Edward Lyford-Pike, Cummins [email protected], 812 377-4407
U.S. DOE Industrial Distributed Energy Portfolio Review Meeting Washington, D.C.
June 1-2, 2011
The objective of the Cummins / Department of Energy (DOE) ARES Program, is to develop advanced gaseous fueled engines and technologies for power generation that combine high efficiency, low emissions, fuel flexibility and reduced cost of ownership.
The ultimate goals of the project are to demonstrate engine systems achieving 50% Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE), <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx, improved durability and reliability. The program is planned in multiple phases. Key deliverables for each phase include: Phase 1 targets of 44% BTE and 0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx, Phase 2 targets of 47% BTE and <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx and Phase 3 targets of 50% BTE and <0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx.
Cummins has successfully completed Phase 1 developing advanced lean burn technology increasing BTE from 36 to 44% with more than 200 MW in commercial applications. For Phase 2 Cummins has demonstrated ultra low emissions of 0.023 g/bhp-hr NOx with Stoichiometric combustion, Exhaust Gas Recirculation, Advanced Three Way Catalyst Technology and is working towards the efficiency demonstration. Also developed advanced technologies, modeling tools, and capability to operate with non-std gases (renewable fuels).Phase 3 is planned to be completed by Q3 2013.
Executive Summary
2
Project Objective
Increase engine system fuel efficiency at lower emissions levels while attaining lower cost of ownership
Demonstrate 50% Brake Thermal Efficiency (BTE)
Baseline engine efficiency at 36% BTE
<0.1 g/bhp-hr NOx System Out Emissions Baseline NOx at 2 to 4 g/bhp-hr NOx
10% Lower Operating Cost No Reliability Penalty Increased Fuel Flexibility (operate with non-
std gases: landfill gas and other renewables) Non-std gases characterized by varying BTU, Low
Methane Number, Varying Diluents/Composition
Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr
FuelMaintenance
Capital
Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr
FuelMaintenance
Capital
Typical Cost Breakdown8,000 hrs/yr
FuelMaintenance
Capital
Efficiency is key
3
State of the Art Pre-ARES Engines Characterized by the following:
Limited investment in natural gas engines, based on derivatives of larger volume diesel engines
Low combustion systems efficiency, high NOx, high CO2 Limited controls Max power limited by thermal issues, poor performing
and unreliable ignition systems Limited operation with non-std fuels Lack of:
cost effective aftertreatment technology dedicated modeling tools optimal integration of key sub-systems such as advanced air
handling, power cylinder, fuel systems, waste heat recovery4
Technical Approach: Architecture Phase 1: Lean Burn Spark Ignited (SI)
This ARES technology is in production with the 60/91L engines
Phase 2: Stoichiometric Spark Ignited (SI) w/ Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), Three Way Catalyst (TWC), and Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) Projected to be the most cost effective engine solution for
low emissions markets (<0.1 gNOx) Phase 3: Advanced Stoichiometric SI w/ EGR, TWC and WHR
Further development of Advanced Combustion Systems, Analytic Models, Air Handling, Aftertreatment, Control/Sensor , and Ignition Technologies
5
Technical Approach: Strategy
Improve closed cycle efficiency Explore advanced combustion concepts
Improve open cycle efficiency Improve air handling
Improve predictive models Improve controls/sensing Long life ignition system Advanced aftertreatment Waste heat recovery
6
Technical Approach – New Technologies Base Engine
Combustion Air Handling Ignition EGR
Aftertreatment Air Fuel Ratio Management Advanced Three Way Catalyst
Waste Heat Recovery Thermo Chemical Recuperation (TCR) Conservation of Exhaust Energy
Controls / Sensors Development Sensors TCR / Aftertreatment Algorithms
Analytical Tools Development KIVA-SI GT-Power
7
Transition and Deployment ARES technology:
Improved reliability Improved air quality Reduces customers Life Cycle
Cost (LCC) Reduces fuel consumption
Increased reliability of power grid due to decentralization
Distributed power creates the opportunity for waste heat utilization through CHP
Positive impact on Distributed Energy Program
8
Key Market Driver – Life Cycle Cost Total LCC is key
Fuel efficiency Maintenance cost Initial capital cost
Relative importance of each LCC element for a particular customer depends on the duty cycle
For high hour applications, efficiency is critical
Total Cost by Hour Usage
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hours/Year
Tota
l Cos
t ($/
MW
-HR)
Capital Cost Driven
Transition Operating Cost Driven
Typical LCC Breakdown - 1200 hrs/yr
Maintenance12%
Capital53%
Fuel35%
Typical LCC Breakdown - 3400 hrs/yr
Maintenance19%
Capital27%
Fuel54%
Typical LCC Breakdown - 8000 hrs/yr
Capital14%
Fuel65%Maintenance
21%
9
Measure of Success
The combination of high efficiency low cost of ownership low NOX emissions
makes it more attractive for customers to purchase natural gas fueled reciprocating engines. This is expected to have a direct positive impact on distributed power generation.
Expected >10 % /yr worldwide market growth ARES Phase 1 in production with over 200 MW operation North America and International expansion expected to be
driven by renewable fuels and increase in Natural Gas availability
QSK60G
10
Benefits
Increased utilization of natural gas produced in the USA Increases benefits of shale gas production
Lower cost of ownership shortens payback period and broadens the potential market
Lower emissions improve air quality Decentralization reduces transmission loss Can use natural gas in locations where diesel fuel cannot be
stored Increased reliability of power grid due to decentralization Reduced CO2 emissions vs. diesel or coal Distributed power creates the opportunity for waste heat
utilization through CHP
11
0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.555 105×
6 105×
7 105×
8 105×
9 105×
1 106×
1.1 106×
1.2 106×
1.3 106×
1.4 106×
1.5 106×
1.6 106×
1.7 106×
1.8 106×
1.9 106×
2 106×
Natural Gas (CH4)Diesel (C12H26)
lb/hr CO2 per GWATT versus BTE
BTE
lb/h
r C
O2
per
GW
AT
T
CO2 Production Comparison of Natural Gas and Diesel Power Generation Applications
ARES Phase 1 Technology reduces CO2 by 23% relative to DieselARES Phase 3 Technology reduces CO2 by 32% relative to Diesel
Diesel
Nat Gas
Benefits (cont.)
12
Benefits: Renewable Fuels
High BTE using “renewable fuels” Improve BTE by 4 points over engines operating with renewable
fuels today Lower net CO2 and CH4 emissions
Maintain lower NOx while varying fuel composition Lower net NOx emissions
Potential Savings After first 10 years of commercialization
Will save 74 MTherms of Natural Gas per year Equivalent to 40,000 rail cars of coal per year Reduce CO2 emissions by 5M tons per year
13
QSV91
QSK60GQSK19G
Cummins Power Generation Business (CPG)Energy Solutions Business (ESB) Lean-Burn Gas Generator Sets
– 300 to 2000 kW – Continuous Power
G-Drive Business (NPower) Stoic/ LB Gas Generator Sets
– 200 to 800 kWe – Standby Power
Oil & Gas Business (O&G BU) Gas Compression
– Wellhead (< 500 hp)– Gathering (< 1000 hp)– Pipeline (> 1000 hp)
Engineering & Manufacturing CSS : Columbus, IN (Eng’r Only) CIC : Seymour, IN DAV : Daventry, England CNGE : Clovis, New Mexico CIL : Pune, India
Commercialization Approach
GTA8.3SLB
KTA 19GC
14
Project Management & BudgetARES 2011 2012 2013
DOE Investment $2.7M TBD TBD
Cost Share $2.0M TBD TBD
Project Total $4.7M $4.6M $2.9M
Critical Milestones 2011 2012 2013
Phase 2 Design Completed – Target Demons. Q3 Q2
Phase 3 Design Completed – Target Demons. Q3 Q3
2010
Phase 1:44% Efficient,
0.50g NOx
Phase 2:47% Efficient,
0.1g NOx
Phase 3:50% Efficient,
0.1g NOx
Concepts
Platform BaseTechnical Base
Field DemosCommercialization
2000 2005 2008 2013 15
Phase 1: Developed new Lean Burn
Technology Achieved 44% BTE and 0.1
g/bhp-hr NOx (w/SCR) Applied to 60/91L Platforms Field test completed In Production
NJ Mountain Creek Resort field test
Results and Accomplishments High compression ratio piston Miller cycle camshaft Long life spark plugs Low loss exhaust valves
High efficiency turbo Compressor bypass valve Advanced controls Reduced engine speed Increased BMEP
16
Results and Accomplishments (cont.) Phase 2
Stoichiometric Spark Ignited w/ EGR Demonstrated engine performance targets
Advanced Three Way Catalyst Demonstrated ultra low NOx 0.023 g/hp-hr
Controls / Sensors Demonstrated system for Stoich. w/EGR oper.
Engine Combustion Recipe Modeled and designed unique piston bowl
Ignition System Demonstrated system for Stoich. w/EGR oper.
Renewable Fuels Capability Demonstrated 500 hr cyclic endurance test
varying methane number and BTU fuel content while maintaining 0.5 g/hp-hr Nox
Demonstrated engine performance targets with Hydrogen rich fuels
Brake Specific NOx - (grNOx/bhp-hr)
Bra
ke T
herm
al E
ffic
ienc
y - (
%)
Design #3
Design #2
Design #1
Design #4
> 3% BTE Improvement
Lower NOx (more EGR)
HigherBTE
17
Results and Accomplishments (cont.) Phase 2 (cont.)
Analytical Tools Development Developed a combustion predictive tool
with the Wisconsin Engine Research Consultants (WERC) for gaseous fuels SI engine modeling
Published two papers describing application of advanced modeling techniques @ ASME Congress
Waste Heat Recovery w/Thermo Chemical Recuperation TCR did not perform up to expectations
most probably due to carbon poisoning of the catalytic reformer
Advanced Waste Heat Recovery system to replace TCR Integrated on-engine Leveraging on-road engine program
18
Path Forward Maintain the Stoich. w/EGR and TWC engine technology Incorporate Advanced Integrated Waste Heat Recovery
Demonstrate 47% / 50% efficiency targets Phase 2 completion at end of Q2 2012 Phase 3 completion targeted at the current budget and timing Q3 2013
Confident that this path will achieve program goals
19
Questions?
20