b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Community-based model for bioenergy production coupled

to forest land management for wildfire control using
combined heat and power

Jessica Yablecki a,*, Eric L. Bibeau a, Doug W. Smith b

a
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
b
Entropic Energy, Vancouver, BC, Canada

article info abstract

Article history: We propose a community-based model of land management for pre-emptive action to
Received 20 October 2009 reduce the risk of wildfires in small communities situated in forested areas. This proposed
Received in revised form approach transfers the responsibility of wildlandeurban interface administration to the
7 February 2011 local community, giving them control in reducing their risks of property damage.
Accepted 10 February 2011 A combination of community forest management using local labour and bioenergy power
Available online 9 April 2011 generation mitigates the cost of forest treatment, reduces the local cost of energy and
revitalizes the community. The proposed solution achieves sustainable land management
Keywords: practices, sustainable ecology, sustainable energy production, and provides enhanced cost-
Bioenergy benefits to the community. More important, it provides simultaneously renewable heat,
Wildfires transportation and power to the community using local labour and without reliance on
CHP external aspects beyond community control. This study proposes a viable method based on
Mechanical treatment the installation of an appropriately sized combined heat and power bioenergy system.
Sustainable communities A remote off-grid community is modeled and simulated using three different small-scale
Renewable transportation bioenergy systems and two operating scenarios by way of example.
ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction smaller communities are at greater risk of wildfire considering

Forest practices have altered natural fire cycles artificially by
land management practices over the last few decades. Trends
are showing increased fire size and severity over the last 20
years, resulting in increasing property damage [1]. Forested
lands have thus accumulated a large quantity of hazardous
biomass. For example, experience of uncontrolled wildfires in
British Columbia, Oregon, and California overrunning commu-
nities has expanded public awareness of this hazard. Commu-
nities within forested areas are reviewing their exposure to
wildfire risks and looking to develop proactive plans. Many
small-unincorporated districts may lack the human resources
to produce effective forestland management plans. Moreover,
their greater encroachment into the forests, resulting in limited
access and reduced insurance coverage. It is imperative that
pre-emptive land management for wildfire control strategies
consider the needs of these smaller and more remote commu-
nities. Many of these communities are not on the electrical
power grid, use diesel generators for electrical power generation
and import heating oil for heat. The combination of land
management for wildfire control and community energy
production using wood residue as a source for renewable energy
to produce heat and electricity would provide the community
with extended benefits including protection from rising energy
costs, reduced oil dependence, reduced carbon emissions, and
self-sufficiency.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jyablecki@gmail.com (J. Yablecki).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.011
2562 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
2. Forest land management
2.1. Wildfire control
There are three broad approaches to land management for
wildfire control: reactive, prescribed burns, and mechanical
treatment [1]. Ignoring the issue defaults to reactive wildfire
suppression with little or no pre-emptive control. Even if this
approach results in the accumulation of a large quantity of
forest fuel loading, it is extensively applied. The second
approach is that of prescribed burns in which, under selected
times and locations, intentional fires destroy the forest fuels
to leave the woodland less susceptible to unplanned, uncon-
trolled wildfires. This practice is subject to weather conditions
and smoke regulation. The third approach is that of
mechanical treatment in which low lying biomass is har-
vested to reduce ladder fuels, along with a planned removal of
selected larger trees to reduce crown fire spreading [2].
Many experts recognize the reactive approach as no longer
acceptable. Ladder fuels and closely spaced trees allow fires to
develop and expand beyond the capability of effective fire
fighting [3]. In the interface zones between forests and
communities, where homes are constructed within the edge
of the forest, the results of such fires can be devastating. The
prescribed fire approach is a pre-emptive method to reduce
the fuel loading in the forest, however, prescribed burns
cannot be implemented when there are high fuel loadings,
short windows of suitable climate conditions, risk of escaped
fire in the wildlandeurban interface, or where air quality
concerns exist [4].
In this case, mechanical treatment of forests becomes
a preferable option. This approach consists of harvesting the
underbrush, low-level biomass, and dead and dying trees as
well as conducting some forest thinning. Recent studies have
shown that mechanically treated areas can lessen the severity
of wildfires and reduce uncontrolled wildfires from a crown to
a surface fire making it more manageable by fire fighters [5].
The United States has brought in recent legislature such as the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act [6], and policy initiatives like
the Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation
Plan [7], to address the issue of wildfire control and fuel
reduction [8]. Mechanical fuel treatment programs need to
remove large quantities of small trees; if left in the forest,
these become ladder fuel, further increasing wildfire risk [1].
Biomass removed during mechanical treatment methods
must be consumed elsewhere as land filling would just shift
the problem. Mechanical treatment of forestlands offers the
potential for productive use of biomass collected, however,
most of this solid biofuel has no merchantable value and long-
distance transportation generally precludes economic benefit
from the valued material: distance to biomass markets from
harvesting sites must generally be kept below 100 miles to
remain economical [9].
2.2. Forest land management costs
A major concern of land management for wildfire control is
the cost of proactive programs. The reactive approach
requires the least upfront investment, but leads to the greatest
uncertainty in budgetary planning with potential expenditure
difficult to predict. A single uncontrolled wildfire that
encroaches into a populated area could cost many times more
than any of the pre-emptive programs. If the forest fuel
loading is high, then few reactive strategies can be relied upon
to ensure that property damage does not ensue. The costs of
fire fighting, property destruction, employment losses, insur-
ance claims and legal implications can exceed $1 billion in
a single season in the USA although this is a statistical result
and not a comparative, per acre cost [3].
It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the
costs of the pre-emptive and reactive treatment programs on
an annual basis. Prescribed burns are the least-cost pre-
emptive strategy, with an estimated cost of $130 to $1000 Cdn
per hectare [4], but this method has restricted application.
Prescribed burns have no secondary benefits available.
A related approach is to cut, pile and slash burn the forest
fuels. This uses a combination of mechanical clearing with
a more controlled in-forest burn: it has similar air quality
concerns as the prescribed burning approach and estimated to
cost more from $370 to $2800 Cdn per hectare [4].
Mechanical clearing and removal is a more costly pre-
emptive strategy than prescribed burning but it can offer
secondary benefits if the available biomass is used for
economic purposes. It costs between $865 to $2997 Cdn per
hectare [9,10] to mechanically clear and remove biomass from
the forest; however, even higher costs could be possible.
These costs are dependent upon but not limited to such
factors as forest density, the type and size of biomass for
removal, mechanical equipment available, local landscape
and forest conditions [4]. Mechanical forest treatment would
be an attractive option if the cost structure improves through
recovery of some revenue and community benefits. If
collected biomass can provide power and heat to the
community to displace existing energy expenditures, then the
recovery of value mitigates part of the forest treatment cost.
2.3. At-risk small communities
Estimates show that 20 000 communities are at-risk for wild-
fires in the USA and that support for planned forest manage-
ment is increasing [11]. The largest risk for communities
occurs at the interface zones between the community and the
forest. We postulate that attention is more likely to be given to
larger communities that boarder forests because of economies
of scale; however, property damage risk is as great for smaller
communities. We further assume that smaller communities
are more likely to lack professional fire-fighting equipment
and training, are more integrated with the forest with more
limited escape routes from approaching fires, and many will
be less organized to address the issue. As fewer people
represent smaller communities, they may have reduced
capability to have their concerns and needs heard.
For large and small communities alike, the interface lands
can be an unresolved area of responsibility. These lands are
often outside the tenures of the forest companies, so land
management is not a company issue. They are most likely
outside municipal boundaries for large communities and
there are no municipal boundaries for unincorporated small
communities, thus these lands can default to government
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
control and responsibility. Smaller communities are less able
to input the necessary planning, contribute effectively to costs
or even implement larger scale solutions. Small communities
need a simple, cost-effective solution that can be readily
adapted to their specific needs. It is particularly problematic
for isolated communities to effectively plan and implement
a wildfire control strategy.
It is unrealistic for outside services to attempt to evaluate
the needs of every small community with respect to forest
management. It would be prohibitively expensive, time
consuming and demanding to perform a site-specific evalua-
tion of every small community. Required is an approach that
can be adapted readily to individual areas without significant
input from outside experts. With the availability of such
a plan, the remaining deterrent will be the initial cost of
implementation, training and on-going support.
In 2003 Flagstaff, Arizona, a community of 53 000 people
that is largely integrated with the forest, adopted a forest fire
reduction plan outlined by Farnsworth et al. [12] after a series
of large wildfires. The forest fire reduction plan involved
a combination of selective thinning, brush disposal, and
prescribed fires. The small diameter Ponderosa pine is used
for firewood by the community with proposals to use this
biomass for local bioenergy electrical production. The
community manages the harvesting activities and uses
a combination of traditional mechanical harvesting, where
allowable, and micro-harvesting with hand crews and all
terrain vehicles in denser forested areas. Scheduled forest
thinning every ten to fifteen year addresses on-going fire risks
from forest regrowth, along with prescribed fires every three
to seven years. Monitoring of the harvesting and fires is the
community’s responsibility. This forest fire management plan
has been found to reduce wildfire hazard, make forest fires
easier to identify and suppress, while improving ecosystem
health and maintaining vegetative species [12].
2.4. Mechanical treatment planning
The forest fuel load will vary with each community and
addressed during the planning stage of a wildfire control
strategy. Typical forest biomass removal rates for mechanical
treatment can range from 1 tonne per hectare to 38 tonnes per
hectare with an average of 9 tonnes per hectare [13]. Planning
requires addressing the fuel removal cycle. Current studies
throughout the United States have found that fire risk returns
from forest regrowth within 15e20 years [14]. Any forest
treatment plan must address this continuing need. A land
management plan could place the primary responsibility for
management and implementation of forest treatment with
the local community. It is not useful to remove forest fuels
without having a plan for its destruction or productive use.
The proposed solution concept includes an on-going forest
fuel removal managed by the community, using community
workers and a biomass power generating system operating
continuously at the distributed scale by the community. The
cost of labour is minimized because qualified outside labour is
not needed. Furthermore, the value of the power generated
and sold within the community mitigates in part forest
treatment costs. Other benefits would also accrue to the
community, including enhanced economic opportunities,
2563
possible additional community services, control of energy
costs for budget purposes, and reduction of transportation
costs.
Not all forests are suitable for treatment or wildfire control
strategies as treatment is site specific [15]. Mechanical treat-
ment and prescribed burns can affect local ecosystems,
causing further environmental issues that must be assessed
and properly managed [16]. With the recent adoption of
wildfire control strategies, research has been conducted on
the environmental impacts on the local ecosystems areas that
may be affected including soils, hydrology, water quality, site
productivity, and forest biodiversity. Lattimore et al. [15]
conducted a global review of the environmental and sustain-
ability issues involved with bioenergy production from forest
biomass. The authors summarized the environmental risks
with managing the forest and addressed these issues with
a set of sustainable forest management plans. The local
ecosystem impact was found to vary in nature and extent
based on the intensity and type of production. The resulting
environmental issues are site specific in nature. Rhodes and
Baker [17] considered the impacts of fuel treatment programs
on the local ecosystem and found that environmental risks
exist for both treatment plans and non-treatment plans. Agee
and Skinner [16] found that environmental impacts in general
can be predicted and must be evaluated against taking no
action.
3. Community-based energy system
3.1. Bioenergy and community involvement
Proposed uses of wood residues from mechanical treatment
include combined heat and power (CHP), co-firing, wood
pellets, bio-oil and methane production [13,18] for large-scale
systems where the wood residues are transported to a large-
scale facility. Except for co-firing, these proposed large-scale
scenarios have marginal economics [18]. Instead, we propose
to use small-scale distributed bioenergy systems, similar to
those that have been modeled using technologies adapted for
the 250 to 5000 kW electrical range for forest residues and
bugwood applications in References [19,20]. Small communi-
ties cannot rely on the availability of large-scale facilities to
use the relatively small amount of biomass they collect from
mechanical treatment.
There is a growing trend for communities to seek green
house gas (GHG) emissions reduction through energy planning
that implements renewable energy systems such as wind, solar
or biomass [21]. These communities are finding environmental,
social and economic benefits that include reduced fossil fuel
emissions, greater energy self-sufficiency and less dependency
on fluctuating energy costs. Biomass has distinct advantages
when used in small communities as wood has a relatively high
energy density, can be harvested when convenient, stored until
needed and used to meet consumption patterns [22].
3.2. Community energy costs
Diesel generation often provides electrical power in small
communities. There are currently 200 000 people living in 300
2564 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
communities in Canada that are not on an electrical grid and
rely on diesel generation for electricity [23]. Power costs can
range from 20 cents to over $1.00 per kWhr. For instance, if
diesel fuel costs $2.50 per litre in a community, the direct
conversion to electricity equates to 58¢ per kWhr when
operating at a peak efficiency of 40%. This figure excludes
operating, maintenance and capital cost recovery. In addition,
building heat in small communities is often provided by
heating oil. The retail heating oil price often exceeds the bulk
diesel price in a community. Although electrical power costs
are often subsidized in remote communities, most often
heating oil does not receive such subsidies. Canadian remote
communities must generally pay full price for their imported
heating oil and its transportation to site.
3.3. Distributed CHP systems
Large-scale boiler systems using steam are the traditional
approach to power production from biomass: a mature tech-
nology that is well defined technically and predictable in
investment requirements. However, the distributed nature of
forest biomass reduces the opportunity for large-scale bio-
power from this material. The recommended approach for
smaller communities is to employ a small-scale CHP system.
Some of the technologies proposed for small scale include:
 Small-scale CHP steam Rankine system
 Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
 Entropic cycle
These three systems have been simulated by applying the
first law to an open system, assuming thermodynamic equi-
librium of the fuel and the air. For the simulations, flue gas
temperatures from the biomass combustor are assumed to
enter at 1000  C [20]. No accounting has been made for potential
heat recuperation from the flue gas leaving the input heater to
the combustion system. Accounting has been made for para-
sitic loads associated with the feed pump and other internal
system requirements. No accounting has been made of
Fig. 1 e Small steam CHP system.
parasitic loads associated with the combustor system, flue gas
draft requirements, air heat dump or cogeneration process
uses.
3.4. Small-scale CHP steam Rankine cycle
A small-scale steam Rankine system is a direct-fired biomass
[24] conversion system that uses a boiler to produce high-
pressure steam for electricity generation. It is a proven tech-
nology but with limited efficiency as compared to large-scale
steam systems, small-scale steam systems show reduced
electrical conversion efficiencies. There are both technical and
practical reasons that steam systems lose efficiency at small-
scale. Without the economy of scale, high alloy materials
cannot be cost-justified in small systems. This requires the
system to operate at lower temperature (400  C) and pressure
(4700 kPa) which reduces the thermal conversion efficiency
[25]. Scaling laws for the specific diameter and specific speed
result in reduced thermal conversion efficiency through the
steam turbine at low mass flow rates for these smaller
systems. System complexity cannot be cost-justified so recu-
peration and reheat are not reasonable approaches. Govern-
ment safety regulations for boiler operation require that
qualified and registered steam operators be employed. Such
personnel are expensive and of limited availability in small
communities. Implementing CHP or heat recovery with power
generation increases the overall system efficiency. A practical
small-scale CHP steam system can have overall conversion
efficiency in the order of 55% with 6% representing the elec-
trical conversion portion [25]. Fig. 1 shows a typical arrange-
ment of a small-scale CHP steam system.
3.5. Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
The Rankine cycle used with the traditional steam system can
also be implemented using an organic working fluid in place of
water [26]. The primary advantage of the ORC approach is to
operate at a higher turbine exhaust pressure yet maintains
a convenient heat reject temperature [25]. The higher exhaust
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
pressure results in a less voluminous flow of exhaust vapour
and, consequently, smaller equipment footprint. In addition,
the shape of the saturation dome of the temperature and
entropy diagram means less superheat is required and
potentially more energy can be recuperated from the turbine
exhaust flow. Working fluids in ORC systems include refrig-
erants and hydrocarbon that [27] have only a fraction of the
available enthalpy of steam and consequently must circulate
up to five times the mass flow for the same power generation.
This mitigates some of the advantages gained by the higher
exhaust pressure from the turbine. The turbines must be
specially designed employing multiple stages and are still too
big in diameter to allow high-speed operation. Organic fluids
used are often volatile and unsafe to be heated directly by
exhaust flue gas due to the risk of fluid leakage. A hot oil
circuit is used to transfer energy from the exhaust flue gas to
an organic fluid vaporizer. To maximize CHP efficiencies, the
coolant from the condenser will sometimes be further heated
by exhaust flue gas before being sent to a district heat system.
The ORC has been successfully demonstrated in the
400 kW to 1.5 MW range and is commercially available in
Europe [26] although at a higher capital cost per kW than the
conventional steam system. The use of thermal oil in the
exhaust flue gas avoids using steam boilers and circumvents
the operator qualification and registration requirements in
most jurisdictions and allows for better efficiency at a small-
scale that the conventional steam system [26]. An ORC system
can have overall conversion efficiency in the order of 55% with
10% representing the overall electrical conversion portion [25].
The generic arrangement of an ORC system is shown in Fig. 2.
3.6. Entropic cycle
The Entropic power cycle [20] is directed at energy recovery
from hot flue gases on a small-scale. This technology is similar
to both steam cycle and ORC systems. It uses an ammonia/
water fluid mixture in a closed loop system. The working fluid
mixture, however, contains about four times the enthalpy
content of organic fluids, which reduces the required circu-
lating mass flow. The fluid is non-flammable and safe to use
directly in a flue gas heater. Moreover, the Entropic cycle
permits biasing to reduce equipment size, increase turbine
efficiencies and use a high temperature coolant. The Entropic
cycle results in a system that uses a super-heater rather than
an evaporator in the flue gas and thus does not have the safety
concerns of a steam boiler. Moreover, this application will
produce a high temperature coolant (85  Ce95  C) that returns
to the system hot (50  Ce60  C) [20]. These temperatures are
directly applicable to district heating or, if the heat is not used
productively, dry air-cooling by a relatively small heat
exchanger. No cooling tower, cooling pond or cooling water is
required. This system can have an overall conversion efficiency
in the order of 68%, with 12% representing the overall electrical
conversion portion [25]. Fig. 3 shows the generic arrangement
of an Entropic system.
3.7. System requirements
One very important consideration of the biomass power
generating system is low capital cost in a small generating
2565
size. Smaller bioenergy systems are significantly more
expensive per kW and usually uneconomical. The ORC and
the Entropic cycle offer combined heat and power from
biomass with commercial units estimated to cost between
$4000 and $8000 per kW. This is higher than the estimated
capital costs for a small steam CHP system, which is estimated
to cost $3500 per kW [25].
For remote installations it is also imperative that a power
generating system be able to operate with minimal operator
qualification and unattended. Steam-based bioenergy systems
have a distinct disadvantage, as due to their boiler they require
highly trained on-site operators with registered qualifications.
The labour cost of such operators becomes prohibitive for
small-size systems, if required. Moreover, a remote community
may have difficulty hiring and keeping such specialized labour.
The ORC and Entropic cycle bioenergy CHP systems operate
similar to steam but do not use a traditional boiler and thus do
not have the requirement for a highly-qualified operator.
Furthermore, these bioenergy systems can be automated and
thus operated reliably in remote locations.
4. Community-based model
4.1. Bioenergy system requirements
To demonstrate the proposed approach of a wildfire land
management strategy coupled with community energy
production, a community-based model is outlined below.
Revenue streams, fossil fuel displacement, and green house
gas reductions, are simulated using a thermodynamic energy
balance and cost model for the three proposed CHP systems
under two different installation scenarios. A base case
community is chosen with the following characteristics: three
small diesel generators totaling 250 kW provide a community
with approximately 100 residents with the electrical genera-
tion for the community buildings and small businesses. Data
from small forest communities in northern BC and southern
Northwest Territories approximates the electrical data
assumed for the proposed base case community. Annual
electrical generation of 950 MWh with peak loads of 198 kW
and an average load of 120 kW [28,29] for the community is
used as inputs to the simulated model. Typical community
electrical load profiles show an increase in electrical demands
during the winter months with peak power load occurring
during the afternoon [28].
Two different scenarios are proposed for sizing a biopower
system to meet both the annual and peak electrical needs of
the base case community. The first proposed scenario is
a biomass CHP system that is sized to handle the average
electrical load of the community. This allows the CHP system
to always be operating between 75% and 100% of its capacity,
ensuring reasonable operating efficiency. The existing diesel
generator will handle the remaining peak loads. The second
scenario proposes a complete switch from the diesel genera-
tion to biopower. Two to three CHP systems are grouped to
handle the average and peak electrical demands of the
community similar to the way diesel generators are sized and
installed in remote communities. There is a significant
increase in capital cost to staging CHP systems; however, it is
2566 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9

Fig. 2 e Organic rankine cycle.

Fig. 3 e Entropic power cycle system.

 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
Table 1 e Bioenergy system input parameters for simulation model for both scenarios to meet load demand.
System Scenario #1 - Biomass/Peak diesel
Recommended
system size (MW)
Organic Rankine 1.20
Small steam CHP 2.20
Entropic 1.00
necessary to ensure that the system is always running above
50% load with a reasonable thermal operating efficiency.
Efficiency in CHP systems drops rapidly when operating at
partial loads [26]. Based on electrical efficiencies of the three
CHP systems, Table 1 shows the recommended installation
size for each of the proposed CHP systems to meet the annual
and peak electrical loads and the estimated capital costs for
the two simulated scenarios. The capital costs for each system
are estimated from reported values per kilowatt installed [25].
In order to keep up with the community’s electrical
demand, a prescribed area surrounding the community is
mechanically treated, through the harvesting of underbrush
and small trees. This work is more comparable to landscaping
rather than forest logging. Workers need training and direc-
tion but minimal qualification. The equipment required for
such work includes small chainsaws, landscape chippers,
transport all terrain vehicles and chip trailers. The work
entails clearing less than 1 ha daily in an expanding radius
around the community. Clearing by individuals around their
personal property is accepted as additional fuel and the
community can choose to accept other municipal waste or
construction material. A corporation, owned by the commu-
nity, would oversee and manage the procedures and system.
Collecting biomass at a rate faster than it is consumed and
using short-term storage would allow a 5-day work week and
possibly seasonal collection periods.
Table 2 shows the annual biomass requirements and the
required radius for biomass collection around the community
for each of the three proposed CHP systems for the simulated
community and two installation scenarios. The simulation
assumes an average forest fuel loading of nine BDT per
hectare [13], a regrowth cycle of fifteen years [14,16], an energy
content of woody biomass of 20.5 MJ per kilogram of fuel with
a moisture content of 50 percent [20], and a community
surface area of 0.5 km2. Under the first scenario and depend-
ing on the electrical generation efficiency of the three CHP
Table 2 e Fuel requirements for different energy scenarios to meet load demand as calculated by energy balance model in
simulation.
Fuel requirements - based on a 15 year cycle
System Scenario #1 - Biomass/Peak diesel
Annual biomass (Tonnes)
ORC 1259
Small steam CHP 2253
Entropic cycle 1070
2567
Scenario #2 - All biomass
Approximate Recommended Approximate
capital cost ($) size (MW) capital cost ($)
6 000 000 2.60 13 000 000
7 700 000 4.60 16 100 000
5 500 000 2.20 12 100 000
system simulated, the community maintains a 3.27e4.50 km
radius surrounding the community.
Electrical power generated by the biomass system is
supplied through the existing local distribution system and
displaces electrical power being generated by diesel. District
heat using high temperature water distributes the thermal
heat to the community. As common for new district heating
system, only a portion of the available heat is initially utilized
for the main community central buildings. The infrastructure
required to carry this heat to private homes would be installed
progressively. The upgrades to utilize this heat would be
financed by the savings realized by displacing heating oil. The
heating oil for central buildings displaced by thermal heat
from the biomass system represents considerable financial
value to the community. The upgrades to utilize this heat in
individual homes represent future financial benefit.
Further benefits to the community can be achieved by the
use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, PHEV. A PHEV is similar
to a conventional hybrid vehicle in that both a gasoline
internal combustion engine and an electric engine power it.
However, it differs in the existence of an electrical plug used to
obtain power from the grid or local distribution system by
using a battery for storage [30]. PHEVs are referred by the
nomenclature as PHEV40 or PHEV60 where the number, 40 or
60, indicates how many miles the vehicle can run on electrical
power [31]. Incorporating PHEV in the simulated base
community where electricity is generated from the biomass
system would further reduce the community’s dependence on
imported fuels and reduce green house gas emissions. By
replacing most of the community’s existing gasoline fuelled
vehicles to PHEV60, an increase in the annual electrical
demand from 950 MWh to 1043 MWh can be expected
depending on their driving cycle [33]. This approach allows the
community to convert low value solid biofuel locally to ach-
ieve renewable transportation, rather than using the more
complex liquid biofuel scenario, which is beyond their control.
Scenario #2 All biomass
Radius (km) Annual biomass (Tonnes) Radius (km)
3.28 1798 3.99
4.51 3218 5.46
2.99 1529 3.65
2568 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9

Table 3 e Annual revenue model results from the Table 4 e Green house gas displacements using
simulations for each system. community base biomass CHP system.
ORC Small steam Entropic Current Scenario #1 Scenario #2
CHP system cycle community Biomass/ All biomass
Peak diesel
Community size 100
Electrical power 1043 CO2 from diesel 1017 206 e
(MWh) (Tonnes)
Peak load (kW) 198 CO2 from gasoline 211 98 98
Average load (kW) 120 (Tonnes)
Biomass required 1256 2252 1070 Total CO2 1228 305 98
(tonnes) (Tonnes)
Area to mechanically 279 500 237
treat (Ha)
Biomass removal $379 500 $680 250 $323 250 increase its income revenue with full advantage taken of
cost ($) available heat.
Diesel required $256 500
(72 876 l)
4.3. Greenhouse gas emissions
Diesel displaced $522 500
(148 474 l)
Heating oil displaced $34 508 Power generation is one of the largest contributors to GHG
(124 228 l) emissions [24]. Power generated from burning biomass is
Gasoline displaced $70 993 carbon neutral as biomass returns to carbon dioxide naturally
(48 961 l) [32]. Table 4 shows the calculated CO2 that can be displaced for
Biomass system $6 000 000 $7 700 000 $5 500 000 both scenarios by implementing a biomass system to a small
cost ($)
community. No carbon credit is allotted to the environmental
Simple payback period 24 e 18
(years)
benefit of reducing net green house gas emissions as this is
outside the community control.

4.2. Revenue model

5. Conclusion
The specific revenue model applicable to any given site will
A proposed community-based model includes forest
vary due to local differences. It is clear that there is significant
mechanical treatment combined with a biomass power
expense if we choose to address the hazard of wildfires in
generating system sized to suit a small community. Larger
a proactive manner; however, remaining reactive to forest
communities can optimally distribute multiple units. The
fires can lead to an even greater cost both from direct fire-
system can be scaled appropriately or applied to special local
fighting and from significant property damage. Table 3 shows
forest needs such as forest thinning. Community workers
the revenue streams for the community-based model simu-
perform the forest treatment with benefits of the program
lated. The revenue stream is shown for the community that
remaining in the community. The generated renewable power
installed each CHP system for the first proposed scenario with
and heat supplies the energy needs of the community to avoid
diesel generation to provide the peak electrical power gener-
energy dollars leaving the region. The wildlandeurban inter-
ation and using PHEV60. An average clearing cost of $1389 per
face zone would be cleared over a fifteen-year cycle around
hectare is assumed [4] and a fuel consumption of 4.8 L per
a community to reduce the risk of wildfire. Most importantly,
100 km for a PHEV60 [30].
the responsibility for forest fire mitigation, the power gener-
Both Entropic cycle and ORC system show similar revenue
ating system and the associated benefits would be owned,
streams under the two scenarios. Due to the low electrical
managed and accrued by the community. Decisions to reduce
efficiency of the small steam CHP system, the cost to harvest
risks would not be external to the community. The proposed
the amount of biomass required to meet the community’s
system is sustainable ecologically and uses sustainable
annual electrical demand exceeds the savings from displacing
renewable biomass to generate heat and power. The goal of
diesel, gasoline and heating oil. This system is deemed not
this community plan is to reduce fire hazards, decrease
financially feasible. Considering the current cost per kW to
property damage, improve public safety, promote forest
install the biomass systems, the second proposed scenario
health and achieve sustainable unsubsidized cost-benefits.
with a complete biomass system is also not financially feasible
Avoidance of treatment may lead to increased fire suppres-
even with the amount of fuel displaced. This example has been
sion costs, property damage and environmental damage while
designed to break even and cover the costs of mechanical
increasing green house gases.
treatment surrounding the community. A payback period of 18
years and 24 years is shown on the capital cost of the biomass
equipment for the Entropic cycle and the ORC system, references
respectively. Current subsidized electricity rates are, in many
cases, greater than indicated and different jurisdictions
support subsidies in different ways. Heating oil costs may be [1] USDA. National report on sustainable forests 2003.
different in various locations. In addition, a community could Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service; 2003. Report FS-766.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 6 1 e2 5 6 9
[2] Strom BA, Fule PZ. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-
term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. Int J Wildland Fire
2007;16:128e38.
[3] Laverty L, Williams J. Protecting people and sustaining
resources in fire-adapted ecosystems: a cohesive strategy.
The Forest Service Management Response to the General
Accounting Office; 2000. Report GAO/RCED-99e65.
[4] Usda A. Strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel
reduction treatments in Western States. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research and
Development; 2003.
[5] Evans A. Synthesis of knowledge from woody biomass
removal case studies. Forest Guild US Forest Service; 2003.
[6] HFRA (Healthy Forest Restoration Act). HR 1904; 2003.
[7] WGA (Western Governor’s Association). A collaborative
approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities
and the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy
implementation plan. Available online at: http://www.
westgov.org/wga_reports.htm; 2003.
[8] Huggett R, Abt K, Shepperd W. Efficacy of mechanical fuel
treatments for reducing wildfire hazard. Forest Pol and Econ
2003;10:408e14.
[9] Current D, Demchik M. Harvesting fuel: Cutting costs and
reducing forest fire hazards through biomass harvest.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; 2008.
[10] Mitchell J. Managing forest fuels for community protection
in the interior of British Columbia: productivities and costs
of thinning from below. Advantage Innovations FERIC
2007;9(4).
[11] Iversen K, Demark RV. Integrating fuel reduction
management with local bioenergy operations and
businesses - A community responsibility. Biomass and
Bioenergy 2006;30:4.
[12] Farnsworth A, Summerfelt P, Neary D, Smith T. Flagstaff’s
wildfire fuels treatments: prescriptions for community
involvement and a source of bioenergy. Biomass and
Bioenergy 2003;24:269e76.
[13] Evans AM, Finkral AJ. From renewable energy to fire risk
reduction: a synthesis of biomass harvesting and utilization
case studies in US. GCB Bioenergy; 2009.
[14] Mason L, Ceder K, Rogers H, Bloxton T, Comnick J, Lippke B,
et al. Investigation of alternative strategies for design, layout
and administration of fuel removal projects: rural
technology initiative. College of Forest Resources, University
of Washington; July 2003.
[15] Lattimore B, Smith CT, Titus BD, Stupak I, Egnell G.
Environmental factors in woodfuel production: opportunities,
risks, and criteria and indicators for sustainable practices.
Biomass and Bioenergy 2009;33:1321e42.
[16] Agee JK, Skinner CN. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction
treatments. Forest Ecol and Manag 2005;211:83e96.
[17] Rhodes JJ, Baker WL. Fire probability, fuel treatment
effectiveness and ecological tradeoffs in western U.S public
forests. Open Forest Sci J 2008;1:1e7.
2569
[18] Polagye BL. Thermochemical conversion of forest thinning.
Master of Engineering Thesis: University of Washington; 2005.
[19] Tampier M, Beauchemin P, Smith DW, Bibeau EL. Identifying
environmentally preferable uses for biomass resources - BC
Bugwood: economics, technical feasibility and GHG
implications of various uses. Envirochem Services Inc.
prepared for BC Energy and Mines and BC Forest Service; 2006.
[20] Tampier M, Smith DW, Bibeau EL, Beauchemin P. Identifying
environmentally preferable uses for biomass resources.
Phase 2 report: life-cycle emission reduction benefits of
selected feedstock-to product threads. Envirochem Services
Inc. report prepared for NRCAN, NRC, and CEC; 2004.
[21] St. Denis G, Parker P. Community energy planning in Canada:
the role of renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:2088e95.
[22] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 2):
conversion technologies. Bioresource Technology 2002;83:
47e54.
[23] Thomson S, Duggirala B. The feasibility of renewable
energies at an off-grid community in Canada. Sustain Energy
Rev 2009;13:2740e5.
[24] Van Putten H, Colonna P. Dynamic modeling of steam power
cycles: Part II e Simulation of a small simple Rankine cycle
system. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:2566e82.
[25] Bibeau EL, Smith DW, Tampier M. Distributed biomass power
systems for independent power production in remote
locations. Aberdeen, Scotland: World Renewable Energy
Congress IX (WREC IX); May, 2005.
[26] Dong L, Liu H, Riffat S. Development of small-scale and
micro-scale biomass-fuelled CHP systems e A literature
review. UK Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2119e26.
[27] Tchanche BF, Papadakis G, Lambrinos G, Frangoudakis A.
Fluid selection for a low-temperature solar organic Rankine
cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2468e76.
[28] Harding HH. BC Hydro sustainable energy solutions Atlin
community energy planning Assessment of Supply Options.
Report Number E268 April. Prepared for:. Aboriginal
Relations Department, Generation and Power Planning
Portfolio Management, Distribution; 2004.
[29] Arctic Energy Alliance. Community energy planning.
Available at: http://www.aea.nt.ca/reslib.aspx#cep.
[30] Smith R, Shahidinejad S, Blair D, Bibeau EL. Characterization
of urban commuter driving profiles to optimize battery size in
light-duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment 2011;16(3):218e24.
[31] Simpson A. Cost-benefit analysis of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle technology. Conference Paper: NREL/CP-540e40485;
November 2006.
[32] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1):
overview of biomass. Bioresource Technology 2002;83:37e46.
[33] Shahidinejad S, Bibeau EL, Filizadeh S. Statistical
development of a duty cycle for plug-in vehicles in a north
American urban setting using fleet information. IEEE Trans
Veh Tech 2010;59(8):3710e9.