CHP - Alban Cat

Transcription

CHP - Alban Cat

Alban CAT
CHP SEMINAR
Richard Sweetser
Richard Sweetser has spent 43-years commercializing advanced energy, power, refrigeration and HVAC
technology. Mr. Sweetser founded EXERGY Partners Corporation in January 1998 as a consulting firm designed
to capitalize on opportunities arising out of utility restructuring and global climate change in the energy and
construction industry. EXERGY Partners has developed an extensive commercial, institutional and industrial
network focusing on the integration of onsite power generation, energy recovery and thermal energy
management. EXERGY Partners has provided strategic support for the Federal initiative on combined heat and
power (CHP), EPA’s Combined Heat and Power Partnership and the U.S. Department of State’s Asia Pacific
Partnership. Mr. Sweetser is a Senior Advisor to US DOE’s Mid-Atlantic CHP Technology Assistance Partnership.
Mr. Sweetser has published numerous technical, and policy articles, technical manuals, a book titled, THE
FUNDAMENTALS OF GAS COOLING and is the lead author on ASHRAE’s new CHP Design Guide.
FEDERAL INTEREST IN CHP
JUNE 18, 2015
Alban CAT Power Systems CHP Seminar
Richard Sweetser, Sr. Advisor
DOE’s Mid-Atlantic CHP TAP
[email protected]
703.707.0293
CHP Technical Assistance
Partnerships
 Key Activities
 Market Opportunity Analysis.
Supporting analyses of CHP market
opportunities in diverse markets including
industrial, federal, institutional, and
commercial sectors
 Education and Outreach.
Providing information on the energy and
non-energy benefits and applications of CHP
to state and local policy makers, regulators,
end users, trade associations, and others.
 Technical Assistance.
Providing technical assistance to end-users
and stakeholders to help them consider CHP,
waste heat to power, and/or district energy
with CHP in their facility and to help them
through the development process from initial
CHP screening to installation.
Slide 6
6/18/2015
Agenda
 Review of CHP and its benefits
 Critical Issues for Successful CHP Application
 The potential for natural gas CHP
 Resilience and CHP
 Federal Technical Assistance – CHP TAPS
Slide 7
6/18/2015
CHP Captures the Heat Normally Lost in
Power Generation, Increasing Overall
Efficiency …….
30
units
94
units
Fuel
Power Plant
32% efficiency
Electricity
150 units Total Fuel
56
units
Fuel
Boiler/Furnace
80% efficiency
Heat
45
units
Combined Efficiency
~ 50%
Slide 8
6/18/2015
CHP Captures the Heat Normally Lost in
Power Generation, Increasing Overall
Efficiency …….
30
units
94
units
Fuel
Power Plant
32% efficiency
Electricity
CHP
Fuel
75% efficiency
56
units
Fuel
Boiler/Furnace
80% efficiency
Heat
45
units
Combined Efficiency
~ 50%
Combined Efficiency
~ 75%
Slide 9
6/18/2015
100
units
…. and Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
30 to 55% less greenhouse gas emissions
30
units
94
units
Fuel
Power Plant
32% efficiency
Electricity
CHP
Fuel
75% efficiency
56
units
Fuel
Boiler/Furnace
80% efficiency
Heat
45
units
Combined Efficiency
~ 50%
Combined Efficiency
~ 75%
Slide 10
6/18/2015
100
units
Favorable Characteristics
for CHP Applications
Important
 Concern about energy costs
 Concern about power reliability
 Concern about sustainability and
environmental impacts
 Long hours of operation
 Concurrent thermal loads
 Central heating and/or cooling
distribution system
Helpful
 Future central plant
replacement and/or upgrades
 Future facility expansion or new
construction projects
 EE measures already
implemented
 Access to nearby renewable
fuels
 Facility energy champion
Vital
Slide 11
1/21/15
CHP is Already an Important
Energy Resource
Existing CHP Capacity (MW)
Commercial/
Institutional
14%
Chemicals
28%
Other Industrial
6%
 82.7 GW of installed CHP at over
4,400 industrial and commercial
facilities
 8% of U.S. Electric Generating
Capacity; 14% of Manufacturing
 Avoids more than 1.8 quadrillion
Btus of fuel consumption annually
Other
Manufacturing
6%
Metals
5%
Food
8%
Refining
19%
 Avoids 241 million metric tons of
CO2 compared to separate
production
Paper
14%
Sources: DOE/ICF CHP Installation Database (U.S. installations as of December 31, 2014); “US Manufacturing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Analysis, November 2012”, EIA http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8250 Energetics,
Slide 12
1/21/15
Natural Gas is the Preferred Fuel for Existing
CHP (Based on Capacity)
Wood,
1,375 MW
Waste*,
7,366 MW
Oil,
1,152 MW
Other*,
459 MW
Biomass,
2,705 MW
Coal,
12,307 MW
* Waste includes MSW, black liquor,
industrial off gasses, and waste heat
** Other includes hydrogen, purchased
steam, and unknown fuel types
Natural Gas,
57,365 MW
Estimated Natural Gas Load of 4.2 Tcf
Source: DOE/ICF CHP Installation Database (U.S. installations as of December 31, 2014)
Slide 13
6/18/2015
Market Drivers for CHP
• Benefits of CHP recognized by Federal and
State policymakers
Annual Capacity Additions (MW)
7,000
6,000
• Game changing outlook for natural gas in
North America
Capacity (MW)
• Opportunities created by environmental
drivers
5,000
4,000
Forecasted
Additions
3,000
2,000
• CHP enhances resiliency in the face of
man-made and natural disasters
1,000
0
Source: DOE/ICF CHP Installation Database (U.S. installations as of December 31, 2014)
Slide 14
6/18/2015
CHP Saves Energy and Reduces Emissions
10 MW CHP
10 MW PV
10 MW Wind
10 MW
NGCC
85%
22%
34%
70%
74,446 MWh
19,272 MWh
29,784 MWh
61,320 MWh
114,544 MWht
None
None
None
6,000 sq ft
1,740,000 sq ft
76,000 sq ft
N/A
$19.8 million
$35.6 million
$22.1 million
$9.2 million
Annual Energy Savings, MMBtu
318,221
196,462
303,623
154,649
Annual CO2 Savings, Tons
43,343
17,887
27,644
28,172
61.9
16.1
24.9
46.2
Category
Annual Capacity Factor
Annual Electricity
Annual Useful Heat Provided
Footprint Required
Capital Cost
Annual NOx Savings
Original Source: Combined Heat and Power A Clean Energy Solution: August 2012: DOE and EPA
• 10 MW Gas Turbine CHP - 27% electric efficiency, 69% total CHP efficiency, 15 ppm NOx, $1,976/kW Capital Cost – Source: DOE/EPA Catalog of CHP
Technologies, March 2015
• Capacity factors and capital costs for PV, Wind and Natural Gas Combined Cycle system based on utility systems in DOE’s Advanced Energy Outlook 2015 –
Source: Electricity Market Module Assumptions, 2014
• Efficiency (7,050 Btu/kWh) for Natural Gas Combined Cycle system based on Advanced Energy Outlook 2015 (620 MW system proportioned to 10 MW of
output) – Source: Electricity Market Module Assumptions, 2014; 2.5 PPM NOx emissions assumed for NGCC
• CHP, PV, Wind and NGCC electricity displaces National All Fossil Average Generation resources: Based on eGRID 2012 – (2009 data ) - 9,572 Btu/kWh,
1,743 lbs CO2/MWh, 1.5708 lbs NOx/MWh, 7% T&D losses;
• CHP thermal output displaces 80% efficient on-site natural gas boiler with NOx emissions of 0.1 lb/MMBtu
Source: Combined Heat and Power A Clean Energy Solution: August 2012: DOE and EPA
Slide 15
6/18/2015
CHP Is a Cost-Effective Resource
Levelize cost of electricity 2014 ($/MWh)
Source: Bloomberg Sustainable Energy Factbook 2015
Slide 16
6/18/2015
The Remaining Potential for CHP Is
Large
• Technical Potential of 120+ GW
(Industrial 60 GW;
Commercial/Institutional 63 GW). (ICF
estimates)
• 40+ GW with payback less than 10 years.
(AGA)
• 111(d) could support 20 GW of new CHP
nationwide. (ACEEE)
Source: ICF Internal Estimates
Slide 17
6/18/2015
CHP can help States meet 111(d)
 The Electric Generating Unit (EGU ) emission reduction impacts of CHP are
similar to the emission reduction impacts of other end-use energy efficiency
measures
 Deployment of CHP reduces demand, and overall emissions, from affected
EGUs
 CHP provides long-term, persistent savings and is:
 Measurable
 Enforceable
 Quantifiable
 Verifiable
 Best practices exist in terms of crediting emissions savings from CHP, state
programs to promote CHP markets, and in EM&V
18
CPP, 111d and Electric Power
Slide 19
1/21/15
CHP can help States meet 111(d)
CHP Capacity by Region, Base and Policy Cases, 2030
Source: Center for Clean Air Policy
Slide 20
1/21/15
The CHP Market Is Evolving
Source: ICF Internal Estimates
Slide 21
6/18/2015
Resilience
 Resilience | The capacity of people,
organizations and systems to prepare for,
respond, recover from and thrive in the
face of hazards, and to adjust to continual
change. Resilient systems share certain
qualities such as redundancy, flexibility
and responsiveness.
 Hazard | A sudden event or gradual
change, which can lead to impacts on a
place or people.
 Exposure | People and things located in a
place that could be affected by a hazard.
 Vulnerability | The propensity for a hazard
to affect the wellbeing of a person,
community or organization.
RESILIENCE
RISK
HAZARD,
EXPOSURE,
VULNERABILITY
 Risk | The impact that occurs, whose
severity depends on how the above
factors interact.
Source: Toolkit for Resilient Cities
Slide 22
1/21/15
Global Natural Disasters
Source: Emergency Events Database EM-DAT
Slide 23
1/21/15
2012 Major Climate Disasters
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Slide 24
1/21/15
DOE Report on CHP
in Critical Infrastructure
 Provides context for CHP in critical
infrastructure applications.
 Contains 14 case studies of CHP
operating through grid outages.
 Policies promoting CHP in critical
infrastructure.
 Recommendations on how to
design CHP for reliability
http://www.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_critical_facilities.pdf
Slide 25
1/21/15
Resilient CHP versus Traditional CHP
 CHP is typically designed for the thermal load and may
require additional DG to meet CI load requirements
 Block loading capabilities of gas engines may require
additional switchgear – can be significant
 Gas engines cannot meet “emergency” power
restoration requirements so may require diesel engines
to comply
 Energy cost offsets do not increase with complexity or
cost of resiliency without “loss of load” remuneration
Slide 26
1/21/15
One Economic View of Resilient CHP
Standard CHP (no offgrid reliability benefit)
CHP With Backup
Capabilities
Generator Capacity (kW)
1,500
1,500
CHP System Total Installed Cost ($/kW)
$1,800
$1,800
Added Controls and Switchgear ($/kW)
N/A
$175
Typical Backup Diesel Generator, Controls, and Switchgear ($/kW)
N/A
($550)
$1,800
$1,425
$2,700,000
$2,137,500
Net Annual Energy Savings ($)
$400,000
$400,000
Payback
6.8 years
5.3 years
Internal Rate of Return
12.20%
16.90%
$311,302
$822,665
CHP System Components
Incremental Capital ($/kW)
Total Incremental Capital Cost ($)
Net Present Value (at 10% discount)
Need to Assess the Economic Impact of Loss of Power
Source: http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/reliability.html
Slide 27
1/21/15
What type of Technical Assistance is
available through the U.S. DOE CHP TAPs?
Screening and
Preliminary
Analysis
US DOE
CHP TAP
Services:
Quick screening
questions with
spreadsheet payback
calculator.
Feasibility
Analysis
Uses available site
information.
Estimate: savings,
Installation costs, simple
paybacks, equipment
sizing and type.
Investment Grade
Analysis
3rd Party review of
Engineering Analysis.
Review
equipment
sizing and choices.
Procurement,
Operations &
Maintenance,
Commissioning
Review
specifications
and bids,
Limited
operational analysis
Slide 28
5/29/2015
For More Information
Richard Sweetser, Sr. Advisor
DOE’s Mid-Atlantic CHP TAP
[email protected]
703.707.0293
http://www.midatlanticchptap.org/
http://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/chp-deployment
Slide 29
1/21/15
Tina Reed
Tina Read serves as the Manager of Industrial and Commercial Markets at the Energy Solutions Center, a nonprofit member organization of Natural Gas Utilities. She oversees the Multifamily consortium and the Industrial
consortium and manages the Natural Gas Vehicle Workgroup, Agricultural Applications Workgroup and the
Renewable Energy Workgroup. She oversees the production of ESC’s Gas Technology magazine and Energy
Solutions for Commercial Buildings magazine. Prior to ESC, Tina spent 10 years at Alban where she progressed
from project manager to engineering consultant and departed as a sales executive. She is a Certified Energy
Manager (CEM). She holds a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland, College Park and a
MA in Teaching.
Natural Gas Perspectives on CHP
June 2015
Tina Read, Energy Solutions Center
© 2015 Energy Solutions Center Inc. – All Rights Reserved
Presentation Outline
 Natural Gas Supply
 Gas storage and delivery
 Market information
 Natural gas advantages
© Energy Solutions Center Inc. – All Rights Reserved
32
North American Shale Gas Deposits
Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20852
33
Basics of Fracking
 Pump Fluid into the well
at high pressure
 Pressure creates
Fractures in the shale
 Filler material mixed with
fluid keeps fractures
open
 Natural Gas then able to
move to the well
Source: National Energy Board - Canada
A Primer for Understanding Canadian Shale Gas - Energy Briefing Note
ISSN 1917-506X
34
Horizontal Drilling for Shale Gas
Operators have strong
economic incentives to ensure
that fractures do not
propagate beyond the shale
 Waste of materials, time, and money
 Potential loss of the well and the
associated gas

Lead to excess water production from
adjacent strata – increasing production
costs
Source: www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EPreports/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf
35
How Gas is Stored and Delivered
 Gas can be stored in huge storage tanks in
liquefied form (LNG) or in underground wells
36
Underground Gas Storage
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ngqs/images/storage_2013.png
37
Interstate Pipeline Network
 2.4 million mile underground system
 2.1 million LDC, 300,000 Transmission
Source: AGA
38
Pipeline Construction
 FERC or state approval
 Submit plans & economic studies
 Show need
 Environmental impact statement
 Obtain right-of-way
 Construction
 Trench & directional drill
 Install & connect protected pipe
 Backfill
39
How Gas is Stored and Delivered
Natural Gas Delivery System
66 Million
Households
Producing
Wells
Gathering
Lines
Processing
Plant
5 Million Commercial Customers
Offices, Hospitals, Hotels & Restaurants
Compressor
Station
Regulator/
Meter
1700 Electric
Power Plants
Regulator
Meter
Utility
Underground
Storage
Transmission
Underground
Storage
City Gate
INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION
LINES
LDC
Regulator
Regulator
Meter
Supplemental
Fuels – LNG, LPG
Distribution
and Service
Pipelines
Regulator
Meter
Regulator
Meter
Approx.
2.4 million
Miles in U.S.
189,000 Factories
And Manufacturers
40
Natural Gas Market Info
Stable Pricing Predicted Into the Future
Source: Rethinking Natural Gas, A Future for Natural Gas in the U.S. Economy.
42
Natural Gas -Economical Energy
Oil Prices
Increasing
North
American
Gas Prices
Decreasing
43
Global Natural Gas Prices
European and Japanese
Gas Prices Increasing
North American Gas
Prices Dropping
US Federal Reserve, World Bank, CGA
Henry Hub
 Connects to four intrastate and
nine interstate pipelines
 Serves as the official delivery
location for futures contracts
on the NYMEX
AECO-C
 Alberta spot gas trading price
at the AECO-C hub
Source: www.cga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Chart-5
-Global-Natural-Gas-Prices8.pdf
44
Advantages of Natural Gas
Conventional Power Generation
vs. Combined Heat & Power
 Why Combined Heat & Power?
 Help Stabilize the Grid
 Quality Power
 Economical
 Efficient
 Environmentally Sound
46
Electric Grid Reliability Is DECLINING
Outages
Affecting >
50,000
Customers
IEEE Data
Outages
> 100
MW
1991-1995
66
41
1996-2000
76
58
2000-2004
156
149
2005-2009
264
349
Source: IEEE Web Site http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/us-electrical-grid-gets-less-reliable
Illustration: Emily Cooper
47
Why the Decline in Electric Grid Reliability?
9,000 MW
Generation:
(Growing)
>
7,000 MW
Transmission
& Distribution:
(?????)
<
8,000 MW
Load:
(Growing)
48
Site vs. Source
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
49
Combined Heat & Power
CHP Efficiency vs. Electric Power Plants
Source: www.aga.org/our-issues/playbook/Documents/AGA_Playbook2012_HI_RES.pdf
50
Natural Gas – The Clean Energy
Emission Reduction with CHP
Source: http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub13655.pdf
51
Combined Heat & Power
 CHP is good for business - Economical
 Improves overall energy efficiency and fuel
utilization - thereby lowering electric and overall
energy costs
 Offers reliability during outages – less downtime
 Enhances power quality
 Equipment to meet virtually every need – size to fit
your need
52
Associations and
Resources
Numerous Trade
Associations and web
resources are available
to assist and provide you
additional market
information and
resources
53
ESC’s CHP Consortium
www.UnderstandingCHP.com
54
Simple Payback Tool
www.UnderstandingCHP.com
55
CHP Association
www.chpassociation.org
56
EPA Web Site – CHP Information
http://www.epa.gov/chp/technologies.html
57
CHP Is Cleaner – EPA Emissions Calculator
Source: www.epa.gov/chp/basic/calculator.html
58
Associations & Resources
 DOE – U.S. Department of Energy
 Located in Washington, DC
 Numerous resources available
 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributed
energy
59
Thank you …
Michael Leslie
Michael Leslie is the CHP and C&I Energy Efficiency Program Manager for the Maryland Energy Administration
(MEA). After a successful career in the aerospace industry, where he served the power generation and electromechanical needs of aircraft operators throughout the world, Michael has spent the last seven years focused on
facility resiliency and sustainable energy initiatives for utilities and large-scale energy users.
“Clean, Affordable and Reliable
Energy for all Marylanders”
C OMBINED H EAT & P OWER
P OLICIES AND P ROGRAMS P RESENTATION
MICHAEL LESLIE, MS C,
C LEAN E NERGY C H P A ND C & I P ROGRAM M ANAGER
June 18, 2015
MEA Overview
The mission of the Maryland Energy
Administration (MEA) is to promote
affordable, reliable, clean energy. MEA’s
programs and policies help lower energy bills,
fuel the creation of jobs, drive economic
development, and promoting energy
independence.
MEA Strategic Goals
The strategic goals of the Maryland Energy
Administration are:
• Make the State of Maryland a leader in energy
efficiency;
• Reduce energy costs for our citizens;
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy;
• Increase the use of renewable energy;
• Leverage public/private partnerships in order to
improve the competitive position of Maryland
industry; and
• Lower the operating expenses of State and local
governments while contributing to the improvement
of air and water quality in Maryland.
CHP Benefits and Policy Attributes
Energy Efficiency
• EmPOWER Maryland initiative, the State has a goal of reducing
energy consumption by 15 percent by 2015
Economic Development
• The use of CHP systems creates LOCAL jobs in manufacturing,
engineering, installation, ongoing operation and maintenance,
and many other areas.
Grid and Facility Resiliency
• Complies with Executive Order demand to identify how to
improve the resiliency and reliability of the Maryland electric
distribution system
Current CHP Policy Attributes (continued)
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
• Supports the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (the Plan) that will
reduce greenhouse gases 25 percent by the year 2020.
Job Creation
• Job Creation Tax Credit (JCTC) managed by the Maryland
Department of Business & Economic Development
Maryland Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
• Maryland legislature passed legislation (S.B. 690) expanding the
portfolio standard’s Tier I definition to include waste-to-energy
systems.
Maryland’s Installed CHP Base
Prime Mover
Total
Boiler/Steam Turbine
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
Fuel Cell
Microturbine
Other
Reciprocating Engine
Waste Heat to Power
Sites
29
8
2
5
0
1
0
8
1
Capacity (kW)
717,277
585,200
25,500
89,100
0
65
0
15,060
902
ICF International http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/States/MD.html
Current Utility led CHP Program
Eligibility (BGE, PHI, and PE)
•
•
•
Minimum requirement of 65% efficiency (Higher Heating Value)
All qualifying systems must not export electricity to the grid
Projects must be pre-approved
Incentive (BGE, PHI, and PE)
•
•
•
•
$2.5 million per project incentive cap ($1.25m capacity and $1.25
production)
Capacity Incentive Payment: Design incentive ($75/kW):
Capacity Incentive Payment: Installation incentive ($275/kW) for
projects under 250 kW and ($175/kW) for projects greater than 250 kW
Production incentive: ($0.07/kWh for 18 months): Three payments
subsequent to review of metering data at the end of the 6th, 12th and
18th months
SMECO
Currently, SMECO does not offer standalone CHP rebates and, instead,
provide rebates under the Custom programs
How is the MEA positioned to help?
• Collaboration
• Lawton Loan Program
• Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC)
Financing Program
• MEA EmPowerMdCHP Program
FY15 MEA EmPOWER
Maryland CHP Program
Eligible Entities (Please see the MEA EmPowerMdCHP website for more details)
• Healthcare facilities (e.g. hospital, assisted living, nursing
home, and surgical center)
• Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment facilities
Minimum Project Requirements
• Located in the State of Maryland
• Ground breaking will take place and materials will be
onsite by January 1, 2016
• Operational no later than January 1, 2017
• Minimum system efficiency of 60% Higher Heating Value
FY15 MEA EmPowerMdCHP Incentive
MEA EmPowerMdCHP Capacity Grant Incentive
System Size
Equal to or less than 75kW
Between 76kW and 150kW
Between 751kW and 1MW
1MW and greater
Capacity Payment per kW
Up to $575
Up to $550
Up to $525
Up to $500
Up to $475
Up to $450
Up to $425
Sample Incentive Calculations:
A 75kW CHP system is eligible to receive up to a $43,125 grant award.
75kWx$575/kW=$43,125
A 1MW CHP system is eligible for up to a $450,000 award.
1MWx$450/kW=$450,000
FY15 MEA EmPowerMdCHP Results
Results
• Received 1o applications within the grant deadline totaling over
13 MW of new CHP capacity
• Approved 7 applications to receive grant funds
• 6 out of 7 are healthcare facilities
• No biomass or biofuel projects had been submitted
• Projects range in size from 130 – 2,000 kW
• Grant recipients are eligible to receive between $71,500 $464,700
• Assuming all eligible grantees comply with the grant conditions
the 7 projects will provide over 9 MW of new CHP capacity
FY16 MEA EmPOWER
Maryland CHP Program
Eligible Entities (subject
to change)
• Industrial facilities
• Critical infrastructure facilities (including
hospitals, wastewater treatment facilities, and
essential state and local government facilities)
• Private and public sector locations that leverage
biogas/biomass
Incentive (Subject to change)
• Incentive to be structured like FY15
FY16 MEA EmPowerMdCHP Program
First-come first-served basis (subject to change)
• Application materials must be submitted by February 1,
2016. However, since the grant selection will be
determined primarily on a first-come first-served basis,
applicants are encouraged to submit a complete
application as soon as possible.
Anticipated Minimum Project Requirements
• Located in the State of Maryland
• Ground breaking will take place and materials will be
onsite by January 1, 2017
• Operational no later than January 1, 2018
• Minimum system efficiency of 60% Higher Heating
Value
Helpful Links
• MEA EmPowerMdCHP Program (FY16 Not Posted/Released)
• Jane E. Lawton Conservation Loan Program (Managed by MEA)
• Maryland Clean Energy Center (MCEC) Financing Program
• BGE Smart Energy Savers Program® Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
• Pepco Combined Heat & Power (CHP) program
• Delmarva Power Combined Heat & Power (CHP) program
• Potomac Edison Combined Heat and Power Incentives Program
• Maryland utility territory map
Questions?
MEA CHP Presentation
Contact Info:
MICHAEL LESLIE, MSC
Clean Energy CHP and C&I Program Manager
o:(410) 260-7543 m:(443) 694-7475
[email protected]
Kathryn O'Rourke
Katie O’Rourke is a Manager with ICF managing BGE’s Combined Heat and Power Program. Prior to joining ICF,
Katie designed and managed energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
New York for National Grid and most recently held the position as Deputy Director of Energy Efficiency at the
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Katie has her BS in Chemical Engineering along with her CEM
and LEED AP, and enjoys waterskiing on the lakes of her native MN – but only in the summer.
UM Upper Chesapeake Medical Center
200-bed hospital and medical complex in Bel Air, MD
CHP System: 2 MW with 350-ton absorption chiller
BGE incentive: $1,747,500
Annual electric savings: 12,200 MWh
79
Harrah’s Horseshoe Casino
Casino with 122,000 ft2 gaming floor, 100 tables, 2,500
slot machines, and multiple restaurants in Baltimore, MD
CHP System: 1.2 MW
BGE incentive: $1,271,178
Annual electric savings: 9,200 MWh
80
Tim Witting
Tim Witting of Lockheed Martin, a specialist in Combined Heat and Power, has been a business development
representative for the Pepco & Delmarva Power Energy Savings Programs since 2012. With a background of 8
years in financial services and 6 years in energy efficiency, Mr. Witting consults with Maryland utility customers
to advocate for the viable economic integration of CHP technology
Pepco and Delmarva Power
2015 – 2017
Combined Heat and Power Incentive Program
Combined Heat and Power in Maryland
 More than 25 facilities
 Generating 722 MW of electricity
 Notable host facilities
•
•
•
•
University of Maryland (2002)
National Archives (2011)
Food and Drug Administration (2004)
National Institutes of Health (2010)
Source: DOE.gov
83
EmPOWER Maryland CHP Incentives




Incentives up to $2.5 million per project
Approximately 30-40% of total project cost
Program available until 12/31/2017
Eligible facilities
•
•
•
•
Commercial
Industrial
Governmental
Multifamily
84
Pepco & Delmarva Power Pipeline
• Project pipeline is diverse
• 9 Pepco projects under contract for installation
• 20,218 MW
• 15 projects in active development
• 32,468 MW
85
Questions and Discussion
For more information:
Pepco C&I Energy Savings Program
www.pepco.com/business
(866) 353-5798
[email protected]
Delmarva Power C&I Energy Savings
Program
www.delmarva.com/business
(866) 353-5799
[email protected]
Gene Smar
Program Manager
(202) 872-2882
[email protected]
William R. Ellis
Manager, Demand Side Management
(202) 872-2644
[email protected]
Tim Witting
Business Development
(301) 275-9123
[email protected]
Bill Steigelmann
Senior Engineering Consultant
(301) 640-2387
[email protected]
86
Patrick J. Barrett
Patrick J. Barrett has over 30 plus years of experience in the electric power industry. He has been involved in
numerous aspects of the industry focusing mainly on on-site power solutions. Solutions including reciprocating
engines, gas turbines, hydro electric, power boilers and steam turbine generators. He also has experience in
combined heat and power and renewable energy including landfill gas to energy projects. He began his career as
a junior staff engineer and successfully earned positions of increasing responsibility through project
management and project development.
Combined Heat and Power
Alban Cat
June 2015
Agenda
• CHP Overview
• Turbines vs Reciprocating Engines
• Market Attributes
• High Level Go/No Considerations
• Other Key Considerations
Page 89
CATERPILLAR CONFIDENTIAL: YELLOW
CHP Definition
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) also known as
cogeneration, is broadly defined as…
“The simultaneous and sequential use
of power and heat from the same fuel
source.”
Page 90
Combined Heat And Power (CHP) /Distributed Generation Basics
Page 91
• Heat Recovery Options
– steam-LP & HP
• Typically from exhaust
• Sometimes from IC JW-ebullient
– hot water
• Typically from IC JW and CAC
– chilled water
• Typically from steam or hot water fired absorption chillers
• Sometimes steam turbine driven centrifugal chillers
• Sometimes direct fired chillers
Page 92
Caterpillar Engine Generator Sets
•Cat Generator Sets - since 1939
•Built on successful platforms
used in many applications
•Broadest kW range in the
industry
•Wide variety of options, to
complete integrated systems –
enclosures, fuel tank bases,
controls, etc.
Diesel – from 8 kW to 16 MW
•Local Cat dealer support
Gas – from 25 kW to 10 MW
Page 93
Solar Turbine Generator Sets
•Solar Turbines Founded - 1927
•Wholly-owned subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc.
•~5,000 Employees world-wide
•World’s largest manufacturer of Combustion
Turbines (1-15 MW)
•Experience
•1.2 MW to 25 MW
–11,500 units to 90 countries
•Applications 1-50 MW
–1 billion + operating hours
–Combined Heat & Power
Solar Turbines
–Combined Cycle
Company Headquarters
–Peaking
San Diego, California USA
Page 94
Fuel Cell Power from Caterpillar
DFC® 300
DFC® 1500
DFC® 3000
•High electrical efficiency
• High value waste heat by-product for
cogeneration
• Internally generated hydrogen from
natural gas – operating at customer sites
today
• 1 MW at King County Wastewater
Treatment
Page 95
Multi-MW Grid Support
Micro Turbines
Low NOx emissions – better than tough global standards
Built-in compressor means smaller footprint and easy installation •
One moving part: Minimal maintenance and downtime •
Patented air bearing: No lubricating oil or coolant •
Integrated utility synchronization and protection
Small, modular design allows for easy, low-cost installation •
Page 96
Exhaust Heat Recovery Steam
Generator
•5 kW to 7 MW in a single unit
•450F to 1,600F
•Gas and Diesel Engines, Gas
Turbines
•Hot water and Steam
Manufacturers
Cain Industries
Vaporphase
Page 97
Single Effect:
Double Effect:
•Low Temperature
Activation, 200 F
•Low Cost
•Simple system
•Good Efficiency…
•High Temperature
Activation, 350 F
•Moderate Cost
•More complex system
•Higher Efficiency…
–1.2 COP
–0.7 COP
Wide range of models from <100 tons to >1,000 tons
Activated by Steam (15 psi - 125 psi), Hot Water or Exhaust
Page 98
Thermal fluids
11 million Btu/hr
145° F
6 Million Btu/hr
220° F
5 Million Btu/hr
Engine
Auxiliary
Loop
Engine
Jacket
Loop
6MW Electric
Generation
Steam
10 million Btu/hr
Separate Jacket
and Exhaust
Heat Recovery
Exhaust
Heat
Recovery
Steam
Generator
Engine
Generator
1
Low/High Pressure
Steam
220 F Hot Water
1 + MW Engines
Engine
Generator
2
Page 99
Thermal Recovery Applications
Exhaust
Gas
Hot Air Generation: Tunnel Drying,
Brick Manufacturing
Fuel
Electric
Power
500C
Air 20 +35C
99C
CAT
Air 80 +90C - ideally
140.000m3/h
85C
Air 20 +35C
Engine
High Temp.
Circuit
Engine Low Temperature
Circuit ( 32C to 54C )
Horizontal Radiators (Table Coolers)
Page 100
Exhaust Gas
110C
Fuel
Electric
Power
Hot Water Generation:
Industrial / Commercial
90C
500C
95C
CAT
85C
100C
Engine
High Temp.
Circuit
70C
Table Radiators
Page 101
To Customer
From Customer
Saturated steam 8-15bars
Exhaust Gas
Steam
200C
Fuel
Condensate
95° CHot Water & Steam
Feeder tank
Electric
Power
Heat Recovery:
Industrial /
Commercial
90C
500C
95C
85C
CAT
90C
Engine
High Temp.
Circuit
To Customer
70C
Radiators
Page 102
From Customer
Which Prime mover fits best my application?
•
Gas Engines
•
Gas Turbines
Page 103
Gas Engine / Turbine Similarities
• Low emissions levels/ Beneficial use of natural gas
• High reliability
• High availability
• Excellent for continuous, high load applications
• Low life cycle costs
• Quick delivery and ‘on-line’ capabilities
• Proven technology in many applications
Page 104
Gas Engine Advantages
• Higher fuel efficiency
• Lower Initial costs for small schemes (<10 MWe)
• Better suited for variable load applications
• More tolerant to high ambient conditions and high elevations (law of
physics – all is linked to CR)
• Lower fuel pressure requirement
• Accept low BTU fuels
• On line in less than 30 sec
Page 105
Gas Turbine Advantages
• Well suited for CHP w/ large heat to ekW ratio
• Higher exhaust temperature :480 C / 900 F
• Low weight & minimal space requirement
• Very simple design
• Lower emissions capabilities
• Less down time per machine
- Replacement at overhaul
• Ideal for 24/7 operation.
- Turbines do not like starts & stops
• Accept high BTU fuels
- No detonation – low sensibility to MN
- Can burn low energy fuels as well
Page 106
Gas Engines vs. Turbines
Heat to Power Need Ratio
Gas Engine
1:1
Turbines
2:1
Type of Heat Needed
Hot Water, Some Steam
Mostly Steam
Load
More Variable
More Constant
Electricity Cost Driver
Heat / Cooling Cost Driver
Page 107
Page 108
WHO IS THE WINNER, Turbine or Gas Engine ?
•
In fact in 95% of cases there’s no contest
• If the NPV evaluation is made correctly the choice is evident
Low temp, low pressure gas, high altitude will go
engines
• Large Heat / ekW ratio schemes, high pressure
steam will go turbines
• Hybrid systems with both gas turbines and gas
engines are possible.
•
Page 109
Target Market Attributes
• Geographically
–
–
–
–
High electric costs
Relatively low fuel costs
Adequate grant/funding levels
RPS-compliant & voluntary
• Site specific
–
–
–
–
–
High electric costs
Solid load factor
Coincident thermal and electric load profile
Available opportunity fuel, ADG, LFG etc
Site power quality, high reliability requirement
Page 110
US Market Driver
Avg. Commercial Natural Gas Price
Avg. Commercial Retail Electricity Price
16.00
14.00
12.00
8.00
6.00
Forecast Spark Spread
4.00
Spark Spread = CHP Business Case
2.00
Historical
Forecast
Year
Source = US DOE Energy Information Administration
Page 111
2029
2027
2025
2023
2021
2019
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
0.00
1967
$/1000ft3 Cent kW-h
10.00
2011 Electric Prices- US Overview
Page 112
Financial Feasibility-First Pass
•Most CHP plants are economically
driven.
•Economics are based on rate disparity
between utility energy and CHP Energy
costs. “Spark Spread”
Page 113
High Level First Look
Start with the obvious deal killers-Fatal Flaw Analysis
–
–
–
–
Air quality permitting
Waste water discharge permitting
Adequate space
Adequate facility utilities
•
•
•
•
Electrical
Water
Fuel
Waste water
Page 114
Move to high level feasibility analysis
– Identify and stack $/kW pricing components (running costs)
• Fuel
-Typically biggest cost component
• Capital recovery
• O&M
• Thermal credit
Page 115
• Thermal Credit
–Understand technology and model specific recoverable heat
–Determine existing boiler efficiency
–Calculate avoided boiler fuel cost
–Convert to cents/kWh
Page 116
• Roll Up of Stacked Running Costs & Credits (cents/kWh)
Plus
Fuel
Plus
Capital Recovery
Plus
O&M
Less Thermal Credits
Total cents/kWh
• If this beats present retail purchase price, all in, including demand
charges, investigate further.
• Potentially pull in engineer or developer.
• Commission a Feasibility study
Page 117
Key Evaluation Points
Understand the details of the customers utility costs
• Tariff
• Demand Charge $/kW-Month Peak and off Peak
- Month To Month
- Ratcheted
• Energy Charge cents/kWh Peak and Off Peak
• Standby Charges & Non availability penalties
• Customer Capacity Load Curves
• Existing or Pending CHP Incentives
Page 118
Demand Charges
• Utility Charges Customer By Monthly Demand Put on Their System
By Customer Facility
– Typically Highest 20 Minute Demand in kW During Utility Peak Period
– Some Are Month By Month
– Others are Ratcheted
– Pay peak demand for that month and then 80-90 % of that Cost For Following
11 Months. Unless Customer Establishes A new Peak Demand In The Out
Months
Can Significantly Impact Plant Cost And Required Redundancy
Page 119
Utility Energy Charges*
• Utility Charges Customer By Monthly kWh Consumption
– Typically Utility Peak Rate
– And Associated Off Peak Rate
Standby Charges*
• For CHP The Utility Will Charge Fee To Have Capacity
“Standing By” If The Customer Plant Is Off Line. In An
Amount Equal To The Customers Plant Capacity.
*In Some Areas These Charges Are Going Away
Page 120
Gas for DG and CHP is Emerging as
the Preferred Fuel Choice
Gas is more widely available today
• Public Policy and the local ‘green market’ are causing
industry to re-think gas DG/CHP applications
• Spark spread improvements are causing users to
rethink the value of DG/CHP with turbines and gas
engines
•
•There
is a strong opportunity for gas fired equipment
Page 121
Questions?

CHP - Alban Cat

Transcription

Similar documents

Advanced Biomass Gasification For Heat and Power

Rob Thornton - International District Energy Association

Week 6 Assignments: - MasteringPhysics:

Modernization of District Heat Supply Systems of Vilnius and Kaunas

Summer 2016 - Country Heritage Park

case study - Gas Networks Ireland

Triple Bottom Line Effects at HARBEC 02-09

Salone del Mobile 2015

Your Home - Christmas 2015