HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Assessment Yakutat BioEnergy Project Appendix H 2011
Feasibility Assessment
for the
YY AKUTAT AKUTAT BB IOIOEE NERGY NERGY PP ROJECTROJECT
prepared by
J. Garrett Smith, PEJ. Garrett Smith, PE
in time for the
US Treasury §1603 Investment Tax Credit Grant Program
21 April 2010
Professional Feasibility Study Page 2 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
I. Introduction - Summary of Projects
Several dozen communities in Rural Alaska rely on diesel-fired power generation for
their baseload electricity needs, often ranging from as little as 300 kW to even a relatively
small 6,000 kW. Even at nominal diesel fuel prices in the $1.50-3.50/gallon range, this
translates to electricity generation costs in excess of 20 cents per kW-hr and delivered prices
to the end users in excess of 40 cents per kW-hr. These extreme rates which are generally
10 times more expensive than in most of the lower 48 states, create a significant barrier to
commerce in the Rural Alaskan communities.
Adding insult to injury, the same barges that typically deliver the diesel fuel to the
remote utilities also leave with money resources that could better be spent on local fuels, if
available. Further exasperating the problem is the fact that, even if the top couple of dozen
towns were to aggregate their electrical loads, the sum total would only comprise about 30
MW of baseload power generation, scarcely enough to solicit the serious attention of any
major players in the power industry.
In an effort to reduce consumer costs for over 70,000 people living in over 170
communities throughout the State, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) oversees the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) program. The following table lists out the metrics for the City of
Yakutat in relation to their support by the PCE.
Data from the STATISTICAL REPORT of the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program for Fiscal Year 2008 by the AEA
Town kwh per year avg kW PCE
Rate
Payer
Total
Rate PCE Payments Total Payments Subsidy Eff. Rate to User
Yakutat 6,900,000 788 21.5 31.5 53.0 $296,700 $3,657,000 8%
0.49
per
kW-hr
In response to this challenge, however, the opportunity has emerged to deploy
advanced, proven, and reliable biomass-fueled systems on a scale and at a cost that can
reduce electricity expenses while simultaneously keeping fuel procurement dollars in the local
economies.
WOODGAS is the name for the various gases that can be easily made from wood or
biomass. Various forms are: synthesis gas, typically 40% hydrogen, H2, 40% carbon monoxide,
CO, 3% methane, and 17% Carbon dioxide; Producer Gas, made by gasifying biomass with air
(and therefore containing ~50% nitrogen); pyrolysis gas, similar to synthesis gas, but including
water and tar and accompanied by production of 10-30% charcoal.
The Industrial Revolution was fueled by gas starting in 1800 (primarily from coal by
pyrolysis) initially used for city and home lighting, then for cooking and power generation. Coke
for steel making was a useful by-product. By 1850, the major cities of the world had "gaslight"
(c.f. C. Dickens novels). The internal combustion engine was invented to make electricity from
producer gas in about 1880.
All of this changed starting in 1930 when welded pipelines brought natural gas from oil
wells to end users and now few people remember the producer gas era. During WW2, over a
million gasifiers were built for civilian use in automotive and residential applications while the
military consumed world gasoline reserves. Due to ecological concerns, biomass gasification is
now experiencing renewed interest.
For Rural Alaska in general, and Yakutat in particular, it also offers attractive financial
and social benefits provided it can be implemented on a small enough scale and at sufficiently
low installed and operating expenses to be sustainable.
The remainder of this report addresses those attributes and performance metrics of a
strategic bioenergy system based upon proven and modular gasification equipment coupled
with high-efficiency reciprocating engines in the Yakutat community.
The basic summary below contains the general technical and economic metrics for the
Yakutat BioEnergy Project:
Professional Feasibility Study Page 3 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
Yakutat BioEnergy Summary
Detailed descriptions of the project can be found in the remainder of this report, as
well as in the Appendix which contains a ProForma for the biomass gasification system, along
with a comparison to a similarly sized plant based on UTC Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
technology.
II. Economic Feasibility
The economic performance of the modular system is clearly compelling. Plant design
is based upon baseload rating that can be sustained (e.g. output less than or equal to nominal
utility average demand). The modular increment of 700 kWgross / 600 kWnet was iterated upon
by virtue of the fact that this rating is the result of 2 standard gasifiers from BIOTEN POWER AND
ENERGY GROUP (BP&E, Owensboro, Kentucky and Bellingham, Washington). The woodgas
supply is matched to the appropriate reciprocating engine from global leader in stationary,
distributed gas-fired power generation, GE JENBACHER (Houston, Texas and Jenbach, Tyrol,
Austria), with engine performance derated for woodgas from standard natural gas ratings.
The net result is that for 20 TPD of green (~50% Moisture Content) woody biomass fuel,
Yakutat can establish cost-effective, ecologically and socially sustainable, and a local economy-
boosting power station that is cleaner and more profitable for the area than current practices.
Whether structured as privately owned systems that sell the electricity back to the
local utility at FERC QF “Avoided Cost” rates such as the 23 cents per kW-hr proxy derived
from Inside Passage Electric Cooperative’s rate schedule QF-1, or installed as part of the utility
infrastructure, the net result is substantial savings to the State (via reduced PCE subsidies),
the local utility and the end consumers.
The cost of $60 per green ton for biomass feedstock is consistent with discussions
with various local villages, and serves as a good, conservative reference for the purposes of
this report. Interior and Coastal Alaska has several varieties of Alder, Aspen, Birch, Cedar,
Cottonwood, Hemlock, Pine, Poplar, Tamarack, Spruce, and Willow, and the projects and
electric loads they serve are generally small enough such that basic forest management
thinnings along with a modest amount of optimized harvesting can readily meet local energy
plant supply needs. Again, the key to sustainability is that the revenues associated with the
fuel supply will also stay in the local community.
Specific to the Yakutat project, HYBRID POPLAR forests of less than 1,000 acres would
be able to sustain the baseload project with modest 4 bone dry ton per year per acre yield
rates that are widely proven within the genetically optimized poplar-based biomass crop
programs in the Western US. Yakutat harvests would not be dependent on costly irrigation
and should prove to be ideal for the proposed project. The project is also capable of
supporting the ecologically-advantageous disposal of an estimated 1 ton per day of alternative
biomasses from the town, including sewage sludge, recycled papers, and fish waste.
Town Yakutat
Borough or Census Area Yakutat
kW, net 595
Biomass TPD, green, as-is 17
Average Cost/TN, green, as-is $60
# BP&E Gasifiers 2
Prime Mover 1 x GE J320
Electricity Value, per kW-hr $0.23
Gross Cost $2.9 MM
Net Cost $2.0 MM
EBITDA* $0.7 MM
IRR 35%
Simple Payback 2.9 Years
DSCR w/ 100% Debt 2.5
Professional Feasibility Study Page 4 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
The project is slated to utilize exhaust gases to produce supplemental algae biomass
for feed back to the gasifier using Algaenius (Canada) modules for algae harvesting. The algae
yield from the exhaust of the generator set is capable of providing up to 8 TPD of biomass, or
roughly 1/3 of the total feedstock.
In addition to the production of supplemental feedstock, the use of the algae In addition to the production of supplemental feedstock, the use of the algae
harvesting system also serves to sequester all pollutant and greenhousharvesting system also serves to sequester all pollutant and greenhous e gas e gas
emissions, including NOx, CO, COemissions, including NOx, CO, CO 22 , and other Criteria Pollutants, to levels far below , and other Criteria Pollutants, to levels far below
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) standards, thereby facilitating Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) standards, thereby facilitating
and simplifying the regulatory licensing and permitting process.and simplifying the regulatory licensing and permitting process.
Installed costs for the projects are all well below industry standards and that trait is
attributable to the extraordinary cost-effectiveness of the simple and efficient BP&E gasifier
design, which actually has no moving parts within the vessel itself, a major reason for its
rugged dependability as evidenced by several thousand operating hours in SE US installations,
most notably in McKenzie, Tennesse.
The project is economically-sustainable without major incentives, but while the 30% US
Treasury Section 1603 Tax Credit Grant is available (for projects that break ground by the end
of 2010), it seems prudent to advance several similar projects to shovel-ready status in the
remaining months of the year.
The author concurs that the 35% IRR value listed in the project ProForma is valid for
this 700 kWgross project and secure enough to justify project investment and incentive
qualification.
Note that a similar model was developed for an Organic Rankine Cycle
system, and the evidence from that model supports the premise that a
biomass-fueled ORC system is simply not sustainable. Specifically, such a
project would require fuel to be delivered at a cost of no more than $39 per
green ton in order to show just Zero profits; even a $30 per gt cost would
equate to a meager 3% IRR, and at $60 per gt, the project would actually
cost over $400,000 per year to operate. This inferior economic
performance is primarily due to the fact that such a system would require
approximately 475% more biomass fuel (74 green tons per day) than the
similarly sized gasification system due to the extraordinarily poor ORC
electrical efficiency below 10%, in comparison to the gas engine efficiency of
nearly 40%.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS:
The following table depicts the effect on project economic performance when key
project variables are adjusted for the gasification system:
Variable Changed Economic Effect
Adjusted IRR
Fuel @ $30 per ton 42%
Fuel @ $90 per ton 28%
Fuel @ $120 per ton 21%
No Algae Harvesting 28%
Power @ 17 cents per kWh 20%
Power @ 34 cents per kWh 61%
Professional Feasibility Study Page 5 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
It is clear from the analysis above that the biomass gasification/power generation
solution is robust from all key economic vantage points.
III. Market Feasibility
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) pricing of 23 cents per kW-hr is based upon the
proxy established by the IPEC QF Rate Schedule, and serves as a sound reference point for fuel
costs for diesel generators. Power system rating is based upon the delivery of baseload
energy that is typically less than total utility loads, and the woodgas generator will operate in
parallel with the diesel generator-supported local grid, or in island (isochronous) mode if
needed.
The cost of $60 per green ton for biomass feedstock is consistent and conservative
with respect to the feedstocks described above, and serves as a good reference for the
purposes of this report. The key to sustainability is that the revenues associated with the fuel
supply will also generally stay in the local communities.
Thermal energy usage was modeled as simple hot water district heating served by
engine jacket water heat and exhaust heat (gasifier waste heat is sufficient for fuel drying, and
then subsequent delivery to the algae system) at a nominal demand factor of just 75%. This
hydronic loop could readily interface with new or existing district heating networks in Yakutat,
specifically at the school near the existing diesel generator powerhouse.
• Goals and Objectives
There are two overall goals of the project:
1. Reduce operating costs associated with diesel-fired power generation that
serves the town of Yakutat.
2. Establish local revenues for the provision of renewable woody biomass fuel for
the project.
Within these broad goals, the author has identified the following quantifiable objectives:
a. Design, specify, finance and construct a biomass conversion facility on the same site
as the existing diesel powerhouse with loads of up to, but not more than, nominal town
demand of approximately 800 kW, and do so in a way that requires minimum biomass
fuel supply;
b. Establish locally-sustainable biomass supply business in support of the project, via the
optimization of the use of land dedicated to the growth and harvesting of strategic
woods such as Hybrid Poplar as a Fuel Crop;
c. Reduce local expenses for electrical and thermal energy while also reducing burden on
PCE program subsidies;
d. Assist the local Government and local business development groups in identifying
compatible co-locating business sectors for recruitment and development by offering
reduced energy rates.
The author deems that the above goals are valid and practical for this application and
that the design selected meets these key objectives.
Incentives, Financing SourcesIncentives, Financing Sources and Project Development and Project Development : As mentioned previously,
the project can still readily meet the requirements of the US Treasury 30% ITC Grant, provided
prudent haste is exercised in the following development tasks:
I. Site Assessment, design and permitting
II. Gasification & Power Equipment Specification
III. Fuel source specification and resource contracting
IV. Financial analysis and terms specifications
V. Co-locating heat users, identification and design
Professional Feasibility Study Page 6 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
Proactive lenders like Lehigh Capital Access (Allentown, PA) are available to structure
attractive and sustainable financing for Yakutat Power or another independent or affiliated
entity that can be established to own and operate the project. Indicative debt terms are
tabulated in the ProForma.
Finally, it is envisioned that the AEA may be able to provide minor grant dollars
comparable with contingency funds (e.g. 10%).
This Rural Alaskan Renewable Biomass Energy Project represents crucial watershed
energy policy advancement for the entire Arctic region, and can do so in an economically
sustainable and socially beneficial manner.
IV. Technical Feasibility
Gasification is a thermochemical process unlike an incineration or combustion
process. Gasification is a conversion process intended to produce more valuable and useful
products from carbon containing materials. Gasification processes operate with limited
amounts of oxygen, while combustion processes operate with excess oxygen. Combustion or
incineration thermally destroys carbon into heat, while gasification converts carbon into
valuable ecologically-friendly intermediate products. Gasification can use natural gas, coal, oil,
biomass and just about any carbon containing material as a feedstock.
The heart of the BP&E wood gasification CHP plant is the downdraft gasifier with no
internal moving parts. The process by which biomass is converted into gas uses various
thermo-chemical reactions: pyrolysis, oxidation, reduction.
The main output is a clean gas composed of hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), carbon
dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). This fuel gas presents a lower heating value (LHV) of
typically 125-175 btu/cf suitable for use in gas engines. The conversion efficiency of the
downdraft gasifier reaches 84-86%.
Wood Gasification Supplier of Choice:
Bioten Power & Energy Group– Owensboro, KY and Bellingham, WA
for their revolutionary cost-effectiveness and operational simplicity & reliability
Woodgas Combined Heat & Power (CHP):
GE Jenbacher (Jenbach, Austria and Houston, Texas)
for their longstanding leadership and experience in specialty gas power
generation and their global service network, including Arctic regions
WoodgasWoodgas Production Production ! BP&E is an international leader in the design, production
and installation of biomass renewable energy systems, and is one of the pioneers in the
deployment of cost-effective, relatively easy-to-maintain downdraft gasifiers. Their modular
scale of nominal 10-12 green TPD biomass fuel is ideally situated to this Rural Alaskan
application. BP&E’s gasifier loses an approximate 15% slipstream amount of waste heat to
which is readily available to provide sufficient fuel drying to take nominal 50% Moisture Content
biomass down to the 20-25% range ideally suited for the relatively easy-to-produce nominal 2”
wood chip pieces feeding the gasifier.
BP&E’s syngas is known for its exceptionally low tar content, reducing the amount of
gas conditioning expenses necessary to support reliable use in woodgas power generation
equipment. BP&E controls the flow of producer gas through the char bed to convert useless
or harmful gas components into productive energy sources. Their system also controls the
movement of the fuel, char and ash to minimize the opportunity for system faults while
maximizing the quality of the syngas available for power production.
This is all accomplished with very few moving parts. Besides the fuel conveyor, the only
moving part in the thermal reduction system is an externally-mounted fan used to move gas
through the process. Because the process is conducted under controlled conditions it results
Professional Feasibility Study Page 7 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
in uncommonly clean and high quality gas, therefore making the filtration and cooling process
very simple and economical.
The system operator and a remote supervisor can keep track of all salient points of the
thermal reduction process and make adjustments as necessary. The remote supervisor can
override and take control of any of the processes from his site. Because it is self feeding and
self cleaning, the system is semi-autonomous. It only needs the fuel hopper loaded and the
engine oil changed as routine maintenance activities. The entire gasification process is
conducted under negative pressure (suction) which prevents possible leakage of fuel gas into
the atmosphere.
From an efficiency standpoint, BP&E’s fuel to electricity ratio of 1.6-2.2 lbm/kW-hr
(based on engines in the 37-40% efficiency range) is superior to other manufacturers within
this small-scale niche market, lending itself well to repeatability in this emerging market.
Combined Heat & PowerCombined Heat & Power ! The year 2007 marked the 50th anniversary of GE
Jenbacher’s exclusive commitment to gas-only engines for power generation. During that
time, the GLOBAL CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE in Jenbach, Austria has become the globally
recognized clearinghouse for state-of-the-art technologies related to the use of a wide variety
of synthetic gases (included woodgas), biogas, landfill gas, sewage gas, and, of course, natural
gas.
With over 7,000 global installations including hundreds in the USA, GE Jenbacher
remains the worldwide leader in custom, distributed CHP (Combined Heat & Power), high
efficiency CoGeneration, renewable bioenergy, and sub-10 MW gas fueled power generation,
holding over 37% of global market share.
The author sanctions that the major equipment suppliers selected for the Alaska
projects are suitable to ensure the operating success of the installations in remote areas.
Design CriteriaDesign Criteria (p (p er standard BP&E Gasifier Module)er standard BP&E Gasifier Module): Each gasifier or
converter will be designed for a continuous flow of up to approximately 700-750 lbm/hr (8-9
TPD) of clean wood chips at 25% moisture (heating value of 6,280 btu/lbm), which will have
been dried from 50% MC using gasifier waste heat, for a total energy into the biomass
gasification process of up to 4 MMbtu/hr, per gasifier module. This will, in turn produce 21
kSCFH of synthetic gas at 156 btu/scf, or a total energy content of 3.2 MMbtu/hr, for a
gasifier efficiency over 80%.
For the Yakutat project, these figures are doubled based on 2 modular gasifier
modules, yielding a total syngas amount of 6.5 MMbtu/hr. The overall project footprint,
including fuel grinding and processing equipment designed to take whole logs into the
complex, is approximately 15,000 sq. ft., or a 150’ x 100’ standard building size with
typical industrial roof height of 15-20’.
Using a nominal engine generator set efficiency of 37% (9,225 btu/kW-hr, LHV, a
readily achievable figure using state-of-the-art power generation machinery with this type of
synthetic gas) such as offered by GE Jenbacher, that woodgas would then translate into a 700
kWgross electric power output rating. In excess of 3 MMbtu/hr of thermal energy would be
recovered from the engine exhaust (for supplemental drying or greenhouse gas usage), engine
block cooler (for hydronic loop district heating) and gasifier waste heat (for fuel drying) using
standard heat transfer equipment .
The overall system efficiencies of the system,
based on incoming GREEN biomass energy content, are estimated at:
Electrical: 28%
Total (Electrical + Thermal): 58%
Note that project technical and economic modeling has accounted for an approximate
and nominal engine derate of 35-40% due to operations on woodgas.
Professional Feasibility Study Page 8 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
No other supporting fuels will be required during start-up procedures or normal running
operation of the projects aside from strategic biomasses that prove to be advantageous to use
as fuels including local wastes and harvesting wood like Hybrid Poplar described above. The
system is designed in accordance with North American guidelines and compliance with all
pertinent US codes and standards will be assured by means of the domestic engineering
design team retained by BP&E and its allied companies.
ByBy--ProductsProducts : Biomass gasification also produces biochar, a carbon-rich product that
can be used for many commercial applications. In agriculture, biochar has been shown to have
a significant impact on replenishing soil, improving the growth rate of crops and reducing
agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
Biochar is documented to be a useful soil supplement, especially around the Amazon
rainforest, where its continued use creates what is called ‘terra preta’ or black earth. This
black earth allows crops to grow or crop production to increase by making nutrients more
available through a type of carbon sequestration.
Biochar from biomass gasification could be sold as fertilizer or soil amendment, used
as an ingredient in garden soil, or for use as a soil amendment in hydroponic greenhouses that
could even be heated by the engine exhaust or block cooling water loop.
Biochar improves the soil texture and ecology, increasing its ability to retain fertilizers
and release them slowly. It naturally contains many of the micronutrients needed by plants,
such as selenium. It is also safer than other "natural" fertilizers such as manure or sewage
since it has been disinfected at high temperature, and since it releases its nutrients at a slow
rate, it greatly reduces the risk of water table contamination.
A very modest price of just ! cent per pound has been modeled into the Yakutat
biomass projects for bioChar revenues.
V. Financial Feasibility
The financial projections shown in the project ProForma are reliable for the reasons
described previously in this report, specifically the stability of relatively minimal fuel supply and
baseload energy offtake agreements.
Operations & Maintenance costs listed in the ProForma are consistent with a project
of this size and scope, and Long Term Service Agreements for engine maintenance have been
included.
VI. Management Feasibility
The continuity and adequacy of project management starts with local utilities and the
communities they serve. Concerns about complex or maintenance intensive equipment are
alleviated by the simple ruggedness of the BP&E gasifier equipment, and the remote
surveillance and control of the entire gasification and bioCHP system.
Coupled with complete training from BP&E and GE Jenbacher, expert engineering
provided by Bradford Engineering (Portland, Oregon), and quality installation provided by
regional contractors to install primarily shop-fabricated equipment should be well equipped to
ensure a successful project in even the most remote Alaskan area.
VII. Conclusion
For reasons listed above, the author independently sanctions/validates the merit of
the Yakutat bioEnergy Project. While their scale places them at a disadvantage in relative
economic terms, the financial performance should prove to be reasonable on a long-term basis
because of the relatively high offset electrical power generation cost.
Professional Feasibility Study Page 9 of 9
Yakutat Renewable Biomass Energy Project
Prudent haste should be exercised to advance this strategic project in order to
meet the calendar-sensitive requirements of the lucrative US Treasury ITC Grant of 30%.
The concept of proven, cost-effective and reliable bioenergy in rural Alaska represents
specific social, economic and environmental gains that further render it as significant and
worthy of support and implementation.
Conflict of Interest DisclaimerConflict of Interest Disclaimer : The author of this report does hereby certify that
neither he nor any officer or owner of Cogentech, Inc. has any financial stake in BP&E or GE
Jenbacher.
VIII. Appendix
The following reference documents can be found, in order, in the attached Appendix:
• Project ProForma for Biomass Gasification + Syngas IC Engine Project
• Project ProForma for Biomass ORC Project
Woody Biomass Gasification Project ProForma
Copyright Cogentech, Inc. 2010
COGENTECH_BP&E_Yakutat_Biomass Energy Project_Apr2010.xlsx 4/21/10
Elevation (feet)50
Power Generation Displacement:
Avoided Cost Rate - Diesel Offset (FERC QF)0.230$ average Avoided Cost Proxy set by IPEC QF and PCE Data
Annual Operation Hours 8,030 92%
Fuel Supply:
Forest Clearings:Woody Biomass, Green @ 50% MC 4,515 TPY Spruce, Willow, Alder
12 TPD, 7 DPW USAGE
17 TPD, 5 DPW SUPPLY
PERMANENT Hybrid Poplar 5,000 acres
HARVEST Genetically Engineered for SE Alaska 4 dry ton per year per acre (actual range of 4-10 bdtpy)
20,000 dry ton per year, potential yield
752 acres required to meet project requirement
Local Biomass 250 TPY
sewage sludge, recycled cardboard/paper, fish waste, etc.0.7 TPD, 7 DPW USAGE
1.0 TPD, 5 DPW SUPPLY
Fuel Cost ($/TN) - LOCAL REVENUES 60.00$ average, per green ton
Biomass Supply including harvested algae from bioCHP system 20 TPD, green, as-is
50%Moisture Content
15%Ash Content
Higher Heating Value 9,100 btu/lbm, bone dry
Lower Heating Value 5,233 btu/lbm, green
Post-Drying 15 TPD, 25% MC
25%MC
6,281 btu/lbm
7.7 MMbtu/hr
0.6 MMbtu/hr
0.8 MMbtu/hr
0.2 MMbtu/hr
84%
6.5 MMbtu/hr
No. of Converters 2
J320 700 kW, baseload
GE/Jenbacher 105 15%parasitic
595 kW NET
76%percentage of 788 kW
595 kW, NET Total - Baseload
Annual Total Net Power Production 4,777,850 kW-hr
Engine Efficiency 37%
Engine Heat Rate 9,224 btu/kW-hr
Fuel Energy Input (per Unit)6.5 MMbtu/hr
Engine Output Capacity 700 kW
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE RATIO 1.7 lbm fuel per kW of rated capacity
System Electrical Efficiency 28%based on as-is green fuel
Syngas Heating Value 156 btu/scf
Total Fuel Energy Input 41,391 scfh
690 scfm
Thermal Energy
Exhaust (per Unit)1.3 MMbtu/hr post-EHRU heat and gas available for fuel drying, greenhouse, algae harvesting
Block (per Unit)1.1 MMbtu/hr used for hot water heating loop
Total Plant 2.4 MMbtu/hr
Thermal Energy Demand from Process/End User (MMbtu/hr)2.4 75%Load Factor, District Heating from Engine Block Hot Water Loop
bioCHAR Production 983 TPY for fertilizer, roadbed aggregate or LEED Bldg Material
CO2 from Engines 3,033 TPY
200 lbm CO2 per day per PBR to yield 4-9 harvests
3,033 TPY CO2
16,620 lbm/day CO2
83 Number of PBR units supported
1 Number of 4 tier trees (8 columns of 4 high x 5 wide)
1,875 sq ft required
0.0 acres
Algae 8
3,033 TPY TPD 12,847
Algae Oil 1638 MMbh
910 TPY 453%
285,729 gPY 9,542
94 g per TN CO2 1216 MMbh
337%
4,682
597 MMbh
165%
Yakutat, Yakutat Borough, Alaska
1
# of Baseload Units
Site Data
incl. est. derate for woodgas
Supplemental Heat Available
700
Woody Biomass to Energy Project
Gasifier Energy Balance
Lower Heating Value @ 25% Moisture
Energy Delivered to Gasifiers
Gasifier Efficiency
Fuel Drying Requirement to ~25% MC
Heat Available from Converters
Energy Produced by Gasifiers
Renewable & Sustainable Energy for SE Alaska
kW per unit
btu/lbm @ 30% Moisture
of total fuel requirement
btu/lbm @ 80% Moisture
of total fuel requirement
Average Local Load:
CO2 Yield
ALGAE Production Details
Energy Content
btu/lbm, bone dry
of total fuel requirement
100% Dry Cooling - No Water Required by Energy Plant
Woody Biomass Gasification Project ProForma
Copyright Cogentech, Inc. 2010
COGENTECH_BP&E_Yakutat_Biomass Energy Project_Apr2010.xlsx 4/21/10
Annual Operating Costs
Power System Maintenance (LTSA)$0.0150 $/kW-hr
Annual Cost $71,668
Biomass Fuel Supply $270,880 per year
General O&M + G&A $48,000 per year
Staffing / Labor 5 $325,000 per year
Total Annual Operating Costs $715,548
Annual Operating Revenues
PPA 0.2300$ per kWh $1,098,906 QF Avoided Costs
Thermal Energy Savings $20.00 per MMbtu $289,080 District Heating
bioCHAR $0.005 per pound $9,827 $10 per ton
RECs (Green Tags)$0.005 PER KWH $23,889 REAP
Total Annual Operating Revenues $1,421,702
Gross Annual Operating Profit $706,154
$404,765 5 years
Tax 33%$99,458
$0
$0
Total Annual Gain $706,154
Total Plant Costs:BUDGETARY TURNKEY EPC COSTS
Engineering + Development/Regulatory + Permits $128,700 BP&E
Project Management / QC / StartUp $80,000 BP&E
Material Handling (Grinder/Chipper, Hopper, Conveyor)$467,500 BP&E Nominal 2" material size
Biomass Gasification System incl. Syngas Conditioning $538,000 BP&E including start-up support
BP&E 2 Converters
Power Generation System incl. Radiator/Cooling, Controls, Relays $843,480 BP&E
GE-JMS 320 1 Modules
Exhaust Heat Recovery Unit (HW)$77,000 BP&E
VaporPhase 1 units
Exhaust Heat Recovery Dryer $93,500 BP&E
BP&E 1 units
Algae Harvesting System $102,500 BP&E
Algaenius 1 module
Electrical Interconnection & Switchgear incl. MCC $88,000 BP&E
Thomson Technology
BP&E SubTotal $2,418,680 BP&E
$472,500 Estimate - Local Contractor
$2,891,180 4,130$ per kW
$289,118 10%
$289,118 10%Estimate
$0 0%via UFA
$867,354 30%Section 1603
NET TOTAL $2,023,826 2,891$ per kW
Loan Terms 100% Debt Equity + Debt
Principal $2,023,826 Debt (%)Principal $1,720,252
Term 10 years 85%Term 10 years
Rate 7%Equity(%)Rate 7%
PMT ($288,147)annually 15%PMT ($244,925)annually
PMT ($24,012)monthly IRR on Equity PMT ($20,410)monthly
Coverage Ratio 2.45 152%Coverage Ratio 2.88
US Treasury Tax Credit Grant
Accelerated MACRS
Local Tax Credit
Net Tax
AEA Grant
CONTINGENCY
SubTotal
35%
Simple Payback (Years)
NPV (10%, 15 Years)
IRR
2.9
$5,371,066
for Reference Only
New Market Tax Credit Grant
REVENUES to LOCAL COMMUNITY
Construction + Balance of Plant incl. Building
Woody Biomass Gasification Project ProForma
Copyright Cogentech, Inc. 2010
COGENTECH_ORC_Yakutat_Biomass Energy Project_Apr2010.xlsx 4/21/10
Elevation (feet)50
Power Generation Displacement:
Avoided Cost Rate - Diesel Offset (FERC QF)0.230$ average Avoided Cost Proxy set by IPEC QF and PCE Data
Annual Operation Hours 8,030 92%
Fuel Supply:
Forest Clearings:Woody Biomass, Green @ 50% MC 19,263 TPY Spruce, Willow, Alder 427%INCREASE
53 TPD, 7 DPW USAGE
74 TPD, 5 DPW SUPPLY
PERMANENT Hybrid Poplar 5,000 acres
HARVEST Genetically Engineered for SE Alaska 4 dry ton per year per acre (actual range of 4-10 bdtpy)
20,000 dry ton per year, potential yield
3,211 acres required to meet project requirement
Local Biomass 250 TPY
sewage sludge, recycled cardboard/paper, fish waste, etc.0.7 TPD, 7 DPW USAGE
1.0 TPD, 5 DPW SUPPLY
Fuel Cost ($/TN) - LOCAL REVENUES 39$ conservative average, per green ton
Biomass Supply including harvested algae biomass 80 TPD, green, as-is
50%Moisture Content
Higher Heating Value 9,100 btu/lbm, bone dry
Lower Heating Value 3,851 btu/lbm, green
Post-Drying 60 TPD, 25% MC
25%MC
6,281 btu/lbm
31.5 MMbtu/hr
2.5 MMbtu/hr
3.3 MMbtu/hr
0.8 MMbtu/hr
84%
26.4 MMbtu/hr
Organic Rankine Cycle Design
# of UTC ORC Modules 3 8.5 MMbtu/hr per module
700 kW 225 kW per unit
ORC System Heat Rate 37,778 btu/kW-hr
9%
Parasitic Load, kW 105 15%
NET POWER PRODUCTION, kW 595
Thermal Energy available for Process/End User (MMbtu/hr)0.0
CO2 from Boiler 12,422 TPY
200 lbm CO2 per day per PBR to yield 4-9 harvests
12,422 TPY CO2
68,068 lbm/day CO2
340 Number of PBR units supported
2 Number of 4 tier trees (8 columns of 4 high x 5 wide)
3,750 sq ft required
0.1 acres
Algae 34
12,422 TPY TPD 12,847
Algae Oil 1638 MMbh
3,727 TPY 453%
1,170,191 gPY 9,542
94 g per TN CO2 1216 MMbh
337%
4,682
597 MMbh
165%
Energy Produced by Boiler as Hot Water for ORC
Renewable & Sustainable Energy for SE Alaska
Yakutat, Yakutat Borough, Alaska
Site Data
Gasifier Energy Balance
Lower Heating Value @ 25% Moisture
Energy Delivered to Boiler
Boiler Efficiency
Fuel Drying Requirement to ~25% MC
Waste Heat Available from Boiler
Supplemental Heat Available
Gross Power Generation
Wet Cooling Required
Woody Biomass to Energy Project
btu/lbm @ 30% Moisture
of total fuel requirement
btu/lbm @ 80% Moisture
of total fuel requirement
CO2 Yield
ALGAE Production Details
Energy Content
btu/lbm, bone dry
of total fuel requirement
Woody Biomass Gasification Project ProForma
Copyright Cogentech, Inc. 2010
COGENTECH_ORC_Yakutat_Biomass Energy Project_Apr2010.xlsx 4/21/10
Annual Operating Costs
Power System Maintenance (LTSA)$0.0050 $/kW-hr
Annual Cost $28,105
Biomass Fuel Supply $745,690 per year
General O&M + G&A $24,000 per year
Staffing / Labor 5 $325,000 per year
Total Annual Operating Costs $1,122,795
Annual Operating Revenues
PPA 0.2300$ per kWh $1,098,906 QF Avoided Costs
Thermal Energy Savings $20.00 per MMbtu $0 District Heating
bioCHAR $0.005 per pound $10 per ton
RECs (Green Tags)$0.005 PER KWH $23,889 REAP
Total Annual Operating Revenues $1,122,795
Gross Annual Operating Profit $0
$513,940 5 years
Tax 33%-$169,600
$0
$0
Total Annual Gain $0
Total Plant Costs:BUDGETARY TURNKEY EPC COSTS
Engineering + Development/Regulatory + Permits $198,000
Project Management / QC / StartUp $95,000
Material Handling (Grinder/Chipper, Hopper, Conveyor)$495,000 Nominal 2" material size
Biomass Boiler Including Emissions Controls $1,500,000 including start-up support
Hurst 1 Boiler
Organic Rankine Modules $700,000
UTC PurePower 3 Modules
Exhaust Heat Recovery Dryer $102,000
BP&E 1 units
Algae Harvesting System $214,000
Algaenius 2 module
Electrical Interconnection & Switchgear incl. MCC $92,000
Thomson Technology
SubTotal $3,396,000
$275,000 Estimate - Local Contractor
$3,671,000 5,244$ per kW
$367,100 10%
$367,100 10%Estimate
$0 0%via UFA
$1,101,300 30%Section 1603
NET TOTAL $2,569,700 3,671$ per kW
Loan Terms 100% Debt Equity + Debt
Principal $2,569,700 Debt (%)Principal $2,184,245
Term 10 years 85%Term 10 years
Rate 7%Equity(%)Rate 7%
PMT ($365,867)annually 15%PMT ($310,987)annually
PMT ($30,489)monthly IRR on Equity PMT ($25,916)monthly
Coverage Ratio 0.00 #DIV/0!Coverage Ratio 0.00
Construction + Balance of Plant incl. Building
#NUM!
Simple Payback (Years)
NPV (10%, 15 Years)
IRR
#DIV/0!
$0
US Treasury Tax Credit Grant
Accelerated MACRS
Local Tax Credit
for Reference Only
New Market Tax Credit Grant
REVENUES to LOCAL COMMUNITY
Net Tax
AEA Grant
CONTINGENCY
SubTotal
City of Yakutat, Alaska
Pr oposed Biomass Ener g y Pr oject
November 2008