HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 3 - EERC Feasibility Study July 20, 2007
Mr. Charlie Sink
Director, Enterprise and Trust Services
Chugachmiut
A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Native Peoples of Alaska
1840 Bragaw Street, Suite 110
Anchorage, AK 99508-3463
Dear Mr. Sink:
Subject: Final Report Entitled “The Potential for Biomass District Energy Production in
Chugachmiut Communities”; EERC Fund 9402
Enclosed please find the subject report. If you have questions or comments, please contact
me by phone at (701) 777-5013, by fax at (701) 777-5181, or by e-mail at kleroux@undeerc.org.
Sincerely,
Kerryanne M. B. Leroux
Research Engineer
KMBL/sah
Enclosure
202
THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS DISTRICT
ENERGY PRODUCTION IN CHUGACHMIUT
COMMUNITIES
Final Report
Prepared for:
Mr. Charlie Sink
Chugachmiut
A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Native Peoples of Alaska
1840 Bragaw Street, Suite 110
Anchorage, AK 99508-3463
Prepared by:
Kerryanne M. B. Leroux
Kirk D. Williams
Sheila K. Hanson
Erick J. Zacher
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
2007-EERC-07-07 July 2007
203
EERC DISCLAIMER
LEGAL NOTICE This research report was prepared by the Energy & Environmental
Research Center (EERC), an agency of the University of North Dakota, as an account of work
sponsored by Chugachmiut. Because of the research nature of the work performed, neither the
EERC nor any of its 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 or recommendation by the EERC.
204
THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS DISTRICT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN
CHUGACHMIUT COMMUNITIES
ABSTRACT
This project was a collaboration between The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC)
and Chugachmiut – A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Native People of Alaska and
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program. It was conducted to
determine the economic and technical feasibility for implementing a biomass energy system to
service the Chugachmiut community of Port Graham, Alaska. The Port Graham tribe has been
investigating opportunities to reduce energy costs and reliance on energy imports and support
subsistence. The dramatic rise in the prices of petroleum fuels have been a hardship to the village
of Port Graham, located on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. The Port Graham Village Council
views the forest timber surrounding the village and the established salmon industry as potential
resources for providing biomass energy power to the facilities in their community. Benefits of
implementing a biomass fuel include reduced energy costs, energy independence, economic
development, and environmental improvement. Fish oil–diesel blended fuel and indoor wood
boilers are the most economical and technically viable options for biomass energy in the village
of Port Graham. Sufficient regional biomass resources allow up to 50% in annual heating savings
to the user, displacing up to 70% current diesel imports, with a simple payback of less than 3
years for an estimated capital investment under $300,000. Distributive energy options are also
economically viable and would displace all imported diesel, albeit offering less savings potential
and requiring greater capital. These include a large-scale wood combustion system to provide
heat to the entire village, a wood gasification system for cogeneration of heat and power, and
moderate outdoor wood furnaces providing heat to 3–4 homes or community buildings per
furnace. Coordination of biomass procurement and delivery, ensuring resource reliability and
technology acceptance, and arbitrating equipment maintenance mitigation for the remote village
are challenges to a biomass energy system in Port Graham that can be addressed through
comprehensive planning prior to implementation.
205
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................3
APPROACH...................................................................................................................................3
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................4
Port Graham Energy Load.....................................................................................................4
Current Energy Infrastructure......................................................................................5
Biomass Energy Scenarios Studied and Load Requirements......................................8
Port Graham Resources.......................................................................................................11
Energy Technologies and Equipment .................................................................................12
Feedstock Preparation Technology............................................................................12
Combustion Energy Systems.....................................................................................15
Gasification Energy Systems.....................................................................................19
Utilization of Fish Oil Fuel in Existing Infrastructure...............................................20
ECONOMICS...............................................................................................................................21
Feedstock Preparation Cost.................................................................................................21
Capital Investment...............................................................................................................23
Operating Expenses.............................................................................................................26
Potential Savings and Payback............................................................................................27
Emissions ............................................................................................................................31
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................32
Energy Load and Biomass Resources.................................................................................32
Technology Issues...............................................................................................................33
Economic Observations.......................................................................................................34
CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................37
NEXT STEPS...............................................................................................................................38
Continued…
206
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................39
PORT GRAHAM SYSTEMS AND COMMUNITY PICTURES................................Appendix A
DETAILED SCENARIOS AND REQUIREMENTS...................................................Appendix B
SENARIO LAYOUTS...................................................................................................Appendix C
VENDORS AND DESIGNS.........................................................................................Appendix D
ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS...................................................................................Appendix E
STATE EMISSIONS STANDARDS............................................................................Appendix F
207
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska........................................................................................................2
2 The village of Port Graham, Alaska......................................................................................6
3 Port Graham Power Plant......................................................................................................8
4 Wood chip production using a portable diesel grinder........................................................14
5 Example of wood pellet process..........................................................................................14
6 Greenwood indoor wood boiler...........................................................................................17
7 Pro-Fab wood, or pellet outdoor furnace. ...........................................................................17
8 Wood Doctor outdoor wood furnace...................................................................................18
9 Example of typical system configuration; Messersmith wood combustion system............18
10 Chiptec gasifier and boiler system......................................................................................19
11 EERC-designed wood chip gasification system..................................................................20
12 Sensitivity of estimated savings and payback for the large fish oil and the indoor
wood boiler scenarios..........................................................................................................30
13 Comparative sensitivity of estimated savings for the large fish oil and the indoor
wood boiler scenarios..........................................................................................................31
14 Variation in wood chip, pellet, and fish oil cost with respect to production.......................35
208
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1 Estimated Energy Load and Diesel Consumption in Port Graham.......................................7
2 Current HEA Electricity Rates..............................................................................................8
3 Estimated Electrical Load and Expense for Port Graham.....................................................9
4 Potential Energy Scenarios and Load Requirements for the Village of Port Graham........10
5 Timber Resource for Potential Fuel Utilization..................................................................11
6 Feedstock Options for Presented Scenario Systems............................................................13
7 Examples of Combustion Systems......................................................................................16
8 Feedstock Cost for Each Energy Scenario..........................................................................22
9 Breakdown of Wood Procurement Costs............................................................................23
10 Estimated Capital Investment for Indoor and Outdoor Wood Heating Systems ................25
11 Estimated Capital Investment for Gasification Systems of Various Scenarios Studied.....25
12 Estimated Costs of Gas and Electric Boilers or Furnaces Used for Gasification
Scenario Capital Investment Calculations..........................................................................26
13 Estimated Operating Costs for Port Graham Energy Scenarios.........................................27
14 Economic Summary of Port Graham Energy Scenarios Studied........................................28
15 Economic Summary of Port Graham Energy Scenarios Studied........................................29
16 Potential Feedstock Costs for Port Graham Resources.......................................................34
17 Comparison of Large Fish Oil and Indoor Wood Boiler Scenarios....................................37
209
v
THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS DISTRICT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN
CHUGACHMIUT COMMUNITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A collaboration between The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and
Chugachmiut – A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Native People of Alaska, through the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program, this project was conducted to
determine the economic and technical feasibility for implementing a biomass energy system to
service the Chugachmiut community of Port Graham, Alaska. The forest timber surrounding the
village and the established salmon industry are seen as potential biomass fuel resources to reduce
energy costs and reliance on imports and support subsistence in the Chugachmiut community.
Other benefits of implementing a biomass fuel include economic development and
environmental improvement. To satisfy the project goal, the EERC performed load evaluation,
resource data analysis, energy and cogeneration technology evaluation, and economic analyses
for the Port Graham village.
An ample supply of biomass can be procured from underutilized forest region surrounding
Port Graham and from fishery activities to satisfy the energy needs of Port Graham. About
5000 tons (71,000 MMBtu) per year is available within ¼-mile of existing timber roadways.
Salmon oil can also be processed from whole fish or generated waste for use as fuel and is
available depending on annual harvesting or processing yields. Currently, about 78,000 gallons
diesel are imported to supply an average of 6 MMBtu/hr heat to community buildings and
residences and 560 kW for industrial energy via diesel generators. The Homer Electric
Association provides 260 kW for all village structures and partial industrial operations. About
9,000 MMBtu and 2000 MWh (16,000 MMBtu combined) in heat and electricity, respectively,
are consumed by the village annually, costing the community an estimated $470,000 for energy
per year.
The most economically viable options for Port Graham are utilization of a fish oil–diesel
fuel and the installation of indoor wood boilers. Estimated capital investments are about
$260,000 for fish oil-processing equipment and for the delivered and installed boilers. Annual
savings and the simple payback periods are about $80,000 and 2–3 years, respectively. User
savings could be up to 50% current heating expenses. Fish oil can be blended up to 50% with
diesel for use in the existing boilers and furnaces. Approximately 42,000 gallons of fish oil or
630 tons fish/waste annually would be required to provide fish oil blended fuel to the entire
village. An average 630 tons of logs would be needed annually for installed indoor wood boilers
serving individual village buildings or homes. Differences in the implementation of a indoor
wood boiler scenario (Table A-1) include enhanced economy, 70% diesel displacement, and
potential for increased particulate emissions. Other economically feasible biomass technology
applications include individual, shared, and full-scale wood combustion systems for heat and
industrial processing, wood gasification electricity production and cogeneration, and a fish oil–
diesel fuel without change to the current infrastructure. Exceptions were distributive heat
supplied by steam or syngas and the generation of electric heat and power.
210
vi
Table ES-1. Comparison of Fish Oil and Indoor Wood Boiler Biomass Energy Scenarios
Scenario Fish Oil Fuel Indoor Wood Boilers
Advantages
• Installation of one system
and process
• Utilization of existing
equipment and technology
• No operational changes to
fuel user
• Resource reliability and cost stability
• Lower risk in event of one system
breakdown
• Opportunity for economic growth with
development of feedstock infrastructure
• Offers greater diesel displacement
Disadvantages
• Resource reliability and cost
stability
• Greater risk in event of one
system breakdown
• Installation of many systems
• New heating equipment and technology
• Fuel user must manually attend boiler
for feed and ash removal
• Potential particulate emissions
A biomass energy scenario should be discussed by the community to ensure acceptance of
the chosen technology. Potential issues beyond economics are manual operation for wood
systems and the ability to sustain equipment maintenance. An approach plan should then be
derived. Recommended steps for implementation of a biomass energy system include a formal
engineering design and quote, including guarantee or proof of emissions compliance for wood
systems, secured financing, equipment procurement and installation, personnel hire and training,
coordination of feedstock storage and delivery, and blending equipment for fish oil fuel or an ash
disposal plan for wood systems. The community of Port Graham must remain diligent in the
execution of a biomass energy plan to reduce diesel imports and support subsistence.
211
1
THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS DISTRICT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN
CHUGACHMIUT COMMUNITIES
INTRODUCTION
A collaboration between The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and
Chugachmiut – A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Native People of Alaska, through the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Energy Program, this project was conducted to
determine the economic and technical feasibility for implementing a biomass energy system to
service Chugachmiut communities. Chugachmiut has been assisting the tribes of the Chugach
region, which extends from the Prince William Sound to the lower Cook Inlet of the Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska, with self-determination and exploration of their natural resources. The village
council of Port Graham has long been advocating biomass energy to support subsistence living
and cultural preservation.
The dramatic rise in the prices of petroleum fuels is a hardship to the Chugach village of
Port Graham, located on the southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula on the lower Cook Inlet (Figure
1). The village is accessible only by air or water, making traditional energy sources expensive to
deliver and alternative energy technologies difficult to implement. However, there is a significant
potential for biomass heat and power within the region by utilizing low-value forest residue and
timber damaged by severe weather.
Biomass technology solutions for Port Graham were identified based on the economic
viability of a biomass fuel, the suitability of technologies to the village culture, and the
availability of a biomass resource to supply the required energy loads. An optimal biomass
resource–technology combination or scenario can be determined by comparing the savings
estimated from current expenses, as well as the expected capital investment payback period, for
each alternative energy scenario. Commercially available technologies, such as combustion and
gasification, will have greater success in the remote village. Although biomass could provide
energy to the community at a lower cost than petroleum fuels, availability and procurement costs
are often the limiting factors to a feasible solution.
BACKGROUND
The Port Graham tribe has been investigating opportunities to reduce energy costs and
reliance on imports. Comprising about 200 persons primarily of Altuiiq descent (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000), the community has experienced a steady rise in its utility costs over the last 5
years, doubling in the past decade (Energy Information Administration, 2007). Utility expenses
are consuming increasingly more of the budgets for each program or business in the community.
The village is 30 air miles south of Homer (200 air miles from Anchorage) and is not connected
to a road system, accessible only by boat or airplane. Electricity, fuel, some foods, goods, and
services must be imported into the community, putting a strain on efforts for a self-sufficient
culture.
212
2
Figure 1. Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
The Port Graham Village Council views the forest timber surrounding the village and the
established salmon industry as potential resources for providing biomass energy power to the
facilities in their community. A timber inventory was conducted by Chugachmiut, identifying
approximately 40,000 acres of timber located on Port Graham Corporation land near the village.
This resource was actively harvested through the 1990’s and exported to Japan but is no longer
marketed because of competition with Russian exports. Salmon fishing and processing are
significant components to subsistence activities in Port Graham. These fishery activities are
currently ongoing in the village. Utilization of low-value forest residue and timber damaged by
213
3
severe weather, i.e., waste materials, and salmon wastes generated from local processing are of
particular interest to the community.
Benefits of implementing a biomass fuel include reduced energy costs, energy
independence, economic development, and environmental improvement. Biomass resources tend
to cost considerably less than petroleum fuels, providing savings to the user, which can be used
to finance the capital investment. Utilization of local resources for energy assists in the reduction
of imports into the community, promoting sustainability for the tribe. Economic advantages will
result from the use of biomass as a fuel by increasing jobs through the harvesting of wood
resources, power plant personnel, and system maintenance activity. Environmental emissions
associated with the burning of fuel oil will decrease, and combusting biomass will provide a net
zero gain of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (Engström, 1999; Dayton, 2002; Fernando, 2005).
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this project was to determine the economic and technical feasibility for
implementing a biomass energy system to service the Chugachmiut community of Port Graham.
In general, the project considered the potential for a biomass energy facility to provide heat and
power to Port Graham. This was achieved by completing the following objectives:
• Evaluation of Port Graham energy loads
• Analysis of biomass resource availability and suitability
• Evaluation of energy and cogeneration technologies
• Determination of engineering economics of proposed technologies
APPROACH
To accomplish the objectives, the EERC performed load evaluation, resource data analysis,
energy and cogeneration technology evaluation, and economic analyses for the Port Graham
village. The specific matching of resources, technology, and energy loads provided the
information needed to compare options on an economic basis and determine the most viable
option for Port Graham.
Members of the project team visited the village to obtain pertinent information concerning
energy loads in the village. Community buildings were identified and energy systems were
investigated and recorded. Tribal council members and Chugachmiut representatives present
provided information needed to perform load and economic calculations in the industry sector.
Pictures of Port Graham energy systems and community buildings can be viewed in Appendix A.
Data was assembled by Chugachmiut regarding the forested resource located in Port
Graham, and fish oil information was provided by the Port Graham Hatchery. This data was
analyzed to determine annual supply and cost of procurement. Densification of the wood into
wood chips or pellets was considered for ease of use, transportation, and increased efficiency.
214
4
Fish oil was also reviewed as a potential biomass resource because of the established salmon
industry in Port Graham.
Several technologies (e.g., combustion, gasification, liquid biomass fuel) and a variety of
size applications were considered for Port Graham energy production and cogeneration.
Combustion systems are commercially available and vary in size from small indoor wood boilers
for individual use to full-scale units capable of supplying heat to the entire village. Gasification
is an alternative option which can be implemented to supply heat via syngas production, generate
electricity using a microturbine, or provide both heat and electricity through cogeneration. Liquid
biomass sources can be used to replace diesel and reduce consumption without modification of
the existing infrastructure.
Finally, an engineering economic feasibility analysis was performed to evaluate the
technologies and applications. The analysis was based on savings from current fossil fuel and
electricity costs, including estimation of capital, operational, and feedstock costs. The estimated
savings were used to calculate a simple payback period for financing expenses. Sensitivity of the
savings and payback were tested for changes in feedstock cost, petroleum fuel price, and capital
investment. Emissions control standards and mechanical constraints of a remote location were
also considered.
RESULTS
The small scale of the village and sufficient regional biomass resources allow up to 20% in
annual energy savings through several arrangements of commercially available technologies to
supply distributive heat, electrical, or cogeneration energy for individual village buildings,
multiple buildings, or the entire village. Currently, diesel must be imported to heat community
buildings and residences. The Homer Electric Association provides single-phase electricity to all
village structures and partial industrial operations. Additional industrial energy needs, i.e.,
3-phase power, are supplied by diesel generators. Biomass preparation technologies, solid
biomass combustion and gasification, and utilization of a biomass fuel in existing equipment, are
technically applicable for displacing current Port Graham energy sources. An adequate supply of
wood can be procured from the underutilized forest region surrounding Port Graham for energy
production in the village. Salmon oil, processed from whole fish or generated from processing
waste fish, can be blended with diesel for use in the present energy infrastructure (available
depending on annual fish harvesting yields). Economically viable biomass energy applications
are individual, shared, and full-scale wood combustion systems for heat and industrial
processing; wood gasification electricity production and cogeneration; or a fish oil–diesel fuel
without change to the current infrastructure. Exceptions were scenarios involving distributive
heat from steam or syngas and heat and power supplied solely by electricity.
Port Graham Energy Load
An array of biomass energy scenarios was developed to match Port Graham energy needs,
up to 6 MMBtu/hr and 560 kW for heat and power, respectively. About 9100 MMBtu/yr is
currently consumed in diesel to heat residences and community buildings while using 2000
215
5
MWh annually for village electricity and industrial processing. Energy scenarios vary in
application and technology from heating systems serving individual structures to distributive
cogeneration for the entire village.
Current Energy Infrastructure
Energy in Port Graham is supplied by 78,000 gallons of diesel annually and 260 kW
electricity, costing the village about $470,000 per year in utilities. Energy requirements include
heat for residences and community buildings and electricity for industrial processing and all
village structures. Diesel is the primary source of heating energy and is also used in stationary
generators for local electricity production for industrial processing. Electrical power is supplied
by a the Homer Electric Association (HEA). A local power plant houses four diesel generators
for use during electrical outages. The following section details the estimated current energy load
and costs for Port Graham.
Village structures, totaling 90,000 sq ft, require heating during the long Alaskan winter
season, and the village salmon cannery utilizes electrical power for operations during the
summer fishing season (May–August). Major sources of heat load from Port Graham community
buildings include the following: school (8000 sq ft), tribal council building (3600 sq ft), clinic
(4000 sq ft), native corporation office (1600 sq ft), and grocery store (2800 sq ft). About 70
homes accommodate Port Graham’s small population, with an estimated average of about 1000
sq ft each. Although a majority of homes are heated by forced air, some use hot water for
heating. In addition, most residences contain wood stoves, using them for heat when diesel prices
become too costly for the resident. The cannery was not in operation the past year because of
marketing issues for the canned salmon product. The cannery utilizes a Kohler G00ROZD4
555-kW Intercool generator to provide 3-phase electricity during day/run time; local electricity is
used for evening–night/downtime. About 20,000–25,000 gallons diesel are consumed annually
for operation. A fire-tube steam boiler also exists in the industrial section of the village; the
boiler has also not been in use and would require refurbishing before it would be safe for
operation. A layout of the village is provided in Figure 2.
A heating load of 6 MMBtu/hr was estimated for all selected structures in the village,
consuming approximately 78,000 gallons diesel per year and costing the village about $234,000
annually. A summary of calculations is provided in Table 1. Diesel is delivered to the village via
barge and used for all village building and residential heating, as well as cannery daytime
operations. The average diesel price in Alaska for 2006 was about $3.00 per gallon (Energy
Information Administration, 2007). As a single structure, the cannery requires the most energy
for processing operations. About 4.5 MMBtu/hr is needed, assuming a 3-month season and an
average of 8 hrs per day. Estimation of heating requirements for community buildings and
residences was based on the area to be heated and estimated to be about 53,000 gallons per year
and cost $159,000 annually. Thus the average home consumes about 600 gallons diesel during
the winter season, costing the owner an average $2000 in annual heating. An estimated 1.3
MMBtu/hr is needed to heat the community buildings at about $35,000 for 12,000 gallons diesel
annually. It is assumed that a system designed to serve the heating needs of village buildings and
homes in winter months would be sufficient for cannery-processing energy needs in summer
months.
216
6
Figure 2. The village of Port Graham, Alaska.
217
7
Table 1. Estimated Energy Load and Diesel Consumption in Port Graham
Building Heat Requirements* Current Conditions
Structure
Heating
Area,
sq ft
Power
Required,
Btu/hr
Annual
Energy
Usage,
MMBtu/yr
Diesel,
gal
Annual
Heating
Cost
Average Home 1000 65,000 65 591 $1770
Total Residential (70 units) 70,000 4,550,000 4550 41,300 $124,000
School 8000 520,000 520 4720 $14,200
Clinic 4000 260,000 260 2360 $7090
Tribal Council Building 3600 234,000 234 2130 $6380
Native Corporation Office 1600 104,000 104 945 $2830
Grocery Store 2800 182,000 182 1650 $4960
Total Village Buildings 20,000 1,300,000 1300 11,800 $35,400
Total Village Buildings and
Residences 90,000 5,850,000 5850 53,100 $159,000
Cannery – 4,500,000 3240 25,000 $75,000
Total Heat Load 90,000 5,850,000 9090 78,100 $234,000
*Assumes 65 Btu/hr/sq ft, 1000 hr heating required, and energy required to heat village buildings and homes in
winter months is available for cannery processing in summer months.
An electrical peak demand of 260 kW is supplied to Port Graham by HEA via the Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Plant at the head of Kachemak Bay northeast of Homer, Alaska. The power
line into Port Graham supplies only single-phase electricity but can accommodate 3-phase. Prior
to the construction of the Bradley Lake power lines, HEA housed diesel generators in Port
Graham. Once the construction was completed, the Port Graham Village Corporation assumed
management and operation of the equipment and building. New equipment was purchased to
provide downtime power for the cannery and backup power for Port Graham and the nearby
village of Nanwalek in the event of a power failure. HEA purchases diesel from the Corporation
to operate the generators when power is down. Figure 3 shows the power plant, which contains
five generators: one CAT 3304 105 kW, three CAT 3406 260 kW, and a Cummins 250 kW.
HEA provided the monthly residential, commercial, and industrial rates applicable to Port
Graham consumers. The rates are summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 summarizes the calculations for estimated electrical cost and load in the village of
Port Graham, totaling $234,000 and 2000 MWh per year, respectively. Costs were estimated
using the rates provided in Table 2. Only the total annual estimate for electrical load could be
obtained. Electricity consumption for residential and community structures was thus based on
building size, estimated to be 1300 MWh per year and costing a collective $180,000 annually.
Assuming an 8-hour working day, the power required during cannery downtime operation was
estimated to be about 664,000, requiring $18,000 in annual electricity costs.
218
8
Figure 3. Port Graham Power Plant.
Table 2. Current HEA Electricity Rates (Homer Electric Association, 2007)
Charges and Parameters Residential Commercial Industrial
Monthly Fee $11 $40 $1200
Regulatory Charge, per kWh $0.000433 $0.000433 $0.000433
Tier limit, kWh 600 3000 –
Tier price, per kWh $0.12370 $0.12074
Price over limit, per kWh $0.13073 $0.10876 $0.05440
Demand limit, kW – 10 –
Demand charge, per kW – $6.37740 $16.70876
Biomass Energy Scenarios Studied and Load Requirements
An assortment of biomass scenarios were considered for energy production based on a
variety of biomass technology combinations to meet Port Graham load requirements, energy
loads ranging from 65,000 Btu/hr to 6 MMBtu/hr and 300–2000 kW depending on system size
for each scenario. Technologies and resource combinations include wood combustion, wood
gasification, and fish oil as fuel in the existing infrastructure. This section describes the energy
scenarios considered and the respective power requirements.
The scenarios include several arrangements of commercially available technologies and
utilization of biomass resources at various sizes and production rates to supply energy for the
219
9
Table 3. Estimated Electrical Load and Expense for Port Graham
Current Electricity Conditions
Structure
Building
Area,
sq ft
Electricity
Usage,
kWh/yr
Av
Electricity
Usage,
kWh/month
Av
Electricity
Cost, per
month
Annual
Electricity
Cost
Average Home 1000 14,800 1240 $169 $2030
Total Residential (70 units) 70,000 1,040,000 86,600 $11,800 $142,000
School 8000 119,000 9900 $1240 $14,900
Clinic 4000 59,400 4950 $656 $7870
Tribal Council Building 3600 53,400 4450 $591 $7090
Native Corporation Office 1600 23,700 1980 $266 $3200
Grocery Store 2800 41,600 3460 $461 $5530
Total Village Buildings 20,000 297,000 24,700 $3210 $38,600
Total Village Buildings and
Residences 90,000 1,340,000 111,000 $15,000 $181,000
Cannery – 664,000 221,000 $17,700 $53,100
Total Electrical Load 90,000 2,000,000 333,000 $32,700 $234,000
village. Individual buildings may be heated by indoor wood boilers or outdoor wood furnaces.
Outdoor wood furnaces are also capable of heating multiple homes or community buildings.
Full-scale combustion and gasification systems can be designed to provide heat for the entire
village. Gasification systems can also be designed to generate electricity or cogenerate heat and
electricity. Another application considered was the potential to use fish oil as fuel in existing
energy equipment. Table 4 provides an outline of the potential energy scenarios derived and
summarizes the load requirements for each. A more detailed table describing each scenario is
given in Appendix B.
The power demand for the systems proposed by each scenario varies from individual
residential application (65,000 Btu/hr) to cogeneration energy (6 MMBtu/hr, 600 kW) or
electrical power and heat (2 MW) supplied to the whole village. Load requirements for scenarios
proposing individual systems, such as indoor wood boilers or small outdoor wood furnaces, were
given in Tables 1 and 3 of the previous section. Heating loads from 65,000 Btu/hr for the average
residence to an estimated 520,000 Btu/hr for the community school were estimated. The average
residential system for serving multiple structures, about 3–4 homes depending on location, would
require about 230,000 Btu/hr. A system for the clinic, tribal council building, and Native
corporation office is estimated to be rated at 600,000 Btu/hr. It is assumed that individual
outdoor wood furnaces are sufficient for the village grocery store and school, which are located
more than 100 ft from the other community buildings. Systems serving heat to all village
structures require a power rating of 6 MMBtu/hr, assuming the system will not be in use during
the summer months and thus available for cannery operation. Under the same assumption,
systems serving heat only to community buildings should be rated at 5 MMBtu/hr. Electrical
demand is 300 kW for building and residential needs, as well as cannery downtime operation.
220
10
Table 4. Potential Energy Scenarios and Load Requirements for the Village of Port
Graham (see Tables 1 and 3 for individual loads)
Power Required
Scenario Description/Application Heat,
MMBtu/hr
Electricala,
kW
I. Wood Combustion
A. Wood Furnaces/Boilers
1. Indoor Wood Boilers
2. Small Outdoor Wood
Furnaces
Individual systems → hot water heat → village
buildings, homes 0.065–0.52 –
3. Moderate Outdoor Wood
Furnaces
Moderate systems → hot water heat → serving multiple
community buildingsb, homes (3–4)
Av home:
0.23
Community
bldgsb:
0.60
–
B. Automated Combustion System
1. Moderate Combustion System Hot water heat → cannery, village buildings 5 –
2. Large-Scale Combustion
System Hot water heat → cannery, village buildings, homes 6 –
II. Wood Gasification System
A. Gas Production
1. Moderate Steam (Gas) Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Steam heat → village buildings 5 –
2. Moderate Gas and Steam Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Syngas → village buildings for heat 5 –
3. Large Gas Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Syngas → village buildings, homes for heat 6 –
B. Gas and Electricity Production
1. Moderate Steam and
Electricity
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Steam heat → village buildings
Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)
5 300
2. Moderate Gas, Steam and
Electricity
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Syngas → village buildings for heat
Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)
5 300
3. Large Gas and Electricity
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steam
Syngas → village buildings, homes for heat
Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)
6 300
C. Electricity Production
1. High-Power Electricity and
Heat Electricity generation (3-phase, 560 kW) → heat – 2000
2. High-Power Electricity Electricity generation (3-phase, 560 kW) – 600
3. Low-Power Electricity Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW) – 300
III. Fish Oil
A. Moderate Steam (oil) Blend → steam boiler → cannery steam
Steam heat → village buildings
B. Moderate Oil and Steam Blend → steam boiler → cannery steam
Blend → village buildings for heat
C. Large Oil and Steam Blend → steam boiler → cannery steam
Blend → village buildings, homes for heat
(not applicable; uses
existing energy
infrastructure)
a Electrical power requirements are rounded for ease of equipment economic estimations.
b Clinic, tribal council building, Native corporation office only; small outdoor wood furnaces would be required for the
school and grocery store because of their location.
221
11
Should electrical power be provided for daytime cannery operations, a rating of 600 kW is
needed. To supply electrical power for both heat and electrical needs to the entire village, a
system capable of meeting a 2000-MW demand would be required. The energy loads required by
each scenario presented are therefore technically feasibility for commercially available systems
and the biomass feedstocks proposed, discussed further in the following sections.
Port Graham Resources
A sufficient quantity of solid biomass is available in the forested region surrounding Port
Graham to supply energy to the village; liquid biomass (salmon oil) availability will depend on
annual fishing yield and cannery waste production. Up to 5000 tons of wood annually (12%
moisture, 7200 Btu/lb wet) could be harvested from the neighboring forests. Fish oil
(124,000 Btu/gal) could also be used as a source of fuel for the village, especially if garnered
from fish wastes produced during cannery processing. Details of the resource analysis are
described in this section.
Over 500,000 tons of biomass could be accessible from Port Graham forested lands with
half the availability located within ¼-mile of the existing roadway. Table 5 summarizes the wood
resource potential. Wood moisture for the region is 39% “green” and 12% seasoned. Therefore,
assuming 8100 Btu/lb dry for Sitka spruce (Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 1979), the
heating value of this biomass source is estimated to be 7200 Btu/lb seasoned. Forested acres for
both Native Allotment lands and Port Graham Corporation lands were quantified by
Chugachmiut. The analysis considered lands with less than a 35% slope, outside of water
buffers, readily lending themselves to road access construction, and suitable for long-term forest
land management. Native Allotment lands that have not been the subject of previous forest
management activities and the existing roadways will require a moderate-to-high maintenance
upgrade to be serviceable. Therefore, the resource available within ¼-mile of an existing
roadway was considered. It was estimated that about 250,000 tons of timber could be accessible
from the existing roadways on Port Graham lands. This amount equates to approximately 5000
tons per year of wood availability on a 50-year rotation. This amount is sufficient for all wood
heating and power systems studied.
Table 5. Timber Resource for Potential Fuel Utilization
Total Resource Availability Within ¼-mi. Existing Roadway
Ownership Acres Tons/
Acre Tons Acres % total Tons
Native
Allotment 6700 20 134,000 1160 17% 23,200
Corporate 15,700 25 393,000 12,700 81% 228,000
Forested 5400 60 324,000 2700 50% 162,000
1960–1980a 5700 10 57,000 5400 95% 54,000
1980–1995a 1900 5 9500 1900 100% 9500
1995–2000b 2700 1 2700 2700 100% 2700
Total 22,400 24 527,000 13,900 62% 251,000
a Previously harvested, assume a forest stand improvement scheme of thinning.
b Previously harvested, roadside and landing residue utilization.
222
12
Up to 630 tons salmon or waste fish would be required annually to supply heat to the
village. The heating value of salmon oil is estimated at about 124,000 Btu/gal (Chioua, et al.,
2006) or 96% of the energy of diesel on a volume basis. Fish availability will depend on annual
fishing ability and cannery waste production. Salmon is a significant component of subsistence
activities in Port Graham, and a use for wastes generated, e.g., from cannery operations, that
would support village subsistence is desired.
Energy Technologies and Equipment
Biomass technologies, such as feedstock preparation, combustion, gasification, and
utilization of a biomass fuel in existing equipment, are technically viable options for alternative
energy in Port Graham. The layout of systems is bound by the energy system footprint required
and the proximity needed to be maintained for safety measures and economics for distribution of
energy. Feedstock preparation methods include production of logs, wood chips, and wood
pellets; fish oil procurement and processing; and biomass storage requirements. Combustion
systems suitable for the village include indoor wood boilers, outdoor wood furnaces, and full-
scale combustion systems, which generate hot water for building heating. A gasification system
is capable of providing a synthetic gas product or syngas which can be used to produce steam for
heat or processing, combusted for building heat (forced air or hot water), fed to a turbine for
electricity generation, or a combination for cogeneration. Fish oil can be used without further
processing in a 50% diesel blend in the existing energy system. For all biomass technologies, the
current systems can remain in place as a backup.
The layout of village structures is suitable for all scenarios proposed, from individual
systems to larger, shared heating or cogeneration systems. Two examples are provided in
Appendix C. The first shows outdoor wood furnaces serving multiple homes and village
buildings. The second shows distributive heat, electricity, or cogeneration to the entire village
using a large combustion or gasification system. Outdoor wood furnaces must be located about
100 ft away from both the property line of the unit served and any structures for safety measures.
Large-scale systems serving the whole village require the installation of a piping network to
provide heat to village buildings. Electricity produced via gasification can be distributed by
connecting to the existing power plant for access to village power lines. Thus proximity to other
structures, connections to structures for shared systems, and existing infrastructure determine the
applicability of scenarios to the Port Graham village.
Feedstock Preparation Technology
Alternative fuels require new infrastructure, such as densification and fish oil-processing
equipment. Table 6 provides a summary of feedstock options for each technology studied.
Timber preparation, such as splitting, chipping, and/or pelletizing, may be needed depending on
the technology implemented. Wood storage should be designed to allow the wood to dry
sufficiently (12% moisture) for use in a combustion or gasification system and be sized to
compensate for annual fluctuations in average winter temperatures. Fish wastes must be
collected and processed to extract the oil for utilization in the existing technology. A description
of feedstock processing follows.
223
13
Table 6. Feedstock Options for Presented Scenario Systems
Energy Systems Feedstock Options
A. Wood furnaces/boilers Logs, wood chips, or pellets Wood Combustion
Systems B. Automated combustion
system Wood chips
Wood Gasification Systems Wood chips
Fish Oil Systems (i.e., existing diesel systems) Fish oil–diesel blend, up to
50%
Logs, wood chips, and pellets can be produced from the harvest wood resource and
densification equipment (e.g., grinder, pellet mill) for use as feedstock in biomass technologies,
each offering increased efficiency and requiring additional processing. Logs may be produced in
the forest and transported to the village or cut and split when in the village using a chainsaw.
Small or split logs, having no bigger than a 15 in. combined diameter and length of 20–50 in.
may be produced and used for indoor and outdoor wood furnaces, depending on furnace size.
The wood may also be densified into chips or pellets, providing the opportunity for feed
automation in some systems. Wood chips as a feedstock are applicable to indoor and outdoor
furnaces, burning more efficiently than logs, and are necessary for automation in full-scale wood
combustion and gasification systems. Wood chips also burn more efficiently than logs, adding
about 5% to log burn efficiency. Several types of grinders are available, including portable diesel
and stationary electric grinders. Figure 4 shows a grinder chipping municipal wood waste.
Alternatively, wood pellets provide the opportunity for automation in indoor and outdoor
furnaces, as well as high energy density (7700 Btu/lb, 25% moisture) and efficiency (+10% log
efficiency). Pellet production requires further grinding the wood chips into sawdust, drying, die
casing to form the pellets, drying again, and cooling. Figure 5 shows an example of the process.
Wood storage for the community should hold sufficient material to supply energy needs
projected from historical and current usage for 2 years and 30% more than the average need.
This will allow the feedstock 1 year to dry to achieve the seasoned moisture rating of about 12%
for Sitka spruce in the Kenai Peninsula. Green wood is typically 40% or greater, which is too wet
for efficient combustion or gasification, generating a smoky exhaust and reduced heat
production. The design should consider the potential for colder than average temperatures during
winter months. Storage size about 30% above the average estimated feedstock requirement is
recommended. Village wood distribution or delivery should also be coordinated, especially for
scenarios suggesting individual wood heating systems.
Fish oil extracted from whole fish or wastes can be used as a straight blend with diesel or it
can be converted to a methyl ester, i.e., biodiesel for use in existing energy equipment. Many
224
14
Figure 4. Wood chip production using a portable diesel grinder.
Figure 5. Example of wood pellet process.
225
15
companies generating fish oil (e.g., Unalaska, Unisea, and U.S. Seafood) are using it straight to
supplement diesel fuel (B. Steigers, 2006). The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is
demonstrating a portable fish oil production facility, capable of processing up to 50 tons
(~13,000 gallons) of waste fish per day (J. Steigers, 2006). The biodiesel process reacts methanol
to a triglyceride source, such as vegetable or fish oil, in the presence of a catalyst to produce a
methyl ester and the by-product glycerin. Biodiesel is not currently produced in Alaska,
requiring processing at a Hawaii facility for the Alaska Biodiesel Project, which is a
demonstration of fish oil biodiesel utilization. Production of biodiesel in Port Graham would
require importation of the catalyst and methanol.
Combustion Energy Systems
Wood combustion is a well-known technology with many commercial systems available in
a wide range of sizes for either indoor or outdoor use. Combustion systems typically produce hot
water for heat or steam for processing applications. The various options studied for Port Graham
are described below, including an overview of combustion system equipment.
Combustion technologies considered included indoor wood boilers, outdoor wood
furnaces, and full-scale systems. Combustion facilities can range in efficiency from 45%–75%,
depending on feedstock and system type. Indoor wood boilers and outdoor wood furnaces offer
the convenience of individual heating for village homes and buildings and low technical
complexity. Indoor wood boilers require manual wood loading and ash removal. Indoor wood
boilers are typically 70%–75% efficient. Outdoor wood heating systems can be automated or
manual. These systems are the least efficient, 45%–55%. These units can be used individually or
connected to multiple homes or buildings for short-distance distributive heating. Full-scale
combustion systems can be designed large enough to provide heat for the entire village,
condensing operation to one unit. Feed and ash removal of these systems are fully automated.
Efficiency is about 75%–80%. Enclosures will be needed for these systems for equipment
protection from the elements. Additional considerations for the implementation of combustion
systems may include wood storage, hot water piping, and heat exchangers for homes/buildings
currently heated by forced air. Table 7 and Figures 6–10 show selected examples of wood
heating systems. A comprehensive list of vendors is provided in Appendix D.
Wood heating systems generally consist of three main components: fuel handling, boiler
(a.k.a. combustion), and controls. The fuel-handling component contains the wood storage bin. If
the system is automated, augers and conveyers are included to feed the wood to the boiler. The
boiler contains the combustion chamber for conversion of the wood to energy for heating water
in hot-water-heated buildings. Controls within the system will vary depending on the degree of
automation. They can be limited to burn rate or include motors for augers and conveyors.
Appendix D also contains detailed descriptions of the systems described and engineering
designs.
226
16
Table 7. Examples of Combustion Systems
System Type Manufacturer Wood
Feedstocks
Size Range,
MMBtu/hr Description
Alternate
Heating
Systems, Inc.
Logs,
sawdust,
shavings, and
wood chips
0.1–1.0
For use with an existing boiler system,
only the firebox is supplied, all
operations are manual, cyclone
separator for fly ash removal,
automatic fuel delivery systems for
densified biomass.
Kerr Heating
Products Logs 0.7–0.14
Royall
Manufacturing,
Inc.
Logs, chips,
pellets 0.13–0.25
Indoor Wood
Boiler
Greenwood
Technologies Logs 0.2–0.3
The Wood
Doctor Logs, chips 0.1–1.3
For use with an existing boiler system,
only the firebox is supplied, all
operations are manual.
Outdoor
Wood
Furnace Pro-Fab
Industries Chips, pellets 0.75–2.5
Hot water boiler, automatically feed
fuel and remove ash, computerized
control system manages all functions
of the drive motors.
Messersmith
Manufacturing,
Inc.
Chips, saw
dust, and
wood
shavings
1.0–20
Fully automated
Fuel-handling: traveling auger, storage
bin, belt conveyors, and metering
bin
System: boiler, grates, air blowers
Control: motors for augers, conveyors,
blower, control panel containing
programmable logic controllers,
sensors, switches, and connecting
cables.
Chiptec Wood
Energy
Systems
Chips,
sawdust,
shavings,
moisture
content (6%–
60%)
0.4–50
Automation for material handling
including moving-wedge systems,
traveling screw unloading systems,
silos and silo-unloading systems, and
belt and screw conveyors.
Full-Scale
Combustion
Hurst Boiler &
Welding Co.,
Inc.
Chips, bark,
sawdust,
shavings
2–60
Fuel conveyors, forced-draft fans and
air systems, ash-handling conveyors,
induced-draft fans and air systems,
automated control systems, fuel-
metering systems, ash reinjection
systems, exhaust breeching and stacks,
emissions control and monitoring, fire
doors and grates, and sootblower
systems.
227
17
Figure 6. Greenwood indoor wood boiler.
Figure 7. Pro-Fab wood or pellet outdoor furnace.
228
18
Figure 8. Wood Doctor outdoor wood furnace.
Figure 9. Example of typical system configuration; Messersmith wood combustion system.
229
19
Figure 10. Chiptec gasifier and boiler system.
Gasification Energy Systems
Gasification is a promising technology that converts solid fuel into a gas suitable for use
with high-efficiency power equipment, steam generation equipment, or both for cogeneration.
The following describes this technology and its potential applications for Port Graham.
During wood gasification, carbon monoxide and hydrogen are produced by direct heating
in the gasification chamber allows a limited supply of air, pure oxygen, steam, or a combination
to serve as a partial oxidizing agent for heat generation. When air is the oxidant, nitrogen
accounts for about half of the product gas. This dilutes the concentration of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide gases, resulting in a low-energy syngas with a heating value 130 Btu/scf on average.
About 80% efficiency in syngas production and 17% efficiency in electricity generation can be
achieved on a heating-value basis when wood is used as the feedstock. Fuel storage would
include either a post-and-frame building or silo-unloading system. Figure 11 shows a general
layout and footprint for the wood chip gasification system developed by the EERC. The EERC-
developed gasification system was examined as the only known moderate gasification system
(50kW–5MW) available. The system is a downdraft biomass gasification technology, chosen for
its ability to reduce the tar content of the product gas. Appendix D contains a detailed description
of the EERC gasification system.
230
20
Figure 11. EERC-designed wood chip gasification system.
The low-Btu syngas can either be combusted for heat in village buildings, requiring
installation of gas furnaces, or combusted in the existing fire-tube boiler for steam production,
requiring installation of heat exchangers for hot-water and air heated buildings. The existing fire-
tube steam boiler could conceivably be modified to use syngas from wood gasification. A
microturbine or gas generator can produce electrical power from the syngas. A hurdle for
electricity production may be negotiations with HEA. Considerations for implementation of
gasification technology include wood storage and management of ash and waste water produced.
Equipment specific to electricity generation includes connections to the existing power plant,
phase downgrade1 for homes and village buildings, and electric boilers/furnaces for homes and
village buildings. Production of syngas or steam for distribution may require heat exchangers for
homes/buildings currently heated by forced air, gas boilers/furnaces, and connections to the
cannery for steam production. Refurbishing the fire-tube boiler and piping of the gas or steam
produced would also be needed.
Utilization of Fish Oil Fuel in Existing Infrastructure
Utilization of fish oil in a diesel blend without conversion to biodiesel is a more viable
option for the village of Port Graham. Straight fish oil can be used at a higher blend with diesel
than biodiesel because of cold climate issues. Furthermore, fish oil does not require conversion
1 If 3-phase power is produced by the biomass energy system for cannery operations, then the electrical power
supply must be downgraded to single phase to be applicable for use in residences and community buildings.
231
21
to biodiesel for use in heating equipment, eliminating reliance on additional imports for
processing.
Because of complex processing requirements and the expense of importing methanol and
catalyst and limited diesel displacement, biodiesel production was not evaluated in this study.
Biodiesel production requires a catalyst and methanol feedstock for conversion of the oil to a
methyl ester. Replacing importation of diesel with importation of biodiesel feedstocks is
counterproductive to the purpose of this study. In addition, quality and stability of the biodiesel
product continue to be issues within the industry. Biodiesel also creates cause for concern
because of clouding in cold climates. Gumming and clogging of the system can occur as the oil
crystallizes in colder temperatures, restricting recommended use to no more than B5 (5%
biodiesel, 95% diesel blend) (Houck, 2006; National Biodiesel Board, 2006). This limit would
only displace about 4000 gallons diesel.
A fish oil–diesel blend containing up to 50% fish oil can be used in boilers and furnaces
without further processing. The high cold-flow properties of the fish oil (cloud point about 0°C
[Chioua, et al., 2006]) can also become problematic at higher blends during winter months.
Blends containing more than 50% fish oil are not recommended (Hein, 2006). In addition, the
fish oil blend should only be utilized in boilers or furnaces because of similar operational
concerns. Equipment that would be required for implementation of a fish oil–fuel infrastructure
includes refurbishing of the existing fire-tube boiler and possible installation of piping for
distributive steam heating.
ECONOMICS
All biomass energy scenarios studied were determined to be economically viable, with the
exception of those proposing distributive steam or syngas (alone, without cogeneration) and
electricity generation for heat and power. Economic calculations are shown in Appendix E.
Feedstock, capital, and operating costs were estimated for each scenario and the annual cost,
savings, and payback were calculated for determination of the most economical approach for the
village. Each scenario also requires an array of additional equipment for implementation, e.g.
piping, as well as operating considerations such as wood loading and ash management, which
can have a significant effect on economics. A detailed table listing the necessary requirements
for scenario implementation is given in Appendix B. Emissions from operation of a biomass
energy system are not expected to exceed national or state standards.
Feedstock Preparation Cost
Feedstock costs were based on wood procurement, estimated at $55/ton ($3.90/MMBtu)
and ranging between $35,000 and $290,000 for wood scenarios and utilization of fish wastes,
assumed to be available at no charge for generating fish oil. Forestry and fishery best
management practices (BMPs) must be observed to maintain health and sustainability of the
resource. An explanation of wood procurement follows.
232
22
Up to 5300 tons of wood chips and 42,000 gallons of fish oil would be required annually to
implement the biomass energy scenarios investigated for a maximum feedstock expense of
$290,000. A summary of feedstock costs and quantity estimated is provided in Table 8.
Individual wood systems would consume an average of about 800 tons of logs annually at
$42,000 per year. Moderate systems providing hot water or steam to only the cannery and village
buildings would require the least amount of wood resource, about 400 tons of wood chips per
year average for an annual cost of $22,000. About 900 tons of wood chips could provide
distributive heat to the residential and commercial sectors, and steam to the cannery for an
annual average cost of $52,000. Cogeneration systems require the largest wood resource for
energy production, averaging 3400 tons of wood chips and $190,000 annually. Fish oil scenarios
average 32,000 gallons annually to meet Port Graham energy needs, requiring about 500 tons of
salmon or waste fish to be processed.
Table 9 shows the itemized cost estimation as it relates to the procurement of woody
biomass from the forested lands in the vicinity of Port Graham, totaling $330 per metric board
feet (MBF) or $55/ton wood. Numbers used in this estimation have been derived from historical
Table 8. Feedstock Cost for Each Energy Scenario*
Scenario
Annual
Feedstock
Requirement Feedstock
Feedstock
Cost
Indoor Wood Boilers 630 tons wood $35,000
Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces 910 tons wood $50,000
Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces 1100 tons wood $62,000
Moderate Combustion System 420 tons wood $23,000
Large-Scale Combustion System 850 tons wood $47,000
Moderate Steam (gas) 400 tons wood $22,000
Moderate Gas and Steam 390 tons wood $21,000
Large Gas 850 tons wood $47,000
Moderate Gas and/or Steam and
Electricity 2900 tons wood $160,000
Large Gas and Electricity 3300 tons wood $180,000
High-Power Electricity and Heat 5300 tons wood $290,000
High-Power Electricity 2900 tons wood $160,000
Low-Power Electricity 2500 tons wood $130,000
Moderate Steam and/or Oil 21,000 gal fish oil $63,000
Large Oil and Steam 42,000 gal fish oil $130,000
* Feedstock costs are based on wood procurement cost estimation of $55; additional cost for
wood chip production is included in operational expenses. Fish oil volumes do not include
diesel blend; it is assumed fish wastes at no charge are used to produce fish oil, and the cost of
diesel in the blended fuel is the feedstock cost..
233
23
Table 9. Breakdown of Wood Procurement Costs
Cost Item MBF Tons
Market Value (base price paid to owner) $53.00 $8.80
Harvest Cost $280.00 $46.00
Logging and Overhead $210.00 $35.00
Direct Logging Cost $140.00 $23.00
Falling and Bucking (cutting) $40.00 $6.60
Skidding (wood-to-road) $38.00 $6.40
Sorting and Loading (grading) $60.00 $10.00
Overhead Costs $73.00 $12.00
General Burden $31.00 $5.20
Mobilization (travel) $28.00 $4.70
Camp (housing) $14.00 $2.30
Transportation/Handling to Village $23.00 $3.80
Development and Maintenance $43.00 $7.10
Temporary Roads $19.00 $3.10
Temporary Bulkhead (dock) $9.40 $1.60
Erosion Control $5.70 $0.95
Road Maintenance $5.40 $0.90
Slash Disposal (limbs) $3.30 $0.55
Total Wood Cost $330.00 $55.00
sources relating to past timber harvests performed in this locale and combined with currently
available commercial market pricing. The cost presented in Table 9 could vary substantially
depending on landowner preferences. The market value estimation relates to the monetary
compensation to the timber owner for the sale of biomass and may vary with changes in the
market value of the wood harvested and contract negotiations among landowners. Harvest costs
depend on harvest location, harvest intensity, and operator availability. The location of the
biomass within the vicinity dictates not only the transportation distance, but the degree to which
new roadway infrastructure would be needed to support operations. Harvest intensity is a
variable of the volume of biomass extracted from a unit area and will be primarily controlled by
the landowner. Clear cutting a unit area will overall yield substantially more biomass per the
investment dollar than a selective thinning prescription; however, the landowner may prefer the
more aesthetically pleasing selective thinning approach. The scale of economy will dictate the
operator availability. Depending on the annual biomass requirements, the operator could range
from a small local program to a larger commercial timber harvest operator.
Capital Investment
Estimated capital expenses range $260,000–$2.1 million for indoor or outdoor wood
furnace purchase and delivery costs, wood combustion or gasification system delivery and
installation, or installation of fish oil-processing equipment. Feedstock preparation, such as a
grinder, pellet mill, or fish oil-processing unit, can add up to $700,000 to capital costs.
Additional costs may include piping for distribution to individual homes and buildings when
considering larger systems, refurbishing the existing fire-tube boiler for potential steam
234
24
production, or heat exchangers or gas/electric furnaces if producing steam, gas, or electricity for
distribution, more than doubling equipment costs. The capital investment for implementation of a
fish oil–fuel blend only requires the processing unit; however, additional costs such as piping
and refurbishing will still apply.
Equipment for feedstock preparation can range from $250,000 to $450,000, with
utilization of logs for indoor wood boilers and small outdoor wood furnaces, and wood chips for
the remaining wood energy systems, as the most economical approach to wood feedstock
choices. In an effort to be conservative, feedstock preparation equipment was sized to handle the
maximum of 5300 tons of wood chips and 42,000 gallons of fish oil required annually for the
scenarios studied. Several companies providing grinders were contacted for wood chipping, and
it was identified that stationary electric grinders are the most economical. A comparison of the
grinders and the quotes garnered are given in Appendix E. A 550-hp (410 kW) stationary electric
grinder which produces chips at a rate of 12 tons/hr has an estimated delivery price of $250,000.
Production of pellets requires the most complex processing, adding about $450,000 in equipment
capital for a product rate of 4 tons/hr (Villarreal, 2006). This estimate includes the hammer mill,
pellet mill, and drying and cooling components of the system. Because the hammer mill requires
wood to first be chipped, the addition to the scenario capital is an estimated $700,000 for both a
grinder and pellet mill. Therefore, production of pellets is not an economical feedstock for
biomass energy in Port Graham. The capital investment for the AEA fish oil-processing
equipment is estimated to be $250,000. Choices in fish oil fuel are limited to the diesel blend
level, a decision based on supply, operability of equipment, and maximum diesel displacement.
Calculations can be found in Appendix E.
Table 10 summarizes the combustion systems and respective capital cost estimations,
ranging from $3500 to $400,000 for each scenario. Indoor wood boilers can be installed for the
smallest capital investment, up to $7400. Outdoor wood furnaces are more expensive with
capital costs averaging up to $12,000 for a system serving three community buildings. Full-scale
combustion systems are the most expensive because of a more complex system and additional
amenities, such as automation for feed and ash removal, building, etc. Quotes were garnered
from a variety of vendors for the various sizes of indoor wood boilers, outdoor wood furnaces,
and full-scale combustion systems recommended for the scenarios discussed. The capital
estimation for each system represents the average of the quotes received.
The estimated capital investment for gasification systems varies from $500,000 to
$2 million. Table 11 shows the estimation specific to each scenario. Gasification scenarios would
require systems capable of 5 MMBtu/hr up to 2000 kW. EERC experience has shown that
gasification systems of this magnitude can be installed for about $1500/kW. Industry average is
approximately $1900/kW (Bailey, 2007; Pawlowski, 2007). A pricing range $1000–$2000/kW
was used to account for economies of scale.
Additional capital costs can include piping, heat exchangers refurbishing the existing fire-
tube steam boiler, and gas or electric boilers. Hot water, syngas, or steam piping would be
required for the full-scale combustion and gasification systems. Installed costs for hot water and
gas piping are about $3100 per 100 ft (Hoime, 2007; McCollah, 2007). Steam piping requires
235
25
Table 10. Estimated Capital Investment for Indoor and Outdoor Wood Heating Systems
Structure
Indoor
Wood
Boilers
Small
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Moderate
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Moderate
Combustion
System
Large
Combustion
System
Average Homea $3500 $4900 $8100
Residential Total $250,000 $340,000 $160,000 –
Schoolb $7400 $11,000 $11,000
Clinic $5700 $8600
Tribal Council
Building $5500 $8200
Native
Corporation
Office
$4100 $5900
$12,000
Grocery Storeb $5100 $7400 $7400
Cannery – – $210,000
$350,000
$400,000
Otherc – $230,000 $480,000 $270,000 $640,000
Scenario Total $270,000 $620,000 $630,000 $620,000 $1,000,000
a Capital for moderate outdoor wood furnace estimation is for one unit, serving 3-4 homes.
b Uses small outdoor wood furnace capital for moderate outdoor wood furnace scenario because of location..
c Additional capital requirements, such as piping and grinder capital.
Table 11. Estimated Capital Investment for Gasification Systems of Various
Scenarios Studied
Scenario Capital Other* Total
Moderate Steam $500,000 $600,000 $1,100,000
Moderate Gas and Steam $500,000 $300,000 $800,000
Large Gas $540,000 $760,000 $1,300,000
Moderate Steam and Electricity $830,000 $60,000 $1,400,000
Moderate Gas, Steam, and
Electricity $830,000 $300,000 $1,100,000
Large Gas and Electricity $870,000 $760,000 $1,600,000
High-Power Electricity and Heat $2,000,000 $320,000 $2,300,000
High-Power Electricity $870,000 $250,000 $1,100,000
Low-Power Electricity $540,000 $250,000 $790,000
*Additional capital requirements, such as piping and grinder capital.
insulation and pressure testing, costing about $46,000 per 100 ft installed (Hoime, 2007;
McCollah, 2007). Heat exchangers, estimated to cost about $1000 per 1000 sq ft of heating
space, would be needed for all scenarios studied for structures currently heated by forced air. The
existing fire-tube steam boiler has not been in operation for more than 2 years and would require
the tubes be brushed and pressure tested before operating. Refurbishing costs are estimated at
$10,000. Gas or electric boilers or furnaces would be needed for gasification scenarios producing
syngas or electricity for heat, ranging $750–$9300 for homes and village buildings (Table 12).
236
26
Table 12. Estimated Costs of Gas and Electric Boilers
or Furnaces Used for Gasification Scenario Capital
Investment Calculations
Structure Gas Electric
Average Home $1,200 $750
School $9,300 $6,000
Clinic $4,700 $3,000
Tribal Council Building $4,200 $2,700
Native Corporation Office $1,900 $1,200
Grocery Store $3,300 $2,100
Operating Expenses
Estimated operational costs range $1800–$59,000 annually, shown in Table 13. Costs
include wood and fish oil preparation system utility needs and labor required for system
operation, fuel feed for furnaces not automated, ash removal and disposal, and operators for
combustion and gasification systems. Ash handling will also depend on automation; manual
systems may require daily ash removal, while automated systems will remove the ash
periodically and require weekly cleaning. Description methods for calculating operational
expenses follow.
Operating costs of wood densification average about $41/ton for wood chips and are
dependent on the tonnage of wood processed and the utility processing requirements (Ruegemer,
2007; Gross, 2007; Clay, 2007). For generation of wood chips, 410 kW of power is required by
the grinder. Other factors used in estimation were the 12-ton/hr grinding rate, the hours to chip
the required tons of wood for the given scenario, and the charge for electricity consumption. For
example, the maximum wood feedstock requirement is 5300 tons wood chips annually. At the
processing rate of 12 tons/hr, it would take the grinder 445 hours of operation to produce 5300
tons wood chips. About 180,000 kWh would thus be consumed by the grinder, costing an
estimated $34,000 annually from the industrial rates given in Table 2. Should wood pellets be
considered, the 4-ton/hr system is estimated to consume $57 per ton in operating expenses
(Mani, 2006) in addition to chipping operations for pellet production, requiring $330,000
annually to produce 5300 tons wood pellets.
Indoor boilers and outdoor furnaces require manual loading of wood into the system and
for ash removal, adding $25–$34/ton wood consumed. Automation may be available with pellets
or with an auger modification for chips. A charge was applied to compensate for the additional
labor required to perform these tasks. The loading cost was estimated to be about $17 per ton.
Ash removal varied with feedstock type because of improved efficiency with greater
densification. Therefore, ash removal costs were estimated to be about $17, $13, and $8 per ton
for logs, wood chips, and pellets, respectively. Full-scale combustion systems and gasification
systems are completely automated. Although ash disposal is still required for these systems, the
cost is minimal.
237
27
Table 13. Estimated Operating Costs for Port Graham Energy
Scenarios*
Scenario
Annual
Feedstock
Requirement Feedstock
Annual
Operating
Cost
Indoor Wood Boilers 630 tons logs $21,000
Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces 910 tons logs $30,000
Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces 1100 tons chips $59,000
Moderate Combustion System 420 tons chips $25,000
Large-Scale Combustion System 850 tons chips $26,000
Moderate Steam (gas) 400 tons chips $25,000
Moderate Gas and Steam 390 tons chips $25,000
Large Gas 850 tons chips $26,000
Moderate Gas and/or Steam and
Electricity 2900 tons chips $30,000
Large Gas and Electricity 3300 tons chips $31,000
High-Power Electricity and Heat 5300 tons chips $35,000
High-Power Electricity 2900 tons chips $30,000
Low-Power Electricity 2500 tons chips $29,000
Moderate Steam and/or Oil 21,000 gal fish
oil $1,800
Large Oil and Steam 42,000 gal fish
oil $1,800
* Costs include wood loading for indoor boilers and outdoor furnaces, ash removal for all
wood systems, grinder operation for wood chip production, and utility costs for fish oil
processing; although the cost of fish oil production is considerably lower then wood, only a
maximum of 50% diesel may be displaced, significantly affecting potential savings.
The fish oil-processing facility would utilize 10% of the product fish oil for heating needs
and require a 30-kW electrical load, costing about $1800 annually for electricity (J. Steigers,
2006). Operating costs for the fish oil-processing system were determined using a similar method
as that for wood chip production. For implementation of the large fish oil system, about 42,000
gallons fish oil would be needed annually. The fish oil production system is capable of
processing 50 tons fish oil per day or 2gal/hr. To produce 42,000 gallons of fish oil, 47,000
gallons must be generated to compensate for heating needs. Based on the processing rate of
2 gal/hr, it would take the system 84 hours of operation to produce 47,000 gallons fish oil.
Therefore, about 2500 kWh would be consumed annually for fish oil processing, costing $1800
per year in operating expenses using HEA rates from Table 2.
Potential Savings and Payback
Savings to Port Graham for installation of a biomass energy system were estimated up to
$80,000 annually with simple payback periods as low as two years for the large fish oil fuel
application. Savings were calculated from the current energy expenses and the estimated capital,
238
28
operating, and feedstock costs. A simple payback for the capital investment was derived from the
calculated savings. Calculations are shown in Table 14. Sensitivity analyses were also performed
on wood feedstock costs, diesel price, and capital investment for the moderate outdoor wood
furnace scenario.
Table 15 summarizes the economic analysis results in order of economic viability, showing
the use of a fish oil–diesel blend for heat throughout the village to be the most economically
feasible, followed closely by the implementation of individual indoor wood boilers. Savings and
payback periods for all scenarios ranged from an incurred cost to $80,000 annually and
2–27 years, respectively. Potential savings for each scenario were estimated by subtracting the
annual estimated heating cost from the current heating cost using diesel fuel. The heating cost
was calculated by summing the amortized capital, feedstock costs, and operating costs. The
Table 14. Calculation of Estimated Annual Savings and Simple Payback
Scenario
Current
Energy
Costs
Total
Capital
Amortized
Capital
Annual
Feedstock
Costa
Annual
Operating
Costs
Annual
Biomass
Energy
Costsb
Annual
Savingsc
Simple
Paybackd
Indoor Wood Boilers $159,000 $273,000 $27,000 $35,000 $21,000 $83,000 $76,000 2.7
Small Outdoor Wood
Furnaces $159,000 $617,000 $62,000 $50,000 $30,000 $142,000 $17,000 7.8
Moderate Outdoor Wood
Furnaces $234,000 $885,000 $67,000 $63,000 $59,000 $189,000 $45,000 7.9
Moderate Combustion
System $110,000 $622,000 $48,000 $23,000 $25,000 $96,000 $14,000 10.0
Large-Scale Combustion
System $234,000 $1,044,000 $90,000 $47,000 $26,000 $163,000 $71,000 6.5
Moderate Steam (gas) $110,000 $1,102,000 $96,000 $22,000 $25,000 $143,000 ($33,000) 17.5
Moderate Gas and Steam $110,000 $805,000 $66,000 $21,000 $25,000 $112,000 ($2000) 12.6
Large Gas $117,000 $1,299,000 $116,000 $47,000 $26,000 $189,000 ($72,000) 29.5
Moderate Steam and
Electricity $344,000 $1,427,000 $128,000 $158,000 $30,000 $316,000 $28,000 9.1
Moderate Gas, Steam
and Electricity $344,000 $1,130,000 $99,000 $158,000 $30,000 $287,000 $57,000 7.2
Large Gas and Electricity $468,000 $1,629,000 $149,000 $182,000 $31,000 $362,000 $106,000 6.4
High-Power Electricity
and Heat $468,000 $2,318,000 $218,000 $293,000 $35,000 $546,000 ($78,000) 16.6
High-Power Electricity $309,000 $1,120,000 $98,000 $161,000 $30,000 $289,000 $20,000 9.5
Low-Power Electricity $234,000 $790,000 $65,000 $135,000 $29,000 $229,000 $5000 11.3
Moderate Steam (oil) $110,000 $602,000 $60,000 $63,000 $2000 $125,000 ($15,000) 13.4
Moderate Oil and Steam $110,000 $260,000 $26,000 $63,000 $2000 $91,000 $19,000 5.8
Large Oil and Steam $234,000 $260,000 $26,000 $126,000 $2000 $154,000 $80,000 2.5
aFish oil feedstock costs include diesel in blend.
bSum of amortized capital, annual feedstock cost, and annual operating costs.
cDifference between current energy costs and annual biomass energy costs.
dTotal Capital divided by (Current Energy Costs – [Annual Feedstock Cost + Annual Operating]).
239
29
Table 15. Economic Summary of Port Graham Energy Scenarios Studied (in order of
economic viability)
Ranking Scenario Annual Feedstock
Requirement
Total
Capital
Annual
Savings Payback
1 Large oil and steam 42,000 gal fish oil $260,000 $80,000 2.5
2 Indoor wood boilers 630 tons logs $270,000 $76,000 2.7
3 Large gas and elect 3300 tons chips $1,600,000 $106,000 6.4
4 Large-scale combustion system 850 tons chips $1,000,000 $71,000 6.5
5 Moderate gas, steam and
electricity 2900 tons chips $1,130,000 $58,000 7.2
6 Moderate oil and steam 21,000 gal fish oil $260,000 $19,000 5.8
7 Moderate outdoor wood furnaces 1100 tons chips $880,000 $45,000 7.9
8 Moderate steam and electricity 2900 tons chips $1,400,000 $28,000 9.1
9 Small outdoor wood furnaces 910 tons logs $620,000 $17,000 7.8
10 High-power electricity 2900 tons chips $1,120,000 $20,000 9.5
11 Moderate combustion system 420 tons chips $620,000 $14,000 10
12 Low-power electricity 2500 tons chips $790,000 $4,700 11
13 Moderate gas and steam 390 tons chips $810,000 ($2,200)13
14 Moderate steam (oil) 21,000 gal fish oil $600,000 ($15,000)13
15 Moderate steam (gas) 400 tons chips $1,100,000 ($33,000)17
16 High-power electricity and heat 5300 tons chips $2,300,000 ($80,000)17
17 Large gas 850 tons chips $1,300,000 ($72,000)30
simple payback was also calculated by dividing the capital investment by the potential savings
(without amortized capital). This provided two methods of evaluating each scenario. The
scenarios were then ranked according to greatest savings potential and quickest return on
investment.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the estimated annual savings and the simple
payback of the large fish oil and outdoor wood scenarios to test the effect of several variables:
fish oil–diesel blend, wood feedstock cost, diesel price, and capital investment. Each variable
was tested for a potential range above and below the estimated or assumed baseline. The results
were graphed (Figure 12) to compare the rate of change in the savings and payback as the
variable was changed. Sensitivity to small deviations in the estimated or assumed capital cost,
diesel price, feedstock cost, or diesel blend could significantly alter the actual savings and
payback, greatly affecting the economics of the proposed project.
The price of diesel and fish oil–diesel blend, followed by capital investment and wood
procurement, are the most sensitive factors to the estimated savings and payback for the large
fish oil and indoor wood boiler scenarios. Diesel displacement is important to the economic
feasibility of fish oil fuel, becoming unviable for blend containing less than 20% fish oil.
Procurement of the wood resource could conceivably range $35–$75/ton. Savings and payback
show a minor effect (up to "15%) with change in wood cost. Scenario economics could vary up
to three times the baseline for both scenarios with change in diesel price, tested for the range of
240
30
Figure 12. Sensitivity of estimated savings and payback for the large fish oil and the indoor
wood boiler scenarios.
241
31
$2–$5/gal. The base diesel price of $3.00/gal is a conservative value, given the recent spikes in
petroleum fuel costs. Although diesel price is historically volatile, the probability of a significant
decrease in price is low. Figure 13 shows that the indoor wood boilers have the potential to
generate greater savings than processing fish oil at higher diesel prices. Changes in estimated
capital investment have a significant effect on savings and payback. Increasing the capital costs
to $500,000 would generate an estimated savings of about $50,000 annually and a simple
payback of 3 years, which would continue to be considered an economical investment.
Emissions
Compliance with emissions standards and permitting will not be limiting factors in the
implementation of a biomass energy system in Port Graham. Emissions from biomass
technologies chosen for this study can meet regulation limits by questioning manufacturers about
compliance and through proper distance placement from structures. Although some testing may
be required, current permitting is expected to be sufficient for implementation of a fish oil fuel
blend.
Typical reduction of emissions by burning biomass oil compared to petroleum fuel should
meet federal and state emission regulations. Therefore, standards were reviewed for wood
systems. Until recently, there were no federal standards for stationary combustion engines or
Figure 13. Comparative sensitivity of estimated savings for the large fish oil and the indoor wood
boiler scenarios.
242
32
turbines. Manufacturers of outdoor wood furnaces currently have the option to participate in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voluntary program. Requirements are for new
models to emit no more than 0.6 lb particulate matter (PM) per million Btu of heat input
(NESCAUM, 2007). This limit will be revised in 2010 to 0.32 lb PM per MMBtu. For example,
outdoor wood furnaces that cannot meet the emissions limit of 0.32 lb particulates per MMBtu
heat output must be located a distance of 500 ft from the served property line and any structures;
current recommendations are 100 ft for units maintaining compliance. Alaska state standards
simply regulate air quality and emissions. Air quality standards apply at the property boundary
and emissions limits apply at the emitting source. Specific Alaska standards of interest include
Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions; Wood-Fired Heating Device
Visible Emission Standards; and Ambient Air Quality Standards (Alaska Administrative Code,
2006). Specific regulation standards are given in Appendix F.
New permitting for implementation of a fish oil fuel is not anticipated because of
utilization of the existing infrastructure. The state permit processing involves classification of the
emitting source as a PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) or non-PSD (City & Borough
of Juneau, 2001). A PSD source is considered a “major source,” emitting ≥ 250 tons/yr of any
single pollutant. Permitting requires extensive baseline monitoring, demonstration of compliance
with air quality limits and best available control technology, and a detailed analysis of expected
impacts and growth. Permitting a non-PSD source, as expected for the biomass systems
considered, requires less rigorous monitoring but must still demonstrate compliance with
emissions and ambient air quality standards.
DISCUSSION
Although most of the biomass energy scenarios presented are technically feasible and
economically viable, issues of feedstock reliability and applicability and technology acceptance
by the community should be addressed prior to implementation of any biomass energy system in
Port Graham. It is important to select a resource that can reliably meet load requirements and an
approach that has the greatest opportunity to impact current energy costs. Consideration was also
given to the social viability of a biomass technology, such as feedstock delivery and system
maintence.
Energy Load and Biomass Resources
Biomass energy requires a dependable resource and an efficient approach for economical
implementation. The displacement of diesel used for heating will provide the greatest economic
benefit to a biomass energy system. The ability to obtain biomass resources can be affected by
environmental and market conditions, as well as by contract negotiations with landowners for
wood procurement.
Utilization of biomass for heat offers the greatest opportunity for savings to the community
of Port Graham. Although load requirements are divided evenly for the village between
electricity and heating needs, the efficiency of biomass technology is greater for heat generation
(45%–80%) than for electricity production (17%). Although electrical rates are higher than the
243
33
price of diesel, $35/MMBtu ($0.12/kWh) compared to $23/MMBtu ($3/gal), respectively, the
difference does not make up for the efficiency. Therefore, displacing diesel used in heating
applications should be the focus for substitution with a biomass fuel.
True availability of biomass resources will depend on land ownership and contracting
agreements, as well as a consistent harvest of the required quantity for a biomass energy system.
Native Allotment lands can have many owners, as the lands are passed down to family members
through many generations. All owners would have to reach an agreement, making negotiations
for harvesting wood on these lands potentially difficult. The issue with a fishery resource for
energy has less to do with ownership and more to do with on consistency. Salmon yield and
generation of fish wastes can easily vary from year to year, depending on many environmental
factors or the market for canned salmon, respectively. Wood is considerably more reliable for
use as a biomass energy resource.
Technology Issues
Feedstock efficiency and applicability, as well as system complexity and manual operation
are the issues of greatest technical concern for the implementation of a biomass energy system in
the remote village. Wood chips are the most applicable feedstock for biomass combustion and
gasification systems, whereas a fish oil fuel can be utilized in existing boilers and furnaces.
Simple, automated technologies are more desirable for the remote village.
Feedstock preparation or densification can have a significant effect on system efficiency
and applicability to biomass technologies. Logs provide the least efficient burn and the most
limited suitability to wood-fed technologies. Wood chips provide better burn efficiency and more
consistency in quality and are applicable to all wood technologies discussed in this study.
Automation is possible for a full-scale combustion and gasification system when using wood
chips as a feedstock. Pellets offer the best burn efficiency and the most consistent quality and can
be automatically fed to all technologies discussed. Pellet production requires the most processing
and equipment. Consideration of this feedstock was limited to indoor boilers and outdoor wood
furnaces for improved efficiency and automation opportunities. Fish oil is equally as efficient as
diesel but utilization requires a slightly higher consumption rate to account for the 2% decrease
in heating value when using a 50% fish oil–diesel blend.
The ability to maintain complex technologies is a concern for applicability to the tribal
village because of its remote location. Maintenance and parts delivery are difficult to acquire in a
timely manner. Although a large combustion or gasification system utilizes more complex
technology, it would also provide the simplicity of a system designed for the entire community
or several buildings. Gasification systems, in particular, offer a greater opportunity for
subsistence living in Port Graham, supplying all of the village’s heat and electrical needs. In
contrast, having many individual systems also increases the potential for mechanical issues at
any given time, although mechanical problems would only occur with one unit at a time as
opposed to a system heating the entire community, such as a large combustion system. Individual
or shared wood furnaces have the advantage of simplistic technology and little piping installation
needed. The advantage of fish oil as fuel is the ability to retain the current energy infrastructure,
adding only a processing unit. System maintenance concerns can be addressed by storing critical
244
34
parts, training a resident of Port Graham (or other community of close proximity, such as
Nanwalek or Seldovia) for maintenance, and preserving the current energy infrastructure for use
in the event of a breakdown.
The frigid conditions of an Alaskan winter should also be taken into account when
considering manually operated technologies. Indoor wood boilers and outdoor wood furnaces
involve manual operation of the system for feeding logs and ash removal. The outdoor
conditions and labor requirements are of concern to Port Graham residents, especially for the
elderly population. Full-scale combustion or gasification systems have automated feeding and
ash removal at increased capital expense. Options to address this issue include creating a service
or program to keep units operational or making automation a priority above economics.
Economic Observations
Distributive biomass energy for the whole village of Port Graham and biomass feedstocks
requiring the least amount of processing or preparation provide the greatest opportunity for
economic viability. Technology complexity and the extent of installed piping have the most
affect on capital expenses. Reduction or elimination of manual labor and feedstock processing
reduces annual operating costs. Although the large fish oil scenario was determined to be the
most economically viable solution for Port Graham, implementation of the indoor wood boiler
scenario offers stability of resource availability and procurement cost, as well as increased
economy for the village.
Logs are the least expensive feedstock option for biomass technology, only requiring
procurement expenses, followed by wood chips and fish oil. Pellets are the most expensive
biomass feedstock, yet they have a higher heating value per ton because of the lower moisture
content acquired from the densification process. The comparison of feedstock costs is
summarized in Table 16. Averages are given for wood chips, pellets, and fish oil as costs will
depend on the annual amount of feedstock generated for each scenario. The variance is an effect
of the amortized capital cost for feedstock preparation equipment over the annual quantity
processed. Figure 14 displays a graphical example of the cost ranges. Wood chip costs average
about $96/ton for procurement and grinding, ranging $60–$125 per ton for all wood system
scenarios. Pellet production costs average $230/ton for procurement, grinding, and milling,
ranging $190–$260 per ton for indoor wood boiler and outdoor wood furnace applications. The
Table 16. Potential Feedstock Costs for Port Graham Resources*
Feedstock Heating Value Price/Cost Per MMBtu
Diesel 130,000 Btu/gal $3.00/gal $23.00
Electricity – $0.12/kWh $35.00
Wood, dry 8100 Btu/lb
Logs, 12% moisture 7100 Btu/lb $55/ton $3.90
Chips, 12% moisture 7100 Btu/lb $96/ton $6.70
Pellets, 5% moisture 7700 Btu/lb $230/ton $15.00
Fish Oil 120,000 Btu/gal $1.10/gal $8.50
*Average values used where cost may vary depending on annual production.
245
35
Figure 14. Variation in wood chip, pellet, and fish oil cost with respect to production.
246
36
unit cost of the fish oil feedstock will also vary depending on the amount of fish oil produced,
averaging $1.10/gal and ranging $0.50–$1.30 per gallon. In addition, feedstock costs can vary
with the market values of timber or fish oil, especially if sufficient wastes are not generated and
the whole salmon is required.
The smallest capital investments (<$0.5 million) are estimated for the fish oil–diesel
blend scenarios, as well as indoor wood boilers, because of low costs for combustion or
processing equipment and no requirements for piping installation. Two significant patterns are
apparent in the estimations of capital expenses showing gasification scenarios to propose large
investments and fish oil and indoor wood boiler scenarios to suggest small investments. The
largest capital investments (>$1 million) are required by gasification scenarios for moderate
steam production, large syngas application, and electricity for power and heat. The high costs are
derived from gasification equipment estimations for larger systems and/or piping installation for
distributive heat.
Fish oil scenarios offer the lowest annual operating costs, incurring only utility expenses
for fish oil processing. Little difference in operating costs exists between biomass energy
scenarios with the exception of moderate outdoor wood furnaces and fish oil applications. The
moderate outdoor wood scenario generates the highest operational expenses because it includes
service to the cannery, requiring more feedstock than the small individual combustion systems.
Therefore, the most manual labor is needed to feed the furnaces and remove ash. In addition, this
scenario requires wood chips (because of improved economics over logs), which generate utility
costs for processing.
The highest savings (>$50,000 annually) was estimated for scenarios proposing application
of a biomass energy system for the village of Port Graham in its entirety and/or when biomass
feedstocks require the least amount of processing. The larger-scale applications which serve the
entire village generate more savings from greater displacement of diesel and electricity. These
included large combustion system, fish oil, and syngas–electricity cogeneration scenarios.
Estimated capital investments, greater than $1 million for the combustion and gasification
system, create mediocre payback periods of 6–7 years. The fish oil and indoor wood boiler
scenarios benefit from low-cost feedstock and no additional costs for feedstock preparation. A
savings of $75,000–$80,000 per year is estimated, equivalent to 20% of the total village energy
costs or up to 50% savings to the user for heat. Because both of these scenarios also have small
estimated capital investments, payback periods are under 3 years. Scenarios which are expected
to provide no economic benefit include those proposing distributive steam or syngas (alone,
without cogeneration) and electricity generation for heat and power.
Differences in the implementation of the indoor wood boiler scenario (compared to
utilization of a fish oil fuel) include enhanced economy, greater diesel displacement, and the
potential for increased PM emissions. Positive aspects of fish oil production include the
introduction of only one new system which a selected few must learn to operate. A fish oil–
diesel blend would also be the easiest to implement, utilizing the current heating infrastructure
and requiring little change in operation for community members. Wood boilers require manual
operation of feed and ash removal. Because of the lower combustion efficiency of indoor wood
boilers using logs, increased particulate emissions compared to a fuel oil are possible. However,
247
37
the availability of a wood resource would be more stable than a fish resource subject to annual
variation in harvest. The cost of wood procurement will be contracted and therefore less subject
to spikes in market value. Utilization of the wood resource in the forests surrounding the village
provides a greater opportunity for economic growth within Port Graham. Finally, fish oil fuel
will only displace up to half the diesel currently imported into Port Graham, compared to 70%
diesel substitution by installing indoor wood boilers for heat. A summary is provided in Table
17.
CONCLUSIONS
Fish oil–diesel blended fuel and indoor wood boilers are the most economical options for
implementation of biomass energy in the village of Port Graham, Alaska. A sufficient resource
of biomass is available to Port Graham in the forest surrounding the village and from the
established salmon industry. The small, remote area presents a unique opportunity for
implementation of a biomass distributive energy system to reduce reliance on imported fuels.
The small energy load required by the village, 6 MMBtu/hr and 560 kW, is favorable for
distributive energy technologies. A villagewide distributive energy system could provide the
opportunity for heating village buildings and homes during the winter months and cannery
operations during summer months. Individual structure applications are an equally suitable
solution to meet Port Graham energy needs.
A sufficient quantity of wood for use as fuel is located in the forest region surrounding
Port Graham, applicable to all biomass combustion and gasification technologies studied; salmon
availability is dependant on cannery waste generation and annual fishery harvest. A maximum of
5000 tons per year, assuming a 50-year rotation, is available within the ¼-mile of existing timber
roadways. Fish oil produced from wastes generated by the village cannery is also a potential
energy source for the village. Up to 630 tons waste salmon or whole fish would be required
Table 17.Comparison of Large Fish Oil and Indoor Wood Boiler Scenarios
Scenario Fish Oil Fuel Indoor Wood Boilers
Advantages
• Installation of one system
and process
• Utilization of existing
equipment and technology
• No operational changes to
fuel user
• Resource reliability and cost stability
• Lower risk in event of one system
breakdown
• Opportunity for economic growth with
development of feedstock infrastructure
• Offers greater diesel displacement
Disadvantages
• Resource reliability and cost
stability
• Greater risk in event of one
system breakdown
• Installation of many systems
• New heating equipment and technology
• Fuel user must manually attend boiler
for feed and ash removal
• Potential particulate emissions
248
38
annually to sustain a fish oil–diesel fuel application in Port Graham. Concerns with the use of
salmon as an energy resource include quantity reliability and cost stability from environmental or
market fluctuations.
The technical viability of a biomass energy system in Port Graham will depend primarily
on inhabitants’ confidence in the technology. Biomass technologies applicable for energy
production or cogeneration in Port Graham include wood combustion and gasification, and
utilization of existing equipment via a liquid biomass fuel. Concerns with implementation of a
biomass energy system include manual operation for wood systems and the ability to handle
equipment maintenance. Existing systems should remain to be used as backup in the event of an
emergency.
The application of a fish oil–diesel blend to the entire village was determined to be the
most economically feasible alternative energy option for Port Graham, followed by the
installation of indoor wood boilers serving individual village buildings or homes. Fish oil-
blended fuel costs are estimated to be $1.80/gal for a 50% blend. Application to the village as a
whole would require approximately 42,000 gallons of fish oil or 630 tons of waste fish annually.
About 630 tons of logs would be needed annually for the application of the indoor wood boiler
scenario at $55/ton. Capital investments of about $265,000 are estimated for fish oil-processing
equipment and the delivered and installed boilers. Calculated annual savings are about $80,000
for fish oil fuel and indoor wood boilers, saving the user up to 50% in heating expenses. The
simple payback periods for capital recovery are 2–3 years. Issues with emissions from wood
heating systems can be addressed by seeking out vendors that manufacture furnaces which show
consistent compliance with the EPA voluntary program. Advantages to implementation of the
indoor wood boiler scenario beyond economics include enhanced economy and greater diesel
displacement.
NEXT STEPS
The following steps are recommended for implementation of a Port Graham biomass energy
system:
• A formal engineering design and quote, including guarantee or proof of emissions
compliance for wood systems
• Secured financing
• Equipment procurement and installation
• Personnel hire and training
• Coordination of feedstock storage and delivery, as well as blending for fish oil fuel
• Ash disposal plan for wood systems
249
39
Once the preferred energy scenario is chosen and an approach plan is derived by the village
of Port Graham, a formal design and quote for the system should be acquired before purchase of
equipment. Either a guarantee of meeting emissions standards or supportive emissions data
showing consistent compliance should be requested and discussed when acquisitioning wood
energy equipment. Delivery and installation should be included in any quote provided. Financing
could be accomplished through energy performance contracting, future grants, or sources
acceptable to Chugachmiut. Technology vendors typically supply training for future operations
and maintenance of equipment acquired. The logistics of a delivery or pickup system for biomass
fuel, fuel storage both at production and utilization sites, and possible handling of a continuous
wood ash stream requires coordination and planning. The community of Port Graham must
remain diligent in the execution of a biomass energy plan to reduce diesel imports and support
subsistence.
REFERENCES
Note: All timber assessment and cost data for Port Graham was supplied by Chugachmiut
foresters during the course of this project; references for capital costs of wood energy systems
can be found in Appendix D.
Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18. Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50. Air Quality
Control, June, 2006, www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/aac/title18/chapter050.htm (accessed
October 2006).
Bailey, R. Sr. PRM Energy Systems, Inc. Personal communication, April 23, 2007.
Chioua, B.; El-Mashadb, H.; Avena-Bustillosa, R.; Dunnc, R.; Bechteld, P.; McHugha, T.; 2006.
City and Borough of Juneau. Kensington Mine Project; CBJ Community Development
Department, Large Mine Permit MIN-M96-01, 2001,
www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensington/airqual.htm (accessed October 2006).
Clay, T. West Salem Machinery/Gerlinger Carrier Co. Personal communication, April 5, 2007.
Dayton, D. A Summary of NOx Emissions Reduction from Biomass Cofiring; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-510-32260, May 2002.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. How To Estimate Recoverable Heat Energy in Wood
or Bark Fuels; Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report FPL 29, 1979,
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr29.pdf (accessed October 2006).
Energy Information Administration (EIA). West Coast No. 2 Diesel Retail Sales by All Sellers;
U.S. Department of Energy, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/ddr006A.htm (accessed
February 2007).
250
40
Engström, F. Overview of Power Generation from Biomass; Foster Wheeler Development
Corporation, 1999 Gasification Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA, Oct 19–20,
1999.
Fernando, R. Fuels for Biomass Cofiring; Clean Coal Centre, CCC/102, ISBN 92-9029-418-3,
37 pp, October 2005.
Gross, C. Bandit Industries, Inc. Personal communication, April 5, 2007.
Hein, T. Biofuel – a Fishy Business? New Agriculturist, 11-01-06, www.new-agri.co.uk/06-
6/focuson/focuson2.html (accessed December 2006).
Hoime, R. Northwest Manufacturing, Inc. Personal communication, May 22, 2007.
Homer Electric Association, Inc. Current Electric Rates,
www.homerelectric.com/About/Current%20Rates.htm (accessed January 2007).
Houck, J. Wilson Fuel Co. Limited. Personal communication, December 14, 2006.
Mani, S. Simulation of Biomass Pelleting Operation; Presented at University of British
Columbia, Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Bioenergy Conference &
Exhibition 2006, Prince George, May 31, 2006.
McCollah, D. The Wood Doctor (AK dealer). Personal communication, May 25, 2007.
National Biodiesel Board (NBB). Cold Flow Impacts,
www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Cold%20Flow.PDF (accessed December 2006).
(Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management) NESCAUM, Model Regulation for
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters, January 29, 2007.
Pawlowski, Z. New Horizon Inc. Personal communication, May 6, 2007.
Ruegemer, T. Vermeer Manufacturing. Personal communication, April 20, 2007.
Steigers, B. Steigers Corp. Personal communication, December 14, 2006.
Steigers, J. Precision Energy Services. Personal communication, December 14, 2006.
U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Area: Port Graham CDP, Alaska, Census 2000.
Villarreal, M. Warren & Baerg Manufacturing, Inc. Personal communication, October 2, 2006.
Zhangb, R. Rheological and Thermal Properties of Salmon Processing Byproducts; American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, An ASABE Meeting Presentation, Paper
Number: 066157, 2006,
251
41
http://asae.frymulti.com/request.asp?JID=5&AID=21520&CID=por2006&T=2 (accessed
January 2007).
252
APPENDIX A
PORT GRAHAM SYSTEMS AND
COMMUNITY PICTURES
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
APPENDIX B
DETAILED SCENARIOS AND REQUIREMENTS
260
Table B1. Potential Energy Scenario Descriptions for the Village of Port Graham Scenario Requirements I. Wood Combustion A. Wood Furnaces/Boilers 1. Indoor Wood Boilers 1. Indoor wood boilers for individual home and village building heat 2. Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces 2. Small outdoor wood furnaces for individual home and village building heat 3. Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces 3. Moderate outdoor wood furnaces for multiple (3–4) home and village building heat B. Automated Combustion System 1. Moderate Combustion System 1. Moderate combustion system for village building heat and cannery steam 2. Large-Scale Combustion System 2. Large-scale combustion system for entire village, i.e., home and village building heat and cannery steam II. Wood Gasification System A. Gas Production 1. Moderate Steam (gas) 1. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings 2. Moderate Gas and Steam 2. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and pipe gas to village buildings for heat 3. Large Gas 3. Provide gas to entire village, i.e., home and village building heat and cannery steam B. Gas and Electricity Production 1. Moderate Steam and Electricity 1. Scenario II.A.1. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) 2. Moderate Gas, Steam, and Electricity 2. Scenario II.A.2. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) 3. Large Gas and Electricity 3. Scenario II.A.3. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Continued… 261
Table B1. Potential Energy Scenario Descriptions for the Village of Port Graham (continued) Scenario Requirements II. Wood Gasification System [cont.] C. Electricity Production 1. High-Power Electricity and Heat 1. Electricity for power and heat to entire village, 3-phase, 560 kW 2. High-Power Electricity 2. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (3-phase, 560 kW) 3. Low-Power Electricity 3. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) III. Fish Oil A. Moderate Steam (oil) A. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios I.A.1–3. and II.C.2–3.) B. Moderate Oil and Steam B. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios I.A.1–3. and II.C.2–3.) C. Large Oil and Steam C. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in homes and village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios II.C.2–3.) 262
Table B2. Detailed Energy Scenarios and Requirements for the Village of Port Graham Scenario Requirements I. Wood Combustion A. Wood Furnaces/Boilers Logs, Wood Chips, or Pellets 1. Indoor wood boilers for individual home and village building heat Wood delivery, indoor wood storage, individual loading (automation with pellets), and ash management 2. Small outdoor wood furnaces for individual home and village building heat Wood delivery, storage, individual or service loading (automation with pellets or auger modification for chips), and ash management, minimal hot-water piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced air 3. Moderate outdoor wood furnaces for multiple (3–4) home and village building heat Wood delivery, storage, service loading (automation with pellets or auger modification for chips), and ash management, moderate hot-water piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced air B. Automated Combustion System Wood Chips 1. Moderate combustion system for village building heat and cannery steam Some supervision, ash management, moderate hot-water and steam piping, heat exchangers for buildings currently heated by forced air 2. Large-scale combustion system for entire village, i.e., homes and village building heat and cannery steam Some supervision, ash management, extensive hot-water and steam piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced air II. Wood Gasification System A. Gas Production Wood Chips 1. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings Refurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and wastewater management, minimal gas piping, moderate steam piping, heat exchangers to convert steam to forced air or hot water heat 2. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and pipe gas to village buildings for heat Refurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and wastewater management, moderate gas piping, gas boilers/furnaces for village buildings 3. Provide gas to entire village, i.e., home and village building heat and cannery steam Refurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and wastewater management, extensive gas piping, gas boilers/furnaces for homes and village buildings B. Gas and Electricity Production Wood Chips 1. Scenario II.A.1. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Same as II.A.1. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant 2. Scenario II.A.2. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Same as II.A.2. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant 3. Scenario II.A.3. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Same as II.A.3. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant Continued…263
Table B2. Detailed Energy Scenarios and Requirements for the Village of Port Graham (continued) Scenario Requirements II. Wood Gasification System [cont.] C. Electricity Production Wood Chips 1. Electricity for power and heat to entire village, 3-phase, 560 kW Microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant, connection to cannery for steam production electric boilers/furnaces for homes and village buildings, phase downgrade for homes and village buildings 2. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (3-phase, 560 kW) Microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant, phase downgrade for homes and village buildings, connection to cannery for steam production (assumes existing lines cannot carry voltage required for electric boilers/furnaces) 3. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant (only supplies night/downtime power to cannery), phase downgrade for homes and village buildings (assumes existing lines cannot carry voltage required for electric boilers/furnaces) III. Fish Oil A. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios I.A.1–3. and II.C.2–3.) Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, refurbish boiler, moderate steam piping B. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios I.A.1–3. and II.C.2–3.) Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, refurbish boiler, minimal steam piping, fuel delivery C. Use 50% fish oil–diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in homes and village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Scenarios II.C.2–3.) Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, refurbish boiler, minimal steam piping, fuel delivery 264
APPENDIX C
SCENARIO LAYOUTS
265
Figure C-1. Layout of gasification or full-scale combustion scenarios.
266
Figure C-2. Moderate outdoor wood furnace scenario layout.
267
APPENDIX D
VENDORS AND DESIGNS
268
COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
Several manufacturers and types of wood combustion systems were considered for
applicability to Port Graham. These included such manufacturers as Greenwood Technologies;
Royall Manufacturing, Inc.; Pro-Fab Industries, Inc.; The Wood Doctor; Messersmith
Manufacturing, Inc.; Chiptec Wood Energy Systems; and Hurst Boiler & Welding Co., Inc. A
description of systems researched from each manufacturer follows.
Wood heating systems generally consist of three main components: fuel handling, boiler
(a.k.a. combustion), and controls. Figure D-1 illustrates a typical system and equipment. The
fuel-handling component contains the wood storage bin. If the system is automated, augers and
conveyers are included to feed the wood to the boiler. The boiler contains the combustion or
gasification chamber for conversion of the wood to energy for heating water in hot-water-heated
buildings. Controls within the system will vary depending on degree of automation. They can be
limited to burn rate or include motors for augers and conveyors. Ash handling will also depend
on automation. Manual systems may require daily ash removal, while automated systems will
remove the ash periodically and require weekly cleaning.
Indoor wood boilers and outdoor wood furnaces are very similar, requiring connection to
the existing heating system during installation and manual control of operations. Logs are the
typical feedstock recommended for consistent combustion; however, some manufacturers offer
Figure D-1 The basic mechanics of a typical wood chip-burning biomass system (Linderman and
Scheele, 2006).
269
automated fuel-handling systems for densified feedstocks such as wood chips, pellets, or sawdust
Greenwood Technologies offers indoor wood boilers, shown in Figure D-1, which are capable of
supplying 100,000–300,000 Btu/hr energy rates. The Greenwood wood boiler is incompliance
with the emission levels recommended by the voluntary 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Outdoor Wood-Fired Hydronic Heaters Program (Greenwood Technologies,
2007). Royall Manufacturing constructs both indoor wood boilers and outdoor wood furnaces
(Figure D-2). Indoor wood boilers are available for heat output ratings of 95,000–250,000 Btu/hr
and outdoor wood furnaces ratings of 200,000–490,000 Btu/hr (Royall Manufacturing, 2007).
The Wood Doctor manufactures outdoor wood furnaces for use with an existing boiler system.
Furnaces are available from 0.1 to 1.3 MMBtu/hr and may burn wood logs or chips (The Wood
Doctor, 2006). Only the furnace, shown in Figure D-3, is supplied, and all operations are manual.
Pro-Fab Industries manufactures fully automated multifuel outdoor (or optional indoor) boilers
that burn corn, wood chips, wood pellets, coal, and agricultural residue cubes ranging from 0.75
to 2.5 MMBtu/hr (Pro-Fab, 2006). The solid fuel-fired hot-water boiler (Figure D-4) is
engineered to automatically feed fuel and remove ash. A computerized control system manages
all functions of the drive motors. This unit also includes a self-cleaning flue design with
automatic spiral flue cleaners. Several units may also be placed in parallel for distributed heat to
create a larger system.
Examples of full-scale combustion systems designed to use a wood feedstock include those
from Messersmith, Chiptec, and Hurst. Messersmith manufactures boilers that burn solid fuels
such as wood chips, sawdust, corn cobs, and wood shavings with heating outputs from 1.0 to
20 MMBtu/hr (Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc., 2006). The company also provides a fully
automated system for solid fuel combustion (Figure D-5), including a storage in and fuel-
handling, combustion, and control systems. The fuel-handling system, shown in Figure D-6,
includes a traveling auger, storage bin, belt conveyors, and metering bin. The combustion system
consists of a boiler, grates, and air blowers. The control system comprises the motors for the
augers, conveyors, and blower as well as the control panel containing programmable logic
controllers, sensors, switches, and the connecting cables. Chiptec manufactures biomass
gasification systems (Figure D-7) ranging from 0.4 to 50 MMBtu/hr for fuels such as chips,
sawdust, shavings, clean biofuel, agricultural and food-processing residue, pallets, paper pellets,
railroad ties, and other biomass waste covering a wide range of moisture contents (6%–60%)
(Chiptec Wood Energy Systems, 2006). A variety of automation methods are available for
material handling, including moving-wedge systems, traveling-screw unloading systems, silos
and silo-unloading systems, and belt and screw conveyors. Hurst solid fuel-fired boilers (Figure
D-8) are designed for a wide variety of fuels including bark, hulls, rubber, sawdust, hog fuel,
shavings, agricultural, coal, construction debris, sludge, sander dust, paper, and/or gas and oil as
backup fuels. The following is a list of systems and components available for a solid fuel system:
▪ Deaerator (makeup water systems)
▪ Coal bunker storage
▪ Fuel conveyors
▪ Forced-draft fans and air systems
▪ Ash-handling conveyors
▪ Induced-draft fans and air systems
▪ Hurst Brand refractories
▪ Automated control systems
▪ Fuel-metering systems
▪ Ash reinjection systems
▪ Exhaust breeching and stacks
▪ Emissions control and monitoring
▪ Fire doors and grates
▪ Sootblower systems
270
Figure D-1. Greenwood indoor wood boiler (Greenwood Technologies, 2007).
Figure D-2. Royall Manufacturing indoor wood boiler (left) and outdoor wood furnace
(right) (Royall Manufacturing, 2007).
271
Figure D-3. Wood Doctor outdoor wood furnace (The Wood Doctor, 2006).
Figure D-4. Pro-Fab coal, wood, and pellet hot-water furnace (Pro-Fab Industries, 2006).
272
Figure D-5. Messersmith solid fuel combustion system designed to burn wood chips
(Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc., 2006).
Figure D-6. Traveling auger and belt conveyors of the Messersmith system (Messersmith
Manufacturing Inc., 2006).
273
Figure D-7. Chiptec gasifiers and boiler system (Chiptec Wood Energy Systems, 2006).
Figure D-8. Hurst solid fuel-fired boiler (Hurst Boiler & Welding Co., Inc., 2006).
274
REFERENCES
Chiptec Wood Energy Systems. www.chiptec.com (accessed June 2006).
Greenwood Technologies. www.greenwoodfurnace.com (accessed May 2007).
Hurst Boiler & Welding Co., Inc. www.hurstboiler.com (accessed June 2006).
Linderman, B.; Scheele, R. Fuels for Schools: A Prototype for the West; A Solution that Makes
Sense, Bitterroot Resource, Conservation & Development Area, Inc., Fuels for Schools,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, www.fuelsforschools.org/pdf/FFSDarby_
Pilot_Project.pdf (accessed June 2006).
Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc. www.burnchips.com, (accessed June 2006).
Pro-Fab Industries. www.profab.org (accessed June 2006).
Royall Manufacturing, Inc. www.royallfurnace.com (accessed May 2007).
The Wood Doctor. www.wooddoctorfurnace.com (accessed June 2006).
275
D.1.B Combustion System Vendors
System Type Manufacturer
Range,
MMBtu/hr
Range,
hp Materials
Alternate Heating
Systems, Inc.0.1-1.0 3-30
Logs, sawdust,
shavings,
woodchips
Greenwood
Technologies 0.1-0.3 3-9 Logs
Kerr Heating
Products 0.07-0.14 2-4 Logs
Royall Manufacturing,
Inc.
0.1-0.25 (B)
0.2-0.49 (F)
3-7 (B)
6-15 (F)Logs, chips, pellets
Charmaster Products 0.1-0.14 (B)
0.1 (F)
3-4 (B)
3(F)Logs
The Wood Doctor 0.1-1.3 3-39 Chips, pellets
Blaze King Industries 0.08-0.12 2-4 Logs
Central Boiler, Inc. 0.18-1.0 5-30 Logs, pallets
Heatmor, Inc. 0.1-0.85 3-25 Logs, pallets
Northwest
Manufacturing, Inc.0.07-0.7 2-21 Logs
Hud-Son Forest
Equipment, Inc.0.06-0.3 2-9 Logs
Hardy Manufacturing
Company, Inc.0.12-0.25 4-7 Logs
Mahoning Outdoor
Furnaces 0.15-0.9 4-27 Logs
Timber Ridge, Inc. 0.1-0.4 3-12 Logs
Pro-Fab Industries,
Inc.0.75-2.5 22-75 Logs, chips
Messersmith
Manufacturing, Inc.1-20 30-600
Chips, saw dust,
and wood shavings
Chiptec Wood
Energy Systems 0.4-50 12-1500
Chips, sawdust,
shavings, moisture
content (6%–60%)
Hurst Boiler &
Welding Co., Inc.2-60 60-1800
Chips, bark,
sawdust, shavings
Full-System
Combustion
Indoor Wood
Boiler
Indoor Wood
Boilers &
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Outdoor
Wood
Furance
1 of 4
276
D.1.B Combustion System Vendors
System Type Manufacturer
Alternate Heating
Systems, Inc.
Greenwood
Technologies
Kerr Heating
Products
Royall Manufacturing,
Inc.
Charmaster Products
The Wood Doctor
Blaze King Industries
Central Boiler, Inc.
Heatmor, Inc.
Northwest
Manufacturing, Inc.
Hud-Son Forest
Equipment, Inc.
Hardy Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
Mahoning Outdoor
Furnaces
Timber Ridge, Inc.
Pro-Fab Industries,
Inc.
Messersmith
Manufacturing, Inc.
Chiptec Wood
Energy Systems
Hurst Boiler &
Welding Co., Inc.
Full-System
Combustion
Indoor Wood
Boiler
Indoor Wood
Boilers &
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Outdoor
Wood
Furance
Included in Quote
For use with an existing boiler system, only the
firebox is supplied, all operations are manual,
cyclone separator for fly ash removal, automatic fuel
delivery systems for densified biomass.
For use with an existing boiler system, only the
firebox is supplied, all operations are manual
“JOB READY” pre-engineered self-install packages
with pre-plumbed and pre-wired assemblies
1.5 MMBtu output (PC 2520), includes feed auger,
ash auger, cyclone; would need concrete slab, fuel
bin; can be indoor or outdoor w/ or w/o metal shed
Includes combuster, boiler, storage bin, chip
handling systems (conveying), cyclone (for
particulates), training & start-up, one-piece stack for
exhaust, control panel, draft fan
Fuel receiving and storage system, metering auger,
feed system, gasifier, boiler, fan, cyclone, controls,
stack and breeching, installed, start up and training
Delivered, installed on existing concrete slab (Hurst
provides design); additional cost for wood storage
and conveyor system
For use with an existing boiler system, only the
firebox is supplied, all operations are manual
For use with an existing boiler system, only the
firebox is supplied, all operations are manual
2 of 4
277
D.1.B Combustion System Vendors
System Type Manufacturer
Alternate Heating
Systems, Inc.
Greenwood
Technologies
Kerr Heating
Products
Royall Manufacturing,
Inc.
Charmaster Products
The Wood Doctor
Blaze King Industries
Central Boiler, Inc.
Heatmor, Inc.
Northwest
Manufacturing, Inc.
Hud-Son Forest
Equipment, Inc.
Hardy Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
Mahoning Outdoor
Furnaces
Timber Ridge, Inc.
Pro-Fab Industries,
Inc.
Messersmith
Manufacturing, Inc.
Chiptec Wood
Energy Systems
Hurst Boiler &
Welding Co., Inc.
Full-System
Combustion
Indoor Wood
Boiler
Indoor Wood
Boilers &
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Outdoor
Wood
Furance
Website Phone Toll-free
www.alternateheatingsystems.com (717) 987-0099
www.greenwoodfurnace.com (206) 203-6282 (800) 959-9184
www.kerrheating.com (902) 254-2543
www.royallfurnace.com (608) 462-8508 (800) 944-2516
www.charmaster.com (218) 326-6786 or
(218) 326-2636
www.wooddoctorfurnace.com (239) 247-2079
www.blazeking.com (250) 493-7444
(509) 522-2730
www.centralboiler.com (218) 782-2575 (800) 248-4681
www.heatmor.com (218) 386-2769 (800) 834-7552
www.woodmaster.com (800) 932-3629
www.hud-son.com/woodfurnaces.htm (800) 765-7297
www.hardyheater.com (601) 656-5866 (800) 542-7395
www.mahoningoutdoorfurnaces.com (814) 277-6675 (800) 692-5200
www.freeheatmachine.com (423) 913-0515 (866) 966-3432
www.profab.org (204) 364-2211 (888) 933-4440
www.burnchips.com (906) 466-9010
www.chiptec.com (802) 658-0956 (800) 244-4146
www.hurstboiler.com (229) 346-3545 (877) 944-8778
3 of 4
278
D.1.B Combustion System Vendors
System Type Manufacturer
Alternate Heating
Systems, Inc.
Greenwood
Technologies
Kerr Heating
Products
Royall Manufacturing,
Inc.
Charmaster Products
The Wood Doctor
Blaze King Industries
Central Boiler, Inc.
Heatmor, Inc.
Northwest
Manufacturing, Inc.
Hud-Son Forest
Equipment, Inc.
Hardy Manufacturing
Company, Inc.
Mahoning Outdoor
Furnaces
Timber Ridge, Inc.
Pro-Fab Industries,
Inc.
Messersmith
Manufacturing, Inc.
Chiptec Wood
Energy Systems
Hurst Boiler &
Welding Co., Inc.
Full-System
Combustion
Indoor Wood
Boiler
Indoor Wood
Boilers &
Outdoor
Wood
Furnaces
Outdoor
Wood
Furance
Fax E-mail Location
(717) 987-0055 Harrisonville, PA
(206) 666-5494 Support@greenwoodtechnologies.com Mukilteo, WA
info@kerrheating.com Parrsboro, NS
(608) 462-8433 info@royallfurnace.com
Elroy, WI (hdqtr)
Colville, WA (dealer)
(218) 326-1065 info@charmaster.com Grand Rapids, MN
(902) 639-1232 info@wooddoctorfurnace.com
Penticton, BC; Walla
Walla, WA
(218) 782-2580 Greenbush, MN
(218) 386-2947 woodheat@heatmor.com Warroad, MN
(601) 656-4559 info@hardyheater.com Philadelphia, MS
(814) 277-6686 Punxsutawney, PA
(423) 913-0514 Jonesborough, TN
info@profab.org Arborg, MB Canada
(906) 466-2843 sales@burnchips.com Bark River, MI
(802) 660-8904 BobBender@Chiptec.com South Burlington, VT
(229) 346-3874 solid-fuel-sales@hurstboiler.com Coolidge, GA
4 of 4
279
1
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
CENTER BIOMASS GASIFIER SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
The University of North Dakota (UND) Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has
been actively completing feasibility studies for biomass-based heating systems and cogeneration
projects over the past 5 years and has a 50-year history of industry-focused research concerning
fossil energy, renewable energy, and environmental technologies. Most significant to the
demonstration of a gasification system is the EERC’s experience in assessing biomass resources,
expertise in a broad array of conventional and new, alternative energy technologies, and
experience completing economic analyses used to justify project financing. The following
outlines the process description; system components; emissions, permits, and site logistics; and
pertinent EERC qualifications.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The system is a downdraft biomass gasification technology employing venturi scrubbing and
filtering of the gas for use in a piston engine. Downdraft gasification was chosen for its ability to
reduce the tar content of the product gas. Expected total gas contaminant concentration prior to
filtration is 1000 ppm versus 100,000 ppm as seen in updraft and fluid-bed gasification (1). A
process flow diagram is provided in Figure 1, and the EERC’s portable 150-kW power system is
shown in Figure 2. Fuel is automatically conveyed to the top of the reactor and metered using a
robust agricultural platform feeder. The material is gasified in the reactor and cleaned with a
venturi scrubber, which is known to remove particulate in the submicrometer range (1). The gas
is then passed through a series of four filters. The first is a coarse filter to coalesce residual
liquids, the second is a rejuvenating active sawdust filter, the third is a similar passive filter, and
the fourth is a fabric bag filter. This system has been documented by Bechtel Laboratory to
reduce total gas contaminants to less than 10 ppm (2). The gas, typically 130 Btu/scf, is fired in
an engine. The costs for this work are based on a spark-ignited gas engine generator. Spark
ignition engines have been demonstrated on producer gas (3, 4) and can operate with no fossil
fuel input. Because engine life on producer gas is unknown, top-end rebuild could be expected
once a year. Natural gas engines and landfill gas engines require top-end rebuild every 2 years
and 8 months, respectively (5). Previous projects have operated over hundreds of hours;
however, thousands of continuous hours have yet to be professionally documented.
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The primary components of the system include 1) fuel storage and conveying, 2) gasification,
3) gas cleaning, 4) power production, and 5) ash and liquid handling. The following provides the
detail of these components.
280
2
Figure 1. Process and instrumentation diagram.
Figure 2. The EERC’s portable 150-kW power system.
281
3
1. Fuel storage and conveying – Fuel storage is determined from site logistics as there are
several options from which to choose. Three hydraulic walking-floor trailers (Figure 4) are
initially assumed sufficient to accommodate 3 days of storage and automated conveying.
The trailers are mobile, with quick disconnect provided to an automatically controlled
hydraulic power unit for unloading. The trailers convey to a platform feeder (Figure 4).
The platform feeder handles a wide range of material and provides transfer to an 18-in.-
wide inclined belt conveyor.
Figure 4. Walking-floor trailer example, platform feeder, and conveyor.
2. Gasification – Figure 5 shows the gasifier and general arrangement of the drying,
pyrolysis, combustion, and char reduction zones in the gasifier. Downdraft gasifiers of this
type (Imbert) produce low gas contaminants for two reasons. The bed is fixed (not
fluidized), allowing for low carryover of particulates, and hydrocarbon vapors produced in
the pyrolysis zone are drawn down through the high-temperature zone and cracked to
lower hydrocarbons (less tar). The gasifier is under vacuum drawn by a high-pressure
blower.
Figure 5. Downdraft gasifier.
282
4
3. Gas cleaning – Figure 6 depicts the venturi scrubber and filtration system. Wet scrubbing
has several advantages with respect to cooling, cleaning, and maintenance. Producer gas
must be clean and cooled for engine application. Various options include cyclones, shell-
and-tube heat exchange, moving-bed filters, precipitators, etc. The venturi scrubber is the
most compact, most effective, and least expensive gas-cleaning option. Venturi scrubbers
can remove particles of less than 10 µm at high efficiency and simultaneously cool the gas.
Other options are more expensive, less effective, and must be cleaned to remove deposits
that inhibit heat exchange and performance. The filtration system downstream of the
scrubber is simple, inexpensive, and provides additional cleaning to push contaminant
levels below 200 ppm and down to 10 ppm. The first filter is a coalescing filter comprising
wood blocks. The filter only requires periodic washdown and very limited media changes.
The second filter uses sawdust and is actively stirred on a timer to prevent restriction to
flow. The media requires replacement once a week. The remaining filters require minimal
maintenance. The third filter is the same as the second without a stir. The final filter is a
fabric bag, in service as a final safety catch, and is normally installed in proximity to the
engine.
Figure 6. Venturi scrubber and filtration system – from left to right: scrubber, coarse filter, fine
filter active, fine filter passive, and safety filter.
4. Power production – A spark-ignited engine is the power plant, such as the Cummins
Model GTA 855 shown in Figure 7. This engine is capable of providing 110 kW operating
on producer gas. The GTA855 is a four-stroke, turbocharged, six-cylinder natural gas
engine. The GTA855 is a new addition to the Cummins natural gas engine product line and
is available with a power rating of 287 kW @1800 rpm to 138 kW @1500 rpm. The
EERC customizes the producer gas carburetion for this engine and provides standard
paralleling switchgear.
283
5
Figure 7. Cummins GTA 855 engine.
5. Ash and liquid handling – Charcoal/ash is removed from the gasifier using pumped water
flow (slurry). Scrubbed particulate is combined with the charcoal stream. Water is used to
provide a seal to the bottom of the gasifier. This method simplifies maintenance by
eliminating the need for valves and quenching the charcoal to prevent dust and the
potential for fires. Water/slurry level is maintained in a tank and pumped to an automated
filter. The automated filter is typical for river sludge treatment and separates the solids
from the recirculated water. The solids and a percentage of water are automatically flushed
to the sewer, eliminating the need for ash disposal or handling. Water leaving the filter is
passed through a final stationary filter prior to heat exchange. The scrubbing water is
absorbing heat from the product gas and must be cooled prior to returning to the scrubber.
Closed-loop ground-source heat exchange is proposed to eliminate the need for a cooling
tower and water evaporation.
A process layout is shown in Appendix A, and a test run of the gasification system is shown in
Appendix B.
An example mass and energy balance is provided in Figure 8 to reflect the generator
requirements. The overall electrical production efficiency is 16% on a higher-heating-value
basis. Gasifier efficiency is 80%, and engine efficiency is 20%. The liquid discharge rate is 58
lb/hr (7 gal/hr), and fuel requirements are equivalent to 5 tons/day (20% moisture).
EMISSIONS, PERMITS, AND SITE LOGISTICS
The EERC will handle permitting. General guidelines for a permanent engine generator apply. A
catalytic converter for the engine exhaust may be required, and negotiation with the local utility
or electric cooperative will be critical. Expected emissions are shown in Table 1.
284
6
Figure 8. Mass and energy balance.
Table 1. Expected Emissions
Emission Rate, lb/kWh
NOx 0.006
CO 0.024
Total Hydrocarbons 0.060
CO2 4.2
SO2 Minimal
Some solid and liquid waste production is expected. The ash exiting the gasifier is typically 5%
to 10% of the fuel input. The intent is to send the ash to the sewer; however, the ash is relatively
high in carbon content and can be marketed as charcoal. Otherwise, the ash is disposed of. Water
is used to scrub the gas in a closed-loop system. A ground-source heat exchange system is
proposed to cool the scrubbing water. Over time, the water collects organic material, which
raises biological oxygen demand (BOD). The system requires flushing once a month at about
100 gallons of discharge. Permission can be obtained from the local sewer treatment facility.
Typically, local treatment plants can treat small discharges of very high-BOD waste streams and
do not charge for the service. The EERC has approved discharge with the Grand Forks, North
Dakota, Water Treatment Plant. The EERC has measured scrubbing sludge and water produced
by the gasification system and found the water to be 2500 BOD, and the sludge is a
nonhazardous material under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act guidelines. Filter
material used in the process is sawdust based and can be recycled into the gasifier. The makeup
water requirement is minimal.
285
7
QUALIFICATIONS
The EERC is working on several projects involving the proposed biomass gasification
technology. The EERC completed procurement and installation of a 200-kWe Ankur gasifier
(WBG-200) on a 45-ft trailer at the EERC. The EERC provided the fuel feed system, ash
handling, and heat removal. This system has been commissioned and operated for over 100 hours
producing gas. The EERC has been very pleased with the quality of construction, technical
assistance, rapid communication, and engineering provided by Ankur. The EERC has visited the
factory in Baroda, India, and was impressed with the manufacturing shop, engineering,
professionalism, and ability of Ankur to meet the delivery deadline to the United States. The
EERC has discovered the technical details regarding specification of controls and equipment
supplied from overseas to meet North American standards specific to a small gasification system.
Maintenance labor can be limited to 15 minutes per 8-hour shift through automation. Systems
were visited in India by the EERC and found to be operating on such schedules. Typical
recommended preventive maintenance is 1 day/week, which equals an availability of 85%.
Engine life is unknown; however, diesel engines were found to have operated at 80% availability
over a period of years firing 80% producer gas.
The EERC was originally established in 1949 under the Bureau of Mines. The organization was
defederalized in 1983 and became a part of UND. The EERC has over a 50-year history of
conducting research with industry. The EERC’s 216,000 square feet of pilot plant, laboratory,
and administrative facilities presently house over 280 scientists, engineers, and support staff
(Figure 8). Work at the EERC for the first 35 years focused primarily on low-rank coal research
Figure 8. EERC facilities.
286
8
and related emission control technologies, and it has maintained its position as one of the world’s
leading coal research centers. The EERC has greatly broadened its focus since defederalization,
with over 850 clients in 47 countries and all 50 states. The EERC specializes in research,
development, demonstration, and commercialization of promising technologies. EERC projects
now include experimental design, analytical methods development, groundwater and wastewater,
carbon-based energy, advanced power systems, renewable energy and energy efficiency, nonfuel
products from coal, atmospheric emission control, environmental management (cleanup
technologies, reclamation of disturbed lands), waste utilization, waste disposal, database
development, and education and training (community outreach, professional workshops, national
and international conferences).
Experience directly relevant to the described system is as follows: Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., has
been working on biomass energy for 10 years and authored numerous publications. Mr. Schmidt
previously conducted a 1-MWe biomass gasification demonstration project at Camp Lejeune
Marine Corps Base. The work was performed under previous employment with Research
Triangle Institute through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The project successfully fulfilled the terms of the contract and produced electricity
paralleled to the utility grid for over 100 hours. Both theoretical and hands-on understanding of
the process were developed over a 4-year project term. During this project and subsequent
projects, Mr. Schmidt has reviewed, interviewed, and researched biomass gasification projects
ranging from laboratory research and development reactors to unpublished failed commercial
attempts and some successful systems operated within the United States and abroad. Mr.
Schmidt, over the past 6 years with the EERC, has remained focused on maintaining a link with
industry by conducting feasibility studies that enable private firms to justify the financing of
biomass energy projects. The studies include resource assessment, fuel handling and processing
design, environmental permitting, and economic sensitivity analysis. Mr. Schmidt is a registered
professional engineer in North Dakota.
Kerryanne M.B. Leroux is a Research Engineer at the EERC, with an M.S. and a B.S. in
Chemical Engineering. She has had several years of experience researching ethanol, biofuels,
and hydrogen marketing and production. Ms. Leroux has performed economic analyses for a
biorefinery, varying wind hybrid systems, and a cogeneration facility with differing scenarios in
an industrial park. She has also researched markets for biodiesel fuel, heavy residual oil, and
products of the biorefinery, and performed data analyses and statistical interpretations for
numerous projects. Current efforts include research of unconventional biodiesel feedstocks.
Mr. Kyle E. Martin, also a Research Engineer at the EERC, received B.S. degrees in Chemistry
and Chemical Engineering. Prior to his position at the EERC, Mr. Martin served as a Process
Engineer for Champion/International Paper, where his work focused on thermomechanical
pulping. He also served as a Project Engineer for Cargill Oilseeds Ltd., Clavette, Saskatchewan,
and as a Research Engineer for Agriculture & Agri-Food, Scott, Saskatchewan. Currently, Mr.
Martin is working in the areas of cogeneration, biomass energy, and fuel cells. His work at the
EERC has also involved power plant testing for pollutants such as ammonia, chlorine, sulfur
compounds, and mercury as well as development and testing of continuous emission monitors.
287
9
REFERENCES
1. Reed, T.B.; Das, A. Handbook on Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems; SERI/SP–
271-3022; CO, 1988.
2. Wen, H.; Lausten, C.; Pietruszkiewicz, J.; Delaquil, P.; Jain, B.C. Advances in Biomass
Gasification Power Plants. American Power Conference, 1998.
3. Dogru, M. Fixed-Bed Gasification of Biomass. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle, UK,
2000.
4. Schmidt, D.D.; Purvis, C.R.; Cleland, J.G. Biomass Power Plant Demonstration at Camp
Lejeune. In Proceedings of the Bioenergy '98 8th Biennial Conference; Madison, WI, Oct
1998.
5. Conversation with Ziegler Power Systems, a distributor for Caterpillar, June 12, 2003.
288
APPENDIX A
LAYOUT GENERALIZATION AND FOOTPRINT
289
A-1
290
APPENDIX B
GASIFICATION TEST RUN
291
B-1
292
B-2
293
Greenwood Technologies, LLC
11661 SE 1st Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 ♦ 800-959-9184 ♦ Fax: 206-666-5494
www.GreenwoodFurnace.com
Wood-fired Hydronic Furnaces
Smoke-free, high-efficiency heating for the home
Greenwood hydronic furnaces* burn so hot and clean, they produce almost no smoke, creosote or ash. When
combined with a radiant or forced-air heating system, they can reduce winter heating bills by 70%. Each
Greenwood furnace:
• Clean Burning. Burn wood completely, leaving no particles
to create smoke, creosote or ash.
• Energy Efficient. Greenwood furnaces approach 85 percent
thermal efficiency. That means most of the heat released by
burning wood is captured to heat your home.
• Economical. Reduce your overall heating costs, saving up to
70% of your current heating costs.
• Certified Safe. As safe to operate as a home hot-water
heater. Greenwood furnaces meet strict UL and CSA
standards for indoor operation.
• Low Maintenance. Our furnaces do not need to be cleaned
as often as wood stoves or inefficient outdoor furnaces.
• Reliable Design. Greenwood’s proven design has been in
operation for over 20 years and continues to provide safe,
reliable, low-cost home heating for their owners.
How the Greenwood Furnace Works
1. Logs are loaded into the firebox (A) and ignited with
paper and kindling.
2. As the fire grows, fresh air is drawn through the air
intake manifold (B), fanning the flames in the
ceramic firebox. The burning wood gases reach
2000º F before flowing out of the firebox and down
the flame path toward the exhaust vent (C).
3. As superheated air moves toward the vent, its
energy passes to fluid flowing through an internal
heat exchanger (D). This heat transfer fluid reaches
180º F before circulating to an external heat
exchanger (E) mounted on the back of the furnace.
Here, the energy produced by the furnace passes to
your home.
4. Aquastats (water thermostats) (F) control the
operation of the furnace by monitoring the
temperature of the heat transfer fluid and
regulating a damper on the air intake manifold (B).
At the desired temperature in the house, the
damper closes, shutting off the flow of fresh air and
extinguishing the fire. When more heat is needed,
the damper opens and the furnace re-fires. Heat
stored in the refractory walls of the firebox support
automatic re-firing for up to 24 hours.
* “Hydronic furnace” is the term adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to describe devices
formerly called “wood boilers.” Wood-fired hydronic furnaces create hot water, but not steam.
Made in the USA
294
Greenwood Hydronic Furnace Specifi cations
MODEL: Greenwood 100 Greenwood 200 Greenwood 300
Furnace Output (BTU/hour) 100,000 BTU 200,000 BTU 300,000 BTU
Approx. Heating Capacity1 1,800 - 5,000 ft2 4,000 - 10,000 ft2 8,000 - 15,000 ft2
Furnace dimensions 32”w x 52”h x 48”d 42”w x 52”h x 48”d 52”w x 52”h x 48”d
Max log length2 18 inches 28 inches 38 inches
Max log diameter (door height)16 inches 16 inches 16 inches
Approximate Weight 2,350 pounds 3,000 pounds 3,700 pounds
Firebox Volume 19”w x 32”h x 24”d
(8.4 cubic feet)
29”w x 32”h x 24”d
(12.9 cubic feet)
39”w x 32”h x 24”d
(17.3 cubic feet)
Flue Size 6 inches 7 inches 8 inches
Additional Information
Indoor/Outdoor Use Greenwood’s wood-fi red hydronic furnaces meet UL and CSA standards for indoor heating appliances. With a 12-
inch clearance required from combustible materials, the furnace may be located in your basement, garage, or shed.
Combustion Effi ciency Temperatures in the ceramic fi rebox reach nearly 2000º F, assuring almost total combustion of the wood fuel. Little
particulate matter remains to create smoke, creosote or ash.
Thermal Effi ciency The Greenwood boiler is one of the most energy effi cient wood-fi red hydronic furnaces on the market. It achieves up
to 85% thermal effi ciency (depending on the stage of the burn cycle).
Recommended Fuel The furnace operates most effi ciently with dry, unsplit logs. Heat output will vary with the species of wood burned,
but as a practical matter, we recommend using whatever solid wood is readily available.
Fuel Duration1 A full load of hardwood will typically last 8 - 12 hours at peak demand and longer under milder conditions.
Combustion Chamber The fi rebox is made of super-duty cast ceramic refractory with walls that are 4 to 6 inches thick.
Operating Temperature The temperature inside the fi rebox ranges from 1600 to 2000º F depending on the fuel and stage of the burn cycle.
The temperature of the heat transfer fl uid is typically 165 - 180º F.
Exhaust Temperature Combustion gases exit the furnace at an average temperature of 350º F.
Exhaust Pipe/Chimney Correct exhaust sizing and installation is important to overall furnace effi ciency. Our furnaces require a 6 to 8-inch
fl ue pipe.
Draft Requirement The Greenwood furnace requires a draft of 0.05” – 0.07” water column to operate effi ciently.
Hot Water Storage Tank Greenwood boilers provide heat-on-demand, eliminating the need for a hot water tank.
Backup Heating Greenwood furnaces can be integrated with most existing heating systems, providing primary heat during the winter.
Your existing system would serve as a backup.
Limited Warranty Greenwood provides a limited warranty of 20 years for the fi rebox, 10 years for internal furnace parts and 1 year for
the control system. Please see warranty for complete details.
Safety Certifi cations OMNI-Test Laboratories, an independent agency, has certifi ed Greenwood furnaces meet ANSI/UL-391 (U.S.)
standards for solid-fuel and combination-fuel central and supplementary furnaces and CSA B366.1 (Canada)
standards for solid fuel-fi red central heating appliances.
Emission Levels The EPA has proposed emission standards of 0.44lbs/MBTU to qualify for a “Green Label” program; some states are
considering emission limits of 0.60 lbs/MBTU. The Greenwood boiler emissions are well below these levels.
1 Heating capacity and fuel duration depend on many factors including construction quality, indoor/outdoor temperatures, etc.
2 For maximum burn time, load wood with the length equal to the width of the door, enabling greatest wood density. Wood up to 24” in length may be loaded in the Model 100, but result in less fi rebox fuel density.
11661 SE 1st Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 • 206.203.6282 • 800.959.9184 • www.GreenwoodFurnace.com
v20070308us
295
PRESSURIZED
INDOOR BOILER
Proven Performance
• Royall stoves have been manufactured
for over 35 years.
Selection
• Royall offers a wide variety of products to
fit all your heating needs, including outdoor
systems (pressurized boilers and water
stoves), indoor forced air and indoor
pressurized boilers.
• All systems are available in a variety of sizes.
The Boiler System Built to
ASME Standards by Certified
ASME Welders
All Royall boilers are built to the exacting
standards of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME). Every aspect of boiler design,
material and construction is inspected by the
Hartford Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company.
Boilers are also inspected on-site by the National
Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and
are continually checked by our quality control team.
• 1/4"and 5/16"SA 36 steel assures safety
and longevity.
PRESSURIZED
INDOOR BOILER
Shaker grates and doors
are constructed from
proprietary designs of
extra heavy cast iron to
prevent warpage.
®
www.royallfurnace.com
The Alternative Energy Company
0000301-FLY-409927-01 9/13/06 8:14 AM Page 1
296
More Complete Combustion
• The fire brick lined lower fire box is shaped to maximize heat build-up.
• Positive seal door latch and warp-proof heavy steel door frame
assure complete airtight design.
• Automatic forced air blower provides faster
heat on command and promotes a longer
burn time. A cast iron baffle directs airflow
to promote better combustion over the
length of the fire box.
Low Maintenance
Closed-System Design
• Closed system eliminates refilling.
• Convenient ash door and removable ash
pan allow easy removal. Ash residue is
greatly reduced thanks to more complete
combustion.
• Pressure relief valve will discharge if the unit
reaches 30 PSI.
Domestic Hot Water Provided
• Royall units can quickly and efficiently assure a full
supply of hot water for domestic uses.
www.royallfurnace.com
PRESSURIZED INDOOR BOILER
Standard Equipment
The boiler is sold complete with the following items: draft blower, pressure relief valve, aquastat,
pressure temperature gauge, spring handles, manual and information.
Accessories Available:
■Water to Air Coils ■Domestic Water Coils ■Circulation Pumps ■ Additional Supplies
Indoor Pressurized Specifications
The Alternative Energy Company
0000301-FLY-409927-01 9/13/06 8:14 AM Page 2
297
Heavy-Duty Construction
• Our water stoves use corrosion-resistant
304 gauge stainless steel–not the lighter
409 gauge offered by competitors.
Proven Performance
• Royall stoves have been manufactured
for over 35 years.
Selection
• Royall offers a wide variety of
products to fit all your needs,
including outdoor systems
(pressurized boilers and
non-pressurized stoves), indoor
forced air and indoor hot water.
• All systems are available in a
variety of sizes.
Rugged Construction
Inside and Out
• Unitized construction assures stability
over years of use.
• Heavy-duty doors and specially designed
grates prevent warping.
NON-PRESSURIZED
OUTDOOR BOILER
NON-PRESSURIZED
OUTDOOR BOILER
www.royallfurnace.com
Shaker grates and doors
are constructed from
proprietary designs of
extra heavy cast iron to
prevent warpage in
pressurized units.
The Alternative Energy Company
0000301-FLY-403972-07 9/13/06 8:21 AM Page 1
298
Wet Back/Wet Front Water Jackets Ensure
Maximum Heat Transfer
• Our even-flow jacket design spreads the heat over
the stove to resist warping or cracking.
Low Maintenance Design
• Convenient ash door and
removable ash pan allow easy
removal. Ash residue is greatly
reduced thanks to more
complete combustion.
Domestic Hot Water
Provided
• Royall units can quickly and
efficiently assure a full supply of
hot water for domestic uses.
Ideal for Multiple
Building Use
• One system can heat
several buildings.
• Preferred by businesses for heating
offices, manufacturing plants, materials
storage areas, and multi-vehicle garages.
www.royallfurnace.com
NON-PRESSURIZED OUTDOOR BOILER
The heating area which a stove can handle is affected by many factors such as: the heat loss of the building, climate, insulation,
wind, type of wood or coal, moisture content of the wood, etc.
Standard Equipment
The stainless water stoves are sold complete with the following items: draft blower, aquastat, temperature gauge, spring handles, and information manual.
Accessories Available:
■Water to Air Coils ■Domestic Water Coils ■Circulation Pumps ■ Additional Supplies
Outdoor Non-Pressurized Specifications
The Alternative Energy Company
0000301-FLY-403972-07 9/13/06 8:21 AM Page 2
299
C H I P T E C300
CHIPTEC
WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS
Pollutants USA Federal Government
AP-42 Emission Factors
lb./MMBtu lb./MMBtu
Total Particulates*0.1 -0.2 0.22-0.3
Oxides of Nitrogen:0.3 0.49
Carbon Monoxide:0.3 0.6
Total Organic Compounds:0.06 0.06
Sulfur oxides:0.025 0.025
* Emission factors for systems utilizing mechanical particulate collection devices
In the United States, harmful emissions are regulated at various levels depending on the
location of the emission device. The Federal government has developed a representative
emission factor for wood fired boiler systems. These values are an average for the entire
country and are named "AP-42 Emission Factors". Each local government has the ability to
enact stricter emission regulations than the federal government. Throughout the years, Chiptec
has installed over 100 gasification systems & has performed tests to verify the emission output
rates. Based upon this information, Chiptec has developed it's own set of emission factors that
are below the AP-42 emission factors. Typically, the Chiptec emission factors are acceptable in
areas of the country with very strict environmental regulations. The only pollutant that may
required additional treatment is the particulates. This is easily accomplished through additional
hardware that collect the particulates to an acceptable level.
48 Helen Avenue
So. Burlington,
Vermont, 05403
802-658-0956
Fax: 802-660-8904
www.chiptec.com
301
C H I P T E C302
CHIPTEC®
WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS
48 Helen Avenue
So. Burlington,
Vermont, 05403
802-658-0956
Fax: 802-660-8904
www.chiptec.com
chiptec@together.net
Fuel Materials, Usage, and Management
Chiptec gasification technology is unique in that, as opposed to a one chamber, relatively hot box,
(1850 F.), or “Stoker System”, we operate our gas producer at a relatively low temperature.
(1000 to 1400 F.) This allows the use of “marginal fuels”, i.e., fuels with higher Mineral Content,
and/or lower mineral melting, or fusion points. It also allow for a wider variety of Moisture
Content materials, from 8 to 55% M.C., (Wet Basis.)
Conversely, in the oxidation zone, in the boiler, we operate at a relatively higher temperature,
(2,300 F.) Hot enough to oxidize otherwise escaping volatile organics. This can reduce air quality
treatment costs, increase carbon efficiencies, and allow the use of additional fuel materials with
organic or formaldehyde resins, such as glued up woods, M.D.F, plywood, particle board, etc.
The result of this technical innovation, now 20 years old, is that we essentially have an “Organic
Oxidizer”, and can utilize a wide variety of fuel materials, with varying mineral and moisture
contents, so long as we keep a certain base line, and agreed upon fuel specification range.
When you mix this capability with a concept of “Engineered Fuels” you have the opportunity to
continually chase the lowest cost acceptable material over the life cycle, and still maintain a fuel
mix that is satisfactory for the equipment and the desired loads.
This also allows, or even invites, a continual management of fuel operating costs versus operating
efficiencies, over time. This aspect of your project should be constantly researched, compiled and
managed, to keep control of long term operational, i.e., fuel acquisition costs, as you go into the
future. If your fuel mix creates additional operating costs such as sacrifice of load, additional
maintenance, or reduced run times, simply watch the cost curve to determine the breakeven for
the lower cost material.
303
CHIPTEC®
WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS
48 Helen Avenue
So. Burlington,
Vermont, 05403
802-658-0956
Fax: 802-660-8904
www.chiptec.com
chiptec@together.net
304
C H I P T E C305
306
Reciprocating Grate Combustion System (1) Hybrid" Firetube/Watertube Vessel Design (2) Watertube Section (3) Firetube Section (4) Reciprocating Fire Grates (5) Under Fire Air Fan (6) Reciprocating Drive (7) Over Fire Fan/Dampers (8) Carry-Over Reinjection Blower (9) Fire Door(10) Ash Clean Out Door(11) Optional Back Up Burner(12) Fuel Metering Bin(13) Ash Removal Conveyor(14) Refractory Arch(1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(5)HYBRID RGHURST BOILER & WELDING CO., INC.P. O. Drawer 53021971 Highway 319 N.Coolidge, Georgia 31738Toll Free: 1-877-994-8778 Tel: (229) 346-3545 Fax.(229) 346-3874Email: info@hurstboiler.comThe Hybrid RG design is suitable for applications to produce high pressure steam or hot water in ranges from 3,450 – 60,000 lbs/hr (3.4 mmBTU – 60 mmBTU) output from 100 up to 400 PSI. This system is designed by HBC to combine the best technologies from the "old school" of biomass combustion and the latest advanced combustion control technologies. The new HBC reciprocating grate-type stoker system permits biomass fuels with a high proportion of incombustibles to be combusted in an efficient manner with the added advantage of automatic de-ashing. This combination is particularly suitable for heating applications in lumber dry kilns, veneer log vats, veneer dryers, greenhouses, factories, schools and office buildings. This combination enables these systems to provide a flexible and reliable operation utilizing a consistent "grade" of biomass waste with moisture contents ranging from 30 – 50%. The boiler vessel is a two pass hybrid design incorporating a water tubed boiler-type water membrane and a two-pass fire tube scotch marine vessel. This vessel’s advantages over standard water tube boilers include much larger steam disengagement area providing high quality steam, larger steam storage capability for quicker response to sudden steam demand and much larger thermal storage that provides fast demand response times and safer operation. HYBRID RGCAT # W-02307
Reciprocating Grate Combustion System(1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(5)HURST BOILER & WELDING CO., INC.P. O. Drawer 53021971 Highway 319 N.Coolidge, Georgia 31738Toll Free: 1-877-994-8778 Tel: (229) 346-3545Fax.(229) 346-3874Email: info@hurstboiler.comThe Hybrid RG design is suitable for applications to produce high pressure steam or hot water in ranges from 3,450 – 60,000 lbs/hr (3.4 mmBTU – 60 mmBTU) output from 100 up to 400 PSI. This system is designed by HBC to combine the best technologies from the "old school" of biomass combustion and the latest advanced combustion control technologies. The new HBC reciprocating grate-type stoker system permits biomass fuels with a high proportion of incombustibles to be combusted in an efficient manner with the added advantage of automatic de-ashing. This combination is particularly suitable for heating applications in lumber dry kilns, veneer log vats, veneer dryers, greenhouses, factories, schools and office buildings. This combination enables these systems to provide a flexible and reliable operation utilizing a consistent "grade" of biomass waste with moisture contents ranging from 30 – 50%. The boiler vessel is a two pass hybrid design incorporating a water tubed boiler-type water membrane and a two-pass fire tube scotch marine vessel. This vessel’s advantages over standard water tube boilers include much larger steam disengagement area providing high quality steam, larger steam storage capability for quicker response to sudden steam demand and much larger thermal storage that provides fast demand response times and safer operation. (1) "Hybrid" Firetube/Watertube Vessel Design (2) Watertube Section (3) Firetube Section (4) Reciprocati ng Fire Grates (5) Under Fire Air Fan (6) Reciprocating Drive (7) Over Fire Fan/Dampers (8) Carry-Over Reinjection Blower (9) Fire Door(10) Ash Clean Out Door(20)(16) (15 )(19)(18)(17)(11) Optional Back Up Burner(12) Fuel Metering Bin(13) Ash Removal Conveyor(14) Refractory Arch(15) Reciprocating Floor/Fuel Storage(16) Hydraulic Driven System(17) Vibrating Conveyor / Classifier(18) Fuel Transfer Conveyor A(19) Fuel Transfer Conveyor B(20) Over Sized Fuel Material for Chipping line Boiler RoomFuel RoomCAT # W-08308
APPENDIX E
ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS
309
Appendix E.1 Grinder Quote ComparisonCompanyModel Engine hp, avgRate, tons/hrRate, MMBtu/hrDelivered PriceFuel*, gal/hrFuel, MMBtu/hrCost*, per hrAvg Operation Hours*Bandit Chippers Model 2680 440 50 700 $290,965 20 2.8 $60 40Bandit Chippers Model 3680700 70 980 $372,550 27 3.8 $81 28West Salem Machinery 3456-Brute (diesel portable)550 10 140 $350,000 25 3.5 $75 198West Salem Machinery 4064-Big Brute (diesel portable)1000 20 280 $475,000 39 5.4 $116 99West Salem Machinery 3456-Brute (electric stationary)550 12 165 $250,000 432 1.5 $52 169West Salem Machinery 4064-Big Brute (electric stationary) 1000 24 329 $300,000 785 2.7 $95 84Vermeer Manufacturing HG6000525 38 525 $390,000 25 0.1 $76 53CompanyModel Amortized Capital*Annual Fuel CostOther*, per yearTotal Annual CostAvg Chipping Cost, per tonAvg Chipping Cost, per MMBtuBandit Chippers Model 2680 $36,371 $2,376 $637 $39,384 $19.89 $1.40Bandit Chippers Model 3680$46,569 $2,291 $685 $49,545 $25.02 $1.76West Salem Machinery 3456-Brute (diesel portable)$43,750 $14,842 $14,850 $73,442 $37.09 $2.61West Salem Machinery 4064-Big Brute (diesel portable) $59,375 $11,483 $14,850 $85,708 $43.29 $3.05West Salem Machinery 3456-Brute (electric stationary) $10,870 $8,801 $6,930 $26,601 $13.43 $0.95West Salem Machinery 4064-Big Brute (electric stationary) $13,043 $8,001 $6,930 $27,975 $14.13 $0.99Vermeer Manufacturing HG6000$78,000 $4,008 $16,210 $98,217 $49.60 $3.49Factors2544 Btu/hr per hp0.7457 kW/hp*Amortized Capital:Bandit Chippers - assuming 8-year service lifeWest Salem - assuming 8-year service life for portable diesel unit, 23-year service life for electric stationary unitVermeer - assuming 5-year service life*Fuel: Units in kWh/hr for electric grinders*Cost: Based on $3/gal diesel, $0.12/kWh*Average Operation Hours: Based on the average wood chipping requirement of 1980 tons annually*Other:Bandit Chippers - Based on 100 days operation per year, interest (7%), maintenance @ $150-160/yr, operating @ $250/yr, insurance, bitsWest Salem - Based on $7.50/ton operation and repair costs, not including labor for diesel, $3.50/ton electricVermeer - Based on $307/hr operation and maintenance costs310
Appendix E.2.A. Indoor Wood Boiler and Outdoor Wood Furnace Manufacturer QuotesSystem Size, Btu/hr75,000– 90,000100,000140,000– 150,000175,000– 185,000200,000– 230,000250,000– 275,000300,000 350,000400,000– 425,000500,000 600,000 750,000 800,000950,000– 1,000,000Greenwood Furnace$7,500 $9,600 $11,500 Royall Manufactur-ing, Inc.$6,000 – $7,500$7,500 – $8,500$11,500 –12,500Charmaster Products$3,200 – $3,500$3,800 – $4,200Northwest Manufact-uring (The Wood Master)$4,400 $5,900 $5,300/ 7,600$6,700 $13,000 Johnson and Son$6,100 $6,700 $7,800 New Horizon Corporation$4,500 $5,400 $6,000 $7,000 Heatmor Outdoor Furnace$4,900 – $5,500$5,600 – $6,600$6600 – $8,300$14,000 –15,000$20,000 –22,000Tarm USA, Inc.$11,000 $13,000 Garn Equipment$14,000 –16,000$25,000 – 27,000$50,000 – $52,000Alternate Heating Systems, Inc.$7,886 $8,877 – $9,479$9,967 $11,475 $23,900 $56,750 Wood Doctor$6,500 $7,500 $8,600 $16,000 Clean Wood Heat, LLC$7,500 Coming Soon!311
Appendix E.2.B Estimated Indoor Wood Boiler Capital Investment
Heating Rate, Btu/hr Capital Quoted
Est. Heating
Area, sq ft
Est. Capital,
sq ft
125,000 $4,500 1923 $2.34
150,000 $4,600 2308 $1.99
250,000 $5,700 3846 $1.48
Building Required Heating
Rates, Btu/hr
Est. Capital,
sq ft Est. Capital Rounded
Average Home 65,000 $3.50 $3,496 $3,500
School 520,000 $0.92 $7,362 $7,400
Clinic 260,000 $1.44 $5,744 $5,700
Tribal Council Building 234,000 $1.54 $5,531 $5,500
Native Corporation Office 104,000 $2.59 $4,137 $4,100
Grocery Store 182,000 $1.81 $5,055 $5,100
65 Btu/hr/sqft Assumed
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Heating Area Requirement, sq ftCapital Cost, per sq ftCapital Quote
Estimated Capital
312
Appendix E.2.C Estimated Outdoor Wood Furnace Capital Investment
Min Heating
Rate, Btu/hr
Max Heating
Rate, Btu/hr
Average
Heating Rate,
Btu/hr
Min. Capital
Quoted
Max Capital
Quoted
Average
Capital
Est.
Heating
Area, sq
Est.
Capital,
sq ft
75,000 90,000 82,500 $4,400 $7,500 $5,950 1269 $4.69
100,000 100,000 100,000 $3,200 $11,000 $7,100 1538 $4.62
140,000 150,000 145,000 $5,400 $13,000 $9,200 2231 $4.12
175,000 185,000 180,000 $5,300 $7,600 $6,450 2769 $2.33
200,000 230,000 215,000 $3,800 $9,000 $6,400 3308 $1.93
250,000 275,000 262,500 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 4038 $1.73
300,000 300,000 300,000 $7,500 $11,500 $9,500 4615 $2.06
350,000 350,000 350,000 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 5385 $1.24
400,000 425,000 412,500 $6,600 $8,300 $7,450 6346 $1.17
500,000 500,000 500,000 $11,500 $12,500 $12,000 7692 $1.56
600,000 600,000 600,000 $8,600 $15,000 $11,800 9231 $1.28
750,000 750,000 750,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 11538 $1.13
800,000 800,000 800,000 $20,000 $22,000 $21,000 12308 $1.71
950,000 1,000,000 975,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 15000 $1.07
Required
Heating
Rates, Btu/hr
Est. Capital,
sq ft Est. Capital Rounded
65,000 $4.89 $4,889 $4,900
520,000 $1.41 $11,312 $11,000
260,000 $2.14 $8,553 $8,600
234,000 $2.28 $8,197 $8,200
104,000 $3.69 $5,910 $5,900
182,000 $2.65 $7,407 $7,400
227500 $2.32 $8,104 $8,100
598,000 $1.30 $11,968 $12,000
65 Btu/hr/sqft Assumed
Clinic, Tribal Council Building,
Native Corporation Office
Residential Group (3–4
homes)
Grocery Store
Native Corporation Office
Tribal Council Building
Clinic
School
Building
Average Home
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000
Heating Area Requirement, sq ftCapital Cost, per sq ftAverage Capital Quote
Estimated Capital
313
*Quotes were for 6-MMBtu systems; enclosure buildings can add $50,000–80,000 depending on system dimensions.
System
Size, kW
Price, per
kW
100 $3,000
200 $2,250
400 $1,500
Industry
Average $1,900
MMBtu kW
kW Equiv-
alent
5 250 $2,000 $500,000
6 300 $1,800 $540,000
5 300 550 $1,500 $825,000
6 300 600 $1,450 $870,000
2000 2000 $1,000 $2,000,000
600 600 $1,450 $870,000
300 300 $1,800 $540,000
Company
Includes combuster, boiler, storage bin, chip handling
systems (conveying), cyclone (for particulates), training &
start-up, one-piece stack for exhaust, control panel, draft
fan.
Complete system estimate.
Price, per
kW
Capital
Estimation
Appendix E.2.E Estimated Full-Scale Gasification System Capital Investment
EERC Experience
System Requirements
Appendix E.2.D Estimated Full-Scale Combustion System Capital Investment
Messersmith
Hurst
Chiptec
$320,000
$374,000
$300,000
Fuel receiving and storage system, metering auger, feed
system, gasifier, boiler, fan, cyclone, controls, stack and
breeching, installed, start-up and training.
IncludedQuote*
314
Appendix E.2.F Estimated Piping Capital Investment
$1,000
$2,000
$5,000
$1,300
$2,000
Average $2,260
$40,000
$50,000
Average $45,000
Required
Heating Rates,
Btu/hr
Shipping
cost*
65,000 $163
520,000 $1,300
260,000 $650
234,000 $585
104,000 $260
182,000 $455
227,500 $569
598,000 $1,495
$1,000
$2,000
$848
*Shipping cost: Calculated as a factor of size, $200–300 per 100,000 Btu/hr
Total (rounded)
$3,108 $3,100
$45,848 $46,000
General
Average
Total Est. Installed and Shipped Hot
Water Piping Capital, per 100 ft
Total Est. Installed and Shipped
Steam Piping Capital, per 100 ft
Estimated Capital
Grocery Store
Residential Group (3–4 homes)
Clinic, Tribal Council Building, Native
Corporation Office
School
Clinic
Tribal Council Building
Native Corporation Office
Average Home
Piping = Installed + Shipping
Hot Water Piping Capital Quoted, per 100 ft
Steam Piping Capital Quoted, per 100 ft
Building
315
ScenarioRequirements I. Wood CombustionA. Wood Furnaces/BoilersLogs, Wood Chips or Pellets1. Indoor wood boilers for individual homes' and village buildings' heatWood delivery, indoor wood storage, individual loading (automation with pellets) and ash management2. Small outdoor wood furnaces for individual homes' and village buildings' heatWood delivery, storage, individual or service loading (automation with pellets or auger modification for chips) and ash management, minimal hot water piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced air3. Moderate outdoor wood furnaces for multiple (3–4) homes' and village buildings' heat, cannery steamWood delivery, storage, service loading (automation with pellets or auger modification for chips) and ash management, moderate hot water piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced airB. Automated combustion systemWood chips1. Moderate combustion system for village buildings' heat and cannery steamSome supervision, ash management, moderate hot water and steam piping, heat exchangers for buildings currently heated by forced air2. Large-scale combustion system for entire village, i.e. homes' and village buildings' heat and cannery steamSome supervision, ash management, extensive hot water and steam piping, heat exchangers for homes/buildings currently heated by forced air II. Wood Gasification SystemA. Gas ProductionWood Chips1. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildingsRefurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and waste water management, minimal gas piping, moderate steam piping, heat exchangers to convert steam to forced air or hot water heat2. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam and pipe gas to village buildings for heatRefurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and waste water management, moderate gas piping, gas boilers/furnaces for village buildings3. Provide gas to entire village, i.e. homes' and village buildings' heat and cannery steamRefurbish boiler, some supervision, ash and waste water management, extensive gas piping, gas boilers/furnaces for homes and village buildingsB. Gas and Electricity ProductionWood chips1. Scenario II. A. 1. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)Same as II. A. 1. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant2. Scenario II. A. 2. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)Same as II. A. 2. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant3. Scenario II. A. 3. and electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)Same as II. A. 3. requirements, microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plantC. Electricity ProductionWood Chips1. Electricity for power and heat to entire village, 3-phase, 560kWMicroturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant, connection to cannery for steam production, electric boilers/furnaces for homes and village buildings, phase downgrade for homes and village buildings2. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (3-phase, 560 kW) Microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant, phase downgrade for homes and village buildings, connection to cannery for steam production (assumes existing lines cannot carry voltage required for electric boilers/furnaces)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Summary1 of 27/20/2007316
3. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW) Microturbine or gas generator, connections to existing power plant (only supplies night/down-time power to cannery), phase downgrade for homes and village buildings (assumes existing lines cannot carry voltage required for electric boilers/furnaces) III. Fish OilA. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Senarios I. A. 1-3 and II. C. 2-3)Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, reburbish boiler, moderate steam pipingB. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Senarios I. A. 1-3 and II. C. 2-3)Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, reburbish boiler, minimal steam piping, fuel deliveryC. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for cannery steam and use blend for heat in homes and village buildings (can be used in conjunction with Senarios II. C. 2-3)Fish oil-processing system, storage, some supervision, reburbish boiler, minimal steam piping, fuel deliveryAppendix E.3 Scenarios-Summary2 of 27/20/2007317
Scenario Total Capital Annual Savings Payback
1. Indoor wood boilers for individual homes' and village
buildings' heat $272,800 $76,391 2.7
2. Small outdoor wood furnaces for individual homes' and
village buildings' heat $616,600 $17,226 7.8
3. Moderate outdoor wood furnaces for multiple (3–4) homes'
and village buildings' heat, cannery $884,900 $45,400 7.9
1. Moderate combustion system for village buildings' heat and
cannery steam $621,700 $13,901 10.0
2. Large-scale combustion system for entire village, i.e. homes'
and village buildings' heat and cannery steam $1,043,700 $71,309 6.5
1. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam
and steam heat for village buildings $1,102,000 ($32,587)17.5
2. Pipe gas to existing fire-tube steam boiler for cannery steam
and pipe gas to village buildings for heat $805,033 ($2,239)12.6
3. Provide gas to entire village, i.e. homes' and village
buildings' heat and cannery steam $1,298,700 ($72,146)29.5
1. Scenario II. A. 1. and electricity supplied to entire village on
existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)$1,427,000 $27,845 9.1
2. Scenario II. A. 2. and electricity supplied to entire village on
existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)$1,130,033 $57,541 7.2
3. Scenario II. A. 3. and electricity supplied to entire village on
existing lines (1-phase, 260 kW)$1,628,700 $106,470 6.4
1. Electricity for power and heat to entire village, 3-phase,
560kW $2,317,500 ($77,697)16.6
2. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (3-
phase, 560 kW) $1,120,000 $20,177 9.5
3. Electricity supplied to entire village on existing lines (1-
phase, 260 kW) $790,000 $4,667 11.3
A. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for
cannery steam and steam heat for village buildings (can be
used in conjunction with Senarios I. A. 1-3 and II. C. 2-3)
$602,000 ($14,707)13.4
B. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for
cannery steam and use blend for heat in village buildings (can
be used in conjunction with Senarios I. A. 1-3 and II. C. 2-3)
$260,000 $19,493 5.8
C. Use 50% fish oil/diesel blend in existing fire-tube boiler for
cannery steam and use blend for heat in homes and village
buildings (can be used in conjunction with Senarios II. C. 2-3)
$260,000 $80,090 2.5
I. Wood Combustion
A. Wood Furnaces/Boilers
III. Fish Oil
B. Automated combustion system
II. Wood Gasification System
A. Gas Production
B. Gas and Electricity Production
C. Electricity Production
Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Results 1 of 1 7/20/2007
318
Current Utilities Properties & RatesResidential Commercial Industrial$3.00 per gal, Alaska average 2006 (HEA) Utilitiy Rates Monthly Fee $11 $40 $1,200129,500 Btu/gal $0.1210 per kWh, avg Regulatory Charge, per kWh $0.000433 $0.000433 $0.000433$23.17 per MMBtu $35.46 per MMBtu, avg Tier limit, kWh 600 3000 --3412 Btu/kWh Tier price, per kWh $0.12370 $0.12074Price over limit, per kWh $0.13073 $0.10876Demand limit, kW -- 10 --Demand charge, per kW -- $6.37740 $16.70876Wood Properties & Equivalent Price20 lb/ft^3 50 lb/ft^3 Logs, cutting and transportation $55 $3.868100 Btu/lb, dry 8100 Btu/lb, dry Chips, chipping logs (average) $96 $6.7212% moisture, seasoned 5% moisture, seasoned Pellets, densifying chips (average) $225 $14.637128 Btu/lb, wet 7695 Btu/lb, wet*Capital and operating includedFish Oil Properties & Equivalent Price1.27$ 0.64$ per gal38.8 MJ/kg salmon oil10.25$ 5.13$ per MMBtu948 Btu/MJ50%50%Blend2.2 lb/kg2.14$ 1.82$ per gal blend16681 Btu/lb16.85$ 14.34$ per MMBtu7.44 lb/gal salmon oil124030 Btu/gal50% Blend126765 Btu/gal blendDieselHomer Electric Association (HEA)Factors$0.05440Moderate (Oil &) SteamLarge Oil & SteamPrice, per ton*Price, per MMBtuDelivered FormWoodPelletsAppendix E.3 Scenarios-Feedstocks1 of 17/20/2007319
StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, Btu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearAverage Home 1000 65000 65 591 $1,772 $3,500 $350Total Residential (70 units) 70000 4550000 4550 41335 $124,006 $245,000 $24,500School 8000 520000 520 4724 $14,172 $7,400 $740Clinic 4000 260000 260 2362 $7,086 $5,700 $570Tribal council building 3600 234000 234 2126 $6,377 $5,500 $550Native corporation office 1600 104000 104 945 $2,834 $4,100 $410Grocery store 2800 182000 182 1653 $4,960 $5,100 $510Total Village Buildings 20000 1300000 1300 11810 $35,430 $27,800 $2,780Scenario Total 90000 5850000 5850 53146 $159,437 $272,800 $27,280Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess65% Indoor wood boiler efficiency, logs70% Indoor wood boiler efficiency, chips75% Indoor wood boiler efficiency, pellets85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpIndoor Wood BoilersBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Indoor Wood BoilerIndividual systems → hot water heat → village buildings, homes Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Indoor Wood Boilers1 of 37/20/2007320
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council buildingNative corporation officeGrocery storeTotal Village BuildingsScenario TotalIndoor Wood BoilersEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual SavingsEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings7 $386 $234 $970 $802 7 $386 $471 $1,327 $444491 $27,006 $16,367 $67,874 $56,133 456 $27,006 $32,943 $92,903 $31,10356 $3,086 $1,871 $5,697 $8,475 52 $3,086 $3,765 $8,558 $5,61528 $1,543 $935 $3,048 $4,038 26 $1,543 $1,882 $4,479 $2,60725 $1,389 $842 $2,781 $3,597 23 $1,389 $1,694 $4,068 $2,31011 $617 $374 $1,401 $1,433 10 $617 $753 $1,974 $86120 $1,080 $655 $2,245 $2,715 18 $1,080 $1,318 $3,246 $1,714140 $7,716 $4,676 $15,172 $20,258 130 $7,716 $9,412 $22,324 $13,107631 $34,722 $21,044$83,046 $76,391 586 $34,722 $42,355 $115,227 $44,210Chipper/Grinder Calculations Pellet Facility CalculationsCompany West Salem Machinery 4 tons/hr, ratedModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) 127 Hours operation12 tons/hr, rated $450,000 Estimated capital550 Engine hp, avg $45,000 Amtorized Capital, per year$250,000 Estimated delivered capital $500 Average Home contribution$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life) $4,000 School contribution$121 Average Home contribution $2,000 Clinic contribution$966 School contribution $1,800 Tribal council building contribution$483 Clinic contribution $800 Native corporation office contribution$435 Tribal council building contribution $1,400 Grocery store contribution$193 Native corporation office contribution$338 Grocery store contribution $57 Pellet Operating Cost, per ton$28,889 Annual Operating Cost410 Electricity, kW $262.42 Pellet Product Cost, per ton49 Hours operation (capital, operating, logging, chipping)$25,257 Annual Utility Cost$43.08 Operating Cost, per ton$116.63 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)Wood (chips)Wood (logs)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Indoor Wood Boilers2 of 37/20/2007321
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council buildingNative corporation officeGrocery storeTotal Village BuildingsScenario TotalIndoor Wood BoilersEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrHeating CostEst. Annual Savings6 $386 $611 $1,967($196)394 $27,006 $42,738 $137,698($13,692)45 $3,086 $4,884 $13,677 $49523 $1,543 $2,442 $7,038 $4820 $1,389 $2,198 $6,372 $69 $617 $977 $2,997($163)16 $1,080 $1,710 $5,038($78)113 $7,716 $12,211 $35,122 $308507 $34,722 $54,949 $172,821($13,384)Operational Costs: Wood loading & Ash removal$5 minimum wage, per hour270 days/yr heat required, avg100 lbs/day base wood amount13.5 tons/yr base wood amount2 loads/day, logs/chips, avg5 min/loading for base wood amount, avg$225 per year loading, logs/chips2 ash removals/day logs, avg1.5 ash removals/day chips, avg1 ash removals/day pellets, avg5 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$225 per year ash removal, logs$169 per year ash removal, chips$113 per year ash removal, pelletsWood (pellets-automated)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Indoor Wood Boilers3 of 37/20/2007322
StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, Btu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearAverage Home 1000 65000 65 591 $1,772 $8,000 $800Total Residential (70 units) 70000 4550000 4550 41335 $124,006 $560,000 $56,000School 8000 520000 520 4724 $14,172 $14,100 $1,410Clinic 4000 260000 260 2362 $7,086 $11,700 $1,170Tribal council building 3600 234000 234 2126 $6,377 $11,300 $1,130Native corporation office 1600 104000 104 945 $2,834 $9,000 $900Grocery store 2800 182000 182 1653 $4,960 $10,500 $1,050Total Village Buildings 20000 1300000 1300 11810 $35,430 $56,600 $5,660Scenario Total 90000 5850000 5850 53146 $159,437 $616,600 $61,660Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$3,100 Installed and shipped hot water piping to each homes/buildings, per 100 ft45% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, logs50% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, chips55% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, pellets85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpSmall Outdoor Wood FurnacesBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Outdoor Wood FurnaceIndividual systems → hot water heat → village buildings, homes Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces1 of 37/20/2007323
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council buildingNative corporation officeGrocery storeTotal Village BuildingsScenario TotalSmall Outdoor Wood FurnacesEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual SavingsEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings10 $557 $338 $1,695 $77 9 $557 $551 $2,030($258)709 $39,009 $23,642 $118,651 $5,356 638 $39,009 $38,604 $142,067($18,061)81 $4,458 $2,702 $8,570 $5,602 73 $4,458 $4,412 $11,246 $2,92641 $2,229 $1,351 $4,750 $2,336 36 $2,229 $2,206 $6,088 $99836 $2,006 $1,216 $4,352 $2,025 33 $2,006 $1,985 $5,556 $82116 $892 $540 $2,332 $502 15 $892 $882 $2,867($33)28 $1,560 $946 $3,556 $1,404 26 $1,560 $1,544 $4,493 $468203 $11,145 $6,755 $23,560 $11,870 182 $11,145 $11,030 $30,251 $5,180912 $50,154$30,397 $142,211 $17,226 821 $50,154$49,634$172,318($12,881)Chipper/Grinder Calculations Pellet Facility CalculationsCompany West Salem Machinery 4 tons/hr, ratedModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) 173 Hours operation12 tons/hr, rated $450,000 Estimated capital550 Engine hp, avg $45,000 Amtorized Capital, per year$250,000 Estimated delivered capital $500 Average Home contribution$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life) $4,000 School contribution$121 Average Home contribution $2,000 Clinic contribution$966 School contribution $1,800 Tribal council building contribution$483 Clinic contribution $800 Native corporation office contribution$435 Tribal council building contribution $1,400 Grocery store contribution$193 Native corporation office contribution$338 Grocery store contribution $57 Pellet Operating Cost, per ton$39,394 Annual Operating Cost410 Electricity, kW $221.67 Pellet Product Cost, per ton68 Hours operation (capital, operating, logging, chipping)$25,697 Annual Utility Cost$31.31 Operating Cost, per ton$99.55 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)Wood (chips)Wood (logs)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces2 of 37/20/2007324
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council buildingNative corporation officeGrocery storeTotal Village BuildingsScenario TotalSmall Outdoor Wood FurnacesEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrHeating CostEst. Annual Savings8 $557 $742 $2,720($949)538 $39,009 $51,950 $190,413($66,406)61 $4,458 $5,937 $16,771($2,599)31 $2,229 $2,969 $8,851($1,765)28 $2,006 $2,672 $8,043($1,665)12 $892 $1,187 $3,972($1,138)22 $1,560 $2,078 $6,427($1,466)154 $11,145 $14,843 $44,064($8,633)691 $50,154$66,793 $234,476($75,040)Operational Costs: Wood loading & Ash removal$5 minimum wage, per hour270 days/yr heat required, avg100 lbs/day base wood amount13.5 tons/yr base wood amount2 loads/day, logs/chips, avg5 min/loading for base wood amount, avg$225 per year loading, logs/chips2 ash removals/day logs, avg1.5 ash removals/day chips, avg1 ash removals/day pellets, avg5 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$225 per year ash removal, logs$169 per year ash removal, chips$113 per year ash removal, pelletsWood (pellets-automated)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Small Outdoor Wood Furnaces3 of 37/20/2007325
StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, Btu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearResidential Group (3-4 homes) 3500 227500 228 2067 $6,200 $18,950 $1,895Total Residential (20 groups) 70000 4550000 4550 41335 $124,006 $379,000 $37,900School* 8000 520000 520 4724 $14,172 $14,100 $1,410Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office9200 598000 598 5433 $16,298 $21,300 $2,130Grocery store* 2800 182000 182 1653 $4,960 $10,500 $1,050Total Village Buildings 20000 1300000 1300 11810 $35,430 $45,900 $4,590Cannery (3, 1.5-units) -- 4500000 3238 25000$75,000 $210,000 $14,000Scenario Total 90000 10350000 9088 78146 $234,437 $634,900 $56,490*Small outdoor wood furnaces for each due to locationFactors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$3,100 Installed and shipped hot water piping to multiple homes/buildings, 100 ft45% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, logs50% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, chips55% Outdoor wood boiler efficiency, pellets85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg75% Combustion system efficiency0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpModerate Outdoor Wood FurnacesBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Outdoor Wood Furnace, PipingModerate systems → hot water heat → serving multiple community buildings*, homes (3–4)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces1 of 37/20/2007326
StructureResidential Group (3-4 homes)Total Residential (20 groups)School*Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation officeGrocery store*Total Village BuildingsCannery (3, 1.5-units)Scenario Total*Small outdoor wood furnaces for each duModerate Outdoor Wood FurnacesEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual SavingsEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings35 $1,950 $1,182 $5,028 $1,173 32 $1,950 $1,677 $5,831 $369709 $39,009 $23,642 $100,551 $23,456 638 $39,009 $33,540 $116,625 $7,38281 $4,458 $2,702 $8,570 $5,602 73 $4,458 $3,833 $10,407 $3,76593$5,127 $3,107 $10,364 $5,93484$5,127 $4,408 $12,477 $3,82128 $1,560 $946 $3,556 $1,40426 $1,560 $1,342 $4,199 $761203 $11,145 $6,755 $22,490 $12,940 182 $11,145 $9,583 $27,083 $8,348303$12,490$15,910 $45,330 $29,670912 $50,154 $30,397 $123,041 $36,396 1124 $62,645 $59,033 $189,037 $45,400Chipper/Grinder CalculationsPellet Facility CalculationsCompany West Salem Machinery4 tons/hr, ratedModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary)243 Hours operation12 tons/hr, rated$450,000 Estimated capital550 Engine hp, avg$45,000 Amtorized Capital, per year$250,000 Estimated delivered capital$1,245 Average Home contribution$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)$2,845 School contribution$309 Average Home contribution$3,272Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corp. office$706 School contribution$996 Grocery store contribution$812Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corp. office$247 Grocery store contribution$57 Pellet Operating Cost, per ton$2,929 Cannery contribution$55,382 Annual Operating Cost$191.37 Pellet Product Cost, per ton410 Electricity, kW(capital, operating, logging, chipping)94 Hours operation$26,264 Annual Utility Cost$23.38 Operating Cost, per ton$88.05 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)Wood (chips)Wood (logs)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces2 of 37/20/2007327
StructureResidential Group (3-4 homes)Total Residential (20 groups)School*Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation officeGrocery store*Total Village BuildingsCannery (3, 1.5-units)Scenario Total*Small outdoor wood furnaces for each duModerate Outdoor Wood FurnacesEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings27 $1,950 $2,384 $7,783($1,583)538 $39,009 $47,685 $155,666($31,660)61 $4,458 $5,450 $14,869($697)71$5,127 $6,267 $17,608($1,310)22 $1,560 $1,907 $5,761($800)154 $11,145 $13,624 $38,237($2,807)280 $12,490 $24,882 $51,839 $23,161972 $62,645 $86,192 $245,743($11,306)Operational Costs: Wood loading & Ash removal$5 minimum wage, per hour270 days/yr heat required, avg100 lbs/day base wood amount13.5 tons/yr base wood amount2 loads/day, logs/chips, avg5 min/loading for base wood amount, avg$225 per year loading, logs/chips2 ash removals/day logs, avg1.5 ash removals/day chips, avg1 ash removals/day pellets, avg5 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$225 per year ash removal, logs$169 per year ash removal, chips$113 per year ash removal, pelletsWood (pellets)Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Moderate Outdoor Wood Furnaces3 of 37/20/2007328
StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $106,493 $10,649Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $265,207 $26,521Scenario Total200004.54538 36810$110,430 $371,700 $37,170Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$350,000 Installed capital for 5 MMBtu system$3,100 Installed and shipped hot water piping to multiple homes/buildings, 100 ft75% Combustion system efficiency85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpModerate Combustion SystemBuilding Heat RequirementsCurrent Conditions Combustion System, PipingHot water heat → cannery, village buildings Appendix E.3 Scenarios-Moderate Combustion System1 of 27/20/2007329
StructureClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalModerate Combustion SystemEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings122 $6,687 $7,205 $27,656 $7,775303 $16,654 $17,944$68,874 $6,126424$23,341 $25,149 $96,529 $13,901Chipper/Grinder Calculations Operational Costs: Ash removalCompany West Salem Machinery $20 wage, per hourModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) 39 wks/yr heat required, avg12 tons/hr, rated 0.5 ash removals/wk, avg550 Engine hp, avg 30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$250,000 Estimated delivered capital $195 per year ash removal$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)$3,114 Village Buildings contribution$7,755 Cannery contribution410 Electricity, kW35 Hours operation$24,954 Annual Utility Cost$58.80 Operating Cost, per ton$139.41 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)WoodchipsAppendix E.3 Scenarios-Moderate Combustion System2 of 27/20/2007330
StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearResidential700004.6 455041335$124,006 $397,396 $39,740Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $113,542 $11,354Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $282,762 $28,276Scenario Total900005.99088 78146$234,437 $793,700 $79,370Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$400,000 Installed capital for 6 MMBtu system$3,100 Installed and shipped hot water piping to multiple homes/buildings, 100 ft 75% Combustion system efficiency85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpHot water heat → cannery, village buildings, homes Large Combustion SystemBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Combustion System, PipingAppendix E.3 Scenarios-Large Combustion System1 of 27/20/2007331
StructureResidentialClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalLarge Combustion SystemEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings426 $23,405 $13,089 $81,676 $42,330122 $6,687 $3,740 $23,336 $12,094303 $16,654 $9,313 $58,116 $16,884850$46,746 $26,141 $163,127 $71,309Chipper/Grinder Calculations Operational Costs: Ash removalCompany West Salem Machinery $20 wage, per hourModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) 39 wks/yr heat required, avg12 tons/hr, rated 1 ash removals/wk, avg550 Engine hp, avg 30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$250,000 Estimated delivered capital $390 per year ash removal$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)$5,442 Residential contribution$1,555 Village Buildings contribution$3,872 Cannery contribution410 Electricity, kW71 Hours operation$25,751 Annual Utility Cost$30.30 Operating Cost, per ton$98.09 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)WoodchipsAppendix E.3 Scenarios-Large Combustion System2 of 27/20/2007332
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSteam heat → village buildings StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $244,099 $24,410Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $607,901 $60,790Scenario Total200004.54538 36810$110,430 $852,000 $85,200Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$500,000 Installed capital for 5 MMBtu system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$46,000 Installed and shipped steam piping to village buildings, 100 ft$1,000 Heat exchanger, guess per 1000 sq. ft. heat required 80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpModerate Steam (Gas)Building Heat RequirementsCurrent Conditions Gasification System, PipingAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Steam1 of 27/20/2007333
StructureClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalModerate Steam (Gas)Est. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings114 $6,260 $7,191 $40,975($5,544)284 $15,589 $17,908$102,043($27,043)398$21,849 $25,099 $143,018($32,587)Chipper/Grinder CalculationsOperational Costs: Ash removalCompany West Salem Machinery $20 wage, per hourModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) 39 wks/yr heat required, avg12 tons/hr, rated 0.5 ash removals/wk, avg550 Engine hp, avg 30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$250,000 Estimated delivered capital $195 per year ash removal$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)$3,114 Village Buildings contribution$7,755 Cannery contribution410 Electricity, kW33 Hours operation$24,904 Annual Utility Cost$144.83 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)WoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Steam2 of 27/20/2007334
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSyngas → village buildings for heatStructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalCapital, per yearClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430$23,333 $2,333Cannery -- 4.5 3238 25000$75,000-- --Scenario Total 20000 4.5 4538 36810$110,430$23,333 $2,333Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$1.17 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg90% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg$500,000 Installed capital for 5 MMBtu system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$3,100 Installed and shipped gas piping to village buildings, 100 ft80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpModerate Gas & SteamBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Gas Boiler/FurnaceAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Gas & Steam1 of 27/20/2007335
StructureClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalModerate Gas & SteamEst. CapitalCapital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrHeating CostAnnual Savings$164,037 $16,404 119 $6,546 $7,737 $36,373($943)$367,663 $36,766 267 $14,672 $17,341$76,296($1,296)$531,700 $53,170386$21,218 $25,078 $112,669($2,239)Chipper/Grinder CalculationsCompany West Salem Machinery Operational Costs: Ash removalModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary) $20 wage, per hour12 tons/hr, rated 39 wks/yr heat required, avg550 Engine hp, avg 0.5 ash removals/wk, avg$250,000 Estimated delivered capital 30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life) $195 per year ash removal$3,353 Village Buildings contribution$7,516 Cannery contribution410 Electricity, kW32 Hours operation$24,883 Annual Utility Cost$147.45 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)WoodchipsGasification System, PipingAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Gas & Steam2 of 27/20/2007336
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSyngas → village buildings, homes for heat StructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearResidential700004.6 45502067$6,200$81,667 $8,167Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430$23,333 $2,333Cannery -- 4.5 3238 25000$75,000-- --Scenario Total 90000 5.9 9088 38877$116,631$105,000 $10,500Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$1.17 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg90% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg$540,000 Installed capital for 6 MMBtu system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$3,100 Installed and shipped gas piping to multiple homes/buildings, 100 ft80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpLarge GasBuilding Heat Requirements Current Conditions Gas Boiler/FurnaceAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Large Gas1 of 27/20/2007337
StructureResidentialClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalLarge GasEst. CapitalCapital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrHeating CostAnnual Savings$372,000 $37,200 443 $24,344 $13,576 $88,930($82,729)$21,700 $2,170 127 $6,955 $3,879 $16,950 $18,481$550,000$55,000 284 $15,589 $8,694 $82,897($7,897)$943,700 $94,370854$46,888 $26,149 $188,776($72,146)Chipper/Grinder CalculationsOperational Costs: Ash removalCompany West Salem Machinery$20 wage, per hourModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary)39 wks/yr heat required, avg12 tons/hr, rated1 ash removals/wk, avg550 Engine hp, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$250,000 Estimated delivered capital$390 per year ash removal$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)$5,643 Residential contribution$1,612 Village Buildings contribution$3,614 Cannery contribution410 Electricity, kW71 Hours operation$25,759 Annual Utility Cost$97.82 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton (capital, operating, logging)WoodchipsGasification System, PipingAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Large Gas2 of 27/20/2007338
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSteam heat → village buildings Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)StructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home1000 148431237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units)70000 103897786581 $11,831 $141,972School8000 1187409895$1,239$14,868Clinic4000 593704948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 534334453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 237481979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 415593463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings20000 29685024738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences 90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery--664172 221391$17,684$53,051Scenario Total--2000000 --$32,728 $233,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operation0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpModerate Steam & ElectCurrent Electricity ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Steam & Elect1 of 37/20/2007339
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalModerate Steam & ElectPower Required, MMBtu/hrEnergy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per year$3,677$368$257,419 $25,7420.52 5204724 $14,172 $203,977$20,3980.26 2602362 $7,086 $101,989$10,1990.23 2342126 $6,377 $91,790$9,1790.10 104945 $2,834 $40,795$4,0800.18 1821653 $4,960 $71,392$7,1391.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $509,944 $50,9941.3 1300 11810$35,430 $767,363 $76,7364.5 3238 25000$75,000$409,637$40,9644.5 4538 36810 $110,430$1,177,000 $117,700Heating Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$1.17 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg90% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$46,000 Installed and shipped steam piping to village buildings, 100 ft$1,000 Heat exchanger, guess per 1000 sq. ft. heat required Gasification System, PipingCurrent Heating ConditionsBuilding Heat RequirementsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Steam & Elect2 of 37/20/2007340
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalModerate Steam & ElectEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings18 $1,003 $190 $1,630 $3981276 $70,180 $13,318 $114,078 $27,894196 $10,807 $2,051 $34,000($4,960)98 $5,403 $1,025 $17,000($2,046)88 $4,863 $923 $15,300($1,833)39 $2,161 $410 $6,800($769)69 $3,782 $718 $11,900($1,408)491 $27,017 $5,127 $85,001($11,016)1767 $97,198 $18,445 $199,079 $16,8781100 $60,476 $11,476 $117,085 $10,9662867 $157,674$29,921 $316,164$27,845Electricity FactorsChipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimateCompany West Salem Machinery260 kW peakModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh12 tons/hr, rated$825,000 Installed capital for 300kW, 5MMBtu system550 Engine hp, avg0.9 MMBtu/hr output required for electricity$250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, peak (260kW)2.6 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (130kW)410 Electricity, kW4660 hrs/yr peak239 Hours operation4100 hrs/yr low$29,531 Annual Utility Cost35017 MMBtu/yr for electricity$69.01 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton2456 Wood required, tons/yrOperational Costs: Ash removal$20 wage, per hour39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalWoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Steam & Elect3 of 37/20/2007341
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSyngas → village buildings for heat Electricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)StructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home 1000 14843 1237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units) 70000 1038977 86581 $11,831 $141,972School 8000 118740 9895$1,239$14,868Clinic 4000 59370 4948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 53433 4453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 23748 1979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 41559 3463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings 20000 296850 24738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences 90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery -- 664172 221391$17,684$53,051Scenario Total -- 2000000 -- $32,728 $233,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operationModerate Gas, Steam & ElectCurrent Electricity ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Gas, Steam & Elect1 of 37/20/2007342
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalModerate Gas, Steam & ElectPower Required, MMBtu/hrEnergy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per year0.52 5204724 $14,172 $9,333 $9330.26 2602362 $7,086 $4,667 $4670.23 2342126 $6,377 $4,200 $4200.10 104945 $2,834 $1,867 $1870.18 1821653 $4,960 $3,267 $3271.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $23,333 $2,3331.3 1300 11810$35,430 $23,333 $2,3334.5 3238 25000$75,000-- --4.5 4538 36810 $110,430 $23,333 $2,333Heating Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$1.17 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg90% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$3,100 Installed and shipped gas piping to village buildings, 100 ft0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpCurrent Heating Conditions Gas Boiler/FurnaceBuilding Heat RequirementsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Gas, Steam & Elect2 of 37/20/2007343
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalModerate Gas, Steam & ElectEst. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings$3,677$36818 $1,003 $190 $1,630 $398$257,419 $25,7421276 $70,180 $13,318 $114,078 $27,894$75,857$7,586196 $10,807 $2,051 $22,122 $6,918$37,929$3,79398 $5,403 $1,025 $11,061 $3,894$34,136$3,41488 $4,863 $923 $9,955 $3,512$15,171$1,51739 $2,161 $410 $4,424 $1,606$26,550$2,65569 $3,782 $718 $7,743 $2,750$189,644 $18,964491 $27,017 $5,127 $55,305 $18,681$447,063 $44,706 1767 $97,198 $18,445 $169,383 $46,575$409,637$40,964 1100 $60,476 $11,476 $117,085 $10,966$856,700 $85,670 2867 $157,674$29,921 $286,468 $57,541Electricity Factors Chipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimate Company West Salem Machinery260 kW peak Model 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh 12 tons/hr, rated$825,000 Installed capital for 300kW, 5MMBtu system 550 Engine hp, avg0.9 MMBtu/hr output required for electricity $250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production $10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, peak (260kW)2.6 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (130kW) 410 Electricity, kW4660 hrs/yr peak 239 Hours operation4100 hrs/yr low $29,531 Annual Utility Cost35017 MMBtu/yr for electricity $69.01 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton2456 Wood required, tons/yrOperational Costs: Ash removal$20 wage, per hour39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalGasification System, Piping WoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Moderate Gas, Steam & Elect3 of 37/20/2007344
Syngas → steam boiler → cannery steamSyngas → village buildings, homes for heatElectricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW)StructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home 1000 14843 1237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units) 70000 1038977 86581 $11,831 $141,972School 8000 118740 9895$1,239$14,868Clinic 4000 59370 4948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 53433 4453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 23748 1979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 41559 3463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings 20000 296850 24738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences 90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery -- 664172 221391$17,684$53,051Scenario Total -- 2000000 -- $32,728 $233,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operationLarge Gas & ElectCurrent Electricity ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Large Gas & Elect1 of 37/20/2007345
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalLarge Gas & ElectPower Required, MMBtu/hrEnergy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per year0.07 65591 $1,772 $1,167 $1174.6 4550 41335 $124,006 $81,667 $8,1670.52 5204724 $14,172 $9,333 $9330.26 2602362 $7,086 $4,667 $4670.23 2342126 $6,377 $4,200 $4200.10 104945 $2,834 $1,867 $1870.18 1821653 $4,960 $3,267 $3271.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $23,333 $2,3335.9 5850 53146$159,437 $105,000 $10,5004.5 3238 25000$75,000-- --5.9 9088 78146 $234,437 $105,000 $10,500Heating Factors $468,01565 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$1.17 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg90% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg80% Gasification system efficiency for gas production$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$3,100 Installed and shipped gas piping to multiple homes/buildings, 100 ft guess0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpCurrent Heating Conditions Gas Boiler/FurnaceBuilding Heat RequirementsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Large Gas & Elect2 of 37/20/2007346
StructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalLarge Gas & ElectEst. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings$11,637$1,16425 $1,351 $228 $2,940 $860$814,613 $81,4611719 $94,561 $15,973 $205,807 $60,171$59,264$5,926196 $10,807 $1,825 $20,137 $8,903$29,632$2,96398 $5,403 $913 $10,069 $4,886$26,669$2,66788 $4,863 $821 $9,062 $4,405$11,853$1,18539 $2,161 $365 $4,027 $2,003$20,743$2,07469 $3,782 $639 $7,048 $3,445$148,161 $14,816491 $27,017 $4,564 $50,344 $23,642$962,774 $96,277 2211 $121,578 $20,537 $256,151 $83,813$310,926$31,093 1100 $60,476 $10,215 $105,395 $22,657$1,273,700 $127,370 3310 $182,054$30,752 $361,546$106,470Electricity Factors Chipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimate Company West Salem Machinery260 kW peak Model 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh 12 tons/hr, rated$870,000 Installed capital for 300kW, 6MMBtu system 550 Engine hp, avg0.9 MMBtu/hr output required for electricity $250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production $10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, peak (260kW)2.6 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (130kW) 410 Electricity, kW4660 hrs/yr peak 276 Hours operation4100 hrs/yr low $30,362 Annual Utility Cost35017 MMBtu/yr for electricity $67.37 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton2456 Wood required, tons/yrOperational Costs: Ash removal$20 wage, per hour39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalGasification System, Piping WoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Large Gas & Elect3 of 37/20/2007347
High-Power Electricity, HeatElectricity generation (3-phase, 560 kW) → heatStructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home1000 148431237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units)70000 103897786581 $11,831 $141,972School8000 1187409895$1,239$14,868Clinic4000 593704948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 534334453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 237481979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 415593463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings20000 29685024738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery--996259 332086$42,684$128,051Scenario Total--2332086--$57,728 $308,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operationCurrent Electricity ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-High-Power Electricity, Heat1 of 37/20/2007348
High-Power Electricity, HeatStructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalPower Required, Btu/hrPower Required, kWEnergy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per year65000 19 65 591 $1,772 $750 $754550000 1333 4550 41335 $124,006 $52,500 $5,250520000 152 520 4724 $14,172 $6,000 $60026000076 260 2362 $7,086 $3,000 $30023400069 234 2126 $6,377 $2,700 $27010400030 104 945 $2,834 $1,200 $12018200053 182 1653 $4,960 $2,100 $2101300000 381 1300 11810 $35,430 $15,000 $1,5005850000 1714 5850 53146$159,437 $67,500 $6,750--------------5850000 1714 5850 53146 $159,437 $67,500 $6,750Heating Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$0.75 per sqft, guess, adjusted for increase shipping to AK85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg87% Gas boiler/furnace efficency, avg0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpCurrent Heating Conditions Electric Boiler/FurnaceBuilding Heat RequirementsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-High-Power Electricity, Heat2 of 37/20/2007349
High-Power Electricity, HeatStructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalEst. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings$16,751$1,675 45 $2,459 $289 $4,589($789)$1,172,579 $117,2583129 $172,100 $20,257 $321,238($55,259)$134,009$13,401 358 $19,669 $2,315 $36,713($7,673)$67,004$6,700 179 $9,834 $1,158 $18,356($3,402)$60,304$6,030 161 $8,851 $1,042 $16,521($3,054)$26,802$2,680 72 $3,934 $463 $7,343($1,312)$46,903$4,690 125 $6,884 $810 $12,850($2,357)$335,022 $33,502894 $49,172 $5,788 $91,782($17,797)$1,507,601 $150,760 4023 $221,272 $26,044 $413,020($73,056)$492,399$49,240 1314 $72,270 $8,506 $132,692($4,641)$2,000,000 $200,000 5337 $293,542 $34,551 $545,712($77,697)Electricity Factors Chipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimate Company West Salem Machinery1714 kW peak Model 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh 12 tons/hr, rated$2,000,000 Installed capital for 2.0MW system 550 Engine hp, avg5.9 MMBtu/hr output required $250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)34 MMBtu/hr input needed, heating peak (1.7MW)11 MMBtu/hr input needed, cannery peak (560kW)410 Electricity, kW5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, alt. peak (260kW)445 Hours operation2.0 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (100kW)$34,161 Annual Utility Cost1000 hrs/yr heating peak$63.35 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton593 hrs/yr cannery peak6422 hrs/yr alternate peakOperational Costs: Ash removal745 hrs/yr low$20 wage, per hour76086 MMBtu/yr39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalGasification SystemWoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-High-Power Electricity, Heat3 of 37/20/2007350
High-Power ElectricityElectricity generation (3-phase, 560 kW) StructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home 1000 14843 1237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units) 70000 1038977 86581 $11,831 $141,972School 8000 118740 9895$1,239$14,868Clinic 4000 59370 4948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 53433 4453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 23748 1979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 41559 3463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings 20000 296850 24738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences 90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery -- 996259 332086$42,684$128,051Scenario Total -- 2332086 -- $57,728 $308,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operation0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpCurrent ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-High-Power Electricity1 of 27/20/2007351
High-Power ElectricityStructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalEst. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings-- --19 $1,022 $191 $1,836 $193-- -- 1302 $71,508 $13,377 $128,487 $13,485-- --149 $8,172 $1,529 $14,684 $184-- --74 $4,086 $764 $7,342 $526-- --67 $3,678 $688 $6,608 $482-- --30 $1,634 $306 $2,937 $259-- --52 $2,860 $535 $5,139 $393-- -- 372 $20,431 $3,822 $36,711 $1,845-- --1674 $91,938 $17,199 $165,197 $15,330-- --1249 $68,568 $12,827 $123,204 $4,847$870,000 $87,000 2923 $160,506 $30,026 $288,401 $20,177Factors Chipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimate Company West Salem Machinery560 kW peak Model 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh 12 tons/hr, rated$870,000 Installed capital for 600kW system 550 Engine hp, avg1.9 MMBtu/hr output required $250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production $10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)11 MMBtu/hr input needed, peak (560kW)5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, alt. peak (260kW) 410 Electricity, kW2.6 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (130kW) 244 Hours operation593 hrs/yr peak $29,636 Annual Utility Cost5247 hrs/yr alternate peak $68.78 Woodchip Product Cost, per ton2920 hrs/yr low41666 MMBtu/yr Operational Costs: Ash removal$20 wage, per hour39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalGasification System WoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-High-Power Electricity2 of 27/20/2007352
Low-Power ElectricityElectricity generation (1-phase, 260 kW) StructureBuilding Area, sq.ftEst. Electricity Usage, kWh/yrEst. Avg. Electricity Usage, kWh/mthEst. Avg. Electricity Cost, per monthEst. Annual Electricity CostAverage Home1000 148431237$169$2,028Total Residential (70 units)70000 103897786581 $11,831 $141,972School8000 1187409895$1,239$14,868Clinic4000 593704948$656$7,869Tribal council building 3600 534334453$591$7,090Native corporation office 1600 237481979$266$3,196Grocery store 2800 415593463$461$5,532Total Village Buildings20000 29685024738 $3,213 $38,555Total Village Buildings & Residences90000 1335827.16 111319 $15,044 $180,527Cannery--664172 221391$17,684$53,051Scenario Total--2000000 --$32,728 $233,579Cannery Electricity Usage Calculations25000 gal diesel annually3238 MMBtu/yr diesel, 8hr-day35% Diesel generator efficiency332086 kWh/yr diesel, 8hr-day664172 kWh/yr electricity, 16hr-evening/night3 mth/yr operation0.7457 kW/hp2544 Btu/hr per hpCurrent ConditionsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Low-Power Electricity1 of 27/20/2007353
Low-Power ElectricityStructureAverage HomeTotal Residential (70 units)SchoolClinicTribal council building Native corporation office Grocery store Total Village BuildingsTotal Village Buildings & ResidencesCanneryScenario TotalEst. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearEst. Wood, tons/yrEst. Wood Cost/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrAnnual Electricity CostEst. Annual Savings----18 $1,001 $216 $1,699 $329----1276 $70,074 $15,144 $118,917 $23,055----146 $8,008 $1,731 $13,591 $1,278----73 $4,004 $865 $6,795 $1,073----66 $3,604 $779 $6,116 $974----29 $1,602 $346 $2,718 $478----51 $2,803 $606 $4,757 $776----365 $20,021 $4,327 $33,976 $4,579----1641 $90,095 $19,471 $152,893 $27,634----816 $44,795 $9,681 $76,018($22,967)$540,000 $54,000 2456 $134,890 $29,152 $228,912 $4,667FactorsChipper/Grinder Calculations1.2 KWh/mth/sq.ft estimateCompany West Salem Machinery260 kW peakModel 3456-Brute (electric stationary)3412 Btu/kWh12 tons/hr, rated$540,000 Installed capital for 300kW system550 Engine hp, avg0.9 MMBtu/hr output required $250,000 Estimated delivered capital17% Gasification efficiency for electricity production$10,870 Amortized Capital (23-yr service life)5.2 MMBtu/hr input needed, peak (260kW)2.6 MMBtu/hr input needed, low (130kW)410 Electricity, kW4660 hrs/yr peak205 Hours operation4100 hrs/yr low$28,762 Annual Utility Cost35017 MMBtu/yr$71.05 Woodchip Product Cost, per tonOperational Costs: Ash removal$20 wage, per hour39 wks/yr heat required, avg1 ash removals/wk, avg30 min/removal from base wood amount, avg$390 per year ash removalGasification SystemWoodchipsAppendix E.4 Gasification Scenarios-Low-Power Electricity2 of 27/20/2007354
Blend → steam boiler → cannery steamSteam heat → village buildingsStructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $172,474 $17,247Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $429,526 $42,953Scenario Total200004.54538 36810$110,430 $602,000 $60,200Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$250,000 Installed capital for fish oil processing system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost$46,000 Piping installation to village buildings, 100 ft$1,000 Heat exchanger, guess per 1000 sq. ft. heat required 85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg50% Fish oil-diesel blendModerate Steam (Oil)Building Heat RequirementsCurrent Conditions Fish Oil System, PipingAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Moderate Steam1 of 27/20/2007355
StructureClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalModerate Steam (Oil)Est. gal/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrEst. Blend, galAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings6032 $507 12065 $35,852($422)15023 $1,263 30046 $89,285($14,285)21056$1,77042111$125,137($14,707)Portable Demonstration Unit (AEA-Precision Energy)50 tons/day oil capability2.08 tons/hr, assuming 24-hr/day10% percent oil required for processing23395 gal/yr produced for operating42 hours/yr operating30 kW processing requirements$1,770 annual electricity cost78 ton/yr oil25% yield313 ton fish/yr50% BlendFish OilAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Moderate Steam2 of 27/20/2007356
Blend → steam boiler → cannery steamBlend → village buildings for heatStructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $74,490 $7,449Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $185,510 $18,551Scenario Total200004.54538 36810$110,430 $260,000 $26,000Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$250,000 Installed capital for fish oil processing system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg50% Fish oil-diesel blendModerate Oil & SteamBuilding Heat RequirementsCurrent Conditions Fish Oil System, PipingAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Moderate Oil & Steam1 of 27/20/2007357
StructureClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalModerate Oil & SteamEst. gal/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrEst. Blend, galAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings6032 $507 12065 $26,054 $9,37715023 $1,263 30046 $64,883$10,11721056$1,77042111$90,937 $19,493Portable Demonstration Unit (AEA-Precision Energy)50 tons/day oil capability2.08 tons/hr, assuming 24-hr/day10% percent oil required for processing23395 gal/yr produced for operating42 hours/yr operating30 kW processing requirements$1,770 annual electricity cost78 ton/yr oil25% yield313 ton fish/yr50% BlendFish OilAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Moderate Oil & Steam2 of 27/20/2007358
Blend → steam boiler → cannery steamBlend → village buildings, homes for heatStructureHeating Area, sq.ftPower Required, MMBtu/hrAnnual Energy Usage, MMBtu/yrEst. Diesel, galAnnual Est. Heating Cost Est. CapitalAmtorized Capital, per yearResidential700004.6 455041335$124,006$130,179 $13,018Clinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery store20000 1.3 1300 11810 $35,430 $37,194 $3,719Cannery--4.53238 25000$75,000 $92,627$9,263Scenario Total200005.99088 78146 $234,437$260,000 $26,000Factors65 Btu/hr/sqft, guess1000 hr/yr heat required, guess$250,000 Installed capital for fish oil processing system$10,000 Boiler refurbishing cost85% Diesel boiler/furnace efficency, avg50% Fish oil-diesel blendLarge Oil & SteamBuilding Heat RequirementsCurrent Conditions Fish Oil System, PipingAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Large Oil & Steam1 of 27/20/2007359
StructureResidentialClinic, Tribal council building, Native corporation office, School, Grocery storeCanneryScenario TotalLarge Oil & SteamEst. gal/yrEst. Oper. Cost/yrEst. Blend, galAnnual Heating CostEst. Annual Savings21114 $921 42227 $77,280 $46,7276032 $263 12065 $22,080 $13,35115023 $655 30046 $54,987$20,01342169$1,83984339 $154,347 $80,090Portable Demonstration Unit (AEA-Precision Energy)50 tons/day oil capability2.08 tons/hr, assuming 24-hr/day10% percent oil required for processing46855 gal/yr produced for operating84 hours/yr operating30 kW processing requirements$1,839 annual electricity cost157 ton/yr oil25% yield627 ton fish/yr50% BlendFish OilAppendix E.5 Fish Oil Scenarios-Large Oil & Steam2 of 27/20/2007360
APPENDIX F
STATE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
361
ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Title 18. Environmental Conservation
Chapter 50. Air Quality Control
Section 10. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 15. Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions
Section 55. Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment
Section 75. Wood-Fired Heating Device Visible Emission Standards
362
18 AAC 50.010. Ambient Air Quality Standards
The standards for concentrations of air pollutants in the ambient air, measured or
predicted by an analytical method described in 18 AAC 50.215, are established as
follows:
(1) for PM-10:
(A) expected annual arithmetic mean of 50 micrograms per cubic meter; and
(B) 24-hour average of 150 micrograms per cubic meter, with this standard being attained
when the expected number of days in a calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 micrograms per cubic meter is less than or equal to 1 day;
(2) for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide:
(A) annual arithmetic mean of 80 micrograms per cubic meter;
(B) 24-hour average of 365 micrograms per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than
once each year; and
(C) 3-hour average of 1300 micrograms per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than
once each year;
(3) for carbon monoxide:
(A) 8-hour average of 10 milligrams per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once
each year; and
(B) 1-hour average of 40 milligrams per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once
each year;
(4) for ozone: 1-hour average of 235 micrograms per cubic meter, with this standard
being attained when the expected number of days in a calendar year with a minimum
hourly average concentration above 235 micrograms per cubic meter is less than or equal
to 1 day;
(5) for nitrogen dioxide: annual arithmetic mean of 100 micrograms per cubic meter;
(6) for lead: quarterly arithmetic mean of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter;
(7) for reduced sulfur compounds, expressed as sulfur dioxide: 30-minute average of 50
micrograms per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once each year; and
(8) for ammonia: 2.1 milligrams per cubic meter, averaged over any consecutive 8 hours
not to be exceeded more than once each year.
363
History: Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 10/1/2004, Register
171
Authority: AS 46.03.020
AS 46.14.010
AS 46.14.030
Sec. 30, Ch. 74,
SLA 1993
364
18 AAC 50.015. Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions
(a) To identify an area by its air quality, all geographic areas in the state are designated
by the federal administrator as "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassifiable." An
area is designated "attainment" for a particular air pollutant if its air quality meets the
ambient air quality standard for that air pollutant. If air quality does not meet the ambient
standard for a particular air pollutant, that area is designated "nonattainment" for that air
pollutant. If there is insufficient information to classify an area as attainment or
nonattainment for a particular air pollutant, the area is designated "unclassifiable" for that
air pollutant.
(b) The following areas have been designated by the federal administrator as
"nonattainment" for the specified air pollutants:
(1) for carbon monoxide:
(A) repealed 2/20/2004;
(B) repealed 6/24/2004;
(2) for PM-10:
(A) Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau; and
(B) Eagle River area of Anchorage.
(c) To establish standards for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality,
geographic areas in the state are
(1) divided into four "air quality control regions" as follows:
(A) Cook Inlet Intrastate Air Quality Control Region;
(B) Northern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region;
(C) South Central Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region; and
(D) Southeast Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region; and
(2) classified as shown in Table 1 in this subsection for each air pollutant for which the
area is designated "unclassifiable" or "attainment."
365
Table 1 Air Quality Classifications
Classification Geographic Area
Denali National Park including the Denali Wilderness but excluding the
Denali National Preserve Bering Sea
National Wildlife Refuge designated as a National Wilderness Area
Simeon of National Wildlife Refuge designated as a National Wilderness Area
Class I areas
Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge designated as a National Wilderness Area
Class II areas All other geographic areas in Alaska not classified as Class I or Class III
Class III area No areas in Alaska
(d) The following areas are subject to maintenance plan requirements for carbon
monoxide, as required under 42 U.S.C. 7505a, and as adopted by reference in 18 AAC
50.030 as part of the state air control plan:
(1) the Municipality of Anchorage;
(2) Fairbanks and North Pole urban area.
History: Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 2/20/2004, Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register
170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171
Authority: AS 46.03.020
AS 46.14.010
AS 46.14.030
Note: The nonattainment area boundaries, the air quality control region boundaries, and
the Class I area boundaries are depicted on maps in the state air quality control plan
adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.030. Air quality control region and nonattainment
area boundaries are described in 40 C.F.R. 81, as revised as of July 1, 2003.
366
18 AAC 50.055. Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment
(a) Visible emissions, excluding condensed water vapor, from an industrial process or
fuel-burning equipment may not reduce visibility through the exhaust effluent by
(1) more than 20 percent averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes, except as provided in
(2) - (9) of this subsection;
(2) more than 30 percent averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for fuel-burning
equipment in operation before November 1, 1982, and using more than 20 percent
woodwaste as fuel;
(3) more than 55 percent for a urea prilling tower in operation before July 1, 1972,
averaged over any six consecutive minutes, nor more than 40 percent, based on a daily
24-hour average of 5-second measurements by continuous opacity monitoring
instrumentation approved by the department and that conforms to Performance
Specification Number 1 in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix B, adopted by reference in 18
AAC 50.040;
(4) 20 percent or greater averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for an asphalt plant
constructed or modified after June 11, 1973;
(5) 20 percent or greater averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for process emissions,
other than from a pneumatic cleaner, at a coal preparation plant constructed or modified
after November 1, 1982;
(6) 10 percent or greater averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for a pneumatic
cleaner constructed or modified at a coal preparation plant after November 1, 1982;
(7) 10 percent or greater averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for process emissions,
other than from a kiln, at a portland cement plant constructed or modified after November
1, 1982;
(8) 20 percent or greater averaged over any 6 consecutive minutes for a kiln constructed
or modified at a portland cement plant after November 1, 1982; and
(9) more than 20 percent for more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour, except for an additional
3 minutes in any 1 hour for a coal burning boiler that began operation before August 17,
1971, if
(A) the visible emissions are caused by startup, shutdown, soot-blowing, grate cleaning,
or other routine maintenance specified in an operating permit issued under this chapter;
(B) the owner or operator of the boiler monitors visible emissions by continuous opacity
monitoring instrumentation that
367
(i) conforms to Performance Specification 1 in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix B, adopted
by reference in 18 AAC 50.040; and
(ii) completes one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 15-second period;
(C) the owner or operator of the boiler provides the department with a demonstration that
the particulate matter emissions from the boiler allowed by this opacity limit will not
cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards for PM-10 in 18
AAC 50.010, or cause the maximum allowable increases for PM-10 in 18 AAC 50.020 to
be exceeded; and
(D) the federal administrator approves a facility-specific revision to the state
implementation plan, required under 42 U.S.C. 7410, authorizing the application of this
opacity limit instead of the opacity limit otherwise applicable under this section.
(b) Particulate matter emitted from an industrial process or fuel-burning equipment may
not exceed, per cubic foot of exhaust gas corrected to standard conditions and averaged
over 3 hours,
(1) 0.05 grains, except as provided in (2) – (6) of this subsection, (d) – (f) of this section,
and 18 AAC 50.060;
(2) 0.1 grains for a steam-generating plant fueled by
(A) coal, and in operation before July 1, 1972;
(B) coal, and rated less than 250 million Btu per hour heat input; or
(C) municipal wastes;
(3) 0.1 grains for an industrial process in operation before July 1, 1972, except as
provided in (6) of this subsection;
(4) 0.15 grains for fuel-burning equipment in operation before November 1, 1982, and
using more than 20 percent woodwaste as fuel;
(5) 0.04 grains for an asphalt plant constructed or modified after June 11, 1973; or
(6) 0.04 grains for a urea prilling tower.
(c) Sulfur-compound emissions, expressed as sulfur dioxide, from an industrial process or
from fuel-burning equipment may not exceed 500 ppm averaged over a period of 3 hours,
except as provided in (d) – (f) of this section and 18 AAC 50.060.
(d) At a petroleum refinery, emissions from the following sources, constructed or
modified after November 1, 1982, may not exceed the following:
368
(1) for a catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator
(A) 1.0 kilogram of particulate matter per 1,000 kilograms of coke burnoff;
(B) 43.0 additional grams of particulate matter per million joules supplemental heat
attributable to fuels burned in a catalyst regenerator waste heat boiler; and
(C) 500 ppm carbon monoxide by volume of exhaust gas;
(2) for a sulfur recovery plant rated at more than 20 long tons per day
(A) 250 ppm sulfur dioxide at zero percent oxygen on a dry basis; or
(B) 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide and a total of 300 ppm reduced sulfur compounds,
expressed as sulfur dioxide, at zero percent oxygen on a dry basis, if the air pollutants are
not oxidized before release to the atmosphere; and
(3) for fuel-burning equipment, a sulfur dioxide concentration, averaged over three hours,
equal to whichever of the following is applicable:
(A) for equipment burning only fuel gas, the concentration of uncontrolled emissions that
would result from burning fuel gas containing 230 milligrams hydrogen sulfide per dry
standard cubic meter;
(B) for fuel-burning equipment that does not burn fuel gas, 500 ppm;
(C) for fuel-burning equipment that burns a combination of fuel gas and other fuels, a
concentration based on the allowable emissions in (A) and (B) of this paragraph, prorated
by the proportion of fuel gas and other fuels to the total fuel burned in the equipment.
(e) At a coal preparation plant, emissions from the following sources, if constructed or
modified after November 1, 1982, may not exceed the following:
(1) for a thermal drying unit, 70 milligrams of particulate matter per cubic meter of
exhaust gas at standard conditions; and
(2) for a pneumatic coal-cleaning unit, 40 milligrams of particulate matter per cubic
meter of exhaust gas at standard conditions.
(f) At a portland cement plant, emissions from the following sources, if constructed or
modified after November 1, 1982, may not exceed the following:
(1) for a clinker cooler, 0.050 kilograms of particulate matter per 1,000 kilograms of feed
on a dry basis to the kiln; and
369
(2) for a kiln, 0.15 kilograms of particulate matter per 1,000 kilograms of feed on a dry
basis.
(g) Release of materials other than process emissions, products of combustion, or
materials introduced to control pollutant emissions from a stack at a stationary source
constructed or modified after November 1, 1982, is prohibited except as authorized by a
construction permit, Title V permit, or air quality control permit issued before October 1,
2004.
History: Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 11/4/99, Register 152;
am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 10/1/2004, Register 171
Authority: AS 46.03.020
AS 46.14.010
AS 46.14.020
AS 46.14.030
Sec. 30, Ch. 74
SLA 1993
370
18 AAC 50.075. Wood-Fired Heating Device Visible Emission Standards
(a) A person may not operate a wood-fired heating device in a manner that causes
(1) black smoke; or
(2) visible emissions that exceed 50 percent opacity for more than 15 minutes in any 1
hour in an area for which an air quality advisory is in effect under 18 AAC 50.245.
(b) A person may not operate a wood-fired heating device in an area for which the
department has declared an air quality episode under 18 AAC 50.245.
(c) In the Mendenhall Valley wood smoke control area identified in 18 AAC 50.025(b) ,
a person may not violate or cause a violation of a provision of the Code of the City and
Borough of Juneau, Alaska, Chapter 36.40, as amended by the provisions of the
Ordinance of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, Serial No. 91-52, adopted by
reference in 18 AAC 50.030.
History: Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141
Authority: AS 46.03.020
AS 46.14.010
AS 46.14.020
AS 46.14.030
Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA
1993
371