Kelly Bush, M.A.Sc.,., E.I.T., LEED A.P. Associated Engineering. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates

Transcription

1 Kelly Bush, M.A.Sc.,., E.I.T., LEED A.P. Associated Engineering Mike Homenuke, P.Eng. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates May 17, 2010

2 Overview Background Energy Resource Design Concepts Factors Influencing Success Conclusions

3 Study Team Client - Metro Vancouver Associated Engineering On-Site Heat Recovery Concept Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Off-Site Heat Recovery Concept DEC Design Off-Site Heat Recovery Concept District Energy Systems

4 Background Metro Vancouver s Sustainability Framework Be a net contributor of energy by 2015 Be carbon neutral by 2012

5 Regional Context Potential Energy Centre Type!( Demand #* Supply 1 km, 2.5 km, 5 km Study Area

6 Study Objective Evaluate potential for recovery of heat energy from treated wastewater effluent Displace fossil fuel use for process, building and hot water heating Alternative off-site uses for biogas

7 Annacis Island WWTP 500 MLD Secondary treatment Biogas used in co-generation system & boilers

8 Lulu Island WWTP 90 MLD Secondary treatment Biogas used in boilers only

9 Approach On-Site (WWTP) Heat Recovery Effluent Heat Pump Digesters Space Heating Hot Water Off-Site Heat Recovery District Energy System Heat Recovery District Energy System Space Heating Hot Water

10 Energy Resource Energy source is treated secondary effluent Effluent heat energy = Flow x Temperature Drop x Specific Heat Temperature Drop ( Delta T ) = 4-5 C Heat supply for off-site users influenced by Effluent heat energy potential On-site heating demands

11 Annacis Effluent Flow & Temperature Effluent Flow (MLD) Effluent Temperature (oc) 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Flow Temperature 0 Average values for

12 Annacis Effluent Heat Supply & On-Site Demand ~14,000 to 18,000 homes (Peak load) 100 Capacity (MW) Theoretical Available Heat Energy for Off-Site Use 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Theoretical Supply On-Site Demand

13 Lulu Effluent Heat Supply & On-Site Demand ~2,500 homes (Peak load) 16 Capacity (MW) 12 8 Theoretical Available Heat Energy for Off- Site Use 4 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Theoretical Supply On-Site Heat Demand

14 Design Concept: On-Site High temperature heat pumps extract heat from treated effluent chlorine contact tanks Annacis: 4.6 MW Lulu: 1.4 MW Tie-in to existing on-site heat reservoir supply and return system Natural gas boilers supplement peak heating demands permits biogas use offsite

15 Design Concept: On-Site cont d From chlorine contact tanks Secondary Effluent To effluent outfall 13 C 9 C Heat Pump Provides ~85% of annual energy sized at 60-90% of annual WWTP demands From plant heat sources 55 C Heat Reservoir Supply 80 C To plant heat sources From plant heat loads Heat Reservoir Return To plant heat loads

16 High Temperature Heat Pump

17 On-Site Feasibility Results Capital Cost Annacis: $22M Lulu: $9M Unit Cost of Energy (Break-even) Annacis: $8/GJ Lulu: $13/GJ

18 Off-Site Heat Use Analysis Connect buildings with District Energy System (DES) Analyze surrounding area land use and energy profile Screen for potential opportunities Develop and cost out DES concepts

19 Data Sources for DES Opportunities Land Use, Zoning, Area Plans, OCPs Aerial Photography Business Licenses BC Safety Authority Boiler Database City of Richmond Energy Database Survey of Annacis Island Businesses

20 Lulu Island Study Area Lots Land Use Developable Areas WWTP Study Area Agricultural Commercial Industrial ALR Institutional Rec Centre School Multi-Family Residential Townhouse Residential Single-Family Residential Utilities Public Open Space LIWWTP located next to community of Steveston in Richmond Mixed use, primarily residential 4 schools Civic buildings include community centre, Britannia Shipyards historic site Gulf of Georgia National Historic Site Agricultural Land Reserve WWTP

21 Annacis Island Study Area AIWWTP located Burnaby in industrial area Primarily warehouse use but also: Cold Storage Manufacturing Food & Beverage Processing Port Royal residential development units remaining to be completed New Westminster Port Royal Surrey Richmond WWTP Lots Land Use Industrial - Cold Storage Industral - Food Processing Industrial - Manufacturing Industrial - Warehousing Delta Commercial - Office/Bus. Park Commercial - Service/Retail Utility/Transport Vacant Port Royal - Residential Municipal Boundary

22 Suitability Analysis Not all situations suitable for district energy Key factors supporting DES include: Energy Density (GJ/yr/ha) Potential Reuse of Treated Effluent Potential to Retrofit Existing Buildings (Electric Baseboard = No DES) New Developments or Re-Development Motivated Ownership (Bill 44) Renewable/Waste Energy Opportunity Used matrix analysis to assess

23 Energy Density Average Energy Density Lulu 2,400 GJ/ha/y (excl. ALR & SF res) Annacis 1,300 GJ/ha/y Ranges up to 5,000 GJ/ha Other Wastewater-fed DES: Southeast False Creek 10,000 GJ/ha/y Whistler Athletes Village 6,300 GJ/ha/y Low density will be a challenge!

24 Design Concept: Off-Site District Energy System Low Temperature DES Customer Building WWTP Heat Exchange Building Effluent 13-18ºC To Outfall Heat Pump Heat + HW 60-80ºC Limit of Study DES Supply 10-15ºC HDPE Pipe Loop DES Return 5-10ºC Provides ~85% of annual energy sized at 30% of peak demand

25 100Ø L11 L8 L9 L6 Lulu DES Concept L7 L4 ") 350Ø Community Centre L5 L5 350Ø L3 100Ø L2 1.4 MW heat recovery plant 4.7 MW connected load 4.4 km pipe loop Future Residential & Mixed Use 75Ø 350Ø School and Heritage Buildings 100Ø 150Ø 100Ø L1 350Ø WWTP Future Mixed Use ") L0

26 Annacis DES Concept 5.3 MW heat recovery plant 18 MW connected load 5.3 km pipe loop Port Royal Residential Development A3 250Ø 350Ø A8 Future connection to downtown New Westminster? A4 A4 A4 200Ø A2 350Ø 350Ø A2 A5 A5 A2 350Ø 350Ø A2 350Ø A2 Industrial Buildings (existing and future) 350Ø A6 A0 WWTP ") 350Ø A1 350Ø A2 A7 A1

27 Off-Site Feasibility Results Capital Cost Annacis: $10.7M Lulu: $7.6M Unit Cost of Energy (Break-even) Annacis: $9/GJ Lulu: $15/GJ

28 Sustainability Framework Targets Annacis Island WWTP On-Site Off-Site Net Annual Energy Supplied (GJ/y) Lulu Island WWTP On-Site Off-Site ,000 24,000 26,700 15, ,000 77,000 26,700 20,000 Net Annual GHG Emissions (t CO 2 e/y) , , ,119-2,754-2,

29 Factors Influencing Success Electric baseboard heating Not compatible with district energy Density in surrounding areas Fuel costs Electricity (20 yr price ~$23/GJ) Natural gas (20 yr price ~$12/GJ) Carbon tax / cost of GHG offsets e.g. natural gas carbon tax $1/GJ Grants and incentives

30 Conclusions Satisfy on-site needs, ~ MW available for off-site use On-site and off-site effluent heat recovery achieves net energy contribution and carbon neutrality targets Opportunities for on-site and off-site effluent heat recovery are worth considering

31 Questions? Kelly Bush, M.A.Sc., E.I.T., LEED A.P. Environmental Engineer Associated Engineering Mike Homenuke, P.Eng. Infrastructure Planning Engineer Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd