HomeMy WebLinkAboutReconnaissance surveyReconnaissance Survey of Renewable Energy Systems for use
in Galena, Alaska
NHP idlic
Prepared for:
Louden Tribal Council
Prepared by:
Jeffrey C. Organek, P.E., Civil Engineer/Project Manager
Ross Klooster, P.E., Electrical Engineer
Brian Yanity, E.I.T., Electrical Engineer
Matt Bergan, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
William Wall, PhD, Forester
December 2010
Contents
Reconnaissance Survey of Renewable Energy Systems for use in Galena, Alaska.
ExecutiveSummary. sells 616 see I .......... 4 0 . . . . . . . . . 6 , 4 6 0 4 M 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 M 0 0 4 a 0 . . . 6 6 4 0 0 4 1 0 4 4 M 0 4 0 . . . . . 4
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................5
ProblemStatement...................................................................................................................................5
Galena's Long Term Energy Vision............................................................................................................5
NearTerm Energy Vision...........................................................................................................................6
ExistingEnergy Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................7
CommunityLayout....................................................................................................................................7
Electrical....................................................................................................................................................8
Thermal.....................................................................................................................................................8
ProposedSystems.........................................................................................................................................9
EnergyDesign Criteria...............................................................................................................................9
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................9
Systems Considered for Recommendation..".,.", 60664 .........
13
Biomass Resource Assessment Review.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 0 4 1 8
StandingBiomass....................................................................................................................................18
Biomass Required.
....... 0 0 4 M 0 * 0 0 M 4 4 0 * M a M 1 0 ...... 1 9
HarvestImpacts.......................................................................................................................................21
HarvestSystems.......................................................................................................................a..............21
Resource Recommendations...................................................................................................................22
Sustainability...............................................................................................................................................23
Sociopolitical Issues......,. 0 M 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 a M M 0 M M 0 M . . . 4 4 0 0 4 8 0
.............
BoilerOperator........................................................................................................................................24
PowerCost Equalization(PCE).................................................................................................................24
CarbonCredits, . M 0 4 8 0 M 0 4 0 0 4 a I I M M 0 M a 0 , , % 6 0 0 6 * 0 6 6 * 0 4 10 4 9 0 4 0 4 M a M a 0 M 0 , , 0 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 M 0 M
* 4 1 0 M a M I & M a W 6 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 4 10 4 10 4 1 . . . . . . 6 * 4 a 0 s 0 4 M 0 4 0 0 4 * I a a M a p M U24
2
Competitionfor firewood.......................................................................................................................24
OtherEnergy Technologies.........................................................................................................................25
InStream Hydro......................................................................................................................................25
ORCTechnology......................................................................................................................................26
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................26
Appendix A -Figures
Appendix B-Thermal/ Electrical Calculations
Appendix C-AES system technical/product data
Appendix D-Nexterra/Jenbacher product data
3
s
WHPacific performed a reconnaissance survey of renewable energy systems that could be utilized in
Galena Alaska. Biomass fuel was identified as the most promising alternative energy source available.
As a practical first step towards achieving Galena's long term energy goals, we recommend that a
biomass boiler be installed at the existing air base physical plant that will supply steam to the existing
base district heating system. The biomass boiler should be selected so that it may be easily modified in
the future to accommodate electrical generation hardware when/if such technology becomes
commercially available.
Currently, there are no commercially available, proven systems that will generate electricity on an
isolated electrical grid from biomass fuel. However, there are a number of technological systems
explained in this report that are in the development stages that may mature and become viable
alternative energy solutions in the near future (say, within a decade).
We recommend a fluidized bed updraft reactor producing steam that will be fed directly into the district
heating system, as outlined in Alternative F1 of this report. This will involve installing a Uniconfort
Global-G biomass boiler, model 120, which is capable of delivering the 4,500,000 BTU's Hour required to
heat the air base. This system would displace between 150,000 and 200,000 gallons of heating fuel per
year. Forest impacts will be between 50 and 150 acres of forest harvested annually, depending on wood
moisture content and biomass yield in tons/acre.
The boiler and associated hardware will be located in or near the existing Air Base physical plant. The
existing warehouse (north of the physical plant) will be used as wood storage. The biomass boiler and
associated hardware may fit in the existing physical plant if diesel generators (currently not in use) are
removed (reference sheet 2 of Appendix A). Otherwise, a new 2,500 SF building will be constructed
(reference sheet 3 of Appendix A) to house the equipment. Both of these arrangements have space to
accommodate electrical generating equipment if the system is expanded in the future. if the biomass
heating system is upgraded to include electrical generation, the area between the warehouse and the
physical plant will have to be converted to a wood storage area.
The surrounding forests will me managed to produce cottonwood as the primary biomass fuel. The
wood will be cut and cold decked in the field for one year. During this time, the wood will dry to a
moisture content of approximately 30%, It will be transported to the wood storage facility, chipped, and
fed into the biomass plant by a loader onto a fuel conveyor belt and then to a moving grate within the
boiler.
The system should be planned so that it may expand in the future with relative ease. The selected
hardware arrangement should be compatible with electrical generation hardware that can be added on
in the future.
We also recommend that a commercial grade wood harvesting operation be established to provide a
dependable supply of wood. The establishment of this harvest operation shall be conducted
concurrently with a campaign to promote the use of wood for residential heating. Residential wood
customers will demand spruce fuel, so the forest management plan should consider both cottonwood
and spruce management.
The Louden Village Council has hired WHPacific (WHP) to perform a reconnaissance survey of renewable
energy systems in Galena Alaska. WHP project manager Jeff Organek traveled to Galena on October 5
and 6, 2010 to observe existing energy infrastructure, gather information, and talk with project
stakeholders. Utilizing information gathered during the site visit, a multidisciplinary team consisting of a
Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineer, and a Forester, performed research and developed the
recommendations presented in this report. The core stakeholders of this project are comprised of the
entire community of Galena. Louden Tribal Council is representing the community in an effort to
develop new energy sources and systems that are more environmentally friendly and economical than
the diesel fueled systems currently in use.
Problem Statement
Presently, Galena has two diesel power plants, diesel fueled boilers in the physical plant of the airbase,
and self-contained diesel boilers in all public buildings. The cost of energy in Galena, as elsewhere in
rural Alaska, has escalated due to world market prices and costly transport of petroleum based fuel. It is
the general perception of the energy consumers that the trend of increasing fossil fuel costs will
continue. It is the goal of this study to research alternative technologies and recommend practical
energy systems, utilizing a sustainable, local energy resource that can run parallel with and gradually
replace existing electrical generation and facility heating systems. It is important that the selected
alternative technology stabilize or preferably lower present energy costs.
Galena's Long Term Energy Vision
The following report is a long term vision of the energy infrastructure that could be constructed in
Galena in the foreseeable future. Much of this vision relies on technologies that may not be
economically feasible at present, however the thought and analysis performed by WHP was
substantially directed by a vision that originated with members and affiliates of the Louden Council and
community at large.
The ultimate goal is to replace all use of fossil fuels with a locally derived, sustainable fuel resource in
Galena. By utilizing locally derived fuel in alternative systems, it is believed that the cost of energy will
likely trend below energy rates for demand satisfied by conventional systems. in addition to cheaper
energy, the community seeks a "value added" energy system (such as biomass), where the dollars spent
to harvest and process
the fuel resource
will be
substantially retained
within the community. Galena will
thereby be largely self-sufficient
in their
energy
needs, and not reliant
upon outside economies.
Self-sufficiency can free up additional dollars, allowing the community to embrace other conservation
measures, and reduce energy use. Conservation measures should include building weatherization,
replacement of inefficient lighting, addition of efficient building controls, and replacement of inefficient
appliances.
The following measures are anpated in achieving the long term goal of energy self-sufficiency:
• A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, utilizing fuel from biomass, will be constructed next to
the existing physical plant on the airbase to provide heat and power to the airbase, and
transmitted power to both old and new town sites.
• An existing warehouse building, adjacent to the base physical plant, will be converted to store
and air dry the harvested biomass, in the form of wood chips.
e Anew biomass boiler will be constructed near the City power plant to supply heat to the City
Glycol heating loop.
• A pellet mill will be constructed to produce wood pellets to heat privately owned residences.
• A long term contract with Gana-a'Yoo, Limited, for land and resource utilization, will ensure a
sustainable supply of biomass.
During the summer months, when heating demand is decreased, surplus energy and/or waste heat will
be diverted to other practical uses. Waste heat that is not demanded by facility heating systems will
drive an organic Rankin cycle generator to increase the effective efficiency of electrical generation, or be
diverted to greenhouses to extend the growing season. Surplus energy will also be used to manufacture
hydrogen. All of the cars and other internal combustion engines will be converted to run off of
hydrogen.
An in -stream, low head, hydroelectric turbine will generate electricity from the Yukon River. A preferred
location for this turbine is 100 yards off shore, adjacent to the sheet piling that protects the east end of
the runway. This location is also in close proximity to the 24.9 kV transmission line.
Interties will be constructed between Galena and Ruby (50 miles), Koyukuk (30 miles), Nulato (45 miles),
and Kaltag (90 miles). This is in line with AVEC's vision of eliminating half of their power plants in the
next decade.
Galena energy infrastructure will serve as a model of success for other communities with similar energy
goals. Alternative energy technologies, ideas, and experiences will be exported from Galena to other
communities throughout Alaska and the global community.
Near Term Energy Vision
Some of the energy technologies mentioned above are technologically available, but may not be
economically feasible. Both the long distance intertie lines and the in -stream hydroelectric turbine are
examples of emerging technology that is still largely experimental. Some of these technologies are
brand new, cutting edge, and lack a proven history. Consequently, there is some uncertainty in their
performance and maintainability, adding a significant level of risk of implementation -A level of risk that
the stakeholders may not be comfortable with.
WHP proposes the following "near term energy vision" as a practical first step toward achieving Galena's
long term energy vision:
• A 2 MW CHP system constructed on the old Air force Base near the site of the existing physical
plant. This system will run on biomass fuel, supplying the electrical needs of the entire
community.
• A waste heat recovery system to supply steam heat to the base infrastructure distributed
through the existing utilidor system.
The existing diesel powered boiler at the Base physical plant, and the City diesel fueled CHP system will
become dormant, serving strictly as backup power. A new, biomass powered boiler will be installed at
the city power plant to supply heat to the existing City glycol loop.
Community Layout
Sheet 1 of Appendix A shows a plan view of the community. Galena can be viewed as three discrete
urban units:
1. Air Base -This region consists of the facilities and infrastructure that once comprised the US Air
Force Base and includes the community's airport. It is protected by a continuous, surrounding dike from
periodic flooding of the Yukon River. In general, this region is defined by well constructed and
maintained buildings and engineered systems. An underground utilidoor houses steam, water, and
wastewater distribution/ collection systems. There is also a 1.4 million gallon fuel tank and fuel
distribution system that is in good condition. The plan view of this region forms the shape of a triangle.
Much of these facilities are now part of the Galena Interior Learning Academy. This is a
vocational/technical school with a student body of approximately 200 students, and is projected to grow
to 300 students in the next decade.
2. The Old Town site- This region of the community is located between the airport runway and
the Yukon River. The old town is comprised of residential dwellings and some small businesses.
3. Alexander Town site/New Town site- This region is on the Eastern edge of the community. It
was developed in 1972 and is predominantly comprised of residential dwellings. The New Town site is
also the location of the current power plant, water plant and the City institutional buildings; school,
swimming pool, clinic/ City office building, public safety and fire hall. A 600,000 gallon tank farm,
located adjacent to the power plant and water plant, currently provides fuel for electrical generation.
Electrical
A summary of electric usage by month can be found in Appendix B.
The estimated electrical base load is 520 kW with a winter peak load of 1,750 kW. Average generated
demand in 2007 was 887 kW, reflecting total annual generated energy of 7,772,042 kWh. Average
distributed demand was 789 kW, for a total annual billed energy of 6,908,893 kWh. Annual distribution
loss was 863,149 kWh, accounting for 11.1%of generated energy. 574,806 gallons of fuel oil was
consumed indicating a generating efficiency of 36.9%with 13.52 kWh energy generated per gallon of
fuel consumed. Thermal efficiency of distributed energy was 32.9% with 12.0 kWh of energy billed for
each gallon of fuel consumed.
The 2009 residential electrical rate was $0.563 per kWh of which $0.3402 per kWh was reimbursed
through the State of Alaska, Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program for up to 500 kWh per month. The
effective residential energy rate, for the first 500 kWh per month, was $0,2231 per kWh.
Electricity for the entire community is generated at the City power plant. There are six diesel generators,
all of which are in working order:
Generator
1-3512
Caterpillar
prime
mover, 850 kW alternator
Generator
2-S16N
Mitsubishi
prime
mover, 850 kW alternator
Generator
3-3512
Caterpillar
prime
mover, 600 kW alternator
Generator
4-3512
Caterpillar
prime
mover, 1050 kW alternator
Generator
5-3512
Caterpillar
prime
mover, 600 kW alternator
Generator
6-3412
Caterpillar
prime
mover, 500 kW alternator
There is no SCADA
system
in use. There are
two transformers located outside of the power plant
structure. One is a
4160 V
transformer that
distributes electricity to both the old town and the new
town. The other transformer
is a 23 kV unit
that distributes electricity to the Base through a
transmission line.
There are also three generators on the Base, but only one of them is in service at this time- a Cat 750 kW
unitI The base electrical generator is now essentially dormant. The base electrical generator is
connected to the community power plant, via the transmission intertie between the base and
community power plant, however it is not capable of supplying power to the community without
switchgear upgrades.
Thermal
A summary of thermal usage by month can be found in Appendix B.
There are two discrete heat distribution systems in Galena -one is on Base, and the other is in the City
The City has a hydronic heat distribution system collects rejected jacket water heat from the generators
which is distributed through an above ground, insulated metallic piping system to the water plant,
school, swimming pool, clinic/ City office building, and fire hall. There are also hydronic heating loops
that supply heat to the diesel fuel tanks located behind the power plant, allowing year around storage
and use of #2 diesel fuel. The hydronic system is in satisfactory working order.
Comment: The waste heat distribution was originally installed along side, not within, the existing
utilidor, however this may have changed over the years.
The base uses a steam heating system. The base physical plant has three, 400 HP, Cleaver Brooks boilers
rated at 17,000,000 BTU's each. Only one of the boilers is used to supply heat to the base buildings by
way of an underground utilidor. Heat losses in the steam distribution system have a secondary effect of
keeping the water and wastewater utilities (also located in the utilidor) from freezing.
The base boiler operator stated that the system presently consumes about 200,000 gallons per year of
diesel. The burners burn 117 gallons per hour at full capacity. A retrofit of the system with down -sized
burners and modulating controls is currently planned.
{I;
Energy Design Criteria
Table 1 contains design energy demands for a CHP system that would replace the current diesel energy
systems. These figures were derived from the Galena Community Information Summary issued by the
Alaska department of Commerce. Reference Appendix B.
Table 1. Design Annual Energy Demands
Design Thermal Energy
20,000,000,000
Btu
Design Electrical Energy (9MWh)
30,800,0100,000
Btu
Total Energy
5018001000,000
Btu
Design Thermal Power
4,500,000
Btu/hr
Design Electric power (2MW)
6,900,000
Btu/hr
Total Power
11,400,000
Btu/hr
Methodology
Louden Tribal Council and other stakeholders in the community have previously conducted informal
stuAies of this problem. Their conclusions have been that a biomass fueled energy system would bean
attractive and appropriate energy technology for Galena. WHP has done a more thorough and formal
exploration on the economic and technological feasibility of using Biomass energy. We began our
research with an understanding that there are two broad options for consideration:
1. Close -coupled gasification -This can be referred to, informally, as a "steam" system. In a close
coupled gasification boiler, biomass is burned in a controlled oxygen environment. Gas, consisting
primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, commonly referred to as "producer gas" or "syngas", is
produced. The gas is burned in the same boiler, and heat is produced. The heat is used to make steam,
and the steam is used for heating, and to run a steam engine or turbine coupled with an electrical
generator. The principal advantage of close coupled gasification, over conventional combustion (without
gasification), is that higher temperatures are achieved, resulting in higher thermal efficiency. Also, heat
required for the gasification process remains within the boiler and supplements the heat of gas
combustion.
2. Two -stage gasification -This can be referred to informally as a "gas producing" system. In two
stage gasification, biomass is partially oxidized inn reactor in an oxygen deprived environment. Syngas is
produced, and sent directly to an internal combustion engine or gas turbine coupled with an electrical
generator, or it is directed to a burner in a boiler and used to produce steam. One complexity of two
stage gasification is that the gas contains tars and other impurities, and so it is "dirty". A cleaning
filtration process is required between the gasification reactor and the engine/turbine/burner.
Both of these systems produce substantial amounts of waste heat and thus can be used as a CHP system
for more complete energy utilization and increased system efficiency.
WHPacific conducted a multifaceted exploration of this problem in order to determine our
recommendations.
First, we evaluated the informal studies previously conducted by associates of Louden Council. The WHP
team appreciates the effort and depth of thought that has gone into the evolution of the primary
concept. A comparative analysis of this concept with the many other solutions for biomass generation
will determine whether the initial approach is valid, whether modifications of the primary concept are
required, or whether a different approach is recommended.
WHP conducted research on the types of technology and equipment that is commercially available to
harness biomass energy. This research primarily involved an extensive search of the imernet. We found
a plethora of websites and available information, the majority of which lacked substance. In our search
for appropriate biomass technology and hardware, we sought legitimate companies, suppliers, and
processes that have a proven track record. Although the use of biomass energy in rural Alaska can be
described as "new", or "innovative", we do not think it prudent to approach this as an experiment. Our
priority is in assembling a system that we are reasonably confident is reliable, maintainable , economical
and efficient. The system needs to be procured from vendors that provide dependable technical support
and includes products of manufacturers that will still be in business when replacement parts are
needed. Achieving these ideals can prove difficult considering that much of this technology has a very
short history.
The research process identified many discrete technological components that might serve Galena's
energy needs. For example, there are many types of biomass boilers and prime movers, that could be
incorporated into a biomass energy system, however we specifically looked for proven combinations of
10
equipment. We avoided gasifier/ boiler and generator combinations that were not represented in
existing applications.
Following research of available biomass technologies and equipment, WHP corresponded with
professionals in the biomass energy industry. These professionals included vendors, researchers,
engineers, and entrepreneurs.
We adopted a rule of thumb practiced by the Alaska Energy Authority to determine the legmacy of an
energy system. A biomass energy system is considered to be a valid option if the supplier can show
three constructed systems that have been operating for three years each. Informally, we call this the
"three and three" rule.
In our recommendations, WHP is naming manufacturers and models of specific products that we believe
serve as examples of successful biomass energy systems. We add the disclaimer that the
recommendations of this report are schematic in nature and do not constitute a specification for a
selected solution. It is assumed that a formal feasibility study will be conducted as a follow up to this
reconnaissance study, and we highly recommend that the recommendations of this report be re-
evaluated to assure that all possible solutions are explored. A thorough approach is required to
maximize efficiency and minimize cost of investment, operation and maintenance.
11
Figure 2-Systems Considered for Recomendation
PROS
CONS
1. Both the boiler and the reciprocating engine
1. relatively low efficiency
are old, proven technologies.
2. High impact on forestry resource (1 square
=1.
2. The supplier, AEIS/Wichita Boiler appears to
mile harvest annually), will not be socially
AESI system, ed
be a legitimate vendor.
sustainable.
A
updraft boiler aating
3. Remote monitoring capabilities.
3. Despite item 1, pros, this arrangement of
steam e4.
Synchronous power output.
hardware does not have a proven operational
5. Uniconfort boiler relatively immune to
history.
material and moisture variations.
4. Poor/ unknown load following capabilities.
1. The supplier, AEIS/Wichita Boiler appears to
1. The micro turbine and the ORC are
be a legitimate vendor.
promising, yet young technologies in this
2. Remote monitoring capabilities.
arrangement.
3. Higher efficiencies than option A.
2. High impact on forestry resource.
AESI system, Uniconfort fluidized bed
4. Uniconfort boiler relatively immune to
3. This hardware arrangement has no proven
B
updraft boiler and MST/ORC
material and moisture variations.
operational history.
4. This is an induction type system and cannot
operate alone on an isolated grid.
S. Poor/ unknown load following capabilities.
1. The supplier, AEIS/Wichita Boiler appears to
1. The micro turbine and the ORC are
be a legitimate vendor.
promising, yet young technologies in this
2. Remote monitoring capabilities.
arrangement.
AESI system, Uniconfort fluidized bed
3. Higher efficiencies than option A.
2. High impact on forestry resource.
updraft boiler and MST/ORC, with redox
4. Uniconfort boiler relatively immune to
3. This hardware arrangement has no proven
C
flow battery (battery supplied by another
material and moisture variations,
operational history.
vendor)
5. Battery will allow system to supply base and
4.1-Iigher capital costs and maintenance on
peak loads on an isolated grid.
battery.
5. The battery technology is still developing.
1. Nexterra and Jenbacher are legitimate
1. 2 stage system more complex.
vendors.
2. Probable higher capital and operating costs.
Nexterra/Jenbacher system, CHP by fixed
2. Higher efficiencies.
3. Hardware arrangement does not have a
bed downdraft gasifyer and Jenbacher
3. One pilot project constructed and several
proven operational history.
D
type 6 internal combustion
being developed.
4. Gas cleaning phase may produce
engine/generator
wastewater.
5. Poor/ unknown load following capabilities.
1. Can substantially reduce diesel fuel
1. Requires gas cleaning process.
consumption.
2. May not reduce dependence on fossil fuels
TGI Inc. Retrofitted diesel generator,
2. Represents a an incremental step toward
to the desired extent. 3. TGI has never
E
offset diesel 60%with wood gas
adopting renewable energy systems,
operated this system on wood gas.
3. System can follow peak loads.
1. Proven technology.
1. May not reduce dependence on fossil fuels
Develop commercial wood harvesting
2. Represents a an achievable incremental step
to the desired extent.
operation, install biomass boiler on base
toward adopting renewable energy systems.
2. Will not supply electricity.
F
to supply steam to existing district heating
3. Could serve as a first phase in a broad plan
system, encourage residential conversion
that would eventually evolve to supply biomass
to efficient wood stoves as primary heat
generated electricity.
source.
Systems Considered for Recommendation
Table 2 shows the biomass energy systems that were studied and considered for recommendation.
Further explanations of the alternatives are provided below.
Alternative A -This system consists of a Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft boiler and Benecke
reciprocating steam engine and generator as provided by AESI/Wichita Boiler. This concept was
originally explored by associates of Louden Tribal Council. Reference Appendix C for vendor supplied
data on the system.
The Uniconfort Boiler has been produced for 50 years and can handle fuels of varying types and
moisture contents. The Benecke reciprocating steam engine is also a mature technology. Unfortunately,
the Uniconfort/Benecke arrangement has never been implemented, and there is no proven operational
record of performance. Consequently, the efficiency of this system is unknown, but we expect it would
have an approximate efficiency of 8%generating electricity (80% boiler efficiency and 10%steam engine
efficiency). If the system was set up in a CHP arrangement, the efficiency might achieve 30%.
Another uncertainty of this system is its' ability to follow dynamic loads. Based on our knowledge of
these types of systems, we suspect that it would have poor load following capabilities and would be
suitable only for supplying base loads.
Alternative B- This system consists of a Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft bailer and MST/ORC (Micro
Steam Turbine/Organic Rankin Cycle). This system is also supplied by AESI/Wichita Boiler. Similar to
alternative A, the reciprocating steam engine is replaced by a MST/ORC arrangement. Although we
consider this a promising technological system, AESI has constructed none of these systems, and thus
there is no operational history that demonstrates this as a successful alternative.
Because we lack operational data on the system, we do not know what the efficiency would be, nor can
the vendor provide this information. We do know that the MST/ORC system would have greater
efficiency than alternative A. This is a "cascading system" where low quality steam coming off the
turbine is used to run the ORC, achieving greater efficiency. For the purposes of this report, we have
estimated a CHID efficiency of 40%when conducting biomass harvest projections.
As with alternative A, this system will not be able to follow dynamic loads. Furthermore, this is an
induction type generation system, and could not run independently on an isolated grid without
accompaniment of a modulating power source.
Alternative C- Essentially, this alternative is the addition of a redox flow battery to a power generation
system. We are considering the AESI supplied Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft boiler and MST/ORC,
with redox flow battery supplied by another vendor, although the battery could be used in conjunction
with other generation schemes.
It should be recognized that a purely gas fired engine, such as Jenbacher, or a steam engine, such as
Benecke, is capable of supporting base load conditions only. Due to mechanical constraints of these
engines, neither is capable of satisfactorily following Galena's peak loads. One method of peak
13
generation is to provide a spinning reserve of diesel power. Another method is to convert existing diesel
engines to dual, gaseous and diesel fueled units as discussed elsewhere in this report. The disadvantage
of either of these methods is continued reliance on diesel fuel.
Another solution is to provide a large battery for energy reserve and power delivery to follow system
peak loads. An emerging but proven technology is the Flow Battery, of which several technology types
are currently produced. The qualifying attributes of these batteries, for use in delivering peak power,
are high energy density, high power delivery, system reliability, and sustainability of a large number of
discharge cycles without degradation.
Unlike a conventional battery, such as lead -acid or cadmium -sulfide, where common components
provide both energy storage and power generation, energy storage and power generation of flow
batteries are provided by separable systems. Also in contrast to lead acid or cadmium sulfide batteries,
the plates of flow batteries are not depleted during the charge -discharge cycles, greatly increasing
longevity. Flow batteries are similar to fuel cell technology in that a fluid which furnishes chemical
energy is stored in tanks and supplied to a reactor that produces electrical energy. The battery can
therefore be specifically designed for separate parameters of energy storage and power delivery. Flow
batteries have been designed around electrolytes of various metals, with the two of most prolific
technologies being zinc -bromine and vanadium-redox. Zinc -bromine batteries can achieve higher power
densities but vanadium-redox batteries can withstand significantly more discharge cycles. Of the two
types, the vanadium-redox battery seems to be the more mature technology with greater support in the
energy industry.
The energy medium of the vanadium-redox battery is an electrolyte solution of elemental vanadium and
sulfuric acid, stored in two separate tanks. The sulfuric acid is of about the same molar concentration as
the sulfuric acid in lead -acid batteries. The stored electrolyte from each tank is pumped to a reactor,
where electrolyte from one tank circulates through the anode and electrolyte from the other tank
circulates through the cathode. The cathode and anode plates, which are inert carbon felt, imbedded in
polymer composite substrates, are sealed and separated by a proton exchange membrane. Increasing
tank size and volume of electrolyte, results in larger energy storage capacity (kWh). Increasing the
reactor size, by increasing the number and/or surface area of cells, along with increasing the ratings of
the circulating pumps, increases power output (M).
Vanadium redox battery technology has grown sufficiently beyond the experimental stage, with
practical products produced and sold by a handful of companies, to yield verifiable statistics of reliability
and efficiency. At the forefront of design and production have been VRB Technologies of New South
Wales and Canada, and Sumitomo Electric Industries (SEI) of Japan. Recently, VRB Technologies
acquired SEI and has consolidated a line of products with sizes ranging from a few kWh to ten's of MWh.
To satisfy Galena's needs for peak loading, a battery of approximately 500 kWh that can instantaneously
deliver 150 kW, should suffice. Estimated cost is $350,000 for battery and inverter.
14
Although the redox battery technology is now assessable, we cannot recommend Alternative C until
Alternatives B and C mature to the point where they have proven successful. However, the battery will
address the peak load following requirements.
Alternative D-Energy will be provided by the Nexterra/ Jenbacher CHP system, consisting of a fixed bed
downdraft gasifyer and Jenbacher type 6 internal combustion engine/generator.
The Nexterra system can be viewed as three discreet processes. First, biomass is burned in a fixed bed,
updraft reactor. In this process, biomass fuel will go in, and gas will come out. Second, the gas will go
through a cleaning and conditioning process where tar and other impurities are removed. In this
process, "dirty" gas goes in, and "clean" gas comes out. In the third stage, gas is burned in GE Jenbacher
type 6 internal combustion engine, and electricity is produced. The system set up for CHP.
As with the other alternatives considered so far, there is no operational history for this system.
However, we expect that this system will mature in the near future. Nexterra currently has one such
system installed near Kamloops British Columbia. It has been operated for a short time and is in the
"shakedown" phase of operation. There are also two other systems that have been sold, but not yet
built. There is also a Nexterra system proposed for construction in Tok Alaska, although funding for this
project has not yet been secured. Note that the Kamloops system is connected to a larger power grid,
and thus doesn't face the peak load following challenges that exist on Galena's isolated power grid.
As with the other systems, capital costs and efficiencies are either unknown or uncertain. For the
purposes of this study, we have estimated an efficiency of 50% in CHP mode (Vendor supplied data says
up to 65%) that was used for biomass harvest projections. We also expect that this system may have
difficulties following dynamic loads. There are also unknowns associated with the gas cleaning process.
Nexterra uses a proprietary gas cleaning process. The gas cleaning process has the potential to add
complexity to the system and increase operating costs. If the cleaning process is flawed, it will fowl the
engine and the system will not work.
Alternate E- This alternative will implement a TGI Inc. retrofitted diesel generator to offset diesel (up to
60%) with wood gas.
A difficulty with most of engines fueled with producer gas is their inability to respond to transient load
conditions. This inability is due to the low power density of the fuel. In internal combustion engines,
producer gas delivers relatively low combustion pressures and therefore low torque. Engines must be
de -rated resulting in a large displacement engine to support a load that would require a much smaller
displacement diesel fueled engine. The larger gaseous fueled engines have large revolving mass, hence
high inertia, relative to engine shaft power. The high inertia and low torque at synchronous speed
makes the engine unresponsive to load changes.
The reality is, engines fired on low pressure gas are typically used to support base loads only and
therefore are typically used for cogeneration on large, infinite buses. Other types of prime movers are
required for peak loading. On very large systems, peak loading can be achieved by high speed turbines,
due to the relative stability of these systems. On small systems, such as Galena's power system,
15
turbines typically lack sufficient dynamic response to relatively high transient loads, so reciprocating
diesel engines are an ideal solution.
For Galena's system, it is doubtful that supporting peak load by 100%gaseous fired units is a workable
solution and a hybrid system would be required. A large battery that could deliver about 150 kW to 200
kW, such as one of the new flow type batteries, would be one solution to support peak loads, but
batteries have a very high capital cost and limited lifespan. Cost per kilowatt-hour delivered by batteries
is high in comparison to diesel fueled generators. Another economical solution for such a hybrid system
is to convert an existing diesel generator (or generators) to fire simultaneously on fuel oil and producer
gas. TGI Incorporated, manufactures an electronic, Gaseous Fuel Delivery (GFD) system that regulates
and mixes gaseous fuel with the stream of combustion air. During the intake stroke, a mixture of air and
gas enters the cylinder. On compression the air/gas mixture is compressed with subsequent, adiabatic
rise in pressure and temperature. A very small amount of pilot diesel is injected into the cylinder at the
top of the compression stroke which initiates combustion of the gaseous fuel mixture. One danger of a
dual fueled engine is the real possibility of over -fueling the engine which will result in combustion
temperatures that exceed the thermal limit of the engine resulting in top end engine damage. The GFD
regulates gas flow based on engine rpm and exhaust temperatures to prevent over -fueling.
The engine manufacturer's stock fuel oil injection system of the engine is not modified. Fuel oil injection
is regulated by the electronic governor, based on engine rpm. The proportion of injected diesel fuel is
decreased by the electronic governor as gaseous fuel is increased to support the mechanical engine load
and maintain engine rpm. In response to transient load, engine rpm is slightly reduced. The electronic
governor responds to the reduced rpm by opening the fuel rack, injecting a higher fraction of fuel oil.
The governor reacts in a one-to-one correspondence, or isochronously with the change in load and
therefore maintains a very high dynamic response. During a typical daily load profile, when the load
gradually ramps up to peak load conditions, the initial change in load is met by increasing injected fuel
oil. As the load stabilizes at a higher level, the GFD increases the flow of gaseous fuel and the rate of
injected fuel oil is reduced. The gaseous fuel thereby displaces the fuel oil in supporting the higher load.
Modifying existing diesels to dual fuel operation using the TGI GFD system, could be provided in
combination with other exclusively gaseous fired units, such as a Jenbacher engine. Or dual fueled
diesel generators could be used exclusively as an entry level approach into biomass conversion. Savings
in fuel oil by installing the GFD on existing diesel generators, will be approximately 60%. Fuel
consumption would be cut to less than one-third of consumption with diesel fired units.
With much growing interest in use of bio-fuel, it is likely that existing gaseous fueled energy systems will
improve and become less costly as new technologies arrive. Presently, these energy conversion systems
are largely experimental and unproven. The advantages of an entry level approach of modifying existing
generators to the GFD technology, is that much capital cost can be deferred to a later date when
existing technologies mature and new technologies arrive with the possibility of providing a more
elegant solution at reduced cost.
16
We foreseetthat this duel fuel technology could be combined with Alternative D. That is, a fixed bed
downdraft biomass reactor combined with a gas cleaning process (as supplied by Nexterra) could send
wood gas to a diesel generator modified to accept duel fuel.
We do not recommend this alternative at this time. We have not identified a proven gas cleaning
technology. Also, TO reports that their duel fuel conversion equipment has never been used with wood
gas (although it has been used with numerous other types of gas, including landfill gas).
Alternative F-This alternative entails the installation of a biomass boiler at the existing base physical
plant. The boiler will provide steam to the existing district heating system. Although this
recommendation falls short of Galena's goals (particularly, electrical generation), we see it as a
practicable and achievable first step in a long range alternative energy plan. We advise that this
alternative be built with the understanding that it may be modified to accommodate one of Alternatives
A through E, above, when and if these technological systems evolve to a point where they have a proven
operational history. So, we envision that this alternative may be modified at some time in the future to
include electrical generation, from the base physical plant, supplying the electrical demands of the
entire community.
Either a close coupled or a two staged system maybe used to generate the steam. Each system has
unique strengths and weaknesses, described elsewhere in this report. The final decision on which type
of biomass reactor should be made after a feasibility study is conducted, as this decision relies on which
one of Alternatives A through E (if any) are implemented in the future. We offer the following sub -
alternatives:
Alternative F1- Install a Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft reactor as supplied by AESI. This would
supply steam to the existing district heating system on base, and could evolve into alternatives
A, B, or C at a future time.
Alternative F2- Install a fixed bed downdraft gasification reactor, similar to or as used in the
Nexterra system. Wood gas from this reactor can be directed either to a new boiler, or one of
the existing boilers can be retrofitted to run off of the gas (note that an existing boiler
retrofitted to run off of wood gas would not have the stringent gas cleaning requirements as an
internal combustion engine). This installation would allow expansion into alternatives D or E at
some point in the future.
Make note that we have not recommended installation of a biomass reactor at the City of Galena. The
existing City hydronic heating loop draws waste heat from the diesel power plant. Since Alternative F
does not call for replacement of electrical generation equipment, we see no advantage to using biomass
derived district heating in the City. However, if this alternative is ultimately modified to include electrical
generation, we recommend that the equipment be installed at the base physical plant, and,
consequently, we would recommend that a biomass boiler be installed at the city power plant to
accommodate the heating demands currently provided by waste heat from the diesel generation
equipment.
17
The biomass assessment is based on an interpretation of a biomass report constructed by Will Putman
of TCC Forestry. In personal communication with Will Putman, he stated that the report is based on
limited field data and should be taken as a first approximation of standing biomass in the area within a
10-mile radius of Galena. However, the information in the report is adequate to be able to understand
potential utilization opportunities and issues around Galena.
The biomass assessment review is based on four levels of annual BTU requirements supplied by
engineers: 169,000 MMBTUs, 127,000 MMBTUs and 101,600 MMBTUs, and 20,000 MMBTUs (reference
table 3). At this level of report all estimates should be considered as reasonable approximations with
stated assumptions. This should give the reader an understanding of relative amounts of utilization.
Table 3. Estimated Efficiencies and Energy Input Requirements
ESTIMATED
REQUIRED FUEL
SYSTEM
CHP
INPUT, MMBTU'S*
EFFICIENCY
AESI system, Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft boiler and
30%
169,000
A
Benecke reciprocating steam engine/generator
AESI system, Uniconfort fluidized bed updraft boiler and
40%
127,000
B
MST/ORC
Nexterra/Jenbacher system, CHP by fixed bed downdraft
D
gasifyer and Jenbacher type 6 internal combustion
50%
11001,600
engine/generator
Biomass energy system supplying heat to existing Air Base
(heat only)
20,000
F
district heating system
80%
* based on design energy demands, table 1
Standing Biomass
Review report by Will Putnam of TCC Forestry.
m
Biomass Required
This discussion is not meant to be a detail treatise on the issue of moisture content of wood, but to
create an awareness of how the forest management and wood harvest systems will impact the amount
of wood required and efficiencies of the CHP process.
The amount of biomass required to fuel a CHP system depends on the total BTU demand of the system
and the efficiency of the burning process. Most modern boilers and gasifiers are essentially as efficient
as possible for wood at 80-85%. Oil boilers, in comparison, are typically 85%efficient when operating
properly. Wood burners of all sorts will specify an ideal range of moisture contents for fuel. Standard
gasifying boilers can burn from 10%- 55% moisture content, but typically have an ideal range of 20-40%
moisture requirements. Downdraft gasifiers typically require an ideal content of 10-15% moisture
content while updraft and fluidized bed gasifiers have a much broader range of materials they can
gasify.
Actual BTUs in wood is species dependent, but only slightly. Species differ only by about 10% so for this
discussion we assume that local species in the Galena area are similar in BTU amounts. However, there
are significant differences in recoverable BTUs through the combustion process by the moisture content
of the wood going into the combustor. This is simply because the combustor cannot burn water and
must "dry" the chips in the burning process. For a descriptive process think of a 40 pound armload of
split firewood for a wood stove. At 20% moisture you are adding approximately one gallon of water into
our wood stove with the wood. At 40% moisture content you are adding two gallons of water.
Green freshly cut wood is typically between 50-60% moisture content, thus if wood is harvested chipped
and delivered to the boiler recoverable BTUs will range from 3825-3400 BTUs/lb, Table 4. Chips do not
dry very effectively in a pile. Chip dryers can be installed in the system, however a significant amount of
energy is required for drying. So if wood is "seasoned" air-dried to 20% moisture content then chipped
and injected into the system the amount of recoverable BTUs in the system essentially doubles to 6800
BTUs/LB. This is very significant point in the development of a Biomass Energy System that is using local
resources to power the system. A conservative moisture content on average will be from 25%-35%.
Table 4. Effects of Moisture on Deliverable BTUs
The Effect of Fuel Moisture on Wood Heat Content
Moisture Content
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
(MC) wet basis (%)
Higher Heating Value
8,500
7,275
6,800
6,375
5,950
5,525
5,100
4,575
4,250
3,825
3,400
as fired Btus/lb
19
Actual annual wood demand can vary significantly depending whether a management strategy is
developed to "dry' wood, Table S. Three levels of annual system demands were modeled in for this
discussion: 169,000 MMBTUs, 127,000 MMBTUs, and 101,600 MMBTUs to determine wood utilization
and potential harvested acres annually. As described above, moisture content of the wood going into
the boiler has a tremendous affect on the number of tons of wood chips required annually to operate
the CHP system. In addition the number of acres to secure the required wood varies with tons per acre
of wood growing on the site. Table 5 demonstrates the tonnage of wood required annually at the three
systems BTU demand levels each of which illustrates the difference in 3 wood moisture levels of 25%,
35%, and 50%. In addition, number of acres required to secure an annual amount of wood is based on
three different levels of tons per acre: 15, 25, and 35 tons per acre.
Annual wood demand for the largest demand system ranges from 19,929 green tons at 50% moisture
down to 13,031 tons per year at 25% moisture. The smallest proposed system will require 11,953 tons
at 50% moisture and 7815 tons at 25% moisture. Cost of wood delivered to the boiler has been
modeled at different costs depending on types of equipment used, economies of scale and local
conditions. Galena like all Interior Rural Villages has few roads and must deal with the local terrain and
weather conditions. Though beyond the scope of this document delivered costs in other villages has
been modeled as high as $175-$200 per ton. Even at this high cost wood energy systems appear to be
financially feasible if well designed. But final feasibility depends on the inherent efficiency of the system
installed and the ability to use both the electrical and heat portion of the system effectively. Part of the
system required is a well design harvest system and forest management program. Drying of wood to
25% moisture can occur if properly managed and decked for a year in advance of use.
Table 5. Comparison of wood required and acres harvested based on BTU requirements of different
CHP Systems described in this report.
MMBTU
Wood
Ton per
Acres @
Acres @
Acres @
Required
Moisture
BTU/LB
year
15t/A
25t/A
35t/A
169,000
500/0
4250
19,929
1328
797
569
169,000
35%
5225
16,133
1075
645
461
169,000
25%
6500
13,031
868
S21
372
127,000
50%
4250
14,921
994
596
347
127,000
35%
5225
12,153
810
486
279
127,000
25%
6500
91796
653
391
341
101,600
50%
4250
11,953
797
478
341
101,600
35%
5225
91722
648
389
277
101,600
25%
6500
71815
521
312
223
20,000
50%
20,000
35%
20,000
25%
4250
2353
5225
1914
6 S00
1538
20
156
94
67
128
77
55
103
62
44
Harvest Impacts
The high -end demand system 169,000 MMBTU utilizing 35% moisture wood will require 16,133 tons
annually, which is 645,329 tons over a 40 year rotation. At an average of 25 tons per acre the required
tonnage equates to 31,880 acres of harvested material over a 40-year rotation. However, the total
biomass study area in the TCC report was 22,718 acres with a total estimated green tonnage stocking of
840,237 tons. This discrepancy is well within reasonable amount at this level of estimation based on
tons per acre assumptions. if green wood were used in the combustion process 797,160 tons of wood
will be required over a 40-year rotation. The smaller of the proposed systems 101,600 MMBTUs will
require 9,722 tons at 35% moisture annually or 388,880 tons in a 40-year rotation. At an average of 25
tons to the acre 389 acres will be harvested annually or 15,562 acres in a 40-year rotation. However, a
heating only system will use between 1500 and 2500 tons per year depending on moisture content of
wood burned. This would equate to between 44 and 156 acres annually depending on tons per acre of
harvested stands.
Galena will not be limited to only a 10-mile radius around the village but distance does add cost to the
production of wood. Also, both the Alaska DNR and BLM are supportive of sustainable biomass
utilization from their lands. Forest fires in the interior can easily burns thousands of acres of forest
under the correct conditions. Both of the systems discussed will use most of the standing biomass
within a 10-mile radius of Galena. This can easily be ecologically sustainable through good forest
management targeting Cottonwood as the species to regenerate (discussed below). However, these
production levels will require significant harvest levels around the village. When a forest fire burns this
much acreage, it is an "Act of God" or a natural part of the disturbance pattern in the ecosystem. This
natural disturbance can be more acceptable to society than the "Act of Man" harvesting at large scales.
in development of a biomass strategy and scaling of an initial CHP project, the scale of harvest should be
a consideration.
Harvest Systems
Harvest systems need to be properly sized to the terrain and the wood demand. Harvesting will most
probably happen both in summer and in winter. Crossing water and ice is a major consideration.
Several assumptions have been made to understand what it will take in terms of getting wood into the
community. An automated mechanical harvest system will absolutely be required with the level of
harvest discussed in this report.
We assume 10-ton loads of logs with an average 9"diameter and a 20' log. A normal bunk will hold
approximately 84 logs and will require 1613 round trips into the village if wood is moved at 35%
moisture. Total number of these logs is 180,733 annually. At the low end of biomass utilization it will
take 84410-ton loads annually same load and a total of 70,875 logs annually. Chipping would occur in a
wood yard in the village into chip storage.
Utilizing only logs will reduce yield by 13-20% per acre. There are two additional harvest methodologies
for harvesting and utilizing whole tree. The first is to harvest and deck whole trees in the forest, allow to
air dry, allow needles and leaves to fall off, chip on site and move chips into the village. The second is to
PA
move whole air-dry trees into the village and chip in a wood yard there. Whole tree chipping increases
yield per acre, however the single most effective way to increase efficiency of wood utilization is to
make sure that wood is air dried as much as possible. Storage and handling are critical to develop as a
whole system based on how harvesting and wood moving will occur. The number one failure in many
biomass systems is creating a completely integrated system that incorporates a harvesting system with
the correct specifications for fuel into the combustion device connected by the correct type of chip
handling mechanism.
Resource Recommendations
The sizes of the proposed systems that are required to supply all of the electrical needs in Galena
through a CHP system will utilize quite a significant amount of biomass 10-20,000 tons annually.
Electricity generated from biomass rarely if ever is more than 20% efficient at the smaller scales of
generation, such as in Galena. That means that 80%of the energy produced from biomass is heat.
Effective utilization of heat occurs approximately six months of the year, unless some economic
utilization of heat in summer and shoulder months can be developed. Real efficiencies for CHP from
biomass only occur when heat can be utilized year round. Otherwise a significant amount of energy is
underutilized.
All three scales of biomass utilization analyzed in this report can be ecologically sustainable in the
Galena area, if a good quality forest management system is developed and implemented. If the
utilization occurs only in the natural forest and is limited to the 10-mile radius around the village
described in the biomass assessment, then public support may be difficult. Utilization of energy crops in
the form of planted cottonwood stands is a way to significantly increase local productivity. Native forest
grows about one ton of biomass per acre per year. Planted cottonwood stands can grow up to 4 times
that amount annually. Thus reducing the total number of acres utilized in the future. A naturally
regenerated cottonwood stand studied in Alaska grew 450,000,000 BTUs per acre in 35 years. This is
compared to only 119,000,000 BTUs per acre in a White Spruce stand at the age of 90 years. Thus
cottonwood can yield 4 times the BTUs in half the growing time.
Start up of a new enterprise at the scale studied may prove to be challenging initially. The scope of the
Fort Yukon Biomass project is to utilize heat from the diesel electric generators as 30% of the heat input
into a district heating system. Up to 2000 tons of biomass will be utilized to offset the additional 70%
heat demand. The system will displace approximately 150,000 gallons of fuel oil for heat initially. This
has the advantage that the biomass boiler only runs when needed, thus increasing the efficiency of
biomass utilization significantly. One consideration for Galena is to take the development of a biomass
energy program as a stepwise integrated process, by developing the most efficient utilization of biomass
as heat and then graduate to electricity as forest management and harvesting capacity increases.
Another potential way to develop a stepwise approach to CHP is to start with a small system such as a
Stirling engine generation system that can be fully loaded year round at about 140 kWH capacity and
thus use the total amount of heat generated to increase efficiency.
C�
Whatever decisions Galena makes in developing a biomass energy system attention should be paid to
full integrating the entire system including forest management, planning, harvest systems, chip storage
and delivery systems, combustion system and efficiencies.
u sta 1 na oilIILy
Common perceptions of the definition of "sustainability' as applied to biomass energy relate three
components; economic, ecologic, and social.
1. Economic sustainability-The concept of economic sustainability is easily understood in the context of
engineering projects. Generally, a project is considered economically sustainable if the project costs,
when spread over the lifespan of the system, are less than the value of the benefits it provides. An
energy system would be considered economically sustainable if the costs of electricity and steam paid
by consumers were sufficient to pay off the capital and operating costs of the system. Additionally, the
energy costs would have to be competitive with ("cheaper") than competing energy technologies; in this
case, fossil fuels. However, there are subtleties to the concept of economic sustainability. For example, a
biomass energy system might produce electrical costs to the consumer that are similar with those of
fossil fuels, but the money they spend on energy would be retained in the local economy. So, cost is not
the only consideration in determining if a project is economically sustainable.
Biomass projects of the scale that is being considered in Galena have the potential benefit of creating a
new industry with new jobs within the village. However, it is our recommendation that the business be
set up on a for -profit bases as a utility and be managed as such. Typically a sustainable economic goal is
to stabilize the cost of heat at a reasonable rate of $4-6 per gallon of fuel oil equivalent. Thus a
reasonable expectation is not decreasing the cost of heat significantly, but to stabilize the long term
costs rather than have local budgets have to deal with constantly increasing costs and especially the
significant escalation in price when the oil market jumps up.
2. Ecologic sustainability-For those who subscribe to theories of "global warming" or who promote
"green energy', biomass is considered a carbon neutral fuel source. As such, trees that are cut will grow
back over a short period of time, and recapture the carbon that was released by the combustion of their
predecessor trees. In this line of thought, biomass energy can be considered to be ecologically
sustainable.
A more immediately useful definition of ecologic sustainability would be a harvest situation where the
cut trees would grow back in time to be harvested again. An ecologically sustainable system would be
one where there was an indefinite supply of wood as fuel.
3. Social sustainability-In order for a biomass project to be socially sustainable, the stakeholders must
accept it. That is, the residents must be comfortable with the impacts of biomass harvest on the
landscape and the forest environment. Each stakeholder will likely have a unique level of tolerance for
23
the cutting of trees. It is very likely that the average resident would want some sort of naturally
vegetated buffer zone surrounding the community. The location and level of wood harvest must be
conducted in a way that is acceptable with the average resident, or the project will not be socially
sustainable.
The project must be economically, ecologically, and socially sustainability, or it will not succeed. Also,
realize that these three facets of sustainability effect and conflict with each other. For example, social
sustainability may tend to drive the biomass harvest area away from the community, while economic
sustainability will tend to drive the harvest area closer to the community. Decisions made must optimize
the various facets of sustainability if the project is to succeed.
Boiler Operator
While writing this report, the question was asked if a Boiler operator would be required by law to
oversee operations of the close coupled gasification system. This could have impact on the operating
costs of the system. A phone call to the State Boiler inspector revealed that there are no standards
requiring this.
Power Cost Equalization(PCE)
It should be realized that PCE subsidies may be affected if the electrical generation is made more
efficient (cheaper). We have not specifically studied the effect of this project on PCE's, but wanted to
point this out. So, it is possible that the actual costs of electricity could be reduced, while the effective
rate paid by the consumer would remain more or less the same. It should be pointed out however, that
even if this were to occur, there would be the benefit that most of the fuel costs (for biomass) would be
invested in the local economy rather than going to outside vendors.
Carbon Credits
We have not considered carbon credits in this report, because there is not a realistic carbon market in
the United States. If such a planned economic system were to become reality, this project would likely
benefit. Biomass energy is considered a "carbon neutral" fuel, and thus this project would generate
carbon credits that could be sold at market, offsetting energy costs to the consumer. This is a simplistic
and speculative discussion of the subject, but it should be realized that this concept has the future
potential to make this project more economically attractive.
Competition for firewood
The residents of Galena currently harvest firewood for Will heating from the same forest resource
proposed to fuel the new energy systems. Anecdotal information indicates that residents have impacted
the firewood resource to the extent that they have been forced to travel farther from town to harvest
24
satisfactory firewood. It is possible that the new proposed energy systems could compete for wood with
the residents, jeopardizing the socially sustainable status that this project requires for success.
But, this project may benefit the same people with lower energy costs, wood pellets, and jobs. Also,
forestry management practices might create a forest that supplies the needs of both the firewood
harvesters and the energy system simultaneously. In any case, this potential conflict should be realized
and prevented.
In Stream Hydro
Low -impact hydroelectric technologies, including in -stream (or hydrokinetic) turbines that do not
require dams or diversions of water, are attracting great interest in the Yukon River watershed.
There is no good cost estimates on in -stream hydropower, as this technology is still in the experimental
stages, and is not yet commercially available.
In the summer of 2008, a 51cW hydrokinetic turbine was temporarily installed in the Yukon River
village of Ruby, Alaska as part of a demonstration. Other Yukon watershed -based hydrokinetic
projects in Alaska include planned installations in the communities of Nenana, Eagle, Tanana, and
Whitestone, and at least one project slated for the Canadian side of the watershed. All of these pilot
projects are in various stages of planning, permitting, design, and/or installation. Particular
challenges that need to be overcome for hydrokinetic turbines to be practical in the Yukon River
include:
• Diversion of stream debris without obstructing river• flow
• Cost-effective anchoring of the turbine and support struchu•e in the fastest moving part of
the river
• Possible impacts to migrating and resident fish populations are another ongoing area of
investigation.
• River ice freezing in the winter (possibly requiring removal of the turbines)
A research project led by Prof. Tom Ravens of the University of Alaska Anchorage, School of
Engineering, collected water current speed data in the Yulcon River at Galena as part of a statewide
hydrokinetic energy resource assessment study. The acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) data
was gathered in July 2009. At least one of the transects (lines of measurement collected across the
river) were located right in front of the town and the rest were done at different sections through
the bend downstream of the town. The mean and max velocity and power figures for the Galena
River site are given below, based on the UAA team's ADCP measurements and USGS streamgauge
data between May 1977 and November 2010.
Vaverage: 1.04 m/s
Vma,: 1.77 m/s
Paverage: 0.18 kW/m2
P,,ax: 0.88 kW/m2
25
It is unknown at this time whether the above reported hydrokinetic energy resource would be an
economic source of power for Galena.
It is recommended that Galena stakeholders further evaluate hydrokinetic turbine options, and closely
watch results of the pilot projects going on elsewhere in the Yukon River watershed, or work with a
hydrokinetic turbine developer to initiate a pilot project installation at Galena. Galena could also
participate in the Alaska Energy Authority's "Hydrokinetic Working Group" that includes state and
federal permitting and resource agencies, developers, and communities with potential project sites.
ORC Technology
Organic Rankin Cycle (ORC) turbines are heat engines that can work off a very low temperature
differential. As such, they have been used to generate electricity from low grade sources of heat energy.
ORC electrical generation devices could complement the biomass energy systems proposed in this
report. The waste heat coming off the Jenbacher engine, low quality steam exhausted from the
reciprocating steam engine, waste heat from the biomass gas generation processes, or heat taken
directly from the biomass boiler might be used to produce additional electricity with an ORC. In this
report, we have focused on a rather course view of the design, and thus have not worked out the details
of integrating ORC's into our recommendations. We do think that the feasibility study and design phase
of this project should take a closer look at the use of ORC's within the proposed biomass systems, as we
feel they are a viable part of Galena's long term energy vision.
CICIUSl�1S
We have ruled out the use of either solar or in stream hydro electrical generation at this time. We have
identified the use of biomass energy as a useful alternative to fossil fuels.
There are several developing technologies and hardware that promise to economically convert biomass
fuel to both electricity and heat. At this time however, it is prudent that Galena wait until these
technologies mature before purchasing and implementing them. This recommendation is based on the
"three and three" rule that dictates a system must have three installed examples that have operated
successfully for a minimum of three years each.
The community of Galena has several options to begin enacting their long term energy vision.
They can purchase one of the systems described as Alternatives A through E in this report. All of these
systems are based on sound technologies, but they lack operational histories. if Galena chooses to
implement one of these systems, they do so knowing and accepting the risk and uncertainty that
accompany that system. WHPacific does not recommend this, but we do recommend that all of these
systems and their development elsewhere be watched closely, as they are likely to become viable
energy options at some time in the near future.
WHPacific recommends that Alternative f1 be examined in a formal feasibility study. This involves
installing a Uniconfort boiler, and using it to generate steam for distribution in the existing Air Base
►zy
district heating system. At this time, we feel there is some advantage in the Uniconfort fluidized bed
updraft reactor (over the Nexterra downdraft reactor) in that it will accept a wider variety of fuels and
moisture contents. The Uniconfort Global-G model 120 is rated to supply the 4,500,000 BTU/hour heat
demand. This heating system has the potential to offset between 150,000 and 200,000 gallons per year
of diesel heating fuel and will require the harvest of between 50 and 150 acres of forest annually.
Although it is not our primary recommendation, The Nexterra gas system does have promise to supply
steam for district heating. However, the smallest biomass heating system that they carry is rated for
8,000,000 BTU's/hour, as compared to the 4,500,000 BTU/hour heating need on the Air Base. It should
also be noted that Nexterra has said that they do not know if their gas system can be used to directly
fire a retrofitted diesel boiler as we have suggested is an option elsewhere in this report. The downdraft
biomass reactor used in the Nexterra system is more sensitive to varying fuel moisture and consistency
than the Uniconfort boiler.
This recommendation should be regarded as a first step in achieving Galena's long term energy goals.
The infrastructure should be selected and installed so that electrical generation equipment can be
added on with relative ease at a later date. The site should accommodate the space for extra equipment
and increased wood storage and handling that will become necessary if electricity is to be generated.
We recommend that the boiler is installed in the existing Air Base physical plant (reference sheet 2,
Appendix A). The physical plant would probably accommodate both a biomass boiler and a future
electrical generation modification, but existing diesel generators (currently not in use) would have to be
removed from the building first. Wood would be stored in the existing warehouse north of the physical
plant, and transported to the fuel feeding area by loader. An alternative site plan would involve
constructing a new 2500 square foot structure to house the equipment (reference sheet 3).
It is anticipated that the wood will be dried naturally. Wood will be harvested and cold decked in the
field for one year. This will bring the moisture content from about 60% to 30%. After one year of cold
decking, the whole logs will be transported to the wood staging area, chipped, and stored in the
warehouse or in the designated future wood storage area.
We think it would be wise to also evaluate alternative F2, the Nexterra system, during the feasibility
study phase. Although our primary recommendation is the Uniconfort system (updraft reactor, close
coupled gasification), the two stage gasification system being developed by Nexterra has promise to
meet Galena's long term energy vision also.
Other variations should also be considered during the feasibility study phase. We recommend that wood
boilers from other manufacturers be considered for use, as this has the potential to reduce capital costs.
It was our experience when compiling this report that the vendors who supply the boiler hardware (in
our case, AESI and Nexterra) are reluctant to supply either technical information or detailed cost
information regarding their systems. This is because all biomass energy projects are unique. Galena,
being a remote community, adds a further degree of uniqueness and logistical challenge. It is our
understanding that during the feasibility study phase of this project, a vendor or several vendors will
27
have to perform their own study of the project so that they can provide dependable details regarding
how their systems will conform to Galena's unique situation. So, we envision that a formal feasibility
study will likely be a joint undertaking by an engineering consultant, vendors, and the project
stakeholders.
It is also critical to this project that a wood harvesting operation be established. In conjunction with the
feasibility study, a business plan should be produced to guide the creation of the wood harvesting
operation. This report recommends that the forest is managed to produce cottonwood as fuel. We also
recommend that this harvesting operation be considered as a commercial source of wood for home
heating. If a reliable source of wood for sale was created, more residents could convert to wood for
home heating, which would offset more fossil fuel. However, it is likely that consumers of wood for
home heating would demand spruce as a fuel, and not cottonwood.
m
Appendix A4igures
9iT11
01799
' t
��03b L XlA{'y,{D
% N
ri
lee
—
�,_ SCALE
" 100 0 50 10(
J o,e4s
1 ( FEET )
-- J" 1 INCH = 100 FT.
Itis --:EXISTING BUILDING (32,000 SF)
PROPOSED WOOD CHIP STORAGE
APPROXIMATE 20,000 SF STORAGE REQUIRED
L— FUTURE FUEL STORAGE AREA (28,900 SF)
REQUIRED IF SYSTEM EXPANDED TO
GENERATE ELECTRICITY
EXISTING BASE PHYSICAL PLANT
EXISTING DEISEL BOILERS FOR
DISTRICT HEATING
a = �- NEW BIOMASS POWER BOILER
11750 SF REQUIRED SPACE
FUTURE ELECTRICAL GENERATION
750 SF REQUIRED SPACE
J
'j - _' FUEL FEED AREA
tf i j�
�� �.._ I
- � .�
� r '.
�, �n,v P ' r�, . , ellI I _ NEW ACCESS ROAD
_ FOR FUEL TRANSPORT
NOTE: THIS PHOTO FROM 611 CES, DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BIOMASS POWER PLANT SITE
OF THE AIRFORCE, UTILITY DRAWING. Al TCDKIATIIic C 4 110c cVIQTIKlr_ 131 Ill nlnlrQ i
SCALE: 1"=100'
[�2
ETNUMEER RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF RENEWABLE IMNND INFOSREET WT(� r of 3 ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR GALENA ALASKA FIGURES CHECKED �0 1NHPacifil
LOUDEN TRIBAL COUNCIL V TEDIT /L M10
PROPOSED ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PLOTDATE IWIM10
SCALE '
100 0 50 100
FEET )
1 INCH = 100 FT.
EXISTING BUILDING (32,000 SF)
PROPOSED WOOD CHIP STORAGE
APPROXIMATE 20,000 SF STORAGE REQUIRED
J _ FUTURE FUEL STORAGE AREA (28,900 SF)
I REQUIRED IF SYSTEM EXPANDED TO
GENERATE ELECTRICITY
��� ? � � NEW BIOMASS POWER BOILER
!` 0 FACILITY
2,500 SF REQUIRED SPACE
01499 �"� °�.( INCLUDES ROOM FOR EXPANSION
1 z �e1 TO ELECTRICAL GENERATION
yp
01499
L�rm,o'`•,.t ���F
EXISTING BASE PHYSICAL PLANT
EXISTING DEISEL BOILERS FOR
DISTRICT HEATING
START, EXISTING
STEAM DISTRIBUTION
NO7E: THIS PHOTO FROM 611 CES, DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BIOMASS POWER PLANT SITE
OF THE AIRFORCE, UTILITY DRAWING. nl Te®nlnTlvc e A l�nAIQTDI 1/�T AICIAI DI III Y11AI/]
SCALE: 1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF RENEWABLE
3 of 3 ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR GALENA ALASKA FIGURES °HEAD '� 1NHPaclflc
LOUDEN TRIBAL COUNCIL lA9TEDR INIM10
PROPOSED ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE KWMTE +vtwio
Dippendix v4her [f Electrical Calculations
30
a
M
m
co
M
m
N
�-1
n
V
N
0
N
Q
c
rl
>
m
O
n
Z
00
m
N
O
O
N
N
F
W
V
O
V
M
rl
o
n
O
m
�
M
M
M
v1
O�
O
O
v1
O
�
n
a
N
m
t0
o
m
o
o
m
m
a
o
m
o
o
m
m
Z
�
7
m
a
0
0
�
o
^
m
d
n
3
O
N
Q
M
N
rl
�
K
W
Q
N
.I
�
N
m
�
N
O
Lq
r
N
O
m
ni
m
N
o
ri
06
n
rci
Q
o
a
m
o
n
0
N
O
n
V
n
O
o
�
n
o
O1
m
>
O
Z
o
b
o
nco
N
F
U
n
M
m
O
V
O
n
m
m
O
d
N
O
O
n
Q
n
M
m
o
a
m
0
o
n
m
n
m
m
o
a
m
o
o
n
�
z
n
m
m
0
o
n
o
Q
�
o
�
o
n
m
N
�
m
Q
0
m
o
�
N
O
K
n
Q
p
N
O
~
n
n
O
^
O
n
Q
L
S
m
m
W
m
m
O
O
O
O
H
O
O
0
o
o
O
m
0
�
m
h
U
o E ° g
C � �
'° - u
:v o� Y woo � mD a Ic m D m w z v Io YEyv �¢00aEaoo
aat�u'.z 00�o a 00�- o0ti
u
Community Information Summary
Community: Galena
Yukon -Koyukuk Year2000 Census Area
Census Population: 580
Census Per Capita Income: $22,143
Utility Company: City of Galena
Regional Corporation: Doyon, Limited
State House Seat: 12
State Senate Seat: C
Borough: Unorganized
Incorporation Type: 1st Class City
Latitude: 64d 44m N
Longitude: 156d 56m W
AEA Comm ID: 68
PCE ID No: 331990
Location: Galena is
located
on the north bank of the Yukon River, 45
miles east of Nulato and 270 air miles west of
Fairbanks.
It lies
northeast of the Innoko National Wildlife
Refuge.
Climate: The area experiences a cold, continental climate with extreme temperature differences. The average daily
high temperature during July is in the low 70s; the average daily low temperature during January ranges from
10 to below 0 OF, Sustained temperatures of -40 OF are common during winter. Extreme temperatures have
been measured from -64 to 92 OF. Annual precipitation is 12.7 inches, with 60 inches of snowfall annually.
The river is ice -free from mid -May through mid -October.
Economy: Galena serves as the transportation, government, and commercial center for the western Interior. Federal,
state, city, school, and village government jobs dominate, but Galena has many other jobs in air
transportation and retail businesses. 15 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Other seasonal
employment, such as construction work and BLM fire fighting, provide some income. The Illinois Creek gold
mine, 50 miles southwest of Galena, closed due to low market prices.
Facilities: Water is derived from wells and is treated. 28 residences and the school are connected to a piped water and
sewer system. 110 households use aflush/haul system. 20 households use honeybuckets, and others have
individual septic tanks. Refuse collection and a landfill are provided by the city. The city began operating the
landfill, located on the former Campion AFS grounds, in 1997. There is a 200,000 gallon reservoir and a
community leach field.
Transportation: Galena serves as a regional transport center for surrounding villages. The state-owned Edward G. Pitka,
Sr., Airport provides the only year-round access. There is a paved, lighted 7,254' long by 150' wide
runway and a 2,786' long by 80' wide gravel ski strip adjacent to the main runway. The rivers allow
access by cargo barges from mid -May through mid -October. A boat launch was recently completed.
Pickups, cars, snowmachines, skiffs, and ATVs are used for local travel. During winter, the frozen rivers
are used for travel to Ruby, Koyukuk, Kaltag, and Nulato. A winter trail is available to Huslia.
Reference: Division of Community and Regional Affairs (www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca)
Galena Wood
Current Immediate Short -Term Mld-Term Lon Term Stretch Goal
g-
(0.10 Years) (1-3 Years) (2-10 Years) (5.16 Years) (15+ years)
[1 0 Diesel I -10% Conserve I`.100%�i� Diesel 60% �� Diesel [60�. Diesel L.._0% Colese
m I lff= II-10] Ef6ciency. I=F— 60% I� Wood-CHP i 60% Wood-CHP 100°e/ Wood-CH�
O I1j T s Fill $3,280,000 I'll $11880,000 I Fill $0 [tl $1,881,862
N) Fwii�=I ___1121....46 _.�� 121 _. $0.41$0.41 !2j JiL so.36
100% Diesel I100% Conserve 3M] Wood _J 93% Lood-CHP 93%lI _Wood-CHP 930/6 ]Wood-CHP.J
L1-10%.I Efficiency II 76/i7Diesel 7% [_„Wood 7% I Wood _7% Wood
x [=0F ==C _lam
-1E (1) I[$1AsoAoo 11j i f $1,880,000 I' MY $1,200,000 [1 _ $0 _...I
(31 IF$48,96_� [31 I..._ $47.48 [[3� $60.18 i 131 L $60.87 131 I _ $60.87
I51 $1,910,000 �Isl...l $4,820,000 I 15) $3,760,000 (5) $1,200,000 161 $1,880,000.:..I
[11 Subtotal Term Capital Cost($) 121 Cost of Electricity($/kWh) [31 Cost of Heat($/mmBTU) (41 Current Utility Cost($[kWh) 151 Term Capital Cost
Current Energy Status
Electric Utility (Estimated)
Cost of Electricity (Residential) 0.56kWh
Annual Community Energy Sales
%9083893 kWh/Year
Average Community Load 789 kW
Annual Diesel Electricity Generated
7,772,042 kWh/Year
Estimated Peak Load 1,753 kW
Wind Turbine Electricity Generated
0 kWh/Year
Electrical Interlie7 N
Hydroelectric Electricity Generated
0 kWh/Year
Primary Diesel Power Locations(s):
Natural Gas Electricity Generated
0 kWh[Year
Hydroelectric Plant Location(s):
Annual Electricity Purchased
0 kWh/Year
Communities on the Inlertle:
Source Data Note: 1
yr:FY08
Note: Power plant (station service), transmission, and distribution
losses account
for the difference between power generation and sales.
Diesel Power Generation (Estimated)
Annual Diesel Electricity Generated 7,772,042 kWh/year
Estimated Local Fuel Cost
@ $107.50/bbl $4,41
Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption 674,806 gal/year
Fuel Cost $0.33
/kWh Projected Fuel Cost
/year $2,634,894
Average Diesel Efficiency 13,62 kWh/gal
Non -Fuel Cost $0,14
[kWh Non -Fuel Costs
/year $11066,371
Diesel COE $0.46
/kWh Total Electric
$31600,000
Space Heating (Estimated)
2000 Census Data
Estimated Heating Fuel Used
129,410 gallonstyear
Fuel Oil 62%
Estimated Heating Fuel Cost
$5,41 $/gallon
Wood 31 %
Delivered Heating Fuel Cost
$48.96 $/mmBTU
Electricity 3%
Annual Community Heat Requirements
10,823 mmBTU
Note: Residential data only.
Total Heating Oil
$700,000
Transportation (Estimated)
Estimated Diesel Used 57,854 gallons Estimated cost $6.41 gallon Total Transportation $3125000
Total Energy Cost $4,4903000
Page 1 of 4
Galena
Wood
Demand -Side Electric Efficiency and Conservation
Deployment Term Immediate Electricity Saved 1,381,779 kWh Capital Cost $4641000
Technology Electric Usage Fuel Saved 102,194 Gallons Annual Capital Cost $66,063
15 % Electricity Reduction from Efficiency Fuel Savings $460,676
5% Electricity Reduction from Conservation
Note: Fuel Saving Base on 100% Diesel Yearly Savings $385,000
Demand - Side Heat Efficiency and Conservation
Deployment Term Immediate as Saved 3$65 mmBTU Capital Cost $1,450,000
Technology Space Heating Fuel Saved 26,882 Gallons Annual Capital Cost $206,447
15 % Heat Reduction from Efficiency Fuel Savings $140,022
5% Heat Reduction from Conservation ---
Note: Fuel Saving Base on 100% Diesel Yearly Savings ($66,000)
Current Power Plant: Upgrade Potential
Deployment Term Short
Technology Diesel
UtilityCompany City of Galena
Technical Assistance or Upgrade Required
Generator and Switchgear
Status or Note
Potential Efficiency 15.00 kWh/Gal
New Fuel Used 518,136 Gallons
Note: Performance Improvement to Higher Efficiency
Deployment Term Short
Technology Diesel Engine Heat Recovery
Utility Company City of Galena
Heat Recovery System Installed? Y
Heat Recovery System Operational? Y
Buildings Connected and Working:
Elementary and High Schools,
Clinic, City Hall, Swimming Pool,
Showerhouse, Water Plant
Water Jacket 11,209 mmBTU
Stack
Heat 0 mmBTU
Capital Cost $800,000
Annual Capital P/I $87,836
New Fuel Cost $2,2843980
Non -Fuel Cost $947,942
New cost of electricity
$/kWh
$0.011
$0.294
$0.122
$0.443
Yearly Savings
Capital Cosl $2,464,214 $/mmBTU
Annual Capital P/1 $272,753 $24.33
Annual O/M $743526 $6,66
Total Annual Cost $347,280 � $30.96
$144,000
Yearly Savings $302,000
Page 2 of 4
Galena
Wood
Deployment Term Short -Term
Technology Wood
Thermal Energy Produced per Year 5,047 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year 222
Cost of Fuel 250 $/Cord
Annual Fuel Cost
Note
Cost includes: Wood boiler for a public building and a quantity
of residential stoves to achieve the percent of community heat
energy consumption considered.
Deployment Term Mid -Term
Technology Wood•CHP
Installed Capacity
464 kW
Annual Electricity Production
3,454,446 kWh
Annual Thermal Energy
15,711 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year
4,373
Cost of Fuel
$260/cd
Annual Fuel Cost
$1,093,179
Note
Capital Cost allocation of 50% between electric and heat used.
Capital cost shown Is 50% of total.
Source Data
Renewable Power in Rural Alaska:
Improved Opportunities for
Economic Development.
The Arctic Energy Summit: Crimp,
Colt, Foster 2007.
Deployment Term Mid -Term
Technology Wood-CHP
Installed Capacity 464 kW
Annual Electricity Production 3,4543446 kWh
Annual Thermal Energy 15,711 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year 4$73
Cost of Fuel $ 250/cd
Annual Fuel Cost $1,093,179
Note
Capital Cost allocation of 60% between electric and heat used.
Capital cost shown is 50% of total.
Source Data
Renewable Power In Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for
Economic Development,
The Arctic Energy Summit: Crimp, Colt, Foster 2007,
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 0%
Capital
P
Cost
$1,340,256
eiounocosr
sMwn
uea+cos+
smrMaw
Annual Capital
Cost
$126,511
$0,000
$26,07
Annual OM
Cost
$403208
$0,000
$7.97
Fuel Cost:
$65,481
$0,000
$10,99
Total Annual
Cost
$2223200
$0,000
$44,03
Non -Fuel
Costs
$0,000
Alternative COE:
$0,000
Annual Electric Savings $0
Annual Heat Savings $210,000
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 50
Ca ital
p
Cost
$1,861,853
e:ecvic cost
sraWm
ueai cost
smtr.+ew
Annual Capital
Cost
$177,634
$0,051
$11,31
Annual OM
Cost
$142,869
$0,021
$4,55
Fuel
Cost:
$1,093,179
$0,158
$34,79
Total Annual
Cost
$1,413,681
$0,230
$50,64
Non -Fuel
Costs
$0,117
Alternative
COE:
$0,348
Annual Electric Savings $400,000
Annual Heat Savings $0
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 60%
Ca ital
p
Cost
$1,881,853
aia<viccos+
SfrtWh
uea+cos+
SIMMaIu
Annual Capital
as
$177,634
$0.051
$11.31
Annual OM
Cost
$142,869
$0,021
$4,55
Fuel
Cost:
$1,093,179
$0,158
$34,79
Total Annual
Cost
$1,413,681
$0,072
$60,64
Non -Fuel
Costs
$0,117
Alternative
COE:
$0.189
Annual Electric Savings $947,000
Annual Heat Savings $0
Page 3 of 4
Galena
Wood
Deployment Term Long•Term
Technology Wood
Thermal Energy Produced per Year
31365 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year
128
Cost of Fuel
260 $/Cord
Annual Fuel Cost
$32,116
Note
Cost Includes: Wood boiler for a public
building and a quantity
of residential stoves to achieve the
percent of community heat
energy consumption considered.
Deployment Term Stretch Goal
Technology Wood•CHP
Installed Capacity
464 kW
Annual Electricity Production
3,454,446 kWh
Annual Thermal Energy
15,711 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year
41373
Cost of Fuel
$250/cd
Annual Fuel Cost
$1,093,179
Note
Capital Cost allocation of 50% between
electric and heat used.
Capital cost shown is 50% of total.
Source Data
Renewable Power In Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for
Economic Development.
The Arctic Energy Summit: Crimp, Colt,
Foster 2007.
Deployment Term Stretch Goal
Technology Wood•CHP
Installed Capacity 464 kW
Annual Electricity Production 3,454,446 kWh
Annual Thermal Energy 15,711 mmBTU
Cords of Wood per Year 41373
Cost of Fuel $ 2501cd
Annual Fuel Cost $1,093,179
Note
Capital Cost allocation of 50% between electric and heat used.
Capital cost shown is 60% of total.
Source Data
Renewable Power in Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for
Economic Development.
The Arctic Energy Summit: Crimp, Colt, Foster 2007.
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 0%
Capital Cost
$1,200,062
y ,M O5r
$MMeru
Annual Capital Cost
$113,277
$0,000
$33,67
Annual OM Cost
$36,002
$0,000
$10,70
Fuel Cost:
$32,116
$0,000
$9,55
Total Annual Cost
$181,395
$0,000
$53.91
Non -Fuel
Costs
$0,000
Alternative
COE:
$0.000
Annual Electric Savings $0
Annual Heat Savings $1405000
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 100%
Capital
Cost $1,861,853
eie§ wcoo51
sirdmiac�r
Annual Capital
Cost $177,634
$0,051
$11,31
Annual OM
Cost $142,869
$0,021
$4,65
Fuel
Cost: $1,093,179
$0,168
$34,79
Total Annual
Cost $1,413,681
$0,230
$50,64
Non -Fuel Costs
$0,117
Alternative COE:
$0,348
Annual Electric Savings $400,000
Annual Heat Savings $0
Percent of Community Electrical Energy Consumption 100%
Ca ital Cost
P
$1,881,853
E:ecmc cost
sMwn
near cost
smtrnwu
Annual Capital Cost
$177,634
$0.051
$11.31
Annual OM Cost
$142,869
$0,021
$4,65
Fuel Cos(:
$1,093,179
$0.158
$34,79
Total Annual Cost
$13413,681
$0,230
$50,64
Non -Fuel
Costs
$0,117
Alternative
COE:
$0,348
Annual Electric Savings
Annual Heat Savings
Appendix CwvAES system techn1c l/pr d uct data
AESI Global Series biomass boiler technical brochure.
AESI Project Summary. Kentucky Horse Park Farm- This is a CHP system, but it is not comparable to the
situation and needs of Galena. It has been included to give a snapshot of biomass CHP technology
available from AESI.
Carrier Microsteam Power System, technical brochure -An example of the electrical generating turbine
offered by AESI.
AGSI C`7LC)i�Ai. �@YIP.6
Alternative Energy Solutions IntemaGonal, Inc. offers the premier
modular biomass -to -energy system necessary to reliably meet
long-term energy needs. Based on a technology developed over
50 years ago by Unioonfort, an ISO 9001 company, and now
exclusively fabricated byAESI In the United States, the GLOBAL
Series leads the industry in accommodating biomass fuel
diversity, composition, and moisture content.
E3enefit From iV6oc�uiarity
AESI's modular des! gn allows for rapid deployment, assembly,
scalabilily, and efficiency to meet expanding energy needs.
Modularity enables you to increase your energy output by adding
more units. The unit's intelligent engineering, highly automated
processes, and small footprint enables seamless integration
into existing physical plant or single site operations. Duel -fuel
capabilities provide fail safe strategies for managing fuel needs.
Not Water @ 203°F I Saturated Steam up to 300 psiy
Superheated Water up to 300°F
CurrenPly, there are over 4000 Unlconfort
systems operating worldwide.
,l
ahe,natiw energy mlunions innina I[on aI, in(,
Product Features:
Versatile Fuel Nandiing
Utilizes a wide range of biomass fuels
3 High moisture fuels up to 120% dry basis
Accepts fuel sized up to 12" x 20 x 2"
High ash content up to 15
Utilize fossil fuels as a backup fuel
Arttomated Operation
PLC Panel with Remote Support
Automatic fuel feed system
Automatic ash extraction
> Automatic soot blower"
Automatic combustion modulation
[?arable, Quality Components
Stainless steel water cooled moving grates
Plate steel shell
Hand -laid firebrick refractory
Retractable burner assembly
' Optional equipment
Cleaner Combustion Through Gasification
By using Vertically Integrated Gasification & Combustion (VIGC) our boilers offer extremely low emissions and high efficiency (80-86% ).
Unlike outdated solid fuel boilers, AESI's gasifiers use incline moving grates and a specially designed staged gasification chamber that
ncreases efficiency, reduces particulate emissions, and eliminates klinkerng and slagging.
Fuel l candling Made Simple
The proprietary fuel feeding system is comprised of a container for surge fuel feeding
and an internal feeding device complete with a reduction gear, variable speed motor;
controlled by a central PLC panel for complete fuel flow and control
k
Nigh Efficiency, Low Mair tanance, and Flexibility
The AESI GLOBAL Series boilers feature a modular 2-pass heat � 'a
exchanger that is mounted directly above the secondary combustionL
chamber, sitting atop the packaged unit. The GLOBAL Series heat
exchangers are based upon the traditional fire tube design, featuring
oversized tubes for enhanced reliability and maximized thermal efficiency
under high soot conditions. The firetubes are both rolled and welded
to minimize maintenance over the life of the system. The modular design of
the heat exchanger provides unrivaled flexibility, allowing a user to easily
change the heat exchanger to provide the desired thermal output.
Step 4:
-- -
Directly Create
Heat/Steam
.�
_ �
Step 3:
Oxygen Applied
to Syngas
Step I: Drying Step 2: Syngas Extracted '
Vertically Integrated Gasification R Combustion
e:
Model
kcaVhr MMh (kJ/s)
BTU/hr
BHP
kg/hr
Ibs1hr
kg/hr tonne/yr Ibs/hr tonyr
30
3003000 349
1,1891700
36
600
11102
97 777
214
857
60
6001000 697
2,379,400
71
1 000
2 205
194 1,554
428 1,713
_ 90 _
900,000
11046
3,569100
107
_1,500
_3,307'_
291 2,331 _
_642 2,570'
120
11200,000 1,395
41758,800
142
2,000
4,409
389 3,108
857 31428
160
115001000 _ 1_743
5,946,500
178
21500
5,511
486 30
1,0714,263
180
1,800,000 21092
711381200
214
31000
60614
583 41662
11285 51140
240
21406,& 2,789
%W,600
285
4,000
5,818
777 6;217
11713 8,853
300
3,000000 3,487
11,8973000
356
5,000
11,023
071 7,771
2,141 8,566
4 00
41000,069 4,649 _
15,862,667
_474_
$,666
144697
1295 _40,361
21855 11,421
500
5,000,000 5,811
19,828,334
593
8,333
18,371
11619 12,951
3,669 14,276
"Curni<ey System integration
Alternative Energy Solutions International, Inc. offers turnkey modular
systems that are pre-engineered, saving our customers lime and
money. Our combustion experts bring over 50 years of experience to
each project, ensuring that your system is optimized for maximum
performance and return on investment. With 24 hour remote system
monitoring, our experts remain involved with your operations and
provide the Insight to keep your system running at its best for the long
term.
Biomass energy has never been simpler and more accessible.
Contact AESI today to learn more.
VVha# Ms
Your SJpportunity Fuel?
Wood
Sawdust tmbs, bark, trimmings
mulch remnants, debris
-
Agricultu e
Chaff, hulls, stalks, midds
shells, skins, husks, algae
Animal & Municipal Wmto
Manure, litter, washdovm,
Municipal solids
Inn dustrial & Co,nierelal Throvmway
Paper, crates, pallets pulp
fats, oils, sludges, remnants
altenu9w egytions ntetnational, Inc.
CUSTOMER PROFILE
The Kentucky Horse Park is owned by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and is one of many agencies within
the state's Commerce Cabinet. All state employees, there are approximately 80 full-time and 50 seasonal staff
that work for the Kentucky Horse Park itself, and there are approximately 250 more people who work in the
various offices of the National Horse Center, or as service providers on the grounds.
PROJECT PROFILE
AESI is supplying a biomass waste to energy system solution for daily use at the Kentucky Horse Farm Park,
in Lexington, Kentucky. Under an Energy Savings Performance Contract, administered by nationally
recognized AMERESCO, the Kentucky Horse Park project will aggregate all wastes from horses to a central
collection, where it is quickly consumed by a Biomass Gasification & Combustion system, delivering hot water.
The waste produced hot water will then be sent to a Pratt & Whitney Power Systems' PureCycle® Organic
Rankine Cycle unit which converts the thermal energy into renewable energy allowing the Horse Park to save
money by offsetting electricity cost, eliminate landfilling.
"As the first biomass application for our PureCycle® power system, Kentucky Horse Park will be able to
dispose of waste while creating its own electric power," Pratt & Whitney Power Systems Vice President
Charles Levey said. "The closed -loop ORC process has the ability and versatility to increase energy efficiency
and provide renewable energy to customers across a variety of industries."
IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT
By using the horse -manure biomass in the AESI provided Vertically Integrated Gasification to Combustion
(VIGC) boiler to generate up to 280kW of electric power, materials which would have become methane
generating in a landfill are effectively eliminated. The genesis of the VIGC biomass boiler is from world
reknown UNICONFORT of Italy, where they have been designing and building biomass boilers for over 50
years. AESI as their North American OEM, is producing and deploying the units on this side of the Ocean.
"By taking these aggressive efficiency measures, the Kentucky Horse Park is demonstrating the value of
energy conservation and how it has a positive impact on our environment now and in the future," said Mrs.
Beshear. "As founder of Kentucky's Green Team, I am confident that when guests visit the Horse Park, they
will be impressed not only with our world class facility but by our commitment to sustainability."
USING ARRA FUNDS
The KHFP, waste to energy project is funded in part through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009 in Lexington, Ky, The Kentucky Horse Park received loans through the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund for the purchase and installation of a manure bioenergy management facility.
"This project is a prime example of how Recovery Act funding is helping local communities," said Acting EPA
Regional Administrator Stan Meiburg. "The construction of the new manure bioenergy management facility will
provide an on -site solution for waste disposal, generating renewable electricity and protecting the
environment."
THE SYSTEM SOLUTION
The provisioned plant consists of three primary pieces of equipment:
1. The VIGC biomass fueled boiler,
2. The ORC electricity generator
3. The forced draft, wash down, cooling tower.
The VIGC fire tube boiler is capable of delivering 9.4 mm btu/hour. The units fuel requirements, are competent
to accept the KHFP waste horse bedding as fuel, anticipated at humidity of less than 60%, dry basis.
Maximum ash content from the fuel will be less than 10%.
The VIGC unit is equipped with water cooled moving grate and water cooled ash removal to prevent burnout,
auto soot blowers to maintain boiler operation and other relevant accessories. As a standard, AESI installs
two, live feed, video cameras which will provide operators with viewpoints on fuel feed handling. These
cameras will deliver signal to an independent screen mounted on the primary unit PLC.
The Carrier/UTC PureCycleO power system unit converts hot water to electric power through the vaporization
and expansion of a working fluid in a closed system.
BENEFITS
As stated this project delivers multiple and lasting benefits to the Horse Park. Landfill diversion as a general
practice is becoming more prevalent and is vital to management of greenhouse gases. As with any
commercial disposal program, costs add up. By deploying this system, these costs are completely eliminated
which is a benefit equal to about $200,000 per year. Once the materials have been processed through the
gasifier and combustor, there will be a residual ash. The ash retains all the soil enhancing benefits of the
originating materials. Better than compost, ash volume will 8% of the original mass, making it easier to
disperse as a natural soil amendment. Electricity will be generated continuously at sufficient quantities to
provide an economic benefit of approximately $125,000 at a unit retail rate of $0.05 per kWh.
AESI PROJECT TEAM STAFF
Dave Daniels, Josh Holmes, Jared Finlay, Delphine Combaz
TEAM MEMBER PARTICIPANTS
Systems such as this one at KHFP are designed and deployed through a coordinated effort of multiple team
members. For this project major contributing firms include:
UAM — Universal Asset Management (UAM) is an engineering firm expanding its service offering to select
vertical markets defined as a comprehensive Asset Protection Program (APPO). The APP is designed to
increase the reliability of equipment, automate repair/tracking systems, and provide asset management
services reducing and/or stabilizing maintenance costs.
West Coast Industrial Systems — Founded in Sweet Home, Oregon in 1987, WCI is uniquely focused on
material handling systems, fabrication, installation, maintenance service, and custom industrial structures.
Expanded expertise, provides a balanced construction and engineering team which provided material
receipt, preparation, transport and management. WCI experience brings innovative design, adapting to
projects such as KHFP.
KICE Manufacturing —Kice is a worldwide provider of complete processing systems for more than four
generations. Kice offers engineered, pre -assembled, modular systems that makes on -site installation easy
and quick. This includes blowers, cyclones, baghouse filters, control systems and panels, pneumatic
transport systems. and more. Stairways. ladders. access nlatforms and anv other features needed are
i iEi. Et 00, f" €;Etr,€' Y)l I Turn to the Experts.
r>
a:
Io f
05
tll
t ?
G
p r S 00
u,tll i %.
Electric End
With a turbine eiiiclency of
approximate 80 percent, the
Microsteam power system can
eiilciently generate up to 275 Me.
For Installations with a major amount
of steam available, multiple units
can be Installed and the potential
can become MWs of energy to
be produced.
PRV PRV
Product Features
Erosion resistant alloy construction
tolerant of poor quality steam
<Hiah efficiencu Induction generator
`Programmable logic controller (PLC)
conirol system with color panel display
'.Full load power output ,`
;7yp(cal inlet pressure
Tgpical steam flow rate 4,000. 20,000 Ibs/hr
Long life 15-20 Boar design
1-800-CARRIER www.carrier.com
® e Carder Corporation®2009
A member of the United Technologies Corporation famNg.
® Stock sgmbol UTX Cat No. 04.811-50017-25
Manufacturer reserves the right to d sconunua or charge at ang time,
Turn to the Experts" specifications or deslitim without notion and without incurring obligalbns.
Appendix D�Nexterra/Jenbacher product data
OKAdvanced Power Biomass Gasification ProjeCt-Promotional literature on a proposed biomass CHP
system for Tok Alaska similar to Alternative D of this report.
UNBC Biomass Gasification System, promotional literature -An example of a biomass fueled, steam,
district heating constructed by Nexterra.
Dockside Green Biomass Gasification System, promotional literature -An example of a biomass fueled,
hot water, district heating constructed by Nexterra.
First U.S. Oemmtstration of Biomass Gasification to Internal Combustion Engine
Alaska Power &Telephone (AP&T), in collaboration with Nexterra Systems and GE Energy, the community of Tok and the State of Alaska,
and with assistance from Dalson Energy, propose to highlight the U.S. Department of Energy's commitment to medium -scale biomass
combined heat and power ("CHP") technologies through the deployment of a "state of the technology" 2MWe CHP system in Tok, Alaska,
using locally -sourced woody biomass as fuel.
The proposed project combines Nexterra's proprietary gasification technology and syngas conditioning system with GE Energy's expertise
in high -efficiency IC (internal combustion) engines. This will be the first biomass gasification to internal combustion engine project
deployed in the U.S. AP&T's customers will be the first in Alaska to add biomass -generated electricity to their renewable power supply.
AP&T believes that the system will serve as a viable clean alternative to diesel -fueled generators and will catalyze the replication of
renewable community -scale biomass CHP in rural communities, municipalities and institutions throughout Alaska, and across North
America.
Alaska Power &Telephone has applied for a DOE grant of $tOM from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, and will raise another
$IOM in state and private funding.
- PROJECT BENEFITS
Renewable Energy & Innovation
> A showcase of renewable energy and innovation for Alaska
> First biomass -generated electricity project m Alaska
> Potential replication of renewable energy throughout Alaska
> Establish a biomass fuel distribution network in Alaska
Jobs &Investment
> Approximately 50 -100 direct and indirect jobs
> local manufacturing and ongoiny employment opportunities
> Local fuel procurement and distribution
Low Environmental Impact
> Project will offset up to 10,000 tons/year of CO2e emissions
> Clean burning fuel will produce air quality emissions
comparable to natural gas
> Reduce diesel usage in rural communities
> No wastewater discharge
:'SCHEDULE
The DOE Grant award will 6e announced by December 1, 2009.
If the grant is awarded, work will start immediately with
system start-up projected for Fall 2011.
> DOE Grant Submission — ✓
> Site Location — ✓
> Cost Assessment/Business Case — ✓
> DOE Grant Award — 04 2009
> Project Permitting — 012010
> Construction Start Date — 02 2010
> System Start-up — 03 2011
+THE TECHNOLOGY
Nexterra uses a fixed -bed updraft gasification system which has been commercially proven for converting biomass into synthesis gas or "syngas'
which is a clean -burning combustible gas that can be used like natural gas to generate electrical power and heat. The proposed system in Tok,
Alaska will combine Nexterra's commercial gasification technology with its newly developed syngas conditioning system and a GE Jenbacher gas
engine. The combination will create a modular biomass combined heat and power (it CHP" I plant, enabling the community of Tok to economically
self -generate renewable heat and power.
IMPACT ON RENEWABLE POWER INDUSTRY
Biomass is a carbon neutral fuel that can be used to produce low-cost renewable heat and power in place of more expensive fossil fuels.
Despite significant forest lands and expensive diesel fuel, the biomass energy industry in Alaska is still in its infancy. This proposed project will
demonstrate the feasibility of biomass forthermal and electricity generation and its success could lead to replication in other communities and
institutions throughout Alaska. This project will use woody biomass from the State of Alaska forest land leased to AP&T for this project
through a 25-year, 27,000-acre sustained yield harvest plan. The system will convert approximately 12,500 tons of biomass residuals per year
to heat and power —that will use approximately 625 acres/year at 20 tons/acre, or a total of 12,500 acres over 20 years. This amounts to less
than half the biomass available from the leased parcel of state forest land.
BIOMASS -TO -POWER SOLUTION
Wood Chips Dry Woad Ghips Syngas Conditioned Synyas GE Energy's Jenbacher
��, Gas Engines
t mer�l g
A - I
ao
Biomass Dryer Fuei Storage Bin Gasifier Tar Cracker Precoat Internal Combusion Engine f
M f Filter
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Thomas Deerfeld
Dalson Energy
907-277-7900 office 425-533-3900 cell
thomas@dalsonenergy.com
Jonathan Wilkinson
Nexterra Systems Corp.
604-637-2508 office 604-961-1806 cell
jw lkinson@nexterra.ca
�
ry
z
a
�'
yjLL
m
N
M
0
0
N
6
c
u,
r
w
J
a
0
c,
0
ca
SUSTAINABILITY CENTRE
II I�
� g
LU a
S
€ a3 r 5
1
i
\ rcr o
M
Z
s aY C)
W _ i s. a ��',��.� O
m
m �¢ T
QLL
s 4 z `t }li
DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY a
I
LL
I
PA
L1J
0
Ui
U
O
0
o N m
.Cd
o z
o- -a v �' m
U a L
y U > o > = o m w o
Z' 'E m
as
O N m+ ti
a
Q
00
z�
ou
3
t'
m
�
zc�
a
N
h
O y
LJJ - m a a E 3
® ..o o c� o o�.a 'R c T
°' = a E c
w Y p i s
o o:� cn o 0
mz
a
m