Harley-Davidson Museum Milwaukee, WI. Jonathan Rumbaugh, BAE/MAE Mechanical Option. Advisor: Dr. William Bahnfleth

Transcription

1 Harley-Davidson Museum Milwaukee, WI. Jonathan Rumbaugh, BAE/MAE Mechanical Option Advisor: Dr. William Bahnfleth

2 PROJECT SPONSORS

3 : Thermal Bridging : Air vs. Water CHP Feasibility PRESENTATION OUTLINE PROJECT SPONSORS

4 Building Statistics Location & Layout PROJECT BACKGROUND BUILDING STATISTICS Size (Total Square Feet): 130,000 Number Stories Above grade: 3 Construction timeline : April 2005 May 2008 Overall Project Cost: $75 million Guggenheim by Frank Gehry 257,000 square feet $100 million Wordpress.com

5 PROJECT BACKGROUND Building Statistics Location & Layout

6 EXISTING CONDITIONS MECHANICAL DESIGN Mechanical Design Energy Model Emissions Comparison Two Roof Mounted 300 Ton Air-cooled Rotary Screw Chillers Four 2000 MBH Sealed Combustion Condensing Boilers Variable Primary Flow 11 Air Handling Units

7 EXISTING CONDITIONS ENERGY MODEL Mechanical Design Energy Model Emissions Comparison Peak Cooling Plant Loads Desgin TRACE MODEL Design to Model ton ton %Δ % Total Building Energy [kbtu/yr] Lighting 33% Receptacle 15% Primary Heating 24% Auxiliary 14% Primary Cooling 14% Peak Heating Plant Loads Desgin TRACE MODEL Design to Model MBh MBh %Δ % Total Source Energy [kbtu/yr] Receptacle 17% Lighting 40% Primary Heating 10% Primary Cooling 16% Auxiliary 17% $0.10 / kwh Electricity $0.80 / Therm Natural Gas Annual Cost Breakdown 18% 41% 6% 17% 18% Primary Heating Primary Cooling Auxiliary Lighting Receptacle Cost Breakdown Cost Primary Heating $ 20, Primary Cooling $ 62, Auxiliary $ 64, Lighting $ 150, Receptacle $ 65, Total $ 363,753.10

8 Mass of Pollutant (lb) CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O NOx SOx CO TNMOC Lead Mercury PM10 Solid Waste VOC Mass of Pollutant (lb) Mechanical Design Energy Model Emissions Comparison EXISTING CONDITIONS EMISSIONS 1.00E E E E E E E E E E E+00 Emissions Pollutant Calculations use factors from the Regional Grid emissions Factors table B-10 Precombustion Natural Gas Electic 4.50E E E E E E E E E+03 Emissions : No CO 2 Precombustion Natural Gas Electic 0.00E+00 Pollutant

9 Mass of Pollutant (lb) CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O NOx SOx CO TNMOC Lead Mercury PM10 Solid Waste VOC Mass of Pollutant (lb) Mechanical Design Energy Model Emissions Comparison EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Million lbs. of C0 2e / year EMISSIONS 867 acres 1.00E E E E E E E E E E E+00 Emissions Pollutant Calculations use factors from the Regional Grid emissions Factors table B-10 Precombustion Natural Gas Electic 4.50E E E E E E E E E+03 Emissions : No CO 2 Precombustion Natural Gas Electic 0.00E+00 Pollutant

10 Kilowatt Hours (kwh) Temp EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARISON CONCLUSION Mechanical Design Energy Model Emissions Comparison 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50,000 0 Museum Campus Electricity Use 2010 kwh 2010 kwh TRACE KWH 2010 Temp 2010 Temp TRACE temp Energy Model is an accurate representation of the energy consumption of the facility Date

11 THESIS GOALS GOALS PROPOSAL Reduce Emissions Reduce Energy Consumption Reduce Operating cost Energy Consumption Emissions Operating Cost Decrease Thermal Loads Through Envelope Become Energy Independent From Grid Increase Efficiency of Chilled Water Production

12 STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL BRIDGING Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis Location of thermal break N

13 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL ANALYSIS Starting with the conservation of energy equation q 2 = q 1 + dq (From Conservation of Energy) q x = ka c dt dx (From Fourier s Law) A c = Cross section area, k = conductivity of the material dq conv = h da s (T T ) d dx ka c dt dx dx = ha s (T T ) d 2 T dx 2 hp T T ka = 0 c d 2 θ dx 2 m2 θ = 0 (Homogeneous Second Order ODE) m 2 hp ka c, θ = T T d 2 θ dx 2 m2 θ = 0 θ x Boundary Conditions: = C 1 e mx + C 2 e mx (General Solution) 1. Adiabatic Tip: dt = 0 dx x=l 2. One Direction Heat Transfer: T(base) = T(base) T

14 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH C 1 = θ be ml THERMAL ANALYSIS e ml +e ml C 2 = θ b C 1 Conduction at the base is equal to the total convective heat transfer dθ q f = ka c = hθ x da dx s q cond at base of fin x=0 A F q f = ka c dt dx x=0 = Mtanh ml d 2 T dx 2 hp T T ka = 0 c d 2 θ dx 2 m2 θ = 0 (Homogeneous Second Order ODE) m 2 hp ka c, θ = T T d 2 θ dx 2 m2 θ = 0 θ x Boundary Conditions: = C 1 e mx + C 2 e mx (General Solution) m = hp ka c, M = hpka c T b T, L = length of fin 1. Adiabatic Tip: dt = 0 dx x=l 2. T(base) = T(base) T

15 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH C 1 = θ be ml THERMAL ANALYSIS e ml +e ml C 2 = θ b C 1 Conduction at the base is equal to the total convective heat transfer dθ q f = ka c = hθ x da dx s q cond at base of fin x=0 A F q f = ka c dt dx x=0 = Mtanh ml dt q f = M ka= c hpka c = T b Mtanh T ml dx x=0 m = hp ka c, M = hpka c T b T, L = length of fin

16 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL ANALYSIS q outside = q inside M outside = M inside h o PkA c T b T o = h i PkA c T b T i T b = h i T i + h o T o h o + h i = o F Constants: k = Conductivity of steel = 43 W m 2 K A c = Cross section area of a W40x149 = m 2 h o = Convective heat transfer coefficient of outside air = 30 W m 2 K h i = Convective heat transfer coefficient of inside air = 15 W m 2 K T o = Outside air temperature = 0 0 F q =M = hpka c T b T = 422 Watts T i = Outside air temperature = 72 0 F

17 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL ANALYSIS q outside = q inside M outside = M inside h o PkA c T b T o = h i PkA c T b T i T b = h i T i + h o T o h o + h i = o F < 53 o F dp 8760 hr. study Total: 272, Watts per year q =M = hpka c T b T = 422 Watts

18 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL ANALYSIS R1 = T q T h o PkA c T 1 R 2 = 8760 hr. study Total: Watts per year Lowest indoor temp = 69 o F L r k r A c Thermal Break T 1 Savings: $1, / year [Main gallery] T 2 h o PkA c For a simple payback of 5 years Each Thermal Break = $653 T 2 = h i PKA c 1 h o PkA c + L r k r A c 1 + h i PkA c 1 h opkac + q = h i PkA c (T 2 T i ) T o + T i L r k r A c R 3 = T q fi T h i PkA c T 1 h i PkA c

19 STRUCTURAL BREADTH THERMAL ANALYSIS Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis

20 Thermal Analysis Structural Analysis STRUCTURAL BREADTH STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Location of thermal break Member Force Allowable Actual OK? Beam Bending Moment ft kips 18.5 ft kips Yes Beam Shear 79.1 kips 3.7 kips Yes Girder Bending Moment 3723 ft kips 686 Yes Girder Shear 886 kips kips Yes Girder Girder Live Load Deflection Total Deflection Yes Yes Column Load 355 kips 50 Yes N Thermal Break Shear 13,400 psi 2.24 psi Yes

21 PROJECT DEPTH AIR VS. WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water Two 300 Ton Air Cooled Chillers EER 9.4 Carrier Carrier Carrier EPA

22 PROJECT DEPTH AIR VS. WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water Additional Water: 2, gal Cost : $5, / year Alternative 1: Air- Cooled CAPITAL Alternative 2: Water-Cooled Equipment Price Equipment Price AC Chiller 1 $ 215, WC Chiller 1 $ 140, AC Chiller 2 $ 215, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, Cooling Tower 1 $ 37, Cooling Tower 2 $ 37, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Piping $ 21, Boilers $ 120, Boilers $ 120, Total $ 550, Total $ 507, Capital: -$42,850

23 PROJECT DEPTH AIR VS. WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water 30 Year LCC Existing Air-Cooled System: $4,045, Alternative 2; Water-Cooled System: $3,861, Savings: $183, *Total CO2e (lb): Air-Cooled 9.01E+06 Water-Cooled 8.77E+06 % Diff 3% Alternative 1: Air- Cooled CAPITAL Alternative 2: Water-Cooled Equipment Price Equipment Price AC Chiller 1 $ 215, WC Chiller 1 $ 140, AC Chiller 2 $ 215, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, Cooling Tower 1 $ 37, Cooling Tower 2 $ 37, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Piping $ 21, Boilers $ 120, Boilers $ 120, Total $ 550, Total $ 507, Capital: -$42,850

24 PROJECT DEPTH COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water Return Supply Cold Water Temp = 0.739*WB

25 PROJECT DEPTH COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water Return Supply v = q d 2 ft v = velocity, q = volume flow rate US gal, s min d = pipe inside diameter (inches)

26 PROJECT DEPTH COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water CAPITAL Alternative 2: Water-Cooled Alternative 3: Water-Cooled Cooling Tower River Water Equipment Price Equipment Price WC Chiller 1 $ 140, WC Chiller 1 $ 140, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, River Pump 1 $ 12, Cooling Tower 1 $ 37, River Pump 2 $ 12, Cooling Tower 2 $ 37, River Piping $ 52, Heat Exchanger $ 18, Filtration System $ 100, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Piping $ 20, CW Piping $ 4, Boilers $ 120, Boilers $ 120, Total $ 507, $ 611, Capital: +$104,255

27 Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water PROJECT DEPTH COOLING TOWER VS. RIVER WATER Simple Payback: 2.8 years Discount payback : 3.0 years 30 Year LCC Alternative 2; Cooling Tower System: $3,861, Alternative 3; River Water System: $3,641, Savings: $220, *Total CO2e (lb): Alt 2: Cooling Tower 8.77E+06 Alt 3: River Water 8.57E+06 % Diff 2% CAPITAL Alternative 2: Water-Cooled Alternative 3: Water-Cooled Cooling Tower River Water Equipment Price Equipment Price WC Chiller 1 $ 140, WC Chiller 1 $ 140, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, WC Chiller 2 $ 140, River Pump 1 $ 12, Cooling Tower 1 $ 37, River Pump 2 $ 12, Cooling Tower 2 $ 37, River Piping $ 52, Heat Exchanger $ 18, Filtration System $ 100, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 1 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Pump 2 $ 5, CW Piping $ 20, CW Piping $ 4, Boilers $ 120, Boilers $ 120, Total $ 507, $ 611, Capital: +$104,255

28 Air vs. Water Cooling Tower vs. River Water PROJECT DEPTH CONCLUSION Air-Cooled vs. Water-Cooled with River Water Capital cost increased 10% [$61,400.00] Annual operating cost reduced by 14% [$21,732.00] 30 year LCC reduced 10% [$389,986.00] Simple payback 3 years

29 ELECTRICAL BREADTH CHP FEASIBILITY CHP Feasibility Spark Gap Electric Cost: $0.10/kWh = $29.30/MMBTU Gas Cost: : $0.80/therm = $8.00/MMBTU 1 : 3.7 Ratio, 1 : 4 [rule of thumb]

30 kw ELECTRICAL BREADTH CHP FEASIBILITY CHP Results CHP Feasibility Thermal-to-Electric Ratio = 0.74 Recommended: 373 kwe Gas Engine The results generated by the CHP Emissions Calculator are intended for eductional and outreach purposes only; it is not designed for use in developing emission inventories or preparing air permit applications. The results of this analysis have not been reviewed or endorsed by the EPA CHP Partnership Baseline Electric & Thermal Load Profile Recommended Generator Size 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Electric Load Duration Recommended Generating Capacity Hours Total Avg Thermal Load

31 ELECTRICAL BREADTH CHP CONCLUSION CHP Results CHP Feasibility Additional Cost $564,000 Generation Cost $0.088 /kwh 1.2 cents less than purchased Total Savings: $140,000 /year Simple Payback: 4.04 Years CO 2 reduction of 62% The results generated by the CHP Emissions Calculator are intended for eductional and outreach purposes only; it is not designed for use in developing emission inventories or preparing air permit applications. The results of this analysis have not been reviewed or endorsed by the EPA CHP Partnership.

32 CONCLUSION + + = Total $160,000 Annually 4 Year Payback 65% Reduction of CO 2

33 HGA Kevin Pope, P.E. Jeff Harris, P.E. Steve Mettlach Harley-Davidson Joyce Koker, P.E. THANK YOU Associate Vice President, HGA Director of Mechanical Engineering, HGA, Penn State Alumni Mechanical Engineer, HGA Harley-Davidson Museum QUESTIONS? Penn State Dr. William Bahnfleth Dr. Jelena Srebric Dr. James Freihaut Mr. David H. Tran Faculty Advisor AE Mechanical Professor AE Mechanical Associate Professor AE 5 th Year Structural, BAE/MS Family and friends for their support

34 Kilowatt Hours (KWH) Temp 450, Museum Campus Electricity Use 120 Air-Cooled Elec Water Gas kwh 1000gal therms Elec 2,168, Air Side 569, Water Side 683, Alternative LCC Air-cooled 1 $4,046, Cooling Tower 2 $ 3,861, River 3 $ 3,656, , Hot water 12, , total 3,434, , , , , , , , Alt 1: Air-Cooled Alt 2: Cooling Tower Alt 3: River Water TRACE temp Water-Cooled with Cooling Tower Elec Water Gas kwh 1000gal therms Elec 2,168, Air Side 569, Water Side 557, , Hot water 12, , total 3,307, , , Water Cooled with River Elec Water Gas kwh 1000gal therms Elec 2,168, Air Side 569, Water Side 459, Alternative 1: Air-Cooled Elec Water Gas Economic Life 30 years kwh 1000gal therms Overhaul $ 15, every 7 years up tp Maintenance $ 5, per year Air Side 569, Water Side 683, Discount Rate 2.3% DR Hot water 12, , Air Side = AHUs total 1,266, , Water Side = Chiller and CHW pump Equipment Price Hot Water = Boiler and HW pump AC Chiller 1 $ 215, Price per unit $ 0.10 $ 2.20 $ 0.80 AC Chiller 2 $ 215, Cost $ 126, $ $ 30, Boilers $ 120, Capital $ 550, Capital $ 550, Hot water 12, , Date total 3,209, ,736.30

35 Electricity % of Total Cost from Gas Energy Peak Demand Peak Cost* Energy Cost* kwh kw Demand $ Therms $ Jan , % $25,272 12,113 $9,690 Feb , % $22,512 8,256 $6,605 Mar , % $24,749 4,217 $3,374 Apr , % $24,153 3,102 $2,482 May , % $25,590 3,848 $3,078 Jun , % $28,141 11,795 $9,436 Jul , % $29,978 14,495 $11,596 Aug , % $29,452 13,080 $10,464 Sep , % $25,744 8,969 $7,175 Oct , % $26,116 6,960 $5,568 Nov , % $23,758 3,040 $2,432 Dec , % $25,066 10,303 $8,242 Fuels Thermal-to-Electric Ratio = 0.74 Recommended Prime Mover(s) Gas Engine Microturbine Gas Turbine (Simple Cycle) Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells Select Prime Mover Would backup generation have been installed anyway? If "Yes", indicated planned size 300 kwe Recommended Generation 373 kwe Chose Size (per Unit) 373 kwe Chose Number of Units 1 Unit(s) Total Selected Capacity 373 kwe Electric Efficiency 34 % Gross Heat Rate Exhaust (LHV) 6,623 BTU/kWhe Recoverable Heat Rate (LHV) 4,305 BTU/kWhe O&M Costs $ $/kwh/yr Electric Use Include Absorption Chiller Will the Absorption ChillerDisplace an Electric Chiller? Size Thermal Input O&M Costs Electric Use Electric Displaced Select Desiccant Would a desicant have been installed Chose Size (per Unit) Chose Number of Units Total Selected Capacity Regeneration Requirements (200 F) O&M Costs Latent Heat Removal Rate Electric Use Recommended Gas Engine Yes kwe/kwe Yes Yes 89 RT 1,606 MBTU/hr $55 $/RT/yr kwe/rt kwe/rt None No 10,000 SCFM 1 Unit(s) 0 SCFM 0 BTU/hr /SCFM/yr 0 BTU/hr 0.00 kwe per kscfm SITE MN Hospital 1234 W. Main St Milwakee WI ASSUMPTIONS CHP RESULTS Average Electric Cost /kwh Prime Mover Peak Averge Electric Cost N/A /kwh Total ECP Cost $564 $(1000) Initial Electric Sell Back /kwh Prime Mover Gas Engine Supplemental Elect Cost /kwh Parasitic Load 2.7 kw Cogen Initial Fuel Cost 8.00 $/MMBTU Total Generation Capacity 373 kw W/O Cogen Fuel Cost 8.00 $/MMBTU Electrical Output 3,035 MWh Existing Boiler Efficiency 86.0 % Absorption Chiller Credit 60 MWh Standby Demand Charge $1.50 $/kw/month Net Total Generation Effect 3,095 MWh Standby Capacity Required 373 kw Elecectric Capacity Factor 93 % O&M Charge $4,943 $/yr Gross Heat Rate (LHV) 10,038 BTU/kWh Annual Electric Load 3,105 MWh Recoverable Heat 4,305 BTU/kWh Annual Heat Load 7,795 MMBTU Thermal Loads TAT Thermal Loads (June, July, August) PURPA (Assuming Gas or Liquid Fuel Fired) Absorption Chiller 1,795 MMBTU Efficiency 55.4 % Desiccant 0 MMBTU Qualified Facility Yes Total Thermal Load with TAT 9,590 MMBTU Sell Back 0 kwh Thermal Capacity Factor 78 % Sell Back Desired No Thermal Energy Output From Generator 13,065 MMBTU FINANCIAL RESULTS From Auxiliary Boiler 0 MMBTU COSTS WITHOUT COGENERATION $(1000) Fuel Requirements: Electricity Costs $311 For Generator (HHV) 33,669 MMBTU Thermal Energy Costs $80 For Auxiliary Boiler (HHV) 0 MMBTU TOTAL $391 COSTS WITH COGENERATION $(1000) Generation Costs 8.88 /kwh Supplemental Electric Purchase $1 Peak Electric Charge Adjustment ($31) Fuel $269 Electricity Sold $0 O&M $5 Standby Charges $7 TOTAL $251 SAVINGS $140 SIMPLE PAYBACK 4.04 Years RESULTS

36 kw kwt kwe kwe CHP Electric Comparision of Generation to CHP Electric Load 300, , , , , , May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr ,488 2,208 2,928 3,672 4,416 5,136 5,856 6,600 7,272 8,016 8,760 9,132 Hours Electric Generated Electric Sold Electric Needed Average Electricity Generated Electric Load Profile Generation Installed Average Demand Profile Thermal Demand vs CHP Generation Thermal ,488 2,208 2,928 3,672 4,416 5,136 5,856 6,600 7,272 8,016 8,760 Hours ,080 1,788 2,532 3,276 4,020 4,764 5,508 6,240 6,960 7,680 8,400 8,760 Hours Average Demand Generator Capability Electric Gener ation Therm al ( Estim ated) Thermal Dem and