Thesis-Biomass Feasibility Assessment - Rick Barthelmie 1.6

Biomass Feasibility Assessment Rick Barthelmie
MSc AEES i January 2010

Rick Barthelmie
MSc Architecture, AEES
January 2010

Graduate School of the Environment
Centre for Alternative Technology,
Machynlleth,
Powys, SY20 9AZ,
UK

tel: 01654 705981

School of Computing and Technology
University of East London
Docklands Campus
4-6 University Way
London
E16 2RD
UK

tel: 020 8223 3000

MSc AEES ii January 2010
Biomass Feasibility Index: Model and Method to Assess a
Communitys Ability to be Self-Sufficient in Biomass for
Domestic Hot Water and Heating
MSc AEES iii January 2010
Abstract
Rural communities in the north of Scotland do not have access to mains gas and rely on
bottled gas, fuel oil, coal, wood and electricity for their domestic space heating and hot water
needs. Sparse populations and close proximity to woodland supporting the timber industries
may allow these communities access to a supply of biomass from timber waste and forestry
residues that could be used for community heating and hot water schemes.
An assessment method and spreadsheet model is presented that would allow planners and
project managers to rapidly assess of demand and supply using basic input methods to
produce a biomass feasibility index: a measure of that communitys ability to be self sufficient
in biomass production to meet their heating and hot water needs in the long term.
Demand is assessed with a short questionnaire that aims to understand the household, the
dwelling, usage patterns, fuels used, annual energy consumption and opinions on community
heating schemes. An alternative demand assessment can be conducted rapidly using
industry average data.
Supply is assessed through a structured assessment of source zones that can be used to
estimate available biomass resources after allowances for biodiversity, processing,
conversion and distribution. A biomass feasibility index is calculated from supply and
demand estimates to indicate the communitys ability to become self sufficient in heating and
hot water from local biomass sources. The assessment method may be used to focus
investment on those communities that may benefit through meeting their needs from locally
available and sustainable sources without impacting the biodiversity or primary industry use
of woodlands.
Promotion of biomass as a fuel may have further benefits once economies of scale are
reached and could provide additional local employment in remote rural communities that
would reduce net migration from these areas.
The biomass feasibility assessment model and methodology were able to produce results
consistent with other assessment methods. A biomass feasibility index was calculated for the
two case study communities over a range of fuel types. Further work is required on
biodiversity calculations and sourcing a consistent supply data set. The model may be of
further use when integrated into a financial feasibility model for biomass schemes.

MSc AEES iv January 2010
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations have been used in this document.
Abbreviation Description
BAH Biomass Assessment Handbook, for further details see Bibliography
BEAT2 Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool
BEC Biomass Energy Centre or Bio-Energy Centre.
Brash Low density forestry material consisting of tops of trees and small branches. Also
referred to as 'lop and top'.
BRE Building Research Establishment
CAT Centre for Alternative Technology
CV Calorific Value
EFISCEN European Forestry Institute Scenario Model
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FC Forestry Commission. UK government body.
FCS Forestry Commission Scotland. Part of the UK Forestry Commission.
GCV Gross Calorific Value
GLADE Forestry Commission Advanced Land Information Search Tool
NCV Net Calorific Value
ROC Renewables Obligation Certificate - a green certificate issued to an accredited
generator for eligible renewable electricity generated within the United Kingdom and
supplied to customers within the United Kingdom by a licensed electricity supplier.
UBET Unified Bioenergy Terminology
Yield Class Measure of annual increase in volume of biomass per hectare.

MSc AEES v January 2010
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people who provided support, inspiration and
encouragement both in the conception and development of this thesis:
Gerry Jones of CAT, my thesis supervisor, for his words of wisdom and guidance on
refining the question to be answered;
Dr Rebecca J. Barthelmie, of the University of Indiana, for her inspiration, critical review,
proof reading, encouragement and suggestions;
Sven Skatun, of the Moray Bio-energy Centre, for sharing the MBEC business plan and
his vision for local woodfuel cells;
Keith Thomas, former CAT student, for his proof reading, encouragement and the
inspiration for starting the MSc;
Connor Barthelmie, my son, for enduring the months of development of this thesis and
endless trips into the woods; and finally;
Mrs Gillian Hall, my mum, for her top rate administrative support, endless cups of tea and
disruption in the wee small hours during the final few weeks of editing.

MSc AEES vi January 2010
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
1. Biomass Feasibility Assessment ......................................................................... 1
2. Biomass Feasibility Index Model ......................................................................... 3
2.1 Biomass Feasibility Index .............................................................................................. 4
2.2 Supply Model and Equations ......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Demand Models and Equations................................................................................... 13
2.4 Scenario Modelling ...................................................................................................... 22
3. Case Study: Ferness ........................................................................................ 23
3.1 Ferness Overview ....................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Supply Assessment ..................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Demand Assessment .................................................................................................. 34
3.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment ................................................................................. 40
3.5 Conclusions of the Ferness Case Study ...................................................................... 40
4. Biomass for Community Heating and Hot Water ............................................... 42
4.1 The Biomass Feasibility Assessment Model ................................................................ 42
4.2 The Biomass Fuel Market............................................................................................ 43
4.3 Solutions to Biomass Market Challenges .................................................................... 45
5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A Biomass Feasibility Assessment Methodology ....................................... 52
A.1 Target Site Identification ................................................................................................ 52
A.2 Demand Assessment..................................................................................................... 55
A.3 Supply Assessment ....................................................................................................... 56
A.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment .................................................................................... 58
A.5 Target Site Summary ..................................................................................................... 58
Appendix B Demand Questionnaire .......................................................................... 59
B.1 Demand Usage Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 61
B.2 Covering Letter .............................................................................................................. 63
Appendix C Ferness Case Study Supporting Tables ................................................ 64
C.1 Biomass Feasibility Index .............................................................................................. 64
C.2 Supply Calculation ......................................................................................................... 65
C.3 Supply Input .................................................................................................................. 65
C.4 Supply Reference .......................................................................................................... 66
C.5 Demand Calculation ...................................................................................................... 68
C.6 Demand Inputs .............................................................................................................. 68
C.7 Demand References...................................................................................................... 68
Appendix D Spreadsheet Model for Biomass Feasibility Assessment ....................... 72
D.1 Scope of the Spreadsheet Model .................................................................................. 73
D.2 Model Specification ....................................................................................................... 73
D.3 Model Design ................................................................................................................ 73
D.4 Model Testing ................................................................................................................ 79
Appendix E Case Study: Dallas ................................................................................. 80
MSc AEES vii January 2010
E.1 Dallas Overview............................................................................................................. 80
E.2 Supply Assessment ....................................................................................................... 81
E.3 Demand Assessment..................................................................................................... 83
E.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment .................................................................................... 84
E.5 Conclusions of the Dallas Case Study ........................................................................... 85
References ................................................................................................................ 86
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 91

MSc AEES viii January 2010
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Biomass Feasibility Index Model ............................................................................ 3
Figure 2 - Production Chain of Bio-energy (Source: UBET, FAO) .......................................... 4
Figure 3 - Relationship of Fractions to Standing Stock Energy ............................................... 6
Figure 4 - Net Calorific Value vs Moisture Content (Source: BEC) ......................................... 8
Figure 5 - Mean Increment for Scots Pine (Source: EFISCEN) .............................................. 9
Figure 6 - Typical DHW load prole of an average size domestic household ....................... 17
Figure 7 - Energy Delivery Profile ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 8 - Space Heat Load Profiles of a Typical Dwelling .................................................. 19
Figure 9 - Ferness 1:25,000 ................................................................................................. 23
Figure 10 - Ferness Forestry Coverage ............................................................................... 24
Figure 11 - Ferness Forest Zones ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 12 - New Inn Wood ................................................................................................... 26
Figure 13 - Using DBH Measuring Tool................................................................................ 26
Figure 14 - Thinned Scot Pine Stand at Airdrie Plantation.................................................... 27
Figure 15 - Airdrie Plantation DBH Measurement ................................................................ 27
Figure 16 - Sitka Spruce in Logie Wood ............................................................................... 27
Figure 17 - Scots Pine in Belivat .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 18 - Larch in Dulsie Wood ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 19 - Douglas Fir in Dalnaheiglish Wood .................................................................... 29
Figure 20 - Tomnarroch from afar ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 21 - Gross Annuel Fuel Consumption for Respondents ............................................ 35
Figure 22 Hourly Hot Water Demand .................................................................................. 36
Figure 23 - Monthly Space Heat Demand vs Average Temperature .................................... 37
Figure 24 - December HW and SH Load Profile ................................................................... 37
Figure 25 - July HW and SH Load Profile ............................................................................. 37
Figure 26 - Ferness Distribution Network ............................................................................. 38
Figure 27 - Ferness Community Centre ............................................................................... 39
Figure 28 Stakeholders in the Biomass Fuel Market ......................................................... 43
Figure 29 - Biomass Feasibility Assessment Methodology ................................................... 52
Figure 30 - Supply Zone Assessment Map .......................................................................... 57
Figure 31 - Calibrating the DBH Measurement Tool ............................................................ 58
Figure 32 - Spreadsheet Worksheet Layout ......................................................................... 74
Figure 33 - Dallas Forestry Coverage .................................................................................. 81
Figure 34 - Dallas Forest Zones ........................................................................................... 81
Figure 35 - Map Based Assessment of Dallas ...................................................................... 83

MSc AEES ix January 2010
List of Tables
Table 1 - Biomass Feasibility Index Classification .................................................................. 5
Table 2 - Accessible Fraction ................................................................................................. 8
Table 3 - Domestic Energy Performance Indicators ............................................................. 15
Table 4 - Domestic Hot Water Consumption in the UK Household ....................................... 16
Table 5 - Ferness Local Area Forestry Coverage ................................................................. 24
Table 6 - Ferness Supply Zone Areas .................................................................................. 25
Table 7 - Ferness Standing Stock Volume and Energy ........................................................ 30
Table 8 - Ferness Accessible Fraction ................................................................................. 30
Table 9 - Sustainable Harvest Fractions for Scotland ........................................................... 30
Table 10 - Ferness Sustainable Harvest Volume and Energy .............................................. 31
Table 11- Ferness Biodiversity Fraction Volume and Energy ............................................... 31
Table 12 - Processing / Cut Fraction Energy and Volume .................................................... 32
Table 13 - Forest Residues and Primary Production ............................................................ 32
Table 14 - Biomass Energy Supply for Ferness ................................................................... 33
Table 15 - Processing Losses .............................................................................................. 33
Table 16 - Potential Biomass Supply ................................................................................... 33
Table 17 - Heating and Hot Water Usage in Ferness ........................................................... 34
Table 18 - Net Annual Household Energy Consumption ...................................................... 36
Table 19 - Fuel Type and Cost Comparison ......................................................................... 39
Table 20 - Ferness Biomass Feasibility Assessment ........................................................... 40
Table 21 - Potential Biofuel Output per Annum .................................................................... 42
Table 22 Potential Source of Grant Funding ..................................................................... 46
Table 23 - Characterstics of Pellet Boilers (Source:Fiedler) ................................................. 47
Table 24 - Characteristics Summary for Target Site Identification ....................................... 54
Table 25 - Demand Side Area Coverage Estimation ............................................................ 54
Table 26 - Selection of Boiler and Fuel Type........................................................................ 55
Table 27 - Properties of Fuels .............................................................................................. 56
Table 28 Example Boiler Efficiencies ................................................................................ 56
Table 29 - Development Conventions .................................................................................. 72
Table 30 Supply Calculation Design.................................................................................. 75
Table 31 - Supply Input Design ............................................................................................ 76
Table 32 - Supply Reference Design ................................................................................... 77
Table 33 - Demand Calculation Design ................................................................................ 78
Table 34 - Demand Input Design ......................................................................................... 79
Table 35 - Demand Reference Design ................................................................................. 79
Table 36 - Dallas Local Area Forestry Coverage .................................................................. 80
Table 37 - Dallas Supply Zone Areas ................................................................................... 82
Table 38 - Biomass Energy Supply for Ferness ................................................................... 82
Table 39 - Potential Biomass Supply ................................................................................... 82
Table 40 - Estimating Fuel Consumption Prior to Input ........................................................ 83
Table 41 - Fuel Type and Cost Comparison ......................................................................... 84
Table 42 - Dallas Biomass Feasibility Assessment .............................................................. 85
MSc AEES 1 of 91 January 2010
1. Biomass Feasibility Assessment
This section is an introduction to the topic of biomass fuel feasibility assessment for
community hot water and space heating schemes.
Biomass could be the solution to significantly reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, in particular
natural gas, for use in domestic hot water and heating. Use of biomass would reduce CO
2

emissions through fossil fuel displacement and increase the energy self sufficiency (and
energy security) of those communities adopting it. The use of biomass for domestic
applications may not be suitable for all parts of the UK where population density, type of
dwelling and lack of proximity to suitable feedstock make other technologies more attractive.
The climate, population density, proximity and forestry coverage of northern Scotland
combined with a lack of mains natural gas makes it suitable for establishing the biomass
industry in the UK.
Suitable coverage of biomass both now and in the future must exist locally to remain
sustainable. Localised use of biomass reduces the amount of transportation required
between the points of harvesting, processing and use of fuel although the high investment
needed for processing equipment may require either centralised processing or mobile
processing plants. Allowances must be made to promote biodiversity in the biomass sources.
Many types of biomass may be considered in addition to secondary forestry sources to
supplement the needs of communities. The use of efficient and user-friendly biomass fuelled
heating and hot water is relatively rare in the UK compared with Europe leading to high
capital and operating costs for end users and difficulties in obtaining suitable fuel (Scottish
Renewables, 2008, p. 1). Higher efficiency community based schemes may alleviate these
higher costs although community schemes are very uncommon in the UK due to
householder bias toward individual heating systems. Targeted investment is required until
efficiencies of scale make the technologies more commercially viable and guarantee of
supply of suitable fuels.
Biomass feasibility assessments are usually focussed on demonstrating financial paybacks
(Gaul et al., 2004) or have been based on a target site (Cooke, Koloktroni, & Cripps, 2006).
The biomass feasibility assessment methodology presented in this paper allows a filtering of
target sites prior to detailed study. Alternative tools and methods exist that would support
feasibility assessments for community based schemes. BEAT2 (AEA, 2008), for example,
offers a much more detailed assessment of the costs and impacts of schemes but requires
boiler sizing as a primary input. The Biomass Assessment Handbook (Rosillo-Calle, Groot,
Hemstock, & Woods, 2008) provides methods for the assessment of both demand and
supply but does not offer a tool to perform the calculations. It is intended that the biomass
feasibility assessment tool presented here is able to bridge both gaps for project managers
and planners of community heating schemes.
Assessments of demand and locally available supply are required to establish the viability of
community based biomass heating and hot water schemes. Demand is assessed through the
use of an energy questionnaire sent to the householders in the target community seeking
data about their household, dwelling, fuels used, thermal efficiency techniques deployed,
annual consumption, heating system and opinions on community heating schemes.
Consumption data is collected in terms of annual spend on fuel and converted to an energy
value. Demand data is analysed in a spreadsheet model to produce annual demand figures
and approximations of usage based on the split between heating and hot water needs.
Demand figures are presented both in unimproved and improved forms to reflect reductions
in demand that could be achieved through the use of additional thermal efficiency
improvements. Supplies are segmented into zones and aggregated to allow for different
types of feedstocks. The zones were created from Ordnance Survey maps and data from the
Forestry Commission. Site visits were conducted to identify the type of biomass in each
zone. Research was conducted to identify the likely energy yield from each type of biomass.
Available supply was calculated from the aggregated expected fuel yield from all zones after
removing losses from processing into usable fuel, boiler conversion into hot water for
distribution, and distribution losses in the heat main. Processing losses were primarily those
of moisture content reduction and were obtained through research and interview. Boiler
efficiencies were obtained from manufacturer data for suitable sizes of boiler both for
continual and standby loads. Distribution losses were estimated from the length of the heat
main from map surveys and research.
The biomass feasibility index (BFI) model section outlines the theoretical calculation of the
index from supply and demand calculations supported by reference data and inputs.
Variables are identified and described. Demand and supply model variables are examined in
more detail in their own sections to include practical aspects of the variables to identify
constraints and assumptions that are used. A case study of Ferness, a small rural community
in Northern Scotland, is assessed using the model and an analysis of results provided.
Further examination of the use of biomass for community heating schemes illustrates
potential improvements to the model, an assessment of the challenges in the biofuel market
and offers some solutions to those challenges. The conclusion section summaries the
analysis undertaken, evaluates the usefulness of the model and identifies further refinements
of the methodology together with additional research that could be performed. The
methodology appendix describes a process that could be used for identifying and then
assessing target communities. The demand questionnaire appendix describes the
development of the questionnaire and improvements that enable a closer integration with the
model. Supplementary data from the Ferness case study is included in an appendix. The
spreadsheet model appendix includes the design for implementing the biomass feasibility
index in an easy to use and flexible spreadsheet model.
The biomass feasibility index model when used in conjunction with a demand questionnaire,
map and site assessments was able to calculate the biomass feasibility index of the Ferness
community. The value of the supply and demand components compared favourably with
other published methods. The major difficulty faced was a lack of consistent reference data
for the supply assessment. The supply assessments approach included forecasting to
ensure security of supply in the long term often overlooked in feasibility studies. Further
refinement is required in the calculation of the biodiversity aspects of the model. The model
could be linked into a financial feasibility framework to cover more aspects of the feasibility
planning stage.

2. Biomass Feasibility Index Model
This section outlines the basis of the biomass feasibility index model. Later sections expand
on each of the constituent parts from a demand and a supply perspective.
Purpose of the Model
The purpose of the model is to calculate the ability of a community to be self-sufficient in
locally available biomass for their domestic hot water and heating needs for the foreseeable
future. Locally available biomass resources must be sustainably harvested and allow for the
continuing biodiversity of the locality. The model allows for the improvement of thermal
efficiency of dwellings and the reduction in net energy demand that will result. The model
described in this paper is based on the use of forestry residues for woodfuel with additional
resources available from local sources such as those from wood processing or recovery
activities.
Overview
The biomass feasibility index model aims to calculate the biomass feasibility index from the
potential biomass fuel available to a community and the required biomass fuel needed to
supply heat and hot water from the existing demand of the community. The model can be
broken into two facets: a supply side model and a demand side model. Each facet can be
treated independently.
Figure 1 - Biomass Feasibility Index Model
The supply and demand facets of the model are further broken down into components which
form the energy flows through the system and are derived by calculations. The constituent
parts of the model and the elements of the supply and demand side models are shown in
Figure 1. The arrangement of the model components in this way allows the production of
biomass energy flows (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2008, pp. 49-50) for both supply and demand
enabling comparisons to be undertaken with other biomass assessment methods. For this
reason all of the key components are expressed in standard energy units which in this case
are Mega Joules (MJ). Components in dark grey in Figure 1 represent the key energy values
used to calculate the biomass feasibility index. Those in light grey represent the main inflows
or outflows from either the demand or supply energy flows. Representing the model in this
way allows a Sankey energy flow diagram to be created for the system as a whole.
The component driven approach to the biomass feasibility index model allows the
replacement of derivation methods without affecting the integrity of the model. This may be
required where a different modelling approach or calculation basis is preferred or more
suitable for the project or community in question. For example, if forestry residues were to be
substituted by crop residues only the input to the collected biomass component would need
to be changed.
The approach supports the production chain of bio-energy (FAO, 2004, p. 15) with the supply
side of the model covering biomass and preparation shown in Figure 2 and the demand side
of the model covering the conversion and bio-energy elements of Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Production Chain of Bio-energy (Source: UBET, FAO)
Standard Units
This paper is primarily focussed on the use of energy and uses the International System of
Units (SI) standard measure of energy, the Joule. One Joule is defined as the energy
required to constantly produce 1 Watt of power for 1 second. To provide comparative figures
the alternative unit of energy Giga Watt Hours (GWh) is used throughout this paper
interchangeably using a conversion factor of 1GWh = 3,600GJ. This majority of energy
calculations will be performed in Joules as a standard practice (Boyle, Everett, & Ramage,
2003, p. 598)
2.1 Biomass Feasibility Index
The Biomass Feasibility Index (BFI) indicates the degree of self-sufficiency of a community to
obtain its domestic hot water and heating needs from locally available biomass resources. It
is a relative measure and can be used for comparisons between communities. A measure of
1 would indicate that the community could be self-sufficient. Table 1 shows the ranges of BFI
with a proposed classification scheme and the rationale for each classification.
Biomass
Feasibility
Index
Classification Rationale
<0.5 Not Viable The scheme would require a large amount of woodfuel to
be imported requiring transportation of large amounts of
material and increasing costs. Little or no local employment
opportunities. No capacity for future growth in consumers or
demand.
Biomass
Feasibility
Index
Classification Rationale
>0.5 but <1.0 Viable, with import The majority of the communitys needs could be met form
local resources. Some import required potentially from
indirect or recovered sources.
>1.0 but <1.5 Viable, with headroom for growth The community can easily meet its own needs. Potential for
surplus to be exported to other communities.
>1.5 but <2.5 Viable, with potential for export Community can comfortably meet its own needs and most
likely can support a community of equivalent size with
woodfuel.
>2.5 Viable, with potential for CHP Surplus of woodfuel allows community to comfortably meet
its own needs with potential for supporting CHP
development.
Table 1 - Biomass Feasibility Index Classification
The Biomass Feasibility Index is calculated as:
BFI =
potcntiol biomoss ucl cncrgy
rcquircJ biomoss ucl cncrgy
=
E
PBP
E
RBP

Equation 1: Biomass Feasibility Index
Where BFI is the Biomass Feasibility Index, E
PBP
is the energy of the potential biomass fuel
in MJ and E
LR
is the energy received in MJ.
Modelling of the flows making up the Biomass Feasibility Index using Sankey diagrams was
trialled using the e!Sankey tool (http://www.e-sankey.com/en/). The issue with generating
energy flow diagrams in this way was that the standing stock energy was vastly greater than
the required biomass fuel and the potential biomass fuel supply so the benefit of visualising
flows in proportion to one another was lost. As a substitute the tables of stages, inflows and
outflows was included in the biomass feasibility calculation worksheet.
2.2 Supply Model and Equations
The supply model aims to identify woodfuels available to the community from silviculture
(thinning, pruning etc.) as well as harvesting and logging (tops, roots, branches, etc) in local
forestry. Woodfuels may be classified as direct, indirect or recovered woodfuel (FAO, 2004,
p. 27) according to the UBET terminology reference.
The supply model shown on the left hand side of the diagram in Figure 1 is documented from
top to bottom and results in the potential biomass fuel energy figure required for Equation 1.
Although more usually expressed as fractions, reductions in the standing stock energy are
expressed as energy equivalents. The supply calculations are based on forestry processes.
Not all available forest will be harvested. Only a proportion of the forest may be accessible
(accessible fraction), it may not be clear felled but rather sustainably harvested
(sustainable harvest fraction) and some may be left to promote biodiversity (biodiversity
fraction). Of the forest that is harvested only a proportion will be extracted (processing / cut
fraction) and some will be left in the ground. Of the timber that is cut some will be
transported for further processing for its final use (primary production) and the remainder
will form forestry residues that can be used for woodfuel. Forestry residues will consist of
small diameter branches, brash and chips. The forestry process described here is based on
the assumption that forest resources will primarily be used for timber. A Venn diagram
showing the relationship between the fractions as a proportion of the standing stock is shown
in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Relationship of Fractions to Standing Stock Energy
The model will cater for forest primarily used for woodfuel such as short rotation coppicing by
allowing the sustainable harvest, processing / cut and forestry residue fractions to be altered.
Standing Stock Energy
The standing stock energy is the energy potential within the biomass contained within a
number of zones under consideration. A biomass zone (also called a compartment within
some research) is a geographically convenient grouping of resources that is, where possible,
grouped by similar type of biomass. The grouping chosen should enable consistent
calculation and although type is the most likely grouping factor others could be chosen such
as ownership, accessibility, condition or age.
The energy contained within a standing stock is estimated based on the approach used in
the Biomass Assessment Handbook (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2008, p. 102). The standing stock
energy is given by:
E
SS
= I
Sz
n
1
p
wz
EI
N

E
SS
= A
z
n
1
S
z
p
wz
EI
N

Equation 2: Standing Stock Energy
Where E
SS
is the energy contained within the standing stock of the biomass zones under
consideration in MJ, I
Sz
is the stock volume of the zone in question in m
3
, p
wz
is the wet
density of the biomass in the zone in kg/m
3
and EI
N
is the Net Heating Value of the biomass
in MJ/kg. The stock volume of the zone may be alternatively calculated as the product of A
z
,
the area of the zone in hectares, and S
z
, the stock density of the zone in m
3
/hectare.
Techniques for assessing stand volume range from broad estimates used for national
planning (McKay, 2003), programmatic (Parikka, 2000), satellite imaging (Mkel &
Pekkarinen, 2004) or standwise inventories (Talkkari, 2009, p. 13) based on review and
possibly physical sampling of trees within a forest stand. Standwise inventory data is
sometimes published as a stand forestry management plan. Forestry management practice
in the UK is guided primarily by stand yield tables created from empirical data for each
species. The primary purposes of the feasibility assessment are to quickly establish a volume
requirement for the zone with the minimal time and expense. Skilled forestry technicians are
unlikely to be available until the detailed design stage effectively ruling out detailed standwise
inventories. Ideally, stand forestry management plans would be used as they provide data
specific to the soil and climatic conditions, the mix of species and the management regime of
a stand. Forestry management plans were not available for the site assessment and are
unlikely to be available at the feasibility stage. In the UK, where the majority of the woodland
is under private estate management it is unlikely that forestry management plans are in place
unless they have been developed in order to secure grant funding (Smith, 2006, p. 8). On a
similar vein, satellite remote sensing would be uneconomic for the purposes of a feasibility
assessment. Based on the limitations of each of these approaches, stand volume in the
model is estimated by using available regional data for species in conjunction with local
stand assessments for qualitative factors and map based assessments of area. This
approach will be a broad estimate but should prove no less precise than satellite imaging
where the errors in volume estimates are high at around 48% (Mkel & Pekkarinen, 2004,
p. 9).
For volume and mean increment data at a regional level the EFISCEN database (European
Forest Institute, n.d.) was used which provided for a given region and species type: the area,
volume per hectare and mean increment for a given age class. Ownership types were also
listed but on further analysis there was no distinction between types for volume and mean
increment.
To determine the age a rough guide for each species was used (Agate, 2002, sec. Timber
Measurement) that provided the approximate age for a range of species. This technique is
only appropriate for small stands of forestry but is acceptable for estimating for these
purposes. The derived age is used to key into the EFISCEN data described above using the
age band and the species family. The issues with this approach is that the banding of the
tree age and the rounding required in the model will impact accuracy as will the use of data
that may not be representative of the local climate and soil type for providing the
approximation of age of the tree.
The energy content of the standing stock could be calculated using a constant of 19GJ /
tonne (McKay, 2003, p. 68) although this figure is for oven dry timber. There was a slight
variation in this figure for different species (19.29GJ/tonne for silver birch and Norway spruce
to 19.6GJ/tonne for Sitka spruce) and for different parts of the tree (18.8GJ/tonne for bark of
the Norway spruce to 19.77GJ/tonne for crown) but the additional precision of using a more
accurate figure is not required for the purposes of the assessment. This method would
require an additional conversion to the equivalent energy content of wet or fresh timber and
so the energy conversion was implemented using the approach in the Biomass Assessment
Handbook (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2008, p. 103), however, a moisture content of 50% was
believed to be more reasonable based on moisture content of freshly felled conifers of
between 55% and 60% and for hardwoods of between 35% and 50%. The Net Heating Value
for timber at a moisture content of 50% was found using the equation (McKay, 2003, p. 69):
nct,u
=
nct,d

(100 H
u
)
100
0.02441 H
u

Equation 3: Modification of Energy Content for Moisture Content
Where
nct,u
is the net calorific value as received in MJ/kg,
nct,d
is the net calorific value
dry in MJ/kg and H
u
is the moisture content as received. Using Equation 3, the net heating
value at a moisture content of 50% was 8.3MJ/kg. An alternative approach would be to
estimate the net calorific value from the graph in Figure 4 (Biomass Energy Centre, 2009a).
Figure 4 was also used to derive the densities at 0% and 50% for both softwoods and
hardwoods for use in Equation 2
that are stored in the reference
tables of the model. Predictions
of standing stock longevity for
security of supply are derived
below in the sustainable yield
calculations.
Energy Equivalent of Accessible
Fraction
The accessible fraction
represents the energy of the
biomass that is accessible to
harvest for reasons of economic
or physical constraints. The
original definition (Rosillo-Calle et
al., 2008, p. 102) was for an
accessible fraction that included
environmental reasons but in this model the environmental fraction has been highlighted
separately as the biodiversity fraction. The equivalent energy of the accessibility fraction is
used here as it represents a flow from the standing stock energy. It is estimated based on the
qualitative assessment of the zone surveyor with regards to difficulty of extraction and
question of ownership. Zone characteristics converted to a fraction are shown in Table 2.
Accessible Fraction Physical / Ownership Constraints
0.9 Good level of access with ownership likely to be favourable
0.6 Reasonable access and / or ownership likely to be neutral
0.3 Difficult to access and / or ownership likely to be adversarial
0.1 Extremely difficult to access and / or ownership unknown
0.0 Access denied, ownership adverse
Table 2 - Accessible Fraction
It will be noted that these are estimates and would be revised after further detailed studies
were undertaken. To convert the accessibility fraction to an equivalent energy the following
equation is used:
E
AP
= AF
z
E
SS,z
n
1

Equation 4: Energy Equivalent Accessible Fraction
Where E
AP
is the energy equivalent of the accessibility fraction representing the energy that
could be harvested due to reasons of ownership or physical access for extraction in MJ, AF
z

is the inaccessibility fraction of that zone and E
SS,z
is the energy of the standing stock in that
zone. The use of the zone concept allows for differing accessibility for each zone to reflect
geographic conditions.
Sustainable Harvest Fraction
The sustainable harvest fraction represents the amount of accessible forest that could be
harvested in a year on an ongoing basis. The assumption used is that woodfuel will always
be secondary to the production of timber for construction or pulpwood. To ensure the
maximum yield of timber first and second thinnings are carried out prior to final harvest. A
number of approaches to estimating the sustainable harvest fraction are possible including
long term projections of volume using mean annual increment, volume estimates per hectare
Figure 4 - Net Calorific Value vs Moisture Content (Source: BEC)
and proportions of volume harvested to standing stock volume. All methods are approximate
and provide only guidance figures.
Long term projections of volume using mean annual increment would provide the stand
volume at a given point in time
for the Scotland region. Figure 5
shows the mean increment for
Scots pine over a 150 year term
on an annual basis. Integrating
the area under the curve yields
the volume which is 822m
3
for a
hectare at the 150 year point
assuming no thinnings have
taken place and with the
assumption that the stem growth
rates is constant.
If the mean increment was then
annualised (by dividing by the total volume at a point in time) would yield an effective yield of
822/150 or 5.5m
3
per annum if the stand age was 150 years although this increases to 8m
3
if
a restriction on stand age was made at 50 years. Since this method does not take into
account the forestry management regime it is useful only on providing a gross limit to the
volume that may be extracted per hectare.
Volume assessments per hectare are the simplest calculation method but are limited unless
their derivation basis is known. The Biomass Assessment Handbook (Rosillo-Calle et al.,
2008, p. 103) uses a hypothetical value of 3.8m
3
/ hectare per year for the sustainable yield
but there is no derivation basis for this figure and, therefore, it is an approach that cannot be
used.
Calculations of the sustainable harvest fraction using the proportional yield method can be
made if the proportion of sustainable wood production to the total standing volume of the
region are known and can be applied to the standing volume of the zone assuming that
existing production plans are sustainable. With the domination of clear fell harvesting
techniques this is a significant limitation and one that invalidates this approach unless the
number of zones is increased so that there is always productive forest in place. With the
maximum mean increment occurring in most species families at around forty years
(European Forest Institute, n.d.) considerations of the age of the zones incorporated within
the community plan become important. This approach requires regional harvesting figures
which are available from the Woodfuel Resource database from the Forestry Commission
(Forest Research, n.d.) and standing stock data for the region which was not available. The
lack of a consistent data set at the regional level prevented this technique being used which
may have taken into consideration soil types and climates at the regional level. If the same
technique is used at the national level a rough approximation can be made by utilising stand
volume figures from the EFISCEN database. The additional benefits of using this approach
are that future projections are incorporated (presumably from forest plans), breakdowns of
the type of biomass are included (used later in the forest residue fraction), alignment of
species families can be made and that estimates from forests in private ownership are
included. An issue encountered using this technique is to convert to a consistent set of units
as the EFISCEN figures are in hectares and cubic metres whereas the Woodfuel Resource
data is quoted in oven dry tonnes. A consistent basis of volume is used by converting the
biomass type to cubic metres using an appropriate density at a moisture content of 0%
representing oven dry timber. Future harvest projections are incorporated by taking the
minimum harvest proportions to overcome one of the potential limitations of using woodfuel
adequacy of supply.
Once the sustainable harvest fractions have been calculated at the zone level the equivalent
energy is calculated using:
Figure 5 - Mean Increment for Scots Pine (Source: EFISCEN)
E
HP
= SF
z
E
AP,z
n
1

Equation 5: Energy Equivalent of Sustainable Harvest Fraction
Where E
HP
is the energy equivalent of the sustainable harvest fraction representing the
energy that could be harvested sustainably in MJ, SF
z
is the sustainable harvest fraction of
that zone and E
AP,z
is the energy equivalent of the accessible fraction in that zone.
Biodiversity Fraction
The sustainable harvest identifies the maximum levels of extraction possible but ecological
considerations will restrict the practical levels of fuel extraction. For the promotion of
biodiversity one source recommends that a minimum of least 3 standing and 3 fallen pieces
of deadwood or at least a volume of 5m
3
per ha of pieces >15-20cm diameter should be
maintained, on average, across the forest area as a whole. (Humphrey, Stevenson,
Whitfield, & Swailes, 2002, p. 4). In addition, the conduct of the harvesting operation could
also have a detrimental effect on the environment. The use of brash mats to minimise soil
damage (Murgatroyd & Saunders, 2005) may also increase the nutrient flow to the soil once
harvesting has completed and will reduce the amount of material harvested for woodfuel.
The leaving of brash may be required to support local nature programs or sport interests
such as cover for capercaillie or grouse shooting. Brash will also prevent the growth of
weeds. The approach taken in the model is to identify the potential impacts and provide a
proportion of the otherwise removed forestry residues to ensure that conservation of
biodiversity is not unreasonably compromised by other management objectives and
methods (FC, 2004, p. 25).
To convert the biodiversity fraction to an equivalent energy the following equation is used:
E
BP
= BF
n
1
E
HP,z

Equation 6: Energy Equivalent of Biodiversity Fraction
Where E
BP
is the energy equivalent of the biodiversity fraction representing the energy that
would not be harvested to ensure the biodiversity of the zone in MJ, BF is the biodiversity
fraction and E
HP,z
is the energy equivalent of the sustainable harvest for the zone in MJ.
The biodiversity fraction may differ significantly from site to site. It will be developed from
observations during the site assessment and further research of local impacts as described
in the supply assessment methodology in section A.3. It will never be less than an equivalent
of 5m
3
per hectare as described above. Potential impacts include location premium areas,
potential native woodland core areas and networks, ancient woodlands and RSPB areas
(FC, 2009a). The biodiversity fraction is created at the community level and then applied to
each zone in the model. Further developments of the model could include separate
biodiversity fractions for each zone to account for potential impacts.
In some cases the biodiversity fraction may be greater than the sustainable harvest fraction
which would result in a negative cut fraction. The model is modified to calculate a remaining
harvest only where the sustainable harvest can support the biodiversity constraint on the
assumption that the cut would only take place under those circumstances. A note is included
in the model to explain why the totals are unequal and explain the discrepancy.
Processing / Cutting Fraction
The processing / cutting fraction represents the biomass that is extracted from the
sustainable harvest once biodiversity has been taken into consideration. For this application
it is assumed that modern commercial harvesting methods would be used and that only a
proportion of the tree would be harvested leaving only the stump in situ. Stump harvesting is
unlikely to be used due to the economics of stump extraction and the ecological impact to
soil structure. To convert the accessibility fraction to an equivalent energy the following
equation is used:
E
CP
= (E
HP
E
BP
) CF
Equation 7: Energy Equivalent of Sustainable Harvest Fraction
Where E
CP
is the energy equivalent of the accessibility fraction representing the energy that
could be harvested due to reasons of ownership or physical access for extraction in MJ, CF
is the processing / cutting fraction, E
HP
is the energy equivalent of the sustainable harvest
fraction and E
BP
is the energy equivalent of the biodiversity fraction.
A processing / cutting fraction of 90% or 0.9 will be used. This figure was obtained from the
Biomass Assessment Handbook (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2008, p. 103).
Forestry Residue Fraction
The forestry residue fraction identifies the proportion of the processing / cut fraction that
would not be used for the primary production of timber. Primary production of timber is
assumed to be that relating to stemwood of greater than 14cm diameter (Forest Research,
n.d.). Forestry residue comprises the remainder and includes stemwood of under 14cm, poor
quality timber (for reasons of straightness etc.), tips, branches and foliage. The forestry
residue fraction was calculated from the sustainable production forecasts for the region
obtained from the eForestry database for Scotland. The forestry residue fraction was
calculated as the production forecast for all biomass except stemwood greater than 14cm
diameter divided by the total biomass production for that species group and forecast year for
the region. Forestry residue was calculated as:
E
PR
= E
CP,z
F
PR,s
n
1

Equation 8 : Energy Equivalent of Forestry Residue Fraction
Where E
PR
is the energy equivalent of the forestry residue fraction in MJ, E
CP,z
is the
processing / cut fraction energy for the zone and F
PR,s
is the proportion of the harvest that is
forestry residue for the species group of the zone.
Direct Woodfuel
The brief definition of direct woodfuel is wood from forests, shrubs and other trees used as
fuel (FAO, 2004, p. 27) and includes wood from thinning and logging operations.
In this model the direct woodfuel energy is equivalent to the forestry residue fraction energy.
Indirect Woodfuel
Indirect woodfuel is derived from the processing of stems included in the primary production
fraction and is defined as residues of wood processing and recoverable wood products
(FAO, 2004). There is potential to procure additional woodfuel resource via this route given
close proximity of the site to a wood processing facility. The volume of woodfuel derived from
wood processing is largely a function of the straightness of the stem defined, along with the
strength, in timber quality assessments. Once at the sawmill the green log yield will also vary
by the method employed to convert it to usable timber. There is no guarantee that the
conversion of the primary production yield sent to the sawmill will be available to a
community for use as indirect woodfuel. For these reason, no modelling estimates are
provided for indirect woodfuel. To accommodate the potential for indirect woodfuel a facility is
provided in the supply input worksheet to directly enter the volume of indirect woodfuel
available and this is converted in the model to an energy equivalent using the energy content
at an entered moisture content. Expected density varies with moisture content but does not
do so linearly due to shrinkage where the moisture content is less than 30% (Simpson, 1993,
p. 2). Since the density is non-linear the best approximations to deriving it for a specific
woodfuel is to use the graph in Figure 4 and enter it into the supply input worksheet.
The energy content can be determined by Equation 3.
Recovered Woodfuel
Recovered woodfuel is derived from previously used wood most likely to be available from
recovery activities at municipal waste sites. There will be a large degree of variation in this
material and so the approach follows the one above for indirect woodfuel.
Biomass Energy Supply
The total biomass supply consists of the forestry residues (also the direct woodfuel using the
UBET definition), indirect woodfuel and recovered woodfuel. It is calculated as:
E
BL
= E
PR
+ E
Iw
+ E
Rw

Equation 9 : Biomass Energy Supply
Where E
BR
is the biomass energy supply in MJ, E
BR
is the energy equivalent of the forestry
residues in MJ, E
Iw
is the energy value of the indirect woodfuel and E
Rw
is the energy value
of the recovered woodfuel in MJ.
It should be noted that the biomass energy supply is the expected supply for a year. Indirect
and recovered woodfuel availability and pricing is likely to be variable unless supplied under
long term contract.
Processing Losses
The processing factor takes into consideration the energy required to convert the biomass
energy supply into potential biomass fuel. Typically, this process involves drying due to the
high moisture content of the biomass followed by conversion into the type of fuel that can be
used in a boiler. Fuel types include pellet or more coarse grained chips. Ideally, the process
conversion will use the harvested biomass for drying rather than external energy inputs
which may be fossil fuel based. It is likely that fossil fuel (e.g., diesel) will be used to convert
the biomass into the fuel type required by the boiler by mechanical means such as chipping
or pelleting. This use of fuel is not factored into the calculations.
To accommodate the various types of fuel three scenarios will be considered:
Conversion of the biomass energy supply at an assumed moisture content of 50% to
woodchip fuel at 30%. This scenario can be used where the processed woodchip is left to
dry naturally;
woodchip fuel at a moisture content of 30% using the heat energy of the installation to dry
the fuel; and
wood pellet fuel at an assumed moisture content of 10% using the heat energy of the
installation to dry the fuel.
Processing losses are calculated as the difference between the energy value of the
equivalent mass of fuel at the required most content and energy of the biomass energy
supply as received. Firstly, the energy of the mass of the biomass energy supply at 0%
moisture content using Equation 3 rearranged as follows:
(
nct,u
+ 0.02441 H
u)
100
(100 H
u
)
=
nct,d

Equation 10: Energy Content of Equivalent Mass at Moisture Content of 0%
Where
nct,u
is the net calorific value as received in MJ/kg,
nct,d
is the net calorific value
dry in MJ/kg and H
u
is the moisture content as received.
Equation 3 is then used to calculate the energy content of the equivalent mass at the
additional moisture contents.
The processing loss for each of the scenarios is then calculated using the equation:
E
PRs
= E
BLs
E
BL@50%

Equation 11 Processing Loss Energy
Where E
PRs
is the processing loss energy for the scenario in MJ, E
BLs
is the equivalent
energy of the biomass energy supply at the scenario moisture content in MJ and E
BL@50%
is
the energy of the biomass energy supply at a moisture content of 50%.
Potential Biomass Fuel
The potential biomass fuel for each scenario is calculated as the biomass energy supply
(with a moisture content of 50%) less the processing loss of the scenario. This is simply
given by the equation:
E
PBPs
= E
BL@50%
E
PRs

Equation 12: Potential Biomass Fuel
Where E
PBPs
is the potential biomass fuel energy for the scenario in MJ, E
PRs
is the
equivalent energy of the processing loss for the scenario moisture content in MJ and
E
BL@50%
is the energy of the biomass energy supply at a moisture content of 50%.
2.3 Demand Models and Equations
This section reviews the demand aspects of the BFI model introduced in the preceding
section and includes the more practical aspects of modelling demand for the real world.
The primary goals of demand modelling are to establish two metrics for use in the BFI
calculation: net annual household energy consumption and net annual improved household
energy consumption. These metrics are derived from energy spend data collected from the
questionnaire, energy consumption patterns from research and qualitative data in the
questionnaire relating to the types of heating and efficiency measures within a household.
Secondary goals include the derivation of usage patterns useful for boiler and accumulator
sizing and assessment of the challenges likely to be experienced in developing a project in
the target community.
This section follows the order of calculation from top to bottom as shown in Figure 1 with one
exception. The space heating consumption is calculated both before and after the calculation
of thermal efficiency improvements as it is required at the macro level for the determination
of the net annual consumption (improved). It is described below in a single section.
Appendix D documents the development of the demand model using Microsoft Excel.
Gross Annual Energy
An assessment of a households annual consumption of energy is made using a short
questionnaire with data being supplemented from estimations obtained from recognised
sources where required. The consumption assessment carried out identifies actual energy
consumption rather than energy needs (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2008, p. 154) as it is assumed
that in the UK all energy needs can be met. Energy consumption could be assessed on
either a theoretical or an actual basis. Theoretical calculations for an individual dwelling could
be assessed using boiler sizing methods (Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Housing, 2004,
p. 3) derived from expected losses. This would require a householder to measure the rooms
in their homes and make assessments of building fabric losses. It was felt that this approach
would not be attempted by householders in the community being assessed as it was too
complex. The alternative approach was to estimate consumption based on energy spend.
This approach is described below.
Householders will rarely be able to estimate their annual household energy consumption in
terms of energy. This exercise is relatively complex even for those with access to metered
energy bills as these will usually be received quarterly and may be based on estimated
readings. In the communities under examination for the use of biomass energy consumption
assessments will be more complex as energy supplies are not metered but are delivered.
These deliveries are measured in a number of different ways, for example, by a load of logs
or a propane gas cylinder. Further complications arise in estimating accurately the energy
content of each delivery as there is a variable energy content of the delivered fuel, the
delivery amount may vary and the energy content in use may differ depending upon how the
fuel is stored. The approach taken in the questionnaire was to determine the fuel spend for
each type of fuel consumed and then convert the spend into energy using publicly available
data. This approach has the advantages that householders will usually have a reasonable
idea as to their annual spend for a given fuel and that the process of converting spend to
energy use will always be consistent. The disadvantages are that there is a high potential
variance in the energy content of the delivered fuel and the costs of obtaining fuel from
different suppliers. For example, there are significant issues with the measurement of
woodfuel due to the high variability of energy content and load sizes (Rosillo-Calle et al.,
2008, p. 107).
The questionnaire bands the fuel spends to make it easier for respondents although this has
the added disadvantage that imprecise data will be obtained. An assessment of the banding
was made based on the authors use of energy for electricity and natural gas as a low
consumer and scaled up for the differing fuel types with reference to pricing of propane, coal,
oil and wood.
The questionnaire data includes electricity as a potential energy source for both domestic hot
water (e.g., immersion heaters and showers) and space heating (e.g., storage heaters). It
would not be possible for householders to extract the proportion of their electrical energy that
is additionally used for appliances, lighting and cooking. Energy consumption data including
electricity is defined in this context as the gross annual energy consumption.
Net Annual Energy
To provide energy consumption data excluding appliances (i.e., the net annual energy
consumption data) it is necessary to remove electrical energy attributable to appliances from
those households including electricity within their figures. Further complexity arises from the
differences between households using electrical showers and / or storage heaters as a
number of different permutations are possible with some relating to hot water, some to
heating and some to both. In the event of a biomass heating scheme being introduced it is
unlikely that householders would replace electric showers due to the costs and
inconvenience involved in re-plumbing into the main hot water circuit.
Data from BRE identifies the fossil fuel use due to space heating and hot water for a number
of different dwelling types along with the electricity use for lights, appliances and cooking
(Wiltshire, 2003, p. 31). These are shown in Table 3 and can be used to derive average
energy consumption where data does not exist and can be used for testing of the model and
with validation of results.
Dwelling Type Fossil Fuel Use
due to Space
Heating and
Domestic Hot
Water
Electricity Use
Total Energy
Use, kWh
Total Energy
Use, MJ
Electricity as a
Proportion of
Total
Energy Use
[kWh / dwelling
per annum]
[kWh / dwelling
per annum]
[kWh] [MJ] [%]
Detached 25,875 3,910
29,785 107,226 13.1%
Semi-detached 19,210 3,145
22,355 80,478 14.1%
Dwelling Type Fossil Fuel Use
due to Space
Heating and
Domestic Hot
Water
Electricity Use
Total Energy
Use, kWh
Total Energy
Use, MJ
Electricity as a
Proportion of
Total
Energy Use
Terraced 16,929 2,916
19,845 71,442 14.7%
Purpose Built Flats 9,086 1,947
11,033 39,719 17.6%
Converted Flats 10,140 2,340
12,480 44,928 18.8%
Not Self Contained 5,070 1,170
6,240 22,464 18.8%
Table 3 - Domestic Energy Performance Indicators
(Source: BRE)
Prior research undertaken (Barthelmie, 2008, p. 2) identifies average annual energy
consumption figures for Scotland to be 23,000kWh with around 82 percent of that attributable
to domestic space heating and hot water (Energy Publications, Department of Trade and
Industry, p. 23). UK household consumption maps (Chan & Williams, 2009, fig. 3) for 2006
show that in remote communities (Highlands, Moray, Cumbria, North Wales etc.) the annual
consumption of energy per household is lower than in most of the UK at below 23,000kWh.
These figures compare favourably with the data within Table 3.
The Domestic Energy Performance Indicators shown in Table 3 were used to derive the
energy consumption attributable to appliances by calculating the proportion of appliance
energy consumption to the total of fossil fuel use and electricity use for each dwelling type.
Data gaps were closed by using the fossil fuel use and electricity use for the corresponding
dwelling type converted to MJ where no data was collected. The net annual household
energy consumption was calculated by evaluating whether electrical storage heaters or
electrical immersion heaters were in use from the questionnaire data. If either was used the
net annual household energy consumption was calculated as follows:
E
NAH
= E
uAH
E
LL

Equation 13 Annual Household Energy Consumption
where E
NAH
is the net annual household energy consumption in MJ, E
GAH
is gross household
annual energy consumption (including averages for no response) in MJ and E
EE
is the
electricity consumption attributable to appliances in MJ.
If neither storage nor immersion heaters were in use the net annual household energy
consumption was set to the gross annual energy consumption. Where respondents had
access to free fuel and only electricity fuel use was reported a comparison was performed
and where the annual electricity consumption equalled the gross household annual energy
consumption the average household energy consumption was used. A comparison was
performed on the gross household energy consumption against the average household
energy consumption derived from the domestic energy performance indicators to both check
that the model was operating as expected and that the community under consideration did
not differ markedly from the wider UK population.
Hot Water Energy
Demand for domestic hot water and space heating is determined by two major factors (Yao &
Steemers, 2005, p. 664). Behavioural factors cover energy consumption that is related
primarily to what the households occupants do and are caused by decisions made on an
hourly, daily or weekly timescale. Behavioural factors are only slightly affected by the
season. Physical factors cover energy consumption that is related to climate and building
design and are the result of decisions made less frequently. Both behavioural and physical
factors are influenced by the occupancy pattern of the household which comprises of the
number of people in the household as well as when they are present.
Hot water usage covers activities such as bathing, hand washing, dish washing and,
potentially, clothes washing depending on washing machine type. Daily energy consumption
can be calculated using the equation:
E
hw
=
C
P
pI(I
out
I
n
)
3600

Equation 14 - Domestic Hot Water Load
where E
hw
is the domestic hot water load [kWh/day]; C
P
is the specific heat capacity of water
[4.187kJ/kg K]; p the density of water [1000kg/m
3
]; V the daily volume of hot water consumed
for each component [m
3
/day]; I
out
the water output temperature [
o
C] and I
n
the water inlet
temperature [
o
C] generally assumed to be 10
o
C. Hot water consumption per person in litres
per day and water outlet temperature for each usage is shown in Table 4 . The hot water
energy is calculated using the equation:
E
hw
=

u
0
C
P
p
d
1
(I
out
I
n
)
1000

Equation 15 : Hot Water Energy
where E
hw
is the hot water energy [MJ/day]; C
P
is the specific heat capacity of water
(4.187kJ/kg K); p the density of water [1000kg/m
3
];
u
the litres per day per occupant for the
type of usage in [litres/day], 0
is the total of number of occupants of the dwelling; I

out
the
water output temperature [
o
C] and I
n
the water inlet temperature [
o
C]. This approach was
adopted in the model to estimate the energy demand due to hot water usage. The daily
domestic hot water load was multiplied by 365 to give an annual domestic hot water load.
Usage DHW Consumption Water Temperature
Units [litres / person / day] [C]
Bath / shower 10.6 40
Wash hand basin 15.8 35
Dish Washing 14.9 55
Clothes washing 50% (60C) 11.7 60
Clothes washing 50% (10C) 11.7 10
Table 4 - Domestic Hot Water Consumption in the UK Household
(Source: Yao & Steemers)
An alternative approach would have been to use the proportional energy consumption of hot
water to that due to space heating. Space heating accounts for approximately 56% and hot
water for 26% of total energy consumption in the UK in 2009 (Yao & Steemers, 2005, p. 4).
The former method was selected as it allows the removal of the energy required for electric
showers and would allow the removal of hot water for clothes washing if required.
The typical load profile for domestic hot water (Yao & Steemers, 2005, p. 668) shown in
Figure 6 is used to estimate the proportional hot water usage by hour over a 24 hour day.
The kWh figure was read from the typical profile graph at each hour of the day. The kWh
figure was used to derive a percentage of the daily hot water delivered over that hour from
the total. This percentage was then applied to the energy consumption estimate for daily hot
water load to provide a daily demand curve for hot water. It is noted that a more accurate
figure would have been obtainable if the source data for the usage scenarios would have
been available but for the purposes required here all that is needed is an approximation of
use by hour of day.
Figure 6 - Typical DHW load prole of an average size domestic household
The daily totals of hot water usage were obtained from the typical profile shown in Figure 6,
the household occupant data
from the questionnaire and from
Equation 14. The typical hot
water usage profile is similar to
the energy delivery (Energy
Savings Trust, 2008, p. 12)
shown in Figure 7 although the
peaks are reversed the general
two peak profile is similar.
Bath and shower usage was
excluded if the presence of an
electric shower was indicated on
the questionnaire as it could be
expected that this would be
retained in the event of a scheme
going ahead. The annual total for
hot water consumption was
obtained by multiplying the daily hot water consumption by 365. A comparison of the
percentage of hot water to net annual household energy consumption was calculated to
compare this calculation basis with the data obtained from the BRE (Shorrock & Utley, 2008,
p. 91) of approximately 30% of total household energy excluding appliances in 2006.
The fluctuations in demand for water during the day may be used for accumulator sizing.
Space Heating Energy
The elements of the energy requirements due to space heating were calculated in two
phases. Firstly, the annual space heat energy was calculated at a macro level for use in the
thermal efficiency calculations to establish a net annual energy consumption (improved)
figure. Secondly, a load profile for space heating at a daily and monthly level was calculated.
Figure 7 - Energy Delivery Profile
(Source: EST)
This section covers both stages of calculation. It should be noted that this approach remains
valid if the thermal efficiency improvement stage is not required by setting the thermal
efficiency improvements percentage to zero.
The annual requirement for heat energy can be calculated using the figures obtained for the
net annual household energy and the annual hot water energy using the following equation:
E
SH
= E
NAH
E
Hw

Equation 16 : Space Heating Energy
Where E
SH
is the annual energy required for space heating in [MJ], E
NAH
is the net annual
energy consumption (Improved) for all households in [MJ] and E
Hw
is the annual energy
required for hot water.
Once the thermal efficiency improvements have been estimated a space heating energy
requirement can be established reflecting the reduced energy demand using the following
equation:
E
SH
= E
SH
E
tc

Equation 17 : Space Heating Energy (Improved)
Where E
SH
is the reduced annual energy required for space heating in [MJ], E
SH
is the
annual energy required for space heating in [MJ] and E
tc
is the annual energy reduction
attributable to thermal efficiency improvements in [MJ].
The load attributable to space heating is first determined at the monthly level to derive a
proportional load for each month. The heat required for space heating is the heat required to
maintain the dwelling at a constant temperature set by the occupants. The heat energy
required to maintain the building at a constant temperature will equal the heat loss arising
due to fabric heat loss and ventilation loss.
Fabric heat loss is determined by the construction of the dwelling and it physical
characteristics. For any given construction element the heat loss is determined by the
following equation (McMullan, 2002, p. 73):
P
t
= uA t
Equation 18 : Rate of Fabric Heat Loss
Where P
t
is the rate of fabric heat loss in W, u is the U-value of the element in W/m
2
K, A is
the area of the element in m
2
and t is the difference between the temperatures assumed for
the inside and outside environment. The dwelling heat loss would be calculated by summing
the losses for the individual building elements.
Ventilation loss is caused by the loss of warm air through gaps in the building fabric and the
replacement by cooler external air which needs to be heated. The rate of heat loss by
ventilation or infiltration is given by:
P
=
c
N I t
3600

Equation 19: Rate of Ventilation Loss
Where P
is the rate of ventilation heat loss in W, c
volumetric specific heat capacity of air in

J/m
3
K, N is the air infiltration rate for the room in number of air changes per hour, I is the
volume of the room in m
3
, and t is the temperature differential between the external and
internal temperature in C.
Energy consumption for space heating related to both fabric heat loss and ventilation loss
which vary according to the temperature differential between the internal temperature and
the external temperature. Seasonal patterns for the community are used to determine the
temperature differential against a notional internal temperature of 19C.
The annual energy requirement for space heating is useful for determining absolute fuel
flows but for boiler sizing and efficiency calculations the peak daily load for both hot water
and heating is required. A relative heat requirement per month can be determined by
subtracting the external temperature from the internal temperature desired, excluding those
months where the external temperature is higher than the desired internal temperature, and
calculating the proportion of the difference to the sum of all of the differences. The monthly
proportion can then be multiplied by the net annual energy (improved) less the hot water
energy to give a monthly space heating energy requirement. Using the daily profile technique
used for hot water a peak space heating load for the day can be obtained for each month by
dividing the annual requirement by 365 and then multiplying by 30 (an approximation of the
number of days in each month).
Figure 8 - Space Heat Load Profiles of a Typical Dwelling
The daily load profile for space heating load is developed using the same approach as for
domestic hot water shown above. The temperature and load profiles for a semi-detached
house (Yao & Steemers, 2005, p. 6) are used to develop a daily load profile by obtaining the
proportion of heat load applicable for each hour of the day from the typical profile shown in
Figure 8. An improvement to the questionnaire would be to align the usage scenarios with
the research to allow the use of the specific load profiles.
Thermal Efficiency Measures
Where few efficiency improvements have been deployed an opportunity exists to reduce the
size of any proposed installation by first reducing the demand for space heating in the
dwellings. Several initiatives are underway in the UK (Energy Saving Trust, 2009) to promote
a reduction in annual energy consumption through thermal efficiency improvement methods.
However, for dwellings that have low internal mean temperatures the improvement
techniques used may not necessarily translate into lower energy consumption (Clinch &
Healy, 2003, p. 579) but may result in an increase in thermal comfort of the occupants.
It was originally intended to use questionnaire data to derive an expected reduction in the
annual household energy demand depending on which thermal efficiency improvements had
already been employed in the dwelling. This was problematic for a number of reasons. The
expected improvements that could be made are highly dependent upon the physical
characteristics of the building such as building fabric, floor area and layout. It was
unreasonable for the householder to include this information within a short, simple
questionnaire. Where improvements had already been made (such as loft insulation) the
level of the improvement would also not be known. Estimation of the improvements to each
particular dwelling could not be realistically obtained from research due to the degree of
variation of the dwellings. It was not possible within the scope of this research to assess
improvement levels through modelling the buildings in simulation software.
A simpler alternative solution was incorporated that allowed the site surveyor to input a
thermal efficiency improvement estimate for the community as a whole. While being highly
subjective the site surveyor would be in a position to view the dwellings construction and size
as well as having the benefit of any data available in the questionnaire. It is unlikely that the
result obtained would be any less accurate than that obtained at the dwelling level. Thermal
efficiency improvements would reduce the consumption of energy for space heating only
although minor improvements could be made by lagging hot water pipes to reduce the effect
of dead legs in the hot water system. Using this method the energy consumption reduction
for space heating attributable to thermal efficiency improvements made is given by:
E
tc
= E
SH

tcI

Equation 20: Energy Equivalent of Thermal Efficiency Improvements
Where E
tc
is the energy equivalent of the thermal efficiency improvements made in MJ, E
SH

is the annual energy required for space heating in [MJ] and
tei
is the expected percentage
reduction in consumption due to thermal efficiency improvements.
Net Annual Household Consumption (Improved)
The reduction in net annual household energy consumption due to the thermal efficiency
improvements is applicable to the space heating demand and hot water demand is assumed
to remain constant. The calculation of the net annual household energy consumption for hot
water and the reduced space heating demand is given by:
E
NAH
= E
Hw
+ E
SH

Equation 21: Net Annual Household Consumption (Improved)
Where E
NAH
is the net annual household energy consumption (improved) in [MJ], E
Hw
is the
annual household energy consumption for hot water in [MJ] and E
SH
is the reduced annual
energy required for space heating in [MJ].
The net annual household consumption (improved) energy would be the energy charged to
the customer under a supply contract.
Distribution Losses
Losses from distribution are caused by losses of heat in the pipes connecting the dwelling
with the boiler plant and from losses within the house from connections to the distribution
network.
It was intended to derive the distribution losses arising in the network using the length of the
heating main from the boiler house to the dwellings, the expected thermal efficiency of the
pipe as it is laid into the ground, the temperature difference between the water in the pipe
and the earth and the number of connections made to the heat main (Benonysson, Bhm, &
Ravn, 1995, p. 4). Other factors include the flow rate within the pipe, the internal roughness
of the pipe generating heat and the pipe diameter. The large number of variables needed to
determine pipe losses were not available or could not be estimated precluding the calculation
of the pipe losses.
An alternative approach was to simplify the distribution pipe losses based on case studies of
similar scales. This provided the opportunity to provide for distribution losses simply although
relies upon the ability of the surveyor to seek relevant case studies on which to base the
estimate. In this regime the distribution losses can be determined with the equation
The distribution loss will be the product of the delivered energy and a distribution loss
fraction, p
L
. Since E
L
(shown in Equation 23) is unknown at this point the equation must be
re-arranged to use the distribution loss fraction, p
L
and the net annual energy consumption
(improved), E
NAH
to derive the distribution loss:
E
L
= E
L

DL

E
L
=
E
DL
DL

E
L
=
E
DL
DL
E
NAH

E
NAH
=
E
DL
DL
E
L

E
NAH
= E
DL
(
1
DL
, 1)
E
NAH
= E
L
(1 p
L
)
E
L
=
E
NAH
(1/p
L
1)

Equation 22: Energy Equivalent of Distribution LossWhere E
L
is the energy of the
distribution loss in [MJ], E
NAH
is the net annual household energy consumption (improved) in
[MJ] and p
L
is the distribution loss fraction an estimate derived from case studies of
similar sized and scaled schemes.
There may be additional losses associated with storing heat in an accumulator. These have
not been included in this model but may have an additional impact.
Delivered Energy
Delivered energy represents the amount of usable heat required to be delivered by the boiler
prior to distribution and is given by the equation:
E
L
= E
L
+ E
NAH

Equation 23: Delivered Energy
Where E
L
is the energy of the distribution loss in [MJ], E
L
is the annual delivered energy in
[MJ] and E
NAH
is the net annual energy consumption (improved) in [MJ].
Boiler Sizing and Losses
Boiler sizing is estimated based on the peak hourly load of delivered energy needing to be
met by the boiler assuming that an additional heat source and accumulator are available to
meet the remaining heat needs. The proportion of the peak load needing to be met by the
boiler is 50-60% (FCS, 2009). The boiler peak load percentage requirement is held in the
demand reference table and may be varied.
A similar approach is used for the accumulator sizing. The volume of an accumulator for a
small system should be approximately 40-60 times the boiler size in kWh (FCS, 2009).
The boiler efficiency provides the ratio of heat energy produced divided by the energy value
of the fuel supplied. Boilers will be less efficient when working at less than their design load.
Since demand will fluctuate considerably over the course of the day as well as by the time of
year usual practice is to accommodate peak demands with an additional boiler which may be
fossil fuel. An accumulator tank may be used to store heat energy for periods allowing the
boiler to run at its design load for short periods of time.
Boiler efficiency is calculated as:
p
B
=
E
L
E
RBP

Equation 24: Boiler Efficiency
Where E
L
is the delivered energy in [MJ], E
RBP
is the energy of the required biomass fuel
and p
B
is the efficiency of the boiler. Since E
RBP
is unknown at this point, E
BL
, the energy
equivalent of the boiler losses, can be derived from E
L
and substituting E
RBP
with
E
L
p
B
, .
The energy equivalent of boiler losses can be calculated:
E
BL
= [
L
DE
B
- E
L

Equation 25: Energy Equivalent of Boiler Losses
Where E
BL
is the boiler loss in [MJ], E
L
is the delivered energy in [MJ] and p
B
is the
efficiency of the boiler. The boiler efficiency is typically quoted as 80-85% and will be entered
into the supply input section of the model.
Required Biomass Fuel
The required biomass fuel energy for the community project can finally be calculated and
then converted to volumes of fuel required for the year for that site. The energy content of the
fuel is dependent in the main part on the moisture content of the fuel assuming that all wood
based fuels are likely to be used. The calculation of the required biomass fuel energy allows
the feasibility study to consider a number of different fuel types and then to determine which
is most appropriate.
The required biomass fuel energy is given by:
E
RBP
= E
BL
+ E
L

Equation 26: Required Biomass Fuel
Where E
RBP
is the required biomass fuel energy in [MJ], E
BL
is the energy of the boiler loss in
[MJ] and E
L
is the annual delivered energy in [MJ].
2.4 Scenario Modelling
Scenario modelling allows the use of the base data in the model to be used to answer likely
questions from the community. The expected scenarios that need to be supported are:
How much biomass resource do I need to support our existing level of consumption?
How much must we reduce consumption by to be self-sufficient?
How often will new deliveries of fuel stock need to be made?
How many additional dwellings will an existing system support?
How much fuel will we need to import?
What will be the effects of thermal efficiency improvements in reducing our consumption?
This section outlined the theoretical basis of the biomass feasibility model and expanded the
constituent elements of the supply and demand aspects of the model. Practical constraints
were discussed. Appendix D documents the development of the model using Microsoft
Excel. The next section describes how the BFI model is used within the context of a biomass
feasibility assessment using a case study.
3. Case Study: Ferness
This section uses the biomass feasibility assessment methodology and model to examine the
potential for using a biomass community heating and hot water scheme in the Highland
community of Ferness and whether that scheme could be self sufficient using locally
available resources. An additional case study is provided in Appendix E that uses a quick
scan method with desk based research for a larger community.
3.1 Ferness Overview
Ferness (grid reference NH963440) is a small community in the southern highlands of
Scotland and is approximately
20km to the south west of
Inverness at an elevation of
approximately 180m above sea
level. There are 10 dwellings in
the main part of the village lying
along the NE to SW axis along the
B9007 crossing the A940, the
main road running from Nairn to
the north and Grantown on Spey
to the south. The 10 dwellings
cover an area of approximately
12,000m
2
or 1.2 hectares. A large
community centre, formerly a
school is located to the north of
the community. A further 3
cottages lie to the north, however,
these were not assessed in this
study. Significant areas of
woodland lie to the north, east
and west of Ferness but there is
little woodland to the south due to
the increased elevation of the
northern Cairngorms. Ownership
of local forestry is a mix of
Forestry Commission and private
ownership, the latter in the hands
of several large estates. Good
transport links are available via
both the A940 and B9007 and the
area is used to intensive forestry
operations.
The climate could be described as cold rather than cool despite the proximity to the Moray
Firth approximately 15km to the north.
There is high coverage of forestry in the area with coverage using Ferness as the central
point ranging from 26% at 9km
2
to 40% at 81km2 as shown in Table 5.
Figure 9 - Ferness 1:25,000
(Source: Ordnance Survey)
Area Coverage Total Area Coverage %
[km2] [km2] [%]
9km
2
2.3 9 26%
25km
2
7.7 25 31%
49km
2
18.6 49 38%
81km
2
32.6 81 40%
Table 5 - Ferness Local Area Forestry Coverage
The coverage estimation is also shown in Figure 10 where each 1km
2
box contains an
estimate of how much of the grid square is woodland. This is an excerpt from the quick scan
assessment in table QS3 of the model.
Figure 10 - Ferness Forestry Coverage

3.2 Supply Assessment
Ferness is surrounded by forest and other assorted woodland of both private and Forestry
Commission ownership. Seven zones were identified around the site as shown in Figure 11.
The majority of the woodland is conifer and is in a radius not exceeding 7km from the centre
of Ferness.
Crown Copyright. All rights reserved Forestry Commission PGA 100025498 2009
Figure 11 - Ferness Forest Zones
A map based area assessment was performed on the intended zones using the Forestry
Commission GLADE tool (FC, 2009a). Area coverage is approximately 844 hectares with the
maximum area of the Dulsie zone being 300 hectares. Zones and their locations are shown
in Table 6.
ID Name Area [Ha] Grid Reference Ownership Distance from
Installation [Km]
1 New Inn Wood 72.53 NH968449 Forestry Commission 1.18
2 Airdrie Plantation 191.59 NH985460 Forestry Commission 2.86
3 Logie Wood 37.14 NH965460 Forestry Commission 1.46
4 Belivat 93.5 NH953467 Lethen Estate 2.99
5 Dulsie 304.88 NH932445 Cawdor Estate 6.61
6 Dalnaheiglish 42.83 NH948446 Glenferness Estate 2.59
7 Tomnarroch 101.21 NH957447 Glenferness Estate 2.05
843.68 Ha
Table 6 - Ferness Supply Zone Areas
Biomass Zone Assessment
The biomass zone assessment was conducted over the space of an afternoon in
approximately four hours. Ferness, in general, is surrounded by woodlands to the north, east
and west with the south becoming the foothills of the northern Cairngorm Mountains.
Woodlands are predominantly conifers although there is some deciduous woodland. Roads
are generally lined with trees and this presents a further opportunity for thinnings. Analysis of
the Forestry Commission GLADE database was conducted for all the zones revealing that all
were potential native woodland core areas, capercaillie areas and the majority being long
established woodland.
Additional opportunities for woodfuel recovery exist to the south west although extraction
could prove difficult in the valley of the Tomnarroch Burn.
New Inn Wood (see Figure 12)
is a Forestry Commission zone
of Scots Pine to the south east
of Ferness with small amounts of
silver birch at the edges. It is a
forest in a good state of
management with evidence of
recent forestry operations in the
form of cut logs of approximately
15cm neatly stacked and
extensive prunings offering good
potential for forest residues.
Tree diameter at breast height
(DBH) is approximately 19cms
as measured in Figure 13) and
the stems are uniform in
diameter.
New Inn Wood has good
vehicular accessibility via well
made forest tracks and
established firebreaks. The
accessibility fraction is estimated
at 0.9 due to the access and
Forestry Commission
ownership. It is approximately
1.2km from the centre of the
wood to the proposed
installation in the Ferness
community centre.
Analysis of New Inn Wood in the
GLADE database reveals that it
is a potential native woodland
core area that is long established. As a core capercaillie area biodiversity is an important
consideration.

Figure 12 - New Inn Wood
Figure 13 - Using DBH Measuring Tool
Airdrie Plantation is the second
largest forest under
consideration at 191 hectares.
Consisting of well managed
Scots pine (see Figure 14) the
forest shows a high level of
management and recent activity
including stacked logs and
brash. There is good site access
via metalled tracks which
contribute to an accessible
fraction of 0.9. An assessment
of diameter is shown in Figure
15 and results in a diameter of
24cm. The site is 2.9km from the
community centre.
Airdrie plantation is under the
management of the Forestry
Commission. Analysis of Airdrie
plantation in the GLADE
database reveals that it is a
potential native woodland core
area that is long established. As
a core capercaillie area
biodiversity is an important
consideration.

Logie Wood is a Forestry Commission woodland to the north of Ferness consisting of mainly
Sitka spruce (Figure 16) with a
skirting of birch and other
deciduous trees. Well
maintained tracks provide good
vehicular access to the site
which, combined with the FC
ownership of the site, lead to an
accessibility fraction of 0.9.
The stand is densely and
uniformly packed, probably prior
to first thinnings being taken and
there was no evidence of any
management activity in terms of
prunings or cut logs. Stems
were left unpruned. Diameter of
the stems was estimated at
20cm.
It is 1.4km from the centre of the
wood to the community centre in Ferness. Analysis of Logie Wood in the GLADE database
reveals that it is a potential native woodland core area that is long established and is a core
Figure 15 - Airdrie Plantation DBH Measurement
Figure 16 - Sitka Spruce in Logie Wood
Figure 14 - Thinned Scot Pine Stand at Airdrie Plantation
capercaillie area. License applications for both clear fell and selective thinning support the
lack of thinning observed.
Belivat is woodland to the north of Ferness under private ownership most likely being the
nearby Lethen estate. Well
managed consisting mainly of
Scots pine (see Figure 17) of
approximately 17cm with some
deciduous around the edges,
Belivat shows evidence of a
good thinning regime. There is
good vehicular access with
tracks with the centre around
3km from the community centre.
Private ownership leads to a
reduced accessibility fraction of
0.6. Analysis of Belivat in the
GLADE database reveals that it
is a potential native woodland
core area that is long established
and is a core capercaillie area.
License applications exist for
thinnings.
Dulsie is a large woodland (the largest in the analysis at over 300 hectares) to the north of
Ferness in private ownership. It
consists mainly of larch with high
stand density (see Figure 18)
with an approximate diameter of
11cm that appears young and
prior to thinnings. As with other
forests some birch exists at the
periphery. There is good
vehicular access to the woodland
to the large site. Dulsie is the
furthest woodland from the
community centre at 6.6km. Soil
appears sandy and low in
nutrients. Private ownership but
good access to a relatively flat
site leads to an accessibility
fraction of 0.6. Analysis of Dulsie
in the GLADE database reveals
that it is a potential native
woodland core area that is long established and is a core capercaillie area. No license
applications exist for thinnings or for fellings which confirm the observation that this is a
young woodland prior to thinnings.

Figure 17 - Scots Pine in Belivat
Figure 18 - Larch in Dulsie Wood
Dalnaheiglish is a well managed woodland evidenced by the presence on the map of
firebreaks confirmed with
observation from afar as
Dalnaheiglish is not accessible
from public roads. Ownership is
under the Glenferness Estate.
Observation from the region of
Ardlach Bell Tower to the north
is shown in Figure 19. Research
from Forestry Commission (FC,
2009b, para. pmeST20-27SE)
identifies the woodland as a
primary seed stand for Douglas
fir. Given the accessibility on
private land and its use as seed
stock Dalnaheiglish is given an
accessibility fraction of 0.1 as it
is likely of use only in the
collection of prunings.
Dalnaheiglish is 2.6km from the community centre in Ferness. Given the planting date of
1924 the DBH can be estimated using reference tables in the model as approximately 34cms
although there is a limitation in the reference tables of handling only trees of this type only up
to 35cm. Analysis of Dalnaheiglish in the GLADE database reveals that it is a potential native
woodland core area that is long established and is a core capercaillie area. No license
applications exist for thinnings or for fellings which would be expected in a seed stand.
Tomnarroch is also woodland under the ownership of the Glenferness Estate. Site
observation was not possible
due to restricted public access.
Good accessibility is shown on
the OS 1:25,000 map but the
lack of direct observation and
public ownership leads to an
accessibility fraction of 0.1.
From photographs (see Figure
20) it is expected to contain
spruce and was entered into the
model as mixed spruce with a
diameter of 15cm. Tomnarroch
is approximately 2km from the
community centre.
Analysis of Tomnarroch in the
GLADE database reveals that it is a potential native woodland core area that is long
established and is a core capercaillie area. No license applications exist for thinnings or for
fellings.

Figure 19 - Douglas Fir in Dalnaheiglish Wood
Figure 20 - Tomnarroch from afar
Standing Stock Volume and Energy
Information from the biomass zone assessment was entered into the supply input (SI)
worksheet of the model. Table 7 is an excerpt from Table SC1 of the model showing that the
tree volume for the 845 hectares of all zones was in excess of 150,000m
3
containing over
1,000TJ of energy.
Name Area Species DBH Volume Per
Hectare
Zone Tree Volume Standing Stock
Zone Energy
[Ha] [cm] [m
3
/ha] [m
3
] [MJ]
New Inn Wood 73 Scots Pine 19 218 15,812 107,613,341
Airdrie Plantation 192 Scots Pine 24 218 41,767 284,263,616
Logie Wood 37 Sitka Spruce 20 294 10,919 74,315,803
Belivat 94 Scots Pine 17 218 20,383 138,726,698
Dulsie 305 Mixed Larch 12 69 21,037 143,175,916
Dalnaheiglish 43 Douglas fir 34 247 10,579 72,000,742
Tomnarroch 101 Mixed Spruce 15 294 29,756 202,517,566
845 Total 150,253 1,022,613,682
Table 7 - Ferness Standing Stock Volume and Energy
Accessible Fraction Energy
The combined accessible fraction for all zones was 0.6 or 60% available. Table 8 shows an
excerpt of Table SC2 in the model. The effects of accessibility are to reduce the standing
stock energy by around 400TJ per annum to 616TJ per annum assuming the moisture
content at harvest is 50%.
Name Accessible
Fraction
Zone
Tree
Volume
Accessible
Volume
Density
@ 50%
Net
Heating
Value @
50%
Accessible
Fraction
Energy
Inaccessible
Fraction
Energy
[m
3
] [m
3
] [kg/m
3
] [MJ/kg] [MJ] [MJ]
New Inn Wood 0.9 15,812 14,230 820 8 96,852,007 10,761,334
Airdrie Plantation 0.9 41,767 37,590 820 8 255,837,254 28,426,362
Logie Wood 0.9 10,919 9,827 820 8 66,884,223 7,431,580
Belivat 0.6 20,383 12,230 820 8 83,236,019 55,490,679
Dulsie 0.6 21,037 12,622 820 8 85,905,550 57,270,367
Dalnaheiglish 0.1 10,579 1,058 820 8 7,200,074 64,800,668
Tomnarroch 0.1 29,756 2,976 820 8 20,251,757 182,265,810
150,252 90,533 616,166,883 406,446,799
Table 8 - Ferness Accessible Fraction
Sustainable Harvest Fraction Energy
The sustainable harvest fraction is derived from production forecasts at the regional level for
the current and future five year plans. The relevant forecasts for Scotland are shown in Table
9 which are an excerpt from Table SC3 in the model.
Species Group Biomass Type Sustainable
Fraction 2007-11
Sustainable
Fraction 2012-16
Sustainable Harvest
Fraction
Units
[%] [%] [%]
BROADLEAVES Hardwoods 2.5% 2.7% 2.5%
OTHER CONIFERS Softwoods 6.9% 6.6% 6.6%
PINES Softwoods 4.5% 5.5% 4.5%
SPRUCES Softwoods 8.1% 9.3% 8.1%
Table 9 - Sustainable Harvest Fractions for Scotland
The sustainable harvest figures presented are an average for a region. The major limitation
in this approach is that there is a possibility that none of the zones analysed will be
productive in any year. In the case of Ferness with only seven zones being considered there
is a 50% chance of this given a 15 year rotation cycle. To reduce this possibility more zones
should be considered or the assessment conducted based on the forestry management
plans of each of the zones. The volume of the sustainable harvest and its equivalent energy
is calculated on the proportions contained within Table 9. The results are shown in Table 10
which is an excerpt from Table SC4 of the model and estimate that 5.3% of the accessible
fraction could be harvested yielding approximately 33TJ of energy from 4,828m
3
of harvested
biomass.
Name Species Group Sustainable
Harvest
Fraction
Accessible
Volume
Sustainable
Harvest Volume
Sustainable
Harvest
Fraction Energy
[%] [m
3
] [m
3
] [MJ]
New Inn Wood PINES 4.5% 14,230 642 4,371,722
Airdrie Plantation PINES 4.5% 37,590 1,697 11,548,024
Logie Wood SPRUCES 8.1% 9,827 797 5,422,212
Belivat PINES 4.5% 12,230 552 3,757,121
Dulsie OTHER CONIFERS 6.6% 12,622 829 5,645,302
Dalnaheiglish OTHER CONIFERS 6.6% 1,058 70 473,154
Tomnarroch SPRUCES 8.1% 2,976 241 1,641,782
90,533 4,828 32,859,317
Table 10 - Ferness Sustainable Harvest Volume and Energy
Table 10 highlights the productivity of the spruce species group being almost twice as
productive as that for pines, the dominant species in the zones. A shortage of biomass for
fuel would lead to the conclusion that inclusion of spruce zones will produce more woodfuel
and could be targeted in preference to the predominantly Scots pine zones although these
are designated native woodlands.
The potential of capercaillie in the region combined with the woodland within the zone being
part of the woodland networks as identified in the Forest Commission GLADE database
raises the basic biodiversity fraction of 5m
3
per hectare to 7m
3
per hectare for all of the
zones. This volume is significant, particularly for the smaller zones and effectively removes
them from the analysis. This restriction warrants further investigation and research to further
refine the biodiversity fraction method employed in the model (see Implications in terms of
further research required later in the document for more details).
The energy relating to the biodiversity fraction is shown in Table 11 and is an excerpt from
Table SC5 of the model. A volume of almost 6,000m
3
would be required to support the
biodiversity objectives using this method of calculation which is higher than the sustainable
harvest volume.
Name Sustainable
Harvest Volume
Volume
Remaining Harvest
Volume
Energy
[m
3
] [m
3
] [m
3
] [MJ]
New Inn Wood 642 508 135 3,455,474
Airdrie Plantation 1,697 1,341 356 9,127,731
Logie Wood 797 260 537 1,769,424
Belivat 552 655 4,454,527
Dulsie 829 2,134 14,525,093
Dalnaheiglish 70 300 2,040,507
Tomnarroch 241 708 4,821,847
4,828 5,906 1,027 40,194,603
Table 11- Ferness Biodiversity Fraction Volume and Energy
The biodiversity fraction restricts the remaining harvest volume to less than 20% of the
sustainable harvest resulting in a drop of available energy per annum in the region of 40TJ.
The biodiversity fraction removes Belivat, Dulsie, Dalnaheiglish and Tomnarroch from the
remainder of the analysis.
Processing / Cut Fraction
The processing / cut fraction assumes that harvesting will yield 90% of the volume of the
tree. This fraction is applied to the remaining harvest to yield a volume of harvested timber
and brash. Table 12 shows an excerpt from Table SC6 of the model. Over 900m
3
of material
would be cut with an equivalent energy of 6TJ.
Name Remaining Harvest
Volume
Processing / Cut
Fraction
Processing Fraction
Volume
Processing
Fraction Energy
[m
3
] [m
3
] [MJ]
New Inn Wood 135 0.9 121 824,623
Airdrie Plantation 356 0.9 320 2,178,264
Logie Wood 537 0.9 483 3,287,509
1,027

924 6,290,396
Table 12 - Processing / Cut Fraction Energy and Volume
Forest Residues / Direct Woodfuel
The Forestry Commission eForestry database was used to identify the expected volumes of
harvest for the primary production (stemwood of diameters exceeding 14cm) and forest
residue (stemwood not primary production, poor quality, tips, branches and foliage). The
resulting proportions for each category in the 2012-2016 forecast period were calculated in a
model reference table (table SR4) and applied to the processing / cut fraction to identify the
volumes. An excerpt from table SC7 of the model is shown in Table 13 showing that just over
4.5TJ of energy could be made available from forest residues of 666m
3.

Name Processing
Fraction
Volume
Forest
Residue
Proportion
Forest
Residue
Volume
Forest
Residue
Energy
Primary
Production
Proportion
Primary
Production
Volume
Primary
Production
Energy
[m
3
] [%] [m
3
] [MJ] [%] [m
3
] [MJ]
New Inn Wood 121 70% 85 577,387 30% 36 247,234
Airdrie Plantation 320 70% 224 1,525,183 30% 96 653,075
Logie Wood 483 74% 357 2,430,864 26% 126 856,645
924

666 4,533,434 258 1,756,954
Table 13 - Forest Residues and Primary Production
Transportation of 666m
3
would require 45 tipper loads (based on 8x4 tippers of 15m
3

capacity) which, based on the distances from the community centre for each of the zones,
would comprise 170km of travel.
Indirect Woodfuel
Indirect woodfuel could be obtained from Gordons sawmill in Nairn (John Gordon & Son Ltd
- Sawmillers, n.d.) or the sawmill on the Glenferness Estate if still in operation. Observation
of forestry operations around Ferness would indicate that Gordons Timber is the primary
contractor. Although not guaranteed it is possible that Ferness could utilise the processing
products of the primary production timber. With estimates of timber yield from sawlog
processing of approximately 50% (Thivolle-Cazat, 2008, p. 7) around 130m
3
of additional
woodfuel could be made available (50% of primary production volume of 258 m
3
in Table 13).
Table SC8 in the model calculates the energy equivalent of this additional woodfuel as
providing an additional 1TJ of energy.
Recovered Woodfuel
No estimates for recovered woodfuel were undertaken although support for calculations is
provided in Table SC9 in the model. Nairn Council could be consulted to identify whether
recovered woodfuel could be obtained or whether local tree clearances by the roadside could
be chipped for the community preventing the need for council vehicles to return to Nairn with
loads of chipped woodfuel.
The Biomass Energy Supply is the sum of direct, indirect and recovered woodfuel. In the
case of Ferness no recovered woodfuel is estimated resulting in 5.6TJ of equivalent energy
from 796m3 of woodfuel as shown in Table 14 an excerpt from table SC10 in the model.
Forest Residue Indirect Woodfuel Recovered
Woodfuel
Biomass Energy
Supply
Energy [MJ] 4,533,434 1,109,120 0 5,642,554
Volume [m
3
] 666 130 0 796
Table 14 - Biomass Energy Supply for Ferness
It should be noted that the assumption in the model is that the moisture content of the
woodfuel resource up to this point has been calculated on a basis of the moisture content
being at 50%.
Processing Losses
The processing losses are calculated to accommodate three possible fuel scenarios. The
first scenario is to derive the energy from the wood chip assuming that it is naturally dried on
site so that the moisture content reduces from 50% to 30% requiring no energy input for
drying. The second scenario assumes that the wood chip moisture content will be reduced
from 50% to 30% by utilising some of the heat from the installation. The third scenario
assumes that wood pellet production will require the moisture content to be reduced from
50% to 10%. The last scenario assumes that wood pellets would be dried using the energy
from the analysed zones although this would not be on-site unless some sort of mobile pellet
production could be utilised. Table 15 shows the calculation of processing losses to provide
an equivalent volume of fuel (no shrinkage is assumed although could be expected below
30% moisture content) and is based on an excerpt from table SC11 from the model.
Biomass Energy
Supply at 50%MC
Energy Equivalent
at 0%MC
Energy Equivalent
at 30%MC
Energy Equivalent
at 10%MC
[MJ] [MJ] [MJ] [MJ]
Equivalent Energy 5,642,554 11,285,105 7,899,573 10,156,594
Processing Loss 0 5,642,551 2,257,019 4,514,040
Table 15 - Processing Losses
Note that the reduction in moisture content will also result in a loss of mass of the biomass
fuel.
Potential Biomass Supply
The removal of the processing losses enables the final calculation of the potential biomass
supply from the biomass energy supply. Table 16 shows the available energy from each of
the fuel scenarios described above. It is an excerpt from table SC12 in the model.
Biomass Energy Supply Potential Biomass Supply
at 50%MC, air dried
at 30%MC, force dried
[MJ] [MJ] [MJ] [MJ]
5,642,554 5,642,554 3,385,535 1,128,513
Table 16 - Potential Biomass Supply
Table 16 clearly shows the impact of selecting wood pellet over wood chip as a fuel source
as well as the use of the biomass plant to dry the fuel. Fuel type selection, however, is part of
the demand assessment as it is dependent on the constraints of supply and space of the
installation.
3.3 Demand Assessment
The demand assessment is based on the results of a household questionnaire sent to
householders in late November 2009. The response rate after follow up was 60% which was
better than expected although only four of the responses contained energy consumption
data. Titles of the following sections match those of the questionnaire shown in Appendix B
or the elements of energy consumption in the demand model.
Demand Questionnaire
The following sections are extracted from the demand questionnaire and are summaries of
the results entered into the demand input worksheet in table DI1.
Household - All households had two adults and between no and three children resulting in
an average occupancy rate of 3.33 persons per household. Two thirds of the properties were
rented. All households were of permanent occupancy and there were no holiday homes. It is
expected that the majority of the rentals were from the nearby Glenferness Estate (Simon,
2009) although specific ownership was not investigated.
House - Dwellings are predominantly Class B listed buildings (Historic Scotland, 1979) of
rubble construction, slate roofs and east facing built in the mid-19
th
century. The listed
building status prevents the use of certain thermal efficiency improvements such as sealed
double glazed windows although secondary glazing was installed in a third of the dwellings.
Most of the dwellings are one and a half storey. There is one bungalow and one two storey
house of more modern construction. Half of the dwellings were three bedroom and half were
two bedrooms.
Heating & Hot Water Needs - The usage patterns for the respondents for both heating and
hot water needs are shown in Table 17 The data is inconclusive based on this small sample
although the most dominant feature for both types of usage is just mornings and evenings.
This would imply that the majority of householders are away during the day at work.
Usage Pattern Heating Use
No. Of Respondents
Hot Water Use
No. Of Respondents
only when I need to 2 1
just mornings and evenings 2 2
mornings, evenings and weekends 0 0
all day, every day 1 2
just weekends 0 0
Table 17 - Heating and Hot Water Usage in Ferness
With one exception householders use their hot water systems for baths and showers with
only one electric shower being reported.
Heating Systems - Wood and oil were the only fuel types used for heating and hot water
(with the exception of the electric shower discussed above). In some cases both fuels were
used. Wood was primarily used for space heating (five out of six households although four
also used oil). Wood and oil were used equally for hot water needs with two households
using both.
Hot Water Systems Electric, oil and wood were used for hot water systems with most
respondents using wood fired boilers in conjunction with oil or electric immersion heaters.
System Replacement only one respondent reported a system of between two and five
years old. All other responses indicated systems of more than five years old for both hot
water and heating. This may indicate that the systems being used are not the most efficient
and present no barriers to replacement by community heating and hot water.
Views on Community Heating Respondents had either heard nothing or very little about
community heating and hot water schemes reflecting the maturity of biomass fuel in the
marketplace and district or community heating schemes in general in the UK. This suggests
that there is still much to do in terms of educating householders in order for them to make
informed choices about their heating and hot water needs. There were mixed views on
willingness to participate. Those answering these questions were evenly split between not
interested (two responses) and interested at the right price or definitely interested (one
response each). There was no distinction between tenants and owners in responses to the
question. For those with negative responses the comments of one questionnaire sum up
their fears - not sure our community can work together which is reflective of the perception
of community heating in the UK and is a significant challenge.
Gross Annual Energy Consumption
Annual fuel spend ranged from 200 to 2,250 including electricity which was the highest
spend of all the fuel types.
Conversion of the spend to
energy values, using
reference table DR2 in the
model, indicated that
approximately 140GJ of oil
derived energy was being
consumed and 120GJ of
wood based energy. Gross
energy consumption of the
respondents submitting
spend data (4 responses out
of 10 questionnaires) is
shown in Figure 21 or graph
DC1 in the model. One
respondent reported that they could not afford to use their oil based hot water and heating
system indicating some extreme fuel poverty within the community. Another respondent
included electricity spend but not the use of logs for heating and hot water usage as it was
free by reason of the householders employment in the forestry industry.
This figure is not representative of the ten dwellings within the community only those that
responded with spend data.
Based on the current prices retrieved in November / December 2009 the energy values of
fuel oil, coal and logs is clearly much higher than electricity in terms of energy per pound of
spend. As a comparison, natural gas was 85 per MJ, however, this is not an option for the
residents of Ferness.
A gross annual energy consumption figure was calculated for the community on the bases of
annual average energy consumption data from the BRE. The average values were used
where no response data was available. On this basis the gross annual energy consumption
was 1,050,830MJ or an average of 105,083MJ per dwelling. The highest reported
consumption was 152,085MJ (although the only two storey dwelling and with a higher
number of occupants) and the least was 52,067MJ.
Net Annual Household Energy Consumption
While derivation of the gross annual household energy is relatively simple the approximation
of the net annual household energy consumption is not. The presence of immersion heaters,
use of electric showers and the reporting of electrical consumption where not used for space
heating and hot water makes modelling quite complex. For further discussion see section
2.3. Table 18 an extract from table DC5 of the model, shows the derivation of net annual
household energy consumption including the estimation of gross annual energy consumption
for those households with no questionnaire data.
Figure 21 - Gross Annuel Fuel Consumption for Respondents
ID Gross
Household
Annual
Energy
Consumption
excl.
Electricity
Household
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
Gross
Household
Annual Energy
Consumption
Gross
Household
Annual
Energy
Consumption
(incl No
Response)
Energy
Consumption
Attributable to
Appliances
Net Annual
Household
Energy
Consumption
Basis
[MJ] [MJ] [MJ] [MJ] [MJ]
1 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est
2 80,007 16,089 96,096 96,096 16,089 80,007 Survey
3 40,000 12,067 52,067 52,067 6,835 45,232 Survey
4 140,018 12,067 152,085 152,085 12,067 140,018 Survey
5 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est
6 4,022 4,022 107,226 4,022 103,204 Est
7 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est
8 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est
9 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est
10 107,226 14,076 93,150 Est

1,050,830 123,470 927,361
Table 18 - Net Annual Household Energy Consumption
Net annual household energy consumption for the whole community was estimated as 927,
361MJ per annum with a reduction of 123,470MJ from the gross annual household energy
consumption attributable to the use of electrical appliance and lighting etc.
Hot Water Usage
Annual and daily hot water usage was calculated using expected volumes of hot water by
task (hand washing, clothes
washing, bathing etc.). The
expected daily energy
consumption for hot water for
the whole community is 238MJ
or 86,993MJ annually.
The expected energy demand
for each hour of the day for hot
water is shown in Figure 22,
also available as graph DC4 in
the model.
A peak requirement of 38MJ is
required at 20:00. Hot water
usage represents approximately 9% of the total net annual household energy requirement on
this basis which is low in comparison with the estimate of 20% (Yao & Steemers, 2005, p. 4)
from which the calculation basis is derived. Domestic hot water consumption, therefore,
warrants further analysis.
Thermal Efficiency Improvements
An expected improvement of 25% was applied to the dwellings on the basis that only one of
the questionnaires reported loft insulation and only a single dwelling used secondary glazing
(not double glazing with sealed units) to attempt to reduce window based heat losses. There
is a restriction on the majority of the properties being listed preventing significant
improvements to the appearance of dwellings. Draught proofing is inexpensive and could
easily provide an 8% improvement alone. Reductions in the space heating load of around
210,100MJ per annum could be achieved on this basis.
Figure 22 Hourly Hot Water Demand
Net Annual Household Energy Consumption (Improved)
With hot water usage remaining constant and a reduction in space heating load of
210,100MJ per annum the net annual household energy consumption would be reduced
from 927,361MJ per annum to 717,269MJ.
Space Heating Usage
The space heating load on a monthly basis is shown in Figure 23 with the peak load of
2,697MJ occurring in month 12
(December) which aligns with
the low minimum average
temperature of 3C against a
desired internal temperature of
19C.
The lowest heat demand occurs
in July where only 860MJ is
required.
Due to the climate in the region
there are no months where there
is a no requirement for space
heat. This will always be the
case where the desired internal
temperature is greater than the
monthly average temperature.
Hot Water and Space Heating Load Profiles
Profiles for hot water and space heating usage for July and December on an hourly basis are
shown in Figure 25 and Figure 24 (excerpts from graphs DC5 and DC6 in the model). As
expected hot water forms a larger component of the overall load in July.
A peak hourly load of 428MJ could be expected for 06:00 in the month of December.

Figure 23 - Monthly Space Heat Demand vs Average Temperature
Figure 25 - July HW and SH Load Profile Figure 24 - December HW and SH Load Profile
Distribution Losses
Figure 26 shows the expected Ferness distribution network (in solid red line) and the optional
Forestry House distribution network (in dashed
red line). The estimated distribution pipeline
length for the community is 395m. This
excludes connections to the pipeline at the
roadside from each of the dwellings. Should the
Forestry Houses to the north of Ferness require
to be connected an additional 622m of
distribution pipeline would be required.
Pipelines are arranged to minimise road
crossings in culverts where possible and
roadside installation would be expected.
An expected distribution loss of 10% would
increase the delivered energy requirement of
the boiler from the net annual household energy
(improved) requirement of 717,269MJ to
796,965MJ representing an energy loss of
79,697MJ.
At the boiler, the delivered energy requirement
based on the peak at 06:00 on a December day
would be 476MJ requiring a boiler (without an
accumulator deployment) of 132kW.
If the plant were situated at the south of
Ferness and New Inn House taken out of the
scheme there would be a significant reduction
in the length of the pipeline which would reduce
losses although a suitable plant house and
storage site would need to be created.
Boiler Losses, Sizing and Required Biomass
Fuel
A conservative boiler efficiency of 80%
(efficiencies of up to 90% may be achieved)
was used to derive the required amounts of fuel
for the Ferness community. At an efficiency of
80% approximately 200,000MJ would be lost
requiring 996,206MJ of energy per annum.
To meet 60% of the peak load demand a boiler of 79kW would be required in conjunction
with an accumulator tank of 4,756 litres. A backup fossil fuel boiler may also be required.
A variety of fuel options is presented in Table 19 an excerpt of table DC14 of the model.
Since we are primarily concerned with biomass in this paper only wood chip and wood pellet
will be considered further.
Wood chip would provide the lowest cost fuel with an annual fuel cost of 3,586. The volume
of fuel over the year would be 319m
3
. It would be expected that regular deliveries of fuel over
the year would minimise fuel storage yet provide a number of days reserve should fuel
deliveries not be possible.
Wood pellet would be slightly more expensive with a fuel cost of 4,269 although the higher
energy content and reduced density of the wood pellets over wood chip storage
requirements would not be as great.
Figure 26 - Ferness Distribution Network
Crown Copyright. Ordnance Survey
Fuel Type Energy
Density By
Mass
Energy
Density By
Volume
Energy Per

Required
Biomass
Fuel
Energy
Required
Biomass
Fuel Mass
Required
Biomass
Fuel Mass
Fuel Cost
[MJ/kg] [MJ/m3] [MJ/] [MJ] [kg] [m3] []
Propane 46.33 23517 34 996,206 21,502 42 29,047
Coal 29 24650 82 996,206 34,352 40 12,164
Logs 14.7 6248 100 996,206 67,769 159 9,962
Fuel Oil 43.75 35438 80 996,206 22,770 28 12,450
Natural Gas 38.1 34 85 996,206 26,147 29,052 11,668
Wood chips 12.5 3125 278 996,206 79,697 319 3,586
Wood solid (oven dry) 19 9500 0 996,206 52,432 105 -
Wood pellets 17.5 11375 233 996,206 56,926 88 4,269
Miscanthus 13 2080 0 996,206 76,631 479 -
Table 19 - Fuel Type and Cost Comparison
Both wood chip and wood pellet should be considered on this basis.
Plant Operations
It is proposed that use is made of the existing community centre to the north of Ferness,
formerly a school, for the siting
of the boiler and fuel storage
shown in Figure 27. There is
excellent access suitable for
large trucks on site and a
number of buildings. The
availability of this site and the
presence of substantial forestry
operations in the local region
indicate that wood chip would be
the most suitable fuel source as
the equipment and skills to
produce it are already likely to
be in the local area.
Ferness may be a suitable
transfer station for processing
and storage of wood chip. This
would benefit the community by
providing additional local jobs as well as servicing the local community scheme.

Figure 27 - Ferness Community Centre
3.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment
On running the figures through the biomass feasibility assessment model a biomass
feasibility index of between 3.4 and 5.2 was calculated (depending on moisture content of the
wood chip) indicating that the Ferness community would be able to cover their needs for
space heating and hot water over five times if they were able to access the zones identified.
The summary of the biomass feasibility assessment is shown in Table 20.
Table 20 - Ferness Biomass Feasibility Assessment
Using the BFI classification scheme either type of woodchip fuel would indicate that CHP is a
potential option for the community to absorb the surplus woodfuel capacity. There would be a
slight export potential for wood pellet export although the surplus capacity available for sale
would likely not justify the plant installation required to process the fuel.
The biodiversity restriction effectively ruled out all zones with the exception of New Inn
Wood, Airdrie Plantation and Logie Wood which have a combined area of just over 300
hectares. To just meet the communities needs for wood chip at 50% MC the combined area
would need to be 53 hectares or around 5 hectares per dwelling. The respective figures for
wood chip at 30% MC are 89 hectares or 9 hectares per dwelling.
It is potentially surprising that only 0.1% to 0.5% of the available standing stock energy is
ultimately available for use as woodfuel even including indirect woodfuel that may be
available.
3.5 Conclusions of the Ferness Case Study
The biomass feasibility model provides a useful summary of the main considerations for a
community biomass heating scheme for supply and demand. Based on the information
available Ferness has a good, sustainable supply of woodfuel that would meet its needs for
domestic hot water and space heating now and in the future. In fact, given the degree of
oversupply Ferness may wish to consider development of a combined heat and power
scheme which would provide long term funding for the scheme (in terms of revenue and
potentially ROCs).
SC1 Standing Stock Energy 1,022,613,683 [MJ]
Inaccessible Fraction Energy 406,446,799 [MJ]
Accessible Fraction Energy 616,166,883 [MJ]
SC4 Sustainable Harvest Fraction Energy 32,859,317 [MJ]
SC5 Biodiversity Fraction Energy 40,194,603 [MJ]
SC6 Processing Fraction Energy 6,290,396 [MJ]
SC7 Forestry Residues 4,533,434 [MJ]
SC8 Indirect Woodfuel 1,109,120 [MJ]
SC9 Recovered Woodfuel - [MJ]
SC10 Biomass Energy Supply 5,642,554 [MJ]
Processing Losses (Wood Chip @ 50%MC) - [MJ]
Processing Losses (Wood Chip @ 30%MC) 2,257,019 [MJ]
Processing Losses (Wood Pellet @ 10%MC) 4,514,040 [MJ]
Potential Biomass Fuel (Wood Chip @ 50% MC) 5,642,554 [MJ]
Potential Biomass Fuel (Wood Pellet @ 10%MC) 1,128,513 [MJ]
Wood Chip
50%MC
Wood Chip
30%MC
Wood Pellet
10%MC
5.7 3.4 1.1
DC13 Required Biomass Fuel 996,206 [MJ]
DC13 Annual Boiler Losses 199,241 [MJ]
DC12 Delivered Energy 796,965 [MJ]
DC12 Annual Distribution Losses 79,697 [MJ]
DC7 Net Annual Consumption (Improved) 717,269 [MJ]
DC7 Annual Energy Reduction 210,092 - [MJ]
Net Annual Household Energy Consumption 927,361 [MJ]
Energy Consumption Attributable to Appliances 123,470 [MJ]
Gross Household Annual Energy Consumption (incl No Response) 1,050,830 [MJ]
S
u
p
p
l
y
D
e
m
a
n
d
DC5
SC11
SC12
SC2
Biomass Feasibility Index
Although the questionnaire responses identified the main characteristics of the demand
requirements it would not be advisable to progress the physical design based on the
calculations due to the precision of the responses based on spend assigned to broad spend
buckets. It would not be possible to do that with this sample due to the very low sample size
although the results obtained were close to those expected from the BRE data.
Financial feasibility for a small scheme such as this requires review. The model provides a
feasibility only of the wood fuel available. It should be expected that the plant costs combined
with the distribution network will be high and certainly out of the reach of the current
residents who are mostly tenants and, therefore, unlikely to want to commit to a long term
scheme. Similarly, evidence of fuel poverty in the village and lack of willingness to participate
will make the scheme unattractive to ESCOs who may be able to shoulder the burden of the
capital costs.
This scheme would meet the essential criteria of the Scottish Government Community and
Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) if the community were able to set up its own not-for-
profit management capability attracting capital grants of up to 150,000. In addition, most of
the desirable criteria could also be met maximising the likelihood of obtaining grant funding.
Funding may be obtained for the feasibility stage through the Climate Challenge Fund for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions (primarily through the replacement of fuel oil with
woodfuel) and the Scottish Power Green Energy Trust for the construction of a renewable
energy installation.
Should the level of biomass be confirmed to be available it may be worthwhile considering
combined heat and power for this community if the naturally dried woodchip fuel option is
selected.
This section covered the use of a model and an assessment method to evaluate a potential
target community. The next section covers discussion of the model, an review of the biomass
fuel market and potential solutions to the challenges faced in the market.
4. Biomass for Community Heating and Hot Water
This section discusses some of the wider aspects of community heating and hot water from
biomass and covers initiatives that are in place to assist the development of biomass heating
schemes in the UK.
4.1 The Biomass Feasibility Assessment Model
The biomass feasibility assessment model was able to produce results that were comparable
to published sources although the usefulness of the model is limited by its focus on Scotland
and use of woodfuel rather than the wider range of biomass fuel types. A restriction of scope
does, however, produce a model that it is fit-for-purpose where the more generic models in
the Biomass Assessment Handbook and from the Biomass Energy Centre do not provide the
assessment of self-sufficiency that may be important to communities and is just detailed
enough to provide realistic, supportable figures.
Table 21 shows the potential biomass fuel output by fuel type per annum (Biomass Energy
Centre, 2009b) which has the caveat that it is a loose approximation. Figures obtained using
the model for wood fuel provided 3,385,535MJ for an area of 844 hectares yielding a result of
40.1GJ per hectare which compares favourably with 37GJ/ha in Table 21 although this also
includes the indirect woodfuel component of the primary production from the included zones.
Fuel Net calorific value Output per hectare p.a. Energy per ha p.a.
[MJ/kg] [t/ha.a] [GJ/ha.a] [MWh/ha.a]
Wood (forestry residues, SRW,
thinnings, etc.) @ 30% MC
13 2.9 (2 odt) 37 10.3
Wood (SRC Willow) @ 30% MC 13 12.9 (9 odt) 167 46
Miscanthus @ 25% MC 13 17.3 (13 odt) 225 63
Wheat straw@ 20% MC 13.5 4.6 (3.7 odt) 62 17
Biodiesel(from rapeseed oil) 37 1.1 41 11.3
Bioethanol(from sugar beet) 27 4.4 119 33
Bioethanol(from wheat) 27 2.3 62 17
Biogas(from cattle slurry) 20 0.88 18 4.9
Biogas(from sugar beet) 20 5.3 106 29
Table 21 - Potential Biofuel Output per Annum
(Source: BEC)
Similarly, the demand side of the model produced consumption data that was comparable
with that from BRE shown in Table 3 with the model reporting 100,000MJ, on average,
against the BRE data for similar dwelling type of 107,226MJ. The model results were,
however, based on a very small sample of three dwellings and the statistical variations were
large around 50% of the mean. Further validation of the demand model is required to
ensure that the results derived from spend data are valid.
The biomass feasibility index derived produced a reasonable result that is at least
understandable by the lay person or the intended audience with the index representing the
number of times the identified woodfuel zones can meet the fuel needs of the community. It
is perhaps surprising that such a large zone would be required to support such a small
community once sustainable harvesting and biodiversity have been taken into consideration
although the biodiversity fraction is aggressive.
The model is highly sensitive to the quality of the supply estimation data requiring a skilled
person to conduct the site assessments and sensitivity analysis to identify the breakpoints in
the model at which schemes may become not viable.

4.2 The Biomass Fuel Market
The biomass fuel market consists of a number of different groups of stakeholders as shown
in Figure 28 that all need to be present and willing in order to make a successful market.
Figure 28 Stakeholders in the Biomass Fuel Market
The perspective of each of these stakeholders is considered further in the sections below.
The Suppliers Perspective
The suppliers perspective is currently the most important as the development of a regular
biofuel supply chain is the most significant challenge faced in the market (McIlwraith, 2006,
p. 13). It has been recognised by government bodies that estimation of resources for
woodfuel is problematic (FCS, 2008, sec. 7.6) and estimates will vary significantly. Certainly,
detailed data at the local level for woodfuel estimation is difficult to come by. In Scotland,
where private ownership is significant the task becomes even more difficult as woodland may
not be intended for primary production from which the model reference data was sourced:
This helps explain why there is not a strong history or culture of forest management, and
hence forest planning, in the Private Sector. There are a few exceptions in some larger
private estates that have been in the same ownership over long periods, but even here the
interest in forestry was often a more minor factor than, for example, the sporting interests.
(Smith, 2006)
The Woodfuel Resource in Britain (McKay, 2003) aimed to provide estimates for woodfuel
resource in Britain and provides a wealth of data backed up by comprehensive appendices
outlining the methods of estimation. Ultimately, the limitations and constraints on this work
prevent its usefulness at the community level and the author predicted some future variability
due to emerging forestry practices, climate change and increase in plantings. Woodfuel
Statistics 2008 (FC, 2009c) also show the immaturity of predicting woodfuel supply with the
caveat:
This is the first time that such figures have been compiled and all figures should be treated
with caution. It is hoped that data quality will improve in future, once data over a longer time
period is available. (FC, 2009c, p. 2)
The use of recovered woodfuel will remain problematic for smaller installations mostly due to
the quality of the waste wood and the risk of pollutants causing emissions issues and
contaminants in the stream such as nails that will damage chipping equipment (Harcus, n.d.).
Supplies are also likely to be erratic (DEFRA, 2008, p. 10).
The remaining market stakeholders will continue to exhibit a lack of confidence until the
woodfuel supply chain becomes more secure.
The Planners Perspective
The planners perspective covers a broad range of planning activity from the national through
the regional to the local level. Each level will have different objectives that they believe can
be satisfied by implementing (or at least supporting) renewable energy initiatives.
The development of community based schemes will be hampered by the amounts of effort
required to push schemes through the planning process. In order to reduce this burden to
support the development of smaller non-commercial schemes planning authorities reduce
the size of scheme requiring full planning applications. The European Union (Consortium of
European Biomass Associations, 2009) states:
the consortium support the exclusion of small scale producers and users from the criteria
(<1MW thermal and <1 MW electrical capacity) as the monitoring of those operators would
be very costly and ineffective to implement
At the local level, planners will need to consider the more practical issues such as the
combustion of fuel store, emissions from the boiler, noxious gas and health impacts due to
particulates.
The low numbers of community heating schemes in the UK make life difficult for planners as
there is little experience in dealing with them. This situation should improve over time with
more implementations although the majority of activity in late 2009 is mainly feasibility
studies (Boddington, 2009) rather than implementations.
The Installers Perspective
To a certain extent the difficulties facing installers is similar to that of planners in that there is
little incentive to existing installers of central heating and hot water systems to develop the
skills needed to install biomass based systems due to low numbers of systems required. This
is particularly the case in sparsely populated regions where the lower populations and wider
geographical coverage needed restrict the likely numbers of installations in any particular
year.
Until biomass moves into the mainstream, installations are most likely to be undertaken by
those already possessing the knowledge and credentials of previous installations and willing
to travel to remote regions for projects. This has the effect of increasing prices due to a rarity
of skills which further increases the financial burden on schemes that may already have
difficulty in showing themselves to be viable. One estimate (Wood Energy Scotland, 2009a)
suggests that the system cost of a biomass system is two to five times that of an equivalent
fossil fuel systems at between 180-300 per output kW.
The User Perspective
The UK market for domestic heating and hot water is dominated by the use of natural gas
owing to the discovery of gas reserves offshore during the 1960s. While this was good for the
UK economy, the use of natural gas and extensive gas network prevented the development
of alternative technology such as district heating schemes now established in other
European countries (Bowers, 2009). UK users are aware of the market for energy and are
able to switch to take advantage of the best rates. In a community scheme, this choice is not
possible or, if it is, will detract from the viability of the scheme at a community level.
Older installations may require replacement with newer technology in the foreseeable future
presenting homeowners with a significant capital outlay. Schemes may offer the opportunity
to avoid the need to individually replace installations. Older and less efficient installations
may have significant daily maintenance requirements such as removal and disposal of ash.
Properties that are used primarily for leisure will reduce the effectiveness of any community
scheme as they will require a higher capacity installation that is not required for the majority
of the time reducing boiler efficiency and losses in distributing heat to empty dwellings.
The maintenance and operation of existing installations may be a factor in determining
whether occupants are willing to participate in a communal scheme. It could be expected that
dwellings with higher maintenance requirements such as coal or wood logs would be more
willing to replace their existing installations with a communal scheme offering heat and hot
water without personal involvement in day to day running. Liquid / gas fuels have lower
maintenance requirements due to lack of ash and lower handling requirements from
automated feeds.
The Operator Perspective
Operators or Energy Supply Companies (ESCOs) face two major issues. Firstly, the ESCO
needs to ensure that the community participation warrants the investment in time to develop
a proposal followed by an ongoing revenue stream from running the plant. Secondly, once
the site is in place the ESCO needs to ensure the longevity of its fuel supply at a reasonable
cost.
In the case of a small community scheme there will be a community size below which an
ESCO will find it difficult to return a profit with the investment in plant, fuel costs,
maintenance, billing and upgrade. In these circumstances the community may need to form
their own ESCO although the skills required to do this may not be available.
Summary of the Market
The district biomass heating market in the UK is immature and features a you first mentality
which stifles development, especially in the area of woodfuel supply. Biomass is unlikely to
be mainstream under these circumstances.
4.3 Solutions to Biomass Market Challenges
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 identified the key challenges of community biomass heating schemes
as security of biomass supply and lack of maturity in the biomass market. This section
describes some of the potential solutions.
Supply of Woodfuel
Changes to management and harvesting methods may be required to maximise the recovery
rates of woodfuel in conjunction with the primary production of timber. Findings from the
Northern Woodfuel project in Caithness (Dunnet Forestry Trust, 2005) indicated that the
manual and low technology methods could significantly improve extraction rates of woodfuel
especially in small and difficult to access sites with the constraint being the availability of
skilled operators rather than recovery costs.
The main difficulty with the development of the model was to ensure an adequate
sustainable supply of fuel. The model uses data both from FAO (the EFISCEN database)
and the Forestry Commission resources available from eForestry. Issues were encountered
with joining the two datasets together due to differences in geographic region levels and
levels of species data. An initiative from the FC is the National Forest Inventory (Forest
Research, 2009, p. 1) which will provide the data required for the model from a single
resource as it will cover the key measures of DBH and stocking densities and provide the
basis for the production forecast cover five yearly periods over the forthcoming twenty years.
Whether this will be accessible by the public will determine whether assessments of supply
remain in the realm of the forestry industry.
Grant Funding
Grant funding has the potential to assist community biomass heating initiatives by providing
financial support to communities in the way of external expertise as well as for the
construction of projects. Funding may offset the high startup costs which may go some way
towards reducing barriers caused by the desire to retain often old and inefficient heating
systems in individual dwellings
Table 22 identifies some of the sources of grant funding for community initiatives in Scotland.
Scheme Eligibility Criteria Link Funding Available
Scottish
Government
Community And
Renewable Energy
Scheme (CARES)
Located in Scotland,
generation of energy from RE,
direct community ownership,
capital projects that are viable,
publication, maintenance and
operating plans, cost effective
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/To
pics/Business-
Industry/Energy/Energy-
sources/19185/Communities/
CRES
Technical : for feasibility,
proposal, education up to
10,000.
Capital: RE installation,
infrastructure, project
management and regulatory
up to 150,000
Scottish Biomass
Heat Scheme
Scotland, district heat
schemes, decrease carbon
footprint, deliver by March
2011
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/To
pics/Business-
Industry/Energy/Energy-
sources/19185/20805/BioSup
port/BioSupportIntro
Purchased goods and
services up to 100,000. More
for exemplars.
Scottish Power
Green Energy
Trust
UK communities and not-for-
profit organisations
http://www.energysavingtrust.
org.uk/business/Global-
Data/Funding-
Information/Scottish-Power-
Green-Energy-Trust
Capital and installation costs
of RE, not for feasibility
studies
Climate Challenge
Fund (Scotland)
Scottish communities and not-
for-profit organisations
http://www.energysavingtrust.
org.uk/business/Global-
Data/Funding-
Information/Climate-
Challenge-Fund-Scotland
Feasibility studies, creation of
action plans, establishing
community partnerships,
capability building.
Table 22 Potential Source of Grant Funding
It should be noted that changes in the UK economic environment may significantly reduce
the availability of government supported funding from 2010 onwards. Ideally, grant funding
should be targeted to those communities showing a high potential for self-sufficiency in
biomass where a critical mass of expertise and experience can be developed to increase the
chances of success over time.
The importance of grant funding in community heating schemes cannot be overlooked. In the
Llanwddyn District Scheme (Dulas, 2007) the projects viability was only possible through
100% grants for capital to pay for infrastructure as the heat price without this would have
been too expensive in comparison with alternatives.
Biomass Energy Centres
A potential way for bringing together all of the stakeholders is through local bio-energy
centres (BECs). The BEC takes on the responsibility for ensuring that each stakeholder
perspective can be met to assist the maturity of the biomass fuel market.
For example, the Moray Bio-Energy Centre (Henderson, 2009, p. 8) aims to establish a
centre where woodfuel can be sold, installers trained, users educated and further research
conducted on additional biomass energy on a single site that can showcase biomass energy
technology.
Technologies in Other Countries
The uptake of renewable energy for heating in other countries is typically associated with the
technology and the fuel price being economically justifiable for end users (Fiedler, 2004, p.
8). Sweden is heavily reliant upon electricity for heating but pellet based heating is viable due
to low fuel prices. In Germany and Austria, government financial incentives and the image of
environmentally conscious heating are significant factors in the uptake of pellet boilers for
domestic heating. While the boiler efficiencies of pellet boilers are impressive (78-94%
claimed) the costs are still significant as shown in Table 23.
Type Two Unit Boiler Integrated Boiler
Power modulation 50%/100% 30100%
Boiler efficiency, at nominal power 78-85% 86-94%
Combustion air supply blower Aspirator
Combustion control no no / lambda / speed controlled
fan
Lighting automatic automatic
Air-passage cleaning manual automatic, optional
Cleaning burner manual automatic, optional
Ash removal from combustion chamber manual automatic, optional
Time interval ash removal from ash pan weekly 2-8 times / year
CO emissions [mg/m3] 260-650 12-250
Price 46000 710,000
Table 23 - Characterstics of Pellet Boilers (Source:Fiedler)
This section discussed the potential of the biomass feasibility assessment model, the
challenges of the biomass fuel market and ways in which these challenges may be
overcome. The next section covers the conclusions of the thesis research.
5. Conclusions
This section concludes the thesis with discussion of the model and the method together with
their impact on the wider subject of the use of biomass for community heating and,
potentially, power.
Summary
The structure of the model, regardless of the limitations below, is sound. Calculation of
supply and demand in the form of energy flows supports the bioenergy flow model of the
FAO and could be used as a basis for further development. The provision of separate
worksheets for the entry of assumptions and the entry of input data allows for clear
separation of the sources of data. Both detailed and rapid scan assessments were possible
as verified by the case studies although slight modifications are required to make the quick
scan estimation more easily repeatable.
Calculations for both supply and demand in the model compared favourably with other
sources of data. Data published by the Biomass Energy Centre suggested a yield of 37GJ
per hectare for woodfuel at a moisture content of 30% against the models calculation of
40GJ/hectare. Data published by the BRE estimates annual household demand of
107,226MJ per annum against the models calculation of 100,000MJ for the recipients that
responded. For the detailed case study examined approximately 5 hectares of woodland was
needed to support the woodfuel needs of a single dwelling using wood chip with a moisture
content of 50% compared with 28.3 hectares for the larger community using the rapid
assessment.
The most difficult aspect of producing the model was to obtain consistent reference data for
supply. The main sources of data used were from the Woodfuel Resource of the UK Forestry
Commission and the EFISCEN database of the European Forestry Institute. Data had to be
summarised to a consistent level (national, regional etc.) and then applied to forestry species
families or groups to be used. It is hoped that a focus on renewable energy rather than solely
on timber production as is the case today would make this exercise simpler and more
consistent.
Modelling of energy flows using the Sankey diagram approach was trialled but was not
beneficial as the size of the standing stock energy component was vastly in excess of the
other flows and so visualising the proportions of other flows was impossible.
Ideally, the biomass feasibility model would have been better developed as a project rather
than a thesis. The knowledge required to create the supply model specifically required a
large amount of research and there is scope for further improvement. The concepts in
determining the demand aspects of the model were simpler although the calculations
required to create the boiler sizing and losses associated with distribution were more
complex and not as freely available as expected. Ultimately, the development of the model
given the right research and formulae was the simplest task. The lack of a single unified,
available model does highlight the need of this particular piece of study that could be made
available to planners and project managers.
Since the objective is to provide a renewable energy alternative rather than continued use of
fossil fuels there exists a conflict between doing the right thing financially and doing the right
thing environmentally for smaller communities. In the long run this conflict can be expected to
be resolved as fossil fuels will become more expensive in comparison. In the shorter term the
price disadvantage of renewable energy for space heating will have to be removed either
with grants or subsidies to make the RE alternatives financially viable.
The use of questionnaire based research in the demand assessment provided a reasonable
outcome in terms of estimated consumption. The expected response rate was higher than
expected and resulted in changes to the model to accommodate aspects of fuel poverty and
the availability of free fuel within the community. The key benefits of conducting this research
were in the qualitative answers, particularly on the willingness to participate in community
schemes, which highlight the need for education and the challenges in making district
schemes viable in the UK where ownership of the heating system tends to be at the
individual level. Individual dwelling schemes will have fewer options in terms of fuel choice
due to the availability of storage and drying space as well as the technology required for
automated operation.
After conducting the biomass feasibility assessment the further option of considering
combined heat and power for communities with an excess of biomass fuel (where the
biomass feasibility index is 2.0 or above) became apparent. This is perhaps the most
promising outcome as it addresses challenges of cost by providing a revenue stream through
feed in tariffs and ROCs and may provide local employment in areas described as severely
disadvantaged according to the European Union.
The areas that are likely to be most suitable for biomass schemes will almost certainly have
some primary processing activity such as timber production. Wood chip processing is likely
to be much cheaper and more widely available in these communities and will reduce the
need to transport low density biomass large distances for processing reducing transport
costs. In cases where remote processing of feedstock is necessary the distance from the site
should be carefully considered and where it is large the scheme reviewed for suitability to
minimise costs.
Limitations of the thesis research
This thesis is focussed on the conditions most likely in the rural north of Scotland.
Specifically, this includes the use of woody biomass supplied directly from forests in Forestry
Commission or private ownership or from local sawmills and industrial producers of untreated
wood waste. Most of the reference tables included in the model reflect this focus although
can be updated easily to accommodate different fuel types such as short rotation coppice or
other agro fuels.
Unification of the terms used in the model was problematic and finding consistent definitions
from FAO and The Biomass Assessment Handbook to use required significant additional
research. This implies additional skills are required from users of the model which may not
be present in the intended audience of planners and project managers.
While use of direct and indirect woodfuel from forests would appear to be easy to measure
the use of direct woodfuel from non-forests is impossible to quantify at this level. This is a
common issue that implies that the woodfuel resources calculated are only a proportion of
the woodfuel available to a community should they be prepared to obtain it. Under these
circumstances, outside of sustainable forestry management techniques, there is a risk of
over farming of resources which may prove unsustainable and damage the biodiversity of the
region.
Although an approximation to assessment of woodfuel resources is presented here further
work could be undertaken by using a resource such as Google Earth or Google Maps to
undertake the aerial survey or satellite remote sensing element of estimating stand density.
This would improve the reliability of the data although for the purposes of this type of
assessment would add complexity and cost. It remains to be seen whether these additional
steps would significantly affect the outcome and whether it is cost effective to do so. A
significant limitation in the site assessment work was the lack of a sampling basis to produce
a mean stem diameter over the area of woodland under consideration rather than just a
single data point. A more experienced practitioner of forest measurement with the right
equipment may be able to provide more accurate assessments which may require changes
in the model.
Availability of woodfuel in the long term was considered through the use of timber production
forecasts. Where only a small number of zones are present there may be years when the
zones are unproductive. Further work is required to synchronise the production forecasts
with the estimates provided in the model to ensure continued supply.
The ownership of biomass resources was highlighted and factored into the model through
the use of the accessibility fraction. There can be no guarantees that just because a zone is
productive the woodfuel will be made available which may significantly impact the viability of
the scheme.
Difficulties in aligning usage patterns of householders with the profiles obtained from
research prevented the calculation of more detailed load profiles for hot water usage. An
average usage profile for all usage patterns was used instead which produced an adequate
result. It is doubtful whether the usage profile has a significant bearing on the outcome due to
the large number of approximations and assumptions in the model.
Distribution losses have been estimated using an approach based on the percentage loss of
delivered energy. It is possible to develop more detailed estimates but these require pipe
sizes, pipe length, flow rates, outflow and return flow temperatures and pipe insulation data
that is beyond the scope of this thesis as this would require more detailed sizing only
possible during the design and engineering phase of the construction project lifecycle. If
required, a more detail model could be used for distribution loss and inserted into the model
framework.
Figures for domestic hot water appeared to be low compared with the estimate of 20% of the
total load. This may be explained by the use of combined heating sources (usually wood plus
oil or electricity) of the cases examined. Further research is required to determine whether
the model calculation basis is incorrect and propose a different model if it is required.
Financial feasibility of a scheme was not included in the model. There are many ways to view
and conduct financial assessments. The flexible framework of the model and its build in
Microsoft Excel would allow the integration of the demand, supply and financial aspects
should this be required.
No consideration of planning requirements is made in the model although data supporting
planning applications will be produced. A simple modification to the model would allow the
calculation of the CO
2
reductions due to fossil fuel replacements as well as the estimation of
the transport costs from the tipper kms variable already included.
Consideration of the arrangement of the heating system was not conducted although a boiler
and accumulator sizing estimate was provided. There are many options (combined fossil fuel
/ biomass, pellet versus chip boilers, proportion of annual demand to be met with biomass
etc.) but only a simple estimation is undertaken based on the proportion of peak delivered
load the biomass boiler must meet. Similarly, detailed loss calculations for the distribution
network were not conducted due to complexity of options of the distribution network (outlet
and return temperatures, pipeline materials and construction etc.). The heating system
configuration would be reviewed during the detailed design stage rather than at the feasibility
stage.
Implications of the case made for existing orthodoxy
Funding for biomass fuelled district heating schemes is awarded based on compliance
criteria. This is of benefit to the communities that apply and are awarded grant funding. In the
wider context this results in a small number of geographically dispersed schemes all having
the same issues of access to expertise to make each scheme viable. Within a region or
national boundary it may be more effective to target areas for which biomass is suitable in a
similar way to the approach used for onshore wind, that is, where the concentration of
resources is highest. The key challenge for the ongoing use of biomass is security of supply
which underpins the rest of the biomass fuel market. Establishing biomass districts that
have a high level of resource and then funding biomass energy cells within them to address
planner, installer, user and operator concerns through education and training may result in
much more effective use of centralised funding. Once the first cell becomes effective and a
stable market is created its need for funding reduces and a further cell in another well
resourced district can be created using the skills, knowledge and lessons learned from the
first. A focus on the district level will also reduce woodfuel miles and may provide local
employment and a sense of engagement with the countryside.
The biomass feasibility assessment model could be adapted to produce the resource map to
identify the first district once the new FC National Inventory of Woodlands and Trees (FC,
2009d) study is completed covering woodlands of 1 hectare.
CHP schemes may be more financially viable for communities (Kelly & Pollitt, 2009, p. 7) if
there is sufficient biomass and would likely increase community involvement where dividends
in communally owned ESCO could be distributed.
Implications in terms of further research required
The calculation basis of the biodiversity fraction as a set volume of harvest set aside per
hectare results in the remaining harvest for some of the zones to be zero especially in the
cases of younger woodland where the lower mean increment in comparison to more mature
stands may not support a high biodiversity fraction. In these cases, the higher stand densities
could be used to offset the high volume of set aside harvest per hectare as they would
provide a good habitat for fauna and flora. Further work is required to identify a more holistic
approach to the provision of biodiversity factors within the model.
It would be possible in a larger, more precise sample to determine statistically the demand
and develop a predictive model from a number of inputs that could be incorporated into a
revised questionnaire.
Energy flow modelling may be further investigated to provide a single visual describing the
biomass feasibility assessment. The visual display of quantitative information (E. Tufte, 2001)
may provide additional techniques that could be employed.
Further experience with the model and its use in real life feasibility assessments may provide
enough background data to determine the optimal size of a community scheme to become
viable from both an efficiency and a financial standpoint. The Ferness case study would give
the impression that a community of ten dwellings is too small to warrant a large infrastructure
project on the grounds of low participation rates and likely revenues based on current fuel
spend.
The techniques for the assessment of woodfuel supply from forestry residues seem well
founded. Areas of focus for further development would include the estimation of indirect and
recovered woodfuel and, perhaps more importantly, the estimation of other resources that
are outside of forests for which no management plan or inventory exists.
Distribution losses could be scientifically calculated once the variables for outlet and return
temperatures, flow rates and pipeline construction are known. There may be a need to
identify further data requirements in the site survey or during the design phase to facilitate
these calculations.
Appendix A Biomass Feasibility Assessment Methodology
This section describes all of the steps required to conduct a community based assessment
using the BFI spreadsheet model described in the previous section. Similar methodologies
exist and are published by trade and industry bodies such as How to set up a woodfuel
project (Wood Energy Scotland, 2009b). The methodology presented here is tailored to fit
the modelling approach taken.
Methodology Overview
The Biomass Feasibility Assessment Methodology is intended to fit within a generic
construction project lifecycle (Hendrickson & Au, 2000, sec. 2.3) at the point in the lifecycle
which has the highest ability to influence construction and operating costs. Figure 29 shows
the construction project lifecycle, the biomass feasibility assessment methodology and the
point in the construction lifecycle at which the feasibility assessment should be performed.
Figure 29 - Biomass Feasibility Assessment Methodology
The following sections describe the biomass feasibility assessment methodology in more
detail. Alternative methodologies exist (Carbon Trust, 2009a) that provide greater detail on
biomass implementation projects but are not integrated to provide a single model that
assesses both supply and demand.
A.1 Target Site Identification
Target site identification involves examining the characteristics of sites to identify a site that
is most suitable for the deployment of a community heating and hot water scheme. These
characteristics will be confirmed during the demand and supply assessments along with the
planning and operations review. Since the demand and supply assessments will take time
and money to complete the objective here is to filter out unsuitable sites quantitatively. The
difficulty with this step is that it is difficult to establish selection criteria and characteristic
weightings without a body of knowledge on which to base any assessments. It is possible to
categorise the characteristics according to the later methodology steps that would supply
objective data.
The characteristics most likely to affect the uptake of district heating in Ireland (WS Atkins
Consultants Ltd, 2002, pp. 23-36) were:
Lack of High Rise Apartment Blocks;
Low Price Differential between Gas and Electricity;
Low Spill Price for Electricity Sold to the Grid;
Difficulty in Securing a Heat Price that is competitive with alternative supplies;
Poor Public Perception;
Unfavourable Return Periods; and
Availability of Incentives.
Of these factors several can be removed from this type of assessment as there are
financially based (e.g., unfavourable return periods) or relate to CHP plants specifically (e.g.,
low price differential between gas and electricity, low spill price). Housing density is
represented by the lack of high rise apartment blocks characteristic which would not be
appropriate to rural schemes. Difficulty in securing a heat price that is competitive with
alternative supplies has to be evaluated carefully. In the Irish example, both peat and coal
were a quarter to half the price of natural gas and gas oil 50% more expensive. See Section
4 for the conclusions on pricing for renewable energy and the need for inclusion of availability
of incentives. Public perception will not be able to be considered at this point and will need to
be measured during the demand assessment step. Willingness to participate in community
renewable energy schemes has been shown to be a strong indicator in project success
The findings from the Eden project biomass energy feasibility study (Cooke et al., 2006, p.
11) were that space requirements were a key barrier to implementation. Capital costs were
also significant although they are excluded from the scope of this assessment. A BRE study
on behalf of the Carbon Trust (Wiltshire, 2003, p. 8) identifies heat density, costs of
distribution networks, customer mix (domestic and commercial) and project scale to be the
factors most important to economic viability. Heat density, length of distribution network and
project scale will be examined during this step.
Table 24 summarises the characteristics likely to be useful for target site identification from a
demand perspective and potential sources of that information.
Characteristic Units Rationale Source of Data
Housing Density Dwelling / km
2
Where dwellings are highly dispersed
the distribution networks required to
connect them all will be subject to
high distribution losses.
Calculation sourced from local
authority maps
Potential to source from census
data, if available at the lowest level
of granularity
Availability of Mains
Gas
Yes / No Mains gas will provider a much
cheaper alternative source of heating.
If this does not exist the community
scheme will most likely be more
financially viable.
Local knowledge, OFGEM
Number of Dwellings For community schemes, there will be
a point below which only
decentralised schemes will make
economic sense.
Local council planning websites
Expected
Participation Rate
%age In conjunction with Number of
Dwellings can be used to estimate
how many dwellings will participate in
any proposed scheme
Historical data
Home Ownership
Rate
%age Since the success of schemes can be
proven to be determined by the level
of participation this factor identifies
how many property owners are
involved. Where a number of
independent landlords exist the
difficulties in increasing participation
rates may make schemes unviable.
Local knowledge
Characteristic Units Rationale Source of Data
Availability of
Incentives
Yes / No Community schemes are unlikely to
be financially viable without the
provision of incentives that enable
local authorities to meet their RE
obligations or compensate developers
and operators for investments that
would not be financially viable.
Local authorities and other
governmental and non-government
organisations (NGOs)
Heat Density MW / km
2
Higher heat density proposals will be
more cost effective due to shorter, in
comparison, heat main runs which will
improve the overall efficiency.
Dwelling Density x Average Annual
Heat and Hot Water Consumption
per annum
Table 24 - Characteristics Summary for Target Site Identification
For supply side identification the main considerations are the woodland coverage. This can
be assessed by reviewing 9km
2
, 25km
2
, 49km
2
and 81km
2
area coverage around the
potential site using an OS Map and a scaled grid. Using a scaled table in Microsoft
PowerPoint allows this to be easily achieved by typing in coverage in each grid square of
1km and then pasting into Microsoft Excel allows rapid summation of the results.
Table 25 - Demand Side Area Coverage Estimation
The aim of the biomass feasibility assessment is to reduce the distance required to obtain
fuel and to minimise transportation of that fuel in its processed state to where it will be used.
This implies that any site should have the potential to store and to dry fuel to maximise the
number of fuel options available.
The data for the target site assessment is stored within the Quick Scan Assessment
worksheet in the model.
A.2 Demand Assessment
Demand assessment consists of determining the energy requirement followed by calculation
of expected losses to provide that requirement in order to derive a required biomass fuel
figure.
Estimating the Energy Requirement
There are two ways to determine the energy requirement. The first is direct information from
the householder which can be obtained by survey or questionnaire and the second is through
estimation using accepted sources of consumption data, most commonly the BRE in the UK.
The model allows for both types as it is expected that not all information will be available
from survey and so uses estimates to fill in the gaps.
Estimating the Distribution Losses
The calculating the distribution losses could become complex given the range of variables
needing to be considered. A distribution loss estimate of 10% could be used unless
additional data from case studies is available which could be used.
Selecting the Boiler and Fuel Type
The boiler and fuel type need to be selected based on a range of different criteria including
the number and size of buildings, level of vehicular access, availability and size of storage,
willingness to handle fuel and whether hot water delivery is required (Biomass Energy
Centre, 2008). A summary of the criteria and the recommended boiler and fuel type is shown
Table 26.
Type
N
o
.

O
f

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

S
i
z
e

o
f

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

S
t
o
r
a
g
e

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

M
a
n
u
a
l

H
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m

H
e
a
t
i
n
g

H
o
t

W
a
t
e
r

Chip Boiler with Hopper and
District Heating Network
>1 N/A Good Large Any No Bulk Yes Yes
Chip Boiler with Hopper 1 Large Good Large Any No Bulk Yes Yes
Pellet Boiler with Hopper
and District Heating
Network
>1 N/A OK Med Local No Bulk Yes Yes
Pellet Boiler with Hopper 1 Either OK Med Local No Bulk Yes Yes
Pellet Boiler / Pellet Stove
with Integrated Boiler
1 Small Small Bags Local Pellets Collect Yes Yes
Pellet Stove w/out
Integrated Boiler
1 Small Small Bags Local Pellets Collect Yes No
Log Boiler or Log Stove with
Integrated Boiler
1 Small Small Van
load
Local Logs Collect Yes Yes
Log Stove w/out Integrated
Boiler
1 Small Small Van
load
Local Logs Collect Yes No
Table 26 - Selection of Boiler and Fuel Type
(Derived from BEC Flowchart)
Physical properties of fuels are shown in Table 27 (Carbon Trust, 2009b).
Moisture
Content
Energy
Density By
Mass
Energy
Density By
Mass
Bulk Density Energy Density
By Volume
Energy Density
By Volume
[%] [GJ/tonne] [kWh/kg] [kg/m3] [MJ/m3] [kWh/m
3
]
Moisture
Content
Energy
Density By
Mass
Energy
Density By
Mass
Bulk Density Energy Density
By Volume
Energy Density
By Volume
Wood chips 30% 12.5 3.5 250 3,100 870
Logs (stacked, air dry) 20% 14.7 4.1 350-500 5,200-7,400 1,400-2,000
Wood solid (oven dry) 19 5.3 400-600 7,600-11,400 2,100-3,200
Wood pellets 17-18 4.7-5.0 600-700 10,800-12,600 3,000-3,500
Miscanthus 25% 13 3.6 140-180 1,800-2,300 500-650
House Coal 27-31 7.5-8.6 850 25,500-25,400 7,100-7,300
Anthracite 33 9.2 1,100 36,300 10,100
Heating oil 42.5 11.8 845 36,000 10,000
Natural gas 38.1 10.6 0.9 35.2 9.8
LPG 46.3 12.9 510 23,600 6,600
Table 27 - Properties of Fuels
(Source: Carbon Trust)
Estimating Boiler Losses
The key data required is the efficiency of the intended boiler using the selected fuel type and
load characteristics. Boiler efficiency can be obtained from manufacturers or from case
studies. There will be some restriction in practice as manufacturers data will be optimal and
some reduction can be expected when in use.
Name Type Rating Efficiency Source
Skanden Woodfuel (pellets,
briquettes, chip)
MC<45%
100-1,000kW 89%-92% over load
range 40%-100%
http://www.fuelsforschools.info/
Manufacturer data sheet
Binder Various 15-20,000kW 92% http://www.woodenergyltd.co.uk
Nolting Wood chip 130kW 90% Alma Park Business & Conference
Centre Case Study
http://www.ruralenergy.co.uk
Futura BIO Logs, chip, pellets 25kW-230kW 91% (woodchip) http://www.heatpoint.co.uk
Table 28 Example Boiler Efficiencies
Table 28 illustrates some example boiler efficiencies with all reporting better than 90%
efficiencies. It may be prudent to reduce these by 10% to allow for defects in installation,
variations in quality of fuel and mixed load characteristics.
Estimating Boiler and Accumulator Size
The biomass feasibility assessment model bases its estimation of boiler size on the
proportion of the peak load expected. This approach requires a back up heat source to
provide a top-up and an accumulator to store heat and absorb peaks in demand. Entry is
required into the demand reference tables for both the boiler peak load percentage and the
accumulator sizing. Suggested values for the boiler peak load percentage and accumulator
sizing are 60% and 60 times the size of the boiler respectively. These figures were obtained
from the UseWoodfuel website (FCS, 2009)
A.3 Supply Assessment
This section describes the tools, approaches and templates required to conduct a biomass
supply assessment. The objective is to collate the information needed to populate the supply
inputs for the feasibility assessment model. Entries should be made into the SI-Supply Input
worksheet in the model unless otherwise shown.
Map Based Assessment of Biomass Supply Zones
The use of the Forestry Commission GLADE tool will allow a review of the area surrounding
the target site from which zones can be selected. The area tool on GLADE allows the zones
to be identified and will calculate the area from the map in hectares needed for the standing
stock energy calculation. These should be entered into table SI1 in the model.
Crown copyright/database right 2009. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service
Figure 30 - Supply Zone Assessment Map
Determining Local Impacts
The GLADE tool will also identify potential local environmental impacts to the proposed
collection of fuel or fuel estimates. These should be summarised in table SI2. Do not include
the close proximity impacts.
Developing the Biodiversity Fraction
The biodiversity fraction will never be less than 5m
3
of stemwood per hectare. If there are
significant requirements uncovered in the local impacts section above this figure is to be
increased to allow for the leaving of either more stemwood or more brash, depending on the
precise nature of the requirement. For estimating purposes add 1m
3
of material to be
retained per hectare for each potential local impact from table SI2.
Biomass Supply Assessment
The tools required to conduct the assessment are:
Digital camera;
Voice recording device for taking notes;
Ordnance Survey map extract of the area 1:25,000; and
Biomass supply guidance note template.
The biomass supply assessments can take some time so it is also useful to be prepared with
a flask of tea, waterproofs, snacks etc. A four wheel drive vehicle may be useful to reach off
road areas although rights of access must be considered.
Measurement of Diameter at Breast Height
Normally, this would be carried out with a flexible tape measure or a relascope. In the
absence of these tools a handspan was calibrated to estimate the DBH from photographs
which has the advantage that it is much quicker and can be carried out offsite using the
calibrated scale. The handspan was marked onto a measured drawing object as shown in
where the arrows indicate the point at which the handspan aligns with the right hand edge of
the stem.
Figure 31 - Calibrating the DBH Measurement Tool
Although not as accurate as a tape measure this method should produce results within a
range of 10% which is accurate enough for the DBH assessment due to the wide banding of
the reference data.
A.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment
This step involves interpreting the data from the Biomass Feasibility worksheet.
Supplementary metrics are included in the worksheet to assist interpretation. Sensitivity
analysis should be conducted on the supply data to identify how much or how little standing
stock area is required to support the defined community.
A.5 Target Site Summary
This step aims to draw conclusions for the supply, demand and biomass feasibility
assessments that effectively package up the knowledge gained throughout the exercise and
any further issues that require follow up.

This appendix has proposed a methodology for the feasibility assessment of a community.
The next section uses this methodology on a specific site to collate results and then analyses
those results to compute the biomass feasibility index.
Appendix B Demand Questionnaire
This appendix covers the development of the demand questionnaire sent to occupants of
dwellings in the target community. The information gathered from the questionnaire is used
to generate a number of different metrics that describe demand.
Objectives of the Questionnaire
This questionnaire aims to elicit information from the occupant over a number of different
areas that are required to support the demand model.
The household composition, ownership and occupation will be used to derive consumption
and load profiles for both heating and hot water.
Dwelling characteristics such as numbers of rooms and thermal efficiency improvements will
be used to derive consumption, load profiles and reduced consumption statistics for space
heating.
Heating and hot water usage patterns will be used to derive load profiles.
Heating and hot water system types will be used to isolate electricity use for appliances and
to provide an aggregation basis for types of fuels employed.
Annual spend data, bucketed by fuel type, will be used to derive overall energy consumption
in conjunction with average price and energy content data. The average consumption is
difficult to predict as every household will be different due to different construction, makeup
of the household and living patterns. Variations in consumption may be understood through
the use of a questionnaire.
System age and replacement plans will be used to indicate the willingness of a household to
migrate to a community scheme.
Views on community heating will be used to derive likely participation in any likely scheme.
Number of Households
In the case study of Ferness there are only ten households for the target assessment. With a
small study such as this it is feasible to follow up delivery of the questionnaire with a door-to-
door visit a fortnight after the initial mail drop to improve the participation rate.
Participation Rate
It was expected that the initial participation rate will only be around 20-30% and that best
case participation rates would be around 60-70%. With a small sample rate such as this low
participation rates will significantly skew the results. To avoid these problems average
consumption data will be used to confirm the reported results. It may be possible to identify
some of the data such as fuel type through observation although this may cause residents
some security concerns.
Testing and Modifying the Questionnaire
The format and content of the questionnaire was tested on two individuals; one a senior
citizen and the other a young professional to ensure that recipients would read the questions
correctly and be able to complete in a reasonable time frame. If the questionnaire was long
and required effort to complete it is likely that the participation rates would drop further even
when an incentive was offered.
Testing with the senior citizen identified that other usage questionnaires had been recently
received from British Gas of a very similar content. They also highlighted that the
consumption figures for fuel oil might not be banded correctly and these were raised to take
into account that feedback.
Testing with the young professional identified that the covering letter was quite long although
they could not see how it could be shortened as the reasons for the survey and credentials of
the issuer were important. They also felt that the inclusion of the course administrator contact
details was likely to reassure recipients as to the validity of the questionnaire. The lack of an
unknown response for the age and replacement period of the boiler was likely to be
unanswerable by tenants but the use of an unknown response might lead to all recipients
choosing this option rather than best guessing it.
Expected Issues
Security in this day and age is a major concern to householders. The questionnaire can be
filled in anonymously to reassure householders that their data will not be used for unlawful
purposes. No personal data will be retained and a covering letter supplied outlining how the
data will be used. The course administrators contact details were provided to allow
recipients to follow up if they had doubts about the validity of the questionnaire.
Expected Response Rate
Best response rates would be obtained from a personal delivery, a stamped addressed
envelope, an incentive and a personal follow up call. A response rate of 60% might be
expected. In the event of poor response rates average consumption data will be used to
model the demand.
Issuing the Questionnaire and Receiving Results
The questionnaire was hand delivered to the homes in the target community and each was
individually signed to show the non-corporate nature of the exercise. First responses were
received within four days with a phone call to ask for clarifications within two days. Dwellings
identified as not having responded were called upon two weeks later. On the second visit
only one of the four outstanding households was in.
Post-Modelling Questionnaire Adjustments
This section details the adjustments that should be made to the questionnaire to supply data
that needed to be estimated or assumed during detailed modelling.
The data for average household consumption for the UK derived from work done at the BRE
(Wiltshire, 2003, p. 25) identified six types of dwellings. These dwelling types (Detached,
Semi-Detached, Terraced, Purpose Built Flats, Converted Flats and Not Self Contained)
should be inserted into the questionnaire in the About Your House section. This would allow
direct comparison with average energy consumption data as well as providing an estimate
for those dwellings that did not return consumption data.
To provide the ability to directly use the questionnaire data within the models it is necessary
to ensure that all of the column labels are unique to provide references when looking data
up. Several of the original columns were renamed during the modelling exercise.
One of the unforeseen responses was that one household used woodfuel for both heating
and hot water needs and that fuel was free. It was expected that this was due to employment
in the forestry sector although from the supply survey it was apparent that a large amount of
woodfuel was freely available for those willing to collect it. The questionnaire should be
amended to include a Free option to enable the free fuel scenario to be more accurately
modelled although it is likely that this would only ever be applicable to woodfuel.
The questionnaire data intended to establish the load profiles for hot water and space
heating did not align completely with the load profiles obtained from research (Yao &
Steemers, 2005). By closely aligning the questionnaire format with the five profiles identified
more comprehensive models could have been used to produce a more accurate usage and,
therefore, load profile.
B.1 Demand Usage Questionnaire
About You and Your Household
Are you the homeowner or a tenant?
Owner Tenant
How many adults in the house?
1 2 3 4 or more
How many children in the house?
1 2 3 4 or more
Is this a Holiday Home?
Yes No
About Your House
How many bedrooms?
1 2 3
Are there any insulation improvements on the house?
Loft Insulation Cavity Wall Insulation Double Glazing
About Your Heating and Hot Water Needs
When do you use your heating, in general?
only when I need to just mornings and evenings mornings, evenings and weekends
all day, every day just weekends
When do you use your hot water, in general?
only when I need to just mornings and evenings mornings, evenings and weekends
all day, every day just weekends
Do you mostly use?
An electric shower A shower fed from the hot water system Bath
About Your Heating System
How is your house heated?
Electric Storage Heater Oil Fired Radiators Propane Gas Fired Radiators
Wood or Coal Other If other, please specify
How is your hot water provided?
Electric Immersion Heater Oil Fired Propane Gas
Wood or Coal Other If other, please specify

How much do you spend on these fuels per year approximately?
Electricity Propane Gas Fuel Oil Wood Coal
200
400
600
800
1000
1000 or
more
200
400
600
800
1000
1000 or
more
250
500
750
1000
1250
1250 or
more
200
400
600
800
1000
1000 or
more
200
400
600
800
1000
1000 or
more
How old is your current hot water and heating system
Less than 1 year 2 to 5 years More than 5 years
When do you expect that it would need to be replaced?
Less than 1 year 2 to 5 years More than 5 years
About your views on community heating
Have you heard about community heating schemes?
Never heard about it Heard a little about it Heard a lot about it
How willing would you be to participate in a district scheme?
Not interested Interested at the right price Definitely interested

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
This section is optional. You need complete it only if you want to enter into the prize draw
Name: .....................................................................................................................................
Address: ................................................................................................................................
Tel No: ...................................................................................................................................

Please return the questionnaire in the stamp addressed envelope supplied to:
Rick Barthelmie
92 Forbeshill
FORRES IV36 1JL

If you have any questions you can contact me by telephone 01309 671950, mobile 07796
773 446 or on email rick.barthelmie@gmail.com.

B.2 Covering Letter
92 Forbeshill
Forres
IV36 1JL

20 November 2009

Dear Householder

Re: Energy Consumption Questionnaire for Ferness November 2009

I am a mature student from Forres studying for an MSc in Advanced Environmental and
Energy Systems at the Graduate School of the Environment at the Centre for Alternative
Energy at Machynlleth in Wales. I am working on my thesis looking into the potential use of
wood waste for community heating and hot water schemes.
I need your help in determining how much energy a small community such as Ferness needs
for domestic heating and hot water for which Ive created a short questionnaire. It has been
designed to be very quick to complete and, because your time is valuable, I am offering 3
prizes of 5 Tesco Vouchers to be drawn at random from those questionnaires that I
receive back. Since this questionnaire is being sent to less than 10 households there is a one
in three chance of winning. There is a stamped addressed envelope included for you to
return your response.
I am aware, as you are, that security is a prime concern in these times. I will not be keeping
any of your names and addresses as I am only interested in the questionnaire data. I would
need your address though to send your prize should you be a winner. There will be no follow
up to this questionnaire by mail, phone or personal visit once the study is complete although I
will be visiting homes on Saturday 5
th
December from 1000 until 1200 to see if I can convince
you to complete a questionnaire and enter the prize draw.
You can validate my credentials with my course administrator, Lucy Watkins, at the following
address:
Lucy Watkins
Postgraduate Administrator
MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies (AEES)
Graduate School of the Environment
Centre for Alternative Technology
Machynlleth, Powys. SY20 9AZ
Tel: 01654 705981
Email: msc.aees@cat.org.uk
Website: http://gradschool.cat.org.uk/graduateschool/

If you have any questions please call me on 01309 671950 or on my mobile 07796 773 446.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and, hopefully, complete the questionnaire.
Regards

Rick Barthelmie.

Appendix C Ferness Case Study Supporting Tables
This appendix contains a selection of tables from the model. Not all tables are included here
as the intention is to give a high level understanding of the types of data used. Table and
graph references made in the main body of the text refer to the labelling shown here and are
also described in more detail in Appendix D.
C.1 Biomass Feasibility Index
Ref: Variable Value Units
Inaccessible Fraction Energy 406,446,799 [MJ]
Accessible Fraction Energy 616,166,883 [MJ]
SC8 Indirect Woodfuel 1,109,120 [MJ]
Potential Biomass Fuel (Wood Pellet @ 10%MC) 1,128,513 [MJ]
Wood Chip
50%MC
Wood Chip
30%MC
Wood Pellet
10%MC
5.7 3.4 1.1
DC13 Required Biomass Fuel 996,206 [MJ]
DC13 Annual Boiler Losses 199,241 [MJ]
DC12 Delivered Energy 796,965 [MJ]
DC7 Net Annual Consumption (Improved) 717,269 [MJ]
DC7 Annual Energy Reduction 210,092 - [MJ]
Net Annual Household Energy Consumption 927,361 [MJ]
Supply Metrics
SC1 Standing Stock Volume 150,252 [m
3
]
SC1 Mean Increment Energy Increase Per Annum 63,887,070 [MJ p.a.]
SC2 Mean Accessible 60% [%]
SC4 Sustainable Harvest Fraction 5% [%]
SC7 Forestry Residue % 72% [%]
SC7 Forestry Residue Volume 666 [m
3
]
SC7 Included Area 301 [hectare]
SC8 Indirect Woodfuel Volume 130
[m
3
]
SC9 Recovered Woodfuel Volume -
[m
3
]
Required Area Per Dwelling (WC@50%) 5.3 [hectare]
Forestry Residue Supply Density 5,373 [MJ/hectare]
Demand Metrics
79,697 [Kg]
319 [m
3
]
56,926 [Kg]
88 [m
3
]
Boiler Size [kW] 79 [kW]
Accumulator Size [litres] 4,756 [litres]
DR1 Distribution Loss 10% [%]
DI1 Thermal Improvement 25% [%]
DC6 Hot Water 86,993 [MJ p.a.]
DC7 Space Heat 840,368 [MJ p.a.]
No. Of Dwellings 10 [dwellings]
Community Demand Density 845,389 [MJ/hectare]
DC13
DC5
SC11
SC12
SC2
S
u
p
p
l
y
D
e
m
a
n
d
DC14 Woodchip@30%MC
Wood Pellet DC14
C.2 Supply Calculation
A discussion of the supply calculation is included in the text of section 3.2.
C.3 Supply Input
Table SI1: Biomass Supply Zones
Name Area Grid
Reference
Source Estimated
DBH
Species km to
Depot
Accessibility
Fraction
[Ha] [cm] [km]
1 New Inn Wood 72.53 NH968449 GLADE 19 Scots Pine 1.18 0.9
2 Airdrie Plantation 191.59 NH985460 GLADE 24 Scots Pine 2.86 0.9
3 Logie Wood 37.14 NH965460 GLADE 20 Sitka
Spruce
1.46 0.9
4 Belivat 93.5 NH953467 GLADE 17 Scots Pine 2.99 0.6
5 Dulsie 304.88 NH932445 GLADE 12 Mixed
Larch
6.61 0.6
6 Dalnaheiglish 42.83 NH948446 GLADE 34 Douglas fir 2.59 0.1
7 Tomnarroch 101.21 NH957447 GLADE 15 Mixed
Spruce
2.05 0.1
843.68 Ha
7 Zones

Table SI3: Site Observations
Name Dominant
Species
Types of
Woody
Vegetation
Condition Transportation
or trading of
forests or tree
products
Processing
or
utilisation
Regeneration
/
Management
e.g. Forests,
open
woodland,
scattered
trees
Well maintained,
neglected, gaps from
heavy cutting, natural
regeneration, pruning,
pollarding, collectionn
of dead wood, fresh
stumps, coppices,
litter, erosion
Heaps of wood,
transporting
wood, charcoal,
fruit
Sawing,
splitting,
fencing,
building
nurseries,
transportation,
new plant,
pruning,
thinning,
coppicing
1 New Inn
Wood
Scots Pine Forest Well maintained Stacked logs of
diameter
approximately
15cms
Sawn logs Prunings and
thinning logs
2 Airdrie
Plantation
Scots Pine Forest Well managed, good
access
Stacked logs. Neat
stacking of
logs and
brash
Evidence of
recent
thinning and
pruning.
3 Logie Wood Sitka Spruce Forest No obvious
management
None None No pruning or
thinning
4 Belivat Scots Pine Forest Well managed, good
access
Not seen Not seen Well thinned
5 Dulsie Larch Forest Good access, dense
stand. No prunings or
thinnings seen.
Not seen Not seen No thinnings
seen.
6 Dalnaheiglish Douglas Fir Forest Not visited Not visited Not visited Not visited
Name Dominant
Species
Types of
Woody
Vegetation
Condition Transportation
or trading of
forests or tree
products
Processing
or
utilisation
Regeneration
/
Management
7 Tomnarroch Spruce Forest Not visited Not visited Not visited Not visited

C.4 Supply Reference
Table SR1: Supply References and Assumptions
Variable Value Description Units Source Comments
Hardwood Density @ 0% 550 Density of wood at 0%
mositure content
[kg/m3] BEC
Hardwood Density @
50%
1100 Density of wood at 50%
mositure content
[kg/m3] BEC
NHV@0% 19 Energy content of wood
for moisture content of
0%
[MJ/kg] Woodfuel
Resources of
Britain

NHV@50% 8.3 Energy content of wood
for moisture content of
50%
[MJ/kg] Woodfuel
Resources of
Britain
1 GJ/tonne
Equivalent to 1
MJ/kg
Region Scotland Used for lookup of
EFISCEN Data
Entry
SoftwoodDensity @ 0% 410 Density of wood at 0%
mositure content
[kg/m3] BEC
Process Fraction 90% Proportion of tree
harvested
[%] Biomass
Assessment
Handbook

ForecastYear 2012201
6
Forecast year used for
look up in production
f'cast
[yyyyyyyy] Entry
NHVConstant 0.02441 For use in energy
content by moisture
conversion
[] Woodfuel
Resources of
Britain

IndirectFuel % 50% Percentage of primary
production recovered
[%] FC Range of green log
recovery 40-55% for
scots pine
TipperVolume
15.00
Cubic metre capacity of
an 8 wheeled tipper
body
[m3] http://www.tha
net-
waste.co.uk/tip
per.shtml

SoftwoodDensity @ 50% 820 Density of wood at 50%
mositure content
[kg/m3] BEC
Table SR2: Species Parameters
This is an excerpt.
Species Name Species
Code
Species Family Species
Group
Age @
DBH=10
Age @
DBH=20
Age @
DBH=30
Age @
DBH=40
Age @
DBH=50
Age @
DBH=60
BCTV BCTV BCTV BCTV BCTV BCTV
[Years] [Years] [Years] [Years] [Years] [Years]
Scots Pine SP Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole
pine
PINES 20 40 60 80
Species Name Species
Code
Species Family Species
Group
Age @
DBH=10
Age @
DBH=20
Age @
DBH=30
Age @
DBH=40
Age @
DBH=50
Age @
DBH=60
Lodgepole Pine LP Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole
pine
PINES 20 40 60 80
Corsican Pine CP Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole
pine
PINES 20 40 60 80
Mixed Pine MP Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole
pine
PINES 20 40 60 80
Table SR3: Species Family Volume & Mean Increment
This is an excerpt.
Key Region Species Family Age Band Age
Band
Limit
Volume Mean
Increment
EFISCEN EFISCEN
[m
3
/ha] [m
3
/ha/year]
Scotland10Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
Scotland Scots pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
0-10 10 0 0
Scotland20Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
pine+Lodgepole pine
11-20 20 19 3.3
Scotland30Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
pine+Lodgepole pine
21-30 30 69 9.56
Scotland40Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
pine+Lodgepole pine
31-40 40 124 12.56
Scotland50Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
pine+Lodgepole pine
41-50 50 186 14.4
Scotland60Scots
pine+Corsican
pine+Lodgepole pine
pine+Lodgepole pine
51-60 60 218 12.31
Table SR4: Proportion of Thinnings / Fellings
Region Felling Period Average Annual
Thinning
Average
Annual
Felling
Average
Annual
Total
Proportion
Annual
Thinning
Proportion
Annual
Felling
Source / Calc FC Grampian FC Grampian FC
Grampian
FC
Grampian
{Thinnings
Total|
{Fellings/
Total|
Units [Period, Years] [m
3
] [m
3
] [m
3
] [%] [%]
Aberdeen & Moray (Grampian) 2009-2011 120,000 270,000 390,000 31% 69%

C.5 Demand Calculation
Demand calculation examples are shown in the text in section 3.3.
C.6 Demand Inputs
Table DI1: Household Questionnaire Table
This data is included in the text.
Table DI2: Demand Characteristics and Assumptions
ThermalEffImprovePct 25% Expected
improvement
in thermal
efficiency for
the site
% Survey Rubble
construction,
single glazing
mostly

HousingArea 11784 Area of
development
in community
m
2
Digimap Used for
energy density

Table DI3: Monthly Temperatures
Site
Nairn
Source UK Met
Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/nairndata.txt
Year
2008/9 2009 data used for Jan/Feb due to missing data in 2008
Year Month tmax tmin air frost rain sun tavg
[yyyy] [mm] [C] [C] [days] [mm] [hours] [C]
2008
3 8.2 1.6 6 41.6 106.8 4.9
2008
4 10.9 2.3 6 57.5 139.8 6.6
2008
5 16 6.3 0 21.2 205.1 11.15
2008
6 16.5 8.7 0 49 134 12.6
2008
7 19.3 11.3 0 80.7 158.4 15.3
2008
8 18.5 11 0 88.7 106.4 14.75
2008
9 16.3 8.9 0 43.3 97.3 12.6
2008
10 11.9 5 1 84.1 83.4 8.45
2008
11 9.3 2.6 8 36.9 44.5 5.95
2008
12 6.2 -0.3 13 47.1 29.7 2.95
2009
1 7.1 0.5 11 21.8 67 3.8
2009
2 6.9 0.9 11 53.5 56.7 3.9

C.7 Demand References
Table DR1: Demand References and Assumptions
NoOfQuestionnaires 10 Number of questionnaires
issued
[] Demand
Input

SHCWater 4.187 Specific heat capacity of
water
[KJ/kg/K] Boyle
WaterDensity 1000 Density of water
[kg/m3]

ExternalWaterTemp 10 External Temperature of
Water
[C]
AveHouseholdSize 2.31 Average Household Size [] DTI Number in the household
used for estimating hot
water usage
DesiredInternalTemp 19 Desired internal
temperature for space
heating
[C] Yao /
Steemers

DaysInMonth 30 Average days in month
used for calculations
[days]

DistLossFraction 10% Proportion of delivered
energy lost in distribution
[] Entry Supported by case study
BoilerPeakLoadPct 60% Amount of the peak load
that the boiler needs to
produce
[%] FCS Wood Energy, sizing a
biomass boiler
(http://www.usewoodfuel.
co.uk/Sizing%20a%20Bio
energy%20Boiler.stm)
AccumulatorVol
60
Muliple of the Boiler Size in
kW to derive litres sizing
[litres] FCS Wood Energy, sizing a
biomass boiler
(http://www.usewoodfuel.
co.uk/Sizing%20a%20Bio
energy%20Boiler.stm)
BoilerEfficiency 80% Proportion of energy
converted to heat from fuel
[] Entry Supported by case study,
manufacturer data
Table DR2: Fuel Costs & Calorific Value
Some cost columns removed.
Fuel
Types
Supply
Unit
Kg Per
Supply
Unit
Cost Per
Supply
Unit
Energy
Density
by Mass
(NCV)
Density Energy
Density
By
Volume
Energy
Per
Sources
[Kg] [] [MJ/kg] [kg/m
3
] [MJ/m3] [MJ/] Sources
Propane 47Kg
Bottle
47.0 63.49 46.3 507.6 23517.1
34.30
www.calor.co.uk
www.iea.org
Coal Bags 1000.0 354.11 29.0 850.0 24650.0
81.90
www.iea.org
Boyle
www.coal-merchant.co.uk
Logs Load
(2m
3
)
1000.0 147.00 14.7 425.0 6247.5
100.00
Energy from Biomass
Biomass Assessment
Handbook
Carbon Trust
Electricity KWh 1.0 0.18 3.6 1.0 3.6
20.11
E.On
Fuel Oil lts 0.8 0.44 43.8 810.0 35437.5
80.01
IEA Energy Stats Manual
www.cheapestoil.co.uk
Natural
Gas
kwh 0.1 0.04 38.1 0.9 34.3
85.38

Wood
chips
1000kg 1000.0 45.00 12.5 250 3125.0
277.78
Carbon Trust
www.woodenergyltd.co.uk
Fuel
Types
Supply
Unit
Kg Per
Supply
Unit
Cost Per
Supply
Unit
Energy
Density
by Mass
(NCV)
Density Energy
Density
By
Volume
Energy
Per
Sources
Wood
solid (oven
dry)
19.0 500.0 9500.0 Carbon Trust
Wood
pellets
1000kg 1000.0 75.00 17.5 650.0 11375.0
233.33
Carbon Trust
www.woodenergyltd.co.uk
Miscanthu
s
13.0 160.0 2080.0 Carbon Trust
Table DR3: Average Consumption by Dwelling Type
Space
Heating and
Domestic
Hot Water
Energy Per
Dwelling Per
Annum
Electricity Use
for
Applicances,
Washing and
Cooking Per
Dwelling Per
Annum
Total
Energy
Use, kWh
Total
Energy
Use, MJ
Electricity as a
Proportion of
Total
Energy Use
Sources
Units [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [MJ] [%]
Detached 25,875 3,910 29,785 107,226 13.1%
BRE
Semi-detached 19,210 3,145 22,355 80,478 14.1%
BRE
Terraced 16,929 2,916 19,845 71,442 14.7%
BRE
Purpose Built Flats 9,086 1,947 11,033 39,719 17.6%
BRE
Converted Flats 10,140 2,340 12,480 44,928 18.8%
BRE
Not Self Contained 5,070 1,170 6,240 22,464 18.8%
BRE
Table DR4: Estimated Thermal Improvement by Technique and Dwelling Type
Loft Insulation Cavity Wall
Insulation
Double
Glazing
Calc / Source BRE BRE BRE
Units [%] [%] [%]
Detached 20% 20% 20%
Semi-detached 15% 25% 15%
Terraced 34% 44% 4%
Purpose Built Flats 6% 7% 10%
Converted Flats 13% 12% 12%
Not Self Contained 7% 8% 9%

Table DR5: Domestic Hot Water Consumption in the UK Household
DHW
Consumption
Water
Temperature
Units [l / capita / day] [C]
Bath / shower 10.6 40
Wash hand basin 15.8 35
Dish Washing 14.9 55
Clothes washing 50%
(60C)
11.7 60
Clothes washing 50%
(10C)
11.7 10
Table DR6: Hot Water Load Profile
This table is described in the text accompanied by the HW load profile graph.
Table DR7: Space Heating Load Profile
This table is described in the text accompanied by the SH load profile graph.
Table DR8: Type of Woodfuel Heating System
This table is described in the text.
Appendix D Spreadsheet Model for Biomass Feasibility
Assessment
This appendix describes how the BFI model was implemented in Microsoft Excel using
industry best practice approaches to improve reliability and usability. Descriptions of each of
the tables referred to in the text are provided here.
Development Overview
The development of a complex spreadsheet model that is intended for use by an unknown
audience presents a number of challenges to a developer that can be aided by the use of
industry best practice. A best practice spreadsheet model (Read & Batson, 1999) is:
Easy to use;
Focussed on the important issues;
Easy to understand; and
Reliable.
A modelling lifecycle is employed to ensure that the scope of the model is clarified, a
specification of the model is provided, design techniques enable ease of understanding and
testing is carried out to ensure that the model functions as expected. Each of these elements
of the modelling design process is covered in more detail in the following sections. The
design of the model incorporates the separation of input data from calculated data (Barnes,
CPA, & D. Tufte, 2009) as well as the extensive use of named variables and colour coding to
aid clarity.
Development Coding Standards
To ensure that the model can be amended in future a set of development conventions is set
out in Table 29 that describe how the spreadsheet model was built.
Design Element Convention Used
Units Units will be enclosed within square brackets [ ] and highlighted in sheets
with light grey.
Equations Equations will be enclosed within curly brackets { }, highlighted in light grey
and will be immediately below column headings
Column Headings Will be in bold text and filled with dark grey
Cells Allowing Input Cells for input will be filled in light green
Cells from References to Other Cells Cells will be filled in light yellow and will be protected
Cells from Calculations Cells including formulae will be filled in light red and will be protected
Variables Variables will be named by prefixing the variable name with the worksheet
shortname and removing spaces e.g., Total Gross Annual Fuel
Consumption will DR.TotalGrossAnnualFuelConsumption. Variable
comments will be filled in at the point of definition. Variables should be
named, where convenient, using a white heavy bordered box.
Ranges Ranges are to be specified using a logical name prefixed by the worksheet
shortname and source table reference. For example, Annual Fuel Spend, a
subset of the questionnaire data is defined as DI1.AnnualFuelSpend a
subset of the first table in the worksheet.
Charts and Graphs Charts and Graphs will be labelled and described in the chart properties.
Number formats Appropriate use of number formats to ease reading of the data.
Suppression of zeros where no data has been entered or not found.
Errors Formulas should self protect against DIV#0 and NA# errors.
Table 29 - Development Conventions
D.1 Scope of the Spreadsheet Model
The scope of the model is to generate the Biomass Feasibility Index for a community based
on two inputs of community energy demand and local biomass resource. Inputs will be
obtained from survey and questionnaire data. Supporting data required for calculation will be
included in the model.
D.2 Model Specification
The spreadsheet model will consist of the biomass feasibility assessment models defined in
Section 2. The spreadsheet model will be built according to a number of design goals and
will incorporate a number of factor and assumption tables. Guidance notes on using and
reading the model and outcomes will be provided.
D.3 Model Design
This section covers how the model was developed and examines design goals, the workbook
layout and notes on the specific approaches used in each of the worksheets.
Design Goals
The following design goals were used to develop the model:
Based on Excel 2003 to allow use with OpenOffice on the Mac and Windows platform;
No macros so that security will not be compromised;
Usable by anyone familiar with Excel;
Enable the use of the model for scenario modelling through the use of what if
calculations;
Lockdown of formulae to prevent users entering incorrect formula and impacting results
to improve the reliability of the outcome;
Ensure that self checking is provided by visual means on the front page to ensure the
reliability of the outcome;
Ability to print out the whole workbook so that the results can be used for planning
applications; and
Space for entering project details such as dwelling layouts or biomass zones to ensure
that the model is tailored for a specific scenario and that the results themselves are not
seem in isolation.
Spreadsheet Workbook Layout
The layout of the worksheets within the workbook used for the model follows the design
principles of separating calculation from input and isolating reference data. Demand and
supply calculations are separated as the data is largely distinct to allow scenarios to be
created that alter only one side of the equation. The workbook layout is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32 - Spreadsheet Worksheet Layout
Introduction
This worksheet contains a free text table where information about the scheme may be
entered. The worksheet is not referenced by any of the other sheets.
Quick Scan Assessment
The aim of the quick scan assessment is to rapidly determine the key characteristics of the
scheme. A data entry table is provided to hold information from the target site identification
step in the methodology. The supply assessment table is an area where the PowerPoint grid
from the map coverage exercise is pasted. This table is examined in the third, quick scan
coverage, table which calculates the percentage coverage over 9, 25, 49 and 81km
2
.
Biomass Feasibility Summary
The primary purpose of this worksheet is to derive the biomass feasibility index from the
underlying supply and demand calculations. A number of scenarios are presented to
accommodate different fuel options and the stages, inflows and outflows for both supply and
demand will be shown linked to their cross references allowing users to track back to the
derivation basis.
Supporting metrics that are not energy flows are included. Variables are referenced to source
and include units.
Supply Calculations
The supply calculations worksheet presents the calculation of the potential biomass fuel from
the site and map based assessments of the standing stock zones. It references the supply
input and the supply reference worksheets. In addition to the calculation of energy
equivalents additional variables are derived during the calculation flow for use in the biomass
feasibility summary. A summary of the tables and graphs within the worksheet is shown in
Table 30.
Reference Title Purpose
Table SC1 Standing Stock Volume and Energy Computes the tree volume in the zone from the
estimated DBH supplied in the site assessment from
reference tables by converting to age and then
deriving a volume per hectare. Converts to an
energy equivalent using density of the species in the
zone and the net heating value for a moisture
content of 50%. Also computes a mean increment
energy value per annum.
Table SC2 Accessible Fraction Energy Uses the standing stock volume from SC1 and
accessibility fraction estimate from the site survey to
derive volume and energy equivalents for accessible
and inaccessible fractions.
Table SC3 Species Group Sustainable Harvest
Fraction
Derives a sustainable fraction for each species
group using forecast data from SR5 for the next two
forecast periods.
Table SC4 Sustainable Harvest Volume Uses the sustainable harvest fraction from SC3
combined with accessible fraction data to provide a
sustainable harvest volume and energy equivalent .
Table SC5 Biodiversity Fraction Calculates the biodiversity volume and energy
equivalent using biodiversity fraction input from the
site assessment in SI1. Identifies zones where the
harvest exceeds the safe biodiversity volumes and
excludes them . For the remainder removes
biodiversity from the sustainable harvest to give a
remaining harvest that is used.
Table SC6 Processing / Cut Fraction Uses remaining harvest volume and the processing
/ cut fraction variable from SC5 to derive a volume
of processed wood and an energy equivalent.
Table SC7 Forest Residues / Direct Woodfuel Uses the forest residue proportion from SR5 and the
processing / cut fraction to derive the forest residue
volume and energy along with primary production
estimates.
Table SC8 Indirect Woodfuel Calculates an energy equivalent of the indirect
woodfuel volume in SI5 using the wood type and
moisture content.
Table SC9 Recovered Woodfuel Calculates an energy equivalent of the recovered
woodfuel volume in SI6 using the wood type and
moisture content.
Table SC10 Biomass Energy Supply Aggregation of direct, indirect and recovered
woodfuel energy and volume.
Table SC11 Processing Losses Derives the processing loss for wood chip at 50%,
wood chip at 30% and wood pellet at 10% assuming
that the potential biomass supply would expect to
provide heat for reducing moisture content.
Table SC12 Potential Biomass Supply Energy equivalent for each of the fuel types derived
from the biomass energy supply less the processing
losses.
Table 30 Supply Calculation Design
Supply Inputs
The supply input worksheet holds the data from the site and map based assessments.
Minimal calculation is performed for the purposes of aggregation. A summary of the tables
within the supply input worksheet is shown in Table 31.
Table SI1 Biomass Zones Holds data about the zone based on map
assessments for area, grid reference, distance to
depot etc. and site assessments for accessibility
fractions and species.
Table SI2 Potential Supply Impacts Storage of the outputs of the GLADE database
assessment for each of the zones
Table SI3 Site Observations Provides guidance notes and an area to record
observations from the site assessment.
Table SI4 Developing the Biodiversity Fraction Storage of the assumptions and requirements per
hectare for the biodiversity fraction based on the
TreesForLife metric and additional fractions for each
of the potential supply impacts in SI2.
Table SI5 Indirect Woodfuel Availability Storage of the sources, type, moisture content and
density and volumes of indirect woodfuel.
Table SI6 Recovered Woodfuel Availability Storage of the sources, type, moisture content and
density and volumes of recovered woodfuel.
Table 31 - Supply Input Design
Supply References
The supply references provide the lookup data for the supply calculations worksheet. In most
cases this data is obtained from research or from industry databases such as EFISCEN or
eForestry. A summary of the tables within the supply references worksheet is shown in Table
32.
SR1 Supply References and Assumptions Holds multiple variables that do not warrant tables
on their own including densities, energy values at
various moisture contents, tipper volumes, region
and forecast years.
SR2 Species Parameters Sourced from British Conservation Trust Volunteers
data this table provides the approximate ages of
trees from DBH measurements for each species. It
is also used for deriving species families and
species groups to allow linking to other data sets.
SR3 Species Family Volume & Mean
Increment
Sourced from EFISCEN database this large table
provides regional estimates of volume per hectare
and mean increment for species families for a
number of age bands up to 150 years.
SR4 Proportion of Thinnings / Fellings For an FC region provides the proportion of
thinnings vs fellings for a given forecast period.
Sourced from regional FC forecasts.
SR5 Sustainable Production Forecasts Sourced from eForestry database this table
identifies the mass of each class of forestry product
expected to be produced in a forecast period at a
regional level.
SR6 Regional Volume Data Sourced from EFISCEN database this table
identifies the area coverage and stand volume by
species group.
Table 32 - Supply Reference Design
Demand Calculations
The demand calculations worksheet presents the calculation of required biomass fuel from
the demand questionnaire data held within the demand input worksheet. Interim stages will
be shown for the calculations of electrical appliance usage, reductions for thermal
efficiencies, distribution losses and boiler losses. Additional calculations will be provided to
split net annual energy consumption into hot water and space heat components in order to
derive monthly and daily load profiles for each. Boiler and accumulator sizing will be
estimated using derived data along with reference data from the demand reference
worksheet. A summary of the tables in the worksheet is shown in Table 33.
Table DC1 Gross Annual Community Energy
Consumption
Derives the aggregated annual energy consumption
from all of the households by fuel type.
Graph DC1 Gross Annual Community Fuel
Consumption
Bar graph based on the data contained within Table
DC1 with overlay on second axis of energy value.
Graph DC2 Gross Annual Community Fuel
Consumption
Pie chart with each fuel type representing one of the
slices
Table DC2 Annual Household Energy Spend
Summary
Summarises the household spend by energy type
from the questionnaire data in DI1
Table DC3 Fuel Type Energy Per Extracts the Energy Per column for each fuel type
and presents it in row format. It reproduces the data
from DR2: Fuel Costs & Calorific Value. Fuel types
are referenced from Table DC1.
Table DC4 Annual Household Energy
Consumption Summary By Fuel Type
Takes the household energy spend data and
derives the energy consumption for each fuel type
for each household providing aggregates for both
household and fuel type.
Table DC5 Net Annual Household Energy
Consumption
Uses qualitative questionnaire data to derive the net
annual household energy consumption from gross
annual household energy consumption data
collected from questionnaires filling in gaps in data
with averages.
Table DC6 Hot Water Energy Consumption Calculates the daily demand for hot water based on
the number of occupants in the building.
Table DC7 Net Annual Household Energy
Consumption (Improved)
Identifies the net household energy consumption
once thermal efficiency improvements have been
applied at the household level which is then
aggregated to the community level.
Table DC8 Daily Hot Water Load Pattern Derives an hourly hot water demand energy that can
be used to size the hot water component of the
boiler and accumulator.
Graph DC4 Daily Hot Water Load Pattern Plots the hourly energy demand for hot water over a
24 hour period using Table DC8 as a source in a
line graph.
Table DC9 Daily Space Heating Load Calculates the %age of the annual heating load for
each month based on the temperature difference
between the desired internal temperature and the
monthly average temperature for the location from
the UK Met Office in DI3.
Table DC10 Daily Space Heating Load By Month Uses the daily SH load profile from DR6 and the
daily SH load from DC9 to derive an hourly load
profile for each month.
Table DC11 Combined HW&SH Load By Month &
Hour
Aggregation of the daily HW and SH load by month
and time of day from DC8 and DC10. The peak load
is calculated to give the peak month and time of
day.
Graph DC5 Peak Heat (HW&SH) Demand By Hour Plots the total hourly demand for HW and SH for the
peak month from DC11 as an area graph.
Graph DC6 Lowest Heat (HW&SH) Demand By
Hour
Plots the total hourly demand for HW and SH for the
lowest demand month from DC11 as an area graph.
Graph DC7 Monthly Combined Demand vs Monthly
Av. Temp
Plots the monthly combined load from DC11 as a
bar graph on one axis with the monthly average
temperature as a line graph on the second axis.
Table DC12 Distribution Losses & Delivered Energy Calculates the distribution losses from the net
annual household energy consumption (improved)
in DC7 and the distribution loss estimate from DR1 .
Also calculates the delivered energy requirement
and a revised peak load in both MJ and kWh.
Table DC13 Boiler Losses, Sizing & Required
Biomass Fuel Energy
Calculates the annual boiler losses from the
delivered energy requirement in DC12 and the boiler
efficiency from DR1. Revises the peak load and
estimates the boiler and accumulator size from
variables in DR1. Sensitivity analysis on +10 to -
10% boiler efficiency ratings. Calculates the
required biomass fuel.
Table DC14 Fuel Required Mass, Volume Calculates the fuel required in kg and m3 from the
required biomass fuel figure in DC13 and reference
data in DR2 for a range of fuel types. Calculates
expected annual cost for each fuel type.
Table 33 - Demand Calculation Design
Demand Input
The demand input worksheet holds the output from the household questionnaire as well as
some reference data specific to the community such as thermal efficiency improvements,
area covered for density calculation and monthly average temperatures for the location. A
summary of the design is shown in Table 34.
Table DI1 Household Questionnaire Table Holds the responses from the questionnaire for the
categories of household, house, heatin & hot water
needs, heating system, fuel spend, system
replacement and views on community heating.
Basic aggregations performed on fuel spend data.
Table DI2 Demand Characteristics and
Assumptions
Holds site specific variables such as thermal
improvement estimates and housing area obtained
from map data (OS Carto tool).
Table DI3 Monthly Temperatures Holds monthly average climate data including max
and min temperatures for the site from the UK Met
Office. Aggregation performed to derive the monthly
average temperature.
Table 34 - Demand Input Design
Demand References
The Demand References worksheet holds reference data for use in the demand calculations
and biomass feasibility assessment that are not specific to site. Most data is obtained from
research and the source of data is noted for validation and for upgrade, if required. A
summary of the design is shown in Table 35.
DR1 Demand References and Assumptions Variables that do not warrant their own tables
including external water temperatures, water density
& SHC, average household size, distribution loss
fractions, boiler peak load percentage, accumulator
volume factor and boiler efficiency.
DR2 Fuel Costs & Calorific Value Table holding a number of variables for fuel types
including conversion factors such as density and net
calorific value. Cost data obtained from merchant
web sites or the press. Sources are noted for
validation. Calculation of a number of energy value
metrics is performed here.
DR3 Average Consumption by Dwelling
Type
Sourced from BRE this data includes combined
space heating and hot water consumption as well as
electricity for a range of dwelling types.
DR4 Estimated Thermal Improvement Rates
by Technique and Dwelling Type
Sourced from BRE this data provides an expected
SH reduction as a percentage for loft insulation,
cavity wall insulation and double glazing for a range
of dwelling types. This can be used for the
estimation of the thermal efficiency improvement
rate for the community.

Table 35 - Demand Reference Design
D.4 Model Testing
The primary method of testing is to compare output with research data and investigate any
discrepancies. Additional checks are performed in each of the worksheets through the use of
check totals that provide both a vertical and a horizontal aggregation. Expected missing data
is hidden from the user to ensure that any DIV#0, VALUE# or NA# errors become
immediately obvious and are further investigated.
This section described how the BFI model was implemented in Microsoft Excel. The next
section identifies how the spreadsheet model can be used within an assessment
methodology to evaluate the potential for a community to be self sufficient in biomass for
their heating and hot water needs.
Appendix E Case Study: Dallas
This appendix uses the biomass feasibility assessment methodology and model to examine
the potential for using a biomass community heating and hot water scheme in the Highland
community of Dallas and whether that scheme could be self sufficient using locally available
resources. It differs from the Ferness case study in that it is based on purely desk based
research. It is produced here at a very much lower level of detail as a result. The majority of
the reference data used is that from the Ferness case study. It also differs from Ferness in
that it is much larger (66 dwellings).
E.1 Dallas Overview
Dallas (grid reference NJ121524) is a small village in Moray in Scotland and is approximately
16km to the south west of Elgin at an elevation of approximately 150m above sea level.
There are 66 dwellings of varying types in the village lying along the E to W axis along the
B9010, a minor road running from Elgin to Forres. The 66 dwellings cover an area of
approximately 54,000m
2
or 5.2 hectares. Significant areas of woodland lie to the north, south
and west. Ownership of local forestry is a mix of Forestry Commission and private
ownership, the latter in the hands of several large estates. Good transport links are available
via both the B9010 and the area is used to intensive forestry operations.
The climate could be described as cold rather than cool despite the proximity to the Moray
Firth approximately 15km to the north.
There is high coverage of forestry in the area with coverage using Dallas as the central point
ranging from 26% at 9km
2
to 40% at 81km2 as shown in Table 5.
Area Coverage Total Area Coverage %
[km2] [km2] [%]
9km2 2.5 9 28%
25km2 7.1 25 28%
49km2 12.6 49 26%
81km2 25.3 81 31%
Table 36 - Dallas Local Area Forestry Coverage
The coverage estimation is shown in Figure 10 and is an excerpt from the quick scan
assessment in table QS3 of the model.

Figure 33 - Dallas Forestry Coverage
E.2 Supply Assessment
Dallas is surrounded by forest and other assorted woodland of both private and Forestry
Commission ownership. Two zones were identified around the site as shown in Figure 11.
Crown Copyright. All rights reserved Forestry Commission PGA 100025498 2009
Figure 34 - Dallas Forest Zones
The woodland is expected to be conifer and is in a radius not exceeding 7km from the centre
of Dallas.
A map based area assessment was performed on the intended zones using the Forestry
Commission GLADE tool (FC, 2009a). Area coverage is approximately 844 hectares with the
maximum area of the Hill of the Wangie zone being 1,024 hectares. Zones and their
locations are shown in Table 6.
ID Name Area [Ha] Grid Reference Ownership Distance from
Installation [Km]
1 Hill of the Wangie 1024 NJ147548 Forestry Commission 1.18
2 Hill of Mulundy 352 NJ102532 Private 2.86
1,376 Ha
Table 37 - Dallas Supply Zone Areas
Biomass Zone Assessment
The biomass zone assessment was conducted using desk based tools in approximately two
hours. Analysis of the Forestry Commission GLADE database was conducted for both zones
revealing that all were potential native woodland core areas, capercaillie areas and either
long established or ancient woodland.
Hill of the Wangie is a Forestry Commission zone of 1,024 hectares expected to be of Scots
Pine to the north of Dallas. Tree DBH is estimated at 25cms as measured in Figure 13) and
the stems are uniform in diameter. The GLADE database identifies current licenses for clear
fell and selective felling / thinning.
Hill of Mulundy is the second forest under consideration at 352 hectares. It is also expected
to be of Scots pine of 25cms DBH.
The remainder of the model analysis is largely irrelevant in this case as it is based on
estimation rather than direct observation. A summary of the stages are shown in the biomass
feasibility assessment in Table 42.
The Biomass Energy Supply is the sum of direct, indirect and recovered woodfuel. In the
case of Dallas no recovered woodfuel is estimated resulting in 4.2TJ of equivalent energy
from 585m3 of woodfuel as shown in Table 14 an excerpt from table SC10 in the model.
Forest Residue Indirect Woodfuel Recovered
Woodfuel
Biomass Energy
Supply
Energy [MJ] 3,282,007 878,764 - 4,160,772
Volume [m
3
] 482 103 - 585
Table 38 - Biomass Energy Supply for Ferness
It should be noted that the assumption in the model is that the moisture content of the
woodfuel resource up to this point has been calculated on a basis of the moisture content
being at 50%.
The removal of the processing losses enables the final calculation of the potential biomass
supply from the biomass energy supply. Table 16 shows the available energy from each of
the fuel scenarios described above. It is an excerpt from table SC12 in the model.
Biomass Energy Supply Potential Biomass Supply
at 50%MC, air dried
[MJ] [MJ] [MJ] [MJ]
4,160,772 4,160,772 2,496,466 832,157
Table 39 - Potential Biomass Supply
E.3 Demand Assessment
The demand assessment is based on using BRE data to provide consumption estimates. A
temporary stage of creating spend data for each household type is introduced using
estimated fuel costs and used as the demand input.
A map based assessment was performed to identify the number and type of dwellings from
map data provided by the Ordnance Survey CARTO tool. The map was tagged with coloured
markers indicating the type of dwelling and then counted for later use. This map is shown in
Figure 35 along with the markup of potential site of plant and length of pipeline.
Figure 35 - Map Based Assessment of Dallas
Demand Usage
The following sections are extracted from the demand questionnaire and are summaries of
the results entered into the demand input worksheet in table DI1.
Dwelling Type SH and DW
Energy
Appliance
Energy
No Of
Dwellings
SH and HW
Energy,
total
Appliance
Energy,
Total
SH and HW
Energy,
Spend
Appliance
Energy
Source BRE, DR3 BRE, DR3 Map
Assessment
SH and HW
Energy x
Dwellings
Appliance
Energy x
Dwellings
SH and HW
Energy /
MJ/ for
Fuel Oil
Appliance
Energy /
MJ/ for
electricity
Units [MJ] [MJ] [No] [MJ] [MJ] [] []
Detached 93,150 14,076 32 2,980,800 450,432 37,253 22,396
Semi-detached 69,156 11,322 26 1,798,056 294,372 22,471 14,636
Terraced 60,944 10,497 8 487,555 83,980 6,093 4,175
5,266,411 828,784 65,818 41,209
Table 40 - Estimating Fuel Consumption Prior to Input
Instead of a dwelling per line a dwelling type per line approach was used and the figures in
Table 40 used for the spend data for fuel oil and electricity.
Household The BRE average of 2.31 persons per household was used and multiplied by
the number of dwellings in each case. This is essential for hot water usage calculation.
House Only loft insulation was assumed.
Heating & Hot Water Needs All usage patterns were set to only when I need to.
Heating & Hot Water Systems All were set to use oil for heating and hot water systems to
coincide with the spend data.
The following sections are an abridged version of the full assessment due to the use of
estimation for this case study.
Boiler Losses, Sizing and Required Biomass Fuel
A boiler efficiency of 80% was used to derive the required amounts of fuel for the Ferness
community. To meet 60% of the peak load demand a boiler of 453kW would be required in
conjunction with an accumulator tank of 27,000 litres. A backup fossil fuel boiler may also be
required.
A variety of fuel options is presented in Table 41 an excerpt of table DC14 of the model.
Since we are primarily concerned with biomass in this paper only wood chip and wood pellet
will be considered further.
Wood chip would provide the lowest cost fuel with an annual fuel cost of 20,322. The
volume of fuel over the year would be 1,806m
3
. It would be expected that regular deliveries
of fuel over the year would minimise fuel storage yet provide a number of days reserve
should fuel deliveries not be possible.
Wood pellet would be slightly more expensive with a fuel cost of 24,193 although the higher
energy content and reduced density of the wood pellets over wood chip storage
requirements would not be as great.
Fuel Type Energy
Density By
Mass
Energy
Density By
Volume
Energy Per

Required
Biomass
Fuel
Energy
Required
Biomass
Fuel Mass
Required
Biomass
Fuel Mass
Fuel Cost
[MJ/kg] [MJ/m3] [MJ/] [MJ] [kg] [m3] []
Propane 46.33 23517 34 5,645,064 121,845 240 164,594
Coal 29 24650 82 5,645,064 194,657 229 68,930
Logs 14.7 6248 100 5,645,064 384,018 904 56,451
Fuel Oil 43.75 35438 80 5,645,064 129,030 159 70,551
Natural Gas 38.1 34 85 5,645,064 148,164 164,627 66,120
Wood chips 12.5 3125 278 5,645,064 451,605 1,806 20,322
Wood solid (oven dry) 19 9500 0 5,645,064 297,109 594 -
Wood pellets 17.5 11375 233 5,645,064 322,575 496 24,193
Miscanthus 13 2080 0 5,645,064 434,236 2,714 -
Table 41 - Fuel Type and Cost Comparison
Only wood chip would be considered for this scheme due to the volume used.
Plant Operations
A review of the site has not been conducted.
E.4 Biomass Feasibility Assessment
On running the figures through the biomass feasibility assessment model a biomass
feasibility index of between 0.1 and 0.7 was calculated (depending on moisture content of the
wood chip) indicating that the Dallas community would be only just viable on the zones
identified and would require an additional source of woodfuel of 770m3 per annum to cover
their needs for space heating and hot water. The summary of the biomass feasibility
assessment is shown in Table 20.
Table 42 - Dallas Biomass Feasibility Assessment
The biodiversity fraction is considerable as with the Ferness case study. Fine tuning of the
model to reduce the fraction would most likely make this scheme more viable.
Sensitivity analysis on the DBH was conducted to assess the impact of getting the stand
estimates wrong. An increase of DBH from 25cm to 35cm for Scots pine gave no
improvement to the BFI, however, a reduction of DBH to 15cm dropped the BFI to 0.2 for
woodchip at 50% MC.
E.5 Conclusions of the Dallas Case Study
This case study was primarily undertaken to test how the model could be used in conjunction
with the methodology to provide a rapid, structured assessment. The work performed
manually to create the community level spend data by dwelling type should be incorporated
into the quick scan assessment worksheet to remove the need to perform manual
calculations. A switch could be used to then select data either from the questionnaire input
table or the quick scan assessment sheet.
The biodiversity fraction was confirmed as the major restriction and requires further analysis.
The sensitivity of getting the stand volume estimates wrong highlights the need to have a
skilled person conducting the stand volume estimates.
This section covered the use of a model and an assessment method to evaluate a potential
target community. The next section covers discussion of the model, an review of the biomass
fuel market and potential solutions to the challenges faced in the market.

Inaccessible Fraction Energy 1,045,140,250 [MJ]
Accessible Fraction Energy 1,567,710,374 [MJ]
SC8 Indirect Woodfuel 878,764 [MJ]
Potential Biomass Fuel (Wood Pellet @ 10%MC) 832,157 [MJ]
Wood Chip
50%MC
Wood Chip
30%MC
Wood Pellet
10%MC
0.7 0.4 0.1
DC13 Required Biomass Fuel 5,645,064 [MJ]
DC13 Annual Boiler Losses 1,129,013 [MJ]
DC12 Delivered Energy 4,516,051 [MJ]
DC7 Net Annual Consumption (Improved) 4,064,446 [MJ]
DC7 Annual Energy Reduction 1,201,930 - [MJ]
Net Annual Household Energy Consumption 5,266,376 [MJ]
S
u
p
p
l
y
D
e
m
a
n
d
DC5
SC11
SC12
SC2
References
AEA. (2008, November 13). Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool. Biomass Energy
Centre. Government Body, . Retrieved December 15, 2009, from
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=74,153193&_dad=portal&_sch
ema=PORTAL
Agate, E. (2002). Woodlands. BTCV. Retrieved from
http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/content/section/3730
Barnes, J. N., CPA, M. A., & Tufte, D. (2009). Spreadsheet Design: An Optimal Checklist For
Accountants. The International Business & Economics Research Conference (IBER), 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.cluteinstitute.com/Programs/Las_Vegas_2009/Article%20323.pdf
Barthelmie, R. (2008). Is Biomass a Realistic Alternative for Domestic Heating and Hot Water
in The Off The Gas Grid Northern Scotland? (Essay) (p. 11). Graduate Sc.
Benonysson, A., Bhm, B., & Ravn, H. F. (1995). Operational optimization in a district
heating system. Energy Conversion and Management, 36(5), 297-314. doi: doi: DOI:
10.1016/0196-8904(95)98895-T
Biomass Energy Centre. (2009a, February 24). Moisture Content. Biomass Energy Centre.
Retrieved December 27, 2009, from
ema=PORTAL
Biomass Energy Centre. (2009b, December 16). Potential outputs of biofuels per hectare,
per annum. Reference Library. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from
ema=PORTAL
Biomass Energy Centre. (2008, September 15). What type of woodfuel heating system
should I install? Biomass Energy Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/url/ITEM/64B40F1C678466F0E04014AC0
8043DCC
Boddington, R. (2009, November 20). Renewable Energy Projects - SgurrEnergy.
Bowers, D. (2009). District energy systems for the UK: how we can play catch-up?
Cogeneration & On-Site Power Production, 10(4). Retrieved from
http://www.cospp.com/display_article/367734/122/CRTIS/none/none/1/District-energy-
systems-for-the-UK:-how-can-we-play-catch-up?/
Boyle, G., Everett, B., & Ramage, J. (2003). Energy Systems and Sustainability. Oxford
University Press.
Carbon Trust. (2009a, January 1). Biomass heating - a practical guide for potential users -
Part 2: Technical manual (CTG014). Carbon Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/pages/publicationdetail.aspx?id=CTG014
Carbon Trust. (2009b, January 1). Biomass heating - a practical guide for potential users -
Part 2: Technical manual (CTG014). Carbon Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/pages/publicationdetail.aspx?id=CTG015
Chan, J., & Williams, L. (2009, April 30). Maps showing total domestic, industrial and
commercial energy consumption at local authority level. Department of Energy and Climate
Change. Retrieved from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file41497.pdf
Clinch, J. P., & Healy, J. D. (2003). Valuing improvements in comfort from domestic energy-
efficiency retrofits using a trade-off simulation model. Energy Economics, 25(5), 565-583.
doi: doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00051-3
Consortium of European Biomass Associations. (2009, December 15). Press Release: Non-
binding sustainability criteria: right incentives for sustainable biomass use. European
Biomass Industry Association. Industry Body, . Retrieved December 15, 2009, from
http://www.eubia.org/uploads/media/Press_release_on_sustainability_criteria_for_solid_and_
gaseous_biomass_for_heat_and_power.pdf
Cooke, R., Koloktroni, M., & Cripps, A. (2006). Eden Project Biomass Energy Crop Feasibility
Study. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 1(1), 22-34. Retrieved from
http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/uploads/docs/22to34.pdf
DEFRA. (2008). Waste Wood as a Biomass Fuel. Retrieved from
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/RESOURCES/REF_LIB_RES/
PUBLICATIONS/WASTEWOOD-BIOMASS.PDF
Dulas. (2007, August 10). Woodchip-Llanwddyn District Heating Scheme - Dulas. Dulas
Biomass Case Studies. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from
http://www.dulasltd.co.uk/project/detail.asp?project=24&id=25
Dunnet Forestry Trust. (2005). Report of Felling, Salvage, Extraction and Chipping Trials
2005. Retrieved from http://www.dunnetforest.org/dftnwhreport.pdf
Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Housing. (2004, March 11). Whole House Boiler Sizing
Method for Houses and Flats. Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Housing. Retrieved from
http://www.eeph.org.uk/uploads/documents/housingbuildings/ce54.pdf
Energy Publications, Department of Trade and Industry.Energy Consumption in the United
Kingdom (No. 02/1049). Retrieved from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11250.pdf
Energy Saving Trust. (2009). Energy saving grants and offers - What you can do today to
conserve energy - Energy Saving Trust. Energy Saving Trust. Retrieved December 8, 2009,
from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Easy-ways-to-stop-wasting-energy/Energy-saving-
grants-and-offers
Energy Savings Trust. (2008). Measurement of Domestic Hot Water Consumption in
Dwellings. Department of Energy and Climate Change. Retrieved from
http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.aspx?filepath=what%20we%20do/supporting%20cons
umers/sustainable%20energy%20research%20analysis/1_20090710110453_e_@@_9meas
urementofdomestichotwaterconsumptionindwellingsmarch2008.pdf&filetype=4
European Forest Institute. (n.d.). EFISCEN Database. EFI / Virtual Library / Databases.
Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/databases/efiscen/
FAO. (2004). Unified Bioenergy Terminology. Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/j4504e/j4504e00.pdf
FC. (2004 4). UK Forestry Standard. Forestry. Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc001.pdf/$FILE/fcfc001.pdf
FC. (2009a). Advanced Land Information Search. Advanced Land Information Search. Gov, .
Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5ztnkv
FC. (2009b, October 8). National Register of Approved Basic Material. Forestry Commission.
Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FullNationalRegisterofBasicMaterial.pdf/$FILE/FullNationalRe
gisterofBasicMaterial.pdf
FC. (2009c). Woodfuel Statistics 2008. Forestry Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Woodfuel2008.pdf/$FILE/Woodfuel2008.pdf
FC. (2009d). Forestry Commission - National Inventory of Woodland and Trees. Retrieved
January 19, 2010, from http://www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory
FCS. (2009, November 25). Sizing a Bioenergy Boiler. Wood Energy Scotland. Retrieved
December 22, 2009, from
http://www.usewoodfuel.co.uk/Sizing%20a%20Bioenergy%20Boiler.stm
FCS. (2008). Increasing the Supply of Wood for Renewable Energy Production in Scotland.
Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/WFTFfinalreport.pdf/$FILE/WFTFfinalreport.pdf
Fiedler, F. (2004). The state of the art of small-scale pellet-based heating systems and
relevant regulations in Sweden, Austria and Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 8(3), 201-221. doi: doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2003.11.002
Forest Research. (2009). Timber Quality Briefing Paper (p. 6). Forest Research. Retrieved
from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Timber_Quality_BriefV6_Confor.pdf/$FILE/Timber_Quality_Bri
efV6_Confor.pdf
Forest Research. (n.d.). eForestry. Forest Research. Retrieved from
http://www.eforestry.gov.uk/woodfuel/pages/AboutWoodfuel.jsp
Gaul, C., Carlisle, N., Bain, R., McConnell, R., Dominick, J., & Voss, P. (2004, November
29). Renewable Fuel Heating Plant Feasibility Assessment. US Forest Service. Retrieved
from http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/documents/susops-summit07-RFHP-White-
Paper-final.pdf
Harcus, S. (n.d.). Community Energy Scotland - Kirkwall Case Study. Community Energy
Scotland - Case Studies. Retrieved January 18, 2010, from
http://www.communityenergyscotland.org.uk/case-studies.asp?id=57
Henderson, C. (2009, September 6). Moray Bio-Energy Centre: Business Plan. Climate
Futures.
Hendrickson, C., & Au, T. (2000). Project Management for Construction: Organizing for
Project Management (2nd ed.). Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from
http://pmbook.ce.cmu.edu/02_Organizing_For_Project_Management.html
Historic Scotland. (1979, June 4). Listed Building Report. Historic Scotland. Governm, .
Retrieved December 18, 2009, from
http://hsewsf.sedsh.gov.uk/hslive/portal.hsstart?P_HBNUM=5103
Humphrey, J., Stevenson, A., Whitfield, P., & Swailes, J. (2002). Life in the Deadwood.
Forestry Enterprise, an agency of the Forestry Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/lifeinthedeadwood.pdf
John Gordon & Son Ltd - Sawmillers. (n.d.). . Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://www.gordontimber.co.uk/harvesting.htm
Kelly, S., & Pollitt, M. (2009 10). Making Combined Heat and Power District Heating (CHP-
DH) networks inthe United Kingdom economically viable: a comparative approach1.
University of Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/chp-journal-141009-v21.pdf
Mkel, H., & Pekkarinen, A. (2004). Estimation of forest stand volumes by Landsat TM
imagery and stand-level field-inventory data. Forest Ecology and Management, 196(2-3),
245-255. doi: doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.02.049
McIlwraith, B. (2006, February 8). Glenshellach Biomass Community Energy System
Presentation. Presented at the Argyll, Argyll,Lomond Lomond and the Islands Energy
Agency.
McKay, H. (2003). Woodfuel Resource in Britain (Final No. B/W3/00787/REP). Forestry
Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.eforestry.gov.uk/woodfuel/assets/document/WoodfuelSummary.pdf
McMullan, R. (2002). Environmental Science in Building (Fifth Edition.). Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Murgatroyd, I., & Saunders, C. (2005 12). Minimising Environmental Damage During Harvest
Operations. Forestry Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/pdf/fctn011.pdf/$FILE/fctn011.pdf
Parikka, M. (2000). Biosims -- a method for the calculation of woody biomass for fuel in
Sweden. Ecological Engineering, 16(Supplement 1), 73-82. doi: doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0925-
8574(00)00055-0
Read, N., & Batson, J. (1999). Spreadsheet modelling best practice. European Spreadsheet
Risks Interest Group. Retrieved from http://www.eusprig.org/smbp.pdf
Rosillo-Calle, F., Groot, P. D., Hemstock, S. L., & Woods, J. (2008). The Biomass
Assessment Handbook: Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment. Earthscan Publications
Ltd.
Scottish Renewables. (2008, December 3). Technology Briefing Sheet. Scottish
Renewables. Retrieved from
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/MultimediaGallery/65191662-c793-4894-8757-
806bbd40d923.pdf
Shorrock, L., & Utley, J. (2008). Domestic energy fact file 2008. Buildings Research
Establishment. Retrieved from http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/rpts/Fact_File_2008.pdf
Simon. (2009, November 23). Telephone Interview with Simon, owner of No. 6.
Simpson, W. T. (1993). Specific Gravity, Moisture Content and Density Relationship for
Wood (General Technical Report No. FPL-GTR-76) (p. 16). United States Department of
Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr76.pdf
Smith, S. (2006). Forest Planning in Private Forests in Scotland (No. 38). Working Papers of
the Finnish Forest Research Institute (pp. 42-51). Koli, Finland: Finnish Forest Research
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2006/mwp038-06.pdf
Talkkari, A. (2009, September 6). Forestry Inventory and Forest Bioenergy. Presented at the
Intensive Course on Renewable Technologies, Karelia, Finland. Retrieved from
http://www.ncp.fi/koulutusohjelmat/metsa/ICRE09/Forest%20inventory%20and%20forest%2
0biomass.pdf
Thivolle-Cazat, A. (2008, March 29). Conversion factors - a necessity for an accurate
estimation of wood consumptio by industries. United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe. Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/timber/workshops/2008/wood-
balance/docs/ConversionFactor_v8.pdf
Tufte, E. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press
USA. Retrieved from http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
Wiltshire, R. (2003, February 21). The UK Potential for Community Heating with Combined
Heat & Power. BRE for The Carbon Trust.
Wood Energy Scotland. (2009a, November 25). Cost of wood-fuelled heating. Wood Energy
Scotland. Industry Body, . Retrieved December 15, 2009, from
http://www.usewoodfuel.co.uk/Cost%20of%20wood-fuelled%20heating.stm
Wood Energy Scotland. (2009b, November 25). Wood Energy Scotland, how to set up a
woodfuel project. Wood Energy Scotland. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from
http://www.usewoodfuel.co.uk/woodfuelproject.stm
WS Atkins Consultants Ltd. (2002, September 2). Assessment of the Barriers and
Opportunities Facing the Deployment of District Heating in Ireland. Sustainable Energy
Ireland. Retrieved from
https://www.seai.ie/uploadedfiles/InfoCentre/DistrictHeatingReportatk.pdf
Yao, R., & Steemers, K. (2005). A method of formulating energy load profile for domestic
buildings in the UK. Energy and Buildings, 37(6), 663-671. doi: doi: DOI:
10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.09.007

Bibliography
Rosillo-Calle, F. , de Groot, P., Hemstock, S.L., Woods, J. (2007): The Biomass Assessment
Handbook : Earthscan: ISBN 978-1-84407-526-3
Boyle, Geoffrey (2004): Renewable Energy: Oxford University Press: ISBN 0-19-926178-4
Boyle, G., Everett, B., & Ramage, J. (2003):. Energy Systems and Sustainability. Oxford
University Press: ISBN 0-19-926179-2
Humphries, C., Press, B., Sutton, D. (2006): Guide to Trees of Britain and Europe: Philips:
ISBN 978-0-540-8734-1

Thesis-Biomass Feasibility Assessment - Rick Barthelmie 1.6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis-Biomass Feasibility Assessment - Rick Barthelmie 1.6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Feasibility Assessment Rick Barthelmie

MSc AEES i January 2010

is the total of number of occupants of the dwelling; I

is the rate of ventilation heat loss in W, c

volumetric specific heat capacity of air in

You might also like