Brief Description & Model Flow ChartCell Colour Coding http://retscreen.gc.ca

RETScreen Features (click to access info) Internet OptionsOnline Manual RETScreen WebsiteProduct Data Training InformationWeather Data RegistrationCost Data Contact CEDRLCurrency Options

Model Worksheets (click to access sheets) ContributorsEnergy Model 70 + Technology ExpertsHeating Load & Network Collaborating OrganisationsCost AnalysisGreenhouse Gas AnalysisFinancial SummaryBlank Worksheets (3)

RETScreen® International is a standardised and integrated renewable energy project analysis software. This tool provides a common platform for both decision-support and capacity-building purposes. RETScreen can be used worldwide to evaluate the energy production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas emissions reduction for various renewable energytechnologies (RETs). RETScreen is made available free-of-charge by the Government of Canada through Natural Resources Canada's CANMET Energy Diversification ResearchLaboratory (CEDRL). The user is encouraged to properly register at the RETScreen website so that CEDRL can report on the global use of RETScreen.

Biomass Heating Project Model

RETScreen is availablefree-of-charge at

Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997-2000. NRCan/CEDRL

TO START (click here)

RETScreen® Energy Model - Biomass Heating Project

Site Conditions Estimate Notes/RangeProject name Local / District HeatingProject location Ontario, CanadaNearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON Complete HL and Network sheetNumber of buildings buildings 5Total pipe length m 1,337Heating energy demand MWh 5,230

GJ 18828Peak heating load kW 1,747

million Btu/h 5.962

System Characteristics Estimate Notes/RangeSystem type - Biomass

Biomass Heating SystemBiomass fuel type - Wood medium HVMoisture content on wet basis of biomass % 50% 0% to 55%As-fired calorific value of biomass MJ/t 8,111 10,800 to 15,900Biomass boiler(s) capacity (1 boiler) kW 1,500 See Product DatabaseBiomass boiler(s) manufacturer Sylva Energy SystemsBiomass boiler(s) model Not specifiedBiomass boiler(s) seasonal efficiency % 75% 60% to 90%Biomass energy delivered MWh 5,201Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8%Percentage of total heating energy demand % 99.4%

Peak Load Heating SystemPeak load fuel type - Natural gasPeak load system steady-state efficiency % 100% 50% to 350%Suggested peak load system capacity kW 247 75 to 3,000Peak load system capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000Peak load system seasonal efficiency % 75% 50% to 350%Peak energy delivered MWh 30Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8%Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.6%

Back-up Heating System (optional)Suggested back-up boiler capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000Back-up boiler capacity kW 0 75 to 3,000

Annual Energy Production WHR Biomass Peak Total Notes/RangePercentage of peak heating load % 0.0% 85.8% 85.8% 171.7%Heating capacity kW 0 1,500 1,500 3,000

million Btu/h 0 5.118 5.118 10.236Equivalent full output hours h 0 3,467 20 -Capacity factor % 0.0% 39.6% 0.2% -Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.0% 99.4% 0.6% 100.0%Heating energy delivered MWh 0 5,201 30 5,231

million Btu 0 17745 101 17847Biomass requirement t - 3,078 - 3,078Heating fuel requirement m³ - - 3,858 3,858

Complete Cost Analysis sheet

Version 2000 NRCan/CEDRL© Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000.

System Design Graph

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

Load(Power)

Demand(Energy)

WHR Biomass Peak

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

RETScreen® Heating Load Calculation & District Heating Network Design - Biomass Heating Project

Site Conditions Estimate Monthly InputsNearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON Month °C-d Month °C-d Month °C-dHeating design temperature °C -31.4 (<18°C) (<18°C) (<18°C)Annual heating degree days below 18°C °C-d 6,454 January 1,136 May 297 September 244Domestic hot water heating base load % 21% February 969 June 143 October 428Equivalent degree-days for DHW heating °C-d/d 4.7 March 839 July 67 November 679Equivalent full load hours h 2,993 April 526 August 104 December 1,023

Base Case Heating System and Heating Load Estimate/Total

Building clusters Base Case Heating System 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Heated floor area per building cluster m² 16,100 3,700 2,700 8,500 1,000 200Number of buildings in building cluster buildings 5 1 1 1 1 1Heating fuel type(s) - - Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gasHeating system seasonal efficiency % - 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%

Heating Load CalculationHeating load for building cluster W/m² - 201 78 75 147 50Heating energy demand MWh 5,230 2,230 630 1,900 440 30 - - - - - - - - -Total peak heating load kW 1,747 745 210 635 147 10 - - - - - - - - -Fuel consumption - units - - m³ m³ m³ m³ m³ - - - - - - - - -Fuel consumption - annual - - 317,465 89,687 270,486 62,639 4,271 - - - - - - - - -Cost of fuel - units - - $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ - - - - - - - - -Unit cost of fuel - - 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330Total fuel cost - 245,701$ 104,763$ 29,597$ 89,260$ 20,671$ 1,409$ - - - - - - - - -

District Heating Network Design Estimate/Total Design Criteria

Design supply temperature °C 120Design return temperature °C 80Differential temperature °C 40

Main Distribution LineMain pipe network oversizing % 20%Pipe sections Load Length Pipe size Is the Building cluster supplied by this pipe section? (yes/no)

(kW) (m) (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Section 1 1,737 472 DN 125 Yes Yes Yes Yes NoSection 2 992 170 DN 100 No Yes Yes Yes NoSection 3 782 65 DN 80 No No Yes Yes NoSection 4 -Section 5 -Section 6 -Section 7 -Section 8 -Section 9 -Section 10 -Section 11 -Section 12 -Section 13 -

Total pipe length for main distribution line m 707 Secondary Distribution Lines

Secondary pipe network oversizing % 0% Secondary distribution pipes length per building cluster (m)Length of pipe section m 630 122 207 46 241 14Pipe size mm DN 80 DN 50 DN 80 DN 50 DN 32 - - - - - - - - -

District Heating Network CostsTotal pipe length m 1,337Costing method - FormulaEnergy transfer station(s) connection type - IndirectEnergy transfer station(s) cost factor - 1.00Main distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50Secondary distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50Exchange rate $/CAD 1.00

ETS and secondary distribution pipes costs per building cluster ($)Energy transfer station(s) cost - 248,637$ 88,664$ 45,337$ 75,543$ 36,287$ 2,807$ - - - - - - - - -Secondary distribution line pipe cost - 103,396$ 23,302$ 32,085$ 8,786$ 37,355$ 1,868$ - - - - - - - - -Total building cluster connection cost - 352,033$ 111,966$ 77,422$ 84,329$ 73,642$ 4,674$ - - - - - - - - -

Main Distribution Line Pipe Cost by Pipe Size CategoriesSummary of main distribution line pipe size mm DN 32 DN 40 DN 50 DN 65 DN 80 DN 100 DN 125 DN 150Summary of main distribution line pipe length m - - - - 65 170 472 -Summary of main distribution line pipe cost - 164,605$ - - - - $ 12,415 $ 36,550 $ 115,640 -

Total district heating network costs - 516,638$

Version 2000 NRCan/CEDRL

Notes/Range Notes/RangeSee Weather Database

-40.0 to 15.0See

Weather Database

© Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000.

See Technical Note on Network Design

Complete Monthly Inputs0% to 25%0.0 to 10.0

Return to Energy Model sheet

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

RETScreen® Cost Analysis - Biomass Heating Project

Type of project: Standard Currency: $ $ Cost references: Canada - 2000Second currency: United States USD Rate: $/USD 0.67800

Initial Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost AmountRelative

Costs QuantityRange

Unit CostRange

Feasibility StudyFeasibility study Cost 1 5,000$ 5,000$

Sub-total: 5,000$ 0.4%Development

Project development Cost 1 5,000$ 5,000$ Sub-total: 5,000$ 0.4%

EngineeringEngineering Cost 1 15,000$ 15,000$

Sub-total: 15,000$ 1.1%Renewable Energy (RE) Equipment

Biomass heating system (1 boiler) kW 1,500 200$ 300,000$ 75 - 3,000 $125 - $250Biomass equipment installation kW 1,500 70$ 105,000$ 75 - 3,000 $20 - $140Transportation project 1 2,000$ 2,000$

-$ -$ -$ -$

Sub-total: 407,000$ 29.0%Balance of Plant

Peak load heating system kW 1,500 85$ 127,500$ 75 - 1,000 $85 - $133Energy transfer station(s) building 5 - 248,637$ Secondary distribution line pipe m 630 - 103,396$ Main distribution line pipe m 707 - 164,605$ Building and yard construction m² 300 350$ 105,000$ 20 - 300 $220 -$470Equipment installation p-h 2,000 40$ 80,000$ 500 - 700 $25 - $50Transportation project 1 3,000$ 3,000$

-$ -$

Sub-total: 832,138$ 59.3%Miscellaneous

Overhead p-h 200 50$ 10,000$ 36 - 120 $50 - $100Training p-h 40 60$ 2,400$ 8 - 30 $40 - $100Contingencies % 10% 1,264,138$ 126,414$ 5% - 40%

Sub-total: 138,814$ 9.9%Initial Costs - Total 1,402,952$ 100.0%

Annual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost AmountRelative

Costs QuantityRange

Unit CostRange

O&MProperty taxes/Insurance project 1 1,000$ 1,000$ Spare parts burner 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 - 3 $200 - $600O&M labour p-h 400 20$ 8,000$ 96 - 700 $15 - $30Travel and accommodation p-trip -$ General and administrative project 1 1,200$ 1,200$

-$ -$ -$

Contingencies % 10% 24,000$ 2,400$ Sub-total: 27,600$ 55.7%

Fuel/ElectricityBiomass t 3,078 5.0$ 15,390$ $0 - $85Natural gas m³ 3,858 0.330$ 1,273$ Parasitic electricity kWh 53,000 0.100$ 5,300$

Sub-total: 21,963$ 44.3%Annual Costs - Total 49,563$ 100.0%

Periodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interval RangeUnit Cost

RangeRefractory insulation Cost 5 yr 5,000$ 5,000$

-$ -$

End of project life - -$

Version 2000 NRCan/CEDRL© Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000.

Go to GHG Analysis sheet

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

RETScreen® Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Analysis - Biomass Heating Project

Use GHG analysis sheet? Yes Type of analysis Standard

Background Information

Project Information Global Warming Potential of GHG Project name Local / District Heating 1 ton CH4 = 21 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996)Project location Ontario, Canada 1 ton N2O = 310 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996)

Base Case Electricity System (Reference)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor

CH4 emission factor

N2O emission factor

T & Dlosses

GHG emission factor

(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)Natural gas 100.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 8.0% 0.491

0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000

Electricity mix 100% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 8.0% 0.491

Base Case Heating System (Reference)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor

CH4 emission factor

N2O emission factor

Transport or transfer losses

GHG emission factor

(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)Heating system

1 Natural gas 42.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.0% 0.2992 Natural gas 12.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.0% 0.2993 Natural gas 36.3% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.0% 0.2994 Natural gas 8.4% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.0% 0.2995 Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.0% 0.2996 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0007 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0008 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0009 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.000

0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0000 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0000 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0000 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0000 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.000

Heating energy mix 100.0% 82.5 0.0044 0.0015 0.0% 0.299

Proposed Case Heating System (Mitigation)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor

CH4 emission factor

N2O emission factor

Transport or transfer losses

GHG emission factor

(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)Heating system

Waste heat 0.0% 0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0% 0.000Biomass 99.4% 0.0 0.0320 0.0040 0.0% 0.009

NPeak - Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 0.271Parasitic electricity 1.0% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 0.0% 0.491

Heating energy mix 101.0% 1.8 0.0425 0.0053 0.0% 0.016

GHG Emission Reduction Summary

Base case GHG Proposed case GHG End-use annual Annual GHGemission factor emission factor energy delivered emission reduction

(tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (tCO2)Heating system 0.299 0.016 5,231 1,482.0

Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0

Version 2000 © United Nations Environment Programme & Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2000. UNEP/DTIE and NRCan/CEDRL

Complete Financial Summary sheet

Fuel conversion efficiency

(%)45.0%

Fuel conversion efficiency

(%)

0.0%0.0%

68.0%

Fuel conversion efficiency

68.0%

0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Complete Financial Summary sheet

100.0%75.0%

100.0%75.0%

0.0%

(%)

14

10111213

68.0%68.0%68.0%

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating Project

Annual Energy Balance Yearly Cash FlowsYear Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative

Project name Local / District Heating Electricity required MWh 53.0 # $ $ $Project location Ontario, Canada Incremental electricity demand kW - 0 (350,738) (350,738) (350,738) Renewable energy delivered MWh 5,201 GHG analysis sheet used? yes/no Yes 1 84,533 84,533 (266,205) Heating energy delivered MWh 5,231 Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0 2 88,534 88,534 (177,670) Cooling energy delivered MWh - Net GHG emission reduction - 25 yrs tCO2 37,051 3 92,616 92,616 (85,055) Heating fuel displaced 4 96,779 96,779 11,724

5 95,504 95,504 107,228 Financial Parameters 6 105,356 105,356 212,584

7 109,773 109,773 322,357 Avoided cost of heating energy $/MWh 47.0 Debt ratio % 75.0% 8 114,279 114,279 436,636 RE production credit $/kWh - Debt interest rate % 7.0% 9 118,875 118,875 555,512 RE production credit duration yr 15 Debt term yr 15 10 117,469 117,469 672,980 RE credit escalation rate % 2.0% 11 128,345 128,345 801,326 GHG emission reduction credit $/tCO2 - Income tax analysis? yes/no No 12 133,223 133,223 934,549 GHG reduction credit duration yr 10 Effective income tax rate % 38.0% 13 138,198 138,198 1,072,746 GHG credit escalation rate % 2.0% Loss carryforward? yes/no Yes 14 143,272 143,272 1,216,019 Retail price of electricity $/kWh 0.100 Depreciation method - Declining balance 15 141,719 141,719 1,357,738 Demand charge $/kW - Depreciation tax basis % 80.0% 16 269,255 269,255 1,626,993 Energy cost escalation rate % 2.0% Depreciation rate % 20.0% 17 274,640 274,640 1,901,633 Inflation % 2.0% Depreciation period yr 15 18 280,133 280,133 2,181,766 Discount rate % 9.0% Tax holiday available? yes/no No 19 285,736 285,736 2,467,502 Project life yr 25 Tax holiday duration yr 5 20 284,021 284,021 2,751,523

21 297,280 297,280 3,048,803 Project Costs and Savings 22 303,225 303,225 3,352,028

23 309,290 309,290 3,661,317 Initial Costs Annual Costs and Debt 24 315,475 315,475 3,976,793

Feasibility study 0.4% $ 5,000 O&M $ 27,600 25 313,582 313,582 4,290,375 Development 0.4% $ 5,000 Fuel/Electricity $ 21,963 26 - - 4,290,375 Engineering 1.1% $ 15,000 Debt payments - 15 yrs $ 115,527 27 - - 4,290,375 RE equipment 29.0% $ 407,000 Annual Costs - Total $ 165,090 28 - - 4,290,375 Balance of plant 59.3% $ 832,138 29 - - 4,290,375 Miscellaneous 9.9% $ 138,814 Annual Savings or Income 30 - - 4,290,375

Initial Costs - Total 100.0% $ 1,402,952 Heating energy savings/income $ 245,701 31 - - 4,290,375 Cooling energy savings/income $ - 32 - - 4,290,375

Incentives/Grants $ - RE production credit income - 15 yrs $ - 33 - - 4,290,375 GHG reduction income - 10 yrs $ - 34 - - 4,290,375

Annual Savings - Total $ 245,701 35 - - 4,290,375 Periodic Costs (Credits) 36 - - 4,290,375 # Refractory insulation $ 5,000 Schedule yr # 5,10,15,20,25 37 - - 4,290,375 # $ - Schedule yr # 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 38 - - 4,290,375 # $ - Schedule yr # 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 39 - - 4,290,375

End of project life - $ - Schedule yr # 25 40 - - 4,290,375 41 - - 4,290,375

Financial Feasibility 42 - - 4,290,375 43 - - 4,290,375

Pre-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% Calculate GHG reduction cost? yes/no No 44 - - 4,290,375 After-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% GHG emission reduction cost $/tCO2 Not calculated 45 - - 4,290,375 Simple Payback yr 7.2 Project equity $ 350,738 46 - - 4,290,375 Year-to-positive cash flow yr 3.9 Project debt $ 1,052,214 47 - - 4,290,375 Net Present Value - NPV $ 1,021,996 Debt payments $/yr 115,527 48 - - 4,290,375 Annual Life Cycle Savings $ 104,046 Debt service coverage - 1.73 49 - - 4,290,375 Profitability Index - PI - 2.91 RE production cost ¢/kWh in construction 50 - - 4,290,375

Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL

See HL and Network sheet

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating Project

Cumulative Cash Flows Graph

Biomass Heating Project Cumulative Cash FlowsLocal / District Heating, Ontario, Canada

Year-to-positive cash flow 3.9 yr IRR and ROI 28.7% Net Present Value $ 1,021,996

Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL

Cum

ulat

ive

Cas

h Fl

ows

($)

(1,000,000)

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Years

03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

TEACHER’S NOTES BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT

06 LOCAL / DISTRICT HEATING / ONTARIO, CANADA

• The total heating energy demand was calculated by adding the space heating and domestic hot water (DHW) heating energy for all buildings. The domestic hot water heating base load is then expressed as a fraction of this total.

• The heating energy demand for each building cluster was calculated by adding the space heating and DHW heating energy, as provided in the data table. The heating load for each cluster (in W/m2) was then set to yield the correct heating energy demand. The Microsoft Excel “Goal Seek” function may also be used to find the right input (e.g. heating load) when the output (e.g. heating energy demand) is known.

• The formula method was used to calculate the heating network costs and a cost factor of 0.5 was applied to both the main and secondary distribution lines to reflect the favourable conditions for burying pipe.

• Parasitic electricity was calculated using the method described in the Online User Manual: the biomass boiler is estimated to have a power draw of 14.2 kW while the power for the circulation pumps is calculated as:

1,337 m x 1,747 kW x (58.7 x 10-6)ºC/m ÷ 40ºC = 3.5 kW.

This calculation is based on the total of the main (707 m) and secondary (630 m) distribution piping. Adding the boiler and circulation pump loads and multiplying by 2,993 h, the equivalent full load duration hours, gives the parasitic load of 53,000 kWh/yr.

• Note that in the Financial Analysis worksheet, the RETScreen model calculates the avoided cost of heating energy ($47/MWh) by dividing the total cost of fuel for the base case system ($245,701/yr) by the total heating energy demand (5,230 MWh). This value is also the cost of the energy that the district heating system’s owner charges to its client.

• This analysis is done from the perspective of the municipality, which is proposing to install and operate the district heating system. The five buildings that are to be heated will continue to pay the equivalent rates for energy as they were paying for the old natural gas heating, but these payments will now be an income stream to the municipality. For the building owners, financial benefits of the new system will include protection from price volatility of natural gas and elimination of the capital and maintenance costs associated with operating their old heating systems.