SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-37
July 2005
Test and Quality Assurance
Plan
Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Natural Gas-Fired
Engine Cogeneration Unit
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Operated by
S°?TREUS^ERCH Southern Research Institute
Affiliated with Vie
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
Under Agreement With
\YSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-37
July 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( ETr ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Natural Gas-Fired Cogeneration Unit
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
PO Box 13825
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
Telephone: 919/806-3456
Reviewed by:
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
ECO Technology Solutions, LLC.
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development QA Team
indicates comments are integrated into Test Plan
-------
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( STr ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Natural Gas-Fired Cogeneration Unit
This Test and Quality Assurance Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center Project Manager and Center Director, the U.S. EPA APPCD Project Officer, and the
U.S. EPA APPCD Quality Assurance Manager.
Tim A. Ha
Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
?A/
Date
David Kirchgessner
APPCD Project Officer
U.S. EPA
-y
Date
William <£Wterton
Project Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Richard Adamson
Quality Assurance Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Date
Date
Robert Wright J Date
APPCD Quality Assurance Manager
U.S. EPA
Test Plan Final: July 2005
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDICES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iii
DISTRIBUTION LIST iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 AISIN SEIKI G60 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 1-2
1.3 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1-3
1.4 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1-4
1.5 SCHEDULE 1-6
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH 2-1
2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARY 2-1
2.2 VERIFICATION PARAMETERS 2-2
2.2.1 Electrical Performance (GVP §2.0) 2-2
2.2.2 Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0) 2-3
2.2.3 CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0) 2-3
2.2.4 Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0) 2-4
2.2.5 Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation 2-4
2.2.6 Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets 2-7
3.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-8
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 4-1
4.1 DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION 4-1
4.1.1 Corrective Action and Assessment Reports 4-1
4.2 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION 4-2
4.3 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES, CONSUMABLES, AND
SERVICES 4-3
4.4 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION 4-3
4.5 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 4-3
4.5.1 Project Reviews 4-3
4.5.2 Test/QA Plan Implementation Assessment 4-4
4.5.3 Audit of Data Quality 4-4
4.6 VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT 4-5
4.7 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS 4-5
4.8 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 4-6
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
-------
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A Electric Power System Emissions Reduction Estimates A-1
APPENDIX B Heat Recovery System Emissions Reduction Estimates B-l
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -1. Current Installation of Aisin G60 Cogeneration Unit at Hooligans Sports Bar 1-4
Figure 1-2. Project Organization 1-5
Figure 2-1. Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Cogeneration System Boundary Diagram 2-1
Figure 2-2. Position of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System 2-6
Figure 2-3. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System 2-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Aisin Seiki G60 Specifications 1-3
Table 2-1. Site Specific Instrumentation for Aisin Seiki Cogeneration System Verification 2-5
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Richard Drake
Nag Patibandla
ECO Technology Solutions, LLC.
Kamyar Zadeh
Anthony Baleno
Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
Mark Hansen
U.S. EPA - Office of Research and Development
David Kirchgessner
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute (GHG Center)
Tim Hansen
William Chatterton
Richard Adamson
in
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA-ORD) operates
the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies through performance verification and information dissemination. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and innovative environmental technologies. Congress funds ETV in response to the belief that
there are many viable environmental technologies that are not being used for the lack of credible third-
party performance data. With performance data developed under this program, technology buyers,
financiers, and permitters in the United States and abroad will be better equipped to make informed
decisions regarding environmental technology purchase and use.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center) is one of six verification organizations operating
under the ETV program. The GHG Center is managed by EPA's partner verification organization,
Southern Research Institute (Southern), which conducts verification testing of promising GHG mitigation
and monitoring technologies. The GHG Center's verification process consists of developing verification
protocols, conducting field tests, collecting and interpreting field and other data, obtaining independent
peer-review input, and reporting findings. Performance evaluations are conducted according to externally
reviewed verification Test and Quality Assurance Plans (Test Plan) and established protocols for quality
assurance (QA).
The GHG Center is guided by volunteer groups of stakeholders. The GHG Center's Executive
Stakeholder Group consists of national and international experts in the areas of climate science and
environmental policy, technology, and regulation. It also includes industry trade organizations,
environmental technology finance groups, governmental organizations, and other interested groups. The
GHG Center's activities are also guided by industry specific stakeholders who provide guidance on the
verification testing strategy related to their area of expertise and peer-review key documents prepared by
the GHG Center.
In recent years, a primary area of interest to GHG Center stakeholders has been distributed electrical
power generation systems. Distributed generation (DG) refers to equipment, typically ranging from 5 to
1,000 kilowatts (kW) that provide electric power at a site closer to customers than central station
generation. A distributed power unit can be connected directly to the customer or to a utility's
transmission and distribution system. Examples of technologies available for DG includes gas turbine
generators, internal combustion engine generators, photovoltaics, wind turbines, fuel cells, and
microturbines. DG technologies provide customers one or more of the following main services: standby
generation, peak shaving generation, baseload generation, or cogeneration.
Since 2002, the GHG Center and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) have collaborated and shared the cost of verifying several new DG technologies throughout
the state of New York under NYSERDA-sponsored programs. The verification described in this
document will evaluate the performance of one such DG system: an Aisin Seiki G60 6.0 kW natural gas
fired engine cogeneration unit currently in use at the Hooligans Bar and Grille in Liverpool, New York.
The Aisin system is manufactured in Japan. ECO Technology Solutions, LLC. (ECOTS) serves as
Aisin's primary agent in the U.S. and manages the installation and operation of the Aisin system at
1-1
-------
Hooligans. The GHG Center will be evaluating the performance of this system in collaboration with
NYSERDA.
In partnership with the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
(ASERTTI), Southern was contracted to develop and validate a nationally recognized distributed
generation and combined heat and power field testing protocol. In December 2004 ASERTTI issued the
DG/CHP Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Performance Protocol for Field Testing
[1]. The ETV GHG Center has used portions of this protocol and procedures developed during past ETV
verifications to develop a draft generic verification protocol (GVP) for ETV verifications of DG/CHP
technologies. This ETV performance verification of the Aisin system will be based on the draft GVP. A
final GVP will be issued in 2006 with any revisions based on this and other field validations and feedback
from various users and stakeholders.
This document is the site specific Test Plan for this performance verification. This Test Plan does not
repeat the rationale for the selection of verification parameters, the verification approach, data quality
objectives (DQOs), and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures specified in the GVP.
Instead, this plan includes descriptions of the Aisin Seiki G60 system, its integration at the Hooligan's
facility, site specific measurements and instrumentation, and site specific exceptions to the GVP. This
performance verification will include evaluation of the following parameters:
- electrical performance
- electrical efficiency
- CHP performance
- atmospheric emissions
- NOX and CO2 emission offsets
This Test Plan has been reviewed by NYSERDA, ECOTS and Aisin representatives, and the EPA QA
team. Once approved, as evidenced by the signature sheet at the front of this document, it will meet the
requirements of the GHG Center's Quality Management Plan (QMP) and thereby satisfy the ETV QMP
requirements and conform to EPA's standard for environmental testing. This Test Plan has been prepared
to guide implementation of the test and to document planned test operations. Once testing is completed,
the GHG Center will prepare a Technology Verification Report and Verification Statement, which will
first be reviewed by NYSERDA and ECOTS. Once all comments are addressed, the report will be
reviewed by the EPA QA team. Once completed, the GHG Center Director and the EPA Laboratory
Director will sign the Verification Statement, and the final Report will be posted on the Web sites
maintained by the GHG Center (www.sri-rtp.com) and ETV program (www.epa.gov/etv).
1.2 AISIN SEIKI G60 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Aisin Seiki G60 6.0 kW natural gas fired engine cogeneration unit is a natural gas-fueled engine
driven generator from which excess heat is recovered for use on-site. This technology provides a
maximum 6.0 kW electrical output at 120v single phase in parallel with the utility supply. The engine is a
water-cooled 4-cycle, 3-cylinder overhead valve unit that drives a synchronous generator. Some of the waste heat
produced by the engine (approximately 46,000 Btu) is recovered from the exhaust gases and supplied to
an indirect fired water heater and storage system to provide first stage water heating for the host site's hot
water system. A heat transfer fluid (water for this system) is circulated through the Aisin heat recovery
system by an external circulation pump to provide heat for use in the facility. Table 1-1 summarizes the
physical and electrical specifications for the unit.
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. Aisin Seiki G60 Specifications
(Source: Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.)
Physical
Specifications
Electrical
Specifications
Width
Depth
Height
Weight
Electrical Input
Electrical Output
Engine Type
Generator Type
Power Generating Efficiency
Waste Heat Recovery Efficiency
1,100mm
660 mm
1,500 mm
465 kg
Interconnection of DC conversion + inverter
6.0 kW, 240 V, single phase, 2-wire
Water-cooled vertical 4-cycle 3-cylinder OHV
Permanent magnet rotating-field type synchronous
26.5 %
59.5 %
1.3 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The performance verification of the Aisin Seiki G60 will take place at Hooligans Bar and Grille in
Liverpool, New York. Hooligans is a sit-down restaurant and lounge with a seating capacity of 498
people. Being in upstate New York, the location provides a relatively cold climate at an altitude of
approximately 500 feet. Average daily ambient temperatures in Liverpool range from 14°F in January to
82°F in July. Electric service is provided by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation at 120/208v under
service classification T&D SC3. Hooligans' annual peak electrical demand is 119 kW.
The site uses natural gas delivered by Niagara Mohawk Gas for hot water, space heating, and cooking
utilities. Monthly thermal loads range from approximately 1,300 therms in summer months to over 2,500
therms per month in winter. The Aisin cogeneration unit is used to offset a small portion of the site's
electrical demand and at the same time provide first stage water heating for the site's hot water system.
The Aisin cogeneration unit is located outdoors at the rear of the facility on a concrete pad with weather
protection. Figure 1-1 shows the Aisin G60 as it is currently installed. It is fully integrated into the
facility's existing domestic hot water and electrical distribution systems. The output of the cogeneration
unit is 240v 60 Hz single phase. The restaurant has an 800 amp 120/208v three phase service.
Installation of the Aisin G60 required the addition of a 240 X 120v isolation transformer in order for the
restaurant service to properly accept the unit output. The connection was made to the phase with the
highest normal load, so as to bring the load into greater balance.
As part of the control system, current transformers (CTs) are located on the neutral and the unit's
connected phase. The output of these CTs are connected to the Aisin unit to monitor the power flow on
the phase and neutral to provide signaling that prevents the unit from exporting power to the grid. This
configuration causes all energy produced to be used on-site.
Prior to installation of the Aisin cogeneration unit, Hooligans used an 85 gallon gas-fired water heater to
provide hot water at 150 °F. The existing water heater is an A.O. Smith Master Fit Model BTR 365104
with a rated heat input of 365 MBtu/hr. The kitchen's dishwasher has an internal electric heater that
boosts water temperature to 185 °F for dish and silver washing. Installation of the Aisin cogeneration
unit required the addition of a 120-gallon Amtrol indirect water heater with a double walled heat
exchanger. The hot transfer fluid from the Aisin cogeneration unit is circulated through the Amtrol unit
by an external 10 gallon per minute (gpm) pump. Cold water supply flows into the Amtrol water heater,
1-3
-------
where it is preheated to approximately 140 °F. The preheated water is then routed to the existing water
heater, where it is further heated to approximately 150 °F.
Figure 1-1. Current Installation of Aisin G60 Cogeneration Unit at Hooligans
The hot water system is equipped with control circuits that interface with the storage tank aquastat and the
circulating pump control relay. A thermocouple inserted into the Amtrol water heater provides
temperature measurement for the aquastat. The unit is set for a cutout temperature of 140 °F, at which
point the control circuit shuts down the Aisin unit and disconnects it from the grid. When the water
heater temperature drops, the control circuit closes, causing the unit to restart and complete the
interconnection process. The system is designed to be load following and therefore seeks to deliver its
full capacity of 6.0 kW upon startup. This process is repeated throughout the day depending on hot water
demand.
1.4 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Figure 1-2 presents the project organization chart. The following section discusses functions,
responsibilities, and lines of communications for the verification test participants.
Southern's GHG Center has overall responsibility for planning and ensuring the successful
implementation of this verification test. The GHG Center will ensure that effective coordination occurs,
schedules are developed and adhered to, effective planning occurs, and high-quality independent testing
and reporting occur.
1-4
-------
Robert Wright
US EPA APPCD
QA Manager
1
Patrick Grady
O'Brien & Gere
Emissions Testing
1
1
1
1
i
--
David
Kirschgessner
US EPA APPCD
Project Officer
1
Burl McEndree
Empact Analytical
Fuel Analyses
Tim Hansen
GHG Center Director
Bill Ch
GHG
Project I
Staci t
"-- GHG
Field Tea
atterton
vlanager
teggis
Center
n Leader
Richard Adan
GHG Center
Manager
ison
QA
1 1
Kamyar Zadeh
ECOTS Project
Manager
1
Anthony Baleno
ECOTS Project
Engineer
Nag Patibandla
NYSERDA Project
Officer
Figure 1-2. Project Organization
Tim Hansen is the GHG Center Director. He will ensure the staff and resources are available to complete
this verification as defined in this Test Plan. He will review the Test Plan and Report to ensure they are
consistent with ETV operating principles. He will oversee the activities of the GHG Center staff, and
provide management support where needed. Mr. Hansen will sign the Verification Statement, along with
the EPA-ORD Laboratory Director.
Bill Chatterton will serve as the Project Manager for the GHG Center. His responsibilities include:
drafting the test plan and verification report;
overseeing the field team leader's data collection activities, and
ensuring that data quality objectives are met prior to completion of testing.
The project manager will have full authority to suspend testing should a situation arise that could affect
the health or safety of any personnel. He will also have the authority to suspend testing if the data quality
indicator goals are not being met. He may resume testing when problems are resolved in both cases. He
will be responsible for maintaining communication with ECOTS, NYSERDA, and EPA. He also
oversees and manages subcontractor activities and submittals.
Staci Haggis will serve as the Field Team Leader. Ms. Haggis will provide field support for activities
related to all measurements and data collected. She will install and operate the measurement instruments,
supervise and document activities conducted by the emissions testing contractor, collect gas samples and
coordinate sample analysis with the laboratory, and ensure that QA/QC procedures outlined in this test
plan are followed, including QA requirements for field subcontractors. She will submit all results to the
Project Manager, such that it can be determined that the DQOs are met.
Southern's QA Manager, Richard Adamson, is responsible for ensuring that all verification tests are
performed in compliance with the QA requirements of the GHG Center QMP, the GVP, and this test plan.
He has reviewed and is familiar with each of these documents. He will also review the verification test
results and ensure that applicable internal assessments are conducted as described in these documents. He
will reconcile the DQOs at the conclusion of testing and will conduct or supervise an audit of data quality.
1-5
-------
He is also responsible for review and validation of subcontractor activities, review of subcontractor
generated data, and confirmation that subcontractor QA/QC requirements are met. Mr. Adamson will
report all internal reviews, DQO reconciliation, the audit of data quality, and any corrective action results
directly to the GHG Center Director, who will provide copies to the project manager for corrective action
as applicable and citation in the final verification report. He will review and approve the final verification
report and statement. He is administratively independent from the GHG Center Director and maintains
stop work authority.
The verification will include the services of two subcontractors. Emissions testing will be conducted by
O'Brien & Gere, Inc. of Syracuse, New York with Patrick Grady serving as project manager. Fuel gas
analyses will be conducted by Empact Analytical of Brighton, Colorado under the management of Burl
McEndree.
Kamyar Zadeh and Anthony Baleno of ECOTS and Nag Patibandla of NYSERDA will serve as the
primary contact persons for the Aisin verification team. They will provide technical assistance, assist in
the installation of measurement instruments, and coordinate operation of the cogeneration system at the
test site. They will ensure the units are available and accessible to the GHG Center for the duration of the
test. They will also review the Test Plan and Reports and provide written comments.
EPA-ORD will provide oversight and QA support for this verification. The APPCD Project Officer, Dr.
David Kirchgessner, is responsible for obtaining final approval of the Test Plan and Report. The APPCD
QA Manager reviews and approves the Test Plan and the final Report to ensure they meet the GHG
Center QMP requirements and represent sound scientific practices.
1.5 SCHEDULE
The tentative schedule of activities for testing is:
Verification Test Plan Development
GHG Center Internal Draft Development March - April 29, 2005
NYSERDA and ECOTS Review/Revision May 2-31, 2005
EPA Review/Revision June 1 - 24, 2005
Final Test Plan Posted July 1, 2005
Verification Testing and Analysis
Measurement Instrument Installation/Shakedown July 5-8, 2005
Field Testing July 8 - 22, 2005
Data Validation and Analysis July 8 - 29, 2005
Verification Report Development
GHG Center Internal Draft Development July 23 - August 5, 2005
NYSERDA and ECOTS Review/Revision August 8-19, 2005
EPA Review/Revision August 22 - 31, 2005
Final Report Posted September 30, 2005
1-6
-------
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH
This performance verification will be conducted following the guidelines and procedures specified in the
GVP. This test plan includes site-specific information including the following:
Definition of the system under test (SUT) boundary for this verification - §2.1,
Summary of the Aisin Seiki verification parameters and references to the applicable
measurements, procedures, and calculations from the GVP - §2.2, and
Site specific instrumentation - §2.3.
Following the GVP, the verification will include evaluation of the Aisin system performance over a series
of controlled test periods. The GVP specifies controlled tests be conducted at three different engine loads
including 100, 75, and 50 percent of capacity. Because this unit is designed to operate at full load only,
an exception to the GVP is required. Tests will only be conducted while the unit operates at nominal 6
kW. Procedures related to the load tests are summarized in §2.2.6 of this test plan and detailed in §7.1
through §7.4 of the GVP. In addition to the controlled test periods, the GHG Center will collect sufficient
data to characterize the Aisin system's performance over normal facility operations. This will include up
to 1 week of continuous monitoring of fuel consumption, power generation, power quality, and heat
recovery rates.
2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARY
The Aisin Seiki verification will be limited to the performance of the system under test (SUT) within a
defined system boundary. Figure 2-1 illustrates the SUT boundary for this verification.
SUT Boundary
Figure 2-1. Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Cogeneration System Boundary Diagram
2-1
-------
The figure indicates two distinct boundaries. The device under test (DUT) or product boundary includes
the Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Cogeneration unit selected for this test including all of its internal components.
The SUT includes the DUT as well as the heat transfer fluid circulation pump, the only significant
external parasitic load on the system. Following the GVP, this verification will incorporate the system
boundary into the performance evaluation.
2.2 VERIFICATION PARAMETERS
The defined SUT will be tested to determine performance for the following verification parameters:
Electrical Performance
Electrical Efficiency
CHP Thermal Performance
Emissions Performance
NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets
Testing will be conducted at 100 percent of system capacity. The test sequences and durations will follow
the guidelines specified in GVP §1.3. There will be three separate one-hour test runs conducted.
Permissible measurement variability criteria for 1C engines presented in GVP §2.2.1 will apply to this
testing. In addition to these verification parameters, this verification will also include estimation of NOX
and greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions reductions realized through use of the cogeneration system at this
test location. The approach and methodology for these estimations are provided in §2.2.4 and Appendices
A and B of this test plan.
The following sections identify the sections of the protocol that are applicable to the verification
parameters for this test, identify site specific instrumentation for each (Table 2-1), and specify any
exceptions or deviations.
2.2.1 Electrical Performance (GVP §2.0)
Determination of electrical performance will be conducted following §2.0 and Appendix Dl.O of the
GVP. The following parameters will be measured:
Real power, kW
Apparent power, kVA
Reactive power, kVAR
Power factor, %
Voltage total harmonic distortion, %
Current total harmonic distortion, %
Frequency, Hz
Voltage, V
Current, A
The verification parameters will be measured with a digital power meter manufactured by Power
Measurements Ltd. (Model 7500 or 7600 ION). The meter scans all power parameters once per second
and computes and records one-minute averages. Test personnel will install the power meter on the Aisin
cogeneration unit. The meter will operate continuously, unattended, and will not require further
adjustments after installation. The rated accuracy of the power meter is ± 0.1 percent, and the rated
2-2
-------
accuracy of the current transformers (CTs) needed to employ the meter at this site is ± 1.0 percent.
Overall power measurement error is then ±1.0 percent.
2.2.2 Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0)
Determination of electrical efficiency will be conducted following §3.0 and Appendix D2.0 of the GVP.
The following parameters will be measured:
Real power production, kW
External parasitic load power consumption, kW
Ambient temperature, °F
Ambient barometric pressure, psia
Fuel LHV, Btu/scf
Fuel consumption, scfh
Real power production and external parasitic load consumption will be measured by the Power
Measurements Ltd. Digital power meter, as described in §2.2.1 above. Ambient temperature will be
recorded on the datalogger from a single Class A 4-wire RTD. The specified accuracy of the RTD will be
± 0.6 °F. Ambient barometric pressure will be measured by a Setra Model 280E ambient pressure sensor
with a full scale (FS) of 0 - 25 psia and an accuracy of ± 1% FS.
Gas flow will be measured by a Model 8C175 Series B3 Roots Meter manufactured by Dresser
Measurement with a specified accuracy of ± 1%. Gas temperature will be measured by a Class A 4-wire
platinum resistance temperature detector (RTD). The specified accuracy of the RTD is ± 0.6 °F. Gas
pressure will be measured by an Omega Model PX205 Pressure Transducer. The specified accuracy of
the pressure transducer is ± 0.25% of reading over a range of 0 - 30 psia. At least three gas samples will
be collected in 500 ml stainless steel canisters and shipped to subcontractor Empact Analytical of
Brighton, Colorado for LFfV analysis according to ASTM Method 1945. The QA Manager will confirm
that the subcontractor satisfies the required QA elements of the method.
The external parasitic load introduced by the heat transfer fluid circulation pump will be monitored using
a second digital power meter manufactured by Power Measurements Ltd. (Model 7500 or 7600 ION).
Meter specifications and accuracy will be the same as those for the power meter described in §2.2.1
above.
2.2.3 CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0)
Determination of CHP thermal performance will be conducted following §4.0 and Appendix D3.0 of the
GVP. The following parameters will be quantified:
Thermal performance in heating service, Btu/h
Thermal efficiency in heating service, %
Actual SUT efficiency in heating service as the sum of electrical and thermal efficiencies, %
To quantify these parameters, heat recovery rate will be measured throughout the verification. This
verification will employ an Omega Model FTB-905 flow meter with a nominal linear range of 2.5 - 29
gpm. An Omega Model FSLC-64 transmitter will amplify the flow meter's pulse output. An Agilent /
HP Model 34970A will totalize and log the pulse output. Accuracy of this system will be ± 1.0 % of
reading. The nominal K factor for the flow meter is 1035 pulses per gallon, but a pretest calibration will
document actual average K factor. Class A 4-wire platinum resistance temperature detectors (RTD) will
2-3
-------
be used to determine the transfer fluid supply and return temperatures. The specified accuracy of the
RTDs, including an Agilent / HP Model 34970A datalogger, is ± 0.6 °F. Pretest calibrations will
document the RTD performance.
2.2.4 Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0)
Determination of emissions performance will be conducted following §5.0 and Appendix D4.0 of the
GVP. This verification will include emissions of NOX, CO, CO2, CFL,, and THC. The verification will
not include emissions of SO2 or acoustic emissions performance. Emissions testing will be performed by
subcontractor O'Brien & Gere, Inc. of Syracuse, New York. A fully equipped mobile emissions testing
laboratory will be transported to the facility to conduct the EPA Reference Methods emission testing.
The field team leader will confirm that the subcontractor satisfies the required QA elements of the
methods. Proposed analytical ranges for the gas analyzers are listed in Table 2-1. Results for each
pollutant will be reported in units of ppm, ppm corrected to 15% O2, Ib/h, and Ib/kWh.
2.2.5 Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation
Field test procedures will follow the guidelines and procedures detailed in the following sections of the
GVP:
Electrical performance - §7.1
Electrical efficiency - §7.2
CHP thermal performance - §7.3
Emissions performance - §7.4
Load tests will be conducted as three one-hour test replicates at a cogeneration power command of
approximately 6.0 kW. Hot water will be dumped as needed to maintain demand and allow the Aisin unit
to operate over the entire test period.
In addition to the controlled tests, system performance will be monitored continuously for a period of
approximately one week while the unit operates under normal Hooligans facility operations. The Aisin
unit will be allowed to cycle on and off during this period depending on facility demand. Continuous
measurements will be recorded during the entire period including:
Power output,
Power quality parameters,
Fuel consumption (gas flow, pressure, and temperature),
Heat recovery rate (transfer fluid flow, supply temperature, and return temperature),
Heat transfer fluid circulation pump power consumption, and
Ambient conditions (temperature and pressure).
Using these data, the GHG Center can evaluate Aisin system performance and usage rates for Hooligans
under typical facility operations.
Site specific measurement instrumentation is summarized in Table 2-1. The location of the
instrumentation relative to the SUT is illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. All measurement
instrumentation meets the GVP specifications.
2-4
-------
Table 2-1. Site Specific Instrumentation for Aisin Seiki Cogeneration System Verification
Verification
Parameter
Electrical
Performance
Electrical
Efficiency
CHP Thermal
Performance
Emissions
Performance
Supporting Measurement
Real power
Apparent power
Reactive power
Power factor
Voltage THD
Current THD
Frequency
Voltage
Current
Ambient temperature
Barometric pressure
Parasitic load
Gas flow
Gas pressure
Gas temperature
Transfer fluid flow
Transfer fluid supply temp.
Transfer fluid return temp.
NOX concentration
CO concentration
CO2 concentration
O2 concentration
THC concentration
CFL, concentration
Expected Range of
Measurement
0.0 - 6.0 kW
0.0 - 6.3 kVA
0.0 - 0.3 kVAR
90-100%
0- 100%
0- 100%
58 -62 Hz
120V
12 -25 A
40 - 80 °F
14.5- 15.0 psia
200 W
0 - 70 cfh
15-20 psia
30-80°F
8-12 gpm
140- 160 °F
120- 140 °F
2-20 ppmv
10 - 50 ppmv
5-10 %
8-15 %
10 - 50 ppmv
10 - 50 ppmv
Instrument
Power Measurements Ltd. ION
power meter (Model 7600 or
7500)
Omega Class A 4-wire RTD
Setra Model 280E
ION power meter (Model 7600 or
7500)
Model 8C175 Roots Meter
Omega PX205 Pressure
Transducer
Omega Class A 4-wire RTD
Omega Model FTB-905 turbine
meter
Omega Class A 4-wire RTD
Omega Class A 4-wire RTD
Chemilumine scence
(NDIR)-gas filter correlation
NDIR
Paramagnetic or electrochemical
cell
Flame ionization detector (FID)
Gas chromatograph with FID
Instrument
Range
0 - 260 kW
0 - 260 kVA
0 - 260 kVAR
0 - 100 %
0 - 100 %
0 - 100 %
57 - 63 Hz
0 - 600 V
0 - 400 A
0 - 250 °F
0-25 psia
0 - 260 kW
0 - 800 cfh
0-30 psia
0 - 250 °F
2.5 - 29 gpm
0 - 250 °F
0 - 250 °F
0-25 ppmv
0- 100 ppmv
0-20 %
0-25 %
0- 100 ppmv
0- 100 ppmv
Instrument
Accuracy
± 1% of reading
±1% of reading
± 1% of reading
± 0.5% of reading
±1%FS
± 1%FS
±0.01% of reading
± 1% of reading
± 1% of reading
±0.6°F
±0.1%FS
± 1% of reading
± 1% of reading
±0.25% of reading
±0.6°F
± 1.0% of reading
±0.6°F
±0.6°F
± 2% FS
± 2% FS
± 2% FS
± 2% FS
± 2% FS
± 2% FS
2-5
-------
EPS
Facility Wiring
AisinG60 6.0 kWCHP Unit
Figure 2-2. Position of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System
Amtrol Indirect HW Heater
Figure 2-3. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System
2-6
-------
2.2.6 Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets
This verification parameter is not included in the GVP, so the approach and procedures to be used in this
verification are described here. Use of the Aisin cogeneration system at this facility will change the NOX
and CO2 emission rates associated with the operation of the Hooligans facility. Annual emission offsets
for these pollutants will be estimated and reported by subtracting emissions of the on-site CHP unit from
emissions associated with baseline electrical power generation technology and baseline hot water heating
equipment.
Appendix A provides the procedure for estimating emission reductions resulting from electrical
generation. The procedure correlates the estimated annual electricity savings in MWh with New York
and nationwide electric power system emission rates in Ib/MWh. For this verification, analysts will
assume that the Aisin system generates power at a rate similar to that recorded during the 1 week
verification monitoring period throughout the entire year.
Appendix B provides the procedure for estimating emission reductions resulting from heat recovered by
the Aisin system. The amount of heat recovered and used for water heating offsets an equivalent amount
of energy that would otherwise be consumed by the facility's baseline heating system (the gas-fired water
heater). Therefore, emissions from the baseline water heater's burners associated with the equivalent
amount of heat produced by the Aisin cogeneration unit are eliminated. The procedure estimates the
amount of gas that would be consumed by the water heater based on the amount of heat recovered by the
cogen unit, and applies NOX and CO2 emission factors to that estimate. As with the offsets attributable to
power generation, analysts will assume that the Aisin system provides heat to the facility throughout the
entire year at a rate similar to that recorded during the 1 week verification monitoring period.
2-7
-------
3.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Under the ETV program, the GHG Center specifies data quality objectives (DQOs) for each verification
parameter before testing commences as a statement of data quality. The DQOs for this verification were
developed based on past DG/CHP verifications conducted by the GHG Center, input from EPA's ETV
QA reviewers, and input from both the GHG Centers' executive stakeholders groups and industry
advisory committees. As such, test results meeting the DQOs will provide an acceptable level of data
quality for technology users and decision makers. The DQOs for electrical and CHP performance are
quantitative, as determined using a series of measurement quality objectives (MQOs) for each of the
measurements that contribute to the parameter determination:
Verification Parameter DQO (relative uncertainty)
Electrical Performance ±2.0 %
Electrical Efficiency ±2.5 %
CHP Thermal Efficiency ±3.5 %
Each test measurement that contributes to the determination of a verification parameter has stated MQOs,
which, if met, ensure achievement of that parameter's DQO. This verification is based on the GVP which
contains MQOs including instrument calibrations, QA/QC specifications, and QC checks for each
measurement used to support the verification parameters being evaluated. Details regarding the
measurement MQOs are provided in the following sections of the GVP:
Electrical Performance Data Validation
Electrical Efficiency Data Validation
CHP Performance Data Validation
The DQO for emissions is qualitative in that the verification will produce emission rate data that satisfies
the QC requirements contained in the EPA Reference Methods specified for each pollutant. The
verification report will provide sufficient documentation of the QA/QC checks to evaluate whether the
qualitative DQO was met. Details regarding the measurement MQOs for emissions are provided in the
following section of the GVP:
§ 8.4 Emissions Data Validation
Completeness goals for this verification is to obtain valid data for 90 percent of the test periods
(controlled test period and extended monitoring).
3-8
-------
4.0 DATA ACQUISITION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
4.1 DATA ACQUISITION AND DOCUMENTATION
Test personnel will acquire the following electronic data and generate the following documentation
during the verification:
Electronic Data
Electronic data will be monitored for the following measurements:
power output and power quality parameters
parasitic load of the circulation pump
fuel flow, pressure, and temperature
transfer fluid flow, supply temperature, and return temperature
ambient temperature and barometric pressure
The two ION power meters will poll their sensors once per second. They will then calculate and record
one-minute averages throughout all tests. The field team leader will download the one-minute data
directly to a laptop computer during the short-term tests. GHG Center personnel will download the data
by telephone during the long term monitoring period.
An Agilent / HP Model 34970A datalogger will record all of the temperature, pressure, and flow meter
data once every 5 seconds. The field team leader will download the data directly during short-term tests
while GHG Center will download the data by telephone during the long term monitoring period. Analysts
will use Excel spreadsheet routines to calculate one-minute averages from the 5-second snapshots.
The electronically-recorded one-minute averages (except for the manually-logged water system pressure
data) will be the source data for all calculated results.
Documentation
Printed or written documentation will be recorded on the log forms provided in Appendix B of the GVP
and will include:
Daily test log, including water system pressure data, starting and ending times for test
runs, notes, etc.
Appendix A forms which show the results of QA / QC checks
Copies of calibrations and manufacturers' certificates
The GHG Center will archive all electronic data, paper files, analyses, and reports at their Research
Triangle Park, NC office in accordance with their quality management plan.
4.1.1 Corrective Action and Assessment Reports
A corrective action will occur if audits or QA / QC checks produce unsatisfactory results or upon major
deviations from this test plan. Immediate corrective action will enable quick response to improper
procedures, malfunctioning equipment, or suspicious data. The corrective action process involves the
4-1
-------
field team leader, project manager, and QA Manager. The GHG Center QMP requires that test personnel
submit a written corrective action request to document each corrective action.
The field team leader will most frequently identify the need for corrective actions. In such cases, he or
she will immediately notify the project manager. The field team leader, project manager, QA Manager
and other project personnel, will collaborate to take and document the appropriate actions.
Note that the project manager is responsible for project activities. He is authorized to halt work upon
determining that a serious problem exists. The field team leader is responsible for implementing
corrective actions identified by the project manager and is authorized to implement any procedures to
prevent a problem's recurrence.
4.2 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION
The project manager will initiate the data review, validation, and analysis process. At this stage, analysts
will classify all collected data as valid, suspect, or invalid. The GHG Center will employ the QA/QC
criteria specified in Section 3.0 and the associated tables. Source materials for data classification include
factory and on-site calibrations, maximum calibration and other errors, subcontractor deliverables, etc.
In general, valid data results from measurements which:
meet the specified QA/QC checks, including subcontractor requirements,
were collected when an instrument was verified as being properly calibrated, and
are consistent with reasonable expectations (e.g., manufacturers' specifications,
professional judgment).
The report will incorporate all valid data. Analysts may or may not consider suspect data, or it may
receive special treatment as will be specifically indicated. If the DQO cannot be met, the project manager
will decide to continue the test, collect additional data, or terminate the test and report the data obtained.
Data review and validation will primarily occur at the following stages:
on site ~ by the field team leader,
upon receiving subcontractor deliverables,
before writing the draft report ~ by the project manager, and
during draft report QA review and audits ~ by the GHG Center QA Manager.
The field team leader's primary on-site functions will be to install and operate the test equipment. He will
review, verify, and validate certain data (QA / QC check results, etc.) during testing. The log forms in
Appendix B of the GVP provide the detailed information he will gather.
The QA Manager will use this test plan and documented test methods as references with which to review
and validate the data and the draft report. He will review and audit the data in accordance with the GHG
Center's quality management plan. For example, the QA Manager will randomly select raw data,
including data generated and submitted by subcontractors, and independently calculate the verification
parameters. The comparison of these calculations with the results presented in the draft report will yield
an assessment of the GHG Center's QA/QC procedures.
4-2
-------
4.3 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES, CONSUMABLES, AND SERVICES
The procurement of purchased items and services that directly affect the quality of environmental
programs defined by this TQAP will be planned and controlled to ensure that the quality of the items and
services is known, documented, and meets the technical requirements and acceptance criteria herein. For
this verification, this includes services provided by Empact Analytical for fuel analyses and O'Brien &
Gere, Inc. for emissions testing services.
Procurement documents shall contain information clearly describing the item or service needed and the
associated technical and quality requirements. The procurement documents will specify the quality
system elements of the GVP for which the supplier is responsible and how the supplier's conformity to the
customer's requirements will be verified.
Procurement documents shall be reviewed for accuracy and completeness by the project manager and QA
manager as noted in Sections 1.4 and 4.2. Changes to procurement documents will receive the same level
of review and approval as the original documents. Appropriate measures will be established to ensure
that the procured items and services satisfy all stated requirements and specifications.
4.4 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES RECONCILIATION
A fundamental component of all verifications is the reconciliation of the collected data with its DQO. In
this case, the DQO assessment consists of evaluation of whether the stated methods were followed,
MQOs achieved, and overall accuracy is as specified in the GVP. The field team leader and project
manager will initially review the collected data to ensure that they are valid and are consistent with
expectations. They will assess the data's accuracy and completeness as they relate to the stated QA / QC
goals. If this review of the test data show that QA / QC goals were not met, then immediate corrective
action may be feasible, and will be considered by the project manager. DQOs will be reconciled after
completion of corrective actions. As part of the internal audit of data quality, the GHG Center QA
Manager will include an assessment of DQO attainment.
4.5 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The field team leader, project manager, QA Manager, GHG Center Director, and technical peer-reviewers
will assess the project and the data's quality as the test campaign proceeds. The project manager and QA
Manager will independently oversee the project and assess its quality through project reviews, inspections
if needed, and an audit of data quality.
4.5.1 Project Reviews
The project manager will be responsible for conducting the first complete project review and assessment.
Although all project personnel are involved with ongoing data review, the project manager must ensure
that project activities meet measurement and DQO requirements. The project manager is also responsible
for maintaining document versions, managing the review process, and ensuring that updated versions are
provided to reviewers and tracked.
The GHG Center Director will perform the second project review. The director is responsible for
ensuring that the project's activities adhere to the ETV program requirements and stakeholder
expectations. The GHG Center Director will also ensure that the field team leader has the equipment,
personnel, and resources to complete the project and to deliver data of known and defensible quality.
4-3
-------
The QA Manager will perform the third review. He is responsible for ensuring that the project's
management systems function as required by the quality management plan. The QA Manager is the GHG
Center's final reviewer, and he is responsible for ensuring the achievement of all QA requirements.
ECOTS and NYSERDA personnel will then review the report. ECOTS will also have the opportunity to
insert supplemental unverified information or comments into a dedicated report section.
The GHG Center will submit the draft report to EPA QA personnel, and the project manager will address
their comments as needed. Following this review, the report will undergo EPA management reviews,
including the GHG Center Director, EPA ORD Laboratory Director, and EPA Technical Editor.
4.5.2 Test/QA Plan Implementation Assessment
The GHG Center has previously conducted numerous internal technical systems audits (TSAs) of the
methods and procedures proposed for this verification and will therefore not repeat a TSA for this test.
However, the GHG Center QA Manager or designee will conduct a readiness review and observe and
document a pre-test assessment and bench test of the measurements system including the following
systems:
flow meters, transmitter, and datalogger
temperature and pressure sensors and datalogger
power consumption meters
During the assessment, the QA Manager will verify that the equipment, procedures, and calibrations are
as specified in this test plan. Should the QA Manager note any deficiencies in the implementation of the
test plan, corrective actions will be immediately implemented by the project manager. The QA Manager
will document this assessment in a separate report to the GHG Center Director.
EPA QA management is planning to conduct an external TSA on this verification which will include on-
site assessment of the equipment, procedures, and calibrations.
4.5.3 Audit of Data Quality
The audit of data quality is an evaluation of the measurement, processing, and data analysis steps to
determine if systematic errors are present. The QA Manager, or designee, will randomly select
approximately 10 percent of the data. He will follow the selected data through analysis and data
processing. This audit is intended to verify that the data-handling system functions correctly and to assess
analysis quality. The QA Manager will also include an assessment of DQO attainment.
The QA Manager will route audit results to the project manager for review, comments, and possible
corrective actions. The ADQ will result in a memorandum summarizing the results of custody tracing, a
study of data transfer and intermediate calculations, and review of the QA/QC data. The ADQ report will
include conclusions about the quality of the data from the project and their fitness for the intended use.
The project manager will take any necessary corrective action needed and will respond by addressing the
QA Manager's comments in the verification report.
4-4
-------
4.6 VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT
The report will summarize each verification parameter's results as discussed in Section 2.0 and will
contain sufficient raw data to support findings and allow others to assess data trends, completeness, and
quality. The report will clearly characterize the verification parameters, their results, and supporting
measurements as determined during the test campaign. It will present raw data and/or analyses as tables,
charts, or text as is best suited to the data type. The report will also contain a Verification Statement,
which is a 3 to 5 page document summarizing the technology, the test strategy used, and the verification
results obtained.
The project manager will submit the draft report and Verification Statement to the QA Manager and
GHG Center Director for review. A preliminary outline of the report is as follows:
Preliminary Outline
Aisin Seiki 6.0 kWNatural Gas Fired Cogeneration Unit Verification Report
Verification Statement
Section 1.0: Verification Test Design and Description
Description of the ETV program
Aisin Seiki System and Host Facility Description
Overview of the Verification Parameters and Evaluation Strategies
Section 2.0: Results
electrical performance
electrical efficiency
CHP performance
atmospheric emissions
NOX and CO2 emission offsets
Section 3.0: Data Quality
Section 4.0: Additional Technical and Performance Data Supplied by ECOTS (optional)
Section 5.0: References
Appendices: Raw Verification or Other Data
4.7 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS
This test does not require specific training or certification beyond that required internally by the test
participants for their own activities. The GHG Center's project manager has approximately 20 years
experience in field testing of air emissions from many types of sources and will directly oversee field
activities. He is familiar with the test methods and standard requirements that will be used in the
verification test.
The field team leader has performed numerous field verifications under the ETV program, and is familiar
with EPA and GHG Center quality management plan requirements. The QA Manager is an
4-5
-------
independently appointed individual whose responsibility is to ensure the GHG Center's conformance with
the EPA approved QMP.
4.8 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
This section applies to GHG Center personnel only. Other organizations involved in the project have
their own health and safety plans which are specific to their roles in the project.
GHG Center staff will comply with all known host, state/local and Federal regulations relating to safety at
the test facility. This includes use of personal protective gear (such as safety glasses, hard hats, hearing
protection, safety toe shoes) as required by the host and completion of site safety orientation.
4-6
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing Protocol, DG/CHP Version,
Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions, Madison, WI, October
2004.
[2] Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 1999, Annex A: Methodology for
Estimating Emissions ofCO2from Fossil Fuel Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA 23 6-R-01-001, Washington, DC, 2001.
[3] DAP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors - Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area
Sources, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Washington, DC, 1995.
5-1
-------
Appendix A
Electric Power System Emissions Reduction Estimates
The verification report will provide estimated emissions reductions (or increases) as compared to
aggregated electric power system (EPS) emission rates for the state in which the apparatus is located
(New York for this verification). The report will also include estimated reductions based on aggregated
nationwide emission rates. Analysts will employ the methods described in this Appendix.
A DG asset or power-saving device, when connected to the EPS, will change the overall EPS emissions
signature. As an example, a zero-emission generator, such as a hydroelectric power plant, will decrease
EPS CO2 emissions on a Ib/MWh basis. The potential emissions reduction (or increase) for DG is the
difference between the EPS and DG emission rates, multiplied by the expected power generation or
savings rate:
Reduction^ = (EREPS:i - ERDO:i) *MWhDO:Ann Eqn. Al
Where:
Reduction; = annual reduction for pollutant i, pounds per year (Ib/y)
EREPS; = EPS emission rate for pollutant i (see below), pounds per megawatt-hour
(Ib/MWh)
ERoG.i = DG emissions rate for pollutant i, Ib/MWh
MWhDG Ann = annual estimated DG power production or device-based power savings,
megawatt-hours per year (MWh/y)
The potential emissions reduction for a power savings device is simply:
Reduction = EREPS:i *MWhDevice,Ann Eqn. A2
Values for ERDG,i are available from the performance verification results. Estimated MWhDG,Ann or
MWhDevice A should also be available from the verification results. This estimate depends on the specific
verification strategy and its derivation should be clearly described in the test plan and verification results.
A simple example is the power production or power savings multiplied by the annual availability or
capacity factor. For example, a 200 kW fuel cell which operates at full capacity 75 percent of the time
can be expected to generate 1314 MWh annually.
EREPS; for specific pollutants can vary widely because the EPS may obtain its power from many different
generators. The generation mix can change dramatically from hour to hour, depending on market forces,
system operations, wheeling practices, emergencies, maintenance, and other factors. Many different
approaches have been suggested for estimating EREPS15 but no consensus has been achieved.
The following estimation methodology is simple, it uses peer-reviewed carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen
oxide (NOX), mercury (Hg), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) data available from the US Environmental
Protection Agency's "EGRID" database, and it provides some analysis flexibility.
EGRID is available from www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/download.htm. At this writing, data is
available through 2000. The example presented here is for a generator located in Florida, but this
procedure can be used for any state. Data through 2003 will likely be available in late 2005. Figure A-l
shows the introductory screen prompts which provide year 2000 emission rates for Florida.
C-l
-------
Si eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 -Main Selection Screen [7] fx"
File Search Filters Import/Export Interchange
Aggregation Level
P« Plant Sea[ch
ft Slate Filte's
r- Electric Generating
Company (EGC)
r US Total
Grid Regions:
(" NERC Region
I eGRID Subregion Data Yeai
'"' Power Control Area (PCA) [~2000 ~^\
| Find | Reset 3 Display
Data
&EBV eGRID He,P|
xx Select One or Multiple Entities KK
Slates
ALABAMA (AL)
ALASKA (AK)
ARIZONA (AZ)
ARKANSAS (ARl
CALIFORNIA (CAl
COLORADO (CO)
CONNECTICUT (CT)
DELAWARE (DE)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA(DC)
GEORGIA (GA)
HAWAII (HI)
IDAHO (ID)
ILLINOIS (IL)
INDIANA (IN)
IOWA (I A)
KANSAS (KS)
KENTUCKY (KY)
LOUISIANA (LA)
MAINE (ME)
MARYLAND [MD]
MASSACHUSETTS (MA)
MICHIGAN (Ml)
MINNESOTA (MN)
MISSISSIPPI (MS)
MISSOURI (MO)
MONTANA (MT)
NEBRASKA (NE)
NEVADA (NV)
Figure A-l. Example Aggregated Emissions Introductory Screen
Double-clicking the state of interest brings up the emissions data, as shown in Figure A-2.
ft eGRID 2002PC, Version
1 01 St ITH 1 PVP! Data
State: | FLORIDA
Capacity . He<
(MW): 1 46,041.1 (
Emissions Profile
Help Previous
vIMBtuj: I 1,616,637,109 [MWhj: 1 191,906,639 U| Data Year: 1 2000 ^J
generation Resource MiK ^tate Import/Enport Data
(Display emission!
; rates for fossil, :
i coal/oil/gas :
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Emissions (tons) Output Rate (Ibs/MWh) Input Rate (Ibs/MMRtu)
Annual C02
Annual S02 \~
Annual NOX
136,293,930.61 1,420.42 168.61
579,623.25 |~~ 6.04 | 0.72
322,813.74 | 3.36 | 0.40
Annual HIJ ft | 2,499.63 | 0.0130 | 0.0016
tt Annual mercury (Hg) emissions are in Ibs; Hg emission rates are in Ibs/GWh and Ibs/EEtu.
Figure A-2. Example EPS Emission Rates for 2000
C-2
-------
Figure A-3 provides the nationwide emission rates for 2000.
eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 - United States Level Data
IIUNITED STATES
Help Previous
Next |
Capacity
Heat Input
Generation
(MW): 1864,305.7 (MMBlu): I 23,221,854,377 (MWh): 3,810,305,466
Emissions Profile
Generation Resource Mix
IJ.S. Generation and Consumption
Data
Display emission
rates for fossil,
coal/oil/gas
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Emissions (tons)
Annual C02 | 2,652,301,442.24
Annual S02 | 11,513,033.84
Annual NOX
Annual Hg It
Output Rate [Ibs/MWh] Input Rate (Ibs/MMBtu)
I
1,332.43
I
181.57
6.04
0.73
5,644,353.87
2.36
0.33
103,554.66
i
0.0272
I
0.0035
8 Annual mercury (Hg) emissions are in Ibs; Hg emission rates are in Ibs/GWh and Ibs/BBtu.
Figure A-3. Nationwide Emission Rates
These results form the basis for comparison. Table A-l provides emissions offsets estimates for a
hypothetical 200 kW fuel cell located in Florida.
Table A-l. Example Fuel Cell Emissions Offsets Estimates
Pollutant
EREPS (from EGRID),
Ib/MWh
ERDG (from
verification tests),
Ib/MWh
EREPS - ERDG, Ib/MWh
DG capacity, kW
Estimated availability
or capacity factor
MWhDaAm
Emission offset, Ib/y
Florida
C02
1420
1437
-17°
NOX
3.36
0.13
3.23
200
75%
1314
-22400
4250
Nationwide
C02
1392
1437
-45°
NOX
2.96
0.13
2.83
200
75%
1314
-59130
3720
"Negative numbers represent an increase over the EPS emission rate
Note that this fuel cell increases the overall EPS CO2 emission rate if electricity generation alone is
considered. The increased CO2 emissions in this example would be balanced by the fuel cell's heat or
chilling power production if it is in combined chilling / heat and power (CHP) service. Each verification
test plan must provide a specific accounting methodology for electricity production and CHP utilization
because it is impossible to consider all the permutations here. The simplest case, that the unit really
C-3
-------
operates at a constant power output, predictable availability (or capacity factor), and that all the heat
produced is actually used, is not necessarily true for every installation. Also, the CHP application may
displace units fired by various fuels (electricity, heating oil, natural gas, etc.) with their own efficiencies
and emission factors. Each verification strategy should explicitly discuss these considerations as part of
the specific emissions offset calculation.
It is useful, however, to continue this example. Assume that the fuel cell provides a constant 800,000
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) to a domestic hot water system, thus displacing an electric-powered
boiler. This heat production is equivalent to 234 kW, which would require approximately 239 kW of
electricity from the EPS at 0.98 water heating efficiency (source: ASHRAE Standard 118.1-2003, § 9.1).
The fuel cell would therefore save approximately 15700 MWh annually at 75 percent capacity factor.
Table A-2 shows the resulting emissions offsets estimates.
Table A-2. Example CHP Emissions Offsets Estimates
Pollutant
EREPS (from EGRID),
Ib/MWh
ERDG (from
verification tests),
Ib/MWh
EREPS - ERDG, Ib/MWh
DG capacity, kW
Estimated availability
or capacity factor
MWhDaAm
Emission offset, Ib/y
Florida
CO2
1420
0"
1420
NOX
3.36
0"
3.36
239"
75%
15700
2.23 xlO7
(11 100 tons)
52800
(26.4 tons)
Nationwide
CO2
1392
0"
1392
NOX
2.96
0"
2.96
239"
75%
15700
2.19xl07
(10900 tons)
46500
(23.2 tons)
"Emissions are zero here because the electricity production offset estimate included them.
*Based on the power required to run an electric-fired boiler at 98 % water heating efficiency.
In this CHP application, the fuel cell represents a considerable net annual CO2 emissions reduction for
New York of 2.23 x 107 Ib/y.
This approach is generally conservative because it does not include transmission and distribution (T&D)
losses. T&D losses vary between approximately 3 to 8 percent depending on dispatch practices, the unit's
location with respect to the EPS generator actually being displaced, and other factors. This means that
100 kW of energy at the DG unit's terminals will actually displace between 103 and 109 kW (and the
associated emissions) at the EPS generator.
EGRID provides numerous other aggregation options, and the reader may wish to conduct other
comparisons, such as for a particular utility, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) region,
or control area.
C-4
-------
Appendix B
Heat Recovery System Emissions Reduction Estimates
For each Btu of thermal energy recovered by the CHP system (and used by the host facility), an
equivalent amount of energy is no longer needed from the baseline gas-fired burners in the existing water
heater. At many CHP applications, estimation of emission reductions resulting from CHP systems is
fairly straightforward provided all of the recovered heat can be utilized throughout the year. When this is
the case, the first step then in estimating the burners' avoided emissions is to measure the maximum CHP
heat recovery rate at full load. These heat rates (MMBtu/hr) combined with the projected annual
operating hours at this load factor allows the estimation of annual heat recovered. This heat recovery
from the unit (assuming constant full heat demand) will be calculated as shown in Bl and reported as a
reference value.
QcHp,Ann=QCHp*h*60 (Eqn.Bl)
Where:
QcHp,Ann = maximum total CHP heat recovered (MMBtu/yr)
QCHP = CHP heat recovery rate at 100 percent load factor (MMBtu/min)
h = projected (or proven) operating hours at 100 percent
For this verification, CHP emissions offsets associated with use of CHP thermal energy will be estimated
based on the heat delivered to the Amtrol water heater through the fluid recirculation loop. As shown in
Equation B2 and described below, projected heat use at the Hooligans site will be used to estimate
emissions reductions specific to the installed application. The CO2 and NOX emission rates, combined
with the avoided heat input to the primary water heater burners yields the potential burner emissions
eliminated by use of the CHP system:
EBURNERS = QBURNERS * ERBurners (Eqn. B2)
Where:
EBURNERS = potential annual burner emissions offset, Ib/yr
QBURNERS = avoided heat input to the burners, MMBtu/yr
ERsumers = estimated gas burner emission rates; Ib/MMBtu CO2 and Ib/MMBtu NOX
Analysts will use the EBURNERS estimate, along with emission offsets from the electrical grid (Appendix
A), to calculate the overall potential annual GHG emission reductions. Using the projected annual heat
input offset (QBURNERS above), calculation of emission offsets due to heat use is as follows. The carbon in
the natural gas, when combusted, forms CO2. The resulting CO2 emission rate is:
ERBumersco2 = [^ * (CC) * (FO)/E] (Eqn. B3)
Where:
EReurnerscca = burners CO2 emission rate, (Ib/MMBtu)
44 = molecular weight of CO2 (Ib/lb.mol)
12 = molecular weight of carbon (Ib/lb.mol)
CC = measured fuel carbon content
(approx. 31.9 Ib/MMBtu) [2]
FO = 0.995; Fraction of fuel carbon oxidized during combustion [2]
E = burner efficiency
C-5
-------
The EPA has compiled emission factors for natural gas burners in AP-42 [3]. Burners such as those used
in the water heater are categorized as similar to commercial boilers under 100 MMBtu/hr heat input. The
NOX emission factor for such units is listed as 100 lb/106 scf of natural gas. The LHV for the natural gas
used at the host facility is expected to be approximately 950 Btu/scf. This means that 106 scf of natural
gas will supply approximately 950 MMBtu of heat to the burners. The resulting NOX emission rate is
expected to be approximately 100/950 or 0.1053 Ib/MMBtu.
C-6
------- |