new york state energy r & d authority addressing energy, economic, and environmental priorities

New York State Energy R & D Authority

Addressing Energy, Economic, and Environmental Priorities

Is CHP Right for Me?

Overview

• What is DG?

• What is CHP?

• Benefits of DG/CHP.

• Available technologies/equipment.

• Issues/hurdles for implementation.

What is Distributed Generation?

Electric power generation close to the load.

• Small-scale relative to central-plants.

• Can use fossil fuel – natural gas, diesel, propane…, or renewable energy – solar, wind, landfill/digester gas…

DG Applications

• Premium Power – reliability, power quality.

• Backup Power – reliability.

• Peak Shaving – peak demand reduction.

• Base Load/CHP – cost reduction.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

CHP: Onsite coincident production and use of electrical or mechanical power and thermal energy.

DG/CHP

Peak ShavingMicro-turbine

Residential Fuel Cell

CommercialIC Engine

CommercialBP Steam Turbine Boiler

Power Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Heat

Distributed Generation (DG)

Where Does DG/CHP Make Sense?

• Capacity constrained, high electric demands.

• High thermal (steam, hot water, direct heat, cooling) demands.

• Coincident thermal and electric demands.

• Extended operating hours.

• Access to fuels (byproducts, natural gas).

Benefits of DG/CHP

• Fuel “in” at one place, multiple benefits “out” yields financial savings.

• Diversification of energy supply sources yields greater reliability ====> Energy Security.

• Return on investment:

DG/CHP ====> every day.

Emergency generator ====> sporadically.

Fuel “in” at one place,multiple benefits “out”

COOLING:Air Conditioner.

HEATING:Defroster.

POWER (Electrical):AlternatorGenerates DC Power.

POWER (Locomotion):Mechanical (Rotary)Shaft Power.

Fuel “in” at one place,multiple benefits “out”

DG-CHP Generating Options

Micro-TurbinesInternal Combustion Engines

Gas Turbines

Fuel Cells

Steam Turbines

Choice of Equipment

• First: identify your electric & thermal needs.

• Next: match needs to a type of technology. Example: Engine - versus - Microturbine

Electrical efficiency: Engine ~ 35%, Microturbine ~25%

Byproduct heat: Engine high- & low-grade, Microturbine all high-grade

Other considerations: familiarity of technology, dump radiator, emissions

• Finally: select an equipment vendor.

Evolving Equipment

• Pre-engineered skid-mounted systems.

• A fully-integrated car produced on an assembly line is likely to be more reliable, less expensive, and “running” sooner than buying the individual parts and having someone assemble it for you.

• Likewise with CHP (not quite “plug-and-play” yet).

• Major efforts by USDOE recently.

DG/CHP Issues/Hurdles

• Interconnection with utility grid/tariffs.

• Synchronous - versus - Induction.

• Air permit.

• Footprint/available space.

• Financing.

Load Profiles


Daily load profile

Electric

Thermal

Midnight Noon Midnight

En

ergy

Dem

and

Load Profiles

• Seasonal variations.

Month -by- month load profile

Electric

Thermal

January June July December

En

ergy

Dem

and

Load Profiles

• Load shaping via absorption cooling.

Month -by- month load profile

Electric - w/ AC

Electric - w/o AC

Thermal - w/ AC

Thermal - w/o AC


En

ergy

Dem

and

Capacity Factor

DG Electric Power Generation Costs

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Capacity Factor

Gen

erat

ion

Co

st (

$/kW

h)

Capital Cost Fuel Cost O&M Cost Total Cost

CF = 1100% output for 100% of time

CF = 0.75100% output for 50% of timePlus50% output for 50% of time

CF = 0.5100% output for 50% of time

CF = 0.550% output for 100% of time

CF = 0.3100% outputfor 10 hours/day (8am – 6pm)for 5 days/week (M-F)for 52 weeks/year

Electric Load Profile

Daily load profile

Ele

ctr

ic D

em

an

d



Daily load profile

Ele

ctr

ic D

em

an

d


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


Daily load profile

Ele

ctr

ic D

em

an

d

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


2,000 4,800 8,760500

Ele

ctri

c D

eman

d

There are 8,760 hours per year

Do the Easy Things First

Weatherization

Energy Efficient Lighting

Programmable Controls & Thermostats

CHP

Energy Star Appliances

NYSERDA Funding Programs

• Energy Audits which include ‘quick screen’ for CHP.

• Site-specific CHP feasibility studies.

• CHP hardware installation.

Quick Screening for CHP

• There are various quick screening tools in development or use by NYSERDA, local gas utilities, & UMASS Amherst.

• The NYSERDA tools are typically incorporated into a more comprehensive energy efficient scope of work.

• Generally they analyze the cost-effectiveness of CHP to determine whether a building should pursue a detailed feasibility study.

R&D to Implementation - AMP

• The Assisted Multifamily Program provides whole-building energy efficiency to low- to moderate-income properties of > 4 units.

• AMP provides a complete energy assessment, financial packaging including a NYSERDA grant, & construction oversight, in addition to 3-year monitoring & consumption analysis.


• CHP must be considered by the auditor as a program requirement using the quick screening tool.

• If the analysis warrants it, the cost for a feasibility study AND an installed CHP system are packaged into the overall deal.


• If a viable financial package cannot be reached, AMP will consider additional funding from the CHP PON administered by R&D, otherwise the costs are borne by the owner and AMP.

• AMP typically packages deals at a 4:1 ratio of owner investment to NYSERDA funds.

Current Projects

Chart does not include Co-op City CHP project at a cost of $7.5 million with an SIR = 5.5.

AMP Quick Screening Tool Project Characteristics

$0.00

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

$800,000.00

Est

imat

ed C

ost

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Sav

ings

-to-In

vest

men

t R

atio

Current Projects

• Systems are sized to maximize needs & restrictions related to the electric peak & baseload as well as the daily peak DHW load using additional DHW storage if necessary.

• Estimated savings range from 9,232 to 52,002,000 kWh annually.

• Majority of systems are 30-60kW systems.

AMP Screening ToolElectric Data (This data is required for any analysis.) Thermal Data Data required.

Peak Total MonthlyEnergy-

based Cost Load oilMonthly Bill

Including Average Demand Usage Bill Factor Consumed Taxes Cost

Month Year kW kWh $$ $/kWh % Year mmBTU(DT) $$ $/mmBTUJan 2003 227.0 74,792 10,280 0.137 45% 2003 2,872 20,377 7.09Feb 2003 232.3 67,976 10,957 0.161 40% 2003 2,511 21,811 8.69Mar 2003 227.0 64,376 10,815 0.168 39% 2003 1,203 5,279 4.39Apr 2003 234.7 69,416 12,345 0.178 41% 2003 1,768 8,652 4.89May 2003 227.0 68,072 11,179 0.164 41% 2003 402 2,045 5.09Jun 2003 402.2 99,368 18,473 0.186 34% 2003 965 4,761 4.93Jul 2002 417.6 150,824 22,558 0.150 49% 2002 - -

Aug 2002 395.5 141,896 21,390 0.151 49% 2002 - - Sep 2002 344.6 103,256 15,096 0.146 41% 2002 565 3,126 5.54Oct 2002 295.2 71,336 10,374 0.145 33% 2002 1,469 8,429 5.74Nov 2002 233.3 79,544 10,696 0.134 47% 2002 1,480 7,990 5.40Dec 2002 234.7 70,904 9,882 0.139 41% 2002 2,564 16,237 6.33

Annual quantities: 418 1,061,760 164,044 0.155 29% 1,317 8,226 6.25Monthly Averages: 289 88,480 42% Efficiency of current equip: 75%

Auditor enters consumption & utility data into the tool.

AMP Screening Tool

Cost-effectiveness of the project based on electric load, DHW load, & selected CHP equipment.

Equipment Selection Operation Economic Assumptions Choose Machine: Contract Term: years

Manufacturer= Coast Intelligen Sales Tax: 8.25%Model = 55 IC (On equipment only)

Capacity= 55 kW

SizingNumber of Machines: 1

System Capacity = 55 kWAs Fraction of Peak = 13% Special Gas Price: 10.00$ /mmBtu(DT)

As Fraction of Baseload = 52% (Including all taxes)

Preliminary and Tentative Cost and Savings Estimates AssessmentCost/month Installed Cost 103,000

Purchased Generated Consumed $savings/year 30,017 Current BAU: 13,670$ 0.1545$ 0.1545$ Pay Back (years) 3.4 With self generation: 11,169$ 0.1545$ 0.0909$ 0.1262$ Savings to Investment Ratio 4.2 Savings = 18.3% 18.3% $Life Cycle Savings 331,444

Cost per kWh

Coast Intelligen 55kW 5Baseload

Peak Shaving

Select Self Gen Gas PriceCurrent Gas Price (above)

Special Gas Price (below)

Testing & Verification

• The current AMP quick screening tool is being applied retroactively to some of our multifamily CHP projects to test its accuracy.

• A continuing analysis will be conducted in each AMP project to compare the tool’s projections to those of the eventual feasibility study and ultimately to actual performance of installed projects.

$300,000 DOE Funding for NERAC

Northeast Regional Combined Cooling, Heating and Power Applications Center

Mission: Facilitate the technology transfer and deployment of advanced CHP.

Region: 7 state region of Northeast USA.

Services: Education, outreach, and technical assistance.

Constituency: CHP for both buildings and industrial settings.

Guidance: State Advisory Board, NECHPI.

DOE Funding$300,000

Center Co-DirectorshipsPace Energy ProjectUMass Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Special Projects in New York - FY 2003

www.northeastchp.org

www.eere.energy.gov/de/technologies/euii_chp_app_rac.shtml

PON 831 CHP & Renewable Generation Technical Assistance

• Competitive Solicitation

• $250,000 in available funding

• 50% cost share up to $50,000

• December 1, 2004 Deadline

Limitations

• Study must include heat recovery

• At minimum, 75% of electricity generated would be used on-site

• 20 MW capacity for CHP applications

Study Components

• Load profile analysis

• Determination of CHP efficiency

• Site information

• Economic evaluation

• Tariff impacts and interconnection issues

• Permitting

• Reliability

Load Profile

• Detailed analysis of load profiles– What are the thermal demands of the heat

sinks?– When is the heat used?– Are the thermal and electrical loads

coincidental?

Load Profiles

• Seasonal variations.

Monthly load profile

Electric

Thermal


En

ergy

Dem

and

Load Profiles


Daily load profile

Electric

Thermal


En

ergy

Dem

and

System Efficiency

• Annual Thermal utilization

• Annual fuel conversion efficiency

Heat recovered + Electricity generated

Fuel input

• NYSERDA target is 60%

Site Information

• Floor Plan

• Fuel requirements/ availability

• Construction schedule

• Existing air permit

Economic Evaluation

• Life Cycle Cost analysis

• Operational costs– Maintenance– Tariff impacts

• Detailed capital cost breakdown

Tariff Impacts & Interconnection

• Impact of CHP on existing tariffs– For example CHP exemption in ConEd territory

• Detailed discussion of any new applicable tariff impacts

• Grid interconnection issues– Standard interconnection under 300kVa

Permitting

• Environmental permits– EPA– DEP– DEC

• Detailed emission inventory

• Building permits– Special fuel line requirements

Reliability & Availability

• Estimated downtime – Scheduled – Unplanned

• Affect on customer’s core business

Example

• Large NYC hospital

• 7.5 MW gas turbine

• $4,000,000 annual savings

• $20,000,000 estimated installation cost

• 75% Annual Fuel Conversion Efficiency

• 37,500 pound reduction of NOx

NYSERDA Budget$200 Million Per Year

Pay To The Order Of: Your Name Here

One-Million Dollars

NYSERDA

$1,000,000

Not negotiable

Objectives of DG/CHP Program

• Support CHP to bolster NYS economy.

• Encourage clean and efficient systems.

• Establish a broad portfoliovarious technologies, various end-use sectors.

Document hurdles and lessons learned:

• Identify “Role Model” systems ====> replicate: faster, better, cheaper.

Annual Competitive Solicitation PON # # Proposals # Proposals NYSERDA Funds (date closed) Received Selected Earmarked

PON 554 @ 10/26/2000 36 16 $4 Million--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PON 536 @ 5/31/2001 55 36 $18 Million--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PON 669 @ 3/12/2002 112 45 $20 Million--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PON 750 @ 4/16/2003 66 20 $11 Million--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PON 800 @ 4/20/2004 60 39 $11 Million--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total to Date 329 156 $64 Million

Leveraging almost $250 Million of proposers’ funds

Competitive Selection

$

GoodCoincidence of

Electric/ThermalDemand at Site

Good“Societal”Benefitsbeyond

Site

GoodLogistics

at Site

Most DeservingOf Public Funds

Certain End-Use Sectorsbased on Best Professional Judgment

Load Pocket

Empire Zone

Brownfield

New Lessons

FuelAvailability

etc.

Market Opportunity for CHP in NYS

Forecasted new CHP over the next decade:

• “Technical Potential” scenario

8,500 MW at ~ 26,000 sites

(99% of these sites sized

at 5 MW or smaller)

• Base-case scenario

746 MW at ~ 2,000 sites

• Accelerated-case scenario

2,200 MW at ~ 6,000 sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

En

erg

y S

av

ing

s -

- tr

illio

n B

tu/y

ea

r

Business-as-Usual

Accelerated

Study at www.nyserda.org/dgchp.html

DG/CHP Case Studies

• Residential buildings:

Brooklyn, Manhattan

• Commercial building:

Waldbaums Supermarket

Remaining CHP Technical Potential

• Multiple Stakeholders– Building Owner / Cooperative (Board), Tenants,

Utility, Design Engineer, Developer, Oversight Agencies, Local Code Enforcement, Financing Institution.

• Large Base of Existing Older Buildings– Limited space within the building– Usually located in a densely populated area

– 2/3 of all apartments in NY State are in NYC– Residents more sensitive to noise, vibration and service

interruptions.

Challenges

Metering and Cogeneration

Direct Metered – Each apartment in the building has a electric utility meter, and the individual purchases and pays for their own electricity.

• Promotes energy efficiency as consumers incur the cost associated with their energy use.

• Load is not available to being supplied by on-site generation and hence limits the application of CHP.

Mastered Metered – One electric utility meter for the entire residential building.

• Entire building’s electric load is available to Cogeneration.

• Tenants less likely to be energy conscious.

Sub-Metered Master Building – Tenants pay for the the electricity they use and the entire building’s electric load is available to cogeneration.

MULTIFAMILY BUILINGS – SeaRise I & II, Brooklyn

Site Characteristics: Low Income Housing, 2 Buildings, 334 Apartments Each, Master Metered

Technology: IC Engines (Two 55 KW Coast Intelligen Cogen Units per Bldg.)

Operating Mode: 24/7, Grid-Interconnected, Operating on Natural Gas

Recovered Thermal Energy Use: Domestic Hot Water

Benefits: Expected net annual utility cost reduction of $65,000 (Payback ~ 6 yrs)

Results to Date: System Installed and in the process of be Commissioned

1987 SeaRise I & II installs Cogeneration System• IC Engine 145 kW (restricted to 120 kW), thermal output 830,000 Btu/Hr, thermal storage – 1200 gallons, operating strategy – thermal, thermal load – DHW

Experienced reduced operation due to low thermal demand (no dump radiator).

Extended outages• Engine failure due to poor unit reliability

• Equipment manufacturer filing for bankruptcy

• Lack of a maintenance contractor

• Local personnel had little or no involvement with the units other than to inform maintenance contractor when unit was out of service.

Site History

Instrumentation should be installed to measure electric and thermal loads before sizing the cogeneration system;

Units sized to meet 50 to 75 percent of the peak DHW thermal load with appropriately sized thermal storage will achieve near-continuous operation. Dump radiators, if economically justified, will also improve unit operations and reliability in some cases;

Lessons Learned

Sizing cogenerators to supply both DHW heating and significant portions of site space heating will result in grossly oversized unit during the five to six months when space heating is minimal. Multiple unit installations and/or dump radiators can be used to reduce unit start/stop cycling if they can be economically justified;

Lessons Learned (continued)

Cogenerators should be specified that have proven track records for dependable operation. Consideration should be given to the manufacturer’s support staff and facilities that will be available to support the unit after installation;

Installation of a remote monitoring system is recommended to provide automatic notification of the system outages and to assist in troubleshooting cogenerator problems;


Effective use of on-site personnel in the daily operation of the cogenerator results in reduced outage time;

Service agreements covering both cogenerator and balance of plant equipment should be in place at the time of installation. If possible, a single contractor should be responsible for maintaining both cogenerator and balance of plant equipment.


MULTIFAMILY BUILINGS – 10 West 66 Street, Manhattan

Site Characteristics: Electrically heated and cooled multifamily (256 units) residential cooperative building, gas fired hot water system, Master Metered w/ sub-metering.

Technology: one 70 kW Ingersoll-Rand Microturbine + 100 kW Gas Recip Engine Standby/Backup DG unit


Recovered Thermal Energy Use: Domestic Hot Water

Benefits: Expected net annual utility cost reduction of $36,000 (Payback ~ 9 yrs)

Results to Date: System Installed and Running

MULTIFAMILY BUILINGS – 205 West End Avenue, Manhattan

Site Characteristics: 540 unit Cooperative, Heating & Hot Water Con Ed Steam, Master Metered w/ Sub-metering

Technology: 2 – 150 KW Waukesha VSG11GSID continuous duty reciprocating engines


Recovered Thermal Energy Use: Domestic Hot Water, Comfort Heating

Benefits: Expected net annual utility cost reduction of $319,500 (Payback ~ 2.2 yrs)

Results to Date: System Installed and Running

Unbiased Feasibility / Engineering Study• Technology, Size and System Operation matches the facility

characteristics and needs.

Verify Contractor and Equipment Performance

Staged Implementation for Projects with Multiply Buildings within a Complex• Get the bugs out before replicating.

Suggestions for Minimizing Risk

DG/CHP Case StudyWaldbaums Supermarket


Total Store Power - 09/15/03

22: 0: 2: 4: 6: 8: 10: 12: 14: 16: 18: 20: 22: 0:

14 15 16

September

0

100

200

300

400

500P

ower

(kW

h/h)

Total (Utility Import + Turbine Output)Utility ImportTurbine Output

Peak Total Demand: 395.5 kW @ 12:15 PM

Peak Utility Import Demand: 342.5 kW @ 12:15 PM

Total Load: 7811.9 kWh

Utility Energy Purchased: 6494.5 kWh

Energy Generated: 1317.4 kWh


Gas Furnace

Heating HR Coil

Supply Fan

DX Coil

Supply Air Return

Air

Regen HR Coil

Gas Burner

Regeneration Inlet

Compressors

Des Wheel

MicroturbineHeatExchanger

Useful Heat

Electricity

Fuel

Exhaust

Exhaust


[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] = [1-3] / [2] [8] =

Turbine Parasitic Loads [1-3-4+5+6] / [2]

Power Output Gas Input

Gas Compressor

Heat Recovery

Glycol Pump

Space Heating

Desiccant Regen

"Net" Turbine

Generation Efficiency

"Net"CHP

Efficiency

% of Month in

OperationDate (kWh) (MBTU) (kWh) (kWh) (MBTU) (MBTU) (%) (%)April-03 15,356 209,649 1,097.3 250.0 16,162 0 23.2% 30.5% 39%May-03 30,414 411,031 2,113.0 474.6 29,084 2,045 23.5% 30.7% 73%June-03 39,087 549,741 2,767.1 530.1 18 17,223 22.5% 25.4% 99%July-03 39,185 568,723 2,878.3 635.8 103 72,102 21.8% 34.1% 100%August-03 10,864 161,883 838.9 185.7 0 46,035 21.1% 49.2% 29%September-03 22,210 328,755 1,627.2 359.1 457 40,837 21.4% 33.6% 58%October-03 33,777 465,929 2,312.4 512.2 21,063 12,828 23.0% 29.9% 80%November-03 10,005 138,575 693.8 153.3 5,939 6,192 22.9% 31.3% 25%December-03 5,290 66,833 370.7 81.7 4,688 0 25.1% 31.7% 13%January-04 34,702 417,133 2,394.5 535.4 2,769 0 26.4% 26.7% 83%February-04 27,701 341,383 1,904.6 426.4 92,226 0 25.8% 52.4% 73%March-04 35,160 440,680 2,425.9 544.4 102,987 0 25.4% 48.3% 84%Year 303,749 4,100,315 21,424 4,689 275,496 197,263 23.5% 34.6% 63%

Heat Recovered

Note: Actual natural gas HHV is used.


Economics: Strongly Linked to Fuel Cost

($10,000)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$0.4 $0.5 $0.6 $0.7 $0.8 $0.9

Gas Commodity Price ($/therm)

Ne

t A

nn

ual

Sav

ing

s

Financing

• NYC Economic Development Corp

Energy Cost Savings Program (ECSP).

• Cash value of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs).

• Business practices – Performance Contracting.

Financinghttp://www.newyorkbiz.com/Business_Incentives/Energy/

ECSPProgram.pdf

Benefits are available to businesses that generate their own electricity through distributed generation.

Rebate on “delivery charge” for natural gas used in CHP.

Rebate on “delivery charge” for grid-supplied electricity.

Rebate up to 4.44 cents per kWh self-generated via CHP.

Financing

Approved by NYPSC on March 20, 2003.

• Permits NFG to give customer funding to buydown cost of CHP equipment, lowering payback.

• Pilot program with initial term of 3 years. Annual cap of $1 million/year, total of $3 million.

• Proposed typical buydowns range $50,000 - $150,000. Actual buydown based on incremental margin per project.

• Customer must sign a performance contract with term of up to 6 years. May also be required to provide security.

national fuel DG Partnership Pilot Program

Financing





Emission at the Central Power Plant

Emission from Conventional Heating

CHP efficiency is a key driver of the potential emissions benefit; less fuel burned means lower emissions (all else being equal)

Source: EPA CHP Partnership/Energy & Environmental Analysis, Inc.

Emission at the Central Power Plant

Emission from On Site Generation of Electricity

Heat

On Site Generation of Electricity

Emission from Conventional Heating

Lower Emissions than the Local Heat Plant

CHP vs. Conventional Generation emission comparisons can be viewed from three perspectives:

Total emissions: The total emissions of CHP vs. Conventional Generation to serve equivalent end-use needs (includes T&D losses).

Electric sector emissions: Comparison of the electric side emissions of CHP vs. Central Power Plant (includes T&D losses)

Thermal load emissions: Comparison of the thermal side of CHP vs. thermal side of Conventional Thermal Generation (i.e., the old boiler)

Emissions impacts for CHP depend on: (1) the CHP unit emissions, (2) the displaced/avoided grid emissions, (3) the retired/displaced on-site boiler, and (4) avoided T&D losses

Does CHP Lead to Reduced Emissions? It Depends.

Emission reduction credit (ERC). Any decrease in emissions of a nonattainment contaminant in tons per year, occurring on or after November 15, 1990:

(i) which is surplus, quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable; and

(ii) which results from a physical change in, or a change in the method of operation of an emission unit subject to Part 201 of this Title; and

(a) is quantified as the difference between prior actual annual emissions or prior allowable annual emissions, whichever is less, and the subsequent maximum annual potential; and(b) is certified in accordance with the provisions of section 231-2.6 of this Subpart; or(iii) which results from a physical change in, or a change in the method of operation of an air contamination source not subject to Part 201 of this Title, and is certified in accordance with the provisions of section 231-2.6 of this Subpart.

ERC Definitions per NYCRR 231.2(b)(14)

Clinton Hill

Apartments • Total Electricity Demand ~ 3,000 kW

• Annual Energy Costs before CHP- $ 1,500,000

• Annual Energy Savings with ~ 550 kW CHP ~ $260,000 per year

• Installation Cost ~ $1.4 Million

• Simple payback with CHP ~ 5 years

(without NYSERDA incentive)

• The project seeks to allow three 400HP residual oil fired boilers to be turned off in the summer by:

producing the entire hot water load for seven buildings with CHP. andsupplying a portion of the electric load with CHP.

• By turning off the boilers using ultra-low NOx microturbines, the project will be eligible for NY state Emission Reduction Credits.

NOx1.42 0.491

Situation Electricity PurchasedElectricity Generated

on SiteAdjustment for

T&D Loss NY Metro Plant

NOx On Site NOx

NOx Reduction due

to Cogen(MWh) (MWh) lbs lbs lbs tons lbs tons

Current 4,820 0 0% 6844 0 0 0 0 6844 3.4222Proposed 590 4,230 0% 838 2077 -17198 -15,121 -7.56 -14283 -7.14161

Net NOx Emissions -21128 -10.6

Fuel Nitrogen Content (%)

(MMBTU) (lbs/MMBTU) (lbs)Total 35,467 0.485 17198

Emission Reduction

NOx

# 6 OilThermal Energy Recovered

Clinton Hill Apartments - North CampusAnalysis of NOx Emission Levels

lbs/MWh

Boiler Performance

Overall Total NOx

0.5

Net Site

Ozone Attainment $/ton per yr Tons/Yr Dollar ValueNOx Severe 11,350$ 7.56 85,812 NOx Moderate 1,800$ VOC Severe 6,158$ 0 0VOC Moderate 1,500$ PM-10 -$ 3.333898 - CO2 2$ 272.5175 545 SOx -$ 45.34 - CO -$ 0.45 -

Total 86,357$

Potential Value of ERC'sClinton Hill Project 4/03

Financing





FinancingPerformance Contracting

• Someone else pays for the equipment!

• You buy the “output” electricity and heat at a slightly reduced price than from elsewhere.

• Performance Contractor takes the financial risk, but reaps the majority of financial reward.

• Often, long-term contracts required.

Financing – Example at GRIA Design/Build

- On site CHP plants (two independent 750 KW natural gas generators).

- New absorption chiller.

- Various lighting and controls.

Project facts:

- $4.2 million project cost.

- No cost to County taxpayers or GRIA customers.

Monroe County Greater Rochester International AirportCombined Heat and Power Cogeneration Facilities

FinancingPerformance Contracting

Posted on: 08/21/2004 Publication date: 08/23/2004

Fitness Facility Uses Cogeneration

WALTHAM, Mass. — AmericanDG has agreed to supply low-cost energy to the Westfield Area YMCA in Westfield, N.J. The facility will receive a substantial portion of its electricity and hot water directly from an on-site, 150-kW cogeneration facility operated by AmericanDG. The system uses natural gas-driven cogeneration modules from Tecogen. Jim Lenox, director of facilities at the Y, stated, “Not having to make any capital equipment expenditure was an important factor in our decision.”

Contact Us

Dana [email protected]

(518) 862-1090 ext. 3377

Joseph [email protected]

(518) 862-1090 ext. 3381

Mark [email protected]

(518) 862-1090 ext. 3256

Mike [email protected]

(212) 971-5342 ext. 3006

www.nyserda.org

George E. Pataki

Governor

Vincent A. DeIorio, Esq.

Chairman

Peter R. Smith

President

Hot Topics•Governor Announces $15 million for Clean Energy Projects

Programs•Agricultural •Commercial/Industrial •Communities •Demand Response •Economic Development •Energy & the Environment •Hospitals/Institutions •Municipal •Renewables •Residential•Schools •Small Business •State Government •Transportation •Other

New York StateEnergy Research & Development Authority

17 Columbia CircleAlbany, NY 12203-6399

Toll-Free: 1-866-NYSERDA

New York City and Buffalo Regional Offices

new york state energy r & d authority addressing energy, economic, and environmental priorities

Documents