49680E Fesibility Report For COGEN

Pre-Feasibility Analysis of Biomass Fuelled
Cogeneration Unit for Port Hope Simpson

Final Report
107555.00 ● Final Report ● September 2010
ISO 9001
Registered Company
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Forestry Training
Association
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2 Port Hope Simpson Load ............................................................................................ 5
2.1 Electrical Loads ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Thermal Loads ..................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 3 Potential Plant Sites – Preferred Site and Layout......................................................... 9
CHAPTER 4 Fuel Availability and Costs ........................................................................................ 11
4.1 Biomass Combustion Technologies .................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 5 Talbott BG100 .......................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Current Model................................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Next Generation Model .................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Other Talbott’s Models ..................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 6 Other Available Technologies ................................................................................... 18
6.1 Grate Combustion ............................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Fluidized Bed Combustion ................................................................................................ 19
6.3 Gasification ....................................................................................................................... 20
6.4 External Brayton Cycle ...................................................................................................... 22
6.5 Ericsson Cycle .................................................................................................................... 22
6.6 Technology Summary ....................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 7 Financial Analysis ..................................................................................................... 24
7.1 Capital Costs...................................................................................................................... 24
7.2 Operating Costs................................................................................................................. 25
7.2.1 Regulatory Review ................................................................................................ 25
7.3 Incentives Available .......................................................................................................... 26
7.3.1 Green Energy Incentive Programs ........................................................................ 26
7.4 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................ 27
7.5 Ownership Models ............................................................................................................ 28
7.5.1 Private for Profit ................................................................................................... 28
7.5.2 Community Based ................................................................................................. 28
7.5.3 Sawmill Industry Renewal..................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................... 31
CBCL Limited Contents i

Appendices
A NL Hydro Energy Purchase Information

B Wood Chipper Brochures
C Base Case Financial Analysis Spreadsheets
D Proe Power Systems Information
E Community Map
CBCL Limited Contents ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the feasibility of installing a small biomass fuelled cogeneration
system in the south-eastern Labrador town of Port Hope Simpson. Cogeneration refers to the
simultaneous production of two forms of energy, in this case electricity and hot water. Electricity in Port
Hope Simpson is currently provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NL) by using diesel
generators. This is very expensive power to produce and is sold to the retail consumer at a considerable
subsidy. NL Hydro has a policy that allows them to purchase electricity from third party generators in
non-interconnected areas.
The rate they will pay is a function of NL Hydro’s cost of production and is based on a “Share the
Savings” principle. Appendix A includes this policy document. The maximum price NL Hydro will pay for
purchased electricity under this policy is 90% of their avoided equivalent fuel cost which is determined
annually based on their average fuel cost for the year. For 2009, NL Hydro’s equivalent fuel cost in Port
Hope Simpson was $0.22/kWh. The maximum possible price they would pay for electricity from the new
cogeneration system is therefore $0.198/kWh.
Biomass cogeneration is a well established technology that is widely used in industrial applications such
as pulp and paper mills and sawmills where an abundant and cheap source of biomass is available as a
by-product of mill operations. Other areas where biomass cogeneration is sometimes feasible are
remote areas that have adequate fibre resources and expensive imported fuel such as Labrador. The
benefits of using locally harvested wood biomass for electrical and thermal energy production are
numerous.
The local economy benefits by providing jobs in the construction, operation and maintenance of the
biomass cogeneration systems. The money stays in the local economy;
Will provide employment in the forestry sector for harvesting, processing and transporting the
biomass; and
Local energy costs are less dependent on world prices for fossil fuels.
This report looks at the technical concepts of a cogeneration plant as well as a preliminary business
model.
CBCL Limited Executive Summary 1

The proposed cogeneration concept would see a biomass fired combustion system as produced by
Talbott’s Biomass Generators of Stafford U.K. The Talbott’s system is based on a modified external
Brayton cycle that uses compressed fresh air as the energy production medium. The Brayton cycle has
been in existence for over a century and is a proven concept. While efficiencies are generally lower than
for internal combustion cycles, this disadvantage is usually overcome due to flexibility and lower cost of
the fuel. An advantage of this system over a more standard biomass fired boiler and steam turbine
system is that air is considered a non lethal gas and this type of plant does not require full time operator
supervision according to the NL Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Compressed Gas Regulations (see Section
7.2.1).
While Talbott’s have had commercial units in service for more than three (3) years, they are currently
revising the design of the BG 100, the unit proposed for Port Hope Simpson, to address some
operational problems. They are currently working on development of a smaller 25 kW and a larger 250
kW unit and don’t expect to be in production of the new BG 100 for over a year. During our meetings
with Talbott’s it was agreed that a unit should not be installed in a remote community like Port Hope
Simpson until commercial versions of the new BG 100 have been in service successfully for at least one
year, pushing back the earliest in service date to most likely late 2012 or 2013.
Capital and operating cost estimates were developed with the assistance of Talbott’s personnel based
on their projected pricing and the operational cost data from existing BG 100 installations.
With the only potential source of sawmill residue as a fuel source for the cogeneration plant out of
business, the fuel supply for the plant was assumed to be provided by local firewood suppliers at their
regular retail price of $75 - $100 per cord. The community lacks a commercial wood chipper required to
process the fuel to the uniform chip size required for use in the plant. The capital and operating costs of
this equipment adds further to the fuel cost.
Thermal customers for the 200 kWt of hot water heat from the plant are assumed to be the current
health clinic and the school since both use hot water heating systems and are the closest large heating
loads to the preferred plant site. The new school is also adjacent to the plant site and may become a
future thermal customer.
Financial analysis was performed using two potential ownership models; a community owned not for
profit model and a privately owned for profit model. Based upon a discount rate of 10%, we determined
net present value for the project over a twenty (20) year horizon. Analysis shows that the community
owned model yields a slightly positive NPV while the privately owned model is negative.
We performed sensitivity analysis around the following parameters:
Capital cost
Fuel Price
Electricity Rate
Thermal Rate
Debt/Equity ratio

Discount Rate
Interest Rate
The analysis shows the most sensitivity to discount and interest rates. This suggests that the community
owned model is most likely more feasible since shareholders in a community owned model are more
likely to accept a lower rate of return in exchange for community benefits than shareholders in a private
company that may have no connection to the community.
Table 1: Capital Cost Summary – Community Owned Cogeneration
100 KW COGENERATION PLANT CAPITAL COST SUMMARY

BG 100 Unit (including Start-Up and Training) $775,000
Powerplant Building $50,000
Fuel Storage Building $20,000
BG 100 Freight – U.K. - PHS $20,000
Site Clearing, Grading $10,000
Direct Buried Heating Pipes (2” and 4” dia.) $300,000
New 3 Phase Pole Line and Connecting Equipment $100,000
Wood Chipper $35,000
Heating Pumps, Heat Exchangers $10,000
Subtotal $1,320,000
Engineering and Project Management $80,000
Contingency $118,000
TOTAL $1,518,000
Table 2: Summary of Financial Results – Community Owned
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Annual Electricity Exported 0.8 106 kWh
Annual Hot Water Exported 1 106 kWt
Annual Fuel Imported 1000 Ton (25% mc)
Total Investment 1,518 k CDN
Initial Equity (20%) 303 k CDN
Net Present Value 75 k CDN
As can be seen from the financial summary, the community owned model is marginally feasible. Strong
community support, a willingness to accept lower rates of return, eligibility for low interest loans and
capital grants, and a resurgence of the sawmill industry producing a low cost fuel supply could result in
the project being quite feasible.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This study will present a preliminary feasibility assessment for the development of a small scale biomass
fuelled combined heat and power plant in Port Hope Simpson, Newfoundland and Labrador. This study
is funded by the Newfoundland and Labrador Forestry Training Association and the Department of
Natural Resources in cooperation with the Southeast Aurora Development Association.
The study is in response to a proposal received by the Southeast Aurora Development Association from
Evergreen Energy Corporation of St. Thomas, Ontario to develop biomass fired combined heat and
power plants at several of the isolated communities in south-eastern Labrador using locally procured
biomass fuel processed into wood pellets. This study will consider only the feasibility of installing one
plant in Port Hope Simpson.
The study is based on the use of the Talbott’s BG100 combined heat and power unit as manufactured by
Talbott’s energy systems of Stafford, U.K. Capital and operating cost information was obtained from
Talbott’s for the BG100 and from other suppliers or other sources for balance of plant. The analysis
assumes that the plant will be fuelled with locally procured and processed chipped wood biomass and
that the plant will sell all its electrical output to NL Hydro based upon an agreed rate (see Appendix A).
Thermal energy output from the plant is assumed to be piped to two buildings, the health clinic and D.C.
Young School. The rate paid for this thermal energy is assumed to be 10% below the corresponding cost
of oil heat. Based upon discussions with personnel at Talbott’s, annual operating hours for the plant are
assumed to be 8,000 and it is assumed that the plant will have thermal load customers for an equivalent
of 5,000 hours per year.
Financial analysis of the project considered capital and operating costs, debt to equity rates, interest
rate, inflation rate, discount rate, tax rate, fuel price, electricity rate, and thermal energy rate. Based on
a twenty (20) year project life, the analysis determined the net present value of the project. Sensitivity
analyses were performed around the key variables and compared the impact on NPV.
CBCL Limited Introduction 4

CHAPTER 2 PORT HOPE SIMPSON LOAD
2.1 Electrical Loads
The town electrical grid is isolated from the main Labrador interconnected grid and is supplied by a
single plant composed of 3 x 450 kW diesel fired gensets. Generation voltage is 600V, 3 phase and the
main distribution voltage is 12.5 kV, 3 phase. Maximum winter peak in 2000 was just over 700 kW and
total 2009 production was just over 3200 MWh. Plant capacity factor was approximately 40% for 2009.
The following table shows plant operating statistics for 2009.
Table 3: Port Hope Simpson 2009 Statistics
STATISTICS FOR LATEST FULL CALENDAR YEAR: 2009

System Data
System: Port Hope Simpson
Installed Capacity: 1,365 kW
Firm Capacity: 910 kW
Number of Customers: 230
Gross Peak: 701 kW
Gross Energy: 3,220,437 kWh
Fuel Consumed: 938,191 litres
Fuel Cost (consumed) $708,111
Average Plant Efficiency: 3.43 kWh/l
Average Fuel Cost: $0.755 per litre
Average Operating Cost (fuel only): $0.220 per kWh
System load growth is forecast each year for the next five (5) years. Based upon this load growth, NL
Hydro is currently forecasting the need to add an additional unit at the generating station by 2014. This
requirement will be triggered when the expected peak load exceeds the combined output of two (2) of
the existing three (3) generating units. Incorporation of the Talbott’s BG100 or a similar generation
source into the Port Hope Simpson grid could result in the investment in a fourth unit by NL Hydro being
deferred. Table 4 shows the expected system load growth in Port Hope Simpson.
CBCL Limited Port Hope Simpson Load 5

Table 4: Expected System Load Growth in Port Hope Simpson
PORT HOPE SIMPSON 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Gross Peak (kW) 813 850 876 893 908 923 938
Net Peak (kW) 777 814 840 857 872 887 902
Gross Energy (MWh) 3,252 3,401 3,579 3,651 3,711 3,772 3832
Net Energy (MWh) 3,034 3,183 3,350 3,417 3,474 3,531 3587
TOTAL SALES (MWh) 2,920 3,063 3,224 3,289 3,343 3,398 3452
2.2 Thermal Loads
Most buildings in Port Hope Simpson are heated by oil, wood, or a combination of the two. Major
buildings in the town that were examined as potential thermal loads for the new plant were as follows:
Table 5: Potential Thermal Loads
BUILDING APPROXIMATE FLOOR AREA ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL USE

Health Centre 2,000 ft2 25,000 L
Alexis Hotel 15,000 ft2 kW
Town Hall 7,000 ft2
DC Young School 14,000 ft2 30,000 L
New School 20,000 ft2 kWh
The Health Centre has a floor area of approximately 2,000 square feet and uses an oil fired hydronic
heating system. Annual oil consumption is approximately 25,000 litres. An expansion to the current
facility is planned and the facility is adjacent to the site of the new school as well as other potential
developments such as a new interpretive centre.
Figure 1: Health Centre

The D.C. Young School is a K – 12 facility with a current student enrolment of approximately 75. The
school includes approximately nine (9) classroom/instruction rooms plus a gymnasium/auditorium. Total
floor area is estimated to be 14,000 square feet. It uses two oil fired hydronic heating boilers located in
separate parts of the building. Annual oil consumption was reported to be 30,000 litres.
Figure 2: D.C. Young School
The Alexis Hotel is located on the riverbank in the centre of town. It has thirty-six (36) guestrooms plus
dining and meeting rooms. Total floor area is estimated at 15,000 square feet. It utilizes an oil fired
hydronic heating system but oil consumption records were unavailable.
The Town Hall utilizes an oil and wood combination hydronic heating system. Total floor area is
estimated to be 7000 square feet. Annual fuel consumption was unavailable but it was reported that
heating is primarily from wood and that annual oil consumption is very low.
Figure 3: Town Hall
The new school will be replacing the current D.C. Young School when it opens later this year. The new
school is reported to be designed with an infloor hydronic heating system and oil fired boilers. The

estimated floor area of the new school is 20,000 square feet. If the new plant installation is delayed until
after the new school is completed, it will likely be the preferred thermal load, along with either the
health centre or the current school if it continues to be used and heated.
Figure 4: New School
Assuming a maximum heat output from the BG100 of 200 kWt and a heating season of approximately
5,000 hours in Port Hope Simpson, the potential thermal load to be supplied by the plant is 1,000,000
kWht.
Assuming a heat content in fuel oil of 36,000 Btu/L and a heating system efficiency of 82%, 1,000,000
kWht of hydronic heat could displace approximately 78,000 litres of fuel oil. This is less than the
combined estimated heating load of the health centre and the current school. It is recommended that
these would be the preferred thermal loads for the new plant and the new school, once in service,
should be considered as a potential load as well. The plant may not be able to displace 100% of the oil
consumption of all three buildings but it would reduce the heating costs of each building considerably.

CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL PLANT SITES – PREFERRED SITE AND
LAYOUT
In order to maximize potential revenue from the new plant, it must be located on a site within a
reasonable distance from existing or potential thermal loads where hot water produced by the plant can
be piped and sold. Installation costs for supply and return hot water piping to thermal loads is quite high
due to the excavation costs in rocky terrain and insulation requirements on the piping. Increased piping
distance also increases the pumping power required to convey the heating fluid and the heat losses
through the pipe wall. Larger thermal utilities generally consider 400 meters to be the maximum
economic pipe run length to connect a new thermal customer. The estimated maximum lengths for this
smaller plant will depend somewhat on the final installed cost of the piping but is likely to be no more
than 250 meters. Potential thermal customers must already utilize a hydronic heating system in order to
reduce conversion and connection costs. Although individual residences could ultimately be connected
to the plant’s heating loop, we restricted our review to larger buildings with consistent heating loads.
The buildings considered were as follows:
.1 Alexis Hotel
.2 Town Hall
.3 D.C. Young School
.4 Community Clinic
.5 New School (under construction)
A meeting was held on March 29th, 2010, to discuss potential plant sites. Sites close to either the hotel
or town hall were eliminated due to proximity of nearby residences, concerns about noise, and lack of a
sufficiently large lot nearby. There was general consensus that the best site would be in a new area
planned for future institutional development adjacent to the new school building site and within
reasonable distance of the existing school and health clinic. Additional development planned for this
area includes an expanded health clinic and a new interpretive centre. The site is further away from
existing residences than other potential sites and is sufficiently large to allow for both powerplant and
chip storage buildings as well as space for round wood storage and a wood chipper. The potential fuel
providers in the local area also have sufficient space at their properties to produce woodchips there and
deliver to the new plant if concerns about woodchipper noise becomes an issue.
CBCL Limited Potential Plant Sites – Preferred Site and Layout 9

Site development costs could be lessened somewhat by taking advantage of equipment on the site of
the new school project if the development proceeds while the school construction project is under way.
Sites near the existing powerplant were dismissed due to the absence of nearby thermal loads. Without
a thermal load, the economic viability of a plant is much more difficult.
In order to avoid the cost of the hot water piping from the plant to the thermal loads, an alternative
arrangement could involve the use of multiple small cogeneration plants installed adjacent to each
thermal load. This is possible but the difficulty is trying to match the thermal output of the unit to the
buildings thermal output. A combined heat and power (CHP) unit is designed to operate at constant
output, not a variable output like a building heating unit. The CHP unit would need some means to reject
its produced heat when the building is not calling for heat. Larger units with multiple thermal loads and
a thermal piping distribution system are better able to average the thermal load and avoid dumping
excess heat during the heating season. All CHP plants require a heat dumping system if they are to
operate year round. Operating costs are also higher with multiple smaller plants due to duplication of
maintenance and routine operational requirements. Noise and emissions from the plants can also be an
issue if located adjacent to a building in a residential area.
CBCL Limited Potential Plant Sites – Preferred Site and Layout 10

CHAPTER 4 FUEL AVAILABILITY AND COSTS
There are currently three (3) active forest products companies in Port Hope Simpson. The total current
crown land fibre allocation available to the town is 20,000m³ per year but this is not currently being fully
utilized. The current forest products suppliers are:
S and N Wood Products

Strugnell’s Woodworks
Melvin Penney
Each company has facilities to produce rough lumber, dressed lumber, pulpwood, and firewood.
S and N Wood Products is the largest facility but is currently not operating. Strugnell’s Woodworks and
Melvin Penney are operating their small facilities at a low rate at present due to very low demand for
lumber in the local area. Their main product line at present is firewood sold to customers in southern
Labrador. Their current fibre allocations are as follows:
Strugnell’s Woodworks - 1,000m³/year

Melvin Penney - 1,400m³/year
Due to very low demand for lumber, there is currently very little or no mechanized wood harvesting
happening in the Port Hope Simpson area. Mechanized harvesters are still in the area, along with
trained operators, but with no demand for wood other than firewood, most harvesting is occurring
using chainsaws. Rates provided for seasoned firewood ranged from $75 to $100 per cord. Firewood air
dried for one (1) year is expected to have an average moisture content of 25%. The vast majority of the
firewood cut in the Port Hope Simpson area is black spruce which has a density of approximately 45
lbs/ft³ at 25% moisture content. A standard cord is defined as a stack of wood measuring eight (8) feet
by four (4) feet by four (4) feet high. Allowing for air spaces between the wood, the total amount of
wood fibre in a standard cord of black spruce in Port Hope Simpson is estimated at 90 ft³. This equates
to a weight of 4,050lbs/cord. At $100 per cord this yields a firewood cost of $49.40 per ton. In order to be
combusted in the Talbott’s BG100 or a similar combustion appliance, the firewood will have to be
chipped to ensure a maximum chip size of 2”. The cost to chip and deliver the fuel to the plant site is
estimated to add $10 per ton to the fuel cost, thus yielding an expected fuel cost of $59.40 per ton. The
expected fuel consumption of the BG100 based on the unit operating at full capacity for 8,000 hours per
CBCL Limited Fuel Availability and Costs 11

year is 1,000 tons. This total equates to approximately 1,200m³ of wood fibre which is approximately
50% of what is currently being utilized but less than 7% of the allowable utilization of 20,000m³/year.
Discussions with each of the forest products suppliers in Port Hope Simpson indicated that supplying this
amount of additional fibre would not be a problem. Each of them have stockpiles of logs that have been
air drying for several months which could provide sufficient start-up fuel for the plant for several
months.
The current amount of sawmill residue available is so low it was not considered in the determination of
fuel availability and price. The sawmill at S and N Wood Products, if it was in full production would be
able to supply a significant portion of the fuel requirements of a single BG100 unit just from residual
material left over from sawmilling operations, mostly sawdust and slabs. It is unclear at present when
the mill will reopen since the market for locally produced lumber in Labrador is very low at present.
Some residual material at the closed facility was observed, including a large sawdust pile which could
potentially be used as fuel if it could be dried sufficiently (<25% MC).This residual material could likely
be procured for a lower price than the firewood price. The NL Hydro policy on energy purchases for
remote grids (see Appendix A) sets the energy purchase price at the midpoint between their avoided
fuel cost and the new plant’s cost of production. If the price of available biomass fuel dropped
significantly due to the reopening of the sawmill, the electricity price paid by NL Hydro would also drop,
thus reducing the incentive offered by lower fuel prices. The sensitivity analysis in the financial section
of this report shows the impact of fuel price on the feasibility of the project.
4.1 Biomass Combustion Technologies
Production of electrical and thermal energy from biomass fuel sources has been a commonly used
method of power generation for many years. Various technologies exist that allow for the conversion of
biomass fuel into electrical and thermal energy. Some technologies will be more feasible than others
based on the amount of energy needed, the available energy price, the type of available fuel, and the
location of the energy plant. In this section we will briefly describe the main energy producing
technologies that are examined in this study.
The most common form of solid biomass fuelled energy generation system utilizes a combustion
appliance to heat water in a boiler to produce high pressure steam to drive a turbine to produce
electricity. Different combustion appliances can be utilized depending upon the nature of the biomass
fuel. The turbine discharge is condensed back to water and recycled. Thermal energy can be produced
from waste heat downstream of the boiler or from steam or condensate downstream of the turbine.
These systems typically offer high rates of conversion efficiency from potential energy in the fuel to
usable energy. Due to the high pressures and temperatures generated in these systems, plants using
these technologies have high operating costs due to the need for continuous staffing supervision while
the plant is operating.
Biomass gasification systems usually involve the heating or partial combustion of the fuel. This process
gasifies most of the volatile compounds in the biomass and is composed primarily of hydrogen, carbon

monoxide, and methane. This gas, after some filtering and refinements, can be used as a substitute for
natural gas or propane in an engine, combustion turbine, or other fossil fuelled combustion appliance.
Since steam is not part of the cycle, most gasification systems don’t require full time staffing supervision
which greatly reduces the operating costs. Most systems offer high rates of conversion efficiency similar
to or higher than steam turbine systems. System complexities and costs have generally prevented the
adoption of this technology for smaller plants (<1MW) and plant capacity factors are not generally as
high as steam turbine plants.
Compressed air systems use air as the working fluid. They can work with either internal or external
combustion engines. For an internal combustion engine, the fuel must be either gas or liquid for
injection into the combustion chamber so biomass would first have to be gasified which would add to
the cost and complexity of the system. Solid biomass fuel works best in an external combustion engine.
The fuel is combusted in an appliance and the products of combustion travel through a shell and tube
heat exchanger where heat is transferred to clean compressed air in the tubes. This hot compressed air
is then expanded across a turbine or piston to produce mechanical work which is then used to produce
electricity. Waste heat exiting the heat exchanger can then be passed through a water heating boiler to
produce hot water for space heating. The only pressure components are the tubes in the heat exchanger
and no steam is produced so full time supervision is not required, thus lowering the operating costs.
Conversion efficiencies are typically not as high as steam turbine or gasification systems but reliability is
high and capacity factors of over 90%, similar to steam turbine plants, are typical.

CHAPTER 5 TALBOTT BG100
A site visit to the Talbott’s production and test facility in Stafford, U.K. was conducted on April 12, 2010.
The visit also included a visit to a commercial installation of a BG100 at a nearby gardening centre and
discussions with engineering staff about new product developments.
5.1 Current Model
Figure 5: BG100 Diagram
CBCL Limited Talbott BG100 14

Figure 6: Fuel Feed System
The Talbott’s BG100 is a biomass fuelled combined heat and power plant that is rated for an electrical
output of 100 kW and a thermal output of 200 kW.
Chipped or pelletized biomass fuel is automatically auger fed into a step grate combustor with an
automatic de-ashing system.
Figure 7: Combustion Chamber

The products of combustion then go through a triple pass ceramic lined combustion zone to ensure
complete combustion and high efficiency. They then pass through a shell and tube heat exchanger
where heat is transferred to clean compressed air in the tubes. The products of combustion exit the air
heater to a hot water boiler that produces 200 kWt of hot water at up to 90°C.
The prime mover for the BG100 is an indirect fired microturbine. Clean outside air is drawn in and
compressed in the compressor stage of the turbine to approximately 4 bar (58 psig). The air then passes
through the above mentioned heat exchanger where its temperature is increased to over 500°C. The
heated air is then expanded and cooled across the power turbine stage of the microturbine, which
powers the compressor as well as the 100 kW generator. Exhaust from this turbine is used to dry and
preheat the biomass fuel.
Figure 8: Microturbine on BG100
5.2 Next Generation Model
During discussions with Talbott personnel on April 12, 2010, it was revealed that the current BG100
model has had a number of operational problems that have necessitated a redesign of equipment. The
next generation model is still under development and was not expected to be in production until late
2010. Subsequent to the site visit, correspondence received from Talbott’s indicates that system
procurement delays have led them to decide to move forward with development of their BG25 and
BG250 models first, further delaying availability of the BG100 into 2011 or 2012.
The reasons for suspending production of the current BG100 were listed as follows:

A build-up of fly ash on the exterior of the tubes in the air heater was reducing the heat transfer
capability and ultimately, the power output of the microturbine. The next generation unit will
include a multi core cyclonic fly ash removal system.
The microturbine was a variant of an aeronautical turbine and proved to be difficult and expensive
to maintain. The next generation unit will utilize components from the turbo charging system of a
Cummins diesel engine which is expected to be more durable and less expensive to maintain.
Maintenance experience with diesel engine components is also expected to be more easily
accessible in Labrador.
The existing control system was difficult and expensive to upgrade. The next generation unit will
utilize Allen Bradley controls components which are less expensive and easier to maintain and
upgrade.
The existing unit configuration was intended to fit into two standard shipping containers. This size
limitation results in insufficient heat transfer surface area being available and an inability of the unit
to achieve its rated outputs most of the time. The next generation unit will be larger and not suffer
from this limitation.
The capital cost quoted by Talbott’s was for a next generation unit once production resumes.
5.3 Other Talbott’s Models
Talbott’s are also developing two other combined heat and power units. The BG 25 has an electrical
output of 25 kW and thermal output of 50 kW. The BG 250 electrical output of 250 kW and thermal
output of 500 kW. The BG 25 would be suitable for providing the thermal energy needs for a single large
building, such as the school. The BG 250 is capable of supplying the thermal load of most of the large
buildings in the town. Due to the distances involved to thermally connect all these buildings, it is unlikely
that this would be practical. A shorter thermal loop would then need to have a mix of public buildings
and private residences to consume the produced energy. While possible, this would increase the
administrative complexity and maintenance costs for a system with potentially fifteen (15) to twenty
(20) customers instead of one (1) to three(3). Additional concerns about the BG 250 have to do with the
electrical output. The plant is designed to operate at constant output and cannot be throttled. The
community’s electrical load during overnight hours can potentially go below 250 kW. If this condition
existed it could potentially lead to damage to the distribution grid and to customer’s property. NL Hydro
would be required to install additional safety systems to prevent this condition and would charge the
project for the initial and ongoing operating costs of these systems. NL Hydro may be likely to object to
having such a high percentage of its total grid capacity as a non dispatchable generating source.

CHAPTER 6 OTHER AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Other technologies are available that can provide equivalent energy output to the Talbott’s system.
Some of these typical technologies are presented below.
6.1 Grate Combustion
Grate combustion is the traditional technology used for burning solid fuels. Grates are widely used for
large power boilers found in pulp and paper mills as well as smaller heating boiler applications. Grates
are less tolerant to fuel quality variations than fluidised bed combustion systems. Fuel moisture typically
is limited to a maximum of 57% due to the ability of the furnace to maintain stable combustion. Grate
technology is relatively simple and is competitive on small scale applications.
With grate systems the wood biomass is fed into the furnace where it is burned on the furnace floor.
Combustion air is introduced under the grate and over the grate to promote complete combustion of
the fuel and minimize emissions. The hot combustion gases then pass through a boiler to create hot
water or steam. In the cogeneration application, the product produced is steam which is passed over a
steam turbine to generate electricity before being condensed in a heat exchanger to produce hot water
for space heating. This is a very common technology that is well proven with many equipment suppliers
such as KMW, Viessman, and Ideal Boilers. Scalability down to the size of the BG 100 is less common and
operating costs are relatively high for smaller output systems due to provincial regulatory requirements
for full time operators for steam plants operating at pressures above 15 psig which any steam turbine
plant does.
CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 18

Figure 9: Grate Fired Boiler
6.2 Fluidized Bed Combustion
Fluidized bed combustion technologies have been used for many decades. The wood biomass is thrown
into the furnace in a similar method as a grate system also but the gas and particle velocities in the
furnace cause the fuel to be burned in suspension. The FBC is more tolerant of varying fuel qualities and
can burn mixtures from wet bark to dry sawdust and shavings. As with a grate combustion system, the
hot products of combustion leave the furnace section of the boiler and pass through heat exchangers
where the products of combustion are cooled and hot water or steam is produced. As with the grate
combustion system, cogeneration applications of this technology are common but not in the size range
of the BG 100 and operating costs are high due to the steam pressures involved.

Figure 10: Typical Biomass Fluidized Bed Boiler
6.3 Gasification
Gasification is a process in which biomass is used to produce a gaseous fuel that can then be used as a
fuel directly for power production for example in a gas turbine or reciprocating engine.
When biomass is heated with no oxygen or only about one-third the oxygen needed for efficient
combustion (amount of oxygen and other conditions determine if biomass gasifies or pyrolyzes), it
gasifies to a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen—synthesis gas or syngas. Contaminants in the
syngas must be removed prior to use in an engine in order to extend operating cycles and prevent
engine damage.
Combustion is a function of the mixture of oxygen with the hydrocarbon fuel. Gaseous fuels mix with
oxygen more easily than liquid fuels, which in turn mix more easily than solid fuels. Syngas therefore
inherently burns more efficiently and cleanly than the solid biomass from which it was made. Biomass
gasification can thus improve the efficiency of large-scale biomass power facilities such as those for
forest industry residues. Like natural gas, syngas can also be burned in gas turbines, a more efficient
electrical generation technology than steam boilers, to which solid biomass is limited. Gasification

systems using solid fuels can be problematic if fuel entrained air cannot be successfully managed to
prevent reactor combustion. The systems can be difficult to balance and operate for extended periods
between maintenance shutdowns. They are not considered to be a good technical application in a
remote community.
Small gasification type cogeneration units fuelled with biomass are produced by several manufacturers
including Community Power Corp. of Colorado and Alfagy Ltd of Gloucestershire U.K. Outputs range
from 25KWe – 1000KWe (electrical output) and 30KWt – 2100KWt (thermal output). Prime movers are
typically internal combustion engines although combustion turbines are an option for larger sizes.
Figure 11: Typical Biomass Gasification Plant – Gussing Austria

Figure 12: Typical Gasifier – Nexterra – University of South Carolina
6.4 External Brayton Cycle
Entropic Energy Inc. of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, produces a biomass fired cogeneration plant
operating on a modified external Brayton cycle using hot air similar to the Talbott’s technology. Clean air
is compressed then heated in a shell and tube heat exchanger using the products of combustion from
the combustion of biomass fuel. The heated compressed air is then expanded across a turbo expander
to produce sufficient energy to power the compressor and a generator. The hot flue gases, upon exiting
the air heater, then enter a boiler to produce hot water for space heating uses. The company has no
commercial units in operation yet and is still in a research and development phase.
Equipment intended for a remote community needs to be commercially proven so this company cannot
be recommended yet as an alternative technology provider for Port Hope Simpson.
6.5 Ericsson Cycle
This cycle utilizes an external heat source, such as a wood fired combustor, to heat compressed air
before the air is expanded across a piston to produce mechanical work. The heat lost during the
expansion phase is recovered and used to pre heat the compressed air and possibly to dry the incoming
fuel stream. The cycle is similar to the external Brayton cycle described earlier but uses a piston engine

instead of a turbine to produce its mechanical work. The system produced by Proe Power Systems
utilizes this cycle approach. Information on this system is included in Appendix D. There is no indication
from Proe Power Systems that this equipment has been proven commercially yet and cannot be
considered as a candidate for installation in Port Hope Simpson until sufficient commercial operating
data is available to assess its suitability.
6.6 Technology Summary
When considering energy generating technologies for remote communities the primary concern must
be operability. The technology must be robust, simple, and reliable. Steam turbine systems are well
proven and reliable, being the technology of choice for most thermal power plants in the world. The
problem with this technology is scalability and operating costs. A steam turbine powerplant producing
5MW of electrical output would generate approximately 40,000 MWh in a year and would require an
operating staff of five (5) operators to ensure full time coverage. A steam turbine powerplant of 0.5MW
would produce 4000 MWh per year but would still require 5 operators. With a high degree of fixed costs
even as the plant gets smaller there is practical lower limit to how small a freestanding steam turbine
powerplant can be and still be economically feasible. Previous studies have indicated that this level is
greater than 2MW which is much larger than the grid capacity in this community.
Gasification systems eliminate the fixed operator cost problem but suffer due to issues of complexity
and reliability. Most systems cannot achieve capacity factors above 75% which is too low for a combined
heat and powerplant that is providing the primary source of heating to buildings in a northern
community with a long heating season.
The compressed air system offers the benefit of simplicity and high reliability as well as low operating
costs. The next generation units from Talbott’s, utilizing components from diesel engines which are
common and serviceable in many parts of Labrador, promises to eliminate many of the reliability and
complexity issues that were problems with its first generation units. Although not ready for installation
in a remote community until commercially proven elsewhere first, this technology offers the best
chance of providing a practical biomass fuelled cogeneration source for remote electrical grids in
Labrador and elsewhere.

CHAPTER 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
7.1 Capital Costs
Capital cost estimate is based on a next generation Talbott’s BG100 unit installed in a custom built
building on the preferred site adjacent to the new school site in Port Hope Simpson. The price assumes
estimated distances and installation costs for thermal energy connections to the Health Clinic and school
and for a three phase pole line connection to the existing three phase grid. A 9% contingency and 6%
engineering and project management is included and 13% HST is included for the private sector
developer price but not for the tax exempt community ownership model. Costs are based on an
exchange rate of 1 GBP = $1.55 Cdn.
Table 6: Port Hope Simpson Biomass Fuelled Cogeneration Plant – Capital Cost Estimate
ITEM COST
BG 100 (including comm. and training) $775,000
Powerplant Building (12m x 7m x 8m h) $50,000
Fuel Storage Building (8m x 6m x 5m h) $20,000
BG 100 Freight – U.K. – P.H.S. $20,000
Site Clearing and Grading $10,000
Direct Buried Heating Pipes (2" and 4" dia.) $300,000
New 3 Phase Pole Line and Connection Equipment $100,000
Wood Chipper $35,000
Heating Pumps, Heat Exchangers $10,000
Subtotal $1,320,000
Engineering and Project Management $80,000
Contingency (9%) $118,000
Community Owned Total $1,518,000
HST (Private Developer) $197,340
Private Owned Total $1,715,340
CBCL Limited Financial Analysis 24

7.2 Operating Costs
Table 7: Operational Costs
FIXED
Operator (assume ½ time to load and run chipper, load fuel hopper, conduct routine $20,000
servicing)
Administrative Costs (insurance, NL Hydro reports, energy billing, accounts payable, $5,000
accounts receivable, payroll)
Maintenance Contract (oil and filter changes, air filter changes, tube cleaning) $8,000
Insurance $10,000
General Supplies $1,000
Miscellaneous $1,000
Total $45,000
VARIABLE
Fuel (1,000 tons @ $59,40) $59,400
TOTAL COSTS $104,400
7.2.1 Regulatory Review
CSA Standard B51.09 – General Requirements for Boilers, Pressure Vessels, and Pressure Piping
Proposed Talbott’s equipment utilizes fresh air operating at ≈ 4 bar pressure and 800°C.
Air is a non lethal gas so according to the requirements of Figure 1(b) (on page 30), it is considered a
registered pressure vessel in excess of 1.5 ft³ capacity and must be inspected by an authorized inspector
and receive a CRN number.
Under the NL Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Compressed Gas Regulations air piping less than 20mm
nominal size is not considered pressure piping. Heat exchanger tubing for the Talbott BG100 is described
as 19mm nominal diameter (3/4”).
Under Section 32 of the regulations, the plant does not require registration if it is a power plant below
600 kW or a heating plant below 1800 kW which this proposed plant is.
Under Section 44 of the regulations, the stamps for pressure equipment fabricated outside Canada
must:
Comply with ASME.

Include a CRN number.
Include a NBBI number.
Be on a permanent attached plate.

7.3 Incentives Available
7.3.1 Green Energy Incentive Programs
7.3.1.1 ECOENERGY FOR RENEWABLE POWER
Provides up to $0.01/kWh incentive for ten (10) years.

Plant must be commissioned by March 31, 2011.
Project must have a total rated capacity of 1 MW or greater (10 BG100’s required).
7.3.1.2 ECOENERGY FOR ABORIGINAL AND NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
Up to $250,000 available for this project if applicant is the town or community group. Private sector
not eligible.
Project deadline is March 31, 2011. Applications are still being accepted but funding may already be
used up.
7.3.1.3 FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES – GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND
Municipalities or municipal corporations are eligible for up to $4,000,000 in low interest loans and
$400,000 in grants for each project.
Project must involve retrofit of existing buildings to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG
emissions.
Community energy systems have received funding under this program in the past.
7.3.1.4 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY CANADA
Talbott’s technology is commercialized, not eligible.

Commercialization of a biomass fuel processing technology, such as pellets, may be eligible.
Unlikely based on only one CHP unit.

7.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Table 8: Sensitivity Analysis Public Ownership Model
CAPITAL DISC. INT.

COST FUEL ELECT THERMAL DEBT/EQUITY RATE RATE NPV
$1,518,000 $59.40/ton $0.198/kWh $0.084/kWt 80%/20% 10% 7.5% 75,322 Base Case
10% -54,274
-10% 204,917
-10% 134,364
10% 16,279
-10% -83,716
-10% -4,197
10% 154,840
70%/30% 120,723
8 200,331
6 378,101
5 203,560
9 -4,871
Table 9: Sensitivity Analysis Private Ownership Model
CAPITAL DISC. INT.

COST FUEL ELECT THERMAL DEBT/EQUITY RATE RATE NPV
$1,715,000 $59.40/ton $0.198/kWh $0.084/kWt 80%/20% 10% 7.5% -74,290 Base Case
10% -191,422
-10% 42,841
-10% -27,056
10% -121,524
-10% -201,520
-20% -328,750
-10% -137,905
10% -10,675
70%/30% -33,255
8 14,224
6 143,306
5 41,614
9 -14,6770

7.5 Ownership Models
7.5.1 Private for Profit
This model involves a private sector company or consortium investing in the land, plant, and connecting
infrastructure. This company would negotiate a power purchase agreement (PPA) with NL Hydro and
separate thermal energy sales agreements with thermal energy customers within a short distance of the
plant. The company will be responsible for system maintenance, energy billing, and back-up systems.
As a private for profit company, it would not enjoy tax exempt status on either equipment purchases or
corporate income.
Examples of private sector combined heat and power companies operating in Canada include facilities in
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and London, Ontario. Both of these systems are primarily thermal
energy delivery systems. System margins are thin and expansion to increase customer base is infrequent
due to high infrastructure installation costs.
Advantages of the private sector model are typically previous experience with system set-up and
operation leads to more efficient operation. Disadvantages are higher costs from taxes and usually
fewer local community benefits.
7.5.2 Community Based
This ownership model can be achieved with several different models, such as:
Community based cooperative.

Public Private Partnership.
Municipally owned utility.
The objective in each model is to operate a not for profit business to provide maximum benefits to the
local community. The public private ownership model, used successfully in North Vancouver, British
Columbia, offers the advantage of utility experience and operational expertise to prevent problems,
especially during the initial operating phase. The proposed plant and distribution system for Port Hope
Simpson is sufficiently small to make the advantage over the other models less pronounced. Availability
of funding through the Green Municipal Funds of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities will be
easier to obtain if the town is part of the ownership group. The system in North Vancouver was able to
access the Green Municipal Funds this way.
Advantages of the public sector model are lower or no taxes and easier access to public sector funding
support. Disadvantages may include less development and operational expertise and higher operating
costs.

7.5.3 Sawmill Industry Renewal
The initial terms of reference for this study included the examination of the feasibility of establishing a
biomass fuelled combined heat and power (CHP) plant in Port Hope Simpson that could utilize residual
material from the sawmill industry. Port Hope Simpson was established over 70 years ago as a logging
and sawmilling community and was dependant on the forests surrounding the town for the majority of
its economic activity for most of its history.
The worldwide decline in demand for newsprint and softwood lumber has had a significant negative
impact on the sawmill sector in Port Hope Simpson. The loss of pulpwood and sawlog markets as well as
a steep decline in the local demand for lumber has left sawmills in Port Hope Simpson either closed or
operating at extremely reduced levels. The majority of the cutting occurring in the surrounding forests
at present is for firewood. As previously mentioned, the current forestry operations to produce only
firewood is yielding no residual materials that could be used as fuel for the proposed CHP plant. Material
must therefore be harvested specifically to be used as fuel for the CHP plant and the costs associated
with this are equivalent to firewood costs and are higher than typical costs for biomass fuel when
sawmill residues are available. For this study, the firewood costs given to us were used to derive an
expected fuel cost delivered to the CHP plant of $59.40 per ton. In Nova Scotia, we found sawmills that
were selling residual materials, mostly sawdust and bark, for $15 - $20 per ton at the plant gate.
Woodchips are selling for a higher rate depending upon their moisture or bark content with rates
typically in the $30 - $50 per ton range plus delivery charges. The proposed CHP plant requires biomass
fuel with a maximum moisture content of 30% which is lower than typical sawmill sawdust and bark
residue which is usually cut from green logs and has a moisture content of 50% or higher. This material
would need to be dried or blended with dry material to produce a fuel mixture with the desired
moisture content. Planer shavings from air dried rough sawn lumber, at a moisture content of roughly
20%, are a good blending material.
The sawmilling industry in Port Hope Simpson cannot be revitalized solely based on the additional
revenue potential associated with selling of its residual material to our proposed CHP plant or additional
ones in the future. It can be part of greater diversification of the potential revenue streams from the
industry but the industry will still require a return of markets for its traditional products before it can be
renewed.
Some additional financial modelling was completed on the assumption that the sawmill industry will be
renewed to a sufficient level that it can supply the roughly 1000 tons of residual material needed to
sustain the proposed CHP plant. Delivery distances from any of the sawmills to the new CHP plant will
be small and chipping costs will be lower since a portion of the material supplied will be sawdust. We
examined the project feasibility using delivered fuel prices of 20, 30, and 40 dollars per ton which is a
considerable reduction over the proposed price based on firewood. The lower fuel prices will have an
affect on the potential electricity rate paid by NL Hydro based on their formula in Appendix A. The
expected electricity price is shown as well as the projected project NPV.

Table 10: Sawmill Residue - Public Ownership Model
FUEL PRICE ELECTRICITY RATE NPV

$20/TON $0.171/kWh $252,251
$30/TON $0.178/kWh $208,515
$40/TON $0.183/kWh $148,876
Table 11: Sawmill Residue – Private Ownership Model
FUEL PRICE ELECTRICITY RATE NPV

$20/TON $0.171/kWh $67,253
$30/TON $0.178/kWh $32,265
$40/TON $0.183/kWh $15,446
This table demonstrates that the project feasibility is definitely improved if lower priced sawmill residue
fuel is available. The additional revenue to the sawmill(s), based on 1000 tonnes of material, would be in
a range from approximately $17,000 - $37,000 per year. This amount, although relatively small, could be
an important revenue source for a small sawmill when profit margins are very thin.

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To an outside observer the concept of utilizing an abundant local resource to produce energy as an
alternative to an imported fossil fuel seems to make abundant sense. Biomass as firewood has been and
continues to be the primary heating fuel for most homes and small businesses in Port Hope Simpson and
in other small communities in southeastern Labrador. Hydronic heating systems, using oil or wood as
the primary fuel, are the typical heating systems in use for larger public and commercial buildings.
Buildings with hydronic heating systems are preferred for connection to thermal district heating systems
since building hook-ups are cheaper and simpler. In an ideal planned community, a cogeneration plant
would be located in the center of the community to minimize piping runs to supply heat to all thermal
customers. These communities would also be compact and uniform in dimension, again to allow for as
efficient as possible thermal energy distribution. Many of the small communities in SE Labrador,
however, developed as fishing communities and developed in a long strip along the waterfront initially
and gradually moving inland later with growth. Electric power plants were established later and due to
the isolation of many of the communities, had to be located near the waterfront since fuel resupply
could only be done by ship. With the waterfronts already developed before the powerplants arrived,
they tended to be located away from the developed parts of the community. This poses a challenge for
present day location of a biomass fuelled CHP Plant since the ideal location to reduce electrical
connection costs is adjacent to the current powerplants but since these plants are so remote from the
communities it is impractical to run a thermal district heating loop from there. Locating these CHP plants
closer to thermal loads is important to reducing capital costs and improving system efficiency although
problems with noise, space, and emissions can make this challenging as well.
CBCL Limited Conclusions and Recommendations 31

APPENDIX A
NL Hydro Energy Purchase Information
CBCL Limited Appendices

2007/04/30
PURCHASE OF ENERGY BY NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR HYDRO

IN NON-INTERCONNECTED AREAS
INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR GENERATORS
1. GENERAL
In order to reduce the cost of generating electricity in isolated areas not connected to the
main grid, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) will consider proposals from
Generators offering to sell electricity that could displace Hydro's diesel generation. Hydro
operates twenty-two diesel systems serving communities along the Labrador Coast, the
Northern and Northeast Coast of the Island of Newfoundland and the South Coast of the
Island of Newfoundland. Plant capacities range from a low of 90 kW installed capacity to a
high of 4,100 kW installed capacity.
2. SUMMARY OF PURCHASE POLICY
Essential terms and conditions applicable to possible energy purchases by Hydro in non-
interconnected areas shall be set out in an agreement. The following guidelines will cover
the main issues in such agreements:
(a) Price
• The unit price (cents per kilowatt hour), which Hydro will pay for electricity will be
based on a "Share-the Savings" principle. An example of "Share-the-Savings"
principle is:
Generator’s cost of supply = 12.00 cents/kWh
Hydro's incremental cost of

Diesel generation = 16.00 cents/kWh
Difference to be shared = 4.00 cents/kWh
Share-the-Savings Price = 14.00 cents/kWh
• The upper limit on the price paid by Hydro will be 90% of Hydro's incremental
cost of diesel generation (fuel only) for the system under consideration.
• Hydro's incremental cost of diesel generation will be based on the actual

monthly average fuel consumption costs and the diesel plant’s gross
production.
• The Generator’s costs will be updated annually.
• In order to determine the purchase price each year, the Generator will be
required to provide to Hydro an annual audited statement showing details of
its cost of supply, following the rules set for financial statements by Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
(b) General and Special Terms of a Purchase Agreement
• Hydro will agree to purchase all kilowatt hours made available by the
Generator to Hydro on the above pricing formula, providing that the
combination of load and minimum diesel generation required for system
purposes is sufficient to absorb the kilowatt hours offered.
-2-
• The Generator shall provide to Hydro utility grade electrical supply at the
point of interconnection (e.g. within acceptable utility standards for voltage
and frequency regulation).
• The Generator will be responsible for all costs of generating and delivering
(including the interconnection) electricity to the Hydro system. Any costs
incurred by Hydro in modifying its physical facilities to facilitate the purchase
of energy from the Generator will be the responsibility of the Generator. Prior
to Hydro incurring any interconnection costs, the Generator will issue to
Hydro an irrevocable line of credit for 115% of Hydro’s estimated
interconnection costs. The Generator will reimburse Hydro for its actual
interconnection costs as incurred, prior to the in-service date of the
Generator’s plant.
• The Generator will be responsible for obtaining all government approvals,

permits, and licenses and for all costs associated with these approvals,
permits or licenses.
• The Purchase Agreement will require that the Generator’s project must be
commissioned and provide reliable deliveries of energy within a specific time
frame after the Purchase Agreement has been executed. The time frame will
be set by Hydro following consultations with the Generator. Failure to
commission the project within that time frame will entitle Hydro to terminate
the Purchase Agreement.
• The Generator must comply with safety, technical and operating criteria
specified by Hydro for the interconnection and operation of the proposed
facilities in conjunction with Hydro's system. This includes the provision and
installation of all necessary equipment to protect the Generator's system from
Hydro's system and vice versa. (See Appendix I).
-3-
• Hydro shall have no financial or legal liability should the Generator have
problems during construction or during operation of his facilities.
• Any greenhouse gas or similar emission credits or other negotiable rights or

interests arising from environmental attributes of either the ownership or
operation of the Generator’s plant will, during but limited to the term of the
purchase agreement, be vested in Hydro.
• At the Generator’s expense, the Generator shall prepare, copy and retain any
records such as meteorological, hydrological, etc. and any operating data
pertaining to the Generator’s generating facilities and, upon Hydro’s request,
provide them to Hydro, in an electronic spreadsheet format.
• Hydro will be saved harmless from any injury or failure, which may result as a
consequence of interconnection with Hydro's system.
(c) Terms of Purchase Agreement
• In general, the term of the agreement would range from 15 to 20 years but
would be subject to any plans Hydro may have to interconnect an isolated
area to the main power grid.
(d) Early Interconnection
• If Hydro interconnects an area earlier than originally planned or supplies

service from some source of energy that is substantially less expensive than
Hydro’s diesel generating plant, the Generator may either:
-4-
(a) Terminate the agreement and sell its generating plant to Hydro at
its net book value at that time; or
(b) Sell energy to Hydro at a rate that is based on the “share the
savings” principle as noted above except that instead of being
based on up to a maximum of 90% of Hydro’s incremental cost of
diesel generation at Hydro’s diesel generating plant, it will be
based upon up to a maximum of 90% of Hydro’s avoided lowest
incremental cost energy source for the community at that time.
• The option for the Generator to sell his plant to Hydro would not apply if
interconnection does not occur within the term of the purchase agreement.
3. ESSENTIAL INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROPOSALS PROVIDED

BY GENERATORS
Generators offering to sell energy to Hydro in non-interconnected areas must provide the
following information in their proposals to Hydro:
(a) A summary description of the overall proposed development including details

on major system components. The following information shall be included:
• Detailed technical engineering and operating studies.

• A map indicating the location of the project, the routing of the proposed
intertie line and location of proposed interconnection with Hydro's system.
• Power plant capacity.
• A preliminary single line diagram.
• Basic information on protection and control equipment proposed to be
installed by the Generator (e.g. type of protective relaying; relay type and
-5-
capacity for control equipment). Further detailed drawings and specifications
will be required if the proposal is accepted.
• Voltage at point of interconnection.
• Estimates of wind regime in an area for wind energy projects and hydrology
information for hydroelectric development proposals.
• Estimates of monthly energy deliveries to Hydro's system.
(b) The term proposed for the purchase agreement.

(c) Arrangements for operation and maintenance of the Generator's system.
(d) The Generator’s estimated cost of supply in cents/kWh.
(e) A financial plan, in spreadsheet format, covering the full agreement period
with a copy supplied in electronic format.
4. INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR A SELECTED NON-INTEGRATED AREA
Appendix II attached is a typical information package for a non-interconnected area served

by Hydro diesel generation. This information includes historical and forecast data where
applicable (e.g. loads, generation capacity, fuel costs, operating costs (fuel only)), a
location map and a one-line schematic of the diesel plant. The forecast data will be revised
by Hydro from time to time. Upon request an information package will be made available to
the Generator for the selected isolated system.
-6-
APPENDIX I
Technical Requirements and General

Terms of Interconnection with Hydro's Isolated Systems
(a) The Generator must provide and maintain electrical protection such that at all times
its system and generator(s), and Hydro's system will be protected from damage
and/or hazardous conditions related to the parallel operation of two systems. Any
relays which may be required in Hydro's facilities due to the connection of a
Generator's system will be installed at the Generator's cost by Hydro and will
become the property and responsibility of Hydro. Relays required on the
Generator's system are the Generator’s property and responsibility.
(b) Hydro will require the Generator to follow appropriate operating procedures as set
out in “The Operating Agreement”, to be developed by Hydro and signed by both
Hydro and the Generator that are not substantially different from those procedures
followed for Hydro’s own generators. Operating procedures will include provisions
for routine switching operations, for example, for scheduled maintenance or for
emergencies including forced outages and unexpected contingencies, as well as a
line of communication between Hydro and the Generator. These procedures are to
enable Hydro to interrupt the flow of electricity from the Generator. Hydro will
provide the Generator with copies of the operating procedures and these operating
procedures, and any revisions or additions, will be incorporated into the purchase
agreement.
(c) Depending on the size of the Generator’s plant, Hydro may require that its diesel
plant be fully automated before connection of the Generator’s plant to Hydro’s
system in order to control the quality of service to Hydro’s customers. The cost of
the automation would be the responsibility of the Generator.
(d) A general overview of the operating philosophy for a particular project is essentially
that the Generator’s plant will act as a slave to Hydro’s master diesel plant. The
diesel plant control provides a maximum operating set point to the Generator’s
generator/turbine controls. The Generator’s plant uses this information along with
Hydro’s operating limits for the Generator’s plant, to control the Generators plant. In
order to control this set point adequately, a dump load (thermal heat sink) may be
required (size dependant) at the Generator’s site. At the diesel plant, Hydro will
require real time information about the operating status of the Generator’s plant
such as what units are on or off, kW output, Wind speed for a wind farm site, amps
and volts at the interconnection points including power flow direction in kW and
kVAR, individual unit generator breaker status as well as information as to the status
of any capacitor banks. In order to accomplish this a dedicated and dependable
communications link will be required between Hydro’s diesel plant and the
Generator’s plant facilities. Hydro will require the technical details of exactly how this
communication link will interface with any future Modicon PLC system at Hydro’s
diesel plant, if and when it is automated. The choice of a reliable communication link
is critical, since parallel operation of the Generator’s plant with Hydro’s diesel plant
will not be permitted when this link is inoperative. With this information Hydro can
then advise as to what modifications need to be made to Hydro’s equipment and
finalize any associated costs. . The Generator will be totally responsible for the day-
to-day operation of its facility and will provide the personnel to operate and maintain
the facility.
(e) Hydro’s standard customer transformer winding configuration is a Wye grounded

primary to Wye grounded secondary connection. This type of connection does not
act as a zero sequence source and is Hydro’s preference for a Generator’s
transformer connection.
(f) The Generator will put in place the appropriate controls and mechanisms to
insure that the Power produced from the Generator’s plant does not cause the
total output from Hydro’s diesel generating plant to fall below 35%, or such higher
or lower proportion that is consistent with Good Utility Practice as Hydro may
determine, of the prime power rating of the smallest diesel generating unit that is
ready and available for operation at that time in its diesel generating facility. If
Hydro wishes to change the installed capacity in its diesel plant, it may do so at
its discretion. At such time the Generator will update its controls as appropriate
and at the Generator’s expense.
(g) At its sole discretion, Hydro may, at any time suspend, disconnect or otherwise act
to control or terminate the delivery of electricity whenever adverse supply conditions,
safety or technical problems appear.
(h) Hydro reserves the right to perform acceptance tests on a Generator's protection
and generation equipment or to request that the Generator provide third party
certification on the operation of his protection equipment. Hydro also reserves the
right to monitor from time to time the electrical characteristics of the Generator's
system. The performance or failure to perform any such tests or monitoring will not
leave Hydro responsible for any consequences of the test or the later operation of
the Generator's generation, nor shall such tests or monitoring constitute a license or
permission of any kind. Protection of the Generator's system is the Generator's
responsibility.
(i) Generators will be required to have a visible, lockable isolating switch interlocked
with the generator breaker or with load interrupting capabilities. The isolating switch
must be accessible to Hydro at all times and exterior to any building housing the
generators’ equipment or controls. This switch shall be suitable for being secured
by a standard Hydro padlock. In addition, Hydro may require that Generators
provide control equipment, which would permit remote tripping of the Generator's
generator.
(j) Generators will be required to pay for installation of an "out" meter and an "in" meter
to measure power flows to and from Hydro's system, respectively. The location of
the required meters will be designated by Hydro.
APPENDIX II
Date: December 31, 2006
Statistics for Latest Full Calendar Year: 2006
SYSTEM DATA
System: Charlottetown
2,250 kW
Installed Capacity: (725 kW, 725 kW, 300
kW, 250 kW, & 250 kW)
Firm Capacity: 1,525 kW
No. of Customers: 202
Peak: 1,481 kW (Gross)
Energy: 4,812 kWh (Gross)
Avg. Plant Efficiency: 3.33 kWh/L
Avg. Fuel Cost: $0.742/L
Avg. Operating Cost (fuel only): $0.223/kWh
LOAD FORECAST - GROSS

CHARLOTTETOWN
Year
Peak (kW) Energy (MWh)
2006 1,481 4,812

2007 1,484 5,182
2008 1,501 5,272
2009 1,516 5,359
2010 1,525 5,392
2011 1,535 5,425
2012 1,544 5,459
2013 1,553 5,492
APPENDIX II
Date: December 31, 2006
Statistics for Latest Full Calendar Year: 2006
SYSTEM DATA
System: Cartwright
2,189 kW
Installed Capacity: (765 kW, 504 kW, 470
kW, & 450 kW)
Firm Capacity: 1,424 kW
No. of Customers: 330
Peak: 859 kW (Gross)
Energy: 3,954 kWh (Gross)
Avg. Plant Efficiency: 3.26 kWh/L
Avg. Fuel Cost: $0.731/L
Avg. Operating Cost (fuel only): $0.224/kWh
LOAD FORECAST - GROSS

CARTWRIGHT
Year
Peak (kW) Energy (MWh)
2006 859 3,954

2007 908 4,248
2008 920 4,385
2009 942 4,490
2010 956 4,558
2011 972 4,634
2012 986 4,703
2013 1,002 4,780
Cartwright
Monthly Energy and Peak Demand

Gross Peak
Production Demand
Year (MWh) (kW) 2005 2006
2002 4354 962 MWh kW MWh kW
2003 4213 909 Jan 387 867 340 792
2004 4254 906 Feb 374 784 355 741
2005 4036 896 Mar 315 774 332 691
2006 3954 859 Apr 322 729 307 671
May 356 879 326 859
2007 4248 908 Jun 356 896 407 841
2008 4385 920 Jul 303 717 304 725
2009 4490 942 Aug 343 792 309 690
2010 4558 956 Sep 310 740 281 618
2011 4634 972 Oct 286 691 318 651
2012 4703 986 Nov 327 733 335 757
2013 4780 1002 Dec 357 837 340 810
Domestic, Non-Fishery General Service, Fishery

MWh
3,000
2,500
2,000 Domestic
General Service
1,500
Fish Plant
1,000
500
0
2
3
0
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
File: Y:\Requests\[Cartwright & Charlottetown History & Forecast.xls]Charlottetown

Prepared by: System Planning
Date: 05/07/07
Charlottetown
Monthly Energy and Peak Demand

Gross Peak
Production Demand
Year (MWh) (kW) 2005 2006
2002 5073 1389 MWh kW MWh kW
2003 4808 1421 Jan 275 671 264 635
2004 5296 1374 Feb 223 612 234 684
2005 5149 1500 Mar 229 633 238 589
2006 4814 1481 Apr 221 659 231 615
May 414 1145 229 570
2007 5182 1484 Jun 528 1349 488 1451
2008 5272 1501 Jul 823 1498 808 1481
2009 5359 1516 Aug 785 1500 769 1422
2010 5392 1525 Sep 736 1500 717 1397
2011 5425 1535 Oct 417 1281 315 1181
2012 5459 1544 Nov 230 891 233 606
2013 5492 1553 Dec 268 686 288 697
Domestic, Non-Fishery General Service, Fishery

MWh
3,000
2,500
2,000 Domestic
General Service
Fish Plant
1,500
1,000
500
0
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
File: Y:\Requests\[Cartwright & Charlottetown History & Forecast.xls]Charlottetown

Prepared by: System Planning
Date: 05/07/07
CHARLOTTETOWN Load Duration Curve
(Based on NLH Isolated Diesel System typical data)
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Load [kW]
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
PU Time
CARTWRIGHT Load Duration Curve
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Gross Load [kW]

400
300
200
100
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
PU Time
THE POWER OF
COMMITMENT
L E G E N D
DIESEL PLANT
NAIN
NATUASHISH
HOPEDALE
POSTVILLE
MAKKOVIK
RIGOLET
BLACK
TICKLE
LABRADOR CARTWRIGHT
PARADISE NORMAN BAY

RIVER
CHARLOTTETOWN
WILLIAMS HARBOUR
PORT HOPE
SIMPSON ST. LEWIS
MARY'S HARBOUR
L'ANSE AU LOUP
LITTLE BAY ISLANDS
ST. BRENDAN'S
NEWFOUNDLAND
RAMEA
GREY RIVER
FRANCOIS McCALLUM
Provincial Isolated Systems (Diesel)

APPENDIX B
Wood Chipper Brochures

MORBARK BEEVER M8D
B E N E FITS
· Top feed wheel compression system with 32.3ci hydraulic motor generates
2,612 lb/ft of pulling force.
· 28% larger top feed wheel motor than comparable models
· 33% larger capacity than comparable 6” models
· Only chipper in its class to combine both a wide infeed and thick chipper disc
in one unit
· Ideal unit for: Rental yards, landscapers, golf courses, and pruning crews
CHIPPER DISC INFEED CHUTE F E E D S YS T E M FRAME

28” diameter x 11/4” thick chipper disc Folding infeed chute with 96 in2 throat Top feed wheel compression system 2” x 4” tubular steel frame with 4”
with (4) bolt-on chip paddles. opening with spring assisted down pressure square tongue.
S P E C I F I C AT I O N S
GENERAL EQUIPME N T H I G H L I G H TS A D D I T I O N A L F E AT U R E S
Chipping capacity.................................................................. 8” Direct drive 360° manual swivel discharge
Length (transport).....12’7’’ (operating)....................... 15’ Automatic feed system Fuel and hydraulic tank sight gauges
Height . ...................................................................................7’4’’
Pinned chipper hood with integrated hood safety Adjustable chip deflector
Width.......................................................................................5’3”
Gross weight .............................................2,150 - 2,750 lbs. switch allows ease of disc maintenance and main- Exclusive hydraulic tank inspection cover
Suspension ..................................................2,500 lb. torsion tains hood’s structural integrity
Infeed opening.......................33 1/2’’ wide x 24 1/2” high Top feed wheel compression system with spring OPTIONS
Throat opening...................................... 12” wide x 8” high assisted down pressure Variable speed flow control
Feed wheel................................. 111/2” wide x 9” diameter 2” x 4”, fully boxed tubular steel frame Electric brake system
Disc dimensions........................ 11/4” thick x 28” diameter Folding infeed tray reduces transport length and
Engine................................CAT, Kubota, Perkins, or Kohler Breakaway actuator
Horsepower................................................................27-38 HP
increases maneuverability Special color paint
Fuel capacity (tank) ...............................................9 gallons Swing away front jack with castor wheel 2 1/2” Lunet ring
Hydraulic oil capacity..............................................8 gallons
800-831-0042 • 989-866-2381
Frame.................................................................. 2” x 4” tubular www.morbark.com
Tires............................................................... (2) 185/80R x 14”
Hitch.........................................................2” ball or 21/2” lunet
MORBARK,I
NC. Tol
lfr
ee8
00-
831
-0042*Phone(
989)866-
2381*Fa
x(989)866-
2280*www.
mor
bar
k.c
om
MORBARK BEEVER M12R
B E N E FITS
· Dual feed wheel compression system generates 3,413 lb/ft of combined

pulling force
· 1612 in2 infeed opening with 180 in2 throat opening
· Ideal unit for: Residential tree services, utility line clearing, rental facilities and
municipalities
· Customizable to fit individual needs
TO P F E E D W H E E L D R I V E B E LT CO V E R H Y D R A - L I F T T M S YS T E M DISCHARGE
18” diameter top feed wheel with Drive belt inspection cover provides ease Hydra-Lift Compression System with 360° Manual Crank Swivel
combination serrated teeth and knife of drive system maintenance spring assisted down pressure Discharge
bars
S P E C I F I C AT I O N S
GENERAL EQUIPME N T H I G H L I G H TS A D D I T I O N A L F E AT U R E S
Chipping capacity................................................................12” Live hydraulics allow use of hydraulic functions without Additional 1000 lbs. of yoke down pressure at valve
Length.................................................................................. 15’9” engaging chipper drum handle
Height . ...................................................................................8’5” Hydra-Lift compression system with spring assisted Bottom feed wheel clean-out door
Width....................................................................................5’ 11” down pressure Hydraulic tank inspection cover
Gross weight ........................................................... 5,500 lbs. Reversing automatic feed system Telescoping tongue with (2) 12” extensions
Suspension...................................................6,000 lb. torsion Four blade integrated air-impeller system with perfo-
Infeed Opening.....................................48” wide x 31” high rated drum slides OPTIONS
Throat Opening.....................................15” wide x 12” high 2-pocket, staggered knife cutting system allows one full Light-duty winch package
Drum.......................................... 141/2” wide x 20” diameter cut per revolution
Aluminum diamond plate fenders
Engines......................... CAT, Kubota, John Deere, Perkins 2” x 4” fully boxed, extended steel frame
Horsepower................................................. 51 HP to 115 HP 360° manual crank swivel discharge Radiator brush guard
Fuel capacity........................................................... 22 gallons Direct drive, dual feed wheel compression system with Folding infeed tray
Hydraulic oil capacity........................................... 16 gallons combination serrated teeth and knife bars Special color paint
Frame.................................................................. 2” x 4” tubular 800-831-0042 • 989-866-2381
Tires............................................................... (2) 225/75R x 15” www.morbark.com
Hitch........................................................21/2” Lunet or 2” Ball
APPENDIX C
Base Case Financial Analysis Spreadsheets

Port Hope Simpson Cogen Plant
Earnings Statement
1 Revenue
Gross Electrical Output 100 kw
Net Electrical Power output kw 100 kw
Gross Plant Heat Rate 0 btu/kwhr
Electrical energy production @8000 hrs/yr 800,000 kWh
Rate 0.1980 $/KWHR
Annual escalation 2.00%
Thermal energy production 1,000,000 Kwht
Thermal energy rate 0.08 $/Kwht
Capacity Factor 0.00 $/mwhr
Initial availability of plant on an annual basis 100.0%

Annual degradation of power available 0.000%
6.1.3 Annual O&M Cost Estimate
(All costs in 2005 CAN$)

Operating and Maintenance - Fixed
Manager 0
Admin. Personnel 5,000
Maintenance Contract 8,000

Operator 20,000
Consultants 0
Insurance 10,000
General Supplies 1,000
Miscellaneous 1,000 -11.53%
Fuel 0
burn rate LB/HR 0
PRICE $/TONNE 59.40
Fuel Heating Value btu/lb 0
Tonnes/year 1,000
Total Fuel 59,400.0
Total costs - 1st year 104,442
3 Accounts receivable
Collection of revenue as follows:
Current 0.0%
30 days 100.0%
60 days 0.0%
Provision for Bad debts 0.0%
100.0%
Total annual revenue - amount in A/R at end of year 8.3%
4 Capital Costs
Non depreciable 0
Depreciable 1,715,000
Total 1,715,000
Depreciation Rates - Straight line - years 10.0
Capital Additions Year Amount

-Depreciation on capital additions - Straight
7 0
line 14 0
4 Financing of Capital Costs

Debt 80.0% 1,372,000
Equity / Internal 20.0% 343,000
Minimal rate of return on equity 10.0%

(Discount rate)
Financing of Capital Additions Loan #2
Debt 50.0% 0
Equity 50.0% 0
Terms of Debt
Loan #1 Loan #2
Interest Rate 7.50% 7.50%
Term - years debt to be paid 10 0
Paid in # of periods per year 4 4
Pv
Future value of debt at end of termFv 0 0
Payments at beginning (1) or end ofType
period 0 0
5 Bank Operating Loan

Interest on bank debt 10.0%
6 Accounts payable
Payment of expenses under the following terms
Current 0.0%
30 days 100.0%
60 days 0.0%
100.0%
Total annual expenses, amount in A/P at end of year 8.3%
7 Corporate tax rate 20.0%
Capital Cost Allowance Rate 40.0%
Payable in 180
8 Dividends
Net minimum retained earnings: 0
- balance paid out as dividends in following year
Projected Statement of Earnings
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenue
Electrical energy production @8000 hrs/yr 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
Rate 0.1980 0.2020 0.2060 0.2101 0.2143 0.2186 0.2230 0.2274 0.2320 0.2366 0.2414 0.2462 0.2511 0.2561 0.2613 0.2665 0.2718 0.2772 0.2828
Total 158,400 161,568 164,799 168,095 171,457 174,886 178,384 181,952 185,591 189,303 193,089 196,950 200,890 204,907 209,005 213,186 217,449 221,798 226,234
Secondary electrical energy production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rate 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thermal energy production 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Rate 0.084 0.0857 0.0874 0.0891 0.0909 0.0927 0.0946 0.0965 0.0984 0.1004 0.1024 0.1044 0.1065 0.1087 0.1108 0.1131 0.1153 0.1176 0.1200
Total 84,000 85,680 87,394 89,141 90,924 92,743 94,598 96,490 98,419 100,388 102,396 104,443 106,532 108,663 110,836 113,053 115,314 117,620 119,973
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total potential revenue 242,400 247,248 252,193 257,237 262,382 267,629 272,982 278,441 284,010 289,690 295,484 301,394 307,422 313,570 319,842 326,238 332,763 339,419 346,207
% available 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gross revenue 242,400 247,248 252,193 257,237 262,382 267,629 272,982 278,441 284,010 289,690 295,484 301,394 307,422 313,570 319,842 326,238 332,763 339,419 346,207
Expenses
Operating and maintenance 104,442 106,531 108,661 110,835 113,051 115,312 117,619 119,971 122,370 124,818 127,314 129,860 132,458 135,107 137,809 140,565 143,376 146,244 149,169
Interest on debt 100,242 92,836 84,860 76,268 67,013 57,045 46,307 34,742 22,284 8,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation and amortization 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 171,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amortization capital additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total expenses 376,184 370,867 365,021 358,602 351,565 343,857 335,426 326,213 316,154 305,183 127,314 129,860 132,458 135,107 137,809 140,565 143,376 146,244 149,169
Net Income before corporate taxes -133,784 -123,619 -112,828 -101,366 -89,183 -76,228 -62,444 -47,771 -32,144 -15,492 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Corporate taxes -26,757 -24,724 -22,566 -20,273 -17,837 -15,246 -12,489 -9,554 -6,429 -3,098 33,634 34,307 34,993 35,693 36,407 37,135 37,877 38,635 39,408
Net income -107,027 -98,895 -90,263 -81,093 -71,346 -60,982 -49,955 -38,217 -25,715 -12,394 134,536 137,227 139,971 142,771 145,626 148,539 151,509 154,540 157,630
Retained earnings - beginning -107,027 -205,922 -296,185 -377,277 -448,624 -509,606 -559,561 -597,778 -623,493 -635,887 -501,351 -364,125 -224,153 -81,383 64,243 148,539 151,509 154,540
Dividends 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,243 148,539 151,509 154,540
Retained earnings - end -107,027 -205,922 -296,185 -377,277 -448,624 -509,606 -559,561 -597,778 -623,493 -635,887 -501,351 -364,125 -224,153 -81,383 64,243 148,539 151,509 154,540 157,630
Projected Balance Sheet
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ASSETS
Cash -69,785 -98,787 -127,012 -154,530 -181,416 -207,758 -233,649 -259,195 -284,511 -309,725 -138,732 -1,112 139,259 282,438 428,481 513,201 516,605 520,077 523,618
Accounts receivable 20,200 20,604 21,016 21,436 21,865 22,302 22,748 23,203 23,668 24,141 24,624 25,116 25,618 26,131 26,653 27,187 27,730 28,285 28,851
-49,585 -78,183 -105,996 -133,093 -159,551 -185,456 -210,901 -235,992 -260,844 -285,584 -114,108 24,004 164,878 308,569 455,134 540,387 544,335 548,362 552,469
Capital Assets
Non depreciable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciable 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000
1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000
Accumulated depreciation 171,500 343,000 514,500 686,000 857,500 1,029,000 1,200,500 1,372,000 1,543,500 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000 1,715,000
Net 1,543,500 1,372,000 1,200,500 1,029,000 857,500 686,000 514,500 343,000 171,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total assets 1,493,915 1,293,817 1,094,504 895,907 697,949 500,544 303,599 107,008 -89,344 -285,584 -114,108 24,004 164,878 308,569 455,134 540,387 544,335 548,362 552,469
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable 8,704 8,878 9,055 9,236 9,421 9,609 9,802 9,998 10,198 10,401 10,610 10,822 11,038 11,259 11,484 11,714 11,948 12,187 12,431
Corporate taxes -26,757 -24,724 -22,566 -20,273 -17,837 -15,246 -12,489 -9,554 -6,429 -3,098 33,634 34,307 34,993 35,693 36,407 37,135 37,877 38,635 39,408
-18,053 -15,846 -13,511 -11,037 -8,416 -5,636 -2,687 443 3,769 7,303 44,244 45,128 46,031 46,952 47,891 48,848 49,825 50,822 51,838
Long term debt 1,275,996 1,172,586 1,061,199 941,221 811,988 672,787 522,848 361,343 187,381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total liabilities 1,257,942 1,156,740 1,047,689 930,184 803,572 667,150 520,161 361,787 191,150 7,303 44,244 45,128 46,031 46,952 47,891 48,848 49,825 50,822 51,838
EQUITY
Capital 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000 343,000
Retained earnings -107,027 -205,922 -296,185 -377,277 -448,624 -509,606 -559,561 -597,778 -623,493 -635,887 -501,351 -364,125 -224,153 -81,383 64,243 148,539 151,509 154,540 157,630
Total equity 235,973 137,078 46,815 -34,277 -105,624 -166,606 -216,561 -254,778 -280,493 -292,887 -158,351 -21,125 118,847 261,617 407,243 491,539 494,509 497,540 500,630
Total Liabilities and Equity 1,493,915 1,293,817 1,094,504 895,907 697,949 500,544 303,599 107,008 -89,344 -285,584 -114,108 24,004 164,878 308,569 455,134 540,387 544,335 548,362 552,469
Return on Investment
Earnings before tax -133,784 -123,619 -112,828 -101,366 -89,183 -76,228 -62,444 -47,771 -32,144 -15,492 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Interest on long term debt 100,242 92,836 84,860 76,268 67,013 57,045 46,307 34,742 22,284 8,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Earnings before interest and tax -33,542 -30,783 -27,968 -25,098 -22,170 -19,183 -16,137 -13,030 -9,860 -6,627 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Investment - Net debt & equity 1,715,000 1,511,969 1,309,664 1,108,015 906,944 706,364 506,181 306,287 106,565 -93,112 -292,887 -158,351 -21,125 118,847 261,617 407,243 491,539 494,509 497,540
Return on Investment (ROI) before tax -1.96% -2.04% -2.14% -2.27% -2.44% -2.72% -3.19% -4.25% -9.25% 7.12% -57.42% -108.32% -828.24% 150.16% 69.58% 45.59% 38.53% 39.06% 39.60%
Return on Investment (ROI) after tax -1.56% -1.63% -1.71% -1.81% -1.96% -2.17% -2.55% -3.40% -7.40% 5.69% -45.93% -86.66% -662.60% 120.13% 55.66% 36.47% 30.82% 31.25% 31.68%
Return on equity (ROE) after tax -45.36% -41.91% -65.85% -173.22% 208.14% 57.74% 29.98% 17.65% 10.09% 4.42% -45.93% -86.66% -662.60% 120.13% 55.66% 36.47% 30.82% 31.25% 31.68%
-11.53%
Net present value of investment (NPV) -74,290

Net investment - equity 343,000
Net positive (negative) return -417,290
Total dividends paid during operation 837,244 676,461 518,831 364,291 212,782 64,243 0 0 0
Projected Statement of Cash Flow
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Cash From Operations

Net Income -107,027 -98,895 -90,263 -81,093 -71,346 -60,982 -49,955 -38,217 -25,715 -12,394 134,536 137,227 139,971 142,771 145,626 148,539 151,509 154,540 157,630
64,473 72,605 81,237 90,407 100,154 110,518 121,545 133,283 145,785 159,106 134,536 137,227 139,971 142,771 145,626 148,539 151,509 154,540 157,630
Cash From Financing

Bank loan
Accounts payable 8,704 174 178 181 185 188 192 196 200 204 208 212 216 221 225 230 234 239 244
Corporate taxes payable -26,757 2,033 2,158 2,293 2,437 2,591 2,757 2,935 3,125 3,330 36,733 673 686 700 714 728 743 758 773
Debt 1,372,000
Capital addition debt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital 343,000
Total cash provided 1,696,947 2,207 2,336 2,474 2,621 2,779 2,949 3,131 3,325 3,534 36,941 885 903 921 939 958 977 997 1,016
Cash Used
Accounts receivable 20,200 404 412 420 429 437 446 455 464 473 483 492 502 512 523 533 544 555 566
Land 0
Buildings and equipment 1,715,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt repayment 96,004 103,410 111,386 119,978 129,233 139,201 149,939 161,505 173,962 187,381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dividends 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,243 148,539 151,509 154,540
Total cash used 1,831,204 103,814 111,798 120,399 129,662 139,639 150,385 161,959 174,426 187,854 483 492 502 512 523 64,776 149,082 152,064 155,105
Net cash provided (used) -69,785 -29,002 -28,225 -27,518 -26,887 -26,342 -25,891 -25,546 -25,316 -25,214 170,994 137,619 140,372 143,179 146,043 84,720 3,404 3,472 3,542
Cash - beginning -69,785 -98,787 -127,012 -154,530 -181,416 -207,758 -233,649 -259,195 -284,511 -309,725 -138,732 -1,112 139,259 282,438 428,481 513,201 516,605 520,077
Cash - end -69,785 -98,787 -127,012 -154,530 -181,416 -207,758 -233,649 -259,195 -284,511 -309,725 -138,732 -1,112 139,259 282,438 428,481 513,201 516,605 520,077 523,618
Earnings Statement
1 Revenue
Gross Electrical Output 100 kw
Net Electrical Power output kw 100 kw
Gross Plant Heat Rate 0 btu/kwhr
Electrical energy production @8000 hrs/yr 800,000 kWh
Rate 0.1980 $/KWHR
Thermal energy production 1,000,000 Kwht
Thermal energy rate 0.08 $/Kwht
Capacity Factor 0.00 $/mwhr
Initial availability of plant on an annual basis 100.0%

Annual degradation of power available 0.000%
6.1.3 Annual O&M Cost Estimate
(All costs in 2005 CAN$)

Operating and Maintenance - Fixed
Manager 0
Admin. Personnel 5,000
Maintenance Contract 8,000

Operator 20,000
Consultants 0
Insurance 10,000
General Supplies 1,000
Miscellaneous 1,000 1.10%
Fuel 0
burn rate LB/HR 0
PRICE $/TONNE 59.40
Fuel Heating Value btu/lb 0
Tonnes/year 1,000
Total Fuel 59,400.0
Total costs - 1st year 104,442
3 Accounts receivable
Collection of revenue as follows:
Current 0.0%
30 days 100.0%
60 days 0.0%
Provision for Bad debts 0.0%
100.0%
Total annual revenue - amount in A/R at end of year 8.3%
4 Capital Costs
Non depreciable 0
Depreciable 1,518,000
Total 1,518,000
Depreciation Rates - Straight line - years 10.0
Capital Additions Year Amount

-Depreciation on capital additions - Straight
7 0
line 14 0
4 Financing of Capital Costs

Debt 80.0% 1,214,400
Equity / Internal 20.0% 303,600
Minimal rate of return on equity 10.0%

(Discount rate)
Financing of Capital Additions Loan #2
Debt 50.0% 0
Equity 50.0% 0
Terms of Debt
Loan #1 Loan #2
Interest Rate 7.50% 7.50%
Term - years debt to be paid 10 0
Paid in # of periods per year 4 4
Pv
Future value of debt at end of termFv 0 0
Payments at beginning (1) or end ofType
period 0 0
5 Bank Operating Loan

Interest on bank debt 10.0%
6 Accounts payable
Payment of expenses under the following terms
Current 0.0%
30 days 100.0%
60 days 0.0%
100.0%
Total annual expenses, amount in A/P at end of year 8.3%
7 Corporate tax rate 0.0%
Capital Cost Allowance Rate 40.0%
Payable in 180
8 Dividends
Net minimum retained earnings: 0
- balance paid out as dividends in following year
Projected Statement of Earnings
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Revenue
Electrical energy production @8000 hrs/yr 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
Rate 0.1980 0.2020 0.2060 0.2101 0.2143 0.2186 0.2230 0.2274 0.2320 0.2366 0.2414 0.2462 0.2511 0.2561 0.2613 0.2665 0.2718 0.2772 0.2828
Total 158,400 161,568 164,799 168,095 171,457 174,886 178,384 181,952 185,591 189,303 193,089 196,950 200,890 204,907 209,005 213,186 217,449 221,798 226,234
Secondary electrical energy production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rate 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thermal energy production 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Rate 0.084 0.0857 0.0874 0.0891 0.0909 0.0927 0.0946 0.0965 0.0984 0.1004 0.1024 0.1044 0.1065 0.1087 0.1108 0.1131 0.1153 0.1176 0.1200
Total 84,000 85,680 87,394 89,141 90,924 92,743 94,598 96,490 98,419 100,388 102,396 104,443 106,532 108,663 110,836 113,053 115,314 117,620 119,973
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total potential revenue 242,400 247,248 252,193 257,237 262,382 267,629 272,982 278,441 284,010 289,690 295,484 301,394 307,422 313,570 319,842 326,238 332,763 339,419 346,207
% available 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gross revenue 242,400 247,248 252,193 257,237 262,382 267,629 272,982 278,441 284,010 289,690 295,484 301,394 307,422 313,570 319,842 326,238 332,763 339,419 346,207
Expenses
Operating and maintenance 104,442 106,531 108,661 110,835 113,051 115,312 117,619 119,971 122,370 124,818 127,314 129,860 132,458 135,107 137,809 140,565 143,376 146,244 149,169
Interest on debt 88,727 82,172 75,112 67,507 59,315 50,492 40,988 30,751 19,724 7,847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amortization capital additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total expenses 344,969 340,503 335,573 330,142 324,167 317,604 310,407 302,522 293,895 284,465 127,314 129,860 132,458 135,107 137,809 140,565 143,376 146,244 149,169
Net Income before corporate taxes -102,569 -93,255 -83,380 -72,905 -61,785 -49,975 -37,425 -24,080 -9,884 5,226 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Corporate taxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net income -102,569 -93,255 -83,380 -72,905 -61,785 -49,975 -37,425 -24,080 -9,884 5,226 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Retained earnings - beginning -102,569 -195,824 -279,205 -352,109 -413,895 -463,870 -501,295 -525,375 -535,260 -530,034 -361,864 -190,330 -15,366 163,097 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175
Dividends 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,097 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175
Retained earnings - end -102,569 -195,824 -279,205 -352,109 -413,895 -463,870 -501,295 -525,375 -535,260 -530,034 -361,864 -190,330 -15,366 163,097 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Projected Balance Sheet
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ASSETS
Cash -47,242 -80,458 -110,865 -138,406 -163,023 -184,659 -203,253 -218,745 -231,073 -240,173 -72,278 98,975 273,653 451,825 470,463 473,801 477,205 480,677 484,218
Accounts receivable 20,200 20,604 21,016 21,436 21,865 22,302 22,748 23,203 23,668 24,141 24,624 25,116 25,618 26,131 26,653 27,187 27,730 28,285 28,851
-27,042 -59,854 -89,849 -116,969 -141,158 -162,356 -180,504 -195,541 -207,405 -216,032 -47,654 124,091 299,272 477,956 497,117 500,987 504,935 508,962 513,069
Capital Assets
Non depreciable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciable 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000
1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000
Accumulated depreciation 151,800 303,600 455,400 607,200 759,000 910,800 1,062,600 1,214,400 1,366,200 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000 1,518,000
Net 1,366,200 1,214,400 1,062,600 910,800 759,000 607,200 455,400 303,600 151,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total assets 1,339,158 1,154,546 972,751 793,831 617,842 444,844 274,896 108,059 -55,605 -216,032 -47,654 124,091 299,272 477,956 497,117 500,987 504,935 508,962 513,069
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable 8,704 8,878 9,055 9,236 9,421 9,609 9,802 9,998 10,198 10,401 10,610 10,822 11,038 11,259 11,484 11,714 11,948 12,187 12,431
Corporate taxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8,704 8,878 9,055 9,236 9,421 9,609 9,802 9,998 10,198 10,401 10,610 10,822 11,038 11,259 11,484 11,714 11,948 12,187 12,431
Long term debt 1,129,423 1,037,892 939,301 833,104 718,716 595,504 462,789 319,836 165,857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total liabilities 1,138,127 1,046,770 948,356 842,340 728,137 605,114 472,590 329,834 176,054 10,401 10,610 10,822 11,038 11,259 11,484 11,714 11,948 12,187 12,431
EQUITY
Capital 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600 303,600
Retained earnings -102,569 -195,824 -279,205 -352,109 -413,895 -463,870 -501,295 -525,375 -535,260 -530,034 -361,864 -190,330 -15,366 163,097 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Total equity 201,031 107,776 24,395 -48,509 -110,295 -160,270 -197,695 -221,775 -231,660 -226,434 -58,264 113,270 288,234 466,697 485,633 489,273 492,987 496,775 500,638
Total Liabilities and Equity 1,339,158 1,154,546 972,751 793,831 617,842 444,844 274,896 108,059 -55,605 -216,032 -47,654 124,091 299,272 477,956 497,117 500,987 504,935 508,962 513,069
Return on Investment
Earnings before tax -102,569 -93,255 -83,380 -72,905 -61,785 -49,975 -37,425 -24,080 -9,884 5,226 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Interest on long term debt 88,727 82,172 75,112 67,507 59,315 50,492 40,988 30,751 19,724 7,847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Earnings before interest and tax -13,842 -11,083 -8,268 -5,398 -2,470 517 3,563 6,670 9,840 13,073 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Investment - Net debt & equity 1,518,000 1,330,454 1,145,668 963,696 784,595 608,421 435,235 265,094 98,061 -65,803 -226,434 -58,264 113,270 288,234 466,697 485,633 489,273 492,987 496,775
Return on Investment (ROI) before tax -0.91% -0.83% -0.72% -0.56% -0.31% 0.08% 0.82% 2.52% 10.03% -19.87% -74.27% -294.41% 154.47% 61.92% 39.00% 38.23% 38.71% 39.18% 39.66%
Return on Investment (ROI) after tax -0.91% -0.83% -0.72% -0.56% -0.31% 0.08% 0.82% 2.52% 10.03% -19.87% -74.27% -294.41% 154.47% 61.92% 39.00% 38.23% 38.71% 39.18% 39.66%
Return on equity (ROE) after tax -51.02% -46.39% -77.36% -298.85% 127.37% 45.31% 23.35% 12.18% 4.46% -2.26% -74.27% -294.41% 154.47% 61.92% 39.00% 38.23% 38.71% 39.18% 39.66%
1.10%
Net present value of investment (NPV) 75,322

Net investment - equity 303,600
Net positive (negative) return -228,278
Total dividends paid during operation 1,311,381 1,110,402 913,364 720,190 530,803 345,130 163,097 0 0
Projected Statement of Cash Flow
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Cash From Operations

Net Income -102,569 -93,255 -83,380 -72,905 -61,785 -49,975 -37,425 -24,080 -9,884 5,226 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
49,231 58,545 68,420 78,895 90,015 101,825 114,375 127,720 141,916 157,026 168,170 171,533 174,964 178,463 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175 197,038
Cash From Financing

Bank loan
Accounts payable 8,704 174 178 181 185 188 192 196 200 204 208 212 216 221 225 230 234 239 244
Corporate taxes payable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt 1,214,400
Capital addition debt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital 303,600
Total cash provided 1,526,704 174 178 181 185 188 192 196 200 204 208 212 216 221 225 230 234 239 244
Cash Used
Accounts receivable 20,200 404 412 420 429 437 446 455 464 473 483 492 502 512 523 533 544 555 566
Land 0
Buildings and equipment 1,518,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt repayment 84,977 91,531 98,592 106,197 114,388 123,212 132,716 142,953 153,979 165,857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dividends 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,097 182,033 185,673 189,387 193,175
Total cash used 1,623,177 91,935 99,004 106,617 114,817 123,649 133,162 143,408 154,444 166,330 483 492 502 512 163,620 182,566 186,217 189,941 193,740
Net cash provided (used) -47,242 -33,216 -30,407 -27,541 -24,617 -21,636 -18,594 -15,492 -12,328 -9,100 167,895 171,253 174,678 178,172 18,638 3,337 3,404 3,472 3,542
Cash - beginning -47,242 -80,458 -110,865 -138,406 -163,023 -184,659 -203,253 -218,745 -231,073 -240,173 -72,278 98,975 273,653 451,825 470,463 473,801 477,205 480,677
Cash - end -47,242 -80,458 -110,865 -138,406 -163,023 -184,659 -203,253 -218,745 -231,073 -240,173 -72,278 98,975 273,653 451,825 470,463 473,801 477,205 480,677 484,218
APPENDIX D
Proe Power Systems Information

PPS250
Combined Heat and Power System
Electricity Production:
- 250 kW
- 2,125,000 kWh per annum
Thermal Production:
- 300 kWt Cost of Generating Electric Power
- 1,054,000 BTUs 10 Year Payback - Wood or Grass Fuel
$0.090
Cost of Electric Power (US$/kW-hr)
Purchase Price:
$0.080
- Project specific
$0.070
W aste Fuels Purchased Fuels
Operational hours annually: $0.060
- 8,568 hours $0.050
$0.040
Biomass Feed Stocks:
- Wood chips $0.030
- Energy Crops $0.020
- Agri waste fibers
$0.010
- Others to be determined
$0.000
($60) ($40) ($20) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100
Bio-fuel: Cost of Fuel (US$/Tonne)
- 1,170 tonnes annually
- 140 kg or 308 lb per hour
EverGreen Energy Corp

2-89 Chestnut Street 519-631-6035
St. Thomas, ON N5R 2B1 sirdocan@allstream.net
PPS250 Powerplant
Proe Power Systems PPS250 Biofuel Powerplant
Performance/Unit:
Electric Power Output: 250 kW minimum with 20°C Dry Air
Available Waste Heat: 90 to 300 kWt (Depending on Fuel Drying Required)

2000 to 6500 lph of 60°C Hot Water
Electrical Efficiency: >32%

Thermal Efficiency: >36% (Includes Fuel Drying)
>68%
Availability: 8568 hr/yr
Limited Warranty (First Units):
Proe Power Systems, LLC warrants that the Powerplants will perform substantially in accordance with
the above performance level for a period of one (1) year from the date of installation and that the
Powerplants will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for
a period of six (6) months.
Warranty (After Test Verification):
Proe Power Systems, LLC warrants that the Powerplants will perform in accordance with the above
performance level for a period of three (3) years from the date of installation and that the Powerplants
will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for a period of
one (1) year.
Operation:
Starting:
The PPS 250 Biofuel Powerplant is started by putting dry fuel onto the combustor fire grate and
igniting it with lighter fluid or commercial fire starting sticks. A start blower is turned on to provide air
to the fire and the combustor doors are closed to seal the combustor.
The fire heats the air heater and, when the heater reaches operating temperature, the engine is
turned over with a starter motor and begins to run. The start blower is then turned off and isolated by
closing a start air valve. Then Powerplant is then operating normally.
Fuel Feed:
Wet solid fuel is automatically conveyed from the fuel storage hopper to the dryer feed hopper. It then
passes through the fuel dryer where it is dried by the engine exhaust. Except with very wet fuel, the
dryer will remove almost all the fuel moisture. The dry fuel is then conveyed to the combustor fuel
feed and automatically fed to the combustor by air-tight airlocks and augers. After combustion, the
ash is automatically removed from the combustor through a similar auger and air lock.
Powerplant control:
Powerplant control consists of matching the power output to the load demand while also maintaining
the proper air/fuel mixtures. Ideally, the Powerplant operates at the design power rating. However,
when load demand falls, the engine power is reduced to match by controlling the air into the engine
compressors. Fuel flow is then adjusted accordingly by controlling the fuel feed conveyors and
augers. With multiple Powerplants, load adjustment can also be made by taking some individual units
off-line so that the remaining units can continue to operate, at peak efficiency, at the rated power.
Maintenance:
In normal operation the Powerplant only requires a steady supply of fuel (wet or dry) and periodic
removal of ash from the ash collection bins. Soot is automatically swept from the air heater by
commercially available boiler soot blasters. The frequency of operation of the soot blasters depends
on the ash content of the fuel.
Long term periodic maintenance consists of meeting the mechanical maintenance demands of the
engine (changing filters and lubricants etc.) and cleaning the fuel and ash paths. The air heater is
designed with provisions so it can be brushed and swept of ashes, annually or semiannually. The fuel
feed system should be cleaned of fuel residue (such as sawdust) periodically to assure the fuel
airlocks and augurs seal effectively and all the mechanical parts are free to move.
APPENDIX E
Community Map

BIOMASS 2 ENERGY (B2E)
A Sustainable and Clean Solution

with a Value-Based Business Case
that delivers
Combined Heat & Energy for
Remote, Aboriginal Communities.
Presented by
© All Rights Reserved. Jan 2009. www.ACCcogeneration.ca | Project@ACCcogeneration.ca Slide 1

Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporation (ACC)
Is an Aboriginal owned company that services partners such as
Aboriginal Communities, Aboriginal Businesses, Railways, Forestry and
the Agricultural sector for the effective disposal of scrap railway ties and
other wood based waste biomass in an environmentally safe manner.
Our Mission
To develop value-based business partnering opportunities with communities and
companies as the core focus of ACC’s business activities
To encourage Economic Development opportunities for Aboriginal people
To create sustainable and affordable power/heat generation facilities, based on a

unique Microgasification technology operated by ACC
To transition Fossil fuel energy production to Biomass energy
Presented by

We Have the Human Resources
Focus on Aboriginal Off Grid communities
Reduce Greenhouse gases by reducing diesel

generated power through fuel switching programs
Create meaningful employment
Selective forestry, waste reduction
Sustainable way of life
Presented by

We Have the Natural Resources
Create Capacity to manage

forests and agricultural lands.
Enhances their capacity to
participate in forest-based and
farming businesses.
Increase Aboriginal
cooperation and partnerships,
and investigate mechanisms for
financing.
Presented by

Why Biomass Energy?
High Green House Gas (GHG) Displacement Potential*
*Information obtained from report entitled “Assessment of GHG Emission Reduction Alternatives”
Presented by

ACC Downdraft
Microgasification Process
Pyrolysis or Devolatilization Zone

Thermo chemical conversion of fuel to gaseous
by-products and char
Oxidation Zone
Partial oxidation of pyrolysis by-products to
maintain exothermic heat profile and tar cracking
Reduction Zone
Reduction reaction between unconverted char
and combustion products CO2 and H2O
Presented by

Commercially Viable
Gasification Systems
Presented by

Combined Heat and Power
System for Greenhouses or
Industrial facilities
Existing Diesel Generator

Modified for Syngas
Presented by

Total Energy Balance (1.5t/hr of wood)
5000 KWt from Syngas
1250 KWt Engine

Exhaust Heat Recovery
Total
Energy
3300 KWt
800 KWt Engine
Jacket Heat Recovery
1250 KWe to Grid
Presented by

Measured Emissions from the
Gas Engine Generator Stack
Measured 1-MWe US EPA
Value Engine Permitted
(25 kWe) Generator Values
gram/ (projected
Emission mg/m hp- value in gram/hp-
Species 3 hour ton/years) hour
SO2 3 0.02 0.147 –
CO 572 3.48 32.047 4
NOx 100 0.61 5.580 2
HC 3.24 0.02 0.181 1
TPM 1.4 0.01 0.078
Presented by

Solid Residue
5.5%–8% of inorganic material which is recovered as solid
residue or ash.
3%–5% unconverted carbon (or char) removed from the
bottom of the gasifier as residue.
Meets TCLP levels, non hazardous and can be disposed of
on the ground without undergoing any processing.
Wastewater
The process water used during operations will mainly be
re-circulated within the system and any waste water will be
discharged into the existing sanitary sewer system.
Effluent from operations will meet Sewer Bylaws
(300mg/l COD).
Presented by

OVERVIEW
Packaged to meet the strictest environmental requirements and permits.
Inherently safe design, low pressure, meets Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and National Electrical Code (NEC) standards,
computer-monitored and logic-based feedback interface.
Completely automated to minimize operational cost. Simplified maintenance

and recycled process consumables.
Can be coupled with existing natural gas or diesel engine generators that are
already online to produce electrical power.
Small footprint enables use in portable applications.
Presented by

THANK YOU
For additional information please contact:
Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporation
(204) 283-1484
OriginalAboriginal@shaw.ca
Presented by

49680E Fesibility Report For COGEN

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

49680E Fesibility Report For COGEN

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pre-Feasibility Analysis of Biomass Fuelled

Cogeneration Unit for Port Hope Simpson

107555.00 ● Final Report ● September 2010

CBCL Limited Contents i

A NL Hydro Energy Purchase Information

CBCL Limited Contents ii

CBCL Limited Executive Summary 1

We performed sensitivity analysis around the following parameters:

CBCL Limited Executive Summary 2

Table 1: Capital Cost Summary – Community Owned Cogeneration

100 KW COGENERATION PLANT CAPITAL COST SUMMARY

Table 2: Summary of Financial Results – Community Owned

CBCL Limited Executive Summary 3

CBCL Limited Introduction 4

2.1 Electrical Loads

Table 3: Port Hope Simpson 2009 Statistics

STATISTICS FOR LATEST FULL CALENDAR YEAR: 2009

CBCL Limited Port Hope Simpson Load 5

2.2 Thermal Loads

Table 5: Potential Thermal Loads

BUILDING APPROXIMATE FLOOR AREA ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL USE

Figure 1: Health Centre

CBCL Limited Port Hope Simpson Load 6

Figure 2: D.C. Young School

Figure 3: Town Hall

CBCL Limited Port Hope Simpson Load 7

Figure 4: New School

CBCL Limited Port Hope Simpson Load 8

CBCL Limited Potential Plant Sites – Preferred Site and Layout 9

CBCL Limited Potential Plant Sites – Preferred Site and Layout 10

S and N Wood Products

Strugnell’s Woodworks - 1,000m³/year

CBCL Limited Fuel Availability and Costs 11

4.1 Biomass Combustion Technologies

CBCL Limited Fuel Availability and Costs 12

CBCL Limited Fuel Availability and Costs 13

5.1 Current Model

Figure 5: BG100 Diagram

CBCL Limited Talbott BG100 14

Figure 7: Combustion Chamber

CBCL Limited Talbott BG100 15

Figure 8: Microturbine on BG100

5.2 Next Generation Model

CBCL Limited Talbott BG100 16

5.3 Other Talbott’s Models

CBCL Limited Talbott BG100 17

6.1 Grate Combustion

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 18

6.2 Fluidized Bed Combustion

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 19

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 20

Figure 11: Typical Biomass Gasification Plant – Gussing Austria

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 21

6.4 External Brayton Cycle

6.5 Ericsson Cycle

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 22

6.6 Technology Summary

CBCL Limited Other Available Technologies 23

7.1 Capital Costs

CBCL Limited Financial Analysis 24

Table 7: Operational Costs

7.2.1 Regulatory Review

Comply with ASME.