Pavel Likhonin Final Presentation...Presentation Outline DMA Building Fort GeorgeG.Meade,MD Pavel Likhonin MechanicalOption •Introduction •CHP Anal ysis CHP Options CHP Options

Presentation Outline DMA BuildingFort George G. Meade, MD

Pavel LikhoninMechanical Option

•Introduction•CHP Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis

Fort George G. Meade, MD Mechanical Option

Thesis Final Presentation•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

Thesis Final Presentation

•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•AcknowledgementsQ ti•Questions



•Introduction•Facility Information


Facility InformationFacility Information•Mechanical Information•Goals

•CHP Analysis

Facility InformationLocation: Fort George G. Meade, MD

Total Cost: $56 000 000CHP Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis

Total Cost: $56,000,000

Occupancy: Office, Media Center

Delivery Method: Design‐Bid‐Build•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•Acknowledgements

y g

Architect: HOK

Engineers: AECOM |HSMM•Acknowledgements•Questions Owner: Army Corps of Engineers

Construction Period: Spring 2009 to September 2011





Mechanical InformationFacility Information•Mechanical Information•Goals

•CHP Analysis

Mechanical Information

Ai D li S V i bl Ai V lCHP Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis

Air Delivery System: Variable Air VolumeChilled Water System: (3) 500 Ton Water Cooled ChillersEconomizer: Waterside Used for Data Center •Electrical Analysis

•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•Acknowledgements

Airside Used in AHU’sDistribution System: Primary/Secondary FlowHot Water System: (3) 3000 MBH Condensing Boilers•Acknowledgements

•QuestionsHot Water System: (3) 3000 MBH Condensing BoilersControl System: Direct Digital Control using BACnet





Goal:Facility Information•Mechanical Information•Goals

•CHP Analysis

Goal:

CHP Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis

Minimize Costs Spent on Energy Consumption, Making the Building Less

ff•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•Acknowledgements

Expensive and More Efficient to Operate

•Acknowledgements•Questions



•Introduction

•CHP Analysis


Absorption Combined Heat & Powery•Concept•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period

Absorption Chiller

Cooling LoadsPayback Period

•Sensitivity Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis Heating

Loads

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion

Waste Heat

Heating Loads

•Conclusion•Acknowledgements•Questions

Natural Gas

Electric Loads

Prime Mover & Generator

1.8 MW Base Load2.2 MW Peak Load



•Introduction

•CHP Analysis


CHP Options CHP OptionsT S t D i ti

y•Concept•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period

Type System Description

A

2390 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING AT FULL LOAD

800 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER USED TO COVER

LOADS OF THE BUILDING

A BOILER IS USED TO MAKE UP NEEDED THERMAL ENERGY FOR

A C

Type System Description

Engine

s

F

1801 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING TO MEET BASE

ELECTRICAL LOAD

BUY SUPPLEMENTAL ELECTRICITY FROM THE GRID

800 TON SING STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLERAPayback Period

•Sensitivity Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis ne

s

THE ABSORPTION CHILLER

B2390 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING AT FULL LOAD

(3) 500 TON ELECTRICAL CHILLERS USED TO COOL THE BUILDING

THERMAL ENERGY IS WASTED

2390 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING AT FULL LOAD

700 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER

IC A BOILER IS USED TO MAKE UP NEEDED ENERGY FOR THE

ABSORPTION CHILLER

G1200 KW SATURN 20 TURBINE USED TO MEET BASE LOAD

BUY SUPPLEMENTAL ELECTRICITY FROM THE GRID

800 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER1200 KW SATURN 20 TURBINE•System Optimization Analysis

•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion

IC Engin C

700 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER

300 TON ELECTRIC CHILLER USED TO MEET LOADS NOT MET WITH

AN ABSORPTION CHILLER

D

2390 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING TO MEET ELECTRICAL

LOAD

800 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER Turbines

H

1200 KW SATURN 20 TURBINEBACK PRESSURE STEAM TURBINE RUNS OFF HIGH PRESSURE

STEAM CREATED BY THE TURBINE

800 TON ABSORPTION CHILLERA BOILER IS USED TO MAKE UP NEEDED THERMAL ENERGY FOR

THE ABSORPTION CHILLER•Conclusion•Acknowledgements•Questions

A BOILER IS USED TO MAKE UP NEEDED THERMAL ENERGY FOR

THE ABSORPTION CHILLER

E

2390 KW JENBACHER IC ENGINE RUNNING TO MEET ELECTRICAL

LOAD AS WELL AS PEAK ELECTRIC CHILLER LOAD

650 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER300 T E C

Gas T

I

1200 KW SATURN 20 TURBINEBACK PRESSURE STEAM TURBINE RUNS OFF HIGH PRESSURE

STEAM CREATED BY THE TURBINE

400 TON SINGLE STAGE ABSORPTION CHILLER USED TO COVER

LOADS OF THE BUILDING

500 E C300 TON ELECTRIC CHILLER MEETS LOADS NOT MET BY AN

ABSORPTION CHILLER500 TON ELECTRIC CHILLER USED TO MEET LOADS NOT MET BY

AN ABSORPTION CHILLER



•Introduction

•CHP Analysis


Yearly Energy Cost Savings by Systemy•Concept•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period

$600,000.00 $465 215 87

$578,552.11

Yearly Energy Cost Savings by System

Payback Period•Sensitivity Analysis

•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis

$400,000.00

$500,000.00 $438,363.29

$408,300.27

$465,215.87

$504,490.46

$359 540 85 $317 935 24($)

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion $200,000.00

$300,000.00

$359,540.85

$233,094.67

$317,935.24

ly Savings (


$‐

$100,000.00 $(48,049.99)

Yearl

$(100,000.00)

$‐

A B C D E F G H I

System



•Introduction

•CHP Analysis


Payback Periody•Concept•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period 8 0

9.0 8.78.2

Payback Period



6.0

7.0

8.07.1 7.0

5.0

7.3

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion 3.0

4.0

5.0Years


0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0

A B C D E F

System



•Introduction

•CHP Analysis


System E Payback with Increasing System E Payback with Increasing y•Concept•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period 3

4

5

6

ars

Electricity Costs

3 00

4.00

5.00

6.00

ars

Electricity and Natural Gas Costs



0

1

2

3

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Yea

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Yea

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion 8

System C Payback with Increasing Electricity Costs

% Increase in Electricity Costs % Increase in Fuel and Electricity Costs

8 00

System C Payback with Increasing Electricity and Natural Gas Costs


2345678

Years

2 003.004.005.006.007.008.00

Years

012

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% Increase in Electricity Costs

0.001.002.00

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% Increase in Fuel & Electricity Costs



•Introduction•CHP Analysis

Th l St A l i


Peak Day Thermal Load•Thermal Storage Analysis•Concept•Energy Cost Savings

750

800

Peak Day Thermal Load

Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period•Sensitivity Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis650

700

ns

Peak Load Removed

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion 500

550

600To

n

Constant Chiller Load•Conclusion•Acknowledgements•Questions

400

450

Constant Chiller Load

Ice Storage vs. Chilled Water Storage

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

Hours




Th l St A l i


Yearly Energy Cost Savings•Thermal Storage Analysis•Concept•Energy Cost Savings

Yearly Energy Cost Savings

fEnergy Cost Savings•Payback Period•Sensitivity Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis

• Ice storage produced negative savings from this analysis due to inefficiency of making ice and low electric rates. • Peak demand was determined on a monthly basis.


• On-Peak to Off-Peak shift was determined on a daily basis.

Chilled Water Storage Savings•Conclusion•Acknowledgements•Questions

Demand Savings: $3,617.22On-Peak Savings: $7,025.21Total Yearly Savings: $10,643.43y g




Th l St A l i


Simple Payback Period•Thermal Storage Analysis•Concept•Energy Cost Savings

Simple Payback Period

Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period•Sensitivity Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis

• Initial Investment was determined based on a 3,500 Ton-hr, 400,000 Gallon Tank and required accessories such as pumps, piping, etc.


• Due to N+1 Redundancy requirements, One chiller/cooling tower could be removed, and the remaining chillers/cooling towers have to be


upsized to 600 tons.

Initial Investment: $173,666Simple Payback Period: 16.32 Years




Th l St A l i


•Thermal Storage Analysis•Concept•Energy Cost Savings 18.00

Thermal Storage Sensitivity AnalysisEnergy Cost Savings

•Payback Period•Sensitivity Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis12.00

14.00

16.00

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion 6.00

8.00

10.00

Years


0.00

2.00

4.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent Cost Increase





Yearly Energy Cost Savings•Thermal Storage Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis•Thermal Storage & CHP

Yearly Energy Cost Savings

C S f S OThermal Storage & CHP•Intro/Energy Cost Savings•Initial Investment•Payback Period

• CHP System A was used for this System Optimization Analysis• This system had the largest amount of wasted heat, which makes it a good candidate for integration with thermal storage.

•Payback Period•Data Center Chiller•DOAS

Electrical Anal sis

• Hour by hour storage analysis was performed on storage and waste heat from the CHP plant

•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•ConclusionA k l d t

Yearly Energy Cost Savings: $11,644 •Acknowledgements•Questions





•Thermal Storage Analysis


Initial Investment for Thermal Storage with CHP350,000 Gallon Tank $ 354,200.00

Thermal Storage & CHP•Intro/Energy Cost Savings•Initial Investment•Payback Period

300 Feet of 5" Pipe $ 10,500.00

300 Feet of 2" Insulation for 5" Pipe $ 5,874.00


Electrical Anal sis

(2) 15 HP Pumps $ 10,220.00

One Less (500 Ton) Chiller $ (293,062.50)

One Less (500 Ton) Cooling Tower $ (50,472.80)


Increasing Size of Original Chiller (500 to 650 tons) $ 71,200.00

Increasing Size of Original Towers (500 to 650 tons) $ 14,950.00•Acknowledgements•Questions

Increasing Size of Original Towers (500 to 650 tons) $ 14,950.00

Total $ 123,408.70





Simple Payback Period•Thermal Storage Analysis



CThermal Storage & CHP•Intro/Energy Cost Savings•Initial Investment•Payback Period

• Integrating thermal storage into a CHP system produced slightly better results than thermal storage on its own.


Electrical Anal sis

• Due to a smaller tank, and slightly larger yearly savings, the simple payback period for thermal storage was around:

10 6 Years•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•ConclusionA k l d t

10.6 Years






Dedicating a Chiller to the Data Center to Increase Efficiency•Thermal Storage Analysis


g y

Data Center AnalysisThermal Storage & CHP•Data Center Chiller

•Concept•Energy Cost Savings

Data Center AnalysisEvaporator Temperature (˚F)

44 55 60

Condensing Water 85 85 85•Energy Cost Savings

•Payback Period•DOAS

Electrical Anal sis

Temperature (˚F)85 85 85

kW/ton 0.535 0.418 0.314


NPLV 0.314 0.256 0.2334






•Thermal Storage Analysis


Cooling Cost of the Data Center

Temperature MMBTU/year Savings $/yrThermal Storage & CHP•Data Center Chiller


44˚ F 15137.0 ‐

55˚ F 14065 4 $28 155 00•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period

•DOASElectrical Anal sis

55 F 14065.4 $28,155.00

60˚ F 13046.8 $54,946.00


Even with higher pumping costs, the total energy i f i hill t hi h t•Acknowledgements

•Questionssavings from running a chiller at higher temps was substantial





Simple Payback Period•Thermal Storage Analysis



fThermal Storage & CHP•Data Center Chiller


• Initial Investment for dedicating a chiller only involved adding in a few valves, (2) pumps, and some piping.

•Energy Cost Savings•Payback Period

•DOASElectrical Anal sis

•The simple payback period calculated for running a chiller at 55˚ F was less than a year.

•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•ConclusionA k l d t•Acknowledgements

•Questions





DOAS•Thermal Storage Analysis


DOAS• DOAS paralleled with Chill d BThermal Storage & CHP

•Data Center Chiller•DOAS

•Electrical Analysis

Chilled Beams was modeled in TRACE 700 for annual energy and cost

i•Electrical Analysis•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•Acknowledgements

savings•Only lower energy density areas were modeled as


DOAS with Chilled Beams

•Annual Energy Savings: 1,913 x 10^6 [BTU/yr]Annual Energy Savings: 1,913 x 10 6 [BTU/yr]•Annual Cost Savings: $46,949





Electrical Schematic for CHP Interface•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis

•Electrical Analysis

Electrical Schematic for CHP Interface

y•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements•Questions





Acoustical Analysis•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical Analysis

A i l A l i80

90NC Analysis for Jenbacher 2390 kW IC Engine

Original 2390

y


60

70

2390 Two 8" CMU

NC‐55NC‐60

NC‐65

NC‐70

Acknowledgements•Questions

30

40

50

SPL (dB)

2390 8" CMU and 8" concrete wall

NC‐30NC‐35

NC‐40

NC‐45NC‐50

10

202390 8" CMU with metal stud & insulation

2390 8" CMU

NC‐15

NC‐20

NC‐25

NC 30

0

62.5 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Frequency (Hz)

with metal stud no insulation





Conclusion•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

Conclusion

CHP System E Yearly Savings: $578,552 •Acoustical Analysis

•Conclusion•Recommendation

y y g $ ,

Chilled Water Storage Yearly Savings: $10,643Recommendation


Chilled Water Storage W/CHP System A Savings: $11,644

Dedicated Chiller to Data Center @ 55˚ F: $28,155Dedicated Chiller to Data Center @ 55 F: $28,155

DOAS (Office) Yearly Savings: $46,949





CoolingSystem E•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

650 Ton Absorption

Chiller

Cooling Loads

300

System E

•Acoustical Analysis

•Conclusion•Recommendation

Chiller

Heating

300 Ton Electric Chiller•Recommendation


Waste Heat

gLoads

Electric Loads

Natural Gas

Jenbacher 2390 kW Natural Gas Engine & Generator





Acknowledgements:•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

Acknowledgements:

•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion

•AcknowledgementsSpecial Thanks To:

AE FacultyAcknowledgements•Questions &

Family and Friends





Questions•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

Questions


•Questions





Initial Investment by CHP System Initial Investment for Thermal Storage400,000 Gallon Tank $ 382,800.00 •Thermal Storage Analysis

•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

System Cost

A $ 2,754,407.05

B $ 2,483,717.55

, $ ,300 Feet of 5" pipe $ 10,500.00

300 Feet of 2" Insulation for 5" Pipe

$ 5,874.00

(2) 15 HP pumps $ 10,220.00 One Less Chiller $ (293,062.50)•Acoustical Analysis

•Conclusion•AcknowledgementsQ ti

$ 2,483,717.55

C $ 2,478,387.55

D $ 2,800,156.55

E $ 2,439,842.55

( , )One Less Cooling Tower $ (50,472.80)Increasing size of original

Chillers$ 94,648.00

Increasing size of original Towers

$ 13,160.00

•Questions F $ 2,381,676.53 Total $ 173,666.70

Initial Investment for Thermal Storage with CHP400,000 Gallon Tank $ 354,200.00 300 Feet of 5" Pipe $ 10,500.00

300 Feet of 2" Insulation for 5" Pipe $ 5,874.00

(2) 15 HP Pumps $ 10,220.00 One Less Chiller $ (293,062.50)

One Less Cooling Tower $ (50,472.80)

Increasing Size of Original Chiller $ 71,200.00

Increasing Size of Original Towers $ 14,950.00

Total $ 123,408.70





CO2e Savings when compared to Grid

•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

A B C D E F

IC Engine

kWh 20,936,400.00 20,982,933.93 20,936,400.00 16,673,858.17 17,305,591.92 15,776,760.00

BTU 74,893,389,355.47 71,635,736,437.02 71,476,869,600.00 70,082,301,286.29 59,081,290,819.32 53,861,858,640.00

CO2e (lb) 10,260,394.34 9,814,095.89 9,792,331.14 9,601,275.28 8,094,136.84 9,011,793.30

1% Δ

•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•AcknowledgementsQ ti

Grid kWh 18,602,443 18,602,443 18,602,443 18,602,443 18,602,443 18,602,443

CO2e (lb) 33,856,445.42 33,856,445.42 33,856,445.42 33,856,445.42 33,856,445.42 33,856,445.42

Savings (lb) 23,596,051.08 24,042,349.53 24,064,114.29 24,255,170.15 25,762,308.58 24,844,652.12

•Equivalent of removing 1,916 cars!•Questions •Spark Gap: $18.99

•O&M costs from EPA.gov: $0.005/kWh•Assumed 40% Elect. Efficiency at 75% load. From manufacturer, full load electrical efficiency is 42.6%•System E never drops below 75% of the load, making load following very efficientg y•Thermal to Electric Ratio of 0.85 to 1.25 during the peak summer months





•Thermal Storage Analysis•System Optimization Analysis•Electrical AnalysisA ti l A l i

2300

8760 Electric Load w/out Thermal

•Acoustical Analysis•Conclusion•AcknowledgementsQ ti

2100

2200

•Questions

1900

2000kW

1700

1800

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Hours

Pavel Likhonin Final Presentation...Presentation Outline DMA Building Fort GeorgeG.Meade,MD Pavel Likhonin MechanicalOption •Introduction •CHP Anal ysis CHP Options CHP Options

Documents