Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
CORNELL UNIVERSITY ENERGY MASTER PLAN
Tim Peer, Cornell UniversityPhil Curlett, Levitan & Associates,
Inc.
2Energy Master Plan (EMP) Study
History and GoalsCurrent Thermal Energy EquipmentFuture Technologies EvaluatedMethodologyFinancial AnalysisStrategic ConsiderationsRecommendations
3History and Goals
Master planning since 1919Drivers for current EMP:– Campus growth– Capital renewal in Cornell’s Central Heating
Plant (CHP)– Volatile fuel and electric markets– Increasing environmental regulation and
awareness– Need for predictable costs
4Steam Load Forecasts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Stea
m P
eak
Dem
and
(kpp
h)
Historical High Most Likely Low
Current Firm Capacity
5CHP Boilers
400/6001949Overfeed Stoker175Coal8
400/6401992D Type Package
107.5/109.5
Natural Gas or #6 Fuel Oil7
400/6401992D Type Package
107.5/109.5
Natural Gas or #6 Fuel Oil6
200/5501965D Type Package100Natural Gas5
200/5501959Sterling Vibragate70#6 Fuel Oil2
400/6001981Spreader Stoker90Coal1
Outlet Conditions
(psig/ºF)
Year InstalledBoiler TypeCapacity
(klb/h)FuelBoiler
No.
6Future Technologies Evaluated
Package boilers capable of burning natural gas or oilAtmospheric Circulating Fluidized Bed (ACFB) to replace Boiler 8Biomass boilerOne or two Gas Turbines (GT) with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG)
7Methodology
Statistical analysis of historical fuel and energy prices to determine volatility parametersStatistical analysis of campus loads to determine daily profiles and variability for each seasonBase scenario forecast of monthly fuel prices delivered to Cornell and nearby electric generators
8Methodology (cont.)
Consistent forecast of hourly regional electric prices based on chronological simulation model of regional electric marketBase scenario forecast of Cornell’s steam and electric loads based on monthly building requirementsAlternative scenarios reflecting high and low fuel price forecasts and high and low growth projections
9Fuel Price Forecast
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
NYH Distillate OilWTI Crude OilHenry Hub NGNYH 1% RFONorthern Appalachian CoalNuclear Fuel
$/m
mB
tu
10Electricity Price Forecast
Nov
-99
Nov
-00
Nov
-01
Nov
-02
Nov
-03
Nov
-04
Nov
-05
Nov
-06
Nov
-07
Nov
-08
Nov
-09
Nov
-10
Nov
-11
Nov
-12
Nov
-13
Nov
-14
Nov
-15
Nov
-16
Nov
-17
Nov
-18
Nov
-19
Nov
-20
Nov
-21
Nov
-22
Nov
-23
Nov
-24
Nov
-25
Nov
-26
Elec
tric
Pric
es ($
/MW
h) .
Gas
Pric
es ($
/MM
Btu
)
Historical NY West Base NY West High NY West Low NY WestHistorical DTI-SP Base DTI-SP High DTI-SP Low DTI-SP
11Summer System Heat Rates
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Fiscal Year
Syst
em H
eat R
ate,
Btu
/kW
h
Base Summer High Summer Low Summer
12System Heat Rate Profiles
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of Day
SHR
/ Se
ason
Avg
SH
R
Winter WeekdayWinter WeekendSpring/Fall WeekdaySpring/Fall WeekendSummer WeekdaySummer Weekend
13Weekly Electric Profiles by Month
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1 25 49 73 97 121 145Hour of Week
Elec
tric
Loa
d, k
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1 25 49 73 97 121 145Hour of Week
Elec
tric
Loa
d, k
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
14Ambient Temperature by Month, Season
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
Tem
pera
ture
, F
AverageTemperature -Winter Months
AverageTemperature - Spr-Fall Months
AverageTemperature -Summer Months
Average of DailyAverageTemperatures
15Steam and Electric Load Growth Factors
1.000 = Average of FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Fiscal Year
Stea
m L
oad
Gro
wth
Fac
tor
Historical HighBase LowHistorical HighBase Low
Steam
Electric
16Financial Analysis
Simulated 25 years of operation (2007-2031)Used Monte Carlo simulation to capture short term variability and volatility effects on – loads– fuel prices– electric energy market heat rate– steam unit availability
17Financial Analysis (cont.)
Phase 1 screening– Package boiler and GT cases have very similar
total costs– ACFB has higher cost– Biomass boiler is the most expensive
Phase 2 probabilistic analysis on three types of variables:– Short-term– Near-term event– Long-term
18Phase 2 Near-Term Technology Choices
Package boilers as needed to meet reliability criterionSingle GT for FY2008Two GTs for FY2008Boiler 8 replaced with ACFB boiler for FY2008
19Phase 2 Decision TreeEarly Chance Events
Long Term Chance Events
2012 Capacity Options
2007 Capacity
Early Chance Events
Long Term Chance Events
2012 Capacity Options
Early Chance Events
Long Term Chance Events
2012 Capacity Options
Early Chance Events
Long Term Chance Events
2012 Capacity Options
Various Branches
Pkg Boilers Only
Pkg Boilers w/lateral
Single GT w/lateral
Two GT w/lateral
Repl Blr 8 w/ ACFB
Repl Blr 8 w/ Biomass
Various Branches
Various Branches
Pkg Boilers only
Second GT
Repl Blr 8 w/ ACFB
Repl Blr 8 w/ Biomass
Various Branches
Various Branches
Pkg Boilers Only
Repl Blr 8 w/ ACFB
Repl Blr 8 w/ Biomass
Various Branches
Package Boilers Only
Single GT
Two GTs
Repl Blr 8 w/ACFB
2-Step Decision Tree
Various Branches
Pkg Boilers Only
Single GT w/lateral
2 GTs w/lateral
Various Branches
Pkg Blrs w/lateral
20EVA Confidence Intervals –All Variables
Package Boilers Single GT Two GTs ACFB Repl Blr 8FY2007-08 Technology Choice
EVA
v. R
efer
ence
Cas
e
95% Percentile Mean5% Percentile
+
-
0
21Annual Cost Comparison
1 - All Variables Simulated
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031Fiscal Year
CH
P an
d El
ectr
ic A
nnua
l Cos
t
Reference Case
Package Boilers
Single GT
Two GTs
ACFB Repl Blr 8
22Strategic Considerations
Electric reliability– Black start capability for most campus electric
loads– Benefits of “islanded” operation
23Recommendations
Replacing Boiler 8 with Biomass or ACFB does not make senseMost attractive initial choice is installation of single 14 MW GT with infrastructure to support second GT in future