Becoming DEEP Green with Just One Project: Cogen Tom Davies – Director Design & Construction,...

Preview:

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

Discussion

Contact info:

Tom – tdavies@amherst.edu Todd – tholland@fivecolleges.edu