Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222412083
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
73
197
419
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Gianfranco Chicco
Politecnico di Torino
204 PUBLICATIONS 2,203 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Abstract
The diffusion of cogeneration and trigeneration plants as local generation sources could bring signicant energy saving and emission
reduction of various types of pollutants with respect to the separate production of electricity, heat and cooling power. The advantages in
terms of primary energy saving are well established. However, the potential of combined heat and power (CHP) and combined cooling
heat and power (CCHP) systems for reducing the emission of hazardous greenhouse gases (GHG) needs to be further investigated. This
paper presents and discusses a novel approach, based upon an original indicator called trigeneration CO2 emission reduction (TCO2ER),
to assess the emission reduction of CO2 and other GHGs from CHP and CCHP systems with respect to the separate production. The
indicator is dened in function of the performance characteristics of the CHP and CCHP systems, represented with black-box models,
and of the GHG emission characteristics from conventional sources. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is shown in the
companion paper (Part II: Analysis techniques and application cases) with application to various cogeneration and trigeneration
solutions.
1. Introduction
Cogeneration or combined heat and power (CHP)
systems are well known for potentially providing considerable primary energy saving with respect to the separate
production (SP) of the same amount of heat (from
conventional combustion heat generators) and electricity
(from conventional power plants) [1,2]. In recent years,
there has been an increasing diffusion of various smallscale technologies (with electrical rated power below
1 MWe) for distributed generation (DG) [3], such as
microturbines (MTs) and internal combustion engines
(ICEs). This has allowed for implementing a wider range
of cogeneration applications with rated power smaller than
the ones of traditional industrial users and district heating
systems [4,5].
Trigeneration or combined cooling heat and power
(CCHP) systems [69] are based upon CHP systems
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 011 090 7141; fax: +39 011 090 7199.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nomenclature
Symbols
CC
CCHP
CHP
CO2ECR
CO2EEE
COP
DG
EUF
EU15
FC
GHG
GT
GWP
ICE
LHV
MT
PES
SP
TCO2ER
TEWI
TPES
m
p
F
Q
R
W
X
e
Z
m
combined cycle
combined cooling heat and power
combined heat and power
CO2 emission characteristic ratio
CO2 emission equivalent efciency
coefcient of performance
distributed generation
energy utilization factor
european union (15 countries)
fuel cell
greenhouse gas
gas turbine
global warming potential
internal combustion engine
lower heating value
microturbine
primary energy saving
separate production
trigeneration CO2 emission reduction
total equivalent warming impact
trigeneration primary energy saving
mass (g)
pollutant
fuel thermal content (kWht)
heat (kWht)
cooling (refrigeration) (kWhc)
electricity (kWhe)
generic energy vector (kWh)
correction factor
efciency
emission factor (g/kWh)
Subscripts
c
e
eq
t
y
z
cooling
electricity
CO2-equivalent
thermal
cogeneration
trigeneration
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q
district heating
district cooling
F
gas
distribution
system
cooling
side
W
cogeneration
side
user
Q
electrical
grid
W
W
Fig. 1. General trigeneration plant layout and energy ows.
Wy
;
Fy
ZQ
Qy
;
Fy
EUF ZW ZQ ,
(1)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
input (electrical energy Wc for electric chillers, thermal
energy Qc for steam-fed, hot water-fed or exhaust-fed
absorption chillers [4,14,22]):
COP
R
Wc
electric chillers;
COP
R
Qc
(2)
where the subscript c points out that the nal use of the
relevant input is cooling production.
In general, the performance characteristics of the chillers
may depend signicantly upon the outdoor conditions and
the temperature of the ambient to keep cooled, as well as
their loading level [4,14]. In addition, for absorption
chillers the COP could drop consistently if the ring
source does not comply with the specic thermal constraints [4,2628]. Firing temperatures are typically about
8090 1C for single-effect, 120160 1C for double-effect,
and 160200 1C for triple-effect chillers [4,22]. At the same
time, the thermal efciency of small-scale units such as
MTs and ICEs could be quite low for generating hightemperature hot water or steam. Consequently, the overall
performance of a trigeneration system should be thoroughly evaluated, above all for small-scale units.
3. Trigeneration primary energy saving and GHG emission
saving evaluation
3.1. The emission factor approach for CO2 and general
GHG emission evaluation
The assessment of any pollutant emission from a
combustion device can be assessed through an energy
output-based emission factor approach [5,16,17]. According
to this approach, the mass mpX of a given pollutant p
emitted while producing the energy output X can be
worked out as:
X
mX
p mp X ,
X
(4)
F SP F y
Fy
1
,
SP
SP
W y =Ze Qy =ZSP
F
t
(5)
F SP F z
F SP
1
W z =ZSP
e
Fz
,
SP
Rz = ZSP
e COP
Qz =ZSP
t
ARTICLE IN PRESS
system could be compared to the best available technologies, setting ZeSP 0.550.6 (combined cycles, CCs) and
ZtSP 0.95 (modern high-efciency boilers). Likewise,
average values or cutting-edge values could be chosen for
the reference electric chiller performance. However, the
performance of a chiller strongly depends on the outdoor
temperature and on the condenser typology (water-cooled
or air-cooled, in particular) [4,14]. Therefore, it would be
suitable to consider reference values relevant to the specic
application. In any case, COPSP gures from 3 to 5
represent a typical range of values.
According to the TPES denition (6), cogeneration can
be analysed as a sub-case with Rz 0, thus obtaining the
classical PES (5).
3.3. The TCO2ER indicator for CO2 emission reduction
evaluation in trigeneration
Following the lines that brought to the TPES denition
[13], here the authors introduce the novel TCO2ER
indicator for CO2 emission reduction evaluation in CCHP
(and CHP) systems. The TCO2ER is generally dened as
TCO2 ER
mCO2 SP mCO2 z
,
mCO2 SP
(7)
mFCO2 z F z
Q
R
mW
CO2 SP W z mCO2 SP Qz mCO2 SP Rz
,
(8)
mW
CO2 SP ,
mQ
CO2 SP
mR
CO2 SP
and
are the energywhere
output related emission factors for the SP of electricity,
heat and cooling, respectively. These emission factors are
conventionally evaluated, also depending upon the purpose
of the study, as illustrated in the numerical applications in
the companion paper [18]. The term mFCO2 z refers to the
specic fuel input to the trigeneration system. Again,
cogeneration can be analysed as a sub-case, corresponding
to Rz 0 in (8).
The expression (8) allows for running general parametric
analyses of different types, considering different emission
factors for the SP and different inputs to the CCHP energy
system. A relevant simplication in the TCO2ER expression
can be carried out considering that the SP of cooling power
typically occurs in electric chillers, as in (6), so yielding
TCO2 ER
1
mW
CO2
SP
mFCO2
W z mQ
CO2
SP
Fz
Qz mW
CO2
1
SP
SP COP
.
Rz
9
ARTICLE IN PRESS
However, from this standpoint also the separate generation
of electricity should be evaluated on the basis of the same
fuel input. In addition, the electrical efciency in general
increases with the capacity and changes with the technology. Thus, a fair comparison should also consider the same
technology in the same size range for electricity-only
generation [36]. For instance, a gas-red cogenerative CC
should be compared to a non-cogenerative gas-red CC
plus a gas-red boiler. In this case, the protability of the
cogeneration process would be evaluated also taking into
account that setting up a cogenerative CC (in which
thermal power is recovered) might bring about a decrease
in electrical efciency [4,5]. In alternative, the comparison
could be run regardless the technology and the size. For
instance, the separate generation of electricity could be
assessed in terms of best available technology (e.g., a gas
MT could be compared with a gas CC). However, this
seems a less suitable approach for actual evaluation of the
performance of small-scale combined plants.
It is possible to point out a theoretical meaningful result
in the hypothesis that the same fuel is adopted for all the
systems involved in the analysis (combined and separate
generation). In this case, in fact, taking into account the
modelling considerations of Section 3.1, the TCO2ER
would assume the same numerical value of the TPES.
Hence, the CO2 emission reduction would depend only
upon the relevant efciencies considered in the analysis.
Such an approach seems the most suitable for evaluating
the contribution to the struggle against global warming of
cogeneration and trigeneration as combined processes able
to generate a manifold output.
However, the expressions (8) and (9) allow for assessing
more general situations. In particular, it is possible to take
into account that the fuel inputs to a co- or tri-generator
can be quite different from the input to the SP boilers. This
approach is more corresponding to the rationale of
comparing the GHG impact from a given CHP or CCHP
system to actual systems available for SP. For instance, the
analysis can be carried out with reference to average
systems for heat production. In this case, considering a mix
of fuels corresponding to the actual distribution of heat
generator typologies, and a relevant weighted average
TCO2 ER 1 h
mW
CO2
SP
(10)
h
i
mFCO2 mFCO2 eq F z mR
CO2 eq Rz
z
i
hz
z i
,
Q
Rz
mW
mQ
Rz
W
m
Q z mR
z
CO2 eq
CO2 eq
CO2
CO2 eq
COPSP
SP
emission factor, seems more appropriate. Similarly, electricity could be evaluated on the basis of the actual
technology mix (including various fuels and virtually zeroemission renewable or nuclear sources) in a given region.
Finally, the same holds true for the cooling power
generation, considering that cooling can be produced in
SP
SP
(11)
SP
where in particular:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
mR
CO2 eq z is related to the GHG emissions corresponding
to refrigerant mass leakage from the absorption chiller
[4,10,14].
Q
mW
CO2 eq SP and mCO2 eq SP refer to the average equivalent
CO2 emissions from SP of electricity and heat, weighted
according to different types of GHG.
mR
CO2 eq SP refers to the equivalent GHG emissions due
to refrigerant mass leakage from the reference electric
chiller; this term can be again assessed as an average
value weighted on different types of electric chillers and
refrigerants it is possible to adopt for separate cooling
production.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the Regione Piemonte,
Torino, Italy, under the research grant C65/2004. The
authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments and for the precious advice given to improve this
paper.
4. Final remarks
This paper has presented a novel approach to assess the
GHG emission performance from cogeneration and
trigeneration systems. In this respect, the TCO2ER
indicator has been introduced for assessing the emission
reduction brought by the combined energy systems with
respect to conventional references for the SP of electricity,
heat and cooling power. The characteristics of all the
References
[1] Horlock JH. Cogenerationcombined heat and power (CHP).
Malabar, FL: Krieger; 1997.
[2] Martens A. The energetic feasibility of CHP compared to the separate
production of heat and power. Appl Therm Eng 1998;18(11):93546.
[3] Borbely AM, Kreider JF, editors. Distributed generationthe power
paradigm of the new millennium. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
[4] Danny Harvey LD. A handbook on low-energy buildings and district
energy systems: fundamentals, techniques, and examples. UK: James
and James; 2006.
[5] EDUCOGEN, The European Educational Tool on Cogeneration.
December 2001. See also /www.cogen.org/projects/educogen.htmS.
[6] Cardona E, Piacentino A. A methodology for sizing a trigeneration plant in Mediterranean areas. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23(13):
166580.
[7] Maidment GG, Tozer RM. Combined cooling heat and power in
supermarkets. Appl Therm Eng 2002;22(6):65365.
[8] Resource Dynamics Corporation. Cooling, heating, and power for
industry: a market assessment, Final Report, US Department of
Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Vienna, VA, August
2003. See also: /www.cogeneration.netS.
[9] Ziher D, Poredos A. Economics of a trigeneration system in a
hospital. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26(7):6807.
[10] Meunier F. Co- and tri-generation contribution to climate change
control. Appl Therm Eng 2002;22(6):70318.
[11] Minciuc E, Le Corre O, Athanasovici V, Tazerout M. Fuel savings
and CO2 emissions for tri-generation systems. Appl Therm Eng
2003;23(11):133346.
[12] Mancarella P. From cogeneration to trigeneration: energy planning
and evaluation in a competitive market framework. Doctoral thesis.
Torino, Italy: Politecnico di Torino; April 2006.
[13] Chicco G, Mancarella P. Trigeneration primary energy saving for
energy planning and policy development. Energy Policy 2007;35:
613244.
[14] Kreider JF, editor. Handbook of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001.
[15] US Environmental Protection Agency. Catalogue of CHP technologies. See also /www.epa.govS.
[16] Distributed Energy Resources Emissions Survey and Technology
Characterization, E21, Palo Alto, CA, Ameren, St. Louis, MO,
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, New York
Independent System Operator, Albany, NY, and New York Power
Authority, White Plains, NY. See also: /http://www.epriweb.com/
public/000000000001011256.pdfS.
[17] Canova A, Chicco G, Genon G, Mancarella P. Environmental
impact of small-scale distributed cogeneration systems. In: Chicco G,
editor. VI world energy system conference, Torino, Italy, 1012 July
2006. p. 68996.
[18] Mancarella P, Chicco G. Assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions
from cogeneration and trigeneration systems. Part II: Analysis
techniques and application cases. Following paper, doi:10.1016/
j.energy.2007.10.008.
[19] Chicco G, Mancarella P. From cogeneration to trigeneration:
protable alternatives in a competitive market. IEEE Trans Energy
Convers 2006;21(1):26572.