Engineered Systems - March 2008 - (Page 30)

EnergyWiz BY LINDSAY AUDIN, CEM, CEP SMALL-SCALE CHP: Still ‘Experimental’? A great idea can look bad when it is improperly selected or applied. Combined heat and power (CHP) plants (also called “cogeneration”) provide both onsite electricity and heat (and, in some cases, cooling). As energy prices and concerns about climate change continue to rise, they have been trumpeted as a way to cut energy costs and emissions. Utilizing heat produced during power generation, the overall thermal efficiency of CHP (total Btuh in vs. useful Btuh out) may reach or exceed 75%, much better than the ~40% for central power plants (which dump their waste heat). Since the 1970s, hundreds of industrial facilities with processes that can use such heat have installed CHP systems In an attempt to duplicate that success, many small-scale CHP systems (typically under 1 MW) were installed in California in the years following its 2001 power debacle (which saw brownouts and skyrocketing power prices). Over two hundred such systems were located at commercial and institutional facilities, most using either natural gasfired microturbines (MT) or internal combustion engines (ICE). DISAPPOINTING RESULTS A February 2007 study of 47 of those systems, however, showed a relatively low overall average thermal efficiency — under 37% — for such units. Depending on the price of power from central station plants and that of natural gas, that could result in a net higher cost of energy instead of a savings, and no net reduction in emissions. While no single cause for this disappointing performance was found, one of the major issues related to the initial qualification of facilities for CHP operation. In many cases, the necessary coincidence of heat and electric loads was missing: too often, high thermal loads (e.g., space and water heating) occurred when electric loads were low or moderate, and vice versa. Since the waste heat is created simultaneously with power production, heat not needed must be dumped since it cannot be economically stored, resulting in a much lower overall thermal efficiency. The California study indicated that some contractors failed to check the simultaneity of existing power and heat loads when determining which facilities could best take advantage of CHP. This problem was worse with MTs than ICEs due to MT’s relatively lower electrical production efficiency (which produces more waste heat/kWh than ICEs). OTHER PROBLEMS FOUND The study also found: • Relatively low capacity factors (i.e., actual electricity output divided by theoretical output if running 24/7) due to unplanned shutdowns. • Overstatement (at the design stage) of likely hours of operation, resulting in erroneous savings calculations. Some CHP vendors push the notion of 24/7 operation, even though off-peak power may cost less to buy than to generate, and natural gas spot market prices (if no firm contract is in place) may make running a CHP plant uneconomical at certain times of the year. • Generators did not always provide their rated kW capacities, due either to a failure to account for parasitic loads (e.g., cooling tow30 En gi neer ed S y stem s March 2008 Some systems were oversized Some systems were oversized relative to the thermal needs relative to the thermal needs of the facility The stud suggeste the facility. The study suggested cility. udy ggested that systems inste d be design d that systems instead be designed h i for the inimum elect ic for the minimum electric and i l tri d thermal loads to ensure thermal loads to ensure maximum d ximum i use use of power and waste heat ower and waste heat from the CHP plants from the CHP plants. ers) or issues with the engines (e.g., high ambient air temperatures lowering power production efficiency). • Mismatched or inappropriate choices for heat exchangers. In some cases, units were not sized properly or were not well-suited to the working fluids used in heat transfer. When a heat exchanger fails, efficiency drops and/or the entire system shuts down. • Some systems were oversized relative to the thermal needs of the facility. The study suggested that systems instead be designed for the minimum electric and thermal loads to ensure maximum use of power and waste heat from the CHP plants. LESSONS LEARNED The California study is the first to review a large number of smallscale CHP systems. It contains many valuable lessons for those considering such plants for their own facilities. While many of the systems studied were partially funded with state/utility incentives, the results indicate that such support is no assurance of good results. Since firms installing such systems still bear most of the costs, their investment in such equipment should be informed by these field results. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has also funded many small CHP systems, but has not yet studied them as a group. When asked to comment on the California results, one official responded that such systems are “still really just experimental at this point.” A very good synopsis of the study may be found at http://www.distributednrg.com/de_0711_energy.html. The full study, performed by Itron under contract to the California Energy Commission and several utilities, may be downloaded for free at http://www.itron.com/pages/news_articles_ individual.asp?nID=itr_014829.xml. ES Audin is president of Energywiz, Inc. (www. energywiz.com), a New York-based consulting firm that helps commercial/industrial clients get the most out of the competitive energy market. He was formerly energy manager for Columbia University and founded the New York Energy Buyers Forum. http://www.distributednrg.com/de_0711_energy.html http://www.distributednrg.com/de_0711_energy.html http://www.itron.com/pages/news_articles_individual.asp?nID=itr_014829.xml http://www.itron.com/pages/news_articles_individual.asp?nID=itr_014829.xml http://www.energywiz.com http://www.energywiz.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Engineered Systems - March 2008

Engineered Systems - March 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Back2Basics HVAC Challenge Case In Point Commissioning Building Automation Energy Wiz HVACR Designer Tips Application Checklist Exemplary Design = Elementary Success The Modern Unit Ventilator On A Mission VAV Systems And Green Design – Part II Issues & Events Products Glossary Classifieds Advertiser Index Tomorrow’s Engineer

Engineered Systems - March 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.