Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Becoming DEEP Green with
Just One Project: Cogen Tom Davies –
Director Design & Construction, Amherst College
Todd Holland –
Energy Manager, Amherst, Mount Holyoke & Smith Colleges
The Bottom Line(s)
Reasonable pay-back Huge CO2 reduction Fuel flexibility and standby power But . . .
. . . Large first cost
Why Go Green?
Many flavors of climate commitment: Kyoto Protocol Clean Air/Cool Planet
a.k.a. The New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers’ Climate Change Action Plan
Step It Up Presidents Climate Commitment
a.k.a. American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment
Greenhouse gas auditAmherst Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trend
(linear regression)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
eC
O2
(to
ns
)
slope = 343 tons per year (1.2% growth)
Greenhouse gas model
Greenhouse Gas Emissions History: 1.2% Growth
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
growth
baseline
Climate Change Commitments
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
growth
baseline
Climate Change Commitments
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
CA/CP
growth
baseline
Climate Change Commitments
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Kyoto
CA/CP
growth
baseline
Climate Change Commitments
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Step It Up
Kyoto
CA/CP
growth
baseline
Climate Change Commitments
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
President's
Step It Up
Kyoto
CA/CP
growth
baseline
Flavors of climate commitment
Many ways to go green – How do they compare?
Purchasing REC’s Building improvements Operational changes Behavioral changes Cogeneration
Offsets, Programs, and Projects
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Offsets
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Offsets
Offsets
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Offsets
Offsets
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
Offsets, vs. Projects and Cogen
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eCO
2 to
ns
per
yea
r Offsets
Offsets
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
eCO
2 to
ns
per
yea
r
Offsets
Cogen
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
Offsets, vs. Projects and Cogen
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Offsets
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Cogen
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
GHG Reduction Strategies
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
eC
O2
to
ns
pe
r y
ea
r
Offsets
Cogen
Projects
Programs
growth
baseline
Cogen by the numbers
of GHG emissions from fuel for heat and purchased electricity
Cogen by the numbers
of the energy we buy is electricity
of our GHG emissions are from electricity
Where does electricity come from?
Electrical Energy Generation by SourceUS Total
51%
19%
19%
3%6% 2%
Coal
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Hydro
Renewables
Cogen by the numbers
of the energy used to generate electricity is wasted as heat
Cogen by the numbers
efficiency of the nation’s electric grid
overall efficiency of a small cogen system
Comparison of conventional systems vs. Cogen
CO2 reduction 7000 tons, 23%
NOx (smog) reduction 27 tons, 60%
SOx (acid rain) reduction 93 tons, 62%
OK, you convinced me.So what is this Cogen?
Gas turbine, recip engine, steam turbine Types of plants where this it works What’s new: available to smaller campuses
Cogen explained:
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Eff. = 95%)
STEAM TURBINE (Eff. = 42%)
BOILER (Efficiency = 83%)
CONDENSER
72Units 22
Units25
Units
23
Units
High Pressure Steam
60 Units
72 Fuel Source units yields:
22 Units of Electricity
GENERATOR (Eff. = 92%)
35 Units
Electric Efficiency: 30%
Conventional Power Plant:
73 Fuel Source units yields:
58 Units of Thermal Energy
73Units
Heat to Campus58 Units
BOILER (Efficiency = 80%)
Thermal Efficiency: 80%
Conventional Heating Plant:
73Units
Heat to Campus58 Units
BOILER (Efficiency = 80%)
Overall Efficiency: 55%
145 Fuel Source units yields:
22 Units of Electricity
58 Units of Thermal Energy
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Eff. = 95%)
STEAM TURBINE (Eff. = 42%)
BOILER (Efficiency = 83%)
CONDENSER
72Units 22
Units25
Units
23
Units
High Pressure Steam
60 Units
GENERATOR (Eff. = 92%)
Conventional Heat & Power:
100 Fuel Source units yields:
22 units electricity
58 units thermal energy
Cogen = Combined Heat & Power:
58 Units
Overall Efficiency: 80%
GENERATOR (Eff. = 92%)
100Units
24
Units
22Units
GAS TURBINE (Efficiency = 24%)
HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR
Steam to Campus
76 Units
Cogen explained:
Cogen configuration
Fuel cost and availability: natural gas, diesel, or both
Year-round or seasonal operation Are you thermally or electrically rich? Steam and/or hot water for heat Summertime heat load Rate structure
The Cogen Solution at Amherst Solar Saturn dual-fuel gas turbine and
HRSG with duct burner
Back-pressure steam turbine
Total capacity 1250 and 500 kW
Cogen by numbers: Payback and other cost factors
Initial cost Operational savings Simple payback estimates Volatility in energy costs and what that
means for payback Rising energy prices = good news!
Amherst Cogen First Costs
Construction 5,200,000 Equipment 3,500,000 Soft Costs 600,000 Total Cost 9,300,000
Payback Calculations
This will be done live off a spreadsheet based on current gas, oil and electricity costs, and the audiences predictions of future gas, oil and electricity costs.
Fuel
NG #2 #6 kWh Annual
$/mcf gal gal Svgs
1 $8.10 $3.29 $3.50 $0.14 $912,941
2 $8.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.15 $936,592
3 $9.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.15 $901,706
4 $10.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.15 $866,821
5 $8.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.16 $1,058,543
6 $9.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.16 $1,023,657
7 $10.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.16 $988,772
8 $8.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.17 $1,180,494
9 $9.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.17 $1,145,609
10 $10.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.17 $1,110,723
11 $11.00 $3.50 $3.50 $0.17 $1,075,837
Other benefits:
Stand-by power capabilities
Island mode operation
Demand reduction = payments from utility
Diversification of boiler equipment
Reduced reliance on #6 fuel oil
Too good to be true?
Equipment availability
The reality of a seller’s market
Schedule volatility
Pricing volatility and change orders
It’s complex, so build a great team
Evolution of costs & savings
Feasibility Project IncreaseProject Cost $5,100,000 $9,300,000 82%Utility Costs:
Electricity 41.03$ 46.89$ 14%Natural Gas 10.10$ 13.00$ 29%#2 Fuel Oil 9.66$ 25.36$ 163%#6 Fuel Oil 8.00$ 16.00$ 100%
Annual Savings $809,000 $1,018,000 26%Simple Payback 6.3 9.1Est. ROI 16% 11%
Grid Operator Alphabet Soup ISO
RMR
FCM1
FCM2
ODR
Translation = $67,000 a year
Cogen Team
In-house: D&C, Engineering, Ops,
Energy, Administration, Trustees
Consultants: Engineers, Commissioning
Agent, Testing, Permitting, Procurement
Vendor: Prime Mover(s) & Subs
Contractor: Builders, Commissioners
Become DEEP Green with Just One Project: Cogen
The Bottom Line(s)
Reasonable pay-back
Fuel flexibility and standby power
Huge CO2 reduction
Resources
CHP Application Centers www.northeastchp.org www.chpcenterma.org www.chpcenterse.org www.gulfcoastchp.org www.chpcentermw.org www.intermountainchp.org www.chpcenternw.org www.chpcenterpr.org
![6-0_Engineering_and_Design_Criteria[1] Chevron Cogen 6B](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/577d2e9a1a28ab4e1eaf820b/6-0engineeringanddesigncriteria1-chevron-cogen-6b.jpg){kind=icon}
