tom mos singer fuelcells co generation

7/31/2019 Tom Mos Singer Fuelcells Co Generation

1/85

W at er a n d W ast ew at er

Tom Moss inger , P.E.

Car o l lo Eng ineer s


2/85

October 2007

August 2007

Fuel Cell and Solar Photovoltaic Technology for Water and Wastewater.ppt


3/85

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:

"

Coast; Federal Government ShutDown"

"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"


4/85

NEARLY a century ago, Henry Forddeclared a customer could have a car inany co or as ong as t was ac . ow,carmakers around the world are trying toconvince consumers that their lineupscome in reen. From BMW to Honda from

Chrysler to Volkswagen, the industry isrushing to make vehicles that use lessgasoline or dont rely on it at all.



5/85



6/85

SustainableSustainablePlanetPlanet

reen ayof Livingreen ayof Living

RenewableEnergy

RenewableEnergy



7/85

F r o m Co n s e r va t io n t o P o p u la t io n , a N e w Lo o k a t P la n e t Ea r t h

N e w Op t io n s Ne e d e d



8/85

W h y i s r en e w ab l e en e r g y so

1. Water & wastewater services account for 30-

50% of municipal energy use.2. Equivalent to 3-4% of the nations total energy

use.

3. 19% of electricity usage in California associatedwith movin water

4. 25 to 30% of the cost for water and wastewatersystems operations is for power.

As primary consumers of electricity, water & wastewaterorganizations have the opport unity t o dram atically affect overall


energy consumpt on.


9/85

Tr ad i t ion a l D igest e r Gas

Techno logy



10/85

Cog ener a t ion Tech n o log ies

.

2. Micro Turbines (30 to 250 kW)

3. as ur nes > ,



11/85

Recip r oca t in g En g in es

1. Proven technology for usingges er gas

2. Strict (and getting stricter) air

3. Regulations moving towards

oxidation catalysts, SCR andEM

4. Installation now requires

remove contaminants no longeroptional



12/85

I n t er n a l Co m b u st i on En g i n e s

1. Electrical OutputEfficiency = 30-35%

2. Advantagesa. Proven technolo for over

40 years

3. Disadvantagesa. Dedicated building for

sound and weather

800-kW Caterpillar Landfill & DigesterGas Fueled Cogeneration System,Sunnyvale, CA WWTP

.

c. Frequent Operator Attention

d. Hi her Emissions



13/85

Micr o Tu r b in es

1. Easy to permit (low emissions)

.

experience (limited)3. Lower efficiency than engines;

approximately 25%

4. Requires >50 psi fuel pressure



14/85

Gas Tu r b in es

1. Strict air permit regulations

.

3. Effective fuel conditioning is required4. Competitive only for

larger installations; greater than 3MW

5. Efficiency typically 25-35%

. fuel pressure



15/85

Fu el Cel lPow er Genera t i on



16/85

Fu el Cel l s

1. Highest efficiency available for powergenera on equ pmen

a. Electrical Efficiency 47%

. -

2. Exempt from air permit requirements*

* Exempt has unfortunately,not been the absolute truth.Permitting agencies have

r u r r ; urequirements are minor.



17/85

Fu el Cel l s

1. van agesa. Low emissions

. y

c. Minimal operator

time for O&M

d. Significant Grantfunding available 1-MW Fuel Cell Energy Fuel Cell

Riverside, CA WWTP



18/85

Env i ron m en t a l Bene f i t s

1. Nearly double the reduction in plant

technologies

. emissions of criteria pollutants

b. Order of magnitude reduction compared toother generation equipment



19/85

Fue l Cel ls Ot he r D r i ve rs

1. Qualifies for simplified interconnection

a. a orn a u e omp an

2. California SGIP grant money currently

a. Up to $7,875,000 total for 3MW plant!



20/85

Sum m ary o f Mot i vat i ons Fo r

Carbon Footprint by up to 50%)2. Power s stem reliabilit and redundanc

steady and constant source of power

3. Hedge against rising electricity rates andfuture energy crises

4. No combustion thus negligible emission

of NOx, CO, SOx, or particulate matter



21/85

Fu e l Ce l l Ai r Em ission Per m i t s

1.Emissions in lb/MWh

NOX = 0.02

Recip Engines

NOX = 3.4

SOX = 0.001

PM10 = 0.01CO = 0.05

VOC = 0.02

CO = 6.8



22/85



23/85



24/85

Sug gest ed Main t enance I n t er va ls



25/85

Dig est er Gas Fu eled Fu el Cel ls

Operating Installations1. Santa Barbara, CA

Under Construction1. EMWD, CA (Perris Valley) *

. . ,3.

City of Tulare, CA *4. DSRSD, CA5. City of Riverside, CA

2. y o a o,

6. EMWD, CA (Moreno Valley) *7. TID/City of Turlock, CA *

Projects Under Consideration1. TID/Hilmar Cheese Co, CA *

2. MID/City of Modesto, CA *

3. City of Davis, CA *

4. n on an a on s r c ,5. Palm Springs, CA *

6. MRWPCA, CA *

1. EMWD, CA (Temecula) *

2. City of Yuma, AZ *


. ,

8. City of Livermore, CA *

* CE involved in Design/Implementation

3. y o a em,


26/85



27/85

Fu el Cel l Ty p es

Ty p e Elect r o ly t eOpera t i ngTem p. F

Single-Cyc leE lec t r ica l

Ef f i c ien cy %

Ex pec t ed Capac i t yRange

By-Produc tHeat Use

PEMPolymer

Membrane

180 30-35 5 kW to 250 kW Warm Water

AlkalinePotassiumHydroxide

200


28/85

Basic Fu e l Ce l l Sy st em Com po n en t s

1. Fuel source (digester gas & natural gas).

2. Fuel treatment/conditioning to removecontaminants.

3. Fuel cell stack (electrolyte sandwichedbetween an anode and cathode) creates

.

4. DC to AC Inverter converts DC power toAC for use within facility.

5. Heat recovery system to utilize wasteheat (anaerobic digestion).



29/85

W h at is a Fu e l Ce l l?

1. Electrochemical Device Similar to a Batterya. Except Fuel Cells Use an External Supply of Reactants

2. Hydrogen Fuel (Methane) and Oxygen (Air) In3. Electricit and Water Exhaust Out

2

Fu el Cel l

2

H2 Elect r ic i ty



30/85

Tech n o logy Fu e l Ce l l En e rg y

1. General Featuresa.Uses commonly available

Hy droc a rbon Fue l

e .g . D iges te r Gas / Natu ra l Gas

ma er a s

b.No noble metal catalystc. High temperature by-

Internal Reforming

W at e r Vapo r

2. Internal Reforminga.H

2

generated internally

4

2

2

2

Anode

Catalyst

H2+ CO

3H

2O + CO

2+ 2e=

-

.

c. Simple system

d.Negligible NOx and CO

CATALYST

Electrolyte

.

Operationa.Allows unattended

o eration

=

1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e CO3


b.Highly reliableAi r


31/85


32/85

Gr an t s, Fu n d i n g Cal i f o r n i a

1. Business Energy Investment Credit (ITC)a. Federal tax credit now available as a grant

alsob. Fuel cells solar small wind: 30% of eli ible

costs; up to $3000/kW

c. All others: 10% of eligible costs; micro-

2. Self Generation Incentive Programa. 4 500 kW to 1 125 kW based on size for

fuel cell projectsb. Up to $7,875,000 per project for 3.0 MW



33/85

Gr an t s, Fu n d i n g Cal i f o r n i a (cont)

1. California Solar Initiative

a. Performance-based incentive rate:

- -. .

Currently $0.26 - $0.32/kWh produced for 5 years -Municipal

. , ,

2. California Energy Commission

a. Energy Efficiency Financing Program; Up to$3 million; 3.95% fixed APR; up to 15 year term

3. California G$S$ Smart Program

a. Ener Efficienc Financin > 1 million a rox. 4%

APR; negotiable terms up to 12 years



34/85

East e rn Mun icipa l W at e r D ist r i ct

I n st a l la t io n



35/85

East e rn Mun icipa l W at e r D ist r i ct Fu e l

e r o ect u m m ar y

1. Three 250 kW FCE 300MA unitscurrently; ultimately five units 300 kW

2. Digester gas treatment system

a. H2S, siloxanes, water, VOC, etc.3. Electrical interface with utility

4. Hot water heat recovery

5. Hybrid Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Negotiated Construction



36/85

EMW D Mor en o Val ley , Ca l i f o r n ia

Regio n a l W at er Reclam at ion Faci l i t y Fu e l Ce l l

1. Installation Contract:

a. Three 250 kW Fuel Cells ultimate facility size 1.5 MW

.

c. Balance of plant, including electrical, heat recovery, sitework, pads, etc

2. o a ons ruc on os = . m on

3. State of California SGI P grant = $3.375 m illion

=. ,

5. Carbon Footprint reduced by >50% annually

6. 90% Reduction of RWRFs criteria ollutants



37/85


EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF 750 kW Fuel Cell Project


38/85





39/85





40/85



EMWD Moreno Valley RWRF AFT Fuel Conditioning System


41/85

y g y




42/85

y j



43/85

Plan t Oper a t in g Cost s

Pr ior t o Fu el Cel ls :

1. Avera e ower demand: 1,482 kW

2.

Average power cost: $0.115/kWhrAv er ag e 2 0 0 8 Mon t h ly Pow er Cost : $ 1 0 5 ,0 0 0

An t i cipa t ed w i t h Fue l Ce l ls Opera t i ng :

1. n s opera ng: un s a eac

2. Power used by auxiliaries: 20 kW

.

Average Mon t h l y Pow er Sav ings : $5 2 ,500



44/85

Act u a l Oper a t i ng Da t a

. -

2.Total energy produced 3/1 thru 3/27. , -

b. @ average electrical cost of $0.115/kW-hr

= ,

3.Availability: 100 percent since startup

4.First scheduled shut down is Sept 2010



45/85

Tu r l ock I r r i g at i on D ist r i ct

Ce l l I n st a l l at i on



46/85

TI D/ Ci t y o f Tu r lock Fue l Ce l l

r o ect u m m ar y

1. ng e , un


3. Electrical interface with the Citys RWQCF

4. Hot water heat recovery hot water to theCitys RWQCF (1.8 MMBtu/hr)

5. Traditional Design-Bid-Build; pre-purchased

6. Project built to help meet TIDs mandatedRenewable Portfolio Standard requirements of


20% of power from renewable sources

T l k I i t i Di t i t T l k


47/85

Tur l ock I r r i gat i on Di st r i ct , Tu r l ock ,

Reg ion a l W at er Qu a l i t y Con t r o l Faci l i t y Fu e l Ce l l

1. 1.2 MW Fuel Cell: $3.7 million

2. Fuel treatment system:$1.3 million

3. a ance o p an , nc u ng e ec r ca , earecovery, site work, pads, etc = $2.7 million

4. Total Construction Cost = 7.6 million5. State of California SGI P grant = $4.95 m illion

6. Total Net Construction Cost = $2.7 million

7. Carbon Footprint reduced by 5200 tons annually8. 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


48/85


TID/City of Turlock RWQCF 1,200 kW Fuel Cell Project


49/85


TID/City of Turlock RWQCF ESC Fuel Conditioning System


50/85


A t l O t i D t


51/85

Act u a l Oper a t i ng Da t a

. -

2.Total energy produced 3/1 thru 3/27. ,

b. @ average electrical cost of $0.065/kW-hr

Total Power Savin s = > 34 000

3.Availability: 98+ percent during startup



52/85



53/85


Pr o j ect I m p lem en t at io n Met h o d s


54/85

Pr o j ect I m p lem en t at io n Met h o d s

1. Design/build

2. Conventional Design Bid Build

3. Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) bythird party Design Bid Build

Design/build method was selected by Cityof Tulare


Co m p a r i so n o f Desi g n / Bu i l d


55/85

Co m p a r i so n o f Desi g n / Bu i l d

r op osa s

NetFive-YearEn ine

Five-Year GasCleanin Emission Generated

kW

Rating

Proposed

Equipment

Turnkey

Cost Grant

Construction

Cost

Maintenance

(1)

Maintenance

(1)

Offsets

(4)

Five-Year

Cost

Energy

Value

750

Fuel Cell

Energy DFC

300MA Fuel5,182,545 (3,375,000) 1,807,545 1,092,848 500,500 0 3,400,893 727,299

Cells

750

Deutz 616 V16

Lean Burner IC

Engine

2,567,749 (750,000) 1,817,749 537,650 765,000 71,943 3,192,342 727,299

848

GE Jenbacher

Model JGC316

IC Engine

4,147,000 (848,000) 3,299,000 458,114 500,500 71,943 4,329,557 776,648

750

Ingersol-Rand

250ST 4 493 000 975 000 3 518 000 412 020 500 500 12 000 4 442 520 595 308

Microturbines

750

Ingersol-Rand

250ST

Microturbines

5,043,768 (975,000) 4,068,768 408,924 500,500 12,000 4,990,192 595,308


750

Fuel Cell

Energy DFC

300MA Fuel

Cells

7,794,757 (3,375,000) 4,419,757 978,000 500,500 0 5,898,257 727,299

Tu la r e Fu e l Ce l l Pr o j ect Su m m ar y


56/85

Tu la r e Fu e l Ce l l Pr o j ect Su m m ar y

1. Three 250/300 kW FCE 300MA units

a. Provision for future installation of 4th unit


a. H2S, siloxanes, water, VOC, etc.

3. Electrical interface with utility

4. Hot water heat recovery

5. Alliance Chico Energy did design/build



57/85



58/85


Lesson s Lear n ed


59/85

Lesson s Lear n ed

1. Design/build Get your attorney

involved earlier

2. Include a load bank in the design

3. onven ona es gn uapproach would have been better



60/85

Ot he r Thou gh t s &S u m m a r y


Econ om ics and Po l i t i cs


61/85

Econ om ics and Po l i t i cs

1. Primary barrier to implementation of Fuele s s percep on o g cap a cos

2. State and federal incentive/rebateprograms are cr ca

3. Majority of installations occur where the

(California, New Jersey)

.

the price of commercial electricity


S u m m a r y


62/85

S u m m a r y

1. Fuel cells are the cleanest, most efficientcogeneration technology for digester gas

. well with engines and turbines based on

the grant money available in California

3. You wont have to worry about future


S u m m a r y (continued)


63/85

S u m m a r y (continued)

1. Permitting is very easy

2. Utility coordination for interconnection is

simple and quick3. ery ow opera or a en on or

maintenance

. ,facility?

GO GREEN!



64/85


Solar Ph ot ov o l t a ic ( PV) Ce l l s


65/85

1. Fixed roof mountedsolar panels that dono rac e sun

2. Single Axis Tracking3. Dual Axis Trackin

4. Concentrated vs.traditional


So lar Po w er Si t e Co n d i t i on s


66/85

1. Footprinta. n mum acres or

1 MW facility, tracking.

1 MW floating panelfacility

2. Sizinga. Dependent on panel Floating solar array in Oakville, CA

e c ency -

b. Dependent on



67/85

So lar Po w er - Pr o cu r em en t


68/85

1. System Procurement

.

Owner buys panel and pays for all

Full ownership of RECs

b. Power Purchase A reement PPA Third party owns and operates the PV

system and sells power to City at agreedupon ra e

Savings from 30% federal tax creditassed on to owner with lower rates


RECs negotiable

W in d Pow er - Tu r b in es


69/85

1. Small & Medium Wind

b. Medium: 100 1,000 kW each

c. Architectural Wind Turbine Utilizes buildin aerod namics

d. Typically perform well inlow/moderate wind speeds

2. Large Wind(1 MW - 2.5MW ea)

.

farms3. Future sizes expected


up o .

W in d Po w er - Si t e Co n d i t io n s


70/85

1. Wind turbine operationis dependent on sitespecific wind

characteristics. be performed todetermine availability

onsitea. Stockton is on the

ed e of a low tomoderate wind zone

3. Wind Resource Map


. . . .gov/maps/wind.html

W in d Pow er - Econ om ics


71/85

1. Payback Perioda. Dependent on wind resource

, ,costs, energy costs, and

turbine performance.

. Programsa. CEC Renewable Buy Down

$2,500/kW for first 7.5 kWand $1,500/kW for increments>7.5 kW up to 30 kW

b. Self-Generation IncentiveProgram (SGIP)

$1,500/kW for wind turbines


n arm a m pr ngs,

Lo w Head Hy d r o p ow er


72/85


Lo w Head Hy d r o p ow er


73/85



74/85

Ex ist in g D igest e rs and

Enhancement


Ex cess Av a i lab le Dig est er Cap aci t y


75/85

1. Plant currentl has 5 di estersa. 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

a. 48 mgd with 630 mg/L BOD

3. Current flows loadin are much lower

a. 32 mgd with 300 mg/L BOD4. Potential for significant digester gas


generation enhancement

How t o Ut i l i ze Ex cess D igest e r


76/85

ap ac t y1.FOG Addition

a. Pinellas County, FL

b. Fresno

a. Ventura

b. Riverside

c. Watsonville, CA

d. Waco, TX

.

d. EBMUD

. a. Waco, TX

b. EBMUD

c. IEUAd. Truckee Meadows WRF, NV


3. gae

FOG, Watsonville, CA


77/85

Food W ast e


78/85

1. High BOD wastes fed to either dedicated

a. Typical products:

Dairy wastes

Packing plant wastes

ann ng was es

b. Industry benefits and thus participates ifconvenient

Fuel Cell and Solar Photovoltaic Technology for Water and Wastewater.ppt Food Waste System, TMWRF, NV


79/85

Co-D igest i on o f H igh St r eng t h W ast esL


80/85

1 ton

23 tons GHG




81/85

1 ton

23 tons GHG1 ton

0.8 tons of GHG


1 MW of Electricity



82/85

1 ton

23 tons GHG1 ton

0.8 tons of GHG


1 MW of Electricity


83/85

M et h a n e f r o m Al g ae


84/85

1. Single phase digestionas e o ges er

upsets and decline inmethane production

2. Two-phase digestionpromising. Acid phase

Acid Phase Digester, TMWRF, NV

,methane phase digeststhe contents

3. Promising technologyfrom Europe for cell


algae digestion

Car b on Cr ed i t s


85/85

1. Potential to generatecarbon capture credits

2. Algae extracts carbon2

into O23. Additional CO

2

can beintroduced into pondsfrom fuel cell exhaust;

credit if fuel was NGand increasing algae


r w r

tom mos singer fuelcells co generation

Documents