Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPresentation Bioenergy Project Scoping Study Truckee BioenergyProject ScopingStudy Findings and Recommendations Prepared by: Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC 1, Oil '�iwIMWrMM „tea, ,,, ur u c Ewe w,,% Counci w��e.twiiii ui g 22 J .6II r uaur Topics • StudyBackground • Project Challen ,neJ • Evaluation Criteria • Candidate Solutions • Analysis and Findings • Viable Solutions • Recommendations 2,/22/ 022 Fru JlkElEu IIII'iioeiirie rg IIIP'iirO Ed, OP iFIO SlUdy11 Study Background • Wildephor assists with all aspects of bioenergy project development, design , and construction • Northstar Community Services District (NCSD) • Sierra Institute for Community and Environment • Plumas Unified School District (PUSD) • Alpine Biomass Collaborative (ABC) • Personally more than 25 years of environmental management and other engineering projects 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 2 Study Background • Initial evaluation of biomass utilization options • Seeking alternatives to green waste disposal at TTSD Eastern Regional Landfill (ERL) • Currently disposing of 25k cubic yards annually; 5, 000 green tons / 4,000 bone dry tons (BDT) • Tipping fee has doubled since 2018 ($ 12 .25/CY) • Green waste projected to increase by 3 . 5x from Measure T implementation ( > $ l MM/year) 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 3 Study Background • Consistent with Triple Bottom Line principles of sustainability and SB 1383 recycling targets • Town partnered with other municipal entities • Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) • Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD) • Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) • Examined cluster of five municipal facilities on or adjacent to Airport property 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 4 Study 1, ............. 5 i i J. ■ Project GHG emissions Risk reduction Risk reduction Disposal costs TOT TFPD TTAD GHG emissions utility costs Project Challenge • First step was defining the core problem • Biomass removal — reducing wildfire risk and improving defensible space in the WUI • Biomass reuse — offsetting fossil fuel usage and reducing carbon footprints • Team drafted a "project challenge" statement to guide the scoping study process 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 7 Project Challenge "To cost-effectively reuse locally generated biomass waste to offset fossil fuel consumption while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the risk of ca tastrophic wildfires " • Basis for developing evaluation criteria used to assess viability of various utilization approaches 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 8 Evaluation Criteria • Team agreed that effective solutions should address all aspects of the Triple Bottom Line • Economic impacts • Environmental impacts • Social impacts • Should be community-scale • Should be technology agnostic 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 9 Evaluation Criteria Technical Criteria 1 . Commercial availability 2 . Operational efficiency/flexibility 3 . Size/footprint 4. Scalability 5. Operational structure 6. Schedule/timing /2 /202 : irum:.E' IIIibE inere IC..irO. Evaluation Criteria • Economic Criteria 7 . Life cycle capital cost s. Net annual operating cost 9. TDPUD ratepayer impacts • Environmental Criteria 1 o. Green waste reuse 11 . Life cycle GHG reductions 12 . Community impacts Evaluation Criteria • Social Criteria 13 . District heating/snow melt 14. Renewable power generation 15. Biochar production • Criteria chosen to allow differentiation among diverse range of candidate solutions • Objective is to screen out nonviable solutions 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 112 Candidate Solutions • Candidates describe desirable end products rather than specific technologies or suppliers • Three major solution types were defined A. Disposal B. Biomass Power c. Biomass Heat • Several alternatives identified for each type 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 113 Candidate o u ions A. Disposal 1 . TTSD Landfill (Baseline) 2 . Air Curtain Burner 3 . Air Curtain Burner w/Biochar B. Biomass Power 1 . Air Curtain Burner w/ORC Generator 2 . Gasifier w/Engine Generator Candidate o u ions c. Biomass Heat 1 . Hydronic District Heating 2 . Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 3 . Combined Heat and Biochar (CHAB) Candidate Solutions • Scorecard was developed to capture data for each candidate solution across all 15 criteria • Key criteria were estimated quantitatively • CAPEX & OPEX • Green waste reuse • GHG reductions • Utilized discrete ranges to evaluate qualitative criteria (low/moderate/high ; yes/no) 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 116 TRUCKEE BIOMASS UTILIZATION CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID Type Date Supplier/Provider Location Description s^ s iw.W 1.Commercial Availability Technical 2.Operational Technical Efficiency/Flexibility 3.Size/Footprint Technical 4.Scalability Technical S.Operational Structure Technical 6.Schedule/Timing Technical 7.Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic 8.Net Annual Operating Economic Cost 9.TDPUD Ratepayer Economic Impacts 10.Green Waste Reuse Environmental 11.Life Cycle GHG Environmental Reductions 12.Community Impacts Environmental 13.District Heating/ Social Snow Melt 14.Renewable Power Generation Social 15.Biochar Production Social ©2022 Wildephor Consulting Services,LLC /2 /202 : FrU JIkE E' IIlb&nergy C..ir�.�.� � Eld ScAphig Study 11.E TRUCKEE BIOMASS UTILIZATION CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID A-1 Type Offsite Disposal- Date 2/14/2022 TTSD Landfill(Baseline) Supplier/Provider Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal(TTSD)Eastern Regional Location Truckee,CA Landfill(ERL)-www.wastel01.com Description Collecting green waste produced by defensible space and fuels reduction programs from residential, commercial,and municipal sources and hauling in bulk for disposal at ERL.Unit disposal costs have nearly doubled from$6.35/CYin 2018 to$12.25/CYin 2022($300k/yr baseline disposal cost). s^ s 1.Commercial Local disposal of green waste is expected to continue to be Availability Technical available at ERL;however,downstream uses for the material (e.g.,large-scale bioenergy plants)are uncertain. 2.Operational TTSD is facing rapid increases in green waste receipts and is Efficiency/Flexibility Technical working to adjust its material handling processesto segregate and manage green waste cleanly. Area required to store projected green waste quantities from 3.Size/Footprint Technical partner organizations could exceed 10,000 SF per month of >10,000 SF storage at ERL. Local disposal of green waste is expected to continue to be 4.Scalability Technical available at ERL;however,capacity issues could arise inthe future as a result of Measure T waste streams. Disposal of green waste at ERL is subject to material handling S.Operational Structure Technical requirements and tipping fees as set by TTSD. Other Parties Disposal of green waste at ERL is currently available. 6.Schedule/Timing Technical Some additional heavy equipment purchases may be required 7.Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic to effectively implement expanded biomass removal consistent e with Measure T fuels reduction goals. Town anticipates paying at least$12/cubic yard for disposal at 8.Net Annual Operating Economic ERL going forward.At that rate,disposing of projected future $1,050,000 Cost waste quantities(-14,000 BDT/yr)would cost>$1MM annually. Disposal of green waste at ERL does not directly impact the 9.pacts Ratepayer Economic electricity rates paid by Truckee Donner PUD customers. Impacts Disposal of green waste at ERL would not allow the partners to 10.Green Waste Reuse Environmental directly reuse material projected from green waste recycling <50% and/or other biomass removal programs. 11.Life Cycle GHG Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to Reductions Environmental directly control reduction oftheir carbon footprints. <50k MIT CO2e Disposal of green waste at ERL is projected to require up to 900 12.Community Impacts Environmental trucking round trips annually in the Truckee area. 13.District Heating/ Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to Snow Melt Social offset any of their current natural gas usage. No 14.Renewable Power Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to Generation Social offset any of their current electricity usage. No Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to 15.Biochar Production Social producebiocharasapotentiallymerchantableco-product of No biomass removal. ©2022 Wildephor Consulting Services,LLC Analysis and F FUEL LOADS TECHNOLOGY Analysis and F FUEL LOADS Fuel vs Loads • 4, 000 BDT of fuel ---- > 14, 000 BDTin 3 - 5 years • 780 MWh of electricity usage annually ($ 120k) • 4, 000 BDT = -- 3,400 MWh (4x current usage) • 3 , 800 MMBtu of heat usage annually ($40k) • 4, 000 BDT = --47, 000 MMBtu ( 1 2x current usage) • Finding : Much more fuel than current heating and power loads; $ 160k/year in offsets will not support payback of large capital investment Analysis and F FUEL TECHNOLOGY Fuel vs Technology • 5 - 15 tons/hour through air curtain burner • 4, 000 BDT = 2-3 months/year operation • 1 MWe gasifier w/engine generator • 4, 000 BDT = two-thirds annual fuel supply • 7 MMBtu/hr biomass boiler system • 4, 000 BDT = year-round operation • Finding : Available fuel can be used in a variety of candidate solutions/technologies 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 23 Analysis and F LOADS TECHNOLOGY Loads vs Technology • Challenges offsetting electrical loads • Requires net energy metering (NEM) or power purchase agreement (PPA) with TDPUD • Challenges offsetting heating loads • Low density of loads in cluster near airport • Wide geographic distribution of other facilities • Finding : Financial returns extremely sensitive to electricity rates; requires further investigation 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 25 Analysis and Findings • Project-specific models developed to estimate OPEX, green waste reuse, and GHG reductions • CAPEX informed by representative suppliers • All solutions assume a 25 -year design life • Scorecard completed for each candidate using ROM/range estimates 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 26 Analysis and Findings • Summary scorecard developed to facilitate direct comparison across all candidates • Dark blue indicates most positive evaluations • Light blue indicates least satisfactory results • " Keep/Drop" recommendations based on overall ability to meet the project challenge 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 27 •' A.Disposal B.Biomass Power C.Biomass Heat 1.TTSD Landfill 2.Air Curtain 3.AC Burner 1.AC Burner 2.Gasifier 1.Hydronic 2.Combined 3.Combined (Baseline) Burner with Biochar with Generator with Generator District Heating Heat and Power Heat and Biochar s DROP PROP PROP Technical Factors 1 Commercial Availability (Maximize) 2 Operational Efficiency/Flexibility (Maximize) 3 Size/Footprint (Minimize) >10,000 SF >10,000 SF >10,000 SF >10,000 SF 4 Scalability (Maximize) Low 5 Operational Structure s s s s (Nominal) Other Parties 6 Schedule/Timing (Minimize) ® ® ® 2024 2024 Economic Factors 7 Life Cycle Capital Cost (Minimize) e ®®®®® ®®e® $15,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 8 Net Annual Operating Cost (Minimize) $1,050,000 mm a®m $890,000 $720,000 ®m®®® 9 TDPUD Ratepayer Impacts (Minimize) Substantial Environmental Factors 10 Green Waste Reuse (Maximize) <50% <50% <50% ®®', <50% <50% <50% 11 Life Cycle GHG Reductions (Maximize) <50k MT CO2e <50k MT CO2e <SOk MT CO2e <50k MT CO2e <50k MT CO2e ®® 12 Community Impacts (Minimize) Social Factors 13 District Heating/Snow Melt (Nominal) No No No No 14 Renewable Power Generation (Nominal) No No No No 15 Biochar Production (Nominal) No No No No No ©2022 Wildephor Consulting Services,LLC Technical Impacts • Partners have indicated a preference for scalable, operationally efficient, proven technologies • Other than grid connection , all solutions could be implemented directly by the partners • All solutions could be operational by 2024 • Finding : Multiple solutions identified that are commercially available and technically robust 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 29 Economic Impacts • Life Cycle CAPEX: $300k - $ 15MM • O&M Costs : $ 160k - $ 560k annually • Net OPEX: ($ 1 00k) - $ 900k annually • Finding : Preliminary results indicate multiple solutions could be economically viable; all are improvements over projected disposal costs 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 30 Environmental Impacts • Green waste reuse : 3 , 800 - 14, 000 BDT/year • GHG reductions : 9k - 168k MT CO2e (25 years) • 17k MT max from avoided utilities & decomposition • 151 k MT max from carbon sequestration in biochar • Community impacts are similar for all candidates • Finding : Significant reductions in GHG emissions are possible from biochar production 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 31 Social Impacts • Hydronic snow melt system for future runway possible but CAPEX likely high (not included) • Biomass power generation could help to meet renewable portfolio and SB 1383 targets • Biochar production feasible but introduces high financial sensitivity • Finding : Economic and environmental factors likely to drive social impacts 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 32 Viable Solutions • Disposal — Air Curtain Burner: Air Burners FireBox; Tigercat 6050 Carbonator • Biomass Power — Gasifier w/Engine Generator: SynCraft CW1 800x2 - 1 000 • Biomass Heat — Combined Heat and Biochar (CHAB) : Pyrocal CCT 12 (x4) 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 33 Viable Solutions i 0 y I e � Air Burners Firebox Viable Solutions I NI /l�ll0 I�, � ',�e, ,rr, "���, If; 1' �' '' �,, ��'� poi✓„'/�,,,,,„?�r '' �%, '�� N ; i 481 k!' I'i h c Tigercat 6050 Carbonator 2,/22/ 022 Firu CkE E' IbEnergy PrqE:ld: cApI'hi t ud 35 Viable Solutions IN...... r � f III SynCraft CW1800x2-1000 Viable Solutions I � J •I' 'Y I a � Pyrocal CCT 12 Recommendations • Confirm anticipated future disposal costs • Confirm wood fuel quality for gasification • Clarify permitting for air curtain burners • Clarify options for biopower cost recovery • Investigate biochar market opportunities • Investigate potential for hydronic snow melt 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 38 Recommendations • Detailed feasibility assessment could then target the most viable candidate solution (s) • Significant grant funding available for feasibility studies and additional fuels reduction • Implementation timeline would be 2 -3 years for larger capital projects 2/22/2022 Truckee Bioenergy Project Scoping Study 39 W. David Featherman, Principal CaILDEPHOR +1 510 845 0016 david.featherman@wildephor.com jjj jj rr J r o f i o r r P o L i r„r V e IIII } r 'II r � , I r rr, J r„ } y� U r 5 r �y Gr�� y � l ✓!r f� y l" i f Jae,i, � , j imi r, u, � Snr miw r BIOENERGY - SUSTAINABILITY - PUBLIC POLICY - RISK ANALYSIS - PROJECT MANAGEMENT