• Like
  • Save

Central Utility Plant Roundtable

  • 577 views
Uploaded on

View the Central Utility Plant Roundtable presentation put on by Sebesta Blomberg in Massachusetts on September 23, 2010. Please contact Dave Vettraino for additional information at …

View the Central Utility Plant Roundtable presentation put on by Sebesta Blomberg in Massachusetts on September 23, 2010. Please contact Dave Vettraino for additional information at dvettraino@sebesta.com

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
577
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Central Utility Plant Roundtable September 23, 2010
  • 2. Central Plant Roundtable • Planning Financing • Integrated Incentives • Utility • Sustainability MACT • Commissioning/Start-Up Permit Strategies Fuel/Energy Choices • Retro-Engineering Efficiency • Renewable Energy Cost of Service 1
  • 3. Integrated Master Planning Strategic Framework For University Planning • Goals • Objectives • Policies Drivers of Integrated Approach • Perception 3
  • 4. Integrated Master Planning Strategic Framework For University Planning Goals Objectives Policies Perception To be one of the top 3 public research universities in the world over the next decade 10% energy reduction and 15% overall renewable energy goals by 2010 All new buildings are to be LEED® Silver 4
  • 5. Integrated Master Planning Strategic Framework For University Planning Goals Objectives Policies Perception To be competitive all dormitories must be cooled Must provide reliable heating, cooling and electric power services without creating additional debt obligations 5
  • 6. Integrated Master Planning Strategic Framework For University Planning Goals Objectives Policies Perception Raise our profile as a nationally ranked research university Develop a plan for building the capacity to meet our goals 6
  • 7. Integrated Master Planning Integrated Planning • Technical • Economic • Environmental • Political • Community 7
  • 8. Integrated Master Planning Integrated Utility Planning Where we are Where we want to be Present Future Gap Analysis --- Needs Development 8
  • 9. Integrated Master Planning Integration of Planning Utility Master Plan Sustainability Plan Utility Campus Capacity Demand Production Consumption Cost of Service Resource Use Fuel Choices Water Reduction Impacts Economic * Environmental * Community Not a single answer or silver bullet 9
  • 10. Integrated Master Planning Business Case of Utility Operations • Status Quo – Business as Usual Capital cost of infrastructure Operating expense of services delivered Performance relative to GOPP • Alternates/Measures for Strategic Framework (GOPP) Incremental cost 10
  • 11. Integrated Master Planning Specifics of Integration Utility Master Plan Sustainability Plan Capacity/Configuration Carbon Footprint Growth LEED Cost/Schedule Campus Efficiency Emissions/Emissions Control Utility Efficiency Permitting Constraints Renewable Energy/RE Credits Financial Analysis Capital Cost Operating Cost Source of Capital Legislature/Trustees ESCO Other PPP 11
  • 12. Utility Master Plan Process Learn from Past – Yours and Ours Document an Owner’s Project Requirements Campus Goals – Objectives – Policies Collaborate, Communicate, Coordinate Stakeholders Include Staff, Operations, Students, Community 12
  • 13. Utility Master Plan Process Identify Opportunities Increase Efficiency – Capital and Operating Cost Window Identify Limitations Financial – Physical – Environmental – Operational Maintain a Macro View Major Utilities – Heating, Cooling, Electric Other Utilities – Water, Sanitary, Storm, Comm, Security, BAS 13
  • 14. Utility Master Plan Process Benchmarks are “Sanity Checks” and Leverage • Energy Usage and Cost/SF • Production efficiency • Carbon footprint Utility Planning is Incomplete Unless it Incorporates: • Sustainable and Green Design Principles • Phasing/Implementation Plan • Permitting Strategy • Capital Strategy • Campus Standards (with Updates) 13
  • 15. 15 Utility Master Plan On-Site Utilities Parameters Fuel Flexibility Staff Analysis Cogeneration Chilled Water Chilled Water RFP: Utilities Load Growth Central Plant Procurement Capital Cost Condensate Natural Gas Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Projections Projections Distributed Utility Rate Electricity Efficiency Hydraulic Modeling Analysis Electric Energy Review Client Return Steam Steam Plants Fuel Architect of the Capitol, Washington DC X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio X X X X X X X X X X X X Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Lobo Energy, Albuquerque, New Mexico X X X X X X X X X X X X Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado X X X X X X X X X X X Miami University, Oxford, Ohio X X X X X X X X X X X X X Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin X X X X X X X X X University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada X X X X X X X X X X Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana X X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Minnesota – SE Steam Plant Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, La Crosse, WI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota X X X X X X X X X X Towson University, Towson, Maryland X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Minnesota – West Bank, Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X University of MN – Academic Health Ctr. Minneapolis, MN X X X X X X X X X X X X Luther Midelfort – Mayo Health System Eau Clair, WI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Brandeis University, Boston, Massachusetts X X X X X X X X X X X X North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina X X X X X X X X X X X X X University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 X X X University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario X X X X X X X X X X General Services Administration, Washington, DC X X X X X X X X
  • 16. Utility Master Plan Early participation at a high level improves efficiency and project outcome Opportunity to Data Collection Add Value Charrette Analysis Base Case Alternatives Findings Recommendations Planning Design Construction Operation 16
  • 17. Utility Master Plan 17
  • 18. Utility Master Plan 19
  • 19. Sustainability Planning Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability) Hand-in-hand with Energy Management • Utilities biggest impact • Supply and demand-side management • New challenge to evaluate other actions Transportation Refrigerant management program Waste management New Decision Tools • More than just simple payback • Integrate new criteria 22
  • 20. Sustainability Planning Central Plants and Climate Commitments Commuter school with no 1% 2% central plant 3% 6% infrastructure 2% 2% Electricity Natural Gas Air Travel* Fleet Fuel 23% Farm Aviation School 61% Business Cars Commuting* 20
  • 21. Sustainability Planning Central Plants and Climate Commitments 2.7% 3.9% Residential 0.3% school with 0.0% natural gas 0.3% 2.3% central plant Electricity Steam Plant 40.1% Gas (House Heat) Campus Fleet Facilities Fleet Air Travel* 50.3% Business Cars* Commuting* 21
  • 22. Sustainability Planning Central Plants and Climate Commitments Directly Financed Air Scope 2 T&D Losses Travel 3% 4% Co-gen Electricity Residential 9% Student Commuting school with 4% coal-fired Faculty / Staff co-gen Commuting 9% Co-gen Steam 35% Purchased Electricity 33% Other On-Campus Refrigerants Stationary Direct 1% & Chemicals Agriculture Transportation 1% 0% 1% 22
  • 23. Sustainability Planning Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability) Annual GHG Reduction by Technology 4,500 4,000 3,772 3,500 3,326 3,540 3,351 3,000 Metric Tons, CO2 2,857 2,902 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 4 0 Energy Eff. Cogeneration Wind Turbine Biomass Anaerobic Photovoltaic Green Power Gasifier Digester 23
  • 24. Sustainability Planning Managing Carbon Footprint (Sustainability) Cost per Metric Ton CO2 Avoided $450 $350 $333.03 $252.32 $250 $/Metric Ton $150 $80.21 $50 $12.33 -$10.58 -$11.67 -$17.97 -$50 Energy Eff. Cogeneration Wind Turbine Biomass Anaerobic Photovoltaic Green Power Gasifier Digester -$150 24
  • 25. Sustainability Planning Estimated Avoided Estimated Annual Simple Emissions Implementation Cost Payback (metric tons ECMs Description Cost Avoidance (yrs) CO2 / yr) 11 Use of Existing HVAC Scheduling Capability $1,000 $1,600 0.6 13 18 Recommission Controls $2,000 $9,100 0.2 36 29 Ammonia Refrigeration Plant Strategies - Lansing Rink $2,000 $8,500 0.2 24 5 Upgrade Exit Sign Lighting to LED $2,000 $400 5.0 1 33 Interlock Condenser Recirculation Pumps - MSL Chiller Plant $2,000 $200 10.0 1 20 Insulate Steam PRVs $4,000 $500 8.0 4 8 Add Photocell Lighting Control For Daylit Areas $6,000 $1,500 4.0 4 4B Change Other HID Lighting to Fluorescent $8,000 $1,600 5.0 5 21 Add Humidifier Isolation Valves $10,000 $300 33.3 2 16 Add Occupancy Based Temperature Reset/Schedule $11,000 $13,100 0.8 74 7 Install Occupancy Sensor Lighting Control $13,000 $5,800 2.2 17 3A Convert Incandescents to CFLs (Standard Applications) $17,000 $5,400 3.1 16 2 Upgrade Fluorescent Lighting to T-8 System. $22,000 $4,100 5.4 12 23 Add Variable Speed Drives to Pumps $40,000 $8,700 4.6 25 26 Replace Chiller Plant - Jesup $58,000 $4,300 13.5 12 3B Convert Incandescents to CFLs (Art Gallery and Other) $59,000 $5,000 11.8 14 6 Install Lighting Scheduling Control in Select Areas $88,000 $41,300 2.1 118 30 Pool Cover - Chandler $96,000 $26,400 3.6 100 9 Add Skylights to Reduce Daytime Lighting $119,000 $5,600 21.3 16 22 Add Variable Speed Drives to Fans $151,000 $23,500 6.4 67 32 Gas Cogeneration Options - Chander (Phase II) $163,000 $11,500 14.2 27 Change Athletic Center Metal Halide Lighting to 4A Fluorescent $262,000 $47,400 5.5 136 31 Pool Dehumification Options - Chandler $424,000 $38,200 11.1 66 25
  • 26. Sustainability Planning By Energy Payback By GHG Mass By GHG $/mton By capital $ (L-H) (L-H) (H-L) (H-L) 11 18 4A 18 5 29 6 11 18 11 30 29 29 16 16 16 33 6 22 6 20 7 31 7 8 3A 18 20 4B 30 32 30 21 8 23 3A 16 23 29 8 7 5 7 23 3A 4B 9 4B 2 2 3A 2 23 4A 3B 4A 26 22 11 5 3B 20 26 22 6 33 2 33 30 31 4B 3B 9 3B 8 26 22 26 20 21 32 32 21 32 4A 9 5 31 31 21 33 9 26
  • 27. Integrated Master Planning Customized Criteria Decision criteria must fit culture/goals of organization • Identify specific criteria to be used • Develop weighting to properly meet goals Cannot operate solely in the vacuum of economics Data collection mechanisms also critical • Quality, consistent data • Facilitate third-party review Don’t forget environmental compliance costs!!! 27
  • 28. Commissioning/Start-Up Hands-On Design Experience Expertise A Working Plant Rigorous Collaborative Commissioning Approach Process 28
  • 29. Commissioning/Start-Up University of Massachusetts - Central Heating Plant Project Highlights • 10 MW CT/4 MW ST • 100,000 PPH HRSG • (3) 125,000 PPH Package Boilers • Dual Fuel Plant Issues: Coordination with old plant Operation CM Scope Execution/Schedule Project Completion 29 29
  • 30. Commissioning/Start-Up Project Goal To Deliver a Functional, Reliable Utility System • February 12, 2013 • No Disruption to Critical Facilities Phased/ Parallel Construction: • Steam Plant • Steam/ Condensate Distribution • Condensate Recovery - 20 Buildings 30 Month Construction Schedule Cannot Slip! 30
  • 31. Commissioning/Start-Up In Support of this goal: Mitigate Performance Risk Assist with Planning and Scheduling Ensure System Reliability Document Operation of System and Components 31
  • 32. Commissioning/Start-Up The University of Alabama at Birmingham Conceptual Plan and Approach Project Management Team Commissioning Agent Engineer of Record Construction Management & Other Design Team Members Construction Teams 32
  • 33. Commissioning/Start-Up Conceptual Plan and Approach Plant Operating Staff Involved Throughout Project • OPR Development • DID/Design Review • Start-up/Commissioning Plan Devedlopment • Submittal Review • Construction Testing Observation • O&M Manual Review 33
  • 34. Commissioning/Start-Up Conceptual Plan and Approach Plant Operating Staff Involved Throughout Project • Training • Turnover package review • Observe operations equipment / system startup • Observe Functional Testing • Performance / Emissions / Reliability Testing 34
  • 35. Commissioning/Start-Up Project Overview Central Heating Plant / Cogeneration Construction and Integration with Existing Campus Systems Project Challenges • Maintain Operations in Existing Facilities • Financial Controls • System Operations • Reliability • Construction Phasing • Verifiable Metrics for Performance 35
  • 36. Commissioning/Start-Up Project Overview Roles and Responsibilities as the IE/CA/SU Assist Client and Design Team in Delivering a Successful Project Ensure Design Intent Achieved Core Member of the Project Quality Assurance Team 36
  • 37. Commissioning/Start-Up Approach START-UP ENGINEER (Independent Engineer) • Design versus Cx Roles • Technical Insurance • Fresh Perspective • Identify Issues • Value Engineering • Equipment/System Performance • Evaluate Design Criteria/Operating Conditions • Evaluate / Protect Design Intent • Resource Available to Team 37
  • 38. Commissioning/Start-Up Approach COMMISSIONING AGENT • Work with Engineer of Record / Start-up Engineer to Establish and Document Performance Criteria – Design Intent Document • Develop Commissioning Plan • Develop Commissioning Specification • Validate Actual Operation against Design Intent 38
  • 39. Commissioning/Start-Up Costs Typically 2 to 5% of the overall project cost. Turnover process may require an additional person to manage Formal documentation of testing activities – Formal test procedures, checklists and datasheets – Staff hours for testing are relatively the same 39
  • 40. Commissioning/Start-Up Costs View Costs as “Shifted” instead of as “Additional” Without Commissioning Design Construction First Year of Operation With Commissioning Fine-tuning Contractor Callbacks Design Construction And Cx Project Costs over Time 40
  • 41. Commissioning/Start-Up Costs vs. Benefits $5,000,000 Benefits $4,500,000 Received from Commissioning $4,000,000 Actual Cost of $3,500,000 Commissioning $3,000,000 "Baseline" cost $2,500,000 of Commissioning $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 A- S- O- N- D- J- F- M- A- M- J- J- A- S- O- N- D- J- F- 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 M- A- 00 00 00 00 41
  • 42. Commissioning/Start-Up Challenges Proper planning early in the project with the right people All parties embrace a formal program/roles and responsibilities Need an Owner that fully supports a formal program Involvement of Owner’s operators in the startup/commissioning process 42
  • 43. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Entire System from Plant and End User Think Get your hands dirty Find the BTU/KW not needed Recover usable energy Highest short and long term impact Many low-cost / no-cost opportunities 43
  • 44. Training UConn Example • Stan Nolar • Plant turned over without Operator training • Operators need to know WHY as well as HOW MATEP Example • Dean Larson • Formal power plant training and turnover process 44
  • 45. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Project Approach: Utility System A Utility System is a Balance of ALL Three Components 45
  • 46. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Plant Assessment Efficiency is: • A system that operators/supervisors really understand • Operational flexibility • Continuous commissioning with periodic recertification • Instrumentation – M&V Efficiency is much more than lowest kW/Ton or $/Ton-hr or heat rate (BTU/PPH) or $/KLB 46
  • 47. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Plant Assessment Efficiency is: • Training and Documentation • Automatic operation with confidence • Being able to respond and control the system • System designed to serve the campus – not itself • No calls Efficiency is much more than lowest kW/Ton or $/Ton-hr or heat rate (BTU/PPH) or $/KLB 47
  • 48. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Chilled Water - What is Evaluated? Chiller Condenser Water – can include tower Make-up Water Water Treatment/Filtration Chiller Plant HVAC Refrigerant Leak Detection Winter/Free Cooling System Controls Electrical MCC/Switchgear 48
  • 49. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Overall Plant Efficiencies – Wire to Water Component kW/Ton HP/Ton % of Total Chilled Water Pumps .08 - .12 .10 - .15 15% Condenser Water Pumps .04 - .08 .05 - .10 9% Tower Fans .04 - .08 .05 - .10 9% Chiller .55 - .62 .70 - .78 67% TOTAL .90 1.13 100% Where to look 49
  • 50. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Cooling Tower Opportunities Towers typically provide the greatest return on investment for new construction or upgrades Tower fans and tower pumps are ~18% of total energy to produce chilled water Typically 15 year life with fill work at 7-10 years for packaged towers Longer expected life on field erected towers, 30+ years 50
  • 51. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Cooling Tower Opportunities Maintenance • Clean fill regularly • Protect tower finish – stainless is good investment • Adjust fan pitch to full load amps (FLA) Operational Adjustments • Reset tower water temperature setpoints (don’t operate at 85º just because of design conditions) • Optimize flows – design flows are not necessarily the most efficient if fan, pump, and chiller energy considered 51
  • 52. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Cooling Tower Opportunities Chiller Efficiency and Tower Water Temperatures • Minimum of 2% - 2.5% gain in efficiency (lower kW/ton) for every degree tower temperature is lowered • Cooler tower temperatures increase capacity of chillers – capable of more tons and colder water • Tower performance tied to ambient Wet Bulb temperatures that are lower than design 99% of the time – use fans and reduce compressor energy • Based on area of country and usage profiles, 1 kW of fan energy will save 2-3 kW of compressor energy 52
  • 53. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Cooling Tower Opportunities “Lift” Determines Chiller Energy Usage 85º CTW 75º CTW Energy 44º CHW 53
  • 54. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Rules Applies to Plant, Distribution and Building ANY extra throttling increases operating cost NEVER pump chilled water when there is already enough differential pressure to flow a user/building Variable flow systems (with 2-way valves) can save money over constant flow systems ANY constant speed pump in the system (other than chiller pump) can increase operating cost, hurt system performance, and impact nearby users 54
  • 55. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Rules (continued) Applies to Plant, Distribution and Building Typical HVAC control valves can start to be forced open at 25+ PSI throttling Wire to Water efficiency of multiple small pumps is lower than fewer large pumps properly controlled 55
  • 56. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Opportunities Variable flow systems reduce operating cost NO uncontrolled booster pumps! Keep decoupler open – no series pumping Select 2-way control valves for maximum system design differential pressure 56
  • 57. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Opportunities Total Chilled Water Flow Versus Load 3-Way Valves CHW Constant Flow Design GPM Load 2-Way Valves LOAD 57
  • 58. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Opportunities CHW pumping ~15% - 25% of total system operating cost Variable flow systems w/VFD’s need very few balance valves 58
  • 59. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Opportunities 3,000 Ton Campus – MN University • High head constant speed building pumps at twice peak campus flow rate, undersized secondary pumps • Upgrade secondary pumps, bypass building pumps saving $12,000 per year, increasing site DT by 2.5º nets an additional $5500 - 13% of entire system 59
  • 60. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) CHW Pumping System Opportunities 1,000 Ton Industrial Site - California • Install VFD on secondary pump, 2-way valves, and system DT improved by 4º nets 560,000 KWH ($48,000) per year savings or 16% of entire system 20,000 Ton Industrial Site - Caribbean • VFD’s on secondary pumps, bypass building pumps, improve site DT nets 5.2 million KWH ($700,000) savings 60
  • 61. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Other CHW System Lessons Learned Issues Lessons Learned CHW Goes Where it Wants, Not Understand System Hydraulics Where You Want it to Go and Control 10° Coils and 18° Chillers/Pumps Match System Components, Now and Future Can’t Get Design Tons out of Tons are Flow and ΔT, Adjust Chiller Either to get Tons Can’t Monitor Performance or Instrumentation Provides a Impact of Changes in Operation Payback – Do It! Successful Chilled Water Systems are Designed, They Don’t Just Happen 61
  • 62. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Boiler System - What is Evaluated? Boilers Deaerator Feedwater System Steam/Condensate Chemical Treatment Make-Up/Combustion air - HVAC Fuel Systems Heat Recovery (if present) Controls Electrical MCC/Switchgear 62
  • 63. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Hospital Steam System (3) Watertube Boilers • 25,000 PPH each, 32 MMBTUH Burner (80%) • 70% Seasonal Efficiency • Natural gas, #6 fuel oil • Bros Boilers: 1956 - 1964 150 PSIG rated/100 PSIG operating pressure (338o) Deaerator 63
  • 64. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Hospital Steam System High pressure feedwater pumps Distribution pressure 15 / 25 / 60 / 100 PSIG 75% condensate return (used to be 50%) Serves 1 million square feet 64
  • 65. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Steam Operating Data 120 Million pounds/year produced 13,000 PPH average with 40,000 PPH peak + and less than 4,000 PPH minimum Variable portion of steam cost is $15-$20/1000# with fuel at $13.00/1000# 160,000 Million BTU/year of fuel or $1.5 million ~170 KBtu/SF/yr (150,000 is target – reduce ~7% 65
  • 66. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Expected Useful Life Boilers • Watertube Boilers 40 – 50+ years • Firetube Boilers 25 – 30 years • + Maintenance, water treatment, fuel Auxiliary Components • Deaerator : 25 years but regular inspections • Pumps: 15 – 20 years • Burners: 15 – 20 years Piping: 25–50 for Condensate, 50–100 Steam, FW 66
  • 67. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Boiler and Burners Reduce lost condensate Heat Recovery • Economizers • Flash steam Recovery • Blowdown Economizer Water Treatment – RO (site specific) 67
  • 68. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Boiler and Burners Boiler Burners • Oxygen and CO2 in flue gas • Flue gas temperature (versus combustion air) • Emissions Boiler: tube surface fouling – inside and out Case Study – Hospital Steam System • 500o flue gas temperature above ambient • Reduced to 5% O2 from 10% O2 (can go lower) • 7% efficiency improvement – reduced cost per 1000 LB by $1.20, over $100,000 per year 68
  • 69. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Reduce Lost Condensate • Methodist Hospital improved from 50% condensate returned to 75% • Savings of approximately $50,000/year (3.5%) • Capture and return condensate • Maintain condensate receivers to prevent overflow to sanitary • Use Schedule 80 pipe for condensate • Trap program 69
  • 70. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Economizers Typical Boiler Economizer • Captures flue gas heat to preheat feedwater or combustion air Condensing Economizer • Takes flue gas after feedwater economizer and lowers to ~170o, but it provides lower grade heat 70
  • 71. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Economizers 325 Deg F Condensing Economizer 500 Deg F 4% Fuel 170 Deg F Savings Feedwater Economizer 5% Fuel Savings ($75,000) 71
  • 72. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Flash Steam and Blowdown Heat Recovery • Pumped condensate return system with vented receivers have flash losses • 100 PSIG steam flashes 13.2% - 100 pounds of steam produced returns only 86.8 pounds of condensate • More 55o makeup and less 180o condensate returned • Capture flashed steam and use for 15 PSIG users, flash is reduced to 3.9% and reduces 100 PSIG steam usage • 10% more returned = 2.5% savings, $30K – 40K savings 72
  • 73. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Consider Conversion to Hot Water Cost/Savings • 10% fuel savings possible, but expensive to get there with steam infrastructure in place • Steam loads will still exist so install special purpose steam generators or switch to another source (gas or electric) Required a Change in Distribution System • Two large supply return pipes • Does hospital have the room or can handle the disruption? 73
  • 74. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) Improve Operating Efficiencies Cogeneration – Steam Turbine Generator 100 kW BPSTG (135-35 PSIG) 10,000 PPH <7 year payback 74
  • 75. Retro-Engineering (Retro-Commissioning) UConn Plant Retro-Commissioning Sponsored by Connecticut Power & Light • Optimize Plant Operation & Equipment Run Selection • Improve Turbine Inlet Air Conditions: • Chilled Water and Condenser Water Temperature Reset: • Variable Primary Chiller Flow / Raise Delta T: • Modify RO Makeup • Install VFD’s on boiler forced draft fans • Interconnect plants/distribution system • Replace pressure reducing stations with backpressure steam turbine generators 75
  • 76. Renewable Energy Technology Solar • Domestic Hot Water • Space Heating • Photovoltaic Wind Biomass Biogas Ground Source Heat Pumps 76
  • 77. Renewable Energy Consideration Scale • Demonstration • Production Green Power 77
  • 78. Renewable Energy Incentives Tax Exemptions Tax Credits Grants Loans Production Incentive 78
  • 79. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Corporate Depreciation Corporate Tax Credits Grant Program Loan Program Production Incentive 79
  • 80. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Corporate Depreciation • Five year accelerated cost recovery Solar Geothermal Electric Ground Source Heat Pumps Wind Combined Heat and Power Biomass 80
  • 81. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Corporate Tax Credits • Business Energy Investment Tax Credit 30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind (<= 100 kW) 10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP • Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit Wind – $22/MWh Closed-Loop Biomass -- $22/MWh Geothermal -- $11/MWh Landfill Gas -- $11/MWh MSW -- $11/MWh Hydroelectric -- $11/MWh 81
  • 82. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Corporate Tax Credits • Business Energy Investment Tax Credit • Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit Wind $22/MWh Closed-Loop Biomass $22/MWh Geothermal $11/MWh Landfill Gas $11/MWh MSW $11/MWh Hydroelectric $11/MWh Marine & Hydrokinetic $11/MWh (>= 150 kW) 82
  • 83. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Grant Program • Tribal Energy Grant Program • Renewable Energy Grants • Rural Energy for America Program 83
  • 84. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Grant Program • Tribal Energy Grant Program • Competitive solicitation • No open solicitations 84
  • 85. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Grant Program • Tribal Energy Grant Program • Renewable Energy Grants 30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind 10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP • Rural Energy for America Program 85
  • 86. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Grant Program • Tribal Energy Grant Program • Renewable Energy Grants 30% -- solar, fuel cells, wind 10% -- geothermal, microturbines and CHP • Rural Energy for America Program Grants or Loan Guarantees Up to 25% of Project Cost 86
  • 87. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Loan Program • Clean Renewable Energy Bonds • Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds • U.S. DoE Loan Guarantee Program 87
  • 88. Renewable Energy Incentives: Federal Production Incentive • Complements Production Tax Credit • Payments for Electricity Generated and Sold Local Government State Government Tribal Government Municipal Utility REC Native Corporations • Electricity Sold to Another Entity 88
  • 89. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Connecticut Tax Exemptions Property Tax Sales Tax Grants Clean Energy Fund Loans DPUC Rebates Clean Energy Fund 89
  • 90. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Maine Tax Exemptions Sales Tax (Community Wind Systems only) Grants Voluntary Renewable Resources Loans Small Business Low-Interest Loan Program Production Incentive Community Based Renewable Energy Rebates Solar and Wind Energy Rebate Program 90
  • 91. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Maine Policies Energy Standards for Public Buildings Green Power Purchasing Renewable Resource Fund Renewable Portfolios Standard 91
  • 92. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Massachusetts Tax Exemptions Excise Tax Grants Green Communities Program Commonwealth Wind Incentive Community Scale Wind Initiative Loans State: Commercial Wind Initiative Utilities Rebates Utilities 92
  • 93. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Massachusetts Policies Green Power Purchasing Renewable Energy Trust Fund Renewable Portfolio Standard 93
  • 94. Renewable Energy Incentives: State New Hampshire Tax Exemptions Property Loans State Local Option Programs Rebates State Utilities 94
  • 95. Renewable Energy Incentives: State New Hampshire Policies Renewable Portfolio Standard 95
  • 96. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Rhode Island Tax Exemptions Sales Loans State Local Option Programs Grants State Rebates State Utilities 96
  • 97. Renewable Energy Incentives: State Vermont Tax Exemptions Sales Property (Local Option) Loans State Local Option Programs Grants State Rebates State Utilities 97
  • 98. New Environmental Rules Pace of Regulation Unparalleled? Boiler MACT/CISWI Rules Greenhouse Gas Regulations New Ambient Air Quality Standards • 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) • 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) • 8-hour Ozone • PM2.5 coming soon Tougher SSM Provisions 98
  • 99. Boiler MACT/CISWI Critical Importance for Utility Plan Quartet of inter-related rules Definitions unsettled (RCRA – solid waste) Cost of Operation • Fuel choice impacted • Flexibility curtailed • Assets retired prematurely • Reduce renewables opportunities 99
  • 100. Boiler MACT Key Requirements PM, HCl, Hg, D/F, CO Control required for solid fuel, oil units Energy assessment • Qualified professional • Assess unit and end uses • Report to be submitted Even gas units = trouble with CO limit (1 ppm) Potentially troublesome for biomass 100
  • 101. Greenhouse Gas Regulations Scary GHG to be regulated under PSD Tailoring Rule Cannot trigger PSD until June 2011 No idea what BACT will be • Biomass CO2 is NOT excluded • Energy efficiency? • Natural gas, combined cycle? Too many lawsuits to count… 101
  • 102. New NAAQS Scarier TOUGH new standards for NO2, SO2 Applies immediately to major NSR sources • 1 year delay for minor NSR Most existing units unable to comply No new permit will be issued until exceedances are resolved 102
  • 103. New NAAQS 103
  • 104. New NAAQS 104
  • 105. New NAAQS 105
  • 106. Tougher SSM Provisions Scariest? Emission limits apply during startup, shutdown and malfunction Boiler MACT compliance Meet new 1-hour NAAQS 106
  • 107. Central Utility Plant Roundtable September 23, 2010