Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon 10-07-2009
District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon Submitted by the Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 = Grant Application ENERGY AUTHORITY Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company Type of Entity: Electric Utility Mailing Address PO Box 9 Fort Yukon, AK 99740 Physical Address 5th and Spruce, ST Fort Yukon, AK 99740 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Telephone Fax Email (907) 662-2322 (907) 662-2983 gerald carroll" <gerald_carroll@msn.com> | (907) 662-2933 Name William A. Wall, PhD Title Consultant — Project Manager Mailing Address PO Box 988 Seeley Lake, MT 59868 Telephone Fax 406-210-9984 Yes (See appendix 1) williamwall11@gmail.com AEA 10-015 Application Page 1 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund 2) ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 Fort Yukon Communities to benefit: Gwitchyaa Zhee, Gwitchyaa Gwich’in, Fort Yukon, Yukon Flats Wind Xx Biomass or Biofuels Hydro, including run of river x Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas Xx Heat Recovery from existing sources Hydrokinetic Solar Xx Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) Reconnaissance Design and Permitting Feasibility x Construction and Commissioning Conceptual Design This application supports a wood-heating project in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Board is the authorizing Board for the Applicant, Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility. Local partners include the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (DOE recipient of biomass grant support $1.2 million), Gwitchyaa Zhee Native Corporation & Utility, Gwitchyaa Gwich’in Tribal Government, Yukon Flats School District and the City of Fort Yukon. A wood energy supply analysis, a feasibility and 35% conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for primary commercial buildings. This analysis has been integrated with heat capture from a new power plant to be co-located with the wood boiler plant. The feasibility included Net Simple Payback for several size plants and a sensitivity analysis for displacing heating fuel oil based on costs of $4-$6/gallon. A centralized wood chip fired boiler will require approximately 1,500-2,000 tons of chips annually, depending on moisture content, to displace up to 149,000 gallons of fuel or 90+% of the oil used in commercial buildings. The cost is approximately $18/MMBTU ($175/ton @ 25%moisture) for chips, as compared to $29- 43/MMBTU for fuel oil ($4-6/gal). This project is being conducted in concert with a project funded by Denali Commission, US DOE through an Alaska Village Initiatives earmark, and GZ Corporation to develop a wood harvesting system, wood yard and a wood energy utility to AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 2 of 17 10/7/2009 /= 3) ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 supply and maintain the boilers. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, Alaska Wood Energy Associates, CATG Resource Department, e-Four Engineering, and Alaska Energy and Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall PhD, Peter Olsen, Ben Stevens, Jerry Carroll, Greg Koontz (ME) and Steve Stassel (Alaska Energy and Engineering). costs, lower energy ¢ costs, etc. ) a The key benefits in this project are energy cost stabilization and energy import substitution. These will support village sustainability. Without this project people will continue to leave to village for a lager town. A wood energy project in Fort Yukon will affect energy costs on 2 scales, local households and major commercial buildings. A reliable source of firewood at a cost of approximately $250 per cord split and delivered to households will help displace an unknown amount of fuel oil in the village and reduce heating costs to households. A full cord of seasoned spruce burned at 80% efficiency will displace approximately 100 gallons of heating fuel oil at $4-6/gallon. This benefit is not reflected in the savings and cost analysis of the project in section 2.5, as it would be only an approximation. The key to this household benefit is that wood delivery is reliable and ready for use. A household that burns 500 gallons of fuel oil per annum will spend up to $3,250. If that is displaced by 80% with wood, then there is a savings of $2,000 per household. Reliable sources of wood in combination with house heating education (a planned village workshop) will encourage investment in cleaner wood burning appliances, thus yielding environmental benefits as well. Using wood to heat major commercial buildings is what makes this project definitely economically viable. Schools are one of the most expensive buildings to heat in the village and a client that will help with economies of scale for supporting development of a wood energy business model. Reducing energy costs for schools and clinic reduces public support costs for education and health care. A 35% CDR with feasibility studies for five scenarios has been completed (see appendix 2). The optimum scenario selected is the Max 1 district-heating loop including downtown, the new CATG Clinic, City Offices and the Yukon Center. The following are the expected savings at $6/gallon for heating fuel. A sensitivity analysis was conducted at $4-6 per gallon. Savings: The plan is to displace 149,000 gallons of imported fuel oil annually. With heating oil at $6.00/gallon the Total net savings are $482,886 annually (see table below). The added benefit is that money paid for heating remains in the village, since the village is providing its own fuel instead of importing fuel oil. [ Results I I TI T (see Individual Piant Summary sheets for more details) | | Financial I | TT Exp 1 | Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 | current annual cost to heat connected bui $820,842 722,064 932,064 Table 3. CDR Report with Net Simple Payback at $6/ gallon of fuel displaced (Appendix 2) A wood energy program can also reduce wildfire risk through forest thinning, enhance wildlife habitat and most importantly create local jobs and economy through import substitution. Wood energy fits with subsistence lifestyles and creates a greater level of self-sufficiency within the village. The process of developing and creating business, management and planning capacity enhances opportunities for increasing long term opportunities for youth to stay in the village with well paying resource based jobs. An integrated wood energy system is one of the AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 3 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 best energy and community economic develop projects available to villages with good wood resources and high cost of heating fuels. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Be Sah Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the ete aieG s sources s of funds, and the nature and source: of other contributions to the project. Phase III of the project, funded by AEA and DOE Tribal Energy, is in process with anticipated completion in July 2010. A total project cost for Phase IV construction for a central boiler plant is $3,606,255 with $990,000 coming from federal funds and $2,360,000 from the Alternative Energy Fund. CATG has received an award of $1.2 million from DOE Tribal Energy program for the project with $210,000 being spent for Phase III. Phase IV will purchase and install a central boiler plant and district heating system to be co-located and integrated with heat capture from a new proposed power plant. A new marine jacketed Cat Generator is being purchased by GZ and will be moved to the DH plant. The district heating system will heat 15 buildings in Fort Yukon and displace 149,000 gallons of fuel oil annually at an annual worth of $596,000- $894,000 depending on the cost of displaced heating fuel. The boiler construction project will be implemented in tandem with development of a wood energy utility and harvest group as a subsidiary of GZ Corporation Utility. Funding for this separate project includes $805,804 from Denali, $475,000 as an earmark from DOE Tribal Energy through AVI and $200,000 in cash from GZ Corporation. The Energy Utility Project has the following objectives that linked with the boiler installation project create a complete integrated village wood energy program: Purchase harvest equipment Create 5 year harvest and regeneration plan Develop and install wood storage/wood yard in the village Equipment storage Training and technical support a. Business training for GZ and CATG Boards b. Forest Technician training c. Harvest training and technical support d. Development of a harvest methods manual e. 2 years of technical support to make sure chip harvest system is well established For full budget see - appendix 4) GPoON> enefits belo Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) : 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $2,500,000 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $990,000 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $3,480,000 Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including ole to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) : 2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet $3,606,255 including estimates through construction) 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $879,755 annual gross 2.7.6 Other Public Benefit (If you can calculate the benefit in $13,410,000 15 year gross terms of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in your application AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 4 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 (Section 5.) 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Two projects will be run concurrently in Fort Yukon: A boiler design and installation project (current application) and the wood harvest project (previously described). The project manager is Alaska Wood Energy Associates for both projects lead by Bill Wall, PhD. Responsibilities will be divided among a technical support team. The schematic design engineer is Greg Koontz of eFour Engineering, who has completed a 35% design schematic and a feasibility study. Steve Stassel with AE&E will complete final design and operations plan and will be responsible for construction support during phase IV. Will Putman of TCC is developing a forest inventory. Peter Olsen will work with Bill Wall in forest management implementation, wood harvesting, delivery systems and training. Doug Johnson of Professional Growth Systems will be used for GZ and CATG Board Business Development and Management Training. Jeff Batton will complete the final business and financial plan. (For resumes see appendix 3). 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) __ Phase IV of project will be initiated immediately after notification of a positive response to this application. Actual timing of construction will depend on the release timing of funds. The intent is to complete construction of this project within one year after funding is in place. Phase III is expected to be completed in June 2010. Phase IV is expected to be commissioned in September 2011. 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.) Analysis has led us to decide to use wood chip boilers so that all the wood processing can be done on site in the village. Many of the key tasks, milestones and decisions are discussed in the 35% final design report (see appendix 2). 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Key personnel (resumes attached see appendix 3) Jerry Carroll — President of GZ Corporation is a certified heavy equipment operator and has worked the last several construction seasons installing sewer pipe in Fort Yukon. This experience will support the installation of boiler infrastructure including district-heat piping. David Thomas — Manager of GZ powerhouse with over twenty years experience in operating AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 5 of 17 10/7/2009 -—F ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund (ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 the utility in Fort Yukon including all construction and maintenance operations. David is the likely primary boiler operator and will have additional support as GZ recognizes the need to develop depth in management of both the powerhouse and future boiler operations. Ben Stevens: Executive Director of CATG has a background in business administration and has been a leader in support of wood energy program in Fort Yukon. CATG is a partner in the project and has secured $1.2 million in matching funds from DOE Tribal Energy Program. Ben will support the program through CATG. Bill Wall, PhD: Alaska Wood Energy Associates principle and Project Manager co-authored the Forest Stewardship Plan for GZ and has worked to develop a sustainable wood energy model for interior villages. He has coordinated a Rural Business Enterprise Grant to develop a business model and for a local harvest company and transportation plan for delivery of wood into Fort Yukon both summer and winter. He has coordinated the development of a Level 2 feasibility study to determine optimum boiler installation in Fort Yukon to maximize fuel oil displacement for heat. Peter Olsen: Contractor and Forester, co-authored the Forest Stewardship Plan for GZ and has developed a cost model for wood harvest. Peter will support the Forest Harvesting and Management portion of the program. Greg Koontz, ME: Engineer contractor conducted the 35% design and feasibility report for a biomass and heat recovery district heating plant. Has experience in biomass operations and energy savings analysis. Greg will support AE&E with final design. Steve Stassel, AE&E: Steve is one of the most successful engineers and firms in the development of energy projects in Rural Alaska. He will develop the final design, environmental analysis and integration with the new power plant and will support construction. Jeff Batton: Past CEO with Alaska Growth Capital has significant experience in business and financial analysis for projects in Rural Alaska. Jeff will be completing the business structure and financial model for the Fort Yukon Biomass Project. Doug Johnson: Professional Growth Systems will support the business develop, business plan and board/employee training to increase business capacity for GZ and CATG. The GZ corporation, Gwitchyaa Gwichin Tribe and CATG have all signed an MOU in support of the development and funding of the wood energy program in Fort Yukon. Alaska Village Initiatives helped initiate the process with funding to support the initial model. Funding to date has come through AVI, CATG, and DOE Rural Development to support the project.The GZ corporation also has equipment to support building of boiler pads, installation of pipe and delivery of wood chips to boilers. Business Management Capacity: GZ Corporation owns the GZ electrical utility in Fort Yukon. They also own and operate the gas station. Operations of wood fired boilers fits within their current management capacity of operating the power plant and billing. New personnel will be hired and trained for boiler operations. However, development of a commercial level biomass harvest company is a new enterprise that will require new expertise and management of a labor intensive and planning intensive field operation. A five-year forest harvest plan will be developed with an annual implementation plan. Annual plans will have to be managed based on summer and winter operations and variation in annual weather patterns. Operation timing will vary depending on ice thickness, temperature in winter and dry ground patterns and river levels in summer. Management of transportation of equipment and supplies back to the village are critical to final costs of the supply. These capacities must be developed locally. Training is planned in business management and structure, forest planning, and harvest management. Fort Yukon has a good labor pool of equipment operators and labor experienced from work on the North Slope. 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Project communications will focus on three areas: 1. Support team and local implementation partners AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 6 of 17 10/7/2009 /= = ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund ) ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 2. Fort Yukon Community 3. Funding Partners A detailed implementation matrix of activities, responsibilities and due dates was developed for Phase III of the project using a dynamic planning process by Professional Growth Systems conducting a workshop with GZ, CATG and AWEA. This was part of a planned training and planning exercise with the GZ Board, CATG, Tribal Council and AWEA. The matrix will be kept current by the project manager and shared monthly with key members of the team. Another community meeting will be scheduled in Winter 2009-2010 to update the community on the project progress and get feedback on the attached CDR (appendix 2). The schedule matrix will be used as the basis to track the project and supply reports as required by AEA. 3.6 Project Risk : Discuss potential problems. and how you would address them. — There are two key types of risks associated with making this a sustainable project in rural Alaska: Technical: Technical risks for a chip fired boiler installation include making sure that reliable chip storage and feed systems are developed for the climate conditions in rural interior Alaska. This is being developed and will account for the worst-case scenario of wet chips at -50F. The project will utilize European boiler manufacturers with high quality and proven reliability. Systems are designed for oil-fired systems to serve as a redundant back up. Management Capacity: The most critical risk associated with installation of wood burning appliances in rural Alaska is whether there is a sustainable and reliable supply of fuel being delivered to the boiler. Fort Yukon has experienced heavy equipment operators, an experienced and licensed boiler operator, local knowledge for construction and knowhow for moving wood into the village. Creating a system that displaces a significant amount of fuel also creates greater need for harvest planning and harvesting in both summer and winter. This risk is being effectively dealt with by a complimentary project to set up a wood harvest and delivery company owned by the GZ Corporation (mentioned earlier). A team has been formed for technical support and training. A harvest planning system will be created within the CATG Resource Department with additional training for GIS capacity and a forestry technician to layout harvest boundary areas. A five-year harvest plan will be developed cooperatively to develop local capacity. Employees will spend time outside the village working on a harvesting crew prior to full scale harvesting within the village. Board and business training will be conducted for the GZ Board, the CATG and the tribal Council. A final business plan will be developed and used as a planning and training exercise as part of the implementation of the harvest project as well as boiler operations. GZ has experience effectively operating the power plant as a utility, which parallels the operation of a wood energy utility. SECTION 4 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS ° foe us what the Ree is and how you Wie meet the reo U eS outlined in Savor 2 of a The level of inform: ion will vary according to re of ue project you propose to _ undertake with gr inds. : = * If some work has alr _an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfi ed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 41 Proposed Energy Resource AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 7 of 17 10/7/2009 l= = ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energ resource vs. one alternatives GM ma available for the market to be served by your proje = : An extensive forest resource review was conducted and a forest stewardship plan was developed for GZ Corporation lands in 2006 by Peter Olsen and Bill Wall, PhD. A GIS-based inventory is under development by TCC. An average of 18 tons/acre of harvestable woody biomass is available on fully stocked stands of mixed hardwoods and white spruce. It was determined that GZ lands could easily sustain a harvest of 15-20,000 tons of wood per year in chips and round firewood. This is 10 times the projected need for the proposed project, clearly setting the proposed project at sustainable harvest level. A five-year harvest plan is being developed in association with this project. Wood is the only alternative source of energy readily available to displace fuel oil on a village scale in Fort Yukon. The positive attributes of a wood energy program are that the program is both an alternative energy program and an economic development program. Harvest and conversion of wood for energy is import substitution and creates local jobs. The greatest local economic benefit c occurs when ownership and operations are kept local. mber, size age, effici All commercial buildings i in Fort Yukon are heated with oil boilers at an efficiency of approximately 85%; some are up to 15 years old. Most of the commercial buildings have a dual installation of Weil McClain or Burnham Boilers. Sizes by BTU/ hour were inventoried and used for 35% conceptual design and feasibility analysis. These are in the AEA sponsored reconnaissance study conducted by the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Force. It is the intent of this project to continue to use the current oil boilers as a back up system to wood boilers. Large chip boilers turn down at a 3:1 ratio. In addition, Fort Yukon’s powerhouse is old and is in dire need of replacement. The biomass project will be collocated with the new powerhouse and use all the rejected heat from the new generators. This re-captured heat will supply up to 30% of the heating load in the system. 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understan ing of the any impact the project may have. on existing The existing heat energy resources are locally harvested wood, fuel oil purchased at rack prices for houses and bulk fuel for most major commercial buildings. At the household level a wood energy program as described in this project will create a consistent supply of fire wood for households and may positively affect the willingness of households to invest in efficient and clean burning appliances. At the commercial scale displacing approximately 149,000 gallons of fuel will reduce but not eliminate the need for bulk deliveries of fuel into the village. Fort Yukon typically may get 2 deliveries by barge per year and has recently begun flying in fuel at somewhat lower costs. This reduction in the amount of fuel will reduce the frequency of deliveries into the village. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your prelect may have on energy customers. — ; There are two levels of market for each village, households and commercial buildings. The commercial buildings drive the economies of scale for a feasible wood energy project including a harvesting group. This project will reduce and stabilize the cost of heat. This project is proposing to create a consistent inexpensive supply of fire wood for residences and to displace up to 90% of the heating fuel used by up to 15 major building with BTUs from the district heating system. AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 8 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 Renewable energy technology specific to project location A 35% CDR is attached for details (see appendix 2). This project will use a chip-fired boiler integrated with heat capture from generators. A wood storage and feeding mechanism is discussed in the report as well as integration with recovered heat. Weismann (Kob) boilers are the primary consideration for boiler types because of their proven reliability. Optimum installed capacity Optimum installed capacity depends on creating an economy of scale for profitable sustainable wood harvest which is 1,500 tons or more annually and displacing a significant amount of fuel oil in commercial buildings. This will create an economically viable program of harvest and sales of BTUs to buildings based on cost savings for each building participating. Projected fuel to be displaced is approximately 149,000 gallons using up to 1500+ tons of wood chips (actual amount depends on moisture). Optimum installed capacity is discussed in the 35% CDR based on a sensitivity and feasibility analysis of 5 different configurations. The Max 1 has been decided upon as the optimum installation. Anticipated capacity factor The anticipated capacity factor for the displacement of current fuel consumption for the 15 buildings attached to the District heating system is 92% of the approximately 149,000 gallons of fuel currently utilized. Anticipated annual generation The system is expected to delivery 16,610,040 kBTUs to buildings. Details in 35%CDR attached. Anticipated barriers There are two key barriers: o areliable supply of good quality reasonable moisture chips delivered to the boiler installation; o areliable automated storage and feeding system to the boiler; Both of these issues can be addressed in design. Quality chips are a design of the harvest, delivery and wood yard storage of the chips. This is being dealt with in the wood harvest system project. The second will be addressed in the final boiler design process that will include on site chip storage and delivery systems. Basic integration concept Heat recovery from the generators at the new powerhouse will be captured (see general schematic design in CDR, appendix 2). Heat integration in each of the installations will be designed with wood boilers as the primary and the current oil boilers as back up. Delivery methods Heat will be delivered through Insulated Pex Pipe system to the individual buildings. Each building will have a heat exchanger that will connect the DH system into the current in building AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 9 of 17 10/7/2009 l= =, ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = icati ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 heat system. GZ corporation owns the proposed location of the boiler and wood yard and has fully endorsed the project. GZ corporation owns the forestland base surrounding Fort Yukon where the all of the biomass will be harvested. As they will be a vertically integrated harvesting and wood energy utility, they are in full support of the sustainable utilization of forest biomass from their lands. Model contracts have been developed to support a legal basis for harvest. All piping Phase III was initiated in September of 2009, so work on these permits is still pending. List of permits — ¢ Permits for the wood boiler is under development. No issues are anticipated. ¢ Forest harvesting — The provisions of the Alaska State Forest Practices Act will be incorporated into harvest and delivery of biomass plans. Development of stream crossings, ice roads and summer and winter harvest operations may require special permits. These permits are granted annually based on harvest and transportation plans. The permitting request process will begin at least one month prior to seasonal operations allowing for 30 days in which the plan can be adjusted based on State suggests. * An EA for the boiler site and DH system is being conducted under Phase III. This section will address both the current application for boilers and the project for biomass harvesting: Threatened and Endangered Species — no listed species in the project area Habitat issues — a Forest Stewardship Plan has been completed for the GZ ownership and a five-year forest management and harvest plan will be completed as part of the biomass harvesting project. Opportunities for enhancing moose habitat will be sought and developed. No significant negative habitat impacts outside the natural range of variation in this fire driven ecosystem are expected. Harvesting of mature spruce and hardwood stands are not expected to be a major portion of the target for biomass production, but their use could have some small scale local impacts on Neotropical migratory bird species. Wetlands and other protected areas — The Alaska State Forest Practices Act will be AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 10 of 17 10/7/2009 a) ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund (EE ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 followed in all harvest operations. Accessing or crossing wetlands will only be done during winter when frozen. CATG Resource Department has an excellent GIS system and has done mapping on key sensitive areas for each of the villages in Yukon Flats region. These will be noted during forest harvest transportation planning. Land Development Constraints — none are anticipated at this time. Telecommunications Interference — none are anticipated at this time. Aviation Considerations — none are anticipated at this time. Visual and aesthetic impacts — Harvesting of biomass can create unaesthetic impacts on a forest. FPA required buffers keep harvesting from banks and visibility corridors. Forest planning can deal effectively with these issues. The wood yard will be fenced and located on the edge of the village (both current sites). Wood chip deliveries to sites where noise maybe an issue will be scheduled such that minimum impact will occur. Potential Project Barriers — The approach that the project developers have taken in the development of the Fort Yukon program is to make this a model project for converting a village to substantial wood use for heating. We have tried to anticipate many of the barriers and provide ways to bridge these barriers. However, some additional barriers will emerge as the project moves forward. Key barriers identified: o Organization cooperation: Developing cooperation among the various key organizations that are now acting as partners was and will remain critical. An MOU among the Tribe, CATG, and GZ Corporation was developed early in the process. As a final business plan is developed even more specific roles will be spelled out and agreed upon. This is an ongoing process with good cooperation thus far. o For Profit Model Simultaneous Development of Supply and Delivery/Demand: Creating a local structure for a for-profit model for harvesting and converting biomass and a wood energy utility was key to being confidence that both the biomass supply side and BTU demand side were installed in sync. Thus we have 2 projects: biomass harvest — supply; boiler installation and operations — demand. Appropriate economic incentives are being put in place for economic sustainability. A final business plan will arrange within GZ Corporation a vertically integrated biomass harvest, conversion, delivery and boiler operations company. Although this model fits in Fort Yukon the same components must be developed in other villages but may not be vertically integrated. The more local ownership in the overall process the more benefits go to the community. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: ¢ Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase ¢ Requested grant funding : ¢ Applicant matching funds — loans, capital contributions, in-kind AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 11 of 17 10/7/2009 [= » ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 * Identification of other funding sources * Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system : Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system Total Cost Phase IV: $3,606,255 Total grant funding requested: $2,500,000 Matching Funds Phase IV: $990,000 DOE Tribal Energy Program $1.2 million granted to CATG in partnership with GZ (for DOE document reference see appendix 5). In-Kind Funds: GZ has established an account with $300,000 in support of the wood energy program. These funds are targeted in support of the wood harvest project — separate project from this application but concurrent with the boiler installation project. These funds are being used to match Denali Commission funds for purchase of harvest equipment to support securing fuel for the boilers. GZ is purchasing a used Cat engine with a marine jacket for heat recapture that will be used as a match. 4. 4.2 Projec Operating and Maintenance Costs _ In ude antici 3 / these would be funded by The O&M will be developed in an operations business plan in conjunction with the final design documents by AE&E, Steve Stassel Phase III. The primary cost of operation of chip boilers is wood fuel at $175 per ton and daily inspection of boiler to check operations. Fuel delivery and bin loading occurs on a weekly basis and is accounted for in the fuel cost. Boilers will have an automatic de-asher that will need to be serviced weekly. Boiler tubes need to be brushed once a month. Boilers will operate with automated computerized controls that can be read remotely. Current staff of the powerhouse will be trained as boiler operators. The boiler will operate from mid-September through mid-April. A new position at $45,000 per year will be added for support and replacement of current operators. The boiler will need to be cleaned and inspected annually at shut down. Primary area for potential issues is the feed delivery system. GZ utility will develop a maintenance, service, and equipment replacement fund for boiler operations derived from BTU sale revenues. Since this project is operated as a for-profit business the size of the fund will be determined in the final business plan and based on maintenance history. /Sale Ss nformation eaniih: clude the fi ntial power buyer(s)/customer(s) purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range + Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project The three largest customers in Fort Yukon are the school district, which includes the following buildings in the downtown loop: the school, gym, school shop, and school district office and the CATG Clinic. The next largest customer is the water plant and the City Office both operated by the City. Additional customers are the Yukon Center, AC Store, Post Office, Radio Station and State Building. Letters of support from CATG and the School Superintendent are attached. An RBEG from DOE has allowed the development of a draft template BTU purchase agreement that is culturally relevant to rural Alaska as well as a stumpage sale agreement. These templates will be used as the starting point for development of final agreements. The GZ Wood Utility operators of the boilers will develop a five year BTU agreement with the commercial buildings to stabilize the heat equivalent price at from $4.00 — $5.00 per gallon of fuel or a commercial price of a million BTUs will range from $28.88 - $36.10. Escalation clauses will be developed based on the price of fuel oil that is purchasable by the specific customer. ving: AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 12 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 Project Benefits Fuel Displacement: Annual fuel displacement of 149,000 gallons @ a price of $6.00 per gallon is $894,000 in savings. At a project life of 15 years the total gallons displaced are 2,235,000 with a total gross import displacement value of $13,410,000. Anticipate Revenues: At a delivered wood fuel price of $175/ton for 25% moisture wood chips and total demand of 1,500 tons the wood harvest and delivery company will derive an annual gross income of $262,000 and million BTUs will be worth $16.46. At $4.00 per gallon for fuel oil, a million BTUs of heat costs $29.85. The wood utility operators of the boilers will develop a long- term BTU agreement with the commercial buildings to stabilize the heat equivalent price at a range of $4.00-$5.00 per gallon of fuel so the commercial price of a million BTUs will be $28.88 - $36.10. An annual gross savings of $379,742 will be divided between the Wood Energy Utility and major commercial customers. Final determination of how displacement savings will be dispersed to customers will be developed in the final business plan. The intent of the program is to build both an economically viable wood utility and service to the community and primary commercial customers. Annual Incentives: Tax credits or other annual incentives have not yet been explored. Green Credits: CATG has been contacted by several organizations regarding the potential sale of green credits. Until the scope of the project and the need for additional incentives has been fully explored within the context of the partners, Green Credits will remain only a possible option. Public benefits: These two projects, woody biomass harvest and boiler installations, create significant economic and non-economic public benefits. On the economic side benefits include, direct fuel cost savings to public commercial buildings such as the school and clinic. Reducing energy costs for schools and clinic reduces public support costs for education and health care. Savings are paid locally as salaries and profit to the local wood energy utility, which then pays dividends to local shareholders. Community public benefit based on multiplier of new infusion of funds into the community is just slightly over 1.0 in the potential creation of new jobs. This is primarily due to the high number of resources imported into rural Alaskan Villages. The largest outpouring of village money goes to the importation of fuel oil. In multiple discussions and presentations, community members have commented on how wood energy will create local jobs that are consistent with their subsistence AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 13 of 17 10/7/2009 —_ AL. ASKA Renewable Energy Fund (BD ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 lifestyles. Wood energy utility will create 4-6 half-time jobs and one full-time at a rate of $15-25 per hour. Community leaders agree that utilizing local wood resources supports local self-sufficiency, and reduces dependence on outside energy sources. Non-economic benefits include a reduction in wildfire risk through forest thinning, enhance wildlife habitat and most importantly create local jobs and economy through import substitution. Wood energy business fits with subsistence lifestyles and creates a greater level of self- sufficiency within the village. The process of developing and creating business, management and planning capacity enhances opportunities for increasing long-term opportunities for youth to Stay in the village with well paying resource based jobs. An integrated wood energy system is one of the best energy and community economic development projects available to villages with a sustainable source of wood. The importance of a wood energy utility and the jobs that it creates are demonstrated by the below quotes from a report on rural community economic benefit multipliers. In the case of commercial or public buildings such as the school, money currently spent outside the community for energy will be redirected into the community for wood energy. Report Quotes: “A community can add new wage paying jobs in three ways: - Goods or services produced locally, sold to non-residents, bring money into the community to pay wages - Money from outside the region can directly pay the wages of local jobs - Money already in the region can be re-spent there, supporting local jobs” Quotes from an interim report produced by UAA at website: http://www. iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications/client/afnjobs/ecmulti.pdf Proposed business structure The business structure proposed is a heat utility as a subsidiary of GZ Corporation. This will be a vertically integrated with a wood harvest operation. Management of the district heat plant will be similar to current management of the electrical utility. Finance of Maintenance GZ utility will develop a maintenance, service, and equipment replacement fund for boiler operations derived from BTU sale revenues. Since this project is operated as a for-profit business the size of the fund will be determined in the final business plan and based on maintenance history. Identification of operational issues GZ Corporation will be the parent business entity. Start up operations capital will come from the parent corporation initially and ongoing operational costs will be generated through the sale of BTUs heat to the various commercial customers serviced in the district heating system. Description of operational costs Current back-up or existing systems are oil-fired boilers servicing each of the projected customers of the district heating system. Operation and maintenance of these back-up systems will be the responsibility of the current owners. This issue will be addressed in the power sales agreements being developed currently in phase III of the project. AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 14 of 17 10/7/2009 -_ AL. ASKA Renewable Energy Fund ED ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 Reporting savings and benefits This project is both a for-profit local utility and a model project for demonstrating how systems of this nature can be successful in Alaskan villages with forested areas. Basic business accounting practices and annual reporting for the wood utility can support the reporting of the savings, benefits and lessons learned from the project. The company and the project developers are committed to understanding and reporting the benefits of developing wood heat capacity. Resource Sustainability It was determined that GZ lands could easily sustain a harvest of 15-20,000 tons of wood per year in chips and round firewood. This is 10 times the projected need for the proposed project, clearly setting the proposed project at sustainable harvest level. Preparation and Speed of post Award action As is well documented, this project has been under development for the past 3.5 years. The GZ Board has discussed the need and benefits of this project at their annual meeting of shareholders and a significant majority fully support the project. The Board is committed to securing additional business development and management training for itself and_ staff. Leadership has attended multiple workshops, one of which was held in Fort Yukon to create a dynamic plan for developing the project and operations once installed. GZ has years of experience in operating an electrical utility and believes that operation of district heating plant is within its current capacity. GZ also has access to professional heavy equipment operators that can be trained to harvest and deliver the amount of wood needed on an annual basis. There is wealth of local knowledge on moving wood into the village during the winter months. Accomplishments and Other Grants This project has received significant endorsement from various agencies in the form of multiple grants to address all aspects of the development of a heat utility system in Fort Yukon. The project works primarily through various project partners and supporters. Alaska Village Initiatives (AVI) secured funding to conduct a Forest Stewardship Plan in 2006. AVI also secured a Rural Business Enterprise Grant from USDA RD to develop reports on harvesting machinery configurations, modes of transportation for wood into the village, and contractual agreements to support various business components. Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments received a DOE Tribal Energy Grant to conduct a feasibility study and compare the differences between utilizing stick fed boilers vs. district heating systems with chip fired boilers. In addition, CATG has received a grant for $1.2 million with $210,000 to support the completion of Phase Ill for permitting and design and $990,000 for match in the Phase IV construction process. Through funding from DOE Tribal Energy Program AVI is supporting the development of a forest inventory for GZ lands, a five-year harvest plan, business training and development, and a detailed financial/operation business plan. In June 2009, AVI/DOE supported a workshop composed of engineers, equipment specialists, foresters, financial expertise and business training expertise to ensure integration across all disciplines in the Fort Yukon project. All of this technical support is aimed at developing and supporting the implementation of a sustainable Fort Yukon District Heating system. AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 15 of 17 10/7/2009 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund & ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 The GZ corporation, Gwitchyaa Gwichin Tribe and CATG have all signed an MOU in support of the development and funding of the wood energy program in Fort Yukon. Yukon Flats School District and the City of Fort Yukon are also in support (see attached letters in appendix 7). Alaska Village Initiatives helped initiate the process with funding to support the initial model. Below is a narrative summary regarding funding sources and our financial commitment to the project. (See budget in appendix 4 and further cost analysis in appendix 2 for the Max 1 plant scenario) Phase IV Purchase and Installation of Boilers 2010-2011 Task one: Project Management, Communications, Reporting and Funding Facilitation = Total cost: $120,000 = Requested funds: $65,000 includes $5,000 for travel = Federal Funds: $65,000 includes $5,000 for travel Task Two: Purchase and install chip fired district heat system— summer 2011 = Total cost: $3,606,255 = Requested funds: $2,500,000 = Federal Funds: $850,000 CATG will support this program through their Resource department and GIS capacity. They will also provide housing for the project manager and coordination among organizations. A project implementation committee made up of CATG, GZ and Tribe staff will meet monthly to discuss project issues and serve as a support structure for the Project Manager during all phases and task of the project. AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 16 of 17 10/7/2009 [= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Round 3 A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4. B c. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 9. D Letters demonstrating local support per application form Section 8. E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD per RFA Section 1.6. F. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. William A. Wall thle fll le Project Manager- Consultant Date 11/9/2009 AEA10-015 Grant Application Page 17 of 17 10/7/2009 Appendices Appendix 1: Resolution from GZ Board, CATG Resolution Appendix 2: 35% Conceptual Design Report Appendix 3: Resumes of managers and staff Appendix 4: Grant Budget Appendix 5: Documentation of Match funding from the Department of Energy Appendix 6: Grant Cost/Benefit Worksheet Appendix 7: Letters of Local Support Appendix: 1 A: Governing Body Resolution from the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation B: Resolution from the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments GWITCHYAA ZHEE CORPORATION P.O, BOX 329 FORT YUKON, ALASKA 99740 PH. 907 662-2933 FAX: 907 662-3056. RESOLUTION 09-03 A Resolution to authorize the Submission of the Alaska Energy’Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application and to name Williany Wall as thé Point of Contact regarding the application and to state that the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation is in compliance with all federal, State, and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. WHEREAS: The Corporation is the federally recognized Native Corporation for the Village of Fort Yukon, Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Native Claiiiis Act of 1971, and, WHEREAS: The Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation recognizes the need for alternative Energy. in Fort Yukon, and, WHEREAS: The Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation realizes with the high fuel prices anid The dependence on diesel in Fort Yukon we need to find alternative Energy solutions, and, WHEREAS: The Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation has been working with the other entities In Fort Yukon on getting a Bio-mass project in Fort Yukon, and WHEREAS: The Gwitchyaa Zhéé Corporation in cooperation with the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments has secured funding to start’a biomass Project. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Board of Directors Authorizes William Wall to apply for the Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Grant and to authorize William Wall as the Point of Contact regarding the Application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Gwitehyaa Zhee Corporation is in compliance with All federal, State and local laws including existing credit and federal tax Obligations. ADOPTED AND DATED the ike day of NV Over lon ; 2009 at Fort Yukon, Alaska. a) eeseny ( ether Y-2- 2009 President Date Fel C0og. 204 Board Member Date COUNCIL OF ATHABASCAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS P.O.BOX 33 - FORT YUKON, ALASKA 99740 - (907)662-2587 FACSIMILE (907)662-3333 RESOLUTION 08-02 Title: Authorizing the CATG Natural Resourses Director, Bruce Thomas and Dr. Bill Wall and Peter Olsen with Private Lands and Resource Consulting (PLARC) to negotiate a final agreement and structure of the grant award of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Tribal Energy Program grant. WHEREAS: The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG) is a Tribal consortium authorized by the Athabascan tribes of the Yukon Flats; and, WHEREAS: _ The purpose of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments is to conserve and protect tribal land and other resources; to encourage and support the exercise of tribal powers of self- governance; to aid and support economic development; to promote the general welfare of each member tribe and it’s respective individual members; and to preserve and maintain the cultural and spiritual values of the Tribe and its Tribal members; and, WHEREAS: CATG, along with Denali Commision and Alaska Energy Authority, hosted a Yukon Flats Regional Economic Development Summit in 2004 and directed staff to develop a long-range energy plan incorporating appropriate energy technologies including biomass, hydro fuel cells, solar, nuclear and wood boiler studies. WHEREAS: NRCS helped AVI and PLARC develop conceptual design of a biomass program; Alaska DNR Forestry supported development of a Forest Stewardship Plan and Rural Business Enterprise Grant supported development of the business model and development of harvest equipment and transportation components. WHEREAS: GZ Corporation has been approved for a grant through the Denali Commission to purchase harvest equipment for the biomass program. The total of the grant is $808,805. The grant is administered through AEA and requires a 50% match which is an additional $808,805. WHEREAS: — CATG has been approved to negotiate with DOE Tribal Energy Program for up to $1.2 million dollars for technical support, travel and wood boilers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: CATG Council authoizes Bruce Thomas and Dr. Bill Wall and Peter Olsen to negotiate a final agreement and structure of the grant process with DOE Tribal Energy Program. CERTIFICATION: This resolution was adopted and approved by the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments at a meeting held by Teleconference on August 20, 2008. Appendix: 2 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process 35% Report Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Table of Contents Section 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Goals and Objectives 1.2 Project Scale 1.3 Resource Assumptions 1.4 35 percent Summary and Recommendations Section 2. Design Intent 2.1 Recovered Heat 2.2 Wood Heat 2.3. Supplemental Heat 2.4 Distribution 2.5 Recovered Heat Integration 2.6 Building Integration Section 3. Feasibility 3.1 Methodology 3.2 Results Section 4. Financial Metrics, Sensitivity Analysis 4.1. Financial Metrics 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis Appendices Appendix A One-line Diagram and Sequence of Operations for Proposed DH Plants Appendix B Control Points List for Proposed DH Plants Appendix C Cost Estimates for Proposed DH Plants Appendix D_ Maps of Proposed DH Plants Appendix E Typical Design Documents, Heat Recovery from Engine Generators Appendix F Main Summary, DH Plant Summary Sheets, and Key Inputs Appendix G Sample Calculations Alaska Wood Energy Associates 1 of1 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Section 1: Executive Summary 11 Goals and Objectives The objective of this interim 35 percent report is to document the progress and findings at this stage of the project. The scope of the project is the final design of a (primarily) biomass-fired district heating plant (DH Plant) for Fort Yukon, Alaska. The proposed DH plant will utilize heat recovered from co-located engine generators which provide power to the village, energy from the surrounding wood resources, and some supplemental oil heat. The entire process includes both an investment grade feasibility study and a final design for the plant. At 35 percent, the feasibility study is 95 percent complete. The study is complete based on current knowledge. Additional site work in the village and as well additional information that comes to light as the design is finalized is expected to result in minor changes to the savings and/or cost projections. To date, design has advanced primarily as required to support the study. The design at the 35 percent point is characterized as schematic level design. Examples of the design work to date are scattered through the text and the appendices. The work on this project is being done by a team, Alaska Wood Energy Associates. This team consists of people from a number of different companies, representing various skill and knowledge sets. The feasibility study is being performed by Greg Koontz of efour, PLLC, Seattle, WA. Overall design responsibility integrating the biomass and diesel power plants lies with Steve Stassel of AE&E, located in Anchorage. Steve has designed and overseen the installation of numerous power plants, tank farms, and heat recovery systems throughout rural and bush Alaska. Greg Koontz will also provide design services specific to the DH Plant. Obviously, a primary concern for any biomass fired plant is availability of the wood resources. This issue is the responsibility of Bill Wall of Sustainability, Inc. The means and methods of procuring the wood and processing it have been document extensively elsewhere. For that reason, this report does not address supply, only storage and material handling. The objective for the team at this point is to use the study to choose a path forward into final design and construction. This report documents the feasibility study and design to date, and the path that will be followed moving forward to final design. 1.2 Project Scale In order to be successful, a DH Plant must achieve a certain economy of scale. The capital costs involved are quite large, and so the savings to the village must be on the same scale in order to make economic sense. In Fort Yukon, many of the largest buildings in the village are clustered together, most of them on the same street. One of the primary cost elements in a DH Plant is the distribution piping, so the most economical approach is to serve the largest, most tightly clustered buildings. However, this strategy may not completely support future village plans, and may exclude some of the more significant buildings within the village. For that reason, the study looked at five different DH Plant scenarios for Fort Yukon. The five plants are labeled Base, Expanded 1 (Exp 1), Expanded 2 (Exp 2), Maximum 1 (Max 1), and Maximum 2 (Max 2). Maps of the village showing the included buildings and proposed piping routes for all five Plants can be found in Appendix D. Figure 1 below shows the buildings which were included in the study. In addition to the buildings, there is one heating load that is not associated with a building. Because the soil temperatures in Fort Yukon are low, the village heats the domestic water system enough to ensure it does not Alaska Wood Energy Associates 10f4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report freeze. This system has supply and return piping. The heat is currently injected into the system at the pump house. This building is a significant distance from the main village buildings — so far that it is not possible to serve this heating load from the DH Plant load economically. The cost of the piping and the associated heat loss from the piping preclude serving the pump house directly. However, we believe we can intercept the domestic water return piping where it runs through our service area. Injecting heat into the return water means that when it gets to the pump house, it is ideally already at setpoint temperature, so the pump house boilers (oil-fired) simply do not run. Additional field work in the village will be needed to determine exactly how this is achieved. Currently, the study includes this heat load. However, the model is constructed in such a way that the load can easily be “toggled off’ (see Section 3 for more information on the model). In Figure 1, this load is labeled “City DHW Load”. Figure 1 not only shows all of the buildings considered, it indicates which buildings are included in each of the five Plant configurations. Buildings included On Bi 1 School 1 Gym Store Post Office CATG Main Office State Building Shop (adj School) District Office Church 10 Yukon Flats 11 City Building 12 New CATG Clinic 13 Tribal Offices 14 Water Treat 15 Old CATG Clinic 16 City DHW Load se Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max2 1 1 @|N/@| on} |} o a/ajala}a)a)a)a)a)/4 aljaja/a}a)a)a)/a)a)/. ajaja|o/a)/a)/o)/o4)/o)/4)a)/4 ajafa)oa)o}oa)o}o)o}oa)o)} oa) elelalalajalajajal/ala/asal/ala aja}a)o}a}a)o) oa) oa} a) a)a)a)4 include Heat Recovery 1 Figure 1, buildings included in study 1.3 Resource Assumptions In Section 4, a sensitivity analysis shows how the project financials vary as the cost of the inputs vary. In order to compare all the Plants on an equal basis, some base level assumptions about these costs had to be made and used in the performance / financial model. The assumptions shown in Figure 2 are based on current of recent costs in the village, plus projections of the cost of obtaining wood chips. Base Level Resource Assumptions electrical energy : $0.48 per kWh 3,412 BTU/kWh No. 1 oil : $4.00 per gal 134,000 BTU/gal wood chips: $175.00 per green ton 5,315 BTU/Ib unit costs electricalenegy: $140.68 per mmBTU No. 1 oil : $29.85 permmBTU wood chips : $16.46 per mmBTU Figure 2, Base Level Resource Assumptions Alaska Wood Energy Associates 20f4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 1.4 35 percent Summary and Recommendations A mathematical model was constructed to model the performance of the various Plants, and to compare the financial performance of the five options. This model is discussed in detail in Section 3, and a sample of the calculations involved is shown in Appendix G. To date, it is not known for sure how this project would be financed; so the financial model does not include the cost of money, nor does it include projections of future resource costs escalation. At this point, the key financial metric is net simple payback (NSP) at current costs. Figure 3A shows an abbreviated summary of the results of the model using the Base Level resource assumptions (see Section 1.3 above). The complete overall Summary sheet and the individual Plant Summary sheets can be found in Appendix F. Financial Base Exp 1 Exp 2 current annual cost to heat connected buildings: $431,228 $547,228 $481,376 proposed annual cost of oil, DH Plant : $16,152 $40,285 $21,481 proposed annual cost of wood chips, DH Plant: $157,393 $236,122: $192,243 proposed annual cost of electrical energy, DH Plant : $66,378 $101,150 $77,626 total annual proposed costs,DH Plant: $239,922 —_ $377,557. ——- $291,350 savings: $191,306 $169,671 $190,026 estimated total DH plant cost :_ $2,501,751 $2,886,217 $2,563,315 net simple payback : 13.1 yrs 17.0 yrs 13.5 yrs Figure 3A, Abbreviated Financial Summary (oil at $4.00/gal) Section 4 includes a number of tables and graphs showing the sensitivity of the project financials to changes in the cost of the inputs. One conclusion that is drawn from those tables is that the project is extremely sensitive to the cost of oil, and less so to the cost of wood and electrical energy. The feasibility study (and Figure 3A) is based on the current lower price of oil in the village; it has been much higher within the past 12 months, and is expected to get more expensive in the near future. For that reason, Figure 3B is included, showing the same abbreviated data at an oil cost of $6.00 per gallon. Oil has reached and exceeded this level within Fort Yukon in the past. Financial Base Exp 1 Exp 2 __ a current annual cost to heat connected buildings: $646,842 —- $820,842 =: $722,064 589 $932,064 proposed annual cost of oil, DH Plant : $24,228 $60,427 $32,222 $437 proposed annual cost of wood chips, DH Plant: $157,393 $236,122 $192,243 $316,395 proposed annual cost of electrical energy, DH Plant : $66,378 $101,150 $77,626 $121,982 total annual proposed costs, DH Plant: $247,998 $397,699 $302,091 $438,815 savings: $398,844 $423,143 $419,973 $493,249 estimated total DH plant cost :_ $2,501,751 $2,886,217 $2,563,315 $3,659,476 net simple payback : 6.3 yrs 6.8 yrs 6.1 yrs 7.4 yrs Figure 3B, Abbreviated Financial Summary (oil at $6.00/gal) As noted above, the project shows extreme sensitivity to the cost of oil — an increase of 50 percent in the cost of oil cuts the NSP by more than half. Based on the design and study results to date, the team believes that the Maximum Plant 1 is the best option for Fort Yukon. This Plant includes nearly every major building in the village, and provides significant piping infrastructure upon which to build for future additions. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 3 0f4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report The Base Plant and the Expanded 2 Plant both have better NSP values than Maximum 1. That is because they serve only the core village buildings, which are closely grouped. Beyond this core, the marginal cost to add a building to the system in the future goes up significantly. Adding buildings (outside the core area served) in the future to either of these Plants would mean that these new buildings would bear the cost not only of the connection to the main piping, but the extension of the mains as well. This may well be so cost prohibitive (when considered as part of the “building” cost) that no new buildings would be added in future. The key marginal cost of expanding a DH plant is the distribution piping. The team believes that Fort Yukon should leverage the savings associated with serving the core buildings (the Expanded 2 Plant) to expand the piping infrastructure as far as economical feasible. Extending the infrastructure all the way to the out to the Old CATG Clinic (Maximum 2) does not look like a good deal for the village (20.0 year NSP). However, the Maximum 1 Plant, by extending to the New CATG Clinic and the City Building, provides the village with ~ 1,500 feet of additional main supply and return piping for only a small increase in NSP. Having the piping mains in place means that the marginal cost of adding a future building to the system along this route consists only of the building connection, making it more likely that buildings will be added. In fact, installing DH main along a route often serves as a guide for future expansion, since the parties involved know that can get heat at a lower price if they hook into the DH heating system. The team therefore recommends that further design and development concentrate only on the Maximum Plant 1 option. The estimated cost of this option is $3,100,228 for the DH Plant. However, there are additional costs not directly associated with the DH Plant. As noted above, the plant utilizes heat recovered from engine generators producing power for the village. The existing power plant, like the pump house, is too far away from the proposed DH Plant site to allow for piping between the two. However, the village is planning to build a new power plant in the near future. As the maps in Appendix D show, the proposed location is directly adjacent (or even in the same building as) the proposed DH Plant. Towards this end, the village has already initiated the purchase of a new engine generator (and may soon purchase a second new unit). This unit is not only more fuel efficient than the existing units by far, but because it has a marine water jacket, it recovers more useful heat. Therefore, it will be run as the Lead generator. As a part of this project, it is the intent that this new power unit (or units) be temporarily located at or in the DH Plant in order to allow heat recovery until the new plant is built. At that point, the new generators would be moved a short distance into their permanent locations. The DH Plant could then recover heat off of any engine running, not just the new one(s). This temporary installation and setup necessarily costs more than it would cost to place and install the generators only once, in their final locations. The team estimates that an allowance of $250,000 would be sufficient to cover this additional expense. We therefore recommend that the village commit to a cost of $3,350,000 (rounded) for the new DH plant. A further note on recovered heat; the electrical demand data used in this study came from calendar year 2007. It therefore does not include the increased demand due to the new large waste water pumping stations recently and currently being installed. Thus the amount of recovered heat available when the DH Plant is installed is expected to be significantly larger than the values used in this study. Since this heat is “free” (no marginal cost) to the DH Plant, this additional heat can only improve the economics of any DH Plant considered. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 40f4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Section 2: Design Intent 2.1 Recovered Heat Heat recovered from an engine generator and used in a DH Plant is “free” in the sense that there is no marginal cost increase to reject that heat to a heating loop compared to the rejecting it to the atmosphere. The heat comes primarily from the cooling jacket of the engine, and must be carried away from the unit to prevent it overheating. In the absence of a co-located heating plant, the heat is normally carried to a radiator, which cools the jacket water by rejecting the heat to the atmosphere. As noted in Section 1, the intent in the short term is to temporarily co-locate at least one, or perhaps two new Caterpillar 3456 engine generator next to the DH Plant. The longer term plan is to relocate a completely new power plant adjacent the DH Plant. This new plant would likely use the 3456 engine exclusively. The Caterpillar 3456 engine is proposed because it has a significantly better fuel consumption profile than any other similarly sized engine that Fort Yukon could buy. With the cost of fuel (No. 1 oil) so high in the village, the new engine generators pay for themselves very quickly. In addition, the 3456 can be fitted with a marine cooling jacket that allows the capture of significantly more heat than an engine without the jacket. Thus the 3456 in the proposed configuration minimizes fuel consumption and maximizes heat recovery. Engine generators producing prime power are an ideal source of heat for any heating plant. They run continuously, and the quality (temperature) of the heat rejected is almost identical to the heat required by the Plant. Recovered heat is the lowest cost form of input energy to the DH Plant, thus it is always selected first and used to the fullest. As the design is “tweaked”, the proposed operations will be continually examined to see if more recovered heat can be used in place or wood or oil heat. Section 3 tabulates the effects of recovered heat on the proposed Plant energy input. Section 2.5 below describes how the recovered heat will be integrated into the DH Plant; Appendix A provides detailed one-line diagrams and sequence of operations for the combined Plant. Finally, Appendix E includes typical design documents for tying into the power plant cooling circuits. 2.2 Wood Heat As noted above, recovered heat can be considered the primary heat source, because it is always used first to meet the needs of the DH Plant. Wood heat is the thus the secondary heat source. As with recovered heat, wood heat will always be used to the extent possible before using supplemental heat (oil, in this case). The village owns significant amounts of this resource in the surrounding lands, and the team believes it can be produced in a usable form (wood chips) at a price significantly below that of oil, on a BTU basis. Solid fuel boilers require more infrastructure than oil-fired boilers. They require space for wood storage and processing as well as material handling equipment to get the chips into the boiler. Given the remoteness of Fort Yukon, the equipment installed must be reliable and well tested. It is also desirable that the boilers be standard units, “off the shelf’ so to speak. Proprietary or customized equipment increases the chance that if equipment failure occurs, it will be expensive and/or time consuming to get it fixed. The team proposes to use a German line of boilers and material handling equipment. Wiessmann (formerly Kob) equipment has been deployed in hundreds of installation all over Europe, and now is starting to be used in the US. The North American headquarters of Alaska Wood Energy Associates 10f8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Wiessmann is in Vancouver, BC. The units have been modified to meet UL and ASME standards, and can thus be used in the US. The Wiessmann boilers are standard products, which come in set sizes, and offer a range of options specifically designed for each boiler in the range. The model range proposed for Fort Yukon is the Pyrtec line. Figure 4 below shows a Pyrtec boiler: Figure 4, Pyrtec Boiler The Pyrtec range has a relatively wide range of capacities, from 1.3 mmBTU/h to 4.3 mmBTU/h. The boiler can be equipped with automatic start, automatic de-ashing, a cyclone to remove particulate, and soot blowers to keep the tubes clean, all well as a number of other options. All of this equipment is purpose-built for the boiler, and is off-the-shelf equipment. Wiessmann also offers a variety of material handling equipment to get the chips into the boiler. The site selected for the DH Plant (see Appendix D) will require some gravel fill to get the DH Plant and power plant above flood level. The wood storage, on the other hand, does not necessarily have to be raised as high as the plants. In addition to the DH Plant and power plant buildings (which may actually be in the same building, depending on timing), the team anticipates an on-site wood processing building; basically a large Quonset-style building. The current plan is to leave a gap between the processing building and the DH Plant. This section, built in the shape of a steep-walled “V” can be constructed when the adjacent building fill is installed. The V would be covered, and run the width of the buildings. At the bottom would be two linear augers, both running into the center of the V. In the center of the V, these augers would dump into the opening of a perpendicular auger that would run diagonally up the wall of the V and into the DH Plant, and ultimately dump into the metering box on the boiler(s). Gravity would keep the chips flowing into the two center augers. The design will be finalized as the details of the DH Plant design proceed; the intent is to keep the material handling as short and simple as possible, with a minimum of moving parts. From the processing building, chips could either be pushed into the V with a small bobcat-style loader, or blown into the V (depending on chipper type) as it is chipped. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 20f8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 2.3 Supplemental Heat There are two conditions under which the combination of recovered heat and wood heat might not be able to meet the DH Plant load. Biomass boilers cannot turn down much below 35 — 40 percent of their full load capacity (the study assumed 40 percent to be conservative). Depending on the boiler selected, therefore, there may be time when the Load is greater than the amount of recovered heat available, and yet less than the minimum load the biomass boiler can support. This “middle” range of temperature conditions is fairly narrow, but it does exist. The second condition is if the sum of the biomass boiler output and the recovered heat is too low to meet the Load. This would only occur when it is very cold. For both of these situations, the DH Plant is equipped with a small oil-fired boiler. Either one of there ranges can be eliminated, but generally not both. Making the biomass boiler bigger eliminates the use of oil at the high end of the load, but widens the gap between the recovered heat and the minimum boiler load. Choosing a smaller boiler can eliminate this “middle” gap, but at the expense of more oil required in very cold conditions. As a result, choosing the biomass boiler is a balancing act. Using the model, one can immediately see the effect of boiler size on heat source. Choosing a bigger boiler reduces or eliminates oil consumption in the cold months, while increasing it in the shoulder months. A smaller boiler has the opposite effects. Using two boilers can eliminate or nearly eliminate oil use altogether; however, it adds significant first cost. In optimizing the DH Plant options using the model, only the Maximum 2 Plant actually lowered the net simple payback by using two boilers. By using one smaller boiler and one larger one, this Plant essentially eliminated all oil use. It could be argued that no oil boiler need be included in the DH Plant. The means in which the DH Plant connects to the buildings (see Section 2.6 below) allows the end-user to extract all the available heat possible from the DH loop and still use their existing oil boilers to top up the heat if need be. This could be a viable proposition; the DH Plant could simply notify all the customers to enable their existing heating equipment when the temperature dropped below a given level. However, it would not be nearly as convenient to cover the “middle” gap in heating that occurs when the Load exceeds the recovered heat, but is too small to allow a biomass boiler to be fired up. As noted in Section 3, the model predicts electrical demand (and thus available recovered heat) on an average basis. These profile curves predict monthly consumption very accurately using average demand data, but have little or nothing to say about the demand (and thus heat) at a given time on a given day. Thus the DH plant would always be in danger not meeting load in parts of the shoulder season, and further, could not accurately predict when it might happen. If the DH Plant cannot predict these events, they cannot warn their end-users to have their equipment available and ready. The potential for the DH Plant under-supplying heat is significant. Again, one could argue that this could be mitigated by selecting smaller biomass boilers for the DH Plant. However, that in essence shifts a significant (and unpredictable) amount of the annual cost of heating back onto the end-user. In essence, the DH Plant is building a plant that cannot meet then known loads, knowing that it will shift the burden in very cold weather to the end-user. Because this would occur only in very cold periods, the consequences of a failed “handover” would be significant. This, plus the unpredictability inherent in such an operating scheme (operationally and financially) has lead the team to recommend that the DH Plant be able to deliver the full expected Load; in order to do this smoothly, a supplemental oil-fired boiler was included. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 3 of 8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Because an oil-fired boiler can start and stop very quickly, without human intervention and with high reliability, it is ideal for the supplemental heat needed. Oil heat will always be added last, only when the other two sources cannot be used to maintain Load. See Appendix A for details of how the proposed oil-fired boiler fits into the operating sequence. 2.4 2.4.1 Distribution Piping: The heat generated at the DH plant must be distributed to the various end-users. This is done by pumping hot water through distribution pipes to each building. Traditionally, the piping used in this part of Alaska is a rigid system of pre-insulated piping. A carrier pipe carries the fluid; this is standard steel piping. Rigid foam insulation surrounds the carrier, and insulation in turn is protected by an outer spiral-wound metal jacket. See Figure 5 below Figure 5, traditional “arctic pipe” This system provide superior heat loss characteristics (i.e. very low losses), but it is expensive, and installation must be very well planned. It is expensive primarily because the whole piping system is rigid. It must therefore be installed below the permafrost — in Fort Yukon this means 18 to 20 feet deep. The required trenching is expensive, requires large equipment, and takes time. Installation must be well planned out because it is difficult to modify in the field. Cutting a piece to length means cutting through all three layers; it is difficult to get a clean cut and subsequent clean connection to the next piece. For that reason, the system is typically laid out in great detail in the plans, and each piece and each fitting made for a specific spot in the system. Thus any mistakes in fabrication or any damage to a piece in the field can take a long time to repair. If the proposed Fort Yukon DH Plants had to rely on this traditional piping system, the payback would be significantly extended. Instead, the basis of design is a flexible, pre- insulated system that uses a plastic carrier pipe. The carrier piping is constructed of cross-linked polyester, or PEX. The piping comes on rolls that are dozens or hundreds of feet long. Standard easy to install fittings are used anywhere in the piping to connect end-to-end, tee, or elbow as required. The piping can be obtained as a single pipe within a pipe (outer layer), or even supply and return in one common outer layer pipe. Figure 6 shows an example of a PEX system: Alaska Wood Energy Associates 40f8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 2.4.2 Figure 6, Pex piping Because the system is flexible, it can be installed in the active layer of the soil — the proposed depth in Fort Yukon is 48 to 60 inches deep. Connections are simple, so the layout does not need to be planned in great detail. Because it comes in rolls, hundred of feet of piping can be laid out in very little time. Trenches are shallow and simpler to construct. The most significant negative aspect of the PEX system as opposed to the traditional system is that the insulation is not as effective. Piping losses are greater with the PEX system, and piping losses can have a significant effect on ongoing operating costs. As shown in Section 3.2, however, much of the input energy into the DH Plant is “free” recovered energy. These operational savings can be leveraged on an ongoing basis to counteract the increased piping losses, allowing Fort Yukon to realize the first cost savings associated with the PEX system without the additional piping losses excessively damaging the project financials. In the DH plant calculations, all segments of the piping were individually sized based on the expected peak flow rate. However, in order to standardize sizes and inventory, and simply the installation even further, only three sizes were included in the final design (and cost estimate). These are 2”, 4”, and (2) x 4”. The latter is not a size; the maximum size carrier pipe in the PEX system is 4”. When this is not enough, the intent is to use two parallel 4” pipes (2 x supply and 2 x return). The supply and return mains will be connected at intervals to equalize flow and pressure drop. This not only provides significant capacity for future expansion, it means that damage to one main need not shut down the whole system. This would not be the first installation of the PEX system in rural Alaska; thousands of feet of this type piping were recently installed in McGrath in less than one week. Pipe sizing calculations can be seen in Appendix G. Pumping. The DH plant uses a primary/secondary system. This means that within the DH Plant is a small piping loop that includes all of the heat sources, as well as some thermal storage. The secondary loop is the distribution loop which includes all the buried piping, and the connections to the end-user buildings. The primary loop piping is shown in detail in Appendix A, and the sequence of operations for the Plant is also contained in Appendix A (the controls points list for the Plants is in Appendix B). The heat sources are connected to the primary loop in the order the heat is preferentially taken — the heat exchanger from the engine cooling loop is first, the biomass boiler(s) Alaska Wood Energy Associates 5 0f8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report second, and the oil-fired boiler last. Thus the biomass boiler adds heat only when the recovered heat cannot maintain setpoint, and the oil boiler in turn adds heat only if either/both of the other two sources cannot maintain setpoint. The thermal storage is added to primary loop because the volume of water in the loop is quite small. Thus it reacts to added heat very quickly. A biomass boiler does not react to temperature changes quickly, the way a gas or oil fired boiler can. Thus the thermal storage slows down the response time of the primary loop, allowing the biomass boiler to operate more smoothly. Three sensors in the tank at different elevations give an advance notice of the trend that the temperature loop is taking. The primary loop contains two small pumps, each constant volume and each sized for 100 percent of the pumping load. The secondary loop, on the other hand, contains two much larger pumps, each variable speed (to save energy) and each sized for 100 percent of the pumping load. These pumps must pump all the way out to the farthest building and back. This system volume is quite large, and has no heat sources connected, so no thermal storage is used. Between the primary and secondary loops is a heat exchanger. This transfers heat between the loops, but keeps them physically separate. At the building connection(s), two way control valves are used to control the transfer of heat to the end-users. As the loads decrease, the valves modulate closed. This raises the differential pressure between the supply and return piping in the distribution loop. As this happens, the control system modulates the speed of the secondary pumps down (using the associated variable frequency drives), driving the system differential back down to its setpoint. An increase in Load likewise results in the pumps speeding up. Varying the speed of these large pumps in response to Load creates significant energy savings compared to constant speed pumps. In order to cover such large piping system, three differential pressure sensors are used at different locations — the system uses the lowest of the three signals to modulate the pump speed, ensuring that all parts of the system get adequate flow. 2.5 Recovered Heat Integration Diagrammatically, the integration of recovered heat into the DH Plant is covered in detail in Appendix A and Appendix F. The concept is very simple. The cooling loop from the operating engine(s) producing power in the power plant is routed first to the DH Plant. In the DH Plant, the hot cooling water flows through a heat exchanger. A three-way control valve on the cooling loop side of the exchanger controls how much heat is rejected to the primary DH loop. If the valve is wide open, all the flow goes through the heat exchanger. A temperature sensor in the primary loop compares the supply temperature to the setpoint. If the supply temperature is below setpoint, the three-way valve will be wide open, extracting as much heat as possible from the cooling loop. If this is not enough heat for to meet the Load, additional wood or oil heat will be added to primary loop as required. If the Load is less than the available recovered heat, the three-way valve will modulate as required to maintain the loop at setpoint. On the cooling loop side, the water leaving the DH Plant, having flowed either through the heat exchanger or through the valve bypass, will return to the power plant cooler than it left. It will then flow to the engine radiators. If it is already cooler the radiator setpoint temperature, then the radiator fans will not come on — the water continues back to the engine jacket to start the cycle Alaska Wood Energy Associates 6 of 8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report over. If the water from the DH Plant is warmer than the radiator setpoint, the fans will comes on as needed to cool the water, and send it back to the jacket. 2.6 Building Integration Once in the building mechanical room, the new hot water distribution piping will be tied into the existing hot water supply and return lines that feed the existing boilers. Typically, four 2-position, 2-way automatic isolation valves will be installed in the piping, as shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9 below. The position of these valves will determine whether the heat comes from the oil-fired boiler, the DH Plant, or both. The existing building pumps will continue to serve the building heating load. The valves that control the origin of the heat will be controlled by the existing building controls where they exist, or by a small dedicated control panel if needed. If this proves too costly for very small installations, the switchover can always be done with manual valves, but this relies on an operator being present. Figure 7 below shows a typical installation for two oil fired boilers. In this scenario, each boiler is sized for 100 percent of the load; the boilers are manually alternated so that they get roughly equal run time. In all cases (figures7, 8, and 9), light solid lines indicate existing equipment and piping, dark solid lines depict new equipment and piping, and light dashed lines show the water flow through the system. For convenience, it is assumed in all cases that Oil Fired Boiler — 1 is the active boiler, and boiler 2 would be isolated using the associated manual isolation valve. HWS is hot water supply to the building, HWR is hot water return from the building. HWS HW PUMPS OIL FIRED BOILER — 1 Nl OIL FIRED BOILER — 2 x Figure 7, oil-fired heating plant Figure 8 shows the initial configuration of the combined oil and DH Plant, with the Plant providing all the heat. In Figures 8 and 9, the “wood-fired boiler” represents hot water heat from the DH Plant. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 7 of 8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report «5s agrenpneccane—iinnanneuenciien eanwerees mw a + <= Ge = = S 3 L I OIL FIRED BOILER h sale Hi €) Figure 8, combined oil and DH Plant, all heat from DH In the event that the DH plant cannot meet the building setpoint for any reason, the two systems can operate in series. The lack of adequate heat from the DH Plant could range from small to total (a plant failure), but the operation would remain the same — the oil-fired boiler would simply add enough heat to maintain setpoint, whether this is 1 percent or 100 percent of Load. This is shown in Figure 9. @ > >—— HWR > AUTO <i— VALVE ® (TYP) ee 4 Bey ! a | ' g@ 3 ] y ; bs co a Ss z a a IK be ge | + | ee = — @uj ful uy 25 290 €) Sa Sa Figure9, combined oil and DH Plant, boil r heat in series with Plant heat Alaska Wood Energy Associates 8 of 8 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Section 3: Feasibility 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.2.1 Methodology Limits. As with any performance evaluations, the quality and validity of the outputs and subsequent conclusions depends on the quality of the inputs and the methodology. Methodology is discussed in Section 3.1.2 below. The input data gathered for used in the analyses performed as a part of this study include: > Building specific data > Historical Fort Yukon PCE (electrical consumption) data > Proposed DH Plant equipment data > Annual oil consumption, by building > Annualized weather data (bin data) from the Fort Yukon airport > Site observations > Interviews with operating personnel > Interviews and meetings with Village and Corporation personnel > Village maps and plans > Interviews with Civil Engineers, contractors, and consultants with significant experience in the interior of Alaska > Pricing data from boiler manufacturers, piping suppliers and other AK vendors > Performance data from Wiessmann and Caterpillar > Input from other Alaska Wood Energy Associate team members What was not performed a part of this analysis was detailed measurements of building heat loads and existing equipment performance. A building heating load profile is central to predicting annual fuel consumption (see 3.1.2 below). Ideally, this would be generated by directly measuring heating load throughout the year. At the same time, the actual operating efficiency of the existing boilers and distribution system would be measured. This would provide a highly detailed profile of heating load and the energy required to meet that load, for any condition throughout the year. In practical terms, however, the required measurements are difficult to perform, and not cost-effective. The equipment needed to make these measurements is not present at any of the installations in the villages, and would have to be flown in and installed. The measurements would need to continue from winter to summer, to generate a complete load profile. The resulting incremental increase in the accuracy of the load profile cannot justify that level of cost. As Section 3.1.2 explains, even without the measurements, the data that were collected limit the load profiles to within a narrow range of values. Methodology. Energy Savings. The performance of the existing and proposed heating systems was modeled using a spreadsheet; the type of model used is known as a “bin model”. In this case, the bins are ranges of outside air temperatures (OATs). Temperature bins are used because heating load is very closely correlated to OAT. Each “bin” of OAT is 2 deg F wide — for instance, 40 - 42 deg F is a bin, with the midpoint temperature of 41 deg F. For each OAT bin, the heating load profile assigns a heating load to that temperature bin. The actual “bin data” is the number of hours per year that the outside air temperature falls into each specific bin. Bin weather data is published for numerous sites, including many in Alaska. However, Fort Yukon is not one of those sites. Therefore, actual hourly temperature data from the Fort Yukon airport was used to construct a bin table for this site. The weather data came from calendar years 2007 and 2008, the last two complete years. The data were Alaska Wood Energy Associates 10f7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report combined to come up the average number of hours per year that the OAT in Fort Yukon falls into each bin. This was done a on a monthly basis — for instance, the data in Figure 10 show the spread of temperatures in three different bins; 80 to 82 deg F, 40 to 42 deg F, and -20 to -22 deg F. The data show that on average, the OAT falls into the -20 to -22 deg F bin 6.5 hours in October, and 18.5 hours in January. If there are no hours within the given bin for a specific month, the cell remains blank; there are zero hours per year when the outside air temperature falls into the 80 to 82 deg F bin January, February, March, April, May, August, September, October, November, or December, for instance. Bin hours, Fort Yukon Airport Data, average of 2007 / 08 bin mid 744 672 744 720 744 720 744 744 720 744 720 744 pt 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 degF Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul_— Aug Sep Oct Nov__Dec total 81: 14.0 95 : 23.5 41: 240 290 20 O05 17.0 365 0.5 2 109.5 (21): 185 108 14.0 65 21.5 32.5 : 103.8 Figure 10, FY bin data In the calculations performed within the model, individual calculations are completed in a series of tables that have the same format at the original bin temperature data (see Appendix G for extensive sample calculations). Figure 11below shows a portion of a calculation used in this study. Predicted heat load profile, biomass plant, kBTU/h bin piping mid bldgs_ plant losses total pt 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 KBTU/h_kBTU/h_kBTU/h kKBTU/h degF _ Jan Feb Mar Apr _May Jun Jul-Aug __ Sep 1,223 14 423 1,660 41: 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,660 1,300 16 428 1,744 39: 1,744 1,744 1,744 1,744 1,744 1,744 1,376 19 432 1,827 37 : 1,827 1,827 1,827 1,827 1,827 1,453 22 436 1,911 35: 1,911 1,911 1,911 1,911 1,911 1,530 25 440 1,995 33 : 1,995 1,995 1,995 1,995 1,995 Figure 11, partial bin model In the columns to the left, the building heat load, DH Plant heat load, and piping loss heat load are calculated; the fourth column shows the total load on the DH Plant. The next column shows the midpoint of the temperature bin represented. Proceeding to the right, the load is expressed in each month in which there are hours within the bin. For instance, in all five bins shown, there are no hours within that bin in January — so the load is not expressed anywhere in the January column shown. In June, only the top two bins shown have any hours, so the load is expressed only in those two bins. After all the loads are distributed across the table, the SUMPRODUCT function is used — that is, for each month, each load is multiplied by the number of hours within the associated bin, and all of those products are summed to calculate the total BTU of heat required that month. Subsequent calculations are done to determine how much oil/wood/recovered heat is required to meet that load — one table for each energy source (complex rules determine which source is the primary, secondary, or tertiary source in each load condition). Once Alaska Wood Energy Associates 20f7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 3.1.2.2 the required oil (for instance) is calculated for each spot in the table, the SUMPRODUCT function sums up all the oil require for each month. This is the basic format of the calculations. The basis of all calculations is the heating load profiles for each building included in the study. These load profiles reflect all the information available about the building, such as heating equipment capacity, operating data, historical oil consumption data, size and type of building, etc. As noted above, it is difficult to measure heat load directly, but simple to measure oil consumption. So the first profiles generated are oil consumption profiles. These profiles assign a specific oil consumption rate to each OAT bin. Using the calculation format above, the model calculates the amount of oil required to heat each building, and then compares that to known consumption — obviously, the model must be able to back-predict known consumption if it is to be used to predict future consumption. Once the oil consumption profiles are verified, the oil consumption profile is converted to a space heating load profile, by multiplying BTU of input heat (oil) times the efficiency of the boiler/furnace to arrive at the actual heat to the space. Once these space load profiles are generated (see Figure 11 above), they are fixed. No matter what heat source is used, or how great any parasitic or piping losses are, any proposed DH Plant must at the end of the day deliver that same amount of BTUs to the space as the current oil-fired appliance do. Once the space load profiles are established, the spreadsheet models the various DH Plants to determine how much energy they would consume to provide this required space heat. As noted above, in addition to producing a set amount of BTU for space heat, a DH Plant must produce enough BTUs to heat the plant itself (parasitic loss) and to overcome the heat lost from the distribution piping into the ground (piping losses). Finally, the model must calculate how much pumping (electrical) energy must be used to get the heat to the buildings. Once inside the buildings, the electrical energy used for pumping is the same for the existing systems as it would be with a DH Plant in place, so this energy is not calculated or accounted for in the model. Additional key load profile assumptions: > Space heating load varies linearly with OAT (a 10 deg F drop in OAT results in twice the increase in load that a 5 deg F drop causes) > There is an OAT at which space heating stops — the OAT combined with the internal loads in the building (people, lights, equipment) are such that no additional heat is required; beyond this temperature, the only load is DHW. The model assumes no space heating above 60 deg F. > However, there is heating required above 60 deg F, for heating recirculating water in the village and domestic hot water in some of the buildings. Recovered Heat. Just as with heating loads, a “recovered heat” profile is generated. This profile assigns a specific village power requirement to each temperature bin. This is less straightforward than assigning heat loads versus OAT, because the correlation between village power and OAT is not as strong — there is a also a time-of-day component to power output. However, bin models predict long term average performance, not hour-by-hour performance. A bin model that predicts consumption accurately on a monthly basis is generally as specific as is required — most utilities bill and/or report consumption on a monthly basis Plotting average monthly temperature versus monthly kWh for 2007 (the last calendar year for which complete PCE data were available when the plot was done) resulted in a scatter of data points. A best-fit curve could be constructed, and when used to predict demand kW at each OAT bin point, it would accurately predict annual electrical Alaska Wood Energy Associates 3 0f7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report consumption. However, it could not predict consumption monthly to within acceptable levels (some months were plus or minus 20 percent of more). However, it was noticed that the data points grouped themselves into two sets. Applying a separate curve to the two “sets” of points resulted in Figure 12 below: Predicted Power Plant Output v Outside Air Temperature (deg F) kw 500 Jan Feb 450 Apr May 400 Jun Nov 350 Dec 300 Mar 2 . 0.000670 x° - 0.062986 x? - 1.210620 x + 441.930189 ie a 200 R‘ = 0.995150 Sep Oct 150 100¥ = 0.000361x° - 0.026334x” - 1.096686x + 328.569925 R? = 0.994604 50 0 T (30.0) (10.0) 10.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 Figure 12, village demand v OAT The top curve represents the data from the months shown in dark blue, the bottom curve the remaining months in maroon. It is not known why the correlation to OAT would change from month to month, but in general, the dark blue months are colder (except June) and the maroon months are warmer (except Mar). However, the R42 correlations are extremely high (in excess of 99 percent). Using these curves to predict demand kW should produce valid results. Figure 13 below shows the monthly results: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual PCE: 337,000 289,000 250,000 263,000 231,000 203,000 181,000 187,000 187,000 226,000 310,000 335,000 2,999,000 Predicted: 332,164 303,905 255,490 260,598 235,760 206,866 184,489 186,007 190,868 224,718 309,951 331,882 3,022,697 delta: 4,836 (14,905) (5,490) 2,402 (4,760) (3,866) (3,489) 993 (3,868) 1,282 49 3,118 (23,697) delta: 0.015 (0.049) (0.021) 0.009 (0.020) (0.019) (0.019) 0.005 (0.020) 0.006 0.000 0.009 (0.008) Figure 13, correlation of predicted power to actual The first line is the actual 2007 PCE data, kWh. The second line is the energy predicted by the model, applying the OAT bin data to the demand kW predicted by the two curves above. The third line is the delta (change in) on a unit basis, that is, in kWh. The final line is the delta as a fraction of the known PCE data. The table shows a deviation between actual and predicted of 0.8 percent (0.008) on an annual basis. More importantly, the magnitude of the largest monthly deviation is 4.9 percent (Feb), while the smallest is November, when the predicted value matches the actual value to within 49 kWh out of 310,000 (0.02 percent deviation). Alaska Wood Energy Associates 40f7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report These curves provided a means to accurately predict power demand as a function of temperature, but that is not the value needed for modeling DH Plant performance. What is needed is the amount of heat is available for heat recovery as a function of OAT. However, using the engine-generator manufacturer's data, a curve was constructed to calculate the available heat as a function of power output. So the bin model first generates a bin table of power demand for each bin by month, then a subsequent table calculates the heat recovery available for each bin by month. The model then calculates how much additional heat input in the form of wood or oil is required to meet the DH Plant load. Figure 14 shows the relationship between kW demand and heat available for recovery; this is specific to the Cat 3456 generator on order by Fort Yukon (see Section 1): Available Heat Recovery v Generator Output kBTU/h 1,000.0 900.0 800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 ° - n 1 kw OO 100 200 300 400 500 y = 0.00248005 x? + 0.40959380 x + 217.12721696 R? = 0.99814871 Figure 14, available heat recovery v power output These three profiles, the “existing” oil consumption profiles, the building heat load profiles, and the profiles of heat available for recovery represent a baseline condition — the state of the things as they exists now in Fort Yukon. The model is set up to first model these elements, and then it can be modified to calculate the performance of the proposed DH Plants. The following is the list of other calculations made in order to predict performance. Other than the calculations relating to the DH Plant piping (flow rates, distance, pipe size, etc), all of these calculation took the form of bin tables as described above (again, sample calculations can be found in Appendix G): Proposed routing of DH pipe and associated lengths Peak flow rate required by each building Size of piping run-out to each building Size of each segment of the piping mains (any pipe that serves more than one building) Minimum and maximum heat loss in each segment and run-out and bin profile > DH Plant parasitic heating load profile vvvyv v Alaska Wood Energy Associates 5 of7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report > DH Plant heating load (building profile plus parasitic profile plus piping loss profile) Useable recovered heat profile and bin calculation (month by month) Wood energy input profile and bin calculation (month by month) Oil energy input profile and bin calculation (month by month) Pumping energy input profile and bin calculation (month by month) vvvyv 3.1.2.3 Cost Estimates. The other component required to calculate the payback of any given scenario is the cost. One estimate was prepared for each proposed DH Plant (see Appendix C for a copy of the cost estimates). The current cost estimates contains the . best knowledge of the team members regarding construction in Bush Alaska. As the final design proceeds, these costs estimates will be constantly updated to reflect the current design. Ultimately, actual vendor quotes and contractor’s estimates or bids will be used for the final cost estimates. 3.2 Results Financial results are provided in Sections 1 and 4, and in Appendix F. This section details the engineering results of the performance model, specifically how each proposed DH plant performs in the complementary goals of displacing as much oil as possible, using as much “free” heat (recovered heat) as possible, and utilizing the village resources appropriately to reduce the village’s energy dependence. Figures 15 through 19 show the engineering/energy performance of the five proposed DH Plants. In all cases, the preferred option, Maximum Plant 1, is shaded. Inputs Base Exp 1 current annual oil consumption, connected blidgs, gal : 107,807 136,807 proposed annual oil consumption, gal : 4,038 10,071 5,370 proposed annual wood consumption, green tons : 899 1,349 1,099 proposed annual electrical energy consumption, kWh : 138,287 210,730 161,721 fraction of oil displaced : 0.963 0.926 0.955 Figure 15, Plant Inputs The amount of oil displaced ranges from 92 percent to 100 percent (actually slightly less, but even rounded to three places, it appears as 100 percent). The Max 2 Plant has the highest percentage of oil displaced; this is because it is the only plant with two biomass boilers, allowing it to cover both the very bottom of the range as well as the top. The other plants have only one boiler, and must thus use oil to fill the gaps when the recovered heat is not quite enough, and on the very coldest days when the biomass boiler capacity is not quite enough. Figures 16 and 17 show the breakdown of heat sources for each DH Plant. Figure 16 shows the data in KBTU, while Figure 17 shows the same data in fractions. Heat Sources, unit Base Exp 1 Exp 2 annual heat from oil, KBTU : 449,103 1,120,118 597,292 annual heat recovered from Power Plant, KBTU : 5,285,120 5,513,598 5,407,258 annual heat from wood chips, KBTU : 8,030,058 12,046,738 9,808,062 5,559,001 16,142,238 Figure 16, Heat Sources (units) Alaska Wood Energy Associates 6 of 7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Heat Sources, fraction Base Exp 1 Exp 2 annual heat from oil : 0.033 0.060 0.038 annual heat recovered from Power Plant : 0.384 0.295 0.342 annual heat from wood chips : 0.583 0.645 0.620 Figure 17, Heat Sources (fractions) The ability of each Plant to use recovered heat (as a fraction of total input heat) depends both on the size of the Plant and the boiler selection. In a smaller Plant, such as Base, the recovered heat naturally comprises more of the input energy, because the overall capacity of the Plant is much smaller than others. Exp 2 is only slightly larger than Base in terms of Load), so it also receives more than a third of its input energy from recovered heat. Equally interesting is where the output heat goes. Figures 18 and 19 show this distribution, again in units of kBTU and then fractions of total. The DH Plant load (parasitic load) is a constant in all plant in KBTU terms, so naturally it drops as fraction of total as the Plant size gets bigger. Piping losses, on the other hand, vary in both absolute and relative terms, based on the length of size of the distribution piping required. Heat Sinks, unit Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 2 annual heat to buildings, KBTU : 11,990,295 15,215,675 13,384,660 17,277,360 annual heat to piping losses, KBTU : 1,397,094 3,087,885 2,051,057 4,055,091 annual heat to plant, KBTU : 376,894 376,894 376,894 376,894 Figure 18, Heat Sinks (units) Heat Sinks, fraction Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 2 annual heat to buildings : 0.871 0.815 0.846 0.796 annual heat to piping losses : 0.102 0.165 0.130 0.187 annual heat to plant : 0.027 0.020 0.024 0.017 Figure 19, Heat Sinks (fractions) Piping losses are an important criterion for evaluating the plants. This heat, unlike the DH Plant load, is a complete loss. In essence, it can be thought of as the Plant efficiency, much like a boiler has an efficiency. It is calculated the same way — heat delivered divided by input heat. The Exp 2 Plant, for instance, would have a “heat delivery” efficiency of (1.0 — 0.175) = 0.825 = 82.5 percent. In a stand-alone DH Plant, that 17.5 percent loss would have to paid for in fuel costs. However, because the proposed plants all use recovered heat from the co-located engine generator, this mitigates much of the impact of the losses. Note that in all cases, the percent of input heat from recovered heat is greater than the losses. The recovered heat is thus a major factor in the cost effectiveness of any of these Plants. This data is all included in the Summary sheets in Appendix F. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 7 of7 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Section 4: Financial Metrics, Sensitivity Analysis 41 Financial Metrics The date, the funding mechanism(s) for the project have not been determined. For that reason, the current financial model does not include the effects of the cost of money, or required rates of return on investment. The intent is that some or all the money come in the form of grants, which would carry no future obligation as debt and/or equity would do. Until the funding mechanism is known, the financial model uses the simplest of key metrics — the net simple payback of the project. This is simply defined here as the cost of the project in dollars divided by the savings (over the current means of the heating) in dollars per year (year 1), resulting ina NSP in years. Figures 3A and 3B in the Section 1 show the NSP of the various DH Plants under two sets of assumptions. Appendix F shows the entire Summary sheets for the overall project, and for each individual DH Plant 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis The base level resource assumptions are tabulated in Section 1.3 (abbreviated) and in Appendix F (in full). Figure 2 from Section 1.3, reproduced here, shows the base level cost and unit heat content assumptions. Base Level Resource Assumptions electrical energy : $0.48 per kWh 3,412 BTU/kWh No. 1 oil : $4.00 per gal 134,000 BTU/gal wood chips : $175.00 per green ton 5,315 BTU/Ib unit costs electricalenegy: $140.68 permmBTU No. 1 oil : $29.85 per mmBTU wood chips : $16.46 per mmBTU Figure 2, Base Level Resource Assumptions (reproduced from Section 1.3) As shown, there are three primary energy inputs to the DH Plant(s), electrical energy, No. 1 oil, and wood chips. Currently, there is only one primary energy input in the village (for heating), No. 1 oil. In the sensitivity tables and graphs that follow, two input costs are held constant, and one of the three is varied. This provides insight into how sensitive the project is to shifts in cost of the major cost component, input energy. In Figure 20, the cost of electrical energy is varied as the cost of oil and wood are held constant. electrical Net Simple Payback in Years (basis of study in Bold) unit cost Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 $0.36: 12.0 14.8 12.2 13.7 17.2 $0.48 : 13.1 17.0 13.5 14.8 20.0 $0.60 : 14.3 20.0 15.0 16.2 24.0 $0.72 : 15.8 24.2 17.0 17.8 30.1 $0.84: 17.7 30.8 19.4 19.8 40.1 cost of oil is constant at $4.00/gal cost of wood is constant at $175/green ton Figure 20, sensitivity table, electrical energy Alaska Wood Energy Associates 1 of 4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report As the table shows, the net simple payback of the project is not especially sensitive to the cost of electrical energy — a 75 percent increase in the cost of the energy causes the NSP to increase by only about 35 percent. This can seen graphically in Figure 21; the slope of the lines are not particularly steep (see Figure 23). It can also been seen that the slope is increasing as the cost of energy increases; thus less dramatic increases in electrical costs have even smaller effects on project financials. Net Simple Payback vs Cost of Electrical Energy yrs 38 Base “ Exp 1 35 Exp 2 basis of study Max 1 30 Max 2 25 20 15 106 $$ pe |, $0.36 $0.48 $0.60 $0.72 $0.84 Figure 21, sensitivity graph, electrical energy Figures 22 and 23 below show the effects of changes in cost of No. 1 oil. These effects are significantly greater than those associated with the cost of electricity. This is because oil is the primary energy input in the “existing” case (i.e. the current means of heating the village). oil Net Simple Payback in Years (basis of study in Bold) unit cost Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 $3.00 : 28.6 67.2 34.2 43.0 133.4 $4.00 : 13.1 17.0 13.5 14.8 20.0 $5.00 : 8.5 9.7 8.4 8.9 10.8 $6.00 : 6.3 6.8 6.1 6.4 74 $7.00 : 5.0 5.2 48 5.0 5.6 $8.00 _: 41 4.3 3.9 41 46 cost of wood is constant at $175/green ton cost of electrical energy is constant at $0.48/kWh Figure 22, sensitivity table, oil energy The financial effect of changes in the price of oil is the opposite of those associated with changes in the cost of electricity or wood; because oil is the sole source of energy in the “existing” case (and only a very small input to the DH Plants), an increase in the cost of oil increases the value of the project. This can be seen in Figure 23 — the slope of the curves is opposite that of the curves in Figures 21 and 25. Note that because of the greater sensiticity of the NSP to the cost of oil, the scale of the Y axis had to be expanded. This allows the effect of a drop in oil cost to be shown, but it also masks the significance of increases in oil cost, by flattening out the slope of the curves to the right of the Base Level case. Figure 23, however, shows that an increase in the cost of oil by 50 Alaska Wood Energy Associates 2of4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report percent represents a drop of more than 50 percent in NSP. A doubling of the oil cost decreases the NSP by close to 75 percent. The most significant effect, however, is a decrease in the price of oil from $4.00 per gallon (Base Level) to $3.00 per gallon; the NSP increases 300 percent or more. Resource prices can be volatile, however, the long term price of oil in the village is expected to rise. Therefore, the team believes the Base Level price of $4.00 per gallon to be conservative, and a reasonable Base Level to use for this analysis. Net Simple Payback vs Cost of Oil yrs 90 $i basis of study Base ad en Exp 1 120 Exp 2 Max 1 100 Max 2 80 60 40 20 0 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 Figure 23, sensitivity graph, oil energy Figures 24 and 25 show the effects of changes in the price of wood chips. The magnitude of these effects is almost identical to the effect of the price changes for electrical energy. wood Net Simple Payback in Years (basis of study in Bold) unit cost Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 $125.00 : 10.6 12.2 10.5 10.8 13.4 $150.00 : 11.7 14.2 11.8 12.5 16.1 $175.00 : 13.1 17.0 13.5 14.8 20.0 $200.00 : 14.8 21.2 15.8 18.1 26.6 $225.00 : 17.1 28.2 19.0 23.4 39.6 cost of oil is constant at $4.00/gal cost of electrical energy is constant at $0.48/kWh Figure 24, sensitivity table, wood energy Alaska Wood Energy Associates 3 of 4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Fort Yukon, Alaska Net Simple Payback vs Cost of Wood yrs 45 40 35 basis of study 30 25 20 15 10 eI ee ek ee Cite —_ $125.00 $150.00 $175.00 Figure 25, sensitivity graph, wood energy $200.00 $225.00 Final Design Process Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 35 Percent Report Another assumption contained within the Base Level resource assumptions is the heat content of the wood chips. However, the sensitivity of the project to the heat content of the chips is essentially the same as that of the cost of wood chips — if the chips have less unit heat, one would simply have to buy more of them. Thus a drop in heat content has a one-to-one relationship with the cost of wood, and has the same effect on the project as an increase in wood chips costs. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 40f4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix A: One-line Diagram and Sequence of Operations for Proposed DH Plants: Alaska Wood Energy Associates fov.er.1} , _[ePTPLt] [ IF PLANT HAS (2) BIOMASS BOILERS , ~ 1 TO/FROM | POWER pe PLANT av M a | 5 = “ a 1 Y / \ Y ¥ = E a | } 18 @ Ay 7 olL— |BiOMASS| | 2 |BIOMASS z/e FIRED JBOILER | — |BOILER = FH A i =" | GENERATOR 5 ! Ly Loop Hx [etd 8 eee 3 z z Qf posa narra i 5 pe ee i Cn a re a a a cee CV.PL.1 PRIMARY 4 ( ; PUMPS CONTROL rn [cVv.SL.1] (| EXP TANK) BO VALVE (TYP), ACTUATORS THERMAL | ! ary STORAGE || Y | TANK | AIR SEPARATOR 1 ! PHWR ——> fl TEMP i FLOW TRANSIATTER ; PRIMARY io eas SECONDARY (TYP) TO/FROM LOOP HX DH LOOP HWS: SHWR < ‘ SHWR < HOT WATER [FM.SL.1] SUPPLY SHWS ——>SHWS > A TT.SS.4 HWR: er the ee J A RETURN oO SECONDARY (dPT.SL.1 / DISTRIBUTION) [dPT.SL.2] Hx: 2 oO UMPS [dPT.SL.3] HEAT / | | 1 EXCHANGER r-{ veo} / SHOWS CONTROL weo os dPT! A P: t—{_vFD_}~” (TYP) Ha it PRIMARY / ee en 4 S palletes ect Aled teers S: SECONDARY HEAT RECOVERY DH PLANT INTERFACE Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Sequence of Operations: Abbreviations: BB: Biomass Boiler CGL: Generator Cooling Loop CV: Control Valve dP: delta P (the change in Pressure) FM: Flow Meter: IV: Isolation Valve (motor actuated valves, used only for isolating equipment) OB: Oil Boiler PL: Primary Loop PS: Primary Supply SL: Secondary Loop SS: Secondary Supply TT Temperature Transmitter Heat Transfer Heat transfer in BTUs is measured at two points; in the generator cooling loop, and the in the secondary, or distribution loop. The measurement is made by multiplying the difference between the supply and return temperatures times the mass rate of the system. The mass rate itself is calculated — the flow meters [FM.GCL.1] and [FM.SL.1] measure volumetric flow rate, which is then converted into mass rate via an internal calculation. Heat transfer from the generator cooling loop is measured for accounting purposes. Depending on the final ownership of the district heating plant (DH Plant) and the Power Plant (P Plant), it may necessary that these BTUs be tracked. Heat Transfer into the secondary loop is tracked for control purposes (see below) and also as a diagnostic. The heat transfer to each client is measured and recorded for billing/tracking purposed. The difference between the measured heat rate that leaves the DH plant, and the sum of the client heat rates is the system losses. These losses consist primarily of heat lost from the piping into the ground. By tracking this differential, the DH Plant operators can see if significant increases in losses occur, and so knowing, can track down the reason for the increase. Secondary (distribution) Loop A. Flow Control: There are three delta P transmitters ([dPT.SL.1, 2, and 3]) located within the secondary (distribution) piping. These transmitters measure the pressure differential between the secondary supply piping and the secondary return piping. The control system modulates the Lead Secondary Pump speed via the variable frequency drive (VFD) to maintain the supply-return dP setpoint, based on the lowest of the three dP values received from the transmitters. B. Pump Lead/Lag: Each pump is designed for 100 percent of the required flow. The operating pump is designated the Lead pump, the backup is the Lag pump. The Lead and Lag pump designations shall switch on the first of each calendar month, as noon on that day. In the event of a Lead pump failure, the Lag pump shall immediately become the Lead pump, and the failed pump, the Lag pump. After a failure, the scheduled monthly Lead / Lag designation switch shall be suspended until the operator re-enables the switch. This is to prevent the system from trying to switch operations to a failed pump. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 10f5 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report C Temperature Control: 1. Setpoint: Secondary Loop Setpoint is reset based on outside air temperature. Above 50 deg F OAT, setpoint shall be 140 deg F. Below 20 deg F, setpoint shall be 185 deg F. Between the 20 and 50 deg F, the setpoint shall vary linearly between the endpoint values. 2. Control: The control valve [CV.SL.1] located at the primary / secondary heat exchanger (HX) modulates to maintain the secondary loop heating water supply setpoint, as measured at [TT.SS. 1]. IV_ Primary (plant) Loop A. Flow Control: The primary pumps are constant speed. However, there is a bypass between primary supply and return that controls flow from supply to return. The control valve [CV.dP.1] modulates to maintain the supply-return differential pressure setpoint, measured at [dPT.PL.1]. B. Pump Lead/Lag: Each pump is designed for 100 percent of the required flow. The operating pump is designated the Lead pump, the backup is the Lag pump. The Lead and Lag pump designations shall switch on the first of each calendar month, as noon on that day. In the event of a Lead pump failure, the Lag pump shall immediately become the Lead pump, and the failed pump, the Lag pump. After a failure, the scheduled monthly Lead / Lag designation switch shall be suspended until the operator re-enables the switch. This is to prevent the system from trying to switch operations to a failed pump. C. Temperature Control: 1. The primary loop setpoint is set at 5.0 deg F higher than the secondary loop setpoint. 2. The primary loop temperature is measured by the transmitter [TT.PL.1], which is located downstream of the thermal storage tank. The signals from this transmitter are used to control both the control valve at the generator cooling loop HX and the firing rates of all of the boilers. 3. The primary purpose of the thermal storage tank is to provide a “thermal flywheel” for what is a very small system in terms of the amount of water in the system. a. Inasystem with a minimal amount of water, temperature control is difficult, because a small input of heat can result in a large change in temperature. b. The thermal storage tank provide extra volume (mass), which helps dampen the speed of temperature changes, and makes control easier. c. However, because the transmitter that provide temperature control is downstream of the tank, there is a lag between an input of heat, and the resulting rise in temperature at [TT.PL.1]. To help make the control more accurate, there are three temperature transmitters in the tank at different elevations within the tank (not shown on drawing). Alaska Wood Energy Associates 20f5 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report d. This means the temperature controls must be set to react slowly, but because of the transmitters within the tank, it means that the controls can see how the system temperature is trending. 1) This is an ideal scheme for the biomass boilers, which want use the knowledge of how the tank temperatures are trending to make slow and small changes in firing rate. 2) During the commissioning process, the control valve on the HX [CV.PL.1] will be tuned to match the control speed to the reaction of the system. 3) Also during commissioning, the rate at which control signal are sent to the oil-fired boiler will be tuned to match the system response. D. Temperature and Flow Control, as load increases: 1. General: In this Section, BB max equals the maximum output of the biomass boilers. If there is only one, then BB max equals the capacity of that boiler. If there are two, then BB max equals the sum of the two boiler capacities. BB min equals the minimum turndown capacity of the smallest biomass boiler in the plant (there may be one or two). This is estimated at 40 percent of the rated capacity of the smallest biomass boiler. HR is the available heat recovery from the generator cooling loop. 2. Case 1: Load is less than available heat recovery (HR). a. Control valve [CV.PL.1] modulates to maintain primary loop setpoint. As long as Load remain less than HR, no other action is required. When the Load exceeds the available heat recovery, the loop temperature measured at [TT.PS.1] will fall below setpoint. In all cases, all primary flow goes through the generator loop HX. In this case, because the recovered heat can meet the Plant Load, all of the water flows through the downstream bypass from supply to return. The valve [CV.dP.1] modulates to maintain dP setpoint. Because the primary pump flow is constant, and the flow through the HX does not vary, this valve holds a constant position once it has reached setpoint. 3. Case 2: Load is greater than HR, Load is less than BB min. a. In this Case, the operator cannot meet the Load with only the recovered heat, and he cannot start a biomass boiler. Because the Load is less than BB min, the biomass boiler would not be able to remain on, and would attempt to cycle, which is not recommended. Therefore, the control system starts up the oil boiler. The system uses two pieces of information to determine the Case: 1) Heat recovery alone cannot meet load: this is known because the temperature at [TT.PL.2] is less than the primary loop setpoint. 2) The Load is less than BB min: The DH plant heat load is calculated as described above in Section II, and is found to be less than BB min. Because the generator loop HX is upstream of the oil boiler, and in series with it, the system first takes all the available heat recovery; it fires the oil boiler only as required to maintain loop setpoint. This maximized the use of recovered heat. In order to start up the oil boiler, the associated isolation valve [IV.OB.1] must be opened. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 3 of 5 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 1) Each of the boiler isolation valves are two position valves (open or closed) and each is flow limited — that means the flow through the valve is a constant when it is open. 2) Each of the two (or three) boilers has a set flow rate, each of which is individually less than the total primary flow. The sum of these flow rates equals the primary flow. 3) The result of this is that except in the Case where all available boilers are operating, some water must flow through the bypass. 4) When a valve opens, the supply/return dP in the bypass drops as some of the flow is diverted through a boiler, and into the supply piping. 5) The bypass valve [CV.dP.1] modulates further closes to maintain the dP setpoint. 6) Flow is now split between the operating boiler and the bypass. 7) This pressure modulation and control occurs in this and all subsequent Cases; this description will not be repeated in further Case outlines. 4. Case 3: Load is greater than HR, Load is greater than BB min. a. At this point, the system opens [IV.BB.1] and starts the first (smallest, if there are two) biomass boiler. b. When this biomass boiler is established, the system shuts down the oil fired boiler, and closes [IV.OB.1]. c. This is the only case in which not all of the available heat recovery is used. The system selects for wood over oil, so once the Load is great enough to operate a biomass boiler, the following occurs: 1) The control valve [CV.GCL.1] slowly closes. 2) This ensures that the first biomass boiler sees the entire Load. 3) Using the control system, the biomass boiler is held at the minimum sustainable firing rate (minimum turndown). 4) As the Load increases, the boiler is held at minimum, and [CV.PL.1] modulates to maintain primary loop setpoint. This ensures that the maximum amount of recovered heat is used. 5) As Load increases further, the point will be reached when the Load is now greater than HR plus the BB min. 5. Case 4: Load is greater than HR, Load is greater than (HR + BB min). a. The control [CV.PL.1] is wide open, and all possible heat is being recovered. b. The biomass boiler controls are released from their hold at minimum. The boiler is now allowed to modulate the firing rate to maintain primary loop setpoint. c. If there is only one biomass boiler, then the boiler modulates the firing rate until the rate reaches maximum. If the primary loop temperature then falls below setpoint, the next Case is reached. d. If there are two biomass boilers: 1) The smaller boiler modulates to or near to full fire as Load increases. 2) The larger boiler is then brought on, and the smaller one shut down. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 40f5 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report 3) As Load increases, and the larger boiler modulates to or near to full fire, the smaller boiler is brought on. Both boilers modulate in unison (same percent firing rate, not same BTU output). 4) When the boilers reach maximum firing rate, and the primary loop temperature drops below setpoint, the next case is reached. 6. Case 5: Load is greater than HR, Load is greater than (HR + BB max). a. The control [CV.PL.1] is wide open, and all possible heat is being recovered. b. The biomass boiler(s) are at maximum firing rate. c. The oil fired boiler is brought on to make up the difference between the Load and recovered heat plus the biomass boiler heat. Recovered heat and biomass heat are maximized, oil heat is minimized. Alaska Wood Energy Associates 5 of 5 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix B: Control Points List for Proposed DH Plants: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Points List Fort Yukon Alaska C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph FY L3 I 1 ver 11.xIls Points List (same for all 5 proposed plants) 15 31 7 22 DH Plant AO Al BO BI main HX in and out temp 4 HR HX in and out temp 4 main HX control valve position : 1 HR HX control valve position: 1 main HX flow meter flow : 1 HR HX flow meter flow : 1 primary loop supply temp 1 primary pump _ status: 2 primary pump _stop/start : 2 secondary pump VFD _ status: 2 secondary pump VFD_ enable: 2 secondary pump VFD__ speed _: 2 secondary pump VFD alarm: 2 secondary pump VFD amps __: 2 secondary piping system deltaP_ : 3 secondary loop supply _ temp. 1 boilerin outlet temp: 3 boiler discharge setpoint temp: 3 boiler enable: 3 boiler status: 3 boiler iso valves position : 3 Stackgas temp: 3 storage tank temp: 4 emergency generator __ status 1 tank low level 1 tank low low 1 fuel oil pumpset —_ alarm 1 fuel oil pumpset enable: 1 plant oa temp 2 plant sp temp 2 UH enable: 4 UH status: 4 heattrace status: 5 four e , PLLC 10f1 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix C: Cost Estimates for Proposed DH Plants: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant soon seibiuejnclubaotunse noc uspiaianee Est Fort Yukon Alaska Cc: suments and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon ver 11.xls Unit costs Number Extended Cost labor labor description units hrs each material Base Exp 1_Exp2 Max 1_ Max 2 Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 boilers : : : Wiessmann model 390 : ea $276,250 : 1.0 : $276,250 Wiessmann model 530 : ea $295,000 : 1.0 ‘ $295,000 Wiessmann model 720 : ea $313,750 : 1.0 : $313,750 Wiessmann model 950 : ea $332,500 : 1.0 1.0 1.0: $332,500 $332,500 $332,500 Wiessmann model 1250 : ea $351,250 : : install model 390 on site : ea 200.0 $16,000 $15,000 : 1.0 : $31,000 install model 530 on site : ea 200.0 $16,000 $15,001 : 1.0 : $31,001 install model 720 on site : ea 240.0 $19,200 $15,002 : 1.0 7 $34,202 install model 950 on site : ea 240.0 $19,200 $15,003: 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $34,203 $34,203 $34,203 install model 1250 on site : ea 240.0 $19,200 $15,004 : : shipping : ea $20,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 : $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 mech room : : : main heat exchanger, flat plate : ea 30.0 $2,400 $29,900 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 generator loop heat exchanger : ea 30.0 $2,400 $29,900 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 $32,300 7.5 HP Pump : ea 10.0 $800 $3,536: 2.0 2.0 2.0 7 $8,672 $8,672 $8,672 10 HP Pump : ea 14.1 $1,129 $4,053: 2.0 2.0: $10,365 $10,365 15 HP Pump : ea 14.1 $1,129 $4,053 _: : 20 HP Pump : ea 16.0 $1,280 $4,312 : 2.0 : $11,184 25 HP Pump : ea 15.6 $1,246 $7,250 : : 30 HP Pump : ea 17.3 $1,388 $8,140 : 2.0 : $19,056 40 HP Pump : ea 20.0 $1,600 $9,475 : : 50 HP Pump : ea 22.5 $1,803 $11,900 : 2.0 : $27,406 60 HP Pump : ea 24.7 $1,980 $13,620 : 2.0 : $31,200 75 HP Pump : ea 28.1 $2,246 $16,200 : 2.0 : $36,891 4 inch pump set (valves, etc) : ea 36.5 $2,918 $3,106 : : 6 inch pump set (valves, etc) : ea 52.0 $4,163 $4,294 : 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0: $33,829 $33,829 $33,829 $33,829 $33,829 20 HP VFD : per HP $150 : 2.0 $6,000 25 HP VFD : per HP $150 : : 30 HP VFD : per HP $150 : 2.0 ; $9,000 40 HP VFD : per HP $150 : : 50 HP VFD : per HP $150 : 2.0 : $15,000 60 HP VFD : per HP $150 : 2.0 : $18,000 75 HP VFD : per HP $150 : 2.0: $22,500 additional piping : Is 320.0 $25,600 $25,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $50,600 $50,600 $50,600 $50,600 $50,600 oil fired boiler, 750 KBTU/h : ea 78.0 $6,244 $8,193: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 $14,437 $14,437 $14,437 $14,437 $14,437 four e , PLLC 1 of 3 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Cost Est C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph FY L311 ver 11.xis Unit costs Number Extended Cost labor labor description units hrs each material Base Exp1 Exp2 Max1 Max2 Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 2-position isolation valves, 6" : ea 8.0 $640 $3,278 : 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 : $7,836 $7,836 $7,836 $7,836 $11,754 control valves, 6" : ea 8.0 $640 $5,600 : 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 : $12,480 $12,480 $12,480 $12,480 $12,480 6" flow meter : ea 6.9 $549 $4,500 : 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 : $10,097 $10,097 $10,097 $10,097 $10,097 electrical : Is $30,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 lights : sf $10 : 480.0 480.0 480.0 480.0 480.0 : $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 control points, binary : ea $600 : 29.0 29.0 290 29.0 29.0 : $17,400 $17,400 $17,400 $17,400 $17,400 control points, analog : ea $900 : 46.0 46.0 460 46.0 46.0 : $41,400 $41,400 $41,400 $41,400 $41,400 controls, panels : ea 16.0 $1,280 $8,000 : 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0: $18,560 $18,560 $18,560 $18,560 $18,560 controls, HMI : ea $1,500 : 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0: $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 controls, programming : Is 250.0 $20,000 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 thermal storage tank, 6000 gal : ea 60.0 $4,800 $21,965 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $26,765 $26,765 $26,765 $26,765 $26,765 expansion tank, primary loop, 80g : ea 2.3 $183 $817 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $999 $999 $999 $999 $999 expansion tank, primary loop, 400g : ea 5.7 $457 $3,939 : 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0: $13,188 $13,188 $13,188 $13,188 $13,188 building : sf $100 : 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 : $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 remainder of plant : : : plant stack, 50 ft : If 0.8 $60 $158 : 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 : $10,900 $10,900 $10,900 $10,900 $10,900 stack fittings : ea 0.8 $64 $250 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 $1,884 $1,884 $1,884 $1,884 $2,826 emergency generator, 100 kW : ea $50,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 fuel oil tank, DW, AG, 2000 gal : ea 7.7 $617 $7,590 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $8,207 $8,207 $8,207 $8,207 $8,207 tank accessories : Is 48.0 $3,840 $3,500 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $7,340 $7,340 $7,340 $7,340 $7,340 FO pump set : ea 27 $213 $1,200 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $1,413 $1,413 $1,413 $1,413 $1,413 electrical : ea $7,500 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 lights : sf $10 : 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 : $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 material handling : Is $80,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0: $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 distribution : : : 2" pex pipe, installed in place : If $38 : 3,164 3,068 4,312 4,802 7,522 : $118,650 $115,050 $161,700 $180,075 $282,075 4" pex pipe, installed in place : If $60 : 7,376 3,016 6,516 6,516 : $442,560 $180,960 $390,960 $390,960 (2) 4" pex pipe, installed in place : If $112 : 3,110 870 870 1,730 1,730 : $348,320 $97,440 $97,440 $193,760 $193,760 building connections : ea $21,500 : 11.0 13.0 13.0 15.0 16.0: $236,500 $279,500 $279,500 $322,500 $344,000 future connections : ea $1,500 : 7.0 8.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 : $10,500 $12,000 $10,500 $13,500 $10,500 DH site : : wood processing building : sf $40 : 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 : $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 fill : cu yd $2.5 : 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 : $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 four e , PLLC 20f3 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Cost Est C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph FY L3 | 1 ver 11.xIs Unit costs Number Extended Cost labor labor description units hrs each material Base Exp1 Exp2 Max1 Max2 Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 General Conditions : : : mob and demob : Is $40,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 small tools : Is $42,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 temp facilities : Is $25,000 : 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 : $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 construction subtotal : $1,905,062 $2,203,566 $1,954,015 $2,366,298 $2,829,099 subcontractor mark-ups (mech is general) : electrical contractor mark-up 0.125 : $15,788 $16,288 $16,288 $16,788 $17,038 controls contractor mark-up 0.125 : $22,222 $24,347 $23,597 $25,722 $27,274 site contractor 0.125 : $97,059 $125,944 $99,075 $145,037 $160,474 subtotal : $135,068 $166,578 $138,959 $187,546 $204,786 total construction : $2,040,130 $2,370,144 $2,092,974 $2,553,844 $3,033,885 design / construction admin (% of cons) : final design/study : $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 bid assistance 0.005 : $10,201 $11,851 $10,465 $12,769 $15,169 construction admin 0.035: $71,405 $82,955 $73,254 $89,385 $106,186 commissioning/start up 0.025 : $51,003 $59,254 $52,324 $63,846 $75,847 contingency 0.100 :_ $204,013 $237,014 $209,297 $255,384 $303,388 subtotal: $461,621 $516,074 $470,341 $546,384 $625,591 total: $2,501,751 $2,886,217 $2,563,315 $3,100,228 $3,659,476 four e , PLLC 3 of 3 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Fort Yukon, Alaska Appendix D: Maps of Proposed DH Plants: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Final Design Process 35 Percent Report BA . 7 [7 ; \ as - = FT Foo ee og NA 5 1 AC a VorSe ~ 2 NS aEY + ay NEN ae oe, ery OS . ea é wy W —™ a ee ZZ b “ JN No eB fA 7 — fo mie fs 7 Z | J ~ 4 = a ( = ae <- Vo f Ss NEW ELEC PLANT XY ee DH PLANT a /, YS 7 \/ / Va A 7 aS Kn ~} ~ ( Q+ Ly QJ [6] ~N XL Ws 4 OA [Pe I -—— oo ees _ eee 2 . : r : wae TN eS fal a0 fe VALVE & CAP LINE SS es FOR FUTURE BO, ee EXTENSION (TYP) “ or t Sy 1. SCHOOL 6. STATE BLDG 11. CITY BLDG 2. GYM 7. SHOP 12. NEW CATG CLINIC 3. STORE 8. DISTRICT OFFICE 13. TRIBAL OFFICES BASE PLANT 4. POST OFFICE 9. CHURCH 14. WATER TREAT Nis 5. CATG OFFICE 10. YUKON FLATS 15. OLD CATG CLINIC woe a 77 o > ae poe BFE? Ue Uz Ne A. oo :. Ay 5 1 AC : ZO S Se A So Ne YS \ I 2 NS A~SEY e\y : oe 7 \s\ 2A j X MD Ue EZ OS Ve \\ a || \ oye GE kK a | “ys OD = ye N / feos ~ .y ZS NN 4 \ (a = \ EXTENT OF \ = Zo , = Zz —™\~ -\ if S< WOOD YARD 7 PLANT a NEW ELEC PLANT> 4 \ Bi f > DH PLANTS ///% / Se aon J ne Ood ow \ ey SS 7 CLs J" LR J | oa 1—r ga DEG. PST + ‘ a’. —— ~~, ef pe aL a SSS eo VALVE & CAP LINE ee aiert — FOR FUTURE To ae eee, — et EXTENSION (TYP) “ Po SSS ee 1. SCHOOL 6. STATE BLDG 11. CITY BLDG 2. GYM 7. SHOP 12. NEW CATG CLINIC 3. STORE 8. DISTRICT OFFICE 13. TRIBAL OFFICES EXP PLANT 1 4. POST OFFICE 9. CHURCH 14. WATER TREAT Ni... 5. CATG OFFICE 10. YUKON FLATS 15. OLD CATG CLINIC wT a a \ ° 1 BEE a - cen . 6 ore FO? Oe wag a Co oo ye nL SS NAW Ve OR OPE TN) L- at —o——™. a Ore Zn 4 ODN ~ \ \ CO ee a i VoL ee Se ke ao . || JE OSSARK / “A for NY J ~< \ Wea : EXTENT OF o | a N \ // a WOOD YARD a | "= € 4 y * Za \ 7 SY // oS, J PLANT, NEW ELEC PLANT> 4 XQ Yeo OY DH PLANTZ / 7K / My i/ \ J BR DIS ON ORAS a, — J RSC SK re aN, Yo > 6 £<S7 SK a se » OBR" ~ ‘ oe ? 2 Dovlidn Pa 3 — SO is SG TIS Pe 0” @f SSGRET Foot f 7) OL, Pore. 28 fe TA eran 8 |[t_] ee PE SS if Ja VALVE. & CAP LINE Nr er FOR FUTURE Be, Se em ° EXTENSION (TYP) WL l ———— —J 1. SCHOOL 6. STATE BLDG 11. CITY BLDG 3 STORE & DISTRICT OFFICE 13. TRIBAL OFFICES © EXP PLANT 2 A 5 GATG OFFICE 10. YUKON FLATS 1, OLD CATS CLINIC WOOD YARD e ae \ ts LN. NEW ELEC PLANT> / 2K DH PLANTS / /K SEFTON es —=Z=- \? ;: Cae aa eo Or RO RUN a WMD \ 4 4 \ eA FAY DO 7. INE A é 2) W er er OZ O Oo OB . en CO AA K VOTO Ae BRS rN oe aie a \ “ ‘\ (a a , aa o \. 2% Z —N - \ / oS L- & XY _f f SN SX IS Se Db) mS, \7 IS “1m ° Of SK , gh v8 Os a. [~ ‘ & I SG 1S ) Pt <a “UN a | oY 14 = UNX Ye e [10], fe , Oo, OW - y bd ~FiR vb a, Te == ot ~, = : HE eS my i Ne ~~. tam? [= VALVE & CAP LINE Ne : ESrenion (ne Pry 1. SCHOOL 6. STATE BLDG 11. CITY BLDG 2. GYM 7. SHOP 12. NEW CATG CLINIC 3. STORE 8. DISTRICT OFFICE 13. TRIBAL OFFICES MAX PLANT 1 4. POST OFFICE 9. CHURCH 14. WATER TREAT Nis... 5. CATG OFFICE 10. YUKON FLATS 15. OLD CATG CLINIC 7 EXTENT OF \ - WOOD YARD / PLANT, A SC >= Yo ef </ ‘es K+ & bd hese 6G f SC 1S So: <3 ee of SV YZ eB fol Sf Foo, ow oY NI ) y — ———— oO Te = Stee ~~ xe / coommmmeee ae ——-——-7, “AN : oe SSS NY be VALVE & CAP LINE Ne re Tg FOR FUTURE To ee re ae EXTENSION (TYP) ET ee 4 L I 1. SCHOOL 6. STATE BLDG 11. CITY BLDG 2. GYM 7. SHOP 12. NEW CATG CLINIC 3. STORE 8. DISTRICT OFFICE 13. TRIBAL OFFICES MAX PLANT 2 4. POST OFFICE 9. CHURCH 14. WATER TREAT Nis... 5. CATG OFFICE 10. YUKON FLATS 15. OLD CATG CLINIC Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix E: Typical Design Documents, Heat Recovery from Engine Generators: (These plans are from a previous job, but the methodology will be the same) Alaska Wood Energy Associates MANIFOLD. —*==—— CENTERLINE EL. 8’—11" AFF 4” WELD ELBOW, TYP(2 4” WELD ne WELD TEE NECK FLANGE, 1YP(3) ue GEN #2/#3 COOLANT DISCHARGE. MANIFOLD all 4’ ANSI FLANGE 3” CAT FLANGE PLAN VIEW [— —— GEN #2 ENGINE CONNECTION CENTERLINE EL. 7’-8"+ AFF 3” FLANGED ENGINE CONNECTION Pees REGULATOR HOUSING SECTION A-A (6 \ GENERATOR #2 DISCHARGE CONNECTION \M10/ NO SCALE GEN #2 GEN 43 > Ian COOLANT INLET MANIFOLD i; 4” BUTTERFLY VALVE 4” WELD NECK FLANGE, TYP(2) pi OO DRAIN VALVE Ali JACKET WATER PUMP 5” CAT FLANGE 3/4” PRV, 50 PSIG SEE GEN #1 HARI COOLANT SYSTEM Pe a PIPING ISOMETRIC Hon fee PEE N\icz_ | B4 ERATOR 2 B | SEE HEAT RECOVERY PIPING ISOMETRIC FOR tT NORMALLY CLOSED 3/4” 3” SECONDARY PIPING DRAIN VALVE, TYP INSTALL 2.5 PSIG PRESSURE CAP —= : #6 HOSE WITH 1/2” MPT 1/2” PIPE Saat ENDS, TYP(2) O=—10H COOLANT ALARM SWITCH, MOUNT WITH SWITC it POINT ELEVATION LEVEL WIT BOTTOM OF TANK 9” LONG COOLANT LEVEL SIGHT GAUGE, MOUNT ON 1/2” THREADED TEES WITH 1/2” THREADED BALL VALVE & PLUG FOR DRAIN eS 33 SEE GEN #2/#3 4” COOLANT ISOMETRIC SEAL CONDUIT TO INTERIOR FACE OF WALL WITH SILICONE CAULK ALL AROUND DES & Ze 2”x1-1/2” SWAGE NIPPLE, TYP(4) 0-60 PSIG, TYP(5) 2” THREADED BALL VALVE, TYP(4 ea (a a 2” THREAD-O-LET, TYP(4) —«— 3” WELD CAP, TYP(2) a or END WALL FRAME INSTALL ET—1 AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF PRESSURE CAP, INSTALL ET-2 AT SAME ELEVATION 12” PIPE CLAMP, B-LINE B2132 OR EQUAL, 2 ON ET—1, 3 ON ET-2 £3 TYPE-B WALL M97 MOUNTED SUPPORT Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix F: Main Summary, DH Plant Summary Sheets, and Key Inputs: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph IFY L311 ver 11.xis Summary Buildings included On Inputs (dark text are user inputs) 1 School 1 cost of oil : $4.00 per gallon 2 Gym 41 cost of electricity : $0.48 per kWh 3 Store 1 cost of wood : $175.00 per GT 4 Post Office 1 : 5 CATG Main Office 1 MC of wood at use : 0.25 MC 6 State Building 1 unit heat content : 5,315 BTU/Ib 7 Shop (adj School) 1 7 8 District Office 1 soil conditions : (for heat loss calcs, select only one) 9 Church 1 dry: 10 Yukon Flats 1 med : 1 11 City Building 1 moist : 12 New CATG Clinic 4 13. Tribal Offices 1 Biomass Boilers :__B-1 model _B-2 Model choices 14 Water Treat 1 Base Plant : 530 390 15 Old CATG Clinic 1 Expanded Plant 1 : 950 530 16 City DHW Load 1 Expanded Plant 2 : 720 720 Maximum Plant 1 : 950 950 include Heat Recovery 1 Maximum Plant 2 : 390 950 1,250 Results (see Individual Plant Summary sheets for more details) Financial Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 current annual cost to heat connected buildings: $431,228 $547,228 $481,376 $597,376 $621,376 proposed annual cost of oil, DH Plant : $16,152 $40,285 $21,481 $48,248 $292 proposed annual cost of wood chips, DH Plant: $157,393 $236,122 $192,243 $269,201 $316,395 proposed annual cost of electrical energy, DH Plant : $66,378 $101,150 $77,626 $70,522 $121,982 total annual proposed costs, DH Plant: $239,922 ‘$377,557 $291,350 ~~‘ $387,971 $438,669 savings: $191,306 _ $169,671 $190,026 $209,405 ‘$182,707 estimated total DH plant cost : $2,501,751 $2,886,217 $2,563,315 $3,100,228 $3,659,476 net simple payback : 13.1 yrs 17.0 yrs 13.5 yrs 14.8 yrs 20.0 yrs Inputs Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 current annual oil consumption, connected bldgs, gal : 107,807 136,807 120,344 149,344 155,344 proposed annual oil consumption, gal : 4,038 10,071 5,370 12,062 73 proposed annual wood consumption, green tons : 899 1,349 1,099 1,538 1,808 proposed annual electrical energy consumption, kWh : 138,287 210,730 161,721 146,920 254,130 fraction of oil displaced : 0.963 0.926 0.955 0.919 1.000 Heat Sources, unit Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 annual heat from oil, KBTU : 449,103 1,120,118 597,292 1,341,548 8,106 annual heat recovered from Power Plant, KBTU: 5,285,120 5,513,598 5,407,258 5,524,605 5,559,001 annual heat from wood chips, KBTU: 8,030,058 12,046,738 9,808,062 13,734,424 16,142,238 Heat Sources, fraction Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 annual heat from oil : 0.033 0.060 0.038 0.065 0.000 annual heat recovered from Power Plant : 0.384 0.295 0.342 0.268 0.256 annual heat from wood chips : 0.583 0.645 0.620 0.667 0.744 Heat Sinks, unit Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 annual heat to buildings, KBTU : 11,990,295 15,215,675 13,384,660 16,610,040 17,277,360 annual heat to piping losses, KBTU: 1,397,094 3,087,885 2,051,057 3,613,643 4,055,091 annual heat to plant, KBTU : 376,894 376,894 376,894 376,894 376,894 Heat Sinks, fraction Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 annual heat to buildings : 0.871 0.815 0.846 0.806 0.796 annual heat to piping losses : 0.102 0.165 0.130 0.175 0.187 annual heat to plant : 0.027 0.020 0.024 0.018 0.017 four e » PLLC 1 of 1 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Base Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktopw\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.xIs four e , PLLC 1 of 1 Summary Base DH Plant Buildings included DH Plant 1 School maximum plant load: 3,827 kBTU/h 2 Gym coincident heat recovery available: 971 kBTU/h 3 Store fraction of heat from HR at peak: 0.254 4 Post Office 5 CATG Main Office est minimum boiler capacity: 2,856 kBTU/h 6 State Building est minimum boiler capacity: 837 kW(th) 7 Shop (adj School) 8 District Office use Weissmann model: 530 (from Summary) 9 Church maximum capacity: 1,808 10 Yukon Flats minimum capacity: 723 11 City Building 12 New CATG Clinic predicted plant flow rate: 320 gpm 13. Tribal Offices pipe length to design load: 2,726 ft 14 Water Treat estimated secondary pump head: 162 ft 15 Old CATG Clinic estimated pump efficiency: 0.740 16 City DHW Load peak secondary pump power: 13.2 kW estimated primary pump head: 50 ft peak primary pump power: 4.1 kW estimated plant parasitic power: 7.5 kW Results DH Plant runs : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total oil gal: 15,023 14,275 13,609 7,444 4,676 2,587 2,612 3,720 5,563 10,561 12,386 15,350 : 107,807 cost $: 60,094 57,101 54,437 29,774 18,704 10,350 10,446 14,882 22,250 42,243 49,546 61,401 $431,228 Predicted : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec : total fraction oil gal: 621 1,221 526 10 88 106 285 296 83 133 55 614 : 4,038 cost $: 2,485 4,883 2,103 42 353 422 1,141 1,183 331 534 221 2,455 : $16,152 0.067 wood tons : 127 116 131 62 40 te 5 25 52 100 104 132 899 cost $: 22,275 20,314 22,982 10,852 6,942 1,144 829 4,344 9,075 17,465 18,150 23,023 $157,393 0.656 electricity kWh: 12,841 12,100 12,191 10,723 11,067 10,710 11,067 11,067 10,710 11,372 11,441 12,998 138,287 cost $: 6,164 5,808 5,852 5,147 5,312 5,141 5,312 5,312 5,141 5,458 5,492 6,239 $66,378 0.277 total cost $:_ 30,923 31,005 30,937 16,041 12,607 6,705 7,282 10,839 14,547 23,457 23,862 31,717 $239,922 1.000 savings $: 29,170 26,096 23,500 13,733 6,097 3,645 3,164 4,042 7,703 18,786 25,684 29,684 $191,306 estimated construction cost : $2,501,751 net simple payback : 13.08 yrs Heat Sources : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction from oil KBTU : 69,093 135,785 58,470 _—_—'1,163 9,809 11,744 31,720 32,886 9,196 14,839 6,133 68,267 : 449,103 (0.033 from HR kKBTU : 666,938 603,907 __ 471,513 404,616 267,090 311,805 313,257 263,465 262,122 430,261 621,274 668,872 : 5,285,120 0.384 from wood kKBTU : 1,136,444 1,036,387 1,172,542 553,653 354,187 __ 58,229 _42,316 221,640 _ 463,007 _ 891,050 _ 926,004 1,174,598 : 8,030,058 0.583 (assumes plant runs all year) total: 13,764,282 Heat Sinks 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction to load kKBTU : 1,670,907 1,587,696 1,513,625 827,867 520,076 _ 287,780 290,463 413,784 618,667 1,174,561 1,377,626 1,707,242 : 11,990,295 0.871 to piping KBTU : 137,366 126,271 132,961 110,832 104,784 —93,715 96,640 101,550 104,897 123,464 126,230 138,384 : 1,397,094 0.102 toplant KBTU : 64,203 62,113 __55,939 __20,733_——_—~6,225 282 190 2,658 10,760 38,125 49,555 66,112: «376,894 _ 0.027 (assumes plant runs all year) total: 13,764,282 gallons of oil displaced : 103,769 fraction of oil displaced : 0.963 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Summary Buildings included Exp 1 Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.xIs DH Plant Expanded DH PI. 1 School maximum plant load: 5,091 kBTU/h 2 Gym coincident heat recovery available: 971 kBTU/h 3 Store fraction of heat from HR at peak: 0.191 4 Post Office 5 CATG Main Office est minimum boiler capacity: 4,120 kBTU/h 6 State Building est minimum boiler capacity: 1,208 kW(th) 7 Shop (adj School) 8 District Office use Weissmann model: 950 (from Summary) 9 Church maximum capacity: 3,241 10 Yukon Flats minimum capacity: 1,297 11 City Building 12 New CATG Clinic predicted plant flow rate: 420 gpm 13 Tribal Offices pipe length to design load: 6,986 ft 14 Water Treat estimated secondary pump hea 322 ft 15 Old CATG Clinic estimated pump efficiency: 0.740 16 City DHW Load peak secondary pump power: 34.4 kW estimated primary pump head: 50 ft peak primary pump power: 5.3 kW estimated plant parasitic power: 7.5 kw Results DH Plant runs : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current :__Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total oil gal: 19,256 18,312 17,414 9,391 5,780 3,098 3,122 4,537 6,941 13,442 15,831 19,682 : 136,807 cost $: 77,025 73,248 69,655 37,565 23,120 12,391 12,490 18,150 27,765 53,768 63,324 78,727 : $547,228 Predicted : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total fraction oil gal: 245 551 69 396 1,669 1,403 1,854 2,378 1,350 157 : 10,071 cost $: 979 2,203 277 1,584 6,678 5,610 7417 9,510 5,398 629 : $40,285 0.107 wood tons : 203 192 202 99 40 1 1 17 66 155 165 210 : 1,349 cost $: 35,582 33,583 35,435 17,263 6,952 191 114 2,901 11,521 27,044 28,792 36,743 : $236,122 0.625 electricity kWh: 21,010 20,295 19,237 15,493 15,958 15,443 15,958 15,958 15,443 16,868 17,635 21,433 : 210,730 cost $: 10,085 9,742 9,234 7,437 7,660 7,413 7,660 7,660 7,413 8,097 8,465 10,288 : $101,150 0.268 total cost $:_ 46,645 45,527 44,946 26,284 21,290 13,214 15,191 20,071 24,332 35,141 37,256 47,660 : $377,557 1.000 savings $: 30,379 27,721 24,710 11,281 1,830 (822) (2,701) (1,922) 3,432 18,628 += 26,068 +931,067 : $169,671 estimated construction cost : $2,886,217 net simple payback : 17.01 yrs Heat Sources : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction from oil KBTU : 27,216 61,248 7,690 44,036 185,673 155,997 206,221 264,437 ‘150,103 17,498 : 1,120,118 0.060 from HR KBTU : 666,922 603,246 471,012 385,387 340,305 386,234 349,012 319,295 276,689 426,275 620,348 +—668,872 : 5,513,598 0.295 from wood kBTU : 1,815,348 1,713,380 1,807,874 880,754 _ 354,696 9,724 5,835 148,023 _ 587,811 1,379,757 1,468,922 1,874,613 : 12,046,738 _ 0.645 (assumes plant runs all year) total: 18,680,453 Heat Sinks : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction to load KBTU : 2,141,675 2,036,674 1,936,765 1,044,481 642,852 344,541 347,283 504,650 771,997 1,495,025 1,760,719 2,189,014 : 15,215,675 0.815 to piping KBTU : 303,609 279,086 293,872 244,964 231,597 207,132 213,595 224,447 «231,846 272,883 278,996 305,858 : 3,087,885 0.165 toplant KBTU : 64,203 _62,113__55,939__20,733_——_—6,225 282 190 2,658 (10,760 _—-38,125 «49,555 —«66,112.: _-376,894 0.020 (assumes plant runs all year) total: 18,680,453 gallons of oil displaced : 126,736 fraction of oil displaced : 0.926 four e » PLLC 1 of 1 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Summary Buildings included Exp 2 Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktopw\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.x/s DH Plant panded DH Plant 2 1 School maximum plantload: 4,306 kBTU/h 2 Gym coincident heat recovery available: 971 kBTU/h 3 Store fraction of heat from HR at peak: 0.226 4 Post Office 5 CATG Main Office est minimum boiler capacity: 3,335 kBTU/h 6 State Building est minimum boiler capacity: 977 kW(th) 7 Shop (adj School) 8 District Office use Weissmann model: 720 (from Summary) 9 Church maximum capacity: 2,457 10 Yukon Flats minimum capacity: 983 11. City Building 12 New CATG Clinic predicted plant flow rate: 360 gpm 13 Tribal Offices pipe length to design load: 4,180 ft 14 Water Treat estimated secondary pump head: 217 ft 15 Old CATG Clinic estimated pump efficiency: 0.740 16 City DHW Load peak secondary pump power: 19.9 kW estimated primary pump head: 50 ft peak primary pump power: 46 kW estimated plant parasitic power: 7.5 kw Results DH Plant runs : 1 1 1 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec : total oil gal: 16,699 15,862 15,137 8,324 5,272 2,972 3,003 4,217 6,246 11,770 13,783 17,059 : 120,344 cost $: 66,795 63,448 60,547 33,294 21,088 11,887 12,012 16,870 24,985 47,079 55,131 68,238 : $481,376 Predicted 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total fraction oil gal: 325 690 140 83 611 635 1,044 1,092 498 14 237 : 5,370 cost $: 1,300 2,761 558 334 2,446 2,541 4,175 4,369 1,993 55 950 : $21,481 0.074 wood tons : 159 149 162 80 42 3 2 24 61 123 128 165 : 1,099 cost $: 27,833 26,097 28,379 14,043 7417 501 308 4,205 10,611 21,525 22,485 28,839 : $192,243 0.660 electricity kWh: 15,432 14,682 14,447 12,296 12,682 12,273 12,682 12,682 12,273 13,166 13,437 15,669 : 161,721 cost $: 7,407 7,047 6,935 5,902 6,087 5,891 6,087 6,087 5,891 6,320 6,450 7,521 $77,626 0.266 total cost $:_ 36,540 35,906 35,872 20,279 15,950 8,933 10,571 14,661 18,495 27,900 28,935 37,310 : $291,350 _1.000 savings $: 30,254 27,543 24,675 13,015 5,138 2,955 1,441 2,209 6,491 19,179 26,197 30,928 : $190,026 estimated construction cost : $2,563,315 net simple payback : 13.49 yrs Heat Sources : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec fraction from oil KBTU : 36,153 76,781 15,526 ~—9,278 ~—68,009-— 70,645 116,096 121,467 55,402 1,522 26,413 597,292 0.038 from HR KBTU : 666,925 603,446 471,264 383,449 300,020 372,198 344,249 284,791 262,708 428,698 620,638 668,872 5,407,258 0.342 from wood KBTU : 1,420,012 1,331,442 1,447,860 716,467 378,393 _25,549__—‘15,722_214,550__541,371_ 1,098,196 1,147,162_ 1,471,338 9,808,062 _ 0.620 (assumes plant runs all year) total: 15,812,611 Heat Sinks : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec fraction toload KBTU : 1,857,222 1,764,179 1,683,513 925,749 586,365 330,527 334,002 469,066 694,722 1,309,035 1,532,929 1,897,353 : 13,384,660 0.846 to piping KBTU : 201,665 185,377 195,198 162,712 _ 153,833 137,583 141,876 149,084 153,998 181,256 185,317 _203,159 2,051,057 _ 0.130 toplant KBTU : 64,203 __62,113___55,939 __20,733__—_—~6,225 282 190 2,658 10,760 38,125 49,555 376,894 _ 0.024 (assumes plant runs all year) 15,812,611 gallons of oil displaced : 114,974 fraction of oil displaced : 0.955, four e , PLLC 1 of 1 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max 1 Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.xis Summary _ Max DH Plant 1 Buildings included DH Plant 1 School maximum plantload: 5,551 kBTU/h 2 Gym coincident heat recovery available: 971 kBTU/h 3 Store fraction of heat from HR at peak: 0.175 4 Post Office 5 CATG Main Office est minimum boiler capacity: 4,580 kBTU/h 6 State Building est minimum boiler capacity: 1,342 kW(th) 7 Shop (adj School) 8 District Office use Weissmann model: 950 (from Summary) 9 Church maximum capacity: 3,241 10 Yukon Flats minimum capacity: 1,297 11 City Building 12 New CATG Clinic predicted plant flow rate: 460 gpm 13 Tribal Offices pipe length to design load: 6,986 ft 14 Water Treat estimated secondary pump head: 322 ft 15 Old CATG Clinic estimated pump efficiency: 0.740 16 City DHW Load peak secondary pump power: 37.7 kW estimated primary pump head: 50 ft peak primary pump power: 5.9 kW estimated plant parasitic power: 7.5 kw Results DH Plant runs : + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current . Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total oil gal: 20,931 19,899 18,941 10,271 6,376 3,482 3,514 5,034 7,625 14,651 17,227 21,391 : 149,344 cost $: 83,726 79,596 75,765 41,085 25,504 13,929 14,056 20,138 30,500 58,605 68909 85,565 : $597,376 Predicted : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total fraction oil gal: 643 1,320 320 165 1,412 1,965 2,474 2,215 928 52 6 562 : 12,062 cost $: 2,571 5,281 1,278 659 5,650 7,862 9,897 8,859 3,712 208 24 2,249 : $48,248 0.124 wood tons : 225 207 224 112 56 4 2 32 83 174 187 232 :: 1,538 cost $: 39,379 36,276 39,188 19,669 9,823 661 407 5,574 14,498 30,395 32,724 40,608 : $269,201 0.694 electricity kWh: 21,474 12,100 12,191 10,723 11,067 10,710 11,067 11,067 10,710 11,372 11,441 12,998 : 146,920 cost $: 10,308 5,808 5,852 5,147 5,312 5,141 5,312 5,312 5,141 5,458 5,492 6,239 : $70,522 0.182 total cost $:_ 52,257 47,365 46,318 25,475 20,785 13,664 15,616 19,745 23,351 36,061 38,240 49,096 : $387,971 1.000 savings $: 31,468 32,231 29,447 15,610 4,719 265 = (1,560) 393 7,149 22,544 30,669 36,469 : $209,405 estimated construction cost : $3,100,228 net simple payback : 14.80 yrs Heat Sources : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction from oil KBTU : 71,473 146,825 35,544_—18,320 157,091 218,602 275,182 246,327 103,201 5,770 678 62,533: 1,341,548 (0.065 from HR KBTU : 666,938 604,264 471,607 427,964 328,157 377,656 345,047 294,556 287,238 430,481 621,825 668,872 : 5,524,605 0.268 from wood kBTU : 2,009,085 1,850,786 1,999,349 1,003,484 501,146 _-33,711__—20,745 284,369 _ 739,694 1,550,717 1,669,573 2,071,765 : 13,734,424 0.667 (assumes plant runs all year) total : 20,600,577 Heat Sinks : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction toload KBTU : 2,327,990 2,213,157 2,106,653 1,142,363 709,140 387,288 390,822 559,932 848,051 1,629,499 1,916,021 2,379,124 : 16,610,040 0.806 to piping KBTU : 355,303 326,605 343,909 286,673_271,029 242,399 249,963 262,662 271,321 319,345 326,500 357,935 : 3,613,643 0.175 toplant KBTU : 64,203 62,113__55,939 __20,733_——6,225 282 190 2,658 ‘10,760 38,125 «49,555 ~—66, 112: 376,894 _ 0.018 (assumes plant runs all year) total : 20,600,577 gallons of oil displaced : 137,282 fraction of oil displaced : 0.919 four e , PLLC 1 of 1 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max 2 Summary C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph AFY L3! 1 ver 11.xls Summary Max DH Plant 2 Buildings included DH Plant 1 School maximum plant load: 5,844 kBTU/h 2 Gym coincident heat recovery available: 971 kBTU/h 3 Store fraction of heat from HR at peak: 0.166 4 Post Office 5 CATG Main Office est minimum boiler capacity: 4,873 kBTU/h 6 State Building est minimum boiler capacity: 1,428 kW(th) 7 Shop (adj School) 8 District Office use Weissmann model: 390 950 (from Summary) 9 Church maximum capacity: 1,331 3,241 10 Yukon Flats minimum capacity: 532 1,297 11. City Building 12 New CATG Clinic predicted plant flow rate: 480 gpm 13 Tribal Offices pipe length to design load: 8,626 ft 14 Water Treat estimated secondary pump head: 384 ft 15 Old CATG Clinic estimated pump efficiency: 0.740 16 City DHW Load peak secondary pump power: 46.8 kW estimated primary pump head: 50 ft peak primary pump power: 6.1 kW estimated plant parasitic power: 7.5 kW Results DH Plant runs : 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total oil gal: 21,855 20,783 19,765 10,662 6,568 3,537 3,567 5,159 7,883 15,259 17,969 22,338 : 155,344 cost $: 87,420 83,133 79,059 42,649 26,270 14,148 14,267 20,636 31,532 61,034 71,875 89,352 : $621,376 Predicted 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: total fraction oil gal: 7 56 10: 73 cost $: 30 222 39: $292 0.001 wood tons : 249 239 243 114 71 45 48 62 94 186 201 256 : 1,808 cost $: 43,628 41,743 42,504 20,035 12,349 7,930 8,373 10,912 16,467 32,585 35,136 44,733 : $316,395 0.721 electricity kWh: 25,972 25,247 23,521 18,312 18,837 18,230 18,837 18,837 18,230 20,153 21,401 26,551 : 254,130 cost $: 12,466 12,119 11,290 8,790 9,042 8,750 9,042 9,042 8,750 9,674 10,273 12,745 : $121,982 0.278 total cost $: 56,124 54,084 53,794 28,825 21,391 16,681 17,415 19,954 25,218 42,259 45,408 57,517 : $438,669 1.000 savings $: 31,296 29,049 25,266 13,824 4,879 (2,533) (3,148) 682 6,314 18,776 26,466 31,835 : $182,707 estimated construction cost : $3,659,476 net simple payback : 20.03 yrs Heat Sources : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction from oil KBTU : 825 6,185 1,096 = 8,106 0.000 from HR KBTU : 666,938 604,264 471,607 506,112 410,761 261,079 250,184 314,479 351,815 431,066 621,825 668,872 : 5,559,001 __ 0.256 from wood kKBTU : 2,225,872 2,129,680 2,168,496 1,022,179 630,047 404,599 _427,197 _ 556,699 _ 840,157 1,662,478 1,792,595 2,282,238 : 16,142,238 0.744 (assumes plant runs all year) total : 21,709,345 Heat Sinks 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec: fraction toload kBTU : 2,430,725 2,311,512 2,198,243 1,185,866 730,445 393,384 396,692 573,770 _ 876,745 1,697,063 1,998,480 2,484,434 : 17,277,360 0.796 to piping KBTU : 398,707 366,503 385,921 321,693 304,139 272,011 280,499 294,750 304,466 358,357 366,385 401,661 : 4,055,091 0.187 toplant KBTU : 64,203 _62,113__55,939_20,733 6,225 282 190 2,658 10,760 _38,125 49,555 66,112 : 376,894 _ 0.017 (assumes plant runs all year) total : 21,709,345 gallons of oil displaced : 155,271 fraction of oil displaced : 1.000 four e , PLLC 1 of 1 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant : Inputs Fort Yukon Alaska C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph FY L3 | 1 ver 11.xis Global Inputs Eee fuel : cost of oil : $4.00 per gallon assumption heat content of oil : 134,000 BTU/gal ASHRAE cost of chips : $175.00 per green ton assumption heat content of wood chips, dry : 8,300 BTU/Ib assumption average moistue content when used, MC : 0.250 assumption average fuel temp : 45 deg F assumption heat content of chips at MC : 5,315 BTU/Ib calc electricity : $0.48 per kWh Boiler efficiency Wiessmann chip-fired : 0.840 assumption minimum turndown : 0.400 assumption No 1 oil-fired : 0.830 assumption fluid : fraction of glycol (propelyne) : 0.00 standard in the area density at 180 degF : 60.790 Ib/ft*3 tables heat capacity at 180 deg F : 1.000 BTU/Ib*deg F tables density specific heat product : 487.6 BTU/hr/gpm/deg F calc at peak load : HWS : 190 deg F assumption HWR : 165 deg F assumption building delta T : 25 deg F assumption ground temp, active layer (insulpex) : 0 deg F Dwayne Miller at min load : HWS : 150 deg F assumption HWR : 125 deg F assumption building delta T : 25 deg F assumption ground temp, active layer (insulpex) : 45 deg F Dwayne Miller soil conditions for piping heat loss : dry: 0 medium : 1 moist : 0 piping : sizing criteria for pipe sizing : 2.50 ftdrop per 100 ft average heat exchanger pressure drop : 18.48 fteach assumption control valves : 11.55 each assumption eq length multiplier : 1.50 assumption estimated pump efficiency, all pumps : 0.74 assumption minimum pump turndown : 0.50 assumption plant parasitic power : estimated plant power for lights, etc : 7.5 kW assumption four e , PLLC 1 0f 1 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G: Sample Calculations: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G, part 1: Sample Calculations: Power Load Profile and Heat Available for Heat Recovery Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska four Bin hours, Fort Yukon Airport Data, average of 2007 / 08 bin mid 744,672,744 720-744 «720744744 720744720744 8,760 pt 3 28 31 30 81H 81 80 3 8081 365 deg _Jan Feb _Mar__Apr__May Jun __Jul__Aug Sep __Oct__Nov__Dec total 85: 15, 15 63: 20 20 40 a1: 140 95 23.5 79: 225 185 15 425 77: 140 165 (1.0 315 75: 275 405 15 69.5 73: 11.0 265 385 10.0 86.0 7: 90 370 415 145 102.0 69: 170 565 535 300 10 158.0 o7 155 505 490 235 45 143.0 65: 135 635 56.0 360 120 181.0 63 195 685 675 40.0 150 210.5 6: 255 530 690 435 20.0 211.0 59: 18.0 420 410 465 85 156.0 a7: 15 385 635 730 77.0 140 267.5 55: 7.0 505 535 605 640 17.5 253.0 83 45 365 435 490 495 19.0 202.0 51: 105 575 300 230 605 365 207.0 49 85 47.0 245 195 37.0 39.0 175.5 a7: 205 525 115 55 48.0 390 177.0 45 265 590 70 60 56.0 535 208.0 43: 30.0 440 40 30 340 535 168.5 44 240 290 20 05 170 365 05 109.5 39: 385 495 15 05 295 640 20 185.5 37 41.5 38.0 05 155 520 25 150.0 35: 20 45.0 34.0 75 415 35 133.5 33 20 65.0 295 40 485 16.0 165.0 34: 05 485 26.5 20 31.0 23.5 132.0 29 24 05 635 135 30 360 275 35 149.9 27 58 30 500 7.0 15 315 475 95 155.8 2: 05 39 25 390 15 220 520 25 123.9 05 14 35 19.0 65 37.0 20 69.9 05 53 85 405 1.0 95 635 35 132.3 1034 85 345 45 605 60 119.9 10 43 19.0 23.5 20 465 28.0 132.3 85 101 215 15.0 20 69.0 48.0 182.6 150 142 275 105 05 430 325 144.7 80 102 240 10.5 285 415 130.7 195 147 360 125 235 53.5 173.7 140 187 355 125 275 31.0 (185: ‘157.7 70 172 210 35 10.5 320 98.2 310 276 450 7.0 20.0 61.0 212.1 620 295 445 15 235 69.5 258.5 170 196 320 (1.5 75 260 113.4 440 221 325 3.0 85 30.5 170.6 690 328 490 1.0 80 375 246.8 44.0 255 40.0 9.0 28.0 190.5 435 304 385 85 300 330: 183.9 540 201 49.5 130 215 425 200.6 205 79 255 90 115 300: 1044 410 226 325 10.0 10.0 44.0 160.1 385 187 23.0 105 125 520: 155.2 345 122 265 80 205 455: 147.2 185 108 14.0 65 215 325: 1038 23.0 192 155 55 335 340: 1307 15 215 7.0 55 110 21.0 : 75 135 241 85 30 20 245 : 756 120 247 11.0 35 265 : 777 80 163 5.0 185: 478 90 197 35 12.0: 442 35 218 45 135: 53.3 85 18 40 105: 348 65173 30 55: 32.3 70 153 5.0 120 : 39.3, 60 119 35 105: 31.9 160 114 40 50: 36.4 105 139 15 : 25.9 45 89 05 : 13.9 30 94 : 124 45 79 25: 14.9 40 117 60: 207 10.6 05: 11.4 58 58 » PLLC 10f4 power (CADocuments and SettingsigkDesktopiw\Fort Yukoni3 Ph NFY L311 vor 11.28 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska x3 0.0 0.0 x2 (0.1) (0.0) x (12) (1.1) c 4419 3286 annual kwh MWh = 333. 301-249-264 236 208-185 188) 192 229-313 333——«3,029,360 Ja, Fe, Mr, Jl, Predicted demand, kW Ap,My, Au,Se bin Jn,Nv Oc mid De pt 31 2831 80 3 3 31 31 8 8 8088 365 kW kW __degF__Jan__Feb__Mar__Apr__ May Jun Jul_— Aug Sep Oct__Nov_Dec. total 295.4 266.8 85 295 295 2906 262.5 83: 291 263 553 286.7 258.8 81 287 259 545 283.5 255.6 79 284 256256 795 281.1 2528 77 281253253 787 279.5 250.5 75. 279250 250 780 278.5 248.6 73: 279 279 249-249 1,054 2783 2472 71 278278 247247 1,051 278.6 246.4 69 279279 246 246 246 1,296 2796 245.5 67, 280 280245245 245 1,296 281.1 245.2 65 281 281245245245, 1,298 283.2 2452 63 283 283245245245 1,302 285.8 245.6 61 286-286-246 246246 1,308 2889 246.3 59: 289 289246246 246 1,317 2924 247.4 57 292 292292247 247247 1,619 296.3 2487 55: 296296 206249249249 1,635 300.6 250.2 53: 301301 301-250-250 250 1,652 305.2 252.0 61: 305305305 252252252 1,672 310.2 254.1 49 310 310 310 254254254 1,693 315.5 256.3 47 315315315256 256256 4,715 321.0 258.8 45 321321 321259259259 1,739 326.7 261.4 43 327 327_327_—«61 261261 1,764 332.6 264.2 41 333333333264 264264264 2,055 338.7 267.2 39 339 339 339—-267_—267_—267_—267 2,085 344.8 270.2 37: 345345 270270270270 4,771 351.1 273.4 35: 273351351 273273273 1,796 357.5 276.7 33: 27387 357. 277277277 1,822 363.8 280.0 31: 280 364364 280280280 1,848 370.2 283.4 29: 370 283-370-370 283283283370 2,614 376.5 286.9 27 37287377377. 287 287287377 2,654 382.8 290.3 25: 383 363200383383 290 290 383 2,785 388.9 293.8 23: 389 389294389 294 294389 2,437 394.9 297.3 21: 395 395 297395395 297 297 395 22,866 400.8 3007 19: 401 401301401 301301401401: 2,906 406.4 304.1 17: 406 406 304406 304304406406: 2,944 4119 307.4 15: 412 412 307_—«412 307307 412_—412 2,982 417.0 3107 13°: 417 417311417 33417417 3,017 4219 313.8 11: 422 422314422 314422422: 2,737 426.4 3168 9: 426 426 317_—«426 317426426: 2,766 4306 319.7 7: 431 431320431 320431431: 2,792 434.4 322.5 5: 434434322434 322434434: 2,817 437.7 325.4 3: 438438325438 325438438: 2,839 440.7 327.4 1: 441441327441 327441441: 2,858 443.1 3296 (): 443 443 330-443 330443443: 2.875 445.0 331.6 (3): 445 445332445 332_ 445445: 2,888 4463 333.3 (5): 446 446333446 333446446: 2,898 447.1 3348 (): 447 447335 335447447: 2.458 447.2 336.0 (): 447 447 336 336447447 :; 2,461 4467 3370 (11): 447447337, 337447447: 2,461 4479 3376 (13): 448448338 338448448: 2,467 449.1 337.9 (15): 449449338 338449449: 2,472 450.3 337.8 (17): 450450338. 338450450: 2,477 4514 3467 (19): 451451347 347451451: 2,499 4526 3557 (21): 453453356 356453453: 2,522 453.8 3646 (23): 454 454365 365454454 2,548 4550 3735 (25): 455 455-373 373455455: 2,567 456.2 3824 (27): 456 456 382 362456456: 2,589 457.3 391.3 (29): 457 457_—«391 3901 457: 2,155 458.5 400.2 (31): 459 459-400 459: 1,776 459.7 409.1___(33): 460 460_—~409 460_: 1,788 460.9 418.0 (35): 461 —461_—«418 461: 1,801 462.0 427.0 (37): 462 «462_—«427 462_: 1,813 463.2 435.9 (39): 463463436 463: 1,826 4644 4448 (41): 464464445 464: 1,838 465.6 453.7 (43): 466 466 454 466: 1,850 466.8 462.6 (45): 467467463. 467: 1,863 467.9 471.5 (47): 468 468472 : 1,407 469.1 4804 (49): 469 469 469: 1,407 470.3 4893 (51): 470 470 : 941 471.5 498.3 (53): 471474 47: 1,414 4726 5072 (55): 473473, 473: 1,418 4738 516.1 (57): 474 474: 948 475.0 525.0 ___ (59): 475 475 four e » PLLC 2of4 power C:\Documents and Settings\gKDesktopwiFor YukoniL3 Ph NEY L311 ver 11.245 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska x3 x"2 0.0000 x 0.0407 © 4.2052 annual gal gal 23,348 21,142 17,026 18,145 16,106 14,173 12,699 12,895 13,116 15,630 21,861 23,408 209,549 Predicted fuel demand, gph, Cat 3456 - Low BSFC bin mid pt 31 2 3810 308 3000 ts 81 30H 365 degF_ _Jan_ Feb Mar__Apr__May__ Jun Jul-Aug Sep_—Oct__—sNov_Dec. total 85: 20.4 20 83: 198 18.0 38 81: 196 177 37 79: 194175 175 54 7: 192174 174 54 75: 19.1172 172 54 73: 190 190 471 17.4 72 74 190 190 170 17.0 72 69 190 190 169 169 16.9 89 67 191 191 169 169 16.9 89 65: 192 192 169 169 16.9 89 63: 193193 169 169 16.9 89 61: 195 195 169 169 16.9 90 50: 197197 170 170 (17.0 90 87: 199 199 199 170 17.0 17.0 11 $5: 202 202 202 171 ~=174 «17.1 412 53: 205 205 205 172 472 (172 113 St: 208 208 208 173 173 (173 114 49 204241 211 174 174 174 116 a7: 215 215 215 176 176 «17.6 17, 45: 219 219 219 177177177 119 43: 223 223° 223° «179 ~=«179 «17.9 121 44 227 227 227 181 18.1181 18.1 140 39: 23.1 231 23.1 183 183183 18.3 143 37: 236 236 185 185 185 (18.5 121 35: 187 240 240 187 187 18.7 123 330: 189 245 245 189 189 189 125 31: 191 25.0 25.0 191 19.4 19.4 126 29 254 193 254 25.4 193193 193 25.4 179 27, 259 196 259 25.9 196 196 196 25.9 182 25: 264 264 198 264 264 198 198 26.4 191 23: 268 268 200 268 20.0 20.0 26.8 167 21: 273° 273° 203 273273 203° 203 27.3 7 197 19: 277 277 205277 205 205 277 277 : 200 17: 282 282 207 282 207 20.7 282 282 : 203 15: 286 286 21.0 286 21.0 21.0 286 286 206 13: 290 290 212 290 212 212 290 29.0 : 208 11: 294 294 214 294 214 294 294 : 190 9: 297 297 216 297 216 297 297 : 192 7: 304 301 218 30.1 218 30.1 301: 194 5: 304 304 220 304 220 304 304 196 3: 306 306 222 306 222 306 306 : 197 1: 309 309 223 30.9 223 309 309 : 199 (i): 310 310225310 225 310 31.0 : 200 @): 32 32 26 312 226 31.2 312 : 201 (5): 313° 313 228 313 228 313 313: 202 @: 314 314 29 229 314 314 : 171 (9): 314 314 229 229 314 314 : 171 (1): 313 313 230 230 31.3 313: 171 (3): 314 344 23.4 234314 314 : 172 (15): 316 315 23.4 234 315 315 : 172 (7): 316 316 23.4 234 316 316 = 173 (9): 7 NT 237 237 347 347: 174 (21): 318 318 24.4 244 8 318: 176 (23): 319 319 25.0 250 319 319: 178 (25): 320 320 257 257 320 320 : 179 (27): 324321 263 263 321 321: 181 (29): 322 322 27.0 27.0 322: 151 (31) 323° 323 27.7 323: 125 (33): 324324 28.4 324: 126 (35): 325 325 29.1 325: 127 (37): 326 326 298 326 : 128 (39): 327327305 327: 129 (41): 328 328 31.2 328 : 130 (43): 329329 31.9 329: 131 (45): 330330 326 33.0 = 132 (47) 33.1 33.1 33.4 3 100 (49): 332 332 33.2: 100 (51) 333 333 : 67 (53): 334 334 334: 100 (65): 335 335 335: 100 (57): 336 33.6: 67 (59) = 33.7 34 four 30f4 power (C:\Documents and SettingsightDeshtoplwiFort YukoniL3 Ph NFYL3 11 vor 11.x4s Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant power Fort Yukon Alaska CADocuments and Settingsigk\Desktopw\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.348 x3 1 heat recovery available? max kw HR available 285 x2 (0.00 x 041 © 217.13 annual kKBTU mmBTU 667, 604. «472, 506. 445300 351 356 362 431622 695,874,367 Predicted heat available for heat recovery, KBTU/h bin mid pt 310 28 tt Ht 8H 8H 365 deg F Jan___Feb Mar Apr May Jun __—Jul_— Aug Sep_—Oct_—Nov_Dec total 5: 555 2 555) 83 546 496 1,041 81 538 489 1,028 79 533484484 : 1,500 77 528 479 ~—«479 21487 75 525 475 «475 21476 73 524524 472_—«AT2 21,992 74 523523 «470_~—«A70 21,986 69 524524 -468— 46868 2 2,452 67: 526 526 467_—«467_—«A67 2,452 65: 528 528 467 ~—«467_—«A67 2 2,456 63: 532532 467_—=«467_—«A67 2,464 oi: 537 537_—«467_——AGT_—«BT. 2476 59: 542 542469 ~—« 469469 2 2,490 oT: S49 549549 A70_~—«470.—=—«AO 23,057 55_: 556 55655647272 : 3,086 53: 564564564475 75 «ATS ee St: 573 573—«573—A7B8«A7B«ATB 3,453 4: 563 5835834814814 : 3,492 a7: 503593593485 485485 3,235 45: 604-604 «604——«489 = 48989 3,280 43: 616 616 ~—«16— 04S 04 3,328 44 628628 «628 498_~—S 498498498 3.877 39 640-640 «640504804504 504 3,935 7 653-653 509509509509 3,342 35. 514667 —_—«667 514514514 3,391 33 520 680 680 520 520-520 3,442 34 526694694 526526526 23,494 29 709532709709 532 532_—532_—«709 4,964 27: 723539723723. 539539539723 5,047 2: 737 ~«737_—«5AS 737737 545845737 5,322 23: 752 752 —<552_—«752 552 552 752 2 4,661 21: 766 766 558 766766 558558 766 25,503 19: 700 780 +565 780 565565 780780: «5,592 7: 793 793 «571793 71571 —793—=793: ~——«5679 15: 807 807 —«577_~——«807. Ss 577 —*807_—=—C«OT:—S*S TS 13: 819 «819584819 584584819819: —S 8,847 ti: 831 831_—«590_—83t 59083131: 5,336 9: 843 843596843. 596843843. 5,405 7: 853 853 —«602_—«5S 602 853_—«853, 5,470 5: 863 863 607 ~—«863. 607 863_—«863, 5,529 “3: 872 872 612 872 612 872 —~872 5,583 1: 879 879 ~—«617_~—=«879 617879 «879 5,630 (): 885885 885, 622 885 «885 5.671 (): 890890 ‘890 626 890890: ~—«5,704 (5): 894 894629894 629894894 5728 (@: 896 896 «632 63289686: 4,849) (): 896 896 —«635 635896 «896 4,855 (i): 895895637 637 —-895_—«895 4,854 (13): 898898638 638 -898_—«898 4,869 (15): 901901639 639-901-901 4,882 (7): 904904639. 639-904-904 4,895 (19): 907 _—907_—«657 657 -907_—«907, 4,945 QQ): 9 911 «677 67911: «4,995 (23): 914914696 69691414: 5,047 5): 97 917 716 716 917_—S«7 =: ~———«S 100 (27): 920 920736 736 920 920: —5,153 (29): 923 923757 757 923: 4,284 (Si): 926 926778 926: 3,557 (33): 929929 800 929: 3,588 (35): 933933822 933: 3,620 (G7): 936 936 «Bad 936: 3,652 (39): 939939867 939: 3,684 (41): 942942890 942: 3717 (43): 945945913 945: 3,750 (45): 949949937 949: 3,783 (47): 952952962 2,865 (49): 955955, 955 2,865 (51): 958958 1,917 (53): 962962 962 2,885 (55): 965965 965 2,894 (57) = 968 968 1,936 (59) = 971 971 four e » PLLC 4of4 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G, part 2: Sample Calculations: Calculation of Current Oil Heating Consumption Requirements Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Bin hours, Fort Yukon Airport Data, average of 2007 / 08 bin mid 744 «672744720 744720744744 720744720788 8,760 pt 310 2B 8108 8 8 80 H— Bs 365 degF _Jan Feb Mar Apr__May Jun __Jul_ Aug Sep Oct_Nov__Dec total 85: 15 15 83: 20 20 4.0 et: 140 95 23.5 79: 225 185 15 425 77: 140 165 1.0 315 75: 275 405 15 69.5 73: 11.0 265 385 10.0 86.0 7: 90 370 415 145 102.0 6 17.0 565 535 30.0 1.0 158.0 67: 155 505 490 235 45 143.0 65: 135 635 56.0 36.0 120 181.0 63: 195 685 675 40.0 15.0 210.5 61: 255 530 690 435 20.0 211.0 59: 180 420 410 465 85 156.0 7: 15 385 635 730 77.0 14.0 267.5 55: 70 505 535 605 640 175 253.0 63: 45365 435 490 495 19.0 202.0 St: 105 57.5 30.0 23.0 50.5 355 207.0 49 85 470 245 195 37.0 39.0 175.5 a7: 205 625 11.5 55 480 390 177.0 45 265 590 7.0 60 56.0 535 208.0 43 300 440 40 30 34.0 535 168.5 41 240 290 20 05 17.0 365 05 109.5 39: 385 495 15 05 295 640 20 185.5 37: 415 380 05 155 520 25 150.0 36: 20 45.0 340 75 415 35 133.5 3.55 20 650 295 40 485 16.0 165.0 31: 05 485 265 20 31.0 235 132.0 29: 24 05 635 135 30 360 275 35 149.9 27 58 30 500 7.0 15 315 475 95 155.8 2: 05 39 25 390 15 220 520 25 123.9 23: 05 14 35 190 65 370 20 69.9 24 05 53 85 405 10 95 635 35 1 1323 19: 10 34 85 345 45 605 60 15: 1199 7: 10 43 190 235 20 465 280 80: 1323 15: 85 101 215 150 20 690 480 85: 1826 13: 150 11.2 275 105 05 430 325 45: 1447 11: 80 102 240 105 285 415 80: 1307 9: 195 147 360 125 235 535 140: 1737 7: 140 187 355 125 275 310 185: 157.7 5: 70 172 2410 35 105 320 7.0 : 98.2 3: 31.0 276 450 7.0 200 610 205: 2121 1: 520 295 445 15 235 695 380: 258.5 (): 170 196 32015 75 260 95: 113.1 (G): 440 221 325 30 85 305 300: 1706 (): 690 328 490 1.0 80 375 495: 2468 (@: 440 255 40.0 90 280 440: 1905 (): 435 304 385 85 300 330: 1839 (11): 540 201 495 130 215 425: 2006 (13): 205 79 255 90 115 300: 1044 (15): 41.0 226 325 10.0 100 440: ‘160.1 (7): 385 187 230 105 125 520: 155.2 (19): 345 122 265 80 205 455: 1472 (21): 185 108 140 65 215 325 103.8 (23): 230 192 155 55 335 34.0 130.7 (5): 15 215 7.0 55 11.0 21.0: 775. (2): 35 241 85 30 20 245 : 75.6 (29): 120 247 11.0 35 265 77 Gi): 80 163 50 18.5: 478 @): 90 197 35 120: 44.2 (35): 135 218 45 135: 53.3, (7): 85 18 40 10.5: 348 (9): 65 173 30 55: 323 @i): 70 153 50 120 : 39.3 (43): 60 119 35 105: 31.9 (45): 160 114 40 5.0 : 36.4 (47): 105 139 (15 25.9 @): 45 89 05 13.9 (i): 30 94 12.4 (53): 457.9 25 149 (55): 4011.7 60 : 27 (57): 106 05: 4 (53) 58 58 e » PLLC 10f5 oil heat ‘CADocuments and SetingsigkDesktopiwiFort YukoniL3 Ph NFYL3 1 vor 11248: Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska max KBTU/h 598.4 447.0 580.9 1452 93.2 2505 348.6 2324 17,000 17,000 13,000 13,000 16,000 16,000 4,000 4,000 2567 2,567 6,900 6,900 9,600 9,600 6,400 6,400 use 51 use 38 use 51 use 13 use 08 use 22 use 30 use 20 max 156 max 42 max max 40 max 40 max max max bin School Gym Main Off State Bldg = Shop District+Ch Store Post Office mid pt 0.050 0.065 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 degF Sp DHW Sp DHW Sp DHW Sp DHW Sp DHW Sp DHW Sp DHW__Sp_DHW. 85 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 83 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 at 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 79 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 7 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 75 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 73 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 7 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07, 0.09 0.06 69 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07, 0.09 0.06 67 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07, 0.09 0.06 65 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07, 0.09 0.06 63 0.26 0.25 0.45 0.04 0.02 0.07, 0.09 0.06 61 0.26 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 590.09 0.26 0.06 0.25 0.08_0.15 —0.02—0.04_~—0.01— 0.02 0.04_—0.07~—2i0.05—09— 0030.06 57 017 026 013 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.04 0.04 003 002 0.07 007 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 550.26 026 019 0.25 025 0.15 0.06 0.04 004 002 0.11 007 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.06 530.34 0.26 025 0.25 0.34 0.15 0.08 0.04 005 0.02 0.15 007 0.20 0.09 0.14 0.06 51043 026 031 0.25 042 0.15 0.11 0.04 007 0.02 0.18 007 025 0.09 0.17 0.06 49 051 026 038 0.25 051 0.15 013 0.04 008 002 022 007 0.30 0.09 0.20 0.06 47 060 0.26 044 025 059 0.15 0.15 0.04 009 0.02 0.26 0.07 0.35 0.09 0.24 0.06 45 068 0.26 050 0.25 068 0.15 0.17 0.04 011 002 029 007 041 0.09 0.27 0.06 43077 (0.26 057 025 076 015 019 0.04 012 002 033 0.07 046 0.09 0.30 0.06 41085 026 0630.25 085 0.15 0.21 0.04 014 0.02 0.36 007 051 0.09 0.34 0.06 390.94 0.26 069 0.25 0.93 0.15 0.23 0.04 015 0.02 040 007 056 0.09 0.37 0.06 371.02 0.26 0.75 0.25 1.01 0.15 0.25 0.04 0.16 0.02044 0.07~—O0.61_—0.09 410.06 351.11 0.26 082 0.25 1.10 0.15 _0.27_—«0.04 0.18 —0.02_—0AT_—O0.07~—O0.6H——09— 440.06 331.20 0.26 0.88 0.25 1.18 0.15 0.30 0.04 0.19 0.02051 0.07_—O0.71 0.09 0A7_—0.06 311.28 0.26 094 0.25 1.27 (0.15 0.32 0.04 020 0.02 055 007 076 0.09 0.51 0.06 291.37 (0.26 1.01025 1.35 0.15 034 0.04 022 002 058 007 081 0.09 0.54 0.06 27145 (026 107 0.25 144 0.15 036 0.04 023 002 062 007 086 0.09 057 0.06 25 154 (0.26 143 025 152 015 038 0.04 024 002 066 007 091 009 061 0.06 23162 026 1.19 0.25 161 0.15 040 004 026 0.02 069 007 096 0.09 064 0.06 211.71 (026 126 0.25 169 0.15 042 004 027 002 073 007 1.01 0.09 068 0.06 19 1.79 0.26 1.32 025 177 0.15 044 0.04 028 002 077 007 1.06 0.09 0.71 0.06 17 (1.88 0.26 1.38 (025 186 015 046 0.04 030 002 080 0.07 1.12 0.09 0.74 0.06 151.96 0.26 145 025 194 015 049 0.04 031 002 084 007 1.17 0.09 0.78 0.06 13205 0.26 151 025 203 015 051 0.04 033 002 087 0.07 122 009 081 0.06 11214 0.26 157 025 211 015 053 0.04 034 002 091 007 1.27 009 085 0.06 9222 0.26 164 025 220 0.15 055 0.04 035 0.02 095 007 132 0.09 0.88 0.06 7231 0.26 1.70 025 228 015 0.57 0.04 037 0.02 0.98 0.07 1.37 0.09 0.91 0.06 5 239 026 176 025 237 015 059 0.04 038 0.02 1.02 007 1.42 0.09 095 0.06 3248 026 182 025 245 0.15 061 0.04 039 0.02 1.06 0.07 1.47 0.09 0.98 0.06 1256 0.26 189 025 254 0.15 063 0.04 041 0.02 1.09 0.07 1.52 0.09 1.01 0.06 (1) 265 0.26 195 025 262 015 066 0.04 042 0.02 1.13 0.07 1.57 0.09 1.05 0.06 (3) 273 026 201 025 270 015 068 0.04 043 002 1.17 0.07 1.62 0.09 1.08 0.06 (5) 282 0.26 208 025 279 015 070 004 045 0.02 120 0.07 167 0.09 1.12 0.06 (7) 290 026 214 025 287 015 072 004 046 002 124 007 172 009 1.15 0.06 (9) 299 026 220 025 296 015 074 0.04 047 002 128 007 177 009 1.18 0.06 (11) 307 0.26 226 025 3.04 015 0.76 0.04 049 0.02 131 007 183 009 122 0.06 (13) 316 0.26 233 025 3.13015 0.78 0.04 050 002 135 007 188 0.09 1.25 0.06 (15) 3.25 0.26 239 025 3.21 0.15 0.80 0.04 052 002 139 007 1.93 0.09 128 0.06 (17) 333 0.26 245 025 330 0.15 0.82 0.04 053 002 142 007 1.98 0.09 1.32 0.06 (19) 342 026 252 025 338 0.15 085 0.04 054 002 146 007 203 0.09 1.35 0.06 (21) 350 026 258 025 347 015 087 0.04 056 002 149 0.07 208 009 139 0.06 (23) 359 026 264 025 355 015 089 0.04 057 002 153 007 213 009 142 0.06 (25) 367 0.26 270 025 363 015 091 0.04 058 002 157 007 218 009 145 0.06 (27) 376 026 277 025 372 015 093 0.04 060 002 160 007 223 009 149 0.06 (28) 384 0.26 283 025 380 015 095 0.04 061 002 164 007 228 009 152 0.06 (31) 3.93 026 289 0.25 389 0.15 0.97 0.04 062 0.02 168 007 233 009 156 0.06 (33) 401 026 296 0.25 397 015 099 0.04 064 002 171 007 238 009 159 0.06 (35) _410 026 3.02 0.25 406 0.15 1.01 0.04 065 002 175 007 243 009 162 0.06 (37) 418 026 3.08 0.25 414 015 1.04 0.04 066 002 179 007 248 009 1.66 0.06 (39) 4.27 026 3.14 0.25 423 015 106 0.04 068 0.02 182 007 254 009 169 0.06 (41) 436 026 321 0.25 431 (045 1.08 0.04 069 002 186 007 259 009 172 0.06 (43) 444 026 327 (0.25 439 0145 110 0.04 O71 002 190 007 264 009 176 0.06 (45) 453 026 3.33 0.25 448 015 1.12 0.04 072 002 193 007 269 009 179 0.06 (47) 461 026 340 0.25 456 0145 114 0.04 073 002 197 007 274 009 183 0.06 (49) 4.70 026 346 0.25 465 0145 116 0.04 075 0.02 200 007 279 0.09 186 0.06 (51) 4.78 026 352 025 473 045 118 0.04 076 002 204 007 284 0.09 189 0.06 (53) 487 026 358 025 482 015 120 0.04 077 002 208 007 289 009 193 0.06 (55) 4.95 026 365 0.25 490 015 1.23 0.04 079 002 211 007 294 009 196 0.06 (57) 5.04 026 3.71 0.25 499 015 1.25 0.04 080 002 215 007 299 009 199 0.06 (59) 5.12026 3.77 0.25 5.07 015 _127 0.04 _081 0.02 219 0.07 3.04 009 2.03 0.06 four e » PLLC 20f5 oil heat (CDocuments and Settings\gk\Desktopw\Fort YukoniL3 Ph NEY L3 11 ver 11.28 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 102.1 4626 6843 3156 299.5 2240 2750 4,964 4,964 24,080 24,090 20.000 20,000 9,000 9,000 8250 8,250 6,000 6,000 7,573 7,873 use 05 use 42 use 58 use 27 use 26 use 20 use 24 max 20 max 55 max 96 max max 26 max max bin Water Treat Pumphouse NewClinic City Bidg Yukon Flats OldClinic Tribal Office mid pt 0.750 0.400 0.065 0.050 0.030 0.015 0.030 degF Sp DHW DWH Sp_DHW Sp DHW Sp _DHW_Sp_DHW__Sp_DHW __ total 85 0:39 1.66 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03 0.07 3.18 83 0.39 1.70 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03 0.07 3.21 a4 039 1.73 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03, 0.07 3.25 79 0.39 1.77 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03, 0.07 3.28 7 0.39 1.80 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03, 0.07 3.32 75 0.39 1.84 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03, 0.07 3.35 73 039 1.87 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03, 0.07 3.39 71 0.39 1.91 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03 0.07 3.92 69 039 1.94 0.38 0.14 0.08) 0.03 0.07 3.96 7 0.39 1.98 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.07 3.99) 65 0.39 2.01 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.07 4.03 63 0.39 2.04 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.07, 4.06 61 0.39 2.08 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.03, 0.07, 4.10 590.01 0.39 211 010 038 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 479 87 002 039 215 019 0.38 0.09 0.14 009 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.07 5.48 550.03 0.39 2.18 029 038 0.14 014 013 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.07 6.17 530.03 0.39222 039 0.38 018 014 017 008 013 003 0.16 0.07 6.86 510.04 039 225 048 0.38 023 0.14 022 0.08 0.17 0.03 020 0.07 7.55 490.05 039 229 058 0.38 027 014 026 0.08 020 003 024 0.07 8.24 47006 039 232 067 0.38 0.32 0.14 031 0.08 0.23 0.03 028 0.07 8.93 45 0.07 039 236 077 0.38 036 0.14 035 0.08 0.26 003 0.32 0.07 9.62 430.08 0.39 239 087 0.38 041 0.14 039 0.08 0.30 0.03 0.36 0.07 10.31 41009 039 243 096 0.38 045 0.14 044 0.08 0.33 0.03 040 0.07 11.00 390.10 039 246 1.06 038 050 0.14 048 0.08 0.36 0.03 0.44 0.07 11.69 37 040 0.39 2.50 1160.38 054 0.14 052 0.08 040 0.03 048 0.07 12.38 35011 039 253 125 0.38 059 0.14 057 0.08 043 0.03 052 0.07 13.07 330.12 039 256 135 038 063 0.14 061 0.08 046 0.03 056 0.07 13.76 H_ 013 039 260 1.44 0.38 068 0.14 065 0.08 0.50 0.03 0.60 0.07 14.45 29014 039 263 154 038 072 044 070 0.08 053 003 064 0.07 15.14 270.15 039 267 164038 077 014 074 008 056 0.03 068 0.07 15.83 25 0.16 0.39 270 173038 081 0.14 078 0.08 060 003 072 0.07 16.52 23047 039 274 183038 086 0.14 083 0.08 063 0.03 076 0.07 17.21 21017 039 277 193038 090 014 087 0.08 0.66 0.03 080 0.07 17.89 19018 0.39 281 202 0.38 095 014 092 0.08 069 003 0.84 0.07 18.58 7019 0.39 284 212 038 099 014 096 0.08 073 003 0.88 0.07 19.27 15 0.20 0.39 288 221 0.38 1.04 0.14 1.00 0.08 0.76 003 092 0.07 19.96 13021 0.39 291 231 0.38 1.08 0.14 1.05 0.08 0.79 0.03 0.96 0.07 20.65 11022 039 295 241 0.38 1.13 0.14 109 0.08 0.83003 —*1.00 0.07 21.34 9 023 039 298 250 0.38 147 014 143 0.08 086 003 1.04 0.07 22.03 7024 039 302 260 0.38 122 014 148 008 089 003 1.08 0.07 22.72 5024 039 3.05 270 038 126 014 122 0.08 093 003 142 0.07 23.41 3025 039 3.08 279 0.38 131 014 126 008 0.96 003 116 0.07 24.10 1026 0.39 3.12 289 0.38 135 014 131 0.08 0.99 003 120 0.07 24.79 (i) 027 039 345 299 038 140 014 135 0.08 103 003 124 0.07 25.48 @) 028 039 319 308 0.38 144 014 139 0.08 1.06 003 128 0.07 26.17 (5) 029 039 322 318038 149 0.14 144 008 1.09 0.03 132 0.07 26.86 030 039 326 327 038 153 014 148 0.08 1.12 003 136 0.07 27.55 (9) 031 039 329 337 0.38 158 0.14 153 0.08 1.16 003 140 0.07 28.24 (ii) 031 039 333 347 038 162 014 157 008 1.19 003 144 007 28.93 (13) 032 039 336 356 0.38 167 0.14 161 0.08 1.22 003 148 0.07 29.62 (15) 033 039 3.40 366 0.38 171 014 166 0.08 1.26 003 152 0.07 30.31 (17) 034 039 3.43 376 0.38 176 014 170 0.08 1.29 003 156 0.07 31.00 (19) 035 039 347 385 0.38 1.80 0.14 174 0.08 1.32 0.03 1.60 0.07 31.69 (21) 0.36 0.39 3.50 395 0.38 185 014 179 0.08 1.36 0.03 1.64 0.07 32.38 (23) 037 039 3.54 404 0.38 189 0.14 183 0.08 1.39 0.03 1.68 0.07 33.07 (2) 038 039 357 414 038 194 014 187 0.08 1.42 (0.03 1.72 0.07 33.76 (27) 038 039 3.60 424 038 198 014 192 0.08 1.46 003 1.76 0.07 34.45 (28) 039 0.39 3.64 433 038 203 014 196 0.08 1.49 0.03 1.80 0.07 35.14 (31) 040 039 3.67 443038 207 0.14 200 0.08 1.52 0.03 1.84 0.07 35.83 (33) 041 039 371 453038 212 014 205 0.08 1.55 0.03 1.88 0.07 36.52 (35) 042 039 3.74 462038 216 014 209 0.08 159 003 192 0.07 721 (37) 043 039 378 472038 221 014 214 008 162 003 1.96 0.07 37.90 (39) 044 039 3.81 481 038 225 014 218 0.08 165 003 200 0.07 38.59 (41) 045 039 3.85 491 038 230 014 222 0.08 169 003 204 0.07 39.28 (43) 045 039 3.88 5.01 0.38 234 014 227 0.08 1.72 0.03 208 0.07 39.97 (45) 046 039 392 510 0.38 239 014 231 0.08 1.75 003 212 0.07 40.66 (47) 047 039 3.95 520 038 243 014 235 0.08 179 003 216 0.07 41.35 (49) 048 0.39 3.99 5.30 0.38 248 014 240 0.08 1.82 0.03 220 0.07 42.04 (51) 049 039 4.02 539 0.38 252 014 244 0.08 185 003 224 0.07 42.73 (53) 050 0.39 4.06 549 0.38 257 014 248 0.08 1.89 0.03 228 0.07 43.42 (55) 051 039 4.09 558 0.38 261 014 253 0.08 192 003 232 0.07 44.41 (57) 052 039 4.12 568 0.38 266 014 257 0.08 1.95 0.03 236 0.07 44.80 (59) 052 039 416 578 038 270 014 261 0.08 1.98 0.03 240 0.07 45.49 four e , PLLC 30f5 oil heat (CADocuments and Settings\gk'Desktopiw\Fort YukoniL3 Ph NEY L3 11 vor 11.48 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska annual gal gal 21,855 20,783 19,765 10,662 6,568 3,537 3,567 5,159 7,883 15,259 17,969 22,338 155,344 Predicted fuel demand, gph, heating bin mid pt 3 28st 30 88H 3003 300 365 —gph__degF___Jan___Feb Mar __Apr__ May _Jun__Jul__ Aug Sep __—Oct__—Nov__Dec total 3.18 85 32 3 3.21 83 32 32 6 3.25 81 3232 6 3.28 79 33° 3333 10 3.32 7 33° 3333 10 3.35 75 343434 10 3.39 73: 3434 3434 14 3.92 7: 39393939 16 3.96 69: 40 40 40 40 40 20 3.99 67: 40 40 40 40 ~~ 40 20 4.03 65: 40 40 40 40 4.0 20 4.06 63: 4144 44 44 44 20 4.40 61: 44 41 41 4444 20 479 59: 48 48 48 48 48 24 5.48 57: 5555 65 55 55 55 33 6.17 55: 62 62 62 62 62 62 37 6.86 53: 69 69 69 69 69 69 41 7.55 51: 75 75 75 78 75 75 45 8.24 49: 82 82 82 82 82 82 49 8.93 47: a9 89 89 89 89 89 54 9.62 45: 96 96 96 96 96 96 58 10.31 43: 103 103 103 103 10.3 10.3 62 11.00 41 114.014.014.010 1.0 1.0—11.0 7 11.69 39: W707 NTT TTT 82 12.38 37: 124 124 124124 124 12.4 74 13.07 36: 13.4 13.4 13.4 134 13.4 13.4 78 13.76 33: 138 138 13.8 138 138 13.8 83 14.45 3 44144 144 144 144 (14.4 87 15.14 2: 15.1 15.1 15.1 ‘16.4 154154154 15.4 421 15.83 ar: 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 127 16.52 25: 165 165 (165 165 165 165 165 165 132 17.21 23: 172 172 172~—«172 172172 (172 120 17.89 21: 179 179 (179179 «179 179 179 179 : 143 18.58 19: 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 = 149 19.27 7: 193 193 193193 193193193 19.3: 154 19.96 15: 200 200 200 20.0 200 200 200 200 : 160 20.65 13: 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 : 165 21.34 Wo: 213 213213213 213213213: 149 22.03 9: 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 : 154 22.72 7: 27 27 27 27 227 227 227: 159 23.41 5: 234 234 234 23.4 234 234 234 : 164 24.10 3: 241 264 244 244 241 244 24.1 = 169 24.79 1: 248 248 248 248 248 248 248 : 174 25.48 (i): 255 255 25.5 25.5 255 255 255 : 178 26.17 (3): 262 262 262 26.2 26.2 262 262 : 183 26.86 (5): 269 269 269 26.9 26.9 269 26.9 : 188 27.55 (@): 276 276 276 276 276 278 : 165 28.24 (Q): 282 282 282 26.2 282 282 = 169 2693 (11): 289 289 289 289 289 289 = 174 2962 (13): 296 296 296 296 296 296 : 178 30.31 (15): 303 30.3 303 30.3 303 303 : 182 31.00 (17): 34.0 314.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 = 186 3169 (19): 317781. 37 37317: 190 3238 (21): 324 324 324 324 324 324 = 194 33.07 (23): 33.1 33.1 33.4 33.1334 334: 198 33.76 (25): 338 338 33.8 338 338 338 : 203 3445 (27): 345 345 34.5 345 345 345: 207 35.14 (29): 95.4 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1: 176 35.83 (31): 95.8 35.8 35.8 35.8: 143 3652 (33): 965365 36.5 36.5: 146 3721 (35): 372 7.2372 37.2 149 3790 (37): 379 37.9 37.9 37.9 = 152 38.59 (39): 386 386 38.6 38.6 154 39.28 (41): 393 39.3 39.3 393: 157 39.97 (43): 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 : 160 40.66 (45): 407 407 40.7 40.7 : 163 41.35 (47): 414 414414 : 124 42.04 (49): 420 42.0 420 : 126 4273 (51): 427427 : 85 4342 (53): 434 43.4 434: 130 44.41 (55): 444 481 444: 132 44.80 (57): 48 448: 90 45.49 (59): 45.5 : 45 four e PLLC 40f5 oil heat (CADocuments and Setingsigk'Desktop\w'Fort YukoniL3 Ph NEY L311 vor 11.d8 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska 134,000 BTU/gal 0.830 eff annual kBTU 2.431 2312 2,198 1,186 730 393 397 574 877 1,697 1,998 2,484 17,277,360 Predicted heat load profile, buildings, kBTU/h bin mid pt 310 28H 30. (3t 300 tt 30031 300 3t 365 kKBTUh deg _ Jan Feb Mar Apr-May __Jun__Jul_—Aug_—Sep_—Oct__—Nov_Dec kw 353.7 85 : 354 103.7 357.6 83: 358358 104.8 361.4 61 : 361361 105.9 365.379 : 365365365 107.1 369.177: 369369369 108.2 373.0 75 : 373373373 109.3 376.8 73: 377377 110.4 436.5 71: 436436436436 127.9 440.3 69 : 440 440440440440 129.1 444.2 67 : 444 444444444444 130.2 448.0 65 : 448448448448 448 131.3 4519 63 : 452 452452452452 132.4 4557 61: 456 456456456456 133.6 5325 59 : $32 5322 S282 156.1 609.2 57 _: 609 609-609 609 609, 609 178.5 685.9 55 : 686 686686686. 686 686. 201.0 7627 53: 763_-763_—763— 763763763 223.5 839.4 51: 839839839839 839839 246.0 916.1 49: 916 916 916 916 ~=—916~—96 268.5 9928 47 : 993 993 903993993993 291.0 1,069.6 45: 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070 _1,070 313.5 1,146.3 43: 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 336.0 1,223.0 41: 1,223 1,223 1,223 1,223 1,223 1,223 1,223 358.4 1,299.7 39 : 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 _ 1,300 380.9 1,376.5 37_: 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 1,376 403.4 1,453.2 36: 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,453 1,453 425.9 1,529.9 33: 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530_ 1,530 448.4 1,606.6 31: 1,607 1,607 _ 1,607 1,607 1,607 _ 1,607 __ 470.9 1,683.4 29 : 1,683 1,683 1,683 1,683 1,683 1,683 1,683 _ 1,683 493.4 1,760.1 27_: 1,760_1,760__1,760__ 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 _1,760 515.9 1,836.8 25: 1,837 1,837 1,837,837 1,837 1,837 1,837 _1,837 538.3 1.9136 23 : 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1.914 1,914 1,914 560.8 1,990.3 21: 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 _1,990 1,990 1,990 _ 1,990 : 583.3 2,067.0 19 : 2,067 2,067 2,067 2,067 2,067 2,067 2,067 2,067 : 605.8 21437 17 : 2144 2,144 2144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2,144 2.144: 628.3 2.2205 15 : 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220: 650.8 22972 13 : 2,297 2,297 2,297 _2,297 2,297 2,297 2,297 2,297 : 673.3 2.3739 11 : 2,374 2,374 2,374 2,374 2374 2,374 2374 : 695.8 24506 9 : 2451 2451 2451 2,451 2451 2,451 2.451 : 748.2 25274 7 : 2527 2527 2527 2,527 2,527 2,527 2,527 : 740.7 2,604.1 5: 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 2,604 : 763.2 2,680.8 3: 2,681 2,681 2,681 2,681 2,681 2,681 2,681 : 785.7 27576 1: 2,758 2,758 2,758 2,758 2,758 2,758 2,758 : 808.2 2,834.3 (1): 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834: 830.7 2911.0 (3): 2911 2.911 2911 2,911 2911 2911 2911 : 853.2 2,987.7 (5): 2,988 2,988 2,988 2,988 2,988 2,988 2,988: 875.7 3,064.5 (7) : 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064: 898.1 34412 (9): 3141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3,141 3.141: 9206 3.2179 (11): 3,218 3,218 3,218 3.218 3,218 3,218: 943.1 3,294.6 (13): 3,295 3,295 3,295 3,295 3,295 3,295 : 965.6 3,371.4 (15): _3,371_3,371_3,371 337133713371: 988.1 3,448.1 (17): 3.448 3,448 3,448 3,448 3,448 3,448: 1,010.6 3,524.8 (19) : 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 : 1,033.1 3,601.5 (21) : 3,602 3,602 3,602 3,602 3,602 3,602 : 1,055.6. 3,678.3 (23): 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678 3,678 : ‘1,078.0 3,755.0 (25) :_3,755 3,755 _ 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 : 1,100.5 3,831.7 (27) :_3,832_3,832_ 3,832 3,832 3,832 3,832: 1,123.0 3,908.5 (29): 3,908 3,908 3,908 3,908 3,908: 1,145.5 3,985.2 (31): 3,985 3,985 3,985 3,985: 1,168.0 4,061.9 (33) : 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062: 1,190.5 4,138.6 (35): 4,139 4,139 4,139 4.139: 1,213.0 42154 (37): 4.215 4,215 4,215 4215: 1,235.5 4,292.1 (39): 4,202 4,292 4,292 4292 : 1,257.9 4,368.8 (41): 4,369 4,369 4,369 4,369: 1,280.4 44455 (43): 4446 4.446 4,446 4.446 1,302.9 4,522.3 (45): 4,522 4,522 4,522 4522 1,325.4 4,599.0 (47): 4,599 4,599 4,599 1,347.9 4,675.7 (49): 4,676 4,676 4,676 1,370.4 47525 (51): 4,752 4,752 2 1,392.9 4,829.2 (53): 4,829 4,829 4829 : 1,415.4 4,905.9 (55) :_ 4,906 4,906 4906: 1,437.8 4,982.6 (57): 4,983 4983: 1,460.3 5,059.4 (59) = 5,059 1,482.8 four e , PLLC 5o0f5 oil heat C:\Documents and Settingsigk\DesktopwFort Yukon\L3 Ph NFYL3 11 ver 11s Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G, part 3: Sample Calculations: Pipe Sizing and Routing Diagram Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska 1.5 9 District delta T 25.0 water fraction 1.00 max avg T 1775 DSHP 487.6 w/Plant M2 5,209.4 M1 4,985.4 E1 4,608.3 E2 3,985.4 Base 3,376.0 fuel store 150.0 Plant ‘space heat 12.3 15 a b 462.6 DHW 37.9 ¢| 2.0 20 d 90.8 7.4 Church 35 10 Y Flats 299.5 24.6 2.0 900 four e , PLLC Shop 93.2 7.6 1.5 35 8 250.5 20.6 2.0 (ch+Dist) dist only 159.8 13.1 15 35 M2 5,059.4 415.1 8.0 M1 4,835.4 396.7 8.0 €1 4,458.3 365.7 8.0 E2 3,835.4 314.6 8.0 Base 3,226.0 264.6 4.0 Base 643.3 52.8 25 Base 550.1 45.1 2.5 M2 3,953.5 324.3 8.0 M1 3,729.5 306.0 8.0 —1 3,352.4 275.0 4.0 E2 2,729.6 223.9 4.0 Base 2,120.1 173.9 4.0 Base 1,105.8 90.7 3.0 pdwg C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort YukoniL3 Ph NFY L311 ver 17.xis M2 M2 3,808.3 2,762.9 312.4 226.7 8.0 4.0 224.0 O Clinic M1 M1 18.4 15 3,584.3 2,538.9 15 294.0 208.3 1,360 340 8.0 4.0 N Clinic M2 M1/E1 2.0 E41 —1 684.3 12 908.3 684.3 25.9 3,207.2 2,161.8 56.1 74.5 56.1 315.6 263.1 177.3 25 m 25 CityB 4.0 4.0 540 1 E2 E2 M1/E1 M2 45 2,584.4 1,538.9 90 999.9 1,223.9 240 1.5 212.0 126.2 25 82.0 100.4 2.0 11.9 4.0 4.0 47.7 3.0 4.0 22.6 145.2 Base Base 580.9 275.0 State 1,974.9 929.5 CATG Off I Tribal 6 162.0 76.3 5 13 f 4.0 3.0 i k h i M2 3 M2 4 M2 E2/M1,2 g 2,181.9 | Store 1,833.4 | P. Off 1,601.0 377.1 1 2 179.0 348.6 150.4 232.4 131.3 30.9 School _}| Gym 4.0 28.6 4.0 19.1 4.0 2.0 598.4 447.0 M1 2.0 M1 2.0 M1 49.1 36.7 1,957.9 50 1,609.4 50 1,377.0 25 2.0 160.6 132.0 113.0 24 24 40 4.0 4.0 14+2 E1 —1 —1 1,045.4 1,580.9 1,232.3 999.9 85.8 129.7 101.1 82.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 E2 E2 E2 958.0 609.4 377.1 78.6 50.0 30.9 3.0 25 2.0 Base Base 348.6 232.4 28.6 19.1 2.0 2.0 1of4 14 Water T 102.1 8.4 1.5 185 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G, part 4: Sample Calculations: Pipe Sizing and Heat Loss Calculations: Alaska Wood Energy Associates Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Base _Exp1 2.0 4.0 8.0 870 Segments, length, ft Base Exp 1 a 435 435 b 98 98 c 90 90 d 228 228 e: 260 260 f: 170 170 g: 100 100 h 60 60 i 200 200 j 188 188 k 95 : 1,255 m: 290 Exp 2 Max1 Max2 3,164 3,068 4,312 4,802 7,522 3,110 7,376 3,016 6,516 6,516 n: sub 1,829 3,469 Run-outs, length, ft Base Exp1 Exp2 Max1_ Max2 OBNONAFWNH A 10: 44- 12: 13 : 14: 15: PH: sub total four , PLLC 24 24 50 50 90 45 35 35 35 900 20 1,308 24 24 50 50 90 45 35 35 35 900 340 540 20 2,188 870 1,730 1,730 Exp 2 Max1 Max2 435 435 435 98 98 98 90 90 90 228 228 228 260 260 260 170 170 170 100 100 100 60 60 60 200 200 200 188 188 188 95 95 95 1,255 1,255 290 290 442 442 442 2,366 3,911 3,911 24 24 24 24 24 24 50 50 50 50 50 50 90 90 90 45 45 45 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 900 900 900 340 340 540 540 240 240 240 185 185 185 1,360 20 20 20 1,733 2,613 3,973 3,137 5,657 4,099 6,524 7,884 Size, calculated, NPS Base Exp1 Exp2 Max1_ Max2 Size, calculated, NPS Base Exp 1 Exp2_ Max1_ Max2 Dann in Iakwn-= s3_-x.~ sea 4PQa07D = SCOMNANAWN = 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 8.0 3.0 25 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 25 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 25 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 8.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 25 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1of2 (8" = (2) x 4") 8.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 25 25 25 25 8.0 8.0 8.0 80 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 3.0 4.0 25 3.0 20 20 (8" = (2) x 4") 25 25 20 20 20 2.0 20 20 25 25 15 15 15 15 20 20 15 15 20 2.0 20 2.0 25 25 20 2.0 15 15 1.5 20 2.0 p Tables C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph I\FY L3 | 1 ver 11.xis use sizes: 2.0 4.0 8.0 Size, BOD, NPS (8" = (2) x 4") Base Exp 1 Exp2_ Max1_ Max2 a: 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 b: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 c: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 d: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 e: 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 g: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 h: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 i: 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 j: 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 k: 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 I: 4.0 4.0 4.0 m: 4.0 4.0 4.0 n: 2.0 2.0 2.0 Size, BOD, NPS (8" = (2) x 4") Base Exp 1 Exp2 Max1_ Max2 1: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 T: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 9: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1: 2.0 2.0 2.0 12: 4.0 4.0 4.0 13: 2.0 2.0 2.0 14: 2.0 2.0 2.0 15: 2.0 PH: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska bury depth, in T(avg): min soil T: use Cond: Max Heat Loss, kKBTU/h Base 38.7 8.7 8.0 20.3 23.1 15.1 8.9 5.3 10.2 9.5 33—~xu.. Fea 40PQ20Tm sub 147.8 51 177.5 0.0 med Exp 1 77.3 8.7 8.0 20.3 23.1 15.1 8.9 5.3 17.8 16.7 8.4 111.6 25.8 347.1 Max Heat Loss, kBTU/h Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 1: 2.1 2: 1.2 3: 25 4: 2.5 5: 8.0 6: 2.3 7: 1.8 8: 1.8 9: 1.8 10: 45.7 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: PH: 1.0 sub 70.8 total 218.6 four e , PLLC 2.1 1.2 2.5 2.5 8.0 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 45.7 17.3 48.0 1.0 136.1 483.1 Exp 2 77.3 8.7 8.0 20.3 23.1 15.1 8.9 5.3 17.8 16.7 4.8 22.4 228.6 2.1 1.2 2.5 2.5 8.0 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 45.7 12.2 9.4 1.0 92.4 320.9 2.0 4.0 8.0 Max 1 77.3 8.7 8.0 20.3 46.2 30.2 8.9 5.3 17.8 16.7 8.4 111.6 25.8 22.4 407.8 2.1 1.2 2.5 2.5 8.0 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 45.7 17.3 48.0 12.2 9.4 1.0 157.6 565.4 13.413 9.784 4.892 Max 2 77.3 8.7 8.0 20.3 46.2 30.2 8.9 5.3 17.8 16.7 8.4 111.6 25.8 22.4 407.8 2.1 1.2 25 2.5 8.0 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 45.7 17.3 48.0 12.2 9.4 69.1 1.0 226.7 634.5 med moist 6.990 6.562 3.993 3.607 1.997 1.804 Min Heat Loss, kKBTU/h 2 gs ols 3i—xu. sea 4.0a00m T(avg): max soil T: Base 20.2 45 4.2 10.6 12.0 7.9 46 2.8 5.3 5.0 77.0 p Tables C:\Documents and Settings\gk\Desktop\w\Fort Yukon\L3 Ph FY L311 ver 11.x/s 137.5 45.0 Exp 1 40.3 4.5 4.2 10.6 12.0 7.9 46 2.8 9.3 8.7 4.4 58.1 13.4 180.9 Min Heat Loss, kKBTU/h Base Exp 1 Exp 2 Max 1 Max 2 10: 1: 12: 13: 14: 15 : PH : sub total 20f2 OONODNARWNH = 11 0.6 1.3 1.3 4.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 23.8 0.5 36.9 113.9 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 4.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 23.8 9.0 25.0 0.5 70.9 251.8 Exp 2 40.3 4.5 4.2 10.6 12.0 7.9 4.6 2.8 9.3 8.7 2.5 11.7 119.1 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 4.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 23.8 6.4 4.9 0.5 48.1 167.2 Max 1 40.3 4.5 4.2 10.6 24.1 15.8 46 28 9.3 8.7 44 58.1 13.4 11.7 212.5 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 4.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 23.8 9.0 25.0 6.4 4.9 0.5 82.1 294.6 Max 2 40.3 4.5 4.2 10.6 24.1 15.8 4.6 2.8 9.3 8.7 44 58.1 13.4 11.7 212.5 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 4.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 23.8 9.0 25.0 6.4 4.9 36.0 0.5 118.1 330.6 Fort Yukon District Heating Plant Final Design Process Fort Yukon, Alaska 35 Percent Report Appendix G, part 5: Sample Calculations: Calculation of Heat Sources (recovered heat, wood, oil), and associated fuel consumption (wood, oil, and electrical energy) NOTE: Only the chosen plant, Maximum Plant 1, is shown — there are four more sets of these calculations for the other four plants studied. Alaska Wood Energy Associates “ Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska fe e Max Plant 1 Bin hours, Fort Yukon Airport Data, average of 2007 / 08 bin mid 744 «672,744 720744720 744744720 744720 74M 8,760 pt 310-2881 30 84 88 B88 365 degF _Jan Feb Mar _Apr__May Jun _Jul_ Aug Sep __Oct__Nov__Dec total 85: 15 15 83: 20 20 40 a1: 140 95 23.5 79: 225 185 15 425 7: 140 165 1.0 315 75: 75 405 15 69.5 73: 11.0 265 385 10.0 86.0 7: 90 370 415 145 102.0 69: 170 565 535 300 10 158.0 67: 155 505 490 235 45 143.0 65: 135 635 56.0 360 120 181.0 63: 195 685 675 400 15.0 210.5 61: 255 530 690 435 20.0 211.0 59: 180 420 410 465 85 156.0 7: 15 385 635 730 77.0 140 267.5 55: 70 505 635 605 640 17.5 253.0 53: 45 365 435 490 495 190 202.0 ot: 105 57.5 300 230 505 35.5 207.0 49: 85 470 245 195 37.0 39.0 175.5 a7: 205 525 115 55 480 39.0 177.0 45: 265 590 70 60 560 535 208.0 43: 30.0 440 40 30 340 535 168.5 4: 240 290 20 05 170 365 05 109.5 39: 385 495 15 05 25 640 20 185.5 37: 415 38.0 05 155 520 25 150.0 35: 2.0 45.0 34.0 75 415 35 133.5 33: 20 65.0 295 40 485 16.0 165.0 31: 05 485 265 20 31.0 235 132.0 29 24 05 635 135 30 360 275 35 149.9 a7: 58 30 500 7.0 15 315 475 95 155.8 2: 05 39 25 390 15 220 520 25 123.9 23: 05 14 35 190 65 370 20 69.9 21 05 53 85 405 1.0 95 635 35 1323 19: 10 34 85 345 45 605 60 15: 1199 7: 10 43 190 235 20 465 280 80 132.3 15: 85 101 215 150 20 690 480 85: 1826 13: 150 12 275 105 05 430 325 45 144.7 11: 80 102 240 105 285 415 80: 1307 9: 195 147 360 125 235 535 14.0 173.7 7: 140 187 355 125 275 310 185: 1577 5: 70 172 210 35 105 320 7.0 98.2 3: 310 276 450 7.0 20.0 61.0 205 212.4 1: 520 295 445 15 235 695 38.0 258.5 (): 170 196 320 15 75 260 95 113.1 (3): 440 221 325 3.0 85 305 300 170.6 (): 690 328 490 10 80 375 495 246.8 (@): 440 255 40.0 90 280 440 190.5 ©): 435 304 385 85 300 330: 1839 (11): 540 201 495 13.0 215 425 200.6 (13): 205 79 255 90 115 300 104.4 (15): 410 226 325 10.0 10.0 44.0 160.1 (7): 385 187 23.0 105 125 520 155.2 (19): 345 122 26.5 80 205 455 147.2 (i): 185 108 14.0 65 215 325: 1038 (23): 230 192 155 55 335 340: 1307 (25): 15 215 7.0 55 140 21.0 = 75 (2): 135 241 85 30 20 245 75.6 (29): 120 247 11.0 35 26.5 77 (i): 80 163 50 185 478 @): 90 197 35 120 442 (5): 35 218 45 135 53.3 G7): 85 18 40 105 ue (9): 65 173 30 55 323 (i): 70 153 5.0 12.0 39.3 (43): 60 119 35 105 319 (45): 160 114 40 5.0 36.4 (47): 105 13915 25.9 (4): 45 89 05 13.9 (i): 3094 124 (3): 45 79 25 14.9 (55): 40147 60 207 (67): 106 05 114 (53) 58 58 ir » PLLC 10f7 HR+wood ‘C:ADocuments and Settingsigk\Desktopw\Fort YukoniL3 Ph NEY L311 ver 11.xis Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max Plant 1 annual min keTU max 150 mmBTU 2,747 2,602 2,507 1,450 986 630 641 825 1,130 1,987 2,292 2,803 20,600,577 at 49 Predicted heat load profile, biomass plant, KBTU/h bin piping mid bidgs plant losses total pt 312831 30 31 80H 8H 365 kBTU/h_kBTU/h KBTU/h KBTU/h degF _Jan Feb Mar _Apr__May Jun __Jul__Aug Sep _Oct__Nov_Dec. total 350 295 64585: 645 645 354 29865383: 653653 1,305 358 30266081: 660 660 1,321 362 30666879: 668668668 2,004 366 31067677: 676676 676 2,027 370 31368375: 683683683 2,049 374 3769173: 691691691691 2,763 433 32175471: 754754 754 754 3,017 437 325 76269 : 762762 762 762 762 3,809 441 328 769_—«67 769769 769 769 769 3,847 445 332 77_—~65 : 7 777 7 7777 3,885 449 33678563: 785785 785 785 785 3,923 452 34079261: 792792792792 792 3,961 525 34486959: 869 869 869 869 «869 4,345 599 34794657: 946 946946946946 (946 5,675 672 361102355: 4,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,023, 6,136 745 355_ 1,099 53: 1,099 1,099 1,099 1,099 1,099 1,099 6,597 818 369 1,176 51: 1,476 1,176 1,176 1,176 1,176 1,176 7,057 891 3 362_1,256 49: 1,256 1,256 1,256 1,256 1,256 1,256 7,535 964 5 366 1,335 47: 1,335 1,335 1,335 1,335 1,335 1,335 8,012 1,037 8 370 1415 45: 1415 1,415 1.415 1,415 1,415 1,415 8,489 111011374 1,494 43 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 8,966 118314 377_—*1,574 41: 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,574 11,018 125616 ~—«381_—«1,653—«39 1,653 1,653 1,653 1,653 1,653 1,653 1,653 11,574 132919 -385—«44,733_—«37 4,733 1,733 1,733 _1,733_1,733_1,733 10,398 1,402 22-389 1,813 35: 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 10,875 147525 302_*1,892_ 33: 1,892 1,892 1,892 1,892 1,892 1,892 11,352 154827 ——«396_—«*14,972—t 1,972 1,972 1,972 4,972 1,972 1,972 11,830 1,621 30 400_—-2,051 29: 2,051 _2,051_2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 16,409 1694334042317 2,131 2,131 2,131 2,131 2.431 2,131 2,131 2,131 17,045 1767 _-35_—«407_~—«22,210 25: 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 2,210 17,682 1,840 38 —«411_—2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290 16,028 1913 41_—«415 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 2,369 i 18,954 1.98644 —«419—«2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2.449 2,449: 19,591 2,060 46 —423—«2,528 2,528 2,528 2,528 2,528 2,528 2,528 2,528 2.528 : 20,227 2.13349 426 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2,608 2.608 : 20,863 2,206 52430 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 2,687 : 21,500 2.279 55 434 _—2,767 22,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 2,767 : 19,369 2.352 57 438_—2,847 22,847 2,847 2,847 2,847 2,847 2,847 2,847 : 19,926 2.425 60 441_—2,926 2,926 2,926 2,926 2,926 2,926 2,926 : 20,482 2498 63445 3,006 3,006 3,006 3,006 3,006 3,006 3,006 : 21,039 2.571 65 _—449—3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 : 21,596 2.644 68 453_—3,165 23,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 : 22,153 2717 71 456 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 3,244 22.709 2,790 74 460 3,324 3,324 3,324 3,324 3,324 3,324 : 23,266 2,863 76 464 3,403 3,403 3,403 3.403 3,403 3,403: 23,823 2.936 79 468 3,483 3,483 3,483 3,483 3,483 : 20,897 3009 82_—471 3,562 3,562 3,562_3,562_3,562 21,374 308285475 3,642 3,642 3,642 3,642 3,642 21,851 3155 87 _—«479—3,721 13,721 3,721 3,721 3,721_3,721 3,721 22,328 3,228 90 483_—3,801 : 3,801 3,801 3,801 3,801 3,801 3,801 : 22,806 3,301 93486 3,880 3,880 3,880 3,680 3,880_3,880_3,880 23,283 3,374 95-490 _3,960 : 3,960 3,960 3,960 3,960 3,960 3,960 : 23,760 3447 98 494 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 : 24,237 3,520 101498 4,119 24,119 4,119 4,119 4119 4119 4,119: 24,715 3,594 104 501_4,199 4,199 4,199 4,199 4,199 4,199 4,199: 25,192 3.667106 505 4,278 24,278 4,278 4,278 4,278 4278 4,278 : 25,669 3,740 109 509 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,358: 21,789 3813112513 4,437 24,437 4,437 4,437 4437 = 17,749 3886115 —«517_—4,517 4517 4,517 4,517 4517 : 18,067 3.959 117 _—«520_4,596 24,596 4,596 4,596 4596: 18,385 4,032 120524 4,676 4,676 4,676 4,676 4676 = 18,703 4105 123528 4,755 24,755 4,755 4,755 4,755 = 19,022 4178 125 532 4,835 4,835 4,835 4,835 4,835 19,340 4251 128535 4,914 24,914 4,914 4,914 4,914 19,658 4324131 —«539_—«4,994 24,994 4,994 4,994 4,994 19,976 4397 134_——543_—5,074 25,074 5,074 5,074 15,224 4470 136 547 5,153 5,153 5,153 5,153 15,459 4543139550 5,233, : 5,233 5,233 10,465 4616 142 554 5,312 5,312 5,312 5.312: 15,936 4689 145 558 5,392 5,392 5,392 5.392: 16,175 4762147 5625474 5,471 5.471 10,942 4,835 150 565_5.551 5,551 5,551 four e » PLLC 2of7 HR+wood ‘C:\Documents and SettingsigkDesktopw\Fort YukoniL3 Ph NFY.L3 11 ver 11x18 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max Plant 4 max kW 1,627 5,315 BTUMb max HR KW 285 0.840 eff 1,342 annual tons 308-291-281 162107172 91D 228 ET 34 2,307 Predicted wood consumption, Ib/hr (no HR) bin mid pt 30 628 180 8H 808 365 ' Ibihr__degf _ Jan Feb Mar Apr-May __Jun__—Jul_— Aug Sep__—Oct_Nov_Dec. kw. y 1445 85: 144 189.1 146.283: 146146 191.3 1479 81: 148148 193.5 1496 79 = 150150150 195.7 151377 = 151 151_—«151 198.0 153.075 = 153 153_——*153 200.2 1547 73: 155155155 «155 202.4 1689 71 = 169169 —*169~—«169 221.0 1706 69 = mitt 774 223.3 1723 67 = 172 172_—«72_——A72__—=*A2 225.5 1740 65 = 1741747417474 2277 1758 63 176176176176 ——«A6 229.9 175 61: wi? 77 2322 1947 59: 195 195195195195 254.7 2119 57: 2122122122122 212 2772 2291 55: 229 229229 229229 299.7 2463 53: 246 2462624624626 322.2 2635 51: 263 —-263—«263—— 263263263. 3447 281.3 49: 281 2812818128128 368.0 299147: 299-299 «299289299299 391.4 3169 45 = 3737777 4147 3348 43: 33533533558 438.0 3526 41 = 3533533535385 SS_ES 461.3 3704 39 = 370370370370 370~—370 «370 484.6 388.237: 388388 388388388388 507.9 406.0 35 = 406 406-406 406 406406 531.2 4238 33: 424424424 424424424 554.5 4ai7 31: 442-442-442 442442442 S78 459529 = 459 -459_—«459_——459 459459459459) 601.2 47327: 477477477 477477477477 624.5 495.1 25 : 495 495 495 ~—«495 495 495 495-495 647.8 5129 23: 513 513 513513 513513513, e714 5307 21: 531 531 «53153153 531531531 694.4 5486 19: 549 549549549 549 549549) 777 5664 17 : 566 566 566 566 566 566566, 741.0 5842 15 : 584 584 584 584 584584584 764.3 6020 13: 602 602 602 _~—«G02 602 602-602 787.6 619811 620 620620 «620 620620 811.0 6376 9 : 638 638 638 638 638638 634.3 6555 7: 655 655 655 —«655 655655 857.6 67335: 673 ~—«673_~—C«G73_——C«3 673-673. 880.9 6143: 6916916919 691691 904.2 7089 1: 709 709 709 709 709709 927.5 7267 (i): 727727727727 727727 950.8 7445 (3): 745745745745 745745 2 9744 7624 (5): 762 ~—~*762~—=S762_—«762 762 762_—*762 997.4 790.2 (7): 780780780 780780780: ‘1,020.8 798.0 (9): 798 798798 798798798 1,044.1 8158 (11): 816 816 816 816816 B16: «1,067.4 833.6 (13): 634834834 834834834 1,090.7 0514 (15): 851 _—*651_——=BSt 851851851: 1,114.0 8692 (17): 869 869 869 869869869 1,137.3 887.1 (19): 887 —*887_—=«BBT 887887887: «1,160.6 904.9 (21): 905 905 905 905 905-905 4,183.9 9227 (23): 923 923923 923923923: 1,207.2 9405 (25): 941 941941 941941941 1,230.5 958.3 (27): 958 958-958 958958958: 1,253.9 976.1 (29): 976 976 «976 976 976 1.2772 994.0 (31): 994 994994 994: 1,300.5 4,011.8 (33): 1,012 1,012 1,012 4,012 1,323.8 4,029.6 (35) :_ 1,030 1,030 _1,030 4,030: 1,347.1 4,047.4 (37): 1,047 _1,047__1,047 1,047 1,370.4 4,065.2 (39) 1,065 1,065 1,065 4,065: 1,393.7 1,083.0 (41) : 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,417.0 4,100.9 (43): 4,101_1,101__1,101 4,101: 1,440.3 41187 (45): 1,419 1,119 1,119 4,419 1,463.7 4,136.5 (47): 1,196 1,136 1,136 = 1,487.0 1,154.3 (49): 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,510.3 44724 (Si): 1,472 _1,472 21,5336 4,189.9 (53) :_ 1,190 _1,190 4,190 1,556.9 1,207.8 (55): 1,208 1,208 1,208 = 1,580.2 1,225.6 (57) : 1,226 1,226: 1,603.5 4,243.4 (59) : 1,243 =__1,626.8 four e » PLLC 3of7 HR+wood (C:\Documents and Settingsigk\Desktopww\Fot YukoniL3 Ph NEYL3 11 ver 11.45 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max Plant 1 Boiler max 3,241 boiler min 1,297 kKBTU mmBTU 667 604 472, 428 328 3782S 345 295 287 430 622 695,524,605 Load to HR, kBTU/h bin mid pt deg Ee J F M A M J J A s °o N D total 85, 555 83, 546496 81: 538489 79: 533484484 77: 528 479_~—«479 75: 525475 «475 73: 524524472472. 7m: 523523470470 69: 524524468468 468 67, 526 526467467467 65: 528 528467467467 63: 532 532_—467_— 67467 61: 537537 46767467 59: $42 542469469469 57: 549549549 470_~—A70——«47O 55: 556 55655647272 53: 564564564 475 ATS CATS. 51 573. 573, 573, 478 478 478 49 583583583481 481481 47 39 39 39 39 39 39 45: 118118118 118118118 43: 198198 198198198198 at: a7 maT 39: 367357957357 57_ TST Ean 436436 436436436436 35, 514516 «516 514514514 33: 520596596 520 520-520 S13: 526 675_——«G75 526526526 2: 709532709709 $32 532532709 27: 723 539723723 539539539723 25 737737545 737737. 545545737 23 752752552 75Z 552552752 21: 766 ~~ 766_~—S«55B 766766 558558766 : 19: 780780565780 565565780780 7: 793793571793 $71 671793793: 15: 807 —807_—S 577i S77 577_—807_~—S—«B0 13: 819 819584 B19 584584819819: 11: 63183159083 590831831: 9: 843 843 596 843 596 843 843: 7: 853 853 602 853 602 853 853: 5: 863 863607863. 607863863: 3: 872 87212872 612 872872: 1: 879 879 ~—«G17_—S—«7D. 617879879: (i): 885885622885. 622885885: @): 890890626890 626890890: (6): 894894 894 a ee (@: 896 —896_— 632 632896896 @): 896 896635 635896896: (1): 895895637 637895895 : (3): 698 ~—898—«38 638 «698 ~—«B9B (15): 901901639 639901901: (7): 904904639 639904904 : (19): 907907657 657907907: 2): 91911677 671: (23): 914914696 696914914: (25): 7 917716 716 77: (27): 920. 920 736 736920. 920: (29): 923 +923 ~757 757 923: (31): 926 926 778 926 : (33): 929929800 929 |: (35): 933933822 933: (37): 936 936 844 936: (39): 939939867 939 : (41): 942942890 942: (43): 945945913 945: (45): 949949937 949: (47): 952952962 : (49): 955955 955: (51): 958958 : (53): 962962 962_: (55): 965965, 965: (57): 968 968: (59) : 971 four eo) i. 40f7 HR+wood (C:\Documents and SettingsighDesktoplwiFort Yukonil3 Ph NFYL3 11 ver 11.48 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Max Plant 1 mmBTU Load to oil, KBTU/h nm 147 36 18 BE 673, 157 167 231 244 249 327 397 673, 219 107 122 135 147 158 167 231 238 244 249 253 255 397 603 673 275 157 471 184 196 218 310, 318 246 184 196 218 310 318 3/8 )8/8/3/8/8 3)8)8/8/3/8/8 103 310 318 Boiler max boiler min 3,241 1,297 63 kBTU 1,341,548 e » PLLC 40 17 193 270 40 117 193 270 422 499 575 Biglglglala 1,109 1,186 1,262 1,338 61 122 182 241 418 476 647 704 760 815 870 61 122 182 241 300 5of7 40 117 40: 17: 193: 270: 422: 499: 575: RF 1,109: 1,186: 1,262: HR+wood (C:\Documents and SettingsightDesktopiw\Fort Yukoni.3 Ph NFY L311 ver 1t.ds Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska Boiler max 3,241 Max Plant 1 boiler min 1,297 keTU total 2,747 2,602 2,507 1,450 986 630. «641.825. 1,130 1,987 2,292 2,803 20,600,577 HR 667, G04 472, 428 328-378 345205 287 4306226 (5,524,605 oil 71147 36 18 187219275 246103 6 1 631,341,548 mmBTU 2,009 1,851 1,999 1,003 501 34 21 284 740 1,551 1,670 2,072 13,734,424 Load to wood 20,600,577 bin checksum mid pt deg F J F M A M J J A s ° N D total 85 83: Bi: 79: a8 75: 73: 74 69 67: 65: 63: 61: 59: a7: 55: 63: St: 49: a7 1,207 1,297 1,297 1,297 _—*44,297__—*1,297 45: 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,297 _—*414,297__—*1,297 43: 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,207_—*1,297__—*1,297 a: 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,297_—*1,297_—*41,297_~—*41;,297 39: 4,297 1,297 1,297 1,207_—*1,207_—*41,297_—*1,297 oT: 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,207 1,297 ‘1,297 35 1,298 1,297 1,297 1,298 1,298 1,298 33: 1,372 1,297 1,297 4,372 1,372 1,372 34 1,445 1,297 1,297 1.445 1,445 (1,445 29: 1343 1,519 1,343 (1,343 1,519 1,519 1,519 1,343 27 1.408 1,592 1,408_—_—1,408 1,592 1,592__1,592__ 1,408 25: 1473 1473 1,665 1,473 ‘1,473 1,665 1,665 1,473, 23: 1,538 1,538 (1,738 ‘1,538 1,738 1,738 1,538 21: 1,604 1,604 1,811 1,604 1,604 1811 1,811 1,604 A 19: 1,669 1,669 1,884 1,669 1,884 1,884 1,669 ‘1,669 = 174735 1,735 1,957 1,735 1,957 1,957 __1,735__(1,735 15: 1,801 1,801__-2,030__1,801 2,030 2,030 1,801__—*1,801 13: 1,868 1,868 2,104 1,868 2,104 2,104 1,868_—*1,868_: Ti: 1936 1,936 2,177 1,936 2177 1,936 1,936 : 9: 2,004 2,004 2,251 _2,004 2,251 2,004 2,004 : 7: 2073 2,073 2,324 2,073 2,324 2,073 2,073 : 5: 2443 2,143 2,398 2,143 2,398 2,143 2,143: 3: 2213 2213 2473 2,213 2.473 2,213 2,213 : 1: 2.285 2,285 2,547 2,285 2,547 2,285 2,285 : (i): 2,359 2,359 2,623 2,359 2,623 2,359 2,359 (): 2433 2.433 2,698 2,433 2,698 2,433 2,433 : (5): 2509 2,509 2,774 2,509 2774 2,509 2,509 : (): 2,587 2,587 2,850 2,850 2,587 2,587 _: (9): 2,666 2,666 2,928 2,928 2.666 2,666 : (i): 2747 2,747 3,005 3,005 2,747 2,747: (13): 2,823 2,823 3,083 3,083 2,823 2,823 (15): 2,900 2,900 _ 3,162 3,162 2,900 _2,900 (17): 2976 2,976 3,241 3,241 2,976 2,976 : (19): 3,053 3,053—3,241 3,241 3,053 3,053 (Zi): 3429 3,129 3,244 3,241 3,129 3,129 (23): 3,205 3,205 3,241 3,241 3,205 3,205 (25): 3241 3,241 3,241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (27): 3241 3,241 3,241 3,241 3.241 3,241 (29): 3241 3,241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (31): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (33): 3241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (35): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (G7): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (39): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (41): 3,241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (43): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,241 (45): 3.241 3,241 3,241 3,244 (47): 3.241 3,241 3.241 (49): 3,241 3,241 3.241 (51): 3.241 3,241 (53): 3.241 3,241 3,244 (5): 3.241 3,241 3,241 (67): 3,241 3,241 (59) : 3,244 four ee, 6of7 HR+wood (C:\Documents and Settingsigk\Desktoplw\Fort YukonlL3 Ph NFY L3 11 ver 14.45 Fort Yukon Biomass DH Plant Fort Yukon Alaska min pump speed : 0.50 VFD exp: 2.00 Max Plant 4 primary pump KW: 5.85 secondary pump kW : 37.70 parasitic power : 7.50 Annual kwh mWh 2121 201617161717 1181 219,858 electrical load bin vo comid load load pt % cap _kW degF J FOOM ATM J oJ A SO ON OD total 050 94 134 85 : 23 050 94 134 83 23 23 050 94 134 81 2323 050 94 134 79 232323 050 94 134 77 23 2328 050 94 134 75 : 2B 23 23 050 94 134 73 : 23 23238. 050 94 134 71 : 2 23,23 050 94 134 69 : 23233 050 94 134 67 : 23 232338 050 94 134 65 : 2 2323S 050 94 134 63 : 23 2323S 050 94 134 61: 23233 050 94 134 59 : 23 233 050 94 134 57 : Ba 3.3 8 se 050 94 134 55 : mae 23 28 es 050 94 134 53 : 8 SB 050 94 134 51 B23 .. s s 050 94 134 49 : 23 23233 050 94 134 47 3m 3 6 8 8 050 94 134 45 22302323238 050 94 134 43 2323232333 050 94 134 41 B23 3 2 2 23 23 050 94 134 39 3.3 3B 3B DB 23 2 050 94 134 37 23 23 23. 23 38 050 94 134 35 23 2323 23 2323 050 94 134 33 23 233 20°: 8 28 050 94 134 31 23 2323 23 2323 050 94 134 29 23 2338 23 23 2328 050 94 134 27 23 2338 3 3. a. 2 050 94 134 25 3. 23 23 2 B23 23 050 94 134 23 28, 28 28 ae a) 050 94 134 21 23 23 23 2 23 23 2323 5 050 94 134 #19: 23 23 23 23 23 232323: 050 94 134 17: 23 23 23 23 os asa: 050 94 134 #15: 23 23 23 23 3.2 as: 050 94 134 #13: 23 23 23 23 23232323: 050 94 134 11: 23 23 23 23 3 2 3: 050 94 134 #9: 23 23 23 23 232323: 050 94 134 7: 2 2 2 23 3 2 2: 051 99 134 5: 23 2 23 23 23 2323: 053 105 134 3: 24 24 24 24 242424: 054 110 134 1: 24 24 24 24 242424: 055 116 134 (i): 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 057 122 134 (3): 26 26 6G 26 266: 058 128 134 (5): 26 26 26 26 2 266: 060 134 134 (7): 27 27 a7 2m: 061 140 134 (9): 27 27 27 2m: 062 146 134 (11): 28 28 28 28 288: 064 152 134 (13): 29 29 29 2299: 065 159 134 (15): 29 29 29 29299: 066 166 134 (i7): 30 30 30 303030: 068 173 134 (19): 31 31 —3t 31H: 069 180 134 (21): 31 31 3t 3H: 070 187 134 (23): 32 32 32 32.322: 072 194 134 (25): 33 33 33 333333: 073 202 134 (27): 34 34 34 4 M4 MM: 074 209 134 (29: 34 34 34 34 34: 076 217 134 (31): 35 35 35 35: O77 225 134 (33): 36 36 36 36: 079 233 134 (35): 37 37S 37: 080 241 134 (37): 37 37S 37: 081 249 134 (39): 38 38 38 38: 083 257 134 (41): 39 39 39 39: 084 266 134 (43): 40 40 40 40: 085 275 134 (45): 41 41 41 a1: 087 283 134 (47): 42 42 ~~ <42 : 088 292 134 (49): 43 43 43 089 301 134 (51): 44 44 091 311 134 (53): 44 44 44: 092 320 134 (55): 45 45 45 > 094 330 134 (57): 46 46: 095 339 134 (59): 47 four e PLLC Tot? HR+wood CDocuments and Setings\gkDesktoplwiFort Yukonit3 Ph NFY L311 ver 11.45 Appendix: 3 Resumes of Managers and Staff involved in the Fort Yukon District Wood Heating Project BENJAMIN L. STEVENS P.O. Box 25 * Fort Yukon, AK 99740 * bstevens@catg.org PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, 1998-present EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 2007-PRESENT * Managed ~50 employees and ~6.5 million dollar annual budgets in Administration, Health, Education, and Natural Resources Departments. ¢ Conducted organizational analysis with Board of Directors and Management Team. SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR, 2005-2007 ¢ Administered ~$220,000 US EPA Energy Planning Special Project. * Facilitated Tribal Leadership Energy Summits to address rural energy condition. POLICY ANALYST /SELF-GOVERNANCE COORDINATOR, 2001-2005 * Managed $300,000 program grant to expand regional Self-Governance Program. * Lead 1* successful Tribal self-governance negotiations in the nation with USFWS’ Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge and CATG for assumption of programs/services. TRIBAL AIR QUALITY COORDINATOR, 1998-2001 * Managed $180,000 US EPA Tribal Air Quality grant project. * Assisted Tribes plan, design and implement Air Quality programs in the Yukon Flats region. * Facilitated/conducted tribal air quality technician training in monitoring and assessment. * Served as liaison between Tribes, State Dept. of Environmental Conservation and US EPA. Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, 1997-1998 DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM * Facilitated statewide Tribal Government Natural Resource Management Strategic Planning. * Provided hands-on-training to Tribal Leaders and technicians in Natural Resources Management. Stevens Village Tribal Council, 1994-1997 DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM, 1995-1997 * Planned, developed, and implemented successful Tribal Natural Resource Program. * Designed and implemented fish and wildlife management projects for protection of Tribal resources, including: Dall River Northern Pike Assessment and No-Trespass Enforcement. * Negotiated Tribal position with state and federal resource management officials. COORDINATOR (ACTING), INDIAN CHILD WELFARE PROGRAM, 1994-1996 ¢ Planned, developed and implemented Tribal child protective services program. ¢ Served as Program Director until position was filled. Tanana Chiefs Conference, 1990-1993 SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR ¢ Planned and developed various special projects at request of Health Board. Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital, Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, 1988-1990 DEPUTY DIRECTOR * Assisted in management and administration of 78-bed medical-surgical facility serving Alaska Natives. Education Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado, July 1988 Bruce Thomas CATG Natural Resources Director 1980 — 1990 Arco Alaska Prudhoe Bay, AK Welder- Pipe Fitter ¢ Worked In Welding fabrication Shop on the North Slope. 1992 — 1995 Yukon Fuel Co. Fort Yukon, AK Manager Yukon Fuel Co. ¢ Managed Fuel Company in Fort Yukon Alaska. 1997- 1998 Alaska Petroleum Contractors Prudhoe Bay, AK Welder- Pipe fitter ¢ Worked In Welding Fabrication Shop on the North Slope. 1999- 2000 Interior Regional Housing Authority Fairbanks Alaska Welder, Labor e Worked on housing projects in Fairbanks area. 2001- Current Council of Athabascan Tribal Gov Fort Yukon, Alaska Natural Resources Director ¢ Develop Environmental programs in the Yukon Flats. e Supervise Natural Resources Staff , manage grants, conduct trainings, proposal development. e Negotiate contracts with State and Federal agencies. e Graduated 1977 Fort Yukon High School ¢ 1978-1979 Vocational Welding School — Seattle Washington Computers, Hunting, Fishing. GERALD CARROLL, PRESIDENT GWITCHYAA ZHEE CORPORATION PARTIAL WORK HISTORY COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP: GERALD CARROLL IS CURRENTLY SERVING HIS SECOND TERM AS PRESIDENT OF GWITCHYAA ZHEE NATIVE CORPORATION. HE IS SERVING HIS THIRD TERM AS MAYOR OF FORT YUKON AND IN HIS SECOND SEASON AS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL COACH. GERALD HAS 7 CHILDREN. WORK EXPERIENCE: TEAMSTER UNION SINCE 1998----- 9000 HOURS BUILDING ICE ROADS, GRAVEL ROADS, OPERATORS UNION 2003 ----2000 HOURS BUILDING HOUSES, BUILDING ICE ROADS ANTHC CITY OF FORT YUKON 2004--2007 ---- HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 3,500 HOURS BUILDING GRAVEL ROADS, RUNNING SCREENING PLANT GERALD CARROLL IS A CONCERNED COMMUNITY LEADER AND FATHER WITH AN INTEREST TO MAKE FoRT YUKON SUSTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND HIS FAMILY. HE HAS TAKEN A LEADERSHIP ROLE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. GERALD HAS THE WORK HISTORY, LEADERSHIP SKILLS, LOCAL UNDERSTANDING OF WEATHER AND RIVER CONDITIONS TO LEAD THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY INTEGRATED WOOD UTILIZATION PROGRAM FOR FORT YUKON. William A. Wall, PhD PO Box 988 406-677-5006 Seeley Lake, MT 59868 Cell: 406-210-9984 Born: San Antonio, TX. September 30, 1951 williamwall1 1@gmail.com Marital Status: Married, 1 child, Citizenship: USA Academic History B.S. Wildlife Biology-LA Tech University, Ruston, LA. 1974. M.S. Zoology—LA Tech University, Ruston, LA. 1982. PhD Doctorate of Forest Wildlife Management-Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, TX. 1989 Summary of Qualifications: *%& Development and implementation of integrated natural resource management programs both nationally and internationally for private sector corporations, non-profit organizations and major landowners. “& Integration of natural resource management policy, management program implementation and science based research. "& Development and management of collaborative stakeholder processes. =& Development and implementation of integrated community based biomass alternative energy programs. Recent Employment History Self employed contractor: Working on several contracts to develop integrated biomass utilization programs at the community level in rural Alaska. Working on development of several Global Environmental Facility projects through the World Bank and Russian Federation Ministry of Environment on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in Siberia. Alaska Village Initiatives, Anchorage, AK 2004-7 Executive Director Village Wildlife Conservation Systems Responsibility: Directing the development of Private Lands Wildlife Management Program Models for Native Corporation Lands in Alaska. This entails conceiving the methodologies, conducting the planning and analysis, and supporting the implementation of subsistence based or for profit wildlife management programs for Alaska native Corporations. Accomplishments: Conceived and managed development of a tribal integrated biomass utilization program model that links environmental, subsistence, economic, social and cultural benefits with stabilized and reduced energy costs through wood heat first and electrical power second. SCI Foundation, Washington, DC 1998-2004, Director of International Wildlife Conservation Responsibilities: e Director of Wildlife Conservation Programs manages all aspects of the conservation program for SCI Foundation in the 3 program areas of Asia, Africa and North America e Director serves as SCIF expert on ESA policy as well as public and private lands management in the US; e Director represents SCIF in such forums as CITES and Convention on Biodiversity; e Director liaises with a diverse group of international, federal and state governments and conservation organizations and builds partnership opportunities for the programs; Accomplishments: e Developed the concept of Conservation Hunting Programs to support conservation of wildlife through science based wildlife management and hunting programs that yield benefits to local people and are both legal within the range state and meet all international regulatory mechanisms; ¢ Developed and successfully implemented organizational conservation strategies for Africa, Russia/Central Asia and North America programs; Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, ID 1992-98 Region Manager Wildlife Ecology Responsibilities: ¢ Served as the regional wildlife biologist for Potlatch Corporation’s Western Wood Products Division’s in Northern Idaho, the largest private landowner in Idaho; ¢ Responsible for development and management of wildlife policy, management, research and monitoring programs and cooperatives with non-profits, state and federal agencies; Accomplishments: ¢ Managed the development of an ecological approach to landscape management e Lead the development of the Conservation Agreement Policy for prelisting agreements for ESA candidate species through a diverse group of environmentalists and timber industry biologists called the Conservation Network. This policy concept initiated the establishment of the current national policy with USFWS; International Paper, Shreveport, LA 1990-92 Manager of Wildlife Ecology Responsibilities: e The Manager of Wildlife Ecology for the Mid-south Region of International Paper manages all aspects of wildlife management including a hunting program and endangered species program on a managed forest land base of 2.2 million acres in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas; Awards: 1997 Chuck Yeager Award — National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — Outstanding accomplishments on behalf of our nation’s wildlife and fisheries. 1995 Region Forester Award — Northern Region USFS, Missoula, MT — Outstanding leadership, cooperation and contributions to the land bird-monitoring program. 1992 Chairman’s Award — Black Bear Conservation Committee — Outstanding service in the development of the BBCC and as chair of the habitat and management committee. This was an innovative partnership between forest industry, environmental groups, academia and federal and state agencies. Additional Training and Certification ¢ Certified Wildlife Biologist - The Wildlife Society Leadership Training for Supervisors Managing Process Improvement Grassroots Political Education Program News Media Training Business Presentations Workshop Negotiation — MIT-Harvard Program on conflict resolution and negotiation from Harvard Law School Peter J. Olsen 11801 Middle Bay Drive Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Home (907) 487-2291 pjolsen@alaska.net SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Lands Manager: Seven years administration of progressive Lands Department for ANCSA village corporation, two years Lands and natural resource manager with regional native corporation. Contract Administrator: Seven years administering long term, multi-million dollar industrial logging contract. Board of Director: Five years on Koniag Inc. Board of Directors including term as Vice President. Small Business Owner: Owned and operated small excavating and specialty wood business. Experienced Boat Operator: Thousands of hours experience on small salmon seiner and other small (32 foot and less) boats. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS Secured Critical Permits for Timber Operation: Secured a log transfer facility permit within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Large Land and Timber Transactions: Team member involved with several large land and timber transactions, including a $77 million land and timber transaction. Implemented GIS Program: Responsible for designing and implementation of Geographic Information System for owner/manager of over 200,000 acres of land. Lands Security Program: Designed and implemented lands security program that manages and monitors public access to private Native owned lands. Remote fishing and bear viewing program: Responsible for design and start-up of remote fishing and bear-viewing operation. Owner of Small Business: Owner/operator of small tonewood supplier business named Quayanna Spruce Company. EDUCATION ¢ Kodiak High School Graduate 1979 e¢ Oregon State University College of Forestry, Corvallis, Oregon B.S., Forest Management, 1984 ¢ Completed Various Certified Courses in AutoCAD and ArcView, and boat skipper licensing. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak, Alaska Intern, 1979 — 1984 Worked under Senior Forester as apprentice in timber cruising, timber harvest layout, fire control, and small boat operation. Forester 1984-1988 Secured various permits for timber harvest operation start up. Secondary role in timber tax base establishment. Constructed 2 recreational cabins. Chief Forester 1988-1995 Contract administrator for ANC. Responsibilities included securing permits, logging engineering including roads and log stringer bridges, quality control of over 40 million board feet annually of Sitka spruce logs, and evaluation of large land and timber tracts for the Afognak Joint Venture. Fostered cooperative relationships with regulatory agencies. Field/raw materials/technical representative for sales efforts of $77 million land and timber tract. Lands Manager 1995-2002 Member of senior management team. Oversight of all lands related activities. Developed and implemented land use permit program, including establishment of land security. Initiated reforestation efforts. Team member for establishing timberland tax basis. Implemented Geographical Information System for over 200,000 acres of land. Administered 5 acre lease program. Implemented use of GPS for 5 acre parcels, timber harvest units, roads, 17b easements. Extensively researched private land wildlife management application on ANCSA lands. Koniag Incorporated, Kodiak, Alaska Lands and Natural resource Manager 2002-2004 Responsible for creation of commercial sport fishing and bear viewing program on Kodiak Island including remote camp establishment, marketing, and website development. Administered conservation easement with the USFWS.. Executive Field Director, Village Wildlife Conservation Systems Division of Alaska Village Initiatives 2005-Present Assisted development of integrated resource management principles, including biomass utilization for heat and electrical generation, moose habitat enhancement, and timber harvest economic models for rural Alaska. Private Lands and Natural Resource Consulting 2005-Present Own and operate small consulting company focusing on providing services and consultation to the private landowner in Alaska Personal Data Age: 45 Marital Status: Married to Jessica Olsen Children: Aaron, age 21, Jeremiah age 18 Other Interests: Outdoor activities including operation of small boats, fishing, hunting, photography, ATV riding. Local Church ministry. Owner/operator of 30’ vessel “Sea Dawg”. four | Greg Koontz : °°", pLuc >> 4015 SW Donovan :: Seattle WA :: 98136 p 206.938.3700 c 206.661.7007 f 206.938.3684 e gk@efour.net f | Projects as e our >> University of California, Davis: CHCP Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx) | Current Position >> efour, PLLC > Owner and sole employee of efour, PLLC. efour was formed in August of 2005 to provide technical and financial solutions to Owners on a diverse range of issues. The focus is on infrastructure; the generation and distribution of heating, cooling, steam, compressed air, power, etc.; and the financial and technical modeling required to develop, prove, and construct the projects. > In addition to my knowledge, efour has relationships with other small specialized firms that can provide niche services that efour cannot. I Previous Relevant Positions >> Abacus Engineered Systems, Inc > Director of Application Engineering: App E at Abacus was fairly unique in that App E had primary respon- sibility for not only energy analysis, but design and construction cost estimating as well. As such, App E provided primary risk management for all Performance Contracts. Like myself, the staff of the App E group started as design engineers. Pack- aging analysis, design, and estimat- ing resulted in minimal variances in project cost and performance. As Director, | was responsible to estab- lish processes and procedures, and review all project documentation prior to issuance. > Chief Engineer: This was a Business Development position; in addition to being the "Chief Technologist", | was responsible to help develop and sell complex pro- jects at all levels from facilities to the "C" level. On the engineering level, | was responsible for QC of all energy analysis and design. Subconsultant to: Syska and Hennessy, New York, NY Role: Lead Engineer / Project Engineer Synopsis: The Central Heating/Cooling Plant (CHCP) at UC Davis provides all of the steam, and a substantial fraction of the cooling for the entire campus, which serves in excess of 30,000 students. Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx) is a State of California program that seeks to generate and maintain long term energy savings through operational and maintenance improvements, rather than large-scale capital upgrades. The program emphasizes the creation of an accurate baseline model of energy use. This is done by re-calibrating existing control/SCADA points, and adding new ones as required. Once the baseline is established, a model of the energy flow is created, and the effects of various operational, maintenance, repair, and other changes are modeled. Costs estimates are created for the changes (many operational changes have no cost), and costs and savings are summarized. Because of the low/no cost of the measures, the Owner then generally self-performs any work required to implement the measures. Long term monitoring and verification is by the facility employees, using trends and algorithms set up as a part of the program. UCD is unique in having applied this program to a central plant. The CHCP provides up to 275,000 Ib/hr of steam. The MBCx program was limited to the steam plant; however, because all of the chillers in the CHCP are steam driven, they were included also. > Documentation provided by efour to Syska and Hennessy: MBCx Plan / Report M&V Plan Findings Log System Manual CHCP Energy Model. This was a load/frequency bin model. >> Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA: Direct Heat Recovery/Cogen Subconsultant to: TAC Americas, Dallas, TX Role: Project Engineer Synopsis: The boiler plant at VCU generates up to 375,000 lb/hr of steam at 215 PSIG. Their Title V permit allows them to burn natural gas, No. 2 oil, No. 6 oil, and up to 560,000 gal/yr of waste oil. The limiting factor on the amount of waste oil they can burn is sulfur emissions. After auditing the plant, efour recommended a single measure, a direct contact heat recovery unit. Adapted from a wet scrubber, this unit sprays make-up water directly through the stack gas in a large stainless steel vessel. The primary effect is heat recovery; the unit lowers the stack gas to 150 deg F or lower, thus recovering not only sensible heat and beyond the existing stack economizers, but latent heat as well. The secondary effect, (which was more important to VCU), is that the unit removes a significant amount of sulfur from the stack gas, thus increasing the amount of waste oil VCU can burn per year. The unit can operate on any of the three boilers; the utilization rate is close to 100%. This steam plant is new, having been located across the interstate from the VCUs campus (and the old plant). All of the existing distribution piping was centered on the old plant; so the 215 PSIG steam is fed into the old plant, where the pressure is dropped to 100 PSIG (the operating pressure of the old plant). Here efour recommended two backpressure steam turbines to cogenerate electricity from the pressure-reduction process in the thermal system. 1 of 2 four | Greg Koontz/e —, PLLC Reet Meco tin 1 Previous Relevant Positions I Projects at Abacus >> Engineering Economics, Inc >> Shippensburg University, Boiler/Chiller/Distribution/Co-Generation Study > Mechanical Engineer Location: Shippensburg PA EEl is primarily a commissioning firm, Role: Lead Engineer, Lead Author having commissioned Coors Field, Synopsis: SU is heated by a steam plant that was constructed in 1952. Chilled water is Safeco Field, the Getty Museum, etc. provided on campus by chillers located at the building to be served. Abacus performed a | worked primarily on the design/ utility study for SU that examined four options: energy side of the house, but as did > Option 1: Renovate the existing steam plant and distribution to current standards, and all EEl employees, helped out with as required to provide steam for another 30-40 years. This would convert the existing commissioning as required, and took coal-fired boilers to dual fuel, upgrade emissions controls, upgrade the plant electrical, all my own field TAB measurements. structural and architectural elements, and replace most of the steam and condensate pipe. > Option 2: Provide a new, tri-fuel plant (coal, gas oil) in a new building located closer to the 1 Employment History center of campus. Distribution would be high temp, high delta T hot water, not steam. >> Cook, Holle, and Poole The closed loop piping will lose less heat and last longer than steam/condensate pipe. High Houston TX pressure steam would be generated in the plant, and run through a 1 MW backpressure 1985 - 1986 turbine to make the hot water (no steam leaves the plant, simplifying ongoing O&M). Stack Mechanical Designer heat recovery will take advantage of the (relatively) low temp heat sink of the return water >> 3D/International to maximize boiler efficiency. Pressure-independent flow-limited control valves (at the Houston TX buildings) and variable speed pumping further minimize energy consumption. 1986 - 1987 > Option 3: In addition to the Option 2 boiler plant, provide a campus chilled water plant in the Mechanical Designer same building, and new chilled water piping. Redundant chillers would be minimized >> 3D/International by leaving the best of the existing chillers in place as back-ups in case of failure. Seattle WA > Option 4: Same as Option 3, except the chilled water distribution is extended to the campus 1987 - 1990 dorms, and the chilled water plant gets correspondingly larger. Mechanical Engineer Project Manager >> The Pennsylvania State University, Steam Demand Limiting Study >> 3D/International Location: State College PA London England Role: Lead Author of the Study, Cost Estimating, Energy Analysis, Financial Analysis 1990 - 1991 Synopsis: Penn State has a firm boiler capacity of 470,000 Ib/hr, and a distribution Mechanical Engineer capacity of 382,000 Ib/hr (294 bldgs). On cold winter mornings, demand comes very close Project Manager to exceeding capacity. These 5-15 peaks per year are forcing the timing on a proposed >> Engineering Economics, Inc replacement boiler plant and distribution, estimated to cost in excess of $300m. At current Seattle WA growth rate, Penn State will require the new plant to be on line within three years, and they 1991 - 1993 may well run out of steam before then. Abacus was commissioned to perform a Mechanical Engineer study to see if the steam peaks could be widened, flattened, clipped, or shifted in time. Project Manager The intent was to reduce peak/increase capacity enough to put off the new plant 10 years. Commissioning The study was divided into steam production and distribution, which | performed, and >> Abacus Engineered Systems, Inc building end-use, performed by my co-author: Seattle WA > Abacus proposed a series of ECMs and Demand Management Measures (DMMs). The 1993 - present DMMs included measures to reduces load, and to increase capacity. Among the DMMs Mechanical Engineer were new, more efficient steam turbines producing saturated steam at a higher back- Dir. Development Engineering pressure (reducing specific volume and increasing carrying pipe capacity), and hooking Chief Engineer the 680 BHP ID fans up to new motors, in addition to the existing turbine drives. This would run that steam through the more efficient main turbines rather than the ID fan drives during >> PE registered in WA, AK, and HI peak load; the existing ID fan turbines do not remove all of the superheat. In summer, > Over the last 21 years, | have this would also allow them to stop venting steam simply to keep the turbines spinning. worked in London and Shanghai, as Anew, 100,000 Ib/hr, 250 PSIG, 530 deg F boiler was proposed to increase steam output. well as in WA, HI, AK, TX, ID, CA, OR, > The recommended measures were estimated to cost $22m to install, and save $10m VA, PA, NY, FL and AZ. | have lived over the ten year period. The opportunity costs of not building the plant for 10 years in Houston, London, and Seattle. were estimated at $30m over the ten year term, putting Penn State $18m ahead in year 10. 2o0f2 STEVEN J. STASSEL, P.E. 1301 East Klatt Rd, Anchorage, Alaska 99515, 907-349-0100 Professional Education: B.S. Mechanical Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA - Cum Laude, 1984 Professional Registration: 1993, Alaska, Mechanical Engineer # ME8601 PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Mr. Stassel was born and raised in Alaska and has more than 21 years of engineering and project management experience, with specific emphasis in rural Alaska. As the president of Alaska Energy and Engineering, he has been responsible for the contractual management and oversight of rural fuel storage & dispensing, power plant, and energy projects valued in excess of $70 million. As an engineer, Mr. Stassel has been responsible for designing, permitting, budgeting, and fulfilling all regulatory and environmental compliance requirements. He has extensive experience in the detign of power plant and heat recovery systems, and bulk fuel storage/dispensing facilities, in more than 100 rural Alaskan communities. Mr. Stassel has provided all aspects of project management from concept design and feasibility analysis to on-site construction management. Responsibilities have included site investigations, code analysis, regulatory and environmental permitting (Wetlands, Flood Mitigation, Coastal Zone, NEPA Environmental review), site control, project budgeting, procurement and mobilization, state and federal agency coordination, on-site supervision of force-account construction crews, and spill response plan preparation and review. His extensive experience with Alaska's unique engineering and logistic challenges has resulted in substantial project costs savings on projects throughout the state. SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE ™ Power System Upgrade Projects. Contract management design review, regulatory and environmental permitting for village diesel power plants. Many projects included on site fuel storage, heat recovery, used oil blending, and other unique features. Project sites included: Akiachak Arctic Village Atka Chefornak Chuathbaluk Crooked Creek —_ Elfin Cove Golovin Gustavus Hughes Karluk King Cove Kokhanok Kongiganak Koyukuk Kwigillingok Manokotak Nikolski Nunam [qua Ouzinkie Pedro Bay Pelican Stevens Village Stony River Sleetmute Takotna Tenakee Springs Tuluksak m@ Electric Distribution System Upgrades: Provided variety of contract/project management, design, environmental permitting, ROW selection and site control services for projects including community distribution system upgrades, line extensions, and new power plant and tank farm projects. Representative projects include: Elfin Cove, Elim, Gustavus, Holy Cross, Kokhanok, Kwethluk, Igiugig, Napakiak, Galena, King Cove, Tenakee, Yakutat. HM Genset Fuel-Efficiency and Lifecycle Cost Analysis. Researched published genset engine fuel efficiency and heat rejection data, and estimated planned maintenance intervals and costs for a wide variety of prime power gensets used in rural Alaska. Prepared comparison graphs and charts of fuel efficiency and lifecycle costs of various generators for the AEA and other clients to illustrate the affect of generator engine selection on overall utility costs. This effort has allowed the AEA and other clients to select the most efficient generators to use taking into account engine fuel efficiency, operation and maintenance costs and availability / value of recovered heat. Project Manager, Mechanical Engineering, Permitting, Site Control, Costs, Quality Control II. Steven Stassel -- page 1 of 2 Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. White Paper on ULSD in Alaska for AEA. Prepared a draft white paper identifying issues surrounding product availability, transportation logistics, and potential effects to existing rural Alaska power generation facilities. Nushagak Electric Cooperative Power System Upgrade. Mechanical and electrical design, construction assistance and materials procurement for upgrade and replace of antiquated diesel generators, renovation of existing jacket water and aftercooler cooling systems, installation of new jacket water and aftercooler systems, replacement of heat recovery system, and other miscellaneous plant renovations. Included the installation of four new 3512B/C electronically controlled gensets, fuel delivery system renovation and upgrade, and replacement of over 1400-feet of arctic pipe serving s six endusers. Required extensive coordination and planning to modify existing on-line power plant while maintaining adequate generation reserves and providing reliable power. Power Generation Conceptual Design Review. Quality control review of conceptual designs, and cost estimates for various power system and energy projects. Representative sites include: Angoon Beaver Chitina Diomede Levelock Pilot Point Port Alexander _ Port Heiden Unalakleet Yakutat Heat Recovery Analysis: Prepared analysis of more than 20 heat recovery system projects, including estimated fuel savings and construction costs. Results were used to determine cost effectiveness of proposed heat recovery systems, including power plant site selection, and viability of intertieing neighboring communities. Bulk Fuel Upgrade Projects. Provided contract management, site selection, design and construction administration services for bulk fuel storage and upgrade systems. Facilities included bulk storage, distribution systems to remote tanks, dispensing, truck loading, and marine transfer systems. Development of innovative systems to meet unique site conditions and project needs. Representative project sites include: Anvik Chignik Bay Diomede Gustavus Igiugig Kiana Kivalina Kobuk Lime Village McGrath Mt. Village Nikolai Noorvik Pelican Pilot Station Port Heiden Savoonga Selawik Tenakee Springs Chignik Bay Bulk Fuel Upgrade. Contract management, design review, regulatory and environmental permitting of fuel storage and handling systems at five locations with a total capacity of 431,000 gallons. This was the first AEA project approved by the Denali Commission under the new cost containment policy. Chignik Lagoon Bulk Fuel Consolidation. Contract management, design review, regulatory and environmental permitting for renovation of the existing Lake and Peninsula School District fuel storage facility and construction of anew community bulk storage and dispensing facility. This was the first AEA tank farm project to receive a USFWS Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Project required replat and rezone of tank farm property and innovative short-term leases with Purchase and Sale agreement to comply with site control requirements in time to meet construction schedule. Napaskiak Bulk Fuel Consolidation. Contract management, design review, regulatory and environmental permitting of a new 170,000-gallon consolidated community bulk storage and dispensing facility for the Tribal Council, Electric Utility, and LKSD. Obtained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands permit in less than three weeks. Co-authored Ownership and Maintenance agreement identifying ownership and maintenance responsibilities of tank farm participants. Project Manager, Mechanical Engineering, Permitting, Site Control, Costs, Quality Control II. Steven Stassel -- page 2 of 2 Appendix 4: Grant Budget Worksheet brwtlewwiseS msbergy elbesed Vo ceeed ewe oe fore budget. cle teT ed TOTALS Direct Labor & Benefits (List milestones based on phase and type of project. $ $ $ See Attached Milestone list. ) Project management, communication, 10/31/2014 $120,000 $ $120,000 facilitation, Operations Reporting | Confirmation that all design and feasibility | 7/31/2010 Phase 3 funding $ $ requirements are complete Completion of final design & bid 7/31/2010 Phase 3 funding $ documents Contractor/vendor selection and award eda $15,000 $ $15,000 Construction Phases 9/30/2011 $1,893,255 $990,000 Federal $2,883,255 Purchase & Install 2 cat gensets 7/31/2010 $225,000 $300,000 GZ purchase gensets $525,000 Integration and testing 9/30/2011 $25000 $ $25000 Decommissioning old systems - None § ; Final Acceptance, Commissioning and 10/31/2011 $40,000 $40,000 Start-up | $ $2,318,255 $ Travel & Per Diem $1,290,000 $ $3,606,255 $ Equipment Materials & Supplies Contractual Services Construction Services Other TOTALS $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $ $ $ $1,799,255 $1,200,000 $2,999,255 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 T $309,000 $30,000 $339,000 $ $ $ $ $ Lit Deere tbl <1 Daewtehig et nD eee st) nied eu Bible Pel tt Detailed Cost analysis and break down is attached in the CDR Report for the Max1 35% Design Scenario Appendix 5: Documentation of Match Funding from the Department of Energy PMC 136.1 (GO) (08/27/2008) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY aN PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER WO il AWARD DISTRIBUTION - FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (ADMINISTERED via PMC) Award No. / Amendment No. Awardee Name: OAFA Specialist: Project Officer: DE-FG36-08G018123 / A000 Council of Athabascan Tribal Govemments Pamela Brodie Lizana Pierce Project Monitor: Vicky DeHerrera EX] NON-R&D AWARD R&D AWARD * OAFA SPECIALIST * Place checkmarks in the applicable , Dlocks to the right and initial/date in the spaces below to indicate that + PART | & PART II of this section are complete. Initials: ? & "Date Yule /18/o8 * Note: - Specialists are required to . assemble (4) sets of the award , document and provide to the Contracting Officer for signature. ; {leave 1 set unstapled) . An award document includes: v NFAA ¥ all Attachments DISTRIBUTOR Place checkmarks in the blocks to he right and initial/date in the spaces below to indicate that this section is compiete. nitials PAYMENT METHOD; select payment method, as indicated in award. for all A000 Awards & when changed by an Amendment CI ACH- Hardcopy SF-270 [1] ACH- Vipers (XI) ASAP - Advance [_] ASAP - Reimbursement (NA; Payment Method previously determined (applies to Amendments only} Complete the actions when ASAP applies and for AMENDMENTS only when the ASAP accoun’ has changed: ASAP Account Established? XX) Established; Recipient Organization ID # [10231469] (Not Established: ASAP Enrollment Process initiated; Recipient information added to “ASAP Enrollment Matrix” (CJ Not Established: ASAP Enrollment Process not initiated; waiting for Recipient to submit applicable documentation ASAP Approval Required? [_] Yes DX] No C] titt CONDITION SUBSEQUENT; cieck one of the following: [XJ This Award contains a CONDITION SUBSEQUENT PROVISION ; see Special Terms and Conditions ["] This action lifts the Condition Subsequent provision (1 Condition Subsequent Not Applicable to this Award ‘AT-RISK’ RECIPIENT; check one of the following: CO This Award contains ‘AT-RISK’ PROVISION; see Special Terms and Conditions This action lifts the At-Risk provision (_] ‘At-Risk’ provision Not Applicable to this Award After Contracting Officer (C.0.) signs award document, TS Enter date NFAA signed by C.O. in the Project Management Center (PMC){Block 21. of the NFAA) Award this action by clicking on ‘Finalize Award’ in PMC Update Cost Share Information in the '‘Award/Amendments Funding Details’ table in PMC File yellow Transmittal letter under applicable Tab of corresponding amendment in blue Award folder Place the following documents in a red folder, rubberband to top of blue Award folder and place in ‘Distribution Only’ cart in File oom: (Don't Forget to Date Stamp Transmittal Letter(s)) © = PMC 136.1 * — Original Transmittal fetter * — (4) original award documents Deliver (1) copy of completed IPAR Form to OAFA PADS ADMINISTRATOR Complete Hard Copy Distribution as follows: [_] Mail the following to the Recipient: ¢ — Original Transmittal letter © — (2) original award documents Mail the following to CH-IPLD (Chicago): only when R&D award {see above) © — (1)original award document Complete Electronic Distribution as follows: (reference SCAN/UPLOAD Instructions) Scan PMC 136.1, Award Document; creating PDF file date: ISTRIBUTOR lace checkmarks in the blocks to @ right and initial/date in the Paces below to indicate that this + >ection is complete, litials: Jate: Save/Name .PDF file (note: save to temporary location on U: drive) (1) Upload .PDF file to PMC ["] Place PMC 136.1 & original award document under Corresponding Tab(s) in bive Award folder and return the blue Award foleer to 'home' location in File Room (2) Update ‘Record of Distribution’ spreadsheet COUNTERSIGNED NFAA: Pull biue Award folder from ‘home’ location in File Room: C2 Scan Countersigned NFAA {NFA only); creating .POF file (] Save/Name .PDF file (note: save to temporary location on U: drive) Upload POF file to PMC (1) Under cortesponding Tab in biue Award folder, replace Contracting Officer signed NFAA & other applicable documents with the Countersigned NFAA & other applicable documents relumed by Recipient; destroy Contracting Officer signed NFAA & other applicable documents by shredding or placing the documents in the locked recycle bin marked for shredding CO Relum the blue Award folder to ‘home’ location in File Room OR... C) File delivered to OAFA Specialist for further review / action DOE F 4600 1% U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (708) NOTICE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD Under the authority of Public Law _ 109-58, Energy Policy Act (2005) _ 1, PROJECT TITLE 2. INSTRUMENT TYPE Fort Yukon Wood Energy Program: Wood Boiler Deployment a GRANT go COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 3. RECIPIENT (Name, address, zip code} 4.INSTRUMENT NO. 5.AMENDMENT NO. Council of Athabascan Tribai Governments DE-FG36-08G018123 AcOO P.O. Box 283 @.BUDGET PERIOD 7.PROJECT PERIOD Fort Yukon . AK 99740 FROM: 9/30/2008 THRU: 9/29/2010 | FROM: 9/30/2008 THRU: 9/29/2010 8. RECIPIENT PROJECT. DIRECTOR (Name, phone and E-mail) 10. TYPE OF AWARD Mr. Bruce Thomas. Ph: 907-662-2667 E-Mai: bthomas@catg.org ANEW Os contiInuATION. «= (]_—s RENEWAL 9. RECIPIENT BUSINESS OFFICER (Name. phone and E-mail) oO REVISION o INCREMENTAL FUNDING Mr. Ben Stevens Ph: 907-662-2587 E-Mail: bstevens@catg.org 11. DOE PROJECT OFFICER (Name. address. phone and E-mail) 12, DOE AWARD ADMINISTRATOR (Name, address, phone and E-mail) Lizana K. Pierce Phone: 303-275-4727 Pamela Brodie Phone: 303-275-4741 Golden Field Office Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Bivd. 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden CO. 80401-3305 Golden CO. 80401 E-Mail: lizana.pierce@go.doe.gov E-Mail: pamela.brodie@go.doe.gov 13.RECIPIENT TYPE O STATE GOVT {4 INDIAN TRIBAL GOVT © HOSPITAL (] FOR PROFIT OINDIIDUAL ORGANIZATION 0 LOCAL GovT (1 INSTITUTION OF HIGHER 0 OTHER NONPROFIT O cOeO sp DCIOTHER (Specify) EDUCATION ORGANIZATION 14. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATIONS DATA: | 15. EMPLOYER LD. Fund Year Allottes wees ‘SGL Qbect Project Program = WFO LocalUse Amount | a TIN: 92-0134670 osaso 2008 nu 200835 61000000 41000 0000000 1004757 = 9000000 0000000 $1 200,000.00 b. DUNS: 868154006 16. BUDGET AND FUNDING INFORMATION a. CURRENT BUDGET PERIOD INFORMATION b. CUMULATIVE DOE OBLIGATIONS (1) DOE Funds Obligated This Action 1,200,000.00 (1) This Budget Period $ 1.200.000.00 (2) DOE Funds Authorized for Carry Over 0.00 {Total of lines a.(1) and a.{3)} (3) DOE Funds Previously Obligated in this Budget Period 0.00 (4) DOE Share of Total Approved Budget 1,200,000.00_ | (2) Prior Budget Periods $ 0.00 (5) Recipient Share of Total Approved Budget 000.00 (6) Total Approved Budget 2,400,000.00__| (3) Project Period to Date $ ___1,200.000.00_ {Total of tines b.{1) and b.{2)} 17. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT, INCLUDING DOE FUNDS TO FFRDC: § 2,400,000.00 (This ts the current estimated cost of the project. it is not a promise to award nor an authorization to expend funds in this amount.} 18. AWARD/AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS. This award/agreement consists of this form plus the following: a. Special terms and conditions. b. Applicable program regulations (Specify) NA (Date) c. DOE Assistance Regulations, 10 CFR Part 600 at hitp://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov and if the award is for research and to a university or non-profit, the Research Terms and Conditions and the DOE Agency Specific Requirements at http:/Avww.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rtc/index jsp. d. Application/proposal as approved by DOE. e. Nationai Policy Assurances to be incorporated as Award Terms in effect on date of award at http/Avww. management energy gowbusiness_doe/1374.ntm. 19. REMARKS This is a conditional award, comprised of this Notice of Financial Assistance Award (NFAA, DOE F 1600.1); Special Terms and Conditions (Attachment 1), and Inteilectua! Property Provisions (Attachment 2). Upon successful completion of negotiations, this award will be amended to lift its conditional status: revise the Special Terms and Conditions; add Budget information - Non Construction Programs (SF 424A); add Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist and Instructions (DOE F 4600.2): and add a Statement of Project Objectives. SEP 1 0 2008 20. EVIDENCE OF RECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE 21. AWARD! (Signature of Authorized Recipient Official) (Date) ~% Michael A. Schledorn (Name) (Name) Contracting Officer $$$ Title; {Titte) Number PON MAPONs DE-FG36-08GO 18123 / A000 Attachment #1 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS JUNE 2008 Table of Contents Subject ; Page CONDITIONAL AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. ......cssssssssscsserssscsssssssssanenenssscssneveresescerarsorersseesee 2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3 PAYMENT PROCEDUREG.........scc:cssseessessesesssesnsnsessensusseasonerevsvosssvesseseueasasaensessassenecananenacees 4 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTSG...............00 4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIREMENTS. 5 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONG.............scssssssessereseesenes -5 5 5 5 6 6 STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP.... SITE VISITS PUBLICATIONS FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS 7 LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS. ............:csecscsssessessessessesnsecsssesonerevesesnsesssaceesesasaeeseenessceseeasessuanenne NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS .....u... ccsssesersevesvsesenerssennsscssesrsnssnsnenseseasesnenens 6 DE-FG36-08GO18123 / A000 Attachment #1 CONDITIONAL AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS a. Notwithstanding the obligation of funds shown in Block 16(A)(1) of the Notice of Financial Assistance Award (NFAA), the parties hereby agree that the availability of funds to the Awardee for payment of costs incurred by the Awardee is conditioned upon Contracting Officer review and approval of the Awardee's application and completion of negotiations. No funds, therefore, shall be made available to the Awardee for payment, and DOE does not guarantee or assume any obligation to reimburse costs incurred by the Awardee during the negotiation process. b. When the parties have compléted negotiations of all final special terms and conditions for this award, the Contracting Officer will issue an amendment to this award making available the obligated amount for payment in accordance with the payment provisions contained in the Special Terms and Conditions. The Awardee may then receive payment for allowable costs incurred or recognize costs incurred toward cost share requirements, as applicable, in accordance with the negotiated payment provisions. c. Failure by the Awardee to provide acceptable application information, and any supporting documentation requested by the Contracting Officer, or failure to complete negotiations, will be deemed a Noncompliance pursuant to 10 CFR 600.24. Based on such noncompliance, the Contracting Officer may unilaterally terminate or suspend this award and deobligate the amounts obligated. In such case, the Awardee shall not be reimbursed for costs incurred at the Awardee’s risk, as described in Paragraph a. above. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION The intellectual property provisions applicable to this award are provided as an attachment to this award or are referenced in Block 19 of the Notice of Financial Assistance Award. A list of all intellectual property provisions may be found at http://www.ge.doe.gov/financial_assistance_awards.htm. . Questions regarding intellectual property matters should be referred to the DOE Award Administrator identified in Block 12 of the NFAA and the Patent Counsel designated as the service provider for the DOE office that issued the award. The IP Service Provider for the Golden Field Office is Julia Moody, who may be reached at 303-275-4867. COST SHARE The following provision will be revised in an amended award, to include the breakdown, by DOE and Awardee shares, of the negotiated budget for the award, and therefore the entries in the table below are subject to change. The negotiated Budget, upon completion of negotiations, will be Attachment 3 of the amended award. a. Total Estimated Project Cost is the sum of the DOE share and Awardee share of the estimated project costs. The Awardee’s cost share must derive from non-Federal w DE-FG36-08GO1 8123 / A000 Attachment #1 sources unless otherwise allowed by law. By accepting federal funds under this award, the Awardee agrees to be responsible for its percentage share of total allowable project costs, on a budget period basis, even if the project is terminated early or is not funded to its completion. This cost is shared as follows: Budget Budget DOE Cost Share Awardee Total Period Period $/% Cost Share Estimated No. Start Date $/% Costs 1 9/30/2008 | $1,200,000/ 50% | $1,200,000/50% | $2,400,000 Total Project $1,200,000/50% | $1,200,000/50% | $2,400,000 b. If the Awardee is unable to provide cost share of the amount identified in paragraph a. of this article, the Awardee shall notify the DOE Award Administrator identified in Block 12 of the Notice of Financial Assistance Award, indicating whether the project will continue or be phased out. If the project will continue, the notification must describe how replacement cost share will be secured. c. The Awardee must maintain records of all project costs that are claimed as cost share, including in-kind costs, as well as records of costs to be paid by DOE. Such records are subject to audit. d. Failure to provide the cost share required by this Article may result in the subsequent recovery by DOE of some or all the funds provided under the award. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Requirements. The reporting requirements for this award will be identified on a Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist, DOE F 4600.2, and become Attachment 4 to an amended award upon completion of negotiations. (A sample checklist may be found at the following link: http:/Awww.management.energy.gov/documents/DOEF46002PolicyVersion.pdf Failure to comply with the reporting requirements will be considered a material noncompliance with the terms of the award. Noncompliance may result in withholding of future payments, suspension or termination of the current award, and withholding of future awards. A willful failure to perform, a history of failure to perform, or unsatisfactory performance of this and/or other financial assistance awards, may also result in a debarment action to preclude future awards by Federal agencies. b. Dissemination of scientific/technical reports. Scientific/technical reports submitted under this award will be disseminated on the Internet via the DOE Information Bridge (www.osti.gow/bridge), unless the report contains patentable material, protected data or SBIR/STTR data. Citations for journal articles produced under the award will appear on the DOE Energy Citations Database (www.osti.gov/energycitations). c. DE-FG36-08GO18123 / A000 Attachment #1 Restrictions. Reports submitted to the DOE Information Bridge must not contain any Protected Personal Identifiable Information (PII), limited rights data (proprietary data), classified information, information subject to export control classification, or other information not subject to release. PAYMENT PROCEDURES Method of Payment. Payment will be made by advances through the Department of Treasury’s ASAP system. Requesting Advances. Requests for advances must be made through the ASAP system. You may submit requests as frequently as required to meet your needs to disburse funds for the Federal share of project costs. If feasible, you should time each request so that you receive payment on the same day that you disburse funds for direct project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. If same-day transfers are not feasible, advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to actual disbursements. Adjusting payment requests for available cash. You must disburse any funds that are available from repayments to and interest earned on a revolving fund, program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit recoveries, credits, discounts, and interest earned on any of those funds before requesting additional cash payments from DOE/NNSA. Payments. All payments are made by electronic funds transfer to the bank account identified on the ASAP Bank Information Form that you filed with the U.S. Department of Treasury. REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS a. If actual allowable indirect costs are less than those budgeted and funded under the award, the Awardee may use the difference to pay additional allowable direct costs during the project period. If at the completion of the award the Government’s share of total allowable costs (i.e., direct and indirect), is less than the total costs reimbursed, the Awardee must refund the difference. Awardees are expected to manage their indirect costs. DOE will not amend an award solely to provide additional funds for changes in indirect cost rates. DOE recognizes that the inability to obtain full reimbursement for indirect costs means the Awardee must absorb the underrecovery. Such underrecovery may be allocated as part of the organization’s required cost sharing. 10. 11. DE-FG36-08GO18123 / A000 Attachment #1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIREMENTS The Awardee and any of its subawardees is restricted from taking any action using Federal funds, which would have an adverse affect on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives prior to DOE providing either a NEPA clearance or a final NEPA decision regarding this project. If the Awardee moves forward with activities that are not authorized by the Contracting Officer for federal funding by the DOE under this award, in advance of negotiations, to include DOE initiating the NEPA process, the Awardee is doing so at risk of deobligation of federal funding and such costs may not be recognized as allowable cost share. If this award includes construction activities, the Awardee must submit an environmental evaluation report/evaluation notification form addressing NEPA issues prior to DOE initiating the NEPA process. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONS Any apparent inconsistency between Federal statutes and regulations and the terms and conditions contained in this award, as shown in Block 18 of the Notice of Financial Assistance Award (NFAA) must be referred to the DOE Award Administrator identified in Block 12 of the NFAA for guidance. STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP DOE will exercise normal Federal stewardship in overseeing the project activities performed under this award. Stewardship activities include, but are not limited to, conducting site visits; reviewing performance and financial reports; providing technical assistance and/or temporary intervention in unusual circumstances to correct deficiencies which develop during the project; assuring compliance with terms and conditions; and reviewing technical performance after project completion to ensure that the award objectives have been accomplished. SITE VISITS DOE’s authorized representatives have the right to make site visits at reasonable times to review project accomplishments and management control systems and to provide technical assistance, if required. The Awardee must provide, and must require its subawardees to provide, reasonable access to facilities, office space, resources, and assistance for the safety and convenience of the DOE and any other government representatives in the performance of their duties. All site visits and evaluations will be performed in a manner that does not unduly interfere with or delay the work. PUBLICATIONS a. The Awardee is encouraged to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the work conducted under the award. 12. 13. 14. DE-FG36-08GO18123 / A000 Attachment #1 b. An acknowledgment of Federal support and a disclaimer must appear in the publication of any material, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under this project, as follows: Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy [National Nuclear Security Administration] [add name(s) of other agencies, if applicable] under Award Number(s) [enter the award number(s)].” Disclaimer: “This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.” FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS The Awardee must obtain any required permits and comply with applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations for work performed under this award. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS By accepting funds under this award, the Awardee agrees that none of the funds obligated on the award shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913. This restriction is in addition to those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation. NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this award should be American- made. DE-FG36-08GO18123 / A000 Attachment # 2 Intellectual Property Provisions Nonresearch and Development Indian tribal governments are subject to the intellectual property requirements at 10 CFR 600.234. 600.234 Copyrights. The Federal awarding agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes: (a) The copyright in any work developed under a grant, subgrant, or contract under a grant or subgrant; and (b) Any rights of copyright to which a grantee, subgrantee or a contractor purchases ownership with grant support. Appendix: 6 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 eee Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. 15,000 tons harvestable annually sustainably 2. Existing Energy Generation and Usage 2 new cat generators being purchased Boilers oil fired 60,000 hours + generators boiler various ages Boilers 83-83% oil fired $70,000 Not known 220,000 gallon annually 750 kwh 400kwh 350kwh unknown Increasing new power house proposed with heat capture 149,000 gallons on proposed DH buildings Projected at approximately 1700 tons per year Heat recovery from generators = 27% of total heat generated * The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 10-7-09 (= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 SS be Srcen Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet 3. Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) 3,241,000 BTU/hr or 3,241 MMBTU/hr 1,314,548 kBTUs 1700 tons @ 25% moisture 4. Project Cost $3,606,255 $420,000 $60,000 $269,201 5. Project Benefits 149,000 gallons in up to 15 buildings Modeled at $4-6 per gallon Paying $894,000@6/gallon into village as import substitution Stabilizing heating costs for schools and clinics 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price Hy res fobeewen purchaecisaio at To be determined based on price of fuel oil 7. Project Analysis 2:1 over 15 year life @ $6/gallon heating fuel NSP @ $4/gallon = 14.2 years NSP @ $6/gallon= 6.1 years RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 10-7-09 /= ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Round 3 oo ee Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet RFA AEA10-015 Application Cost Worksheet Page 3 10-7-09 Appendix: 7 Letters of Local Support A: From the City of Fort Yukon B: From the School District C: Selection letter from CATG Post Office Box 269 Telephone (907) 662-2479. or 2379 Fort Yukon, Alaska 99740 To Whom It May Concern The Fort Yukon Woody Bio-mass project has been spearheaded by the Gwich’in Tribal Government, City of Fort Yukon, Inc, Gwichyaa Zhee Corporation and Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments. hk The by-products of this woody. sehen _— will be-used.as a central heating system within our community which includes the Fort Yukon School, Vocational Education Center,. Yukon Flats Health Center; Gwichyaa Zhee Utility Company and the Yukon Flats School District Offices to help with the high cost of ae. The: estimated savings ‘to this centralized: heating system, is 4 major factor for supporting this project. Not only willout key business district be heated, this project will also provide jobs for the local people. Job readiness has been in progress with the Education department of Tanana Chiefs Conference, Gwich’in Tribal Government and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Gerald Carroll, City Mayor has been the designated person of contact for this project. Should any additional information be required you can. contact him. Contact Information: Gerald Carroll PO Box 269 Fort Yukon, Ak 99740 PHONE; 907-662-3057 FAX: 907-662-2717 Sincerely, Zl enc sy Gerald Carroll, Mayor City of Fort Yukon a=. Yukon Flats School District Arctic Village Beaver P. O. Box 350 Central Fort Yukon, AK 99740 Chalkyitsik P: (907) 662-2515 or 1.800.322.2515 Cirete F: (907) 662-3094 or 2519 Fort Yukon Stevens Village www. yukonflats.net Venetie February 8, 2008 William R. Walz, Superintendent Yukon Flats School District RE: Letter of Intent to Use Wood Heat for School and Gym in Fort Yukon To Whom It May Concern: The Yukon Flats School District is fully supportive of the woody biomass energy program being developed in Fort Yukon and Yukon Flats Region. I personally am aware of the community benefits of a woody biomass program as an economic development project as well as the potential cost savings on fuel to heat our school and gym. I have experience with the ‘fuels for schools’ programs in the lower 48 and have an understanding of what is involved in a project such as this. Through a Statement of Interest, the district applied to the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group last summer. A pre-feasibility study demonstrated that the Fort Yukon School and Gym use over 30,000 gallons of fuel oil annually for heat at $4.00 per gallon and an annual cost of $120,000 dollars. We are working with AVI to conduct feasibility and payback analysis on installing either a Garn boiler or an automated chip fed boiler. We expect that this installation and purchase of wood fuel offer significant savings over the life of the project. Pending Yukon Flats School Board approval of final design and securing funding, it is our intent to utilize woody biomass for heat and to purchase this fuel from GZ Corporation. I fully support this application for funds to help “jump start” the integrated woody biomass program in Fort Yukon and the Yukon Flats Region. Sincerely; William R. Walz Superintendent COUNCIL OF ATHABASCAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS P-0- BOX 33 FORT YUKON. AK 99740 PHONE 40? bbe-258? FAX 4O0?-bbe-3334 November 9, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: The Council of Athabascan Tribal Government is fully supportive of the woody biomass energy program being developed in Fort Yukon and Yukon Flats Region. I personally am aware of the community benefits of a woody biomass program as an economic development project as well as'the potential cost savings on fuel to heat our buildings within the:community. The by-products of this woody bio-mass project’ will be used as a central heating system within our community, which includes the Fort Yukon School, Vocational Education center, Yukon Flats Health Center, Gwichyaa Zhee Utility Company and the Yukon Flats School District offices to help with the high cost of diesel fuel. The estimated savings to this centralized heating system is a major factor for supporting this project. This project will provide jobs for the local people. Itis-our intent to utilize woody biomass for heat and to purchase this fuel from GZ Corporation. I fully support this application for funds to help “jump start” the integrated woody biomass program in Fort Yukon and the Yukon Flats Region. Ben Stevens, Executive Director has been the designated person of Contact for this project. Should any additional information be required he can be contacted at the above address and phone number. Sincerely; GWA Wand Ben Stevens Executive Director Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments bstevens@catg.org Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Construction Grant Agreement #2195445 Appendix B_ Standard Provisions 1. Grant Funding Sources This Grant is subject to appropriation and availability of funds as listed below: State of Alaska $ 808,805 Renewable Energy Funds ARO4684-13 Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation $ 808,805 Required Match Denali Commission $ 22,500 CFDA90.100 Project Funding Total $1,640,110 Grantee acknowledges that if additional grant funds are made available they are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any amendment. Funds from other federal sources cannot be counted as match or cost share. — this sentence is applicable to federal funds only. 2 Governing Laws The Grantee shall perform all aspects of this Project in compliance with all applicable state, federal and local laws: (List specific CFRs or Federal Provisions or funding Source Policies that apply. The order of precedence for federal awards that flow through to Grantee is: 1) The federal statute authorizing the grant program, 2) Federal Program regulations and administrative regulations [including OMB circulars incorporated by reference], 3) Federal Policy or procedural requirements specified by the federal agency) 3. Eligible Costs The Authority, as Grantor, shall have sole discretion to determine which project costs are eligible to be paid from Grant monies under this agreement. Only direct costs of the Project are eligible for payment or reimbursement from grant funds. Indirect costs are not allowed under this grant unless approved by the Authority in Appendix E. The eligible costs will be determined in accordance with one or more of the following provisions that are incorporated by reference in this grant agreement: Denali Commission or other federal grants administered by the Authority: Costs are determined per the federal requirements contained in the grant to the Authority. (Usually this will be 2 C.F.R. Part 225 [formerly OMB Circular A-87] www.whitehouse.gov/omb or similar federal requirements.) Applicable administrative requirements may depend on the legal structure of the Grantee. Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations “Federal Acquisition Regulations System”, Part 31, “Contract Cost Principles and Procedures” Page 11 of 32 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round III (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) Grant Budget Form $ 10-7-09 $ Project management, communication, 10/31/2014 $120,000 $ $120,000 facilitation, Operations Reporting _ Confirmation that all design and feasibility | 7/31/2010 Phase 3 funding $ $ requirements are complete Completion of final design & bid 7/31/2010 Phase 3 funding $ documents Contractor/vendor selection and award 10/31/2010 $15,000 $ $15,000 Construction Phases 9/30/2011 $1,893,255 $990,000 Federal $2,883,255 Purchase & Install 2 cat gensets 7/31/2010 $225,000 $300,000 GZ purchase gensets $525,000 Integration and testing 9/30/2011 $25000 $ $25000 Decommissioning old systems - None $ ° Final Acceptance, Commissioning and 10/31/2011 $40,000 $40,000 Start-up $ $2,318,255 $1,290,000 $3,606,255 TOTALS Direct Labor & Benefits $ $ $ Travel & Per Diem lear $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 Equipment oe $ $ Materials & Supplies $1,799,255 $1,200,000 $2,999,255 Contractual Services Se ee $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 Construction Services $309,000 $30,000 $339,000 Other $ $ $ TOTALS $ $ e $3,606,255 Alaska Energy Authority Grant Agreement = ALASKA / E> ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Agreement Number Amount of Funds: 2195445 $808,805 Project Code(s) Encumbrance Number/AR Period of Performance: 402024 PBO00404 From: August 20, 2008 To: December 31, 2009 Project Title: Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Constr Grantee Name Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Street/PO Box P.O. Box 389 Alaska Energy Authority Street/PO Box 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd City/State/Zip City/State/Zip Fort Yukon, Alaska 99740 Anchorage, AK 99503 Contact Person Contact Person Gerald Carroll/President Lenny Landis, Project Manager Phone: Fax: E-mail: Phone: Fax: E-mail: 907-662-2502 | 907-662-2933 907-771-3068 } 907-771-3044 | llandis@aidea.org AGREEMENT The Alaska Energy Authority (hereinafter ‘Authority’) and Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation (hereinafter ‘Grantee’) agree as set forth herein. Section I. The Authority shall grant funds to pay for expenses incurred by the Grantee under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $808,805, unless the grant amount is amended as provided herein. Section Il. The Grantee shall apply the grant funds to the Project and perform all of the work and other obligations required by this Agreement. Section Ill. Performance under this agreement begins August 20, 2008 and shall be completed no later than December 31, 2009. Section IV. The agreement consists of this page and the following: Appendices Attachments/Forms (As required) Appendix A: General Provisions Attachment 1: Financial Report/Request for Appendix B: Standard Provisions Reimbursement Form Appendix C: Grantee Proposal/Scope of Attachment 2: Progress Report Form Work Attachment 3: Other Funding Sources Agreement(s) Appendix D: Project Management & Attachment 4: Notice of Substantial Completion Reporting Requirements Attachment 5: Notice of Project Closeout Appendix E: Project Budget & Reimbursement Provisions AMENDMENTS: Any amendments to this Agreement must be signed by authorized representatives of Grantee and the Authority and should be listed here. Authority Executive Director or Project Manager Designee Printed Name and Title Printed Name and Title Steve Haagenson, Gerald Carroll/President Lenny Landis, Project Manager AEA Executive Director Signature Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Construction Grant Agreement #2195445 Appendix C Grantee Proposal/Scope of work The funds for this grant ($808,805 of grant funds from the Alaska Energy Authority (those funds awarded under the Alternative Energy Solicitation from June, 2007) and the required match of $808,805 from the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation) will be budgeted once the design phase is completed and accepted by the Authority (this activity is funded with a grant from Round | of the Renewable Energy Fund). Page 19 of 32