1. RETScreen® International is a standardised and integrated renewable energy project analysis software. This tool provides a common platform for both decision-support and capacity-
building purposes. RETScreen can be used worldwide to evaluate the energy production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas emissions reduction for various renewable energy
technologies (RETs). RETScreen is made available free-of-charge by the Government of Canada through Natural Resources Canada's CANMET Energy Diversification Research
Laboratory (CEDRL). The user is encouraged to properly register at the RETScreen website so that CEDRL can report on the global use of RETScreen.
Biomass Heating Project Model
TO START (click here) RETScreen is available
Brief Description & Model Flow Chart free-of-charge at
Cell Colour Coding http://retscreen.gc.ca
RETScreen Features (click to access info) Internet Options
Online Manual RETScreen Website
Product Data Training Information
Weather Data Registration
Cost Data Contact CEDRL
Currency Options
Model Worksheets (click to access sheets) Contributors
Energy Model 70 + Technology Experts
Heating Load & Network Collaborating Organisations
Cost Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Financial Summary
Blank Worksheets (3)
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997-2000. NRCan/CEDRL

2. ®
RETScreen Energy Model - Biomass Heating Project
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range
Project name Local / District Heating
Project location Ontario, Canada
Nearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON Complete HL and Network sheet
Number of buildings buildings 5
Total pipe length m 1,337
Heating energy demand MWh 5,230
GJ 18828
Peak heating load kW 1,747
million Btu/h 5.962
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range
System type - Biomass
Biomass Heating System System Design Graph
Biomass fuel type - Wood medium HV WHR Biomass Peak
Moisture content on wet basis of biomass % 50% 200% 0% to 55%
As-fired calorific value of biomass MJ/t 8,111 150% 10,800 to 15,900
Biomass boiler(s) capacity (1 boiler) kW 1,500 See Product Database
Biomass boiler(s) manufacturer Sylva Energy Systems 100%
Biomass boiler(s) model Not specified 50%
Biomass boiler(s) seasonal efficiency % 75% 60% to 90%
Biomass energy delivered MWh 5,201 0%
Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8% Load Demand
Percentage of total heating energy demand % 99.4% (Power) (Energy)
Peak Load Heating System
Peak load fuel type - Natural gas
Peak load system steady-state efficiency % 100% 50% to 350%
Suggested peak load system capacity kW 247 75 to 3,000
Peak load system capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000
Peak load system seasonal efficiency % 75% 50% to 350%
Peak energy delivered MWh 30
Percentage of peak heating load % 85.8%
Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.6%
Back-up Heating System (optional)
Suggested back-up boiler capacity kW 1,500 75 to 3,000
Back-up boiler capacity kW 0 75 to 3,000
Annual Energy Production WHR Biomass Peak Total Notes/Range
Percentage of peak heating load % 0.0% 85.8% 85.8% 171.7%
Heating capacity kW 0 1,500 1,500 3,000
million Btu/h 0 5.118 5.118 10.236
Equivalent full output hours h 0 3,467 20 -
Capacity factor % 0.0% 39.6% 0.2% -
Percentage of total heating energy demand % 0.0% 99.4% 0.6% 100.0%
Heating energy delivered MWh 0 5,201 30 5,231
million Btu 0 17745 101 17847
Biomass requirement t - 3,078 - 3,078
Heating fuel requirement m³ - - 3,858 3,858
Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

3. RETScreen ® Heating Load Calculation & District Heating Network Design - Biomass Heating Project
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Monthly Inputs Notes/Range
Nearest location for weather data Kapuskasing A, ON See Weather Database Month °C-d Month °C-d Month °C-d
Heating design temperature °C -31.4 -40.0 to 15.0 (<18°C) (<18°C) (<18°C)
Annual heating degree days below 18°C °C-d 6,454 Complete Monthly Inputs January 1,136 May 297 September 244 See
Domestic hot water heating base load % 21% 0% to 25% February 969 June 143 October 428 Weather
Equivalent degree-days for DHW heating °C-d/d 4.7 0.0 to 10.0 March 839 July 67 November 679 Database
Equivalent full load hours h 2,993 April 526 August 104 December 1,023
Base Case Heating System and Heating Load Estimate/Total
See Technical Note on Network Design
Building clusters
Base Case Heating System 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Heated floor area per building cluster m² 16,100 3,700 2,700 8,500 1,000 200
Number of buildings in building cluster buildings 5 1 1 1 1 1
Heating fuel type(s) - - Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas Natural gas
Heating system seasonal efficiency % - 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%
Heating Load Calculation
Heating load for building cluster W/m² - 201 78 75 147 50
Heating energy demand MWh 5,230 2,230 630 1,900 440 30 - - - - - - - - -
Total peak heating load kW 1,747 745 210 635 147 10 - - - - - - - - -
Fuel consumption - units - - m³ m³ m³ m³ m³ - - - - - - - - -
Fuel consumption - annual - - 317,465 89,687 270,486 62,639 4,271 - - - - - - - - -
Cost of fuel - units - - $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ $/m³ - - - - - - - - -
Unit cost of fuel - - 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330
Total fuel cost - $ 245,701 $ 104,763 $ 29,597 $ 89,260 $ 20,671 $ 1,409 - - - - - - - - -
District Heating Network Design Estimate/Total
Design Criteria
Design supply temperature °C 120
Design return temperature °C 80
Differential temperature °C 40
Main Distribution Line
Main pipe network oversizing % 20%
Pipe sections Load Length Pipe size Is the Building cluster supplied by this pipe section? (yes/no)
(kW) (m) (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Section 1 1,737 472 DN 125 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Section 2 992 170 DN 100 No Yes Yes Yes No
Section 3 782 65 DN 80 No No Yes Yes No
Section 4 -
Section 5 -
Section 6 -
Section 7 -
Section 8 -
Section 9 -
Section 10 -
Section 11 -
Section 12 -
Section 13 -
Total pipe length for main distribution line m 707
Secondary Distribution Lines
Secondary pipe network oversizing % 0% Secondary distribution pipes length per building cluster (m)
Length of pipe section m 630 122 207 46 241 14
Pipe size mm DN 80 DN 50 DN 80 DN 50 DN 32 - - - - - - - - -
District Heating Network Costs
Total pipe length m 1,337
Costing method - Formula
Energy transfer station(s) connection type - Indirect
Energy transfer station(s) cost factor - 1.00
Main distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50
Secondary distribution line pipe cost factor - 0.50
Exchange rate $/CAD 1.00
ETS and secondary distribution pipes costs per building cluster ($)
Energy transfer station(s) cost - $ 248,637 $ 88,664 $ 45,337 $ 75,543 $ 36,287 $ 2,807 - - - - - - - - -
Secondary distribution line pipe cost - $ 103,396 $ 23,302 $ 32,085 $ 8,786 $ 37,355 $ 1,868 - - - - - - - - -
Total building cluster connection cost - $ 352,033 $ 111,966 $ 77,422 $ 84,329 $ 73,642 $ 4,674 - - - - - - - - -
Main Distribution Line Pipe Cost by Pipe Size Categories
Summary of main distribution line pipe size mm DN 32 DN 40 DN 50 DN 65 DN 80 DN 100 DN 125 DN 150
Summary of main distribution line pipe length m - - - - 65 170 472 -
Summary of main distribution line pipe cost - $ 164,605 - - - - $ 12,415 $ 36,550 $ 115,640 -
Total district heating network costs - $ 516,638 Return to
Energy Model sheet
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

4. RETScreen® Cost Analysis - Biomass Heating Project
Type of project: Standard Currency: $ $ Cost references: Canada - 2000
Second currency: United States USD Rate: $/USD 0.67800
Relative Quantity Unit Cost
Initial Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Costs Range Range
Feasibility Study
Feasibility study Cost 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Sub-total: $ 5,000 0.4%
Development
Project development Cost 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Sub-total: $ 5,000 0.4%
Engineering
Engineering Cost 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Sub-total: $ 15,000 1.1%
Renewable Energy (RE) Equipment
Biomass heating system (1 boiler) kW 1,500 $ 200 $ 300,000 75 - 3,000 $125 - $250
Biomass equipment installation kW 1,500 $ 70 $ 105,000 75 - 3,000 $20 - $140
Transportation project 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
Sub-total: $ 407,000 29.0%
Balance of Plant
Peak load heating system kW 1,500 $ 85 $ 127,500 75 - 1,000 $85 - $133
Energy transfer station(s) building 5 - $ 248,637
Secondary distribution line pipe m 630 - $ 103,396
Main distribution line pipe m 707 - $ 164,605
Building and yard construction m² 300 $ 350 $ 105,000 20 - 300 $220 -$470
Equipment installation p-h 2,000 $ 40 $ 80,000 500 - 700 $25 - $50
Transportation project 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
$ -
$ -
Sub-total: $ 832,138 59.3%
Miscellaneous
Overhead p-h 200 $ 50 $ 10,000 36 - 120 $50 - $100
Training p-h 40 $ 60 $ 2,400 8 - 30 $40 - $100
Contingencies % 10% $ 1,264,138 $ 126,414 5% - 40%
Sub-total: $ 138,814 9.9%
Initial Costs - Total $ 1,402,952 100.0%
Relative Quantity Unit Cost
Annual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Costs Range Range
O&M
Property taxes/Insurance project 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Spare parts burner 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1-3 $200 - $600
O&M labour p-h 400 $ 20 $ 8,000 96 - 700 $15 - $30
Travel and accommodation p-trip $ -
General and administrative project 1 $ 1,200 $ 1,200
$ -
$ - $ -
Contingencies % 10% $ 24,000 $ 2,400
Sub-total: $ 27,600 55.7%
Fuel/Electricity
Biomass t 3,078 $ 5.0 $ 15,390 $0 - $85
Natural gas m³ 3,858 $ 0.330 $ 1,273
Parasitic electricity kWh 53,000 $ 0.100 $ 5,300
Sub-total: $ 21,963 44.3%
Annual Costs - Total $ 49,563 100.0%
Unit Cost
Periodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interval Range Range
Refractory insulation Cost 5 yr $ 5,000 $ 5,000
$ -
$ -
End of project life - $ - Go to GHG Analysis sheet
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

5. ®
RETScreen Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Analysis - Biomass Heating Project
Use GHG analysis sheet? Yes Type of analysis Standard Complete Financial Summary sheet
Background Information
Project Information Global Warming Potential of GHG
Project name Local / District Heating 1 ton CH4 = 21 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996)
Project location Ontario, Canada 1 ton N2O = 310 tons CO2 (IPCC 1996)
Base Case Electricity System (Reference)
Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion T&D GHG emission
factor factor factor efficiency losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh)
Natural gas 100.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 45.0% 8.0% 0.491
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Electricity mix 100% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 8.0% 0.491
Base Case Heating System (Reference)
Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion Transport or GHG emission
factor factor factor efficiency transfer losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh)
Heating system
1 Natural gas 42.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.299
2 Natural gas 12.0% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.299
3 Natural gas 36.3% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.299
4 Natural gas 8.4% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.299
5 Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 68.0% 0.0% 0.299
6 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
7 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
8 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
9 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
10 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
11 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
12 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
13 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
14 0 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.000
Heating energy mix 100.0% 82.5 0.0044 0.0015 0.0% 0.299
Proposed Case Heating System (Mitigation)
Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion Transport or GHG emission
factor factor factor efficiency transfer losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh)
Heating system
Waste heat 0.0% 0.0 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% 0.0% 0.000
Biomass 99.4% 0.0 0.0320 0.0040 75.0% 0.0% 0.009
NPeak - Natural gas 0.6% 56.1 0.0030 0.0010 75.0% 0.271
Parasitic electricity 1.0% 135.5 0.0072 0.0024 100.0% 0.0% 0.491
Heating energy mix 101.0% 1.8 0.0425 0.0053 0.0% 0.016
GHG Emission Reduction Summary
Base case GHG Proposed case GHG End-use annual Annual GHG
emission factor emission factor energy delivered emission reduction
(tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (tCO2)
Heating system 0.299 0.016 5,231 1,482.0
Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0
Complete Financial Summary sheet
Version 2000 © United Nations Environment Programme & Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2000. UNEP/DTIE and NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

6. RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating Project
Annual Energy Balance Yearly Cash Flows
Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative
Project name Local / District Heating Electricity required MWh 53.0 # $ $ $
Project location Ontario, Canada Incremental electricity demand kW - 0 (350,738) (350,738) (350,738)
Renewable energy delivered MWh 5,201 GHG analysis sheet used? yes/no Yes 1 84,533 84,533 (266,205)
Heating energy delivered MWh 5,231 Net GHG emission reduction tCO2/yr 1,482.0 2 88,534 88,534 (177,670)
Cooling energy delivered MWh - Net GHG emission reduction - 25 yrs tCO2 37,051 3 92,616 92,616 (85,055)
Heating fuel displaced See HL and Network sheet 4 96,779 96,779 11,724
5 95,504 95,504 107,228
Financial Parameters 6 105,356 105,356 212,584
7 109,773 109,773 322,357
Avoided cost of heating energy $/MWh 47.0 Debt ratio % 75.0% 8 114,279 114,279 436,636
RE production credit $/kWh - Debt interest rate % 7.0% 9 118,875 118,875 555,512
RE production credit duration yr 15 Debt term yr 15 10 117,469 117,469 672,980
RE credit escalation rate % 2.0% 11 128,345 128,345 801,326
GHG emission reduction credit $/tCO2 - Income tax analysis? yes/no No 12 133,223 133,223 934,549
GHG reduction credit duration yr 10 Effective income tax rate % 38.0% 13 138,198 138,198 1,072,746
GHG credit escalation rate % 2.0% Loss carryforward? yes/no Yes 14 143,272 143,272 1,216,019
Retail price of electricity $/kWh 0.100 Depreciation method - Declining balance 15 141,719 141,719 1,357,738
Demand charge $/kW - Depreciation tax basis % 80.0% 16 269,255 269,255 1,626,993
Energy cost escalation rate % 2.0% Depreciation rate % 20.0% 17 274,640 274,640 1,901,633
Inflation % 2.0% Depreciation period yr 15 18 280,133 280,133 2,181,766
Discount rate % 9.0% Tax holiday available? yes/no No 19 285,736 285,736 2,467,502
Project life yr 25 Tax holiday duration yr 5 20 284,021 284,021 2,751,523
21 297,280 297,280 3,048,803
Project Costs and Savings 22 303,225 303,225 3,352,028
23 309,290 309,290 3,661,317
Initial Costs Annual Costs and Debt 24 315,475 315,475 3,976,793
Feasibility study 0.4% $ 5,000 O&M $ 27,600 25 313,582 313,582 4,290,375
Development 0.4% $ 5,000 Fuel/Electricity $ 21,963 26 - - 4,290,375
Engineering 1.1% $ 15,000 Debt payments - 15 yrs $ 115,527 27 - - 4,290,375
RE equipment 29.0% $ 407,000 Annual Costs - Total $ 165,090 28 - - 4,290,375
Balance of plant 59.3% $ 832,138 29 - - 4,290,375
Miscellaneous 9.9% $ 138,814 Annual Savings or Income 30 - - 4,290,375
Initial Costs - Total 100.0% $ 1,402,952 Heating energy savings/income $ 245,701 31 - - 4,290,375
Cooling energy savings/income $ - 32 - - 4,290,375
Incentives/Grants $ - RE production credit income - 15 yrs $ - 33 - - 4,290,375
GHG reduction income - 10 yrs $ - 34 - - 4,290,375
Annual Savings - Total $ 245,701 35 - - 4,290,375
Periodic Costs (Credits) 36 - - 4,290,375
# Refractory insulation $ 5,000 Schedule yr # 5,10,15,20,25 37 - - 4,290,375
# $ - Schedule yr # 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 38 - - 4,290,375
# $ - Schedule yr # 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 39 - - 4,290,375
End of project life - $ - Schedule yr # 25 40 - - 4,290,375
41 - - 4,290,375
Financial Feasibility 42 - - 4,290,375
43 - - 4,290,375
Pre-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% Calculate GHG reduction cost? yes/no No 44 - - 4,290,375
After-tax IRR and ROI % 28.7% GHG emission reduction cost $/tCO2 Not calculated 45 - - 4,290,375
Simple Payback yr 7.2 Project equity $ 350,738 46 - - 4,290,375
Year-to-positive cash flow yr 3.9 Project debt $ 1,052,214 47 - - 4,290,375
Net Present Value - NPV $ 1,021,996 Debt payments $/yr 115,527 48 - - 4,290,375
Annual Life Cycle Savings $ 104,046 Debt service coverage - 1.73 49 - - 4,290,375
Profitability Index - PI - 2.91 RE production cost ¢/kWh in construction 50 - - 4,290,375
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

7. RETScreen® Financial Summary - Biomass Heating Project
Cumulative Cash Flows Graph
Biomass Heating Project Cumulative Cash Flows
Local / District Heating, Ontario, Canada
Year-to-positive cash flow 3.9 yr IRR and ROI 28.7% Net Present Value $ 1,021,996
5,000,000
4,000,000
Cumulative Cash Flows ($)
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(1,000,000)
Years
Version 2000 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2000. NRCan/CEDRL
03/09/2003; BIOH06-B.xls

8. TEACHER’S NOTES BIOMASS HEATING PROJECT
06 LOCAL / DISTRICT HEATING / ONTARIO, CANADA
• The total heating energy demand was calculated by adding the space heating and domestic hot water (DHW)
heating energy for all buildings. The domestic hot water heating base load is then expressed as a fraction of this
total.
• The heating energy demand for each building cluster was calculated by adding the space heating and DHW heating
energy, as provided in the data table. The heating load for each cluster (in W/m2) was then set to yield the correct
heating energy demand. The Microsoft Excel “Goal Seek” function may also be used to find the right input (e.g.
heating load) when the output (e.g. heating energy demand) is known.
• The formula method was used to calculate the heating network costs and a cost factor of 0.5 was applied to both
the main and secondary distribution lines to reflect the favourable conditions for burying pipe.
• Parasitic electricity was calculated using the method described in the Online User Manual: the biomass boiler is
estimated to have a power draw of 14.2 kW while the power for the circulation pumps is calculated as:
1,337 m x 1,747 kW x (58.7 x 10-6)ºC/m ÷ 40ºC = 3.5 kW.
This calculation is based on the total of the main (707 m) and secondary (630 m) distribution piping. Adding the
boiler and circulation pump loads and multiplying by 2,993 h, the equivalent full load duration hours, gives the
parasitic load of 53,000 kWh/yr.
• Note that in the Financial Analysis worksheet, the RETScreen model calculates the avoided cost of heating energy
($47/MWh) by dividing the total cost of fuel for the base case system ($245,701/yr) by the total heating energy
demand (5,230 MWh). This value is also the cost of the energy that the district heating system’s owner charges to
its client.
• This analysis is done from the perspective of the municipality, which is proposing to install and operate the district
heating system. The five buildings that are to be heated will continue to pay the equivalent rates for energy as they
were paying for the old natural gas heating, but these payments will now be an income stream to the municipality.
For the building owners, financial benefits of the new system will include protection from price volatility of natural
gas and elimination of the capital and maintenance costs associated with operating their old heating systems.