Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Multifamily (MF) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Level 2 Analysis Tool Piljae Im Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Multifamily (MF) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Level 2 Analysis Tool Piljae Im Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Multifamily (MF) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Level 2 Analysis Tool Piljae Im Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1

2 Webinar Outline Introduction HUD CHP Level 1 Screening Tool MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool Quick Starts MF Building Template Example Use of the Tool 2

3 Introduction: Background Promoting the use of combined heat and power (CHP) (cogeneration) in multifamily housing is an initiative of the HUD Energy Action Plan. To help implement it, beginning in 2003 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Energy/Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE/ORNL), executed Interagency Agreements (IAA) to create feasibility screening software (i.e., Level 1 Screening Tool). ORNL created, expanded, and validated a Level 1 preliminary screening tool that enables the owners of multifamily housing to consider the feasibility (cost, savings and paybacks) for installing CHP. In May 2010 ORNL created for HUD a Level 2 Multifamily CHP Screening Tool (MFCHP) that adapts the BCHP tool used for the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) for use on multifamily buildings. 3

4 Before the Level 2 Tool HUD CHP Level 1 Screening Tool Level 1 screening tool: Simplified process to get a go/no-go answer as to whether or not a building owner or operator should look more carefully into CHP and perhaps enlist some engineering support in conducting a site inspection and conducting a rigorous economic analysis (i.e., Level 2 analysis). This tool is non-technical and is directed specifically toward building owners and operators. Users of the HUD CHP Screening Tool need to type in data from their monthly power and fuel bills for one consecutive 12 month period as well as some utility rate information. 4

5 Before the Level 2 Tool HUD CHP Level 1 Screening Tool The program uses these data to estimate fuel use for space and water heating and power consumption for air conditioning. The utility costs and rate information are combined with correlations for costs of generator equipment, installation, and maintenance to estimate simple payback periods for a hypothetical CHP system relative to the non-CHP system reflected in the utility data. Sites with low estimated simple payback periods are encouraged to look more seriously into CHP for both its energy savings and cost savings opportunities. Sites with high simple payback periods can save the time and effort of examining CHP in detail with assurances that they are not missing a great opportunity. 5

6 Needs for the Level 2 Tool Once the building owner decided to go for further analysis for CHP systems after level 1 analysis, a more detailed level 2 analysis will be needed. A Level 2 analysis is based on detailed site examination, utility usage and heat consumption, and it can cost $5,000-10,000 in engineering firm charges. To provide a Level 2 tool for owners and for analysts that can facilitate the efforts The MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool provides a building energy simulation with a full hourly level analysis and cost analysis via simple easy-to-use user interfaces. This new tool provides a public option where anyone can have all the information on how it works (can compare results across practitioners more easily, and public entities like HUD can require more public results be provided on proposed projects). 6

7 MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool The MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool was developed under a collaborative effort between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy/Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a tool to evaluate the combined cooling, heating and power in multifamily housing. The MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool is a computer program for assessing the economic potential of combined cooling, heating, and power (CHP) systems for multifamily buildings. The original program, the BCHP Screening Tool, which is the similar program for commercial buildings (but no MF building type), was developed under Department of Energy funding by a collaborative effort between GARD Analytics of Park Ridge, Illinois and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 7

8 MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool The MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool is structured to perform parametric analyses between a baseline building, typically a conventional building without a CHP system, and up to 25 alternative scenarios with varying selections for building mechanical systems and operating schedules. The MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool consists of the executable program, databases for HVAC equipment, electric generators, thermal storage systems, prototypical multifamily buildings, and climate data. The program also includes DOE-2.1e to calculate heating, cooling, and electrical loads. 8

9 MF CHP Level 2 Analysis Tool 9 Input through the MF CHP Tool DRM Template DOE-2 BDL File (DOE-2 Input File) DOE-2 Run for System Sizing Output for System Sizing DOE-2 Simulation Run DOE-2 Simulation Output Output in the MF CHP Tool

10 Quick Starts The tool and User Manual can be downloaded: Installation procedure: See the user manual 10

11 Quick Starts 11 Input Results Help Scenario A: Base Case Scenario B: Alternative

12 Quick Starts 12 Table tab: Input and Result Graph tab: Result Schematic tab: Result Building Description: Result

13 Add a Scenario 13 Insert a column (three options)

14 Add a Scenario: Copy of Current Column 14 Scenario C added

15 Three Types of Input Method Direct input Drop down menu Selection from a separate window 15

16 Drop Down Menu (ex: Story Height) 16

17 Drop Down Menu (ex: Story Height) 17

18 Select from a Separate Window (ex: Location) 18

19 Select from a Separate Window (ex: Location) 19

20 Inputs: Table Tab –Two categories for the inputs: Mandatory & Additional Inputs –For a quick run, only the mandatory inputs needs to be entered –For more detailed controls, the additional inputs needs to be entered. 20

21 Mandatory Inputs 21

22 Overview of the BCHP Screening Tool Result –Annual Gas and Electricity Consumption & Costs –Equipment Sizes & Costs –System Life Cycle Costs –Parametric Analysis of Up to 26 Systems –Simple Payback Relative To Baseline System –Hourly Load Profiles for Selected Dates 22

23 Results: Table Tab 23

24 Graph Tab –The graphs, also called charts, can be monthly results or annual results from the simulation –The numbers shown on the graph are taken from the grid on the Table tab. 24

25 Graph Tab 25

26 Schematic Tab –Provide a good summary of the energy (elec. and gas) flow based on the selected case. –Provide the summary of calculated project cost, operating cost, annual savings and simple payback. 26

27 Schematic Tab 27

28 Building Description 28

29 Overview of the BCHP Screening Tool MF Building Template –Thermal Model: Does not need to be the same with the actual building shape –Six zones –Perimeter zone and core zone for each zone –Two space types: Corner apartment and Inside apartment ZoneSpace TypeBuilding Fraction (%) Window/Wall Ratio (%) North EastCorner Apartments 521 North CentralInside Apartments 4023 North WestCorner Apartments 521 South EastCorner Apartments 521 South CentralInside Apartments 4023 South WestCorner Apartments

30 Overview of the BCHP Screening Tool MF Building Defaults –Default values for the thermal characteristics of each type of zone end use Six zones –Resources: 1)ASHRAE Standard , 2)ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, 3)"Estimating Water Heating and Aggregate Electricity Loads in Multifamily Buildings," R. L. Ritschard, Y. J. Huang, J. M. Fay, ASHRAE Transactions 1990, Volume 96, Pt. 1, pp )Impact Evaluation of the Energy Retrofits Installed in the Margolis High-Rise Apartment Building, Chelsea Housing Authority M.M. Abraham, H.A. McLain. And J.M. MacDonald, Technical report ORNL/CON-413, )and professional judgment. UseArea/Person (sqft/person) Lighting (W/sqft) Plug Load (W/sqft) Person Heat Gain (Btuh/person) Sensible Person Heat (Btuh/person) High Rise Multifamily Housing UseHeat Set Point (F) Cool Set Point (F) Max Humidity (%RH) Min Humidity (%RH) Ouside air (CFM/person) High Rise Multifamily Housing

31 Example: CHP Analysis Study Multifamily Building New Bedford, MA 7 story 99 one-bedroom apartments 82,900 sq.ft. heated floor space No cooling system Utility rate –Average electricity: $0.123/kWh –Average natural gas: $1.45/Therm 31

32 Monthly Utility Bills (Before CHP System) MonthElec.N.G. kWh$Therm$ January43,680$4,8053,822$5,557 February43,520$4,7877,976$11,597 March39,200$4,9005,600$8,142 April42,080$5,2603,959$5,756 May39,680$4,9602,904$4,222 June43,680$5,4601,646$2,393 July47,360$5,920964$1,401 August56,160$7,020674$979 September54,240$6,780771$1,121 October46,240$5,7801,202$1,747 November44,160$5,5202,232$3,245 December39,360$4,9205,314$7,726 Total539,360$66,11237,064$53,886 Average Cost $0.12 $

33 Preliminary Screening (Level 1) 33

34 Preliminary Screening (Level 1) 34

35 Preliminary Screening (Level 1) 35

36 Preliminary Screening (Level 1) 36

37 Preliminary Screening (Level 1) 37

38 Example: Level 2 Analysis - Procedure Base case: Initial Run (As-built) Base case: Calibration Apply generator(s) for the base case building Change the generator options Find the optimal scenario 38

39 Example: Level 2 Analysis Base case: Initial Run –At least complete the Mandatory Inputs –Use available data/information –Use the best guess for unknown data/or –Leave default values 39

40 Building Size HVAC (No cooling) Average Utility Rate 40 Building Location

41 Result Screen (Annual Consumption) 1.Total Annual Elec. Use Simulated vs. Utility Bills: 524,379 kWh vs.539,360 kWh (2.8% diff.) 2. Total Annual N.G. Simulated vs. Utility Bills: 59,175 Therms vs. 37,064 Therms (59.7 % diff.) Annual Elec. Use Annual N.G. Use 41

42 MonthElec.N.G. kWh$Therm$ January43,680$4,8053,822$5,557 February43,520$4,7877,976$11,597 March39,200$4,9005,600$8,142 April42,080$5,2603,959$5,756 May39,680$4,9602,904$4,222 June43,680$5,4601,646$2,393 July47,360$5,920964$1,401 August56,160$7,020674$979 September54,240$6,780771$1,121 October46,240$5,7801,202$1,747 November44,160$5,5202,232$3,245 December39,360$4,9205,314$7,726 Total539,360$66,11237,064$53,886 Average Cost $0.12 $1.45 Monthly Elec. Use Monthly N.G. Use Utility Bills 42

43 Discrepancy between the initial simulation and Utility Bills –Default assumption (average MF characteristics) vs. actual building characteristics –Unknown input parameters (e.g., windows-to-wall ratio, boiler & chiller size, operation schedule, etc.) –Equipment performance data –Actual weather vs. typical weather file Need Calibration ! 43

44 Base Case: Calibration with Utility Bills/Measure data –Tune the initial simulation to be matched with the utility bills (i.e., actual use) –Annual total –Monthly total –Useful input parameters for calibration SHW use (Btu/h-person) Infiltration rate (ACH) Lighting and Equipment load (W/sq.ft) Building insulation value (R-value) Type of windows (if unknown) Cooling/Heating room set temperatures Others 44

45 Input Changed 1.Too low heating energy : Change air infiltration rate from 0.5 to Too high SWH use: Change service water heating density (Btu/h- person) from 2500 to

46 Result Screen (Annual Consumption) 1.Total Annual Elec. Use Simulated vs. Utility Bills: 526,320 kWh vs. 539,360 kWh 2. Total Annual N.G. Simulated vs. Utility Bills: 36,137 Therms vs. 37,064 Therms (2.5% diff.) 46

47 Add a Generator –The MF building has a 75 kW reciprocating engine. –Change the corresponding default values to be the same with the base case scenario 47

48 Add a Generator –The MF building has a 75 kW reciprocating engine. –Change the corresponding default values to be the same with the base case scenario –Select a reciprocating engine (5.f. Generator) 48

49 Add a Generator –The MF building has a 75 kW reciprocating engine. –Change the corresponding default values to be the same with the base case scenario –Select a reciprocating engine (5.f. Generator) –Input 75 kW (6.c. Generator Sizing (direct input)) 49

50 Add a Generator –The MF building has a 75 kW reciprocating engine. –Change the corresponding default values to be the same with the base case scenario –Select a reciprocating engine (5.f. Generator) –Input 75 kW (6.c. Generator Sizing (direct input)) –Check with III.2. Generator Operation : Thermal demand Option for summer and winter 50

51 Check Result No Changes in Elec. Use Reduced Space Heating Reduced SWH N.G Use for Generator Total N.G. Use Elec. Onsite Generation 51

52 Select Schematic tab 52

53 Select Case B 53

54 Cost Analysis System Configuration Space and SW Heating Heat Recovery Summary 54

55 Double Click 55

56 56

57 Click 57

58 58

59 Double Click 59

60 60

61 Next Step: Analyze and find the optimal generator and the schedule for the building Input parameters can be changed for the analysis –Size of generator 30, 45, 70, 100 kW… –Number of generators –Type of generator Reciprocating, Gas turbine, Micro turbine –Generator operating option Thermal demand Electric demand Greater/lesser demand Maximum output –Heat used for space heating/service water heating 61

62 Thanks! Question/feedback/comment Piljae Im Oak Ridge National Laboratory


Download ppt "Multifamily (MF) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Level 2 Analysis Tool Piljae Im Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google