9/16/2010

1

h fMaking the Case for a CHP Projectin Gwinnett County, Georgia

Srinivas Jalla, P.E.Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources

National Biosolids PartnershipSeptember 22, 2010

9/16/2010

2

O tliOutline

♬ Background♬ Background♬ Business Case Evaluation♬ Project Update♬ Project Update♬ Conclusions♬ Acknowledgements/Questions♬ Acknowledgements/Questions

9/16/2010

3

G i tt C tGwinnett County♬ Created in 1818♬ Part of Metro Atlanta 30♬ Part of Metro Atlanta - 30

miles NE of City of Atlanta♬ One of the fastest growing

counties in the nation duringcounties in the nation during 80s and 90s

♪ Population: > 800,000♪ 437 square miles♪ 15 Municipalities

♬ Water System♪ 2,600 miles of Sewer lines

3 360 il f t li♪ 3,360 miles of water lines♪ 140,000 sewer customers♪ 220,000 retail water

customers

9/16/2010

4

Hi t i l W t t FlHistorical Wastewater Flows

2.5 MGD/YR

9/16/2010

5

W t R l ti C it & FlWater Reclamation Capacity & Flows

Facility Name Design Capacity 2008 Flows 2009 Flows**y g p y

Jackson Creek WRF* 3.00* 2.88 2.98

Beaver Ruin WRF* 4.50* 3.59 Closed

Crooked Creek WRF 16.00 12.30 15.16

Yellow River WRF* 22.00* 8.13 7.84Pole Bridge WWTP

(DeKalb County) 5 00 4 60 3 68(DeKalb County) 5.00 4.60 3.68

F. Wayne Hill WRC 60.00 28.89 35.52

Total 103.00 49.50 63.41

* YRWRF is being expanded to 22 MGD to close Beaver Ruin and Jackson Creek WRFs.** Floods in September 2009 and unusually high rainfall during last quarter of 2009

9/16/2010

6

Hi t i l W t P d ti (J ‘04 J ‘10)Historical Water Production (Jan ‘04 – June ‘10)

Year 2007 2008 2009Flows (MG) 31,673 26,309 26,015

9/16/2010

7

The DroughtFi i l I tThe Drought

♬ Water sales/consumption down 17.2% (15 MGD) from

Financial Impact

p ( )Vs. 2007

♬ Revenue impact $35.5M♬ Initiatives to close gap ($24 3 M)♬ Initiatives to close gap ($24.3 M)

♩ W&S Rate Increase $11.3M♩ Late Fees $7.4M♩ Account Activation Fees $1.7M♩ Summer Conservation

Surcharge $2.0M♩ Other Fees $2.0M

9/16/2010

8

Economic Challenges ForeclosuresEconomic Challenges - Foreclosures

9/16/2010

9

E i Ch ll H P itEconomic Challenges – Home Permits

• Based on year-to-date activity, the Single family home permits are expected to reach 900 in 2010.

9/16/2010

10

E i Ch ll D l t ChEconomic Challenges – Development Charges

35

253035

ns

$32.0

$20 7101520

$ M

illio

n

$20.7

$8.8$3.0

05

10

2006 2007 2008 2009

9/16/2010

11

R R I iti tiResource Recovery Initiative

♬ Initiative to review opportunities to make best use of pp“Resources under DWR Control.”

♪ Improve Efficiency♪ Maximize use of assets

♩ Excess Capacity Utilization (FOG & High-strength Wastes)

♪ Energy Recovery from resources in DWR’s controlresources in DWR s control

♩ Digester Gas♩ Low-head Hydro♩ Solar, Wind, etc.

♪ Load Shifting

9/16/2010

12

O ti EOperating ExpensesWater Reclamation Water Production

t i ht

Fuel

Misc4%

Contributions8%

supp-water rights3%

Fuel0%

Contributions8%

Misc2%

Personnel 1%

Personnel Services

37%Professional

Electricity26%

Services35%

R&M

Electricity33%

Gen Operating Supplies

1%

Chemicals10%

Sludge Disposal

11% Landscaping

R&M 7% Vehicle R&M

0%

services0%

♬ Over $13.5MM spent on Electricity in 2008

Chemicals7%

Gen Operating Supplies

1%

R&M6%

1% Industrial Supplies

0%

Parts0%

Telecomm service0%

9/16/2010

13

B i C E l ti P bl St t tBusiness Case Evaluation – Problem Statement

“How best to reduce energy cost and/or usage by improving resource utilization efforts at the

DWR Facilities.”

9/16/2010

14

G i tt’ BCE P

Define Drivers Brainstorm Conduct Fatal

Gwinnett’s BCE Process

Define Drivers and Objectives

Brainstorm Alternatives

Conduct Fatal Flaw Analysis

Refined Alternatives

List

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Risk/Benefit Identification

& Quantification

Selection ofNet Present Value Analysis

Selection of the Preferred

OptionPresentation

of Results

9/16/2010

15

F W Hill (FWH) W t R C t (WRC)F. Wayne Hill (FWH) Water Resources Center (WRC)

♬ 60 mgd Advanced WWTP♬ 60 mgd Advanced WWTP (stringent effluent criteria)

♬ Treatment Processes Include:♪ Membrane Tertiary Filtration♪ Membrane Tertiary Filtration♪ Ozone Disinfection♪ Anaerobic Digestion

♬ Discharges to Chattahoochee ♬ gRiver and Lake Lanier (County’s water source)

♬ Digester gas used for digester heating and remainder flared

9/16/2010

16

Existing Process FlowExisting Process Flow

9/16/2010

17

Digester gas Utilization Alternatives

BoilersHot Water or

SteamSt

Digester gas Utilization Alternatives

Electricity

orage

Waste Gas Flare

Cogeneration*Relief to

Atmosphere

Hot Water

Gas Treatment

Compression*ICE, Turbine, or Microturbine

High Performance Anaerobic

BiogasHot Water or Steam

ElectricityNG Pipeline

DigestersFuel Cell

Hot Water CH2M Hill

9/16/2010

18

Dig t r Ga Utilizati CHP S t mDigester Gas Utilization: CHP System

♬ Total efficiency = 80 -Exhaust

y84% (electricity: 30% to 35% and heating: 45% to 50%)Recovered Heat

ExhaustHeat

Exchanger Hot WaterTo Plant

♬ Digester gas treatment: moisture, H2S, & siloxanes

Digester GaskW

♬ natural gas blending option

GeneratorGas Engine

Engine Jacket

EngineCoolant

Engine JacketHeat Exchanger

Hot Water ReturnCH2M Hill

9/16/2010

19

C t & B fitCost & Benefits

♬ Capital Costs♪ Decreased purchase power cost (@0.07/kWh)

♬ Annual O&M Costs♪ Natural Gas (digester gas < 523 scfm)( g g )♪ H2S and siloxane media replacement♪ Engine Generator Maintenance♪ Power Cost♪ Power Cost

♩ Gas Compression & Drying♩ Hot Water Loop Pump♩ Radiator Fans♩ Radiator Fans

♬ Rebuild & Replacement Costs

9/16/2010

20

d b k f H lEstimated Payback Times for a CHP Facility

1a) one 1600kW it

1b) two 1600kW it

1c) one 2MW it1600kW unit 1600kW units 2MW unit

Total Capital Cost $5,170,000 $9,061,000 $6,028,000

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ 20.1 35.9 19.8Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.07/kWh

20.1 35.9 19.8

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.10/kWh

8.4 11.5 8.2

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.15/kWh

4.3 5.4 4.2

♬ Current power cost $0.075/kWh & gas generation 250 SCFMp g g♬ At current low energy prices & gas flows, payback time is not as attractive♬ Higher energy costs significantly reduce payback time

9/16/2010

21

Si l P b k P i d Simple Payback Period 30

20

25

iod (years)

10

15

ple Pa

yback Pe

ri

5

Simp

0

$0.03  $0.05  $0.07  $0.09  $0.11  $0.13  $0.15  $0.17 Power Cost ($/kWhr)

200 scfm 350 scfm 400 scfm 523 scfmDigester  Gas Production

9/16/2010

22

FOG/HSW t S ppl m nt Gas Pr d ti nFOG/HSW to Supplement Gas Production

♬ Utilize available digester♬ Utilize available digester capacity

♬ Cleaner Sewers♬ Has more embedded energy

(volatile solids) than sludge♬ Increased gas production♬ FOG/HSW tipping fees

id dditi lprovides an additional revenue stream

CH2M Hill

9/16/2010

23

Process Flow with New FacilitiesProcess Flow with New Facilities

9/16/2010

24

d b k f H H lEstimated Payback Times for CHP + FOG/HSW Facilities

2a) one 1600kW it

2b) two 1600kW it

2c) one 2MW it1600kW unit 1600kW units 2MW unit

Total Capital Cost $9,270,000 $13,161,000 $10,128,000

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ 8.9 11.7 9.1Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.07/kWh

8.9 11.7 9.1

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.10/kWh

6.6 7.6 6.5

Simple Payback Period (yrs) @ $0.15/kWh

4.7 4.8 4.4

♬ Addition of FOG facility increases gas production to significantly reduce the♬ Addition of FOG facility increases gas production to significantly reduce the payback time

9/16/2010

25

F di Ti i i E thi !!!Funding - Timing is Everything!!!

♬ BCE process provided project scope, cost, and the b i k h f f dibusiness case to market the program for funding;♪ Public Private Partnerships♪ Loans & Grants♪ ARRA (stimulus) Funds

♬ GEFA (Clean Water SRF) Funding for the CHP facility♪ $5 Million ($3 M forgiven & $2 M loan @ 2% int., 20 Yrs)♪ $5 Million ($3 M forgiven & $2 M loan @ 2% int., 20 Yrs) ♪ $0.5 Million County Funds

♬ DOE Grant (EECBG) for FOG/HSW facility♪ $3.5 Million grantg

“Significant reduction in payback period”

9/16/2010

26

F W Hill (FWH) W t R C t (WRC)F. Wayne Hill (FWH) Water Resources Center (WRC)

Anaerobic Digesters

New FOG/HSW Facility

New Cogeneration Facility

9/16/2010

27

P T D tProgress To Date

♬ CHP Facility ($5 5 M)♬ CHP Facility ($5.5 M)♪ DB Contract awarded in

Oct’09 ($5.2M)♪ EAC - $5.5 M ($0.53M less

than BCE Est.)♪ Estimated Completion

February 2011

FOG/HSW St ti♬ FOG/HSW Station ($3.5M)

♪ DB Contract awarded in June ’10 ($3 2M)June 10 ($3.2M)

♪ Estimated Completion End of 2011

9/16/2010

28

C l iConclusions

♬ A CHP system without FOG/HSW Station was not♬ A CHP system without FOG/HSW Station was not economically attractive at the current low power costs

♬ Competitive market condition & grants significantly improved payback periodimproved payback period

♬ Program Benefits:♪ Provides a new revenue stream♪ Reduces Department’s annual operating costs♪ Reduces impact of energy prices♪ Maximizes use of existing facilitiesg

9/16/2010

29

A k l d tAcknowledgements

♬ East Bay MUD♬ CH2M Hill♬ Crowder Construction ♬ Hazen and Sawyer♬ y

9/16/2010

30

h fMaking the Case for a CHP Projectin Gwinnett County, Georgia

Srinivas Jalla, P.E.Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources

National Biosolids PartnershipSeptember 22, 2010