Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Penn State University
Switch from Coal to Natural Gas September 18, 2013
About Steam Services
Produce and deliver energy to campus safely, reliably and efficiently 24/7/365
3
About Steam Services
• The People o 40 Technical Service and Staff
o OPP support
• 2 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants o West Campus Steam Plant (WCSP)
o East Campus Steam Plant (ECSP)
• Provide Steam, Condensate, Natural Gas and Compressed Air to more than 200 buildings
4
Combined Heat and Power – Penn State
5
N
Burr
ow
es
Road
College Avenue
West Campus Steam Plant
East Campus Steam Plant
West Campus Steam Plant
6
West Campus Steam Plant
7
West Campus Steam Plant
8
West Campus Steam Plant
9
West Campus Steam Plant
10
District Energy – Penn State
11
East Campus Steam Plant
12
East Campus Steam Plant
13
14
East Campus Steam Plant
15
East Campus Steam Plant
3/19/10
Industrial Boiler MACT Law
1st Published in 2004
3/19/10
2004 2013 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
Bey
ond
Coa
l Cam
paig
n
EPA Regulations
3/19/10
3/19/10
2004 2013 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
agai
n
Bey
ond
Coa
l Cam
paig
n N
EW B
oile
r MA
CT
Reg
ulat
ions
ag
ain
- fin
aliz
ed:
Janu
ary
2013
EPA Regulations
BO
T D
ecis
ion
to S
witc
h to
Gas
3/19/10
2004 2013 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
Cam
pus
Ste
am N
eeds
hit
Pea
k
Hur
rican
e K
atrin
a
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
agai
n
Eas
t Cam
pus
Upg
rade
s
Eas
t Cam
pus
CH
P C
ompl
ete
WC
SP B
oile
r ref
urbi
sh
WC
SP B
oile
r ref
urbi
sh
Bey
ond
Coa
l Cam
paig
n B
OT
Dec
isio
n to
Sw
itch
to G
as
NEW
Boi
ler M
AC
T R
egul
atio
ns
agai
n -
final
ized
: Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Ann
ual C
oal C
onsu
mpt
ion
reed
uced
to 5
0% o
f pea
k ye
ar
Ene
rgy
Con
serv
atio
n P
rogr
am
17.5
% G
HG
redu
ctio
n go
al m
et.
New
17.
5% g
oal s
et fo
r 202
0
EPA Regulations
Campus Upgrades
21
Combined Heat & Power C H P
Cogeneration
District Energy
22
Low – Carbon
High Efficiency
23
Utility Power
24
33% Homer City Power Plant
- 2,000 mW
- Generates electricity for more than 2 million homes
Combined Heat and Power
25
75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
YEAR
10-J
ul
22-J
ul
3-A
ug
15-A
ug
27-A
ug
8-S
ep
20-S
ep
2-O
ct
14-O
ct
26-O
ct
7-N
ov
19-N
ov
1-D
ec
13-D
ec
25-D
ec
6-J
an
18-J
an
30-J
an
11-F
eb
23-F
eb
7-M
ar
19-M
ar
31-M
ar
12-A
pr
24-A
pr
6-M
ay
18-M
ay
30-M
ay
11-J
un
23-J
un
Overall System Efficiency PSU
FY2012/13
Average Efficiency = 72%
26
= 33% eff 18 mpg
= Green Green
= 75% eff 45 mpg 72% eff
27
Energy Parking Lot
Green
Utility Power 33% efficient
CHP 75% efficient
28
U.S. Combined Heat and Power Plants
Other University Steam Generation Facilities University of Michigan
30
Capacity: • (6) NG boilers • (2) Combustion turbines
• 44.5MW electricity generation • 12” 100PSI NG feed line for boilers • 3” 300PSI high pressure feed line for turbines
New York University New York City, NY
31
32
New York University New York, NY
33
University of California - Berkeley Berkeley, CA
Harvard Medical Center Boston, MA
34
Support of Combined Heat and Power
• Every Major Environmental Group
o Sierra Club
o GreenPeace uk
o Natural Resources Defense Council
35
“Efficient CHP systems produce both electricity and steam or other useful heating or cooling services, providing the most value and least pollution from a fuel source. Use of the waste heat from industrial processes decreases on-site energy requirements for grid power and may provide off-site supply. In conjunction with smart development of city and town centers, district energy systems can provide both electricity and usable heat. Note: Sierra Club support for CHP does not change our opposition to coal-fired power plants.”
Source: www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/energy.pdf 36
“In addition to industrial sites, CHP works well in communities (especially cities) where CHP plants can be much smaller, and are extremely quiet and unobtrusive. In Southampton and Woking, for example, CHP plants are hidden in town centre car parks and most residents don't even know they're there. Piping heat from a smaller, ultra-efficient CHP unit within a town cuts consumers heating bills and provides a local source of heating and electricity in the most efficient way possible. CHP alone is not the complete solution - it still often uses fossil fuels. But, because it's the most efficient way possible to use these fuels, it cuts emissions and reduces fuel dependency immediately.”
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/combined-heat-and-power-chp
37
“Improving the energy efficiency of our manufacturing facilities, buildings, and homes can help us meet our energy challenges affordably. It can save consumers money on their energy bills, drive business competitiveness and economic growth and jobs, enhance grid reliability and flexibility, and help protect public health and the environment. Combined heat and power (CHP) systems are strong examples of how energy-efficiency technologies can help achieve these significant benefits for end-user facilities, utilities, and communities.”
Source: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/combined-heat-and-power-systems.asp 38
Other Benefits of Combined Heat and Power On-Site Power Generation
Danbury , CT Danbury, CT
Long Island, NY
Hurricane Sandy
- More than $70 billion in damages
- More than 8 million homes lost power
- Co-Op City. Bronx, NY
- Danbury Hospital
- Stony Brook University
- Princeton University
40
Other Benefits of Combined Heat and Power
On-Site Power Generation
Emissions Reductions
41
Emissions Reductions from Coal to Natural Gas
Pollutant (tons) Coal Gas Reduction %
PM 12.55 6.62 -5.93 47%
Sulfur Dioxide 1,916.60 0.57 -1,916.03 100%
Carbon Monoxide 217.80 37.83 -179.97 83%
NOx 367.70 37.83 -329.87 90%
Nitrous Oxide 1.47 0.61 -0.86 59%
Non-methane VOCs 6.90 3.78 -3.12 45%
Methane 2.20 2.17 -0.03 1%
CO2 212,643 113,475 -99,167 47%
Total HAPs 237.00 1.78 -235.22 99%
totals 215,404.72 113,566.67 -101,838.05 -47%
(Based on 2009 coal use of 73,333 tons, 2009 Reported Emissions, Projected Emissions for the equivalent value of Natural Gas)
Combined Heat and Power at WCSP
Safe
Reliable
Efficient
42
Combined Heat and Power at WCSP
Thank you
43
Energy Master Plan - Purpose
44
January 2016 Compliance
Energy Master Plan
Steam System Fuel Energy Sources
46
• Coal • Oil • Natural Gas • Waste Coal • Wood Wastes • Manure from PSU AG Programs
• Municipal Solid Waste • Refuse Derived Fuel • Tire Derived Fuel • Corn
Thermal Energy Conversion Technologies
47
• Combustion Boilers • Fluidized Bed Boilers • Combustion Turbines • Deep Well Geothermal • Ground Coupled Heat Pumps • Micro-Turbines, both
combustion and Steam
• Gasification • Solar • Wind • Fuel Cells
Near Term Steam System Final Options
48
• Regulations: Compliance ensured • Cost: Heating with gas cheaper than coal • Traffic: Eliminate coal truck traffic • Plant Renewal: Replaces 3 aging boilers • Future: Positions plant for future enhancements • Environment: Reduces greenhouse gas emissions • Cleaner air
Modify the WCSP and expand the gas service 300,000
Coal
250,000
200,000
MTCO2E 150,000
100,000
50,000
0 Natural
Gas
West Campus Steam Plant – First Floor Plan
49
Existing Boilers
Existing Floor Plan
#1 #2 #5
#8 #6
New Natural Gas Boilers
Proposed Floor Plan
Future CT/HRSG
Col
lege
Ave
nue
N
Site Plan
50
Gas
Ser
vice
Eq
uipm
ent
N
Bag House
Stack Flue Duct
ID Fans
Flue
Duc
t
Brine Storage
West Campus Steam Plant
Col
lege
Ave
nue
Site Plan
51
Col
lege
Ave
nue
Gas
Ser
vice
Eq
uipm
ent
N
West Campus Steam Plant Offices / Crew /
Shop Space
New Steam Services Building
52
Site Plan
53
Col
lege
Ave
nue
N
West Campus Steam Plant Offices / Crew /
Shop Space
University Park Emissions
Distribution of Penn State GHG emissions by Sector
Steam Plant
Purchased Electricity
Stationary Sources
Campus Vehicles
Air Travel
Commuters
Other
54
Assets
55
GHG 1990 – 2005
495,854
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
600,000
90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
MTC
DE
Fiscal Year
Penn State Emissions
PSU Emissions
University Park
17.5% below 05/06 baseline
56
ACTIONS
Energy Conservation Program (ECP) Total Project Costs (2003 – 2013) $74.5 M
Energy Saved (2004-2012): $ 18.5 M
84,739,000 kWh electricity 478,00,000 klbs steam 2.8 billion gallons water/ww 107,099 dth natural gas 25,902,557 ton-hrs chilled water (~ 15,500,000 kWh)
Conservation
57
ENERGY & MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Before
After
58
Conservation
59
CT-HRSG
LEED Certified Buildings at Penn State
Stuckman Family Building
Rec Hall Wrestling Addition
Borland Lab Renovation
Millennium Sciences Complex
North Frear Renovation
Lewis Katz Building
Moore Building Addition
Forest Resource Building
Student Health Center
Arboretum
Medlar Field
PSU – WB Academic Commons
PSU – WS Business Classroom
60
Buildings
PSU Policy AD 64 • Contents:
o Lighting
o Interior Environment
o Computers
o Office Equipment
o Appliances
o Fume Hoods
61
Energy Conservation Policy
Assets
62
Buildings – Usage
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
Running kwh Consumed
UP GSF
Running Annual Electric Consumption & Campus Gross Square Feet
University Park
Assets
63
Buildings – Usage
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
MM
BT
Us
Steam Plants Total MMBTU & Campus Gross Square Feet University Park
TOTALMMBTU
UP GSF
17.5%
35%
64
GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
GHG Emissions Penn State University - University Park (1990-2050)
2005-2012
RECs
Energy Program
CT HRSG
Greener Grid 2013-2020
Energy Program
Coal\Gas Conversion
Hydro Power Purchase
2nd CT HRSG
Potential Strategies
Net Zero Buildings
Biomass Fuels
On-site Renewables
Off-site Renewables
100% Green Power Purchase
Zero Waste
Transportation Initiatives
Offset Air travel
Offset Commuter travel
80% below 1990 levels
mtC
O2e
65
Beyond 2020
66
Energy Conservation
67
Solar PV
68
Wind Power
69
Biomass
70
Solar Thermal
Energy Conservation
Solar PV
Solar Thermal
Biomass
Wind
Unknown
71
2050 GHG Reduction Plan
?
72
73
2025 GHG Reduction Plan
• Avoidance of at least $20,000,000 in utility costs
• Reduction in capital investments required for utility infrastructure
Penn State Plan
495,854
399,697
555,357
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
600,000
97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12
MTC
DE
Fiscal Year
PSU Emissions
Projected Emissions
Baseline
17.5% Reduction Goal
Original Plan
12% projected growth
17.5% below 05/06 baseline
29.5% total
reduction
74
Thank You
75
Energy Master Plan - Purpose
76
• Future Capacity and Reliability • Modernization Strategy • Exposure to Fuel Price Volatility • Environmental Compliance
Standards • Environmental Sustainability
Energy Master Plan - Process
77
• Utility Plant & Distribution System Evaluation
• Future Load Growth Projected
• Many Potential Fuels & Technologies Evaluated
Steam System Fuel Energy Sources
78
• Coal • Oil • Natural Gas • Waste Coal • Wood Wastes • Manure from PSU AG Programs
• Municipal Solid Waste • Refuse Derived Fuel • Tire Derived Fuel • Corn
Thermal Energy Conversion Technologies
79
• Combustion Boilers • Fluidized Bed Boilers • Combustion Turbines • Deep Well Geothermal • Ground Coupled Heat Pumps • Micro-Turbines, both
combustion and Steam
• Gasification • Solar • Wind • Fuel Cells
Study Conclusions
80
Long Term • Continue to evaluate low-carbon technologies for
steam production
• Continue to evaluate renewable technologies and fuels that were previously deemed too costly or “too small”
• Collaborate with PSU researchers to take advantage of their knowledge and research
Near Term • Coal – scrubber • Natural Gas
University Park Campus
81
N
Burr
owes
Roa
d
College Avenue
West Campus Steam Plant
East Campus Steam Plant
Primary Base Load Plant – Coal
/ Scrubber
Secondary Peak Demand
Plant
Near Term Steam System Final Options
82
Coal Drawbacks • The likelihood of having to change the plant
again is greater with the coal option
• Heating with coal more expensive than with gas
• Increased truck traffic downtown
• Misses opportunity for major GHG reduction
• Burning coal not as clean as natural gas
Near Term Steam System Final Options
83
Natural Gas • Expand the capacity of the ECSP
o Two New Packaged Boilers at ECSP o New Turbine Generator Plant o Distribution System Changes o Significant Electrical Work o New Natural Gas line to ECSP o Convert 2 boilers at WCSP to partial capacity on NG
Near Term Steam System Final Options
84
• Regulations: Compliance ensured • Cost: Heating with gas cheaper than coal • Traffic: Eliminate coal truck traffic • Plant Renewal: Replaces 3 aging boilers • Future: Positions plant for future enhancements • Environment: Reduces greenhouse gas emissions • Cleaner air
Modify the WCSP and expand the gas service 300,000
Coal
250,000
200,000
MTCO2E 150,000
100,000
50,000
0 Natural
Gas
West Campus Steam Plant – First Floor Plan
85
Existing Boilers
Existing Floor Plan
#1 #2 #5
#8 #6
New Natural Gas Boilers
Proposed Floor Plan
Future CT/HRSG
Col
lege
Ave
nue
N
Site Plan
86
Gas
Ser
vice
Eq
uipm
ent
N
Bag House
Stack Flue Duct
ID Fans
Flue
Duc
t
Brine Storage
West Campus Steam Plant
Col
lege
Ave
nue
Site Plan
87
Col
lege
Ave
nue
Gas
Ser
vice
Eq
uipm
ent
N
West Campus Steam Plant Offices / Crew /
Shop Space
New Steam Services Building
88
Site Plan
89
Col
lege
Ave
nue
N
West Campus Steam Plant Offices / Crew /
Shop Space
Gas Line Routes Through Campus
90
Public Concerns
91
“Safety, route through neighborhood, property values, violates bill of rights, and alternatives tofossi lfuel”
State College Borough Council Resolution: • Opposed to route • Staff instructed not to approve permit
Northern Route - Overall
92
Potential Route North – June 2013
5
6
7
8
9
4
3
2
1
Northern Route – Segment 1
93
1
Swine Research Facility
Columbia’s Existing Regulating Station
Northern Route – Segment 2
94
2
Un
ive
rsity
Driv
e
East Campus Steam Plant
Northern Route – Segment 3
95
3
Northern Route – Segment 4
96
4
Northern Route – Segment 5
97
5
Northern Route – Segment 6
98
6
Northern Route – Segment 7
99
7
Alle
n R
oa
d
Pattee Paterno Library
Pasquerilla Spiritual Center
Chambers
Music I
Theater CEDAR Moore
Rac
kley
Northern Route – Segment 8
100
8
Bu
rrow
es
Ro
ad
C u r t i n R o a d
Fra
se
r Ro
ad
Rec Hall
West Halls
Carnegie
Spa
rks
Kern
Noll Lab
IST
Research West
G o l f C o u r s e
P o l l o c k R o a d
Northern Route – Segment 9
101
9
Bu
rrow
es
Ro
ad
P o l l o c k R o a d E x i s t i n g Research
West W
ater
Tu
nnel
IST
Walker
Hosler
Dei
ke
App
lied
Sci
ence
Hallowell
Engineering Services
B u s S t a t i o n
Steidle Willard
EE West EE
Eas
t
Heinz
Reb
er
West Campus Steam Plant
Sac
kett
Engineering Units
Pipeline Safety Features • State of the Art
• Meet or exceed all State and Federal requirements
• Examples where Federal requirements are exceeded
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS Versus PENN STATE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
Federal Pipeline Requirements This Pipeline Can operate at 1300 pounds per square inch pressure
(192.105)
Not required to be “Smart Pig” compatible (192.150)
Welds must be visually inspected (192.241)
Cathodic protection required to use either sacrificial anodes or rectifiers (192.455)
Leak survey every 5 years (192.723)
No required inspection for pipeline shut-off valve 102
Will operate at a maximum of 400 psig
Will be “Smart Pig” compatible
Pipeline shut-off valve will be inspected annually
100% of welds will have a full circumference radiographic inspection
Will have both sacrificial anodes and rectifiers
Leak survey quarterly
Northern Route – Schedule
103
May-June 2014
July-August 2014
Winter/Spring 2013-2014
October-November 2013
3/19/10
History
104
Campus Steam System
Beaver Stadium
West Campus Steam Plant
East Campus Steam Plant
Steam
Electric
105
Campus Steam System
Beaver Stadium
West Campus Steam Plant
East Campus Steam Plant
106
Beaver Stadium
West Campus Steam Plant
East Campus Steam Plant
Campus Steam System
And
y C
olw
ell
107
3/19/10 10
8
Other University Steam Generation Facilities University of Michigan
Capacity: • (6) NG boilers • (2) Combustion turbines
• 44.5MW electricity generation • 12” 100PSI NG feed line for boilers • 3” 300PSI high pressure feed line for turbines
109
University of Texas - Austin
Other University Steam Generation Facilities
110
Capacity: • (4) NG boilers • (2) Combustion turbines • (3) steam turbine generators
• 8” 600PSI NG feed line • 10” 360PSI high pressure feed line to be raised to 600PSI in 2014
MIT
Other University Steam Generation Facilities
111
Capacity: • (3) NG boilers • (1) NG Combustion turbines and HRSG
Agenda
• Campus Energy Use
• Utility Systems o Electric Distribution o Chilled Water System o Combined Heat and Power System
• Energy Masterplan
• Coal to Natural Gas Conversion Project
• GHG Reduction Plans
• Questions
University Park
113
University Park
114
University Park
115
University Park
116
University Park
117
University Park
118
University Park
119
University Park
120
University Park
121
University Park
122
University Park
123
Beaver Stadium
Campus Electric Distribution
124
Beaver Stadium
Campus Electric Distribution
125
Beaver Stadium
Campus Electric Distribution
126
Campus Electric Distribution
Beaver Stadium
127
Campus Chilled Water
Campus Chilled Water
Campus Chilled Water
Campus Chilled Water
About Steam Services
133
Paul Moser
814 – 863 – 3178 [desk]
814 – 321 – 3760 [mobile]
