(BIO)MASS APPEAL

A symbiotic biomass and battery system for resilient,

carbon-neutral power generation

Sadie Fulton, Micah Gowen, and Liam O’Callaghan Submitted March 8, 2017

Team GreatMines

1

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 2

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 3

AN INNOVATIVE ENERGY SOLUTION ................................................................................... 4

ENERGY SUPPLY RESILIENCE................................................................................................. 6

CARBON EMISSIONS .................................................................................................................. 8

FINANCIAL MODEL .................................................................................................................... 9

Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) .................................................................................................. 9

Operating Expenditures (OPEX) ............................................................................................... 10

Comparison to Status Quo......................................................................................................... 12

Project Financing Considerations ............................................................................................. 12

FINANCIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 17

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 18

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 19

Figure 1: Summer energy supply and demand ............................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Winter energy supply and demand .................................................................................. 7

Figure 3: Carbon cycle of natural gas ............................................................................................. 8

Figure 4: Carbon cycle of fast growing fuel-stock trees ................................................................. 8

Figure 5: Discount rate sensitivity ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 6: Yearly escalation sensitivity .......................................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Grid power price sensitivity .......................................................................................... 14

Figure 8: Fuel subsidy sensitivity ................................................................................................. 14

Figure 9: Cost of carbon sensitivity .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 10: Financial model (First five years and lifetime incremental npv) ................................ 17

2

ABSTRACT

Can energy system planners deliver resilient, carbon-neutral energy for the same lifetime cost as

purchasing power from the grid? Even for a five megawatt hospital in New Jersey, where resiliency

is a matter of life or death, our answer is yes. Our financial model shows that by incorporating four

megawatts of combined-heat-and-power (CHP) biomass generation with nine megawatt-hours of

battery storage we can provide carbon-neutral energy to meet all of the hospital’s needs. The

carbon-neutrality of our proposed solution rides on our innovative ‘Sprout Spread’, which shortens

the biomass generator’s carbon cycle to five years and secures long-term, low prices for biomass

fuel. Further, while our conservative parameter assumptions generate lifetime costs equal to those

incurred from purchasing grid power, sensitivity analyses show that it is likely that our plan will

go a step further and generate a net positive return. All told, this plan presents a solid, forward-

thinking investment opportunity for the hospital.

3

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Our challenge was to build a financial model that enables the development of an energy system to

power a 2,000 bed hospital in New Jersey. The proposed system must ensure energy supply

resiliency and minimize carbon emissions. Our financial model leads us to propose a system that

incorporates a combined-heat-and-power biomass generator with a large battery bank. The

proposed system delivers, throughout the range of potential realities, reliable power with zero

carbon emissions. This is achieved without incurring additional costs relative to the hospital’s

status quo of purchasing power from the grid.

Our model delivers on the following objectives over the life of the project:

• complete carbon neutrality,

• guaranteed power supply under any conditions,

• complete self-sustainability of power generation, and

• zero additional present-value cost when compared to the hospital’s status quo.

Powering a 2,000 bed hospital presents system planners with unique challenges. These challenges

stem from every hospital’s critical need for delivered energy resiliency; when people’s lives

depend on delivered energy the costs are simply too great to allow for any potential system

downtime. This means that our proposed system must be guaranteed to deliver energy 100% of

the time.

The potential generation sources under consideration each come with their own costs. New

Jersey’s climate does not provide a financially efficient source of solar or wind energy potential.

4

Access to these energy sources does exist in New Jersey, but the quality of either source is

limited.1,2,3 Offshore wind generation in New Jersey is technically feasible, but not financially

viable at the scale of this project. Compared to the other options, fuel cells are prohibitively

expensive to construct and operate, while gas turbines generate high levels of carbon emissions

which incur large social costs.4 In light of these challenges, and as a result of the output of our

financial model, we propose a system which combines biomass power generation with battery

storage.

AN INNOVATIVE ENERGY SOLUTION

Our energy plan encompasses four key points. First, a four megawatt biomass combined-heat-and-

power generator will be installed at the hospital in a dedicated plant building. Second, the generator

will be supplemented by a large bank of battery storage calibrated to distribute stored off-peak

production to meet peak demand. Third, the fuel for the biomass plant, bone-dry wood chips and

pellets, will be sourced through a long-term, subsidized contract with a producer who will manage

14,000 acres of timber land purchased by the hospital. Finally, the timber grown on the purchased

land will be used to create a five-year cycle of carbon sequestration, which allows all power

generated to be carbon neutral.

Four megawatts of biomass CHP generation, combined with nine megawatt-hours of battery

capacity, will meet all of the hospital’s electricity needs. This system is cost-effective; the capital

and operating expenditures of a biomass CHP plant of this scale are comparable to a gas turbine

system of equivalent capacity. Additional benefits of the biomass system are the opportunities to:

enter into an affordable, short carbon cycle; generate power with a range of possible fuels; reduce

5

expenditures on natural gas for heating; and take advantage of enticing policies New Jersey has

enacted to encourage biomass power generation. Supplementing the biomass generator with

battery storage reduces the upfront capital expenditure on required biomass generation capacity.

Our financial model assigns real costs to carbon emissions. First, we estimate the emissions from

the biomass plant, and from competing energy sources, in metric tonnes of CO2 per year. Then,

we define the social cost of carbon as a measure, in dollars, of the global damage done by a ton of

carbon emitted.5,6 This must be comprehensive and will include items such as human health costs

related to air pollution, the value of lost biodiversity, and the value of lost human life. Finally, we

multiply the social cost of carbon by the amount of estimated emissions, giving us the cost to

society of the plan’s emitted carbon. While these costs are intangible to energy producers, they

represent the real cost of damages incurred from emitting carbon. Without including these costs, a

financial model might overvalue a system that generates power with fossil fuels; however, when

included, biomass generation, aided by our innovative path to carbon-neutrality, becomes optimal.

Our primary innovation is the introduction of a concept we have named the ‘Sprout Spread’. This

idea is derived from the ‘Spark’ and ‘Dark’ spreads long utilized by coal and natural gas power

plants to guarantee profit margins. The key points are simple: the hospital purchases timber land

and contracts the rights to the timber produced on the land to an established partner. The partner,

in a five-year cycle, harvests, plants, grows, and once again harvests fast-growing timber. While

the rights to the end products belong to the contracted partner, the hospital receives in return a

subsidized, long-term price on fuel. This is the ‘Sprout Spread’: the difference between the market

price for biofuel pellets and the contracted price for timber grown on the hospital’s land.

Additionally, the five-year cycle of regrowth means that our power generation is carbon-neutral.

6

That is, for all biomass burned, equal amounts of biomass are grown. As such, no net carbon is

emitted.

ENERGY SUPPLY RESILIENCE

The demand curve of the hospital is assumed to reflect those of other medical facilities, and that

of the general consumer demand curve.7,8 Demand peaks in the hottest hours of the day before

gently subsiding to a minimum in the early hours of the morning. This curve has presented a great

challenge to grid operators of the past, but the battery array installation in our plan allows us to

meet peak demand in real-time with reduced installed biomass capacity. The planned biomass

generator produces excess capacity during the night, which is used to fully recharge the battery

(inclusive of efficiency loss) so that the daily cycle is not interrupted. In milder weather and winter,

the combined-heat-and-power capacity of the biomass plant removes some of the weight of cooling

and heating from the electricity supply, allowing the hospital to ramp down the biomass generator

when excess capacity is not required to recharge the batteries overnight.

FIGURE 1: SUMMER ENERGY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Ele

ctri

city

in

MW

Time of Day

Summer Supply

Biomass Battery Discharge Efficiency Loss Battery Charge Demand base

7

FIGURE 2: WINTER ENERGY SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Hospitals must always be prepared for worst-case scenarios, and our plan gives the hospital

significantly more leeway than a grid-based solution. The extreme versatility of biomass

generators ensures maximum uptime even in the worst of situations.9 Any sufficiently dry organic

source can be burned in the generator, albeit sometimes at reduced efficiency, ensuring that should

a natural disaster sever the supply lines for biomass pellets and the fuel stock dwindle, the hospital

need not do without power, as it can substitute to whatever biomass is available. The hospital’s

legally-mandated emergency generators are thus relegated to third-level redundancy, behind both

the battery bank and grid connectivity.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ele

ctri

city

in

MW

Time of Day

Winter Supply

Biomass Battery Discharge Efficiency Loss

Battery Charge Bio Ramp-down Demand base

8

CARBON EMISSIONS

The carbon cycle gives important insight into how we achieve carbon neutrality. To be carbon

neutral, all of the CO2 released by burning a fuel, whether it is gas, coal, or wood, must be

sequestered, or cycled out of the atmosphere.

In the case of fossil fuels, the carbon cycle

operates on the geologic time scale. These fuels

are extracted from the earth and burned,

releasing all of the carbon sequestered within

them into the atmosphere as CO2. To re-

sequester the carbon that was released would

take hundreds of millions of years.10

The carbon cycle of a fast-growing, fuel-stock

tree, grown specifically for biomass, is less than

five years.11,12 Once a tree is cut down and

burned, the carbon contained within it is

released into the atmosphere as CO2. Through

the planting and growth of a new tree, an

equivalent amount of CO2 can be removed from

the atmosphere. This cycle is extremely short

compared to the carbon cycle of fossil fuels.

FIGURE 3: CARBON CYCLE OF NATURAL GAS

FIGURE 4: CARBON CYCLE OF FAST GROWING FUEL-STOCK TREES

9

Without accounting for sequestration measures, the carbon emissions would be significant; over

the 25-year life of the project, our model estimates that approximately 278,500 tonnes of CO2

would be released into the atmosphere. This number is still lower than the 322,100 tonnes of CO2

that would be emitted if power was purchased from the grid in New Jersey for 25 years.13,14

However, accounting for the five-year sequestration cycle of the timber land, the net emissions

from the biomass plant in our model are zero tonnes of CO2 per year.

FINANCIAL MODEL

Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)

There are four main areas of capital spending proposed in this model: biomass plant installation,

battery storage installation, land purchased for carbon sequestration, and Renewable Energy

Credits. This results in a total capital expenditure in year zero of US$ 23.3 million, with additional

discounted spending of US$ 6.1 million spread out over the next four years.

The biomass plant installation CAPEX for this project makes up the bulk of capital spending at

US$ 20 million. This is assuming an all-in cost of US$ 5 million per megawatt of power

installed.15,16 This total is subsequently reduced by a US$ 3 million CHP installation subsidy from

the state of New Jersey.17

The second largest capital expense is the purchase of timber land. It is assumed that timber

producing land can be purchased in large blocks over a five-year time period at an average of US$

600 per acre.18 This timber land purchase will amount to a total of approximately 14,000 acres

which will be enough to offset the complete carbon production of the biomass plant for every year

after the initial five-year purchasing period, continuing out through the life of the project. The

10

timber grown on the land will produce the equivalent of 35,600 bone-dry tonnes of biomass every

year.

Battery storage represents an up-front CAPEX of US$ 3.6 million. Utility-scale battery

installations have declined in price over the past several decades, to the point where companies

like Tesla, Inc. are offering fully scalable products below a half-million USD per megawatt hour.

Our plan assumes the purchase of a Tesla, Inc. scalable battery installation. These batteries are

under warranty for up to 6,000 cycles (approximately 16 years), but we account for a complete

replacement of the installation at the end of year 15 of the project life, for an escalated capital cost

of US$ 2.6 million in 2034.19 This cost includes the effect of a 50% reduction in the price of battery

technology over the 15 years following the initial purchase.

Finally, capital of US$ 280,000 will be required to purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to

completely offset the carbon produced in the first five years before the timber land is producing at

capacity.20 RECs allow for capital to be reallocated to wind and solar projects in places where it is

most efficient to build them.

Operating Expenditures (OPEX)

Total discounted operating costs for the energy project are estimated to be approximately US$ 30

million over the 25-year life of the project. This can be compared to a discounted cost for the status

quo of purchasing power from the grid of approximately US$ 59 million. These operating costs

are all tied directly to the cost of operating the biomass generator, as the batteries are assumed to

have no associated operating costs.

11

The bulk of the OPEX is the cost of fuel to run the biomass generator. For this model, the market

price of fuel is assumed to be US$ 100 per tonne.16,21 This number was chosen as it represents the

average price of high quality fuel. The ‘Sprout Spread’ guarantees the hospital this price minus a

40% subsidy from timber sales.

The second largest portion of operating costs is composed of the social cost of carbon. A cost of

US$ 50 per tonne of CO2 produced was assumed. Buying power from the grid has an estimated

lifetime carbon cost of US$ 21.7 million.13,14 The total cost of the carbon emissions from the

biomass plant is estimated to be US$ 18.7 million, however once the timberland is in full operation,

the net social cost of carbon from the biomass plant is assumed to be zero.

A subsidy on operating costs is provided by savings on heat generation for the hospital. It was

assumed that capturing waste heat from the CHP generator reduces the hospital’s heating costs by

50%. Based on the heating requirements of the similarly sized New York Presbyterian hospital,

our plan saves 25,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas per year.22

A minor portion of operating costs are derived from fixed and variable maintenance costs required

every year. Fixed maintenance costs are assumed to be 2% of the installed CAPEX. Variable

maintenance costs are assumed to be US$ 0.50 per megawatt-hour generated. Fixed and variable

maintenance costs represent a total year one cost of US$ 420,000 escalated over the life of the

project.16,23

The final operating cost is the cost of purchasing power from the grid in the first year of the plan

while the new system is under construction. This amounts to a total cost of US$ 4.1 million.13,14

12

Comparison to Status Quo

After discounting all of the costs for both our plan and the hospital’s status quo to their present

values at a conservative discount rate of 10%, we find that the estimated present worth costs are

US$ 58.8 million and US$ 58.9 million respectively. An incremental Net Present Value (NPV)

analysis confirms that the up-front capital costs of our proposal are completely offset by the

decreased operating costs over the life of the project.

Project Financing Considerations

As a non-profit organization, the hospital has several financing options available to them.

Traditionally, charitable donations and existing endowments make up a large portion of any capital

spending for a hospital of this size. However, external sources of financing such as low-interest

bank loans and the sale of bonds exist and are available. Furthermore, there may be additional state

and federal subsidies available related to the installation and operation of carbon-neutral power

generation.

FINANCIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

To validate our findings under a range of potential realities, we vary individual parameter settings

in our financial model. The outcomes are then compared via an incremental NPV analysis to the

status quo of purchasing power from the grid. Our plan generates break-even economics when

compared with the hospital’s status quo. The conservative nature of our baseline assumptions

leaves room for additional benefits under a range of scenarios.

13

The parameter that has the greatest effect on the NPV is the discount rate of the project. The

baseline discount rate of 10% represents the opportunity cost of investing in this project if other

investments could be made earning a 10% return. A decrease in the discount rate to 5% causes the

incremental NPV of the project to increase to US$ 17.2 million.

FIGURE 5: DISCOUNT RATE SENSITIVITY

Costs in our model are assumed to escalate at 2.5% per year. An increase of 1% in the escalation

rate causes the incremental NPV of the project to increase by US$ 3 million. A 1% decrease in the

escalation rate, however, only causes a US$ 2.3 million decrease in NPV.

FIGURE 6: YEARLY ESCALATION SENSITIVITY

($20.0)

($10.0)

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

NP

V i

n M

US

D

Discount Rate (%)

($6.0)

($4.0)

($2.0)

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%

NP

V i

n M

US

D

Yearly Escalation (%)

14

Changing the cost of grid power and the subsidy for the biomass fuel have nearly the same effect

on the overall NPV. For grid power, every $0.01 change in the price leads to a US$ 4 million

change in NPV. Similarly, a 10% change (from the baseline subsidy of 40%) in the negotiated

biomass fuel subsidy leads to a US$ 3.9 million change in NPV.

FIGURE 7: GRID POWER PRICE SENSITIVITY

FIGURE 8: FUEL SUBSIDY SENSITIVITY

($30.0)

($20.0)

($10.0)

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

NP

V i

n M

US

D

Grid Power Price ($/KWh)

($15.0)

($10.0)

($5.0)

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%NP

V i

n M

US

D

Fuel Subsidy (%)

15

The final relevant sensitivity is for the cost of carbon. For every US$ 10.00 change in the social

cost of carbon per tonne, the incremental NPV of the project changes by US$ 1.3 million.

FIGURE 9: COST OF CARBON SENSITIVITY

While our conservative baseline parameter assumptions generate a zero incremental NPV relative

to the status quo of purchasing power from the grid, it can be seen that there are likely scenarios

that would generate additional value.

($6.0)

($4.0)

($2.0)

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NP

V i

n M

US

D

Cost of Carbon ($/Tonne)

16

CONCLUSION

Our financial model enables the development of an energy system that provides a 2,000 bed

hospital with reliable, carbon-neutral power from day one, at zero additional costs relative to the

hospital’s status quo. The plan provides power that is triply redundant; even in the event of a

catastrophic system failure, the hospital will have two remaining sources of power to rely on.

Further, because of the inherent diversity of fuel stocks available to biofuel generators, the hospital

will not be subject to biofuel supply shocks. Our innovative ‘Sprout Spread’ protects the hospital

from biofuel price volatility and generates a fuel price subsidy which allows for a reduction in

operating costs that completely offsets the additional upfront capital expenditures required for

start-up. The spread creates a level path to a five-year carbon cycle, which ensures the carbon

neutrality of our system. The batteries, biomass plant, and timber land in our proposal work

together in a symbiotic, standalone system that unplugs the hospital from reliance on the grid and

is carbon-neutral from day one.

17

APPENDIX

FIGURE 10: FINANCIAL MODEL (FIRST FIVE YEARS AND LIFETIME INCREMENTAL NPV)

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Biomass Plant

CAPEX ($) 20,000,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$

CAPEX Subsidy (NJ) (2,400,000.00)$ (600,000.00)$ -$ -$ -$

OPEX ($/year)

Fuel cost -$ 3,504,000.00$ 3,591,600.00$ 3,681,390.00$ 3,773,424.75$

Fixed Maintenance cost -$ 400,000.00$ 410,000.00$ 420,250.00$ 430,756.25$

Variable Maintenance cost -$ 17,520.00$ 17,958.00$ 18,406.95$ 18,867.12$

Social cost of carbon 788,400.00$ 525,600.00$ 538,740.00$ 552,208.50$ 566,013.71$

Heat payback -$ (225,000.00)$ (230,625.00)$ (236,390.63)$ (242,300.39)$

Purchase grid power 4,110,192.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Fuel Savings from ramp-down -$ (100,000.00)$ (102,500.00)$ (105,062.50)$ (107,689.06)$

Carbon savings from ramp-down -$ (15,000.00)$ (15,375.00)$ (15,759.38)$ (16,153.36)$

Purchase 14,000 acres 1,680,000.00$ 1,680,000.00$ 1,680,000.00$ 1,680,000.00$ 1,680,000.00$

Value of Fuel Subsidy -$ (1,401,600.00)$ (1,436,640.00)$ (1,472,556.00)$ (1,509,369.90)$

Value of carbon offset -$ -$ (107,748.00)$ (220,883.40)$ (339,608.23)$

Purchase Renewable Energy Credits 70,080.00$ 70,080.00$ 56,064.00$ 42,048.00$ 28,032.00$

Battery Storage

CAPEX 3,600,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OPEX -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total

CAPEX 22,950,080.00$ 1,150,080.00$ 1,736,064.00$ 1,722,048.00$ 1,708,032.00$

OPEX 4,898,592.00$ 2,705,520.00$ 2,665,410.00$ 2,621,603.55$ 2,573,940.90$

Total Cost 27,848,672.00$ 3,855,600.00$ 4,401,474.00$ 4,343,651.55$ 4,281,972.90$

Baseline Power Cost 4,110,192.00$ 4,212,946.80$ 4,318,270.47$ 4,426,227.23$ 4,536,882.91$

Baseline Social Cost of Carbon 788,400.00$ 791,947.80$ 795,511.57$ 799,091.37$ 802,687.28$

Baseline Total Cost 4,898,592.00$ 5,004,894.60$ 5,113,782.04$ 5,225,318.60$ 5,339,570.19$

Baseline Total Cost - Total Cost (22,950,080.00)$ 1,149,294.60$ 712,308.04$ 881,667.05$ 1,057,597.29$

Incremental NPV 128,594.26$

18

REFERENCES

[1] “Photovoltaic Solar Resource.”

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_july_dec2008.jpg

[2] “U.S Photovoltaic Prices and Cost Breakdowns.”

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf

[3] “New Jersey Wind Resource Map and Potential Wind Capacity”

http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=nj

[4] “GE Power Generation” https://powergen.gepower.com/products/heavy-duty-gas-

turbines/9ha-gas-turbine.html

[5] “Technical Update to Environment and Cimate Change Canada’s Social Cost of Greenhous

Gas Estimates” http://ec.gc.ca/cc/default.asp?lang=En&n=BE705779-1

[6] “The Social Cost of Carbon” https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon

[7] Hu, S. C., J. D. Chen, and Y. K. Chuah. "Energy cost and consumption in a large acute

hospital." International Journal on Architectural Science 5, no. 1 (2004): 11-19.

[8] “Managing Energy Costs in Hospitals.”

https://www9.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_energyeff_hospitals.pdf

[9] “Combined Heat and Power: Enabling Resilient Energy Infrastructure for Critical Facilities.”

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_critical_facilities.pdf

[10] “Where Our Natural Gas Comes From.”

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_home

[11] “Biomass Explained” https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=biomass_home

[12] “Bioenergy from Biomass” http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/industry/bioproducts/13323

[13] “Markets and Operations” http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx

[14] “2012-2015 CO2, SO2, NOx Emission Rates” http://www.pjm.com/~/media/library/reports-

notices/special-reports/20160318-2015-emissions-report.ashx

[15] “Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies.”

https://www.bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf

19

[16] “Biomass for Power Generation”

https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-

BIOMASS.pdf

[17] “Combined Heat and Power.” http://www.njcleanenergy.com/chp

[18] “Timber Land Investment; A Look Into Timber Land Investing in the Northeast”

http://www.foreconinc.com/timberland-investment-a-look-into-timberland-investing-in-the-

northeast-part-2-2/#iLightbox[gallery942]/0

[19] “Tesla Powerpack: Utility and Business Energy Storage” https://www.tesla.com/powerpack/

[20] “Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)”

http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=1

[21] “The Wood Pellet Value Chain.”

http://www.usendowment.org/images/The_Wood_Pellet_Value_Chain_Revised_Final.pdf

[22] “Energy Characteristics and Energy Consumed in Large Hospital Buildings in the United

States in 2007.” https://www.eia.gov/c

[23] “Biomass to Electricity” http://ucanr.edu/sites/woodybiomass/files/78993.pdf

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

“Cogeneration- A Win-Win Solution: New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical

Center.” https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/...Heat.../2012-CHP-Grube-Presentation.pdf

"Distributed Generation Renewable Energy Estimate of Costs." NREL: Energy Analysis -

Energy Technology Cost and Performance Data. March 25, 2016.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe_re_cost_est.html.

“New Jersey Energy Master Plan, 2015.”

http://nj.gov/emp/docs/pdf/New_Jersey_Energy_Master_Plan_Update.pdf

“Study of Equipment Prices in the Power Sector.”

https://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/TR122-

09_GBL_Study_of_Equipment_Prices_in_the_Power_Sector.pdf