combined heat and power case - energy exchange
TRANSCRIPT
Tampa Convention Center • Tampa, Florida
Combined Heat and Power Case
Combined Heat and Power Case Studies
Tampa Convention Center • Tampa, Florida
CHP at JSC: A Case Study
Combined Heat and Power Case Studies
Melissa McKinleyNASA – Johnson Space Center
August 17, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
CHP - Why?
2011 – Severe Drought Conditions Texas State-Wide CenterPoint (Utility Provider) Electrical Grid Strained Record Number of +100 degree days Load Shedding by JSC Brown Out Potential
December 14, 2012 One truck driver = JSC Site Electrical Outage
Energy Goals JSC is red on the metric for energy reduction
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
How does CHP help?
CHP = Combined Heat and Power JSC/CHP takes pressure off the strained grid CHP provides JSC with an “island grid” for power
Self generation of ~70% of base power consumption Power to CH&CP, MCPP, Selected Critical JSC Facilities
JSC controls reliability and availability of the power plant Source reductions at JSC achieve mandated energy savings
Energy Security, Savings, Reliability
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
How did JSC “buy” CHP?
Construction cost is ~$47M Center funds not available for investment ESPC provides a funding alternative
Presidential letter mandates ESPC for Federal agencies including JSC
ESPC “finances” installation cost + operations and maintenance cost
No net impact to JSC budget for term of the loan Upon completion of the loan, JSC realizes savings
ESCO provides equipment with 10 years remaining life at completion of the contract
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
How does it affect the JSC budget?
JSC budget is “net zero” for the life of the contract Project cost (including installation and O&M) is paid to
ESCO with savings Utility Bill funds are used O&M for new equipment is included, so no increase to
current Facilities contract No need to budget for replacement of major equipment at
the conclusion of the contract 10 years remaining life at conclusion of ESPC
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
• CHP uses natural gas to make electricity
• Heat is produced in that process
• That waste heat is used to produce steam for heating/dehumidification
• Steam also drives JSC’sexisting steam turbine chillers
Natural Gas = Electricity + Steam + Chilled Water
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
CHP at JSC - Trigeneration
Natural Gas = Electricity + Steam + Chilled Water
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
One Pager
Increased Energy Surety Provides ~ 11.9 MW of onsite power generation Island Mode Powers ~ 70% of site base electric load Provides all site steam load, 40-60% peak chilled water load
Energy Intensity Reduction Reduces energy intensity from 212,716 BTU/GSF to 103,616 BTU/GSF Utilizes Source vs Site calculations Meets all energy reduction goals through 2020 Impact on Agency energy reduction goals
Carbon Footprint Reductions JSC carbon footprint reduced by 19,750 metric tons of CO2
Presidential Executive Order In full compliance with Executive Order 13624 encouraging the use of ESPC
Terms of the Contract Implementation cost - $47,031,745 Total Contractor Payments - $141,980,064 Term of Contract – 22 years plus 18 month construction period Schedule
Construction period of 18 months from NTP Acceptance scheduled for November, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status
Construction of CHP plant 99% complete Agreements with Utilities complete
Interconnect Agreement with CenterPoint Electric Easements with CenterPoint Gas New gas supply contract complete
Check out of electrical equipment ongoing Underground gas pipeline construction complete Turbine and steam equipment startup completed May ECM3
CH&CPlant mods and all building mods complete Commissioning completion scheduled to start 10/15/2017 Acceptance period waived
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Source vs Site Calculations
FEMP allows credit for power generation at the point of use vs at the utility Line loss Waste heat use Section 206, EO 13123 (rescinded but credit still applies) FEMP Reporting Guidance for Federal Agency Report on
Energy Management, Attachment 3 Actual JSC site use increased due to natural gas usage;
electricity usage reduced Source (Grid Electricity) displaced by new site generation Energy Intensity Reduction with SvS
FY14 baseline 212,716 BTU/GSF Modeled reduction 103,616 BTU/GSF
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve12
Energy Savings Details – JSC Energy Intensity
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Btu
Per G
ross
Squ
are
Foot
Site
Ene
rgy
Usa
ge A
fter
Cre
dit f
or C
HP
Year
Site Energy Intensity Reduction at JSC After CHP Credit for On-site Generation Johnson Space Center For CHP Using HQ Data
Reset Baseline in 2015 and 2-1/2% Reductions 2016 - 2025 requirements
Actual BTU/GSF Goal BTU/GSF CHP ESPC Future Goals= 2-1/2% Reduction BTU/GSF No CHP
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve13
Energy Savings Details - AgencyNASA Energy Intensity
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Groundbreaking October 22, 2015
JSC Central Heating and Cooling Plant
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Here’s how it will look
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Drilling Piers in the Existing Parking Lot
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Lots of Rain Spring Summer, Fall Winter, Spring…..
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Footings and Perimeter Wall
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Turbine Pads and Stack Pads
Turbine pads were poured first so equipment could be set. Each one took 75 yards of concrete.
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – Boilers
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – CHP Lineup
Natural Gas Turbine
RentechBoiler
EconomizerStack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
SCR
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Status – CHP Lineup and Electrical Room
Natural Gas Turbine
RentechBoiler
Economizer
Stack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Natural Gas Turbine
RenechBoiler
Economizer
Stack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
Status – HRSG’s set in place
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Natural Gas Turbine
RenechBoiler
Economizer
Stack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
Status – Solar Gas Turbine Check out
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Natural Gas Turbine
RenechBoiler
Economizer
Stack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
First Fire, Solar Turbines – May 24, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Natural Gas Turbine
RenechBoiler
Economizer
Stack
Access to Analyzers
Electrical Room Construction
Steam Blow, HRSG’s – May 25, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
ECM 3 – Campus Buildings Chilled Water Blending Station Modifications
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
CHP at JSC
O&M contractor selected is on-site Facilities Contractor ESG provides an on-site plant manager Detailed operational plan is in work to coordinate
equipment run times between the Central Heating and Cooling Plant and the CHP Plant
One month commissioning period before government acceptance
Plant is expected to come on line in November, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
A big “Thank you!” to DOE and AFFECT!
Awarded $1M AFFECT Grant Provided upfront funds for TO award 47/1 Return for CHP Project
Drove the overall AFFECT Return to 25/1 Helped secure funding for future year’s programs
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
“Secret Sauce” – How we are doing it….
Persistence – Process is new and requires lots of education for all involved Long, long process Lots of stakeholder to coordinate
Management Support – Despite issues, JSC management supported project
JSC Master Planning - CHP fits in with future planning and allows flexibility for “island mode”
DOE support $1M AFFECT Grant Project Facilitator and FEMP Support
Team expertise Procurement, Legal, Environmental, Technical
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
“Secret Sauce” – Technical, how….
Natural Gas pricing at an all time low Energy Reduction Mandates continue to increase Increase in use in comparable facilities
Methodist Hospital UTMB Galveston Universities
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Current Schedule and Issues
• Issue discovered with telemetry for ERCOT metering at preparatory phase meeting for power generation
• Outages still needed for Substation modifications per schedule
• Program critical JWST testing in building 32, Chamber A restrictions on high voltage activities
• Commissioning to resume mid-October• 4 weeks remaining
• 30 day Acceptance period to be waived (savings a contract requirement with 95% uptime)
• Partial Acceptance negotiations in work now
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
James Webb Space Telescope
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve34
Status – Latest
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Feedback?
Melissa McKinleyNASA Utilities Manager, [email protected]
Bobby WeeksGilbane [email protected]
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
BACK UP
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Comparison to Traditional Projects
Awarded as a task order on the DOE ESPC master contract Award required typical IGE for construction costs and
evaluation of savings period operational costs No appropriated funds are provided to award the contract
Funds are needed at the start for the initial award Use of AFFECT $1M grant for buy down
SIES requires a local fund source Inspection, Facility Support, Asbuilts must be funded from Center
sources and funds are tight Multiple years requires multiple commitments from budgets
Reporting of energy savings
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Required submission of a 1509/1510 and approval sign off from HQ
Surveillance plan Traditional surveillance plan for construction period Extended plan for acceptance of savings during term of
contract Submittals and RFI’s
Contractor performs design for guaranteed savings Government only reviews for conflicts with policies No government “preference” which may affect savings ESCO owns all decisions as they impact savings and payments
Comparison to Traditional Projects
Tampa Convention Center • Tampa, Florida
MCRDPI, Combined Heat Power
Combined Heat and Power Case Studies
Richard PierceEnergy Manager
Facilities Maintenance Division, MCRD Parris IslandAugust 17, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve40
Installation Overview – MCRD, PARRIS ISLAND
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• First permanent settlement in 1562 by the French
• Designated a Recruit Depot: 1 Nov, 1915• 8,095 acres: 3,262 acres are habitable• Approximately 700 buildings• 242 facilities 20 years or older• Second Oldest Marine Corps Base• Invaluable natural & historic resources
41
Mission : “WE MAKE MARINES”
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Situation & Opportunity
• Very Successful Energy Program Energy Use 37.9% below FY2003 baseline Water Use 31.2% below FY2007 baseline
• Existing Co-gen Steam Plant Built 1942 Three Boilers (50,000 lbs/hr / 400psig / 600F)
One Boiler (50,000 lbs/hr, 125psig saturated)
Natural Gas with #6 oil as backup Three 1 Mw steam Turbines (not operational)
42
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• Leverage Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) Only One (1) Hard Requirement – Replace the Steam Plant Allow for “Bundling” of energy technologies Open door, unfettered audit process Don’t guide or direct the technical solutions
• Began ESPC process in February of 2015• Awarded 16 Dec 2016 Only 22 months to award Largest USMC ESPC award to date
43
The Plan
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve44
Situation & Opportunity
Utility DataElectricity
Electricity Unit Cost $0.088 /kWh Demand Unit Cost1 - /kW
Baseline Annual Consumption 59,675,180 kWh/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 113,376 kW/yr
Natural Gas SewerNatural Gas Unit Cost $6.89 /MMBtu Sewer Unit Cost $7.96 /kGal
Baseline Annual Consumption 433,486 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 240,590 kGal/yr
Fuel Oil WaterFuel Oil Unit Cost $10.93 /MMBtu Water Unit Cost $4.81 /kGal
Baseline Annual Consumption 19,055 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 300,738 kGal/yr
Biomass Total Water & SewerBiomass Unit Cost $3.50 /MMBtu Total Water & Sewer Unit Cost $11.18 /kGal
Baseline Annual Consumption 0 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 300,738 kGal/yrNotes:1Per SCE&G Rate 24 shown below.
Utility Consumption Data
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve45
Situation & Opportunity
Electrical Utility Rates - SCE&G Rate 24
Monthly Charge Rate 24 Units
I. Basic Facilities Charge $2,025 N/A
II. Demand Charge
A. On-Peak Billing Demand
1. Summer Months of June-September @ $19.27 Per kW
2. Non-Summer Months of October-May @ $13.49 Per kW
B. Off-Peak Billing Demand $5.84 Per kW
III. Energy Charge
A. On-Peak kWh
1. Summer Months of June-September @ $0.08900 Per kWh
2. Non-Summer Months of October-May @ $0.06428 Per kWh
B. Off-Peak kWh
1. All Off-Peak @ $0.04942 Per kWh
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• Six Options Evaluated:
1. Decentralization of existing steam plant2. New natural gas boilers in existing plant3. New boilers with biodiesel backup4. Biomass plant for thermal energy only5. Biomass plant with a backpressure turbine6. Natural gas turbine Combined Heat & Power (CHP)
46
Scenarios Evaluated
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve47
Scenarios Evaluated
Options Evaluated
Option # Description Primary Fuel Backup Fuel Pros Cons
1 Decentralization Natural Gas Propane Air• Less labor-intensive maintenance
without distribution system• Individual building controls
• High cost for low savings• More pieces of equipment to maintain• No redundancy
2 New Natural Gas Boilers Natural Gas Fuel Oil • Low install cost
• Uses existing infrastructure
• Lower energy savings• Significant unknowns with re-using
Building 160• Complexities during construction
3 New Boilers with Biodiesel Backup Natural Gas Biodiesel • Backup fuel is from a renewable
source• Biodiesel fuel is more expensive• Not practicable for long-term storage
4 Biomass – Thermal Only Biomass Natural Gas • Utilizes renewable energy
• Lower capital cost vs. Option 5
• Design and construction complexities• More costly O&M/R&R (life cycle)• Training required for unfamiliar
equipment
5 Biomass –Backpressure Turbine Biomass Natural Gas
• On-site generation from renewable energy
• Decreased natural gas consumption
• Longer SPB than Option 4• Longest construction term• Increased complexity from Option 4
6 Combined Heat and Power Plant Natural Gas Fuel Oil
• Best payback • Highest capacity and reliability for
electrical generation• More redundancy
• Non-renewable fuel source• Increased electrical interconnect
complexity
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve48
Scenarios Evaluated
Summary of Modeled Results
Option # Description SPB1 Construction Duration Estimate
Estimated Cost Cogeneration Capacity
1 Decentralization of Existing Steam Plant 32 Years 18 Months $41 M 0 MW
2 Natural Gas Boilers Replacement 36 Years 18-24 Months $18 M 0 MW
3 NG Boilers Replacement with Biodiesel Backup 43 Years 18-24 Months $19.2 M 0 MW
4 Biomass Fueled Energy Plant – Thermal Only 26 Years 20-22 Months $25 M 0 MW
5 Biomass Fueled Energy Plant–Backpressure Turbine 27 Years 22-24 Months $40 M 2.75 MW
6 Combined Heat and Power Plant 16 Years 19-21 Months $27 M 3.5 MWNotes:1Simple Payback is reflective of capital cost and energy savings. O&M costs have not been included in the simple payback calculation.
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• The six options were evaluated for the following factors: Overall Economics Utility Interconnections (gas, power, water) Energy Savings Long term O&M / R&R Duration Permitting Complexity Reliability Impact on Onsite Photovoltaic ECM Size
49
Scenarios Evaluation Factors
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• An existing use or process for the heat generated by the CHP • Infrastructure to support heat delivery (steam lines, nearby
process, hot water lines, etc) • On-site demand for the power generated by the CHP • Ability to provide generated electric power where needed
without utility company metering • Sufficient cheap fuel source (natural gas, biomass, etc.) • Ability to match the power and heat generated by the CHP to
the available loads and account for seasonal variations
50
Critical Factors for CHP Feasibility
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve51
Project Summary Results
• Energy Savings: Over $6 million annually• Energy Project Size: $91.1 million initial investment• Technology Type: Boiler plant improvements; energy
management control system/HVAC controls, renewable energy systems (to include storage and microgrid control system), lighting upgrades and controls, chiller improvements, HVAC, water system upgrades, and hot water and steam distribution systems.
• Energy savings together with demand reduction result in: 75% reduction in utility energy demand 79% reduction in energy usage 25% total water reduction ~10 MW onsite electrical generation Grid Battery Storage (4Mw / 8 Mwh) Combined annual carbon reduction of 37,165 metric tons of CO2
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve52
SolutionsEnergy Savings Performance Contract8 energy conservation measures• Boiler plant; EMCS;
renewable energy systems; lighting; chiller; HVAC; water; and hot water and steam distribution systems
• 40,271 metric tons annual carbon reduction
• Over 29,000 LEDs installed
• New central plant with microgrid and island mode capability
• 3.5 MW CHP Plant• 1.6 MW Solar PV carport• 4 MW ground mount
Solar PV• 4 MW / 8 MWh Battery
Energy Storage System (BESS)
• Microgrid Control System with Fast Load Shed
$91.1 million 35% 10 MW
Project Investment Energy Use Reduction
Onsite Energy Generation
Annual Savings Water Use Reduction
$6 million 25%• Over 3.3 million square
feet• Ensures a reliable, secure
energy supply• Achieves sustainability
requirements• Reduces lifecycle
operating costs of facilities
• Nearly $1 million in annual savings
• Reduction of heat loss and evaporation at mission-critical outdoor training pool
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve53
Solutions
Boiler Plant Improvements• 3.5 MW CHP gas turbine • Heat Recovery Steam
Generator • 1 MW and 2.5 MW backup
diesel generators • Two 30,000 lb/hr dual fuel
backup boilers
Renewable Energy Systems• 1.6 MW carport next to the
parade deck parking lot• 4 MW ground mount• 4 MW / 8 MWh Battery Energy
Storage System (BESS)• Microgrid Control System
(MCS) with Fast Load Shed(FLS)
Customer Benefits• Energy security and resiliency• Partial islanding mode
leveraging CHP, PV, and BESS during utility outages
• Storage of surplus solar PV generated power
• Mitigation of ratchet in demand charges
• Continuity of power supply to essential loads during utility outages
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve54
Battery Energy Storage
• 4.0MW/8.1MWh Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) • Integrated with the Solar PV generation systems
• Capacity to store over 1,120,000 kWh of annual excess PV generation, reducing the curtailment requirement of the PV from 23% of its total annual generation to 11%.
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve55
Carport PV Array
I.6 Mw Array at Main Parade Deck Parking
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve56
Carport PV Array
I.6 Mw Array at Main Parade Deck Parking
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve57
Page Field Ground Mounted Array
4Mw Ground Mount Array at Page Field
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve58
Page Field Ground Mounted Array
4Mw Ground Mount Array at Page Field
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve59
Combined Heat & Power Facility
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve60
New Combined Heat & Power Facility
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
• ESPC First Cost: $91.1 million• ESPC Total Cost: $210.6 million• Dan Magro, NAVFAC EXWC ESPC Program Lead stated:
"This ESPC project is probably the most comprehensive ESPC ever entered into by the Navy, involving 121 buildings (3.1 million square feet total) and 20 energy conservation measures (ECMs). This will result in MCRD Parris Island reducing their energy consumption by 384,962 million BTUs (79%) and water consumption by 74.6 million gallons (27%) annually. I think the team at Parris Island, with this ESPC, may have just redefined a 'deep energy retrofit!'
61
Results
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve62
Questions?
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • ConserveTampa Convention Center • Tampa,Florida
Combined Heat and Power Case Studies
“Micro” Combined Heat and Power ProjectA.J. Ballard, C.E.M
Maine Army National GuardAugust 17, 2017
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Hello From Maine
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) Building 260 , 123,000 SF
Bangor, Maine
75 KW “Micro” CHP
The Maine Army National GuardInstalled a Micro 75 KW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) System in the 123,500 square foot Army Aviation Support
Facility (AASF, Building 260) in Bangor, Maine in March 2015.
There is also a 43 KW solar PV system mounted on the roof.
The objective of the project was to determine if CHP is a viableoption for Army National Guard Facilities Between 50,000 and200,000 sf in states above the 5,000 Heating Degree Day line.
Based on the following data, the CHP is a viable option, it is considered clean energy and significantly out performs solar
photovoltaic systems in the north east latitudes.
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW CHP Generated over 25% in Energy Savings in FY16 and FY17
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
MEARNG 75 KW CHP Savings
Electric CostNormalizedoil and gas
costTotals
FY15 $90,100 $119,430 $209,530FY16 $62,557 $91,457 $154,014FY17 $62,615 $94,393 $157,008Avg Savings $27,514 $26,506 $54,020Avg Savings % 31% 22% 26%
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
• Otherwise know as Cogeneration• Combination of an engine and a electric generator• Engines are either a turbine or internal combustion• CHP generates heat and electricity• The engine waste heat is captured and used in the building system
for heating, processing and/or domestic hot water production• The generator provides electrical power to main distribution panel• The Total System Efficiency = (thermal + electrical output) / input.• The MEARNG installed a 75 KW internal combustion engine
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
The objective of the pilot MEARNG CHP project was to determine if CHP was viable for 50,000 sf or larger National Guard Facilities in states above
the 5,000 Heating Degree Day line
> 7000HDD
> 6000HDD
> 5000HDD
There are a significant numberof
guard facilities above the 5,000
heating degree day line.110 Training Centers with ~2,070 Bldgs
734 Ground Maintenance Bldgs
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
293 Aviation Support Facilities
2,386 Readiness Centers
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
AASF is a ~ 123,500 sf building with a43 KW Solar PV system and a 75 KWCHP
Maine Army National Guard 75 KW Combined Heat and Power Pilot Project9
AASF 123,500 SF
Green = 75 KW CHP and boilers Red = Radiant floors and snow melt Yellow = 43 KW Solar PV on the roof
Blue = Hydronic make up air handler units
The remainder of the facility is heated with baseboard radiation, unit heaters and roof topunits.
KW PV43
CHP
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW Combined Heat and Power unit (CHP)
Natural gas input : 930,000 Btu per hour, 9.3 therms (~6.8 gals fuel oil/hr equivalent)Electric production : 75 kWh per hourWaste heat injection : 525,000 Btu per hour, 5.25 therms (~3.8 gals fuel oil/hr equivalent )
Maine Army National Guard 75 KW Combined Heat and Power Pilot Project
~70 dB noise rating
Aegis 75 KW CHP Compact DesignFit Through Mechanical Room Double Doors
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
CHP installed in primary loop: resulted in one 4.3 MMBTU boiler remaining off for the season and the other two on later and off earlier which resulted in fuel savings.
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
COGEN DashboardFeb 2, 2017, 32 FBldg load 151 KW Street @ 66 KW CHP @ 75KWSolar @ 10 KW
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
MEARNG 75 KW CHP Results
Bldg 260 Average Annual Electric and Fuel bill is $210,000.
In FY16 and FY 17 the 75 KW CHP generated the following:
– $27,500 in electrical savings
– $26,500 in fuel savings (normalized for fuel prices and HDD)
– ~ 25% reduction in building energy consumption
– ~ 5% reduction of the MEARNG total energy bill
75 KW CHP Generated over 25% inEnergy Savings in FY16 and FY17
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
MEARNG 75 KW CHP Savings
Electric CostNoramlizedoil and gas
costTotals
FY15 $90,100 $119,430 $209,530FY16 $62,557 $91,457 $154,014FY17 $62,615 $94,393 $157,008Avg Savings $27,514 $26,506 $54,020Avg Savings % 31% 22% 26%
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW CHP Generated over 40% of theBuilding’s Electrical in FY16 and FY17
MEARNG 75 KW CHP Electric Savings
Electric kWh purchased MMBtu
Billed Electric Cost
CHP kWh produced
CHPProduction % of bldg kWh
FY15 546,596 1,865 $90,100 57,072 9%FY16 321,414 1,097 $62,557 234,492 42%Fy17 341,765 1,166 $62,615 235,119 42%Avg Savings 215,006 768 $27,514% 39% 39% 31%
FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7 =~$15,000 in additional savings, Plus
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW CHP Electrical Generation
FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7 =~$15,000 in additional savings
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW CHP Electrical Generation
FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
75 KW Total System Efficiency FY 2016
Power plant typical TSE is 30-35% vs. CHP at 85% Efficiency
FY 2016 MEARNG 75 KW Total System Efficiency (TSE)
Electric Output
Electric Output
(a)
Natural GasThermal
Output to Heating System
Natural Gas Thermal Output
(b)
Natural Gas Input
(c)
TSE =(a +b) / c
KWH MMBtu Therms MMBtu MMBtu Efficiency234,500 800 9,954 995 2222 81%
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Example: how CHP fundamentally savesenergy and reduces pollution
100 units of fuel in
Note: CHP heat rejected is used by the heat recovery unit in the mechanical room and delivered to hangar bay, resulting in efficiency of ~ 90-95%
Delivered: ~35 units elec / 100 = ~35% efficient
~15 units heat rejected to boilerroom
~55 units of heat delivered100 units of fuel in
~30 units of elec delivered
Delivered: elec (~30) + heat (~55) / 100 = ~85% efficient
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Project Design Approach
• Feasibility Study is critical.• Treat the CHP as a “boiler” that is replacing or being added to
a heating or process system.• Key to the design – the viable use of the “jacket water waste
heat” is critical for the project success.• The CHP (“approach as a boiler”) also makes electricity via the
generator, hence the term combined heat and power.• The electricity is then provided to the building/facility via the
main electrical distribution panel.• The CHP is typically sized based on the buildings average
electrical 15 minute demand load.• Must find an efficient use for waste heat!
Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve
Engineering
Type A (Feasibility Study Micro turbine vs. ICE)
Type B (Design)
• $15,000• $27,000• $25,000 Type C (Construction)
• $67,000 A/E cost