Final Version
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-41
March 2007
Test and Quality Assurance
Plan
FuelCell Energy, Inc. - DFC 300A Molten
Carbonate Fuel Cell Combined Heat and
Power System
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Operated by
S°UN™TR?TRUSTAERCH Southern Research Institute
Affiliated wiin the
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
-------
Final Version
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.
-------
Final Version
SRI/USEPA-GHG-QAP-41
March 2007
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( fJJY ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
FuelCell Energy, Inc. - DFC 300A Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
Combined Heat and Power System
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
3000 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 160
Morrisville, NC 27560 USA
Telephone: 919-806-3456
Reviewed by:
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Fuel Cell Energy, LLC.
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development QA Team
indicates comments are integrated into TQAP
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
Final Version
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( ETr ) Organization
Test and Quality Assurance Plan
FuelCell Energy, Inc. - DFC 300A Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
Combined Heat and Power System
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.
Signed
3/07
Richard Adamson
Co-Director
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Signed
3/07
Date
David Kirchgessner
APPCD Project Officer
U.S. EPA
Date
Signed
Staci Haggis
Project Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
3/07
Date
Robert Wright
APPCD Quality Assurance Manager
U.S. EPA
Date
Signed
3/07
Eric Ringler
Quality Assurance Manager
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
TQAP Final: March 2007
Date
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
Final Version
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDICES ii
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
DISTRIBUTION LIST iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 FUELCELL ENERGY DFC 300A 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) 2-3
2.2.2 Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0) 2-3
2.2.3 CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0) 2-4
2.2.4 Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0) 2-4
2.2.5 Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation 2-5
2.2.6 Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets 2-9
3.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-11
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 4-4
4.7 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS 4-5
4.8 HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 4-6
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
-------
Final Version
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. The FuelCell Energy DFC 300A at SUNY-ESF 1-4
Figure 1-2. Project Organization 1-5
Figure 2-1. FuelCell Energy DFC 300A System Boundary Diagram 2-2
Figure 2-2. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System 2-8
Figure 2-3. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System 2-8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. FuelCell Energy DFC 300A Specifications 1-2
Table 2-1. Site Specific Instrumentation for DFC 3 OOA System Verification 2-7
-------
Final Version
DISTRIBUTION LIST
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
James Foster
Mark Torpey
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Patrick Tong
SUNY-ESF
Gary Colella
U.S. EPA - Office of Research and Development
David Kirchgessner
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute (GHG Center)
Richard Adamson
Bill Chatterton
Staci Haggis
Eric Ringler
in
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
IV
-------
Final Version
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 (TQAPs) 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: a Model DFC 300A molten carbonate
fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) system manufactured by FuelCell Energy, Inc (FCE). The DFC
300A CHP system is installed at the State University of New York - College of Environmental Science
and Forestry (SUNY-ESF) located in Syracuse, New York. The GHG Center will be evaluating the
performance of this system in collaboration with NYSERDA.
1-1
-------
Final Version
In October 2004 the GHG Center published the Generic Verification Protocol (GVP) for Distributed
Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing [1]. The GVP is designed specifically for
microturbine and 1C engine based CHP systems. However, the approaches and methodologies specified
in the GVP have been successfully applied to other ETV fuel cell verifications by the GHG Center, so this
ETV performance verification will be based on the GVP. This document is the site specific TQAP for
this performance verification. This TQAP 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 FCE
DFC 300A system, its integration at SUNY-ESF, 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 TQAP has been reviewed by NYSERDA, FCE, 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 TQAP 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 FCE. 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 FUELCELL ENERGY DFC 300A TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The FuelCell Energy DFC 300A is a natural gas fueled molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) from which
excess heat is recovered for use on-site. This technology provides a maximum 250 kW electrical output
at 480v three phase in parallel with the utility supply. Some of the waste heat produced by the fuel cell is
recovered from the exhaust gases and supplied to the host sites' space heating system. Table 1-1
summarizes the physical and electrical specifications for the unit.
Table 1-1. FuelCell Energy DFC 300A Specifications
(Source: FuelCell Energy, Inc.)
Physical
Specifications
Electrical
Specifications
Width
Length
Height
Weight
Electrical Input
Electrical Output
Generator Type
Power Generating Efficiency
Waste Heat Recovery Efficiency
9.0ft
28.1ft
10.5 ft
90,002 Ib
Interconnection of DC conversion + inverter
250 kW, 480 V, three phase; decline 10 % over 3 years
Solid state inverter
45 % ; decline 4.5 % over 3 years
60 - 80 %
1-2
-------
Final Version
MCFCs use an electrolyte composed of a molten mixture of carbonate salts. Two mixtures are currently
used: lithium carbonate and potassium carbonate, or lithium carbonate and sodium carbonate. To melt the
carbonate salts and achieve high ion mobility through the electrolyte, MCFCs operate at high
temperatures (nominal 1202 °F).
When heated to a temperature of around 1202 °F, these salts melt and become conductive to carbonate
ions (CO32~). These ions flow from the cathode to the anode where they combine with hydrogen to give
water, carbon dioxide and electrons. These electrons are routed through an external circuit back to the
cathode, generating electricity and by-product heat.
Anode Reaction: CO32 + H2 => H2O + CO2 + 2e
Cathode Reaction: CO2+ 1AQ2 + 2e" => CO32"
Overall Cell Reaction: H2(g) + !/2O2(g) + CO2 (cathode) => H2O(g) + CO2 (anode)
The higher operating temperature of MCFCs has both advantages and disadvantages compared to the
lower temperature phosphoric acid fuel cells and polymer electrolyte fuel cells. At the higher operating
temperature, fuel reforming of natural gas can occur internally, eliminating the need for an external fuel
processor. Additional advantages include the ability to use standard materials for construction, such as
stainless steel sheet, and allowing the use of nickel-based catalysts on the electrodes. The by-product heat
from an MCFC can be used to generate high-pressure steam that can be used in many industrial and
commercial applications.
The high temperatures and the electrolyte chemistry also have disadvantages. The high temperature
requires significant time to reach operating conditions and responds slowly to changing power demands.
These characteristics make MCFCs more suitable for constant power applications. The carbonate
electrolyte can also cause electrode corrosion problems. Furthermore, since CO2 is consumed at the anode
and transferred to the cathode, introduction of CO2 and its control in air stream becomes an issue for
achieving optimum performance that is not present in any other fuel cell.
1.3 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The performance verification of the DFC 300A will take place at the SUNY-ESF, located in Syracuse,
New York. The DFC-300A is located outdoors next to Walters Hall on the SUNY-ESF campus.
Electric service is provided by the New York Power Authority (NYPA). The DFC 300A provides a 250
kW electrical output to the building in parallel with the utility supply. It is also used to provide
supplemental water heating for a reheat loop in Walters Hall's air distribution system. The reheat loop
helps control room temperature in Walters Hall.
The fuel cell is fueled with natural gas provided by National Grid. Hot exhaust gases exiting the fuel cell
are directed to a Cain Industries heat recovery unit. If the water temperature in the reheat loop from
Walters Hall is sufficiently high (approximately 155 °F or more), a valve in the heat recovery unit vents
the exhaust gas to atmosphere. When reheat loop temperatures are below approximately 155 °F, the
exhaust gas from the fuel cell is directed through a heat exchanger and heats the water in the reheat loop.
A 1 hp pump located in Walters Hall circulates water through the reheat loop. Site personnel indicate
that, in some cases, DFC 300A heat recovery rates exceed Walters Hall demand, necessitating venting.
The unit is located outdoors next to Walters Hall on the SUNY-ESF campus. Figure 1-1 shows the DFC
300A as it is currently installed.
1-3
-------
Final Version
Figure 1-1. The FuelCell Energy DFC 300A at SUNY-ESF
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
-------
Final Version
Richard Adamson
GHG Center Director
Eric Ringler
GHG Center QA
Manager
I
Robert Wright
US EPA APPCD
QA Manager
David
Kirschgessner
US EPA APPCD
Project Officer
Staci Haggis
GHG Center
Project Manager
SUNY-ESF
Gary Colella
Fuel Cell Energy
Patrick Tong
Kevin Hicks
GHG Center
Field Team Leader
Figure 1-2. Project Organization
Richard Adamson is the GHG Center Co-Director. He will ensure the staff and resources are available to
complete this verification as defined in this TQAP. He will review the TQAP 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. Adamson will sign the Verification Statement along
with the EPA-ORD Laboratory Director.
Staci Haggis will serve as the Project Manager for the GHG Center. Her responsibilities include:
• drafting the TQAP 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. She will also have the authority to suspend testing if the data
quality indicator goals are not being met. She may resume testing when problems are resolved in both
cases. She will be responsible for maintaining communication with FCE, NYSERDA, and EPA. She
also oversees and manages subcontractor activities and submittals.
Kevin Hicks will serve as the Field Team Leader. Mr. Hicks will provide field support for activities
related to all measurements and data collected. He 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 TQAP
are followed, including QA requirements for field subcontractors. He will submit all results to the Project
Manager, such that it can be determined that the DQOs are met.
Southern's QA Manager, Eric Ringler, 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 TQAP. 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. 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. Ringler will report all
1-5
-------
Final Version
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.
Patrick Tong of FCE and Gary Colella of SUNY-ESF will serve as the primary contact persons for the
DFC 300A 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 TQAP 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 TQAP and Report. The APPCD
QA Manager reviews and approves the TQAP 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 TQAP Development
GHG Center Internal Draft Development September - December, 2006
NYSERDA, FCE, and SUNY-ESF Review/Revision December 11, 2006 - January 5, 2007
EPA Review/Revision January 12 - January 31, 2007
Final TQAP Posted February 15, 2007
Verification Testing and Analysis
Measurement Instrument Installation/Shakedown March, 2007
Field Testing March, 2007
Data Validation and Analysis April, 2007
Verification Report Development
GHG Center Internal Draft Development April, 2007
NYSERDA, PPL, and FCE Review/Revision May, 2007
EPA Review/Revision June, 2007
Final Report Posted July, 2007
1-6
-------
Final Version
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH
This performance verification will be conducted following the guidelines and procedures specified in the
GVP. This TQAP includes site-specific information including the following:
• Definition of the system under test (SUT) boundary for this verification - §2.1,
• Summary of the FCE DFC 300A 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 DFC 300A system performance over a
series of controlled test periods. The GVP specifies controlled tests be conducted at three different loads
including 100, 75, and 50 percent of capacity. The fuel cell is capable of operating at these loads so this
approach will be followed and tests will be conducted at nominal power outputs of 250, 188, and 125 kW.
The load will be controlled remotely by FCE. They can command different power loads offsite based on
site demand. Procedures related to the load tests are summarized in §2.2.5 of this TQAP 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 DFC 300A system's performance over normal facility operations. This
will include up to 2 weeks of continuous monitoring of fuel consumption, power generation, power
quality, and heat recovery rates.
2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARY
The DFC 300A 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.
The figure indicates two distinct boundaries. The device under test (DUT) or product boundary includes
the DFC 300A unit selected for this test including all of its internal components. The SUT includes the
DUT as well as parasitic loads present in this application: a water circulation pump for the reheat loop
and a domestic cold water booster pump to boost the building's water pressure to satisfy the requirements
of the fuel cell. Following the GVP, this verification will incorporate the system boundary into the
performance evaluation. The parasitic load will be verified to determine the overall system electrical and
thermal efficiency for this installation.
2-1
-------
Final Version
SUT Boundary
Walters Hall
Reheat Water Loop
Air
Fuel Supply
Exhaust Vent
to Atmosphere I
OUT Boundary
Recirc
Pump
Turbine
Meter
-^°V-
^<^
$
7
re
P
n
Heat
Recovery
1 Init
!
I
I
1
I
i
DFC 300
Exhaust Gas
Terminals
EPS
1
-------
Final Version
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. An electrician will install the power meter on the DFC
300A 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 %, and the rated accuracy
of the current transformers (CTs) needed to employ the meter at this site is ± 1.0 %. Overall power
measurement error is then ± 1.0%.
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 will be measured by the Power Measurements Ltd. digital power meter, as
described in §2.2.1 above. External parasitic load consumption may also be measured by a Power
Measurements Ltd. digital power meter or, alternatively, the field team leader may use a Fluke Model 336
clamp on power meter. The Fluke meter has rated accuracies of 2% of reading for current and 1% of
reading for voltage.
Ambient temperature will be recorded on a data logger from a single Class A 4-wire platinum resistance
temperature detector (RTD). The specified accuracy of the RTD will be ± 0.6 °F. Ambient barometric
pressure will be measured by an Omega model PX205 pressure transducer with a range of 0 - 30 psia and
an accuracy of ± 0.25 % FS.
Gas flow will be measured by a Model 3M175 Series B3 Roots Meter manufactured by Dresser, Inc.,
already installed at the site. The meter has a specified accuracy of ± 1 % of reading. Test personnel will
manually record readings from the meter on 10 - 15 minute intervals during the controlled test periods.
During the continuous monitoring period, SUNY-ESF personnel will manually record readings twice a
2-3
-------
Final Version
day. Test personnel will periodically measure gas temperature with a handheld Fluke 52 Type K
thermocouple. The specified accuracy of the thermocouple is ± 1 °F. Gas pressure will be periodically
recorded from a pressure gauge that is already installed at the site.
At least three gas samples will be taken in conjunction with the load tests. Samples will be collected in
stainless steel canisters supplied by subcontractor Empact Analytical of Brighton, Colorado. The samples
will be shipped to Empact Analytical for LFfV analysis according to ASTM Method 1945. The QA
Manager will confirm that the subcontractor satisfies the required QA elements of the method.
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 from the DUT will be measured on the reheat loop and
defined as the heat delivered to the facility. Water flow rate will be logged from the Istec Model 1820
turbine flow meter that is currently installed at the site. A data logger will log a pulse output from the
meter. Class A 4-wire platinum RTDs will be used to determine the fluid supply and return temperatures.
The specified accuracy of the RTDs, including an Agilent / HP Model 34970A or equivalent data logger,
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, NMHC, and THC. Emissions testing
will be performed by GHG Center personnel.
GHG Center personnel will measure CO and CO2 using a portable emissions monitoring system (PEMS).
The PEMS is a Horiba OBS-2200 system, which is essentially a miniaturized laboratory analyzer bench
which has been optimized for portable use. The instrument meets or exceeds Title 40 CFR 1065
requirements for in-use field testing of engine emissions.
This PEMS is suitable for testing a wide variety of stationary sources as well as the mobile sources for
which it is intended. Accuracy for all analytes is better than ± 2.5 % full scale (FS), while linearity is
better than ± 1.0 % FS. Exhaust gas concentrations must be integrated with exhaust gas flow rates to
yield mass emission rates or brake-specific emissions. EPA Method 2 will be used to determine exhaust
gas volumetric flow rates.
Response times for all OBS-2200 analyzers are approximately 2 seconds alone and 5 seconds with the
heated umbilical in the sample line. Test personnel establish exact analyzer response times prior to
testing. Software algorithms then align analyzer data outputs with other sensor signals, such as exhaust
gas flow and engine control module data. Resolution depends on the analyzer range setting, but is
between 4 and 5 significant digits.
2-4
-------
Final Version
The OBS-2200 measures CO and CO2 with non-dispersive infra-red (NDIR) detectors. It does not require
a separate moisture removal system for the CO and CO2 NDIR detectors.
The expected range of measurement for NOx is less than 1 ppm. This level is below the resolution of the
OBS-2200, so the OBS-2200 will not be used for NOx measurement. Instead, a slipstream of sample gas
will be directed to a Teledyne/API 200A (or equivalent) NOx Analyzer to detect NOx at low levels. The
instrument will be operated on a full scale range of 0 to 10 ppm. Accuracy of the instrument is ± 0.5 %
of reading.
A California Analytical Instruments Model 600 FID/HFID Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer, or equivalent,
will be used to monitor NMHC, and THC emissions on a range of 0 to 50 ppm. This measurement
method corresponds to the system specified in Title 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Method 25A,
"Determination of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon", which is a reference
method for THC. This analyzer also uses a carbon based sample splitter to quantify NMHC as well.
Both THC and NMHC emissions will be reported. Accuracy of the instrument is ± 0.5 % full scale.
The PEMS sample probe will be inserted into the DFC SOOA's 12-inch diameter exhaust stack. GHG
Center or site personnel will need to install a port for the sample probe in the exhaust stack prior to
testing. The PEMS sample pump conveys all samples through a heated umbilical directly to heated
analyzer sections, which eliminates the need to remove moisture and eliminates possible moisture
scavenging.
Proposed calibration 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 each load setting. 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 facility operations. The DFC 300A 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 DFC 300A system performance and usage rates for the
DFC under typical facility operations.
2-5
-------
Final Version
Site specific measurement instrumentation is summarized in Table 2-1. The location of instrumentation
for the electrical and thermal systems relative to the SUT is illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. All
measurement instrumentation meets the GVP specifications.
2-6
-------
Final Version
Table 2-1. Site Specific Instrumentation for DFC 300A System Verification
Verification
Parameter
Electrical
Performance
Electrical
Efficiency
CHP Thermal
Performance
Emissions
Performance
Supporting Measurement
Real power
Power factor
Voltage THD
Current THD
Frequency
Voltage
Current
Ambient temperature
Barometric pressure
Parasitic loads
Gas flow
Gas pressure
Gas temperature
Fuel LHV
Reheat loop flow
Reheat loop supply temp.
Reheat loop return temp.
NOX concentration
CO concentration
CO2 concentration
O2 concentration
THC concentration
Expected Range of
Measurement
125 - 250 kW
90-100%
0- 100%
0- 100%
58 -62 Hz
480V
12 -25 A
20 - 60 °F
14.5- 15.0 psia
1000 W
1500- 3000 scfh
15 -20 psia
30 - 80 °F
900 - 950 Btu/ft3
40 - 60 gpm
175- 185 °F
145 - 155 °F
< 1 ppmv
1-10 ppmv
5-10 %
8-15 %
50- 150 ppmv
Instrument
Power Measurements Ltd. ION
power meter (Model 7600 or
7500)
Omega Class A 4-wire RTD
Setra Model 280E
Fluke Model 336 portable power
meter
Model 3M175 Roots Meter
On-site pressure gauge
Fluke 52 Type K thermocouple
Gas chromatograph
Istec 1820 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)
Instrument
Range
0 - 260 kW
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 - 3000 acfh
0-60 psia
-328 - 2498 °F
n/a
0.88- 131 gpm
0 - 250 °F
0 - 250 °F
0-10 ppmv
0- 100 ppmv
0-20 %
0-25 %
0 - 200 ppmv
Instrument
Accuracy
± 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
± 2 % of reading
± 1 % of reading
± 3 % of reading
± 1°F
± 1 % of reading
±1.0% of reading
± 0.6 °F
± 0.6 °F
±0.5% of reading
± 2 % FS
± 2 % FS
± 2 % FS
± 0.5 % FS
2-7
-------
Final Version
EPS
Facility Wiring
Ion Power
Meter
DFC 300
Figure 2-2. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Electrical System
Clamp-On
Power
Meter
To suitable
1120 V source
To Atmosphere
Exhaust Gas
II
(l>empsupp|y
(DTSmfWn P
* 0
Fluid Flow Mete
RumP Reheat Loop
2" pipe
Heat
Recovery
Unit
Figure 2-3. Location of Test Instrumentation for SUT Thermal System
2-S
-------
Final Version
2.2.6 Estimated NOX and CO2 Emission Offsets
NOX and CO2 verification parameters are not included in the GVP, so the approach and procedures to be
used in this verification are described here. Use of the DFC 300A cogeneration system at this facility will
change the NOxand CO2 emission rates associated with the operation of the SUNY-ESF 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
space 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 DFC 300A system generates power at a rate similar to that recorded during the
continuous monitoring period throughout the entire year.
Appendix B provides the procedure for estimating emission reductions resulting from heat recovered by
the DFC 300A system. The amount of heat recovered and used for space heating offsets an equivalent
amount of energy that would otherwise be generated by the facility's baseline heating system. Therefore,
emissions from the baseline heating system associated with the equivalent amount of heat produced by
the DFC 300A cogeneration unit are eliminated. The procedure estimates the amount of fuel that would
be consumed by the local utility based on the amount of heat recovered by the cogeneration unit, and
applies NOX and CO2 emission factors to that estimate. As with the offsets attributable to power
generation, analysts will assume that the DFC 300A system provides space heat to the facility throughout
the entire year at a rate similar to that recorded during the continuous monitoring period.
2-9
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
2-10
-------
Final Version
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 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, 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
The completeness goal for this verification is to obtain valid data for 90 percent of the test periods
(controlled test period and extended monitoring).
3-11
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
3-12
-------
Final Version
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
fuel flow, pressure, and temperature
transfer fluid flow, supply temperature, and return temperature
ambient temperature and barometric pressure
The ION power meter will poll sensors once per second. It 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 or equivalent data logger 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 personnel 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 will be the source data for all calculated results, with the
possible exception of the parasitic loads and the gas sample analysis. Parasitic load source data may be
hand-logged by the field team leader and gas sample analysis data will come from Empact Analytical.
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 TQAP. Immediate corrective action will enable quick response to improper
procedures, malfunctioning equipment, or suspicious data. The corrective action process involves the
4-1
-------
Final Version
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 TQAP 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
-------
Final Version
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.
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 4.1 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 the
associated 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 shows 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
-------
Final Version
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.
FCE and NYSERDA personnel will then review the report. FCE 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, GHG Center QA personnel 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, GHG Center personnel will verify that the equipment, procedures, and
calibrations are as specified in this TQAP. Should GHG Center personnel note any deficiencies in the
implementation of the TQAP, corrective actions will be immediately implemented by the project
manager. GHG Center personnel will document this assessment in a separate report to the GHG Center
Director or QA Manager.
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.
4.6 VERIFICATION REPORT AND STATEMENT
The project manager will coordinate report preparation. The report will summarize each verification
parameter's results as discussed in Section 2.0 but will not include the raw data or QA/QC checks that
support the findings. All raw and processed measurements data as well as calibration data and QA/QC
4-4
-------
Final Version
checks will be made available to EPA as a separate CD, and can be provided to other parties interested in
assessing data trends, completeness, and quality by request. The report will clearly characterize the
verification parameters, their results, and supporting measurements as determined during the test
campaign. 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
FuelCell Energy DFC 300A Verification Report
Verification Statement
Section 1.0: Verification Test Design and Description
Description of the ETV program
FCE DFC 300A 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 FCE (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
independently appointed individual whose responsibility is to ensure the GHG Center's conformance with
the EPA approved QMP.
4-5
-------
Final Version
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. The field
team leader will fill out a site safety plan prior to leaving for field work.
4-6
-------
Final Version
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] PTC-50 Performance Test Code for Fuel Cell Power Systems, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2002.
[3] 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.
[4] AP-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
-------
Final Version
(this page intentionally left blank)
5-2
-------
Final Version
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^ = (EREPSii - ERDGii) *MWhDGiAnn 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 = EREPSji *MWhDevice,Ann Eqn. A2
Values for ERDGl are available from the performance verification results. Estimated MWhDGAnn or
MWhDevice Am 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 TQAP 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 j 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.
At the time of this writing, eGRID data was available only through 2002 in eGRID2002 Version 2.01.
The following example uses data from that version. A new version, eGRID2006 Version 1.0, was
recently released and is available at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm.
A-l
-------
Final Version
The example presented here is for a generator located in Florida, but this procedure can be used for any
state. Figure A-l shows the introductory screen prompts which provide year 2000 emission rates for
Florida.
« eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 - Main Selection Screen O ' i(S]
File Search Filters Import/Export Interchange
Aggregation Level
Power Plant Search
ffi State Filths |
- Electric Generating
Company (EGCJ
r US Total
Grid Regions:
NERC Region
r eGRID Subregion Data Year
r Power Control Area (PCA) t -ggg ^ I
Enter text to search lor:
Find I Reset I f"4' Display
Data
£EFft eGRID Help|
"" Select One or Multiple Entities ""
States
ALABAMA (AD
ALASKA(AK)
ARIZONA (AZ)
ARKANSAS (AR)
CALIFORNIA (CA)
COLORADO (CO)
CONNECTICUT (CT)
DELAWARE (DE)
DISTRICT OF roUJMBIAIDC)
GEORGIA (GA)
HAWAII (HI)
IDAHO (ID)
ILLINOIS (IL)
INDIANA (IN)
IOWA (IA)
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.
* eGRID 2002PC, Version 2.01 - State Level Data [xl
State: JFLORIDA
Capacity , H<
(MW): I 46,041.1
E_missions Profile
Help Pjevious I
(MMBlu): I 1,616,637,109 (MWh): I 191,906,639 ^ Data Year: 1 2000 j*j
Y
fjeneration Resource Mix SJate Import/Export Data
pispfay emission;
: rates for fossil, i
\ coal/oil/gas i
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Emissions (tons) Output Rate (Ibs/MWh) Input Rate (Ibs/MMBtu)
Annual CO 2
Annual S02
Annual NOX
Annual Hg ft
8 Annual mercury (h
136,293,930.61 1,420.42 168.61
579,623.25 | 6.04 | 0.72
322,813.74 | 3.36 | 0.40
2,499.63 | 0.0130 | 0.0016
g) emissions are in Ibs; Hg emission rates are in Ibs/GWh and Ibs/BBtu.
Figure A-2. Example EPS Emission Rates for 2000
Figure A-3 provides the nationwide emission rates for 2000.
A-2
-------
Final Version
eGRID2002PC, Version 2.01 - United States Level Data
HUNITED STATES
Help
Next
Capacity
Heat Input
Generation
(MW): | 864,905.7 (MMBtu): | 29,221,854,977 (MWh): | 3,810,305,466
Data Year: 2000 T
^missions Profile
Generation Resource Min
U.S. Generation and Consumption
Data
Display emission
rates for fossil,
coal/oil/gas
Display Ozone
Season NOX Data
Annual CO 2
Annual S02
Annual NOX
Annual Hg tt
Emissions (tons)
| 2,652,901,442.24
| 11,513,033.84
| 5,644,353.87
103,554.66
Output Rate (Ibs/MWh) Input Rate (Ibs/MMBtu)
r
1,392.49
r
181.57
6.04
0.79
2.96
0.39
0.0272
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
TQAP 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
A-3
-------
Final Version
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.
A-4
-------
Final Version
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 boiler used to heat Walters
Hall. 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 B 1 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 Walters Hall through the fluid recirculation loop. As shown in Equation
B2 and described below, projected heat use at the 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 heating system yields the potential emissions eliminated by use of the CHP
system:
-^BOILER ~ (^BOILERS ^-^BOILERS (Eqn. B2)
Where:
EBOILERS = potential annual boiler emissions offset, Ib/yr
QBOILERS = avoided heat input to the boiler, MMBtu/yr
ERBOILERS = estimated gas-fired boiler emission rates; Ib/MMBtu CO2 and Ib/MMBtu NOX
Analysts will use the EBOILERS 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 (QBOILERS 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:
44
ERBmlersCo2 = [— * (CQ * (FO) I E] (Eqn. B3)
Where:
ERBoiiersco2 = boiler 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) [3]
FO = 0.995; Fraction of fuel carbon oxidized during combustion [3]
E = burner efficiency
B-l
-------
Final Version
The EPA has compiled emission factors for gas-fired boilers in AP-42 [4]. 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.
B-2
------- |