Jasper Community Energy Assessment by Roderick MacIntosh

University of Calgary

Community Energy Assessment - Jasper, Alberta

Submitted by: Roderick W. MacIntosh

A Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degree Project submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Sustainable Energy Development

Faculty of Graduate Studies Calgary, Alberta, Canada January 2010

Approval Page

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance, the Individual Project Report entitled “Community Energy Assessment - Jasper, Alberta” submitted by Roderick W. MacIntosh in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science on Sustainable Energy Development.

Supervisor: Dr. Irene Herremans

Date

Abstract The objective of this paper is to quantify the generation and consumption energy

patterns in Jasper, Alberta, and to assess the quantity and applicability of alternative energy technologies. A suite of innovations are available to meet present and future demand for energy services, a demand which shows no sign of decline. Municipalities may seek nonconventional methods of energy management; however, they are often faced with broad knowledge gaps and resource constraints, creating uncertainty and delayed action. The intention of this study is to provide municipal planners with a baseline of energy behaviours, and to diminish the gaps which might hinder sustainable energy development. While this study cannot aspire to provide a comprehensive analysis of each technology, it does endeavour to act as a stepping stone to determining their feasibility based on the tenets of sustainability. The paper begins by outlining the local and provincial context which frames the challenge, followed by a discussion on a possible framework for municipal energy planning. The first analysis is an energy mapping study which attempts to graphically represent the distribution of energy intensity across the town. The second analysis is a technical and financial review of eight technologies which could potentially enhance the environmental performance of Jasperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy system. If possible, modelling was used to determine the performance of a typical system and estimation of the total available energy (Gigajoules), given the conditions of Jasper. The financial component uses common units for outlining capital costs ($/Watt and in the conclusion $/GJ) and operation and maintenance costs ($/kWh). The costs are normalised to present Canadian dollars to make comparison possible. Finally, the areas of organisational capacity, financing, legal and social factors, and the role of the utility are discussed. Although a host of statistics, trends, academic research and technical expertise is readily available in the area of energy planning, this study is intended to localise this information, present it in a comprehensible format, and provide leverage for energy initiatives.

iii

Dedication & Acknowledgements Dedicated to: Family, friends, and community.

Thank you to professor Irene Herremans for scrupulous oversight of my work. This paper would not have been possible without the enthusiastic support and collaboration of Jasperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department of Environmental Services. In particular, the assistance of Verne Balding, Ken Quackenbush and Lori Rissling-Wynn is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Cynthia Ball for allowing me the use of her extensive study on domestic solar hot water and Mike Knauer of Parks Canada who provided essential local mapping data. Brent Gilmour and Simon Geraghty of the Canadian Urban Institute provided much needed guidance in the energy mapping study; the CUI report set a precedent for this endeavour. Thank you to Jesse Row of the Pembina Institute for his valuable insight and comments. Thanks to my compatriots in the SEDV program.

Community Energy Assessment - Jasper, Alberta Approval Page ...........................................................................................ii Abstract ....................................................................................................iii Dedication & Acknowledgements ...........................................................iv Table of Contents ......................................................................................v List of Tables ............................................................................................vi List of Figures .........................................................................................vii i. Introduction ............................................................................................1 Study Objective ...............................................................................................1 Jasper: Past, Present and Future ....................................................................2 Renewable Energy ..........................................................................................3 Municipal Energy Planning ..............................................................................4 The Provincial Context ....................................................................................6

ii. Energy Mapping Analysis ....................................................................7 Purpose ...........................................................................................................7 Methodology ...................................................................................................8 Results & Discussion .....................................................................................12

iii. Technology Assessment ...................................................................16 Objective & Methodology ..............................................................................16 Solar Hot Water .............................................................................................18 Solar Photovoltaics .......................................................................................20 Solar Hot Air ..................................................................................................22 Ground Source Heat Pumps .........................................................................24 Landfill Gas ...................................................................................................26 Wind ..............................................................................................................28 Run-of-river Hydro .........................................................................................30 Combined Heat & Power ...............................................................................32

iv. Considerations ...................................................................................34 Organisational Capacity ................................................................................34 Policy and Legal Landscape .........................................................................36 Financing Opportunities ................................................................................39 Social Buy-in and Participation ......................................................................42 The Role of the Utility ...................................................................................44

v. Conclusion ...........................................................................................44 References ...............................................................................................48 Appendix A - Excel Tables ......................................................................55 Appendix B - SunWatt Analysis .............................................................57 Appendix C - Landfill Gas Analysis .......................................................59

List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of square footage estimates with NRCan statistics ..............11 Table 2. Actual and Estimated Jasper Energy Consumption ..................................12 Table 3. Estimated area and energy use by building type ......................................13 Table 4. Domestic Solar Hot Water Energy Potential and Costs ............................19 Table 5. Hotel Hot Water Consumption ..................................................................19 Table 6. Photovoltaic potential in various regions ..................................................21 Table 7. Solar PV capacity and costs .....................................................................21 Table 8. Transpired solar collector energy potential and costs ..............................23 Table 9. Ground source heat pump energy and cost details ..................................25 Table 10. Comparison of operating costs for heating systems ...............................25 Table 11. Estimated methane production and corresponding energy outputs ........27 Table 12. Associated costs for micro-turbine landfill gas ........................................28 Table 13. Install capital costs for wind turbine projects ..........................................30 Table 14. Operating and maintenance costs for wind power ..................................30 Table 15. Small-hydro costs ...................................................................................32 Table 16. Costs for CHP projects ...........................................................................33 Table 17. Comparison of management styles ........................................................35 Table 18. Summary of energy technologies ...........................................................45

List of Figures Figure 1. Energy Map Flowchart ...................................................................................8 Figure 2. Roof-line Overhang Correction ....................................................................10 Figure 3. Jasper Energy Consumption by Source ......................................................13 Figure 4. Jasper CO2 Production by Energy Source ..................................................13 Figure 5. Jasper Energy Consumption by Building Type ...........................................14 Figure 6. Jasper Energy Consumption by End-Use ...................................................14 Figure 7. Energy Map ................................................................................................15 Figure 8. A typical transpired solar collector ...............................................................22 Figure 9. A typical closed-loop ground-source heat pump installation ........................24 Figure 10. Wind power capacity in Jasper .................................................................29 Figure 11. CHP Process Flow Diagram ......................................................................33

vii

Community Energy Assessment - Jasper, Alberta “Don’t fret about the polar bear. Don’t think global and act local. Just act local. If enough of us do, then someday we might do something good for a polar bear.” - Soren Hermansen born a farmer, led the Danish island Samso to energy independence, and was proclaimed an Environmental Hero by Time1

i. Introduction Study Objective Sustainability is being realised in small measures. While there is consensus at the national level that Canada must embark on a path of economic, social and environmental sustainability, the most successful examples of implementation are found at the level of municipalities2. Community planners are engaging in a diverse set of initiatives and strategies that are globally minded and locally enacted. The purpose of my study is to carry out energy analyses that may serve as a baseline for community planners. It is intended as a first step in developing long-term strategies and goals with respect to energy consumption and generation. Energy issues are often trumped by the multitude of projects that must be cared for by municipal services, and even when paid attention to, planners are often constrained by a lack of available information and resources. There is no shortage of good ideas. A suite of technologies, conceptual frameworks, and government programs are available to communities that could potentially foster energy efficiency and energy security. As a result, the challenge lies in deciding which innovations are relevant and applicable given the context of a specific community. My research has three principal components. The first focuses on creating a profile of energy consumption in Jasper. After a period of on-site data collection, a map was modelled to spatially depict residential, commercial and institutional energy intensity. The map illustrates the quantity of gigajoules consumed per square metre of lot space. The first component attempts to answer the question: how is energy consumption currently being distributed in Jasper? The second component focuses on assessing the availability, applicability and cost of alternative forms of energy. Common energy and financial metrics are used to ease comparison of technologies. This section attempts to answer the question: what supply options are available to support Jasper’s current and future energy demand? The third component takes under consideration the social, legal and organisational factors which will influence the decision-making process for energy planning. The final question that is answered is this: is it possible for Jasper to achieve a sustainable energy system, and if so, what barriers and opportunities exist? 1 Samso island provides 70% of its heat with four district heating plants on the island, and private heating systems burning plant oil. Islanders are increasingly using biodiesel for liquid fuels. Fifteen new on-land wind turbines provide electricity and are owned individually by local farmers. Ten 2.3 MW offshore wind turbines, two of which are cooperatively owned by 450 shareholders. Samso has about 4,500 residents. http://www.energiakademiet.dk/default_uk.asp 2 Refer to the Federal SD Strategy at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/sd-dd_consult/SDS_federal_approach_e.htm 1

While there can be no replacement for experiential learning, it is hoped that the energy profile, supply assessment, and discussion of non-technical factors may aide the community in establishing a long-term vision of energy in Jasper. While it is favourable to pursue a diverse set of actions, they must ultimately satisfy long-term targets of energy efficiency, energy reduction, economic feasibility and be capable of delivering sufficient quantities of clean, reliable energy.

Jasper: Past, Present and Future Jasper, a community of approximately 5000 people, was deemed a municipality in 2001. The town has seen small but incremental growth over the last few years and further development is slated for the near future. Being located in one of Canada’s most revered national parks, a large portion of its income is generated from a healthy tourism industry. During the peak summer months there is an influx of recreational users and international tourists, as well as skiers and visitors to the Athabasca Glacier during the winter. Therefore, Jasper must be capable of meeting local energy needs, in addition to the demands of the seasonal population. Delivering high-quality tertiary services, within a highly competitive tourist market, is a key component for Jasper’s continued economic development. Being dependent on regional natural gas imports for both heating and electricity, Jasper more so than other towns, is at risk of energy supply issues and price volatility. The municipality is unique in that its electricity supply and consumption is not associated with the provincial grid. The majority of the power is generated at an isolated natural gas facility, the Palisades, complemented by a medium sized hydro-turbine located along the Astoria River, both owned and operated by ATCO Electricity. Generation capacity, as of 2001, was 17 MW, with an average year round demand of 9 MW and 11 MW of peak summer demand. At this time, ATCO predicted, in a worst case scenario, a shortfall of 5.4 MW of capacity. Proposed options for meeting future demand included conservation measures, additional hydro development, provincial grid connection, diesel generation and a freeze on future infrastructure development. Some of these options would impose significant environmental impacts, such as hydro or transmission lines, others would only be appropriate for a short-term solution. Jasper has a history of leadership in conservation efforts and energy efficiency. From 1991 to 1995, Alberta Power Limited carried out a successful community-based program that effectively reduced peak demand by 2.11 MW and saved 6.321 MWh annually. The Jasper Energy Efficiency Program (JEEP) curbed consumption through lighting retrofits, appliance use, and conversions of water and space heating technology. The program was meant to reduce the need for expanding generation capacity and did achieve its desired targets. Aside from numerical figures, the program was also effective in raising awareness of energy conservation and demonstrated the residents’ commitment and ability to modify their energy behaviour patterns. More recently, the town has gained experience with photovoltaic (PV) technology. A 1 kW PV system is showcased at the Jasper Activity Centre, which has a monitoring system to provide the public with performance feedback. Another PV system is installed at the Maligne Lake Warden’s Office for seasonal use. Given the proven track record with energy initiatives, it is clear that the town has the insight and dedication to develop sustainably. 2

This commitment is exemplified by the development of the Jasper Sustainability Plan. Initiated in 2008, the community has identified eight pillars which the Plan should address: governance; housing; land use; tourism and local economic development; culture, recreation, health, and well-being; water, energy, waste, and energy management; natural environment; and transportation. The process is based on a high degree of civic participation and is politically backed by both the Municipality and Parks Canada. Despite the near ubiquitous presence of the oil and gas industry in Alberta, citizens and municipalities alike are willing to move beyond business-as-usual energy policy. The Jasper National Park is a world renowned tourist destination and a World Heritage Site. Given Jasper’s international and regional reputation, the town could potentially place itself as a leader in sustainability planning, serving as a model for Alberta’s municipalities. Complementary to this objective is providing reliable, secure, low-entropy energy services to its residents and visitors.

Renewable Energy “[Energy] affects all aspects of development - social, economic, and environmental including livelihoods, access to water, agricultural productivity, health, population levels, education, and gender-related issues.” - United Nations Development Programme (http://www.undp.org/energy/)

The model of industrial economic growth that has been so strongly adhered to in the last two centuries has been almost entirely dependent on the relatively transient presence of fossil-fuels (Hubbert,1974). Furthermore, we are arriving at a unique moment in human history where the stock of stored fossil-fuels is fast approaching its upper limits and diminishing supplies will be the defining characteristic of the near future. The direct correlation between economic development and energy use is well understood, and there is little evidence that we will be able to decouple one from the other (Ockwell,2008). If we expect to meet the needs of future generations and improve standards of living, we will be confronted with an enormous energy gap. A report from International Energy Outlook projects an increase of 44% in world energy demand and 77% rise in electricity generation from 2006 to 2030 (US DOE,2009). In addition to supply issues, the much sought after fossilfuel also carries an environmental liability; global climate change being the impact of most concern. Canada, for its part, has much to answer for its historically poor track record in energy and environmental indicators. In 2001, Canada ranked 27th out of the 29 OECD countries in per capita greenhouse gases; in per capita energy use we were 27th and in economic-energy efficiency (energy required to produce a fixed amount of GDP) we ranked an “abysmal” 28th (Boyd,2001:2). Given the circumstances, it is not with much embellishment that, “[r]enewable energies (REs) represent a cornerstone to steer our energy system in the direction of sustainability and supply security” (Resch,2008:4048). At present, RE represents 13.1% (62.4 EJ) of total world energy use, however it is estimated that the amount of technically feasible renewable energy available is 7500 EJ, or sixteen times that of current global demand (Ibid). Canada also exhibits an abundant wealth of RE resources, which are similarly under-utilised. Although a full and immediate transition to renewable resources is not attainable, it is edifying to note that the limitations to such a system are neither technical nor a result of scarcity. 3

In brief, reasons abound for the discontinued use of fossil-fuels. REs can address many of the issues discussed above, and they also exhibit a few attractive characteristics. The first is reliability: REs can meet base load power equally as well as conventional plants. They are statistically less prone to shutdown due to malfunction or repair, and the impact of a single unit gong off-line is less damaging than a large centralised facility. Secondly, security: because RE sources are naturally distributed and a broad spectrum of generation sizes exists, power generation can be owned and operated by local businesses, cooperatives, and municipalities. Locally produced energy will distribute and diversify economic benefits. Domestic energy also leads to increased energy autonomy, reducing the threat of uncertain global events and fickle energy markets. And third, economics: RE technologies are commercially available and readily deployable. The cost competitiveness of REs is on par with conventional sources and continually getting better. An economy founded in REs will be more resilient to the boom and bust cycles which characterise fossilfuels. A green economy could generate jobs across all sectors. (CanREA,2009) Of particular importance to this study are distributed energy resources (DER), which are those that are directly connected to low or medium energy loads, not bulk energy transmission systems. Specifically, Akorede (2009) points to four critical environmental benefits of distributed generation (DG): they promote higher energy efficiency by capturing waste heat, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimise health risks associated with airborne contaminants, and conserve precious land and water resources.

Municipal Energy Planning In a recent documentary, Pete Postlethwaite looks back from a devastated world in 2055, and asks why we did not stop climate change in our present day. He insightfully remarks that while we would not be the first species to extinguish itself, we would be the first to do so knowingly (Gillett,2009). So, if we are in agreement that a new model for energy development is necessary, what can we say about the current model that is unsustainable? Pérez-Arriaga (2008) proposes four factors that summarise the unsustainable relationship between society and energy: • • • •

Affordable energy services are necessary to develop our civilisation Economic growth is excessively coupled to energy demand Fossil-fuel use is a major source of GHGs and a driver of climate change Availability of dependable energy sources is becoming uncertain while our dependence on energy imports grows

While the above features are principally referring to the European context, they could easily be transferred to any other industrialised country. While modern science is beginning to quantify the capacity of ecological systems to produce energy and assimilate contaminants, first world development is simultaneously straining these natural limits. We do have an enormous amount of individual projects at the building and block scale that exemplify sustainable energy use. Nevertheless, municipalities are just beginning to flesh out definitive energy policies and we have yet to see a fully functional Integrated

Community Energy System (ICES) 3. The ICES model is perhaps the best conceptual tool available to planners, and demands that we adopt a systems perspective on energy use. The model advocates for a new set of social values which drive the acceptance of environmental costing and a new paradigm in urban energy systems. We can not accurately determine a singular solution for every municipality, but ICES does forward principles of an optimised energy system: • Improve efficiency • Optimize community form • Increase complementary mixed uses

• • • •

Optimize exergy Manage heat Reduce waste Use renewable resources

Although it may be difficult to construct a well defined energy policy from these principles, we are still afforded the luxurious advantage of knowing where we are and where we need to go. In fact, taking into account only existing innovations, a sustainable energy future in Alberta is, technically, more than imaginable4. So we are left with the question, what is the best method for overcoming the enormous implementation barriers facing the new energy model? Looking to our recent past, our reliance on economic markets to stimulate industry growth has been high. A pertinent example is the pervasive deregulation of the Albertan electricity market, which has stimulated competition, innovation, and consumer choice. But there is good reason to suspect that naked financial markets will not be able to resolve the task at hand. Market forces, given the appropriate structure, are well-suited to efficiently allocate resources and promote private initiative. Nevertheless, Pérez-Arriaga affirms that these same markets fail to account for uncertain future events such as depletion, and due to their short-sighted nature, they are unable to promote technologies that are necessary under a long-term strategic vision (Ibid). In addition, markets have failed to internalise the total costs of certain technologies - the looming price of carbon in Canada and worldwide is sufficient example. While he proposes an indicative planning process that is globally scaled - far from the ground up municipal approach which this report aspires to encourage - it is important to note that he advocates for normative energy analyses, which demonstrate what we need to do. That is to say, analyses which give us definitive targets, limitations and direction towards a desirable energy future. Pérez-Arriaga’s sentiments are resonated in Lerch’s (2007) discussion on postcarbon cities; however, the proposed means of resolution are at different scales. Faced with the dual forces of Peak Oil and Climate Change Lerch would say that we are entering an era of both climate and energy uncertainty. As such, we are forced to mitigate our 3

The ICES model is championed by the Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow (QUEST) network, and was presented to Parliament in June 2009 by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. For details please refer to http://www.questcanada.org/about.php. 4 The Pembina Institute’s report, “Greening the Grid: Powering Alberta’s Future with Renewable Energy”, illustrates two scenarios under which Alberta could feasibly transition to a sustainable electric grid, powered by a portfolio of transitional and renewable energy sources. 5

negative environmental actions and adapt to effects which cannot be undone. He would also argue that local governments are the most effective means of facing these uncertainties. In summary, energy volatility and climate change are problems that require pre-emptive and long-term strategic planning. If left to market forces, which respond primarily to price signals, the resolution will lag far behind the needed hour of action. Local governments have a direct connection to the community and are able to identify local resources and vulnerabilities. They are at the frontline of primary and secondary service delivery (water, electricity, sewage, ambulance, education, etc.) and will be the first to respond in the event of a crisis. Furthermore, energy efficiency, local energy sources and compact land use are all benefits to the municipality’s economic interests. This motivation and accountability empowers the local government to stimulate initiatives and fundamental change. The challenge posed by Lerch (Ibid), and one which is facing Alberta’s towns and cities, is to account for climate and energy uncertainty in municipal planning. Ultimately, Lerch would hold that we must transition to a post-carbon city. An onerous task that requires more than a few conditions to be met, but essential to this objective is drastically reducing our reliance on carbon based fuels and power. This situation is indicative of the global sustainability challenge, namely, how to promote economic growth and quality of life without severe social and environmental degradation.

The Provincial Context Total electric generation capacity in Alberta has increased over 4,000 MW from 1998. In 2008, both peak demand (9,806 MW) and total delivered energy (69,947 GWh) were at record highs5. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) forecasts a doubling of energy consumption within the next 20 years (AESO,2009). In short, the demand for energy services will continue to increase alongside Alberta’s growing population and economy. Approximately 85% of this capacity is derived from either coal or natural gas generation. This equates to the highest greenhouse gas intensity for grid electricity in Canada at 0.82 kg CO2eq/kWh; the national 2007 average sits at 0.21 kg CO2eq/kWh (Environment Canada, 2009). Moreover, the prairie provinces boast the highest average household energy intensity level in Canada, exceeding the national average by 30% (NRC,2003). We are, consequently, continually augmenting the most fossil-fuel dependent energy system in Canada, and with the greatest degree of inefficiency. The steps taken by the provincial and municipal governments to meet future demand will have a remarkable effect on Alberta’s economy and citizens’ quality of life. As of January 2010, over 13 GW of active proposed projects were in the AESO generation queue. While it is not certain that all these projects will be realised, it is promising that a majority proportion of these projects are based on wind or hydro generation 6. Nevertheless, a large fleet of fossil-fuel fired facilities will continue to feed the grid until retired. Given the extraordinary natural wealth of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin and the growing 5

Government of Alberta electricity statistics http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/682.asp (Jan, 2010) AESO Connection Queue Jan 7th 2010 -2045MW coal, 3076MW gas, 7454MW wind, 331MW other, 229MW STS, 143MW confidential and 100MW hydro. http://www.aeso.ca/11601.html 6

markets for electricity, both inter-provincially and in the U.S., it would be difficult to curtail the advancement of carbon-based generation. The provincial energy strategy commits to the development of clean hydrocarbons, promotion of wise energy use and continued economic prosperity. Although transitional and renewable energy solutions are being seriously considered and proposed, it is clear that, in the near future, Alberta’s electric grid will continue to see the greatest national penetration rate of coal and natural gas. The abundance of fossil resources in Alberta offers enormous economic opportunity while simultaneously posing a great environmental liability. The province’s energy reality may pose a contradiction for municipalities seeking sustainable development, and may also account for the relative languor of energy initiatives. It is not strenuous to assert that Alberta lacks the culture of environmentalism and conservation that can be found in neighbouring provinces. Yet the provincial context is perhaps further impetus for municipalities to renew energy management practices.

ii. Energy Mapping Analysis Purpose Many environmental management tools and frameworks are available to municipal planners for developing long-term energy strategies. Software developed by the Canadian government, RETscreen, is a highly detailed project analysis tool that can determine a project’s economic and environmental feasibility. Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) has developed a Business and Climate Web Tool, among other web-based programs intended to guide a firm towards sustainability. Overarching frameworks have been created locally by the Alberta Urban Municipality Association, and internationally, such as Sweden’s Natural Step which is currently practised in Canada by some and cities. In spite of the abundance of sustainability tools, energy mapping was advantageous for this study for several reasons. First, it provides a visual representation of community energy patterns; the mapping is comprehensible to anyone regardless of training and clearly communicates how energy consumption is spatially distributed. Second, the mapping exercise is a first step to determining which renewable or transitional energy technologies would be best applied to specific areas. Because municipal planners need to connect transportation and infrastructure development to energy patterns, it is necessary to see the problem from a macro-scale before a strategy can be decided upon. And lastly, energy mapping provides a stepping stone to a comprehensive energy inventory, if such an initiative were to be pursued by the town. The Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) emphasises the mutually dependent relationship between energy and land use. In their 2009 energy mapping study of Calgary, the Institute notes that municipal planners can promote sustainable energy systems by either directly delivering energy services or indirectly through policy. But because of the energy/land-use relationship, planners need to understand how the built environment will affect future energy demands. Energy mapping, then, is a tool, “to maximise the energy efficiency of urban form [by] going beyond integrating transportation issues, improvements to and orientation of the built environment, as well as ensuring that ‘unavoidable’ energy needs are met in the most 7

effective way possible, such as obtaining the highest and best use from a given primaryenergy input.â&#x20AC;? (CUI,2008:10).

Methodology The energy map directly exploits the relationship between a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s square footage and energy consumption. National and provincial statistical averages have been calculated by National Resources Canada (NRCan), which extensively outline energy use by building type, activity, and vintage7. Using these statistics and data collected through municipal reports, independent audits, and on-site surveys, a reliable energy consumption model could be developed. Below is a flowchart which outlines the general procedures taken to arrive at the model.

Assign an energy intensity figure to each category [GJ/m2]

Categorise each building

Acquire the total area for each building [m2]

Calculate energy consumption by building and by block [GJ]

Calculate block energy intensity and translate to colour scale for mapping [GJ/m2]

Figure 1. Energy Map Flowchart

Although conceptually the flowchart is simple, various sources were needed to corroborate accuracy and cover all sectors. A survey of hotel, business, and industrial building square footage was carried out in 2001 by Parks Canada. Whenever possible, figures from this survey were used, unless the building was no longer in use or had significantly changed. Although commercial expansion is much more limited in Jasper, due to zoning and space limitations, many of the industrial and commercial lots had changed hands and required on-site surveying. The footprints of the major hotels were in nearly all cases accurate. The Parks Canada survey significantly reduced the degree of error when calculating building area for these sectors. However the bulk of the building stock, residential, required a separate methodology. 7

The Comprehensive Energy Use Database (CEUD), compiled by Natural Resources Canada, has statistics for all sectors and regions in Canada. Specifically, those for Albertaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential, commercial and institutional were used in this study. Data can be found on-line at http://oee.rncan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/ comprehensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0. 8

The actual area for residences is not recorded, but for the purpose of land-use planning Parks Canada does maintain Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data for the town. The GIS map uses data obtained from aerial photos to depict legal boundaries, service lines, and building roof-lines among other data. The measurements’ accuracy is well within a hundredth of a metre. The GIS roof-lines were used as a proxy for each building’s footprint. Missing from any of the GIS mapping data, but a necessary figure for calculating total area, was the amount of stories for each building. Given the number of stories and the building footprint, a simple multiplication of the two would produce the total heated square footage. Therefore, it was necessary to do an on-site survey, classifying each building as either 1, 1.5, or 2 stories. The survey was conducted through a curbside visual inspection, as it was not possible to survey individual home-owners. NRCan energy intensity statistics have four basic categories for residential housing: single-detached, row-housing, mobile, and apartment. Classifying the building stock into one of these four categories was also carried out during the on-site survey. Similarly, energy intensity for commercial buildings vary by activity. For example, a restaurant consumes more energy per square foot than a school. Each commercial building was also categorised by activity type, conforming to the NRCan classifications. The last two steps (see Figure 1) were simple calculations derived from the collected and organised data. The final energy intensity figure was a summation of all the buildings within a block; the total block area was taken directly from Jasper’s principal AutoCAD base map.8 Assumptions, Estimations and Error Correction Because the GIS data is updated only every few years, some developments were not present. In several cases, Parks Canada had approximations of future footprints from developers. If not available, and if the new development was expected to conform with surrounding buildings, the median of the block was taken as an estimate. It was prudent to take a conservative estimate even though new developments tend to be larger. If the development was not typical, as was the case of Skyline Lofts a new condominium in block thirteen, realtor websites and in-person inquiries gave reliable estimates. When calculating square footage, consideration had to be taken for the error caused by roof overhang. Using the GIS roof-lines, building square footage was consistently inflated particularly for single detached and row houses that can exhibit overhangs from 6-36”. A correction factor of -8%was applied to single detached homes and -4.5% was applied to all row housing. Calculations took the pre-error averages for square footage and deducted the overhang area, as seen in Figure 2. A standard overhang of 60cm or 12” was applied to all buildings.

See Appendix A for Block Summary table 9

Single detached m2AVG = 209.14 %error = 1 - [(√ m2AVG - 0.6m)2 / m2AVG] Row-housing m2AVG = 165.12 %error = 1 - [(√ m2AVG - 0.6m)(√ m2AVG)/ m2AVG]

Overhang

SingleDetached

Row-House

Overhang

Figure 2. Roof-line overhang correction

Other structural features of single detached houses also inflated the square footage estimate; covered driveways and top floors that extend beyond the foundation are relevant examples. But the presence of these features was sparse enough to ignore. Apartments and mobile homes, which do not typically have overhangs, were not corrected. As mentioned, energy intensity figures for both residences and commercial buildings were taken directly from NRCan’s statistics, according to the type of building and activity. But because some commercial buildings were shared by two or more businesses, a simple weighted average was necessary for estimation. A building which was split between a cafe (with an energy intensity of 3.34 GJ/m2) and a souvenir shop (with an energy intensity of 1.38 GJ/m2) would have an overall intensity of [(3.34+1.38)/2] or 2.36 GJ/m2. The commercial building stock in Jasper is small and, from a pedestrian perspective, highly visible making the survey reasonably accurate. However, a margin of error can be expected and could only be reduced by accurate floor plans or detailed interviews with individual business owners. It is important to note that the classification of the buildings’ stories was not definitive. Often, a residence that could have been classified as a 1.5-story, was not because the upper half-floor was marginal. In other cases, a 1-story building was classified as 1.5, because the basement was developed for short-term occupancy, a common trend in Jasper. Many commercial buildings and hotels are classified as 1-story because the estimate came directly from the Parks Canada survey and accurately accounted for all heated area. In short, the story classification and commercial activity survey served as a guide for the square footage calculations. Because the methods were applied consistently to all sectors and by one individual, it can be said that the margin of error will be comparable between all buildings. Therefore, individual discrepancies may be present, but the relative distribution of energy consumption should prove to be accurate. In other words, in spite of discrepancies with actual building energy consumption, the map will clearly illustrate how a block area stacks up against all others. This comparative evaluation may be useful for planning purposes. If, for example, a limited amount of funds for energy efficiency projects were available, the map could indicate the most energy intense areas where these efforts would be most effectively applied. This should certainly not be the only means of evaluation, if it were, in the previous example, energy efficiency funds would actually be rewarding inefficient energy behaviour, in effect subsidising high energy consumption. It is important to consider multiple metrics and a diverse set of stakeholders when planning any energy system; the energy map may be one of these many useful tools. 10

Furthermore, three methods were used to measure and strengthen the reliability of the estimations. The first was to take a sample of houses whose square footage was already known, then compare these results with calculated figures. The sample included all types of buildings except for commercial. The average deviance from calculated and actual square footage was 27.5%9. Such a large error would not normally be acceptable but a few unusually high deviances adversely distorted the average. The building area survey is not regarded as the best measure of accuracy; more important are the resulting estimates of energy use. In addition, although the sample of buildings was diverse, it was not large enough to provide a reliable margin of error. The second method was a comparison of the building class averages with Natural Resource Canada statistics: J ASPER A VERAGES

NRC AN A VERAGES

AREA

ENERGY

AREA

ENERGY

(M2)

(GJ/YR)

(M2)

(GJ/YR)

SINGLE DETACHED

192.4

234.7

137.0

163.8

ROW-HOUSING

157.9

145.4

117.6

MOBILE

99.6

155.3

APARTMENT

79.9

73.5

% D IFFERENCE [A REA /E NERGY ]

+40

/ +43

103.5

+34

/ +40

91.1

154.7

80.0

78.8

/ /

0 -7

Table 1. Comparison of square footage estimates with NRCan statistics

As seen in Table 1, the estimations for both apartments and mobile homes highly conform with national averages. In contrast, the detached and attached residences are both higher in average floor space and therefore energy consumption. From the survey it is difficult to say whether a Jasper home is typically larger, but there is reason to conclude that, regardless of size, a Jasper home would consume more energy than average. Climate is the principal factor; few cities are at such a high latitude making the heating season longer and more energy intensive. And, as mentioned earlier, many homes have developed basements and additional suites which increases occupancy, albeit seasonally. The third and final method was to use gross annual energy consumption figures obtained from the sole energy provider, ATCO Electric, and compare these with the estimated gross energy use. The total 2008 natural gas consumption for the municipality was 612,000 GJ, and the total electricity consumption was 56,593,565 kWh or 203,737 GJ. Not included in the modelling were several facilities outside the town limits, which nonetheless consume energy from the local grid. Two of these facilities, the Jasper Park Lodge and the Marmot Basin Ski Lodge, provided annual figures of their energy use. The 9

See Appendix A for Deviance Chart 11

energy consumption for the KinderMorgan pumping station, which uses an electric compressor to transport petroleum products, was estimated using historical operations data. The out-of-town energy consumption which was not included in the analysis can be subtracted from ATCO’s gross figure.

OUT-OF-TOWN FACILITIES

GROSS ENERGY USE (ACTUAL - ATCO)

MODELLED IN-TOWN ENERGY USE

JPL 210,141 GJ

Natural Gas 612,000 GJ (2008) Electricity 56,593,565 kWh or 203,737 GJ( 2009)

TOTAL IN-TOWN ENERGY USE

(actual 2008)

549,796 GJ

477,185 GJ Marmot Basin [“Gross Energy” - “Out [ Deficit of -72,611 GJ] 9000 GJ (actual 2008) of Town”] KinderMorgan 46,800 GJ (est. 2007)

Table 2. Actual and estimated Jasper energy consumption (most recent data available)

As indicated in Table 2, approximately 72,611 GJ of energy goes unaccounted for in the mapping study, or 13% of the total gross consumption. Other energy loads for which information could not be gathered could justifiably align the actual and estimated figures. In particular, street lighting, waste water treatment and the small industrial park were not modelled. Nor were some seasonal facilities included such as the Jasper Tramway and the Patricia Lake Bungalows, which exhibit relatively small energy consumption. Inclusion of these buildings into the model would serve to increase the accuracy of the gross energy estimation. If the energy use of these loads were to be reported and a discrepancy were still present between the modelled and actual gross energy, a correction factor would have to be applied to buildings or blocks. But as mentioned, regardless of how accurate the estimated gross energy is, the relative distribution of energy for the in-town building stock would remain the same according to this model.

Results & Discussion The vast majority of energy services in Jasper is provided by the direct consumption of natural gas, while approximately 25% of the energy is used for electricity services (see Figure 3). Although the per capita energy use in Jasper may be high due to climate, the carbon intensity of electricity consumed is lower than the rest of Alberta. This is because the electricity is 100% natural gas fired not coal fired, making it about ⅞ the carbon footprint of the provincial grid. In 2004 an emission factor of 0.72 kg CO2eq/kWh (for every kWh used the equivalent of 0.72 kg of CO2 is emitted) was reported for the Palisades generation plant by ATCO Electric, or 200 kg CO2eq/GJ. For comparison, natural gas burned directly for residential and commercial use (i.e. gas heating) has an emission factor of 51 kg CO2eq/ GJ10. Therefore the minority portion of electricity use produces the majority share of emissions; electricity use produces 40,747 tonnes of CO2eq, while natural gas use produces 31,222 tonnes of CO2eq (see Figure 4). 10

Natural gas emission factor: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/GHG/inventory_report/2004_report/ann13_e.cfm 12

Electricity [Hydro] 2% Electricity [Gas] 23% Natural Gas 75%

Electricity 57%

Figure 3. Jasper Gross Energy Consumption by Source

Natural Gas 43%

Figure 4. Jasper CO2 Production by Energy Source

As inferred by Table 3 commercial and single detached homes are the buildings that consume the most amount of energy, both in intensity and absolutely. Combined, these two sectors compromise close to 70% of Jasperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total in-town energy use. It is not surprising that single detached homes have the greatest heated building area. And even though commercial buildings have approximately 25,000m2 less area, the energy intensity of commercial activities can be 2-3 times greater than residential.

BUILDING TYPE

ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA

ESTIMATED ENERGY USE

(METRES2)

(GIGAJOULES)

SINGLE DETACHED

124,299

151,645

ROW HOUSING

33,954

31,268

APARTMENTS

49,985

45,986

MOBILE

8,663

13,514

COMMERCIAL

99,588

172,232

INSTITUTIONAL

34,064

62,540

Table 3. Estimated area and energy use by building type

In terms of end-use (see Figure 6), space heating is the majority shareholder at 63% of the total, which directly corresponds to the high consumption of gas. The 10% allocation for auxiliary equipment refers specifically to commercial and institutional operations; loads such as motors would be included in this portion. The division of secondary energy by enduse service was based on 2008 Alberta statistics. The end-use consumption patterns are therefore representative of provincial averages.

Figure 5. Jasper Energy Consumption by Building Type

13%

32%

10% 7% 3%

Figure 6. Jasper Energy Consumption by End-Use

1% 5%

10% 14%

63%

36% Commercial Single Detached Institutional Apartments Row Housing Mobile

Space Heating Hot Water Aux. Equipment Lighting Appliances Space Cooling

The Map To reiterate, the map (see figure 7) represents the annual energy use per metre of lot space. The industrial park buildings are not seen because they were not included in the modelling. The distribution of energy intensity across Jasper is not far from what would be normally anticipated. Zones with commercial and tourist activity are much more energy intensive than residential areas. Residential areas with predominantly large single-detached homes are more energy intensive than sparsely distributed small homes. The downtown corridor of 4-5 blocks, the cluster of hotels at the North end, and the activity centre are by far the greatest energy loads, excluding the out-of-town consumers. The energy map is by no means an appropriate method of demonstrating excessive energy use. It must be kept in mind that the energy intensity is a function of both total energy use and lot space - total amount of energy used (GJ) divided by total lot area (m2). Therefore, facilities placed on lots with ample open-space will exhibit lower energy intensities than those placed on space constrained lots, even if they use equal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the energy intensity is not an indication of operational efficiency, nor does it account for the quantity of economic services provided by a building. For example, one hotel may use less energy per guest than another, but still use more energy overall. Division of the energy intensity by block was appropriate given the data collected - the original GIS map divides area by lot and block; however, the map is not intended to pinpoint energy misuse by individual users. The colour scale was chosen with the priority of visually communicating the full range of energy use. The differentiation between levels is not necessarily prescriptive; for example, one can not say that any particular technology will be applicable to all areas under or over 1.00 GJ/m2. But it is true that energy intense zones require special consideration. 14

Figure 7. Energy Map 15

Areas of high energy intensity, may in fact represent an opportunity; technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP) and transpired solar collectors will be more effective where there is a large, continuous heat load. This is not to say that efficient energy use should not be the main priority - energy conserved is energy gained - but it is extremely important to consider the service that the energy is providing, its quantity, and how best to meet its demand.

iii. Technology Assessment Objective & Methodology A suite of alternative technologies are available at commercial and private scales, all varying in cost, targeted end-use, capacity, and applicability. The purpose of this study was not to provide a full technical evaluation of the technologies, which would require greater resources, but rather to carry out a pre-feasibility study, taking stock of what energy options are available in Jasper. The analyses are intended to make easier comparison of technologies and to appraise their potential contribution to the town’s sustainability objectives. The basis for comparison is strictly limited to the potential or estimated energy capacity. It is by no means a comprehensive evaluation, and barring practical limitations, the study would have benefited from the inclusion of alternate criteria, such as CO2 emissions or a full Life Cycle Assessment. It should be mentioned that several viable technologies lied beyond the scope of this study. Omissions include energy from agricultural and forest biomass (although estimates indicate that bio-resources have a potential of 585 PJ in Alberta (Kralovic,2006)), energy storage technologies, and fuel cells. The degree of investigation varied depending on the technology. However, all share the common thread of being proven in the field, having been deployed at large scales, and all meet the demand for energy services with less fossil-fuel than conventional practices. A simplistic comparison of technologies would not be wise, as the energy produced often is designed for very different consumers. For example, a community wind project is a gridbased solution, while domestic solar hot water satisfies an isolated building load. But in spite of the great diversity of characteristics, they all could lead to net gains in sustainability and contribute to a progressive energy strategy. Essential to the “Energy [R]evolution” as coined by Greenpeace, is a transition from current monolithic energy practices to a decentralised, distributed, diverse, multiple shareholder strategy. The ICES framework mentioned earlier provides us with a common ground for energy planning, but more specifically the desired outcomes for implementing any of these technologies include: • • • • • •

Minimising dependency on fossil-fuel based energy, increasing energy security and providing shelter from price volatility and supply disruptions Reducing the need for infrastructure development by reducing overall demand Increasing the resilience of energy infrastructure by limiting congestion and offsetting transmission losses Advancing climate change and environmental targets by reducing GHG emissions Improve competitiveness through energy efficiency and cost management Diversifying the energy supply by integrating decentralised, domestically produced, and renewable energy sources 16

In terms of methodology, the analyses below had the ultimate goal of determining the gross amount of energy available (using Joules as the standard for comparison) based on reasonable and conservative assumptions. In several cases, it was not possible to reach a conclusive estimate because the technology was not widely applicable (i.e. solar hot air) or there was insufficient data to make an assessment (i.e. run-of-river hydro). It is hoped that the quantitative and qualitative evaluations will provide a foundation for developing a portfolio of energy solutions. The costs outlined for each technology are simple overnight (capital) and operation and maintenance costs. In order to make the costs comparable, they have been normalised to 2009 Canadian dollar values. The method for normalisation is based on an average between the domestic Consumer Price Index and the GDP Deflator (Nominal GDP / Real GDP). Using an average of the two indicators better accounted for inflation and purchasing power 11. When foreign exchange rates were necessary, the yearly averages were taken for conversion. These dollar amounts provide some insight into the installation and annual costs, and are intended to provide a basic monetary comparison from an investors standpoint. However, the simple $/Watt costs do not communicate the full value of distributed energy technologies. One must consider that installed capacities of different technologies will produce varying quantities of usable energy, depending on the resource harnessed and system efficiency. For example, 3kWp of photovoltaic panels could typically result in 12GJ of annual usable energy, while 3kWt of solar hot water panels could produce 9GJ. Moreover, because the energy end-uses are unique, these two systems might be replacing different fossil-fuel sources, which will affect payback times and emission offsetting. For this reason, whenever possible, typical system performance and costs are discussed in order to better inform the comparison. Table 18 in the Conclusion section compares the technologies by $CAD/GJ which will give a better indication of the efficiency and simple payback of each investment. The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory carried out a full value analysis for photovoltaic technology (Contreras,2008). The objective of this study was to quantify the full savings associated with Solar PV installations. The numbers will vary by technology but the points of cost-saving remain relevant to all. In addition to equipment, installation, overhead, and O&M costs, they have also factored in the following costs and savings: • • • • • •

Central Power Generation Cost Central Power Capacity Cost Transmission and Distribution Cost System Losses Ancillary Services Hedge Value

• • • • • •

Customer Price Protection Criteria Pollutant Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implicit Value Customer Reliability System Resiliency

See Excel file for detailed calculations: “Currency Ccnversion” worksheet. 17

It is also important to note that many of the capital and operating costs are rapidly decreasing. The emergent nature of these technologies translates to rapid advances in materials research, industry practices and financing models. Governmental support also stimulates economic competitiveness through financial incentives and policy. When faced with a discrepancy between sources, the most current cost was taken or a range is given. The study does not amortise system replacement costs, use a discount or interest rate, nor does it account for reclamation of scrap value. A detailed economic analysis would be the next logical step if implementation were being considered.

Solar Hot Water Hot water compromises 18.7% of the total energy demand for a typical Albertan residence, second only to space heating. Canada’s average per-capita consumption of water (hot and cold) is currently one of the highest in the world, at around 350 litres/day. Estimates for canadian hot water use vary, but lie in the range of 66.5-138.6 litres/day (Aguilar,2005). The majority of Albertan homes, approximately 92%, use natural gas boilers to heat water, and 6.4% use electricity (NRC,2008). In spite of efficiency gains made with newer model boilers, the addition of solar hot water units can cover between 35-55% of annual demand, displacing a significant portion of a household’s fossil-fuel consumption. SHW systems do not eliminate the need for conventional boilers but provide a fraction of solar heated water. The solar fraction is dependent upon the solar resource, climate, and the system’s efficiency. Solar hot water systems designed for cold climates use an antifreeze liquid such as glycol as a medium for heat transfer. The glycol is passed through a closed-loop between the basement and the solar collector on the roof. As the glycol passes through the collector it absorbs thermal energy, then travels to the basement. The heated glycol arrives to a heat exchanger, where it exchanges its thermal energy with the home’s cold water intake. The solar heated water is stored in a pre-heat tank before being passed to the conventional boiler and to the end-user. Not only does the system reduce energy consumption by pre-heating the cold intake water, but it also provides additional hot water storage capacity providing the users with better service. The systems will last at least 30 years, and maintenance is limited to antifreeze changes every three years (Ball,2007). Modelling Potential Energy Capacity WattSun is an application developed by NRCan for solar hot water modelling. The program predicts the total energy used by the load, the solar energy collected, the fraction of the load met by solar and related energy quantities. Parameters can be set for every stage of the system, including: collector, pipes, heat exchanger, pump, preheat tank, auxiliary tank, load requirements, and environmental conditions. Particularly with this technology, it is easy to model a typical “Jasper” system because it is not dependent on house size, but rather occupancy. Hot water, unlike space heating, is consumed only by people not by the house itself. Jasper’s average occupancy is 2.3 persons, therefore a system that can be applied to all of Jasper should cover at least this base demand.

Data and Assumptions • Occupancy was based on 2-3 persons which would warrant a one-panel system for each residence regardless of square footage. • Calculations were made based on application to all single detached, row houses, and mobile units; while possible, apartment units were not included because of the difficulty in obtaining accurate results. Independent site analyses would be more effective. • WattSun has a library of solar data for various locations, Edmonton’s sun regime was the closest available data set and had to be used in-lieu of site data. • The Enerworks panel was used as a standard and exhibits the following characteristics glazed surface, aperture area of 2.7m2, 23W pump, ΔTon 10°C (EnerWorks Owner Manual, 2009).

•

The following industry standards were applied to the simulation: antifreeze flow rate of 0.02 kg/s, ΔToff 2°C, slope of 45°, indoor temperature 21°C, basement temperature 15° C, temperature set point 60°C, preheat and auxiliary tank 80 US gallons.

Results and Discussion PER HOUSEHOLD

ALL RESIDENCES (EXCL. APTS)

HOT WATER ENERGY CONSUMPTION

24.28 GJ

23,017 GJ

SOLAR ENERGY FRACTION

9.01 GJ

8,541 GJ

CAPITAL COSTS

$0.89 /Watt

O&M COSTS

negligible

Table 4. Domestic solar hot water energy potential and costs (Source - CanSIA, 2006. Based on a panel nominal thermal power of 1100W/m2)

HOTELS TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

116,723 GJ

HOT WATER ENERGY CONSUMPTION

13,937 GJ*

ESTIMATED SOLAR FRACTION

requires independent study

CAPITAL COSTS

$0.90 /Watt and $0.16 /Watt (pool heating)

O&M COSTS

negligible

Table 5. Hotel hot water consumption (Source - CanSIA, 2006) *Based on an NRCan average of 11.94% hot water energy fraction. 19

A comprehensive solar hot water feasibility study was carried out for Jasper in 2007 and clearly illustrates the effectiveness and viability of the technology (Ball,2007). In fact, the analysis is based on a common installation of two panels instead of one, which results in increased solar energy production (14GJ per system). Therefore, the numbers outlined in Table 4 should be taken as the minimum energy capacity available with the least amount of up-front investment, but not the greatest energy return on investment A typical 2-panel system averages $5870 in Canada, however many federal and regional incentives are available, outlined in the Considerations section.

Solar Photovoltaics Decades of research and several generations of technology have produced reliable, productive solar modules. Yet a lack of economic competitiveness has always been the primary inhibitor to wide-scale photovoltaic (PV) deployment. Oddly, many States and European countries have developed enviable PV markets, in spite of the fact that their solar resource is less plentiful than Albertaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. This suggests that proper planning and commitment to the technology can lead to successful long-term results. There are many types of PV systems, but all produce DC current which can be either stored in batteries or potentially converted to grid-quality AC current for distribution. Maintenance is minimal, having no moving parts or liquids, and systems are generally marked to last for a minimum of 20-25 years. Battery-based systems will require mild cleaning and replacement after 6-8 years. They also significantly increase the price of the system. The bulk of the costs reside in the solar module itself, but users will also have to take into account the major components such as charge controllers, inverters, batteries, and installation. The panelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance is mainly dependent on size, efficiency, and the solar resource, but other factors include module angle, orientation and shading. Estimating Potential Energy Capacity It has been proven that PV installed costs have stabilised over the years and are beginning to exhibit the benefits of economies of scale (Wiser,2009). Generally, systems are sized to meet the electric power needs of a building, but because average Canadian consumption of electricity is so high, usually only a portion of demand can be met. While PV may not be a viable solution for curbing demand, it is relatively easy to determine installed costs for Alberta residences and to estimate the amount of coverage needed to replace a percentage of electric power consumption. As seen in Table 6, Jasper exhibits a moderately high PV potential; for every 1 kW installed, we can expect a return of 1100 kWh per annum. This may not be as high as desert hot spots, such as those found in southwestern U.S.; however, it is certainly a sufficient resource to justify investment. Since its inception in November 2006, the 1 kW system atop the Jasper Recreation Centre has produced 3150.2 kWh or 11.34 GJ of power 12. This data confers with estimates from NRCan, and provides a good indication of average power output to be expected in Jasper.

Online source http://www.lassothesun.ca/pages/jasper.htm, accessed November 1, 2009. 20

SOLAR PV POTENTIAL (KWH / KWP) JASPER

1100-1200

MEDICINE HAT

1300-1400

GERMANY (AVERAGE)

810-950

Table 6. Photovoltaic potential in various regions (Sources - Súri, et al., 2007; NRCan solar radiation maps https://glfc.cfsnet.nfis.org/mapserver/ pv/index.php?lang=e)

SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS CAPITAL COSTS

$8.90 /Watt

[$7.85-$12.41]*

O&M COSTS

2¢ /kWh

IN-TOWN ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION

~30,000 MWh

Table 7. Solar PV capacity and costs (Sources - Wiser, et al., 2009; NREL, 2006) *Represents average for total installed system costs; range in brackets are the min/max costs.

Jasper, being a small town of limited financial and technical resources, is certainly prone to many solar PV implementation barriers, but lack of an excellent solar resource is not one of them. Again, based solely on investment efficiency and value, photovoltaics are not currently the best means of producing electricity or improving other environmental metrics such as GHG emissions - Jasper’s largest portion of energy use is in the direct combustion of natural gas for heating, an energy need which would not be served by photovoltaics. Nevertheless, they may prove to be a valuable part of the long-term vision for the community. It would be worthwhile to take steps to develop the physical and legal framework for photovoltaics, in preparation of the likely event that installed systems costs become competitive with grid energy. A preliminary evaluation could look at the development of building codes that account for solar access and solar rights laws; assess the feasibility of incentives, tax breaks, low-interest loans, net-metering or feed-in tariff programs; and establish long-term solar installation targets.13

For a detailed framework for developing municipal solar policy see the U.S. Department of Energy’s, “Solar Powering Your Local Community: A Guide for Local Governments”. 21

Solar Hot Air By far, the nation’s greatest energy consumer in Canada is space heating. The residential and commercial sectors alone have an annual demand of 1331.4 PJ (Petajoules), or 55% of total energy consumed in these buildings (NRC,2008). Being located in a mountain climate, Jasper allocates an even greater percentage of its energy demand to heating, at 63% or just under 300,000 GJ. Particularly in Alberta where grid electricity is mainly coal derived, space heating holds the greatest potential for reducing energy demand, GHG emissions and fossil-fuel dependency. We can meet these growing demands by either making improvements to the building envelope, or by sourcing alternative forms of heating technology. Measures such as improving insulation are often the most cost-effective means of reducing building heat demand, but ideally, both the building envelope and the source of heating and cooling energy would be upgraded. Transpired solar collectors are proven to be an effective means of reducing space heating energy consumption. High rates of efficiency and low absorber costs make these collectors economically attractive. Payback can be in as little as three years, depending on the size and location of the installation. They are most effective in commercial or institutional applications where a large, non-functional wall can provide collector space. Projects can range from 30-1000+ square metres.

The collector is made of a porous darkcoloured metal that absorbs solar radiation. Air is actively pulled in through the perforated collector by a fan and heated as it passes. The pre-heated ventilation air can then be distributed to the building through its original HVAC system. The transpired collectors have the advantage of being virtually maintenance free; they have no liquids to replace nor any moving parts outside of the fan. In addition, they recapture heat lost through the wall at night, improving overall building efficiency. They have an expected life-span of 30 years. Estimating Potential Energy Capacity Jasper has few buildings that fulfill the requisites for an effective solar collector installation: large ventilation demand and an Figure 8. A typical transpired solar collector appropriate south facing wall. Nevertheless, the buildings that do qualify, would be greatly benefited by the technology given Jasper’s long heating season and because, “[i]n general, colder and higher latitude climates return a higher rate of return because the heating season extends into months with good solar resource” (Kozubal,2008:1). Because of the low rate of applicability, individual building 22

studies will demonstrate the technology’s relevance with a much higher degree of accuracy. Buildings which could be worth evaluation include schools, hospitals, hotels, municipal facilities, and the recreation centre. Results and Discussion

TRANSPIRED SOLAR COLLECTORS APPLICABILITY

Requires independent site study

SOLAR COLLECTOR POTENTIAL

1.5-3.5 GJ/m2 or 417-972 kWh/m2 *

CAPITAL COSTS

$150 /m2 (installed collector area)** or $4.00 /Watt

O&M COSTS

negligible

Table 8. Transpired solar collector energy potential and costs *(Sources - Conserval Engineering Inc., 2009; Kozubal, et al., 2008) **(Sources - NREL, 2000. Assumes a retrofit application, costs decrease if incorporated into new building design; Swift simulation tool)

It is evident that opportunity for transpired solar collectors exists in Jasper. Nevertheless, it is important to note the findings of NREL’s study of this technology, which indicate that Heat Recovery Ventilators (HRV) should be strongly considered when evaluating alternative means of space heating. HRVs will likely exceed the transpired collectors in energy and cost savings. HRVs exchange heat between cold fresh air intake and the building’s hot exhaust air, allowing for increased air quality without sacrificing energy efficiency. As NREL notes the HRV units have three main advantages. • •

•

Transpired collectors have a low utilisation rate, typically 12-35% over the year during sunny days in heating months. Heat recovery ventilators can be used throughout the year and can optimise a building’s heating load during winter night hours and humid summer days, when the load may be greatest. The energy recovery method can lead to downsized heating and cooling equipment, while transpired collectors cannot, for reasons mentioned above.

The study concludes that a good application for transpired solar collectors is to supplement exhaust air heat recovery with ventilation make-up air. Individual assessments will prove which technology is best suited to the application and how a combination of the two might optimise energy performance.

Ground Source Heat Pumps The majority of Alberta’s geo-exchange systems are likely to have been installed by not more than twelve contractors. The industry is small, yet similar to other technologies assessed in this report, the potential is vast. Manitoba has Canada’s most developed geoexchange industry, being the only provincial government that offers financial support in the form of tax credits and incentive grants. Nevertheless, the potential for national development is significant given the nascent stage of the market, the growing experience of installers, and the the Canadian Geoexchange Coalition’s establishment of national certifications and standards. GSHP systems can satisfy a large percentage of a buildings heating and cooling demand by taking advantage of relatively consistent sub-surface temperatures. At just ten metres below ground, the temperature varies as little as 2-3°C. By using the ground as either a source or a sink, the system serves the dual function of heating during the winter and cooling during the summer. Many types of installation are available, and are generally classified as either closed-loop or open-loop. Closed-loop systems continuously circulate fluid through one or several ground loops without any physical exchange with the environment. An open-loop system, circulates the water from a well or pond in the system, then, the water is placed back into the environment, usually at a different location. Open-loop systems can be less capital intensive because less drilling is involved but, naturally, require access to a suitable water source. Many factors will influence the performance of a GSHP system. System configuration, system size, ground characteristics, interior heat distribution, load requirements and the quality of installation are some of the main considerations. A system can be designed to meet a household’s entire heating demand, but because capital costs would exceed benefits in this case, typically Figure 9. A typical closed-loop groundthey are designed to meet 80-90% of heating demand. source heat pump installation Individual sites may also exhibit varying characteristics that can highly influence performance. For example, the presence of an aquifer with sufficient flow can reduce a large portion of the drilling costs. The systems are highly reliable if properly installed. The heat pump’s life-span will range from 20-25 years, while the piping will endure 50-75 years of use depending on the material. Generally, a typical system costs savings of 65% can be expected with electricity as comparison, but less if compared to High Efficiency Natural Gas (HENG); an NRCan study indicated that a closed-loop system has a simple payback ranging from 8.8-9.4 years in Calgary (NRC,2004). Of course, the economics will be dependent on the system’s

performance, and electricity and natural gas prices. While most of the heating energy is provided by the ground, the pump still requires electricity to operate. In Table 10, a comparison of high-efficiency natural gas, electric, and ground-source heating demonstrates how simple operating costs might look at specific energy prices and common system efficiencies. The most important figure in Table 10 is the final “Operating cost/unit” which details the comparable costs per unit of energy consumed by an end-user. Estimating Potential Energy Capacity PER HOUSEHOLD

ALL SINGLE-DETACHED

HEATING & COOLING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

158 GJ

102,068 GJ

POTENTIAL GSHP FRACTION

134 GJ

86,758 GJ

CAPITAL COSTS

~$1.60-2.50 /Watt

MAINTENANCE COSTS

(will be less than a conventional heating system)

negligible

Table 9. Ground source heat pump energy and cost details (Source - Rawlings, R., 2004. Total installation and comission costs for vertical indirect systems)

USEABL UNITS OPERATING E BTU/ NEEDED COST / UNIT

HEATING SOURCE

UNITS

HIGH EFFICIENCY NATURAL GAS

947,817

$7.00

95%

900,426

1.11

$7.77

ELECTRIC

kWh

3,412

$0.07

100%

3,412

293.08

$20.52

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP

kWh

3,412

$0.07

350%

11,942

83.74

$5.86

BTU/ UNIT

$ / UNIT EFFICIENCY

UNIT

Table 10. Comparison of operating costs for heating systems (Source - adapted from Shaw, J., 2003)

GSHP systems are very effective at displacing fossil fuel consumption, and on a per watt basis they compete with other residentially based technologies. However, systems need to be appropriately sized to ensure they are neither over- nor under-worked. The installation of a typical 4-ton system (the equivalent of a 14 kW or 48000 BTUH heat pump), can range from $22-35,000 CAD. These high initial capital costs often deter would-be investors even though over the long-run GSHP outperforms conventional heating systems. If planned for ahead of time new building developments could significantly reduce installation costs by incorporating GSHP systems into their design. 25

Landfill Gas Because of the great availability of land, waste in Alberta has typically been landfilled. The regulatory process for planning and siting landfills has become much more stringent, placing greater consideration on environmental performance. Nevertheless, several alternative methods of waste management exist, one of which both the City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton are pursuing: landfill gas collection. Decomposition of organic material in the waste stream produces a landfill gas (LFG) that is primarily composed of carbon dioxide, methane, and trace organic compounds. Most often LFG escapes to the atmosphere, which can cause regional air quality problems, odour issues, and is a major contributor to GHG emissions. A recovery system can be put into place to collect the gas for either generating electricity, space heating, process heating, or producing pipeline quality natural gas. Key considerations include LFG supply quantity, emissions acceptability, waste sludge management, and selection of the appropriate combustion technology. The total amount of disposed waste in Jasper is small. As reported by the Department of Environmental Services the annual production of municipal waste in 2008 was 3,108 metric tonnes. Currently, this waste is trucked out and disposed of in nearby Hinton, representing a financial and environmental cost to the municipality. An aggregate extraction pit (opened in 1961 during the construction of the Yellowhead Highway), was used by residents for additional dumping, but as of September 30th 2009 has been closed. For landfills of this size, the most appropriate combustion technology would likely be microturbines. While not as a mature technology as others, microturbines provide flexibility in sizing, require minimal operation and maintenance, have lower toxic emissions, and are capable of running on low-methane content LFG. Several projects have already attained encouraging results, utilising relatively small amounts of LFG to power individual buildings such as schools or landfill operations. Modelling Potential Energy Capacity Options for energy extraction from municipal waste are limited due to the relatively low quantities. Nevertheless, enough information is available to determine the quantity of methane available from extraction. An independent audit of municipal waste was carried out by AET Consultants in October of 2007. The report provides a detailed composition analysis of municipal waste from various sectors, and is based on three samples of approximately one tonne, taken over the course of three seasons. An excel based program, LandGEM, developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency was developed to model LFG production. This program is based on the simple but widely accepted Scholl-Canyon equation for methane gas production. Using the composition data from the AET report LandGEM can determine the rate of decomposition and the output of methane, carbon dioxide and other incidental gases. In order to carry out an analysis for Jasper, the following data was needed:

• • • • •

Design capacity of the landfill Amount of refuse in place (Mi) Methane generation rate (k) Potential methane generation capacity (Lo) Years the landfill has been in operation

LandGEM’s first order decomposition rate equation: n

QCH4 = ∑∑kLo(Mi /10)e-ktij i=1 j=0.1

Assumptions • Lo is determined by the composition of the waste. The amount (kg) of all organic data was averaged for the three samples taken by AET, and classified by type. A recent study provides us with moisture content and methane yield (Lo) for all types of organic material (Staley,2009). A weighted average was then calculated to determine the Lo for Jasper’s waste stream • No previous waste-in-place. Since no engineered landfill site currently exists, the 2008 figure quoted by the Municipality was used as year one of production • EPA Clean Air Act default values were used for methane generation rate, NMOC concentration and methane content [ k(arid area) = 0.02, NMOC = 4,000ppmv, CH4=50% by volume] • An arbitrary 25 year projection of waste acceptance; the actual amount would be highly dependent on siting and design options • A collection rate of 50% - recovery percentages for a typical collection system is 75%, while 50% is considered conservative and readily achievable (World Bank,2004) • A gross heating value of 37.669 MJ/m3 for methane [CH4] (3.6MJ=1kWh) Results & Discussion

TIME PERIOD CH4 PRODUCED CH4 COLLECTED ELECTRICITY (η=30%)* (M3) (M3) (YEARS) MWH GJ

CHP (η=76%)* MWH

0-5

1.03E+05

51,335

161.1

580.1

408.0

1,468.7

5-10

3.45E+05

172,275

540.8

1,946.8

1,369.1

4,928.6

10-15

5.63E+05

281,735

884.4

3,183.7

2,238.9

8,060.2

15-20

7.61E+05

380,700

1,195.0

4,302.1

3,025.4

10,891.5

20-25

9.41E+05

470,350

1,476.4

5,315.1

3,737.9

13,456.3

25-30

1.04E+06

520,400

1,633.5

5,880.7

4,135.6

14,888.2

30-35

9.51E+05

475,650

1,493.1

5,375.0

3,780.0

13,608.0

35-40

8.61E+05

430,450

1,351.2

4,864.3

3,420.8

12,314.8

40-45

7.79E+05

389,450

1,222.5

4,400.9

3,095.0

11,141.9

45-50

7.05E+05

352,450

1,106.3

3,982.8

2,800.9

10,083.3

Table 11. Estimated methane production and corresponding energy outputs (Sources - Pilavachi, P.A., 2002; Balli, O., 2007) Please refer to Appendix D for related graphs and tables 27

MICROTURBINE LANDFILL GAS CAPITAL COSTS

$5.42-6.77/Watt

O&M COSTS

2-2.7¢ /kWh or $5.21-7.53 /GJ

Table 12. Associated costs for micro-turbine landfill gas (Source - US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Based on small systems [30kW], costs decrease as the turbine size increases)

The quantity of predicted energy production from landfill gas would not satisfy a large portion of Jasper’s energy demand, at least by these very conservative assumptions. As example, not until the 15-20 year period would there be sufficient energy to meet the demand of the elementary school. Methane production and extraction could be significantly increased through additional waste management techniques, which could potentially make this application more viable to the Jasper context. The quantity of methane in the LFG stream is a direct result of the organic material present in the waste stream. Jasper has an active recycling and compost program that would, in fact, reduce organics from waste. The waste audit indicated that the programs were not fully utilised, although increased participation is a continuous objective for the municipality. If LFG were taken under consideration a comparative cost-benefit analysis with the composting program would have to be carried out. Microturbine LFG is not without technical concerns. Their efficiency is lower than conventional turbines, as they consume approximately 35% more fuel per kWh produced. But with continued research promising efficiencies are already being attained, particularly in CHP applications. As well, microturbines are susceptible to siloxane contamination, which can adversely affect performance and durability. Again, in spite of the many advantages of microturbines, the lack of established projects limits our ability to determine long-term performance.

Wind Prevalent in Europe and an evolving trend in Canada is a community-owned wind power model. Community-owned wind refers to projects that emerge from local initiative and are locally owned. They are typically smaller scale than commercially developed wind farms, therefore less intrusive, and because the local benefits are maximised the projects tend be accepted more easily among communities. The sale of renewable energy brings in an additional stream of revenue, provides job opportunities, and economic diversity. It certainly aides the objectives of energy self-sufficiency and decreasing dependence on fossil-fuels. A highly visible example of community owned wind in Canada is WindShare’s ExPlace turbine located in the heart of downtown Toronto 14.

See http://www.windshare.ca/explace/the_wind_turbine.html for further details 28

Many methods of community-ownership are available, each having its pros and cons. They can be generally classified as cooperative ownership, multiple local owners, municipality-owned, on-site behind the meter, and developer led. (Couture,2008:”Ownership Models”)

Estimating Energy Capacity The wind resource in the Jasper town-site is not ideal, where median wind speeds may range from 4-6 m/s. Although, many turbines are designed to take advantage of wind speeds as low as those found in town. But being located in a mountain range where high altitudes are in close proximity, there are potentially areas of high wind energy capacity. As seen in Figure 10, high wind speeds are found among the surrounding peaks. The challenge lies in proper siting. Locations with a sufficient wind resource may be too remote or too high in altitude. The further the turbine from the local grid, the higher the transmission and connection costs. Therefore, many sites with high wind speeds will be impractical. At least a year’s worth of preliminary wind data would be necessary to determine if a site is worthy of a turbine. In addition, because the grid in Jasper is isolated, questions of intermittence and grid integration would have to be addressed. Moreover, the greatest barrier to wind farm development may be the legal and policy constraints, given that the highly visible nature of the project would disturb the wilderness experience that a Figure 10. Wind power capacity in Jasper National Park seeks to uphold. Further (Source Canadian Wind Energy Atlas discussion on legal aspects is found in http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php) the Considerations section below. Economics The financing of a wind farm typically has three components: a feasibility study, which ranges from $50,000-$200,000; the initial capital, which tends to be equity financed and compromises 20-40% of the total cost; and the remaining capital, which tends to be debt financed (Couture,2008:”Financing Models”). The costs of community owned wind turbines are highly dependent on the size of turbine. A recent NREL study outlines capital and operating costs for community-owned wind projects.

PROJECTED % OF JASPER ENERGY ELECTRIC DEMAND PRODUCTION (KWH)*

TURBINE CAPACITY (KW)

COST /WATT

100

$5.07

155,387

0.27%

250

$3.61

384,076

0.68%

500

$3.16

728,579

1.29%

750

$2.86

1,099,432

1.94%

1000

$2.60

1,374,759

2.43%

2,000

$2.37

2,749,518

4.86%

5,000

$2.23

6,873,795

12.15%

Table 13. Install capital costs for wind turbine projects (Source - Kwartin, R., et al., 2008) *At NREL’s lowest Wind Power Capacity [2], which corresponds to approximately 5.6-6.0m/s@50m.

SMALL-MEDIUM WIND PROJECTS FIXED O&M COSTS VARIABLE O&M COSTS

3.5¢ /Watt (installed capacity)

1.3¢ /kWh

Table 14. Operating and maintenance costs for wind power (Source - Ibid)

Run-of-river Hydro Run-of-river hydro projects, on a life cycle assessment, out-perform not only conventional technologies such as coal and natural gas, but other renewables like PV and wind (Gagnon,2002). Among renewables, run-of-river projects produce less pollutants such as CO2, SO2, and NOX, requires the least amount of land, and has the highest return of energy on energy invested. It is an attractive option because it provides a consistent baseload (produces power 24/7), avoiding intermittence issues. In addition, it is a more concentrated energy source and valued for its high predictability. A run-of-river operation is distinct from large hydro in that it does not depend on a flooded reservoir, rather it extracts power only from energy present in the natural range of river flow. The absence of a reservoir limits the maximum power capacity and inhibits an operators capacity to moderate power output when the river flow fluctuates. The advantage of run-of-river is its minimal environmental footprint; river flow remains relatively undisturbed, reducing downstream and upstream impacts. The greatest potential for runof-river projects exist in mountainous areas where there is potential for high-head, that is to 30

say, a large height difference between water intake and power production. This is generally a disadvantage, because populations are not often located to these areas and transmission is expensive; however, the opportunity for Jasper remains lucrative. A 2001 ATCO document indicated that an expansion of the current hydro facilities might be an avenue for meeting future demand in the area. However, Parks Canada does not favour the pursuit of any alternative which would seriously alter the Park’s wilderness area. Run-of-river hydro would minimise environmental and visual disturbances, which might make it more conducive to Parks’ mandate. In fact, Parks Canada is currently supporting the installation of an EnCurrent Hydro Turbine along the Miette River proposed by the New Energy Corporation Inc.. The demonstration project consists of a 5kW floating turbine which will seasonally power the nearby sewage lift station. The design of the turbine ensures slow rotational speeds, minimising impacts to fish populations. Although experimental, the success of the project could pave way for other off-grid alternative energy projects or potentially grid-tied systems.15 Estimating Potential Energy Capacity Many mountainous tributaries feed the Athabasca River which runs alongside Jasper. Site specific data, particularly annual flow characteristics, are necessary to calculate the potential energy output. The factors which determine performance are seen in the formula:

P = ηρgϘΗ

where:

P = mechanical power produced at the turbine η = turbine efficiency (%) ρ = the density of water (kg/m3) g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) Ϙ = flow-rate of water (m3/s) Η = pressure head of water across the turbine (m)

In terms of power production, as seen in the equation, the most important environmental factors are flow rate and head height. In general, the river with the greatest flow and head will be the highest sites of production; however, it should be kept in mind that exploiting the maximum hydraulic potential of a river does not lead to the maximum value gained. Therefore, optimal sizing for run-of-river project should consider energy delivered, river fluctuations, reliability, and demand in order to maximise the economic value of the project (Hosseini,2005). Economics As the project decreases in size the price paid per kilowatt increases, a common trait among most energy projects. The initial capital costs may take 10-20 years to recoup, but facilities have a long lifetime, commonly going 50 years without refurbishment. As well, operational costs are low and there are zero fuel costs.

Refer to Parks Canada, “Environmental Assessment Screening Report for Encurrent Turbine - Miette River”. 31

RUN-OF-RIVER POWER CAPITAL COSTS

$1.32 /Watt

O&M COSTS

2-3¢ /kWh

Table 15. Small-hydro costs (Source - Bakis, R., 2007)

Combined Heat & Power Gas-fired power generation has an average efficiency of 45%, the rest of the fuel’s energy is lost to the environment as heat (Graus,2007). Combined heat and power (CHP) takes advantage of this lost heat by collecting it and distributing it to end-users for their heating or cooling needs. CHP must be located close to sites with continual and significant heating and cooling demands, as such, they have had much success in hospitals, universities and industrial facilities. Efficiencies of natural gas fired power with the inclusion of CHP can potentially be increased up to 85%, depending on the size of the thermal load (Bailey,2002). The NREL states that this technology should be one of the first deployed among alternatives, because of it’s cost-effectiveness and viability. As seen in a study carried out by McKinsey Global Institute (2008), commercial and industrial CHP exhibits negative abatement costs among carbon dioxide reduction technologies, making it more cost effective per unit of CO2 than CCS-EOR projects or commercial building HVAC retrofit. CHP can accommodate a wide variety of fuels depending on the primary moving technology, which could be any of the following: reciprocating engines, combustion or gas turbines, steam turbines, microturbines, or fuel cells. Each has its advantages but, given the abundance of natural gas in Alberta and its availability in Jasper, this would most likely be the fuel of choice. The range of power produced can be as little as 0.03-30kW, in the case of microturbines, or greater than 100MW, for gas turbines. In addition to electricity, CHP systems can provide steam, hot water, process heat, direct mechanical drive, dehumidification or cooling. Depending on the end-users needs, the design of the system has a large degree of flexibility in Figure 11. CHP Process Flow Diagram terms of sizing, fuel choice and outputs. Applicability and Economics Jasper has few locations that might justify a CHP system. The downtown commercial core, the tourist commercial district at the north end, and perhaps the industrial zone have enough continual heating demand to make efficient use of the waste heat stream. Considering an hotel’s large demand for space, water and pool heating, it may prove to be most attractive in the tourist district. The main implementation barrier under 32

these circumstances is the lack of a centralised management and infrastructure, such as we would find in a hospital or university. Going forward with CHP in any of these areas would require collaboration among many businesses, agreement on energy distribution and capital, operation, and maintenance costs. In addition, if considering CHP as a means to attain carbon reduction targets, it is less effective in Jasper than in most of Alberta due to the isolated grid being powered solely by natural gas and hydro, not coal. In spite of these barriers, it is not to say that CHP is unfeasible. Given the wide range of CHP sizing options and Jasper’s areas of high energy intensity, there is almost certainly sufficient heat and electricity capacity to justify a a complete feasibility study.

COMBINED HEAT & POWER CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS (NON-FUEL) ENERGY SAVINGS*

MICROTURBINE

RECIPROCATING ENGINE

$2.33-3.47 /Watt

$1.17-1.78 /Watt

2-2.6¢ /kWh

1.1-2.4¢ /kWh

~1.77-1.89 : 1.00

Table 16. Costs for CHP projects; costs for the two smallest moving technologies are given. (Source - Goldstein, L., et al., 2003). Ranges correspond to different sizes of turbines.) *CHP, unlike the previous technologies, is fossil fuel based; therefore a ratio is given to show how much energy will be saved in comparison to conventional efficiencies (~30-45%).

iv. Considerations “We therefore might hope that these too [values of sustainability] are built into us by natural selection.....[o]n the contrary, there is something profoundly anti-Darwinian about the very idea of sustainability.” - Richard Dawkins, Inaugural Lecture at the Royal Institution for the Values Platform for Sustainability Conference, November 2001.

Organisational Capacity Present institutions, governmental or otherwise, are not generally considered wellequipped to manage long-term social and ecological changes. The predominant system of formal representative leadership is intended to respond to constituents concerns, and provide strategic direction for administration accordingly. However, electoral feedback unto itself cannot account for the great uncertainty posed by climate change and energy scarcity. Due to the complexity of ecological and social systems, it is suggested that the current structures, characterised by narrow participation, limited discourse and linear problem solving methods, are simply insufficient. There are few mechanisms for engaging a range of societal stakeholders, and little room for innovation or experimentation. Our institutions have emerged from an evolutionary set of values that Dawkins (2001) would argue are based on gene survival. In other words, our decision making processes have been forged by responses to immediate and short-term dangers, a trait that has served us well in the past, but has consequently also created a society hampered by reactionary and individualistic behaviour. Nevertheless, Meek would contend that complex adaptive systems have emerged in locally driven sustainability initiatives, offering us solutions that contend with the evolutionary competitiveness that may be naturally bred into our organisations. Some communities show indications of environmental practices that are founded in both administrative openness and a strong sense of citizen’s responsibility. In recognising their own limitations, public administration systems are encouraging connectivity and “conjunctive activity”, allowing for collaboration between jurisdictions. Similarly gaining ground is citizen-centred public management, which may be the most effective method of achieving governmental responsiveness to environmental issues (Meek,2008). Ultimately, paths to sustainability must transition a spatially bound system towards defined objectives within a definitive timescale. Yet the knowledge gaps are so broad, the risks high, and the interrelations many, that they inhibit the development of reliable, omniscient feedback systems. Therefore, a new approach is necessary. Adaptive management, as the name suggests, proposes a non-linear, continually changing style of governance. Much of the theory is based on the development of resilience through pluralism, diversity and iterative learning processes (Foxon,2009). These values are primary in adaptive management because it reduces the system’s susceptibility to failure in the face of severe and rapid change. This concept of resilience, encourages the development of multiple approaches to problems, which implies a broader distribution of decisionmaking power than what we currently maintain. A simple comparison with conventional management can illustrate the benefits of adaptive management under circumstances of complex social-ecological change. 34

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT • • • • •

Recognises the complexity of ecological systems and limits of predictability Recognises that problems will change and are integrated with other problems Operates without a central control feature, preferring pluralistic governance Constantly reconsiders and reorganises Becomes a pattern seeker by learning from the environment

CONVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT • • • • •

Reduces complexity and assumes risk is quantifiable Attempts to resolve problems incrementally and in isolation Highly centralised organisation, managing problems from ‘top-down’ Not well-positioned to accept feedback and adjust to drastic change Treats the environment as an externality

Table 17. Comparison of management styles (Source - adapted from Lerch, D., 2007; Foxon, T., et al., 2009)

If we recognise the lack of capacity in our institutions and the need for facilitating organisational change, we are left with the question of how to prioritise efforts of recapacitation. Certain individuals and groups will require different tools and skills depending on their role. A process of identifying and elaborating these roles would be a crucial first step. There is a range of internal players that need to identify their own unique responsibilities and, correspondingly, will have differing educational priorities. A few common players are listed below, but many more could be identified. • Mayor and Council - advance the energy agenda with the citizens and the business community • Senior Management - determine the commitment level for the department and set priorities for internal staff • Engineers and Planners - establish methods and processes for managing the energy policy and coordinate staff for efficient and effective implementation • Operations Mangers and Staff - implement and reinforce energy practices in everyday activities and through contact with developers, citizens, and builders A BC Hydro study points to five sets of knowledge that are specific to the integration of energy management practices into municipal operations. Each of these sets may be prioritised according to the audience. A large subset of skills is correlated to each broad category and are worth study. Generally, the results of this • Energy and Emissions Knowledge study highlight the importance • Business Case and Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of developing a pool of skills • Strategic Management that can handle the technical, • Communications and Engagement financial, social and • Green Building and Development 101 environmental aspects of 16 energy planning. 16

Refer to HB Lanarc Consultants, “Local Government Capacity Assessment for Community Energy and Emissions Planning”. 35

It is widely supported that the processes leading up to a sustainable future will need to exhibit greater civic participation, inter-disciplinary training and cross-jurisdictional collaboration. The challenges presented by the current social, economic and ecological systems are remarkably complex and, not to mention, becoming increasingly deteriorated. Systemic institutional change, then, may be one of the chief concerns in sustainable energy planning. While sustainability values may not be inherent in a world driven by gene-survival, Dawkins remains optimistic about our ability to surpass the dilemma of our times:

“...while we are products of Darwinism, we are not slaves to it” (2001:2).

Policy and Legal Landscape Jasper operates under more strict adherence to legal agendas than most Canadian municipalities. All national parks are under the jurisdiction of the Canada National Parks Act (2000, c.32), which serves as the mandate for areas of administration, regulation, enforcement, provisions and division of power. Any development in federal lands triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992, c.37), which requires that an environmental and a cumulative effects assessment be done to determine potential adverse effects and to effect a mitigation strategy. In addition, there is also Parks Canada’s Jasper National Park Management Plan (2005) and the Jasper Community Land-Use Plan (2001), all of which have a direct influence on the nature, rate, and quantity of future growth in Jasper. In addition, five of the seven mountain national parks are designated as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO, including the Jasper National Park. These sites are, “...of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity” (http://whc.unesco.org,2010). The inclusion of the Jasper Park as a World Heritage Site is interpreted as an obligation to protect the site for the global community and a commitment to conserve the universal values embodied in the park. Both the legal framework and the world heritage designation will drive the setting of priorities and will determine the municipalities’ daily activities and decisions. A brief review of the legal documentation reveals both opportunities and limitations that may affect long-term energy planning. Canada National Parks Act (2000, c.32) The National Parks Act precedes all other regulatory and planning documentation, and must be held under consult when advancing any municipal strategy. Firstly, the Act states that the parks are, “dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”(4.1). The descriptive ‘unimpaired’ can be directly correlated to Parks Canada mandate to maintain the protected area’s ‘ecological integrity’ which is defined as, “a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes”(2.1). From a short-term perspective, the development of two technologies investigated in this study, wind turbines

and run-of-river hydro projects, have the potential of contradicting the Act. These would be large commercial projects, involving imposing structures, that would alter the visual landscape of the park. Furthermore, these technologies would invariably affect biological communities and ecological processes. Projects of this size would require a lengthy environmental assessment in order to determine the degree of adverse impacts and whether these could be mitigated. However, if the following article of the Parks Act on pollution clean-up is applied thoroughly to greenhouse gases, and the risk of climate change is heeded with precaution, then the municipality is obliged to seriously consider all mitigative technologies. “Where a substance that is capable of degrading the natural environment, injuring fauna, flora or cultural resources or endangering human health is discharged or deposited in a park, any person who has charge, management or control of the substance shall take reasonable measures to prevent any degradation of the natural environment and any danger to the fauna, flora or cultural resources or to persons that may result from the discharge or deposit.” (32.1)

It is somewhat evident that the section on pollution control was designed to address the more short-term risks of localised, measurable contaminants which pose an immediate threat and those which can be controlled through relatively direct processes. Using this section to make an argument for the adoption of commercial scale renewable energy projects in national parks, for example, may prove to be a far-reaching interpretation. But as discussed, facing the challenge of climate change and energy scarcity requires present institutions to encourage creative and non-traditional approaches; recognising limitations whilst allowing for transition. That being said, the Municipality of Jasper is by no means indifferent to issues of climate change nor energy and, regardless of mandate, has already taken on critical initiatives in reducing their carbon footprint and improving energy efficiency. The examples exposited here do perhaps illuminate the need for formal discourse and legal structure which supports local governments in energy management initiatives. If the Minister’s first priority is the “[m]aintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes”(8.2), an expedient strategy would be to proactively invest in fossil-fuel reducing innovations. Jasper Community Land Use Plan (2001) The Community Land Use Plan does not deal directly with issues of energy development, but does explicitly state that Jasper espouses the values and practices of an “eco-community” whereby: “...sustainable forms of development are demonstrated. Residents, visitors and commercial operators will be given opportunities to become more aware of how their actions affect park ecology and how to achieve increased levels of environmental stewardship. Through community-based processes, the cumulative negative impacts of residential and commercial operations on the ecosystem will be mitigated through the application of the no-net-negative environmental impact principle, limits to growth, strengthened conservation practices and upgrading of the community’s infrastructure.”(4.2)

Again, a broad interpretation of this strategy is in alignment with most, if not all, of the technologies outlined previously. The Plan also commits to collecting baseline data on resource consumption and taking corrective action if the results are undesirable. Holding fast to a ‘no-net-negative environmental impact principle’ could potentially implicate strong action to mitigate carbon emissions. Therefore, while the Land Use Plan offers little direct guidance in energy strategy, it neither opposes renewable energy development. In terms of the strategic environmental direction there is strong motivation to move forward on resource management. In reiteration, the greatest barrier to implementation in Jasper is not lack of the desire for sustainability, but more likely to be lack of financial and human resources. An important issue in the Land Use Plan is preservation of the town’s ‘heritage character’, which is manifested in historic architecture, streetscapes, low-scale building design, etc.. Even specific structural details such as rafters and windows are recognised as example of the town’s heritage. More importantly, these features are part of understanding and maintaining the values of the community, which is why they take such precedence. Some of the technologies which are intended for residential or commercial use may have an influence on the heritage character of buildings. Currently, the public is more concerned with high-impact developments, such as multi-story buildings or compact residences. Even though these technologies are not yet widely implemented, and there is not likely to be strong public opinion regarding their aesthetic impact, it is a problem worth anticipating. Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan (2000) Similarly, no reference to energy management is discussed in this document. The effect of utilities is mentioned, mostly in regards to right-of-ways, but concerns for fossilfuel related impacts are not discussed. Parks Canada is currently reviewing the Management Plan for Mountain National Parks in 2009/10. In their own words the management plan is the, “road map used by each national park and national historic site to achieve Parks Canada’s mandate”. A few backgrounders have been made publicly available which are particularly relevant to this study. The Limits to Development indicate that the plan direction is to allow no additional park land for commercial development and to maintain the existing limits for communities and outlying commercial operations and other built facilities. Alternative Energy Projects Placed in Declared Wilderness Areas states that no more than rudimentary facilities that have minimal footprints are acceptable. The cultural and spiritual significance of rivers is also emphasised, as they support critical ecological functions. Even though the long-term environmental benefits of alternative energy are acknowledged, the Park Canada’s policy is to assure the public that development does not degrade the wilderness and heritage character of the park. These statements are not markedly relevant to the residentially applied technologies, but run-of-river hydro, wind turbines, and possibly landfill gas and CHP because of the required commercial space, could well encounter opposition from a policy standpoint.17

Statements and documents found online, http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/jasper/plan/index_e.asp (Dec, 2009). 38

Financing Opportunities Be it an individual, company or municipal government, economic resources are likely to be the definitive limit to reaching energy planning implementation targets. Over the longterm, sustainable energy practices represent costs savings and increased economic prosperity. But in effect, the capital investment must be borne by some person or group and this capital must be managed to attain the greatest payback of energy. A wide array of potential financial schemes have developed over the years to efficiently procure, allocate, distribute and manage these funds and costs; however, not all will be applicable.18 Procurement & Management • Renewable Energy Fund Monies which are established by an organisation are used to promote the development of renewable energy. A conventional proposal process is followed where proponents must demonstrate how the funds will benefit the community and advance the objectives of sustainable energy development. The RE fund is usually founded by a governmental body. • Community Investment Fund Allows for individual community members to invest in a collective fund and procure a reasonable rate of return. The monies are subsequently invested into energy projects which have been demonstrated to securely generate revenues. Essentially, a CIF sells shares to community members in a for-profit venture. This model is often applied to wind-farm developments. • Revolving Fund Money established by a government or procured through user-fees can be used by citizens to finance energy projects. The interest rate is high enough to cover only inflation and administrative costs. Borrowers can then repay the loan over a 5-15 year term through the savings generated by the investment and as the fund is replenished it can continue to finance other projects. • Customer Aggregation Program Interested buyers of alternative energy systems can arrange for group purchases of equipment, reducing up-front costs. Resources can be pooled together by a third party which can negotiate a bulk price with contractors. Allocation & Distribution • Direct Incentives These include grants that are awarded to proposed projects, rebates issued postinstallation, performance incentives which pay-out according to the amount of energy produced, or expected performance rebates which correspond to a system’s capacity to deliver energy. Those which provide large up-front sums are likely to encourage development but are also riskier than, say, performance based incentives which spread out the rebate over a few years and ensure energy production. 18

Sources - Couture, T., Gagnon, Y.. “Financing Models”; and U.S. DOE. “Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local Governments”. 39

• Low Interest Loans & Loan Guarantees Municipal loan programs can offer favourable terms in comparison to private lenders. Low interest rates and long repayment terms can help the investor to spread out the capital costs of energy projects. Loan guarantees can offer long term financial security for larger scale projects, making it easier for communities to access capital throughout a specified term and to a maximum price range. • Tax Credits & Incentives Excluding the value of renewable energy systems in property tax evaluations can help to abate overall costs. Generally, tax-based incentives do not sufficiently compensate for capital investment and are best used in conjunction with other methods. Tax credits can also be issued to utilities for energy derived from renewable resources. Canada’s national program, ecoEnergy Renewable Power, paid out $0.01/kWh to utilities that brought new renewable power online. • Net-metering & Feed-in Tariffs By establishing the technical and financial framework for homeowners to place their on-site generated power has been a proven means of encouraging renewable power. Net-metering offsets the customers power use by turning back their meter, effectively valuing the power at current grid prices. But because initial investments are high for renewables, and because they fulfill other societal values, many jurisdictions mandate that the utility must pay premium prices for renewable derived energy in the form of feed-in tariffs. The largest solar markets, Germany and Spain, were built on this model. • Permit Fee Waivers or Discounts Fees associated with the building, design, or plan-checking of renewable energy systems are likely to be municipally controlled. This is a relatively easy opportunity to reduce or eliminate costs for interested project investors. • Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing An innovative public/private program can allow property owners to spread the costs of capital-intensive projects over a long-term contract. In this case, the loan is tied to the property, as opposed to the owner. A municipality can issue a bond, lend out money to the participant, and repay the bond through a special assessment of the property tax bill. This type of financing may require special legal authorisation to repay loans based on property tax bills. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) & Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) An RPS mandates that a certain percentage of electricity sales come from qualified renewable energy sources. Alternatively, an REC can be purchased from RE system owners to account for that percentage. Regardless of the method used, there must be careful consideration of how the chosen program will lead to defined targets. Good monitoring of use, and cost and energy savings, is necessary to informatively correlate the financial structure with the development of renewable energy projects. Appropriate feedback will guide future actions. Several national incentive programs have already been initiated and are briefly outlined below. 40

Green Municipal Fund (GMF) The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been endowed with a $550 million fund from the Government of Canada in order to support municipal initiatives that benefit the environment, local economies and quality of life. Grants are available to develop sustainable community plans, to conduct feasibility studies and field tests, and loans are available to implement capital projects. For both grants up to 50% of costs can be recovered to a maximum of $350,000. Loans issued by the GMF can provide financing for up to 80% of costs to a maximum of $4 million, combined with $400,000 in grants. For municipal governments, interest rates are 1.5% lower than the Government of Canada bond rate for the equivalent term.19 Government Incentives - Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency The Government of Canada, through NRCan’s Office of Energy Efficiency, has created an incentive program to encourage the implementation of energy savings projects across all sectors. These programs offer owners of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildings the opportunity to recover costs of energy efficiency measures through direct rebates of incurred costs, or in the case of the Federal Building Initiative through an energy performance contract. Below are the incentives which are most related to the technologies outlined in this report.20 ecoEnergy Retrofit for Homes - Incentives are offered for retrofits that improve water conservation, heating systems, cooling systems, insulation, sealing, and ventilation. The grant amount is dependent on the project, and a maximum of $5,000 per household can be reimbursed. It is necessary for a certified energy advisor to carry out an on-site evaluation before the projects are started. This program is available until March 31, 2100 or until funds are depleted. Relevant grants include: • Installation of a new or complete replacement of an earth-energy system (ground or water source) that is compliant with CAN/CSA-C448 and certified by the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition [$4,375]. • Installation of a solar domestic hot water system with solar collectors that meets the CAN/CSA F378.87 standard and provides a minimum energy contribution of 6000 megajoules per year [$1,250]. • Installation of a ventilation system that is certified by the Home Ventilating Institute (HVI) as a heat or energy-recovery ventilator [$375]. ecoEnergy Retrofit Incentive for Buildings - Commercial and institutional buildings including: not-for-profit, religious organisations, multi-unit residential, mixed use, and municipal buildings are eligible for grants. Total area of the building must be less than 20,000m2. The energy savings project will be reimbursed by the lesser of the following three options: $10/ GJ saved, 25% of eligible project costs, or $50,000. This program is available until March 31 2012 or until funds are depleted. 19 20

Refer to http://gmf.fcm.ca/GMF/ for details Refer to http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca for details 41

ecoEnergy Retrofit Incentive for Industry - For small and medium-sized industrial facilities p to 25% of project costs to a maximum of $50,000 per application can be granted. The retrofits must be on an existing building, in a company of less than 500 employees, and there must be measurable energy savings. Certain sectors are not eligible. This program is available until March 31 2012 or until funds are depleted. Federal Building Initiative - Any building that is owned or managed by the Government of Canada is eligible to participate. This program differs in that it does not offer direct rebates for projects, but instead uses a mechanism called Energy Performance Contracting. An Energy Service Company (ESCO) is hired to do an assessment and implement energy efficiency measures. in turn, the ESCO is paid with the annual savings generated from the measures. This ensures that there are no up-front costs to the facility owner and removes risk by guaranteeing that funds are spent on only already proven energy savings.

Social Buy-in and Participation An oft overlooked factor of energy planning is social acceptance. In the past, broad national polls were sufficient to determine a population’s opinion on energy development. However, energy infrastructure has typically been large, centralised facilities that were located at great distances from city limits. A higher awareness of the adverse environmental and health impacts from these facilities is now more commonly understood. Nevertheless, the new wave of renewable and distributed generation technologies foments markedly distinct social issues, which perhaps require a novel analytical approach. Wüstenhagen (2007) identifies three distinguishing features of renewable energies which evidence the need for a redefined ‘social acceptance’. First, the technologies tend to be smaller and less power dense, meaning that there must be more siting decisions to be made. Second, the extraction of renewable energy tends to have a stronger visual impact, as it is often above ground in contrast with most fossil fuels, and because they are often closer to the location of consumption. And finally, because renewables cannot currently compete with well established fossil-fuels, the debate becomes reduced to choosing longterm over short-term benefits. It is argued that technologies can have socio-political acceptance, which is acceptance in the broadest, most ambiguous sense of the word, but, in contradiction, acceptance by the host community and financial market can be exceedingly low. Moreover, the latter two dimensions of social acceptance may have a stronger influence on technology adoption. Because of the many siting decisions, high visual impact, and proximity to residents, it would not be overly zealous to anticipate at least some social resistance to the energy technologies outlined earlier. Particularly in Jasper, where the economy is dependent on attracting tourists with a ‘national park’ experience, it is important to assure minimal disturbance to the heritage character of the town and maintain scenic views. It is widely observed that the public generally supports renewable energies. Yet when the benefits are shared by all and the costs borne by few, conflict is inherent. This situation has given rise to the term NIMBY, not-in-my-backyard, which refers to a strong

resistance to development when it directly impacts an individual’s personal life. For this reason, Sauter (2007) identifies the need to have both positive public and private attitudes, as opposed to mere passive consent. Salient aspects of community acceptance include distributional justice (i.e. who pays the costs and who receives the benefits), procedural justice (i.e. who and how are people involved in the decision making process), and whether the sources of information are coming from trusted sources (Wüstenhagen,2007). Social debate can become especially overt when initiating large projects such as wind farms. As identified in Gross’s study of wind farms, unjust distribution of benefits, be they perceived or real, can divide a community into winners and losers. In this case, the divide was between landholders receiving revenue from the turbines and those that were not. Micro-technologies, however, pose unique challenges because of the close interaction between technology and consumer. Knowing that residential or commercially located energy systems require individuals to carry out a process of research, investment, installation and maintenance, promotion initiatives must consider that a conscientious and active user is required. Sauter (2007) notes that new technologies are often spearheaded by innovators who have the financial means, a high sense of responsibility for environmental problems, and an above average technical education. Innovators are not the majority. So if wide-scale deployment is desired, policies and programs must support the informational and procedural barriers at each of these steps, and also have the flexibility to cater to a full range of user commitment levels. A useful term for conceptualising the role of consumers in a progressive energy market is co-provision, or “the provision (including generation, treatment, distribution and consumption) of utility services by a range of new intermediaries (e.g. consumers themselves, other organisations or sub-networks) alongside or intermingled with centrally provided services (e.g. public networks or grid-provision)” (Ibid:2773). It is argued that this term can encompass a wide range of consumer energy practices, from traditional market approaches, such as choosing an energy service provider based on environmental performance, to more active approaches which could include co-production via microgeneration technologies. Due to changing market and social conditions, it is now possible to foster a culture of active and participatory energy market. But it is necessary to strike a balance between utility or governmental driven initiatives and those taken on by individuals. Simply put, it is not enough that the technologies have appetising financial returns, better performance, or fewer environmental impacts, because “...individuals rarely behave as rational economic agents” (Ibid:2776). Alternative energy technologies must overcome the large knowledge gap held by the public which often leads to apprehension and misconstrued perceptions. The public’s initial psychological reaction to a particular technology appears to be directly influenced by their familiarity with it and the perceived level of risk; although it may not be accurate, the concept of burning waste for energy generates more concern than solar panels (Burton,2007). Furthermore, information resources should not only address initial concerns, but also provide appropriate, real-time feedback for on-line projects. Identifying a system’s performance can build confidence in the owner’s investment and positively affect energy behaviour

The Role of the Utility The importance of involving the local utility cannot be understated. Utilities that look favourably on the integration of renewable and micro-energy alternatives can play an important role in advocacy and customer relations, in addition to managing technical difficulties. Utilities that choose to pursue growth strategies such as augmenting transmission networks or expansion of large fossil-fuel plants, can undermine efforts to develop community based energy grids. An area of concern which utilities can have a direct influence is the establishment of simple, effective interconnection standards. These standards are mostly applicable to PV systems that are grid-tied, which can satisfy on-site demand and place electricity on to the grid. The standards determine who is eligible for interconnection, the technical standards to which they must comply, administrative processes, financial details, and legal requirements. It is important that the standards maintain high business and safety expectations, whilst also ensuring an easy connection process. Some of the recommendations outlined by the US Department of Energy (Aug,2009) for streamlining interconnection standards include: • • • • • •

Make all utility customers eligible for interconnection Minimise application costs Do not limit system capacity Eliminate any requirement for an external disconnect for small inverter based systems Eliminate any requirement for additional liability insurance Set forth clear and transparent processes for system technical reviews

As mentioned in the financial review, feed-in tariffs (FIT) offer the opportunity to incentivise the integration of micropower RETs. In brief, FIT programs introduce a small surcharge to all energy users; the funds collected through this surcharge can then be allocated towards energy delivered by accepted RETs at agreed upon rates. Ontario’s FIT price schedule, for systems under 10 kW, currently offers rates ranging from 11.1¢/kWh for landfill gas to 80.2¢/kWh for solar PV21. Prices, contract terms, and escalation percentages are set in order to cover typical capital and operating costs, while still providing for a reasonable rate of return. Ontario only recently initiated the microFIT program in December of 2009, but has already seen higher than anticipated demand from interested parties. Because Jasper’s grid is isolated and all energy use is managed by a single provider, there is perhaps an opportunity to arrange a locally based incentive program.

v. Conclusion Table 18 provides a summary of the technical and financial investigation. Three important additions are found in this table: capital costs in $/GJ, which more accurately reflect system efficiency and return on investment; the magnitude of project costs; and the type of energy each technology is displacing.

Online source - see http://microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/ (accessed Jan, 2010) 44

ENERGY DISPLACED

$1.60-2.50

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP

$450-905

(no analysis)

$2.23-5.07

$1.32

RUN-OF-RIVER

$2,250

(no analysis)

$1.17-3.47

$8.90

$80-100

$5.42-6.77

WIND

PHOTOVOLTAIC

SOLAR

CHP

(MICROTURBINE)

LANDFILL GAS

$40-100

$4.00

SOLAR AIR

$165-260

$275-355

/GJ

$0.89

/WATT

CAPITAL COSTS

SOLAR HOT WATER

TECHNOLOGY

ENERGY

Table 18. Summary of energy technologies

ELECTRICITY

BOTH

N AT U R A L G A S

site study needed

2-3¢ /kWh

(variable)

1.3¢ /kWh

560 - 25,000 GJ

limited by capital investment

3.96 GJ / kWp

site study needed

(50yr avg.)

2,000 GJ

/residence

134 GJ

site study needed

/residence

9 - 14 GJ

ANNUAL ENERGY POTENTIAL

dependent on turbine size - full study needed

(fixed)

3.5¢ /Watt

2¢ /kWh

(non-fuel)

1.1-2.6¢ kWh

2-2.7¢ /kWh

(non-fuel)

negligible

O&M COSTS

20-25

(million)

1.5 - 15+

500,000 10+ million

8,000 12,000 /kWp

150,000 1.5mil+

100,000 250,000 10 (micro) 20 (reciprocating)

150,000 750,000+

22,000 35,0000

7,500 100,000

3,500 6,000

($CAD)

PROJECT COSTS

80+ (production) 10-20 (turbine)

pump) 50-75 (piping)

20-25 (heat

MINIMUM LIFESPAN (YEARS)

By and large, the most criticisable omission in this investigation is an assessment of potential energy efficiency measures. Improvements to building envelope, appliance efficiency, and energy behaviours are fundamental to creating a sustainable energy community. In a communication to the International Energy Agency, the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance remarks that, “[e]nergy efficiency must be the underlying foundation of any energy policy” (CanREA,2009:1). Energy efficiency is characteristically cost effective, simple, and resilient to the technical woes produced by sophisticated solutions. A broad set of federal grants are already available for promoting residential and commercial energy efficiency; as much effort as possible should be aimed towards maximising the use of these funds and developing other incentives. Technology comments and final recommendations A brief conclusion on each technology follows along with a few recommendations for energy management in Jasper. •

•

Solar hot water, even if applied to all available residences, may not make the greatest dent in total energy consumption; energy output is relatively low compared to other technologies. However the overall project costs are low and both federal and local grants are available, making an attractive investment even more competitive. Practically, the installation process is simple, the products are long-lasting, and promoting a technology which is lower in commitment level may prove to be more effective. The potential for pool heating for the hotel industry should be looked at in greater depth. Transpired solar collectors require appropriate siting and will not be widely applicable throughout Jasper. However, the systems high efficiency means that the energy returned on investment is also very high. Particularly when combined with heat recovery ventilators, transpired collectors could greatly reduce high intensity commercial and institutional heating loads. Solar PV is expensive, and the energy returned on investment is low. Without additional incentives or funding, photovoltaics do not represent a practical solution to energy management in Jasper. However, if PV installed costs continue to drop, as they have been, there is an excellent solar resource worth harnessing. Ground source heat pumps have the highest potential for gross energy production, and the capital costs per unit of energy delivered are relatively low. Unfortunately, project costs are inhibiting, and operational costs will significantly increase the payback period. When compared to high efficiency natural gas heating, consumers may be hard pressed to sacrifice the capital loss for long-term benefits. Installation is more complex and Alberta has yet to develop a mature geothermal industry. Nevertheless, GSHP certainly delivers long-term environmental and economic benefits. Landfill Gas would not be a productive source of energy until the project had seen a few years of maturity. Assuming very modest collection rates, the small quantity of gas produced would not likely justify the large capital investment. Because there is not a large resource already in place (old refuse), LFG may not be a viable energy source. Community wind could potentially offset a large portion of electricity demand. It also offers the opportunity for community investment in energy production and a new stream 46

•

of revenue. But the visual impact of a large turbine in a national park may pose a large barrier, in spite of the fact that wind-power would be a measure of park preservation. In addition, without proper testing it is not known whether a site will provide sufficient wind within proximity of the town. Run-of-river is an exceptional case and deserves more thorough review. Projects are extremely productive and the quality of energy is high. Its environmental performance is very likely to surpass that of all other RE technologies. Because Jasper is located in a mountainous region, multiple sources which feed the Athabasca River may well be worth harnessing. Again, a detailed study is needed, but run-of-river could be a substantial contributor to the municipality’s energy needs. Combined heat and power was not fully analysed because the performance will depend upon specific buildings’ power and heat loads. However, many sectors in Jasper could see great benefits from this technology. Zones with high commercial activity, hotels, and perhaps the industrial park would be excellent candidates for a comprehensive study.

Several guides and information resources have been referred to throughout this paper in reference to energy planning. It is worthwhile to highlight some key points on energy management which may provide a blueprint for future initiatives. • •

•

Continually and persistently encourage energy efficiency across all sectors. Build a comprehensive energy inventory - the data modelled in this study provides a useful glimpse of energy consumption patterns, however its accuracy will be greatly improved through the input of citizens, businesses, and particularly the utility. Much could be accomplished through an across-the-board energy audit which details energy behaviour, appliance efficiency, energy end-uses, etc. Jasper is small enough to conduct such a survey. Set definitive and achievable targets - discuss and identify the top priorities for energy in Jasper and create a concrete plan that clearly indicates what, why, when, and how targets are going to be reached. Develop policy and a legal framework which encourages renewable energy - this may include the establishment of by-laws that ensure access to renewable resources or that allow for an easy permitting process, as described in the solar PV section. Promote example projects - visible success with RE projects will increase awareness of energy issues and familiarity with technologies. Because RE technologies are not common-place, it is important to build confidence and allay doubts. Encourage the participation of stakeholders - Jasper already has experience and shown success with engaging stakeholders in its Sustainability Plan process. Continuing this momentum is vital to maintain motivation and to create a platform for informative dialogue. RE technologies will require an engaged and more active citizen.

Sustainable energy is a necessary defense to the uncertainty posed by energy scarcity and climate change. This paper has intended to demonstrate that many options are available to Jasper to reach a desirable energy system. Certainly, the Municipality will be central to this process by taking a holistic, long-term approach to the problem.

References

Akorede, M. F., Hizam, H., Pouresmaeil, E. (2010). Distributed energy resources and benefits to the environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 724-734. Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), 2009. Future Demand and Energy Outlook 2008-2028. http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/2009-06-26_AESO_2009_Rates_Update__AESO_Attachment_to_AUC.AESO-006_(b)_-_Demand_and_Energy_Outlook.pdf Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). Combined Generation and Load Connection Queue. (2010,January). http://www.aeso.ca/11601.html Alberta Power Limited. Jasper Energy Efficiency Project, Profile # 107. (1995). ATCO Energy Sense. Town of Jasper Energy Management Plan. (2003, February). ATCO Electric. Jasper National Park Power Supply and Demand Forecast. (2001, March). Ecosystem Secretariat, CEAA, Jasper National Park. Boyd, David R. (2001). Canada vs. The OECD: An Environmental Comparison. EcoResearch Chair of Environmental Law and Policy, University of Victoria. Burton, J., Hubacek, K. (2007). Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small scale energy technology applications in local governments. Energy Policy, 35, 6402-6412. Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance (CanREA). Renewable Power in the 21st Century. (2009). [Fact Sheet]. www.canrea.ca Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance (CanREA). Commentary on Canadian Energy Policy for the International Energy Agency. (April, 2009). www.canrea.ca Canadian Urban Institute (CUI). Energy Mapping Study. (2008, December). Submitted to the City of Calgary. www.canurb.com Carlisle, N., Elling, J., Penney, T. (2008). A Renewable Energy Community: Key Elements. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. [Technical Report], NREL/ TP-540-42774. Cory, K., Coughlin, J., Jenkin, T., Pater, J., Swezey, B. (2008, February). Innovations in Wind and Solar PV Financing. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. [Technical Report], (NREL/TP-670-42919). Dawkins, R. (2001). Sustainability doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t come naturally: a Darwinian Perspective on Values. The Environment Foundation, The Values Platform for Sustainability [Inaugural Lecture], presented at the Royal Institution the 14th of November.

Department of Justice Canada. Canada National Parks Act (2000) c. 32 N-14.01. Ottawa, Canada. Environment Canada. National Inventory Report 1990-2007: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. (2009). www.ec.gc.ca/ghg Foxon, T., Reed, M., Stringer, L. (2009). Governing Long-Term Social-Ecological Change: What Can the Adaptive Management and Transition Management Approaches Learn from Each Other?. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 3-20. Gillett, L. (Producer), Armstrong F. (Director). (2009). Age of Stupid [Film]. www.ageofstupid.net Government of Alberta. Alberta’s Energy Industry: An Overview 2007. (2008, September). Department of Energy. www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Org/pdfs/Alberta_Energy_Overview.pdf Government of Alberta. Launching Alberta’s Energy Future: Provincial Energy Strategy. (2009). Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Initiatives/strategy.asp HB Lanarc Consultants, Royal Roads University. Local Government Capacity Assessment for Community Energy and Emissions Planning. (2009, June). Produced for BC Hydro Sustainable Communities Group. http://www.questcanada.org/documents/ LGCEEPCapacityAssessment-MASTER.pdf Hubbert, M. K. (1974). On the Nature of Growth. National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1974. Hearings before the Sub-committee on the Environment, June 6. Kralovic, P., Mutysheca, D. (2006). The Role of Renewable Energy in Alberta’s Energy Future. Paper No. 15 of the Alberta Energy Futures Project. Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, Calgary, Alberta. Lerch, D. (2007). Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty. Sebastpol, California: Post Carbon Press. Meek, J. (2008, Fall). Adaptive Intermediate Structures and Local Sustainability Advances. Public Administration Quarterly, 415-432. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Power Technologies Energy Data Book (4th ed.). (2006, August). Golden, Colorado, (NREL/TP-620-39728). Natural Resources Canada. Clean Energy Project Analysis: RETScreen Engineering & Cases Textbook (3rd ed). (2005). www.retscreen.net Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2003 Survey of Household Energy Use: Detailed Statistical Report. (2006). Energy Publications, Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa, Ontario. (ISBN-0-662-42491-3) www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Survey 2000 Commercial and Institutional Building Energy Use: Detailed Statistical Report. (2002). Energy Publications, Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa, Ontario. (ISBN-0-662-33549-X) www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Comprehensive Energy Use Database. Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa, Ontario. (2008, September). [Excel Dataset] http://oee.rncan.gc.ca/ corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0 Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Integrated Community Energy Solutions: A Roadmap for Action. (2009, September). Council of Energy Ministers, Canada. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ publications/cem-cme/index.cfm Ockwell, D,.G. (2008). Energy and economic growth: grounding our understanding in physical reality. Energy Policy, 36, 4600-4604. Ontario Power Authority. MicroFIT Price Schedule. (2010). http:// microfit.powerauthority.on.ca/microFIT-Rules/microFIT-Program-pricing/index.php Parks Canada. Jasper National Park Information Sheets. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/ jasper/plan/plan1_e.asp Parks Canada. Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan. (2000, May). (ISBN-0-662-28863-7). Parks Canada. The Jasper Community Land Use Plan. (2001). (ISBN-0-0-660-963-32-9) Parks Canada. Environmental Assessment Screening Report for EnCurrent Turbine - Miette River. (2008, May). EA# J07-020. PĂŠrez-Arriaga, I. J., Linares, P. (2008). Markets vs. Regulation: A Role for Indicative Energy Planning. The Energy Journal, Special Issue, The Future of Electricity: Papers in Honor of David Newbery, 149-164. Resch, G., Held, A., Faber, T., Panzer, C., Toro, F., Haas, R. (2008). Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy, 36, 4048-4056. Sauter, R., Watson, J. (2007). Strategies for the deployment of micro-generation: Implications for social acceptance. Energy Policy, 35, 2770-2779. U.S. Department of Energy. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. (1997). Office of Utility Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington D.C.. [Topical Report] TR-109496. U.S. Department of Energy. Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local Governments. (2009, August). DOE Solar Energy Technology Program, in partnership with Solar America Cities. www.osti.gov/bridge 50

U.S. Department of Energy. International Energy Outlook (IEO). (2009). Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information Administration. Weis, T., Bell, J. (2009). Greening the Grid: Powering Alberta’s Future with Renewable Energy. The Pembina Institute, Calgary, Alberta. www.re.pembina.org/home Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M. (2007). Social Acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35, 2683-2681. References for Individual Technologies Solar Hot Water Aguilar, C., White, D., Ryan, D. (2005, April). Domestic Water Heating and Water Heater Energy Consumption in Canada. Canadian Building Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, (CBEEDAC 2005-RP-02). Ball, C. (2007, February). A Solar Domestic Hot Water Program in Jasper-Is it Feasible?. Friends of Jasper National Park. CanSIA. The Price of Solar Water Heating in Canada v2.3. (2006, May). Canadian Solar Industries Association, [Issue Report]. EnerWorks Inc.. EnerWorks Owner Manual rev2.0. (2009, February). Dorchester, Ontario, www.enerworks.com EnerWorks Inc.. EnerWorks High Performance Commercial Collectors. (2009). Dorchester, Ontario, [Fact Sheet]. www.enerworks.com Photovoltaics Contreras, J.L., Frantzis, L., Blazewicz, S., Pinault, D., Sawyer, H. (2008, February). Photovoltaics Value Analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, (NREL/SR-581-42303). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Power Technologies Energy Data Book (4th ed.). (2006, August). Golden, Colorado, (NREL/TP-620-39728). Súri, M., Huld, T., Dunlop, E., Ossenbrink, H. (2007). Potential of solar electricity generation in the European Union member states and candidate countries. Solar Energy, 81, 1295-1305. Wiser, R., Barbose, G., Peterman, C. (2009, February). Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998-2007. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Solar Air Conserval Engineering Inc.. Solar Wall Solar Air Heating System [Product Datasheet]. 2009. www.solarwall.com Kozubal, E., Deru, M., Slayzak, S., Norton, P., Barker, G., McClendon, J. (2008, June). Evaluating the Performance and Economics of Transpired Solar Collectors for Commercial Applications. U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (NREL/CP-550-43305). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Transpired Air Collectors: Ventilation Preheating. (2006, June). Golden, Colorado. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Transpired Solar Collectors. (2000, August). Office of Solar Energy Technologies, Solar Building Program, Golden, Colorado. www.eren.doe.gov/solarbuildings GSHP Cane, D., Garnet, J. (2000). Update on Maintenance and Service Costs of Commercial Building Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 106, 399-407. Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Heating and Cooling with a Heat Pump. (2004). Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa, Ontario. Rawlings, R. (2004, March). Domestic Ground Source Heat Pumps: Design and installation of closed-loop systems. Housing Energy Efficiency Best Practice, BSRIA ltd., produced for BRE Trust Sustainable Energy Centre. Shaw, J. (2003). Ground Source Heat Pumps versus High Efficiency Natural Gas Furnaces in Alberta. Solar Energy Society of Canada Inc., Edmonton, Canada. Landfill Gas AET Consultants Inc.. Waste Audit and Waste Composition Study Municipality of Jasper. (2007, October). Prepared for the Municipality of Jasper Environmental Services. Balli, O., Aras, H. (2007). Energetic and exergetic performance evaluation of a combined heat and power system with the micro gas turbine (MGTCHP). International Journal of Energy Research, 31, 1425-1440. Pilavachi, P.A. (2002). Mini- and micro-gas turbines for combined heat and power. Applied Thermal Engineering, 22, 2003-2014. Staley, B., Barlaz, M. (2009). Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135:10, 901-909.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Powering Microturbines with Landfill Gas (2002, October). Office of Air and Radiation, (EPA430-F-02-012). World Bank. Handbook for the preparation of landfill gas to energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean, Part 1. (2004, January). Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, Washington D.C., (33568-CD/0051/V29/040875). Wind Bolinger, M., Wiser, R., Wind, T., Juhl, D., Grace, R., West, P. (2005). A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Models. Energy Trust of Oregon. Couture, T., Gagnon, Y. (2008, March). Financing Models. New Brunswick Community Wind Energy Initiative, Université de Moncton. Couture, T., Gagnon, Y. (2008, March). Ownership Models. New Brunswick Community Wind Energy Initiative, Université de Moncton. Kwartin, R., Wolfrum, A., Granfield, K., Kagel, A., Appletoin, A. (2008, December). An Analysis of the Technical and Economic Potential for Mid-Scale Distributed Wind. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (NREL/SR-500-44280). Hydro Bakis, R. (2007).The Current Status and Future Opportunities of Hydroelectricity. Energy Sources, Part B, 2, 259-266. Gagnon, L., Bélanger, C., Uchiyama, Y. (2002). Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy, 30, 1267-1278. Hosseini, S., Forouzbakhsh, F., Rahimpoor, M. (2005). Determination of the optimal installation capacity of small hydro-power plants through the use of technical, economic and reliability indices. Energy Policy, 33, 1948-1956. CHP Bailey, O., Ouaglal, B., Bartholomew, E., Marnay, C., Bourassa, N. (2002). An EngineringEconomic Analysis of Combined Heat and Power Technologies in a Grid Application. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley-National Laboratory, March 2002. Berkeley California, LBNL-50023 Goldstein, L., Hedman, B., Knowles, D., Freedman, S., Woods, R., Schweizer, T., (2003). Gas-Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, (NREL/TP-620-34783). Graus, W., Voogt, M., Worrell, E. (2007). International comparison of energy efficiency of fossil power generation. Energy Policy, 35, 3936-3951.

McKinsey Global Institute. The carbon productivity challenge: Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth. (2008, June). McKinsey Climate Change Special Institute, Sydney, Australia. www.mckinsey.com/mgi Shipley, A., Hampson, A., Hedman, B., Garland, P., Bautista P. (2008). Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future. Oakridge National Laboratory, Oakridge, Tennessee, (ORNL/TM-2008/224). Modelling Software RETScreen. http://www.retscreen.net/ang/home.php WattSun. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/software_tools/ watsun.html GS2000. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/software_tools/ gs2000.html SWIFT. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/software_tools/swift.html LandGEM. http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html HOT2000. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/software_tools/ hot2000.html

Appendix A - Excel Tables Calculating the deviance between estimated and actual building heated area

Summary of energy use and energy intensity by block

Appendix B - SunWatt Analysis WATSUN v. 2008.0.0 - Active Solar Simulation Run on: Thu Oct 22 12:39:25 2009 Configuration: - Hot Water System With Storage - Weather file: C:\Program Files\NRCan\WATSUN2008\EDMO.TMY - No Alternate Input File Solar System - Collector Type: Glazed Characteristics: - Total Collector Area: 2.7 m2

Simulation Summary

| | Active | Aux | Total | Pump | Res. | Energy | |Mon | Gains | Energy | Loss | Gains | Gains |Delivered | | | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Jan | 0.47 | 1.70 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 2.06 | |Feb | 0.63 | 1.29 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.86 | |Mar | 0.92 | 1.22 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.06 | |Apr | 0.93 | 1.13 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 2.00 | |May | 1.07 | 1.05 | 0.09 | 0.03 | -0.00 | 2.06 | |Jun | 1.06 | 0.98 | 0.08 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 2.00 | |Jul | 1.20 | 0.93 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 2.06 | |Aug | 1.08 | 1.02 | 0.08 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 2.06 | |Sep | 0.93 | 1.13 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 2.00 | |Oct | 0.74 | 1.35 | 0.06 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 2.06 | |Nov | 0.55 | 1.48 | 0.05 | 0.02 | -0.00 | 2.00 | |Dec | 0.35 | 1.74 | 0.05 | 0.01 | -0.01 | 2.06 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Tot | 9.93 | 15.00 | 0.87 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 24.28 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +

Solar Summary

| |Available |Collected| Pipe | Tank | Pump | TAvg | |Mon | Energy | Energy |Losses | Losses | Gains | Solar | | | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (GJ) | (C) | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Jan | 0.98 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 17.16 | |Feb | 1.17 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 22.85 | |Mar | 1.74 | 0.92 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 28.53 | |Apr | 1.60 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 29.88 | |May | 1.74 | 1.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 33.06 | |Jun | 1.66 | 1.06 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 33.90 | |Jul | 1.84 | 1.20 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 36.24 | |Aug | 1.65 | 1.08 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 33.69 | |Sep | 1.44 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 29.79 | |Oct | 1.20 | 0.74 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 25.05 | |Nov | 0.94 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 20.23 | |Dec | 0.67 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 14.49 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Tot | 16.62 | 9.93 | 0.40 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 27.09 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +

Load Summary

| | Theor. | Energy |Fraction |Fraction | |Mon | Load |Delivered|Delivered | Solar | | | (GJ) | (GJ | (%) | (%) | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +------- + |Jan | 2.06 | 2.06 | 99.88 | 16.82 | |Feb | 1.86 | 1.86 | 100.0 | 29.92 | |Mar | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 40.04 | |Apr | 2.00 | 2.00 | 100.0 | 42.24 | |May | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 47.89 | |Jun | 2.00 | 2.00 | 100.0 | 49.31 | |Jul | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 53.52 | |Aug | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 48.97 | |Sep | 2.00 | 2.00 | 100.0 | 42.14 | |Oct | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 33.74 | |Nov | 2.00 | 2.00 | 100.0 | 25.22 | |Dec | 2.06 | 2.06 | 100.0 | 15.05 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Tot | 24.28 | 24.28 | 99.99 | 37.10 | +------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +

Primary Energy Consumption Summary

| | Time |Time Aux. | Electric. | Primary | |Mon |Solar On | Heat On | Energy | Energy | | | (h) | (h) | (kWh) | (GJ) | +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- +-------- + |Jan | 156.38 | 744.0 | 7.19 | 2.12 | |Feb | 188.63 | 672.0 | 8.68 | 1.61 | |Mar | 259.88 | 744.0 | 11.95 | 1.52 | |Apr | 313.00 | 720.0 | 14.40 | 1.41 | |May | 354.69 | 744.0 | 16.32 | 1.31 | |Jun | 373.00 | 720.0 | 17.16 | 1.23 | |Jul | 393.56 | 744.0 | 18.10 | 1.16 | |Aug | 371.75 | 744.0 | 17.10 | 1.28 | |Sep | 298.88 | 720.0 | 13.75 | 1.41 | |Oct | 253.13 | 744.0 | 11.64 | 1.68 | |Nov | 189.00 | 720.0 | 8.69 | 1.85 | |Dec | 128.00 | 744.0 | 5.89 | 2.18 | +-------- +------- +------- +---------+------ + |Tot |3279.88 | 8760.0 | 150.87 | 18.75 | +-------- +-------- +-------- +---------+-------- +

Appendix C - Landfill Gas Analysis