Click for next page ( 142


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 141
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 141
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 141
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 141
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 250F {120C). 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 141
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 141
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 CNTRAL P0NT COST(S):8141100 MARKES PDlETRASION - YE~AR 1(' OF NARKZS) I 1 DISTRIBUSION SYSTE~ COST(S): 2164991 ~ARKZT PENSRATION ,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 COGNRATIOH 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 ELCSRICITY VALUE - YZAR1(5/XWH)' .04S CENSRAL PLANT FUCL ~OST(S/BSUC6)l4.S ZLCTRICITY 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 RVENU 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 HA11Kr 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 ZQUIVALNT 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) IKiIH3) (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 141
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 141
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 141
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.