Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction to Combined
Heat and Power
Newark, N.J., August 24, 2016
Matt Lensink, P. Eng.Chief Operating Officer
CEM Engineering
What Is Cogeneration?
2
• Simultaneous production of electricity and useful heat and/or cooling
from a single fuel source
• Utilizes proven technologies, such as:
– Combustion Gas Turbine Generators (GTG)
– Boilers or heat exchangers
– Steam Turbine Generators (STG)
– Internal Combustion Engine generators (ICE)
• Electricity produced by a cogeneration system on-site displaces electricity
purchased from the utility (thus, Behind-the-Meter [BTM])
What Is Cogeneration?
3
• Combined efficiency of cogeneration (75% to 85%) is higher than the
separate production of electricity and thermal energy.
• Cogeneration (when properly designed and installed), can reduce
annual operating costs significantly.
• Cogenerated heat displaces heat from existing burners, boilers or
heaters.
Energy Efficiency Before CHP
*
* Assumes nuclear
4
Energy Efficiency After CHP
19%
Conclusion: 20% improvement in macro efficiency
5
Cogeneration Tutorial
Fuel 100% Trigeneration
17%
2%
30%
Heat losses
Line losses
Electricity
CoolingHeat 51%
6
Who Should Consider CHP?
7
• High, year-round demand for steam, hot water, or hot air (or chilled water in summer months) (or 800,000 Btu/hr of heat)
• Focused on reducing GHG emissions
• Energy cost is significant % of operating cost (> 5%)
• About to install new boiler or new genset
• “Energy champion” on staff (who is empowered to do the right thing)
Who Should Consider CHP? (cont’d)
8
• Use at least 30 m3/hr of natural gas to produce thermal energy (heat) weekdays from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
• Use at least 250 kWe of electricity during these same hours.
• Steady demand for process chilled water (60 tons) is great, too.
• Struggles with electricity supply reliability
Prime Mover Options
• Microturbines Low demand for both hot water and electricity
• Organic Rankine Convert high-grade waste heat to electricityCycle (ORC)
• Steam Turbine Boilers designed for > 250 psigGenerators (STG)
• Combustion Gas > 10,000 lbs/hr of steam (> 40 psig)Turbine Generators (GTG)
• Internal Combustion Lots of demand for hot water <100 °CEngines (ICE)
9
Technically Feasible?
• Size prime mover by matching:– Baseload thermal demand to
– Recoverable heat from prime mover
ICE GTG
< 10 mmBtu/hr (or 3,000 kWt) > 12 mmBtu/hr (or 3,600 kWt)
Stop at 3 MWe or 4 MWe Start at 1.8 MWe
10
Internal Combustion
Engine (ICE)
11
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)(available from 30 kW to 4 MW)
12
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)(available from 30 kW to 4 MW)
13
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)(available from 30 kW to 4 MW)
14
Typical Flow Diagram of an ICE
15
Formet, St. Thomas, Ontario (Canada)
800 kWe ICE-based CHP system
• Acoustic weather-proof enclosure
• Complete with SCR and hot water
heat recovery
• CEM completed detailed design
and contract administration
16
• Exhaust gas and heat recovery
• CEM completed detailed engineering and contract admin
3M Canada, Brockville, Ontario (Canada)
2 MWe ICE-based CHP system
17
• Steam production from exhaust gas circuit
• Hot water production from jacket water circuit
• CEM completed engineering and contract administration services, including 86 drawings
Polycon Industries, Guelph, Ontario (Canada)
8 MWe ICE based CHP system (3 x 2.67 MWe)
18
Gas Turbine
Generator (GTG)
19
20
• One (1) Taurus 70 CED gas turbine with
SoLoNOx
• 4,160 V generator with an epicyclic
gearbox
• Power generation system ISO rated at
7.5 MWe (total), with islanding
• 800 kW spark-ignited CAT engine
generator set for peak clipping
Sonoco, Trenton, Ontario (Canada)
6.8 MWe GTG-based CHP system; 120,000 lbs/hr HRSG
21
• “O”-type HRSG
• One Allison 501-KB5S gas turbine
• Power generation system ISO rated @ 3.9 MWe
• Excess electric power wheeled to another
Sonoco facility through the utility grid
• Proven electrical islanding system
Sonoco, Brantford, Ontario (Canada)
3.9 MWe GTG-based CHP system; 55,000 lbs/hr HRSG
22
• Unfired, two-pass HRSG used for baseload
cogeneration; gas fuel
• One Allison 501-KB5 gas turbine with H2O
injection to produce 42 ppm NOx
• Ideal 4,160 V generator with an Allen epicyclic
gearbox
• Power generation system ISO rated at
3.8 MWe
• Data acquisition system
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario (Canada)
3.8 MWe GTG-based CHP system
23
• Supplementary fired superheated steam HRSG
• One gas-only Allison 501-KB7 turbine
• 4,160 V generator with an Allen epicyclic
gearbox
• Power generation system ISO rated at 4.9 MWe
• Data acquisition system fuel gas booster
compressor
London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario (Canada)
4.9 MWe GTG-based CHP system; 75,000 lbs/hr HRSG
24
• 80,000 lb/hr package boiler
• Designed new powerhouse
• CEM completed detailed design and contract administration
• Operational since 2013
London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario (Canada)
3.5 MWe GTG-based CHP system; 25,000 lbs/hr HRSG
25
• Two (2) 50,000 lb/hr fired HRSGs (fresh-air-fired)
• Two (2) 2,000 TR steam turbine-driven centrifugal chillers
• $27 million CAPEX
• CEM completed detailed design and contract admin
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Co., Cambridge, Ontario (Canada)
9.2 MWe GTG-based CHP system (2 @ 4.6 MWe)
26
Electrical Interconnect
27
• Generators which offset load (whether operating in parallel or islanded) can:
– Indirectly cause reverse power flow (which affects transformers and transmission lines)
– Increase voltages beyond acceptable levels
– Cause large voltage fluctuations for other customers
• All generators connected to the grid contribute short circuit
“Hard” Challenges
28
• Electrical interconnection
• Air and noise compliance
• Space available?
• Natural gas volume and pressure
• Buried services
• Soil conditions
“Soft” Challenges
29
• No proponent at lower levels
• No support at higher levels
• Financial incentives time consuming
• “Cogen is too capital intensive” (perception)
• Unwillingness to consider third party financing
• Marginal credit rating (or private ownership)
Conclusions
30
Schedule Considerations
31
• Before “decision to proceed”:
– Allow 12–14 months
– Getting government funding takes time
– Permits and approvals
– Approval of capital
• After authorization to proceed:
– Allow 10–18 months
– Issue POs for major equipment immediately
– Engineering while equipment is manufactured
– Big allowance for commissioning
Conducting a Study
32
• First, establish financial feasibility:– 10-, 15- and 20-year IRR, after-tax, before financing
– With and without grant funding
• If project might meet your company hurdle rate:a) Then establish if there is electrical capacity
b) If there is, then do Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) to firm up capital cost and refine business case
Why Now?
33
• Natural gas supply (~150 years):– Lower burner tip prices
– Stabile and predictable
• Power prices increasing significantly:– 30%–50% over next 5–10 years
• Business case/financial feasibility therefore MUCH better
• Climate change/protect manufacturing viability
Conclusions
34
• On-site power generation can help a plant survive
• Technology is now highly reliable/available
• Economics are good and getting better
• Electrical interconnect is not easy (due to glut of solar and wind projects)
• Need internal champion (with support from on high and lots of stamina/persistence)
Questions?
DISCLAIMER
Although all statements and information contained herein are believed to be accurate and reliable, they are presented without guarantee or warranty of any kind, expressed or
implied. Information provided herein does not relieve the user from the responsibility of carrying out its own tests and experiments, and the user assumes all risks and liability for
use of the information and results obtained. Statements or suggestions concerning the use of materials and processes are made without representation or warranty that any such
use is free of patent infringement and are not recommendations to infringe on any patents. The user should not assume that all toxicity data and safety measures are indicated
herein or that other measures may not be required.
Thank You!
227 Bunting Road,
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2M 3Y2 Canada
Matt Lensink, P. EngChief Operating Officer
Office: 905-935-5815
[email protected] • www.cemeng.ca
Appendix Slides
36
Typical Hurdles/Solutions
Hurdle Possible solution
Capital availability? Use “Other Peoples Money” (OPM)
Driver and executive sponsor Identify both early on
Electrical interconnect Apply to utility early on (first!)
Predictable payback?Predictable price of natural gas during payback period
(“strip”)
Capital cost accuracyComplete 25%–50% design first, then estimate
capital cost
On schedule? Get all permits and approvals first
IRR/NPV alone not good enough Is there another big problem that cogen solves?
37
Sample Business Case
“Sparks Spread”
• Is the ratio of delivered cost of electricity (¢/kWh) to burner tip
cost of natural gas ($/mcf)?
• Need > 1.7 (preferably 2.0)
• Example: 10¢ (CAD)/kW.h ÷ $5.50 (CAD)/mmBtu = 1.8
• Example: 11¢ (CAD)/kW.h ÷ $6.0 (CAD)/mmBtu = 1.8
38
Technical Assumptions
Nominal Generating Capacity 2,000 kWe
Average Gross Power Output 2,000 kWe
Parasitic Power Load 4%
Average Net Power Output 1,920 kWe
Operating Hours 8,300 hr/yr
Net Electricity Produced 15,936 MWh/yr
Gross Heat Rate (LHV) 8,000 Btu/kW.h
Thermal Energy Recovered (HHV) 4.0 mmBtu/hr
HHV to LHV Ratio 1.11
Thermal Efficiency of Existing System (HHV) 80%
Technical Assumptions
39
Financial/Economic Assumptions ($ CAD)
Delivered Cost of Electricity (2014) 0.110 $/kW.h
Burner-tip Cost of Fuel (2014) 5.50 $/mmBtu
Maintenance Reserve (LTSA) (2014) 0.013 $/kW.h (regular maintenance)
Consumables (Urea) (2014) 38 $000's/yr
Maintenance Reserve (Minor Overhauls) (2014) 280 $000's (every 4 years)
Maintenance Reserve (Major Overhauls) (2014) 530 $000's (every 8 years)
Standby Power Cost (2014) 2.30 $/kW/mo
Capital Cost (Design, Supply, Install, Commission) 5,000 $'000's
Equivalent Unit Capital Cost 2,500 $/kWe
Discount Rate for NPV Analysis 10%
Corporate Income Tax Rate 26.5%
Capital Cost Allowance Rate 30%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Escalation Rate on Natural Gas (from previous year) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Escalation Rate on Electricity (from previous year) 6% 4% 4% 5% -3% 2%
Escalation Rate on Electricity (cumulative from 2014) 6% 10% 15% 21% 17% 20%
Escalation Rate on All Other Variables 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Financial/Economic Assumptions
40
Proforma Analysis ($000’s CAD/year)
Year - 1 2 3 4 5
Calendar 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Electricity Saved - 1,934 2,015 2,116 2,055 2,095
Natural Gas Saved by Thermal Recovery - 190 194 198 202 206
Total Annual Gross Revenues 2,124 2,209 2,313 2,257 2,301
Fuel Cost - 843 860 878 895 913
Non-Fuel O&M (Regular Maintenance) - 229 236 243 250 258
Non-Fuel O&M (Major and Minor Overhauls 315
Standby Power Charge 59 60 62 64 66
Consumables 38 39 41 42 43
Total Annual O&M Expenses 1,169 1,196 1,223 1,566 1,280
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes 955 1,013 1,090 691 1,022
Capital Cost (Design, Supply, Install, Commission) 5,000
Capital Cost Allowance (Carry-over Unused) - 750 1,275 1,155 689 437
Corporate Income Tax - 54 - - 0 155
Net Earnings After Tax (Before Grant) (5,000) 901 1,013 1,090 690 867
Proforma Analysis - $000's per year (CAD)
41
Financial Results
%
10-year IRR (after-tax, before financing) 12
15-year IRR (after-tax, before financing) 15
20-year IRR (after-tax, before financing) 16
42