Biomass heating project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
271
On Slideshare
271
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. RETScreen® International is a standardised and integrated renewable energy project analysis software. This tool provides a common platform for both decision-support and capacity-building purposes. RETScreen can be used worldwide to evaluate the energy production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas emissions reduction for various renewable energytechnologies (RETs). RETScreen is made available free-of-charge by the Government of Canada through Natural Resources Canadas CANMET Energy Diversification ResearchLaboratory (CEDRL). The user is encouraged to properly register at the RETScreen website so that CEDRL can report on the global use of RETScreen.Biomass Heating Project Model TO START (click here) RETScreen is available Brief Description & Model Flow Chart free-of-charge at Cell Colour Coding http://retscreen.gc.ca RETScreen Features (click to access info) Internet Options Online Manual RETScreen Website Product Data Training Information Weather Data Registration Cost Data Contact CEDRL Currency Options Model Worksheets (click to access sheets) Contributors Energy Model 70 + Technology Experts Heating Load & Network Collaborating Organisations Cost Analysis Greenhouse Gas Analysis Financial Summary Blank Worksheets (3)Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997-2000. NRCan/CEDRL
  • 2. ®RETScreen Energy Model - Biomass Heating ProjectSite Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Project name Local / District Heating Project location Ontario, Canada Nearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON Complete HL and Network sheet Number of buildings buildings 5 Total pipe length m 1,337 Heating energy demand MWh 5,230 GJ 18828 Peak heating load kW 1,747 million Btu/h 5.962System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range System type - Biomass Biomass Heating System System Design Graph Biomass fuel type - Wood medium HV WHR Biomass Peak Moisture content on wet basis of biomass % 50% 200% 0% to 55% As-fired calorific value of biomass MJ/t 8,111 150% 10,800 to 15,900 Biomass boiler(s) capacity (1 boiler) kW 1,500 See Product Database Biomass boiler(s) manufacturer Sylva Energy Systems 100% Biomass boiler(s) model Not specified 50% Biomass boiler(s) seasonal efficiency % 75% 60% to 90% Biomass energy delivered MWh 5,201 0% Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8% Load Demand Percentage of total heating energy demand % 99.4% (Power) (Energy) Peak Load Heating System Peak load fuel type - Natural gas Peak load system steady-state efficiency % 100% 50% to 350% Suggested peak load system capacity kW 247 75 to 3,000 Peak load system capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000 Peak load system seasonal efficiency % 75% 50% to 350% Peak energy delivered MWh 30 Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8% Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.6% Back-up Heating System (optional) Suggested back-up boiler capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000 Back-up boiler capacity kW 0 75 to 3,000Annual Energy Production WHR Biomass Peak Total Notes/Range Percentage of peak heating load % 0.0% 85.8% 85.8% 171.7% Heating capacity kW 0 1,500 1,500 3,000 million Btu/h 0 5.118 5.118 10.236 Equivalent full output hours h 0 3,467 20 - Capacity factor % 0.0% 39.6% 0.2% - Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.0% 99.4% 0.6% 100.0% Heating energy delivered MWh 0 5,201 30 5,231 million Btu 0 17745 101 17847 Biomass requirement t - 3,078 - 3,078 Heating fuel requirement m³ - - 3,858 3,858 Complete Cost Analysis sheetVersion 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 3. RETScreen ® Heating Load Calculation & District Heating Network Design - Biomass Heating ProjectSite Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Monthly Inputs Notes/Range Nearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON See Weather Database Month °C-d Month °C-d Month °C-d Heating design temperature °C -31.4 -40.0 to 15.0 (<18°C) (<18°C) (<18°C) Annual heating degree days below 18°C °C-d 6,454 Complete Monthly Inputs January 1,136 May 297 September 244 See Domestic hot water heating base load % 21% 0% to 25% February 969 June 143 October 428 Weather Equivalent degree-days for DHW heating °C-d/d 4.7 0.0 to 10.0 March 839 July 67 November 679 Database Equivalent full load hours h 2,993 April 526 August 104 December 1,023Base Case Heating System and Heating Load Estimate/TotalSee Technical Note on Network Design Building clusters Base Case Heating System 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Heated floor area per building cluster m² 16,100 3,700 2,700 8,500 1,000 200 Number of buildings in building cluster buildings 5 1 1 1 1 1 Heating fuel type(s) - - Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Heating system seasonal efficiency % - 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% Heating Load Calculation Heating load for building cluster W/m² - 201 78 75 147 50 Heating energy demand MWh 5,230 2,230 630 1,900 440 30 - - - - - - - - - Total peak heating load kW 1,747 745 210 635 147 10 - - - - - - - - - Fuel consumption - units - - m³ m³ m³ m³ m³ - - - - - - - - - Fuel consumption - annual - - 317,465 89,687 270,486 62,639 4,271 - - - - - - - - - Cost of fuel - units - - $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ - - - - - - - - - Unit cost of fuel - - 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 Total fuel cost - $ 245,701 $ 104,763 $ 29,597 $ 89,260 $ 20,671 $ 1,409 - - - - - - - - -District Heating Network Design Estimate/Total Design Criteria Design supply temperature °C 120 Design return temperature °C 80 Differential temperature °C 40 Main Distribution Line Main pipe network oversizing % 20% Pipe sections Load Length Pipe size Is the Building cluster supplied by this pipe section? (yes/no) (kW) (m) (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Section 1 1,737 472 DN 125 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Section 2 992 170 DN 100 No Yes Yes Yes No Section 3 782 65 DN 80 No No Yes Yes No Section 4 - Section 5 - Section 6 - Section 7 - Section 8 - Section 9 - Section 10 - Section 11 - Section 12 - Section 13 - Total pipe length for main distribution line m 707 Secondary Distribution Lines Secondary pipe network oversizing % 0% Secondary distribution pipes length per building cluster (m) Length of pipe section m 630 122 207 46 241 14 Pipe size mm DN 80 DN 50 DN 80 DN 50 DN 32 - - - - - - - - - District Heating Network Costs Total pipe length m 1,337 Costing method - Formula Energy transfer station(s) connection type - Indirect Energy transfer station(s) cost factor - 1.00 Main distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50 Secondary distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50 Exchange rate $/CAD 1.00 ETS and secondary distribution pipes costs per building cluster ($) Energy transfer station(s) cost - $ 248,637 $ 88,664 $ 45,337 $ 75,543 $ 36,287 $ 2,807 - - - - - - - - - Secondary distribution line pipe cost - $ 103,396 $ 23,302 $ 32,085 $ 8,786 $ 37,355 $ 1,868 - - - - - - - - - Total building cluster connection cost - $ 352,033 $ 111,966 $ 77,422 $ 84,329 $ 73,642 $ 4,674 - - - - - - - - - Main Distribution Line Pipe Cost by Pipe Size Categories Summary of main distribution line pipe size mm DN 32 DN 40 DN 50 DN 65 DN 80 DN 100 DN 125 DN 150 Summary of main distribution line pipe length m - - - - 65 170 472 - Summary of main distribution line pipe cost - $ 164,605 - - - - $ 12,415 $ 36,550 $ 115,640 - Total district heating network costs - $ 516,638 Return to Energy Model sheetVersion 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 4. RETScreen® Cost Analysis - Biomass Heating Project Type of project: Standard Currency: $ $ Cost references: Canada - 2000 Second currency: United States USD Rate: $/USD 0.67800 Relative Quantity Unit CostInitial Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Costs Range Range Feasibility Study Feasibility study Cost 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Sub-total: $ 5,000 0.4% Development Project development Cost 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Sub-total: $ 5,000 0.4% Engineering Engineering Cost 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Sub-total: $ 15,000 1.1% Renewable Energy (RE) Equipment Biomass heating system (1 boiler) kW 1,500 $ 200 $ 300,000 75 - 3,000 $125 - $250 Biomass equipment installation kW 1,500 $ 70 $ 105,000 75 - 3,000 $20 - $140 Transportation project 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Sub-total: $ 407,000 29.0% Balance of Plant Peak load heating system kW 1,500 $ 85 $ 127,500 75 - 1,000 $85 - $133 Energy transfer station(s) building 5 - $ 248,637 Secondary distribution line pipe m 630 - $ 103,396 Main distribution line pipe m 707 - $ 164,605 Building and yard construction m² 300 $ 350 $ 105,000 20 - 300 $220 -$470 Equipment installation p-h 2,000 $ 40 $ 80,000 500 - 700 $25 - $50 Transportation project 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - Sub-total: $ 832,138 59.3% Miscellaneous Overhead p-h 200 $ 50 $ 10,000 36 - 120 $50 - $100 Training p-h 40 $ 60 $ 2,400 8 - 30 $40 - $100 Contingencies % 10% $ 1,264,138 $ 126,414 5% - 40% Sub-total: $ 138,814 9.9%Initial Costs - Total $ 1,402,952 100.0% Relative Quantity Unit CostAnnual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Costs Range Range O&M Property taxes/Insurance project 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Spare parts burner 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1-3 $200 - $600 O&M labour p-h 400 $ 20 $ 8,000 96 - 700 $15 - $30 Travel and accommodation p-trip $ - General and administrative project 1 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ - $ - $ - Contingencies % 10% $ 24,000 $ 2,400 Sub-total: $ 27,600 55.7% Fuel/Electricity Biomass t 3,078 $ 5.0 $ 15,390 $0 - $85 Natural gas m³ 3,858 $ 0.330 $ 1,273 Parasitic electricity kWh 53,000 $ 0.100 $ 5,300 Sub-total: $ 21,963 44.3%Annual Costs - Total $ 49,563 100.0% Unit CostPeriodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interval Range Range Refractory insulation Cost 5 yr $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - End of project life - $ - Go to GHG Analysis sheetVersion 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 5. ®RETScreen Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Analysis - Biomass Heating ProjectUse GHG analysis sheet? Yes Type of analysis Standard Complete Financial Summary sheetBackground Information Project Information Global Warming Potential of GHG Project name Local / District Heating 1 ton CH4 = 21 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996) Project location Ontario, Canada 1 ton N2O = 310 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996)Base Case Electricity System (Reference) Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion T&D GHG emission factor factor factor efficiency losses factor (%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh) Natural gas 100.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 45.0% 8.0% 0.491 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Electricity mix 100% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 8.0% 0.491Base Case Heating System (Reference) Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion Transport or GHG emission factor factor factor efficiency transfer losses factor (%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh) Heating system1 Natural gas 42.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.2992 Natural gas 12.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.2993 Natural gas 36.3% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.2994 Natural gas 8.4% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.2995 Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.2996 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0007 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0008 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0009 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.00010 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.00011 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.00012 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.00013 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.00014 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000 Heating energy mix 100.0% 82.5 0.0044 0.0015 0.0% 0.299Proposed Case Heating System (Mitigation) Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion Transport or GHG emission factor factor factor efficiency transfer losses factor (%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh) Heating system Waste heat 0.0% 0.0 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% 0.0% 0.000 Biomass 99.4% 0.0 0.0320 0.0040 75.0% 0.0% 0.009 NPeak - Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 75.0% 0.271 Parasitic electricity 1.0% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 100.0% 0.0% 0.491 Heating energy mix 101.0% 1.8 0.0425 0.0053 0.0% 0.016GHG Emission Reduction Summary Base case GHG Proposed case GHG End-use annual Annual GHG emission factor emission factor energy delivered emission reduction (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (tCO2) Heating system 0.299 0.016 5,231 1,482.0 Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0 Complete Financial Summary sheetVersion 2000 © United Nations Environment Programme & Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2000. UNEP/DTIE and NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 6. RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating ProjectAnnual Energy Balance Yearly Cash Flows Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative Project name Local / District Heating Electricity required MWh 53.0 # $ $ $ Project location Ontario, Canada Incremental electricity demand kW - 0 (350,738) (350,738) (350,738) Renewable energy delivered MWh 5,201 GHG analysis sheet used? yes/no Yes 1 84,533 84,533 (266,205) Heating energy delivered MWh 5,231 Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0 2 88,534 88,534 (177,670) Cooling energy delivered MWh - Net GHG emission reduction - 25 yrs tCO2 37,051 3 92,616 92,616 (85,055) Heating fuel displaced See HL and Network sheet 4 96,779 96,779 11,724 5 95,504 95,504 107,228Financial Parameters 6 105,356 105,356 212,584 7 109,773 109,773 322,357 Avoided cost of heating energy $/MWh 47.0 Debt ratio % 75.0% 8 114,279 114,279 436,636 RE production credit $/kWh - Debt interest rate % 7.0% 9 118,875 118,875 555,512 RE production credit duration yr 15 Debt term yr 15 10 117,469 117,469 672,980 RE credit escalation rate % 2.0% 11 128,345 128,345 801,326 GHG emission reduction credit $/tCO2 - Income tax analysis? yes/no No 12 133,223 133,223 934,549 GHG reduction credit duration yr 10 Effective income tax rate % 38.0% 13 138,198 138,198 1,072,746 GHG credit escalation rate % 2.0% Loss carryforward? yes/no Yes 14 143,272 143,272 1,216,019 Retail price of electricity $/kWh 0.100 Depreciation method - Declining balance 15 141,719 141,719 1,357,738 Demand charge $/kW - Depreciation tax basis % 80.0% 16 269,255 269,255 1,626,993 Energy cost escalation rate % 2.0% Depreciation rate % 20.0% 17 274,640 274,640 1,901,633 Inflation % 2.0% Depreciation period yr 15 18 280,133 280,133 2,181,766 Discount rate % 9.0% Tax holiday available? yes/no No 19 285,736 285,736 2,467,502 Project life yr 25 Tax holiday duration yr 5 20 284,021 284,021 2,751,523 21 297,280 297,280 3,048,803Project Costs and Savings 22 303,225 303,225 3,352,028 23 309,290 309,290 3,661,317 Initial Costs Annual Costs and Debt 24 315,475 315,475 3,976,793 Feasibility study 0.4% $ 5,000 O&M $ 27,600 25 313,582 313,582 4,290,375 Development 0.4% $ 5,000 Fuel/Electricity $ 21,963 26 - - 4,290,375 Engineering 1.1% $ 15,000 Debt payments - 15 yrs $ 115,527 27 - - 4,290,375 RE equipment 29.0% $ 407,000 Annual Costs - Total $ 165,090 28 - - 4,290,375 Balance of plant 59.3% $ 832,138 29 - - 4,290,375 Miscellaneous 9.9% $ 138,814 Annual Savings or Income 30 - - 4,290,375 Initial Costs - Total 100.0% $ 1,402,952 Heating energy savings/income $ 245,701 31 - - 4,290,375 Cooling energy savings/income $ - 32 - - 4,290,375 Incentives/Grants $ - RE production credit income - 15 yrs $ - 33 - - 4,290,375 GHG reduction income - 10 yrs $ - 34 - - 4,290,375 Annual Savings - Total $ 245,701 35 - - 4,290,375 Periodic Costs (Credits) 36 - - 4,290,375 # Refractory insulation $ 5,000 Schedule yr # 5,10,15,20,25 37 - - 4,290,375 # $ - Schedule yr # 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 38 - - 4,290,375 # $ - Schedule yr # 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 39 - - 4,290,375 End of project life - $ - Schedule yr # 25 40 - - 4,290,375 41 - - 4,290,375Financial Feasibility 42 - - 4,290,375 43 - - 4,290,375 Pre-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% Calculate GHG reduction cost? yes/no No 44 - - 4,290,375 After-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% GHG emission reduction cost $/tCO2 Not calculated 45 - - 4,290,375 Simple Payback yr 7.2 Project equity $ 350,738 46 - - 4,290,375 Year-to-positive cash flow yr 3.9 Project debt $ 1,052,214 47 - - 4,290,375 Net Present Value - NPV $ 1,021,996 Debt payments $/yr 115,527 48 - - 4,290,375 Annual Life Cycle Savings $ 104,046 Debt service coverage - 1.73 49 - - 4,290,375 Profitability Index - PI - 2.91 RE production cost ¢/kWh in construction 50 - - 4,290,375Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 7. RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating ProjectCumulative Cash Flows Graph Biomass Heating Project Cumulative Cash Flows Local / District Heating, Ontario, Canada Year-to-positive cash flow 3.9 yr IRR and ROI 28.7% Net Present Value $ 1,021,996 5,000,000 4,000,000 Cumulative Cash Flows ($) 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1,000,000) YearsVersion 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL 03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls
  • 8. TEACHER’S NOTES BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT 06 LOCAL / DISTRICT HEATING / ONTARIO, CANADA• The total heating energy demand was calculated by adding the space heating and domestic hot water (DHW) heating energy for all buildings. The domestic hot water heating base load is then expressed as a fraction of this total.• The heating energy demand for each building cluster was calculated by adding the space heating and DHW heating energy, as provided in the data table. The heating load for each cluster (in W/m2) was then set to yield the correct heating energy demand. The Microsoft Excel “Goal Seek” function may also be used to find the right input (e.g. heating load) when the output (e.g. heating energy demand) is known.• The formula method was used to calculate the heating network costs and a cost factor of 0.5 was applied to both the main and secondary distribution lines to reflect the favourable conditions for burying pipe.• Parasitic electricity was calculated using the method described in the Online User Manual: the biomass boiler is estimated to have a power draw of 14.2 kW while the power for the circulation pumps is calculated as: 1,337 m x 1,747 kW x (58.7 x 10-6)ºC/m ÷ 40ºC = 3.5 kW. This calculation is based on the total of the main (707 m) and secondary (630 m) distribution piping. Adding the boiler and circulation pump loads and multiplying by 2,993 h, the equivalent full load duration hours, gives the parasitic load of 53,000 kWh/yr.• Note that in the Financial Analysis worksheet, the RETScreen model calculates the avoided cost of heating energy ($47/MWh) by dividing the total cost of fuel for the base case system ($245,701/yr) by the total heating energy demand (5,230 MWh). This value is also the cost of the energy that the district heating system’s owner charges to its client.• This analysis is done from the perspective of the municipality, which is proposing to install and operate the district heating system. The five buildings that are to be heated will continue to pay the equivalent rates for energy as they were paying for the old natural gas heating, but these payments will now be an income stream to the municipality. For the building owners, financial benefits of the new system will include protection from price volatility of natural gas and elimination of the capital and maintenance costs associated with operating their old heating systems.