Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Hydaburg Biomass Feas Final_112213-2
Hydaburg, Alaska Biomass Heat Feasibility Study Prepared for: Haida Corporation November 11, 2013 Prepared by: Energy Action Wynne Auld Forest & Land Management, Inc. Clare E. Doig, CF, ACF With support from: Alaska Village Initiatives 1231 W. Northern Lights #578 Anchorage, AK 99503 CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Community Information ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Community Meeting & Energy Planning ................................................................................................. 7 5.0 Forest Resources of the Hydaburg Area ................................................................................................. 8 5.1 Wood Fuel Alternatives for Hydaburg .................................................................................................... 9 6.0 Project Buildings ................................................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Building Energy Use & Cost ................................................................................................................... 14 6.2 Biomass Boiler Sizing ............................................................................................................................. 14 6.3 Biomass Energy Use & Cost .................................................................................................................. 15 7.0 Project Options ..................................................................................................................................... 15 8.0 Summary of Results .............................................................................................................................. 17 8.0 Project Analysis: ANB Hall ..................................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Project Analysis: Boys & Girls Club ....................................................................................................... 24 10.0 Project Analysis: VPSO Building .......................................................................................................... 30 11.0 Project Analysis: Hydaburg City School District .................................................................................. 36 12.0 Hydaburg MUF Building (in planning phase) ...................................................................................... 42 11. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 43 APPENDIX A – Site Photos APPENDIX B – Buildings not Surveyed APPENDIX C – Comprehensive Energy Audit for Hydaburg Head Start APPENDIX D -- LED Light Payback Chart ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals prepared the Hydaburg Biomass Heat Feasibility Study Wynne Auld – Energy Action, LLC Clare E. Doig, ACF, CF – Forest & Land Management Inc. Assistance and guidance was provided by: Lisa Lang, Hydaburg Corporation Doreen Witwer, Hydaburg Cooperative Association Anthony Christiansen, City of Hydaburg Natasha Peele, City of Hydaburg Lauren Burch, Hydaburg City School District Page 4 of 43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a community-wide biomass assessment prepared for the community of Hydaburg. The project scope was determined by community input, as well as specific building owner interest. The report contains biomass resource assessment and feasibility analysis for specific biomass heat projects. Conservation and efficiency are usually more effective cost-saving energy measures than renewable energy projects, including biomass heat. Although energy efficiency analysis is outside the scope of this report, we have developed a set of energy efficiency recommendations and resources that may be helpful to the community of Hydaburg. Prior to further considering biomass, we recommend: 1. Develop a community strategic energy plan based on community priorities, using affordability as the starting point. Consolidation of City, Corporation, and Tribe offices may be a preferred strategy. 2. Conduct energy audits for all priority community buildings, and implement key efficiency measures. Key measures that are known to have fast payback include set-back thermostats, lighting controls, and lighting upgrades. 3. Develop an energy policy and establish an Energy Conservation Manager to provide energy conservation services to all community organizations. Such Managers have been found to be effective in reducing energy-related building operating costs. This Manager can track energy related operating costs, help owners make informed decisions about operating schedules and facility usage, and implement efficiency measures. 1 4. Pool operator training dollars and professional capacity among community organizations by sharing (an) operator(s). It appears that the community of Hydaburg has significant existing local and regional human resources upon which to draw. Jess Dilts, the director of housing at Hydaburg Cooperative Association, serves as a board member for the Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Jess has been instrumental in developing energy efficient housing prototypes for the Habitat Congress Building America program. Some of the weatherization retrofits he has directed have decreased building energy use by 30 – 50%. Jess has Weatherization Tech II and III certification and has considered becoming a certified energy rater. Mayor Anthony Christianson is currently conducting a home energy survey and has begun upgrading all street lights to LEDs. Certified energy raters are based in Sitka and Juneau. The following are a list of known resources to assist the community of Hydaburg in enacting the above recommendations: 1. Comprehensive Energy Audit for Hydaburg Head Start – included as Appendix C 2. LED light payback chart – included as Appendix D 3. Energy Efficiency Toolkit Loan Program offers a toolkit for checkout, to be mailed to anywhere in Alaska. The tools available are: watt meters, light meters, ballast checker, occupancy light sensor and data loggers, and temperature and humidity data loggers. <http://www.akenergyauthority.org/eec-toolloankit.html> 4. Funding for community energy planning and project implementation – US DOE START Program, <http://energy.gov/indianenergy/resources/start-program/alaska-start> 5. Funding for energy efficiency – Alaska Energy Authority Village Energy Efficiency Program, http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programsalternativeVEEP.html 1 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, A White Paper on Energy Use in Alaska’s Public Buildings (October 29, 2012), 3. Page 5 of 43 With regard to biomass heat, the resource assessment recommends that harvest on Haida Corporation lands be limited to 10 to 15 acres per year, which would produce 200 to 300 cords of firewood. This volume would more than supply all projects examined in the report, excluding the Hydaburg City Schools project. We recommend the Hydaburg City Schools project source semi-dry craft wood chips from Viking Lumber Mills in Klawock. Utilizing the existing chipping and drying infrastructure in Klawock is highly recommended for a project of this scale. Projects have been modeled sourcing local cordwood at the prevailing market price of $250/cord, although, an entrepreneur in Thorne Bay, who is manufacturing firewood using a firewood processor, is selling firewood for $155/cord. Semi-dry craft chips are available delivered to Hydaburg for an estimated $156/ton (20% moisture content), the equivalent of $1.61/ gallon. The report assesses five potential biomass projects: Project A: Cordwood heater serving the ANB Hall Project B: Cordwood stove serving the Boys & Girls Club Project C: Cordwood stove serving the VPSO building Project D: Wood chip boiler serving the Hydaburg City School District High School, Elementary School, and Gymnasium Project E: Cordwood heater serving the Hydaburg MUF building (in the planning phase) Of the projects evaluated, Projects B & C, serving the Boys & Girls Club and VPSO building, are considered economically feasible. Project D, serving the Hydaburg City Schools is marginally feasible, with a benefit / cost ratio of 1.01. Project A, serving the ANB Hall, is not feasible at this time. Project E, serving the MUF building (planning phase) was not economically evaluated because there are no design parameters associated with the future project. However, an estimate of probable costs for a given project scope was provided. In addition to the aforementioned energy efficiency measures, we recommend the following steps to develop biomass heat in Hydaburg: 1. Install wood stoves in the Boys & Girls Club and VPSO buildings, in addition to implementing recommended energy efficiency measures (Appendix C). 2. Consider biomass heat in a future MUF building (planning phase). 3. Monitor local biomass fuel and fuel oil prices for ongoing consideration of a woodchip energy project serving the Hydaburg Schools. Page 6 of 43 1.0 INTRODUCTION Energy Action, LLC, in collaboration with Forest & Land Management Inc, was retained by Alaska Village Initiatives to assess the feasibility of biomass heat for the community of Hydaburg. The scope of the project was determined by community input and technical factors. Biomass heat is a well-established energy source on Prince of Wales Island for both commercial and residential buildings. Several schools in the Southeast Island School District, as well as the City of Craig Pool, are heated by commercial biomass energy systems. Community input was offered during a community meeting, held October 8, 2013. Information on buildings’ heating systems was collected during site visits October 7 – 9, with some information and data provided by building managers. Groundwork for the resource assessment was completed during the same site visit, using on-the-ground observations. This analysis assumes that all existing heat systems stay in place, with biomass offsetting a certain percentage of load. Cordwood systems were estimated to offset 80% of load, while the wood chip system was estimated to offset 90% of load. The specific fuel determined to be available to the projects is cordwood (15.3 MMBTU/ cord) at $250/cord and semi-dried wood chips (10.5 MMBTU/ ton) at $156/ton delivered. The specific buildings surveyed for biomass heat were the ANB Hall, Boys and Girls Club, VPSO building, Hydaburg City School buildings. The City Hall was not included in the study due to its deteriorated condition due to age and water leaks. 2.0 OBJECTIVE The community of Hydaburg seeks to consider possibilities for reducing energy cost and creating other local benefits through utilization of local renewable wood fuels. This report examines the feasibility of community-scale biomass heat projects in Hydaburg. 3.0 COMMUNITY INFORMATION Hydaburg is located on the west side of Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. Its history began with the relocation of three Haida villages to one location in the early 1900’s in order to support a school for the children of the three Native villages. The residents, which are predominantly Natives of Haida descent, actively pursue their subsistence life-style, and actively participate in the preservation and promotion of their cultural heritage. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Hydaburg was 376 people, with a total of 139 housing units. The community has four key entities – Haida Corporation (the Native Village Corporation), City of Hydaburg, Hydaburg Cooperative Association (the Tribal Government), and the Hydaburg City School District. Page 7 of 43 The area is a characterized by a cool, moist, maritime climate. Summer temperatures range from 49º to 63 °F; winter temperatures range from 32º to 42 °F. Average annual precipitation is 120 inches, with 40 inches of snow. Temperatures range between 32º and 63 °F. The community logs about 7,600 heating degree days per year2. A two-lane paved State highway connects Hydaburg with the ferry terminal at Hollis, which links the community to Ketchikan, the regional transportation hub and port, through which much of the materials and supplies consumed in Hydaburg pass. The distance to Hollis is thirty-two miles. The ferry ride between Hollis and Ketchikan is approximately three and one-half hours. Distances from Hydaburg to other communities on the Island are: Craig – 35 miles, Klawock -30 miles, and Thorne Bay – 63 miles. Prince of Wales Island has an extensive history with commercial and industrial timber harvesting. Most of the Island is publically owned, managed by the Tongass National Forest. The productivity of its temperate rain forests is relatively high; with four primary softwood species of trees: western hemlock, Sitka spruce, western red cedar, and Alaska yellow cedar. 4.0 COMMUNITY MEETING & ENERGY PLANNING A community meeting was held to learn from Hydaburg community members about preferences, technical conditions, and knowledge pertinent to a biomass energy project. The meeting was an agenda item at the United Front meeting, which is formed by four (4) key entities – Haida Corporation, City of Hydaburg, Hydaburg Cooperative Association, and the Hydaburg City School District. The United Front was formed to promote economic development and address land protection issues in Hydaburg. Ten community members were present, which included representatives of the entities mentioned above, as well as the general public. Key information that emerged from the meeting follows. There is a strong awareness of the role energy plays in the current and future sustainability of the community. The City Mayor expressed intent to create a community energy plan. Energy audits have been completed for two City buildings – the Firehall and Boys & Girls Club. 2 BizEE Degree Days, www.degreedays.net (October 1, 2013) Figure 1: Community of Hydaburg Page 8 of 43 Additionally, an energy audit of street lights was completed, and the City has started to install LED lights in its boat harbor and streets. A home energy survey is underway to develop a community emissions inventory and draft an air quality plan, thanks to an EPA IGAP grant. The survey will inventory home heating fuel volumes and types (wood, electric, fossil fuel). The community as a whole has been transition back to wood stoves for home heating3. There is a strong awareness of structural and energy efficiency deficiencies in community buildings, especially the City Hall and ANB Hall. The HCA and Corporation Office buildings, which are newer, are more energy efficient than the City Hall and Boys and Girls Club. Some planning is underway to house the United Front entities in a single building, i.e. a multi- purpose building. There is a strong consensus of the need for economic development and growth in Hydaburg. The community is actively pursuing economic development through improvement of infrastructure to support fisheries, tourism and local small business. Representatives of the United Front expressed a strong desire to use local wood fuels for the creation of jobs. Representatives of the United Front also expressed the potential of collaboration to operate and maintain multiple biomass energy units (i.e. cordwood boilers). A single person could operate and maintain multiple boilers on a service circuit to minimize operating costs. There is existing local portable sawmill equipment, which community members suggested would be a good asset for in-kind contributions to energy projects. This effort would follow in the footsteps of the totem carving shed, which was recently erected using local materials, in-kind labor, and a small grant ($20,000) from the Rasmusson Foundation. There may be another small sawmill purchased for milling local building materials and crafts. There was some expressed interest in appropriately-scaled harvesting and processing equipment, such as a firewood processor, to aid in community-scale biomass energy development There was some discussion of the availability of funding for these types of projects 5.0 FOREST RESOURCES OF THE HYDABURG AREA Haida Corporation owns approximately 5,270 acres of land within three miles of the community, which contains muskegs, scrub timber, and areas of second growth trees resulting from commercial harvest operations in the period 1982 to 1995. To the east and north, the lands are owned by Sealaska Corporation (the Native regional corporation) and the U.S. Forest Service. Due to prior commercial timber harvest, the areas formerly occupied by commercial timber stands have mostly been harvested and are currently in young growth timber less than 35 years old. 3 Anthony Christianson, stated in the public meeting, October 8, 2013. Page 9 of 43 5.1 WOOD FUEL ALTERNATIVES FOR HYDABURG The alternatives for wood energy fuels in this area include cordwood (firewood), green wood chips, dried wood chips, and pellets. The locally available products (cordwood and green wood chips) would involve harvesting trees from areas that were not previously harvested due to the low commercial value of the trees – these areas are commonly referred to as “scrub” or “muskeg fringe” timber. While these areas can be harvested with conventional equipment, the economic viability will depend on careful planning, minimizing road construction, and maximum utilization of any “sawlog” quality logs that may be produced. In order to ensure sustainability of this resource, planting after harvest and future silvicultural treatments to control stocking levels will be necessary. There is some potential for increasing the available acreage for this type of harvest by acquiring harvesting rights from Sealaska Corporation, which also owns significant acreage in this area. These “scrub” timber areas typically contain Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Alaska yellow cedar, western red cedar, and lodgepole pine trees. Growing conditions are generally poor, therefore the resulting trees tend to be small, with high defect (rot), and often misshaped boles. As a rough estimate, harvest on Haida Corporation lands should be limited to 10 to 15 acres per year; this could yield 1,500 to 2,000 green tons per year (assuming chipping all wood harvested); or 200 to 300 cords per year of firewood (including all species); or 200 cords per year plus 5,000 to 10,000 board feet of small sawlogs (spruce, cedar). Figure 2: “Scrub” timber type in the vicinity of Hydaburg – contains spruce, hemlock, yellow cedar, red cedar, and lodgepole pine. Page 10 of 43 To produce significant amounts of wood fuel from local lands, the following production factors would need to be identified and in place: 1) a contractor to construct access roads and harvest the wood, 2) a chipper to chip the logs, tops and limbs, and/or 3) a firewood processor to cut and split logs into firewood. Currently there is a market for firewood harvested. Firewood is harvested from stands along the road system, logs left from right-of-way clearing, and logs occasionally delivered to Hydaburg by Sealaska Timber Corporation. A loaded pickup truck of firewood (approximately ½ cord) sells for $150 if it is hemlock and/or spruce; and $175 per pickup truck load if it is yellow cedar. In Thorne Bay, on the east side of Prince of Wales Island, an individual entrepreneur is operating a mechanical firewood processor and sells firewood for $155/cord. Other sources of wood fuel readily available to Hydaburg include: Viking Lumber Company in Klawock o Green chips – currently quoted at $50/Bone Dry Ton picked up at the mill. o Dry chips (in the near future) – $110/ ton (20% moisture content) picked up at the mill, for an estimated delivered price of $156 to the community of Hydaburg The delivered cost for chips will depend on 1) whether the chips are wet or dry, 2) size of truck, 3) total time for loading, unloading , and travel. Tongass Forest Products in Ketchikan. o Pellets for $275 per ton FOB Ketchikan Other sources of pellets o Current pellet sourcing on Prince of Wales Island suggests bagged pellets can be obtained for $375 per ton Delivery cost for pellets will, to a large part depend on whether an enterprise on Prince of Wales Island becomes a distributor on the Island, with suitable equipment for delivery to the storage container of the pellet customer. In summary, to maintain resource sustainability, Haida Corporation lands in the vicinity can likely supply sufficient firewood for 200 to 300 cords per year, at a cost of $175 to $300 per cord. This volume could be increased by arranging long term contracts for harvest on adjacent lands, such as those owned by Sealaska Corporation. Any local firewood or wood biomass harvest operation should be organized to achieve the highest value from the logs of any trees harvested – this would require cutting sawlog quality logs and selling them to a purchaser at a fair market value. For a project such as a chip fueled heating system for the Hydaburg Schools, the relatively small scale harvesting and production of green wood chips would most likely be 150%+ the price of dry or green chips purchased from Viking Lumber Company. Page 11 of 43 6.0 PROJECT BUILDINGS The buildings were selected for biomass heat evaluation dependent on building owner interest. Surveyed Buildings were: ANB Hall Boys & Girls Club VSPO Building Hydaburg City School High School, Elementary School, and Gymnasium Photos of surveyed buildings are included as Appendix A. The City Hall was surveyed but not considered for biomass, as described in Appendix B. Specifications of an MUF building (in the planning phase) that could be heated by biomass is also considered in this section of the report. ANB HALL The ANB Hall is an approximately 4,000 square foot stick frame building, built in the 1940s. The building is a very important community building, and is used regularly for bingo, weddings, funerals, meetings, and other community events. In 2012, the building used about 2,674 gallons of fuel oil #1. The building is heated by a 115,000 btu/hr Olsen HTL-100C oil furnace. The furnace is located on the street-level floor and distributes heat via ducts in a false ceiling along the balcony of the Hall. According to HCA personnel, this boiler is not able to keep the building at a comfortable temperature during winter cold spells. The ANB Hall also has a large daylight basement that is currently used to store tools and equipment. The room is approximately 19’ x 36,’ with a ceiling height of 7,’ although beams reduce the clearance to 6.5’ in some areas. The basement is accessible from a narrow gravel driveway which slopes down toward the water. The building is considered very inefficient. A recent weatherization training hosted in the ANB Hall could not successfully perform the blower door test due to the poor air sealing throughout the building.4 Using current fuel consumption figures, the EUI of the building was calculated to be about 180,000 btu/ sq. ft. The Hydaburg Cooperative Association seeks to weatherize the Hall. Reducing the building energy cost – either by weatherization, replacing the building, or rendering the building obsolete by holding community functions in a different community building – is the first step toward efficient heating. Implementing all cost-effective energy efficiency measures tend to reduce building energy cost by about 30%5. The potential for biomass heat cannot be accurately assessed for a highly inefficient building. 4 Jess Dilts, communication during site visit, October 9, 2013. 5 Katie Conway, email communication regarding general outcomes of village energy efficiency projects, October 7, 2013. Page 12 of 43 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB The Boys & Girls Club is about a 4,200 square foot stick frame building, built in the early 90s. The building is used a few hours a day for youth after school activities. The Club used about 1,330 gallons of fuel oil #1 in 2012 for space heating and domestic hot water. The majority of the building space is a single large room with game activities and tables. There is also a kitchen, office, closets, and boys and girls bathrooms. The building is heated by a 104,000 btu/hr Olsen MPL-120 oil furnace in fair condition. Hot air is dispensed throughout the building by floor vents. The Boys & Girls Club underwent an energy audit in 2012. The audit determined three cost-saving measures: install two set-back thermostats to reduce temperature to 60° F. when the space is unoccupied, and air sealing. All three of these measures are estimated to cost about $510 and payback in just 6 months6. It is recommended that this be implemented immediately. The audit is included with this report as Appendix C. VPSO BUILDING The VPSO building, also known as the Headstart building, is approximately 3,500 square feet modular two buildings. The buildings have been in place since at least a decade. The eastern half of the building is used as a residence for the VPSO officer, while the western half is currently unoccupied but remains heated. In 2012 the building used 1,292 gallons of fuel oil #1. Both halves have a separate point-source heating device. The residence is heated by a Laser 56, with an output of 22,000 btu/hr. The non-residence part of the building was not accessed during the site visit, but was also assumed to be heated by a Laser 56 heater. HYDABURG CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT The Hydaburg City School District is made of three buildings – the High School, Elementary School, and Gymnasium. About 65 students are currently enrolled in the District. All buildings have hydronic boilers coupled with air handling systems. In 2011, the three School buildings used 28,323 gallons of fuel oil.7 HIGH SCHOOL The High School is an approximately 26,250 square foot building, comprised of classrooms and two vocational shops. In 2011, the High School used 7,606 gallons of fuel oil.8 The School is heated by a Weil McClain 976 boiler with 550,000 btu output. The boiler is 20+ years old.9 Heat is distributed throughout the building through both hydronic baseboards and forced air ducts. An air handling system is located in the attic of the metal shop. This building was constructed in 1977. 6 The Energy Saver LLC, “Comprehensive Energy Audit for Hydaburg Head Start,” May 31, 2012, 1. 7 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 8 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 9 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. Page 13 of 43 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Elementary School is an approximately 73,000 square foot building, holding a media center, offices, and elementary classrooms. The Elementary School is the oldest of the three District buildings. In 2011, the Elementary School used approximately 13,038 gallons of fuel oil #1.10 The Elementary School is heated by two (2) Weil McClain 878 boilers with 770,000 btu output, and also has an air handling system and an indirect hot water heater. The boilers are 20+ years old.11 The original school building was constructed in 1963. The Library and Office wing was added in 1975. An addition was completed in 1992. GYMNASIUM The Gymnasium is an approximately 50,000 square foot building, with two classrooms and an air handling system in the second story. In 2011, the Gym used 7,722 gallons of fuel oil. It is outfitted with 2 Burnham V36 fuel oil boilers, with 302,000 btu output and an indirect hot water heater. The boilers are 20+ years old12. It also has an air handling system. 13 The gymnasium was built in 1982 and the heating system was renovated in 2004. FUTURE MULTI-USE FACILITY (MUF) – in planning phase As discussed in the community meeting section, there is a strong interest in housing organizations of the United Front under a single roof in a new, high efficiency building. Toward that end, a future MUF building has been included in this study, modeled after the new Grayling MUF building. That building is designed by CTA Architects Engineers and currently under construction by Lars Construction Management Co. The Grayling MUF building is 5,225 square feet, and is designed with a biomass primary heat source and oil as the supplementary and back up heat source. For the purpose of this report, the future MUF building is estimated to have an EUI of about 37,000 btus/ sq. ft14, requiring the equivalent of about 1,430 gallons of fuel oil per year. 10 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 11 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 12 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 13 AEA Round 6 Application, Hydaburg City Schools. 14 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, A White Paper on Energy Use in Alaska’s Public Buildings, Minimum EUI for Region 1 (non-Juneau) (October 29, 2012), 30. Page 14 of 43 6.1 BUILDING ENERGY USE & COST 6.2 BIOMASS BOILER SIZING Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) Annual Oil Cost ($4.32/gal) ANB Hall 2,674 $ 11,552 Boys & Girls Club 1,330 $ 5,746 VPSO building 1,292 $ 5,581 High School 7,606 $ 32,858 Elementary School 13,038 $ 56,324 Gymnasium 7,722 $ 33,359 TOTAL 33,662 $ 145,420 COMPARISON OF FUEL COSTS FUEL COST Fuel Oil ($4.32/ gal) Cordwood (@ $250/ cord) Chips -- 20% MC (@ 156/ ton) Pellets (@ $375/ton) $ per gross mmbtu 32.00$ 16.34$ 14.77$ 27.57$ BIOMASS ENERGY USE & COST BIOMASS ASSUMPTIONS MMBTU Price Cordwood (per cord)15.30 250$ Chips -- 20% (per ton)10.56 156$ Current heat capacity (btu) Proposed biomass heater size (btu) Fuel Oil Offset (gallons)Equivalent Cords Annual Cordwood Cost ANB Hall*115,000 115,000 2139 19 4,719$ Boys & Girls Club*104,000 104,000 1064 9 2,347$ VPSO building*88,000 44,000 1034 9 2,280$ Hydaburg City School District** Current heat capacity (btu) Proposed biomass heater size (btu) Fuel Oil Offset (gallons) Equivalent Chips -- 20% MC (tons)Annual Chip Cost High School 550,000 Elementary School 770,000 Gymnasium 302,000 * assumes 80% fuel oil displacement ** assumes 90% fuel oil displacement ANNUAL FUEL OIL USE & COST BUILDING ENERGY USE & COSTS 1,000,000 25,529 326 50,914$ Building Current heat capacity (MMBTU) Biomass Heater Type Proposed biomass capacity (MMBTU) ANB Hall 0.115 cordwood furnace 0.20 Boys & Girls Club 0.104 cordwood stove 0.10 VPSO Building 0.044 cordwood stove 0.09 High School 0.550 Elementary School 0.770 Gymnasium 0.302 BIOMASS BOILER SIZING 1.0 Notes Based on HDD model; sized to limit stoking cost and store heat 100% of existing capacity 100% of existing capacity Based on HDD modelchip boiler Page 15 of 43 6.3 BIOMASS ENERGY USE & COST 7.0 PROJECT OPTIONS Project A. A cordwood heating system serving the ANB Hall LOCATION AND ACCESS: The biomass heat equipment would be located in the daylight basement of the ANB Hall. Access is via a gravel driveway sloping down to the basement door. The building is easily accessible to delivery trailers from the paved street. BIOMASS SYSTEM CAPACITY: Weatherization is needed for this building. Prior to weatherization, the heat load cannot be accurately sized. For the purpose of this report, the biomass heat system was sized at 0.2 MMBTU to limit stoking costs and store heat. BIOMASS FUELS: seasoned cordwood, cut to manufacturer specifications APPLICABLE FUEL STORAGE INFASTRUCTURE: On site APPLICABLE FUEL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE: manual handling APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT: 15 x 20 sq. ft. for biomass plant, 800 sq. ft. for cordwood storage HEATING SYSTEM INTEGRATION: A water to air heat exchanger could be used to convert hot water from the boiler into hot air, distributed in the existing heat ducts COMPARISON OF FUEL COSTS FUEL COST Fuel Oil ($4.32/ gal) Cordwood (@ $250/ cord) Chips -- 20% MC (@ 156/ ton) Pellets (@ $375/ton) $ per gross mmbtu 32.00$ 16.34$ 14.77$ 27.57$ BIOMASS ENERGY USE & COST BIOMASS ASSUMPTIONS MMBTU Price Cordwood (per cord)15.30 250$ Chips -- 20% (per ton)10.56 156$ Fuel Oil Offset (gallons) Annual Wood Consumption Annual Wood Cost ANB Hall*2139 19 cords 2,250$ Boys & Girls Club*1064 9 cords 2,250$ VPSO building*1034 9 cords 4,750$ High School** Elementary School** Gymnasium** * assumes 80% fuel oil displacement ** assumes 90% fuel oil displacement 25,529 326 tons ( 20% MC chips)50,856$ Page 16 of 43 Project B: A cordwood stove serving the Boys & Girls Club LOCATION AND ACCESS: The biomass heat equipment would be located inside the building in the main room. Access is controlled via locked doors. BIOMASS SYSTEM CAPACITY: 0.10 MMBTU BIOMASS FUELS: seasoned cordwood, cut to manufacturer specifications APPLICABLE FUEL STORAGE INFASTRUCTURE: Storage area behind the building or off site APPLICABLE FUEL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE: manual handling APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT: 5 x 5 sq. ft. for biomass heater HEATING SYSTEM INTEGRATION: This is a point source heater. No heating system integration needed. A new stack will need to be installed. Project C: A cordwood stove serving the VPSO building LOCATION AND ACCESS: The biomass heat equipment would be located inside the VPSO residence. BIOMASS SYSTEM CAPACITY: 0.044 MMBTU BIOMASS FUELS: seasoned cordwood, cut to manufacturer specifications APPLICABLE FUEL STORAGE INFASTRUCTURE: Storage area behind the building or off site APPLICABLE FUEL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE: manual handling APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT: 5 x 5 sq. ft. for biomass heater HEATING SYSTEM INTEGRATION: This is a point source heater. No heating system integration needed. A new stack will need to be installed. Project D. A semi-dry (20%) wood chip boiler serving the Hydaburg City School District High School, Elementary School, and Gymnasium LOCATION AND ACCESS: A prefabricated building placed on a slab behind the gymnasium BIOMASS SYSTEM CAPACITY: 1.0 MMBTU BIOMASS FUELS: semi-dry wood chips, 20% moisture APPLICABLE FUEL STORAGE INFASTRUCTURE: wood chip silo APPLICABLE FUEL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE: automated APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT: 350 sq. ft HEATING SYSTEM INTEGRATION: The distribution piping runs through the gymnasium, then below grade to each of the school buildings. Buildings are isolated by heat exchangers. Project E: A cordwood boiler serving the MUF building (in planning phase). LOCATION AND ACCESS: The heater would be integrated into new construction, with a wood heater as the primary heat source and oil heat as supplementary/ back up BIOMASS SYSTEM CAPACITY: 0.1 MMBTU BIOMASS FUELS: tbd by building design load APPLICABLE FUEL STORAGE INFASTRUCTURE: deck APPLICABLE FUEL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE: manual APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT: tbd HEATING SYSTEM INTEGRATION: new construction Page 17 of 43 8.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT OPTION A B C D E COST 96,269$ 6,692$ 12,988$ 1,140,017$ 87,372$ ANB Hall Boys & Girls VPSO School MUF (planning) Capital Cost 96,269$ 6,692$ 12,988$ 1,140,017$ 87,372$ Yr. 1 Operating Savings $2,021 3,693$ $1,036 $74,389 n/a Simple Payback 47.6 1.8 12.5 15.3 n/a Net Project Benefit ($66,009)$49,468 $1,461 $13,513 n/a Benefit / Cost Ratio 0.29 8.6 1.12 1.01 n/a CO2 Offset (tons/yr)32,255 27,699 26,918 650,825 n/a Stack Emissions (lbs /yr)38 19 19 449 n/a ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST ECONOMIC PARAMETERS Page 18 of 43 Figure 3: Proposed location of biomass boiler building, with controlled access gate, good fuel delivery access, and close connection to Water Plant. Utility doors at the water plant would require clearance. 8.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS: ANB HALL Page 19 of 43 EXISTING ENERGY USE SUMMARY Notes HDD Oil (gal)*Gallons, total (space + baseload, 2012)1 2,674 Jan 835 Peak heat demand (MMBTU / day)1.729 Feb 742 Mar 890 BIOMASS HEATER SPECIFICATIONS Apr 729 Recommended heater size -- Cordwood (average MMBTU/ hr)2 n/a May 478 Modeled heater size (MMBTU/hr) 0.2 Jun 299 Number of heaters 1 Jul 247 Aug 190 Fuel oil offset per year (gallons)3 2,139 Sep 319 Biomass fuel offset per year (%)80% Oct 716 Biomass per year (cords)19 Nov 774 Fuel oil per year (gal, supplement)535 Dec 963 TOTAL 7,182 2,674 O&M SPECIFICATIONS -- BIOMASS STOKIING * AEA Round 6 Application Modeled heater size (MMBTU)0.2 Average stokings per day to cover 80% of heat load 4 2.66 Total stokings per year to cover 80% of heat load 1082 Annual stoking hours per year 180 Annual stoking cost 5 4,507$ NOTES 1 Record supplied by Hydaburg Cooperative 2 Weatherization is recommended prior to heater sizing 3 80% of annual 4 10 min per stoking 5 $25/hr loaded labor rate HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS -- ANB Hall 2012 HEAT DATA 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 MMBTU per dayDate ANB Hall Page 20 of 43 Cordwood boiler & air exchange 37,211$ Mechanical / Electrical within biomass building 7,700$ Integration to existing heating system 3,780$ Subtotal:48,691$ 15% Overhead and Profit 7,304$ Subtotal:55,995$ 30% Remote Factor 16,798$ Subtotal:72,793$ Design Fees, Building Permit, Misc. Expenses -- 15%10,919$ Contingency -- 15%12,557$ Total Project Cost 96,269$ ANB HALL -- BIOMASS HEAT ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST Page 21 of 43 AEA B/C Model Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Category Results NPV Benefits $27,456 NPV Capital Costs $93,465 B/C Ratio 0.29 NPV Net Benefit ($66,009) Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year - Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh - Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 2,632 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 53,480 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 27 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 543 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $96,269$ Project Start year 2014 Project Life years 20 Displaced Electric kWh per year - Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 2,139 Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M$ per kWh Electric Capacity kW Electric Capacity Factor % Heating Capacity Btu/hr 200,000 Heating Capacity Factor % Base System Unit Value Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.075$ Diesel Generation EfficiencykWh per gallon 13.00 Parameters Unit Value Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.05$ Transportation Fuel Premium$ per gallon 1.58$ Discount Rate % per year 3% Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid Natural Gas $ per mmBtu ISER - Mid Hydaburg Hydaburg Rural biomass ANB Hall Page 22 of 43 ANB Hall Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 1 – 10 Annual Savings (Costs)Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Project Capital Cost $ per year 96,269$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Saving (Costs)$ per year $0 $2,021 $2,146 $1,918 $1,947 $1,914 $1,897 $1,894 $1,889 $1,906 $1,897 Transportation Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $2,021 $2,146 $1,918 $1,947 $1,914 $1,897 $1,894 $1,889 $1,906 $1,897 Net Benefit $ per year ($96,269)$2,021 $2,146 $1,918 $1,947 $1,914 $1,897 $1,894 $1,889 $1,906 $1,897 Heating 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Renewable Heat gal / yr - 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 204$ 206$ 208$ 210$ 212$ 214$ 217$ 219$ 221$ 223$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 5,809$ 5,867$ 5,926$ 5,985$ 6,045$ 6,105$ 6,166$ 6,228$ 6,290$ 6,353$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 250.00$ 252.50$ 255.03$ 257.58$ 260.15$ 262.75$ 265.38$ 268.03$ 270.71$ 273.42$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 4,750$ 4,798$ 4,845$ 4,894$ 4,943$ 4,992$ 5,042$ 5,093$ 5,144$ 5,195$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 2,722$ 2,775$ 2,740$ 2,770$ 2,785$ 2,804$ 2,826$ 2,849$ 2,877$ 2,898$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ 13,485$ 13,646$ 13,720$ 13,859$ 13,985$ 14,116$ 14,252$ 14,388$ 14,532$ 14,670$ Fuel Use gallons per year - 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.95$ 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 1,040$ 1,050$ 1,061$ 1,072$ 1,082$ 1,093$ 1,104$ 1,115$ 1,126$ 1,137$ Fuel O&M $ per year 862$ 871$ 879$ 888$ 897$ 906$ 915$ 924$ 933$ 943$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 13,604$ 13,871$ 13,697$ 13,847$ 13,920$ 14,014$ 14,127$ 14,237$ 14,378$ 14,486$ Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ 15,506$ 15,792$ 15,637$ 15,806$ 15,899$ 16,013$ 16,146$ 16,277$ 16,438$ 16,567$ Proposed Base Page 23 of 43 ANB Hall Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 11– 20 Heating 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Renewable Heat gal / yr 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 2,139 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 225$ 228$ 230$ 232$ 234$ 237$ 239$ 242$ 244$ 246$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 6,417$ 6,481$ 6,546$ 6,611$ 6,677$ 6,744$ 6,812$ 6,880$ 6,948$ 7,018$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 276.16$ 278.92$ 281.71$ 284.52$ 287.37$ 290.24$ 293.14$ 296.08$ 299.04$ 302.03$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year 5,247$ 5,299$ 5,352$ 5,406$ 5,460$ 5,515$ 5,570$ 5,625$ 5,682$ 5,739$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 535.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Cost $ per year 2,920$ 2,941$ 2,958$ 2,975$ 2,995$ 3,027$ 3,056$ 3,086$ 3,112$ 3,138$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year 14,809$ 14,948$ 15,086$ 15,224$ 15,367$ 15,523$ 15,677$ 15,833$ 15,986$ 16,141$ Fuel Use gallons per year 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 2,674 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 1,149$ 1,160$ 1,172$ 1,184$ 1,195$ 1,207$ 1,219$ 1,232$ 1,244$ 1,256$ Fuel O&M $ per year 952$ 962$ 971$ 981$ 991$ 1,001$ 1,011$ 1,021$ 1,031$ 1,041$ Fuel Cost $ per year 14,593$ 14,697$ 14,786$ 14,870$ 14,971$ 15,129$ 15,275$ 15,425$ 15,552$ 15,686$ Base Heating Cost $ per year 16,694$ 16,819$ 16,929$ 17,035$ 17,158$ 17,338$ 17,505$ 17,678$ 17,827$ 17,984$ Proposed Base Page 24 of 43 9.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS: BOYS & GIRLS CLUB Figure 4: Outline of Boys & Girls Club building. Page 25 of 43 EXISTING ENERGY USE SUMMARY Notes HDD Oil (gal)*Gallons, total (space + baseload, 2012)1 1,330 Jan 835 Peak heat demand (MMBTU / day)0.860 Feb 742 Mar 890 BIOMASS HEATER SPECIFICATIONS Apr 729 Recommended heater size -- MMBTU/hr 0.104 May 478 Modeled heater size (MMBTU) -- average over 12 hours 2 0.051 Jun 299 Modeled heater size (MMBTU/hr) HHV max 0.7 Jul 247 Fuel oil offset per year (gallons)3 1,064 Aug 190 Biomass fuel offset per year (%)80% Sep 319 Biomass per year (cords)9 Oct 716 Fuel oil per year (gal, supplement)266 Nov 774 Dec 963 O&M SPECIFICATIONS -- BIOMASS STOKIING TOTAL 7,182 1,330 Modeled heater size (MMBTU)0.051 * AEA Round 6 Application Average stokings per day to cover 80% of heat load 4 0.9 Total stokings per year to cover 80% of heat load 266 Annual stoking hours per year 44 Annual stoking cost 5 1,108$ NOTES 1 Record supplied by City of Hydaburg 2 Cordwood stove; average heat over 12 hours is 0.29 MMBTU/hr 3 80% of annual load 4 10 min per stoking 5 $25/hr loaded labor rate HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS -- Boys & Girls Club 2012 HEAT DATA 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 MMBTU per dayDate Boys & Girls Club Page 26 of 43 Cordwood stove + stack 4,729$ Integration to existing heating system -$ Subtotal:4,729$ Overhead -- 7%. No profit (self-performance)331$ Subtotal:5,060$ Remote factor -- n/a -- labor and parts are readily available -$ Subtotal:5,060$ Design fees, Building permit, miscellaneous expenses -- 15%759$ Subtotal 5,819$ Contingency -- 15%873$ Total Project Cost 6,692$ BOYS & GIRLS CLUB -- BIOMASS HEAT ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST Page 27 of 43 AEA B/C Model Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Category Results NPV Benefits $55,984 NPV Capital Costs $6,497 B/C Ratio 8.62 NPV Net Benefit $49,486 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year - Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh - Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 1,330 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 26,600 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 13 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 270 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $6,692$ Project Start year 2014 Project Life years 20 Displaced Electric kWh per year - Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 1,064 Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M $ per kWh Electric Capacity kW Electric Capacity Factor % Heating Capacity Btu/hr 0.051 Heating Capacity Factor % Base System Unit Value Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.075$ Diesel Generation Efficiency kWh per gallon 13.00 Parameters Unit Value Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.05$ Transportation Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.58$ Discount Rate % per year 3% Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid Natural Gas $ per mmBtu ISER - Mid Boys & Girls Club Biomass Hydaburg Hydaburg Rural biomass Page 28 of 43 Boys & Girls Club Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 1– 10 Heating 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Renewable Heat gal / yr - 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 104$ 105$ 106$ 107$ 108$ 109$ 110$ 112$ 113$ 114$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 1,268$ 1,281$ 1,293$ 1,306$ 1,319$ 1,333$ 1,346$ 1,359$ 1,373$ 1,387$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 250.00$ 252.50$ 255.03$ 257.58$ 260.15$ 262.75$ 265.38$ 268.03$ 270.71$ 273.42$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 2,250$ 2,273$ 2,295$ 2,318$ 2,341$ 2,365$ 2,388$ 2,412$ 2,436$ 2,461$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 1,353$ 1,380$ 1,363$ 1,377$ 1,385$ 1,394$ 1,405$ 1,416$ 1,430$ 1,441$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ 4,975$ 5,038$ 5,057$ 5,109$ 5,154$ 5,201$ 5,250$ 5,300$ 5,352$ 5,402$ Fuel Use gallons per year - 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.95$ 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 1,040$ 1,050$ 1,061$ 1,072$ 1,082$ 1,093$ 1,104$ 1,115$ 1,126$ 1,137$ Fuel O&M $ per year 862$ 871$ 879$ 888$ 897$ 906$ 915$ 924$ 933$ 943$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 6,767$ 6,899$ 6,813$ 6,887$ 6,923$ 6,970$ 7,026$ 7,081$ 7,152$ 7,205$ Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ 8,669$ 8,820$ 8,753$ 8,847$ 8,903$ 8,969$ 9,045$ 9,121$ 9,211$ 9,285$ Proposed Base Page 29 of 43 Boys & Girls Club Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 11– 20 Heating 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Renewable Heat gal / yr 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 1,064 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 115$ 116$ 117$ 118$ 120$ 121$ 122$ 123$ 124$ 126$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 1,401$ 1,415$ 1,429$ 1,443$ 1,458$ 1,472$ 1,487$ 1,502$ 1,517$ 1,532$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 276.16$ 278.92$ 281.71$ 284.52$ 287.37$ 290.24$ 293.14$ 296.08$ 299.04$ 302.03$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year 2,485$ 2,510$ 2,535$ 2,561$ 2,586$ 2,612$ 2,638$ 2,665$ 2,691$ 2,718$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 266.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Cost $ per year 1,452$ 1,462$ 1,471$ 1,479$ 1,489$ 1,505$ 1,519$ 1,534$ 1,547$ 1,560$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year 5,453$ 5,503$ 5,552$ 5,601$ 5,653$ 5,710$ 5,767$ 5,824$ 5,879$ 5,936$ Fuel Use gallons per year 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 1,330 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 1,149$ 1,160$ 1,172$ 1,184$ 1,195$ 1,207$ 1,219$ 1,232$ 1,244$ 1,256$ Fuel O&M $ per year 952$ 962$ 971$ 981$ 991$ 1,001$ 1,011$ 1,021$ 1,031$ 1,041$ Fuel Cost $ per year 7,258$ 7,310$ 7,354$ 7,396$ 7,446$ 7,525$ 7,597$ 7,672$ 7,735$ 7,802$ Base Heating Cost $ per year 9,359$ 9,432$ 9,498$ 9,561$ 9,633$ 9,733$ 9,828$ 9,925$ 10,010$ 10,100$ Proposed Base Page 30 of 43 10.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS: VPSO BUILDING Figure 5: Outline of VPSO Building. Page 31 of 43 EXISTING ENERGY USE SUMMARY Notes HDD Oil (gal)*Gallons, total (space + baseload, 2012)1 1,292 Jan 835 Peak heat demand (MMBTU / day)0.835 Feb 742 Mar 890 BIOMASS HEATER SPECIFICATIONS Apr 729 Recommended heater size (MMBTU/hr)0.088 May 478 Modeled heater size (MMBTU) -- average 12 hours 0.582 Jun 299 Modeled heater size (MMBTU/hr) HHV max 0.6 Jul 247 Fuel oil offset per year (gallons)3 1,034 Aug 190 Biomass fuel offset per year (%)80% Sep 319 Biomass per year (cords)9 Oct 716 Fuel oil per year (gal, supplement)258 Nov 774 Dec 963 O&M SPECIFICATIONS -- BIOMASS STOKIING TOTAL 7,182 1,292 Modeled heater size (MMBTU/hr) HHV max 0.6 * AEA Round 6 Application Average stokings per day to cover 80% of heat load 0.9 Total stokings per year to cover 80% of heat load 289 Annual stoking hours per year 4 96 Annual stoking cost 5 2,410$ NOTES 1 Record supplied by City of Hydaburg 2 Building is divided into two parts; this model is for a stove installed in each part 3 4 20 min per stoking (10 min per heater x 2 heaters) 6 $25/hr loaded labor rate HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS -- VPSO Building 2012 HEAT DATA 80% of annual load 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 MMBTU per dayDate VPSO Building Heat Load Page 32 of 43 Two cordwood stoves and stacks 9,178$ Mechanical / Electrical within biomass building --$ Integration to existing heating system -$ Subtotal:9,178$ Overhead -- 7%. No profit (self-performance)642$ Subtotal 9,820$ Remote factor -- n/a -- labor and parts are readily available -$ Subtotal 9,820$ Design fees, Building permit, miscellaneous expenses -- 15%1,473$ Contingency -- 15%1,694$ Total Project Cost 12,988$ VPSO -- BIOMASS HEAT SYSTEM CAPITAL COST Page 33 of 43 AEA B/C Model Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Category Results NPV Benefits $13,704 NPV Capital Costs $12,242 B/C Ratio 1.12 NPV Net Benefit $1,461 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year - Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh - Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 1,292 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 25,840 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 13 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 262 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $12,988$ Project Start year 2014 Project Life years 20 Displaced Electric kWh per year - Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 1,034 Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M $ per kWh Electric Capacity kW Electric Capacity Factor % Heating Capacity Btu/hr 0.058 Heating Capacity Factor % Base System Unit Value Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.075$ Diesel Generation Efficiency kWh per gallon 13.00 Parameters Unit Value Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.05$ Transportation Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.58$ Discount Rate % per year 3% Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid Natural Gas $ per mmBtu ISER - Mid Hydaburg Hydaburg Rural biomass VPSO Building Page 34 of 43 VPSO Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 1– 10 VPSO Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 10– 20 Annual Savings (Costs)2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Project Capital Cost $ per year 12,988$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Saving (Costs)$ per year $0 $1,036 $1,096 $986 $1,000 $984 $976 $974 $972 $980 $976 Transportation Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $1,036 $1,096 $986 $1,000 $984 $976 $974 $972 $980 $976 Net Benefit $ per year ($12,988)$1,036 $1,096 $986 $1,000 $984 $976 $974 $972 $980 $976 Heating 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Renewable Heat - 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 25$ 26$ 27$ 27$ 28$ 29$ 30$ 31$ 32$ 33$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 2,552$ 2,578$ 2,603$ 2,629$ 2,656$ 2,682$ 2,709$ 2,736$ 2,763$ 2,791$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 250.00$ 252.50$ 255.03$ 257.58$ 260.15$ 262.75$ 265.38$ 268.03$ 270.71$ 273.42$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 2,250$ 2,273$ 2,295$ 2,318$ 2,341$ 2,365$ 2,388$ 2,412$ 2,436$ 2,461$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 1,313$ 1,338$ 1,322$ 1,336$ 1,343$ 1,352$ 1,363$ 1,374$ 1,387$ 1,398$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ 6,140$ 6,214$ 6,247$ 6,311$ 6,368$ 6,428$ 6,490$ 6,553$ 6,619$ 6,682$ Fuel Use gallons per year - 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.95$ 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 251$ 254$ 256$ 259$ 261$ 264$ 266$ 269$ 272$ 275$ Fuel O&M $ per year 351$ 355$ 358$ 362$ 365$ 369$ 373$ 376$ 380$ 384$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 6,573$ 6,702$ 6,618$ 6,690$ 6,726$ 6,771$ 6,826$ 6,879$ 6,947$ 6,999$ Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ 7,175$ 7,310$ 7,232$ 7,310$ 7,352$ 7,404$ 7,465$ 7,525$ 7,599$ 7,658$ Proposed Base Page 35 of 43 Annual Savings (Costs)2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Project Capital Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Saving (Costs)$ per year $970 $963 $949 $933 $924 $935 $942 $949 $947 $948 Transportation Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings (Costs)$ per year $970 $963 $949 $933 $924 $935 $942 $949 $947 $948 Net Benefit $ per year $970 $963 $949 $933 $924 $935 $942 $949 $947 $948 Heating 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Renewable Heat 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 1,034 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 34$ 35$ 36$ 37$ 38$ 39$ 40$ 41$ 43$ 44$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 2,819$ 2,847$ 2,876$ 2,904$ 2,933$ 2,963$ 2,992$ 3,022$ 3,053$ 3,083$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)cords 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 276.16$ 278.92$ 281.71$ 284.52$ 287.37$ 290.24$ 293.14$ 296.08$ 299.04$ 302.03$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year 2,485$ 2,510$ 2,535$ 2,561$ 2,586$ 2,612$ 2,638$ 2,665$ 2,691$ 2,718$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Cost $ per year 1,408$ 1,418$ 1,427$ 1,435$ 1,445$ 1,460$ 1,474$ 1,488$ 1,501$ 1,513$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year 6,746$ 6,810$ 6,873$ 6,937$ 7,002$ 7,074$ 7,145$ 7,217$ 7,287$ 7,359$ Fuel Use gallons per year 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 1,292 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 277$ 280$ 283$ 286$ 289$ 291$ 294$ 297$ 300$ 303$ Fuel O&M $ per year 388$ 392$ 396$ 399$ 403$ 408$ 412$ 416$ 420$ 424$ Fuel Cost $ per year 7,051$ 7,101$ 7,144$ 7,185$ 7,234$ 7,310$ 7,380$ 7,453$ 7,514$ 7,579$ Base Heating Cost $ per year 7,716$ 7,773$ 7,823$ 7,870$ 7,926$ 8,009$ 8,086$ 8,166$ 8,234$ 8,306$ Proposed Base Page 36 of 43 11.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS: HYDABURG CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 37 of 43 HDD Oil (gal)*EXISTING ENERGY USE SUMMARY Notes Jan 835 Gallons, total (space + baseload, 2012)1 28,323 Feb 742 Peak heat demand (MMBTU / day)20.06 Mar 890 Apr 729 BIOMASS BOILER SPECIFICATIONS May 478 Recommended boiler size -- Chip (MMBTU)2 1.0 Jun 299 Fuel oil offset per year (gallons)3 25,491 Jul 247 Biomass fuel offset per year (%)90% Aug 190 Biomass per year (tons)326 Sep 319 Fuel oil per year (gal, supplement)2832 Oct 716 Nov 774 Dec 963 TOTAL 7,182 28,323 * AEA Round 6 Application NOTES 1 AEA Round 6 Application, submitted by Hydaburg City Schools 2 3 Divided total MMBTU per day by 20 hours to estimate peak hourly load 90% of total fuel oil consumption HEAT LOAD ANALYSIS -- HYDABURG CITY SCHOOLS 2012 HEAT DATA -- Hydaburg Schools 0 5 10 15 20 25 1/1/2012 2/1/2012 3/1/2012 4/1/2012 5/1/2012 6/1/2012 7/1/2012 8/1/2012 9/1/2012 10/1/2012 11/1/2012 12/1/2012MMBTU per dayDate Hydaburg City Schools Heat Load Page 38 of 43 Containerized wood heating system including wood storage 356,000$ Boiler building foundation and silo foundation 20,000$ Additional mechanical/ electrical within boiler building 52,000$ Distribution and underground piping 75,000$ Integration in Gymnasium 22,900$ Integration in Elementary School 26,000$ Integration in High School 24,700$ Subtotal:576,600$ 15% Overhead & Profit 86,490$ Subtotal 663,090$ 30% Remote Factor 198,927$ Subtotal 862,017$ Design Fees, Building Permit, Miscellaneous Expenses -- 15%129,303$ Contingency 148,698$ Total Project Cost 1,140,017$ Hydaburg City Schools-- BIOMASS HEAT SYSTEM ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST Page 39 of 43 AEA B/C Model Project Description Community Nearest Fuel Community Region RE Technology Project ID Applicant Name Project Title Category Results NPV Benefits $1,120,325 NPV Capital Costs $1,106,813 B/C Ratio 1.01 NPV Net Benefit $13,513 Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year - Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh - Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 2,632 Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 565,376 Displaced Natural Gas mmBtu per year - Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime mmBtu - Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 27 Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 5,739 Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $1,140,017$ Project Start year 2014 Project Life years 20 Displaced Electric kWh per year - Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year 25,000 Displaced Transportation gallons displaced per year - Renewable Generation O&M$ per kWh Electric Capacity kW Electric Capacity Factor % Heating Capacity Btu/hr 1,000,000 Heating Capacity Factor % Base System Unit Value Diesel Generator O&M $ per kWh 0.075$ Diesel Generation EfficiencykWh per gallon 13.00 Parameters Unit Value Heating Fuel Premium $ per gallon 1.05$ Transportation Fuel Premium$ per gallon 1.58$ Discount Rate % per year 3% Crude Oil $ per barrel EIA Mid Natural Gas $ per mmBtu ISER - Mid Hydaburg Schools Hydaburg Hydaburg Rural biomass Page 40 of 43 Hydaburg City Schools Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 1 – 10 Annual Savings (Costs)Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Project Capital Cost $ per year 1,140,017$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Saving (Costs)$ per year $0 $74,389 $76,354 $74,196 $75,054 $75,195 $75,524 $76,026 $76,500 $77,251 $77,690 Transportation Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $74,389 $76,354 $74,196 $75,054 $75,195 $75,524 $76,026 $76,500 $77,251 $77,690 Net Benefit $ per year ($1,140,017)$74,389 $76,354 $74,196 $75,054 $75,195 $75,524 $76,026 $76,500 $77,251 $77,690 Heating 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Renewable Heat gal / yr - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 612$ 618$ 624$ 631$ 637$ 643$ 650$ 656$ 663$ 669$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 8,035$ 8,115$ 8,197$ 8,278$ 8,361$ 8,445$ 8,529$ 8,615$ 8,701$ 8,788$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)tons 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 156.00$ 157.56$ 159.14$ 160.73$ 162.33$ 163.96$ 165.60$ 167.25$ 168.93$ 170.61$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 49,858$ 50,357$ 50,860$ 51,369$ 51,882$ 52,401$ 52,925$ 53,454$ 53,989$ 54,529$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 16,630$ 16,956$ 16,744$ 16,926$ 17,016$ 17,131$ 17,269$ 17,404$ 17,577$ 17,709$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year -$ 75,135$ 76,046$ 76,425$ 77,204$ 77,896$ 78,620$ 79,373$ 80,129$ 80,929$ 81,695$ Fuel Use gallons per year - 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 4.95$ 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.12$ 5.18$ 5.21$ 5.24$ 5.28$ 5.32$ 5.38$ 5.42$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 3,120$ 3,151$ 3,183$ 3,215$ 3,247$ 3,279$ 3,312$ 3,345$ 3,379$ 3,412$ Fuel O&M $ per year 2,584$ 2,610$ 2,636$ 2,662$ 2,689$ 2,716$ 2,743$ 2,770$ 2,798$ 2,826$ Fuel Cost $ per year -$ 143,820$ 146,639$ 144,802$ 146,381$ 147,156$ 148,149$ 149,344$ 150,514$ 152,004$ 153,147$ Base Heating Cost $ per year -$ 149,524$ 152,400$ 150,620$ 152,258$ 153,091$ 154,144$ 155,399$ 156,629$ 158,180$ 159,385$ Proposed Base Page 41 of 43 Hydaburg City Schools Benefit Cost Analysis, Yrs. 11-20 Annual Savings (Costs)Units 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Project Capital Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Electric Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Heating Saving (Costs)$ per year $78,109 $78,499 $78,741 $78,934 $79,278 $80,149 $80,895 $81,682 $82,240 82,862$ Transportation Savings (Costs)$ per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings (Costs)$ per year $78,109 $78,499 $78,741 $78,934 $79,278 $80,149 $80,895 $81,682 $82,240 $82,862 Net Benefit $ per year $78,109 $78,499 $78,741 $78,934 $79,278 $80,149 $80,895 $81,682 $82,240 $82,862 Heating 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Renewable Heat gal / yr 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Renewable Heat Scheduled Repairs $ per year 676$ 683$ 690$ 697$ 703$ 711$ 718$ 725$ 732$ 739$ Renewable Heat O&M $ per year 8,876$ 8,964$ 9,054$ 9,145$ 9,236$ 9,328$ 9,422$ 9,516$ 9,611$ 9,707$ Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)tons 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit 172.32$ 174.04$ 175.78$ 177.54$ 179.32$ 181.11$ 182.92$ 184.75$ 186.60$ 188.46$ Total Renewable Fuel Cost $ per year 55,074$ 55,625$ 56,181$ 56,743$ 57,310$ 57,884$ 58,462$ 59,047$ 59,637$ 60,234$ Remaining Fossil Fuel Qty (gal)gallons per year 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 3,269 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Cost $ per year 17,839$ 17,966$ 18,075$ 18,178$ 18,301$ 18,495$ 18,672$ 18,856$ 19,011$ 19,175$ Proposed Heat Cost $ per year 82,465$ 83,238$ 84,000$ 84,762$ 85,551$ 86,417$ 87,274$ 88,144$ 88,992$ 89,855$ Fuel Use gallons per year 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 28,269 Fuel Cost $ per gallon 5.46$ 5.50$ 5.53$ 5.56$ 5.60$ 5.66$ 5.71$ 5.77$ 5.82$ 5.87$ Fuel Scheduled Repairs $ per year 3,446$ 3,481$ 3,516$ 3,551$ 3,586$ 3,622$ 3,658$ 3,695$ 3,732$ 3,769$ Fuel O&M $ per year 2,854$ 2,883$ 2,912$ 2,941$ 2,970$ 3,000$ 3,030$ 3,060$ 3,091$ 3,122$ Fuel Cost $ per year 154,273$ 155,373$ 156,314$ 157,204$ 158,273$ 159,944$ 161,481$ 163,071$ 164,409$ 165,826$ Base Heating Cost $ per year 160,573$ 161,737$ 162,741$ 163,695$ 164,829$ 166,566$ 168,169$ 169,826$ 171,232$ 172,717$ Proposed Base Page 42 of 43 12.0 HYDABURG MUF BUILDING (IN PLANNING PHASE) The Hydaburg MUF building is in the planning stage. Neither a project location nor design has been selected. This project was considered part of a larger new building construction project. Building costs associated with the project was attributed to the general new building construction budget, rather than the biomass project budget. The only costs included in this capital cost list were those that would be incurred by the biomass heating system but not the oil heating system. More design information would be needed to accurately assess any payback scenarios. The estimate of probable cost has been created with a 200,000 btu cordwood boiler and wood storage. 0.2 MMBTU Cordwood boiler and wood storage area 32,711$ Mechanical / Electrical within boiler room 7,700$ Integration to to oil heating system 3,780$ Subtotal:44,191$ Overhead & Profit -- 15%6,629$ Subtotal 50,820$ Remote factor -- 30%15,246$ Subtotal 66,066$ Design fees, building permit, miscellaneous expenses -- 15%9,910$ Contingency -- 15%11,396$ Total Project Cost 87,372$ MUF (in planning stage)-- BIOMASS HEAT SYSTEM ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST Page 43 of 43 11. CONCLUSION The community of Hydaburg is actively seeking sustainable energy projects to reduce costs and provide community benefits. Five projects were evaluated for biomass heat: Project A: Cordwood heater serving the ANB Hall Project B: Cordwood stove serving the Boys & Girls Club Project C: Cordwood stove serving the VPSO building Project D: Wood chip boiler serving the Hydaburg City School District High School, Elementary School, and Gymnasium Project E: Cordwood boiler serving the Hydaburg MUF building (in the planning phase) Resource assessments indicate local resources could easily supply Projects B & C, both of which are economically feasible. At this time, Projects A & D are not economically feasible. If fuel prices change dramatically, the Hydaburg City School District may want to reevaluate the economic feasibility of the project, since the benefit cost ratio is around 1.0. At this time, we recommend taking the following actions to develop biomass heat in Hydaburg: 1. Install wood stoves in the Boys & Girls Club and VPSO buildings and implement recommended energy efficiency measures (Appendix C). 2. Research biomass heat in a future MUF building (planning phase). Additionally, we recommend the following steps to improve energy efficiency: 3. Develop a community strategic energy plan based on community priorities, using affordability as the starting point. Consolidation of the City, Corporation, and Tribe offices may be a preferred strategy. 4. Conduct energy audits for all priority community buildings, and implement key efficiency measures. Key measures that are known to have fast paybacks include set-back thermostats, lighting controls, and lighting upgrades. 5. Develop an energy policy and establish an Energy Conservation Manager position to provide energy conservation services to all community organizations. Such Managers have been found to be effective in reducing energy-related building operating costs. This Manager can track energy related operating costs, help owners make informed decisions about operating schedules and facility usage, and implement efficiency measures. 6. Pool operator training dollars and professional capacity among community organizations by sharing (an) Operator(s). APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOS ANB Hall Figure 1: ANB Hall Figure 2: Main room ANB Hall Figure 4: Daylight basement entry Figure 3: Olsen HTL-100C oil furnace, 115,000 btu/hr ANB HALL Figure 5: Daylight Basement BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB Boys & Girls Club Figure 6: Boys & Girls Club Figure 7: Boiler room access Figure 9: Main room Figure 8: Kitchen BOYS & GIRLS CLUB Figure 10: Thermostat VPSO RESIDENCE Figure 11: VPSO Residence Figure 12: Laser 56 heater, 44,000 btu output HYDABURG CITY SCHOOLS Figure 14: Totem Park and school buildings, with High School (left), Gymnasium (center, background), and Elementary School (right) HIGH SCHOOL Figure 13: High School HIGH SCHOOL Figure 17: Totem Park and school buildings, with High School (left), Gymnasium (center, background), and Elementary School (right) HIGH SCHOOL Figure 16: High School Figure 18: High school boiler, Weil McClain 976, 550,000 btu Figure 15: Hot water heater HIGH SCHOOL Figure 20: Air handling system Figure 19: Baseboard ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Figure 22: Boilers Weil McClain 878 boilers with 770,000 btu Figure 21: Air handling system ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Figure 23: Indirect hot water heater Figure 24: Boiler room access GYMNASIUM Figure 26: Gymnasium Figure 25: Burnham V36 fuel oil boilers GYMNASIUM Figure 28: Air handler Figure 27: Domestic hot water GYMNASIUM Figure 30: Air handler Figure 29: Heating system retrofit drawings GYMNASIUM Figure 31: Heating system retrofit drawings Figure 32: Heating system retrofit drawings APPENDIX B: BUILDINGS NOT SURVEYED City of Hydaburg – CITY HALL This building has been leaking for at least 15 years. Observations of the interior and exterior of building reveal extensive water damage. Conversations with City employees suggests the water damage has severely impacted the integrity of the building structure, to an extent that it would not be suitable for a 20 year investment. CITY HALL CITY HALL 1 Comprehensive Energy Audit For Hydaburg Head Start Prepared For City of Hydaburg May 31, 2012 2 Prepared By: The Energy Saver LLC PO Box 15291 Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................3 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................7 2.1 Program Description ...........................................................................................................................7 2.2 Audit Description ................................................................................................................................7 2.3. Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................................8 2.4 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................9 3.Hydaburg Head Start ..............................................................................................................................10 3.1. Building Description .........................................................................................................................10 3.2 Predicted Energy Use ........................................................................................................................11 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs ................................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI)..............................................................................................................15 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation .........................................................................................................16 4. ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES .........................................................................................................17 4.1 Summary of Results ..........................................................................................................................17 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects ...........................................................................................................18 Appendix A –Major Equipment List ...........................................................................................................25 Appendix B –Scanned Energy Billing Data .................................................................................................25 Appendix C –Performance Results .............................................................................................................25 Appendix D –Detailed Cost Breakdown per EEM.......................................................................................25 Appendix E –Energy Audit Report –Project Summary ..............................................................................26 Appendix F –Photographs from AkWarm Program ...................................................................................27 Appendix G –Actual Fuel Use versus Modeled Fuel Use ...........................................................................30 Appendix H -Electrical Demands ................................................................................................................32 3 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the City Of Hydaburg.The scope of the audit focused on Hydaburg Head Start.The scope of this report is a comprehensive energy study, which included an analysis of building shell, interior and exterior lighting systems, HVAC systems, and plug loads. Based on electricity and fuel oil prices in effect at the time of the audit, the annual predicted energy costs for the buildings analyzed are as follows: $1,602 for Electricity $3,491 for #1 Oil The total energy costs are $5,093 per year. Table 1.1 below summarizes the energy efficiency measures analyzed for the Hydaburg Head Start.Listed are the estimates of the annual savings,installed costs, and two different financial measures of investment return. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio,SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Setback Thermostat: Hydaburg Head Start Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start space. $668 $5 1808.30 0.0 2 Setback Thermostat: Hydaburg Head Start Residence Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start Residence space. $217 $5 588.07 0.0 3 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 20%. $168 $500 3.12 3.0 TOTAL,cost-effective measures $1,053 $510 26.55 0.5 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 4 Attic Add R-21 fiberglass batts to attic with Standard Truss. $123 $3,605 0.81 29.2 5 Above-Grade Wall: House Install R-10 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $343 $14,136 0.57 41.2 6 Floor Install R-10 rigid board insulation $82 $3,468 0.56 42.3 7 Door Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core $17 $532 0.55 31.4 8 Exterior Door: House- Metal Door (2) Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core $31 $1,064 0.51 34.1 4 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio,SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 9 Window/Skylight: House-Damaged Window Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $45 $4,427 0.18 97.4 10 Ventilation Install (2) New Energy Efficient Bathroom Exhaust Fans and Multiple Fresh Air 80 Supply Air Vents Throughout Building. -$185 $500 -4.95 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $1,510 $28,242 0.91 18.7 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM)in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 2 Simple Payback (SP)is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first -year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,510 per year, or 29.6%of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $28,242, for an overall simple payback period of 18.7 years.If only the cost-effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,053 per year, or 20.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $510, for an overall simple payback period of 0.5 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. 5 Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigera tion Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $3,107 $0 $469 $494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $1,014 $5,093 With All Proposed Retrofits $1,575 $0 $469 $499 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $1,014 $3,584 SAVINGS $1,532 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$16 $0 $1,510 6 7 2. AUDIT AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND 2.1 Program Description This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures at the Hydaburg Head Start.The scope of this project included evaluating building shell, lighting and other electrical systems, and HVAC equipment, motors and pumps. Measures were analyzed based on life-cycle-cost techniques,which include the initial cost of the equipment,life of the equipment, annual energy cost, annual maintenance cost, and a discount rate of 3.0%/year in excess of general inflation. 2.2 Audit Description Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is used and what opportunities exist within a building. The entire site was surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each building operates: •Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) •Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipme nt (HVAC) •Lighting systems and controls •Building-specific equipment Water consumption, treatment (optional) & disposal The building site visit was performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit included detailed inspect ion of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager were collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. Details collected from Hydaburg Head Start enable a model of the building’s energy usage to be developed, highlighting the building’s total energy consumption, energy consumption by specific building component, and equivalent energy cost. The analysis involves distinguishing the different fuels used on site, and analyzing their consumption in different activity areas of the building. Hydaburg Head Start is classified as being made up of the following activity areas: 1)Hydaburg Head Start: 1,186 square feet 2) Hydaburg Head Start Residence: 842 square feet 8 In addition, the methodology involves taking into account a wide range of factors specific to the building. These factors are used in the construction of the model of energy used. The factors include: • Occupancy hours • Local climate conditions • Prices paid for energy 2.3.Method of Analysis Data collected was processed using AkWarm© Energy Use Software to estimate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). The recommendations focus on the building envelope; HVAC; lighting, plug load, and other electrical improvements; and motor and pump systems that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engin eering estimations. Our analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options.These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing,which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR)=Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices as projected by the Department of Energy are included. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure.An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost -effective—total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year,the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years,it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life . The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time -value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. 9 Measures are implemented in order of cost -effectiveness. The program first calculates individual SIRs, and ranks all measures by SIR, higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual measure must have an individual SIR>=1 to make the cut. Next the building is modified and re - simulated with the highest ranked measure included. Now all remaining measures are re - evaluated and ranked, and the next most cost -effective measure is implemented.AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all appropriate measures have been evaluated and installed. It is important to note that the savings for each recommendation is calculated based on implementing the most cost effective measure first, and then cycling through the list to find the next most cost effective measure. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting will result in relative ly high savings. Implementing a reduced operating schedule for newly installed efficient lighting will res ult in lower relative savings, because the efficient lighting system uses less energy during each hour of operation . If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented,AkWarm calculates the combined savings appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each measure. Installation costs include labor and equipment to estimate the full up-front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. 2.4 Limitations of Study All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. The design professional o r other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. 10 3.Hydaburg Head Start 3.1. Building Description The 2,027 square foot Hydaburg Head Start was constructed in 1976, with a normal occupancy of 6 people.The number of hours of operation for this building average 5 hours per day, considering all seven days of the week. Description of Building Shell The exterior walls are constructed with structural grade 2 x 4 lumber and R-11 fiberglass batt insulation. The Roof of the building is constructed a standard truss and fiberglass batt insulation. The Floor/Foundation of the building is constructed using post and beam construction. Typical windows throughout the building are new energy efficient double pane gas. Doors are metal and solid wood. Description of Heating and Cooling Plants The Heating Plants used in the building are: Toyostove Laser 56 Oil Fired DVSH (2) Fuel Type:#1 Oil Input Rating:44,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency:82 % Idle Loss:0.2 % Heat Distribution Type:Air Oil Miser OM-148 Oil On Demand DHW System Fuel Type:#1 Oil Input Rating:148,000 BTU/hr Steady State Efficiency:76 % Idle Loss:0.5 % Heat Distribution Type:Water Boiler Operation:All Year Space Heating and Cooling Distribution Systems Two (2) Toyostove Laser 56 Oil Fired Direct Vent Space Heaters. 11 Domestic Hot Water System One (1) Oil Miser OM-148 Oil On Demand DHW System. Waste Heat Recovery Information N/A Description of Building Ventilation System The existing building ventilation system consists of a bathroom spot exhaust fan and (1) supply air vent. Lighting New energy efficient T8 25w lamps and electronic ballasts. Plug Loads Miscellaneous equipment and appliances. Major Equipment The equipment list, available in Appendix A, is composed of major energy consuming equipment which through energy conservation measures could yield substantial energy savings. The list shows the major equipment in the building and pertinent information utilized in energy savings calculations. 3.2 Predicted Energy Use 3.2.1 Energy Usage / Tariffs The electric usage profile charts (below) represents the predicted electrical usage for the building.If actual electricity usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage.The electric utility measures consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kWh usage is equivalent to 1,000 watts running for one hour. One KW of electric demand is equivalent to 1 ,000 watts running at a particular moment. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. The natural gas usage profile shows the predicted natural gas energy usage for the building.If actual gas usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage.Natural gas is sold to the customer in units of 100 cubic feet (CCF), which contains approximately 100,000 BTUs of energy. The propane usage profile shows the propane usage for the building.Propane is sold by the gallon or by the pound, and its energy value is approximately 91,800 BTUs per gallon. 12 The fuel oil usage profile shows the fuel oil usage for the building. Fuel oil consumption is measured in gallons. One gallon of #1 Fuel Oil provides approximately 132,000 BTUs of energy. The following is a list of the utility companies providing energy to the building and the class of service provided: Electricity: Hydaburg-APT -Commercial -Sm The average cost for each type of fuel used in this building is shown below in Table 3.1. This figure includes all surcharges, subsidies, and utility customer charges: Table 3.1 –Average Energy Cost Description Average Energy Cost Electricity $ 0.6261/kWh #1 Oil $ 4.19/gallons 3.2.1.1 Total Energy Use and Cost Breakdown At current rates,City Of Hydaburg pays approximately $5,093 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Hydaburg Head Start. Figure 3.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm© computer simulation.Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 3.1 Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use 13 Figure 3.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. Figure 3.2 Annual Energy Costs by Fuel Type Figure 3.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors.For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. Figure 3.3 Annual Space Heating Cost by Component 14 The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 182 166 182 176 182 176 182 182 176 182 176 182 Ventilation_Fans 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DHW 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Space_Heating 45 37 36 28 20 15 12 11 16 26 36 43 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #1 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Space_Heating 115 91 85 64 39 23 14 13 27 57 87 108 15 3.2.2 Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 3.4 for details): Building Site EUI =(Electric Usage in kBtu +Gas Usage in kBtu + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI =(Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio +Gas Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + similar for other fuels) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Table 3.4 Hydaburg Head Start EUI Calculations Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year,kBTU Electricity 2,559 kWh 8,732 3.340 29,166 #1 Oil 833 gallons 109,983 1.010 111,083 Total 118,716 140,249 BUILDING AREA 2,027 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 59 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 69 kBTU/Ft²/Yr *Site -Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. 16 3.3 AkWarm© Building Simulation An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, the Hydaburg Head Start was modeled using AkWarm© energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Hydaburg was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Equipment cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Limitations of AkWarm© Models •The model is based on typical mean year weather data for Hydaburg. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. •The heating and cooling load model is a simple two -zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. •The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown in Section 3.1 were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm©simulations. 17 4.ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES 4.1 Summary of Results The energy saving measures are summarized in Table 4.1. Please refer to the individual measure descriptions later in this report for more detail. Calculations and cost estimates for analyzed measures are provided in Appendix C. Table 4.1 Hydaburg Head Start,Hydaburg, Alaska PRIORITY LIST –ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio,SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Hydaburg Head Start Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start space. $668 $5 1808.30 0.0 2 Setback Thermostat: Hydaburg Head Start Residence Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start Residence space. $217 $5 588.07 0.0 3 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 20%. $168 $500 3.12 3.0 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $1,053 $510 26.55 0.5 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 4 Attic Add R-21 fiberglass batts to attic with Standard Truss. $123 $3,605 0.81 29.2 5 Above-Grade Wall: House Install R-10 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $343 $14,136 0.57 41.2 6 Floor Install R-10 rigid board insulation $82 $3,468 0.56 42.3 7 Door Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core $17 $532 0.55 31.4 8 Exterior Door: House- Metal Door (2) Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core $31 $1,064 0.51 34.1 9 Window/Skylight: House-Damaged Window Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $45 $4,427 0.18 97.4 10 Ventilation Install (2) New Energy Efficient Bathroom Exhaust Fans and Multiple Fresh Air 80 Supply Air Vents Throughout Building. -$185 $500 -4.95 999.9 TOTAL, all measures $1,510 $28,242 0.91 18.7 18 4.2 Interactive Effects of Projects The savings for a particular measure are calculated assuming all recommended EEMs coming before that measure in the list are implemented. If some EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected. For example,if ceiling insulation is not added, then savings from a project to replace the heating system will be increased, because the heating system for the building supplies a larger load. In general, all projects are evaluated sequentially so energy savings associated with one EEM would not also be attributed to another EEM. By modeling the recommended project sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive affects among the EEMs and does not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building.When the building is in cooling mode, these items contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore, lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements in air-conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting-efficiency improvements are anticipated to slightly increase heating requirements. Heating penalties and cooling benefits were included in the lighting project analysis. 19 4.3 Building Shell Measures 4.3.1 Insulation Measures Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 6 Floor Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Top Insulation Layer: R-15 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches Bottom Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 32.1 Install R-10 rigid board insulation Installation Cost $3,468 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings (/yr)$82 Breakeven Cost $1,937 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 42 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 5 Above-Grade Wall: House Wall Type: Single Stud Siding Configuration: Just Siding Insul. Sheathing: None Structural Wall: 2 x 4, 16 inches on center R-11 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches Window and door headers: Not Insulated Modeled R-Value: 10.6 Install R-10 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. Installation Cost $14,136 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings (/yr)$343 Breakeven Cost $8,110 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 41 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 4 Attic Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-11 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches Top Insulation Layer: R-19 Batt:FG or RW, 6 inches Modeled R-Value: 30.8 Add R-21 fiberglass batts to attic with Standard Truss. Installation Cost $3,605 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings (/yr)$123 Breakeven Cost $2,917 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.8 Simple Payback yrs 29 Auditors Notes: Accurate insulation assessment was not available due to restricted access. 20 4.3.2 Window Measures 4.3.3 Door Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 9 Window/Skylight: House-Damaged Window Glass: Single pane with storm window Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.57 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows Installation Cost $4,427 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr)$45 Breakeven Cost $790 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback yrs 97 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 8 Exterior Door: House- Metal Door (2) Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, no glass Modeled R-Value: 2.7 Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core Installation Cost $1,064 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr)$31 Breakeven Cost $542 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback yrs 34 Auditors Notes: Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 7 Door Door Type: Entrance, Wood, solid core flush, 1-3/4" Modeled R-Value: 2.6 Remove existing door and install U-0.16 fiberglass door with polyurethane core Installation Cost $532 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr)$17 Breakeven Cost $294 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 31 Auditors Notes: Replace door or remove access. 21 4.3.4 Air Sealing Measures Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 3 Air Tightness from Blower Door Test: 3500 cfm at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 20%. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)10 Energy Savings (/yr)$168 Breakeven Cost $1,561 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback yrs 3 Auditors Notes: 22 4.4 Mechanical Equipment Measures 4.4.1 Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure (There were no improvementsin this category) 4.4.2 Ventilation System Measures 4.4.3 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Description Recommendation 10 Install (2) New Energy Efficient Bathroom Exhaust Fans and Multiple Fresh Air 80 Supply Air Vents Throughout Building. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr)-$185 Breakeven Cost -$2,474 Savings-to-Investment Ratio -4.9 Simple Payback yrs 1000 Auditors Notes: Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Hydaburg Head Start Residence Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start Residence space. Installation Cost $5 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr)$217 Breakeven Cost $2,940 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 588.1 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 Hydaburg Head Start Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Hydaburg Head Start space. Installation Cost $5 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings (/yr)$668 Breakeven Cost $9,041 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1,808.3 Simple Payback yrs 0 Auditors Notes: 23 4.5 Electrical & Appliance Measures 4.5.1 Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present any lighting energy conservation measures that may also be cost beneficial.It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads.The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. 4.5.1a Lighting Measures –Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs (There were noimprovements in this category) 4.5.1b Lighting Measures –Lighting Controls (There were no improvements in thiscategory) 4.5.2 Refrigeration Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.5.3 Other Electrical Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.5.4 Cooking Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 4.5.5 Clothes Drying Measures (There were no improvements in this category) 24 5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. 25 APPENDICES Appendix A –Major Equipment List Appendix B –Scanned Energy Billing Data 1.Electricity Billing Data 2.Billing Data for the following Fuel Types Electricity #1 Oil 3.Water Consumption/Disposal Billing Data Appendix C –Performance Results 1.Boiler Combustion Tests 2.Thermal Imaging/Blower Door Test 3.Other Test Data 4.Sub-metering? 5.RPM/Tachometer? 6.Duct testing? Appendix D –Detailed Cost Breakdown per EEM 26 Appendix E –Energy Audit Report –Project Summary ENERGY AUDIT REPORT –PROJECT SUMMARY General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building:Hydaburg Head Start Auditor Company:The Energy Saver LLC Address:Miijuu Way Auditor Name:Bill Steyer City:Hydaburg Auditor Address:PO Box 15291 Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603Client Name:Adrian LeCornu Client Address:PO Box 49 Hydaburg, Alaska 99922 Auditor Phone:(907) 399-1078 Auditor FAX:( )- Client Phone:(907) 285-3761 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area:2,027 square feet Design Heating Load:Design Loss at Space: 28,143 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 28,143 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 42,901 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy:6 people Design Indoor Temperature:70 deg F (building average) Actual City:Hydaburg Design Outdoor Temperature:18.5 deg F Weather/Fuel City:Hydaburg Heating Degree Days:deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility:Hydaburg-APT -Commercial -Sm Natural Gas Provider:None Average Annual Cost/kWh:$0.626/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf:$0.000/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refriger ation Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $3,107 $0 $469 $494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $1,014 $5,093 With All Proposed Retrofits $1,575 $0 $469 $499 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 $1,014 $3,584 SAVINGS $1,532 $0 $0 -$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$16 $0 $1,510 27 Appendix F –Photographs from AkWarm Program Crawlspace View 2' XPS Floor Sheathing North View East View 28 Signage Front View New Energy Efficient Windows Kitchen Appliances New Energy Efficient Windows Solid Wood Door-No Exit 29 Insulated Window Shades Standard T8 25w Fluorescent Lamp throughout building Nameplate-Toyostove OM-148 On Demand DHW Heater Toyostove OM-148 On Demand DHW Heater Buildings only Passive Air Supply Vent Metal Door 30 Toyostove Nameplate Building Temperature Setting Toyostove Laser 56 DVSH 22,000btu Head Start Main Classroom Appendix G –Actual Fuel Use versus Modeled Fuel Use The Orange bars show Actual fuel use,and the Blue bars are AkWarm’s prediction of fuel use. Annual Fuel Use 31MMBtu'sElectric Fuel Use kWh#1 Fuel Oil Fuel Use gallons 32 Appendix H -Electrical Demands Estimated Peak Electrical Demand (kW) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Current 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 As Proposed 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Estimated Demand Charges (at $7.16/kW) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Current $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 As Proposed $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.2,Energy Lib 5/18/2012 APPENDIX D: LED LIGHT PAYBACK CHART $1.00 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 $0.90 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 $0.80 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 $0.70 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 $0.60 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 $0.50 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.7 $0.40 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 $0.30 5.0 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.2 $0.21 7.2 6.2 5.4 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.7 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 100 125 < 1 Year Payback ASSUMPTIONS 1-2 Year Payback Replacement of 34 watt T-12 tubes (4') with 15 watt LED tubes (4') 2-3 Year Payback $45 capital cost per tube ($42 cost per LED tube; $1 install cost, $2 disposal) 3-4 Year Payback Rating of lights is accurate 4-5 Year Payback 5+ Year PaybackDollars per Kilowatt-hourPayback Chart for LED Lights Payback in Years Hours of Usage per Week