lumby district heating system
TRANSCRIPT
David Dubois
Project Coordinator
A Community Futures East Kootenay Project
Friday, June 07, 2013
Village of Lumby
Biomass District Heating Business
Case
Prepared by:
Wood Waste 2 Rural Heat
Funding for Wood Waste 2 Rural Heat provided by:
Lumby District Heating System
2 | P a g e
Executive Summary The Village of Lumby is interested in developing a district heating system for buildings owned by the
White Valley Parks, Recreation and Arts Committee. The system would use wood chips to provide 80-
90% of the heat for the following buildings.
1) Village of Lumby Public Works
2) Pat Duke Arena
3) Curling Rink
4) Village of Lumby Office
5) Pool
6) Community Centre
These buildings currently use $59,000 a year in natural gas.
Ideally the heat plant would be located at the Village of Lumby Public Works yard but it is uncertain if
there is enough space. The system would have 200 kW of biomass heat boiler capacity. It would require
200 ODT of wood chips/year (30 tandem truckloads or 7 B’ Train Truck Loads) which could be supplied
by David Beerstra Trucking from Lumby. The system would require 360 m of trenching for the
distribution lines. The Village public works department has indicated they could provide the trenching as
an in-kind contribution to the project.
Primary District Heating System
The capital cost of the system would be $539,000. It will result in combined savings on fuel and carbon
offsets of $33,700. In order to be economically viable, it would require a grant of more than 25%. Gas
Tax funding is typically available at 60% of project cost. A 60% grant results in a simple payback (not
Lumby District Heating System
3 | P a g e
including cost of capital or inflation) of 3.2 years, a net present value of $312,000 and an internal rate of
return of 31%.
Economic Analysis of DH System
Scenario Alternate
Project Cost $539,000 $539,000 $307,000
Grant 25% 60% 60%
Grant Funding $134,750 $323,400 $184,200
Lumby In-Kind (Trenching) $108,000 $108,000 $50,000
White Valley Rec. Capital Cost $296,250 $107,600 $72,800
Total Yearly Savings $33,700 $33,700 $10,800
Simple Payback (Years) 8.8 3.2 6.7
NPV $124,000 $312,000 $62,000
IRR 10% 31% 14%
Primary
In the event that retrofit of existing buildings is too costly and/or space was not available in the public
works yard an alternate scenario has been developed. In the alternate scenario only the curling rink,
pool and Village office are connected to a 75 kW heat plant located adjacent to the curling rink. This
system would only require 155 m of trenching. The capital cost would be $307,000. It would result in
$10,800 in savings on natural gas and carbon offsets. It would require a 60% grant to be economically
viable. It would have a simple payback of 6.7 years, a net present value of $62,000 and an internal rate
of return of 14%.
Alternate DH Scenario
Lumby District Heating System
4 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Energy Usage........................................................................................................................................... 5
District Heating System Concept .............................................................................................................. 7
Building Suitability ............................................................................................................................... 8
Alternate Scenario ............................................................................................................................... 9
Fuel Selection .................................................................................................................................... 10
Boiler Selection.................................................................................................................................. 11
Heat Storage...................................................................................................................................... 11
Heat Distribution ............................................................................................................................... 12
Biomass Heating System Economic Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
DH System Capital Cost ...................................................................................................................... 12
Heat Plant ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Distribution System ....................................................................................................................... 13
Operating & Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................................ 14
Fuel Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Carbon Offsets ............................................................................................................................... 15
Financial Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 16
Potential Business Models ................................................................................................................. 17
Additional Considerations .................................................................................................................. 17
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 18
Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 1 Energy Usage Data .............................................................................................................. 20
Lumby District Heating System
5 | P a g e
Background After viewing the Fink Machinery District Heating System in Enderby, the Village of Lumby expressed an
interest in developing a similar system for buildings owned by the White Valley Parks, Recreation and
Arts Committee. Village staff approached the Wood Waste 2 Rural Heat Project (WW2RH) about the
potential for a biomass fuelled district heat system (DH) in summer of 2012. In November of 2012,
WW2RH began work on developing a business case for the Village. This report is based on site visits
conducted in November 2012 and February 2013 and a number of meetings with Village staff and others
(Regional District, Tolko, and Chamber of Commerce). Data for this report was provided by Village staff.
This report summarises the current energy consumption of the following buildings as potential heat
clients and suitability for connection:
1) Village of Lumby Public Works
2) Pat Duke Arena
3) Curling Rink
4) Village of Lumby Office
5) Pool
6) Community Centre
This energy data has been used to estimate the boiler size for a biomass fueled DH. Two different
scenarios based on system layout and attached buildings have been considered. This report also
includes an estimate of the capital cost of the heating system as well as a summary of the economic
viability based on operations and maintenance costs.
Energy Usage Currently natural gas is the primary fuel used for heating
in Lumby. The Village of Lumby was able to provide
natural gas consumption data from Oct. 2009 to
November 20121. The data is summarised in Appendix 1.
All the buildings consume an average of 5200 GJ/yr 2. The
total cost of natural gas was $59,000/yr which equates to
$11.41/GJ.
1 Data for the swimming pool was only available for 2011 and 2012. In October 2010 the curling club became
responsible for paying their own natural gas bill, therefore the village was only able to provide data from Oct. 2009 until Oct. 2010. Natural gas usage in February for the curling rink was very low. This is assumed to be an anomaly and this was factored into the usage. 2 Gigajoules or GJ is a measure of energy. In BC Natural gas companies convert the volume of natural gas to an energy value. 1 GJ equals 948,000 BTU’s or 278 kWh.
District Heating System in Enderby
Lumby District Heating System
6 | P a g e
Table 1 Natural Gas Consumption Data by Building
BuildingEnergy Consumption
(GJ/Yr)
Yearly Energy Cost
($/Yr)
Natural Gas Cost
($/GJ)Percent of Demand
Pat Duke Arena 2372.4 $27,131.01 $11.44 45.6%
Pool 971.2 $10,243.97 $10.55 18.7%
Curl ing Club 910.9 $10,209.44 $11.21 17.5%
Community Centre 503.5 $6,065.77 $12.05 9.7%
Publ ic Works 339.1 $4,185.14 $12.34 6.5%
Vi l lage Office 103.5 $1,519.47 $14.68 2.0%
Total 5200.6 $59,354.81 $11.41
The largest consumer of natural gas is Pat Duke Arena followed by the pool and curling rink. These three
buildings represent over 80% of the actual consumption. The primary months of consumption for the
arena and curling rink are October through March. In addition to using natural gas for heating and hot
water, both buildings use natural gas for dehumidification. This is assumed to be 25% of the natural gas
usage. The result is only 4400 GJ is used for heat.
Figure 1 shows the hourly natural gas consumption rate for each of the buildings as well as the total. It is
worth noting that while the pool has a high demand it is in the summer (May through to September)
and as a result the overall heat demand is relatively consistent, which is ideal in sizing a biomass heating
system.
Figure 1 Hourly Energy Consumption
0
50
100
150
200
250
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n p
er h
ou
r kW
Public Works
Arena
Village Office
Community Centre
Pool
Curling Rink
Total
Lumby District Heating System
7 | P a g e
The energy content of softwood is 20.0 GJ/Oven Dry Tonne (ODT) 3 (Maker, 2004). Based on typical
efficiencies for natural gas fired and biomass heating equipment the DH would use approx. 200
BDT/year of wood chips. A typical highway B-train chip truck hauls approx. 26 ODT (A.J MacDonald,
2011). This means the DH would consume the equivalent of 7-8 B train truck loads per year or about one
every six weeks.
District Heating System Concept The original concept for the Village of Lumby DH system is to locate the biomass heating pant and fuel
storage at the existing public works building. Heat is then piped to the various client buildings identified
above. There was some interest in Charles Bloom Secondary School connecting to the system but the
current building infrastructure requires significant and costly upgrades to accept hot water heat. For this
reason they have been excluded from this study. The proposed layout for the DH is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 2 Initial Primary DH System Scenario
3 The energy content of biomass is highly dependent on moisture content therefore most people express it without moisture either as a bone dry tonne (BDT) or oven dry tonne (ODT).
Lumby District Heating System
8 | P a g e
The layout above works well with the layout of the park and future community plans. However based on
the location of the main heat supply line it may add to the cost of connecting Pat Duke Arena. An
alternate path is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Primary DH System Scenario with Alternate Main Heat Supply Line Path
The initial concept was for the heating plant to be located at the existing public works yard with the
piping network extending to up the west side of Pat Duke Arena. After reviewing the site it was
determined that the majority of the heat loads are located on the eastside of the arena. For this reason
the main supply line was relocated to that side as a means to reduce cost and make for a simpler
installation.
Building Suitability
Figure 3 shows the six buildings that potentially could connect to the DH System. While it is technically
feasible to connect all of the buildings some are more suited than others. The Village office and
swimming pools would be very easy to connect as they are already using hydronic or hot water heating.
These installations would only require water to water heat exchangers at a relatively low cost of
approximately $1,000 each. The curling and public works office would be slightly more difficult. The
curling rink would have 3 potential heat loads that would require connection (forced air in the lobby,
Lumby District Heating System
9 | P a g e
overhead forced air in ice hall, domestic hot water). All of these would be relatively easy to convert at a
total cost of approx. $5,000. The public works building also has three loads (overhead forced heat in
each bay and domestic hot water). It is expected that the retrofit costs would be approx. $5000. The
community centre has 4 rooftop heating units. Each unit would require its own heat coil. This could be
costly and is estimated at $16-20,000. The arena has the largest number of connection points including
radiant overhead heating in the stands 3 forced air furnaces, 3 hot water tanks, and an overhead forced
air heating system. The cost of replacing all of these connections would be $18-30,000. These costs are
based on doing the retrofits at the same time as installing the DH system. If they are done on an
individual basis, the cost would be higher.
The cost of retrofitting a building in relation to the energy consumption is an important consideration in
determining which buildings should be connected to the DH system. Table 2 shows the ratio of yearly
energy cost as compared to retrofit cost. The pool is the most favorable or best suited. For every $1 of
retrofit cost (expense) there is $10.24 of energy cost (or revenue). The community centre only has $0.34
of potential revenue for every $1 of retrofit expense is therefore least favourable or is least suitable. The
arena and public works are marginally suitable while both the curling rink and Village office would be
good candidates.
Table 2 Energy Cost vs Retrofit Costs
BuildingHeating Energy
Consumption (GJ/Yr)
Yearly Energy Cost
($/Yr)Retrofit Cost
Ratio of Energy Cost
to Retrofit CostSuitability
Pat Duke Arena 1779.3 $20,348 $24,000 0.85 Marginal
Pool 971.2 $10,244 $1,000 10.24 Best
Curl ing Club 683.2 $7,657 $5,000 1.53 Good
Community Centre 503.5 $6,066 $18,000 0.34 Least
Publ ic Works 339.1 $4,185 $5,000 0.84 Marginal
Vi l lage Office 103.5 $1,519 $1,000 1.52 Good
Total 4379.8 $59,355 $54,000
While the overall retro fit costs are not significant they have a significant impact on the economic
viability of the over DH system.
In the initial concept for the system the heat plant (boiler) and chip storage shed are located at the
existing public works yard. Based on the current configuration there may not be sufficient space
available for both structures in the yard. A detailed survey of the public works yard including current
buildings would be needed to determine if there is sufficient space available for the new structures.
Village staff has indicated that the public works yard may be moved to a new location in the future and
the existing buildings could be converted to house the boiler and wood chip storage which would be
viable solution.
Alternate Scenario
The high cost of connecting the community centre, arena and public works building as well as the
potential lack of space for the plant impact on the viability of the primary scenario laid out above.
Lumby District Heating System
10 | P a g e
Therefore an alternative scenario that would only see the most suitable buildings connect by a smaller
heating system was developed.
Figure 4 DH System Alternate Scenario
In the alternate scenario the system would consume approximately 80 ODT of wood chips or about 3
truckloads. It would also be relatively easy to incorporate into the primary scenario when it is built.
Fuel Selection
A biomass based system can be fuelled by many different forms of fibre from pellets to bush grindings.
Different fuels have different properties. Generally speaking, the more processed the fuel; the higher
the energy content and the cost (i.e. chips are cheaper than pellets but you require more chips to get
the same energy value). Capital costs also go up for less processed fuel because of higher degrees of
variability and larger fuel volumes. Therefore any cost savings due to reduced fuel cost may not cover
the increased capital costs over the life of the project.
The smaller the system, the more important it is to use a consistent fuel. Larger systems are better able
to handle fluctuations in fuel size and moisture. The estimated boiler size for this system is relatively
Lumby District Heating System
11 | P a g e
small therefore it would be appropriate to use a relatively clean and consistent fuel like wood chips
similar in size to those shown in Figure 5 or wood pellets. All analysis will include wood pellets as a
reference.
Figure 5 Wood Chip Fuel
Boiler Selection
Biomass boilers operate best when they are operating at full capacity as much as possible. In order
maximise the operating time at full capacity the boiler is typically sized to the average heat demand and
not the peak demand. In the primary scenario the biomass heating capacity would be approximately
200 kW. It is assumed that this boiler would provide about 90% of the heat requirement. The existing
heating equipment in each building could be used to supply the remaining demand and act as backup.
Normally two 100 kW boilers would be recommended but because there is a significant summer load
with the pool one single boiler would be sufficient and operate efficiently. The total energy produced by
the biomass boiler would be 4000 GJ/year.
In the alternate scenario the heat demand would be based primarily on the demand to heat the pool
which is slightly higher than the estimated demand for the curling rink and Village office. The boiler
would be approximately 75 kW and it should supply about 1600 GJ of energy/year.
This is an estimate for preliminary system evaluation and budgeting purposes only.
Heat Storage
The heat storage tank is simply a large insulated tank that stores hot water. It allows for the supply of
heat at peak demands. The heat storage vessel allows for the installation of a smaller capacity boiler
system. Heat can be generated throughout the entire day instead of on demand during peak usage
times. Typically hot water storage is approximately 10 l/kW. For the primary scenario it would be 2000
litres (440 imperial gallons), in the alternate scenario heat storage would be 750 litres. The exact size of
Lumby District Heating System
12 | P a g e
the storage vessel would be determined by the system supplier. Based on the site visit and expected
configuration of the new system, the heat storage system will be located inside the boiler house.
Heat Distribution
Insulated hot water lines would be run underground from the biomass heating system to each building.
The overall heat load for the system is relatively small. The ground is flat with little elevation change and
none of the buildings should require high temperature hot water, so it is anticipated that PEX pre-
insulated pipe could be used to connect the buildings. In the primary scenario it is estimated that the
main hot water supply and return lines would be approximately 2”. In order minimise cost it is
anticipated that both the supply and return would be housed in a single carrier pipe. The secondary lines
would be ¾ inch, also in a single carrier pipe. The main heat supply line shown in Figure 2 Initial Primary
DH System Scenario and Figure 3 Primary DH System Scenario with Alternate Main Heat Supply Line
Path both have a similar length.
In the alternate scenario the main supply and return lines would be 1.5”. The secondary lines would be
¾ inch. Both the main and secondary would have the supply and return in a single carrier pipe. Table 3
shows the length of each pipe trench and the pipe size based on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Table 3 DH Trench Length and Size
Trench Length (m) Size
Mainline 260 2"
Community Centre 10 3/4"
Curling Club 45 3/4"
Village Office 45 3/4"
Total 360
Mainline 70 1.5"
Curling Club 40 3/4"
Village Office 45 3/4"
Total 155
Scenario
Primary
Alternate
Normally each building would also include a meter to measure the amount of heat energy being
consumed and this would be used for billing. The cost of these meters can be expensive. The only client
that may need to be billed separately would be the curling club. A simpler solution may be a flat billing
or pricing based on their reduction in natural gas costs.
Biomass Heating System Economic Analysis
DH System Capital Cost
All cost estimates are for budgeting purposes only. Except as noted this report assumes typical
installation costs. These costs vary by area and contractor. Estimates from local contractors/suppliers
should be obtained prior to proceeding. The DH System capital cost can be broken down into two
components. The first is the heat plant, which would contain the boiler and fuel storage. The second is
Lumby District Heating System
13 | P a g e
for the distribution piping and retrofitting of existing buildings. The costing in this model assumes that
the Village would be operating as the general contractor and project manager.
The total capital cost for the entire DH system is estimated at $540,000 including a 10% contingency of
$50,000. The heat plant is 50% of the total cost while the distribution network is 40%. In the alternate
scenario the total capital cost is $310,000, also with a 10% contingency. The heat plant is 66% of the
total cost while the distribution network is 25%.
Heat Plant
The heat plant has a boiler house that would contain the boiler, pumps, heat storage, emissions control
devices and all system controls. The capital cost for the heat plant would be $281,000, for the primary
scenario. The capital costs for the alternate scenario is $205,000. The heat plant costs for the primary
and alternate scenarios are summarised in Table 4. The boiler house capital cost is based on a 20’
storage container (20’x8’). This is typical for most installations in BC. The chip storage for the heat plant
would be a simple 2 or 3 sided shed with a concrete floor. It should be large enough to accommodate
about 2 truckloads or a minimum of 3 weeks of fuel, whichever is larger. This amounts to approx. 600
ft2. David Beerstra Trucking (a local company) has the capacity to deliver 38 m3 or 53 m3 of wood chips
at one time. The capital cost of a pellet fueled heat plant has also been included for reference.
Table 4 DH System Capital Costs
Primary Alternate Pellets
Boi ler House $12,000 $12,000 $12,000
Fuel Storage $30,000 $30,000 $15,000
Boi ler $170,000 $94,000 $160,000
Insta l lation $34,000 $34,000 $27,000
Engineering $26,000 $26,000 $26,000
Misc $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
Total $281,000 $205,000 $249,000
Pipe $45,000 $15,000 $45,000
Trenching $108,000 $50,000 $108,000
Bui lding Retrofi ts $55,000 $7,000 $55,000
Total $208,000 $72,000 $208,000
Contingency $50,000 $30,000 $50,000
Total Capital Cost $539,000 $307,000 $507,000
Heat Plant
Cost
Distribution System
Distribution System
The capital cost for the distribution system included the commodity cost of the pipe and fittings, the
cost of trenching and finally the building retrofits. The trenching costs are based on hiring an outside
contractor to do the digging, backfilling, etc. Based on discussions with Village staff this is work that
could be done by public works. The capital cost of the primary scenario is $208,000. While the alternate
scenario is $72,000.
Lumby District Heating System
14 | P a g e
Operating & Maintenance Costs
The Operating and Maintenance costs have a number of components. The first cost is for personnel to
operate the system. Most systems are designed to be fully automatic requiring very little operator
support. Most facilities require about 1-2 hours per week to manage the fuel, emptying ash, and
periodic checks. This equates to a 0.1 FTE. Generally speaking this small amount of additional labour can
be absorbed by existing staff so no new personnel should be required. It is worth noting that the most
successful installations have a high degree of operator buy-in.
The second cost is for regular maintenance. The boiler will require annual service to clean the tubes,
check boiler function, lubricate, etc. This work could be done by onsite personnel but it may require
support from outside personnel. The cost was assumed at $4,000/year on the primary scenario and the
alternate scenario. It is worth noting that this cost is spread over the 20 year life of the boiler.
The system was also assumed to consume $500/year in electricity for pumping and auger systems in the
primary scenario. This drops to $200/year in the alternate scenario.
Fuel Cost
Fuel is the largest cost of operating the DH system. The fuel costs consist of the chips as well as the
natural gas required for back up. Wood chips are available from a number of sources including sawmills,
landfills, value added wood manufacturing, wildfire mitigation, slashpiles, etc. Wood chips and shavings
are being used by farmers, ranchers and others. David Beerstra Trucking charges $300 for a 38 m3 load
of wood shavings or $400 for a 53.5 m3 load. Each load is delivered using a tandem axle truck (no
trailer). Depending on the moisture content and the truck used this is about $34-39/tonne. Assuming
average moisture of 20% (based on discussions with Tolko) this is equals $2.56-2.70/GJ ($51-54/ODT). At
30% moisture the energy cost is $2.76-2.90/GJ ($55-58/ODT). This is summarised in Figure 6
Figure 6 Comparison of Energy Costs
In the primary scenario, the cost of wood chips (assuming 20% moisture and average cost of $2.63/GJ) is
$10,400/yr and the cost of natural gas would be $5,700/yr. The total yearly fuel cost is $16,100. In the
alternate scenario with the same assumptions as above, wood chips would cost $4,200 and natural gas
would be $2,200 for a total fuel cost of $6,400. The fuel costs for the business as usual (BAU) scenario is
$50,000/yr. and $19,400/yr. for the primary and alternate scenarios respectively.
$0.00
$2.50
$5.00
$7.50
$10.00
$12.50
$15.00
Wood Chips -
20% Moisture
Wood Chips -
30% Mositure
Natural Gas -
Primary
Natural Gas -
Alternate
Wood Pellets
Co
st
of
En
erg
y
$/
GJ
High
Low
Average
Lumby District Heating System
15 | P a g e
Table 5 contains the yearly operating costs for both the business as usual case as well as the primary and
alternate scenarios. Pellets have also been included as a comparison.
Table 5 Yearly Heating System Operating Costs
BAUWood Chips
20% Moisture
Wood Chips
30% MoisturePellets BAU
Wood Chips
20% Moisture
Wood Chips
30% Moisture
Natural Gas $50,200 $5,687 $5,687 $5,687 $19,421 $2,210 $2,210
Wood Chips $0 $10,394 $11,184 $31,181 $0 $4,171 $4,488
$0 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $4,000
$0 $500 $500 $500 $0 $200 $200
$50,200 $20,581 $21,371 $41,368 $19,421 $10,581 $10,898
$0 $29,619 $28,829 $8,832 $0 $8,840 $8,523Savings over BAU
Electricity
Total
Primary Scenario Alternate ScenarioCost Component
Fuel
Maitnenace
Figure 7 Comparison of Scenario Operating Costs and Savings
Carbon Offsets
Biomass under most circumstances can be considered carbon neutral. In the primary scenario the
project would reduce carbon emissions by 200 tonnes per year. The alternate scenario would reduce
carbon emissions by 80 tonnes per year. These amounts of carbon and would be very difficult to
monetise in current carbon markets. As a signatories of the Climate Action Charter the Village of Lumby
and Central Okanagan Regional District has committed to reducing their carbon footprint. The avoided
cost of not having to purchase offsets from Pacific Carbon Trust (valued at $25/tonne) is $4,100/yr and
$2,000/yr for the primary and alternate scenarios respectively. The curling club is not required to pay
offsets so their energy consumption has been removed from the above calculations.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Primary
BAU
Primary
20%
Moisture
Primary
30%
Moisture
Pellets Alternate
BAU
Alternate
20%
Moisture
Alternate
30%
Moisture
Ye
arl
y O
pe
rati
ng
Co
sts
Savings
Electricity
Maintenance
Wood Chips
Natural Gas
Lumby District Heating System
16 | P a g e
Financial Analysis
Most DH systems generate revenue by selling heat to clients. This revenue must be sufficient to cover
expenses, provide for future plans and generate income. Currently all of the buildings, with the
exception of the curling rink are controlled by the Village of Lumby and the Regional District. Therefore
the analysis will be done based on savings and avoided costs. The analysis will look at three options for
each scenario. The first is with no grants, the second looks 25% grant funding and the third looks at 60%
grant funding (typical of gas tax funding) which is the most likely scenario. As was noted earlier Village of
Lumby public works staff should be able to complete the trenching for the DH system. These costs have
been estimated at $108,000 and $50,000 for the primary and alternate scenarios respectively, based on
typical construction estimates. The actual internal costs are significantly different. These costs represent
an in-kind contribution to the project and should be counted towards any potential leverage for funding.
In the primary case the savings are $29,600/yr. and the avoided carbon costs are $4,100/yr for a total
yearly cost reduction of $33,700. In the alternate scenario the total yearly reductions are $10,800. The
simple payback and net present value are calculated for both the primary and alternate scenarios and is
shown in Table 6. For simplicity the analysis does not include a cost of borrowing or inflation. The net
present value was calculated at 5% over 20 years which is the expected life of the boiler. For the primary
scenario the project is economically viable with a minimum of 25% grant. In the alternate scenario the
project is economically viable at 60% funding. Figure 8 shows the net present value of these three
options.
Table 6 Payback Summaries
Scenario Pellet
Project Cost $539,000 $539,000 $539,000 $507,000 $307,000 $307,000 $307,000
Grant 0% 25% 60% 60% 0% 25% 60%
Grant Funding $0 $134,750 $323,400 $304,200 $0 $76,750 $184,200
Lumby In-Kind
(Trenching)$108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
White Valley Rec.
Capital Cost$431,000 $296,250 $107,600 $94,800 $257,000 $180,250 $72,800
Total Yearly Savings $33,700 $33,700 $33,700 $12,900 $10,800 $10,800 $10,800
Simple Payback
(Years)12.8 8.8 3.2 7.3 23.8 16.7 6.7
NPV -$11,000 $124,000 $312,000 $66,000 -$122,000 -$46,000 $62,000
IRR 5% 10% 31% 12% -2% 2% 14%
AlternatePrimary
Lumby District Heating System
17 | P a g e
Figure 8 Net Present Value
Potential Business Models
As was noted earlier this analysis is based on a breakeven perspective with Village of Lumby operating
the system. There could be the chance for someone else to own and or operate the system either in
conjunction with the White Valley Rec. Society (WVRC) or as a one hundred percent private enterprise.
A private company would not be able access grants as WVRC and therefore has a lower chance of being
economically viable. A public/private partnership would still be able to access grants and have a viable
project however this was outside the scope of this analysis
Additional Considerations
Currently there are no regulations regarding the use of biomass for comfort heating or space heating.
This may change as the BC Ministry of Environment is currently developing regulations in regards to
combustion of solid wood fuels such as wood chips. Depending on the system it may be determined by
the Ministry of the Environment that heating the pool is not comfort heating and thus require an air
quality permit. Depending on the conditions of the permit this could have a significant impact on the
economic viability of the system. As an example Lillooet has an air permit on their heating system
because of the pool. The permit requires quarterly testing when the pool is in operation. This equals two
tests per year at approximately $4000/test.
Conclusions 1) The estimated capital cost for a 200 kW DH system heating the public works building, Pat Duke
Arena, community centre, curling rink, Village office and Pool would be $530,000.
-400000
-300000
-200000
-100000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Primary - 25% Grant
Primary - 60% Grant
Alternate - 60% Grant
Lumby District Heating System
18 | P a g e
2) Savings from switching to wood chips would be $33,700 including $4,100 in avoided cost by not
purchasing offsets.
3) A minimum grant of 25% is required to make the system economically viable.
4) The system would require 360 m of trenching which could be supplied by The Village as an in-
kind contribution.
5) The system would consume 200 ODT of wood chips/year. Assuming the chips are supplied by
David Beerstra trucking this would be approximately one tandem truckload every week and a
half.
6) Due to potential space constraints at the public works yard as well as the capital cost of
retrofitting Pat Duke Arena and the Community Centre an alternate scenario was developed to
heat the pool, Village office and curling rink. The system would be 75 kW. It would cost
$307,000. When and if the Primary Scenario is developed the alternate scenario can be
included.
7) The alternate system would require a 60% grant to be economically viable.
Recommendations If the Village of Lumby is interested in proceeding I have the following recommendations.
1) A detailed site plan of the public works yard should be developed to determine if there would be
enough space to house a 20’ shipping container for the boiler as well as a wood chip storage
area. If there is not enough space than a different site should be selected.
2) A heating and ventilation (HVAC) contractor that specialises in hydronic heating should be
consulted to confirm the costs of retrofitting the buildings to connect to the DH system.
3) The Village should begin formal discussions with the Ministry of Environment in regards to what
if any potential permitting is required.
4) Determine the business structure for the DH system. Who will own it (public, private,
partnership) as well who is responsible for operation, etc.? This question has a significant impact
on funding.
If the Village of Lumby does wish to proceed, WW2RH is interested in continuing to support the Village
as they work thru the above recommendations. Once the Village has made a decision on issues #1 and
#4 above; WW2RH would be willing to update and refine this business analysis based on these
decisions. If desired, WW2RH can assist the Village in furthering refining the business case, help identify
potential funding sources and/or assist Village staff with the preparation of a Request For Proposals if
required.
Disclaimer Assumptions, conclusions and estimates for this report are based on available information and should
be used only for informational purposes. This report is a pre-feasibility study and should not be used for
engineering or design.
Lumby District Heating System
19 | P a g e
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Tom Kadla, Roger Huston and Jeri White from the Village of Lumby for
their help in preparing this report.
Funding for the Wood Waste 2 Rural Heat Project is provided by the Southern Interior Beetle Action
Coalition (SIBAC), the Columbia Basin Trust, the Government of BC, Cariboo Chilcotin Beetle Action
Coalition (CCBAC) and the Omenica Beetle Action Coalition (OBAC).