Harley-Davidson Museum
Milwaukee, WI.
Jonathan Rumbaugh, BAE/MAE
Mechanical Option
Advisor: Dr. William Bahnfleth
PROJECT SPONSORS
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
PROJECT SPONSORS
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Study
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Cooling Tower
• River Water
• CHP (Depth Three)
• CHP Feasibility
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Project Background
• Building Statistics
• Location & Layout
• Existing Conditions
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
BUILDING STATISTICS
• Size (Total Square Feet): 130,000
Guggenheim by Frank Gehry
257,000 square feet
$100 million
• Number Stories Above grade: 3
• Construction timeline : April 2005 – May 2008
• Overall Project Cost: $75 million
Wordpress.com
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Project Background
• Building Statistics
• Location & Layout
• Existing Conditions
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Project Background
• Existing Conditions
• Mechanical Design
• Energy Model
• Emissions
• Comparison
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
MECHANICAL DESIGN
• Two Roof Mounted 300 Ton Air-cooled Rotary Screw Chillers
• Four 2000 MBH Sealed Combustion Condensing Boilers
• Variable Primary Flow
2
• 11 Air Handling Units
5
4
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
ENERGY MODEL
EXISTING CONDITIONS
• Project Background
• Existing Conditions
• Mechanical Design
• Energy Model
• Emissions
• Comparison
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Peak Cooling Plant Loads
Peak Heating Plant Loads
Desgin TRACE MODEL Design to Model
Desgin TRACE MODEL Design to Model
ton
ton
600
585.3
%Δ
-2%
Total Building Energy [kBtu/yr]
MBh
MBh
8000
9073
%Δ
13%
Total Source Energy [kBtu/yr]
$0.10 / kWh Electricity
$0.80 / Therm Natural Gas
Annual Cost Breakdown
Primary Heating
10%
Receptacle
15%
Primary
Heating
24%
Primary
Cooling
14%
Lighting
33%
Auxiliary
14%
Receptacle
17%
Lighting
40%
Harley-Davidson Museum
6%
18%
17%
Primary
Cooling
16%
Auxiliary
17%
Cost Breakdown
Primary Heating
Primary Cooling
Auxiliary
18%
41%
Lighting
Receptacle
Cost
Primary Heating
Primary Cooling
Auxiliary
Lighting
Receptacle
Total
$ 20,252.00
$ 62,223.50
$ 64,463.40
$ 150,907.60
$ 65,906.60
$ 363,753.10
Mechanical Option
EMISSIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.00E+07
4.50E+04
9.00E+06
4.00E+04
Calculations use factors from the
Regional Grid emissions Factors
2007. table B-10
8.00E+06
3.50E+04
3.00E+04
2.50E+04
Precombustion
Natural Gas
2.00E+04
Electic
Mass of Pollutant (lb)
7.00E+06
Mass of Pollutant (lb)
• Project Background
• Existing Conditions
• Mechanical Design
• Energy Model
• Emissions
• Comparison
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Emissions
Emissions : No CO2
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
Electic
3.00E+06
1.00E+04
2.00E+06
5.00E+03
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
N2O
NOx
SOx
CO
TNMOC
Lead
Mercury PM10
Natural Gas
4.00E+06
1.50E+04
CH4
Precombustion
VOC
Pollutant
Pollutant
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
• Project Background
• Existing Conditions
• Mechanical Design
9 Million lbs. of C02e / year
• Energy Model
• Emissions
• Comparison
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
EMISSIONS
Emissions
1.00E+07
9.00E+06
8.00E+06
7.00E+06
867 acres
Mass of Pollutant (lb)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
Precombustion
Natural Gas
4.00E+06
Electic
3.00E+06
2.00E+06
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
Pollutant
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
COMPARISON
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Museum Campus Electricity Use
500,000
120
450,000
110
400,000
100
350,000
90
300,000
80
250,000
70
200,000
60
2010 kWh
2010 kWh
TRACE KWH
150,000
100,000
2010 Temp
2010 Temp
TRACE temp
50,000
0
Energy Model is an accurate representation of the
energy consumption of the facility
Temp
Kilowatt Hours (kWh)
• Project Background
• Existing Conditions
• Mechanical Design
• Energy Model
• Emissions
• Comparison
• Thesis Goals
• Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
CONCLUSION
50
40
30
20
Date
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THESIS GOALS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
Final Conclusions
GOALS
PROPOSAL
• Reduce Emissions
• Reduce Energy Consumption
• Reduce Operating cost
• Decrease Thermal Loads Through
Envelope (Depth One)
Energy
Consumption
• Increase Efficiency of Chilled Water
Production (Depth Two)
Operating
Cost
Emissions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
• Become Energy Independent From Grid
(Depth Three)
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
DEPTH ONE
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Location of thermal break
N
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
THERMAL ANALYSIS
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
THERMAL ANALYSIS
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
THERMAL ANALYSIS
8760 hr. study
T1
T2
Total: 108.19 Watts per year
Lowest indoor temp = 69 oF
Savings: $1,271.19 / year [Main gallery]
For a simple payback of 5 years
Each Thermal Break = $653
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
THERMAL ANALYSIS
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
THERMAL BRIDGING
STRUCTURAL BREADTH
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
• Thermal Analysis
• Structural Breadth
• Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Location of thermal break
N
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Member
Force
Allowable Actual
OK?
Beam
Bending
Moment
64.12 ft
kips
18.5 ft
kips
Yes
Beam
Shear
79.1 kips
3.7 kips
Yes
Girder
Bending
Moment
3723 ft
kips
686
Yes
Girder
Shear
886 kips
40.05 kips Yes
Girder
Live Load 3.4”
Deflection
2.75”
Yes
Girder
Total
6.85”
Deflection
6.6”
Yes
Column
Load
355 kips
50
Yes
Thermal
Break
Shear
13,400 psi 2.24 psi
Yes
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
DEPTH TWO
Two 300 Ton Air Cooled Chillers
EER 9.4
Carrier
Carrier
EPA
Carrier
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Two 300 Ton Water Cooled Chillers
COP 5.9
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
AIR VS. WATER
CAPITAL
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Alternative 1: Air- Cooled
Equipment
Price
AC Chiller 1 $215,000.00
AC Chiller 2 $215,000.00
Alternative 2: Water-Cooled
Equipment
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
Price
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
Cooling Tower 1 $ 37,000.00
Cooling Tower 2 $ 37,000.00
Additional Water: 2,500 1000gal
Cost : $5,500.00 / year
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
5,575.00
5,575.00
CW Piping
$ 21,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
Total
$ 550,000.00
Total
$ 507,150.00
Capital: -$42,850
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
AIR VS. WATER
CAPITAL
30 Year LCC
Alternative 1: Air- Cooled
Existing Air-Cooled System: $4,045,288.09
Equipment
Price
AC Chiller 1 $215,000.00
AC Chiller 2 $215,000.00
Alternative 2; Water-Cooled System: $3,861,471.04
Air-Cooled
Water-Cooled
% Diff
Equipment
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
Price
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
Cooling Tower 1 $ 37,000.00
Cooling Tower 2 $ 37,000.00
Savings: $183,817.05
*Total CO2e (lb):
Alternative 2: Water-Cooled
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
5,575.00
5,575.00
CW Piping
$ 21,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
Total
$ 550,000.00
Total
$ 507,150.00
9.01E+06
8.77E+06
3%
Harley-Davidson Museum
Capital: -$42,850
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER
Supply
Cold Water Temp = 0.739*WB + 27.35
Return
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER
Supply
Return
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
CAPITAL
Alternative 2: Water-Cooled
Cooling Tower
Equipment
Price
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
Cooling Tower 1 $ 37,000.00
Cooling Tower 2 $ 37,000.00
5,575.00
5,575.00
Alternative 3: Water-Cooled
River Water
Equipment
Price
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
River Pump 1
River Pump 2
River Piping
Heat Exchanger
Filtration System
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 52,500.00
$ 18,000.00
$ 100,000.00
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
5,575.00
5,575.00
4,750.00
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
CW Piping
$ 20,995.00
CW Piping
$
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
Total
$ 507,145.00
$ 611,400.00
Capital: +$104,255
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER
Alternative 2: Water-Cooled
Cooling Tower
Equipment
Price
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
30 Year LCC
Alternative 2; Cooling Tower System: $3,861,471.04
Alternative 3; River Water System: $3,641,264.61
Savings: $220,206.43
*Total CO2e (lb):
Alt 2: Cooling Tower
Alt 3: River Water
% Diff
Jonathan Rumbaugh
CAPITAL
Simple Payback:
2.8 years
Discount payback : 3.0 years
8.77E+06
8.57E+06
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
Cooling Tower 1 $ 37,000.00
Cooling Tower 2 $ 37,000.00
5,575.00
5,575.00
Alternative 3: Water-Cooled
River Water
Equipment
Price
WC Chiller 1
WC Chiller 2
$ 140,500.00
$ 140,500.00
River Pump 1
River Pump 2
River Piping
Heat Exchanger
Filtration System
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 52,500.00
$ 18,000.00
$ 100,000.00
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
5,575.00
5,575.00
4,750.00
CW Pump 1
CW Pump 2
$
$
CW Piping
$ 20,995.00
CW Piping
$
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
4 Boilers
$ 120,000.00
Total
$ 507,145.00
$ 611,400.00
Capital: +$104,255
2%
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
HEAT REJECTION
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
• Air vs. Water
• Cooling Tower vs. River Water
• Conclusions
• CHP(Depth Three)
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
CONCLUSIONS
Air-Cooled vs. Water-Cooled with River Water
• Capital cost increased 10% [$61,400.00]
• Annual operating cost reduced by 14% [$21,732.00]
• 30 year LCC reduced 10% [$389,986.00]
• Simple payback 3 years
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
CHP
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
• CHP Feasibility
• Conclusions
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
DEPTH THREE
Spark Gap
Electric Cost: $0.10/kWh = $29.30/MMBTU
Gas Cost: : $0.80/therm = $8.00/MMBTU
TRANE
1 : 3.7 Ratio , 1 : 4 [rule of thumb]
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
• CHP Feasibility
• Conclusions
• Final Conclusions
CHP FEASIBILITY
CHP Results
The results generated by the CHP Emissions Calculator are intended for eductional and outreach purposes only;
it is not designed for use in developing emission inventories or preparing air permit applications.
The results of this analysis have not been reviewed or endorsed by the EPA CHP Partnership.
Thermal-to-Electric Ratio = 0.74
Baseline Electric & Thermal Load Profile
Recommended Generator Size
500
Recommended: 373 kWe Gas Engine
450
400
373
350
300
kW
CHP
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Hours
Electric Load Duration
Total Avg Thermal Load
Recommended Generating Capacity
Jonathan Rumbaugh
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
CHP
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
• CHP Feasibility
• Conclusions
• Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
CHP CONCLUSION
• Additional Cost $564,000
CHP Results
The results generated by the CHP Emissions Calculator are intended for eductional and outreach purposes only;
it is not designed for use in developing emission inventories or preparing air permit applications.
The results of this analysis have not been reviewed or endorsed by the EPA CHP Partnership.
• Generation Cost $0.088 /kWh
1.2 cents less than purchased
• Total Savings: $140,000 /year
• Simple Payback: 4.04 Years
• CO2 reduction of 62%
Harley-Davidson Museum
Mechanical Option
CONCLUSION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
Final Conclusions
Jonathan Rumbaugh
+
+
Harley-Davidson Museum
=
Total
• $160,000 Annually
• 4 Year Payback
• 65% Reduction of CO2
Mechanical Option
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Thesis Goals
Thermal Bridging (Depth One)
Heat Rejection (Depth Two)
CHP(Depth Three)
Final Conclusions
THANK YOU
HGA
Kevin Pope, P.E.
Jeff Harris, P.E.
Steve Mettlach
Associate Vice President, HGA
Director of Mechanical Engineering,
HGA, Penn State Alumni
Mechanical Engineer, HGA
Harley-Davidson
Joyce Koker, P.E.
Harley-Davidson Museum
Penn State
Dr. William Bahnfleth
Dr. Jelena Srebric
Dr. James Freihaut
Mr. David H. Tran
Faculty Advisor
AE Mechanical Professor
AE Mechanical Associate Professor
AE 5th Year Structural, BAE/MS
Family and friends for their support
QUESTIONS?
Museum Campus Electricity Use
450,000.00
Elec
Air Side
Water Side
120
Hot water
110
Air-Cooled
Elec
Water
kWh
1000gal
2,168,082.30
569,425.50
683,862.00
Gas
therms
Air-cooled
Cooling Tower
River
12,833.20 74.90
37,736.30
3,434,203.00 74.90
37,736.30
Alternative
1
2
3
LCC
$4,046,288.09
$ 3,861,471.04
$ 3,656,301.16
400,000.00
350,000.00
total
Water-Cooled with Cooling Tower
Elec
Water
Gas
kWh
1000gal
therms
Elec
2,168,082.30
Air Side
569,425.50
Water Side
557,153.20
2,505.10
90
80
300,000.00
70
250,000.00
Temp
Kilowatt Hours (KWH)
100
60
Alt 1: Air-Cooled
200,000.00
50
Hot water
total
12,833.20 74.90
3,307,494.20
Alternative 1: Air-Cooled
Elec
kWh
Air Side
Water Side
Hot water
37,736.30
2,580.00
37,736.30
569,425.50
683,862.00
12,833.20
Water
1000gal
74.90
Gas
therms
37,736.30
1,266,120.70
74.90
37,736.30
Alt 2: Cooling Tower
40
150,000.00
total
Water Cooled with River
Elec
Water
kWh
1000gal
Elec
2,168,082.30
Air Side
569,425.50
Water Side
459,295.80
Alt 3: River Water
30
TRACE temp
100,000.00
20
Hot water
Gas
therms
Capital
12,833.20 74.90
37,736.30
3,209,636.80 74.90
37,736.30
Date
total
Price per unit $
0.10 $
Cost
$ 126,612.07 $
$ 550,000.00
2.20 $
0.80
164.78 $ 30,189.04
Economic Life
Overhaul
Maintenance
Discount Rate
$
$
30
15,000.00
5,000.00
2.3%
Air Side = AHUs
Water Side = Chiller and CHW pump
Hot Water = Boiler and HW pump
years
every 7 years up tp 21
per year
DR
Equipment
AC Chiller 1
AC Chiller 2
4 Boilers
$
$
$
Price
215,000.00
215,000.00
120,000.00
Capital
$
550,000.00
Electricity
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Nov-02
Dec-02
Energy Peak Dem and
kWh
kW
252,717
611
225,119
626
247,492
631
241,526
671
255,900
704
281,412
900
299,775
932
294,522
898
257,444
847
261,155
799
237,578
631
250,657
618
Fuels
% of Total
Cost from
Peak
Dem and
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Cost*
$
$25,272
$22,512
$24,749
$24,153
$25,590
$28,141
$29,978
$29,452
$25,744
$26,116
$23,758
$25,066
Gas
Energy
Therms
12,113
8,256
4,217
3,102
3,848
11,795
14,495
13,080
8,969
6,960
3,040
10,303
Thermal-to-Electric Ratio
Cost*
$
$9,690
$6,605
$3,374
$2,482
$3,078
$9,436
$11,596
$10,464
$7,175
$5,568
$2,432
$8,242
Recommended Prime Mover(s)
Gas Engine
Microturbine
Gas Turbine (Simple Cycle)
= 0.74
SITE
Recommended
Select Prime Mover
Gas Engine
Would backup generation have been
installed anyway?
Yes
300
373
373
1
373
34
6,623
4,305
$0.0120
0.0000
Yes
89
1,606
$55
0.0300
0.6000
RT
MBTU/hr
$/RT/yr
kWe/RT
kWe/RT
None
Select Desiccant
Would a desicant have been installed
Chose Size (per Unit)
Chose Number of Units
Total Selected Capacity
Regeneration Requirements (200°F)
O&M Costs
Latent Heat Removal Rate
Electric Use
kWe
kWe
kWe
Unit(s)
kWe
%
BTU/kWhe
BTU/kWhe
$/kWh/yr
kW e/kW e
Yes
Include Absorption Chiller
Will the Absorption ChillerDisplace an
Electric Chiller?
Size
Thermal Input
O&M Costs
Electric Use
Electric Displaced
RESULTS
WI
ASSUMPTIONS
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
If "Yes", indicated planned size
Recommended Generation
Chose Size (per Unit)
Chose Number of Units
Total Selected Capacity
Electric Efficiency
Gross Heat Rate Exhaust (LHV)
Recoverable Heat Rate (LHV)
O&M Costs
Electric Use
MN Hospital
1234 W. Main St
Milwakee
10,000
1
0
0
0.000
0
0.00
No
SCFM
Unit(s)
SCFM
BTU/hr
¢/SCFM/yr
BTU/hr
kW e per kSCFM
Average Electric Cost
Peak Averge Electric Cost
Initial Electric Sell Back
Supplemental Elect Cost
Cogen Initial Fuel Cost
W/O Cogen Fuel Cost
Existing Boiler Efficiency
Standby Demand Charge
Standby Capacity Required
O&M Charge
Annual Electric Load
Annual Heat Load
CHP RESULTS
10.000
N/A
1.500
10.000
8.00
8.00
86.0
$1.50
373
$4,943
3,105
7,795
¢/kWh
Prime Mover
¢/kWh
Total ECP Cost
$564 $(1000)
¢/kWh
Prime Mover
Gas Engine
¢/kWh
Parasitic Load
2.7 kW
$/MMBTU
Total Generation Capacity
373 kW
$/MMBTU
Electrical Output
3,035 MWh
%
Absorption Chiller Credit
60 MWh
$/kw/month Net Total Generation Effect
3,095 MWh
kW
Elecectric Capacity Factor
93 %
$/yr
Gross Heat Rate (LHV)
10,038 BTU/kWh
MWh
Recoverable Heat
4,305 BTU/kWh
Thermal Loads
MMBTU
TAT Thermal Loads (June, July, August)
PURPA
(Assuming Gas or Liquid Fuel Fired)
Absorption Chiller
1,795 MMBTU
Efficiency
55.4 %
Desiccant
0 MMBTU
Qualified Facility
Yes
Total Thermal Load with TAT
9,590 MMBTU
Sell Back
0
kWh
Thermal Capacity Factor
78 %
Sell Back Desired
No
Thermal Energy Output
From Generator
13,065 MMBTU
FINANCIAL RESULTS
From Auxiliary Boiler
0 MMBTU
COSTS WITHOUT COGENERATION $(1000)
Fuel Requirements:
Electricity Costs
$311 For Generator (HHV)
33,669 MMBTU
Thermal Energy Costs
$80 For Auxiliary Boiler (HHV)
0 MMBTU
TOTAL
$391
COSTS WITH COGENERATION $(1000)
Generation Costs
8.88 ¢/kWh
Supplemental Electric Purchase
$1
Peak Electric Charge Adjustment
($31)
Fuel
$269
Electricity Sold
$0
O&M
$5
Standby Charges
$7
TOTAL
$251
SAVINGS
$140
SIMPLE PAYBACK
4.04 Years
Com parision of Generation to CHP Electric Load
CHP Electric
400
300,000
350
250,000
300
250
kWe
kWe
200,000
200
150,000
150
100,000
100
50
50,000
0
0
744
1,488
2,208
2,928
3,672
4,416
0
May-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Nov-02
Ele ctric Gene rated
Ele ctric Sol d
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
5,136
5,856
6,600
7,272
8,016
8,760
9,132
Hours
Apr-03
Ave rage Electri city Ge ne rated
Ele ctric Ne ede d
Ele ctric Lo ad Pro fi le
Gen erati on Instal le d
Therm al Dem and vs CHP Generation Thermal
Average Demand Profile
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
kW
kWt
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0
744
1,488
2,208
2,928
3,672
4,416
5,136
5,856
6,600
7,272
8,016
372
1,080
1,788
2,532
3,276
4,020
4,764
5,508
6,240
6,960
8,760
Hours
Hours
Average Demand
Generator Capability
El ectri c Gen er atio n Th erm al ( Estim ate d)
The rma l D em an d
7,680
8,400
8,760