HomeMy WebLinkAboutGalena Community Wood Heat Project Galena Biomass Boiler - Conceptual Design Report 2013 REF Grant 7060927Conceptual Design Report
And Cost Estimate
FOR
BIOMASS AND OIL HEATING UPGRADES
TO THE
GALENA AIR BASE SITE
GALENA, ALASKA
Prepared for Prepared by
The City of Galena Dalson Energy Inc. EDC, Inc.
PO Box 149 851 E. Westpoint Dr. 213 W. Fireweed Ln.
Galena, AK 99741 Wasilla, AK 99501 Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 656‐1301 (907) 414‐5059 (907) 276‐7933
November 25, 2013
i | Page
Executive Summary
This conceptual design report (CDR) was prepared for the City of Galena as it considers
options for developing a wood‐fired combustion system to offset the use of fossil fuels for
heating the Galena Interior Learning Academy (GILA) and other buildings at the Galena Air
Base site.
Currently 21 of the approximately 50 buildings at the Air Base site are connected to the
Central Steam Plant (CSP) via underground steam utilidors. Of these 21 buildings, 15 are
actively in use and heated by the central steam system. Five of these buildings received an
energy audit in 2012, suggesting savings of at least 14% of thermal and 7% of electrical
consumption by cost‐effective measures.
Three 400hp Cleaver‐Brooks oil fired, high‐pressure steam boilers are located in the CSP.
These boilers have standard turndown burners, which appear to be capable of a 4:1 turndown
ratio (meaning the boiler can fire anywhere between 25% and 100% of full load). Although
the boiler burners were recently upgraded to include variable frequency control, they remain
substantially oversized to the load. The boiler control system was upgraded to programmable
logic control (PLC) with electronic steam generation measurement added. Overall the
existing boilers, controls, safeties, and plant piping appear to be in good repair and operating
condition.
Steam is distributed to the connected buildings via a 4,000’ system of concrete utilidors.
While the bulk of the utilidors are buried, a few sections were replaced in the mid‐1990s with
aboveground utilidor sections. Generally the buried utilidors sections appear to be
structurally sound. Air Force records indicate that the last major additions and repairs to the
district heat system were constructed in 1997. Based on a brief field visit in August, the steam
distribution system appears to be approaching the end of its useful life unless a more
comprehensive maintenance program is put in place.
This CDR analyzes five heating alternatives based on fuel type (oil and wood/oil) and
distribution (steam, hot water, and distributed heating systems). Two additional alternatives
address design upgrades for future wood‐fired combined heat and power (CHP)
expandability.
The wood system would consist of 1) a 5 MMBTU/hr boiler housed in a 40’ x 60’ steel building
with short‐term chip storage and handling equipment next to the CSP, 2) a 40’ x 60’ steel‐
framed fabric structure for chip manufacturing, longer‐term chip storage, and equipment, and
3) a yard for log storage and space for truck access.
Economic analysis was performed on seven alternatives for a range of oil and wood fuel
assumptions. Table ES‐1 summarizes results of the analysis assuming a mid‐case wood fuel
price of $200/green ton and the ISER mid‐case fuel oil price scenario.
ii | Page
The Wood Fuel & Steam alternative has the highest benefit‐to‐cost ratio except in the
somewhat unlikely scenario of high wood fuel cost and low oil prices. Under the Medium Oil
and Wood Price scenario, average savings over the 20‐year period are approximately
$466,000 per year in 2012 dollars. Based on these average savings, payback is approximately
six years.
The report provides a comparison of fuel and operation risks, as well as an assessment of
economic and CHP opportunities.
Recommendations are as follows:
1. Immediately pursue aggressive energy efficiency measures at the GILA based on
energy audits, and possibly re‐audits, of all facilities.
2. Proceed to final design and permitting with the Wood Fuel & Steam alternative,
as the primary basis. Consider the trade‐off of providing CHP expandability against
additional cost during the course of design.
3. Assess the condition of the steam distribution system as soon as possible in order
to a) identify immediate necessary repairs and b) provide input to final design of the
wood thermal system.
4. Budget funds for steam system repair in order to address expected deficiencies,
whether or not the wood boiler system is developed in the near term. A preliminary
figure is $250,000. Based on this preliminary assessment, the steam system appears to
be approaching the end of its useful life, and minor maintenance will likely extend
system life by 10 years.
5. Develop a business plan for operating the wood‐fired system and selling heat to
the GILA and other customers.
6. Work with partners Louden Tribal Council and Gana‐A’Yoo Ltd to develop a
wood biomass business and operation plan for harvesting fuel and making it
available to the central steam plant
Scenario: Medium Oil Price,MediumWoodPrice
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Av erage
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 240 - 299
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 180 - 251
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 1,017 542 466
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 1,033 483 588
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 1,017 542 466
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 1,033 483 588
* Payback based on 1) difference between Base Case and alternative capital cost, and 2) average yearly savings ove
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
4,319 1.3 11.0
3,631 1.6 8.4
6,671 2.3 6.0
8,404 1.5 9.4
6,671 2.0 6.9
8,404 1.4 10.1
er the life of the project.
Table 1ES‐1. Summary of project alternatives assuming mid‐case fuel price scenarios.
iii | Page
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Goals ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Work to Date ........................................................................................................................ 1
2 Existing Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Buildings .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Boilers ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Steam Distribution....................................................................................................................................... 6
3 Thermal Demand .................................................................................................................................................. 8
4 Heat Generation System Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Fuel Oil .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Biomass ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
4.3 Steam or Water Heat ............................................................................................................................... 13
5 Distribution System Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Steam District Heating ............................................................................................................................ 14
5.2 Hot Water District Heating ................................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Distributed Heating .................................................................................................................................. 16
6 Combined Heat and Power Alternative ................................................................................................... 16
7 Analysis of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 17
7.1 Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 17
7.1.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 17
7.1.2 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 18
7.2 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 19
8 Biomass Permitting and Environmental Requirements .................................................................. 26
8.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 26
8.2 Code Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 27
8.3 Site Control .................................................................................................................................................. 27
9 Biomass System Operational Considerations ....................................................................................... 27
9.1 Fuel Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 27
9.2 Boiler Design ............................................................................................................................................... 28
9.3 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 29
9.4 Galena System Operation ...................................................................................................................... 29
iv | Page
10 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 29
11 Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................ 30
Appendices
A. Schematic Design Drawings
B. Construction Cost Estimates
C. Abbreviations
D. Sample Economic Analysis
1 | Page
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Goals
This conceptual design report was prepared for the City of Galena as it considers options for
developing a wood‐fired combustion system to offset the use of fossil fuels for heating the
Galena Interior Learning Academy (GILA) and other buildings at the Galena Air Base Site.
This report supplements the facts and findings of the feasibility study created by Dalson
Energy, Inc. and submitted to the Louden Tribal Council in August 20121. The goals of this
report are to:
Analyze the district heating system thermal loads.
Establish the conditions and constraints of the existing district heating system.
Identify possible solutions to improving these conditions and removing or remediating
these constraints.
Propose technologies and integration alternatives for providing heat to the Galena Air
Base site.
Compare the costs, benefits, and technical and operational risks of each proposed
alternative.
Recommend an alternative for further development and implementation.
Delineate environmental and permitting requirements for the recommended
alternative.
Develop a construction plan, operation plan and schedule for execution in the
following phases of the work.
In summary, the goal of this conceptual design effort is to assess oil and wood alternatives
generating and distributing thermal energy to the Base site, and to create a schematic design
for the most advantageous system identified.
1.2 Summary of Work to Date
The Galena Biomass Heating System project began in the spring of 2012. At that time, a
feasibility study was supported by the Louden Tribal Council with funding from AEA’s
Renewable Energy Fund (REF). Dalson Energy, Inc. personnel traveled to Galena to gather the
information necessary to complete that work. The study concluded that a wood‐fired boiler
system addition to the existing district steam heating system would be technically and
economically feasible. Based upon that report, a grant application was made to the AEA to
further this work. The AEA awarded funding for REF Phase III, up to and including a
conceptual design report (this document) and final construction documents (drawings and
specifications) for a woody biomass boiler system in Galena.
Engineering firm EDC was hired to prepare the conceptual design for the project in July 2013.
EDC and Dalson performed a site visit in early August as part of the conceptual design effort.
1ftp://ftp.aidea.org/RENEWABLE%20ENERGY%20FUND/Round%206%2009242012/927_G
alena%20Community%20Wood%20Heat%20Project/Dalson%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf
2 | Page
2 Existing Facilities
2.1 Buildings
There are approximately 50 buildings on the Galena Airport site, the old Galena Air Force
Station. With a few exceptions these buildings now belong to the City of Galena. They were
transferred to the City when the Air Force closed the Air Station in 2010. Most of the
buildings are heated by oil‐fired boilers within the buildings. However, 21 of the buildings are
connected to the airport’s Building #1499 Central Steam Plant (CSP) via underground steam
utilidors. Of these 22 buildings (including the Steam Plant itself), 15 are actively in use and
heated by the central steam system. The other seven connected buildings have been taken
out of service. While they could be reused in the future, at present the steam has been turned
off at the service entrance, and these buildings are cold.
The age of the CSP is unknown, but it is in very good condition for its apparent age. No leaks
or major failures of the building envelope were noted. It contains a boiler room, offices, a
break room, a restroom, and diesel‐powered electric generation equipment. It appears to
have had several renovations and additions throughout its life, including the conversion of a
garage/shop space to house electric generators and the associated switchgear. A large
addition to the building was made at a later date to house a physically large generator
(nicknamed “Old Blue”).
Of the three generators still in the building, only two run. One of the generators in the main
building space is capable of powering all of the buildings on the airport property in the event
that the City’s main power plant is offline. Although paralleling switchgear is located in the
plant, it is very old and inoperable. The CSP generator does not have the capacity or controls
to allow it to power the City. The Old Blue generator in the building addition is therefore
completely unused although it does run.
The 2012 feasibility study proposed using Warehouse Building #1769 to house a new wood
chip fired biomass boiler along with 4‐6 weeks of chip storage. This building is a large single
story building with a large open interior and a number of overhead doors for access. It is
connected to the district heating system but at this time the steam is valved off and the
building is cold. During a visit to Galena in August 2013 City residents stated that the
warehouse building had a high value as cold‐storage for equipment and requested that a more
suitable location be selected for a biomass boiler plant.
3 | Page
Figure 1. Central Steam Plant boilers undergoing cleaning during burner, control and monitoring upgrades
4 | Page
Of the 15 buildings currently heated by the steam system, 14 are in use by the GILA. The
buildings include dormitories, classrooms, vocational education areas, and a cafeteria.
Figure 2. Building heat sources – Yellow buildings are heated by the district heating system. Magenta buildings are heated by
individual boilers. Blue buildings are out of service.
Currently there are five buildings in the GILA complex that have received ASHRAE level II
energy audits through support from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Summary
information for all buildings in the proposed project area is included in the table below.
Building occupancy, hours of operation and other parameters are not currently known. The
City of Galena is working to obtain funding and support from AEA, AHFC and others for
energy audits in remaining GILA buildings and implementing energy efficiency measures
(EEMs) in GILA and other public buildings in Galena.
For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed that thermal EEMs will result in a
reduction of 10% of the annual steam consumption in the GILA facilities, thus reducing the
amount of oil and wood fuel that is required from 240,000 to 216,000 gpy fuel oil diesel
equivalent. Thermal EEM savings are estimated at 24,000 gpy worth over $100,000/yr
assuming ISER/AEA 2015 fuel costs ($4.24/gal)2.
2 Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013‐2035, Ginny Fay, Alejandra Villalobos Melendez, Sohrab
Pathan, Jeffrey Armagost June 2013
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications.php?id=1547#sthash.BtjzP1lV.dpuf
5 | Page
Table 1. Potential Energy Efficiency Measures.
2.2 Boilers
Three Cleaver‐Brooks model CB100X‐400Z, oil fired, high‐pressure steam boilers are located
in the CSP. They were installed in 1971. These boilers are very common in industrial
applications, but in comparison to most boilers in rural Alaska, these boilers are relatively
large, and are unusual in that they are fire tube boilers. Each 400 HP boiler is rated for
16.735 MMBTU/hr input and 13.389 MMBTU/hr output. This is a conversion efficiency of
80 percent. Although the boilers are rated for operation up to 150 psig, they typically operate
in the 14‐25 psig range, with 20 psig being most typical.
According to boiler and pressure vessel codes, low‐pressure steam systems are defined as
those with an operating pressure at or below 15 psi. Operating pressures above 15 psi are
defined as high‐pressure systems. In common practice, though, steam pressures between
15 psi and 60 psi are referred to as medium‐pressure systems. The term high pressure is
reserved for systems operating above 60 psi. The CSP operates within this medium pressure
range, despite its functional rating as a high‐pressure system. These distinctions are
important in discussing the possible future implementation of combined heat and power
(CHP) in which electric power is generated by steam and excess heat from the power
generation process is distributed as useable heat to the district heating system.
The boilers were recently upgraded to include air atomizing, fully modulating, automatic
burners with variable frequency control. This was an improvement to the previously existing
Cleaver‐Brooks “standard turndown ratio controls.” All Cleaver‐Brooks burners within the
last 20 years have come with 4:1 turndown ratios for the standard modulating system. Due to
the age of these boilers, the “low‐fire” on these burners can only be estimated. The best
current estimate is that the burners currently have the standard 4:1 turndown ratio. If this is
Estimated End Use Energy Consumption
Nortech Energy Audits* Dalson/EDC
Building Usage Occupancy Hours Operation
Area
(sf)
Steam
(mmBtu/yr)
Power
(kWh)
Steam**
(mmBtu/yr)
Building 1700 - Garage Shop 16 8am-5pm M-F 8,125 1,212 232,016 579
Building 1847 - Composite Classrooms 225 8am-4:30pm M-F 17,590 2,393 1,576,344 6,126
Building 1851 - Gymnasium Gymnasium 25-50 8am-9:30pm S-S 15,124 601 634,632 3,454
Building 1854 - Headquarters Office not specified 9am-5pm M-F 12,536 924 1,057,720 1,313
Building 1876 - iditarod Hall Adult Dorm 10 School year 35,579 2,993 634,632 6,212
Building 1409 - Powerplant Utility 3,361
Building 1769 - Warehouse Warehouse unheated
Building 1837 - POL Equipmt Maint 1,529
Building 1843 - Maint Shop Shop 658
Building 1845 2,248
Building 1850 - Wood Shop Shop 2,274
Building 1857 - Office, Storage 1,175
Building 1858/1859 - Cafeteria Cafeteria 4,474
Building 1873 - Kkuskkuno Hall Student Union 1,206
Building 1874 - Dormitory Dorm 9,254
FAA Bldg 201 662
Water Plant not modeled
Total 8,123 4,135,344 44,525
% savings 14%7%10%
EEM savings 1,158 272,087
Fuel savings from EEMs (gal/yr)24,000
Value of fuel savings ($/yr)***101,760$
*Nortech (http://www.akenergyefficiency.org/sites/default/files/DOYON-Nortech-GAL_GILA_Composite.pdf,etc)
**Including DHW load
***Assume ISER 2015 price ($4.24/gal)
Vehicle Maint
6 | Page
correct, the boilers are now capable of operation with an output as low as 3.347 MMBTU/hr.
However, as is discussed in the Thermal Load section below, even with the improved turn
down and lower output capability, the boilers are substantially oversized.
The entire boiler control system was also upgraded and electronic steam generation
measurement was added. The new controls are based on programmable logic controllers
(PLCs) with network‐type communications. These upgraded controls are well‐suited to
integration with a wood‐fired biomass boiler. The biomass boiler controls will be specified as
PLC‐based also, allowing the new and existing systems to work together to identify system
loads and boiler operating parameters. The recently installed Cleaver‐Brooks “Hawk” control
system provides a number of benefits, including:
The ability to run the proposed wood boiler in parallel with the Cleaver‐Brooks units,
Permitting the wood boiler to operate at a generally higher firing level without
encountering control issues. The result will be savings of diesel fuel due to both
improved diesel efficiency and better utilization of the wood boiler.
The improved controls will also make it more feasible to allow the system to operate
unattended if necessary.
In the following sections, it is recommended that the existing Cleaver‐Brooks firing rates be
monitored, analyzed, and upgraded to an 8:1 turndown ratio. If these improvements are
made, the advantages listed in the above bullet points are magnified, resulting in less boiler
maintenance and more fuel savings.
The boilers were shut down, opened, and cleaned during the summer of 2013. Overall the
existing boilers, controls, safeties, and plant piping appear to be in good repair and operating
condition.
2.3 Steam Distribution
The medium‐pressure steam produced by the CSP is distributed to the connected buildings
via concrete utilidors. While the bulk of the utilidors are buried, a few sections were replaced
in the mid‐1990s with above ground utilidor sections. This was apparently done as a cost‐
saving measure because the buried utilidors that were being replaced were in petroleum‐
contaminated soils and remediation was not undertaken. Although the above ground
utilidors sections are more accessible than the buried sections, they will probably have a
shorter effective life than the buried portions of the system.
The active utilidors are approximately 4,000 feet in length. It is not known how many feet of
unused utilidors still contain active steam heat piping. That is to say, there are utilidors
connected to buildings that are no longer in service. Although the steam has been turned off
to these buildings, some of these utilidors were reported to contain active steam lines
whereas other sections of the unused utilidors are cold. An inspection in August 2013 was
unable to assess the extent of heated but unused utilidors because the steam system was shut
down. This is noted because dead‐end steam utilidors could possibly be shut down as a
simple EEM. It is also possible that this cannot be done because the active steam is used to
protect water and fire hydrant lines from freezing.
7 | Page
Generally the buried utilidors sections appear to be structurally sound. The manholes that
were inspected did not have crumbling concrete or water running through the utilidors.
Several of the manholes did have standing water, presumably from groundwater infiltration.
One manhole had an inoperable sump pump and several inches of standing water within it.
The age and condition of the piping, valves, fittings, and insulation within the utilidors varies
by section. Air Force records indicate that the last major additions and repairs to the district
heat system were constructed in 1997. Several sets of design drawings from 1999 were
located that were marked “Not Constructed.” Most of the piping is substantially older than
this, as these later projects were partial extensions of the system rather than system‐wide
rehabilitation projects.
Figure 3. Manhole 30 showing damaged and missing insulation and standing water
Most of the manholes inspected had incomplete or substantially damaged insulation. The
steam and condensate piping expansion joints were of varied makes and models. Most were
welded in place and therefore cannot be easily removed for servicing or replacement. The
condition of the valves within the manholes also varied. Again, because the steam system was
shut down during the inspection it was not possible to inventory the number of leaking
valves, but the CSP personnel reported that repairing valves is a constant manpower task.
The larger piping within the utilidors tunnels was insulated, but several of the smaller runs
were not. While this is a potentially large waste of heat, the nature of buried utilidors makes
insulating these sections expensive at this point.
8 | Page
In general the steam distribution system appears to be approaching the end of its useful life
unless a more comprehensive maintenance program is put in place. Each year it will require
increased maintenance to keep valves and expansion joints in repair. While steam piping
tends to have a long life, condensate piping has severe service requirements and does not last
as long. Eventually the steam and condensate piping will require complete replacement. This
will require digging up the buried utilidors, removing the covers, and replacing the piping
within. This will be a major utility investment project.
The recommendations listed below and the construction cost estimates in the Appendix B
both include a capital expenditure of $243,880 to do minor rehabilitation of the manholes in
need of it most. This amount anticipates that local laborers in Galena would repair leaking
valves, replace the packing in expansion joints, and re‐insulate the piping within the
manholes. Following these upgrades, the construction cost estimate includes an additional
$39,000 for annual upkeep of the utilidor system, again, this work would be performed by
local labor during the summer season. With this level of investment, it is expected that the
utilidor system will remain useable and serviceable for at least another ten years, and
possibly 15.
The above assessment was completed by engineers with extensive utilidor experience at the
Eielson Air Force Base, King Salmon Air Base, Clear Air Station, and Galena Air Base.
However, this assessment was a brief, partial inspection which was intended only to
determine if the utilidor system would remain useful for longer than the payback period of a
new biomass boiler. Based on the cost to benefit ratios presented below, and this inspection,
it does appear that the utilidor will remain viable beyond the payback period of a new
biomass boiler installation. However, a complete utilidor assessment would be appropriate at
this time to create an accurate as‐built of the system, identify the overall condition of the
system, and make recommendations for phased upgrades and rehabilitation of the system.
This would be pursued as a separate project beyond the scope of this effort.
3 Thermal Demand
Currently a single boiler can meet the district’s heat demand. On an hourly basis, the steam
plant supplies an estimated range of 2.1 MMBTU/hr to 8.2 MMBTU/hr. Last year, winter lows
regularly pushed the steam boilers to 7 MMBTU/hr peak demand. During the 2011‐2012
heating season (August ‐ May), peak demand occurred on January 2, 2012 at 4 a.m., when the
boiler produced 6,723 lbs. of 20 psig steam – about 8.2 MMBTU/hr.
The boiler operates well below capacity for the entirety of the year. In fact, in 2012, the daily
peak load was less than 75% of peak output (10.05 MMBTU/hr) for all 294 days of operation.
It was less than 50% of peak output (6.7 MMBTU/hr) for 254 out of 294 days of operation,
and less than 25% of peak output (3.35 MMBTU/hr) for 71 out of 294 days of operation – one
out of every four days. Since the boiler is only outfitted with a standard turndown ratio, this
means excessive short cycling – and higher than necessary fuel oil consumption – much of the
year.
A more accurate assessment of the current oil‐fired boiler operating conditions would
improve both the confidence level of the final design document decision making process, and
9 | Page
also vastly improve the ability to track future savings of the biomass boiler contributions to
sustainable energy usage. It is recommended that fuel oil meters be installed on the fuel
supply to the boilers to determine their exact firing rates and turndown potential. Monitoring
should also be put in place to track how often the boilers cycle on and off, for how long, and
during what times of the year. Finally, an outdoor air temperature sensor should be added to
the control system to see how the boiler loads and firing rates compare to the ambient
temperature.
4 Heat Generation System Alternatives
4.1 Fuel Oil
As noted above, the existing 400 HP boilers are substantially oversized. In 2012, the boilers
burned approximately 230,000 gallons of No. 1 fuel oil. With the new variable speed burner
controls and with the same load profile, it is likely that this consumption will drop to
approximately 216,000 gallons per year due to improved low‐load efficiency. This is the base‐
level performance for this system. This report identifies alternatives that aim to improve the
efficiency of this conversion process or to supplant it with renewable energy sources.
The Alaska region sales representative for Cleaver‐Brooks boilers provided quotes for two
different options to improve the operating efficiency of the fuel oil‐fired boiler system. The
first was a burner upgrade for the existing boilers. This upgrade would improve the
turndown from the standard turndown ratio to a higher 8:1 ratio. This would allow any of the
three boilers to run efficiently at 1.674 MMBTU/hr. This is half the current likely minimum
firing rate. The cost for this retrofit is approximately $75,000 for all three boilers.
A second option was reviewed in which one of the three existing 400 HP boilers is replaced
with a new 250 HP low‐load boiler. This smaller boiler is from the same model line as the
existing boilers and would be well‐suited to integration with the remaining two boilers. It
would come standard with an 8:1 turndown, fully modulating burner. The low‐fire output of
this new boiler would be 1.046 MMBTU/hr, but would cost approximately $350,000 to deliver
and install in the CSP.
While this lower firing rate would slightly improve the efficiency of the system during the
spring and fall, the difference in efficiency between the 1.674 MMBTU/hr existing boiler and
1.046 MMBTU/hr is likely not sufficient to warrant the high cost of the new, smaller boiler.
For the economic analysis section below, the base case (Oil and Steam) assumes that the
existing fuel‐fired boiler system remains as‐is without further upgrades. The alternatives that
include a biomass boiler addition (Wood‐Steam, Wood‐Hot Water, and future CHP options)
include the burner modification to the existing boilers to allow them to turn down to an 8:1
firing rate.
4.2 Biomass
The 2012 feasibility study recommended that a biomass boiler system be retrofitted into
Warehouse Building #1769. Because this building has now been appropriated for equipment
storage, and because the suitability of the building was not entirely certain (the feasibility
study also recommended some destructive examination of the foundation and possible
10 | Page
foundation upgrades to support a biomass boiler), this phase of the work looked at the
existing buildings to determine a better location for a biomass boiler. No existing buildings
were identified that were both unused and appropriate for the large boiler. Therefore, a
search for a site to house a new biomass boiler building was conducted. The primary
constraints were that the location must have a large open area nearby for decked log storage
and that it be relatively close to the CSP to minimize steam utilidor upgrades and control
integration difficulties.
The area immediately west of the CSP was previously identified as fitting for log storage. The
CSP itself was therefore a prime candidate to house a new biomass boiler. Because the CSP
requires a backup power supply, the diesel‐electric generator in the garage/shop area is a
critical system. CSP personnel stated that the Old Blue generator addition was rarely run and
could be demolished. This would provide an ideal location for the biomass boiler as its piping
could be directly connected to the fuel‐oil fired boilers and electronic controls could be easily
integrated.
The proposed solution is therefore to demolish the CSP generator addition that houses Old
Blue and to build a new building in the same location to house the new wood chip boiler. This
would require a slight re‐alignment of the gravel road accessing the sewage lagoon. This is
shown in Figure 4 below and in the Schematic Design Drawings in Appendix A.
Figure 4. "Old Blue” generator addition at the CSP proposed for demolition. The new wood chip biomass boiler house will be
constructed in this location.
11 | Page
The 2012 feasibility study identified that a biomass boiler in the range of 4‐ to 7‐MMBTU/hr
output would be ideally suited to serve as a base‐load boiler. This boiler would handle the
base heat load of the district heating system. The existing fuel‐oil fired boilers would then
serve as “topping boilers” to pick up the remaining heat load. This scenario was
recommended because biomass boilers have a lower turndown ratio (between 3:1 and 4:1)
than oil‐fired boilers, and because biomass boilers react more slowly than oil‐fired boilers to
load changes. By allowing the biomass boiler to operate at a constant rate approaching its
design output whenever possible, the system efficiency is maximized and emissions from the
biomass boiler are minimized.
As noted in the section above, if a woody biomass boiler system is added to the CSP, the
existing fuel‐oil boilers will be retrofitted to allow them an 8:1 turn down firing rate. This will
improve their performance and efficiency as topping boilers.
Five biomass boiler manufacturers were contacted to discuss the schematic design phase of
this project. Only one manufacturer—Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc. in Bark River,
Michigan—responded within the time allotted. Given Messersmith’s high interest in the
project and successful track record in Tok and Delta Junction, Dalson and EDC staff performed
a site inspection of the Alaska Gateway School District’s Messersmith biomass system in Tok,
Alaska. School district employees stated that they were highly satisfied with the installation
and continued service provided by Messersmith. The Messersmith Industrial Biomass Boiler
System was therefore selected as the basis of design for the wood chip boiler used in these
analyses and ultimately the schematic design drawings.
12 | Page
Figure 5. Messersmith Biomass Boiler in Construction in Tok, Alaska.
It should be noted that as the design of this system progresses, the drawings and
specifications will remain in an “open bid” format allowing other biomass boiler
manufacturers to provide bids for the project. This will allow appropriate technologies to
compete for the final construction contract, to improve the likelihood that both a technically
and economically viable project will be built.
In the output range of 4‐ to 7‐MMBTU/hr, Messersmith only offers a 5‐MMBTU/hr rated high‐
pressure steam boiler. This size boiler was therefore used in both the comparison of steam
and hot water generation systems.
In addition to the biomass boiler itself, a biomass system requires the following components
in close proximity:
13 | Page
Chip manufacturing operations
Fuel storage facility
Boiler room and boiler appliance
Fuel handling equipment
A chimney
Any necessary gas cleaning devices
Ash disposal equipment
Controls and data acquisition for operation
Driveways necessary for access
Equipment storage (warm storage)
Connection to the existing district heating system
Of the above listed components, most can be accommodated by a 40’x60’ building to house
the boiler, short‐term chip storage, and fuel handling equipment. A 40’x60’ steel‐framed
fabric structure is proposed for chip manufacturing, longer‐term chip storage, and equipment
(chipper and loader) storage. This is shown in the Schematic Design Drawings in Appendix A.
4.3 Steam or Water Heat
The existing fuel oil‐fired boilers generate medium pressure steam. The biomass boiler could
also generate medium pressure steam, or the biomass boiler could generate hot water and the
existing boilers could be converted to hot water operation. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both options.
The feasibility and economics of steam versus hot water production are influenced by the
chosen district heating system – continued distribution of medium pressure steam or
conversion to a hot water distribution system. This is discussed in the next section.
Advantages to a steam biomass boiler:
It can directly integrate with the steam and condensate piping and controls in the CSP.
It can directly provide steam to the existing district heating piping.
It can be used for CHP in the future by changing the medium‐pressure steam to high
pressure‐steam.
Disadvantages to a steam biomass boiler:
It will cost from $100,000 to $200,000 more than a hot water boiler. However, this
cost is offset by the savings from not converting the existing boilers to hot water
generation.
It requires higher trained and higher paid operators. This is not really an issue
because the existing boilers already require highly skilled operators.
Advantages to a hot water biomass boiler:
14 | Page
It is cheaper than a steam boiler, but this savings would be offset by converting the
existing steam boilers to hot water generation.
It does not require highly trained and certified operators.
It could be directly connected to a hot water district heating system if the existing
steam distribution system is converted to a hot water system.
Overall a hot water boiler and distribution system would have lower maintenance
costs than an all‐steam system.
Disadvantages to a hot water biomass boiler:
It cannot be directly connected to the existing steam boilers unless they are first
converted to hot water.
It cannot be directly integrated with the existing steam district heating system.
It would be prohibitively expensive to convert the steam distribution piping to hot
water distribution, requiring upsizing of existing condensate piping (as discussed
below).
It cannot be used for CHP generation unless a boiler rated for high‐pressure steam was
provided with hot water trim, but this offsets the cost savings of a water boiler in the
first place.
5 Distribution System Alternatives
5.1 Steam District Heating
The existing steam distribution system is described above in the Existing Facilities Section.
Although upgrades or modifications to the steam utilidors are not required to support the
installation of a biomass boiler addition to the heat generation system, it is the design team’s
opinion that without selected up‐front investment some of the fossil fuel savings will be
wasted and excess maintenance time will be spent to keep the system at a minimally
operational level.
Therefore, the base case alternative (Oil‐fired boilers with Steam Distribution) presumes that
$243,880 will be spent for minor rehabilitation of the existing steam manholes. This amount
includes funding for local labor to replace or repack leaking valves, replace or repair problem
piping expansion joints, and re‐insulate bare piping within the manholes. It does not provide
for any piping repair or insulation within the utilidors themselves. This is seen as the
minimum necessary improvement to keep the distribution system at a useable level for the
next 15 years.
Eielson Air Force Base has a similar configuration with a Central Steam Plant and buried
steam distribution system. Over the past twenty years the Eielson Steam Shop has
commissioned a series of phased projects to systematically replace all of the piping within the
concrete utilidors. Although varying in age from 20‐ to 60‐years‐old the concrete utilidors
themselves are expected to outlast even the new piping. On the other hand, approximately
ten years ago Elmendorf Air Force Base opted to abandon their steam distribution system and
install oil‐fired or natural gas‐fired boilers in each building. This “distributed heating” system
option is viable for Galena as well. It is discussed below.
15 | Page
If Galena were to follow the Eielson utility model of rehabbing the existing utilidors, it would
require digging up all of the utilidors, removing the concrete lids with a crane, replacing all of
the piping, valves, fittings and insulation within the utilidors, resealing the lids, and re‐
burying them. That would extend the life of the system from 30‐ to 50‐years. A complete
replacement of the piping system such as this is roughly estimated at $12,000,000 to
$15,000,000. This is based upon an average cost of $2,500/ft to replace the piping within a
2’x2’ utilidor at Eielson, with a 20‐percent to 50‐percent multiplier for work in a remote
location such as Galena. This work could be phased into a multi‐year project just as Eielson
has done. A project such as this is outside the scope of this report, but would be supported by
the utilidor assessment project recommended above.
Alternatively, Galena could consider abandoning the steam and condensate distribution
system and replacing it with hot‐water distribution or with distributed heat as was done at
Elmendorf (an oil‐fired boiler in each building). These two options are discussed next.
5.2 Hot Water District Heating
The current system generates medium‐pressure steam. If a steam biomass boiler is installed,
and the distribution system is converted from steam to hot water, a bulky and expensive heat
exchanger would need to be provided in the CSP to convert the generated steam into hot
water for the district heating. By the time a heat exchanger for this service were delivered to
Galena and installed in the CSP, its cost would approach that of converting the existing boilers
to hot water. However, a heat exchanger would be one more spot for potential efficiency loss.
If instead the existing boilers are converted to hot water generation as discussed above, this
heat exchanger would not be required. The overall system efficiency would increase by the
conversion to lower‐temperature heat generation and distribution. An added benefit to this
arrangement would be that the hot water biomass boiler is less expensive than the
comparable medium‐pressure steam biomass boiler. Therefore, this analysis assumes that if
the distribution system is converted to hot water the generation system would be also. It
should be noted that though the system is described as a “hot water” distribution system, it
would in reality be a “hot water‐glycol solution” distribution system to minimize the potential
for freezing.
A complete engineering analysis of the thermal demands and hydraulic performance of a hot‐
water distribution system conversion was not completed. An assumption was made that the
existing steam piping could be directly converted to hot water distribution. The condensate
piping will not be large enough to carry the entire thermal demand of the buildings.
Therefore the condensate piping would be replaced with larger piping. This could be done in
several ways. The most obvious way is to dig down to the top of the utilidors, remove the lids,
and replace the piping. This would have essentially the same $2,500 per foot cost as
rehabilitating the entire utilidor system for a $12,000,000 ‐ $15,000,000 total cost. Clearly
this is not economically viable.
The steam and condensate services cannot be completely abandoned within the utilidors
because the water services would freeze. One option is to leave the steam piping in the
utilidors, convert it to hot water supply service, abandon the condensate piping in the
utilidors and direct‐bury a new pre‐insulated hot water return pipe next to the utilidor.
Another option is to direct‐bury both new water supply and return piping adjacent to the
16 | Page
utilidors, and then pull PEX glycol heat trace piping through the utilidors to maintain them
above freezing temperatures. This would clearly be more expensive than the first option
presented in this paragraph.
The basis‐of‐design for this alternative, then, is to convert the boilers to heated glycol, install a
heated glycol biomass boiler, convert the steam piping to heated glycol supply piping, and
direct‐bury new heated glycol return piping. A number of large assumptions were made
when creating the cost estimate, but all of them were estimated at the low‐end of the potential
costs. Therefore, while the construction cost estimate for this alternative is an order‐of‐
magnitude estimate only, it is likely to be the bare minimum cost for this conversion. This
provides the best‐case scenario for comparison with a steam heat distribution system.
As is shown in the tables below, even in the best‐case scenario, converting to hot water
distribution is not as economically advantageous as installing a steam biomass boiler and
providing a more rigorous maintenance program. In fact, the hot water distribution system
conversion might cost one‐ to two‐million dollars more than the estimates presented in
Appendix B. This option is not economically viable, and would not pay off in reduced
maintenance costs.
5.3 Distributed Heating
About ten years ago Elmendorf Air Force Base assessed the condition of their district heating
system and performed a similar analysis of their CSP and steam utilidor system. Their
analysis indicated that abandoning the district heating system and replacing it with individual
boilers at each building was more economical than upgrading the utilidors. It is important to
note that Elmendorf has natural gas service and abundant local expertise to make this
transition more cost effective than it would be in Galena.
Implementing this alternative in Galena would require decommissioning the CSP, installing
heated glycol heat tracing in the utilidors to prevent the water and sewer services from
freezing, and installing a boiler and heating oil storage tank at each building. This alternative
assumed that boilers could be installed in the mechanical room at each of the buildings
connected to the district heating system. This is unlikely to be the case. Many of the
mechanical rooms are very small and probably cannot accommodate a new boiler, even after
the steam service (piping, heat exchangers, etc.) are removed. In those cases, other spaces
within the building would have to be appropriated for the boiler, with architectural and
structural work that is not accounted for in the cost estimate provided here. Therefore the
cost estimate provided in Appendix B follows a similar approach to that of the hot water
distribution alternative: The estimate made is at the low end of the expected costs to make
comparison to maintaining the steam distribution system as rigorous as possible. It is very
possible that converting all of the buildings to individual oil‐fired boiler heating would be
substantially more expensive than listed below. However, the cost‐to‐benefit analysis
indicates that even in the best case, this option has less economic value than maintaining the
existing steam distribution system.
6 Combined Heat and Power Alternative
The City of Galena has expressed strong interest in ultimately pursuing a combined heat and
power (CHP) system. A CHP system includes generating electricity from high‐grade steam
17 | Page
heat, and then distributing the left over heat for thermal uses via a distributed heating system.
Such a system can be incorporated in a number of ways, including a high‐pressure steam
turbine, an organic rankine cycle (ORC) electric generator, or several other technologies. The
2012 feasibility study discusses alternative technologies in greater detail and is not repeated
here. The conclusion of the CHP analysis in that report is that 1) There are no known
commercially viable CHP technologies at the scale Galena demands (<1.5 MW) that are not
associated with very large heat demands (i.e. >20 MMBTU/hr), and 2) Only the steam turbine
(or possibly a steam engine) approach is viable at this scale, although it is likely to be
expensive.
The existing Galena boilers are currently operating in the 20‐psig medium‐pressure range just
above the low‐pressure range, but they are rated for operation up to 150 psig. This high‐
pressure operation is enough to operate steam turbines for electricity generation. To provide
enough electricity for all of Galena, the thermal load would need to approximately double, or
about half of the heat rejected by the steam turbine would need to be wasted.
Either way, CHP operations could be added to the Galena CSP in the future if the existing
boilers and a new biomass boiler operate in the high‐pressure steam range. This potential
future operation is an additional incentive to maintain the steam generation system.
CHP generation equipment is not included in this analysis (either the Schematic Design or
Construction Cost Estimates), other than to potentially provide space for future steam
turbines or other generation equipment. Before installing and operating a CHP plant, the City
of Galena should install the smaller 5 MW base‐load biomass discussed above and develop the
necessary business acumen and infrastructure to provide a steady, appropriate wood supply
for the boiler. After this has been accomplished CHP can be incorporated in a more realistic
way.
7 Analysis of Alternatives
7.1 Economic Analysis
7.1.1 Methods
Economics of the heating and distribution alternatives described above were assessed using
the spreadsheet model and fuel price assumptions developed by AEA and ISER for the
purpose of evaluating Alaska Renewable Energy Fund proposals3.
Seven alternatives presented in Table 2 were chosen to represent potential combinations of
fuel type (oil or oil/wood) and heat distribution (steam, hot water, and distributed heating).
The “Base Case” alternative represents continuation with the status quo—i.e. continuing to
generate heat with fuel oil and to distribute the heat to the buildings using the existing steam
system.
Since the future price of fuel oil and wood fuel is expected to have a substantial impact on the
relative economics of the alternatives, we designated five scenarios to test sensitivity to fuel
3 http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications.php?id=1547
18 | Page
prices (Table 3). Future oil prices are based on ISER projections for fuel for the Galena diesel
power plant4, which are in turn derived from high, mid‐case, and low price scenarios of crude
oil prices established by the U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook.5
A range of fuelwood prices ($150‐250/green ton) were assumed based on experience of the
team.
Table 4 gives general assumptions for the economic analysis. Wood fuel is assumed to
contain 12 MMBTU/green ton (gt), which reflects predominantly air‐dried balsam poplar with
moisture content (wet basis) of 25‐45%. Wood fuel price is expected to increase
proportionately with oil, reflecting the fact that the wood operation’s costs for fuel,
equipment, and supplies will increase as the price of diesel increases. Therefore, as the mid‐
case price of oil increases from $4.24/gal in 2015 to $5.01/gal in 2025, the mid‐case price of
wood fuel is expected to increase from $200/gt to $236/gt. The economic analysis is
presented in constant (2012) dollars—inflation is not a factor in the analysis. A real (before
inflation) rate of 3% is assumed. Over the life of the project, we assume no change in heating
energy consumption.
The analysis here is not considered a financial analysis because it does not address details for
operating the thermal plant—such as depreciation, possible debt service, insurance, annual
cash flow, and proceeds from heat sales—that will depend on the details of how the City and
School District decide to operate and manage the plant. Instead, this economic analysis aims
to provide a general comparison of alternatives for maintaining the status quo and using local
biomass as a fuel. A more detailed financial analysis will be completed concurrent with the
final design as part of the business plan.
7.1.2 Results
The results of the economic analysis are summarized in Table 5 and figures 5 and 6. A sample
hard copy of the WS‐MM (wood/oil fuel with steam distribution assuming mid‐case oil and
wood prices) is included in the appendix. An electronic copy of the analysis is available upon
request.
The present value (PV) of savings is the total difference in annual costs of a particular
alternative compared to the annual costs of the base case alternative over the 20‐year
expected life of the project discounted to current dollars. It includes the annual O&M and fuel
costs, but not the initial cost of the system. The benefit‐to‐cost (B/C) ratio is the difference
between the PV of savings and the initial system cost (net benefit) divided by the initial
system cost.
PV of savings is greatest for the WH (wood/oil fuel with hot water distribution) alternative
under all fuel price scenarios because of the decreased cost of wood fuel versus oil, as well as
the expected decreased cost of maintaining and operating a hot water system versus a steam
system.
4 http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2013_06‐
Fuel_price_projection_2013final_06302013.pdf
5 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm
19 | Page
However the $2.8 million cost of replacing the existing steam system with a hot water system
more than offsets these benefits. The Wood Fuel & Steam alternative has the highest benefit‐
to‐cost ratio except in the somewhat unlikely scenario of high wood fuel cost and low oil
prices. In other words, the WS alternative provides the highest savings over the 20‐year
expected life of the system per dollar invested.
The one fuel price scenario that provides an exception to this B/C ratio trend is the LH case
(low oil and high wood prices). In this situation the OD (oil and distributed heating)
alternative provides the highest B/C ratio, while the WS alternative is essentially a break‐even
(B/C~1).
Under the MM (mid‐case oil and wood price) scenario, average savings for the WS and WH
alternatives over the 20‐year period are approximately $466,000 and $588,000 per year.
Payback based on these average savings are ~6 years for the steam system and ~9 years for
the hot water system.
Adding the capability of upgrading the system to combined heat and power (WSCHP and
WHCHP alternatives), results in poorer B/C ratios due to higher costs that do not have
immediate benefits.
7.2 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 6 summarizes the tradeoffs for developing and operating the alternative systems for
providing heat to the GILA facilities.
As described above, the initial cost of maintaining the status quo (basically fixing the existing
steam distribution) is relatively low. The second least expensive alternative is to install
separate oil boiler systems in each of the buildings. Third in cost is to repair the existing
steam system and install a wood‐fired boiler system. Next to highest in initial cost is to keep
heating with oil but upgrade to a hot water distribution system. Highest in cost is the wood
system with hot water distribution.
Operation costs for the oil alternatives are higher than the wood alternatives due to use of
less expensive wood fuel. Wood fuel is approximately half the cost of fuel oil in terms of price
per million Btus ($/mmBtu). Operation costs for hot water distribution systems are lower
than those of steam systems.
Price variability and supply risk is expected to be lower for wood than oil, since oil is an
international commodity subject to supply, demand and price conditions beyond the control
of local residents. The wood alternatives have the advantage of providing dual fuel capability.
Oil price variability may be addressed in part by long‐term, bulk purchase contracts with fuel
suppliers.
Overall system complexity is highest for wood systems since wood fuel must be procured,
harvested, transported, processed and stored locally. Steam systems are more O&M‐
intensive than hot water systems. The distributed oil‐fired alternative would require a
moderate level of O&M due to the requirements of a number of separate systems.
20 | Page
The wood alternatives offer better opportunity for district heating system expansion to
additional buildings due to less expensive heating costs. Additionally, the wood systems
provide economic development benefits by creating local jobs, keeping dollars in the
community, and providing wood harvest infrastructure with potential for providing
additional fuel for other users as well as building material.
Finally, the wood alternatives provide a stepping‐stone to potential CHP development, an
option that is enhanced, at a cost, by providing additional space in the wood boiler plant and
chip storage (see section 8).
21 | Page Table 2. Summary of GILA heating alternatives. Table 3. Description of GILA fuel price scenarios. Code Scenario ISER Oil Price Case Wood Fuel Price Year 1 ($/green ton) MM Medium Oil Price, Medium Wood Price Mid 200LM Low Oil Price, Medium Wood Price Low 200HM High Oil Price, Medium Wood Price High 200LH Low Oil Price, High Wood Price Low 250HL High Oil Price, Low Wood Price High 150 Table 4. Assumptions for GILA heating system economic analysis. General Assumptions Year $ used for all values 2012$Wood fuel energy content mmBtu/green ton wood chips 12Wood combustion efficiency 75%Fuel oil energy content (Btu/gal) 135,000Oil combustion efficiency 80%Annual change in wood price proportional to change in oil price Thermal load is static Code Alternative Name FuelHeat DistributionCHP Expand-abilityCapital Cost ($)Non-Fuel O&M Cost ($/yr)Fuel Oil Consumed (gal/yr)Fuel Oil Displaced by Wood Fuel (gal/yr)Wood Fuel Consumed (green ton/yr)Capital Cost ($) O&M Cost ($/yr)Capital Cost ($)Non-Fuel O&M Cost ($/yr)Fuel Oil Consumed (gal/yr)Wood Fuel Consumed (green ton/yr)OS Oil & Steam (Base Case) Oil Steam No - 62,000 216,000 - - 243,880 39,000 243,880 101,000 216,000 - WS Wood Fuel & Steam Oil & wood Steam No 2,801,572 83,000 12,150 191,700 2,300 243,880 39,000 3,045,452 122,000 12,150 2,300 OH Oil & Hot Water Oil Hot water No 705,998 44,000 180,000 - - 2,819,323 10,000 3,525,321 54,000 180,000 - WH Wood Fuel & Hot Water Oil & wood Hot water No 2,963,325 65,000 9,000 171,000 2,052 2,819,323 10,000 5,782,648 75,000 9,000 2,052 OD Distributed Heating Oil Distributed heating No 1,735,942 42,000 180,000 - - 616,064 - 2,352,006 42,000 180,000 - WSCHP Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Exp Oil & wood Steam Yes 3,230,572 83,000 12,150 191,700 2,300 243,880 39,000 3,474,452 122,000 12,150 2,300 WHCHP Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Exp Oil & wood Hot water Yes 3,230,572 65,000 9,000 171,000 2,052 2,957,383 10,000 6,187,955 75,000 9,000 2,052 District Heating SystemBoiler and Fuel System TotalAlternative
22 | Page
Table 5. Results of analysis of GILA heating alternatives.
Scenario: Medium Oil Price,MediumWood Price
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Average
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 240 - 299
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 180 - 251
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 1,017 542 466
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 1,033 483 588
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 1,017 542 466
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 1,033 483 588
Scenario: Low Oil Price, Medium Wood Price
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Average
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 180 - 239
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 134 - 205
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 760 443 309
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 772 395 415
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 760 443 309
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 772 395 415
Scenario: High Oil Price, Medium Wood Price
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Average
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 326 - 386
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 244 - 315
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 1,331 602 720
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 1,352 537 853
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 1,331 602 720
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 1,352 537 853
Scenario: Low Oil Price, High Wood Price
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Average
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 180 - 239
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 134 - 205
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 760 553 198
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 772 494 317
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 760 553 198
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 772 494 317
Scenario: High Oil Price, Low Wood Price
Alternative
Capital
Cost
(1000$)
Non-Fuel
O&M Cost
(1000$/yr)
Fuel Oil
Consumed
(gal/yr)
Average
Value of
Fuel Oil
Saved
(1000$/yr)
Average
Wood
Cost
(1000$/yr
)
Average
Net
Savings
(1000$/yr)
Oil & Steam (Base Case) 244 101 216,000
Oil & Hot Water 3,525 54 180,000 326 - 386
Oil Distributed Heating 2,352 42 180,000 244 - 315
Wood Fuel & Steam 3,045 122 12,150 1,331 452 871
Wood Fuel & Hot Water 5,783 75 9,000 1,352 403 987
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP Expandability 3,474 122 12,150 1,331 452 871
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP Expandability 6,188 75 9,000 1,352 403 987
* Payback based on 1) difference between Base Case and alternative capital cost, and 2) average yearly savings ov
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
4,319 1.3 11.0
3,631 1.6 8.4
6,671 2.3 6.0
8,404 1.5 9.4
6,671 2.0 6.9
8,404 1.4 10.1
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
3,494 1.1 13.7
3,015 1.4 10.3
4,498 1.6 9.1
6,034 1.1 13.3
4,498 1.4 10.5
6,034 1.0 14.3
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
5,534 1.7 8.5
4,541 2.0 6.7
10,246 3.6 3.9
12,137 2.2 6.5
10,246 3.1 4.5
12,137 2.1 7.0
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
3,494 1.1 13.7
3,015 1.4 10.3
2,905 1.0 14.1
4,613 0.8 17.5
2,905 0.9 16.3
4,613 0.8 18.8
PV 20-
year
Savings
($1000)
Benefit/
Cost
Payback
(years)*
5,534 1.7 8.5
4,541 2.0 6.7
12,378 4.3 3.2
14,039 2.6 5.6
12,378 3.8 3.7
14,039 2.4 6.0
ver the life of the project.
23 | Page
Figure 5. B/C ratio of GILA system alternatives.
Figure 6. Present value of savings of GILA system alternatives.
‐ 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Oil Mid, Wood Mid
Oil Mid, Wood High
Oil Mid, Wood Low
Oil Low, Wood High
Oil High, Wood Low
Benefit / Cost
Fuel
Price
Scenario
Benefit / Cost of Alterna ves by Fuel Price Scenario
Dra 10‐25‐13
Wood Fuel, Hot Water, CHP
Expandability
Wood Fuel, Steam, CHP
Expandability
Wood Fuel & Hot Water
Wood Fuel & Steam
Oil Distributed Hea ng
‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Oil Mid, Wood Mid
Oil Mid, Wood High
Oil Mid, Wood Low
Oil Low, Wood High
Oil High, Wood Low
Present Value of 20‐Year Savings
($1000)
Fuel
Price
Scenario
20‐Year Savings of Alterna ves by Fuel Price Scenario
Dra 10‐25‐13
Wood Fuel & Hot Water
Wood Fuel & Steam
Oil Distributed Hea ng
Oil & Hot Water
24 | Page
Table 6. Summary of tradeoffs for proceeding with developing project alternatives.
Oil and Steam
(Status Quo)
Oil and
Hot Water
Distrib
Oil‐fired
Units
Wood/Oil and
Steam
Wood/Oil
and Hot
Water
Wood/Oil
with CHP
Expand‐
ability
System Cost Low*
($0.2M)
Moderate
($3.5M)
Low‐Mod
($2.4M)
Moderate
($3.0M)
High
($5.8) Adds $0.4M
Operation
Cost
High ($1.1M/yr) High
($0.8M/yr)
High
($0.9M/yr)
Moderate
($0.7M/yr)
Moderate
($0.5M/yr)
Same as
wood/oil
Fuel
Price (2015)
High
($29‐37/mmBtu) Moderate
($13‐21/mmBtu) ‐> Same ‐> Same
Fuel Price
Variability
High‐ Oil price
determined
globally
‐> Same ‐> Same
Low‐Moderate‐
Most of fuel
purchased locally
‐> Same ‐> Same
Fuel Supply
Risk
Higher since fuel
must be imported ‐> Same ‐> Same
Lower since
system can use
both local and
imported fuels
‐> Same ‐> Same
Operation
Complexity
Moderate‐Steam
system requires
significant O&M
Low‐ Hot
water
distribution
requires less
O&M
Moderate‐
System will
require
O&M on 10‐
20 separate
units
Moderate‐High‐
System will
require O&M on
oil and wood
boilers and
significant steam
system O&M
Moderate‐
System will
require
O&M on oil
and wood
boilers, but
less O&M on
distribution
system.
‐> Same
Potential for
Expansion to
Additional
Buildings
Low‐ Likely
easier and less
costly to build
separate heating
systems
‐> Same ‐> Same
High‐ Improved
economy of scale
with expansion
depending on
location.
‐> Same ‐> Same
Benefits to
Galena
Economic
Development
Low‐ Importing
diesel is drag on
economy
‐> Same ‐> Same
High‐ Wood
operation
employs local
people, keeps
dollars in local
economy, and
may result in
spin‐off wood
product industry
‐> Same ‐> Same
25 | Page
Benefits to
Providing
Local Fuel
Supply
Low. No
expected increase
in availability or
cost of fuel oil.
‐> Same ‐> Same
High. Wood
operation has
potential for
increasing
supply for
residential
cordwood and
chips for heating
other Galena
facilities.
‐> Same ‐> Same
Potential for
CHP
Low‐ Most of
recovered heat
from existing
New Town diesel
power plant is
utilized.
‐> Same ‐> Same
Moderate‐High‐
Steam system
conducive to
power
production
Moderate‐
Hot water
system
conversion
is a step
away from
CHP
High
*subject to detailed assessment of existing steam system.
8 Biomass Permitting and Environmental Requirements
8.1 Air Quality
The amount and type of emissions produced depends on the type of boiler used and
the efficiency of the combustion process. Further to this, the make, model, thermal
capacity (MMBTU/hr), seasonal efficiency, maximum rate of fuel consumption
(tons/hr), the combustion and fuel feed systems, and emissions abatement
equipment fitted are all critical to determining the air quality effects of a biomass
boiler.
Biomass combustors work best when they are operating at or near full capacity.
When the heat requirement is very low, the combustor is not able to maintain the
proper thermal environment for combustion, leading to smoky stack gas and low
thermal efficiency. This problem can occur during spring or autumn, when the heat
requirement for the district heating system is relatively small. The combustor’s
“turndown ratio” is the minimum heat output (relative to full load) that can be
maintained while still providing good performance. The Galena biomass boiler
plant is intended to operate in a base load configuration and therefore maintain
optimum combustion parameters to minimize fugitive emissions.
Simple devices for air quality treatment and emission control include cyclonic
separators, bag houses, and electrostatic precipitators. Other technologies such as
scrubbers, catalytic gas treatment or photo‐catalytic gas treatment are capable of
meeting the most stringent control requirements, but are not considered
maintainable in a remote setting such as Galena. The high level of maintenance
coupled with the parasitic operation costs and technical know‐how required to
operate them prohibit their use on small‐scale systems.
Cyclonic separators are commonly used on biomass boilers of the size proposed for
Galena. Centrifugal force in rotating airflow separates fly ash particles from the
combustor’s flue gas. They are simple to operate and are very reliable. A multi‐
cyclone is an assembly of cyclonic separators in a single unit. A multi‐cyclonic
separator is the recommended fugitive emissions treatment technology for the
Galena biomass boiler.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Division of Air
Quality has been contacted and made aware of the project. Once final design is near
completion a letter will be drafted defining final project parameters and estimated
Particulate Matter emissions. The ADEC will review this document and make
recommendations for permitting at that time. Due to prospective boiler size, the
general opinion of the department is stated below:
“It is unlikely you will need to meet the rigorous Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration permitting requirements, or the obligation to obtain a Title V Operating
27 | Page
Permit, based on the unit rating you have mentioned. However, you may be required to
obtain a minor permit under Article 5 of 18 AAC 50 depending on the amount of pollutant
emissions, which is directly related to the type of fuel being fired. Particulate matter is most
likely the pollutant of concern for your project, but due diligence with regard to the
emissions of other pollutants is recommended.”
8.2 Code Analysis
The State of Alaska Fire Marshal has jurisdiction of this project. Final construction
documents will need to be sealed and signed by Architects, Engineers, and
Surveyors registered in the State of Alaska. These documents will need to be
submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. The State of Alaska has
adopted (with specific local amendments) the 2009 International Code Family and
the 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code. These codes in turn reference other state‐
adopted codes such as the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code, ASCE seismic
protection codes, and NFPA fire protection standards.
The following codes are the primary documents regulating the design and
construction of this project:
2009 International Building Code
2009 International Fire Code
2009 International Mechanical Code
2009 Uniform Plumbing Code
These codes are the minimum standards designed to improve the usability of the
facility, the structural integrity, the fire resistance and protection, and the life, health
and safety of the building occupants.
At this point a detailed code analysis has not been performed. This will take place
during the 35% design phase of the construction document preparation.
8.3 Site Control
The City of Galena owns all of the airport land, and the land has been developed and
in use for some time. No site control issues are expected to be encountered.
Complete surveying of the project site will be completed as part of final design.
9 Biomass System Operational Considerations
9.1 Fuel Quality
Most of the risks and repairs associated with biomass boilers are caused by
inadequate fuel supply or poor fuel quality. Biomass boilers sometimes lie unused
because the owners have been unable to procure a reliable supply of wood chips or
pellets of consistent quality. However, the successful operation of wood chip boilers
in Craig, Tok, and Delta Junction has shown that fuel can be delivered in good quality
and lead to manageable operation.
28 | Page
Compared with oil, biomass fuels can vary significantly in form or size, energy
content, moisture content and ash. Controlling these aspects of fuel quality is
important to the successful operation of a biomass boiler. Fuels that are too large,
too wet, or too dirty create mechanical problems in fuel handling and feeding which
can upset combustion control. Unscheduled outages are often caused by mechanical
failures in conveying systems that are caused by rocks, metal, and other foreign
objects, oversized chunks of wood, blocks of frozen fuel, over wet fuel, and fuel with
very high ash. High moisture and ash reduces the amount of combustible matter in
the fuel. If the energy content is too low the fuel will not support its own
combustion.
Poor performance is often caused by wide variations in energy content due to the
non‐combustible ash in the fuel. Wet, fine and dirty fuel can accumulate in transfer
chutes and erode and wear augers and conveyors. Fuel that is dirty can also cause
ash to clog air passages in the grates. Some ash adheres to refractory and must be
mechanically removed. Ash can carry over into the heat transfer surfaces, deposit
on the boiler tubes, clog heat transfer surfaces, and erode or corrode boiler tubes.
Wet fuel requires additional air for combustion, which creates higher gas flows to
generate sufficient heat to burn the fuel and make steam. If the boiler is not
designed for the wet fuel these higher gas flows can transport ash in the boiler at
velocities that can cause erosion of refractory and metal. Wet fuel can also damage
refractory. Wet, fine sawdust can char and suspend in the furnace without
completely burning. These particles carry out of the furnace unburned and can plug
boiler tubes.
Biomass project owners sometimes mitigate fuel quality risk by paying more for a
reliable supply of clean fuel. One university with a biomass boiler similar in size to
the one proposed for Galena had problems with boiler operation and recurrent
damage due to ash in the fuel. By working with the boiler and fuel suppliers to
provide a wood fuel with consistent moisture and size that was suited to the boiler,
it now runs mostly unattended at a high capacity, at a very high level of availability,
with predictable maintenance and repairs.
9.2 Boiler Design
The biomass boiler system includes fuel receiving and storage, reclaim or metering
to the boiler, feeding the boiler, the furnace and grate, the heat exchanger or boiler,
flue gas ducting, emission control equipment, and boiler controls. Other boiler
accessories such as the feedwater and steam system are similar to oil boilers. The
boiler systems must be simple, reliable and maintainable. Boilers are designed for
fuels with a specified range of sizes and moisture content. While the range of fuel
moisture is typically fairly wide, fuel that is too dry can damage components in a
boiler designed for wet fuels. The high temperatures from dry fuels can melt ash in
dirty fuels that would not cause problems with wet fuels. Burning wood fuels
requires providing appropriate amount of air to the fuel at the right temperature to
29 | Page
generate hot gas and steam efficiently with minimum emissions while removing
noncombustible ash.
9.3 Operation and Maintenance
Boiler controls provide for variations in fuel quality and allow consistent and
unattended operation. Operators must periodically check on the operation of the
boiler and make adjustments to fuel and combustion air and remove ash. When fuel
supply is consistent then operation can be trouble free. Fuel must be uniformly
distributed on the grate to match the combustion air that is introduced above and
below the grate. Ash must be regularly removed. Weekly and annual maintenance
operations must be attended to with adequate spares and safety equipment.
Adjustments are made for seasonal variations in fuel quality that are associated with
high moisture, mud, and dirt in the fall and spring.
9.4 Galena System Operation
The biomass project in Galena will address fuel quality, boiler design, and O&M
requirements in the following manner:
Fuel will be purchased locally through a contract with the recently formed
Sustainable Energy for Galena (SEGA) that will specify parameters for acceptable
particle size, moisture content, and contamination by dirt, and include provisions
that address price, delivery time and other requirements. A draft wood fuel
agreement is scheduled for completion in January 2014.
Biomass boiler system design will be refined during the final design stage.
Specifications will include type and quality of acceptable fuel, fuel storage and
handling requirements, energy output capacity and turndown, control
requirements, fire protection, ash handling, and air emissions. Final design will
commence in November 2013 and will be completed in April 2014. A construction
bid package will be completed by May 2014.
Currently two City staff members are responsible for operating the community
steam plant. Operating the biomass system will require an estimated __ additional
hours per week to tend the wood fuel storage and handling operation, remove ash,
and perform other biomass boiler associated activities. A detailed operation and
business plan that specifies activities and costs will be developed concurrent with
final design and is scheduled for completion in April 2014.
10 Recommendations
We recommend that the City and its partners:
1. Immediately pursue aggressive energy efficiency measures at the GILA
based on energy audits, and possibly re‐audits, of all facilities.
30 | Page
2. Proceed to final design and permitting with alternative WS, wood/oil
fuel with steam distribution, as the primary basis. Consider the trade‐off of
providing CHP expandability against additional cost during the course of
design.
3. Assess the condition of the steam distribution system as soon as
possible in order to a) identify immediate necessary repairs and b) provide
input to final design of the wood thermal system.
4. Budget funds for steam system repair in order to address expected
deficiencies, whether or not the wood boiler system is developed in the near
term. A preliminary figure is $250,000. Based on this preliminary
assessment, the steam system appears to be approaching the end of its useful
life, and minor maintenance will likely extend system life by 10 years.
5. Develop a business plan for operating the wood‐fired system and
selling heat to the GILA and other customers.
6. Work with partners Louden Tribal Council and Gana‐A’Yoo Ltd to
develop a wood biomass business and operation plan for harvesting fuel
and making it available to the central steam plant.
11 Schedule
Figure 7 provides a schedule for final design and construction.
Figure 7. Galena Biomass Project Schedule
Appendix A
Schematic Design Drawings
OVERALL SITE PLANDEMOLITIONC1
OVERALL SITE PLAN NEWWORKC2
HEATING PLANT SITE PLANC3
BOILER PIPING SCHEMATICM1
OVERALL MECHANICALPLANM2
ENLARGED MECHANICALPLANM3
Appendix B
Construction Cost Estimates
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - WS - Wood Fuel and Steam Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostBiomass Boiler System with Installation OversightSteam Boiler System 1 EA $575,000 $575,000 0 0 $0 $575,000Wood Chip Biomass Boiler 1 EA$0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Boiler Stack 1 EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Multicyclone Separator (Emissions Contro1EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Chip Storage Bin Wall with Auger 1 EA $0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Chip Feed System 1 EA $0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Controls 1 EA$0 320 320$24,960$24,960Subtotals $575,000 $199,680 $774,680Boiler Building AdditionPre-Engineered Metal Building 2400 SF $60 $144,000 0 0 $0 $144,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Boiler Slab 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Chip Bin Sub Structure 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 0 0 $0 $100,000Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 0 0 $0 $30,000Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 962 962 $75,000 $105,000Controls 1 LS$30,000$30,000 962 962$75,000$105,000Subtotals $334,000 $150,000 $484,000Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WS10/15/2013: 4Page 1 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostSteam Boiler Burner Upgrades8:1 Turndown Burner Controls 1 LS$75,000$75,000 640 640$49,920$124,920Subtotals $75,000 $49,920 $124,920Steam Piping Interconnection and ControlsHigh Pressure Steam Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Condensate Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Auxilliary Piping 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $20,000Controls 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Subtotals $120,000 $110,000Chip Storage Fabric StructureSteel Frame Fabric Structure 2400 SF $50 $120,000 0 0 $0 $120,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Electrical 1 LS $10,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Controls 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Subtotals $130,000 $0 $130,000Site WorkLog Yard Clearing & Grubbing 2.6 AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Log Yard Grading 2.6AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Subtotals $48,672 $9,734 $58,406Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WS10/15/2013: 4Page 2 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostDemolitionRemove and Abandon Diesel Generator 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Generator Room 1 LS $8,250 $8,250 120 120 $9,360 $17,610Fuel Oil Piping 100 LF $9 $900 0.36 36 $2,808 $3,708Switchgear1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Subtotals $11,150 $30,888 $42,038Total Cost $1,724,044Shipping Allowance (15%) $258,607Construction Management (15%) $258,607TOTAL $2,241,258Contingency (25%) $560,314TOTAL $2,801,572Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WS10/15/2013: 4Page 3 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - WS - Wood Fuel and Steam District Heating System UpgradesLOCAL Labor Cost $20 $/hrAverage Hourly Rate1.3 With Burden:$26 $/hrUpgrade ManholesRe-Insulate Piping 20 EA $4,000 $80,000 40 800 $20,800 $100,800Repair Valves 20 EA $750 $15,000 16 320 $8,320 $23,320Replace Expansion Joints 20 EA$2,000 $1,000 48 960 $24,960 $25,960Subtotals $96,000 $54,080 $150,080Total Cost $150,080Shipping Allowance (15%) $22,512Construction Management (15%) $22,512TOTAL $195,104Contingency (25%) $48,776TOTAL$243,880Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WS10/15/2013: 4Page 4 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - OH - Oil and Hot Water Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostSteam-to-Water Boiler ConversionWater Piping Trim 1 LS $190,000 $190,000 640 640 $49,920 $239,9208:1 Turndown Burner Controls 1 LS$75,000$75,000 640 640$49,920$124,920Subtotals $75,000 $49,920 $364,840Water Piping Interconnection and ControlsDemolish Feedwater System 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 120 120 $9,360 $11,860Auxilliary Piping 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 180 180 $14,040 $29,040Controls 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 120 240 $18,720 $28,720Subtotals $27,500 $69,620Total Cost $434,460Shipping Allowance (15%) $65,169Construction Management (15%) $65,169TOTAL $564,798Contingency (25%) $141,200TOTAL $705,998Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: OH10/15/2013: 2Page 1 of 2EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - OH - Oil and Hot Water District Heating System UpgradesLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrUtilidor Distribution Conversion Water1" Condensate to 3" Water 1500 LF $154 $231,000 2.4 3600 $280,800 $511,8001-1/2" Condensate to 4" Water 1000 LF $194 $194,000 3.2 3200 $249,600 $443,6002" Condensate to 6" Water 800 LF $288 $230,400 4.4 3520 $274,560 $504,9603" Condensate to 8" Water 560 LF$420$30,000 5.6 3136$244,608$274,608Subtotals $685,400 $1,049,568 $1,734,968Total Cost $1,734,968Shipping Allowance (15%) $260,245Construction Management (15%) $260,245TOTAL $2,255,458Contingency (25%) $563,865TOTAL $2,819,323Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: OH10/15/2013: 2Page 2 of 2EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - WH - Wood Fuel and Hot Water Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostBiomass Boiler System with Installation OversightWater Boiler System 1 EA $475,000 $475,000 0 0 $0 $475,000Wood Chip Biomass Boiler 1 EA$0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Boiler Stack 1 EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Multicyclone Separator (Emissions Contro1EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Chip Storage Bin Wall with Auger 1 EA $0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Chip Feed System 1 EA $0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Controls 1 EA$0 320 320$24,960$24,960Subtotals $475,000 $199,680 $674,680Boiler Building AdditionPre-Engineered Metal Building 2400 SF $60 $144,000 0 0 $0 $144,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Boiler Slab 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Chip Bin Sub Structure 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 0 0 $0 $100,000Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 0 0 $0 $30,000Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 962 962 $75,000 $105,000Controls 1 LS$30,000$30,000 962 962$75,000$105,000Subtotals $334,000 $150,000 $484,000Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WH10/15/2013: 4Page 1 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostSteam-to-Water Boiler ConversionWater Piping Trim 1 LS $190,000 $190,000 640 640 $49,920 $239,9208:1 Turndown Burner Controls 1 LS$75,000$75,000 640 640$49,920$124,920Subtotals $75,000 $49,920 $364,840Water Piping Interconnection and ControlsDemolish Feedwater System 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 120 120 $9,360 $11,860Auxilliary Piping 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 180 180 $14,040 $29,040Controls 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 120 240 $18,720 $28,720Subtotals $27,500 $69,620Chip Storage Fabric StructureSteel Frame Fabric Structure 2400 SF $50 $120,000 0 0 $0 $120,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Electrical 1 LS $10,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Controls 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Subtotals $130,000 $0 $130,000Site WorkLog Yard Clearing & Grubbing 2.6 AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Log Yard Grading 2.6AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Subtotals $48,672 $9,734 $58,406Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WH10/15/2013: 4Page 2 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostDemolitionRemove and Abandon Diesel Generator 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Generator Room 1 LS $8,250 $8,250 120 120 $9,360 $17,610Fuel Oil Piping 100 LF $9 $900 0.36 36 $2,808 $3,708Switchgear1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Subtotals $11,150 $30,888 $42,038Total Cost $1,823,584Shipping Allowance (15%) $273,538Construction Management (15%) $273,538TOTAL $2,370,660Contingency (25%) $592,665TOTAL $2,963,325Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WH10/15/2013: 4Page 3 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - WH - Wood Fuel and Hot Water District Heating System UpgradesLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrUtilidor Distribution Conversion Water1" Condensate to 3" Water 1500 LF $154 $231,000 2.4 3600 $280,800 $511,8001-1/2" Condensate to 4" Water 1000 LF $194 $194,000 3.2 3200 $249,600 $443,6002" Condensate to 6" Water 800 LF $288 $230,400 4.4 3520 $274,560 $504,9603" Condensate to 8" Water 560 LF$420$30,000 5.6 3136$244,608$274,608Subtotals $685,400 $1,049,568 $1,734,968Total Cost $1,734,968Shipping Allowance (15%) $260,245Construction Management (15%) $260,245TOTAL $2,255,458Contingency (25%) $563,865TOTAL $2,819,323Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WH10/15/2013: 4Page 4 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - OD - Oil and Distributed Heat Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostDecommission (Abandon) Steam PlantShut Down Boilers 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 240 240 $18,720 $20,720Disconnect Utilidor Piping 1 LS$4,000$4,000 160 160$12,480$16,480Subtotals $4,000 $12,480 $37,200Disconnect Building Heat ServicesBuilding 1409 - Powerplant 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1700 - Garage 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1769 - Warehouse 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1837 - POL 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1843 - Maint Shop 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1845 - Dog Pound 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1847 - Composite 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1850 - Wood Shop 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1851 - Gymnasium 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1854 - Headquarters 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1857 - 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1858/1859 - Cafeteria 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1873 - Kkuskkuno Hall 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1874 - Dormitory 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Building 1876 - Dormitory 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372FAA Bldg 201 1 LS $500 $500 24 24 $1,872 $2,372Subtotals $8,000 $37,952Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: OD10/15/2013: 3Page 1 of 3EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostNew Building BoilersBuilding 1409 - Powerplant 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1700 - Garage 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1769 - Warehouse 2 EA $6,000 $12,000 480 960 $74,880 $86,880Building 1837 - POL 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 240 480 $37,440 $43,440Building 1843 - Maint Shop 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1845 - Dog Pound 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 240 480 $37,440 $43,440Building 1847 - Composite 2 EA $6,000 $12,000 480 960 $74,880 $86,880Building 1850 - Wood Shop 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1851 - Gymnasium 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1854 - Headquarters 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 320 640 $49,920 $57,920Building 1857 - 2 EA $3,000 $6,000 240 480 $37,440 $43,440Building 1858/1859 - Cafeteria 2 EA $6,000 $12,000 480 960 $74,880 $86,880Building 1873 - Kkuskkuno Hall 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 240 480 $37,440 $41,440Building 1874 - Dormitory 2 EA $6,000 $12,000 480 960 $74,880 $86,880Building 1876 - Dormitory 2 EA $6,000 $12,000 480 960 $74,880 $86,880FAA Bldg 201 2 EA$2,000 $2,000 240 480 $37,440 $39,440Subtotals $132,000 $993,120Total Cost $1,068,272Shipping Allowance (15%) $160,241Construction Management (15%) $160,241TOTAL $1,388,754Contingency (25%) $347,188TOTAL $1,735,942Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: OD10/15/2013: 3Page 2 of 3EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - OD - Oil and Distributed Heat District Heating System UpgradesLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrUtilidor Distribution Heat TracingDedicated Heat Trace Boiler2EA$3,500 $7,000 120.0 240 $18,720 $25,720Glycol Pumps and Controls 2 EA$750 $1,500 80.0 160 $12,480 $13,9801-1/2" Glycol Heat Trace 7714 LF$5$38,570 0.5 3857$300,846$339,416Subtotals $47,070 $332,046 $379,116Total Cost $379,116Shipping Allowance (15%) $56,867Construction Management (15%) $56,867TOTAL $492,851Contingency (25%) $123,213TOTAL $616,064Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: OD10/15/2013: 3Page 3 of 3EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - WSCHP - Wood Fuel and Steam with CHP Expandability Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostBiomass Boiler System with Installation OversightSteam Boiler System 1 EA $575,000 $575,000 0 0 $0 $575,000Wood Chip Biomass Boiler 1 EA$0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Boiler Stack 1 EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Multicyclone Separator (Emissions Contro1EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Chip Storage Bin Wall with Auger 1 EA $0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Chip Feed System 1 EA $0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Controls 1 EA$0 320 320$24,960$24,960Subtotals $575,000 $199,680 $774,680Boiler Building AdditionPre-Engineered Metal Building 4800 SF $60 $288,000 0 0 $0 $288,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Boiler Slab 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Chip Bin Sub Structure 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 0 0 $0 $100,000Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 0 0 $0 $30,000Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 962 962 $75,000 $105,000Controls 1 LS$30,000$30,000 962 962$75,000$105,000Subtotals $478,000 $150,000 $628,000Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WSCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 1 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostSteam Boiler Burner Upgrades8:1 Turndown Burner Controls 1 LS$75,000$75,000 640 640$49,920$124,920Subtotals $75,000 $49,920 $124,920Steam Piping Interconnection and ControlsHigh Pressure Steam Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Condensate Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Auxilliary Piping 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $20,000Controls 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Subtotals $120,000 $110,000Chip Storage Fabric StructureSteel Frame Fabric Structure 4800 SF $50 $240,000 0 0 $0 $240,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Electrical 1 LS $10,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Controls 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Subtotals $250,000 $0 $250,000Site WorkLog Yard Clearing & Grubbing 2.6 AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Log Yard Grading 2.6AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Subtotals $48,672 $9,734 $58,406Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WSCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 2 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostDemolitionRemove and Abandon Diesel Generator 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Generator Room 1 LS $8,250 $8,250 120 120 $9,360 $17,610Fuel Oil Piping 100 LF $9 $900 0.36 36 $2,808 $3,708Switchgear1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Subtotals $11,150 $30,888 $42,038Total Cost $1,988,044Shipping Allowance (15%) $298,207Construction Management (15%) $298,207TOTAL $2,584,458Contingency (25%) $646,114TOTAL $3,230,572Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WSCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 3 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - WSCHP - Wood Fuel and Steam with CHP Expandability District Heating System UpgradesLOCAL Labor Cost $20 $/hrAverage Hourly Rate1.3 With Burden:$26 $/hrUpgrade ManholesRe-Insulate Piping 20 EA $4,000 $80,000 40 800 $20,800 $100,800Repair Valves 20 EA $750 $15,000 16 320 $8,320 $23,320Replace Expansion Joints 20 EA$2,000 $1,000 48 960 $24,960 $25,960Subtotals $96,000 $54,080 $150,080Total Cost $150,080Shipping Allowance (15%) $22,512Construction Management (15%) $22,512TOTAL $195,104Contingency (25%) $48,776TOTAL$243,880Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WSCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 4 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503First Year Capital Cost Estimate - WSCHP - Wood Fuel and Steam with CHP Expandability Boiler and Fuel SystemLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrQty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostBiomass Boiler System with Installation OversightSteam Boiler System 1 EA $575,000 $575,000 0 0 $0 $575,000Wood Chip Biomass Boiler 1 EA$0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Boiler Stack 1 EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Multicyclone Separator (Emissions Contro1EA$0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Chip Storage Bin Wall with Auger 1 EA $0 640 640 $49,920 $49,920Chip Feed System 1 EA $0 320 320 $24,960 $24,960Controls 1 EA$0 320 320$24,960$24,960Subtotals $575,000 $199,680 $774,680Boiler Building AdditionPre-Engineered Metal Building 4800 SF $60 $288,000 0 0 $0 $288,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Boiler Slab 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Chip Bin Sub Structure 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 0 0 $0 $100,000Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 0 0 $0 $30,000Electrical 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 962 962 $75,000 $105,000Controls 1 LS$30,000$30,000 962 962$75,000$105,000Subtotals $478,000 $150,000 $628,000Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WHCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 1 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostSteam Boiler Burner Upgrades8:1 Turndown Burner Controls 1 LS$75,000$75,000 640 640$49,920$124,920Subtotals $75,000 $49,920 $124,920Steam Piping Interconnection and ControlsHigh Pressure Steam Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Condensate Piping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 0 0 $0 $40,000Auxilliary Piping 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $20,000Controls 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Subtotals $120,000 $110,000Chip Storage Fabric StructureSteel Frame Fabric Structure 4800 SF $50 $240,000 0 0 $0 $240,000Foundation 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Envelope 1 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Mechanical (HVAC & Plumbing) 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Electrical 1 LS $10,000 0 0 $0 $10,000Controls 0 LS $0 0 0 $0 $0Subtotals $250,000 $0 $250,000Site WorkLog Yard Clearing & Grubbing 2.6 AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Log Yard Grading 2.6AC $9,360 $24,336 24 62 $4,867 $29,203Subtotals $48,672 $9,734 $58,406Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WHCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 2 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostDemolitionRemove and Abandon Diesel Generator 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Generator Room 1 LS $8,250 $8,250 120 120 $9,360 $17,610Fuel Oil Piping 100 LF $9 $900 0.36 36 $2,808 $3,708Switchgear1 LS $1,000 $1,000 120 120 $9,360 $10,360Subtotals $11,150 $30,888 $42,038Total Cost $1,988,044Shipping Allowance (15%) $298,207Construction Management (15%) $298,207TOTAL $2,584,458Contingency (25%) $646,114TOTAL $3,230,572Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WHCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 3 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
DALSON ENERGYAnchorage, AlaskaBiomass Heating SystemGalena, AlaskaEDC, Inc. 213 West Fireweed LaneAnchorage, AK 99503Qty UnitMaterial Cost/UnitTotal Material CostInstall Time (MH/unit)Total Manhours Labor CostTotal Install CostFirst Year Capital Cost Estimate - WSCHP - Wood Fuel and Steam with CHP Expandability District Heating System UpgradesLabor Cost $60 $/hr Average Hourly Rate 1.3 With Burden:$78 $/hrUtilidor Distribution Conversion WaterHot Water Heat Exchanger 1 EA$60,000 $60,000 320.0 320 $24,960 $84,9601" Condensate to 3" Water 1500 LF $154 $231,000 2.4 3600 $280,800 $511,8001-1/2" Condensate to 4" Water 1000 LF $194 $194,000 3.2 3200 $249,600 $443,6002" Condensate to 6" Water 800 LF $288 $230,400 4.4 3520 $274,560 $504,9603" Condensate to 8" Water 560 LF$420$30,000 5.6 3136$244,608$274,608Subtotals $685,400 $1,049,568 $1,819,928Total Cost $1,819,928Shipping Allowance (15%) $272,989Construction Management (15%) $272,989TOTAL $2,365,906Contingency (25%) $591,477Galena Biomass Construction Estimate: WHCHP10/15/2013: 4Page 4 of 4EWHEDC Project DALGAL
Appendix C
Abbreviations
XX’ Foot
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
a.m. Ante Meridiem (Before Noon)
AK Alaska
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning
Engineers
BTU British Thermal Unit
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CSP Central Steam Plant
EEM Energy Efficiency Measures
FT Foot
GILA Galena Interior Learning Academy
GPY Gallons Per Year
HP Boiler Horsepower
ISER Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska
Anchorage
Ln. Lane
MMBTU/hr Million BTU per Hour
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PO Post Office
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
PSIG Pounds per Square Inch ‐ Gage
REF Renewable Energy Fund
St. Street
Ste. Suite
W. West
35 | Page
Appendix C
Sample Economic Analysis
37 | Page 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 442023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$439,327 $447,458 $455,774 $464,250 $472,971 $481,853 $490,956 $500,280 $509,799 $519,542 $529,539 $539,737 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$439,327 $447,458 $455,774 $464,250 $472,971 $481,853 $490,956 $500,280 $509,799 $519,542 $529,539 $539,737 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$439,327 $447,458 $455,774 $464,250 $472,971 $481,853 $490,956 $500,280 $509,799 $519,542 $529,539 $539,737 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$02023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ 122,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 228.19$ 232.22$ 236.34$ 240.54$ 244.86$ 249.27$ 253.78$ 258.40$ 263.12$ 267.95$ 272.90$ 277.96$ ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### 313.67$ 317.27$ 320.94$ 324.68$ 328.48$ 332.36$ 336.30$ 524,919$ 534,191$ 543,674$ 553,340$ 563,284$ 573,413$ 583,793$ 594,425$ 605,279$ 616,390$ 627,790$ 639,419$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 646,919$ 656,191$ 665,674$ 675,340$ 685,284$ 695,413$ 705,793$ 716,425$ 727,279$ 738,390$ 749,790$ 761,419$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 203,850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.83$ 4.92$ 5.01$ 5.09$ 5.19$ 5.28$ 5.38$ 5.47$ 5.57$ 5.68$ 5.78$ 5.89$ 5.95$ 6.01$ 6.08$ 6.15$ 6.21$ 6.28$ 6.35$ 6.42$ 6.50$ 6.57$ 6.64$ 6.72$ 6.80$ 6.88$ 6.96$ 7.04$ 7.12$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ 101,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 985,246$ 1,002,648$ 1,020,448$ 1,038,590$ 1,057,254$ 1,076,266$ 1,095,749$ 1,115,705$ 1,136,078$ ######## ######## ######## -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,086,246$ 1,103,648$ 1,121,448$ 1,139,590$ 1,158,254$ 1,177,266$ 1,196,749$ 1,216,705$ 1,237,078$ ######## ######## ######## -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$