Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization ...€¦ · This unit is a pellet burning...

Office of Research and Development

NYSERDA – Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation, and Protection. Albany, NY. November 15, 16, 2011.

Brian K. Gullett, Ph.D. [email protected]

Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Four Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies

Co-Investigators:

John Kinsey, NRMRL

William Linak, NRMRL

Ian Gilmour, NHEERL

Dan Loughlin, NRMRL

Rebecca Dodder, NRMRL

Sukh Sidhu, U. Dayton

Michael Hays, NRMRL

Dahman Touati, Arcadis

Tiffany Yelverton, ORISE

Johanna Aurell, NRC

Gil Wood, OAQPS

Mike Toney, OAQPS

Seung-Hyun Cho, ORISE

Photos: K. Blanchard, EPA/OAQPS

mailto:[email protected]


NYSERDA – Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation, and Protection. Albany, NY. November 15, 16, 2011. NY

Project Approach

• Test four OWHHs –Common, new, and multi-stage models –Fully characterize emissions, emission factors –4/5 Fuel types

• Test under realistic, homeowner firing scenarios –24 h, cordwood

• Health risk characterization • Emission inventory projections for NY • MARKAL technology assessment

1


2

Conventional/Single Stage HH

Natural updraft, fan-assisted, single-stage combustion (250,000 BTU/h). Rectangular firebox surrounded by a high capacity water jacket. The gases are forced into a combustion chamber where additional super-heated air is added, increasing the gas temperature. Load demand satisfied by regulation of an air damper.


Three Stage HH

3

Three-stage combustion process (160,000 BTU/h) in which wood is gasified in the primary combustion firebox. The hot gases are forced downward and mixed with super-heated air starting the secondary combustion. Final combustion occurs in a third, high temperature reaction chamber. Like the Conventional/Single Stage HH, this Three Stage HH is regulated by the opening and closing of a temperature controlled air damper.


4

European Two-Stage Pellet Boiler

This unit is a pellet burning HH rated at 40 kW (137,000 Btu/hour). Combustion occurs on a round burner plate where primary air is supplied. Secondary air is introduced through a ring above the burner plate. Fuel is automatically screw-conveyed from the bottom. Operation of the screw feeder is regulated by a thermostat. During normal operation, the fan modulates based on the measured oxygen level in the exhaust gas, maintaining 8-10% oxygen


5

U.S. Two-Stage Downdraft Burner

A two-stage heater (150,000 BTU/h) with both gasification and combustion chambers. Air is added to the firebox continuously and is blown downwards. A thermal storage unit was simulated with the addition of a water/air heat exchanger.


Fuels

6

Properties Fuel

Pine Red Oak Pellets

Ash 0.44% 1.46% 0.52%

Loss on Drying (LOD) 9.68% 22.52% 7.24%

Volatile Matter 88.50% 84.23% 84.27%

Fixed Carbon 11.06% 14.31% 14.11%

C: Carbon 51.72% 48.70% 50.10%

Cl: Chlorine 36 ppm 38 ppm 44 ppm

H: Hydrogen 6.57% 5.96% 5.86%

N: Nitrogen <0.5% <0.5% <0.5%

S: Sulfur <0.05% <0.05% <0.5%


7

HH Sampling and Analytical Methods

Pollutant Method(s) Duration

Total PM ASTM 2515M5G Integrated run

PM mass and size Dilution + TEOM, ASTM 2515 for tot for total mass and ELPI for size distributions, ELPI or SMPS

Real time & size distribution

CO NDIR Method 10B Real time

CO2 NDIR Method 3A Real time

O2 Paramagnetic Method 3A Real time

EC/OC NIOSH 5040 Integrated run

PAHs, SVOCs Method 0010, GC/MS Integrated run

GaseousVOCs Summa canister, TO15 Integrated run

Aromatics REMPI-TOFMS Real time

PCDD/F Method 23 Integrated run

THC FID Method 25A Real time

CH4 FID with reduction catalyst Real time

N2O GC Integrated run


8

HH test facility

QStack

Heat exchanger

Hot water recirculation loop Chilled water

Hot water to building

Internal sampling platform

Bui

ldin

g w

all

8” OD stack

10” Stainless duct

To inhalation chambers

Indoor sampling duct CEM Flow Measurements

Particulate Measurements

CEM M-23

ELPI

/TEO

M

PAH

S

Vola

tiles

EC/O

C

REM

IPI/T

OFM

S AT

OFM

S

Air

pollu

tion

syst

em

Qinput Qoutput

External sampling platform

Qother losses

Hot water recirculation loop Hot water recirculation loop

Primary dilution

Secondary dilution


9

Appliance Heat Load Profile

• The heat load profile used throughout the testing program (non-exposure tests) was derived from Tom Butcher’s Energy-10 simulation for a 2500 sq-ft area home in Syracuse, New York.

• This heat load profile was calculated using an average hour per hour heat load for the first two weeks of January.

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

20000

22000

24000

26000

28000

30000

32000

34000

36000

38000

40000

42000

Outp

ut H

eat L

oad

(BTU

/Hou

r)

Cumulative Time (min)

Simulated Cycle Syracuse Heat Load Cycle



10

CO and CO2 Emissions as a function of Syracuse Heat Load Demand, 24 h test Conventional/Single Stage HH, Red Oak

Damper Close = Open Damper Open = Gray

Green = CO2 Blue = CO

20000

24000

28000

32000

36000

40000

0

4

8

12

16

20

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000

Dam

per O

pen/

Clos

e Se

quen

ce

Conitinuous Burn Time (min) H

eat L

oad

Dem

and

(BTU

/hr)

CO

and

CO

2 Con

cent

ratio

n (%

)

The emission profiles are ~ independent of the heat load. Rather they appear to be primarily related to the fuel charging cycle under our conditions.

2nd Charge

1st Charge


Heat Release Rate Representative Run

11

0 4 8 12 16 20 240

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 Heat Release Rate

Heat

Rel

ease

rate

(BTU

/hr)

Run Time (Hours)

Outlet Water Temperature Inlet Water Temperature

Hea

ter I

nlet

/Out

let T

empe

ratu

re (o F)

Conventional/Single Stage HH, Red Oak

Heat release during damper openings



12

0 1 2 3 4 5 60.0

2.0x104

4.0x104

6.0x104

8.0x104

1.0x105

1.2x105

1.4x105

1.6x105

1.8x105

2.0x105

2.2x105

2.4x105

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Heat Release Rate

Heat

Rel

ease

rate

(BTU

/hr)

Run Time (hr) Outlet Water Temperature Inlet Water Temperature High Heater Temperature Set Point Low Heater Temperature Set Point

Hea

ter O

utle

t Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (ο F)

European 2-Stage Pellet Burner



13

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.00

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220 Heat Release Rate

Heat

Rel

ease

Rat

e (B

TU/h

r)

Run Time (Hours)

Outlet Water Temperature Set Point Temperature

Wat

er te

mpe

ratu

re (o F)

U.S. 2-Stage Downdraft Burner with Thermal Storage

Unit with simulated heat storage has non-cyclical heat

release.


Efficiencies

14

Units Thermal Efficiency (%) Boiler Efficiency Combustion

Efficiency

Conventional/Single Stage HH/Red Oak Average 22 NC 74

STDV 5 3.0

Conventional/Single Stage HH/Red Oak

and refuse

Average 31 NC 87

STDV 2.2 3.4

Conventional/Single Stage HH/White

Pine

Average 29 NC 82

STDV 1.8 3.2

Three Stage HH/Red Oak Average 30 NC 86

STDV 3.2 1.8

European 2-Stage Pellet Burner Average 44 86 98

STDV 4.1 3.5 0.16

U.S. 2-Stage Downdraft Burner Red Oak Average IM 83 90

STDV 0.71 0.79

NC = Not calculated. IM = Insufficient measurements taken for this calculation


Mass of Fuel Needed for a 24 Hour Syracuse Heat Load

15

Convent

ional H

H RO

Convent

ional H

H WP

Three

Stage H

H RO

Europea

n Pelle

t

US DownD

raft

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450 M

ass

of F

uel N

eede

d fo

r the

24-

h Sy

racu

se H

eat L

oad

(lbs)

Hydronic Heater Unit and Fuel Type


CO Stack Concentration as a Function of Damper Opening and Time of Fuel Charging, Conventional/Single Stage HH.

16

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 240

1x104

2x104

3x104

4x104

5x104

6x104

7x104

8x104

Run Time (hr)

Damper Open

2nd charge

CO

Em

issio

ns a

t the

Sta

ck (p

pmv)

Emissions are primarily related to time-since-charging rather than heat load demand.

1st Charge


Carbon Monoxide Emission Factors

17

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO

Conv

entio

nal H

H WP

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO +

Ref

Three

Stag

e HH R

OEu

ropea

n Pell

etUS

DownD

raft

05

1015202530

Heat Input


020406080

100120

Carb

on M

onox

ide

Emiss

ion

Fact

or (l

b/10

6 BTU)

Heat Output

NA


PM Generated per Syracuse Day for All Six Unit/Fuel Combinations

18

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO

Conv

entio

nal H

H WP

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO +

Ref

Three

Stag

e HH R

OEu

ropea

n Pell

etUS

DownD

raft R

O

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tota

l PM

Em

itted

per

Dai

ly S

yrac

use

Heat

Loa

d de

man

d (lb

s)



PM Emission Factors

19

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO

Conv

entio

nal H

H WP

Conv

entio

nal H

H RO +

Ref

Three

Stag

e HH R

OEu

ropea

n Pell

etUS

DownD

raft R

O

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Heat Input


0

4

8

12

16

20

Tota

l PM

Em

issio

n Fa

ctor

(lb/

106 BT

U)

Heat Output

NA


20

PM. Comparison of Current Data to EPA Method 28 OWHH

This project Others’ work, EPA Method 28

Conventional HH RO

Three Stage HH

European 2-Stage Pellet

U.S. 2-Stage Downdraft

Other Conventional HH

Multistage HH

Large variation in PM emissions from different technologies


OC/EC Emission Factors

21

Significant organic carbon contribution with emission factor a function of technology type.

Convent

ional H

H RO

Convent

ional H

H WP

Convent

ional H

H RO + Ref

Three

Stage H

H RO

Europea

n Pelle

t

US DownD

raft RO

0

10

20

30

40

50

OC,

EC

and

Inor

gani

c PM

EM

issio

n Fa

ctor

s (g

/kgF

uel d

ry)


Organic Carbon Inorganic Carbon Inorganic PM


Total PAH Emission Factors

22

Higher PAHs from White Pine


PCDD/PCDF (Dioxin)

23

Fuel and technology-induced variations in Dioxin emissions.


Market for Residential Space Heating for “Baseline” Optimization Scenario

24

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

PJ

usef

ul e

nerg

y

Conventional HH

Newer Wood Stoves

Existing Wood Stoves

Electricity

Natural Gas

Liquified Petroleum Gas

Kerosene

Heating Oil

In the Mid-Atlantic region (including New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), optimization based solely on costs and technology efficiency predicts that wood heat is likely to remain a relatively small market share of total residential space heating demands.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Em

issi

ons

(kto

nne/

yr)

Conventional OWHH

Newer Wood Stoves

Existing Wood Stoves

Electricity

Natural Gas

LPG

Kerosene

Heating Oil

PM Emissions for Total Residential Energy Use for “Baseline” Optimization Scenario

25

In the scenarios analyzed, wood heat units had a limited impact on the broader market for residential fuels and electricity However, wood heat emissions dominated the total PM emissions from total residential energy usage over all scenarios


Total Residential PM Emissions “Baseline” and Four Alternative Scenarios

26

The evolution of the technology mix within the market for wood heat will have a major impact on both residential PM emissions and, consequently, total PM emissions. Depending on the rate of changeover from less efficient, higher emitting units and emissions performance of newer units, residential PM emissions could increase substantially, peaking in the next 5-10 years, or drop by nearly half.

NYSERDA – Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation, and Protection. November 15, 16, 2011.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Adv

ance

d H

H th

erm

al e

ffici

ency

targ

et

Price of Wood ($/cord)

wood price (stacked, aged, delivered) advanced OWHH efficiency

lower NPV cost than a high efficiency indoor boiler with hot water storage

Alb

Comparative Technology Costs

27

* At typical HH efficiencies and cowood prices, an HH has a higher lifetime cost than competing technologies * Fuel price and device efficiency are the primary components of heating costs, not the capital cost equipment

any*, T NYh. e low efficiency of HHs contributes to their high relative lifetime cost * A free or very low cost wood supply can tilt the lifetime cost balance in favor of HHs * Under these conditions, HHs arconsiderably more expensive thahigh efficiency indoor boilers with hot water storage, however

rd

of

e n



28

Emission Conclusions • In general, over a 20-fold variation in emissions was observed between these four technologies.

• Thermal efficiencies (heat delivered/heat input) varied by 2-fold, depending on technology.

• Emissions are highly cyclic for the units that respond to heat demand with damper openings.

• For these same units, nuisance odor was significant despite use of the building’s air cleaning system.

• The magnitude of emissions depend on the amount of time passage after charging the appliance with fuel rather than on the heat load.



29

Emission Conclusions • White pine had the highest total PM and PAH mass emissions.

• The identified and quantified SVOCs account for 9% w/w of the PM emitted, of which ~25% was levoglucosan

• CH4 is about 10% of the THC emissions. • CO concentrations on the order of 1-8% were observed

This research was funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) with additional support provided by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development, through a Cooperative Agreement, CR05058. This report was prepared in the course of performing work sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSERDA and the State of New York make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA and the State of New York make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.



30

Acknowledgements

• NYSERDA: Ellen Burkhard, Nathan Russell • Members of the PAC for their comments • Final Report reviewers • Heater suppliers

Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization ...€¦ · This unit is a pellet burning...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization ...€¦ · This unit is a pellet burning...