Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Biomass sourcing for gasifier at UBC Point Grey campus : synthesis report Eaton, Ashleigh; Ho, Christopher; Karu, Christopher 2011

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Eaton_A_et_al_SEEDS_2011.pdf [ 1013.33kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0108352.json
JSON-LD: 1.0108352+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0108352.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0108352+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0108352+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0108352+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0108352 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0108352.txt
Citation
1.0108352.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report  Biomass Sourcing For Gasifier at UBC Point Grey Campus Synthesis Report  Ashleigh Eaton Christopher Ho Christopher Karu  University of British Columbia APSC 364 April 11, 2011  Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  BIOMASS SOURCING FOR GASIFIER AT UBC POINT GREY CAMPUS Synthesis Report Prepared for: UBC Utilities & UBC Sustainability Office By Ashleigh Eaton – Faculty of Arts, Political Science Christopher Ho – Faculty of Commerce, Finance Christopher Karu – Faculty of Arts, Political Science  April 11, 2011  TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary..................................................................................................................  2  Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1. UBC Context and Sustainability Goals...........................................................................  3 3  2. Project Scope...................................................................................................................  3  Fuel Source Options.................................................................................................................. 1. Vendor Description and Initial Considerations...............................................................  4 5  Overview of the Assessment Tool............................................................................................ 1. Purpose........................................................................................................................... 2. Approach........................................................................................................................ 3. Criteria Weighting..........................................................................................................  6 6 6 7  Evaluation Matrix..................................................................................................................... 1. Evaluation Methodology................................................................................................ 2. Score Allocation.............................................................................................................  8 8 10  Results....................................................................................................................................... 1. Ranking.......................................................................................................................... 2. Key Drivers....................................................................................................................  11 11 12  Recommendation..................................................................................................................... 1. Scenario Analysis..........................................................................................................  13 13  Limitations...............................................................................................................................  14  Project Reflection....................................................................................................................  15  Authorship Statement.............................................................................................................  16  Bibliography............................................................................................................................  17  Appendix..................................................................................................................................  18  1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The UBC Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Project is a sustainability initiative on the UBC campus designed to help meet the University‟s sustainability goals. The project is planned to offset 5% electricity use and 12% steam use through a biomass power plant whereby woodbased fuel inputs will be converted into clean energy1. The ultimate goal of the project is to eliminate up to 4,500 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year2. The scope of this engagement is to conduct comparative analysis across four different fuel sources - hog fuel, B.C. pine beetle, municipal trimmings, and construction & demolition fuel and select a commercial vendor to ultimately supply fuel for 80% of the plant‟s operating capacity. Fuel types were analyzed across economic, environmental, and social categories. Within these categories, each of the eight vendor candidates were evaluated across 13 criteria and 16 indicators. Ultimately, it was found that construction and demolition wood ranked as the best fuel source. As such, Urban Woodwaste Recyclers is the recommended vendor for UBC‟s biomass power plant.  1 2  Giffin, 2010 Ibid.  2  INTRODUCTION UBC Context and Sustainability Goals UBC is a leader in combining environmental sustainability with teaching and research. It is the University‟s goal to ensure long-term sustainability and to reach a 100% reduction of 1990 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 20503. UBC has partnered with Nexterra Energy and General Electric (GE) to install a combined heat and power plant (CHP). It is UBC‟s goal to offset a portion of the current amount of natural gas consumed at the central steam plant and electricity purchased from BC Hydro. UBC predominantly uses two types of energy: natural gas and electricity. Natural gas is used to power UBC‟s steam network while electricity is used to power campus electrical systems. The steam generated from the burning of gas is then distributed throughout UBC‟s District Energy System. UBC currently sources its natural gas from Terasen Gas and purchases this gas at spot market prices4. Given the increasing trend of natural gas prices as seen in Figure 1, natural gas offsetting strategies such as the biomass plant can help UBC sustainably power the campus for the long term. In terms of electricity, UBC has two main lines which run throughout the campus to power the University‟s buildings. A breakdown of the electricity use can be seen in Figure 25. UBC‟s commitment to the creation of a biomass gasification plant will make a small reduction in UBC‟s energy outputs, but will act as a significant step toward future sustainability goals. Figure 1: Natural Gas Prices (1989-2009)  Figure 2: Breakdown of electricity use at UBC  Project Scope The purpose of this report has been to develop a set of criteria with which to analyze the eight proposed wood fuel sources. While there are many aspects of the research and demonstration project that can be examined, the scope of this project remains on evaluating the potential impact of the fuel sources across the different vendor candidates. This evaluation was conducted with  3  UBC Place and Promise, 2011 Giffin, 2010 5 Alternative Energy Feasibility Report – Phase Two, 2010 4  3  the three pillars of sustainability in mind – economic, environmental and social - which formed the overarching structure of the assessment tool that was developed. A key source of information for this analysis has been Jeff Giffin‟s UBC Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Project Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis of Fuel
Supply
Options, which not only outlined the project but also supplied key figures on moisture content, tonnage, and environmental impact of the harvesting, chipping, trucking and UBC stages. Further information regarding each vendor‟s operation and staff size, location, and community size was researched online. A complete list of citations can be found at the end of this report.  FUEL SOURCE OPTIONS The eight vendor candidates under examination fall under four general fuel source categories:  Hog Fuel: Consists of pulverized bark, shavings, sawdust, low-grade lumber and lumber rejects from the operation of pulp mills, saw mills and plywood plants6.  Construction and Demolition (CC+D): Wood waste from construction and demolition sites7.  Municipal trimmings: Wood material collected from cities in maintenance of trees in parks and residential areas8.  BC pine beetle: Wood collected from forests infected by the mountain pine beetle9. A summary of each vendor can be found below: Figure 3: Vendor & Fuel Source Summary  Fuel Type Moisture content Tonnes required Cost/tonne Cost (total) Vendor Location Location Population  Basran  Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply  Hog Fuel  Hog Fuel  Hog Fuel  CC+D  45%  45%  45%  25%  24000 $42.50 $1.4M  24000 $40.00 $1.3M  24000 $42.50 $1.4M  16500 $50.00 $1.0M  New West  Mission  Langley  57,549  34,505  93,726  Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd.  Urban Woodwaste Recyclers  Vancouver/ New West 578,041/ 57,549  Vendor Vendor Description and Initial Considerations 22 35 90 staff  6  BC Government News Release, 2008 Giffin, 2010 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 7  4  55%  50%  Int’l Bio Fuels BC Pine Beetle 20%  28095  26000  14600  16500  $0.36M Vancouver  $0.36M Vancouver  $77.00 $1.4M Merritt  $70.00 $1.4M Merritt  587,041  587,041  6998  6998  7000 (North America)  -  -  -  Davey Tree Municipal Trimmings  City of Vancouver Municipal Trimmings  Trace Resources BC Pine Beetle 25%  Basran (Hog Fuel): Basran is one of the closest suppliers to UBC and thus has the potential to save on costs and transportation emissions based solely on the limited distance between Basran and the University campus. However, the 45% moisture content would increase energy requirements for drying before the fuel can be processed. Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply LTD (Hog Fuel): Located in Mission BC, this fuel source would require almost 80 km of trucking each way, significantly increasing CO2, SO2 and ORG emissions. Furthermore, the moisture content is also 45%, increasing the energy use for drying. Cloverdale Fuel Co. LTD (Hog Fuel): Similar to Basran, Cloverdale is also located in close proximity to UBC, requiring less trucking relative to other vendors. At the same time, as the fuel source is hog fuel, the moisture content is quite high at 45%. Urban Woodwaste Recyclers (Construction and Demolition): Urban Woodwaste Recyclers collects wood waste from demolition crews and resells it for profit. The moisture content is within the desired range (25%) and will not require the use of UBC‟s dryer. The company is located in New Westminster - just under 40km away. The potential downside to this fuel source is the possibility of trace chemicals from the demolition material. However, the impacts of this on the combined heat and power plant are still unknown. Davey Tree (Municipal Trimmings): Davey Tree is a privately-owned tree care company that services both residential and commercial properties in the GVRD and would be supplying their trimmings free of charge as they are a waste product for this vendor. Located in Richmond, this source offers the least distance travelled at only 22 km, but at the same time, has the highest moisture content of 55% which would require the most energy when drying the fuel. City of Vancouver (Municipal Trimmings): The City of Vancouver has entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UBC and will donate municipal trimmings from its parks located in various areas around Vancouver. As with Davey Tree, City of Vancouver trimmings are also very high in moisture content at 50%, and are also located very close to UBC. International Biofuels (B.C. Pine Beetle): With a 20% moisture content, fuel from this vendor would not require any drying. However, this firm is located in Merritt which is over 280 km away, thereby increasing the environmental impact of this source due to the increased trucking phase. Furthermore, B.C. Pine Beetle fuel has the highest potential for acid rain and smog formation due to the harvesting with diesel equipment. Trace Resources (BC Pine Beetle): Trace Resources offers one of the lowest moisture contents at 25%, which would not require the use of a dryer. However, this vendor is located in Merrit 280 km away which would again increase the emissions due to the increased trucking. It should also be noted that Trace Resources is already in cooperation with Domtar pulp mill in Kamloops to produce electricity10, which might serve as direct competition for UBC and could increase the price of biomass fuel in the future.  10  BC Ministry of Forests and Range Press Release, 2008  5  OVERVIEW OF THEASSESSMENT TOOL Purpose An evaluation matrix was used to assess the different source options. The vendors described above were ranked against a set of 13 different criteria. Each criteria was placed into one of three different categories: economic, environmental or social. These 3 pillars of sustainability were selected to guide the analysis in order to encapsulate the many facets involved with successful sustainability evaluation. While UBC‟s most prominent sustainability goal is to achieve 100% GHG elimination by 2050, there are many other factors beyond carbon emissions that should be considered when evaluating a fuel source's sustainability potential. Economic criteria help to ensure that the fuel source is financially feasible in both the short and long term, making the source attractive from an operational standpoint. Environmental criteria not only include traditional measures such as GHG emissions, but also attempt to capture other factors that could have environmental ramifications on UBC and the surrounding area. Finally, social criteria support UBC sustainability goals by investigating social impacts not only within UBC, but also impacted stakeholders external to the University. It is through these three categories that an ultimate fuel source was identified as the optimal sustainable fuel source. When developing this assessment tool, there was particular emphasis placed on building a matrix that considers an exhaustive set of sustainable factors across the fuel source‟s lifecycle. In doing so, the aim was that no fuel source would be ultimately recommended without its negative sustainability attributes exposed. Overall, this assessment tool was designed to assess the fuel source options for the biomass power plant at a level that maintains UBC‟s high quality standard. Approach The development of an effective evaluation tool relies on the creation of a strong criteria set. The aim when choosing the criteria was to push UBC to adopt a comprehensive evaluation methodology that extends beyond traditional, easily quantifiable metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions and annual cost. As such, criteria development began with establishing an exhaustive list of criteria that may hold relevance for fuel source evaluation. This list of criteria was then narrowed down until a final criteria set was established. The table on the following page provides a summary of this elimination process:  6  Figure 4: Establishing an Appropriate Criteria Set  The traditional influence column in the above table asks “to what degree might UBC typically include a certain criteria when undergoing sustainability project assessment on campus?” In contrast, the desired influence column reflects which criteria this engagement team felt should be included in order to develop a comprehensive sustainability criteria set. Ultimately, the top 13 criteria shown in Figure 4 were selected for inclusion in this evaluation study. Criteria Weighting In the base-case evaluation, the economic, environmental and social categories were weighted equally. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how a reconfiguration of these weightings might impact the final recommendation. This can be found later in the report. Within each of the three high-level categories, weightings were assigned to each criteria. These weightings remained unchanged throughout the course of the evaluation study. The final criteria set along with the respective weightings can be seen below: Figure 5: Final Criteria Set and Weighting  7  Overall, the criteria weightings were assigned based on the perceived overall impact a specific criteria might have on the project. For instance, „total fuel cost‟, „operating cost‟, and „price sustainability‟ together encompassed a majority of the economic category because these are the primary drivers that will likely determine financial viability from a management perspective. In contrast, criteria such as „post-gasification environmental risk‟ comprised only 10% of the environmental category because the degree of its environmental impact is relatively unknown. Given that this report represents an early evaluation stage, weighting „post-gasification environmental risk‟ too heavily could eliminate a vendor candidate prematurely. Within the social category, a criteria such as „transportation noise externality‟ was assigned a low weighting because there are multiple strategies that can be employed to mitigate this issue such as evening or weekend truck trips. This ease of mitigation ultimately led to lower social impacts when compared to other criteria such as source community job creation of alternative fuel source uses.  EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Methodology With a final set of criteria developed, indicators were created in order to measure each selected criteria. A majority of quantitative criteria had data available that could be used directly as an indicator. For instance, „material cost‟, „transportation cost‟, and „tax data‟ were available to measure the annual cost criteria and CO2 emissions data could be used as an indicator to directly measure the greenhouse gas emission criteria. Conversely, other criteria required assumptions to act as a proxy for measurement. For instance, long-run price data could not be collected. Instead, demand and supply assumptions for each fuel source were used as a substitute to assign price sustainability scores. A further discussion of the evaluation methodology can be found below: Figure 6: Evaluation Methodology Criteria  Indicator  Fuel  Total annual cost ($/yr)  Material cost  Non-rebateable HST  Distribution cost  Carbon tax  Price Sustainability  Demand  Low (3 pt)  Med (2 pt)  High (1 pt) Supply  Low (1 pt)  Med (2 pt)  High (3 pt) Trace chemical risk  Yes (0 pt)  No (1 pt) Decomposition risk  Yes (0 pt)  No (1 pt)  Minimizing Operational Risk  Type Economic Quantitative  Qualitative  Qualitative  8  Discussion Total annual cost was aggregated from four different cost figures: material cost, distribution cost, non-rebateable HST, and transportation carbon tax. Operating cost at the UBC power plant itself was not included in this section. Because post-drying costs are the same across all fuel sources, the only UBC point gray cost that was relevant was the drying cost. Drying cost was reflected in its own criteria. Since fuel price data could not be collected directly, assumptions were made regarding the demand and the supply of a fuel source. A fuel anticipated to have a low demand and high supply would rank the best in terms of price sustainability.  Presence of trace chemicals or decomposed matter violates Nexterra’s specifications for wood fuel that can be gasified. Fuel sources that are at risk of containing trace chemicals or decomposed matter could have negative consequences on plant machinery, thereby potentially increasing maintenance costs or forcing UBC  Operating Cost of Drying Fuel  Total energy usage during drying (GJ/yr)  GHG Emissions  Tonnes CO2-e/year  Acid Rain Potential Smog Formation Potential Energy Consumption During Drying Phase Post-gasification Environmental Risk  Transportation Noise Externality  Relative Benefit to Source Community  Alternative Use of Fuel Source  Relative Benefit to Vendor  Quantitative  to order high batch sizes in order to fill the plant’s capacity with viable wood. Since specific cost data was not available regarding only the drying phase, energy usage during drying was used as a proxy. It is assumed that since cost per GJ is likely fixed, the energy usage will be directly correlated to the cost of drying.  Environmental Quantitative Total tonnes of CO2-e/year were aggregated across the harvesting, chipping, transportation, and point gray phases of the lifecycle. Tonnes SO2-e/year Quantitative Total tonnes of SO2-e/year were aggregated across the harvesting, chipping, transportation, and point gray phases of the lifecycle. Tonnes ORG/year Quantitative Total tonnes of ORG/year were aggregated across the harvesting, chipping, transportation, and point gray phases of the lifecycle. Total energy usage Quantitative Only fuels that contain a moisture content above 25% during drying (GJ/year) were considered to consume energy in order to dry the wood fuel to the ideal level. Trace chemical risk: Qualitative It is important to consider environmental effects that occur  Yes (0 pt) after gasification has occurred as well. It is assumed that a  No (1 pt) fuel source containing trace chemicals before being gasified is also at risk of creating an ash by-product that contains harmful chemicals as well. Social # of truck trips/year Quantitative Truck trips used to transport fuel to the UBC campus may create noise disruptions on campus. It is assumed that a greater number of annual truck trips will lead to a higher likelihood that noise externalities occur. # of jobs created Qualitative A benefit to the source community was defined with  Low (1 pt) respect to job creation. Both the number of jobs created  Med (2 pt) and the size of the impacted community were considered  High (3 pt) within this analysis. Ultimately, there would be a higher Size of community relative social impact if UBC contracted a vendor in a  Large (1 pt) small community wherein a high number of jobs are  Med (2 pt) created.  Small (3 pt) Fuel would otherwise Qualitative This criteria considers how a fuel source would be used or be harmful or disposed of if it was not chosen as a fuel input for UBC’s unproductive power plant. UBC should be more inclined to choose a  No (0 pt) fuel that would otherwise be harmful or unproductive  Yes (1 pt) because the use of it as a fuel source diverts these alternate repercussions. In effect, UBC creates a social impact by supporting a market for diverting the disposal of harmful materials. Firm size Qualitative This criteria captures the social benefit of supporting  Large (1 pt) small British Columbia businesses. Providing that these  Medium (2 pt) small firms are able to effectively supply wood fuel for  Small (3 pt) the long term (captured in the price sustainability criteria), a smaller firm would be a more highly favoured vendor.  9  Score Allocation Assumptions were made when conducting the analysis of many of the quantitative and qualitative criteria. However, two criteria in particular – price sustainability and relative benefit to the source community – require more in-depth explanation regarding the allocation of points throughout the analysis. This discussion can be found below: Price Sustainability: In projecting the supply and demand for each fuel source, generalized conclusions were made about the different fuel types and their location. Due to a lack of in-depth information regarding each vendor, assumptions were made regarding the fuel types as a whole. It is understood that these assumptions are subject to error. This analysis merely serves as a baseline with which further analysis may be conducted. Below is a summary of demand and supply assumptions: Figure 7: Demand and Supply Assumptions  Fuel Type  Demand Assumptions  Hog Fuel   Neutral  BC Pine Beetle   High demand – both B.C. Pine Beetle vendors have signed agreements to provide fuel to similar projects in B.C. (Trace Resources – Kamloops Domtar Mill12, Int‟l Biofuels – Spectrum Energy13) .  High demand – as this source of fuel is free, the assumption is that there will be a high demand from similar projects in the future.  Municipal Trimmings  Construction and Demolition   Low demand – while Urban Woodwaste Recyclers is the largest in the lower mainland, their business is structured on taking construction waste and recycling it for primarily composting and mulching15.  11  Giffin, 2010 BC Government News Release, 2008 13 International Biofuels News Release, 2009 14 Natural Resources Canada, 2011. 15 Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Website, 2011 16 Ibid. 12  10  Supply Assumptions  Low supply – the B.C. forestry industry has been in decline over the last few years11; this will decrease the availability of this fuel source.  High supply – B.C. pine beetle infestation is predicted to continue in the future with drier, hotter summers14.   High supply – for City of Vancouver, the supply of parks where the trimmings comes from is assumed to be constant; for Davey Tree it is a neutral supply.  High supply – there over 350,000 tonnes of woodwaste in landfills currently16.  Relative benefit to source community: For this criteria, assumptions were made regarding the size of the community and the size of the vendor. For the former, data was collected regarding the population of each vendor‟s city; small communities were assumed to be under 40,000 while large communities had populations over 60,000. For the vendor size, information was gathered regarding each firm‟s employee size, revenue and how long it had been in operation. This collected data was then used to rank the firms as either small, medium, or large. Because UBC‟s order size is relatively fixed, it was assumed that smaller communities would see a larger relative increase in the number of jobs created in order to increase processing capacity and meet the University‟s demand.  RESULTS Ranking Figure 8 shows the final rankings across each of the 13 different criteria. Please refer to the appendix for a full break-down of the rankings within each criteria. Figure 8: Ranking of vendors against each criteria 1-8, 1 being the highest Criteria  Basran  Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply  Annual Fuel Cost  6  4  6  3  1  1  5  8  Price Sustainability  4  4  4  1  2  3  4  4  Minimizing Operational Risk  3  3  3  3  1  1  3  3  Operating Cost of Drying Fuel  4  4  4  1  7  7  1  1  GHG Potential  8  8  8  1  5  5  3  3  Acid Rain Potential  6  6  6  1  3  3  8  8  Smog Formation Potential  6  6  6  1  3  3  8  8  Drying Phase Energy Use  4  4  4  1  7  7  1  1  1  1  1  8  1  1  1  1  4  4  4  1  7  7  1  1  4  1  4  6  7  7  1  1  Alternative Use of Fuel Source  2  2  2  1  2  2  2  2  Relative Benefits to Vendor  1  1  1  6  7  7  1  1  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk Transportation Noise Externality Relative Benefit to Source Community  Cloverdale Urban Fuel Co. Woodwaste Ltd. Recyclers  11  Davey Tree  City of International Vancouver Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Key Drivers Below is a brief description regarding the key drivers that allowed a fuel source to rank first place within a given criteria:  Annual fuel cost (1st Place: municipal trimmings): Given that materials cost represents a large proportion of total annual fuel cost, municipal trimmings vendors were able to rank first because the fuel is provided to UBC for free.  Price sustainability (1st Place: construction): supply remains high because construction wood waste is projected to remain at a high level. Demand is relatively lower than other fuels because there has traditionally been found to be less uses for construction wood waste compared to other sources.  Minimizing operational risk (1st Place: municipal trimmings): municipal trimmings are at a lower risk of containing trace particulates when compared to other fuels such as construction wood. Municipal trimmings are also freshly cut, giving it a lower chance of decomposition.  Operating cost of drying fuel (1st Place: construction and B.C. pine beetle): both fuel sources contain lower moisture content and therefore cost less to dry.  GHG emissions, acid rain potential and smog formation potential (1st Place: construction): construction and demolition wood uses electricity instead of diesel during the chipping phase and has no associated emissions during the harvesting stage, thus allowing this fuel type to rank first across all three criteria.  Drying phase energy use (1st Place: construction and B.C. pine beetle): both fuel sources meet the moisture content threshold and thus do not require any energy during the drying phase.  Post-gasification environmental risk (1st Place: all fuel sources except construction): construction sites are the only source site that would likely contaminate fuels with trace chemicals.  Transportation noise externality (1st Place: construction and B.C. pine beetle): both fuels are sourced from vendors that are either closer in proximity to the UBC campus thereby requiring less distance traveled, or contain a lower moisture content so that less frequent truck trips are needed.  Relative benefit to source community (1st Place: B.C. pine beetle): B.C. pine beetle vendors are located in Merritt, a comparatively smaller source community in relation to other vendors.  Alternative use of fuel source (1st Place: construction): construction and demolition wood was seen to be the only fuel source that could not naturally decompose without having potentially negative ramifications.  Relative benefit to vendor (1st Place: hog fuel and B.C. pine beetle): both fuel types are sourced from firms that were deemed to have small operations in terms of employee base and annual order capacity.  12  RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the recommended vendor for the UBC Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Project is Urban Woodwaste Recyclers in order to purchase construction and demolition wood fuel. Urban Woodwaste Recyclers ranked first place in 8 of the 13 criteria. This was accomplished under the base-case equal weighting for the economic, environmental and social categories. Scenario Analysis It is understood, however, that the end evaluator may not necessarily hold equal importance across the three sustainability categories. To further examine the sources, a scenario analysis was conducted to determine the impact of changing the weightings across the three categories. A summary of three scenarios conducted can be found below: Figure 9: Scenario Analysis Rank  Economic  CC &D  Municipal Trimmings  B.C. Pine  Hog Fuel  Criteria  20%  Environ. 40%  Social  Economic  Environ.  40%  40%  20%  Social 40%  Economic  Environ.  Social  40%  40%  20%  Basran  7  7  7  Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply  6  6  6  Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd.  7  7  7  International Bio Fuels  2  2  4  Trace Resources  3  5  5  Davey Tree  4  3  2  City of Vancouver  4  3  2  Urban Woodwaste  1  1  1  Based on Figure 9, it can be seen that Urban Woodwaste Recycles ranks first across all three scenarios. This means that, regardless of the emphasis on economic, environmental, or social criteria, it is always optimal from a sustainability standpoint to choose Urban Woodwaste Recyclers as the vendor for UBC. This scenario analysis shows that, barring further investigative analysis, UBC decision makers can use construction and demolition wood without a trade-off risk within a particular sustainability category. However, if it is demonstrated that Urban Woodwaste Recyclers‟ construction and demolition wood is unusable for UBC‟s biomass power plant, UBC would still require a contingency fuel source option. As such, the next best available option is International Biofuels. This source ranks second overall across two of the three scenarios. It should be noted that International Biofuels‟ strength as a source option is derived from the economic and environmental categories.  13  LIMITATIONS Since the analysis presented in this report contains both assumptions and value judgements, each criteria was assigned a degree of confidence. The purpose of the table below is to highlight to the next evaluator which criteria in particular should be focused on in order to improve the quality of analysis moving forward: Figure 10: Degree of Confidence  Social  Environmental  Economic  Criteria  Indicator  Degree of Confidence  Limitation  Fuel cost  Total annual cost ($/year)  Price sustainability  Anticipated supply & demand  Long term trends are dif f icult to predict  Minimizing operational risk  Presence of trace chemicals and/or decomposed material (Y/N)  Indicator may not directly lead to increased maintenance or larger orders  Cost of drying f uel  Annual energy usage (GJ/year)  GHG emissions  Tonnes CO2-e/year  Acid rain potential  Tonnes SO2-e/year  Smog f ormation potential  Tonnes ORG/year  Energy use (drying phase)  Annual energy usage (GJ/year)  Post-gasif ication environmental risk  Presence of trace chemicals in biomass ash (Y/N)  Transportation noise externality  Number of truck trips/year  Relative benef it to source community  Job creation f or source community (f unction of f irm & community size)  Large assumption that the smaller the f irm, the more jobs created  Alternative use of f uel source  Fuel would otherwise be harmf ul or unproductive (Y/N)  Further investigation needed in terms of exact alternative uses  Relative benef it to vendor  Firm size  Assumptions made to f ill gaps with respect to f irm size  LEGEND:  Low  Medium  Harmf ul chemicals in may not directly lead to harmf ul chemicals out  High  Quantitative Limitations: As can be seen above in Figure 10, criteria that are more quantitative in nature had the highest degree of confidence. This is because these quantitative criteria were easier to collect data for and required fewer assumptions when conducting the ultimate analysis. However, a limitation found for the quantitative criteria was the lack of diversified data sources. Moving forward, it is recommended to increase the number of data sources in order to ensure that more precise data points are being inputted into the evaluation matrix. Qualitative Limitations: From a qualitative criteria standpoint, a greater number of both value judgements and assumptions were made in order to assign rankings for each vendor. Some key limitations within the economic and environmental categories were found within the „minimizing operational risk‟ and „post-gasification environmental risk‟ criteria. Each of these criteria were determined on a yes/no basis and required a judgement of the potential that the source would come into contact with trace contaminants and/or decomposed material. Beyond 14  this, a judgement was made regarding the impact that would be caused on the machinery or surrounding environment if chemical particulates or decomposed matter were present. For social criteria, it was important to evaluate the impact that UBC‟s gasification plant would have upon the source community and the vendor itself. Each of these indicators were measured based on the potential job creation and firm size. The failure of this approach is in the assumption that, for example, UBC‟s presence will be directly correlated to the creation of jobs. It will be important to research the impact that UBC has upon these communities and vendors in order to gain a deeper understanding of the social impact that UBC is actually making.  PROJECT REFLECTION The structure of the Applied Sustainability course was beneficial in that it allowed ample time for research outside of class. The sectioned discussion groups allowed for greater interaction on a one-to-one basis with a teaching assistant. The project design itself maintained interest throughout the entire semester as each aspect of the project was broken down into phases, with each one focused on a different aspect of the project and allowed for a greater scope of research. It would have been beneficial to have more integration of key themes from course articles to the project. As for the articles themselves, it may have been useful to assess a larger scope of broad themes and then gradually introduce articles specific to biomass related concepts. In terms of working with other students in the class, having other biomass groups workshop ideas together was a valuable resource. Because teams were instructed not to contact firms, the available sources online were exceedingly limited and restricted the concrete research that was able to be conducted. If this project were to be repeated, it would be beneficial to have greater access to vendors as it would provide more concrete research to ground the proposals upon. It also allows the students to do much of the research leg-work that could be beneficial to UBC Utilities and UBC Sustainability. Potentially, a new data collection phase could be introduced near the beginning of the project where groups must submit questions they would ask if given an opportunity to conduct vendor interviews. The teaching assistants could consolidate the questions and then conduct the vendor interview. Overall, the research and learning conducted both inside and outside of the classroom has been beneficial to the team‟s growing understanding of sustainability. The project itself allowed for the opportunity to understand the assessment process and the difficulties that arise when determining the breakdown of an evaluation of sustainability.  15  AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT Our team is appreciative of our coincidentally smaller group size because it allowed us to collaborate and dedicate focused insight with each other efficiently. Furthermore, given our diverse backgrounds in faculty and areas of interest, each member brought a different perspective to the group which proved beneficial when brainstorming and analyzing issues as they arose, in particular in designing the assessment tool. We found that the work was divided equally amongst all three members. While every assignment was collaborated on by all members of the group, at times due to other commitments the same level of effort was not assumed by all within every phase. Ultimately, this was not found to be a problem since this was compensated for in future assignments. Overall, it was a rewarding and worthwhile experience for all three of us, and we welcome the opportunity to work together again.  16  Bibliography Alternative Energy Feasibility Report – Phase Two, 2010   Stantec, 2010. Alternative Energy Feasibility Report for the University of British Columbia. Accessed online at http://www.projectservices.lbs.ubc.ca/Links/AESP%20EoI/Phase_Two_Step_Three_jun e_11.pdf  BC Ministry of Forests and Range Press Release, 2008   BC Ministry of Forests and Range Press Release, 2008. B.C. Company Turns Wood Waste Into Bioenergy. Accessed online at http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FOR0163-001837.htm  Giffin, 2010   Giffin, J., 2010. UBC Bioenergy Research and Demonstration Project Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis of Fuel
Supply
Options. Accessed online at http://www.ires.ubc.ca/files/2011/01/Life-cycle-biomass-fuel-analysis-for-UBC.pdf  International Biofuels News Release, 2009   International Biofuels News Release, 2009. International Biofuels Partners With Spectrum Energy to Develop Biofuels. Accessed online at http://www.ravenbiofuels.com/investors/release.asp?numb=268  Natural Resources Canada, 2011   Natural Resources Canada, 2011. The Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia. Accessed online at http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/introduction_e.html  UBC Place and Promise, 2011   2011. Place and Promise: The UBC Plan. Accessed online at http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/the-plan/  Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Website, 2011   Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Website, 2011. How Urban Works. Accessed online at http://www.uwwr.com/process/how_urban_works.aspx  17  APPENDIX Detailed Economic Ranking Annual Fuel Cost: Annual fuel cost ($/year)  Total annual fuel cost $1,400,000  1 Basran  2 Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply  $1,200,000  3 Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. $1,000,000  4 International Bio Fuels 5 Trace Resources  $800,000  6 Davey Tree 7 City of Vancouver  $600,000  8 Urban Woodwaste Recyclers $400,000 Af ter-tax material cost $200,000  Distribution cost Transportation carbon tax  $-  1  2  3  4  5  Hog Fuel  6  7  8  B.C. Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Total Cost  $1.37M  $1.30M  $1.37M  $1.36M  $1.39M  $0.36M  $0.36M  $1.02M  Rank  6  4  6  5  8  1  1  3  Price Sustainability: Price sustainability  Demand High (1 Points)  Supply  Medium (2 Points)  Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver  Low (3 Points)  Urban Woodwaste   Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Hog Fuel POINTS  Low (1 Point)  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale  B.C. Pine Beetle  Medium (2 Points)  High (3 Points)  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources   Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Demand  2  2  2  1  1  1  1  3  Supply  1  1  1  2  2  3  3  3  Total  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  6  Rank  4  4  4  4  4  2  2  1  18  Minimizing Operational Risk: Minimizing Operational Risk Risk of trace chemicals  Yes (0 Points)  Risk of decomposition  No (1 Point)  Urban Woodwaste  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver  Hog Fuel POINTS  Yes (0 Points)  No (1 Point)  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources  B.C. Pine Beetle  Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Trace Chem.  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  0  Decomp.  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  Total  1  1  1  1  1  2  2  1  Rank  3  3  3  3  3  1  1  3  Operating Cost of Drying Fuel: Energy consumption during drying phase (GJ/year)  GJ/year  35000  1 Basran  30000  2 Chips Ahoy  25000  3 Cloverdale Fuel  20000  4 Int’l Bio Fuels  15000  5 Trace Resources 6 Davey Tree  10000  7 City of Vancouver  5000  8 Urban Woodwaste  0 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Drying energy cost  Assumption: higher drying energy consumption directly translates into higher drying costs  Hog Fuel  B.C. Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Drying GJ/year  9,320  9,320  9,320  0  0  30,120  30,120  0  Rank  4  4  4  1  1  7  7  1  19  Detailed Environmental Ranking GHG, Acid Rain Potential, Smog Formation Potential: CO2-e tonnes offset annually CO2-e tonnes offset annually  CO2-e, SO2-e, & ORG Rankings 1 Basran  12000  2 Chips Ahoy 10000  Rank  6000  5 Trace Resources  4000  6 Davey Tree  2000  7 City of Vancouver  CO2-e  SO2-e  ORG  Basran  8  6  6  Chips Ahoy  8  6  6  Cloverdale  8  6  6  Int’l Bio Fuels  3  8  8  Trace Resources  3  8  8  Davey Tree  5  3  3  City of Vancouver  5  3  3  Urban Woodwaste  1  1  1  Hog Fuel  4 Int’l Bio Fuels  Municipal Trimmings  8000  CC&D  3 Cloverdale Fuel  8 Urban Woodwaste  0 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  B.C. Pine Beetle  1  SO2-e and ORG annually tonnes emitted annually SO2-e and ORG tonnes emitted 1 Basran  60  2 Chips Ahoy  50  3 Cloverdale Fuel 40  4 Int’l Bio Fuels  30  5 Trace Resources  20 ORG tonnes 10  6 Davey Tree 7 City of Vancouver  SO2-e tonnes  0 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 Urban Woodwaste  8  Drying Phase Energy Use: Total annual power plant energy consumption (GJ/year)  GJ/year  255000 250000  1 Basran  245000  2 Chips Ahoy  240000  3 Cloverdale Fuel  235000  4 Int’l Bio Fuels  230000 225000  5 Trace Resources  220000  6 Davey Tree  215000  7 City of Vancouver  210000  8 Urban Woodwaste  205000 1  2  3  4  5  Non-drying energy cost  Hog Fuel  6  7  8  Drying energy cost  B.C. Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Drying GJ/year  9,320  9,320  9,320  0  0  30,120  30,120  0  Rank  4  4  4  1  1  7  7  1  20  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk: Post-gasification environmental risk Risk of trace chemicals Yes (0 Points)  No (1 Point)  Urban Woodwaste  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver  Hog Fuel  B.C. Pine Beetle  POINTS  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Trace Chem.  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  0  Rank  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  8  Detailed Social Ranking Transportation Noise Externality:  Number of annual truck trips  Number of annual truck trips 1200 1000  1 Basran 2 Chips Ahoy  800  3 Cloverdale Fuel 4 Int’l Bio Fuels  600  5 Trace Resources  400  6 Davey Tree 7 City of Vancouver  200  8 Urban Woodwaste 0  1  2  3  4  Hog Fuel  5  6  B.C. Pine Beetle  7  8  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  # Trips /yr  920  920  920  588  588  1,055  1,055  588  Rank  4  4  4  1  1  7  7  1  21  Relative Benefits to Source Community: Benefit to Source Community # of jobs created Low (1 Points)  Size of community  Medium (2 Points)  Davey Tree City of Vancouver  High (3 Points)  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources   Urban Woodwaste  Hog Fuel POINTS  Large (1 Point)  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  B.C. Pine Beetle  Medium (2 Points)  Small (3 Points)  Basran Cloverdale   Chips Ahoy  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  # Jobs  3  3  3  3  3  1  1  2  Comm. Size  2  3  2  3  3  1  1  1  Total  5  6  5  6  6  2  2  3  Rank  4  1  4  1  1  7  7  6  Alternative Use of Fuel Source: Alternative use of fuel source Fuel would otherwise be harmful or unproductive No (0 Points)  Yes (1 Point)  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Hog Fuel POINTS  B.C. Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Trace Chem.  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  Rank  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  1  22  Relative Benefits to Vendor: Relative benefit to vendor  Firm Size  Large (1 Point)  Davey Tree City of Vancouver  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int’l Bio Fuels Trace Resources  Urban Woodwaste  Hog Fuel  POINTS  Small (3Points)  Medium (2 Points)  B.C. Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC&D  Basran  Chips Ahoy  Cloverdale  Int’l Bio Fuels  Trace Resources  Davey Tree  City of Vancouver  Urban Woodwaste  Firm Size  3  3  3  3  3  1  1  2  Rank  1  1  1  1  1  7  7  6  23  Risks and Mitigations Risks  Mitigations  1  Contaminants harmful in Urban Woodwaste fuel  Monitor Nexterra’s Dockside Green Facility (Victoria) to act as a case study for CC&D wood Conduct proximal analysis if risk is deemed too great  2  Increase of fuel price due to unexpected demand increases  Leverage UBC’s buyer power and lock in price at time of contract  UBC community backlash (transportation externalities, lack of informed public)  Community engagement with key groups on campus to disseminate information to respective stakeholders  3  Implementation – Gantt Chart April  May  June  July  Aug  Sept  Prepare RFP Send RFP RFP Deadline Data Collection Evaluation Negotiation Contract Signed Test runs Plant launch Monitor & Control  24  Oct  Nov  Dec  Jan  Feb  Mar+  Scenario Analysis Base Scenario: Hog Fuel  Environmental  33% 33% 33%  Economic  Criteria  Social  BC Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC+D  Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Weight (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Annual Cost  45%  2  0.3  5  0.75  2  0.3  4  0.6  1  0.15  7  1.05  7  1.05  6  0.9  Minimizing Operational Risk  10%  1  0.03333  1  0.0333333  1  0.033333  1  0.033333  1  0.03333  7  0.233333  7  0.2333333  1  0.03333333  Cost of Drying Fuel  25%  3  0.25  3  0.25  3  0.25  6  0.5  6  0.5  1  0.083333  1  0.0833333  6  0.5  Price Sustainability  20%  1  0.06667  1  0.0666667  1  0.066667  1  0.066667  1  0.06667  6  0.4  6  0.4  8  0.53333333  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2)  45%  1  0.15  1  0.15  1  0.15  6  0.9  6  0.9  4  0.6  4  0.6  8  1.2  Acid Rain Potential (SO2)  15%  3  0.15  3  0.15  3  0.15  1  0.05  1  0.05  6  0.3  6  0.3  8  0.4  Energy Use (Drying Phase)  15%  3  0.15  3  0.15  3  0.15  6  0.3  6  0.3  1  0.05  1  0.05  6  0.3  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk  10%  1  0.03333  1  0.0333333  1  0.033333  1  0.033333  1  0.03333  7  0.233333  7  0.2333333  1  0.03333333  Smog Formation Potential  15%  3  0.15  3  0.15  3  0.15  1  0.05  1  0.05  6  0.3  6  0.3  8  0.4  Transportation Externality  10%  3  0.1  3  0.1  3  0.1  6  0.2  6  0.2  1  0.033333  1  0.0333333  6  0.2  Job Creation for Source Community  25%  4  0.33333  6  0.5  4  0.333333  6  0.5  6  0.5  1  0.083333  1  0.0833333  1  0.08333333  Alternative Use for Fuel Source  40%  1  0.13333  1  0.1333333  1  0.133333  1  0.133333  1  0.13333  1  0.133333  1  0.1333333  8  1.06666667  Relative Benefit to Vendor  25%  4  0.33333  4  0.3333333  4  0.333333  4  0.333333  4  0.33333  1  0.083333  1  0.0833333  3  0.25  TOTAL SCORE: RANK**:  2.18333 7  2.8 6  2.183333 7  3.7 2  3.25 5  3.583333 3  3.5833333 3  5.9 1  Environmental & Social Emphasis: Hog Fuel  Environmental  20% 40% 40%  Economic  Criteria  Social  BC Pine Beetle  Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Weight (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Municipal Trimmings  CC+D  Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Annual Cost  45%  2  0.18  5  0.45  2  0.18  4  0.36  1  0.09  7  0.63  7  0.63  6  0.54  Minimizing Operational Risk  10%  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  7  0.14  7  0.14  1  0.02  Cost of Drying Fuel  25%  3  0.15  3  0.15  3  0.15  6  0.3  6  0.3  1  0.05  1  0.05  6  0.3  Price Sustainability  20%  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  6  0.24  6  0.24  8  0.32  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2)  45%  1  0.18  1  0.18  1  0.18  6  1.08  6  1.08  4  0.72  4  0.72  8  1.44  Acid Rain Potential (SO2)  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  6  0.36  8  0.48  Energy Use (Drying Phase)  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  6  0.36  6  0.36  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk  10%  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  7  0.28  7  0.28  1  0.04  Smog Formation Potential  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  6  0.36  8  0.48  Transportation Externality  10%  3  0.12  3  0.12  3  0.12  6  0.24  6  0.24  1  0.04  1  0.04  6  0.24  Job Creation for Source Community  25%  4  0.4  6  0.6  4  0.4  6  0.6  6  0.6  1  0.1  1  0.1  1  0.1  Alternative Use for Fuel Source  40%  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  8  1.28  25%  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  1  0.1  1  0.1  3  0.3  Relative Benefit to Vendor  TOTAL SCORE: RANK**:  2.23 7  2.7 6  2.23 7  25  3.72 2  3.45 3  3.24 4  3.24 4  5.9 1  Economic & Social Emphasis: Hog Fuel  Environmental  40% 20% 40%  Economic  Criteria  Social  BC Pine Beetle  Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Weight (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Municipal Trimmings  CC+D  Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Annual Cost  45%  2  0.36  5  0.9  2  0.36  4  0.72  1  0.18  7  1.26  7  1.26  6  1.08  Minimizing Operational Risk  10%  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  7  0.28  7  0.28  1  0.04  Cost of Drying Fuel  25%  3  0.3  3  0.3  3  0.3  6  0.6  6  0.6  1  0.1  1  0.1  6  0.6  Price Sustainability  20%  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  6  0.48  6  0.48  8  0.64  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2)  45%  1  0.09  1  0.09  1  0.09  6  0.54  6  0.54  4  0.36  4  0.36  8  0.72  Acid Rain Potential (SO2)  15%  3  0.09  3  0.09  3  0.09  1  0.03  1  0.03  6  0.18  6  0.18  8  0.24  Energy Use (Drying Phase)  15%  3  0.09  3  0.09  3  0.09  6  0.18  6  0.18  1  0.03  1  0.03  6  0.18  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk  10%  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  1  0.02  7  0.14  7  0.14  1  0.02  Smog Formation Potential  15%  3  0.09  3  0.09  3  0.09  1  0.03  1  0.03  6  0.18  6  0.18  8  0.24  Transportation Externality  10%  3  0.12  3  0.12  3  0.12  6  0.24  6  0.24  1  0.04  1  0.04  6  0.24  Job Creation for Source Community  25%  4  0.4  6  0.6  4  0.4  6  0.6  6  0.6  1  0.1  1  0.1  1  0.1  Alternative Use for Fuel Source  40%  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  1  0.16  8  1.28  Relative Benefit to Vendor  25%  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  4  0.4  1  0.1  1  0.1  3  0.3  TOTAL SCORE: RANK**:  2.24 7  2.98 6  2.24 7  3.64 2  3.1 5  3.41 3  3.41 3  5.68 1  Economic & Environmental Emphasis: Hog Fuel  Environmental  40% 40% 20%  Economic  Criteria  Social  BC Pine Beetle  Municipal Trimmings  CC+D  Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Score Weighted Weight (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score (out of 8)* Score  Annual Cost  45%  2  0.36  5  0.9  2  0.36  4  0.72  1  0.18  7  1.26  7  1.26  6  1.08  Minimizing Operational Risk  10%  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  7  0.28  7  0.28  1  0.04  Cost of Drying Fuel  25%  3  0.3  3  0.3  3  0.3  6  0.6  6  0.6  1  0.1  1  0.1  6  0.6  Price Sustainability  20%  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  6  0.48  6  0.48  8  0.64  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2)  45%  1  0.18  1  0.18  1  0.18  6  1.08  6  1.08  4  0.72  4  0.72  8  1.44  Acid Rain Potential (SO2)  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  6  0.36  8  0.48  Energy Use (Drying Phase)  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  6  0.36  6  0.36  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk  10%  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  1  0.04  7  0.28  7  0.28  1  0.04  Smog Formation Potential  15%  3  0.18  3  0.18  3  0.18  1  0.06  1  0.06  6  0.36  6  0.36  8  0.48  Transportation Externality  10%  3  0.06  3  0.06  3  0.06  6  0.12  6  0.12  1  0.02  1  0.02  6  0.12  Job Creation for Source Community  25%  4  0.2  6  0.3  4  0.2  6  0.3  6  0.3  1  0.05  1  0.05  1  0.05  Alternative Use for Fuel Source  40%  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  1  0.08  8  0.64  Relative Benefit to Vendor  25%  4  0.2  4  0.2  4  0.2  4  0.2  4  0.2  1  0.05  1  0.05  3  0.15  TOTAL SCORE: RANK**:  2.08 7  2.72 6  2.08 7  26  3.74 4  3.2 5  4.1 2  4.1 2  6.12 1  Economic Calculations Annual Fuel Cost: Annual Cost  Cost ($)/Green Tonne* Tonnes Needed/Year* Annual Materials Cost ($/Year)  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings CC+D Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers $ 42.50 $ 40.00 $ 42.50 $ 77.00 $ 70.00 $ $ $ 50.00 24,000 24,000 24,000 14,600 16,500 28,095 26,000 16,500 $ 1,020,000.00 $ 960,000.00 $ 1,020,000.00 $ 1,124,200.00 $ 1,155,000.00 $ $ $ 825,000.00  Non-rebateable HST* HST ($)  $  3.147% 32,099.40 $  3.147% 30,211.20 $  3.147% 32,099.40 $  3.147% 35,378.57 $  3.147% 36,347.85 $  After-Tax Annual Materials Cost ($/Year)  $ 1,052,099.40 $  990,211.20 $  1,052,099.40 $  1,159,578.57 $  1,191,347.85 $  Cost ($)/Litre** Annual Litres Consumed* Annual Distribution Cost ($/Year)  $  1.22 $ 33,120 40,406.40 $  1.22 $ 33,120 40,406.40 $  1.22 $ 33,120 40,406.40 $  1.22 $ 21,185 25,845.70 $  1.22 $ 21,185 25,845.70 $  Transportation Carbon Tax ($/L) *** Annual Transporation Carbon Tax ($)  $ 8.27 $ $ 273,902.40 $  8.27 $ 273,902.40 $  8.27 $ 273,902.40 $  8.27 $ 175,199.95 $  Total Annual Cost Score  $ 1,366,408.20 $ 2  1,304,520.00 $ 5  1,366,408.20 $ 2  1,360,624.22 $ 4  $  3.147% $ -  $  3.147% $ -  3.147% 25,962.75  $  850,962.75  1.22 $ 38,016 46,379.52 $  1.22 $ 38,016 46,379.52 $  1.22 17,478 21,323.16  8.27 $ 175,199.95 $  8.27 $ 314,392.32 $  8.27 $ 314,392.32 $  8.27 144,543.06  1,392,393.50 $ 1  360,771.84 $ 7  360,771.84 $ 7  1,016,828.97 6  *Jeff Giffen **http://www.bcgasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D ***http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/notices/British_Columbia_Carbon_Tax.pdf  Price Sustainability: Price Sustainability  Supply Demand Total Points  Points  Rank LEGEND Supply Demand  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int`l Bio Fuels Trace Davey City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste  Basran 1 2 3 1  Hog Fuel Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1  4  4  4  Low 1 3  Medium 2 2  High 3 1  Demand assumptions BC Forestry declining = lower supply BC Forestry declining = lower supply BC Forestry declining = lower supply other competition = high demand other competition = high demand Free wood waste = higher demand Free wood waste = higher demand Few want construction waste  BC Pine Beetle International Bio Fuels Trace Resources 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 4  Supply assumptions neutral neutral neutral MPB projected to be still big problem MPB projected to be still big problem high (albeit constant) level of trimmings high (albeit constant) level of trimmings neutral  27  4  Municipal Trimmings Davey Tree City of Vancouver 3 3 1 1 4 4 6 6 2  2  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 3 3 6 8 1  Minimizing Operational Risk:  Operational Risk  Trace Chemicals Decomposed Materials Points Score  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings CC+D Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1  Rank LEGEND Possible Trace Chemicals Possible Decomposed Materials  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int`l Bio Fuels Trace Davey City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste  Operating Fuel Drying Operating Cost  Possible Trace Chemical Assumptions none none none none none none none yes - not 100% free of chemicals  3  3  Yes 0 0  No 1 1  3  3  3  1  1  1  Possible Decomposed Material Assumptions yes yes yes yes yes no - municipal trimmings fresh no - municipal trimmings fresh no - urban woodwaste not decomposed  Cost of Drying Fuel:  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings CC+D Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Moisture Content 45% 45% 45% 20% 25% 55% 50% 25% Total Energy Cost (GJ/yr) 230000 230000 230000 220680 220680 250800 250800 220680 Energy Cost due to drying (GJ/yr) 9320 9320 9320 0 0 30120 30120 0 Points 3 3 3 6 6 1 1 6 Rank  4  4  4  1  Assumptions: If moisture content 25% or less, 0 energy cost for drying  28  1  2  2  1  Environmental Calculations GHG Emissions, Acid Rain Potential, and Smog Formation Potential: Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Basran -6074 1  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2 tonnes/year)* Score  Hog Fuel Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply -6074 1  Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. -6074 1  BC Pine Beetle International Bio Fuels Trace Resources -7711 -7711 6 6  Municipal Trimmings Davey Tree City of Vancouver -6453 -6453 4 4  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers -9617 8  *Jeff Giffin  Acid Raid Potential  Basran 33 3  Acid Rain Potential (SO2 tonnes/year) Score  Hog Fuel Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply 33 3  Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. 33 3  BC Pine Beetle International Bio Fuels Trace Resources 46 46 1 1  Municipal Trimmings Davey Tree City of Vancouver 29 29 6 6  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 26 8  Smog Formation Potential  SFP tonnes ORG eq.* Score  Hog Fuel Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply 6.8 3  Basran 6.8 3  Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. 6.8 3  BC Pine Beetle International Bio Fuels Trace Resources 9 9 1 1  Municipal Trimmings Davey Tree City of Vancouver 5.4 5.4 6 6  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 1.9 8  *Jeff Giffin  Drying Phase Energy Use: Energy Use During Drying  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings CC+D Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Moisture Content 45% 45% 45% 20% 25% 55% 50% 25% Total Energy Cost (GJ/yr) 230000 230000 230000 220680 220680 250800 250800 220680 Energy Cost due to drying (GJ/yr) 9320 9320 9320 0 0 30120 30120 0 Points 3 3 3 6 6 1 1 6 Rank  4  4  4  1  29  1  2  2  1  Post-Gasification Environmental Risk: Post-gasification Operational Risk Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings CC+D Basran Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1  Trace Chemicals Decomposed Materials Total Score  Rank LEGEND Possible Trace Chemicals Possible Decomposed Materials  3  3  Yes 0 0  No 1 1  3  3  3  1  1  1  Presence of harmful materials in biomass ash (if harmful materials before use i.e.trace contaminants/decomposed material, assume also in biomass waste)  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int`l Bio Fuels Trace Davey City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste  Possible Trace Chemical Assumptions none none none none none none none yes - not 100% free of chemicals  Possible Decomposed Material Assumptions yes yes yes yes yes no - municipal trimmings fresh no - municipal trimmings fresh no - urban woodwaste not decomposed  Social Calculations Transportation Transportation ExternalityNoise (noise) Externality:  Trips per day* Days per year Number of annual trips Score  Basran 2.52 365 919.8 3  Hog Fuel Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. 2.52 2.52 365 365 919.8 919.8 3 3  BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Davey Tree City of Vancouver 1.61 1.61 2.89 2.89 365 365 365 365 587.65 587.65 1054.85 1054.85 6 6 1 1  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 1.61 365 587.65 6  *Jeff Giffin  Job creation for source community  Relative Benefits to Source Community: Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Merritt Merritt Mission Langley 34,505 93,726 6998 6998 Small Medium Small Small 3 2 3 3 N/A 35 N/A N/A Low Low Low Low 3 3 3 3  Location Community population Size of Community Score Employees Quantity of jobs Score  Basran New Westminster 57,549 Medium 2 22 Low 3  Total Score  5 4  6 6  5 4  6 6  Rank  4  1  4  1  30  Municipal Trimmings Davey Tree City of Vancouver Vancouver  Vancouver  578,041 Large 1 7000 (N.A.) High 1  578,041 Large 1 <5000 High 1  CC+D Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Vancouver/New Westminster 578,041/57,549 Large 1 90 Medium 2  6 6  2 1  2 1  3 3  1  7  7  6  Alternative Alternative Fuel Source UseUse of Fuel Source:  Harmful/Unproductive Fuel use Rank  Harmful/Unproductive Fuel use Points  Basran Chips Ahoy Cloverdale Int`l Bio Fuels Trace Davey City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste  2  Harmful/Unproductive Fuel use Score  0 1  Yes 1  No 0  Fuel Type Hog Fuel Hog Fuel Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle BC Pine Beetle Municipal Trimmings Municipal Trimmings Construction and Demolition  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources 0 0 0 0  Basran 0  2 0 1  0 1  2 0 1  0 1  2 0 1  0 1  2  Municipal Trimmings CC+D Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers 0 0 1 2  2  1  1 8  Alternative Fuel Use Assumption  useful useful useful useful useful useful useful harmful  Relative Benefit to Vendor Relative Benefit to Vendor:  Location Population Size of community Employees Operating Since Company Size  Firm Size Rank  Basran New Westminster 57,549 22 N/A Small  Hog Fuel BC Pine Beetle Chips Ahoy Fibre Supply Cloverdale Fuel Co. Ltd. International Bio Fuels Trace Resources Merritt Merritt Mission Langley 34,505 93,726 6998 6998 N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 1945 N/A 2008 Small Small Small Small  Municipal Trimmings CC+D Davey Tree City of Vancouver Urban Woodwaste Recyclers Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver/New Westminster 578,041 578,041 578,041/57,549 7000 (N.A.) <5000 90 1880 1886 1993 Large Large Medium  3  3  3  3  3  1  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  7  7  6  31  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 0
United States 5 0
France 2 0
City Views Downloads
Shenzhen 6 0
Ashburn 3 0
Unknown 2 9
Sunnyvale 1 0
Seattle 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108352/manifest

Comment

Related Items