Project Report (Publishable) - European Commission · Project Report (Publishable) 1. Project Partners Key Officers Forestry Commission – South East England ... heat generation

Grant agreement no. IEE/07/726/S12.499568

Project acronym: WhS

Full title of action: Woodheat Solutions

Project website: http://www.woodheatsolutions.eu/

Project Report (Publishable)

1

Project Partners

Key Officers

Forestry Commission – South East England

Matthew Woodcock [email protected] Ian Tubby [email protected] Peter Thaxter [email protected]

Slovenian Forestry Institute

Nike Krajnc [email protected] Tine Premrl [email protected]

Republic of Croatia Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management - Directorate for Wood Industry

Zlatko Benkovic [email protected] Tomislav Starcic [email protected] Blaz Stefanek [email protected]

Thames Valley Energy

Keith Richards [email protected] Alison Wilshaw [email protected]

Styrian Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry

Thomas Loibnegger [email protected] Christian Metschina [email protected]

Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT

Jyrki Raitila [email protected]

2

3

Contents:Reference: Section: Page:

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Preface 7

3. Background 9 3.1 Forestry in Finland 10 3.2 Forestry in Austria 12 3.3 Forestry in Slovenia 18 3.4 Forestry in Croatia 23 3.5 Forestry in South East England 29 3.6 Conclusions 39

4. Engagement 40

4.1 Slovenia 40 4.2 Croatia 42 4.3 South East England 42 4.4 Conclusions 44 5. Woodheat Entrepreneurship 45

5.1 Background and development 45 5.2 Business models 46 5.3 Key Lessons 59

6. Promoting and applying standards 61

6.1 Context 61 6.2 Challenges 62 6.3 Summary of woodfuel standards 64 6.4 Applying woodfuel standards 68 6.5 Quality management of district heating systems 72 6.6 Conclusions 75

7. Technical training on Woodheat and supply chains 76

7.1 Technical training of Woodheat advisers and woodfuel suppliers 76 7.2 Training CD 76 7.3 Main topics covered by Training Pack 78 7.4 Slovenian training pack 81

8. Designing a woodheat system 83

9. Support for woodheat developments 89 9.1 Finland 89 9.2 Slovenia 90 9.3 Croatia 91 9.4 England 91 9.5 Conclusions 92

10. Case studies 94 10.1 Slovenia 94 10.2 Croatia 97 10.3 South East England 98

11. What next? 103 11.1 Slovenia 103 11.2 Croatia 105 11.3 England 105

12. Overall Conclusions 108

13. Bibliography 109

14. Appendices 110 14.1 Useful facts and figures 110

4

1. Executive summary 1.1 Objective: The Woodheat Solutions project seeks to inspire investment in wood-based heat generation sourcing woodfuel from the underutilised woodland resource available in Slovenia, Croatia and the United Kingdom by demonstrating how to reduce costs of production and guarantee high standards of performance. 1.2 Background: There are huge variations in the woodland resource available in partners countries from Finland 75% forest cover embracing 23 million hectares of woodland to England with just 12% and 1.1 million hectares. However, the differences also relate to population density, Finland has just over 5 million compared to the UK’s 61 million. The contrast is strongest with south east England having a population of more than 8 million and only 270,000 hectares of woodland. These differences have influenced the way woodland cultures have evolved in different countries. In Finland and Austria forestry is a fundamental industry, local people are familiar with and often directly involved with woodland management and wood use. In Slovenia and Croatia a strong woodland culture remains while in England most woods are underutilised and many people believe felling trees is bad for the environment. 1.3 Opportunities: Hence there are huge opportunities for woodland owners, rural businesses, heat users and local people to:

• utilise an existing resource, • provide local jobs and secure energy sources, • benefit the local biodiversity and landscape, and • help combat climate change by using a sustainable, locally produced fuel as efficiently

as possible. 1.4 Engagement: However, how do we engage those who might take advantage of these opportunities? The key issue is to highlight the potential benefits to the individual, business or organisation concerned, be they financial, environmental or social. The most powerful being the financial benefits through energy savings or business development. In this respect our key recommendations are to:

• Sell heat if you can; • Think locally; • Look to the long term; and • Look for the ‘win-win’ relationships between suppliers and buyers.

1.5 Standards: Several European countries have long established standards for woodfuel quality which support a common understanding between boiler manufacturers, woodfuel suppliers and system managers and owners. However, there are major benefits in having a common approach across Europe, and beyond! The evolving CEN standards seek to provide this, however, they can appear complex, daunting and unnecessarily expensive – particularly at the small and local scale where Woodheat can be particularly attractive. Consequently it’s important to reflect on what we’re really trying to achieve: reliable and efficient Woodheat systems at minimal cost. Having seen how the Woodheat industry operates in Finland and Austria and is evolving in Slovenia, Croatia and the UK we conclude that it is more important to establish and embed a culture of quality standards which focuses on ensuring Woodheat systems operate efficiently and reliably rather than a bureaucratic protocol which would discourage the very thing it seeks to deliver! We also found that it is crucial to consider the whole Woodheat system, what might be called the ‘wood to warmth’ supply chain, not just fuel quality. Ultimately this is about developing a wider understanding of wood as a source of energy, including:

• The energy value of wood; • The relationship between moisture content and energy value;

5

• The relationship between tree species, growth rate, wood density, volume and energy value;

• The principles of the systems available to convert wood into heat; • The costs and dangers of not burning wood efficiently; and • The principles of sustainable woodland management and the wider benefits

such management delivers to the environment and society. A robust understanding allows us to apply the right system in the right place, for instance the optimal conversion of wood to heat at the boiler may not be the most efficient use of energy in the system as a whole (need to consider the energy used in processing the woodfuel). 1.6 Marketing: The key concerns about woodfuel are:

1. Will it work and do I need backup? 2. Is the fuel supply secure? 3. What will it cost?

In encouraging heat users to consider Woodheat we need to: (a) address these concerns by providing clear pragmatic guidance and examples to

help potential buyers become ‘informed customers’; (b) outline the business opportunities to suppliers of both woodfuel and Woodheat; (c) highlight the benefits woodheat offers to buyers: secure, local and cost effective

source of heat; (d) raise the awareness of society of the wider benefits of wood as a sustainable fuel

source (alongside other wood products): in particular • the benefits of substitution for fossil fuels, • the benefits in helping combat climate change, • the environmental benefits of well managed woodland (i.e. address

the concern that tree felling is bad), and • the opportunities to increase supply by establishing new woodland;

and (e) make it easy for interested people to install Woodheat systems and run them

reliably, which includes providing model contracts for Woodheat supply. 1.7 What does the woodheat industry need? The project has revealed several things where further training, development and research would be valuable:

• Knowledgeable Woodheat system designers (and one person may not be able to provide the whole range of knowledge needed);

• Quality installers – who seek to provide a ‘turn key’ service for customers; • Competition – to bring system prices down; • Better understanding of emissions especially particulates and NOx (including

the potential of ceramic filters); • Better understanding of the principles of district heating; • Better understanding of small scale wood fuelled combined heat and power

systems (lots of people ask about CHP but the technology and practicalities for its delivery using woodfuel is only evolving slowly);

• More systems in place – to illustrate that the technology is well established. 1.8 Has Woodheat Solutions achieved its objective? Overall the WhS project has:

(a) Provided a focus for woody biomass development work, which would not have been possible without the project;

(b) Established a robust network between the lead partners; (c) Transferred considerable knowledge from Finland and Austria to Slovenia, Croatia

and England; (d) Established networks of woodfuel champions in each Country who will, in many

cases, directly take forward installations and/or supply, and continue to champion Woodheat opportunities;

6

(e) Collated a range of material which will be used and refined for many years; (f) Directly encouraged a range of entrepreneurs to actively consider Woodheat and

many of these will implement systems over the next few years – at present we estimate this will exceed the targets agreed; and

(g) Provided a robust platform from which to take forward the principles of Woodheat as a key part of the rural business and energy scene.

1.9 What next? Slovenia, Croatia and the UK all have major targets to help address climate change. While Woodheat will not address these targets alone it can play a major part. In particular we have existing underutilised woodland resources which Woodheat could help take advantage off and at the same time deliver a whole range of other economic, environmental and social benefits which well managed woods deliver. We all have plans in place to take lessons learnt from the project forward and it is likely that the Woodheat Solutions ‘brand’ will continue to be used and developed.

2. Preface The Woodheat Solutions project was established by the project partners and benefits from the support of the European Unions Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) through the support provided under the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme. The objective is to inspire investment in wood-based heat generation sourcing woodfuel from unmanaged and undermanaged woodland by demonstrating how to reduce costs of production and guarantee high standards of performance. This includes:

• Transferring best practice from Austria and Finland to Slovenia, Croatia and the UK; • Promoting the evolving EU quality assurance standards for solid biofuels; • Supporting new project developments for funding under the Rural Development

Programme; • Establishing a network of long term co-operation on biomass energy; and • Providing tools and support which can be applied across the EU to encourage a

significant and sustained increase in the use of woodheat.

Figure 1: Countries participating in the Woodheat Solutions project

7

8

This report seeks to:

(a) ‘Set the scene’ by summarising the situation in relation to woodland and forestry resource and current use of wood as a renewable fuel source in each partners country;

(b) Explain how partners sought to deliver the objective; (c) Summarise the key lessons learnt with particular reference to:

• The opportunities Woodheat offers to woodland owners, rural businesses and heat users;

• The importance of standards and how these can be applied; and • Key elements to consider in designing a Woodheat system;

(d) Provide illustrative case studies of good practice; (e) Explain what will happen next in Slovenia, Croatia and South East England.

Further information and project outputs can be found on the project website:

www.woodheatsolutions.eu If you would like to discuss how you might take forward a Woodheat project in your area please contact one of the project partners (listed on page 2 of this report).

9

3. Background Wood is man’s earliest form of controllable heat. For millennia it was our only fuel source and it is only since the industrial revolution that fossil fuel alternatives have evolved to take its place. However, during that time populations have also expanded massively. In Europe there is a huge variation between the wood resources available in relation to population. The following table illustrates the differences between resources available in project partners countries:

Country Forest Area (million hectares)

Total land mass (million hectares)

% forest cover

Population (million)

Finland 23.0 30 75% 5.3 Austria 3.9 8 47% 8.3 Slovenia 1.2 2 58% 2.0 Croatia 2.7 5.7 42% 4.5 South East England 0.27 1.9 14% 8.3

(plus 7.5 in London) England 1.1 13 8% 51.0 UK 3.0 24 12% 61.2 EU (27) 157.0 419 37% 497.6 Figure 2: Woodland resource and population by partner states There are also major cultural differences between partner countries which mean that some are more open to using wood as a fuel than others. The following sections summarise the current state of woodland and forest resources in partner countries.

3.1 Forestry in Finland

Figure 3: Woodland cover in Finland (European Environment Agency) Finland is the most densely forested country in the European Union. Forests cover 23 million hectares which represents about 75% of the total land area. The most common tree species are Scots pine (50% of the volume), Norway spruce (30%) and broadleaves, mainly birch (20%). The annual increment according to National Forest Inventory (NFI) conducted in 2004-2006 was 98.5 million m3, whereas the annual drain is around 55-65 million m3. Maximum sustainable removal for 2006–2015 is evaluated to be 72 million m3 per year. During the early 2000s’ the amount of wood harvested from private forests has ranged approximately from 40 to 50 million m3 of wood annually. In 2007 the supply of wood from Finnish forests was 57.5 million m3 and 17.7 million m3 of wood was imported. Standing Volume (m3/ha): Min 10 m3/ha, Mean 96m3/ha, Max 300 m3/ha Yield (m3/ha/y): Min 1 m3/ha/y, Mean 4.3m3/ha/y, Max 20m3/ha/y

In 2009 wood consumption in Finland totalled 74 million m3. Wood product industry used 20.8 million m3 of timber; sawmill industry 16.5 million m3 of timber and pulp and paper industry 36.7 million m3 of timber. One million cubic meter of roundwood was exported in 2009. The use of wood for forest chips was 6.1 million m3 and the use for firewood 6.7 million m3

Typically, Finnish forest holdings are small. The number of holdings above two hectares is about 375,000, and the number of those under 20 hectares 266,000. The average area of a private forest holding is about 30 hectares. The share of holdings over 100 hectares is only 9%. On average, the holdings owned by men are 15 hectares larger than those owned by women (www.forest.fi , www.metsävastaa.net ). Overall ownership by area is: Privately owned forests 52 % State-owned forests 35 % Industrial private 8 % Others (community, church) 5 % Private citizens - own 52% of all forest land. Forest holdings have several owners and the number of individual private forest owners is estimated at 920,000, which means that

10

almost every fifth Finn is a forest owner. Of the annual increment around 65-70% and of the commercial felling of timber 80-85% comes from privately owned forests. (Source: Nordic Family Forest) The current (2009) use of forest chips (whole tree chips, stem wood chips, logging residue chips, and stump wood chips) in Finland is at the level of 6.1 million m3 per year. 5.4 million m3 per year of this is used in heat and power plants and the rest in smaller heating installations. The use of firewood is at the level of 6.7 million m3 per year. The Finnish long term strategy for climate and environment sets a goal for the forest chip use of 12.5 million m3 per year by the year 2020. The overall availability is estimated to be at the level of 13.5 million m3 per year. However, when restrictions in supply chains and relatively low market competence of woodfuel are taken into account the use of wood chips in 2020 is estimated to develop to 10 million m3 per year; an increase of 3.9 million m3 per year Forests are actively managed in Finland. The main actor in state owned forests is Metsähallitus, a state enterprise that manages more than 12 million hectares of state-owned land and water areas. In private forests forest management associations (FMA) are a key actor helping forest owners in the management of their forests. Each forest owner is a member of FMA. If wanted, FMA takes care of the planning of the forest management, forest operations, contracting of forest operations and even wood sales. Harvesting conditions in Finland are good. On low load bearing soils such as peat harvesting operations take place during winter. Machine and labour costs are relatively high and thus the high productivity of forest operations is very essential. The active role of forest management associations benefits especially those forest owners that don’t have experience on forest management and don’t live near their forests. The relatively large size of forest area owned by individual forest owner, reasonable harvesting cost and relatively good price of sold timber are the main incentives for active forest management in Finland. The improvement fellings in young forest stands in Finland are subsidized. The subsidy for thinning in young forest ranges from 210 – 290 €/ha, if the forest operations are outsourced to an entrepreneur. If the harvested wood is sold to energy purposes, the harvesting operations are subsidized by 7 €/solid m3. A subsidy of 1.7 €/loose m3 is paid also for the chipping of small wood. Harvesting and chipping of logging residues and stump wood is not subsidized.

Figure 4: First thinning, produce used as

fuelfor local woodheat plant Figure 5: Forwarding of logging residues

(Photo Matti Virkkunen) 11

Figure 6: Whole tree chipping with a drum

chipper (Photo EUBIONET III) Figure 7: Whole tree chipping with Giant chipper. This large capacity equipment

provides a chipping service to a range of sites. 3.2 Forestry in Austria Austria is one of the smallest but most densely forested countries in Central Europe. With its 47% forest cover Austria is an EU country very rich in forests. In arithmetic terms, for every Austrian citizen there are 0.5 hectares of wood. More than 3.9 million hectares of its territory are used for forestry. Of these 3.9 million hectares of wood, around 85% are cultivated. Due to its mountainous topography, Austria has a relatively high share of protective forest, the majority of which is non-productive, and which, for economic reasons, is not cultivated. The highest forest shares are found in the Provinces of Styria (61.1%) and Carinthia (60.6%).

12

Wood is the core resource in Austria and an attractive employer. The whole value added chain of wood creates 280,000 jobs in more than 170,000 businesses. They generate a production value of over € 11 billion per year. With about € 3.3 billion surplus in exports (wood and wood products) the wood industry is the second largest foreign exchange earner in Austria, just behind tourism.

Forest ownership:

− 55% small private forests (<200 hectare) − 30% private estates (>200 hectare) − 15% federal forests

The income woods generate for their owners ensures that they are sustainably managed i.e. no more wood is used than is replaced by new growth. Austria applies the principles of sustainable forestry, which are anchored in numerous laws. The Austrian Forestry Act is one of the strictest in the world and enshrines the basic principle that forest must remain forest. Since 1961, compliance with this basic principle has been ensured by means of the Austrian Forest Survey, which is conducted by the Federal Forestry Department and the Research Centre for Forests. Its role is to continuously monitor the condition of the forest, with special regard to any structural changes. The Austrian forest is characterised by a variety of forest communities and species of trees. Approximately 70% are coniferous trees (spruces, firs, larches, stone pines and black pines) and 24% are broadleaf trees (beech, oak); the rest are shrubs. The dominant tree species is the spruce, at 55%. However, in recent years the proportion of spruce has fallen rapidly in favour of deciduous and other coniferous trees as the forestry industry has selected and promoted tree species that are suited to changing climatic conditions (rising temperatures). Austria possesses enormous raw material potential, which until now has been left to slumber in its forests. Since 1975 the forest area has increased by 7% and continues on an upward path. In addition the standing volume of wood is also increasing. Across the country, a total of 31.2 million solid cubic metres of wood grow each year. Of this amount, only 18.8 million solid cubic metres, or 60%, are used. The greatest potential lies in forest areas on agricultural land, where only 46% of the annual growth is currently exploited. About 70% hectare of forest land in Austria is situated within the fringes of the Alpine range in more or less steep terrain. Therefore, forest development and harvesting is limited by physical, economic, social, and environmental constraints. On the one hand, special techniques are required for logging in alpine areas, and on the other hand there are higher harvesting costs. Only 46% of the existing resource potential can be harvested with cost-effective, low-intensity technologies such as harvesters and forwarders.  

45%

9%

13%

27%

4%

2% Forestry tractors / special tractors 

Harvesters / forwarders 

Hauling from logging roads

Mobile cable cranes

Mountain harvesters

Long‐distance cable cranes

Tractor terrain (54%)

Cable crane terrain (46%)

13

Figure 9: Harvesting methods in Austria Wood energy production The use of forest biomass for heat generation has a long tradition in Austria. As a natural raw material, wood has been used in district heating systems since the early 1980’s. The increasing level of energy consumption, the finite nature of fossil fuels, current supply uncertainties and the limited ability of the environment to absorb emissions have, in the truest sense of the word, stoked demand for biogenic fuels such as wood chips, split logs and pellets. At present, Austria still meets 73% of its gross domestic energy needs by imports from abroad. Over the next few years it is intended that this proportion be significantly reduced in favour of renewable energies. At 27%, the very high proportion of renewable energies in Austria’s gross domestic consumption is of particular significance for the country’s energy supply.

Hydropower; 11%

Other renewable energies; 16%

Coal ; 11%

Oil; 41%

Gas; 21%

Figure 10: Structure of gross domestic consumption in 2007 (Source: Statistic Austria)

The share of renewables in Austria’s final energy output is largely supported by two key elements: the use of solid biomass for energy generation and the use of hydropower. These also make a significant contribution to the fact that in 2008 it was possible to meet 72% of domestic electricity consumption from renewable energy sources. However, the provision of energy for the industrial and transport sectors continues to be an issue. In 2008, the share of renewable energies in the transport sector (biodiesel, bioethanol and plant oils) only amounted to 5.3%.

Biogenic waste; 4%

Hydropower; 45%

Solid biomass; 39% Liquid biomass; 6%

Wind power; 2%

Solar heat; 2%

Heat pumps; 1%

Gaseous biomass; 0,6%

Geothermal; 0,2 %

Seweage gases; 0,1 %

Photovoltaic; 0,02%

Figure 11: Renewable final energy in Austria in 2008 - Share of energy sources (Data source: Renewable Energy Sources Act calculations | www.energiestrategie.at)

14

As opposed to many European countries where the focus is placed on large-scale industrial plants, small and medium sized biomass incineration plants have a considerable market volume in Austria. While in urban areas the use of biogenic fuels has been largely replaced by fossil fuels such as natural gas and heating oil, biomass still plays a significant role in rural areas. More than two-thirds of the biomass exploited for energy purposes is used in low-temperature applications, either by small-scale consumers through burning wood, wood chips or pellets in individual stoves or central heating boilers, or in biomass-fuelled local heating plants that fire biogenic fuels such as bark, sawmill by-products and chips. Placing the emphasis on small and medium-sized plants makes it possible to take ecological aspects

into consideration in the use of biogenic energy sources and to create an additional source of income for Austria’s small-scale agriculture and forestry sector.

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

1984‐1988 1989‐1993 1994‐1998 1999‐2003 2004‐2008

Small boilers (up to 100 kW)

Medium‐sized boilers (100 kW to 1 MW)

Larger boilers (over 1 MW)

Output in MW

88.056

2.96

034

8

45.446

1.23

818

5

11.026

1.07

317

2

6.42

074

9 83

5.70

979

410

9

Units of 

plants

Figure 12: Biomass Heating Survey - 5 years cycle (Data source: Lower Austrian Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry)

Just fewer than half a million primary residences are currently heated with biomass-fuelled individual stoves and central home heating systems. A large proportion of these systems are equipped with modern combustion technology. New systems entering the market must comply with a strict approval procedure conducted by state-certified testing authorities.

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

units

Log‐wood heating system

Pellet heating system

Wood chip heating systems up to 100 kW

Larger plants over 100 kW

Dip resulted from loss of

customer confidence following a

surge in woodpellet

prices

Figure 13: Newly installed biomass heating systems in Austria per year (Data source: Lower Austrian Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry) Due to the highly demanding requirements, significant progress has been made in the technological optimisation of firewood stoves terms of combustion and control technology since the 1980s, which has had a positive effect on the use and sales figures. As a result, the emissions of organically bound carbon and carbon monoxide have been reduced to between a tenth and a hundredth of previous levels for both manually operated systems and automatically fed systems, while the level of efficiency has increased from an average of 60% to between 85% and 95% over the recent years.

15

Wood pellets are the most recent and most innovative type of wood fuel, and have undergone a rapid proliferation since 1997. Pellets are made from by-products of forestry management and the timber industry. During the pelleting process, pure, untreated wood is pressed into pellets without the addition of synthetic binding agents. Austria has the world’s sixth largest wood pellet production capacity. In 2009, domestic pellet factories attained a production capacity of 1.1 million tonnes. While previously only sawdust was used to produce pellets, nowadays wood from thinning and all kinds of wood residues are also being processed into pellets. Wood burning stoves are also back in demand. In low or zero-energy homes, demand for individual stoves has increased, as, with their low level of output, they can be optimally adjusted to the heating requirements of the home. Equipped with a viewing window, these stoves radiate a cosy atmosphere. They are also popular in older buildings providing an additional heating source in order to reduce oil and gas bills in the transitional periods in late autumn and early spring. In the mid-1980s, local biomass heating networks began to be developed and constructed in rural areas of Austria. Since then, this market has experienced a considerable upturn. Biomass district heating plants provide communal buildings, multi-storey residential buildings, local and district heating networks and commercial and industrial operations with heat. In 2005, 1,002 biomass heating plants with a total output of 1,132 MW were in operation.

Srm/a = loose cubic meter per year

Figure 14: Biomass-heating plants and biomass CHP-plants in Austria (Source: Austrian Energy Agency) Biomass district heating plants are subsidised at a standard rate of 25% of the environmentally relevant investment costs. If at least 80% of the forest wood chips used in the heating plants are produced in the region, a premium (sustainability premium) of 5% will be granted in addition to the standard subsidy rate. By stimulating the use of regional biomass, the subsidy guidelines serve as a financial steering instrument aimed at preventing purchases of raw materials (forest wood chips, sawdust and bark) from abroad. The transport of biomass over long distances is not compatible with the concept of sustainability and calls the use of renewable energies into question. Furthermore, by purchasing raw materials from outside the region, the opportunity to create added value for local products is reduced.

16

A further focal point of the subsidy programme is to promote the acquisition of machinery that harvests the wood with as little ecological impact as possible, as well as subsidies for the provision, transport, storage and drying of biomass products. Outlook In view of the growing concern about climate change and the impending shortage of fossil fuels, it is essential to forge ahead with the continued expansion of biomass usage.

0

500.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

3.000.000

3.500.000

4.000.000

4.500.000

5.000.000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

[fm /

a]

wood-log-fired heating systems briquette-fired heating systemspellet-fired heating systems wood-chip-fired heating systems and district heating plants combined heat and power systems

Figure 15: Future increasing wood energy demand on the example of Styria However, enthusiasm for doing so must be combined with a determination to ensure that in future the forests continue to be cultivated in a sustainable manner. Ripping out rootstocks and clearing out limbs and branches wholesale with large machinery is not the way that Austria goes. A look at current practice shows that for cost reasons forest residues are only harvested where the branches are already close to the logging roads following the use of cable cranes. Moreover, the heating value of this material is up to 25% less than that of forest wood chips. As a general rule, the use of forest residues for energy generation must be thought through very carefully and tailored to the local conditions. The routine harvesting of wood for energy supply purposes takes place within the context of a sustainable cultivation of the forest areas. This, however, requires highly trained and qualified personnel. Austria caters to this demand with numerous secondary schools and colleges that specialise in all aspects of forestry.

17

3.3 Forestry in Slovenia Slovenia is a country with a lot of forests – nearly 60% of land is covered with forests, which puts Slovenia into third place among all EU countries (Figure 16). It is expected that once the process of denationalization will been concluded, about 80 % of forests will be owned by the private forest owners and 20% by the state. Annual cut is around 4 million m3 of wood from forests but according to expert’s opinion and management plans we could increase the annual cut by around 2 million m3. This resource offers a major opportunity for rural business development as well as wider benefits to the local environment and communities and is a priority task for the future.

Figure 16: Woodland cover in Slovenia (Source: WISDOM, Slovenian Forest Service, 2010)

18

Figure 17: Number of forest owners per ha of forest (Source: Wisdom) The total area of private forests in Slovenia is 806,240 ha (Forest-management plans - FMP for all forest-management districts - FMD, 2001-2010) which means that 412,870 ha of private forests are owned by non-farming households (51.2 %). The number of all Slovenian households which own forests is not known. According to the data of FMP-FMD, there are 314,569 forest estates in Slovenia (in average 2.56 ha) which cannot be entirely equated with the number of households which owned forests. According to data (FMP - FMD) the number of (co)owners of Slovenian private owned forest has risen to almost 400,000. According to the data of forest management plans by the Slovenia Forest Service, the growing stock of Slovenian forests amounts to 327,458,525 cubic metres or 276 cubic metres per hectare comprising 46.5% conifer and 53.5% broadleaf trees. Annual increment is > 7,985,000 cubic metres of wood or 6.7 cubic metres per hectare. In recent years the cut in Slovenian forests has totalled 4 million m3 of trees annually, 60% of which have been conifers and 40% deciduous trees. The cut falls behind the possible one according to forest management plans and it amounts to 70% of it and 40% of current increment. Slovenian forest in figures (2009, SFS) Forest area 1,186,104 ha Forest cover 58.5% Growing stock: 327,458,525 m3 (276.08 m3/ha) Annual increment: 7,985,256 m3 (6.74 m3/ha) Possible cut 5,126,609 m3 Total annual cut: 3,374,191 m3 Coniferous trees: 1,853,772 m3

Deciduous trees: 1,520,419 m3 Realized cut represents 70% of possible cut. Length of forest roads: 12,624 km

19

Figure 18: Growing stock in forests (m3/ha) (Source: WISDOM, Slovenian Forest Service, 2010) Beside wood biomass coming from forest land there is also potential of wood biomass from non-forest land was estimated in WISDOM system. Detail analysis was completed in 2005 and upgraded in 2010. Slovenia landscape is rich in woody biomass both within and outside forest areas. In addition, dense natural vegetation builds up in marginal abandoned farmlands in a continuous process that produces a net increment of the country’s woody biomass resources. The productivity, in terms of fuelwood volume annually exploitable, has been estimated as 70% of the annual increment, which gives a national total of some 276,000 m3/ha/year. Note: this is additional to the woody biomass growing in existing woods.

20

Figure 19: Productivity of non forest land (m3/ha) (Source: WISDOM, Slovenian Forest Service, 2010) Although wood biomass share of primary energy is only 4%, in Slovenia woody biomass was and is still an important source of energy for rural populations and, especially, for forest owners. Approximately 35% of all apartments in Slovenia (270,000) are still heated with wood as an exclusive, primary or secondary fuel. According to statistical data, more than 1,100,000 m3 of fuel wood is used for space heating in apartments. Wood biomass is an important source of energy in households, but it is less important in industry and bigger biomass systems.

21

Figure 20: Use of wood biomass in households in Slovenia (m3/ha) (Source: WISDOM, Slovenian Forest Service, 2010) The main characteristic of current biomass use is old technology resulting in high fuel use, low efficiency and high emissions of carbon dioxide. However, step by step this situation is changing. As a first step a lot is being done to raise consumer and producer understanding of wood. The next step will be to consider what financial incentives will encourage the use of this renewable source of energy. Modern highly efficient wood chips, pellets and logs fuelled heating systems are being installed in households. There are seven district heating systems operating and six systems for combined heat and power production aligned with the timber processing industry. In last year the biggest, cogeneration facility in Slovenia, producing electricity and heat started using mixture of coal and wood chips. The main source of wood biomass for households is forests (80 %). We estimate that only 20 % of wood biomass used in households comes from agricultural land, wood processing industry or from the waste stream (i.e. landfill). 52% of round wood coming from Slovenian forestry is used in saw mill production and 24 % for energy production (mainly for heat production in households and less than 1 % for energy production in bigger energy systems).

22

Figure 21: Round wood use in Slovenia

Of Slovenia’s 777,772 dwellings (Census 2002) 25% are heated with wood biomass as the only source of heating. Moreover, wood biomass is used for heating in additional 10% of dwellings, however in this case wood biomass is not the only, but the main (5%) or secondary (5%) source of energy. The remaining 65% of dwellings are heated with fuel oil or gas. 3.4 Forestry in Croatia: Drivers for Woodheat:

The Croatian energy policy focuses on increased efficiency, security of supply and diversification, market deregulation, and the use of renewable energy sources and environmental protection. The government has launched a number of National Energy Programmes in order to reach the goals of the energy policy, one of which (BIOEN) is directly aimed at biomass and waste utilization.

According to the national long-term energy policy, the biomass utilization should be tripled in 2030 in relation to the year 2000. Biomass for thermal application has great potential in the Republic of Croatia. The annual production of fuel wood by the company Hrvatske sume Ltd. is over 1 million m3. Fuel wood is used for the traditional production of thermal energy. The new management plan for the area for the period 2006-2015 envisages increasing fuel wood production by a further 1 million m3 of energy wood from the so-called forest debris (slash, timber waste, bark) for the production of thermal and/or electrical energy in bioenergy plants. This is only biomass from state forests but 22% of forests are in private ownership. This sector is also very important for the future and this project can be the trigger to use biomass from it. Since Republic of Croatia imports 50% of fossil energy sources (petroleum, crude oil, gas...), forests (and forest biomass) have increasingly been regarded as an important energy source, particularly in view of the fact that they belong to a group of renewable energy sources. The woodland resource: Total land area of the Republic of Croatia is 5,659,400 hectares of which 2,688,700 hectares or 47% is woodland. Of this 89.4% is productive, 7.8% is unproductive, 1.2% is open space within the forest (forest tracks, trails, etc) and 1.6% is infertile property.

23

Figure 22: Woodland cover by municipality/town

The Republic of Croatia owns 2,106,900 hectares of forest and forest property, which is 78% of the total forest area. Companies manage 2,019,000 ha of state-owned forests and forests lands, while state administration bodies and legal persons founded by the Republic of Croatia use 87,900 ha. The remaining 581,800 ha (22%) is privately owned.

State property, managed by

Hrvatske Sume Ltd.

75%

State property, managed by

others3%

Private property

22%

Figure 23: Ownership of Croatian forests According to Forest Law, forests are categorised according to their purpose into:

(a) Economic (90%)- along with preservation and improvement of their generally beneficial functions can be used for production of wooden products;

(b) Conservation (6%)- can be used for protection of land, waters, settlements, objects and other property; and

(c) Special purpose forests (4%)-

24

• Forests and forests parts registered for forest seed production;

• Forests within protected area of natural values protected under nature conservation regulations;

• Forests intended for scientific research, school, defence and other purposes according to special regulations.

Approximately 21% of Croatian woodland is regarded as ‘degraded’ comprising: copsewood, maquis, garrigue, and scrubland. Management of these constituents focuses on preventing further degradation and stimulating restoration of higher woodland quality. Management plans do not forecast harvesting from these sites but in due course this may be possible to some degree.

Copsewood70%

Scrubland15%Maquis

11%Garrigue

4%

Figure 24: Types of ‘degraded’ woodland

The majority (71%) of economic forests are easy to manage with slopes of less than 30% and average extraction distances of less than 400 m.

Slope less than 30% and average

attraction distance less than 400 m

71%

Slope less than 30% and average

attraction distance 400-800

m7%

Slope less than 30% and average

attraction distance above

800 m3%

Slope higher than 30% and average

attraction distance less than 400 m

14%

Slope higher than 30% and average

attraction distance 400-800

m4%

Slope higher than 30% and average

attraction distance above

800 m1%

Figure 25: Forest conditions in the Republic of Croatia

25

Growing

Stock Annual Yield

Allowable 10 year cut

Ownership

Million m3 Million m3

Yield %

Million m3

Managed by Hrvatske Sume

302 8.0 2.6 57.9 State Owned

Managed by other bodies

17 0.4 2.4 0.7

Privately owned 78 2.1 2.7 7.0 TOTAL: 398 10.5 2.6 65.6

Figure 26: Summary of growing resources, yield and allowable cut

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Beech P. Oak Hornbeam S. Oak Spruce Other

Private

State, others

State, HŠ Ltd.

Figure 27: Annual growth-yield - main types of trees (m3)

Figure 28: Average annual growth-yield per hectare in municipalities/towns

26

Figure 29: Average annual allowable cut by municipality/town from 2006 to 2011

Chuck38%

Thin technical

wood1% Wood for

processing27%

Fuelwood18%Residues

16%

Figure 30: Product assortment of planned allowable cut in the Republic of Croatia

Total forest area increased by 203,077 ha between 1996 and 2006, nearly 60% being privately owned woods. Growing stock also increased, for example in state-owned forests managed by Hrvatske Šume, d.o.o. the largest relative increase of growing stocks was realised for spruce (22%), narrow-leafed ash (16%), beech and hornbeam (11%), sessile oak (6%), pedunculate oak (4%), though fir decreased by 1%.

27

Wood residues from the wood processing industry are a major potential source of woody biomass which could be sued to produce Woodheat. The potential quantity available is estimated at 413.400 m3/y giving an equivalent of 287.400 t/y, mainly derived from oak, ash, beech and fir. .

Figure 31: Distribution of the quantity of wood residues at the settlement level

28

3.5 Forestry in South East England Total land area: 1,909,600 ha Total woodland area: > 270,000 ha 14% of SE land area Total ancient woodland: 130,885 ha > 48% of SE woodland and 36% of England’s ancient woodland and includes > 87,000 ha of Ancient & semi-natural woodland (ASNW) and < 44,000 ha of Plantation on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) Forest Commission (state forest service) managed woodland: > 35,000 ha (= 13% of SE woodland & 16% of FC managed woodland in England)

Figure 31: Woodland cover and protected landscapes (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) in South East England

Figure 32: Major species in South East England: Oak Ash Birch Beech Sycamore Sweet chestnut Poplar

> 44,000 ha (16%) > 26,000 ha (10%) > 25,000 ha (9%) > 23,000 ha (8%) > 5,900 ha (2%) > 18,000 ha (2%) > 1,900 ha (>1%)

Scots pine > 23,000 ha (8%) Corsican pine > 6,000 ha (2%) Norway spruce > 5,000 ha (1.8%) Larch > 4,500 ha (1.7%) Douglas fir > 3,800 ha (1.4%) Note: this adds to just > 50% so lots of mixed woods!

Total broadleaf

> 219,000 ha (>81%)

Total conifer > 51,000 ha (<19%)

Note: all figures drawn from NIWT (National Inventory of Woodland and Trees published in 2002. NIWT ‘2’ will shortly be available to update these figures. Sweet chestnut coppice figures drawn from FC Bulletin 64 (published 1987)

29

30

Figure 33: Comparison to rest of England: Region Woodland Area % Woodland

Cover % of England’s total woodland

South East 270,000 14.1 24.6 South West 212,000 8.9 19.3

East England 139,000 7.3 12.7 North East 103,000 12.0 9.4

West Midlands 99,000 7.6 9.0 North West 96,000 6.8 8.8

Yorkshire & the Humber 92,000 6.0 8.4 East Midlands 80,000 5.1 7.3

London 6,000 3.9 0.5 TOTAL 1,097,000 8.4 100

Existing wood/timber production in south east England:

• From 35,000 ha (growing 40% conifer/60% broadleaves by area) the Forestry

Commission harvests approximately 160,000m3 per year (approx 80% of this is conifer)

• We estimate that a similar amount is harvested from the other 235,000 ha of woodland (15% conifer/85% broadleaf). Of these woods less than a third (by area) are subject to a Forestry Commission grant scheme or felling licence. Note: In the UK a Felling Licence is needed if a woodland owner wishes to fell more than 5m3 in a calendar quarter. Licences are only needed for those parts of the wood being thinned or felled so they represent a low estimate of active management, however, permission to fell is often sought but does not proceed due to poor markets.

Current Markets: Markets for wood products from south east England have declined over the last century as fossil fuel based products were substituted for those traditionally provided by wood. The woodland resource was heavily harvested during both World Wars after which resources to allow private landowners to restock weren’t always. The Forestry Commission bought or leased many woods in SE England to facilitate their replanting. A limited number of sawmills remain in southern England mainly cutting conifers for fencing etc. Markets for broadleaf wood have declined very dramatically over the last 25 years with the loss of major pulp mills but the evolving market for woodfuel is starting to have an impact.

Figure 34: Major sawmills in southern England

31

The result is that the majority of woods in south east England have not been actively managed for many years. This is in marked contrast to woods in Finland and Austria where strong markets have maintained active management and strong woodland cultures. Figure 35: Typical examples of undermanaged woods in south east England:

32

Implications of undermanagement:

1. Carbon: • Wood locks up (or ‘sequesters’) carbon. • A tree will absorbs carbon from the atmosphere during its’ life and if left will

eventually rot and release that carbon back to the atmosphere. An untouched wood or forest will eventually reach an equilibrium where the carbon absorbed each year is balanced by the carbon released through decay each year. However, the standing trees in the wood will sequester carbon.

• A harvested tree either releases carbon when the wood is burnt or sequesters that carbon for a period of time as a solid wood product.

• A managed wood will sequester carbon in the growing trees in the wood, even though some may be harvested each year. Note: in a well managed wood some the amount of wood harvested each year will balance the amount of wood which is ‘grown’ each year (though ideally slightly less as there is ecological benefit in leaving some wood to rot as a habitat for native plants and animals).

• Well managed woods absorb more carbon per ha per year than unmanaged woods.

• Overall an unmanaged wood delivers less in carbon benefits than a well managed wood.

33

2. Biodiversity: • In a forested landscape without the impacts of humans it is likely that a

diversity of woodland habitats (niches suited to particular species of plants and animals) will be provided by natural processes such as storms, fire and disease.

• In south east England most of the woodland we have today has been retained because it provided things which man needed: mainly fuel and building material. As such it was intensively managed in the past often under a coppice, or coppice with standards management regime. This management provided a diversity of habitats within woods which has suited many of our native plants and animals.

• Loss of active management, particularly of the coppice cycle, has led to some native species declining severely.

• Restoring sensitive management, particularly coppice management, will restore that diversity of habitat and benefit many of our native plants and animals.

3. Landscape:

• Woods are an iconic part of our landscape. • It is no coincidence that the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural

Beauty in SE England are our most wooded areas. • Undermanaged woods are more vulnerable to dramatic events such as

storms, as illustrated by the impacts of the Great Storm of 1987. • Well managed woods also provide a diversity in the local landscape,

including within the woods themselves. Protection of UK forests: In the United Kingdom there are various statutory Regulations which help ensure that trees and woods are not adversely affected by management. These include:

• The Forestry Act: Anyone wishing to fell more than 5m3 of wood per calendar quarter must obtain a felling licence from the Forestry Commission (The UK Governments Department responsible for administering forestry regulations). Licences are only granted if the proposals adhere to the principles laid down in the UK Forestry Standard (copy can be downloaded from the FC’s website: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6dfk2u and the associated best practice guidelines. All felling, other than thinning (which is designed to provide more space for the retained trees to grow), will be subject to a legal requirement that the wood is restocked by planting or natural regeneration. The only exceptions are if there ire over-riding public benefits such as the restoration of rare habitats such as heathland. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-6dfk86

• Environmental Impact Regulations: Anyone wishing to create a new wood, convert a wood to another land use, build a forest road or a forest quarry which is likely to have a significant impact on the environment may be subject to an environmental impact assessment. The EIA regulations relating to forestry are administered by the Forestry Commission and provide robust powers to address adverse environmental impacts. For instance if an area of ancient and semi-natural woodland were converted to a field the regulations could be used to require the landowner to restore the field to woodland. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6dfkbc

• European Protected Species Regulations: Provide protection for rare animals. In the UK we have developed a series of best practice guidelines for individual species to help woodland managers protect and enhance habitats for these species http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-75tju5

34

Policy (and other) impacts on woodlands of south east England:

• From the 1940’s to 1985 there was a strong ethos to convert broadleaved woods and less productive land to conifer woodland to produce timber.

• In the 1980’s appreciation of the value of ancient woodland (sites which have been

wooded since the earliest map records and which retain many of our native woodland plants and animals) grew culminating in the broadleaved woodland policy of 1985 which stopped broadleaf woodland being converted to conifer.

• The ‘Great Storm’ of 1987 and subsequent storm in 1990 saw major tracts of

woodland in south east England blow over. Conifer woods were particularly badly affected. Encouraged by higher grants to replant with broadleaf trees, the advent of the ‘tree shelter’ which appeared to be more effective in protecting young trees from herbivores and a greater interest in broadleaf and ancient woodland most of the damaged wodos were replanted, or allowed to regenerate, with broadleaf trees.

• Forestry Commission grants over the last 25 years have encouraged planting and

replanting woodland which delivers a range of benefits and hence most new woodlands and most restocking has been with broadleaf trees.

Potential for production: • 235,000 ha of woodland not managed by the Forestry Commission; • Of this around 39,000 ha are coniferous and 196,000 ha are broadleaved; • If we assume this has the potential to grow at at least 4 m3 per ha per year this equates

to nearly 1,000,000m3 of increment per year. Note: this is a conservative estimate for managed woods as Scots pine will achieve YC8 (even allowing for open space in the wood) and sweet chestnut or ash coppice will yield > 100m3 per ha at the end of a 15 year rotation equating to YC6 (and up to 12m3 per ha per year if the rotation is extended to 20 – 25 years), however, most woods have not been actively managed for some time and are currently not achieving their optimal growth rates.

• If half of this increment were harvested for woodfuel each year this equates to 500,000m3 per year. This reflects the target outlined under the England Woodfuel Strategy of 2,000,000m3 per year by 2020 and can be broken down further to a possible target for each county:

35

Figure 36: South East England - Woodfuel Strategy suggested targets by County

County Woodland Area

(hectares)

% woodland cover

FC holding (Hectares)

% of woodland

cover

Non FC holding

(hectares)

Woodfuel Strategy target by % non FC

woodland area (m3/yr)

Woodfuel Strategy

Suggested County Target

(m3/yr)

Berkshire 18,308 14.5 444 2.4 17,864 38,103 35,000

Buckinghamshire 17,573 9.4 1,753 10.0 15,820 33,743 33,000

Oxfordshire 18,235 7 629 3.4 17,606 37,553 35,000

Surrey 37,564 22.4 1,588 4.2 35,976 76,735 70,000

Hampshire 66,939 17.7 20,136 30.1 46,803 99,828 105,000

Isle of Wight 4,549 12 1,146 25.2 3,403 7,258 7,000

West Sussex 37,507 18.9 3,789 10.1 33,718 71,919 70,000

East Sussex 29,924 16.7 2,643 8.8 27,281 58,189 55,000

Kent 39,487 10.6 3,540 9.0 35,947 76,673 90,000

270,086 14.4 35,668 234,418 500,000 500,000

What might this mean in energy terms: 1m3 of wood (standing or recently felled) comprises about 50% water (by total weight)

= approximately 1 tonne of unseasoned/fresh/wet wood = approx. 0.72 tonnes of seasoned wood comprising about 30% water (by total weight) = about 3m3 of loose woodchips (by volume) = about 2,500kWhrs of usable heat energy for broadleaf wood or about 1,800kWhrs of usable heat energy for conifer wood

If we exclude woods currently managed by the Forestry Commission on the premise that most of the growing resource is currently sold we can assume that the 500,000m3 per year will be derived from the 198,000 ha (85%) of broadleaf woodland and 37,000 ha (15%) of conifer woodland. If we further assume that a higher proportion of the conifer wood is likely to be used in sawmills we can estimate that 90% of the woodfuel is likely to be broadleaf and 10% conifer. Hence 450,000 m3 of broadleaf wood with an energy value (when seasoned to 30% moisture content – by overall weight) of > 2,500kWhrs per m3 OR 1,125,000,000kWhrs; and 50,000 m3 of conifer wood with an energy value (when seasoned to 30% moisture content - by overall weight) of > 1,800 kWhrs per m3 OR 90,000,000 kWhrs. Overall this equates to a potential resource of more than

1,200,000,000 kWhrs per year; enough to heat more than 80,000 homes (assuming each has a heat requirement of about 15,000kWhrs per year) This would save more than 400,000 tonnes of CO2 per year

(assuming wood is predominantly substituting for oil) OR more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon per year

36

Other sources of woody biomass: Existing:

I. Lop and top: branchwood which is removed from the main tree following felling. This material is traditionally burnt in the wood to leave a tidy site for restocking. In recent years the costs of burning up have grown and in most cases the lop and top is left to rot on site (with the benefit of returning the nutrients embedded in the wood to the soil). Removal of all of this material would remove nutrients and reduce the growth of the next generation of trees so is generally unsustainable. Removal of a proportion is acceptable, particularly if just the woody material is removed as most nutrients are held in green leaves and needles. It may become more common as whole tree harvesting techniques as seen in Finland become established (in which case leaving the felled trees on the ground or in stacks to allow green leaves and needles to fall off before chipping is recommended).

II. Stumps: In some areas stumps have been removed to reduce the spread of root fungi which could damage the next generation of trees (e.g. the sandy soils of Thetford Forest). In upland areas harvesting stumps from conifer plantations is also carried out (to supply the wood fuelled powerplant at Lockerbie in south Scotland). However, in the woods of south east England this is unlikely to be viable as removal of coppice stools would prevent rapid coppice regrowth and disturbance of ancient woodland soils or the undisturbed soils of former heathland would be ecologically very damaging. Hence we don’t believe this is viable in SE England.

III. Sawmill co-products: Converting a round log into a square or oblong cross section creates sawdust and ‘slabwood’ which collectively can account for 50% of the volume of the log taken to the sawmill. This material can be converted into woodchips or logs. The new wood pellet production plant installed by Verdo renewables in Andover http://www.verdorenewables.co.uk/ draws half it’s raw material from sawmills in southern England. This provides a useful market for sawmills who can debark the wood prior to chipping to allow production of high quality wood pellets.

IV. Arboricultural products: Arboriculture is the management of individual trees. With huge urban areas in SE England there are many trees in gardens, parks and along roads all of which need intermittent management. Chipping the branches etc on site allows easier transport of the arisings. Considerable amounts of woody material are produced which has to be ‘disposed of’. In the past this might have been treated as waste and deposited in land fill sites but increasingly arboricultural material is being collated (for instance at the Croydon Tree Station) and sorted (using sieves). Better quality material might be dried and used in local woodfuelled boilers and lower quality material is sent to the wood fired power station in Slough.

V. Reclaimed wood: In the UK we import 85% of the wood products we use and there is inevitably a lot of woody material ‘thrown away’. If this can be ‘reclaimed’ from the ‘waste stream’ it can be used as woodfuel. However, if it has been painted or treated with chemical preservatives it can only be burnt in a system which is compliant with the Waste Incineration Directive (sometimes called WID compliant). There are varying estimates of the quantities available but it is likely to be more than the resource available from existing woods!

New: With such a low level of woodland cover there is considerable potential for woodland creation in England. However, there will understandably be concerns about loss of agricultural land which is needed for food production. While large areas of highly flexible and productive land is unlikely to be converted to woodland, land which is less productive, is costly in terms of ‘carbon’ inputs (fertiliser and fuel for cultivation) and/or delivers a range of other benefits (water quality, flood defence, etc) may be attractive to landowners. VI. Short Rotation Forestry: Fast growing tree species like poplar and Eucalypt species

can be grown on relatively short rotations (15 to 25 years as opposed to 50-16 years for traditional conifers and > 100 years for broadleaf trees – except when coppiced). Poplar is common in many European countries but less so in the UK. A lot of work has been undertaken in countries like Belgium to select fast growing clones and overall this could become attractive as wood markets evolve. It is well suited to damp soil

37

conditions which are liable to flooding. Eucalypts have been used by energy companies extensively in warmer countries and interest is growing in the UK. However, there are concerns about the impact of large areas of Eucalypts and their vulnerability to severe frosts. Hence the FC is currently carrying out a series of trials around the country to identify the facts.

VII. Short Rotation Coppice: Willows are fast growing broadleaf trees which can be managed on a short coppice cycle of 3 years. Growth rates are high with 20 solid cubic metres of wood per ha per year being possible, however, the density of the wood is lower than other broadleaf trees and hence their energy density is lower. Despite support available to land owners through Defra’s Energy Crops Scheme to plant energy crops interest has been low, mainly due to lack of markets for the product. As energy prices and familiarity with woodfuel increases we are likely to see more interest from land owners in planting SRC. It is particularly well suited to damp or flood vulnerable land and could be attractive on low quality agricultural land which is costly to grow traditional agricultural crops on.

VIII. New Woodland: England as a whole is not well wooded with only about 8% woodland cover. The south east is the most wooded part of England with over 14% woodland cover (Surrey is the most wooded county in England with > 22% woodland). There are major opportunities for planting new woodland and the evolving market for woodfuel may provide land owners with the motive to plant new woods (to supply their own energy needs). Well designed new woods in the right places also deliver a range of other benefits to land owners, the environment, the landscape and society including carbon sequestration and substitution for fossil fuels. It is likely that the markets for carbon will develop in the future which may provide additional encouragement to landowners to create new woods

Figure 37:

The above map illustrates sites of current woodfuelled heating systems in England. The number is slowly increasing but huge opportunities remain. 38

39

3.6 Conclusions:

(a) Slovenia, Croatia and England have significant resources of wood which is currently unharvested which could be used as woodfuel;

(b) The woodland management cultures and ownership patterns vary immensely

between European countries;

(c) As individual countries we’re all working hard to improve and make better use of our woodland resources and sharing experience between countries helps encourage lateral thought about how we can achieve our aims;

(d) However, there are concerns from some woodland owners and wood based

businesses that the market for wood as a fuel will: i. compete for resources, increase raw material costs and endanger

existing businesses; and ii. use wood which would be better used as timber; – particularly where the woodheat (and wood power) industry receives grant support.

4. Engagement

4.1 Slovenia The use of woody biomass in Slovenia is common and traditional, but current systems are often older (especially domestic wood fuelled systems) and less efficient than those now available. Our main goal was to promote modern technologies along the whole wood biomass production chain and to support regional development based on wood biomass. To reach these goals we engaged different target groups. Forest owners and farmers were our target group in woody biomass production. According to our latest Agricultural Census more than 52 % of roundwood production on farm holdings is woodfuel (mainly for personal consumption). So our main question at the beginning of the project was – can we change this pattern, can we overcome this and bring forest owners and farmers to the market – as wood fuel producers and energy sellers? At the beginning of the project we identified three priority areas – Žetale, Lovrenc na Pohorju and Oplotnica.

Figure 38: Extract from Slovenian ‘googlemaps’ highlighting priority areas

KEY: Green pins =Woodchip producers Green ‘clouds’ = Firewood producers Yellow pins = Woody biomass cogeneration Yellow ‘clouds’ = woodfuelled heating system Blue pins = potential users in receipt of technical advice from experts and feasibility study Purple pin = Promotional workshops Yellow ‘cloud’ with dot = Good practice example

In each area we identified groups of forest owners who were interested to start wood biomass production and local communities who were interested to start wood biomass projects. We attracted more than 120 participants to a series of workshops and held one to one meetings with possible investors and representatives of local communities. The most interested investors, possible wood biomass producers and users were also invited to take part on further project activities (including study tours). In all events organized in the frame of this project a mixture of all target groups were present and this enabled us to start the discussion on further development of this sector in the region. While the original plan sought discrete events for different target groups, we found that it was very

40

difficult to organise separate events for producers and users of wood energy (as people who could not attend a particular date would happily attend another). We concluded that there were significant benefits in suppliers and buyers understanding each others position and this is why lectures were always prepared in the way that different (but the most important) parts of wood biomass production chains were presented to all participants. We found that providing producers and users with the opportunity to meet one another and discuss local opportunities was particularly helpful in establishing embryonic partnerships to develop and implement projects.

Figure 39: Workshop in Lovrenc na pohorju (Mayor is sitting in the first row, potential investors few rows behind). Discussion after the workshop lasted till 20:30 in the evening. After this event potential investors went to excursion with us, but at the end (in 2010) project of wood biomass district heating system in Lovrenc na Pohorju was stopped because of legal barriers. We are still trying to bring this idea back to life. A particularly interesting and more representative case is in Žetale were a group of forest owners after the workshop and one to one meetings established a farmers cooperative and prepared a project for investment in a district heating system for the whole town. After three years of preparation they are now approaching the final stage – to sign a contract with local community. However, this also illustrates one of the biggest barriers at the moment - the very long time it takes for a project idea to come to final realization. This project benefited from the advice provided by Austrian project partners and is likely to be realized during this year. We asked participants at workshops to fill-in the questionnaires, however, participants were not always willing. So at the end of the project we have data from more than 50 participants who completed these questionnaires. From this we can conclude that the majority of participants have their own forests, from which they are covering their own needs for woodfuel but they are also thinking to invest in the wood biomass and wood energy. The most difficult target to reach for us was woodheat end users – users which are not farmers or forest owners or they are not public sector officials. This situation is influenced by the Rural Development Program where farmers and forest owners are eligible for incentives to invest in energy production and selling woodheat and also local communities in rural areas are motivated to support them in this investments.

41

4.2 Croatia: In Croatia a series of 13 workshops were provided along with a study tour

Figure 40: Workshop for buyers and sellers in Garesnica Main goal of the preliminary workshops was to introduce the “Woodheat Solutions” project to potential investors and local suppliers of wood biomass in the selected region. We outlined wood biomass advantages in comparison to other energy resources and tried to explain the benefits to city of Garesnica and local population if they would use heating system on wood biomass in the future.

Figure 41: Study tour to Slovenia Main goal was to present idea of project “Woodheat solutions” to potential investors and local suppliers of wood biomass from Croatia by taking them to see woodheating systems in Slovenia. We visited two heating systems one in Mozirje and one in Luce both with a power of 660 kW. We also visited one complex where wood chips are produced.

Similar findings to Slovenia in that better to cover all parts of the Woodheat supply chain for both buyers and suppliers. The study tour to Slovenia proved particularly attractive to delegates. 4.3 South East England: From the Forestry Commission’s perspective the key driver for developing the woodfuel market and supply chain in SE England has been to provide a market which will support restoring management to existing woodland. The UK Government established the Biomass Task Force to review the opportunities and the Forestry Commission followed with the Woodfuel Strategy for England in 2007 (copy can be downloaded from: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-woodfuel ) The Woodheat Solutions project was developed as a way to identify good practice and transfer this to England. Our priority target groups for engagement are woodland owners and managers, property owners and managers who might consider woodfuel and key influencers such as local authority officers and elected councilors who could stimulate uptake of woodfuelled heating within public buildings and encourage it through the planning process. As well as being the most wooded part of England the SE is also the most populace with about 8.3 million (and a further 7.8 million in the adjacent London conurbation). The number of woodland owners is estimated at 10,000 but the number owning significant areas of woodland is much less. However, the proportion of woodland owned in small areas is relatively low and the culture of woodland management is poor; most woods in lowland England are not actively managed, in marked contrast to woods in Austria and Finland. Hence there were many opportunities to engage at a range of levels but doing so is challenging. The initial process of engagement through targeted workshops and 1:1 meetings was moderately successful and obtaining feedback through questionnaires was particularly difficult. We concluded that at this early stage in the development of the Woodheat industry a more targeted approach to more active woodland owners, managers etc was likely to be more effective in attracting people who could take projects forward. Particularly in circumstances where woodland owners supplied their own fuel – as is the case with the long established West Dean Estate in West Sussex where woodfuel has been used to heat much

42

of the village since the 1970’s, see: http://www.westdean.org.uk/Estate/Environment/WoodFiredHeatingSystem.aspx Consequently we decided to provide a high profile woodfuel seminar as part of the major woodland event in south east England in 2009 – the Weald Woodfair. This was based on the premise that this event has now been running for 20 years and is the main opportunity for all those interested in and associated with woodland to get together each year. The displays of forestry machinery also allowed us to introduce examples of the equipment that is well suited to woods in SEE.

Figure 42: Delegates attending the WhS seminar and tour of equipment at the

Weald Woodfair in Sept 2009 Here looking at a tractor based processor which is

proving very effective at working small broadleaved woods in south east England – including coppice. Finnish Valtra tractor and Keto harvesting head.

Purchase was supported under RDPEngland. Owner Nick Hilton of Woodwise attended the

Austrian study tour and wrote an excellent article in the major UK forestry magazine: Forestry Journal

in spring 2010. http://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/index.htm

Forestry Commission’s Technical Branch have undertaken studies of this machine working sweet

chestnut coppice: Link needed

Similarly we took advantage of events organized by other partners (not directly part of the WhS programme) to engage with our target groups.

Figure 44: West Sussex County Council

event ‘Woodfuel-making the switch’ February 2010

As one of the most wooded counties in England WSCC have been interested in woodfuel for some time, have installed 4 systems but had problems with them all.

Commitment remains strong with their woodland officer joining the Austrian study tour. Since then

WSCC and the FC have been able to bring together sufficient funding to recruit a ‘woodfuel development officer’, who also attended one of the study tours. His priorities are to resolve the difficulties with installed systems and promote woodfuel across the county

Figure 45: Woodfuel event organised by the Small Woodland Owners Group (SWOG) While the average size of woodland ownership in

England seems to be higher than in other European countries there is a growing interest in woodland ownership. SWOG brings together lots of small

woodland owners who are often interested in domestic use of woodfuel. http://www.swog.org.uk/

Interview about woodfuel opportunities also provided for Woodlands TV:

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/tv/2011/01/sustainable-fuel-from-woodland-and-trees/

The study tours were a key part of the overall project and identifying delegates who would make best use of the tours was a priority. Interest was encouraged through initial engagement workshops but 1:1 contacts either by phone or email were much more effective. While we were not massively oversubscribed with interest we were pleased to be able to take a full complement of delegates on both study tours. All returned from the study tours more knowledgeable and enthused. In most cases delegates have progressed either directly with their own businesses or have been able to influence woodfuel development in other ways. It is important to maintain contact with the study tour delegates (as they have been a major part of our investment) and we did this by organising a dedicated workshop for all those who had attended study tours to Austria and

43

Finland to discuss the key lessons learnt from the study tours. We also sought their feedback on lessons learnt and how they would take forward Woodheat via questionnaires. Nearly all have become woodfuel champions using the knowledge gained to enthuse and encourage others.

Figure 46: Study Tour delegates workshop – June 2010 In order to maintain momentum and encourage study tour delegates to champion the use of woodfuel we hosted a workshop for the study tour delegates to review the key lessons learnt and maintain the network. Event was held on Hampton Estate which installed their first woodfuelled heating system to supply heat to business tenants in converted farm buildings. They encountered many challenges with their first system and the owner benefited from attending the Austrian study tour. They are now exploring further installations on the estate and supplying woodfuel to others

4.4 Conclusions:

(a) Seeing is believing: hence the study tours were incredibly valuable and we’d recommend that these are undertaken much sooner in the calendar of any similar projects as those attending become champions;

(b) Target Groups: are valid but each benefits from understanding the whole Woodheat supply chain and when brought together partnerships are more likely to develop, hence the should not be engaged with separately (this is particularly so in the UK where the woodland culture is much weaker);

(c) Add value by working with others: it is both more effective and less costly to work with existing local groups, partnerships etc to engage on projects like this, plus they provide a more effective mechanism to circulate information and lessons learnt;

(d) Senior influencers: although difficult to attract, senior politicians and officers can have major influence, hence particular effort is warranted to attract a them;

(e) Maintain the network: keeping touch with those already engaged with, especially study tour delegates, is crucial to gaining good return on the investment; and

(f) Engagement and dissemination of lessons learnt is an ongoing process: Examples of ongoing networking:

Figure 48: Royal Forestry Society field visit

to Stanstead Park Estate – Sept 2010 While not directly influenced by WhS this estate has installed an exemplar woodfuelled heating system

which formed the basis for a WhS article in National Farmer e-magazine and a short WhS newsletter

Figure 49: Surrey Hills AONB Woodfair 2010 This new event was very well received with the leader of Surrey County Council (Senior SCC Councillor had

attended the Austrian study tour) confirming that woodfuel is now the preferred source of heat in any

Council boiler replacement programme

44

45

5. Woodheat entrepreneurship

How woodheat has evolved (in Finland and Austria)

5.1 Background and development

Finnish municipalities have a long tradition of investing in woodfuel plants. The exploitation of renewable energy sources was boosted in the 1990’s by increasing energy prices of fossil fuels and by efforts to mitigate climate change. In the beginning of the 1990´s some municipalities started to invest in biomass heating systems for municipal buildings like schools, retirement homes etc (output 100 kW - 1 MWth). A new form of business was born in the Finnish countryside during the 1990s, when farmers started to produce heat from woodfuel, first supplying heat for schools and old people’s homes and later expanding into municipal district heating and the provision of heat for industrial processes. This ‘heat entrepreneurship’ has boosted rural employment while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Heat entrepreneur/enterprise is a single entrepreneur, a co-operative, a limited liability company or an entrepreneur consortium that supplies customers with heat. The heating enterprise typically operates locally and the main fuel is wood. The fuel comes from the entrepreneur's own forest or from local forest owners or wood processing industry. The heat entrepreneur operates the heating plant and earns income based on the amount of heat generated. The price of heat was usually bound to the price of light fuel oil in the beginning but nowadays it is more common to use different indexes (e.g. the cost of living index or prices of a set of fuels). The number of plants has been constantly on the increase since the first heat entrepreneurs started their business. In 2007 the total heat capacity was 190 MW, the annual growth being about 10 % in both the number of plants and the boiler capacity. An average boiler capacity was 0.5 MW but the trend is to find customers that need bigger installations – a 300 kW or 3 MW plant require roughly equal amounts of service and management but only the bigger one renders a decent profit. When looking at new heating plants, an investment was made by the entrepreneur in every other case. In 2007 heating entrepreneurs used approximately 730,000 loose-m3 of forest chips, which is about 11 % of the total volume of forest chips used in all heating and power generation. In addition, more than 60,000 loose-m3 of other woodfuel and about 30,000 loose-m3 of sod and milled peat were used in these plants. Most often forest chips are made of unmerchantable wood, e.g. small diameter trees, damaged timber and logging residues. Primary sources for wood chips are private forest owners and forestry societies.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Heatingobjects

Figure 50: The total number of heating plants managed by heating enterprises. Source: TTS Institute. Timely actions of promotional and fiscal measures together with active supporting networks have been successful on policy level. R&D of the Wood Energy Technology Program has improved technologies for heat entrepreneurs. The fuel chain from forest to the heating station has become better controlled and less vulnerable. However, development in large scale applications has been slower than technologically possible. The woodfuel potential is great and new woodfuel heating systems and stations could be established at a faster rate.

5.2 Business models 5.2.1 Investment by customer A business model in which the municipality or other customer owns the heat production equipment and entrepreneur produces heat is popular because the economic risk for the entrepreneur is small. In practice, the customer invests in the heating plant and entrepreneurs take care of the fuel supply and operations for a set compensation (Okkonen et al 2005). The size of the plant, that is, the amount of heat produced, affects the details of the business model. The entrepreneur often runs his business on a part-time basis if the plant is small. Since the biggest investment comes from the customer, the entrepreneur can operate with a small initial capital and the business model is often a trade name/company name/sole trader. One way to organize heat production is a company ring, where several entrepreneurs share responsibilities according to their strengths and agree on compensations. Similarly, in the case of a larger heating units, it makes sense to choose the business model so that corresponds to challenges of business activity (e.g. co-operative or limited companies). From the customer’s point of view the asset of the business model is the fact that the heat production equipment stays in customer’s ownership, in other words, the customer retains authority over heat production. However, if the initial investment is high, the customer has to carry the economic risk. In addition, the question of responsibility between the entrepreneur and the customer can in some cases be problematic.

46

47

In practice, in investment by customer business model entrepreneur purchases the raw material as cheaply as possible either as wood chips or as by-products of forest or sawmill operations. The entrepreneur can have various suppliers such as forest machine contractors, chipper users, or foresters. Correspondingly, the customer acquires the operational institutions like the plant and network as well as takes care of the selling of heat to other customers. Basically operations cannot be divided between several contractors if the operations are small-scale and the business is meant to be profitable. From the entrepreneur’s point of view the investment is functional when the entrepreneur wants to minimise risks and work part-time. Correspondingly, in case the intention is to expand the operation and make it more and more profitable, business model is not the best choice. 5.2.2 Investment by entrepreneur In this second business model the entrepreneur invests in heat production equipment (Okkonen et al 2005). In practice, the entrepreneur carries the economic risk, because all the possible technical faults and economic risks (e.g. rise in interest rate) are directed straight to the entrepreneur. On the other hand, greater investment should enable entrepreneur to achieve greater profit. The amount of heat produced affects the business model and its corporate forms as in investment by customer model. From the customer’s point of view outsourcing the business is a good option when one wants to direct capacities to core functions, such as health care services. On the other hand, if business is completely outsourced, the heat entrepreneur acquires a position comparable to a leading market position. However, this can be influenced by a detailed contract which defines among others factors that affect the price of heat. From entrepreneur’s point of view the business model is favourable if he is capable and willing to carry risks. In addition, in slightly larger operations the entrepreneur can work full-time and the investment can be expected to make profit. The working method for the customer on the level of practical business operations is to pay only for the produced heat which consists of a joining fee, basic fee and user fee. Entrepreneur supplies production equipment and takes care of operational activity and management. Raw material can be acquired individually by the entrepreneur or by subcontracting. It has to be remembered that in case the business is small-scale the raw material supplied as a subcontract reduces entrepreneur’s profits. On the other hand, in large-scale operations the entrepreneur can reduce the risks; investments in transportation equipment or chipper are not necessary. As a rule, the more the entrepreneur refines the raw material, the better the profits are for the company. As an example, if an entrepreneur produces the raw material from his own forest, takes care of transportation, storage, chipping and heat production in his own heat plant, the return from the sale of woodheat is highest. However, this presumes strong tolerance for risks and economic as well as mental resources. 5.2.3 Large-scale enterprise: A network model Heat production organized by a large-scale enterprise constitutes one further business model. A large-scale enterprise can organize heat production in two ways: 1) an enterprise invests in and owns production equipment and takes responsibility for heat production; and 2) a customer invests in and owns the equipment, but the enterprise is responsible for heat production (Vapo Ltd 2005). What is typical for both methods is that a large company shares heat production activities between subcontractors. These include, for instance, raw material supply, transportation, chipping and the service and maintenance of a heat plant. An enterprise can thus carry the risk of investment, but share the risk of production with subcontractors and pay for a small

48

scale entrepreneur for agreed measures. In general the model requires heat production to be large-scale. It is important that a large company has experience of heat production, and better risk taking capacity. These matters are also important from the customer’s point of view, because they secure heat production. The model is suitable for small-scale entrepreneurs in case they are not willing to expand their operations. This activity/operation is well suited to a business model in which a customer owns the heat production equipment and an entrepreneur produces heat for the customer. It has to be noted that if there is an extra participant between the customer and the service producer it may reduce the entrepreneur’s business profit. It may be that in this model the company has to only supervise or take care of administration. Company also controls the heat plant acquiring process. In addition, the unit’s/company’s etc operational activity is left for a subcontractor. Raw material is acquired from where it is the most economical and thus local entrepreneurs can be in competition with subcontractors. In a large-scale enterprise model a customer pays for a large company that takes responsibility of the operations. 5.2.4 ESCo The ESCo (Energy Service Company) business model derives from functional models aiming at energy saving. In the original ESCo –concept, a company (from outside) provides services and investments for a customer to reduce energy consumption. The company improves energy efficiency, and operations are paid back with the savings of reduced energy costs. In heat production, the company invests in heat production equipment and customer pays the same price as before the investment. The heat produced with a new (woodfuel based) system is cheaper than in older (fossil fuel) system. After the company has got the investment back, customer gets the ownership of the equipment and also lower heating costs The model has been applied for heat production for instance in Scotland and pilot projects have been tested also in Finland (Kokkonen S. 2005). This model is suitable for customers who are willing to keep the ownership of heat production equipment, but who do not have resources for the large investments. For the entrepreneur, who has experience on profitability calculations, and also resources to make investments, the ESCo concept may be a good option. However, this concept requires very good basis both on heat production techniques, and also on investment calculations. This model is quite difficult to apply at a small-scale. The biggest problem from company’s point of view is the big size of the investment and long pay back periods (5 to 10 years). If a company makes several simultaneous investments, significant financial resources are needed. On the other hand, a company is sure to have ready-made concepts and skills to run the operations. Stable price level at the payback time reduces company’s economical risk, too. From the customer’s point of view, the strengths of this model are small investment risk, steady heat price for agreed period and ownership of the equipment. The negative aspect is long payback periods. Usually the chipping system can be used for 15 to 20 years (Suomen Kuntaliitto 2002), which must be remembered when making the contract; although the price for the customer is the same, the total costs are affected by the length of the payback time. Since the ESCo -company operates in a broad scale, raw material has a major affect on business profitability. A company must have ready and clear raw material supplier chains: 1) by-product flow, or 2) considerable forest resources. In practice this means that by-product flow can supply high quality raw material at an economic price. On the other hand, considerable forest resources in a particular area make co-operative activity possible. Moreover, it is possible that the ESCo –company takes over the supply of raw material and

49

operational activity as a subcontractor. In this case the operation can be considered one type of franchising method. All in all ESCo –company operations are limited by large investments that tie up capital for equipment; this is too high a risk for the entrepreneur from the point of view of profit as well as long-term investment. 5.2.5 Franchising Franchising is a business model, where two independent partners (franchiser and franchisee) have a contract. Franchiser has developed business model and concedes the rights to franchisee to use this model according to the franchise agreement. Franchisee operates according to the operational instructions, which are planned and looked after by franchiser. Franchisee pays to the franchiser for the rights to use developed business trademark. In heat production, franchising could be organised in a following way: Franchiser gives the trademark, business concept and operational principles, and the entrepreneur (franchisee) would work for both himself and for the franchiser. In practice, franchiser would support franchisee in planning, investments, financing, contracts, maintenance, fuel supply and other practical issues. As compensation, franchisee would pay for this support. For the entrepreneur franchising would provide professional support and economic reliability. In practice franchising would require full-time entrepreneurship. Customer does not need to invest in heating plant, i.e. entrepreneur takes the risk of investments. This model is just starting to be explored in Finland building on experience gained in Austria. The chain would help the entrepreneur in planning the chain. This would mean, that the chain would decide the best alternative for raw material resources, clearing, chipping transportation and storage, which make the operations effective for the entrepreneur and the chain. The chain would also take care of among others subcontracts and other administrative issues, which makes it easier for the entrepreneur. On the other hand, quality requirements of the raw material supply may complicate entrepreneur’s businesses. There is a demand for franchising business model in heat entrepreneurship, because potential entrepreneurs and customers might consider a ready concept a good and flexible option. However, the need for major initial capital constitutes a problem for the business activity. Investments to open-up a ready-made chain are considerable, which means that the model requires great risk-taking. Actual profits would be made only after years from the start. 5.2.6 Supply of heat containers In Finland a business model where a company provides a ready-to-use heating unit for the customer has evolved. There are similarities between this model and large-scale enterprise model and franchising concept, but it differs from them in some respects. Company provides ready-to-use heating unit for the customer. Company owns the unit and customer pays for the company on the basis of produced heat. Company takes care of the management and subcontracts practical operations (e.g. fuel supply chains). Subcontractors have an opportunity to purchase company shares. It may be problematic for the customer as well as for the company that the heating unit does not fit into all cases. In addition, the company may have problems to recruit professional staff for example to various building projects in different areas.

50

5.2.7 Contracts

Contracts between the heat producer and client

Once the need for a heat plant has been identified, the heat producer and the client can start negotiating on the heat supply contract. To make the contract as comprehensive as possible, the contract should include at least the following:

Amount of heat produced Price of heat and pricing basis Start date of heat delivery Measuring the amount of delivered heat Ownership of the heating equipment and measuring devices, their maintenance and

repair Securing the heat supply Commencement and duration of the contract Termination of the contract and compensation

(Solmio et al 2006) By including the above mentioned items in the contract, the possible dispute situations will be easier and cheaper to resolve. A good practise is to think of all the things that can go wrong in the heat supply chain, and include negotiation and solution methods for worst case situations. In heat supply cases these “what if?” situations can be malfunctioning of the heat plant, insufficient raw material deliveries, etc. The contract between the heat producer and the client commits the heat producer to supply a certain amount of heat to a certain place for a certain time and the client to buy the heat supplied by the producer. A basic heat supply contract agrees on these issues as clearly as possible, leaving as little room for interpretation as possible. It is usual that the need for heat may vary during the duration of the contract, especially in a long term contract, so this should also be taken into account. In order to avoid financial losses in acquiring substituting energy, the start date of heat supply should be stated in the contract as well as the sanctions if not followed. Delays in the construction of the heat plant may cause the heat supply to be delayed, if the schedule has been made too tight or if the raw material acquisition has not been planned sufficiently or the weather conditions do not allow for harvests to take place. The start date of heat supply should be planned so that the plant will be finished, test run and the receiving inspection done. Heat is normally measured at the premises of the client at the contract limit or heat exchange, which is the border where the ownership of the pipes changes. Inevitably there will be some deviations in the heat measurement equipment, and the allowable deviation should be stated in the contract. If the heat meter is not functioning properly, the invoicing will be mismatched to the overall heat supply, causing losses to either of the parties. If all the heat produced in the heat plant is sold to one building only, it is possible to invoice the heat based on the total heat produced in the plant. In most cases, the heat is sold to many buildings, although the client is the same. If the heat is sold to separate buildings, the heat may be invoiced according to the heat delivered to the client, and verified from the heat measuring device. Heat is generally invoiced monthly and the normal basis for pricing is MWh. The formula for calculating the MWh should be included in the contract. Prices can be based on a connection fee, a fixed annual or monthly fee and the price paid for each MWh of heat. The fixed fee is meant to partly cover the investment costs of building the heat plant. If the client owns and builds the heat plant, then of course the fixed fee is not a necessity. The price of heat can be defined in a number of ways. One way is to link the price

of heat to the price of alternative fuels, such as heavy fuel oil, light fuel oil, milled peat and/or fuel chips. This way the price changes in the mentioned fuels will affect the price of heat produced in a predetermined manner.

Figure 51: Example of an index-linked price for heat energy: X = Z*[(B–A)/A]+Z, where: X = New energy price, €/Mwh Z = The price paid by the buyer in the previous contract year, €/Mwh B = Average price of fuel chips in the current year, €/Mwh A = Average price of fuel chips in the previous year, €/Mwh Fictional parties have decided to produce heat to a fictional municipality in 5/2004. The price has been decided to be index-linked to the price of light fuel oil (50%) and light fuel oil (50%) published in the Energy Report published by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The price for energy was set as 30€/MWh (excl. VAT) when commencing the heat delivery. Prices at the time (9/2005) the contract was made light fuel oil 39.7€/MWh, and heavy fuel oil 23.7€/MWh In January 2007 the prices were: Prices in January 2007 were: light fuel oil 58.6€/MWh, and heavy fuel oil 32.9€/MWh The new price is calculated as 30 * (0.50*58.6/39.7 + 0.50*32.9/23.7) = 42.96€/MWh And total price for energy sold would be 52.41€/MWh (including 22% VAT).

Another method for pricing the heat is by linking the price to the price of heavy or light fuel oil, which the municipality purchases for its other estates. Changing the price can be subject to a big enough change, in other words the price will only be changed if the change is bigger than a certain percentage or smaller than another percentage of the previous price. Also minimum and maximum prices for heat can be agreed on. The heat plant itself can be owned by the heat producer or the client. The responsibility for its maintenance and repair is determined depending on the owner. In usual cases, the owner of (any) plant is responsible for the plant’s and its equipment’s operability and the operator of the heat plant is responsible for its maintenance and repair, as well as ash removal and maintaining the surroundings of the plant. In connection to the ash removal, the disposal of ash should be agreed on in the contract. If the heat plant is run by a cooperative, it is most likely that the cooperative members will dispose of the ashes as fertilizers in their own forests (Note: local regulations must be adhered to and vary between countries). When heating bigger estates or a number of estates, and when the heat producing unit is not physically attached to the building which will be heated, heat piping networks must be constructed. If the heating unit is attached to the building, no network is necessary and the heat distribution pipes can be directly connected to the building. Building heat piping networks requires licensing and extensive earth moving as well as professionals to build it. The ownership and the construction responsibility of the network should be stated clearly in the contract. Extra costs for maintaining the network may also arise later, if chemicals or water need to be added to the network or if there are leakages in the network which need to be repaired.

51

Contracts are generally drawn up for several years. Shorter contracts, from two to five years, are made if the client will maintain ownership of the heat plant. This way the client will have an option of changing the heat producer if it so wishes after the contract period has ended. If the heat producer owns the heat plant, a longer contract is justified, as the investment costs are high. The longer contracts allow the investor to repay the possible loans taken out for the construction of the heat plant. In a good contract there will be clauses allowing the parties to continue their contract after the contract period, but also clauses stating when the contract can be cancelled by either of the parties. If the heat producer owns the heat plant, it is appropriate to state a redemption price for the plant in the case the contract is cancelled. Cancelling the contract should always be done in writing. Inpepaof

Corigshgua

(S EvWmmm Infoorco

Figure 52: Example of calculating the redemption price for the heat plant: A = (B – C) – [{D*(B – C)}*E], where A = redemption price of heat plant B = investment costs of the construction of the heat plant C = investment subsidies granted to the heat plant D = annual expenditure residue write-off -%, for example 7%= 0.07 E = age of the heat plant at time of redemption in years The redemption price shall exceed 0€.

case there are disagreements between the heat producer and the client, contractual nalties can be included in the contract. The penalties will be employed if either of the rties breaches the terms of the contract gravely. Protocol for resolving the disagreements the contract should be stated in the contract.

Contracts between entrepreneurs and forest owners

operative members need to have a clear understanding of each member’s obligations and hts. When forming a cooperative, in addition to the statutory forms, a Member Agreement ould be written and signed by the members. The Member Agreement can include idelines for day-today operations performed by the cooperative and scheduling of work. In heat producing cooperative, the Member Agreement should include the following:

dividing the heat delivery and plant monitoring shifts between the cooperative members

quantitative division of raw material deliveries and scheduling arrangements for substituting personnel to ensure heat supply maintenance and repair of joint equipment and dividing the costs between the

cooperative members division of earned profit

olmio et al 2005)

en if the heat producer is a cooperative, it may buy raw material from external sources. hen the heat is produced by a single entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs, raw aterial is often bought from external sources as well. In these cases, contracts are also ade between the heat producer and the forest owners. Depending on the country, there ay be a need to pay taxes in advance for selling or buying wood.

addition to buying the raw material, contracts may be necessary to arrange harvesting, rwarding, chipping and long distance transport. In some cases, the cooperative members the single entrepreneur may have machinery for these operations readily available. If not, ntractors are needed. When using contractors it is rational to have the contract written.

52

5.2.8 Best practice examples from Finland Joutsan Ekowatti Oy (Ltd.) General Joutsan Ekowatti Oy (Ltd.) was established in 2004 driven by a need for a new heating system with a cheaper and predictable fuel price compared to light heating oil. The enterprise was initiated by a small door and window frame manufacturer (Puusepänliike Tamminen) that, on one hand needed a heat source, and on the other had wood residues for a wood fired heating plant. Suitable business partners were soon found through previous contacts: a forest service company, a real estate management company and an accounting company. Expertise for all necessary operations for running the heating plant is found in the companies involved. There are no paid staff for the heating plant because most of the time it works unmanned. Fuel procurement Feedstock The vast majority of wood fuels are procured by Metsäpirkka Ky, one of the owners of the heating company. Metsäpirkka is a forest service company offering services to forest owners from afforestation to logging. Their main emphasis is on manual logging and tending of young forests, so wood fuel from pre-commercial thinnings is easily at hand. Wood residues from the door and window frame factory are also used in the heating plant. Methods and technology of wood chip production Typical supply chains of wood chips from small trees are illustrated in the Picture X. Metsäpirkka employs about 20 timberjacks involved in manual logging and other forest operations, e.g. afforestation. Manual felling methods are mostly used in seeding and young forest tending. A chainsaw with felling frame is a suitable option for small wood felling and bunching.

Figure 53: Typical supply chains of small wood chips in Finland.

53

Figure 54: Multiple tree handling with a Naarva felling head (Photo JOSEK)

In order to reduce costs and increase the productivity of small wood harvesting, many different mechanised felling methods have been introduced. The general trend in small wood felling is that several trees are processed simultaneously by using accumulative felling heads. It is possible to use these felling heads with many different base machines, including farm tractors, excavators and harvesters.

Whole trees are stored at a road side at least

over one summer and then chipped there with a mobile chipper. A sample of each chip

load is taken and moisture content of chips measured at the delivery of wood chips. The provider is paid based on the energy content

of the chips (€/MWh).

Figure 55: Local woodfuel supply to Ekowatti Heating plant The wood chip boiler of Ekowatti in the Joutsa industrial park has a capacity of 1 MW thermal. The whole system, including the boiler, controlling devices, screws and boiler house, was delivered by Tulostekniikka Oy.

Figure 56: Boiler house of Ekowatti Oy in Joutsa. The plant operates unmanned and is highly automated. Fuzzy logic is used to control the operations and combustion of the boiler. In case of disturbance, fuzzy logic uses original settings and sends a message to the controlling computer and to a mobile phone of the operator. Combustion is controlled by an oxygen sensor. Wood chips are conveyed to the grate with blade dischargers and screws.

54

55

Facts Boiler output 1 MW

Fuel Wood chips 95 % (80 % from forest, 15 % from wood residues), 5% light heating oil

Heated building volume 25,000 m3

Heat production 4,000 MWh

Investment costs 500,000 € (including distribution network)

Operation started 2004

Strengths

Owners have a good mix of different skills and expertise Wood fuel supply chains in the hands of one of the owners (professional in

forestry) Cost and quality management easy

Proven boiler technology, reliable company delivered the plant Long term contracts and solid customers Customer pays for heat (MWh)

Vakkalämpö heating co-operative General A local district wood heating system in Toivakka, a small rural town with 2,400 inhabitants, was initiated by the municipality. Increasing oil prices made the municipal government look for cheaper possibilities to heat their own buildings and provide heat for people living in the town centre. Having plenty of forest owners and forest resources in Toivakka it was natural to opt for wood heating. The municipality made all required investments to build a new heating system, including the boiler and control devices, the boiler house and a connection to an existing distribution network. The operating of the plant is outsourced to a local co-operative that also provides wood chips. This co-operative consists of three farmers and a forest society. In the beginning the municipality made a three year contract with the co-operative. Nowadays wood fuel supply and heat plant management is annually put out to tender.

Fuel procurement Feedstock The Toivakka heating plant uses wood chips made from small wood from clearings and thinnings. Oil is used only during servicing of the main boiler and as a back up fuel if problems occur with feeding or combustion of wood. Methods and technology of wood chip production As stated above, a local co-operative is in charge of wood fuel supply. In practice the local forest society (Mhy Päijänne) provides 80% of all wood chips through their normal logging chains. In Finland forest societies usually have a twofold role, on one hand they give advice and practical help to forest owners on how to manage their forest well, and on the other they help in timber and other wood sales and organize logging if requested. Forest societies are mainly funded by the government but they also make money on organizing wood sales for forest owners.

Figure 57: Small tree chipping with a disc chipper (Kesla) at a road side. A farm tractor is the base machine. Photo: VTT

The remaining 20% of wood chips is produced by farmers. A vast majority of woodfuel comes from mechanized supply chains illustrated in a case study of Ekowatti. Whole trees are stored at a road side at least over one summer and then chipped there with a mobile chipper. A sample of each chip load is taken and moisture content of chips measured at the delivery of wood chips. The provider is paid based on the energy content of the chips (€/MWh). Heating plant The heating plant was built in 2002 by an initiative of the municipality to decrease costs of heating of municipal buildings. The municipality invested in the boiler house and 0.7 MW heating system that was delivered by Tulostekniikka Oy (Ltd.). The existing distribution network was connected to the new plant with a new 400 m outlet.

Figure 54: The Toivakka heating plant, 0.9 MW. Photo: Jyrki Raitila, VTT.

The plant operates unmanned and is highly automated. Fuzzy logic is used to control the operations and combustion of the boiler. In case of disturbance, fuzzy logic uses original settings and sends a message to the controlling computer and to a mobile phone of the operator. Combustion is controlled by an oxygen sensor. Wood chips are conveyed to the grate with blade dischargers and screws.

56

57

Facts Boiler output 700 kW

Fuel Wood chips 95 % and heating oil 5 %

Heated building volume 40,000 m3

Heat production 2,500 MWh

Investment costs 250,000 €

Operation started 2002

Strengths

Woodfuel supply chains mostly in the hands of trained professionals Woodfuel harvesting chains integrated into round wood supply (same machines

and operators) Reliable heating system, easy to maintain Good contracts through tendering and experience Customer pays for heat or for the calorific value of wood (MWh)

Main elements of success

In Finland the bioenergy markets are mostly local. There are only a few diversified companies that operate on a national level. Also some forest industry companies supply woodfuel through their forest departments. These companies work on energy, wood processing and are also involved in biofuels business. They can utilise industrial wood residues from their own mills for production of wood chips or pellets. By integrating harvesting of logging residues into timber or pulp wood harvesting the fuel prices are kept competitive. (ReAct 2004) Locality Heat entrepreneurs operate locally producing heat from local woodfuel sources. Municipalities play a key role in establishment of heating enterprises. However, in recent years private companies have become customers of heat entrepreneurs to a larger extent. Relatively stable energy prices, local security in energy generation, improved technology and long term contracts have increased the competiveness of local SMEs in energy business. Advanced technology The technology has improved the fuel chain from forest to heating plant. Now it is better controlled and less vulnerable. Bioenergy technology programs, launched by TEKES (the National Technology Agency) in the 90’s and in the beginning of this Millennium, contributed to the development of new technology solutions for biofuels remarkably. At the same time many Finnish forest machine and boiler manufactures have brought new innovations to the market.

Figure 55: An example of a wood chip heating system under 100 kW in Finland. Source: VTT.

The boiler plant usually consists of the fuel storage with an automatic fuel feeding system to the boiler (Fig.55). The boiler plant has a stoker-burner and a mechanical moving grate with an automatic combustion control system. Plants usually operate unmanned and heat entrepreneurs only visit the plant for feeding the fuel storage or if some operational disturbances occur in the plant. Plants are equipped with an automatic alarm system. (ReAct 2004)

58

5.2.9 Key lessons: 1. Add value by selling heat if you can. 2. You may be your best customer: If you are paying increasing amounts for oil or gas

to heat your home and/or business premises and have your own woodland (or even if you have land to plant a new wood) then you could use your own wood to supply your own needs. In doing so you also gain experience and credibility as a Woodheat supplier which could be used to sell heat to others.

3. Look for opportunities on your doorstep: Owners of neighbouring properties may be

very interested in someone local, and trusted, supplying their heat needs at a competitive rate

Figure 56: Example - Macfarlane’s nursery, Kent, England: have an urgent need to replace their own heating system (phase 1). However, there are clearly opportunities to supply other properties they own (phase 2) and neighbours (phase 3). Example derives from advice given under the Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder in January 2011 and draws on what we have learnt from WhS. Request for advice followed owners attendance of WhS training workshop.

4. Short supply chains have huge benefits to both supplier and buyer: removal of

the need for a lorry to transport the fuel usually allows the supplier to offer a better than open market price to the customer but gets a better price too (due to reduced costs) – effectively a ‘win-win’ opportunity;

5. Woodheat benefits long term contracts: Many potential buyers raise concerns about

the security of woodfuel supply if woodheat becomes popular (a particularly strong concern in UK where the wood resource is less than other EU countries and the population is much higher). There are major opportunities for local woodland owners to enter long term supply contracts and benefit both buyer and supplier with short supply chains.

6. Consider the long term: heat production and distribution equipment may last 50 years

or more. For instance the woodfuelled heating system at West Dean, in West Sussex, England, has been operating for nearly 30 years and the first boiler has only just been replaced! The associated infrastructure which equated to the higher proportion of system installation costs remains!

7. Consider the whole ‘wood to warmth’ system: Every site and supply chain is

different so reflect on the whole system to ensure it is practically and financially viable – if it doesn’t look right it probably isn’t!

59

60

8. Ensure everyone is talking the same ‘language’: As highlighted in the section on

woodfuel standards (page?) there are very real opportunities for confusion in relation to volume of wood needed (solid vs loose woodchips), moisture content (by overall weight or dry weight) and energy value. Bring everyone together who is in any way involved in the process: buyer, onsite maintainer, system designer/architect, woodfuel supplier, delivery driver etc, together on site at an early point in the design stage and work through each element of the supply chain (see page ? for guidance on system design) with them. It is very easy for simple omissions to have huge consequences – for instance we are aware of a superbly designed Woodheat system where the delivery vehicle wouldn’t fit through the site gate!

9. Mutual respect: Woodheat is a long term business. Anyone looking for ‘quick wins’ at

the expense of others is unlikely to survive the long term. Look for opportunities where the buyer and supplier can proceed with mutual respect and a long term vision.

10. Clear, and fair, contracts: Make sure all elements of the woodheat contract are clear

and fair. It is likely that some link to long term trends in fossil fuel prices is appropriate but it also needs to reflect fairness and avoid short term fluctuations as we have seen with fossil fuel prices.

6. Promoting and applying standards 6.1 Context: Study tours to Austria and Finland highlighted several issues which affect consideration of woodfuel standards: (a) Woodfuel Culture: In Austria and Finland we saw very few unmanaged woods and robust firewood seasoning practice in most rural communities:

Figure 57: Firewood seasoning in St

Margarethen, Austria Figure 58: Well managed woodlands in near

Waldstein, Austria This is a marked contrast to SE England where the norm is undermanaged woodland and it is rare to see firewood seasoning in this way – despite a surging interest in wood burning stoves. (b) Woodfuel technology: Incredibly well developed in Austria and Finland with a clear drive to develop optimal woodburning systems. Achieving such high efficiencies requires high quality fuel and without international standards it’s difficult to advise customers exactly what fuel specification the system was designed for;

Figure 59: KWB boiler technology Figure 60: Advanced Komptech Chipper

(c) International technology transfer: The use of woodfuel is only just starting to be re-established in the UK and while it is much more common in Slovenia and Croatia there in interest in extending it’s use and improving technology. With increasing trade in woodheat technology and woodfuel between member states, and beyond, it became clear that an EU standard would be helpful. Approximately 12 years ago the European Union commissioned the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) (the European Committee for Standardisation) to develop standards for solid biofuels. Subsequently CEN established Technical Committee 335 – Solid biofuels, which covers woody biomass, including wood from forests, plantations and landscape management. TC/335 then created a suite of interconnected technical standards (TS) defining terminology, specification, fuel quality assurance (FQA), sampling and the range of tests required to quantify fuel properties. Over time the CEN/TSs for solid biofuels are being revised and upgraded to Euro Norms ENs) displacing all other national standards across the

61

EU (eg ONORM & DIN). They are also being used as the basis for new ISO standards (ISO/TC 238). 6.2 Challenges: Despite there being clear benefits in developing common standards the initial impression the CEN standards present, largely due to the breadth of elements they cover, is a complex, daunting, costly and sometimes confusing set of standards which are not easily embraced by the forest industry – particularly the small scale operators. Key problems (highlighted in a presentation by the WhS co-ordinator at the Central European Biomass Conference) were identified as:

• Perceptions: – Bureaucracy; – Complexity; – We know how to do this already! – What’s the benefit to me?

• Language: – Moisture Content – water content vs wood humidity – Weight – wet vs seasoned (30%, 20%?) vs oven dry – Volume – solid m3, stacked m3, loose m3 (logs or chips) – Calorific value – Kilowatt hours, kilojoules, BTU’s (British Thermal Units)? – Carbon – or CO2 – Competition – litres, tonnes, kilowatt hours – Price - Weight, volume or kilowatt hrs?

• Cost: – Time and money

• Scale: – Industrial, local or somewhere between?

To address these issues the Woodheat Solutions partners have prepared a series of publications which:

• introduce the key principles – WhS Introduction to woodfuel standards; • summarise the standards – WhS Summary of woodfuel standards; and • provide easy to read guidance on how to implement them – WhS Roadmap to

implementing standards. In addition we identified that moisture content is the most important element and where the cost of and trust in electronic moisture meters is most challenging. In Finland this is dealt with extremely pragmatically through use of domestic ovens and kitchen scales:

Figure 61: Simple but effective way to

demonstrate the importance of moisture content

Figure 62: A pragmatic way of accurately determining moisture content of woodchips.

62

Figure 63: Consequently we prepared guidelines on how to assess moisture content using a domestic

oven. While this may not be a viable substitute to moisture meters in busy

woodfuel supply businesses it does provide a way of verifying and/or calibrating the

accuracy of moisture meters and a way for customers to verify what they have been

supplied with.

63

64

6.3 Summary of woodfuel standards The key parameters that need to be specified in an unambiguous way for woodfuel are:

• Moisture content – because water doesn’t burn! • Dimensions – to make sure it fits the appliance and its fuel handling system • Origin – where does it come from and what does it consist of • Ash content and • Energy value

There are other parameters may also need to be given for specific types of woodfuel, but these are the key ones. Although at first sight the CEN standards may appear large and complex, the key parts any fuel supplier actually needs to know in detail are usually pretty small. The standards fall into three basic types:

1. Descriptions and definitions: a. Fuel specifications and classes b. Terminology, definitions and descriptions

2. How different parameters are determined, e.g.:

a. Moisture content b. Particle size distribution (e.g. chip size range) c. Calorific value d. Ash content and properties e. Mechanical durability of pellets But also: f. How representative sampling should be undertaken for testing g. Conversion of analyses to different bases

3. How fuel quality is monitored and maintained through the supply chain

65

Figure 64: CEN solid biofuels standards (as at March 2011 – source Biomass Energy Centre) Descriptions and definitions BS EN 14961-1:2010 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 1: General requirements PrEN 14961-2 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 2: Wood pellets for non-

industrial use PrEN 14961-3 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 3: Wood briquettes for non-

industrial use PrEN 14961-4 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 4: Wood chips for non-

industrial use

EN 14961-5:2011 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 5: Firewood for non-industrial use

PrEN 14961-6 Fuel specifications and classes – Part 6: Non-woody pellets for non-industrial use

EN 14588:2010 Terminology, definitions and descriptions BS EN 14774-1:2009 Determination of moisture content – Part 1: Oven dry method.

Total moisture – Reference method BS EN 14774-2:2009 Determination of moisture content – Part 2: Oven dry method.

Total moisture –Simplified method BS EN 14774-3:2009 Determination of moisture content – Part 3: Oven dry method.

Moisture in general analysis sample BS EN 14775:2009 Determination of ash content BS EN 14918:2009 Determination of calorific value BS EN 15103:2009 Determination of bulk density BS EN 15148:2009 Determination of the content of volatile matter BS EN 15210-1:2009 Determination of the mechanical durability of pellets and

briquettes- Part1: Pellets EN 15104:2011 Determination of total content of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen -

Instrumental methods EN 15105:201 Methods for determination of the water soluble content of chloride,

sodium and potassium EN 15149-1:2010 Methods for the determination of particle size distribution - Part 1:

Oscillating screen method using sieve apertures of 3,15 mm and above

EN 15149-2:2010 Methods for the determination of particle size distribution - Part 2: Vibrating screen method using sieve apertures of 3,15 mm and below

CEN/TS 15149-3:2006 Methods for the determination of particle size distribution - Part 3: Rotary screen method

CEN/TS 15150:2005 Methods for the determination of particle density EN 15289:2011 Determination of total content of sulphur and chlorine EN 15290:2011 Determination of major elements EN 15297:2011 Determination of minor elements

Measurement of parameters

CEN/TS 15370:2006 Method for the determination of ash melting behaviour – Part 1: Characteristic temperatures method

CEN/TS 14778-1:2005 Sampling – Part 1: Methods for sampling CEN/TS 14778-2:2005 Sampling – Part 2: Methods for sampling particulate matter

transported in lorries

Methods for sampling

CEN/TS 14779:2005 Sampling – Methods for preparing sampling plans and sampling certificates

Conversion of results EN 15296:2011 Calculation of analyses to different bases EN 15234-1:2011 Fuel quality assurance – Part 1: General requirements PrEN 15234-2:2010 Fuel quality assurance – Part 2: Wood pellets for non-industrial use PrEN 15234-3:2010 Fuel quality assurance – Part 3: Wood briquettes for non-industrial

use PrEN 15234-4:2010 Fuel quality assurance – Part 4: Wood chips for non-industrial use PrEN 15234-5:2010 Fuel quality assurance – Part 5: Firewood for non-industrial use

Quality assurance

PrEN 15234-6:2010 Fuel quality assurance – Part 6: Non-woody pellets for non-industrial use

Note: Main documents which we recommend woodfuel suppliers should read first are highlighted in yellow Descriptions and definitions The fuel specifications and class standards simply set out which properties of different kinds of fuels need to be stated when selling that fuel and how the values are given (normative

66

properties). As well as these properties, it also sets out another set of properties (informative) that may need to be given in some situations, or which may be given as supplementary information. Origin The origin works on a hierarchical basis based on four main groups:

1. Woody biomass 2. Herbaceous biomass 3. Fruit biomass 4. Blends and mixtures

Each of these groups is then further divided into 2 to 4 sub-groups, and each of these is further divided and divided again down to four levels of detail. For instance: Figure 65: Main codes relevant to woodchips:

1.1.1.1 Broadleaf 1.1.1.2 Conifer 1.1.1.3 Short Rotation Coppice 1.1.1.4 Bushes

1.1.1 Whole trees without roots

1.1.1.5 Blends and mixture 1.1.3.1 Broadleaf 1.1.3.2 Conifer

1.1.3 Stemwood

1.1.3.3 Blends and mixtures

1. Woody Biomass

1.1 Forest, plantation and other virgin wood

1.1.7 Segregated wood from gardens, parks, roadside maintenance and fruit orchards

Refer to BS EN 14961-1:2010 for full details There is no requirement to give a more detailed description of origin than you want, however, certain classes of fuel will require biomass from one of a limited number of categories of origin. Dimensions Have different meanings for different forms of solid biofuel. Wood pellets: In the case of wood pellets it is usual to state diameter only, though an acceptable range of lengths is quoted for each diameter. Firewood (i.e. logs): One of the key things a customer needs to know is will the logs fit in their wood stove or boiler. Hence the maximum length (or length range) and range of diameters are both stated. For example: a delivery of ‘L25’ logs would all be less than 25 centimetres long; and ‘D10’ logs would have a diameter of between 5 and 10 centimetres. The important issue is to describe the product - the CEN standards provide a simple method of doing this. Firewood is also given a ‘quality code’ of A1, A2 or B. the main characteristics of each are:

• A1 logs will be more than 90% split and will have no visible decay; • A2 logs will be more than 50% split and may have up to 5% decay; and • B logs will be less well seasoned with more than 25% moisture content by overall

weight and tend to be larger. Woodchips: Are slightly more complicated as it’s very difficult to ensure a whole load of woodchips are of the same size, just because of the way they are produced. So the dimensions of wood chips are specified in terms of the range of sizes of 75% of the sample, measured using sieves. While woodfuelled systems can be designed to burn a variety of woodchip sizes many modern systems have been designed to deliver very high efficiencies in converting the

energy stored in the wood into heat. To work well they need woodchips of the correct size, generally with a low proportion of small, or fine, material which would reduce the efficiency of the combustion and a low proportion of larger pieces which could jam the feed system. The CEN standards use simple calibrated sieves to assess the composition of particular samples:

Figure 66: A common specification is likely to be P16 and this will comprise:

• 75% of the total volume of woodchips being between 3.15mm and 16mm;

• Less than 12% of the total volume of woodchips will be less than 3.15mm in size; and

• For P16A no more than 3% will be more than 16mm and all will be less than 31.5mm; OR for P16B no more than 3% will be more than 45mm and all will be less than 120mm

Proposed distribution of Woodchip size for

Proposed distribution of woodchips size for

Moisture content Specified in terms of the maximum moisture content (by proportion of overall weight) Hence an M35 woodchip would be 35% water, or less, and an M25 woodchip would be 25% water, or less. Ash content: Specified in terms of a proportion of the dry weight of the wood. Hence an A0.7 woodchip would produce no more than 0.7% of its’ dry weight as ash if burnt efficiently Other characteristics: In addition the standard provides a simple way for suppliers to describe other characteristics of the woodchips, which may be of interest to the buyer. For instance:

• In a N0.5 woodchip there will be no more than 0.5% nitrogen (as a proportion of its dry weight);

• In a Cl0.03 woodchip there will be no more than 0.03% chlorine (as a proportion of its dry weight);

• A Q3.5kWh/kg woodchip will deliver approximately 3.5kWh of energy per kilogram (based on 30% moisture content)

• An E800kWh/m3 woodchip will deliver 800kWh of energy for each loose cubic meter of woodchips;

• A BD300 woodchip will have a bulk density of at least 300 kg per cubic meter of loose woodchips

• Ash melting point is described simply as the temperature in ºC at which the ash starts to melt.

67

Of these ‘additional’, or ‘informative’, descriptions of woodchip it would seem that the energy density (E) would be most helpful as this will vary most depending on the species of wood chipped (broadleaved wood is denser than conifer wood and hence a loose m3 of woodchip from oak will contain more energy than a loose m3 of pine) and the moisture content of the woodchip (the higher the moisture content the greater the proportion of energy embedded in the wood which is needed to evaporate this moisture, hence a loose m3 of woodchip at 30% moisture content will contain more usable energy than a loose m3 of woodchip of 40%

68

moisture content). As the use of woodfuel becomes more common this allows: • fuel costs to be easily compared with alternatives such as oil or gas; and • the supplier to receive the full value of his/her product (i.e. more money for well seasoned broadleaved wood)

Sampling: Inevitably there will be variations within a ‘load’ of woodchip and hence selecting a sample to test for the characteristics described above is crucial. A sample of woodchips from different parts of the load should be collected and mixed to determine the characteristics of a specific load. The CEN standards provide detailed guidance on how best to do this.

6.4 Applying woodfuel standards in practice  For a biomass boiler or biomass district heating system to work efficiently and in an environmentally-friendly manner, it must incorporate the latest technology and be operated correctly, which depends

− on the choice of woodfuel quality and

− quality management for the biomass system (day-to-day conditions, the settings and regular system maintenance).

The quality of the fuel must meet the boiler requirements. Household boilers place correspondingly higher demands on the fuel than industrial boilers for local and district heating plants. Fuel that does not meet the required standards and improper use of biomass systems will lead not only to increased emissions, but also to significantly higher fuel consumption. The introduction of a comprehensive quality management system makes it transparent and understandable for every party involved (i.e. forest owners, producers, consumers, heating system manufacturers) which quality criteria/requirements apply at which point within the supply chain. Quality must be assured throughout the entire value creation chain, from the supply of raw materials to the provision of energy services. Quality management is a continuous process which requires constant development (e.g. chipping, processing and logistics procedures, combustion technologies and consumer information). The quality of the biofuels benefits from being monitored by a certified, independent body.

 Figure 67:

An active quality management system for fulfilling quality standards ensures:

− the low-cost production of high-quality fuels,

− plants and systems that can be operated without problems in the same way as fossil fuel technologies (e.g. gas/oil),

− the reduction of harmful emissions (e.g. dust pollution) to a minimum, and

− the gaining of consumer trust in this environmentally-friendly fuel.

This is such an important issue that a series of brochures for the implementation of a quality management system in district heating systems have been produced in Austria. Copies can be purchased from: LandesEnergieVerein Steiermark Burggasse 9/II A 8010 Graz Tel.: +43 (0)316 877-3389 Fax: +43 (0)316 877-3391 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.lev.at Woodfuel standards The market for firewood is experiencing considerable growth across Europe. At the same time, however, emission limits are being tightened, meaning that the demands placed on fuels are higher than ever. High-quality fuels decrease the amount of energy materials and resources consumed, reduce the incidence of system failure and lower the emissions generated by biomass heating systems. Wood fuels are, in contrast to oil and gas, extremely diverse and reflect a wide range of characteristics. To clarify these different characteristics, a new European standard for solid biofuels EN 14961-1:2010 has been developed. Its objective is to facilitate the national and international fuel trade and to enhance consumer confidence in wood as a fuel. Buying high-quality fuels protects both people’s budget and the environment. The supply of quality fuels requires relevant know-how and an appropriate quality assurance system along

69

the entire production chain. When planning a heating system, fuel quality demands must be taken into account. For example, state-of-the-art split log boilers may only be fuelled with air-dried split logs which mean that the fuel must be stored for at least one year. Case Study: Implementing of woodfuel standards

08/03/2011 Biomass Trade Centre Harberg

Hartberg/ Austria

Description: The biomass centre Hartberg has introduced a comprehensive quality management system that enables it to produce and sell high-quality fuels. The fuel wood that is bought in is purchased by quantity and water content and then stored on a sunny and well-ventilated storage area for natural drying. The wood types supplied, such as round wood, forest residues and branch material, are sorted according to quality and origin. The wood is primarily sourced from the surrounding forests. Fuel wood for split log production is split when still wet, as on the one hand it is easier to split in this condition, and on the other hand drying takes place more quickly due to the larger surface area. The wood is dried in mesh pallet boxes, and progress is continually monitored. Split logs generally only go on sale when their moisture content based on wet basis is less than 20% (M20). Fuel wood for wood chip production is stored over the summer months and chipped at the beginning of the heating season. The drying process of fuel wood has been investigated in practical tests. Freshly harvested fuel wood that is cut in January reaches a storable condition (M30) by September through natural drying. The wood chips are chipped in September and then stored in covered storage buildings for ongoing use. Quality wood chips for small household systems (M20 – M25) are artificially dried if necessary. Artificial drying is, however, always associated with high costs and is generally only worthwhile if cheap heat is available (e.g. waste process heat or a biogas plant). As far as the supply to heating plants is concerned, the delivered wood chip quality is tailored to the respective boiler requirements. The quality demands on the wood chips are considerably lower in this case. Key facts: Equipment: The total area of the biomass trade centre amounts 2000 m². An open hall with 300 m² roofed storage space, gives space for wood chips as for the storage of logs. A closed hall with 150 m² offer for dry logs Offered products: wood logs, wood chips, barks, biodiesel Amounts: 6,000 m³ wood chips and 1,500 stacked m³ wood logs

70

71

Quality of wood chips: depends on the customers requirements (ÖNROM EN 14961-1:2010), Wood chips P16A and M30 is the product with the highest demand, for single households they offer high quality wood chips - pre EN 14961-4:2010 A1 and A2, Quality of wood logs: ÖNORM EN 14961-5:2011 A1 and A2, Equipment for quality measurement: weigh bridge, humidity measurements for wood chips and wood logs, dry oven, sieves, if necessary the BTC dries the wood chips and wood logs with the waste heat of the neighbouring biogas plant Accounting: sale of the wood chips and wood logs take place after the weighting and estimation of the water content Special Service: delivery service, renting hanger for self-collector, wood pump for the air injection of the wood chips, expert advice for heating with wood, Fuel sales: At the biomass centre, the split logs and wood chips are sold by weight and water content, i.e. according to the energy actually contained. As far as purchasing the raw materials and selling the wood chips and split logs are concerned, the delivered quantity is weighed on a calibrated weighbridge and the water content is determined using an appropriate meter. The measurement of the water content is combined with quality control upon receipt of the wood.

When buying split logs, the customers have the opportunity to select their own logs and to have the water content measured. This type of accounting strengthens the customer’s trust in wood as a fuel and enables an easy comparison of the price with that of other energy sources. One litre of heating oil has an energy content of 10 kWh and currently costs 75 cents (price basis November 2010), meaning that one kWh costs 7.5 cents. The price for 1 kWh of beech fuel wood in 33 cm split logs is currently 4.0 cents and equates to approximately half of the cost of heating oil.

Woodfuels quality standards The biomass centre produces and sells its fuels in accordance with the available standards (e.g. ÖNORM M 7133). Within the year 2011 the BTC Hartberg will produce them in accordance with the new European Standards for Solid Biofuels ÖNORM EN 14961-1:2010, preEN 14961-4:2010 and ÖNROM EN 14961-5:2011 ÖNROM EN. At the moment not all European Standards are still published in Austria. They will also implement a quality management system (pre EN 15234-1:2010). At present, intensive efforts are underway to have the biomass centres certified. Once certification has been achieved, the quality produced must be tested several times per year by an independent certification body. This will continue to strengthen consumer trust.

Photo gallery

Quality management

BTC Hartberg

Figure 68:

Rapid determination of the water content of split logs at the

Hartbergerland biomass centre

Figure 69: Biomass trade centre Hartberg

6.5 Quality management for district heating system Austria implemented a quality management system for biomass district heating system less than 400 kW. The quality management (QM) is part of the Austrian “Active Climate Protection Initiative” and was launched in 2004 by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water management. The QM is obligatory for all those biomass system that get a funding (30% of the investment costs) from the state. The main aim is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and woodfuel demand through higher energy efficiency in biomass heating systems. Also existing plants which have been built during the last 25 years will be improved. Quality requirements are controlled by a special quality manager. Specific training is required to reach the position of a quality manager. He makes sure that the quality is defined according to the requirements of the building principal. During the planning and construction, he supervises the project engineer to optimize the heating system and to avoid technical, ecological and economical problems like:

- Overestimated heat demand of consumers - Oversized pipeline-system (heat losses) - High emissions - Size of the fuel silo much bigger than necessary - Low utilisation ratio of the wood boiler - Fuel quality does not meet the quality requirements for the installed firing - Faults in the hydraulic and the control system lead to high operation costs (high

electricity consumption – from the pump which circulates the hot water around the heat main)

72

Case study for implementing a quality management system

08/03/2011 Bio-Energy Stradem

Straden/ Austria

Description: The Bio-energy Straden was established as a farm cooperative in 2009. 8 farmers and forest owners invested in a biomass district heating system (boiler, storage room, heating pipe, heat-exchanger) to supply local and private customers with environmentally-friendly heat. The district heating plant was built into the hillside to minimise impact and ease of chip delivery. The system includes solar thermal panels to provide hot water for summer needs of the village. This solution reduces the wood chip demand and guarantees that the boiler runs as long as possible in the peak load (lower emissions). The cooperative sells the heat and is responsible for monitoring, service, repair and reinvestment of the system, as well as for chimney-sweeping. According to the operators environmental and economical reasons were the main drivers for the realization of this heating plant. The involved farmers and forest owners manage 24.6 hectare of woodland. Primarily they use the wood chips from their own forests, but they also buy wood chips from other local farmers in the region. The business model guarantees that the eight farmers (farm cooperative) have a delivery right for wood chips to a fixed price. The delivery right is in a manner of speaking the annual profit for the farmers. The price for wood chips depends on the water content and type of wood (hardwood or softwood). Key facts: Heat load of property/site: 500,000 kWhrs/yr Woodfuel Boiler size: 430 kW Type: Binder Woodfuel (specification): 800 m³, wood chips M40; P45B, P63) System designer: Binder Installer: Krobath Accumulator tank size: 10,000 litre Solar system: 80 m² Type: Öko Tech District heating pipe: 500m Investment costs: € 500,000

73

74

Key design points:

− the system is built into the hillside to provide a sunken wood chip store with easy delivery by farm trailer (no special equipment need)

− the accumulator tank (insulated hot water tank) used to help the system run efficiently

− the 80 m² solar thermal panels provides free hot water for summer needs and reduces the wood chip demand and heat losses in the network

Main quality management criteria’s:

− 1Sold heat per network length: 1,000 kWh / meter

− 2Connected load per network length: 0.8 kW / meter

− 3Heat losses in the network: 8 %

1The connected load per meter path should be more than 900 kWh / m. The shortfall of this value is an important prerequisite for obtaining funding in Austria. 2The connected load per meter path allows a first, rapid assessment of the given situation. The value should be higher than 0.5 kW per metre. 3The losses of the heating network should not on average be higher than 20%. The network losses affect the electricity and fuel costs in a sustainable way (life of the plant). Optimized heating plants have a net loss of less than 10%.

Quality criteria’s of used wood fuels (ÖNORM EN 14961-1:2010) Origin and source: whole trees without roots, stemwood, chemically untreated wood residues, logging residues, stored broadleaf Country: Styria Trade form: wood chips Dimensions: P45B, P63 Moisture: M40 and >M25 Ash: A3.0

Photo gallery

Figure 70: Bio-energy Straden

Figure 71: Accumulator Tank

Cooperative of 8 farmers sells heat to

local and private customers used to help to run the system efficiently

6.6 Conclusions:

1. Woodfuel quality is essential to reduce costs and emissions; 2. Woodfuel standards reduce the chances of confusion by providing a ‘common

language’;

3. CEN standards cover a wide range of issues and hence can appear complex to users, however, the principles are relatively straight forward;

4. It’s crucial that CEN standards are presented in easy to understand ways;

5. Quality applies to the overall system, not just the fuel; and

6. Quality standards are more about establishing a culture of quality standards

than a bureaucracy i.e. a situation where all those involved in woodfuel supply understand the aspects of woodfuel quality and produce quality fuel as a matter of course (a little like farmers understand how to produce and store grain).

75

76

7. Technical training of woodheat and supply chains

7.1 Technical training of woodheat advisors and woodfuel suppliers As part of the Woodheat Solutions project we prepared a detailed training programme for planners and specifiers of wood fired heating systems and forestry and agricultural advisors in the less experienced biomass regions of Croatia, Slovenia and south east England. The training programme was developed using information from the study tours to Austria and Finland and built upon the knowledge gained in those countries. The training programme was piloted at several seminars in Croatia, Slovenia and south east England (fourteen in total) and received positive and constructive feedback from most participants. Each training seminar included a site visit to a different biomass installation and/or woodfuel processing business. The seminars generated a great deal of interest in each country and helped to build further expertise amongst the biomass industry. The seminars included a number of discussion sessions in which there was a high level of audience participation. Furthermore there was plenty of networking opportunities between the various groups represented at the seminars. Originally the training seminars were designed to focus on separate target groups. However, as during the initial engagement part of the project, it was found that the organisations and professionals attending each seminar were often from a range of backgrounds, for example, architects, engineers and planners were there together with foresters and forestry advisors. This had a positive impact on the networking opportunities as well as the discussion sessions because it enabled the biomass system designers to learn about the constraints of the woodfuel supply industry and vice versa. After the seminars had been delivered in each country, a training pack was developed so that the training could be replicated in other regions. The aim was to prepare a training pack which could be used by training providers in future biomass training activities. The training pack was launched at a dedicated workshop in each country and has been sent to training providers and technical specialists so that the programme can be rolled out to other regions of the UK, Slovenia and Croatia. In addition, the training pack is available for download on the Woodheat Solutions web-site so that it can also be replicated in other European countries. The training pack includes:

• Training CD including all the presentations and supporting technical papers from the seminars

• Examples of lessons learnt from Austria and Finland • Reference material about using wood for heating, and the woodfuel resource • Roadmap for Implementing Standards • Guide to sizing a biomass boiler • Guide to choosing a biomass boiler • Example woodheat contract • Woodheat Solutions Newsletters • Material available from other IEE projects

7.2 Training CD The training CD was sent to a number of training providers which were identified as being interested in wood biomass, as well as to some of the participants at events who expressed an interest in training activities. It was given the Woodheat Solutions project logo, as shown below, and sent with details of how to obtain the full information of the Training Pack.

Figure 72: English Version Figure 73: Slovenian version

The training CD includes an introduction to the Woodheat Solutions project and explains the structure of the CD. The lecture material is then organised numerically on the CD in the following categories:

1. Introduction and Lessons Learned from Austria and Finland: outlines the Woodheat Solutions project, including project partners and timeframe and then summarises the main lessons learned from the experience of the Austrian and Finnish partners.

2. Woodfuel Resource: discusses the amount of woodfuel available from each source in the region as well as presenting material about the measurement of both wood and energy. In addition, the logistics and economics of woodfuel are explained.

3. Woodfuel Manufacturing: presents different woodfuel products and source materials, as well as how to season the raw material and convert it to woodfuel. Finally, information about storage of the product and transport logistics is also provided.

4. Woodfuel Standards: explains the importance of quality and standards in woodfuel production, and shows the audience how to take samples and measure moisture content and particle size according to the CEN standards.

5. Wood to Warmth: this section is divided into subsections to make it easier for the user to access the information:

a. Bioenergy Appliances b. Biomass Fuels and Heat Energy Calculations c. Fuel Delivery and Storage d. Heat Networks e. Biomass Combined Heat and Power

6. Case Studies: this section presented Case Studies of a range of scales and types of biomass boiler installations, also showing examples of various different woodfuel supply chains.

7. Contracting models: outlines the legal aspects of woodfuel contracting as well as the different types of woodfuel contract / business model that are available for biomass projects.

8. Developing the Woodfuel Industry: summarises some of the wider issues that affect the implementation of woodfuel projects and discusses some of the opportunities and barriers to the future growth of the market.

Each of the above lecture sessions includes the PowerPoint presentations from the seminars as well supporting papers to assist with the presentation of each lecture. The PowerPoint presentation all had a common layout and can be identified by the Woodheat Solutions and IEE logo.

77

September 20101

Wood to Warmth –Bioenergy Appliances

Michael Beech

TV Energy

Figure 74: Woodheat Solutions PowerPoint slide template

7.3 Main topics covered by the Training Pack The Training Pack includes all the material which has been developed as part of the Woodheat Solutions project. This includes the following key topics:

(a) Major market opportunities for woodland owners and managers to add value to their low quality wood by selling woodfuel or ‘woodheat’;

Example – Local farmers heat the village of Straden with woodfuel:

Figure 75: Local farmers built the heating plant which uses the slope to provide easy access to a sunken chip store and neatly fits into the local

landscape

Figure 76: Heat is supplied by a heat main to major properties in the village and other

properties can opt to connect to the heat main, buying heat directly via a ‘heat meter’

(b) Major opportunities for heat buyers to utilise a sustainable and ideally local

fuel source which has several advantages over fossil fuels: secure local supply chain which helps mitigate the impacts of climate change and meet carbon reduction targets;

(c) Consider the long term: costs of investment in heat pipes and other Woodheat infrastructure can be high, but they last a long time (and energy prices are unlikely to reduce);

(d) Build to last: Robust infrastructure is a good investment for the long term; (e) Keep it local: Woodfuel is most effectively used close to the point of production

reducing fuel delivery costs and benefiting both supplier and buyer;

78

Example: Volksschule in St Margarethen in Austria

Figure 77:

Local farmers rent two basement rooms at this junior school. One has been converted into the boiler room using two different sized woodchip boilers (provides flexibility to cope with varied heat loads through the year, the other room

forms the chip bunker. Heat is supplied both to this school and the

secondary school opposite. Wood is supplied from their own local woods.

When asked if they would expand their business the owners suggested that this was just the right size to use the production from

their own woods from whence the overall business model was most suitable

Figure 78:

(f) Customer care and the value of long term relationships: Local supply and

maintenance facilitating a mutually beneficial relationship between suppliers and buyers in terms of security of fuel supply and quality and good price for both (as haulage costs are reduced – as illustrated by the St Margarethen example above);

(g) Consider the latest technology: both in terms of boilers, chippers, harvesters and the whole ‘wood to warmth’ supply chain;

Figure 79:

Figure 80:

An example of modern chipping technology from Komptech: note the large log splitter (left photo) which allows oversized logs to be reduced to a size which the chipper can cope with AND the presence of both chip blower and chip elevator. The elevator uses much less energy and folds neatly onto the back of the lorry – such a system could be fitted to a walking floor delivery vehicle to facilitate cost effective and quiet delivery of woodchips to above ground chip stores. For more information see http://www.komptech.com/en/biomass/fuel-from-forest-areas.htm

(h) Consider how existing equipment could be used: for instance farm machinery and buildings;

79

(i) Use the whole resource: consider opportunities to use ‘lop and top’ and branchwood BUT beware of removing all nutrients from the wood and compromising sustainability;

(j) Don’t burn water: season the wood effectively; (k) Consider a turn-key system: Key message is that when a company is contracted

to build a heating plant they provide a turnkey service – i.e. they ensure the system is fully operational before they ‘walk away’. Regrettably it seems common in some parts of Europe that companies will install just one part of the system – such as the boiler, and have no commitment to the overall system. This often leads to problems when the fuel bunkerage and or specification are not designed to work correctly with the boiler or vice versa. Hence major advantage in asking for a turnkey contractor

(l) Engage the local community: particularly valuable where tree felling and woodland management are unfamiliar;

Figure 81: Toivakka, Finland: Forestry students learning how they keep their school warm

In many central European countries woodland management is embedded in the local culture with many individuals using wood themselves in the form of logs. However, they also introduce children at an early age to how wood is used for heat etc. In this case Finnish ‘toddlers’ in Toivakka are being shown the woodheat plant which provides heat for the main buildings in the centre of the village including the school. In other countries such as England the embedded culture of woodland management has been lost and many people perceive tree felling to be bad. Hence it is critical to engage your local community at an early stage and explain the many benefits of woodland management: environmental, economic and social.

80

81

Figure 82: The ‘Wood for Energy’ poster is available free to anyone who can find a good home for it e.g. school, village hall etc. It has been designed to help people appreciate the opportunities and benefits of using wood as a fuel, to illustrate the range of sources of woody biomass and to highlight that the use of wood is not new! There are many elements within the artwork to encourage people to reflect on the connections to everyday life. It’s designed to encourage viewers to look ‘again and again’ to see what else they can find: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7d6fn7 Note: The poster was produced before the start of the WhS project but during the reprint it was clear there were major benefits to adding the link to the WhS website and all the material contained therein

(m) Woodfuel standards: Understand the importance of standards and the value of them to both the woodfuel supplier and the customer;

7.4 Slovenian training pack: This has been prepared following the same principles but is specifically structured to the needs of Slovenia and includes:

• Training CD • Introductory text to training CD • Roadmap for implementation of CEN standards • Lessons leant from Finland and Austria • Newsletters • Good practice examples • Other material available also from other IEE projects

Training CD and Introductory text to training CD

The main aim and the structure of training CD is explained in and introductory document which includes a detailed description of the CD content. Each sub-category on the CD is described, along with the main aim of this part of training and main focus which should be presented during training is highlighted.

The CD is divided in 10 sub categories: 1. Introduction (some basic data about WhS project are presented there, with leaflets

produced during WhS project and one ppt presentation with Disclaimer and all basic data about project and authors of this training pack)

2. Wood biomass potential (potentials from forests, potential of wood residues, ..) 3. Wood biomass production (Modern technologies for wood biomass preparation and

Biomass logistic and training centers) 4. Wood biomass use (Modern technologies for wood biomass use – modern boilers,

energy contracting) 5. Wood fuel quality (CEN standards for solid biofuels) 6. Good practice examples (examples from Slovenia, Austria and Finland) 7. Other available literature 8. Experiences from other countries (from Austria, Finland, UK, Croatia, we also included

reports of experts visits from Austrias and Finland in Slovenia) 9. Legal aspects of wood biomass use (different legal documents, grant schemes)

10. Instructions for preparation of a participatory workshop and preparation of good ppt presentation.

KAZALO 1  Uvod ............................................................................................................................... .................. 32  Raba lesa in lesne biomase v Sloveniji ...................................................................... 43  Tehnologije pridobivanja in predelave lesne biomase .......................................... 64  Tehnologije rabe lesne biomase ........................................................................................ 95  Lesna goriva .............................................................................................................................  116.  Primeri dobre prakse ........................................................................................................ 137.  Koristne informacije ........................................................................................................ 148.  Tuje izkušnje .......................................................................................................................  159.  Zakonodaja in drugi strateški dokumenti .............................................................. 1610.  Metode dela pri izobraževanju .................................................................................... 17 Figure 82: Table of content of Training pack (introductory document)

Each of these sub-categories on CD has: • At least one ppt presentation that can be used when training or workshop is organized

(common layout, with WhS project and IEE logo), • At least one pdf of ppt presentation that were used during WhS events (from different

authors, also from Finland and Austria) • Recommendable literature (pdf documents) and all other documents that can be used

when preparing a workshop or other events. This training pack was sent to identified trainers for wood biomass and also to some of participants at our events who showed interest in further education and trainings activities. In preparation of this CD we were taking in consideration feedback from participants of our first training in Ljubljana when we got more than 30 filled in questionnaires. In this training our target group was advisors from Slovenian forestry service, Chamber of agriculture and forestry of Slovenia and energy advisors from advisor network EnSvet.

The Woodheat Solutions Training Pack and CD for the UK and Slovenia are available free to anyone with an interest in providing lectures and training on wood-fired

heating systems and woodfuel supply. They were specifically developed to target advisors to planners, architects and design engineers (e.g. as Continued Professional Development - CPD) as well as forestry and estate management advisors. You can

obtain your copy from the project partners (contact details at the front of this report) and on the Woodheat Solutions web-site: www.woodheatsolutions.eu.

82

8. Designing a woodheat system: This section brings together all the lessons we have learnt from the project and is designed to guide those considering Woodheat and help them implement a quality ‘wood to warmth’ system. Common problems of woodheat installations:

• Oversized boiler: runs inefficiently, often leads to condensation when boiler is not running which damages the internal components = higher cost of maintenance and fuel and higher emissions;

• Poorly sized, located or designed woodchip bunkerage: increased costs of fuel delivery and inconvenience;

• Jamming woodchip feed systems: augers can be jammed by poor quality woodchips (containing ‘slivers’) = increased maintenance costs and inconvenience.

1. Identify the heat load and profile: (a) Review opportunities to save energy by better insulation etc; (b) Have a formal heat load assessment undertaken by a qualified assessor (s/he will

be able to assess the actual heat losses from particular building types and sizes); (c) As a starter look at what energy you’re currently using (most utility bills will

provide an indication of how many kWh’s of energy [as gas, oil or electricity] you have used);

(d) Consider when you use heat most and least to determine a profile of usage

Typical winter heat profile

Typical summer heat profile

Seasonal heat load variation

Figure 83: Heat load profiles

83

2. Consider how the daily heat demand can be ‘smoothed out’ using an

accumulator, or ‘buffer’, tank Note:

• Woodfuelled boilers tend to work most efficiently when they are working at a high proportion of their maximum capacity; and

• An accumulator tank is purely a large, highly insulated, hot water tank which stores heat when you don’t need it – very like a rechargeable battery.

Figure 84: Biomass and conventional boilers – office/business use in winter

Heat outputs. 150kW biomass boiler, 350kW oil boiler

Buffer tank activity. 5000litre, 20deg.C deltaT

• The accumulator can be used in two slightly different ways: o To maintain a constant load on the boiler: in this approach the boiler

runs at a constant load supplying heat directly to the user and when this is not needed direct to the accumulator. Maximum required load is supplied by the boiler and accumulator in tandem.

o To ‘buffer’ the heat demand: in this approach all heat demand from the user is supplied from the accumulator. The woodfuelled boiler runs intermittently to maintain heat stored in the accumulator. This approach works very well with log burning batch boilers where the system relies on only running the boiler for part of the day (i.e. on one ‘batch’ of logs). When used with pellet or woodchip boilers it is important to ensure that the boiler is not switching on and off regularly (one or two ‘burns’ per day is reasonable) otherwise energy will be wasted heating up the infrastructure of the boiler itself. In addition the boiler should be running for as long as possible so that it is running at maximum efficiency for the highest proportion of its’ ‘burn’.

84

Figure 85:

Domestic accumulator drawing heat from a

wood burning stove and solar thermal array,

with electric emersion coils for frost protection when owner is away in

winter

Figure 86: Accumulator (left rear) linked to a

100kW boiler (right centre) to provide heat for a community

building

Figure 87: ‘Large’ accumulator

working with a 250kW boiler to heat a former

stately home (or ‘schloss’)

3. Consider whether other heat sources can be included in the overall system to

optimize efficiency of Woodheat: There may be existing fossil fuelled boilers on the site which could be used to provide heat during periods of low or high load, thus allowing your woodfuel boiler to be utilised at optimal efficiency. Hence determine whether:

(a) There is a ‘base load’ of demand which is constant throughout the year which could be supplied by the woodfuel boiler?

(b) There an constant load that could be supplied by the woodfuelled boiler through autumn, winter and spring? Peak load in winter and low summer load could be supplied by an existing oil or gas boiler running in parallel to the woodfuel boiler.

85

Figure 88: Rodborough School, England

In this case a school sought advice from the project about replacement of two oil fired boilers with woodchip system. Site inspection revealed > 10 discrete gas and oil boilers heating different parts of the site, including the 5 gas boilers illustrated above.

The optimal way to use woodfuel on this site would be to:

i. install a ‘heat main’ to link the heating of all the buildings on site into one network; ii. build a bespoke Woodheat boiler house and chip store in a location which is easy to access

for delivery vehicles and which doesn’t disturb the pupils during chip delivery; and iii. size the woodchip boiler to run at maximum load and maximum efficiency, by running

alongside a suitably sized accumulator tank, and use the existing gas boilers to provide ‘top off’ to address the peak winter load and low summer load. (An alternative would be to use two differently sized woodchip boilers to accommodate the varied load in mid winter and summer).

Note: although this would involve significant capital outlay, this needs to be costed against the life time costs of the whole system. In particular servicing and replacement of the multiple fossil fuelled boilers on the site and ‘life expectancy’ of the heat main and new boiler room infrastructure.

86

4. Consider the capacity of the woodfuelled boiler needed:

• Depends on 1, 2 and 3 above but as a general ‘rule of thumb’ the capacity of the woodfuel boiler will be about 70% of the equivalent oil or gas system (oil and gas systems respond much better to lower loads than woodfuelled boilers)

• Some modern woodfuelled boilers can cope better with a varied load but generally operate more efficiently when running at high load.

5. Consider which woodfuel type is best suited to your site and requirements:

• Conventional logs work well in batch boilers but usually require manual loading; • Woodchip systems are more suited to large heat requirements but require

space and a well thought out supply chain; and • Wood pellet systems require less space, offer great convenience but are

difficult to fuel from your own woods.

6. Consider the size of the fuel ‘bunker’ – especially when considering woodchips:

(a) Heat load: Woodchips need lots of space as loose woodchips may contain as little as 500kWh’s per loose cubic metre.

(b) Buffer required between deliveries: for instance in winter how long do you need to ‘run’ between fuel deliveries.

(c) Method of delivery: Delivery of a full load of woodchips will be cheaper than part loads and tipper lorry/trailers are cheaper than blower systems.

(d) Avoid ‘just in time’ constraints: The bunker should be large enough to hold at least 1.5 times as much volume as the largest delivery vehicle.

(e) Usable capacity of a woodchip bunker: Woodchips don’t flow (like sand or wood pellets) so it’s very difficult to fill the whole volume capacity of the chip bunker. For bunkers where the woodchips will be ‘tipped’ from a lorry, farm trailer or telehandler tipping into the centre of the pit will ensure much more of the overall volume of the pit is usable than tipping at one side.

Figure 89: Access doors for ‘tipping’

woodchips into bunker are sited in the centre of the bunker.

Figure 90: Allows the delivery to drop into the centre of the bunker, keeping the

unused space to the minimum Note: this requires a chip bunker roof which is strong enough to take the weight of the rear axle of

the delivery vehicle. Add a ‘stop’ to be included so the delivery drivers vehicle stops at the right point, but ensure this is located to allow for the tipping of the trailer (you don’t want to be sweeping up

chips which missed the bunker!) (f) Access to bunker: Ensure that the delivery vehicles you are likely

to use can access the bunker easily.

Figure 91: Example: Surrey University Sports Centre: Access is well designed and ‘marked’ to discourage inadvertent parking, thus allowing easy delivery of woodchips from a local estate using

existing farm equipment

87

88

7. Consider the location of the fuel ‘bunker’: This is often a compromise but requires careful assessment of the issues:

(a) Boiler location: the bunker needs to be adjacent to the boiler BUT as it is easier to transport heat through a hot water pipe than woodchips the mode of supply may have a greater influence on the location of the boiler than the property being heated!

(b) Landform: Fully sunken woodchip bunkers offer great flexibility but are expensive to construct and maintain (plus they may be vulnerable to flooding). Semi-sunken systems taking advantage of sloping ground, or even man made landform, can be far more cost effective. Hence if you have landform – use it!

(c) Delivery method: The more flexible the system the greater the choice of woodfuel supplier, hence if a bunker can be accessed easily by a tipping articulated lorry then it can also be accessed by tractor trailer etc. However, the capacity of the store needs to be at least 1.5 times the capacity of the biggest delivery vehicle (as delivering part loads from tipping systems doesn’t work well!

8. Consider the woodfuel supply chain:

• Woodchip quality depends on the boiler specification or visa versa AGAIN this is an area where a careful compromise needs to be struck between what might be optimal for a boiler and what quality of woodfuel is available:

o Higher efficiency boilers often need a higher woodfuel specification, be careful that the added efficiency doesn’t the higher production costs of the fuel mean the cost efficiency of the overall system suffers!

o If you have lots of small wood which would produce woodchips with a high proportion of fines you may decide to use a more robust but less efficient boiler which can cope with this lower quality and lower cost fuel!

• Critical elements are: (a) Moisture content: • Seasoning of the wood is critical and this depends on location and

aspect: an open sunny and windy location without shade and a generally dry summer season is ideal, this should allow moisture to reduce from about 50% to 30%. A lower moisture content will require an extended period or forced drying.

(b) Chip size distribution: • Use a high quality woodchipper designed for producing woodchip fuel;

or • Use mechanical screens to ‘refine’ lower quality woodchips – as might

be produced from arboricultural operations; and

• Use a set of calibrated sieves as recommended in the CEN Standards to check that you are producing these to the agreed specification.

• Self supply can allow very simple supply chains – see case study of Stanstead Park below.

9. Who will maintain the system: • Woodchip boilers generally require a small amount of maintenance, removal of

dust from sensors and removal of blockages from the feed system. The person who will carry out this work must be identified and ‘enthused’ about what s/he needs to do

89

9. Support for Woodheat development: Woodheat infrastructure inevitably has higher capital costs that the equivalent output gas or oil fired heating system. This is largely due to the costs associated with:

• Burning a solid fuel – bigger pieces of kit and more complex fuel feed systems; and

• Fuel bunkerage – usually requires more space and good access. Costs also tend to be higher when specifiers, designers and installers are less familiar with the technology. Most governments appreciate the importance of renewable energy sources and to help encourage a move towards greater use of renewable fuels various forms of incentives have been introduced to stimulate interest and uptake. These incentives can be financial and/or technical. 9.1 Finland: Technical measures Regional forestry centres promote private forestry through guidance to forest owners. Local forestry societies provide expert assistance to forest owners in conjunction with pulpwood and timber sales, and other forest operations. Wood energy advisors at regional forestry centres give advice and information about wood fuel production and look for new outlets for heating enterprises. These experts are specially trained people with a background in forestry. Similar help is available for farmers at regional agricultural centres. (ReAct 2004) Research organisations, e.g. TTS Institute and VTT, have carried out several studies on heating entrepreneurship and the results have been widely disseminated. The follow up studies at heat enterprises by TTS have been very important to guarantee that the sites are well implemented (right size, right form of entrepreneurship, quality of fuel, etc.). The experiences of the first sites have been widely shared in newspapers, articles and seminars. (ReAct 2004) Policy measures The government energy research, development and demonstration funding for renewable energy is about 10 million euros yearly (ReAct 2004). The support is primarily granted through the National Technology Agency TEKES. The European regional development program is another important source of funding for regional development projects. Fiscal measures Taxation is one of the main instruments related to climate change and environmental policy in Finland. Finland was the first to impose a carbon based environment tax in 1990 by introducing a CO2 tax on fossil fuels. In heat generation, solid biofuels like woodfuels, biogas and REF are not taxed. Fossil fuels attract tax, which is based on the carbon content of the fuel. (ReAct 2004) Subsidies granted for energy investments, development projects and energy conservation constitute an important means of implementing the National Energy and Climate Change Strategy. The maximum grant for investments in renewable energy based on conventional technology is 25-30 % and for innovative projects 40 %. Investment grant is allocated for companies and communities, not for private people or state organisations. (ReAct 2004) The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) launched a campaign in 1997 to promote the tending of young stands (ReAct 2004). The state support is about 50-70 % of the harvesting costs of thinnings from young stands if the harvested wood is used for energy generation in a heat plant that is not owned by the forest owner. However, most of this support is spent in silvicultural tending operations. Yet for small heat plants that mainly use wood chips made from whole trees for energy generation, the government subsidy is very important to keep the price of forest fuel competitive.

90

9.2 Slovenia: The measures affecting use and markets for wood biomass are mainly individual measures from the Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Slovenia 2007 - 2013 (2007). In the view of promoting the use of wood biomass, the following measures are most pertinent within the framework of Axis 1: 111 - Training for persons engaged in agriculture and forestry, which may influence,

indirectly through education of forest owners for safe forest work, the annual felling in privately owned forests.

121 - Modernization of agricultural holdings, which, among other things, enables co-financing of investments in renewable sources of energy for agricultural holdings needs.

122 - Improving the economic value of forests, which can have a positive effect on the wood products market, as it provides for co-financing of investments in modern forestry mechanization and equipment as well as in reconstruction and construction of new forest tracks and roads.

123 - Adding value to agricultural and forestry products, which also foresees co-financing of investments in processing and marketing of wood biomass.

Within the framework of Axis 3, the following measures are the particularly pertinent: 311 - Diversification into non-agricultural activities, where support is given to investments in

production of energy intended for sale. 312 - Support for the creation and development of micro enterprises, where among other

options, the co-financing for setting-up of enterprises for the production and sale of energy is foreseen.

In the last 18 months, invitations for tenders were open for all above mentioned measures. In May 2009, a new scheme in support of green electricity production came into force, with which the government wishes to promote and hasten, among other renewable energy sources, the use of wood for the production of green electricity in the ensuing few years. The renewed scheme includes the following two regulations: the Regulation on supports for the electricity generated from renewable energy sources (2009) and the Regulation on supports for the electricity generated in cogeneration with high efficiency (2009). The framework for this scheme in support of green electricity production is the EU Directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (2001). In the light of the wood market and further increases in the use of wood for energy purposes, the most pertinent is Appendix V of the Regulation on supports for the electricity generated from renewable energy sources, which clearly defines biomass used for the production of electric energy receiving supports. The programmes for promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources for heating and cooling purposes are based on the Resolution on the National Energy Programme (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 57/04). In the light of the wood market and further increases in the use of wood for energy purposes, the most pertinent foreseen financial support includes encouraging household boilers run on wood biomass fuel, co-financing of district heating systems run on wood biomass and co-financing of installation of boilers run on wood biomass. The programme “Promoting household boilers on wood biomass” is being carried out by the Eco Fund, the Slovenian Environmental Public Fund. In the last 18 months, the Fund opened several invitations to tender featuring favourable loans or grants for both citizens and legal entities. The programme of co-financing of district heating systems and the installation of boilers run on wood biomass is run within the framework of the Operational programme for environmental and transport infrastructure development for the period 2007 – 2013; the

91

development priority “Sustainable Energy” and the priority orientations of innovative measures for local energy supply. The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) provides that Slovenia should increase the proportion of energy from renewable sources from 16% in 2005 to 25% in 2020. The associated Action Plan provides for measures increase the use of wood. We expect the pressure for use of wood for energy production will be increased further. Wood biomass sector is fast developing sector in Slovenia. To support, development and implementation of modern technologies for biomass preparation, production and use a national action plan is needed. Long term goals are setup and broader perspective is given in Resolution on the National Energy Programme. 9.3 Croatia Currently support is available under the IPARD programme (5. Component of the IPA instrument for Pre-accession Assistance) which in certain circumstances can support the majority of elements included in a Woodheat system including: construction of boiler house and fuel bunkerage, installation of the boiler and a district heating network. 9.4 England: Rural Development Plan England: Axis 1, 3 and ‘4’: Capital grants for machinery, infrastructure etc have been delivered via the South East England Development Agency (currently being disbanded with RDPE delivery being subsumed within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Defra) with local delivery through Leader projects. Full details available on: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-7GML72 Forestry is seen as a priority in SE England the sector has been successful in attracting support for a range of equipment and infrastructure to help develop the woodfuel supply chain. In some cases support has helped in the installation of woodfuelled heat systems as part of farm or business diversification. The Forestry Commission works closely with both SEEDA and the Leader groups providing technical advice to both those applying for grants and those assessing applications. Support for forestry related projects many associated with Woodheat has been very encouraging with support being provided for purchase of woodfuel processing equipment including chippers and delivery vehicles and in some cases Woodheat systems themselves (though this is likely to decline due to the availability of the Renewable Heat Incentive – see below) Axis 2: The greatest proportion of support from RDPE is delivered to woods and forests by the Forestry Commission’s English Woodland Grant Scheme with some small woods being included in packages of support available through Natural England’s Environmental Stewardship grants. There is currently no direct support for woodfuel but with nearly half of the woods in SE England being ‘ancient’ (i.e. the land has been wooded since the first maps were produced and hence retains many native woodland plants and animals) there are major ecological benefits in maintaining diversity of habitats within the woods. Hence support can be provided for work which enhances the biodiversity of these woods. This work can include improvements to management access which would overcome barriers to the woodfuel market supporting the ongoing management of the wood. However, following much lobbying of our national managers, not least by the Woodheat Solutions co-ordinator, we have secured £10,000,000 funding for a dedicated Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grant which will support:

• Assessing the woodfuel resource;

92

• Professional supervision of re-establishing harvesting in undermanaged wodos; and

• Improvements to the access infrastructure in the wood (e.g. tracks, loading bays etc).

This will be launched in summer 2011 with a third of the overall resource being targeted at South East England. Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI): Following extensive consultation the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched RHI on 10th March 2011. This will provide direct support for the use of heat produced from sustainable technologies with woodfuel being a major source. Full details can be found on: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/policy/incentive/incentive.aspx Grants will be paid for heat produced and used with a stepped regime to help overcome the barrier of the additional costs of woodheat infrastructure compared to that required for fossil fuels: <200kW boiler - 7.6p/kWh then 1.9p/kWh 200kW-1MW boiler - 4.7p/kWh then 1.9p/kWh >1MW boiler - 2.6p/kWh The higher level of support is paid for a set number of kWh’s based on the maximum capacity of the boiler multiplied by 1314 (hours = 15% of the year) The payment period is guaranteed for 20 years from installation with an annual adjustment at the RPI. A review of tariffs is scheduled for 2014. Tariffs have been calculated on the basis of a required return on additional capital invested of 12 per cent. The scheme commences following Parliamentary approval and successful accreditation. It will be administered by Ofgem whose representative joined us on the study tour to Finland. Initial impressions from those considering woodfuel are very positive and the Woodheat Solutions project is pleased to have stimulated some very good projects which are likely to take advantage of this support over the next year. 9.5 Conclusions:

(a) Support will encourage the uptake of Woodheat much more quickly; (b) Sometimes woodfuel is regarded as being a cheap fuel compared to fossil fuels

which can be counterproductive because: • As more woodfuel systems are installed it’s use demand will rise; • As demand rises we will need to access wood from those woodlands which are more

difficult to access, either physically or due to the nature of the woodlands ownership (for instance in England many woods have not been actively managed for many years and current owners are unfamiliar with the benefits of woodland management) – this will increase costs;

• The maximum price of woodfuel is likely to be dictated by alternative fuel sources; • Woodfuel is most cost effective when supplied locally, especially when a woodland

owner uses the woodfuel from his/her own woods to supply their own needs. (c) The wood to warmth supply chain embraces a range of elements from woodland

management to heat distribution and support packages can seem complex. For instance support available under RDP can be very helpful but the definitions of the relevant measures can make it appear complex and confusing – even to those administering the grants. Future RDP programmes may benefit from a review of the definitions of the measures in respect of support for renewable technologies including carbon sequestration AND clear guidance to member states.

93

(d) The value of sustainable local markets such as local Woodheat in delivering wider

environmental and social benefits should be included in any evaluation of support programmes.

(e) Experience gained from individual member state support programmes such as the

UK’s Renewable Heat Incentive should be shared between member states. From what we have learnt through the WhS project this support package looks well designed. However, we are slightly concerned that the tiered structure of the support could encourage owners/installers to fit slightly larger boilers than are strictly necessary (as they would receive more kWh’s at the higher tier. This could affect the efficiency of the overall system. We will watch carefully and advise the scheme managers accordingly.

(f) Case studies: All partners have been involved with many sites in their countries. In this section we include a selection of case studies to illustrate how Woodheat has developed. 10.1 Slovenia: During the project duration a lot of new initiatives in wood heat entrepreneurship started in Slovenia. And some of them were also realized during this time. We are very proud to have a new and modern wood chip installation in Slovenian forestry institute building in the middle of Ljubljana. The idea started in 2008 but we couldn’t get financing from the government. In 2009 a new investment program was prepared and introduced to Ministry of science and technology of R Slovenia. Our idea was to have a promotion and good practice example in Ljubljana. Our first idea was to implement energy contracting with a forest owner in the middle of Ljubljana. At the end (in June 2010) Ministry decided to invest in wood chip storage and in reconstruction of boiler room. Boiler capacity is 202 kW, water buffer tanks has 2000 l each. The total investment costs were 180.000 €: we made a long term contract for supply of wood chips with a small rural company. Wood chips are delivered when needed, and they are paid according to energy production. We established a system for taking samples of each delivery and we are testing wood chip quality according to CEN standards for solid biofuels. On line monitoring of emissions enables us to monitor the impact of wood chips quality on emissions – which are very important in towns like Ljubljana. All this data will be available on line for all citizens in next heating system. We are planning to promote this project as good example of wood biomass use also in bigger towns and in older public building. We calculated that total savings will be more than 15,000 € per year (if we compare previous heating system on heating oil and use of wood chips). But actual data for first heating season will be available at the end of May when heating system will finish. The WhS project provided the information necessary to implement and promote CEN standards and also we were able to present good practice examples from Finland and Austria to main representatives from Ministry. We also succeeded to engage a rural company owned by forest owner to make a long term contract to sell heat to public institution.

Figure 92: – Slovenian forestry institute, building is on the edge of park Tivoli and

protected forest area.

94

Figure 93: Emission monitoring system – showing emissions from wood chip boiler on line

Second good practice example is woodheat project in Žetale. The project is not realized yet but we were visiting Žetale in March 2011 – just before ending of WhS project and it looks like ideas from Austrian experts were taken into consideration and the project will realized before this heating season. The main barriers for faster realization of this project were legal and bureaucratic.

Figure 94: central part of town Žetale

Žetale is a small municipality in East part of Slovenia with around 1500 inhabitants. 12 farmers which all together own 250 hectares of forest some of them also own saw mill and working communal works for municipality decided to invest in wood biomass heating system and establish cooperative. Some of these farmers were participating on Woodheat Solution project activities (participating at workshops and study tours). The In the future Žetale should be heated with a wood biomass boiler in a boiler house and fuel store in the town centre. In order to supply the village of a 400 kW biomass wood chip boiler should be

95

installed. To optimize utilization of the boiler, the installation of 2 x 200 kW boilers was recommended instead of 1 x 400 kW, but this increases the investment costs. They are planning to build about 700 meters long district heating network with 14 customers connected with a load of 395 kW. The estimated annual sales amount of heat is about 490 MWh. The fuel storage should have a minimum storage volume of 200 loose cubic metres so even in the coldest winter moths there is a reserve. The annual fuel consumption of spruce woodchips of G30 size is 1,000 loose cubic meters. For the fuel supply about 100 hectares of forest is essential. Investment costs are estimated to be approx. € 500,000. They can get up to 200,000 € as a subsidy from Rural Development Programme. The calculated pay beck period is 11 years. They will substitute around 75,000 litres of oil with an amount of € 56,300 and save more than 200,000 CO2 emissions per year.

Figure 95: Group of investors in one of the preparatory meetings, before workshop

If investors will realise this project it will be the first project in Slovenia were a group of interested forest owners established a farmer cooperative and invested in small district heating system. Third good practice example is a woodheat project in Municipality Šentrupert. This project was realized also with our support to the investor and user. Both sides were present on our study tour in Austria and advised by Finnish experts and experts from Slovenia. This project is located in new kindergarten in Šentrupert with boiler capacity of 320 kW providing heat for school and kindergarten.

Figure 96: Šentrupert kindergarten Figure 97: Technical advice from Finnish

experts

96

97

10.2 Croatia POKUPSKO MUNICIPALITY The municipality of Pokupsko (about 3,000 inhabitants) together with the North West Croatia Regional Energy Agency (REGEA) initiated a project of building a biomass district heating system in the town center. The project is in an advanced stage with all necessary permits obtained (location permit, building permit, environment protection certificate). The project has been approved to be financed through the IPARD program (5. Component of IPA instrument for Pre-accession Assistance), with the municipality eligible to receive a 958,000 € grant for the construction of boiler house, fuel storage building, installation of a 1 MW biomass boiler and construction of district heating network. The contractors for the performing of work have to be selected according to EU tendering procedures for third countries (PRAG – Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions), which is planned to be completed in July 2011. Construction and operation is planned for November/December 2011. The Pokupsko municipality has signed a three year contract for woodchips procurement with three local private forest owners and entrepreneurs for a total of 1,000 tonnes per year. The drafting of the contract and conditions for determining woodchip price based on water content has been done in accordance to the guidelines provided within the Woodheat Solutions project.

Figure 98: Customers of heat consumption:

Costumers: Connected load

in kW: Planned energy

consumption in kWh: Current fuel consumption:

Municipal building

57 136,000 16,000 litre of heating oil

Apartment building 75 180,000

Public building (culture house)

32 77,000 7,500 l of heating oil

Forest administration building

32 77,000

Elementary school

142 340,000 35,000 l of heating oil

Commercial building (HEP)

10 25,000

Church 12 29,000

Commercial building (market)

64 153,000

Veterinary building

16 38,000

Households (app. 60)

450 1,078,000

TOTAL: 890 2,133,000

10.3 South East England: 10.3.1 Stansted Park Estate - an example of best practice Stansted Park in West Sussex is a 1750 acre estate bequeathed to the nation by Lord Bessborough and managed since 1983 as a charitable trust. The estate manager James Cooper and forester Michael Prior are continually exploring new markets for their woodland produce and three years ago decided to heat Stansted House, which is let as office suites and used for functions, with wood sourced from estate woodlands, primarily sweet chestnut coppice. While this installation was not directly influenced by the WhS project it exemplifies the good practice we have learnt from the project and applies it to a typical English estate. Consequently we used it as an exemplar of best practice in an article in National Farmer - ‘Wood to warmth – Stanstead Park Estate: An example of best practice’ and highlighted the elements of best practice in a WhS newsletter. The system they installed provides an excellent example of how estates and farmers can use their own woods and equipment to supply their heating needs.

Figure 99: Heating load balanced by using a

large ‘accumulator tank’ (at night boiler feeds water to accumulator tank and during day

property heating needs supplied from accumulator and boiler in tandem)

Figure 100: Allows smaller capacity woodchip boiler (250kW) to be run at maximum efficiency. Boiler maintenance is carried out by an estate worker whose home is the first one connected to the heat distribution network.

98

Figure 101: Bespoke barn housing fuel store and boiler: • Height of barn kept low (3m eaves) to minimise landscape impact and allow it to be

screened by an existing belt of trees; • Galvanised steel frame to cope with inevitable condensation from woodchips; • Large size of barn (chip store) accommodates a whole years supply of woodchips and

minimises costs of chipping (chipper hired in for two days per year); • Polished concrete floor to allow farm tractor to push chips over boiler feed system (a

practical alternative to a opposed to an expensive walking floor); • Chip feed sunk in 0.5m deep pit below level of floor in corner of chip store makes

easy ‘pushing up’ of chips with tractor; and • Boiler housing sunk 0.5m below chip feed allowing level auger run (reducing chances

of jams and energy consumption).

Figure 102: Figure 103:

Space for seasoning wood in open drying yard adjacent to barn minimises handling and allows wood to be chipped directly into barn. The chipper is hired for two days to produce

a years woodchip supply, working efficiently and cost effectively, and causing minimal disturbance to business tenants.

The wood dries much better here than it does when stacked in the woodlands

Figure 104: Sweet chestnut coppice with oak standards (one seasons coppice regrowth)

Wood sourced from estate woods allowing traditional coppice woods to be brought back

into management. Note: only the low grade material which

can’t be used for fencing or other solid wood products is used as woodfuel. Without this

internal market these sections of woodland were uneconomic to manage.

99

10.3.2 Hughenden Manor, Buckinghamshire, England

Figure 105: Hughenden Manor: Former home of famous UK Prime Minister – Disraeli, the property is now owned by the National Trust. The National Trust own many large rural properties across the country, with large heat requirements and often linked to estates and woodland. They have installed a few woodfuelled heating systems but have the potential for many more and could supply the fuel from their own woods. Hence their Regional Surveyor joined the WhS study tour to Austria and this site benefited from technical advice from our Austrian partners. Hughenden Manor is open for public visits, thus providing opportunities to raise awareness of woodfuel amongst the public and forms their regional headquarters. Over the next few years we will be actively encouraging and supporting the National Trust in considering other sites.

Figure 106: Aerial and plans views of Hughenden Manor plus old apple store

100

Figure 107: Refurbished former apple store now the boiler room

Figure 108: Woodchip bunkerage

101

Woodchip supply

Figure 109: Redundant farm barn on part of the estate was converted into a woodchip store and production facility

Figure 110:

• Concrete floor to prevent contamination of woodchips with stones from loose floor

• Strong sides to the barn created with steel ‘I’ beam uprights and timber

• Slatted upper sides to barn to restrict rain ingress and good ventilation

te

he Region.

Figure 111: Estate purchased wood forwarding trailer to be used with existing tractor to facilitaextraction of fuel wood from their own woods Wood is seasoned adjacent to barn and will be chipped directly into the barn through the gap below the slatted sides. Figure 112: Initially a chipper will be hired to fill the barn. However, if more NT properties install woodfuel they may find it worth purchasing one for t Estate will also produce firewood and distribute through their visitor retail outlet, further promoting the benefits of locally

ced woodfuel. sour

Overall this illustrates a well thought through ‘wood to warmth’ supply chain which could be adopted by many other estates and farms in the UK.

102

103

11. What next? 11.1 Slovenia

The main goal of the project was to encourage investment in heating with wood, and to show in practice different ways of reducing production costs while ensuring high quality standards of heating with wood.

Did we reach this goal? For Slovenia we can say that huge efforts were made to promote modern technologies of wood biomass preparation and use and to promote CEN standards with direct link to wood fuels quality. However, the main results will be seen over the next few years as the legal barriers are still very strong and all procedures from first ideas to final project implementation take more than three years (which was the whole project duration). We expect to have at least 10 new woodheat projects implemented over the next few years. We believe that project in Žetale will be realized in the next heating season; also project in Oplotnica and Lovrenc na Pohorju should be realized in next years. We have also good and strong initiatives in Kozje and in Cerkno and the mayor from Šentrupert remains very interested to have another wood heat system in the local community.

Besides these established projects we have built a very strong group of advisors that will work beyond the project duration and will promote project ideas. They will provide: Forest owners and potential producers of wood biomass with:

• assistance in discovering the opportunities offered by the biomass market; • advice on networking and building supply clusters; • advice in the production of quality wood biomass;

Public Sector officials: • To present biomass as a trusted source of heat; • Present systems for heating with biomass, and their positive environment effects; • Assist in establishing links with potential local suppliers;

End-users in the private sector: • Links to existing supply chains; • To familiarize the wood heating systems, and to present their positive environmental

effects; • Increase confidence in the local quality woodfuel availability, and to encourage

investment in woodfuelled heating systems.

At the moment we can say that we have more than 30 experts – advisors on wood biomass in Slovenia. They took part in training and they all got our training pack. We believe that they will use all the material that they got and that they will organize similar events (workshops to promote best wood heat solutions). All the materials and extra support from us will be available to them beyond project duration. All project materials will be disseminated and ideas promoted in different events after the project formally ends.

The most important subsidy scheme for wood biomass projects in Slovenia is still Rural Development Program. All the projects realised in rural areas in the last few years received support from this program. The program will not change much untill 2013 and we hope that all above mentioned project will be realized by then. We hope that the experts who are working in this different programs (preparing or evaluating applications for subsidies) will use the knowledge prepared and introduced at the workshop organized especially for them.

Among all the goals of the project we believe that only that dedicated to implementation of CEN standards was not reached sufficiently. Why? The most important CEN standards were published at the end of 2010 and in the beginning of 2011 – this was the last period of WhS project – so we didn’t have enough time to prepare solid background for faster implementation of standards. Till now we do not have experts for solid biomass quality, there is no QA/QC system for solid biomass and there is no woodfuel producer in Slovenia that would apply CEN standards.

104

Did we fail in this? I think that we started to build information background for implementation of standards (with brochure Roadmap for implementation of standards for woodfuels, with trainings, workshops and articles in media). Participants from different events are asking for these materials and we hope that a critical mass of woodfuel producers implementing CEN standards will be reached through next period. Some of the ideas about implementation of CEN standards were used and we hope that they will be also implemented through another IEE project which will start on 1 May 2011: “Development of biomass trade and logistics centres for sustainable mobilisation of local wood biomass resources –BiomassTradeCentre II”. In this new project we will use all materials on CEN standards produced in the frame of WhS project and we will also use all lessons learnt from this project i

 n implementation of CEN standards.

Main lessons learned from Woodheat Solutions project are: • Examples of good practice (seen in Finland and in Austria) provide a powerful

promotional tool for new ideas and it should be used also in the future activities. Learning from experience is getting more important to our target groups.

• Prepared training packs were good accepted. The literature that is still needed is more economical orientated and orientated toward practical implementation of CEN standards in SME.

• The network of advisors for wood biomass is important for further activities of promotion of woodheat solutions, so we are planning to keep this group of advisors and help them to stay in touch with development in this area.

• If we want active participation of farmers and forest owners, we have to give them technical and practical information. Visit of experts from Finland and especially from Austria was very important point in project development. Investors got second opinion about their projects and they got extra confident in their decision.

• Internet could be a good way to disseminated information but farmers and forest owners still like to attend workshops and similar events. Printing material is also very much appreciated by this target group. We are planning to prepare a simple inquiry among our main target groups about data on Google maps (data about wood fuel producers, wood heat systems and CHP systems in Slovenia). The main aim of this inquiry is to get feedback from end-users about this kind of dissemination.

• Development and organization of demand and supply side is very important – woodheat solutions should be promoted further and strongly incorporated in different subsidy schemes. Experts working in this subsidy schemes should be more often invited to take part in trainings or workshops dedicated to woodheat solutions.

11.2 Croatia: During the WhS project meeting in Croatia in November 2010 we saw several sites where woodfuel opportunities are being taken forward by local entrepreneurs

Figure 113: Stepped grate

boiler providing heat for major furniture manufacturer

(Stepped grate system allows flexibility in relation to moisture content of fuel as fuel is dried

as it moves up the steps – however, energy is still used so remains more economic to use

drier fuel)

Figure 114: Harvester/brash bailer

Who has established his own woodfuel production chain by purchasing harvesting/brash baling equipment and a high

quality chipper

Figure 115: Centrometal boiler manufacturers are

producing a range of woodfuelled ehating systems to meet the evolving market

– illustrated here is a domestic system which can

use logs and pellets

While ongoing support remains necessary it is clear that interest is evolving and as more systems are installed others will follow. WhS has ‘sown the seeds’ through the hard work of original project partners and the Ministry will take this forward. 11.3 England: The Woodheat Solutions project has provided us with an incredible amount of knowledge and experience which will help us take forward our support for development of woodfuel across England. In effect the knowledge gained is so well embedded that we are using it all the time at events, in advice and in policy development. It has become so well established that when driving around the country we find ourselves assessing potential Woodheat opportunities. This knowledge coupled with the new set of support mechanisms (RHI and Woodfuel WIG), the increasing price of fossil fuels and a growing awareness of the opportunities provides a robust ‘environment’ in which to move ahead. In the south east the key targets include:

• Rural property owners with large heat loads who might supply their own woodfuel from their own woods;

• Public buildings where the managers have ‘carbon reduction targets’; and • Local rural communities where small district heating schemes may be viable.

We anticipate that farmers will respond to the business opportunity to sell heat faster than foresters as woodchips are rather similar to grain! The key projects which will take forward the WhS experience are: (a) Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder: WhS has provided the experience and momentum to attract this national woodfuel Pathfinder to the south east. This national pathfinder forms part of the Forestry Commission’s Woodland Carbon Task Force, which is also exploring how we can encourage an increase in woodland creation and more management of existing undermanaged woodland in England. The objective is to explore a range of temporary support mechanisms to help ‘woodheat’ develop to similar levels to those seen in Austria, to identify which are most effective and consider how these could be ‘rolled out’ across England.

105

Figure 116: Kent Downs AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) illustrating woodland

cover and examples of woodland types. Forestry Commission Director England asked us to identify an area to focus our efforts to support the development of the woodfuel industry. The Kent downs AONB was selected because the woods are owned by a range of owners from medium scale estates, farmers and small woodland owners and there are a range of development opportunities nearby. The pathfinder was launched on the 25th

March 2011 and will be the area where we focus our staff resources to use the lessons we have learnt through Woodheat Solutions to establish the woodfuel industry. Project benefits from DECC’s recently

launched Renewable Heat Incentive and the FC’s Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grant Our vision is:

• A robust woodland industry supported by local markets for woodland products; • Sensitive woodland management of our cherished biodiversity and landscapes; • Secure local jobs (including opportunities for farm diversification); and • An ‘environment’ requiring minimal state regulation and support.

(b) Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grant: The Forestry Commission has been lobbying for the redeployment of £10 million of unused grant support for the establishment of Energy Crops (The planting of energy crops in England has been very low in recent years, partially due to the lack of established markets for woodfuel but also due to a reluctance of farmers to restrict their options for land by planting an energy crop). The Woodfuel WIG will fund assessments of the woodfuel resource within existing woods, supervision of harvesting operations and improvements to management access to woods. It is available until 2013 and SEE is one of the main priority areas. Formal launch is due in summer 2011. (c) Train Forestry Commission Woodland Officers: Use the WhS training pack as the basis for training FC Woodland Officers to allow them to advise woodland owners and managers about how they could add value to their product by selling high quality woodchips and/or Woodheat. Thereby providing the market driver to restore management to undermanaged woods. (d) Maintain support for partner organisations supporting the development of the woodfuel industry: Maintain and develop strong links to other woodfuel development

106

107

projects across SE and the rest of England including: West Sussex County Council’s Woodfuel Development Officer (which FC part funds), the Chilterns and Buckinghamshire TIMBER project, the Surrey Hills Woodfuel Group; the Whitehill Bordon eco-town project and the Confederation of Forest Industries Woodfuel Suppliers Group. (e) Explore ways of rolling out WhS training: Explore how we can use the WhS training materials, with material from other projects, to establish an accredited woodfuel training package which can be used by a range of academic bodies (in particular agricultural colleges). All of the above will link to the Forestry Commission’s Woodfuel Implementation Plan which is likely to be launched later this year.

108

12. Overall Conclusions

a. There is a significant amount of underutilised woody biomass resource available in Slovenian, Croatian and UK woodlands;

b. Woodheat offers a highly carbon efficient source of heat – particularly when

used locally;

c. Woodheat offers a major opportunity for many rural businesses across Europe;

d. The culture and principles of using wood efficiently are less well embedded in some countries;

e. Standards are essential to provide a common language but delivery of quality

woodfuel requires us to build understanding and embed a culture of quality management;

f. Woodheat quality must embrace the whole ‘wood to warmth’ supply chain;

g. The use of wood as a fuel source requires the forestry community to consider

wood in terms of carbon and energy as well as volume and timber;

h. Woodheat is slowly developing in Slovenia, Croatia and the UK and as more systems are installed this will increase in pace; and

i. Ongoing technical and financial support and encouragement will help establish

an efficient and effective Woodheat industry.

109

13: Bibliography Alakangas, E., Rautanen, J. and I. Lappalainen. 2004. Biomass Heating Entrepreneurship in Finland. In: Bioenergy 2003 International Nordic Bioenergy Conference 2.-5.9.2003 Proceedings, FINBIO. Madlener, R. and H. Myles. 2000. Modelling Socio-Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Systems: A Survey Prepared for IEA Bioenergy Task 29 Workshop, Brighton, U.K. Okkonen, L., Puhakka, A. and Suhonen, N. 2006. Management models of heat energy entrepreneurship in Finland. PUUT49. Project report summary. NCP. Peltola, T. 2005. Business on the margin: Co-operative heating and the politics of forests in Finland. Draft paper. Puhakka, A. 2005. Energiaratkaisujen valinnan ohjaus kunnissa. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Oikeus-tieteiden laitos. Joensuun Yliopisto. ReAct (Rautanen, J.). 2004. Renewable Energy Action. Case study 16: Biomass Heat Entrepreneurship. Saramäki, K. 2007. Wood fuel production and use in solid fuel heat plants under 5MWth. Training material. EUBIONET2, Intelligent Europe (IEE) project. North Karelia University of Applied Sciences, Joensuu. Shleifer, A. 1998. State versus Private Ownership. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 12, No. 4. Pp. 133-150. Suhonen, N. 2006. Business Models of Heat Entrepreneurship. Northern Woodheat project. North Karelia University of Applied Sciences, Joensuu. Forest Mensuration – A handbook for practitioners Forestry Commission 2006 Yield Models for Forest Management Forestry Commission 1981 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees Forestry Commission 2002  

110

14. Appendices

Appendix 1: Useful facts and figures: 1m3 of wood (standing or recently felled) comprises about 50% water (by total weight) = approximately 1 tonne of unseasoned/fresh/wet wood = approx. 0.72 tonnes of seasoned wood comprising about 30% water (by total weight) = about 3m3 of loose woodchips (by volume) = about 2,500kWhs (or 9.0GJ) of usable heat energy for broadleaf wood

or about 1,800kWhs (or 6.5GJ) of usable heat energy for conifer wood NOTE: A m3 of unseasoned wood will have a much lower energy value as some of the energy would be used to evaporate the water in the wood. Similarly wood which has been seasoned to less than 30% will have a higher energy value as less water has to be evaporated when the wood is burnt! 1kWh = 0.0036GJ or GigaJoules (1GJ = 278kWh) One GigaJoule is 1,000,000,000 joules. One joule refers to the ‘work’ required to produce one watt of power for one second. Net carbon costs of woodfuel: All traditional fuel (i.e. excluding nuclear) releases carbon dioxide (CO2) when it is burnt. However, the net CO2 released by burning sustainably produced wood is considerably less than the CO2 released when fossil fuels are burnt:

Figure 115: Net CO2 emissions by fuel type Fuel type: Life cycle CO2

emission: Wood 7 kg/MWh

Natural Gas 270 kg/MWh Oil 350 kg/MWh

Coal 480 kg/MWh Electricity 530 kg/MWh

In essence you don't save any CO2 by burning woodfuel - only be displacing fossil fuel, and the savings will depend on what fuel you are displacing.

Figure 116: CO2 savings when wood is substituted for fossil fuels Net CO2 released

1 m3 of wood provides 2,500kWhrs of energy (when seasoned)

17.5kg CO2 Saved by

substituting 1m3 of wood for fossil

fuel Natural Gas 675kg 657kg

Oil 875kg 857kg Coal 1,200kg 1,182kg

Fossil fuels delivering the same amount of

energy Electric 1,325kg 1,307kg To convert from CO2 saved to carbon you divide by 44 (the molecular weight of CO2) then multiply by 12 (the atomic weight of carbon). So 1kg of CO2 would equate to 0.27 kg of carbon. All wood has about the same calorific value by weight (for the same moisture content) BUT different species have different densities and growth rates in volume terms

111

Figure 117: Estimated energy yield by tree species

Species

kWh/kg at 10%

mc

Est. kWh /kg at

30% mc

kg/m3

at 30% mc

Est. kWh/m3

at 30% mc

Av. Yield m3 per ha per year

Av. Yield kWh per ha

per year Beech 4.13 3.5 780 2,730 4.00 10,920 Oak 4.33 3.5 800 2,800 4.00 11,200 Ash 4.21 3.5 750 2,625 6.00 15,050 Sweet Chestnut 4.20 3.5 750 2,625 8.00 21,000* Spruce 4.67 3.5 620 2,170 16.00 34,720 Pine 4.50 3.5 580 2,030 12.00 24,360 Fir 4.62 3.5 520 1,820 14.00 25,480

Notes:Figures for kWh/kg at 10% mc derived from Euroheat Brochure 2010. Remaining figures re energy value and wood density from Biomass Energy Centre

Figures for SC estimated * Sweet chestnut coppice in SE England on a 20-25 year rotation will attain YC12, thus producing 31,500kWh per ha per year

Yield in m3 per ha estimated

Conservative average 4.20 3.5 650 2,275 4.00 9,100

Indicative costs of woodchip production in SE England:

1. Payment to woodland owner - £10+ per wet tonne/m3

2. cost of felling and extraction - £20 per wet tonne/m3

3. cost of drying - £5 per wet tonne/m3

4. conversion from wet tonnes to dry (30% moisture) tonnes - Divide by 0.7 (or multiply by 1.43) - £15 per seasoned tonne 5. cost of chipping - £10 per seasoned tonne 6. cost of delivery - £15 per seasoned tonne = about 3 m3 of ‘loose’ woodchips 7. overheads 25% - £19 per seasoned tonne

TOTAL = £94 per seasoned tonne

(equivalent to 3 pence per kW hr) Note: Every woodland is different and so costs of production will vary considerably.