Jeff Haberl, Bahman Yazdani, Charles Culp Energy Systems Laboratory

Energy Systems Laboratory p. 1

Jeff Haberl, Bahman Yazdani, Charles CulpEnergy Systems Laboratory

Texas Engineering Experiment StationTexas A&M University System

STATEWIDE AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM ENERGY

EFFICIENCY, WIND AND RENEWABLES

May 2008


Electricity Production from Wind Farms (2002-2007)

• Installed capacity of wind turbines was 3,026 MW (March 2007).• Announced new project capacity is 3,125 MW by 2010. • Lowest electricity period occurs during Ozone Season Period.

Texas Wind Power Generation (Source: ERCOT & PUC)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Sep-01

Dec-01

Mar-02

Jun-02

Sep-02

Dec-02

Mar-03

Jun-03

Sep-03

Dec-03

Mar-04

Jun-04

Sep-04

Dec-04

Mar-05

Jun-05

Sep-05

Dec-05

Mar-06

Jun-06

Sep-06

Dec-06

Win

d Po

wer

Gen

erat

ion

(MW

H)

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

2,400

2,800

3,200

3,600

Inst

alle

d C

apac

ity (M

W)

Ercot Data - MWH Ercot Data - MW

Total Installed Capacity in Ercot Area by 2006 Total Installed Capacity in Texas by 2006

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


Calculating NOx Reductions from Wind Farms

What issues did TCEQ ask ESL to resolve to calculate OSP NOx reductions from wind farms in the base year?

Capacity Factors Using NOAA Daily Models

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Capa

city F

acto

r

Measured CF (Oct 01 to Sep 02) 1999 CF2000 CF 2001 CF2002 CF 2003 CF2004 CF 2005 CFAverage CF (1999-2005)

OSP

Large variations in measured power vs base year power production in the OSP.


Next, looked at hourly electricity produced vs NOAA wind data.

Issue: too much scatter.

Hourly Turbine Power vs. Wind Speed (On-site)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50On-site Wind Speed (MPH)

Tu

rbin

e P

ow

er

(kW

h/h

)

Hourly Turbine Power vs. Wind Speed (NOAA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

NOAA Wind Speed (MPH)

Tu

rbin

e P

ow

er

(kW

h/h

)

Hourly electricity produced vs on-site wind data acceptable for hourly modeling.

Issue: hourly on-site data not always available.



Next, compared daily on-site wind data vs daily NOAA data

Result: Daily data was acceptable when frequency of occurrence was similar.

Daily Wind Speed (10/2001-9/2002)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

On-Site Wind Speed (MPH)

Avera

ge D

aily N

OA

A W

ind

Sp

eed

(MP

H)

Wind Speed Distribution (Oct. 2001 to Sep. 2002)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Wind Speed (MPH)

Freq

uenc

y of

Occ

urre

nce

On-site Wind Speed

NOAA Wind Speed



Next, compared NOAA and on-site daily models to see how well the predicted OSP electricity production. (Result: acceptable).

Capacity Factors Using Daily Models

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 J an-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 J un-02 J ul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02

Month

Cap

acit

y F

acto

r

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ave

rag

e D

aily

Win

d

Sp

eed

Per

Mo

nth

(m

ph

)

Measured CF NOAA Daily Model CFOn-site Daily Model CF On-site Wind Speed

NOAA Wind SpeedOSP



OSD MWh Savings (Preliminary Estimates)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

MW

h/O

SD

Final Issue: TCEQ asked ESL to develop an integrated tool to project NOx reductions from wind farms through 2020 by county, using eGRID, including:

+ discount,

+ degradation,

+ T&D losses &

+ growth.

Energy savings summary: (program wise)

Base year 1999Projection year 2020

Adjustment factors

Annual degradation

factor5 5.00%

T&D loss 0.00%Initial discount

factor625.00%

Growth factorAccording to SB 20, section 39.904


OSD NOx Reduction Levels (All ERCOT)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2005 Cum.2006

Cum.2007

Cum.2008

Cum.2009

Cum.2010

Cum.2011

Cum.2012

Cum.2013

Cum.2014

Cum.2015

Cum.2016

Cum.2017

Cum.2018

Cum.2019

Cum.2020

To

ns/O

zon

e S

easo

n D

ay

ESL-Single Family ESL-Multifamily PUC (SB7) PUC (SB5 grant program)SECO Wind-ERCOT ESL-Commercial Federal BuildingsFurnace Pilot Light Program SEER13-Single Family SEER13-Multifamily


Upgrade ImpactUse NOx Avg.Life Factor

Industries: 60% 23% 5 – 20 yr 1 – 5Vehicles: 19% 54% 7 – 10 yr 4 – 5Buildings: 21% 22% 25 – 50 yr 5 – 11

Buildings substantially impact emissions!

SOURCE: Statewide Use: USDOE/EIA, 1999 Statewide Emissions: TNRCC 2000

IntroductionEnergy Emissions and Impact Factor


Total OSD NOx Emissions Reductions

(SF, MF and Commercial Buildings)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

HA

RR

IST

AR

RA

NT

CO

LL

IND

AL

LA

SB

EX

AR

TR

AV

ISD

EN

TO

NW

ILL

IAM

SO

NE

L P

AS

OM

ON

TG

OM

ER

GA

LV

ES

TO

NB

RA

ZO

RIA

CO

MA

LR

OC

KW

AL

LH

AY

SN

UE

CE

SF

OR

T B

EN

DE

LL

ISJO

HN

SO

NG

UA

DA

LU

PE

KA

UF

MA

NJE

FF

ER

SO

NP

AR

KE

RS

MIT

HB

AS

TR

OP

CH

AM

BE

RS

GR

EG

GS

AN

LIB

ER

TY

VIC

TO

RIA

OR

AN

GE

CA

LD

WE

LL

WIL

SO

NH

AR

DIN

HA

RR

ISO

NW

AL

LE

RU

PS

HU

RR

US

KH

OO

DH

UN

TH

EN

DE

RS

ON

HID

AL

GO

CA

ME

RO

NB

EL

LW

EB

BB

RA

ZO

SK

EN

DA

LL

BU

RN

ET

GR

AY

SO

NC

OR

YE

LL

MID

LA

ND

LL

AN

OM

AV

ER

ICK

MC

MU

LL

EN

AR

AN

SA

SW

ICH

ITA

TA

YL

OR

TO

M G

RE

EN

MC

LE

NN

AN

MC

CU

LL

OC

HW

ISE

JIM

HO

GG

VA

L V

ER

DE

EC

TO

RW

HA

RT

ON

KE

RR

PR

ES

IDIO

JIM

WE

LL

SC

AL

HO

UN

GIL

LE

SP

IEM

AT

AG

OR

DA

NA

VA

RR

OA

NG

EL

INA

NA

CO

GD

OC

HF

AN

NIN

AT

AS

CO

SA

WA

SH

ING

TO

NL

AM

AR

VA

N Z

AN

DT

WIL

LA

CY

BR

OW

NE

RA

TH

AU

ST

INC

OO

KE

ME

DIN

AT

ITU

SU

VA

LD

EF

AY

ET

TE

CA

LL

AH

AN

HO

PK

INS

LA

MP

AS

AS

B

LA

NC

OF

RE

ES

TO

NE

GR

IME

SL

EE

SO

ME

RV

EL

LA

ND

RE

WS

BO

RD

EN

County

OS

D N

Ox

Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

ns

(To

ns/

yr)

Single Family Houses Multifamily House Commercial Buildings Natural Gas (SF+MF+Commercial)

Non-attainment and Affected Counties Other ERCOT Counties

NOx emissions reductions calculated from new residential and commercial construction using EPA’s eGRID and AP-42 (Result: 10.75 tons/OSD).

Energy Efficiency Reporting


ESL-single family (MWh/county)

ESL-multifamily (MWh/county)

PUC-SB7 (MWh/PCA)

PUC-SB5 (MWh/PCA)

SECO (MWh/PCA)

Wind-ERCOT (MWh/PCA)

Energy Savings Summary

2007 Annual eGrid (25%)

2007 OSD eGrid (25%)

NOx emissions reduction by

program

NOx emissions reduction by SIP

area


county


program


area


county

ESL-single family (MWh/county)

ESL-multifamily (MWh/county)

PUC-SB7 (MWh/PCA)

PUC-SB5 (MWh/PCA)

SECO (MWh/PCA)

Wind-ERCOT (MWh/PCA)

Energy Savings Summary

2007 Annual eGrid (25%)

2007 OSD eGrid (25%)


program


area


county


program


area


county

In 2005 the TCEQ initiated a program to determine integrated NOx emissions savings (2013 and beyond) to allow for savings to be reported to the EPA

State Agencies included:– TEES/ESL, – PUC, – SECO, – ERCOT/Wind

Savings Integration allows:– Annual, OSD savings– By County– By SIP– By Program– Integration tool = Adjustable Discount, Degradation, T&D losses

Integrated NOx Savings



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2005 Cum.2006

Cum.2007

Cum.2008

Cum.2009

Cum.2010

Cum.2011

Cum.2012

Cum.2013

Cum.2014

Cum.2015

Cum.2016

Cum.2017

Cum.2018

Cum.2019

Cum.2020

To

ns/

Ozo

ne

Sea

son

Day


Cumulative NOx emissions reductions calculated across state programs (2013)

Code Compliance (10.75 tons/day)Federal Buildings (0.81 tons/day)Furnace Pilot Lights (0.32

tons/day)PUCs SB7,SB5 programs (4.78

tons/day)SECO Political Sub. (0.84

tons/day)Green Power (Wind) (12.32

tons/day)SEER 13 Retrofits (11.03 tons/day)Total (40.86 tons/day)

Integrated NOx Savings: Results

Annual Reporting to the TCEQ, papers, QAPP, etc.


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

2005 Cum.2006

Cum.2007

Cum.2008

Cum.2009

Cum.2010

Cum.2011

Cum.2012

Cum.2013

Cum.2014

Cum.2015

Cum.2016

Cum.2017

Cum.2018

Cum.2019

Cum.2020

To

ns/O

zon

e S

eas

on

Da

y



ESL CONTACT INFORMATION

Jeff Haberl: [email protected]

Bahman Yazdani: [email protected]

Charles Culp: [email protected]

http://eslsb5.tamu.edu

Documents

Jeff Haberl, Bahman Yazdani, Charles Culp Energy Systems Laboratory