Tom Mos Singer Fuelcells Co Generation

Cogeneration & Fuel Cells Water and Wastewater
Tom Mossinger, P.E. Carollo Engineers
October 2007
August 2007
Fuel Cell and Solar Photovoltaic Technology for Water and Wastewater.ppt
U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Federal Energy Management Program, Director Beth Shearer
Typical headlines that we have been seeing in the news lately are: "Hurricane Isabel Batters the East Coast; Federal Government Shut Down"
"Massive Blackout Shuts Down New York City"
"Natural Gas Prices Expected to Remain High"
"Bills to Rise as Mercury Drops"
"Electrical Grid Vulnerable to Hackers, Viruses"
NEARLY a century ago, Henry Ford declared a customer could have a car in any color as l l long as it was bl k N black. Now, carmakers around the world are trying to convince consumers that their lineups co e green. o come in g ee From BMW to Honda, from o da, o Chrysler to Volkswagen, the industry is rushing to make vehicles that use less gasoline or dont rely on it at all.
Sustainable Planet
Green Way G W of Living Renewable Energy
From Conservation to Population, a New Look at Planet Earth
New Options Needed
Why is renewable energy so important?

1.
2.
3.
4.
Water & wastewater services account for 3050% of municipal energy use. Equivalent to 3-4% of the nations total energy use. 19% of electricity usage in California associated with moving water 25 to 30% of the cost for water and wastewater systems operations is for power.
As primary consumers of electricity, water & wastewater organizations have the opportunity to dramatically affect overall energy consumption. ti
Traditional Digester Gas Power Generation Technology
Cogeneration Technologies
1. 1 2. 3.
Reciprocating Engines (>250 kW) Micro Turbines (30 to 250 kW) Gas Turbines ( 3 000 kW) G T bi (>3,000
Reciprocating Engines
1.
2.
3.
4.
Proven technology for using digester gas di t Strict (and getting stricter) air permit regulations Regulations moving towards oxidation catalysts, SCR and CEMS Installation now requires extensive fuel conditioning to remove contaminants no longer optional
Internal Combustion Engines

1.
Electrical Output Efficiency = 30-35% Advantages

a.
2.
Proven technology for over gy 40 years
3.
Disadvantages
a. b. b c. d.
Dedicated building for sound and weather Complex Equipment Frequent Operator Attention Higher Emissions g
800-kW Caterpillar Landfill & Digester Gas Fueled Cogeneration System, Sunnyvale, CA WWTP
Micro Turbines
1. 2. 2
3.
4.
Easy to permit (low emissions) Only two manufacturers with DG manufacturer s experience (limited) Lower efficiency than engines; approximately 25% Requires >50 psi fuel pressure
Gas Turbines
1. 2. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 6
Strict air permit regulations Limited manufacturers with experience on DG manufacturer s Effective fuel conditioning is required Competitive only for larger installations; greater than 3MW Efficiency typically 25-35% Requires >200 psi fuel pressure
Fuel Cell Power Generation
Fuel Cells
1.
Highest efficiency available for power generation equipment ti i t

a. Electrical Efficiency 47% b. b Constant over 60 100% load 60-100%
2.
Exempt from air permit requirements*
* Exempt has unfortunately, not been the absolute truth. Permitting agencies have required permits; although eq i ed pe mits altho gh requirements are minor.
Fuel Cells Advantages Ad t

a. Low emissions b. b Highest efficiency c. Minimal operator
1.
time for O&M d. Significant Grant funding available
1-MW Fuel Cell Energy Fuel Cell Riverside, CA WWTP ,
Environmental Benefits
1.
2. 2
Nearly double the reduction in plant carbon footprint over other cogeneration technologies Approximately 1/3 the overall WWTP emissions of criteria pollutants
a. NOx, CO, VOC, PM b. Order of magnitude reduction compared to
other generation equipment
Fuel Cells Other Drivers

1.
Qualifies for simplified interconnection

a. C lif California R l 21 C i Rule Compliant li t
2.
California SGIP grant money currently available through 2012

a. Up to $7,875,000 total for 3MW plant!
Summary of Motivations For Implementing Fuel Cell Technology:

1.
2.
3.
4.
Environmental stewardship (reduction of Carbon Footprint by up to 50%) Power system reliability and redundancy; y y y; steady and constant source of power Hedge against rising electricity rates and g g g y future energy crises No combustion thus negligible emission of NOx, CO, SOx, or particulate matter
Fuel Cell Air Emission Permits
1. Emissions
Recip Engines in lb/ lb/MWh h NOX = 0.02 <==> NOX = 3.4 SOX = 0.001 PM10 = 0.01 CO = 0.05 <==> CO = 6.8 VOC = 0.02
Suggested Maintenance Intervals
Digester Gas Fueled Fuel Cells

Operating Installations
1.
Santa Barbara, CA 2. 2 LA County San District CA San. District, 3. City of Tulare, CA * 4. DSRSD, CA 5. City of Riverside, CA 6. EMWD, CA (Moreno Valley) * 7. TID/City of Turlock, CA *
Under Construction
EMWD, CA (Perris Valley) * 2. Cit of Rialto, CA City f Ri lt
1.
Projects Under Consideration

TID/Hilmar Cheese Co, CA * 2. MID/City of Modesto, CA * 3. City of Davis, CA * 4. U i Union S it ti Sanitation Di t i t CA * District, 5. Palm Springs, CA * 6. MRWPCA, CA * 7. 7 City of Visalia CA * Visalia, 8. City of Livermore, CA *
1.
EMWD, CA (Temecula) * 2. City of Yuma, AZ * 3. Cit of Salem, OR * City Salem

1.
* CE involved in Design/Implementation
Fuel Cell Technology
Fuel Cell Types

Type PEM Alkaline Phosphoric Acid Molten Carbonate Electrolyte Polymer Membrane Potassium Hydroxide Phosphoric Acid Potassium/ Lithium Carbonate Stabilized Zirconium Dioxide Ceramic Stabilized Zirconium Dioxide Ceramic Operating Temp. F 180 200 400 Single-Cycle Electrical Efficiency % 30-35 <40 35-40 Expected Capacity Range 5 kW to 250 kW 3 to 5 kW 50 kW to 200 kW By-Product Heat Use Warm Water Warm Water Hot Water Hot Water or High Pressure Steam Hot Water or High Pressure Steam Hot Water or High g Pressure Steam
1200
45-57
300 kW to 2.4 MW
Solid Oxide (Tubular)
1800
45-50 45 50
100 kW t 2 MW to
Solid Oxide (Planar)
1200-1600 1200 1600
45-60 45 60
3 kW to 10 kW
Basic Fuel Cell System Components

1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
Fuel source (digester g & natural g ) ( g gas gas). Fuel treatment/conditioning to remove contaminants. Fuel cell stack (electrolyte sandwiched between an anode and cathode) creates DC power power. DC to AC Inverter converts DC power to AC for use within facility. y Heat recovery system to utilize waste heat (anaerobic digestion).
What is a Fuel Cell?

1.
Electrochemical Device Similar to a Battery

a. Except Fuel Cells Use an External Supply of Reactants
2. 3.
Hydrogen Fuel (Methane) and Oxygen (Air) In Electricity and Water (Exhaust) Out y ( )
O2
H2O
Fuel Cell
H2 Electricity
Technology Fuel Cell Energy

Hydrocarbon Fuel e.g. Digester Gas/Natural Gas Water Vapor
Internal Reforming CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2 Anode H 2 + CO= 3 H2O + CO2 + 2e
-
1.
General Features
a. Uses commonly available
materials t i l b. No noble metal catalyst c. High temperature byproduct heat

2.
Internal Reforming
a. H2 generated internally b. b High efficiency c. Simple system d. Negligible NOx and CO
Catalyst Electrolyte
CATALYST CATHODE
1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e
CO3
3. 3
Atmospheric Pressure Operation

a. Allows unattended
Air
p operation b. Highly reliable
Incentives/Credits/Grants Available For California Cogeneration Projects
Grants, Funding California

1.
Business Energy Investment Credit (ITC)

a. Federal tax credit now available as a grant
also b. Fuel cells/solar/small wind: 30% of eligible costs; up to $3000/kW c. All others: 10% of eligible costs; microturbines limited to $200/kW maximum
2.
Self Generation Incentive Program

a. $4,500/kW to $1,125/kW (based on size) for $ , / $ , / ( )
fuel cell projects b. Up to $7,875,000 per project for 3.0 MW system

Grants, Funding California

1.
(cont)
California Solar Initiative

a.
Performance-based incentive rate:

Currently $0.15 - $0 22/kWh produced for 5 years - Private $0 15 $0.22/kWh Currently $0.26 - $0.32/kWh produced for 5 years Municipal
b. b
2.
Approx $3 000 000 total incentive for 1 MW system $3,000,000 Energy Efficiency Financing Program; Up to $3 million; 3 9 % fixed APR; up to 15 year term ll 3.95% f d Energy Efficiency Financing; >$1 million; approx. 4% APR; negotiable terms up to 12 years
California Energy Commission

a.
3.
California G$S$ Smart Program

a.
Eastern Municipal Water District Moreno Valley RWRF Fuel Cell Installation
Eastern Municipal Water District Fuel Cell P j t S C ll Project Summary

1.
2.
Three 250 kW FCE 300MA units currently; ultimately five units 300 kW Digester gas treatment system
a. H2S, siloxanes, water, VOC, etc.
3. 4. 5.
Electrical interface with utility Hot water heat recovery Hybrid Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Negotiated Construction
EMWD Moreno Valley, California

Regional Water Reclamation Facility Fuel Cell 1. Installation Contract:
a. b. b c.
2. 3. 4. 4 5. 6.
Three 250 kW Fuel Cells ultimate facility size 1.5 MW Fuel treatment system Balance of plant, including electrical, heat recovery, site work, pads, etc
Total Construction Cost = $7.95 million $7 95 State of California SGIP grant = $3.375 million Total Net Construction Cost = $4 575 million $4,575 Carbon Footprint reduced by >50% annually 90% Reduction of RWRFs criteria pollutants p
EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project
EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF AFT Fuel Conditioning System
Plant Operating Costs

Prior to Fuel Cells: 1. Average power demand: g p 1,482 kW , 2. Average power cost: $0.115/kWhr Average 2008 Monthly Power Cost: $105,000 Anticipated with Fuel Cells Operating: 1. U it operating: Units ti 3 units at 250 kW each it t h 2. Power used by auxiliaries: 20 kW 3. 3 Net power from fuel cells: 730 kW (initially) Average Monthly Power Savings: $52,500
Actual Operating Data

1. 1 Startup
mid-January mid January 2009 2. Total energy produced 3/1 thru 3/27
a. 464,231 kW-hrs a 464 231 kW hrs b. @ average electrical cost of $0.115/kW-hr
Total Power Savings = > $53,000

3. Availability: 4. First
100 percent since startup
scheduled shut down is Sept 2010
Turlock Irrigation District City of Turlock RWQCF Fuel Cell Installation
TID/City of Turlock Fuel Cell Project S P j t Summary

Single 1,200 Si l 1 200 kW FCE 1500B unit it 2. Digester gas treatment system
1.
Electrical interface with the Citys RWQCF 4. Hot water heat recovery hot water to the Citys RWQCF (1.8 MMBtu/hr) 5. Traditional Design-Bid-Build; pre-purchased fuel cell and gas treatment equipment 6. Project built to help meet TIDs mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements of 20% of power from renewable sources
3.
Turlock Irrigation District, Turlock, California

Regional Water Quality Control Facility Fuel Cell 1. 1.2 MW Fuel Cell: $3.7 million 2. Fuel treatment system:$1.3 million 3. B l Balance of plant, i l di f l t including electrical, h t l t i l heat recovery, site work, pads, etc = $2.7 million 4. Total Construction Cost = $7.6 million 5. State of California SGIP grant = $4.95 million 6. Total Net Construction Cost = $2.7 million 7. Carbon Footprint reduced by 5200 tons annually 8. 90% Reduction of RWQCFs criteria pollutants 9. 47% Electrical Efficiency => TIDs 250 MW plant
TID/City of Turlock RWQCF 1,200 kW Fuel Cell Project
TID/City of Turlock RWQCF 1,200 kW Fuel Cell Project
TID/City of Turlock RWQCF ESC Fuel Conditioning System
Actual Operating Data

1. 1 Project
startup mid-February 2009 2. Total energy produced 3/1 thru 3/27

a. 524,314 a 524 314 kW-hrs b. @ average electrical cost of $0.065/kW-hr
ota o e Sa gs $3 ,000 Total Power Savings = > $34,000

3. Availability:
98+ percent during startup
Tulare Fuel Cell Installation
Project Implementation Methods
1. 2. 3.
Design/build Conventional Design Bid Build Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) by third party Design Bid Build Own Operate (DBOO)
Design/build method was selected by City of Tulare
Comparison of Design/Build Proposals P l

kW Rating Proposed Equipment Fuel Cell Energy DFC 300MA Fuel Cells Deutz 616 V16 Lean Burner IC Engine GE Jenbacher Model JGC316 IC Engine Ingersol-Rand 250ST Microturbines Ingersol-Rand 250ST Microturbines Fuel Cell Energy DFC 300MA Fuel Cells Turnkey Cost Grant Net Construction Cost Five-Year Engine g Maintenance (1) Five-Year Gas Cleaning g Maintenance (1) Emission Offsets (4) Five-Year Cost Generated Energy Value
750
5,182,545
(3,375,000)
1,807,545
1,092,848
500,500
3,400,893
727,299
750
2,567,749
(750,000)
1,817,749
537,650
765,000
71,943
3,192,342
727,299
848
4,147,000
(848,000)
3,299,000
458,114
500,500
71,943
4,329,557
776,648
750
4,493,000
(975,000)
3,518,000
412,020
500,500
12,000
4,442,520
595,308
750
5,043,768
(975,000)
4,068,768
408,924
500,500
12,000
4,990,192
595,308
750
7,794,757
(3,375,000)
4,419,757
978,000
500,500
5,898,257
727,299
Tulare Fuel Cell Project Summary
1.
Three 250/300 kW FCE 300MA units

a. Provision for future installation of 4th unit
2.
Digester gas treatment system

3. 4. 5.
Electrical interface with utility Hot water heat recovery Alliance Chico Energy did design/build
Lessons Learned
1.
Design/build Get your attorney involved earlier Include a load bank in the design Conventional D i C ti l Design Bid B ild Build approach would have been better
2. 3.
Other Thoughts & g Summary
Economics and Politics

1.
2.
3.
4. 4
Primary barrier to implementation of Fuel Cells is C ll i perception of hi h capital cost ti f high it l t State and federal incentive/rebate programs are c itical p og ams a e critical Majority of installations occur where the best rebate programs are implemented (California, New Jersey) System payback is highly dependent on the price of commercial electricity
Summary
1.
Fuel cells are the cleanest, most efficient cogeneration technology for digester gas Financially, fuel cell technology competes well with engines and turbines based on the grant money available in California You wont have to worry about future changes in emissions regulations
2. 2
3.
Summary
1. 2. 3. 4. 4
(continued)
Permitting is very easy Utility coordination for interconnection is simple and quick Very lo ope ato Ve low operator attention fo for maintenance So, So why not Fuel Cells or Solar for your facility? GO GREEN!
Other Green Technologies
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Cells

1.
2. 3. 4.
Fixed roof mounted solar panels that do not t t track the sun k th Single Axis Tracking Dual Axis Tracking g Concentrated vs. traditional
Solar Power Site Conditions

1.
Footprint
a. Mi i Minimum 4 acres for f
1 MW facility, tracking b. Minimum 5 acres for 1 MW floating panel facility

2.
Sizing
a. Dependent on panel
efficiency 12 - 40% ffi i b. Dependent on orientation and tracking

Floating solar array in Oakville, CA
U.S. Solar Resources Map

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Solar Power - Procurement

1.
System Procurement
a. a Owner Purchase Owner buys panel and pays for all maintenance Full ownership of RECs b. Power Purchase Agreement ( g (PPA) ) Third party owns and operates the PV system and sells power to City at agreed upon rate t Savings from 30% federal tax credit passed on to owner with lower rates o o e t o e ates RECs negotiable
Wind Power - Turbines

1.
Small & Medium Wind

a. Small: <100 kW each b. Medium: 100 1,000 kW each c. Architectural Wind Turbine Utilizes bu d g ae ody a Ut es building aerodynamics cs d. Typically perform well in
low/moderate wind speeds
2.
Large Wind (1 MW - 2.5MW ea)

a. a Primarily used for utility wind
farms
3.
Future sizes expected up to 5 0 MW 5.0
Wind Power - Site Conditions

Wind turbine operation is dependent on site p specific wind characteristics 2. 2 Wind study needs to be performed to determine availability and speed of wind onsite
1.
a. Stockton is on the
edge of a low to moderate wind zone
3.
Wind Resource Map

a. http://www.energy.ca. a http://www energy ca
gov/maps/wind.html
Wind Power - Economics

1.
Payback Period
a. Dependent on wind resource
quality, siting, quality siting permitting costs, energy costs, and turbine performance.
2. 2
State Incentive Programs

a. CEC Renewable Buy Down
Program
$2,500/kW for first 7.5 kW and $1,500/kW for increments >7.5 kW up to 30 kW
b. Self-Generation Incentive
Program (SGIP)
$1,500/kW for wind turbines >30 kW
Wind F Wi d Farm Palm Springs, CA P l S i
Low Head Hydropower
Low Head Hydropower
Existing Digesters and Digester Gas Production Enhancement
Excess Available Digester Capacity

1.
Plant currently has 5 digesters a t cu e t y as d geste s

a. 3 older at 1.75 million gallons each b. 2 newer at 3 million gallons each c. Newer units are typically utilized
2.
Plant was designed for high solids loadings

a. 48 mgd with 630 mg/L BOD
3. 4.
Current flows/loading are much lower / g

a. 32 mgd with 300 mg/L BOD
Potential for significant digester gas generation enhancement h
How to Utilize Excess Digester Capacity C it

1. FOG OG
Addition dd t o
a. b. c. c d.
a. Pinellas County, FL b. Fresno c. Watsonville, CA d. Waco, TX

2. 2 Food
Ventura Riverside EMWD EBMUD
Waste Addition
a. Waco, TX b. EBMUD c. IEUA d. Truckee Meadows WRF, NV

3. Al Algae
FOG, Watsonville, CA
FOG
1. 2.
Fats, Oils, Grease Restaurant trap grease R

a. Set up community requirement to trap and
remove grease b. Typically hauled to landfill
Haulers pay to dispose, plus haul time
3.
Receive trap grease loads directly to WWTP

a. Haulers will pay to dispose at WWTP;
typically cheaper to them than hauling to landfill
Food Waste
1.
High BOD wastes fed to either dedicated or combined digesters

a. Typical products:

Salad dressing wastes Dairy wastes Packing plant wastes Canning wastes
b. Industry benefits and thus participates if
convenient
Food Waste System, TMWRF, NV
Characterization of High Strength Wastes is Critical for the Estimation of Performance

Grease Traps Residual Fats Flotated Fats Commercial Kitchens Restaurant Waste Food Discards Cafeteria Waste Food Waste Soup Processing Corn Silage Grass Silage Raw Sludge Brewer's Grain B ' G i Green Waste Sugar Beet Silage Vinasse Beets Fooder Beet Whey Poultry Swine Manure Cattle Manure
Raw WWTP Solids
Methane Yield, cf/lbs

Co-Digestion of High Strength Wastes Reduces GHG and Landfill Usage
1 ton 23 tons GHG
1 ton 1 ton 23 tons GHG 0.8 tons of GHG
1 MW of Electricity
1 ton 1 ton 23 tons GHG 0.8 tons of GHG
1 MW of Electricity
Algae
1. 2.
Plant has 450 acres of ponds Plant currently h Pl l harvests and disposes of d di f Algae (returns to ponds) thus infrastructure is partially in place
a. Harvesting and pumping equipment b. DAFT s b DAFTs
3.
Algae research is going into producing biodiesel, but an easier, more cost , , effective use is to digest the existing algae to create additional digester gas
Methane from Algae

1.
2.
3.
Single phase digestion has led to digester upsets and decline in methane production Two-phase digestion promising. Acid phase lyses algae cells open open, methane phase digests the contents Promising technology from Europe for cell lysing may benefit algae digestion
Acid Phase Digester, TMWRF, NV
Carbon Credits
1.
2.
3.
Potential to generate carbon capture credits Algae extracts carbon from the air turning CO2 into O2 Additional CO2 can be introduced into ponds from fuel cell exhaust; resulting in CO2 capture credit if fuel was NG and increasing algae growth rate

Tom Mos Singer Fuelcells Co Generation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tom Mos Singer Fuelcells Co Generation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cogeneration & Fuel Cells Water and Wastewater

Tom Mossinger, P.E. Carollo Engineers

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

"Massive Blackout Shuts Down New York City"

"Natural Gas Prices Expected to Remain High"

"Bills to Rise as Mercury Drops"

"Electrical Grid Vulnerable to Hackers, Viruses"

Green Way G W of Living Renewable Energy

From Conservation to Population, a New Look at Planet Earth

New Options Needed

Why is renewable energy so important?

Traditional Digester Gas Power Generation Technology

Internal Combustion Engines

Electrical Output Efficiency = 30-35% Advantages

Proven technology for over gy 40 years

Fuel Cell Power Generation

Highest efficiency available for power generation equipment ti i t

Exempt from air permit requirements*

Fuel Cells Advantages Ad t

time for O&M d. Significant Grant funding available

1-MW Fuel Cell Energy Fuel Cell Riverside, CA WWTP ,

other generation equipment

Fuel Cells Other Drivers

Qualifies for simplified interconnection

California SGIP grant money currently available through 2012

Summary of Motivations For Implementing Fuel Cell Technology:

Fuel Cell Air Emission Permits

Suggested Maintenance Intervals

Digester Gas Fueled Fuel Cells

Projects Under Consideration

EMWD, CA (Temecula) * 2. City of Yuma, AZ * 3. Cit of Salem, OR * City Salem

Fuel Cell Technology

Fuel Cell Types

Solid Oxide (Tubular)

Solid Oxide (Planar)

1200-1600 1200 1600

Basic Fuel Cell System Components

What is a Fuel Cell?

Electrochemical Device Similar to a Battery

Technology Fuel Cell Energy

materials t i l b. No noble metal catalyst c. High temperature byproduct heat

Atmospheric Pressure Operation

p operation b. Highly reliable

Incentives/Credits/Grants Available For California Cogeneration Projects

Grants, Funding California

Business Energy Investment Credit (ITC)

Self Generation Incentive Program

fuel cell projects b. Up to $7,875,000 per project for 3.0 MW system

Grants, Funding California

California Solar Initiative

Performance-based incentive rate:

California Energy Commission

California G$S$ Smart Program

Eastern Municipal Water District Fuel Cell P j t S C ll Project Summary

EMWD Moreno Valley, California

EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project

EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project

EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project

EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF AFT Fuel Conditioning System

EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project

Plant Operating Costs

Actual Operating Data

Total Power Savings = > $53,000