Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 141
APPENDIX D
Technical Assessment, City of
Baltimore District Heating Project
Technical assessments are vital elements in determining the viability
of any large-scale engineering project. For district heating and
cooling, they are typically prepared during the early development
stage. The Baltimore assessment, prepared by Resource Development
Associates (RDA), is included in this report to illustrate the
technical issues that any district heating and cooling project will
have to address. It also provides details on the system's costs and
feasibility studies.
In Baltimore, several discrete district heating projects were
identified and approved by the project advisory committee as
appropriate for further development. The Cherry Hill community is
comparatively self-contained as a multisector community. Natural
neighborhood boundaries serve to designate the outer limits of the
proposed area to be served by the district heating system. The Cherry
Hill neighborhood proper and the Waterview Avenue Industrial Park
stand as the major geographic areas considered for district heating
service.
METHODOLOGY
An investigation was conducted to evaluate the prospects for a central
or district heating systems. The study involved three basic steps:
o identification and quantification of thermal loads on an
areawide basis
o identification and characterization of existing and potential
thermal supply sources
o configuration and evaluation of early-start district heating
projects based on spatial location and distribution of thermal loads
and thermal sources.
*The material in this appendix was drawn from the technical assessment
for Baltimore prepared by Resource Development Associates (1982~.
141
OCR for page 142
142
Four proprietary computer programs, developed by RDA, provided the
technical mechanisms for evaluating the technical and economic
components of the proposed district heating system. These include the
following:
o Thermal location model. This model estimates thermal loads on
an homogenous thermal zone basis and aggregates individual zonal data
to simulate thermal demand on a composite district heating system
arrangement.
o Fuel equivalent net revenue model. This model uses pertinent
thermal market data from the thermal load model and appropriate system
capital and operating cost data to predict the potential for revenue
generation by a district heating system on an annual basis.
o. Total end-user energy costs model. This model accepts capital
and operating costs for proposed district heating systems and for
reference end user energy systems, and predicts the total delivered
energy costs for the end user.
o Employment generation model. This model estimates the job years
created, dollars retained in the community due to construction,
potential endusers' savings as a result of lower energy rates, and
total dollars retained by the community.
THERMAL DEMAND ASSE SSMENT
The Cherry Hill area is densely developed, with numerous residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings. Future
development proposed for the area by the Baltimore Planning Department
includes light and medium industry in the Waterview Avenue Industrial
Park.
Using the thermal load model, the total thermal energy requirements
for the Cherry Hill community were estimated, as shown in Table D-1.
These estimates represent the total thermal load that could reasonably
be served by a mature district heating network in the area.
As with any major capital-intensive project, the basic strategy for
developing viable district heating systems is to start small.
Preliminary plans were developed that proposed to serve first the
major energy users, which are in close proximity. Anchor loads that
would be served during stage one include the Cherry Hill public
housing complex, two public schools, the multifamily housing complex
located along Cherry Hill Road, and the South Baltimore General
Hospital. Comparing anchor loads to total areawide thermal loads, the
early-start system would serve approximately 85 percent of annual
energy consumed in the overall project area. Peak thermal load for
the early-start project is estimated at 170 million Btu/h.
OCR for page 143
143
TABLE D-1 Baltimore District Heating Thermal Load Summary
Total Estimated
Thermal Load
(Tens of Btu
Zone Primary Useper year)
1 Public housing117,037.4
2 Public housing72,500.0
3 Public housing12,700.0
4 Public Housing16,400.0
5 Multifamily housing4,502.06
6 Public schools 159 and 1634,170.0
7 Multifamily housing20,900.0
8 Commercial1,065.7
9 Multifamily housing5,179.8
10 Single-family housing9,30.8
11 Multifamily housing3,140.8
12 Public school 1642,340.0
13 Multifamily housing8,802.6
14 Public schools 160 and 1801,080.0
15 Mixed use3.908.3
16 Multifamily housing1,544.5
17 Industrial1,297.7
18 Waterview Avenue
Industrial Park28,367.8
19 South Baltimore
General Hospital73,900.0
Total Project Load
Estimated Peak Project Load:
200.8 X 106Btu/h
SOURCE: Resource Development Associates (1982~.
379,767.2
OCR for page 144
144
THERMAL SUPPLY
The thermal supply system for the Cherry Hill pro: eat involves
connecting the Baltimore municipal solid waste incinerator with the
Cherry Hill district heating network. Implementation of this option
would involve the construction of a thermal transfer station at the
incinerator site and a long-distance (12,560 feet; 3,830 m) thermal
transmission pipeline to the Cherry Hill area. Contingent upon the
selection and construction of this option, the thermal capacity of the
solid waste incinerator plant could be more fully used than under the
current scenario for municipal solid waste. Estimated development
costs are as follows:
o Thermal supply option. Northeast Maryland Waste DisDosa
Authority
o Type. Municipal solid waste incinerator
o Location. Pyrolysis plant site
o Fuel source. Municipal waste
_
o Fuel quantitye 200 X 10~ Btu/hr
o Estimated delivered energy cost. $5.00 per million Btu
o Piping size. 14 inch
0 Piping route. 12,560 feet (3,830 m)
o Capital costs:
-
-
Transmission Piping: $5,023,953
Heating Exchanger s ($13 at 10,000 square feet): $130,000
Pumps (three at 1,200 gallons per minute, 350 TDH): $70,000
Miscellaneous in-plant retrofit: $65,000
Site work: $15,000
Subtotal: $5,303,953
Contingencies (15 percent): $795,600
Grand total: $6,099,553
THERMAL TRANSMI SSI ON AND DI ST RI BUTION SYSTEM
For the generic district heating system, the functional and
requirements of the thermal transmission and distribution system
include the following:
0 The system should deliver energy from the central plant to the
end users efficiently and economically.
0 The system should be reliable and easily maintainable.
O The system should be easily adaptable at minimal cost to the
end users.
In view of these requirements, the selection and design of each of
the components of the thermal transmission/distribution system should
take a number of items into consideration:
OCR for page 145
145
o the capital cost of the distribution system (pipelines and
conduits, valves, pumps, fittings, insulation, construction of
trenches, etc.)
o the cost of operation, which depends on the thermal losses,
leakage, drainage, and maintenance
o reliability, safety, and ease of maintenance
o the selection of the transport media and other operational
problems, such as storage and metering.
Prudent design of the thermal transmission and distribution system
requires a two-step process: (1) selection of the thermal transport
media and (2) selection of the piping system configuration.
For thermal energy distribution within the Cherry Hill community, a
two-pipe, low-temperature, hot water system was selected. The system
is designed to supply the space heating, water heating, and
low-temperature process energy requirements of the various end users
identified. The distribution system would supply district energy at a
nominal 250°F {120°C).
Based upon this system selection and the location of the identified
anchor loads, a distribution system layout and preliminary design were
developed.
The total capital costs would consist of those for the thermal
supply system (estimated at $6,099,603) and the thermal transmission
and distribution system ($2,164,989), for a total of $8,264,592.
Costs to retrofit existing end-user systems, under most development
schemes, would be borne by individual building owners, with capital
recovery achieved through the savings in energy expenditures.
Costs associated with the district heating retrofit of existing end
user systems are extremely site- and system-specific. End users
within the Cherry Hill service area would incur significant, but not
extraordinary, retrof it costs due to existing system types. Total
retrofit costs for the aggregate early-start system are estimated to
be $4,694,000.
ECONOMIC ANALYSI S
District heating projects should be considered feasible for
development when (1) the utility operation makes enough money through
sales of thermal energy to earn a profit or (in the case of a
not-for-profit system) pay operating costs, and (2) the utility
operation can offer delivered energy costs (including costs of
required end-user retrofits) competitive throughout the system's life
cycle with the costs conventional fuels or energy systems. If the
first condition is met, potential owners and operators can be induced
to develop district heating systems. If the second condition is met,
district heating can compete in the energy market, and customers can
be attracted to the system.
OCR for page 146
146
Fuel Equivalent Net Revenue Analysis
To determine whether the Cherry Hill district heating system could
generate enough revenue to be considered feasible, a fuel equivalent
net revenue analysis model was used to evaluate data based on the
proposed system's costs, projected fuel prices, and the anticipated
market for energy. The model was then r un to predict the estimated
revenues of the distr lot heating system.
Table D-2 summarizes the data and results of the fuel equivalent
net revenue analysis for the Cherry Hill district heating system,
supplied from the municipal solid waste incinerator. As indicated,
projected system revenues fall short of operating expenses during the
first three years, indicating a net loss before taxes. Net annual
revenues turn positive after the third year, embarking on a steadily
increasing trend throughout the remainder of the 20-year planning
period.
Thus, Baltimore's district heating system, as proposed, shows
significant profit potential over the total planning period.
Considering that the net annual revenues predicted by the model are
before-tax revenues, it is possible that, once the tax benefits
realizable by private investors are calculated, the system could offer
net after-tax revenues from the date of commercial operation. Thus,
the Cherry Hill district heating system meets the first of the two
economic conditions necessary for further development.
Total End User Energy Cost Analysis
Table D-3 and Figure D-1 summarize the results of the end-user energy
cost analysis for conventional fuels and systems, and the proposed
district heating system configurations. From these results, the
Cherry Hill district heating system, when implemented in conjunction
with thermal energy supply from the incinerator, is projected to
compete favorably after 1985 with oil and gas on the basis of net cost
per delivered Btu. It is important to note that, in this cost
analysis, the average delivered cost of district heating energy to the
end user includes the cost of building retrofits.
Cons ider ing the early competitive costs of heat to the end user,
the Cherry Hill project also meets the second of the two required
economic conditions.
SU~lARX
The Cherry Hill district heating system exhibits signif icant technical
potential for thermal service based on refuse-derived energy to be
produced at the municipal incinerator. Additionally, the system shows
OCR for page 147
147
TABLE D-2 Baltimore Net Revenue Analysis--Fuel Equivalent Basis, with
Cogeneration
PROJECT: 8ALTI~ORE - C~Y HILL B~RLY-STARS PROJ8CT W/ COGZNE - TION
INPUTS
=lER~)U ENERCY ~ARKET POTZNTIAL - YEAR 1(8TUZ9):322.1 CEN ~PLA" "PE:C~USTION WRBINZ COG~NERATION
17d ERM-AL ENERCY 14ARRET - GlOWTtl RASS(~/YR) ~O C£NTRAL P0NT COST(S):8141100
MARKES PDlETRASION - YE~AR 1(' OF NARKZS) I 1 DISTRIBUSION SYSTE~ COST(S): 2164991
~ARKZT PEN£SRATION £,SCALASIONt\/YR): 0 TOTAL SYST~ CAPITAL COST(S) I 10306091
Y e~5 r I NANCED I 2 0
rl NANNCZ RASE: . 12
CAPISAL RECOVERr rAC=R: .1338788
FUEL EQUIVAL=T REFERE=8 FUEL - TYP£: FUEL NIX SOTAL FINANCCD GOSS(S): 11902S04
- COST - YZAR1 (S/BSUEC): 6.98
- COSS CSCJ`LATION(~/YR,1-10) ~.0S3 COG£N£RATIOH ELCCSRIC/SH£~L RASIO' .674
(~/YR, 11-20), .0335 SYSTCN r~rICIZNCY {COGZN/HEAT ONLY) ..72
ENERGY DISCOUNT AATE(' OF rUEL CQUIVAL~NT COST) ~.9S Bl8CTRIC GENCRASION "rICIE - CY'. 31
CCNTRAL PLANS rUZL TYPr:GAS
EL£CSRICITY VALUE - YZAR1(5/XWH)' .04S CENSRAL PLANT FUCL ~OST(S/BSUC6)l4.S
ZL£CTRICITY VALUE £5CALASION "T8(~/YR,1-10), .05 rUBL ~ST ESCA"SION(~/Y.,1-10) ~.094
(~/YR, 11-20) ~. 0S (~/YR, 11-20)1. 024S
CENTRAL PLANS O`Hl' CP CAPISAL
RF.FE8ENCE PLANT THE - AL £rFICIENCY(~) I .6S COSTS/YR) I.03S
DISTRIBUSION SYSTIN O`14(\ DS CAPISAL
COSTS/YR) I.02
A014INISTRATION COSSSIt TOSAL O`~) I.4
tAXZS · INSURANCE (' SCSAL CA? COST) ·.013
ANALYS IS
R£VENU ZS
COSTS
U N. I T COSTS
COGEN ADO L
SHERMAL "ZCSRIC CLZCTRIC ~TAL TOTAL TOTAL 5y5 ~3YSTZ ~" ~"~IVA=T
THER~AL ENERGY =~=- ~= " ~eL==IC P~=T D - T =" O` - A - ~" N ~w=~C~=IC
HA11K£r MMXET SOLD SOLDSOID R~ - A~" ~= SER=CZ ~S" = ~= ~= ~STCOST
YEAR IB1UC9) PNT"TN (B1lJe9) (1twilZ3) (KIIHE3) (Sl ($J (S1 (S) IS) (S) ($) ($) (S/B=~6) (S/KWH)
_ _ __ ___ _ ____ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _____ ________ ____ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ ___ __ _ _____ _ _ ___ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
1 322,10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 3285916. 2862377. 6148293. 1593491. 3369971. 820246.8 5783711. 3C4581.8 10.20 .04S
2 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 3460069. 3005496. 646SS6S. 1593493. 368C749. 820246.8 6100488. 3CS076.8 10.74 .0472S
3 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 3643453. 3155771. 6799223. IS93493. 4033303. 820246.8 6447043. 3S2180., 11.31 .0<96125
322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 3836556. 3313SS9. 71S01IS. 1S,3493. 4412433. 82024C.8 6826173. 321942.0 11.91 .OS20931
5 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 4039893. 3479237. 7S19110. 1S93493. 4827202. 82024C.8 7240942. 278188.7 12.S4 .0S46978
6 322.10 1 322.1 $3608.38 0 4254008. 36S3199. 7$07207. 1St3493. S2809S9. 820246.8 7494699. 212507., 13.21 .0S74)27
7 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 4479470. 3e3s8s9. 831S329. 1593493. 5777369. 820246.8 819~109. 124220.1 13.~1 .0601043
8 322.10 ~ 322.1 63608.38 0 4716882. 4027652. 8744S14. ' lS93493. 6320442. 820246.8 8734182. 103S2.21 14.C4 .063319S
· 9 322.10 1 322.1 63608.18 0 4966877. 4229035. 9195911. 1593493. 69145C4. 820246.8 9328303. -~32392. 15.42 .06648SS
10 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 S230121. 4440486. 9670607. IS91493. 7564S33. 82024C.8 997e272. -307665. 16.24 .069809.
11 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 5405330. 4662SlL. 10067841 1i93493. 7749864. 02024C.8 10163C03 -9S762.5 16.78 .0731003
12 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 SS86409. 4995636. 1048204S 1593493. 793973S. 82024C.8 10353475 128570.0 17.34 .076965)
13 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 5773553. 5140418. 10913971 1Sql493. 81342S9. 820246.8 10S47998 36S973.0 17.92 .0108135
14 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 S966967. 5397439. 11364406 t591493. 8333548. 82024C.8 10747238 617118.6 18.S3 .0848S42
1S 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 6166861. 5667311. 11814172 IS91493. 8537720. 820246.8 10951460 882712.0 19.1S .0890969
16 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 6373451. S950676. 12324127 1;91493. 8746894. 82024C.8 11160634 1163493. 19.79 .0935S18
17 322.10 1 322.1 C3608.38 0 6S8696l. 6248210. 12835171 1Sql493. 8961193. 820246.8 11174933 1460239. 20.4S .0982294
18 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 6807624. 6S60621. 11368245 lSq)493. 9180742. 620246.8 11S94482 1773761. 21.14 .1031408
19 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 7035680. 68886S2. 13924332 1593493. 9405670. 820246.8 11819410 2~04921. 21.84 .1082979
20 322.10 1 322.1 63608.38 0 727137S. 7233084. 14S044S9 1593493. 9C36109. 82024C.8 12049849 2454610. 22.57 .1137128
PROJECS: BALTIl40RE - CHERRY
INPUTS
HIL`L EARI,Y-STMT PROJECT W/ REFUSE-DERIVE~ENERGY
TllERMAL ENERGY HAMET POTENTIAL - YCAR 1IBTUE9) t322.1 CENTR^L PLANT TYPE:MSW P=NT INTERTIC
THER~IAL ENEnGY MARKET - GROWTN RAtC(~/YR) sO CENTRAL PLANT GOSS(S):6099603
11ARKs?T PENETRATION - YUiR 1 (' or t1MXZT) ~1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTE.4 COST(S): 2164991
MANtET PENETRATION ESCALATION(~/YR) ~O TOTAL SYSTEM CAPITAL COST(S) · 8264594
YEANS FINANCED: 20
FINANC£ RATE: .12
CAPITAL RECOVItRY FACTOR' .1338788
FUZL CQUIV`LENT REFERENCC rUEL -TYPes rUeL HIX TOT~L FINANCED COST(S) ~S44780
-COST - YZAR1 (S/BSUE6) t 6.98
-COST ESCALASION(~/YR,1-10) ~.0S3 COGENERATION eLECTRIC/THERNAL RATIOs 0
(~/YR,11-20) ~.0335 SYSTeil EFrICIENCYlCOCCN/NZAT ONt,Y) I .tS
CNERCY DISCOUNT RASEt' OF FUCL ZQUIVAL£NT COST) ~.95 ELECTRIC GENERASION BrFICIENCYs .35(N/~)
CENTRAL PLANT FUCL TYP£ ~ST=H
CLDCTRICITY VALUZ - YCAR1 1S/RWN) ~.045 CENTR~L PLANT rUCL COSS(S/8TUC63 · 5
rLECTnlCITY VALUo ESC&LATION RATE(~/YR,1-10) s .05 rUEL COST ESCALASION(~/YR,1-10) I .02
tt/YR, 11-20) t .oS 11/YR.11-20) ~.02
CENTRKL PLANT O. M ( · C P CAF r TAL
RErERD.CE PLA~NT THERMAL EFFICINCYIl) ~.65 COSTS/YII) ~.035
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM O`H(' DS CAPISAL
COSTS/YR} ~.02
ADHINrSTRASION COSTS(, TOTAL O`H) ~.4
TAJtCS · INSURANCC 11 TOTAL CAP COST) ~.013
THERMAL
.4ANt ET lIARK ET
Y EAR ( BTU E9 ) PNT - TN
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 322.10
2 322.10
3 322.10
4 322.10
S 322. 10
6 322.10
7 322.10
8 322.10
9 322.10
10 322.10
COGEN ADD L
THERFIAL ZL8CTRIC CLDCTRIC TOT&L TOTAL TOTAL
ENERGY ZNUGY ENUCY SHERMAL CLCCTRIC PROJECT
SOLD SOLD SOLD REVZNUES REVENUES RCVENUrq
(BTUZ9) IKiIH£3) (XwHZ3) (~) (S) (S)
322.
322.1
322.
322.1
322.1
322.1
322.1
322.1
322.1
322.1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
0 3285916.
0 3460069.
0 3643453.
0 3836SS6.
0 4039893.
0 4254008.
0 4479470.
0 4716882.
0 4966877.
0 5230121.
0 3285gl6.
0 3460069.
0 3643453.
0 3836SS6.
0 ·039893.
0 4254008.
0 ·479470.
0 4716882:
0 4966877.
0 5230121.
SYSTE!4 SYSTEM
DEBT rUZL O`M`A
SeRVICC COSTS COSTS
(S) (S) (t)
____ ___ _______ __ ____
TOTAL
ANNUAL
CO"S
(1)
1277843. 1695263. 648761.1 3621868.
1277843. 1729169. 648761.1 3CS5771.
1277843. 1763752. 648761.1 3690)5C.
1277843. 1799027. 6487Cl.1 3725631.
1277843. 183S007. Cl8761. 1 3761612.
1277843. 1871708. 648761.1 3798312.
1277843. 1909142. 648761.1 3835746.
1277843. 1947324. 648761.1 3873929.
1277843. 1996271. 646761.1 3912876.
1277843. 202S996. 648761.1 39S2601.
UN r T CO STS
· _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ ~
ANtlUAL
NeT
RrvrNUCS
(S)
-335952.
-195704.
-46903. C
110924.4
278281.3
4S5695.S
643723.7
842952.
1054001.
1 2 77520.
~QU r VALNT
THWlAL lLCCTRIC
COST COST
( S/B.IUC~ ~ S/KWH)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10.20 .045
10.74 .04725
11.31 .0496125
11.91 .OS20931
12. S4 .0546978
13.21 .0574327
1 3. 9 1 .060304 3
14.64 .0633195
15.42 .0664855
1C. 24 .o`98098
11 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 5405330. 0 5405310. 1277843. 2066516. 648761.1 3993121. 1412209. 1C.78 .0733003
12 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 SS86409. n 5586409. 12t7843. 2107847. 648761.1 4034451. ~ 1551957. 17.34 .0769653
13 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 S773553. 0 5773553. 1277843. 2150004. 648761.1 4076608. 1696945. 17.92 .0808135
14 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 S9669C7. 0 5966967. 1277843. 2193004. 648761.1 4119608. lS47359. 18.53 .0848542
1S 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 6166861. 0 6166861. 1277843. 2236864. 648761.1 4163468. 2003192. 19.15 .0890969
16 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 6373451. 0 6371451. 1277843. 2281C01. 648761.1 ·203206. 2165245. 19.79 .0935518
17 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 6586961. 0 6586961. 1277843. 2327233. 648761.1 ·2S1838. 2113124. 20.45 .0982294
18 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 6807624. 0 6807624. 1277843. 2373778. 648761.1 4300382. 2507242. 21.14 .1031408
19 322.10 1 122.1 0 0 7035680. 0 7035680. 1277843. 2421253. 646761.1 4347858. 2687822. 21.84 .1082979
20 322.10 1 322.1 0 0 7271375. 0 727137S. 1277843. 2469678. 646761.1 ·396281. 2875092. 22.57 .1137128
SOURCE: Resource Development Associates (1982~.
OCR for page 148
148
TABLE D-3 Cherry Hill District Heating Project--Total End-User Energy
Cost Comparison
Projected Cost of heat Delivered (dollars per million Btu)
District Heating District Heating
Natural with Municipal with New
Year Fuel Oil Gas Solid Waste Central Plant
1982 11.70 8.77 ~
1983 12.84 9.87 14.17 16.73
1984 14.16 11.27 14.76 17.96
1985 15.57 14.18 15.39 19.39
1986 17.13 17.22 16.04 20.88
1987 18.84 19.80 16.74 22.59
1988 20.73 22.71 17.50 24.55
1989 22.80 25.80 18.30 26.80
1990 25.08 29.31 19.17 29.37
1991 27.59 31.86 20.05 31.11
1992 30.35 34.63 21.00 33.00
1993 33.38 37.65 22.01 35.05
1994 36.72 40.92 23.09 37.26
1995 40.39 44.48 24.25 39.65
1996 44.43 47.77 25.44 41.90
1997 48.88 51.31 26.71 44.31
1998 53.77 55.11 28.06 46.89
1999 59.14 59.19 29.50 49.86
2000 65.06 63.56 31.04 52.62
SOURCE: Resource Development Associates (1982)
.
OCR for page 149
149
I'
_ ~
._ _
o ~
w
z
4 -
cn cn ~
. _ . _ ~
4 - 4-d -
a, ~ c
tD o,
I I c,)
.o ~ ~ 3
us in
._ _ ._ _
C) ~ ~ ~
1 1
1
1
\ \:
`\N
If\\
\`S\
~ \
Ago\\
O O
\
~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O O O O Cy) to
0383/\ll~a-gOl x nit
g
to
cut
Do
ED
-
o
cn
a;
ED
Do
Do
o
to
..~
o
o
u,
o
v
s~
a
u~
l
a
o
1
.,_,
o
..
s
-
~ u'
· -
· -
u] v
· - o
]
u]
~ o
a
a)
v
~ o
]
a)
H P:;
OCR for page 150
150
significant potential for economic benefit for both the owner and
operator and the end users. Given the favorable technical and
economic outcome of the assessment efforts concerning this project,
the Cherry Hill system offers excellent potential for further
development in the future stages of BaltimoreIs district heating
program.
The system is now being designed.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
cherry hill
