Download - Duteau 2016. Biomass Report_final

Yukon Research Centre 1 / 26

Michel Duteau, Cold Climate Innovation Centre

Yukon College | 500 College Drive, PO Box 2799, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5K4

Yukon Biomass Energy: A literature review

Presentation document Yukon Biomass Forum

Forestry, supply chain, harvest, and sustainability

Kwanlin Dun Cultural Center, Whitehorse Yukon

MICHEL DUTEAU, biol. MSc Yukon Research Centre, Yukon College, 500 College Drive, Whitehorse YT Y1A 5K4 Phone: (867) 689-8490, Fax: (867) 456-8672, email: [email protected]

Final version: April 02, 2016

Yukon Cold Climate Innovation Centre at Yukon College

Yukon Research Centre 2 / 26



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Yukon, energy is used for heating, electrical appliances, and transports. Opportunities exist to increase the proportion of biomass energy production. A significant proportion of heating energy already is produced from biomass, and a major opportunity exists to further offset fossil fuel and alleviate hydroelectric generation facilities (1,962 TJ/yr). The vast majority of electricity available on the Yukon electrical grid is produced from hydroelectricity, and opportunities exist to offset fossil fuels electricity in off-the-grid communities and to alleviate hydroelectric generation facilities. Little opportunity exists at the moment to offset any fossil fuel transport energy.

In Yukon, biomass can be obtained from a number of feedstocks, which have inherent opportunities and challenges, including pricetag. Potential feedstocks include by-products of industrial activities, such as sawmill residues. Vegetation management activities can also offer raw material for biomass, such as roadside clearings, powersmarting residues, and firestmarting residues. Forest health restoration efforts can offer beetle kills and fire kills as potential biomass feedstocks. Imported biomass still is important to consider too. In Yukon, dedicated biomass crops such as intensively managed forest, short rotation coppice, and energy crops have not received much attention, but are recognized as potential biomass feedstock in other subarctic locales. Last, round (green) wood is seen as a major potential raw material for biomass energy in Yukon, although it still raises concerns in terms of sustainability.

A number of policies and pieces of legislation enacted by different governments can impact the development of the Yukon biomass energy industry. In particular, YG’s 2016 Biomass Energy Policy, the Yukon First Nations Final Agreements, the Forest Resources Act (FRA), and the Yukon Environmental Assessment Act (YESAA) concur to the sound and sustainable development of Yukon’s biomass energy industry.

Economic, environmental, social and technical challenges remain in the development of the Yukon biomass energy industry, which need to be addressed.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 4

CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

ENERGY CONTEXT IN YUKON ............................................................................................................ 5

Energy demand ....................................................................................................................... 5

Potential supplemental biomass energy available in Yukon ................................................... 8

POLITICAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT IN YUKON ........................................................................ 16

Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy ............................................................................................ 16

Yukon First Nations Final Agreements .................................................................................. 17

Forest Resources Act ............................................................................................................ 17

Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act .................................................. 19

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................... 21

ECONOMY 21

Economic opportunities........................................................................................................ 21

Economic challenges ............................................................................................................ 21

ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................... 21

Environmental opportunities ................................................................................................ 21

Environmental challenges..................................................................................................... 21

SOCIETY 22

Societal opportunities........................................................................................................... 22

Societal challenges ............................................................................................................... 22

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 23

Technical opportunities ........................................................................................................ 23

Technical challenges ............................................................................................................. 23

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 25



INTRODUCTION

This literature review was prepared as an accompanying document for a presentation by Cold Climate Innovation (CCI) at the Yukon Biomass Forum on March 16, 2016 at Kwanlin Dun Cultural Centre in Whitehorse, Yukon.

The intent of the first part of this document is to present the current energy and biomass context in Yukon, as well as the legislative context that can impact development of the biomass energy industry. Energy production and energy consumption figures are presented, as well as potential biomass energy feedstocks. Opportunities to increase biomass energy production are identified, and substantiated with economical and environmental arguments. Whenever possible, the cost of delivered feedstock is presented. However, profitability of the whole lifecycle (e.g. cost of energy production facilities) is beyond the scope of this document.

The intent of the second part of this document is to identify challenges that remain in the development of Yukon’s biomass energy industry –including supply chain.



CONTEXT

Energy context in Yukon

Energy demand

Space heating energy

In Yukon, the current heat energy demand is 2,385 TJ/yr (Figure 1; ESC, 2012 in ESC, 2016). Biomass supplies approximately 18% of the current heat energy demand, leaving 82% (1,962 TJ/yr) to non-biomass feedstock. To this day, fossil fuels constitute the greater part of this non-biomass feedstock, supplying 75% (1,786 TJ/yr) of the total heat energy demand – these statistics highlight the great dependency of the Territory on fossil fuels for heating supply. Fossil fuels are non-renewable and their usage has a heavy carbon footprint – heavier than any renewable energy. In the Yukon context, this poor environmental performance is compounded by the fact that any fossil fuel consumed for heating is imported from out of Territory.

In Canada, on average, biomass supplies 4.5% of the heat energy demand (Bureau of Statistics: Yukon Energy Facts - 2007 in PBrand, 2009). In Yukon, biomass is a traditional heat energy source, and already supplies a higher proportion of heat energy than in the rest of the country.

As the supplemental resource base is recognized substantial (Morrison Hershfield, 2011; Preto, 2011; PBrand, 2009), potential feedstock is not an obstacle to augmenting biomass contribution to heat energy production in Yukon (ESC, 2016).

Figure 1: Estimated total breakdown of energy use for heat in Yukon (adapted from ESC, 2012 in ESC, 2016).

Compared to the country average, heating costs are disproportionally high in all regions of Yukon, largely due to longer, cold winters and high transportation costs (PBrand, 2009). Nearly $60 million per year is spent for heat energy across the Territory (ESC, 2016). In Yukon, fossil fuel heat energy is



recognized as more expensive than biomass heat energy (Figure 2; ESC, 2016). This is reflected in the fact that while accounting for 75% of total heat energy supply, fossil fuels account for 82% of Yukoner’s heat energy costs (ESC, 2016). This is a whooping $50 million per year, most of which is leaving the Territory (ESC, 2016). By contrast, the small scale forestry that supports biomass heat energy contributes significantly to local economies.

Figure 2: Relative net cost of heat options in Yukon - 2010 in $/GJ (adapted from ESC, 2014 in ESC, 2016).

It is also important to recognize that although Whitehorse area accounts for 75% of the heat energy demand (PBrand, 2009), some communities pay disproportionately high heating costs compared to the rest of the Territory; these communities include such off-the-grid communities as Watson Lake and Burwash Landing, where a higher proportion of heat energy is generated from fossil fuels as compared to the rest of the Territory, and less is generated from hydroelectricity (PBrand, 2009).

Compounding this situation, fossil fuel cost is highly irregular and unpredictable, and generally rises faster than biomass cost.

It is also largely recognized that the lifecycle of fossil fuel heating energy systems release more greenhouse gases (GHG) than the lifecycle of efficient biomass heating energy systems, which might have an effect on global climate. Thus, it is largely recognized that offsetting part of fossil fuel heat energy with biomass heat energy would diminish Yukoner’s carbon footprint. In the context of possible carbon pricing, offsetting part of fossil fuel heat energy with biomass heat energy makes even more economical sense.

As the economical sense of augmenting the contribution of biomass to Yukon heating energy is largely recognized (Morrison Hershfield, 2011; Preto, 2011; PBrand, 2009), economical sense is not an obstacle to augmenting biomass contribution to heat energy production (ESC, 2016).

Therefore, there currently exists an important opportunity to offset non-biomass feedstock (mostly fossil fuels) for the generation of heating energy in Yukon Territory, estimated at 1,962 TJ/yr.

Non-heating electricity

The majority of electricity generated in Yukon is used for operating non-heating electrical appliances. Assuming a yearly electricity production of 1,549 TJ/yr (Figure 3; Brandt, 2013) and a yearly electrical



heating usage of 176 TJ/yr (Figure 1; ESC, 2016), this leaves approximately 1,373 TJ/yr for non-heating purposes1, or approximately 90%.

The vast majority of electricity produced in Yukon and distributed on the Yukon grid comes from hydro power, which is deemed renewable (Figure 3; Brandt, 2013). Fossil fuel generators are installed as back-up and peaking capacity, and are used especially when the instant electrical need cannot be met by hydro-electricity, for instance in the dead of winter when heating demand is at a peak. Wind energy can also contribute to the renewable electricity production in Yukon (0.8 MW installed capacity).

Figure 3: Power usage in Yukon -2012 (adapted from Brandt, 2013).

On North American standards, distribution of electricity in Yukon (Figure 4) is peculiar in two important ways: 1) the territorial grid is isolated from that of any neighbors2, and 2) a significant part of its residents and communities are outright off-the-grid. Wherever the electrical grid does not reach the consumer, fossil fuel electrical generators are used. Such communities as Watson Lake, Old Crow, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, and Destruction Bay are completely dependent on fossil fuel generators for electricity production.

1 Note that during the 2012-2016 period, electricity generation and electricity usage patterns have evolved, leaving the latter non-heating yearly energy consumption (1,373 TJ/y) as a mere estimate. Elements that would have influenced this evolution include major end users (e.g. mine) entering or withdrawing from the Yukon market, and the two new hydro-power facilities that have been commissioned. 2 It is estimated that connecting the Yukon grid to the North America transmission system would cost $1+ billion (GE website, 2016).



Figure 4: Yukon electrical grid (adapted from Yukon Energy Corporation, 2016).

Thus, an opportunity for biomass certainly exists in alleviating the pressure on hydro-power generation and offsetting fossil fuel electricity generation in the dead of winter, but the largest opportunities lie in offsetting fossil-fuel generated non-heating electricity in off-the-grid home and communities – who do not have access to hydro-generated (renewable) electricity.

Transport

Transport accounts for 37% of all energy consumed in Yukon and is virtually entirely supplied by fossil fuels (Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 57-003 in Kishchuk, 2007). In a recent past, biomass has been very important to supply transport energy for the paddlewheel boats running the Yukon River system (DED, 1997). However, this transport mode has fallen into disuse, and little opportunity currently exists in Yukon for biomass energy to offset any of the fossil fuel transport energy.

Potential supplemental biomass energy available in Yukon

Sawmill residues

Sawmills continually produce residues that could be used as energy biomass. These include scrap lumber, shavings, green sawdust, and hog fuel (hog fuel is a combination of white wood, bark, and shavings processed to four inch minus sizing).

Quantities of sawmill residues produced locally are currently limited, given the small size of the milling industry in the Territory. For instance, the Haines Junction mill produces less than 5,000 metric ton of sawmill residues per year (Clunies-Ross, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011). Assuming an energy content of 12 GJ/metric ton (PBrand, 2009), this could supply a maximum of 60 TJ/yr, which is equivalent to 3% of the current non-biomass heat energy demand (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).

Moreover, most of this potential biomass feedstock already is allocated. For instance, Dawson City’s sawmill operation residues (woodchips) are used as a feedstock at the local biomass heating plant (Stantec, 2015).



Nevertheless, sawmill residues are the least expensive form of biomass raw material in Yukon, when available (PBrand, 2009).

Incidental harvesting, stand improvement, and recycled wood

Incidental harvesting is the cutting and/or removal of vegetation subsidiary to another land use activity (YG website, 2016). Examples include the maintenance of roadside, trails, powerlines, and other rights of way, as well as firesmarting3 and defensible space clearing4, and the development of a subdivision, gravel quarry, or mining claim. Stand improvement is the thinning of a growing stand in order to improve its productivity; for instance, some growing stems are eliminated a few years after reforestation efforts in order to give a better chance to the most vigorous trees. Recycled wood include all wood diverted from landfill (demolition waste, Christmas trees, transport pallets, etc.); regulation and public policies encourage collection of this potential feedstock at recycling facilities.

Incidental harvesting, stand improvement, and recycled materials generate biomass that could be turned into energy feedstock. For instance, incidental harvesting from firesmarting treatments feed Tok school’s biomass energy boilers (Lowell, 2015). In Yukon, available quantities as well as profitability of this potential biomass energy feedstock yet have to be documented.

Driftwood

Driftwood has also been reported as a potential biomass feedstock. For instance, up to 60% of the wood supplying Tanana (AK)’s biomass heating public systems (8 cordwood boilers) is driftwood collected as it floats down the Yukon River (Lowell, 2015). Available quantities as well as profitability yet have to be documented for Yukon conditions, and would likely need to be focused on specific river systems.

Salvage from wildfires

In Yukon, wood salvaged from wildfires is an important potential feedstock for energy biomass. Although wildfire occurrence is highly variable, it can still be said that -on average over a long time period-, the area that is burnt in Yukon Territory amounts to 112,000 ha per year (ESC, 2016). This is nearly 200 times more wood than is currently harvested as fuelwood in the territory (ESC, 2016). Combustion rarely consumes more than 10-15% of the biomass (Preto, 2011), leaving the rest as salvageable wood biomass. Moreover, the recoverable heat of combustion increases for the first few years as a result of decreasing wood moisture content, after which it decreases as a result of checking and decay (Figure 5; Preto, 2011).

3 Firesmarting treatments are applied to reduce wildfire hazard around towns, roads, buildings and other infrastructures by creating a buffer zone - clearing or thinning trees that could eventually fuel a wildfire. 4 e.g the defensible space around Fairbanks (AK) covers 3,000 ac (1,200 ha)



Figure 5: Standing dead tree energy content (adapted from Preto, 2011).

Difficulties with access to the resource and distance to the end user can have a drastic impact on profitability. Therefore, calculating the future annual potential of wildfire-salvaged wood as biomass energy feedstock is a delicate and hazardous exercise, and any estimation is highly speculative and uncertain. Nevertheless, assuming a conservative 10% access (PBrand, 2009), a 85 m3/ha wood availability in mature forest (Preto, 2011), a 15% consumption by fire (Preto, 2011), a 11% loss due to handling of brittle wood (Preto, 2011), an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011), and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), the average yearly burn area (112,000 ha) could supply 5,893 TJ/yr, which is 3 times the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).

Currently, two major relatively recent burns exist within a 250 km radius of Whitehorse: the Fox Lake Burn (1998) and the Minto Burn (1995) (Figure 6). Total harvestable biomass volumes available from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn have been estimated by Morrison Hershfield (2011) at 1,075,360 m3 and 3,322,352 m3, respectively, harvestable over a 20 years period.

Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental energy biomass from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn (total of 4,397,712 m3) would provide (35,981 TJ), enough energy to meet the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 18 years. However, this potential biomass feedstock is not entirely supplemental, as part of the biomass energy feedstock comes from those burns. Nevertheless, ‘’other smaller burn areas within the 250 km were identified but have not yet been evaluated… (Morrison, 2011)’’ It should be noted that annual allowable cuts (AAC, see below) or annual limits set by the Forest resource act (FRA) do not apply in burn areas (i.e. there is no yearly restriction on the quantity that can be salvaged). Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that delivered cost of wood salvaged from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn to a Whitehorse end user is $52.67/m3 and $75.13/m3, respectively. Assuming an energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011),



the total delivered cost of wildfire salvage from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn to a Whitehorse end user could be $6.26/GJ and $8.93/GJ, respectively.

Figure 6: Burn areas and beetle kills within a 250 km radius from Whitehorse (adapted from Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

Salvage from beetle kills

Spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) is a natural disturbance agent of boreal North American spruce (Picea spp.) forests (YG, 2008). Infestations can ‘’contribute to a potential fire hazard for communities, increase the risk of catastrophic loss of property, affect visual landscapes, reduce the value of the forest for timber, recreation and tourism and impact ecosystems’’ (Preto, 2011). Sanitation logging can be recommended to control an endemic infestation or when attempting to stop an outbreak in its early stages (YG, 2008).

Currently, the beetle infestation that began in 1990 in Southwest Yukon (Haines Junction area/Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory; Figure 6) is endemic. Total salvageable biomass volume set by AAC for this infestation is 1,000,000 m3, harvestable over a minimum 10 year period beginning in 2006 (YG, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011).



The AAC that currently applies to the Haines Junction area is 100,000 m3/year - higher AACs are established in beetle kills than in green timber areas, in an attempt to encourage salvage of beetle-killed timber. This material cannot be considered as entirely available for supplemental biomass energy feedstock, as part of it would realistically have already been allocated to other users (e.g. sawmill operations) and to current biomass energy feedstock. Considering this, Morrison Hershfield (2011) estimated that the supplemental biomass energy feedstock available from this AAC was 70,000 m3/year over a ten years period (700,000 m3 total). Morrison Hershfield (2011) also estimated that an additional 40% biomass volume associated with small diameter trees could be harvested over and above the AAC limits, bringing the grand total of realistically salvageable supplemental biomass energy feedstock to 980,000 m3. -It is important to note that AACs only apply onto trees of a merchantable size (greater than 16 cm DBH), and that beetle-killed trees smaller than merchantable size can be harvested over and above the AAC limits. Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental biomass energy from Southwest Yukon beetle kill (980,000 m3) would provide 8,018 TJ, enough energy to meet the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 4 years. Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that total delivered cost of Haines Junction salvaged beetle kill to a Whitehorse end user is $64.56/m3. Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), the total delivered cost of Haines Junction salvaged beetle kill to a Whitehorse end user could be $7.65/GJ.

Imported biomass

Biomass imported from Southern Canada (e.g. BC, Alberta) or Alaska will continue to be a viable option for the near term, pending on the development of a local energy biomass industry, including supply chain. Recognizing that local biomass would be even better, it already is cheaper to produce energy from imported biomass than from imported fossil fuels (PBrand, 2009). Moreover, the overall environmental footprint is lower with imported biomass than with imported fossil fuels, and an energy production system based on imported biomass is simple to implement (PBrand, 2009). However, given the important shipping costs associated with the transport distance to Yukon, biomass imported from Southern Canada (e.g. Northern B.C., minimum 1,200 km) would definitely not be competitive with a local biomass source (Morrison Hershfield, 2011). PBrand (2009) established that delivered cost of pellets imported from BC to a Whitehorse end user is $350/metric ton, which includes a transportation cost of approximately $115/metric ton. Assuming an energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total delivered cost of imported biomass to a Whitehorse end user could be $18.92/GJ.

Short rotation coppice (agroforestry)

Short rotation coppice can be defined as fast growing trees or shrubs that are harvested on a regular basis (typically 2-5 years cycles) for a number of years (typically 20-25 years) before it must be replanted. Short rotation coppice can be ascribed to agroforestry. Considering that short rotation coppice can sequester carbon below ground, it is generally recognized that (e.g. Byrd, 2013a) ‘’a carbon neutral biomass system might be possible if the harvesting can be conducted close to the boiler, and require little transportation’’.



Willow (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) and quacking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) all are relatively fast-growing trees and shrubs present in Yukon that could potentially be used as short rotation coppice. Poplars and willows have the double advantage of being able to be cultivated from cuttings taken from one tree, and of being able to re-sprout after harvest (coppicing) (Byrd, 2013a). While not as easy to establish, alders have the advantage of being nitrogen fixers, enhancing the soil as they grow.

Short rotation coppice is used with success as a biomass fuel source in southern Canada (e.g. Allard, 2009; Labrecque, 2008) and similar temperate agro-climatic contexts (e.g. Sweden and New York; Nordh, 2005; Volk, et al., 2006.). In Alaska, research is currently being conducted on different aspects of poplar and willow as potential short rotation coppice for energy biomass feedstock, including profitability (e.g. Byrd, 2013a). In Yukon, the Territorial government committed in its Biomass Energy Policy (2016) to ‘’supporting pilot studies and demonstration projects to investigate the potential of using willow as a biomass fuel source’’.

In Southcentral Alaska, a pioneering study (Byrd, 2013a) indicated that the annual biomass production of balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) stand under a two-year rotation in the local conditions was 5.5 metric ton/ha/yr on a oven-dry basis after two years (Byrd, 2013a). For the comparison, New York and Sweden experiments estimated an annual harvest varying in the order of 9-10 metric tons/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis (Byrd, 2013a). Assuming an energy content of 19.7 GJ/metric ton (Byrd, 2013a), these pioneering results indicate that biomass produced from short rotation poplar in Alaska conditions would provide 0.109 TJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr) could be supplied by 18,024 ha of short rotation poplar coppice. For the comparison, 9,669,000 ha of land is recognized suitable for agriculture in Yukon (YG, 2012). Also, very preliminary results from an experiment conducted at University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Experiment Farm (Garber-Slaght, 2009) indicated that the average annual biomass production of feltleaf willow (S. alaxensis) was 10 metric tons/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis. Assuming an energy content of 19,7 GJ/metric ton on an oven-dry mass basis (Byrd, 2013a), these very preliminary results indicate that biomass produced from short rotation willow in Alaska conditions would provide 0.197 TJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr) could be supplied by 9,967 ha of short rotation willow coppice.

Although somewhat tenuous, this preliminary information shows that short rotation coppice for energy generation in Yukon is technically feasible, but investigation is needed to assert profitability.

Dedicated agricultural crops

Dedicated agricultural energy crops are high-yielding herbaceous plants that can be grown at low cost and low maintenance to produce biomass from which energy can be extracted. Typically, the plant material can be combusted – but it can also be fermented to produce cellulosic ethanol or second generation biofuel, so as to enhance extractability of the energy content. Many herbaceous energy crops are perennial grasses (Graminaceae). Much like short rotation coppice, herbaceous energy crops can sequester carbon in the soil – especially perennial grasses. When compared to short rotation coppice, herbaceous crops have the advantage of having lower operational costs and of requiring very little specialized machinery – as they can be grown, harvested and handled much like conventional dry hay.



In southern Canada and similar temperate agro-climatic conditions, dedicated agricultural energy biomass production has proven cost-effective and is on the rise (e.g. Delaquis, 2013; Samson, 2008). Perennial crops currently cultivated as dedicated agricultural biomass in southern Canada include smooth bromegrass, switchgrass, reed canary grass, cordgrass (spartina spp.), agropyron (quackgrass), lappland reedgrass (calamagrostis lapponica), and big blue stem; annual crops include pearled millet, sweet sorghum, sudan grass, industrial hemp, triticale and rye.

In Alaska, screening trials have been conducted to evaluate the potential of native and non-native cool season perennial grasses such as bromegrass, hairgrass, reed canary grass, bluejoint reedgrass (calamagrostis canadensis), wheatgrass and wildrye, as well as other herbaceous species such as tall fireweed (Byrd, 2013b).

This pioneering work has shown that some perennial grasses can yield as high as 11 metric ton/ha/yr, but typical yields are 3-4 metric ton/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis (Byrd, 2013b). Assuming an energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), these results indicate that biomass produced from perennial grasses in Alaska conditions could provide as high as 0.204 TJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr) could be supplied by 9,617 ha of perennial grasses.

These pioneering results show that surface-based yield of perennial grasses is approximately the same as hay (e.g. 7.4 metric ton/ha/yr, Serecon 2007). Acknowledging that production cost of perennial grasses could realistically be the same as conventional dry hay, the total delivered cost of perennial grasses grown as energy feedstock could be the same as hay. Serecon (2007) established that locally-produced hay is benchmarked against imported hay, which is sold for > $240/metric ton on Yukon market when sold as a round bale. However, it is recognized that local hay can be profitably sold for cheaper (Serecon, 2007). Assuming an energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total delivered cost of perennial grasses grown as energy feedstock to a Whitehorse end-user could be <$13/GJ.

Round wood

The type of potential biomass feedstock that is most available in Yukon is round (green) wood (PBrand, 2009). Yukon’s productive forest base is 28.1 million ha (YG, 2015). The most productive forests are situated in the southeast corner of the Territory, and productivity gradually decreases moving west and north of this region (YG website, 2016). Forest plays an important role in the social, spiritual, and economic well-being of Yukoners (Preto, 2011). Yukon forest boasts many values, including ecosystem services, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural and historical resources, outdoor recreation opportunities, natural beauty, as well as timber and other forest products (YG, 2015). Currently, round wood is harvested as fuelwood (24,000 cords/year; ESC, 2016) and as timber for sawmill operations; no pulp and paper industry exists in Yukon. Management of round wood as feedstock for biomass energy poses particular challenges in terms of sustainability. Long term sustainability of Yukon forest is the purpose of Yukon Government’s Forest Resources Act (FRA, see below). The FRA makes provision for the development of an Annual Allowable Cut for every region of the territory. AACs are determined in consideration of the evidential forest capacity, as well as economic, environmental and social factors (YG, 2015). As of 2016, AACs have been determined for Haines Junction area (1 million m3 over a minimum 10 year period beginning in 2006) and Teslin area (25,000 m3/ year) (YG Forest website, 2016). Wherever an AAC has not yet been



developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual limits are determined arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. Table 1 shows the current annual limits in Yukon. For all regions of the Territory, current harvest level is below the AACs and annual limits. Any increase in harvest intensity has to fit within FRA requirements.

Beaver Creek/Burwash Landing/Destruction Bay 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Carmacks 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Dawson 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Mayo 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Old Crow/Peel 2,000 m3/year coniferous trees 1,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Pelly Crossing 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Ross River/Faro 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Watson Lake 128,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Whitehorse 10,000 m3/year coniferous trees 2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Table 1: Current annual limits set in Yukon (YG website, 2016)

Excluding the AAC for Haines Junction area –which was accounted for in the ‘’Salvage from beetle kills’’ section-, the total sum of AACs and current annual limits is 212,000 m3/year for Yukon Territory. Of these, 24,000 cords/year already are harvested for fuelwood (ESC, 2016). Assuming 2.27 m3/cord, this is 54,480 m3, leaving a potential of 157,520 m3/yr for supplemental energy biomass. Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton for coniferous trees (Preto, 2011) and same energy content for deciduous trees, as well as a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially available from round wood for energy feedstock (157,520 m3/yr) would provide 1,289 TJ/yr, which is equivalent to 67% of the entire current non-biomass heat energy demand of Yukon (1,962 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016), which would bring the total biomass heat energy supply to 85% (67%+18%). Considering the fact that part of heat energy demand is already supplied by cordwood that is not harvested in the Haines Junction area, this 67% might be over-estimating the supplemental potential feedstock. However, this rough estimate of biomass potentially available from round wood for energy feedstock can only augment when the arbitrarily-set and purposefully conservative annual limits get refined into science-based (sustainable) AACs, following the planning process. Delivering round wood to a Yukon end user is substantially pricier than in southern Canada conditions, partly due to higher road and transportation costs. For the comparison, raw material was delivered to BC mills for $20-$40 per metric ton, while it was delivered to Yukon end users for $80-$100 per metric ton (PBrand, 2009); assuming a volumetric weight of 2.27 m3/metric ton, this delivered cost to a Yukon end user was $36.36-$45.45/m3. PBrand (2009) established that a realistic estimate for total delivered cost of round wood to a Yukon end user for biomass energy purpose could be $48.99/m3. Assuming an



energy content of 18.5 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2016), the total delivered cost of round wood to a Whitehorse end user could be $6.01/GJ.

Political and regulatory context in Yukon

Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy

In February of 2016, Yukon Government (YG) released its Biomass Energy Strategy (ESC, 2016), following a review process that included public consultations (ESC, 2016b) over a draft strategy (ESC, 2015). ‘’The intent of this policy is to reduce Yukon’s dependence on imported fossil fuels by optimizing the use of Yukon-harvested wood to meet the territory’s heating5 needs using modern biomass energy systems. […] While YG does support the (eventual) use of biomass for electricity production, the primary focus of this strategy is to optimize the use of wood for heat, using modern systems that are clean, efficient and economical’’ (ESC, 2016). The Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) identifies six key action areas:

- Commit to using biomass energy in government infrastructure. - Develop regulations, policies and programs for biomass energy industry, as required. - Manage biomass facility emissions to protect public/environmental health and safety. - Facilitate private sector development in biomass energy. - Manage and regulate Yukon forests sustainably, which includes the determination of annual

allowable cuts (AAC) within forest management plans. - Ensure biomass fuel security and quality.

Ties with Yukon Energy Strategy and Climate Change Plan

The Biomass Energy Strategy builds onto the 2009 Yukon Energy Strategy (YG, 2009), for which progress reports have been released in 2010 (YG, 2010) and 2012 (YG, 2012). The Yukon Energy strategy (2009) supports ‘’replacing fossil fuels with cleaner renewable energy sources wherever possible’’.

The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) includes commitments to: - Increasing renewable energy supply in Yukon by 20% by 2020; - Investing in research and development of renewable energy technology; - Demonstrating leadership in developing renewable energy infrastructure; - Developing a wood-based bioenergy industry in Yukon by building a local market for wood

energy technologies and wood fuel products; - Encouraging cost-effective, small-scale renewable energy production to foster innovation and

diversity in Yukon’s electrical supply. In particular, the Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) identifies priority actions relating to renewable energies:

- Support and demonstrate renewable energy projects in communities off the electrical grid to reduce diesel use. e.g. ‘’support the development of a wood project in a diesel powered community’’

- Conduct pilot studies to assess the feasibility of renewable energy initiatives. e.g. ‘’wood fuelled heating systems for institutional buildings’’

- Promote renewable energy sources for heating.

5 underscores added by the author



e.g. ’’provide financial incentives for renewable energy initiatives’’ e.g. ‘’provide training and technical assistance to build local skills for renewable energy production’’

The Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) is also consistent with YG’s 2009 Climate Change Action Plan (YG, 2009b), for which progress reports have been released in 2012 (YG, 2012) and 2015 (YG, 2015). YG’s Climate Change Action Plan recognizes that ‘’burning wood efficiently for heat produces less GHG emissions than burning oil (ESC, 2016).’’ In this plan, YG outlines the goal to ‘’reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (YG, 2009b).’’ The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) recognizes that ‘’if future federal policies set a price for carbon emissions or a target for reducing emissions, renewable energy options will become even more attractive.’’ The same would presumably be true if other stakeholders (e.g. federal government, YG, Yukon communities, private companies, and individuals) set a tax on carbon emissions or participated in a carbon market.

Yukon First Nations Final Agreements

Each Yukon First Nation Final Agreement contains the text of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA; GC, CYFN, YG, 1993), which was reached in 1988 and enacted in 1993. Chapter 17 of the UFA commits Yukon First Nations and Yukon Government to ‘’working together to manage the territory’s forest resources sustainably’’ (ESC, 2016). Chapter 17 also recognizes that each Yukon First Nation will ‘’own, manage, allocate, and protect forest resources on its Settlement Land (CYFN, 1997).’’ Chapter 17 provides guidance on the development of regional Forest Resource Management Plans (see below; ESC, 2016). Chapter 22 commits Yukon Government to ‘’creating economic development opportunities for Yukon First Nations (ESC, 2016).’’ Also, Chapter 17 provides guidance on ‘’protecting the economic development opportunities of Yukon First Nations where forest resources are concerned (ESC, 2016).’’

Forest Resources Act

Along with Chapter 17 of the UFA, Yukon Government’s Forest Resource Act (FRA) sets the Yukon forest management regime. FRA was enacted in 2011, and replaces the Timber Regulation inherited by Yukon through devolution in 2003. The act was developed collaboratively by Yukon First Nations and the Yukon Government. FRA is currently under review – Yukon Forest Management branch is seeking input and will receive comments until April 30, 2016 (YG website, 2016). Morrison Hershfield (2011) observed that there currently is no legislation or policy relating specifically to timber harvesting for feeding a biomass energy plant.

The aim of FRA is to warrant the responsible and sustainable management of Yukon forest: providing opportunities for current and future generations of Yukoners to benefit from Yukon’s forest resources, while managing the forest for long term health, and maintenance of important timber and non-timber forest values (YG website, 2016).

Table 2 shows the three levels of the Yukon forest management regime. Ultimately, FRA requires the establishment of an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for a specific land base, in consideration of the



evidential forest capacity, as well as economic, environmental, and social factors (YG, 2015); wherever an AAC has not yet been developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual limits are determined arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. Note that FRA requires appropriate post-harvest forest regeneration, ensuring carbon neutrality of timber harvest (ESC, 2016).

Type of Plan Purpose Geographic Scope Term

Forest Resources Management Plan (FRMP)

- Strategic level of planning that identifies broad forest resource management zones. - Provides strategic direction for the planning area. These plans identify where forest harvesting may occur. It can also provide forest management recommendations relating to habitat, trails, access management, timber and non-timber values and development impacts.

First Nation traditional territories

Long-term - up to 20 years

Timber Harvest Plan (THP)

- A mid-level plan that identifies access and harvesting for watersheds and landscape units. - Outlines locations of roads and harvest blocks consistent with strategic direction for the THP planning area as prescribed in the FRMP.

Watershed or landscape (500 to 50,000 hectares)

Ends when activities are completed.

Site Plan - Operational plans that contain site-specific actions for roads and harvesting activities consistent with the FRMP and THP.

Harvest block level (5 to 500 hectares)

Linked to a cutting permit.

Table 2: Levels of the Yukon forest management regime (adapted from YG website, 2016)

In a nutshell:

‘’ A Forest Resources Management Plan (FRMP) provides certainty on how forest management and development will occur in the planning area. FRMPs provide guidance to other forest planning processes such as Timber Harvest Plans (THP), which prescribe how forest harvesting activities will occur at the watershed or landscape level. FRMPs also help provide guidance to more detailed operational level Site Plans which identify site specific conditions for forestry activities (YG website, 2016).’’

FRA makes provision for planning and decision making that considers all forest users, including requirements for First Nations consultations, and opportunities for public input (YG website, 2016). As of 2016, less than a quarter of the forest land base of Yukon has been subject to regional management planning. FRMPs have been completed for the Teslin (Teslin Tlingit Traditional Territory), Haines Junction (Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory) and Dawson regions. A FRMP is currently being developed for the Whitehorse and Southern Lakes region (majority of the Traditional Territories of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the Carcross Tagish First Nation, and the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council). FRMPs ‘’can be and are developed in every region in the territory.’’ (ESC, 2016)

Licenses and permits

The FRA authorizes the harvest of wood through the following licence and permitting scheme, which depends on the scale of harvest (commercial vs. non-commercial), and the end use of the feedstock (timber vs firewood):



- Timber resource license

A Timber resource license is required to harvest wood at a commercial scale for milling, processing, and sale. The maximum term of a Timber resource license is 10 years, but it can be renewed for one additional term provided that the conditions of the license have been respected during the first term. Before approving a Timber resource license, Forest Management Branch opens a minimum 30 days public notification period. A cutting permit must also be issued, completing the authorization to harvest (YG website, 2016). Morrison Hershfield (2011) mentioned that ‘’the Timber resource license is most applicable to this project [biomass energy], as it establishes the right of the licensee to harvest timber for commercial purposes.

- Fuel wood license A Fuel wood license is required to harvest wood at a commercial scale for commercial sale of the wood for fuel; the amount cannot exceed 20,000 m3 in an area specified in the license. The maximum term of a Fuel wood license is 5 years, but it can be renewed for one additional term. Before approving a Fuel wood license, Forest Management Branch opens a minimum 30 days public notification period. A cutting permit must also be issued, completing the authorization to harvest (YG website, 2016)..

- Cutting permit A Cutting permit is necessary to complete authorization to harvest under a Timber resource license or a Fuel wood license. The maximum term of a Cutting permit is 3 years and it cannot be renewed or assigned (YG website, 2016).

- Forest resources permit A Forest resource permit is required to harvest wood at a non-commercial scale for personal use as timber or fuel wood; the amount cannot exceed 25m3 (11 cords). Typically, only dead and downed trees (coniferous and/or deciduous) can be harvested under this permit. In the future, a Forest resource permit might be required to harvest non-timber resources (e.g. berries) at a commercial scale. The maximum term of a Forest resources permit is 3 years and it cannot be renewed or assigned (YG website, 2016).

- Woodlot license At the moment, Forest Management Branch is not issuing Woodlot licenses (YG website, 2016). In the past, a woodlot license ‘’established exclusive rights to harvest forest resources within an area not exceeding 3,000 ha in size’’ (Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act

Over and above Chapter 17 and FRA provisions, all harvesting projects that are greater than 1,000 m3 typically have to be assessed under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) (YG, 2015). This neutrally-conducted process ‘’further ensures that harvesting is done on a sustainable basis (ESC, 2016).’’ Within this process, ‘’the public, First Nations and non-government organizations are given an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations (YG, 2015).’’ Ultimately, the assessors recommend whether the project should a) proceed, b) proceed with terms and conditions, or c) not proceed. The relevant decision-making bodies (e.g. federal, territorial, or First



Nation government) either accept, reject or vary the recommendations with a rationale in a decision document. These recommendations must be followed for the project to proceed.’’ (YG, 2015)

Typically, any project 1,000-20,000 m3 is assessed at the designated (local) office level, and projects > 20,000 m3 are assessed at the Executive Committee level (YG website, 2016).



OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Economy

Economic opportunities

Current cost of fossil fuels and electricity, especially for heating

Lack of long-term fossil fuel price and inevitable escalation of fossil fuel costs

Cost associated with the transport/import of fossil fuels

Leaking of capitals associated with fossil fuels

Diversification of Yukon economy

Carbon pricing associated with fossil fuels

Shorter payback period associated with capital cost of biomass fuels

Vulnerability/insecurity due to dependency on a resource that Yukoners do not have any control on

Possibility for private companies to inject capitals in the biomass energy industry

Economic challenges

Capital cost associated with the construction of a new biomass energy production facility

Reduced economies of scale due to relatively small market

Cost association with higher handling, operation and maintenance needs

Possible impact onto current wood price

Environment

Environmental opportunities

Renewability/Sustainability of the feedstocks

Reduction of carbon footprint; Carbon-neutrality of combustion of biomass over a relatively short period

Reduced sulfur dioxide emissions

Reduced nitrogen oxide emissions

Modern biomass energy systems emit little or no air-borne particles

Environmental challenges

‘’Carbon payback time’’ issues

Air particle emissions associated with old biomass combustion systems

Fear that it still wouldn’t be sustainable?



Scale has to be concording with available sustainable supply

Soil health/soil fertility issues

Visual (landscape) impacts

Soil erosion/leaching

Loss of habitat; potential impact on biodiversity and hunting/trapping opportunities

Impact on regulation of hydrological cycles

Potential changes to climate

Handling and management of ashes

Society

Societal opportunities

Clear commitment of YG to biomass energy

Current legislative context ensures sustainability of biomass harvest and supply

Current review of the Forest Resources Act (FRA), and possibility to enact new legislations

New jobs and business opportunities

Reduction of wildfire hazards (use for a ‘’forest renewal/restoration’’ bullet too)

Development of a cold climate expertise in biomass energy

Difficulties associated with the development of hydropower

Possibility to form workers

Passing on a tradition

Fuel safety

Societal challenges

Less than ideal licensing/permitting scheme

Less than ideal biomass feedstock supply security

Need to create a new industry altogether, and form workers (empowerment)

Need to build industry in the Yukon

Heating industry transition

Need to form workers

Need to build community capacities (empowerment)

Need to have a ‘’champion’’

Impact onto other usage/values of the forest



Access to the land (land-use conflicts)/Impact on hunting and trapping

Social license (community buy-in)

Need to overcome ‘’fear of forest harvesting’’

Need for realization that there is far more opportunities than challenges (far more advantages over disadvantages)…

Scheduling risk associated with evaluation by YESAAB of any >1,000m3 harvest project

Novelty/Past failures with biomass energy

Past failures with sustainability of wood harvest

Technical considerations

Technical opportunities

Size of the potential supplemental biomass energy feedstock

Ubiquity of potential supplemental biomass energy feedstocks

High quality of potential feedstocks

No need to be super big to have a positive influence

High adaptability of biomass energy systems to cold climate (subarctic) conditions

Difficulties associated with the development of other renewable energies

Possibility to densify biomass feedstocks

Possibility to enhance energy extraction/conversion

Commercial availability of devices

Possibility to mitigate short-term and seasonal supply disruptions

Diversity of available feedstocks

Opportunity to offset use of fossil fuels

Technical challenges

Determine the right feedstock

Using the right technology for the available feedstock, and sizing it properly

Sizing issues

Moisture content of feedstock

Transportation distances

Relatively low density and energy content and difficulty to handle raw feedstock (cordwood)

Handling of the feedstock, which has an impact on operation and maintenance of biomass energy systems



Round wood feedstock is subject to disruption by fire or disease.

If your biomass feedstock is sawmill residues, changes in regional and global economics can affect cost and availability.



REFERENCES

Allard, F., 2009. Les cultures intensives sur courtes rotations pour la production d’énergie. in: AgroÉnergie, ed

Becker, D., Lowell, E., Bihn, D., Anderson, R., Taff, S., 2014. Community biomass handbook. Volume I: thermal wood energy.

Brandt, M., 2013. Changing fuel means changing minds Views and News - going beyond the headlines.

Byrd, A. G., 2013a. Evaluating short rotation poplar biomass on an experimental land-fill cap near Anchorage, Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Byrd, A. G., 2013b. Research on Bio-fuel crops in Alaska: Can you really grow biomass feedstock in the subarctic? University of Alaska Fairbanks. Presentation at the The 8th Circumpolar Agricultural Conference & UArctic Inaugural Food Summit, Alyeska Resort, Girdwood, Alaska, September 29th - October 3rd, 2013.

CYFN, 1997. Understanding of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Council of Yukon First Nations.

DED, 1997. Yukon Energy Resources - Wood. Yukon Government, Department of Economic Development.

Delaquis, E., Seguin, P., Samson, R., Mustafa, A., Martel, H., MacInnis, G., 2013. Development of improved switchgrass selections in a northern environment. Switchgrass II 2013 conference. Madison Wisconsin

Energy Solutions Centre, 2016. Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy - Implementing the Energy Strategy for Yukon.

Garber-Slaght, R., Sparrow, S.D., Holdmann, G., 2009. Woody Biomass Fuel Crops in Interior Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks. Technical sheet SNRAS MP 2009-09.

Government of Canada (GC), Council of Yukon First Nations (CYFN), Yukon Government (YG), 1993. Umbrella Final Agreement.

Kishchuk, P., 2007. Yukon Energy Strategy Technical Workshop. Energy Sector Scoping

Kishchuk, P., 2003. Yukon Energy Sector Assessment - 2003. in: Research V., ed

Labrecque, M., 2008. Developing a willow biomass crop enterprise for bioenergy and bioproducts in Canada. in: Végétale I.d.R.e.B., ed. UC System-Wide Technology Transfer Forum on Clean Technology

Lowell, E.C., Parrent, D.J., Deering, R.C., Bihn, D., Becker, D.R., 2015. Community biomass handbook. Volume 2: Alaska, where woody biomass can work.

Morrison Hershfield, 2011. Preliminary Yukon Biomass Energy Evaluation. Whitehorse, Yukon.

Nordh, N.-E., 2005. Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice.



Smart, L., Volk, T., Lin, J., Kopp, R., Phillips, I., Cameron, K., White, E., Abrahmson, L., 2005. Amélioration génétique des cultures de saules arbustifs (Salix spp.) pour la production de bioénergie et la protection de l'environnement aux Étas-Unis. Unasylva (FAO).

PBrand, 2009. Economic Evaluation of Bioenergy Opportunity in Yukon. PBrand Bioenergy consulting. October 2009. 28 p.

Preto, F., 2011. Biomass Energy Background Paper (Yukon Energy Planning Charrette).

Samson, R., 2008. Switchgrass for bioheat in Canada. 57 p.

Samson, R., 2007. Switchgrass production in Ontario: A management guide. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)-Canada.

Serecon, 2007. Multi-Year Development Plan for Yukon Agriculture and Agri-Food 2008-2012. Serecon Management Consulting Inc. (Edmonton), TransNorthern Management Consulting and Research (Alberta) Research Northwest (Yukon). 105 p.

Stantec, 2015. Submission for 2015 APEY Awards: Dawson District Heating Project. 3p.

Stantec, 2013. Final Report - Front End Engineering Design (FEED) Study, Yukon Bioenergy Demonstration Project in Haines Junction, Yukon. Yukon Energy Corporation. October 18, 2013.

Ventek, 2009. Feasability of and options for a public bioenergy heating systems retrofit for Energy Solutions Centre, Government of Yukon. March 31, 2009. 72 p.

Volk, T., Abrahamson, L., Nowak, C., Smart, L., Tharakan, P., White, E., 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30 (8), 715-727.

Yukon Gov., 2009. Energy Strategy for Yukon. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 25p.

Yukon Gov., 2008. Spruce Beetle in the Yukon. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Forest Management Branch.

http://www.energy.gov.yk.ca/pdf/yukon_bioenergy_final_report_2009.pdf

https://www.yukonenergy.ca/media/site_documents/rpt_cgv_20131018_final_feed_report_optimized.pdf

https://www.yukonenergy.ca/media/site_documents/rpt_cgv_20131018_final_feed_report_optimized.pdf

http://www.energy.gov.yk.ca/pdf/yg_bioenergy_retrofit_feasibility_march31_2009.pdf

http://www.energy.gov.yk.ca/pdf/yg_bioenergy_retrofit_feasibility_march31_2009.pdf