SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Environmental
Technology
Verification Report
Climate Energy freewatt™
Micro-Combined Heat and Power System
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
SOUTHERN RESEARCH Operated by
Legendary Discovert. Leading Innovation SOUtheiTI
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
IW5EROA Under Agreement With
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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-46
December 2012
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
rth
SOUTHERN RESEARCH
Legendary Discoveries. Leading Innovation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NY5ERDA
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: Gas-Fired Internal Combustion Engine Combined
With Heat Recovery System
APPLICATION: Distributed Electrical Power and Heat Generation
Using Climate Energy freewatt™ Micro-Combined
Heat and Power System
TECHNOLOGY NAME: Climate Energy freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat
and Power System
COMPANY: Climate Energy, LLC.
ADORESS: Utica, New York
WEB ADDRESS: www.freewatt.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
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
generation (DG) sources, especially when they include combined heat and power (CHP) capabilities. The
improved efficiency of DG/CHP systems makes 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 the Climate Energy freewatt Micro-Combined Heat and
Power System. The system is a reciprocating internal combustion (1C) engine distributed electrical
generation and combined heat and power (DG / CHP) installation designed and commissioned by Climate
Energy. Heat is captured from the generator engine and passed to domestic heat loads via a closed heat
transfer loop. Climate Energy has installed a hydronic version of the freewatt system at a private
residence in Lake Ronkonkoma, Long Island, New York.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is based on information provided by Climate Energy and does not
represent verified information. The freewatt micro combined heat and power (MCHP) system is a
nominal 1.2 kW natural gas-fueled engine driven generator from which excess heat is recovered for use
on-site. This technology provides 240v single phase electrical power in parallel with the utility supply.
The engine is a liquid-cooled 4-cycle unit that drives a permanent magnet generator and inverter. Waste
heat produced by the engine is recovered in engine coolant, from the engine block, the oil sump, and the
exhaust gases and supplies first stage space and water heating for the host site's hydronic space and water
system.
With the freewatt system, heat is captured from the generator engine and passed to domestic heat loads
via a closed heat transfer loop. In this installation, the CHP system provides domestic hot water via an
indirectly-heated hot water heater to the residence via a hydronic heating system. Included in the
package is a high efficiency boiler that provides backup/peak heating and a "hybrid" hydronic system
controller that manages the hot water temperatures delivered to the hydronic system from the boiler/CHP
system. The system is connected in parallel to the electric utility grid, which provides standby and peak
power as required.
The system operates on a thermal-load-following mode, in which power is generated only when heat is
called for from the system. The system is configured to enable export of excess power generation to the
grid. Manufacturer specifications indicate that the recovered energy will supply up to about 12 thousand
British thermal units per hour (MBtu/h) to the local heating loads while producing 1.2 kW of electric
power. The supplementary boiler can provide up to an additional 190 MBtu/h.
VERIFICATION DESCRIPTION
Field testing was conducted on September 9 and 10, 2009. The defined system under test (SUT) was
tested to determine performance for the following verification parameters:
• Electrical performance and power quality
• Electrical efficiency
• CHP thermal performance
• Atmospheric emissions performance
• Nitrogen oxides (NOX) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission offsets.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
The verification included a series of controlled test periods in which the GHG Center maintained steady
system operations for 3 thirty-minute test periods to evaluate electrical and CHP efficiency and emissions
performance, heat and power output, power quality, and efficiency.
Rationale for the experimental design, determination of verification parameters, detailed testing
procedures, test log forms, and QA/QC procedures can be found in the 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 - Climate Energy
freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat and Power System.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Results of the verification represent the freewatt system's performance as installed at the host residence in
Lake Ronkonkoma, NY on the two days tested. 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.
Electrical and Thermal Performance
Table S-l. freewatt MCHP Electrical and Thermal Performance
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run3
Avg.
Fuel Input
(MBtu/h)
15.8
15.7
15.7
15.7
Electrical Power Generation
Performance
Power
Delivered
(kW)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Efficiency 3
(%)
21.6
21.6
21.6
21.6
Heat Recovery
Performance
Heat
Recovered
(MBtu/h)
9.17
8.93
7.58
8.56
Thermal
Efficiency3
(%)
58.3
56.7
48.2
54.4
Total CHP
System
Efficiency3 (%)
79.8
78.3
69.7
76.0
Based on actual power available for consumption at the test site (power generated less parasitic losses). LHV Based.
Key findings for freewatt MCHP electrical and thermal performance were:
• After parasitic losses, electrical efficiency averaged approximately 22 percent at this site.
• The amount of heat recovered from the MCHP and used for water heating at the residence averaged
8.56 MBtu/hr. Corresponding thermal efficiency was 54.4 percent and combined heat and power
efficiency averaged 76.0 percent.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
• Boiler heat production, tested separately, averaged 43.7 MBtu/h, or 12.8 kWt. Boiler fuel utilization
efficiency (AFUE) during these forced control test conditions averaged 96 percent.
Emissions Performance
Table S-2. MCHP Emissions during Controlled Test Periods
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
CO2 Emissions
ppm
99343
100741
98242
99442
Ib/hr
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
Ib/MWh
1358
1356
1352
1355
THC Emissions
ppm
177
183
175
179
Ih/hr
2.42E-03
2.45E-03
2.40E-03
2.42E-03
Ih/MWh
2.43
2.46
2.41
2.43
NOx Emissions
ppm
5.90
5.47
6.54
5.97
Ib/hr
8.04E-05
7.33E-05
8.96E-05
8.11E-05
lh/MWh
0.081
0.074
0.090
0.081
(Consistent with the GVP, results are based on electrical output only).
Table S-3. Free watt Boiler Emissions during Controlled Test Periods
Test ID
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
CO2 Emissions
ppm
87470
88755
89793
88673
Ib/hr
6.36
7.07
8.38
7.27
Ib/MMBtu
153
139
216
170
THC Emissions
ppm
8.08
4.23
3.41
5.24
Ih/hr
5.88E-04
3.37E-04
3.18E-04
4.14E-04
Ih/MMBtu
0.014
0.007
0.008
0.010
NOx Emissions
ppm
20.1
25.2
28.0
24.4
Ib/hr
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
Ib/MMBtu
0.035
0.040
0.067
0.047
Key findings for freewatt MCHP emissions and power quality performance were:
• For the MCFiP, NOX emissions averaged 0.081 lb/MWh. CO2 and THC emissions averaged 1,355
and 2.43 lb/MWh.
• Boiler NOX emissions averaged 0.047 pounds per million Btu (Ib/MMBtu) heat delivered to the
residence. CO2 and THC emissions averaged 170 and 0.01 Ib/MMBtu.
• Test results for CO emissions were invalidated after completion of testing and data analysis. The data
were invalidated due to excessive variability in analytical results caused by the use of an
inappropriate analyzer range. An identical freewatt unit was tested for CO emissions in a laboratory
setting by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) in early 2010 [6]. Results from the GTI testing indicate
average CO emissions of 0.23 lb/MWh for the MCHP and 0.07 lb/MWh for the MCHP and boiler
combined. These CO emissions data are not independently verified ETV results but are indicative of
freewatt CO emissions performance under controlled operating conditions.
Average electrical frequency was 60.00 Hz and average power factor was 99.2 percent.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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 - Climate Energy
freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat and Power System (SRI 2009). Detailed results of the verification are
presented in the Final Report titled Environmental Technology Verification Report for Climate Energy
freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat and Power System (SRI 2010). 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 Cynthia Sonich-Mullin Signed by Tim Hansen
(3/7/2013) (1/3/2013)
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin 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.
1-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( £jy ) Organization
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Climate Energy freewatt™
Micro-Combined Heat and Power System
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: Lee Beck
NYSERDA Project Officer: James Foster
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2. FREEWATT COGENERATION UNIT TECHNOLOGY AND VERIFICATION
DESCRIPTION 1-2
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW 1-4
1.3.1. Electrical Performance (GVP §2.0) 1-6
1.3.2. Electrical Efficiency (GVP §3.0) 1-6
1.3.3. CHP Thermal Performance (GVP §4.0) 1-7
1.3.4. Emissions Performance (GVP §5.0) 1-7
1.3.5. Field Test Procedures and Site Specific Instrumentation 1-8
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
2.3. POWER QUALITY PERFORMANCE 2-4
2.4. EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE 2-4
2.4.1. Freewatt MCHP and Boiler Exhaust Emissions 2-4
3.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 3-6
3.1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-6
3.2. DOCUMENTATION OF MEASUREMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES 3-7
3.2.1. Electrical Generation Performance 3-7
3.2.2. Electrical Efficiency Performance 3-7
3.2.3. CHP Thermal Efficiency Performance 3-8
3.2.4. Emissions Measurement MQOs 3-9
3.3. AUDITS 3-9
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY CLIMATE
ENERGY 4-10
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX A 1
in
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1 Freewatt Hydronic System Tested in Lake Rononkoma, NY 1-3
Figure 1-2 Mechanical Instrumentation Schematic 1-5
Figure 1-3 Electrical One-Line Drawing with Instrumentation 1-5
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1-1 Controlled Test Periods 1-6
Table 1-2 Instrument Descriptions and Locations 1-9
Table 2-1 Variability in Operating Conditions 2-2
Table 2-2 Freewatt MCHP Electrical and Thermal Performance - Controlled Test Periods 2-3
Table 2-3 Freewatt Boiler Thermal Performance - Controlled Test Periods 2-3
Table 2-4 Summary of Freewatt MCHP Power Quality 2-5
Table 2-5 MCHP Emissions during Controlled Test Periods 2-6
Table 2-6 Boiler Emissions during Controlled Test Periods 2-6
Table 3-1 Electrical Generation Performance MQOs 3-2
Table 3-2 Electrical Efficiency MQOs 3-2
Table 3-3 CHP Thermal Efficiency MQOs 3-3
Table 3-4 Summary of Emissions Testing Calibrations and QA/QC Checks 3-4
IV
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center wishes to thank NYSERDA, especially Jim Foster, for
supporting this verification and reviewing and providing input on the testing strategy and this Verification
Report. Thanks are also extended to Climate Energy personnel, especially Anthony Petruccelli, for his
input supporting the verification and assistance with coordinating field activities. Finally, thanks go out
to the homeowner and his family for hosting the test and accommodating field testing activities.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
ADQ
Btu
Btu/scf
CHP
CO
CO2
CT
DG
DQO
OUT
EGRID
EPA
ETV
GHG Center
GVP
gpm
Hz
1C
IEEE
kVA
kVAr
kW
kWe
kWt
kWh
Ib/hr
Ib/kWh
Ib/MWh
LHV
MBtu/h
MMBtu/hr
MQO
NIST
NOX
NYSERDA
NY LI
O2
ORD
ppm
psia
QA/QC
QMP
RTD
scf
scfh
SUT
TQAP
THC
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Audit of Data Quality
British thermal units
British thermal units per standard cubic feet
combined heat and power
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
current transformer
distributed generation
data quality objective
device under test
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
kilowatts electric
kilowatts thermal
kilowatt hours
pounds per hour
pounds per kilowatt-hour
pounds per megawatt-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 Long Island
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
VI
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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. ETV was implemented 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.
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 - Climate Energy's freewatt Micro-Combined Heat and Power
System. The system is a reciprocating internal combustion (1C) engine distributed electrical generation
and combined heat and power (DG / CHP) installation designed and commissioned by Climate Energy.
Heat is captured from the generator engine and passed to domestic heat loads via a closed heat transfer
loop. Climate Energy has installed a hydronic version of the freewatt system at a private residence in
Lake Ronkonkoma, Long Island, New York.
The GHG Center evaluated the performance of the freewatt by conducting field tests over an 18-hour
verification period (September 9 and 10, 2009). These tests were planned and executed by the GHG
Center to independently verify the electricity generation rate, thermal energy recovery rate, electrical
1-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
power quality, energy efficiency, emissions, and greenhouse gas emission reductions for the unit as
operated at the residence. 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 - Climate Energy freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat and Power System [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 NYSERDA, Climate Energy, 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 freewatt system was based on the GVP.
The remainder of Section 1.0 describes the freewatt 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 Climate Energy, presents additional
information regarding the CHP system. Information provided in Section 4.0 has not been independently
verified by the GHG Center.
1.2. FREEWATT COGENERATION UNIT TECHNOLOGY AND VERIFICATION
DESCRIPTION
The freewatt system is a reciprocating 1C engine based DG / CHP installation designed and
commissioned by Climate Energy. The system under test (SUT) for this verification was a hydronic
version of the freewatt system installed by Climate Energy at a private residence in Lake Ronkonkoma,
Long Island, New York. Figure 1-1 shows the residential installation tested during this verification.
Detailed system specifications are provided in Appendix A.
1-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Figure 1-1. Freewatt Hydronic System Tested in Lake Rononkoma, NY
With the freewatt system, heat is captured from the generator engine and passed to domestic heat loads
via a closed heat transfer loop. In this installation, the CHP system provides domestic hot water via an
indirectly-heated hot water heater and comfort heat to the residence via a hydronic heating system.
Included in the package is a high efficiency boiler that provides backup/peak heating and a "hybrid"
hydronic system controller that manages the hot water temperatures delivered to the hydronic system
from the boiler/CHP system. The system is connected in parallel to the electric utility grid, which
provides standby and peak power as required.
The system operates on a thermal-load-following mode, in which power is generated only when heat is
called for from the system. The system is configured to enable export of excess power generation to the
grid.
Manufacturer specifications indicate that the recovered energy will supply up to 12 thousand British
thermal units per hour (MBtu/h) to the local heating loads while producing 1.2 kilo Watt (kW) of electric
power. The supplementary boiler can provide up to an additional 190 MBtu/h.
On-site loads include:
• year-round domestic hot water (DHW)
• hydronic space heating during cold weather
The test campaign determined the emissions performance, electrical performance, thermal recovery and
electrical efficiency of the CHP module during a "controlled test period".
1-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
1.3. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
Following the GVP, the verification included evaluation of the freewatt 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 1.2 kW. The freewatt 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 freewatt system selected for this test including all of its internal
components. The SUT includes the DUT as well as the heat transfer fluid circulation pump. Following
the GVP, this verification incorporated the system boundary into the performance evaluation.
The ETV program test of the freewatt combined heat and power (CHP) system will require the temporary
installation of various sensors and instruments. The schematics presented in Figures 1-2 and 1-3 show the
mechanical and electrical layouts for metering. This monitoring scheme was designed to allow separate
quantification of MCHP and total heat production. Hydronic boiler heat production was determined as
the difference between the two. However, during the controlled test periods insufficient hot water demand
precluded a test configuration whereas both the MCHP and the boiler had sufficient load to operate
concurrently. Therefore, each unit was tested separately to determine thermal efficiency.
The defined SUT was tested to determine performance for the following verification parameters:
• Electrical Performance
• Electrical Efficiency
• CHP Thermal Performance
• Emissions Performance
Each of the verification parameters listed were evaluated during the controlled test periods as summarized
in Table 1-1. 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.
1-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Figure 1-2: Mechanical Instrumentation Schematic
Figure 1-3: Electrical One-Line Drawing with Instrumentation
1-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Table 1-1. Controlled Test Periods
Controlled Test Periods
Start Date
09/09/2009
End Date
09/10/2009
Test Condition
Power command 1 kW, three 30-minute
test runs for the MCHP and boiler
separately
Verification Parameters Evaluated
NOX, CO, CH4, CO2 emissions, and electrical
(MCHP only), thermal, and CHP efficiency, power
quality
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.
1.3.1. 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, %
• 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.
1.3.2. 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:
• 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. 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.
1-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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 lower heating value (LHV) 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.
1.3.3. 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].
The GVP followed for this verification represents the standard verification protocol for all DG/CHP
verifications conducted under the ETV program. It should be noted however that for this verification, an
additional thermal performance analysis was conducted. Specifically, collected field testing data was also
used to estimate boiler performance following ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 [5]. This standard,
commonly used in the residential heating and cooling industry to determine annual fuel utilization
efficiency (AFUE), was added to the analysis due to its applicability to a water heating system of this size
(residential). The standard was used to determine simple boiler steady state efficiency as a function of
heat input (fuel consumption) and heat losses (via the exhaust duct), thereby including the system's
ventilation heat supply to the conditioned space, which is not accounted for using the standard GVP
methodology.
1.3.4. 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, CH^, and THC. Emissions testing was performed by Southern
using a Horiba OBS-2200 portable emissions monitoring system (PEMS). The PEMS also measures
1-7
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
exhaust gas flow with a stack flow tube. The field team temporarily installed the PEMS and flow tube on
the exhaust stack. The mean concentration for each gas during each individual test run, integrated with
the mean exhaust gas volumetric flow rate observed during that test run, yielded the run's gaseous
emission rate in pounds per hour.
1.3.5. 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 system power command of
approximately 1.0 kW. Hot water was dumped as needed to maintain demand and allow the freewatt unit
to operate over the entire test period. A planned long-term monitoring period was not conducted due to
field testing problems (Section 3.1). Measurements recorded during the test periods included:
• Power output,
• 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).
Site specific measurement instrumentation is summarized in Table 1-2. The location of the
instrumentation relative to the SUT is illustrated in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. All measurement
instrumentation met the GVP specifications.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Table 1-2: Instrument Descriptions and Locations
Index
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ch_ro
(channel)
i
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Lab
Analysi
s
Power
Meter/
Logger
09
010
Oil
Parm_ID
(parameter)
Fvi
TSI
TRI
FGI
FG2
FV2
TS2
TR2
Fuel_LHV
EPMCHP
EPB
EPMCHP jn
EPMCHP_out
Description
Heat transfer fluid (water) flow rate
Supply temperature
Return temperature
MCHP Natural gas consumption, 100 pulse
per acf
Boiler Natural gas consumption
Main hydronic heating loop flow rate
Main hydronic heating loop supply
temperature
Main hydronic heating loop return
temperature
Natural gas lower heating value
Generated real power, reactive power,
power factor, voltage, current, frequency,
total harmonic distortion
Parasitic load (boiler controls and boiler
circulating pump) real power consumption
including boiler
Consumed real power
Generated real power
Nominal rating /
expected value
5 gallon per minute
(gPm)
80 - 140 °F
70 - 100 °F
3 1 pulse/min at
1 8,500 Btu/h
144 pulse/min at
80,000 Btu/h
10 gpm
80 - 140 °F
70 - 100 °F
910 British thermal
units per standard
cubic foot (Btu/scf)
1.2kW
0.2 kW, 8.9
pulse/min
0.1kW,4.4
pulse/min
1 .2 kW, 53 pulse/min
Location
Outlet of CHP circulation
pump and standby pump
Outlet of CHP circulation
pump
Heat transfer fluid return
line
Revenue gas meter
Revenue gas meter
Main hydronic loop
Main loop downstream of
last heat source outlet
(supply)
Main hydronic loop
upstream of first heat
source inlet (return)
Gas Sample Port
Generator output
Boiler subpanel
MCHP subpanel
P2 output, same instrument
as Index (14) above.
Sensor manufacturer, model number
Hedland model HTTF1-BA-NN
ultrasonic flow meter (3/4" copper pipe)
Omega SA-RTD-80-MTP 3-wire
surface mount resistance temperature
device (RTD)
Omega SA-RTD-80-MTP 3-wire
surface mount RTD
Invensys R200 with IMAC pulse
converter
Dresser Roots 8C 175
Hedland model HTTF1-BA-NN
ultrasonic flow meter (3/4" copper pipe)
Omega SA-RTD-80-MTP 3-wire
surface mount RTD
Omega SA-RTD-80-MTP 3-wire
surface mount RTD
Empact Analytical sampling bottles
Power Logic ION 7500 with (2) Flex-
core CTY-050A-1 CTs
WattNode WNB-37-208P with (2)
WattNode CTS-0750-015 split-core CTs
WattNode WNB-37-208P with (3)
WattNode CTS-0750-015 split-core CTs
(PI output)
P2 output, same instrument as Index
(14) above.
1-9
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
In addition to the above verification parameters, the TQAP provided a detailed procedure for estimating
NOX and CO2 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. The planned approach for this verification assumed that the freewatt system
generates power at a rate similar to that recorded during the verification monitoring period throughout the
entire year. However, due to the limited amount of data that was collected during the verification, a valid
extrapolation of results to generating rates and subsequent annual emission offsets was not possible, and
this parameter was therefore not verified.
The ETV program has published the Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing
Protocol [1] (generic protocol). The generic protocol contains detailed test procedures, instrument
specifications, analytical methods, and QA / QC procedures. This test campaign conformed to the generic
protocol specifications, with modifications or special considerations as listed in the following subsections.
Appendix A provides field data forms as derived from the generic protocol.
1-10
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS
2.1. OVERVIEW
The verification was conducted on September 9 and 10, 2009. Testing was conducted to verify power and
heat production, and CHP efficiency. The controlled test periods in September also included
determination of system emissions and power quality.
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 freewatt unit produces high quality power and is capable of operating in parallel
with the utility grid. At this residential installation, the MCHP unit can produce a steady 1 kW of net
electrical power after associated parasitic losses, and net electrical efficiency at full load averaged 21.6
percent. The average MCHP heat recovery rate measured during the controlled test periods was 8.56
MBtu/h and thermal efficiency averaged 54.4 percent.
NOX emissions averaged 0.08 Ib/MWh, and emissions of CO and THC averaged 81 and 2.4 Ib/MWh,
respectively. CO2 emissions for this residence through use of the freewatt are estimated at approximately
2-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
38 percent higher than the average grid emission factor. Detailed analyses are presented in the following
sections.
During controlled test periods where the boiler demand was maximized, the boiler delivered 43.7 MBtu/h
at an average efficiency of 56.3 percent (determined using GVP procedures). Boiler fuel utilization
efficiency averaged 96 percent (determined using ASHRAE AFUE procedures). Normalized to heat
production, boiler emissions of NOx and THC during this testing averaged 0.05 and 0.01 pounds per
million Btu produced (Ib/MMBtu), respectively.
In support of the data analyses, the GHG Center conducted an audit of data quality (ADQ) following
procedures specified in the QMP. 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 30 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%
0.50
0.32
0.32
Ambient Temp. (°F)
±5°F
0.8
0.3
0.2
Ambient Pressure"
±1%
0.01
0.01
0.03
Maximum (Average of Test Run - Observed Value) / Average of Test Run • 100
2-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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.
The average net electrical power delivered to the residence was 1.0 kW during operation. The average
electrical efficiency at this power output was 21.6 percent. Electric power generation heat rate, which is
an industry-accepted term to characterize the ratio of heat input to electrical power output, averaged
15,700 Btu/kWh.
MCHP heat recovery and use during the controlled test periods averaged 8.56 MBtu/h, or 2.51 kWt.
Thermal efficiency at this site averaged 54.4 percent and total CHP efficiency (electrical and thermal
combined) averaged 76.0 percent under these conditions.
Table 2-2. Freewatt MCHP Electrical and Thermal Performance - Controlled Test Periods
Test
ID
Runl
Run 2
Run3
Avg.
Fuel
Input
(MBtu/h)
15.8
15.7
15.7
15.7
Electrical Power
Generation Performance
Power
Delivered
(kW)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Efficiency a
(%)
21.6
21.6
21.6
21.6
Heat Recovery Performance
Heat
Recovered
(MBtu/h)
9.17
8.93
7.58
8.56
Thermal
Efficiency"
(%)
58.3
56.7
48.2
54.4
Total CHP
System
Efficiency
(%)
79.8
78.3
69.7
76.0
Ambient Conditions
Temp
(°F)
84.7
85.0
85.1
84.9
Pbar
(psia)
14.80
14.80
14.80
14.80
a Based on actual power available for consumption at the test site (power generated less parasitic losses). LHV Based.
Boiler heat recovery, tested separately, averaged 43.7 MBtu/h, or 12.8 kWt. Thermal efficiency for the
boiler during these forced control test conditions averaged 56.3 percent using the approach and
methodologies outlined the DG/CHP GVP [1] and as specified in the test plan. Boiler efficiency averaged
96 percent when calculated using the ASHRAE AFUE method [6], which is a standard industry measure
of efficiency for residential type units.
2-3
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Table 2-3. Freewatt Boiler Thermal Performance - Controlled Test Periods
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run3
Avg.
Fuel Input
(MBtu/h)
77.5
77.5
77.5
77.5
Heat Recovery Performance
Heat Recovered
(MBtu/h)
41.5
50.8
38.7
43.7
Thermal Efficiency
(%)
53.6
65.5
49.9
56.3
Ambient Conditions
Temp (°F)
86.2
88.1
89.7
88.0
Pbar (psia)
14.80
14.80
14.80
14.80
2.3. POWER QUALITY PERFORMANCE
Table 2-4 summarizes the power quality statistics for voltage, power factor, and frequency. The data
show that the unit produced power at quality levels well within the IEEE recommendations for all
parameters.
Table 2-4. Summary of freewatt MCHP Power Quality
Parameter
Voltage (v)
Frequency (Hz)
Power Factor (%)
Average
121.76
60.00
99.23
Maximum
Recorded
122.68
60.04
99.29
Minimum
Recorded
120.49
59.97
99.12
Standard
Deviation
0.58
0.01
0.02
2.4. EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE
2.4.1. Freewatt MCHP and Boiler 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 separately for the MCHP and boiler exhaust ducts in Tables 2-5 and 2-6.
2-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Table 2-5. MCHP Emissions during Controlled Test Periods
Test ID
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
A^g.
CO2 Emissions
ppm
99343
100741
98242
99442
Ih/hr
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
Ih/MWh
1358
1356
1352
1355
THC Emissions
ppm
177
183
175
179
Ih/hr
2.42E-03
2.45E-03
2.40E-03
2.42E-03
lh/MWh
2.43
2.46
2.41
2.43
NOx Emissions
ppm
5.90
5.47
6.54
5.97
Ih/hr
8.04E-05
7.33E-05
8.96E-05
8.11E-05
lh/MWh
0.081
0.074
0.090
0.081
Table 2-6. Freewatt Boiler Emissions during Controlled Test Periods
Test ID
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Avg.
CO2 Emissions
ppm
87470
88755
89793
88673
Ih/hr
6.36
7.07
8.38
7.27
Ih/MMBtu
153
139
216
170
THC Emissions
ppm
8.08
4.23
3.41
5.24
Ih/hr
5.88E-04
3.37E-04
3.18E-04
4.14E-04
Ih/MMBtu
0.014
0.007
0.008
0.010
NOx Emissions
ppm
20.1
25.2
28.0
24.4
Ih/hr
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
Ih/MMBtu
0.035
0.040
0.067
0.047
Emissions results for NOX, THC, and CO2 concentrations are reported in units of parts per million by
volume dry (ppmvd). Measured pollutant concentration data were converted to mass emission rates using
EPA Method 2 and are reported in units of pounds per hour (Ib/hr). The MCHP 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. Boiler
emission rates are also reported in units of Ib/MMBtu normalized to the amount of heat produced during
the tests.
NOX emissions averaged 0.08 Ib/MWh and emissions of THC averaged 2.4 Ib/MWh. During controlled
test periods where the boiler demand was maximized, the boiler delivered 43.7 MBtu/h at an average
efficiency of 56.3 percent. Normalized to heat production, boiler emissions of NOx THC during this
testing averaged O.OSand 0.01 pounds per million Btu produced (Ib/MMBtu), respectively.
Concentrations of CO2 in the MCHP exhaust gas averaged 9.9% with a corresponding average CO2
emission rate of 1,355 Ib/MWh.
Test results for CO emissions were invalidated after completion of testing and data analysis. The data
were invalidated due to excessive variability in analytical results caused by the use of an inappropriate
analyzer range. An identical freewatt unit was tested for CO emissions in a laboratory setting by the Gas
Technology Institute (GTI) in early 2010 [6]. The GTI testing was conducted under controlled and steady
operating conditions following EPA reference methods for emissions testing. Results from the GTI
testing indicate average CO emissions of 0.23 Ib/MWh for the MCHP and 0.07 Ib/MWh for the MCHP
and boiler combined. These CO emissions data are not independently verified ETV results but are
indicative of freewatt CO emissions performance under controlled operating conditions.
2-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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. With
the exception of CO emissions testing, 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
monitoring period (although the monitoring period was severely shortened to only 18 hours). As stated
earlier, the CO emissions testing conducted by the GHG Center during this verification has been
invalidated due to the use of an inappropriate analyzer operating range. The instrument used for this
testing (Horiba OBS 2000) has an analytical range for CO of 0 to 10 percent. After testing and during data
review it was determined that actual stack concentrations of CO were less than 10000 ppm on the MCHP
and less than 500 ppm on the boiler (or less than 10% of the operating range). Manufacturer expected CO
concentrations, as validated by the GTI laboratory testing, are on the order of less than 100 ppm.
Considering the analytical limitations of the instrument used for testing, the CO data for this verification
are considered invalid.
3-6
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Regarding the extended monitoring period, a series of issues and problems encountered during testing
precluded the verification from including a valid continuous data. Therefore, this verification does not
include results of verification parameters requiring long term analytical data including availability,
reliability, and GHG and other emissions offsets.
The following sections document the MQOs for this verification, followed by a reconciliation of the
DQOs stated above based on the MQO findings.
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)
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.,
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. Following the GVP, the MQO criteria demonstrate that the
DQO of ±2 % relative uncertainty for electrical performance was met.
3.2.2. Electrical Efficiency Performance
Table 3-2 summarizes the MQOs for electrical efficiency performance.
3-7
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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 B 8 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
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-S
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
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
C02, 02
NOX
THC
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
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
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
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.
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 CH4. Reported CHt 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 manager. 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, a readiness/planning review was conducted by the QA manager. During the readiness/planning
review, the QA Manager confirmed that the pre-test preparations, calibrations, and activities conformed to
the approved TQAP.
3-9
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY CLIMATE ENERGY
Note: This section provides an opportunity for Climate Energy to provide additional comments
concerning the freewatt System and its features not addressed elsewhere in the Report. The GHG Center
has not independently verified the statements made in this section.
The basic findings of this evaluation result in reported levels of performance, in terms of overall
electric and heating efficiency, below those determined by Climate Energy and several national test
laboratories. Mainly, this is due to differences in accounting for the useful application of the generated
heat and electricity. We believe the ETV characterization that has been applied is more appropriate for
industrial CHP systems and not the self-contained home heating appliances and systems the freewatt is
intended to replace. A particular point of fact in this regard is that national standards for home heating
appliances do not penalize the overall efficiency of the heating appliance for the electric power
consumption of the whole heating system, as has been done in this study. Even though the freewatt
system has very low parasitic power consumption per unit of heat generated and delivered to the building
compared to conventional heating systems, the mere accounting of it in the methods applied under the
protocol followed here lowers freewatt apparent overall efficiency in comparison. Another significant
difference is that this verification does not account for all of the useful heat provided by the system
directly into thermally conditioned space in which it is installed, in that the protocol used here disregards
the available cabinet heat from the MCHP appliance. This heating contribution is normally recognized in
national standards for the performance of hydronic (boiler) heating appliances.
Also, we do wish to point out the discrepancy in this report between the statements that the
measured Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) of the freewatt boiler was found to be 96% (section
2.2.1 text) and that the measured thermal efficiency of the freewatt boiler averaged 56.% (Table 2-
3). Although this verification was conducted following approved DG/CHP performance verification
protocols, several independent test laboratories have confirmed the freewatt boiler AFUE at the levels
stated here using the AFUE test procedure accepted by the industry and adopted by the Department of
Energy for residential heating boilers. Complications and uncertainties in the direct measurement of
thermal output of small boilers is a primary reason the AFUE method, based on stack gas analysis and
flue losses , has been used by industry and government for determining the practical operating efficiency
of residential boilers which are normally installed in the thermally conditioned space of a building.
4-10
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] Southern Research Institute, Test and Quality Assurance Plan - Test and Quality Assurance Plan
- Climate Energy freewatt™ Micro-Combined Heat and Power System, SRI/USEPA-GHG-
QAP-46, www.sri-rtp.com. Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute,
Research Triangle Park, NC. August 2009.
[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] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, www.ashrae.org. Atlanta, GA, 2007.
[6] Gas Technology Institute, Freewatt - Plus Performance Test Results, GTI-208081.05-15625,
www.gastechnology.org. Des Plaines, Illinois, 2010. 1980.
5-1
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
5-2
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
APPENDIX A
Hydronic Freewatt System Model 1.2 HDZFN
A-l
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
^iS
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
HOIMDA.
Freewatt System
Model fr«watt-1.2HDZFN
MICRO COMBINED HEA~ MC POWER SYSTEMS
*: im;rtr *i~r|j/<; -rrr'A-nrt *!^r,trT .-rmfur^'-.t^.i trrh r-Jo^ir-'.,.:n rirfwnrrtf ^oilc" nH n -wriir.-| £-*, frr<: rr.^np (?nrr.tf.-ir. I nil twhrd hrrt ind pr^
gei^rat si package provides uirlvs sctDralerirjJ^rfeieicvlrKsnt-lnec i^alard x^ver dfllv*", :o tie tone Tie rr^€wa^"" £>Tt6T Iscsslj-iedte
lr=t= .lE-jritie p=ce ;f»t)'p-lc3' DOIIs'Sidu-ssthesame ^'jet>v<:r-: -'fsun ~.c ds >'6r^el-.eat:ctie icrre
i Li ul Module
t™ £y=:=iv Cor [roller
I Htb WA II" SYb I cM I bA I UKbS
• I .»' ':j fvl IIP f . -:^ ".- I ;• 1.1 • ' Ti.: . I I. ;,-,
i Hun.ki«<: jLIu
z Qjfct I47 dBA]
: E*f: Sent (i 5S t = I leit Anc Foweri
r J.2 kw of Ct«;:rfc =o'*
:• Concani ig a J
lytrid to-tpa-k-r r.'c dul«
: Coir Tjnlcaclr; Tier T.;stal
.IYC.T-M
Mpjnf in i ,• K -i: n i :
:p Hnnp'l Klrr.fin ^^.o(tp^^^l^ I •
^ Me ilhl> Cltd i. 3i bv Nt.-
Enhanced Cert ••:
icrEoisshsise vaks ij S^. Jtots WUA1"1-1 ^ale-id 'Vpfiiss-'s nstuis
-U'ii.'i ii 'tvi-jriinni i*:M)uf .1:11 1 ,'i:»:.-n ji; Iv
:- ^^pl^^^^ -'.
free rtBtt Indirect •
Hot Water Heater
' «-r •«•• TVP I ••..-.!(. I •>
ar
Oril^r Coitnofc
. I-M-L
95V.AFUE
Honda MCHP
tNOlGYSTAfl
, riiri3:c
lrttl I'lr.l lllH 'j::lnj ill[llif.«. JS
ja ^ of the F' esv/crt sl(ls:em meets Energy
Star
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
Climate f _,rt rtM , g g
Energy PO8W0UL
Engineered for High Efficiency
I knda Mf: IP Llnil
Jl'-'iJIIH'IL'IICy tlSS%" Mill.1 plUUUtllllj
power anc nea(. therety "educing t^e anomtof ere'jy
consurr : a :c rrnc -a1c y :• jr paw
• I JfilivsiT. s » h.n ist Ihm r - W< : ver unr.
Arivar-wri 1 >nt Vi'-wr Pfiilftr
• Delivers £5% ATUC v. 11 a c>3(Ti33loi reslsiHH alum num
. f ir.y snn iririnr •• c.nnrtnr
f Tmm h nnri^
Cam:
• Acvan:ed heat ar.d pDW=- algorrtirr c:*nr z»=
p-ccjcior s'l sncs we IP unit
« ( : .rrlnr ' tef.f
lyhfid ntsT^tion Wort.j fi
• ( :nnr,i inrif =. i mr,** ?r: w.il-r, -
MCHP unil X iiii ral lits .
Advanced Technology
S fir-hoard
i versrif i-iii3iltv pnwsr T ffif
litfirc-j titiii (.'iL'jlpii'iL1!
L L 1 /41 Certr.ed Tc- ''Jrc intsrcoi'KCI OT
i Hi'jll j:"ic -""111)1 IlL' J. r. y.c;']ur:'^-T r JtlULX'J 'JjtlUU'jl [' OC Jt..!
ts "1 10= r, ai s'*ing uss :-r PVC venng
• Three-way Mtaljtc x verier s gnir l
Rnif -jrr-,
T. Combustion Ccinrtrol Sy^teir
contrsl
Sk'pi; 'ij ji:s «:-«.• ufr:-i« iilir Jt. unlirniLt: t
Qi//er Operation & Comfort
HwnhiMCHPUiii.
• Gu Jia.filita.
al ai
; ffut'ly 'I7.JBA
ivji ir t; t
i _jvi H.'ul
Advanced Ho( Wat:- E: lor
» JILi.c:j-L'lup<.idl-i"iwhilLp d
mode
• us/ft I lest node arasi •ally 'e:ucss tempe-ature 3« ngs
.••r: in rjf.,v.f!f, c/jf •,•
I r* HiSi- ™iflft Mi';h P nf: ri-.^t'r'.
Igh I lest nc
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
freewatt
PtIWCRfD toy
HONDA
Mcifc ffesv, atl-l.il IKr\
Typical Hycromc f'&evjit!Sy&te.Tt pood i-t
72'
I __
•A- \
MI -IT hi ITJ ill i.:nr>7:\
SysTBin Cfcirani;??
Di mcrisicrn^ Ba lor
1 JO
Le^rS^c" _"
r.lgif ilds _"
base L - N ats 1
t-'irn- !!*
Dfli< 6"
H;si!6.'1.'«itPlplnf CT
Hesrtsife -U"i JiFHr; -"
HsnHa
MCHP
.!'..'•
J.i '
tS"
i-'JDiei
}\'
9
L-'
ll'I- i '..- CC
J"
14'
-
-
..
-
-
Ni. <• t r.irnti'.l ;:il!- NIC: ii i!:if: t .vilj il ml .irirl.
2 ML^->ua:t=c)-5d ^; b«=* tii: isanchxa: :j cc icrsre f OCT.
MBddlrwBBtt-iajirarN
HondsMCHPUrirt
1 H-B
^-h.-i
!•<:•-
I
\
\
a — nroi Vfr iir
*_LC • ^ t i •:
:tf=: =•*• N 7- l-zt 1 J,
•).rkr.M.~.fl- -rtTf. >
fi
^•J"||W!IL"
-StdYMiA Wode
WhT6
AtK^c.
- 31 !L*J^,H If -•
T—c
r ^TT
9
CT
THWJ\ UlrtHIt «
l_
d
±-'..1
vt.- -i -mj CuAiit IAI-
T':.. f :;!.:;-»„,
1*3. f, tr> i^
D^- '"-j^TrTwi
•
\_
on
1'
rj-ii^
r — '
iJrr.-i:
Hydronic Freewatt iysteni
Model
ll>ih v'nl'K flC, K'l 4?
Air ntsk»,V«nt: yscvCPVC
SJE. ..• hi-'i
in
SM Tiar IV ir
Honde HCHJ
= l*ctrlta i: .' • n Viills A ~, w i -7, •! piasp, sss lhap f amis
Vent 2' S;h 40 T>/C
Nsiura ! ss.s s ' NFT w nexibi* csnnecto-
Cor cl ens j te Drai n '/: ' r^?
Consult Installation Manuals for mare details.
r.'ui H in .^.i I l.'-ITFM
Dimciiiicnc
IWiht
•AI dn
t::-\.ttnfj •« -dime.
Supply (crnert sr
ahmama
Air In ,.l
Cellar
DO 3,'SJ
-£'•
In V'° "
P a±ff'-j}\ ,'lt
!
TOD
TOD
P ui.ff'£i ;\t
1
Modal frs.evatt-i.;2IIWN
lntegrnl en Modkl? CeUiils
A-4
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
HEATING CAPACITIES - NATURAL GAS
V :«: •!
M-xlil ieewatt-l.il ICC'N
Control Modjle Details
rt nj Lergt i ft.} - Boiler {if;
i-t.]-! Dr:; tf.C IP|I";
IX ^
r.'ni i- Im .tr.i I l..'-n-FN
•,'pl;;l Reef V«nv i-3t'» *rm narlers
Consuit Installation Manuals for mart details.
f.'iiiiH IIT.W I 1_H17FN
Typical SiSpwall Vent nlahe "^fmirLitions
ConsatttnstailotiQa Manna's for more details.
r.'ui !• 11 MI .T.] I I..1-417FN
Grid Interccnnpcdon
!he fci d iiitoBonnet-liyri of ."e Huiua IviCHI' i-ii'l ii le^uiieL: .'j 'jpe'dle Hie byaLer-i. DeufiLJir.jj uii Ill's
rtujuldliur's dud Hie sleUric u^iLy. dirfersril g'id inltjrtoriritLli'jii aupliva. in p'L'tesse> die tequiied, CliralB
Ene'gv is cctivsh,' educa" ng state governments a"d electric utilities about the benefits of Vicro-CHP aid liovv the
freywall SyiLem tar! be a Lfilitdl coiiiwurvnl in Iher energy tonseivdlior purLfuliy. If arry nuesliur's surfate uurina
Uie grid iiLsicynnetliur. pryutib., p ease cunldtl yuui (Jliriule bntrF^y priMJutl lethnit;an ui tlhraLe brierjjy al bO!S-
3MJ-4WK),
energy
CHP '
<§>
Climate
Energy
A-5
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-46
December 2012
------- |