SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Environmental
Technology
Verification Report
Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Natural Gas-Fired
Engine Cogeneration Unit
Prepared by:
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
Affiliated wiln tne
University of Alabama at Birmingham
X-/EPA
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Operated by
Southern Research Institute
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
MY5ERDA
Under Agreement With
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-VR-37
September 2005
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
\Xd / V
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IWHHM1A INSTITUTE
Affiliated witr the
University of Alabama at Birmingham
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: Gas-Fired Internal Combustion Engine Combined
With Heat Recovery System
APPLICATION: Distributed Electrical Power and Heat Generation
Using Aisin Seiki Cogeneration Unit
TECHNOLOGY NAME: Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW Natural Gas-Fired Cogeneration
Unit
COMPANY: Aisin Seiki Co., LTD.
ADDRESS: Aichi, Japan
WEB ADDRESS: www.aisin.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and
cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data
on technology performance to those involved in the purchase, design, distribution, financing, permitting,
and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups that
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of technologies by developing test plans
that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests, collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and
that the results are defensible.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center), one of six verification organizations under the
ETV program, is operated by Southern Research Institute in cooperation with EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. A technology of interest to GHG Center stakeholders is distributed
generation (DG) sources, especially when they include combined heat and power (CHP) capabilities. The
S-l
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
improved efficiency of DG/CHP systems make them a viable complement to traditional power generation
technologies.
The GHG Center collaborated with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to evaluate the performance of an Aisin Seiki G60 6.0 kilowatt (kW) natural gas fired
engine cogeneration unit manufactured by Aisin Seiki Co., LTD in Aichi, Japan. The Aisin Seiki G60 is
an internal combustion engine generator set capable of producing nominal 6 kW of electrical power with
the potential to produce an additional 13 kW of heat. The G60 selected for this verification is owned by
the manufacturer and operated at Hooligans Bar and Grille in Liverpool, New York. 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 Hooligans.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is based on information provided by Aisin and ECOTS and does
not represent verified information. 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 thousand Btu
per hour (MBtu/h)] is recovered from engine coolant and 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. Heat transfer fluid is circulated through the Aisin heat recovery system by an external circulation
pump to provide heat for use in the facility. Table S-l summarizes the physical and electrical
specifications for the unit.
Table S-l. Aisin Seiki G60 Specifications
(Source: Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.)
Physical
Specifications
Electrical
Specifications
Width
Depth
Height
Weight
Electrical Input
Electrical Output at Hooligans
Engine Type
Generator Type
Rated Power Generating Efficiency
Rated Waste Heat Recovery Efficiency
1,100mm
660 mm
1,500 mm
465 kg
Interconnection of AC/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
26.5%
59.5%
At Hooligans, the Aisin G60 is integrated into the facility's existing domestic hot water and electrical
distribution systems. The output of the cogeneration unit is 120/240v, 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
120/240 to 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.
S-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
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/h. 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 (in this case water) 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, 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.
VERIFICATION DESCRIPTION
Field testing was conducted from July 10 through July 21, 2005. The defined system under test (SUT)
was tested to determine performance for the following verification parameters:
• Electrical performance
• Electrical efficiency
• CHP thermal performance
• Atmospheric emissions performance
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission offsets
The verification included a series of controlled test periods on July 20 and 21 in which the GHG Center
maintained steady system operations for 3 one-hour test periods to evaluate electrical and CHP efficiency
and emissions performance. The controlled tests were preceded by a 10-day period of continuous
monitoring to examine heat and power output, power quality, efficiency, and emission reductions.
Annual NOX and CO2 emissions reductions resulting from the use of the Aisin Seiki system were
estimated by comparing measured emission rates with corresponding emission rates for the baseline
scenario at Hooligans.
Rationale for the experimental design, determination of verification parameters, detailed testing
procedures, test log forms, and QA/QC procedures can be found in the draft ETV Generic Verification
Protocol (GVP) for DG/CHP verifications developed by the GHG Center. Site specific information and
details regarding instrumentation, procedures, and measurements specific to this verification were
detailed in the Test and Quality Assurance Plan titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan - Aisin Seiki 6.0
kWNatural Gas-Fired Engine Cogeneration Unit.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Results of the verification are representative of the Aisin Seiki system's performance as installed at
Hooligans. Quality Assurance (QA) oversight of the verification testing was provided following
specifications in the ETV Quality Management Plan (QMP). The GHG Center's QA manager conducted
an audit of data quality on at least 10 percent of the data generated during this verification and a review of
this report. Data review and validation was conducted at three levels including the field team leader (for
data generated by subcontractors), the project manager, and the QA manager. Through these activities,
the QA manager has concluded that the data meet the data quality objectives that are specified in the Test
and Quality Assurance Plan.
S-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Also in support of this verification, QA staff from EPA-ORD's Technical Services Branch conducted an
on-site technical systems audit (TSA) of the GHG Center's testing activities and procedures. Based on the
verification approaches and testing procedures specified in the test plan, the overall conclusion of the
audit was that the GHG Center performed well during this verification and there were no significant
deviations from the planned activities, measurements, or data quality objectives.
Electrical and Thermal Performance
Table S-2. Aisin Seiki G60 Electrical and Thermal Performance
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
Fuel Input
(MBtu/h)
76.0
75.9
76.0
76.0
Electrical Power Generation
Performance
Power
Delivered
(kW)
5.32
5.30
5.31
5.31
Parasitic
Load (kW)
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
Efficiency3
(%)
23.1
23.1
23.1
23.1
Heat Recovery
Performance
Heat
Recovered
(MBtu/h)
43.3
44.6
43.0
43.6
Thermal
Efficiency
(%)
57.1
58.8
56.8
57.5
Total CHP
System
Efficiency
(%)
80.2
81.9
79.9
80.6
Based on actual power available for consumption at the test site (power generated less transformer and circulation pump losses)
and the fuel lower heating value (LHV).
• After transformer and parasitic losses, electrical efficiency averaged approximately 23 percent at this site.
• The amount of heat recovered and used for water heating at Hooligans averaged 43.6 MBtu/hr.
Corresponding thermal efficiency was 57.5 percent and combined heat and power efficiency averaged
80.6 percent.
• During the 10-day monitoring period, the Aisin unit cycled on and off according to facility hot water
demand and operated for a total of total of approximately 61 hours, or 26 percent of the time. During this
time, a total of 261.6 kWh electricity was generated and 2,213 MBtu (649 kWh) of heat was recovered
and used for water heating. There were no recorded startup failures or periods of unavailability when the
unit was commanded to start by hot water demand.
Emissions Performance
Table S-3. Aisin Seiki Emissions During Controlled Test Periods
Run ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
NOX Emissions
ppmv at
15% O2
58
61
55
58
Ib/MWh
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.2
CO Emissions
ppmv at
15% O2
240
250
250
250
Ib/MWh
8.1
8.4
8.3
8.3
THC Emissions
ppmv at
15% O2
900
920
930
920
Ib/MWh
17
17
18
17
CO2 Emissions
%
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.7
Ib/MWh
1750
1720
1740
1730
NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were consistent throughout the testing and averaged 3.1
Ib/MWh and 8.3 Ib/MWh, respectively. CO2 emissions averaged 1,730 Ib/MWh.
Concentrations of total hydrocarbons (THC) averaged 2,000 ppm at stack conditions, or 920 ppm at
15% O2. Results of the methane (CH4) analyses conducted on composite bag samples averaged 2,340
S-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
ppm at stack conditions, or 1,020 ppm at 15% O2. The THC measurement is considered more reliable
since it is an on-site analysis with real time results and all QA/QC criteria were met. The CH4 results
and QA/QC checks indicate that they are suspect and therefore not reported (see Section 2.4.1 of the
verification report for details). In any event, it is evident that all or nearly all of the hydrocarbons
measured by the THC analyzer are CH4. THC emission rates averaged 17 Ib/MWh.
• Compared to the baseline emissions scenarios for the New York State Independent System Operator
(NY ISO) and national grid regions, estimated annual NOX emissions for the Aisin unit are about
0.003 tons higher than the NY ISO and 0.003 tons (18 %) lower than the national scenario. For CO2,
estimated annual Aisin system emissions are lower than both the NY ISO and national grid regions by
2.2 tons (22 %) and 4.1 tons (34 %), respectively.
Power Quality Performance
• Average electrical frequency was 60.00 Hz and average power factor was 98.0 percent.
• The average current total harmonic distortion (THD) was 2.53 percent and the average voltage THD was
1.76 percent, both well within the IEEE recommended threshold of 5 percent.
Details on the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) procedures can be found in the Test Plan titled Test and Quality Assurance Plan - Aisin Seiki 6.0
kW Natural Gas-Fired Engine Cogeneration Unit (SRI 2005). Detailed results of the verification are
presented in the Final Report titled Environmental Technology Verification Report for Aisin Seiki 6.0 kW
Natural Gas-Fired Engine Cogeneration Unit (SRI 2005). Both can be downloaded from the GHG Center's
web-site (www.sri-rtp.com) or the ETV Program web-site (www.epa.gov/etv).
Signed by Sally Gutierrez (9/30/2005) Signed by Tim Hansen (9/30/2005)
Sally Gutierrez Tim A. Hansen
Director Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Office of Research and Development Southern Research Institute
Notice: GHG Center verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. The EPA and Southern Research Institute
make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate at the levels verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and
all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply
endorsement or recommendation.
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.
S-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( YF/ ) Organization
Environmental Technology Verification Report
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
Under EPA Cooperative Agreement R-82947801
and NYSERDA Agreement 7009
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA
EPA Project Officer: David A. Kirchgessner
NYSERDA Project Officer: Richard Drake
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2. AISIN SEIKI 6.0 KW ENGINE COGENERATION UNIT TECHNOLOGY
DESCRIPTION.
1.3. HOOLIGANS FACILITY AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION.
1.4. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
1.4.1. Electrical Performance (GVP §2.0)
1.4.2. Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0)
1.4.3. CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0).
-2
-3
-4
-6
-6
-7
1.4.4. Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0)
1.4.5. Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation
1.4.6. Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets 1-11
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS 2-1
2.1. OVERVIEW 2-1
2.2. ELECTRICAL AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY 2-2
2.2.1. Electrical Power Output, Heat Production, and Efficiency During
Controlled Tests 2-3
2.2.2. Electrical and Thermal Energy Production and Efficiency During the
Extended Test Period 2-4
2.3. POWER QUALITY PERFORMANCE 2-7
2.4. EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE 2-9
2.4.1. Aisin Seiki Exhaust Emissions 2-9
2.4.2. Estimation of Annual NOX and CO2 Emission Reductions 2-10
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-1
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-1
3.2. DOCUMENTATION OF MEASUREMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-2
3.2.1. Electrical Generation Performance 3-2
3.2.2. Electrical Efficiency Performance 3-3
3.2.3. CHP Thermal Efficiency Performance 3-3
3.2.4. Emissions Measurement MQOs 3-4
3.3. AUDITS 3-4
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY AISIN 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 1-4
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Pas
The Aisin Seiki G60 Cogeneration Unit at Hooligans 1-6
Aisin Seiki G60 Cogeneration System Boundary Diagram 1-7
Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System 1-12
Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System 1-12
Aisin Seiki G60 Power Generation for Typical Day at Hooligans 2-5
Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Recovery for Typical Day at Hooligans 2-6
Aisin Seiki G60 Power Efficiency for Typical Day at Hooligans 2-7
Aisin Seiki G60 Power Quality for Typical Day at Hooligans 2-8
LIST OF TABLES
Pas
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Aisin Seiki G60 Specifications 1-5
Controlled and Extended Test Periods 1-8
Site Specific Instrumentation for Aisin Seiki Cogeneration System Verification 1-11
Variability Observed in Operating Conditions 2-2
Aisin Seiki G60 Electrical and Thermal Performance 2-3
Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Recovery Conditions 2-4
Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Input Determinations 2-4
Summary of Aisin Seiki G60 Power Quality 2-9
Aisin Seiki G60 Emissions During Controlled Periods 2-9
Estimation of Aisin Seiki G60 Emission Reductions at Hooligans 2-11
Electrical Generation Performance MQOs 3-2
Electrical Efficiency MQOs 3-3
CHP Thermal Efficiency MQOs 3-3
Summary of Emissions Testing Calibrations and QA/QC Checks 3-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center wishes to thank NYSERDA, especially Richard Drake and Nag
Patibandla, for supporting this verification and reviewing and providing input on the testing strategy and
this Verification Report. Thanks are also extended to ECOTS personnel, especially Kamyar Zadeh and
Anthony Baleno, for their input supporting the verification and assistance with coordinating field
activities. Finally, thanks go out to the ownership, management, and staff of Hooligans for hosting the
test and accommodating field testing activities.
in
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
ADQ
Btu
Btu/scf
CH4
CHP
CO
CO2
CT
DG
DQO
OUT
ECOTS
EGRID
EPA
ETV
GHG Center
GVP
gpm
Hz
1C
IEEE
kVA
kVAr
kW
kWh
Ib/hr
Ib/kWh
LHV
MBtu/h
MMBtu/hr
MQO
NIST
NOX
NYSERDA
NY ISO
02
ORD
ppm
psia
QA/QC
QMP
RTD
scf
scfh
SUT
TQAP
THC
THD
TSA
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Audit of Data Quality
British thermal units
British thermal units per standard cubic feet
methane
combined heat and power
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
current transformer
distributed generation
data quality objective
device under test
ECO Technology Solutions, LLC
Emissions and generation resource integrated database
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
generic verification protocol
gallons per minute
hertz
internal combustion
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
kilovolt-amperes
kilovolt-amperes reactive
kilowatts
kilowatt hours
pounds per hour
pounds per kilowatt-hour
lower heating value
thousand British thermal units per hour
million British thermal units per hour
Measurement quality objective
National Institute of Standards and Technology
nitrogen oxides
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
New York State Independent System Operator
oxygen
Office of Research and Development
parts per million volume, dry
pounds per square inch, absolute
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Management Plan
resistance temperature detector
standard cubic feet
standard cubic feet per hour
system under test
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
total hydrocarbons
total harmonic distortion
technical systems audit
IV
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
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 ETV is to
further environmental protection by 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 greenhouse gas
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 stakeholder input, and reporting findings. Performance evaluations are conducted according
to externally reviewed verification Test and Quality Assurance Plans and established protocols for quality
assurance.
The GHG Center is guided by volunteer groups of stakeholders, who direct the GHG Center regarding
which technologies are most appropriate for testing, help disseminate results, and review Test Plans and
Technology Verification Reports. A technology area of interest to some GHG Center stakeholders is
distributed electrical power generation (DG), particularly with combined heat and power (CHP)
capability. DG refers to electricity generation equipment, typically under 1,000 kilowatts (kW), that
provides electric power at a customer's site (as opposed to central station generation). A DG unit can be
connected directly to the customer or to a utility's transmission and distribution (T&D) system.
Examples of technologies available for DG include gas turbine generators, internal combustion engine
generators (gas, diesel, other), photovoltaics, wind turbines, fuel cells, and microturbines. DG
technologies provide customers one or more of the following main services: standby generation (i.e.,
emergency backup power), peak shaving generation (during high-demand periods), base-load generation
(constant generation), and CHP generation. An added environmental benefit of some DG technologies is
the ability to fuel these systems with renewable energy sources such as anaerobic digester gas (ADG) or
landfill gas. These gases, when released to atmosphere, contribute millions of tons of methane emissions
annually in the U.S. Cost- effective technologies are available that significantly reduce these emissions
by recovering methane and using it as an energy source.
The GHG Center and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
have agreed to collaborate and share the cost of verifying several new DG technologies located
throughout the State of New York. The verification described in this document evaluated the
performance of one such DG system: the 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 Hooligans.
1-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
The GHG Center evaluated the performance of the Aisin G60 system by conducting field tests over an
11-day verification period (July 10 - 21, 2005). These tests were planned and executed by the GHG
Center to independently verify the electricity generation rate, thermal energy recovery rate, electrical
power quality, energy efficiency, emissions, and greenhouse gas emission reductions for the unit as
operated at Hooligans. Details on the verification test design, measurement test procedures, and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures are contained in two related documents:
Technology and site specific information can be found in the document titled Test and Quality Assurance
Plan - Aisin Seiki 6.0 kWNatural Gas-Fired Engine Cogeneration Unit [1]. It can be downloaded from
the GHG Center's web-site (www.sri-rtp.com) or the ETV Program web-site (www.epa.gov/etv). This
Test and Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP) describes the system under test (SUT), project participants, site
specific instrumentation and measurements, and verification specific QA/QC goals. The TQAP was
reviewed and revised based on comments received from NYSRDA, ECOTS, and the EPA Quality
Assurance Team. The TQAP meets the requirements of the GHG Center's Quality Management Plan
(QMP) and satisfies the ETV QMP requirements.
Rationale for the experimental design, determination of verification parameters, detailed testing
procedures, test log forms, and QA/QC procedures can be found in the Association of State Energy
Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI) DG/CHP Distributed Generation and
Combined Heat and Power Performance Protocol for Field Testing [2]. ]. It can be downloaded from the
web location www.dgdata.org/pdfs/field_protocol.pdf The ETV GHG Center has adopted portions of
this protocol as a draft generic verification protocol (GVP) for DG/CHP verifications [3]. This ETV
performance verification of the Aisin system was based on the GVP.
The remainder of Section 1.0 describes the Aisin Seiki G60 system technology and test facility and
outlines the performance verification procedures that were followed. Section 2.0 presents test results, and
Section 3.0 assesses the quality of the data obtained. Section 4.0, submitted by ECOTS and Aisin,
presents additional information regarding the CHP system. Information provided in Section 4.0 has not
been independently verified by the GHG Center.
1.2. AISIN SEIKI G60 ENGINE COGENERATION UNIT 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 permanent magnet generator with
inverter. Some of the waste heat produced by the engine (approximately 46 thousand Btu per hour
(MBtu/h)) is recovered from the engine coolant and 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.
Water was used as the transfer fluid and 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
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Table 1-1. Aisin Seiki G60 Specifications
(Source: Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.)
Physical
Specifications
Electrical
Specifications
Width
Depth
Height
Weight
Electrical Input
Electrical Output at Hooligans
Engine Type
Generator Type
Rated Power Generating Efficiency
Rated Waste Heat Recovery Efficiency
1,100mm
660 mm
1,500 mm
465kg
Interconnection of AC/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
26.5%
59.5%
1.3. HOOLIGANS FACILITY AND SYSTEM INTEGRATION
The performance verification of the Aisin Seiki G60 was conducted 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 to 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/h. 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 heat transfer fluid from the Aisin cogeneration unit is circulated through the Amtrol unit
1-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
by an external 10 gallon per minute (gpm) pump. Cold water supply flows into the Amtrol water heater,
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 Seiki 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. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
Following the GVP, the verification included evaluation of the Aisin system performance over a series of
controlled test periods. Because this unit is designed to operate at full load only, tests were only
conducted while the unit operated at nominal 6 kW. In addition to the controlled test periods, the GHG
Center collected 10 days of continuous fuel consumption, power generation, power quality, and heat
recovery rate data to characterize the Aisin system's performance over normal facility operations.
The Aisin Seiki verification was limited to the performance of the system under test (SUT) within a
defined system boundary. Figure 1-2 illustrates the SUT boundary for this verification. The figure
indicates two distinct boundaries. The device under test (DUT) or product boundary includes the Aisin
Seiki G60 Cogeneration unit selected for this test including all of its internal components. The SUT
1-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
includes the DUT as well as the heat transfer fluid circulation pump and the isolation transformer.
Following the GVP, this verification incorporated the system boundary into the performance evaluation.
Although the Amtrol water heater installed with the Aisin system will have thermal losses, it is expected
that the thermal losses are less than the baseline Hooligans system (the existing A.O. Smith gas fired
unit). Therefore, this verification did not include evaluation of hot water tank thermal losses.
SUT Boundary
Figure 1-2. Aisin Seiki G60 Cogeneration System Boundary Diagram
The defined SUT was tested to determine performance for the following verification parameters:
• Electrical Performance
• Electrical Efficiency
• CHP Thermal Performance
• Emissions Performance
• NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets
Each of the verification parameters listed were evaluated during the controlled or extended monitoring
periods as summarized in Table 1-2. This table also specifies the dates and time periods during which the
testing was conducted. Simultaneous monitoring for power output, heat recovery rate, heat input, ambient
meteorological conditions, and exhaust emissions was performed during each of the controlled test
periods. Fuel gas samples were collected to determine fuel lower heating value and other gas properties.
Average electrical power output, heat recovery rate, energy conversion efficiency (electrical, thermal, and
total), and exhaust stack emission rates are reported for each test period.
1-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Results from the extended test are used to report total electrical energy generated and used on site, total
thermal energy produced, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and electrical power quality.
Table 1-2. Controlled and Extended Test Periods
Controlled Test Periods
Start Date,
Time
07/20/05,11:15
End Date,
Time
07/21/05, 10:45
Test Condition
Power command 6 kW, three 60-minute test runs
Verification Parameters
Evaluated
NOX, CO, CH4, CO2 emissions, and
electrical, thermal, and CHP
efficiency
Extended Test Period
Start Date,
Time
07/10/05, 10:30
End Date,
Time
07/20/05,11:00
Test Condition
Unit operated according to hot
water demand
Verification Parameters Evaluated
Daily and total electricity generated and heat
recovered; power quality; and emission offsets
The following sections identify the sections of the GVP that were followed during this verification,
identify site specific instrumentation for each, and specify any exceptions or deviations.
1.4.1. Electrical Performance (GVP §2.0)
Determination of electrical performance was conducted following §2.0 and Appendix Dl.O of the GVP.
The following parameters were 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 were measured with a digital power meter manufactured by Power
Measurements Ltd. (Model 7600 ION). The meter operated continuously, unattended, scanning all power
parameters once per second and computing and recording one-minute averages. The rated accuracy of the
power meter is ± 0.1 percent, and the rated accuracy of the current transformers (CTs) needed to employ
the meter at this site is ± 1.0 percent. Overall power measurement error was ±1.0 percent.
1.4.2. Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0)
Determination of electrical efficiency was conducted following §3.0 and Appendix D2.0 of the GVP. The
following parameters were measured:
1-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
• 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 net of transformer losses was measured by the Power Measurements Ltd. Digital
power meter, as described in §1.4.1 above. Ambient temperature was recorded on the datalogger from a
single Class A 4-wire RTD. The specified accuracy of the RTD was ± 0.6 °F. Ambient barometric
pressure was 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 was measured by a Model 8C175 Series B3 Roots Meter manufactured by Dresser
Measurement with a specified accuracy of ± 1%. Gas temperature was measured by a Class A 4-wire
platinum resistance temperature detector (RTD). The specified accuracy of the RTD is ± 0.6 °F. Gas
pressure was 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. Three gas samples were collected
and shipped to Empact Analytical of Brighton, Colorado for LFfV analysis. Results of the gas samples
collected during the controlled tests were invalidated due to the indication of a small amount of air in the
sample canisters. Three additional samples were collected on July 29 and submitted to Empact. Results
of these samples show that air was not present in the canisters and results of these samples were therefore
used for the efficiency calculations.
The external parasitic load introduced by the heat transfer fluid circulation pump was monitored using a
second digital power meter manufactured by Power Measurements Ltd. (Model 7500 ION). Meter
specifications and accuracy was the same as those for the power meter described in §1.4.1 above.
1.4.3. CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0)
Determination of CHP thermal performance was conducted following §4.0 and Appendix D3.0 of the
GVP. The following parameters were 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 was measured throughout the verification. This
verification used an Omega Model FTB-905 flow meter with a nominal linear range of 2.5 - 29 gpm. An
Omega Model FSLC-64 transmitter amplified the flow meter's pulse output. An Agilent / HP Model
34970A totalized and logged the pulse output. Accuracy of this system was ± 1.0% of reading. Class A
4-wire platinum resistance temperature detectors (RTD) were 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 documented the RTD performance. The density and specific
heat of the fluid (water) was obtained from standard tables [4].
1-7
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
1.4.4. Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0)
Determination of emissions performance was conducted following §5.0 and Appendix D4.0 of the GVP
and included emissions of NOX, CO, CO2, CH4, and THC. Emissions testing was performed by O'Brien
& Gere, Inc. of Syracuse, New York. A fully equipped mobile emissions testing laboratory was
transported to the facility to conduct the EPA Reference Methods emission testing. Results for each
pollutant are reported in units of ppm corrected to 15% O2, Ib/h, and Ib/kWh.
1.4.5. Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation
Field test procedures followed 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
Controlled tests were conducted as three one-hour test replicates at a cogeneration power command of
approximately 6.0 kW. Hot water was 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 was monitored continuously for a period of 10
days while the unit operated under normal Hooligans facility operations. The Aisin unit was allowed to
cycle on and off during this period depending on facility hot water demand. Continuous measurements
were 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 evaluated Aisin system performance and usage rates for Hooligans
under typical facility operations.
Site specific measurement instrumentation is summarized in Table 1-3. The location of the
instrumentation relative to the SUT is illustrated in Figures 1-3 and 1-4. All measurement
instrumentation met the GVP specifications.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Table 1-3. Site Specific Instrumentation for Aisin Seiki G60 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
CH4 concentration
Instrument
Power Measurements Ltd. ION power
meter (Model)
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
TEI Model 42C Chemiluminescence
TEI Model 48C (NDIR)-gas filter
correlation
Servomexl415CNDIR
Servomex 1420C Paramagnetic
TEI Model 5 1C 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
2.5-29gpm
0 - 250 °F
0 - 250 °F
0 - 400 ppmv
0 - 1000 ppmv
0 - 20%
0 - 25%
0 - 1000 ppmv (as
propane)
0 - 10000 ppmv
Range of
Measurements
0.0 - 5.2 kW
0.0 - 5.3 kVA
0.0-l.OkVAR
39.7 - 98.7%
1.3-2.2%
1.6-17.1%
59.9 -60.1 Hz
119.5-123.1 V
5 -45.4 A
64-113°F
10.8 -14.5 psia
0- 0.181 kW
0 - 193 cfh
11. 1-14.9 psia
64 - 100 °F
0-9 gpm
68 - 164 °F
69 - 157 °F
113 -1500 ppmv
526 - 589 ppmv
7.2 - 8.9%
6.9 - 8.4%
563 - 648 ppmv
2 100 -2500 ppmv
Instrument Rated
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
1-9
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Electric Power Service
Facility Wiring
120/240V
Transformer
Aisin G60 6.0 kW CHP Unit
Figure 1-3. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System
&
/ \ Ion Power
VV Meter
To suitable
120 V source
0>
V '
Pump
^ /^-^\ 1"pipe
Omega Fluid
Flow Meter
TemPsupply
An
Aisin G60 6.0 kW
CHPUnit
J
itrol Indirect HW Heater
Figure 1-4. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System
1-10
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
1.4.6. Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets
Use of the Aisin cogeneration system changes the NOX and CO2 emission rates associated with the
operation of the Hooligans facility. Annual emission offsets for these pollutants were 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.
The TQAP provided the detailed 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 assumed
that the Aisin system generates power at a rate similar to that recorded during the 10-day verification
monitoring period throughout the entire year.
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 assumed that the Aisin system provides heat to the facility throughout the entire year
at a rate similar to that recorded during the 10-day verification monitoring period.
1-11
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
1-12
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS
2.1. OVERVIEW
The verification period started on July 10, 2005, and continued through July 21, 2005. The controlled
tests were conducted on July 20 and 21, and were preceded by the 10-day period of continuous
monitoring to examine heat and power output, power quality, efficiency, and emission reductions. The
10-day period included a storm related power outage on July 14 when data was not collected for a period
of 164 minutes between 4:56 and 7:40 PM.
The GHG Center acquired several types of data that represent the basis of verification results presented
here. The following types of data were collected and analyzed during the verification:
• Continuous measurements (fuel gas pressure, temperature, and flow rate, power output and
quality, heat recovery rate, parasitic load, and ambient conditions)
• Fuel gas heating value data
• Emissions testing data
The field team leader reviewed, verified, and validated some data, such as DAS file data and
reasonableness checks while on site. The team leader reviewed collected data for reasonableness and
completeness in the field. The data from each of the controlled test periods was reviewed on site to verify
that variability criteria specified below in Section 2.2 were met. The emissions testing data was validated
by reviewing instrument and system calibration data and ensuring that those and other reference method
criteria were met. Calibrations for fuel flow, pressure, temperature, electrical and thermal power output,
and ambient monitoring instrumentation were reviewed on site to validate instrument functionality. Other
data such as fuel LFfV analysis results were reviewed, verified, and validated after testing had ended. All
collected data was classified as either valid, suspect, or invalid upon review, using the QA/QC criteria
specified in the TQAP. Review criteria are in the form of factory and on-site calibrations, maximum
calibration and other errors, audit gas analyses, and lab repeatability. Results presented here are based on
measurements which met the specified Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and QC checks and were
validated by the GHG Center.
The GHG Center attempted to obtain a reasonable set of short-term data to examine daily trends in
electricity and heat production, and power quality. It should be noted that these results may not represent
performance over longer operating periods or at significantly different operating conditions.
Test results are presented in the following subsections:
Section 2.1 - Electrical and Thermal Performance and Efficiency
Section 2.2 - Power Quality Performance
Section 2.3 - Emissions Performance and Reductions
The results show that the Aisin Seiki unit produces high quality power and is capable of operating in
parallel with the utility grid. At the Hooligans installation, the unit can produce a steady 5.14 kW of net
electrical power after transformer and associated parasitic losses, and net electrical efficiency at full load
averaged 23.1 percent. The average heat recovery rate measured during the controlled test periods was
43.7 MBtu/h and thermal efficiency averaged 57.5 percent.
2-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
NOX emissions averaged 3.1 Ib/MWh, and emissions of CO and THC averaged 8.3 and 17 Ib/MWh,
respectively. CO2 emission reductions for Hooligans through use of the Aisin Seiki G60 are estimated at
approximately 35 percent. Detailed analyses are presented in the following sections.
In support of the data analyses, the GHG Center conducted an audit of data quality (ADQ) following
procedures specified in the QMP, and the EPA QA manager conducted a technical systems audit (TSA).
A full assessment of the quality of data collected throughout the verification period is provided in Section
3.0.
2.2. ELECTRICAL AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY
The heat and power production performance evaluation included electrical power output, heat recovery,
and CHP efficiency determinations during controlled test periods. After each test run, analysts reviewed
the data and determined that all test runs were valid by meeting the following criteria:
• at least 90 percent of the one-minute average power meter data were logged
• data and log forms that show SUT operations conformed to the permissible variations
throughout the run (Table 2-1)
• ambient temperature and pressure readings were recorded at the beginning and end of
the run
• at least 3 complete kW or kVA readings from the external parasitic load were
recorded
• field data log forms were completed and signed
• records demonstrate that all equipment met the allowable QA/QC criteria
Based on American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Performance Test Code 17 (PTC-17), the
GVP specified guidelines state that efficiency determinations were to be performed within 60 minute test
periods in which maximum variability in key operational parameters did not exceed specified levels.
Table 2-1 summarizes the maximum permissible variations observed in power output, ambient
temperature, ambient pressure, gas pressure, and gas temperature at the meter for each test run. The table
shows that the PTC-17 requirements for all parameters were met for all test runs.
Table 2-1. Variability in Operating Conditions
Maximum
Allowable Variation
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Maximum Observed Variation in Measured Parameters
Power
Output"
±5%
0.56
0.57
0.38
Ambient
Temp. (°F)
±5°F
2.7
2.6
3.5
Ambient
Pressure"
±1 %
0.07
0.07
0.07
Gas Pressure8
±2%
0.13
0.07
0.13
Gas
Temperature
(°F)
±5°F
1.9
0.9
3.6
Maximum (Average of Test Run - Observed Value) / Average of Test Run • 100
2-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
2.2.1. Electrical Power Output, Heat Production, and Efficiency During Controlled Tests
Table 2-2 summarizes the power output, heat production, and efficiency performance of the SUT. The
heat recovery and fuel input determinations corresponding to the test results are summarized in Tables 2-3
and 2-4. A total of 3 fuel samples were collected for compositional analysis and calculation of LHV for
heat input determinations. There was very little variability in any of the measurements associated with
the efficiency determinations.
As mentioned in Section 1.4.2, the original three gas samples collected during the controlled tests were
invalidated due to the indication of a small amount of air in the sample canisters. Oxygen levels in the
first set of samples ranged from 0.4 to 0.9 percent, indicating air contamination. Three additional samples
were collected with a longer canister purge time (1 full minute) on July 29 and the oxygen content was
0.02 percent or lower for each. Results of these samples show that air was not present in the canisters and
results of these samples were therefore used for the efficiency calculations.
The average net electrical power delivered to the facility was 5.14 kW during operation. The average
electrical efficiency at this power output was 23.1 percent. Electric power generation heat rate, which is
an industry-accepted term to characterize the ratio of heat input to electrical power output, averaged
14,800 Btu/kWh.
Heat recovery and use during the controlled test periods averaged 43.6 MBtu/h, or 12.8 kWe. Thermal
efficiency at this site averaged 57.5 percent and total CHP efficiency (electrical and thermal combined)
averaged 80.6 percent under these conditions.
Table 2-2. Aisin Seiki G60 Electrical and Thermal Performance
Test
ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
Fuel
Input
(MBtu/h)
76.0
75.9
76.0
76.0
Electrical Power Generation Performance
Power Delivered
at Transformer
(kW)
5.32
5.30
5.31
5.31
Parasitic
Load
(kW)
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
Efficiency3
(%)
23.1
23.1
23.1
23.1
Heat Recovery
Performance
Heat
Recovered
(MBtu/h)
43.3
44.6
43.0
43.6
Thermal
Efficiency
(%)
57.1
58.8
56.8
57.5
Total
CHP
System
Efficiency
(%)
80.2
81.9
79.9
80.6
Ambient
Conditions
Temp
(°F)
83.3
89.4
82.0
84.9
Pbar
(psia)
14.48
14.47
14.44
14.46
Based on actual power available for consumption at the test site (power generated less transformer and circulation pump losses).
2-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Table 2-3. Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Recovery Conditions
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run3
Avg.
Hot Water Header Heating Loop
Fluid Flow
Rate (gpm)
7.99
7.98
8.02
8.00
Supply
Temperature
(°F)
143.1
137.2
120.5
133.6
Return
Temperature
(°F)
132.1
125.9
109.6
122.5
Heat Recovery
Rate (MBtu/h)
43.3
44.6
43.0
43.6
Table 2-4. Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Input Determinations
Fuel Input
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
Heat Input
(MBtu/h)
76.0
75.9
76.0
76.0
Gas Flow
Rate (scfli)
83.3
83.2
83.4
83.3
LHV (Btu/scf)
910.93
910.9
Gas Pressure
(psia)
14.88
14.87
14.85
14.87
Gas Temp (°F)
82.5
89.2
77.9
83.2
a Reported LHV is the average of three fuel gas samples collected on July 29, 2005
2.2.2. Electrical and Thermal Energy Production and Efficiency During the Extended Test
Period
Power production on each of the 10 days monitored was very consistent. Each day the system cycled on
and off numerous times (according to hot water demand) between the noon and midnight hours when
Hooligans was in full operation. During the 10-day period the system operated for a total of
approximately 61 hours, or approximately 25.7 percent of the time. Figure 2-1 presents a time series plot
of 1-minute average real power generated and the voltage and current for one randomly selected day (July
12). The data shown for this day are consistent with each of the other days.
The net real power delivered is shown less transformer losses and power consumed by the circulation
pump. The SUT produced 29.4 kWh net on the day shown. Over the entire 10-day period, 261.6 kWh
net power was produced at the site for a daily average of 26.2 kWh. It should be noted that the system's
transformer draws approximately 200 watts of power from the grid during idle periods, which reduces the
net power production rate by about 3.6 kWh per day.
2-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Figure 2-2 shows corresponding heat recovery rates for July 12. Similar to power production, each of the
remaining days monitored were very similar in heat production as the plot shown for the 12th. A total of
280.9 MBtu were recovered for hot water heating on the 12th. Over the entire 10-day period, a total of
2,213.3 MBtu were recovered and used for an average of 221.3 MBtu per day.
Figure 2-3 shows the electrical, thermal, and total CHP efficiencies for July 12, which is typical for each
of the days. CHP efficiencies were consistent with those verified during the control test periods with net
electrical efficiency approximately 23 percent, thermal efficiency in the range of 55 to 62 percent, and
CHP efficiency in the range of 78 to 84 percent.
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
SUT Shutd
wn Power Consumption
124
118
50
40
< 30
I
= 20
O
10
o.'nts. SUT Opera
y Current
^r Delivered
v~\
-
n
-
S
SUT Shut
Current
Received
/
/
ting
down
07/12/05 11:00 AM 07/12/05 03:00 PM 07/12/05 07:00 FM 07/12/05 11:00 FM
Figure 2-1. Aisin Seiki G60 Power Generation for Typical Day at Hooligans
2-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
3 30,000
CD
25,000
&
I 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
7/12/05 11:00 AM
7/12/05 3:00 PM
7/12/05 7:00 PM
7/12/05 11:OOPM
7/13/05 3:00 AM
Figure 2-2. Aisin Seiki G60 Heat Recovery for Typical Day at Hooligans
2-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
100
90 -
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
40
30 -
20 -
10
\h
*
Total
Efficiency
Thermal
^ — Efficiency
Electrical
. ----- 'Efficiency
7/12/05 11:00 AM
7/12/05 3:00 PM
7/12/05 7:00 PM
7/12/05 11:OOPM
7/13/05 3:00 AM
Figure 2-3. Aisin Seiki G60 Efficiency for Typical Day at Hooligans
2.3. POWER QUALITY PERFORMANCE
Figure 2-4 plots the power quality for the period including frequency, power factor, and voltage and
current THD. Table 2-5 summarizes the power quality statistics. The data show that the unit had little or
no impact on grid voltage, frequency, or voltage THD. Given the types of electrical appliances that
operate at the restaurant, their random operations and the fact that the area has numerous businesses that
may create other harmonics, it is difficult to determine the true source of harmonics that were measured.
No-load current THD is an artifact of the transformer magnetic core presenting a non-linear load. It is
unlikely that this parameter reflects on the performance of the Aisin equipment. Although some high
current THD occurred during operation, this may have been primarily during start up, or during periods of
low power production. The average voltage and current THD were both well within the IEEE
recommendation of 5 percent.
2-7
-------
07/12/0511:00 AM
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
07/12/05 03 :OOPM
07/12/05 07 :OOPM
07/12/05 11:OOPM
"S
= n -
Power Factor (absolute value), %
jj-t»cncn^JODCDO
oooooooo
.*.
J UL
[
^i
UUUI —
—
-J
-
\
\ SUT Op
Power F
Leading
SUT Shi
Power F
Lagging
/
*
5 rating
actor
tdown
ictor
Q
I
15 0
10 0
5 0
00 -
L
f
-
-un^— 1^,
— tnf* ^^_ ~L T- -
RUT Rhi
Approx.
Current
SUT Ope
™r Approx. ^
^^^ Current
jtdown'
5A
Received
rating;
4A
Delivered
1.0
60.1
I
I
59.9
07/12/05 11:00 AM 07/12/05 03:00 PM 07/12/05 07:00 PM 07/12/05 11:00 PM
Figure 2-4. Aisin Seiki G60 Power Quality on Typical Day at Hooligans
2-8
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Table 2-5. Summary of Aisin Seiki G60 Power Quality
Parameter
Frequency (Hz)
Voltage THD (%)
Power Factor (%)
Current THD (%)
Idle3
Operating
Idle3
Operating
Operating
Operating
Average
60.00
60.00
1.54
1.76
97.98
2.53
Maximum
Recorded
60.06
60.06
2.40
2.20
98.68
17.1
Minimum
Recorded
59.93
59.95
1.03
1.30
39.70
1.59
Standard
Deviation
0.016
0.015
0.243
0.192
1.76
2.14
3 Idle frequency and voltage THD values are summarized to demonstrate the power quality of the local
grid.
2.4. EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE
2.4.1. Aisin Seiki Exhaust Emissions
Stack emission measurements were conducted during each of the controlled test periods in accordance
with the EPA reference methods listed in the GVP. Following the GVP, the SUT was maintained in a
stable mode of operation during each test run based on PTC-17 variability criteria. Results are
summarized in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6. Aisin Seiki G60 Emissions During Controlled Test Periods
0
hH
fl
•2
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
AVG
at
j? &
Z
5.15
5.13
5.13
5.13
3 S"
at £,
"* O
7.7
7.4
7.1
7.4
CO Emissions
d
in
"a
g
E.
e.
240
250
250
250
-
5
0.041
0.043
0.043
0.043
^
§
A
8.1
8.4
8.3
8.3
NOX Emissions
d
"a
g
E.
e.
58
61
55
58
-
5
0.016
0.017
0.015
0.016
^
§
A
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.1
THC and CH4 Emissionsa'b
"a
|_O
O &)
a -
H
900
920
930
920
«
e 6
la
u
1050
940
1080
1020
-
5
0.088
0.089
0.090
0.090
^
§
17
17
18
17
CO2 Emissions
0
^
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.6
-
5
9.0
8.8
8.9
8.8
^
§
A
1750
1720
1740
1730
a Laboratory results from the CH4 bag samples returned CH4 concentrations approximately 16 percent higher than the real time THC
concentrations, so reported CH4 concentrations are considered suspect.
b THC emission rates are quantified as CH4.
2-9
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Emissions results are reported in units of parts per million volume dry, corrected to 15 -percent O2 (ppm at
15% O2) for NOX, CO, and THC. Concentrations of CO2 are reported in units of volume percent.
Measured pollutant concentration data were converted to mass emission rates using EPA Method 19 and
are reported in units of pounds per hour (Ib/hr). The emission rates are also reported in units of pounds
per megawatt hour electrical output (Ib/kMWh). They were computed by dividing the mass emission rate
by the net electrical power generated during each test run.
NOX concentrations in the exhaust stack were consistent throughout the testing averaging 58 ppm at 15%
O2. The average NOX emission rate normalized to power output was 3.1 Ib/MWh. Exhaust gas CO
concentrations averaged 250 ppm at 15% O2 and corresponding CO emission rates averaged 8.3 Ib/MWh.
Concentrations of THC averaged 2,000 ppm at stack conditions, or 920 ppm at 15% O2. Results of the
CUt analyses conducted on the bag samples averaged 2,340 ppm at stack conditions, or 1,010 ppm at
15% O2. The THC measurement is considered more reliable since it is an on-site analysis with real time
results and on-site measurement system calibrations using EPA Protocol 1 gases. All of the daily
linearity checks and pre- and post-test system calibration checks on the THC measurement system were
well within the reference method criteria, validating the accuracy of the THC measurements. The QA/QC
procedures for the QrU analyses however indicate a spike blank recovery of 1 14%. While this recovery is
within the method criteria of 80 to 120%, it does indicate a possible high bias. In addition, the duplicate
analyses QC check showed a precision error of 9%. These issues, coupled with the fact that the CH4
analyses were conducted off-site and two days after sampling, were cause to consider the CH4 results
suspect and rely on the THC measurements. In any event, it is evident that all or nearly all of the
hydrocarbons measured by the THC analyzer are CH^. Fuel analyses show that methane constitutes
approximately 95% of the natural gas and ethane is the only other hydrocarbon found in significant
amounts of about 2%t. As such, the reported average THC emission rate of 17 Ib/MWh is representative
of both THC and ClrU emissions.
Concentrations of CO2 in the exhaust gas averaged 7.6% with a corresponding average CO2 emission rate
of 1,730 Ib/MWh.
2.4.2. Estimation of Annual NOX and CO2 Emission Reductions
Section 1.4.6 outlined the approach for estimating the annual emission reductions that may result from
use of the Aisin Seiki unit at this facility. The Aisin Seiki emissions were compared to both the NY ISO
and national power system average emissions as published in EPA's Emissions and Generation Resource
Integrated Database (EGRID). The detailed approach was provided in the TQAP.
Step 1 - Estimated Annual SUT Emissions
The first step is to estimate annual NOX and CO2 emissions from the SUT based on data generated during
this verification. The average NOX and CO2 emission rates during the verification were 3.1 and 1,730
Ib/MWh, respectively. The power delivered by the SUT during the verification period averaged 26.2
kWh per day. Assuming a system availability of 95%, this results in an estimated annual generating rate
of 9.08 MWh. These values result in estimated annual NOX and CO2 emissions of 0.014 and 7.83 tons
per year (ton/yr) of NOX and CO2, respectively.
2-10
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
Step 2 - Utility Grid Emissions
The average NY ISO NOX and CO2 emission rates published by EGRID for the year 2000 are used here
and are 1.46 and 979.7 Ib/MWh, respectively. Based on the measured Aisin generating rate described
above, the annual estimated NOX and CO2 emissions for an equivalent amount of power from the grid are
0.007 and 4.45 ton/yr, respectively.
The average national NOX and CO2 emission rates published by EGRID and used here are 2.96 and 1,393
Ib/MWh, respectively. Based on the measured Aisin generating rate described above, the annual
estimated NOX and CO2 emissions for an equivalent amount of power from the grid are 0.013 and 6.32
ton/yr, respectively.
Step 3 - Hot Water Heater Emissions
Use of recovered heat from the SUT offsets an equivalent amount of heat that would otherwise be
produced by Hooligans' gas-fired hot water heater. The SUTs' emission rates for heat production are
assigned as zero because emissions are accounted for in electricity generation. The existing water heater
is an A.O. Smith Master Fit Model BTR 365104 with a rated heat input of 365 MBtu/hr and rated
efficiency of 80 percent. The rated efficiency was used to calculate the CO2 emission factor for the water
heater and provides a very conservative estimate of emissions. Following the procedures provided in
Appendix B of the TQAP, NOX and CO2 emission factors for the water heater were determined to be
0.375 and 496 Ib/MWh, respectively. The heat recovered and used by the SUT during the verification
period (average 221.3 MBtu/day, or 0.065 MWh per day), results in an estimated annual heat recovery
and use rate of 22.5 MWh at 95 percent availability. These values result in estimated elimination of
annual NOX and CO2 emissions from the water heater of 0.0042 and 5.59 ton/yr of NOX and CO2,
respectively.
Step 4 - Determination of Estimated Emission Reductions
Estimated annual NOX and CO2 emissions for the two regional scenarios described are summarized in
Table 2-7. For the NY ISO region, the SUT introduces a small increase in NOX emissions (0.003 tons)
and CO2 emission reductions are estimated at 22 percent. For the national grid, NOX and CO2 reductions
are estimated to be approximately 18 and 34 percent, respectively.
Table 2-7. Estimation of Aisin Seiki G60 Emission Reductions at Hooligans
Regional
Power System
Scenarios
NY ISO
National
Annual SUT
Emissions8
(tons)
NOX
0.014
0.014
C02
7.83
7.83
Baseline Case (Hooligans without Aisin Seiki)
Annual Emissions (tons)
Grid
Emissions
NOX
0.007
0.013
C02
4.45
6.32
Water Heater
Emissions'5
NOX
0.0042
0.0042
CO2
5.59
5.59
Total
Emissions
NOX
0.011
0.017
C02
10.0
11.9
Estimated Annual
Emission Reductions (tons
(%))
NOX
-0.003 (-27)
0.003 (18)
CO2
2.2 (22)
4.1 (34)
a Based on the SUT's operating schedule during the verification period, an expected availability of 95 percent, and the
average measured power output.
b Based on the SUT's operating schedule during the verification period, an expected availability of 95 percent,, and the
average measured heat recovery and use rate.
2-11
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
2-12
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
3.1. 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 performances 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, demonstrate 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. 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 were to obtain valid data for 90 percent of the test periods
(controlled test period and extended monitoring). These goals were met as all of the planned controlled
tests were conducted and validated, and 99 percent of valid one-minute average data were collected
during the 10-day monitoring period.
The following sections document the MQOs for this verification, followed by a reconciliation of the
DQOs stated above based on the MQO findings.
3-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
3.2. DOCUMENTATION OF MEASUREMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES
3.2.1. Electrical Generation Performance
Table 3-1 summarizes the MQOs for electrical generation performance.
Table 3-1. Electrical Generation Performance MQOs
Measurement
kW, kVA,
kVAR, PF, I,
V, f(Hz), THD
V, I
Ambient
temperature
Barometric
pressure
QA/QC Check
Power meter NIST-
traceable calibration
CT documentation
Sensor function
checks
Power meter
crosschecks
NIST-traceable
calibration
Ice and hot water
bath crosschecks
NIST-traceable
calibration
Crosscheck with
gas pressure sensor
When Performed
18-month period
At purchase
Beginning of load
tests
Before field testing
18-month period
Before and after field
testing
18-month period
Before and after field
testing
Allowable Result
± 2.0%
ANSI Metering
Class 0.3%; ±1.0%
to 360 Hz (6th
harmonic)
V:±2.01%
I: ± 3.01%
±0.1% differential
between meters
±1°F
Ice water: ± 0.6 °F
Hot water: ±1. 2 °F
±0.1"Hgor±0.05
psia
± 0.08 psia
differential between
sensors
Result Achieved
ION 7600: calibration is within
spec.
ION 7500: calibration is within
spec., but was 27 months old
(meter was used only for
parasitic load).
Meets spec.
V (7500, 7600): 0.5%, 1.02%
I (7500, 7600): 2.06%, 0.5%
V: 0.07%
I: 0.03%
Meets spec.
Before (ice, hot): 0.01 °F, 0.1
°F
After (ice, hot): 0.1 °F, 0 °F
Meets spec.
Before: 0.3 psia
After: 0.19 psia
All of the MQOs met the performance criteria with the exception of the ION 7500 power meter
calibration interval and the pressure sensor cross checks. The expired power meter calibration (the ION
7500 was used to measure power consumed by the circulation pump) is not expected to impact results and
the meter passed the other MQO criteria. Based on manufacturer recommendations, the GHG Center's
SOP for power meter calibration has since been revised to 6 year intervals. The differential between the
two pressure sensors (the Omega gas pressure sensor and the Setra barometric pressure sensor) was traced
to the Setra. Calibration curves developed for both sensors indicated excessive noise in the linearity of
the Setra sensor, while the Omega calibration curve is much more linear. The barometric pressure
readings are not used in any of the determinations so the error in the sensor cross checks does not impact
results.
Following the GVP, the MQO criteria demonstrate that the DQO of ±2 % relative uncertainty for
electrical performance was met.
3-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
3.2.2. Electrical Efficiency Performance
Table 3-2 summarizes the MQOs for electrical efficiency performance.
Table 3-2. Electrical Efficiency MQOs
Measurement
Gas meter
Gas pressure
Gas temperature
Fuel Gas LHV
QA/QC Check
NIST-traceable calibration
Differential pressure check
NIST-traceable calibration
Crosscheck with ambient
pressure sensor
NIST-traceable calibration
Ice and hot water bath
crosschecks
NIST-traceable standard
gas calibration
ASTMD 1945 duplicate
sample analysis and
repeatability
When
Performed
18-month period
At installation
18-month period
Before and after
field testing
18-month period
Before and after
field testing
Weekly
Each sample
Allowable Result
±1.0% of reading
< 0.1 in.
±0.5%ofFS
± 0.08 psia
differential between
sensors
±1.0%ofFS
Ice water: ± 0.6 °F
Hot water: ±1. 2 °F
+ 1.0% of reading
Within D 1945
repeatability limits for
each gas component
Result Achieved
Meets spec.
0.025 in.
Meets spec.
Before: 0.3 psia
After: 0.19 psia
Meets spec.
Before (ice, hot):
0.01 °F, 0.1 °F
After (ice, hot): 0.1
°F, 0 °F
Meets spec.
Meets spec.
All of the MQOs met the performance criteria with the exception of the pressure sensor cross checks.
Error in the barometric pressure sensor was discussed in the Section 3.2.1. Following the GVP, the MQO
criteria in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 demonstrate that the DQO of ± 2.5% relative uncertainty for electrical
efficiency was met.
3.2.3. CHP Thermal Efficiency Performance
Table 3-3 summarizes the MQOs for CHP thermal efficiency performance.
Table 3-3. CHP Thermal Efficiency Performance MQOs
Description
Heat transfer
fluid flow
meter
Tsuppiy and
Tretum sensors
QA/QC Check
NIST-traceable
calibration
Sensor function
checks
Zero flow response
check
NIST-traceable
calibration
Sensor function
checks
Ice and hot water
bath crosschecks
When Performed
18-month period
At installation
At installation;
Immediately prior to
first test run
18-month period
At installation
Before and after field
testing
Allowable Result
± 1.0% of reading
See Appendix B8 of
TQAP
Less than 0.3 gpm
± 0.6 °F between 100
and 210 °F
Ice water: ± 0.6 °F
Hot water: ±1. 2 °F
Ice water: ± 0.6 °F
Hot water: ±1. 2 °F
Result Achieved
Meets spec.
Zero flow: 0 gpm
Normal flow: 8 gpm
Installation: 0 gpm
Prior to testing: 0 gpm
Meets spec.
Ice water: 0.2 °F
Hot water: 0.1 °F
Before (ice, hot): 0.08 °F,
0.13°F
After (ice, hot): 0 °F, 0 °F
3-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
All of the MQOs met the performance criteria. Following the GVP, the MQO criteria in Tables 3-1, 3-2,
and 3-3 demonstrate that the DQO of ± 3.5% relative uncertainty for CHP thermal efficiency was met.
3.2.4. Emissions Measurement MQOs
Sampling system QA/QC checks were conducted in accordance with GVP and TQAP specifications to
ensure the collection of adequate and accurate emissions data. The reference methods specify detailed
sampling methods, apparatus, calibrations, and data quality checks. The procedures ensure the
quantification of run-specific instrument and sampling errors and that runs are repeated if the specific
performance goals are not met. Table 3-4 summarizes relevant QA/QC procedures.
Table 3-4. Summary of Emissions Testing Calibrations and QA/QC Checks
Description
CO,C02,02
NOX
THC
CH4
QA/QC Check
Analyzer calibration error
test
System bias checks
System calibration drift test
Analyzer interference check
Sampling system calibration
error and drift checks
System calibration error test
System calibration drift test
Duplicate analysis
Calibration of GC with gas
standards by certified
laboratory
When Performed
Daily before testing
Before each test run
After each test run
Once before testing
begins
Before and after
each test run
Daily before testing
After each test run
One sample
Immediately prior to
sample analyses
and/or at least once
per day
Allowable Result
± 2% of analyzer
span
± 5% of analyzer
span
± 3% of analyzer
span
± 2% of analyzer
span
± 2% of analyzer
span
± 5% of analyzer
span
± 3% of analyzer
span
± 5% difference
±5%
Result Achieved
All calibrations,
system bias checks,
and drift tests were
within the allowable
criteria.
All criteria were met
fortheNOx
measurement
system.
All criteria were met
for the THC
measurement
system.
9% difference
Calibration criteria
were met.
Satisfaction and documentation of each of the calibrations and QC checks verified the accuracy and
integrity of the measurements and that reference method criteria were met for each of the parameters with
the exception of CFLj. Reported CFLj concentrations are considered suspect because they were higher than
the measured THC values. In addition, the duplicate analysis conducted on the sample from run 3
exceeded the ± 5% MQO.
3.3. AUDITS
This verification was supported by ADQ conducted by the GHG Center QA manaager. During the ADQ,
the QA manager randomly selected data supporting each of the primary verification parameters and
followed the data through the analysis and data processing system. The ADQ confirmed that no
systematic errors were introduced during data handling and processing.
Also in support of this verification, QA staff from EPA-ORD's Technical Services Branch conducted an
on-site TSA of the GHG Center's testing activities and procedures. Based on the verification approaches
3-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
and testing procedures specified in the test plan, the overall conclusion of the audit was that the GHG
Center performed well during this verification and there were no significant deviations from the planned
activities, measurement, or data quality objectives.
Finally, a readiness/planning review was conducted by the QA manager. During the readiness/planning
review, the QA Manager confirmed that the field measurements and activities conformed to the approved
TQAP.
3-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
3-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY AISIN
Note: This section provides an opportunity for ECOTS and Aisin Seiki to provide additional comments
concerning the G60 System and its features not addressed elsewhere in the Report. The GHG Center has
not independently verified the statements made in this section.
The Aisin G-60 Micro CHP system, which is the target of this study, is currently installed in over 400
applications in Japan. The unit is scheduled for commercial sales in the United States Starting in 2007.
The product is manufactured by Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (AISIN). a major manufacturer of automotive and
energy products in Japan with reported annual consolidated sales of $16.6 billion (USD). AISIN
currently manufactures several commercial products in vacuum, cooling and energy fields that provide
resource conservation and energy efficiency.
The system was introduced into the U.S. market by ECO Technology Solutions beginning in Fall 2003.
In the first phase of the project, an Aisin G-60 was installed Hooligans Restaurant in Liverpool, New
York. This installation utilized the 2002 model of Aisin G-60, as it was being used then in Japan, with
minimal modifications. This unit was modified for US operation by the internal installation if 100/200 X
120/240 transformers to correspond to US single phase distribution standards. Additionally, a separate
external 240 X 120 volt external transformer was installed to allow input to a single phase of the site's
120/208 volt 3-phase electyrical system. These additional transformers lead to considerable losses and
reduce the net efficiency by several percentage points.
The system was installed commissioned in January 2003 and has accumulated over 3,500 hours of
operation to-date. The Hooligans demonstration has shown that the Aisin unit operates flawlessly and
requires no intervention during operation. Start/stop and grid interconnection has occurred many times
during the timer-driven operation of the unit with no problems encountered. Due to the patterns of hot
water use at the restaurant, the timer- driven operation was changed in October 2004 to a thermal control
mode and once again, the unit has shown an excellent performance record. The Hooligans unit is the unit
under Testing by ETV.
During the second Phase of commercial introduction, five Aisin G-60 units were installed at various
customer locations in U.S. The demonstrations, which were hosted by the electric cooperatives in
Michigan, Iowa and Oklahoma, show economic applications of Aisin G-60 at a dairy farm, hydronic floor
heating in commercial office buildings, a small candy-production factory and heat source for utility's
standby generation units. These installations demonstrated the application of Aisin G-60 in different
control modes including: multi-unit installation, temperature control, time-of-use, load-following,
manual, and a combination of the above. In each of these installations, the Aisin unit has met or exceeded
its performance expectations.
Based on the results of these demonstration projects, and in cooperation with the ECO Technology
Solutions, Aisin is making further improvements to make the U.S. commercial product even more fitting
with the customer expectation in U.S. The 2007 model is expected to feature the following attributes:
o On-Site Power: 6.0 kW of continuous, single phase 120/240V, 60 Hz electric power output,
• Grid-Parallel Operation: The Aisin G-60 will operate in parallel with the host's electrical
distribution system when grid conditions are within the range allowed by the local utility.
4-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
• Utility Compliant Grid-Protection System: The Aisin G-60 grid-protection system will
meet or exceed IEEE-1547 and UL 1741 standards for grid-parallel operation, protect the
utility and the host from any disturbances, provide grid-safety in the event of line outage
or voltage and frequency events, and prevent flow of electricity back to the grid, and
provides grid-safety in the event of line outage or line disturbance.
o On-Site Heat: Provide a 40,000 Btu/hour heating source with doublewall stainless steel heat
exchanger that provides a heat source at temperatures less than 158° F.
o Energy Efficiency: An improved lean-burn low-emission internal combustion engine fueled by
natural gas or propane, provides the customers with an 85% combined heating and power
efficiency, which is substantially higher than conventional methods.
o Backup Generation: For the purpose of the U.S. market, Aisin is modifying the internal controls
that will make the system capable of operation during a utility grid-outage event. This will
provide customers with imporved power reliability and productivity in addition to the energy
cost savings resulting from the operation of the unit.
o Quiet Operation: During operation, the unit operates quietly producing 56dbA of operating noise.
o Flexible controls that allow operation under different control modes: pre-programmed time-of-
use, hot water demand, load following, or external dispatch control signal.
o Low Maintenance: The engine is specially designed for base-load stationary power generation
applications. It is intended for long duration continuous operation and requires minor
maintenance every 10,000 hours.
The table below summarizes the general specifications of Aisin G-60 (2007 Commercial Model).
Electric Output
Fuel Use
Thermal Output
Efficiency (LHV)
Noise
Weight
Operating Modes
Grid Protection
Certifications
6.0kW
22.64 kW
11.7kW
85.0% Total
56dBA
1,023 Ibs
- Time-Of-Use
- Thermal Demand
- Load Follow
- Remote Dispatch
- Manual
- Stand-Alone
Meets UL 1741
- UL2200
- UL 1741
1-0 120/240V 3W
81.4 CF/h of Natural Gas
30.21/minat65°C-70°C
electric 28.8%
Thermal 56.2%
(465Kg)
Programmable
4-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-37
September 2005
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] Southern Research Institute, Test and Quality Assurance Plan - Test and Quality Assurance Plan
-Aisin Seiki 6.0 kWNatural Gas-Fired Engine Cogeneration Unit, SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-37,
www.sri-rtp.com. Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC. May 2005.
[2] Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions, Distributed
Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing Protocol, DG/CHP Version, ASERTTI,
Madison, WI, October 2004.
[3] Southern Research Institute, Generic Verification Protocol - Distributed Generation and
Combined Heat and Power Field Testing Protocol, SRI/USEPA-GHG-GVP-04, www.sri-
rtp.com. Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle
Park, NC. July 2005.
[4] CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Robert C. Weast, Ph.D., editor, CRC Press, Inc., Boca
Raton, FL. 1980.
5-1
------- |