Energy System and Thermoeconomic Analysis of Combined Heat and Power Fuel Cell Systems

Author(s):  
Whitney G. Colella ◽  
Siva P. Pilli

The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE)’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is spearheading a program with industry to deploy and independently monitor five kilowatt-electric (kWe) combined heat and power (CHP) fuel cell systems (FCSs) in light commercial buildings. This publication discusses results from PNNL’s research efforts to independently evaluate manufacturer-stated engineering, economic, and environmental performance of these CHP FCSs at installation sites. The analysis was done by developing parameters for economic comparison of CHP installations. Key thermodynamic terms are first defined, followed by an economic analysis using both a standard accounting approach and a management accounting approach. Key economic and environmental performance parameters are evaluated, including (1) the average per unit cost of the CHP FCSs per unit of power, (2) the average per unit cost of the CHP FCSs per unit of energy, (3) the change in greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollution emissions with a switch from conventional power plants and furnaces to CHP FCSs; (4) the change in GHG mitigation costs from the switch; and (5) the change in human health costs related to air pollution. CHP FCS heat utilization is expected to be less than 100% at several installation sites. Specifically at six of the installation sites, during periods of minimum building heat demand (i.e. summer season), the average in-use CHP FCS heat recovery efficiency based on the higher heating value of natural gas is expected to be only 24.4%. From the power perspective, the average per unit cost of electrical power is estimated to span a range from $15–19,000/kilowatt-electric (kWe) (depending on site-specific changes in installation, fuel, and other costs), while the average per unit cost of electrical and heat recovery power varies between $7,000 and $9,000/kW. From the energy perspective, the average per unit cost of electrical energy ranges from $0.38 to $0.46/kilowatt-hour-electric (kWhe), while the average per unit cost per unit of electrical and heat recovery energy varies from $0.18 to $0.23/kWh. These values are calculated from engineering and economic performance data provided by the manufacturer (not independently measured data). The GHG emissions were estimated to decrease by one-third by shifting from a conventional energy system to a CHP FCS system. The GHG mitigation costs were also proportional to the changes in the GHG gas emissions. Human health costs were estimated to decrease significantly with a switch from a conventional system to a CHP FCS system. A unique contribution of this paper, reported for the first time here, is the derivation of the per unit cost of power and energy for a CHP device from both standard and management accounting perspectives. These expressions are shown in Eq. (21) and Eq. (31) for power, and in Eq. (24) and Eq. (34) for energy. This derivation shows that the average per unit cost of power is equal to the average per unit cost of electric power applying a management accounting approach to this latter calculation. This term is also equal to the average per unit cost of heat recovery power applying a management accounting approach. A similar set of relations hold for the average per unit cost of energy. These derivations underscore the value of using Eq. (21) for economic analyses to represent the average per unit cost of electrical power, heat recovery power, or both, and using and Eq. (24) for energy.

Author(s):  
Whitney G. Colella ◽  
Siva P. Pilli

The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE)’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is spearheading a program with industry to deploy and independently monitor five kilowatt-electric (kWe) combined heat and power (CHP) fuel cell systems (FCSs) in light commercial buildings. This publication discusses results from PNNL’s research efforts to independently evaluate manufacturer-stated engineering, economic, and environmental performance of these CHP FCSs at installation sites. The analysis was done by developing parameters for economic comparison of CHP installations. Key thermodynamic terms are first defined, followed by an economic analysis using both a standard accounting approach and a management accounting approach. Key economic and environmental performance parameters are evaluated, including (1) the average per unit cost of the CHP FCSs per unit of power, (2) the average per unit cost of the CHP FCSs per unit of energy, (3) the change in greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollution emissions with a switch from conventional power plants and furnaces to CHP FCSs; (4) the change in GHG mitigation costs from the switch; and (5) the change in human health costs related to air pollution. CHP FCS heat utilization is expected to be less than 100% at several installation sites. Specifically at six of the installation sites, during periods of minimum building heat demand (i.e. summer season), the average in-use CHP FCS heat recovery efficiency based on the higher heating value of natural gas is expected to be only 24.4%. From the power perspective, the average per unit cost of electrical power is estimated to span a range from $15–19,000/kilowatt-electric (kWe) (depending on site-specific changes in installation, fuel, and other costs), while the average per unit cost of electrical and heat recovery power varies between $7,000 and $9,000/kW. From the energy perspective, the average per unit cost of electrical energy ranges from $0.38 to $0.46/kilowatt-hour-electric (kWhe), while the average per unit cost per unit of electrical and heat recovery energy varies from $0.18 to $0.23/kWh. These values are calculated from engineering and economic performance data provided by the manufacturer (not independently measured data). The GHG emissions were estimated to decrease by one-third by shifting from a conventional energy system to a CHP FCS system. The GHG mitigation costs were also proportional to the changes in the GHG gas emissions. Human health costs were estimated to decrease significantly with a switch from a conventional system to a CHP FCS system. A unique contribution of this paper, reported for the first time here, is the derivation of the per unit cost of power and energy for a CHP device from both standard and management accounting perspectives. These expressions are shown in Eq. (21) and Eq. (31) for power, and in Eq. (24) and Eq. (34) for energy. This derivation shows that the average per unit cost of power is equal to the average per unit cost of electric power applying a management accounting approach to this latter calculation. This term is also equal to the average per unit cost of heat recovery power applying a management accounting approach. A similar set of relations hold for the average per unit cost of energy. These derivations underscore the value of using Eq. (21) for economic analyses to represent the average per unit cost of electrical power, heat recovery power, or both, and using and Eq. (24) for energy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney G. Colella ◽  
Siva P. Pilli

The United States Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is teaming with industry to deploy and independently monitor 5-kilowatt-electric (kWe) combined heat and power (CHP) fuel cell systems (FCSs) in light commercial buildings. Results of an independent evaluation of manufacturer-stated engineering, economic, and environmental performance of these CHP FCSs are presented here. An important contribution of this paper is the precise definition and development of these essential terms for quantifying distributed CHP generator energy use within buildings: (1) electricity and heat utilization, (2) electrical and heat recovery efficiencies, (3) in-use electrical and heat recovery efficiencies, (4) percentage usage of electricity, and (5) percent usage of recoverable heat. Key additional parameters evaluated include the average cost of the CHP FCSs per unit of power and per unit of energy, the change in greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollution emissions with a switch from conventional power plants and furnaces to CHP FCSs, the change in GHG mitigation costs from the switch, and the change in human health costs from air pollution. CHP FCS heat utilization is expected to be under 100% at several installation sites; for six sites, during periods of minimum heating demand, the in-use CHP FCS heat recovery (HR) efficiency based on the higher heating value of natural gas is expected to be only 24.4%. From the power perspective, the average per-unit cost (PUC) of electrical power is estimated to span $15–19,000/kWe (depending on site-specific installation, fuel, and other costs), while the average PUC of electrical and HR power is $7,000–9,000/kW. Regarding energy, the average PUC of electrical energy is $0.38–$0.46/kilowatt-hour-electric, while the average PUC of electrical and HR energy is $0.18–$0.23/kWh. GHG emissions were estimated to decrease by one-third after replacing a conventional system with a CHP FCS. GHG mitigation costs were also proportional to changes in GHG emissions. Estimated human health costs from air pollution emissions decreased by a factor of 1000 with changing to CHP FCS. Reported for the first time here is the derivation of the PUCs of power and energy for a CHP device from both standard and management accounting (MA) perspectives. Results show that the average PUC of combined electrical and HR power is equal to the average PUC of electric power applying an MA approach, and also equal to the average PUC of HR power applying an MA approach. Similar relations hold for the average PUC of energy. Results presented here demonstrate the value of using the equations herein for economic analyses of CHP systems to represent the average PUC of electrical power, HR power, or both, and for energy.


Author(s):  
G. T. Greene ◽  
C. E. Warner

With the advent of high-speed, gas-turbine-powered naval vessels, new lighter weight concepts are required for service power. This paper demonstrates how a gas-turbine-driven ship service generator set can be used to supply multiple functions, including electrical power, thermal power, pneumatic power, and direct shaft-driven equipment. The thermal power can be used to perform heating, distillation plant operation, galley services, and air conditioning functions. The Canadian DDH 280 Class destroyer system is presented as an example of a total energy system. Heat recovery boiler and gas turbine characteristics are presented for 600-hp and 5000-hp marine gas turbines. A gas turbine total energy system is compared to a conventional diesel system without heat recovery.


Author(s):  
Craig S. Smugeresky

Heat recovery for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) applications has been developed and fully integrated into a Capstone® Micro Turbine™ Distributed Energy Resource (DER) power generation system. The Capstone C6XiCHP Series Micro Turbine products have the ability to generate up to 65 kW of electrical power and 120 kW of thermal heat recovery in a fully integrated single package. Users are able to scale up to 2.0 MW of electrical power generation combined with up to 3.6 MW of heat energy when the C6XiCHP in applied in multiple unit (MultiPac™) arrays. Because multiple units are used and operated as a single generator system, users can operate each individual C6XiCHP at full load efficiency and turn off unused C6XiCHP units to follow site demand without incurring efficiency penalties associated with part-load operation.


1978 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Martineau ◽  
J. L. Boyen

The energy system described represents the latest technology in on-site grid-connected systems for the power range used. The electrical portion of the system consists of a liquid fuel fired gas turbine driving a 3-MW alternator which is connected into the utility system. The gas turbine is supercharged to 12 in. w.c. It is planned to operate the turbine-generator at full load continuously, thereby securing operation at the optimum fuel rate. Heat is recovered from the gas turbine exhaust by a novel heat recovery boiler utilizing a controlled economizer. Steam is generated at 150 psig and is fed into the campus steam system for heating, air conditioning, and other uses. Steam rate is 20,300 lb/hr to a final stack temperature of 308 F. Additional heat is recovered from the turbine oil cooler, the alternator cooling air, and the boiler’s continuous blowdown. The combination of electrical power generation and heat recovery from the above sources produces an overall plant efficiency of 83 percent.


2014 ◽  
Vol 962-965 ◽  
pp. 1836-1839
Author(s):  
Yong Ren ◽  
Zhen Ying Mu ◽  
Hong Tao Zheng ◽  
Shi Chen

Energy consumption analysis models of ship energy system were established. The performance indexes, such as energy loss ratio, waste heat recovery rate and waste heat recovery perfect degree were defined. A 70000 - ton crude oil carrier was taken as an example for energy consumption analysis. The results show that the waste heat recovery rate of exhaust smoke was 15.69%, and the waste heat recovery perfect degree was 52.76%.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document