Developing Estimates 

of Potential Demand for 

Renewable Wood Energy 

Products in Alaska

Allen M. Brackley, Valerie Barber, and Cassie Pinkel

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-827

August 2010
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Allen M. Brackley is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Research 

and Development Center, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835; Valerie A. Barber 

is a research scientist, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service, Forest Products Program, Palmer Research and 

Extension Service, 533 E Fireweed Avenue, Palmer, AK 99645; and Cassie Pinkel 

is a project manager, Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation, 301 Cushman 

Street, Suite 301, Fairbanks, AK 99701.

Cover photographs by David Nicholls.
Abstract

Brackley, Allen M.; Barber, Valerie A.; Pinkel, Cassie. 2010. Developing 

estimates of potential demand for renewable wood energy products in Alaska. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-827. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p.

Goal three of the current U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service strategy 

for improving the use of woody biomass is to help develop and expand markets 

for woody biomass products. This report is concerned with the existing volumes 

of renewable wood energy products (RWEP) that are currently used in Alaska and 

the potential demand for RWEP for residential and community heating projects 

in the state. In this report, data published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Census and the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency 

have been used to build a profile of residential and commercial energy demand 

for Alaska census tracts. By using peak prices from the fall of 2008, the potential 

value of a British thermal unit (Btu) from various fuels has been calculated to 

identify those situations where wood-based fuels are economically competitive or 

advantageous when compared with alternative fuel sources. Where these situations 

are identified, the Btu usage has been converted to equivalent volumes of wood 

energy products. Data have been presented so potential demand is available by 

census tract. No attempt has been made to define the rate of conversion or the time 

that it will take for total conversion to renewable wood energy. The ultimate rate of 

conversion is a function of government policies that encourage conversion, costs 

associated with converting, and price of alternative fuels. If fuel oil prices increase 

to the levels experienced in 2008, there would be a strong economic incentive to 

convert heating systems to use solid wood fuels. If all of the liquid fuels used by the 

residential and commercial sectors in Alaska were converted to solid wood energy, 

it is estimated that 1.3 million cords of material would be required annually. 

Keywords: Alaska, wood energy, heating fuels.
Contents

	 1	 Introduction

	 2	 Objectives

	 3	 Overview of Methods to Compare Energy Use

	 3	 Conversion Factors in This Report

	 5	 Wood Measurement and Fuel Characteristics

	 8	 Review of U.S. Census Bureau Data

	10	 Review of Energy Information Agency Data

	12	 Additional Data

	14	 Estimates of Current Use of RWEP for Home Heating in Alaska

	17	 Cost Comparison for Alternative Energy Sources

	21	 Potential Demand for RWEP for Home Heating in Alaska

	23	 Discussion

	23	 Replacement Based on Economics

	25	 Energy Sources Most Likely To Be Replaced by RWEP

	25	 Sources of Renewable Wood Energy Material

	27	 Conclusions

	27	 Acknowledgments

	28	 Metric Equivalents

	28	 Common and Scientific Names

	28	 Literature Cited
1

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Introduction

The current U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service strategy for improving 

the use of woody biomass (Patton-Mallory 2008) defines four strategy goals. Goals 

one, two, and four include building partnerships, developing and deploying science 

and technology, and assuring a supply of biomass. Goal three of the strategy is to 

“help develop new and expanded markets for bioenergy and biobased products” 

(Patton-Mallory 2008: 8). All goals are viewed by the Forest Service as important 

parts of a primary and broader objective of sustaining healthy forests that will 

survive natural disturbances and threats, including climate change. 

A planned short-term action of goal three is to “assist businesses looking to 

develop new markets or increase the supply of woody biomass products, particularly focused on heating fuels such as pellets and wood chips or commercial use 

and long-life products that maintain sequestered carbon” (Patton-Mallory 2008: 9). 

Accordingly, the purpose of this project was to better define the existing profile of 

heating fuels used in various areas of the state of Alaska and identify opportunities 

to replace higher cost fossil fuels with renewable wood energy products (RWEP). 

The need for the estimates of potential markets became noticeable as forest managers, entrepreneurs, civic officials, and citizens expressed increasing interest in 

using various forms of local biomass directly as sources of energy or for production of energy products (traditional firewood, wood pellets, briquettes, and chips). 

Although supply was a primary concern, it was assumed that if the material existed, 

it could be delivered and made available. 

Markets, price, and the sources of existing competing energy are all important 

considerations. Given the high transportation costs to import products to Alaska, 

local markets and levels of demand are important components of any business plan 

to produce energy products. Local producers may have a competitive transportation 

advantage when serving local markets owing to lower transportation costs than 

those faced by a competitor producing outside the region. It is not uncommon, however, for this competitive advantage in transportation costs to be offset by higher 

production costs in Alaska. Regardless, the size of the local market and potential 

demand are of critical importance to firms, organizations, and entrepreneurs 

interested in production and marketing renewable energy products in Alaska.

There are many factors that will influence the conversion from traditional fossil 

fuels to RWEPs. Nicholls et al. (2009) reviewed opportunities for the increased use 

of bioenergy, or RWEP, in the Western United States. They reviewed the legislation and policies that some European nations have adopted to promote conversion 

and maximum use of RWEP. There are many other factors exterior to government 

policy that also impact the conversion process in any community or region in the 

A planned short-term 

action of goal three is 

to “assist businesses 

looking to develop new 

markets or increase 

the supply of woody 

biomass products.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Nation. These include availability of various fuels at the local level; the local cost 

of the alternative fuels; replacement costs of heating equipment; environmental 

regulations at the community, state, and federal levels; the existing forest products 

industry and level of activity; and carbon accounting and environmental economics. A complete analysis of all these problems is beyond the scope of this project. 

The goal of this project is to provide estimates of the potential demand for RWEP 

in Alaska, and provide sufficient background material so the reader can begin to 

estimate the required raw material to meet that demand. 

Objectives

The Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center has a mandate 

to conduct projects that have the potential to more efficiently utilize the forest 

resources of Alaska and to promote the economic development of the state. The 

methodology employed in this project also has the potential to provide researchers 

with a model that can be applied to any area of the Nation. 

The objectives of the project are as follows: 

• Provide an overview of the conversion factors and measurement methods—

using data generally available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency (EIA); and other sources, primarily Fairbanks Economic 

Development Corporation (FEDC)—to compare forms of energy used in 

the residential and commercial sectors of various geographic regions in 

Alaska. Special emphasis is placed on measurement and recoverable energy 

from RWEP, often referred to as biomass products. 

• Using Census Bureau, EIA, and FEDC data, estimate the volumes of 

renewable wood energy that are currently used in Alaska as a primary or 

secondary fuel for heating purposes. 

• Compare the cost per British thermal unit (Btu) of the various alternative 

sources of energy used in Alaska, and identify situations where renewable 

wood energy is an economically viable replacement for existing sources of 

energy.

• Develop estimates of the total volume of renewable wood energy required 

to replace high-cost alternatives in the residential and commercial sectors 

in Alaska.
3

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Overview of Methods to Compare Energy Use 

There are three major categories of biomass or RWEP: (1) trees harvested specifically 

for energy (stem or bowl wood limbs, needles, and leaves—including species that 

will grow under intensive forestry methods), (2) wood fiber residue from sawmills 

and other plants that process timber (these residues include coarse or chippable residue, sawdust, planer shavings, and bark), and (3) tops and limbs (from trees harvested 

for traditional products) that are processed in the woods or removed from the woods 

and converted to energy use. When used for energy, these forms of wood fiber can 

be burned as is; hogged prior to burning; processed into pellets, compressed logs, or 

bricks; or as technology improves, manufactured into liquid forms such as biodiesel 

and ethanol. The focus of this project is the near-term replacement of fossil fuels by 

the solid forms of RWEP. 

Conversion Factors in This Report

The basic energy content of RWEP is reported as Btu values. British thermal unit 

values are determined by using various calorimeters charged with bone-dry (zero 

percent moisture content) material and reported in the English system on the basis 

of weight (Wilson et al. 1987). The standard methods for determining speciesspecific Btu ratings result in a value referred to as the higher heating value (HHV), 

or laboratory value, for the material (Briggs 1994, Ince 1979). The reported standard 

Btu values for wood (Wilson et al. 1987) from the Pacific Northwest extends from a 

low of about 8,000 Btu/lb (red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.))1 to a high of 9,900 Btu/lb 

(Alaska yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach)). These values 

are relatively constant. 

Higher heating values for Alaska species used as fuel are presented in table 1. 

Using the Wilson et al. (1987) values for nine species that grow in Alaska, an average 

value for species in the state was calculated as 8,653 Btu/lb. The standard deviation 

of these values was 571 Btu/lb. The energy value for bark is generally higher than 

that for wood. Based on this information, the HHV of Alaska wood for the purposes 

of this analysis is 8,500 Btu/lb. Table 2 contains HHV for other fuels derived from 

data reported by the EIA (2008d). For wood fuel, the EIA uses a factor of 20 million 

Btu per cord. For biomass (wood and wood-derived fuels), the EIA uses a factor of 

17.2 million Btu per short ton, based on zero moisture content.

1

 See “Common and Scientific Names” for species names used in this paper.

The focus of this 

project is the near-term 

replacement of fossil 

fuels by the solid forms 

of renewable wood 

energy products. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Table 1—Higher heating values for wood and bark for species growing in Alaskaa

 Species Wood Bark Percentage of bark by volume

British thermal units

per oven-dry pound Percent

Alaska yellow-cedar 9,900 — 11–13.1

Black cottonwood 8,800 8,882 18.3

Paper birch 8,334 9,900 8–15.7

Quaking aspen 8,200b 8,571 8.9–16.5

Red alder 7,995 8,583 13.5

Sitka spruce 8,100 — —

Western hemlock 8,515 9,421 6.3–16.3

Western redcedar 9,144 8,854 5–13

White spruce 8,890 8,626 8.6–11.7

Average value 8,653 8,977

Standard deviation 571

— = no data available.

a

 Some values are shown as the average of the range listed in the source.

b

 This value was obtained by adjusting the value given in air dry condition to oven dry.

Source: Wilson et al. 1987.

Table 2—Higher heating value factors used by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to 

calculate reported British thermal unit (Btu) values of selected fuels

Btu per Btu per Btu per Btu per Btu per Btu per

Fuel barrel gallona cubic foot cordb short tonc kilowatt-hour

Million Thousand Million Million

Biomassd 17.2

Coal/coke 15.6

Distillate 5.825 138,690

Electricity 3,412e

Kerosene 5.670 135,000

Liquefied petroleum gas 3.620 86,190

Motor gasoline 5.218 124,238

Natural gas 1.030

Wood 20.0

a

 42 gallons per barrel.

b

 The cord is a unit of volume that is constant over a wide range of moisture content values. As the moisture content is reduced, the weight 

of the cord is also reduced while the gross heating value (GHV) per unit of wood weight increases. Total Btu available from the wood is a 

function of the GHV × weight of wood. 

c

 Recoverable Btu are relatively constant over a range of moisture contents for the volume. A Btu value per ton of 17.2 million is based on a 

bone-dry moisture content (zero moisture content).

d

 Biomass is organic nonfossil material of biological origin constituting a renewable energy source. The EIA defines biomass as “wood 

and wood-derived fuels.”

e

 The Btu per kilowatt-hour conversion is based on the International Units of 3,412.14.

Source: EIA 2008d. 
5

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Wood Measurement and Fuel Characteristics

Currently, most wood transported on the highways to forest product facilities is 

commonly purchased and sold based on fresh cut (green) weight. The cord, however, is still a common unit of measure used to define volumes of wood that are 

purchased and sold at the retail level for home heating purposes. Numerous sources 

and forest mensuration texts (Bruce and Schumacher 1950, Evans 2000, Husch et 

al. 1982) define a cord as a pile of wood, with lengths cut to 4 ft, that has a volume 

of 128 ft 3 (4 ft high × 4 ft wide × 8 ft long). The unit is further defined as a pile 

of wood that includes wood, bark, and void air space. The older text (Bruce and 

Schumacher 1950) was written when the cord unit was a commonly used measure 

for pulpwood and firewood. This text stated, “There may be anywhere from 60 

to 100 cu. ft. of solid wood per cord, depending on the mentioned circumstances” 

(Bruce and Schumacher 1950: 35). They continued, “Where an average figure is 

needed, 90 may be considered high and 70 a low, value...” Keep in mind that a 

cord of wood also includes bark. The exact amount of bark available for burning is 

a function of species characteristics, time of year the material is processed, handling, and time between harvest and burning. Energy of burnable material may be 

increased up to 10 percent if all bark is delivered to the stove. Thus, a cord with a 

wood content of 85 ft3

 would be the equivalent of 93.5 ft3 when bark is included. 

Newer sources (Dunster and Dunster 1996) also make reference to a “face 

cord” and note that this is material that is cut to usable lengths (12, 16, or 24 in) 

and, when split for burning and piled, has a face area of 32 ft 2 (or 4 ft high and 8 ft 

long). A face cord of 24-in material would contain one-half the volume of a standard cord, all other variables being equal. 

The previous paragraphs start to identify some of the problems incurred when 

energy values derived on a weight basis are applied to a product that is measured by 

volume. The previous comments are concerned with the problems of measuring the 

unit volume, but the magnitude of the problem becomes clearer when the weightbased energy values of the material are applied to volumes. 

A review of the USDA Forest Service wood handbook (USDA FS 1999) indicates that the reported green specific gravity of the wood species (softwoods and 

hardwoods) that grow in the United States range from a low of 0.29 to a high of 

0.66 (USDA FS 1999: table 4-3b). Conversion of these values to density results in 

values that range from a low of 18.1 lb to a high of 41.2 lb of green wood per cubic 

foot of wood material. A similar review of specific gravity values for material at 

12 percent moisture content shows that the specific gravity of this relatively dry 

material ranges from 0.31 to 0.75, or a range of density from 19.3 to 46.8 lb/ft3

. Note 

that green material will shrink when dried below fiber saturation point and will 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

have less volume, but the impact of this volume change is minimal when compared 

with the natural variation in cord weights composed of various species. In the above 

comments relative to Btu values, it was noted that for the purposes of this report, 

all RWEP would be assigned an HHV rating of 8,500 Btu/lb. Once this starting 

point was established, the next step required to calculate the recoverable Btu of a 

heating system was to adjust for fuel moisture content (Briggs 1994, Ince 1979). 

This calculation takes into account the energy that is required to drive off the water 

during the combustion process.

The moisture content of fresh-cut wood differs considerably among species 

(Bowyer et al. 2003). In general, the heartwood is of lower moisture content than 

the sapwood. As a rule of thumb, many consultants assume that fresh-cut wood 

is half (50 percent) water. Wood is hydroscopic in nature, and it gains and looses 

moisture with the surrounding environment. In most coastal areas of Alaska, green 

wood, stored so that it is covered from the rain and piled so that air will circulate 

through the material, will dry to an equilibrium moisture content of 15 to 16 

percent, green basis. Inland areas will reach equilibrium at slightly lower levels. 

Drying rates of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) and western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) logs were reported by Nicholls and Brackley 

(2009). Regardless, in situations where older heating equipment is used, wood at the 

stated equilibrium moisture contents may create unacceptable levels of emissions 

and exceed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards (ECFR 

2009). The problem may be especially acute during periods of temperature inversion, which happens frequently in the winter in Fairbanks and Juneau, the second 

and third largest cities in Alaska. In more urban areas of Alaska, local ordinance 

may require heating equipment that meets EPA emission standards or limits the use 

of older stoves during certain weather conditions. 

Most moisture content values in the Forest Service wood handbook (USDA FS 

1999) are based on the dry weight of the wood (dry basis). In energy applications, 

adjustments for moisture content are based on the original green weight of the 

material (green basis). The following formula allows conversion from dry to green 

basis when the values are expressed as a percentage (Kollman and Cote 1968):

MCdb = (100 × MCgb) / (100 – MCgb) or

MCgb = (100 × MCdb) / (100 + MCdb ),

where

MCdb = moisture content, dry basis expressed as a percentage, and 

MCgb = moisture content, green basis expressed as a percentage.

As a rule of thumb, 

many consultants 

assume that freshcut wood is half (50 

percent) water. 
7

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Once a moisture content of 12 percent dry basis is adjusted to 10.7 percent 

green basis, the equation presented by Briggs (1994) or Ince (1979) can be used to 

calculate gross heating value (GHV) when burning takes place, using the following 

formula:

GHV = HHV × (1 – [MCgb / 100]), 

where

GHV = gross heating value,

HHV = higher heating value, and

MCgb = moisture content, green basis expressed as a percentage.

Thus, the HHV value of 8,500 Btu/lb for wood material adjusted using the 

above formula (with MCgb equal to 10.7) will produce a GHV of 7,590 Btu/lb. 

When the range of cubic-foot weights (19.3 to 46.8 lb/ft3) are applied to the calculated GHV value, the GHV of a cubic foot of wood ranges from a low of 146,487 

Btu/ft3 to a high of 355,212 Btu/ft3. Cords represent volume that is expressed in 

terms of cubic feet.2 In this analysis, we have considered volumes that have been 

reduced to a moisture content of 10.7 percent green basis. If the analysis were 

repeated and values of GHV at higher moisture contents included, the range would 

more than double. This analysis is intended to demonstrate some of the problems 

of assigning weight-based energy HHV values to any volume-related factor. The 

bottom line is to always start the process with weight values and then make the 

conversion to volume in the final stages. When the final conversion from weight to 

volume is made, always provide the factor for the conversion. 

Up until this point, the focus of energy recovery has been on the characteristics 

of the fuel. Ultimately, the final calculations to determine the recoverable heat and 

combustion efficiency of any heating system must also take into consideration the 

equipment that is used and the insulation of the building that is being heated.

Efficiency of heating systems—

In any heating system, the energy from the combustion process is either vented 

up the chimney (stack heat loss), lost to the environment during transfer to the 

area being heated, or applied to the area being heated. The direct transfer of heat 

(energy) may be by a process, singularly or in combination, of radiation and convection. Both Briggs (1994) and Ince (1979) provided formulas for converting GHV 

values to recoverable heat or combustion efficiency values. 

2 The EIA (2008d) value for wood in table 2 (20 million Btu/cord) can be converted to 

235,294 Btu/ft3 (assuming 85 ft3 per cord).

In any heating system, 

the energy from the 

combustion process 

is either vented up 

the chimney (stack 

heat loss), lost to the 

environment during 

transfer to the area 

being heated, or 

applied to the area 

being heated. 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

The product and marketing literature for space heating stoves (regardless of 

fuel type), furnaces, water heaters, and other appliances include an efficiency rating 

expressed as a combustion efficiency value. Most modern wood heating units also 

include an EPA-based emissions rating. The standards that products must meet 

are defined by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA 1987) 

and Department of Energy regulations. Technically, the efficiency rating reported 

by Briggs (1994) is comparable to the ratings reported for various heating stoves 

under the NAECA. Some sources present tables where HHV values for various 

systems are reduced by the efficiency rating of the equipment to obtain estimates 

of combustion efficiency or deliverable Btus for various fuels. The results of this 

approach are reasonable for simple systems using most liquid fuels with minor or 

low moisture contents. They do not, however, provide reasonable estimates for fuels 

such as wood, many RWEP, and Alaska coal with high moisture contents. Gross 

heating values reduced by appliance efficiency are probably optimistic and higher 

than most installations, given that stove testing is done under optimal conditions 

where stack properties and air feeds are controlled. The installation of the product 

in less controlled conditions of a specific home will probably result in a combustion 

efficiency value lower than that reported by the manufacturer. 

Impact of climate on home heating—

From north to south, the state of Alaska is a distance of about 1,000 mi. Within 

the state, the mean annual heating degree days using a base of 65 °F, range from 

a low of 6,855 at Annette Island in southeast Alaska to a high of 19,719 degree 

days in Kuparuk, a community on Prudhoe Bay in northern Alaska (ACRC 2009). 

Degree days provide a rough estimate of heating requirements. The values may not, 

however, be directly correlated to energy use for heating, unless the characteristics 

of housing units (size of heated living area, amount of insulation, efficiency of 

heating systems, etc.) in each location are taken into consideration. A poorly 

insulated house in a warmer area with fewer degree days may require more energy 

for heating than a well-insulated house in a colder area with more degree days.

Review of U.S. Census Bureau Data

The federal government conducts a census every 10 years to determine the apportionment of congressional representatives among states. Although the government 

collects the data for apportionment, distribution of federal funds, delineation of 

legislative districts, and other purposes, the information is also available to the 

general public and businesses. The information is especially valuable to businesses 

for use in marketing applications.

A poorly insulated 

house in a warmer 

area with fewer degree 

days may require more 

energy for heating than 

a well-insulated house 

in a colder area with 

more degree days.
9

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

As stated in the objectives, one purpose of this project is to review the current profile of energy used to heat residential homes and commercial businesses 

in Alaska. An important statistic for use in this activity is housing units in census 

tracts. 

Currently, the methods for collecting census housing information are in a state 

of flux as the Census Bureau converts from periodic to continuous systems of data 

collection (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2004, 2005a, 2006a). During the transition 

period, updated estimates of the total number of housing units in Alaska (or any 

state) are available for 2006, but many of the tables for census tracts are not updated 

to reflect these changes. For the purposes of this project, updated census tract 

housing totals for 2006 have been used to update the original 2000 table, based on 

the assumption that change in all units is proportional. This adjustment required 

minimal effort and allowed the authors to proceed with preliminary calculations 

relative to local demand and may have induced minor but insignificant errors in 

the final results.

A map showing the location of Alaska census tracts is presented in figure 1. 

Figure 1—Alaska census tracts (U.S. Census Bureau 2005b). 

0 100 200

North Slope

Nome

Yukon-Koyukuk

Fairbanks

North Star

Southeast

Fairbanks

ValdezCordova

Anchorage

Wade

Hampton

Bethel

Dillingham

Bristol Bay Kenai

Peninsula

Kodiak

Island

Lake and

Peninsula

Aleutians West

Aleutians East

Denali

Haines

SkagwayHoonahAngoon

Juneau

WrangellPetersburg

Ketchikan

Gateway

Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan

Sitka

Yakutat

SkagwayHoonahAngoon

300 Miles

C A N A D A

0 100 200

North Slope

Northwest

Arctic

Nome

Yukon-Koyukuk

Fairbanks

North Star

Southeast

Fairbanks

MatanuskaSusitna ValdezCordova

Anchorage

Wade

Hampton

Bethel

Dillingham

Bristol Bay Kenai

Peninsula

Kodiak

Island

Lake and

Peninsula

Aleutians West

Aleutians East

Denali

Haines

SkagwayHoonahAngoon

Juneau

WrangellPetersburg

Ketchikan

Gateway

Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan

Sitka

Yakutat

SkagwayHoonahAngoon

300 Miles

C A N A D A

o
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

The American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a) also collects 

information relative to home living area, unit age, occupancy, and home ownership. 

In the following sections, the above data may be modified to reflect estimates of 

occupied homes, owner-occupied homes, or other factors. Such modifications have 

been noted as they appear. The profile of energy sources used for home heating on 

a household basis in Alaska from the Census Bureau sources are presented in figure 

2. It shows that natural gas (45 percent) is the primary fuel used for home heating in 

Alaska, and wood is used for heat in 4 percent of the homes. 

Review of Energy Information Agency Data

The EIA State Energy Data System (SEDS) reports energy consumption estimates 

for each state. The basic data on energy sources (EIA 2008a, 2008b) are reported 

in terms of Btu values and units of sale used in the commerce of the United States. 

The conversion factors used to calculate Btu are reported in the technical notes and 

documentation to SEDS (EIA 2008d). The information (EIA 2008a) is reported for 

Figure 2—Fuel used as primary source for home heating in Alaska (2005) based on 

number of reported housing units by Bureau of Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000, 2005a, 2006b).

Distillates and

liquefied 

petroleum

gases, 38% 

Natural gas,

45%

Electricity,

10%

Coal, 1%

Wood, 

4% Other, 1%

None, 1%

Natural gas (45 percent) 

is the primary fuel 

used for home heating 

in Alaska, and wood 

is used for heat in 4 

percent of the homes. 
11

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

the following sectors of the economy: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric power. The profile of Btu usage for Alaska’s residential sector 

based on EIA energy sources are reported in figure 3. The overall breakdown is 

similar to that shown in figure 2, with natural gas having the highest percentage 

(46) and biomass (or wood and wood-derived fuels) at 7 percent.

The EIA data (fig. 3) report the energy profile for all residential uses (heating, 

appliances operation, lighting, and others). The Census Bureau data (fig. 2) report 

the profile for heating based on number of households. The definition used by 

EIA to define the residential sector does not correspond directly with the Census 

Bureau-defined sector. The major difference between the two classification systems 

is that EIA considers multiunit apartment buildings as part of the commercial 

sector, whereas the Census Bureau considers these units as part of the residential 

component. Given the rural nature of Alaska, however, it is considered a minor 

problem.

Figure 3—Energy use in the residential sector of Alaska (2005) based on British 

thermal unit values. Biomass includes wood and wood-derived fuels (EIA 2008a).

Distillates and

liquefied 

petroleum

gases, 27% 

Natural gas,

46%

Electricity,

18%

Coal, 2%

Other, 0%

Biomass, 7%
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Table 3 presents the profile of energy use for Alaska. With respect to forms of 

fuel used, the Alaska energy profile can be characterized as one where over twice 

the volume of natural gas (54.3 percent vs. 22.6 percent) and less than one-tenth the 

volume of coal (1.8 percent vs. 22.7 percent) are used compared to national averages 

(EIA 2008a). The energy profile also shows that an unusually high percentage of jet 

fuel is used in Alaska (22.7 percent of state energy use as opposed to a 3.5 percent 

average nationally) (EIA 2008a). Table 3 also shows the power generated from 

fossil fuels that is assigned to the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as 

reported by the EIA. In the EIA tables (EIA 2008a), total energy use is reported, and 

to prevent double accounting, fuel oil, natural gas, and coal used to generate electricity are assigned to the electrical sector. This material is converted to electricity and 

sold to the other sectors. The adjusted table accounts for all the energy consumed 

by those three sectors, including power generated by thermo mechanical systems 

(electricity generated by using fossil fuel). 

One final comment about the EIA data: EIA energy values are derived from 

sales data and other sources. The survey methods for collecting estimates of wood 

consumed within the state are in part derived by combining Census Bureau and EIA 

survey information (EIA 2008d).

Additional Data

The Alaska Housing Manual (AHFC 2000) provides specific information relative 

to existing heating systems used in Alaska. This source reports that forced-air 

furnaces are very popular in the Anchorage-Valley area of Alaska, but fairly rare in 

other areas of the state. In other regions of Alaska, hydronic heating systems with 

baseboards or radiant floor systems are the standard. This source makes reference to 

space heaters produced by Toyo, Monitor, and Rinnai,3 but provides no information 

relative to level of use. 

In 2007, the FEDC completed a survey to assess community and consumer interest in use of pellet fuel (Robb 2007). Respondents were from the three major population areas of the state, including greater Fairbanks, central Alaska (Anchorage, 

Valley, and Kenai), and southeast Alaska. Survey questions were designed to collect 

information relative to current fuel types being used, current levels of energy use in 

both primary and secondary systems, fuel price, and the characteristics of existing 

wood-burning equipment. The updated Census Bureau household information can 

be used with FEDC survey data to obtain updated estimates of volumes of renewable 

wood energy being used for secondary heating in the various regions of Alaska. 

3 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. 

The Alaska energy 

profile can be characterized as one 

where over twice the 

volume of natural gas 

(54.3 percent vs. 22.6 

percent) and less than 

one-tenth the volume 

of coal (1.8 percent vs. 

22.7 percent) are used 

compared to national 

averages.
13

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Table 3—Sources of energy consumed by various segments of the Alaska economy, 2005

Alaska Residential Commercial Industrial Transport Electric

Source distribution sector sector sector sectora power Total

Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Trillion Btu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Asphalt/roads 0.2 0 0 1.2 0 0 1.2

Aviation .2 0 0 0 1.4 0 1.4

Biomass .4 2.8 0.5 0.1 0 0 3.4

Coal 1.8 0.7 7.2 0 0 6.1 14.0

Distillate fuel 9.2 9.4 5.9 11.1 43.7 3.1 73.2

Ethanol 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

Hydroelectric 1.8 5.1 6.7 2.8 0 0 14.6

Jet fuel 22.7 0 0 0 181.1 0 181.1

Kerosene 0 .2 0 0 0 0 .2

Liquefied petroleum gas .1 .8 .1 0 0 0 .9

Lubricants .1 0 0 .1 .5 0 .6

Motor gas 4.5 0 .9 .5 34.3 0 35.7

Natural gas 54.3 18.1 16.9 356.7 2.7 39.5 433.9

Other .0 .1 .1 0 0 0 .2

Other petroleum 4.3 0 0 34.3 0 0 34.3

Residual fuel .6 0 0 0 .1 4.4 4.5

 Totalb 100 37.2 38.3 406.8 264.3 53.1 799.7

Fossil electricity consumed 1.9 2.5 1.10

 Total energy consumption 39.1 40.8 407.9

Electricity sold to sectorc 7.0 (34.8%) 9.2 (45.8%) 3.9 (19.4%) 20.1 (100%)

a

 Includes passenger vehicles.

b

 This total does not take into account transfers of electricity from the power sector to the other sectors. Thus, electricity from the power sector was 

added to the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors to account for all the energy consumed by those sectors. 

c

 Electricity sold in Alaska is generated both by hydro sources and fossil fuel plants. The generation of electricity from fossil fuels is very inefficient. 

Fossil fuels consumed by the electric power sector are converted to electricity and sold to the other sectors. Minor amounts of electricity are utilized by 

the electric power sector and the amounts of energy leaving the generating plants are subject to transmission loss, prior to being sold to the various other 

sectors of the Alaska economy. 

Btu = British thermal unit.

Note: The table contains rounding errors owing to the energy amounts in the source being in units of 1 trillion Btu.

Source: EIA 2008a: tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

The FEDC survey represented information supplied by homeowners, a subset 

of total housing units. The reported usage of the major source of energy (fuel oil in 

Fairbanks and natural gas in Anchorage) for home heating was higher than those 

reported for all housing units in the Census Bureau housing survey. This trend in 

the data suggests that the source of heating energy for rental units may differ from 

that of owned units. The authors were unable to locate any data relative to rental 

units that would confirm this speculation.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Estimates of Current Use of RWEP for Home Heating

in Alaska

Combining the data from the Census Bureau, EIA, and FEDC allows calculation 

of the volumes of wood currently being used for primary and secondary heating in 

Alaska census tracts. This was accomplished by using a three-stage process. First, 

Census Bureau 2000 data were updated by using 2006 Census QuickFacts (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2006b) data to reflect the number of housing units using distillate 

fuels (fuel oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas) for heating. The housing 

numbers were adjusted by removing all apartment units that were in buildings with 

five or more units. The housing units were also adjusted to reflect occupancy (half 

of unoccupied units were considered as unheated) and the smaller size of mobile 

homes (half of mobile homes were subtracted). This provided an adjusted estimate 

of the number of household units in each census track that were using distillate 

fuels. 

Second, by using the EIA energy values (EIA 2008a) for residential use of 

distillate fuels and the adjusted number of housing units from step 1, average Btu 

usage for a unit was calculated. Given the temperature extremes that exist in the 

state, the authors were reluctant to apply this average to the census tracts without 

some weighting factor to account for the increased number of heating days and 

severity of winters in northern areas of the state. 

The energy required to heat a house for a winter season is based on a combination of factors (e.g., quality of construction and insulation, size of the living area 

being heated, severity of the climate, fuel used, efficiency of the heating system), 

but a complete analysis of all of these factors was beyond the scope of this project. 

To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that all of these factors, other than climate, 

would be averaged. The impact of climate would be reflected by degree days using 

65 °F as the basis (ACRC 2009). 

Third, by using information from the Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC 

2009), the census tracts were assigned a reported degree-day value for a community within each census tract. Given that airports have a constant need for current 

weather information, an attempt was made to use airport locations whenever possible. If an airport location was not reported, a named community was used. 

Given an estimate of the number of housing units and a weighting value to 

account for climate, the average house Btu value from step 2 was prorated to each 

census tract by using the number of housing units times number of degree days. 

The resulting estimates of annual Btu requirement for heating are presented in table 

4. It shows the average for the state as almost 113 million Btu per home.
15

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Table 4—Annual British thermal units (Btu) required for home heating in Alaska 

areas defined by Census Bureau tracts (derived from usage of distillate fuels) 

Equivalent number

Region Borough/census area of housing units Btu per home

AA Aleutians S. Borough 544 96,125,892

Aleutians W. Borough 1,386 89,504,797

Nome 2,786 136,762,610

North Slope Borough 895 195,772,366

Northwest Arctic Borough 1,825 155,655,733

Wade Hampton Census Area 1,686 127,711,114

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 2,135 146,074,149

 Total and average 11,257 137,140,799

GA Anchorage 3,940 104,717,312

Kenai Peninsula 10,213 111,828,488

Matanuska-Susitna 9,080 106,087,539

Valdez-Cordova 3,226 94,485,621

 Total and average 26,460 106,684,892

GF Denali 806 131,081,671

Fairbanks North Star 19,922 139,823,116

Southeast Fairbanks 1,757 148,144,492

 Total and average 22,485 140,159,841

SE Haines 873 86,394,283

Juneau 7,083 85,754,177

Ketchikan 4,072 71,561,831

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan 1,800 71,561,831

Sitka 2,432 72,241,943

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon 1,515 86,444,291

Wrangell-Petersburg 2,298 77,072,742

Yakutat 347 92,395,275

 Total and average 20,421 79,278,059

SW Bethel 4,180 127,711,114

Bristol Bay 633 111,058,360

Dillingham 1,749 114,078,860

Kodiak Island 3,892 88,634,653

Lake and Peninsula 1,029 111,058,360

 Total and average 11,483 109,980,779

State Total and average 92,106 112,913,618

Note: AA = Aleutians and Arctic, GA = greater Anchorage, GF = greater Fairbanks, SE = southeast, and 

SW = southwest.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Estimated volumes of firewood consumed annually in Alaska were based on 

household Btu values derived from EIA, Census Bureau, and expanded FEDC data. 

The results for the major population centers in the state are reported in table 5. In 

the calculations, the Btu value assigned to the firewood assumed that the material 

had a moisture content of 50 percent and it was burned in a unit with a combustion 

efficiency of 60 percent. Using procedures outlined in Briggs (1994), such material 

would produce approximately 2,550 Btu/lb. The weight of the same material dried 

to 20 percent moisture content would be approximately 62 percent of green weight 

and have approximately a recoverable Btu value of 5,000 Btu/lb.

Table 5—Estimated volumes of firewood consumed annually in Alaskaa

Number of Number of Total volume

homes using homes using of primary

wood as Primary Primary Primary wood as Secondary and

primary heat, heat, heat, secondary heat source secondary

Region source of heat firewood green wood green wood source of heat volumesb usage

Pounds Tons Cords Cords Cords

Aleutians and Arctic 1,337 75,541,179 37,771 15,108 2,612 5,225 20,333

Greater Anchorage 3,578 144,385,804 72,193 28,877 18,103 36,205 65,082

Greater Fairbanks 1,590 88,923,133 44,462 17,785 4,755 9,510 27,295

Southeast 1,698 52,098,096 26,049 10,420 3,894 7,787 18,207

Southwest 430 20,066,712 10,033 4,013 1,863 3,726 7,739

 Total 8,632 381,014,924 190,507 76,203 31,227 62,453 138,656

a

 Based on household British thermal unit values derived from Energy Information Administration distillate fuels, Census Bureau housing data, and 

expanded Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) survey volumes. It was assumed that the firewood had a moisture content of 50 

percent and it was burned in a unit with a combustion efficiency of 60 percent, producing about 2,550 Btu/lb.

b

 Based on FEDC pellet fuel survey, with a median value of two cords per owner-occupied housing unit. The Aleutians and Arctic, and Southwest 

census tracts were not included in the FEDC survey. The secondary use percentage from Greater Fairbanks was applied to the Aleutian and Arctic 

region and the Southeast rate to the Southwest region to obtain the estimates above. No estimate for secondary firewood use in rental units is included.

Note: All green weights have been converted to cords based on a factor of 2.5 tons per cord. Use of this factor will underestimate softwood volumes 

and overestimate hardwood volumes. 

Sources: EIA 2008a; Robb 2007; U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2006b.

Given the above procedures and conversion factors, it is estimated that there are 

8,632 homes using wood as the primary source of heat in Alaska (table 5). The total 

volume of firewood used annually as the primary source of heating is 76,203 cords. 

Given the FEDC survey, it was also possible to estimate the number of homes 

(31,227 units) and volume of firewood (53,502 cords) used in secondary heating. 

In total, it is estimated that about 138,656 cords of wood are used as a primary and 

secondary source of heat in Alaska. It might be assumed that the firewood removals 

from the Alaska forests are equal to the same number. This, however, is not necessarily the case. The relationship between volume used and harvest is discussed later 

in this report. 

An estimated 8,632 

homes in Alaska

use wood as their 

primary source of 

heat. The total volume 

of firewood used 

annually for heating 

is 76,203 cords. 
17

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Cost Comparison for Alternative Energy Sources

From the consumer’s point of view, any economic assessment of fuels and sources 

of energy must provide an answer to the basic question, “What will each alternative 

cost?” There are two components of cost. First is the cost of purchasing equipment 

(fixed costs) for a specific fuel option and second is the cost for annual maintenance 

and the fuel itself (variable). Although the question seems simple, the process of 

developing the answer, given the maze of measurement units used in the commerce 

of fossil and renewable forms of energy, is complex. 

Given the hydroscopic nature of wood, an understanding of moisture content 

and its impact on recoverable energy is critical to this report. It must be recognized 

that all fuels (e.g., coal, gas, oil, and wood) may include moisture that must be 

removed in the combustion process. In gas and oil, the moisture content is most 

commonly minimal and the efficiency of the burning equipment itself results in a 

loss of energy available for heating or powering a process. The most logical way 

to compare cost of alternative sources of energy is to compare the cost of the Btu 

recoverable from each product. In this project, the recoverable Btu value of selected 

alternative sources of energy were calculated to show the break-even price that 

could be paid for the alternative. 

The commerce of wood and the units of measurements therein are poorly 

understood by the general public. Many individuals in the forest products industry 

are just becoming exposed to the conversion factors and evaluation of biomassrelated energy products. In many areas, costs for purchasing standing trees, harvesting, and delivery to mills is readily available. In such locations, mills procuring 

wood advertise prices they are willing to pay for specific species and products. In 

many heavily forested states, information relative to standing timber and delivered values of forest products are collected and published by university extension 

agencies and state-supported marketing programs. Such is not the case in Alaska. 

Another complication associated with Alaska is that almost all of the timber harvest 

in the region processed by sawmills is of high quality and large size. The mills 

produce residual products (chips, sawdust, bark, or mixtures thereof) that can be 

used as a source of energy, but Alaska lacks mills that process timber directly from 

the round-log form to fiber. Given these Alaska-related problems, the following is 

a review of timber economics in general. It has been assumed that harvesting for 

energy products would require low-quality logs. Generally available information 

from Oregon (ODF 2009), an area whose conditions and timber species are somewhat comparable to those of southeast Alaska, has been used to develop a hypothetical minimum price for low-grade logs and young growth harvested in Alaska. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

An explanation of selling prices of wood can best be reviewed by commonly 

relating them to the following two situations. In the first case, a landowner that 

owns standing timber may sell the material to a logger or mill as standing timber. 

In this instance, the value of the wood is referred to as “stumpage value.” The 

logger or the mill owner has the right to enter onto the land, harvest the timber, 

and deliver it to the mill. The logger pays the landowner for the value of timber 

harvested, or “stumpage.” The costs of harvesting and transportation to the mill are 

not included in the “stumpage value.” In Alaska, stumpage may be purchased from 

the U.S. Forest Service, several state agencies, Native landowners, and occasionally 

in small volumes from private landowners. 

Moving along the chain of commerce to the mill owner that produces products 

from logs, the cost of the material delivered to the mill includes the stumpage value, 

all in-woods harvesting costs, cost of trucking or transportation to the mill, and any 

overhead costs for management, supervision, and scaling of material. The delivered 

cost is synonymous with the term “pond value.” 4 An excellent explanation of various log values is available at the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Web site 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF.

It is certain that costs and prices in Alaska will be higher than anything 

reported from the ODF (2009) site. But as an example, the average pond price 

for low-grade logs in the fourth quarter of 2008 from this source (ODF 2009) is 

reviewed. The average price for 46 sales of low-grade western hemlock and spruce 

(Picea spp.) logs was calculated as $271 per thousand board feet (mbf). A review of 

selected sales from state lands for the same period indicated a woods-run stumpage 

price for all grades of spruce logs of approximately $100/mbf and slightly less than 

$50/mbf for hemlock. As stated, this is an average price for all harvested grades. 

The prorated stumpage value for low-grade logs could be 25 to 50 percent of the 

average values. If these prices are applied to the pond price, dollar amounts paid 

by the mill owner would be distributed in the following manner, assuming the 

end product was low-grade hemlock. Approximately $25/mbf would be paid to the 

landowner to cover the cost of the wood. An amount of $232.50/mbf would be paid 

to the contractor delivering the logs to cover harvesting, trucking, in-woods supervision, and hopefully some amount for profit and risk. A small amount, estimated at 

approximately 5 percent for the purposes of this example or $13.50/mbf, would go 

to cover the cost of scaling and yard handling. 

4

 The term “pond value” is a holdover from the days when logs were stored in water once 

delivered to the mill. Water-stored logs were protected against log-boring insects and, in the 

days before mechanized equipment, easy to move from storage by floating them to the mill.
19

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Firewood is traditionally sold by the cord and the final question that must be 

addressed is, “Given a pond price of $271/mbf, what would be the value per cord?” 

First, the material purchased at the stated rates is low grade and tends to be in logs 

with small scaling diameters (less than 12-in diameter) and the ratio of cords to 

thousand board feet in such material is high. The ratio is also extremely sensitive 

to the length of the scaled logs. Based on experience and data from two younggrowth projects conducted by the Alaska Wood Utilization Center5 (Brackley et al. 

2009b, Nicholls and Brackley 2009), the conversion factor could range from 2.5 to 

4.5 cords/mbf of scaled material. The cord price for this range would be between 

$108.40 and $60.22 per cord of unprocessed wood (not cut to length or split). 

Table 6 presents information relative to the dollar value of a therm of energy (a 

therm is defined as 100,000 Btu of energy) from various alternative fuels. In table 

7, the value of selected RWEP (green cords, dry cords, tons of green material, tons 

of dry material, and tons of pellets) is shown based on the dollars per therm from 

alternative sources. The tables have been prepared so the reader can reference the 

costs of the alternatives in terms of the commonly utilized units of measurement. 

To interpret the tables, using fuel oil as an example, if the price per gallon is $4.00, 

5 Nicholls, D.; Brackley, A.M. 2008. House log drying rates in southeast Alaska for covered 

and uncovered softwood logs. Unpublished data. On file with: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development 

Center, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.

Table 6—Value of selected energy alternatives based on assigned value (dollars) per therm of energy

Assigned value of 1 therm of energya

Energy alternative

(unit) $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25 $3.50 $3.75 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

Dollars per unit

Fuel oil (gallon) 2.77 3.12 3.47 3.81 4.16 4.51 4.85 5.20 5.55 6.93 8.32

Propane (gallon) 1.72 1.94 2.15 2.37 2.59 2.80 3.02 3.23 3.45 4.31 5.17

Natural gas (Mcf) 20.60 23.18 25.75 28.33 30.90 33.48 36.05 38.63 41.20 51.50 61.80

Electricity (kW) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.20

Wood pellets (ton) 340 383 425 468 510 553 595 638 680 850 1,020

Wood 50%MC (cord) 425 478 531 584 638 691 744 797 850 1,063 1,275

Wood 20%MC (cord) 425 478 531 584 638 691 744 797 850 1,063 1,275

Wood 50%MC (ton) 170 191 213 234 255 276 298 319 340 425 510

Wood 20%MC (ton) 272 306 340 374 408 442 476 510 544 680 816

a

 A therm of energy equals 100,000 British thermal units (Btu). Given the assigned value per therm, each row presents the dollar value of an alternative 

fuel in terms of the units commonly used in commerce as the basis for selling and purchasing the energy product. The values in each column represent 

the maximum price that a consumer can pay for the alternative. If the market price for an alternative is lower than the listed value, there is an economic 

incentive for the consumer to change to that energy source. When considering changes in energy source, the consumer must also take into consideration 

the cost (investment) for equipment upgrades and the conversion efficiency of the alternative.

Note: All references to moisture content (MC) are green basis. The recoverable Btu from a volume of wood is constant over a range of moisture contents. 

As a volume of wood dries, the weight of the material decreases but the gross heating value (GHV) of the material increases. Weight × GHV = a constant 

value.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Table 7—Dollar value of British thermal units (Btu) in selected renewable wood energy products based on 

Btu value of alternative sources of energy

Alternative source of You can pay

Wood fuel and burning equipment characteristic energy to be replaced up to:

Burning Heating Adjusted cost Cost per unit

Moisture unit Recoverable unit for recoverable to replace

Unit of commerce content efficiency energy Cost efficiency energy alternative

Dollars

- - - Percent - - - Therma per therm Percent - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - -

Fuel oil at $2.00 per gallon:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 1.44 85 1.70 180

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 1.44 85 1.70 180

Green ton 50 80 68.0 1.44 85 1.70 115

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 1.44 85 1.70 115

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 1.44 85 1.70 185

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 1.44 85 1.70 216

Fuel oil at $4.00 per gallon:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 2.88 85 3.39 361

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 2.88 85 3.39 361

Green ton 50 80 68.0 2.88 85 3.39 231

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 2.88 85 3.39 231

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 2.88 85 3.39 369

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 2.88 85 3.39 432

Natural gas at $10 per thousand cubic feet:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 0.97 90 1.08 115

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 0.97 90 1.08 115

Green ton 50 80 68.0 0.97 90 1.08 73

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 0.97 90 1.08 73

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 0.97 90 1.08 118

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 0.97 90 1.08 137

Natural gas at $15 per thousand cubic feet:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 1.46 90 1.62 172

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 1.46 90 1.62 172

Green ton 50 80 68.0 1.46 90 1.62 110

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 1.46 90 1.62 110

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 1.46 90 1.62 176

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 1.46 90 1.62 206

Electricity at $0.10 per kilowatthour:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 2.93 90 3.26 346

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 2.93 90 3.26 346

Green ton 50 80 170.0 2.93 90 3.26 554

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 2.93 90 3.26 221

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 2.93 90 3.26 354

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 2.93 90 3.26 414

Electricity at $0.15 per kilowatthour:

Green cord 50 50 106.3 4.40 90 4.88 519

Dry cord 20 50 106.3 4.40 90 4.88 519

Green ton 50 80 170.0 4.40 90 4.88 830

Dry ton 20 50 68.0 4.40 90 4.88 332

Dry ton 20 80 108.8 4.40 90 4.88 531

Pellets ton 6.5 80 127.2 4.40 90 4.88 621

a

 A therm is a term used to describe 100,000 British thermal units of energy.
21

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

then the value per therm (100,000 Btu) is $2.88 (see table 7). If the fuel were burned 

in a unit that was 85 percent efficient, the cost per therm would be adjusted to 

$3.39. The value of a cord of wood at 50 percent moisture content, burned in a stove 

with 50 percent efficiency, would provide 106.3 therms of energy. Based on the cost 

of $3.39 per Btu for oil, a person could pay up to $361 for a cord of wood to replace 

oil at $4.00/gal (see table 7). Interpretation of the data at this point will depend on 

the self-motivation of the individual user and their willingness to invest in equipment and cut, transport, and split wood. A willing user that has a source of wood 

on the stump can reduce energy cost to a fraction of the above amounts. 

Given the above analysis, a landowner or logger in the business of selling 

firewood can charge up to the stated amount of the alternative for cut-to-length and 

split material and be competitive with the alternative. If they can reduce their price 

to less than the above amount and are satisfied with the profit margin, they have a 

competitive advantage over the alternative at the stated price. The lower the price, 

the more competitive they become and the more incentive the user has to make an 

investment in new heating equipment (capital costs required to replace fuel systems 

with RWEP could be very high) to convert from the alternative to RWEP. If the cost 

of delivering the material to a wood processing yard is $108.40, the high end of the 

estimated delivered cost, there is still a tremendous opportunity ($252.60 obtained 

by subtracting the $108.40 per cord price for delivery to the wood yard from $361 

alternative cost of oil) to make a profit from the activity. 

Potential Demand for RWEP for Home Heating in Alaska

Given this analysis, it is concluded that at $3.00/gal for fuel oil there is a price 

incentive for users of distillate fuels to convert to RWEP. With recent electricity 

prices over $0.10/kWh, there is also a price incentive for consumers using this 

form of energy to convert. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the 

maximum potential is in fact best defined as the Btu level used by consumers using 

distillate fuels. Estimates of the maximum potential volumes of RWEP that might 

be required annually to meet this level of demand are shown in table 8.

In table 8, the 2006 updated Census Bureau data have been adjusted so that the 

number of housing units more closely corresponds to the EIA-defined residential 

sector. The adjustments are the same as reviewed previously in the report. Data 

for EIA residential distillate fuel use was then prorated to the number of housing 

units, weighted by the number of degree days for a named location in the census 

tract. Once the census tract distillate Btu value was available, it was converted 

to an equivalent Btu of RWEP assuming that the wood was dried to 20 percent 

moisture content and burned at a combustion efficiency of 60 percent. Any stimulus 

At $3.00/gal for fuel 

oil, there is a price 

incentive for users 

of distillate fuels to 

convert to renewable 

wood energy products.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Table 8—Annual volume of wood or pellets required to replace distillate fuel used in residential and 

commercial sectors in Alaska census tracts

Residential and

Residential sector only commercial sector

Pellet raw Pellet raw

Adjusted Total material if material if

number of distillate Green Green Wood used for Green used for

Borough/census area housing units use wooda woodb pelletsc dryingd woode dryingd

Therms f Tons Cords Tons - - - - - - - - - Cords - - - - - - - - -

Aleutians S. Borough 544 523,069 10,256 4,103 4,387 5,331 6,687 8,689

Aleutians W. Borough 1,386 1,240,670 24,327 9,731 10,407 12,644 15,861 20,610

Nome 2,786 3,809,589 74,698 29,879 31,954 38,824 48,703 63,284

North Slope Borough 895 1,751,248 34,338 13,735 14,689 17,847 22,389 29,091

Northwest Arctic Borough 1,825 2,840,027 55,687 22,275 23,822 28,943 36,308 47,178

Wade Hampton Census Area 1,686 2,153,769 42,231 16,892 18,065 21,950 27,534 35,778

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 2,135 3,119,137 61,160 24,464 26,163 31,788 39,876 51,814

 Total 11,257 15,437,508 302,696 121,078 129,488 157,327 197,358 256,444

Anchorage 3,940 4,126,350 80,909 32,364 34,611 42,053 52,753 68,546

Kenai Peninsula 10,213 11,421,265 223,946 89,579 95,800 116,397 146,013 189,727

Matanuska-Susitna 9,080 9,632,864 188,880 75,552 80,799 98,171 123,150 160,019

Valdez-Cordova 3,226 3,048,145 59,768 23,907 25,567 31,064 38,968 50,635

 Total 26,460 28,228,624 553,502 221,401 236,778 287,685 360,884 468,926

Denali 806 1,056,854 20,723 8,289 8,865 10,771 13,511 17,556

Fairbanks North Star 19,922 27,855,719 546,191 218,476 233,650 283,884 356,116 462,732

Southeast Fairbanks 1,757 2,602,632 51,032 20,413 21,830 26,524 33,273 43,234

 Total 22,485 31,515,204 617,945 247,178 264,345 321,179 402,900 523,522

Haines 873 754,220 14,789 5,915 6,326 7,686 9,642 12,529

Juneau 7,083 6,074,363 119,105 47,642 50,951 61,905 77,657 100,906

Ketchikan 4,072 2,914,291 57,143 22,857 24,445 29,700 37,257 48,411

Prince Wales–Outer Ketchikan 1,800 1,288,390 25,263 10,105 10,807 13,130 16,471 21,402

Sitka 2,432 1,756,925 34,450 13,780 14,737 17,905 22,461 29,186

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon 1,515 1,309,491 25,676 10,271 10,984 13,345 16,741 21,753

Wrangell-Petersburg 2,298 1,770,807 34,722 13,889 14,853 18,047 22,639 29,416

Yakutat 347 320,715 6,289 2,515 2,690 3,268 4,100 5,328

 Total 20,421 16,189,201 317,435 126,974 135,793 164,988 206,968 268,931

Bethel 4,180 5,338,865 104,684 41,873 44,782 54,410 68,254 88,688

Bristol Bay 633 703,116 13,787 5,515 5,898 7,166 8,989 11,680

Dillingham 1,749 1,995,090 39,119 15,648 16,735 20,332 25,506 33,142

Kodiak Island 3,892 3,449,628 67,640 27,056 28,935 35,156 44,101 57,304

Lake and Peninsula 1,029 1,142,763 22,407 8,963 9,585 11,646 14,609 18,983

 Total 11,483 12,629,462 247,637 99,055 105,934 128,710 161,459 209,797

Total all 92,106 104,000,000 2,039,216 815,686 872,337 1,059,889 1,329,569 1,727,620

a

 At a combustion efficiency of 60 percent.

b At 2.5 tons per cord.

c

 At a moisture content of 6.5 percent and a combustion efficiency of 75 percent.

d

 When part of the raw material is used as an energy source for drying, raw material requirement is increased by up to 25 percent.

e

 Calculated by multiplying the residential amount by 1.63 (multiplier is ratio of commercial oil use in relation to residential oil use; 

from EIA data (EIA 2008a)).

f

 A therm is a term used to describe 100,000 British thermal units of energy.
23

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

that would increase the combustion efficiency of the burning units will reduce 

the required replacement volumes. British thermal unit equivalent of wood pellets 

was based on a moisture content of 6.5 percent and a combustion efficiency of 75 

percent. This efficiency is slightly less than levels quoted by pellet stove vendors 

and, again, a higher level of efficiency would result in a decrease in the replacement 

volume.

Given the above adjustments, it was estimated that the maximum potential 

annual demand for RWEP to replace distillate fuels for heating in the residential 

sector of Alaska is about 815,000 cords of green wood or about 872,000 tons of 

wood pellets (see table 8). If all of the liquid fuels used by the residential and 

commercial sectors in Alaska were converted to solid wood energy, it is estimated 

that 1.3 million cords of green wood would be required annually. With respect to 

wood pellets, a portion of the raw material delivered to the mill is often burned and 

used to dry the remaining material. Use of part of the raw material as an energy 

source for drying will increase raw material requirements up to 25 percent. The 

seventh and ninth columns in table 8 provide an estimate of the volume of material that would be required to produce pellets including material used for drying. 

The estimated volume of wood that would satisfy the potential demand for wood 

pellets is about 1.06 million cords of material for the residential sector and about 

1.73 million cords of material for both the residential and commercial sectors. This 

level of RWEP use would represent less than 40 percent of the highest harvest level 

reported by the Alaska timber industry (Brackley et al. 2009a).

Although table 8 provides potential demand in terms of firewood and pellets, in 

reality, a portion of the market will be captured by each product. In this report, the 

demand is based on replaceable fossil fuel Btu. As each product (firewood, pellets, 

compressed logs, chips, etc.) enters the market, the remaining volume required from 

other entries is based on the remaining required Btu. In the future, liquid fossil fuel 

may also be replaced by liquid bio products.

Discussion

Replacement Based on Economics

The conversion among the various sources of energy, especially RWEP, is complex 

and price itself may not be the limiting factor. Natural gas and electric heating 

systems are compact and can be used in almost any building. Systems that use 

fuel oil and other petroleum-base products require tanks, but the space required 

for tanks is minor. In some areas of extreme cold, these tanks must be located in a 

partially heated area. On the other hand, renewable wood energy products require 

The conversion among 

various sources of 

energy, especially 

renewable wood energy 

products, is complex, 

and price itself may not 

be the limiting factor.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

considerable storage areas and handling. A year’s supply of firewood (assuming 

up to 8 cords) will require up to 1,100 ft3 of space (i.e., a building with a floor area 

of 14 by 14 ft if the wood is piled 6 ft high). Ideally, this storage area should be 

covered but of sufficient size to allow ventilation to promote drying. In most coastal 

areas of Alaska, the lowest moisture content resulting from air drying will be 15 to 

16 percent green basis. Slightly lower moisture contents may be attained in inland 

areas such as Fairbanks. 

One year’s supply of wood pellets (6 tons) would require floor area of approximately 100 ft2

 stacked to delivered pallet height. During the heating season, the 

user must be willing to frequently move fuel from storage to the area where it will 

be used. Much of the extra work associated with RWEP can be minimized when 

constructing new homes, designed from the start to utilize these sources of energy, 

and assuming the evolution of an industry to efficiently deliver the product. Many 

existing homes, especially in areas of higher population density, were designed for 

use with fossil fuels or electricity, and this may restrict conversion opportunities. 

Table 7 identifies some of the realities when considering replacement of fossil 

energy sources with RWEP in Alaska. First, given the price for natural gas in the 

Anchorage-Valley area, there is little price incentive to convert from this source of 

energy. Natural gas is one of the cleaner burning nonrenewable fossil fuels and in 

any system to tax carbon, will receive the most favorable treatment of any of the 

fossil fuels. 

The lowest cost for electricity in the populated areas of the state is approximately $0.10/kWh. Electricity produced by hydro, wind, and solar sources is a very 

clean form of energy. Electricity produced from fossil fuels, however, is a totally 

different situation. In general, the Btu input of liquid fossil fuel to produce electricity is roughly three times the energy of the resulting electricity. The impact of this 

is felt in small rural communities where electricity has traditionally been supplied 

by diesel-powered generators. In such communities, it is not uncommon to find 

electricity prices of $0.30/kWh or more (AEA 2008). According to EIA (2008c) 

data, 18 percent of the energy used by the residential sector in Alaska is from 

electricity. Available census data (U.S. Census Bureau 2006b) indicate that only 10 

percent of the Alaska housing units are heated with electricity. Even at the lowest 

prices for this source of energy, there is an economic incentive to convert to various 

RWEPs if the housing can be modified to provide fuel storage.

Twenty-seven percent of the energy used by the residential sector in Alaska 

is in the distillate fuels (fuel oil and liquefied petroleum) (see fig. 3). Thirty-eight 

percent of the housing units are heated with these fuels (see fig. 2). Based on table 

7, at a fuel oil price of $2.00/gal the economic incentive to convert to RWEP is 

A year’s supply of 

firewood (assuming up 

to 8 cords) will require 

up to 1,100 ft3 of space 

(i.e., a building with a 

floor area of 14 by 14 ft 

if the wood is piled 6 ft 

high). 

In general, the Btu 

input of liquid fossil 

fuel to produce 

electricity is roughly 

three times the 

energy of the 

resulting electricity.
25

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

minimal, unless the user has a source of standing timber or material that can be 

converted to firewood using “sweat equity.” At a price of $2.00/gal there is little 

opportunity for a fuel dealer to make a profit from RWEP sales. Although not listed 

in table 7, the interpolated value of a cord of green wood at $3.00/gal of fuel oil is 

$270. At this price, the users of “sweat equity” and fuel dealers are both enabled. 

At prices above $3.00/gal, there is an obvious economic incentive for homeowners 

to convert, as the cost saving for RWEP is sufficient to cover the capital costs for 

converting oil burning equipment to RWEP equipment.

Energy Sources Most Likely To Be Replaced by RWEP

As stated in the “Introduction,” replacement of traditional sources of energy for 

home heating and conversion to RWEP will be a function of a number of factors. 

The ultimate objectives of this project are to determine initial estimates of the 

potential volumes that are candidates for replacement and provide an introduction 

to some of the factors that will impact the rate of replacement and the ultimate 

amount of replacement.

In addition to identification of factors, there are many questions relative to how 

the factors will interact to promulgate change. It is certain that conversion to RWEP 

will take place over a period of years. The Alaska Housing Manual (AHFC 2000) 

reported that the most common heating system used in the Anchorage-Valley region 

were centralized, gas fired, hot air systems. In other areas of the state, centralized 

oil fired hydronic systems are the norm. In new home construction or in upgrades 

of heating systems, it is possible to integrate fossil fuels and RWEP into a common 

air or water distribution system. Burners that incorporate oil, solid wood, or pellets 

in one integrated unit or as two independent units are available. There would be 

more incentive to install multifuel systems where high-priced sources of energy 

are used. In the long term, transparent (i.e., requiring relatively minor changes to 

burner system and fuel delivery method) conversion to liquid RWEP is an option 

for homeowners with fuel-oil based systems. It is more likely, however, that most 

of the initial conversion to RWEP will involve increased use of space heaters and 

fireplace inserts, thus reducing the dependence on the high-cost energy alternatives. 

Sources of Renewable Wood Energy Material

Some individuals may assume that conversion and utilization of RWEP in accordance with the previously stated numbers will result in a cord-for-cord increase in 

the harvest levels from the forests of the state. For many reasons, however, this is 

not the case. A complete analysis and statement of the reasons why the assumption 

is incorrect is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few comments are appropriate.

The ultimate objectives 

of this project are 

to determine initial 

estimates of the 

potential volumes 

that are candidates 

for replacement and 

provide an introduction 

to some of the factors 

that will impact the rate 

of replacement and 

the ultimate amount of 

replacement.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

First, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) Program is charged by Congress with maintaining an inventory of 

timber volumes in the forest (public and private) of the United States. Trees defined 

as timber include stems that can currently be harvested into saw logs, those that 

have the potential to grow into logs at some future date, and trees that owing to 

poor form (i.e., they are crooked) or rot, cannot produce a saw log. By definition, 

growth takes place only on the growing-stock trees—those that currently are suitable for producing saw logs or have the potential to grow into saw logs. Given these 

definitions, if a tree that does not include a saw log or have the potential to grow 

into a saw log is removed from the woods and used, the removal has no impact on 

growth as defined by the FIA. In the past, timber volumes have been defined in 

terms of merchantability standards. The standards of the past excluded material in 

tops and limbs left in the woods from the inventoried timber volumes. Tops, limbs, 

rough and rotten trees, and trees below standards of merchantability, however, can 

all be harvested for fiber and converted into energy products.

Also, residual products such as slabs, edgings, or sawdust from saw logs can 

be converted into energy products and the use of residuals does not result in any 

increase in the number of trees cut and harvested. The size of a residual-based 

industry, however, is somewhat limited by the capacity of the mills to process the 

solid wood product, such as lumber.

Many homeowners produce firewood from trees that do not grow in the forest 

or from dead and low-grade trees that are not considered as forest growing stock. 

Homeowners can also go into areas that have been logged and cut firewood from 

branches and tops that are left in the woods as slash. Use of these materials does not 

have any impact on growth.

These are a few of the situations that need to be taken into account to determine 

the impact of energy use on the forest. As a rule of thumb, if high-quality trees of 

saw-log quality or trees that have the potential to grow into saw-log-quality trees 

are harvested and used for energy products, there will be a reduction in growing 

stock material. If, however, the material is from any other source (e.g., land not 

considered part of the forest, trees not of growing-stock quality, or parts of trees 

already harvested), it is in fact considered an increase in utilization of harvested 

material that has no impact as far as timber sustainability is concerned. Such 

changes in utilization may, however, have an impact on the sustainability of forest 

ecosystems when the concepts of biodiversity and related value of course woody 

debris are considered. A complete review of these issues is beyond the scope of 

this project. 

If high-quality trees of 

saw-log quality or trees 

that have the potential to grow into sawlog-quality trees are 

harvested and used for 

energy products, there 

will be a reduction in 

growing stock material. 
27

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Conclusions

The level and satisfaction of future demand for RWEP in Alaska really has little to 

do with the existence of a biomass resource. It is limited, however, by the size of the 

existing forest products industry, the industry’s capacity to economically harvest 

wood, and society’s willingness to convert. In addition, conversion to RWEP will 

be a function of a national energy policy and price for alternatives. Lacking a 

national energy policy, a return to high market prices for oil will stimulate production of energy products and result in conversion. It is also possible that conversion 

will in part promote the development of a more vibrant forest products economy in 

Alaska. 

Total conversion of oil and other liquid fuels used by the Alaska residential and 

commercial sectors to solid RWEPs would require in excess of 1.3 million cord 

equivalents of material annually. Although that volume may appear great to many 

people, in reality it represents the amount of wood required to supply raw material 

to one large pulp mill. 

The economic incentive to convert to solid wood fuel exists at any heating oil 

price in excess of $3.00/gal. At this level, fixed costs are recovered in relatively 

short periods (5 years or less). A national energy policy may impact conversion 

by placing a tax on fossil fuels or providing tax credits to help cover the costs of 

converting to systems that use RWEPs (biomass).

Acknowledgments

This report is based upon work supported by the University of Alaska and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2006-34158-17722. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, 

or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Funds to 

support the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation, Wood Pellet Market 

Survey activity were provided in part by USDA Forest Service Joint Venture Agreement PNW-07-JV-11261935-042 between the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Center, and the Fairbanks 

Economic Development Corporation.

Total conversion of 

oil and other liquid 

fuels used by the 

Alaska residential and 

commercial sectors to 

solid renewable wood 

energy products would 

require in excess of 1.3 

million cord equivalents 

of material annually. 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

British thermal units (Btu) 1,050 Joules

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters

Feet (ft) .305 Meters

Cubic feet (ft3

) .0283 Cubic meters

Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers

Gallons (gal) 3.78 Liters

Thousand board feet, log scale (mbf) 4.5 Cubic meters, logs

Tons (ton) 907 Kilograms

Pounds (lb) 454 Grams

Degrees Fahrenheit .56(°F – 32) Degrees Celsius

British thermal units 3,412.14 Kilowatt-hour (kWh)

Common and Scientific Names

Common name Scientific name

Alaska yellow-cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera L. ssp. trichocarpa

 (Torr. & A. Gray ex Hook.) Brayshaw

Paper birch Betula papyrifera Marsh.

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Michx.

Red alder Alnus rubra Bong.

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carriere

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don

White spruce Picea glauca (Moench) Voss

Literature Cited

Alaska Climatic Research Center [ACRC]. 2009. Mean annual heating degree 

days for selected bases (1971–2000). http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/

Normals/HDD.html. (March 17, 2009).

Alaska Energy Authority [AEA]. 2008. Statistical report of the power cost 

equalization program, fiscal year 2007. 19th ed. February 2008. Juneau, AK: 

State of Alaska. 22 p.

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation [AHFC]. 2000. Alaska housing manual. 

4th ed. Anchorage, AK: Research and Rural Development Division. 119 p. 

http://www.ahfc.state.ak.us/reference/housing_manual.cfm. (April 6, 2009).
29

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

Bowyer, J.L.; Shmulsky, R.; Haygreen, J.G. 2003. Forest products and wood 

science—an introduction. 4th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 554 p.

Brackley, A.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Alexander, S.J. 2009a. Timber harvests in 

Alaska: 1910–2006. Res. Note PNW-RN-560. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p.

Brackley, A.M.; Nicholls, D.L.; Hannan, M. 2009b. An evaluation of the grades 

and value of red alder lumber in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-774. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

Briggs, D. 1994. Forest products measurements and conversion factors: with 

special emphasis on the U.S. Pacific Northwest. IFR Contribution No. 75. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 168 p.

Bruce, D.; Schumacher, F.X. 1950. Forest mensuration. 3rd ed. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 483 p.

Dunster, J.; Dunster, K. 1996. Dictionary of natural resource management. 

Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 363 p.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations [ECFR]. 2009. Title 40: protection of 

environment. Part 60—standards of performance for new stationary sources. 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=c3e6eb575293d0041e7a768

e297b67d9;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A6.0.1.1.1.65;idno=40;cc=ecfr. 

(June 16, 2009).

Energy Information Administration [EIA]. 2008a. Alaska—state energy data 

system (SEDS): production, 1960–2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/

state.html?q_state_a=ak&q_state=ALASKA. (September 3, 2008). On file with: 

Allen Brackley, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization 

Research and Development Center, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.

Energy Information Administration [EIA]. 2008b. Consumption, price, and 

expenditure estimates—state energy data system. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/

states/_seds.html. (November 2008).

Energy Information Administration [EIA]. 2008c. State energy profiles—

Alaska. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AK. 

(September 3, 2008).
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-827

Energy Information Administration [EIA]. 2008d. Technical notes and 

documentation—state energy data system (SEDS). http://www.eia.doe.gov/

emeu/states/_seds_tech_notes.html. (September 3, 2008).

Eshleman, C. 2008. Fairbanks Borough mayor pushes for wood stove trade-in 

plan. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. December 8. http://www.newsminer.com/

news/2008/dec/08/fairbanks-borough-mayor-jim-whitaker-pushes-wood-s/. 

(April 8, 2009).

Evans, D.S., ed. 2000. Terms of the trade. 4th ed. Eugene, OR: Random Length 

Publications, Inc. 425 p.

Husch, B.; Miller, C.I.; Beers, T.W. 1982. Forest mensuration. 3rd ed. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons. 402 p.

Ince, P.J. 1979. How to estimate the recoverable heat energy in wood and bark 

fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-29. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 6 p.

Kollmann, F.F.P.; Cote, W.A. 1968. Principles of wood science and technology. 

Part 1 Solid wood. New York: Springer-Verlag. 592 p.

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 [NAECA]. 42 U.S.C. 

Pub. L. 100-12; 101 Stat. 103. 

Nicholls, D.; Brackley, A. 2009. House log drying rates in southeast Alaska for 

covered and uncovered softwood logs. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-782. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 18 p.

Nicholls, D.; Monserud, R.A.; Dykstra, D.P. 2009. International bioenergy 

synthesis—lessons learned and opportunities for the Western United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 257(8): 1647–1655.

Oregon Department of Forestry [ODF]. 2009. Log price information. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/TIMBER_SALES/logpage.

shtml. (April 9, 2009).

Patton-Mallory, M., ed. 2008. Woody biomass utilization strategy. FS-899. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p.

Robb, S. 2007. Survey to assess community support for pellet fuel—a report 

prepared for the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation. Anchorage, 

AK: Information Insights, Inc. 36 p.
31

Developing Estimates of Potential Demand for Renewable Wood Energy Products in Alaska

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder, DP-4. profile of selected 

housing characteristics: 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_

bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&ds_name=DEC_2000_

SF3_U&geo_id=04000US02. (July 1, 2008).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Housing data between the censuses: the American 

housing survey. Census Rep. AHS/R/04-2. Washington, DC. 23 p. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. American housing survey. http://www.census.gov/

hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html. (July 1, 2008).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. Cartographic boundary files. http://www.census.gov/

geo/www/cob/tr2000.html. (June 16, 2009).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006a. Design and methodology: American community 

survey. Tech. Pap. 67. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 420 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006b. State and county QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.

gov/qfd/states/00000.html. (September 3, 2008).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1999. Wood 

handbook—wood as an engineering material. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-113. 

Madison, WI: Forest Products Laboratory. 463 p.

Wilson, P.L.; Funck, J.W.; Avery, R.B. 1987. Fuelwood characteristics of 

northwestern conifers and hardwoods. Res. Bul. 60. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University, College of Forestry, Forest Research Lab. 42 p. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300