1

Feasibility Analysis of Geothermal

Technologies at the University of Manitoba

Prepared for Myles Boonstra, P.Eng. by:

Vice President Internal: Lucas Vonderbank

Team Lead: Amanda Anderson

Members:

Franco Albarran

Devan Asu

George Dyck

Dimitri Eckhardt

Alfredo Hernandez

Quintin Litke

Karima Nadir

Griffin Swanson

Emma Unruh

A report submitted to the Physical Plant of the University of Manitoba

April 5, 2018

UMEARTH

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba

2

1.0 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the feasibility of geothermal technologies at the University of Manitoba.

After conducting research on the different options available, a vertical, closed loop, ground

system is recommended for the University to pursue further.

In terms of location, out of the three options considered, the agricultural land on the peninsula

northeast of the campus is the most feasible due to its large surface area. However, any of the

three options, or a combination of them could be used for the location for geothermal. This was

determined by running estimates on how many loops would be required to heat the campus, and

all options considered could supplement the entirety of the current campus requirements, ranging

between 125% and 703% of the campus’ current heating loads. This shows that geothermal also

has the potential for expansion and growing alongside the campus.

The benefits of geothermal are numerous. While geothermal systems still produce some

emissions, they are at a small percentage compared to coal, or the current system of natural gas.

CO2 emissions can be minimized and also controlled and released in greenhouses where they

could be beneficial to the growth rate of plants. A geothermal system also aligns with several

Key Goals of the Sustainability Strategy, namely Resource Conservation and Efficiency, Land

Use and Campus Life. It also aligns with the Visionary (re)Generation Plan, particularly Section

4.5: Energy Management.

Finally, the University is due for upgrades to the current natural gas boiler heating system. This

need, combined with the current costs for maintenance of a natural gas reactor, and the potential

carbon tax being implemented, all lean towards the implementation of a geothermal system that

would not rely on natural gas.

For the cost analysis, the geothermal piping and costs of digging boreholes was considered, for a

cost ranging from $37.7 to $76.0 million CAD. Using the $2.4M annual current costs of natural

gas, the payback period ranges from 15 to 32 years. This payback period would likely be reduced

as it is evident that funding would be available and that a portion of this project would be

subsidized by the Province, Manitoba Hydro, or both.

With a payback period as low as 15 years, we are concluding that geothermal is not only feasible

on campus but recommended for consideration for the inevitable future upgrade on the Central

Energy Plant.

3

2.0 Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 6

6.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7

7.0 Geothermal Technologies ........................................................................................................ 8

7.1 River versus Ground Systems .......................................................................................... 8

7.2 Open Loop versus Closed Loop Systems ......................................................................... 9

7.3 Horizontal versus Vertical Systems ............................................................................... 10

7.4 Similar Geothermal Systems in Manitoba ..................................................................... 11

7.4.1 The Forks ................................................................................................................ 11

7.4.2 St. Theresa Point ..................................................................................................... 12

7.4.3 East St. Paul ............................................................................................................ 12

8.0 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 13

8.1 Location on Campus....................................................................................................... 13

8.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 15

8.3 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................... 16

9.0 Proposed Design .................................................................................................................... 17

9.1 Campus Requirements and Design ................................................................................ 17

9.2 Central Energy Plant Integration .................................................................................... 19

10.0 Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 20

10.1 Sustainability Strategy 2016-2018 .............................................................................. 20

10.1.1 Resource Conservation and Efficiency ................................................................... 20

10.1.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 21

10.1.3 Campus Life ............................................................................................................ 22

10.2 Alignment with Visionary (re)Generation Plan .......................................................... 23

10.2.1 Strategic Priority Alignment ................................................................................... 23

4

10.2.2 Master Plan Objective Alignment ........................................................................... 23

10.2.3 Section 4.5: Energy Management ........................................................................... 24

10.3 Costs for Maintenance of a Natural Gas Reactor ....................................................... 24

10.4 Potential Carbon Tax .................................................................................................. 25

11.0 Cost and Return .................................................................................................................... 25

11.1 Life Cycle Analysis .................................................................................................... 25

11.1.1 Emissions ................................................................................................................ 25

11.1.2 Implementation Costs ............................................................................................. 26

11.2 Potential Funding ........................................................................................................ 27

11.2.1 Green Energy Equipment Tax Credit ..................................................................... 27

11.2.2 Geothermal Grants .................................................................................................. 27

12.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 28

12.1 Geothermal Technologies ........................................................................................... 28

12.2 Location ...................................................................................................................... 28

12.3 Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 28

12.4 Predicted Costs ........................................................................................................... 29

13.0 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 29

14.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 30

15.0 Appendix A - Other Carbon Neutral Alternatives ................................................................ 34

15.1 Biomass ...................................................................................................................... 34

15.2 Solar ............................................................................................................................ 35

5

3.0 List of Tables

Table 1: Horizontal vs Vertical Loop Comparison ....................................................................... 11

Table 2: Estimated Emissions of Power Plant Pollutants [17] ..................................................... 17

Table 3: Different Vertical Looping Options................................................................................ 18

Table 4: Pounds of Air Pollutants for Non-Renewable Resources [17] ....................................... 26

Table 5:Tabulation of Different Emissions from Biomass Heating Systems [34] ....................... 35

Table 6: Efficiencies and Energy for Solar Power ........................................................................ 36

4.0 List of Figures

Figure 1: River Geothermal System [3] .......................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Open vs Closed Loops [5] ............................................................................................... 9

Figure 3: Horizontal vs Vertical Loops [5] ................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Three Potential Options for Geothermal Installation .................................................... 13

Figure 5: Option 1 – Agricultural Land ........................................................................................ 14

Figure 6: Option 2 – Alternative Village ...................................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Option 3 – River Side .................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8: Sample Calculation........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 9: Water Consumption by Various Power Plants [17] ...................................................... 21

Figure 10: Land Use vs Various Energy Plants [17] .................................................................... 22

6

5.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations

BTU: British Thermal Units

CEP: Central Energy Plant

CLS: Closed Loop System(s)

MGEA: Manitoba Geothermal Energy Alliance

OLS: Open Loop System(s)

7

6.0 Introduction

Since 2002, the majority of the current heating on Fort Garry Campus comes from the Central

Energy Plant. However, there are still a couple buildings that are heated by natural gas [1]. The

current system has a district heating and cooling system that uses steam and chilled water

respectively, and both are generated within the Central Energy Plant (CEP) [2].

Many of the current infrastructure within the CEP has surpassed its life expectancy and are due

for replacement or upgrading. The purpose of this proposal is to determine the feasibility of

either integrating geothermal heating technologies to supplement the CEP, or to use geothermal

to heat one of the satellite buildings on campus not currently attached to the CEP system.

This report looks into integrating geothermal into the CEP, and how the same technology could

be applied to satellite buildings as well.

8

7.0 Geothermal Technologies

Before proposing a geothermal design, different technologies were first compared in order to

decide which would be best for a system at Fort Garry Campus.

7.1 River versus Ground Systems

Figure 1: River Geothermal System [3]

The Fort Garry Campus is located alongside the Red River, so using a design that would utilize

the river’s flow for heating was considered. The Red River has an average winter depth of 3.9

meters [4], but that depth cannot fully be utilized because ice buildup reduces this depth. If the

geothermal system were to be left in the river all year, ice buildup could potentially cause

damage to a geothermal piping system through collisions with enough force to break the pipes.

The Red River is not a particularly deep river, so the temperature will also pose issues to the

system. Between November and April, average river temperatures are below 5oC, and between

December and March, average temperatures remain at or below 1oC [4]. This low temperature

coincides with the portion of the year that would require the most thermal energy to be produced.

Ground loop systems tend to be more reliable than river systems, particularly in the cold winter

climate of Winnipeg. After the frost region, ground temperatures become increasingly stable

with depth, allowing for consistent heating or cooling year-round independent from surface

temperatures. Also, swelling caused by clay within the soil will impart much less force on the

pipes compared to ice buildup in the river, and should not pose much of a problem to the

structural integrity of the loop system.

Because of the issues surrounding river systems, there is little potential for geothermal heating

using the Red River at the U of M. However, ground systems past the frost region appear to be

viable and are analyzed going forward in this report.

9

7.2 Open Loop versus Closed Loop Systems

Figure 2: Open vs Closed Loops [5]

When designing a geothermal system, there are two primary options available: closed loop

systems (CLS) or open loop systems (OLS). Both systems pose their own advantages and

disadvantages. CLS consist of a heat pump and piping system that is filled with an antifreeze and

can be installed either in the ground or in water. In contrast, OLS rely on an existing water

resource, such as groundwater or a body of water, as their thermal energy source for the system.

Advantages about CLS are that they don’t require any inputs from the outside environment and

their maintenance needs are much lower compared to OLS. The environmental impact once

installed is lower in closed loops than OLS because of its limited interaction with the external

environment. Additionally, when CLSs are placed in existing bodies of water, they are relatively

inexpensive when compared to other systems as they do not require excavation of existing

landscapes. Unfortunately, this is not feasible at the University of Manitoba as the Red River is

shallow and any system placed in would be susceptible to ice flow damage.

Disadvantages about CLS include that they tend to be more expensive than OLS, as the

installation of the system often requires the excavation of existing landscapes. Horizontal closed

loop systems are dependent on the soil in the area, as soil governs thermal conductivity, and

therefore maximum heat loads that can be taken from the soil. Also, horizontal closed loop

systems may not be feasible if the soil is too shallow to bury the loops sufficiently.

Advantages of open loop systems include that they are relatively inexpensive compared to CLS

as it can be integrated into either an existing well system or into a body of water. OLS also tend

to have a higher Coefficient of Performance ranging from 3.6 to 5.2, compared to its closed

counterpart which has a COP range of 3.1 and 4.9 [6].

Though open loop systems tend to have a higher COP, they are dependent on the hydrology of

the existing environment. For example, if implementing a well system, there must be an adequate

supply of water as well as proper discharge locations available (ditch/drainage tile or discharge

well), which is dependent on the city by-laws. As well, there is a risk the discharge may contain

10

contaminants, the source water must be a clean source, no organic materials or high mineral

content (iron, hardness & acidity), otherwise scaling/clogging of the system may occur.

Ultimately, because of the potential adverse effects of an open looped design, a closed loop

design is recommended for the University of Manitoba.

7.3 Horizontal versus Vertical Systems

Figure 3 Horizontal vs. Vertical Loops [5]

Geothermal can use several different piping methods. If the location of the geothermal

development has no access to groundwater or a nearby pond, the most cost-effective piping

methods are generally vertical or horizontal closed loops.

Vertical loops are most commonly used in commercial developments where horizontal space is a

constraint, such as at the U of M. The pipes are inserted into holes with a depth between 50 and

300 feet where the ground temperatures are more constant. Because of the more consistent

ground temperatures, vertical loops are generally around 300 - 600 feet in length for every

10,000 BTUH needed [7].

Horizontal loops are not typically used in commercial operations. Generally, a horizontal loop

system will be used when space is abundant, and soil is easily excavated such as on a farm. The

pipes are buried about 6 - 10 feet underground, however, due to a less consistent ground

temperature at this level, the pipe lengths can vary from 300 - 3000 feet in length for every

10,000 BTUH [7]. Horizontal loops work well in moist clay or wet sand which makes them well

suited for Manitoban soils. Below is a table summarizing the various advantages and

disadvantages of vertical and horizontal looping options.

VERTICAL LOOP HORIZONTAL LOOP

11

Constraint Vertical Horizontal

Space Used when horizontal space is

a constraint

Common when a large area is

available for construction

Land Requirements Requires a hole with a depth

between 50 and 300 feet.

Individual U-pipes are spaced

about 10 feet apart from each

other

Usually 10 feet below ground.

Length of the pipe is

dependent on building heat

requirements, and the ground

temperatures (required BTUs)

Ground Temperature Ground temperature is more

consistent at lower depths, this

system will provide more

consistent heat

Due to less consistent ground

heat, the pipes often need to

be very long to provide

adequate heating

Table 1: Horizontal vs Vertical Loop Comparison

The University of Manitoba does not currently have extensive land for horizontal applications.

As well, any land used would have to be completely excavated past the frost region of 2.4

metres. This is far more extensive than drilling boreholes for a vertical design; thus, vertical

designs are recommended for the geothermal system.

7.4 Similar Geothermal Systems in Manitoba

7.4.1 The Forks

The Forks’ geothermal system was retrofitted into the hundred-year-old building in 2010 as a

part of their Target Zero project. It is one of the largest geothermal systems in Canada and draws

from three different bodies: a well at the forks, the Assiniboine River, and a closed loop located

at South Point property across the river. This system controls the temperature of several

commercial refrigerators, in addition to the restaurants, offices, stores, as well as the common

space. The use of this geothermal system reduces carbon emissions by more than one kiloton a

year. The cost of the system was $4.8 million and provides savings of approximately $250,000

annually, the system will have a payback period of about ten years [8] [9] [10] .

Regarding the differences to the University’s project, it should be noted that the Forks was able

to use the river as a source of heating and cool whereas the University cannot. This is because

the Red River, the University’s river, is very shallow and freezes over almost completely, which

is a major concern for damaging the geothermal system. Whereas the Forks have placed their

12

heat exchangers in an extremely deep spot in the Assiniboine River, which itself is a much

deeper river to begin with. This can ensure no damage will occur over the winter months due to

ice [11].

The Forks’ geothermal system was installed for two reasons. The first was to implement the

project Target Zero, and the second was to replace an old HVAC system. Both of these reasons

are immediately relevant to U of M. The Forks’ Target Zero project shares many common goals

with U of M’s recent 2016-2018 Sustainability Strategy, valuing both social and ecological

aspects of development. Furthermore, the Forks’ geothermal system was retrofitted into an

existing complex system. Similarly, the university’s heating systems are also needing

replacements and offer comparable opportunities to meet environmental goals. The Forks’ recent

geothermal expansion is a valuable resource for a potential geothermal development at the U of

M, as they have the similar goals as well as a related infrastructure. In other words, the Forks can

be seen as an appropriately similar project, which has been successfully implemented. There are

similar smaller retrofitted geothermal projects in Manitoba, two more of which will be

mentioned in this report.

7.4.2 St. Theresa Point

St. Theresa is a First Nations community in north-western Manitoba. Similar to the U of M’s

situation, the local church and rectory needed to replace its heating system. Options considered

were oil, electric, as well as geothermal, and ultimately the geothermal system was selected. The

changes made to the existing buildings were extensive. The church and rectory’s whole existing

HVAC system needed to be changed; the ductwork and electrical system were upgraded to

function properly with the new geothermal system, and a heat pump as well as a ground loop

were installed [12]. This change was made in 1999, and since the installation, the system has

been running efficiently with no major maintenance or repairs required.

7.4.3 East St. Paul

In East St. Paul, a homeowner wanted to install a geothermal system into their existing house.

The three existing fan coil units were to be removed and replaced with three geothermal heat

pumps. However, because the existing ductwork was drywalled in it was not feasible to modify

or replace. Furthermore, the yard was fully landscaped, which meant a ground loop could not be

installed, as this involved excavation that would destroy the landscaping. As a result of these

limiting parameters, the design needed to inventive. The solution was to push the geothermal

lines into the ground, under the driveway, and into the house, so no invasive excavation was

needed. This case study highlights how the design and installation of geothermal systems can be

very flexible, while not significantly increasing costs. This makes retrofitting geothermal

systems into existing structures a viable option. [13]

13

8.0 Limitations

Limitations and constraints that have been analyzed for this study are the locations available for

the piping that geothermal requires, how the harsh climate Winnipeg has would affect a

geothermal system, and cost.

8.1 Location on Campus

To determine a location for geothermal piping, a campus utility map provided by U of M’s

Physical plant was analyzed. From that, three potential locations for geothermal piping

installations were considered, as shown below in Figure 4. These three locations are compared

based on their size, proximity to locations in which they will be depositing their heat, the amount

of underground development that would need to be circumvented for any geothermal

development, and the depth to bedrock.

Figure 4: Three Potential Options for Geothermal Installation

The first location considered, shown in Figure 5 below, is a large peninsula northeast of the

Campus that is currently being used for agricultural purposes. This section of land is

approximately 750 meters by 500 meters and has minimal underground development. This site is

located 335 meters from Pembina Hall or 490 meters from the Central Energy Plant. Based on a

1983 geological analysis done by the University of Manitoba Department of Geological

Engineering, this location has a bedrock depth of 18-21 meters [14].

14

Figure 5: Option 1 – Agricultural Land

Another potential location for the geothermal loops is the sparsely utilized area between the

Alternative Village, Freshwater Institute, and Manitoba Agriculture & Animal Industries

buildings, shown in Figure 6 below. This area has dimensions of approximately 230 meters by

115 meters. It is important to note that there is an electrical line running through the area, along

with several plumbing lines. When the parking lot is included, this site is located approximately

420 meters from the CEP and approximately 530 meters from Pembina Hall. This section of

campus has a depth to bedrock between 15 and 18 meters [14].

Figure 6: Option 2 – Alternative Village

15

The final potential location considered is on the river-side of Freedman Crescent, from Flood

Pump Station 1 to the Plant Science Field Station, shown in Figure 7 below. This strip of land is

approximately 485 meters and 35 meters wide. There is more underground development

(primarily electrical lines) on this patch of land compared to the previous two locations but

compared to the denser part of campus it is still a viable option. This land is also much closer to

both the Central Energy Plant and the Pembina Hall residence than either of the two previous

locations.

Figure 7: Option 3 – River Side

Because the agricultural land has a much greater area, it will be considered in any further

calculations. However, any of the three options, or a combination of them could be used for the

location for geothermal.

8.2 Climate

Winnipeg’s climate varies greatly throughout the year. The optimal geothermal heating system

would be capable of providing both heating in the winter months and cooling in the summer.

In order to quantify and measure Winnipeg’s climate and relate it to geothermal capacity, a

measurement called the Freezing Index was exFplored. The Freezing Index estimates the depth

of frost by measuring the duration and magnitude of freezing which occurs in the soil during

winter. Winnipeg is in the 3000 band of the Freezing Index; and therefore, can expect a frost

16

depth of 2.4 meters [15]; but the drop in ground temperature will extend much deeper than this

2.4m. If unaccounted for, lower ground temperatures can result in a system functioning at the

bottom end of the designed operating efficiency. To circumvent this, the depth that ground

systems must be drilled must extend beyond the Freezing Index point. Even with using deep

ground systems, there can still be some efficiency losses near the surface, because as the system

transfers the heated fluid to the surface, it must first pass through the frozen soil near the surface.

This can be minimized by using materials near the bottom of the loop that allows for efficient

heat transfer, whereas the piping near the surface will need insulation to prevent heat loss.

8.3 Environmental Impact

While geothermal systems do have a significant positive impact on the environment that is

analyzed further in the report, they also have the potential for an adverse effect on the

environment which would need to be considered before implementing a system on campus.

If implementing an open loop system, effects on the water table, the intake and discharge of

fluids should be considered as the system’s intake cannot exceed the limits of the water table. As

well, the discharge must be clean, at an appropriate temperature, and have undisruptive flow

rates. If the system has a significant effect on the water table, there may be land subsidence

which could affect existing infrastructure in the area. Land subsidence can be mitigated by

injection techniques.

Air pollution must also be considered, as open loop systems generate steam emissions, including

hydrogen sulfides which are also known to be produced but at a very small amount. This gas

breaks down and produces NOx emissions, which are very harmful to people’s health. However,

because the gases are emitted at such low amounts, there is little need to worry about the effects

of the NOx emissions, because the emission levels are pale in comparison to the levels produced

by coal and fossil fuels. Geothermal systems are also known to release CO2 into the surrounding

agriculture, but the CO2 emissions can be minimized and also controlled and released in

greenhouses where they could be beneficial to the growth rate of plants. To mitigate this, the gas

emissions would need to be monitored after implementation.

The gases discharged from geothermal wells, such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane,

and ammonia, are much lower than the emissions released by power plants run on fossil fuels

[16]. Table 2 compares the amount of different gases produced by various power plants per

MWh of energy generated. According to Table 2, geothermal power plants, which include flash,

binary, and dry steam types, generate much fewer emissions in contrast to natural gas and coal-

powered energy plants.

17

Table 2: Estimated Emissions of Power Plant Pollutants [17]

In terms of closed loop design, geothermal heat pumps (GHP) utilize considerable amounts of

electricity for their operation. This is not a significant concern because Manitoba’s energy is

generated through Manitoba Hydro, which is considered to be a relatively clean and renewable

power generating process. However, closed-loop systems do contain refrigerants, which can be

harmful to the environment if leakage occurs.

During the construction phase, some environmental concerns include noise and micro-seismic

activity. All power facilities must meet local noise ordinances, and the installation and operation

of geothermal heat pumps must not be considered a noise nuisance in residential communities.

9.0 Proposed Design

9.1 Campus Requirements and Design

The peak load of steam for the University of Manitoba campus in the winter is 160 klbm/hr [18].

Using the conversion factor of 1194 BTU per lbm we find that the peak load is 1.9104x108

BTUH.

Using vertical loops, it can be estimated that 300-600 ft are required to heat a space that pulls

10,000 BTUH of heating [7]. With this information, we can estimate that 5,731,200 to

11,462,400 ft of piping would be required to supply enough heat for the peak load of 160 BTUH.

If boreholes of 500 ft depth are used, this system would require 11,463 to 22,925 segments to

meet the peak load required on campus; and if boreholes of 400 ft depth are used, 14,328 to

28,656 segments would be required. If each borehole could contain two segments, then 5732 to

14,328 loops (half) would be required.

The largest section of available land for geothermal energy is the peninsula currently used as

agricultural land, with a grand total of 4,036,466.41sqft (2460 ft by 1640 ft). Each loop needs to

be 10 to 15 feet away from each other to provide enough heat. This means that we could fit either

164x109 loops or 246x164 loops. This results in enough space for 40,344 vertical loops if the

loops are spaced 10 ft apart, and 17,876 if they are spaced 15 ft apart.

18

The following table represents the potential for the agricultural land to provide geothermal

energy compared to the peak loads required on the University of Manitoba Campus. A sample

calculation has also been provided in Figure 8.

Table 3: Different Vertical Looping Options

Also, the section of land near the Freshwater Institute is 754.593 ft by 377.297 ft, which allows

for 2775 more loops. The section of land along the river is 1591.21 ft by 114.829 ft, which

allows for 1749 more loops. These two zones would allow for 4524 more loops, which could

provide an additional 60,200,000 to 150,080,000 BTUH.

As shown in Table 3, all eight vertical looping options could supplement the entirety of the

current campus requirements and, depending on the option chosen, could supplement between

125 and 703% of the campus’ current heating loads. This shows that geothermal also has the

potential for expansion and growing alongside the campus.

400 ft vertical

loops, (assuming

600ft/10000BTU)

(14,328 req.)

400 ft vertical

loops, (assuming

300ft/10000BTU)

(7,164 req.)

500 ft vertical

loops,

(600ft/10000

BTU)

(11,463 req.)

500 ft vertical

loops,

(300ft/10000

BTU)

(5,732 req.)

Distance

between

loops

(loops

available)

15 ft

(17,876)

124.699 % 295.525 % 155.945 % 311.963 %

10 ft

(40,344)

281.574 % 563.149 % 351.949 % 703.384 %

19

9.2 Central Energy Plant Integration

The current system has a district heating and cooling system that uses steam and chilled water

respectively, and both are generated within the Central Energy Plant [2]. Unless the need for

steam (for purposes other than heating) can be entirely eliminated, a portion of steam

infrastructure will need to be maintained.

Geothermal uses hot and cold water to transfer heat from one system to another. The pipes used

in this kind of system, to function efficiently, will be larger than used for steam. This means that

the current steam pipes will not be sufficient for a geothermal system, and new supply piping

will need to be designed and installed. Furthermore, the return lines will need to be at minimum

the same size as the supply line, and the existing pumped condensate lines will not be sufficient

for this. So, new return lines will also need to be designed and installed.

Assumptions:

a) 300-600ft of pipe required to produce 10000BTUH units: (energy/length) =

(BTUH/ft)

b) 1914 BTUH required /lbm steam generated units: (energy/mass) = (BTUH/lbm)

c) Peak load = 160000lbm steam units: (mass) = (lbm)

d) Depth of loop = 300-500ft units: (length) = (m)

e) 2 loops per borehole (1 down, 1 up), so length = 2*depth

Sample Calculation (Assuming length = 300 ft, depth = 500 ft)

1. # 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 =𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑

𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝 =

(𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑)∗𝐵𝑇𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑞′𝑑

𝑙𝑏𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝐵𝑇𝑈𝐻

𝑓𝑡

∗(𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑡)

2∗𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ

= (160000 𝑙𝑏𝑚 )(1194

𝐵𝑇𝑈𝐻

𝑙𝑏𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚)∗

300 ft

10000

2∗(500ft)= 5731.5 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑠

Geothermal Potential to Heat Peak load of Campus (assuming loops are 15ft apart)

2. Potential [%] = # 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒

# 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑=

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒

(𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡)2

5731.5=

17876

5731.5= 311.963% of campus needs

Figure 8: Sample Calculation

20

With this being said, the strengths of having these large loops connecting every building to the

centralized energy plant, as opposed to each building having their own system, is that heat can be

captured from one system/building by cooling it and transferred to another that needs it for

heating purposes. This cooperation between buildings’ heating and cooling demands means less

energy needs to be stored or taken from the earth. This ability to move thermal energy from one

system to another is the most basic function of a geothermal system and accounts for its

incredible energy efficiency.

Regarding the potential growth and expansion of the university, it is helpful to consider other

projects of the same magnitude. In 2012 Ball State in Indiana replaced their four coal burning

boilers. The campus is 1140 acres and consists of 47 buildings, similar to U of M’s size. As of

this past year, the entire campus is heated and cooled using geothermal. James Lowe, the

associate vice president for facilities planning and management, has stated that he cannot foresee

an expansion that this system could not service, but if needed the system itself can very easily be

expanded [19]. Given the calculations from the Design Section previously, it is likely that the

University of Manitoba would be in a similar situation to Ball State University.

10.0 Motivation

10.1 Sustainability Strategy 2016-2018

The University of Manitoba is constantly moving in a direction to develop a more sustainable

campus, as evidenced by the Sustainability Strategy for 2016-2018. The inclusion of geothermal

technologies onto the campus approaches several Key Goals and Objectives established in the

Strategy, as outlined here.

10.1.1 Resource Conservation and Efficiency

Key Goal 2: Increase usage of renewable energy for buildings to 80% by 2040; and

Key Goal 3: Reduce water consumption by 10% in the next 3 years; and

Key Goal 5: Reduce demand for virgin resources and reducing emissions from sources that are

owned and controlled by the University of Manitoba [20].

In alignment with Key Goal 2, a Geothermal Heating System generates approximately ⅙ of the

carbon dioxide emissions compared to the current natural gas setup, thus making it a renewable

resource. In alignment Key Goal 5, geothermal plants generate energy that is available

constantly, thus reducing the load on natural gas dependence [16].

21

Geothermal energy plants utilize considerably less water for operation in contrast to other types

of power plants throughout its life cycle, which is demonstrated in Figure 9.

Thus, converting to a geothermal heating system would help align with Key Goal 3 in reducing

water consumption by 10%.

10.1.2 Land Use

Key Goal 2. Reduction of storm water runoff, increase of greenspace [20]

Compared to the construction of other power plants, geothermal installations result in a lower

land disturbance overall, as shown in Figure 10 below. This is because the vertical loop design

requires drilling deep holes and pipes, which only affect every 15 feet of the ground as opposed

to the entire surface area. However, this is only during installation; in the long-term, the period

the total disturbance of the land is much lower. Geothermal can indirectly increase greenspace

and reduce the storm-water runoff, because all the pipes would be located beneath the earth

surface, making additional space available for any other purposes.

Figure 9: Water Consumption by Various Power Plants [17]

22

Figure 10: Land Use vs Various Energy Plants [17]

10.1.3 Campus Life

Key Goal 6: Incorporate sustainability into University research, education, student experience

and other learning objectives and promote the University of Manitoba as a leader in the field of

sustainability [20].

Development of a geothermal system on campus would provide an excellent example to other

universities and facilities to take innovative steps forward to sustainable development and

protection of the environment. Moreover, it would be a great learning opportunity for students to

learn more and develop an appreciation for alternative technologies, as well as ideally take part

in the research and design of the geothermal system. Once constructed, students would be able to

research efficiencies, emissions and more. This also aligns with Strategy 3 of Resource

Conservation and Efficiency, Pilot occupancy-driven energy management systems (in

partnership with Faculty of Engineering) [20].

23

10.2 Alignment with Visionary (re)Generation Plan

10.2.1 Strategic Priority Alignment

The Strategic Plan consists of five parts, the three most applicable to this project are:

1.) Inspire minds; Through innovation and quality teaching

2.) Driving discovery and insight; Through research, scholarly work and other creative

initiatives.

4.) Building Community; Creates outstanding learning and working environment. [21]

We will inspire minds by developing a geothermal heating system and showing that sustainable

forms of energy are possible to implement. Our whole project is based on research and scholarly

work. As well, implementing a geothermal heating system on campus is innovative as GHG

emissions from the U of M would be decreased dramatically. The implementation of a

sustainable energy like geothermal heating on campus will contribute to a better learning and

working environment. From an environmental perspective, being on campus will be more

environmentally friendly. Putting the University of Manitoba on the forefront of implementing

sustainable energy on a large scale could give faculty and students a sense of pride which could

contribute to a better working and learning environment. Clearly points one, two and four can

easily be satisfied from our work. Points three and five are not applicable to our project.

10.2.2 Master Plan Objective Alignment

The following are the seven objectives outlined in the Visionary (re)Generation Plan:

1.) Establish clear implementable vision and guiding principles.

2.) Providing an analysis of serving infrastructure and landscape characteristics.

3.) Creating clear framework for development including built form, open space and

transportation

4.) Developing and implementing a phasing strategy that provides key direction and

development sequencing in preparation for approval process and realization of the plan

5.) Incorporating a strategic and flexible approach to managing and responding to both

current and future marketing conditions.

6.) Engaging in a collaborative process that generates buy-in interest and participation from

key stakeholders, the surrounding and the public.

7.) Satisfying municipal requirements [21].

Our work will satisfy all elements of the master plan. Our report has the purpose of providing a

clear vision and guiding principles. We will compare the existing GHG emissions of the existing

infrastructure with a geothermal circuit. We will recommend the method that should be used for

24

a geothermal heating loop along with a strategy to implement the geothermal loop and the

constraints of a geothermal loop. A geothermal loop will satisfy future marketing conditions that

will be moving towards investment in sustainable and renewable energy. The movement of

future markets towards renewable energy will generate investment interest from key stake

holders. Any work we recommend will be in compliance with municipal requirements.

Hence, the UMEARTH Geothermal project is currently in compliance with the guiding

principles of the Visionary (re)Generation process.

10.2.3 Section 4.5: Energy Management

The primary alignment that geothermal has to the Visionary (re)Generation plan is the metric

carbon neutrality, stated as a goal in Section 4.5 [21]. According to the Office of Sustainability

[22], University of Manitoba relies on fossil fuels for 132 000kW of its consumption, releasing

tons of GHGs into the atmosphere. Only 30% of University of Manitoba’s energy comes from

renewable energy sources [23], an extremely low amount compared to the 95% the grid is

powered by in Manitoba [24]. While natural gas is the most environmentally friendly option

when compared to other fossil fuels, it still produces high amounts of GHGs. Geothermal would

be able to reduce this value significantly, thus aiding the aforementioned goal of carbon

neutrality

10.3 Costs for Maintenance of a Natural Gas Reactor

The cost of maintaining a natural gas reactor at University of Manitoba’s Fort Garry campus is

approximately 2.4 million dollars per year (referenced to spreadsheet provided by Physical Plant)

at its current price. This translates to approximately $90 per student while the energy could be

extracted via geothermal processes allowing the students to not need to pay nearly as much for

the service. If we were to keep using the plant, even without maintaining or repairing it, it would

cost the university at least 70 million dollars over the course of a 30-year lifespan. This is a

substantially shorter lifespan and a higher cost than our project (detailed further in the report).

It is predicted by the Orca LNG ltd. in August 2014 that the global demand for natural gas, as

opposed to coal, will increase. This could cause a rise in costs over the lifecycle of the plant

further costing the university money and in later years, with fluctuating prices, cause a fair

amount of uncertainty when budgeting for the energy needs of the university.

25

10.4 Potential Carbon Tax

The cost of using natural gas would also be impacted by the carbon tax. The cost of natural gas

per cubic meter is approximately 4.6875 cents [25] with the current carbon tax plan. With the

assumption that the system would be powered by extracted natural gas and that we continue to

need the same amount of energy as we currently do, with The University of Manitoba using

73,626 cubic meters and Aramark using 16,993 Cubic meters, according to Physical Plant. This

translates to a minimum cost of $127,000 over a 30-year lifespan in taxes alone, without

considering the increasing price of fuels that will accompany the decreasing global supply and

the potential for the carbon tax to increase which is a standard model for most provincial

Canadian carbon tax plans.

11.0 Cost and Return

11.1 Life Cycle Analysis

11.1.1 Emissions

The University of Manitoba currently uses 488,828 million BTU of natural gas for heating

annually. Based on a study performed by the United States Department of Energy [26], we can

infer that this releases 25,942,252 kg of CO2, which is equivalent to 4,766 cars on the road each

year. In addition, this reduction would also remove 8,869 kg of CO, 20,399 kg NOx, 133.08 kg

of SOx, and 1,416 kg of Particulates, all of which cause a variety of health problems and

contribute to effects such as acid rain and smog. While geothermal energy does emit some

pollutants, mainly in the process of manufacturing the materials necessary, the emissions are far

less than what is expected while burning natural gas. Therefore, in installing geothermal energy

it is expected that the emissions in the pollutants stated above would be reduced by the values

mentioned. Table 4 below highlights how much pollutants are released into the atmosphere for

various non-renewable resources.

26

Table 4: Pounds of Air Pollutants for Non-Renewable Resources [17]

11.1.2 Implementation Costs

Implementing geothermal heating at the University of Manitoba campus would require some

infrastructure upgrades. Substantial upfront costs that have not been included in this study are the

potential for a furnace upgrade that can handle hot water as well as steam; the new hot water

piping distribution that would need to be installed around the campus; and labor fees associated

with the installation of the geothermal system.

Costs that have been factored into our calculations include the geothermal piping and the cost of

drilling boreholes.

Ball State University is using 1-1/4” high-density polyethylene piping for their closed vertical

loops. Based on our estimates, approximately 1085.5 to 2170 miles (5.7 mil. ft - 11.5 mil. ft) of

piping are required, depending on the heating potential of the ground. The cost of high-density

polyethylene pipes ranges anywhere between 1-$3 per ft. [27]. That adds to a cost of 5.7-$34.4

million. High-Density polyethylene pipe is corrosion and chemical resistant and has high

resistance to biological build up. It must be heat joined and is therefore mostly leak resistant

[28]. The expected lifetime of HDPE pipes is 50 – 100 years, depending on manufacturer [29].

Ball State university spent $27 million USD on boreholes including the piping. The total amount

of piping used is 1000 miles. If simply comparing the ratio of pipes needed for implementation at

the University of Manitoba to pipes used at Ball State University, a rough estimate of the cost of

boreholes including piping would be 29.3 to 59 million US dollars ($37.7 to $76.0 million CAD)

[19].

27

11.2 Potential Funding

The Province of Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro offer incentives and grants for the installation of

the geothermal system for heating and cooling in commercial buildings, which would help lower

costs of the installation of the system.

11.2.1 Green Energy Equipment Tax Credit

The University of Manitoba is eligible to receive up to 15% of the value of their installed

geothermal system through a refundable tax credit. The Manitoba Geothermal Energy Alliance

provides an assessment of the requirements for the installation of the system and connection with

certified installers.

The following requirements must be met in order to be eligible to receive the tax credit:

● the geothermal heat pump system must be installed in Manitoba by an installer certified

by the Manitoba Geothermal Energy Alliance Inc. (MGEA).

● meet the standards set by the Canadian Standards Association for design and installation

of earth energy systems [30].

11.2.2 Geothermal Grants

Manitoba Hydro offers Feasibility Study Assistance and financial incentives. To receive

Feasibility Study Assistance, a system must be pre-approved by Manitoba Hydro before the

installation. The amount of system installation incentive depends on the structure of the system

and includes three options:

1. $2.50 per sq. ft. heated by a geothermal heat pump system;

2. $120.00 per thousands of BTUs per hour of installed geothermal heating capacity;

3. $120.00 per thousands of BTUs per hour of the buildings eligible base transmission and

infiltration heating load [30].

Ultimately, while more information would be needed to determine the extent of funding

available for the University, it is evident that funding would be available and that a portion of

this project would be subsidized by the Province, Manitoba Hydro, or both.

28

12.0 Conclusion

12.1 Geothermal Technologies

Because of the issues surrounding river systems, there is little potential for geothermal heating

using the Red River at the U of M. However, ground systems past the 2.4m frost region appear to

be viable because the heating load is consistent after the frost region. Additionally, the river

poses other issues in regard to open loop designs or closed loop designs in bodies of water,

because the Red River is shallow and any system placed in would be susceptible to ice flow

damage. The University of Manitoba does not currently have extensive land for horizontal

applications, and any land considered for horizontal loops would have to be completely

excavated past the point of frost. This is far more extensive than drilling boreholes for a vertical

design. Thus, a vertical, closed loop, ground system is recommended for the University to pursue

further.

12.2 Location

Out of the three options considered, the agricultural land is the most feasible due to its large

surface area. However, any of the three options, or a combination of them could be used for the

location for geothermal.

Using the agricultural land for calculations, all eight vertical looping options in Table 3 could

supplement the entirety of the current campus requirements and, depending on the chosen option,

could supplement between 125% and 703% of the campus’ current heating loads. This shows

that geothermal also has the potential for expansion and growing alongside the campus.

12.3 Benefits

While geothermal systems still produce some emissions, they are at a small percentage compared

to coal, or the current system of natural gas. CO2 emissions can be minimized and also controlled

and released in greenhouses where they could be beneficial to the growth rate of plants.

A geothermal system also aligns with several Key Goals of the Sustainability Strategy, namely

Resource Conservation and Efficiency, Land Use and Campus Life. It also aligns with the

Visionary (re)Generation Plan, particularly Section 4.5: Energy Management.

Finally, the University is due for upgrades to the current natural gas boiler heating system. This

need, combined with the current costs for maintenance of a natural gas reactor, and the potential

carbon tax being implemented, all lean towards the implementation of a geothermal system that

would not rely on natural gas.

29

12.4 Predicted Costs

Implementing geothermal heating at the University of Manitoba campus would require some

infrastructure upgrades. Substantial upfront costs that have not been included in this study are the

potential for a furnace upgrade that can handle hot water, as well as steam; the new hot water

piping distribution that would need to be installed around the campus; and labor fees associated

with the installation of the geothermal system. These costs would require in depth analysis and

study and have not been included in this report. Costs that have been factored into our

calculations include the geothermal piping and the cost of drilling boreholes. Using Ball State

University for reference, the estimated cost ranges from $29.3 to $59 million US dollars ($37.7

to $76.0 million CAD). Using the $2.4M annual costs of natural gas, the payback period ranges

from 15 to 32 years. This payback period would likely be reduced as it is evident that funding

would be available and that a portion of this project would be subsidized by the Province,

Manitoba Hydro, or both.

With a payback period as low as 15 years, we are concluding that geothermal is not only feasible

on campus but recommended for consideration for the inevitable future upgrade on the Central

Energy Plant.

13.0 Recommendations

1. A Geotechnical Study for the thermal conductivity of soil would need to be conducted to

determine the length of pipe required for each bore hole.

2. Infrastructure upgrade requirements, such as looking into the furnaces at the CEP and if

they can use hot water as well as steam, would all need to be analyzed prior to

installation. As well, technical specifications of pipe diameter would need to be

determined.

3. A test loop for 1 year should be trialed in order to analyze the heat loads of a loop. This

would also be an excellent learning opportunity for engineering students interested in

renewable technology.

30

14.0 References

[1] D. Stiles, Interviewee, [Interview]. 8 November 2017.

[2] M. C. P. Engineers, "Central Energy Plant Needs Assessment on the Fort Gary Campus,"

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 2015.

[3] Government of Ontario, "Earth Energy Systems in Ontario," March 2013. [Online]. Available:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/earth-energy-systems-ontario. [Accessed 28 March 2018].

[4] TetrES Consultants Inc., "Environmental Assessment of Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Funded

Upgrades to the City of Winnipeg Water Pollution Control Centers," City of Winnipeg, Winnipeg.

[5] Specialty Heating, "Green Solutions," 5 June 2015. [Online]. Available:

https://www.specialtyheating.com/green-solutions/. [Accessed 28 March 2018].

[6] N. R. Canada, "Photovoltaic and Solar Resourse Map," [Online]. Available:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/18366.

[7] M. Hydro, "Commercial Geothermal Program Info Sheet," [Online]. Available:

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_business/geothermal_heat_pumps/pdf/geothermal_heat_pumps.pdf.

[Accessed 17 January 2018].

[8] M. A. Energy, "The Forks-Geothermal Heat Pump System," [Online]. Available:

https://manitobaaltenergy.wordpress.com/case-studies/mb-retrofits/the-forks/. [Accessed 16

January 2018].

[9] G. o. Manitoba, "The Forks Takes Big Step Toward Target Zero," 21 June 2010. [Online].

Available: http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?item=8961. [Accessed 16 January 2018].

[10] F. N. P. Corporation, "Goethermal Heat Pump System," [Online]. Available:

http://www.theforks.com/target-zero/geothermal-heat-pump-system. [Accessed 16 January 2018].

[11] B. Laufer, Interviewee, [Interview]. 19 February 2018.

[12] M. G. E. Alliance, "St. Theresa Point," [Online]. Available: https://www.mgea.ca/lead_project/st-

theresa-point/. [Accessed 15 January 2018].

[13] M. G. E. Alliance, "East St.Paul Geothermal Retrofit," [Online]. Available:

https://www.mgea.ca/lead_project/east-st-paul-geothermal-retrofit. [Accessed 14 January 2018].

31

[14] S. K. Baracos, "Geological Engineering Report for Urban Development Winnipeg," University of

Manitoba, Winnipeg, 1989.

[15] C. Armstrong, "Front Design Practice in Canada," Ontario Department of Highways, 1963.

[16] L. D. Berrizbeitia, "Environmental Impacts of Geothermal Energy Generation and Utilization,"

Geothermal Communitie, June 2014. [Online]. Available:

http://geothermalcommunities.eu/assets/elearning/8.21.Berrizbeitia.pdf .

[17] Geothermal Basics, "Environmental Benefits," Geothermal Energy Association, [Online].

Available: http://geo-energy.org/geo_basics_environment.aspx#renewable. [Accessed 31 January

2018].

[18] Boonstra, "Personal Communications," Winnipeg, 2918.

[19] J. Lowe, "Ball State University - Sustainability and Ground Source Heat," Muncie, Indiana, 2018.

[20] University of Manitoba, "Sustainability Strategy 2016-18," University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,

2016.

[21] U. o. Manitoba, "Visionary (re)Generation Plan," [Online]. Available:

http://umanitoba.ca/admin/campus_planning_office/3551.html. [Accessed 20 01 2018].

[22] Office of Sustainability, "U of M Fort Garry Energy System," [Online]. Available:

https://umanitoba.ca/campus/sustainability/media/UMFortGarryEnergySystem.pdf. [Accessed 25

01 2018].

[23] Office of Sustainability, "Energy Resources," [Online]. Available:

https://umanitoba.ca/campus/sustainability/resources/942.html. [Accessed 20 01 2018].

[24] Clean Energy Canada, "Tracking the Energy Revolution - Canada," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://cleanenergycanada.org/trackingtherevolution-

canada/2015/assets/pdf/TrackingtheEnergyRevolution-Canada2015.pdf. [Accessed 10 01 2018].

[25] Manitoba Sustainable Development, "A Made-in-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan," [Online].

Available:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/climatechange/climategreenplandiscussionpaper.pdf.

[Accessed 1 March 2018 ].

[26] T. e. al., "Natural Gas 1998 Issues and Trends," United States Department of Energy, Office of

Oil and Gas, 1999.

32

[27] C. Supplies, "GEO-Black Pipe Price List," 26 07 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.cbsupplies.ca/pricelists/upload/2016/GEO%203-16%20GEO%20PIPE%20-

%20July%2026%20-%202016.pdf. [Accessed 20 03 2018].

[28] P. P. Institute, "HDPE Pipe Systems," [Online]. Available:

https://plasticpipe.org/pdf/high_density_polyethylene_pipe_systems.pdf. [Accessed 20 03 2018].

[29] P. P. Institute, "Frequently Asked Questions - HDPE Pipe for Water Distribution and

Transmission Applications," 2009. [Online]. Available: https://plasticpipe.org/pdf/tn-27-faq-hdpe-

water-transmission.pdf. [Accessed 20 03 2018].

[30] G. o. Manitoba, "Geothermal Heat Pumps: Incentives for Installing Geothermal Systems,"

[Online]. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/jec/energy/geothermal/geo_incentives.html. [Accessed

08 March 2018].

[31] Biomass Thermal Energy Council, "Large Scale Heating with Biomass," 2011. [Online].

Available: https://www.biomassthermal.org/resource/PDFs/Fact%20Sheet%204.pdf. [Accessed

13 March 2018].

[32] The Renewable Energy Hub, "Sould I Install a Biomass Boiler?," 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.renewableenergyhub.us/biomass-boiler-information/are-biomass-boilers-worth-

it.html#jump_104. [Accessed 13 March 2018].

[33] Government of Manitoba, "Guidlines for Estamating Heating Fuels Cost Comparisson 2012 in

Manitoba," 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/business-and-

economics/financial-management/pubs/cop_agrienergy_manitobaheatingfuels.pdf. [Accessed 13

March 2018].

[34] U.S Department of Energy, "Biomass for Heat," U.S Department of Energy, 26 September 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/biomass-heat. [Accessed 13 March 2018].

[35] M. College, "Biomass Gasification," Middlebury College, 2018. [Online]. Available:

http://www.middlebury.edu/sustainability/carbon-neutrality/biomass. [Accessed 13 March 2018].

[36] G. Communities, "Environmental Impacts of Geothermal Energy Generation and Utilization,"

June 2014. [Online]. Available:

http://geothermalcommunities.eu/assets/elearning/8.21.Berrizbeitia.pdf. [Accessed 31 January

2018].

33

[37] M. Hydro, "FInancial Incentives," [Online]. Available:

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/your_business/geothermal_heat_pumps/incentive.shtml. [Accessed 08

March 2018].

[38] B. Laufer, Interviewee, [Interview]. 18 February 2018.

[39] J. Lowe, Interviewee, [Interview]. 8 March 2018.

34

15.0 Appendix A - Other Carbon Neutral Alternatives

Because geothermal heating requires significant infrastructure upgrades, other carbon neutral

alternatives have been considered in this report.

15.1 Biomass

Biomass heating has become an increasingly more popular option for carbon neutral heating,

especially in Europe. Biomass heating is considered to be carbon neutral because in theory for

every tree that is burnt if another tree is planted in its place it will be able to absorb all the CO2

emissions from that tree. Hence atmospheric CO2 levels could be maintained stable. Meanwhile

burning fossil fuels only adds to the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are however some

other pollutants emitted from biomass heating systems such as particulate matter, nitrous oxide,

carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide depending on the fuel. Examples of common pollutants and

quantities emitted from biomass heating systems can be viewed in Table 1. The emissions from

biomass heating systems can be reduced by treating the gas released through the stacks with

cyclonic separators, electrostatic precipitators, baghouses and scrubbers [31] if needed.

Biomass heaters have become increasingly more efficient over the years and now run at an

efficiency of about 80%-90% [32]. Biomass heaters can run on several different biomass fuels.

However, the most common and efficient ones use wood pellets. Wood pellets produced in

Manitoba have an energy content of 15.580 million BTU per ton and a cost of $175.00 per ton

[33]. Therefore, depending on the efficiency of the heater, heat emitted will vary between 12.464

- 14.022 million BTU per ton and the cost of heating will be between 12.48 and 14.04 dollars per

million BTU in Manitoba.

Biomass heating systems work best when implemented in a district system. Where the heaters

are operated from a central plant and the heat is distributed out as needed. The U of M already

has this type system which is ideal for biomass heaters. An effective technique of biomass

heating is biomass gasification [34]. This technique limits the amount of oxygen available for the

biomass to burn, which turns the biomass into a hot gas which is later combusted in a boiler. The

heat from the boiler can turn water into steam to be distributed to other buildings on campus.

This technique may allow the U of M to keep its existing piping meant for distributing steam.

Building biomass heating systems is more expensive than natural gas systems. However,

biomass systems will have a greater return in investment due to the less expensive fuel.

A successful example of Biomass heating implemented on a campus is Middlebury College.

Middlebury College is a college in Middlebury, Vermont. In 2007 they established a goal to

become carbon neutral by the year 2016 and began construction of their biomass heating system.

Middlebury College has a centralized power plant that distributes steam similar to the one at the

35

U of M. Middlebury College however, uses biomass gasification to heat the steam. Some of the

steam is also used for powering a turbine to create electricity and supply 22% of their required

electricity [31]. Middlebury College also limits the contaminants emitted through their stacks by

using a cyclonic separator to remove 99.7% of particulate matter from their exhaust gases [35].

By implementing a biomass heating system Middlebury College lowered its CO2 emissions by

12,500 tons a year [31]. Middlebury College is an example that biomass heating can be

implemented on large scale to successfully meet the heating requirements of a university

campus.

In conclusion the progress in biomass heating technology makes it feasible for implementation

on a large scale, such as a university campus. As well, the fact that it works best when distributed

from a central plant and can be used to create steam further increases its suitability to the U of

M’s central power plant’s existing infrastructure. Hence its limited emissions, good return in

investment and efficiency make biomass heating an interesting substitute to natural gas heating

and could work in conjunction with a geothermal system if need be.

Table 5:Tabulation of Different Emissions from Biomass Heating Systems [34]

15.2 Solar

The rapidly decreasing cost of solar energy, coupled with its rapidly increasing efficiencies have

made it an increasingly attractive option for electricity generation on campus. By implementing

geothermal for heat generation and solar for electric generation the University of Manitoba

Campus could run on 100% renewable energy sources and be nearly self-sufficient.

Using the photovoltaic and solar resources map provided by Natural Resources Canada, it can be

found that a 2-axis sun tracking solar panel system would provide a yearly average 6.61kWh/m2.

If the 375000 m2 peninsula currently used for agriculture were used for solar energy there would

be a potential of 2.4787x10^6 kWh of electrical generation. Other orientations for the solar

panels are compiled in the table on the following page.

It is recommended that that further studies are done into the life cycle and cost of installation of

solar. With this information along with analysis of the trends of the cost of solar it would be

possible to calculate the return of investment.

36

South

Facing

(90 tilt)

South

Facing

(Latitude

Tilt)

South

Facing

(Lat + 15

Tilt)

South

Facing

(Lat - 15

Tilt)

Two Axis

Sun

Tracking

Horizontal

Efficiency

[kWh/m2]

3.56 4.65 4.42 4.65 6.61 3.61

Energy

Generated

[kWh]

1,335,00

0

1,743,75

0

1,657,50

0

1,743,75

0

2,478,750 1,353,750

Table 6: Efficiencies and Energy for Solar Power