St. Nicholas Church – Site Entrance 30. St. Nicholas Church – West fuel tank
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
31. St. Nicholas Church – Toyostove 32. St. Nicholas Church – Main Room
33. St. Nicholas Church – North Road 34. St. Nicholas Church – East Road
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Appendix B
Economic Analysis Spreadsheet
Nondalton Community BuildingNondalton, AlaskaProject Capital Cost($12,120)Simple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings3.2 yearsPresent Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$260,496Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($164,047)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)7.96Net Present Value (20 year life)$84,330Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost3.0 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$7.661,450gal$11,107$11,662$12,245$12,858$13,501$14,176$14,884$15,629$16,410$17,231$18,092$18,997$19,947$20,944$21,991$23,091$24,245$25,457$26,730$28,067Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel (Delivered to site)$260.0050%6.5cord($1,690)($1,741)($1,793)($1,847)($1,902)($1,959)($2,018)($2,078)($2,141)($2,205)($2,271)($2,339)($2,410)($2,482)($2,556)($2,633)($2,712)($2,793)($2,877)($2,963)Fossil Fuel$7.6650%725gal($5,554)($5,831)($6,123)($6,429)($6,750)($7,088)($7,442)($7,814)($8,205)($8,615)($9,046)($9,498)($9,973)($10,472)($10,996)($11,545)($12,123)($12,729)($13,365)($14,033)Electricity$0.560kWh$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Operation and Maintenance Costs($50)($51)($52)($53)($54)($55)($56)($57)($59)($60)($61)($62)($63)($65)($66)($67)($69)($70)($71)($73)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($50)($51)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($7,344)($7,674)($7,968)($8,329)($8,707)($9,102)($9,516)($9,950)($10,404)($10,880)($11,378)($11,900)($12,446)($13,018)($13,618)($14,246)($14,903)($15,592)($16,314)($17,070)Annual Operating Cost Savings$3,764 $3,988 $4,278 $4,529 $4,794 $5,073 $5,368 $5,678 $6,006 $6,350 $6,714 $7,097 $7,500 $7,925 $8,373 $8,845 $9,342 $9,865 $10,417 $10,997Accumulated Cash Flow$3,764 $7,752 $12,030 $16,559 $21,353 $26,426 $31,794 $37,473 $43,478 $49,829 $56,543 $63,640 $71,140 $79,065 $87,439 $96,284 $105,626 $115,491 $125,908 $136,905Net Present Value($8,466) ($4,707) ($792)$3,232 $7,368 $11,617 $15,981 $20,464 $25,067 $29,792 $34,642 $39,620 $44,727 $49,967 $55,341 $60,853 $66,505 $72,300 $78,241 $84,330Energy UnitsHeating Source ProportionEconomic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescription Unit CostAnnual Energy Units
Nondalton St. Nicholas ChurchNondalton, AlaskaProject Capital Cost($12,120)Simple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings13.8 yearsPresent Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$65,573Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($41,937)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)1.95Net Present Value (20 year life)$11,516Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost10.0 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$7.66365gal$2,796$2,936$3,082$3,237$3,398$3,568$3,747$3,934$4,131$4,337$4,554$4,782$5,021$5,272$5,536$5,812$6,103$6,408$6,729$7,065Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel (Delivered to site)$260.0050%1.6cord($416)($428)($441)($455)($468)($482)($497)($512)($527)($543)($559)($576)($593)($611)($629)($648)($668)($688)($708)($729)Fossil Fuel$7.6650%183gal($1,402)($1,472)($1,545)($1,623)($1,704)($1,789)($1,879)($1,972)($2,071)($2,175)($2,283)($2,398)($2,517)($2,643)($2,775)($2,914)($3,060)($3,213)($3,374)($3,542)Electricity$0.560kWh$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Operation and Maintenance Costs($50)($51)($52)($53)($54)($55)($56)($57)($59)($60)($61)($62)($63)($65)($66)($67)($69)($70)($71)($73)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($50)($51)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($1,918)($2,002)($2,039)($2,130)($2,226)($2,327)($2,432)($2,542)($2,657)($2,777)($2,903)($3,036)($3,174)($3,319)($3,471)($3,630)($3,796)($3,971)($4,153)($4,345)Annual Operating Cost Savings$878 $933 $1,044 $1,106 $1,172 $1,242 $1,315 $1,393 $1,474 $1,560 $1,651 $1,746 $1,847 $1,953 $2,065 $2,183 $2,307 $2,438 $2,575 $2,721Accumulated Cash Flow$878 $1,811 $2,855 $3,961 $5,134 $6,375 $7,691 $9,083 $10,557 $12,118 $13,768 $15,515 $17,362 $19,315 $21,380 $23,563 $25,870 $28,308 $30,883 $33,604Net Present Value($11,267) ($10,388) ($9,433) ($8,450) ($7,439) ($6,399) ($5,329) ($4,230) ($3,100) ($1,939) ($746)$478 $1,736 $3,028 $4,353 $5,713 $7,109 $8,541 $10,010 $11,516Energy UnitsHeating Source ProportionEconomic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescription Unit CostAnnual Energy Units
Nondalton Tribal Office BuildingNondalton, AlaskaProject Capital Cost($12,120)Simple Payback = Total Project Cost / First Year Cost Savings2.9 yearsPresent Value of Project Benefits (20 year life)$285,647Present Value of Operating Costs (20 year life)($179,651)Benefit / Cost Ratio of Project (20 year life)8.75Net Present Value (20 year life)$93,876Year Accumulated Cash Flow is Net PositiveFirst YearYear Accumulated Cash Flow > Project Capital Cost2.8 yearsDiscount Rate for Net Present Value Analysis3%Wood Fuel Escalation Rate3%Fossil Fuel Escalation Rate5%Electricity Escalation Rate3%O&M Escalation Rate2%YearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYearYear1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Existing Heating System Operating CostsExisting Heating Oil Consumption$7.661,590gal$12,179$12,788$13,428$14,099$14,804$15,544$16,322$17,138$17,995$18,894$19,839$20,831$21,872$22,966$24,114$25,320$26,586$27,915$29,311$30,777Biomass System Operating CostsWood Fuel (Delivered to site)$260.0050%7.1cord($1,846)($1,901)($1,958)($2,017)($2,078)($2,140)($2,204)($2,270)($2,338)($2,409)($2,481)($2,555)($2,632)($2,711)($2,792)($2,876)($2,962)($3,051)($3,143)($3,237)Fossil Fuel$7.6650%795gal($6,090)($6,394)($6,714)($7,050)($7,402)($7,772)($8,161)($8,569)($8,997)($9,447)($9,919)($10,415)($10,936)($11,483)($12,057)($12,660)($13,293)($13,958)($14,656)($15,388)Electricity$0.560kWh$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Operation and Maintenance Costs($50)($51)($52)($53)($54)($55)($56)($57)($59)($60)($61)($62)($63)($65)($66)($67)($69)($70)($71)($73)Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs for first 2 years($50)($51)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Operating Costs($8,036)($8,398)($8,724)($9,120)($9,534)($9,967)($10,421)($10,897)($11,394)($11,915)($12,461)($13,033)($13,632)($14,259)($14,915)($15,603)($16,324)($17,079)($17,870)($18,698)Annual Operating Cost Savings$4,144 $4,391 $4,703 $4,979 $5,270 $5,577 $5,900 $6,241 $6,600 $6,979 $7,378 $7,798 $8,241 $8,707 $9,199 $9,717 $10,262 $10,837 $11,441 $12,079Accumulated Cash Flow$4,144 $8,535 $13,238 $18,217 $23,488 $29,065 $34,965 $41,206 $47,806 $54,785 $62,162 $69,960 $78,201 $86,909 $96,108 $105,824 $116,087 $126,923 $138,365 $150,443Net Present Value($8,097) ($3,958)$346 $4,770 $9,316 $13,987 $18,784 $23,711 $28,770 $33,963 $39,292 $44,762 $50,373 $56,130 $62,034 $68,090 $74,298 $80,664 $87,189 $93,876Energy UnitsHeating Source ProportionEconomic Analysis ResultsInflation RatesDescription Unit CostAnnual Energy Units
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Appendix C
Site Plan
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Site Plan of Nondalton Village Center
St. Nicholas
Church
Community
Building
New Clinic
Ambulance
Building
Post Office
Triplex
Building
Teacher
Housing
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Site Plan of Nondalton Village Center
Tribal Office
Building
Shed
Shed
Feasibility Assessment for Biomass Heating Systems Nondalton, AK
Coffman Engineers, Inc.
Appendix D
AWEDTG Field Data Sheet