Efficient Small Engines for CHP

Program Director: J.-C. Zhao

Program Team: Ashwin Salvi, Adam Fischer, Will

Regan, Joel Fetter, Colleen Nehl,

Joe Stekli, John Tuttle, Bryan Willson

ARPA-E Efficient Small Engines Workshop, Chicago, May 28-29, 2014

2

The Business & Environmental Case

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review, Tables 1.2, 10.1, and E1.

Age of

Wood

Age of

Coal

Age of

Oil

Age of Gas &

Renewables ?

America has abundant natural gas

Total U.S. Energy Consumption

Efficient use is our responsibility

Centralized Power Waste

Centralized Power Waste

67% wasted

25.7 quads

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

& Distributed Generation (DG)

4.3

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

e-

Current - Central

e-

CHP

4.3 Quads

Heat loss 9.7 Quads

US Residential (Annual total)

4.7 Quads e-

“18.7 Quads”

18.8 Quads

18.8 Quads

4.7 Quads

4.3 Quads

At 25% e- efficiency, CHP requires of sizable heat

storage & utilization systems to be viable or only

viable in cold climate states.

Scenario 1: 25% e- efficiency

9.8 Quads excess heat

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

e-

CHP

e-

Scenario 2: 40% e- efficiency

11.7 Quads

• At 40% e- efficiency, CHP could save 3 Quads of primary energy for residential

• + 2 Quads for commercial

11.7 Quads

4.7 Quads

4.3 Quads

2.7 Quads excess heat

Overall efficiency: 48% Overall efficiency: 77%

US Residential (Annual total)

e-

4.3 Quads

Heat loss 9.7 Quads

4.7 Quads

“18.7 Quads”

Current - Central

8 Source: RMI, White House, LBNL, DOE

Additional advantages of CHP / DG

The frequency of

weather-related

power outages

• Power resiliency

• Reduction of electrical grid stress

• CO2 reduction

• Elimination of loss in transmission & distribution

• Power leveling (e.g., integration with solar)

9

What’s the right size for home CHP ?

US climate zones

10 Source: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/maps.cfm

Chicago

Seattle

Denver

Fargo

Tucson

L.A.

San Diego

Albuquerque

Houston

Atlanta

St. Louis

Boston

Orlando

Hourly residential load profile: Chicago

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

kW

h

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Heating

1 24 Hour 1 24 Hour

January July

Hot Water

Electricity Electricity

12

Annual residential load profile: Chicago

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

kW

h

Average of Cooling

Average of Heating kWh

Average of Hot Water kWh

Average of Total Electric

Source: NREL BEopt

January December Month

40%e-, 3 kW-e system, heat

30%e-, 1 kW-e system, heat

Hourly residential load profile: Houston

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

kW

h

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Heating

Cooling

January July

1 24 Hour 1 24 Hour

Hot Water

Source: NREL BEopt

Electricity Electricity

Annual residential load profile: Houston

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

kW

h

Average of Cooling

Average of Heating kWh

Average of Hot Water kWh

Average of Total Electric

January December Month

Source: NREL BEopt

30%e-, 1 kW-e system, heat

Hourly residential load profile: Atlanta

15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

kW

h

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Heating

Cooling

January July

1 24 Hour 1 24 Hour

Electricity Electricity

Hot Water

Source: NREL BEopt

Annual residential load profile: Atlanta

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

kW

h

Average of Cooling

Average of Heating

Average of Hot Water

Average of Total Electric

January December Month

Source: NREL BEopt

30%e-, 1 kW-e system, heat

17

Energy saving calculations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

kW

h

Source: NREL BEopt

January December Month

Chicago

• Integrate usable heat hourly to a yr

• Average across each climate zone

• Multiply the number of homes with

NG at each zone

• Obtain total energy saving by

usable heat = 1.9 Quads per year

for 69M US homes with NG

• Extrapolate to all US homes = 3.1

Quads per year

18

Techno-Economic Analysis

Thermodynamics predicts what’s possible.

Economics dictates whether it will occur.

Techno-economic analysis

19

• Most customers want to remain on the grid

• System size to 1 kW (minimum electricity sell to

utilities)

• 90% capacity factor

• System (CAPEX) and installation cost

• Durability/lifetime of the system

• Different modes of operations not considered

Widespread adoption requires little or no government incentives

Techno-economic analysis Assumptions

1 kW electrical load

1.5 kW heat load

90% capacity factor

$0.005/kWh O&M

5 year lifetime

$0.11/kWh electricity

$10.85/thousand cf NG

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

An

nu

al

co

st

[$/y

ear]

Electrical efficiency [%]

Baseline

Capex 1000

Capex 2000

Capex 3000

Capex 4000

Capex 5000

Capex 10000

Additional ~ $1,000

already budgeted for

meters, other balance

of plant & installation

20 $0.036/kwh-NG

Techno-economic analysis

21

Assumptions

1 kW electrical load

1.5 kW heat load

90% capacity factor

$0.005/kWh O&M

10 year lifetime

$0.11/kWh electricity

$10.85/thousand cf NG

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

An

nu

al

co

st

[$/y

ear]

Electrical efficiency [%]

Baseline

Capex 1000

Capex 2000

Capex 3000

Capex 4000

Capex 5000

Capex 10000

Additional ~ $1,000

already budgeted for

meters, other balance

of plant & installation

Techno-economic analysis

22

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Maxim

um

Cap

ex [

$]

Efficiency [%]

Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7

Assumptions

1 kW electrical load

1.5 kW heat load

90% capacity factor

$0.005/kWh O&M

10 year lifetime

$0.11/kWh electricity

$10.85/thousand cf NG

CAPEX payback years:

Additional ~ $1,000

already budgeted for

meters, other balance

of plant & installation

23

Technology Pathway & White Space

~ 40% electrical efficiency

~ 10 year durability/life

< $3,000 for a 1 kW-e system

White Space – Technology needs

24

White

Space

Source: Adapted from Catalog of CHP Technologies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Combined Heat and Power Partnership (2008).

Durability

Emission

Noise

ICE

ICE data from W. Liss, ARPA-E Small Engine Workshop presentation

40% e- efficiency 1 kW-e system feasibility

25

Mechanical /

Combustion Solid State

• Stirling engine

• ICE

• Microturbine

• Thermoacoustics

• ……

• Thermoeletrics

• Ion expansion (Na, O)

• Thermionic emission

• Electrocalorics

• Thermophotovoltaics

• ……

Cost, Durability, Emission, Noise

Coupling with Materials and Manufacturing Innovations …

26

Deployment Challenges & Opportunities

69,000,000

homes have NG

Deployment Challenges

27

• Utility acceptance

• Integration with the forced air heating/cooling

• Heat to cooling for southern states

• Emissions regulations

• Consumer acceptance and benefits

• Initial investment

Changing Regulatory Environment

‣ Addressing Interconnection: IEEE DG Standards Document 1547 – Updated 8 times since creation, with specific changes that reflect rapid

changes in DG interest1

– Power quality, interconnection standards, voltage regulation, islanding, active management

‣ Business Model Disruptions: – Players support change: NRG supports customer independence, counter to

NRG direction2

– Utility Death Spiral Hype:

• Edison Electric Institute alarmist report3

• Changes in policy that allow utilities to own DG and offset infrastructure support loss/death spiral

‣ FERC Order #755 & #784 Pay-for-Performance: – Reduces technology payment “discrimination”—requires consideration of

speed and accuracy4

28 1. MITEI, “The Impact of DG and EV”, Chap. 5, mitei.mit.edu

2. http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/03/22/utility-boss-faces-mortal-threat-from-solar/?KEYWORDS=crane+mortal

3. http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf

4. http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2011/102011/E-28.pdf

Net metering and interconnection standards

Several states have specific net metering policies for micro-CHP

New York 10 kW system capacity limit for micro-CHP; net excess generation is credited at the utility’s avoided cost rate

Vermont 20 kW system capacity limit for micro-CHP

Maryland 30 kW system capacity limit for micro-CHP

New Hampshire CHP systems <30 kW must have a system efficiency of at least 80% to be eligible

Maine CHP systems <30 kW must have a combined electrical and thermal efficiency of at least 80% to be eligible

29

█ Renewable generation or fuel cell systems only

Mandatory state EERS or RPS* includes CHP/waste-heat █ Only systems smaller than 50 kW eligible

█ Specific rules for micro-CHP

▲ States with utility-level net metering rules

States with interconnection standards States with net metering rules

Source: DSIRE, Freeing the Grid, EPA, EPA

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

* EERS = Energy efficiency resource standard

RPS = Renewable portfolio standard

43 states

44

states

30

Spillovers & Opportunities

Spillovers and Other Opportunities

31

• Commercial & industrial CHP

• Military power

• Backup power systems

• Concentrated solar power (CSP)

• Generator for hybrid light-duty vehicles

Easier to scale up than scale down

Wikipedia

32

Workshop Objectives

Workshop Objectives

33

• Identify the white space & metrics

• Bring researchers on mechanical engines

together with those on solid-state devices

• Stimulate innovations with mini-presentations

• Identify potential technology pathways

• Foster teaming

• Identify barriers to widespread deployment

Efficiency, Cost, Durability, Emission, Noise

Workshop Objectives

34

Efficiency, Cost, Durability, Emission, Noise

What can we do to enable widespread

adoption of home/residential CHP ?

Bottom-line:

Welcome and Thank You