feasibility study for the use of biomass and biofuels for ... study for the use of biomass and...

Feasibility Study for the Use of Biomass and Biofuels for Combined Heating and Power at Ithaca College

Prepared for:

Ithaca College

Spring 2014

Prepared by:

2014 ENVS370 Class

Jeremy Betterley, Ryan Burns, Zachary Conner, Mary Corcoran, Kenneth Greiser, Rachel Hallock, Rani Jacobson, Benjamin Knowles, Menli McCreight, Angela Patterson,Jeremy Poe, Elan Reuven, Sarah Schmidlin, Gabriella Sophir, Robert Tolette, Benjamin Tolles, Blake Wetherbee, and Camron Zerbian

Edited by Blake Wetherbee and Greg Broslawski

Instructor: Dr. Christopher W. Sinton

Table of Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Current System at Ithaca College ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Heating and Cooling Ithaca College ............................................................................................................................... 4

Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Electricity .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at Ithaca College ............................................................................... 6

Energy Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Renewable Energy ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Biomass Fuels .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Dedicated Wood and Other Crops ................................................................................................................................. 9

Waste Wood ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Biogas (Biomethane) ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Transportation and Storage of Biofuels ................................................................................................................... 10

Wood Chips and Pellets .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Biomethane ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Current Examples of Biomass-‐Based Facilities .......................................................................................................... 12

Middlebury College ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Iowa University ................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Green Mountain College .................................................................................................................................................. 13

University of Minnesota-‐Morris .................................................................................................................................. 13

University of British Columbia ..................................................................................................................................... 14

University of New Hampshire Biogas ........................................................................................................................ 14

Proposed System at Ithaca College ................................................................................................................................. 16

Fuel Options ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Power Plant and Distribution Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 17

Possible Plant Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Ash Residue ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Air Emissions .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

Tar Production and Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 20

Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Capital Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Operating Cost ................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Fuel Cost/Benefit .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Educational Impact ........................................................................................................................................................... 22

IC Campus ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Greater Ithaca Community ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

References .................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Appendix A – Quote from Chiptec .................................................................................................................................... 26

1

Summary

The goal of this study is to determine the feasibility of using biomass as a fuel for a combined heat and power (CHP) system on the Ithaca College campus. We begin with an overview of how Ithaca College currently meets its heating, cooling and electric power needs through deliveries of natural gas and utility electricity. We then provide a summary of the different types of biofuels that are available and several case studies of biofuel use at other academic institutions. The final section is a proposed centralized biomass combined heat and power system for Ithaca College. The system is based on either wood chips or wood pellets that would provide hot water or steam to the majority of the campus from a small building located near Boothroyd Hall. If steam were used rather than hot water, electric power generation would be an option. The estimated cost of the building and installed system without electric generation is $10-$12 million. This does not include the cost of infrastructure to transmit hot water or steam to the campus buildings.

2

Introduction

All academic institutions with a physical campus require energy in order to maintain the temperature of buildings, provide hot water, and power electric appliances. Buildings need to be heated in the winter and supplied with hot water all year around; this requires fuel for furnaces and boilers. Fuel is most commonly delivered by pipeline (for natural gas) or by truck/rail (for oil and coal). Buildings require electricity for lighting, air conditioning, and the variety of computers and digital technologies used on campus. This requires a consistent and reliable supply of electrical power that is delivered by the local power grid.

There are many energy challenges for academic institutions. For example, older buildings generally were not designed for energy efficiency and so they require considerable resources to maintain a comfortable interior. This is alleviated somewhat by renovations that increase insulation and install more efficient equipment, but there are limits to any retrofit. In addition to fixed building designs, there has been an increase in the use of computer technology over the past decades leading to higher demand for electricity. Beyond energy consumption, most institutions want to reduce their collective carbon footprint - to accomplish this while providing reliable energy resources at a manageable cost is difficult.

The cost of energy goes beyond simple dollars spent as there are externalized costs that must be accounted for. Traditional, fossil-based fuels have environmental costs ranging from the impact of extraction to the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates when they are burned. At the same time, most Colleges and universities strive to teach their students about these impacts. Ithaca College (IC) is a good example. The college has a sustainability coordinator, a Climate Action Plan, an active Environmental Studies and Sciences department, and a new core curriculum which highlights sustainability as one of its six themes (Quest for a Sustainable World). In 2007, President Peggy Ryan signed the American College and University President's Climate Commitment, which calls for a 100% carbon neutrality by 2050. Following this, a President’s Climate Commitment Committee developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is a roadmap to reaching the carbon neutrality goal. Implementation of Climate Action Plan programs and tasks has led to an estimated $250,000-$499,000 in savings to date (ACUPCC, 2014). The college has also estimated that $10-$20 million will be saved by fully pursuing the Climate Action Plan’s ambitious goals.

Since committing to the CAP, Ithaca College has been trying to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents remained relatively constant between 2007 and 2010. However, between 2012 and 2013 there was a 7% increase in electricity and 8% increase in natural gas consumption - which in turn increased emissions. This has been attributed primarily to the opening of the new Athletics and Events Center (IC-CAP, 2013). The Climate Action Plan states a goal of reducing 2007 level greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2015. It is clear that in order to reach the goals of the climate commitment, IC must fundamentally change the manner in which it uses energy by incorporating renewable energy on a larger scale. In the Climate Action Plan there is an expectation for the construction of a central utility plant as a key abatement strategy (IC-CAP, 2009). If biomass were used as the fuel for such a plant, IC could make significant progress toward its emission reductions.

The purpose of this report is to provide information to the IC community about the feasibility of using one type of renewable energy - biofuels - as a major source of energy for the

3

campus. The report is divided into four sections:

1. Background information on the current energy use and infrastructure at IC; 2. General information on different types of biofuels; 3. Case studies of other campuses that have adopted a biofuel-based energy system; and 4. Proposed implementation plan for Ithaca College.

Our goal is to have members of the IC community consider this information when making decisions for the future of the campus. The group does not necessarily promote biofuels as the only pathway to a more sustainable campus. For example, the geothermal system of the Peggy Ryan Williams building shows that this technology can reduce the natural gas demand for heating. Nevertheless, we will show that biofuels have been used at other institutions to provide a source of renewable, local fuel and this path may be appropriate for Ithaca College.

4

Current System at Ithaca College

Heating and Cooling Ithaca College

The Ithaca College campus on South Hill Ithaca College’s has 25 academic and administrative buildings, 31 residence halls, and 22 small apartment buildings (Circle apartments). The South Hill campus grew gradually starting in 1960 as IC moved from downtown Ithaca. Several buildings were constructed using relatively inexpensive designs, such as the Upper and Lower quads that were only meant to last 10 to 15 years before being replaced with more permanent buildings. However, they were never rebuilt because in the 1970s the price of labor and materials increased to the point that rebuilding was not economically feasible. Heating systems for the “temporary” structures were generally chosen based on short term cost considerations. As a result, there are individual heating and cooling systems for almost all buildings on campus and no central heating system for the campus was installed.

While most dormitories and academic buildings are heated with natural gas, the Garden Apartments were the first buildings on campus to feature an all-electric heating system. Electricity was the cheapest form of energy at the time they were constructed and nuclear-sourced electricity was expected to keep prices low for the future. Unfortunately, this nuclear power never became as cheap as projected and so keeping the Garden Apartments heated in the winter is now relatively expensive.

Cooling costs at Ithaca College have risen over the past two decades as new buildings and retrofitting of older buildings incorporate air conditioning (M. Darling, pers. comm., 2014). Most air conditional needs are met by conventional electric-powered systems. The one exception is the Peggy Ryan Williams Center (PRWC) – details on this in the Energy Efficiency section.

While many of the college's newest buildings include energy-efficient design features, the majority of buildings are conventional designs that require considerable natural gas and electricity. The following sections give detail on the cost of these energy sources.

Natural Gas

Natural gas heats most of Ithaca College’s buildings with the five largest consumers being Towers dining hall, Towers residence hall, Whalen Center, Phillips Hall, and Friends/Job/Muller respectively (Ithaca College Facilities, 2014). Aside from the heating systems across campus, other equipment that runs on natural gas includes the 70 emergency generators, humidification boilers in the Center for Natural Sciences and the Whalen building, the cooking equipment in the dining halls, and the many hot water boilers located throughout the campus.

5

Natural gas is delivered to the campus by the local utility, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG). It most likely comes from wells in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Western New York (USEIA, 2014) and is transported by a network of pipelines both in the state and across the continent. Because the natural gas is homogenized in the pipelines, the direct source of the gas cannot be determined. However, it is very likely that a large percentage of the natural gas from other states originates in horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured wells - a controversial extraction method.

During the 2010-2011 academic year, Ithaca College used 168,470 million Btu (MMBtu) of natural gas for a total cost of $1,204,180 (Ithaca College Facilities, 2011). One MMBtu of natural gas is equivalent to 975 cubic feet of natural gas, meaning the College burned approximately 164 million cubic feet of natural gas for building heat and hot water. The average price of natural gas purchased by the College is then $7.16 per MMBtu (or $7.34 per thousand cubic feet).

The amount that Ithaca College pays each year for natural gas depends on the weather and on the price of natural gas, which has historically been quite volatile. The national price for natural gas for New York commercial customers is shown in Figure 1. The overall trend has been an increase in price up to a high of $12.86 per thousand cubic feet in 2008, at which point prices decreased drastically to $7.98 in 2013 (USEIA, 2014). The drop in prices can be attributed to the recession as well as the increase in supply from the development of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques. Accounting for inflation and the increase in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in the United States, the Energy Information Agency predicts that natural gas prices will increase an average of 3.7% each year at least until 2040. (USEIA, 2014) While prices have proven historically volatile and many factors could change this rate, the predicted increase in $/MMBtu is important to IC energy management.

The emissions of greenhouse gases associated IC’s natural gas use can be calculated. There are two parts to this: carbon dioxide emitted when the natural gas is burned and the natural gas (mostly methane) leakage during transportation. The direct emission of carbon dioxide from natural gas combustion on campus in 2010-2011 was 9,832 tons of carbon dioxide (172 million

Figure 1: Commercial natural gas prices in New York (USEIA, 2014)

6

cubic feet) into the atmosphere1. The national leak rate from natural gas pipelines is about 2% (EIA, 2014) resulting in an estimated 3.3 million cubic feet2 of methane released into the atmosphere due to gas transportation to Ithaca College every year. Because methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 100 year period, the equivalent of 66 million cubic feet of carbon dioxide was released by the estimated methane leakage.

Electricity

Ithaca College purchases electricity from Integrys Energy but it is delivered to the campus by NYSEG, the local utility. During the 2010-2011 academic year, IC used 28,384,172 kWh of electricity at a total cost of $2,641,558. This is the equivalent of 8,200 tons of carbon dioxide emitted3, slightly less than the amount emitted directly from natural gas combustion on campus.

Electricity consumption on the IC campus fluctuates month to month with no discernible trend (M. Brown, pers. comm., 2014). There is however a great difference in the usage from building to building. For example, the Center for Natural Sciences uses the largest amount of electricity (225,992 kWh in June 2010) compared to the next highest consumer, which is the Park School of Communications (133,011 kWh in June 2010).

College electricity use per square foot has consistently decreased over the last fifteen years, from 17.75 kWh/ft2 to 13.23 kWh/ft2 (M. Brown, pers. comm., 2014). At the same time, the total square footage of the college buildings increased from 1,989,938 to 2,535,556 square feet. This decrease in use is likely due to the construction of more efficient new buildings and retrofits of older buildings.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at Ithaca College

Before any considering biofuels at Ithaca College, it is important to first document efforts to reduce the energy use on campus (energy efficiency) and to incorporate other renewable energy resources. This section summarizes these efforts.

Energy Efficiency

Campus buildings that were constructed before 1980 were built when energy prices were relatively low and there was no knowledge of the threat posed by global climate change. As a result, these buildings were not designed to be very energy efficient and certain technologies, such as sealed, multi-pane windows were not available at the time or were too expensive. Retrofitting existing buildings can reduce consumption of electricity and/or natural gas while providing a safe and comfortable environment. Recent projects for retrofitting existing buildings have included:

• boiler and other heating-ventilation-air conditional (HVAC) improvements;

1 Calculated using EIA’s value of 119.9 lbs CO2 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas 2 0.02 x 164 million cubic feet = 3.3 million cubic feet 3 Calculated using the EIA emission factor of 578 lbs CO2 emitted per MWh by New York electric generation sources.

7

• increased insulation (e.g., Hill Center); and

• installation of more efficient fluorescent and LED lighting .

Newer buildings on campus, such as the Park School of Business, Peggy Ryan Williams Center, and the Athletics and Events Center, are much more efficient designs compared to the older buildings. These buildings have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification which assures that they were built with architectural integrity and minimize energy requirements through improved wall and window insulation, passive heating and cooling systems, and natural lighting to reduce energy inputs.

The newest building, The Athletic and Events Center is a 130,000 square foot structure that meets LEED Gold standards with multiple sustainable measures with the renowned “tower” structure that acts as an intelligently designed cooling and ventilation system as the center piece. The structure provides natural ventilation as warm air in the building rises into the tower, allowing cooler air to circulate in from below. The building’s lower tower faces the prevailing north winds to take in fresh air. The hotter air escapes through the taller tower with the help of mechanical fans. Additional energy efficient features of the building include strategically placed windows for natural lighting, a reflective roof to minimize cooling requirements, and an exhaust system with energy recovery.

In 2009 Ithaca College constructed the 58,000 square-foot Peggy Ryan Williams Center (PRWC) with a variety of energy efficient features such as ground source heat pumps, ‘smart’ lighting functions, passive solar heating, and natural air flow. The PWRC was built with a goal of providing a comfortable environment with minimal environmental impact. The building's ground source heat pumps work as a heat exchanger between the building's interior climate and the subsurface earth. Because the ground maintains a temperature of about 50ºF all year long, the ground source heat pump system helps to moderate the building's climate which results in significant cost savings and energy efficiency improvements. This system makes the PRWC the most energy-efficient building on campus. The PRWC was awarded LEED Platinum for building sustainability and serves as a model for Ithaca College’s future construction projects.

Adjacent to the PRWC is the Park School of Business, which is LEED Platinum certified. At the core of the building’s sustainable design is its roof, which is 85% vegetated and the remainder consisting of a light colored material that reflects sunlight. The vegetation helps keep the building cooler during the summer and insulates it in winter. The vegetation also acts like a sponge, soaking up rainwater, which is then filtered by the plants instead of flowing through streets and gutters. A south facing window wall allows most classrooms to be lit up with natural light. Daylight and occupancy sensors in classrooms turn off overhead lights when there is enough natural sunlight in the room or if the room is empty.

Renewable Energy

There are two ways that Ithaca College has approached the use of renewable energy to replace traditional energy sources: renewable energy credits and on-site generation. The on-site renewable energy generation options that have been considered or implemented at Ithaca College include geothermal, wind, and solar. Geothermal is the only renewable energy resource that has been implemented to date. The term “geothermal” can apply to hot water and steam produced in volcanically- active regions such as the US West – this is not the case in Ithaca. In our region,

8

the term refers specifically to the use of groundwater heat pumps that use the constant temperature of the ground to heat or cool a building. The PRWC is the only building on campus to use this technology. It uses six 500 foot deep wells with ground source heat pumps to heat and cool the building. This system has essentially eliminated the building’s need for natural gas. The resulting savings have repaid the capital cost of drilling the wells in only three years, half the initially expected timeframe.

The feasibility of installing a wind turbine at the top of South Hill was studied in 2009 (Foster, 2009). A meteorological station was erected at the highest point of the hill and gathered hourly wind speed and direction data for a year. The average long term correlated wind speed at the met tower was determined to be 6.14 meters per second (13.73mph) at 80 meters above ground level. A 1.5 MW wind turbine placed on that site would generate an estimated 3783 MWh annually or about 13% of the college’s total electricity. With an installed cost of about $4.5 million, including state incentives, the payback for the project is on the order of 11 years.

Photovoltaic solar is one option that the school has debated, but there has been no effort to install this resource on campus. According to the climate plan, a drop in PV panel costs (or an increase in electricity prices) could make solar more economically feasible. There has been no study to investigate the use of solar hot water systems, though in the winter when needed most they would likely not suffice for campus heating needs with current technology.

The Climate Action Plan relies on the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to reach the goal of carbon neutrality. RECs are “green certificates” that may be purchased to represent power produced from renewable energy projects. RECs were purchased as part of the LEED certification for the A&E Center and the PRWC but there is no evidence that IC is currently purchasing RECs (M. Brown, pers. comm., 2014).

9

Biomass Fuels

Biomass is a general term for material that is derived from plants. Wood is perhaps the best known and historically important biomass fuel. By cycling carbon from the atmosphere into the woody biomass through photosynthesis, the system has net carbon neutrality when the wood is burned. This is in contrast with the net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that have resided below ground for millions of years.

Like fossil fuels, biomass fuels occur in solid, liquid, and gaseous form. The liquid biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, are produced by distilling or saponifying sugars and oils from crops (corn, sugar cane, and soybeans for example) and are used almost exclusively for transportation. As a result, we did not consider liquid biuofuels as a viable source for the IC system. This section reviews the different types of solid and gaseous biomass fuels that are currently available for consideration.

Dedicated Wood and Other Crops

Like crops that are dedicated for food (e.g., wheat) or paper (e.g., pine plantations), there are plants that can be cultivated solely as a source of biomass energy. These crops range from trees, such as willow and cottonwood, to different types of perennial grasses. The choice of which crop to grow is dependent on the specific location and needs of the technology used, but what they all have in common is a need for minimal inputs (irrigation water and fertilizer) and to be easily harvested. In addition, any viable crop must be able to grow on marginal lands. This limits its competition with prime agricultural land – something that would otherwise disqualify it as biomass feedstock in the Ithaca area (Sannigrahi et al, 2010).

Of the dedicated (agriculturally raised) trees that can be used for energy, willow is the most promising in the northeastern United States. The State University of New York School of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) has been developing different strains of willow for bioenergy. The willow trees are planted, given a year to establish their roots, then are cut back to increase the sprouting of the plants (Volk et al. 2004). After three years the willow is cut after the leaves fall. The leaves contain much of the nutrients of the plant and by allowing them to fall, the nutrients are incorporated back into the soil to allow for this to cycle. Willows are perennials and will re-sprout after each cutting – in three years they are ready again for harvesting. Although willow wood has a lower wood density and a lower BTU per kg (a measure of energy per mass) than some hardwoods, the willows are grown in higher density than hardwoods, increasing the kg/hectare grown and harvested with fewer processing requirements, yielding a higher total energy per hectare (T. Volk, pers. comm., 2014).

Aside from willow, other dedicated bioenergy crops include poplar, switchgrass, miscanthus (a perennial grass native to Africa and Asia), and industrial hemp as alternative energy crops (Fleuren at al., 2005). The controversial policy restrictions on hemp in the United States make it an unlikely candidate for IC. The production, storage, transportation, and preparation of switchgrass would cost approximately $120 per million Therms, or $1.2 per 100 MMBTU in central New York (Coyle, 2010), but switchgrass is not yet commercially available in the region.

10

Waste Wood

Waste wood comes from a variety of sources including timber harvest or forest management residue, sawmill waste, and construction/demolition debris. Sawdust from lumber mills is widely used as the feedstock for pellets that are used in residential wood pellet stoves. The sawdust is compressed in a metal auger, which heats the material enough to release natural lignin, and pushes it through a metal die. The resulting pellets are cooled and the lignin serves as a binder to make a hard, durable material.

Larger pieces of waste wood can come from trees removed during forest thinning or wherever trees or branches are removed. This wood can be chipped and then used directly for heating and steam generation. This requires less labor compared to pellets and is always a lower cost material. However, wood chips have higher moisture content (and therefore lower energy per mass unit) and are more prone to complications compared to wood pellets.

In the urban areas most of the waste wood results from construction, demolition, and tree management. This material must be processed to remove all metal and other non-wood materials before it is used.

Biogas (Biomethane)

Biogas is a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide that is produced by the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes, such as animal manure, sewage solids, or compost. The resulting biogas is captured and can be used like natural gas for heating and electricity generation. Only a small amount of the waste is converted to biogas and the resulting solid byproducts of anaerobically digested material can be used as a soil amendment.

The three major sources of biogas are confined animal farm operations (CAFOs), landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. All CAFOs manure management systems and some use an anaerobic digester to produce biogas that is then used to power a generator. An example near Ithaca is the AA Dairy in Candor, which produces 42,868 ft3 of biogas per day from 600 cows (Martin, 2004). This gas powers a 130 kW generator, which produces enough to power all of their facilities and a surplus that is sold to the utility.

Municipal wastewater treatment plans also use an anaerobic digestion step to treat solid waste. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) produces biogas that powers four 65 kW generators which provides the majority of the electric and heating needs at the plant (L. Hill, 2014, pers. comm.)

Landfills have also been utilized for biogas production. As organic wastes decompose all oxygen is quickly used and anaerobic decomposition begins, producing methane. All landfills in the US have collection systems in place to capture the methane (a potent greenhouse gas) which is then burned or used to produce electricity.

Transportation and Storage of Biofuels

As with any fuel source, transportation to the site of use and storage are important factors in providing reliable heat and power. Transportation costs can quickly increase to the point that the cost per ton for freight makes the effective price for fuel unfeasible. Based on other case studies (see the following section), a biomass installation at Ithaca College would rely on fuel

11

that is within an approximately 100 mile radius. This section provides information on the transportation and storage of solid wood fuel and biogas.

Wood Chips and Pellets

Once wood or other biomass has been chipped and/or pelletized, it can then be immediately transported. For long distances on land, the most efficient form of transportation is rail. This is used for wood pellets that are produced in Canada but is likely not the mode of transportation that is available for Ithaca College. Truck hauling is the more feasible method of delivering biomass to the campus from local and regional sources.

The average load that a truck can carry is approximately 25 tons of bulk wood chips or pellets. The fuel is conveyed to the truck by pneumatic systems or gravity. The trailers need to be covered in order to keep the fuel from degrading. Once on the site, the truck tips the trailer into the storage silo or bin.

Biomass storage systems, such as those for wood pellets, must regulate moisture content to keep the fuel from degrading and ensure efficient burning in the boiler (M. Kelleher, 2014, pers. comm.). In addition, wet wood chips can interfere with boiler operation and negatively impact the air emissions. Self-heating and spontaneous ignition are two risks associated with the storage of biomass. In any size storage facility, ventilation is required and temperature and gas output should be monitored to detect any immediate problems.

Biomethane

Transportation of biomethane is only feasible by local pipelines with the point of consumption on-site within one mile. Laying pipelines is estimated at $100,000 to $250,000 per mile, and although transportation via natural gas pipeline is possible with negotiating rights-of-way, hurdles of quality and liability must be overcome as well (Kirch et al., 2005).

Storage for biogas is temporary and primarily for on-site use or storage before and/or after transportation. The most cost-effective and easiest storage method for on-site use is low-pressure systems. For example, the IAWWTF uses a flexible, inflatable bladder to store biogas. In storing biogases, volume, cost and corrosion should all be considered when choosing the appropriate method (Kirch et al., 2005).

12

Current Examples of Biomass-Based Facilities

Middlebury College

Middlebury College, a private liberal arts school in the Champlain Valley of Vermont, replaced its oil-fired central heating facility with a biomass heating and power system that began operating in 2009 (Middlebury College, n.d.). The new system is a wood chip gasification boiler that was built as an expansion of the original heating facility building. In addition to heating, a steam-driven turbine generates approximately 3 to 5 million kWh of electricity per year or approximately 20% of the total electricity used on the campus. Steam sent to the buildings is also used to run absorption chillers that provide air conditioning in the summer months. The cost of the system, which augments, but does not completely replace, the oil-fired boiler, was approximately $12 million. With an estimated savings of $840,000 per year in fuel costs, the payback period for the project is 12 years. The college calculates that its carbon emissions associated with burning oil will be reduced by about 12,500 tons annually.

The system uses about 20,000 tons of woodchips annually that are stored in silos adjacent to the boiler. During peak heating season in the winter, this can require two to three truckloads per day. To limit the transportation costs, chips need to come from sources within a 75 mile radius of the campus. One study found that by purchasing chips from local companies, the college puts $800,000 to $1 million in the regional economy (Vermont Family Forests, 2004). Currently, the college buys all of its chips from a nearby producer in Bristol, VT and pays $50-$60 per ton delivered (K. Boe, 2014, pers. comm.).

Middlebury College has experimented with growing and using dedicated willow as a fuel. In 2007, a grove of willow was planted within a half mile of the campus and 120 tons of chips were harvested from six acres in 2011. The chips were introduced into the biomass boiler system during a set of four consecutive tests during the winter season. The operators experienced problems with the chips arriving frozen, which did not allow for optimum efficiency and increased the emissions of carbon monoxide. They concluded that moisture and fine material in the chips were the causes for the operating issues and that the willow fuel needs to be better protected from weather when stored.

Maintenance of the new gasification system is more rigorous than the existing oil-fired steam system. The conveying system of belts and augers requires lubrication and adjustment. The fire tube boiler needs hydroblasting annually in order to remove material from the interior of the boiler (K. Boe, 2014, pers. comm.).

Iowa University

The University of Iowa (UI) generates much of its own electricity and heat using a large circulating fluidized bed boiler. Prior to the introduction of limited biomass combustion, the boiler ran almost exclusively on coal. In 2003 the university started the process of generating 40% of their electricity from biomass (University of Iowa, n.d.).

The catalyst for the use of biomass in the school’s boiler was when Quaker Oats approached the university to see if it could use Resifil, a processed oat hull product it had produced for 80 years at its Cedar Rapids facility. The university’s power plant was willing to test the product in its circulating fluidized bed boiler. When the test yielded mixed results they

13

tried unprocessed oat hulls with better results. In order to use the oat hulls as a fuel, UI needed to retrofit its plant with a new storage silo, a pneumatic injection system, and new boiler control systems.

From 2003 to 2008, oat hulls provided for an average of 12% of the University’s energy consumption while costing only around 3% of the energy budget. The school was also able to save 25,000-35,000 tons of coal at a cost of half a million dollars. After these promising results, and multiple award recognizing the ingenuity of the system the school expanded the Biomass Fuel Project to include different types of fuels from different sources. Currently UI is burning expired corn seeds, poplar wood chips, waste wood, switchgrass, red canary grass and Miscanthus at their main plant. The delivered price for the fuels ranges from $45 to $75 per ton (University of Iowa, n.d.). The future plan is the have a Miscanthus dedicated energy crop plantation to supply the plan with fuel. In 2013 a pilot field was planted, with hopes of expanding it to 2500 acres.

Green Mountain College

Green Mountain College, located in Poultney, Vermont, is small, with enrollment of about 700 students. The school was one of the first colleges to achieve carbon neutrality in 2011 through the implementation of a wood chip-powered combined heat and power (CHP) system and the purchase of renewable energy credits (Green Mountain College, n.d.). The CHP plant began operations in 2010 at a cost of $5.8 million to build. It is estimated that the plant will generate 80% of the college’s heat and up to 20% of its electricity needs. It has an estimated payback period of 22 to 28 years. The plant uses between 3,000 to 4,500 tons of locally-sourced woodchips each year.

Starting in 2006, Green Mountain College began buying power from the Central Vermont Public Service’s Cow Power program. The Cow Power program is a biogas program that collects the methane from cow manure. Green Mountain College pays a premium price of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. The “cow power” provides most of the college’s electricity.

University of Minnesota-Morris

In the fall of 2008, the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) campus completed a combined heat, cooling, and power system that uses gasification to produce synthetic gas. The University of Minnesota Morris serves about 2,000 students and houses roughly 25 buildings, all of which add up to around 1 million square feet (Talleksen, 2012). The biomass energy system was built to work as part of a larger project in conjunction with solar and wind energy, with the end goal of becoming a zero net-energy campus. Initiation of the project was due partly to the volatile nature of fossil fuel prices. UMM invested $6 million in the project with an additional $3 million from the USDA/DOE Biomass Research and Development Initiative (Tallaksen, 2012). UMM concluded their financial report on the system by stating the biomass facility will likely be cost competitive versus natural gas (Tallaksen and Kildegaard, 2011).

The system uses gasification to produce synthetic gas. UMM tested multiple feedstocks, including corn stover, corn cobs, wheat straw, soybean residue, native grasses, and wood. After several test burns, it was found that the gasification system required denser feedstock than what

14

was locally available, so they implemented a densification system (Reese, 2011). It was found that corn cobs and wood were the best available fuels for the system.

UMM had complications in constructing and operating the biomass energy system because it is one of the first projects of its kind. Nevertheless, the system provides a significant amount of the campus’s heating and has been used for cooling and power generation (Talleksen, 2012). UMM has contracts with local (within a 100 mile radius) biomass providers and spends approximately $550,000 annually on feedstock, which equates to $6/MMBtu (Talleksen, 2012). Along with providing heating, cooling, and energy to the campus, the system was also built with the intention of providing research opportunities on biomass production and synthetic gas capabilities.

University of British Columbia

Nexterra, a Vancouver based biomass combined heat and power company, has designed and constructed a biomass gasification facility on Vancouver campus of the University of British Columbia (UBC). This system has been hailed as the most environmentally-friendly biomass facility in North America due to its extremely low emissions, operational efficiency, and innovative design (Nexterra, 2014). This system involves gasification of waste woodchips combustion in a specially outfitted General Electric engine that produces approximately 2MW of electricity. The exhaust is sent through a heat exchanger to produce 9,600 lbs steam/hr for distributional heating. They have a “Thermal Mode” for higher heating demands where the gasifier sends the gases to a boiler dedicated to producing steam for distributional heat, at about 20,000 lbs steam/hr. This plant only covers about 25% of campus heating needs when in Thermal Mode, and 12% of campus heating needs when in its standard mode. It supplies 5% of electrical demand. However, by using wood residues as the fuel source, this facility is reducing 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

University of New Hampshire Biogas

University of New Hampshire (UNH) is a medium-sized university located in Durham, New Hampshire. Total undergraduate and graduate enrollment at UNH is approximately 15,000 students. The campus has approximately 5.5 million square feet of indoor space. In 2009, UNH became the first university in the nation to use landfill gas as its primary fuel source. Called the EcoLine project, landfill gas from a nearby landfill is purified and transported to the campus where it is used in a co-generation plant located on the perimeter of campus. This co-generation plant was built in 2004 and originally used natural gas as the primary fuel.

UNH partnered with Turnkey Landfill in Rochester, NH approximately seven miles from campus for the EcoLine project. Turnkey is a major landfill that takes in waste from parts of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. At the time the project was implemented, Turnkey was producing more gas than Waste Management could use and flaring off the surplus.

The EcoLine system has three main components: 1) capturing landfill gas; 2) processing of the dirty gas; and 3) transporting the gas to campus. Once the gas is captured, it is purified by removing the carbon dioxide which makes up approximated 30% of the gas. What remains is methane, the primary component of natural gas. The gas is then transported by pipeline to campus. The ECOLine pipeline is 12 inches in diameter and 12.6 miles in length (Chamberlain,

15

2009). Since it crosses lands owned by several different entities, many real estate transactions were required to get the pipeline approved.

In full operation, UNH expects that the EcoLine will provide 80-85% of campus energy from landfill gas. It is estimated that the cogeneration plant can generate 7.9 megawatts of electrical power and approximately 40,000 pounds of steam which can be increased to 80-90,000 (Chamberlain, 2009). This will meet campus needs except on really cold days.

The project was financed with a $49 billion bond and $4 million of internal borrowing which the school estimates it will repay in 10 years (Chamberlain, 2009). The university received no state funding and implemented no tuition or student fee increases. In the long term, the project will stabilize the college’s energy costs as they will not be as susceptible to energy market fluctuations. The school intends to sell Renewable Energy Certificates for electricity consumed by the campus that came from EcoLine.

16

Proposed System at Ithaca College

In this section, we outline options for implementation of a biomass-powered combined heating and cooling system on the Ithaca College campus. We first make suggestions on the specific fuel options. We then describe what kind of infrastructure changes would be needed to install the system. We have created a simple cost-benefit analysis based on reasonable assumptions. Lastly, we describe the educational benefits of the system.

Fuel Options

Our team considered solid biomass and biogas systems for Ithaca College. Based on the logistics of each fuel type described above, as well as the experience from case studies outlined below, solid biomass offers specific advantages.

While biogas has worked at other institutions, such as the University of New Hampshire, there is not enough of a resource in Ithaca. The sole producer within several miles is the wastewater treatment plant (IAWWTF) and that facility uses all of its gas. There is no landfill close to campus, so the only alternative biogas could come from a dairy manure system or organic waste digester. If IC were to operate its anaerobic digestion biogas systems using organic material, it would need approximately 160,000 tons of organic waste over the course of the year or the equivalent of 62 IAWWTF-sized facilities to generate the same amount of energy provided by natural gas. This is not feasible considering the difficulty of obtaining this amount of material as well as the need to handle the residual solids. Tompkins County does have many dairy farms so we also considered this option. We calculated that IC would need the equivalent of 122 1,000-cow farms located within several miles of campus. This also is not feasible so biogas from anaerobic digestion is not considered a viable option for the college.

Wood - either as chips (e.g., Middlebury College) or as pellets (e.g., SUNY ESF) – can be derived from a variety of regional sources, is easy to transport, and relatively easy to store. Similar to the other examples of biomass-fuel CHP systems, the IC system would use waste wood. Central New York is largely forested and there are several regional lumber operations that generate waste sawdust. Timber management produces wastewood that can be chipped or pelletized. Within a 200 mile radius of Ithaca there are large scale production wood pellet manufacturers. Local companies such as Associated Harvest, Double A Willow, Biomaxx, Instant Heat and Enviroenergy are potential sources for wood that can be used at an IC system.

Because SUNY ESF is within the region, it is reasonable to examine the reasons that they chose wood pellets. The choice in fuels by SUNY ESF was primarily focused on these factors (M. Kelleher, 2014, pers. comm.)

• Automation – The uniform size and quality of pellets make for a more automated system with fewer interruptions for material jamming or causing problems.

• Fuel density – Since ESF is in an urban area they wanted to reduce the frequency of fuel deliveries. The 33 ton delivery of fuel means they only need 2-3 deliveries per week. This also means they will have a lower transportation impact on the environment

• Cleanliness – The ESF CHP project is housed in a building that they believe will be scored as LEED Platinum. The pellets are not as dusty as chips, so it is more consistent with the building design (maintaining air quality and other issues).

17

• Demonstration – They wanted to show how biomass could fit in a commercial building with limited space in an urban area. The chip biomass systems are usually more suited to facilities with much more space.

• Efficiency – Since the pellets are significantly drier than the chips, the on-site combustion is more efficient.

There is a significant per ton cost difference between wood chips and wood pellets. Middlebury College pays $50-$60 per ton delivered (K. Boe, 2014, pers. comm.). Bulk wood pellets can be at least $150 per ton, delivered. However, pellets are drier and therefore have higher energy content (MMBtu/ton) and have fewer problems in terms of storage and conveying. The choice of pellets or chips will also affect or be affected by the choice of boiler technology. Some can handle higher moisture contents in woodchips and some cannot while others are flexible. These decisions must be made with care, as we can learn from complications at some of the institutions mentioned that stem from mismatching fuel with design (E. Burkhard, 2014, pers. comm.).

In choosing the appropriate fuel, availability and pricing of future supplies is important. For woody biomass, a very conservative estimate from the bioenergy sector represented by five large trade associations has concluded that, at very least, there will be 19 million green tons of sustainably harvested woody biomass available in the Northeast (Biomass Thermal Energy Council, 2010) as reliance on biomass increases. The same study suggests that the state of New York will be the center of this growing industry due to its extensive forested and marginal agricultural lands as well as population.

In the longer term, dedicated willow could also provide a fuel source, but this is beyond the scope of this study. Pellets from grasses and waste straw are another potential fuel in the long term. Reliable sources that mass produce grass/straw pellets are available within seventy five miles of our school. Enviroenergy is a promising potential source, where the pellets cost $225 a ton.

Power Plant and Distribution Infrastructure

We propose that most of the campus’ buildings (Figure 2) be heated by the central power plant. Our plan includes heating: ● all academic buildings except Cerrache ● all administrative buildings with the exception of Peggy Ryan Williams and Alumni Hall ● all residential halls except the Terraces and Circle Apartments ● all dining halls ● the Hammond Health Center ● the Fitness Center ● the Athletic and Events Center

We decided not to include the entire campus in the proposed district heating circuit for several reasons. Ithaca College’s broadly spaced campus would require extensive piping systems. Directing steam to the Circle apartments or Terraces for example is more costly, though still

18

possible. The Peggy Ryan Williams Center was excluded simply because the installed ground source heat pumps combined with LEED standard design provides a significant amount of energy needs to the building. The rest of the college campus would potentially be connected to the combined heat and power, biomass district heating system.

We recommend that the proposed biomass plant be a combined heat and power system which produces heat as a primary consideration and electricity as a secondary benefit. A biomass gasification system is likely the most efficient, cost-effective, and low-emission option to create steam or hot water in a boiler system based on biomass. In this system, a fuel source such as wood chips or wood pellets is fed into a gasifier, which produces a burnable gas by heating the fuel in a low-oxygen environment. This gas is then combusted in another chamber. The hot exhaust is then fed into a boiler which produces steam or hot water. If steam is the chosen medium for conveying heat, high pressure steam can be fed through an appropriately sized turbine to produce electricity, which also reduces the pressure of the steam (back pressure steam turbine) for distribution. The hot water or steam can then be circulated to the buildings that are being heated. This system is similar to what was implemented at SUNY-ESF.

Chiptec, a biomass energy company based in Vermont has installed systems throughout the country, including yhose at SUNY ESF and Middlebury College. We propose a system similar to the one implemented at Middlebury. Based on a consultation with an engineer at Chiptec, we specifically propose a system to meet 70-75% of peak heating needs, with peak production aided by natural gas boilers. To meet both our heating needs as well as getting as much electrical output as possible we suggest a B-1500 series from Chiptec. This system can produce 35-40 MMBTU/hour which will produce 41,000 lbs of steam/hour at 265 psi (see Appendix A). Alternatively, the boiler could be set up to produce hot water for heating and cooling (using absorption chillers), but this would not allow for electrical power generation.

Should the administration choose a steam-based system, the steam would be run through three separate 250 kW back pressure turbines that during peak operation will be able to produce about 700-750 kW of electricity. The advantage of several smaller turbines is that they can be run at their highest efficiencies rather than having a large one that will be constantly producing below peak efficiency. The turbines would reduce the steam pressure from 265 psi to 20 psi which will run to the buildings for heating or for absorption chillers for cooling. The turbines are built custom for each project so more details would come from a manufacturer such as Dresser-Rand.

Steam has advantages in terms of electrical power production, but it does have drawbacks compared to a hot water system. While our team did not retrieve any quotes on hot water systems for distribution heating and CHP, many industry specialists in the region and at staff at Ithaca College recommend hot water due to the lower cost of the infrastructure and installation, lower operational costs, improved safety, and simpler systems management (2014, pers. comm. with L. Durland; M. Darling; E. Burkhard). This is an option that the administration should consider with consultant specializing in combined heat and power, such as ASI Energy of Ithaca.

Possible Plant Locations

Our team considered several possible locations or the proposed power plant and decided that the best would be in the area adjacent to Boothroyd Hall (Figure 2). This location has a few specific advantages:

19

• It is on the same plane as many of the campus’ buildings from the upper quads to Dillingham and Smiddy which makes it more efficient to circulate steam or hot water as opposed to pumping up and down hills.

• There is sufficient road access for trucks to deliver fuel. Trucks could access the the east entrance from Coddington Road and drive Gary Egbert Blvd around the A&E Center.

• It is close to the sub-station which is located on the access road between Boothroyd and the Towers. This would make it easier to distribute any electricity generated at the plant to the rest of campus or to the grid.

• There is sufficient open space available for a construction project.

Figure 2: A satellite image of Ithaca College campus with proposed site for the CHP plant in blue, residential buildings in orange, and academic and athletic buildings in green.

Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts of a Biomass Cogeneration Power Plant on Ithaca College campus would include three major categories. The production of wood ash, air emissions, and tar production from the gasification and combustion of biomass are major considerations in permitting and if an Environmental Impact Statement will be needed.

Ash Residue

One byproduct of biomass use is the solid ash. The SUNY ESF system produces 9 tons of

N

20

ash is produced from each 100 tons of wood pellets burned (M. Kelleher, 2014, pers. comm.). Using this ratio, the proposed IC system would produce approximately 660 tons of ash over the course of a year. All ash must be collected and disposed of properly so that it is not an environmental issue. The makeup of the ash depends on the wood fuel composition but clean wood will produce ash made of oxides of calcium, potassium, and iron. This poses no direct toxic threat and could be used as a soil amendment in the Ithaca College natural Lands. If waste wood is used, there is the potential for contaminants, such as heavy metals, in which case the ash would be sent to a landfill.

Air Emissions

Biomass combustion systems will emit particulates as well as some gases. Most of the gas is carbon dioxide and water vapor, but there are also nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are criteria air pollutants. All CHP systems need to comply with state and federal air emissions permitting requirements and therefore it is standard for all systems to have emission reduction equipment.

According to the design submitted by Chiptec (Appendix A), a cyclone and electrostatic precipitator (ESP) will be installed to remove particulates. It is unclear if the system would require any NOx reduction equipment, such as a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system.

Tar Production and Mitigation

In the past, the production of tar residues inside gasification systems has been an operational and environmental obstacle (Wolfesberger et al., 2009). The tar is comprised of residual polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are a group of semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs). When the tar is solid in the gasification chamber, it is due to PAH attachment to soot particles and subsequent condensation (USEPA, 2008). Some of the many PAHs are known by the CDC and EPA to cause cancer when exposed over long periods of time.

Using clean biomass fuel and with optimized gasifier temperatures, tar production can be limited. None of the case studies that were examined by our team mentioned tar production as an issue.

21

Cost Analysis

Capital Costs

Capital costs will depend on the boiler manufacturer, steam turbine choice, etc. It is

beyond the scope of this report to compare bids between companies, but rather use probable prices offered by industry specialists. A 40,000 MMBTU/hr gasification system, steam boiler, and fuel handling system would be $7,250,000 installed (Appendix A). This does not include the steam turbine to generate electricity. Our team had not received quotes for an electrical generation system but this could be on the order of $1 million for a 275 kW turbine similar to the one installed at SUNY ESF. A new building would need to be constructed to house the new system and this could be on the order of $2 million. Altogether, the best estimate for a net installed cost based on the information so far is about $10 million for the boiler and building. Infrastructure costs – distribution piping and retrofitting campus buildings, etc.- would need to be determined separately as this is part of a larger campus renovation plan. A steam system with electrical generation would increase the cost.

It is possible that the out-of-pocket cost to Ithaca college would be reduced by grants. For example, SUNY ESF received a grant for $963,000 from the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to offset the capital cost. NYSERDA continually has funding opportunities for biomass in New York State so it is not unreasonable to expect a similar amount of grant funding. Possible grant opportunities may offset the cost of implementing a biofuel program at Ithaca College and possibly decrease the payback period under certain circumstances. Although not a grant, tax exemptions may be provided by New York State Real Property Tax Law for energy systems in New York State. It is not clear how this could benefit a non-profit institution like IC.

Operating Cost

If a system like the one Chiptec proposed is implemented, the gasification and boiler unit will likely require three trained operators to run the facility during various shifts, and one mechanic that is on call at all times. This could differ depending on whether steam or hot water is used.

This is not likely to cost Ithaca College more than the positions such a system would displace. In other words, some of the workers responsible for natural gas boilers on campus could be trained and transferred to the biomass gasification CHP plant for operations. Retraining current employees would be the ideal way to minimize (or eliminate) personnel costs or layoffs.

If the system is appropriately sized for efficiency, and engineered for compatibility with feedstock, then maintenance would likely be less than the various, dated boilers currently distributed around campus. State-of-the-art monitoring systems (included in Chiptec’s quote) would minimize complications and issues that could lead to added maintenance costs.

Fuel Cost/Benefit

Fuel is another operating cost. If we assume that 70% of the heating load will be met with biomass, this would displace 117,929 MMBTU of natural gas. Wood pellets have a heating

22

value of about 17 MMBtu/ton (14 MMBtu/ton for wood chips), resulting in the use of approximately 7,000 tons of wood pellets (or 9,650 tons of woodchips) per year. Bulk woodpellets in the region are about $165 per ton and transportation/delivery would be $14/ton (D. Wetzel, 2014, pers. comm.). This adds up to delivered costs of $1,242,000 per year for wood pellets and $625,000 for wood chips

As mentioned before, Ithaca College has purchased natural gas at an average of $7.16 MMBTU (using 2010-2011 Facilities Data). Again, assuming that 70% of the heating load will be met with biomass, this would displace 117,929 MMBTU of natural gas - equivalent to $844,371. From a direct fuel cost comparison, wood chips would cost less but wood pellets would be almost $400,000 more per year. This means that in order to be economically competitive with natural gas on a fuel cost basis, wood chips must be used. Alternatively, pellets would be cost competitive if the price of natural gas increased to a little over $10 per MMBtu.

If the system generates 20% of the electrical demand of campus, this would displace $528,312 in electrical costs (the reduction in heat energy to the campus due to this would need to be calculated). This would change the cost/benefit, but further study is required to create robust numbers.

Educational Impact

IC Campus

The presence of the biofuel facility could enhance the image if Ithaca College. A sustainable biofuel facility could be a selling point for prospective students as it is a high profile example of a commitment to environmental sustainability. It could be a stop for campus tours.

Students will also be able to use the system as part of their educational experience. Non-Timber Forest Products’ research or a new class can be created to help manage and measure the system. In addition, physics classes will have the opportunity to see a heat engine at work while exploring the concepts of thermodynamics. The students can gain a lot by interacting with the system hands on. It would require a professor who is interested in leading a class, or hire a new professor.

Greater Ithaca Community

The consumption of biofuels by the college is likely to stimulate local production of biofuels (chips and pellets) locally, which in turn will keep energy dollars in the region. The transition from fuel oil or traditional wood boilers to pellet stoves is currently being encouraged by Cornell Cooperative Extension, but is limited by availability of pellets. The college’s switch to biofuels may also stimulate local businesses and other institutions to transition as well.

23

Acknowledgments

The team would like to thank the following individuals for providing information used in this report: Marian Brown (IC); Kelly Boe (Middlebury College); Ellen Burkhard (NYSERDA); Mark Darling (IC); Lew Durland (IC); Mike Kelleher (SUNY-ESF); LeeAnn Hill (IWWTF); Tim Volk (SUNY-ESF); and Dan Wetzel (Biomaxx)

24

References

American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment ACUPCC, Ithaca College, Progress Report 2014, January 15, 2014. http://rs.acupcc.org/progress/1169/

Biomass Thermal Energy Council, 2010, Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass A Vision for 2025.

Chamberlain, P., 2009. UNH Energy Project: EcoLine Landfill Gas Project. Green Power Partnership. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, audio webcast.

Coyle, W.T., 2010, Next-Generation Biofuels Near-Term Challenges and Implications for Agriculture, report from the US Department of Agriculture.

Fleuren, W., Konings, A.J.A., Lindeman, J.H.W., Pfeiffer, A.E., Pustjens, H., Smeets, R.D., 2005. “Opportunities for a 1000 MW Biomass Fired Power Plant in the Netherlands”. Report for KEMA Power Generation and Sustainables and Greenpeace.

Foster, J., 2009, Technical Analysis for On-site Wind Generation at Ithaca College, report prepared by Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc. for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Green Mountain College, Biomass Facility

Ithaca College Climate Action Plan (IC-CAP) Progress Report Year 5 Dec. 2013. Ithaca College Climate Action Plan (IC-CAP) 2009

Ithaca College Office of Facilities, accessed 2014 Kirch, K., Augenstein, D., and Batmale, J., 2005. Biomethane Sourcebook, report for Western

United Dairymen Martin, R., 2004, A comparison of dairy cattle manure management with and without anaerobic

digestion and biogas utilization, report to US EPA. Middlebury (n.d.), “Biomass at Middlebury”. Retrieved from

http://sites.middlebury.edu/biomass/ Nexterra, 2014, UBC Biomass Research and Development Facility, report for University of

British Columbia Sannigrahi, Poulomi, Arthur J. Ragauskas, and Gerald A. Tuskan. 2010, Poplar as a feedstock

for biofuels: a review of compositional characteristics, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 4.2: 209-226.

Tallaksen, J., 2014, Renewable energy benefits from biomass for a college campus. College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Minnesota.

Tallaksen, J. and Kildegaard, A., 2011, Chapter 4: Financial and Economic Analysis. In Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community-Scale Biomass Energy System University of Minnesota.

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), accessed 2014

25

USEPA, Office of Solid Waste. “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons”. January 2008.

Volk, T.A., Verwijst, T., Tharakan, P.J., Abrahamson, L.P., White, E.H., 2004, Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(8), 411-418.

Vermont Family Forests, 2004, Biomass Fuel Assessment for Middlebury College.

Wolfesberger, U., Aigner, I., & Hofbauer, H., 2009. Tar content and composition in producer gas of fluidized bed gasification of wood—Influence of temperature and pressure. Environmental progress & sustainable energy, 28(3), 372-379.

26

Appendix A – Quote from Chiptec

CHIPTEC® WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS

Page 1 of 14

54 Echo Place, Unit 1 Williston, VT 05495 802-658-0956 Fax: 802-660-8904 www.chiptec.com

Packaged Gasifier and Boiler System

Budget Quote Ref; Ithaca College

For the supply of a Chiptec gasifier system and boiler capable of producing 40,000 lbs/hr of high pressure steam at 265 psig, saturated

conditions

Friday, April 11, 2014


Page 2 of 14


CHIPTEC WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS is pleased to present the following quotation for your consideration. This quote reflects our understanding of your needs. Please contact us if anything is unclear or contrary to what you desire. This quote is based upon the following “Scope of Work”. The scope of work is the fundamental agreement between us about pricing, who is responsible for what, and the ultimate cost & success of the project. Chiptec must provide the gasifier & related control, operation and performance equipment. Chiptec or key strategic vendors or sub-contractors normally provide most of the ancillary equipment and services to insure specifications, compatibility & pricing. In most cases, Chiptec can provide a turnkey system if desired.

Project Overview The gasifier and boiler is configured to produce up to 40,000 lbs/hr of saturated steam at 265 psig, The equipment should be housed in a building that is suitable for the location. The design and specification of the building is beyond Chiptec’s scope of supply. It is assumed that others will supply the appropriate storage and material handling equipment to the specified fuel to the air lock on the Chiptec gasifier. Controls The following is a general description of the controls and devices Chiptec is proposing for this project General:

• The Central Energy Plant will have several pieces of major equipment and subsystems. Our control approach is to provide functionally distributed control systems that each control specific tasks and communicate with one another in a coordinated manner. The objective of this design is to obtain good plant reliability as well as maintainability.

Reliability:

• The control system hardware and software components are robust and have a proven track record. We have based our proposal on Allen-Bradley PLCs running Logix 5000 ladder and function block software, Dell Precision HMI Computers running Rockwell Factory Talk Software on a Windows 7 platform, Allen-Bradley Variable Frequency Drives, Allen-Bradley Motor Starters Motor Protection and Panel Components.

Subsystems:

• Within a control system there are subsystems such as each Boiler Control System will have a Combustion Controls PLC and a Burner Management PLC. These are coordinated together but separated functionally in accordance with NPFA requirements.

Safety:

• Safety is a key design parameter in the control system approach. In addition to NFPA 85, the panels are UL 508A designed.


Page 3 of 14


Safety features include • National Electric Code Standards • Lockable Disconnect Switch for 480 Volt ac Power • Lockable Circuit Breakers • Fused Branch Circuits • Warning Labels • Fuse Charts • Finger-Safe Panel • E-Stop Hardwired Circuit, E-Stops on Operator Panels and Field Located at Moving

Equipment • Emergency Pull Cords on Conveyors • Zero Speed Switches

First Outs have their own screen on our HMIs. The screen shall have listed all alarms that could cause a first out. When a first out occurs an arrow on the right side will indicate which alarm was responsible. On the left side an arrow will indicate which alarms are still active. Redundancy:

• Control Systems include redundant features. Redundant power supplies and redundant communications are included. There are multiple means of operator interface. Redundant ControlNet communications is used between the controller and I/O modules. The local operator interface will be through an Allen-Bradley PanelView Plus 1500 15 inch color graphic touch screen.

Variable Frequency Drives

• Allen-Bradley Variable Frequency drives will be installed in the Motor Control Panels except for the ID Fans which will have separate Panels for each boiler/gasifier

Software

• Allen-Bradley Rockwell Software is being provided throughout. Software Packages: FactoryTalk View SE, FactoryTalk Gateway, FactoryTalk i-Historian, FactoryTalk Studio, RS Logix 5000 Standard, RS Logix 5000 Function Block.


Page 4 of 14


Man Power Requirements for Operation and Maintenance: Operations The Chiptec gasification system has been designed and configured to have a low labor requirement. The amount of labor required to operate and maintain the plant is greater than a traditional gas or oil fired steam generating plant. Operators will need to be proactive in the operation of the plant. Meaning, they will need to leave the confines of the control room and walk the plant to ensure smooth operations. Operators will need to visually inspect the equipment on a regular basis. The first year of operation will include a steep learning curve. On a day to day basis, Chiptec recommends the following staffing of the biomass plant. This recommendation does not include any addition labor that may be required to operate the oil fired side of the plant or other equipment outside of the specified scope. First shift:

• Two(2) operators who are responsible for delivery of fuel to the site and operating the boilers • One (1) mechanic should be available to assist in trouble shooting mechanical issues as they arise.

Some times this can be the operator as well. The mechanic does not need to be a full time employee dedicated to the biomass plant,

Controls tech on call:

• There should be a controls technician available that can assist in trouble shooting control related issues as they arise. Some times this can be the operator as well. The technician does not need to be a full time employee dedicated to the biomass plant,

Second and third shift:

• One (1) operator • The controls technician and mechanic should be available in case issues come up that need to be

addressed immediately. In general, most maintenance work should occur during the first shift of the day. All operators should carry all applicable certifications, training etc. required by the plant owner, state agencies, state law, federal law or applicable organization. The final staffing plan is to be developed by the end user. There are many details to be discussed and worked through before a finalized or optimized system may be quoted. Our idea is to keep the system as flexible as possible at this point, to accommodate both power and heating options, until some added clarification is provided. Fuel quality, ash content and moisture content will affect the system output and ash production.


Page 5 of 14


Design Parameters Fuel Data

Fuel Moisture Content: ……………………………………...………….… 45% wet basis or less Fuel Heating Value HHV (btu/lb) ………………………………………… 5,929 btu/lb Fuel Particle Size: ……………………………………………………….… Wood Chips Fuel Ash/Mineral Content: ………………………………………………… Less than 5%

Capacity (BTU/hr) per gasifier & boiler system Boiler output: (Gross)……………………………………..………….…… 45,000 lbs./hr.

Steam Pressure: (operating) ..…………………….……………………… 265 psig Gasifier fuel feed rate (est.) ……………………………………………… 11,819 lbs/hr.

Fuel storage Fuel capacity ……………………………………………………………… 4 days or 50,000 cft Ash Storage Ash capacity ……………………………………………………………… By others


Page 6 of 14


Performance Data-Preliminary Proposed Wood Fired Boiler (design criteria) Single Unit Fuel Ultimate Analysis in dry, ash free fuel by weight Units Value

Fuel moisture % 45.00 Carbon % 49.42

Hydrogen % 6.00 Sulfur % 0.01

Oxygen % 44.11 Ash % 5.00

Calorific heating value, dry fuel Btu/lb. 8,470 Higher Heating Value, fuel (as is) Btu/lb. 4,659 Lower Heating Value, fuel (as is) Btu/lb. 3,889

Gasifier design firing rate (based upon fuel HHV) lbs/hr 11,819 Fuel Density(estimated) lbs/cubic ft 25.00 Gasifier design firing rate (based upon fuel HHV) cubic ft/hr 473 Average gasifier heat input (based upon fuel HHV) Btu/hr 55,061,848 Average boiler output Btu/hr 41,447,200 Boiler design Output Boiler Hp 1,237 Boiler Efficiency, Higher Heating Value % 74 Boiler Efficiency, Lower Heating Value % 89 Estimated Flue gas temp at exit of boiler Degree F 325 Flue gas flow at boiler exit ACFM 25,570 Flue gas lbs/hr 71,160 Moisture in stack gas, by volume %wb 30.02 CO2 content in dry stack gas, by volume %wb 13.42 O2 content in moist stack gas, by volume %wb 5 Heating value of steam (from steam tables) Btu/lb. 1,202 Dearator operating pressure psig 5 Boiler feed water temperature Degree F, From Dearator Tank 228 Boiler feed water temperature Degree F, From Economizer (est.) 384 Boiler feed water heating value (Btu/lb. of water) 196 Calculated Btu/lb. of steam 1,006 Boiler operating pressure psig 265 Steam Temperature F 410 Estimate of continuous blow down (assumes 3%) lbs/hr 1,200 Estimated density of ash lbs/cubic ft 35 Estimated ash Production (total) lbs/hr 342.14 Estimated ash Production (total) ft3/hr 9.78 Boiler design Output Lbs/hr 40,000.00


Page 7 of 14


Chiptec Technology Chiptec gasification technology is unique, as opposed to a “Stoker” type system. Stokers are based on one hundred year old coal firing technology, and operate with a one chamber, and a relatively hot box, (1850 F.). Chiptec gasifiers operate with two chambers. One, the gas producer, operates at a relatively low temperature. (1000 to 1400 F.) This allows the use of “marginal fuels”, i.e., fuels with higher mineral content, and/or lower mineral melting, or fusion points. It also allows us to operate for relatively long periods of time without any high maintenance internal moving parts, apparatus, or gizmo, to prevent ash fusion, or clinkering in the box. Our only internal moving part is the ash removal auger, and we rarely experience clinkering, unless there is an aberration in the fuel, or the operation of the system. The two chamber approach also allows for a wider variety of moisture content materials, from 8 to 55% M.C., (Wet Basis.) Conversely, in the oxidation zone, in the boiler, we operate at a relatively higher temperature, (2,300 F.). Hot enough to oxidize otherwise escaping volatile organics. This means there is no tar build up in the tubes, and boiler efficiencies remain very high even during very long run times. The boiler tubes are easily cleaned thoroughly with a compressed air or steam tube cleaning system installed. The complete combustion of V.O.C.’s also adds to carbon efficiency, and can reduce air quality treatment costs, and allow the use of additional fuel materials with organic or formaldehyde resins, such as glued up woods, M.D.F, plywood, particle board, etc. The consequence is much lower long term system operating costs, because of lower fuel purchase costs, ability to chase lower cost fuels over time, increased carbon efficiency, longer run times, less shut down time, less fossil fuel usage and less labor input for cleaning The result of this technical innovation, now 25 years old, is that we essentially have an “Organic Oxidizer”, and can utilize a wide variety of fuel materials, with varying mineral and moisture contents, so long as we keep a certain base line, and agreed upon fuel specification range. When you mix this capability with a concept of “Engineered Fuels” you have the opportunity to continually chase the lowest cost acceptable material over the life cycle, and still maintain a fuel mix that is satisfactory for the equipment and the desired loads.


Page 8 of 14


Scope of work: Chiptec shall supply the following equipment and services for each individual system.

Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Chiptec close coupled gasifier; B-Series, B1500

Rear clean out access doors X Stationary grate system X Combination refractory & stainless steel grates X Dual wall construction for pre-heating of combustion air X Combustion air ducts and balancing valves X Gasifier refractory and insulation X Gasifier cosmetic skin (materials only) X

Gasifier feed screw assembly Air lock assembly X Feed screw(s), troughs and support stand X Gear drive assembly(s) VFD operated X Fire safety assembly(s) X Feed screw metering bin(s) X

Gasifier ash removal system Internal ash auger assembly (s) X Gear drive assembly and motor(s) X Ash auger discharge air locks X Gasifier ash auger cooling skid assembly X External ash augers for all ash collection points. (Includes a total of two (2) ash collection screws to collect the ash from two locations on the gasifier and transport the ash to two (2) separate points outside of the gasifier footprint.

X

Combustion air system Induce draft fan assembly with motor, discharge damper and VFD (floor mounted)

X

Primary/secondary air fan assembly(s) with motor(s) discharge damper and VFD(s)

X

Pollution control Equipment High efficiency multi-cyclone for initial particulate collection. Emission rate for total particulate is 0.12 lbs/mmbtu

X

Standard efficiency multi-cyclone for initial particulate collection. Emission rate for total particulate is 0.20 lbs/mmbtu

X

Cyclone/Multi-cyclone support stand X Rotary air lock on multi-cyclone discharge X One (1) multi-cyclone external ash collection screw to collect ash from the cyclone hopper and transport ash to a single discharge point.

X


Page 9 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Pollution control Equipment(continued)

ESP system for final particulate removal. Unit is designed to go after the SCR system (if used). Emission rate for total particulate is 0.025 lbs/mmbtu

X

ESP control system X ESP ash discharge hopper(s) with air locks X Any and all post combustion treatment for Nox, Sox,CO or any other pollutant

X

One (1) ESP external ash collection screw to collect ash from the ESP hopper(s) and transport ash to a single discharge point.

X

Boiler System ASME, Water Tube, 45,000 lbs./Hr., 620 PSIG, 750 F, Boiler Manufactured by Rentech Boiler.

X

PED Certification for Europe X Steel boiler support structure X Boiler ash hopper with air lock (part of boiler) X External ash collection auger for boiler hopper X Automatic boiler tube cleaning system (steam) X Flue gas economizer X Tube cleaners for economizer-automatic (steam) X Steel support stand for economizer X Boiler steam piping from drum through stop valve X Feed water control valve bypass station piping X Feed water piping from control valve station to economizer inlet X

Feed water piping from the economizer outlet to boiler inlet X

All drain and vent piping X All piping insulation X Insulation of Drum heads X One (1) boiler external ash collection screw to collect ash from the boiler hopper and transport ash to a single discharge point.

X

Boiler Feed Water Systems Softening system:

Twin alternating water softening system capable of continuous and peak service. The system includes two fiberglass ASME resin tanks with a brass twin alternating control head, extended range brass flow meter, polyethylene brine tank. The system is arranged to have one tank in service at all times while the second tank is in the regeneration mode or in standby mode.

X


Page 10 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Boiler Feed Water Systems-continued Reverse Osmosis System:

RO Membrane system to remove 99% of all dissolved solids to be installed downstream of the softening system, preparing the makeup water for use in the steam to power cycle.

X

All components, including pre-filters, pumps, membranes, valves, tanks, controls, motors and piping will be skid mounted and tested to minimize field labor.

X

Base control is PLC based and can interface the plant wide systems for monitoring of condition, on-off status, alarms and remote enable / disable capability via contact closure.

X

RO System Preheat Skid: To achieve optimum filtration the RO preheat skid will warm the incoming softened, pre-filtered water to the temperature suitable for the selected RO Unit. This unit will be skid mounted with all piping and controls mounted and ready for final field connections.

X

Chemical feed system A two or three point chemical feed system including tanks, agitators, pumps, timers, control panel, with interlock switches, alarms and indicators for notification and monitoring.

X

The system will be programmable and may be interlocked with the feedwater conditioning system(s) and or the plant wide controls system for operating control and reporting.

X

Deaeration System Packaged Deaeration System provides rapid response to boiler load swings or changes in condensate return rates. This unit is totally packaged, factory assembled, "pressurized” system provides this high performance with low life cycle cost. The Deaeration unit will be packaged to the fullest extent by the manufacturer and shipped as one assembly. The deaerator is designed to provide 35,000 #/hr deaerated feedwater at 228 degrees. The system is designed to service one (1) 35,000 lb/ boiler operating at 420 psig./450f. The unit is designed for indoor installation.

X

The following items shall be factory assembled: Deaerator with the tank mounted on the stand and shipped assembled.

X

Boiler feed pumps X


Page 11 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Boiler Feed Water Systems-continued Deaeration System-continued

Suction piping. X Recirculation piping. X Trim and controls including regulating valves, vents, overflow drainers etc. X

Deaerators will be assembled by the factory and tested then broken down to the minimum extent possible to allow for shipping.

X

Electrical wiring and all controls will be wired to the supplied control panel. X

Steam turbine generator set 505 electronic governor. X Synchronous generator, 4160 volts, 3 phase, 60 hertz, X Speed reduction gear X Fabricated structural steel baseplate X Allen Bradley PLC-based turbine/generator control system X

Switchgear and Generator Protection Relays X Air cooled condenser system assembly.

• Two-stage, single-pressure condenser to achieve efficient condensation with parallel/concurrent flow from the top for reliable steam condensing over a wide range of ambient temperatures.

• Parallel flow modules • Lower headers • Counterflow finned tube bundles • Non-condensable vacuum equipment. • Condensate drains to a condensate tank • Dual pumps and piping as complete as shipping

restrictions will allow.

X

Construction for harsh winter conditions X Breeching and stack

Breeching connection from boiler exit flange to cyclone inlet flange X

Breeching connection from cyclone exit flange to inlet flange of the economizer

X

Breeching connection from economizer outlet flange to ESP inlet flange

X

Breeching connection from ESP outlet flange to ID fan inlet flange

X


Page 12 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Breeching and stack

Breeching connection from ID fan outlet flange to stack inlet flange

X

24” x 24” bolt on, hinged access doors X Stack (integrated onto the outlet of the ESP) X Breeching supports as needed (from ceiling & painted) X Breeching expansion joints as needed(metal type) X Breeching insulation and lagging X All ducts are constructed of A36 carbon steel at ¼” thick X Stiffeners as required X

Fuel storage and delivery system Moving wedge unloading system, approximately 50,000cft bunker with an overall length of 120 ft long x 40 ft wide with 14 deep fuel pile. Equipment is configured for a below grade bunker

X

Hydraulic power unit(s) with pump and motor for bunker system

X

Hydraulic hoses, piping and connections for bunker system

X

Receiving auger/conveyor for bunker system X Elevating auger/conveyor for bunker system X Metering auger with VFD for bunker system X Steel dividing wall in bunker X Steel embedments for the moving wedge floors X Disc screen with support stand X Grinder system X Bunker leveling screws with supports X

Service platforms and ladders Service platform and ladder for the gasifier X Service platform and ladder for the boiler X Service platform for ESP X Interconnecting of all plant wide service platforms with equipment service platforms

X

External/Central ash collection system One (1) ash drag chain with gear drive assembly, drive pulley, abrasion resistant trough liners, supports. Up to 65 linear feet of conveyor to service one (1) gasifier and boiler system

X

One (1) ash drag chain with gear drive assembly, drive pulley, abrasion resistant trough liners, supports. Up to 150 linear feet of conveyor to service one (1) gasifier and boiler system

X


Page 13 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option External/Central ash collection system

Any ash conditioning system that may be required for duct control

X

Steel ash collection dumpsters X Control System

Pre-wired control cabinet-NEMA 12 enclosure X 15” color touch HMI X PLC controller-AB Compax Logix X Hardware VPN system for remote access X Ethernet net card for networking X Required motor starter, relays and over load protectors X UL certification-entire control cabinet system X Plant wide BCS to tie all specified equipment together at a single central location. Includes operators stations, historian, printer, computers and monitors.

X

Field Services Delivery of equipment to job site X Unloading of equipment at the job site X Rigging and setting of equipment into the space X Labor & materials for equipment installation X O & M manuals (2x hard copies) X Labor for working supervisor to assist the customer in the equipment assembly and installation

X

Technical support (drawings, submittals, wire diagrams etc)

X

Start up and commissioning of the equipment X Training of operators & on site operation support X Spare parts allowance X Labor and materials for the field wiring of the equipment to the terminal strip in the Chiptec supplied control panel

X

Curing of the gasifier refractory X Service power with disconnect located next to the Chiptec supplied control panel

X

Labor and materials required for initial boiler cleaning X All mechanical piping, design and related work X Balance of plant engineering X Any & all site design and work X ¾” hose bib connection for feed screw fire suppression device located on the feed screw(s)

X

Any and all permits X Labor and materials for all boiler and air compressor piping

X


Page 14 of 14


Scope of Supply Included Not Included Option Field Services

Any and all structural, civil, architectural & mechanical engineering that is required

X

All associated concrete design and work X Any and all piping, breeching insulation (recommended) X Field calibration of all devices, sensors etc. (all are factory calibrated)

X

Disposal of construction debris X Any & all site design and work X Any and all Country, import , export, State and local taxes duties, fees VAT or applicable charges (If exempt, we will need a Sales and Use Tax Certificate of Exemption). Labor is exempt from sales tax, materials are not.

X

Any and all building, building system etc design and work

X

Price Schedule Price per unit Number of units Total Price(all units)

Gasifier system $4,500,000.00 1 $4,500,000.00 Material Handling system $2,500,000.00 1 $2,500,000.00 Site Services $250,000.00 1 $250,000.00 Grand Total $7,250,000.00

• All prices are FOB point of mfg. and in US dollars • All pricing is subject to change pending final equipment layout and plant design • While delivery is not included in the above scope of work, Chiptec can provide that service for

the project. Upon request, a separate budget can be developed for that scope. The above pricing is for budget purposes only, and should not be construed as an offer to sell. An offer to sell is made by formal proposal only with terms and condition of sale. This quote is valid for 30 days from above date. The CHIPTEC patented gasification systems are among the hottest, cleanest and most efficient gasifiers on the market today. CHIPTEC offers complete customer support before, during and after the sale. As a manufacturer of commercial gasifiers for 25 years, CHIPTEC has a proven track record of quality manufacturing and complete customer satisfaction. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Thank you for considering CHIPTEC WOOD ENERGY SYSTEMS for you energy needs Sincerely

Bradley Noviski Vice President

feasibility study for the use of biomass and biofuels for ... study for the use of biomass and...

Documents