combined heat and power case - energy exchange

Tampa Convention Center • Tampa, Florida

Combined Heat and Power Case

Combined Heat and Power Case Studies


CHP at JSC: A Case Study


Melissa McKinleyNASA – Johnson Space Center

August 17, 2017

Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve

CHP - Why?

2011 – Severe Drought Conditions Texas State-Wide CenterPoint (Utility Provider) Electrical Grid Strained Record Number of +100 degree days Load Shedding by JSC Brown Out Potential

December 14, 2012 One truck driver = JSC Site Electrical Outage

Energy Goals JSC is red on the metric for energy reduction


How does CHP help?

CHP = Combined Heat and Power JSC/CHP takes pressure off the strained grid CHP provides JSC with an “island grid” for power

Self generation of ~70% of base power consumption Power to CH&CP, MCPP, Selected Critical JSC Facilities

JSC controls reliability and availability of the power plant Source reductions at JSC achieve mandated energy savings

Energy Security, Savings, Reliability


How did JSC “buy” CHP?

Construction cost is ~$47M Center funds not available for investment ESPC provides a funding alternative

Presidential letter mandates ESPC for Federal agencies including JSC

ESPC “finances” installation cost + operations and maintenance cost

No net impact to JSC budget for term of the loan Upon completion of the loan, JSC realizes savings

ESCO provides equipment with 10 years remaining life at completion of the contract


How does it affect the JSC budget?

JSC budget is “net zero” for the life of the contract Project cost (including installation and O&M) is paid to

ESCO with savings Utility Bill funds are used O&M for new equipment is included, so no increase to

current Facilities contract No need to budget for replacement of major equipment at

the conclusion of the contract 10 years remaining life at conclusion of ESPC


Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

• CHP uses natural gas to make electricity

• Heat is produced in that process

• That waste heat is used to produce steam for heating/dehumidification

• Steam also drives JSC’sexisting steam turbine chillers

Natural Gas = Electricity + Steam + Chilled Water


CHP at JSC - Trigeneration

Natural Gas = Electricity + Steam + Chilled Water


One Pager

Increased Energy Surety Provides ~ 11.9 MW of onsite power generation Island Mode Powers ~ 70% of site base electric load Provides all site steam load, 40-60% peak chilled water load

Energy Intensity Reduction Reduces energy intensity from 212,716 BTU/GSF to 103,616 BTU/GSF Utilizes Source vs Site calculations Meets all energy reduction goals through 2020 Impact on Agency energy reduction goals

Carbon Footprint Reductions JSC carbon footprint reduced by 19,750 metric tons of CO2

Presidential Executive Order In full compliance with Executive Order 13624 encouraging the use of ESPC

Terms of the Contract Implementation cost - $47,031,745 Total Contractor Payments - $141,980,064 Term of Contract – 22 years plus 18 month construction period Schedule

Construction period of 18 months from NTP Acceptance scheduled for November, 2017


Status

Construction of CHP plant 99% complete Agreements with Utilities complete

Interconnect Agreement with CenterPoint Electric Easements with CenterPoint Gas New gas supply contract complete

Check out of electrical equipment ongoing Underground gas pipeline construction complete Turbine and steam equipment startup completed May ECM3

CH&CPlant mods and all building mods complete Commissioning completion scheduled to start 10/15/2017 Acceptance period waived


Source vs Site Calculations

FEMP allows credit for power generation at the point of use vs at the utility Line loss Waste heat use Section 206, EO 13123 (rescinded but credit still applies) FEMP Reporting Guidance for Federal Agency Report on

Energy Management, Attachment 3 Actual JSC site use increased due to natural gas usage;

electricity usage reduced Source (Grid Electricity) displaced by new site generation Energy Intensity Reduction with SvS

FY14 baseline 212,716 BTU/GSF Modeled reduction 103,616 BTU/GSF

Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve12

Energy Savings Details – JSC Energy Intensity

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Btu

Per G

ross

Squ

are

Foot

Site

Ene

rgy

Usa

ge A

fter

Cre

dit f

or C

HP

Year

Site Energy Intensity Reduction at JSC After CHP Credit for On-site Generation Johnson Space Center For CHP Using HQ Data

Reset Baseline in 2015 and 2-1/2% Reductions 2016 - 2025 requirements

Actual BTU/GSF Goal BTU/GSF CHP ESPC Future Goals= 2-1/2% Reduction BTU/GSF No CHP


Energy Savings Details - AgencyNASA Energy Intensity


Status – Groundbreaking October 22, 2015

JSC Central Heating and Cooling Plant


Status – Here’s how it will look


Status – Drilling Piers in the Existing Parking Lot

http://centerops.jsc.nasa.gov/utilitiesscrapbook/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/img_1503.jpeg





Status – Lots of Rain Spring Summer, Fall Winter, Spring…..

http://centerops.jsc.nasa.gov/utilitiesscrapbook/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/03/img_1857.jpg



Status – Footings and Perimeter Wall


Status – Turbine Pads and Stack Pads

Turbine pads were poured first so equipment could be set. Each one took 75 yards of concrete.




Status – Boilers








Status – CHP Lineup

Natural Gas Turbine

RentechBoiler

EconomizerStack

Access to Analyzers

Electrical Room Construction

SCR

http://centerops.jsc.nasa.gov/utilitiesscrapbook/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/img_3576-1.jpg



Status – CHP Lineup and Electrical Room

Natural Gas Turbine

RentechBoiler

Economizer

Stack

Access to Analyzers







Natural Gas Turbine

RenechBoiler

Economizer

Stack

Access to Analyzers


Status – HRSG’s set in place






Natural Gas Turbine

RenechBoiler

Economizer

Stack

Access to Analyzers


Status – Solar Gas Turbine Check out






Natural Gas Turbine

RenechBoiler

Economizer

Stack

Access to Analyzers


First Fire, Solar Turbines – May 24, 2017


Natural Gas Turbine

RenechBoiler

Economizer

Stack

Access to Analyzers


Steam Blow, HRSG’s – May 25, 2017


ECM 3 – Campus Buildings Chilled Water Blending Station Modifications








CHP at JSC

O&M contractor selected is on-site Facilities Contractor ESG provides an on-site plant manager Detailed operational plan is in work to coordinate

equipment run times between the Central Heating and Cooling Plant and the CHP Plant

One month commissioning period before government acceptance

Plant is expected to come on line in November, 2017


A big “Thank you!” to DOE and AFFECT!

Awarded $1M AFFECT Grant Provided upfront funds for TO award 47/1 Return for CHP Project

Drove the overall AFFECT Return to 25/1 Helped secure funding for future year’s programs


“Secret Sauce” – How we are doing it….

Persistence – Process is new and requires lots of education for all involved Long, long process Lots of stakeholder to coordinate

Management Support – Despite issues, JSC management supported project

JSC Master Planning - CHP fits in with future planning and allows flexibility for “island mode”

DOE support $1M AFFECT Grant Project Facilitator and FEMP Support

Team expertise Procurement, Legal, Environmental, Technical


“Secret Sauce” – Technical, how….

Natural Gas pricing at an all time low Energy Reduction Mandates continue to increase Increase in use in comparable facilities

Methodist Hospital UTMB Galveston Universities


Current Schedule and Issues

• Issue discovered with telemetry for ERCOT metering at preparatory phase meeting for power generation

• Outages still needed for Substation modifications per schedule

• Program critical JWST testing in building 32, Chamber A restrictions on high voltage activities

• Commissioning to resume mid-October• 4 weeks remaining

• 30 day Acceptance period to be waived (savings a contract requirement with 95% uptime)

• Partial Acceptance negotiations in work now


James Webb Space Telescope


Status – Latest




Feedback?

Melissa McKinleyNASA Utilities Manager, [email protected]

Bobby WeeksGilbane [email protected]


BACK UP


Comparison to Traditional Projects

Awarded as a task order on the DOE ESPC master contract Award required typical IGE for construction costs and

evaluation of savings period operational costs No appropriated funds are provided to award the contract

Funds are needed at the start for the initial award Use of AFFECT $1M grant for buy down

SIES requires a local fund source Inspection, Facility Support, Asbuilts must be funded from Center

sources and funds are tight Multiple years requires multiple commitments from budgets

Reporting of energy savings


Required submission of a 1509/1510 and approval sign off from HQ

Surveillance plan Traditional surveillance plan for construction period Extended plan for acceptance of savings during term of

contract Submittals and RFI’s

Contractor performs design for guaranteed savings Government only reviews for conflicts with policies No government “preference” which may affect savings ESCO owns all decisions as they impact savings and payments

Comparison to Traditional Projects


MCRDPI, Combined Heat Power


Richard PierceEnergy Manager

Facilities Maintenance Division, MCRD Parris IslandAugust 17, 2017


Installation Overview – MCRD, PARRIS ISLAND


• First permanent settlement in 1562 by the French

• Designated a Recruit Depot: 1 Nov, 1915• 8,095 acres: 3,262 acres are habitable• Approximately 700 buildings• 242 facilities 20 years or older• Second Oldest Marine Corps Base• Invaluable natural & historic resources

41

Mission : “WE MAKE MARINES”


Situation & Opportunity

• Very Successful Energy Program Energy Use 37.9% below FY2003 baseline Water Use 31.2% below FY2007 baseline

• Existing Co-gen Steam Plant Built 1942 Three Boilers (50,000 lbs/hr / 400psig / 600F)

One Boiler (50,000 lbs/hr, 125psig saturated)

Natural Gas with #6 oil as backup Three 1 Mw steam Turbines (not operational)

42


• Leverage Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) Only One (1) Hard Requirement – Replace the Steam Plant Allow for “Bundling” of energy technologies Open door, unfettered audit process Don’t guide or direct the technical solutions

• Began ESPC process in February of 2015• Awarded 16 Dec 2016 Only 22 months to award Largest USMC ESPC award to date

43

The Plan



Utility DataElectricity

Electricity Unit Cost $0.088 /kWh Demand Unit Cost1 - /kW

Baseline Annual Consumption 59,675,180 kWh/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 113,376 kW/yr

Natural Gas SewerNatural Gas Unit Cost $6.89 /MMBtu Sewer Unit Cost $7.96 /kGal

Baseline Annual Consumption 433,486 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 240,590 kGal/yr

Fuel Oil WaterFuel Oil Unit Cost $10.93 /MMBtu Water Unit Cost $4.81 /kGal

Baseline Annual Consumption 19,055 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 300,738 kGal/yr

Biomass Total Water & SewerBiomass Unit Cost $3.50 /MMBtu Total Water & Sewer Unit Cost $11.18 /kGal

Baseline Annual Consumption 0 MMBtu/yr Baseline Annual Consumption 300,738 kGal/yrNotes:1Per SCE&G Rate 24 shown below.

Utility Consumption Data



Electrical Utility Rates - SCE&G Rate 24

Monthly Charge Rate 24 Units

I. Basic Facilities Charge $2,025 N/A

II. Demand Charge

A. On-Peak Billing Demand

1. Summer Months of June-September @ $19.27 Per kW

2. Non-Summer Months of October-May @ $13.49 Per kW

B. Off-Peak Billing Demand $5.84 Per kW

III. Energy Charge

A. On-Peak kWh

1. Summer Months of June-September @ $0.08900 Per kWh

2. Non-Summer Months of October-May @ $0.06428 Per kWh

B. Off-Peak kWh

1. All Off-Peak @ $0.04942 Per kWh


• Six Options Evaluated:

1. Decentralization of existing steam plant2. New natural gas boilers in existing plant3. New boilers with biodiesel backup4. Biomass plant for thermal energy only5. Biomass plant with a backpressure turbine6. Natural gas turbine Combined Heat & Power (CHP)

46

Scenarios Evaluated


Scenarios Evaluated

Options Evaluated

Option # Description Primary Fuel Backup Fuel Pros Cons

1 Decentralization Natural Gas Propane Air• Less labor-intensive maintenance

without distribution system• Individual building controls

• High cost for low savings• More pieces of equipment to maintain• No redundancy

2 New Natural Gas Boilers Natural Gas Fuel Oil • Low install cost

• Uses existing infrastructure

• Lower energy savings• Significant unknowns with re-using

Building 160• Complexities during construction

3 New Boilers with Biodiesel Backup Natural Gas Biodiesel • Backup fuel is from a renewable

source• Biodiesel fuel is more expensive• Not practicable for long-term storage

4 Biomass – Thermal Only Biomass Natural Gas • Utilizes renewable energy

• Lower capital cost vs. Option 5

• Design and construction complexities• More costly O&M/R&R (life cycle)• Training required for unfamiliar

equipment

5 Biomass –Backpressure Turbine Biomass Natural Gas

• On-site generation from renewable energy

• Decreased natural gas consumption

• Longer SPB than Option 4• Longest construction term• Increased complexity from Option 4

6 Combined Heat and Power Plant Natural Gas Fuel Oil

• Best payback • Highest capacity and reliability for

electrical generation• More redundancy

• Non-renewable fuel source• Increased electrical interconnect

complexity


Scenarios Evaluated

Summary of Modeled Results

Option # Description SPB1 Construction Duration Estimate

Estimated Cost Cogeneration Capacity

1 Decentralization of Existing Steam Plant 32 Years 18 Months $41 M 0 MW

2 Natural Gas Boilers Replacement 36 Years 18-24 Months $18 M 0 MW

3 NG Boilers Replacement with Biodiesel Backup 43 Years 18-24 Months $19.2 M 0 MW

4 Biomass Fueled Energy Plant – Thermal Only 26 Years 20-22 Months $25 M 0 MW

5 Biomass Fueled Energy Plant–Backpressure Turbine 27 Years 22-24 Months $40 M 2.75 MW

6 Combined Heat and Power Plant 16 Years 19-21 Months $27 M 3.5 MWNotes:1Simple Payback is reflective of capital cost and energy savings. O&M costs have not been included in the simple payback calculation.


• The six options were evaluated for the following factors: Overall Economics Utility Interconnections (gas, power, water) Energy Savings Long term O&M / R&R Duration Permitting Complexity Reliability Impact on Onsite Photovoltaic ECM Size

49

Scenarios Evaluation Factors


• An existing use or process for the heat generated by the CHP • Infrastructure to support heat delivery (steam lines, nearby

process, hot water lines, etc) • On-site demand for the power generated by the CHP • Ability to provide generated electric power where needed

without utility company metering • Sufficient cheap fuel source (natural gas, biomass, etc.) • Ability to match the power and heat generated by the CHP to

the available loads and account for seasonal variations

50

Critical Factors for CHP Feasibility


Project Summary Results

• Energy Savings: Over $6 million annually• Energy Project Size: $91.1 million initial investment• Technology Type: Boiler plant improvements; energy

management control system/HVAC controls, renewable energy systems (to include storage and microgrid control system), lighting upgrades and controls, chiller improvements, HVAC, water system upgrades, and hot water and steam distribution systems.

• Energy savings together with demand reduction result in: 75% reduction in utility energy demand 79% reduction in energy usage 25% total water reduction ~10 MW onsite electrical generation Grid Battery Storage (4Mw / 8 Mwh) Combined annual carbon reduction of 37,165 metric tons of CO2


SolutionsEnergy Savings Performance Contract8 energy conservation measures• Boiler plant; EMCS;

renewable energy systems; lighting; chiller; HVAC; water; and hot water and steam distribution systems

• 40,271 metric tons annual carbon reduction

• Over 29,000 LEDs installed

• New central plant with microgrid and island mode capability

• 3.5 MW CHP Plant• 1.6 MW Solar PV carport• 4 MW ground mount

Solar PV• 4 MW / 8 MWh Battery

Energy Storage System (BESS)

• Microgrid Control System with Fast Load Shed

$91.1 million 35% 10 MW

Project Investment Energy Use Reduction

Onsite Energy Generation

Annual Savings Water Use Reduction

$6 million 25%• Over 3.3 million square

feet• Ensures a reliable, secure

energy supply• Achieves sustainability

requirements• Reduces lifecycle

operating costs of facilities

• Nearly $1 million in annual savings

• Reduction of heat loss and evaporation at mission-critical outdoor training pool


Solutions

Boiler Plant Improvements• 3.5 MW CHP gas turbine • Heat Recovery Steam

Generator • 1 MW and 2.5 MW backup

diesel generators • Two 30,000 lb/hr dual fuel

backup boilers

Renewable Energy Systems• 1.6 MW carport next to the

parade deck parking lot• 4 MW ground mount• 4 MW / 8 MWh Battery Energy

Storage System (BESS)• Microgrid Control System

(MCS) with Fast Load Shed(FLS)

Customer Benefits• Energy security and resiliency• Partial islanding mode

leveraging CHP, PV, and BESS during utility outages

• Storage of surplus solar PV generated power

• Mitigation of ratchet in demand charges

• Continuity of power supply to essential loads during utility outages


Battery Energy Storage

• 4.0MW/8.1MWh Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) • Integrated with the Solar PV generation systems

• Capacity to store over 1,120,000 kWh of annual excess PV generation, reducing the curtailment requirement of the PV from 23% of its total annual generation to 11%.


Carport PV Array

I.6 Mw Array at Main Parade Deck Parking


Page Field Ground Mounted Array

4Mw Ground Mount Array at Page Field


Combined Heat & Power Facility


New Combined Heat & Power Facility


• ESPC First Cost: $91.1 million• ESPC Total Cost: $210.6 million• Dan Magro, NAVFAC EXWC ESPC Program Lead stated:

"This ESPC project is probably the most comprehensive ESPC ever entered into by the Navy, involving 121 buildings (3.1 million square feet total) and 20 energy conservation measures (ECMs). This will result in MCRD Parris Island reducing their energy consumption by 384,962 million BTUs (79%) and water consumption by 74.6 million gallons (27%) annually. I think the team at Parris Island, with this ESPC, may have just redefined a 'deep energy retrofit!'

61

Results


Questions?

Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • ConserveTampa Convention Center • Tampa,Florida


“Micro” Combined Heat and Power ProjectA.J. Ballard, C.E.M

Maine Army National GuardAugust 17, 2017


Hello From Maine


Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) Building 260 , 123,000 SF

Bangor, Maine

75 KW “Micro” CHP

The Maine Army National GuardInstalled a Micro 75 KW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) System in the 123,500 square foot Army Aviation Support

Facility (AASF, Building 260) in Bangor, Maine in March 2015.

There is also a 43 KW solar PV system mounted on the roof.

The objective of the project was to determine if CHP is a viableoption for Army National Guard Facilities Between 50,000 and200,000 sf in states above the 5,000 Heating Degree Day line.

Based on the following data, the CHP is a viable option, it is considered clean energy and significantly out performs solar

photovoltaic systems in the north east latitudes.


75 KW CHP Generated over 25% in Energy Savings in FY16 and FY17


MEARNG 75 KW CHP Savings

Electric CostNormalizedoil and gas

costTotals

FY15 $90,100 $119,430 $209,530FY16 $62,557 $91,457 $154,014FY17 $62,615 $94,393 $157,008Avg Savings $27,514 $26,506 $54,020Avg Savings % 31% 22% 26%


Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

• Otherwise know as Cogeneration• Combination of an engine and a electric generator• Engines are either a turbine or internal combustion• CHP generates heat and electricity• The engine waste heat is captured and used in the building system

for heating, processing and/or domestic hot water production• The generator provides electrical power to main distribution panel• The Total System Efficiency = (thermal + electrical output) / input.• The MEARNG installed a 75 KW internal combustion engine


The objective of the pilot MEARNG CHP project was to determine if CHP was viable for 50,000 sf or larger National Guard Facilities in states above

the 5,000 Heating Degree Day line

> 7000HDD

> 6000HDD

> 5000HDD

There are a significant numberof

guard facilities above the 5,000

heating degree day line.110 Training Centers with ~2,070 Bldgs

734 Ground Maintenance Bldgs


293 Aviation Support Facilities

2,386 Readiness Centers


AASF is a ~ 123,500 sf building with a43 KW Solar PV system and a 75 KWCHP

Maine Army National Guard 75 KW Combined Heat and Power Pilot Project9

AASF 123,500 SF

Green = 75 KW CHP and boilers Red = Radiant floors and snow melt Yellow = 43 KW Solar PV on the roof

Blue = Hydronic make up air handler units

The remainder of the facility is heated with baseboard radiation, unit heaters and roof topunits.

KW PV43

CHP



75 KW Combined Heat and Power unit (CHP)

Natural gas input : 930,000 Btu per hour, 9.3 therms (~6.8 gals fuel oil/hr equivalent)Electric production : 75 kWh per hourWaste heat injection : 525,000 Btu per hour, 5.25 therms (~3.8 gals fuel oil/hr equivalent )

Maine Army National Guard 75 KW Combined Heat and Power Pilot Project

~70 dB noise rating

Aegis 75 KW CHP Compact DesignFit Through Mechanical Room Double Doors



CHP installed in primary loop: resulted in one 4.3 MMBTU boiler remaining off for the season and the other two on later and off earlier which resulted in fuel savings.

COGEN DashboardFeb 2, 2017, 32 FBldg load 151 KW Street @ 66 KW CHP @ 75KWSolar @ 10 KW



MEARNG 75 KW CHP Results

Bldg 260 Average Annual Electric and Fuel bill is $210,000.

In FY16 and FY 17 the 75 KW CHP generated the following:

– $27,500 in electrical savings

– $26,500 in fuel savings (normalized for fuel prices and HDD)

– ~ 25% reduction in building energy consumption

– ~ 5% reduction of the MEARNG total energy bill

75 KW CHP Generated over 25% inEnergy Savings in FY16 and FY17


MEARNG 75 KW CHP Savings

Electric CostNoramlizedoil and gas

costTotals

FY15 $90,100 $119,430 $209,530FY16 $62,557 $91,457 $154,014FY17 $62,615 $94,393 $157,008Avg Savings $27,514 $26,506 $54,020Avg Savings % 31% 22% 26%


75 KW CHP Generated over 40% of theBuilding’s Electrical in FY16 and FY17

MEARNG 75 KW CHP Electric Savings

Electric kWh purchased MMBtu

Billed Electric Cost

CHP kWh produced

CHPProduction % of bldg kWh

FY15 546,596 1,865 $90,100 57,072 9%FY16 321,414 1,097 $62,557 234,492 42%Fy17 341,765 1,166 $62,615 235,119 42%Avg Savings 215,006 768 $27,514% 39% 39% 31%

FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7 =~$15,000 in additional savings, Plus


75 KW CHP Electrical Generation

FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7 =~$15,000 in additional savings


75 KW CHP Electrical Generation

FY18 CHP upgrade to thermally follow the load and generate 24/7


75 KW Total System Efficiency FY 2016

Power plant typical TSE is 30-35% vs. CHP at 85% Efficiency

FY 2016 MEARNG 75 KW Total System Efficiency (TSE)

Electric Output

Electric Output

(a)

Natural GasThermal

Output to Heating System

Natural Gas Thermal Output

(b)

Natural Gas Input

(c)

TSE =(a +b) / c

KWH MMBtu Therms MMBtu MMBtu Efficiency234,500 800 9,954 995 2222 81%


Example: how CHP fundamentally savesenergy and reduces pollution

100 units of fuel in

Note: CHP heat rejected is used by the heat recovery unit in the mechanical room and delivered to hangar bay, resulting in efficiency of ~ 90-95%

Delivered: ~35 units elec / 100 = ~35% efficient

~15 units heat rejected to boilerroom

~55 units of heat delivered100 units of fuel in

~30 units of elec delivered

Delivered: elec (~30) + heat (~55) / 100 = ~85% efficient


Project Design Approach

• Feasibility Study is critical.• Treat the CHP as a “boiler” that is replacing or being added to

a heating or process system.• Key to the design – the viable use of the “jacket water waste

heat” is critical for the project success.• The CHP (“approach as a boiler”) also makes electricity via the

generator, hence the term combined heat and power.• The electricity is then provided to the building/facility via the

main electrical distribution panel.• The CHP is typically sized based on the buildings average

electrical 15 minute demand load.• Must find an efficient use for waste heat!


Engineering

Type A (Feasibility Study Micro turbine vs. ICE)

Type B (Design)

• $15,000• $27,000• $25,000 Type C (Construction)

• $67,000 A/E cost

combined heat and power case - energy exchange

Documents